×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Swedish Man Fined For Posting Links To Online Video Feeds

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the you-can't-do-that dept.

The Internet 252

hcs_$reboot writes with a snippet from TechDirt (citing TorrentFreak): "Over in Sweden, it appears that a guy has been fined for linking to an online broadcast of a hockey game. We've heard stories of people getting in trouble merely for linking to unauthorized content, but this story is even more ridiculous. The guy wasn't linking to unauthorized content. He was linking to an online video feed from the official broadcaster, Canal Plus. The issue was that Canal Plus was apparently technically incompetent in how they set up the feeds, and never intended to make the feeds public."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

252 comments

First (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34296880)

First

What constitutes unauthorized access? (5, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#34296884)

If something is on the internet, then doesn't that implicitly authorize access?

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (5, Interesting)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#34296920)

Some even ask you to pay to view their public content, or else they will sue. http://news.slashdot.org/news/10/10/27/2134236.shtml [slashdot.org]

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (5, Funny)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34296974)

Sounds reasonable to me. You're using up their bandwidth, and if you don't give them your money, they are losing out on profit that they could, potentially, have had! Do you enjoy hurting people who would have been better off had you given them all of your money (and since you didn't, you stole their potential profit)?

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297086)

"Do you enjoy hurting people who would have been better off had you given them all of your money"

Ok, exactly what kind of a fucking question is that, really?

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (3, Informative)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297744)

Ok, exactly what kind of a fucking question is that, really?

Rhetorical. It's a super-sarcastic, tognue-in-cheek rhetorical question with a dash of hyperbole to fill out the redonkulous nature of the entire subject matter.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (2, Interesting)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297750)

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (4, Funny)

ultranova (717540) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297140)

Do you enjoy hurting people who would have been better off had you given them all of your money (and since you didn't, you stole their potential profit)?

Yes.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297338)

...people who would have been better off had you given them all of your money...

What kind of a qualification is that? Explain to me, who would be worse off if I gave them my money, besides me?

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (5, Insightful)

kainosnous (1753770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297460)

I miss the day when computers were for people who could think. I fondly remember that very brief period where businesses hadn't learned how to exploit the web. For the most part, it was a novelty to them and the left it to the nerds. Sure, at that point the web was a lot of top 10 lists and novelty polls, and most pages had a guest book to sign and a view counter, but that's how we liked it. I'm sure it's all through rose colored glasses, but at least I don't believe we had lawsuits like this.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297632)

there was nothing much worth suing for either... certainly no sports video feeds. you can still do your top10 lists and pollsn what are you complaining about ? all the extra, for-pay content ?

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297572)

you mean, same as publishers make you pay for books with public-domain texts ? Now, why would anyone on earth to that... oh, wait, you mean there's cost associated with publishing stuff ? you don't say !

Way to make the opposite point than you intended (4, Informative)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297978)

"you mean, same as publishers make you pay for books with public-domain texts ? Now, why would anyone on earth to that... oh, wait, you mean there's cost associated with publishing stuff ? you don't say !"

Absolutely. One of those costs is rent for a bookstore, and the cost of security measures. If they didn't want people accessing it for free, then they should not have made it publicly available. They could have used SSL, and enforced proper authorization and authentication, but they didn't do that. If I leave my stuff out on the street unprotected, how is someone supposed to know that I will consider it stealing if someone picks it up and takes it home? Do you really think that the police will actually take me seriously when I try to file a theft claim?

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (5, Insightful)

Aeternitas827 (1256210) | more than 3 years ago | (#34296928)

If it's unprotected, as seems to be the case here, then that would be the reasonable assumption.

The provider didn't seem to take steps to ensure that their streams couldn't be gotten at by unpaid subscribers--I'd guess that a party so inclined could probably brute-forced URL attempts if they even had a blink at the structure, and gotten in--and got bitten a little bit. Honestly, more their fault, than his.

This begs a second question...was the party who brought suit merely someone who had license to broadcast, or the rights holder for the broadcast? If the former, then I would think this just a farce, because the rights-holder could come around on the license-holder for being incompetent...if the latter, then this is a problem of their own creation; if he found a URL, without ever having been made aware of the Terms of Service or whatnot, it's innocent infringment...in my opinion.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297066)

> This begs a second question

No, it doesn't.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (5, Insightful)

dnaumov (453672) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297336)

If it's unprotected, as seems to be the case here, then that would be the reasonable assumption.

