dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9
share rss forum feed

MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Mediacom
reply to elios

Re: If it's easy to break into your house, it's OK then?

said by elios:

yes but its your own fault you left it there

if you leave some thing out in the open like long enough some one is going to take it
What you say is completely true. It would be stupid for me to leave something out in my front yard that I didn't want to be taken.

However, that does NOT make it legal for someone to take it. If I catch the guy who took it and press charges, his defense of "it's your fault because you left it in your front yard" is not going to work.


bear73
Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Premium
join:2001-06-09
Derry, NH

true, but possession is 9/10ths of the law. if you leave it in the open, and someone walks off with it, you have no recourse.
--
If ya gotta go, Go with a SMILE!
»www.thereligionofpeace.com/


MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Mediacom

1 recommendation

said by bear73:

true, but possession is 9/10ths of the law. if you leave it in the open, and someone walks off with it, you have no recourse.
Which planet are you living on? Of course I do. I call the police, I ID you as the guy who walked onto my front yard and took something that belonged to me, they arrest you. When you tell the judge "possession is 9/10 of the law" and "but he left it out where it was easy to take" he laughs in your face and doubles your sentence for being stupid.


Noah Vail
Son made my Avatar
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Bright House

Who Lives in a Web Site?

The whole house analogy is faulty.

In a house, everything is private and there is an expectation that the stuff you have at the beginning of the day, you'll still have at the end of the day.

MobiTV is a business. The purpose of a business is to get rid of their stuff. On the web, lots of sites give their stuff away. Most video traffic being streamed, is FREE content.

If you assume a video link is gratis, you'll be right more than not.

That having said, most everyone who is streaming MobiTV as a result of HF, probably knows MobiTV would rather they pay for it.

However, MobiTV is injecting a non-pay access to their content into a public highway system. When a user travels that link, there is no barrier, warning sign or request that they pay. It is an unmarked route of travel with nothing to differentiate it from any other route.

They attempted to hide it within a pay system, but someone found it posted it in a plain sight. So MobiTV wants to sue plain sight.

No one is forcing MobiTV to stream their content. They could shut it down anytime they chose. No one forced them publish a non-pay link. The attempt to hide it within another delivery system does not change the fact that it is an open access point of entry.

If MobiTV would rather people not availed themselves of a free link to their content, they should stop publishing a free link to their content.

NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd.


MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Mediacom

said by Noah Vail:

If MobiTV would rather people not availed themselves of a free link to their content, they should stop publishing a free link to their content.
On another news story (the one about WikiLeaks) I started a thread titled "Web sites are not magic" or something like that.

The point is, just because it's a Web site, doesn't grant it magical invulnerability from the real world of business and law.

What you say is true from a practical point of view. They've depended on security through obscurity (deep link URL to a text file with more deep links to the content) and now they've been burned. They should not have done that.

My whole point here is, don't leap to the conclusion that therefore it's perfectly OK to use those deep links, that bypass their authentication and authorization system, just because they are now revealed. Or, worse, that they are only getting what they deserve.

mobiTV, whether you like it or not, has a valid case. Howard Forums will lose the DMCA appeal if they make one.


Noah Vail
Son made my Avatar
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:3

Didn't I read above that HF is officed in Canada?

Does Canada subscribe and submit to the DCMA?

NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd.



rosco35
Premium
join:2003-11-10
USA
kudos:1

I think the web host is in america.



Noah Vail
Son made my Avatar
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:3

Then you'd have to sue the hosting company.

NV



rosco35
Premium
join:2003-11-10
USA
kudos:1

1 edit

MobiTv will start by trying to get Gnax to take the site offline.

»www.howardforums.com/announcement.php?f=57


wierdo

join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
reply to MyDogHsFleas

Re: If it's easy to break into your house, it's OK then?

said by MyDogHsFleas:

said by elios:

yes but its your own fault you left it there

if you leave some thing out in the open like long enough some one is going to take it
What you say is completely true. It would be stupid for me to leave something out in my front yard that I didn't want to be taken.

