Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Programming Government The Courts IT Technology News

Spyware Maker Indicted on Hacking Charges 233

Posted by Zonk from the consider-what-you-code dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The San Diego Union-Tribune is reporting that Carlos Enrique Perez Melara, the author of an investigative tool called 'Lover Spy,' has been indicted on 35 counts of federal hacking violations. This begs the question: if you develop and sell a software product, are you responsible for what your users choose to do with it?" From the article: "Perez, a native of El Salvador, probably is in the Los Angeles area, said Stewart Roberts, the second highest-ranking agent at the San Diego FBI office. Crime Stoppers has offered a $1,000 reward. Perez is charged with 35 crimes, each of which carries a potential five-year prison sentence if he is convicted. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spyware Maker Indicted on Hacking Charges More

Spyware Maker Indicted on Hacking Charges

Comments Filter:

  • I think you mean... (Score:3, Informative)

    by jpellino ( 202698 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @04:23PM (#13422503)
    ...it "raises" the question. "Begging the question" is something else completely, and you're not doing it.
    • http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-beg1.htm [worldwidewords.org]

      No, it doesn't, grammar nazi.

      • Re:I think you mean... (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        From the link you provided:

        The meaning you give is the newest. It is gaining ground, and one or two recent dictionaries claim that it is now acceptable--the New Oxford Dictionary of English, for example, says it is "widely accepted in modern standard English". I wouldn't go so far myself. Because of possible confusion over what you actually mean, and inevitable condemnation from people who have taken the trouble to find out what it once did mean, it's better avoided altogether.

        So it still sounds like it

      • try again... (Score:4, Informative)

        by jpellino ( 202698 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @04:50PM (#13422655)
        This mis-use of "begging the question" arose in the 1980s.

    • Re:I think you mean... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Osty ( 16825 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @04:28PM (#13422535)

      ...it "raises" the question. "Begging the question" is something else completely, and you're not doing it.

      Thank you! I was just as annoyed, and so went off to research rather than try for a first post. Thus, an explanation [worldwidewords.org].

    • I can't hardly believe that.
    • "Begs the question" is a term of art in logic and debate. It's also pretty simple English, meaning "demands that we ask." To insist that *only* the term of art can be used, and the plain, simple English meaning is off-limits, is just annoying -- especially when the plain English meaning makes so much sense, and the term of art is a terrible way to describe what you mean. Besides getting to make fun of people who don't know the phrase, there's just no reason to name the logical fallacy that way.
      • Well, consider at least why it's annoying. I know it annoys me to hear this phrase used improperly. And basically it's because I know the person using it is simply using it for the sake of its stylistic merits, probably without ever having seen its proper usage. No person would ever naturally reach for the phrase "begs the question" when "brings up" or "raises" or "implies" or "gives rise to" - or hell, "makes you wonder" - are all more natural turns of phrase.

        In my brain it always (raises the question as t
        • "In my brain it always (raises the question as to|makes me wonder) whether the person heard the phrase used properly and is now repeating it in the improper way, or if they're just using the phrase because they think it sounds smart, in which case they sound twice as silly."
          The answer to your question is yes [resort.com].
        • I hear what you're saying, and I admire your willingness to ignore a pet peeve, but I do want to offer a third reason someone might say it: our brains pick up patterns of words and repeat them to represent certain ideas. Someone heard "begs the question" used in context as a reasonable contraction of "begs [us to ask] the question", and that construction stuck with them as a way to say that thing. Every single phrase you use was learned the same way -- to hear something and repeat it doesn't have to be pret

        • No person would ever naturally reach for the phrase "begs the question" when "brings up" or "raises" or "implies" or "gives rise to" - or hell, "makes you wonder" - are all more natural turns of phrase.

          Really. That is exactly the point. Any time someone pulls the "you're being a snob about the language" argument, this is the best and most reasonable answer.

          The real meaning of the term is obscure, but that is no excuse for allowing people to misuse the term while trying to talk fancy.

      • ...the plain English meaning makes so much sense...

        The "plain English" meaning makes sense only in that many uninformed people, if forced to choose, may indeed choose it. But "beg the question" is so obviously idiomatic that those same people should recognize that it ought to be looked up...

        Meanwhile, voluntarily employing a fancy phrase that one's not certain of is ill-advised on so many levels...

      • It's also pretty simple English, meaning "demands that we ask."

        Your retort is clear, elegant, and utterly wrong.

      • Re:true, true and irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Arker ( 91948 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @07:57PM (#13423570) Homepage

        Logic is not an obscure technical field of some kind, it's an absolutely necessary core function for a free human being. If you don't understand it, you need to improve yourself, not make excuses.

        Furthermore, your proposed 'simple English' meaning for the phrase doesn't stand up to the most cursory examination. 'Begs' is never used in English to mean 'demands' although it can be used as an antonym for demands, among other senses. So your 'simple English' parsing makes no sense in English at all.

        The fact is, your 'simple English' parsing is simply an incorrect one, and transparently so to any native English speaker of moderate skill and a token amount of thoughtfulness. It doesn't make sense, it never made sense. Using the phrase in that way is nothing more than a way to advertise to everyone in earshot 'look at me, I like to use big words I don't understand.'

        • Logic is not an obscure technical field of some kind, it's an absolutely necessary core function for a free human being.

          Please don't confuse arcane, badly translated latin with logic. The phrase "begs the question" is useful primarily in *obscuring* the field of logic, not illuminating it.

          'Begs' is never used in English to mean 'demands' although it can be used as an antonym for demands, among other senses.

          'Begs' and 'demands' are antonyms in that they are opposite ways to forcefully ask -- 'asks' is neutra

          • Re:true, true and irrelevant (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Arker ( 91948 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @09:01PM (#13423873) Homepage

            The fact is, it's arcane, and noticeably so. No one is going to spontaneously coin that phrase to mean 'raises the question' - it's far too awkward, it just doesn't parse, it doesn't make any sense. Because it doesn't parse, it's obviously a fixed phrase. This is an obvious clue that you shouldn't use it unless you're sure what you're saying. Ignoring that clue and charging ahead to use a phrase like that without bothering to understand it first is not behaviour which reflects well on a person, and not behaviour to be emulated. But some idiot back in the 80s did charge ahead with it, and far too many more have been happily emulating him or her since then. This is one little corner of a deeply disturbing phenomenon [resort.com] that deserves to be resisted at every turn.

            Like it or not, language matters. Sloppy language both leads to and is a sign of sloppy thinking. No matter how popular a particular bit of sloppiness may be, it's still both possible and worthwhile to resist it.

    • ...it "raises" the question. "Begging the question" is something else completely, and you're not doing it.

      Irregardless, there's a whole nother argument that English should be allowed to transmorph as new usage becomes common. In this case the new meaning of "Begging the question" seems cromulent enough.

      How do you think we got this language in the first place? Perhaps you'd prefer French. However, even they have blue jeans and 'ot dogs now...
      • Like, just cuz ppl srsly use English in non-formal ways doesn't mean that there ain't no standards for something like news. There's a difference between believing in prescriptive grammar, and believing in using the right tool for the right job.
    • Yes, THANK you... this is one of my biggest pet peeves ever. Too many writers, and TV JOURNALISTS say this improperly all the time.

    • Re:I think you mean... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Y2 ( 733949 )
      "Begging the question" is something else completely

      Ah, the dangers of half an education.

      Your sense of "beg the question" is the result of a wretched 16th-century translation of Aristotle into English. His phrase would have been better expressed as "claiming the principle." This news item's use of the phrase is now accepted by several dictionaries and other authorities.

  • Uh, backorifice is not "spyware" (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28, 2005 @04:23PM (#13422508)
    Umm... hm. This isn't "spyware" in the sense people normally mean. These are hacking tools. "Spyware" is a word which is used to refer to software which in addition to its known function covertly transmits information back to the software author. This is nothing of the sort; it's a surveillance tool. It may be immoral or unethical to use this surveillance tool, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to use words like "spyware". Words have meanings. If you start ignoring the meanings and deciding that if it's bad it can be referred to by the same terminology as any other bad things, language ceases to be useful.

    Anyway, I find it funny that people are being prosecuted for creating tools like this at the exact same time that the government's use of tools like this is on the rise.

    • Re:Uh, backorifice is not "spyware" (Score:5, Informative)

      by ejito ( 700826 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @04:41PM (#13422603)
      Yep... It's definitely a tojan. Spyware is usually a program you install and use regularly with (usually stated in the EULA) privacy invasions for marketing purposes.

