Perhaps the hackers were working for Bill Jones and they only mined the database for email addresses instead of SSN#'s so that Ol' Bill can spam them again?;)
As long as I'm using a browser that refuses pop-ups and pop-unders, I don't care if there's a patent on it or not. What will they patent next? URL redirection?
Yep, about as banal as BT suing Prodigy over a hyperlinks patent. Face it, anyone can make a crazy legal claim when it comes to intellectual property. Maybe someone should publish an "intellectual property lawsuit FAQ" somewhere to prevent such frivolous legal action in the future;)
I for one am watching this case closely, because I consider a lot of ISP's (C&W for one - those that provide an uplink to spammers despite numerous complaints) to be completely feckless in the war on spam. I sincerely hope that Intel's trespass claim wins, so that those apathetic/unresponsive ISP's can be classed as an accessory to trespass and so liable to action for not closing down a known spammer after a clear cease-and-desist notice.
You mean Pisspoor wasn't a broken technology already?
AOL "Stop-safe"
on
Disconnecting
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
From friends who used to work for AOL (all is forgiven!) I know that there's a department called "Stop-safe". These people have the target of stopping 50% of callers from cancelling their subscription. Quite a thankless task, I'm sure.
Good ethics as in they won't allow popups/popunders on their site, but not-so-good ethics in that if you plonk "email harvester" into Google search, you get a sponsored advert for a well-known (as confirmed by spamhaus.org) spamware (re-)seller.
That's a very good point, however if Hotmail's servers are in the US or M$'s Hotmail division is not registered in the UK, then I doubt our DPA laws can touch 'em.
If Hotmail was a separate, independent company, your point would stand up. However, since Hotmail was assimilated by M$ (who, if you remember, couldn't even patch all their servers against CodeRed) you would think that Hotmail is subsidised by the other M$ divisions.
I liken it to one of my previous occupations, where I worked for a company that *only* provided private medical insurance (PMI). My then company's main competetors provided PMI *and* life assurance and pensions. It was therefore easy for them to use their profit-making life assurance division to subsidise the loss-making PMI division by undercutting the premiums for their PMI products, because their same PMI customers would feel inclined to take out life assurance with that company. We had a lot of loyal customers who paid more because our customer service was good.
In other words, Just because Hotmail is free (but not spam-free) it doesn't make it better than a paid-for ISP account. You get what you pay for.
Actually, Opera doesn't identify *exactly* as MSIE, the user agent identifier (so far as my Apache log reports as: "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 2000) Opera 6.01 [en]" which means that any M$-lovin' web page could still identify you as an Opera user. Even if that was corrected, there's probably a way in Java to check what version of JVM you're using and if it's not the M$ one, still deny access.
Apart from safety/legal restrictions, no. If there's any other restrictions (like no torn jeans at a club) you are politely informed prior to entering the club that it isn't acceptable.
Nice analogy, but you're refused at the door before shelling out for the entrance fee. Let's suppose the bouncer lets you pass, you pay your entry fee and said bouncer then threw you out for unsuitable attire. Then you could feel aggreived.
Same with changing T&C's after you take out a subscription to a service.
"Public performance" isn't covered by copyright (c) - it's covered by playright (p). Thus if you're a radio station, you have to have the rights to play a work.
Ironic how I'm bombarded with popups as soon as I get onto the NYT website with my newly created fake account, including an annoying popup when I leave the NYT website.
As someone who tried to upgrade from RH5.2 to RH7, but couldn't because the stupid installer did weird things to my hardware (ie. switch off my monitor) I doubt I'm going to upgrade to any version of Linux soon. SuSE did it to me too, but at least FreeBSD's installer didn't do that. Anyone else had that problem?
That's exactly the issue: free speech, no matter how unpalletable the actions this might allow. I could have cited the late assassinated Pim Fortuyn as an example where his right to free speech (no matter how obscene his views might be) was denied him in the ultimate way, but instead, I chose to mention Elcomsoft, as they are Skylarov's employers, so directly related to the issue in hand. What should be addressed is the way in which people go about exercising their right to free speech and where the line should be drawn where their rights directly impinge on the rights of others. I have a right to free speech, but also a right to privacy. Does this therefore give a spammer's free speech rights over my right to privacy?
Let us not forget that Elcomsoft is also the purveyor of Advanced Email Extractor, an email-harvesting program. Given that spammers are always screaming "free speech!", is it any wonder why Skylarov and his employers have used the free-speech 1st Amendment avenue to justify their actions? Pure co-incidence? I think not. Come to think of it, is Elcomsoft a Skylarov one-man-band, or do they have other programmers code their spamware? And in case anyone's wondering... no, I don't work for or support Adobe at all.
.md wouldn't be much use to British doctors - we don't use that abbreviation here (other than for Managing Director). Personally, I think that all FQDN's should have a country-code at the end - eg. whitehouse.gov should be whitehouse.gov.us and a proper RFC drawn up to regulate TLD's as they are widely misused.
Original article mentions that the IntelliTech cancerware also disabled the user's firewall, if running, so it wouldn't be too surprising if it also disabled Ad-Aware a-la Radlight's Spyware Media Player.
From the original article on salon.com: Online1net.com, along with wwws1.com and KoolKatalog, was summarily unplugged last week by Alchemy Communications, the Internet collocation facility that services New Directions.
Perhaps it would be a good idea if pressure was put onto flowgo's uplink to do the same thing - then we wouldn't need spam bouncers in place:)
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps the hackers were working for Bill Jones and they only mined the database for email addresses instead of SSN#'s so that Ol' Bill can spam them again? ;)
What is "it"? Back-end? Front-end? Defeats the object if one or more are insecure.