To play devil's advocate: the fact that I didn't lock my front door is not a reasonable assumption that I am inviting you to enter my apartment.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (5, Insightful)

JustOK (667959) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297352)

no, but it's a reason why your insurance claim won't be paid.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (1)

Kumiorava (95318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297436)

sure, but the person who took the stuff will be fined or jailed for stealing.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297738)

and, in most cases, you will still not have your stuff back.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297782)

And that, while true, is irrelevant to the case at hand: after all, nothing was stolen or otherwise removed. (Copyright infringement isn't theft, remember?)

The question is whether the lack of effective access controls is in itself enough to derive a presumption of intent on the part of the plaintiff to invite access from the general public. And the "unlocked door" analogy shows, quite convincingly, that the answer is "no".

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (1)

HertzaHaeon (1164143) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297508)

The convicted man in this case just pointed out your door is unlocked to everyone. It doesn't seem like a crime.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (5, Insightful)

Klinky (636952) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297592)

Client/Server works this way. Client requests data, server can grant or not grant access to said data. It's like having a stranger coming up to you and nicely asking(without malice or threats) if you'd like to give them something(money, cellphone, newspaper, the time, etc..) you can say "yes or no". The server granted these people access without them breaking the law. The server could almost be viewed as an extension of the company or under license from the company to make these decisions to stream or not stream. If they had a password on the stream and people cracked it or multiple people were sharing an account authorized for only one stream, then yes that would be against the rules. If it is a public stream going out to anyone who asks, it's pretty much fair game.

Not a good analogy (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297698)

If your front door is wide open, you might not get insurance money, but legally speaking anbody entering that door is "breaking" the law if they did not get explicitely your consent (anybody) or implicitely (EM worker, fireman, plice etc...).

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (4, Insightful)

dogmatixpsych (786818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297832)

And that's why the example dnaumov posted about leaving your house door unlocked is wrong. This is like you said. It's like this example: the door was unlocked but this man asked if he could enter and someone with power of attorney for the owner said "Yes." Then he asked, "Hey, can I let other people in too?" The response again was, "Yes." You hit the nail on the head, the client does ask for permission. If the owner wants things private, they need to make sure the response to entering is "No". That's their problem to solve.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297638)

To play devil's advocate: the fact that I didn't lock my front door is not a reasonable assumption that I am inviting you to enter my apartment.

Bogus analogy. We are not talking about someone stealing something from private property. If they wanted to keep it private they shouldn't have put it up on the web for everyone to see with no means of access control.

This is more akin to you walking around naked in your glass house and then complaining about the neighbors taking pictures.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297706)

This is more akin to you walking around naked in your glass house and then complaining about the neighbors taking pictures.

Or Google....

BUT, if you leave your garden hose (4, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297668)

BUT if you leave your garden hose running and pooring out into the street, you can't expect the police to arrest the walker by who lets his dog drink from it.

This guy did NOT break in or walk in to your house.

If you have the windows open, then you can't expect people walking by not to look in.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (3, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297772)

If it's unprotected, as seems to be the case here, then that would be the reasonable assumption.

To play devil's advocate: the fact that I didn't lock my front door is not a reasonable assumption that I am inviting you to enter my apartment.

If you left your curtains open and someone saw a video playing on your TV, should he be fined for letting his friends know they could see it through your window?

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (1)

jelizondo (183861) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297958)

The Internet is like a public park, you are free to wander anywhere unless it is locked down or a notice posted saying "Keep out the grass."

It sounds like they not only didn't lock the door, they forgot to put a door in the first place.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297386)

This begs a second question...was the party who brought suit merely someone who had license to broadcast, or the rights holder for the broadcast?

Begging the question: An argument begs the question if and only iff one of the premises of the argument covertly assumes the truth of the conclusion – that is, the argument is circular.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (2, Insightful)

PRMan (959735) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297396)

A commenter in the original article has it right.

It's like a paid swimming pool having a back door that's completely open where you could walk in and have a free swim.

The guy who is being sued in this case is not the guy who had a free swim, but the guy who said, "Hey, the back door is open at that swimming pool."

No notice on the back dor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297470)

I'd expect for the folks having the free swim (or the one announcing the open door) to be sued there should have been a notice on the back door ("no entrance" or similar). Was there one? -- I thought so.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297644)

are you sure the people clicking the links knew they were hacked ? If I sneak into a pool via the back door, I know I'm cheating. If I click on a link... not so clear, depends on context.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (0)

tysonedwards (969693) | more than 3 years ago | (#34296932)

Not technically. The article doesn't explicitly state whether this was a feed on a server "intended to be public", or something internally that was accessible via the internet due to an oversight by Canal Plus. For example, if you can only get to something by IP Address, it can be implied that it is not "intended" to be public as it was not added to a public facing DNS Server.

