Home » Community » Forums » GDNet Lounge » MSN censorship?
  Intel sponsors gamedev.net search:   
[Control Panel] [Register] [Bookmarks] [Who's Online] [Active Topics] [Stats] [FAQ] [Search]

Add Forum to Favorites |  Send Topic To a Friend | View Forum FAQ | Track this topic
Page:   1 2 »»
 Last Thread Next Thread 
 MSN censorship?
Post New Topic  Post Reply 
Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message BBB    Member since: 7/11/2004  From: Oslo, Norway
 Posted - 11/17/2005 1:23:04 PM
http://amsn.sourceforge.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=30

[Edited by - BBB on November 17, 2005 3:14:54 PM]
 User Rating: 1128   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView Profile Report this Post to a Moderator | Link

Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message SKATIN_HARD    Member since: 3/30/2004  From: Washington, PA, United States
 Posted - 11/17/2005 1:28:32 PM
Linked
 User Rating: 1050   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView Profile Report this Post to a Moderator | Link

Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message terminate    Member since: 6/1/2000  From: Las Vegas, NV, United States
 Posted - 11/17/2005 1:30:22 PM
Sent a dozen messages containing the words they deemed "censored", worked just fine (trillian 3).
 User Rating: 1099   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView Profile Report this Post to a Moderator | Link

Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message Extrarius  GDNet+  Member since: 4/1/2002  From: Psionic Ward
 Posted - 11/17/2005 1:32:35 PM
MS selected a spot on the Security/Freedom axis that saves the masses from themselves. What's new?
 User Rating: 1866   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView ProfileView JournalView GD Showcase Entries Report this Post to a Moderator | Link

Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message LessBread  Moderator  Member since: 12/19/2001  From: Fresno, CA, United States
 Posted - 11/17/2005 1:50:56 PM
And here I thought this was going to be a belated discussion of this bit of news from 6 months ago: Microsoft deletes 'freedom' and 'democracy' in China.
 User Rating: 1909   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView ProfileView Journal Report this Post to a Moderator | Link

Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message Sneftel  Moderator - Consoles, PDAs, and Cell Phones  Member since: 7/7/2001  From: Philadelphia, PA, United States
 Posted - 11/17/2005 1:56:49 PM
If I can't send the phrase "download.asp" to someone on MSN, then MY FREEDOM HAS BEEN LOST!
 User Rating: 2054   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView Profile Report this Post to a Moderator | Link

Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message Toolmaker    Member since: 4/10/2003  From: Amsterdam, Netherlands
 Posted - 11/17/2005 2:14:20 PM
Works just fine, looks like amsn is spreading false information.
 User Rating: 1551   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView Profile Report this Post to a Moderator | Link

Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message Extrarius  GDNet+  Member since: 4/1/2002  From: Psionic Ward
 Posted - 11/17/2005 2:16:52 PM
Quote:
Original post by BBB
[...]Isn't their argument for not allowing Vista PC's to boot other OSs "security" for the user?
Huh? Did I miss Vista's release?
 User Rating: 1866   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView ProfileView JournalView GD Showcase Entries Report this Post to a Moderator | Link

Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message AnonymousPosterChild    Member since: 10/21/2002  From: Barrie, Canada
 Posted - 11/17/2005 2:24:10 PM
I just tried it with a friend of mine. Seems to be a box of lies.

With love, AnonymousPosterChild
 User Rating: 1045   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView Profile Report this Post to a Moderator | Link

Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message Sneftel  Moderator - Consoles, PDAs, and Cell Phones  Member since: 7/7/2001  From: Philadelphia, PA, United States
 Posted - 11/17/2005 2:32:31 PM
Quote:
Original post by BBB
Quote:
Original post by Sneftel
If I can't send the phrase "download.asp" to someone on MSN, then MY FREEDOM HAS BEEN LOST!

"If the state installs a mind-probe in my head that prohibits me from saying "illegal software" then MY FREEDOM HAS BEEN LOST!"

Hmm.... you're right. There really is quite a difference between heavy-handed virus screening on MSN and implanting control devices into people's brains. I guess MS can't really be accused of any serious wrongdoing here. Good point!
 User Rating: 2054   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView Profile Report this Post to a Moderator | Link

Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message Sneftel  Moderator - Consoles, PDAs, and Cell Phones  Member since: 7/7/2001  From: Philadelphia, PA, United States
 Posted - 11/17/2005 2:45:29 PM
Quote:
Original post by BBB
You missed the point. Of course it doesn't matter if they block download.php . Its the fact that they have these kind of filters. If they can block download.php they can block the download link for the latest Firefox release or something similar, less obvious.
Slippery slope fallacy.
 User Rating: 2054   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView Profile Report this Post to a Moderator | Link

Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message Extrarius  GDNet+  Member since: 4/1/2002  From: Psionic Ward
 Posted - 11/17/2005 2:50:41 PM
Quote:
Original post by BBB
[...]You missed the point. Of course it doesn't matter if they block download.php . Its the fact that they have these kind of filters. If they can block download.php they can block the download link for the latest Firefox release or something similar, less obvious.
How can you live with yourself? I mean, you have the ability to KILL PEOPLE! Murderer!

If people (and/or companies) should be judged on what they are able to do instead of what they do or try to do, a lot of people (and/or companies) are are going to suffer quite a bit in whatever afterlife there might be, supposing you believe in an afterlife based on the judgement of life.
 User Rating: 1866   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView ProfileView JournalView GD Showcase Entries Report this Post to a Moderator | Link

Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message eedok    Member since: 9/15/2003  From: Edmonton, Canada
 Posted - 11/17/2005 2:52:46 PM
it only seems to happen when using unofficial clients..

WTF
 User Rating: 1553   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView ProfileView Journal Report this Post to a Moderator | Link

Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message nectarine    Member since: 3/17/2003  From: Portugal
 Posted - 11/17/2005 2:54:04 PM
More FUD by free software zealots.
 User Rating: 1005   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView Profile Report this Post to a Moderator | Link

Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message Toolmaker    Member since: 4/10/2003  From: Amsterdam, Netherlands
 Posted - 11/17/2005 3:04:54 PM
Actually, I'll have to retake my argument. I'm using MSN 7.0 and a friend of mine is using 6.2. This is our test conversation, see the 2 red boxes:



Toolmaker

Toolmaker salutes mother Tiberia
[My website] - [My Dune II Remake Dev Blog]
/* -Earth is 98% full. Please delete anybody you can.*/
 User Rating: 1551   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView Profile Report this Post to a Moderator | Link

Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message Extrarius  GDNet+  Member since: 4/1/2002  From: Psionic Ward
 Posted - 11/17/2005 3:06:55 PM
Quote:
Original post by eedok
it only seems to happen when using unofficial clients..

WTF
That actually makes sense, since it would be far easier to make a virus connect to the network (after it's stolen the name/pw) and spam a person's friends with the virus link than to make it automate an actual MSN client (especially since it would have to deal with all the custom clients having different tab orders/etc).
 User Rating: 1866   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView ProfileView JournalView GD Showcase Entries Report this Post to a Moderator | Link

Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message Pouya    Member since: 2/6/2000  From: Toronto, Canada
 Posted - 11/17/2005 3:08:25 PM
That's a lie, unless what you guys say about custom client is the case.

Proof:
 User Rating: 1512   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView ProfileView JournalView GD Showcase Entries Report this Post to a Moderator | Link

Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message Extrarius  GDNet+  Member since: 4/1/2002  From: Psionic Ward
 Posted - 11/17/2005 4:42:57 PM
Quote:
Original post by BBB
[...]True. But again it also makes sense if MS goal is to screw everyone on this planet that don't like their MSN client.[...]
Not really. MS is REALLY good at blocking third parties when they want to. Just look at the MS Office formats - so far (or at least, last time I checked around 2003) no other program (or suite of programs) handles all the office formats correctly for input or output. That isn't just because they don't want to, but because they're obfuscated intentionally so as to be very difficult to figure out every single bit in the file. If something similar was done to the protocol, third party clients would be cripped for a long, long time, and it wouldn't be too difficult to change protocols monthly but let the server support the last 3-4 versions so people don't have to upgrade as often. The protocol changes could even be automated. If they honestly wanted to block third parties, such a obfuscated protocol would be an easy way to crush them as long as deired.

Quote:
[...]And why do they block all www.X.download.php while allowing www.X.download.asp through? Or any other link!? The virus writer can easily change the link or am I missing something? If anyone has an explanation then I'm listening.[...]
Because they're not targetting 'viruses'(general), they're targetting 'a virus'(specific) that uses the specific file they block.

As far as the article on Vista - wow. I can't believe you're scared of something that says essentially "might maybe kinda almost, but we don't know for sure". In case you're not up to speed, the 'trusted computing' idea has been around for a LONG time and similar things were said about XP. Until there is something (anything) definite, it's nothing but speculation (or worse, FUD-inducing propoganda).

The other article is just a stupid mistake MS made. I can see that you're afraid they might be making more, but I don't think this case of blocking a specific filename likely used by a specific virus is anywhere near the same thing. I don't even really think this case is a mistake - it's better to protect unwary users from themselves than come off as 'insecure', and I'm sure that MS surveys/polls have shown that they'd do much better if they increased security at the cost of freedom.
 User Rating: 1866   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView ProfileView JournalView GD Showcase Entries Report this Post to a Moderator | Link

Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message Sneftel  Moderator - Consoles, PDAs, and Cell Phones  Member since: 7/7/2001  From: Philadelphia, PA, United States
 Posted - 11/17/2005 4:50:47 PM
Quote:
Original post by BBB
But lets stick to the topic.

That'd be more believable if you didn't link two unrelated "MS is eeeevil" articles. An undirected referendum on whether MS is an evil company or not is not going to be a useful discussion.

Quote:
(observe WORRIED and nothing else so all OSS haters can stop bashing me)

I hope you aren't including me in that group. Though I guess I've been called an OSS hater about as much as I've been called a MS hater. If one has a brush, the impulse to tar people with it is rather strong.

Aaanyways, I really don't see much in the way of news here. Surely anyone with a basic knowledge of programming would be aware that filtering out specific words is trivial functionality. Even if MS hadn't decided to filter "download.php", wouldn't affect whether they COULD. This is my real problem with the original article: It's representative of an eagerness on the part of anti-MS people to try to paint innocuous events as bellwethers.
 User Rating: 2054   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView Profile Report this Post to a Moderator | Link

Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message Conner McCloud    Member since: 1/28/2001  From: Golden, CO, United States
 Posted - 11/17/2005 5:16:14 PM
Google did [does?] the same thing, and I didn't care then either. Powered by php or something like that.

CM
 User Rating: 1692   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView ProfileView Journal Report this Post to a Moderator | Link

Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message JohnBSmall    Member since: 1/10/2002  From: England
 Posted - 11/17/2005 5:19:36 PM
Quote:
Original post by Conner McCloud
Google did [does?] the same thing, and I didn't care then either. Powered by php or something like that.

IIRC, Google blocked a search string that was used by a system that was attacking vunerable phpBB installations (using google to find those vunerable phpBB systems)

That may not be the only time google has blocked a search string to stop the spread of a virus though - I'm not sure.

Edit: Linky

John B
 User Rating: 1520   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView Profile Report this Post to a Moderator | Link

Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message Maega    Member since: 12/25/2001  From: Saint Louis, MO, United States
 Posted - 11/17/2005 5:54:11 PM
Quote:
Original post by Sneftel
Quote:
Original post by BBB
You missed the point. Of course it doesn't matter if they block download.php . Its the fact that they have these kind of filters. If they can block download.php they can block the download link for the latest Firefox release or something similar, less obvious.
Slippery slope fallacy.


To be nitpicky :P.. the conditions are:

Quote:

1 Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2 Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.


"Will" was not used in his sentence. He used "can." They are not the same thing ;).
 User Rating: 1401   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView ProfileView Journal Report this Post to a Moderator | Link

Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message Sneftel  Moderator - Consoles, PDAs, and Cell Phones  Member since: 7/7/2001  From: Philadelphia, PA, United States
 Posted - 11/17/2005 6:27:37 PM
Quote:

To be nitpicky :P.. the conditions are:

Quote:

1 Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2 Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.


"Will" was not used in his sentence. He used "can." They are not the same thing ;).

That's true, of course, and it isn't nitpicky. But "can", as I said in my last post, is trivial. I was assuming, at that point anyway, that BBB's "can" was intended as "is likely to". Otherwise, there's not much there there.
 User Rating: 2054   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView Profile Report this Post to a Moderator | Link

Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message Sneftel  Moderator - Consoles, PDAs, and Cell Phones  Member since: 7/7/2001  From: Philadelphia, PA, United States
 Posted - 11/17/2005 6:32:17 PM
Quote:
Original post by BBB
Absolutly true. But again everyone(?) seem to think that I agree with that post. I'm not saying "Damn MSN censorship" I'm saying "MSN censorship? We should be carefull". The idea of MS censoring stuff like this just freaks me out. Ofcourse, anyone who thinks MSN is a secure, unmodifiable channel is a fool (no offense).

Okeydoke. In this case, the most likely explanation is a hurried attempt to thwart some just-discovered virus from propagating through MSN. Quicker to patch the server than to patch the client; and by the time virus writers rename the page from download.php to download.htm, the clients would be patched. Some people in the discussion you linked to seemed to be assuming that MS was trying to introduce incompatibility with PHP with this action, which I think we can both agree is something of a stretch.
 User Rating: 2054   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView Profile Report this Post to a Moderator | Link

Reply Quoting This MessageEdit Message Promit  Moderator - Graphics Programming and Theory  Member since: 7/29/2001  From: Baltimore, MD, United States
 Posted - 11/17/2005 6:34:39 PM
Quote:
Original post by BBB
As I earlier said it is not a specific filename, it is all strings containing "download.php". Here is another example:

http://gameadvisor.futuremark.com/gameadvisor/service/requirements.jsp

You not only need Windows but you also need Internet Explorer, FireFox on Windows doesn't work (I've tried, if memory serves). Again this is all in good line with Microsoft's typical behavior. [My experience]Microsoft has always traded everything, including ethics, for profit, that's why they are so extremely successful [/My experience]

Are you attempting to blame Futuremark's "mistake" on Microsoft? Consider that they released a Firefox plugin today to allow FF to validate a windows install so that you can get MSDN downloads and the like.
 User Rating: 1895   |  Rate This User  Send Private MessageView ProfileView Journal Report this Post to a Moderator | Link
Page:   1 2 »»
All times are ET (US)

Post Reply		  Last Thread Next Thread 
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
You may not use HTML in your posts
Jump To:
Administrative Options: