[Monte314]

Today, a dog told me he has figured out a way to run an undetectable "shadow forum" underneath an existing "visible" forum, without the knowledge or cooperation of the "visible" Forum! All that is required is a small software application that embeds hidden "shadow posts" in Visible Forum traffic. Any "visible" Forum member having this application could read and make "invisible" posts accessible by anyone else having the app. (Non-members would only be able to read shadow posts.)

Shadow posts could contain text, images, sound files... anything "visible" posts contain. These posts would be retained on the "visible" forum's server just like other posts.

The dog also said that there is work-around so that BANNING someone would not prevent them from continuing to use the shadow service. This would make it possible to use an existing Forum as a FREE message service! (Actually demonstrating this would make an interesting topic for a conference paper...)

The dog who told me about this has substantial expertise in such matters, and has assured me that this is not only possible, but pretty easy; in fact, he already has the procedure coded up.

HOWEVER: this dog told me that conservatives (i.e., gun-toting, misogynistic, white, racist Republican homophobic Christians) would surely consider doing something like this immoral. It might also violate the Terms of Use of use of the "visible" Forum. But nobody cares what those people think except around election time! Besides, the "visible" Forum would never know that it is going on, so this concern is purely theoretical...

I know that most people here don't think that something can really be "morally wrong" in any absolute sense, because they feel that moral values are subjective. But hey: those who live by the sword die by the sword... right? If it isn't "wrong", how could it "become wrong" just because someone does it to them?

What do you think? Take the poll!

[followthehippos]

So essentially, the invisible forum uses the visible forums servers without knowledge of the visible forum?

[INTJRyan]

The scenario you are setting up is theft of bandwith, essentially. Any support for your argument that "liberals" will apply "subjective morality" to conclude that this theft is acceptable? Or even that "conservatives" would not engage in this behavior simply because it's immoral? Or just you saying so? Since the theft actually harms the victim in comparison to the benefit acheived, I don't think subjective morality even comes into play.

So let me ask this: is it morally wrong, if you are legitimately lost in the woods and will not survive, to break into a cabin, and use the supplies in it? Should the people press charges for burglary? Execute Jean Valjean for stealing bread?

[Monte314]

Not true.

The invisible material is carried along in a visible post... a post which the member has permission to make. However, the hidden content is only available to "enabled" persons. In principle, this is like making a post in a foreign language. But, of course, it is NOT a foreign language, so it is not prohibited here.

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not true. The invisible material is carried along in a visible post... a post which the member has permission to make. However, the hidden content is only available to "enabled" persons. In principle, this is like making a post in a foreign language. But, of course, it is NOT a foreign language, so it is not prohibited here.

So...stealing bandwith? If hidden content resides on the forum servers as you stated, transmitting those bytes to my computer takes bandwith hence $$. It's theft.

[Monte314]

Why? Because you can't read it and someone else can? And if you have given me permission to post material that can be "interpreted" in different ways by different people, where is the theft?

---------- Post added 04-10-2012 at 01:24 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by followthehippos To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So essentially, the invisible forum uses the visible forums servers without knowledge of the visible forum?

Yes. But it uses them with the visible Forum's permission.

Leading question: You would all be amazed if it was suggested that people might be embedding information in the bit patterns of their avatars, wouldn't you?

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why? Because you can't read it and someone else can? And if you have given me permission to post material that can be "interpreted" in different ways by different people, where is the theft? ---------- Post added 04-10-2012 at 01:24 PM ---------- Yes. But it uses them with the visible Forum's permission.

You said it's against the TOU of the forum, so now you contradict yourself. How do you think information gets from a server to your computer? Internet fairy? That shit costs money, dog.

[Daoist]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I know that most people here don't think that something can really be "morally wrong" in any absolute sense, because they feel that moral values are subjective. But hey: those who live by the sword die by the sword... right? If it isn't "wrong", how could it "become wrong" just because someone does it to them?

What's someone doing to me again?

[followthehippos]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes. But it uses them with the visible Forum's permission.

Do you mean the visible forums permission, or the permission of a poster on that visible forum? Additionally, is it being provided consciously or otherwise? You seem to be noting that because you can interpret permissions different you can then justify using the visible forums servers under the pretense that permission has been given. When that may not be the case.

[Monte314]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You said it's against the TOU of the forum, so now you contradict yourself. How do you think information gets from a server to your computer? Internet fairy? That shit costs money, dog.

Yes... costs that the Forum has authorized me to incur on their behalf by giving me a membership. The existence of those costs is irrelevant; you must address the real issue here... if you are eventually able to figure out what it is. Past history does not bode well for you in that.

Also, I did not say that the TOU was violated. You should read more carefully before shooting your mouth off.


Example: every avatar consists of 16,675 pixels. If those are "adjusted so as to contain something not everyone can see, who is defrauded? Further, when other images are posted here, only the links are stored on the servers. If something is added to the images on the hosting site, it has no effect on the Forum servers.

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes... costs that the Forum has authorized me to incur on their behalf by giving me a membership. The existence of those costs is irrelevant; you must address the real issue here. I did not say that the TOU was violated. You should read more carefully before shooting your mouth off.

