http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,18842788%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html
Giants say no to porn filter trial
Andrew Colley
APRIL 18, 2006
AUSTRALIA'S two largest ISPs have rejected invitations to co-operate in the most
extensive internet content filtering experiment ever carried out in the country.
The trial, to be launched in Tasmania this July and championed by Tasmanian
Liberal Senator Guy Barnett, was expected to include the entire state's internet
population.
However, hopes of it reaching more than half of that population seem to have
been dashed.
The trial is designed to test whether it is viable for ISPs to filter violent
and pornographic internet content before it reaches the home PC. It will give
parents and guardians involved in the trial the option to turn the filter system
on or off.
Telstra and Optus said that Australia's current internet censorship regime was
satisfactory and that they would not participate in the trial.
Telstra, Australia's largest internet provider said PC-based filtering was the
most effective form of internet-access control.
"We've no intention of participating in a trial by a vendor hoping for
large-scale uptake of their product," Telstra spokesman Warwick Ponder said.
A spokeswoman for Optus said the carrier was content with the federal
Government's existing internet censorship regime.
"Our position is aligned with that of the Internet Industry Association, that
the existing regime is already capable of the same outcomes (as the trial)."
Senator Barnett said he was disappointed with the telcos' response. "I'll be
asking Telstra and Optus to reconsider their decisions, bearing in mind 80 per
cent of ISPs in the US provide filtering for free," he said.
He said without the giant telcos the trial would reach only 50 per cent of
Tasmanians.
Senator Barnett said while the Government would like the trial to cover a
greater cross-section of Tasmanians, it already had enough to go ahead.
The trial is being sponsored by three technology internet filtering specialists:
Internet Sheriff Technologies, US-based RuleSpace and Hewlett-Packard, which has
agreed to provide servers for the trial for free.
Internet Sheriff insisted that its negotiations with the two telcos had made
progress.
"When it comes to actually make the decisions (Telstra and Optus) might need to
do something different and all I can say, again, is that we're working with
upper level managers in each company," Internet Sheriff sales director Glen
Phillips said.
"We believe the only effective way of filtering internet content is at the
user's PC, and we provide heavily discounted internet filtering software for
purchase by our members," Mr Ponder said.
But Senator Barnett said the Tasmanian trial was designed to test those assumptions.
Mr Phillips said the content trial was less focused on capturing local customers
than it was about showcasing the filtering technology to countries with more
onerous censorship laws and repressive controls over information in the
Asia-Pacific area. "My market is really not Australia to tell you the truth," Mr
Phillips said.
He was emphatic that Chinese internet services were "definitely" among his list
of potential buyers for the technology.
Senator Barnett said he was not concerned that Tasmania could be used to
showcase technology that could be applied in less democratic countries.
"There's no intention of likening Australia or any part of Australia to the
censorship regimes in China or other like regimes. Adults will have access to
all and any manner of content on the internet with a push of a button," he said.
"Xerxes" <x@no-spam> wrote in message
news:4444e27e$0$7601$afc38c87@no-spam
> http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,18842788%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html
>
> Giants say no to porn filter trial
> Andrew Colley
> APRIL 18, 2006
>
What really shits me about these bloody stupid ideas is that porn filters
are all but useless. You say "I will filter the word porn" so someone now
calls it "p0rn". You filter against that so they call it "pron". You filter
against that as well and they call it "pr0n" and on and on it goes. Sure -
they DO catch SOME of the shit but they wont ever get rid of it.
All these bloody idiotic filters are designed to do is to make the voting
parents happy NOT to have to spend time with their children. The only TRUE
way to make sure that the child is protected is for the adult to be there
with it making sure that if the child accidentally ends up at such a site,
the adult sees it first and takes care of it so that the kid doesn't see it.
Anything less than that is ineffective.
In the meantime, these filters, if they ever got passed as a law that HAS to
be adhered to, would only cause an enormous rise in the cost of your
internet bill and possibly quite a deterioration in service.
