If I see you mugging an old lady with a knife, all I have to do it pull out my gun and ask you politely to stop. I am not being violent, just threatening violence. Most of the time, when such things are attempted...it tends to be VERY persuasive.
In any case...yes guns are meant to kill. However this is not a perfect world. Sometimes it is necissary to be able to kill.
In any case...the criminals will ALWAYS have guns. Nothing can be done about that as long as they exist. So if you ask me, taking them away from honest, law-abiding citizens is just ridiculous. It reduces them to sheep, just sitting and waiting for the arrival of the wolf.
> It doesn't make any sense for the RIAA to sue > Napster.
The RIAA is not in the buisness of "Making Sense"
They are the modern day, suit and tie equivalent of thug enforcers.
They go around for their "Boss" (record labels) and threaten people with lawsuits. Thats their job. Its the music industry equivalent of "Hey, you should pay up your insurance money or I can't be sure nothing bad will happen to you"
Most people know they can't afford a lawsuit battle with the RIAA, even if they were right. Those who don't snap into line, are made an example of. At the very least they will try to sue.
As far as a boycott of RIAA "members". Im all for it. hmmm I wonder if the domain "RIAA-NO" is taken.:)
Welll you may have paid per cassestt due to arrangements between the RIAA and others... however....
You can legaly make and use MP3s or any other copy of ANYTHING for personal use. It is called "Fair Use". It is one of those terms in copyright law that the RIAA seems to forget about. Amazing they pay all these lawyers all sorts of money... and somehow they keep forgetting about "Fair Use"
How does that happen?
Oh yea...you still can't distribute copies or derivitive works, unless it is some sort of parody (yes Parody technically does not require permission) or for purposes of a review...or educational purposes.
Seriously...why does a person NEED a reason. Yes, its their right to encrypt it. However... if I have a copy of it...it is my RIGHT to copy it, or do whatever _I_ want to the data, as long as I do not distribute it (Copyright law ONLY covers distribution remember)
The reason for doing it is the same reason that when i was 10 and got a little Star Wars walking robot toy (I think it was star wars..probably wasn't) I grabbed a screw driver and opened it up and took all the gears out....cuz I wanted to see how it worked (never did get that damned thing back together...)
The REAL problem here is that they are expecting to be able to decrypt this on equipment that is not under their control.
What is to stop a person from hacking a DVD drive to allow reading (and eventually writting) to the entire disk? (as I understand it they rely on the DVD drive being able to read a special track but there being no way to get the drive to divulge that info)
Alternatly...the music HAS to exist in unencrypted form for some span of time. So...if I hack their software I can make it do anything...including hack it to output to a file.
Or better yet...create an Audio Driver that claims to have the highest possible quality output surround sound and whatever ooptions the software might look for to determine what it needs to output as....that just captures the output
The same could be done for DVD movies even.
Their entire idea is thus fundamentally flawed. Encryption just stops John Q Moron who has lots of money for buying readers and writters from doing a direct copy.
Someone needs to hack a DVD, figure out the disk format and all that shit...and publish enough info that independant hardware manafacturers can make DVD drives. Force the standard open!
This is a media piece aimed at the general public. It is not meant for people who are in the know.
This is an ambitious article. It is trying to explain to John Q. Point'n'Drool why the idea of cyberterroism is real, and why its not AS bad as the Legions of Gloom and Doom are telling them.
It is an attempt to explain the state of things, who is doing malicious hacking now, how it could be used, and whats stopping it.
I find the power grid idea partularly amusing... since just yesterday I found out that all the pole distribution transformers here in my area of the country are radio controlled on/off.
Of course while these types of attacks could be used for terrorism, they need not be. Terrorism implies attacks designed to strike fear into the general populous. In reality this is just another tool. It can be used during a military campagin, for terrorism, or just to make money.
Just terming it a "terrorism" is itself a device to scare people. To that end I think "The Seige" is one of the best movies on the subject The terrorists in that movie succeded. They brought about martial law and effectively brought life to a halt.