However, that does NOT make it legal for someone to take it. If I catch the guy who took it and press charges, his defense of "it's your fault because you left it in your front yard" is not going to work.
You misunderstand. It's like you leaving all your stuff out on your front lawn with a sign that says "take what you please." It's a fair assumption that anything that's on an HTTP server is intended for public consumption, barring a password or some other access control being in place.

I don't need explicit permission from my bank to type in the URL to their online banking application.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.


dispatcher21
911 Where is your emergency?

join:2004-01-22
united state
kudos:1
reply to MyDogHsFleas

But if you leave it all on the public right of way, say the sidewalk or the planning strip, its free game. Leave a file on the public right of way and it too is free game.



Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:2

2 recommendations

reply to MyDogHsFleas

Re: Who Lives in a Web Site?

said by MyDogHsFleas:

said by Noah Vail:

If MobiTV would rather people not availed themselves of a free link to their content, they should stop publishing a free link to their content.
On another news story (the one about WikiLeaks) I started a thread titled "Web sites are not magic" or something like that.

The point is, just because it's a Web site, doesn't grant it magical invulnerability from the real world of business and law.

What you say is true from a practical point of view. They've depended on security through obscurity (deep link URL to a text file with more deep links to the content) and now they've been burned. They should not have done that.

My whole point here is, don't leap to the conclusion that therefore it's perfectly OK to use those deep links, that bypass their authentication and authorization system, just because they are now revealed. Or, worse, that they are only getting what they deserve.

mobiTV, whether you like it or not, has a valid case. Howard Forums will lose the DMCA appeal if they make one.
Your entire argument is flawed, even using your own analogy. As posted above, this isn't like Howard Forums took the stuff from the unlocked house. They simply let a user posted comment that "so and so left all of their stuff in the front yard" stand. Howard Forums has provided nothing but information, about a completely non-secured PUBLIC website. It's no different than me telling a friend that I observed a guy in a green shirt walking down the street.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/Seagate 750.10/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

quote:
Your entire argument is flawed, even using your own analogy. As posted above, this isn't like Howard Forums took the stuff from the unlocked house. They simply let a user posted comment that "so and so left all of their stuff in the front yard" stand. Howard Forums has provided nothing but information, about a completely non-secured PUBLIC website. It's no different than me telling a friend that I observed a guy in a green shirt walking down the street.
We have a winner.

MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Mediacom

1 edit

said by Karl Bode:

quote:
Your entire argument is flawed, even using your own analogy. As posted above, this isn't like Howard Forums took the stuff from the unlocked house. They simply let a user posted comment that "so and so left all of their stuff in the front yard" stand. Howard Forums has provided nothing but information, about a completely non-secured PUBLIC website. It's no different than me telling a friend that I observed a guy in a green shirt walking down the street.
We have a winner.
Maybe on Planet Karl. On Earth, you're ignoring the fact that the steps involve:

1) figuring out a deep URL to a file
2) downloading and looking at that file (which is not obviously a text file)
3) pulling more deep URLs out of that file
4) firing those URLs at the web site

To say this is like you just happened to notice something on the Internet (like you just happened to notice someone walking in a green shirt) is deeply disingenuous. Someone deliberately walked down this path to find something that was non-obvious before they found it. And that someone knew, for sure, that they were bypassing (admittedly poorly secured) authentication/authorization steps that the website owners had in place.

Once it was found, it is now obvious, to those that are even moderately skilled at computers and the Internet. It's also obvious that their security is just a tad less than bulletproof. That doesn't change the fact that you can't blame the victim because they didn't resist the attack very well.


Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:2

said by MyDogHsFleas:

said by Karl Bode:

quote:
Your entire argument is flawed, even using your own analogy. As posted above, this isn't like Howard Forums took the stuff from the unlocked house. They simply let a user posted comment that "so and so left all of their stuff in the front yard" stand. Howard Forums has provided nothing but information, about a completely non-secured PUBLIC website. It's no different than me telling a friend that I observed a guy in a green shirt walking down the street.
We have a winner.
Maybe on Planet Karl. On Earth, you're ignoring the fact that the steps involve:

1) figuring out a deep URL to a file
2) downloading and looking at that file (which is not obviously a text file)
3) pulling more deep URLs out of that file
4) firing those URLs at the web site

To say this is like you just happened to notice something on the Internet (like you just happened to notice someone walking in a green shirt) is deeply disingenuous. Someone deliberately walked down this path to find something that was non-obvious before they found it. And that someone knew, for sure, that they were bypassing (admittedly poorly secured) authentication/authorization steps that the website owners had in place.

Once it was found, it is now obvious, to those that are even moderately skilled at computers and the Internet. It's also obvious that their security is just a tad less than bulletproof. That doesn't change the fact that you can't blame the victim because they didn't resist the attack very well.
I'm not arguing that they don't have a case against the person who posted it - which is what your arument is for. But the fact is, Howard Forums is being threatened under the DMCA for allowing a URL to a publicly available webpage. (yes, it's txt but still) Nothing more.

So to take my counter analogy to the proper level, it's like me saying "so and so left their stuff out in the PUBLIC street" There is absolutely no expectation of privacy when you publish something publicly to the web. The file isn't even in a password protected directory.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/Seagate 750.10/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler

MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Mediacom

said by Camelot One:

I'm not arguing that they don't have a case against the person who posted it - which is what your arument is for. But the fact is, Howard Forums is being threatened under the DMCA for allowing a URL to a publicly available webpage. (yes, it's txt but still) Nothing more.
Yeah, that is the fact. And the fact is, it's a valid threat, and Howard Forums is going to be forced to take it down. It's the way of the DMCA.

So to take my counter analogy to the proper level, it's like me saying "so and so left their stuff out in the PUBLIC street" There is absolutely no expectation of privacy when you publish something publicly to the web. The file isn't even in a password protected directory.
Forgetting who's got the right analogy... it's certainly true that anyone who knows anything about Web security would not have considered this site secure. But, read the DMCA and the cases that have been litigated under it. Easy-to-crack technical protection means is not a defense.


james1

join:2001-02-26
reply to Noah Vail

said by Noah Vail:

Does Canada subscribe and submit to the DCMA?
Which one?
The Dental Crown Mould removal Act?
The Dreaded Crab Mammary Act?
Or the Digital Consumer Molestation Act?

Yes to all of the above.


james1

join:2001-02-26
reply to MyDogHsFleas

said by MyDogHsFleas:

[...blah blah blah...][random analogy about stealing property][...blah blah blah...]
No, do you know what this is ACTUALLY like? This is ACTUALLY like some idiot who made a website with video streams on it that were accesible to the public, but they didn't mean to. And then they tried to shut down any website that pointed it out. That's what this is like.


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

2 recommendations

reply to MyDogHsFleas

quote:
Maybe on Planet Karl.
Is that an insult? Here on "Planet Karl" we don't much like lame analogies used as a justification to stifle reasonable Internet discussion. Because even if the actual act being discussed is Illegal, discussing it is not.

I know. We're crazy. We also drink Drain-O and smoke big cigars.


sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
reply to rosco35

said by rosco35:

MobiTv will start by trying to get Gnax to take the site offline.

»www.howardforums.com/announcement.php?f=57
How embarrassing that the head of MobiTV does not know how to spell "site".

rahvin112

join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
reply to MyDogHsFleas

This must me alternate earth/USA because here on the real Earth and in the real USA we have laws that protect journalists and more importantly speech. We also have safe harbor provisions that say that Howardforums is not responsible for content posted on their site by others. And the other important thing is it doesn't matter if they discovered a URL using a spider, or found it in config files. How the URL came to be known is irrelevant because it's freedom of speech to discuss URL's, even illegal access to them (otherwise things like the anarchists cookbook would be illegal). Just as it's not illegal to talk about killing someone or committing other crimes. Talking about anything is NOT illegal, only actions are illegal. Now maybe in your alternate reality speech and thoughts are illegal, but here in the real USA they AREN'T.

