Re: Truecrypt 4.1

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Borked Pseudo Mailed, Nov 27, 2005.

  1. nemo_outis wrote:

    > Carsten Krueger <> wrote in
    > news:1o25t3fbazblo$-fqdn.de:
    >
    >> Am 26 Nov 2005 19:37:26 GMT schrieb nemo_outis:
    >>
    >>> You really look gift horses VERY deep in the mouth, don't you?

    >>
    >> If it's crypto software, you as the author has a very big
    >> responsibility. And the simplist thing is to say: we have a problem. Not
    >> happend -> bad.
    >>
    >>>PS I look forward to frequenting the forum to discuss Truecrypt that
    >>>YOU, with your higher sense of public responsibility, will undoubtedly
    >>>soon put up.

    >>
    >> If their is a real problem, it's easy to take http://www.ezboard.com/ or
    >> something like this.
    >>
    >> greetings
    >> Carsten

    >
    >
    > You really are a consummate dunce, aren't you?
    >
    > You seem to have a strange sense of entitlement. The authors of a free
    > program have exactly ZERO duty or responsibility - least of all to you, a
    > whining parasite!


    The price one charges for a product and their liability and responsibility
    for that product are NOT synonymous nemo. Sorry. If it doesn't work as
    advertised they're liable for any damages it might cause, and that has
    nothing at all to do with how much money they make off it.

    In the case of TrueCrypt they're offering software that allegedly secures
    data. If there's some flaw that makes this software insecure and they
    DON'T make an acceptable effort to fix that flaw they're negligent. Again,
    no matter what they're charging for the product.

    This is the cross ALL software authors must bear. If you don't want to
    play the game, stay home. :)

    > And, no, the best thing is *not* to say "we have a problem," the best
    > thing is to *fix* the problem. And that is exactly what the authors did!
    > Quickly too!


    I agree. But I also see the fact that they had no choice but to address
    the problem in a timely manner. They did exactly what they had to do.
    Nothing more, nothing less.

    I don't know anything at all bout the forums thing.

    > First, you bitched that the forums were down and now, when someone
    > sarcastically puts the boots to you, you are dismissive that it is a "real
    > problem." Hell, you didn't even realize I was skewering you. What a
    > buffoon!
    >
    > Regards,
     
    Borked Pseudo Mailed, Nov 27, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    nemo_outis Guest

    Borked Pseudo Mailed <> wrote in
    news::

    ....
    >> You seem to have a strange sense of entitlement. The authors of a
    >> free program have exactly ZERO duty or responsibility - least of all
    >> to you, a whining parasite!

    >
    > The price one charges for a product and their liability and
    > responsibility for that product are NOT synonymous nemo. Sorry. If it
    > doesn't work as advertised they're liable for any damages it might
    > cause, and that has nothing at all to do with how much money they make
    > off it.
    >
    > In the case of TrueCrypt they're offering software that allegedly
    > secures data. If there's some flaw that makes this software insecure
    > and they DON'T make an acceptable effort to fix that flaw they're
    > negligent. Again, no matter what they're charging for the product.
    >
    > This is the cross ALL software authors must bear. If you don't want to
    > play the game, stay home. :)
    >



    Nope, not so. If you're interested in legal folderol you might wish to
    read the Truecrypt Licence, and, more particularly, Section IV, Disclaimer
    of Warranties and Liabilities.

    As a more practical matter, the authors are unknown, and this would make
    pursuing a claim more than a little difficult. (I speculate that they're
    also likely impecunious, too :)

    As for maintaining that the authors of a freeware program have a duty to
    update it - that is so preposterous as not to deserve further comment.

    Caveat emptor. And all the more so when the "emptor" has paid nothing. No,
    I stand by my statement: no duty and no responsibility. And I say so, not
    just regarding reasonable jurisdictions, but even for the litigious lawyer-
    infested USA.

    Regards,
     
    nemo_outis, Nov 27, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Jeremy Guest

    "Borked Pseudo Mailed" <> wrote in message
    >
    > In the case of TrueCrypt they're offering software that allegedly secures
    > data. If there's some flaw that makes this software insecure and they
    > DON'T make an acceptable effort to fix that flaw they're negligent. Again,
    > no matter what they're charging for the product.
    >


    What law school graduated YOU?

    The software was provided FREE and was offered "AS-IS," with no warranty of
    fitness. The terms were clearly spelled out in the license agreement that
    had to be accepted before the software would install itself on the users'
    computers.