So basically, while the article was dumbed down a bit (for the sake of explaining to idiots) I have to say that I agree with its conclusions. The current impact of "Cyberterrorism" is almost non-existant, but it could easily be used as a tool to make other attacks more devstating.
Yup the GS rocked...used it right up till 1996. Great machine.
Course...I never said he can't have his imac. It was just the II line stuff that pissed _ME_ off at apple (they do seem to shoot themselves in the foot every few years don't they?)
Hell The GS was probably one of the last machines to ship with a ROM BASIC. I learned to program on Applesoft BASIC...then moved up to ByteWorks Orca/C compiler...got Orca/M just before I stopped using the GS.
Now if I could only get one of the Linux IIGS emulators to work...I could hook up my old SCSI hard drive and have a blast with all the old Games etc. Not to mention FTA Demos and all that good stuff.
Don't even have to.... A few years back it was ruled in court that opening up a machine and making changes can NOT void a warrenty.
However it was stated that the user would have to restore the hardware (ie take out any additions and replace anything removed) before the company could be required to honor the warranty.
Of course...they still use the "Void if opened" etc clauses...mostly because it scares most people away;)
I have always liked the Apple machines. Even if their architecture may have left a thing or two to be desired (read Alan Cox article in linux journal about kernel porting where he assets that part of the reason Apple didin't release all the specs on some of the old Macs is "Embarrasment")
However, the quality of manafacture always seemd very high. Their cases have traditionally sucked to work on (im sorry, I shouldn't need to remove the power suply to add more RAM) but the actual logic boards seem to have a very low failure rate.
I have seen 15 year old Macs, still chugging away. The main problems I have had with Macs have tended to be stupid shit, like the heavy insistnce on 1 button mice, and their seeming refusal to participate with open standards. (for a long time...maybe even today, I don't know it was impossible to get documentation on the lowlevel HFS filesystem, unless you were a big company like symantec and had very deep pockets)
Other than that, their promises of "II Forever" then promptly killing off the II line by introducing a great new II, the GS, then killing it off. Well I didn't like that. I still have my GS BTW.
Other things I liked about Macs was SCSI, they always used SCSI (until recently when, and perhaps once long ago I think they trid an IDE model but didn't stick with it)
That and the Apple Desktop Buss for both mouse and keyboard could be chained. That was nice.
*** A network error occurred while Netscape was receiving data. (Network Error: Connection reset by peer)
Try connecting again. ***
heh every time I try to access the server I get this. Too bad, id love to see this beast.
Now if apple only had the sense to do this in the first place (including using a beige case...I have such an urge to buy a damned iwhack just to paint it beige...or better yet...in true Apple tradition... "Platnum"
He was threatened. He took down his customers site. His CUSTOMER was the real victem. A victem of the FBIs scare tactics.
I think it is a good thing that these people did what they did (even if they could have perhaps done it with a little more tact). His other customers SHOULD be aware that if the FBI decides they dislike what they have to say, their provider is going to just cave in and pull their sites.
I am glad he came to his senses and finally did the right thing. If he had not done that then he deserves to lose his buisness.
He made a mistake. He fixed it. If he is a victem of anything, it is of being used as a Pawn in the FBI game of control. The people who sent out their emails were simply standing up for what is right. Just because he was acting out of fear, doesn't mean he should be allowed to continue doing it.
Actually....Not to nitpick but "Date Rape Drug" is more an article of Media Hype and Drug War Propaganda than actual event.
I don't know about "ruffies" myself but They call GHB (a drug 99.999% of people who have taken it take it willingly because they enjoy it) and ketamine (something that, short of walking up to someone with a syringe, there is no way to "slip" to someone) "Date Rape Drugs".
If there is a Date rape drug...its alcohol.
