I think it might be because you're misreading it, having followed PPK (author of QM) for many years I'd be shocked if he had it wrong, he's very thorough!
On that page ( http://quirksmode.org/css/contents.html ) in the "CSS 2.1 Declarations" section under table columns you'll note that all the WebKit based browsers have "incomplete" - ie quirksmode says that WebKit is incomplete for CSS2.1.
What's your reference from the other side, what are the WebKit guys saying isn't finished, does this confirm or contradict?
Finish CSS2.1 Support
Most of CSS2.1 has been implemented in WebKit, but a few holes remain. The new white-space values pre-wrap and pre-line are not yet supported. Some of these features have been implemented in the current KHTML tree, and a merge may be possible for some of these features.
However testing those features using Konq3 and Saf4beta2 I find them to work fine. Perhaps WebKit haven't updated this? Particularly one notes that pre-wrap and pre-line are part of ACID3 which the WebKit team claim to have passed with nightly builds of the WebKit engine ( http://webkit.org/blog/280/full-pass-of-acid-3/ ).
You rightly note that "authorise" is not defined, hence it's given it's normally everyday meaning. You attempt to subvert that meaning to be a technical computer related meaning. If the measure is ability to access - which it would need to be for the BBC to be authorised - then any cracker would be authorised and the CMA is useless, that can't be the intention of the draftees.
[Numbers by me]
1. An unknown person portscans your computer.
2. An owner turns on a web-server on a personal computer. It provides no warning that the public are not authorized to use it.
- It is accessed by someone on the internet accidentally, but they continue to use the web-server intentionally.
- It is accessed by a bot that reads your email address and signs you up for SPAM.
- It is accessed by a bot that attempts to exploit a flaw.
- It is accessed by a bot that installs botnet software on your machine by exploiting a flaw in the web-server.
3. Someone else turns on a web-server on a personal computer. Same scenarios as above.
4. You turn on a web-server on a leased personal computer, where the lease says you will not operate server software. It is accessed, with your permission. (The person who accesses it is culpable)
5. You install beneficial software on a public computer.
6. You install beneficial software on a stranger's computer.
7. You install beneficial software on a friend's computer, because they don't understand the benefit.
1. Intent is important and almost certainly unprovable. If your computer is server and they scan the service ports (of the advertised services) then absolutely no issue. I think that connection to the network authorises probing for services that doesn't inhibit operation - if they then act maliciously the law should cut in.
2. All of the accesses are authorised when the web server is put on the internet provided the person doing it is authorised to use the computer in that way. Signing you up for spam is assisting a crime but not a crime in itself AFAICT. Attempting to crack and cracking are both criminal.
3. Authorised if the person is authorised to do that.
4. The lease removes your authority to install a server, not authorised.
5. What's a public computer - most computers owned by local government, etc., say you may not install software without permission. If you have permission then it's authorised, if not...
6. Did you ask the stranger? Yes = authorised. No = not authorised.
7. The friend doesn't have to understand to authorise you to do it, if they are not of sound mind or you deceive them then you're not authorised, else you are.
Again the term "authorised" is the standard laymans term.
If I crack your password and so have your user:password pair I still am not authorised to use them. Authority !== ability.
Which EULA do you suppose gave the BBC the right to access, modify data on and execute programs on those computers?
You used the card to pay for a service. You purchased a license. That license is *tangible* - it's also a binding legal contract to pay the license fee and thus using *counterfeit* funds to do so, is fraud. It's no different to paying your TV license with a fake / made-up credit card, or buying a set of crystal glasses with fake Green Shield stamps. It's obtaining goods/services by deception and fraud.
It's called intellectual property for a reason, it's not tangible (though it can be bought and sold like physical property).
A license is not tangible, you can make as many licenses as you like for no extra cost than the media you present the license on.
That aside, a UK jury will never convict someone for buying something cheaply IMO.
