Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

In a message dated: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:01:11 EST Travis Roy said: >If I see a phone number for somebody posted in a town hall, public library, >the corner store, and somebody asks me for that persons number I'm going to >give it to them without even thinking about it. If I see it at work, I migh

Re: p2p, anonymity and security

In a message dated: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:04:41 +0900 Derek Martin said: >It is not unreasonable for people to believe you mean to violate the >law, based on what you've said. It is very likely that the paranoid >(i.e. the RIAA's watchdogs) will make such assumptions. It won't >matter much if you

Re: p2p, anonymity and security

In a message dated: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:04:41 +0900 Derek Martin said: >Note also that I said "basically" -- perhaps my choice of words was >sub-optimal, but I included this word to suggest the possibility that >this is not actually what you intend to do. Nevertheless, what you >actually said wa

Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 03:29:20PM -0500, Travis Roy wrote: > > >Derek's assertion is that there needs to be mechanism behind one's > >ability to protect privacy. In Derek's mind Travis' actions prove this. Now, as in the past... > >In my mind, the mechanism doesn't exist yet - and probably won'

Re: p2p, anonymity and security

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, at 12:51pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I sounds like you've bought into the notion promulgated by the popular > media that because copyrights are automatically granted, that doing > anything without obtaining and paying for permission is a crime. Speaking for myself: I ce

Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

Tom Buskey wrote: Bruce Dawson said recently: Can we take this thread off-line? No one else appears to be contributing. Amen Brother! It's hard because Derek's email was unknown or invalid Now that was funny... But besides that, Derek brings up the privacy of his email address in wh

Owning facts (Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security))

Not that this has a lot to do with this innane thread, but this might not be true in a relatively short while. For more information, look here: http://wired.com/news/business/0,1367,62500,00.html http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5021 I'm sure that there are plenty of *other* pl

Re: Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

> Bruce Dawson said recently: >>>Can we take this thread off-line? No one else appears to be > contributing. > > Amen Brother! > It's hard because Derek's email was unknown or invalid ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:/

Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

Travis Roy writes: > I have that information in my head and > can give it out to anybody I please. I've never heard of anybody > getting sued for giving out a phone number that's listed, or giving > out a street address. Not that this has a lot to do with this innane thread, but this might not be

Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 14:34, Derek Martin wrote: > Actually it wasn't. Or at least not all of it. So what? It should > be up to ME, not YOU, when and where I decide to give up my privacy. And it is/was up to YOU. Until you put the data on the Internet. That is when you gave up your privacy as

Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

I 2nd the notion! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce Dawson said recently: Can we take this thread off-line? No one else appears to be contributing. Amen Brother! Anybody got a good Linux question? paulc From: Bruce Dawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 2004/03/12 Fri PM 03:10:53 EST To: GNHLUG Disc

Re: Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

Bruce Dawson said recently: >>Can we take this thread off-line? No one else appears to be contributing. Amen Brother! Anybody got a good Linux question? paulc > > From: Bruce Dawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2004/03/12 Fri PM 03:10:53 EST > To: GNHLUG Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subjec

Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

Derek's assertion is that there needs to be mechanism behind one's ability to protect privacy. In Derek's mind Travis' actions prove this. In my mind, the mechanism doesn't exist yet - and probably won't because our society has rendered the spam problem as a "policy fix". The only way for this to

Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 14:34, Derek Martin wrote: > My point is, I and only I should be in charge of what of my private > information is given to whom and when. Seeing my address posted on an > on-call list does not give you the right to give it to your neighbor, > or anyone else. Or at least it s

Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

Actually it wasn't. Or at least not all of it. So what? It should be up to ME, not YOU, when and where I decide to give up my privacy. It doesn't matter if the information was ever right or ever public; the point is I asked you not to do it, with reason, which I've explained before. You did it

Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 02:16:32PM -0500, Travis Roy wrote: > >And yet it failed miserably to do so. I don't live at that address, > >and mail to any of those e-mail addresses will not reach me (with > >certain important exceptions, which I will not detail here). > > At one point that data was co

Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

This is a "check and balance" that the internet community (ISPs and backbones, mostly) agreed to at the inception of the internet - back when it was split from the Arpanet. This "check and balance" is a violation of domain owners' privacy, which should not be possible without just cause, i.e. a

Re: p2p, anonymity and security

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:51:38PM -0500, Greg Rundlett wrote: > >explicit - adj. Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied. > > > You're right, I was not explicit. My statement was actually 'simple'. > That simple statement carries a lot of implied meanings for most people, > but I

Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

However, I think that the posting of the whois information was not only unnecessary, but completely inappropriate to the discussion. I believe the point was to demonstrate that the personal privacy Derek keeps asserting is being violated is already non-existent, by his own actions, and completely

Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

However, since you had no way to know that, but you DO know quite well that I do not want my e-mail address posted in a public forum and did it anwyay, I conclude that you have no regard for your fellow man. Spammers have been using whois data since forever to get email address. I'm POSITIVE that

Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:04:00PM -0500, Bruce Dawson wrote: > On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 11:01, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote: > > However, I think that the posting of the whois information was not only > > unnecessary, but completely inappropriate to the discussion. > > And *I* think it was entirely app

Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 11:36:53AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > However, I think that the posting of the whois information was not only > > unnecessary, but completely inappropriate to the discussion. > > I believe the point was to demonstrate that the personal privacy Derek > keeps asser

Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 07:19:24AM -0500, Travis Roy wrote: > If that is true, perhaps you shouldn't have your webpage address in > your sig: If you send me e-mail to any of the addresses listed in my domain registration record, I assure you they will not reach me. However, since you had no way

Re: p2p, anonymity and security

Travis Roy wrote: How do you know that? Perhaps he wants to share legal content but doesn't want everybody and their brother knowing his IP address, name, and location. Bands like Guster allow sharing of their music if it's a live show that they taped. You can get tons of their shows on arch

Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 11:01:23AM -0500, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote: > I have stayed out of this until now, as I don't really care all that > much about the public or private status of the GNHLUG list. I actually > thought that it was a closed list to keep RMS from posting rants about > how it shoul

Re: p2p, anonymity and security

Derek Martin wrote: My intention is explicitly stated and legal I beg to differ on that. explicit - adj. Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied. You're right, I was not explicit.  My statement was actually 'simple'.  That simple statement carries a l

Re: content mgt for non-profits

On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 10:38, Jonathan Linowes wrote: > I would like suggestions for content managment software or online services that meet the basic needs of your typical nonprofit organization: calendar, events, announcements, feature articles, easy to update by non technical people, etc Needs to

Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

However, I think that the posting of the whois information was not only unnecessary, but completely inappropriate to the discussion. And *I* think it was entirely appropriate given the context of the discussion. Whois information is publically available - just like your voting information, prope

Re: p2p, anonymity and security

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, at 12:04am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, my first question...Is a Linksys Router doing 'firewall' duty and NAT easy to get past? Absolutely. But not through the vectors you think. Those SOHO routers are pretty simple.

Re: p2p, anonymity and security

Then why bother with the anonymity? If your sharing with your friends, then simply set up a password protected area! If the RIAA somehow charges you for that then I would think you could sue them for hacking your systems. Perhaps because he wants to share legal content with more then just the p

Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 11:01, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote: > However, I think that the posting of the whois information was not only > unnecessary, but completely inappropriate to the discussion. And *I* think it was entirely appropriate given the context of the discussion. Whois information is publi

Re: content mgt for non-profits

Jeffrey Creem wrote: I am pretty happy with geeklog (www.geeklog.com ). Once you get past the setup it can be used/maintained by fairly non-technical people. I think you meant http://www.geeklog.net. There is no geeklog.com -- Dan Jenkins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Rastech Inc.

Re: p2p, anonymity and security

Bill Mullen wrote: I have no experience with other P2P apps than BitTorrent (and no interest in them, really), but I can tell you that to get the most out of BT, you need to tell your router to forward ports 6881 through 6889 inclusive to the internal machine running BT. You also need t

WHOIS privacy (was: List Archive)

On 12 Mar 2004, at 11:01am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It does, however, bring up a good point that is currently being debated: > How public should the whois database be? A good question. > Does anyone really need to know where Derek lives? Absolutely. Derek, for starters. But I'm not so s

Re: content mgt for non-profits

Jeffrey Creem wrote: I am pretty happy with geeklog (www.geeklog.com ). Correction, it's www.geeklog.net I wanted to check it out as well :) ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinf

Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

On 12 Mar 2004, at 11:01am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have stayed out of this until now, as I don't really care all that much > about the public or private status of the GNHLUG list. If the majority of our membership wanted to come up with some kind of entrance requirement, I would facilitate

Re: content mgt for non-profits

I am pretty happy with geeklog (www.geeklog.com).   Once you get past the setup it can be used/maintained by fairly non-technical people. - Original Message - From: Jonathan Linowes To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 10:38 AM Subject: content m

Neat DNS check tool - ZoneCheck

Hello list, Travis Roy (a fellow list member) sent me a link to this tool: http://www.zonecheck.fr/ It's a DNS check tool. GPL. It will look at the DNS information for a domain name, and report on errors and sub-optimal conditions. I've seen plenty of these before, but this one is

Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

Kenneth E. Lussier wrote: On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 07:19, Travis Roy wrote: Then I suggest you look at the archives of some mailing list software mailing lists... The idea is often brought up there, for the very same reasons I brought them up here (originally). Personally, I find the notion that I

Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 07:19, Travis Roy wrote: > > Then I suggest you look at the archives of some mailing list software > > mailing lists... The idea is often brought up there, for the very > > same reasons I brought them up here (originally). Personally, I find > > the notion that I should be r

content mgt for non-profits

I would like suggestions for content managment software or online services that meet the basic needs of your typical nonprofit organization: calendar, events, announcements, feature articles, easy to update by non technical people, etc Needs to be cheap if not free.   thanks   jonathan  

Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, at 2:01pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 10:40:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > You're the only person I have ever met who thinks a publicly archived, > > publicly accessible, open-to-anyone-who-subscribes mailing list has any > > expectation of p

Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

Then I suggest you look at the archives of some mailing list software mailing lists... The idea is often brought up there, for the very same reasons I brought them up here (originally). Personally, I find the notion that I should be required to provide personally identifying information to the wh