In any case...yea this is totally off topic.... the "Date Rape Drug" thing is just a pet peeve of mine cuz I LOVE GHB and have taken it MANY times myself. Now it will probably soon be illegal because of the "Date Rape Drug" propaganda against it. Right now its FDA banned but you can order the precursor and make it in your kitchen so easily it isn't funny. (without using toxic reagents)...once its illegal the precursor will even be unobtainable.
If it weren't for that I wouldn't have responded to the offtopic post. As a side note, once GHB is a Schedual 1 substance...Posession or Sale of Animal meat in this country (steak, hamburgers, etc) will technically be illegal. Of course since the brain produces GHB naturally, living will also be illegal...but it already is since DMT is outlawed.
Oh well...food for though... oh and on the subject of "Rape Drugs"...people should exercise intelligence. If you suddenly feel massivly intoxicated or like you might pass out...don't go home with anyone. Grab a phone or a bartender, or security and demand someone call 911 since you believe you were drugged.
THAT is the ONLY way to combat this sort of thing.
and the "Flamers" were just letting his OTHER customers know that when it comes to the question of his posessions or their rights, which decision he makes.
I see nothing wrong with that. If he felt that pressure from the FBI warrented taking it down then ALL of his customers have every right to know that this is how he does buisness, so that they may decide whether they wish to continue a buisness relationship with a person who does not truely believe in free speach.
In no case do I see him as a victem. The customer who had their page taken down (I assume it was a customer and not his own) is the REAL victem. The FBI is the agressor. He is the man in the middle who just sat back and did as he was told.
Sure it worked for gun laws....worked to make selling illegal guns more profitable I would imagine.
This is just the nature of the net. People have been using and refining face to face communication for thousands of years...it will take us time to fully adjust to these new methods.
and for the millionth time...the fact that it was documented was not known when the article was originally posted. It was not mentioned in either article.
That makes this incident a non-issue. If it were not documented (as I was originaly lead to believe) then thats a whole differnt story.
As I have said, I have no problem transmitting data. It was the idea of this being done covertly that was my problem. Since that is not the case...thats fine.
Yes... a fact that was not in any of the articles or comments that were publicly available before I posted.
A person can only respond with the information they have. I did read both the slashdot article and the original mesages about this, and there was no mention (that I saw) of it being documented anywhere.
Now this being the case changes the whole issue. It sounds to me more like a case of a simple mistake in documentation, compounded with a general lack of user RTFMing.
Of course, if this HAD been covert and not documented, then I would stand by every word I said.
...and... what I am or am not smoking is a complete side issue.
Yes... a fact that was not in any of the articles or comments that were publicly available before I posted.
A person can only respond with the information they have. I did read both the slashdot article and the original mesages about this, and there was no mention (that I saw) of it being documented anywhere.
Now this being the case changes the whole issue. It sounds to me more like a case of a simple mistake in documentation, compounded with a general lack of user RTFMing.
Of course, if this HAD been covert and not documented, then I would stand by every word I said.
Your right, people should do research before flaming. Which is why I was not flaming. I was simply trying to state my case, and emphasise which points are the ones I considered important. (I apologize for use of caps, spending most of my time on irc and other telnet based mediums, I don't usually have use of html tags)
I was being perfectly levelheaded. I just happen to have strong opionons. I was operating on the assumption that this was not in the Manual.
Maybe it wasn't documented well, maybe people don't read the docs. I think now that we know it was documented, focus should be on figuring out which it was and correcting it.
As the person who told me about this article first said. "I don't mind them doing this shit, I just wish they would tell me"
(interestingly, one of my co-workers responded by saying that this is exactly onw of the reasons he stopped working for companies that produce software...he didn't feel that some of the things marketing types were wanting to do was ethical)
I think the problem is simply that our society has some fundamental problems. Access to guns does not help the issue...but neither does the fact that children are almost never taught gun saftey at an early age.
Look at our society though. Its so full of contradictions and unhealthy attitudes that I am surprized things are not worst than they are.
