Most ISP's put you behind a NAT anyway. You have to pay *extra* to get a routable IP address and accept incoming traffic without your specifically reaching out for content (such as Bittorrent does).
I agree with your approach. I disagree, from direct observation, that the FBI are competent enough to actually do any of this. Despite their much-vaunted "Computer Crime Squad", they remain unwilling to investigate and incompetent to follow even basic backup and clean room procedures of materials they investigate. I've actually had to explain such issues to them, at length, regarding stolen computer property and verifying that software was taken with it.
Unless they've had a complete turnover of personnel throughout the department in the last 2 years, they're not competent from top to bottom in any of the 4 state's offices I had to deal with then.
If caught, perhaps. But for unofficial or illegal probing, such as a plaintiff who's seized your hard drives but not gotten a court order to get the decryption keys, it serves them right.
Competent forensic teams, from my personal experience, do not work for the police or law enforcement of any kind. They're private, and charge quite a lot for such services. Your average police department, or even the much vaunted FBI computer crime teams, are not competent enough to commit such elementary steps.
Re:Lap desks are for the weak
on
Lap Desks
·
· Score: 1
You got excited about patent burdened and deliberately filesystem work, designed to break NTFS drivers and prevent anyone from reading a Windows Vista hard drive without buying a license and support massively enhanced DRM? Excited is not the word I would choose.
Rabbits don't shoot back. Infantry do. They'll kill armor first if they get too close. Modern armor absolutely needs the improved sensor suite, or infantry can approach under modest cover with grenade launchers, RPG's, or other tools for eliminating armor.
You are mixing up several ideas there. Let's separate them.
* You surreptitiously modified a legal contract to your advantage and presented it to someone as the original, unmodified contract, and said "caveat emptor" to the other party. In other words, you lie on legal documents and are proud of it. This is a very, very dangerous practice and means that *nothing* you present can be relied on. If I've got to do a word-by-word diff on any document you sign to find out where you modified it surreptitiously, that means that your code and your program results are probably as fraudulent.
* What makes you think I, or people working with me or for me, don't read the contracts? I've walked people through various NDA and non-compete agreements, and signed my share of them. I've also pointed clients, and employers, to places they might need to modify it to protect GPL work or thesis work and avoid NDA problems.
You've noticed that? It's also handy at layoff time to get rid of "deadwood" or "uncooperative employees" who disagree with corporate mandates, or quietly lay off people with kids and expensive health care, people who actually take their vacation time, etc.
It's even more fun when they start filling a file with "warnings" and "employee goals" to collect evidence to fire a particular troublemaker, or if they're political starting a whispering campaign to make people unhappy about you. This happened to me once, when my GPL and open-source beliefs were interfering with some corporate practices because I kept pointing out software that was GPL and where we legally had to send the modified software source code to our clients. It caused problems: our clients were not being told that our work was GPL based. I double-checked my employee contract, sighed with relief that I'd put in clauses about protecting GPL work, and happily went to new work with the GPL software published for further development.
As amusing as this is, if I caught you doing this to a contract I had to counter-sign, I'd find an excuse to fire you so fast your you'd make a sonic boom leaving the building. If you do this sort of stunt to corporate contracts, what are you doing to your other paperwork? Or your checks? Or our contracts with partners? Or your software specs? Or your safety test results for your hardware?
Putting one over on "them" can be fun, but how can anyone trust you on other matters if you pull this sort of stunt?
It's flown for me on at least 3 separate occasions. One led to a meeting with the company CTO, where I carefully laid out personal work I'd been doing, not on company time, and where the policy would take it from me if they got bought out by a particular corporate bidder and stop all development. He said "that won't happen", so I said "so you won't mind me having this clause about something that won't happen, will you"?
My employer did get bought by that bidder. We parted company, amiably, and my work was specifically exempted in the purchase agreement. (It was based on GPL, but not sent to customers, so various GPL clauses did not affect it yet.) And the work did eventually make it into the GPL version.
That's rather like a surgeon saying "don't bother with a diet, I can always suck that fat out of your belly with a tube".
Tell us again why you trust this lawyer? Or does he think he can always win confusing terms to your advantage, instead of being honest with your partners up front?
I do agree with seeing a lawyer, to nail down the details and see if they're "industry standard" or valid in your state, and what alterations you may need to protect other work you do not on company time.
