More to the point reverse engineering for the purpose of creating a product that can be used to interact with the first product is legal in australia. See we aren't so draconian after all.
gotta love people who check acronyms: Australian Security Intelligence Organisation(ASIS).
AFAIK ASIS stands for Australian Security Intelligence Service. ASIO stands for Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. I am not sure how the two are related. Someone please enlighten me.
tis only through a court order that passwords etc can be gained, and only when it has been established that there is a resonable suspicion that the encrypted data contains malicious... which can only be reached by acting with a warrant in the first place.
However the promises of Kim Beazley for affordable broadband for all australians in the next few years sounds pretty good to me, hence that's where my vote is going.
The only people that the passwords are revealed to are the proper authorities, and to get them revealed they need a court order, which you have the right to respond to if you please. Even then I do not think that the way the actual law is phrased is enough to cover the giving all passwords. It basically says you have to give enough information when ordered to do so by the courts to allow the information stored on your storage device to be converted to documentary form, which afaik is not defined. I would legimatly expect that I would be able to argue that the encrypted data is in fact still in documentary form, and is still information for the purposes as defined by the bill.
The aussie 2600 site http://www.2600.org.au/ has more on this issue including a mirrored copy of the bill, as well as explanatory memoranda. It also has a response to some of the issues brought up in the bill such as the fact that many of the proposed new crimes are already covered in part by existing laws in the Crimes Act.
Snurfle. Google is easy enough to use for porn anyway. Just try searching for.jpg and as long as there is not a hugely popular actress with the same first name, you will get a tonne of porn in the results, whether you want it or not. At least the images search engine allows you to mask out the porn images.
From my reading of the EULA, it does not give you any rights to distribute the Software (The MIT) anyway, whether it be GPL or otherwise. It reserves and rights that are not given. Basically section 1(c) says that you may not distribute the MIT with something like a GPLed version of VisualStudio.Net (god forbid someone even think of making one). Nor may you distribute it with any application, as the EULA does not give you that right in any of its terms.
Internet explorer creates a derivative work whenever a person uses its save as feature and gets it to save in "Web page complete" mode. It adds meta tags to the effect that the generator of the html file is Internet Explorer, and does nasty things to the formatting of the html, which is just as much the information portrayed by the html code as the content is. This is an infringement of my copyright rights pure and simple. The only problem that I am not sure of concerns the fact that microsoft only provide a facility in a piece of software, to perform these copyright infringements, and do not actually perform the infringements themselves. Does this mean that the end user is the liable infringer or is microsoft the infringer. This is similar to the issues that are raised by users of photocopy machines. In that case the end user is responsible for the infringing copies of a work. How is it that copyright rights not infringed by copies of your information in caches and search engines?
My java lecturer tried to convince me that inheritence was what was to be used in one case where it obviously wasn't. Late in the semester the whole lecture theatre had a good laugh when she wasnt able to change directory in dos to execute javadoc. Pity by that time I had chosen to spend the lecture time somewhere slighty more useful in front of the sun api docs.
Geez I hate it when people with a science degree with a major in computing try to teach IT, it really doesnt work, at least in my experience.
I don't know how it is in the US, but in Australia we have a telco system that has a whole heap of regulations and standards that must be followed. For instance anyone who is doing the wiring of phone lines in your house must be Austel approved. This is because obviously telecommunication is seen as a neccessary part of everyday life. I would like to see similar rules and regulations, as well as standards compliance checks (AusInt??) to apply to all isps. The internet isn't a fad, it's a way of life for more and more people these days, so why not impose on it similar conditions as those imposed on a telco.
now they are actively merging Alan Cox in to the kernel, so now we'll have one kernel with multiple personality disorder, instead of two with a singular personality disorder
Okay, I am doing 2nd year Computer Engineering, and I have just been put into a similar situation. At the beginning of the year, before last years website for the course had its contents removed from it, I browsed thorough it to see what we would be learning (or not in my case). On the site there were copies of the assignments including some solutions from the lecturer. Now, I have seen and understand these solutions. This year however, they have reused an assignment that is extremely similar (part of it is exactly the same). What can I do about this? I even still have copies of the entire last years site on my home computer. Should I complain that the assignment is unfair, or not say anything at all? Either way, leaves me with a problem, that I could be accused of cheating.
IANAL but I've been reading the Copyright Act as part of my Law 1 tute problems. The modifications to the Act defines "effective technological protection measure" to be one which the intent is to protect, and would protect in the normal use of the product.
coincedentally I have been reading Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) as part of my Law 1 tute problems. SS 31 and 32 of the Act set out where copyright subsists in a work and defines the rights we have in copyright. S 32 contains specific intent to allow copyright without having to register one as such.
What is claimed is:
1. A digital information storage, retrieval and display system comprising:
a central computer means in which plural blocks of information are stored at respectively corresponding locations, each of which locations is designated by a predetermined address therein by means of which a block can be selected,
each of said blocks comprising a first portion containing information for display and a second portion containing information not for display but including the complete address for each of plural other blocks of information;
IANAL, but someone previously stated that a patent only covers that which it exactly describes.
This would not include hypertext in most situations as the "information not for display" is stored without "including the complete address for each of plural other blocks of information".
Also this would only apply to a storage system where the displayable info is first and the non displayed info is second. This does not correspond to the A tag in html in which the address is stored before the information for display. The BT people are pretty obviously extending the exact meaning of the patent to cover something which is not covered by it.
