Free software firewalls I have never heard of before

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Franklin, Sep 7, 2005.

  1. Franklin

    David Guest

    It is still illegal to steal it. Sounds to me like your head is the
    brick wall.
     
    David, Sep 18, 2005
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Franklin

    nemo_outis Guest


    Although I'm sure you're enjoying your moral posturing immensely, you might
    want to pause, however briefly, to try something that is obviously
    unfamiliar to you: thinking.

    We are not discussing theft but rather infringement of intellectual
    property laws, such as copyright and licences. Different history,
    different laws, and different political, social, and economic issues.

    Sorry to have interrupted you - feel free to climb back on your high horse.

    Regards,
     
    nemo_outis, Sep 18, 2005
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Franklin

    Notan Guest

    Freddie seems to think that, because he can't put his little fingers on
    the software code, it's intangible and, therefore, available at no cost.

    Throw around whatever legalese you'd like, it's still stealing.

    Notan
     
    Notan, Sep 18, 2005
    #43
  4. Franklin

    nemo_outis Guest


    Feel free to bury your head as deeply in the sand as you wish, while
    jamming your fingers in your ears, and humming loudly. While that will
    prevent you hearing uncomfortable truths, it will not change their nature.
    No amount of your disdain for clear thought and careful distinctions
    detracts from those important things but rather, to the contrary, it
    indicts you as either a sloppy thinker or one unwilling to think at all.

    So, no, it isn't stealing. While I agree it is unlawful in many
    jurisdictions, it is an activity of a considerably different character.

    Regards,

    PS To fill the lacuna (or should that be chasm?) in your knowledge you
    might want to start your investigations of intellectual property with the
    history of the scriveners' guild - or even further back with the abbot's
    psalter.

    But you needn't go to all that trouble. The nice thing about your approach
    of moralistic ranting is that there needn't be any foundation of knowledge
    or understanding to support it. Very convenient for the intellectually
    lazy or inept.



    ,
     
    nemo_outis, Sep 18, 2005
    #44
  5. Franklin

    Notan Guest

    I've read some of your previous posts and, you're correct. There's no point
    in discussing this topic, any further.

    If you haven't, already, you really should consider politics as a profession.

    NOtan
     
    Notan, Sep 18, 2005
    #45
  6. Franklin

    nemo_outis Guest

    ....snip...

    Professions that a person of your intellectual calibre should consider
    include doorstop, paperweight, and boat anchor.

    Regards,
     
    nemo_outis, Sep 18, 2005
    #46
  7. Franklin

    Winged Guest

    You read those licenses? You don't own anything.

    Winged
     
    Winged, Sep 18, 2005
    #47
  8. Franklin

    Notan Guest

    I'm aware that the consumer doesn't "own" the software,
    he/she merely purchases the right to use it.

    Notan
     
    Notan, Sep 18, 2005
    #48
  9. Franklin

    David Guest

    Pardon me. Theft of intellectual property. Happy now?
    Whatever you call it, it is still theft and it is still illegal.
     
    David, Sep 18, 2005
    #49
  10. Franklin

    Notan Guest

    Don't let him upset you.

    Daddy obviously got his money's worth, sending nemo to a school which
    put a high priority on the value of multisyllabic doublespeak.

    Nemo's no more honest than Freddy... He just has a larger vocabulary.

    Notan
     
    Notan, Sep 18, 2005
    #50
  11. Franklin

    nemo_outis Guest



    Oh dear, I should charge for having to teach. Especially such a
    recalcitrant and unpromising pupil.

    No, m'boy, it is not theft. "Intellectual property," to use the term
    much in vogue, is an analogy, not an accurate description. It is
    tendentious to the point of begging the question to call it property even
    when it is preceded by the qualifier "intellectual." However, the ploy
    clearly works very well to deceive the weak-minded, like you!

    Copyright, trade marks, patents, and related matters actually share very
    little in common with what has been historically meant by property. And,
    corrspondingly, the term "theft" is a very poor one for infringements
    regarding such matters (although, once again, the attempt to deceive the
    weak-minded has apparently been quite successful.)

    You, like so many mouthbreathers, have been misled by someone pre-empting
    and promoting a biased terminology in lieu of making an argument.

    Theft is more precisely called "larceny" in most (common-law)
    jurisdictions and, simplifying somewhat, it is characterized by the
    taking away of moveable property depriving the owner of it. For
    instance, you cannot commit "theft" (larceny) of what is historically and
    economically the most important kind of property: real property (e.g.,
    land). And then there is "conversion" as opposed to, or as an element
    of, larceny, and on and on...

    Moreover (and, once again, qualifications are required that there may be
    differences between jurisdictions) there is no larceny if the property is
    taken away under a claim of right - and here's the kicker! - even if that
    claim is not well-founded!

    Moreover (although statute law may say differently in some jurisdictions)
    an infringement of copyright is generally a tortious act, not a criminal
    one. (In contradistinction, the acts constituting "theft" usually result
    in both a civil and a criminal wrong.)

    I could go on - I have only scratched the surface - but I already fear I
    may be responsible for making your head burst from too much information
    entering at once into that dusty disused attic.

    Regards,

    PS As just one concrete illustration, patents are fundamentally a
    *privilege* granted by the state primarily to secure the common weal by
    encouraging the invention and subsequent production of useful things.
    Their primary purpose is public benefit, not individual enrichment.
    That, at least, is the prevalent legal theory. For instance, in many
    countries, patents may carry obligations as well as rights, such as the
    obligation to either manufacture or grant licences to others to
    manufacture.
     
    nemo_outis, Sep 19, 2005
    #51
  12. Nice theory, but it doesn't hold true.

