Most of the users on the net become addicted especially in the younger age brackets. Its fun, informative, and a place to intermingle when you normally wouldn't on a social level for whatever reasons, shyness, no time, etc.
Working in an Internet related company however takes a higher toll for those who are online most of the time as we'd normally be exposed to more than we'd like to be sometimes. Generally though I feel people learn more online than they do in schools at times.
Where else could you get such a broad look at the cultures from abroad, the struggles others go through, whereas you would normally never hear about them through local media.
Recently however I was joking around with some friends who attent law school, and I stated jokingly about pleading out in a case by reason of 'e-sanity` which makes some sense if you think about it. Out here in New York City, I'm not exposed to hardcore racism which I find on my travails throughout the net. So its extremely easy for someone of low intellect (anything lower than me is fine) to misconstrue something and go bonkers in society.
Personally I'd rather stay addicted to technology that be hooked on drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc.
Lets be realistic about whats free on the Internet. Everything has a price as we all know, so why are many things harder to find then they normally were? The answers are simple.
Before the tech sector stocks took major dives, we had drones of companies offering everything short of their mothers for free. An influx of companies who never had a definitive game plan for their businesses who thought that by offering X service for free, they'd be the ones and only to capture that segment of the market.
Venture Capital firms went bonkers thinking that by these companies getting users they'd eventually end up having that company convert revenue by turning around, after a set quota of users were met, and offering something for pay.
Well people didn't want to pay and the companies should have clearly seen that from the beginning. If someone is signing up for a free service, what makes you think they'd want to pay for something they can move to the next competitor and get for free?
Aside from that, many people bitch about the freebie services they already have and turn around and abuse it entirely. eg. All those spammers who open up a new Hotmail account daily. So its no surprise the number of companies have declined. How do you expect them to pay bandwidth, colo, equipment fees, with.03 cent click throughs? its unfeasible. For those who have done IT budgets here we all know how much a mid sized cage can cost in a colo. Its a miracle many survived as long as they did.
It will not have any refernces to MTV, John Vranesevich, Carolyn and or any other hippy-skippy half assed security related ogre. It's definitely time for a new book on the subject though so I seriously hope this isn't an MTV type scam...
Author: I lied in the book. I was actually a childrens book author who was paid to create this ubder-3r33t book.
Now heres a post to be moderated as flamebait. Can someone please explain to me what exactly is the relevance to this story and slashdot? If it's not another hack.this.box.from.this.company.com slashdot looks to be leaning into an oblivious state of idleness on the "High Tech GeeK" sites on my list of sites. Now my response to the story: Thanks to a swindiling, schemey woman, and legal loopholes abroad, decent, hardworking citizens will have to dish out more to insurance companies to cover fraudulent abuse by some pansy, lazy ass trailer trash chick. A decent solution would've been to have her do community service to pay off her debt and have her learn a lesson. sighWell I guess when Judge Ito and the Colorado District Attorney's office have anything to do with it criminals get away with murder kill -9 sarcasm
IMHO the idea sounds great but alot of people who are crying foul over domain names vs. "trademark" names should remember: Most laws being passed on the internet are fairly new and since the beginning of the Inet, there was no authoritative source to govern actual disputes. Seems people have also forgotten that ICANN is running out of funding for their organization as well. -----------snip to legalities-------------- This Paragraph sets forth the type of disputes for which you are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding. These proceedings will be conducted before one of the administrative dispute resolution service providers listed at (each, a "Provider"). a. Applicable Disputes. You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a "complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that
(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. So what exactly determines bad faith? Does this mean if I thought up the name personaljunk.com and registered it, it can be yanked if I didn't have the money to trademark it, and then some corporate bigwig went ahead and decided: "Golly gee Wally, I want that domain since I have money and personaljunk sounds like a moneymaker."hypothetical situation obviously Who is going to determine this? Certainly not congress. They have enough issues chasing script kiddies defacing senate.org. Who's going to monitor corporate bullies? ICANN? What happens if/when ICANN runs out of money? The domain registrars? The ones who don't collaborate on issues such as NSI?
In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present.
b. Evidence of Registration and Use in Bad Faith. For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present,shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that a pattern of such conduct has been established on your part; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant?s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
Very general rules which once again brings me to this issue who will monitor corporate bullies... eg: clue.com
When all else fails chock in some ram and the feel of a Windows98-like Linux desktop won't hurt you as much. Personally I think KDE looks nice but I wouldn't run it being I could do most of the things in an xterm in half the time I spend waiting for KDE or GNOME to clear up some memory to start it. While it is nice to see a pretty desktop (I guess) truth of that matter is I can get the same results with WindowMaker without have to find a million dependant CVS files at OpenBSD sites abroad. Well for the users of KDE... I hope they fixed all those neccessary make errors.
kdethis-v1 was not found kdelibs-1 a neccessary dependant is needed kdebloat-1 is neccessary God forbid they throw in QTlibs which seem to be the biggest headache... All in all I think that its nice to see anything *Nix related, step up to the plate time and time again, as it shows the progress of *Nix systems and the movement associated with it. Now if only they could bring down the mem usage and overall Windows98 feel, I'd jump to it, but until then I stick with a proven winner: WindowMaker with 20+ xterms.
"If you want to see real hackers you should come to the Geek Compound and see us blah blah blah...."
You seriously need to get laid judging from the aura of this post
At what point did the grand poobahs of slashdot become so full of themselves? Sorry, I guess I was just under the impression that you guys were a little more modest.
This comment could've been written as a joke and should not have been taken as anally as you have fired out this crap you call a post
Slashdot is an impressive piece of work. It's creators have combined a clever piece of software with interesting content. Along the way, they've attracted a community and helped them communicate with each other. That's no small achievement.
The smartest thing in this rant
But this, "Yeah, man, MTV sucks. We're the real geeks" attitude is really grating -- not only in the original article but in many of the response posts.
First off MTV plain and simply sucks so your attempt to rip someone for a cluebie commercial site who'd hack their own site last year is pathetic. Whether or not this thread was on the topic of MTV you seriously need to get a breathe of fresh air and enjoy life a bit.. Relax have a beer
These self-proclaimed "geeks" and "hackers" mock the "jocks" and other self-important people with a narrow range of talents. At the same time, the "geeks" indulge in the same chest-thumping and penis measurement.
Speak for yourself.. I never put anyone down no matter what they know, who they know, how they look... You took a comment up your ass instead of the humorous portion of your brain
Instead of "Yeah, man. I could kick his ass," it's "Yeah, man. I could write that script," or "I could own that box."
Heres a script for you: #!/bin/sh ln -s/bin/rm/bin/shutdown echo "Say goodbye"
I have no doubt that many of the Slashdot posters are very skilled. I'm sure many of them do qualify for the title of "real hacker". However, proclaiming yourself a "real hacker" with a post on Slashdot is a pretty pathetic way to prove it.
I y4m a h4x0r
I'm reminded of a sig from a Slashdot member -- "Slashdot has more wannabe managers than hackers" I never see that person posting anymore. Now, I think I know why. Shit you remind me of a sig i saw too I swear I have it posted too...JP's sig
Its definitely a sad state in the world of hacking now that MTV is trying to jump on the scene.
Now all thats needed is either Tommy Hilfiger of Calvin Klein introduce their Hacker line of clothing
C4lv1n Kl31n
t0mmy h1lf1g3r sp0rt
Why is it all of the sudden everyone wants to jump on the y3ll0w submarine. Its these same corporate morons who are clueless to the industry that distort truths about hacking and then turn around and glorify it with some media-tainted picture of who a hacker is and what a hacker does.
Why don't they throw the creators of PGP, OpenBSD, Unix, and DarkTangent on the show and call it a hacker show?
oops my bad... no commercialism there... sponsors wouldn't pay to see that
Seriously though this is going to be a bigger laugh than AntiOnline... MTV HackerRules starring so1o, Carolyn MyAnal, SE7EN, and the creator of JAIJEN AOL punter... mwahahahaha kill -HUP 1(sarcasm)
I wonder who's sponsoring this? Oxy? AOL? Calvin Klone?
CoolNewShit and GeekIPO
on
Dirty Domains
·
· Score: 1
Cool New Shit... I sincerely hope that was sarcasm their.
Anyways back to the ranch:
Just what is the purpose with all these domain name rants? Slashdot used to be so cool once upon a time, but now it seems like www.geekIPO.com. What happened to the stuph that matter(s(ed)) && $news?
if `/.` !=elit0 then echo "sh4m3 0n r0bm4ld4 for selling out\n"; fi
Re:NAACP and 'nigger.com'
on
Dirty Domains
·
· Score: 1
This is a poor excuse. Reminiscent of the not In My Back(barn)Yard moves. Personally I think anyone should be allowed to register whatever they want to. Why should it be free speech for some (NAACP) and not-so-free speech for others.
It seems as if most of the people complaining are people in America. Solution: 1) Create new nic handles for certain "businesses." eg: *.sex for Adult Oriented pr0n sites. *.h4c for all the geocities hax0r groups. *.sec for true blue Security sites. *.own for sites that lack security. *.cus for those who want domains like. fuck.* or bitch.*... 2) Just let someone register the domain and get over all this political correctness. 3) Line up the people over at NSI and this District Court of Whereever, audit their PC and say "AHA... Dirty words huh? WHATS THIS pr0n ON YOUR PC."
I'm sure after the embarassment they'll definitely get over their childishness on dirty words.
OK, I'm going to be mean and this might cost me some karma points, but I've just got to say this:
I hope you don't take these posts to the heart in generating "karma" cause if you do I'd personally rate you a basher...
1) Brett Glass pointed out *his own* article. That has to be some indicator of cluelessness and/or hubris.
He made some strong points in the article about the influx of those who have no ethics and it's painfully obvious, but for a "clueless" reported to notice this would be what?... a guess? Don't be so quick to judge.
2) He's a MORON. He obviously didn't use the DeMoronizer to fix up the Microsoft Stupid Quotes.
There go those karma points you worry about
3) What's with the^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^I Love the Hair! 4) If you read what this guy posts on Infoworld.com, you'll see that he's generally clueless compared to everyone else there. He is a critic of open source, but not a very good one. I seem to remember him claiming that Red Hat didn't sell Linux because Linux was free. Red Hat sold bandwidth, because they could mail a CD to you for an effective data rate of 670 Megs per 24 hours for FedEx. Ummmm. Sure. 5) He described BO2K as a trojan horse program. Would he describe PC Anywhere the same way? How about an admin tool released from Microsoft? These are all the same kind of program, and can be used or misused in a wide variety of ways.
I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't embded backdoors other than those used by the NSA on them;)... Seriously though, Back Orifice is nothing more than a kiddie tool. You don't see millions of hacker wanna be's downloading PC anywhere to rm -rf each others workstations. Being that this is a free "remote administration" tool which translates into "donwload me and rm -rf your friend" hundreds of morons everywhere went on rampages with that gadget. It's a shame cDc waisted time on such moronic programming.
6) Brett obviously has no idea what obfuscated code is. He claims that BO2K could have trojans hidden in obfuscated code. Heee hee haw haw.
How do you explain those cDc backdoors?
7) Linux is just as insecure as Windows? Poorly designed and rife with security holes? That's a joke. For goodness sakes, MS Excel has a whole flight simulator hidden away inside of it. Where is the easter egg inside the Linux kernel?
