Author: margolies,marc
Date: 10:00:42 06/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
Dear Marc, You have the right to bash justice in the USA just as I do. But when I speak about justice in the USA regarding privacy rights on the Internet playing chess, I am discussing the politics of my own experience-- which is therefore authentic. And I am not sure that I am offering my country upas a role model to the world, as you seem to suggest, but instead offering a baseline of my own understanding of the problem which we are discussing. If you might offer a clearer view of what internet privacy is to you, instead of say damning the political environment I live in, then we might have a conduit of discussion. Assuming of course, that you wish to discuus your opinions-- not merely broadcast or shout them. I personally find the greatest value in discussion is the clarification of thought and awareness of new possibilities, but I cannot assume you share this feeling. I do hope that when you meet persons of differing opinions than yours on a discussion board, that you don't see this as some kind of attack on your own integrity. If you can give an example of how innocent people suffer on chess servers because these servers are policed-- not policed badly, but policed as a process, I should understands your complaint. Also I do not see you advocating direct connection between players. Should I conclude from this that you also see ADVANTAGES to using other people's servers to play your chess games? best regards, marc On June 24, 2003 at 09:21:26, Marc van Hal wrote: >On June 21, 2003 at 01:59:29, margolies,marc wrote: > >>I cannot agree that testing for chess engine activity on your PC during an >>on-line game is an invasion of privacy in any sense. >>First what is private about playing chess in a public room on the internet? And >>are you not aware that when you play chess on the internet that you are being >>observed by others? >>In america, where I live privacy is a constitutionally protected right. But it >>does not extend to the public roads and thorough fares. As an example, policemen >>in the USA are allowed to attach a radio tracking device to any car that they >>wish to follow without obtaining a court warrant-- so long as they do not >>unlawfully enter the car to attach it. Our laws understand that if an action is >>on a public street and can be observed from a public street, the technological >>issue is merely how we ascertain something and not whether we have the right to >>do it with our eyes. >>We have a choice of using chess servers or not. The server is someone else's >>property and their rules of use apply. > >You again seem to forget the world is a lot bigger then the USA >Wich is normal in the USA is still forbidden by law in other countrys. >Should we take an example on the U.S.A. ? > I think it is just the other way around. >Then again justice has to do a lot more work in the USA then in many other >countrys >So they where forced to make other laws. >To be more efictive in crime fighting. >But still it does take rights away. >From the people who stay at the right track. > >Marc > >> >>On June 20, 2003 at 08:59:57, Marc van Hal wrote: >> >>>On June 20, 2003 at 01:16:11, Russell Reagan wrote: >>> >>>>On June 19, 2003 at 19:39:22, Pierre Chevalier wrote: >>>> >>>>>Many chess playing sites have ways to detect whether a player is >>>>>also running chess software on his computer. Are there any >>>>>products available to mask the software? Could such a masking >>>>>program be detected itself? >>>>>This is similar to olympic drug testing. Certain masking agents >>>>>are illegal themselves even if they do not enhance performance >>>>>because they could conceal drugs that do enhance perfromance. >>>> >>>>In the area of online 3D games they have similar problems. People hack the >>>>opengl drivers and make aimbots (you have perfect aim), wallhacks (you can see >>>>through walls), etc. There is software to detect them, but as soon as that >>>>software is released to the public, the hackers work on bypassing it. Then the >>>>software developers patch their program so it will work again, and the hackers >>>>hack it again, and round and round we go. It's been going on for many years, and >>>>it doesn't look like it's going to get better. >>>> >>>>ICC could implement code in Blitzin to detect all public chess engines, but then >>>>someone could hack that, and then ICC would fix it, and someone would hack it >>>>again, and on and on. What makes it even harder is that a person might not be >>>>running the chess program on the same computer, so you have to rely on style of >>>>play, which can work in some cases, but it can still be complicated and error >>>>prone. >>> >>>Well infact this detecting software. >>>Is in a deeper sence a form of invadeing privacy. >>>And indeed doesn't work for people who use two computers. >>> >>>It most of the time are these unrealistic tac tics in blitz games which realy >>>show your oponent does use a chess program. >>>But in other postions compare data is prety safe. >>>Aslong as the postion is complicated enough. >>>But you also can detect chessprograms by their mistakes. >>>And less postional or strategical play. >>> >>>Personaly I many times even can tell which program and even which personalety is >>>being used. >>>Because I used many programs and personaletys to check my analyzes . >>>Though some personaletys act the same as an other program. >>> >>>Marc
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.