Recommended Posts
Loonix 0
QuoteQuoteBut there's a limit as to how far you can go to protect someone. If a warning saying "This link can contain a computer virus, you must NOT click it unless you are 100% sure of what you are doing" does not help, well then you have done all you could.
Even a bad lawyer could make a good case that you have not done all that you could.
I have seen this with my own two eyes.
If you really understood the current legal climate, you would understand why it has become necessary to do such things.
I admit I have little knowledge about american legal system. But after being warned that the link probably is harmful, well screw that, *click*. Now you must either download a virus and install it YOURSELF (no, clicking a link does not install any virus), OR you must be running an OS without antivirus, firewall, and not having updated your OS (which happens automatically, for most). When people still manages to get viruses, I think it calls for educating the users, since that quite obviously is what is needed. Viruses will always be there.
And if this is such an easy case for a lawyer, why haven't I heard about any lawsuits about it?
QuoteDo me a favor. Write to MSN, and ask them what's going on. A lot of this is speculative, so why don't you try for an answer from the horse's mouth before you get your knickers in a knot?
I think I will do that. I posted here because I wanted to hear peoples opinions about it.
PhreeZone 20
Actually clicking a properly crafted link can result in a web browser being opened that is pointing directly to the infecting code with out the user needing to "install" anything. This is how a lot of Scumware manages to get installed. for example download.php@25.21.252.11\eicar.js can force the browser to open and instantly redirect to the JavaScript virus. (i'm not positive on the exact syntax, but its fairly close to that)
Call your ISP and the ISP of all your friends too to complain also. I know for a fact that a number of very large ISP's have devices that strip viruses and even entire emails that have viruses on them to prevent them from getting to the reciepents. Quite a few are even putting in spam management devices to minimize the amount of excess traffic that has to be carried over their lines. Is blocking those viruses censorship? Its the same exact thing.
I can sit here and send the EICAR virus to you and even though it is totally benign, it will get stripped via my ISP and possibly yours too. In the situation of an email and how easy it is to spoof emails you do not want to notify the reciepent and the sender since there is a good chance the "sender" is not really the infectded machine. The Reciepent doesn't need to be notified since masking techniques may be routing it to hundreds of addresses at the same time. Why send out all that traffic if its not needed?
The list is not "secret", you just need to know where to go look at. Its not a flashing list that appears as you start MSN, is that what you want?
Call your ISP and the ISP of all your friends too to complain also. I know for a fact that a number of very large ISP's have devices that strip viruses and even entire emails that have viruses on them to prevent them from getting to the reciepents. Quite a few are even putting in spam management devices to minimize the amount of excess traffic that has to be carried over their lines. Is blocking those viruses censorship? Its the same exact thing.
I can sit here and send the EICAR virus to you and even though it is totally benign, it will get stripped via my ISP and possibly yours too. In the situation of an email and how easy it is to spoof emails you do not want to notify the reciepent and the sender since there is a good chance the "sender" is not really the infectded machine. The Reciepent doesn't need to be notified since masking techniques may be routing it to hundreds of addresses at the same time. Why send out all that traffic if its not needed?
The list is not "secret", you just need to know where to go look at. Its not a flashing list that appears as you start MSN, is that what you want?
Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery
Parachutemanuals.com
And tomorrow is a mystery
Parachutemanuals.com
Loonix 0
QuoteActually clicking a properly crafted link can result in a web browser being opened that is pointing directly to the infecting code with out the user needing to "install" anything. This is how a lot of Scumware manages to get installed. for example download.php@25.21.252.11\eicar.js can force the browser to open and instantly redirect to the JavaScript virus. (i'm not positive on the exact syntax, but its fairly close to that)
Wrong. If that was the case, we'd see ALOT more viruses than we do
QuoteCall your ISP and the ISP of all your friends too to complain also. I know for a fact that a number of very large ISP's have devices that strip viruses and even entire emails that have viruses on them to prevent them from getting to the reciepents. Quite a few are even putting in spam management devices to minimize the amount of excess traffic that has to be carried over their lines. Is blocking those viruses censorship? Its the same exact thing.
Again, pure text sent via IM is NOT the same as actual viruses. That said, I'd like to be able to customize my filter at the ISP, as in getting notified if a mail was blocked.
QuoteI can sit here and send the EICAR virus to you and even though it is totally benign, it will get stripped via my ISP and possibly yours too. In the situation of an email and how easy it is to spoof emails you do not want to notify the reciepent and the sender since there is a good chance the "sender" is not really the infectded machine. The Reciepent doesn't need to be notified since masking techniques may be routing it to hundreds of addresses at the same time. Why send out all that traffic if its not needed?
