When your copy is damaged, stolen or worn out, they get to ream you *all over again*.
There is (was?) a store called "The Wall" that I used to live close to and purchase CDs from. I think they were a chain, but I'm not sure. Anyway, they had a policy that whenever you bought a CD from them, and it broke, bring it back and they will replace it for free. I'm not sure if the chain still exists or even the policy, but that was a nice selling point for their store. It didn't do anything if someone stole it, though.
Actually, if you read the book, it's nothing like the movie. All of the things that happen to the crew while they are out at sea are based on actual accounts of other fishermen that Sebastian Junger (sp?), the author, was told when he interviewed them while writing the story. The movie is just a big amalgamated story...based on stuff that happened to other people so they could accurately present what life on a swordfish boat was like.
The movie is good fun to watch, but it is really a companion piece to the book.
You know, that is the first intelligent argument I've heard against Carniovore.
Not that it matters, but I do real work on the Internet as well. Anyway...
I do agree that Carnivore should not be used against the other two branches of our government. Can/Will this happen? Everyone can speculate.
I do think that monitoring of activity of suspected terroristscriminals/whatever is needed, and if this includes the mere scanning of data hitting on keywords (or the like) of regualr schmucks...well...you know my thoughts on this.
I know it's hard to have one without the other, and I doubt anyone will truly be happy with any solution, but something has to be done.
I understand what you are saying, but answer me this:
How is what Carnivore is doing any different than the in-depth searches they are performing at airports, government facilities, staduims, etc? Nobody seems to be complaing about that. Sure it might hold them up a few extra minutes or even hours, but most of the folks understand the need.
What does one have to do with another? Snooping by law enforcement agencies and snooping by the general public are two very distinct groups of people. I support the former.
Either way, you can argue that you can use good PGP to secure your e-mail if you want to mask what you are sending.
Why do people care if the FBI can snoop what they do on-line? Are folks paranoid the FBI will find out they illegally download MP3s, software, and movies? Invasion of privacy? Bah. I could care less if the FBI sees me buy a movie from amazon.com or read the latest hockey news on nhl.com. If this is what it takes in this modern day and age for the law enforcement agencies to protect us, so be it.
Need to know? I seriously doubt 99.99% of the population is doing anything of importance towards national security over the open Internet. If they are, you would most likely be working with the agencies that are doing the snooping in the first place.
I've had the Cisco Aeronet WAP providing connections from our two laptops to our T1 at home for well over a year now and have never had the connection drop because someone stood in the way of the WAP. If the connections can go through walls (I get great signal from the top floor of our house [where the WAP is, connected to our switch] to our basement) than I seriously doubt someone standing in the way of the signal will break the connection.
Heh...yeah. On a router, 'no snmp' will wipe it off completely. If you do have a need to run SNMP for traffic analysis or God forbid, Cisco Works, the lines I listed *should* limit the access to the router from your local SNMP collector as well as from outside your network.
Slashdot Mirror
There is (was?) a store called "The Wall" that I used to live close to and purchase CDs from. I think they were a chain, but I'm not sure. Anyway, they had a policy that whenever you bought a CD from them, and it broke, bring it back and they will replace it for free. I'm not sure if the chain still exists or even the policy, but that was a nice selling point for their store. It didn't do anything if someone stole it, though.
The movie is good fun to watch, but it is really a companion piece to the book.
Not that it matters, but I do real work on the Internet as well. Anyway...
I do agree that Carnivore should not be used against the other two branches of our government. Can/Will this happen? Everyone can speculate.
I do think that monitoring of activity of suspected terroristscriminals/whatever is needed, and if this includes the mere scanning of data hitting on keywords (or the like) of regualr schmucks...well...you know my thoughts on this.
I know it's hard to have one without the other, and I doubt anyone will truly be happy with any solution, but something has to be done.
Who knows what the hell that is?
How is what Carnivore is doing any different than the in-depth searches they are performing at airports, government facilities, staduims, etc? Nobody seems to be complaing about that. Sure it might hold them up a few extra minutes or even hours, but most of the folks understand the need.
Either way, you can argue that you can use good PGP to secure your e-mail if you want to mask what you are sending.
In this case, she'll draw the blinds.
Need to know? I seriously doubt 99.99% of the population is doing anything of importance towards national security over the open Internet. If they are, you would most likely be working with the agencies that are doing the snooping in the first place.
BFD. Let 'em snoop.
Doesn't anyone go out and support bands or publishing companies by purchasing CDs, software, or whatever anymore? People suck.
I've had the Cisco Aeronet WAP providing connections from our two laptops to our T1 at home for well over a year now and have never had the connection drop because someone stood in the way of the WAP. If the connections can go through walls (I get great signal from the top floor of our house [where the WAP is, connected to our switch] to our basement) than I seriously doubt someone standing in the way of the signal will break the connection.
Someone had to be fucking with that guy.
Heh...yeah. On a router, 'no snmp' will wipe it off completely. If you do have a need to run SNMP for traffic analysis or God forbid, Cisco Works, the lines I listed *should* limit the access to the router from your local SNMP collector as well as from outside your network.
snmp-server host [snmp server ip] [community string] snmp
I'm not sure if ACL'ing 162, 163, and 1993 from outside your network will do any good for this, but it can't hurt.