Re: [Clamav-users] illegal or not, make a valid argument (was "no subject")
In message Simon Hobson was claimed to have wrote: >Here we go again, you are introducing something irrelevant to try and >justify your actions. Yes, I know what the licence says - but that >merely says I cannot expect support from you, and I can't complain if >it doesn't work. That still does not mean I am giving you permission >to enter my property and make changes Once again, no one "entered your property", but rather, you configured your server to request updates from an external source. A minor difference, but an awfully significant one. ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] illegal or not, make a valid argument (was "no subject")
On Apr 21, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Simon Hobson wrote: Here we go again, you are introducing something irrelevant to try and justify your actions. Yes, I know what the licence says - but that merely says I cannot expect support from you, and I can't complain if it doesn't work. That still does not mean I am giving you permission to enter my property and make changes - it just means that you are under no obligation to provide support or updates. That's the whole point - I'm NOT complaining that your aren't providing support, and I'm not claiming damages. I'm complaining because you have gone well beyond "not providing support" by actively disabling a program that you deemed I shouldn't be running according to your view of how the computing world should run. Nothing in that licence or any implied agreement for you to update my server allows for that - and under UK law what you did was illegal (and under US law if what I understand of the Gary McKinnon case is right). Well you obviously do not understand the Gary McKinnon case right. Not a single person connected in any way or form "reached out and touched any system". All affected systems, made a connection to a ClamAV mirror somewhere in the world and downloaded a database of signatures. Clamd by its very design in effect since before version 0.94 did exactly what it was supposed to do which is shut down in the event of a database it could not digest. In the Gary McKinnon case, he actively sought out these computers he is charged with allegedly hacking into, and rifled through through the computer contents. I do not see any remote connection between this and what ClamAV has done. -- Simon Hobson Jim ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] illegal or not, make a valid argument (was "no subject")
Eric Rostetter wrote: You did not tell ME, therefore you did not have permission FROM ME to makes changes to the way MY server operates. By using the software, you took responsibility for how it works. From the license: 11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. 12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. So until you prove they did something illegal, it is your problem to deal with, per the license. Here we go again, you are introducing something irrelevant to try and justify your actions. Yes, I know what the licence says - but that merely says I cannot expect support from you, and I can't complain if it doesn't work. That still does not mean I am giving you permission to enter my property and make changes - it just means that you are under no obligation to provide support or updates. That's the whole point - I'm NOT complaining that your aren't providing support, and I'm not claiming damages. I'm complaining because you have gone well beyond "not providing support" by actively disabling a program that you deemed I shouldn't be running according to your view of how the computing world should run. Nothing in that licence or any implied agreement for you to update my server allows for that - and under UK law what you did was illegal (and under US law if what I understand of the Gary McKinnon case is right). Giving notice that you are going to trespass does not make that trespass legal, even if you had come directly to me door and told me in person - which of course no-one did even in computer terms of making any sort of related message appear on my system. If you are on my property (say you rent or lease it from me), I can come in anytime. If you use my software, I can change it any time I want per my license agreement. But I'm not on your property, you are on mine when you make changes to my server. The nearest analogy I can come up with is that you've offered to water my plants while I'm away - analogous to providing AV updates. You've offered to do that out of the goodness of your heart as a friendly neighbour - and I thank you for that, as I thank the team (again) for having provided the software and updates in the past. That in effect is an implicit permission for you to enter my property - but only for that purpose. Now by analogy, the warnings given by freshclam could be like you pointing out that my roses are getting past their best - I really ought to consider getting some new ones. But for the time being, I'm reasonably happy with them and will put up with them until I've time to redo the garden properly. You really don't like those roses, so you are perfectly entitled to tell me you're not watering them any more. I could live with that - as you say, you don't owe me anything, and it's not for me to demand anyone does anything I'm not paying them for, and note that I have not tried to demand anyone do anything other than 'leave my server alone'. The equivalent of what the ClamAV team has done is for you to decide that I really should not have those old roses, you you have dropped some powerful weed killer in the watering can to see them off. That would be outside of your implied permission to access my property, and also criminal damage. Also, if I *was* on your property (eg something I'd rented), then under English law I would have the right of "quiet enjoyment" - that means you do **NOT** have the right to come in anytime UNLESS that is explicitly provided for in the lease or tenancy agreement. leases usually provide for access in order to perform maintenance - but only on reasonable notice and at reasonable times, unless to deal with an emergency. I see nothing in that licence you quote saying it gives you the right to interfere with my server if I run your software. You still wouldn't have the right to poison
Re: [Clamav-users] illegal or not, make a valid argument (was "no subject")