However, the fact of the matter is that if Canal Plus considered the access to be unauthorized to their server, they should have implemented the necessary changes on their network to restrict access to a server that was incorrectly made available when they believe that it should not have been. Would be so much easier and more cost efficient than bringing a lawsuit against an individual for "finding" a link to their feeds on a Web Server.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (5, Insightful)

silanea (1241518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297078)

[...] For example, if you can only get to something by IP Address, it can be implied that it is not "intended" to be public as it was not added to a public facing DNS Server. [...]

Sorry, I have to disagree. If something does not tell me "Not for you!" or require authentication, it is open to the public. Whether that is by intent or accident is the provider's problem. Your example is even more problematic: Every machine (directly) on the internet has a publicly reachable IP address simply by virtue of being on the fucking Internet. Whether it also is reachable via a DNS entry - or even only offers certain content under specific domains - is entirely arbitrary (as far as the visitor is concerned). In essence you suggest that people ought to only use the internet through an "authorised" channel, the DNS. Sorry, that is neither realistic nor particularly desirable.

I hope there's a sign on your front door (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297578)

Yeah, and if you don't have a sign on your front door which says, "You can't come in unless I invite you" then any Tom, Dick and Harry is free to come in and take what they like.

Are you nuts?

Re:I hope there's a sign on your front door (4, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297774)

Yeah, and if you don't have a sign on your front door which says, "You can't come in unless I invite you" then any Tom, Dick and Harry is free to come in and take what they like.

Are you nuts?

Unless Tom, Dick or Harry are vampires. Then they'd have to wait to be explicitly invited in ;-)

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (5, Interesting)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 3 years ago | (#34296936)

No.

If they linked it from their front page, and said "View the game here", that's implicitly authorising access. If it was hidden behind a badly done pay wall, I think it fairly clearly implies you should be paying first, even if the technical side is a debacle.

Leaving something unprotected is no more implying access than leaving your front door open. It's bloody stupid, but that's another matter entirely...

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297022)

Actually I think that's referred to as "invitation of theft" and is a crime in itself. Like leaving your car running while going into a store.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (2, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297214)

"invitation of theft" and is a crime in itself.

      That's kind of stupid. What is the difference then between "invitation of theft" which you say is a crime, and "invitation of rape" if a young girl wears provocative clothing while drunk in a bar?

      Leaving your car running and unattended does not justify someone stealing it, and any legislation to that effect is seriously fucked up.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297348)

      That's kind of stupid. What is the difference then between "invitation of theft" which you say is a crime, and "invitation of rape" if a young girl wears provocative clothing while drunk in a bar?

This is exactly why sexual crime law is so messed up. Dressing provocatively is encouraging the crime and should be illegal.

Leaving your car running and unattended does not justify someone stealing it, and any legislation to that effect is seriously fucked up.

That's not how it works. You get penalized for leaving your car running and wasting social resources when the police find it for you (or just don't, if they have a spine). Similarly, if the criminal is caught, he's also given the appropriate punishment.

Just because stealing is wrong doesn't mean that facilitating theft through your own incompetence isn't.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (2, Funny)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297680)

"She was wearing hijab, I totally get off on that officer! It's her fault for dressing so provocatively."
"Well officer, he locked the door to his car, but I had this jimmy here and he didn't have anything to stop that, so it's his fault. He wanted me to steal it."

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (2, Informative)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297610)

Any reference for that? Googling the term primarily brings back references to here...

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297106)

Oops! I can't find the news articles from when this thing started. Swedish ice hockey jargong and legal jargon has just to many homonyms, e.g. "lawsuit" = "stämning" versus "emotional state" = "stämning", like "det var en hög stämning på arenan" = "the public in the stadium was excited". This is kind of surprising, usually internet searches in Swedish is free from homonym-contamination (Sweish have really practical rules for word composition and that keeps the number of homonyms down in the language), unlike most internet searches in English.

As I recall the video feed was viewed via a video player embedded in a paid for, and protected from public access, homepage. As I recall, to find the link you even had to examine the source code of the video player in a js-file, not just an "embed" tag in the html-source of the page.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (1)

ByteSlicer (735276) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297248)

So, if someone holds a performance in their house and wants people to pay for it, but at the same time they have a big window with open curtains that allows people to see the action from the street, then they should be able to sue the neighbour that tells other people about the free view through the window?