But if someone is on your MSN contact list, chances are they are not spoofed. I don't even know if it is possible. And please stop comparing text to executable code. They are very different.
QuoteThe list is not "secret", you just need to know where to go look at. Its not a flashing list that appears as you start MSN, is that what you want?
Please give me a link to this list. In the last days, me, nor journalists who has made articles about this, has found such a list. In fact, when they asked microsoft about it, guess what.. it was "secret".
misaltas 0
QuoteI find it disturbing how easily people brush off censorship just because it's "so-and-so's rules" of the house.
good for you.
QuoteIt's not "not censorship" just because you're using someone's network.
yes it is, not, that is.
QuoteThink about it: would you accept the notion of Bellsouth using computers to bleep out certain words you said on the telephone just because it's their lines?
I'm not a lawyer. I expect phone lines in the US are covered by laws preventing that.
MSN isn't keeping me from privately talking to my friend, they're setting limits on what I can do on their system.
QuoteAnd if they had never even told you they were going to do it.
And most people click through software license agreements without reading them. I'll put you into that group then.
Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts
misaltas 0
Quote"the internet, being what it is...."
Yes. The internet being what it is. That's exactly what I'm saying.
QuoteCan't wait to hear you say that when we're talking about your favorite newspaper doing the same.
A newspaper reporter interviews me, they decide what statements are in, what's out, what to mis-emphasize, what to take out of context. Is that censorship too?
If the government clamps on a newspaper that's one thing, but your comment misses the mark.
You don't like MSN Messenger, don't use it. What would you say if the IM utility in question was open source? Would that be the same or different?
Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts
QuoteAnd if this is such an easy case for a lawyer, why haven't I heard about any lawsuits about it?
I didn't say it was an easy case. I said even a bad lawyer could make a good case (meaning argument) that you have not done all you could.
However, the question you ask can be answered just as easily. The internet remains a very new area of the law, and the legal professionals are still working out the kinks.
A few years ago, we were all betting that no one would ever be stupid enough to try to make a case for libel on the 'net, but it has happened and will continue to happen.
http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/topics/defamation_cda.cfm
Software liability and service provider liability issues are being discussed even as I write. I'm not certain if there have been any cases, but there will be. Here's a taste:
http://www.geinsurancesolutions.com/erccorporate/theinstitute/pc/inst_ind_prof_isl.htm
rl
If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb
Loonix 0
alright, I still won't pretend to know anything about the legal system of the USA. But IF MSN could get in trouble because a user installed a virus because someone sent him/her the link over MSN chat protocol, then the legal system has a big problem, in my opinion.
My following arguments would mean repeating myself, so.. I'll leave it at that.
My following arguments would mean repeating myself, so.. I'll leave it at that.
Loonix 0
so lets rephrase your original statement:
By this analogy, we now have something like "since the internet can pose a threat, lets force filters on our users, and not even let them choose to turn them off, nor notify them when our filters censors something"
What I wanted to know was basically if people are ok with this, and... I guess most people are.
Personally I prefer the freedom to choose. And as you've pointed out, I do have that freedom, I'll choose another IM protocol, of course. It still worries me that people generally accept this kind of behaviour from the company behind the by far largest IM network.
There's a limit to how far you can stretch the analogy. If you sent them an article, and they removed crucial parts of it and printed it.. I'd have a problem with that.
Read my initial post again. This goes without saying.
same.
I should add that if you use another client than microsofts messenger, you will be notified that your message could not be delivered. The censorship happens on an msn server, not in the client.
QuoteThe internet being what it is, could be a security issue MSN is figuring out how to deal with.
By this analogy, we now have something like "since the internet can pose a threat, lets force filters on our users, and not even let them choose to turn them off, nor notify them when our filters censors something"
What I wanted to know was basically if people are ok with this, and... I guess most people are.
Personally I prefer the freedom to choose. And as you've pointed out, I do have that freedom, I'll choose another IM protocol, of course. It still worries me that people generally accept this kind of behaviour from the company behind the by far largest IM network.
QuoteA newspaper reporter interviews me, they decide what statements are in, what's out, what to mis-emphasize, what to take out of context. Is that censorship too?
There's a limit to how far you can stretch the analogy. If you sent them an article, and they removed crucial parts of it and printed it.. I'd have a problem with that.
QuoteYou don't like MSN Messenger, don't use it.
Read my initial post again. This goes without saying.
