I've read Jeffrey Rosen's analysis in TNR and towards the last it struck me that there are two types of users being monitered here. The judges themselves and everybody else. One can argue that for the sake of the independace of the Cort that the Judges need complete autonimaty in their actions and thus be exempt from any internet monitering. One cannot say the same applies to other employees of the judicary. As I understand the LAW (IANAL) the owner of a computer system that provides resources to employees can legally monitor any use that employee make of said computer system. Try a FOI request of any public official and the one for Federal Judges get routed diffenterly. You are required to justify the reason you need this public information and the Judge themself's are asked if they are willing to let this information be released about them to you. Congress almost allways exempts themselves from living under the LAWS that they impose on everybody else. It should be no supprise that Federal Judges also live a priviled life with privacy rights not granted to the common citizen.
zenray
Sorry Judges, the owner of a computer system that is used in the workplace by employees has the right to monitor anything on their system. If I actually owend the system you disabled IDS on I would have had you up on charges for makeing unauthorized changes to MY computer system. If you don't like the law then change it via your elected legislators, not because you are Federal Judges who think they are somehow privleged.
One thing in this new programming language that needs to be designed in from the ground floor is SECURITY BY DEFAULT. Make buffer overruns impossiable for starters. I'm very weak as a C programmer and just a student of computer security but it woluld go a long way to solve most of the security problems in appliacations if the programming language enforced proper security codeing practices. Maybe everything would be as secure as OpenBSD. Theo should help design D language to be SECURE BY DEFAULT rather than doing a security review after the software is written. Just my opion, I might be wrong.
The last OS I purchased from Microsoft was a DOS 6.22 upgrade. Over the last two years I purchased SuSE Linux 6.1 Professional for $69.00 and then SuSE Linux 7.1 Personal for $39.00. Before I started useing SuSE I have several distros that came in the back of books I've purchased to learn GNU/Linux. Years before GNU/Linux I spent $100.00 for Coherant from the Mark Willams Company. For general unix stuff I still use their wonderfull manual.
My FreeSCO system is an old Packard Bell 486DX2/66 with 20MB of RAM just sitting on a cardboard shelf I made inside a bookcase I use as my system rack. This system has only one ISA slot that holds my NIC and COM1 has an external US Robotics 56K baud modem. No monitor, mouse, or keyboard required. I just turn it on first and turn it off last. It work great!
I happened to have just finished reading a report by Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh of the Institute for Policy Studies on the topic of corporate global power, sorry I have no link. The data is for 1999 and Microsoft is not on the list of the top 200 corporations in the world. It look s as tough Microsoft is just not that big a corporation to be worred about. Of the largest 100 economies of the world, 51 are corporations; 49 are countries. General Moters is bigger than Denmark, IBM is bigger than Singapore, and Sony is bigger than Peru for just a few examples. Microsoft is not listed anyware in this study. But again this was for 1999 data, it might be they've grown since then. I guess Mr. Katz could look up this study and check some facts, but then agen, I guess not.
The small company I work for was recently audited by Microsoft. In the audit notification email, that I saw just briefly, was the fact that what triggered the audit was the fact - according to MS - that 'a company of you size cannot be run on the amount of license we have on record for you.' This is as best as I remember the quote. Anyway, apparently MS is looking for reasons to audit companies. Apparently what MS did was to look at publicly available data about our company and then looked at what we had licensed with them and decided to force us to buy more product because they need to make a quota for sales. Their problem was that they looked at the entire company for the public data and looked only at one division (half of the company) for the registered product. The point being is that MS decides how much of their product that a company must buy to do business. This clearly is morally wrong of Microsoft, at least in my viewpoint. Yet we are making plans to upgrade to MS 2000 even though we have a drive on to lower TCO. I've proposed a GNU/Linux solution to management before but nothing ever gets approved.
To paraphrase - a pile of shit by any other name still stinks. Simply changing the name does not make this 'Big Brother' spyware any more acceptiable to me.
