Three to one says they use a transparent proxy. Redirect all content through their server and stream adds inline with the content.
If this is true, then I bet the system would block any non-http content, which means no circumventing. But then again, for the ocassional free web surfing, who cares...
As a resident of Virginia, I want my money back. Or I just want it spent on something worthwhile. Like finishing the dulles railway, or improving the tracks for Acella. $14 Million spent on a one kilometer track in a rural university. Somebody got a huge kickback off of this one.
The technology itself is not what I found troublesome. It's the use of the technology that scares me.
Look at redlight cameras. They don't bother me as long as they function properly. The issue is that some of the systems have been shown to be unreliable (creating false positives) and yet the communities that operate them do nothing.
If the data in the black-box is only used as a component of accident reconstruction, then there is no issue. But I bet that the second someone figures out how to link (terrorism, child-safety, insert other blanket cause here) this data will become a reason to ticket people, and that is what I oppose.
I agree with you that putting this guy in jail for one year just for the camcorder hurts society as a whole. Not just from the prison costs, but imagine the after shock of spending a year in jail. Any IT managers hiring jailbirds?
Community service, sure. Fines, hell yeah. Jail time, not unless you can prove that he is a MAJOR distributor of cams. At that point there is no defense.
Nah, just wait for trusted computing... then you won't need to interpret a dialog...
Of course, that could be the reason that these worms are becoming more prevelant. Someone who's monopoly on the industry is waining might want to enforce yet another useless standard that locks customers in.
Ummmm.... aren't many of the innovations that you talk about a by-product of an increased space presence? I know that the shuttle hasn't advanced general sience for a while, but the initial push to put one together did move technology along.
Hopefully this "program" will have similiar effects.
As I read through the articles on MSFT and thier plans for "trusted computing," I keep wondering why does MSFT feel that they are the only ones capable of providing this functionality. It just seems that MSFT feels that they are the "golden boys" when it comes to writing secure / safe software. Take for example the early days of IE and the whole activeX thing. It seemed like the only thing that would prevent a control from monopolizing your system would be a certificate. Most of the controls I ever bothered to look at where either self-signed, or so obscure that you couldn't guess where the code was coming from.
The worst company seemed to be MSFT itself, it seems that there certificates are self recursive. Signed by, Issued by, Authenticated by MSFT. My question is, is that enough to be called "trusted computing"? Haven't the MSFT certificates been "hi-jacked" before? Even if they used verisign to issue and authenticate, I still wouldn't find anything they have signed as "trustworthy", since it seems the only thing you need to gain Verisigns trust is money.
So the question becomes, who really needs the trust in TC? Is it the software houses who are looking to lock you into a specific configuration, or is the user who is looking for a truly secure (not able to be rooted in 10 secs or less) computing environment.
Personally, I believe that TC should mean a more secure environment for me to operate in, but I am not willing to give up any functionality or choice in the matter. In my mind, TC would more resemble something like the openBSD project, where the emphasis is more on code review.
It is simply amazing that non-technical people think that GPL/OSS/whatever is "evil." It is like some one else here mentioned, if you decide to use the code, you need to abide by the rules it was given to you. It is frightening that PHB's think that stealing code is ok. No one bound linksisco to use linux code. It just seems that these people don't get it.
I wonder if MSFT would be so forgiving if the OS in use was a windows derivitive.
Even if facial recognition was 100% accurate, it still would not have prevented any of the problems with airport security. For some reason, all of the "new" security measures at airports (no nail clippers?) really don't address the problem. Remember, the bad guys all had valid ID's. No facial recognition needed. There names were printed out on thier tickets, ID's, heck, they were printed on the aircraft manifest.
The only technology that could have helped would have been a mechanism for law enforcement to flag these folks, but that would require government to actually provide usefull services. Oh, and not to mention the whole invasion of privacy that Mr. Ashcroft is shooting for.
It seems that everyone here is focused on putting this guy in prison. I really can't justify putting someone who wrote a virus in prison while CEOs who have stole billions roam free.
Not to mention, there were two components to this problem. People need to stand up and take some responsibility when thier machines get infected. Personal firewalls and anti-virus have become common place, so I don't take that as an excuse.