WAKE UP, PEOPLE! If you WANT to be a parent then BE one. Don't expect
legislation that cant help to make a change that is positive. Better yet, if
you don't want the kids to see porn, don't have a computer or TV at home and
don't let the kid out of the house!
Whatcher? <t.4.2@no-spam> wrote
> Xerxes <x@no-spam> wrote
>> http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,18842788%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html
>> Giants say no to porn filter trial
>> Andrew Colley
>> APRIL 18, 2006
> What really shits me about these bloody stupid ideas is that porn
> filters are all but useless. You say "I will filter the word porn" so
> someone now calls it "p0rn". You filter against that so they call it
> "pron". You filter against that as well and they call it "pr0n" and
> on and on it goes. Sure - they DO catch SOME of the shit but they
> wont ever get rid of it.
> All these bloody idiotic filters are designed to do is to make the
> voting parents happy NOT to have to spend time with their children.
Its never going to be feasible to supervise all brat use of the net.
> The only TRUE way to make sure that the child is protected is for the
> adult to be there with it making sure that if the child accidentally
> ends up at such a site, the adult sees it first and takes care of it
> so that the kid doesn't see it. Anything less than that is ineffective.
And that approach is completely impractical.
> In the meantime, these filters, if they ever got passed as a law that
> HAS to be adhered to, would only cause an enormous rise in the cost of
> your internet bill and possibly quite a deterioration in service.
> WAKE UP, PEOPLE! If you WANT to be a parent then BE one.
Or accept the fact that the brats are unlikely to curl
up and die if they do manage to run into some porn.
> Don't expect legislation that cant help to make a change that is
> positive. Better yet, if you don't want the kids to see porn, don't have
> a computer or TV at home and don't let the kid out of the house!
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:17:10 +0800
Whatcher? wrote:
> "Xerxes" <x@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:4444e27e$0$7601$afc38c87@no-spam
>> http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,18842788%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html
>>
>> Giants say no to porn filter trial
>> Andrew Colley
>> APRIL 18, 2006
>
> What really shits me about these bloody stupid ideas is that porn filters
> are all but useless. You say "I will filter the word porn" so someone now
> calls it "p0rn". You filter against that so they call it "pron". You filter
> against that as well and they call it "pr0n" and on and on it goes. Sure -
> they DO catch SOME of the shit but they wont ever get rid of it.
>
> All these bloody idiotic filters are designed to do is to make the voting
> parents happy NOT to have to spend time with their children. The only TRUE
> way to make sure that the child is protected is for the adult to be there
> with it making sure that if the child accidentally ends up at such a site,
> the adult sees it first and takes care of it so that the kid doesn't see it.
> Anything less than that is ineffective.
>
> In the meantime, these filters, if they ever got passed as a law that HAS to
> be adhered to, would only cause an enormous rise in the cost of your
> internet bill and possibly quite a deterioration in service.
>
> WAKE UP, PEOPLE! If you WANT to be a parent then BE one. Don't expect
> legislation that cant help to make a change that is positive. Better yet, if
> you don't want the kids to see porn, don't have a computer or TV at home and
> don't let the kid out of the house!
And when you're an educational facility with potentially underage
students, that may or may not have psychotically puritanical parents who
might come in and Columbine you like a postal employee with PMS if you
dare allow their kids to see a naked titty, what do you do then????
This ISP controlled censorship is a crock of shit, but there are some
halfway decent products on the market for corporate level censorship. We
used to use Surf Control, and that seemed ok, but we've just started
using a hardware solution (read as custom software solution housed on a
dedicated hardware box, complete with optional passthrough bridge for
failover if the box dies) called Content Keeper, and it is fucking
sweet! Great reporting, brilliant configurability, verry verry nice.
Nothing's full proof, the little shits will always find sites they can
get to, but it gets harder and harder by the day as long as you're
willing to pay the bucks.