Oh so it "might be" a TOU violation even though there is permission granted? Makes perfect sense. You are backtracking on your lame hypo. Just make it clear, that's all I'm asking. Did the forum give permission for the hidden posts to reside on their server? If they are permitting all of this stuff, what's the problem? Why would "conservatives" think it's immoral?

[Monte314]

Why do you believe I am speaking hypothetically? Even though you might not be able to do something like this in a billion years doesn't mean others can't do it easily.

Next...

[followthehippos]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Example: every avatar consists of 16,675 pixels. If those are "adjusted so as to contain something not everyone can see, who is defrauded? Further, when other images are posted here, only the links are stored on the servers. If something is added to the images on the hosting site, it has no effect on the Forum servers.

It depends what is contained in the invisible portion. Others may not be able to see it, but what about the 'all searching eye' that can?

Also, can you answer my previous questions?

[Monte314]

I mean the expressed permission of the owners of the visible Forum. Something which you and I both possess, since we are having this discussion.

As I noted above, few user-generated large sets are stored on the Forum servers. Content can be embedded in off-site imagery, for example, without taking up Forum server space.

The issue is not about server space. And modern techniques make embeddings very efficient in space, so download time from off-site servers will be minimally affected. Of course, dogs who really know what they are doing can perform data insertion without increasing the size of the data set at all (Nyquist notwithstanding). Therefore, this is NOT the issue.

The real issue is also NOT about placing unmoderated content on a Forum, either. Right now, Private Messages here are moderated only in extreme circumstances, generally involving a request by one of the parties to the communication. So that is ALREADY allowed here.

So... what's the problem? Well, what if this covert transmission contained kiddy porn, for example? That would be a violation of Federal Statute, which would be against Forum rules. But if the content type is not prohibited... what then?

[thebrainpolice]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not true. The invisible material is carried along in a visible post... a post which the member has permission to make. However, the hidden content is only available to "enabled" persons. In principle, this is like making a post in a foreign language. But, of course, it is NOT a foreign language, so it is not prohibited here.

But the reason foreign language posts are forbidden is because they can't be moderated. If there were invisible posts they couldn't be moderated either unless the mods were "enabled" persons.

Furthermore, the administration has been very clear that they don't want cliques forming. That's one of the reasons forumites can't block other users from their blogs. Even if your invisible forum wouldn't technically violate the letter of the terms of use, don't you think it would undermine the purpose of the rules? Don't you think doing something like this would be "biting the hand that feeds you" so to speak, given that Jezebel is letting use post here for free?

[INTJRyan]

Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes... costs that the Forum has authorized me to incur on their behalf by giving me a membership. The existence of those costs is irrelevant; you must address the real issue here... if you are eventually able to figure out what it is. Past history does not bode well for you in that. Also, I did not say that the TOU was violated. You should read more carefully before shooting your mouth off. Example: every avatar consists of 16,675 pixels. If those are "adjusted so as to contain something not everyone can see, who is defrauded? Further, when other images are posted here, only the links are stored on the servers. If something is added to the images on the hosting site, it has no effect on the Forum servers.

Pixels != bytes.

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why do you believe I am speaking hypothetically? Even though you might not be able to do something like this in a billion years doesn't mean others can't do it easily. Next...

Well so far, it doesn't seem like anyone has understood the OP, so maybe it's not our problem. Why would conservatives consider your totally true and realistic non-hypothetical to be immoral then?

[Monte314]

---------- Post added 04-10-2012 at 02:07 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Pixels != bytes.

Wrong again, Simon.

Originally Posted by thebrainpolice To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

But the reason foreign language posts are forbidden is because they can't be moderated. If there were invisible posts they couldn't be moderated either unless the mods were "enabled" persons. Furthermore, the administration has been very clear that they don't want cliques forming. That's one of the reasons forumites can't block other users from their blogs. Even if your invisible forum wouldn't technically violate the letter of the terms of use, don't you think it would undermine the purpose of the rules? Don't you think doing something like this would be "biting the hand that feeds you" so to speak, given that Jezebel is letting use post here for free?

We finally have a response that is getting at some of the issues. Thank you!

As I have noted, the "unmoderated content" is a weak position. But the question of doing something that undermines the foundational principles of the host... now you are onto something. But those principles cannot be expressed in any enforceable codified form. Therefore, you are making an implicit appeal to some notion of integrity on the part of the members, and their promise to act in good faith (for what reason most of you have no idea).

Are you, then, appealing to some "morality"?

[thebrainpolice]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Therefore, you are making an implicit appeal to some notion of integrity on the part of the members, and their promise to act in good faith (for what reason most of you have no idea). Are you, then, appealing to some "morality"?

Well, yes. That said I probably have very different ideas about the source of that morality than you do. I don't think that morality is based on logic and I don't think it comes from God. I think it comes from certain intuitions which are themselves unprovable. Here is a passage from Hume that I think is particularly relevant.

Examine the crime of INGRATITUDE, for instance; which has place, wherever we observe good-will, expressed and known, together with good-offices performed, on the one side, and a return of ill-will or indifference, with ill-offices or neglect on the other: anatomize all these circumstances, and examine, by your reason alone, in what consists the demerit or blame. You never will come to any issue or conclusion. Reason judges either of MATTER OF FACT or of RELATIONS. Enquire then, first, where is that matter of fact which we here call crime; point it out; determine the time of its existence; describe its essence or nature; explain the sense or faculty to which it discovers itself. It resides in the mind of the person who is ungrateful. He must, therefore, feel it, and be conscious of it. But nothing is there, except the passion of ill-will or absolute indifference. You cannot say that these, of themselves, always, and in all circumstances, are crimes. No, they are only crimes when directed towards persons who have before expressed and displayed good-will towards us. Consequently, we may infer, that the crime of ingratitude is not any particular individual FACT; but arises from a complication of circumstances, which, being presented to the spectator, excites the SENTIMENT of blame, by the particular structure and fabric of his mind. This representation, you say, is false. Crime, indeed, consists not in a particular FACT, of whose reality we are assured by reason; but it consists in certain MORAL RELATIONS, discovered by reason, in the same manner as we discover by reason the truths of geometry or algebra. But what are the relations, I ask, of which you here talk? In the case stated above, I see first good-will and good-offices in one person; then ill-will and ill-offices in the other. Between these, there is a relation of CONTARIETY. Does the crime consist in that relation? But suppose a person bore me ill-will or did me ill-offices; and I, in return, were indifferent towards him, or did him good offices. Here is the same relation of CONTRARIETY; and yet my conduct is often highly laudable. Twist and turn this matter as much as you will, you can never rest the morality on relation; but must have recourse to the decisions of sentiment.

[nowt]

If one is too dumb to put discrete meaning out in the open, perhaps they shouldn't be writing--

[HIDE="even if that writing is but barking"]
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
[/HIDE]

As this hypothetically isn't a hypothetical, are you now running such a thing on this forum, and if not, will you say when you start?--

Try not to lie.

[nettneu]

I wouldn't choose any of the 4 possibilities in the poll. (Does that demonstrate that I'm amoral?)

However, I could make suggestions as to what moral stance you might adopt, if you really want one. Firstly, do you believe that the owners of the forum would object if they knew what you were doing? (You've said it "might" violate the terms of use, but that's not really the point. Like anything else, terms of use are only an imperfect attempt at communication, and they weren't written with this scenario in mind. So don't worry about whether it actually does violate the terms of use, just consider whether the forum owners would want it to.)

If they wouldn't mind, then I'd suggest it'd be reasonable to consider it acceptable behavior.

If they would object, then all things being equal, I would suggest that it would be at least marginally preferable not to do it, because it seems to me that it is useful to support a concept of ownership that implies you have control over what you own. You could wonder whether this is significant if they are unaware of the usage and it does them no harm, but ultimately you can't be sure what other people may become aware of and it's not your place to judge what constitutes harm to them.

However, usually all things aren't equal. If you have a need for such private conversations that can't be met in other ways, then this need might override the desirability of limiting the forum to uses its owners would approve of. I can't guess whether it would without knowing what the need is.

Either way the opinion of the alleged "conservatives" is surely irrelevant, unless the forum owners happen to be included in their number. (Or unless you're one yourself of course.)

(You seem to be a little mixed up about one point. You've said that permission has been given for the forum usage, but in the first post you suggest that it could be done by people who have been banned. If they have been banned then surely that has withdrawn the permission that you're claiming. But in any case the issue of permission seems irrelevant if they didn't understand what they were permitting.)

[FruitLoop]

The dog is full of shit lol

[Tahiti]

In all honesty I wouldn't give 2 shits about the philosophy or morals behind it. It's the potential damages it could cause. And when that happens, the law gets involved.

If I was in charge of the forums I'd move the server from USA (where it is most likely) to Eastern Europe lolz. That might make it even more suspicious though-- ahahha.

This isn't even worth questioning if morals are involved.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[scorpiomover]

Morally, I think that you'd have to notify the admin.

Also, consider this: if you can use it, what's to stop a terrorist using it to communicate with?

[sommers71]

I'm kind of confused. Does the question place me in a position where moral judgment is something I say that is just so, or something that is just so no matter what. If I'm the moral arbitrator I can pick any option I want to, and it will be the correct answer. If I am not the moral arbitrator, then I can not know what judgment the moral arbitrator would make, unless I can and do by whatever means. Therefore maybe (in whatever fuzzy sense) I can not know the judgment of the moral arbitrator maybe directly somehow, I guess IDK. I haven't voted yet.

I know what you are saying about hidden information. Using encoding to colors you could reproduce word sequences by color encoding patterns in predetermined coded patters of deciphering/decrypting. It also brings to my mind that you can hide text in image files.

[pawnxing]

Unless your talking about proxying the site and augmenting the content, then what you are asking is most definitely illegal. How else will you deliver your codified solution other than through hacking the server hosting the forum?