I’m coming from a different angle; I have seen several different underground scenes on the net, all claiming to be the actual, real, and only scene – so that’s why I have a problem with the loose definition
(…) Based off of his pure spelling, I’d say he has more of a chance being an “illegit” user than not.[/quote]
Hrrm. Might just be an indication to the contrary as well though. As in, “this is an ‘underground’ site, i.e. it’s not really all that underground”
Maybe I misunderstood. However, I’d classify Fravia’s old reverse engineering site under just that auspice; it may deal with cracking, for instance, WinZip, in a tutorial form of how to use the BlackIce debugger; that’s walking the line. It’s educational content, and at the same time rather black hattish
Assuming you’re referring to cracking as above, since that part of my statement did indeed focus on cracking specifically, I’ll have to point out again that such content, including explicit discussions of said content, is illegal by US Law. Which, however, is exempted as you stated here:[/quote]
Hrrm. I might misinterpret US law then. I was under the impression that tools primarily facilitating circumvention of these protections can be acted upon under the civil law DMCA; however, information on such cannot (though of course this is all hotly debated in the surroundings of DeCSS and the associated free speech issues).
If it is indeed illegal to discuss the specifics of, say, breaking AACS or CSS, or more to the point, netfilter and Apache security, then the free exchange of ideas and free speech in general does not exist (assuming this is actually illegal by law, not just prohibited by private enterprise ToS
If the two parties agree to it and they own the rights to the software and/or system and/or network they are cracking
Careful. I do not have to own the rights to the software I am using to try to defeat its security features. Case in point, I do not have to have the right to the Windows XP intellectual property to analyze and expose flaws in the Internet Explorer security model, legally, so long as I have the legal right to use the software in a regular manner.
And a point I tried to make is that the line of legitimacy is not easily defined (though as they say, I’ll know somebody crossed it when I see it :-P)
Then I misunderstood you. Though my take on it would be that the OP might be courteous. There are webhosters out there who do not believe in free speech, or hosting websites they might disagree with entirely, even though they are legal (and it’s their right to do so; Just somebody doing something legal does not imply that they have the right for me to sell them services to facilitate their activities
The analogy I’d draw is asking the hoster whether adult content is allowed. DH’s answer is “yes, if it’s legal in California”. Adult content, per se, is legal; asking whether it’s ok to put it on your account is still due diligence, since many hosters shy away from that amount of traffic on shared hosts. Using IRC, eggdrop, BNC, etc. are all perfectly legal; but you damn well better ask your host if you can use them unless you want your account suspended (and here DH’s answer will be a resounding no – not because it’s illegal, but because those particular technologies attract a LOT of dDoS attacks).
Not necessarily. It might then still fall under fair use. That’s to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
If the OP had originally specified, or even referred to another site as an example, the actual subject material for his site (rather than leaving us guessing), it would do much better than having us argue over such matters. As it stands currently, I suppose one could see it either way. Perhaps instead of bickering, we should just ask the OP to clarify [/quote]
Agreed ! Let’s delve into the underground and make him answer !