Men are never suposed to show their emotions (for the most part). A guy who cries is a wimp. If a person is gay, in many housholds he had better not admit that, he can expect to be made to feel guilty and sorry for that, even be physically beat.
We have many households with single parents or parents who are expected to work long hours at work and have little time for a fammily life.
Now, I am not one to argue that TV is bad. I do not think that TV MAKES people violent, however, Television is not a parent. This is not to say that parents need to regulate what children watch but...I don't know how a kid can spend 6 hours a day watching TV and grow up to be a well adjusted person (sure most do...but not all do).
Maybe things are differnt in Australia? Its certainly a differnt culture.
Let me put this scenario by you and see how you like it.
I write a game.
I add some code to this game that sends a UDP packet to my server EVERY time you play, just to "Say Hi"...and I don't document this.
Now lets say I add some more undocumented code. This code however, allows me to use your computer as a PVM host for my cluster, while you play. I don't tell you about this either.
Now do you have a problem? its stil benign. Its not giving up your private data.
The problem here is not so much the information as the method. If I get a program that is a game (or spreadsheet..or whatever) then it is reasonable that I should be able to expect that it NOT contact other people and tell them ANYTHING, unless that was the programs expressed purpose or I tell it this is ok.
Now if this is documented (which as I have been recently told, this WAS documented in the README so this is much less of an issue), then I have no problem. If the label says "Will kill you on contact" and you open it up and touch it...thats your fault. However, if the label doesn't have any warning at all, its the labelers fault.
I have no problem with this being a chaulked up to a minor documentation bug. In fact I think the/. article should be updated to explicitly state that this WAS documented in the README of previous varsions.
As a final point: > If you didn't, then you need to stop bitching > right now.
No...I reserve the right to bitch, in public, about ANY topic, at ANY time. Unless you have some way to call my bitching a case of lible, then I suggest (though I do not require) that you stop bitching about my bitching.
Sending plaintext data would be comepletely undetectable to 99.99999% of users.
Are you saying that I, as a consumer, should EXPECT to NEED to run a sniffer at all times and monitor EVERY program I download and/or use for activities I don't condone?
A) I was not shouting. I was using caps for emphasis. It is hard to place emphasis in text.
B) I was responding to the ISSUE and the ARTICLE. I have not read the readme, but was lead to believe from article that this was an undocumented feature.
In light of this, I stand most thankfully corrected. However, I think that the community MUST push for more overt documentation of any such "Features" in the future (the simple fact that most people were not fammiliar with it tells me that it wasn't documented well)
Slashdot Mirror
Or if you listen to RMS...
Piracy likens it to murder and robbery
on the high seas. Highly inapropriate.
Better term would be:
"Unauthorized Copying" for a nutral term...or
"Shareing Information" for the positive spin.
ok guns:
how about stopping violence?
If I see you mugging an old lady with a knife,
all I have to do it pull out my gun and ask you
politely to stop. I am not being violent, just
threatening violence. Most of the time, when such
things are attempted...it tends to be VERY
persuasive.
In any case...yes guns are meant to kill. However
this is not a perfect world. Sometimes it is
necissary to be able to kill.
In any case...the criminals will ALWAYS have
guns. Nothing can be done about that as long
as they exist. So if you ask me, taking them
away from honest, law-abiding citizens is just
ridiculous. It reduces them to sheep, just
sitting and waiting for the arrival of the wolf.
> It doesn't make any sense for the RIAA to sue
:)
> Napster.
The RIAA is not in the buisness of "Making Sense"
They are the modern day, suit and tie equivalent
of thug enforcers.
They go around for their "Boss" (record labels)
and threaten people with lawsuits. Thats their
job. Its the music industry equivalent of "Hey,
you should pay up your insurance money or I can't
be sure nothing bad will happen to you"
Most people know they can't afford a lawsuit
battle with the RIAA, even if they were right.
Those who don't snap into line, are made an
example of. At the very least they will try to
sue.
