Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary. Now with pictures!
- Posted on
- Re: Truecrypt 4.1
- Borked Pseudo Mailed
November 29, 2005, 5:00 pm
rate this thread
And your whole "True Crypt fixed a problem for no reason at all" argument
is anything but your big mouth running exactly HOW nemo?
I suggest you look up and study the Uniform Computer Information
Transaction Act. See if you can pull your head out of your little self
impressed cloud long enough to find the passages on free software and how
it's NOT exempt from liability for defects. This might save you from
looking so much like a clueless luzer in the future.
No charge for the LART. Sorry I didn't bring you up to speed a bit sooner.
Re: Truecrypt 4.1
What a mendacious little prick you are! I have never said:
1) that Truecrypt "fixed" anything. No, I said the authors issued an
enhanced version, implementing LRW ahead of virtually all other
commercial and non-commercial encryption programs. Some "fix"!
2) that Truecrypt 4.1 was issued for "no reason at all." No, I said
rather that the authors had *no legal obligation* to issue Truecrypt 4.1.
But I understand your desperation and frustration. Having had all your
arguments thoroughly demolished by me, you must now resort to
unadulterated bullshit without even a pretence of rationality.
Again, what a mendacious little prick you are! And an incompetent one
too! This is the best you can do?
Your much-hyped "Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act" is not a
federal act or anything of the kind. It is NOT part of the UCC! No, it
is merely a *proposed* model act for *states* to enact *if they so
choose.* It has been much criticised as badly conceived and badly
drafted. It has had minimal impact since it was first proposed in 1999,
having been adopted only by Virginia and Maryland (those hotbeds of
software development). IOW it has largely been a dead-end failure! You
know - like you!
I'm not going to crawl through its 120 pages or so of dense legalese.
It's your cite - you point to what you allege are the applicable parts.
And if they're *applicable,* cite some cases where they were actually
*applied.* IOW put up or shut up, Borky!
So, if you think it somehow establishes liability for authors of free
software, I invite you once again to cite any successful successful suits
brought under it for failure to update a free program. Must be lots of
them, right? (unless you wish to say that there have been no cases
because free software never has bugs). So cite a few cases, Borky!
How would you like to weasel away from my challenge, dimwit? Or,
perhaps, you will once more just duck it without comment?
Re: Truecrypt 4.1
Actually this Act applies to commercial transactions or transactions
where trade occurs. Since the software was free, no trade occurs so no
provision of this act applies...see section 302.
I concur with Nemo that in my last 25 years of exp I fail to recollect
any case where any freeware vendor had been held liable in any court
except for virus and malware writers.
This act which I had been blissfully ignorant of, basically takes all
rights that a consumer might have and gives them to the vendor. It is
evil in its definition and does not expand consumer rights and is not a
This proposed act does not appear to have passed in tact by any state
legislature I could find in spite of high level lobby by industry in
many states. Perhaps I did not look far enough, but I did not find
where this proposed act was ratified in any state. I did see where they
were trying to sneak it in for federal consideration, but it is a snake
oil citation that does not apply. But the act itself was interesting
If I were a software writer selling software...I would want this law as
it expands my protections.
Must be that crack thing using this as a citation.
- » ssh on command line: force using a group size (prime size) of 1024 (and no...
- — The site's Newest Thread. Posted in » Secure Shell Forum