Interesting question. Depending on the time period, it is one that was raised against DaVinci, Nabokov, Solzhenitsyn, Lenny Bruce, John Lennon, and many others. The question may be better phrased "when can a crime successfully masquerade as art?"
Interesting question. Depending on the time period, it is one that was raised against DaVinci, Nabokov, Solzhenitsyn, Lenny Bruce, John Lennon, and many others. The question may be better phrased "when can a crime successfully masquerade as art?"
I wonder how many Child Porn cases used the "Its for Art" defense.
[QUOTE=camroidv27;1514340]I am someone who thinks that art is defined by the creator or by the viewer.
That is no excuse for wanting to shoot them! That was my main problem, your wishes of death of another person purely for having different views. I disagree with you, but I don't want you dead, and I think your differing opinion adds value to a discussion.
It?s only a trojan if it pretends not to delete files. But it SAYS it deletes files. If this is a trojan then so is an app that helps you wipe your HD before sale (like, say, Disk Utility). So is FInder?it can delete files too.
There's alway been bad art... it just never get remembered. I think it's an interesting game and concept - definitely something to think about in this technological age. People definitely think of their digital data as possessions, which might explain the slow uptake of subscription based music services and the like.
Are you an artist Marvin? This seems to have struck a nerve. It's not as if he's passing this off as art...
But way off topic. What's Apple going to do about these trojans?
I suggest a non-sudo application installation password in addition to the admin level password.
This could work for some applications, but there are others that need to install kexts, and prefrence panes, and other system related stuff. How would we decipher between the two? If we went so far as "Installer X is trying to write to system folder Y. Cancel or Allow?" then that would get too tedious.
But, it would be nice to have an install that doesn't require SUDO abilities, but I don't see it happening any time soon.
It's inconsequential and does not answer the "bigger questions". But it sounds lofty and artsy. At its core it might be a half-half-baked attempt at thinking about some aspect of game theory, but since no one in their right mind would actually do what's implied for the direct lesson - destroy critical single copy files of necessary info - it's academic at best.
One of course, has to run the infected installer. But yes, it is a weakness. Most people just do the whole install thing because they think they are protected on a Mac.
I think the same goes for Linux too... though I don't know if their installers are sandboxed or not.
This could work for some applications, but there are others that need to install kexts, and prefrence panes, and other system related stuff. How would we decipher between the two? If we went so far as "Installer X is trying to write to system folder Y. Cancel or Allow?" then that would get too tedious.
Well that's where OS X comes in and monitors the installation instead of giving the installer a blank check to alter OS X itself or create security holes.
For instance my printer installer opened a listen TCP port, so now any exploit found in the printer daemon software has root access to my machine. OS X didn't even warn that a port was open and give me a option to close it. I don't use internet/network printing so the port being open is a security risk. The port has since been closed obviously, but it's just a example.
OS X's security weakens the more sudo level third party installs it encounters. 95% of exploits are in applications!
It's rather simple to see why, once a third party software developer releases a application they have to maximize profits, so out goes the programmers or they are on the next project. Games are the worst. It's smart to buy software from developers with a proven track record and a immediate attention to any security issue.
By the way, off topic a little but Windows 7 has been tested against the latest viruses and 8 out of ten got in and infected the machine. So it's back to malware as usual on Windows. IT folks can breath a sigh of relief, their job futures are bright.
That is no excuse for wanting to shoot them! That was my main problem, your wishes of death of another person purely for having different views. I disagree with you, but I don't want you dead, and I think your differing opinion adds value to a discussion.
You're new to internet discussion boards aren't you? As far as I can make out, in cyberspace, most people seem to believe if your opinions are slightly different from theirs that you deserve to be killed!
Well that's where OS X comes in and monitors the installation instead of giving the installer a blank check to alter OS X itself or create security holes.
For instance my printer installer opened a listen TCP port, so now any exploit found in the printer daemon software has root access to my machine. OS X didn't even warn that a port was open and give me a option to close it. I don't use internet/network printing so the port being open is a security risk. The port has since been closed obviously, but it's just a example.
OS X's security weakens the more sudo level third party installs it encounters. 95% of exploits are in applications!
It's rather simple to see why, once a third party software developer releases a application they have to maximize profits, so out goes the programmers or they are on the next project. Games are the worst. It's smart to buy software from developers with a proven track record and a immediate attention to any security issue.
By the way, off topic a little but Windows 7 has been tested against the latest viruses and 8 out of ten got in and infected the machine. So it's back to malware as usual on Windows. IT folks can breath a sigh of relief, their job futures are bright.
MS: I thought I said I didn't want to hear about it! But yes, doesn't surprise me. I don't trust Windows' built in security... just like I don't trust Mac's built in security either.
I like the idea of warning about ports opening, or applications that will run in the background constantly. But even then, the simplicity of the OS (and people not needing to know how it runs underneath) gets compromised.
As for Linux, I know there are a few viruses out there. No one is immune.
You're new to internet discussion boards aren't you? As far as I can make out, in cyberspace, most people seem to believe if your opinions are slightly different from theirs that you deserve to be killed!
Welcome to the world of anonymity. Out here, our faces become names and IP addresses, and we can be anyone we choose. Therefore its easier to more rude and brash since we don't have to fully be responsible for our words. I know how it works.
I wonder how many Child Porn cases used the "Its for Art" defense.
Throwing defense arguments into the ring are a dime a dozen, making an argument doesn't mean it gets accepted. I'd be more concerned if it actually worked, which I really doubt it ever does.
I don't get the argument. Getting worried about a virtual enemy being killed is a stretch. Blaming games and other entertainment media for instigating real crime just doesn't fly, just because maybe it might influence one person in a million, that's not a rational reason to complain. People have scapegoated violent games in the past, but how far are you really going to go when a causal link hasn't been found?
Comments
My kids will absolutely love playing this game!
When does art become crime, by the way?
Interesting question. Depending on the time period, it is one that was raised against DaVinci, Nabokov, Solzhenitsyn, Lenny Bruce, John Lennon, and many others. The question may be better phrased "when can a crime successfully masquerade as art?"
Interesting question. Depending on the time period, it is one that was raised against DaVinci, Nabokov, Solzhenitsyn, Lenny Bruce, John Lennon, and many others. The question may be better phrased "when can a crime successfully masquerade as art?"
I wonder how many Child Porn cases used the "Its for Art" defense.
I was Googling for recent info on some of the rootkits I've posted a few minutes ago and my post was already in Googles search results.
yikes!
That is no excuse for wanting to shoot them! That was my main problem, your wishes of death of another person purely for having different views. I disagree with you, but I don't want you dead, and I think your differing opinion adds value to a discussion.
Have to agree with camroid here...
I wonder how many Child Porn cases used the "Its for Art" defense.
Not many that are successful that's for sure.
Allowing that as art is like allowing murderers to make sculpture out of their victims.
The ends don't justify the means.
But way off topic. What's Apple going to do about these trojans?
I suggest a non-sudo application installation password in addition to the admin level password.
As technology grows, our understanding of it diminishes...
I have to say that the project has been quite successful!
Are you an artist Marvin? This seems to have struck a nerve. It's not as if he's passing this off as art...
But way off topic. What's Apple going to do about these trojans?
I suggest a non-sudo application installation password in addition to the admin level password.
This could work for some applications, but there are others that need to install kexts, and prefrence panes, and other system related stuff. How would we decipher between the two? If we went so far as "Installer X is trying to write to system folder Y. Cancel or Allow?" then that would get too tedious.
But, it would be nice to have an install that doesn't require SUDO abilities, but I don't see it happening any time soon.
It's inconsequential and does not answer the "bigger questions". But it sounds lofty and artsy. At its core it might be a half-half-baked attempt at thinking about some aspect of game theory, but since no one in their right mind would actually do what's implied for the direct lesson - destroy critical single copy files of necessary info - it's academic at best.
One of course, has to run the infected installer. But yes, it is a weakness. Most people just do the whole install thing because they think they are protected on a Mac.
I think the same goes for Linux too... though I don't know if their installers are sandboxed or not.
There is a virus for Linux by the way.
http://www.securiteam.com/unixfocus/5MP022K5GE.html
This could work for some applications, but there are others that need to install kexts, and prefrence panes, and other system related stuff. How would we decipher between the two? If we went so far as "Installer X is trying to write to system folder Y. Cancel or Allow?" then that would get too tedious.
Well that's where OS X comes in and monitors the installation instead of giving the installer a blank check to alter OS X itself or create security holes.
For instance my printer installer opened a listen TCP port, so now any exploit found in the printer daemon software has root access to my machine. OS X didn't even warn that a port was open and give me a option to close it. I don't use internet/network printing so the port being open is a security risk. The port has since been closed obviously, but it's just a example.
OS X's security weakens the more sudo level third party installs it encounters. 95% of exploits are in applications!
It's rather simple to see why, once a third party software developer releases a application they have to maximize profits, so out goes the programmers or they are on the next project. Games are the worst. It's smart to buy software from developers with a proven track record and a immediate attention to any security issue.
By the way, off topic a little but Windows 7 has been tested against the latest viruses and 8 out of ten got in and infected the machine. So it's back to malware as usual on Windows. IT folks can breath a sigh of relief, their job futures are bright.
That is no excuse for wanting to shoot them! That was my main problem, your wishes of death of another person purely for having different views. I disagree with you, but I don't want you dead, and I think your differing opinion adds value to a discussion.
You're new to internet discussion boards aren't you? As far as I can make out, in cyberspace, most people seem to believe if your opinions are slightly different from theirs that you deserve to be killed!
Well that's where OS X comes in and monitors the installation instead of giving the installer a blank check to alter OS X itself or create security holes.
For instance my printer installer opened a listen TCP port, so now any exploit found in the printer daemon software has root access to my machine. OS X didn't even warn that a port was open and give me a option to close it. I don't use internet/network printing so the port being open is a security risk. The port has since been closed obviously, but it's just a example.
OS X's security weakens the more sudo level third party installs it encounters. 95% of exploits are in applications!
It's rather simple to see why, once a third party software developer releases a application they have to maximize profits, so out goes the programmers or they are on the next project. Games are the worst. It's smart to buy software from developers with a proven track record and a immediate attention to any security issue.
By the way, off topic a little but Windows 7 has been tested against the latest viruses and 8 out of ten got in and infected the machine. So it's back to malware as usual on Windows. IT folks can breath a sigh of relief, their job futures are bright.
MS: I thought I said I didn't want to hear about it! But yes, doesn't surprise me. I don't trust Windows' built in security... just like I don't trust Mac's built in security either.
I like the idea of warning about ports opening, or applications that will run in the background constantly. But even then, the simplicity of the OS (and people not needing to know how it runs underneath) gets compromised.
As for Linux, I know there are a few viruses out there. No one is immune.
You're new to internet discussion boards aren't you? As far as I can make out, in cyberspace, most people seem to believe if your opinions are slightly different from theirs that you deserve to be killed!
Welcome to the world of anonymity. Out here, our faces become names and IP addresses, and we can be anyone we choose. Therefore its easier to more rude and brash since we don't have to fully be responsible for our words. I know how it works.
I wonder how many Child Porn cases used the "Its for Art" defense.
Throwing defense arguments into the ring are a dime a dozen, making an argument doesn't mean it gets accepted. I'd be more concerned if it actually worked, which I really doubt it ever does.
I am someone who thinks that art is defined by the creator or by the viewer.
In the case of assault, the crime is defined in large part by the victim, not the perpetrator.
What would the warnings mean to someone who can't read English?