|
|
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: May 19, 2004 4:27pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Remember, in a democratic society, laws are codes of ethics that are created by leaders that we voted in that best represented the views of our community.
I think that with these points and the points made earlier, why put so many bars around such modules that facilitate these functions? It is safe to assume that in our societies that it is perfectly okay to log conversations in certain areas with proper notification that they are being logged. This is a standard that of course is increasing with the amount of American companies that ship worldwide and record phone conversations of foreign individuals.
If you as a developer do not like the idea of code that allows a person to do something that is perfectly legal and defined by representatives of our society as ETHICAL, then you don't have to participate in chatting on that particular server.
AngryWolf: You really should release this module to the open public because arguments on 'ethics of logging' are a moot point on the issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
uchat
Idler
Joined: 17 Mar 2004
Posts: 335
|
| Posted: May 19, 2004 5:01pm Post subject: |
|
|
laws and ethics are NOT related at all.
Something can be ethical yet illegal (jaywalking) and the exact opposite is true, unethical yet legal (prostitution in Nevada).
Laws are created by lawmakers, ethics are interpretated by individuals.
Just as I may think something is ethical, someone else may not.
Best of luck to you all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: May 19, 2004 7:47pm Post subject: |
|
|
Heh, I wasn't expecting my reply to generate so much discussion, but to some of the points made:
| Quote: | | The difference between your gun analogy and the m_spy module analogy is that the module itself can be used for good and useful purposes. |
That's exactly what I was expecting someone to say! Let me ask, does the fact that the gun doesn't hold fingerprints remove its ability to shoot a deer, or an intruder? Afterall, there is no law that says I can't wear gloves (which prevent fingerprints) when I go hunting. So what is the difference if the gun just doesn't allow there to be fingerprints? And the gunpower, it's unethical to want to stay clean when you shoot a gun? And about the disintegrating bullet, well that's just environmentally friendly! Small metal bullets can be lethal to animals who like to eat them. Birds seem to enjoy eating shiny metal objects. So if I go clay shooting, wouldn't it be better to not leave bullets on the ground where an unsuspecting bird might eat it and die? The point is thus, the fact that it leaves no evidence does not remove it's ability to perform a legitimate task, it simply gives the *impression* that it will be used for an unethical task.
| Quote: | | If you as a developer do not like the idea of code that allows a person to do something that is perfectly legal and defined by representatives of our society as ETHICAL, then you don't have to participate in chatting on that particular server. |
I find abortion to be extremely unethical. So, according to you, the only thing I should do is not have an abortion myself. I should not stand up against abortion. Basically, what you are arguing is, it is unethical for anyone to protest anything that has been legislated, since law is equivilent to ethics. Think where we would be if people took your advice to heart. I bet some people here wouldn't even be able to participate in this debate, because they would be slaves and would not have the right to speak their minds. You're right, we do elect our representatives with the hope that they will be able to make ethical and moral laws. Afterall, US history is full of ethical leaders. I mean, Bill Clinton got right up in front of the American people and told us all that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman." Is lying under oath an ethical quality? Is adultery? No person is perfect, not even Bill Clinton. So if our leaders do not have complete and total moral and ethical clarity, how can we then expect them to create laws that have total moral and ethical clarity? And even when they do have moral clarity, I am reminded of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson thought slavery was wrong, we're all aware of his relationship with Sally Hemings. However, as President, he did nothing to stop it. And so, I agree with uchat, law is not the same thing as ethics. It should be, in a perfect world, but I think we can all agree this is not a perfect world. To use uchat's example, let's say law and ethics are the same. If I go to Nevada, and get a prostitute, it is ethical. Now, if I go across state lines to New Mexico, suddenly it is unethical? That certainly doesn't make sense to me. You can't even use the argument of cultural differences (which I disagree with anyway) since New Mexico and Nevada are going to have very similar cultures. Just because laws differ doesn't mean the ethics differ.
Furthermore, let me clarify. No one forced AngryWolf not to distribute his spy modules. He chose not to. In the end, until some great philosopher or theologian comes up with a profound discovery, ethics comes down to one thing, can you sleep at night, knowing the decisions you've made that day? I know I thought that my distribution of +I was wrong. And having talked to AngryWolf, I know that he felt the same way about his modules. Therefore, we could not continue about our daily lives because we knew what we were doing was wrong, and so we decided to rectify it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: May 20, 2004 11:29am Post subject: |
|
|
I still don't see how it relates to ethics at all. It is a module that provides extended functionality for a Network/Server Administrator to maintain the integrity of his network. There is nothing unethical about that, flat out. Who cares for WHAT reason. If *he* is breaking the law, that's the problem of the Administrator and in due time he could/should be caught. However, the fact of monitoring what traffic passes through YOUR server is not unethical.