Re:If it is on the internet it is public (3, Interesting)

AxeTheMax (1163705) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297300)

If it was hidden behind a badly done pay wall, I think it fairly clearly implies you should be paying first, even if the technical side is a debacle.... leaving something unprotected is no more implying access than leaving your front door open. It's bloody stupid, but that's another matter entirely...

Anything on the internet that is reachable without security is public by definition. Doesn't matter if it was also 'behind' a paywall; it it could be reached by a straightforward url without going through the paywall, then it was public. And it is a false analogy to compare it to the front door of a private house; it was a business website that invited access, even if it only wanted paying access. Using the locked door analogy, it is as if a pay to view facility (a cinema or museum say) had a pay counter on one street door, but left another open.

Re:If it is on the internet it is public (2, Insightful)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297692)

# zgrep -i phpmyadmin access_log-20101101.bz2
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:41 +0100] "GET //phpmyadmin/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:43 +0100] "GET //PHPMYADMIN/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:44 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:45 +0100] "GET //phpmyadmin2/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:45 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin2/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:48 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:48 +0100] "GET //phpmyadmin2/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:49 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin2/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:49 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:57 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmins/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:58 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin2/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:58 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2.2.3/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:59 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2.2.6/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:59 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2.5.1/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:47:59 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2.5.4/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:00 +0100] "GET //PHPMYADMIN/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:05 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2.2.3/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:06 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2.2.6/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:06 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2.5.1/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:06 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2.5.4/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:07 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2.5.5-pl1/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:07 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2.5.5-rc1config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:07 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2.5.5-rc2/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:08 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2.5.5/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:08 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2.5.6-rc1/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:08 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2.5.6-rc2/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:09 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2.5.6/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:09 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin-2/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:10 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:10 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin2/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:11 +0100] "GET //phpmyadmin/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
62.8.65.3 - - [24/Aug/2010:09:48:11 +0100] "GET //phpmyadmin2/config/config.inc.php?p=phpinfo(); HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
217.117.216.14 - - [05/Sep/2010:18:07:58 +0100] "GET //phpmyadmin/server_status.php HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)"
89.253.195.103 - - [08/Sep/2010:22:58:20 +0100] "GET /phpmyadmin/ HTTP/1.0" 404 1063 "-" "-"
85.17.108.225 - - [10/Sep/2010:19:22:55 +0100] "GET /phpmyadmin/ HTTP/1.0" 404 1063 "-" "-"
62.8.88.77 - - [11/Sep/2010:17:35:12 +0100] "GET //phpmyadmin/ HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Made by ZmEu @ WhiteHat Team - www.whitehat.ro"
62.8.88.77 - - [11/Sep/2010:17:35:12 +0100] "GET //phpMyAdmin/ HTTP/1.1" 404 1063 "-" "Made by ZmEu @ WhiteHat Team - www.whitehat.ro"

If any of those had found an unprotected copy of PhpMyAdmin running on the server, should it be considered legal for them to start meddling with the server? I'd argue no, it's fairly clear you shouldn't be meddling with this unless you've been told you can. So, no, not all addressable URLs are public, and in cases where they're clearly not intended to be public (e.g., if you pull them out of the binary of a video player), it can be illegal to access them.

Re:What constitutes unauthorized access? (1)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297916)

If something is on the internet, then doesn't that implicitly authorize access?

I hope not, my girlfriend is on the internet in the evenings.

Similar thing in Germany (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34296924)

A map provider sold subscriptions. However their system was a joke. After logging in you would get a URL to the map you wanted. You could pass this URL to non-subscribers and it would work. The map company then sued some real estate company that gave those links to its clients for copyright infringement ... and won.

Security-by-law-suit is the new security-by-obscurity.

Re:Similar thing in Germany (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297672)

isn't that the nerd equivalent of "might makes right" ? To me the question is not whether you can hack something, but whether you can do the hack, or just use an existing hack, entirely without knowing you're stealing stuff. Rarely the case for hackers, sometimes the case for users.

I see nothing wrong with having to pay for maps ? actually, I see a lot wrong with wanting to watch sports broadcasts, but that's another issue ^^

Swedish judge (1, Funny)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 3 years ago | (#34296962)

Didn't that Swedish judge use to star in the Muppet Show before he became a judge?

Re:Swedish judge (1)

Etrai (1014023) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297068)

No, I think he didn't actually get the part, which is why he now sits in the Tingsrätten.

