Quit crying about the "stolen" public code

[Eric]

He posted public domain information (srp).

Nah, he posted the packet structure of every packet required to login on War3.

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2945.txt
http://srp.stanford.edu/doc.html

Uh oh, they posted information on various methods of using SRP for authentication

... I didn't mention SRP, iago did.  I already know a Google search could bring up all the information needed on SRP (I mentioned this?).

[UserLoser.]

He posted public domain information (srp).

Nah, he posted the packet structure of every packet required to login on War3.

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2945.txt
http://srp.stanford.edu/doc.html

Uh oh, they posted information on various methods of using SRP for authentication

... I didn't mention SRP, iago did.  I already know a Google search could bring up all the information needed on SRP (I mentioned this?).

You're the one blaming me for posting an article about using SRP for authentication.  I'm just saying that you don't need to point fingers at me when there's already examples of using SRP for authentication on other websites across the internet

[Eric]

He posted public domain information (srp).

Nah, he posted the packet structure of every packet required to login on War3.

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2945.txt
http://srp.stanford.edu/doc.html

Uh oh, they posted information on various methods of using SRP for authentication

... I didn't mention SRP, iago did.  I already know a Google search could bring up all the information needed on SRP (I mentioned this?).

You're the one blaming me for posting an article about using SRP for authentication.  I'm just saying that you don't need to point fingers at me when there's already examples of using SRP for authentication on other websites across the internet

... like I said, I didn't say anything about SRP however you did post a small piece of it on your site as well, but I clearly said how you could use Google to find some of the information too.  I said you posted the entire packet sequence and the structure of every packet in the sequence for a War3 connection which is something you wouldn't be able to find many, if any, other places at the time.

I'm going beyond proveable fact here, but I just remembered how you had also told me that you hoped to have all of the C decoding/hashing funtions ported to Visual Basic and put on your site soon as well as the already posted packet information.

With the addition of UserLoser (who'm I had forgotten I talked with) that makes 3 out of the 5 authors of the code who wanted to see and were already contributing to the publicity of the code. hrm...

[UserLoser.]

With the addition of UserLoser (who'm I had forgotten I talked with) that makes 3 out of the 5 authors of the code who wanted to see and were already contributing to the publicity of the code. hrm...

I never planned on releasing anything, nor will I ever in the future because of the people out there.  I had thoughts about releasing certain functions, but never did

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

Sending bytes is not a crime. Stop trying to make it one.

By your logic, is opening a door, walking, and picking something up a crime?  

If it's on your *legally defined property*, then yes, it is.

You're saying that people don't own their computers?

I'm saying that sending bytes to someone's computer via a public, global network is not stepping on their private property.

The thing is, crime is crime.  If you're infringing on somebody's rights, no matter how or where, it's crime. Just because you put a computer between you and them doesn't make it more right, it makes it more anonymous.  Stealing is stealing, vandalism is vandalism.  It's no different.

I don't see a "breaking and entering" computer law.

[Adron]

I don't see a "breaking and entering" computer law.

It's "18 U.S.C. § 1030.  Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers"

It covers cases of stolen information just like this...

[iago]

Sending bytes is not a crime. Stop trying to make it one.

By your logic, is opening a door, walking, and picking something up a crime?  

If it's on your *legally defined property*, then yes, it is.

You're saying that people don't own their computers?

I'm saying that sending bytes to someone's computer via a public, global network is not stepping on their private property.

The thing is, crime is crime.  If you're infringing on somebody's rights, no matter how or where, it's crime. Just because you put a computer between you and them doesn't make it more right, it makes it more anonymous.  Stealing is stealing, vandalism is vandalism.  It's no different.

I don't see a "breaking and entering" computer law.

It seems similar to standing on the street with a gun and shooting out somebody's window.  "But the bullet smashed the window, I didn't! I wasn't evenon his property!"

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

Shooting out someone's window is a crime. Sending data to someone's server is not.

[iago]

Shooting out someone's window is a crime. Sending data to someone's server is not.

Sending malicious data to somebody's computer is no different than sending a malicious object at somebody's house.  

Sending data in general isnt' illegal, and neither is throwing a rock.  Sending data with the intention to harm or do damage is, and so is throwing a rock with intention to harm or do damage.

The only difference that the Internet makes is anonyminity -- you aren't physically there.  And just because you don't see what happens, and you don't get blamed for what happens, doesn't make it right.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

Sending malicious data to somebody's computer is no different than sending a malicious object at somebody's house.

Why, it's quite different. I'm not physically doing anything to anyone. I'm sending a series of bytes to an upstream router. There's no law anywhere that describes "malicious data".

[Skywing]

Shooting out someone's window is a crime. Sending data to someone's server is not.

Adron has quoted federal law several times in this thread now that says it is in fact a crime in certain circumstances, such as, say, this one.  What more do you need?

[Adron]

Sending malicious data to somebody's computer is no different than sending a malicious object at somebody's house.

Why, it's quite different. I'm not physically doing anything to anyone. I'm sending a series of bytes to an upstream router. There's no law anywhere that describes "malicious data".

Umm, your claim is that you aren't physically doing anything at all? Is this all happening in your mind only? Basic computer knowledge should tell you that you're doing something physical when sending bytes to an upstream router...

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

Link me to the law.

[UserLoser.]

Link me to the law.

Use Google.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

I don't want to sift through it.