      This program hides itself as a greeting card program, that you only look at once, and then sets up a spy-app in the background, which is more akin to a trojan horse than normal spyware (such as gatorsoft crapware), especially since it has the ability to launch a webcam.

      It's implicit for what this app is used for, and the creator deserves to get his ass handed to him for selling the product (89 bucks? christ!). Everyone who says he wasn't the one using the app should RTFA. The trojan was installed through a greeting card from email, in otherwords from the merchant himself. He also received the same information his clients got (therefore was using the applications also). Not only that, but he deserves to be charged with spam offenses.

      • He did far more than sell software (Score:5, Interesting)

        by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @07:33PM (#13423473) Homepage Journal

        From the article, he collected all the information that was being sent to his clients. So he didn't just sell the software, he was collecting information that could have been used for identity theft, credit fraud, blackmail, etc.

        This wasn't a simple case of selling software with the potential for abuse -- the retailer himself was one of the abusers.

    • Re:Uh, backorifice is not "spyware" (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NitsujTPU ( 19263 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @05:05PM (#13422726)
      These are hacking tools. "Spyware" is a word which is used to refer to software which in addition to its known function covertly transmits information back to the software author. This is nothing of the sort; it's a surveillance tool. It may be immoral or unethical to use this surveillance tool, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to use words like "spyware". Words have meanings.

      Do works like hacking have meanings too?
    • ...when the catch the &*$&# bastards that write shit like Aurora or CoolWebSearch. Now THAT would be time for some mob justice!

    • Parent hit the nail on the head. What matters in this case is whether the defendant's actions constitute inducement, i.e. encouragement, of illegal activities. The answer is undoubtedly yes.
    • Words have meanings

      New to slashdot, are you? Though you can hardly read a comment without tripping over links to idealogical wikipedia articles, you'll rarely see links off to dictionary.com or m-w.com. Hence, you rarely see words like "proprietary," "evil," "corporate," or "profit," etc., used in any sort of useful context. Words, as used on slashdot, have so much spin and baggage tied to them, that you have to go meta in order to discern what someone is actually trying to say. That's bad enough in the

  • Why should you not be responsible? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DoktorTomoe ( 643004 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @04:24PM (#13422516)

    If you create a nuclear weapon, you should not sell it to North Korea. If you create a tank, selling it to Iran surely would not increase your merits in the western societies. If you sell guns to teenagers, you are a criminal and - as far as I am concerned - partly responsible if those teenagers start shooting their classmates.

    Why of all things should you not be responsible for creating a software intended for potentially criminal purpose (here: spying on users) and giving it to people who will use it? Following this logic of non-responsibility, worm writers should not be persecuted, because the damage their creations have done was not their immediate fault.

    • Uhhh (Score:2)

      by mcc ( 14761 )
      So what you're saying is that we should treat computer programs-- which are nothing but a series of instructions, potentially human-readable instructions, that just happen to be written in a language that a machine can interpret--

      In the same way we treat real-world devices designed for and capable of killing very large numbers of people?

      Hmm.
      • Well, simple things as the Sober-Worm managed to take out some nations (UK?) coast guard - this could have resulted in lost lives. Those stuff could have hit medical systems in hospitals or lower-security systems in ATC, both which may have resulted in loss of lifes. There really is no real distinction between a bulled design to destroy and code designed to destroy.

      • Re:Uhhh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Kombat ( 93720 ) <kevin@swanweddingphotography.com> on Sunday August 28, 2005 @04:45PM (#13422630)
        Why not? Do we not treat child-porn JPGs, which are nothing but a series of numbers stored in a file, the same way we treat polariods of child-porn?
    • A lot of tools can be used to do evil (even a butter knife or a ballpoint), that doesn't mean it's made for doing evil. Nmap can be used to do for evil things, I've seen it in The Matrix.

      (well actually, I didn't, but I've been told that they used nmap in that movie)
    • If you create a nuclear weapon, you should not sell it to North Korea. If you create a tank, selling it to Iran surely would not increase your merits in the western societies.

      Do you mean kinda like like how Donald Rumsfeld [zmag.org] sold WDMs and US-made Helicopters to Saddam?

      • Do you mean kinda like like how Donald Rumsfeld sold WDMs and US-made Helicopters to Saddam?

