Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This article was seriously misunderstood by
sure, but they're accusing him of all the following:
1) accessing protected computer without permission (==hacking)
2) accessing protected documents without permission (==confidentiality breakage)
3) publishing protected documents without permission
4) fleeing the country twice (sweden->england, england->ecuador)
5) breaking his bail conditions
6) sex offenses
7) annoying powerful people
8) getting refugee status in equador
9) forgetting to pay taxes while locked inside embassy
10) 1 million bucks that police used to survellance of the ecuador embassy
11) messing with equador embassy operations
12) getting kicked away from embassy
13) etc..
Lots of small issues... But the key takeaway is that the main problem is the access to protected documents.
Re: Re: Re: This article was seriously misunderstood by trolls o
The law clearly says otherwise.
The witch hunt that they did to Julian Assange kinda proves you wrong. If accessing sensitive information wasn't illegal, why would USA government harrass Julian Assange at all?
I’m sure that on some planet, everything you said there makes complete and perfect sense.
Here's a rocket for you, so you can leave the puny earth and join us in our planet: https://meshpage.org/237
See, there are always solutions to the this kind of problems. But I guess you can't even get the rocket to leave earth, given that your gaming skills are not top notch.
only your work, or any work created by a corporation, qualifies for that description.
nope. Promote progress of science and useful arts s actually very simple. Copyright replaces requirement to obtain compensation from your work with ownership of the work which allows copyright owner to prevent rest of the world from using the material without compensation. This means authors will need to create and finish their work on the promise that compensation will be available once the work is fully finished. This means the hard work wlll be done with a high risk that compensation is not actually available. But society benefits when authors actually finish their products, even if author never receives money for it. Thus society is often using authors as free slaves. Copyright is just a modern version of slavery. Work is being done without compensation. Society benefits from the work. Progress of science and useful arts is promoted.
This pattern never filters out works that weren't created by corporations. So your position is wrong. Society similarly uses work done by corporations and taking it without compensation. 90% of all startups that create copyrighted works are bankrupt after 5 years of operating, so the above pattern is working exactly like described.
Did you actually fall for the narrative that right click -> view source is "hacking"?
Current information is that the govt had used rot13 to encode the info, so the data wasn't in plaintext format, and definitely not available via view-source alone.
This article was seriously misunderstood by trolls on internet
There's two important facts missing from the internet discussion: 1) govt had actually hidden the SSN's by encoding them with something similar than what rot13 is, i.e. not encryption, but encoding anyway. 2) It's illegal to access protected information recardless of how you got access to it, even if it was publicly available in the html source code, accessing it is illegal.
These two pieces of information will change the whole story upsidedown. The step (1) means that the "security researchers" had to use hacking techniques to get access to the SSN's, since the information simply wasn't available to ordinary public. The step (2) means that once they found SSN's with their hacking techniques, any further actions with the data is all illegal, including reporting the blunder to its originating organisation. Given that they weren't real security researchers, but some kind of newspaper reporters, they weren't aware of the strict laws that govern security research, and thus they're doing more damage than what their "reporting" is worth.
they don’t, or they could stop me from using open source software.
This isn't required. If you refuse to play ball, they'll just choose another client. There's over 7,8 billon people on the planet, they simply don't need you as a client.
The RIAA and the MPAA don’t control who can use what software
Its all about what products are available in supermarket shelf. RIAA and MPAA are global players and thus control what products are available for purchase. If my software product gets shelf placement in 120,000 shops around the world, it no longer matters what individual users choose to use. Everyone will anyway have access to the product, simply because RIAA executive considers our copyright story to be better than our competitors.
If few pirates reject our software because it implements copyrights properly, it's no match to the power of 120,000 shop's shelf placement opportinities.
Why would a random Finnish idiot be so eager to defer his rights to a foreign corporation?
To get your software accepted by vendors in different continents, the developer needs to listen concerns of foreign companies. Basic pattern that makes your software acceptable by different players is that it actually implements the rules that those players consider important. So if RIAA/MPAA thinks following copyright is important activity, our software needs to implement copyright rules or else it has no chance in RIAA's software evaluation process. We just choose the most important players in each area and implement the rules that they broadcast all over internet. This makes our software more successful than what our competitors can do. Its a basic survival strategy in the competitive environment.
I know it's not your fault but you could choose to keep it to yourself.
