No, spanhaus was not blocking your eMail. spamhaus doesn't block anyone's eMail. They list offenders. Individual people decide to block. If your preferred isp gets listed for bad behaviour and are unable to provide you the service for which you contracted, you should take it up with your isp.
And you readily admit that your isp was supporting & hosting spammers?!? Was this a troll? If your housing association or your employer starts dumping raw sewage into the local nature preserve, you should expect that your friends and associates will stop dealing with you.
This would be one hell of a brutal world if intent is no longer required to be proven.
That's because the laws are written with the grand-fuzzy of 'intent' built into them. The problem isn't intent, the problem is that the laws are so vague that intent matters.
The brutal world is the one where my supposed intent might make me guilty. I have 'hackers tools' (A Codewarrior CD), I have 'weapons' (a model rocket engine and a hunting knife), I have 'drugs' (unidentified dietary supplements), I have 'pornography' (baby pictures of my sister), and depending on the DA's spin, I could be branded a social terrorist of the worst order.
Imagine a world where the only 'crime' is property crime. A social 'you break it, you bought it' system. Talk about bombs, drugs, money, or music all day long. Link to others' talks all day long. Hell, go ahead and make bombs and drugs all day long, just don't use them against others. The brutal world is one where information or ideas are punishable.
If this country still believes that it is preferable 'to let ten guilty men go free rather than imprison one innocent' then we cannot infer intent. We must judge the potential criminal only on their actions.
I would imagine the FBI's bullying could easily be handled by the following letter:
Dear sir/madam:
I received your letter requiring me to provide all of my notes on the Lamer case. Unfortunately, due to the threatening and demanding tone of the letter, I became quite distressed and in the process of attempting to back up said notes, I appear to have inadvertently deleted them instead.
I apologize for this unfortunate situation but would suggest that a calmer, more respectful request from you would have avoided this situation.
As your letter was of questionable legal legitimacy, I will be in touch with my lawyer, who will advise me on weather or not I should pursue legal action against the Bureau for the infliction of mental distress and the subsequent loss of my valuable notes.
It wouldn't take too many of these notes for the goons to give their agenda a second thought.
It's not implementing "security" that's common sense. No, implementing security is hard. It's the _approach_ to security that's common sense. Tagging everyone (and their traffic) like they're an endangered animal is NOT a viable or justifiable course of action, and it's fake security at that (ever look at the "from" field in your spam?).
The common sense approach to script kiddies is not to bring in big brother, the common sense approach is to render the script kiddies ineffective by way of superior vigilence and expertise. Floods and DOS's more and more can and should be handled by the ISP. Individual exploit attacks can and should be handled by those with a vested interest ==> the owners of the equipment "in peril".
In other words - Don't invade my privacy simply because you can't keep your system secure. That you chose to invest in a bug-riddled platform is not my problem.
Why? Why does there "need to be some form of ability to track someone"? You're not trackable in your car (license plates don't count since they don't broadcast), or on foot, or in the movie theatre etc...
Why does everyone so willingly buy into the idea that if they leave their systems exposed they should be able to go after the exploiter? Don't want your systems compromised? DON'T LEAVE THEM EXPOSED.
It's kind of like a warehouse full of goods. Don't want your stuff stolen? Put locks on the doors. Not enough? Hire a security guard. It's called common sense.
There's been some comment that "we have to pay for 911 service" (among others) as justification for meddling in Vonage. WHY?
Why should 911 service be free? I'm not trolling here, I'm serious. I consider it a point of personal responsibility to know the ID, location, and phone # of the local police precinct. It's not hard. 911 should be 1.900.911, for some big flat fee, which would keep many of the cranks away. If someone calls on your behalf it just rolls into your ambulance bill (etc).
Think of first response as just another security service, or as just another health insurance service. What makes "first response" any different than the personal responsibility of after the fact clean up (which is not an entitlement, thank-you-very-much). The national 911 system seems to work very well, but it's just another case of government stepping in where a real market existed and spending our tax dollars rather than allowing industry to create more tax dollars.
I have yet to hear a single compelling reason for subsidising it for users at the expense of non-users, given the modern ubiquity of communications. I won't even get into "opt out"...
One of the justifications for meddling with land-line telcos in the first place was the defacto monopoly created by the need for copper everywhere, and the desire of government to spread communications. These old models no longer apply. It's a virtual phone. There is no de facto monopoly, therefore there is no need for govt meddling. Vonage provides a data service. Period.
I have never stolen food. I pay for it, transaction complete. If I choose to live far away from the farmer I don't receive a food subsidy to help me pay for the cost of transport.
However, farmers do receive subsidies for their phone service (against my will, in the form of taxes and tarrifs attached to my phone bill), simply because they _CHOOSE_ to live far away where phone line installation is expensive. Who's the leech?