Re:Swedish judge (4, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297076)

I think you're thinking of the judge who was rejected for the U.S. Supreme Court, Robert Bork Bork Bork.

Re:Swedish judge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297286)

Omg, too funny! Ordy bork, ordy bork bork. Hmm, one a sports, two a sports a, oops a no a sports for you! They a sue, ordy bork, ordy bork bork....

Damn it Sweden! (5, Insightful)

GF678 (1453005) | more than 3 years ago | (#34296968)

There used to be a time when you'd be able to read a story like this, shake your head, smirk and say/think to yourself: "Only in America".

Now, unfortunately, it's no-longer the case you can make that generalization. The whole world's gone crazy...

Re:Damn it Sweden! (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34296994)

I guess the whole Pirate Bay issue introduced them to the wonderful world of corporate bribery.

We got a suitable saying around here, along the lines of: once your reputation is ruined, you might as well lose all restraint.

Re:Damn it Sweden! (0)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297042)

I think you're right in that it was the Pirate Bay that caused this.

However, I think that it was the Pirate Bay's unrepentant disrespect for laws and growing popularity that pushed Sweden to crack down on this type of behavior. If TPB had been able to tone down their rhetoric and occasionally pretend like they were conscientiously trying to run a legitimate service then Sweden would have left them alone and filesharing would be much more acceptable in the mainstream than it is.

But Sweden's hand was essentially forced, and a government must sometimes knock down the square pegs.

Re:Damn it Sweden! (5, Insightful)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297092)

As a swede I'm pretty certain I'm not alone in noticing how our politicians and our legal system did a full 180 turn on the TPB issue, at first they actually concluded that it wouldn't be possible to do anything about TPB, then there were a few meetings between members of our government and representatives of the US government as well as the regular lobbyists and all of a sudden TPB was raided...

Not to mention how they've been stretching and bending the law to even make it possible to prosecute the TPB founders, clearly something or someone convinced them that whether or not there was a law broken there had to be convictions.

Re:Damn it Sweden! (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297110)

You're introducing extra factors where the answer is really quite simple. TPB was a bunch of assholes doing borderline stuff. When called on it, they said, "yeah we're assholes doing borderline stuff but there's nothing that can touch us, so fuck off".

The Swedish government gets a few tips on how to take them down, and they acted *in the government's best interest*

As nice and generous as the Swedish government is, it (nor can any government, really) stand to have that kind of antisocial element thriving in its borders.

Re:Damn it Sweden! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297168)

You're obviously not aware of Swedish law.

The TPB behaved in the way they did: their actions were LEGAL according to Swedish law.

It's not antisocial to tell bullies to go fuck themselves, despite what you might think.

Re:Damn it Sweden! (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297204)

Borderline is borderline. I never said they violated Swedish law.

Repeatedly treating people without a modicum of respect is antisocial. You don't get a free pass because someone else is treating you poorly.

Re:Damn it Sweden! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297274)

It seems to me that treating people who are quite obviously operating within the law as criminal and issuing legal threats at them without any grounds or jurisdiction is pretty damn disrespectful.

TPB was WELL within their rights to give back what they were getting in the form of disrespect from those that were THREATENING them without any grounds to do so..

Re:Damn it Sweden! (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297298)

Don't mistake the right thing with the acceptable thing.

Re:Damn it Sweden! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297372)

Heher, ultimatum! Big ol' tro.

I'm going to have all seized opportunity lead to corners.

This was clearly theft.

ughman

Re:Damn it Sweden! (2, Interesting)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297234)

The Swedish government gets a few tips on how to take them down,

      Yeah, good thing TPB got taken down and has been offline for years... oh wait

Re:Damn it Sweden! (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297288)

Effective or not at eliminating the website, the legal history of TPB reads like the rap sheet of a 19 year old from Baltimore. It's a laundry list of lawsuits and injunctions including prison sentences for some of the principals.

And given the relative dearth of TPB stories here on /. in the past couple years compared to the years preceding, it seems like TPB has finally toned down their attitude and decided to play ball, however reluctantly. That's a win for Sweden.

Re:Damn it Sweden! (2, Insightful)

HonIsCool (720634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297310)

Yeah...Big win. The US of A says "Jump!", Sweden asks "How high?". Big win, big win...

Re:Damn it Sweden! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297126)

Right on. And now it turns out USA has been spying on Swedish (Norwegian, Danish, Finnish, ...) soil without permission and against the law.

