Microsoft Is Watching You

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.

Poll

Votes: 12

Microsoft Is Watching You

Author:

NAWL

Topic:

Diaries

Posted:

Dec 31, 2001

Comments:

Yeah, you read correctly. Microsoft is watching. It is also making it extremely easy for "bad people" to steal any information they want. It's like sticking a giant sign out on the web that reads "STEAL MY IDENTITY".

More diaries by NAWL

	Microsoft: A Threat to Itself
	Linux Camp to Gain...a Country!
	Grandma Linux
	Luser makes ass out of himself
	GET OUT WHILE YOU CAN

With many of you, misconceptions spring up whenever the word hacker is mentioned. Unfortunately the media is responsible for this. They use the words hack/crack and hacker/cracker synonomously. The truth is, is that many hackers are the good guys. Hacker can mean many things. Steve Wozniak is a perfect example of a hardware hacker. Software developers can also be called hackers.

Many hackers work for organizations which test the security of various products so that the companies can hopefully design a better security model. Many are responsible for the Anti-Virus and Firewall programs many of the readers of this site use.

Microsoft unfortunately, rather than a seek out third party, relies mainly on in-house hackers. This may be why so many concerned hackers set up test systems to hack in order to test the products security model. These are typically referred to as White Hats (the good guys). Read what Microsoft had to say about one of these groups. This information appears at the bottom of the security bulletin regarding the UPnP patch.

Microsoft thanks eEye Digital Security (http://www.eeye.com) for reporting this issue to us and working with us to protect customers.

So who are the bad guys? Well these are guys that crack on/off-site systems and then make the information available only to others with malicious intent. They are known as Black Hats (the bad guys).

So, what does this have to do with Microsoft watching you and the possibilty that someone could steal your life? A lot. I used to be one of the good guys. I am a retired military man. Now I own a chain of grocery stores. The only business systems I deal with on a daily basis anymore are mainly cash registers. However, I still like to keep up to date and I do have a mixed platform home network.

Would you like to know what this security flaw is and how someone could become you? Take a look here. This guide was written with Windows 9x in mind, but is not limited to that specific OS. The guide will also save you quite a bit of money if you previously considered purchasing such products as Evidence Eliminator.

Never say a hacker never did anything nice for you.

Note to elenchos: After reading the document the above link refers to, I pose a question to you. Seeing as how the "problem" can only be fixed by using the command prompt, do you still think it is nothing more than a hacker tool and should be removed?

	Warning. Hacker Alert !!! Do not follow link (none / 0) (#1)
	by dmg on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 12:05:03 PM PST

	Please do not follow any of the links listed above if you are using a mission critical machine. These links have not been verified by the editorial team at adequacy.org and as such, may contain virii, trojans, backdoors, illegal spyware, rootkits or God only knows what kinds of hacking 'tools'. As with all media, the rule of thumb is 'consider the source'. NAWL is a self-described hacker. Evidenced by this comment 'I do have a mixed platform home network' The color of his headgear is of no interest. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	huh? (none / 0) (#2)
	by NAWL on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 12:16:31 PM PST

	You base my ethics on the fact that I have a mixed platform home network. Do I mention what platforms run on this network? You simply assume that I am using anything beyond Windows and MacOS. Now that's rich. Be especially cautious of the links which point you to Microsoft websites as we all know (yet some will never admit) that MS software is extremely flawed and contains many software holes and bugs which could potentially damage your system. :) Also I don't know too many people dumb enough to surf the web using a mission critical system. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	NAWL is a loser (none / 0) (#21)
	by philipm on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 06:57:56 AM PST

	See this?. I guess Windows XP really is the most secure MS product better. Certainly much better than a default linux installation. --philipm

	think before you post (none / 0) (#30)
	by NAWL on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 12:31:37 PM PST

	I had already read that article thank you very much. The article is simply talking about that fact that the FBI blew it way out of whack. That's why I didn't bother getting my information regading the securiy risk associated with MS enabling services by default. Just because nobody has exploited it yet doesn't mean squat. People didn't go after Windows 98 in the first year. WinXP was released at the end of Oct. Why don't you check all the article that aren't at theregister. Why not look at all the article relating to local attacks rather than network attacks. That's where they start. Oh look The WPA has been crack for Windows XP and Office XP! Can you find the other? Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	not entirely true (none / 0) (#3)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 02:35:45 PM PST

	"As with all media, the rule of thumb is 'consider the source'. NAWL is a self-described hacker. Evidenced by this comment 'I do have a mixed platform home network' The color of his headgear is of no interest." The satement that he is a hacker because he has a mixed platform home network does not in any way indicate that he is a hacker. It is quite likely that he could be referring to Windows95/98/ME and WindowsNT/2000/XP as these two OS series are slightly different platforms. Also, even if he is talking about a UNIX based system, it in no way indicates that he is a hacker/cracker. UNIX is a perfectly valid OS developed by the United States military to ensure operation and security over a large ntwork. Because UNIX was developed with these ideas it is an excellent OS to use if you are connecting computers to the internet and exposing them to many unknown dangers. UNIX is the most hacker-proof OS and by useing it as a gateway from your home network to the internet you can put your mind at ease knowing that you are almost invulnerable to most hacker atacks. The only case in which this would not be true is if you work for Microsofts PR department, which I am beginning to believe may be quite possible.

	Zzzzzzzzzz Zzzzzzzzzzz (none / 0) (#4)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 02:50:10 PM PST

	huh!? Jeez, my dreams were much more interesting before I started regularly smoking marijuana. Hacker vs cracker... wtf? Dust vs dirt.

