Re:Wow! think of all them IP addresses.
on
The Next Net
·
· Score: 1
Sadly, NAT is also heavily used as a security mechanism. Have you ever heard the line "Be certain to boot Windows XP behind NAT until you've at least downloaded service pack 2"?
And even more sadly for those people, NAT is not a security mechanism at all. It can't be. All NAT can do is change the IP addresses and port numbers on packets moving through it. It doesn't actually make any decisions to drop or accept packets.
NAT is practically always used in conjuction with a firewall in these situations, but this confusion as to what NAT does and the distinction between NAT and filtering is not helping encourage IPv6 any either.
Re:Security with a stick does not work...
on
VoIP Wiretapping
·
· Score: 1
And over the past 20 years, under republican control, we have lost many rights your grandparents took for granted.
We lost rights under republican control? Um... Communications Decency Act, DMCA, Child Online Protection Act, Clipper Chip, crypto export restrictions? Remember all those blue ribbons all over the web during the late 90s? Any of this ring a bell? The democrats are certainly a second close.
Re:Wow! think of all them IP addresses.
on
The Next Net
·
· Score: 4, Informative
NAT is no substitute for real address space. The only reason so many people use it today is because real address space is too limited.
The story linked to in this post gives basically the same story in the sense that the local PD didn't give a shit about this crime in terms of investing ANY investigational effort.
Here we have an actual crime more or less solved and thrown in their lap. I guess they're too busy sitting on the side of the freeway or busting people for pot...
Wouldn't a clearly visible label to the effect of "Due to security measures, the enclosed software is useless if you do not accept the enclosed End User License Agreement, which is available for viewing in any Authorized $publisher Dealer or at $website" guard against such claims?
I suppose that might work if I could easily get a refund if I bought the product and then took it home and didn't agree to the terms.
I've yet to see a retail software package fully disclose what you are really getting in the initial sale and what they really want you give up prior to the sale of the advertised product.
This business of selling $300 coasters in boxes labeled something completely different is tantamount to false advertising.
I'm sure someday we'll get to the point where there will have to be shrinkwrap licenses on our music and video, but for the moment take a look at software. I would contend that in practice, you have the same rights to music and video that you buy that you have to software that you buy. Just read the license, some time.
In other words, you may use the media in the approved fashion on an approved device, and very little else.
Well you're right about the part that you have "the same rights to music and video that you buy that you have to software that you buy". The rights you have in either case are all the rights that copyright law grants you. When buying most software, the license is presented after the copy of the copyrighted work becomes yours. You don't need a license to use something you already own.
The license, even if/when you hit "I accept" may not even be valid under contract law since the software company did not concede anything in exchange for your rights at that time. They didn't conceed a copy of the software - you already had that.
If those guys are allowed the right to terrorize people like me who don't care if we cause interference, then people like me should be able to declare open season on ham radio operators.
And what if some other people who don't care if they cause interference do so right outside your house and just happen to render every wireless thing you own useless?
Whenever we talked about civil rights in China, she pointed out to all the porn, violence, drug use and other negative aspects of life that Americans could see on TV and everywhere else.
There is nothing inherently wrong with seeing porn, violence and drug use on TV.
This chinese exchange student thinks western culture has a problem because of what is being shown on TV and made available through other communication forms. We think chinese culture has a problem because someone can be thrown in jail or executed because of an opinion they stated. Seems like a pretty one-sided debate to me...
It's a little of a different mindset but not that big. The nice thing about Linux is that since they are human readable files there is no singular point of failure (i.e if registry corrupts) but the Registry is still not that daunting and it can be backed up easily by backing up the System state.
Well the other nice thing about config files is the ability to have in-line comments and manage the files via CVS or something similar.
Ah, a wireless to wireless router. The most likely reason you can't do that on any cheap AP is that that would require more than one wireless interface, increasing the cost of the unit. The soho market that these cheap APs are made for probably don't need the extra functionality.
