All you need to do is to have a welcome HTML screen to your WiFi network that requires that users give you their name and verifyable e-mail address before they're allowed to roam.
You don't have to give that info to the government unless they already have a good judge-approved reason to need it, but wouldn't you come running to the government yourself if you knew anybody connected with 9/11/01 used your bandwidth?
Nope, but the ignition is still secured by a lock that takes knowledge and time to defeat. (Your car door lock is also defeatable... good thing, or AAA would lose a line of work quickly.)
However, if you leave your car running and then work away from it... yeah, it's possible that you share some responsiblity for letting your car be used.
The problem here is that there are cheap-o businesses don't see how having a secure network contributes to their shareholder dividends, and therefore won't hire somebody to protect their networks. Geeks laid off, that's a bad thing around here.
There needs to be laws that say if you don't secure your WiFi, you become legally liable for any attack that passes through your access point. That'll finally give the beancounters a reason to secure things.
Here on Slashdot, Anonymous Cowards are not fully anonymous. Slashdot logs the IP address and time of every IP post. If I find a post that allows me to take legal action against that poster, I file the case and then ask the judge to subpoena Slashdot to turn over the IP address from which the AC post orignated from. I can then look up who owns the IP block that IP address belongs to, and subpeona that ISP to give me the name and billing address on the account that had that IP address at the time of the post. Gotcha.
The internet is inhernetly P2P already. Get some business-class bandwidth (instead of the restricted consumer-priced stuff) and you can set up any services you want, and offer them to anybody you want.
The new definition of P2P seems to be "let me send and receive data in an untraceable way because I want to transfer data that's illegal to transfer." Be it a pirated MP3 or an order to a sleeper cell, neither should be allowed.
Hate to break it to you, but that jack in the university library is traceable.
The university can record what IP address they assigned to that physical network wire at what time, so if the attack victim can trace things back to an IP and time of the attack, the university just has to pull out the security camera tape from that time to get a full-color picture of whomever was using that specific physcal port at that moment... the suspect has to have within a wire's length of the port!
September 11 tought us that commecial airliners could be misused as weapons. When you think about it, almost anything when used improperly can be used as a weapon.
Think of high schools with a "zero tolerance" policy aganst knifes. They'll suspend a student has a kitchen knife in thier bookbag... but they'll forget that if the student puts 3 10 pound textbooks in their bag, and then throws it from the top of a staircase, that becomes a 30 pound dead weight which can cause serious injury. Bookbags don't kill people, people kill people.
Because we can't think of all the possible ways terrorists can attack, we can only secure against the ones we can think of. The attacks we show we can stop are the ones they won't attempt. There's an unlimited number of unprotected ones they can try.
This is actually one of the few arguments in favor of the all-knowing government database. Scan the finger prints, and they know if the patient's radiation levels jive with their medical records.
I once wrote a paper analyzing the data from the Fastest-Finger qualifying game on Who Wants to be a Millionaire, using info from a website that logged all of the qualifying player's names and times. I then performed simple stat anaysis tests to show that the reason more men made it into the contestant chair is because more men were attempting, and that women were actually better at playing the Fastest Finger game, despite claims that the game favored men.
Valid enough to be published and silence the critics? No way... far too little data do have that kind of certainty. Valid enough to get me an A+ on the project... yep. This was for a stats class, all I needed was to prove that I knew how to write a statistical report, not that I could collect solid data or pick a topic that meant anything to the world.
Maybe there was a serious reason for him to do the "study"... but I don't think it's gonna get published in any place with scientific credibility.
Here's one to ponder... the article cites that PC makers are now less fearful of retribution from Microsoft for chosing other programs since the anti-trust settlement.
Could the anti-trust settlement, as weak as it is, actually be that effective? Is it really the reason the office suite market is going back up for grabs?
The problem was, so many sites ignored it that it became ineffective. "My browser can only surf MSN sites" was the most common symptom of somebody who turned on the Content Advsior in IE without realizing it.
Already thought through...
Browsers can enforce the "no linking outside.kids.us" rules strictly by simply checking all URLs it is about to request to make sure that the last eight bytes are ".kids.us" and if it's anything else, don't even bother letting it down the TCP/IP stack.
