Witness says Kazaa activity can be monitored

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by ronjor, Dec 7, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,798
    Location:
    Texas
    news.com
     
  2. spy1

    spy1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Posts:
    3,139
    Location:
    Clover, SC
    People who run SpyBlocker can see exactly what's going on while they're down-loading by simply looking at the log. There's enough information given (when it's not blocked) to hang anyone with, if that's the object.

    If I can gather that information here simply with SpyBlocker, I'm sure it's not too much of a strain for them. Pete
     

    Attached Files:

  3. nadirah

    nadirah Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    3,647
    It's high time they sued sharman networks until it goes bust. P2P programs like kazaa are responsible for spreading some destructive computer viruses around, and infecting millions of computers around the world with tons and tons of spyware, adware and malware. One of my schoolmates, her windows XP computer had kazaa installed on it, and her computer went berserk bombarding her with lots of BSOD ( blue screen of death ).
    It's thanks to kazaa that so many computers are infected. Firewalls can help to protect your computer proactively against kazaa by blocking its access. I hope they'll get sharman networks sued and shut down once and for all.
     
  4. spy1

    spy1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Posts:
    3,139
    Location:
    Clover, SC
    nadirah - Guns, knives and automobiles kill people.

    Should all gun, knife and automobile makers be sued out of existence, too?

    As an un-infected-by-anything user of various P2P programs over the years, I submit that it's the user - not the program or the technology - that's at fault for any infection incurred during P2P use.

    I further submit that - even were P2P out-lawed (effectively) - period - that the same people being infected by P2P use now would only wind up being infected by something else then because - put bluntly - they're simply either too stupid or too un-interested in learning and following intelligent computer pratices to keep themselves safe from anything out there that they happen to come across.

    The lack of personal responsibility on the part of the computer owner is what can make P2P use "unsafe".

    That personal responsibility includes: religious use of Windows Update to keep whatever your OS is as safe as possible (ditto any and all browsers and their settings that one uses), using a firewall in conjunction with any P2P program used (with the firewall settings as "tight" as possible to allow use but not abuse of your P2P program), understanding and setting up your P2P program correctly (for safest possible use) and (perhaps most importantly) scanning every single d/l with an up-to-date A/V AND A/T scanner before opening them!.

    IMO, blaming the technology or the program - instead of the operator - is simply more of the "legislate/litigate-it-out-of-existence" mindset which pre-supposes that no one should be allowed to use a technology because some are too ignorant to use it properly .

    All that mindset ever does is take things away from the rest of us - and it's a very slippery slope. It (when successful) inevitably creates precedent for the next round of things that they want to take away from us "for our own good".

    Think about it, nadirah.

    Pete
     
  5. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,798
    Location:
    Texas
    ZDNet
     
  6. nadirah

    nadirah Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    3,647
    Ok, I do think that computer users are mainly responsible because they are the ones who use the technology, but in some cases, often misuse it for the wrong purpose. I guess it all depends on what the user does, we can't completely blame the producers of the software. I also agree that the lack of personal responsibility on the part of the computer user is what can make P2P use unsafe.
    That personal responsibility includes: religious use of Windows Update to keep whatever your OS is as safe as possible (ditto any and all browsers and their settings that one uses), using a firewall in conjunction with any P2P program used (with the firewall settings as "tight" as possible to allow use but not abuse of your P2P program), understanding and setting up your P2P program correctly (for safest possible use) and (perhaps most importantly) scanning every single download with an up-to-date antivirus AND anti-trojan scanner before opening them!. What i find nowadays is that what happens to a computer depends on what the user does to it. But then, you can't blame all the users. Some computer users don't know much about computer security and as a result end up with infected computers.
    Computer users must at least take the effort and learn how to secure their computers and practice good security and precautionary measures while on the internet and use security programs like firewalls, antiviruses and anti-trojan scanners, and keeping their operating systems up-to-date with windows update.
    Always remember that prevention is better than cure.
     
  7. Jimbob1989

    Jimbob1989 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Posts:
    2,529
    So what is the moral to this story?

    Jimbob
     
  8. spy1

    spy1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Posts:
    3,139
    Location:
    Clover, SC
    If it can be said to actually have a "moral" I guess it would be:

    Know what you use and use what you know. Pete
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.