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Bill Landry wrote: > > For me, the lesson I take is to always be aware of the laws in your > > locality. And the policies of the software you use. > > Oh yeah, and I bet you read the public notifications in your local paper "Be aware of the laws" != "read the public notifications in your local paper every day" However, up until this law changed, I did monitor the announcements for the area my business is in, as it's in a redevelopment zone. And I just rent. Just to beat this example to death a little more: Port Chester was a rehabilitation zone at the time, so it's not like the condemnation was out of the blue. Obviously the law sucked, but this shouldn't have been a shock to anyone in the real estate industry either. Everyone had choices - move out of Port Chester where there isn't a rehab zone, move out of NY where public notice laws were saner, find a Real Estate attourny who has one of his clerks scan the papers every day and notify his clients if there is an issue (sort of like -- running Nagios) Again, I disagree with the Clam teams stance on when clamd should die, like I disagree with the sucky notification laws. But -- I CHOOSE to use the software anyway, like I chose to live in NY state. Make the choice, live with it. What I say is wrong is running software where you don't know the policies of the authors -- or living in a state where you don't know the laws. Doing so and getting bit by it is your own damn fault. One other quote comes to mind. During the PMRC trials, Al Gore asked Dee Snider if he thought it was reasonable to expect parents to listen to every album their kids bought. Dee's response, "Being a parent is not a reasonable thing. It's very hard". I would say the same about running a mail server, and subscribing to the announce lists of all the software you run. == Chris Candreva -- ch...@westnet.com -- (914) 948-3162 WestNet Internet Services of Westchester http://www.westnet.com/ ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] illegal or not, make a valid argument (was "no subject")
Quoting Jonny Kent : Good arguments mostly Eric but I must take issue with your statement above about owners right and renters. Yeah, it was kind of vague, but meant to be about the issue of "trespass" and not about actually invading a renters home or business. What you can or can't do depends on the contract, local law, etc. But generally, I can still go on the property without permission or notice, but can not enter the dwelling or other structures without permission or notice. Lots of if/ands/buts along with that of course. Was a really vague rebuttal to the trespass argument, and I regret I didn't provide a more sound argument (since I was complaining about unsound arguments). Mea culpa... -- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin Go Longhorns! ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] illegal or not, make a valid argument (was "no subject")
On Wed, April 21, 2010 11:08 am, Christopher X. Candreva wrote: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Bill Landry wrote: > >> Doesn't agree with the example you provided, is all I'm saying, not >> without notification via "certified mail" or "personal delivery", which >> takes notification to a much higher standard and requirement then you >> have >> been trying to justify. > > The example I sited shows a guy who lost his building and spent 10 years > trying to get things fixed. In the course a law was changed, so that NOW, > in > New York State in the USA, personal delivery of notification is required. > > If you would like to assume from this that you are safe in your particular > locality, I can only hope you don't wake up in a pile of rubble. > > For me, the lesson I take is to always be aware of the laws in your > locality. And the policies of the software you use. Oh yeah, and I bet you read the public notifications in your local paper every day. That's why the notification requirements are being reviewed in most all jurisdictions and changed to require more stringent notification standards. Your position is untenable in today's world. Bill ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] illegal or not, make a valid argument (was "no subject")
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Bill Landry wrote: > Doesn't agree with the example you provided, is all I'm saying, not > without notification via "certified mail" or "personal delivery", which > takes notification to a much higher standard and requirement then you have > been trying to justify. The example I sited shows a guy who lost his building and spent 10 years trying to get things fixed. In the course a law was changed, so that NOW, in New York State in the USA, personal delivery of notification is required. If you would like to assume from this that you are safe in your particular locality, I can only hope you don't wake up in a pile of rubble. For me, the lesson I take is to always be aware of the laws in your locality. And the policies of the software you use. == Chris Candreva -- ch...@westnet.com -- (914) 948-3162 WestNet Internet Services of Westchester http://www.westnet.com/ ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] illegal or not, make a valid argument (was "no subject")
On Wed, April 21, 2010 10:48 am, Christopher X. Candreva wrote: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Bill Landry wrote: > >> Yes, amended to requre "certified main or personal delivery". Thus it >> appears that your example is diametrically opposed to your argument that >> only minimal notification is required. > > No, my point is if you don't pay attention, you may wake up one morning to > find your mail server down or your house being knocked down around you. Doesn't agree with the example you provided, is all I'm saying, not without notification via "certified mail" or "personal delivery", which takes notification to a much higher standard and requirement then you have been trying to justify. Bill ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] illegal or not, make a valid argument (was "no subject")
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Eric Rostetter wrote: > > If you are on my property (say you rent or lease it from me), I can come > in anytime. > > > I'm not even trying to argue that this was or wasn't an illegal action. > I'm just saying that the arguments are lame (calling it blackmail when > it isn't, saying they need permission from each and every user when they > don't, etc). Come on folks, make your arguments at least reasonable! > > -- > Eric Rostetter > The Department of Physics > The University of Texas at Austin > > Good arguments mostly Eric but I must take issue with your statement above about owners right and renters. Last I checked if I rent a property from you then that does _not_ give you the right to enter 'anytime' , unless you have it specifically written in the lease you can only come in by arrangement and only for maintenance and inspections. That what renting means: assigning the right to use a property to another person in exchange for rent. That right generally includes refusing entry to the owner when not prearranged. Here's just one entry on the subject: http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/contracts-agreements-real-estate/4104-1.html ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] illegal or not, make a valid argument (was "no subject")