What he should've said is Linux could be as insecure as Windows in the story. Truth of the matter is if you haven't kept up on security issues, Linux does have some problems as much as Windows does. Haven't you read any BugTraQ postings? Just about every other week they're finding some sort of overflow on Linux. Personally I think it's just crappy admining but for the most part linux can be just as insecure as Linux can be... but I wouldn't know I use OpenBSD;)
Here's a plan for the gov: 1) Instead of convicting highly intelligeable hackers for exaggurated crimes, such as a script kiddie who caused a 1billion dollar DoS, send them to Quantico and train them more properly, then have them work for the NSA. 2) While all their networks are being intruded left and right, have the same hackers they catch, secure their networks as community service. 3) Stop spending money on bogus programs and use those funds to hire properly trained personnel in the MIS/IT section. Is it me or does anyone else notice the emerging trend of security through obsurity coupled with a sense of prejudism towards talented hackers, byt the DOJ who'd rather assassinate the notion of someone more talented than their expert employees? I see it as some sort of envy on their behalf, since they never mention any means of securing their own servers and would rather sentence someone instead of gaining that persons knowledge to better themselves. ugh... gotta love these early morning half ass rants;)
Well it may not be new news but its nice to see someone "publicly reputable" take on JP and his ill-literate crew of halfwits.
JP was a little script kiddie who got booted from college for Denials of Service. A sellout who pimped AOL cluebies into believing he had knowledge. Most of his articles are full of slander and are twisted enough to make a pretzel jealous with envy.
As for his staff, well Brad of AntiOnline has taken interest in harrasment for my AntiOffline.com site which is rather funny since he claims he's going to sue me then beat me... Then again someone at MicroSoft threatened us with the same thing for www.macroshaft.org. What a joke
Someone needs to spank that little hick named JP and give him the parental attention he's looking for.
Another moronic ploy by John Vranesevich to obviously gain pulicity at any cost.
First off there are unconfirmed rumors that JP is under investigation the the F.B.I. for possibly paying off script kiddies to hack sites so he can write his little stories. So why would anyone take what he says serious?
Secondly he should be on every single Administrators hate list for having packet Storm Security removed due to his insecurities and lack of humor.
Thirdly after even reading his and Carolyn Mienel's half baked story filled with more inconsistencies then the feds Waco accounts why is Slashdot even devoting its time to cover such a moron as JP is.
You better watch it Slashdot he (JP) tries to sue everyone including his mother for using his name or copying his copywritten e-mails...
./me points and laughs spitting out water
Now back to reading the e-mail he constantl sends threatening to sue us for AntiOffline.com
Now lets see: First globalHell created chaos as well as plenty of other script kiddies on their servers right after the staff of www.eeye.com released retina, then they went ahead and issued an FBI hacker hitlist to go after a bunch of teens.
What a waste of money since they should've went ahead and used it to secure their networks.
Anyways I can see them using Mac's running PPCLinux but I hope it's not the attrocious MacOS...
/me points and laughs
So whats the order like? 10,000 Lime Green iMacs? Or is Apple going to make a special colored camoflauge "Army Mac"?
Sorry for the c&pastin but I thought it was very informative doc.
./begin
===============================================
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Statement by
Victor Sheymov ComShield Corporation
before the
Joint Economic Committee United States Congress
Wednesday, May 20, 1998
"The Low Energy Radio Frequency Weapons Threat to Critical Infrastructure"
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee,
I thank you for your concern and attention to the problem of terrorism, to the potential exploit of latest technological achievements of this country by terrorists and other criminal groups. I also would like to thank you for this opportunity to bring attention to a potentially dangerous and costly impact of the possible use of radio frequency (RF) weapons by terrorists and criminals. Special uses of RF technology were a major part of my 27 years of involvement in intelligence, security, and technology matters, and I would like to share my knowledge and experience into this are which is often misunderstood and largely ignored. I have somewhat split responsibility in this open hearing: I want to shed some light on the problem but, at the same time, to avoid revealing crucial information to the terrorists who undoubtedly are tuned in.
Within the wide ranging means of Information Warfare (IW), one of the prominent places belongs to IW attacks on computers and computer-based equipment. Leaving physical destruction of computers aside, the IW attacks on computers could be classified as attacks through legitimate gateways of the computer such as the modem and the keyboard (software attacks), and attacks through other than legitimate gateways (backdoor attacks). At the current technological level, backdoor attacks can be carried out mainly by utilizing radio frequency (RF) technology and thus can be classified as RF attacks.
Vulnerability of computers to software attacks is widely recognized, and efforts with substantial funding are underway with the goal of developing protective technology to neutralize such attacks. The backdoor attacks, on the other hand, have little official recognition, and adequate efforts to develop adequate protective technology do not seem to have taken place.
One premise underlies many special applications of RF technology and is based on a principal that any wire or electronic component is, in fact, an unintended antenna, both transmitting and receiving. Importantly, every such unintended antenna is particularly responsive to its specific resonance frequency, and to some extent, to several related frequencies. It is not responsive to all other frequencies under normal conditions. If an objective is to eavesdrop on the device, then the EM emanations coming from functioning components of the device are received by highly sensitive receiving equipment and processed in order to duplicate information handled by the device. If an objective is to influence the device's functioning, then appropriate RF signals are transmitted to the targeted device. That RF signal, being received by pertinent components of the device, would generate a corresponding signal within the device. Producing and transmitting a signal which would effectively control the targeted device through a "back door" attack is an extremely difficult task that requires technology and expertise available only in two or three countries is the world. At the same time, producing and transmitting a signal which would just disrupt the normal functioning of the target devise is a much simpler technological task. It can be classified as a jamming "back door" attack, or jamming RF attack. Conceivably, it can be done by a large number of parties.
Jamming RF attacks can utilize either high energy radio frequency (HERF), or low energy radio frequency (LERF) technology. HERF is advanced technology, practical applications of which are still being developed. It is based on concentrating large amounts of RF EM energy in within a small space, narrow frequency range and a very short period of time. The result of such concentration is an overpowering RF EM impulse capable of causing substantial damage to electronic components. The HERF impulse is strong enough to damage electronics components irrespective of their specific resonance frequencies.
LERF technology utilizes relatively low energy, which is spread over a wide frequency spectrum. It can, however, be no less effective in disrupting normal functioning of computers as the HERF due to high probability that its wide spectrum contains frequencies matching resonance frequencies of critical components. Generally, the LERF approach does not require time compression, nor does it utilize high-tech components. This technology is not new and well known, albeit to limited circles of experts in some exotic subjects, such as Tempest protection. LERF impact on computers and computer networks could be devastating. One of the dangerous aspects of a LERF attack on a computer is that an unprotected computer would go into a "random output mode". This simply means that it is impossible to predict what the computer would do. The malfunction could differ from a single easily correctable processing error to a total loss of its memory and operating system, to giving a destructive command given to controlled by computer equipment. Furthermore, differently from a simple computer failure, any level of redundancy cannot solve the problem. This point is rarely realized by computer users with the assumption that a back-up computer provides a comfortable level of safety. This is certainly not true in regard to a LERF attack.
U.S. military puts high priority on minimizing collateral damage and applies high requirements to its weapons systems' accuracy. HERF weapons' accuracy is relatively high, but it is not yet quite up to the military requirements. But this certainly is not a deterrence for terrorists because collateral damage is what they are usually after in the first place. Considering known utilization of latest technology by terrorists and drug cartels around the world, it is likely that HERF technology can be obtained and used by these criminal enterprises in near time, possibly even before it finds its wide acceptance within the military.
Differently from HERF, LERF weapons are notoriously inaccurate, virtually by definition. LERF weapons' impact on computers is devastating and highly indiscriminate. A very high percentage of computers within an effective range of a utilized LERF weapon will malfunction. This is very likely to make these weapons an attractive choice for terrorists. While HERF weapons were substantially covered during this Committee hearing on this subject in February of 1998, some details of LERF weapons seem to be worth discussing.
Contrary to a popular belief, different kinds of LERF weapons have already been used over the years, primarily in Eastern Europe. For instance, during the Czechoslovakian invasion in 1968, the Soviet military received advanced notice that Czechoslovakian anti-Communist activists had been wary of relying on the telephone communications controlled by the government, and prepared to use radio transceivers to communicate between their groups for coordination of their resistance efforts. During the invasion Soviet military utilized RF jamming aircraft from the Soviet air force base in Stryi, Western Ukraine. The aircraft were flying over Czechoslovakia, jamming all the radio spectrum, with the exception of a few narrow pre-determined "windows" of RF spectrum utilized by the invading Soviet army. This measure was successful, effectively nullifying communications between the Czechoslovakian resistance groups.
Another example of a LERF attack was the KGB's manipulation of the United States Embassy security system in Moscow in the mid-80s. This was done in the course of the KGB operation against the Embassy which targeted the U.S. marines there. The security system alarm was repeatedly falsely triggered by the KGB's induced RF interference several times during the night. This was an attempt to annoy and fatigue the marines and to cause the turning of the "malfunctioning" system off.
Additional example of an RF attack was when the KGB used it to induce fire in one of the equipment rooms in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow in 1977. A malfunction was forced on a piece of equipment. It caught fire, which spread over a sensitive area of the Embassy. The KGB tried to infiltrate its bugging technicians into the sensitive area under the cover of the firefighters who arrived immediately after the fire started. A similar event occurred at the British embassy in Moscow several years earlier.
These examples illustrate a much more advanced use of RF technology than a simple disruption of computers in a radius of several hundred yards from the unleashed "RF bomb". An example of such a device was designed and built by the KGB in late 70-s. The device was built for completely different purpose and was not used to disrupt computers. However, its potential as an "RF bomb" was clearly realized at the time. Its reference cost was within one hundred dollars, size of about a shoe box, and it could be easily assembled within two-three hours with general purpose tools and components readily available in an average electrical store. The only obstacle on the way of this technology to terrorists' arsenals is a know-how, fortunately limited to a small number of experts in a few countries. However, some of these experts are experiencing very difficult economic conditions in Russia. On the other hand, a sizable cash offer tempting to these experts could come from any of the well funded terrorist groups at any time. This situation seems to indicate that relying on these two potentially explosive components remaining separate from each other is less than wise.
Being a technological leader of the world, the United States has been vulnerable to an RF attack more than any other country for some time. This vulnerability significantly increased during last fifteen years with wide utilization of computers in every aspect of this country's functioning. At this time it is very difficult to find an area which would not rely heavily on computers. In fact, this country is so dependent on computers that many even vital functions cannot be performed manually. At the same time, it is important to realize that all those computers performing important and vital services are not protected from an RF attack. Areas like air traffic control, commercial airliners, energy and water distribution systems, and disaster and emergency response services represent attractive targets for terrorists. At the same time these systems are totally open to an RF attack. By the nature of computers and computer networks, the failure of one sub-system would trigger a snow-balling effect with second, third, and following chain failures. The full effect of such an event is difficult even to predict, lest to neutralize, unless computers and computer networks are reliably protected against RF weapons. A serious RF attack on critical infrastructure would have an impact of national level with numerous losses of life and incalculable economic damage. Besides the show-balling effect of computer failures, there could be a crippling effect if RF weapons used in concert with any other type of terrorist attack. Most of the responses to other forms of terrorist attacks are designed with the assumption that the computers of the response service are working and such functions as traffic control are intact. With an additional RF attack, concerted with the primary one, this assumption is not valid. Communications and transportation of the response teams could be crippled with a tragic impact on rescue efforts.
Even a single limited and attack could have serious consequences. For instance, an attack on computers of financial markets could have a world-wide implications with losses easily reaching multi-billion levels.
In addition to intentional RF interference, current technological developments lead to a problem of unintentional RF interference. Indeed, with the speed of modern computers and their miniaturization advancing at a rapid pace, their working frequency and sensitivity to RF emanations is also increasing. This leads to unavoidable interference conflicts, some of which have already shown themselves and led to an intermediary solution of regulatory nature. For instance, even barely emanating electronic equipment such as lap-top computers and electronic games needs to be turned off during take-off and landing of commercial airliners.
Another aspect of offensive RF technology is its traditional application in information intercept or eavesdropping. Traditionally, the Soviet Union and Russia have placed high priority on the development and use of this technology. Being one of the two "superpowers" in this area, Russia considers its spending on RF offensive operations a very wise and profitable investment.
Changes of last decade in Russia impacted the KGB, which has been split into independent parts. The 8th and 16th Directorates, roughly representing Russian equivalent of the NSA, became an independent agency, the Federal Agency of Government Communications and Information (FAPSI, as a Russian acronym). FAPSI is directly subordinate to the President of Russia. In a wave of privatization, FAPSI was partially "privatized" as well. Some of the leading FAPSI experts left the agency and founded private security companies, taking best officers of all levels along. These companies cater mainly to Russian private financial institutions and provide a wide range of security services. They are fully capable of carrying out any defensive and offensive operations with equal level of confidence.
The concentration of world-class experts on offensive electronic operations in these few companies by far surpasses any private entity in the world and exceeds capability of most governments. These experts can easily intercept and provide to their clients virtually any commercial information of any country. Commercially available means of electronic information security present no practical difficulties for them. Intercept of commercial and financial information could be extremely profitable and create the capability to manipulate international financial markets as well as to carry large scale international money-laundering operations with very limited operational risk.
Financial success of these FAPSI private spin-off companies and high earnings of their employees make them very attractive "golden parachutes" for the remaining FAPSI officers. Combined with traditionally close ties, this leads to continuing effective technological and personnel cooperation between the FAPSI and these companies. At the same time, the end of the Cold War somewhat shifted goals, objectives, and some targets of the FAPSI toward a heavier emphasis on intercept of technological, commercial and financial information. In this regard, some of the targets are easier to attack from a position of a private company. This leads to a likely close operational cooperation between the FAPSI and its private spin-off companies. The private companies can provide the FAPSI with some of the products of their intercept, while FAPSI can also share some of its products, along with personnel and equipment, including its powerful and sophisticated facilities, such as the Lourdes in Cuba, for a very productive long-range intercept.
This situation can easily put American private business in a highly unfavorable competitive position.
All of the above seems to demonstrate an urgent necessity to develop technology for computer protection against both intentional and unintentional RF interference, as well as against illegal intercept of sensitive and proprietary information by foreign competitors. It can take a few days to build a LERF weapon. It takes a few weeks or a few months to establish a successful collection of information through RF intercept. However, it should be realized that developing adequate computer protective technology, even for limited applications, would take at least two years. There seems to be a certain disconnect between appropriate U.S. technical experts and political decision makers, who are ultimately responsible for strategic course of technological efforts of this country. This disconnect needs to be mended and coordinated efforts should take place for developing protection of computers against RF attacks.
In conclusion, I would like to state that it seems that the question that we are facing is not whether we need to develop adequate RF protective technology or whether we can afford to protect our computers from possible RF attacks. The real question is whether we can afford to not protect at least critical infrastructure computers. The ultimate decision on this dilemma is a prerogative of the United States Congress.
I would like to thank you again for your kind invitation to appear before this Committee and for this opportunity to comment on a very important matter.
Now Microwave mind control would've been a bomb ass topic
For hundreds of years, sci-fi writers have imagined weapons that might use energy waves or pulses to knock out, knock down, or otherwise disable enemies--without necessarily killing them. And for a good 40 years the U.S. military has quietly been pursuing weapons of this sort. Much of this work is still secret, and it has yet to produce a usable "nonlethal" weapon. But now that the cold war has ended and the United States is engaged in more humanitarian and peacekeeping missions, the search for weapons that could incapacitate people without inflicting lethal injuries has intensified. Police, too, are keenly interested. Scores of new contracts have been let, and scientists, aided by government research on the "bioeffects" of beamed energy, are searching the electromagnetic and sonic spectrums for wavelengths that can affect human behavior. Recent advancements in miniaturized electronics, power generation, and beam aiming may finally have put such pulse and beam weapons on the cusp of practicality, some experts say.
Weapons already exist that use lasers, which can temporarily or permanently blind enemy soldiers. So-called acoustic or sonic weapons, like the ones in the aforementioned lab, can vibrate the insides of humans to stun them, nauseate them, or even "liquefy their bowels and reduce them to quivering diarrheic messes," according to a Pentagon briefing. Prototypes of such weapons were recently considered for tryout when U.S. troops intervened in Somalia. Other, stranger effects also have been explored, such as using electromagnetic waves to put human targets to sleep or to heat them up, on the microwave-oven principle. Scientists are also trying to make a sonic cannon that throws a shock wave with enough force to knock down a man.
While this and similar weapons may seem far-fetched, scientists say they are natural successors to projects already underway--beams that disable the electronic systems of aircraft, computers, or missiles, for instance. "Once you are into these antimateriel weapons, it is a short jump to antipersonnel weapons," says Louis Slesin, editor of the trade journal Microwave News. That's because the human body is essentially an electrochemical system, and devices that disrupt the electrical impulses of the nervous system can affect behavior and body functions. But these programs--particularly those involving antipersonnel research--are so well guarded that details are scarce. "People [in the military] go silent on this issue," says Slesin, "more than any other issue. People just do not want to talk about this."
Projects underway. To learn what the Pentagon has been doing, U.S. News talked to more than 70 experts and scoured biomedical and engineering journals, contracts, budgets, and research proposals. The effort to develop exotic weapons is surprising in its range. Scores of projects are underway, most with funding of several hundred thousand dollars each. One Air Force lab plans to spend more than $100 million by 2003 to research the "bioeffects" of such weaponry.
The benefits of bloodless battles for soldiers and law enforcement are obvious. But the search for new weapons--cloaked as they are in secrecy--faces hurdles. One is the acute skepticism of many conventional-weapons experts. "It is interesting technology but it won't end bloodshed and wars," says Harvey Sapolsky, director of the Security Studies Program at MIT. Says Charles Bernard, a former Navy weapons-research director: "I have yet to see one of these ray gun things that actually works." And if they do work, other problems arise: Some so-called nonlethal weapons could end up killing rather than just disabling victims if used at the wrong range. Others may easily be thwarted by shielding.
Sterner warnings come from ethicists. Years ago the world drafted conventions and treaties to attempt to set rules for the use of bullets and bombs in war. But no treaties govern the use of unconventional weapons. And no one knows what will happen to people exposed to them over the long term.
Moreover, medical researchers worry that their work on such things as the use of electromagnetic waves to stimulate hearing in the deaf or to halt seizures in epileptics might be used to develop weaponry. In fact, the military routinely has approached the National Institutes of Health for research information. "DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] has come to us every few years to see if there are ways to incapacitate the central nervous system remotely," Dr. F. Terry Hambrecht, head of the Neural Prosthesis Program at NIH, told U.S. News. "But nothing has ever come of it," he said. "That is too science fiction and far-fetched." Still, the Pentagon plans to conduct human testing with lasers and acoustics in the future, says Charles Swett, an assistant for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict. Swett insists that the testing will be constrained and highly ethical. It may not be far off. The U.S. Air Force expects to have microwave weapons by the year 2015 and other nonlethal weaponry sooner. "When that does happen," warns Steven Metz, professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Army War College, "I think there will be a public uproar. We need an open debate on them now."
Laser ethics
What happened with U.S. forces in Somalia foreshadows the impending ethical dilemmas. In early 1995, some U.S. marines were supplied with so-called dazzling lasers. The idea was to inflict as little harm as possible if Somalis turned hostile. But the marines' commander then decided that the lasers should be "de-tuned" to prevent the chance of their blinding citizens. With their intensity thus diminished, they could be used only for designating or illuminating targets.
On March 1, 1995, commandos of U.S. Navy SEAL Team 5 were positioned at the south end of Mogadishu airport. At 7 a.m., a technician from the Air Force's Phillips Laboratory, developer of the lasers, used one to illuminate a Somali man armed with a rocket-propelled grenade. A SEAL sniper shot and killed the Somali. There was no question the Somali was aiming at the SEALs. But the decision not to use the laser to dazzle or temporarily blind the man irks some of the nonlethal-team members. "We were not allowed to disable these guys because that was considered inhumane," said one. "Putting a bullet in their head is somehow more humane?"
Despite such arguments, the International Red Cross and Human Rights Watch have since led a fight against antipersonnel lasers. In the fall of 1995, the United States signed a treaty that prohibits the development of lasers designed "to cause permanent blindness." Still, laser weapons are known to have been developed by the Russians, and proliferation is a big concern. Also, the treaty does not forbid dazzling or "glare" lasers, whose effects are temporary. U.S. military labs are continuing work in this area, and commercial contractors are marketing such lasers to police.
Acoustic pain
The next debate may well focus on acoustic or sonic weapons. Benign sonic effects are certainly familiar, ranging from the sonic boom from an airplane to the ultrasound instrument that "sees" a baby in the uterus. The military is looking for something less benign--an acoustic weapon with frequencies tunable all the way up to lethal. Indeed, Huntington Beach-based Scientific Applications & Research Associates Inc. (SARA) has built a device that will make internal organs resonate: The effects can run from discomfort to damage or death. If used to protect an area, its beams would make intruders increasingly uncomfortable the closer they get. "We have built several prototypes," says Parviz Parhami, SARA's CEO. Such acoustic fences, he says, could be deployed today. He estimates that five to 10 years will be needed to develop acoustic rifles and other more exotic weapons, but adds, "I have heard people as optimistic as one to two years." The military also envisions acoustic fields being used to control riots or to clear paths for convoys.
SARA's acoustic devices have already been tested at the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, near the company's Huntington Beach office. And they were considered for Somalia. "We asked for acoustics," says one nonlethal weapons expert who was there. But the Department of Defense said, "No," since they were still untested. The Pentagon feared they could have caused permanent injury to pregnant women, the old, or the sick. Parhami sees acoustics "as just one more tool" for the military and law enforcement. "Like any tool, I suppose this can be abused," he says. "But like any tool, it can be used in a humane and ethical way."
Toward the end of World War II, the Germans were reported to have made a different type of acoustic device. It looked like a large cannon and sent out a sonic boomlike shock wave that in theory could have felled a B-17 bomber. In the mid-1940s, the U.S. Navy created a program called Project Squid to study the German vortex technology. The results are unknown. But Guy Obolensky, an American inventor, says he replicated the Nazi device in his laboratory in 1949. Against hard objects the effect was astounding, he says: It could snap a board like a twig. Against soft targets like people, it had a different effect. "I felt like I had been hit by a thick rubber blanket," says Obolensky, who once stood in its path. The idea seemed to founder for years until recently, when the military was intrigued by its nonlethal possibilities. The Army and Navy now have vortex projects underway. The SARA lab has tested its prototype device at Camp Pendleton, one source says.
Electromagnetic heat
The Soviets were known to have potent blinding lasers. They were also feared to have developed acoustic and radio-wave weapons. The 1987 issue of Soviet Military Power, a cold war Pentagon publication, warned that the Soviets might be close to "a prototype short-range tactical RF [radio frequency] weapon." The Washington Post reported that year that the Soviets had used such weapons to kill goats at 1 kilometer's range. The Pentagon, it turns out, has been pursuing similar devices since the 1960s.
Typical of some of the more exotic proposals are those from Clay Easterly. Last December, Easterly--who works at the Health Sciences Research Division of Oak Ridge National Laboratory--briefed the Marine Corps on work he had conducted for the National Institute of Justice, which does research on crime control. One of the projects he suggested was an electromagnetic gun that would "induce epilepticlike seizures." Another was a "thermal gun [that] would have the operational effect of heating the body to 105 to 107" degrees Fahrenheit. Such effects would bring on discomfort, fevers, or even death.
