This is the Sunday Times of London, which among other stories has spoken of nuclear landmines, genetically selective antipersonnel weapons, and has the inimitable John Ungoed Thomas for a reporter.
Cracking a URL list is fair use for security testing, for the following reason:
Suppose I have a kid who's starting to get computer literate and I decide I want censorware. Well, in that case I would want to know the false positives rate because too many false positives would increase my kid's motivation to try to circumvent the censorware. The more motivation on my kid's part, the more insecure the censorware package.
So yes, Hasselton's actions in my book constitute a form of security testing and thus should be protected.
part of the problem is that when a politician talks about "protecting the children" from the latest bugaboo (like Internet porn), too many of us, who would be laughing at his expense, restrain this natural urge to faux civility.
Take Arianna's advice: http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/04069 8.html
Lower your guffaw threshold. Better yet go to political rallies and lower your guffaw threshold.
How about inviting the President for a/. interview in the YRO section? Let's have the/. admin cabal knock out with extreme prejudice all questions that do not relate to YRO, and all other questions be moderated the usual way.
THis way the President can answer questions that are respectful, and yet hard-hitting, for a change.
Last time the President went online, the moderators filtered out any question that even smacked of controversy. The questions were such softballs they bordered on brown-nosing.
If you get the chance to barge into a chat with Clinton, instead of spoofing, how about doing what no reporter seems to dare and asking him a hard question?
What ever happened to holding the President to high scrutiny?
One of the issues raised by the DeCSS case is "is code a form of expression?". Come here for my initial effort to turn any piece of C-code into a recipe book (well, kinda sorta. Different streams of consciousness flowed while I was writing it.):
http://www.mit.edu/~ocschwar/recipe.pl
I'll edit this in my "copious free time", and hopefully you can settle for this announcement when it comes to license issues: It's GPL'd.
If any of you feel like giving me the regexps I need for this, please email me.
Every time a case like this starts up, people discuss a utility to convert back and forth from C to something comprising full English sentences. At this point I wonder if one's already been written.
Let me tell you what you can't afford. You can't afford the liability of any of your thousands of employees having the ability to commit the company as a whole to damn near anything. It's one thing to be liable if an employee pirates something. It's something completely different if you have to have your very expensive lawyers evaluate every single software EULA that any piss-ant department might be exposing your company to.
A mandate to only use standard EULAs is the end result from corporations, and suddenly most software companies have no chance of defeating Microsoft(whose EULA has to be accepted) or Open Source Software(whose licenses are standardized and non-threatening by default.)
So far so good, except:
if UCITA passes, a UCITA-esque EULA could become the standard EULA, and if some network protocol for some proprietary app somewhere becomes an industry standard, the prohibition on reverse-engineering would nail Open Source groups to the wall and ream them with a wheedwhacker.
Overall, corporate interests should be antithetical to UCITA.
Imagine how lovely it would be for an insurance company to live with the fear that their entire WAN can be knocked out of operation by an irate software company. No more billing until they pay up whatever is disputed. And how just swell they must feel knowing that UCITA's proposed disabling codes could be hijacked by a disgruntled employee of some software company. Gee, won't they love to see that happen to their actuarial software.
Pretty much any financial firm, be it a thrift of some kind or a brokerage, or anything, should find UCITA to be nauseating. For a bank the thought that their software writers could be protected from a liability even if they know that there are backdoors in the ATM protocols or what-have-ye.
Then there are the airlines, also, very much a WAN-dependant industry with little in the way of a fallback if they lose their software.
Why am I saying this?
Because a well directed effort could get insurance-industry-dominate Connecticut and the state of New York not just to ditch UCITA, but to pass a "you gotta be kidding" type resolution.
Although UCITA passing would not mean that a company would have the audacity to try to use a UCITA-endorsed contract in dealing with a large software customer like a bank, it is still in the interests of many corporations in the US to lobby to give UCITA a well-deserved smackdown.
The little green men find out about this and immediately begin encoding a trojan horse in the decoy signal that NASA's been detecting.
As thousands of clients crash throughout the planet, Linux enthusiasts eagerly point out that their machines not only can process the signal but even identify the byte code signature of the trojan, without any ill effect.
1. Make patent applications get posted on the Web so that they can be pre-empted by prior art, rather than challenged after approval (doesn't Europe do this?).
2. Shrink patent lifetimes for software patents (if not ban software patents altogether). Internet patents should live on Internet time. (How's that for a sound bite?)
But, aren't these solutions going to be defeated by entrenched corporate interests?
