Usenet allowed from work?

I have an interesting connection to my web site from a corporate
network, and someone listening to my online radio station right now,
from a corporate network in Cincinnati, Ohio
I use one service that gives me details about where people connect
to my website from, including "referrer" links. Whoever connected from
their workplace, linked from a Usenet posting of my E-zine, in Google
Groups.
I thought that Usenet and/or Google Groups were VERBOTEN on
virtually ALL corporate LANS worldwide. This one printing company in
Ohio must be about the ONLY company that does allow its workers to
access Usenet postings from work. I always thought that Usenet would
always be the first thing that corporate network policy would ban, and
every major filtering software ships their products with news software
and/or news servers blocked by default.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:

> I thought that Usenet and/or Google Groups were VERBOTEN on
> virtually ALL corporate LANS worldwide.

No, in general the security risks of NNTP are fairly low compared to other
threats. Of course free access to usenet can waste a lot time of the
employees and therefore a ban can make sense but usenet is getting less and
less popular.

And these are cases when usenet access is required for work.

Wolfgang

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article <1182448175.438749.112850@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> I have an interesting connection to my web site from a corporate
> network, and someone listening to my online radio station right now,
> from a corporate network in Cincinnati, Ohio

Shame on them for wasting company resources.

> I use one service that gives me details about where people connect
> to my website from, including "referrer" links. Whoever connected from
> their workplace, linked from a Usenet posting of my E-zine, in Google
> Groups.

Nothing new.

> I thought that Usenet and/or Google Groups were VERBOTEN on
> virtually ALL corporate LANS worldwide. This one printing company in
> Ohio must be about the ONLY company that does allow its workers to
> access Usenet postings from work. I always thought that Usenet would
> always be the first thing that corporate network policy would ban, and
> every major filtering software ships their products with news software
> and/or news servers blocked by default.

Many companies don't understand security and don't implement it
properly. If the company in question did properly implement security
your site, in fact, most sites, including Usenet, would be blocked by
default.

Usenet, with Binary groups filled with malware is a serious threat to
any network. Google groups is not Usenet, it's a web interface to
Usenet.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article <1182448175.438749.112850@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
> I thought that Usenet and/or Google Groups were VERBOTEN on
>virtually ALL corporate LANS worldwide. This one printing company in
>Ohio must be about the ONLY company that does allow its workers to
>access Usenet postings from work.

No, there are many newsgroups that are useful in corporate settings,
and it isn't always practical to predict which ones they will be.
You can make some educated guesses on -some- of the hierarchies
(e.g., binaries pictures erotica) but the rest get harder
as there is such a wide variety of tasks in a large organization.

HQ of the organization I work for is a major regional Usenet feed.
The technical feeds are most obvious, but we feed a number of
universities, and you never know what someone is studying at
a university.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> I have an interesting connection to my web site from a corporate
> network, and someone listening to my online radio station right now,
> from a corporate network in Cincinnati, Ohio
> I use one service that gives me details about where people connect
> to my website from, including "referrer" links. Whoever connected from
> their workplace, linked from a Usenet posting of my E-zine, in Google
> Groups.
> I thought that Usenet and/or Google Groups were VERBOTEN on
> virtually ALL corporate LANS worldwide. This one printing company in
> Ohio must be about the ONLY company that does allow its workers to
> access Usenet postings from work. I always thought that Usenet would
> always be the first thing that corporate network policy would ban, and
> every major filtering software ships their products with news software
> and/or news servers blocked by default.
>

On the contrary. We block a great deal at work, often things that make
me scratch my head and wonder why, but USENET is open.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

On Jun 21, 12:24 pm, Leythos wrote:
> In article <1182448175.438749.112...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> chil...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > I have an interesting connection to my web site from a corporate
> > network, and someone listening to my online radio station right now,
> > from a corporate network in Cincinnati, Ohio
>
> Shame on them for wasting company resources.


Well, with the subscription anonumity service I use, I just
scrolled through the available nodes, to see how many people on
corporate networks are connected, and it is mind bogling. Normally,
there might be about 1000 subscribers connected at one time, but
during working hours in the USA, it can go to nearly 3 times that. I
logged on today, and scrolled thorugh the available online nodes in
America, and an incredible number of office networks are surfing
through the system. This service works as a P2P type of service. Not
only can you surf out through available nodes, but anyone connected to
the network can surf through you, as well. Right now, there is a
preigious Chicago law firm, specialising in business law and business
litigation logged onto the site, and gobbling up a LOT of bandwidth.
There are at least FIVE connections to my website and online radio
station originating from the computer network of this law firm, right
now. Someone is logged onto the subscription anonymity service from
there, and others are surfing through that open node that has now been
created by this one person being logged on. The husband-and-wife team
who own this particular law firm probably have NO CLUE as to what is
taking place on their office computer network.
The way this service works, someone could be on your network,
right now, to this subscrption service, and you might not even KNOW
it, until you get your bandwidth bill, and wonder why the bill has
gone up. Unlike Tor, and other free services, these subscription
services don't advertise themselves like a neon sign, so the bosses at
this one law firm, with at least 5 different connections to my online
radio station, originating through there, will never know what is
taking place. At the 32K that I transmit music at (when not doing any
live programming), 5 connections equals 160K of bandwidth being
gobbled up at once. They probably have no clue as to what is gobbling
down 160K of bandwidth.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article <1183071666.341278.26670@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> The way this service works, someone could be on your network,
> right now, to this subscrption service, and you might not even KNOW
> it

Yea, I've listened to that mantra before - fact is that your type of
service is EASY to block and we already do that for all of our
customers.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.20ee30293f0aa55898975b@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <1183071666.341278.26670@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> The way this service works, someone could be on your network,
>> right now, to this subscrption service, and you might not even KNOW
>> it
>
> Yea, I've listened to that mantra before - fact is that your type of
> service is EASY to block and we already do that for all of our
> customers.

Not as easy as it once was. While music streams are normally
access on port 1755 (Windows Media), 8000 (MP3) or
554 (RealPlayer), one streaming host I an considering
switching to, if the CRB royalty rates in America are
eventually defeated, uses port 80. Part of it is to make
is harder to block, without blocking out EVERYTHING,
including work-related sites. And since my domain is
not any site site blacklists, people would not have to
use anything like Tor, or anything like that. I keep my
streams at no more than 16K now, so that Tor users
can get my station (Tor tends to have a lot of annoying
rebuffering at anything much above 16K).

Basically, I will be assigned an IP address, where I
will assign a subdomain to it. Since it would all be
under my domain, it would be under the radar of
almost any web filtering system on Earth, as of
right now. So if and when I make the switch,
it will be that much harder for you to block,
and easier for users to access my station, without
having to use Tor, open proxies, or subscription
anonymity services.

Basically, it would blend in with all the other traffic
going out on port 80, and would harly be noticed
by most corporate network admins.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , AnnikinSolo@sith.hotmail.com says...
> Not as easy as it once was. While music streams are normally
> access on port 1755 (Windows Media), 8000 (MP3) or
> 554 (RealPlayer), one streaming host I an considering
> switching to, if the CRB royalty rates in America are
> eventually defeated, uses port 80. Part of it is to make
> is harder to block, without blocking out EVERYTHING,
> including work-related sites. And since my domain is
> not any site site blacklists, people would not have to
> use anything like Tor, or anything like that. I keep my
> streams at no more than 16K now, so that Tor users
> can get my station (Tor tends to have a lot of annoying
> rebuffering at anything much above 16K).

Anyone that allows free HTTP access is a fool, all quality firewall
solutions provide blocking for it, all good network admins block HTTP
access except to approved sites, and your site, since it's not an
approved business partner site would be blocked for everyone of our
clients by default.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.20f7eda87b3013a79897ab@adfree.Usenet.com...


> Anyone that allows free HTTP access is a fool, all quality firewall
> solutions provide blocking for it, all good network admins block HTTP
> access except to approved sites, and your site, since it's not an
> approved business partner site would be blocked for everyone of our
> clients by default.


However, this stream provider goes out of their way to make
it harder to block. It is much more expensive that most streaming
providers, which include royalties, but they charge that much
more becuase they gotta pay all those techies that work
day and night to make their site harder to block. For every
measure you can come up with to block them, they will
come up with countermeasures to circumvent it. They
work hard for their clientelle to make it harder for
any employers to block any of their customers'
online radio stations.

I basically like what I see, in that it would be possible, in
most workplaces, to access my radio station, through
this streaming provider, without having to use Tor,
open proxies, or any anonymity services. This means
I can transmit at a higher bit rate, and not have to
keep the bit rate down, to maintain compatability
with Tor, which does not handle high bitrate streams
very well

Basically, they provide a relay service. Just connect
your server to the realay, point your domain at the
address for that relay, and you are done.

I find that neither this streaming relay service, nor
any of its clientelle are in any filtering lists from any
of the major filtering vendors, so anyone broadcasting
through this relay service could be heard in most
workplaces around the world.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Here is something interesting, someone is using an open proxy in
Saudi Arabia to connect to my streams. A few days ago, I had
about 10 streams served to one address in Saudi Arabia. It
appears that someone, somewhere, is connecting to my
stream, from work, using an open proxy server in Saudi
Arabia.

Wherever it is, the boss will know that a connection was made
to a strange address in Saudi Arabia, but would never have
ANY IDEA they were connecting to my online radio
station.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> Wherever it is, the boss will know that a connection was made
> to a strange address in Saudi Arabia, but would never have
> ANY IDEA they were connecting to my online radio
> station.

And if the firewall was properly setup it would not allow connections to
Saudi Arabia - so, again, you only work if there are unsecured networks
for your users to access. And since most Proxy sites are known, since
many blocking services update their list daily, there is a very real
chance that even just blocking Proxy sites would prevent them from
accessing your unethical site.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.2101e604cbc68d2f98977a@adfree.Usenet.com...


> for your users to access. And since most Proxy sites are known, since
> many blocking services update their list daily, there is a very real
> chance that even just blocking Proxy sites would prevent them from
> accessing your unethical site.
>

Depends on what service you use. I use one service, with proxy
sites, on which 99.9 percent of them are NOT in any blacklist.
I test this by going to Wikipedia, and seeing if it will let me access
the edit page for any article. I find that Wikipedia lets all but
a handful through. If Wikipedia, as vigilent as they are, cannot
detect most of them, then they are not likely to appear on any
blacklists.

This service is SOOO good, that somoene could be using it
right now, right under your nose, and you would likely
never find out about it. Becuase some port HAS to be
open to anything to get out on the Net, if you know
what outgoing ports are open, you can specify to the
software to only search to nodes on those ports.
For example, someone can tell the client software to
search for nodes on port 80, and it will spit back
all the available nodes on port 80, then the user just
selects one and connects, and, viola!! All that
security you invested in is knockwurst. As long
as any port is open for output, and as long as the
client software can find a working node on that
port anywhere in the world, someone can connect
to the anonymity network via that port. It uses
all kinds of addresses and ports, which makes trying
to stop up like playing whack-a-mole.

Also, I use higher quality codecs now to make my streams
Tor-friendly. I find a lot of people use Tor to access my
stream, and I have found that does not not work well
with streams much above 32K. So by keeping the
streams at 32K or less, people can sneak on using
Tor and there wont be the constant problem of
rebuffering or getting disconnected.

One TV sports reporter on one of the major networks
even advocated using Tor to sneak onto the feeds of
the NCAA basketball tournament earlier this year, so
I am not the only one advocating Tor to avoid
monitoring and detection by the boss. This one
reporter had even showed where to get it and how
to use it, and did tout its encryption.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:31:25 -0700, Chilly8 wrote:
>
> "Leythos" wrote in message
> news:MPG.2101e604cbc68d2f98977a@adfree.Usenet.com...
>
>
> > for your users to access. And since most Proxy sites are known, since
> > many blocking services update their list daily, there is a very real
> > chance that even just blocking Proxy sites would prevent them from
> > accessing your unethical site.
> >
>
> Depends on what service you use. I use one service, with proxy
> sites, on which 99.9 percent of them are NOT in any blacklist.
> I test this by going to Wikipedia, and seeing if it will let me access
> the edit page for any article. I find that Wikipedia lets all but
> a handful through. If Wikipedia, as vigilent as they are, cannot
> detect most of them, then they are not likely to appear on any
> blacklists.
>
> This service is SOOO good, that somoene could be using it
> right now, right under your nose, and you would likely
> never find out about it. Becuase some port HAS to be
> open to anything to get out on the Net,

Yes, but what you need is an accessible _route_ to the Net,
which may very well be non-existent. That's why we have
filtering application level firewalls, and the most desperate
resort to high-overhead http, dns or icmp-tunnelling (which
may or may not be blocked by the firewall).


- Eirik

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Eirik Seim" wrote in message
news:slrnf9he83.f2e.eirik@erasmus.uib.no...
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:31:25 -0700, Chilly8 wrote:
>>
>> "Leythos" wrote in message
>> news:MPG.2101e604cbc68d2f98977a@adfree.Usenet.com...
>>
>>
>> > for your users to access. And since most Proxy sites are known, since
>> > many blocking services update their list daily, there is a very real
>> > chance that even just blocking Proxy sites would prevent them from
>> > accessing your unethical site.
>> >
>>
>> Depends on what service you use. I use one service, with proxy
>> sites, on which 99.9 percent of them are NOT in any blacklist.
>> I test this by going to Wikipedia, and seeing if it will let me access
>> the edit page for any article. I find that Wikipedia lets all but
>> a handful through. If Wikipedia, as vigilent as they are, cannot
>> detect most of them, then they are not likely to appear on any
>> blacklists.
>>
>> This service is SOOO good, that somoene could be using it
>> right now, right under your nose, and you would likely
>> never find out about it. Becuase some port HAS to be
>> open to anything to get out on the Net,
>
> Yes, but what you need is an accessible _route_ to the Net,
> which may very well be non-existent. That's why we have
> filtering application level firewalls, and the most desperate
> resort to high-overhead http, dns or icmp-tunnelling (which
> may or may not be blocked by the firewall).


Now this one service has an optional US$8.95/month
"premium" plan that includes an extra layer of heavy
encryption, so that it is even easier to hide your
activities from the boss. So someone could run an
encrypted session with this service, and you, as
network admins, would never know what that
person is up to.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> Now this one service has an optional US$8.95/month
> "premium" plan that includes an extra layer of heavy
> encryption, so that it is even easier to hide your
> activities from the boss. So someone could run an
> encrypted session with this service, and you, as
> network admins, would never know what that
> person is up to.

You can't hide it, it's always visible and easy to spot.
--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.2105aaf9d6552abb9897a2@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> Now this one service has an optional US$8.95/month
>> "premium" plan that includes an extra layer of heavy
>> encryption, so that it is even easier to hide your
>> activities from the boss. So someone could run an
>> encrypted session with this service, and you, as
>> network admins, would never know what that
>> person is up to.
>
> You can't hide it, it's always visible and easy to spot.

The address is whichever of this company's "elite"
proxies you went to would show in the logs, yes.
But where you went beyond tht proxies would
only be known to the company providing this
service. The only thing that you, as a network
admin, would know is that someone was making
an encrypted connect to some strange address
in either Canada, the U.S., or the U.K, where
their elite proxies are hosted for the fastest
possible speeds..

> --
>
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> The address is whichever of this company's "elite"
> proxies you went to would show in the logs, yes.
> But where you went beyond tht proxies would
> only be known to the company providing this
> service. The only thing that you, as a network
> admin, would know is that someone was making
> an encrypted connect to some strange address
> in either Canada, the U.S., or the U.K, where
> their elite proxies are hosted for the fastest
> possible speeds..

And since that has no valid business reason, it's going to be blocked
and then the person doing it will be reprimanded. So, as you can see,
even if you fail to understand, it's easy to spot, easy to block, easy
to get the person doing it, etc...

The only reason you get connections is because the businesses don't lock
down their networks properly.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.2105c0e09a56df1a9897a8@adfree.Usenet.com...


> The only reason you get connections is because the businesses don't lock
> down their networks properly.


With some Internet radio stations closing down becuase
of higher royalty rates, I am seeing more traffic to my
station now. A partial deal was struck that will not
silence as many webcasters, but enough of them
to drive traffic to other sites. Beginning on Monday
July 16th, I have seen a large jump in the number
of corporate networks visiting my site and my radio
station.

I do believe that is why I saw up to 10 streams
being served at once to an open proxy in Saudi
Arabia. The webcasters that will be able to stay
in the air are buying bandwidth from larger
"aggregators" and coming under the "umbrella" of
their licence, and Live 365 does offer such accounts.
Becuase Live 365 will be blocked where the
independent webcaster, who uses his own server,
will not, people have to do things like use proxies,
to get to Live 365 stations.

I have do doubt those are people on corporate
networks in America, given that these streams
are being served during the workday in America,
and that I am picking up some listeners looking
for new stations after the close of some of the
smaller independent webcasters, and many of
those are on corporate networks in America.
I am beginning to see a large increase in listenership
from open proxies, anonymity services, and many
direct connections from corporate networks all
over the place.

It appears that a couple of 80s stations have been
silenced, and people are coming to my off-hours
music programming (when not broadcasting
sports or talk programming), as an alternative,
since I do play a lot of 80s music. With users
using every possible workaround to listen to me,
someone could well be listening on your office
network right now, and you will not know what
they are up to.

Even a lot of foreign broadcasters using U.S.
streaming providers to avoid regulations on
Net radio in their own home countries. The
U.S. is one of few countries that have not yet
enacted content and/or decency regulations on
Internet radio, which is why my station, out of
Australia, uses an American provider. And
many foreign broadcasters take advantage of
this.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Leythos" wrote in message
> news:MPG.2105c0e09a56df1a9897a8@adfree.Usenet.com...
>
>
> > The only reason you get connections is because the businesses don't lock
> > down their networks properly.
>
[snipped parts that didn't address what I said]

As you can see, you ignored my reply that stated that the only reason
you can provide content is because the firewalls of business are not
configured properly or you would not be getting accessed from them.

Once the company finds they are lacking in network capacity they will
start looking, find your connection easily, find the offending employee,
block the connection and you will not have that customer. This is very
simple and should be something checked for on a weekly basis with most
businesses.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.210693f8e0312f239897b3@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> "Leythos" wrote in message
>> news:MPG.2105c0e09a56df1a9897a8@adfree.Usenet.com...
>>
>>
>> > The only reason you get connections is because the businesses don't
>> > lock
>> > down their networks properly.
>>
> [snipped parts that didn't address what I said]
>
> As you can see, you ignored my reply that stated that the only reason
> you can provide content is because the firewalls of business are not
> configured properly or you would not be getting accessed from them.
>
> Once the company finds they are lacking in network capacity they will
> start looking, find your connection easily, find the offending employee,
> block the connection and you will not have that customer. This is very
> simple and should be something checked for on a weekly basis with most
> businesses.
>

Well, like I said , with indepdent webcasters, not under the umbrella of
the large streaming services, shutting down, people are looking for
alternatives. The fact that talk and sports stations, like mine, play music
when not airing any talk or sports programming, are bringing in more
listeners. The total listening hours of my music programming are going
through the roof, and people are circumventing the filteringof Live 365
by the major filtering providers. Putup all the blocks you want to Live
365, but users will find a way around them. And withone program
I now using, I can deliver 16K MP3Pro stereo, which provides
incredible sound quality for such a low bitrate feed.

The low bitrate also allows people to listen from work without
advertising what they are bloody doing, like a neon sign. Your
average listener would only use a few megabytes a day, hardly enough
to arouse suspicion.

Since I began broadcasting in 16K MP3Pro, that has also increased
my listenership, as people can listen fromwork, to my low-bitrate high
quality feed, and not stand out in the logs

As I am writing this, I have a number of corporate networks in Asia,
connecting to me right now, as it is the workday there.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> The low bitrate also allows people to listen from work without
> advertising what they are bloody doing, like a neon sign. Your
> average listener would only use a few megabytes a day, hardly enough
> to arouse suspicion.