That has other reasons. The telcos selling services at below cost in order to get their initial market share has ended: one can expect such market maturation to raise prices.
It cost them Jeremy Allison, and ruined any potential leadership in the file-server and Samba-based Windows-compatible server market. Given the choice between Microsoft patent protection, and actually having developers like Jeremy to write the code and make it work, I'd take Jeremy and his ilk everytime. In fact, I do so, and have submitted several proposals in the last year for storage solutions that carefully avoid Microsoft and Novell, for exactly this sort of reason.
Well, that's reasonable. You need enough circuitry in place, active and able to re-activate the power supply. The problem gets a bit recursive, and can get fragile and expensive to make a smaller switch, to trip a bigger switch, to trip a bigger switch, to actually restore the system to life quickly. I'm not saying it's not reasonable, just that it's extra circuitry in commodity electronics. There has to be a noticeable demand for people to do that.
I agree that it can be improved. But there are limits. The best switching power supplies still take a noticeable trickle current, and you have to either keep that running or build an entirely separate and somewhat expensive supply just for these trickle currents.
And the display LED, and the clock chip. Don't underestimate the amount of power sucked by a display LED: Your average modern living room is pulling a surprising amoun of power just for those lights, even in an efficient home.
So, because air travel has gotten cheap, do you send your flowers and groceries by air? No. You use local delivery for local objects, and place the orders electronically. Wasting energy on transporting unnecessary mass when all you really need to send is information is almost always foolish, and radio is relatively cheap, and detection relatively easy.
And hardly "all-american". Many of the telephone spam companies use third-world call centers who speak English well, better than many Americans, but whose accents are noticeably Mexican, Indian, Pakistani, etc.
Let's not forget that that "quick office gobble" was with an office intern. That's a sexual harassment issue of which Clinton had previously accused, by Paula Jones, and whose accusations were discounted. It's nowhere near as bad as starting a really stupid war, but it's definitely grounds for impeachment. Like Al Capone being convicted on tax evasion, the perjury charge was the hook for convicting Clinton of a long, long-standing practice of sexual misbevior against subordinates.
Some of the torture prisons are in Turkey, and other nations that permit legal "water-boarding" and other tortures. I suggest you check for the articles in the New York Times: it's an ongoing program to transfer prisoners in Iraq and other places and transfer them to nations where torture is legal. And there's been fascinating testimony, in front of Congress, that the US still engages in "waterboarding" in our own prisons in Iraq. This is a banned torture involving drowing the victim to just shy of death. It does occasionally kill, adn these are prisoners who have never been tried, much less convicted, of anything.
This secret extradition and torture treatment is also in direct violation of the US code of military justice, a set of US laws, which describes court procedures for military procedures and has no magic clause for this newly invented "military non-combatants". I'm afraid you've not glanced at the set of laws being violated: please spend a bit of time checking out the news articles on these tortures and on
We signed the Geneva Convention. We also wrote the US constitution, and numerous court decisions since then provide a minimum of human rights for even enemies in combat, much more for prisoners. The Geneva Convetion is an agreement *by* nation stat4es, and includes their handling of non-signatories. And like parents without children paying taxes for schools, many nations sign it to help prevent trouble worldwide. Better yet, it also includes standards for how nations treat their own citizens, forbidding genocide and yes, torture. So it's not just aimed at protecting one's citizens oversees, it sets a legal minimum standard of behavior worldwide. So let's not pretend that there's only one reason for signing it. That kind of rationalized thinking leads to people only obeying traffic laws when it feels important to them, and it's not safe.
Please examine the history of the US code of military justice, if not of the Geneva Convention, to see how many ways we're violating it. I'm not saying that it justifies beheading of innocent victims, but one does not justify the other: both are illegal and violations of international treaty, and need to stop for either practicioners to be treated as just.
What you suggest would make it impossible, when the FBI abuses its power, for the courts to intervene more than once on the part of aa local or state government that is refusing an order, or for that order to be tested eventually by the new Supreme Court and eventually become new constitutional precedent. Arguments between Congress and the Army about how they're supposed to spend money Congrass allotted them could not be escalated without finding some citizen patsy to take the case, and that's just not fair to anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Most ISP's put you behind a NAT anyway. You have to pay *extra* to get a routable IP address and accept incoming traffic without your specifically reaching out for content (such as Bittorrent does).