As long as I'm using a browser that refuses pop-ups and pop-unders, I don't care if there's a patent on it or not. What will they patent next? URL redirection?
Yep, about as banal as BT suing Prodigy over a hyperlinks patent. Face it, anyone can make a crazy legal claim when it comes to intellectual property. Maybe someone should publish an "intellectual property lawsuit FAQ" somewhere to prevent such frivolous legal action in the future ;)
... that'll put a cap on all those Optus spammers. Once they've spewed their 3GB, let their connection speed drop to 28k8!
I for one am watching this case closely, because I consider a lot of ISP's (C&W for one - those that provide an uplink to spammers despite numerous complaints) to be completely feckless in the war on spam. I sincerely hope that Intel's trespass claim wins, so that those apathetic/unresponsive ISP's can be classed as an accessory to trespass and so liable to action for not closing down a known spammer after a clear cease-and-desist notice.
when you capture an enemy piece, you can bring it back into play for your side.
Sounds very much like Taliban fighters!
You mean Pisspoor wasn't a broken technology already?
From friends who used to work for AOL (all is forgiven!) I know that there's a department called "Stop-safe". These people have the target of stopping 50% of callers from cancelling their subscription. Quite a thankless task, I'm sure.
Good ethics as in they won't allow popups/popunders on their site, but not-so-good ethics in that if you plonk "email harvester" into Google search, you get a sponsored advert for a well-known (as confirmed by spamhaus.org) spamware (re-)seller.
That's a very good point, however if Hotmail's servers are in the US or M$'s Hotmail division is not registered in the UK, then I doubt our DPA laws can touch 'em.
If Hotmail was a separate, independent company, your point would stand up. However, since Hotmail was assimilated by M$ (who, if you remember, couldn't even patch all their servers against CodeRed) you would think that Hotmail is subsidised by the other M$ divisions.
I liken it to one of my previous occupations, where I worked for a company that *only* provided private medical insurance (PMI). My then company's main competetors provided PMI *and* life assurance and pensions. It was therefore easy for them to use their profit-making life assurance division to subsidise the loss-making PMI division by undercutting the premiums for their PMI products, because their same PMI customers would feel inclined to take out life assurance with that company. We had a lot of loyal customers who paid more because our customer service was good.
In other words, Just because Hotmail is free (but not spam-free) it doesn't make it better than a paid-for ISP account. You get what you pay for.
Actually, Opera doesn't identify *exactly* as MSIE, the user agent identifier (so far as my Apache log reports as: "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 2000) Opera 6.01 [en]" which means that any M$-lovin' web page could still identify you as an Opera user. Even if that was corrected, there's probably a way in Java to check what version of JVM you're using and if it's not the M$ one, still deny access.
Way to go Verisign. Will you be spamming electronically next?
Don't give 'em any ideas!
Verisign's new slogan should be "Slamming - the value of Thrust".
Apart from safety/legal restrictions, no. If there's any other restrictions (like no torn jeans at a club) you are politely informed prior to entering the club that it isn't acceptable.
Nice analogy, but you're refused at the door before shelling out for the entrance fee. Let's suppose the bouncer lets you pass, you pay your entry fee and said bouncer then threw you out for unsuitable attire. Then you could feel aggreived. Same with changing T&C's after you take out a subscription to a service.
"Public performance" isn't covered by copyright (c) - it's covered by playright (p). Thus if you're a radio station, you have to have the rights to play a work.
Brilliant link. Works really well!
Ironic how I'm bombarded with popups as soon as I get onto the NYT website with my newly created fake account, including an annoying popup when I leave the NYT website.
As someone who tried to upgrade from RH5.2 to RH7, but couldn't because the stupid installer did weird things to my hardware (ie. switch off my monitor) I doubt I'm going to upgrade to any version of Linux soon. SuSE did it to me too, but at least FreeBSD's installer didn't do that. Anyone else had that problem?
select * from politicians where clue > 0
That's exactly the issue: free speech, no matter how unpalletable the actions this might allow. I could have cited the late assassinated Pim Fortuyn as an example where his right to free speech (no matter how obscene his views might be) was denied him in the ultimate way, but instead, I chose to mention Elcomsoft, as they are Skylarov's employers, so directly related to the issue in hand. What should be addressed is the way in which people go about exercising their right to free speech and where the line should be drawn where their rights directly impinge on the rights of others. I have a right to free speech, but also a right to privacy. Does this therefore give a spammer's free speech rights over my right to privacy?
Let us not forget that Elcomsoft is also the purveyor of Advanced Email Extractor, an email-harvesting program. Given that spammers are always screaming "free speech!", is it any wonder why Skylarov and his employers have used the free-speech 1st Amendment avenue to justify their actions? Pure co-incidence? I think not. Come to think of it, is Elcomsoft a Skylarov one-man-band, or do they have other programmers code their spamware? And in case anyone's wondering... no, I don't work for or support Adobe at all.
.md wouldn't be much use to British doctors - we don't use that abbreviation here (other than for Managing Director). Personally, I think that all FQDN's should have a country-code at the end - eg. whitehouse.gov should be whitehouse.gov.us and a proper RFC drawn up to regulate TLD's as they are widely misused.
What's wrong with using: link?
Talk about making things more complicated than they have to be!
Original article mentions that the IntelliTech cancerware also disabled the user's firewall, if running, so it wouldn't be too surprising if it also disabled Ad-Aware a-la Radlight's Spyware Media Player.
From the original article on salon.com: Online1net.com, along with wwws1.com and KoolKatalog, was summarily unplugged last week by Alchemy Communications, the Internet collocation facility that services New Directions.
:)
Perhaps it would be a good idea if pressure was put onto flowgo's uplink to do the same thing - then we wouldn't need spam bouncers in place