Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Security

Journal Journal: A New Approach to Mutating Malware 80

CBC is reporting that researchers at the Penn State University have discovered a new method of fighting malware that better responds to mutations. From the article:

The new system identifies a host computer with a high rate of homogeneous connection requests, and blocks the offending computer so no worm-infected packets of data can be sent from it.

Mozilla

Submission + - Get your Firefox add-ons while you still can

PetManimal writes: "Mozilla is getting ready to relaunch the Firefox website on Monday, and when it does, several thousand extensions will be culled from the list. From the article:

... The site will drop marginal add-ons, as well as those no longer maintained by their creator or not updated for the browsers and e-mail clients now in use. A couple of hundred extensions will remain on the site after Monday.
"
Unix

Submission + - Print DVI Files with CUPS for Linux

IdaAshley writes: Have you ever tried to print DVI or other files in Linux and gotten an "unsupported format" message? This tip shows you how to combine existing tools to make a Common UNIX Printing System (CUPS) print filter for printing DVI files.

Other Popular Articles
Privacy

Submission + - Regaining Privacy

An anonymous reader writes: After contempalating several of the articles here, I have come to the conclusion that some of the more absurd copyright attempts, may provide the kernel of the solution to some of the problems that we are having with privacy. Specifically attach a EULA to your property.

Continued

Claiming continued possession of the copyright to a statue that was paid for with public funds and displayed in a public commons is absurd. (Though the politicians who commission such public works should be charged with the task of securing the artist's transmition of his work to the public domain.) Likewise, trying to enforce a recent copyright on a dance that has been around for many years, and was incorporated into a number of films long ago is closing the barn door after the horse is out.

But creating an original work of art, either a statue that you place in your yard, or a painting on the outside walls of your house, and, keeping these works on your private property, and posting copyright notices where they can be plainly seen, should constitute a reasonable and legally enforcible copyright. Which means, that by deploying enough works about your property, it should be possible to make it effectively impossible to legally photograph it.

Imagine a house surrounded with one to two dozen such statues, and the following license posted at reasonable intervales about the property's perimeter.

This property, its buildings, artwork, landscaping, and signs are copyright _date_ by _property_owner_. Further, the motions, or lack there of (in the case of lying, sitting, or standing around) by the owner, the owner's family, and the owner's guests while on this property, constitute a dance copyrighted by the above named owner. By photographing, drawing, filming or otherwise capturing image(s) still or moving, of any or all of the above listed copyrighted works, or by receiving modified, or unmodified originals or copies or other derivatives of these images created under this license, you agree to the following terms:

A) This license applies to all PROTECTED WORKS derived from the above listed copyrighted works. These PROTECTED WORKS include all original, still image(s) of any or all of the above listed copyrighted works, created using any technique, media, or technology. These PROTECTED WORKS also include a seconds worth of a moving image, created using any technique, media, or technology. When more or less than a second of moving image is captured as part of a shot, then the total amount of time of the shot shall be rounded up to the nearest second, and each such second shall count as one PROTECTED WORK. These PROTECTED WORKS also include any modified, or unmodified copies or other derivatives of one or more of the PROTECTED WORKS. In the case where a modified, or unmodified copy or derived work is a moving image, then the total amount of time of the shot shall be rounded up to the nearest second, and each such second shall count as one PROTECTED WORK.

B) You agree to pay the owner the sum of 1,000,000 USD for each of the events listed below, when payment is made in advance of the event. Should you inadvertently, or intentionally fail to pay for an event in advance of it's occurrence, then you agree to pay the owner the sum of 10,000,000 USD for each of the events listed below that is payed for after the event and without prompting by the owner. Should your delay in making a payment extend to the point that the owner is obliged to advise you of the need to make a payment, then you agree to pay the owner the sum of 100,000,000 USD for each of the events listed below that is payed for after the event and that the owner is forced to request payment for. Should you refuse to make a payment, even after having been advised of the need to make a payment, then you agree to pay the owner the sum of 1,000,000,000 USD plus the owner's costs for litigation, for each of the events listed below, when the event's payment is made only in responce to litigation.

C) The events, each of which requires an individual payment as listed above, are:
  • Any initial capture of a PROTECTED WORK.
  • Creating a PROTECTED WORK by making an identical copy, a modified copy, or a derived work either using the original technique(s), media(s), or technology(ies), or using one or more different technique(s), media(s), or technology(ies).
  • Any transfer of a PROTECTED WORK over an electronic network, either wired or unwired.
  • Any transfer of a PROTECTED WORK to another individual, company, or organization either for compensation or gratis.


D) When, one or more PROTECTED WORK(S) is/are transfered to another individual, company, or organization you agree to present a copy of this license to that individual, or a responsible representative of the company, or organization prior to the transfer of the PROTECTED WORK(S) so that they may accept the terms of this license before receiving the PROTECTED WORK(S).

E) Should you fail to present the license before transferring the protected work then you agree:
  • to work to inform the recipient of the PROTECTED WORK(S) of their obligations under this license as soon as possible; and likewise (if the recipient transfered PROTECTED WORK(S) to others) to inform any subsequent recipients of the PROTECTED WORK(S) of this license and their obligations under it as soon as possible.
  • to pay for any events effected by the recipient and any subsequent recipients of the PROTECTED WORK(S) prior to your notification to them of this license and their obligations under it.


F) Those who receive notification or otherwise become aware of the applicability of this license, after receiving one or more PROTECTED WORK(S), may comply with this license by operating under its terms from the time of notification onward, or they may immediately destroy all of the PROTECTED WORKS(S) in their possession. Delay in the destruction of the PROTECTED WORKS, or performance of one of the above defined events after notification of the existence and applicability of this license constitutes, acceptance of the terms of this license.

G) You agree to keep scrupulous, and auditable accounting of the time and nature of each of the above defined events which occur to any and all of the PROTECTED WORK(S). You agree to present to the owner, upon his request, this accounting in its entirety so that it may be reviewed. In the event that there is any uncertainty as to how many events have occurred, then you agree to accept and pay for the copyright owner's best estimate as to the correct number of events.

H) You agree upon the owner's request to transmit a copy of all PROTECTED WORK(S) currently in your possession. No payments will be required to support the events needed to fullfill these requests.

I) You agree upon the owner's request to transmit to the owner a list of all of the individuals, companies, and organizations to which you have transmitted PROTECTED WORK(S).

J) Terms differing from the above may be granted upon request, contact _phone_number_and/or_address_ for more information.

NB: If the posted notices are implemented as black letters over an original work of art done in pastels, then even photographing the notices will constitute an event that will trigger the license.


Obviously, this is not a contract designed to encourage acceptance by the sentient^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsapient, but that is the point. For a variety of reasons, unless you are in public office, they should have no right to photograph you or your property without first securing your permition (hence the last paragraph of the license) or a warrent.

The main problem with this, is that I can forsee the companies wiggling to make sure it affects the employees more than the company or its directors. So the company will deny wanting or using the photo, while leaving you to bankrupt the employee. Considering that the latter are lying about their authority to take the pictures, the second half of this does not bother me as much as it might, but the problem will not be even minimally solved until the company directs its employees to avoid protected houses.

IANAL, so I must ask some questions of those who are:

Would writing to the CEO and the Board of Directors with a license similar to the above but stating that if they send an employee to photograph your house, (or maintain a photograph already obtained) that they agree to be responsible for the proper execution of the license both personally and corporately be effective?

And regarding Google, would painting © _year_ _uri_ on my roof, where _uri_ is a web address containing the above license and an explanation that said license applies to the house and the property on which it is situated serve to keep me off of their maps? Or would it be better to write to their incorruptible founders?

Perhaps some lawyer can clean up the above license and post it and instructions to its proper use on a website and then post the site here.

Let me apologize for the length of this post. By way of explanation, let me point out that it is difficult for us ACs to post things to our own websites. Besides, if I had, someone would complain that I was just trying to get more hits.
Software

Submission + - computers in cars

Hyresse writes: new cars are putting more and more computers in them.. the computers are currently able to lock/unlock the doors. turn off the engine. adjust braking and stearing.. basicly. the computers control the car. and the cars comunicate.. mostly they recieve data.. GPS and satalite information. what is being done to prevent someone from sitting beside the road with a broadcast signal and turning all cars into moving weapons? what part of the goverment is insuring that the cars have been tested and is secure to be on the streets? has that part of the goverment actually considered the problems of putting millions of 2 ton high speed vehicles on the road with the potential of having the computers hacked and controled? what about the people repairing the cars.. can we trust them to not put in a chip into a car that will allow it to cause a 18 car pileup on a freeway? these questions need to be asked BEFORE the cars are on the freeways.
It's funny.  Laugh.