I agree with your approach. I disagree, from direct observation, that the FBI are competent enough to actually do any of this. Despite their much-vaunted "Computer Crime Squad", they remain unwilling to investigate and incompetent to follow even basic backup and clean room procedures of materials they investigate. I've actually had to explain such issues to them, at length, regarding stolen computer property and verifying that software was taken with it.
Unless they've had a complete turnover of personnel throughout the department in the last 2 years, they're not competent from top to bottom in any of the 4 state's offices I had to deal with then.
If caught, perhaps. But for unofficial or illegal probing, such as a plaintiff who's seized your hard drives but not gotten a court order to get the decryption keys, it serves them right.
Competent forensic teams, from my personal experience, do not work for the police or law enforcement of any kind. They're private, and charge quite a lot for such services. Your average police department, or even the much vaunted FBI computer crime teams, are not competent enough to commit such elementary steps.
He said that because you post to /.
Wouldn't getting their heads to explode be the opposite of impotence?
You got excited about patent burdened and deliberately filesystem work, designed to break NTFS drivers and prevent anyone from reading a Windows Vista hard drive without buying a license and support massively enhanced DRM? Excited is not the word I would choose.
Rabbits don't shoot back. Infantry do. They'll kill armor first if they get too close. Modern armor absolutely needs the improved sensor suite, or infantry can approach under modest cover with grenade launchers, RPG's, or other tools for eliminating armor.
You are mixing up several ideas there. Let's separate them.
* You surreptitiously modified a legal contract to your advantage and presented it to someone as the original, unmodified contract, and said "caveat emptor" to the other party. In other words, you lie on legal documents and are proud of it. This is a very, very dangerous practice and means that *nothing* you present can be relied on. If I've got to do a word-by-word diff on any document you sign to find out where you modified it surreptitiously, that means that your code and your program results are probably as fraudulent.
* What makes you think I, or people working with me or for me, don't read the contracts? I've walked people through various NDA and non-compete agreements, and signed my share of them. I've also pointed clients, and employers, to places they might need to modify it to protect GPL work or thesis work and avoid NDA problems.
You've noticed that? It's also handy at layoff time to get rid of "deadwood" or "uncooperative employees" who disagree with corporate mandates, or quietly lay off people with kids and expensive health care, people who actually take their vacation time, etc.
It's even more fun when they start filling a file with "warnings" and "employee goals" to collect evidence to fire a particular troublemaker, or if they're political starting a whispering campaign to make people unhappy about you. This happened to me once, when my GPL and open-source beliefs were interfering with some corporate practices because I kept pointing out software that was GPL and where we legally had to send the modified software source code to our clients. It caused problems: our clients were not being told that our work was GPL based. I double-checked my employee contract, sighed with relief that I'd put in clauses about protecting GPL work, and happily went to new work with the GPL software published for further development.
As amusing as this is, if I caught you doing this to a contract I had to counter-sign, I'd find an excuse to fire you so fast your you'd make a sonic boom leaving the building. If you do this sort of stunt to corporate contracts, what are you doing to your other paperwork? Or your checks? Or our contracts with partners? Or your software specs? Or your safety test results for your hardware?
Putting one over on "them" can be fun, but how can anyone trust you on other matters if you pull this sort of stunt?
It's flown for me on at least 3 separate occasions. One led to a meeting with the company CTO, where I carefully laid out personal work I'd been doing, not on company time, and where the policy would take it from me if they got bought out by a particular corporate bidder and stop all development. He said "that won't happen", so I said "so you won't mind me having this clause about something that won't happen, will you"?
My employer did get bought by that bidder. We parted company, amiably, and my work was specifically exempted in the purchase agreement. (It was based on GPL, but not sent to customers, so various GPL clauses did not affect it yet.) And the work did eventually make it into the GPL version.
That's rather like a surgeon saying "don't bother with a diet, I can always suck that fat out of your belly with a tube".
Tell us again why you trust this lawyer? Or does he think he can always win confusing terms to your advantage, instead of being honest with your partners up front?
I do agree with seeing a lawyer, to nail down the details and see if they're "industry standard" or valid in your state, and what alterations you may need to protect other work you do not on company time.
