Re: Deactivate browser's print function

Ben C <spamspam@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

On 2007-07-28, Sherm Pendley <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"rf" <rf@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

"Cartoper" <cartoper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1185630224.358246.180630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

source: http://www.aw-soft.com/htmlguard-security.html

Har har.

<oil src='snake'>

To refute the claims made on the abovementioned page:

...

</oil>

I completely agree. In my opinion, such products aren't far short of out-
right fraud - they're making claims about capabilities which they simply
cannot deliver. Their business model is based on the fact that most people
do not realize this, and believe the claims.

The website was quite honest about it in this case though, explaining
what it does and why it doesn't really work.

I don't call this "quite honest":

"The combination of different methods used, activates a protection that
cannot be bypassed in the twinkling of an eye."

"There is always a way to reach the source code and elements of a page,
but how many people do you know that are good enough at JavaScript
programming to bypass the source code protection?"

The message they're sending is crystal clear - they're claiming that their
so-called "protection" takes a lot of time and skills to bypass, when in
fact it takes neither. They are grossly overstating the effectiveness of
their snake-oil.

There's also this gem at the bottom of the page:

"In many Internet and Usenet forums the question about protection
possibilties of HTML pages is a "Frequently Forbidden Question" (FFQ)
that is answered unwillingly, if at all, and rarely without a cynical
comment. The reason for this is that HTML is an open principle and
almost every webmaster has gained experience by studying the source
code of others. However, protecting text, images or scripts should
not be considered as moral abjectly because this is the custom in
other fields"

They're grossly misrepresenting the attitudes of professionals who know why
their software doesn't do what it claims to do. Pointing out the technical
limitations of such software is realism, not cynicism.

Nor is it some sort of moral crusade - why is it that so many people choose
to hear "it's wrong to want that" when what's actually being said is "that
won't work no matter how badly you want it to"?

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Brad, hate to burst your bubble re file creation date....
    ... have the source code; and, the issue I have told all about), just ... shows you are trying to lie and mislead, ... > By now most peeps should know the doc has virtually no protection. ... > Therefore your *cough* proof t'aint wurth a chit. ...
    (sci.psychology.psychotherapy)
  • Re: Running .Net 2.0 Application without having .Net Framework installed
    ... I will get the source code for you. ... You don't need to compile it to native code for that. ... think the best protection, that's nonsense. ... Decompiling native code doesn't differ much from decompiling IL code. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework)
  • Re: Running .Net 2.0 Application without having .Net Framework installed
    ... assemblies. ... I will get the source code for you. ... may be good for native code. ... think the best protection, that's nonsense. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework)
  • Re: GNU License Question, On Change of Code
    ... >> implications on attempts to get patent protection. ... no restrictions on distribution of the source code. ... something public if not by publishing it on the front page of the New York ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.system)
  • Re: Whats so great about lisp?
    ... >You continually make languages like C++ and Java appear to have features ... In C++ you can cast away any protection the ... >module that checks the source code before it is compiled. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)