Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 26 Nov 2012 @ 7:14am
Re: Re:
If the legal option is better than the illegal option, you are essentially encouraging the industry to do nothing about piracy or do what they can to harrass illegal downloads.
If the legal options are better than piracy, then the industry doesn't have to do anything different - they would be winning!
Doing nothing about piracy is completely incomprehensible for the industry.
No argument from me, but the list of things also incromprehensible to the industry also includes any understanding of economics, common sense, patience, and probably any form form of human decency.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 23 Nov 2012 @ 6:48am
Re: Re: Re: Never assume .....
Again, you're accusing me of making assumptions while you're assuming that Stuxnet caused a plane to crash.
There is a lot more data and evidence around about the extent that Stuxnet spread (relatively limited to a few Mid-East countries), and what it was capable of, than you seem to be aware of.
Based on the evidence we have so far, I feel comfortable saying that Stuxnet did not cause whatever plane you're referring to crash. What are the pieces of evidence I'm basing that on? First, again Stuxnet was highly targeted and had a limited spread, primarily in the Mid-East. And second, there are tens of thousands of malware families (and millions of variants, but lets keep it simple), of which Stuxnet is only one - and many of those pieces of malware are far more aggressive and damaging. It is much more likely that if whatever plane crash you're referring to was caused by malware, it was caused by one of the "garden variety" threats we see every day, and not some specialized version that was designed to infect an Iranian nuclear facility.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 23 Nov 2012 @ 6:45am
Re: Re: Re: Never assume .....
Again, you're accusing me of making assumptions while you're assuming that Stuxnet caused a plane to crash.
There is a lot more data and evidence around about the extent that Stuxnet spread (relatively limited to a few Mid-East countries), and what it was capable of, than you seem to be aware of.
Based on the evidence we have so far, I feel comfortable saying that Stuxnet did not cause whatever plane you're referring to crash. What are the pieces of evidence I'm basing that on? First, again Stuxnet was highly targeted and had a limited spread, primarily in the Mid-East. And second, there are tens of thousands of malware families (and millions of variants, but lets keep it simple), of which Stuxnet is only one - and many of those pieces of malware are far more aggressive and damaging. It is much more likely that if whatever plane crash you're referring to was caused by malware, it was caused by one of the "garden variety" threats we see every day, and not some specialized version that was designed to infect an Iranian nuclear facility.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Nov 2012 @ 8:43pm
Re: Never assume .....
One can't make unequivocal statements about the damages wrought from malware,
And yet you're comparing it to planes falling out of the sky. That is what I am arguing against, the alarmism displayed in your comment, and a subtle tone of it in the original article.
We can have rational discussions on information security without resorting to the hype that we rightly criticize when some congressman does the Chicken Little routine trying to scare up votes for their overreaching bill.
Perhaps me saying there was no harm done was not strictly correct - but we currently know of no ill effects outside of the intended target - and it has been awhile - besides some people and organizations having to do routine scans and purges of their systems. If you know of any, please share, but until we have evidence, we also shouldn't assume there was harm.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Nov 2012 @ 3:26pm
Re: Re: Re:
Good question. Given the high profile of this, and the time since it broke, I would wager they have all been. But there will always be exploits, some of them not discovered until actively used. It's hard enough for some companies (cough Oracle/Java) that can't even patch gaping holes in their products months after exploits are widely available.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Nov 2012 @ 3:19pm
Re: Re:
they might be on firmer ground,
Not if the image is public domain. If it is public domain, then anyone, anywhere, can use it for anything they damn well please without fear of the government or the photographer being able to stop them on copyright grounds.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Nov 2012 @ 3:00pm
Re:
any off the shelf anti-malware would protect against
Stuxnet used quite a few zero-day exploits. These are exploits which are unknown to anyone but the exploiter, or those in which have not been publicly released and in which there are no patches and no defenses.
So no, your copy of AVG Free Edition is not going to protect you, or Chevron, against them.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Nov 2012 @ 2:46pm
Re:
Think you're misunderstanding. Techdirt isn't saying that the photo can't be manipulated - the notice at the bottom of the picture on Flickr, put there by a government employee who set the account up, is claiming it cannot be manipulated.