Submission + - Beer Goggles Explained!

e4g4 writes: Researchers at Manchester University have apparently discovered the formula behind the well known "Beer Goggle" effect. The research, commissioned by Bausch and Lomb PureVision, has determined that the quantity of alcohol consumed isn't the only variable that contributes to the "Beer Goggle factor", smokiness of the room and a person's visual acuity also come into play. (Yeah, the article's a little over a year old, but Science + Beer == Fun).
The Courts

Submission + - Former RIAA defendant wins countersuit

KingSkippus writes: "Debbie Foster, who was accused by the RIAA of sharing music on a peer-to-peer network and fought for a year and a half to have her case dismissed, has won a countersuit seeking $55,000 for attorney's fees. Ars Technica reports, "The industry cartel will have to tread carefully with any secondary infringement claims now that there is case law that owning an Internet account used for infringement does not automatically make the owner liable for said infringement. Attorney Ray Beckerman told Ars that he believes there are huge implications from this opinion. 'It sends a message to the RIAA... that there are consequences to this 'driftnet' litigation strategy.'""
It's funny.  Laugh.

Submission + - NY senator interferes with natural selection...

pointbeing writes: From http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/02/07/nyc.ipod. reut/index.html : New Yorkers who blithely cross the street listening to an iPod or talking on a cell phone could soon face a $100 fine.

New York State Sen. Carl Kruger says three pedestrians in his Brooklyn district have been killed since September upon stepping into traffic while distracted by an electronic device. In one case bystanders screamed "watch out" to no avail.

Kruger says he will introduce legislation on Wednesday to ban the use of gadgets such as Blackberry devices and video games while crossing the street.

"Government has an obligation to protect its citizenry," Kruger said in a telephone interview from Albany, the state capital.

"This electronic gadgetry is reaching the point where it's becoming not only endemic but it's creating an atmosphere where we have a major public safety crisis at hand."

Tech-consuming New Yorkers trudge to work on sidewalks and subways like an army of drones, appearing to talk to themselves on wireless devices or swaying to seemingly silent tunes.

"I'm not trying to intrude on that," Kruger said. "But what's happening is when they're tuning into their iPod or Blackberry or cell phone or video game, they're walking into speeding buses and moving automobiles. It's becoming a nationwide problem."
Security

Submission + - Link between IT sabotage and IT workers

jcatcw writes: Workers who sabotage corporate systems are almost always IT workers who are frequently late, argumentative, paranoid, or generally poor performers, according to a Carnegie Mellon study titled "Management and Education of the Risk of Insider Threat (MERIT): System Dynamics Modeling of Computer System Sabotage."

From the article: "According to the research, 86% of those who committed cybercrimes held technical positions and 90% had system administrator or privileged system access. Almost half — 41% — of those who sabotaged IT systems were employed at the time they did it but most crimes were committed by insiders following termination. Most incursions — 64% — involved VPNs and old passwords that had never been terminated, highlighting a lack of security controls and gaps in their organizations' access controls."
Movies

Submission + - European theater chains boycotting movies

S.R. writes: A handful of European theater chains — two each in the U.K. and Germany — are boycotting 'Night at the Musuem' and 'Eragon.' The reason? The relatively short window between the theatrical and DVD releases. 'Night at the Museum' is set for a DVD release 13 weeks after its debut, and the theater owners are blaming the short windows for the decline in theater attendance. But their problems are much bigger than that. 'Tickets are expensive, lines can be long, while popcorn and pop cost an arm and a leg. Perhaps most irritating, movie starting times are treated as mere suggestions by cinemas who use advertised start times to launch a barrage of previews and advertisements upon their audience. Once the movie starts, we are then treated to whispered conversations and cell phone usage.'
Google

Submission + - Google Steps Into Microsoft's Office

Russian Art Buyer writes: "Business Week is reporting Google is encroaching on Micorosoft with full force. From the article:
"After months of dancing around with Web versions of e-mail, group calendars, and the like, Google is finally about to take a big leap onto Microsoft's turf. Since last August, the search leader has offered a test version of an online office productivity software suite, called Google Apps for Your Domain, that lets companies offload e-mail systems to Google while keeping their own e-mail addresses. Soon, it's expected to add word-processing and spreadsheet services to the suite, which includes an online calendar, chat service, and Web page builder. In coming weeks, Google Apps will turn into a real business as Google begins charging corporations a subscription fee amounting to a few dollars per person per month.""
Security

Submission + - Is identity fraud dropping? Depends who you ask..

iusedtobe writes: Last week Slashdot discussed headlines from a survey suggesting ID Theft May be Diminishing. The survey was carried out in October 2006, and sponsored by some credit firms. This week Unisys announced U.S. and U.K. Consumers Push for Biometric Technology in Wake of Rising Security Threats, including "the rise in identity fraud". Their survey was conducted in November 2006 and sponsored by a technology provider. What a difference a month makes? What a difference a question makes? What a difference a sponsor makes?

Slashdot Top Deals

The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh

Working...