Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:We burn a ton of DVD's every week (Score 2) 376

For whatever reason, faxes are considered legal paperwork while email is not... even if the fax was sent over IP anyway.

It has nothing to do with whether something is considered "legal paperwork" or not. An email can form a written contract (or be a written communication) as assuredly as a couriered piece of paper or a facsimile.

Fax machines provide delivery confirmation (your fax machine reports whether the entire facsimile was received by the machine at the telephone number that it dialed). You know where it went, and you know that the entire thing got there.

Email, at least historically, hit the Pachinko machine of SMTP relay servers. You knew where it was supposed to go, but you had no idea whether it got there (Do you send read receipts every time someone requests one? REALLY?). These days, it's less Pachinko machine and more Pin the Tail on the Donkey. You know where it's supposed to go, but you have no idea whether it got eaten by the external spam service, the firewall, the internal spam filter, the email client spam filter, or Uncle Horace's all purpose AI email sorter.

The courts have (almost all) converted to electronic filing and docket systems, so no, there's no electronic exception what's considered legal paperwork. If you want to serve someone with a pleading or motion in a case, you can even do it by email, if they've agreed to accept service by email (and thus agreed to be responsible for any screw up in the external spam service, the firewall, the internal spam filter, the email client spam filter, or Uncle Horace's all purpose AI email sorter).

It's all about achieving a level of assurance that "they got it."

Comment Re:What grudge? The editor's? (Score 5, Insightful) 125

It's not Wikileaks's role to scan email for viruses...

Yes, it is. See how easy that was to rebut? Now we could get into reasons why one would argue for either position so that this could actually qualify as a discussion rather than a diatribe. Some reasons for it being Wikileak's role: distributing information that actively attacks the recipient, like a smallpox-ridden blanket, and without even warning the recipient of that fact, is counterproductive and morally dishonest. Damaging your audience under the banner of "raw information" while failing to openly disclose one of the more significant aspects of the information... really?

Wikileaks's goal is to provide raw information, unlike that of mainstream journalism.

Well that's a bit of revisionist history, isn't it? I mean, first they redacted information, then they stopped. Yet they still redact source information, because, otherwise, you might be able to determine a source, and that would be bad for Wikileaks.

Wikileak's stated goals vary depending upon the side of Assange's very tiny bed that he woke up on that morning. However, their actions most assuredly represents the personal grudges of Assange himself. Wikileaks does not provide raw information, it provides information curated by Assange for Assange's personal purposes, and you'd do well to remember that.

Comment Re:Scamming the host (Score 2) 27

They are not scamming you; they (and you) are scamming the non-consenting host by using it for something other than the educational material you are allowed to use it for.

Or they're scamming you...

"While most students won't mind free access to the latest blockbusters, the links provided are not leading to regular pirate sites and services.

Instead they point to scammy portals, many of which require a credit card to signup, which undoubtedly leads to disappointment. These kinds of scams are nothing new, but seeing them listed on a Harvard website is a new development.

With links from the official Harvard domain name, the pages are an SEO goldmine and do very well in Google's search results."


Comment Re:Impact? (Score 2) 99

I would submit that Packet Capture is either Wiretapping and Wireshark (and other tools, like proxies, firewalls etc etc) are all in violation, or they are not, which would excuse this particular example. It would be a simple case.

It makes a difference whether:
1. You're running Wireshark on your own network to capture traffic sent to or by you (not wiretapping)
2. Your service provider or employer is running Wireshark on its network (for network management purposes, not wiretapping)
3. You're running Wireshark on someone else's network (um, yes, wiretapping)
4. You're running Wireshark on your own network to capture traffic sent to someone else, like your non-consenting spouse (guess what, it's wiretapping!)

18 USC 2511. Read it. Then read the definitions in 18 USC 2510. Or find a lawyer to explain all this to you.

It's not an either or situation. Also, proxies, firewalls, etc. are simply are not interesting -- you've agreed to those in your terms of service, your decision to work for an employer and use their communications resources, etc, and they're using in the ordinary course of providing service, and they don't "acquire" content for the operator (ordinarily)..

On the other hand, your spouse probably hasn't contractually submitted to your dreams of communications totalitarianism where you log and review everything they do, so yes, the same tool can be in violation or not.

Comment Re:Publishing mediums have changed (Score 1) 465

No, that's the old-and-still-operative author/speaker rules.

The old, print media publisher rules held that the publisher could be liable for "republishing" the author/speaker's defamatory content to an audience. They also are still operative for print-only publications.

I'm perfectly aware of the pre- and post-CDA legal regimes. I'm a practicing attorney.

Comment Re:Publishing mediums have changed (Score 1) 465

Can't they? Twitter doesn't allow child porn; they seem to do a good job policing that.

Child porn is a crime. The things you complain about typically aren't (yet) crimes, and you're not willing to work through the hard first amendment issues and political process necessary to make them crimes.

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute." 47 U.S.C. 230(e)(1).

To see them brought to tears because they're called the worst of names from cowards who would never say such things to their face leads me to believe that there must be a better solution than tolerating this filth.

It's called dealing with (and potentially prosecuting) the actual speaker, not taking the cop-out route and shutting down the publisher simply because they're the easy target with deep pockets and a greater interest in continuing their business than litigating someone else's speech issue. (the real goal of publisher liability; sue the party most likely to give up to preemptively shut down the party that might fight).