That wouldn't work. You know, keeping it inside just increases the pressure until it explodes. We already tried that approach for over 15 years, and it has some benefits, but in the long term, it's not successful approach. It's better to leave responsibility to continue the approach to techdirt listeners.
you might have trouble reading. maybe if you went back to primary school to learn alphabet again. You basically missed the most important part of the message, i.e. absorbing large work amounts.
you think nobody but corporations should be allowed to make anything creative
Noone else but corporations are able to create anything creative, given that it just takes such large amount of work. Even small companies are in significant disadvantage when they cannot absorb large work amounts. Hobbyists have no chance of doing anything worthwhile. If these hobbyists are trying to do something creative, they just cause more damage than they're worth. You witnessed this yourself when you claimed that Scott Carlson owns the material. Basically the hobbyist who created and licensed the model is causing damage when the licensing story isn't using strictest and most onerous licensing practices possible. To fix this problem, everyone need to move from sloppy practices to the copyright maximalist position.
see copyright maximalist stuff is actually fixing the issue you complain about.
You can’t optimize—or even create—an automatic copyright filter that can’t discern context.
Here's steps how to do it:
1) first follow copyright's laws requirement to BLOCK ALL CONTENT.
2) Then carefully allow only those things where licenses have been secured
3) done..
See, this process always works properly, you don't even need to deal with fair use or other such issues.
You couldn’t even stop yourself from ripping off Scott Cawthon.
I followed the above process that is guaranteed to work. Its still questionable if Scott Cawthon owns the material. But such issues are not needed when I have a license to the material (from someone else than Scott)...
new works be created and distributed in ways that your insane mind would have made impossible,
These practices are never making any of the stuff "impossible", given that there's always option to purchase a license to the material. Maybe your feeble organisation doesn't have the required money to purchase the rights to the hollywood movie productions, but that doesn't mean its absolutely impossible thing to do.
Everything of any usable value can be misused.
Your failure to protect against misuses is well documented in techdirt pages, so you might need to reconsider your approach to product development.
Yes. That's why we have companies, so that they optimize these techniques which are difficult to get working. Cheap products are given more leeway for not implementing top-notch copyright filters, but if you put a high price tag on your product but still sell broken copyright filter, then your solution needs to be properly optimized.
On the post: Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This article was seriously misunderstood by
sure, but they're accusing him of all the following:
1) accessing protected computer without permission (==hacking)
2) accessing protected documents without permission (==confidentiality breakage)
3) publishing protected documents without permission
4) fleeing the country twice (sweden->england, england->ecuador)
5) breaking his bail conditions
6) sex offenses
7) annoying powerful people
8) getting refugee status in equador
9) forgetting to pay taxes while locked inside embassy
10) 1 million bucks that police used to survellance of the ecuador embassy
11) messing with equador embassy operations
12) getting kicked away from embassy
13) etc..
Lots of small issues... But the key takeaway is that the main problem is the access to protected documents.
On the post: Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim
Re: Re: Re: This article was seriously misunderstood by trolls o
The witch hunt that they did to Julian Assange kinda proves you wrong. If accessing sensitive information wasn't illegal, why would USA government harrass Julian Assange at all?
On the post: Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim
Re: Re: This article was seriously misunderstood by trolls on in
The law clearly says otherwise.
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but you don't even have a replacement for space-x. I do.
You don't think space-x price tag is slightly steep? You get the same experience if you subscribe to the meshpage shuttle experience.
Now, it's just question whether you consider elon musk and space-x incompetent.
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
Re:
Here's a rocket for you, so you can leave the puny earth and join us in our planet: https://meshpage.org/237
See, there are always solutions to the this kind of problems. But I guess you can't even get the rocket to leave earth, given that your gaming skills are not top notch.
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
Re:
nope. Promote progress of science and useful arts s actually very simple. Copyright replaces requirement to obtain compensation from your work with ownership of the work which allows copyright owner to prevent rest of the world from using the material without compensation. This means authors will need to create and finish their work on the promise that compensation will be available once the work is fully finished. This means the hard work wlll be done with a high risk that compensation is not actually available. But society benefits when authors actually finish their products, even if author never receives money for it. Thus society is often using authors as free slaves. Copyright is just a modern version of slavery. Work is being done without compensation. Society benefits from the work. Progress of science and useful arts is promoted.
This pattern never filters out works that weren't created by corporations. So your position is wrong. Society similarly uses work done by corporations and taking it without compensation. 90% of all startups that create copyrighted works are bankrupt after 5 years of operating, so the above pattern is working exactly like described.