Do you think it's unethical for you to have spyware blocking software? Do you think it's unethical to even have firewall software? After all, all of these things let you know what other people have done to your computer. All of them let you take action appropriately, and yet others even let you see what information it transferred.
Do you think packet sniffing software is unethical? Probably not. You've probably used it on occasion to see what's going on with your computer.
So when it comes down to it. Your server, Your network, Your rules, and you should be able to monitor it period. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: May 20, 2004 11:52am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Do you think it's unethical for you to have spyware blocking software? Do you think it's unethical to even have firewall software? After all, all of these things let you know what other people have done to your computer. All of them let you take action appropriately, and yet others even let you see what information it transferred. |
There are MANY, MANY, differences.
1.) When someone does something on MY pc without MY consent, that is trespassing.
2.) A firewall monitors someone's communication with you
3.) Spyware blockers blocks someone's comminication with you
4.) A firewall is like a lock, not a microphone
5.) A spyware blocker is like a lock, not a microphone
With the spying software:
1.) 99% of Unreal users don't own the machine it runs on. So they aren't putting a lock on their own door, they are putting a lock on someone else's.
2.) The spy monitor monitors communication between two users, not between a user and you.
3.) The spy monitor monitors the conversations, it does not block conversations. Therefore it acts more like a microphone than a lock.
The situations are not at all equivilent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: May 20, 2004 2:20pm Post subject: |
|
|
| codemastr wrote: | Recently I've been reading this thread and as an author of UnrealIRCd I feel the need to respond to some of the outrageous allegations people have made. Voicing your opinion about UnrealIRCd is one thing, making up facts is another.
| Quote: | | this is why I dont use unreal, it's a very highly abusive ircd to users, which is wrong, I run a network and I find these kinds of things appauling. what people do in their privacy (even if it's on your net) is their own problem, and you're least likely to be liable than spying on them, and not catching someone doing something illegal, then you have nothing to back you up from being "involved" in their activities. |
UnrealIRCd contains _no_ spying features whatsoever. There is no way for an IRC Operator to find out what goes on in a private message or in a channel without either being the recipient of that message or being in the channel. The issue here is an unofficial module to add spying capabilities. This is not something that is unique to UnrealIRCd. Other IRCds support modules, Hybrid and Bahamut for example. And every IRCd is patchable. If someone out there has decided on his/her own to write a patch that will add spying capabilities, how can you blame the authors of the original software? We did not make this feature we have nothing to do with it.
| Quote: | | unreal is one of the least professional ircd's out there |
I beg to differ. What makes it unprofessional? The fact that it offers features that appeal to many audiences? The fact that it gives the admin control that no other IRCd does? Why is that unprofessional. In fact, based on the servers I know of, there are several corporations running Unreal because of the very fact that it is professional. For example, ICQ runs UnrealIRCd, the old Dreamcast IRC server ran UnrealIRCd, etc. AOL (which owns ICQ) and Sega (which owns Dreamcast) are not small companies. They didn't choose Unreal because it allows them to be "abusive." They chose UnrealIRCd because no other IRCd available offered the professional features necessary to run a server in the type of environment they intended. There is only one potentially abusive feature that UnrealIRCd has that I can think of and this is the oper-override system. First off though this system can be completely disabled by the server admin. Second user's are made aware of this feature being active by an "O" being present in the /version flags output. Third, only operators with the specific access flag can use this feature. Forth, anytime it is used all irc operators are notified. Could this feature be used to abuse? Of course. But similar things exist even on the big networks. So Bahamut doesn't have oper-override to /kick a user. But an IRC Op can /samode him/herself to become +o then use /kick. You make like these kind of things are only in Unreal, but that is simply not the case. In fact Unreal's oper-override is LESS abusive than /samode. When someone uses /samode you see "irc.someserver.com sets mode +nt" for example. When you use the /mode oper-override you see "opersnick sets mode +nt". At least in Unreal the channel's operators have someone they can hold accountable, Bahamut on the otherhand hides the operator's identity. How exactly does this make UnrealIRCd more abusive?
| Quote: | | and it's targeted towards small networks that are just because someone got bored one day. for bigger, more dedicated networks, unreal isnt feasible. at all. |
Really? How come the UnrealIRCd programmers weren't informed of this? I'd think if anyone was doing the targetting, it would be the people who write the software. We do not target small networks. We target all networks. And to say using UnrealIRCd is not feasible is an outright lie. I can list several large networks running UnrealIRCd. The p2pchat network has roughly 2500 users, the brokenirc network has roughly 1500, the zerofusion network has roughly 2000, the chataus network has roughly 3000, ICQ has roughly 5000. And there are many more. Are there any 100000 user networks running Unreal? Probably not. But that doesn't mean it isn't capable of this. The fact of the matter is, UnrealIRCd is the most used IRCd available. You might think it is only used by little kids who wanted to run an IRCd and then the next day stopped, but you are dead wrong. I don't mind it when people say they don't like UnrealIRCd, but I do mind it when people like you go around and make outright lies about it.
| Quote: | | I should make a list of "abusive" ircd's one day. |
If you do I hope no one looks at it because if your post is any indication, you have no idea what the word "abusive" means and you certainly have no clue which IRCds contain abusive features.
Also about a mode to block DCCs. Why are people complaining that Unreal doesn't have such a feature? If you wanted such a feature, why not come and let the UnrealIRCd coders know? I've never heard a single person ask for this feature, if I had I'd probably have added it, it sounds like a good idea to me. My point is, if you want a feature, don't come to SearchIRC and complain that it doesn't exist, instead go to the program's authors and let them know of your idea. You're far more likely to get your suggestion heard if you choose the latter.
If people have questions about what UnrealIRCd does/doesn't support or things Unreal should/shouldn't have it's best if you direct this at the people who can do something about it, the programmers. Of course having discussions here and elsewhere is fine, but basically you are talking to people here who have no control over UnrealIRCd whatsoever therefore in the case of a DCC blocking mode, no one here is going to make it so that mode is available in Unreal. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: May 20, 2004 4:32pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
There are MANY, MANY, differences.
1.) When someone does something on MY pc without MY consent, that is trespassing.
2.) A firewall monitors someone's communication with you
3.) Spyware blockers blocks someone's comminication with you
4.) A firewall is like a lock, not a microphone
5.) A spyware blocker is like a lock, not a microphone
With the spying software:
1.) 99% of Unreal users don't own the machine it runs on. So they aren't putting a lock on their own door, they are putting a lock on someone else's.
2.) The spy monitor monitors communication between two users, not between a user and you.
3.) The spy monitor monitors the conversations, it does not block conversations. Therefore it acts more like a microphone than a lock.
The situations are not at all equivilent.
|
It comes down to liability, codemastr. The traffic passes through the server and you have the ability to work in your power to reduce and restrain the messages and illegal activities that work on your network. This module definitely proves that IRC Administrators who claim they cannot restrict what goes on with their networks are in the wrong and can be legally held liable for communications involving their servers. What then?
It is well within your legal right in certain areas to monitor communication, because technically the communication involves going to the server, of which the server relays that message back out to the other party. Any arguments that the communication is between the 2 parties chatting is void because the user understands that when they must connect to an IRC "server" to faciliate the communication. Granted there are other methods in which 2 people can communicate without a 3rd party listening, but that does not involve the internet.
You can argue that the 3rd party listening should not listen without reasonable suspicion and without being law enforcement. But remember, reasonable suspicion laws do not apply to private property. The server being my private property, and not governmental. If you come into my house, and I videotape you stealing something in my house, or talking with my son over conspiring to kill someone, and I report that to the authorities; that is definitely not an illegal nor unethical practice.
Where do you draw the line? You draw the line based on liability. For example, the parents of the Columbine High School students who were killed by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold have sued the parents of the 2 children for financial damages as a result of the murders because they did not facilitate monitoring on them when they suspected that there was something going on between the two. Given the way of the US law is going right now, it does not seem highly unlikely that such a similar action could occur to the host or company of a server who did not oversee the communications going on between their servers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: May 20, 2004 5:12pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It comes down to liability, codemastr. The traffic passes through the server and you have the ability to work in your power to reduce and restrain the messages and illegal activities that work on your network. This module definitely proves that IRC Administrators who claim they cannot restrict what goes on with their networks are in the wrong and can be legally held liable for communications involving their servers. What then? |
No court has ever upheld that instantaneous communications (IM and chat) are subject to editorial control. You think it means you are liable, the courts, to date, disagree with you.
But let me sum up this thread, these things are gone, you can't convince me to bring them back. End of story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aquarat
none
Joined: 24 May 2004
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: May 24, 2004 9:57am Post subject: um, yar |
|
|
"/me has a couple of things to say"
Firstly, when Angrywolf discontinued provision of the m_spy module, I went searching for it on the net and found an older version (Unreal...3.2 beta 19).
At that stage I was using a later version of Unreal that already used an SnoMask that the beta 19 version of m_spy used, in other words, a conflict.
I sent an e-mail to Angrywolf describing the situation in a fair amount of detail (refer to end of post) and while I waited for a reply, I used my knowledge of java (and a bit of common sense) to work out what was wrong with the module's source code and fix it. (yes, C is not for me  )
Angrywolf's reply was quick ( I wasn't even expecting a reply or a long wait at least ). Not only was it quick, it was polite, friendly and it gave me a bit of a shock to see that Angrywolf actually understood the situation we/I was in... attached to the e-mail was the module.
Ethics was still an issue, although we knew more or less the users causing the problems on our network, so I worked out a neat little old plan...
I downloaded a Java Bot (thanks to jibble.org) and setup a command set to filter data from who we suspected were our problematic users. The bot simply searched all text for certain keywords which I defined in a file.
As a further security measure, only the bot (and me) had the password for the spy module and because our network has an auto-join function, any user that parted the auto-join channel directly after connect was also added to the spy list, simply because we are not a large network and it is fairly suspicious for a user to join the server and part the main channel.
Although we did get some false alerts and users were warned that they were being spyed on by a bot, the system worked quite well. In only two days, our problems concerning this small group of users stopped... and now the bot remains simply as a token of defense (it isn't running anymore, no need). It seems that the problematic users we once had still believe the bot is in operating condition.
Today I'm upgrading to Unreal 3.2 ... I'm not recompiling that module, it wasn't bad, I used it for good. It saved us a lot of time and trouble, perhaps there was another way, but then, you always find the alternatives after you've fixed the problem.
Thank you codemastr and your team for making the latest Unreal possible. Thank you Angrywolf, you're response made a positive impact.
To all programmers out there :- (feeling in the mood to ramble)
Don't worry about society, you are bound to encounter many idiots on the net/real-world, it is inevitable (IRC can be quite funny because of this). I suggest that you try and filter out the idiots with the thought in mind that there are those who appreciate what you do, that is what seperates the "real" programmers/logically-gifted from the masses. (All are equal, but some or more equal than others)
A few notes :-
1. I didn't post this because I want anybody to start (or bring back) un-ethical code in programs (perceptions make all the difference).
2. The Gun analagy given earlier was very apropriate.
3. It, in the end, all comes down to the person committing the crime, doesn't it ?
4. As a closing argument, I stand by my original post on this thread under the nickname aquarat (or ayjayess) in which I said that no device was good, bad, un-ethical or ethical but rather the person that uses the device determines the group's such attributes.
I do, however admit that some devices are more easily prone to abuse or un-ethical use (such as the gun analagy).
5. *checks Outlook Express for e-mail* ... darnit, not there. *Checks Ximian Mail client on nix box* ... why do I use two e-mail clients ? Beats me!
It is always the case that when I reformat my windows machine, I always keep the inbox, never the sent items :/
So to cut a long story short, our network made a terrible mistake by merging with another network. The two merged networks de-merged after only a few days with sour feelings on both sides (due to a lot of factors).
Humans like to fight (so whats new) and so opers from the one network came and caused problems for the other network (we just happened to be the other). I then joined the "other" network bringing in my own server after the whole de-merge business, being their security oper, I tried to get the situation under control. Luckily I did after some pretty severe cat fights... It came to the point, where I stopped talking to them nicely and just started banning. Thanks for reading.
aquarat - tech@aquatech.za.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnB
Idler
Joined: 05 Dec 2003
Posts: 314
Location: Manchester, UK
|
| Posted: May 25, 2004 2:27am Post subject: |
|
|
braindigitalis_ Guest Posted: Mon May 24, 2004 2:23 pm
| Quote: | (I am not the same 'Guest' who has posted previously to this thread)
*bump*
All this requires is an addenum to the MOTD:
* By connecting to this network you consent to any form of monitoring or logging that may be deemed sensible by the users you talk to (e.g. irc client logs) or by admins (e.g. network monitoring for trojan detection). If you do not agree with this provision, you must disconnect NOW. By joining any channels or engaging in any conversation you consent to agreement of these terms.
---- then if they DONT read it... their fault. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al5001
Lurker
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 181
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Jun 05, 2004 8:23am Post subject: |
|
|
You guys still argue over this issue? Come on.
