On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, timetrap wrote:
2600 just posted there own statement on the wikileaks ddos:
http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/12037
IMHO the issue we should have jumped on: the DHS/ICE confiscation of DNS
names from the 70 web sites during the Thanksgiving holiday.
Did ICANN just hand
2600 just posted there own statement on the wikileaks ddos:
http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/12037
IMHO the issue we should have jumped on: the DHS/ICE confiscation of DNS
names from the 70 web sites during the Thanksgiving holiday.
Did ICANN just hand them over with out so much as court ord
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Quoth Chris Palmer [12/13/2010 11:52 AM] :
> However, they're not wasting their breath. What that rhetoric does do
> is stoke anger, and fear, and build political will to try to create an
> Official Secrets Act in the United States. That's something
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Chris Palmer wrote:
> The US does have the Espionage Act, which has been very rarely used. It
> explicitly applies to interference with military matters, such as the
> draft, during a time of war. The Pentagon Papers, and perhaps the
> Afghanistan leaks, would fall ambiguousl
On Dec 12, 2010, at 3:02 AM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> This is the complication here. Clearly, somebody violated a law in
> leaking the documents. Doesn't matter who.
>
> *everyone* in possession of said leaks after the fact is an "accessory
> after the fact". Too bad: that's the way the ru
On Dec 11, 2010, at 7:02 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> Ergo, Wikileaks is criminal.
Why? They make a claim to be a journalistic endeavor just like the NYTimes, and
we don't register "journalists" in any way, really, so they've got every right
to make that claim. And once they get that "journa
> "Matt" == Matt Simmons writes:
Matt> I'm not disagreeing with any of your assertions, but if Wikileaks
Matt> received the leaked material from an informant, and didn't steal it
Matt> themselves, wouldn't the "greater public good" be a possible defense
Matt> for them?
Possible defense yes,
Randal,
I'm not disagreeing with any of your assertions, but if Wikileaks
received the leaked material from an informant, and didn't steal it
themselves, wouldn't the "greater public good" be a possible defense
for them?
--Matt
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Randal L. Schwartz
wrote:
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/11/10 21:02 , Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>> "Brandon" == Brandon S Allbery KF8NH writes:
>>> Amigo, neither of us is a lawyer or plays one on TV, but I'd
>>> appreciate if you can show me the SCOTUS case law you allege
>>> exists. I don't thi
> "Brandon" == Brandon S Allbery KF8NH writes:
>> Amigo, neither of us is a lawyer or plays one on TV, but I'd
>> appreciate if you can show me the SCOTUS case law you allege
>> exists. I don't think there's a Woody Allen or "journalistic intent"
>> clause that says if Derek steals a classifi
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote:
> On 12/9/10 16:42 , unix_fan wrote:
>> Amigo, neither of us is a lawyer or plays one on TV, but I'd appreciate if
>> you
>> can show me the SCOTUS case law you allege exists. I don't think there's a
>> Woody
>> Allen or "journalistic intent" c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/9/10 16:42 , unix_fan wrote:
> Amigo, neither of us is a lawyer or plays one on TV, but I'd appreciate if
> you
> can show me the SCOTUS case law you allege exists. I don't think there's a
> Woody
> Allen or "journalistic intent" clause that
2600 just posted there own statement on the wikileaks ddos:
http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/12037
IMHO the issue we should have jumped on: the DHS/ICE confiscation of DNS
names from the 70 web sites during the Thanksgiving holiday.
Did ICANN just hand them over with out so much as court ord
(Sorry...just noticed that I only replied back to Matt with this
instead of the whole list[s]...)
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 22:19, Matt Simmons
wrote:
> ...
> We should have media statements ready, identifying typical
> responsibilities (as non-technical and as abstract as possible, like
> 'reliably
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 6:30 PM, wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2010, Derek J. Balling wrote:
>
> > On Dec 9, 2010, at 3:01 PM, da...@lang.hm wrote:
> >> the problem with this is that even though the data has been leaked, that
> >> doesn't mean that it's public domain data. Hosting the data and passing
>
da...@lang.hm writes:
> the problem with this is that even though the data has been leaked, that
> doesn't mean that it's public domain data. Hosting the data and passing it
> on is (or at least has the flavor of) 'trafficing in stolden merchandise'
>
> What makes leaded data 'Ok' to host and p
All,
While, I'm not sure this is the ideal issue for us to take a stand on,
there are definitely times where we do need to get into the public
eye.
I think the perfect kind of public event for LOPSA to be of service to
the public would be the likes of a Terry Childs-type occurance. 99% of
people
If LOPSA is not going to ever state opinions as an orginization (and I
agree that we do not have a good process to do so now), what are we beyond
a club of people with similar interests? Why should we have paied
membership and not just be a bunch of mailing lists?