Have you ever installed one wireless access point, and wished you could install a second, within wireless range of the first, without running a second cable? Most access points can't do that, even though most people expect them to be able to before being told otherwise. Mesh networking would enable this sort of networking, and much more.
Are you talking about a repeater? I believe most of the cheap linksys APs can be set up to be repeaters instead.
Average UI standards don't necessarily account for needs like realtime manipulation of multiple datapoints simultaneously, or the desire to have unique implementations of dialog boxes and/or toolbars.
Example of nonstandard interfaces that are best-of-breed in their fields: Photoshop, SONAR, Wavelab.
Well, we aren't really talking about the same thing now. There certainly are applications where UI needs cannot be adequately met and new types of controls must be conjured up... and then there are applications where new UI controls are invented not because standard ones wouldn't work, but because the developers though doing so would make their application look cool. For some reason this attitude is especially predominant in media player software...
Thats one of the reasons why the idea of the GPL is flawed. Essentially Google can take all the work of all the people that contributed to the GPL code they use and use it internally without any sort of restitution. You guys are working for the corporations for free. I am sure the newly minted billionaires and millionaires at Google keep you in their thoughts though and give you a toast at holiday time.
The "flaw" you're talking about isn't in the GPL. Contrary to what you'd learn by reading most commercial EULAs, Copyright only gives you control of the rights to make and distribute copies. It doesn't grant you all kinds of control over what people can do with the copies you've given them. Those are their copies.
but audio, video, design and other types of apps require their own paradigm for UI.
No they don't. For some strange reason the producers of those apps like to make their apps look like the physical counterparts but they just wind up producing unusable pieces of crap. A knob, for instance, makes sense on a physical device but is difficult to use on a computer screen.
Even if you teach your kids morals, when they get bombarded by all the immorality coming from outside your house, the immorality will win.
Well gee, if it is so immoral, why are you bringing it into your house from the outside? A cable subscription is not a requirement. Why don't you just stop bringing it in? What is wrong with you that you need the government to control your actions according to your own will?
The whole point of certificates is to associate other pieces of information with a private key, like a legal name, an official company name, an address and location, the domain name... the CA isn't just supposed to sign certs that associates those types of information at random, they're supposed to make sure that the information in the certificate they sign reflects the actual entity which holds the private key. Well that's what a CA is supposed to do in theory at least....
If the CA is just signing everything that gets sent to them or simply not including enough identifying information as in your idea then there is no point in the CA's existance... I can't use the certificates they sign to help get an idea of who I'm talking to...
Apples and oranges. There's a ton of case law backing up that the FCC can enforce their idea of 'decency' on the people who license the public airwaves.
There isn't any case law on muni networks because they're a brand new concept. That doesn't mean that court rulings on the how the airwaves are used and how a government may enforce "community standards of decency" won't be used, or that new case law won't be forged along similar lines for these networks.
Yes, but there's a very good chance that the Constitution would win out in such a filtering case.
Well, that's your opinion. I don't have quite so much faith in the government to do the right thing.
With a private monopoply, there's absolutely no recourse if they follow a few 'right-wing religious nutcases' and censor your Internet access.
Which is better, a system where you have no rights whatsoever, or a system where you're supposed to have rights but a bad court decision has a chance to take them away?
Having personally been the victim of a DMCA takedown notice myself, I am certainly not implying that a corporation will uphold the freedom of speech.
However, I don't think that creating a government-owned network that can easily drown out all private competition is neccessarily a good way to go. Such a network will be highly subject to red tape, beauracracy and all kinds of political bullshit from prudish soccer moms, fascist religious people and corporate interests alike.
Government is bound by the constitution, and the first and fourth amendments should be easy to leverage into stopping those 'concerned mothers'.
The constitution wasn't able to prevent the FCC from fining Howard Stern or CBS after the last superbowl incident. The justification there is that the airwaves are publicly owned and so "the public" should have control over how they're used and the FCC is supposedly representing the public.