No, the public sector does make more mistakes. The public sector doesn't pay as well, and doesn't reward it's people as well non-monetarily. Result is that there are less skilled, less motivated people in the public sector.
In the private sector, companies either 1) purge these people in the interest of productivity, 2) become semi-public monopolies (aka Verizon) which rely on government mandates to protect their captive markets, or 3) go out of business.
Since the public sector is already some sort of monopoly it can't "go out of business", so they don't have to purge these people and we get what we have here - An organization that exists solely to protect the interests of its head(s), without competition or accountability, free to make mistake after mistake. You say it yourself - the competent people are turned away. That leaves an orgainization (public sector) that can't compete.
Yes, most everything coming from a monopolistic government-mandated agency - staffed by low-skill, low-motivation people - is bad. It's not just a distrust of the state, but a distrust (and dislike) of anything coming from people who would willingly participate in such a nameless, faceless, endless bureaucracy.
And if you think that current government works under a spotlight, think again. US Government agencies have never in the history of our country spent so much of our money to hide from us the things they do. You want transparency? Go to a shareholders' meeting.
Seems like it would take only a minimum of spin control to make this into a "Look how far and fast the market is growing - it just spawned another high-talent consulting firm".
Regardless of how much of a "blow" to JBoss Group this might be, unless it sinks them (not likely) it's good for the industry in every aspect.
Webmaster is profiting from advertising on a chat forum. He's not profiting from the info itself. He's not selling it or providing it. Crucial distinction because he's NOT responsible for the info.
The site is not a circumvention device unless the participants can grab the signals out of the air with the power of their mind. We've still got some distinction between info and hardware, and the participants need _hardware_ in order to make use of the info. He's not selling hardware.
Botton line on satellite hacking is quite simple -
If you don't want me viewing your signal, then don't point your signal at me and don't bath my property in your signal.
It's worth nothing because you didn't "invest" any time in it, and you didn't "invest" any money in it. You _SPENT_ time on it. It's just the marker peices of a game. You didn't "earn" the house. You _WON_ it, in the game. If I use an in-game exploit, then you _LOST_ it, in the game.
Putting value on your Elf or your Sim-house is kind of like trying to put value on your place in line. Sure, some people will eagerly buy your spot (and the rest of us will call that a soft-cheat), but say you sit overnight waiting to buy tickets to a show and some guy (or girl - especially if she's got a cool vest ) comes along and kicks your ass, takes your place, and you don't get to buy tickets. You can sue for assault, but you're not going to get very far suing for compensation on the time you "invested" waiting in line or for the tickets the sob "stole" from you.
Our legal system is founded (rightly so, I think) on two concepts - ownership of property, and the contract. In-game exploits don't change either your contract status or your property ownership. If you get screwed repeatedly you might be able to go after the game company for failure to deliver the gaming environment you paid for, but that's it.
This is already covered under laws of slander, libel, and torturous interference (with business). You fake my name or avatar or eMail address to make me look like a ninny and I can sue you for damages. That's not an 'online' issue at all. Don't let special laws make it an online issue.
So if it's such a great place to work, and they're woo'ing all of the best intern material, WHY do they continue to produce such crap code?!?
Is there no accountability for quality?
Really - I keep hearing how MS is skimming the best and brightest from the nation's talent pool... Based on the software releases I've seen, it looks more like culling to me.
Slashdot Mirror
And you readily admit that your isp was supporting & hosting spammers?!? Was this a troll? If your housing association or your employer starts dumping raw sewage into the local nature preserve, you should expect that your friends and associates will stop dealing with you.
B
That's because the laws are written with the grand-fuzzy of 'intent' built into them. The problem isn't intent, the problem is that the laws are so vague that intent matters.
The brutal world is the one where my supposed intent might make me guilty. I have 'hackers tools' (A Codewarrior CD), I have 'weapons' (a model rocket engine and a hunting knife), I have 'drugs' (unidentified dietary supplements), I have 'pornography' (baby pictures of my sister), and depending on the DA's spin, I could be branded a social terrorist of the worst order.
Imagine a world where the only 'crime' is property crime. A social 'you break it, you bought it' system. Talk about bombs, drugs, money, or music all day long. Link to others' talks all day long. Hell, go ahead and make bombs and drugs all day long, just don't use them against others. The brutal world is one where information or ideas are punishable.
If this country still believes that it is preferable 'to let ten guilty men go free rather than imprison one innocent' then we cannot infer intent. We must judge the potential criminal only on their actions.
Oh, and linking isn't a crime, it's advertising.