Now even if the Judge errored badly and assumed that talking about a lack of security is a breach of the digital security provisions of the DCMA (it's NOT) the Judge is required to pursue the path to the least effect on speech, and that means he would be obligated to tell the plaintiff that they need to implement access control on the URL like every one else.

But beyond even that, the owner of Howardforums isn't in the US. Jurisdictional issues are complex, just like the wikileaks case where the Judge was completely wrong to take the case this one brings up issues on whether the court even has the jurisdiction to hear the case.

Just remember, speech and thoughts aren't illegal, no mater how illegal the topic is, at least no in the US.


Ahrenl

join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
reply to MyDogHsFleas

Horrible analogy.

This is more like someone who left their TV playing on the street, and threatened to sue anyone who told people where to go and watch said TV. No property is being withheld from the original owner, who is ACTUALLY PROVIDING the content to anyone who wishes to ask for it.


MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Mediacom
reply to Karl Bode

said by Karl Bode:

quote:
Maybe on Planet Karl.
Is that an insult? Here on "Planet Karl" we don't much like lame analogies used as a justification to stifle reasonable Internet discussion. Because even if the actual act being discussed is Illegal, discussing it is not.

I know. We're crazy. We also drink Drain-O and smoke big cigars.
Sorry if you took it as an insult, it was just my way of trying to say that I thought you were wrong and I thought that in reality I was right and that I would be proven so here on Earth. I guess we'll see.

The last thing I am trying to do is "stifle discussion". I have no idea where you got that from. This discussion is very active and no one seems the least shy about chiming in.

On the other hand, this is your site, not mine, and if you want to whack me with a ban stick, that's your right. I'll find somewhere else to interact.

This site's actually pretty good at not descending into flame wars or mindless me-too posts. People actually think about what they write. That's why I participate here. I often learn from these discussions even when it feels like I'm one against many. I appreciate that.

Plus your technical content is excellent. That's why I came here in the first place. I think I paid some actual $ too, to become a "premium member".

And, yeah, all analogies are lame, aren't they?

C DM

join:2002-12-31
reply to Ahrenl

said by Ahrenl:

Horrible analogy.

This is more like someone who left their TV playing on the street, and threatened to sue anyone who told people where to go and watch said TV. No property is being withheld from the original owner, who is ACTUALLY PROVIDING the content to anyone who wishes to ask for it.
That is pretty much as close to the online situation as it gets. And the whole thing isn't even about coming and watching or anything else, but just telling other people about it, how is that a violation of anything?

BigMattock

join:2003-02-01
Woodruff, SC
reply to sporkme

MobiTV said they didn't want to take Howard's 'sight' down. When does the First Amendment not apply? When it goes against the DMCA? Can't Mobi, the artist, sue MobiTV? Or does Mobi own part of it? Who had the name Mobi first... maybe Mobi(the artist) will have to change his name?
--
HNS 7000S|G4R_1250MHz|ver. 5.6.1.19|Sig Strength: 79|Athlon X2 4200|WinXP Pro|WiFi Network



zardiw

@verizon.net
reply to MyDogHsFleas

Re: If it's easy to break into your house, it's OK then?

It's like this. You took your stuff, and left it behind a WallMart. People came along and then took it. Nothing illegal, or immoral.....z



zardiw

@verizon.net
reply to sporkme

Re: Who Lives in a Web Site?

LMAO. I noticed that. NOBODY knows how to spell anymore....z



laura
Domestic Bliss
Premium
join:2002-04-16
San Jose, CA
reply to BigMattock

said by BigMattock:

MobiTV said they didn't want to take Howard's 'sight' down. When does the First Amendment not apply? When it goes against the DMCA? Can't Mobi, the artist, sue MobiTV? Or does Mobi own part of it? Who had the name Mobi first... maybe Mobi(the artist) will have to change his name?
But his name's MOBY. not mobi. If it was mobi, maybe he'd have a case.
--
43 things