Yes, the kid should get some probation, possibly some community service managing / repairing systems for underprivelaged folks. But then that would depend on the legal system being motivated by rehabilitation and not retribution.
If they were criminal cases you'd pay a fine and go to jail for a while, but you'd also get a court appointed lawyer if you couldn't afford one and have the option of a jury trial.
Interesting, I never thought the whole reason the RIAA wants to keep this in the civil courts would be to prevent folks from having proper legal counsel. Could you imagine the time / expense on the legal system. And beyond that, aren't there laws against a DDOS attack like this on the judicial system?
Actually, I doubt that either IBM or MSFT would acquire SCO. Both companies have been declared illegal monopolies, though IBM was punished much more than MSFT. Still, imagine the reprecussions of either company owning the fundamental rights to what , 60% of the server market (all unixes together, me just guestimating...).
Imagine the anti-trusts that sun, hp, et al could put together.
I am not an Electrical Engineer, but how in the world is RF leaking out of the windows going to be worse than flying over a Cell Tower at 2000 feet? It just seems to me that a Tower would be pumping out more signal than a hand held device, which would have a greater effect on signals being recieved by the aircraft.
I know I was personally on a flight into IAD when the pilot got a low altitude warning, and he blamed it on Cell Phone usage. At the time we were at 2000 feet, coming over Sterling towards the potomac (coming from the south, turning to land from the north). It was United, so I got the added bonus of listening to the Air Traffic chatter until they cut if off.
It really makes me wonder how much of this stuff (avionics) is tested.
This law is completely unenforcable... They'll probably want to add some nice pork to this to pay a "security" firm to do a study on how to enforce this. Three to one says RIAA / MPAA own shares in said company. Wonder what the return on investment of that Campaign Contribution will be.
Was BSD on Intel at the time? If it was, I wonder what the statistics were for number of installed instances. I'm sure that most folks would have much preferred BSD to SCO at the time (I think yahoo was a huge BSD supporter).
I apologize for not knowing the exact history of BSD, but it just seems ludicrous to tout SCO as yesterday's future of computing. Especially when you consider that Linux realistically hasn't dominated over that other intel based os....
I would agree with you if telemarketers help to subsidize the phone systems, which they either don't, or the phone companies are keeping the monies as "profit". Either way, I buy a service from "baby bell" to recieve phone calls. Telemarketers buy a service from "baby bell" to place calls. At no point does the phone company control the calls, or thier content. If they do control the calls, then there are lot more things than just telemarketers that the phone company would need to worry about.
Since the phone company cannot really dictate how the phone is used, other than by billing for additional services, they cannot dictate the use of the service for marketing purposes. I think this is along the same reasoning that keeps service providers from being responsible for content on thier networks.
Personally, other than employing under skilled workers, I see no real benefit to telemarketing. I know the only thing I do with calls is string the folks along for about 2 mins in an attempt to drive thier phone bills up (yeah, like 10c is gonna matter to these folks, but it's the principle of the matter).
For some reason I don't think the freedom of speech should include the ability to irritate. If it is a "right" to use telemarketing, then it should also be a right to stand in the lobby of some mega-corporation touting a "free willy" sign. Both are invasions of property.
Why is it that government believes technology can fix horribly broken systems. Gas tax not generating enough revenue, develop GPS tax system. No thought into feasability, even legality. And I don't doubt that some sub contractor has bid to study this alternative tax method. Heck, not only can they suck money out of Oregon, but they could shop thier research to other cash strapped states, selling whatever crap they come up with for a premium.
The sad thing is, for every one good idea, ten insane ideas like this are floated through the system. Maybe Oregon should look into taxing satellites for airspace usage....
I guess this is the price we pay for our democratic system. The only people who lead are those who fail at all other tasks.
Slashdot Mirror
Three to one says they use a transparent proxy. Redirect all content through their server and stream adds inline with the content.
If this is true, then I bet the system would block any non-http content, which means no circumventing. But then again, for the ocassional free web surfing, who cares...
I wonder if the author tried taking his new shiny and installing it in a Windows 98 machine. I bet the driver search would be equally as frustrating.
I guess this is directed more towards the mindless windows users who were thinking of trying linux...
I wonder if the author has written any articles on poorly written windows drivers taking down the whole OS, but I guess at least there were drivers.
As a resident of Virginia, I want my money back. Or I just want it spent on something worthwhile. Like finishing the dulles railway, or improving the tracks for Acella. $14 Million spent on a one kilometer track in a rural university. Somebody got a huge kickback off of this one.
Looks like someone sent them the money, because they are going to bring Mike home.... FAQ
The technology itself is not what I found troublesome. It's the use of the technology that scares me.
Look at redlight cameras. They don't bother me as long as they function properly. The issue is that some of the systems have been shown to be unreliable (creating false positives) and yet the communities that operate them do nothing.
If the data in the black-box is only used as a component of accident reconstruction, then there is no issue. But I bet that the second someone figures out how to link (terrorism, child-safety, insert other blanket cause here) this data will become a reason to ticket people, and that is what I oppose.
I agree with you that putting this guy in jail for one year just for the camcorder hurts society as a whole. Not just from the prison costs, but imagine the after shock of spending a year in jail. Any IT managers hiring jailbirds? Community service, sure. Fines, hell yeah. Jail time, not unless you can prove that he is a MAJOR distributor of cams. At that point there is no defense.
Not really... Tweakers are horrible people, so I can actually agree with this one. Don't like the enforcement, switch a mellower illegal substance.
Nah, just wait for trusted computing... then you won't need to interpret a dialog...
Of course, that could be the reason that these worms are becoming more prevelant. Someone who's monopoly on the industry is waining might want to enforce yet another useless standard that locks customers in.
Actually, we should tie them to the blades....
Ummmm.... aren't many of the innovations that you talk about a by-product of an increased space presence? I know that the shuttle hasn't advanced general sience for a while, but the initial push to put one together did move technology along.
Hopefully this "program" will have similiar effects.
As I read through the articles on MSFT and thier plans for "trusted computing," I keep wondering why does MSFT feel that they are the only ones capable of providing this functionality. It just seems that MSFT feels that they are the "golden boys" when it comes to writing secure / safe software. Take for example the early days of IE and the whole activeX thing. It seemed like the only thing that would prevent a control from monopolizing your system would be a certificate. Most of the controls I ever bothered to look at where either self-signed, or so obscure that you couldn't guess where the code was coming from.
The worst company seemed to be MSFT itself, it seems that there certificates are self recursive. Signed by, Issued by, Authenticated by MSFT. My question is, is that enough to be called "trusted computing"? Haven't the MSFT certificates been "hi-jacked" before? Even if they used verisign to issue and authenticate, I still wouldn't find anything they have signed as "trustworthy", since it seems the only thing you need to gain Verisigns trust is money.
So the question becomes, who really needs the trust in TC? Is it the software houses who are looking to lock you into a specific configuration, or is the user who is looking for a truly secure (not able to be rooted in 10 secs or less) computing environment.
Personally, I believe that TC should mean a more secure environment for me to operate in, but I am not willing to give up any functionality or choice in the matter. In my mind, TC would more resemble something like the openBSD project, where the emphasis is more on code review.
Hmmm... I wonder if this qualifies as a perpetual motion device?
I would make a bet that most of the FFV powered vehicles exist only in rental fleets. I'm sure that this would make a great tax writeoff.
It is simply amazing that non-technical people think that GPL/OSS/whatever is "evil." It is like some one else here mentioned, if you decide to use the code, you need to abide by the rules it was given to you. It is frightening that PHB's think that stealing code is ok. No one bound linksisco to use linux code. It just seems that these people don't get it.
I wonder if MSFT would be so forgiving if the OS in use was a windows derivitive.
Even if facial recognition was 100% accurate, it still would not have prevented any of the problems with airport security. For some reason, all of the "new" security measures at airports (no nail clippers?) really don't address the problem. Remember, the bad guys all had valid ID's. No facial recognition needed. There names were printed out on thier tickets, ID's, heck, they were printed on the aircraft manifest.
The only technology that could have helped would have been a mechanism for law enforcement to flag these folks, but that would require government to actually provide usefull services. Oh, and not to mention the whole invasion of privacy that Mr. Ashcroft is shooting for.