The story is that the claim, stated by a government employee, is wrong and falls into the copyfraud part of copyright law - claiming rights you do not have.
Since the work was created by a government employee as part of their official duties, it is automatically a public domain image, and no one, not even the government or the photographer can make any claim over it.
Techdirt is not villifying anyone for wanting the photographer credited - TD is saying that claiming such a right on a public domain work is incorrect.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Nov 2012 @ 1:22pm
Re:
Just speculation here, but it was most likely the official Whitehouse photographer - who is employeed by the government, and his official duties involve taking exactly these types of pictures.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Nov 2012 @ 1:09pm
No harm done elsewhere
I'm going to quibble here. While everything you said is theoretically possible - it hasn't yet happened yet.
From the WSJ article:
"Chevron was not adversely affected by Stuxnet, says Chevron spokesman Morgan Crinklaw."
Stuxnet was highly targetted. Other than spreading outside of its intended target - it didn't do anything. The malicious part of it did not activate unless it saw a certain number of controllers for a specific model of a certain number of centrifuges.
While there is always an unknown factor, that this could have ended up somewhere else and caused damage/destruction, it didn't.
Since we regularly call out officials for hyping up the impending doom of cyber-war, I want to be fair and make sure we're not doing the same thing.
I'll also argue that the genie was already out of the bottle when it came to cyber-attacks by nation states against other nation states. Stuxnet was particularly effective and exceptional, yes. But it wasn't really the first. Look up the the Russian/Georgian conflict. There's also been plenty of theoretical talk about it for years.
It's not being seized because the domain name itself is infringing, it's being seized because it points to a website where infringement takes place.
How is this any less of a question of prior restraint?
Regardless, you have yet to acknowledge that there are no extraordinary procedural safeguards when the issue is simple piracy.
Since you keep using the phrase "simple piracy" could you clarify what that means from a legal perspective? Is it defined in some precedent? And who gets to determine which cases qualify under "simple piracy" as opposed to something with fair use defenses or something not so simple?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 9:58am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All you guys can do is point to a couple outliers and pretend like that's the norm.
Even if they are outliers (they're not) my point stands. If it so easy that a mistake could not be made - then no mistakes would be made. Yet they are. So it is not very easy - and hence seizing speech without an adversarial hearing should not be permitted.
Sorry, but the criteria are simple and objective, and there is no risk that the determination will turn on the whim of the investigating officer.
Keep spouting off things even you have to know are outright falsehoods. Your spin sucks worse today than the Republican Study Committee's.
And even in an outlier like dajaz1.com, where MAYBE there was a license for SOME of the works, it's still not constitutionally protected speech at issue since it's the license that permits it.
Dajaz1 did not have a single unauthorized work available. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary?
Or would you like to address the other point I made about other speech not being seized when it could be considered as helping someone commit (more serious) crimes?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 9:38am
Re: Re: Re:
When the difference between constitutionally protected and unprotected speech is easy to make, such as with simple piracy, there is no need for the prior adversarial hearing.
And since when is that an "easy" determination to make?
The copyright holders seem to screw it up regularly. Viacom/Youtube. Dajaz1. Countless bogus DMCA notices. List of "rogue" sites featuring completely legal and authorized sites.
If it is so easy, why are the people who should know what is infringing or not so hopelessly inept at it?
They were seized as instrumentalities of crime, since they were being used as a tool to help people infringe.
I don't remember HBO having "The Wire" gagged, even though it could be used as a tool to direct people on where to go to acquire drugs (there were some recognizable Baltimore locations known to be such). Nor do I see newspapers being gagged if they report on (with details) similar such things.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 15 Nov 2012 @ 1:24pm
Re: Interesting Study - Invalid data points
why are we giving this data any creedence at all
You mean the data agreed on by both "sides" in this argument?
The same data was discovered both by the academics and the paid RIAA researchers.
One side is saying "Look, the pirates are your biggest customers!" and the other says "We've known for ten years that's the right data, BUT FLARGHTHA BLARGHTHA PIRACY!"
On the post: Early-Morning Raid Sent To Confiscate 9-Year-Old's Winnie The Pooh Laptop For Downloading Music
Re: Re:
If the legal options are better than piracy, then the industry doesn't have to do anything different - they would be winning!