Java's likely going to be okay as a technical standard, but of course what the Java applet depicts is subject to the content rules.
A company by the name of NuStar is responsible for.kids.us, at least for now. (NuStar is also the registrar of record for the entire.us space anyway.) Operating.kids.us responsibly is part of the contract that allows them to profit from the.us domain. If they act poorly, they can be replaced.
That line likely puts all three of those things in the foul territory, but that's okay. They still have grownups around them to explain these things, and if the grownups don't know all the answers, then the grownups cna supervise them in a trip through.com
Kids under 13 aren't legally allowed to participate in an unmoderated board without a big huge signoff from their parents anymore anyway. So message boards and chat for kids is already a dead issue.
However, the porn operators, realizing that.xxx is going to be a path to the black hole on a majority of ISPs will insist that their site belongs in.com, because after all, they are a company in the porn industry, right?
The red-light district will always be the area with the least regulation... you can't tell the porn sites where to go, you can only tell them where they're not allowed to go.
You haven't seen Linda Ellerbee's Nick News programs, have you? They explain what actually is happening, while avoiding the outragous overstatements adults tend to make.
Because downloading and using a whitelist creates a hassle for the users. (You remember users, they're the people we work for, etc.) It's much simpler to have a rule... if it ends in ".kids.us" it must be safe.
.xxx would be easy to block, but how do you keep all the smut contained within.xxx? People will start moving their porn sites to.ca,.uk,.cc,.at,.to, whatever other country code where US law has no control.
By making sure that.kids.us will always remain clean, with strict bouncers throwing any troublemakers out, you can set a kid up with a browser that can only travel within.kids.us and know there is no way they can surf into smut...
Slashdot Mirror
All you need to do is to have a welcome HTML screen to your WiFi network that requires that users give you their name and verifyable e-mail address before they're allowed to roam. You don't have to give that info to the government unless they already have a good judge-approved reason to need it, but wouldn't you come running to the government yourself if you knew anybody connected with 9/11/01 used your bandwidth?
Nope, but the ignition is still secured by a lock that takes knowledge and time to defeat. (Your car door lock is also defeatable... good thing, or AAA would lose a line of work quickly.) However, if you leave your car running and then work away from it... yeah, it's possible that you share some responsiblity for letting your car be used.
The problem here is that there are cheap-o businesses don't see how having a secure network contributes to their shareholder dividends, and therefore won't hire somebody to protect their networks. Geeks laid off, that's a bad thing around here.
There needs to be laws that say if you don't secure your WiFi, you become legally liable for any attack that passes through your access point. That'll finally give the beancounters a reason to secure things.
Anonymous communications is a dangerous thing.
Here on Slashdot, Anonymous Cowards are not fully anonymous. Slashdot logs the IP address and time of every IP post. If I find a post that allows me to take legal action against that poster, I file the case and then ask the judge to subpoena Slashdot to turn over the IP address from which the AC post orignated from. I can then look up who owns the IP block that IP address belongs to, and subpeona that ISP to give me the name and billing address on the account that had that IP address at the time of the post. Gotcha.
The internet is inhernetly P2P already. Get some business-class bandwidth (instead of the restricted consumer-priced stuff) and you can set up any services you want, and offer them to anybody you want.
The new definition of P2P seems to be "let me send and receive data in an untraceable way because I want to transfer data that's illegal to transfer." Be it a pirated MP3 or an order to a sleeper cell, neither should be allowed.
Hate to break it to you, but that jack in the university library is traceable. The university can record what IP address they assigned to that physical network wire at what time, so if the attack victim can trace things back to an IP and time of the attack, the university just has to pull out the security camera tape from that time to get a full-color picture of whomever was using that specific physcal port at that moment... the suspect has to have within a wire's length of the port!
Boy, that server didn't last long!
Is it just me, or does this seem like irrational research into an irrational number?
September 11 tought us that commecial airliners could be misused as weapons. When you think about it, almost anything when used improperly can be used as a weapon.