	The media? How about English? (none / 0) (#5)
	by elenchos on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 06:36:02 PM PST

	Don't blame the old scapegoat of The Media for the boring old fact that the English language is not under your private control, any more than it is under the control of some tiny group of militant nerds who are playing a power game by re-defining common words. Everyone knows what "hacker" means. The Media didn's teach them, they know it just as easily as they know what "dog" or "tree" means. Or "criminal." And so there is no misconception for you to try to 'correct', any more than you can 'correct'the meaning of "criminal" so that it means "hero". Hackers are criminals who use computers to break the law and hurt innocent people. You can't define your way out of that. Why work so hard to introduce this confusing hacker/cracker distinction? Espcially in choosing a word that already has a definition of its own, being a racial ephitet against whites used by non-whites and others (with varying degrees of irony of course). The goal is to try to legitimize using a computer to break the law and hurt innocent people, by somehow making it seem okay through your little linguistic shell game. What a cheap trick! And upon realizing that no one but stoned hackers, their minds rotted by video games, is buying it, you flail about for someone to blame for the scam's failure. Who? The Media, of course. Sad. Now what is your damn question? I don't even know why command lines are such a big deal. Isn't that just one of a very large class of things that let you use a computer in ways it was not specifically designed to be used? Yes, so ban command lines, along with all those hundreds of other things, and save the world from hacking. Who will miss it? Only hackers and other terrorists. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	Really? (none / 0) (#6)
	by SpaceGhoti on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 06:46:08 PM PST

	I don't even know why command lines are such a big deal. Isn't that just one of a very large class of things that let you use a computer in ways it was not specifically designed to be used? IANAT (oh wait, I am. Scratch that), but computers and software are designed to allow specific parameters and possibilities. The only way you know a computer isn't designed for a specific use is by checking to see if it's possible. You cannot physically assemble a roast dinner with a computer because it is not designed for it. Since the command prompt is there, doesn't that suggest the computer specifically designed to be used that way? A troll's true colors.

	right (none / 0) (#8)
	by NAWL on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 07:23:49 PM PST

	It is unfortunate that there are people that believe people should only use computers for what they are designed to do. Computers are designed to do user oriented things. In other words their task is defined by the user. People develop software so the user can do those things more easily. Windows is known to many as the Everybody OS. Closed minded people like yourself with limited computer knowledge think just because all you use a computer for is "surfing the web" and word processing that that is what a computer is designed for. Also I asked if the command prompt should be banned not the command line. Apparently you have never created a shortcut in Windows. Sure you may do it by clicking pictorial representations (icons) but Windows fills in the command line based on those selections. Why? So that the user can add additional switches (hope that's not too advanced for ya) to increase the ease of use. I would seriously love to see you partition a hard drive or run through a hardware diagnostic program without a command prompt. Of course rather than making a boot disk you would rather pay $50 for a partitioning program. You'll come to see how a command prompt really pays off when you get tired of sending your computer off to a "professional". Of course without people like you, they would never make any money. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	You're preaching to the choir, there. (none / 0) (#9)
	by SpaceGhoti on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 07:30:04 PM PST

	Did you mean to make that a reply to elenchos, instead? A troll's true colors.

	no not really (none / 0) (#10)
	by NAWL on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 08:02:53 PM PST

	Really I was just adding some additional information to your post and attacking it from a slightly different angle. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	That's different. (none / 0) (#11)
	by SpaceGhoti on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 09:06:53 PM PST

	Okay, I understand now. I think. I don't really worry about what computers are designed for. I'm more interested in getting done what what fascinates me. I mean, I paid honest money for the parts, put them together and loaded the OS; why shouldn't the decision of use be left up to me? I suppose that's what bothers me most about Microsoft's new "leasing" policy. It seems to be heading in the direction of telling users that their computer isn't really theirs, they're just allowed to use it out of Microsoft's generosity, so long as they keep up the payments. I'm all for paying people for using their work, but not forever. I see it as something akin to paying the Ford Motor Company every year I want to continue to drive one of the cars they've manufactured. A troll's true colors.

	could it be? (none / 0) (#15)
	by NAWL on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 09:31:55 PM PST

	Is it possible that there is someone else on this board that completely understands .NET? I don't see it as a solution for the same reasons. It also means that companies will have to switch to MS only products as will users to benefit fully from it. There is an open source project called Mono that will "supposedly" link non-Windows platforms to .NET. However, people believe it's silly because MS could simply pull the ties to Mono and leave it stranded. I'm sorry but if I wanted something like that but 100 times better I would go with Novell's ZENworks UP. No costly hardware changes and it doesn't mean any platform specific crap that MS is pushing. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	VERY different (none / 0) (#19)
	by SpaceGhoti on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 10:10:37 PM PST

	I do believe I've been complimented. How very different. Thank you. Microsoft's goals with their software implementations have been visible since they started (successfully) lobbying states to pass legislation allowing businesses to claim ownership rights over software to the degree that they can legally deactivate software if the company judges its use to fall outside of their acceptable usage criteria. Their product activation system is another step in that direction. As far as I can tell from the reviews I've read about XP (I have a concrete policy of not touching any Microsoft product without at least two bugfix releases), it has all of the elements in place, they're just waiting to implement the policy. Microsoft believes that to continue to make money, they've got to have an increase in control over their software. As an individual with only a basic education in legal matters, their actions seem to strike me as monopolistic, but that's an old straw and one I'm not going to debate here. Microsoft is in the business of making money, and they succeed brilliantly. In the process, they also seem to be interested in telling the users what to expect from software, and they also tend to succeed in that. I admire their effectiveness, but not their results. Well, the good news is that Microsoft's policy can't be grandfathered. Older software like 98 doesn't support the .NET vision. Microsoft can control this by refusing to support it, but that won't bother people who are used to debugging it anyway. They can try to convince the market that open source software is dangerous and unreliable, but that won't stop people who are actively involved in it. So my next step is to get off my duff and start learning more about Unix administration. It's time to stop being just a user. A troll's true colors.

	He doesn't know. (none / 0) (#12)
	by elenchos on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 09:13:20 PM PST

	You paranoids reflexively attack everyone in the vicinity who's words sound the least bit unfamiliar. This is the natural consequence of fanaticism: unable to see anything except enemies or allies, the fanatic soon begins to magnify even the slightest difference with his apparent friends and then re-categorizes anyone who falls outside of the ever-newer, ever more narrow definition of "friend" as a sworn enemy. This characterized the French and Russian Revolutions, not to mention the Chinese Cultural Revolution, and we see it today in the Lunix cult. Why do you think there are so many fractious, competing versions of Lunix and it's various components and philosophical gurus? As far as your sophistry about command line interfaces, or command prompts (as if that mattered), obviously a machine that allows this much flexibility doesn't belong in public circulation, because it isn't done yet. To say it was "designed" do to an infinite number of things is nonsense. In fact, no design was done, but rather the design task was left un-done, allowing hackers free reign. A completely designed computer would perform the task you wished to do with it, like a banking transaction, or viewing a web page, and nothing else, no matter what a malicious user tried. The public-- %99.99998 of computer customers-- is clamoring for such a well-designed computer, one that is both safe from hacking and easy to use. Picture it, and you are picturing our future. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	wait (none / 0) (#13)
	by NAWL on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 09:26:31 PM PST