Even if all we intend to do i
I find myself in agreement with John and Ross. And I think think
there is a wide gulf between what most members think LOPSA _should_ be
(and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone's ideas of what LOPSA
_should_ be), and what LOPSA actually is. (And I hope this is not
going to start a flame w
A lot of the concern I've seen is how wikileaks ( and in some cases other
organisations associated with wikileaks) was terminated by it's providers
such as Amazon, Paypal and Mastercard.
It appears that in some cases they we're leaned on by the US Govt and
invoked the "close your account with
On 12/09/2010 12:23 PM, Arthur Gaer wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2010, at 5:03 PM, Riley McIntire wrote:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States
>>
>> I have not read the article above but am aware of the ruling. The
>> extent and applicability of it to wikileaks is currently di
On Dec 9, 2010, at 5:03 PM, Riley McIntire wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States
>
> I have not read the article above but am aware of the ruling. The
> extent and applicability of it to wikileaks is currently disputed by
> the US.
>
> Riley
Of course it'
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 1:42 PM, unix_fan wrote:
> Derek J. Balling asserts:
>> Legally speaking, once it's been released by an organization purporting to
>> be
>>of "journalistic intent", the SCOTUS case-law protects that release of data
>>into the wild. And once it's in the wild "legally"
On Dec 9, 2010, at 4:42 PM, unix_fan wrote:
> Amigo, neither of us is a lawyer or plays one on TV, but I'd appreciate if
> you
> can show me the SCOTUS case law you allege exists. I don't think there's a
> Woody
> Allen or "journalistic intent" clause that says if Derek steals a classified
>
I enjoy a lively civil discussion.
Derek J. Balling asserts:
> On Dec 9, 2010, at 3:01 PM, da...@lang.hm wrote:
> > the problem with this is that even though the data has been leaked, that
> > doesn't mean that it's public domain data. Hosting the data and passing it
> > on is (or at least
On Dec 9, 2010, at 3:01 PM, da...@lang.hm wrote:
> the problem with this is that even though the data has been leaked, that
> doesn't mean that it's public domain data. Hosting the data and passing it
> on is (or at least has the flavor of) 'trafficing in stolden merchandise'
>
> What makes lea
On Thu, 9 Dec 2010, Derek J. Balling wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2010, at 3:01 PM, da...@lang.hm wrote:
>> the problem with this is that even though the data has been leaked, that
>> doesn't mean that it's public domain data. Hosting the data and passing it
>> on is (or at least has the flavor of) 'traffic
On Dec 9, 2010, at 3:01 PM, da...@lang.hm wrote:
> the problem with this is that even though the data has been leaked, that
> doesn't mean that it's public domain data. Hosting the data and passing it
> on is (or at least has the flavor of) 'trafficing in stolden merchandise'
>
> What makes lea
>
> But if we're talking about from the "initial leak" perspective, this ethical
> line is still not a "supreme law". If I came across, in the course of my
> duties, evidence that my company is behaving in an illegal manner, for
> example, there becomes an interesting legal and ethical debate a
sorry for breaking the threading, I was going to stay out of this, but
something that was posted has been nagging at me.
someone commented that the problem was just the initial breech, after that
it's just data to be served.
the problem with this is that even though the data has been leaked, th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Quoth John Jasen [12/09/2010 08:15 PM] :
> I think, on a professional level, that LOPSA should just sit on the
> sidelines and watch.
While you're sitting on the sidelines watching I would point out (to
those not already on NANOG) that this Wikileaks
> Our Code of Ethics - a differentiator between our group and others -
> provides guidance. https://lopsa.org/CodeOfEthics
Does it really? Other than from groups like "Anonymous" - which are
not sysadmins - I don't know who you'd compare Lopsa to.
Also there's not much differentiation from the c
On 12/09/2010 12:29 PM, unix_fan wrote:
> Yes, I am going to stir this particular pot.
I think, on a professional level, that LOPSA should just sit on the
sidelines and watch.
Actively participating in a highly divided public debate is usually a
good way to get X% of the population to regard you
Understand in advance that I am playing devil's advocate here for a moment.
On Dec 9, 2010, at 12:29 PM, unix_fan wrote:
> Independent of *personal* opinions on the legality of the Wikilieaks
> disclosures, I believe the Code of Ethics speaks on point:
> "Privacy
> I will access private i
2. Not engage in a DDOS against another site
Again, you'd probably be doing this regardless, as part of things like "keeping
your users' computers free from viruses and such."
There's an interesting edge case in the LOIC ("Low Orbit Ion Cannon," software
that someone on 4chan whipped up that le
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 11:29, unix_fan wrote:
> Yes, I am going to stir this particular pot.
>
Looks tasty!
> "Privacy
> I will access private information on computer systems only when it is
> necessary in the course of my technical duties.
>
>From an operational standpoint, this pr
Yes, I am going to stir this particular pot.
With Wikilieaks in the news, and likely to continue for weeks, I think there is
an opportunity for LOPSA to get on the map a bit more. We've had discussions in
the past about issuing timely press releases. This is a glaring opportunity to
do so. Our
37 matches
Mail list logo