Incorrect. In UK law, handling stolen goods has higher sentences (and higher *average* sentences, even after appeal) than actual theft. It is *not* required that the court prove that you *know* they were stolen.
A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of stealing), knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.
In an nutshell, you're wrong.
I'm not defending fences. Nor was I talking about the meaning of the law in my earlier statement, only my perception of the possible outcome of a jury trial - presumably you've a reference for a case where a jury convicted someone for buying something cheaply where that person had no provable belief that it was stolen? (that conviction would contradict the law incidentally).
You can *easily* be convicted for buying a dodgy DVD in a boot sale, or a stolen car stereo... if it came to court, at absolute *minimum* you would be required to return the property, possibly make compensation (i.e. pay Apple for the MP3's), possibly pay court costs, maybe even receive a caution.
Tosh. You got a reference of any sort for someone buying a properly packaged DVD in a car boot sale that was convicted of an offence? Trading Standards rightly go after sellers. There is no way that a buyer could possibly know a DVD is "dodgy" unless it appears "dodgy" - grey imports can be vastly cheaper but are identical products. Tesco got in trouble for grey imports ( http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-tm/t-policy/t-policy-parallel/t-policy-parallel-caselaw.htm ) but I don't recall any of their customers suffering a conviction for contributory trademark infringement, perhaps you know differently.
If you buy a stolen anything then yes, you're handling stolen goods; again cheap !== stolen.
Your knowledge of whether you knew or not is pretty much irrevelant once it comes into a court... it's what you *should* have known - and a $200 gift card for $40 is almost certainly "obviously in the wrong".
For tangible goods yes. For intangibles then you see these sorts of things all the time. One of my ISPs bundles software "worth £250" with a £9 domain name... should I be contacting the police? No of course not, it doesn't cost them that they're only making it available for sale at that price. Similarly Apple could easily offer $200 of itunes for $40 and still be making a profit.
No. On a $200 iTunes card, Apple will pay royalities of X dollars.
I doubt it. Royalties from collection agencies (which is what Apple are acting as here) appear to be paid as a proportion of the total sum gathered, minus [large] admin fee. Just as for CD sales, the royalties aren't based directly on the number of CDs printed but on the revenue from those CDs.
So I'd still contend that Apple will not be out of pocket save a little bandwidth except inasmuch as this hits their legal sale of those licenses.
What's this got to do with free speech. The BBC were perfectly capable of doing a show about illegal botnets without buying and using one.
A legitimate journalistic investigation into a crime doesn't require the journalist to perform the crime, nor to support others in doing so. That's not reporting on crime, that is being a criminal in order to give yourself something to report on.
Personally I believe in one law for all HM subjects; journalists included.
I'm not going to go into all the problems I see with your assertions, but doesn't Pepper vs Hart merely talk to using the legislative background where the clarity of the statute is lacking. There is no lack of clarity in the CMA unless you attempt to give the words other than everyday meanings (outside of/noscitur a sociis/).
The legislative background, I'd argue, ispreventing unauthorised access to computers, which is exactly what the act speaks to.
You've attempted to apply a narrow or technical interpretation of "authorised" it simply means here did they ask the people who owned the computers if they could use them in the manner in which they were used. Having access to botted computers doesn't make you authorised anymore than having access to lock picks makes you authorised to enter any locked door you choose.
[Debrain:] Well, go back to your language-is-important argument. The language of CMA 1 is "he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer"
"he causes a computer to secure access to any program [...]in any computer"
They sent email, they have to "secure access" to a sendmail-type program to do that, there's no doubt they contravened this part of the statute if they've reported honestly what they did (and the video of the messages appearing in the hotmail account appears to support that).
If the BBC has a password to a botnet, then there is a prima facie argument that they were authorized. The statute does not say that the authorization need come from an owner.
Excuse me, you don't really think that's the everyday interpretation (literal) of "authorise"? Who else, in your opinion, has the right (other than a court with a warrant) to authorise your access to my property?
That's like saying you don't need their permission to visit someone's webpage as often as you like.. if you like a few thousands times a second from a botnet then it's a DDoS and you surely do need permission.
If you look at the preview vid they say they set it up so each bot sent an email 500 times to each account (with some throttling, but nonetheless). That's 11,000,000 different emails. A large quantity of emails is/likely to impair/ the operation of the computers and that would make this a CMA Section 3 violation.
As the breach of Section 1 is so clear I'd expect prosecution would be instructed to follow that and ignore the other charges. (ha like it will ever go to court).
So you'd let anyone have a botnet provided they're going to tell in the end?
If you use my comp for a DDoS attack it's like you using my car for a drive-by shooting. You're using it. Not me. It's not an offence to own a car and leave it unlocked. It's not an offence to own a computer and leave it unsecured.
The [major] sections 1, 2, 3 refer to 3 separate offences. They hit all 3 of section 1 (= SS1), they probably hit all necessary parts of SS2 as they then used the unauthorised access to do stuff to those computers and to DDoS a computer (with authorisation, but nonetheless "a computer" under SS3(2)(a) which puts them on slightly dodgy ground there too!).
Section 3 does speak of intent and so they're most likely clear there. So only 44000 offences (at 6mo each?). Possible as others said they hit computers in other countries too - the researchers could be extradited to the states!
(I expect they'll get a slapped wrist and a huge disparity of justice will occur with the next well publicised breach of the Computer Misuse Act.)
Sure, it's illegal and unsafe, but when everybody is doing so why single out the BBC for their activity?
So your saying you'd like to be killed in a road accident and you don't care if the driver of the car that smashes into you is being paid to do it by the BBC. Think you've lost me there.
The problem you have is that the law is supposed to apply equally to everyone. This means that anyone now can crack peoples computer and run them as a botnet provided they claim their intent was not to damage those computers (only DDoS some others) just funk around with desktop backgrounds and such and finally to let the owners know.
Robbing banks to give the money to the poor is still not a valid legal defence AFAICT. (though it appears the opposite, robbing the poor..., is allowed, but I digress!)
They used the botnet to spam two email accounts, one at gmail and one at hotmail. That's against the computer misuse act.
Not if it's their own hotmail and gmail accounts or if they have permission, I can spam myself if I want to, and you could spam me as well if I gave you permission.
Well it's use of unauthorised computers for further unauthorised activity (unless they asked MS and Google first) which I think puts them in breach of SS(1) and (2) of the Computer Misuse Act.
Hotmail and Gmail both have bandwidth and hosting charges, by grabbing lots of bandwidth they [the Beeb] are impairing the working of the email servers. That's an offence, when you're using an illegal botnet it's also illegal.
Section 1 of the computer misuse act merely requires you to access a computer without authorisation. They did, 22000 times, hence they are culpable.
Intending to send an email 1(1)(a), without the computer owner knowing 1(1)(b), knowing that one is not authorised 1(1)(c). 3 strikes, go straight to jail, do not pass go.
Care to revise your claim that the parent appears wholly incorrect? I'd say they were spot on. Notice that SS2 (ibid) speaks to intent and gives no disclaimer for those with beneficent ends.
You may like to peruse SS2 and 3; there's a good chance that they're in breach of those also. For example, they used the botnet to DDoS a computer (their own, but nonetheless a computer, SS3(2)(a) doesn't mention ownership).
Nope IANAL but nor am I a stranger to reading and interpreting statute.
SS 1. Unauthorised access to computer material. - (1) A person is guilty of an offence if - (a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer; (b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and (c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.
- (2) The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed atâ" (a) any particular program or data; (b) a program or data of any particular kind; or (c) a program or data held in any particular computer.
-(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both. ---
The Beeb's history and reputation speaks for itself.
Is that the lying to the public, defamation of The Crown, the financial fraud, the overspending on celebrity friends, the use of self owned production companies to fleece the population, the claim to offer alternative viewing and then badly copying the worst of commercial TV... or something else, maybe the illegal access and use of peoples computers and support of known criminals with license money?
The Beeb had a reputation and has a great history.
Yeah they paid £6k of public money to known criminals and knowingly broke the law for the sake of some sensationalist journalism.. what's not to like?
So the researchers at the BBC are allowed to break the law (and spend public money doing it) but other people who're "investigating" computers that don't belong to them get extradited? [ http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39619206,00.htm ]
I'm not saying McKinnon is blameless incidentally.
I don't care who's cracking someone's computer or controlling a botnet, it's wrong and they should be punished for it.
But the reality is that, until they can be driven to under 50% of the browser market share, they pretty much get to set the standard.
They, Microsoft, get to set the lowest common denominator, the truth is though that most designers will be using progressive enhancement meaning that Saf, FF, Op, Konq are getting a nicer overall look with slicker running features whilst MSIE is getting either a "degraded" view or a separately developed page (I'm considering MS targetted CSS to be separately developed).
Basically, as a web designer since 1996-ish (and commercially for the last 5 years or so) I consider that MSIE has been holding things back all along. Less so now, but they're still not leading the way.
As for CSS3. If MS had included some basics, like rounded corners and columns, then we could have started making some headway with a less hacked together internet. Moz and Webkit have these things already waiting for the spec to be finished.
It's fraud, plain and simple, no better than making up credit card numbers and using them to buy things on Amazon.
Absolute piffle.
It's more akin to buying a pair of Nike branded trainers that were not authorised by Nike (note I don't say not made in their factory!). The only damage is a potential sale to Nike (or Apple in the case in point).
Stealing money using a credit card is quite different to depriving someone of a potential sale in order to perform copyright infringement of a third parties musical works.
Of course if the gift card can be used to purchase tangibles the situation is altered immensely. But we're talking about "taking" zero cost copies. Other than bandwidth costs you're not depriving Apple of anything.
On the subject of fraud, you can not commit fraud by accident. You can not be complicit in being defrauded, either you were defrauded or you knowingly handled stolen goods. No goods were stolen here, if you used the gift card you (or the card seller it might be argued) simply committed copyright infringement by downloading the music without a license, a civil tort. (In my Nike example the seller performed trademark infringement, the trainers are not stolen, again a tort IIRC).
That aside, a UK jury will never convict someone for buying something cheaply IMO.
Of course, TFA talks about "terrorists" targeting the subs with rockets. Right. Could terrorists get that kind of weapon into the UK and close to a nuclear weapons installation?
They've got the weapons, they don't need to get them into the UK, there's a sea route past Arran, looks like there's a torpedoe net around the subs but I'm sure a shoulder mounted SAM would do enough damage to put them out of action for a while.
I think I'd have asked that the subs be duplicated a few hundred times around the coast line instead. Now that's a deterrent!
The search and replace was very good. I moved on to Jedit after DW which has great plugins for FTP and s&r,etc.. Now, a few apps later, I use Quanta+ (though I find I'll use Kate or anything, nano in an ssh session, to make a quick alteration).
The only thing Quanta doesn't do so well is the file management which I use Krusader. Quant's WYSIWYG mode is even worse than DW's was, maybe Amaya for that kind of function? webdeveloper toolbar add-on or firebug does it for me with the visual tweaking.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it might be because you're misreading it, having followed PPK (author of QM) for many years I'd be shocked if he had it wrong, he's very thorough!
On that page ( http://quirksmode.org/css/contents.html ) in the "CSS 2.1 Declarations" section under table columns you'll note that all the WebKit based browsers have "incomplete" - ie quirksmode says that WebKit is incomplete for CSS2.1.
What's your reference from the other side, what are the WebKit guys saying isn't finished, does this confirm or contradict?
I found http://webkit.org/projects/css/index.html which says:
Finish CSS2.1 Support
Most of CSS2.1 has been implemented in WebKit, but a few holes remain. The new white-space values pre-wrap and pre-line are not yet supported. Some of these features have been implemented in the current KHTML tree, and a merge may be possible for some of these features.
However testing those features using Konq3 and Saf4beta2 I find them to work fine. Perhaps WebKit haven't updated this? Particularly one notes that pre-wrap and pre-line are part of ACID3 which the WebKit team claim to have passed with nightly builds of the WebKit engine ( http://webkit.org/blog/280/full-pass-of-acid-3/ ).
You rightly note that "authorise" is not defined, hence it's given it's normally everyday meaning. You attempt to subvert that meaning to be a technical computer related meaning. If the measure is ability to access - which it would need to be for the BBC to be authorised - then any cracker would be authorised and the CMA is useless, that can't be the intention of the draftees.
[Numbers by me]
1. An unknown person portscans your computer.
2. An owner turns on a web-server on a personal computer. It provides no warning that the public are not authorized to use it.
- It is accessed by someone on the internet accidentally, but they continue to use the web-server intentionally.
- It is accessed by a bot that reads your email address and signs you up for SPAM.
- It is accessed by a bot that attempts to exploit a flaw.
- It is accessed by a bot that installs botnet software on your machine by exploiting a flaw in the web-server.
3. Someone else turns on a web-server on a personal computer. Same scenarios as above.
4. You turn on a web-server on a leased personal computer, where the lease says you will not operate server software. It is accessed, with your permission. (The person who accesses it is culpable)
5. You install beneficial software on a public computer.
6. You install beneficial software on a stranger's computer.
7. You install beneficial software on a friend's computer, because they don't understand the benefit.
1. Intent is important and almost certainly unprovable. If your computer is server and they scan the service ports (of the advertised services) then absolutely no issue. I think that connection to the network authorises probing for services that doesn't inhibit operation - if they then act maliciously the law should cut in.
2. All of the accesses are authorised when the web server is put on the internet provided the person doing it is authorised to use the computer in that way. Signing you up for spam is assisting a crime but not a crime in itself AFAICT. Attempting to crack and cracking are both criminal.
3. Authorised if the person is authorised to do that.
4. The lease removes your authority to install a server, not authorised.
5. What's a public computer - most computers owned by local government, etc., say you may not install software without permission. If you have permission then it's authorised, if not ...
6. Did you ask the stranger? Yes = authorised. No = not authorised.
7. The friend doesn't have to understand to authorise you to do it, if they are not of sound mind or you deceive them then you're not authorised, else you are.
Again the term "authorised" is the standard laymans term.
If I crack your password and so have your user:password pair I still am not authorised to use them. Authority !== ability.
Which EULA do you suppose gave the BBC the right to access, modify data on and execute programs on those computers?
You used the card to pay for a service. You purchased a license. That license is *tangible* - it's also a binding legal contract to pay the license fee and thus using *counterfeit* funds to do so, is fraud. It's no different to paying your TV license with a fake / made-up credit card, or buying a set of crystal glasses with fake Green Shield stamps. It's obtaining goods/services by deception and fraud.
It's called intellectual property for a reason, it's not tangible (though it can be bought and sold like physical property).
A license is not tangible, you can make as many licenses as you like for no extra cost than the media you present the license on.
That aside, a UK jury will never convict someone for buying something cheaply IMO.
Incorrect. In UK law, handling stolen goods has higher sentences (and higher *average* sentences, even after appeal) than actual theft. It is *not* required that the court prove that you *know* they were stolen.
Firstly: handling stolen goods !== buying something cheaply.
Second the CPS ( http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/theft_acts_incorporating_the_charging_standard/#_Other_Offences_under ) disagrees with you saying (referring to the Theft Act 1968, SS22):
A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of stealing), knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.
In an nutshell, you're wrong.
I'm not defending fences. Nor was I talking about the meaning of the law in my earlier statement, only my perception of the possible outcome of a jury trial - presumably you've a reference for a case where a jury convicted someone for buying something cheaply where that person had no provable belief that it was stolen? (that conviction would contradict the law incidentally).
