The ISP does not need to be involved. The tap order will force the VOIP provider to route your call through a proxy which will tap the stream, instead of having it go IP2IP.
You have to understand that with SIP protocol, there are multiple streams of data. The call setup is initiated via the VoIP provider's machines, but the media stream may be P2P.
I don't think there is any provision to force the clients to use a transparent proxy for the media stream when the call is initiated, unless the clients are configured to use such a proxy. Now it may be possible to force it, but it would involve all kinds of special equipment or software to achieve this. Not impossible, just difficult.
Furthermore, who is going to pay for this equipment, software and bandwidth? I don't think VoIP companies can be forced so to do.
If the FBI has a wiretap order on your line, the provider simply forces all of your traffic through a proxy that they control.
OK, but the parent post was suggesting that the VoIP providers would be the location of the tap. If the ISP has to be involved, it's a little more difficult (but not impossible).
Re:Criminals are stupid, that's why they get caugh
on
Feds Want to Tap VoIP
·
· Score: 4, Funny
No. Criminals generally do dumb things and get caught, even the more intelligent ones. They only need to make one mistake. That is law enforcements advantage. Crime can be a pretty unforgiving profession.
If criminals were smart, they would be running telcoms or energy companies, or on Wall Street, hyping Internet stocks. Oh, wait....
They want Vonage, Packet8, etc. to do the tapping for them.
Depending on the setup, once the call has been established, the media stream may be point-to-point and not via the VoIP providers' servers. OK, so this is is difficult with some NAT routers today, but more and more NAT routers are getting better at handling SIP.
For SCO to win the suit, they must positively prove that IBM stole code. IBM (and Linus, etc, etc) needn't prove the negative (that they didn't steal it), either. It is incumbent on SCO to prove the positive.
I think you are laboring under the common misconception that civil suits have the same standards of proof as criminal cases have (beyond reasonable doubt). They don't. In civil cases, the standard of proof is a "balance of probabilities".
If you go to this page and read the paragraph headed: "10. In Section 4.16, paragraph (b), the last sentence (\"Buyer shall not... Merged Product\") is amended to read as follows:", you will see that the amendment eliminated almost all right to sell new SVRx licenses. SCO only bought rights to sell the rights to use on additional CPUs to existing licensees.
Given this limited right, why would SCO need ownership of the SVRx copyrights in order to exercise their rights under the agreement.
Hence SCO did not get the SVRx copyrights.
What SCO bought was really the UnixWare business. Not UNIX!
I'd not be too cocky until I knew for sure that the kernel is clean of any SCO data.
Ahh, but that is how SCO's plan is brilliant. It is a logical impossiblity to prove a negative. Thus, there will never be concrete proof that there are no violations of SCO's copyright in Linux.
Furthermore, you appear to have fallen for the other common trap, which is that there is SCO "data" in Linux. SCO put it there themselves. The real issue is the mythical existence of code that is somehow in violation of SCO's "IP rights".
This means that anyone who bought a UNIX license under the belief that doing so would give them the license to use SCO's "property" in linux is now being threatened if they do not stop using SCO's property in linux!
Your comment presupposes that someone actually bought such a license. Given the lack of truth emanating from SCO's HQ, I would not entirely believe their earlier claims of selling one. Oh, they might have sold something, but was it really a "Linux License"?
You say that this is simple, but it is not. In order to have an authoritative source for the data, one must have a named, vulnerable location to dispense it from.
How about something working with SpamAssassin/Razor.
You don't really need a centralised list of targets. Let each host decide for itself what is a valid target, based on SA scores and perhaps Razor scores. The host could then upload to something like a Razor server to announce it's intention to attack.
This would be highly efficient because the attack would then happen as the SPAM was going out, bringing the proxy/zombie/bullet-proof host to a standstill.
I just set up my parents with an IP phone and login via FWD. I tried Sipphone first, but could not get it to work behind the NAT router at my parents' end.
I can now make unlimited, free calls to them, saving $100/month. What's more, there are no monthly charges for either of these services, all you have to do is buy the equipment -- which can be either a hardware IP phone, or a software phone.
I wonder how many people or businesses have bought service from Vonage and then shipped the equipment abroad? It's got to be one of the cheapest ways to get a US phone number if you are outside the US.
In either case, you can still find out the spammer's location by scanning down the "received:" list until you find the first exchange that took place
While that used to be true, nowadays a lot of spam is sent via open proxies. In this case, the proxy will not show any other "received" lines, except for the fake "received" lines that the spammer has deliberately inserted in order to divert tracking attempts.
But Microsoft does not need to have all the features that the other guys have. MS only needs to have the features that 80% of the population think they need*.
Once 80% of their revenue has disappeared, most if not all of the firewall vendors will disappear.
* Note: who tells those customers what they need from a firewall: mostly it's Microsoft!
I remember 80s GM Delco radios had the ability to receive traffic broadcasts that would override your tape (and later CD player) audio.
I'm not sure that TrafficMaster "broadcasts". It sends out signals from roadside transmitters that are very specific to the location. For example, you might get a message such as:
"Traffic moving slowly 5 miles ahead...."
So while it may not be quite so specific as giving information about the upcoming junction 100 yards ahead, it's definitely not a broadcast of general information -- it's giving information about the specific road on which you are travelling, or likely to be travelling.
Oh, so you mean like Trafficmaster , which has been around in the UK since the '80s and can be integrated into the radio so that the information received via Trafficmaster over-rides the current radio program or CD/tape?
Unless it calls people (OK, myself included), on their cell phone, no one will ever notice.
Do some research on RDS -- found in Europe. RDS radios have the capability to interrupt normal radio or CD/tape output and give the driver the traffic news, at a pre-set volume.
No, they won't be shipping a GNU/Linux versoin of their ad software. Yes, I can still 'load' it onto my PC to adhere to their TOCs. Just copy it over to my HD.
Yes, but if you do this, you won't: "accept up to 3 minutes of on-screen advertising per hour of PC use." which is in the first sentence of the first requirement. If you don't accept, they can demand the return of the machine (at your cost, probably) and possibly compensation.
Realistically, only about 0.1% of *nix users ever even think about touching kernel source.
That depends on what you consider "touching". Realistically, I'm not going to open the kernel source files in an editor and change them -- at least not in the near future. but I do
download and install patches for IPSEC VPN, 3GB per-process VM space, etc..
Of course, I also configure the kernel for the specific hardware I have -- as is required with Gentoo (and I think, Debian). I expect many people do the same as I do.
Is any of this "touching"? Surely Debian + Gentoo must account for more than 0.1% of the *nix users out there.
PS. In the interests of strict accuracy, I must state the I have actually edited one of the files: there was a conflict between a couple of the patches that I applied and the only solution was a hand-edit.
Unless you're USING YOUR CELLPHONE TO RECORD THE MOVIE, there is no problem.
According to the article (but who reads that?) mere possesion of a video recording device in a theatre is sufficent to create the possiblity of arrest and prosecution.
So, as another poster asked, what happens if you forget to take your camcorder OUT of your car when you go to the drive-in (and yes, there are still drive-ins in California)?
Here in CA, we have had number portability between land-lines for some time. So when I wanted to switch my landline number from AT&T to another land-line provider, I assumed all would work.
Well, after numerous calls to the new provider and over a month of waiting, AT&T did not release the number. Result? I was forced to stay with AT&T.
Now, I am trying to figure out if I can save money by getting rid of my land-line phones in favor of cellphones and Sip phones (since 95% of my long distance calls are to one number and they will shortly also have a SIP phone).
Slashdot Mirror
You have to understand that with SIP protocol, there are multiple streams of data. The call setup is initiated via the VoIP provider's machines, but the media stream may be P2P.
I don't think there is any provision to force the clients to use a transparent proxy for the media stream when the call is initiated, unless the clients are configured to use such a proxy. Now it may be possible to force it, but it would involve all kinds of special equipment or software to achieve this. Not impossible, just difficult.
Furthermore, who is going to pay for this equipment, software and bandwidth? I don't think VoIP companies can be forced so to do.
OK, but the parent post was suggesting that the VoIP providers would be the location of the tap. If the ISP has to be involved, it's a little more difficult (but not impossible).
Time for encryption, then. I already have one machine configured (at work) with FreeS/WAN's Opportunistic Encryption, running Full Opportunism
If criminals were smart, they would be running telcoms or energy companies, or on Wall Street, hyping Internet stocks. Oh, wait....
Depending on the setup, once the call has been established, the media stream may be point-to-point and not via the VoIP providers' servers. OK, so this is is difficult with some NAT routers today, but more and more NAT routers are getting better at handling SIP.
I think you are laboring under the common misconception that civil suits have the same standards of proof as criminal cases have (beyond reasonable doubt). They don't. In civil cases, the standard of proof is a "balance of probabilities".
Given this limited right, why would SCO need ownership of the SVRx copyrights in order to exercise their rights under the agreement.
Hence SCO did not get the SVRx copyrights. What SCO bought was really the UnixWare business. Not UNIX!