    God, I can't stand it when "Ten-Cent-Lawyers" go around spouting off
    nonsense like you just did.
     
    Jeremy, Nov 28, 2005
    #3
  4. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Jeremy Guest

    "nemo_outis" <> wrote in message
    >
    > Caveat emptor. And all the more so when the "emptor" has paid nothing.
    > No,


    Well said.

    Perhaps the critic could sue to get back what he paid for it . . . :)
     
    Jeremy, Nov 28, 2005
    #4
  5. On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:15:29 GMT, Jeremy wrote:

    >> In the case of TrueCrypt they're offering software that allegedly secures
    >> data. If there's some flaw that makes this software insecure and they
    >> DON'T make an acceptable effort to fix that flaw they're negligent. Again,
    >> no matter what they're charging for the product.
    >>

    >
    > What law school graduated YOU?
    >
    > The software was provided FREE and was offered "AS-IS," with no warranty of
    > fitness. The terms were clearly spelled out in the license agreement that
    > had to be accepted before the software would install itself on the users'
    > computers.
    >
    > God, I can't stand it when "Ten-Cent-Lawyers" go around spouting off
    > nonsense like you just did.


    You can disclaim anything you want, in a USA Federal Court, you're
    disclaimer can be valued at the toilet paper level.
    --
    Drop the alphabet for email
     
    Ari Silverstein, Nov 29, 2005
    #5
  6. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    nemo_outis Guest

    Ari Silverstein <> wrote in
    news::

    > On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:15:29 GMT, Jeremy wrote:
    >
    >>> In the case of TrueCrypt they're offering software that allegedly
    >>> secures data. If there's some flaw that makes this software insecure
    >>> and they DON'T make an acceptable effort to fix that flaw they're
    >>> negligent. Again, no matter what they're charging for the product.
    >>>

    >>
    >> What law school graduated YOU?
    >>
    >> The software was provided FREE and was offered "AS-IS," with no
    >> warranty of fitness. The terms were clearly spelled out in the
    >> license agreement that had to be accepted before the software would
    >> install itself on the users' computers.
    >>
    >> God, I can't stand it when "Ten-Cent-Lawyers" go around spouting off
    >> nonsense like you just did.

    >
    > You can disclaim anything you want, in a USA Federal Court, you're
    > disclaimer can be valued at the toilet paper level.



    Can I have some of whatever you're on? It must be good stuff. Except for
    wild speculation, you have not pointed to anything that would have the
    remotest chance of standing up a a basis of claim.

    So, let me extend to you the same invitation I made to Borky: cite some
    cases - shit, any cases! - of successful suits for failing to update free
    software. Any jurisdiction - I'll even settle for Burkina Faso.

    Regards,
     
    nemo_outis, Nov 29, 2005
    #6
  7. On 29 Nov 2005 15:41:19 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:

    >> You can disclaim anything you want, in a USA Federal Court, you're
    >> disclaimer can be valued at the toilet paper level.

    >
    > Can I have some of whatever you're on? It must be good stuff. Except for
    > wild speculation, you have not pointed to anything that would have the
    > remotest chance of standing up a a basis of claim.


    Having been sued, professionally witnessed, won and lost, on such cases,
    Ill take the realities I know for the theory you purport.

    > So, let me extend to you the same invitation I made to Borky: cite some
    > cases - shit, any cases! - of successful suits for failing to update free
    > software. Any jurisdiction - I'll even settle for Burkina Faso.
    >
    > Regards,


    It's not worth the effort to attempt to dissuade folks like you who have
    delusional senses of actual court actions.
    --
    Drop the alphabet for email
     
    Ari Silverstein, Nov 29, 2005
    #7
  8. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    nemo_outis Guest

    Ari Silverstein <> wrote in
    news::

    > On 29 Nov 2005 15:41:19 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
    >
    >>> You can disclaim anything you want, in a USA Federal Court, you're
    >>> disclaimer can be valued at the toilet paper level.

    >>
    >> Can I have some of whatever you're on? It must be good stuff.
    >> Except for wild speculation, you have not pointed to anything that
    >> would have the remotest chance of standing up a a basis of claim.