That has other reasons. The telcos selling services at below cost in order to get their initial market share has ended: one can expect such market maturation to raise prices.
And that driver could even provide current political commentary, so you don't need a wireless link to read your /. while traveling.
Except when it doesn't go where you need to go.
It cost them Jeremy Allison, and ruined any potential leadership in the file-server and Samba-based Windows-compatible server market. Given the choice between Microsoft patent protection, and actually having developers like Jeremy to write the code and make it work, I'd take Jeremy and his ilk everytime. In fact, I do so, and have submitted several proposals in the last year for storage solutions that carefully avoid Microsoft and Novell, for exactly this sort of reason.
Well, that's reasonable. You need enough circuitry in place, active and able to re-activate the power supply. The problem gets a bit recursive, and can get fragile and expensive to make a smaller switch, to trip a bigger switch, to trip a bigger switch, to actually restore the system to life quickly. I'm not saying it's not reasonable, just that it's extra circuitry in commodity electronics. There has to be a noticeable demand for people to do that.
I agree that it can be improved. But there are limits. The best switching power supplies still take a noticeable trickle current, and you have to either keep that running or build an entirely separate and somewhat expensive supply just for these trickle currents.
And the display LED, and the clock chip. Don't underestimate the amount of power sucked by a display LED: Your average modern living room is pulling a surprising amoun of power just for those lights, even in an efficient home.
So, because air travel has gotten cheap, do you send your flowers and groceries by air? No. You use local delivery for local objects, and place the orders electronically. Wasting energy on transporting unnecessary mass when all you really need to send is information is almost always foolish, and radio is relatively cheap, and detection relatively easy.
And hardly "all-american". Many of the telephone spam companies use third-world call centers who speak English well, better than many Americans, but whose accents are noticeably Mexican, Indian, Pakistani, etc.
Let's not forget that that "quick office gobble" was with an office intern. That's a sexual harassment issue of which Clinton had previously accused, by Paula Jones, and whose accusations were discounted. It's nowhere near as bad as starting a really stupid war, but it's definitely grounds for impeachment. Like Al Capone being convicted on tax evasion, the perjury charge was the hook for convicting Clinton of a long, long-standing practice of sexual misbevior against subordinates.
Some of the torture prisons are in Turkey, and other nations that permit legal "water-boarding" and other tortures. I suggest you check for the articles in the New York Times: it's an ongoing program to transfer prisoners in Iraq and other places and transfer them to nations where torture is legal. And there's been fascinating testimony, in front of Congress, that the US still engages in "waterboarding" in our own prisons in Iraq. This is a banned torture involving drowing the victim to just shy of death. It does occasionally kill, adn these are prisoners who have never been tried, much less convicted, of anything.
This secret extradition and torture treatment is also in direct violation of the US code of military justice, a set of US laws, which describes court procedures for military procedures and has no magic clause for this newly invented "military non-combatants". I'm afraid you've not glanced at the set of laws being violated: please spend a bit of time checking out the news articles on these tortures and on
We signed the Geneva Convention. We also wrote the US constitution, and numerous court decisions since then provide a minimum of human rights for even enemies in combat, much more for prisoners. The Geneva Convetion is an agreement *by* nation stat4es, and includes their handling of non-signatories. And like parents without children paying taxes for schools, many nations sign it to help prevent trouble worldwide. Better yet, it also includes standards for how nations treat their own citizens, forbidding genocide and yes, torture. So it's not just aimed at protecting one's citizens oversees, it sets a legal minimum standard of behavior worldwide. So let's not pretend that there's only one reason for signing it. That kind of rationalized thinking leads to people only obeying traffic laws when it feels important to them, and it's not safe.
Please examine the history of the US code of military justice, if not of the Geneva Convention, to see how many ways we're violating it. I'm not saying that it justifies beheading of innocent victims, but one does not justify the other: both are illegal and violations of international treaty, and need to stop for either practicioners to be treated as just.
What you suggest would make it impossible, when the FBI abuses its power, for the courts to intervene more than once on the part of aa local or state government that is refusing an order, or for that order to be tested eventually by the new Supreme Court and eventually become new constitutional precedent. Arguments between Congress and the Army about how they're supposed to spend money Congrass allotted them could not be escalated without finding some citizen patsy to take the case, and that's just not fair to anyone.