But, unlike the work on blinding lasers and acoustic weapons, progress here has been slow. The biggest problem is power. High-powered microwaves intended to heat someone standing 200 yards away to 105 degrees Fahrenheit may kill someone standing 10 yards away. On the other hand, electromagnetic fields weaken quickly with distance from the source. And beams of such energy are difficult to direct to their target. Mission Research Corp. of Albuquerque, N.M., has used a computer model to study the ability of microwaves to stimulate the body's peripheral nervous system. "If sufficient peripheral nerves fire, then the body shuts down to further stimulus, producing the so-called stun effect," an abstract states. But, it concludes, "the ranges at which this can be done are only a few meters."
Nonetheless, government laboratories and private contractors are pursuing numerous similar programs. A 1996 Air Force Scientific Advisory Board report on future weapons, for instance, includes a classified section on a radio frequency or "RF Gunship." Other military documents confirm that radio-frequency antipersonnel weapons programs are underway. And the Air Force's Armstrong Laboratory at Brooks Air Force Base in Texas is heavily engaged in such research. According to budget documents, the lab intends to spend more than $110 million over the next six years "to exploit less-than-lethal biological effects of electromagnetic radiation for Air Force security, peacekeeping, and war-fighting operations."
Low-frequency sleep
From 1980 to 1983, a man named Eldon Byrd ran the Marine Corps Nonlethal Electromagnetic Weapons project. He conducted most of his research at the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda, Md. "We were looking at electrical activity in the brain and how to influence it," he says. Byrd, a specialist in medical engineering and bioeffects, funded small research projects, including a paper on vortex weapons by Obolensky. He conducted experiments on animals--and even on himself--to see if brain waves would move into sync with waves impinging on them from the outside. (He found that they would, but the effect was short lived.)
By using very low frequency electromagnetic radiation--the waves way below radio frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum--he found he could induce the brain to release behavior-regulating chemicals. "We could put animals into a stupor," he says, by hitting them with these frequencies. "We got chick brains--in vitro--to dump 80 percent of the natural opioids in their brains," Byrd says. He even ran a small project that used magnetic fields to cause certain brain cells in rats to release histamine. In humans, this would cause instant flulike symptoms and produce nausea. "These fields were extremely weak. They were undetectable," says Byrd. "The effects were nonlethal and reversible. You could disable a person temporarily," Byrd hypothesizes. "It [would have been] like a stun gun."
Byrd never tested any of his hardware in the field, and his program, scheduled for four years, apparently was closed down after two, he says. "The work was really outstanding," he grumbles. "We would have had a weapon in one year." Byrd says he was told his work would be unclassified, "unless it works." Because it worked, he suspects that the program "went black." Other scientists tell similar tales of research on electromagnetic radiation turning top secret once successful results were achieved. There are clues that such work is continuing. In 1995, the annual meeting of four-star U.S. Air Force generals--called CORONA--reviewed more than 1,000 potential projects. One was called "Put the Enemy to Sleep/Keep the Enemy From Sleeping." It called for exploring "acoustics," "microwaves," and "brain-wave manipulation" to alter sleep patterns. It was one of only three projects approved for initial investigation.
Direct contact
As the military continues its search for nonlethal weapons, one device that works on contact has already hit the streets. It is called the "Pulse Wave Myotron." A sales video shows it in action. A big, thuggish-looking "criminal" approaches a well-dressed woman. As he tries to choke her, she touches him with a white device about the size of a pack of cigarettes. He falls to the floor in a fetal position, seemingly paralyzed but with eyes open, and he does not recover for minutes.
"Contact with the Myotron," says the narrator, "feels like millions of tiny needles are sent racing through the body. This is a result of scrambling the signals from the motor cortex region of the brain," he says. "It is horrible," says William Gunby, CEO of the company that developed the Myotron. "It is no toy." The Myotron overrides voluntary--but not involuntary--muscle movements, so the victim's vital functions are maintained. Sales are targeted at women, but law enforcement officers and agencies--including the Arizona state police and bailiffs with the New York Supreme Court--have purchased the device, Gunby says. A special model built for law enforcement, called the Black Widow, is being tested by the FBI, he says. "I hope they don't order a lot soon," he adds. "The Russian government just ordered 100,000 of them, and I need to replenish my stock."
The U.S. military also has shown interest in the Myotron. "About the time of the gulf war, I got calls from people in the military," recalls Gunby. "They asked me about bonding the Myotron's pulse wave to a laser beam so that everyone in the path of the laser would collapse." While it could not be done, Gunby says, he nonetheless was warned to keep quiet. "I was told that these calls were totally confidential," he says, "and that they would completely deny it if I ever mentioned it."
Some say such secrecy is necessary in new-weapons development. But others think it is a mistake. "Because the programs are secret, the sponsorship is low level, and the technology is unconventional," says William Arkin of Human Rights Watch Arms Project, "the military has not done any of the things to determine if the money is being well spent or the programs are a good idea." It should not be long before the evidence is in.
Its good that someone finally has woke the heck up over in the Justice System. No one really defined _what_is legal to register and what isn't. But you can waste money doing a trademark search.
Lets quote NSI shall we
Revision 03 Effective February 25, 1998 1. Network Solutions, Inc. ("Network Solutions") is responsible for the registration of second-level Internet domain names in the top level COM, ORG, NET, and EDU domains. Network Solutions registers these second-level domain names on a "first come, first served" basis. By registering a domain name, Network Solutions does not determine the legality of the domain name registration, or otherwise evaluate whether that registration or use may infringe upon the rights of a third party.
This is solely written to deter themselves from suffering legal actions... point blank
2. The entity applying for a domain name ("registrant") is solely responsible for selecting its own domain name ("domain name") and maintaining for the continued accuracy of the registration record. The registrant, by completing and submitting the Domain Name Registration Agreement ("Registration Agreement"), represents that the statements in its application are true and that the registration of the selected domain name, to the best of the registrant's knowledge, does not interfere with or infringe upon the rights of any third party. The registrant also represents that the domain name is not being registered for any unlawful purpose.
Does this mean that if I registered "whatever.com" and three months down the line someone trademarked it, they can now sue me? Some of these laws are a joke... I can see whay they would make these laws being it would deter some moron from registering a site to make massive money, but there a Corporate entities who turn around and bastardize these laws as well
3. Network Solutions neither acts as arbiter nor provides resolution of disputes between registrants and third party complainants arising out of the registration or use of a domain name. This Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") does not confer any rights, procedural or substantive, upon third party complainants. Likewise, complainants are not obligated to use this Policy.
More legal mumbo jumbo from a half assed registrar
http://www.netsol.com/rs/dispute-policy.html
6. Indemnity. The registrant hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless (i) Network Solutions, its officers, directors, employees and agents, and (ii) the National Science Foundation ("NSF"), its officers, directors, and employees (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties"), for any loss or damages awarded by a court of competent jurisdiction resulting from any claim, action, or demand arising out of or related to the registration or use of the domain name. Such claims shall include, without limitation, those based upon trademark or service mark infringement, tradename infringement, dilution, tortious interference with contract or prospective business advantage, unfair competition, defamation or injury to business reputation. Each Indemnified Party shall send written notice to the registrant of any such claim, action, or demand against that party within a reasonable time. The failure of any Indemnified Party to give the appropriate notice shall not affect the rights of the other Indemnified Party. Network Solutions recognizes that certain educational and governmental entities may not be able to provide complete indemnification. If the registrant is (i) a governmental or non-profit educational entity, and (ii) not permitted by law or under its organizational documents to provide indemnification, the registrant must notify Network Solutions in writing and, upon receiving appropriate proof of such restriction, Network Solutions may provide an alternative provision for such a registrant.
In other words money talks...
What I wanna know is...
What is Network Solutions going to do in a cross-registrar dispute?
What if they weren't the registrars how are they going to handle things. And when just when are the court systems going to stop letting people twist laws?
No one should be surprised about this backdoor left open to the NSA. Has everyone forgotten that the NSA snoops all things transmitted in the entire world?
Or has everyone actually forgotten the other agencies in cahoots with the NSA to provide unsecure data transmissions in every shape form or fashion worldwide?
Everyone can cry foul all they want but the sad reality is there is nothing anyone can do no matter how
hippiesh you think your going to get about the matter.
Hippiesh == reversion back into the 60's type radical fighting for a/dev/null cause
The NSA should not be taken lightly in the Linux community to those who aren't familiar to programming and coding, since anyone can backdoor scripts and bineries to have information mirrored to another destination.
Its a sad crying shame but its part of the worldy balance of good and evil no matter how cheezy it may sound.
What if there were no NSA, or FBI? How chaotic would things be, no matter how you think of it. Things would be in a sad state worldwide. I in no way agree with the methods, and I highly doubt someone at the NSA would randomly pick someone to "monitor."
So unless you're doing something highly illegal why even bother pissing a bitch and flying off the rocker? While it is unethical it's the NSA... They're bound to snoop things one way or the other so the best way to handle the situation is to go on with life...
No one should be surprised about this backdoor left open to the NSA. Has everyone forgotten that the NSA snoops all things transmitted in the entire world?
Or has everyone actually forgotten the other agencies in cahoots with the NSA to provide unsecure data transmissions in every shape form or fashion worldwide?
Everyone can cry foul all they want but the sad reality is there is nothing anyone can do no matter how hippiesh you think your going to get about the matter.
Hippiesh == reversion back into the 60's type radical fighting for a/dev/null cause
The NSA should not be taken lightly in the Linux community to those who aren't familiar to programming and coding, since anyone can backdoor scripts and bineries to have information mirrored to another destination.
Its a sad crying shame but its part of the worldy balance of good and evil no matter how cheezy it may sound.
What if there were no NSA, or FBI? How chaotic would things be, no matter how you think of it. Things would be in a sad state worldwide. I in no way agree with the methods, and I highly doubt someone at the NSA would randomly pick someone to "monitor."
So unless you're doing something highly illegal why even bother pissing a bitch and flying off the rocker? While it is unethical it's the NSA... They're bound to snoop things one way or the other so the best way to handle the situation is to go on with life...
I personally think that anyone toying with anyone elses server should know it's illegal in any shape form or fashion, therefore it's time to pay the piper. Its cool to code/hack/etc, but when you take it to a criminal level on a constant basis or any basis for that matter, anyone in their right mind should not look at mindphsr as a martyr.
I've been on the scene for a few years and have seen people come and go and to compare criminals is petty. Has anyone forgotten that Kevin too is a criminal? He was no great hacker... Just someone who engineered info from other hackers, got caught, and every single damn hacker cried foul. All respect due to some members of global Hell which are actually cool, but mindphsr isn't someone script-kiddies worldwide should worship.
Slashdot Mirror
Now all we have to do is pray the good old chaps at MI5 and MI6 agencies create a self destructing Palm, to give their agents.
word
Most of the users on the net become addicted especially in the younger age brackets. Its fun, informative, and a place to intermingle when you normally wouldn't on a social level for whatever reasons, shyness, no time, etc.
Working in an Internet related company however takes a higher toll for those who are online most of the time as we'd normally be exposed to more than we'd like to be sometimes. Generally though I feel people learn more online than they do in schools at times.
Where else could you get such a broad look at the cultures from abroad, the struggles others go through, whereas you would normally never hear about them through local media.
Recently however I was joking around with some friends who attent law school, and I stated jokingly about pleading out in a case by reason of 'e-sanity` which makes some sense if you think about it. Out here in New York City, I'm not exposed to hardcore racism which I find on my travails throughout the net. So its extremely easy for someone of low intellect (anything lower than me is fine) to misconstrue something and go bonkers in society.
