Friday, December 30, 2005
Saturday, December 17, 2005
A presidential order allowing warrantless spying on American citizens goes far beyond even the Patriot Act
Amendment IV - Search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Friday, December 09, 2005
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Monday, November 21, 2005
Monday, November 14, 2005
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Thursday, October 27, 2005
I am so sick of who is responsible for the spammers these days. It's very clear to me who is. It's the ones paying the spammers. No one in the Internet community has said a word about making the ones that pay the spammers responsible for the spam. It's like the Internet community has put these businesses on ignore. They know who is doing the spamming. Plus they can curb it if they really wanted too. Make the ones paying the spammers responsible for the spam in our in-boxes, and webmail. This is what will help to reduce the spam.
I have set up a poll for this. I wanted to see if anyone agrees or not. Go here and vote yes or no. The poll is to your right on this page:
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Friday, October 21, 2005
Thursday, October 13, 2005
US says urge to censor underlies calls for reform
The European commission is warning that if a deal cannot be reached at a meeting in Tunisia next month the internet will split apart.
At issue is the role of the US government in overseeing the internet's address structure, called the domain name system (DNS), which enables communication between the world's computers. It is managed by the California-based, not-for-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) under contract to the US department of commerce.
Read the rest here: EU says internet could fall apart
Saturday, October 08, 2005
The doctrine of first sale does not include renting and leasing phonorecords (recorded music) and computer software, although private non-profit archives and libraries are allowed to lend these items provided they include a notice that the work may be copyrighted on the copy.
US copyright case law supports that consumers cannot make copies of computer programs contrary to a license, but may resell what they own. This however is conflicting with both section 117 and 109, and the case law itself is conflicting depending on which circuit the case was heard in.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Oregon RIAA Victim Fights Back; Sues RIAA for Electronic Trespass, Violations of Computer Fraud & Abuse, Invasion of Privacy, RICO, Fraud
ATLANTIC V. ANDERSEN
Tanya Andersen, a 41 year old disabled single mother living in Oregon, has countersued the RIAA for Oregon RICO violations, fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation, the tort of "outrage", and deceptive business practices.
Ms. Andersen's counterclaims demand a trial by jury.
Ms. Andersen made the following allegations, among others:
1. For a number of years, a group of large, multinational, multi-billion dollar record companies, including these plaintiffs, have been abusing the federal court judicial
system for the purpose of waging a public relations and public threat campaign targeting digital file sharing activities. As part of this campaign, these record companies retained MediaSentry to invade private home computers and collect personal information. Based on private information allegedly extracted from these personal home computers, the record companies have reportedly filed lawsuits against more than 13,500 anonymous John Does.
2. The anonymous John Doe lawsuits are filed for the sole purpose of information farming and specifically to harvest personal internet protocol addresses from internet service providers.
3. After an individuals personal information is harvested, it is given to the record companies representatives and the anonymous John Doe information farming suits are then typically dismissed.
4. The record companies provide the personal information to Settlement Support Center, which engages in prohibited and deceptive debt collection activities and other illegal conduct to extract money from the people allegedly identified from the secret lawsuits. Most of the people subjected to these secret suits do not learn that they have been sued until demand is made for payment by the record companies lawyers or Settlement Support Center.....
5. Tanya Andersen is a 42-year-old single mother of an eight-year-old daughter living in Tualatin, Oregon. Ms. Andersen is disabled and has a limited income from Social Security.
6. Ms. Andersen has never downloaded or distributed music online. She has not infringed on any of plaintiffs alleged copyrighted interest.....
7. Ms. Andersen has, however, been the victim of the record companies public threat campaign. The threats started when the record companies falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had been an unnamed defendant who was being sued in federal court in the District of Columbia. She was never named in that lawsuit and never received service of a summons and complaint.
8. Neither did Ms. Andersen receive any timely notice that the suit even existed. That anonymous suit was filed in mid-2004. Ms. Andersen first learned that she was being sued when she received a letter dated February 2, 2005, from the Los Angeles, California, law firm Mitchell Silverberg & Knupp, LLP. The LA firm falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had downloaded music, infringed undisclosed copyrights and owed hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ms. Andersen was understandably shocked, fearful, and upset. ....