If your local broadband monopoly is owned by the government that same line of reasoning could be used by a few right-wing religious nutcases to demand all kinds of filtering to enforce "community standards" and "decency". Those kinds things have been able to trump the constitution in the past.
Interesting... and did I say that the government should regulate it? No, you leapt to a conclusion. I said a company should be responsible. Responsibility isn't an inherently legislated idea, and there is a difference between legal liability and responsibility.
I don't understand what you mean by the "company should be responsible" in that case. Do you not mean responsible for an activity as in the "government establishes a punishment for performing the activity"? That's what is happening in this lawsuit - this criminal wants the government to punish these companies for making a video game to displace the blame from himself.
The first amendment gives me the right to say a lot of things, and I'll go a long ways to defend it. But that doesn't mean that a lot of those things wouldn't be wrong to say. You need only look to the hate-mongers of the world to see that.
Well, that's your opinion. Nothing should be wrong to say (except under special circumstances, like under oath or in a commercial exchange). I don't like those hate-mongers any more than you do, but I believe they should have the right to say what they want.
A difference exists between what is regulated and what is right. And a company, like an individual, should be responsible in its actions. Not because its feet will be held to the fire by government or the public, though in some cases they will be, but because it is the right thing to do.
Again, you have to clarify exactly how you want to hold them responsible, if not through a punishment inflicted by the government.
If I train someone to kill, I'm responsible for that. If I teach someone that they'll get rewarded for stealing cars and killing commuters or pedestrians, I'm responsible for that too. If I teach a man to do wrong, I have done wrong myself.
All these "training" actions consist of is communication... a knowledge transfer from one person to another. The knowledge itself and the transfer of it themselves are harmless. A voluntary communication between two people should never be the government's business. Perhaps you want the government to regulate what people can tell each other in the interest of safety, but if an occasional murder is the cost of living in a free society, I'll take it.
Slashdot Mirror
And even more sadly for those people, NAT is not a security mechanism at all. It can't be. All NAT can do is change the IP addresses and port numbers on packets moving through it. It doesn't actually make any decisions to drop or accept packets.
NAT is practically always used in conjuction with a firewall in these situations, but this confusion as to what NAT does and the distinction between NAT and filtering is not helping encourage IPv6 any either.
We lost rights under republican control? Um... Communications Decency Act, DMCA, Child Online Protection Act, Clipper Chip, crypto export restrictions? Remember all those blue ribbons all over the web during the late 90s? Any of this ring a bell? The democrats are certainly a second close.
NAT is no substitute for real address space. The only reason so many people use it today is because real address space is too limited.
Here we have an actual crime more or less solved and thrown in their lap. I guess they're too busy sitting on the side of the freeway or busting people for pot...
I suppose that might work if I could easily get a refund if I bought the product and then took it home and didn't agree to the terms.
I've yet to see a retail software package fully disclose what you are really getting in the initial sale and what they really want you give up prior to the sale of the advertised product.
This business of selling $300 coasters in boxes labeled something completely different is tantamount to false advertising.
Well you're right about the part that you have "the same rights to music and video that you buy that you have to software that you buy". The rights you have in either case are all the rights that copyright law grants you. When buying most software, the license is presented after the copy of the copyrighted work becomes yours. You don't need a license to use something you already own.
The license, even if/when you hit "I accept" may not even be valid under contract law since the software company did not concede anything in exchange for your rights at that time. They didn't conceed a copy of the software - you already had that.
And what if some other people who don't care if they cause interference do so right outside your house and just happen to render every wireless thing you own useless?
There is nothing inherently wrong with seeing porn, violence and drug use on TV.
This chinese exchange student thinks western culture has a problem because of what is being shown on TV and made available through other communication forms. We think chinese culture has a problem because someone can be thrown in jail or executed because of an opinion they stated. Seems like a pretty one-sided debate to me...
And when and where exactly have you seen 6 year old kids chanting "death to commies"?
Why? Are you operating under the assumption that things you send out over any other internet connection are somehow secure?