For every corporation that benefits from the current dain-bramaged implementation of US patent law, there are several that suffer. I really don't think this ridiculous situation will survive the next few Congressional sessions.
It should be a domain/IP-address based module to remember never to send requests to domains like doubleclick.
It should make its way to the preferences section, preferably together with a cookie filter. By making it a standard part of Mozilla, it will pressure Netscape and M$ to copy the feature.
This way the user has some control of how much info he gives away by browsing. Anonimizing proxies are also a solution, but it's best to make a.22 pea shooter available to those who don't want to pack a shotgun.
Leaving aside the geek tendency for raccous talk (a rough edge does not a flamer make), there's another trend that will cause flaming to recede.
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. But everyone knows if you're a flamer, and an attention worthy net persona is a good asset even (or especially) if it's pseudonymous (or insecurely semipseudonymous).
Steve Mann, one of the original Media Lab borg units, was motivated partly by a desire to have more control over his personal visual place. IOW, he wanted his visor to block out bilboards.
Check him out: http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~mann/
And in this page:
...Mediation: Unlike hand held devices, laptop computers, and PDAs, the wearable computer can encapsulate us (Fig 1c). It doesn't necessarily need to completely enclose us, but the concept allows for a greater degree of encapsulation than traditional portable computers. There are two aspects to this encapsulation:
Solitude: It can function as an information filter, and allow us to block out material we might not wish to experience, whether it be offensive advertising, or simply a desire to replace existing media with different media. In less severe manifestations, it may simply allow us to alter our perception of reality in a very mild sort of way....
Steve Mann, one of the original Media Lab borg units, was motivated partly by a desire to have more control over his personal visual place. IOW, he wanted his visor to block out bilboards.
Check him out: http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~mann/
And in this page:
Mediation: Unlike hand held devices, laptop computers, and PDAs, the wearable computer can encapsulate us (Fig 1c). It doesn't necessarily need to completely enclose us, but the concept allows for a greater degree of encapsulation than traditional portable computers. There are two aspects to this encapsulation: Solitude: It can function as an information filter, and allow us to block out material we might not wish to experience, whether it be offensive advertising, or simply a desire to replace existing media with different media. In less severe manifestations, it may simply allow us to alter our perception of reality in a very mild sort of way.
Slashdot Mirror
What is great about this manuscript is that it
gives Archimedes's writing in the original Greek, rather than Arabic.
This is the Sunday Times of London, which among
other stories has spoken of nuclear landmines, genetically selective antipersonnel weapons, and has the inimitable John Ungoed Thomas for a reporter.
Oi, Britons!
Could we have some confirmation, please?
http://www.mit.edu/~ocschwar/ ... :
cp4break.html
cp4break.zip
cph1_rev.c
cphack.exe
cndecode.c
On US soil, no less.
Cracking a URL list is fair use for security testing, for the following reason:
Suppose I have a kid who's starting to get computer literate and I decide I want censorware. Well, in that case I would want to know the false positives rate because too many false positives would increase my kid's motivation to try to circumvent the censorware. The more motivation on my kid's part, the more insecure the censorware package.
So yes, Hasselton's actions in my book constitute a form of security testing and thus should be protected.
Nuff said.
(The article is unavailable, so I make this comment in blissful ignorance.)
If there is noise in the fabric of space-time, then surely it is carried by a set of as yet undiscovered particles.
And the bast names for them are
firstposton,
natalieporton,
hotgritson, et cetera.
part of the problem is that when a politician talks about "protecting the children" from the latest bugaboo (like Internet porn), too many of us, who would be laughing at his expense, restrain this natural urge to faux civility.
9 8.html
Take Arianna's advice:
http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/0406
Lower your guffaw threshold. Better yet go to political rallies and lower your guffaw threshold.
but I'm not going to risk my life savings on an activist stunt like that. Especially with media corporations, whose value depends on a fickle market.
Sorry boys.
How about inviting the President for a /. interview in the YRO section? Let's have the /. admin cabal knock out with extreme prejudice all questions that do not relate to YRO, and all other questions be moderated the usual way.
THis way the President can answer questions that are respectful, and yet hard-hitting, for a change.
If he has the guts, that is.
Last time the President went online, the moderators filtered out any question that even smacked of controversy. The questions were such softballs they bordered on brown-nosing.
If you get the chance to barge into a chat with Clinton, instead of spoofing, how about doing what no reporter seems to dare and asking him a hard question?
What ever happened to holding the President to high scrutiny?