9. After receiving the February 2, 2005 letter, Ms. Andersen contacted the record companies representative, which turned out to be Settlement Support Center, LLC. This company was formed by the record companies for the sole purpose of coercing payments from people who had been identified as targets in the anonymous information farming suits. Settlement Support Center is a Washington State phone solicitation company which engages in debt collection activities across the country.
10. When Ms. Andersen contacted Settlement Support Center, she was advised that her personal home computer had been secretly entered by the record companies agents, MediaSentry.
11. Settlement Support Center also falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had been viewed by MediaSentry downloading gangster rap music at 4:24 a.m. Settlement Support Center also falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had used the login name email@example.com. Ms. Andersen does not like gangster rap, does not recognize the name gotenkito, is not awake at 4:24 a.m. and has never downloaded music.
12. Settlement Support Center threatened that if Ms. Andersen did not immediately pay them, the record companies would bring an expensive and disruptive federal lawsuit using her actual name and they would get a judgment for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
13. Ms. Andersen explained to Settlement Support Center that she had never downloaded music, she had no interest in gangster rap, and that she had no idea who gotenkito was.
14. Ms. Andersen wrote Settlement Support Center and even asked it to inspect her computer to prove that the claims made against her were false.
15. An employee of Settlement Support Center admitted to Ms. Andersen that he believed that she had not downloaded any music. He explained, however, that Settlement Support Center and the record companies would not quit their debt collection activities because to do so would encourage other people to defend themselves against the record companies claims.
16. Instead of investigating, the record company plaintiffs filed suit this against Ms. Andersen. F. The Record Companies have no Proof of Infringement.
17. Despite making false representations to Ms. Andersen that they had evidence of infringement .... plaintiffs knew that they had no factual support for their claims.
18. No downloading or distribution activity was ever actually observed. None ever occurred. Regardless, the record companies actively continued their coercive and deceptive debt collection actions against her. Ms. Andersen was falsely, recklessly, shamefully, and publicly accused of illegal activities in which she was never involved.
Ms. Andersen further alleged:
20. Entering a persons personal computer without their authorization to snoop around, steal information, or remove files is a violation of the common law prohibition against trespass to chattels.
21. The record company plaintiffs employed MediaSentry as their agent to break into Ms. Andersens personal computer (and those of tens of thousands of other people) to secretly spy on and steal information or remove files. MediaSentry did not have Ms. Andersens permission to inspect, copy, or remove private computer files. If MediaSentry accessed her private computer, it did so illegally and secretly. In fact, Ms. Andersen was unaware that the trespass occurred until well after she was anonymously sued.
22. According to the record companies, the agent, Settlement Support Center used the stolen private information allegedly removed from her home computer in their attempt to threaten and coerce Ms. Anderson into paying thousands of dollars. ....
Under the provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) it is illegal to break into another persons private computer to spy, steal or remove private information, damage property, or cause other harm.
26. Ms. Andersen regularly used her personal computer to communicate with friends and family across the country and for interstate e-commerce. Ms. Andersen had password protection and security in place to protect her computer and personal files from access by others.
27. The record company plaintiffs employed MediaSentry as their agent to bypass Ms. Andersens computer security systems and break into her personal computer to secretly spy and steal or remove private information. MediaSentry did not have her permission to inspect, copy, or remove her private computer files. It gained access secretly and illegally.
28. According to the record companies agent, Settlement Support Center, used this stolen private information in their attempt to threaten and coerce Ms. Andersen into paying thousands of dollars. ....
31. According to the record companies, Ms. Andersens personal computer was invaded by MediaSentry after she was identified with a nine digit code (an Internet Protocol Address (IPA)) obtained from the anonymous information farming lawsuits. MediaSentry did not have permission to inspect Ms. Andersens private computer files. It gained access only by illegal acts of subterfuge.
32. The record companies agent has falsely represented that information obtained in this invasive and secret manner is proof of Ms. Andersens alleged downloading. Ms. Andersen never downloaded music but has been subjected to public derision and embarrassment associated with plaintiffs claims and public relations campaign.
33. The record companies have used this derogatory, harmful information to recklessly and shamefully publicly accuse Ms. Andersen of illegal activities without even taking the opportunity offered by Ms. Andersen to inspect her computer. .....