As far as a boycott of RIAA "members". Im all for
it. hmmm I wonder if the domain "RIAA-NO"
is taken.
Welll you may have paid per cassestt due to
arrangements between the RIAA and others...
however....
You can legaly make and use MP3s or any other
copy of ANYTHING for personal use. It is called
"Fair Use". It is one of those terms in copyright
law that the RIAA seems to forget about. Amazing
they pay all these lawyers all sorts of money...
and somehow they keep forgetting about "Fair Use"
How does that happen?
Oh yea...you still can't distribute copies or
derivitive works, unless it is some sort of parody
(yes Parody technically does not require
permission) or for purposes of a review...or
educational purposes.
Why NOT hack it?
Seriously...why does a person NEED a reason.
Yes, its their right to encrypt it. However...
if I have a copy of it...it is my RIGHT to
copy it, or do whatever _I_ want to the data,
as long as I do not distribute it
(Copyright law ONLY covers distribution remember)
The reason for doing it is the same reason that
when i was 10 and got a little Star Wars walking
robot toy (I think it was star wars..probably
wasn't) I grabbed a screw driver and opened it up
and took all the gears out....cuz I wanted to see
how it worked
(never did get that damned thing back together...)
Isn't that justification enough?
The REAL problem here is that they are expecting
to be able to decrypt this on equipment that is
not under their control.
What is to stop a person from hacking a DVD drive
to allow reading (and eventually writting) to
the entire disk? (as I understand it they rely
on the DVD drive being able to read a special
track but there being no way to get the drive to
divulge that info)
Alternatly...the music HAS to exist in unencrypted
form for some span of time. So...if I hack their software I can make it do anything...including
hack it to output to a file.
Or better yet...create an Audio Driver that claims
to have the highest possible quality output
surround sound and whatever ooptions the software
might look for to determine what it needs to
output as....that just captures the output
The same could be done for DVD movies even.
Their entire idea is thus fundamentally flawed.
Encryption just stops John Q Moron who has lots
of money for buying readers and writters from
doing a direct copy.
Someone needs to hack a DVD, figure out the disk
format and all that shit...and publish enough
info that independant hardware manafacturers can
make DVD drives. Force the standard open!
This is a media piece aimed at the general
public. It is not meant for people who are
in the know.
This is an ambitious article. It is trying
to explain to John Q. Point'n'Drool why the
idea of cyberterroism is real, and why its not
AS bad as the Legions of Gloom and Doom are
telling them.
It is an attempt to explain the state of things,
who is doing malicious hacking now, how it could
be used, and whats stopping it.
I find the power grid idea partularly amusing...
since just yesterday I found out that all the
pole distribution transformers here in my area
of the country are radio controlled on/off.
Of course while these types of attacks could be
used for terrorism, they need not be. Terrorism
implies attacks designed to strike fear into the
general populous. In reality this is just another
tool. It can be used during a military campagin,
for terrorism, or just to make money.
Just terming it a "terrorism" is itself a device
to scare people. To that end I think "The Seige"
is one of the best movies on the subject
The terrorists in that movie succeded. They
brought about martial law and effectively brought
life to a halt.
So basically, while the article was dumbed down
a bit (for the sake of explaining to idiots) I
have to say that I agree with its conclusions.
The current impact of "Cyberterrorism" is almost
non-existant, but it could easily be used as a
tool to make other attacks more devstating.
Yup the GS rocked...used it right up till
1996. Great machine.
Course...I never said he can't have his imac.
It was just the II line stuff that pissed _ME_
off at apple (they do seem to shoot themselves
in the foot every few years don't they?)
Hell The GS was probably one of the last machines
to ship with a ROM BASIC. I learned to program on
Applesoft BASIC...then moved up to ByteWorks
Orca/C compiler...got Orca/M just before I stopped
using the GS.
Now if I could only get one of the Linux IIGS
emulators to work...I could hook up my old
SCSI hard drive and have a blast with all the
old Games etc. Not to mention FTA Demos and all
that good stuff.