        Now I know it's really really cool to bash the President and Vice President these days, and I even know that it's really really really cool to do it by just making crap up. What I didn't know was that I could make crap up, then link to an article that doesn't even support my assertions in order to becoe cool. That's just awesome!

        Or did you do such a horrible job of reading that (poorly written) article you l

      • The article you point to says nothing about Rumsfeld or the US selling weapons of mass destruction to Iraq. What it does say is that US firms sold helicopters to Iraq, in deals facilitated by the US government, during a period when Iraq was known to be using chemical weapons.

        I'm no fan of the current administration, but when you make false claims (and then link to a source that shows your claim to be false!) you accomplish little but to discredit yourself and your position.
    • Why of all things should you not be responsible for creating a software intended for potentially criminal purpose (here: spying on users) and giving it to people who will use it?

      It's not that. Many people who (of course) haven't RTFA miss the point. This isn't software which someone buys and then installs on their target's computer themselves. What they do is sign up at the site and then have that site send out an email with "You have a greeting card..." message. The victim clicks on the link to the web
      • The end users are scumbags for using the service, but it's the guy who wrote it and put it up on the website and caused victims' computers to be compromised who is the guilty party here. This has nothing to do with distributing software.
        Don't forget the part towards the end where it points out that the author received all the info from the program that the scumbags who paid to have it sent to someone did. The program even monitored everything typed on the keyboard. Also he spammed to advertise the sof
    • But many create cars, sell them to reckless teenagers and alcoholics.

      Those cars are used to kill people (often inadvertantly, often through inexperience, speed, etc, and sometimes maliciously), yet car manufacturers haven't been brought into the courts and tried for their crimes...

      Many create knives. Some knives are designed to be good at killing things; hunting knives. When was the last time a knife maker was in court because his product was used to kill a person?

      It's kind of akin to DVD John; he did not
    • If you sell a car and a drunk driver kills someone are you not responsible? If that drunk driver drank the beer you made are you not responsible? If you sell Big Macs are you not responsible for fat people? If you built a house and the buy falls down the stairs are you not responsible?

      Your logic is a bit fuzzy. This type of thing needs a judge to decide whether or not the gray area is more white or black.

  • reward (Score:4, Funny)

    by zephc ( 225327 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @04:26PM (#13422523)
    a $1000 reward for a guy wanted on 35 counts? Cheepskates! Add a couple zeros to the back and I'll drag the guy in myself.

  • The name says it all (Score:5, Insightful)

    by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @04:31PM (#13422551)
    IANAL, but if a gun maker named their pistol "Felon's Favorite"(TM) or "Rob-Rite"(TM), then I'm sure they would be susceptible to either civil or criminal legal pleasantries.

    Are there legitimate uses of this code? If so, then why didn't the author market it strictly for those uses and name it something a little less felonious than "Lover Spy?"
    • Yeah, promoting a product for its negative use has been problematic, even if it might have legit uses. Heck, even Ford might be held responsible for pedestrian collisions if they say "helps kill those pesky pedestrians" in their marketing.
    • IANAL, but if a gun maker named their pistol "Felon's Favorite"(TM) or "Rob-Rite"(TM), then I'm sure they would be susceptible to either civil or criminal legal pleasantries.

      Which is exactly what the supreme court said in the MGM vs. Grokster case. If you promote your product for illegal use, then you can be liable for that.

  • How does an e-card install malicious software??? I suspect that perhaps what is going on is that he set up the server that served the e-cards, in order to infect users who opened the cards. If that's the case, he didn't just write the software, he installed it on computers without owners' and users' permission.
    • How does an e-card install malicious software??? I suspect that perhaps what is going on is that he set up the server that served the e-cards, in order to infect users who opened the cards. If that's the case, he didn't just write the software, he installed it on computers without owners' and users' permission.
      You are correct, the article explains this. People who bought the program had it send an e-card message to the person they wanted to spy on. The person receiving the e-card then visited a websit

  • This is an exploiting trojan (Score:4, Interesting)

    by genericacct ( 692294 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @04:36PM (#13422579)
    This is serious spyware that exploits a security vulnerability in Windows. It doesn't even require the user to click through an install and hide somewhere in the EULA, it flat-out installs itself without the recipient's knowledge. I can see how this would be just as illegal as phishing or creating spam zombies.

    TFA doesn't explain this very well. Couldn't find an antivirus page about it, but here's another page [spywareinfo.net] mentioning the tool.