On the post: Journalists In St. Louis Discover State Agency Is Revealing Teacher Social Security Numbers; Governors Vows To Prosecute Journalists As Hackers
Re: Re: Re: Multi-step process, my ass
Current information is that the govt had used rot13 to encode the info, so the data wasn't in plaintext format, and definitely not available via view-source alone.
On the post: Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim
This article was seriously misunderstood by trolls on internet
There's two important facts missing from the internet discussion: 1) govt had actually hidden the SSN's by encoding them with something similar than what rot13 is, i.e. not encryption, but encoding anyway. 2) It's illegal to access protected information recardless of how you got access to it, even if it was publicly available in the html source code, accessing it is illegal.
These two pieces of information will change the whole story upsidedown. The step (1) means that the "security researchers" had to use hacking techniques to get access to the SSN's, since the information simply wasn't available to ordinary public. The step (2) means that once they found SSN's with their hacking techniques, any further actions with the data is all illegal, including reporting the blunder to its originating organisation. Given that they weren't real security researchers, but some kind of newspaper reporters, they weren't aware of the strict laws that govern security research, and thus they're doing more damage than what their "reporting" is worth.
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
Re: Re: Re:
this shows that you don't understand how "promote the progress of science and useful arts" actually works.
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
Re:
This isn't required. If you refuse to play ball, they'll just choose another client. There's over 7,8 billon people on the planet, they simply don't need you as a client.
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
Re:
Its all about what products are available in supermarket shelf. RIAA and MPAA are global players and thus control what products are available for purchase. If my software product gets shelf placement in 120,000 shops around the world, it no longer matters what individual users choose to use. Everyone will anyway have access to the product, simply because RIAA executive considers our copyright story to be better than our competitors.
If few pirates reject our software because it implements copyrights properly, it's no match to the power of 120,000 shop's shelf placement opportinities.
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
Re: Re: Re:
To get your software accepted by vendors in different continents, the developer needs to listen concerns of foreign companies. Basic pattern that makes your software acceptable by different players is that it actually implements the rules that those players consider important. So if RIAA/MPAA thinks following copyright is important activity, our software needs to implement copyright rules or else it has no chance in RIAA's software evaluation process. We just choose the most important players in each area and implement the rules that they broadcast all over internet. This makes our software more successful than what our competitors can do. Its a basic survival strategy in the competitive environment.
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
Re:
you're still disgruntled that your copyright status isn't good enough that riaa/mpaa would consider it acceptable?
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
Re: Re: Re:
That wouldn't work. You know, keeping it inside just increases the pressure until it explodes. We already tried that approach for over 15 years, and it has some benefits, but in the long term, it's not successful approach. It's better to leave responsibility to continue the approach to techdirt listeners.
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
Re:
you might have trouble reading. maybe if you went back to primary school to learn alphabet again. You basically missed the most important part of the message, i.e. absorbing large work amounts.
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
Re:
They could still be in the damage-causing phase of their project...
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
Re:
Noone else but corporations are able to create anything creative, given that it just takes such large amount of work. Even small companies are in significant disadvantage when they cannot absorb large work amounts. Hobbyists have no chance of doing anything worthwhile. If these hobbyists are trying to do something creative, they just cause more damage than they're worth. You witnessed this yourself when you claimed that Scott Carlson owns the material. Basically the hobbyist who created and licensed the model is causing damage when the licensing story isn't using strictest and most onerous licensing practices possible. To fix this problem, everyone need to move from sloppy practices to the copyright maximalist position.
see copyright maximalist stuff is actually fixing the issue you complain about.
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
Re:
Here's steps how to do it:
1) first follow copyright's laws requirement to BLOCK ALL CONTENT.
2) Then carefully allow only those things where licenses have been secured
3) done..
See, this process always works properly, you don't even need to deal with fair use or other such issues.
I followed the above process that is guaranteed to work. Its still questionable if Scott Cawthon owns the material. But such issues are not needed when I have a license to the material (from someone else than Scott)...
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
Re: Re: Re: riaa
These practices are never making any of the stuff "impossible", given that there's always option to purchase a license to the material. Maybe your feeble organisation doesn't have the required money to purchase the rights to the hollywood movie productions, but that doesn't mean its absolutely impossible thing to do.
Your failure to protect against misuses is well documented in techdirt pages, so you might need to reconsider your approach to product development.
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
Re: Re: not possible this will work
Yes. That's why we have companies, so that they optimize these techniques which are difficult to get working. Cheap products are given more leeway for not implementing top-notch copyright filters, but if you put a high price tag on your product but still sell broken copyright filter, then your solution needs to be properly optimized.
Next >>