I think everybody is missing a step in the process. If I discover a new security problem with BIND, or any other software for that matter, that knowledge is mine to do with what I choose. Kinda like a copyrwite to a GPL issue. If I think that these security experts are the only ones I can trust to patch the problem and I trust them to be responsiable etc... I can choose to contribute to the closed source security pool. It's my right. OTOH if I decide to shout the security problem at the top of my lungs for the whole world to hear, that also is my right.
I also think that security by obscurity does not work and any effort to put Pandora out of sight is going to fail. C and C++ are bad languages to do security right, I've read. Instead of havening Theo, et al, review the code for security flaws, 'somebody' ought to make the languages do security RIGHT by default so that programmers can't do it WRONG. But that will never happen.
I suspect ESR is correct in the assumption that MS will fail as a monopoly. One fact I base this on is Microsoft's tatics of forceing sales of product by the use of AUDITS. Witness how much a certain city paid just to have their audit over with. How much of their income is derived from audits? Anybody else want to admit they paid off MSs to end an audit?
I know also that MS is useing a 'suspected software pirate' list that they generate. Anybody else ever here of this? The company I work for got e-mail from MS that told us we are on this list "...because we did not register enough copies of the Back Office CAL to run a company of our size...". I bet we will end up shelling out a boatload of money to get off this list and prevent an audit. MS is sinking to what I consider blackmail tatics to keep their income comeing in.
zenray
What do you want to bet that if opt-in becomes the law that this option will be set on automatically on software installation? I see no difference in automatic opt-in and the current opt-out option. As a former AOL user I did take the time to opt-out of their marketing offers. Three times, because you need to do it for every screen name. Also the options get reset back to AOL's defaults once a year. At least in AOL 4.0 that I gave up.
I just clicked on flex.com to see what it is and to my supprise (not really) the site should be flex.net; it being an ISP in Hawaii. Except that www.flex.net is already take, by a Hoston area ISP. Did the other 'flex' sites get harras^H^H^H^H^H^H legal letters also?
Re:As if your votes will change anything
on
ICANN Voting Begins
·
· Score: 2
Perhaps you are correct in your thinking. Perhaps all is not as bad as you think. As little as the door is open to change at ICANN, I think it is worth the time and effort to attempt to change ICANN. All that is nessary "for producer-driven capitalism" to win is that "Libertarians" and other freedom loving people not to oppose them. Assuming you want to change 'them'. If you don't even attempt to vote and change the system from within your only recourse is, by default, to try to change the system from the outside. Trying to change ICANN from outside is clearly impossiable. So rather than try the impossiable I choose to try the possiable, howerever unlikley, and vote to change ICANN.
MAXTOR's setup disk for their hard drives boots Caldera DR DOS 7.02. DOS LIVES!!! I used it just this weekend. Couldn't make it do what I wanted, so I just went back to good old gnu/linux fdisk.
This announcement is very much premature. According to ESR you should have at least a base application developed before you can expect other programmers to pick it up and make improvements. There is no download section open on their web site. Doing encryption correctly is very difficult to do, so I've read. What are Morrison and Ragnarsson's credentials in the encryption area? I would have been more inclined to jump on the bandwagon if am actual wagon had been built.
You had the same idea as I did but you posted it before I could. When I ran nmap on them I got the responce that the site 'appears to be down'. Would adding '127.0.0.1 www.quova.com' to the host file stop them from getting the responce they are looking for? At some point in the future Quova will have to sell the data that they are collecting. How are they going to keep what they have a secret after they start that activity?
What I think M$ should do is to create their own little country on an artificial island. Mr. Bill certanly has enough money to buy one. We have the technolgy! The internatinal community can do nothing to stop it. This way M$ would at least be more honest when they say that they are under no country's law.
I see both issues about Universal Access to the net and the relaxing of data encription export controls as being important and related. Companies in the US eg: MPAA, RIAA and eTOYS seem to think that they can set the international agenda. Well, first France tells eBAY it cnnnot auction Nazi stuff and then the EU tells the US that all export control on data encription is being lifted. What goes around, comes around. Important issues about who controls the universally accessed net have not been decided. Which contries law's control the net? Who defines TLDs? Should we all work together to get the UN in control of the net, not that the UN is anything like a world goverment or anything but it may be the closest thing we have. We'll never get into the Federation of Planets without a world goverment.