QuoteWhat would you say if the IM utility in question was open source? Would that be the same or different?
same.
I should add that if you use another client than microsofts messenger, you will be notified that your message could not be delivered. The censorship happens on an msn server, not in the client.
Quotealright, I still won't pretend to know anything about the legal system of the USA. But IF MSN could get in trouble because a user installed a virus because someone sent him/her the link over MSN chat protocol, then the legal system has a big problem, in my opinion.
The legal system has a lot of problems, but saying that doesn't solve the problem. Neither does ignoring the consequences of failing to limit one's liability.
Microsoft's choice is to accomodate its users or to protect itself from litigation. Which would you choose?
rl
If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb
misaltas 0
From the MSN Messenger Terms of Use
I bet MS uses their interpretation of "(3)" below to mean whatever they want it to mean:
However, we may monitor your communications and disclose information about you, including the content of your communications, if we consider it necessary to: (1) comply with the law or to respond to legal process; (2) ensure your compliance with this contract; or (3) protect the rights, property, or interests of Microsoft, its employees, its customers, or the public.
And then again, not a lawyer here, but the section below seems to mean that MS will continue monitoring your messages this way until the law tells them not to:
All parts of this contract apply to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law. A court may hold that a part of this contract cannot be enforced as it is written. If this happens, then that part will be replaced by terms that most closely match the intent of the part that cannot be enforced.
And if someone says "who reads this stuff, no one", ok, but on the other hand, no one can say they weren't told.
I bet MS uses their interpretation of "(3)" below to mean whatever they want it to mean:
However, we may monitor your communications and disclose information about you, including the content of your communications, if we consider it necessary to: (1) comply with the law or to respond to legal process; (2) ensure your compliance with this contract; or (3) protect the rights, property, or interests of Microsoft, its employees, its customers, or the public.
And then again, not a lawyer here, but the section below seems to mean that MS will continue monitoring your messages this way until the law tells them not to:
All parts of this contract apply to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law. A court may hold that a part of this contract cannot be enforced as it is written. If this happens, then that part will be replaced by terms that most closely match the intent of the part that cannot be enforced.
And if someone says "who reads this stuff, no one", ok, but on the other hand, no one can say they weren't told.
Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts
Loonix 0
misaltas, RhondaLea:
I know that microsoft has their right to do this, and from a business perspective, they may even be WISE to do so. But their right to do it was not my point. I asked if it is "right" to do it. Do you "like" that they do it. I guess I should do a poll on peoples opinions, but I'm really done with the topic. I wasn't made for speakers corner, I think.
I know that microsoft has their right to do this, and from a business perspective, they may even be WISE to do so. But their right to do it was not my point. I asked if it is "right" to do it. Do you "like" that they do it. I guess I should do a poll on peoples opinions, but I'm really done with the topic. I wasn't made for speakers corner, I think.
Erroll 80
Quote......was not my point.
....... I wasn't made for speakers corner, I think.
You will be hard pressed to find many threads on SC where the original poster's actual topic gets discussed for more than a few posts. This post of mine is a case in point.
Ps. Somewhere on these forums you will find a list of the typical participants in an Internet discussion - it is very funny but also quite accurate.
mnealtx 0
Quotemisaltas, RhondaLea:
I know that microsoft has their right to do this, and from a business perspective, they may even be WISE to do so. But their right to do it was not my point. I asked if it is "right" to do it. Do you "like" that they do it. I guess I should do a poll on peoples opinions, but I'm really done with the topic. I wasn't made for speakers corner, I think.
The problem is that Microsoft is NOT the government - they can do pretty much what they like with THEIR product. While it is provided to the public, it is NOT public property - just like DZ.com.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Loonix 0
QuoteQuotemisaltas, RhondaLea:
I know that microsoft has their right to do this, and from a business perspective, they may even be WISE to do so. But their right to do it was not my point. I asked if it is "right" to do it. Do you "like" that they do it. I guess I should do a poll on peoples opinions, but I'm really done with the topic. I wasn't made for speakers corner, I think.
The problem is that Microsoft is NOT the government - they can do pretty much what they like with THEIR product. While it is provided to the public, it is NOT public property - just like DZ.com.
You should probably read the rest of the thread before replying...
Even a bad lawyer could make a good case that you have not done all that you could.
I have seen this with my own two eyes.
If you really understood the current legal climate, you would understand why it has become necessary to do such things.
Do me a favor. Write to MSN, and ask them what's going on. A lot of this is speculative, so why don't you try for an answer from the horse's mouth before you get your knickers in a knot?
rl
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites