[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: An ethics, and possibly legal, violation { was: Fwd: [Bug-gnubg] Sit

From: Michael Petch
Subject: Re: An ethics, and possibly legal, violation { was: Fwd: [Bug-gnubg] Site being reported as "Attack Site"
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:56:41 -0600
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/

LMAO! One has to admit this has pure entertainment value ;-). Thanks for brightening my day!

On 25/08/09 8:53 AM, "Roy A. Crabtree" <address@hidden> wrote:

Specifically improper handling of a viral intrusion attack,
derision and exclusion of a possible source of that intrusion,
and what appears to be improper reference, possibly illegal
to the institution of an allied country (US to UK) or
violation of the laws of that country by a citizen of it (UK only).

You may want to review the correspondence on the GNUBG mailing list.

i was going to do a private side mail to MI5, but it appears their web form only allows
1800 characters.

So I will post it to GNUBG, as well as leaving the correspondence in my gmail Sent box
for inspection by them.

Perhaps your response can be posted there as well.

(Plus the historical archives as well for previous history on the technical topic,
if not a common type of response to it).

My understanding is that referring to a UK institution incorrectly while a citizen of the
   the UK, and at times even of the US,

             in regards to a viral intrusion attack and MI5, for example

 might have severe consequences if that attack goes unchecked
 because an improper response failed to check it correctly.

New technical ideas occur all the time; and the

    philosophical purpose of GNU

as stated, indirectly if not also directly, includes the concept of

   beneficent free will interchange of ideas.

When a member of your voluntary crew transgresses that principle,

     it is bad enough.

when ad hominems are used in place of actual technical discussion,
from a momentary fit of pique, that can be passed off and rectified easily enough.

   When it continues in the face of repeated requests and pleadings to rectify the behavior

   and is compounded by e-nagging on it continuously on it on list afterwards

then netiquette standards older than GNU are in breach

   and the reputation of GNU may come into question.

When an actual viral attack on a GNU web site is in progress

   and a participating member raises a possible explanation of the source o fit

   and ridicule is heaped upon the individual for doing so

   it gets into an area that could be construed as intentional maliciousness
   and possibly slander and libel.

If, in turn that breach of ethics further breaches the specific legal ramifications

   require at law, both domestically and internationally

      as regards handling of the specifics of a viral intrusion attack,

        most of the time it will pass harmlessly off

         ...until someone is damaged or injured extensively
         by such an attack NOT being handled properly.

And when, further, a member of GNU, actually entails a comment that could be
actually in breach of the laws of the sovereign nation/state he is in, or even
simply derogatory as regards the institution of an allied state

   if an actual viral intrusion results in warrantable damage, and

   the actual person responsible at GNU for handling such an affair is the one
   engaging in such a recourse

    it can result in a rather severe set of circumstances if

     the damage reaches a level warranting the official participation of those
     agencies involved to resolve it.

Alternatively , you might possibly conclude I am the source of the problem,
or pulling a grandstanding stunt: I am not.

   If in turn it came to be known that the specific capabilities of a NN engine
    were being used for some purpose OTHER than the public one that was
    being stated in the GNU description of it

   by those maintaining it, or otherwise,

   and you had a chance to forestall that by reacting professionally and properly

        it might be more than merely an embarrassment:

              it could damage the public perception of the free software concept
              and the resulting boon to society in general.

   Such as the NNP network of a game playing engine engaging in unfair "cheating"
   AND THEN BEING APPLIED to any other purpose than fairly playing gammon.

       (Example:  I had an intrusion that I do not regard as being GNU based, where
        for about 5 months, a professional gammon playing site popped up whenever I tried
        to go to GNUBG.   This is possible if a context sensitive HTML URL intercept
        is placed anywhere in the chain from server to browser; and half a dozen other
        different ways:  it is only the most obvious one that it could have been an intrusion
       onto the GNUBG web site, and highly unlikely that any effective skulker

                would be stupid enough to do so)

The public perception damage, if that were to be the case and become publicized

   for example, by scurrilious individuals similar in practice, practic, and practique to

       some would say Stephen Ballmer and Microsoft's practices

   it could be used as an advent to shut down open software as a viable alternative.

Sort of like Oprah getting riled because one of her book authors lied to her,
when her staff failed to vet the book and author in the first place.

   not that I think it would  happen, but damaging it to gain control and advantage:

      oh yeah, in a heart beat.

Which I do NOT want to see happen.

This is just a head's up.

Usually when software demonstrates a capability of high utility more broad
than actually anticipated, the response is a positive one.

Unfortunately, it  COULD be taken after the fact to indicate, usually incorrectly,

   that the individual involved doing so

     was actively AWARE of this additional capability and

         for some undisclosed reason

              did NOT want to give away the fact of it.

last, but not least:

  do you really want GNU or even just GNUBG to become known

       (correctly or INcorrectly is largely irrelevant)

   fro hiding something that an intelligence service wants hidden

      and then actually being responsible for disclosing it

   simply because the ordinary chain of events (viral intrusion, report of possible cause)

       was derided with ad hominems in a public forum

    instead of just being routinely reported to the correct intrusion/security authority?

Think on it.

Then maybe get a grip and readjust a couple of attitudes.

The last thing you want

   from someone actually UNDER such an intrusional attack (separate from GNU, let's keep it clear)

    to be compelled under a circumstances of threat of death and

      an actual murder (cited already on the GNU list)

   and denoting a correlation between a viral intrusion onto your web site

      and his or her participation in it

   to actually take the case to Court and prove it in public as

    having been the case.

As I already stated:

   I have few resources to do so:

  but if another person in the common group I _AM_ concerned with DOES die

    I may have to file a Bivens direct pleading on the matter.

I would prefer to have it handled quietly and appropriately long before then.

Whether or not the correlation is CAUSAL rather than temporal/statistical/inferential

   is not the point.

The point is that reports of cause of intrusion on a viral attack sequence

  should not be trimmed in advance of collimation

or any 4th grade skulker will get through your security,

play pinochle on your snout to deride you in public

and walk away having accomplished their purpose.

It is also not about being caught with your pants down.

  And if you do not get THAT, point, then I would suggest spending a vacation day

   in Darfur:  the correlation there IS causal and direct.

I wish you the best.


To MI5: usually a waste of time.  Sadly.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Roy A. Crabtree <address@hidden>
Date: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:00
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Site being reported as "Attack Site"
To: Michael Petch <address@hidden>

Good luck, Michael.
You'll need it.
Passed on to GNU Central.

... and MI5.

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 17:56, Michael Petch <address@hidden> wrote:

On 24/08/09 3:52 PM, "Michael Petch" <address@hidden <http://address@hidden> > wrote:

I am fall more aware with the situation than you are. I am being watched and by Mi5 agents for years.

As you can tell I disguise myself by making it appear I am not an English speaker . Normally I would have said “I am far more aware with the situation than you are. I have been watched by Mi5 agents for years.”. I have to keep a low profile. Shhh.. Don’t tell anyone, Mike (err, make that Barbara) out!

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]