  • If hacking is a violation, then Linux must be illegal.

    Yes, I know they mean that differently, but once laws outlaw "hackers", I wouldn't want to be counted as one..
    Truth is in the eyes of the power-holder.. :-/
    • Yes, I know they mean that differently, but once laws outlaw "hackers", I wouldn't want to be counted as one.

      Why? Laws that use words with debatable definitions always define that word in that law's namespace. You can have a law that outlaws...mofos, for example, provided there's something that says "Section 5. A 'mofo', as used in this act, means someone who runs a red light while driving on the wrong side of the street and talking on a cell phone." People who actually fo their mo are completely immune fom

  • Dislaimer and Intent (Score:5, Informative)

    by zbyte64 ( 720193 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @04:39PM (#13422597) Homepage
    I actually live in san diego and read this article yesterday. If it is the same article, this guy marketed it as a program to spy on your significant other. I think that is where the law gets him. If you distribute some code thats a trojan and slap on, "Educational purposes only, do not use on anyone without their permission, I am not responsible for your actions", then it seems the law is much more lenient. But this guy was marketing it as a tool that u send (like a greeting card) to check on your gf/bf to see if they are cheating.
    No this trial doesn't mean coders are responsible for their users' actions, just responsible for how they say their program should be used
    On a side not, this company started in 2001 - took 4 years for the FBI to notice & catch him. Kind of funny.
    • Another part is simply if the product in question has a substantial legal use. If you make something that basically can only be used to break the law, it's probably illegal to sell. A back door program to a computer isn't illegal, there are plenty of them out there. What makes this one different is that it tries to sneak on to a computer without the owner's permission.

      Now there's really not any substantial legal use for that. Sure you could come up with some extremely unlikely scenario but generally speakin
    • It must not be the same article, this one plainly explains that not only did he write the software and spam to advertise it, he ran the servers that the e-cards directed victims to and silently installed the spyware in the background without warning using an exploit in IE. He also had the software send him a copy of everything as well as to the idiots who paid him to infect others with it. So he wrote the code, spammed to get customers for the code and then ran the servers that hijacked the victims compu

  • Concerning Responsibility... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CodeBuster ( 516420 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @04:44PM (#13422618)
    This begs the question: if you develop and sell a software product, are you responsible for what your users choose to do with it?

    The question boils down to the intent of the author. If the program, when considered as a whole, cannot be reasonably construed to have alternative non-damaging or benign uses then it serves to demonstrate the malicious intent of the author and therefore it becomes possible to assign some responsibility for the actions of users to the original author(s). Software engineers, like other engineers, must have some code of ethics that governs the standard and intent of the programs that we produce. If you write a virus, worm, spam ware, or other "evil" type of application then you are responsible for the damage you cause to other people. You cannot demonstrate vulnerabilities or exploit code to prove a point while damaging other people's property in the process. In this case it seems that the author in question, Carlos Enrique Perez Melara, is indeed responsible for malicious intent in the collateral damage that his software caused.
  • If the Supreme Court decision, in its recent case regarding P2P software, is followed the makers of software may be responsbile for the illegal use of their products. All it takes is a reasonable (for some value of reasonable) chance that users will put your software to illegal uses and you get a ticket to jail or years of penury as you attempt to pay off the civil penalties that may be assessed against you. Now all it will take is for the FBI to discover that some "potential terrorist" used this software
    • All it takes is a reasonable (for some value of reasonable) chance that users will put your software to illegal uses and you get a ticket to jail or years of penury as you attempt to pay off the civil penalties that may be assessed against you.

      This is a blatant and gross misrepresentation of the SCOTUS decision you mention. What it took in that case, was quite a load of evidence that the companies in question deliberately planned to profit, albeit indirectly from illegal uses.
    • If the Supreme Court decision, in its recent case regarding P2P software, is followed the makers of software may be responsbile for the illegal use of their products. All it takes is a reasonable (for some value of reasonable) chance that users will put your software to illegal uses and you get a ticket to jail or years of penury as you attempt to pay off the civil penalties that may be assessed against you. Now all it will take is for the FBI to discover that some "potential terrorist" used this software
  • "She sent me a greeting card on the Internet through my e-mail and that's how she got into my computer," she said. "She had access to everything."

    How does reading plain text let someone into your computer?

    • Re:email? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Maestro4k ( 707634 )
      How does reading plain text let someone into your computer?
      It doesn't and didn't. The article explains what was going on. The e-card directed the victim to a website to view it. That website (run by Perez incidentally) then exploited a security hole in IE and installed the spyware in the background without warning.

      This case does nicely show why e-cards are so potentially dangerous though.

  • Regarding a well publicized [schneier.com] computer espionage case.

    It seems, the authors of the spying tool used in this case, were arrested in the UK and are being turned over to Israel [ynetnews.com] for justice.

    This raises the same moral question, whether an author of the tool is responsible for the way it's being used.

    Should Fire Arms companies be held responsible whenever someone uses their branded rifle to commit a crime?

  • 35 times 5 years? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Keruo ( 771880 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @05:15PM (#13422769)
    I'm not in favour for what he's done, but getting 175 years in prison for writing a program?
    You can get less for killing a man. No wonder the prisons are already full.
    Perhaps it's time to realize that it's not always the solution to lock people up for what they have done.
    • He wrote a program specifically designed to infect somebody's machine and steal information from them and then sold it as such.

      It's the same as making and selling "Break & Enter" brand crowbars, "Guaranteed to get you into anybody's house to steal all their stuff".
      • We can't really outlaw manufacturing of compilers and crowbars.
        Besides the program infected the computer only if the end user opened the email and ran the virus code.

        This is more of a case for how to get peoples attention on not to open anything non-text that comes through your email.
        I think his sentence should be something like community service by going to different schools and talking to children about what might happen when they
        open innocent looking goat.cx link or run program they got from someone via
    • That 175 is IF he got the max for each count. Kinda like steet value for drugs. For a violation of 18 USC 1030 (which I'm guessing they are talking about here) on a first charge he'll get about 3-5 years with 54 days a year off for good time. He'll be in a Federal Prison Camp without fences and have to get up at 7:00 and work each day doing landscaping, plumbing or some other job to keep the place running. He won't get buggered in the ass unless he wants someone too. The food is ok and the smokes are c

  • Hrmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by oman_ ( 147713 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @05:24PM (#13422809) Homepage
    How much do you want to bet that some high ranking official at the San Diego FBI office was caught cheating or at least had his email read by this program? :)

  • The MGM v. Grokster [supremecourtus.gov] ruling may answer your question. While Grokster is a copyright case, it seems this ruling could be used to create third party liability for the software maker in this case.

    "Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court.

    The question is under what circumstances the distributor of a product capable of both lawful and unlawful use is liable for acts of copyright infringement by third parties using the product. We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting i

    • So does this mean that the RIAA could go after internet providers? I remember, before the popularity of ITunes, that there were commericials saying you could "Download MP3s up to 20x faster than dialup."

      According to that ruling, the ISPs are (or at least were) promoting uses of there products which could be illegal. This is assuming people were using the service to download illegal MP3s.

  • Hardware (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Sunday August 28, 2005 @07:36PM (#13423481) Homepage Journal
    This month, the Senate passed the bill protecting gunmakers [outdoorchannel.com] from liability for the use of their products in crimes.
    • Moderation -1
          100% Offtopic

      The topic is the maker of a product being held liable for others' use of it to damage people. My post is about gun makers getting special protection from exactly that kind of liability.

      TrollMods should hold guns to their heads to understand them better, then take their chances.
  • Gator, CyDoor, et al actually get to make money doing this, why haven't they been arrested.
  • This begs the question: if you develop and sell a software product, are you responsible for what your users choose to do with it?"
    How many hackers use M$ or Comercial Linux Operating systems... should then that company, whether it be M$ or someone else, be charged with all the Pornography and hacking charges against people who happend to be using that system??

  • The Grumpy Grammarian speaks ... (Score:3, Informative)

    by davecb ( 6526 ) * <davecb@spamcop.net> on Monday August 29, 2005 @07:37AM (#13426405) Homepage Journal
    ..and saith "This begs the question" really means "you're lying".

    Begging a question is asking a question that implicitly assumes something is true that the author is trying to get you to believe. See also http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/begs.html [wsu.edu]

    That would make the sentence mean you are responsible for what your users choose to do with it, which is arguably false.

    --dave

Slashdot Top Deals

The herd instinct among economists makes sheep look like independent thinkers.

Close