Well the other nice thing about config files is the ability to have in-line comments and manage the files via CVS or something similar.
You don't necessarily have to agree to their EULA to install the OS.
Ah, a wireless to wireless router. The most likely reason you can't do that on any cheap AP is that that would require more than one wireless interface, increasing the cost of the unit. The soho market that these cheap APs are made for probably don't need the extra functionality.
Are you talking about a repeater? I believe most of the cheap linksys APs can be set up to be repeaters instead.
Well, we aren't really talking about the same thing now. There certainly are applications where UI needs cannot be adequately met and new types of controls must be conjured up... and then there are applications where new UI controls are invented not because standard ones wouldn't work, but because the developers though doing so would make their application look cool. For some reason this attitude is especially predominant in media player software...
The "flaw" you're talking about isn't in the GPL. Contrary to what you'd learn by reading most commercial EULAs, Copyright only gives you control of the rights to make and distribute copies. It doesn't grant you all kinds of control over what people can do with the copies you've given them. Those are their copies.
No they don't. For some strange reason the producers of those apps like to make their apps look like the physical counterparts but they just wind up producing unusable pieces of crap. A knob, for instance, makes sense on a physical device but is difficult to use on a computer screen.
So in Canada porn is broadcast on open airwaves? That's a different situation. This is about the government regulating a private subscription medium.
Well gee, if it is so immoral, why are you bringing it into your house from the outside? A cable subscription is not a requirement. Why don't you just stop bringing it in? What is wrong with you that you need the government to control your actions according to your own will?
The whole point of certificates is to associate other pieces of information with a private key, like a legal name, an official company name, an address and location, the domain name... the CA isn't just supposed to sign certs that associates those types of information at random, they're supposed to make sure that the information in the certificate they sign reflects the actual entity which holds the private key. Well that's what a CA is supposed to do in theory at least....
If the CA is just signing everything that gets sent to them or simply not including enough identifying information as in your idea then there is no point in the CA's existance... I can't use the certificates they sign to help get an idea of who I'm talking to...
There isn't any case law on muni networks because they're a brand new concept. That doesn't mean that court rulings on the how the airwaves are used and how a government may enforce "community standards of decency" won't be used, or that new case law won't be forged along similar lines for these networks.
Well, that's your opinion. I don't have quite so much faith in the government to do the right thing.
Having personally been the victim of a DMCA takedown notice myself, I am certainly not implying that a corporation will uphold the freedom of speech.
However, I don't think that creating a government-owned network that can easily drown out all private competition is neccessarily a good way to go. Such a network will be highly subject to red tape, beauracracy and all kinds of political bullshit from prudish soccer moms, fascist religious people and corporate interests alike.
The constitution wasn't able to prevent the FCC from fining Howard Stern or CBS after the last superbowl incident. The justification there is that the airwaves are publicly owned and so "the public" should have control over how they're used and the FCC is supposedly representing the public.
If your local broadband monopoly is owned by the government that same line of reasoning could be used by a few right-wing religious nutcases to demand all kinds of filtering to enforce "community standards" and "decency". Those kinds things have been able to trump the constitution in the past.
I don't understand what you mean by the "company should be responsible" in that case. Do you not mean responsible for an activity as in the "government establishes a punishment for performing the activity"? That's what is happening in this lawsuit - this criminal wants the government to punish these companies for making a video game to displace the blame from himself.
Well, that's your opinion. Nothing should be wrong to say (except under special circumstances, like under oath or in a commercial exchange). I don't like those hate-mongers any more than you do, but I believe they should have the right to say what they want.
Again, you have to clarify exactly how you want to hold them responsible, if not through a punishment inflicted by the government.
All these "training" actions consist of is communication... a knowledge transfer from one person to another. The knowledge itself and the transfer of it themselves are harmless. A voluntary communication between two people should never be the government's business. Perhaps you want the government to regulate what people can tell each other in the interest of safety, but if an occasional murder is the cost of living in a free society, I'll take it.