36. Despite knowing that infringing activity was not observed, the record companies used the threat of expensive and intrusive litigation as a tool to coerce Ms. Andersen to pay many thousands of dollars for an obligation she did not owe. The record companies pursued their collection activities and this lawsuit for the primary purpose of threatening Ms. Andersen (and many others) as part of its public relations campaign targeting electronic file sharing.
37. The record companies have falsely represented and pleaded that information obtained in this invasive and secret manner is proof of Ms. Andersens alleged downloading and distribution of copyrighted audio recordings. Ms. Andersen never downloaded music but has been subjected to public derision and embarrassment.....
40. The record companies knowingly represented materially false information to Ms. Andersen in an attempt to extort money from her.
41. For example, between February and March 2005, the record companies, through their collection agent Settlement Support Center, falsely claimed that they had proof that Ms. Andersens IPA had been viewed downloading and distributing over 1,000 audio files for which it sought to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars. This statement was materially false. Ms. Andersen never downloaded or distributed any audio files nor did the record companies or any of their agents ever observe any such activity associated with her personal home computer.....
49. Despite having never observed any downloading or distribution associated with Ms. Andersens personal home computer and despite refusing Ms. Andersens offer to allow an inspection of her own computer, the record companies wrongfully continued their improper debt collection activities against her.....
50. The record companies pursued debt collection activities for the inappropriate purpose of illegally threatening Ms. Andersen and many thousands of others. This tortious abuse was motivated by and was a central part of a public relations campaign targeting electronic file sharing.
51. An employee of Settlement Support Center admitted to Ms. Andersen that he believed that she had not downloaded any music. He explained that Settlement Support Center and the record companies would not quit the debt collection activity against her because to do so would encourage other people to defend themselves against the record companies claims.
52. The record companies were aware of Ms. Andersens disabilities and her serious health issues. Settlement Support Center knew that its conduct would cause extreme distress in Ms. Andersen. As a result of defendants conduct, Ms. Andersen suffered severe physical and emotional distress and health problems.
53. The record companies conduct resulted in damages, including harm to Ms. Andersens health and property in an amount to be specifically proven at trial......
55. Oregons Unlawful Trade Practices Act prohibits those in trade or commerce from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices in the course of business with consumers. ORS 646.605 et seq.
56. The record companies agent, Settlement Support Center, is a company doing business in Washington which was established to engage in debt collection activities in manystates, including Washington and Oregon.
57. Settlement Support Center acting as the record companies agent made false and deceptive statements to Ms. Andersen in an attempt to mislead, threaten, and coerce her into paying thousands of dollars.
58. Settlement Support Center acting as the record companies agent has made similar false and deceptive statements to many other residents of Washington and Oregon, and across the country. The public interest has been and continues to be directly impacted by plaintiffs deceptive practices.
59. The record companies conduct resulted in damages and harm to Ms. Andersen and her property in an amount to be specifically proven at trial. ....
61. The Oregon Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act prohibits companies from engaging in organized racketeering or criminal activities. ORS 166.715 et seq.
62. As fully set forth above, the record companies hired MediaSentry to break into private computers to spy, view files, remove information, and copy images. The record companies received and transmitted the information and images to Settlement Support Center. As the record companies agent, Settlement Support Center then falsely claimed that the stolen information and images showed Ms. Andersens downloading and distributing over 1,000 audio files. The record companies falsely claimed that Ms. Anderson owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in an attempt to coerce and extort payment from her.
63. The record companies directed its agents to unlawfully break into private computers and engage in extreme acts of unlawful coercion, extortion, fraud, and other criminal conduct.
64. The record companies and their agents stood to financially benefit from these deceptive and unlawful acts. Proceeds from these activities are used to fund the operation of the record companies continued public threat campaigns.
65. These unlawful activities were not isolated. The record companies have repeated these unlawful and deceptive actions with many other victims throughout the United States.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
They have laws for people that break into and steal the data. But where are the laws that tell the business they "have to" protect our data by using encryption, limiting those working for them the access to our data, and punishing those that blatantly don't use, or care about how they store our information?
It is just a matter of time now that a company will go belly up because they had no remorse for the data they stored, and someone was able to get to our information they stored in their database with little or no effort on their part.
Should we wait and see if this happens? NO! This will happen. For now the larger companies with major cash flows were hit, and customers info was stolen. Some they lost data because of a con artist was able to pay for it, by a willing employee within the company. Others it was a security breech within the company's database that allowed someone to steal thousands of the customers personal records.