Since when did the US law apply to everyone? I'm in Canada. We have different laws. Mind showing proof of this law you state? Did you get that law from a government website or private website? Securityfocus.com is definately NOT a government site. Please show proof of this law before shooting off your mouths. And leave everyone the hell alone. People can do whatever the hell they want with their IRC networks. I'm sick of people arguing over whether it is legal or not to provide monitoring services on their own online service. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uchat
Idler
Joined: 17 Mar 2004
Posts: 335
|
| Posted: Jun 05, 2004 9:01am Post subject: |
|
|
| al5001, then quit reading this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bananaboy
none
Joined: 14 Jun 2004
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Jun 21, 2004 11:52pm Post subject: |
|
|
| uchat wrote: | | Quote: |
I am not convinced that you can call watching what someone sends through a facility you 'own' can be called unethical in and of itself. You've got less justification to run a rf receiver and listen to the local police, fire, and cell-phone traffic, and *that* has been allowed by law since 1934 (albeit modified slightly in the case of satellite-tv). However, that same law set up some heavy restrictions on what you could *do* with what you heard - basically, darned little unless there was danger to life and limb involved.
|
I think you are bit confused or are not from the USA. An RF receiver may be used to monitor PUBLIC transmissions ... radio ... TV broadcasts.
It has been and currently is a federal crime to monitor PRIVATE conversations cell phone, wiretap(unless you tap your own house) etc... without a permission from a judge or at least one person in the conversation and in some states the consent of all parties involved.
There has been articles posted on the internet on how it's possible to go to jail for copying and pasting a private conversation you WAS involved in and I'm talkin about IRC conversations ... the laws in New Hampshire specificlly include internet conversations.
I'm not going to watc this thread anymore, I feel I've said everything I feel needs to be said.
Just a little note to those that are considering using a private message logger. To most people it's unethical and is some places outright illegal.
Just say no! |
ya sorta sux about the US. It is handy though. Say here in canada. it is not illegal to listen to any RF transmission. it is illegal to decode data transmissions and only illegal to disclose what you hear, studied RF laws and been a ham for almost 10 years. Now I think there should be some RFC, some protocol or soomething that isssues privacy about snooping like this on irc. I know of one net that very much abuses the old +I and I do know they abuse the Spy module. since it is not unreal3.2. I cannot say it is m_spy. but. it is a older unreal and addon. Nothing to do with codemastr or any person like that. it is more about how they abuse this. How they have a declaration saying the do nothing of this sort. but being their techie for 7 years. You sorta know what they do. I quit and left because I think it is not right. Now if it was used for good and not be abused. I do think it would be a nice module. But to know and trust any admin on a network. This is hard to do. Heck. not many even trust other people to log into their shells.
Good topic and good points. All have they +'s and -'s |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bananaboy
none
Joined: 14 Jun 2004
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Jun 22, 2004 12:10am Post subject: |
|
|
| al5001 wrote: | You guys still argue over this issue? Come on.
Since when did the US law apply to everyone? I'm in Canada. We have different laws. Mind showing proof of this law you state? Did you get that law from a government website or private website? Securityfocus.com is definately NOT a government site. Please show proof of this law before shooting off your mouths. And leave everyone the hell alone. People can do whatever the hell they want with their IRC networks. I'm sick of people arguing over whether it is legal or not to provide monitoring services on their own online service. |
I do agree with you here. Yes Our scanners still have unblocked cell frequencies. yes our scanners are fully unblocked from 0.250 and lower, past 2.4 gigs.. Who cares. why get off on a cell call ? dunno. Yes there are very few internet laws that pertain to canada. Heck. There still is no law in canada that states mp3's are pirating or illegal to share. Um Look at all the warez that comes outa here. too much. I do think there should be some laws in place. but that is like pushing Bill C-2 on satelite. it is a dumb bill. Privacy and how admins abuse this module is not right. As in my previous post, This one network that I knows does this, I wish there was a way to let the users know or have them believe me. That will hardly happen. They hide their source from everyone. Now they have ruined peoples rep's pasting crap and calling them pedophiles, when they are not. They alter their snooped logs and try making it look legit . after reading all these messages. hehe. looong topic. I had to re reply. If the module is not gonna be abused. it be a nice tool. I still do wish there were some laws in place about privacy on the internet. You get in crap for Dos'ing or port scanning someone. But you don't get in crap for snooping. gee. what a world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Talrias
Lurker
Joined: 16 Feb 2004
Posts: 163
Location: :noitacoL
|
| Posted: Jun 22, 2004 9:39am Post subject: |
|
|
| bananaboy wrote: | | ...There still is no law in canada that states mp3's are pirating or illegal to share... |
That's because .mp3 is a file format (and only a file format). If you mean copying of copyrighted songs and offering these for free download, say so.
And it is illegal to redistribute copyrighted material without permission in most countries, any way.
Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| |
Register
Log in