Don't even have to....
;)
A few years back it was ruled in court that
opening up a machine and making changes
can NOT void a warrenty.
However it was stated that the user would have to
restore the hardware (ie take out any additions
and replace anything removed) before the company
could be required to honor the warranty.
Of course...they still use the "Void if opened"
etc clauses...mostly because it scares most people
away
I have always liked the Apple machines. Even if
their architecture may have left a thing or two
to be desired (read Alan Cox article in linux
journal about kernel porting where he assets that
part of the reason Apple didin't release all the
specs on some of the old Macs is "Embarrasment")
However, the quality of manafacture always seemd
very high. Their cases have traditionally sucked
to work on (im sorry, I shouldn't need to remove
the power suply to add more RAM) but the actual
logic boards seem to have a very low failure rate.
I have seen 15 year old Macs, still chugging away.
The main problems I have had with Macs have tended
to be stupid shit, like the heavy insistnce on
1 button mice, and their seeming refusal to
participate with open standards.
(for a long time...maybe even today, I don't know
it was impossible to get documentation on the
lowlevel HFS filesystem, unless you were a big
company like symantec and had very deep pockets)
Other than that, their promises of "II Forever"
then promptly killing off the II line by
introducing a great new II, the GS, then killing
it off. Well I didn't like that. I still have my
GS BTW.
Other things I liked about Macs was SCSI, they
always used SCSI (until recently when, and perhaps
once long ago I think they trid an IDE model but
didn't stick with it)
That and the Apple Desktop Buss for both mouse
and keyboard could be chained. That was nice.
***
A network error occurred while Netscape was receiving data.
(Network Error: Connection reset by peer)
Try connecting again.
***
heh every time I try to access the server I get
this. Too bad, id love to see this beast.
Now if apple only had the sense to do this
in the first place (including using a beige
case...I have such an urge to buy a damned iwhack
just to paint it beige...or better yet...in true
Apple tradition... "Platnum"
Hmmmmm well....
I don't see how he is the Victem.
He was threatened. He took down his customers
site. His CUSTOMER was the real victem. A victem
of the FBIs scare tactics.
I think it is a good thing that these people did
what they did (even if they could have perhaps
done it with a little more tact). His other
customers SHOULD be aware that if the FBI decides
they dislike what they have to say, their provider
is going to just cave in and pull their sites.
I am glad he came to his senses and finally did
the right thing. If he had not done that then he
deserves to lose his buisness.
He made a mistake. He fixed it. If he is a victem
of anything, it is of being used as a Pawn in
the FBI game of control. The people who sent out
their emails were simply standing up for what is
right. Just because he was acting out of fear,
doesn't mean he should be allowed to continue
doing it.
Actually....Not to nitpick but "Date Rape Drug"
is more an article of Media Hype and Drug War
Propaganda than actual event.
I don't know about "ruffies" myself but They call
GHB (a drug 99.999% of people who have taken it
take it willingly because they enjoy it) and
ketamine (something that, short of walking up to
someone with a syringe, there is no way to "slip"
to someone) "Date Rape Drugs".
If there is a Date rape drug...its alcohol.
In any case...yea this is totally off topic....
the "Date Rape Drug" thing is just a pet peeve
of mine cuz I LOVE GHB and have taken it MANY
times myself. Now it will probably soon be illegal
because of the "Date Rape Drug" propaganda
against it. Right now its FDA banned but you can
order the precursor and make it in your kitchen
so easily it isn't funny. (without using toxic
reagents)...once its illegal the precursor will
even be unobtainable.
If it weren't for that I wouldn't have responded
to the offtopic post. As a side note, once GHB is
a Schedual 1 substance...Posession or Sale of
Animal meat in this country (steak, hamburgers,
etc) will technically be illegal. Of course
since the brain produces GHB naturally, living
will also be illegal...but it already is since
DMT is outlawed.