You can *easily* be convicted for buying a dodgy DVD in a boot sale, or a stolen car stereo... if it came to court, at absolute *minimum* you would be required to return the property, possibly make compensation (i.e. pay Apple for the MP3's), possibly pay court costs, maybe even receive a caution.
Tosh. You got a reference of any sort for someone buying a properly packaged DVD in a car boot sale that was convicted of an offence? Trading Standards rightly go after sellers. There is no way that a buyer could possibly know a DVD is "dodgy" unless it appears "dodgy" - grey imports can be vastly cheaper but are identical products. Tesco got in trouble for grey imports ( http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-tm/t-policy/t-policy-parallel/t-policy-parallel-caselaw.htm ) but I don't recall any of their customers suffering a conviction for contributory trademark infringement, perhaps you know differently.
If you buy a stolen anything then yes, you're handling stolen goods; again cheap !== stolen.
Your knowledge of whether you knew or not is pretty much irrevelant once it comes into a court... it's what you *should* have known - and a $200 gift card for $40 is almost certainly "obviously in the wrong".
For tangible goods yes. For intangibles then you see these sorts of things all the time. One of my ISPs bundles software "worth £250" with a £9 domain name ... should I be contacting the police? No of course not, it doesn't cost them that they're only making it available for sale at that price. Similarly Apple could easily offer $200 of itunes for $40 and still be making a profit.
You get free phones that sell at £200
No. On a $200 iTunes card, Apple will pay royalities of X dollars.
I doubt it. Royalties from collection agencies (which is what Apple are acting as here) appear to be paid as a proportion of the total sum gathered, minus [large] admin fee. Just as for CD sales, the royalties aren't based directly on the number of CDs printed but on the revenue from those CDs.
So I'd still contend that Apple will not be out of pocket save a little bandwidth except inasmuch as this hits their legal sale of those licenses.
What's this got to do with free speech. The BBC were perfectly capable of doing a show about illegal botnets without buying and using one.
A legitimate journalistic investigation into a crime doesn't require the journalist to perform the crime, nor to support others in doing so. That's not reporting on crime, that is being a criminal in order to give yourself something to report on.
Personally I believe in one law for all HM subjects; journalists included.
I'm not going to go into all the problems I see with your assertions, but doesn't Pepper vs Hart merely talk to using the legislative background where the clarity of the statute is lacking. There is no lack of clarity in the CMA unless you attempt to give the words other than everyday meanings (outside of /noscitur a sociis/).
The legislative background, I'd argue, ispreventing unauthorised access to computers, which is exactly what the act speaks to.
You've attempted to apply a narrow or technical interpretation of "authorised" it simply means here did they ask the people who owned the computers if they could use them in the manner in which they were used. Having access to botted computers doesn't make you authorised anymore than having access to lock picks makes you authorised to enter any locked door you choose.
[Debrain:] Well, go back to your language-is-important argument. The language of CMA 1 is "he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer"
"he causes a computer to secure access to any program [...]in any computer"
They sent email, they have to "secure access" to a sendmail-type program to do that, there's no doubt they contravened this part of the statute if they've reported honestly what they did (and the video of the messages appearing in the hotmail account appears to support that).
If the BBC has a password to a botnet, then there is a prima facie argument that they were authorized. The statute does not say that the authorization need come from an owner.
Excuse me, you don't really think that's the everyday interpretation (literal) of "authorise"? Who else, in your opinion, has the right (other than a court with a warrant) to authorise your access to my property?
You're not presenting a coherent defence IMO.
That's like saying you don't need their permission to visit someone's webpage as often as you like .. if you like a few thousands times a second from a botnet then it's a DDoS and you surely do need permission.
If you look at the preview vid they say they set it up so each bot sent an email 500 times to each account (with some throttling, but nonetheless). That's 11,000,000 different emails. A large quantity of emails is /likely to impair/ the operation of the computers and that would make this a CMA Section 3 violation.