    - Canada's Criminal Code does not contain even a single reference
    to "larceny".
    - Canada's Criminal Code defines several offences as "theft" that
    do not involve moveable property, including (for example),
    "theft of telecommunications".
    - Using someone else's credit card number without permission is widely
    recognized as "theft" even though it does not involve "movable
    property".
    The term in Canada is "colour of right", and it holds only through
    due process, or when a baliff or law enforcement official has been
    givn good reason to believe that the deprivation of property is
    within the official's duty. For eample, if a police officer is told
    by a superior officer to seize something, then the seizing officer
    is not liable if it turns out that the superior officer did not
    have adequate justification. But if a police officer steps up to
    you and says, "Nice watch. Give it to me!" for personal gain,
    then the officer is -not- operating under colour of right.

    Both Canada and the USA have penalties for copyright violation
    that include potential jail time. In the USA, the potential jail time
    exceeds 2 years, making the offence a "felony". Canada does not
    use the concept of "felony".

    Yes? And does that somehow imply that it is impossible to steal the
    benefits of the privilege so granted?
     
    Walter Roberson, Sep 19, 2005
    #52
  13. Franklin

    nemo_outis Guest

    -cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote in


    Canada's Criminal Code is a statute and as such can use any choice of
    terminology it wishes rather than adhere to common-law practice.


    Yes, the word theft is used very loosely in a number of situations to
    which it manifestly does not apply. The word "war" also suffers from
    similar distortions by propagandists and the ignorant on whom they prey -
    "war on drugs" springs to mind as an obvious, but very common, misuse.
    Spin and PR are popular modes of social control, and misapplying labels
    is a standard technique.

    You are conflating and confusing colour of right and colour of authority,
    but, no matter, it doesn't invalidate in any way the point I made that
    theft is not as clear-cut, legally or socially, as some here would have
    it.

    Moreover, despite even the distortions and extensions of the term theft
    that you point out, statutes still shrink from using the word theft in
    conjunction with copyright. That is a PR spin too far even for
    legislators.


    Yes, indeedy, there are stautes with penalties - what a revelation! Yep,
    there are all kinds of penalties under all kinds of statutes, most of
    them only quasi-criminal, since they represent the gigantic expansion of
    administrative law over the last 50 years or so.

    And there is a mighty push from some quarters, such as the RIAA, to make
    the penalties explicitly criminal, despite a broad public resistance not
    only to criminalization but also to many aspects of current copyright
    law. Just one example of how strongly copyright differs from property
    and theft in any conventional sense.

    One can infringe the copyright and the holder has a number of avenues for
    redress. But I see you are still determined to appropriate the highly-
    coloured term "theft."

    Well then, let me propose some alternate terms. Rather than
    "intellectual property" let's call the category, say, "Government-Granted
    Privileged Monopolies and Exclusions" which, despite its wordiness, has
    at least the virtue of accuracy. Not quite as appealing as intellectual
    property, is it? Lacks spin and PR value. And much harder to
    characterize opposition as theft rather than, say, cartel-busting, ain't
    it?

    Regards,


    PS After all, "intellectual property" is largely a self-serving
    buzzword promoted from the 1967 Paris Convention for the Protection of
    Industrial Property - UN sponsored but essentially just another industry
    lobbying session for aggrandizement of their monopolistic powers.
     
    nemo_outis, Sep 19, 2005
    #53
  14. Franklin

    Fred Guest

    my diagnosis is PERMANENT BRAIN DAMAGE

    ....caused by bad babysitting!
     
    Fred, Sep 21, 2005
    #54
  15. Franklin

    Colin B. Guest

    I'd try m0n0wall. It's a striped-down BSD running IPfilter, with lots of
    nice configuration/monitoring tools.
     
    Colin B., Mar 21, 2006
    #55
  16. Franklin

    Kerodo Guest

    Surely you jest...
     
    Kerodo, Mar 21, 2006
    #56
  17. Franklin

    Jason Guest

    ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.computer.security.]
    Ya no kidding, if Kerio and Outpost are too hard for the OP m0n0wall
    will kill them.

    Jason
     
    Jason, Mar 21, 2006
    #57
  18. Franklin

    freda Guest

    Try Shorewall, works for me :)
     
    freda, Mar 21, 2006
    #58
  19. Franklin

    Colin B. Guest

    Apparently I have a much different idea of easy, then. Hand-building rule
    sets is hard. Using a GUI is easier. Using a custom-built web-based tool
    is downright friendly.
     
    Colin B., Mar 21, 2006
    #59
  20. Franklin

    Franklin Guest

    Thanks for the warning Jason. The last I want is a firewall which
    needs constant tweaking by the user.

    Kerio (I am referring to freeware version 2.1.5 rather than its later
    incarnations) is loved by its devotees but the rules which you have
    to write to get a decent level of protection take more time than I'm
    able to spend. Plus the need to make it resistent to a frag attack.

    As for Outlook, the way it approaches its rules thru its popup menus
    is a bit too odd for me. It was hard to see what Outlook was actual
    going to set and then it was hard for me to review the security
    settings. In fact, it was too oodd for me. OTOH last time I looked
    it did have a reasonable name for protction.

    OTOH Sygate is a quite sweetie to operate and permits tweaking where
    you can set all sorts of stuff like type of ICMP packets to
    permit/deny.

    However I am experimenting with Filseclab at the moment. This is
    nice but you can't really set much more than one thing in a single
    rule and that can be awkward.

    m0n0wall is looks a bit like a work in progress. When it needs less
    of the "unix-technical-hero" approach then I will have a much closer
    look.
     
    Franklin, Mar 22, 2006
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.