And, again, you show that you don't understand how detection works. It's
quite simple to detect, in fact, your connection would stand out like a
glaring red flag in a see of connections.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.210775c9ecbda46b9897cc@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> The low bitrate also allows people to listen from work without
>> advertising what they are bloody doing, like a neon sign. Your
>> average listener would only use a few megabytes a day, hardly enough
>> to arouse suspicion.
>
> And, again, you show that you don't understand how detection works. It's
> quite simple to detect, in fact, your connection would stand out like a
> glaring red flag in a see of connections.

Not if its low bitrate does not use much bandwidth. If it does not use
an excessive amount of bandwidth, it will not draw suspicion.

Plus, I traced whree that open proxy is. It is at an exclusive luxury
apartment complex in Al-Butayn, Saudi Arabia, where high speed
net access is included in the rent. You would know a connection
was being made to a residential broadband connection at this
apartment house, but you would not know what they were doing
otherwise.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> Not if its low bitrate does not use much bandwidth. If it does not use
> an excessive amount of bandwidth, it will not draw suspicion.

Again, it's not the rate, it's the connection, and it will stand out
like a big sign. It's that simple, you clearly don't understand security
so you think that this is hard to detect, it's not, it's simple, and we
block at easily at all customers by default.


--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.2107897a6d4112589897ce@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> Not if its low bitrate does not use much bandwidth. If it does not use
>> an excessive amount of bandwidth, it will not draw suspicion.
>
> Again, it's not the rate, it's the connection, and it will stand out
> like a big sign. It's that simple, you clearly don't understand security
> so you think that this is hard to detect, it's not, it's simple, and we
> block at easily at all customers by default.


Howevr, as the saying goes "Where there is a will, there is a way",
which I have been seeing increased traffic from open proxies and
anomymity services, as people circumvent whatever measures their
network admin has taken to block it. With the increased listenership
today alone, I will be very interesting in the geographical statistics,
which are sent out daily at 10AM California time. That should
prove some very interesting reading.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.2107897a6d4112589897ce@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> Not if its low bitrate does not use much bandwidth. If it does not use
>> an excessive amount of bandwidth, it will not draw suspicion.
>
> Again, it's not the rate, it's the connection, and it will stand out
> like a big sign. It's that simple, you clearly don't understand security
> so you think that this is hard to detect, it's not, it's simple, and we
> block at easily at all customers by default.


Howevr, as the saying goes "Where there is a will, there is a way",
which I have been seeing increased traffic from open proxies and
anomymity services, as people circumvent whatever measures their
network admin has taken to block it. With the increased listenership
today alone, I will be very interesting in the geographical statistics,
which are sent out daily at 10AM California time. That should
prove some very interesting reading.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.2107897a6d4112589897ce@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> Not if its low bitrate does not use much bandwidth. If it does not use
>> an excessive amount of bandwidth, it will not draw suspicion.
>
> Again, it's not the rate, it's the connection, and it will stand out
> like a big sign. It's that simple, you clearly don't understand security


Not if I use one service, which I may go to when my Live 365
contract expires next year. This techies there have specifically
tailored their feeds as to not be as detectable as a Live 365
feed. This is becuase they use port 80, so the traffic to
broadcasters on the service I am looking it, will just
blend in with all the other port 80 traffic, and will not be
noticed, if I continue to use a low bitrate feed.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Leythos" wrote in message
> news:MPG.2107897a6d4112589897ce@adfree.Usenet.com...
> > In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >> Not if its low bitrate does not use much bandwidth. If it does not use
> >> an excessive amount of bandwidth, it will not draw suspicion.
> >
> > Again, it's not the rate, it's the connection, and it will stand out
> > like a big sign. It's that simple, you clearly don't understand security
>
>
> Not if I use one service, which I may go to when my Live 365
> contract expires next year. This techies there have specifically
> tailored their feeds as to not be as detectable as a Live 365
> feed. This is becuase they use port 80, so the traffic to
> broadcasters on the service I am looking it, will just
> blend in with all the other port 80 traffic, and will not be
> noticed, if I continue to use a low bitrate feed.

Listen, port anything (even 80) can easily be detected based on the type
of connection you have/use, so, like it or not, even at .0001kbps data
rate, your connection will be clearly visible, easy to spot, and will be
blocked. You don't understand security and how to spot these things, you
are being given a line of BS by people that want to sell you service.
Your type of service is the easiest to spot and block, it's really that
simple.

Your service, even on port 80, does not "Blend" in with all the other
port 80 traffic.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Chilly8" wrote in message
news:f7kg9f$ef5$2@aioe.org...


> today alone, I will be very interesting in the geographical statistics,
> which are sent out daily at 10AM California time. That should
> prove some very interesting reading.


And it is indeeed. In the past 24 hours I have had connections from
corporate networks all over the place. It appears that my music
programme is becoming a very popular at-work station, and is
growing in popularity..

I am getting connections from many a wide variety of companies and
industries with people listening to me.




>
>
>

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Wednesday 18 Jul 2007 19:26 Chlly8 wrote:

> And it is indeeed. In the past 24 hours I have had connections from
> corporate networks all over the place. It appears that my music
> programme is becoming a very popular at-work station, and is
> growing in popularity..
>
> I am getting connections from many a wide variety of companies and
> industries with people listening to me.

Good for you. Don't believe the hype - interesting that your radio streaming
is considered "unethical"! Hardly -- I've worked for many firms who
couldn't care less - self-regulation works fine. Carry on ;^)

--
Jamin @ Home: Chester UK -

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Leythos wrote:

> Listen, port anything (even 80) can easily be detected based on the type
> of connection you have/use, so, like it or not, even at .0001kbps data
> rate, your connection will be clearly visible, easy to spot, and will be
> blocked. You don't understand security and how to spot these things, you
> are being given a line of BS by people that want to sell you service.
> Your type of service is the easiest to spot and block, it's really that
> simple.
>
> Your service, even on port 80, does not "Blend" in with all the other
> port 80 traffic.

Leythos,

Whilst you're quite right that any good security department will block
this type of service, both administratively and technically, there are
still many, many companies that do not even have a security department.

My main question however is this: Why do you keep replying to this
muppet? He's just massaging his own ego.

Me Now.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article <469f1053$0$16271$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>, Me.Now@No.way
says...
> My main question however is this: Why do you keep replying to this
> muppet? He's just massaging his own ego.

Yea, I know he's just a troll, but I was bored when I replied.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Jamin Davis" wrote in message
news:d3s2n4-ftn.ln1@ID-307283.user.individual.net...
> Wednesday 18 Jul 2007 19:26 Chlly8 wrote:



> Good for you. Don't believe the hype - interesting that your radio
> streaming
> is considered "unethical"! Hardly -- I've worked for many firms who
> couldn't care less - self-regulation works fine. Carry on ;^)

Thanks guy. Finally, someone that agrees with me that listening
to Internet radio from work is NOT unethical. I dont care WHAT
the others say. It is NOT unethical to listen to any LEGAL online
radio broadcast on the Net, contrary to what some people might
say.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
>
> "Jamin Davis" wrote in message
> news:d3s2n4-ftn.ln1@ID-307283.user.individual.net...
> > Wednesday 18 Jul 2007 19:26 Chlly8 wrote:
>
>
>
> > Good for you. Don't believe the hype - interesting that your radio
> > streaming
> > is considered "unethical"! Hardly -- I've worked for many firms who
> > couldn't care less - self-regulation works fine. Carry on ;^)
>
> Thanks guy. Finally, someone that agrees with me that listening
> to Internet radio from work is NOT unethical. I dont care WHAT
> the others say. It is NOT unethical to listen to any LEGAL online
> radio broadcast on the Net, contrary to what some people might
> say.

Doing anything that violates company policy is unethical, period. Most
companies have a policy that states that using company resources for
personal use is restricted - that would include listening to internet
programs.

So, are you saying that violating company policy is ethical?

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.210972e17f1e9ab9897e8@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>
>>
>> "Jamin Davis" wrote in message
>> news:d3s2n4-ftn.ln1@ID-307283.user.individual.net...
>> > Wednesday 18 Jul 2007 19:26 Chlly8 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Good for you. Don't believe the hype - interesting that your radio
>> > streaming
>> > is considered "unethical"! Hardly -- I've worked for many firms who
>> > couldn't care less - self-regulation works fine. Carry on ;^)
>>
>> Thanks guy. Finally, someone that agrees with me that listening
>> to Internet radio from work is NOT unethical. I dont care WHAT
>> the others say. It is NOT unethical to listen to any LEGAL online
>> radio broadcast on the Net, contrary to what some people might
>> say.
>
> Doing anything that violates company policy is unethical, period. Most
> companies have a policy that states that using company resources for
> personal use is restricted - that would include listening to internet
> programs.

I see nothing wrong with listening to Internet radio at work. And
I see nothing wrong with posting information on my web site on how
to circumvent most filtering systems that block it.
>
> So, are you saying that violating company policy is ethical?

As long as you are not doing anything illegal, I dont see any problem.
I am seeing connectivity from one office network in Denmark, where I
had 3 streams going at once the other day, and I just examined
the geographical report now, with 3 streams that clocked in total
of 26 total listening hours (TLH), just from that one office
network alone. At that company, my station must be very
popular there.

My music programme is becoming very popular to listen to at
work, given the increasing number of corporate networks
my stream is being served to. I am seeing numerous corporate
networks in Spain, Australia, Japan, Norway, Israel,. Sweden,
Denmark, Canada, and the U.S. connecting to my stream.

As the owner and operator of an internet radio station, I'm against any
company policy that bans streaming. And I am very supportive
of any users that circumvents such bans, which is why I keep
my bitrate low enough that it will work with Tor.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Leythos" wrote in message
> news:MPG.210972e17f1e9ab9897e8@adfree.Usenet.com...
> > In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >>
> >>
> >> "Jamin Davis" wrote in message
> >> news:d3s2n4-ftn.ln1@ID-307283.user.individual.net...
> >> > Wednesday 18 Jul 2007 19:26 Chlly8 wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Good for you. Don't believe the hype - interesting that your radio
> >> > streaming
> >> > is considered "unethical"! Hardly -- I've worked for many firms who
> >> > couldn't care less - self-regulation works fine. Carry on ;^)
> >>
> >> Thanks guy. Finally, someone that agrees with me that listening
> >> to Internet radio from work is NOT unethical. I dont care WHAT
> >> the others say. It is NOT unethical to listen to any LEGAL online
> >> radio broadcast on the Net, contrary to what some people might
> >> say.
> >
> > Doing anything that violates company policy is unethical, period. Most
> > companies have a policy that states that using company resources for
> > personal use is restricted - that would include listening to internet
> > programs.
>
> I see nothing wrong with listening to Internet radio at work. And
> I see nothing wrong with posting information on my web site on how
> to circumvent most filtering systems that block it.
> >
> > So, are you saying that violating company policy is ethical?
>
> As long as you are not doing anything illegal, I dont see any problem.
> I am seeing connectivity from one office network in Denmark, where I
> had 3 streams going at once the other day, and I just examined
> the geographical report now, with 3 streams that clocked in total
> of 26 total listening hours (TLH), just from that one office
> network alone. At that company, my station must be very
> popular there.
>
> My music programme is becoming very popular to listen to at
> work, given the increasing number of corporate networks
> my stream is being served to. I am seeing numerous corporate
> networks in Spain, Australia, Japan, Norway, Israel,. Sweden,
> Denmark, Canada, and the U.S. connecting to my stream.
>
> As the owner and operator of an internet radio station, I'm against any
> company policy that bans streaming. And I am very supportive

So, you believe that employees should violate company policy, abuse
company resources, and that you believe it's ethical to help them do it
- that clearly explains a lot about you.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.21097ab24f6950e99897eb@adfree.Usenet.com...

> So, you believe that employees should violate company policy, abuse
> company resources, and that you believe it's ethical to help them do it
> - that clearly explains a lot about you.

Listening to online radio is NOT abusing company resources.
The 16K feed I run could hardly be considered to be
abusing company resources, and not that much of an
impact on the company network.

And there are companies who BUSINESS it is to help people
circumvent filtering systems. The only differcence between them
and me, is that I provide the information for free. With all the
sites that provide facilities and/or information on how to
circumvent filtering systems, and its all LEGAL. Since I am
not doing anything illegal just providing information, I dont
see anything unethical about it.

Internet radio is my BREAD AND BUTTER, so it is in the
best interest of my LIVELIHOOD to help people do everything
POSSIBLE to circumvent filtering and/or evade detection.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Leythos" wrote in message
> news:MPG.21097ab24f6950e99897eb@adfree.Usenet.com...
>
> > So, you believe that employees should violate company policy, abuse
> > company resources, and that you believe it's ethical to help them do it
> > - that clearly explains a lot about you.
>
> Listening to online radio is NOT abusing company resources.
> The 16K feed I run could hardly be considered to be
> abusing company resources, and not that much of an
> impact on the company network.

I can see now that you have no ethics and believe that your way, because
you have invested in it, is the only way that matters to you - you've
proven that you are a unethical person by your own statements.

Abuse of company resources means that you are using them in some manner
that the company has determined that you should not be using them. Most
companies would never approve their network users listening to internet
radio and most responsible companies already have a policy that
prohibits it if not also a network security measure that prevents it.

> And there are companies who BUSINESS it is to help people
> circumvent filtering systems.

So you try and justify your abuse of company policy and resources by
saying that "he did it"....

> The only differcence between them
> and me, is that I provide the information for free. With all the
> sites that provide facilities and/or information on how to
> circumvent filtering systems, and its all LEGAL. Since I am
> not doing anything illegal just providing information, I dont
> see anything unethical about it.

I didn't say you were doing anything Illegal I said you are unethical.

> Internet radio is my BREAD AND BUTTER, so it is in the
> best interest of my LIVELIHOOD to help people do everything
> POSSIBLE to circumvent filtering and/or evade detection.

And yet you seem to believe that you are Ethical in helping people break
company policy, abusing network resources. What's funnier is that you
don't understand how very simple it is to spot your traffic on ANY
network, and while you've been told, you seem to want make readers of
this group believe it's not easy to detect, which, would be another
unethical hack on your part - since it's clearly easy to detect.


--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
news:Xns9972E57D7FFBFjuergennieveler@nieveler.org...
> "Chlly8" wrote:
>
>> The 16K feed I run could hardly be considered to be
>> abusing company resources, and not that much of an
>> impact on the company network.
>
> 10 people listening to it turn it into 160k of stream. 100 people
> listening to it would be 1600k.
>
> A lot of companies have a 2Mbit line to the Internet, or even less...
> you see the problem?


They they should upgrade their connections to a and get more
bandwdith. In many countries there is DSL to 6 megabuts, and
there will be 15 megs (or more) when all the phone companies
in America begin using FIOS.

If the the boss wants to be a tightwad and only purchase a 2 meg
connection to the net, thats his problem, when higher bandwidth
connections, from both DSL and cable, are available, at resonable
prices. The solution to bandwidth problems is to simply purchase
more bandwidth.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
> news:Xns9972E57D7FFBFjuergennieveler@nieveler.org...
> > "Chlly8" wrote:
> >
> >> The 16K feed I run could hardly be considered to be
> >> abusing company resources, and not that much of an
> >> impact on the company network.
> >
> > 10 people listening to it turn it into 160k of stream. 100 people
> > listening to it would be 1600k.
> >
> > A lot of companies have a 2Mbit line to the Internet, or even less...
> > you see the problem?
>
>
> They they should upgrade their connections to a and get more
> bandwdith. In many countries there is DSL to 6 megabuts, and
> there will be 15 megs (or more) when all the phone companies
> in America begin using FIOS.

LOL - you wanting the company to SPEND MORE MONEY to support employees
abusing the network and company policy. You are unbelievable and
unethical.

> If the the boss wants to be a tightwad and only purchase a 2 meg
> connection to the net, thats his problem, when higher bandwidth
> connections, from both DSL and cable, are available, at resonable
> prices. The solution to bandwidth problems is to simply purchase
> more bandwidth.

And in many places 2MBPS is almost impossible to get and even when you
can get 2mbps it's going to be expensive.

It's good to see people like you exposed for the unethical hacks they
are.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.2109b1f465abf34a9897ec@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> "Leythos" wrote in message
>> news:MPG.21097ab24f6950e99897eb@adfree.Usenet.com...
>>
>> > So, you believe that employees should violate company policy, abuse
>> > company resources, and that you believe it's ethical to help them do it
>> > - that clearly explains a lot about you.
>>
>> Listening to online radio is NOT abusing company resources.
>> The 16K feed I run could hardly be considered to be
>> abusing company resources, and not that much of an
>> impact on the company network.
>
> I can see now that you have no ethics and believe that your way, because
> you have invested in it, is the only way that matters to you - you've
> proven that you are a unethical person by your own statements.

You don't let somebody screw with your livelihood would taking
action against it. This is why I advocate using every countermeasure
humanly possible to avoid blocking and/or detection.


>
> Abuse of company resources means that you are using them in some manner
> that the company has determined that you should not be using them. Most
> companies would never approve their network users listening to internet
> radio and most responsible companies already have a policy that
> prohibits it if not also a network security measure that prevents it.

However, you can fool the boss by hiding where you are going with
an anonymity service, or an open proxy. They would know you
went to a certain address, but would not know where you went
BEYOND that address.
>
>> And there are companies who BUSINESS it is to help people
>> circumvent filtering systems.
>
> So you try and justify your abuse of company policy and resources by
> saying that "he did it"....
>
>> The only differcence between them
>> and me, is that I provide the information for free. With all the
>> sites that provide facilities and/or information on how to
>> circumvent filtering systems, and its all LEGAL. Since I am
>> not doing anything illegal just providing information, I dont
>> see anything unethical about it.
>
> I didn't say you were doing anything Illegal I said you are unethical.
>
>> Internet radio is my BREAD AND BUTTER, so it is in the
>> best interest of my LIVELIHOOD to help people do everything
>> POSSIBLE to circumvent filtering and/or evade detection.
>
> And yet you seem to believe that you are Ethical in helping people break
> company policy, abusing network resources. What's funnier is that you

I dont see anything unethical about wanting to grow your business.
Internet radio is how I make my LIVING. And you dont let
some filtering program mess with that, without a fight. If you,
as network admins, don't like it, tough, this is how I make my
living, and will use and advocate the use of every possible
countermeasure out there.

As long as you are doing your work, there is no reason not to allow
Internet radio in the workplace, and nothing unethical about
listening to it, regardless of what company policy may say one
way or the other.

> don't understand how very simple it is to spot your traffic on ANY
> network, and while you've been told, you seem to want make readers of

It can be spotted, yes, but they do not know where you are going
BEYOND that proxy or anonymity service.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.2109b4f8f26331ec9897ed@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> "Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
>> news:Xns9972E57D7FFBFjuergennieveler@nieveler.org...
>> > "Chlly8" wrote:
>> >
>> >> The 16K feed I run could hardly be considered to be
>> >> abusing company resources, and not that much of an
>> >> impact on the company network.
>> >
>> > 10 people listening to it turn it into 160k of stream. 100 people
>> > listening to it would be 1600k.
>> >
>> > A lot of companies have a 2Mbit line to the Internet, or even less...
>> > you see the problem?
>>
>>
>> They they should upgrade their connections to a and get more
>> bandwdith. In many countries there is DSL to 6 megabuts, and
>> there will be 15 megs (or more) when all the phone companies
>> in America begin using FIOS.
>
> LOL - you wanting the company to SPEND MORE MONEY to support employees
> abusing the network and company policy. You are unbelievable and
> unethical.

When 15 meg FIOS connections become more commonplace, they
will be available for around US$50 per month, a good bargain
for a 15 meg connection. This is less than than what they would
pay for 1.5 meg T1 service.