Cause of concern? No, "it's a friendly superpower so it's OK" says the Swedish government and nods with pupils as big as golfballs.

Swedish independence is a fucking joke. The Swedish government are satraps, doing whatever their masters over Atlantic tell them to do. See for example the how the Assange "case" has been and is handled.

USA is playing dirty when it comes to for example competing in the selling of fighter jets. JAS fighter, the pride of Sweden, gets denied markets because of bribery and foul play. And what does Sweden do about it? Do they return the favor? Nope. They say "It's OK! Tell us which part of our nation can we hurt next."

It's pathetic. What's the point of being a sovereign nation if all you ever do is execute commands of others, at the expense of your own well-being.

Re:Damn it Sweden! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297040)

Yes, of course.

Early on, the internet was used almost exclusively by highly technical people, who would immediately understand the absurdity of providing something over a protocol *designed* to make it available, then getting mad when it was available. But as time went on, the net became used by less and less technical people. This happened first in the USA, because the internet started there and became popular among the "general public" first in the USA - there was a time when the vast majority of people on the net were from there. But later, this same de-teching happened in other countries too, so you see some of the same problems happening in other places now as used to only happen in the USA.

Another consequence of this is the ever-creeping "closing" of the net, where open protocols are disused in favor of closed ones. Early on everyone immediately understood why that was a bad idea and people were smart enough to stay away. Now, very few (%-wise) people do, so there is no longer enough popular support to defend the openness of the net. Even Tim Berners-Lee's article will make no difference there; the "teeming masses" just don't care.

Re:Damn it Sweden! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297104)

I'm pretty sure Sweden overtook the US in internet users per capita around the mid-90s...

Re:Damn it Sweden! (1)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297118)

That's a horrifying generalization. You do realize Sweden used to do forced sterilization of retards and undesireables here up to the late 1950s? It was only formally abolished in 1975, and there had been cases before that where people who where only "a bit slow" (what would now be called ADHD) was incarcerated and told they would be let go if they agreed to sterilization. All to create a pure society, free from weakness.

Re:Damn it Sweden! (5, Informative)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297194)

the United States was the first country to concertedly undertake compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics.
In general, most sterilizations were performed under eugenic statutes, in state-run psychiatric hospitals and homes for the mentally disabled.
over 65,000 individuals were sterilized in 33 states under state compulsory sterilization programs in the United States
though a significant number of sterilizations continued in a few states until the early 1960s
The Oregon Board of Eugenics, later renamed the Board of Social Protection, existed until 1983, with the last forcible sterilization occurring in 1981.

And on a related note the US as late as 1972 poor black men were used in a completely crazy experiment to see how bad their symptoms would get if they weren't told they had syphilis and weren't treated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment [wikipedia.org]

As late as the 1950's the UK still chemically castrated gay people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing [wikipedia.org]

Re:Damn it Sweden! (3, Interesting)

pla (258480) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297432)

You do realize Sweden used to do forced sterilization of retards and undesireables here up to the late 1950s? It was only formally abolished in 1975[...] All to create a pure society, free from weakness.

Of course, the funny thing about that?

It largely worked - They have one of the happiest, healthiest, most attractive nations on the frickin' planet (the present fallout of US bullying notwithstanding).

When trying to make eugenics look like a monstrosity, you'd do better not to point out its successes.

Re:Damn it Sweden! (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297502)

ADHD doesn't make people "a bit slow". ADHD makes people poorly focused. People with ADHD daydream, fidget, and sometimes fail to pay attention at important moments. Typically, someone with ADHD has an average to very high IQ. Someone who is "a bit slow" likely has mild mental retardation or just happens to be on the wrong slope of the bell curve. Plenty of people with ADHD learn and remember concepts and facts very quickly and test well over those facts, but forget to do busywork or are caught daydreaming in class by the teacher.

Re:Damn it Sweden! (2, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297340)

There used to be a time when you'd be able to read a story like this, shake your head, smirk and say/think to yourself: "Only in America".

Stupid laws are one of our biggest exports here in the States. When it comes to generating laws that protect corporations at the expense of consumers, the US is the world leader.

Arrggh! (4, Informative)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297046)

It's things like this which will make it so much more likely that I would bother to post such a link in the future --- after firing up Tor, of course!

Without the constant whining of Big Content getting on my nerves (and ruining the legal system), I probably wouldn't bother.

What is the link? (0)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297060)

If we have the original link, perhaps we can cause a bit of Streisand effect.