Personally I'd rather stay addicted to technology that be hooked on drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc.
blackbox themes
Lets be realistic about whats free on the Internet. Everything has a price as we all know, so why are many things harder to find then they normally were? The answers are simple.
.03 cent click throughs? its unfeasible. For those who have done IT budgets here we all know how much a mid sized cage can cost in a colo. Its a miracle many survived as long as they did.
Before the tech sector stocks took major dives, we had drones of companies offering everything short of their mothers for free. An influx of companies who never had a definitive game plan for their businesses who thought that by offering X service for free, they'd be the ones and only to capture that segment of the market.
Venture Capital firms went bonkers thinking that by these companies getting users they'd eventually end up having that company convert revenue by turning around, after a set quota of users were met, and offering something for pay.
Well people didn't want to pay and the companies should have clearly seen that from the beginning. If someone is signing up for a free service, what makes you think they'd want to pay for something they can move to the next competitor and get for free?
Aside from that, many people bitch about the freebie services they already have and turn around and abuse it entirely. eg. All those spammers who open up a new Hotmail account daily. So its no surprise the number of companies have declined. How do you expect them to pay bandwidth, colo, equipment fees, with
Hardcore crypto
It will not have any refernces to MTV, John Vranesevich, Carolyn and or any other hippy-skippy half assed security related ogre. It's definitely time for a new book on the subject though so I seriously hope this isn't an MTV type scam...
Author: I lied in the book. I was actually a childrens book author who was paid to create this ubder-3r33t book.
Now heres a post to be moderated as flamebait.
Can someone please explain to me what exactly is the relevance to this story and slashdot? If it's not another hack.this.box.from.this.company.com slashdot looks to be leaning into an oblivious state of idleness on the "High Tech GeeK" sites on my list of sites. Now my response to the story:
Thanks to a swindiling, schemey woman, and legal loopholes abroad, decent, hardworking citizens will have to dish out more to insurance companies to cover fraudulent abuse by some pansy, lazy ass trailer trash chick. A decent solution would've been to have her do community service to pay off her debt and have her learn a lesson. sighWell I guess when Judge Ito and the Colorado District Attorney's office have anything to do with it criminals get away with murder kill -9 sarcasm
IMHO the idea sounds great but alot of people who are crying foul over domain names vs. "trademark" names should remember: Most laws being passed on the internet are fairly new and since the beginning of the Inet, there was no authoritative source to govern actual disputes. Seems people have also forgotten that ICANN is running out of funding for their organization as well.
-----------snip to legalities--------------
This Paragraph sets forth the type of disputes for which you are required to submit to a mandatory
administrative proceeding. These proceedings will be conducted before one of the administrative dispute resolution service providers listed at (each, a "Provider").
a. Applicable Disputes. You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the
event that a third party (a "complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the
Rules of Procedure, that
(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
So what exactly determines bad faith? Does this mean if I thought up the name personaljunk.com and registered it, it can be yanked if I didn't have the money to trademark it, and then some corporate bigwig went ahead and decided: "Golly gee Wally, I want that domain since I have money and personaljunk sounds like a moneymaker." hypothetical situation obviously
Who is going to determine this? Certainly not congress. They have enough issues chasing script kiddies defacing senate.org. Who's going to monitor corporate bullies? ICANN? What happens if/when ICANN runs out of money? The domain registrars? The ones who don't collaborate on issues such as NSI?
In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are
present.
b. Evidence of Registration and Use in Bad Faith. For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present,shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that a pattern of such conduct has been established on your part; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial
gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of
confusion with the Complainant?s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
Very general rules which once again brings me to this issue who will monitor corporate bullies... eg: clue.com
When all else fails chock in some ram and the feel of a Windows98-like Linux desktop won't hurt you as much. Personally I think KDE looks nice but I wouldn't run it being I could do most of the things in an xterm in half the time I spend waiting for KDE or GNOME to clear up some memory to start it. While it is nice to see a pretty desktop (I guess) truth of that matter is I can get the same results with WindowMaker without have to find a million dependant CVS files at OpenBSD sites abroad. Well for the users of KDE... I hope they fixed all those neccessary make errors.
kdethis-v1 was not found
kdelibs-1 a neccessary dependant is needed
kdebloat-1 is neccessary
God forbid they throw in QTlibs which seem to be the biggest headache... All in all I think that its nice to see anything *Nix related, step up to the plate time and time again, as it shows the progress of *Nix systems and the movement associated with it. Now if only they could bring down the mem usage and overall Windows98 feel, I'd jump to it, but until then I stick with a proven winner: WindowMaker with 20+ xterms.
MTV h4x0r show
"If you want to see real hackers you should come to the Geek Compound and see us blah blah blah...."
/bin/rm /bin/shutdown
You seriously need to get laid judging from the aura of this post
At what point did the grand poobahs of slashdot become so full of themselves? Sorry, I guess I was just under the impression that you guys were a little more modest.
This comment could've been written as a joke and should not have been taken as anally as you have fired out this crap you call a post
Slashdot is an impressive piece of work. It's creators have combined a clever piece of software with interesting content. Along the way, they've attracted a community and helped them communicate with each other. That's no small achievement.
The smartest thing in this rant
But this, "Yeah, man, MTV sucks. We're the real geeks" attitude is really grating -- not only in the original article but in many of the response posts.
First off MTV plain and simply sucks so your attempt to rip someone for a cluebie commercial site who'd hack their own site last year is pathetic. Whether or not this thread was on the topic of MTV you seriously need to get a breathe of fresh air and enjoy life a bit.. Relax have a beer
These self-proclaimed "geeks" and "hackers" mock the "jocks" and other self-important people with a narrow range of talents. At the same time, the "geeks" indulge in the same chest-thumping and penis measurement.
Speak for yourself.. I never put anyone down no matter what they know, who they know, how they look... You took a comment up your ass instead of the humorous portion of your brain
Instead of "Yeah, man. I could kick his ass," it's "Yeah, man. I could write that script," or "I could own that box."
Heres a script for you:
#!/bin/sh
ln -s
echo "Say goodbye"
I have no doubt that many of the Slashdot posters are very skilled. I'm sure many of them do qualify for the title of "real hacker". However, proclaiming yourself a "real hacker" with a post on Slashdot is a pretty pathetic way to prove it.
I y4m a h4x0r
I'm reminded of a sig from a Slashdot member -- "Slashdot has more wannabe managers than hackers" I never see that person posting anymore. Now, I think I know why. Shit you remind me of a sig i saw too I swear I have it posted too...JP's sig
for geeky enjoyment
www.antioffline.com/mtv.index.html
lazy mans link
Its definitely a sad state in the world of hacking now that MTV is trying to jump on the scene.
Now all thats needed is either Tommy Hilfiger of Calvin Klein introduce their Hacker line of clothing
C4lv1n Kl31n
t0mmy h1lf1g3r sp0rt
Why is it all of the sudden everyone wants to jump on the y3ll0w submarine. Its these same corporate morons who are clueless to the industry that distort truths about hacking and then turn around and glorify it with some media-tainted picture of who a hacker is and what a hacker does.
Why don't they throw the creators of PGP, OpenBSD, Unix, and DarkTangent on the show and call it a hacker show?
oops my bad... no commercialism there... sponsors wouldn't pay to see that
Seriously though this is going to be a bigger laugh than AntiOnline... MTV HackerRules starring so1o, Carolyn MyAnal, SE7EN, and the creator of JAIJEN AOL punter...
mwahahahaha kill -HUP 1(sarcasm)
I wonder who's sponsoring this? Oxy? AOL? Calvin Klone?
/me sets mode #idiots +bk anonymous_coward SAYANORA
Cool New Shit... I sincerely hope that was sarcasm their.
Anyways back to the ranch:
Just what is the purpose with all these domain name rants? Slashdot used to be so cool once upon a time, but now it seems like www.geekIPO.com. What happened to the stuph that matter(s(ed)) && $news?
if
`/.`
!=elit0
then
echo "sh4m3 0n r0bm4ld4 for selling out\n";
fi
This is a poor excuse. Reminiscent of the not In My Back(barn)Yard moves. Personally I think anyone should be allowed to register whatever they want to. Why should it be free speech for some (NAACP) and not-so-free speech for others.
It seems as if most of the people complaining are people in America.
Solution: 1) Create new nic handles for certain "businesses." eg:
*.sex for Adult Oriented pr0n sites. *.h4c for all the geocities hax0r groups. *.sec for true blue Security sites. *.own for sites that lack security. *.cus for those who want domains like. fuck.* or bitch.*...
2) Just let someone register the domain and get over all this political correctness.
3) Line up the people over at NSI and this District Court of Whereever, audit their PC and say "AHA... Dirty words huh? WHATS THIS pr0n ON YOUR PC."
I'm sure after the embarassment they'll definitely get over their childishness on dirty words.
OK, I'm going to be mean and this might cost me some karma points, but I've just got to say this:
;) ... Seriously though, Back Orifice is nothing more than a kiddie tool. You don't see millions of hacker wanna be's downloading PC anywhere to rm -rf each others workstations. Being that this is a free "remote administration" tool which translates into "donwload me and rm -rf your friend" hundreds of morons everywhere went on rampages with that gadget. It's a shame cDc waisted time on such moronic programming.
;)
I hope you don't take these posts to the heart in generating "karma" cause if you do I'd personally rate you a basher...
1) Brett Glass pointed out *his own* article. That has to be some indicator of cluelessness and/or
hubris.
He made some strong points in the article about the influx of those who have no ethics and it's painfully obvious, but for a "clueless" reported to notice this would be what?... a guess? Don't be so quick to judge.
2) He's a MORON. He obviously didn't use the DeMoronizer to fix up the Microsoft Stupid Quotes.
There go those karma points you worry about
3) What's with the^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^I Love the Hair!
4) If you read what this guy posts on Infoworld.com, you'll see that he's generally clueless compared to everyone else there. He is a critic of open source, but not a very good one. I seem to remember him claiming that Red Hat didn't sell Linux because Linux was free. Red Hat sold bandwidth, because they could mail a CD to you for an effective data rate of 670 Megs per 24
hours for FedEx. Ummmm. Sure.
5) He described BO2K as a trojan horse program. Would he describe PC Anywhere the same way? How about an admin tool released from Microsoft? These are all the same kind of program, and can be used or misused in a wide variety of ways.
I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't embded backdoors other than those used by the NSA on them
6) Brett obviously has no idea what obfuscated code is. He claims that BO2K could have trojans hidden in obfuscated code. Heee hee haw haw.
How do you explain those cDc backdoors?
7) Linux is just as insecure as Windows? Poorly designed and rife with security holes? That's a joke. For goodness sakes, MS Excel has a whole flight simulator hidden away inside of it. Where is the easter egg inside the Linux kernel?
What he should've said is Linux could be as insecure as Windows in the story. Truth of the matter is if you haven't kept up on security issues, Linux does have some problems as much as Windows does. Haven't you read any BugTraQ postings? Just about every other week they're finding some sort of overflow on Linux. Personally I think it's just crappy admining but for the most part linux can be just as insecure as Linux can be... but I wouldn't know I use OpenBSD
Here's a plan for the gov: 1) Instead of convicting highly intelligeable hackers for exaggurated crimes, such as a script kiddie who caused a 1billion dollar DoS, send them to Quantico and train them more properly, then have them work for the NSA. 2) While all their networks are being intruded left and right, have the same hackers they catch, secure their networks as community service. 3) Stop spending money on bogus programs and use those funds to hire properly trained personnel in the MIS/IT section. Is it me or does anyone else notice the emerging trend of security through obsurity coupled with a sense of prejudism towards talented hackers, byt the DOJ who'd rather assassinate the notion of someone more talented than their expert employees? I see it as some sort of envy on their behalf, since they never mention any means of securing their own servers and would rather sentence someone instead of gaining that persons knowledge to better themselves. ugh ... gotta love these early morning half ass rants ;)
Well it may not be new news but its nice to see someone "publicly reputable" take on JP and his ill-literate crew of halfwits.