Xerxes said....
> Mr Phillips said the content trial was less focused on capturing local
> customers than it was about showcasing the filtering technology to
> countries with more onerous censorship laws and repressive controls over
> information in the Asia-Pacific area. "My market is really not Australia
> to tell you the truth," Mr Phillips said.
Yep, at least in that respect he's honest. But it should come as no
surprise when such companies help foster repressive censorship and
totalitarian rule using technology. I wonder how these pricks would feel
if the governments of their own home countries started doing the same to
them.
As for internet censorship, fuck 'em. Let the parents deal with it. I
cannot see why we should be inconvenienced, have our internet network
performance degraded and have more costs imposed on us because these
lazy slobs won't supervise what their kids do on their PCs.
They could start by not letting them have 'em in the kids' bedrooms.
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
"Hunter01" <hunter01@no-spam> wrote in message
news:44466287$0$16663$5a62ac22@no-spam
> Whatcher? wrote:
>> "Xerxes" <x@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:4444e27e$0$7601$afc38c87@no-spam
>>> http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,18842788%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html
>>>
>>> Giants say no to porn filter trial
>>> Andrew Colley
>>> APRIL 18, 2006
>>
>> What really shits me about these bloody stupid ideas is that porn filters
>> are all but useless. You say "I will filter the word porn" so someone now
>> calls it "p0rn". You filter against that so they call it "pron". You
>> filter against that as well and they call it "pr0n" and on and on it
>> goes. Sure - they DO catch SOME of the shit but they wont ever get rid of
>> it.
>>
>> All these bloody idiotic filters are designed to do is to make the voting
>> parents happy NOT to have to spend time with their children. The only
>> TRUE way to make sure that the child is protected is for the adult to be
>> there with it making sure that if the child accidentally ends up at such
>> a site, the adult sees it first and takes care of it so that the kid
>> doesn't see it. Anything less than that is ineffective.
>>
>> In the meantime, these filters, if they ever got passed as a law that HAS
>> to be adhered to, would only cause an enormous rise in the cost of your
>> internet bill and possibly quite a deterioration in service.
>>
>> WAKE UP, PEOPLE! If you WANT to be a parent then BE one. Don't expect
>> legislation that cant help to make a change that is positive. Better yet,
>> if you don't want the kids to see porn, don't have a computer or TV at
>> home and don't let the kid out of the house!
>
>
> And when you're an educational facility with potentially underage
> students, that may or may not have psychotically puritanical parents who
> might come in and Columbine you like a postal employee with PMS if you
> dare allow their kids to see a naked titty, what do you do then????
>
Therefore, the study of biology is now BANNED in schools you say?
> This ISP controlled censorship is a crock of shit, but there are some
> halfway decent products on the market for corporate level censorship. We
Dont bet on it. The only people they seem to work on are those who arent
really interested in it anyway.
> used to use Surf Control, and that seemed ok, but we've just started using
> a hardware solution (read as custom software solution housed on a
> dedicated hardware box, complete with optional passthrough bridge for
> failover if the box dies) called Content Keeper, and it is fucking sweet!
> Great reporting, brilliant configurability, verry verry nice.
>
A recent report says the Great Firewall of China can be breached. How is
that idea you typed above better than what they do?
> Nothing's full proof, the little shits will always find sites they can get
> to, but it gets harder and harder by the day as long as you're willing to
> pay the bucks.
>
Anyone with the will actually WILL find a way.
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:45:54 +0800
Whatcher? wrote:
> "Hunter01" <hunter01@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:44466287$0$16663$5a62ac22@no-spam
>>
>> And when you're an educational facility with potentially underage
>> students, that may or may not have psychotically puritanical parents who
>> might come in and Columbine you like a postal employee with PMS if you
>> dare allow their kids to see a naked titty, what do you do then????
>
> Therefore, the study of biology is now BANNED in schools you say?