Again, I am not a lawyer, and this is just my interpretation of the patent. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
that link doesnt work, it's a search that has expired. Try this instead: http://search.aph.gov.au/search/ParlInfo.ASP?actio n=browse&Path=Legislation/Current+Bills+by+Title/C ybercrime+Bill+2001&Start=4&8cD#top
also there is some more stuff on http://www.2600.org.au/
These are the 2600.org.au mirrors of the bill, they are probably available somewhere on http://www.austlii.edu.au/ Australia's awesome law resource with searchable case law and legislation, reportedly the best law site in the world.- bill-2001-firstreading.pdf
- bill-2001-explanatory-memoranda.pdf
http://www.2600.org.au/misc/cybercrime/cybercrime
http://www.2600.org.au/misc/cybercrime/cybercrime
More to the point reverse engineering for the purpose of creating a product that can be used to interact with the first product is legal in australia. See we aren't so draconian after all.
gotta love people who check acronyms: Australian Security Intelligence Organisation(ASIS).
AFAIK ASIS stands for Australian Security Intelligence Service. ASIO stands for Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. I am not sure how the two are related. Someone please enlighten me.
tis only through a court order that passwords etc can be gained, and only when it has been established that there is a resonable suspicion that the encrypted data contains malicious ... which can only be reached by acting with a warrant in the first place.
Not likely considering the attention that the DVD zone system is getting from the ACCC over it's anticompetitive practice of defining markets of sale.
However the promises of Kim Beazley for affordable broadband for all australians in the next few years sounds pretty good to me, hence that's where my vote is going.
The only people that the passwords are revealed to are the proper authorities, and to get them revealed they need a court order, which you have the right to respond to if you please. Even then I do not think that the way the actual law is phrased is enough to cover the giving all passwords. It basically says you have to give enough information when ordered to do so by the courts to allow the information stored on your storage device to be converted to documentary form, which afaik is not defined. I would legimatly expect that I would be able to argue that the encrypted data is in fact still in documentary form, and is still information for the purposes as defined by the bill.
The aussie 2600 site http://www.2600.org.au/ has more on this issue including a mirrored copy of the bill, as well as explanatory memoranda. It also has a response to some of the issues brought up in the bill such as the fact that many of the proposed new crimes are already covered in part by existing laws in the Crimes Act.
Snurfle. Google is easy enough to use for porn anyway. Just try searching for .jpg and as long as there is not a hugely popular actress with the same first name, you will get a tonne of porn in the results, whether you want it or not. At least the images search engine allows you to mask out the porn images.
From my reading of the EULA, it does not give you any rights to distribute the Software (The MIT) anyway, whether it be GPL or otherwise. It reserves and rights that are not given. Basically section 1(c) says that you may not distribute the MIT with something like a GPLed version of VisualStudio.Net (god forbid someone even think of making one). Nor may you distribute it with any application, as the EULA does not give you that right in any of its terms.
Internet explorer creates a derivative work whenever a person uses its save as feature and gets it to save in "Web page complete" mode. It adds meta tags to the effect that the generator of the html file is Internet Explorer, and does nasty things to the formatting of the html, which is just as much the information portrayed by the html code as the content is. This is an infringement of my copyright rights pure and simple. The only problem that I am not sure of concerns the fact that microsoft only provide a facility in a piece of software, to perform these copyright infringements, and do not actually perform the infringements themselves. Does this mean that the end user is the liable infringer or is microsoft the infringer. This is similar to the issues that are raised by users of photocopy machines. In that case the end user is responsible for the infringing copies of a work. How is it that copyright rights not infringed by copies of your information in caches and search engines?
My java lecturer tried to convince me that inheritence was what was to be used in one case where it obviously wasn't. Late in the semester the whole lecture theatre had a good laugh when she wasnt able to change directory in dos to execute javadoc. Pity by that time I had chosen to spend the lecture time somewhere slighty more useful in front of the sun api docs.
Geez I hate it when people with a science degree with a major in computing try to teach IT, it really doesnt work, at least in my experience.
is not:
3.141592653589793238462650133 it is closer to:
3.141592653589793238462643383279502884
note the discrepency in the last 5 digits of your post?
I don't know how it is in the US, but in Australia we have a telco system that has a whole heap of regulations and standards that must be followed. For instance anyone who is doing the wiring of phone lines in your house must be Austel approved. This is because obviously telecommunication is seen as a neccessary part of everyday life. I would like to see similar rules and regulations, as well as standards compliance checks (AusInt??) to apply to all isps. The internet isn't a fad, it's a way of life for more and more people these days, so why not impose on it similar conditions as those imposed on a telco.
now they are actively merging Alan Cox in to the kernel, so now we'll have one kernel with multiple personality disorder, instead of two with a singular personality disorder
Okay, I am doing 2nd year Computer Engineering, and I have just been put into a similar situation. At the beginning of the year, before last years website for the course had its contents removed from it, I browsed thorough it to see what we would be learning (or not in my case). On the site there were copies of the assignments including some solutions from the lecturer. Now, I have seen and understand these solutions. This year however, they have reused an assignment that is extremely similar (part of it is exactly the same). What can I do about this? I even still have copies of the entire last years site on my home computer. Should I complain that the assignment is unfair, or not say anything at all? Either way, leaves me with a problem, that I could be accused of cheating.
IANAL but I've been reading the Copyright Act as part of my Law 1 tute problems. The modifications to the Act defines "effective technological protection measure" to be one which the intent is to protect, and would protect in the normal use of the product.
coincedentally I have been reading Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) as part of my Law 1 tute problems. SS 31 and 32 of the Act set out where copyright subsists in a work and defines the rights we have in copyright. S 32 contains specific intent to allow copyright without having to register one as such.
IANAL, but someone previously stated that a patent only covers that which it exactly describes.
Again, I am not a lawyer, and this is just my interpretation of the patent. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The ad baner at the top of the page is for VeriSign:
"Secure your site with 128 bit SSL Encryption"