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." 47 U.S.C. 230(e)(1).

You don't have to tolerate the filth. Go after the "cowards," you shirker, rather than trying to essentially destroy internet services by imposing wholly unreasonbable, and frequently extralegal, responsibilities and costs upon them.

Comment Re:Publishing mediums have changed (Score 2) 465

But publishing standards should not.

What anyone posts on Twitter is, by every definition of the word, publishing. So, if People Magazine makes a statement like, "Pollux is a child molester," they are making an untrue public statement that may easily be subject to a libel suit. Trolls everyday on Twitter say the same, so why don't we hold Twitter to the same standard? They are the medium and should be held as equally responsible as any paper printing of the same libelous statement.

Because under that regime I could effectively destroy Slashdot by merely finding a half dozen examples of typical poster asshattery and pursuing Slashot for being the "publisher" of said asshattery.

You want the old, print media publisher rules to apply. That's wonderful. Everyone can wait a day or more for posts to be vetted; then wait another day or more for replies to pass the same filter, all while hoping that other issues have not become more topical in the meantime. After all, nobody's subjecting themselves to potential liability for defamation using unpaid volunteer moderators -- they'll be hiring modern day copyeditors at a living wage. That means your staff budget is far larger than writers, editors, and IT staff. If modern newspaper websites are shutting down comments because they don't like the community and aren't willing to deal with moderation (even with the so-called CDA immunity), you think that adding liability is going to help?

Everything old will be new again. CompuServe and AOL message boards at best -- with corresponding montly subscription fees -- or hobbiests hoping to fly under the radar (remember the good 'ol days of C64 BBSs with maybe 1000 users? You will...). Github - gone, because you can post anything on github even though it's principally for code. Youtube - gone, because nobody's hiring staff to watch every single video. Search engines to help you locate those esoteric bits of information - super gone. We're going back to classical Yahoo, because a directory requires minimal moderation, whereas reading every single post on every single site because a "bad" sentence might appear in the search result is... utterly impractical.

We rejected that possible universe, and we're not going back to it. You're an idiot if you think that you could ever impose those rules while somehow keeping even a majority of the benefits that you currently enjoy.

Comment Re:Twitter is pro-Free Speech ? REALLY ?? (Score 1) 465

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences, if you shout "fire!" in a theatre you will get banned regardless of your rights.

Congratulations, you've checked the box for "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech."

Nevermind dropping the whole "falsely" thing. Banning someone for yelling "fire" when there is a fire, however small, is the height of idiocy.

Comment Re:So I was gonna rant about your lack of detail (Score 1) 159

Anyone with the anniversary update can use it. It's not Windows Insider specific since the release.

As between you and the Microsoft installation guide, updated two days ago, I'm deeming the installation guide more credible.

1. Windows 10 Anniversary Update - build 14393 Available as of 8/2/2016
2. x64-based processor
3. Your PC must have an AMD/Intel x64 compatible CPU
4. You must be a member of the (free) Windows Insider Program (Preferably Fast-Ring)
5. Your PC must be running a 64-bit version of Windows 10 Anniversary Update build 14316 or later

My (and likely your) Microsoft ID is still in the Windows Insider Program, even if Get Insider Preview Builds is not active on that particular installation. Unless you've actually installed it, using only a local account or one known not to have ever signed up as an Insider, you can't support that claim.

Comment Re:So I was gonna rant about your lack of detail (Score 1) 159

Dear DRJlaw,
We hereby inform you that Windows Insider version of our software is what the outside world calls alpha version.
First release version of our software is the beta stage.
Service Pack 1 (or even 2 in some cases) is what outsider would call the finished product.
Your friendly Microsoft CEO

Dear Satya,
The feature is branded "beta," deliberately. Read the FAQ

Actual Microsoft product page

Comment Re:So I was gonna rant about your lack of detail (Score 1) 159

That depends..
If bash/Ubuntu on Windows 10 is just another program on Windows, you may expect AV software not to interfere with it, and proper support is in order.

It's not remotely so. They've created a new subsystem and introduced picodrivers and picoprocesses to enable the use of Linux binaries.

Comment Re:Does anybody really doubt it (Score 1) 706

But the DNC knew about the leaks at latest back in mid-June. So there's no time travel required.

Tell me, which Russian hacker group was Seth Rich a part of? All you've shown in that there were multiple, perfectly plausible outside sources for the leaks. How does that tie to a staffer and a need to eliminate him?

Are you suggesting that ClouldStrike identified him to the DNC as a leaker but, despite being very publicly associated with the intrusion forensics, haven't gone to the authorities with that fact?

To believe this, you have to believe that a political organization that can't help but leak information, and a forensics company that should be running for the hills (to a Congressional committee), have the discipline and information security practices in place to keep this quiet. And, by the way, have completely excluded Bernie supporters from the circle of those "in the know."


Comment Re:Null means Null (Score 1) 175

They still should not be returning coordinates if the location is unknown.

Society, having implemented subk's dictat, promptly collapsed. For Professor Heisenberg had already proved that it was impossible to be certain of an object's location, and subk had decided that the concept of precision simply required too much thought. Freight service everywhere simply stopped, as the pickup and delivery locations for any item were decidedly "unknown."

Slashdot Top Deals

The steady state of disks is full. -- Ken Thompson