Posts by Paul

RIAA won't sue, but will throttle

Not good enough

After they sued a chronically ill teen who was unable to defend herself in court because she was hospitalized I decided the RIAA was unforgivable forever.

I will never buy music from an RIAA member again.

Mozilla hastily shoves Firefox updates out door

Getting tired of this

Can't someone just make a browser that doesn't have gaping security holes to start with? Asking a lot right? Maybe if they didn't worry about supporting all this scripting junk.

Browsers fail password protection tests

Try it Yourself

You can put your browser through their tests yourself on their website. I just put FF2 (with NoScript though as Steven Knox said, shouldn't matter) through and still passed 7 though the results were slightly different from FF3's. It passed "Random Name Attr. Prevents Form Fills" but failed "Multi. Schemes Per User Per Authority".

Firm touts anti-radiation chip for phones

Huh?

Not that anything using the phrase "quantum physical information wave" is worth seriously considering in the first place, but what are those thermal images supposed to represent? Clearly there is no phone in the picture. Would they have us believe that a cell phone makes the skin on your face hotter even when it's not near your head? And apparently with the aid of this chip it phone calls actually cools your neck off, very nice.

Paris because even she could see this makes no sense.

Why the IWF was right to ban a Wikipedia page

Two Points

This has been roundly criticized already, so I'll just focus on the two most disturbing assertions.

"Web hosts must not wait for an image to be declared unlawful by a court when they receive a complaint, albeit only a court can declare an image unlawful."

Following this line of thinking exponentially expands the variety of material that is, in effect, prohibited. Especially given the given the vague nature of these laws.

"Amazon should get rid of it too, or, at the very least, block the image from UK visitors. (I don't know how US laws would interpret the Scorpions' image.)"

This seems to indicate that web sites should be responsible for enforcing the laws of other countries. That's ridiculous, and combined with the other assertion means they would have to censor anything that MIGHT be illegal in any country. I'd wager that's just about everything.

Okay I lied, one more point. Given that the legality of the image hinges on its (in)decency, based on "recognised standards of propriety", is not the fact that it has been sold commercially for 30 years somewhat relevant after all?

Aussie convicted over Simpsons sex pics

Is this a contest?

Are you're two countries actually engaged in a contest to see who can take anti-porn laws to the most ridiculous excess?

First we've got "Extreme Porn" in the UK.

Then "child abuse material" (baby swing) in Oz.

UK fires back by censoring Wikipedia.

And now this.

Brit ISPs censor Wikipedia over 'child porn' album cover

@Tom

"Imaginary crime" doesn't make much sense, but I think I know what AC was trying to say because I expressed something similar myself. I suggested it might be a "thought crime in disguise". Sometimes it isn't even a very good disguise. Take the ongoing attempt to outlaw virtual child pornography. No real children are hurt, so what other explanation can there be?

Even with real child pornography, just looking at it doesn't obviously hurt anyone. In that case there are some legitimate explanations for why it should be illegal, but I suspect the the main reason for the harsh punishments (five years for looking at a picture!) is just that we're disgusted by it and anyone who uses it.

Indecent

I'm inclined to agree that it is. It's not porn, but it doesn't have to be. The significance of the glass crack is none to subtle; I don't see how someone can say there isn't a sexual element there, especially combined with the album name. It's indecent, seriously.

So that leaves three questions:

1. Is that reason enough to make something illegal?

I think not. I value freedom of information highly, and in general I think laws should only protect from things that are actually harmful. Indecent doesn't cut it.

2. Do you want your ISP to attempt to block illegal content?

I guess most people would say that's a no-brainer. But the key word is "attempt". You have no guarantee that they will successfully protect you from unwittingly committing a crime, nor that they won't accidentally block something legal.

There is also the possibility that you wish to access illegal content and take your chances with the law. If so, or if you would consider doing so under some circumstance you might prefer your ISP mind its own business and just serve what you ask for.

3. Did the ISPs in this case go about it in a really stupid way?

YES!

Craiglist rant man on criminal libel rap

@ratfox

No she's not dead. They were just expounding on some of the differences between this and a civil libel law. But the really alarming part, with this law at least, is that truth is not a defense. So even if she really did abuse their child, scam welfare and pay her lawyer with sex, he could still be punished for saying so.