As the breach of Section 1 is so clear I'd expect prosecution would be instructed to follow that and ignore the other charges. (ha like it will ever go to court).
So you'd let anyone have a botnet provided they're going to tell in the end?
If you use my comp for a DDoS attack it's like you using my car for a drive-by shooting. You're using it. Not me. It's not an offence to own a car and leave it unlocked. It's not an offence to own a computer and leave it unsecured.
The [major] sections 1, 2, 3 refer to 3 separate offences. They hit all 3 of section 1 (= SS1), they probably hit all necessary parts of SS2 as they then used the unauthorised access to do stuff to those computers and to DDoS a computer (with authorisation, but nonetheless "a computer" under SS3(2)(a) which puts them on slightly dodgy ground there too!).
Section 3 does speak of intent and so they're most likely clear there. So only 44000 offences (at 6mo each?). Possible as others said they hit computers in other countries too - the researchers could be extradited to the states!
(I expect they'll get a slapped wrist and a huge disparity of justice will occur with the next well publicised breach of the Computer Misuse Act.)
Sure, it's illegal and unsafe, but when everybody is doing so why single out the BBC for their activity?
So your saying you'd like to be killed in a road accident and you don't care if the driver of the car that smashes into you is being paid to do it by the BBC. Think you've lost me there.
The problem you have is that the law is supposed to apply equally to everyone. This means that anyone now can crack peoples computer and run them as a botnet provided they claim their intent was not to damage those computers (only DDoS some others) just funk around with desktop backgrounds and such and finally to let the owners know.
Robbing banks to give the money to the poor is still not a valid legal defence AFAICT. (though it appears the opposite, robbing the poor ..., is allowed, but I digress!)
They used the botnet to spam two email accounts, one at gmail and one at hotmail. That's against the computer misuse act.
Not if it's their own hotmail and gmail accounts or if they have permission, I can spam myself if I want to, and you could spam me as well if I gave you permission.
Well it's use of unauthorised computers for further unauthorised activity (unless they asked MS and Google first) which I think puts them in breach of SS(1) and (2) of the Computer Misuse Act.
Hotmail and Gmail both have bandwidth and hosting charges, by grabbing lots of bandwidth they [the Beeb] are impairing the working of the email servers. That's an offence, when you're using an illegal botnet it's also illegal.
Section 1 of the computer misuse act merely requires you to access a computer without authorisation. They did, 22000 times, hence they are culpable.
Intending to send an email 1(1)(a), without the computer owner knowing 1(1)(b), knowing that one is not authorised 1(1)(c). 3 strikes, go straight to jail, do not pass go.
Care to revise your claim that the parent appears wholly incorrect? I'd say they were spot on. Notice that SS2 (ibid) speaks to intent and gives no disclaimer for those with beneficent ends.
You may like to peruse SS2 and 3; there's a good chance that they're in breach of those also. For example, they used the botnet to DDoS a computer (their own, but nonetheless a computer, SS3(2)(a) doesn't mention ownership).
Nope IANAL but nor am I a stranger to reading and interpreting statute.
---
Computer Misuse Act 1990
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=computer+misuse+act&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1353366&ActiveTextDocId=1353370&filesize=1958
SS 1. Unauthorised access to computer material.
- (1) A person is guilty of an offence if -
(a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
(b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
(c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.
- (2) The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed atâ"
(a) any particular program or data;
(b) a program or data of any particular kind; or
(c) a program or data held in any particular computer.
-(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
---
I don't think this particular case will even see the courts; nor do I think it should.
Why? Because the law should be different for rich media nobs?
The Beeb's history and reputation speaks for itself.
Is that the lying to the public, defamation of The Crown, the financial fraud, the overspending on celebrity friends, the use of self owned production companies to fleece the population, the claim to offer alternative viewing and then badly copying the worst of commercial TV ... or something else, maybe the illegal access and use of peoples computers and support of known criminals with license money?