    >
    > Having been sued, professionally witnessed, won and lost, on such
    > cases, Ill take the realities I know for the theory you purport.
    >
    >> So, let me extend to you the same invitation I made to Borky: cite
    >> some cases - shit, any cases! - of successful suits for failing to
    >> update free software. Any jurisdiction - I'll even settle for
    >> Burkina Faso.
    >>
    >> Regards,

    >
    > It's not worth the effort to attempt to dissuade folks like you who
    > have delusional senses of actual court actions.



    Oh, to the contrary, Ari, I'm most eager to learn. Public humiliation is a
    small price to pay to improve my understanding and correct my errors - I'm
    more than willing to pay that price.

    So since you boast above that you have "won and lost" such cases, please be
    so good as to cite them. Don't let a misplaced sense of compassion
    dissuade you - crush me with the full specific details. After all, with
    your first-hand knowledge and the cases being a matter of public record,
    you should have no problems doing so, right?

    Put up or shut up, Ari - cite the cases!

    Regards,
     
    nemo_outis, Nov 29, 2005
    #8
  9. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Jeremy Guest

    "Ari Silverstein" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:15:29 GMT, Jeremy wrote:
    >
    >>> In the case of TrueCrypt they're offering software that allegedly
    >>> secures
    >>> data. If there's some flaw that makes this software insecure and they
    >>> DON'T make an acceptable effort to fix that flaw they're negligent.
    >>> Again,
    >>> no matter what they're charging for the product.
    >>>

    >>
    >> What law school graduated YOU?
    >>
    >> The software was provided FREE and was offered "AS-IS," with no warranty
    >> of
    >> fitness. The terms were clearly spelled out in the license agreement
    >> that
    >> had to be accepted before the software would install itself on the users'
    >> computers.
    >>
    >> God, I can't stand it when "Ten-Cent-Lawyers" go around spouting off
    >> nonsense like you just did.

    >
    > You can disclaim anything you want, in a USA Federal Court, you're
    > disclaimer can be valued at the toilet paper level.
    > --
    > Drop the alphabet for email



    Have YOU ever practiced in any "USA Federal Court?" Or are you another one
    of those "Ten-Cent-Lawyers?"
     
    Jeremy, Nov 29, 2005
    #9
  10. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Jeremy Guest

    "Ari Silverstein" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 29 Nov 2005 15:41:19 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
    >
    >>> You can disclaim anything you want, in a USA Federal Court, you're
    >>> disclaimer can be valued at the toilet paper level.

    >>
    >> Can I have some of whatever you're on? It must be good stuff. Except
    >> for
    >> wild speculation, you have not pointed to anything that would have the
    >> remotest chance of standing up a a basis of claim.

    >
    > Having been sued, professionally witnessed, won and lost, on such cases,
    > Ill take the realities I know for the theory you purport.
    >
    >> So, let me extend to you the same invitation I made to Borky: cite some
    >> cases - shit, any cases! - of successful suits for failing to update free
    >> software. Any jurisdiction - I'll even settle for Burkina Faso.
    >>
    >> Regards,

    >
    > It's not worth the effort to attempt to dissuade folks like you who have
    > delusional senses of actual court actions.
    > --
    > Drop the alphabet for email


    I asked Ed Becker about this yesterday and he said it'll be a cold day in
    hell before anyone would get a cent out of the developers of TrueCrypt. Ed
    is my neighbor.
     
    Jeremy, Nov 29, 2005
    #10
  11. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    TwistyCreek Guest

    In article <>
    Borked Pseudo Mailed <> wrote:
    >
    > nemo_outis wrote:
    >
    > > Carsten Krueger <> wrote in
    > > news:1o25t3fbazblo$-fqdn.de:
    > >
    > >> Am 26 Nov 2005 19:37:26 GMT schrieb nemo_outis:
    > >>
    > >>> You really look gift horses VERY deep in the mouth, don't you?
    > >>
    > >> If it's crypto software, you as the author has a very big
    > >> responsibility. And the simplist thing is to say: we have a problem. Not
    > >> happend -> bad.
    > >>
    > >>>PS I look forward to frequenting the forum to discuss Truecrypt that
    > >>>YOU, with your higher sense of public responsibility, will undoubtedly
    > >>>soon put up.
    > >>
    > >> If their is a real problem, it's easy to take http://www.ezboard.com/ or
    > >> something like this.
    > >>
    > >> greetings
    > >> Carsten

    > >
    > >
    > > You really are a consummate dunce, aren't you?
    > >
    > > You seem to have a strange sense of entitlement. The authors of a free
    > > program have exactly ZERO duty or responsibility - least of all to you, a
    > > whining parasite!