Doing nothing about piracy is completely incomprehensible for the industry.
No argument from me, but the list of things also incromprehensible to the industry also includes any understanding of economics, common sense, patience, and probably any form form of human decency.
On the post: Stuxnet's Infection Of Chevron Shows Why 'Weaponized' Malware Is A Bad Idea
Re: Re: Re: Never assume .....
There is a lot more data and evidence around about the extent that Stuxnet spread (relatively limited to a few Mid-East countries), and what it was capable of, than you seem to be aware of.
Based on the evidence we have so far, I feel comfortable saying that Stuxnet did not cause whatever plane you're referring to crash. What are the pieces of evidence I'm basing that on? First, again Stuxnet was highly targeted and had a limited spread, primarily in the Mid-East. And second, there are tens of thousands of malware families (and millions of variants, but lets keep it simple), of which Stuxnet is only one - and many of those pieces of malware are far more aggressive and damaging. It is much more likely that if whatever plane crash you're referring to was caused by malware, it was caused by one of the "garden variety" threats we see every day, and not some specialized version that was designed to infect an Iranian nuclear facility.
On the post: Stuxnet's Infection Of Chevron Shows Why 'Weaponized' Malware Is A Bad Idea
Re: Re: Re: Never assume .....
There is a lot more data and evidence around about the extent that Stuxnet spread (relatively limited to a few Mid-East countries), and what it was capable of, than you seem to be aware of.
Based on the evidence we have so far, I feel comfortable saying that Stuxnet did not cause whatever plane you're referring to crash. What are the pieces of evidence I'm basing that on? First, again Stuxnet was highly targeted and had a limited spread, primarily in the Mid-East. And second, there are tens of thousands of malware families (and millions of variants, but lets keep it simple), of which Stuxnet is only one - and many of those pieces of malware are far more aggressive and damaging. It is much more likely that if whatever plane crash you're referring to was caused by malware, it was caused by one of the "garden variety" threats we see every day, and not some specialized version that was designed to infect an Iranian nuclear facility.
On the post: Stuxnet's Infection Of Chevron Shows Why 'Weaponized' Malware Is A Bad Idea
Re: Never assume .....
And yet you're comparing it to planes falling out of the sky. That is what I am arguing against, the alarmism displayed in your comment, and a subtle tone of it in the original article.
We can have rational discussions on information security without resorting to the hype that we rightly criticize when some congressman does the Chicken Little routine trying to scare up votes for their overreaching bill.
Perhaps me saying there was no harm done was not strictly correct - but we currently know of no ill effects outside of the intended target - and it has been awhile - besides some people and organizations having to do routine scans and purges of their systems. If you know of any, please share, but until we have evidence, we also shouldn't assume there was harm.
On the post: Stuxnet's Infection Of Chevron Shows Why 'Weaponized' Malware Is A Bad Idea
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: President Obama Is Not Impressed With Your Right To Modify His Photos
Re: Re:
Not if the image is public domain. If it is public domain, then anyone, anywhere, can use it for anything they damn well please without fear of the government or the photographer being able to stop them on copyright grounds.
On the post: Stuxnet's Infection Of Chevron Shows Why 'Weaponized' Malware Is A Bad Idea
Re:
Stuxnet used quite a few zero-day exploits. These are exploits which are unknown to anyone but the exploiter, or those in which have not been publicly released and in which there are no patches and no defenses.
So no, your copy of AVG Free Edition is not going to protect you, or Chevron, against them.
On the post: President Obama Is Not Impressed With Your Right To Modify His Photos
Re:
The story is that the claim, stated by a government employee, is wrong and falls into the copyfraud part of copyright law - claiming rights you do not have.
Since the work was created by a government employee as part of their official duties, it is automatically a public domain image, and no one, not even the government or the photographer can make any claim over it.
Techdirt is not villifying anyone for wanting the photographer credited - TD is saying that claiming such a right on a public domain work is incorrect.
On the post: Holiday Deals In The Techdirt Insider Shop
Re: Testimonial
That thought didn't survive for long in the face of the realization of what you actually might disclose.
On the post: President Obama Is Not Impressed With Your Right To Modify His Photos
Re:
On the post: Holiday Deals In The Techdirt Insider Shop
Have to say it
Loooooooots of t-shirts!