Re:What is the link? (4, Informative)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297158)

If we have the original link, perhaps we can cause a bit of Streisand effect.

RTFA, FFS.

It was a sports broadcast, three years ago.

Bad legal arguments (1, Insightful)

moderators_are_w*nke (571920) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297080)

The only way the court could reach such a poor decision would be through bad legal arguments and a lack of understanding of how the world wide web works. Hopefully he'll get a better lawyer who can explain the culture of link sharing on the internet, how the system relies on it (pagerank etc) and how every other content provider as a matter of course will put a paywall in front of a link so that when he shares it with his friends its more revenue for them. Something about chilling effects would probably not go a miss either.

IANAL and I wasn't at this case but I guess it the arguments must have presented it as stealing from an unattended shop or something along those lines, which is why the decision would have gone the way it went.

Re:Bad legal arguments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297192)

"... who can explain the culture of link sharing on the internet"

The courts (right or wrong, I'm not saying) don't care about the "culture of the internet". They have authority over it, and they'll apply the law as they deem appropriate.

I expect these kinds of things to get more and more common over time. The "wild west" nature of the net was never sustainable over the long run. Do not expect excuses like, "but it wasn't behind a paywall!" to carry any weight with the law. If you copied a copyrighted work, then the law will do what it will do. All the nerdrage in the world won't change that one bit.

Re:Bad legal arguments (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297498)

Nerdrage can never and will never make any difference. Guns and bombs are another matter: if you want YOUR vision of the Internet to be upheld, back it up with violence. LOTS of it.

Re:Bad legal arguments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297196)

I don't think his lawyer was the problem, it was the court who heard the word "pirate" and stopped thinking clearly. Both sides had called expert witnesses, who also submitted written opinions. The court went with the copyright maximalist professor Jan Rosén. What bothers me is that people still regard him as an authority. He obviously know a lot about copyright but he is also very obviously biased.

Re:Bad legal arguments (1)

chr1973 (711475) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297308)

I searched for a better article and found one (in Swedish) http://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/nyheter/fallande-dom-i-unikt-upphovsrattsfall-1.1205941 [www.dn.se] The article indicates the court did consider various sophisticated legal and technical arguments. As for expert opinions, one professor in "civil rights" (sv: civilrätt) expected a conviction, and a professor in intellectual property rights expected the defendendant to go free. So the law is apparently a bit unclear in this area. In the end of the article it says it is not clear if the defendendant will appeal, although a laywer with a background in the area says he was suprised by the court's decision, with the caveat that he hasn't read the actual decision/motivation yet. /C The defendendant was fined 70 "dagsböter" of 50 SEK each, i.e. about 350 EUR. In addition, he is to pay damages of about 1100 EUR to Canal Plus.

Re:Bad legal arguments (2, Interesting)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297330)

The thing is, in the real world, you can expect to have the protection of the law even for objects that are out in the open. This does not translate very well to the net, where "the only laws are assembler and RFCs.", but in theory the same things should apply, right? There's also the power discrepancy. Many people here might fail to realize that they're actually wielding a fair bit of power over something that seems *utterly* arbitary and incomprehensible to normal people. "But why should we take the fall for ignorants?" Because this is Sweden, not the US - individual freedom isn't valued as much here. At least not as much as justice and social harmony. Intruding on someone else is a big no-no. Also, what keeps you relatively safe both from poverty and crime as well as tripping over beggars in the streets and having to actually get personally involved in things is the system. There is thus a common concern over the system working as correctly as possible to insure the best of all possible worlds, and government is generally seen as desireable. This is weighed out somewhat I believe by the fact that Swedish culture (and for that matter all the scanidavian cultures) is extremely simplistic bordering on the barbaric - the natural impulses of most men acting against it is difficult. The nail that sticks up isn't really hammered down. Not really - it gets a reasonable paycheck, some reasonable psych treatment, buys some reasonable german beer from the reasonable systembolaget, walks home through the reasonable grey streets to his reasonable apartment, has reasonable boredom sex, watches some films involving torture, yelling and misery to check if he can still feel, and then falls into merciful deathlike dreamless sleep. Little does he know that in a more lively society he had been mugged on his way home - but in this land of heaven, just as he was about to lunge out, the mugger felt a bleak wave move up through his body culminating as tears pouring down his eyes. He thinks back to his early days in his warm home, watching the epic childrens show "vilse i pannkakan". Have I turned into Storpotäten, he thinks? A bright luminous light surrounds him, and as his eyes turn skyward whom else does he see but Death himself, bidding him to come beyond the stars to the forested lands of Nangijala, where there is still the time of campfires and fairy tales. Even as his withered body slumps to the ground, his spirit runs in the sunlight across the grass fields grazed by cows, across a hill topped by birchen trees, and out of our sight.