And again, I must say that listening to Internet radio is NOT
either unethical, or abuse of company resources. You are
entitled to your opinion, but I say that it is NOT unethical or
an abuse of company resources to listen to Internet radio.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Leythos" wrote in message
> news:MPG.2109b1f465abf34a9897ec@adfree.Usenet.com...
> > In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >>
> >> "Leythos" wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.21097ab24f6950e99897eb@adfree.Usenet.com...
> >>
> >> > So, you believe that employees should violate company policy, abuse
> >> > company resources, and that you believe it's ethical to help them do it
> >> > - that clearly explains a lot about you.
> >>
> >> Listening to online radio is NOT abusing company resources.
> >> The 16K feed I run could hardly be considered to be
> >> abusing company resources, and not that much of an
> >> impact on the company network.
> >
> > I can see now that you have no ethics and believe that your way, because
> > you have invested in it, is the only way that matters to you - you've
> > proven that you are a unethical person by your own statements.
>
> You don't let somebody screw with your livelihood would taking
> action against it. This is why I advocate using every countermeasure
> humanly possible to avoid blocking and/or detection.
>
>
> >
> > Abuse of company resources means that you are using them in some manner
> > that the company has determined that you should not be using them. Most
> > companies would never approve their network users listening to internet
> > radio and most responsible companies already have a policy that
> > prohibits it if not also a network security measure that prevents it.
>
> However, you can fool the boss by hiding where you are going with
> an anonymity service, or an open proxy. They would know you
> went to a certain address, but would not know where you went
> BEYOND that address.
> >
> >> And there are companies who BUSINESS it is to help people
> >> circumvent filtering systems.
> >
> > So you try and justify your abuse of company policy and resources by
> > saying that "he did it"....
> >
> >> The only differcence between them
> >> and me, is that I provide the information for free. With all the
> >> sites that provide facilities and/or information on how to
> >> circumvent filtering systems, and its all LEGAL. Since I am
> >> not doing anything illegal just providing information, I dont
> >> see anything unethical about it.
> >
> > I didn't say you were doing anything Illegal I said you are unethical.
> >
> >> Internet radio is my BREAD AND BUTTER, so it is in the
> >> best interest of my LIVELIHOOD to help people do everything
> >> POSSIBLE to circumvent filtering and/or evade detection.
> >
> > And yet you seem to believe that you are Ethical in helping people break
> > company policy, abusing network resources. What's funnier is that you
>
> I dont see anything unethical about wanting to grow your business.
> Internet radio is how I make my LIVING. And you dont let
> some filtering program mess with that, without a fight. If you,
> as network admins, don't like it, tough, this is how I make my
> living, and will use and advocate the use of every possible
> countermeasure out there.

And no one here is claiming that "Growing" your business is unethical,
just your method is unethical.

And filtering programs can easily stop your connection, and there is no
fight, people don't have a "Right" to connect to anything non-business
related from work.

Your advocating abuse only shows two things: 1, you are unethical and
that carries over into your life and business, 2, you are easy to block
but you seem to mistakenly think you are not.

>
> As long as you are doing your work, there is no reason not to allow
> Internet radio in the workplace, and nothing unethical about
> listening to it, regardless of what company policy may say one
> way or the other.

And you seem to think that Company resources are free and don't impact
other workers - what about the chap that is trying to process orders why
10 of his friends are consuming bandwidth that could make his job
quicker - that would constitute a real loss to the company, one they
could measure in $.

>
> > don't understand how very simple it is to spot your traffic on ANY
> > network, and while you've been told, you seem to want make readers of
>
> It can be spotted, yes, but they do not know where you are going
> BEYOND that proxy or anonymity service.

Why do you think it matters where, as long as it's identified as a non-
business function/address that's all it takes. We've already fired
people for this type of abuse after a documented warning and it happens
all the time.



--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> And again, I must say that listening to Internet radio is NOT
> either unethical, or abuse of company resources. You are
> entitled to your opinion, but I say that it is NOT unethical or
> an abuse of company resources to listen to Internet radio.

If it violates company policy, uses company resources against company
policy, then violating company policy is Unethical and may get them
fired.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.2109c40b96bd0df29897ef@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> And again, I must say that listening to Internet radio is NOT
>> either unethical, or abuse of company resources. You are
>> entitled to your opinion, but I say that it is NOT unethical or
>> an abuse of company resources to listen to Internet radio.
>
> If it violates company policy, uses company resources against company
> policy, then violating company policy is Unethical and may get them
> fired.
>

Chew on this, the RIAA, as part of a new royalties deal, is trying
to make all internet raido stations do something akin to what
Rhapsody does not, to thwart piraacy via strearipping.

The stations would be required to send the stream with DRM
on it. This means that network admins, in Sweden, the U.S,
and the U.K., would not be able to gather evidence to fire
someone without being in violation of the laws that make it
illegal to break a DRM scheme. While DRM can be a
nuisance, this is one place where it can be useful, in that
employers cannot attempt to monitor or intercept a DRM
encrypted stream without breaking the law. Sure, you
know the stream is there, but if you tried to intercept it
you would be committing a felony crime that carry 2
years jail in Sweden, and 5 to 10 years in the U.S. and
the U.K. Employers in Sweden, the U.S., and the
U.K. could still fire someone for it, but they would have
to find another reason to fire them, to avoid trouble
with the law, becuase the streams would be using an
DRM encryption scheme that would make it a felony
to intercept in those three countries. As the saying
goes, "The book will be open, but the pages will all be
in an unreadable language", so this DRM requirement,
if the RIAA and SoundExhcange gets their way, will
employers over a barrell, as far as gathering enough
evidence to fire somebody with cause.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Chlly8" wrote in message
news:f7or3o$ha6$1@aioe.org...
>
> "Leythos" wrote in message
> news:MPG.2109b1f465abf34a9897ec@adfree.Usenet.com...
>> In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>>
>>> "Leythos" wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.21097ab24f6950e99897eb@adfree.Usenet.com...
>>>
>>> > So, you believe that employees should violate company policy, abuse
>>> > company resources, and that you believe it's ethical to help them do
>>> > it
>>> > - that clearly explains a lot about you.
>>>
>>> Listening to online radio is NOT abusing company resources.
>>> The 16K feed I run could hardly be considered to be
>>> abusing company resources, and not that much of an
>>> impact on the company network.
>>
>> I can see now that you have no ethics and believe that your way, because
>> you have invested in it, is the only way that matters to you - you've
>> proven that you are a unethical person by your own statements.
>
> You don't let somebody screw with your livelihood would taking
> action against it. This is why I advocate using every countermeasure
> humanly possible to avoid blocking and/or detection.

Yet you advocate screwing with someone elses livelihood.
>
>
>>
>> Abuse of company resources means that you are using them in some manner
>> that the company has determined that you should not be using them. Most
>> companies would never approve their network users listening to internet
>> radio and most responsible companies already have a policy that
>> prohibits it if not also a network security measure that prevents it.
>
> However, you can fool the boss by hiding where you are going with
> an anonymity service, or an open proxy. They would know you
> went to a certain address, but would not know where you went
> BEYOND that address.

And for doing so, the employee can be fired.
>>
>>> And there are companies who BUSINESS it is to help people
>>> circumvent filtering systems.
>>
>> So you try and justify your abuse of company policy and resources by
>> saying that "he did it"....
>>
>>> The only differcence between them
>>> and me, is that I provide the information for free. With all the
>>> sites that provide facilities and/or information on how to
>>> circumvent filtering systems, and its all LEGAL. Since I am
>>> not doing anything illegal just providing information, I dont
>>> see anything unethical about it.
>>
>> I didn't say you were doing anything Illegal I said you are unethical.
>>
>>> Internet radio is my BREAD AND BUTTER, so it is in the
>>> best interest of my LIVELIHOOD to help people do everything
>>> POSSIBLE to circumvent filtering and/or evade detection.
>>
>> And yet you seem to believe that you are Ethical in helping people break
>> company policy, abusing network resources. What's funnier is that you
>
> I dont see anything unethical about wanting to grow your business.
> Internet radio is how I make my LIVING.

So you are a scam artist.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> "Leythos" wrote in message
> news:MPG.2109c40b96bd0df29897ef@adfree.Usenet.com...
> > In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >> And again, I must say that listening to Internet radio is NOT
> >> either unethical, or abuse of company resources. You are
> >> entitled to your opinion, but I say that it is NOT unethical or
> >> an abuse of company resources to listen to Internet radio.
> >
> > If it violates company policy, uses company resources against company
> > policy, then violating company policy is Unethical and may get them
> > fired.
> >
>
> Chew on this, the RIAA, as part of a new royalties deal, is trying
> to make all internet raido stations do something akin to what
> Rhapsody does not, to thwart piraacy via strearipping.
>
> The stations would be required to send the stream with DRM
> on it. This means that network admins, in Sweden, the U.S,
> and the U.K., would not be able to gather evidence to fire
> someone without being in violation of the laws that make it
> illegal to break a DRM scheme

Chew on this: All I have to see is a Connection to a non-business
partner, doesn't matter what it is or how much or what data, and I know
that a user is screwing around.

So, you failed to understand, it doesn't matter what the content is, if
it's connected to a NONBUSINESS PARTNER it's a violation of company
policy.

So, all of your extraneous crap means nothing, we don't care what the
content is, what proxy you use, etc... If the connection is not to a
business partner or approved site then it's a violation - that means
that you are still Unethical, you have no chance of subverting this on a
properly configured security model, and the person, if they did find a
hole, would be found quickly and reprimanded that may include being
terminated.

So, again, it doesn't matter what the content is, why data, what color
the sky is - all that matters is a Connection to a nonapproved site,
that's all it takes. This makes your DRM mantra meaningless, as there is
no violation of the law in firing someone for violating company policy
and the proof is the connection, not the content.


--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In message Juergen
Nieveler wrote:

>"Chlly8" wrote:
>
>> If the the boss wants to be a tightwad and only purchase a 2 meg
>> connection to the net, thats his problem, when higher bandwidth
>> connections, from both DSL and cable, are available, at resonable
>> prices. The solution to bandwidth problems is to simply purchase
>> more bandwidth.
>
>The business doesn't need more bandwidth. The users have 3
>alternatives: - Listen to webradio at home
>- Buy a plain old radio (you know, those wireless things that use FM...)
>- Get fired

There are a number of other options,

-Bring their music with them, they have these neat MP3 player gadgets
out now, download playlists or podcasts or whatever floats their boat. I
hear even Apple might release one, one day.

-Bring a satellite radio receiver from home.

-Provide their own connectivity at the office ("We the people" had our
own DSL line at one place I worked for our own personal use --
Admittedly we were an ISP, so it wasn't a big deal, but it did isolate
the business traffic from the non-business traffic for those of us with
our own PCs)

--
If quitters never win, and winners never quit,
what fool came up with, "Quit while you're ahead"?

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"DevilsPGD" wrote in message
news:gvb4a35fkkg1pr7vns8frut6sieoj5g722@4ax.com...


>
> -Provide their own connectivity at the office ("We the people" had our

It used to be possible to do this with dial-up access, when it was
more common. Just plug your own external modem into the
computer, plug into the phone line, and you were good to go.
But since they dont make external modems anymore, this is no
longer an option, plus dial-up Internet is a dying industry.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chlly8 wrote:

>"DevilsPGD" wrote in message
>news:gvb4a35fkkg1pr7vns8frut6sieoj5g722@4ax.com...

>> -Provide their own connectivity at the office ("We the people" had our

>It used to be possible to do this with dial-up access, when it was
>more common. Just plug your own external modem into the
>computer, plug into the phone line, and you were good to go.

"good to go" find another job with a different employer if you were
caught doing it at my workplace. We had a distinct policy on the matter,
and the computer support people were into asking questions if they found
a modem -- asking the -supervisors- questions, that is.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> "DevilsPGD" wrote in message
> news:gvb4a35fkkg1pr7vns8frut6sieoj5g722@4ax.com...
>
>
> >
> > -Provide their own connectivity at the office ("We the people" had our
>
> It used to be possible to do this with dial-up access, when it was
> more common. Just plug your own external modem into the
> computer, plug into the phone line, and you were good to go.
> But since they dont make external modems anymore, this is no
> longer an option, plus dial-up Internet is a dying industry.

And most businesses pay per call at that time, and they still make
external modems. The practice is still unethical and against almost
every company's policy.

In those days we would follow the connection via phone number/extension
on the call logging system - tie that to a time/desk and then fire the
person if they did it more than once.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Walter Roberson" wrote in message
news:htuoi.136137$NV3.20609@pd7urf2no...
> In article , Chlly8 wrote:
>
>>"DevilsPGD" wrote in message
>>news:gvb4a35fkkg1pr7vns8frut6sieoj5g722@4ax.com...
>
>>> -Provide their own connectivity at the office ("We the people" had our
>
>>It used to be possible to do this with dial-up access, when it was
>>more common. Just plug your own external modem into the
>>computer, plug into the phone line, and you were good to go.
>
> "good to go" find another job with a different employer if you were
> caught doing it at my workplace. We had a distinct policy on the matter,
> and the computer support people were into asking questions if they found
> a modem -- asking the -supervisors- questions, that is.

The one advantage of an external modem is that you did you have
to leave it connected to the computer. You could just simply
unplug it and take it home with you at night, so that if they checked
your computer after hours, they would not see anything out of
the ordinary. One problem with external modems is that they
are usually only 28K modems, which would not allow listening
to many webcasts, as many of them are now at least 32K, if
not more.

But there are other more expensive options, though I dont think
many people would be willing to pay another $60 per month
just to evade monitoring and detection by network admins.
You could get an unlimited data plan from your celluar
provider, and plug your internet-enabled cell phone into your
workstation using a USB interface, but I dont think many
people would be willing to pay $60 a month just to be able
to listen to web radio at work, even though it would have
the advantage of the traffic being handle by the celluar carrier
and not the company network, so nothing would show up when
the network admins examined the network logs.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Walter Roberson" wrote in message
> news:htuoi.136137$NV3.20609@pd7urf2no...
> > In article , Chlly8 wrote:
> >
> >>"DevilsPGD" wrote in message
> >>news:gvb4a35fkkg1pr7vns8frut6sieoj5g722@4ax.com...
> >
> >>> -Provide their own connectivity at the office ("We the people" had our
> >
> >>It used to be possible to do this with dial-up access, when it was
> >>more common. Just plug your own external modem into the
> >>computer, plug into the phone line, and you were good to go.
> >
> > "good to go" find another job with a different employer if you were
> > caught doing it at my workplace. We had a distinct policy on the matter,
> > and the computer support people were into asking questions if they found
> > a modem -- asking the -supervisors- questions, that is.
>
> The one advantage of an external modem is that you did you have
> to leave it connected to the computer. You could just simply
> unplug it and take it home with you at night, so that if they checked
> your computer after hours, they would not see anything out of
> the ordinary. One problem with external modems is that they
> are usually only 28K modems, which would not allow listening
> to many webcasts, as many of them are now at least 32K, if
> not more.

LOL - External modems have been 56k for a LONG time and taking it home
doesn't keep you from being caught - most companies log ever in/out call
and time, and if your phone is connected for several hours it's a large
red flag - much like a HTTP connection would be.

> But there are other more expensive options, though I dont think
> many people would be willing to pay another $60 per month
> just to evade monitoring and detection by network admins.

And no, they can't evade, as any connection to a computer by a data
device will show in the event logs.

> You could get an unlimited data plan from your celluar
> provider, and plug your internet-enabled cell phone into your
> workstation using a USB interface, but I dont think many
> people would be willing to pay $60 a month just to be able
> to listen to web radio at work, even though it would have
> the advantage of the traffic being handle by the celluar carrier
> and not the company network, so nothing would show up when
> the network admins examined the network logs.

Except that the workstation will show that the network was disconnected
or a foreign device was connected not to mention other event log
entries. Oh, and lets not forget the security implications of connecting
a foreign, non-secure, network to a machine on the company network and
then connecting it back to the company network....

So, again, you show that you don't know ANYTHING about network security,
about detection, about how to find your unethical listeners, and you
advocate activity that will get them fired and diminishes the company
network resource.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.210c3e90c4991abc9897fd@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> "DevilsPGD" wrote in message
>> news:gvb4a35fkkg1pr7vns8frut6sieoj5g722@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> >
>> > -Provide their own connectivity at the office ("We the people" had our
>>
>> It used to be possible to do this with dial-up access, when it was
>> more common. Just plug your own external modem into the
>> computer, plug into the phone line, and you were good to go.
>> But since they dont make external modems anymore, this is no
>> longer an option, plus dial-up Internet is a dying industry.
>
> And most businesses pay per call at that time, and they still make
> external modems. The practice is still unethical and against almost
> every company's policy.

It would not be unethical if you paid for the call yourself using
your calling cards. Its just a matter of putting enough commas
at the right place in the dialing sequence, after the ATDT, to
give the phone company enough time to process the number
and connect the call. You would also need to program the
modem to wait the maximum time of 255 seconds (It is
ATS7=255, IIRC). Since you are getting the bill for the
calls, and not them, nothing suspicious will ever show up.
Its just a matter of having the modem dial 1 800 CALL ATT,
having the modem wait a few seconds, then dialing your
credit card and PIN number, then waiting more time for the
phone company to process the call and connect you.

If you are paying the bills for the call, then it would not be
unethical, becuase its your money paying for the call,
and not the company.

Its just like the guy that once gabbed with me from his work,
on my talk show once. He gave me the direct dial number to
his desk, and I called him. Since I called him, instead of him
calling me, nothing would never show up on the company's
phone bill, so management will never know what he was up
to. I made two calls to his desk that day, one 28 minute, and
another 45 minute call. I had a brief disruption in my internet
service, which cuased the call to get dropped, and I had to
redial hte call. Becuase I called him, the company would
never see anything on their telephone bill, and would never
know what was going on. Since the call was on my dime,
and not the company, there was nothing unethical about him
gabbing with me on my show for a total of 73 minutes on
my talk show. Since I use Skype for outgoing calls, it only
costs about US$.02 per minute to call, way cheaper that
what the phone bill would have been for the company if
he had called me, instead of me calling him, becuase the
call would have cost about 12.5 times as much (about 25
cents per minute).

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
news:Xns9974F35322E7juergennieveler@nieveler.org...
> Leythos wrote:
>
>> In those days we would follow the connection via phone number/extension
>> on the call logging system - tie that to a time/desk and then fire the
>> person if they did it more than once.
>
> And of course there was the option of using wardialers on the internal
> phone network - yes, some people ARE dumb enough to keep the modem
> connected.
>
> A friend of mine uses a private laptop with bluetooth and a 3G mobile
> to do private stuff - but in his case it's only IM stuff, which is not
> bandwidth-hungry (and 3G is pay-per-volume in .de). Technically he's
> both violating and not-violating company policy...

Using your OWN laptop, with your OWN 3G connection, paying
for it with your OWN MONEY would NOT be a violation of
company policy. What you do with your OWN MONEY,
as long as its legal, CANNOT be dicated to your by your company
(at least not in the U.S., U.K., or Australia), simply becuase your
3G carrier is handling the traffic, and not your comapny network.
Since its on YOUR dime, the company has NO SAY in what
you do with service you are paying for OUT OF YOUR OWN
POCKET. It is NOT unethical to use services you are paying
for out of your own pocket, becuase its not costing the companyh
anything.

And I have seen an increasing number of connections from
various 3G mobile Internet services from all over the globe,
probably people using their laptops to avoid blocking and/or
monitoring by the company.

And there is unlimited 3G service now, in the U.S. and in
Australia, that costs more, but its worth it, if you want to
avoid monitoring and/or blocking by your employer.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
news:Xns9974F35322E7juergennieveler@nieveler.org...
> Leythos wrote:
>
>> In those days we would follow the connection via phone number/extension
>> on the call logging system - tie that to a time/desk and then fire the
>> person if they did it more than once.
>
> And of course there was the option of using wardialers on the internal
> phone network - yes, some people ARE dumb enough to keep the modem
> connected.

Wardialers could be defeated by sending ATS0=0 to the modem,
so the modem would not be answer the call, if it was hit with
a wardialer. And beware that wardialers have been ILLEGAL
in many countries, for well over 20 years. Such tools were
outlawed after the movie WarGames came out. That movie
really scared a lot of people enough where many jurisdictions
were outlawing wardialers. If your company was using wardialers,
you were probably committing a crime for merely POSSESSING
such a program. If you still have such tools, you better erase
them from the hard disks, and then obliterate them with
Evidence Eliminator, since you may be committing a crime
possessing such tools.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Leythos" wrote in message
> news:MPG.210c3e90c4991abc9897fd@adfree.Usenet.com...
> > In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >>
> >> "DevilsPGD" wrote in message
> >> news:gvb4a35fkkg1pr7vns8frut6sieoj5g722@4ax.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > -Provide their own connectivity at the office ("We the people" had our
> >>
> >> It used to be possible to do this with dial-up access, when it was
> >> more common. Just plug your own external modem into the
> >> computer, plug into the phone line, and you were good to go.
> >> But since they dont make external modems anymore, this is no
> >> longer an option, plus dial-up Internet is a dying industry.
> >
> > And most businesses pay per call at that time, and they still make
> > external modems. The practice is still unethical and against almost
> > every company's policy.
>
> It would not be unethical if you paid for the call yourself using
> your calling cards.

Again, you fail to see, the outbound connection, even local, is a cost
to many companies, and was certainly a cost, even if a local call.

> Its just a matter of putting enough commas
> at the right place in the dialing sequence, after the ATDT, to
> give the phone company enough time to process the number
> and connect the call. You would also need to program the
> modem to wait the maximum time of 255 seconds (It is
> ATS7=255, IIRC). Since you are getting the bill for the
> calls, and not them, nothing suspicious will ever show up.
> Its just a matter of having the modem dial 1 800 CALL ATT,
> having the modem wait a few seconds, then dialing your
> credit card and PIN number, then waiting more time for the
> phone company to process the call and connect you.

And the call still shows up in the records at the switch, so the company
knows what number from, what number too, and how long you were screwing
around.

> If you are paying the bills for the call, then it would not be
> unethical, becuase its your money paying for the call,
> and not the company.

But, you seem to miss that ANY outbound call, even a local call, is a
cost to the company in many of those systems and the "Calling Card"
can't be used to pay for local calls.

> Its just like the guy that once gabbed with me from his work,
> on my talk show once. He gave me the direct dial number to
> his desk, and I called him. Since I called him, instead of him
> calling me, nothing would never show up on the company's
> phone bill, so management will never know what he was up
> to. I made two calls to his desk that day, one 28 minute, and
> another 45 minute call.

And the company call logs would show the inbound call to his desk from
an outside line - simple stuff.

> I had a brief disruption in my internet
> service, which cuased the call to get dropped, and I had to
> redial hte call. Becuase I called him, the company would
> never see anything on their telephone bill, and would never
> know what was going on.

Again, you know so very little about calling and security. The inbound
call, even if you called him, was logged and stands out like a red flag
in a sea of white.

> Since the call was on my dime,
> and not the company, there was nothing unethical about him
> gabbing with me on my show for a total of 73 minutes on
> my talk show.

Yes, there is, as even a company with 1000 internal numbers only has a
set number of in/out bound lines to actually use at any given time. This
means that for 73 minutes you tied up a important line that could have
been used for Business instead of playing. So, since you don't really
know anything about communications, you could have cost the company
business or a busy signal.

> Since I use Skype for outgoing calls, it only
> costs about US$.02 per minute to call, way cheaper that
> what the phone bill would have been for the company if
> he had called me, instead of me calling him, becuase the
> call would have cost about 12.5 times as much (about 25
> cents per minute).

Again, you just don't seem to understand the real cost of anything. Your
methods are unethical, your practices are unethical, your listeners, if
doing this from work, are unethical, it's that simple and it's very easy
to track and spot.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.210c5d15803215929897ff@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...


>
> Again, you know so very little about calling and security. The inbound
> call, even if you called him, was logged and stands out like a red flag
> in a sea of white.

However, Skype obfuscates the caller ID data, where it will show
either "000-012-3456", or "unknown" in the call log, depending
on the caller ID device used. They may show something in the
caller-ID log, but it will not give any information on where the
call came from.

I have been doing an online talk show for over a decade, actually,
ever since the ability came out with Windows 95c and MS-DUN
1.3 to use two modems and two phones to get 100K connection
speed (LONG before broadband became common). One aunt
of mine, before she retired, would sometimes gab with me on my
show. Even though it cost me a lot in those days , I would call her
desk directly, and her boss had NO CLUE as to what she was up to,
because I was calling her, and caller-id did not work worldwide, if the
caller was from outside the local area, the caller ID showed the caller
as being unknown, so she would gab with me on my show for up to 30
minutes at a time, and her boss never got wise to what she was up to.

>
>> Since the call was on my dime,
>> and not the company, there was nothing unethical about him
>> gabbing with me on my show for a total of 73 minutes on
>> my talk show.
>
> Yes, there is, as even a company with 1000 internal numbers only has a
> set number of in/out bound lines to actually use at any given time. This
> means that for 73 minutes you tied up a important line that could have
> been used for Business instead of playing. So, since you don't really
> know anything about communications, you could have cost the company
> business or a busy signal.
>
>> Since I use Skype for outgoing calls, it only
>> costs about US$.02 per minute to call, way cheaper that
>> what the phone bill would have been for the company if
>> he had called me, instead of me calling him, becuase the
>> call would have cost about 12.5 times as much (about 25
>> cents per minute).
>
> Again, you just don't seem to understand the real cost of anything. Your
> methods are unethical, your practices are unethical, your listeners, if
> doing this from work, are unethical, it's that simple and it's very easy
> to track and spot.

I am NOT unethical. There is NOTHING unethical about my radio
broadcasts, nor is their anything unethical about people listening
from work.

Internet radio how I make my LIVING. I have been in the business
for a long time, and I dont let anyone mess with my livelihood without
taking every countermeasure humanly possible. It is NOT unethical
to protect my business intereststs and my livelihood from corporate
attempts to block me, as much as I can. You dont seem to understand
that for people like me, Internet radio is what puts food on the table
for a lot of people. A lot of us have employees, with FAMILIES.
Blocking Internet radio, or any online service HURTS WORKING
FAMILIES in the long run, who depend on the income these
online businesses make, and the paychecks they generate. When their
services are blocked, it costs them money, which is why I advocate
using every way that is humanly possible to evade blocking and
monitoring. I consider blocking/filtering of ANY site that is LEGAL,
to be detrimental to working families, and all possible countermeasures
should be taken against it, which is what I do, and what I advocate
all online businesses do.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Leythos" wrote in message
> news:MPG.210c5d15803215929897ff@adfree.Usenet.com...
> > In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
>
> >
> > Again, you know so very little about calling and security. The inbound
> > call, even if you called him, was logged and stands out like a red flag
> > in a sea of white.
>
> However, Skype obfuscates the caller ID data, where it will show
> either "000-012-3456", or "unknown" in the call log, depending
> on the caller ID device used. They may show something in the
> caller-ID log, but it will not give any information on where the
> call came from.
>
> I have been doing an online talk show for over a decade, actually,
> ever since the ability came out with Windows 95c and MS-DUN
> 1.3 to use two modems and two phones to get 100K connection
> speed (LONG before broadband became common). One aunt
> of mine, before she retired, would sometimes gab with me on my
> show. Even though it cost me a lot in those days , I would call her
> desk directly, and her boss had NO CLUE as to what she was up to,
> because I was calling her, and caller-id did not work worldwide, if the
> caller was from outside the local area, the caller ID showed the caller
> as being unknown, so she would gab with me on my show for up to 30
> minutes at a time, and her boss never got wise to what she was up to.

No matter how many ways you tell your lie, the user, person listening,
can easily be spotted, tracked, found, and no proxy or faked caller ID
is going to stop that.

And you consider that someone being paid to work, gabbing with you while
working, is not unethical and that you knowing it means that you're not
unethical?

> >> Since the call was on my dime,
> >> and not the company, there was nothing unethical about him
> >> gabbing with me on my show for a total of 73 minutes on
> >> my talk show.
> >
> > Yes, there is, as even a company with 1000 internal numbers only has a
> > set number of in/out bound lines to actually use at any given time. This
> > means that for 73 minutes you tied up a important line that could have
> > been used for Business instead of playing. So, since you don't really
> > know anything about communications, you could have cost the company
> > business or a busy signal.
> >
> >> Since I use Skype for outgoing calls, it only
> >> costs about US$.02 per minute to call, way cheaper that
> >> what the phone bill would have been for the company if
> >> he had called me, instead of me calling him, becuase the
> >> call would have cost about 12.5 times as much (about 25
> >> cents per minute).
> >
> > Again, you just don't seem to understand the real cost of anything. Your
> > methods are unethical, your practices are unethical, your listeners, if
> > doing this from work, are unethical, it's that simple and it's very easy
> > to track and spot.
>
> I am NOT unethical. There is NOTHING unethical about my radio
> broadcasts, nor is their anything unethical about people listening
> from work.

You have clearly said that you provide information on how subvert
company policy and measures, that you support callers abusing company
time and network resources, that you even call them back to make them
think the business can't tell they are screwing their company - we'll
that's unethical in all manners.

> Internet radio how I make my LIVING. I have been in the business
> for a long time, and I dont let anyone mess with my livelihood without
> taking every countermeasure humanly possible. It is NOT unethical
> to protect my business intereststs and my livelihood from corporate
> attempts to block me, as much as I can. You dont seem to understand
> that for people like me, Internet radio is what puts food on the table
> for a lot of people. A lot of us have employees, with FAMILIES.
> Blocking Internet radio, or any online service HURTS WORKING
> FAMILIES in the long run, who depend on the income these
> online businesses make, and the paychecks they generate. When their
> services are blocked, it costs them money, which is why I advocate
> using every way that is humanly possible to evade blocking and
> monitoring. I consider blocking/filtering of ANY site that is LEGAL,
> to be detrimental to working families, and all possible countermeasures
> should be taken against it, which is what I do, and what I advocate
> all online businesses do.

No, you consider making money by any means to be ethical, helping people
break company policy to be ethical, helping people steal money from
their company to be ethical, helping people decrease productivity of the
company to be ethical.....

Many people with morals and good ethics have businesses that don't have
a base that requires their customers to screw their employers, but you
don't fit that.


--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.210c71393bc298f5989800@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> "Leythos" wrote in message
>> news:MPG.210c5d15803215929897ff@adfree.Usenet.com...
>> > In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Again, you know so very little about calling and security. The inbound
>> > call, even if you called him, was logged and stands out like a red flag
>> > in a sea of white.
>>
>> However, Skype obfuscates the caller ID data, where it will show
>> either "000-012-3456", or "unknown" in the call log, depending
>> on the caller ID device used. They may show something in the
>> caller-ID log, but it will not give any information on where the
>> call came from.
>>
>> I have been doing an online talk show for over a decade, actually,
>> ever since the ability came out with Windows 95c and MS-DUN
>> 1.3 to use two modems and two phones to get 100K connection
>> speed (LONG before broadband became common). One aunt
>> of mine, before she retired, would sometimes gab with me on my
>> show. Even though it cost me a lot in those days , I would call her
>> desk directly, and her boss had NO CLUE as to what she was up to,
>> because I was calling her, and caller-id did not work worldwide, if the
>> caller was from outside the local area, the caller ID showed the caller
>> as being unknown, so she would gab with me on my show for up to 30
>> minutes at a time, and her boss never got wise to what she was up to.
>
> No matter how many ways you tell your lie, the user, person listening,
> can easily be spotted, tracked, found, and no proxy or faked caller ID
> is going to stop that.

Back in the '90s, the technology did not exist to tell when somoene
was gabbing with me on my talk show. As long as I called her,
and nothing appeared on the company telephone bill, there was
no harm done to the company, in my opinion.

>
> And you consider that someone being paid to work, gabbing with you while
> working, is not unethical and that you knowing it means that you're not
> unethical?

I dont care where they call from. I will not refuse a caller, regardless
of whether they are coming from home, work, or otherwise. If they
PM me in the chatroom I run, giving me their number, I will not
refuse them. I will not refuse a caller, just becuase they are work.

>
>> >> Since the call was on my dime,
>> >> and not the company, there was nothing unethical about him
>> >> gabbing with me on my show for a total of 73 minutes on
>> >> my talk show.
>> >
>> > Yes, there is, as even a company with 1000 internal numbers only has a
>> > set number of in/out bound lines to actually use at any given time.
>> > This
>> > means that for 73 minutes you tied up a important line that could have
>> > been used for Business instead of playing. So, since you don't really
>> > know anything about communications, you could have cost the company
>> > business or a busy signal.
>> >
>> >> Since I use Skype for outgoing calls, it only
>> >> costs about US$.02 per minute to call, way cheaper that
>> >> what the phone bill would have been for the company if
>> >> he had called me, instead of me calling him, becuase the
>> >> call would have cost about 12.5 times as much (about 25
>> >> cents per minute).
>> >
>> > Again, you just don't seem to understand the real cost of anything.
>> > Your
>> > methods are unethical, your practices are unethical, your listeners, if
>> > doing this from work, are unethical, it's that simple and it's very
>> > easy
>> > to track and spot.
>>
>> I am NOT unethical. There is NOTHING unethical about my radio
>> broadcasts, nor is their anything unethical about people listening
>> from work.
>
> You have clearly said that you provide information on how subvert
> company policy and measures, that you support callers abusing company
> time and network resources, that you even call them back to make them
> think the business can't tell they are screwing their company - we'll
> that's unethical in all manners.

Hey, the call is on MY dime, and it not costing the company anything,
so I dont see any harm in it.

>
>> Internet radio how I make my LIVING. I have been in the business
>> for a long time, and I dont let anyone mess with my livelihood without
>> taking every countermeasure humanly possible. It is NOT unethical
>> to protect my business intereststs and my livelihood from corporate
>> attempts to block me, as much as I can. You dont seem to understand
>> that for people like me, Internet radio is what puts food on the table
>> for a lot of people. A lot of us have employees, with FAMILIES.
>> Blocking Internet radio, or any online service HURTS WORKING
>> FAMILIES in the long run, who depend on the income these
>> online businesses make, and the paychecks they generate. When their
>> services are blocked, it costs them money, which is why I advocate
>> using every way that is humanly possible to evade blocking and
>> monitoring. I consider blocking/filtering of ANY site that is LEGAL,
>> to be detrimental to working families, and all possible countermeasures
>> should be taken against it, which is what I do, and what I advocate
>> all online businesses do.
>
> No, you consider making money by any means to be ethical, helping people
> break company policy to be ethical, helping people steal money from

It is NOT stealing to listen to my radio station, or any other web
radio station. I dont consider it stealing to listen to any LEGAL
radio broadcast, either on the air or online.

In the online sports coverage industry, at one competitor, Figure
Skating Universe, I have often heard about all kinds of ways get
onto the board, without the boss knowing about it. The boss does
not know that someone is following major figure skating events in
the :"play-by-play" threads or "PBP" for short. There are some
pretty die-hard skating fans determined to follow their favourite
skaters, and they dont care how they do it. They use every
possible method to get on, including proxies, anonymity services,
and I even heard of one

Some people are very appreciative of what I do. Last
February, during the four contiennts competition, there
was pairs skater that suffered a pretty severe injury
when her partner's blade slashed her face when she got
a little close, and one VERY good friend of hers was
very appreciate of me helping her follow the news of
what was going on, without her boss knowing about
it. I just simply gave her access to the proxy on my
network, which is encrypted. All she had to do was
download a small client program, to a floppy disk,
then run that, and sign on to my proxy, and then surf
to my Live 365 broadcast, as well as Figure Skating
Universe and GoldenSkate. That is no POSSIBLE way
the admins at her workplace would know what was up to,
becuase the connection to the proxy on my network
was encrypted. I saw a request on Figure Skating
Universe for SOME way to get to to news about it
from work,. without the boss knowing, and was more
than happy to help her in this situation, and she was
very appreciative. In a situation like THAT, what I was doing
was NOT unethical. I created a login and password, and
sent that to her in a PM, complete with directions on how to reconfigure
the browser settings, as well as sending her a copy of the small client
program (which is small enough to be run from a floppy), to
get on. You first reconfigure the proxy settings in the browser,
and then start the client program, and enter your login and password,
then surf the web, just as you would normally.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Juergen Nieveler wrote:

> The business doesn't need more bandwidth. The users have 3
> alternatives: - Listen to webradio at home
> - Buy a plain old radio (you know, those wireless things that use FM...)
> - Get fired

What about a more liberal approach -- I've worked for/with several companies
and netradio was not seen as a problem; actually I remember one company
that specifically promoted it even though the netops (or myself in a couple
of cases!) couldn't be bothered setting it up properly. In the end only a
tiny few have the know-how so the idea that 100s of employees are gonna sit
there all day listening to radio is unlikely. Plus the fact that you're
still expected to be able to fulfill your primary duties - whether you're
listening to FM radio/Net Radio/somebody gossipping at the next desk. Fail
on that and you're out anyway.

It all comes back to a bit of trust on both sides.. and since personal
internet use is easy to monitor and measure compared with most other office
activities there shouldn't be a problem. If it really becomes a bandwidth
issue let the individuals concerned pay for the extra bandwidth or place
sensible restrictions (Unilever EU allowed personal web access during lunch
hours etc. - at least for general IT staff).

--
Jamin @ Home: Chester UK -

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.210c44bde02460999897fe@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> "Walter Roberson" wrote in message
>> news:htuoi.136137$NV3.20609@pd7urf2no...
>> > In article , Chlly8 wrote:
>> >
>> >>"DevilsPGD" wrote in message
>> >>news:gvb4a35fkkg1pr7vns8frut6sieoj5g722@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >>> -Provide their own connectivity at the office ("We the people" had
>> >>> our
>> >
>> >>It used to be possible to do this with dial-up access, when it was
>> >>more common. Just plug your own external modem into the
>> >>computer, plug into the phone line, and you were good to go.
>> >
>> > "good to go" find another job with a different employer if you were
>> > caught doing it at my workplace. We had a distinct policy on the
>> > matter,
>> > and the computer support people were into asking questions if they
>> > found
>> > a modem -- asking the -supervisors- questions, that is.
>>
>> The one advantage of an external modem is that you did you have
>> to leave it connected to the computer. You could just simply
>> unplug it and take it home with you at night, so that if they checked
>> your computer after hours, they would not see anything out of
>> the ordinary. One problem with external modems is that they
>> are usually only 28K modems, which would not allow listening
>> to many webcasts, as many of them are now at least 32K, if
>> not more.
>
> LOL - External modems have been 56k for a LONG time and taking it home
> doesn't keep you from being caught - most companies log ever in/out call
> and time, and if your phone is connected for several hours it's a large
> red flag - much like a HTTP connection would be.
>
>> But there are other more expensive options, though I dont think
>> many people would be willing to pay another $60 per month
>> just to evade monitoring and detection by network admins.
>
> And no, they can't evade, as any connection to a computer by a data
> device will show in the event logs.

And that can be taken care of in a session with Evidence Eliminator. The
event logs are one thing these programs obliterate. Then you have no
proof of anything if the event logs are not there.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chlly8 wrote:
>And beware that wardialers have been ILLEGAL
>in many countries, for well over 20 years. Such tools were
>outlawed after the movie WarGames came out.

Authorized security personnel wardialing the company's -own- phone lines
wasn't made illegal anywhere that I -know of-.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chlly8 wrote:
>Using your OWN laptop, with your OWN 3G connection, paying
>for it with your OWN MONEY would NOT be a violation of
>company policy. What you do with your OWN MONEY,
>as long as its legal, CANNOT be dicated to your by your company
>(at least not in the U.S., U.K., or Australia), simply becuase your
>3G carrier is handling the traffic, and not your comapny network.
>Since its on YOUR dime, the company has NO SAY in what
>you do with service you are paying for OUT OF YOUR OWN
>POCKET.

The sub-department that I work for hasn't had a need to control
down to that fine of a level, but some of the other sub-departments
of the organization could lay down some pretty severe legal charges
for any employee or contractor who did what you are talking about.
Violation of the Official Secrets Acts. Espionage. Endangering
National Security.

I can't tell you the role that the department I work for plays
in national security, because I'm not authorized to know that
information. I found out about -some- of the secret programs in
the official public histories, just like everyone else.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Walter Roberson" wrote in message
news:sfDoi.135858$xq1.91017@pd7urf1no...
> In article , Chlly8 wrote:
>>And beware that wardialers have been ILLEGAL
>>in many countries, for well over 20 years. Such tools were
>>outlawed after the movie WarGames came out.
>
> Authorized security personnel wardialing the company's -own- phone lines
> wasn't made illegal anywhere that I -know of-.

Merely POSESSING such tools, REGARDLESS of the purpose, is
illegal in many jurisdictions.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chlly8 wrote:
>
>"Walter Roberson" wrote in message
>news:sfDoi.135858$xq1.91017@pd7urf1no...
>> In article , Chlly8 wrote:
>>>And beware that wardialers have been ILLEGAL
>>>in many countries, for well over 20 years. Such tools were
>>>outlawed after the movie WarGames came out.

>> Authorized security personnel wardialing the company's -own- phone lines
>> wasn't made illegal anywhere that I -know of-.

>Merely POSESSING such tools, REGARDLESS of the purpose, is
>illegal in many jurisdictions.

Citations?

The closest I can find is something for Colorado Springs.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Chlly8 wrote:

> Using your OWN laptop, with your OWN 3G connection, paying
> for it with your OWN MONEY would NOT be a violation of
> company policy. What you do with your OWN MONEY,
> as long as its legal, CANNOT be dicated to your by your company
> (at least not in the U.S., U.K., or Australia), simply becuase your
> 3G carrier is handling the traffic, and not your comapny network.
> Since its on YOUR dime, the company has NO SAY in what
> you do with service you are paying for OUT OF YOUR OWN
> POCKET. It is NOT unethical to use services you are paying
> for out of your own pocket, becuase its not costing the companyh
> anything.

I've been watching this thread and watching you struggle to come up with
scenarios that would work for people to circumvent security policies.

Now you're advocating using uncleared and unchecked IT hardware in the
corporate environment. I have had users who felt OUR policy of NOT
allowing THEIR computers into the workplace didn't apply to them. You
know, it only takes having a couple of users have their laptops
confiscated by my security team, to get the message across.

Did I mention mobile phones are banned within our environment?

You have also advocated installing unapproved software onto corporate
networks in order to overwrite logs? Jesus! You'll get my users either
1. Sacked or 2. Imprisoned. I'm not joking. (I'm not based in the US)

You are a liability. You are not operating in your customers best
interests, you are operating in your own interests. You are exhibiting
more and more unethical advice; advice that could land your customers in
SERIOUS trouble.

Anyone connecting any hardware device to my networks, ie. modem, would
discover: A. It doesn't work. B. An alert is sent to the security team.
C. Disciplinary action (including potentially dismissal or legal action).

Yes, we have a more secure environment than most, and for good reason.
That does not mean that another corporate environment would not insist
on similar rules - there are good reasons for all our policies, whether
YOU agree with them or not.

Bogwitch.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Walter Roberson wrote:
> I can't tell you the role that the department I work for plays
> in national security, because I'm not authorized to know that
> information. I found out about -some- of the secret programs in
> the official public histories, just like everyone else.

I wouldn't feel comfortable not knowing what my work is (ab)used for.
Strange situation.

Yours,
VB.
--
"Es muss darauf geachtet werden, dass das Grundgesetz nicht mit Methoden
geschützt wird, die seinem Ziel und seinem Geist zuwider sind."

Gustav Heinemann, "Freimütige Kritik und demokratischer Rechtsstaat"

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Bogwitch" wrote in message
news:T9Foi.340$gX5.171@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> Chlly8 wrote:


> You have also advocated installing unapproved software onto corporate
> networks in order to overwrite logs? Jesus! You'll get my users either

> 2. Imprisoned. I'm not joking. (I'm not based in the US)

On what charge? As far as I know, Evidence Eliminator is not yet illegal
in the U.K. (though they have tried to ban it). Even if they could be
prosecuted,
they could simply avoid prosecution by leaving the U.K. and never coming
back. I am assuming you are in the U.K., becuase your IP says you are
in the U.K. Or are you in another ISP elsewhere that makes it appear you
are in the U.K, because your upstream service comes form there?

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Walter Roberson wrote:
> >Merely POSESSING such tools, REGARDLESS of the purpose, is
> >illegal in many jurisdictions.
> Citations?

Germany: "Strafrechtsänderungsgesetz zur Bekämpfung der
Computerkriminalität, neuer § 202 StGB".

Yes, we tried to fight that, without any success. Yes, there was a
hearing of experts, and NOT A SINGLE EXPERT supported this idea.

They made a law out of it in spite of all facts :-(

That's the reason, why you can see a meadow on the homepage of the CCC
now: http://www.ccc.de

It's the meadow that the Internet is right now, since all attack tools
are forbidden, so no attacker can use one any more ;-)

Yours,
VB.
--
"Es muss darauf geachtet werden, dass das Grundgesetz nicht mit Methoden
geschützt wird, die seinem Ziel und seinem Geist zuwider sind."

Gustav Heinemann, "Freimütige Kritik und demokratischer Rechtsstaat"

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Leythos" wrote in message
> news:MPG.210c44bde02460999897fe@adfree.Usenet.com...
> > In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >>
> >> "Walter Roberson" wrote in message
> >> news:htuoi.136137$NV3.20609@pd7urf2no...
> >> > In article , Chlly8 wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>"DevilsPGD" wrote in message
> >> >>news:gvb4a35fkkg1pr7vns8frut6sieoj5g722@4ax.com...
> >> >
> >> >>> -Provide their own connectivity at the office ("We the people" had
> >> >>> our
> >> >
> >> >>It used to be possible to do this with dial-up access, when it was
> >> >>more common. Just plug your own external modem into the
> >> >>computer, plug into the phone line, and you were good to go.
> >> >
> >> > "good to go" find another job with a different employer if you were
> >> > caught doing it at my workplace. We had a distinct policy on the
> >> > matter,
> >> > and the computer support people were into asking questions if they
> >> > found
> >> > a modem -- asking the -supervisors- questions, that is.
> >>
> >> The one advantage of an external modem is that you did you have
> >> to leave it connected to the computer. You could just simply
> >> unplug it and take it home with you at night, so that if they checked
> >> your computer after hours, they would not see anything out of
> >> the ordinary. One problem with external modems is that they
> >> are usually only 28K modems, which would not allow listening
> >> to many webcasts, as many of them are now at least 32K, if
> >> not more.
> >
> > LOL - External modems have been 56k for a LONG time and taking it home
> > doesn't keep you from being caught - most companies log ever in/out call
> > and time, and if your phone is connected for several hours it's a large
> > red flag - much like a HTTP connection would be.
> >
> >> But there are other more expensive options, though I dont think
> >> many people would be willing to pay another $60 per month
> >> just to evade monitoring and detection by network admins.
> >
> > And no, they can't evade, as any connection to a computer by a data
> > device will show in the event logs.
>
> And that can be taken care of in a session with Evidence Eliminator. The
> event logs are one thing these programs obliterate. Then you have no
> proof of anything if the event logs are not there.

BS, EE will clear the logs showing that someone has been trying to hide
something. In most corp environments users don't have permission to
clear the logs, any tampering with the logs would be a clear sign of
unethical activity, not to mention that most users are not permitted to
install software...

Try again, exposed, found, easy to spot - still makes you unethical for
helping with violating company policy, abuse of network resources...

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Bogwitch" wrote in message
> news:T9Foi.340$gX5.171@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> > Chlly8 wrote:
>
>
> > You have also advocated installing unapproved software onto corporate
> > networks in order to overwrite logs? Jesus! You'll get my users either
>
> > 2. Imprisoned. I'm not joking. (I'm not based in the US)
>
> On what charge? As far as I know, Evidence Eliminator is not yet illegal
> in the U.K. (though they have tried to ban it). Even if they could be
> prosecuted,
> they could simply avoid prosecution by leaving the U.K. and never coming
> back. I am assuming you are in the U.K., becuase your IP says you are
> in the U.K. Or are you in another ISP elsewhere that makes it appear you
> are in the U.K, because your upstream service comes form there?

Do you really think that any rational person is going to go to these
extremes to just listen to some crappy broadcast and give up their
earning and legal status?

Face it, you've exposed yourself as an unethical hack that shows people
how to violate company policy and subvert network access, but all of the
things you've suggested are very easy to detect and you keep making
excuses - face it, you're just an ingorant, unethical, two-bit, hack
wanna-be, that can't seem to learn and is only concerned with screwing
people to make money.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:34:46 -0700, Chlly8 wrote:


>>
>> And no, they can't evade, as any connection to a computer by a data
>> device will show in the event logs.
>
> And that can be taken care of in a session with Evidence Eliminator. The
> event logs are one thing these programs obliterate. Then you have no
> proof of anything if the event logs are not there.

Empty logs are also a HUGE alarm sign!Somebody got fired because of
empty logs! The logs in the firewall pointed to stuff he should never
have looked at!

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:34:46 -0700, "Chlly8" wrote:


>>
>> And no, they can't evade, as any connection to a computer by a data
>> device will show in the event logs.
>
>And that can be taken care of in a session with Evidence Eliminator.

Oh lordy, by advocating that piece of useless scamware you've just
demonstrated your complete lack of clue on the topic.
--
?¡aah, los gringos otra vez!?

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article <46a32cc6@news.uni-ulm.de>, Volker Birk wrote:
>Walter Roberson wrote:
>> I can't tell you the role that the department I work for plays
>> in national security, because I'm not authorized to know that
>> information. I found out about -some- of the secret programs in
>> the official public histories, just like everyone else.

>I wouldn't feel comfortable not knowing what my work is (ab)used for.
>Strange situation.

Well, I know what -my- work is used for (nothing secret about it at all),
but the organization I work for is country-wide and has a variety of
sections, some of whom are probably engaged in secret work in fields
completely different than mine. The same sort of thing happens
in many organizations when they grow big enough to take on military
contracts: if you aren't in a "need to know" position, you don't even
find out that the military work is being done.

My statement might perhaps be clearer if I indicate that I used
"department" in a technical sense: the entire organization I work for
is considered a single department of the government, in the same way
that "The Department of Agriculture" is a single "department". There are
a lot of subdivisions within the department, some of whom do vastly
different work that I do.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Walter Roberson wrote:
> Well, I know what -my- work is used for (nothing secret about it at all),
> but the organization I work for is country-wide and has a variety of
> sections, some of whom are probably engaged in secret work in fields
> completely different than mine. The same sort of thing happens
> in many organizations when they grow big enough to take on military
> contracts: if you aren't in a "need to know" position, you don't even
> find out that the military work is being done.

Maybe. Actually, I'm not working in military projects.

Yours,
VB.
--
> Ja, ZA hat bei mir in den letzten 5 Jahren (?), genauer: noch nie,
> Probleme bereitet.
Das Schälchen Weihwasser neben meinem Monitor auch nicht.
(Bjoern Schliessmann in d.c.s.f.)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Chlly8 wrote:
> "Bogwitch" wrote in message
> news:T9Foi.340$gX5.171@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>> Chlly8 wrote:
>
>
>> You have also advocated installing unapproved software onto corporate
>> networks in order to overwrite logs? Jesus! You'll get my users either
>
>> 2. Imprisoned. I'm not joking. (I'm not based in the US)
>
> On what charge? As far as I know, Evidence Eliminator is not yet illegal
> in the U.K. (though they have tried to ban it). Even if they could be
> prosecuted,

Wilful destruction of evidence could well lead to perverting the course
of justice, and breach the Computer Misuse Act, the Regulation Of
Investigatory Powers Act, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, I could
go on....

> they could simply avoid prosecution by leaving the U.K.

Ever heard of extradition? Is your radio show so good that someone would
want to leave the country for it? You have a very high opinion of
yourself, yet in here at least, you are a joke!

Bogwitch.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Bogwitch" wrote in message news:XrMoi.2244$nm3.630@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> Chlly8 wrote:
>> "Bogwitch" wrote in message
>> news:T9Foi.340$gX5.171@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>>> Chlly8 wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You have also advocated installing unapproved software onto corporate
>>> networks in order to overwrite logs? Jesus! You'll get my users either
>>
>>> 2. Imprisoned. I'm not joking. (I'm not based in the US)
>>
>> On what charge? As far as I know, Evidence Eliminator is not yet illegal
>> in the U.K. (though they have tried to ban it). Even if they could be
>> prosecuted,
>
> Wilful destruction of evidence could well lead to perverting the course
> of justice, and breach the Computer Misuse Act, the Regulation Of
> Investigatory Powers Act, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, I could
> go on....
>
>> they could simply avoid prosecution by leaving the U.K.
>
> Ever heard of extradition? Is your radio show so good that someone would

All one would have to do is to break in the computers back
in Britain and erase the warrants for their arrest, and
that would be the end of it.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
news:tfu6a35l44hhll6qncc5s5ilcucb98cl7g@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:34:46 -0700, "Chlly8" wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> And no, they can't evade, as any connection to a computer by a data
>>> device will show in the event logs.
>>
>>And that can be taken care of in a session with Evidence Eliminator.
>
> Oh lordy, by advocating that piece of useless scamware you've just
> demonstrated your complete lack of clue on the topic.

Well, I dont actually advocate that program by name anymore, because they
now use product activation that ties one copy of the program to one machine,
meaning that if you install it, say. on your work PC, and they put a new PC
at
your desk, you have to purchase a new licence to use it on the new machine.

So I advocate other programs that companies that have not yet decided to
rob you blind, just because you get a new machine. Evidence Blaster
costs 1/3 less than Evidence Eliminator and does not have Product
Activation,
tying one copy to one machine, as far as I know.

Its also a good idea to use these programs before taking your computer
through
Customs, when travelling, becusae you never know what kind of illegal stuff
may lurk on your computer. Since U.S and U.K. Customs regularly scan
computers now, I clean them with programs like Evidence Blaster, before
travel, so that neither U.S. or U.K. Customs will not get anything if they
decide to scan your machine.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Bogwitch" wrote in message
news:XrMoi.2244$nm3.630@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> Chlly8 wrote:
>> "Bogwitch" wrote in message
>> news:T9Foi.340$gX5.171@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>>> Chlly8 wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You have also advocated installing unapproved software onto corporate
>>> networks in order to overwrite logs? Jesus! You'll get my users either
>>
>>> 2. Imprisoned. I'm not joking. (I'm not based in the US)
>>
>> On what charge? As far as I know, Evidence Eliminator is not yet illegal
>> in the U.K. (though they have tried to ban it). Even if they could be
>> prosecuted,
>
> Wilful destruction of evidence could well lead to perverting the course of
> justice, and breach the Computer Misuse Act, the Regulation Of
> Investigatory Powers Act, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, I could go
> on....

If this were the case, Robin Hood Software would have been shut down
long ago. The company that makes EE is based in your country, in
Nottingham to be exact. If what you are saying were true, the authorites
would have shut down Robin Hood Software long ago. Since the program
is made and sold legally in the U.K., I dont think its use would be illegal
either, at least not under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act or
Investigatory Powers Act. Maybe under the Computer Misuse Act,
if they broke any admin passwords to install the program, but certainly
not under any of the other acts you mention.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Bogwitch" wrote in message
> news:XrMoi.2244$nm3.630@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> > Chlly8 wrote:
> >> "Bogwitch" wrote in message
> >> news:T9Foi.340$gX5.171@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> >>> Chlly8 wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> You have also advocated installing unapproved software onto corporate
> >>> networks in order to overwrite logs? Jesus! You'll get my users either
> >>
> >>> 2. Imprisoned. I'm not joking. (I'm not based in the US)
> >>
> >> On what charge? As far as I know, Evidence Eliminator is not yet illegal
> >> in the U.K. (though they have tried to ban it). Even if they could be
> >> prosecuted,
> >
> > Wilful destruction of evidence could well lead to perverting the course of
> > justice, and breach the Computer Misuse Act, the Regulation Of
> > Investigatory Powers Act, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, I could go
> > on....
>
> If this were the case, Robin Hood Software would have been shut down
> long ago. The company that makes EE is based in your country, in
> Nottingham to be exact.

There you go again, not understanding - it's the act of removing the
evidence that is illegal, not the enabling it.


--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Jamin Davis" wrote in message
news:eesan4-ofn.ln1@ID-307283.user.individual.net...
> Juergen Nieveler wrote:
>
>> The business doesn't need more bandwidth. The users have 3
>> alternatives: - Listen to webradio at home
>> - Buy a plain old radio (you know, those wireless things that use FM...)
>> - Get fired
>
> What about a more liberal approach -- I've worked for/with several
> companies
> and netradio was not seen as a problem; actually I remember one company
> that specifically promoted it even though the netops (or myself in a
> couple
> of cases!) couldn't be bothered setting it up properly. In the end only a
> tiny few have the know-how so the idea that 100s of employees are gonna
> sit
> there all day listening to radio is unlikely. Plus the fact that you're
> still expected to be able to fulfill your primary duties - whether you're
> listening to FM radio/Net Radio/somebody gossipping at the next desk. Fail
> on that and you're out anyway.

You make my point very well. There is nothing wrong with listening to
web radio as long as you are doing your work. As long as you are doing your
work, there is nothing wrong with listening to web radio from work. Some
people may think otherwise, but I see no thing wrong with listening to
internet radio from work.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

I just premiered a new show on my station, the "Morning Playhouse", aimed
at New Zealand and Australian (my station operates out of Australia)
listeners
getting ready to start the workday, and while I wont have the full
statistics
until tommorrow, I can say that there were a LOT of Australia and NZ
workplaces connected during my show today. So the new morning show
on my station appears to be a popular way to start the workday.

Becuase my station is an Australian station, advocating things like proxies
and other measures to evade blocking and/or monitoring is NOT illegal
and it NOT unethical.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
>
> I just premiered a new show on my station, the "Morning Playhouse", aimed
> at New Zealand and Australian (my station operates out of Australia)
> listeners
> getting ready to start the workday, and while I wont have the full
> statistics
> until tommorrow, I can say that there were a LOT of Australia and NZ
> workplaces connected during my show today. So the new morning show
> on my station appears to be a popular way to start the workday.
>
> Becuase my station is an Australian station, advocating things like proxies
> and other measures to evade blocking and/or monitoring is NOT illegal
> and it NOT unethical.

Advocating breaking company policy is always unethical, doesn't matter
what country.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.210f217620740619989817@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>
>>
>> I just premiered a new show on my station, the "Morning Playhouse", aimed
>> at New Zealand and Australian (my station operates out of Australia)
>> listeners
>> getting ready to start the workday, and while I wont have the full
>> statistics
>> until tommorrow, I can say that there were a LOT of Australia and NZ
>> workplaces connected during my show today. So the new morning show
>> on my station appears to be a popular way to start the workday.
>>
>> Becuase my station is an Australian station, advocating things like
>> proxies
>> and other measures to evade blocking and/or monitoring is NOT illegal
>> and it NOT unethical.
>
> Advocating breaking company policy is always unethical, doesn't matter
> what country.

What I am doing is not against the law in Australia. It is neither illegal
for
me to give the information to those who want it, nor is it illegal, under
Australian law, to use it, as long as they are not breaking any company
passwords to do so.

And contrary to what Bogwitch thinks, all this stuff about willfully
destroying evidence ONLY applies, just like in the U.S., if a
police investigation is launched, and you are aware of it at the
time you launch programs like Evidence Blaster, Evidence
Eliminator, Killdisk, etc. If there is no active police investigation,
then the all those laws regarding destroying evidence DO NOT
APPLY. So using Evidence Eliminator is not illegal, as long as
you are not aware of any active criminal investigations against you,
and as long as you do not break any password to do so.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Leythos" wrote in message
> news:MPG.210f217620740619989817@adfree.Usenet.com...
> > In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >>
> >>
> >> I just premiered a new show on my station, the "Morning Playhouse", aimed
> >> at New Zealand and Australian (my station operates out of Australia)
> >> listeners
> >> getting ready to start the workday, and while I wont have the full
> >> statistics
> >> until tommorrow, I can say that there were a LOT of Australia and NZ
> >> workplaces connected during my show today. So the new morning show
> >> on my station appears to be a popular way to start the workday.
> >>
> >> Becuase my station is an Australian station, advocating things like
> >> proxies
> >> and other measures to evade blocking and/or monitoring is NOT illegal
> >> and it NOT unethical.
> >
> > Advocating breaking company policy is always unethical, doesn't matter
> > what country.
>
> What I am doing is not against the law in Australia. It is neither illegal
> for
> me to give the information to those who want it, nor is it illegal, under
> Australian law, to use it, as long as they are not breaking any company
> passwords to do so.

Actually, Violation of Company Policy can get anyone fired, illegal or
not, it's company policy that rules. The person that follows your
unethical suggestions could be fired and then come back on you and your
unethical suggestions for liability damages...

>
> And contrary to what Bogwitch thinks, all this stuff about willfully
> destroying evidence ONLY applies, just like in the U.S., if a
> police investigation is launched, and you are aware of it at the
> time you launch programs like Evidence Blaster, Evidence
> Eliminator, Killdisk, etc. If there is no active police investigation,
> then the all those laws regarding destroying evidence DO NOT
> APPLY. So using Evidence Eliminator is not illegal, as long as
> you are not aware of any active criminal investigations against you,
> and as long as you do not break any password to do so.

Actually, even in Oz, the employer can fire the person for just about
any reason, and violating company rules/policy can and certainly does
get people fired.

So, keep trying to tell people that your unethical ways are proper, that
their breaking company policy is OK, and you'll soon be reading about
people that were fired for abusing the company resources like we see
every day in every country.

So, another case of you not listening and screwing your listeners with
your unethical ways and suggestions.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In message "Chlly8" wrote:

>"Bogwitch" wrote in message
>news:T9Foi.340$gX5.171@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>> Chlly8 wrote:
>
>
>> You have also advocated installing unapproved software onto corporate
>> networks in order to overwrite logs? Jesus! You'll get my users either
>
>> 2. Imprisoned. I'm not joking. (I'm not based in the US)
>
>On what charge?

Mandatory record retention, for one thing.

--
If quitters never win, and winners never quit,
what fool came up with, "Quit while you're ahead"?

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In message "Chlly8" wrote:

>If this were the case, Robin Hood Software would have been shut down
>long ago.

Not at all -- What may well be legal for a person to do in the privacy
of their own home on their own computer will often not be even close to
being legal at a company.

--
If quitters never win, and winners never quit,
what fool came up with, "Quit while you're ahead"?

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In message "Chlly8" wrote:

>You make my point very well. There is nothing wrong with listening to
>web radio as long as you are doing your work. As long as you are doing your
>work, there is nothing wrong with listening to web radio from work. Some
>people may think otherwise, but I see no thing wrong with listening to
>internet radio from work.

And that is the crux of the problem, you see nothing wrong with it and
therefore assume no one will ever see anything wrong with it.

--
If quitters never win, and winners never quit,
what fool came up with, "Quit while you're ahead"?

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.210f273ea786c42e98981c@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> "Leythos" wrote in message
>> news:MPG.210f217620740619989817@adfree.Usenet.com...
>> > In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I just premiered a new show on my station, the "Morning Playhouse",
>> >> aimed
>> >> at New Zealand and Australian (my station operates out of Australia)
>> >> listeners
>> >> getting ready to start the workday, and while I wont have the full
>> >> statistics
>> >> until tommorrow, I can say that there were a LOT of Australia and NZ
>> >> workplaces connected during my show today. So the new morning show
>> >> on my station appears to be a popular way to start the workday.
>> >>
>> >> Becuase my station is an Australian station, advocating things like
>> >> proxies
>> >> and other measures to evade blocking and/or monitoring is NOT illegal
>> >> and it NOT unethical.
>> >
>> > Advocating breaking company policy is always unethical, doesn't matter
>> > what country.
>>
>> What I am doing is not against the law in Australia. It is neither
>> illegal
>> for
>> me to give the information to those who want it, nor is it illegal, under
>> Australian law, to use it, as long as they are not breaking any company
>> passwords to do so.
>
> Actually, Violation of Company Policy can get anyone fired, illegal or
> not, it's company policy that rules. The person that follows your
> unethical suggestions could be fired and then come back on you and your
> unethical suggestions for liability damages...

Some people can be appreciative, depending on the situation. There is
the one woman I mentioned up thread, whose best friend was that pairs
skater that was injured at Four Continents last season. She did manage to
get onto one skating board and ask for help in keeping up on the news
of what was happening to her friend, in a way, where the boss would
not know about it, and as a skating broadcaster and fellow skating fan,
I was more than happy to help. I just created a login and password for
her on the proxy to my network, and then sent her that, and
the client program, in Private Message (PM), so she could log on.
Since the client program required no installation, and was small enough
to fit on a floppy, she merely saved it to a floppy, logged on to my
proxy, and then changed the proxy settings on her browser, so that
the connection would go to the client program, where the traffic
would be encrypted, before it went to my proxy. This allowed her
to keep up with news on how her friend was doing, in a way
where the boss would not know. She was VERY appreciative of
what I did, becuase her boss had NO CLUE as to what she was
up to. They would see the encrypted traffic to my proxy, but would
have NO IDEA she was surfing skating boards and websites to
keep up on what her friend was doing. For a long time, Figure
Skating Universe was not in any of the filteing lists of the major
vendors (until one guy who was really pisssed off, and I mean
PISSSED off, over being banned from there, submitted the
URL to all the major filteirng vendors, and got it included in the
filtering list). FS Universe was the one skating site she could get
to from her workplace, and I was more than happy to help facilitate
her sneaking past company policy to keep up on how her friend
was doing. Apparently this one woman, in Canada, is a very good
friend of this one pairs skater. And I was more than happy to help
a fellow skating fan in this situation. With the encrypted connection to
my company proxy, there is no POSSIBLE way that her employer
would have EVER figured out what she was up to. She had several
connections going. She was listening to my broadcast, as well as
surfing the boards at Figure Skating Universe and GoldenSkate,
with her boss having any CLUE as to what she was up to.

Since the client program was saved to a floppy disk, that fact that
it was run would never have shown up in any event logs, becuase
it was run from an external USB floppy drive, and not from the
hard disk.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> And I was more than happy to help
> a fellow skating fan in this situation. With the encrypted connection to
> my company proxy, there is no POSSIBLE way that her employer
> would have EVER figured out what she was up to. She had several
> connections going. She was listening to my broadcast, as well as
> surfing the boards at Figure Skating Universe and GoldenSkate,
> with her boss having any CLUE as to what she was up to.

Bull Crap - any connection can easily be spotted by a security type that
is looking for your unethical type of crap.

We catch people like this all the time, not to mention that they get
fired for it in many cases.

You can keep posting your unethical rants, but, the fact is, you are
about as unethical as any other hack on the net.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.210f3a3769fa84969897ee@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> And I was more than happy to help
>> a fellow skating fan in this situation. With the encrypted connection to
>> my company proxy, there is no POSSIBLE way that her employer
>> would have EVER figured out what she was up to. She had several
>> connections going. She was listening to my broadcast, as well as
>> surfing the boards at Figure Skating Universe and GoldenSkate,
>> with her boss having any CLUE as to what she was up to.
>
> Bull Crap - any connection can easily be spotted by a security type that
> is looking for your unethical type of crap.

They might have seen the connection, but they would NOT have known
what she was up to, and I think it would have been much harder to fire
her in Canada, becuase they did not have the actual content of what she
was viewing, since it was all encrypted. Ontario is Canada's big enclave
of skating, and most of Canada's top skaters were either born there, or
they trained there. I know what when my station broadcasts skating
events any time during the workday in Ontario, I do see a lot of
connections from various office networks in all over the province of
Ontario.

>
> We catch people like this all the time, not to mention that they get
> fired for it in many cases.
>
> You can keep posting your unethical rants, but, the fact is, you are
> about as unethical as any other hack on the net.

Under this situation, being she was really worried about her friend,
I felt, and STILL feel, that giving her temporary access to my proxy was
NOT unethical. I felt it was the human thing to do under this situation.
I really felt sorry for her, and what happened to her friend, being a
skating
fan myself, and felt that giving her temporary access to my network
was the COMPASSSIONATE thing to do. You might call it unethical,
but I felt that under this situation, giving her access to my network,
so she could keep up on what had happened to her friend was the
HUMAN thing to do. In this situation, I felt that it was the compassionate
thing to do in giving her temporary access to my network. What I did
in this situation was NOT unethical.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Leythos" wrote in message
> news:MPG.210f3a3769fa84969897ee@adfree.Usenet.com...
> > In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >> And I was more than happy to help
> >> a fellow skating fan in this situation. With the encrypted connection to
> >> my company proxy, there is no POSSIBLE way that her employer
> >> would have EVER figured out what she was up to. She had several
> >> connections going. She was listening to my broadcast, as well as
> >> surfing the boards at Figure Skating Universe and GoldenSkate,
> >> with her boss having any CLUE as to what she was up to.
> >
> > Bull Crap - any connection can easily be spotted by a security type that
> > is looking for your unethical type of crap.
>
> They might have seen the connection, but they would NOT have known
> what she was up to, and I think it would have been much harder to fire
> her in Canada, becuase they did not have the actual content of what she
> was viewing, since it was all encrypted. Ontario is Canada's big enclave
> of skating, and most of Canada's top skaters were either born there, or
> they trained there. I know what when my station broadcasts skating
> events any time during the workday in Ontario, I do see a lot of
> connections from various office networks in all over the province of
> Ontario.

Again, you don't seem to understand, it doesn't matter "WHAT CONTENT" as
long as it's not an approved connection. That's all it takes. Anyone
checking the connection point can tell it's a proxy or other and that
it's not a company approved site, it's that simple.

> > We catch people like this all the time, not to mention that they get
> > fired for it in many cases.
> >
> > You can keep posting your unethical rants, but, the fact is, you are
> > about as unethical as any other hack on the net.
>
> Under this situation, being she was really worried about her friend,
> I felt, and STILL feel, that giving her temporary access to my proxy was
> NOT unethical. I felt it was the human thing to do under this situation.
> I really felt sorry for her, and what happened to her friend, being a
> skating
> fan myself, and felt that giving her temporary access to my network
> was the COMPASSSIONATE thing to do. You might call it unethical,
> but I felt that under this situation, giving her access to my network,
> so she could keep up on what had happened to her friend was the
> HUMAN thing to do. In this situation, I felt that it was the compassionate
> thing to do in giving her temporary access to my network. What I did
> in this situation was NOT unethical.

So you still feel it's compassionate of you to help a person break,
knowingly break, company rules? So, both of you are very unethical.

Violation of Company Policy is unethical, no matter what your BS reason
is.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.210f43d149beb8fe9897f1@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>


>> Under this situation, being she was really worried about her friend,
>> I felt, and STILL feel, that giving her temporary access to my proxy was
>> NOT unethical. I felt it was the human thing to do under this situation.
>> I really felt sorry for her, and what happened to her friend, being a
>> skating
>> fan myself, and felt that giving her temporary access to my network
>> was the COMPASSSIONATE thing to do. You might call it unethical,
>> but I felt that under this situation, giving her access to my network,
>> so she could keep up on what had happened to her friend was the
>> HUMAN thing to do. In this situation, I felt that it was the
>> compassionate
>> thing to do in giving her temporary access to my network. What I did
>> in this situation was NOT unethical.
>
> So you still feel it's compassionate of you to help a person break,
> knowingly break, company rules? So, both of you are very unethical.
>

Under this situation I felt it was the HUMAN thing to do becuase I felt
sorry for her, being a skating fam myself. I did feel really sorry for her
(and her injured skater friend ), so I felt that I was simply being
compassionate. Under this situation, we were NOT being unetical,
no matter WHAT some people might say. I felt that under this
situation, her boss had NO RIGHT to keep that information from
reaching her, under this situation so I was doing the MERCIFUL thing to
do, and granther an alternative gateway to get to various figure skating
websites
to keep up with what was going on. I was NOT going to let some INHUMAN
network admin keep her from reaching that information, in this situation. I
felt
that sorry for her, and her figure skater friend.

We skating fans can be a tight-knit bunch in a situation like that, and more
than a few of us have helped people circumvent company rules, under
situations like that. Call us unethical if you like, but I call it being
human.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article ,
Jamin Davis wrote:

>What about a more liberal approach -- I've worked for/with several companies
>and netradio was not seen as a problem; actually I remember one company
>that specifically promoted it even though the netops (or myself in a couple
>of cases!) couldn't be bothered setting it up properly. In the end only a
>tiny few have the know-how so the idea that 100s of employees are gonna sit
>there all day listening to radio is unlikely.

In our ISP configuration before our present one, we -did- find
that people listening to internet radio was pushing up our costs
noticably.

In another branch of the same department, they had to come down
heavy on people because the excess bandwidth charges for internet
radio were adding over $3000 per month to the bill.

One person is shown how to do it by their kid at home, they show
other people how to do it, the bandwidth adds up.

>If it really becomes a bandwidth
>issue let the individuals concerned pay for the extra bandwidth

It wasn't worth the book-keeping involved, having HQ create the
appropriate financial codes, doing the monitoring, creating
reports, having those reports translated into invoices, getting
the unions to agree that if the amount wasn't paid in a reasonable
time that it could be docked from pay, making the arrangements with
the payroll department, etc., etc..

The branch I work for are definitely not policy ogres, but
we couldn't afford not to block internet radio.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> We skating fans can be a tight-knit bunch in a situation like that, and more
> than a few of us have helped people circumvent company rules, under
> situations like that. Call us unethical if you like, but I call it being
> human.

Actually, it's a very human thing to be Unethical and then try and
justify being unethical so that you can feel better about it.

Fact is, breaking company rules/policy for personal reasons is Unethical
and can get you fired. Advocating breaking company rules/policy is
Unethical and could make you liable for the results - it's that simple.


--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , roberson@hushmail.com
says...
> The branch I work for are definitely not policy ogres, but
> we couldn't afford not to block internet radio.

Blocking internet radio, if you already have a firewall, is simple and
almost always worth the cost to implement - the savings in productivity
is something you can measure.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.210fa231e38476a79897f4@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article , Chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> We skating fans can be a tight-knit bunch in a situation like that, and
>> more
>> than a few of us have helped people circumvent company rules, under
>> situations like that. Call us unethical if you like, but I call it being
>> human.
>
> Actually, it's a very human thing to be Unethical and then try and
> justify being unethical so that you can feel better about it.
>
> Fact is, breaking company rules/policy for personal reasons is Unethical
> and can get you fired. Advocating breaking company rules/policy is
> Unethical and could make you liable for the results - it's that simple.

Well, I took most of it down (except the information on Tor), because I
discovered a way to fool most filtering products into allowing connections
to my radio station. I created a subdomain, under my domain, and pointed
it to the IP address currently assigned to my by Live 365. Since either
the Live 365 web-based player, or the Radio 365 client app, uses the
raw IP numbers to connect to stations, the IP lookup that filtering
software uses to see if its a banned site will live my domain, instead
of Live365.com, associated with that IP, and will allow my station to
come through, even if the rest of Live 365 is blocked. I have basically
thrown the filtering products for a loop doing this, and allowing people
to get my station WITHOUT the need to use anonymity services, open
proxies, SSH/VPN/SSL tunneling, etc. etc. All they need to do is
just follow the link from my web page (which is STILL not in any
filteirng lists), which uses the raw IP numbers, and they will get my
station, without having to install ANYTHING, use any proxies or
annomymity services, or make ANY modifications to the machine.
A long as my domain is not added to the filtering lists, my station will
get through to most workplaces around the world, without having to
be very tech saavy. Just "plug and play", as it were.

Since they are not using any proxies or anonymity services, or
encruypted tunneling, and are making NO modifications to the
machine, it would be that much harder to fire them for abusing
company resources, if the their filtering software is letting my station
through, without that use of ANY circumvention methods
whatsoever. So I have thrown the filtering products for a loop,
and I have thrown employers for a loop, since they cannot
fire someone who did not use ANY circumvention tools, and
got my station just becuase the filtering software failed to block
it.

When my subdomains propagate to all name servers worldwide,
in a day or two, it will become network admins WORST NIGHTMARE,
as they try to figure out WHY their filtering software is letting my
station through. I think a lot of admins will practically be tearing their
hair out trying to beat me on this one.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In message Juergen
Nieveler wrote:

>DevilsPGD wrote:
>
>> And that is the crux of the problem, you see nothing wrong with it and
>> therefore assume no one will ever see anything wrong with it.
>
>Exactly. If the company thinks it's OK, then people don't have to
>bypass any security measures. If they can't get access, they simply ask
>IT for help. You only need to bypass security if you're doing something
>that is not allowed (and with some bigger corporations, the contracts
>are pretty tough, up to the point where even lawyers gently cough and
>suggest you might want to look for another place to work...).
>
>Working in a liberal company is nice (BTDT, our managing director
>wasn't too bad at Counterstrike either) - but you can't assume that all
>companies will be like that.

Indeed -- My $DAYJOB is a classic example, they are extremely tolerant
of just about anything. There are a few exceptions, disrespect shown
towards fellow employees or subordinates is one example.

One of the other exceptions is streaming (anything, audio or video)
because second to employee compensation, bandwidth is our single largest
expense, and due to our location, we can't go any faster.

We live and die by our network's uptime and ability to service user and
employee needs.

Since we're located in an at-will state, no explanation is required,
there is no "wrongful dismissal", you simply don't stream anymore or
find another place to work.

Beyond the above two, it's VERY difficult to get fired. Substance abuse
will do it, but only after it impacts your ability to do the job. Doing
no work at all for over a month will usually get you put on probation,
but not fired immediately.

If even a small percentage of employees started streaming over a long
period of time, we'd be out of business faster then the above. Music is
fine, just bring it from home.

--
If quitters never win, and winners never quit,
what fool came up with, "Quit while you're ahead"?

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In message Leythos
wrote:

>Blocking internet radio, if you already have a firewall, is simple and
>almost always worth the cost to implement - the savings in productivity
>is something you can measure.

Productivity? That depends on your typical employee. For my part, I am
generally more productive when listening to music -- My job is a flat
salary to complete 100% of the work that arrives. I do not have any
hour requirements, some days I work 3 hours, others I work 16.

My company has no specific interest in how long it takes me, just that
the job gets done.

Not everyone can handle the distraction, but speaking for myself, I
*need* the distraction for the few moments when I am waiting for the
system, otherwise I get distracted and do something else which doesn't
yield as easily as music.

--
If quitters never win, and winners never quit,
what fool came up with, "Quit while you're ahead"?

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article <0dcca3d1b7053svf0ejia4j4b9dnediep2@4ax.com>,
spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net says...
> In message Leythos
> wrote:
>
> >Blocking internet radio, if you already have a firewall, is simple and
> >almost always worth the cost to implement - the savings in productivity
> >is something you can measure.
>
> Productivity? That depends on your typical employee. For my part, I am
> generally more productive when listening to music -- My job is a flat
> salary to complete 100% of the work that arrives. I do not have any
> hour requirements, some days I work 3 hours, others I work 16.
>
> My company has no specific interest in how long it takes me, just that
> the job gets done.
>
> Not everyone can handle the distraction, but speaking for myself, I
> *need* the distraction for the few moments when I am waiting for the
> system, otherwise I get distracted and do something else which doesn't
> yield as easily as music.

And there are many ways to get that "Distraction" without using company
resources.

In companies where they provide NO filtering, when it's implemented we
see/hear a lot of complaining during the first 30 days, and a general
decrease in productivity during that period, but, within a couple months
there is almost always a increase of 30% in productivity for those that
have access to the public internet. Additionally, implementing phone
logging and monitoring improves productivity also, but the increase when
filtering internet access is the largest increase typical.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In message Leythos
wrote:

>In article <0dcca3d1b7053svf0ejia4j4b9dnediep2@4ax.com>,
>spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net says...
>> In message Leythos
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Blocking internet radio, if you already have a firewall, is simple and
>> >almost always worth the cost to implement - the savings in productivity
>> >is something you can measure.
>>
>> Productivity? That depends on your typical employee. For my part, I am
>> generally more productive when listening to music -- My job is a flat
>> salary to complete 100% of the work that arrives. I do not have any
>> hour requirements, some days I work 3 hours, others I work 16.
>>
>> My company has no specific interest in how long it takes me, just that
>> the job gets done.
>>
>> Not everyone can handle the distraction, but speaking for myself, I
>> *need* the distraction for the few moments when I am waiting for the
>> system, otherwise I get distracted and do something else which doesn't
>> yield as easily as music.
>
>And there are many ways to get that "Distraction" without using company
>resources.

Indeed -- I bought this newfangled emm pee three player to handle my own
music needs. It's just like streaming radio, but a hell of a lot better
sound quality, and I can control exactly what plays.

>In companies where they provide NO filtering, when it's implemented we
>see/hear a lot of complaining during the first 30 days, and a general
>decrease in productivity during that period, but, within a couple months
>there is almost always a increase of 30% in productivity for those that
>have access to the public internet. Additionally, implementing phone
>logging and monitoring improves productivity also, but the increase when
>filtering internet access is the largest increase typical.

I can imagine -- It depends on the individual, a lot of people can't
handle even minor distractions.

--
If quitters never win, and winners never quit,
what fool came up with, "Quit while you're ahead"?

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article <8soca3h7hk90s8210rs6ah31dcsnn9187l@4ax.com>,
spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net says...
> >In companies where they provide NO filtering, when it's implemented we
> >see/hear a lot of complaining during the first 30 days, and a general
> >decrease in productivity during that period, but, within a couple months
> >there is almost always a increase of 30% in productivity for those that
> >have access to the public internet. Additionally, implementing phone
> >logging and monitoring improves productivity also, but the increase when
> >filtering internet access is the largest increase typical.
>
> I can imagine -- It depends on the individual, a lot of people can't
> handle even minor distractions.

We caught one chap trying to run a Darts group from his office, he was
found to be spending several hours per day before we were hired - they
presented him with his violation of company policy and told him he could
take a pay cut for 6 months and keep his job or he could quit today...
He took the cut and once he was blocked his productivity returned and
the pay cut made up for the more than 6 months of stealing time from the
company.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.2110313fa1d6d898989824@adfree.Usenet.com...


> We caught one chap trying to run a Darts group from his office, he was
> found to be spending several hours per day before we were hired - they
> presented him with his violation of company policy and told him he could
> take a pay cut for 6 months and keep his job or he could quit today...
> He took the cut and once he was blocked his productivity returned and
> the pay cut made up for the more than 6 months of stealing time from the
> company.
>

Well, I don't see listening to web radio as stealing anything from the
company.
Listening to web radio is NOT stealing, contrary to popular opinion..

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.2110313fa1d6d898989824@adfree.Usenet.com...


>> >have access to the public internet. Additionally, implementing phone
>> >logging and monitoring improves productivity also, but the increase when
>> >filtering internet access is the largest increase typical.

And phone monitoring can be evaded by using your own cell phone. With
an estimated 170 million cell phones, just in America, it is not that hard
for
someone to use their cell phone to avoid phone logging. And with the
"vibrate" feature, nobody will ever hear your phone ring when you get
a call, you just feel a "buzz" in your pocket. Some of the people I have
called back on my talk show, when they are at work, have been to
their cell phones. As a result, there is no POSSIBLE way they can
find out that someone is gabbing with me on my talk show, whenever
they use their cell phones to talk to me, since cell phones cannot be
monitored by company phone systems.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Leythos" wrote in message
> news:MPG.2110313fa1d6d898989824@adfree.Usenet.com...
>
>
> > We caught one chap trying to run a Darts group from his office, he was
> > found to be spending several hours per day before we were hired - they
> > presented him with his violation of company policy and told him he could
> > take a pay cut for 6 months and keep his job or he could quit today...
> > He took the cut and once he was blocked his productivity returned and
> > the pay cut made up for the more than 6 months of stealing time from the
> > company.
> >
>
> Well, I don't see listening to web radio as stealing anything from the
> company.
> Listening to web radio is NOT stealing, contrary to popular opinion..

If it violates company policy, then and if it impacts ANY business
function or performance, then it's stealing company resources.

And that still makes you an unethical hack for telling people how to
violate company policy and security measures.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Leythos" wrote in message
> news:MPG.2110313fa1d6d898989824@adfree.Usenet.com...
>
>
> >> >have access to the public internet. Additionally, implementing phone
> >> >logging and monitoring improves productivity also, but the increase when
> >> >filtering internet access is the largest increase typical.
>
> And phone monitoring can be evaded by using your own cell phone. With
> an estimated 170 million cell phones, just in America, it is not that hard
> for
> someone to use their cell phone to avoid phone logging. And with the
> "vibrate" feature, nobody will ever hear your phone ring when you get
> a call, you just feel a "buzz" in your pocket. Some of the people I have
> called back on my talk show, when they are at work, have been to
> their cell phones. As a result, there is no POSSIBLE way they can
> find out that someone is gabbing with me on my talk show, whenever
> they use their cell phones to talk to me, since cell phones cannot be
> monitored by company phone systems.

Using your own Cell phone has no impact on the company network nor on
security as long as it's not connected to the PC. This means that you're
all wet again, as you were saying that people using their computer at
work could not be tracked, detected, known, and that they could not
track them if you called them on their company phone - we've proven this
information from you to be false in every example you come up with.

If they call your show from their home it doesn't get tracked at the
office either, doesn't show on the company network.... So, the point is
that you have been exposed as unethical by your own words and practices.

Oh, and one thing, depending on the person/company, the phone may be
paid for by the company, which means they are entitled to all call logs,
which means that if the phone is provided by the company that the
company can still check/detect your call or them calling you.

So, again, if the person is using company resources it's easy to detect.
If the person is using company resources against company policy they
could be fired for an unethical action. Since you promote unethical
actions you are unethical.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
news:Xns997864F0EC979juergennieveler@nieveler.org...
> "Chilly8" wrote:
>
>> Well, I don't see listening to web radio as stealing anything from the
>> company.
>> Listening to web radio is NOT stealing, contrary to popular opinion..
>
> You use bandwidth and electricity. That IS stealing - in some countries
> there's even a special law about that.

Not is is NOT stealing (unless you illegally crack someone's password
to do it). As long as you do not use an illegally obtained password, it
cannot be considered stealing. It is NOT illegal to listen to web radio
from where, ANYWHERE, unless you break someone's password
to do it.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
> news:Xns997864F0EC979juergennieveler@nieveler.org...
> > "Chilly8" wrote:
> >
> >> Well, I don't see listening to web radio as stealing anything from the
> >> company.
> >> Listening to web radio is NOT stealing, contrary to popular opinion..
> >
> > You use bandwidth and electricity. That IS stealing - in some countries
> > there's even a special law about that.
>
> Not is is NOT stealing (unless you illegally crack someone's password
> to do it). As long as you do not use an illegally obtained password, it
> cannot be considered stealing. It is NOT illegal to listen to web radio
> from where, ANYWHERE, unless you break someone's password
> to do it.

Wrong, using company resources for non-company reasons, and even the
time you get paid for while doing it, can be stealing in some cases.

It's illegal to violate company security policy in many states/countries
and does get people fired.

It's unethical to violate company policy in every country and company.

It's unethical to use company resources for personal reasons in every
country and company.

It's unethical to help people subvert company security and company
policy in every country and company.

In many countries and/or states, a person can be fired without reason,
and violation of company policy is the #1 reason people get fired.


--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.21110ae483f355ce989808@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> "Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
>> news:Xns997864F0EC979juergennieveler@nieveler.org...
>> > "Chilly8" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Well, I don't see listening to web radio as stealing anything from the
>> >> company.
>> >> Listening to web radio is NOT stealing, contrary to popular opinion..
>> >
>> > You use bandwidth and electricity. That IS stealing - in some countries
>> > there's even a special law about that.
>>
>> Not is is NOT stealing (unless you illegally crack someone's password
>> to do it). As long as you do not use an illegally obtained password, it
>> cannot be considered stealing. It is NOT illegal to listen to web radio
>> from where, ANYWHERE, unless you break someone's password
>> to do it.
>
> Wrong, using company resources for non-company reasons, and even the
> time you get paid for while doing it, can be stealing in some cases.
>
> It's illegal to violate company security policy in many states/countries
> and does get people fired.

Fired, yes, but it is NOT a CRIMINAL offence, unless you do
something like illegally break someone's password to do it.
>
> It's unethical to violate company policy in every country and company.
>
> It's unethical to use company resources for personal reasons in every
> country and company.
>
> It's unethical to help people subvert company security and company
> policy in every country and company.

However, other web sites have had services to help people sneak
on in violation of company policy. There is one subscription
anonymity service, that I use to be able to circumvent geographic
restrictions on Capital FM in London, or Clear Channel and
Pandora in the U.S., that is also aimed at people wanting to
ciircumvent company policy, and there are no shortage of
people people a minumum of $28 per year for the service.
What this one companyh is doing is NOT illegal in Ensenada,
Mexico, where they are based, so they can LEGALLY
sell their services to anyone in the world they wish, and
they do.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> "Leythos" wrote in message
> news:MPG.21110ae483f355ce989808@adfree.Usenet.com...
> > In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >>
> >> "Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
> >> news:Xns997864F0EC979juergennieveler@nieveler.org...
> >> > "Chilly8" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Well, I don't see listening to web radio as stealing anything from the
> >> >> company.
> >> >> Listening to web radio is NOT stealing, contrary to popular opinion..
> >> >
> >> > You use bandwidth and electricity. That IS stealing - in some countries
> >> > there's even a special law about that.
> >>
> >> Not is is NOT stealing (unless you illegally crack someone's password
> >> to do it). As long as you do not use an illegally obtained password, it
> >> cannot be considered stealing. It is NOT illegal to listen to web radio
> >> from where, ANYWHERE, unless you break someone's password
> >> to do it.
> >
> > Wrong, using company resources for non-company reasons, and even the
> > time you get paid for while doing it, can be stealing in some cases.
> >
> > It's illegal to violate company security policy in many states/countries
> > and does get people fired.
>
> Fired, yes, but it is NOT a CRIMINAL offence, unless you do
> something like illegally break someone's password to do it.

Wrong, stealing company resources is criminal in some areas. Turning in
time that wasn't worked is actually stealing in many countries, that's
criminal.

Keep telling people that they can't be detected and when someone gets
fired for it you might just end up on the wrong side of legal case.

> > It's unethical to violate company policy in every country and company.
> >
> > It's unethical to use company resources for personal reasons in every
> > country and company.
> >
> > It's unethical to help people subvert company security and company
> > policy in every country and company.
>
> However, other web sites have had services to help people sneak
> on in violation of company policy.

And do you believe that "because someone else does it" that it's a valid
way to excuse you for being unethical? Every hear the "if someone jumped
off a bridge would you?"....

Face it, you keep trying to defend your unethical actions and your
unethical practices.... You're just unethical, face it, don't deny your
foundation, you've clearly said you support violating company policy for
personal reasons.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chilly8 wrote:
>
>"Leythos" wrote in message
>news:MPG.21110ae483f355ce989808@adfree.Usenet.com...

>> It's illegal to violate company security policy in many states/countries
>> and does get people fired.

>Fired, yes, but it is NOT a CRIMINAL offence, unless you do
>something like illegally break someone's password to do it.

Wrong.

USA: Computer Fraud and Abuse Statutes, Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 47
section 1030

(a) Whoever--
(4) knowing and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected
computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and
by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains
anything of value [...]


Note: use of a telecommunication service to receive information -would-
be considered a "thing of value".

Note: if you haven't been authorized to access arbitrary outside
services, e.g., if you have violated a company security policy, then
that falls under "exceeds authorized access".


Canada: Canada Criminal Code (C-46)
342.1(1) Every one who, fraudulently and without colour of right,
(a) obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service


If you read the whole of the Canada Computer Security Act, you will
find that the key to the act is whether permission for the access
was obtained *in advance*. In Canada, there is NO defence for
"innocent infringement", NO defence for "I thought it would be okay"
or "I didn't realize that there was an actual law about it!": in
Canada, if you access a computer and you didn't get explicit permission
-before- the attempt to use the computer in that particular way, then you
have likely violated the Canada Criminal Code.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.2111126c5d4dcff898980d@adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> "Leythos" wrote in message
>> news:MPG.21110ae483f355ce989808@adfree.Usenet.com...
>> > In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> >>
>> >> "Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
>> >> news:Xns997864F0EC979juergennieveler@nieveler.org...
>> >> > "Chilly8" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Well, I don't see listening to web radio as stealing anything from
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> company.
>> >> >> Listening to web radio is NOT stealing, contrary to popular
>> >> >> opinion..
>> >> >
>> >> > You use bandwidth and electricity. That IS stealing - in some
>> >> > countries
>> >> > there's even a special law about that.
>> >>
>> >> Not is is NOT stealing (unless you illegally crack someone's password
>> >> to do it). As long as you do not use an illegally obtained password,
>> >> it
>> >> cannot be considered stealing. It is NOT illegal to listen to web
>> >> radio
>> >> from where, ANYWHERE, unless you break someone's password
>> >> to do it.
>> >
>> > Wrong, using company resources for non-company reasons, and even the
>> > time you get paid for while doing it, can be stealing in some cases.
>> >
>> > It's illegal to violate company security policy in many
>> > states/countries
>> > and does get people fired.
>>
>> Fired, yes, but it is NOT a CRIMINAL offence, unless you do
>> something like illegally break someone's password to do it.
>
> Wrong, stealing company resources is criminal in some areas. Turning in
> time that wasn't worked is actually stealing in many countries, that's
> criminal.
>
> Keep telling people that they can't be detected and when someone gets
> fired for it you might just end up on the wrong side of legal case.

However, I have got a NEW trick up my sleave, which some people
seem to be ignoring in my posts. I created a subdom,ain, under my
domain, and have it pointed at the server that server I am currently
assigned to on the Live 365 network. Since the Live 365 players,
both the web-based player application and the Radio 365 client,
use the raw IP number to connect to a station. By creating a
subdomain and pointing it at the IP for my station, this will thrown
filtering software for a loop, when it goes to do a lookup on the IP
to see if its in any banned domains. What will happen now is that
it will see my domain, instead of live365.com, and allow my station
through, as well as any other Live 365 stations operating off the
same server (they have about 100 servers), even when the rest of
Live 365 is blocked.

And contraty to what some people might think, it is NOT illegal
in either Australia (where my radio station is based), France
(where my web server is based), OR in the United States (where
Live 365, my streamingf provider, is located), to subvert
filtering software in that manner.

Because of this, I can take down all the information I previously
had on subverting filtering systems, because I do all the leg-work,
and what I do will now be INVISIBLE to users AND their
network admins.

If the filtering software FAILS to block my station, becuase
it sees my domain, instead of the live365.com domain, then said
employee CANNOT be charged with ANY crime. If the filter
fails to do its job and block my station, then the employee CANNOT
be held CRIMINALLY responsible in ANY country. And creating
a subdomain with the purpose of subverting filtering systems does
NOT violate ANY law, in ANY country.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> If the filtering software FAILS to block my station, becuase
> it sees my domain, instead of the live365.com domain, then said
> employee CANNOT be charged with ANY crime. If the filter
> fails to do its job and block my station, then the employee CANNOT
> be held CRIMINALLY responsible in ANY country. And creating
> a subdomain with the purpose of subverting filtering systems does
> NOT violate ANY law, in ANY country.

Again, you're missing the point, the connection is EASY TO SPOT and it
will only take a few minutes to report it as a site to block to the
companies that build such lists.

No matter what you can think of in that unethical mind, people like me,
and even ones smarter, can block access to your crap from the networks
we design and in most cases we don't have to do anything extra. In all
cases, on our network, all sites except direct business partner sites
are blocked - so, that really throws a wrench in your plan....

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In message "Chilly8"
wrote:

>There are several companies competing for the rights to provide a
>SECURE online video transmission of these events. Based on what
>will be speficially required, I see the encrypted video transmission
>of whoever gets to do this being UNDETECTABLE and
>UNSTOPPABLE by network admins

You don't really get it yet, do you?

There is no such thing as undetectable -- I might not know WHAT all this
bandwidth is, but I'll know what it isn't. Specifically, it isn't
business legitimate traffic.

As for unstoppable, I have wire snips.

--
If quitters never win, and winners never quit,
what fool came up with, "Quit while you're ahead"?

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> [removed XNA]
>
> "Leythos" wrote in message
> news:MPG.211198426263cc7398982c@adfree.Usenet.com...
> > In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >>
> >> If the filtering software FAILS to block my station, becuase
> >> it sees my domain, instead of the live365.com domain, then said
> >> employee CANNOT be charged with ANY crime. If the filter
> >> fails to do its job and block my station, then the employee CANNOT
> >> be held CRIMINALLY responsible in ANY country. And creating
> >> a subdomain with the purpose of subverting filtering systems does
> >> NOT violate ANY law, in ANY country.
> >
> > Again, you're missing the point, the connection is EASY TO SPOT and it
> > will only take a few minutes to report it as a site to block to the
> > companies that build such lists.
> >
> > No matter what you can think of in that unethical mind, people like me,
> > and even ones smarter, can block access to your crap from the networks
> > we design and in most cases we don't have to do anything extra. In all
> > cases, on our network, all sites except direct business partner sites
> > are blocked - so, that really throws a wrench in your plan....
> >
>
> Get ready for the admins WORST NIGHTMARE, coming up in about
> 20 months, at the World Figure Skating Championships, in 2009. Any
> why do you ask? Becuase U.S. Figure Skating is currently shopping
> for a company to provide exclcusive online video coverage for major
> events in the U.S., of which three scheduled, leading up to the 2010
> Olympics in Canada. Skate America 2007, the 2008 North American
> Championships and 2009 Worlds are scheduled to be in the U.S.
>
> There are several companies competing for the rights to provide a
> SECURE online video transmission of these events. Based on what
> will be speficially required, I see the encrypted video transmission
> of whoever gets to do this being UNDETECTABLE and
> UNSTOPPABLE by network admins, and when the 2009 World
> championships come around, I would expect that anything that
> takes place during the workday anyway to bring corporate networks
> all over the place to a grinding halt, as employess all try to log on
> to the transmission, and network admins start tearng their
> hair out to figure out how to stop it. My station is looking into
> bidding for the online video rights as one of the feeds we use
> for live audio can also transmit secure video as well. Its just
> a matter of connecting a camera to our network, and changing
> a few settings on that program, and we will be transmitting
> encrypted and secure video that cannot be cracked, ananlysed,
> monitored, detected, blocked, or sniffed.
>
> WHOEVER gets the online video rights for the afforementioned
> figure skating events will quickly become the WORST NIGHTMARE
> for corporate network admins all over the globe, when whoever
> gets the rights puts out a secure transmission that cannot be
> detected, cracked, analysed, monitored, cracked, or sniffed.
>
> Our radio coverage of the Pan Am Games (which we do becuase
> there a few Commonwealth nations in the event) has been bringing
> in more listeners since I invoked my trick to throw the all the filteirng
> programs for a loop. I have been in Rio for the Pan Am Games
> for the past few days. When we go live with our coverage, I can
> say that the number of workplaces tuning in from the the United
> States and Canada go through the roof, mostly due to the fact
> that I have thrown all the filteirng programs for a loop with my
> little IP lookup trick. And as of right now, my domain is NOT
> in any of the block lists of any of the major filtering providers,
> I just checked, so my station can still be heard in the majority
> of workplaces around the globe.
>
> In fact I have seen a lot of listenership coming from an open
> proxy in Oman, and from an open relay in the Phillpines. The
> Phillpine proxy is now on a few Spam blacklists, becuase
> people have apparently sent a lot of spam from there. I
> Googled the address and it is in a lot of Spam blacklists.
>
> As for the Oman address, when I Googled that one, I found it
> is one several addresses owned by a company that
> has its own anonymising service, which they specifically
> advertise is allowing you to get past even the most restrictive
> of firewalls at work or school, and touting their 128-bit
> encrypted, so your connection cannot be monitored or
> sniffed. Based on what this one company I just found
> offers, even the restrictive firewalls you design could be
> breached by this one new service. They even say
> that attempts to monitor you "would only yield heavily
> encrypted, useless data", in the words of the company.
>
> So in short, person or persons unknown are connecting to me
> through this heavily encrypted anonymisation service, and could
> even be doing it from behind YOUR restrictive firewall, right
> under your nose, and you would not even know what they
> were up to, other than they they were sending heavily encrypted
> traffic to a strange address in Oman.