NO, Not Metallica. This worm was obviously made by a MPAA / RIAA conspircy to rid the world of MP3s. Very clever of them. That they destroyed *.jpg files also just as a cover up so that the MP3 files wasn't the only target.
When the fine people of law enforcement and the judicary come across highly encrypted files they attempt to force the passwords out of you by the analogy of the locked file cabinet. You must turn over the key to the file cabinet to them or face contempt charges. Well, IMHO, the same analogy should hold for my computer files as my unlocked file cabinet. 'THEY' cannot access my data without the proper search warrants such as our twisted due process system mandates.
Correction, The Wornick Company cannot sell MREs to the public. Federal law stops this. We will sell you a civilan equivalent, MIL-SPEC. Just as good as MREs.... Visit our newly designed web site for details - disclaimer, I had nothing to do with the design of the current web sight. Any MRE sold to the public comes at the very end of shelf life as surpuls items or as stolen stuff via the black market.
OK, I'll byte and say of course not, but I don't know the legal justification. Whould the goverment also be blocked if the viewing software was released with a license 'for personal private use only, no cort, law enforcement, or any goverment agent may use this software' restriction?
There are guidelines for creating search warrents that forces you to comply with. If you hand them a locked file cabinet - the same as an encripted file - they will either break into it or force you to unlock it. Unlocking a closed file cabinet or decripting a file is exactly the same to our wonderful goverment and the courts. At least that's the theroy as I have read about the subject.
What if three keys were generated. The two usual plus a 'self-distruct' key. Enter the 'self-distruct' key - the one you give to the courts - and the encripted file is decripted - this complies with the court order - but then goes on to aboulutly delete both the encripted and plain text messages. Would it work? Is it possiable?
Slashdot Mirror
I've read Jeffrey Rosen's analysis in TNR and towards the last it struck me that there are two types of users being monitered here. The judges themselves and everybody else. One can argue that for the sake of the independace of the Cort that the Judges need complete autonimaty in their actions and thus be exempt from any internet monitering. One cannot say the same applies to other employees of the judicary. As I understand the LAW (IANAL) the owner of a computer system that provides resources to employees can legally monitor any use that employee make of said computer system. Try a FOI request of any public official and the one for Federal Judges get routed diffenterly. You are required to justify the reason you need this public information and the Judge themself's are asked if they are willing to let this information be released about them to you. Congress almost allways exempts themselves from living under the LAWS that they impose on everybody else. It should be no supprise that Federal Judges also live a priviled life with privacy rights not granted to the common citizen.
zenray
Sorry Judges, the owner of a computer system that is used in the workplace by employees has the right to monitor anything on their system. If I actually owend the system you disabled IDS on I would have had you up on charges for makeing unauthorized changes to MY computer system. If you don't like the law then change it via your elected legislators, not because you are Federal Judges who think they are somehow privleged.
One thing in this new programming language that needs to be designed in from the ground floor is SECURITY BY DEFAULT. Make buffer overruns impossiable for starters. I'm very weak as a C programmer and just a student of computer security but it woluld go a long way to solve most of the security problems in appliacations if the programming language enforced proper security codeing practices. Maybe everything would be as secure as OpenBSD. Theo should help design D language to be SECURE BY DEFAULT rather than doing a security review after the software is written. Just my opion, I might be wrong.
The last OS I purchased from Microsoft was a DOS 6.22 upgrade. Over the last two years I purchased SuSE Linux 6.1 Professional for $69.00 and then SuSE Linux 7.1 Personal for $39.00. Before I started useing SuSE I have several distros that came in the back of books I've purchased to learn GNU/Linux. Years before GNU/Linux I spent $100.00 for Coherant from the Mark Willams Company. For general unix stuff I still use their wonderfull manual.