Ahh, but that is how SCO's plan is brilliant. It is a logical impossiblity to prove a negative. Thus, there will never be concrete proof that there are no violations of SCO's copyright in Linux.
Furthermore, you appear to have fallen for the other common trap, which is that there is SCO "data" in Linux. SCO put it there themselves. The real issue is the mythical existence of code that is somehow in violation of SCO's "IP rights".
Install Acrobat (not just the reader) and then see how quickly (slowly) Word starts!
Your comment presupposes that someone actually bought such a license. Given the lack of truth emanating from SCO's HQ, I would not entirely believe their earlier claims of selling one. Oh, they might have sold something, but was it really a "Linux License"?
According to the LKML, it's probably not in 2.2.x
How about something working with SpamAssassin/Razor.
You don't really need a centralised list of targets. Let each host decide for itself what is a valid target, based on SA scores and perhaps Razor scores. The host could then upload to something like a Razor server to announce it's intention to attack.
This would be highly efficient because the attack would then happen as the SPAM was going out, bringing the proxy/zombie/bullet-proof host to a standstill.
----
RGB is standard on most equipment as it is included in the SCART connector usually found on any TV/VCR/DVD sold in the last decade.
I can now make unlimited, free calls to them, saving $100/month. What's more, there are no monthly charges for either of these services, all you have to do is buy the equipment -- which can be either a hardware IP phone, or a software phone.
I wonder how many people or businesses have bought service from Vonage and then shipped the equipment abroad? It's got to be one of the cheapest ways to get a US phone number if you are outside the US.
While that used to be true, nowadays a lot of spam is sent via open proxies. In this case, the proxy will not show any other "received" lines, except for the fake "received" lines that the spammer has deliberately inserted in order to divert tracking attempts.
Once 80% of their revenue has disappeared, most if not all of the firewall vendors will disappear.
* Note: who tells those customers what they need from a firewall: mostly it's Microsoft!
I'm not sure that TrafficMaster "broadcasts". It sends out signals from roadside transmitters that are very specific to the location. For example, you might get a message such as: ...."
"Traffic moving slowly 5 miles ahead
So while it may not be quite so specific as giving information about the upcoming junction 100 yards ahead, it's definitely not a broadcast of general information -- it's giving information about the specific road on which you are travelling, or likely to be travelling.
Oh, so you mean like Trafficmaster , which has been around in the UK since the '80s and can be integrated into the radio so that the information received via Trafficmaster over-rides the current radio program or CD/tape?
Do some research on RDS -- found in Europe. RDS radios have the capability to interrupt normal radio or CD/tape output and give the driver the traffic news, at a pre-set volume.
Please tell me how I set up "Opt-in" for my company's "sales@" address, and stop spam to this address with your suggestion?
Yes, but if you do this, you won't: "accept up to 3 minutes of on-screen advertising per hour of PC use." which is in the first sentence of the first requirement. If you don't accept, they can demand the return of the machine (at your cost, probably) and possibly compensation.
That depends on what you consider "touching". Realistically, I'm not going to open the kernel source files in an editor and change them -- at least not in the near future. but I do download and install patches for
IPSEC VPN,
3GB per-process VM space,
etc..
Of course, I also configure the kernel for the specific hardware I have -- as is required with Gentoo (and I think, Debian). I expect many people do the same as I do.
Is any of this "touching"? Surely Debian + Gentoo must account for more than 0.1% of the *nix users out there.
PS. In the interests of strict accuracy, I must state the I have actually edited one of the files: there was a conflict between a couple of the patches that I applied and the only solution was a hand-edit.
can you point me to any in orange county(or surrounding counties)?
Well, perhaps my use of the plural was an exaggeration. The only one I know if is in San Jose.
Unless you're USING YOUR CELLPHONE TO RECORD THE MOVIE, there is no problem.
According to the article (but who reads that?) mere possesion of a video recording device in a theatre is sufficent to create the possiblity of arrest and prosecution.
So, as another poster asked, what happens if you forget to take your camcorder OUT of your car when you go to the drive-in (and yes, there are still drive-ins in California)?
Here in CA, we have had number portability between land-lines for some time. So when I wanted to switch my landline number from AT&T to another land-line provider, I assumed all would work.
Well, after numerous calls to the new provider and over a month of waiting, AT&T did not release the number. Result? I was forced to stay with AT&T.
Now, I am trying to figure out if I can save money by getting rid of my land-line phones in favor of cellphones and Sip phones (since 95% of my long distance calls are to one number and they will shortly also have a SIP phone).