Oh well...food for though...
oh and on the subject of "Rape Drugs"...people
should exercise intelligence. If you suddenly
feel massivly intoxicated or like you might pass
out...don't go home with anyone. Grab a phone or
a bartender, or security and demand someone call
911 since you believe you were drugged.
THAT is the ONLY way to combat this sort of thing.
and the "Flamers" were just letting his OTHER
customers know that when it comes to the
question of his posessions or their rights,
which decision he makes.
I see nothing wrong with that. If he felt that
pressure from the FBI warrented taking it down
then ALL of his customers have every right to
know that this is how he does buisness, so that
they may decide whether they wish to continue
a buisness relationship with a person who does
not truely believe in free speach.
In no case do I see him as a victem. The customer
who had their page taken down (I assume it was a
customer and not his own) is the REAL victem.
The FBI is the agressor. He is the man in the
middle who just sat back and did as he was told.
I see no harm and no foul.
Sure it worked for gun laws....worked to make
selling illegal guns more profitable I would
imagine.
This is just the nature of the net. People have
been using and refining face to face communication
for thousands of years...it will take us time to
fully adjust to these new methods.
and for the millionth time...the fact that it
was documented was not known when the article
was originally posted. It was not mentioned
in either article.
That makes this incident a non-issue.
If it were not documented (as I was originaly
lead to believe) then thats a whole differnt
story.
As I have said, I have no problem
transmitting data. It was the idea of this
being done covertly that was my problem.
Since that is not the case...thats fine.
> Yes we MUST. You STUPID over EMPHASIZING motherfucker.
I would like to THANK you from the bottom of my
heart for your useful and relevant addition
to the discussion.
It is not often that I see a post from someone
with such obvious capacity for intelligent
thought.
Yes...
a fact that was not in any of the articles or
comments that were publicly available before
I posted.
A person can only respond with the information
they have. I did read both the slashdot
article and the original mesages about this, and
there was no mention (that I saw) of it being
documented anywhere.
Now this being the case changes the whole issue.
It sounds to me more like a case of a simple
mistake in documentation, compounded with a
general lack of user RTFMing.
Of course, if this HAD been covert and not
documented, then I would stand by every word
I said.
...and... what I am or am not smoking is a
complete side issue.
Yes...
a fact that was not in any of the articles or
comments that were publicly available before
I posted.
A person can only respond with the information
they have. I did read both the slashdot
article and the original mesages about this, and
there was no mention (that I saw) of it being
documented anywhere.
Now this being the case changes the whole issue.
It sounds to me more like a case of a simple
mistake in documentation, compounded with a
general lack of user RTFMing.
Of course, if this HAD been covert and not
documented, then I would stand by every word
I said.
ok
Your right, people should do research before
flaming. Which is why I was not flaming. I was
simply trying to state my case, and emphasise
which points are the ones I considered
important.
(I apologize for use of caps, spending most of
my time on irc and other telnet based mediums,
I don't usually have use of html tags)
I was being perfectly levelheaded. I just happen
to have strong opionons. I was operating on the
assumption that this was not in the Manual.
Maybe it wasn't documented well, maybe people
don't read the docs. I think now that we know
it was documented, focus should be on figuring
out which it was and correcting it.
As the person who told me about this article first
said. "I don't mind them doing this shit, I just
wish they would tell me"
(interestingly, one of my co-workers responded by
saying that this is exactly onw of the reasons
he stopped working for companies that produce
software...he didn't feel that some of the things
marketing types were wanting to do was ethical)
I don't think guns are the problem myself.
I think the problem is simply that our society
has some fundamental problems. Access to guns does
not help the issue...but neither does the fact
that children are almost never taught gun saftey
at an early age.
Look at our society though. Its so full of
contradictions and unhealthy attitudes that
I am surprized things are not worst than they
are.
Men are never suposed to show their emotions (for
the most part). A guy who cries is a wimp. If a
person is gay, in many housholds he had better not
admit that, he can expect to be made to feel
guilty and sorry for that, even be physically
beat.