    >
    > The price one charges for a product and their liability and responsibility
    > for that product are NOT synonymous nemo. Sorry. If it doesn't work as
    > advertised they're liable for any damages it might cause, and that has
    > nothing at all to do with how much money they make off it.


    If you're not paying me for my product then you can go piss up a
    rope.


    > In the case of TrueCrypt they're offering software that allegedly secures
    > data. If there's some flaw that makes this software insecure and they
    > DON'T make an acceptable effort to fix that flaw they're negligent. Again,
    > no matter what they're charging for the product.
    >
    > This is the cross ALL software authors must bear. If you don't want to
    > play the game, stay home. :)


    If you like it so well, then YOU live with it. As for me, If I
    charge nothing for it, then NOTHING is what I will accept in
    terms of liability. You can take your bullshit negligence
    charge and stuff it up your ass.


    > > And, no, the best thing is *not* to say "we have a problem," the best
    > > thing is to *fix* the problem. And that is exactly what the authors did!
    > > Quickly too!

    >
    > I agree. But I also see the fact that they had no choice but to address
    > the problem in a timely manner. They did exactly what they had to do.
    > Nothing more, nothing less.
    >
    > I don't know anything at all bout the forums thing.
    >
    > > First, you bitched that the forums were down and now, when someone
    > > sarcastically puts the boots to you, you are dismissive that it is a "real
    > > problem." Hell, you didn't even realize I was skewering you. What a
    > > buffoon!
    > >
    > > Regards,



    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
    The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
    is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
    than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org
    for abuse and hashcash info.
     
    TwistyCreek, Nov 30, 2005
    #11
  12. In article <Xns971D77C84718Eabcxyzcom@204.153.244.170>
    "nemo_outis" <> wrote:
    >
    > Ari Silverstein <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > On 29 Nov 2005 15:41:19 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
    > >
    > >>> You can disclaim anything you want, in a USA Federal Court, you're
    > >>> disclaimer can be valued at the toilet paper level.
    > >>
    > >> Can I have some of whatever you're on? It must be good stuff.
    > >> Except for wild speculation, you have not pointed to anything that
    > >> would have the remotest chance of standing up a a basis of claim.

    > >
    > > Having been sued, professionally witnessed, won and lost, on such
    > > cases, Ill take the realities I know for the theory you purport.
    > >
    > >> So, let me extend to you the same invitation I made to Borky: cite
    > >> some cases - shit, any cases! - of successful suits for failing to
    > >> update free software. Any jurisdiction - I'll even settle for
    > >> Burkina Faso.
    > >>
    > >> Regards,

    > >
    > > It's not worth the effort to attempt to dissuade folks like you who
    > > have delusional senses of actual court actions.

    >
    >
    > Oh, to the contrary, Ari, I'm most eager to learn. Public humiliation is a
    > small price to pay to improve my understanding and correct my errors - I'm
    > more than willing to pay that price.
    >
    > So since you boast above that you have "won and lost" such cases, please be
    > so good as to cite them. Don't let a misplaced sense of compassion
    > dissuade you - crush me with the full specific details. After all, with
    > your first-hand knowledge and the cases being a matter of public record,
    > you should have no problems doing so, right?
    >
    > Put up or shut up, Ari - cite the cases!
    >
    > Regards,


    I guess that he'll have to shut up then... since he's not a
    lawyer... he's the guru of barcode email

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
    The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
    is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
    than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org
    for abuse and hashcash info.
     
    Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer, Nov 30, 2005
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. nemo outis

    Truecrypt 3.0 has been released

    nemo outis, Dec 10, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    596
    Anonymous
    Dec 11, 2004
  2. Ari Silversteinn

    Re: Truecrypt 4 Released!

    Ari Silversteinn, Nov 2, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    550
    traveler
    Nov 2, 2005
  3. nemo_outis

    Re: Truecrypt 4.1

    nemo_outis, Nov 26, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    467
    nemo_outis
    Nov 26, 2005
  4. nemo_outis

    Re: Truecrypt 4.1

    nemo_outis, Nov 27, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    727
    Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer
    Nov 30, 2005
  5. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Re: Truecrypt 4.1

    Borked Pseudo Mailed, Nov 27, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,258
    Ari Silverstein
    Nov 29, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page