There's armchair theoretical liberty (a favourite amongst arts students
at uni that will never really be useful or functional, who have yet to
encouter real life), and then there's something else out there called
reality, where there are such things as "duty of care" and lawyers and
legal action and bad publicity and, well, real life. It sort of gets in
the way of a perfect Utopian society and puts many real life places in a
position where if a non-adult student finds bomb making formulas, joins
the local nazi group, or downloads gay kiddy porn from the internet feed
that you as an educational institute provide, that suddenly you end up
copping the responsibility for allowing that to happen whilst they're
under your care. Real life sucks like that.
>> This ISP controlled censorship is a crock of shit, but there are some
>> halfway decent products on the market for corporate level censorship. We
>
> Dont bet on it. The only people they seem to work on are those who arent
> really interested in it anyway.
Actually a very hefty percentage of the population is still so computer
illiterate that unless they can get to the obvious like www.fuck.com or
places like that tend to not get much further and aren't really
interested enough to try much harder. And like I already said, nothing
is full proof, but making life difficult for the little bludgers is a
good thing, and addresses the duty of care responsibilities. Auditor
Generals out in the real-life place tend to demand and expect such
precautions.
>> used to use Surf Control, and that seemed ok, but we've just started using
>> a hardware solution (read as custom software solution housed on a
>> dedicated hardware box, complete with optional passthrough bridge for
>> failover if the box dies) called Content Keeper, and it is fucking sweet!
>> Great reporting, brilliant configurability, verry verry nice.
>
> A recent report says the Great Firewall of China can be breached.
There is nothing that can't be breached, sort of like I already said.
Doesn't mean you give your kid the rifle from the gun cabinet and say
"go play" on the off chance that they might somehow find the key and the
ammo so you might as well make it easy for them.
> How is
> that idea you typed above better than what they do?
How do you think I ever claimed it would be??? You can sit inside a bomb
proof fortress surrounded by armed guards, I may still get in and stick
a knife in you, but it's a hell of a lot harder for me to do so than if
you were standing in the middle of a big park with your eyes closed.
>> Nothing's full proof, the little shits will always find sites they can get
>> to, but it gets harder and harder by the day as long as you're willing to
>> pay the bucks.
>
> Anyone with the will actually WILL find a way.
Many will, though most when hit by enough obstruction aren't enough in
the way of closet wankerism to spend every waking moment trying to find
a way, especially when they've all got home internet they can get the
shit from anyway.
"Hunter01" <hunter01@no-spam> wrote in message
news:44477473$0$12125$5a62ac22@no-spam
> Whatcher? wrote:
>> "Hunter01" <hunter01@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:44466287$0$16663$5a62ac22@no-spam
>>>
>>> And when you're an educational facility with potentially underage
>>> students, that may or may not have psychotically puritanical parents who
>>> might come in and Columbine you like a postal employee with PMS if you
>>> dare allow their kids to see a naked titty, what do you do then????
>>
>> Therefore, the study of biology is now BANNED in schools you say?
>
>
> There's armchair theoretical liberty (a favourite amongst arts students at
> uni that will never really be useful or functional, who have yet to
> encouter real life), and then there's something else out there called
> reality, where there are such things as "duty of care" and lawyers and
> legal action and bad publicity and, well, real life. It sort of gets in
> the way of a perfect Utopian society and puts many real life places in a
> position where if a non-adult student finds bomb making formulas, joins
> the local nazi group, or downloads gay kiddy porn from the internet feed
> that you as an educational institute provide, that suddenly you end up
> copping the responsibility for allowing that to happen whilst they're
> under your care. Real life sucks like that.
>
Then there are the ultra right wing Christian militants who are insensed
that Bible references are picked up by filtering software because some
words, such as "bloody" are seen as swearing or in their proper context,
blasphemy when the actual use of the word was to describe "covered with
blood".
For the pedants, "bloody" as an act of swearing was originally from an
ancient English blasphemy "By Our Lady".
>
>>> This ISP controlled censorship is a crock of shit, but there are some
>>> halfway decent products on the market for corporate level censorship. We
>>
>> Dont bet on it. The only people they seem to work on are those who arent
>> really interested in it anyway.
>
>
> Actually a very hefty percentage of the population is still so computer
> illiterate that unless they can get to the obvious like www.fuck.com or
> places like that tend to not get much further and aren't really interested
> enough to try much harder. And like I already said, nothing is full proof,
> but making life difficult for the little bludgers is a good thing, and
> addresses the duty of care responsibilities. Auditor Generals out in the
> real-life place tend to demand and expect such precautions.
>
Hackers only arise from need, whatever the perceived need. Eg, they want to
make a name for themselves, want something etc. Give someone a need, they
find a way. I was an "accidental" hacker once in a multi national company. I
wanted answers from the mainframe NOW and back then they were only available
24 hours later. To logon to your departmnet's directory, you had to supply a
password that the whole department knew or, if you were a programmer, you
had your own logon with your own password. I decided that the programmers
had what I needed, logged on to my department's logon and when in, changed
the library access ON SCREEN to match the programmer's library who's name I
knew and then copied his files that I needed to a library in another
department. I used to run them by changing the on screen library names and
they used to get the shits that they couldnt catch me. However, they knew
the programming style I had copied and worked out where it came from and
decided to password protect programmers' libraries from then on so you
couldnt read them from outside the logon to the library. Just a minor
example of someone with need. It wasnt that I was ever a hacker but
effectively I did do that. Now take that desire and apply it to anyone. They
dont have to have knowledge of how to do what they want to do NOW but if the
desire is there, they will find out how. Back when I did that, Internet was
too dear for most people and even that large international company didnt
have it. So I had to work it out. These days if you really want to know,
Google helps you find it.
>
>>> used to use Surf Control, and that seemed ok, but we've just started
>>> using a hardware solution (read as custom software solution housed on a
>>> dedicated hardware box, complete with optional passthrough bridge for
>>> failover if the box dies) called Content Keeper, and it is fucking
>>> sweet! Great reporting, brilliant configurability, verry verry nice.
>>
>> A recent report says the Great Firewall of China can be breached.
>
>
> There is nothing that can't be breached, sort of like I already said.
> Doesn't mean you give your kid the rifle from the gun cabinet and say "go
> play" on the off chance that they might somehow find the key and the ammo
> so you might as well make it easy for them.
>
>
>> How is that idea you typed above better than what they do?
>
>
> How do you think I ever claimed it would be??? You can sit inside a bomb
> proof fortress surrounded by armed guards, I may still get in and stick a
> knife in you, but it's a hell of a lot harder for me to do so than if you
> were standing in the middle of a big park with your eyes closed.
>
Those programs arent even close to that, though. One father I know actually
KNOWS he knows more than his kid and installed Net Nanny on his kid. His kid
asked around at school and knew how to get it out of his way. It was about
all the kid could do of any note on a computer.
>
>>> Nothing's full proof, the little shits will always find sites they can
>>> get to, but it gets harder and harder by the day as long as you're
>>> willing to pay the bucks.
>>
>> Anyone with the will actually WILL find a way.
>
>
> Many will, though most when hit by enough obstruction aren't enough in the
> way of closet wankerism to spend every waking moment trying to find a way,
> especially when they've all got home internet they can get the shit from
> anyway.
>
There is something about beating the restrictions which is much more fun,
though. If your PC at work MAY be bugged by the boss, you think, there are
many things to prove that and ways to block it and you don't really have to
know too much either. You can still install stuff on low user authority that
expressly disallows that with a simple prog on internet that anyone can
find. Beats W2K and XP restrictions easily and as for 98, a simple hit of
the escape key makes it all laughable. Worse than that, *ANY* windows up to
and including XP can be gotten into without you logging on with username or
password if the network isn't properly locked down. All you have to do is
have a networked workstation sitting at the welcome screen waiting for
username and password. It sits there accepting network connections. So, an
improperly locked down network can have sensitive data taken over the
network by someone in the office such as a disgruntled employee. I reported
this to MS after SP2 came out and they said it would be in the next SP and
in Vista onwards as an option - eg, to allow network connections only AFTER
user logon or not as required. I found it while fixing a workstation in a
payroll dept. When I finished with it, I was able to just go through a
simple "my network places" to check out data on the payroll dept's separate
server even though the machine was sitting back at the welcome screen. I
thought this a bit of a worry but MS don't think it is. So, beating the
restrictions is fun but on occasion, the way the OS is written makes it too
easy.
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 04:20:29 +0800
Whatcher? wrote:
> "Hunter01" <hunter01@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:44477473$0$12125$5a62ac22@no-spam
>>
>> There's armchair theoretical liberty (a favourite amongst arts students at
>> uni that will never really be useful or functional, who have yet to
>> encouter real life), and then there's something else out there called
>> reality, where there are such things as "duty of care" and lawyers and
>> legal action and bad publicity and, well, real life. It sort of gets in
>> the way of a perfect Utopian society and puts many real life places in a
>> position where if a non-adult student finds bomb making formulas, joins
>> the local nazi group, or downloads gay kiddy porn from the internet feed
>> that you as an educational institute provide, that suddenly you end up
>> copping the responsibility for allowing that to happen whilst they're
>> under your care. Real life sucks like that.
>
> Then there are the ultra right wing Christian militants who are insensed
> that Bible references are picked up by filtering software because some
> words, such as "bloody" are seen as swearing or in their proper context,
> blasphemy when the actual use of the word was to describe "covered with
> blood".
You're talking a very different ballpark to what I'm talking. You're
talking word filtering, a completely pointless effort considering that
even on the spam front they've bypassed that by doing it with graphics.
I'm talking worldwide corporate solutions that have a bank of people
that spend all day every day categorising sites, and then have all of
their customers (like us) also categorising uncategorised sites as they
come up, that then hit the rest of the sites in no time flat, sort of
like peer to peer, the more that use it the more effective it is. Nice
system.
Like I said, not full proof, for every site locked away there's probly 9
more that aren't, but of the 10% that are locked away, 99% of users
would never find a link to the rest anyway, and if they do at any site
that has the system we have, it only takes one to lock it down for the
rest of the world using it to have it locked down too.
But of course you're talking net nanny. Things are very different in
that world. Cheaper too.
> For the pedants, "bloody" as an act of swearing was originally from an
> ancient English blasphemy "By Our Lady".
Who gives a fuck. For the pedants, fuck means fuck. Wouldn't be filtered
by us, we filter sites, not words. Filtering words gets us into that
pathetic little world labor was after where mechanics would go out of
business because they wouldn't be able to say "grease nipple".
>> Actually a very hefty percentage of the population is still so computer
>> illiterate that unless they can get to the obvious like www.fuck.com or
>> places like that tend to not get much further and aren't really interested
>> enough to try much harder. And like I already said, nothing is full proof,
>> but making life difficult for the little bludgers is a good thing, and
>> addresses the duty of care responsibilities. Auditor Generals out in the
>> real-life place tend to demand and expect such precautions.
>
> Hackers only arise from need
bollocks.
>, whatever the perceived need. Eg, they want to
> make a name for themselves, want something etc.
You have a very different definition of "need" than I do. Only yuppies
who've never done it hard equate "need" with "want".