Get ready to not be connected to from properly firewalled networks,
there is nothing users inside a properly secured network can do about it
- encryption or not, they can't connect to you if they can't connect to
proxy type services and they are easy to block. As a matter of fact, you
keep suggesting that encryption has something to do with hiding that the
person is connected - you keep failing to understand that a SSL
connection stands out like a flare in the night and so do most other
connections. The content doesn't have to be know, just that it's not an
approved connection point, that's all it takes to fire someone for
violating company policy.

Wait till one of these fired people comes after you for the lies you are
telling them.

You are completely wrong, they can't connect through ANY service to you
from ANY of our clients, it's not possible, but you can't seem to
understand that for some unknown reason.

Why don't you ask your technical people how users are doing to connect
if they can only connect to approved sites?

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article ,
spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net says...
> In message "Chilly8"
> wrote:
>
> >There are several companies competing for the rights to provide a
> >SECURE online video transmission of these events. Based on what
> >will be speficially required, I see the encrypted video transmission
> >of whoever gets to do this being UNDETECTABLE and
> >UNSTOPPABLE by network admins
>
> You don't really get it yet, do you?
>
> There is no such thing as undetectable -- I might not know WHAT all this
> bandwidth is, but I'll know what it isn't. Specifically, it isn't
> business legitimate traffic.
>
> As for unstoppable, I have wire snips.

He tried this same spew last year, saying that it can't be detected,
can't be seen, etc... each time he's proven wrong, exposed, shows his
unethical head, he just comes back with another stupid path that is even
more wrong than the last.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chilly8 wrote:

>If the filtering software FAILS to block my station, becuase
>it sees my domain, instead of the live365.com domain, then said
>employee CANNOT be charged with ANY crime. If the filter
>fails to do its job and block my station, then the employee CANNOT
>be held CRIMINALLY responsible in ANY country. And creating
>a subdomain with the purpose of subverting filtering systems does
>NOT violate ANY law, in ANY country.

That's like saying that if your front door lock is pickable by
the properly shaped jimmy, that unlocking it is not a crime.

Have another look at my prior posting today. USC 18 1030(a).
Exceeding authorized access is a US Criminal Offence. "Authorized
access" is defined by the company published security policy, not
by which technical measures can be sidestepped.

Indeed, as long as there were -some- elementary security elements in
place (so that the systems do not fall under the public-place kiosk
exemption), then the published security policy is *all* that is
required, and even if there are -no- technical counter-measures at all,
exceeding one's authorized access would be a USC 18 1030 violation.
Technology does not define authorization: policy does.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In message "Chilly8"
wrote:

>However, my latest IP trick I mentioned up thread, that throws filtering
>programs for a loop, is the most effetive I have found. It also does NOT
>break ANY laws, in Australia, Germany, France, Austria, Britain, or
>the United States. There is NO law against subverting filtering, by
>registering a domain, creating a subdoman, and pointing it at the IP that
>Live 365 currently has my station assigned to.

If you think moving IPs and domains is all it takes, you're even more
deluded then you let on...

>"Spoofing" filtering
>software, such as Websense, Surftcntrol, etc., to let users get
>past filtering does NOT violate ANY laws in the afforementioned
>countries.

You would be incorrect.

USA: Computer Fraud and Abuse Statutes, Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 47
section 1030

(a) Whoever--
(4) knowing and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected
computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and
by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains

In other words, the user could well be attested if they were informed
that such behaviour is not permitted.

>It would be risky to
>fire someone just because the filter failed to do its job and
>block either my chat room or my radio station, becuase they
>would NOT be using ANY circumvention tools.

Not risky at all, that's what a network use policy is for. As long as
it excludes all activities by default, then includes activities which
are business functions, anything outside of the scope is forbidden.

More importantly, why would a filter allow you to connect just because
it doesn't know your IP? It's trivially simple to lock down a network
to only allow access to IPs or hosts specified in advance, specifically,
those with a legitimate business need.

The fact that people *are* accessing it doesn't mean it's allowed, or
that anyone has tried to stop it. When I worked at an ISP, we had
literally all the bandwidth we could dream of, and so there were no
bandwidth related restrictions.

At my current job, we are extremely bandwidth limited, so there are
restrictions in place -- There are very few technical filters at all
since we need full internet access to do our jobs (we're a software
development and support organization, with all but one of our products
being in the e-mail field, being able to connect to client's servers is
mandatory to do the job of anyone in the company other then perhaps
sales, marketing, and administrative staff), yet you can easily be fired
for streaming (and a couple people were written up over it -- Both now
bring their music and videos from home, and no one complains)

--
If quitters never win, and winners never quit,
what fool came up with, "Quit while you're ahead"?

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

"DevilsPGD" wrote in message
news:pj6ga31e9jrjt86e9khvm0cq9bgn20mlri@4ax.com...
> In message "Chilly8"
> wrote:
>
>>However, my latest IP trick I mentioned up thread, that throws filtering
>>programs for a loop, is the most effetive I have found. It also does NOT
>>break ANY laws, in Australia, Germany, France, Austria, Britain, or
>>the United States. There is NO law against subverting filtering, by
>>registering a domain, creating a subdoman, and pointing it at the IP that
>>Live 365 currently has my station assigned to.
>
> If you think moving IPs and domains is all it takes, you're even more
> deluded then you let on...
>
>>"Spoofing" filtering
>>software, such as Websense, Surftcntrol, etc., to let users get
>>past filtering does NOT violate ANY laws in the afforementioned
>>countries.
>
> You would be incorrect.
>
> USA: Computer Fraud and Abuse Statutes, Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 47
> section 1030
>
> (a) Whoever--
> (4) knowing and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected
> computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and
> by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains

On MY end, though, *I* would *NOT* be criminally liable, because I
am PAYING GoDaddy for the right to use my domain, and I am PAYING
Live 365 a big chunk of money per year (annual subscrption) for the right
to broadcast through their servers, so registering a subdomain
and pointing at the Live 365 server to which my station is currently
assigned does NOT violate in laws, in either Australia (where my
online radio station is based), France (where the server for my web
site is currently located), nor the United States (where Live 365
is located). As long as *I* am paying for the domains, *I* am
paying the licensing fees (to the appropriate copyright authorities),
and *I* am paying Live 365 for the right to broadcast through their
servers, there is NO LAW in any of the afforementioned countries
that prohibits me from registering a domain, and/or pointing any
part of it to the server currently assigned to me by Live 365, and
there is nothing under the Live 365 AUP banning it , as long as I have
listeners connect by either the Live 365 web-based player, or the the
Radio 365 client app. So what *I* am doing is *LEGAL* on MY part,
under Australian, French, and American laws. If the filters fail
to do their job and block me, then I CANNOT be held
criminally or civilly liable in ANY of the three afforementioned
countries.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chilly8 wrote:

>To "exceed authorised access", you would have to do something
>like break a passoword to get it. If what you are doing is NOT
>password-protected, then "exceeding authorised access" DOES
>NOT APPLY. If the filteirng software fails to do its job, then
>you CANNOT be charged with a crime, becuase it would be
>assumed to be authorised access.

Wrong.

>The law ONLY applies if
>you gain access to a site that you KNOW has been blocked.
>If the site is acessible WITHOUT the use of open proxies,
>anonymity services, or ANY circumvention tools, then it
>is considered authorised, under the law, and is NOT subject
>to ANY criminal or civil liabiliy.

Wrong.

If I am duely authorized person at a company, and I publish a
security policy that says,

The only internet site that you are allowed to access is
www.thefarside.com

then any access to any other site is unauthorized access, whether
or not there are technical measures that block access to -anything-.
"Authorized" under US and Canadian law do not mean "Whatever
you can trick the system to get away with": they refer to established
policy.


>Just like if you have an open relay on your computer, and someone
>uses it to do something illegal, it is YOU that will be in trouble for
>it. Why? Becusae you have an access point that is NOT password
>protected, then it is considered PUBLIC under the law,

Not under Canadian law. C-46 342 . There is no presumption of
authorization of access under Canadian law: instead, under Canadian
law, the presumption is that all access is UNauthorized unless
prior permission has been explicitly granted. Yes, this *does* mean
that if I create a web site in Canada and someone accesses it
without my having (somehow) invited them to, that that access would
be a violation of the law, even if the web site is on the standard
port and has no "Go Away!" marking on it. The law is not written
in terms of technology and sophistication of counter-measures
and so on: the law is written in terms of permission, and in
Canada there is no implicit permission.


>Just like if you have an open relay on your computer, and someone
>uses it to do something illegal, it is YOU that will be in trouble for
>it. Why? Becusae you have an access point that is NOT password
>protected, then it is considered PUBLIC under the law,

Under that logic, if you have an unpatched security hole, then
whatever that can be parleyed into would be "public" access and
so legal. That interpretation has no legal foundation in Canada
or the USA: if you haven't been given permission for what you are doing,
then it is not legal.


If you leave your car unlocked and the key in the ignition and
the car running, and you step into a store, and while you are in
the store someone unknown to you drives your car around the parking
lot and returns it before you get back, then as far as the law
is concerned, the perpetrator stole the car for that period, no matter
that they returned it or that you weren't using it then or that
you hadn't protected it: the theft occured at the moment of the
usage without prior authorization, and "car left running" is *not*
authorization.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , Chilly8 wrote:

>So what *I* am doing is *LEGAL* on MY part,
>under Australian, French, and American laws. If the filters fail
>to do their job and block me, then I CANNOT be held
>criminally or civilly liable in ANY of the three afforementioned
>countries.

But if someone asks you how to get around their company's security
policy so that they can listen to your station, and you provide
them with that information, and they do then listen, then you
would risk a count of conspiracy to violate USC 18:1030
(if the access was from the USA.)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:13:51 -0700, Chlly8 wrote:

[snip]

> Its also a good idea to use these programs before taking your computer
> through
> Customs, when travelling, becusae you never know what kind of illegal stuff
> may lurk on your computer.

If you seriously "never know", and yet worry about illegal stuff
lurking on your computer, I think you'd be better off actually
learning how your computer works than hoping your "evidence remover
of the month" removes it all.


- Eirik

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Leythos" wrote in message
> news:MPG.2111d36e69bccc4e989834@adfree.Usenet.com...
> > In article ,
> > spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net says...
> >> In message "Chilly8"
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >There are several companies competing for the rights to provide a
> >> >SECURE online video transmission of these events. Based on what
> >> >will be speficially required, I see the encrypted video transmission
> >> >of whoever gets to do this being UNDETECTABLE and
> >> >UNSTOPPABLE by network admins
> >>
> >> You don't really get it yet, do you?
> >>
> >> There is no such thing as undetectable -- I might not know WHAT all this
> >> bandwidth is, but I'll know what it isn't. Specifically, it isn't
> >> business legitimate traffic.
> >>
> >> As for unstoppable, I have wire snips.
> >
> > He tried this same spew last year, saying that it can't be detected,
> > can't be seen, etc... each time he's proven wrong, exposed, shows his
> > unethical head, he just comes back with another stupid path that is even
> > more wrong than the last.
> >
>
> However, my latest IP trick I mentioned up thread, that throws filtering
> programs for a loop, is the most effetive I have found.

Shilly, your "latest IP trick" doesn't change anything. The site is not
reachable through normal security means.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> "DevilsPGD" wrote in message
> news:pj6ga31e9jrjt86e9khvm0cq9bgn20mlri@4ax.com...
> > In message "Chilly8"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>However, my latest IP trick I mentioned up thread, that throws filtering
> >>programs for a loop, is the most effetive I have found. It also does NOT
> >>break ANY laws, in Australia, Germany, France, Austria, Britain, or
> >>the United States. There is NO law against subverting filtering, by
> >>registering a domain, creating a subdoman, and pointing it at the IP that
> >>Live 365 currently has my station assigned to.
> >
> > If you think moving IPs and domains is all it takes, you're even more
> > deluded then you let on...
> >
> >>"Spoofing" filtering
> >>software, such as Websense, Surftcntrol, etc., to let users get
> >>past filtering does NOT violate ANY laws in the afforementioned
> >>countries.
> >
> > You would be incorrect.
> >
> > USA: Computer Fraud and Abuse Statutes, Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 47
> > section 1030
> >
> > (a) Whoever--
> > (4) knowing and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected
> > computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and
> > by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains
>
> On MY end, though, *I* would *NOT* be criminally liable, because I
> am PAYING GoDaddy for the right to use my domain, and I am PAYING
> Live 365 a big chunk of money per year (annual subscrption) for the right
> to broadcast through their servers, so registering a subdomain
> and pointing at the Live 365 server to which my station is currently
> assigned does NOT violate in laws

Shilly, the violation is on the side of the person listening to your
crap from work, not your end. So, as we've been trying to tell you, if a
person at work violates company policy, subverts the network security,
they can be fired, they will be detected, and their actions can be
against the law in most places.

There is liability on your side if the person is fired after following
your instructions on how to violate company policy and not be detected.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> "Walter Roberson" wrote in message
> news:GFVpi.7077$fJ5.4602@pd7urf1no...
> > In article , Chilly8 wrote:
> >
> >>So what *I* am doing is *LEGAL* on MY part,
> >>under Australian, French, and American laws. If the filters fail
> >>to do their job and block me, then I CANNOT be held
> >>criminally or civilly liable in ANY of the three afforementioned
> >>countries.
> >
> > But if someone asks you how to get around their company's security
> > policy so that they can listen to your station, and you provide
> > them with that information, and they do then listen, then you
> > would risk a count of conspiracy to violate USC 18:1030
> > (if the access was from the USA.)
>
>
> However, all I would have to do is regularly use Evidence Eliminator
> on my computers, to DESTROY any evidence on my hard disks
> of what I have done (which I ALWAYS do, before I travel to the
> United States

Which means nothing.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> "Walter Roberson" wrote in message
> news:VhUpi.5557$_d2.966@pd7urf3no...
> > In article , Chilly8 wrote:
> >
> >>If the filtering software FAILS to block my station, becuase
> >>it sees my domain, instead of the live365.com domain, then said
> >>employee CANNOT be charged with ANY crime. If the filter
> >>fails to do its job and block my station, then the employee CANNOT
> >>be held CRIMINALLY responsible in ANY country. And creating
> >>a subdomain with the purpose of subverting filtering systems does
> >>NOT violate ANY law, in ANY country.
> >
> > That's like saying that if your front door lock is pickable by
> > the properly shaped jimmy, that unlocking it is not a crime.
>
> But they do NOT have to use ANY circumvention tools, or
> "pick" ANY electronic locks.
> >
> > Have another look at my prior posting today. USC 18 1030(a).
> > Exceeding authorized access is a US Criminal Offence. "Authorized
> > access" is defined by the company published security policy, not
> > by which technical measures can be sidestepped.
>
> But they do NOT *HAVE* to sidestep ANY technical measures on
> their part. I have already done FOR them by creating a subdomain
> and pointing it at the IP assigned to my radio station.

Shilly, that only works for people that don't have secure networks.
Anyone behind a secure network isn't going to be able to reach your
station no matter what you do or what you change or how often.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> Well, what I am TRYING to make Walter Roberson, and a couple
> others understand, is that becuase by Web page is a on a server hosted
> in FRANCE, any content that comes out of that Web page is ONLY
> subject to FRENCH laws, that I cannot be held CRIMINALLY liable
> under USC 18:1030, becuase the content is being served from FRANCE.

Wrong - if you provide the content then you are liable in many
countries, including the US. It doesn't matter where people get the
content from, only that you provided it.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:15:33 -0400, Leythos wrote:
> In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> > "Walter Roberson" wrote in message
> > news:GFVpi.7077$fJ5.4602@pd7urf1no...
> > > In article , Chilly8 wrote:
> > >
> > >>So what *I* am doing is *LEGAL* on MY part,
> > >>under Australian, French, and American laws. If the filters fail
> > >>to do their job and block me, then I CANNOT be held
> > >>criminally or civilly liable in ANY of the three afforementioned
> > >>countries.
> > >
> > > But if someone asks you how to get around their company's security
> > > policy so that they can listen to your station, and you provide
> > > them with that information, and they do then listen, then you
> > > would risk a count of conspiracy to violate USC 18:1030
> > > (if the access was from the USA.)
> >
> >
> > However, all I would have to do is regularly use Evidence Eliminator
> > on my computers, to DESTROY any evidence on my hard disks
> > of what I have done (which I ALWAYS do, before I travel to the
> > United States
>
> Which means nothing.

If there's even a remote possibility of connecting the content of
his postings here with his eagerness to talk his listeners into
getting fired, I would say his obvious knowledge of how to remove
"evidence" doesnt really help.


- Eirik

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Chilly8 wrote:


> How do you turn on and use an event log?


You must be kidding, aren't you? You're running a server on the web, yet you
don't even know about the basics?

> My server runs Windows (becuase Live 365 only supports Windoze),

OK, and since Live365 (anyone knows this at all) is the only streaming
server software...

> There is no other way, that I know of, to remotely access Windows

> machines, other than Micorsoft's Remote Desktop facility.

Well, this obviously correlates with your incompetence. Of course, no one
could even find things like SSH, VNC, ...

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

> There is no other way,
> that I know of, to remotely access Windows machines,
> other than Micorsoft's Remote Desktop facility.

Never expose such a high-level service directly to the internet.
If you need to connect to that machine from the outside, use a
IPSec Connection to your network first, then inside thet RD.

There are a lot of other facilities to remotel access windows machines,
ranging from the very, very old PCAnywhere to VNC.

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> I logged on to the server and the firewall logs showed
> connection attempts from an address from Heilongjiang
> province in China to port 3389, which Remote Desktop
> uses. I have RD turned on so I can access my server
> from anywhere in the world. There is no other way,
> that I know of, to remotely access Windows machines,
> other than Micorsoft's Remote Desktop facility.

For unethical, law breaking, enabling, hacks like you Chilly, I hope
they do break into your servers and take you down. I have no desire to
help you defend your network based on how you encourage and help people
violate company policy and abuse company network resources.

More power to them.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usenet allowed from work?

[paranoid rant deleted]

What had this to do with my answer on your previous post?