	I think you are referring more towards set top box and dedicated devices which use embedded software solutions. These are not computers in the true sense. The a device specific. Even your buddy Billy believe they are just a fad. They will never replace the computer. These devices are like remotes. Why would I want 20 devices when I can buy one that can do all the things those devices can and more? Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	Of course you wouldn't want it. (none / 0) (#16)
	by elenchos on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 09:44:35 PM PST

	You only want dangersous hacker tools. Therein is the crux. But I don't know where you get the idea that each separate function would happen on a separate device. Is it from smoking pot? Even the ATM example makes nonsense of that: a banking transaction can be made up of many different functions, like getting cash or checking a balance. All on one device. The thing is, there are a pre-defined, finite number of these functions, and no user can add more. A desktop computer will work in exactly the same way. It will give normal people all the functions they need and want, whether it is their word processing or web surfing, but not leave any blank slates that normal people don't need. The kind of wide-open, undefined functionality that command prompts and text editors and compilers provide is used by no one but hackers to attack decent society. This thing about it not meeting your definition of "computer" is just weird. Give it a rest. You can't mold the world to fit your fever dreams by tossing around your own meanings for words. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	good laugh (none / 0) (#18)
	by NAWL on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 09:57:07 PM PST

	The kind of wide-open, undefined functionality that command prompts and text editors and compilers provide is used by no one but hackers to attack decent society. You've never used a DOS bootdisk and FDISK to partition a hard drive before installing an OS have you? There is a wide range of legitimate things that are done by even average end user suing the command prompt. A good example would be upgrading from Windows 98 to XP. You need the command prompt to convert the file system from FAT32 to NTFS if you choose to use NTFS. There is no point and click for that. And yes I would rather use something that can do everything .NET can do and more and more cheaply too. You obviously have no idea about Novell do you? And know they are no an open source hacker company. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	you arent listening to elenchos (5.00 / 2) (#23)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 08:36:58 AM PST

	As per usual, you're having your usual internal hacker's monologue which tries to insinuate itself into every topic of discussion. Elenchos is speaking of computing in terms of the future, for people, not hackers. You've never used a DOS bootdisk and FDISK to partition a hard drive before installing an OS have you? These are not things people want to do, they are the onerous artificats of an immature technology we are trying to overcome despite the best efforts of Lunatix. I dont want FDISK, I want to read email, browse the occasional smut site, and play with imaging software. You need the command prompt to convert the file system from FAT32 to NTFS if you choose to use NTFS. There is no point and click for that. I have better things to do than decipher your techno-babble. Whatever "convert the file system from FAT32 to NTFS" means, I cannot be bothered to flex my give a shit muscle long enough to care, and I can guarantee you that my wisdom to remain ignorant of this hugely unimportant technical trivia will be rewarded with time well spent on more interesting matters.

	wait a minute (none / 0) (#29)
	by NAWL on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 12:13:54 PM PST

	*These are not things people want* to do, they are the onerous artificats of an immature technology we are trying to overcome despite the best efforts of Lunatix. You have to partition a hard drive before you can format it and store data to it. You don't think "people" will do this? Kind of difficult not to if you plan on dual booting. Kind of difficult if you plan on making separate partitions for your data. Go to ANY PC game boards or ANY how to board. You'll see "people" doing it all the time. I have better things to do than decipher your techno-babble. Whatever "convert the file system from FAT32 to NTFS"** You must format the hard drive before you can copy data to it. You have to select what file system you use. As I said, upgrade from 98 to XP. Win98 can only read FAT and FAT32 while NT based OSes (NT4, W2K, XP) can read FAT, FAT32, and NTFS. NTFS = New Technology File System. That's what NT stands for in Windows NT, NEW TECHNOLOGY. The simple fact that you have such a hard time grasping simple concepts such as formatting, partitioning, and file systems is not surprising. You don't even know what these simple things are yet you want to go off on a big psycho drama calling for a ban on program and utilities that are too complex for you. Even tool in Windows. You don't even know what they are, or what they are used for and you run around screaming and calling for a ban on them. You're just like the other pathetic losers in the world, crying and pissing and moaning just wishing that someone INTELLIGENT would listen. "I don't get it! So they makes it bad!" I guess you're just too damned ugly to get on TV. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	Why are you stuck in the past? (none / 0) (#38)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 02:19:32 PM PST

	You keep citing this example of "partitioning and formatting hard disks" as though it would be utterly impossible to design a graphical, single-purpose application to handle the problem. Get over it. Does the CMOS for your computer have a command line? You're damned right it doesn't. And there's good reason for that, Skippy. It will happen, OK? Your obsession with the command line is really going to bite you in the ass when Microsoft finally manages to do away with its last vestiges.

	here we go (none / 0) (#40)
	by NAWL on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 03:05:59 PM PST

	You keep citing this example of "partitioning and formatting hard disks" as though it would be utterly impossible to design a graphical, single-purpose application to handle the problem. Get over it. There are already partitioning tools with a cute little graphical interface. If you know where to find them many are FREE. However, not all of them are capable of readfing anything beyond FAT and FAT32. Hell the fdisk utility you get when making a boot disk in MSDOS can read NTFS partitions. I don't think anyone besides a couple of retards on EBay are dumb enough to worry about writing a graphical interface to format a drive/partition. How difficult is it to boot to a command prompt and type FORMAT [drive letter]? Not to mention the format utility would be limited to the file systems available to it. Most will only format the drive as FAT (FAT16) which limits drive space to 2GB. If you're lucky you get FAT32. Wooooo. Does the CMOS for your computer have a command line? You're damned right it doesn't. And there's good reason for that, Skippy. All CMOS does is holds the user defined set up for BIOS. It's storage is not large enough for a command interpretor, shell, and every other little thing you would need. Not to mention the because the interface for BIOS is not universal you would have to relearn how to play with CMOS everytime you bought a new computer. It will happen, OK? Your obsession with the command line is really going to bite you in the ass when Microsoft finally manages to do away with its last vestiges. I don't have an obsession with the command line. I'm saying there is a lot of life left in the Command PROMPT. But you want to talk about command line? Fine we will. Windows still uses the command line. When you double click (or sinlge click if you selected that option) an icon it executes a command line. A user can change it, or modify it if they want to. It's designed to make things easier having a icon. As long as it works this way, the command prompt and command line will still be accessible to the user. I don't know why you think the command prompt is such a huge deal. I really wish this whole Linux=command prompt thing will stop. Most anything I want to do in a Linux based OS I can do with the GUI, but not all. Same goes for Windows. I am referring to legitimate things, not "hacker things" like somemany of you immatures readers would assume. I find that people who know the least about a subject are the ones who want to start the most arguments about it. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	pure gibberish (none / 0) (#41)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 03:23:21 PM PST

	I have never partitioned a disk or typed on a command line in all my 10 years of computer use at home or at work. Nothing you've said means a damn thing to me or to anyone I know. Do you have, like, a nurse who comes to visit you at home or something?

	Whoopee doo for you (none / 0) (#42)
	by NAWL on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 03:40:50 PM PST

	And your point is? Have you had a need to partition you hard drive? Do you dual boot? Have you ever installed an non NT (NT, 2K, XP) Windows OS on a brand new never been used hard disk or did you r computer come with the OS installed for you? You can install a pre-2000 OS on a hard disk that has not been partitioned. The partitiion IS the drive. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	thank-you (none / 0) (#44)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 04:16:07 PM PST

	The answers to your questions are: No. No. No. Similiarly, I do not operate a landfill site and drive garbage trucks in order to dispose of my trash; I do not know a thing about plumbing or household wiring; I couldnt operate on myself to save my life; etc. Nor will I ever do any of those things.

	All this 'maintenance' is just hacking. (none / 0) (#51)
	by elenchos on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 05:29:22 PM PST

	Remember when people did their own tune ups on their cars, and even changed their own BRAKE SHOES on their own cars? A thing of the past: now all this is done at an Authorized Service Center by suitably licensed professionals, rather than in-home hackers. And thank god. Back in those dark days, when there were far fewer cars in circulation, and a smaller population, 60,000 Americans died each year on the highways! Why? Car hacking. Now, the death toll, though still frightening, is half what it was in the 1970's, in spite of the overall growth that has taken place since then. The reason is that car maintenance has been professionalized, and this process of professionalization can be extened into more and more areas, improving life for millions. If you have a well-designed computer to begin with, why on earth would you need to dual boot? Why mess with it at all? It would be like adding more wheels to your car. Only a hacker would want to, and civilization does not, thankfully, cater to the wants of hackers. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	Civilization... (none / 0) (#55)
	by The Mad Scientist on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 06:12:13 PM PST

	...civilization does not, thankfully, cater to the wants of hackers. Civilization is built by hackers. First personal computers were assembled by hackers. First calendars were created by their astronomy equivalents. The first ape that tried to walk on the ground was a "walking hacker" of a kind. Reminds me the continual clashes between technicians and lawmakers/lawyers. The lawyers are largely unaware that without the role of technicians (and especially the techno-pioneers, hackers) throughout the history they would still have court sessions on trees and their wages would be in bananas.

	Now this old lie again... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
	by elenchos on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 07:22:39 PM PST

	Criminals deserve no credit for the work done by real scientists and engineers. Ask yourself the simple question: if any hacker had the credentials and qulifications to successfully invent, develop, or maintain any useful technology, why are they hacking instead of doing respectable work? It makes no sense. The reason hackers hack is because their limited abilities and tempermental flaws, as well as basic immorality, prevent them from being accepted where the real work of civilization goes on, such as at MIT. Which, by the way, is NOT a criminal organization, in spite of the constant hacker propaganda that they have infiltrated it. So as usual, I must demand that hackers cease stealing credit for things they didn't do. And while you're at it, cease all hacker stealing. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	elenchos: how would you clasify these people? (none / 0) (#59)
	by NAWL on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 10:43:15 PM PST

	Steve Wozniak? Paul Allen? Steve Jobs? Gary KilDall? Tim Berners-Lee? David Fil and Jerry Yang? Ray Tomlinson? Tim Paterson? William Henry Gates III? Here I'lll do some of it for you. Bill Gates was arrested a number of times for speeding, DUI, theft and destruction of private property. Some of this was during his teenage years. Much of it happened after he dropped out of school to pursue other matters. Don't believe me? Read his books or rent the movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley". Wanna see Billy's mug shot from when he was a kid? excerpt from Billy's Bio In his junior year, Gates left Harvard to devote his energies to Microsoft, a company he had begun in 1975... By the way in 1975 the company was originally called Traf-o-Data, later Micro-Soft, and now Microsoft. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	What? (nt) (none / 0) (#60)
	by elenchos on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 11:00:31 PM PST

	I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	It takes courage... (none / 0) (#61)
	by The Mad Scientist on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 11:33:34 PM PST

	...to swallow the truth about your (apparently) Icon. Big Bad Billy Boy with his mugshot number. Beautiful sight! :)

	What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#62)
	by elenchos on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 12:16:19 AM PST

	Why must hackers always bring up Bill Gates and Micro-Soft? Why is this one company so important to you? You are so obsessed with this Lunix thing, yet all you want to talk about is that one private company, as if they were the standard by which everything else were measured. And you assume everyone else lives in the same distorted reality. My icon? Where are you getting that from? You think it is apparent that I am interested in this man and his company, but why? Apparent based on what post of mine? Where have I made mention of Micro-Soft? Or it's President or CEO or whatever he does there? Why do you think my concern for the ravages of hackers against civilization have anything to do with Micro-Soft or this Gates person? How could his history or his company's policies change the truth about hackers? What is it that vindicates hacker criminals here? That this Gates person has a DUI or something? How does that make hacking less criminal? How could this Gates have ever done anything, good or bad, that changes the fact that hackers have stolen and continue to steal credit for things they didn't do? I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	contradiction (none / 0) (#63)
	by NAWL on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 01:33:42 AM PST

	I'm going to name off some people on the list ok? Criminals deserve no credit for the work done by real scientists and engineers. Well Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs had a shady past. Look what they did. Every professional knows that for most good ideas (hardware and software) most people look to Apple. I mean come on, just look at the new Compaq design. Can you say iMac? Don't even get me started on Windows. How could this Gates have ever done anything, good or bad, that changes the fact that hackers have stolen and continue to steal credit for things they didn't do? Just a scecond So as usual, I must demand that hackers cease stealing credit for things they didn't do. And while you're at it, cease all hacker stealing. Maybe you wanna talk about criminal stealing ideas and claiming them as their own. Hmmm, let's talk about Bill Gates. Along with his buddy Paul Allen they wrote BASIC. Ok I'll give them credit for that. They went to IBM and said we have this operating system called...DOS. Guess what. They did have squat. They heard about this guy, Tim Paterson at Seattle Computer Company who did though. What he actually had was a backwards engineered copy of Gary Kildall's CP/M. He called it QDOS and it ran on Intel's 8086 processor. I guess he couldn't wait for CP/M-86 which would release not too long afterwards. So in comes Paul Allen of [then] who offers Tim $50,000 for QDOS. They then license it to IBM under the name MSDOS. Once again don't even get me started on Windows. You see yes MS did actually create Windows. But what they created was a suite that ran under DOS. Criminals and hackers could never get into or graduate from a University SUMMARIZED Kinda of like Bill Gates and Paul Allen who dropped out the junior year at Harvard? Oh, I know you think the honorary degree Gates received from Harvard counts don't ya? Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak went to Univ of Calif at Berkeley. It makes no sense. The reason hackers hack is because their limited abilities and tempermental flaws, as well as basic immorality, prevent them from being accepted where the real work of civilization goes on, such as at MIT. And to think that Bill Gates was set to go to MIT. Many hackers have graduated from MIT. Why do you think my concern for the ravages of hackers against civilization have anything to do with Micro-Soft or this Gates person? Plenty How could his history or his company's policies change the truth about hackers? What is it that vindicates hacker criminals here? That this Gates person has a DUI or something? How does that make hacking less criminal? That depends. If you look at Bill's history one way it make hackers (even the respectable ones) look bad. The simple fact that you hold Windows, Microsoft, and Gates up to be holier than thou show that hackers have done some pretty amazing things. Ask yourself the simple question: if any hacker had the credentials and qulifications to successfully invent, develop, or maintain any useful technology, why are they hacking instead of doing respectable work? That all depends on your definition of hacker. If you use the true definition then hackers are professionals with well paying jobs. If you use the adequacy.org definition of hacker then you're still wrong. Not all the bad guys are unemployeed. Many are enrooled at Universities to (the first Internet worm was released by a University student) others work in various fields. Which, by the way, is NOT a criminal organization, in spite of the constant hacker propaganda that they have infiltrated it. Once again it depends on your definition of hacker. My icon? Where are you getting that from? You think it is apparent that I am interested in this man and his company, but why? Apparent based on what post of mine? Where have I made mention of Micro-Soft? Or it's President or CEO or whatever he does there? That's right you have never posted about the great Windows and about how poor Billy has been force by the "hacker community" (your words, not mine) to include "hacker tools" in Windows. if any hacker had the credentials and qulifications to successfully invent, develop, or maintain any useful technology, why are they hacking instead of doing respectable work? I wanna revisit this. If you look at Microsoft's history than I guess they don't do any respectable work then huh? Also your call for a BAN on various programming tools mean people like Bill Gates would never get anywhere. If their were people like you around screaming like an idiot no one would ever have even heard of Bill Gates. steal credit for things they didn't do? Whoops I think I already answered this :) Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	God. What a mess. (none / 0) (#64)
	by elenchos on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 02:27:44 PM PST

	(If anyone can disentangle for me whatever this maniac just tried to say, I'd be obliged.) It's unbelievable how obsessed you are with this man. I hope his security personnel are keeping an eye on you, because it has gone from a creepy nerosis wherin you substitute Micro-Soft and it's founder for your distant and weak father and turned it into some kind of Jodie Foster thing. You have to try to come back to reality. Nobody else thinks Micro-Soft is the center of the universe! Nobody else thinks that just because Micro-Soft did it, that makes it okay. They are not the arbiters of all that is right and wrong. Just because you (think you) can show that this person Gates or his company broke a law, that does not justify you breaking any laws. They're just some big corporation. And Bill Gates is not your "Darth Vader" either. He is not your True Father, turned to evil, whom you must rebel agaist and hate, while secretly craving his approval. God. It is so sick and wrong! Security! Somebody call security before this guy goes and buys a rifle! Security! I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	ok Doc (none / 0) (#65)
	by NAWL on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 03:41:35 PM PST

	Would you please stop the freelance "I'm a computer Scientist Pychologist" crap. It's pathetic. I'm an old man. My father died a long time ago. I have have kids and grandkids. Jackass. The whole "you're substituing Ms as your father's mother's uncle's neighbor's best friend's gay lover" bullshit is getting old. The reason why people point to Microsoft and Bill Gates is because the adequacy.org retards seem to hold Microsoft and Windows up to be this great operating system created by a great company found by a holier than thou art thief. I also mentioned the other people on the list because they are by the TRUE definition of hacker (not your twist definition) that have had a tremendous impact on technology. Time Berners-Lee who in 1980 wrote a small hyperlinking program called Enquire Within Upon Everything. His notion of creating random links between disparate items eventually evolved in the World Wide Web. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	No one believes you, you know. (none / 0) (#66)
	by elenchos on Wed Jan 2nd, 2002 at 10:32:38 PM PST

	The idea that what you write could come from anyone over the age of 16 is just too pathetic to imagine. You'd sooner convince Adequacy that koochee girl is female than the frothing Lunixiatic NAWL is a grown man. Be that as it may, your reasons for saying that I think Micro-Soft is 'holier than thou' are what again? What, again, are your reasons for saying that I think this Bill Gates is an "icon"? Because of something I said? Or because you think anyone who doesn't loooooove open source software is an Enemy, and like the paranoid that you are you think all your enemies are conspiring together against you. You have some serious emotional baggage with regard to Micro-Soft and this open source thing that you love so much, and whatever the root cause, it ain't healthy. A teen who writes mangled English syntax and pretends to be an old man isn't exactly the model of mental health either... I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	Lies (none / 0) (#27)
	by MessiahWWKD on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 11:59:16 AM PST

	A good example would be upgrading from Windows 98 to XP. You need the command prompt to convert the file system from FAT32 to NTFS if you choose to use NTFS. There is no point and click for that. That's bullshit! There's an option during the installation of 2000 and XP to convert the drive to NTFS. No wonder you hackers hate Windows. You haven't even experienced the greatness of it and simply rely on the word of Linus Turvalds. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	let me clarify this one (none / 0) (#32)
	by NAWL on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 12:43:38 PM PST

	First off do you point and click or is a menu interface? Not to mentio that I did not at any time specify WHEN you concert it. Did you take into account that so many people upgrade then hear/read about the benefits of NTFS? You can go to almost any HOW TO message board. You'll see dozens of threads regarding that subject Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	Sophistry (none / 0) (#17)
	by SpaceGhoti on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 09:53:10 PM PST

	Hmm...by categorizing everyone as either friend or foe, does this mean that you and I are now confirmed enemies? Lawks, how ever will I sleep at night? As far as my sophistry concerning command lines goes, what I've described is the modern standard for a personal computer. What you predict for the future of computing is a single-function device useful for one purpose only, instead of the multi-tasking environment that is currently in vogue. This does not change it from being a computer, it just assumes a larger shift in industry demand than I think is reasonable. My reading in the tech industry indicates that users are asking for more flexibility and customization, not less. Granted, they want this without sacrificing security, as seems to be your greatest issue, but I think you have the market's priorities slightly skewed. Even the small hand-held devices are being asked to perform multi-tasking duties ranging from entertainment to communication to data input and storage. In short, my sophistry stands. A personal computer is defined less by what it can do than by what it cannot. A troll's true colors.

	Ultimate flexibility = scripting languages (none / 0) (#22)
	by The Mad Scientist on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 07:58:34 AM PST

	Why do you think there are so many fractious, competing versions of Lunix and it's various components and philosophical gurus? a) Because unix people are well-aware that one solution doesn't fit all. Notice the differences between the distributions (NOT versions - as was said here many times, Linux is only the kernel, and it is the same in the distros; the difference is in default configurations and in included software). Because unix people don't have Big Corporate Management breathing down their neck and pressing them to do things One Microsoft Way so they can actually do things the good way. Because what way is the good one depends largely on the actual circumstances, there are various solutions. Don't whine, this is what gives you the choice; of course, you can make bad choice - but it is the cost of having the choice. b) I will refrain from attempt to correct spelling of the OS name. It was done so many times with no effect, so it is evident that it is a non-creative attempt to piss off people. The public-- %99.99998 of computer customers-- is clamoring for such a well-designed computer, one that is both safe from hacking and easy to use. Picture it, and you are picturing our future. Nintendo future! Now seriously. What can be considered "easy to use"? How many VCRs still have blinking 12:00 on their displays? Is it possible to dumb down the already point-and-drool interface even more? For what price? What about instead of bringing computers down to the level of Average Users rather try to force the users to actually think? Or is technical thinking a lost art in the "developed" Western World? I heard a lot of stories of user stupidity and personally witnessed some of them. What I seen greatly lowered my expectations about human race. There is no thing like a complete computer, and never will be. I want my computers to offer the ultimate flexibility, to do whatever I want whenever I want, when in most cases I don't know in advance what I will need. If possible, in a transparent way, without hiding behind truecolor pointclickistic interface. As far, the only way to achieve that was through scripting languages and gcc. You will have to pry the compiler from my dead cold fingers. Deal with it. Non-hackable isn't. You can make it quite difficult, though. But you have to learn, or hire an expert. It is nearly impossible to ban (and technically impossible to enforce it) commandline-based systems. They are way too powerful (so their users will just not give them away - I don't personally know a single techie for whom Law is more than Code), and way too easy to implement (I once implemented a rudimentary commandline interface on a onechip microcontroller) (so even if a miracle would happen and someone would seize existing systems, it is trivial to make basic tools and by using them to make more advanced tools). Also, where there is a demand there is the supply. Check the history (Prohibition), and look around (black markets of all kinds - from drugs to fissile materials). Face it: hackers will get what they want. Deny them tools, they make them themselves. Personally I prefer being aware about the dangers in the wild, and I prefer the dangers being so high that they stimulate the means of defense. Imagine the world without "in-the-wild" crackers and virus writers. You think the "black arts" wouldn't exist? The idea of using viruses and worms for military purposes is as old as the networks themselves. No, I will prefer the Net with viruses and script-kiddies - and with readily available defense means (firewalls, encrypted packet tunnels, intrusion detectors, secure operating systems[1]...), where there is a reason to do things securely by default, and where there is permanent state of battle preparedness on both sides. Security isn't easy nor cheap thing to do so there have to be some incentives. Blessed be the threats. Imagine having the "pathogen-free" sterile Net, and imagine the impact of a coordinated attack led against it by a well-trained well-financed adversary (for Americans ie. China, for non-Americans ie. USA, for everyone ie. CIA). Take this as a homework. [1] Nothing is absolutely secure. But OpenBSD is the best you can get without really big hassle and/or expenses. And yes, source codes available.

	Less Is More (none / 0) (#25)
	by MessiahWWKD on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 11:53:31 AM PST

	Don't whine, this is what gives you the choice; of course, you can make bad choice - but it is the cost of having the choice. Let's see... Would I rather wear one suit that matches and goes well for any occasion, or buy tons of suits that don't even match for every single occasion even if it's not much better than the one Microsoft suit? I don't know about you, but I have no interest in keeping an OS on my system for emailing, an OS for web browsing, an OS for games, an OS for writing, etc. Nintendo future! It is amusing how you bash Microsoft for being a "monopoly with anti-competitive business tactics," and you also bash Nintendo, which isn't a monopoly nor does it have any unethical business tactics, yet you "lusers" praise Sony, which has often resorted to unethical behavior and is probably affiliated with the Japanese mafia. When will you people have consistency? Now seriously. What can be considered "easy to use"? How many VCRs still have blinking 12:00 on their displays? You watch too much television. Most people who have VCRs these days are able to adjust the clock. There might be some VCRs that have not been set, and usually it is because they have no need to use the VCR as a clock. If VCR zealots were as psychotic as you Linux apologists, they'd not only make it extremely difficult to set, but they'd make hundreds of different VCR versions... excuse me, DISTRIBUTIONS... made specifically for each genre. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	NINTENDO (none / 0) (#33)
	by NAWL on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 12:53:29 PM PST

	<b>It is amusing how you bash Microsoft for being a "monopoly with anti-competitive business tactics," and you also bash Nintendo, which isn't a monopoly nor does it have any unethical business tactics</b> Oh really so pressuring retailers not to promote competitors products is not one? Forcing retailers to put Gameboy products right behind the register so people will see them one last time? Giving discount for not carrying Sega Game Gear? Gee I wonder how Game Boy really got to be so popular. hmmmmm Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	Why not? (none / 0) (#39)
	by The Mad Scientist on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 02:29:43 PM PST

