Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Blogger Threatened For Publishing JS Hack

Posted by kdawson on Sun May 20, 2007 06:14 PM
from the most-boneheaded-legal-threat-contest dept.
Censorship Media Music
An anonymous reader writes "Internet radio station Atlanta Blue Skye LLC has warned a Romania-based technology enthusiast that his blog has been 'copied' and turned over to its lawyers. The issue stems from his posting of a widely known workaround for bypassing JavaScript functions that try to disable a mouse's right-click context menu functionality, and the radio stream information gathered from the Properties function of Windows Media Player."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Blogger Threatened For Publishing JS Hack 25 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Lets just hope that (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zappepcs (820751) on Sunday May 20 2007, @06:17PM (#19201741) Journal
    the Atlanta Blue Skye LLC company are irreparably harmed financially when they are hit with the clue stick. There is NO way to suppress information on the Internet globally, and those who try to are more ignorant of the facts than should be believable.

    • Re:Lets just hope that (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rook2pawn (1104379) on Sunday May 20 2007, @06:48PM (#19202001)
      Suppose the Atlanta blue Skye LLC knew they were launching a claim that ignored basic realities, including basic realities of the internet, that is distribution of information and how-to; If this can be shown to be the case, then the Atlanta Blue Skye LLC should be open to frivoulous lawsuit charges. Here are the merits of such a case: 1) There are 1,420 web pages that include the term "Bypass Javascript" (from google.com) 2) As the other posts have mentioned, even major browsers have ways of disabling script. This clearly represents the realm of basic technical understanding. To not know this, and then suppose that doing so would be illegal, is to ignore what has long been established by the major shapers and designers of the modern internet. This is what counts for frivolousness.

      • Re:Lets just hope that (Score:5, Interesting)

        by FLEB (312391) on Sunday May 20 2007, @07:05PM (#19202147) Homepage Journal
        Still, though, just as a crackable WEP WiFi point is no longer a "open invitation", circumventing an access-control device that is easily circumvented does not mean that it was open.

        I think a better argument would be that there was no "hacking" of a poorly-made access-control mechanism, because the mechanism was flat-out not an access control device in the first place.

        Interpretation and execution of the JavaScript language that the right-click blocking used is an optional browser feature, so the blocking itself is inherently optional. Furthermore, the feature of JS that they were trying to exploit (the modality of the alert() box) is not specified as an access control feature, nor is it specified (and it's certainly not guaranteed) to function in a manner that would control access.

  • Oh noes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dachannien (617929) on Sunday May 20 2007, @06:20PM (#19201763)
    Maybe they should turn this [mozilla.org] over to their intrepid band of lawyers.

  • They broke the law (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2007, @06:20PM (#19201765)
    They copied his blog? That's copyright infringement - and that's against the law. It's no different to walking into a store and stealing a CD.
  • My electricity, my computer, my browser, my choice. If I don't want my browser to disable the context menu then that's my decision. And some company disabling the browser's context menu without Law to back them up really pisses me off. In the IP gold rush the US initiated, people are trying to own every little facet of information that we used to just take for granted being free. Locking everything up may or may-not benefit the economy but it sure-as-hell prunes cultural-enjoyment (ie. a more limited musical taste due to finite resources to acquire content) and development (ie. remixes and interpretations) in the long-term.

  • The web is about the user (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2007, @06:27PM (#19201833)
    The user is in control of web content or any code a website decides to run on the client, clueless bullshit like this isn't even funny.

    In other news, the recent js dependent google.com facelift is less useful to me because I have javascript disabled. It seems that most sites expect users have javascript enabled these days, sad that google deliberately broke their site. If I don't know if I can even be bothered hacking a functional interface when there are other search engines that work perfectly.

    The user is in control of their machine, not the web site!

  • Hey, let's all do the time warp...again! (Score:5, Funny)

    by XahXhaX (730306) on Sunday May 20 2007, @06:42PM (#19201957)
    What year is this, 1998? Trying to block right clicking as a means of 'protection'? That puts you on par with Geocities members pre-2000, and about one minor step above using js to spoof the status bar or hide the address bar. I suppose next they'll be petitioning the ISPs for surveillance to see who's been viewing their page source, claiming it as violation of 'trade secrets'.

    • I suppose next they'll be petitioning the ISPs for surveillance to see who's been viewing their page source, claiming it as violation of 'trade secrets'.
      FBI -> ISP: We need information on any individual who has had access to the html or js source of these websites
      ISP -> FBI: Well, ahem, everybody who views the site has access to the html or js source
      FBI -> ISP: Everyone?
      ISP -> FBI: Well yeah, you see when the user visits a site the browser requests the page, and the server hosting the page will send the html source, then the browser will render the source to look nice for the viewer... you can hide some of the logic with php, jsp or asp and other server side...
      FBI -> ISP: But if they can see the source then could they make copies...?
      ISP -> FBI: Well yes but...
      FBI -> ISP: They would know all the secret techniques used to make the site?
      ISP -> FBI: Well yes, but as I was going to say...
      FBI -> ISP: Well that makes it easier thanks. Bye

      1 week later:

      'The BBC has learned that a large number of extradition requests from the US government relating to British subjects and other non US-nationals breaching Trade Secret, Copyright and Terrorism laws, this is after it was alleged that people are illegally viewing web pages.

      This comes after the US issued Arrest Warrants for 3.7 billion individuals globally on Monday. A Spokesman for the DHS is quoted as saying:

        "Well if everyone can see how stuff works, they could copy it, and if they copy it they could use it, and if they could use it they could mislead people. Misleading people is not nice and causes angst, angst is like fear, and fear is a bit like terror. Terror is caused by terrorists, therefore viewing web pages is terrorism. Also children may be harmed in some way."'

  • Might not even be a legitimate email (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Evets (629327) on Sunday May 20 2007, @07:05PM (#19202153) Homepage Journal

    The original email message is posted here [beranger.org]. The message headers are as follows:

    X-Originating-IP: [209.86.89.64]
    Return-Path:
    Received: from 209.86.89.64 (EHLO elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net)
      (209.86.89.64)
    by mta103.mail.re3.yahoo.com with SMTP; Mon, 14 May 2007 05:09:00 -0700
    Received: from [65.37.133.42] (helo=NewLaptop.eathlink.net)
    by elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
    (Exim 4.34) id 1HnZMJ-0001Gv-Hd for xxxxxxxxxxx@yahoo.ca;
    Mon, 14 May 2007 08:08:59 -0400
    Message-Id:
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0
    Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:08:58 -0400
    From: "Jazz Colors"

    The Text of the message:

    Your Blog, which we have copied, has been turned over to our lawyers.
    You should plan on a response from them shortly and a visit to
    Atlanta to be present in court. I am not allowed to make any further
    statement regarding this matter at this time.

    This doesn't look like a legitimate email to me in the least - from the earthlink origination to the cheesy wording of the message. Sounds like Slashdot has either been blog-spammed, or this guy is another chicken little [slashdot.org].

  • Right mouse button? (Score:5, Funny)

    by noidentity (188756) on Sunday May 20 2007, @07:46PM (#19202499)
    What's this "right mouse button" you speak of?

    Sincerely,
    Mac user

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.