Re: Truecrypt 4.1

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Borked Pseudo Mailed, Nov 29, 2005.

  1. nemo_outis wrote:

    > 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.


    ROTFL!

    And your whole "True Crypt fixed a problem for no reason at all" argument
    is anything but your big mouth running exactly HOW nemo?

    >
    > 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.


    I suggest you look up and study the Uniform Computer Information
    Transaction Act. See if you can pull your head out of your little self
    impressed cloud long enough to find the passages on free software and how
    it's NOT exempt from liability for defects. This might save you from
    looking so much like a clueless luzer in the future.

    No charge for the LART. Sorry I didn't bring you up to speed a bit sooner.
     
    Borked Pseudo Mailed, Nov 29, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    nemo_outis Guest

    Borked Pseudo Mailed <> wrote in
    news::

    > And your whole "True Crypt fixed a problem for no reason at all"
    > argument is anything but your big mouth running exactly HOW nemo?



    What a mendacious little prick you are! I have never said:

    1) that Truecrypt "fixed" anything. No, I said the authors issued an
    enhanced version, implementing LRW ahead of virtually all other
    commercial and non-commercial encryption programs. Some "fix"!

    2) that Truecrypt 4.1 was issued for "no reason at all." No, I said
    rather that the authors had *no legal obligation* to issue Truecrypt 4.1.

    But I understand your desperation and frustration. Having had all your
    arguments thoroughly demolished by me, you must now resort to
    unadulterated bullshit without even a pretence of rationality.



    >> 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.

    >
    > I suggest you look up and study the Uniform Computer Information
    > Transaction Act. See if you can pull your head out of your little self
    > impressed cloud long enough to find the passages on free software and
    > how it's NOT exempt from liability for defects. This might save you
    > from looking so much like a clueless luzer in the future.
    >
    > No charge for the LART. Sorry I didn't bring you up to speed a bit
    > sooner.




    Again, what a mendacious little prick you are! And an incompetent one
    too! This is the best you can do?

    Your much-hyped "Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act" is not a
    federal act or anything of the kind. It is NOT part of the UCC! No, it
    is merely a *proposed* model act for *states* to enact *if they so
    choose.* It has been much criticised as badly conceived and badly
    drafted. It has had minimal impact since it was first proposed in 1999,
    having been adopted only by Virginia and Maryland (those hotbeds of
    software development). IOW it has largely been a dead-end failure! You
    know - like you!

    I'm not going to crawl through its 120 pages or so of dense legalese.
    It's your cite - you point to what you allege are the applicable parts.
    And if they're *applicable,* cite some cases where they were actually
    *applied.* IOW put up or shut up, Borky!

    So, if you think it somehow establishes liability for authors of free
    software, I invite you once again to cite any successful successful suits
    brought under it for failure to update a free program. Must be lots of
    them, right? (unless you wish to say that there have been no cases
    because free software never has bugs). So cite a few cases, Borky!

    How would you like to weasel away from my challenge, dimwit? Or,
    perhaps, you will once more just duck it without comment?

    Regards,
     
    nemo_outis, Nov 29, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Winged Guest

    Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
    > nemo_outis wrote:
    >
    >
    >>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.

    >
    >
    > ROTFL!
    >
    > And your whole "True Crypt fixed a problem for no reason at all" argument
    > is anything but your big mouth running exactly HOW nemo?
    >
    >
    >>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.

    >
    >
    > I suggest you look up and study the Uniform Computer Information
    > Transaction Act. See if you can pull your head out of your little self
    > impressed cloud long enough to find the passages on free software and how
    > it's NOT exempt from liability for defects. This might save you from
    > looking so much like a clueless luzer in the future.
    >
    > No charge for the LART. Sorry I didn't bring you up to speed a bit sooner.
    >

    Actually this Act applies to commercial transactions or transactions
    where trade occurs. Since the software was free, no trade occurs so no
    provision of this act applies...see section 302.

    I concur with Nemo that in my last 25 years of exp I fail to recollect
    any case where any freeware vendor had been held liable in any court
    except for virus and malware writers.

    This act which I had been blissfully ignorant of, basically takes all
    rights that a consumer might have and gives them to the vendor. It is
    evil in its definition and does not expand consumer rights and is not a
    consumers friend.
    This proposed act does not appear to have passed in tact by any state
    legislature I could find in spite of high level lobby by industry in
    many states. Perhaps I did not look far enough, but I did not find
    where this proposed act was ratified in any state. I did see where they
    were trying to sneak it in for federal consideration, but it is a snake
    oil citation that does not apply. But the act itself was interesting
    reading.

    If I were a software writer selling software...I would want this law as
    it expands my protections.

    Must be that crack thing using this as a citation.

    Winged
     
    Winged, Nov 30, 2005
    #3
    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:
    606
    Anonymous
    Dec 11, 2004
  2. Ari Silversteinn

    Re: Truecrypt 4 Released!

    Ari Silversteinn, Nov 2, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    557
    traveler
    Nov 2, 2005
  3. nemo_outis

    Re: Truecrypt 4.1

    nemo_outis, Nov 26, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    473
    nemo_outis
    Nov 26, 2005
  4. nemo_outis

    Re: Truecrypt 4.1

    nemo_outis, Nov 27, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    735
    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:
    1,284
    Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer
    Nov 30, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page