It's a blatant attitude of a company that uses an attitude of "I don't care" I do just what I have too, and no more. This type company will be hit in probably less than three years. Plus it will go belly up because of it. There are plenty of these type companys out there. They don't care because there are no laws in place to say they have to use every means to protect the database that stores our personal records. So they don't protect it.
There are plenty of security methods available to protect a database. So explain to me why they are not using them? Could they be that damn lazy? I have to say yes. I have heard horror stories from many people talking about how their employer doesn't care. He only wants to get to the information with the least amount of headaches.
So the consumer has to deal with the business that wants to operate with the least amount of headaches. Mean while our lively hoods are at stake. It looks as though the Government will wait again for "it" to happen. What ever happen to plan ahead? If our personal information is so important to the Government, then why wait for this to happen?
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Was Hurrican Katrina a wake up call for you?
Monday, August 29, 2005
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Monday, August 22, 2005
Friday, August 19, 2005
how this is done...
"start "run" type:
c:\windows\$NtServicePackUninstall$\spuninst\spuninst.exe Follow instructions. At least Microsoft was nice enough to give us a sp2 uninstall wizard. Thank you Microsoft!
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Yes folks I installed the SP2 today. I must admit I was impressed with the
ease of instillation process too. It is kind of slow to install, and the
download on my DSL took 40 minutes. It actually to me took longer for the
SP2 to install than it did to download.
I am so far impressed with it too. First the hoopla about not having a
choice about certain aspects of the security like the firewall and the auto
updates... I got asked if I wanted these on or off. A shield shows in the
taskbar and a click of the mouse gives you the options of what you want on
and what you want off.
I decided to turn the auto updates off, but I kept the firewall check on and
the antivirus check was left on also. I am hoping that this is added
protection incase a virus or Trojan should sneak onto my box and disable
If you install this please take the time to read the windows that pop up.
and be sure your box is clean before you even install this. Later on I will
update and let you all know if I have any problems with the SP2.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
We live in a society to where a child does not decide on what to eat by the type of the food with their meal... They decide on what to eat by the toy that comes with their meal.
We live in a society that doctors decide what drugs we will take by the perks from the company's that make them.
Consumers choose prescription medicines by which of the drug companies can put out the most TV ads in one month.
Poverty is still acceptable because if it werent, no one in the USA would be living in poverty.
It's still ok and acceptable for our elderly and children to do without needed medical. Because if it wasn't acceptable then at least the richest Nation in the world could afford to take care of their own Nation's medical needs.
Our nation eats the most filler, preservatives, and processed food of any other nation.
It was shown that when the USA fast foods became available to other nations, along with the processed foods. Their people started having and showing signs of more diabetes, heart problems, obesity, etc.http://modelminority.com/printout865.html Yes some of these countrys spoil their children because they are a one child family mandated by their country. But clearly it has been noticed that more health problems have cropped up since fast food, and other quick to prepare foods have made it to the western markets, and drive through. Do your own research on this. I am not sure if you could call this a cover up by the USA. Not when this is in the news all the time. Some claim it is, and you just don't see it. If you ever wanted to find out how they affect you... then eliminate these foods from your diet, give yourself three months, and don't forget to use those scales before and after. Then decide if your health is better or not, and your family's. Another thing to note if you try this is to remember the word "Moderation".
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Sunday, June 05, 2005
OH! and Homeland Security Department if you really care alot for your fellow Americans who helped you get that job. The least you could do is give us all the same type of security protection that you have. Not like you will listen to us when we say your making a big mistake with that chip. But you can't honestly say that no one will be able to pick up that signal or not. You don' know, and even if they can't today, you should at least be honest enough with the public, and let them know that tomorrow someone will have a device built just for those chips, and every person that they get info from will be at risk. The question is "Will it be just a few, or a few thousand, or more?" This contactless chip technology is no different than the computer you have in your office and someone out there is getting all happy just thinking about hacking it. It wont be just a few hundred or a few thousand either. Just visit your nearest airport, and see if you can get a good idea of the ones coming and going. So many of those have a passport on them, now multiply this ten fold. Because this wont be in one general area it will be a multitude of areas, and sure wont be very easy to catch. Bye the time you find out the damage is already done. You are at great risk if you feel otherwise.
RFID Cards Get Spin Treatment