Intrusion Detection Systems mailing list archives
Re: implications of recent legal trends
From: bofh () highertech net (bofh)
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 23:15:07 -0400 (EDT)
Archive: http://msgs.securepoint.com/ids FAQ: http://www.ticm.com/kb/faq/idsfaq.html IDS: http://www-rnks.informatik.tu-cottbus.de/~sobirey/ids.html UNSUBSCRIBE: email "unsubscribe ids" to majordomo () uow edu au On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 JohnNicholson () aol com wrote:
Off the cuff response. I'll give this some thought and if I think I need to elaborate or correct something, I'll post another reply later. I'm not sure this is that big an issue as far as the development of security tools is concerned. As I understand it, Mattel argued that cphack violated Mattel's copyright by displaying a list of websites that CyberPatrol blocks.
That is Mattel's arguement and I must say that I can understand that angle on the issue, but the whole story goes a bit deeper than that. And no, I don't think it's directly an issue as far as security tools goes, but I'm up for a rant - sorry :) Mattel/Cyberpatrol is using the "protect the children" bit to sell their product, but whos standards are they using in this protection? How exactly does labeling web sites that questions CyberPatrol's filtering abilities as pornographic accomplish this goal? Yes, Mattel does this, and yes, the only way you can see this for yourself is by using an "illegal hacker tool" to access their database. Considering the dynamic nature of the web it isn't rationally possible to control content access to the degree that CyberPatrol claims it can, but if you dispute their claims they label your website as being pornographic. And this protects children how, exaclty? Mattel is not worried about their precious intellectual property, they are using the law in an attempt to CYA - Cover Your Ass. So is the fact that if Mattel notices this post they'll probably block any site mirroring it as being offensive due to "Full frontal nudity" a security issue?.?..?.. For more info: http://www.peacefire.org/censorware/Cyber_Patrol/ http://www.politechbot.com/p-00995.html TaoJones, BOFH TaoJones@EFnet
Current thread:
- Re: implications of recent legal trends JohnNicholson () aol com (Apr 18)
- Re: implications of recent legal trends bofh (Apr 18)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: implications of recent legal trends Mila, Brian D (Apr 18)
- Re: RE: implications of recent legal trends Greg Shipley (Apr 19)
- Re: RE: implications of recent legal trends Shafik Yaghmour (Apr 19)
- Re: RE: implications of recent legal trends Dug Song (Apr 19)
- Re: implications of recent legal trends Stuart Staniford-Chen (Apr 20)
- SANS Parliament Hill 2000 > Welcome to SANS Parliament Hill 2000 Guy Bruneau (Apr 21)