The Beeb had a reputation and has a great history.
I'm sure intent is not in this law, how do you prove intent? The law will make actions illegal as actions are easier to judge - did they do it? Yes.
Yeah they paid £6k of public money to known criminals and knowingly broke the law for the sake of some sensationalist journalism .. what's not to like?
So the researchers at the BBC are allowed to break the law (and spend public money doing it) but other people who're "investigating" computers that don't belong to them get extradited? [ http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39619206,00.htm ]
I'm not saying McKinnon is blameless incidentally.
I don't care who's cracking someone's computer or controlling a botnet, it's wrong and they should be punished for it.
But the reality is that, until they can be driven to under 50% of the browser market share, they pretty much get to set the standard.
They, Microsoft, get to set the lowest common denominator, the truth is though that most designers will be using progressive enhancement meaning that Saf, FF, Op, Konq are getting a nicer overall look with slicker running features whilst MSIE is getting either a "degraded" view or a separately developed page (I'm considering MS targetted CSS to be separately developed).
Basically, as a web designer since 1996-ish (and commercially for the last 5 years or so) I consider that MSIE has been holding things back all along. Less so now, but they're still not leading the way.
As for CSS3. If MS had included some basics, like rounded corners and columns, then we could have started making some headway with a less hacked together internet. Moz and Webkit have these things already waiting for the spec to be finished.
http://www.quirksmode.org/css/multicolumn.html
landlines in the UK can receive texts now, they get read out by a creepy sounding robot ... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/08/bt_trials_mobile_sms/
It's fraud, plain and simple, no better than making up credit card numbers and using them to buy things on Amazon.
Absolute piffle.
It's more akin to buying a pair of Nike branded trainers that were not authorised by Nike (note I don't say not made in their factory!). The only damage is a potential sale to Nike (or Apple in the case in point).
Stealing money using a credit card is quite different to depriving someone of a potential sale in order to perform copyright infringement of a third parties musical works.
Of course if the gift card can be used to purchase tangibles the situation is altered immensely. But we're talking about "taking" zero cost copies. Other than bandwidth costs you're not depriving Apple of anything.
On the subject of fraud, you can not commit fraud by accident. You can not be complicit in being defrauded, either you were defrauded or you knowingly handled stolen goods. No goods were stolen here, if you used the gift card you (or the card seller it might be argued) simply committed copyright infringement by downloading the music without a license, a civil tort. (In my Nike example the seller performed trademark infringement, the trainers are not stolen, again a tort IIRC).
That aside, a UK jury will never convict someone for buying something cheaply IMO.
for Pluto read Poseidon, mea culpa:
"Plat-doh!" ...
President of Atlantis speaks out
But those photos don't show barracks or nuclear subs, nor does it have metre accurate geographical coordinates for programming your missiles with.
a reaction commentary by none other than Plato accompanies the story. You can't make shit like this up... because The Sun does it for you.
Maybe Atlantis was a republic?
Wonder what Pluto thought of that?
Of course, TFA talks about "terrorists" targeting the subs with rockets. Right. Could terrorists get that kind of weapon into the UK and close to a nuclear weapons installation?
They've got the weapons, they don't need to get them into the UK, there's a sea route past Arran, looks like there's a torpedoe net around the subs but I'm sure a shoulder mounted SAM would do enough damage to put them out of action for a while.
I think I'd have asked that the subs be duplicated a few hundred times around the coast line instead. Now that's a deterrent!
The search and replace was very good. I moved on to Jedit after DW which has great plugins for FTP and s&r,etc.. Now, a few apps later, I use Quanta+ (though I find I'll use Kate or anything, nano in an ssh session, to make a quick alteration).
The only thing Quanta doesn't do so well is the file management which I use Krusader. Quant's WYSIWYG mode is even worse than DW's was, maybe Amaya for that kind of function? webdeveloper toolbar add-on or firebug does it for me with the visual tweaking.