A previous post of mine mentions the copyright violation. I quoted copyright law and mentioned the book at that time, but I don't want to repeat it.

I'm also against lock picking books being sold to the general public. My point should be obvious and it's pitiful that nobody has supported me.

I'll probably spread this information around to see how other groups respond.

Abigail

Are you against half of the movies made as well, because it teaches how to use a gun?

You got that all wrong, Abigail. As a US citizen, you not only have the right to bear arms, you have the moral duty to watch movies teaching you how to use them. ;-)

Liz

the right to bear arms

It's so sad that a typo has so much impact. The intent was that the line in the constitution read the right to arm bears.

Abigail

Bears are near extinction in the U.S. now -- no doubt because so many citizens took advantage of this amendment to the constitution, and bear arms were considered a "gotta have it" commodity.

Don't assume everyone has read all your previous posts and remembers them.

Believe me reading Wassercrats' previous posts doesn't really help any.

Hmmm... why does the word "troll" suddenly come to mind...

Your point actually is very obvious. The brick wall you're running into is the fact that your paradigm is fundamentally different than that shared by many Perlmonks. Let me explain.

A paradigm is defined as

1. One that serves as a pattern or model.
2. A set or list of all the inflectional forms of a word or of one of its grammatical categories: the paradigm of an irregular verb.
3. A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.

Many Perlmonks, including myself, tend to be very liberal and open in their attitudes towards ... well ... most things. The concept of personal accountability runs through the whole OpenSource movement, with which there is a lot of overlap into the "Perl community" (if there is such a thing).

The paradigm you appear to be espousing is one where a group of (usually) wiser members of the community choose what the community is (and is not) exposed to. This is a very conservative view, one that many Perlmonks may find very patronizing and paternalistic.

Let me illustrate with an example - the fact that O'Reilly is promoting a book on hacking that includes exploit code. Your reaction is that this is irresponsible and should be punished immediately. My reaction is one of gratitude. I have no desire to crack any system, but I also don't want the systems I'm responsible for to be cracked, either. So, I want to learn how to protect my systems. My question to you is "How can I verify my system is hardened against a certain exploit without testing my system with that exploit?" I don't have the desire to figure out exploits. I just want to stop them. So, I go to CERN, subscribe to security lists, and purchase this book.

Take a hard look at that argument. It is almost identical in form to the argument that the NRA uses in USA politics when opposing gun control. "We must arm ourselves to protect our families against the criminals who already have the guns." Most conservatives would agree with that argument ... If you do, think long and hard what the difference is between the NRA's argument and mine.

I'm very confused as to the labels that you place on certain ideologies.

First you say "Many Perlmonks ... tend to be very liberal.... The concept of personal accountability runs through the whole OpenSource movement...." Usually personal accountability / responsibilty are tenants of a more conservative viewpoint: the NRA, as you somewhat pointed out, would be in favor of "blaming the gun-owner, not the gun". It is also the primary reason why conservatives unjustifiably get a black mark for supporting principles such as welfare reform; though it may be nice to give a hungry person a piece of fish, it is much better to teach that person how to fish, so they'll never go hungry again. In other words, the hungry person should be made somewhat accountable for their needs to prevent them from becoming dependant on getting handouts from the system.

You further go on to state "The paradigm you appear to be espousing is one where a group of (usually) wiser members of the community choose what the community is (and is not) exposed to. This is a very conservative view, one that many Perlmonks may find very patronizing and paternalistic." (sorry if there is a "Quote" tag that I'm not using, I'm just a NewB). It actually seems as though "Liberals" have introduced some of the more limiting, "paternalistic" policies: anti-tobacco, anit-gun-ownership, even pro-environmental concerns could be construed as such. In fact the latest group that I've heard mentioning content control of the media stemmed from Tipper Gore and Sen. Lieberman.

However, I do not think my confusion is solely your fault, rather it is the fault in the labels themselves. The ideals that you have defined are neither "liberal nor "conservative", but rather they are "anarcistic" and "restrictive" or "open" vs. "closed", respectively. A truly open society would allow the people to do WHATEVER (s)he wanted to do without imposing any laws on the society, nodding to the people's own judgement and their sense of personal responsibility to act in an ethical manner. Whereas in a closed society there is a belief that people will tend to do the wrong thing and so society should be regulated as much as possible to prevent any harm on our society. "Liberals" can be just as open or closed in terms of societal control as "conservatives"; compare my previous points with how these groups view abortion, gay rights, etc.

So now that I'm completely off track about the O'Reilly boycott... I agree with most all of the comments why the banning should be, well, banned. A couple of movies that might be interesting to watch: (1) Demolition Man (Huh?! Yep... Demo. Man, IMMHO, is a great take on Huxley's "A Brave New World" (coincidence on author's and character's name? I think not...), a book about a very closed society where: "

Lenina Huxley: Anything not good for you is bad, hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat . . .

John Spartan: Are you sh**ing me?

A computer: John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute.

John Spartan: What the Hell is that?

A computer: John Spartan, you are fined one credit . . .

Lenina Huxley: Bad language, child play, gasoline, uneducational toys, and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal. But, then again so is pregnancy, if you don't have a license.

") (2) "Catch Me if You Can" (a movie showing how "knowing" how something bad is done can be used in preventing / exposing these problems in the future)

As for post-dating a copyright claim. Um, is it an infringement of a law to make a claim where the law requires no claim? As of March 1989 it is unnecessary to make a claim for copyright in the US.

In fact I liked the book you refer to. I found the material presented very useful and informative. It has helped me to understand the processes of spidering and what I could expect as results. I also have the "Linux Server Hacks" and for a non-sysadmin like me it is also very useful.

Sorry, no boycott for me! I have found O'Reilly one of the most ethical publisher in the field of recent years and I will continue to support them in any way that I can.

jdtoronto

As of March 1989 it is unnecessary to make a claim for copyright in the US.

Yes...., but that doesn't mean it's valid to willingly make an incorrect claim [1]. Furthermore, if you sue for damages if there has been a copyright infrigment, you greatly reduce your chance of collecting damages if you didn't make your claim.

[1] With that statement, I'm not saying that putting a Copyright © 2004 statement in a book that's published at the end of 2003 is an invalid claim.

Abigail

As for post-dating a copyright claim. Um, is it an infringement of a law to make a claim where the law requires no claim?

Yes, it is. True, the law doesn't require a copyright claim, but if you do make one, there are certain rules you have to follow. One of them is that the copyright claim on the item has to be on the year it was first published in.

As I noted in one of my other posts in this thread, post-copyright claims are extremely widespread in the entire publishing industry on items published near the end of the year. In my high school German class, the teacher had just ordered recently-published books at the end of 1999 with a copyright of 2000. Illegal? Yes, but hardly something worth boycotting over.

Update: Fixed ugly grammatical errors. Must make better use of preview.

----
I wanted to explore how Perl's closures can be manipulated, and ended up creating an object system by accident.
-- Schemer

: () { :|:& };:

Note: All code is untested, unless otherwise stated

I thought there was the concept of freedom of speech?

Yes, and? First of all, "freedom of speech" refers to what the government isn't allowed to do. But even in a non-legal sense, "freedom of speech" isn't a magic wand that can justify any deed.

Freedom of speech gives you the right to speak. But that's just the right to speak. It doesn't give you the right to be heard - others have the right to ignore you. Nor does "freedom of speech" lift you from your moral or legal responsibilities.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't have the opinion that O'Reilly shouldn't have published to book. I just think this book has more reasons to exist that just "freedom of speech".

Abigail

 I just think this book has more reasons to exist that just "freedom o
+f speech".
[download]

So do I. I indicated it in my own ineffectual way with the opening part of my node. But that doesn't matter ;).

I'm not so naieve to believe that any granted freedom is a guarantee of right to exercise that freedom. But thats an argument for a different forum on another day.

Quoted from their website:
"SANS is the most trusted and by far the largest source for information security training and certification in the world. It also develops, maintains, and makes available at no cost, the largest collection of research documents about various aspects of information security, and it operates the Internet's early warning system - Internet Storm Center. The SANS (SysAdmin, Audit, Network, Security) Institute was established in 1989 as a cooperative research and education organization. Its programs now reach more than 165,000 security professionals, auditors, system administrators, network administrators, chief information security officers, and CIOs who share the lessons they are learning and jointly find solutions to the challenges they face. At the heart of SANS are the many security practitioners in government agencies, corporations, and universities around the world who invest hundreds of hours each year in research and teaching to help the entire information security community."

Anyway, track 4 of their training (Track 4: Hacker Techniques, Exploits and Incident Handling) goes through the process of hacking a site (including the use of the tools most likely to be used.) Not having read the book, I cannot say how much/little time is spent on ethics issues, but I'd not write it off as an "evil". (Actually, after I finish this post, I am going to forward the details of the book on to my supervisor and get a copy.)

Ok, for once, I'll bite.

I'm also against lock picking books being sold to the general public.

I also study martial arts. I'm vaguely aware of how to seriously hurt someone (or hopefully defend myself if the need ever arose). Does this make more dangerous? Not really - I really don't ever want to fight anyone.

Knowledge doesn't make people dangerous. It simply allows people to do more. People are not made dangerous by knowledge [2].

I'm also against lock picking books being sold to the general public. My point should be obvious and it's pitiful that nobody has supported me.

Cripes, where to begin with you? Start with Locks and Full Disclosure, concerning a dirty little secret confined to lock makers, locksmiths and criminals for over a century. I call that dishonorale and pitiful, that a whole century goes by, and that an outsider has to make a stink, before they clean up their act and fix their mess.

I can't think of a a better corrective than the public exposure and humiliation of a published exploit to get lazy a*****s to fix their shoddy goods. Sort of like putting them in stocks and letting the public jeer and throw rotten vegetables at them, in a non-violent free market style.

Mister, you should bow down and kiss the feet of everyone who blows a whistle: the world becomes measurably safer every time we act on their information.

I wonder if this phenomenon is limited to the Perl community. Maybe there is too strong a bond between O'Reilly and Perl. I'll probably spread this information around to see how other groups respond.

Troll, troll, troll: implying moral turpitude for not supporting your views. How pitifully Ashcroftian of you. If I had another PM username, I'd downvote you twice.

If you still feel the same way, try redrafting your original post, changing the intended audience to a mildly interested apolitical type. Keep it brief, jargon free, and state what you mean -- implied points are only useful for intentionally misleading your audience.