JP was a little script kiddie who got booted from college for Denials of Service. A sellout who pimped AOL cluebies into believing he had knowledge. Most of his articles are full of slander and are twisted enough to make a pretzel jealous with envy.
As for his staff, well Brad of AntiOnline has taken interest in harrasment for my AntiOffline.com site which is rather funny since he claims he's going to sue me then beat me...
Then again someone at MicroSoft threatened us with the same thing for www.macroshaft.org. What a joke
Someone needs to spank that little hick named JP and give him the parental attention he's looking for.
AntiOffline
MacroShaft
Another moronic ploy by John Vranesevich to obviously gain pulicity at any cost.
./me points and laughs spitting out water
First off there are unconfirmed rumors that JP is under investigation the the F.B.I. for possibly paying off script kiddies to hack sites so he can write his little stories. So why would anyone take what he says serious?
Secondly he should be on every single Administrators hate list for having packet Storm Security removed due to his insecurities and lack of humor.
Thirdly after even reading his and Carolyn Mienel's half baked story filled with more inconsistencies then the feds Waco accounts why is Slashdot even devoting its time to cover such a moron as JP is.
You better watch it Slashdot he (JP) tries to sue everyone including his mother for using his name or copying his copywritten e-mails...
Now back to reading the e-mail he constantl sends threatening to sue us for AntiOffline.com
Thats funny.
/me points and laughs
Now lets see:
First globalHell created chaos as well as plenty of other script kiddies on their servers right after the staff of www.eeye.com released retina, then they went ahead and issued an FBI hacker hitlist to go after a bunch of teens.
What a waste of money since they should've went ahead and used it to secure their networks.
Anyways I can see them using Mac's running PPCLinux but I hope it's not the attrocious MacOS...
So whats the order like? 10,000 Lime Green iMacs? Or is Apple going to make a special colored camoflauge "Army Mac"?
;)
Sorry for the c&pastin but I thought it was very
informative doc.
./begin
===============================================
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Statement by
Victor Sheymov
ComShield Corporation
before the
Joint Economic Committee
United States Congress
Wednesday, May 20, 1998
"The Low Energy Radio Frequency Weapons Threat to Critical Infrastructure"
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee,
I thank you for your concern and attention to the problem of terrorism, to the potential exploit of latest technological achievements of
this country by terrorists and other criminal groups. I also would like to thank you for this opportunity to bring attention to a potentially
dangerous and costly impact of the possible use of radio frequency (RF) weapons by terrorists and criminals. Special uses of RF
technology were a major part of my 27 years of involvement in intelligence, security, and technology matters, and I would like to share my
knowledge and experience into this are which is often misunderstood and largely ignored. I have somewhat split responsibility in this open
hearing: I want to shed some light on the problem but, at the same time, to avoid revealing crucial information to the terrorists who
undoubtedly are tuned in.
Within the wide ranging means of Information Warfare (IW), one of the prominent places belongs to IW attacks on computers and
computer-based equipment. Leaving physical destruction of computers aside, the IW attacks on computers could be classified as attacks
through legitimate gateways of the computer such as the modem and the keyboard (software attacks), and attacks through other than
legitimate gateways (backdoor attacks). At the current technological level, backdoor attacks can be carried out mainly by utilizing radio
frequency (RF) technology and thus can be classified as RF attacks.
Vulnerability of computers to software attacks is widely recognized, and efforts with substantial funding are underway with the goal of
developing protective technology to neutralize such attacks. The backdoor attacks, on the other hand, have little official recognition, and
adequate efforts to develop adequate protective technology do not seem to have taken place.
One premise underlies many special applications of RF technology and is based on a principal that any wire or electronic component is,
in fact, an unintended antenna, both transmitting and receiving. Importantly, every such unintended antenna is particularly responsive to its
specific resonance frequency, and to some extent, to several related frequencies. It is not responsive to all other frequencies under normal
conditions. If an objective is to eavesdrop on the device, then the EM emanations coming from functioning components of the device are
received by highly sensitive receiving equipment and processed in order to duplicate information handled by the device. If an objective is to
influence the device's functioning, then appropriate RF signals are transmitted to the targeted device. That RF signal, being received by
pertinent components of the device, would generate a corresponding signal within the device. Producing and transmitting a signal which
would effectively control the targeted device through a "back door" attack is an extremely difficult task that requires technology and
expertise available only in two or three countries is the world. At the same time, producing and transmitting a signal which would just
disrupt the normal functioning of the target devise is a much simpler technological task. It can be classified as a jamming "back door"
attack, or jamming RF attack. Conceivably, it can be done by a large number of parties.
Jamming RF attacks can utilize either high energy radio frequency (HERF), or low energy radio frequency (LERF) technology. HERF is
advanced technology, practical applications of which are still being developed. It is based on concentrating large amounts of RF EM energy
in within a small space, narrow frequency range and a very short period of time. The result of such concentration is an overpowering RF
EM impulse capable of causing substantial damage to electronic components. The HERF impulse is strong enough to damage electronics
components irrespective of their specific resonance frequencies.
LERF technology utilizes relatively low energy, which is spread over a wide frequency spectrum. It can, however, be no less effective
in disrupting normal functioning of computers as the HERF due to high probability that its wide spectrum contains frequencies matching
resonance frequencies of critical components. Generally, the LERF approach does not require time compression, nor does it utilize
high-tech components. This technology is not new and well known, albeit to limited circles of experts in some exotic subjects, such as
Tempest protection. LERF impact on computers and computer networks could be devastating. One of the dangerous aspects of a LERF
attack on a computer is that an unprotected computer would go into a "random output mode". This simply means that it is impossible to
predict what the computer would do. The malfunction could differ from a single easily correctable processing error to a total loss of its
memory and operating system, to giving a destructive command given to controlled by computer equipment. Furthermore, differently from a
simple computer failure, any level of redundancy cannot solve the problem. This point is rarely realized by computer users with the
assumption that a back-up computer provides a comfortable level of safety. This is certainly not true in regard to a LERF attack.
U.S. military puts high priority on minimizing collateral damage and applies high requirements to its weapons systems' accuracy. HERF
weapons' accuracy is relatively high, but it is not yet quite up to the military requirements. But this certainly is not a deterrence for
terrorists because collateral damage is what they are usually after in the first place. Considering known utilization of latest technology by
terrorists and drug cartels around the world, it is likely that HERF technology can be obtained and used by these criminal enterprises in
near time, possibly even before it finds its wide acceptance within the military.
Differently from HERF, LERF weapons are notoriously inaccurate, virtually by definition. LERF weapons' impact on computers is
devastating and highly indiscriminate. A very high percentage of computers within an effective range of a utilized LERF weapon will
malfunction. This is very likely to make these weapons an attractive choice for terrorists. While HERF weapons were substantially
covered during this Committee hearing on this subject in February of 1998, some details of LERF weapons seem to be worth discussing.
Contrary to a popular belief, different kinds of LERF weapons have already been used over the years, primarily in Eastern Europe. For
instance, during the Czechoslovakian invasion in 1968, the Soviet military received advanced notice that Czechoslovakian anti-Communist
activists had been wary of relying on the telephone communications controlled by the government, and prepared to use radio transceivers to
communicate between their groups for coordination of their resistance efforts. During the invasion Soviet military utilized RF jamming
aircraft from the Soviet air force base in Stryi, Western Ukraine. The aircraft were flying over Czechoslovakia, jamming all the radio
spectrum, with the exception of a few narrow pre-determined "windows" of RF spectrum utilized by the invading Soviet army. This
measure was successful, effectively nullifying communications between the Czechoslovakian resistance groups.
Another example of a LERF attack was the KGB's manipulation of the United States Embassy security system in Moscow in the
mid-80s. This was done in the course of the KGB operation against the Embassy which targeted the U.S. marines there. The security
system alarm was repeatedly falsely triggered by the KGB's induced RF interference several times during the night. This was an attempt
to annoy and fatigue the marines and to cause the turning of the "malfunctioning" system off.
Additional example of an RF attack was when the KGB used it to induce fire in one of the equipment rooms in the U.S. Embassy in
Moscow in 1977. A malfunction was forced on a piece of equipment. It caught fire, which spread over a sensitive area of the Embassy. The
KGB tried to infiltrate its bugging technicians into the sensitive area under the cover of the firefighters who arrived immediately after the
fire started. A similar event occurred at the British embassy in Moscow several years earlier.
These examples illustrate a much more advanced use of RF technology than a simple disruption of computers in a radius of several
hundred yards from the unleashed "RF bomb". An example of such a device was designed and built by the KGB in late 70-s. The device
was built for completely different purpose and was not used to disrupt computers. However, its potential as an "RF bomb" was clearly
realized at the time. Its reference cost was within one hundred dollars, size of about a shoe box, and it could be easily assembled within
two-three hours with general purpose tools and components readily available in an average electrical store. The only obstacle on the way
of this technology to terrorists' arsenals is a know-how, fortunately limited to a small number of experts in a few countries. However,
some of these experts are experiencing very difficult economic conditions in Russia. On the other hand, a sizable cash offer tempting to
these experts could come from any of the well funded terrorist groups at any time. This situation seems to indicate that relying on these
two potentially explosive components remaining separate from each other is less than wise.
Being a technological leader of the world, the United States has been vulnerable to an RF attack more than any other country for some
time. This vulnerability significantly increased during last fifteen years with wide utilization of computers in every aspect of this country's
functioning. At this time it is very difficult to find an area which would not rely heavily on computers. In fact, this country is so dependent
on computers that many even vital functions cannot be performed manually. At the same time, it is important to realize that all those
computers performing important and vital services are not protected from an RF attack. Areas like air traffic control, commercial airliners,
energy and water distribution systems, and disaster and emergency response services represent attractive targets for terrorists. At the
same time these systems are totally open to an RF attack. By the nature of computers and computer networks, the failure of one
sub-system would trigger a snow-balling effect with second, third, and following chain failures. The full effect of such an event is difficult
even to predict, lest to neutralize, unless computers and computer networks are reliably protected against RF weapons. A serious RF
attack on critical infrastructure would have an impact of national level with numerous losses of life and incalculable economic damage.
Besides the show-balling effect of computer failures, there could be a crippling effect if RF weapons used in concert with any other type of
terrorist attack. Most of the responses to other forms of terrorist attacks are designed with the assumption that the computers of the
response service are working and such functions as traffic control are intact. With an additional RF attack, concerted with the primary one,
this assumption is not valid. Communications and transportation of the response teams could be crippled with a tragic impact on rescue
efforts.
Even a single limited and attack could have serious consequences. For instance, an attack on computers of financial markets could
have a world-wide implications with losses easily reaching multi-billion levels.
In addition to intentional RF interference, current technological developments lead to a problem of unintentional RF interference. Indeed,
with the speed of modern computers and their miniaturization advancing at a rapid pace, their working frequency and sensitivity to RF
emanations is also increasing. This leads to unavoidable interference conflicts, some of which have already shown themselves and led to
an intermediary solution of regulatory nature. For instance, even barely emanating electronic equipment such as lap-top computers and
electronic games needs to be turned off during take-off and landing of commercial airliners.