It seems that everyone here is focused on putting this guy in prison. I really can't justify putting someone who wrote a virus in prison while CEOs who have stole billions roam free.
Not to mention, there were two components to this problem. People need to stand up and take some responsibility when thier machines get infected. Personal firewalls and anti-virus have become common place, so I don't take that as an excuse.
Yes, the kid should get some probation, possibly some community service managing / repairing systems for underprivelaged folks. But then that would depend on the legal system being motivated by rehabilitation and not retribution.
If they were criminal cases you'd pay a fine and go to jail for a while, but you'd also get a court appointed lawyer if you couldn't afford one and have the option of a jury trial.
Interesting, I never thought the whole reason the RIAA wants to keep this in the civil courts would be to prevent folks from having proper legal counsel. Could you imagine the time / expense on the legal system. And beyond that, aren't there laws against a DDOS attack like this on the judicial system?
Actually, I doubt that either IBM or MSFT would acquire SCO. Both companies have been declared illegal monopolies, though IBM was punished much more than MSFT. Still, imagine the reprecussions of either company owning the fundamental rights to what , 60% of the server market (all unixes together, me just guestimating...).
Imagine the anti-trusts that sun, hp, et al could put together.
I am not an Electrical Engineer, but how in the world is RF leaking out of the windows going to be worse than flying over a Cell Tower at 2000 feet? It just seems to me that a Tower would be pumping out more signal than a hand held device, which would have a greater effect on signals being recieved by the aircraft.
I know I was personally on a flight into IAD when the pilot got a low altitude warning, and he blamed it on Cell Phone usage. At the time we were at 2000 feet, coming over Sterling towards the potomac (coming from the south, turning to land from the north). It was United, so I got the added bonus of listening to the Air Traffic chatter until they cut if off.
It really makes me wonder how much of this stuff (avionics) is tested.
This law is completely unenforcable... They'll probably want to add some nice pork to this to pay a "security" firm to do a study on how to enforce this. Three to one says RIAA / MPAA own shares in said company. Wonder what the return on investment of that Campaign Contribution will be.
Yet more money thrown into the crapper.
Was BSD on Intel at the time? If it was, I wonder what the statistics were for number of installed instances. I'm sure that most folks would have much preferred BSD to SCO at the time (I think yahoo was a huge BSD supporter).
I apologize for not knowing the exact history of BSD, but it just seems ludicrous to tout SCO as yesterday's future of computing. Especially when you consider that Linux realistically hasn't dominated over that other intel based os....
I would agree with you if telemarketers help to subsidize the phone systems, which they either don't, or the phone companies are keeping the monies as "profit". Either way, I buy a service from "baby bell" to recieve phone calls. Telemarketers buy a service from "baby bell" to place calls. At no point does the phone company control the calls, or thier content. If they do control the calls, then there are lot more things than just telemarketers that the phone company would need to worry about.
Since the phone company cannot really dictate how the phone is used, other than by billing for additional services, they cannot dictate the use of the service for marketing purposes. I think this is along the same reasoning that keeps service providers from being responsible for content on thier networks.
Personally, other than employing under skilled workers, I see no real benefit to telemarketing. I know the only thing I do with calls is string the folks along for about 2 mins in an attempt to drive thier phone bills up (yeah, like 10c is gonna matter to these folks, but it's the principle of the matter).
For some reason I don't think the freedom of speech should include the ability to irritate. If it is a "right" to use telemarketing, then it should also be a right to stand in the lobby of some mega-corporation touting a "free willy" sign. Both are invasions of property.
Why is it that government believes technology can fix horribly broken systems. Gas tax not generating enough revenue, develop GPS tax system. No thought into feasability, even legality. And I don't doubt that some sub contractor has bid to study this alternative tax method. Heck, not only can they suck money out of Oregon, but they could shop thier research to other cash strapped states, selling whatever crap they come up with for a premium.
The sad thing is, for every one good idea, ten insane ideas like this are floated through the system. Maybe Oregon should look into taxing satellites for airspace usage....
I guess this is the price we pay for our democratic system. The only people who lead are those who fail at all other tasks.
Not to mention, switch governments to theocracy.