The prosecuter's office that is handling this case can be reached at 727-464-6221.
I suggest we let them know that if you broadcast an SSID into the public airwaves and then grant DHCP leases across it you are authorizing access to your network.
(QUOTE) Personal and Corporate Responsibility
Let me jump in and propose a simple, logical public policy. Law enforcement doesn't need to get involved whenever some guy in a doughnut shop poaches a nearby Wi-Fi connection to check his e-mail, thinking he's on the shop's network. This shouldn't be a crime, even if he's intentionally poaching. We must put the burden of responsibility on the broadcaster, not the end user. It has to be made clear that people sending open connections all over town should be responsible for them.
Here's what I propose: Once a wireless signal leaves private property, it becomes public domain. If the person transmitting the signal wants it protected, then encryption is up to him or her. If someone beams an Internet connection into my home and I happen to lock onto the signal, he is trespassing on me, not the other way around. Public policy must reflect this logic. Keep it out of my house if you don't want me using it. Keep it out of my car. Keep it away from me in public places. (/QUOTE)
It's sensible. We don't want the "internet police" swooping down on people who may or may not be exactly sure what internet connection their gee-whiz easy to use Windows XP machine has latched onto. I would know, and most/. peeps would likely know. But would your sister? Your parents? Hardly a sure thing.
Security needs to be the responsibility of the network operator. That would be good public policy. Tell the prosecutor's office that. Or better yet, tell your congressman.
I guess you didn't hear, caller ID can be completely spoofed now. They can put your mother's number on your caller ID.
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/9822
Maybe that as regards Japan is new. I knew a man a number of years ago, worked for a giant U.S. financial company, lived in Japan for years doing the company's business there. He was married to a Japanese woman.
He told me if he hadn't been married to a Japanese he would not have been able to buy a house.
Uh, that should be modded SAD, if there were such a mod.
Remember that guy Mike Emmons, who was a developer, his job was outsourced to India? But instead of actually sending the work to India they brought the Indians here, put them right at the displaced American's desks, and they had to train them in order to receive their severance pay?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0420/p03s01-usec.htm l
Especially since they hired a consulting firm (TATA Consulting) to provide and pay them, their pay wasn't then subject to the same payroll taxes that would be levied on the American's wages. Outrageous, I think.
Because the amount they will pay you will get you a comfortable middle-class existence, including the ability to buy a nice house and car, etc.
Can a non-Indian buy a house in India? I doubt it.
A non-Japanese can't buy anything in Japan "You can't buy real estate in Japan, you are not Japanese". Or so I heard. Perhaps someone can verify.
If you have a linksys router there is always WallWatcher. You tell the linksys what IP to send the logs to and you get them all for analysis. You will KNOW where they are coming from. Pretty slick really. http://wallwatcher.com/ I notice it supports lots of other brand routers now.
I had a spammer attempting to send mail to my home dsl line, constant port 25 attempts. Filtered of course but you would think they would have noticed that address was not accepting mail after months of trying. Nope. The guy was so persistent I contacted his ISP and their security NOC people responded immediately, they filtered me in their router.
They wouldn't consider making their customer STOP SPAMMING or anything like that, which is what I requested they do. Heh.
Yeah, Kinkos went nuts after they got sued by the Association of American Publishers and lost.
What happened was this: They had a program at their college locations called "professor publishing", where they would make course packets for professors, they would keep the originals on file and the students would be required to go to Kinkos and get the packets provided by the teacher to Kinkos. It was a cash cow for them.
Clearly you can copy a 2 page chart out of a 300 page book and put it in such a course packet, and that was likely "fair use".
But that wasn't all they were doing. Sometimes the copying would consist of 89 pages of a 100 page book. Most authors and publishers would probably think that if you need 89% of the content in a publication you should buy it, not copy it, especially if you have 180 students needing it. They sued Kinkos. Kinkos lost, $millions I think. Since then Kinkos has been looking at everyone's originals.
