Oops, sorry, just noticed you're not the same person I was corresponding with before. Never mind, same point can be made, hope I haven't offended anyone......
Is this fair: you are saying that it is always perfectly okay to assume that a computer reflects the intentions of the owner as far as allowing/disallowing connections goes.
If so, then we differ on that point, hence perhaps the length of this ever-expanding thread;-). It is my personal belief that, in the case of an unsecured home wifi network, there is a significant chance that the owner is incompetent, and doesn't want to share with me. Therefore I would not take advantage of the offer made to me by his computer.
I just submitted a reply to your previous post, but it got lost somehow in the ether - apologies if it unexpectedly turns up.
My basic point is simply this: although your arguments are perfectly valid, I don't see how they ultimately affect the guilt/innocence of this particular person.
I have said that he did not have the owner's permission - a point which you have addressed fully (for me anyway). However, even had permission been sought, it would not have been given - the guy knew this and I think this is what makes the ethical difference between him and me-on-my-mobile. If he did not know, then why the suspicious behaviour? Why didn't he ask permission?
Internets also a shared public network, just like WiFi.
I think the difference is something like this: the Internet is a well-known public network, so you are (ethically speaking) okay if you assume that a non-password-protected web/ftp server is there for you to use (assuming there are no "KEEP OUT" signs or equivalents). Someone's home Wifi network is very much not a well-known public network, and in fact common sense/experience tell you that in most cases they probably don't want to share their private info with the world, but exposed it unwittingly.
The convicted guy from the article knew this, and was aware that he was using resources without permission from the human owner. Regardless of the legal status of his actions, he was behaving unethically. This is quite different to the situation where my phone connects automatically to a nearby tower, (without me even being aware) provided by the mobile phone network company for that very purpose.
As has been mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, the guy was aware that he did not have the owner's consent to use the connection. He knew he was stealing (in the eyes of the law).
you can't know if he neighbours INTENT was to share his open wireless connection for sharing
So, as the UK law currently stands, what is assumed by default when you find an open wireless connection? That the owner intended to share or not? Or does the law require you to find out the owner's intent?
Hopefully someone reading this can provide an answer (IANAL!), but I would have thought (even before seeing TFA) that under British Law you cannot just assume rights over another person's property (in this case a computer accessed via a wireless connection).
Are you saying this guy unconciously, repeatedly, hijacked the connection? If not then isn't he in the same kind of ethical position as someone who waltzes in through your open front door and takes the cookies?
Okay, I know you're not his lawyer, I'm just asking for clarification on your position.
I suppose the most significant statistic for web developers would be: what proportion of browser requests to my site originate from browsers others than IE?
It is the growth of this number that will motivate the development of more standards-compliant web pages.
Problem is, browsers can "lie" about their identity (usually to pretend to be IE) - a practice that itself will only decline when IE is no longer the assumed "standard".
Absolutely, but the fact remains that NX protection alone doesn't totally remove the vulnerability, and therefore doesn't excuse programmers from writing code properly.
Also, I would say that being able to succesfully launch a DoS attack on a bunch of Cisco's routers could be potentially be as bad as a more "controlled" approach of re-routing packets - it all depends on the targets/timing of the attacks.
Basicly, it's about time Cisco implimented some form of DEP protection... Or check their bloody code of course.
The latter, preferably. It is dangerous to rely on DEP alone (or rather, NX protection - DEP is M$ terminology). There is some info here, where the following point is noted:
We ran the same test on a desktop with an AMD Athlon 64 processor and
a laptop with a new Intel Pentium M chip, and the attack program got
nowhere. This defense wasn't without its cost: Each time, the computer
crashed as the attacking program tried to batter its way into the
NX-protected neighborhood.
A single buffer overflow should be blocked without incident by NX, but
this barrage was too much.
So even with DEP/NX, it is still may be possible to do a DoS attack, even if you can't gain control of the machine.
I'm not sure, but can't this be done by creating a few symlinks which activate Konqueror with the appropriate command-line options? Stick them somewhere on your desktop, call them "local files", "web" etc....
That might be difficult to get wrong, considering that Windows software usually does not work on Linux;-)
Sure, but I think he was imagining a future where Linux desktops are ubiquitous (hey, we can dream...). Then, it is inevitable that Linux-specific spyware will become a serious problem.
That doesn't reflect my personal experience of upgrading KDE...:-)
That aside, I agree with you 100% that the similarity with XP is only skin deep. As I said further up somewhere, the main problem with KDE is that it feels like someone threw a lot of features in without thinking about how to organise things intuitively.
Having said all of that, I still use KDE whenever I need to fire up a GUI.
Re:This is the dumbest post I have ever posted
on
Preview of KDE 3.5
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
KDE's default theme is a little XP-esque, but there are plenty of alternatives to choose from. Sadly, the clutteredness (is that a word?) seems to be inevitable: the consequence of squeezing in many good ideas, without really thinking hard about how to organise things so that the environment becomes intuitive.
I just had a quick google, and found this - apparently during the 70's and 80's there were a few such vinyls. Possibly the one you're thinking of was 'New Anatomy' by Inner City Unit?
Another cool example (also mentioned on the site I linked just above) was on a record called XL-1 by Pete Shelley (of The Buzzcocks). If the program encoded in the last track was run while the music played - OH WOW images and lyrics in time with the music!
Or maybe some script which prevents it from downloading the stuff you already know is rubbish (I hate soap operas and daytime TV generally - why waste bandwidth). Or maybe, just maybe, a script which only downloads things you've specifically asked for.... hang on this is starting to sound like another product....
Slashdot Mirror
Oops, sorry, just noticed you're not the same person I was corresponding with before. Never mind, same point can be made, hope I haven't offended anyone......
Is this fair: you are saying that it is always perfectly okay to assume that a computer reflects the intentions of the owner as far as allowing/disallowing connections goes.
If so, then we differ on that point, hence perhaps the length of this ever-expanding thread ;-). It is my personal belief that, in the case of an unsecured home wifi network, there is a significant chance that the owner is incompetent, and doesn't want to share with me. Therefore I would not take advantage of the offer made to me by his computer.
Shall we agree to disagree?
I just submitted a reply to your previous post, but it got lost somehow in the ether - apologies if it unexpectedly turns up.
My basic point is simply this: although your arguments are perfectly valid, I don't see how they ultimately affect the guilt/innocence of this particular person.
I have said that he did not have the owner's permission - a point which you have addressed fully (for me anyway). However, even had permission been sought, it would not have been given - the guy knew this and I think this is what makes the ethical difference between him and me-on-my-mobile. If he did not know, then why the suspicious behaviour? Why didn't he ask permission?
Internets also a shared public network, just like WiFi.
I think the difference is something like this: the Internet is a well-known public network, so you are (ethically speaking) okay if you assume that a non-password-protected web/ftp server is there for you to use (assuming there are no "KEEP OUT" signs or equivalents). Someone's home Wifi network is very much not a well-known public network, and in fact common sense/experience tell you that in most cases they probably don't want to share their private info with the world, but exposed it unwittingly.
The convicted guy from the article knew this, and was aware that he was using resources without permission from the human owner. Regardless of the legal status of his actions, he was behaving unethically. This is quite different to the situation where my phone connects automatically to a nearby tower, (without me even being aware) provided by the mobile phone network company for that very purpose.
IMHO :-)
As has been mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, the guy was aware that he did not have the owner's consent to use the connection. He knew he was stealing (in the eyes of the law).
Sorry, I misunderstood your post - I thought you were countering the idea that this particular guy was culpable. Sorry!
you can't know if he neighbours INTENT was to share his open wireless connection for sharing
So, as the UK law currently stands, what is assumed by default when you find an open wireless connection? That the owner intended to share or not? Or does the law require you to find out the owner's intent?
Hopefully someone reading this can provide an answer (IANAL!), but I would have thought (even before seeing TFA) that under British Law you cannot just assume rights over another person's property (in this case a computer accessed via a wireless connection).
Are you saying this guy unconciously, repeatedly, hijacked the connection? If not then isn't he in the same kind of ethical position as someone who waltzes in through your open front door and takes the cookies?
Okay, I know you're not his lawyer, I'm just asking for clarification on your position.
I suppose the most significant statistic for web developers would be: what proportion of browser requests to my site originate from browsers others than IE?
It is the growth of this number that will motivate the development of more standards-compliant web pages.
Problem is, browsers can "lie" about their identity (usually to pretend to be IE) - a practice that itself will only decline when IE is no longer the assumed "standard".
What is the relevance of the number of downloads?
Well, that's a valid point but short of requiring every Firefox user to register, how do you reliably gather usage statistics?
I sincerely hope so, because I'm well and truly sick of this sort of situation.
Absolutely, but the fact remains that NX protection alone doesn't totally remove the vulnerability, and therefore doesn't excuse programmers from writing code properly. Also, I would say that being able to succesfully launch a DoS attack on a bunch of Cisco's routers could be potentially be as bad as a more "controlled" approach of re-routing packets - it all depends on the targets/timing of the attacks.
Basicly, it's about time Cisco implimented some form of DEP protection ... Or check their bloody code of course.
The latter, preferably. It is dangerous to rely on DEP alone (or rather, NX protection - DEP is M$ terminology). There is some info here, where the following point is noted:
We ran the same test on a desktop with an AMD Athlon 64 processor and a laptop with a new Intel Pentium M chip, and the attack program got nowhere. This defense wasn't without its cost: Each time, the computer crashed as the attacking program tried to batter its way into the NX-protected neighborhood. A single buffer overflow should be blocked without incident by NX, but this barrage was too much.
So even with DEP/NX, it is still may be possible to do a DoS attack, even if you can't gain control of the machine.
Dunno. She definitely looks incompatible with 3.5" floppies though.
(sorry........)
much obliged :-)
I didn't mean "symlinks" - sorry. I meant *.desktop files.
I'm not sure, but can't this be done by creating a few symlinks which activate Konqueror with the appropriate command-line options? Stick them somewhere on your desktop, call them "local files", "web" etc....
I thought it was "Kool"?
The official answer from the KDE FAQ is "Nothing -- it is simply the K Desktop Environment, just as the X in the X window system."
That might be difficult to get wrong, considering that Windows software usually does not work on Linux ;-)
Sure, but I think he was imagining a future where Linux desktops are ubiquitous (hey, we can dream...). Then, it is inevitable that Linux-specific spyware will become a serious problem.
even across installs
That doesn't reflect my personal experience of upgrading KDE... :-)
That aside, I agree with you 100% that the similarity with XP is only skin deep. As I said further up somewhere, the main problem with KDE is that it feels like someone threw a lot of features in without thinking about how to organise things intuitively.
Having said all of that, I still use KDE whenever I need to fire up a GUI.
KDE's default theme is a little XP-esque, but there are plenty of alternatives to choose from. Sadly, the clutteredness (is that a word?) seems to be inevitable: the consequence of squeezing in many good ideas, without really thinking hard about how to organise things so that the environment becomes intuitive.
...and then we can get straight to work on hacking that little beauty, too :-)
I just had a quick google, and found this - apparently during the 70's and 80's there were a few such vinyls. Possibly the one you're thinking of was 'New Anatomy' by Inner City Unit?
Another cool example (also mentioned on the site I linked just above) was on a record called XL-1 by Pete Shelley (of The Buzzcocks). If the program encoded in the last track was run while the music played - OH WOW images and lyrics in time with the music!
So, considering the converse problem - who will be first to boot from vinyl? Now that would be a cool hack... :-)
Or maybe some script which prevents it from downloading the stuff you already know is rubbish (I hate soap operas and daytime TV generally - why waste bandwidth). Or maybe, just maybe, a script which only downloads things you've specifically asked for.... hang on this is starting to sound like another product....