Porn doctor jailed for 33 years

Not trolling

Honestly, I was surprised how many people responded to me directly. Could I have said it in a less inflammatory way? Yep. It just makes me mad when I see this kind of mob/which hunt behavior, even if it's only rhetoric (all the "no punishment is harsh enough", "throw him to 'Bubba'", "beat him to death with steel bricks" type comments). I hope my attitude didn't totally get in the way of my point.

As for why he had the videos, clearly there is no "valid" reason, he had them because he's perv. But it's very likely he got them the same way, over KaZaA (or similar). I'm sure if there was any suspicion he was involved in the production they would have prosecuted him for that too.

Public spirited... Well what would you call it when someone makes something just so other people can use it for free? Of course I was being ironic to apply the term to child rapists, but doesn't it seem unlikely that's a big motivation for them?

And yes he could not have had the videos if there had been no rape, but it doesn't logically follow that if he didn't have them there would be less rape. So any culpability there seems dilute at worst.

Now if we knew he paid for the movies that would be another matter. I wouldn't quite be ready to join in crying for blood and buggery, but I'd me more than happy to see him put away for a nice long time.

My...

That certainly got a reaction.

Let me make something clear. I'm not saying sharing child porn is OK, or harmless. But to act like it's the equivalent of committing rape himself is insanity.

I never knew child rapists were so public spirited. Is that really what these people do? Commit a felony on camera just for the knowledge that somebody enjoyed watching?

I always imagined they would want some compensation, if not pay than porn in trade, or access to the inner circle of the paedo ring or whatever. I don't think we know enough about the circumstances these videos were made in to say if sharing them in encourages it.

So, once more, I'm not saying what he did was OK, I'm just not convinced he did "33 years worth" of harm. I'm inclined to think the crime is punished so severely more because we regard it as tangible proof on of any "evil" mind than for any pragmatic reason.

(And in case anyone was too dense to figure it out, the title was spEak You’re bRanes reference.)

If you hate paedos so much, why don't you live there.

Not many people willing to stick up for a pervert are there? I'll say it, yes 33 years is "harsh". At his age that could easily be life. Did he deserve it? Maybe, but I'm not convinced. I've never heard a convincing argument for how sharing child porn, for free, on KaZaA supports real abuse. Doesn't that "hurt artists"? Or does he deserve it simply for being a sick bastard? Is it just a thought crime in disguise then?

Satanic net neologisms - nominations invited

PC

No, not Personal Computer, I mean Politically Correct.

It seems to have mutated into a meaningless catchall smear against any policy the speaker disagrees with.

Google - your source for FREE Adobe gear

@alphaxion

Actually, maybe you SHOULD click them. If you don't click them, Google doesn't get paid, but they don't lose anything either, so they still don't have an incentive to block scams. But every time you do click one the scammer has to pay Google. Of course they're fine with that, if you buy their "free" product. But if you know it's a scam, they're out money. Presumably if a enough people did this it would drive up the cost-per-victim to the point where it was no longer profitable.

Srizbi spam botnet in failed resurrection

Probably too obvious...

But can't someone upload self-destruct code to one of those random domains?

Most back door software has some provision for auto-downloading updates. If it's possible to impersonate the Zombie Master, can't someone make it delete itself?

Domain hijack fears over Gmail exploit

@AC (Paris)

No, silly. As opposed IMAP or POP3. Please remember, the web is not the internet.

Judge: No cryptographic hash analysis without warrant

I'll give her points for effort

It doesn't sound like she really "groks" the whole computer thing, but she got the important part right. Clearly hashing on the files on a disk constitutes a search. And given the large amount, and variety, of information on a hard drive, it makes sense to treat it as more than a single container.

Judge says tech-addled jurors undermine justice

Tricky situation.

Personally I don't see any harm coming of jurors doing their own research about things like the accuracy of DNA matching, the workings of a certain type of gun or anything like that. As far as I'm concerned a better informed jury is a good thing.

What does worry me is when they look up information about the specific case. Either if they allow themselves to be influenced by rumors and uninformed speculation, or if they read about evidence that has been suppressed for good reason. And there are good reasons, like if it was collected illegally.

Morning voting in America

Califonian here

For the last few elections we've used a system that I initially thought was kind of a strange compromise, but it actually seems pretty good.

You slide the ballot into a little booklet thing (kind of hard to describe) and the circles on the ballot line up with the candidates and propositions in the booklet. Then you take a black marker and put a dot in the circle next to what you want to vote for.

And before the ballot goes into the ballot box they run it through a scanner and alert you if you've over- or under- voted.

Big Blue to build DARPA cat-brain machine

Entire Range of Mammalian Intelligence

Presumably that means their ultimate goal is to make it as smart as a human. But why stop there?

YaGoogleSoft! adopt voluntary 'code of ethics'

YaGooSoft

Plus, it sounds like it could be Yog-Sothoth's little brother.

Microsoft faces second 'black screen' lawsuit

Of course you own it

If you walked into a store (or virtual equivalent) and bought it, you own it. End of story. Anybody who tells you otherwise is just trying to scam you. Copyright, as the name would indicate, has something to do with the right to make copies. But once you make a copy and sell it, you don't have any control over how someone uses it. Some would argue that by it's nature using computer software constitutes copying it (to memory, etc), but courts have ruled that you ARE allowed to copy something for personal use.

Student charged after alerting principal to server hack

#***ing Fail!

Punishing someone for reporting a security fault is about the dumbest thing possible... unless of course they'd rather leak a couple hundred people's private information that admit they made a mistake. Oh wait, they probably would.

Merchants and punters cry foul over Verified by Visa

Hate it.

I don't see any advantage at all from the customer's perspective. Merchants I can see liking it (assuming it were implemented in a way that didn't chase away customers), because it does protect them. But it doesn't protect me at all. The worst part is how it's presented, you just get this stupid page asking you for extra information unexpectedly, it really does look like a phishing attempt.

Prison boss demands right to jam inmates' cellphones...

What's the problerm exactly?

As far as I know prisoners are still covered by the first amendment. They should be a lot more worried about of drugs and weapons. Presumably if they can't keep phones out they're missing much more important things too.

No pr0n, no interference - puritan broadband is go

No Pr0n, No Internet

No seriously, it might seem trivial but that no porn rule is going to completely cripple this. Someone already pointed out that they won't be able to allow encryption on this, but even without encryption trying to filter out all porn is a fool's errand. The only way I can see it working is on a whitelist basis. They could only allow access to a limited number of pre-approved sites, obviously not including any that contain user-submitted content.

Full-size Roman siege artillery offered on eBay

RE: eBay rules

No, there's no blanket ban on weapons on eBay. Guns are out, as are switchblade knives plus a few odd things like leaded canes and nunchucks, but there was no mention of siege weapons. The rules about crossbows are a little unclear, but there are a whole mess of them for sale, so I guess they must be OK.

Senators push for restrictions on laptop searches

Just for Merkins.

Unfortunately it does appear this is just for Merkins. I can't find the text of the bill yet, but I've seen it described that way in multiple places. It is of course understandable to be especially enraged at havering your laptop searched entering *your own* country, but there's really no justification for searching anyone's laptop.

I do understand the logic behind searching luggage. A country does have compelling reasons to monitor what kind of items are being taken into its borders. (e.g. weapons, drugs, etc.) But I don't think the same can be said of information, for two reason. One of course is that I believe people should have the right to free speech and that no information should be regarded as inherently harmful. Other is that trying to keep information out of a country, is utterly hopeless anyway, at least unless it's a complete dictatorship. I can set up an encrypted connection with a computer in Iran over the internet, no questions asked, why the heck should my laptop be searched a the border?

Game stash truck lifted from cops' lorry lock-up

Is it just me?

Or does this sound like exactly like the kind of job you'd be called on to do in GTA?

eBay: don't come on our US site without protection

F----------------

Won't buy from again.

Griffin pitches out-loud music without wires - or speakers

Cutting edge tech for sure

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/EdisonPhonograph.jpg

FoxNews commentator Bill O'Reilly's website hacked

Seems kind of petty

Okay, Bill O'Reilly was totally asking for it badmouthing hackers while having that kind of "security", but I don't quite understand what Wikileaks' motivation for publishing this one was. I thought the point was to publish corportate or government secret documents, especially when they point to someone up to no good. Palin's email may qualify, but I fail to see how Bill O'Reilly's subscriber account information does.