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Bill Landry wrote: > Yes, amended to requre "certified main or personal delivery". Thus it > appears that your example is diametrically opposed to your argument that > only minimal notification is required. No, my point is if you don't pay attention, you may wake up one morning to find your mail server down or your house being knocked down around you. == Chris Candreva -- ch...@westnet.com -- (914) 948-3162 WestNet Internet Services of Westchester http://www.westnet.com/ ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] illegal or not, make a valid argument (was "no subject")
On Wed, April 21, 2010 9:26 am, Christopher X. Candreva wrote: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Eric Rostetter wrote: > >> > See above, that does NOT in any way constitute requesting my >> permission. >> >> Sure it does. Legally, in the US, when I want to do something that I'm >> legally required to inform the community about, all I have to do is >> take >> out an ad in the local newspaper. Or post signs in the affected area. >> If you don't read it, too bad. I made the required public notice. That > > Let me drive this home. In the state of New York, until recently if the > government wanted to use eminant domain to take your property, all they > had > to do was take out an ad in the paper. They do not need to track down the > owner of the building or land, just take out an ad. If you don't read the > paper that day, the first you hear that your building was being knocked > down > may be when the wrecking ball shows up. > > This was only amended in 2004 after some particularly nasty battles. > > http://ownerscounsel.blogspot.com/2009/06/port-chester-offers-apology-for-taking.html > > Just a dose a reality folks. Yes, amended to requre "certified main or personal delivery". Thus it appears that your example is diametrically opposed to your argument that only minimal notification is required. Bill ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] illegal or not, make a valid argument (was "no subject")
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 17:26, Christopher X. Candreva wrote: > > Let me drive this home. In the state of New York, until recently if the > government wanted to use eminant domain to take your property, all they had > to do was take out an ad in the paper. They do not need to track down the > owner of the building or land, just take out an ad. If you don't read the > paper that day, the first you hear that your building was being knocked down > may be when the wrecking ball shows up. The last I checked the legal notification requirements in the UK aren't terribly different. All that is required is reasonable effort to notify and while I'm not a lawyer I'm pretty confident that the ClamAV's teams efforts would be described as reasonable (based upon dealings with real lawyers). -- Please keep list traffic on the list. Rob MacGregor Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he doesn't become a monster. Friedrich Nietzsche ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] illegal or not, make a valid argument (was "no subject")
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Eric Rostetter wrote: > > See above, that does NOT in any way constitute requesting my permission. > > Sure it does. Legally, in the US, when I want to do something that I'm > legally required to inform the community about, all I have to do is take > out an ad in the local newspaper. Or post signs in the affected area. > If you don't read it, too bad. I made the required public notice. That Let me drive this home. In the state of New York, until recently if the government wanted to use eminant domain to take your property, all they had to do was take out an ad in the paper. They do not need to track down the owner of the building or land, just take out an ad. If you don't read the paper that day, the first you hear that your building was being knocked down may be when the wrecking ball shows up. This was only amended in 2004 after some particularly nasty battles. http://ownerscounsel.blogspot.com/2009/06/port-chester-offers-apology-for-taking.html Just a dose a reality folks. == Chris Candreva -- ch...@westnet.com -- (914) 948-3162 WestNet Internet Services of Westchester http://www.westnet.com/ ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
Re: [Clamav-users] illegal or not, make a valid argument (was "no subject")
Quoting Simon Hobson : You did not tell ME, therefore you did not have permission FROM ME to makes changes to the way MY server operates. By using the software, you took responsibility for how it works. From the license: 11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. 12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. So until you prove they did something illegal, it is your problem to deal with, per the license. Giving notice that you are going to trespass does not make that trespass legal, even if you had come directly to me door and told me in person - which of course no-one did even in computer terms of making any sort of related message appear on my system. If you are on my property (say you rent or lease it from me), I can come in anytime. If you use my software, I can change it any time I want per my license agreement. You also cannot claim that my downloading of updates constitutes an invite - it constitutes an invite to put AV sig updates on there for the purpose of detecting new threats. A poison pill update doesn't fit that description. It is a free service they provide, not to you, but to anyone. So they owe you nothing. You didn't sign any contact with them that they would provide only valid signatures, or any at all. You assume the risk in using the feed. See above, that does NOT in any way constitute requesting my permission. Sure it does. Legally, in the US, when I want to do something that I'm legally required to inform the community about, all I have to do is take out an ad in the local newspaper. Or post signs in the affected area. If you don't read it, too bad. I made the required public notice. That is all that is required. I don't have to knock on the door, or phone, each person living in the area. I just have to buy an ad, or post the signs, or otherwise make the information available. There is no legal obligation to tell each and every person individually. Only to make a public announcement/posting a set time before hand. I'm not even trying to argue that this was or wasn't an illegal action. I'm just saying that the arguments are lame (calling it blackmail when it isn't, saying they need permission from each and every user when they don't, etc). Come on folks, make your arguments at least reasonable! -- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin Go Longhorns! ___ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