	Let's see... Would I rather wear one suit that matches and goes well for any occasion, or buy tons of suits that don't even match for every single occasion even if it's not much better than the one Microsoft suit? I don't care about suits. I prefer military surplus. Has more pockets, requires no maintenance, is cheaper, and I can go through fire, fog, fall, and maintenance ducts and then just dust myself off. Suits suck for any real application and are good only as a show-off. I don't know about you, but I have no interest in keeping an OS on my system for emailing, an OS for web browsing, an OS for games, an OS for writing, etc. At this moment, I do web browsing on Windows machine, and everything more serious - from email to writing code and texts to databases to file archive to firewall - doing on Linux machine (firewall is scheduled to be overhauled to BSD). (Special case here; I need heterogenous network for testing and general playing with. Regarding games, I sadly don't have much time for them :(, so can't comment (reminds me, I should dust off my C64 emulator). Even when writing a longer thing for Adequacy, I write it as a text file (saved frequently for case of crash) and then move it to the browser via clipboard; I need too many windows opened in parallel at once, and Billy's Superior Technology sometimes decides to crash and close all the IE windows. (Not speaking about mysterious resource drains linked to running instances of MSIE.) It is amusing how you bash Microsoft for being a "monopoly with anti-competitive business tactics," and you also bash Nintendo, which isn't a monopoly nor does it have any unethical business tactics, yet you "lusers" praise Sony, which has often resorted to unethical behavior and is probably affiliated with the Japanese mafia. When will you people have consistency? My reference to Nintendo future was a reference to game consoles in general - small relatively reliable single-purpose machines; I don't have enough experience with the world of game consoles to know any dirt about them. I personally have gripes with Sony (though their electronics is good). (By the way, where I mentioned Sony before?) You watch too much television. Most people who have VCRs these days are able to adjust the clock. There might be some VCRs that have not been set, and usually it is because they have no need to use the VCR as a clock. VCRs need clock as time reference for programmed recording. Personally, I got my VCR from my parents; el-cheapo (about $25 few years ago and worth about as much - sucks, heads need realignment or even exchange (not worth of the hassle), occassionally loses colors and then needs to be banged on its side, but enough for time-shifting news and Star Dreck, so reliably (except the color thing) doing everything I want; when I will not be lazy I'll get new old one and take this one apart for fun). I am very happy with it - it is so old it has full set of controls on its panel (in fact I hadn't had to touch the remote from when I got it), can be programmed from panel, and one doesn't have to argue with obscure menus nor have to switch the TV on when setting it up. One sets few registers, like when setting up digital wristwatches, and it does what asked for; no droolproof TV-based interface that takes several times as long to program. I like it this way; however, getting new model with these features is rather nontrivial, as the VCRs are designed mostly for couch potatoes who sit outside the reach of the device, and every button is added cost. If they'd at least open the control bus specs so I could attach a front panel tailored to my desires, or ultimately to connect it to computer and program via commandline, I'd be happy. Of course, modern VCRs have more features - automatic clock settings according to data in topmost TV scanlines, and all sorts of other services - I am not a home-video buff and it's couple years I was interested in there anyway; what I am pondering is to get a TV capture card (plenty of spare CPU power and disk space) and make fully computerized open-standards-based TiVo-like device. Until someone will crack the proprietary ShowView/VideoPlus+/VCRPlus+ scheme, I will lack this - but no big loss for now and the efforts are underway. It is also possible to automatically cut off the ads from the resulting MPEG stream; I have several methods in proposal stage for when I will be in playful mood. If VCR zealots were as psychotic as you Linux apologists, they'd not only make it extremely difficult to set, but they'd make hundreds of different VCR versions... excuse me, DISTRIBUTIONS... made specifically for each genre. As long as the tapes can be moved between them - OKAY WITH ME! Hypothetically: If you want super-quality sound and don't care much about picture, SymphonicVCR is here for you. If you like movies and want surround sound and enhanced image, get ActionVCR, and if you want just to timeshift news and don't care about anything other than cost, get BarebonesVCR. If you are into scuba diving and want to watch tapes under water, WaterproofVCR is here for you. If you don't need TV output at all but need input/output as ISO MPEG stream, get MPEGVCR. If you attach/detach devices from it frequently, install front-panel mod with connectors of your desire, and if you like solid industrial design, get rack-mount mod. If you want something not on the market, take soldering iron, or - if you don't know what its end is the hot one - ask a friend or hire a specialist. As long as the casettes are recorded all in the same format and can be moved from one VCR type to another, WHY THE HELL NOT? At least you will still have control over the device, will know what is happening inside, and can be sure there will be no proprietary extensions that will one day forbid you from taping some things, as MPAA wants to (see lower), or fastforwarding through ads. (Or that there will be easy ways around them.) (See DVD zones and associated problematics. DVDs aren't common here enough for me to worry about it yet, but I don't think I will buy a player that will not have published a dezoning crack.) The days of taping a show for a friend (without having to ask The Underground for help) can be gone sooner than you think (check some digital TV proposals). But it is a topic for entirely different thread and for its own.

	Pry out of hacker fingers? Easy. (none / 0) (#36)
	by elenchos on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 01:59:56 PM PST

	It isn't as if we were talking about a group with a history of sticking up for itself and defending its "rights". Look at any tech-related law in the last twenty years, from the Communications Decency Act to the DMCA, ...anything. There is one thing abundantly clear: geeks have ZERO political infulence. It is virtually guranteed that every law to be passed with regard to the technology you hold dear will be the exact opposite of what the hackers are hoping for. Hackers and their sympthizers are an insignificant minority and nobody cares what they think, and though you may hope that going house to house wiping hard drives of illegal programs is unthinkable, for ordinary, normal people, it is just common sense, if it means fewer computer headaches and hacker-caused disasters. You must get that through your head. "Pry it from my cold dead fingers" indeed! Easy as pie! Therefore, that whole long post about how important these tools are to you and how mucy you need them amounts to nothing. Normal people don't need them and never use them and will not miss them one bit. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	Try it! (none / 0) (#45)
	by The Mad Scientist on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 04:20:36 PM PST