On the post: Stuxnet's Infection Of Chevron Shows Why 'Weaponized' Malware Is A Bad Idea
No harm done elsewhere
From the WSJ article:
"Chevron was not adversely affected by Stuxnet, says Chevron spokesman Morgan Crinklaw."
Stuxnet was highly targetted. Other than spreading outside of its intended target - it didn't do anything. The malicious part of it did not activate unless it saw a certain number of controllers for a specific model of a certain number of centrifuges.
While there is always an unknown factor, that this could have ended up somewhere else and caused damage/destruction, it didn't.
Since we regularly call out officials for hyping up the impending doom of cyber-war, I want to be fair and make sure we're not doing the same thing.
I'll also argue that the genie was already out of the bottle when it came to cyber-attacks by nation states against other nation states. Stuxnet was particularly effective and exceptional, yes. But it wasn't really the first. Look up the the Russian/Georgian conflict. There's also been plenty of theoretical talk about it for years.
On the post: So Much For Competing In The Market: Grab Bag Of IP Weapons Used In Legal Fight Between Options Exchanges
Hardly needs commentary
Here we have two stock exchanges - the bastions of free market capitalism - fighting over government regulated monopoly rights.
On the post: Yes, A Domain Name Can Be Protected By The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How is this any less of a question of prior restraint?
Regardless, you have yet to acknowledge that there are no extraordinary procedural safeguards when the issue is simple piracy.
Since you keep using the phrase "simple piracy" could you clarify what that means from a legal perspective? Is it defined in some precedent? And who gets to determine which cases qualify under "simple piracy" as opposed to something with fair use defenses or something not so simple?
On the post: Rep. Darrell Issa Wants To Make It Clear That You're Allowed To Rip Your DVDs
Re: Cue screams of "legalizing piracy" in 3... 2... 1...
Coming so soon after the study, they'll be in panic mode. Expect to see all sorts of easily debunked propaganda flooding the usual channels.
On the post: Yes, A Domain Name Can Be Protected By The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even if they are outliers (they're not) my point stands. If it so easy that a mistake could not be made - then no mistakes would be made. Yet they are. So it is not very easy - and hence seizing speech without an adversarial hearing should not be permitted.
Sorry, but the criteria are simple and objective, and there is no risk that the determination will turn on the whim of the investigating officer.
Keep spouting off things even you have to know are outright falsehoods. Your spin sucks worse today than the Republican Study Committee's.
And even in an outlier like dajaz1.com, where MAYBE there was a license for SOME of the works, it's still not constitutionally protected speech at issue since it's the license that permits it.
Dajaz1 did not have a single unauthorized work available. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary?
Or would you like to address the other point I made about other speech not being seized when it could be considered as helping someone commit (more serious) crimes?
On the post: Yes, A Domain Name Can Be Protected By The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re:
And since when is that an "easy" determination to make?
The copyright holders seem to screw it up regularly. Viacom/Youtube. Dajaz1. Countless bogus DMCA notices. List of "rogue" sites featuring completely legal and authorized sites.
If it is so easy, why are the people who should know what is infringing or not so hopelessly inept at it?
They were seized as instrumentalities of crime, since they were being used as a tool to help people infringe.
I don't remember HBO having "The Wire" gagged, even though it could be used as a tool to direct people on where to go to acquire drugs (there were some recognizable Baltimore locations known to be such). Nor do I see newspapers being gagged if they report on (with details) similar such things.
On the post: Latest Company To Discover The Streisand Effect: Casey Movers
Re: Re: Politely
On the post: RIAA Prefers Customers Who Buy A Little To Pirates Who Buy A Lot
Re: Interesting Study - Invalid data points
You mean the data agreed on by both "sides" in this argument?
The same data was discovered both by the academics and the paid RIAA researchers.
One side is saying "Look, the pirates are your biggest customers!" and the other says "We've known for ten years that's the right data, BUT FLARGHTHA BLARGHTHA PIRACY!"
On the post: RIAA Prefers Customers Who Buy A Little To Pirates Who Buy A Lot
Re: Re: View: Cup always look half full to those who put nothing into it.
Next >>