Another aspect of offensive RF technology is its traditional application in information intercept or eavesdropping. Traditionally, the
Soviet Union and Russia have placed high priority on the development and use of this technology. Being one of the two "superpowers" in
this area, Russia considers its spending on RF offensive operations a very wise and profitable investment.
Changes of last decade in Russia impacted the KGB, which has been split into independent parts. The 8th and 16th Directorates,
roughly representing Russian equivalent of the NSA, became an independent agency, the Federal Agency of Government Communications
and Information (FAPSI, as a Russian acronym). FAPSI is directly subordinate to the President of Russia. In a wave of privatization,
FAPSI was partially "privatized" as well. Some of the leading FAPSI experts left the agency and founded private security companies,
taking best officers of all levels along. These companies cater mainly to Russian private financial institutions and provide a wide range of
security services. They are fully capable of carrying out any defensive and offensive operations with equal level of confidence.
The concentration of world-class experts on offensive electronic operations in these few companies by far surpasses any private entity
in the world and exceeds capability of most governments. These experts can easily intercept and provide to their clients virtually any
commercial information of any country. Commercially available means of electronic information security present no practical difficulties for
them. Intercept of commercial and financial information could be extremely profitable and create the capability to manipulate international
financial markets as well as to carry large scale international money-laundering operations with very limited operational risk.
Financial success of these FAPSI private spin-off companies and high earnings of their employees make them very attractive "golden
parachutes" for the remaining FAPSI officers. Combined with traditionally close ties, this leads to continuing effective technological and
personnel cooperation between the FAPSI and these companies. At the same time, the end of the Cold War somewhat shifted goals,
objectives, and some targets of the FAPSI toward a heavier emphasis on intercept of technological, commercial and financial information.
In this regard, some of the targets are easier to attack from a position of a private company. This leads to a likely close operational
cooperation between the FAPSI and its private spin-off companies. The private companies can provide the FAPSI with some of the
products of their intercept, while FAPSI can also share some of its products, along with personnel and equipment, including its powerful
and sophisticated facilities, such as the Lourdes in Cuba, for a very productive long-range intercept.
This situation can easily put American private business in a highly unfavorable competitive position.
All of the above seems to demonstrate an urgent necessity to develop technology for computer protection against both intentional and
unintentional RF interference, as well as against illegal intercept of sensitive and proprietary information by foreign competitors. It can take
a few days to build a LERF weapon. It takes a few weeks or a few months to establish a successful collection of information through RF
intercept. However, it should be realized that developing adequate computer protective technology, even for limited applications, would
take at least two years. There seems to be a certain disconnect between appropriate U.S. technical experts and political decision makers,
who are ultimately responsible for strategic course of technological efforts of this country. This disconnect needs to be mended and
coordinated efforts should take place for developing protection of computers against RF attacks.
In conclusion, I would like to state that it seems that the question that we are facing is not whether we need to develop adequate RF
protective technology or whether we can afford to protect our computers from possible RF attacks. The real question is whether we can
afford to not protect at least critical infrastructure computers. The ultimate decision on this dilemma is a prerogative of the United States
Congress.
I would like to thank you again for your kind invitation to appear before this Committee and for this opportunity to comment on a very
important matter.
Now Microwave mind control would've been a bomb ass topic
For hundreds of years, sci-fi writers have imagined weapons that
might use energy waves or pulses to knock out, knock down, or
otherwise disable enemies--without necessarily killing them. And
for a good 40 years the U.S. military has quietly been pursuing
weapons of this sort. Much of this work is still secret, and it
has yet to produce a usable "nonlethal" weapon. But now that the
cold war has ended and the United States is engaged in more
humanitarian and peacekeeping missions, the search for weapons
that could incapacitate people without inflicting lethal injuries
has intensified. Police, too, are keenly interested. Scores of
new contracts have been let, and scientists, aided by government
research on the "bioeffects" of beamed energy, are searching the
electromagnetic and sonic spectrums for wavelengths that can
affect human behavior. Recent advancements in miniaturized
electronics, power generation, and beam aiming may finally have
put such pulse and beam weapons on the cusp of practicality, some
experts say.
Weapons already exist that use lasers, which can temporarily or
permanently blind enemy soldiers. So-called acoustic or sonic
weapons, like the ones in the aforementioned lab, can vibrate the
insides of humans to stun them, nauseate them, or even "liquefy
their bowels and reduce them to quivering diarrheic messes,"
according to a Pentagon briefing. Prototypes of such weapons were
recently considered for tryout when U.S. troops intervened in
Somalia. Other, stranger effects also have been explored, such as
using electromagnetic waves to put human targets to sleep or to
heat them up, on the microwave-oven principle. Scientists are
also trying to make a sonic cannon that throws a shock wave with
enough force to knock down a man.
While this and similar weapons may seem far-fetched, scientists
say they are natural successors to projects already
underway--beams that disable the electronic systems of aircraft,
computers, or missiles, for instance. "Once you are into these
antimateriel weapons, it is a short jump to antipersonnel
weapons," says Louis Slesin, editor of the trade journal
Microwave News. That's because the human body is essentially an
electrochemical system, and devices that disrupt the electrical
impulses of the nervous system can affect behavior and body
functions. But these programs--particularly those involving
antipersonnel research--are so well guarded that details are
scarce. "People [in the military] go silent on this issue," says
Slesin, "more than any other issue. People just do not want to
talk about this."
Projects underway. To learn what the Pentagon has been doing,
U.S. News talked to more than 70 experts and scoured biomedical
and engineering journals, contracts, budgets, and research
proposals. The effort to develop exotic weapons is surprising in
its range. Scores of projects are underway, most with funding of
several hundred thousand dollars each. One Air Force lab plans to
spend more than $100 million by 2003 to research the "bioeffects"
of such weaponry.
The benefits of bloodless battles for soldiers and law
enforcement are obvious. But the search for new weapons--cloaked
as they are in secrecy--faces hurdles. One is the acute
skepticism of many conventional-weapons experts. "It is
interesting technology but it won't end bloodshed and wars," says
Harvey Sapolsky, director of the Security Studies Program at MIT.
Says Charles Bernard, a former Navy weapons-research director: "I
have yet to see one of these ray gun things that actually works."
And if they do work, other problems arise: Some so-called
nonlethal weapons could end up killing rather than just disabling
victims if used at the wrong range. Others may easily be thwarted
by shielding.
Sterner warnings come from ethicists. Years ago the world drafted
conventions and treaties to attempt to set rules for the use of
bullets and bombs in war. But no treaties govern the use of
unconventional weapons. And no one knows what will happen to
people exposed to them over the long term.
Moreover, medical researchers worry that their work on such
things as the use of electromagnetic waves to stimulate hearing
in the deaf or to halt seizures in epileptics might be used to
develop weaponry. In fact, the military routinely has approached
the National Institutes of Health for research information.
"DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] has come to us
every few years to see if there are ways to incapacitate the
central nervous system remotely," Dr. F. Terry Hambrecht, head of
the Neural Prosthesis Program at NIH, told U.S. News. "But
nothing has ever come of it," he said. "That is too science
fiction and far-fetched." Still, the Pentagon plans to conduct
human testing with lasers and acoustics in the future, says
Charles Swett, an assistant for Special Operations and
Low-Intensity Conflict. Swett insists that the testing will be
constrained and highly ethical. It may not be far off. The U.S.
Air Force expects to have microwave weapons by the year 2015 and
other nonlethal weaponry sooner. "When that does happen," warns
Steven Metz, professor of national security affairs at the U.S.
Army War College, "I think there will be a public uproar. We need
an open debate on them now."
Laser ethics
What happened with U.S. forces in Somalia foreshadows the
impending ethical dilemmas. In early 1995, some U.S. marines were
supplied with so-called dazzling lasers. The idea was to inflict
as little harm as possible if Somalis turned hostile. But the
marines' commander then decided that the lasers should be
"de-tuned" to prevent the chance of their blinding citizens. With
their intensity thus diminished, they could be used only for
designating or illuminating targets.
On March 1, 1995, commandos of U.S. Navy SEAL Team 5 were
positioned at the south end of Mogadishu airport. At 7 a.m., a
technician from the Air Force's Phillips Laboratory, developer of
the lasers, used one to illuminate a Somali man armed with a
rocket-propelled grenade. A SEAL sniper shot and killed the
Somali. There was no question the Somali was aiming at the SEALs.
But the decision not to use the laser to dazzle or temporarily
blind the man irks some of the nonlethal-team members. "We were
not allowed to disable these guys because that was considered
inhumane," said one. "Putting a bullet in their head is somehow
more humane?"
Despite such arguments, the International Red Cross and Human
Rights Watch have since led a fight against antipersonnel lasers.
In the fall of 1995, the United States signed a treaty that
prohibits the development of lasers designed "to cause permanent
blindness." Still, laser weapons are known to have been developed
by the Russians, and proliferation is a big concern. Also, the
treaty does not forbid dazzling or "glare" lasers, whose effects
are temporary. U.S. military labs are continuing work in this
area, and commercial contractors are marketing such lasers to
police.
Acoustic pain
The next debate may well focus on acoustic or sonic weapons.
Benign sonic effects are certainly familiar, ranging from the
sonic boom from an airplane to the ultrasound instrument that
"sees" a baby in the uterus. The military is looking for
something less benign--an acoustic weapon with frequencies
tunable all the way up to lethal. Indeed, Huntington Beach-based
Scientific Applications & Research Associates Inc. (SARA) has
built a device that will make internal organs resonate: The
effects can run from discomfort to damage or death. If used to
protect an area, its beams would make intruders increasingly
uncomfortable the closer they get. "We have built several
prototypes," says Parviz Parhami, SARA's CEO. Such acoustic
fences, he says, could be deployed today. He estimates that five
to 10 years will be needed to develop acoustic rifles and other
more exotic weapons, but adds, "I have heard people as optimistic
as one to two years." The military also envisions acoustic fields
being used to control riots or to clear paths for convoys.
SARA's acoustic devices have already been tested at the Camp
Pendleton Marine Corps Base, near the company's Huntington Beach
office. And they were considered for Somalia. "We asked for
acoustics," says one nonlethal weapons expert who was there. But
the Department of Defense said, "No," since they were still
untested. The Pentagon feared they could have caused permanent
injury to pregnant women, the old, or the sick. Parhami sees
acoustics "as just one more tool" for the military and law
enforcement. "Like any tool, I suppose this can be abused," he
says. "But like any tool, it can be used in a humane and ethical
way."
Toward the end of World War II, the Germans were reported to have
made a different type of acoustic device. It looked like a large
cannon and sent out a sonic boomlike shock wave that in theory
could have felled a B-17 bomber. In the mid-1940s, the U.S. Navy
created a program called Project Squid to study the German vortex
technology. The results are unknown. But Guy Obolensky, an
American inventor, says he replicated the Nazi device in his
laboratory in 1949. Against hard objects the effect was
astounding, he says: It could snap a board like a twig. Against
soft targets like people, it had a different effect. "I felt like
I had been hit by a thick rubber blanket," says Obolensky, who
once stood in its path. The idea seemed to founder for years
until recently, when the military was intrigued by its nonlethal
possibilities. The Army and Navy now have vortex projects
underway. The SARA lab has tested its prototype device at Camp
Pendleton, one source says.
Electromagnetic heat
The Soviets were known to have potent blinding lasers. They were
also feared to have developed acoustic and radio-wave weapons.
The 1987 issue of Soviet Military Power, a cold war Pentagon
publication, warned that the Soviets might be close to "a
prototype short-range tactical RF [radio frequency] weapon." The
Washington Post reported that year that the Soviets had used such
weapons to kill goats at 1 kilometer's range. The Pentagon, it
turns out, has been pursuing similar devices since the 1960s.
Typical of some of the more exotic proposals are those from Clay
Easterly. Last December, Easterly--who works at the Health
Sciences Research Division of Oak Ridge National
Laboratory--briefed the Marine Corps on work he had conducted for
the National Institute of Justice, which does research on crime
control. One of the projects he suggested was an electromagnetic
gun that would "induce epilepticlike seizures." Another was a
"thermal gun [that] would have the operational effect of heating
the body to 105 to 107" degrees Fahrenheit. Such effects would
bring on discomfort, fevers, or even death.
But, unlike the work on blinding lasers and acoustic weapons,
progress here has been slow. The biggest problem is power.
High-powered microwaves intended to heat someone standing 200
yards away to 105 degrees Fahrenheit may kill someone standing 10
yards away. On the other hand, electromagnetic fields weaken
quickly with distance from the source. And beams of such energy
are difficult to direct to their target. Mission Research Corp.
of Albuquerque, N.M., has used a computer model to study the
ability of microwaves to stimulate the body's peripheral nervous
system. "If sufficient peripheral nerves fire, then the body
shuts down to further stimulus, producing the so-called stun
effect," an abstract states. But, it concludes, "the ranges at
which this can be done are only a few meters."
Nonetheless, government laboratories and private contractors are
pursuing numerous similar programs. A 1996 Air Force Scientific
Advisory Board report on future weapons, for instance, includes a
classified section on a radio frequency or "RF Gunship." Other
military documents confirm that radio-frequency antipersonnel
weapons programs are underway. And the Air Force's Armstrong
Laboratory at Brooks Air Force Base in Texas is heavily engaged
in such research. According to budget documents, the lab intends
to spend more than $110 million over the next six years "to
exploit less-than-lethal biological effects of electromagnetic
radiation for Air Force security, peacekeeping, and war-fighting
operations."
Low-frequency sleep
From 1980 to 1983, a man named Eldon Byrd ran the Marine Corps
Nonlethal Electromagnetic Weapons project. He conducted most of
his research at the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute
in Bethesda, Md. "We were looking at electrical activity in the
brain and how to influence it," he says. Byrd, a specialist in
medical engineering and bioeffects, funded small research
projects, including a paper on vortex weapons by Obolensky. He
conducted experiments on animals--and even on himself--to see if
brain waves would move into sync with waves impinging on them
from the outside. (He found that they would, but the effect was
short lived.)
By using very low frequency electromagnetic radiation--the waves
way below radio frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum--he
found he could induce the brain to release behavior-regulating
chemicals. "We could put animals into a stupor," he says, by
hitting them with these frequencies. "We got chick brains--in
vitro--to dump 80 percent of the natural opioids in their
brains," Byrd says. He even ran a small project that used
magnetic fields to cause certain brain cells in rats to release
histamine. In humans, this would cause instant flulike symptoms
and produce nausea. "These fields were extremely weak. They were
undetectable," says Byrd. "The effects were nonlethal and
reversible. You could disable a person temporarily," Byrd
hypothesizes. "It [would have been] like a stun gun."
Byrd never tested any of his hardware in the field, and his
program, scheduled for four years, apparently was closed down
after two, he says. "The work was really outstanding," he
grumbles. "We would have had a weapon in one year." Byrd says he
was told his work would be unclassified, "unless it works."
Because it worked, he suspects that the program "went black."
Other scientists tell similar tales of research on
electromagnetic radiation turning top secret once successful
results were achieved. There are clues that such work is
continuing. In 1995, the annual meeting of four-star U.S. Air
Force generals--called CORONA--reviewed more than 1,000 potential
projects. One was called "Put the Enemy to Sleep/Keep the Enemy
From Sleeping." It called for exploring "acoustics,"
"microwaves," and "brain-wave manipulation" to alter sleep
patterns. It was one of only three projects approved for initial
investigation.
Direct contact
As the military continues its search for nonlethal weapons, one
device that works on contact has already hit the streets. It is
called the "Pulse Wave Myotron." A sales video shows it in
action. A big, thuggish-looking "criminal" approaches a
well-dressed woman. As he tries to choke her, she touches him
with a white device about the size of a pack of cigarettes. He
falls to the floor in a fetal position, seemingly paralyzed but
with eyes open, and he does not recover for minutes.
"Contact with the Myotron," says the narrator, "feels like
millions of tiny needles are sent racing through the body. This
is a result of scrambling the signals from the motor cortex
region of the brain," he says. "It is horrible," says William
Gunby, CEO of the company that developed the Myotron. "It is no
toy." The Myotron overrides voluntary--but not
involuntary--muscle movements, so the victim's vital functions
are maintained. Sales are targeted at women, but law enforcement
officers and agencies--including the Arizona state police and
bailiffs with the New York Supreme Court--have purchased the
device, Gunby says. A special model built for law enforcement,
called the Black Widow, is being tested by the FBI, he says. "I
hope they don't order a lot soon," he adds. "The Russian
government just ordered 100,000 of them, and I need to replenish
my stock."
The U.S. military also has shown interest in the Myotron. "About
the time of the gulf war, I got calls from people in the
military," recalls Gunby. "They asked me about bonding the
Myotron's pulse wave to a laser beam so that everyone in the path
of the laser would collapse." While it could not be done, Gunby
says, he nonetheless was warned to keep quiet. "I was told that
these calls were totally confidential," he says, "and that they
would completely deny it if I ever mentioned it."
Some say such secrecy is necessary in new-weapons development.
But others think it is a mistake. "Because the programs are
secret, the sponsorship is low level, and the technology is
unconventional," says William Arkin of Human Rights Watch Arms
Project, "the military has not done any of the things to
determine if the money is being well spent or the programs are a
good idea." It should not be long before the evidence is in.
Original article written by: By Douglas Pasternak
related topics
Its good that someone finally has woke the heck up over in the Justice System. No one really defined _what_is legal to register and what isn't. But you can waste money doing a trademark search.
Lets quote NSI shall we
Revision 03 Effective February 25, 1998 1. Network Solutions, Inc. ("Network Solutions") is responsible for the registration of second-level Internet domain names in the top level COM, ORG, NET, and EDU domains. Network Solutions registers these second-level domain names on a "first come, first served" basis. By registering a domain name, Network Solutions does not determine the legality of the domain name registration, or otherwise evaluate whether that registration or use may infringe upon the rights of a third party.
This is solely written to deter themselves from suffering legal actions... point blank
2. The entity applying for a domain name ("registrant") is solely responsible for selecting its own domain name ("domain name") and maintaining for the continued accuracy of the registration record. The registrant, by completing and submitting the Domain Name Registration Agreement ("Registration Agreement"), represents that the statements in its application are true and that the registration of the selected domain name, to the best of the registrant's knowledge, does not interfere with or infringe upon the rights of any third party. The registrant also represents that the domain name is not being registered for any unlawful purpose.
Does this mean that if I registered "whatever.com" and three months down the line someone trademarked it, they can now sue me? Some of these laws are a joke... I can see whay they would make these laws being it would deter some moron from registering a site to make massive money, but there a Corporate entities who turn around and bastardize these laws as well
3. Network Solutions neither acts as arbiter nor provides resolution of disputes between registrants and third party complainants arising out of the registration or use of a domain name. This Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") does not confer any rights, procedural or substantive, upon third party complainants. Likewise, complainants are not obligated to use this Policy.
More legal mumbo jumbo from a half assed registrar
http://www.netsol.com/rs/dispute-policy.html
6. Indemnity. The registrant hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless (i) Network Solutions, its officers, directors, employees and agents, and (ii) the National Science Foundation ("NSF"), its officers, directors, and employees (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties"), for any loss or damages awarded by a court of competent jurisdiction resulting from any claim, action, or demand arising out of or related to the registration or use of the domain name. Such claims shall include, without limitation, those based upon trademark or service mark infringement, tradename infringement, dilution, tortious interference with contract or prospective business advantage, unfair competition, defamation or injury to business reputation. Each Indemnified Party shall send written notice to the registrant of any such claim, action, or demand against that party within a reasonable time. The failure of any Indemnified Party to give the appropriate notice shall not affect the rights of the other Indemnified Party. Network Solutions recognizes that certain educational and governmental entities may not be able to provide complete indemnification. If the registrant is (i) a governmental or non-profit educational entity, and (ii) not permitted by law or under its organizational documents to provide indemnification, the registrant must notify Network Solutions in writing and, upon receiving appropriate proof of such restriction, Network Solutions may provide an alternative provision for such a registrant.
In other words money talks...
What I wanna know is...
What is Network Solutions going to do in a cross-registrar dispute?
What if they weren't the registrars how are they going to handle things. And when just when are the court systems going to stop letting people twist laws?
oh well back to work...
No one should be surprised about this backdoor left open to the NSA. Has everyone forgotten that the NSA snoops all things transmitted in the entire world?
/dev/null cause
Or has everyone actually forgotten the other agencies in cahoots with the NSA to provide unsecure data transmissions in every shape form or fashion worldwide?
Everyone can cry foul all they want but the sad reality is there is nothing anyone can do no matter how
hippiesh you think your going to get about the matter.
Hippiesh == reversion back into the 60's type radical fighting for a
The NSA should not be taken lightly in the Linux community to those who aren't familiar to programming and coding, since anyone can backdoor scripts and bineries to have information mirrored to another destination.
Its a sad crying shame but its part of the worldy balance of good and evil no matter how cheezy it may sound.
What if there were no NSA, or FBI? How chaotic would things be, no matter how you think of it. Things
would be in a sad state worldwide. I in no way agree with the methods, and I highly doubt someone at the NSA would randomly pick someone to "monitor."
So unless you're doing something highly illegal why even bother pissing a bitch and flying off the rocker? While it is unethical it's the NSA... They're bound to snoop things one way or the other so the best way to handle the situation is to go on with life...
No one should be surprised about this backdoor left open to the NSA. Has everyone forgotten that the NSA snoops all things transmitted in the entire world?
/dev/null cause
Or has everyone actually forgotten the other agencies in cahoots with the NSA to provide unsecure data transmissions in every shape form or fashion worldwide?
Everyone can cry foul all they want but the sad reality is there is nothing anyone can do no matter how hippiesh you think your going to get about the matter.
Hippiesh == reversion back into the 60's type radical fighting for a
The NSA should not be taken lightly in the Linux community to those who aren't familiar to programming and coding, since anyone can backdoor scripts and bineries to have information mirrored to another destination.
Its a sad crying shame but its part of the worldy balance of good and evil no matter how cheezy it may sound.
What if there were no NSA, or FBI? How chaotic would things be, no matter how you think of it. Things would be in a sad state worldwide. I in no way agree with the methods, and I highly doubt someone at the NSA would randomly pick someone to "monitor."
So unless you're doing something highly illegal why even bother pissing a bitch and flying off the rocker? While it is unethical it's the NSA... They're bound to snoop things one way or the other so the best way to handle the situation is to go on with life...
First off you know jack from adam about Kevin...
Kevin was a very good social engineer who had 0-day skills... Now DarkDante is a different story altogether... Mitnick sucked so get over it.
I personally think that anyone toying with anyone elses server should know it's illegal in any shape form or fashion, therefore it's time to pay the piper. Its cool to code/hack/etc, but when you take it to a criminal level on a constant basis or any basis for that matter, anyone in their right mind should not look at mindphsr as a martyr.
I've been on the scene for a few years and have seen people come and go and to compare criminals is petty. Has anyone forgotten that Kevin too is a criminal? He was no great hacker... Just someone who engineered info from other hackers, got caught, and every single damn hacker cried foul. All respect due to some members of global Hell which are actually cool, but mindphsr isn't someone script-kiddies worldwide should worship.
elite script kiddie sploit