It's a totally overblown solution, by looking at customer's work they become aware of what they are and have responsibility for the copyright laws. This results in their dumbly refusing to copy a book you wrote yourself, since you put a copyright notice on it. Ridiculous.
I think they should just "don't ask, don't tell" except in totally blatant cases.
The bigger question is Where do the clerks at Walmart get off looking at the content of my or anyone else's photos at all?
It is none of their business what is on those photos, they only get the right to look at them enough to print them and evaluate the quality of THEIR WORK. I don't want them looking at them or discussing their content with ANYONE, even ME.
The only exception might be if they saw kiddie porn on a customer's photos (not on mine!). Adult porn not being illegal, would be none of their business. That normally isn't on my photos either.
Forget the issue of open source, that is a side issue and matters not one bit.
The issue here is the USPTO is issuing patents on software that they don't understand the ramifications of. That is all that needs to be stopped.
Clearly a better mouse trap might be patentable. But the USPTO has issued patents on functions that are obvious, in use by *everyone* and their attitude is this: "Let the courts work it out".
That sounds fine to the USPTO which is lousy with lawyers, lawyers love that stuff, legal fees and litigation. But how would you like to receive a cease and desist letter from a patent holder for something you and everyone else has done the same way for 10 years, and *THEY* have deep pockets. Sue them? Wait for them to sue you? Call a lawyer and pay a $10,000 retainer? That is the USPTO approach. Let the litigants pay their lawyers to figure it out in court. There are companies set up for this express purpose, litigating patents for stuff that is in use by lots of others that they can get the USPTO to issue to them, and they can demand licensing money from those who can't afford to litigate against them.
That's what's wrong with software patents. Patents creating expensive needless litigation over the obvious, issued by lawyers at "Law Office No. 82", who just don't have the expertise to understand the issues or the technology, or that the patent application is for something that is neither *new*, *nonobvious* or *patentable*.
If you could convince your congressman to help rein in this behavior at USPTO that would be worthwhile. Make the USPTO get the expertise somewhere to evaluate the patent applications for software in at least as thorough a manner as patents on devices. I somehow doubt it.
This is 2005...and if you aren't painfully aware...the dot.com boom has been long over...and if you want to be treated professionally, then you need to act AND look professionally. The do-whatever-you-want-club is almost closed at every location it popped up in.
Here is a simple guide:
* Hide the tats.
* Save the piercings for the goth club.
* Use a natural hair color.
Sensible advice.
It's business. In the business world we have to interact with all sorts of people. Executive staff, management, customers, vendors, etc.
We have to appeal to the people we have to interact with, and in business you can't demand special treatment or dispensations for the sake of individuality.
Think of it like this: You are in a business environment, and your pay is strictly commission. By failing to look and act professional (or conventional) you will not be able to deal with certain customers who for right or wrong won't *like* you. It costs you half of your income.
Remember, the company for all practical purposes IS on commission, they only get paid by customers who *want* to give them money.
Given that why should they let YOU represent the company when your appearance can only be a negative, and conventional appearance and demeanor would be neutral?
Unfortunately, it's just better to conform. And if you are a coder in the back room your ability to advance to a position that might pay much more can only be hindered by unprofessional appearance, especially if it would require your interacting with more people, especially those that might not know you.
I can hear it now: "Fred could do that job, but I just think some people might react badly to his piercings and tattoos, better give that promotion to John. Technically he is not as strong but he looks better in a suit." But you'll never hear it.
This goes back to a simple principle that has been discussed on/. for eons:
If your security was broken that just means your security wasn't good enough.
Why can't people take responsibility for themselves, meaning the universities and their contractors? This would not have happened if they had taken ordinary care.
You figure out a way to teach the average idiot not to run unknown executables and you'd eliminate 90% of the problem.
I don't think that is possible. Sad but true.
Microsoft's security model for their IE browser is so fatally flawed it is the second biggest cause of virus propagation in the world. The biggest is Outlook Express and HTML mail.
They should fix that. The biggest problem is the activeX, java and javascript you have to leave enabled all the time or it pops up alerts incessantly. You cannot turn those alerts off, and they did that on purpose.
There was a Microsoft developers meeting in Palm Desert, CA some years ago where a Microsoft guy said: "All web developers should put a script, however unneeded at the beginning of every page to make sure the user turns scripting on and leaves it on."
Outrageous.
Now I have let their secrets out. There's gonna be hell to pay!
I think maybe spam is overrated.. with the right technology in place, it can be defeated. Although indiscriminite blacklisting by Orbs or whoever doesn't really help the situation:(
Overreated? You have lots of people working on solving the spam problem for you. LOTS of effort goes into maintaining those blacklists your provider uses to provide an acceptable spam level for you, and you find it meets your needs.
The only reason you think it might be overrrated is that you are not realizing what an effort is being put forth for you.
The retail boxed IDE drives had a 3 year warranty until a couple years ago, and they mostly made it that long. The new ones come with a 1 year warranty, and they will often barely make it. Sad.
But they *ARE* cheap now! 120mb for $39 after rebate a week or so ago. Wowee.
I guess I would rather pay more and have drives that were less likely to fail and take my data with them. Oh well.
A friend had a failure of a WD drive a year or so ago, and he asked me that very question. I know some engineers at WD, and this is what they said:
"If the drives are pretty close in serial number you might be able to do it. There are firmware changes during production and it is likely the change could make "this" PCBA not work with "that" HDA." So beware.
It took me a couple days to catch up with them and ask the question so by the time I got back to him he had sent it in under warranty.
I also know a guy who does failure analysis there, he would be the guy to help recover the actual data. I have known him >20 years. I imagine that would be childs play for him. Probably has all the software revs on hand. Heh.
The real way to solve your problem is with "delete."
But since you probably don't want to do that, a function that checks bookmarks for viability would help you a lot. I bet a lot of those sites you saved are long gone
You mean like there was in Netscape 4.77? Fantastic bookmark manager. Could search inline, check for dead links, etc. Firefox has nothing, IE is much worse.
Having historical bookmarks are VERY USEFUL, I have had people IM me and say "what do you know about 'this'". They are invariably amazed when I send them my bookmarks on the subject.
Nope. The specifically should NOT have to watch what is going on. But if the local telco is hosting spammers, for example, and the spam were somehow illegal, and they were informed, they can have some liability after they know. And I'll tell them.
Every other business has liability for what goes on in their facility.
Example: Property owners are liable for hazardous conditions on their property, if they know about it.
All the money, from all spam and spyware. everywhere, is collected through US owned credit card companies.
If the credit card companies were threatened with a charge of conspiracy to promote spam/spyware/all the other immoral or illegal acts commited for money via the itnernet, it would stop overnight.
And if the telcos were financially responsible for spam coming from their networks (or even over their local loop)-- especially AFTER they are notified spam would stop overnight. The phone company would be out at the spammers site with a pair of wire cutters, now wouldn't they?
I wouldn't shed a tear if the liability were extended up to the credit card company and the ISPs and Telcos, they are getting paid.
FWIW, the part of law that shields ISPs and credit card companies from such liability is called "Safe Harbor".
Nothing in the above statement should be taken to imply that I do not support cruel and inhuman torture and/or death for anyone connected with the promotion/distribution of Spam/Spyware.
Agreed. But if the liability were splashed on the substantial players who are presently shielded things would change!
Slashdot Mirror
The prosecuter's office that is handling this case can be reached at 727-464-6221.
s p
/. peeps would likely know. But would your sister? Your parents? Hardly a sure thing.
I suggest we let them know that if you broadcast an SSID into the public airwaves and then grant DHCP leases across it you are authorizing access to your network.
John C. Dvorak wrote a column about that some time ago.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1565274,00.a
(QUOTE)
Personal and Corporate Responsibility
Let me jump in and propose a simple, logical public policy. Law enforcement doesn't need to get involved whenever some guy in a doughnut shop poaches a nearby Wi-Fi connection to check his e-mail, thinking he's on the shop's network. This shouldn't be a crime, even if he's intentionally poaching. We must put the burden of responsibility on the broadcaster, not the end user. It has to be made clear that people sending open connections all over town should be responsible for them.
Here's what I propose: Once a wireless signal leaves private property, it becomes public domain. If the person transmitting the signal wants it protected, then encryption is up to him or her. If someone beams an Internet connection into my home and I happen to lock onto the signal, he is trespassing on me, not the other way around. Public policy must reflect this logic. Keep it out of my house if you don't want me using it. Keep it out of my car. Keep it away from me in public places.
(/QUOTE)
It's sensible. We don't want the "internet police" swooping down on people who may or may not be exactly sure what internet connection their gee-whiz easy to use Windows XP machine has latched onto. I would know, and most
Security needs to be the responsibility of the network operator. That would be good public policy. Tell the prosecutor's office that. Or better yet, tell your congressman.
I guess you didn't hear, caller ID can be completely spoofed now. They can put your mother's number on your caller ID. http://www.securityfocus.com/news/9822
If the SBL can shot down an entire group of blocks because of one spammer on one IP
I had NO IDEA the SBL was that powerful!
How do they do that?
Heh
Adblock? I hadn't heard of that! Thanks for the tip Doubleclick/slashdot! I'm installing it now.
Like about 150,000 others, I would bet.
What's Doubleclick?
Oh, there they are, in my hosts file for the last 5 years. Heh.
Maybe that as regards Japan is new. I knew a man a number of years ago, worked for a giant U.S. financial company, lived in Japan for years doing the company's business there. He was married to a Japanese woman.
He told me if he hadn't been married to a Japanese he would not have been able to buy a house.
Uh, that should be modded SAD, if there were such a mod.
m l
Remember that guy Mike Emmons, who was a developer, his job was outsourced to India? But instead of actually sending the work to India they brought the Indians here, put them right at the displaced American's desks, and they had to train them in order to receive their severance pay?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0420/p03s01-usec.ht
Especially since they hired a consulting firm (TATA Consulting) to provide and pay them, their pay wasn't then subject to the same payroll taxes that would be levied on the American's wages.
Outrageous, I think.
Because the amount they will pay you will get you a comfortable middle-class existence, including the ability to buy a nice house and car, etc.
Can a non-Indian buy a house in India? I doubt it.
A non-Japanese can't buy anything in Japan "You can't buy real estate in Japan, you are not Japanese". Or so I heard. Perhaps someone can verify.
"The country is democratic, peaceful and stable."
A couple of years of wall-to-wall internet and the country will be neither peaceful or stable. Not sure about the democratic part. Heh.
If you have a linksys router there is always WallWatcher. You tell the linksys what IP to send the logs to and you get them all for analysis. You will KNOW where they are coming from. Pretty slick really.
http://wallwatcher.com/
I notice it supports lots of other brand routers now.
I had a spammer attempting to send mail to my home dsl line, constant port 25 attempts. Filtered of course but you would think they would have noticed that address was not accepting mail after months of trying. Nope. The guy was so persistent I contacted his ISP and their security NOC people responded immediately, they filtered me in their router.
They wouldn't consider making their customer STOP SPAMMING or anything like that, which is what I requested they do. Heh.
Yeah, Kinkos went nuts after they got sued by the Association of American Publishers and lost.
What happened was this: They had a program at their college locations called "professor publishing", where they would make course packets for professors, they would keep the originals on file and the students would be required to go to Kinkos and get the packets provided by the teacher to Kinkos. It was a cash cow for them.
Clearly you can copy a 2 page chart out of a 300 page book and put it in such a course packet, and that was likely "fair use".
But that wasn't all they were doing. Sometimes the copying would consist of 89 pages of a 100 page book. Most authors and publishers would probably think that if you need 89% of the content in a publication you should buy it, not copy it, especially if you have 180 students needing it. They sued Kinkos. Kinkos lost, $millions I think. Since then Kinkos has been looking at everyone's originals.
It's a totally overblown solution, by looking at customer's work they become aware of what they are and have responsibility for the copyright laws. This results in their dumbly refusing to copy a book you wrote yourself, since you put a copyright notice on it. Ridiculous.
I think they should just "don't ask, don't tell" except in totally blatant cases.
The bigger question is Where do the clerks at Walmart get off looking at the content of my or anyone else's photos at all?
It is none of their business what is on those photos, they only get the right to look at them enough to print them and evaluate the quality of THEIR WORK. I don't want them looking at them or discussing their content with ANYONE, even ME.
The only exception might be if they saw kiddie porn on a customer's photos (not on mine!). Adult porn not being illegal, would be none of their business. That normally isn't on my photos either.
Forget the issue of open source, that is a side issue and matters not one bit.
The issue here is the USPTO is issuing patents on software that they don't understand the ramifications of. That is all that needs to be stopped.
Clearly a better mouse trap might be patentable. But the USPTO has issued patents on functions that are obvious, in use by *everyone* and their attitude is this: "Let the courts work it out".
That sounds fine to the USPTO which is lousy with lawyers, lawyers love that stuff, legal fees and litigation. But how would you like to receive a cease and desist letter from a patent holder for something you and everyone else has done the same way for 10 years, and *THEY* have deep pockets. Sue them? Wait for them to sue you? Call a lawyer and pay a $10,000 retainer? That is the USPTO approach. Let the litigants pay their lawyers to figure it out in court. There are companies set up for this express purpose, litigating patents for stuff that is in use by lots of others that they can get the USPTO to issue to them, and they can demand licensing money from those who can't afford to litigate against them.
That's what's wrong with software patents. Patents creating expensive needless litigation over the obvious, issued by lawyers at "Law Office No. 82", who just don't have the expertise to understand the issues or the technology, or that the patent application is for something that is neither *new*, *nonobvious* or *patentable*.
If you could convince your congressman to help rein in this behavior at USPTO that would be worthwhile. Make the USPTO get the expertise somewhere to evaluate the patent applications for software in at least as thorough a manner as patents on devices. I somehow doubt it.
This is 2005...and if you aren't painfully aware...the dot.com boom has been long over...and if you want to be treated professionally, then you need to act AND look professionally. The do-whatever-you-want-club is almost closed at every location it popped up in.
Here is a simple guide:
* Hide the tats.
* Save the piercings for the goth club.
* Use a natural hair color.
Sensible advice. It's business. In the business world we have to interact with all sorts of people. Executive staff, management, customers, vendors, etc.
We have to appeal to the people we have to interact with, and in business you can't demand special treatment or dispensations for the sake of individuality.
Think of it like this: You are in a business environment, and your pay is strictly commission. By failing to look and act professional (or conventional) you will not be able to deal with certain customers who for right or wrong won't *like* you. It costs you half of your income.
Remember, the company for all practical purposes IS on commission, they only get paid by customers who *want* to give them money.
Given that why should they let YOU represent the company when your appearance can only be a negative, and conventional appearance and demeanor would be neutral?
Unfortunately, it's just better to conform. And if you are a coder in the back room your ability to advance to a position that might pay much more can only be hindered by unprofessional appearance, especially if it would require your interacting with more people, especially those that might not know you.
I can hear it now: "Fred could do that job, but I just think some people might react badly to his piercings and tattoos, better give that promotion to John. Technically he is not as strong but he looks better in a suit." But you'll never hear it.
This goes back to a simple principle that has been discussed on /. for eons:
If your security was broken that just means your security wasn't good enough.
Why can't people take responsibility for themselves, meaning the universities and their contractors? This would not have happened if they had taken ordinary care.
You figure out a way to teach the average idiot not to run unknown executables and you'd eliminate 90% of the problem.
I don't think that is possible. Sad but true.
Microsoft's security model for their IE browser is so fatally flawed it is the second biggest cause of virus propagation in the world. The biggest is Outlook Express and HTML mail.
They should fix that. The biggest problem is the activeX, java and javascript you have to leave enabled all the time or it pops up alerts incessantly. You cannot turn those alerts off, and they did that on purpose.
There was a Microsoft developers meeting in Palm Desert, CA some years ago where a Microsoft guy said:
"All web developers should put a script, however unneeded at the beginning of every page to make sure the user turns scripting on and leaves it on."
Outrageous.
Now I have let their secrets out. There's gonna be hell to pay!
I think maybe spam is overrated.. with the right technology in place, it can be defeated. Although indiscriminite blacklisting by Orbs or whoever doesn't really help the situation :(
Overreated? You have lots of people working on solving the spam problem for you. LOTS of effort goes into maintaining those blacklists your provider uses to provide an acceptable spam level for you, and you find it meets your needs.
The only reason you think it might be overrrated is that you are not realizing what an effort is being put forth for you.
The retail boxed IDE drives had a 3 year warranty until a couple years ago, and they mostly made it that long. The new ones come with a 1 year warranty, and they will often barely make it. Sad.
But they *ARE* cheap now! 120mb for $39 after rebate a week or so ago. Wowee.
I guess I would rather pay more and have drives that were less likely to fail and take my data with them. Oh well.
A friend had a failure of a WD drive a year or so ago, and he asked me that very question. I know some engineers at WD, and this is what they said:
"If the drives are pretty close in serial number you might be able to do it. There are firmware changes during production and it is likely the change could make "this" PCBA not work with "that" HDA." So beware.
It took me a couple days to catch up with them and ask the question so by the time I got back to him he had sent it in under warranty.
I also know a guy who does failure analysis there, he would be the guy to help recover the actual data. I have known him >20 years. I imagine that would be childs play for him. Probably has all the software revs on hand. Heh.
I guess so, it was removed.
Call me cynical, but isn't the previous post spam?
2 05.0.html
??
http://www.jobs-junction.com/smf/index.php/topic,
Looks like it.
Again Apple wins the prize for "elegance". Yeah, that does make sense. MUCH better than storing our bookmarks in buckets.
The real way to solve your problem is with "delete."
But since you probably don't want to do that, a function that checks bookmarks for viability would help you a lot. I bet a lot of those sites you saved are long gone
You mean like there was in Netscape 4.77? Fantastic bookmark manager. Could search inline, check for dead links, etc. Firefox has nothing, IE is much worse.
Having historical bookmarks are VERY USEFUL, I have had people IM me and say "what do you know about 'this'". They are invariably amazed when I send them my bookmarks on the subject.
Nope. The specifically should NOT have to watch what is going on. But if the local telco is hosting spammers, for example, and the spam were somehow illegal, and they were informed, they can have some liability after they know. And I'll tell them.
Every other business has liability for what goes on in their facility. Example: Property owners are liable for hazardous conditions on their property, if they know about it.
Except ISPs. That needs to change.
All the money, from all spam and spyware. everywhere, is collected through US owned credit card companies.
If the credit card companies were threatened with a charge of conspiracy to promote spam/spyware/all the other immoral or illegal acts commited for money via the itnernet, it would stop overnight.
And if the telcos were financially responsible for spam coming from their networks (or even over their local loop)-- especially AFTER they are notified spam would stop overnight. The phone company would be out at the spammers site with a pair of wire cutters, now wouldn't they?
I wouldn't shed a tear if the liability were extended up to the credit card company and the ISPs and Telcos, they are getting paid.
FWIW, the part of law that shields ISPs and credit card companies from such liability is called "Safe Harbor".
Nothing in the above statement should be taken to imply that I do not support cruel and inhuman torture and/or death for anyone connected with the promotion/distribution of Spam/Spyware.
Agreed. But if the liability were splashed on the substantial players who are presently shielded things would change!