And now you are melancholy.

Re:Bad legal arguments (1)

ulski (1173329) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297408)

here is a link to the original swedish news story (I hope they don't sue me): http://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/nyheter/fallande-dom-i-unikt-upphovsrattsfall-1.1205941 [www.dn.se] beware if you need to use google translate - for some reason google translates the word "kronor" to "millions"... kronor is the swedish currency so the text: "Domen meddelades klockan två på onsdagseftermiddagen. Tingsrätten anser att han för brott mot upphovsrättslagen ska betala 70 dagsböter à 50 kronor. Därtill ska han betala 11.780 kronor i skadestånd till Canal Plus (C More Entertainment AB). Henrik Rasmusson hade dock hoppats på en villkorlig dom också, men har inte bestämt sig för huruvida han ska överklaga." means that he has to pay 70 fines of 50 kronor which is 3500kronor plus 11780kronor in additional compensation. todays exchange rate for swedish kronor is: 1 Swedish krona = 0.145647 U.S. dollars

Re:Bad legal arguments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297462)

From reading the judgement it seems his only defense was that the content he linked to was a hockey match, and thus it might not be protected by copyright law at all (given how it works in Sweden that is). Rather it has traditionally been covered by the "Signal law" (IIRC; IANAL), but that law is written intending to regulate traditional TV-brodcasting and cant really be applied to this internet scenario, as far as I understand.

It's also quite interesting how the court in it's judgement misquotes the swedish supreme court (IMHO atleast, but IANAL as stated) in order to not actually have to do much thinking about the difficult issues and reach the "desired" conclusion.

Though, I dont really agree entierly with this "culture of the internet" thing either. What's the fundamental differance between linking to "http://somewebserver/magic string" and sharing your username/password with the interwebz? Though in this particular case I think the television company could have, and should have, done better by not giving the same "magic string" to all users, but rather generate a new one for each user. (I'd say that by generating a new string for each user you are providing that user with some kind of authentication-token and sharing this should then be equivalent with sharing username/password. Thus it's "clear" that the content you are linking is not "publicly available" as it would be if I say hosted it unprotected on the root of my webserver or whatever.)

Re:Bad legal arguments (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297918)

Well, since it's Tingsrätten (the lowest "local" court, mainly staffed by career politicians) I wouldn't be surprised if they came up with a verdict that didn't make sense or even contradicted swedish law, it happens all the time. For cases that involve any legal complexity beyond "The defendant punched the victim in the face after drinking twelve beers and is thus guilty of assaulting the victim" tingsrätten's verdict isn't really considered all that important, it's not until the case makes it to Hovrätten that any verdict can be considered final.

Never visit Sweden (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297166)

Remind me to never visit Sweden. They have some really stupid laws.

Re:Never visit Sweden (3, Interesting)

Khenke (710763) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297448)

It's not the laws that are flawed, it's our judges in the courts.
A good lawyer can tweak any country's law to prove anything, it's the judges role to keep em in control.

The Swedish judges have over the last year broken the constitution over and over and over, and no one care.
It has gone so far that yes I do think they are bribed. Either with money or power (fast track to higher positions).

But the worst thing is that no one (almost no one) cares. If I tell people that the judges break the constitution they don't react at all. Nothing. Blank.
If that is from lack of interest or knowledge I don't know, but I guess both.

We in Sweden are so used to get fucked by the authorities now days that it looks like we have just given up.
I used to say that not for anything in the world I would live in the USA because money can buy anything, and now Sweden has become a puppet to the states. It's time to migrate to Norway (our brother country that are not as corrupt, yet).

Re:Never visit Sweden (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297594)

and hot women.

Legal far west (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297240)

So Sweden is starting to get the same disease as the the legal far west from the US.
I must admit that it took a while before EU got infected by those alien parasites.

The orginal reply to the complaint (3, Funny)

paiute (550198) | more than 3 years ago | (#34297362)

But honestly Canal Plus, the web is considered “public domain” and you should be happy we just didn’t “lift” your whole hockey game and put some other team's name on it!

FAGORZ (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34297812)

transfer, Netscape the longest or in the su8. In the lead developers to foster a gay and distributions during this file our cause. Gay To underscore
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...