	There is one thing abundantly clear: geeks have ZERO political infulence. They have a lot of technical influence, and contacts. This is what really matters. A law can tell you what you can't do with your equipment. However, it can't force you to comply. The keywords are civil disobedience and passive resistance. According to my experiences, there are three classes of people: Law-Abiding Citizens: They get scared by the very idea of the Holy Law being questioned. They comply with everything that is told them. Normal Citizens: They appear like law-abiding citizens while attempting to not be inconvenienced by them too much. Typical customers of "unofficial" hardware/software mod vendors. They kept my income on survivable level while I was still freelancing. They are the majority. (Don't know how in the US - maybe people are more coward there). The Underground: The subculture that forms around the Forbidden Arts. Some tinkering with hightech for fun, some for profit. Normal Citizens are their happy clients. Not all of their activities are necessarily sinister; Law-Abiding Citizens fear them, but Normal Citizens usually have friends in this class, who care about their computers, get new ones for them and assemble them from parts, do the services Commercial Subjects either don't offer at all, or for too high prices, or unreliably. Such relationships are usually long-term and personal, where the mutual knowledge of the parties serves as a warranty that the delivered work will be worth of the money/services paid for it (on one side) and that the payment will not be withhold (on the other side). They are The Ones Who Know, a heretic priesthood of the contemporary society. Normal Citizens benefit from them, and supply them with goods. (A friend in a service shop is the best way how to "tunnel" couple pages from a desired "authorized servicemen only" manual out.) Hackers and their sympthizers are an insignificant minority and nobody cares what they think, You added the Normal Citizens into the equation? Couple many people do offsite backups. A FTP directory on a server in Australia and a "sister" one in Yugoslavia, a CD in a drawer across the city, a CD with garage-band music tracks (with steganography-encoded files) donated to a student club... and though you may hope that going house to house wiping hard drives of illegal programs is unthinkable, for ordinary, normal people, it is just common sense, if it means fewer computer headaches and hacker-caused disasters. ...and more computer headaches and corporate-strategies-caused disast...errr...feature side effects. And liquidation of the class that keeps Normal Citizens' machines up and running. And deterring many potential future technicians from pursuing The Crafts, thus creating catastrophical shortage of skills for the future. It would require to toss essential privacy protections out of the window, which would alienate a lot of both Normal Citizens and Law-Abiding Citizens. The Goon Squads would also have to find all the backup CDs and all the offshore backup sites[1]. They would also have to make all the people with the skills to forget them (with the side effect of the IT-powered economy grinding to halt) or risking that the IT people will keep a side income stream by doubling as Underground Guys. If a single copy remains unfound, it can spread all over the world again; every file once was a single-of-its-kind copy. Steganography makes this task even more frustrating. You would have to monitor all the data transfers (down to the level of entropy monitoring (the essential part of steganalysis)), ban encryption (again an enforcement problem for its own), control all phone calls, every swap of a piece of paper or a floppy in a mall, every private conversation... (Personal question: Would you like to live in such society? Before you answer, remember: The Ones Who Make Rules can tighten them at whim, leaving you no choice than to obey.) Hard to do and will piss off too many people. Not everyone feels comfortable to disclose their secrets to untrusted third party. Plus you would have to do it internationally and all at the same moment. People know each other overseas; I have couple accounts all over the world, usually in exchange for coadmining the machine or other kinds of little perks. I even run a CGI-based HTTPS proxy/anonymizer for friends in China and Middle East, whose governments routinely filter Net access. For exchange for a postcard here and there, and first-hand situation reports - usually more reliable than corporate-sanitized news (if they even are), or other little services, usually translations. (I possess many skills, but Chinese and Arabic isn't between them. :( ) Therefore, that whole long post about how important these tools are to you and how much you need them amounts to nothing. Normal people don't need them and never use them and will not miss them one bit. Until a Common Citizen gets a disk crash (the Superior Operating System (hi, Bill!) occassionally decides to dump the memory over first dozens of disk tracks - of course, over FATs and root directory)[2]. Then he will bloody miss the Underground Guy with his service floppy and a pirate copy of Norton Disk Editor. This applies even to the lower-budget Law-Abiding Citizens; many of them reorder their priorities when they find about the costs of data recovery services. You must get that through your head. "Pry it from my cold dead fingers" indeed! Easy as pie! Try it![3] [1] Which can't be done all houses/appartments at once; it would require more policemen than the entire country population is. Sequential approach would require literally shutting down all the communications (so Normal Citizens can't alert their Underground friends) and all physical movements. (Which itself can be a hint that something catastrophical is going on.) Hiding a few of most important CDs can be done in few minutes, especially when it was counted with before; complete search (including disassembling of all devices and furniture and floors...) of every household is de facto impossible. Attempt to do so nationwide would most likely trigger large-scale riots, maybe even a revolution. [2] Some viruses do it as well (example: Win32/CIH, aka Chernobyl - completely destroys typical FAT16 installation, heavily to moderately damages FAT32 systems). I was doing repairs of system areas mostly manually, as most of common damages obliterated just first few tracks, FAT2 stayed operational, and MBR and bootsector can be reconstructed with aid of a calculator. When CIH stroke first time, I got three FAT16 disks to rescue data from in a single day, so I had to write a two-pass scanner: first pass searched for directories on the disk, created lists of filenames, filesizes, and starting clusters, and saved it to another disk. Then take the list, select the files you want, do a short prayer asking for no fragmentation of critical files, and run second pass: a simplified version of Undelete. Take line by line, calculate the number of clusters to read, read them sequentially from the starting cluster acquired from first pass, and saved them to another drive. This is the ultimate way to salvage at least something even from the heaviest-damaged FAT filesystems. Imagine how much you would have to pay to Authorized Service. If you kept confidential data there, you would also have to trust the Authorized Service's staff. With already-established years-proven trust relationship between the Normal Citizen and the Underground Guy, this is not a problem. "Official" corporate structures will never achieve this degree of trust. Been there. [3] Or maybe my grasp of English isn't firm enough and "easy as a pie" actually means "difficult as hell". Then you would be right.

	Even with your definitions, there's no difference. (none / 0) (#7)
	by MessiahWWKD on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 07:11:12 PM PST

	Even if America did accept your Orwellian definitions, that wouldn't change the fact that hackers have no problem supporting well-known crackers especially if they crack the software or your enemies. Seeing as how you condone the actions of crackers, you are no better than they are. Guardian angel, heavenly friend, walk with me 'til the journey's end.

	*sigh* (none / 0) (#53)
	by ShadowWolf on Tue Jan 1st, 2002 at 05:54:35 PM PST

	both of your lit