This is nearly as much of a disgrace as Cisco selling filtering technology to China to aid suppression of their people. Perhaps someday, there'll be Nuremburg-like trials where the executives of companies like Cisco, Red Hat, and Yahoo will be held to account for their actions in support of tyranny.
LOL--thank you, W.:). My curiosity is getting the better of me--what is NDPTAL85? A microprocessor? Operating system? TTL chip designation? Inquiring minds want to know!
IOW, they practice price discrimination and don't want to be obvious about it. Thus, part of due diligence is to find out what you can from colleagues informally about what they paid.
Actually, every time you slashdot kiddies get your undies in a bundie our
sales go up. Thanks.
It's more likely he was needling you than that there's any truth to that. Sure does show he's someone whose company I wouldn't want to do business with, though.
It truly pales in comparison to the old freedom.net, which securely tunneled http, telnet, and IRC (but died in the post-9/11 hysteria for "lack of market"), but ZKS also sells an (IE only) anonymizing proxy, WebSecure. Note well, though, that ZKS are not who they once were: with the old freedom.net, they couldn't give you up if they wanted to, provided you chose a route with servers not under their control. Now, their privacy policy says (in usual flowery legalese) that they pretty much give themselves carte blanche to log, monitor, and report:
To securely browse the Internet, Freedom WebSecure customers must login with their usernames and passwords. This is always done in a secure manner, e.g. using encrypted SSL connections, to prevent unauthorized interception.
nice
To ensure the fastest service and minimal performance degradation, Zero-Knowledge does not collect or store any information about WebSecure customers' online browsing activities.
the above paragraph giveth
Please note that, in some exceptional instances, we may need to log certain traffic data, for example, in order to detect and diagnose technical problems, prevent network abuse, or if compelled to do so by law
while that one taketh away--emphasis mine
"Compelled to do so by law" could mean anything from an airtight subpoena to some random LEO flashing a badge and asking nicely. Thus, this service is only useful for protecting against casual snooping. It's strong point is that it uses an ActiveX control and can easily be used on (non-locked down) public machines.
Then you see these imbecilic warez groups who can't even spell correctly trumpet their "release" a day later, consisting of half an afternoon removing the reg key. =)
Knowing that a key or serial number isn't going to stop them, why insult and inconvenience your paying users while providing bragging rights to warez groups by including them?
You raise a good point. If I buy a car, I can give it or sell it to whomever I want to. But with software, I supposedly only "license" it, never own it, and can't transfer it without the publisher's permission (assuming binding shrinkwrap licenses, which is a stretch). So, since I can't own software, how, then, is it possible for me to "steal" it?
What would have been the fate of WordPerfect Corp, Lotus, Novell, and many other dead products if there had been less piracy?
What would have been the fate of WordPerfect Corp, Lotus, Novell, and many other dead products if Microsoft hadn't bundled or otherwise gave away their products to put them out of business. By your logic, Bill Gates should be the one doing time here.
I think it's more likely that they'll say "You mean people were able to get away with billions of dollars in copyright theft and get a mere 33 months in prison? It wasn't a capital offense back then? Ghastly."
Might have something to do with the fact that stealing a car means the victim doesn't have a car anymore, while distributing warez doesn't diminish the amount of software that exists (lame economic theories that postulate that 14 year olds would spend $500 for Photoshop aside).
Required so that he doesn't get a stiffer sentence. I don't buy it--I don't believe you really think warez is theft, but I understand why you're parroting the party line.
Maybe this will force admissions officers to actually evaluate candidates, instead of relying on a standardized test administered by a "non-profit" that taxes graduate applicants all over the world to the tune of $100 each.
OK, let's see your detailed analysis of bandwidth usage at a four year college relative to computing fees collected. Oh, you don't have one? Thought not.
If you had access to a "high bandwidth computer" off campus and could install an httptunnel server on it, why would you bother going through the trouble of tunneling instead of just doing your P2P stuff from that machine to begin with?
Slashdot Mirror
This is nearly as much of a disgrace as Cisco selling filtering technology to China to aid suppression of their people. Perhaps someday, there'll be Nuremburg-like trials where the executives of companies like Cisco, Red Hat, and Yahoo will be held to account for their actions in support of tyranny.
LOL--thank you, W. :). My curiosity is getting the better of me--what is NDPTAL85? A microprocessor? Operating system? TTL chip designation? Inquiring minds want to know!
And help fund the war on freedom!
IOW, they practice price discrimination and don't want to be obvious about it. Thus, part of due diligence is to find out what you can from colleagues informally about what they paid.
It's more likely he was needling you than that there's any truth to that. Sure does show he's someone whose company I wouldn't want to do business with, though.
"Compelled to do so by law" could mean anything from an airtight subpoena to some random LEO flashing a badge and asking nicely. Thus, this service is only useful for protecting against casual snooping. It's strong point is that it uses an ActiveX control and can easily be used on (non-locked down) public machines.
Knowing that a key or serial number isn't going to stop them, why insult and inconvenience your paying users while providing bragging rights to warez groups by including them?
You raise a good point. If I buy a car, I can give it or sell it to whomever I want to. But with software, I supposedly only "license" it, never own it, and can't transfer it without the publisher's permission (assuming binding shrinkwrap licenses, which is a stretch). So, since I can't own software, how, then, is it possible for me to "steal" it?
What would have been the fate of WordPerfect Corp, Lotus, Novell, and many other dead products if Microsoft hadn't bundled or otherwise gave away their products to put them out of business. By your logic, Bill Gates should be the one doing time here.
I sincerely hope you're right, but the people with the money and the guns are working for the pessimistic scenario.
I'm sure I don't care. My bank might, though.
I think it's more likely that they'll say "You mean people were able to get away with billions of dollars in copyright theft and get a mere 33 months in prison? It wasn't a capital offense back then? Ghastly."
Might have something to do with the fact that stealing a car means the victim doesn't have a car anymore, while distributing warez doesn't diminish the amount of software that exists (lame economic theories that postulate that 14 year olds would spend $500 for Photoshop aside).
You don't think they have other counts they are holding over his head?
~~~
Required so that he doesn't get a stiffer sentence. I don't buy it--I don't believe you really think warez is theft, but I understand why you're parroting the party line.
And put text in saying to click through the security warning. Most people will, anyway.
Does this mean there'd been a "Rimm" job done on Usenet porn at CMU? (BTW, the CMU link is dead.)
Maybe this will force admissions officers to actually evaluate candidates, instead of relying on a standardized test administered by a "non-profit" that taxes graduate applicants all over the world to the tune of $100 each.
Color me not concerned with the opinion of a self-important work study.
OK, let's see your detailed analysis of bandwidth usage at a four year college relative to computing fees collected. Oh, you don't have one? Thought not.
If you had access to a "high bandwidth computer" off campus and could install an httptunnel server on it, why would you bother going through the trouble of tunneling instead of just doing your P2P stuff from that machine to begin with?
No, sunshine, it's the student's bandwidth: he's paying for it in computing fees.
Excellent post--thank you.
Some cordless phones transmit at 30MHz, and intercepting them is also illegal under the ECPA.
What DRM is included in the hardware and/or software?