My FreeSCO system is an old Packard Bell 486DX2/66 with 20MB of RAM just sitting on a cardboard shelf I made inside a bookcase I use as my system rack. This system has only one ISA slot that holds my NIC and COM1 has an external US Robotics 56K baud modem. No monitor, mouse, or keyboard required. I just turn it on first and turn it off last. It work great!
Is there any plans fot IBM to lead an efort to fork GNU/Linux to customize it to: 'real computes', "BIG IRON", and / or mainframes?
I happened to have just finished reading a report by Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh of the Institute for Policy Studies on the topic of corporate global power, sorry I have no link. The data is for 1999 and Microsoft is not on the list of the top 200 corporations in the world. It look s as tough Microsoft is just not that big a corporation to be worred about. Of the largest 100 economies of the world, 51 are corporations; 49 are countries. General Moters is bigger than Denmark, IBM is bigger than Singapore, and Sony is bigger than Peru for just a few examples. Microsoft is not listed anyware in this study. But again this was for 1999 data, it might be they've grown since then. I guess Mr. Katz could look up this study and check some facts, but then agen, I guess not.
The small company I work for was recently audited by Microsoft. In the audit notification email, that I saw just briefly, was the fact that what triggered the audit was the fact - according to MS - that 'a company of you size cannot be run on the amount of license we have on record for you.' This is as best as I remember the quote. Anyway, apparently MS is looking for reasons to audit companies. Apparently what MS did was to look at publicly available data about our company and then looked at what we had licensed with them and decided to force us to buy more product because they need to make a quota for sales. Their problem was that they looked at the entire company for the public data and looked only at one division (half of the company) for the registered product. The point being is that MS decides how much of their product that a company must buy to do business. This clearly is morally wrong of Microsoft, at least in my viewpoint. Yet we are making plans to upgrade to MS 2000 even though we have a drive on to lower TCO. I've proposed a GNU/Linux solution to management before but nothing ever gets approved.
To paraphrase - a pile of shit by any other name still stinks. Simply changing the name does not make this 'Big Brother' spyware any more acceptiable to me.
I think everybody is missing a step in the process. If I discover a new security problem with BIND, or any other software for that matter, that knowledge is mine to do with what I choose. Kinda like a copyrwite to a GPL issue. If I think that these security experts are the only ones I can trust to patch the problem and I trust them to be responsiable etc... I can choose to contribute to the closed source security pool. It's my right. OTOH if I decide to shout the security problem at the top of my lungs for the whole world to hear, that also is my right. I also think that security by obscurity does not work and any effort to put Pandora out of sight is going to fail. C and C++ are bad languages to do security right, I've read. Instead of havening Theo, et al, review the code for security flaws, 'somebody' ought to make the languages do security RIGHT by default so that programmers can't do it WRONG. But that will never happen.
I suspect ESR is correct in the assumption that MS will fail as a monopoly. One fact I base this on is Microsoft's tatics of forceing sales of product by the use of AUDITS. Witness how much a certain city paid just to have their audit over with. How much of their income is derived from audits? Anybody else want to admit they paid off MSs to end an audit? I know also that MS is useing a 'suspected software pirate' list that they generate. Anybody else ever here of this? The company I work for got e-mail from MS that told us we are on this list "...because we did not register enough copies of the Back Office CAL to run a company of our size...". I bet we will end up shelling out a boatload of money to get off this list and prevent an audit. MS is sinking to what I consider blackmail tatics to keep their income comeing in. zenray
What do you want to bet that if opt-in becomes the law that this option will be set on automatically on software installation? I see no difference in automatic opt-in and the current opt-out option. As a former AOL user I did take the time to opt-out of their marketing offers. Three times, because you need to do it for every screen name. Also the options get reset back to AOL's defaults once a year. At least in AOL 4.0 that I gave up.
I just clicked on flex.com to see what it is and to my supprise (not really) the site should be flex.net; it being an ISP in Hawaii. Except that www.flex.net is already take, by a Hoston area ISP. Did the other 'flex' sites get harras^H^H^H^H^H^H legal letters also?
Perhaps you are correct in your thinking. Perhaps all is not as bad as you think. As little as the door is open to change at ICANN, I think it is worth the time and effort to attempt to change ICANN. All that is nessary "for producer-driven capitalism" to win is that "Libertarians" and other freedom loving people not to oppose them. Assuming you want to change 'them'. If you don't even attempt to vote and change the system from within your only recourse is, by default, to try to change the system from the outside. Trying to change ICANN from outside is clearly impossiable. So rather than try the impossiable I choose to try the possiable, howerever unlikley, and vote to change ICANN.
MAXTOR's setup disk for their hard drives boots Caldera DR DOS 7.02. DOS LIVES!!! I used it just this weekend. Couldn't make it do what I wanted, so I just went back to good old gnu/linux fdisk.
This announcement is very much premature. According to ESR you should have at least a base application developed before you can expect other programmers to pick it up and make improvements. There is no download section open on their web site. Doing encryption correctly is very difficult to do, so I've read. What are Morrison and Ragnarsson's credentials in the encryption area? I would have been more inclined to jump on the bandwagon if am actual wagon had been built.
You had the same idea as I did but you posted it before I could. When I ran nmap on them I got the responce that the site 'appears to be down'. Would adding '127.0.0.1 www.quova.com' to the host file stop them from getting the responce they are looking for? At some point in the future Quova will have to sell the data that they are collecting. How are they going to keep what they have a secret after they start that activity?
What I think M$ should do is to create their own little country on an artificial island. Mr. Bill certanly has enough money to buy one. We have the technolgy! The internatinal community can do nothing to stop it. This way M$ would at least be more honest when they say that they are under no country's law.
I see both issues about Universal Access to the net and the relaxing of data encription export controls as being important and related. Companies in the US eg: MPAA, RIAA and eTOYS seem to think that they can set the international agenda. Well, first France tells eBAY it cnnnot auction Nazi stuff and then the EU tells the US that all export control on data encription is being lifted. What goes around, comes around. Important issues about who controls the universally accessed net have not been decided. Which contries law's control the net? Who defines TLDs? Should we all work together to get the UN in control of the net, not that the UN is anything like a world goverment or anything but it may be the closest thing we have. We'll never get into the Federation of Planets without a world goverment.
NO, Not Metallica. This worm was obviously made by a MPAA / RIAA conspircy to rid the world of MP3s. Very clever of them. That they destroyed *.jpg files also just as a cover up so that the MP3 files wasn't the only target.
When the fine people of law enforcement and the judicary come across highly encrypted files they attempt to force the passwords out of you by the analogy of the locked file cabinet. You must turn over the key to the file cabinet to them or face contempt charges. Well, IMHO, the same analogy should hold for my computer files as my unlocked file cabinet. 'THEY' cannot access my data without the proper search warrants such as our twisted due process system mandates.
Correction, The Wornick Company cannot sell MREs to the public. Federal law stops this. We will sell you a civilan equivalent, MIL-SPEC. Just as good as MREs.... Visit our newly designed web site for details - disclaimer, I had nothing to do with the design of the current web sight. Any MRE sold to the public comes at the very end of shelf life as surpuls items or as stolen stuff via the black market.
OK, I'll byte and say of course not, but I don't know the legal justification. Whould the goverment also be blocked if the viewing software was released with a license 'for personal private use only, no cort, law enforcement, or any goverment agent may use this software' restriction?
There are guidelines for creating search warrents that forces you to comply with. If you hand them a locked file cabinet - the same as an encripted file - they will either break into it or force you to unlock it. Unlocking a closed file cabinet or decripting a file is exactly the same to our wonderful goverment and the courts. At least that's the theroy as I have read about the subject.
What if three keys were generated. The two usual plus a 'self-distruct' key. Enter the 'self-distruct' key - the one you give to the courts - and the encripted file is decripted - this complies with the court order - but then goes on to aboulutly delete both the encripted and plain text messages. Would it work? Is it possiable?