Think of high schools with a "zero tolerance" policy aganst knifes. They'll suspend a student has a kitchen knife in thier bookbag... but they'll forget that if the student puts 3 10 pound textbooks in their bag, and then throws it from the top of a staircase, that becomes a 30 pound dead weight which can cause serious injury. Bookbags don't kill people, people kill people.
Because we can't think of all the possible ways terrorists can attack, we can only secure against the ones we can think of. The attacks we show we can stop are the ones they won't attempt. There's an unlimited number of unprotected ones they can try.
This is actually one of the few arguments in favor of the all-knowing government database. Scan the finger prints, and they know if the patient's radiation levels jive with their medical records.
Wait a second here... radiation in the trash system is bad, radiation in the sewer system okay?
From the make-it-somebody-else's-problem dept.
I once wrote a paper analyzing the data from the Fastest-Finger qualifying game on Who Wants to be a Millionaire, using info from a website that logged all of the qualifying player's names and times. I then performed simple stat anaysis tests to show that the reason more men made it into the contestant chair is because more men were attempting, and that women were actually better at playing the Fastest Finger game, despite claims that the game favored men.
Valid enough to be published and silence the critics? No way... far too little data do have that kind of certainty. Valid enough to get me an A+ on the project... yep. This was for a stats class, all I needed was to prove that I knew how to write a statistical report, not that I could collect solid data or pick a topic that meant anything to the world.
Maybe there was a serious reason for him to do the "study"... but I don't think it's gonna get published in any place with scientific credibility.
The problem is, you can decline to receive postage due mail... simply don't pay. Declining spam ain't so easy.
Here's one to ponder... the article cites that PC makers are now less fearful of retribution from Microsoft for chosing other programs since the anti-trust settlement.
Could the anti-trust settlement, as weak as it is, actually be that effective? Is it really the reason the office suite market is going back up for grabs?
The problem was, so many sites ignored it that it became ineffective. "My browser can only surf MSN sites" was the most common symptom of somebody who turned on the Content Advsior in IE without realizing it.
And then get his domain revoked within hours. Registration fee go bye-bye!
Already thought through... Browsers can enforce the "no linking outside .kids.us" rules strictly by simply checking all URLs it is about to request to make sure that the last eight bytes are ".kids.us" and if it's anything else, don't even bother letting it down the TCP/IP stack.
Java's likely going to be okay as a technical standard, but of course what the Java applet depicts is subject to the content rules.
A company by the name of NuStar is responsible for .kids.us, at least for now. (NuStar is also the registrar of record for the entire .us space anyway.) Operating .kids.us responsibly is part of the contract that allows them to profit from the .us domain. If they act poorly, they can be replaced.
That line likely puts all three of those things in the foul territory, but that's okay. They still have grownups around them to explain these things, and if the grownups don't know all the answers, then the grownups cna supervise them in a trip through .com
Kids under 13 aren't legally allowed to participate in an unmoderated board without a big huge signoff from their parents anymore anyway. So message boards and chat for kids is already a dead issue.
However, the porn operators, realizing that .xxx is going to be a path to the black hole on a majority of ISPs will insist that their site belongs in .com, because after all, they are a company in the porn industry, right?
The red-light district will always be the area with the least regulation... you can't tell the porn sites where to go, you can only tell them where they're not allowed to go.
How do you propose on telling somebody who insists they belong in .com that they have to go sit into that corner called .xxx?
You haven't seen Linda Ellerbee's Nick News programs, have you? They explain what actually is happening, while avoiding the outragous overstatements adults tend to make.
Linking outside .kids.us on a trapped-browser would be futile, that browser will see that .kids.us isn't the last eight bytes and refuse the request.
What prevents a kid-safe version of the news going up at cnn.kids.us?
Nothing at all.
Because downloading and using a whitelist creates a hassle for the users. (You remember users, they're the people we work for, etc.) It's much simpler to have a rule... if it ends in ".kids.us" it must be safe.
.xxx would be easy to block, but how do you keep all the smut contained within .xxx? People will start moving their porn sites to .ca, .uk, .cc, .at, .to, whatever other country code where US law has no control.
By making sure that .kids.us will always remain clean, with strict bouncers throwing any troublemakers out, you can set a kid up with a browser that can only travel within .kids.us and know there is no way they can surf into smut...