> Give someone a need, they
> find a way. I was an "accidental" hacker once in a multi national company. I
> wanted answers from the mainframe NOW and back then they were only available
> 24 hours later. To logon to your departmnet's directory, you had to supply a
> password that the whole department knew or, if you were a programmer, you
> had your own logon with your own password. I decided that the programmers
> had what I needed, logged on to my department's logon and when in, changed
> the library access ON SCREEN to match the programmer's library who's name I
> knew and then copied his files that I needed to a library in another
> department. I used to run them by changing the on screen library names and
> they used to get the shits that they couldnt catch me. However, they knew
> the programming style I had copied and worked out where it came from and
> decided to password protect programmers' libraries from then on so you
> couldnt read them from outside the logon to the library. Just a minor
> example of someone with need. It wasnt that I was ever a hacker but
> effectively I did do that. Now take that desire and apply it to anyone. They
> dont have to have knowledge of how to do what they want to do NOW but if the
> desire is there, they will find out how. Back when I did that, Internet was
> too dear for most people and even that large international company didnt
> have it. So I had to work it out. These days if you really want to know,
> Google helps you find it.
The last sentence I agree with totally, the rest.. Uhuh....
>> How do you think I ever claimed it would be??? You can sit inside a bomb
>> proof fortress surrounded by armed guards, I may still get in and stick a
>> knife in you, but it's a hell of a lot harder for me to do so than if you
>> were standing in the middle of a big park with your eyes closed.
>
> Those programs arent even close to that, though. One father I know actually
> KNOWS he knows more than his kid and installed Net Nanny on his kid. His kid
> asked around at school and knew how to get it out of his way. It was about
> all the kid could do of any note on a computer.
Ever heard of a proxy server?
>> Many will, though most when hit by enough obstruction aren't enough in the
>> way of closet wankerism to spend every waking moment trying to find a way,
>> especially when they've all got home internet they can get the shit from
>> anyway.
>
> There is something about beating the restrictions which is much more fun,
> though. If your PC at work MAY be bugged by the boss, you think, there are
> many things to prove that and ways to block it and you don't really have to
> know too much either. You can still install stuff on low user authority that
> expressly disallows that with a simple prog on internet that anyone can
> find. Beats W2K and XP restrictions easily and as for 98, a simple hit of
> the escape key makes it all laughable. Worse than that, *ANY* windows up to
> and including XP can be gotten into without you logging on with username or
> password if the network isn't properly locked down. All you have to do is
> have a networked workstation sitting at the welcome screen waiting for
> username and password. It sits there accepting network connections. So, an
> improperly locked down network can have sensitive data taken over the
> network by someone in the office such as a disgruntled employee. I reported
> this to MS after SP2 came out and they said it would be in the next SP and
> in Vista onwards as an option - eg, to allow network connections only AFTER
> user logon or not as required. I found it while fixing a workstation in a
> payroll dept. When I finished with it, I was able to just go through a
> simple "my network places" to check out data on the payroll dept's separate
> server even though the machine was sitting back at the welcome screen. I
> thought this a bit of a worry but MS don't think it is. So, beating the
> restrictions is fun but on occasion, the way the OS is written makes it too
> easy.
Sorry, it's 4:16am in the morning here in Perth, I'm drunk, and the rest
of the post I'm replying to leads me to the conclusion you don't really
understand what I'm on about, so just call me "drunken bastard that
rabbits on", but I really can't be bothered reading that last. Gonna
listen to a golden oldie "Master of Puppets", and do the crash bit methinks.
Al Foyle <al_foyle@no-spam> wrote:
> Hunter01 wrote:
>
>> There's armchair theoretical liberty (a favourite amongst arts
>> students at uni that will never really be useful or functional, who
>> have yet to encouter real life), and then there's something else out
>> there called reality, where there are such things as "duty of care"
>> and lawyers and
> Aren't lawyers basically "arts" students?
Nope, they're mostly law students.
> If so, it probably explains a lot....
And since they arent, it doesnt.
Hunter01 wrote:
> There's armchair theoretical liberty (a favourite amongst arts students
> at uni that will never really be useful or functional, who have yet to
> encouter real life), and then there's something else out there called
> reality, where there are such things as "duty of care" and lawyers and
Aren't lawyers basically "arts" students?
If so, it probably explains a lot....
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