At the COPA, COPA Commission
Music and fashion were always the passion
At the COPA, they fell in love
The common sense approach to script kiddies is not to bring in big brother, the common sense approach is to render the script kiddies ineffective by way of superior vigilence and expertise. Floods and DOS's more and more can and should be handled by the ISP. Individual exploit attacks can and should be handled by those with a vested interest ==> the owners of the equipment "in peril".
In other words - Don't invade my privacy simply because you can't keep your system secure. That you chose to invest in a bug-riddled platform is not my problem.
B
Why does everyone so willingly buy into the idea that if they leave their systems exposed they should be able to go after the exploiter? Don't want your systems compromised? DON'T LEAVE THEM EXPOSED.
It's kind of like a warehouse full of goods. Don't want your stuff stolen? Put locks on the doors. Not enough? Hire a security guard. It's called common sense.
B
We haven't had big clouds in NYC for months... Where's the article in question?!?
Why should 911 service be free? I'm not trolling here, I'm serious. I consider it a point of personal responsibility to know the ID, location, and phone # of the local police precinct. It's not hard. 911 should be 1.900.911, for some big flat fee, which would keep many of the cranks away. If someone calls on your behalf it just rolls into your ambulance bill (etc).
Think of first response as just another security service, or as just another health insurance service. What makes "first response" any different than the personal responsibility of after the fact clean up (which is not an entitlement, thank-you-very-much). The national 911 system seems to work very well, but it's just another case of government stepping in where a real market existed and spending our tax dollars rather than allowing industry to create more tax dollars.
I have yet to hear a single compelling reason for subsidising it for users at the expense of non-users, given the modern ubiquity of communications. I won't even get into "opt out"...
One of the justifications for meddling with land-line telcos in the first place was the defacto monopoly created by the need for copper everywhere, and the desire of government to spread communications. These old models no longer apply. It's a virtual phone. There is no de facto monopoly, therefore there is no need for govt meddling. Vonage provides a data service. Period.
However, farmers do receive subsidies for their phone service (against my will, in the form of taxes and tarrifs attached to my phone bill), simply because they _CHOOSE_ to live far away where phone line installation is expensive. Who's the leech?
No, the public sector does make more mistakes. The public sector doesn't pay as well, and doesn't reward it's people as well non-monetarily. Result is that there are less skilled, less motivated people in the public sector.
In the private sector, companies either 1) purge these people in the interest of productivity, 2) become semi-public monopolies (aka Verizon) which rely on government mandates to protect their captive markets, or 3) go out of business.
Since the public sector is already some sort of monopoly it can't "go out of business", so they don't have to purge these people and we get what we have here - An organization that exists solely to protect the interests of its head(s), without competition or accountability, free to make mistake after mistake. You say it yourself - the competent people are turned away. That leaves an orgainization (public sector) that can't compete.
Yes, most everything coming from a monopolistic government-mandated agency - staffed by low-skill, low-motivation people - is bad. It's not just a distrust of the state, but a distrust (and dislike) of anything coming from people who would willingly participate in such a nameless, faceless, endless bureaucracy.
And if you think that current government works under a spotlight, think again. US Government agencies have never in the history of our country spent so much of our money to hide from us the things they do. You want transparency? Go to a shareholders' meeting.
Regardless of how much of a "blow" to JBoss Group this might be, unless it sinks them (not likely) it's good for the industry in every aspect.
The site is not a circumvention device unless the participants can grab the signals out of the air with the power of their mind. We've still got some distinction between info and hardware, and the participants need _hardware_ in order to make use of the info. He's not selling hardware.
Botton line on satellite hacking is quite simple -
If you don't want me viewing your signal, then don't point your signal at me and don't bath my property in your signal.
Putting value on your Elf or your Sim-house is kind of like trying to put value on your place in line. Sure, some people will eagerly buy your spot (and the rest of us will call that a soft-cheat), but say you sit overnight waiting to buy tickets to a show and some guy (or girl - especially if she's got a cool vest ) comes along and kicks your ass, takes your place, and you don't get to buy tickets. You can sue for assault, but you're not going to get very far suing for compensation on the time you "invested" waiting in line or for the tickets the sob "stole" from you.
Our legal system is founded (rightly so, I think) on two concepts - ownership of property, and the contract. In-game exploits don't change either your contract status or your property ownership. If you get screwed repeatedly you might be able to go after the game company for failure to deliver the gaming environment you paid for, but that's it.
This is already covered under laws of slander, libel, and torturous interference (with business). You fake my name or avatar or eMail address to make me look like a ninny and I can sue you for damages. That's not an 'online' issue at all. Don't let special laws make it an online issue.
Is there no accountability for quality?
Really - I keep hearing how MS is skimming the best and brightest from the nation's talent pool... Based on the software releases I've seen, it looks more like culling to me.