[KLUG Members] City of Battle Creek Vs. ORBZ

[bill]

I disagree.  Battle Creek was incompetent, their server was open to the public,
and their government status makes them think they should destroy any who cross
their path.  It isn't like someone broke in and did something.  Should we sue
someone who didn't knock quite the right way on our door, throw them in jail for
not using the secret handshake?

Why should Battle Creek be free to run -known- bad software and then prosecute
someone who had trouble with it?  It's too easy to cry wolf, and worse to shoot
it, especially when you've left the fence gates open.  The real lunacy is seen
in that ORBZ was trying to do police work the police won't do.

ORBZ said "the threat of jail time is too much" and so, shut down the company.
If terrorism is defined as the power of fear to cause us to change our way of
life, what is this?

Battle Creek should apologize for their false accusations and admit it wouldn't
have happened if they had offered competent software to the public internet.
Being a government institution is not an excuse for being a bully.

In a mad world, people could save money on their IT budget by putting any
obsolete code up on the web and then finance their upgrades out of the pockets
of any poor souls who run into it and crash it.  In an evil world, they'd take
the poor souls themselves.  Ya know, I've been hankering for a new front door to
the house . . .



bill hollett

Paul VandenBosch wrote:

> I wouldn't be so quick to jump on the City of Battle Creek.  Gulliver knew
> his software crashed Lotus Domino servers and continued to use it.  Was he
> trying to point out a weakness in that type of server?  Sounds like a hacker
> rationalization to me.
>
> "It seems one of Gulliver's tests to validate whether a server is really an
> open relay or not was causing Lotus Domino machines to crash.  One of 10 or
> so e-mail tests routinely conducted, the code in one was causing Domino SMTP
> servers to enter an endless mail loop, consuming 100 percent of the CPU and
> putting it out of commission.
>
> Laura Atkins, newly installed president of the non-profit anti-spam outfit
> SpamCon Foundation, said the code changes needed to correct the bug was
> "trivial" but one Gulliver, for one reason or another, was unwilling to
> correct."
>
> http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,,3_995251,00.html
>
> I would criticize Battle Creek for continuing to use a server with known
> vulnerabilities.  But just because Gulliver wears a white hat doesn't mean
> that he can write buggy code, know about problems that cause a server to
> crash, and continue to use the code on servers owned by others.  He
> should pay the City for the time it took to get the server back up, and for
> any losses incurred.
>
> On Friday 22 March 2002 09:33 pm, you wrote:
> > Richard Zimmerman <richard@knbpower.com> wrote:
> > >   Well, it seems the City of Battle Creek has seen the light....
> > >City Tells ORBZ Owner...Oops
> > >In a classic example of litigating first and asking questions
> > >later, the city of Battle Creek, Mich., withdraws its lawsuit
> > >against Gulliver's blacklist.
> > >http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/article/0,,8_996341,00.html
> >
> > Good news... maybe. Please read this story, and note the leaps of
> > fantasy and presumption made by the city officials in proceeding
> > from alleged effect to alleged cause.
> >
> > What can be done to abate this ignorance?
> >
> >                                               Regards,
> >                                               ---> RGB <---
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Members mailing list
> > Members@kalamazoolinux.org
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members@kalamazoolinux.org
>