We have many households with single parents or
parents who are expected to work long hours at
work and have little time for a fammily life.
Now, I am not one to argue that TV is bad. I do
not think that TV MAKES people violent, however,
Television is not a parent. This is not to say
that parents need to regulate what children
watch but...I don't know how a kid can spend
6 hours a day watching TV and grow up to be
a well adjusted person (sure most do...but not
all do).
Maybe things are differnt in Australia? Its
certainly a differnt culture.
Let me put this scenario by you and see how you
/. article should be updated to explicitly
like it.
I write a game.
I add some code to this game that sends a UDP
packet to my server EVERY time you play, just to
"Say Hi"...and I don't document this.
Now lets say I add some more undocumented code.
This code however, allows me to use your computer
as a PVM host for my cluster, while you play.
I don't tell you about this either.
Now do you have a problem? its stil benign. Its
not giving up your private data.
The problem here is not so much the information as
the method. If I get a program that is a game (or
spreadsheet..or whatever) then it is reasonable
that I should be able to expect that it NOT
contact other people and tell them ANYTHING,
unless that was the programs expressed purpose
or I tell it this is ok.
Now if this is documented (which as I have been
recently told, this WAS documented in the README
so this is much less of an issue), then I have
no problem. If the label says "Will kill you on
contact" and you open it up and touch it...thats
your fault. However, if the label doesn't have
any warning at all, its the labelers fault.
I have no problem with this being a chaulked up
to a minor documentation bug. In fact I think
the
state that this WAS documented in the README
of previous varsions.
As a final point:
> If you didn't, then you need to stop bitching
> right now.
No...I reserve the right to bitch, in public,
about ANY topic, at ANY time. Unless you have
some way to call my bitching a case of lible,
then I suggest (though I do not require) that
you stop bitching about my bitching.
Let me put this scenario by you and see how you
/. article should be updated to explicitly
like it.
I write a game.
I add some code to this game that sends a UDP
packet to my server EVERY time you play, just to
"Say Hi"...and I don't document this.
Now lets say I add some more undocumented code.
This code however, allows me to use your computer
as a PVM host for my cluster, while you play.
I don't tell you about this either.
Now do you have a problem? its stil benign. Its
not giving up your private data.
The problem here is not so much the information as
the method. If I get a program that is a game (or
spreadsheet..or whatever) then it is reasonable
that I should be able to expect that it NOT
contact other people and tell them ANYTHING,
unless that was the programs expressed purpose
or I tell it this is ok.
Now if this is documented (which as I have been
recently told, this WAS documented in the README
so this is much less of an issue), then I have
no problem. If the label says "Will kill you on
contact" and you open it up and touch it...thats
your fault. However, if the label doesn't have
any warning at all, its the labelers fault.
I have no problem with this being a chaulked up
to a minor documentation bug. In fact I think
the
state that this WAS documented in the README
of previous varsions.
As a final point:
> If you didn't, then you need to stop bitching
> right now.
No...I reserve the right to bitch, in public,
about ANY topic, at ANY time. Unless you have
some way to call my bitching a case of lible,
then I suggest (though I do not require) that
you stop bitching about my bitching.
Not that covert?
Sending plaintext data would be comepletely
undetectable to 99.99999% of users.
Are you saying that I, as a consumer, should
EXPECT to NEED to run a sniffer at all times
and monitor EVERY program I download and/or use
for activities I don't condone?
A) I was not shouting. I was using caps for
emphasis. It is hard to place emphasis in
text.
B) I was responding to the ISSUE and the ARTICLE.
I have not read the readme, but was lead to
believe from article that this was an undocumented
feature.
In light of this, I stand most thankfully
corrected. However, I think that the community
MUST push for more overt documentation of any
such "Features" in the future (the simple fact
that most people were not fammiliar with it
tells me that it wasn't documented well)