France has been engaging in industrial espionage to give French firms an advantage:
http://www.aci.net/Kalliste/industryespion.pdf
I really hope the US and UK countersue, because then maybe more info on both issues will be revealed.
One of the issues raised by the DeCSS case is "is code a form of expression?". Come here for my initial effort to turn any piece of C-code into a recipe book (well, kinda sorta. Different streams of consciousness flowed while I was writing it.):
http://www.mit.edu/~ocschwar/recipe.pl
I'll edit this in my "copious free time", and hopefully you can settle for this announcement when it comes to license issues: It's GPL'd.
If any of you feel like giving me the regexps I need for this, please email me.
but I have to support SurfWatch's blocking of the Chris Odonnell fan page on general principles, man.
I mean, something had to be done.
Every time a case like this starts up, people discuss a utility to convert back and forth from C to something comprising full English sentences. At this point I wonder if one's already been written.
So far so good, except:
if UCITA passes, a UCITA-esque EULA could become the standard EULA, and if some network protocol for some proprietary app somewhere becomes an industry standard, the prohibition on reverse-engineering would nail Open Source groups to the wall and ream them with a wheedwhacker.
There is something that bears mentioning:
Overall, corporate interests should be antithetical to UCITA.
Imagine how lovely it would be for an insurance company to live with the fear that their entire WAN can be knocked out of operation by an irate software company. No more billing until they pay up whatever is disputed. And how just swell they must feel knowing that UCITA's proposed disabling codes could be hijacked by a disgruntled employee of some software company. Gee, won't they love to see that happen to their actuarial software.
Pretty much any financial firm, be it a thrift of some kind or a brokerage, or anything, should find UCITA to be nauseating. For a bank the thought that their software writers could be protected from a liability even if they know that there are backdoors in the ATM protocols or what-have-ye.
Then there are the airlines, also, very much a WAN-dependant industry with little in the way of a fallback if they lose their software.
Why am I saying this?
Because a well directed effort could get insurance-industry-dominate Connecticut and the state of New York not just to ditch UCITA, but to pass a "you gotta be kidding" type resolution.
Although UCITA passing would not mean that a company would have the audacity to try to use a UCITA-endorsed contract in dealing with a large software customer like a bank, it is still in the interests of many corporations in the US to lobby to give UCITA a well-deserved smackdown.
The little green men find out about this and immediately begin encoding a trojan horse in the decoy signal that NASA's been detecting.
As thousands of clients crash throughout the planet, Linux enthusiasts eagerly point out that their machines not only can process the signal but even identify the byte code signature of the
trojan, without any ill effect.
The political solutions:
1. Make patent applications get posted on the Web so that they can be pre-empted by prior art, rather than challenged after approval (doesn't
Europe do this?).
2. Shrink patent lifetimes for software patents (if not ban software patents altogether).
Internet patents should live on Internet time.
(How's that for a sound bite?)
But, aren't these solutions going to be defeated by entrenched corporate interests?
For every corporation that benefits from the current dain-bramaged implementation of US patent law, there are several that suffer. I really don't think this ridiculous situation will survive the next few Congressional sessions.
It should be a domain/IP-address based module to remember never to send requests to domains like doubleclick.
.22 pea shooter available to those who don't want to pack a shotgun.
It should make its way to the preferences section, preferably together with a cookie filter. By making it a standard part of Mozilla, it will pressure Netscape and M$ to copy the feature.
This way the user has some control of how much info he gives away by browsing. Anonimizing proxies are also a solution, but it's best to make a
I meant " when you submit a first
post, the submission page releases
a smell of a rotten tomato."
Wiping the rotten tomato off my face,
Apuleius.
Nuff said.
Leaving aside the geek tendency for raccous
talk (a rough edge does not a flamer make),
there's another trend that will cause flaming to recede.
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
But everyone knows if you're a flamer, and
an attention worthy net persona is a good
asset even (or especially) if it's pseudonymous
(or insecurely semipseudonymous).
grepping -v for Natalie Portman,
Steve Mann, one of the original Media Lab borg units, was motivated partly by a desire to have more control over his personal visual place.
IOW, he wanted his visor to block out bilboards.
Check him out:
http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~mann/
And
in this page:
Discuss.
Steve Mann, one of the original Media Lab borg units, was motivated partly by a desire to have more control over his personal visual place.
IOW, he wanted his visor to block out bilboards.
Check him out:
http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~mann/
And
in this page:
Discuss.
Too many reporters and media companies are not just clueless, but they don't care.
It's going to take a bit more.