Jump to content

Caches involving data and executables


fizzymagic

Recommended Posts

I liken the use of a downloaded program to a potentially dangerous adventure. It is the responsibility of the seeker to assume all risk, know what he is doing, and protect himself. If a cache placer is found to have intentionally infected another user, whether requiring the download or leaving it as simply as an option, then he should be banned.

Which is kind of like saying the adventurer must somehow know that an earthquake is going to happen just as he reaches up for a handhold on a class 5 climb.

 

Some things cannot be predicted or reasonably protected against.

 

With computers, there is so much going on in the background that even computer experts "scratch their heads" at some computer behaviours.

 

As a case in point, I just replaced a company computer (primarily because the lease was up) that took literally minutes to open the right click menu on certain file types, but ONLY if the computer was connected to a network connection. My (fortune 100) company's IT gurus couldn't figure it out.

 

My gut feeling is this was caused by inadvertently downloading some kind of spy ware that was trying to send information somewhere for whatever purpose.

 

If "experts" can't find malware problems, can we realistically expect the "average Joe" to really protect himself from these threats?

 

The only certain protection is to keep one's computer disconnected from ANY network. But since that is not practical, MINIMIZING the number of files downloaded from unknown sources is prudent.

 

Once a destructive link is established by publishing a cache with malware, literally thousands of computers could be compromised before the offending cache owner could be "banninated".

 

It is also possible that the malware could be included in the cache puzzle unbeknownst to the owner or could be added by a hacker.

Link to comment

It does not mean the same thing as "might not." It means a prohibition.

 

Perhaps Groundspeak should get a lawyer involved so there is absolutely nothing ambiguous in the language.

 

Unless otherwise stated in article 4b of section 3c subsection 2p, a cache which requires the download of any materials not explicitly served by a Groundspeak server or authorized server as described in section 4a, subsection 5b may very well might not could be sorta kinda not be published. The following download will be exempt from this guideline unless specifically not exempted under section 78r. If your cache is not approved, you will have 6 months from the time of disapproval to file a dispute using the forms described in section 34b of subsection Blah blah blah.

Link to comment
It says they may not be published. It doesn't say they won't be published. If the "data" clause was left out, someone would use that as a loophole, like my compile-the-code example.

You may be correct about the intent; however, when I tell the kids "you may not go to the movie," I don't mean that it is possible that they won't go; I mean that they will not be allowed to go. That is the meaning of the phrase "may not" in this context.

I think the meannig of "may not" is pretty clear, if you contrast it with the paragraph that follows it:

"Caches that require a geocacher to visit another website will not be published if the finder must create an account with, or provide personal information to, the other website." (Emphasis mine)

 

Unlike the paragraph about downloadables, there's no wriggle room here.

Link to comment
I think the meannig of "may not" is pretty clear, if you contrast it with the paragraph that follows it:

Oh, I give up.

 

You go on believing that the guideline means what you want it to mean, no matter what it ways. I predict that within a couple years all the cache types I outlined above will not be allowed, and this guideline, which you see as so innocuous, will be the justification.

 

Because, whether you like it or not, your interpretation of the guideline is not what it means in standard English.

 

I'm finished arguing high-school-level grammar, though. Actually, come to think of it, I'm finished with this subject altogether. Maybe I will go contribute to a literacy project somewhere.

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment
I think the meannig of "may not" is pretty clear, if you contrast it with the paragraph that follows it:

Oh, I give up.

 

No reason to give up. The fact that several people interpret the guideline in different ways shows that it's not cut and dry. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how we interpret the guidelines, it's how the reviewer interprets the guidelines when publishing a cache.

Link to comment
It says they may not be published. It doesn't say they won't be published. If the "data" clause was left out, someone would use that as a loophole, like my compile-the-code example.

You may be correct about the intent; however, when I tell the kids "you may not go to the movie," I don't mean that it is possible that they won't go; I mean that they will not be allowed to go. That is the meaning of the phrase "may not" in this context.

 

 

Think about it this way

"You may not got to the movie"

"You may not be allowed to go to the movie"

 

Clearly in the first instance it is a prohibition, clearly in the second instance the word "may" has an entirely different meaning. It seems to me that the meaning of the phrase "may not" is intended to mean and actually does mean "you may not be allowed to place the cache."

Link to comment
I think the meannig of "may not" is pretty clear, if you contrast it with the paragraph that follows it:

Oh, I give up.

 

You go on believing that the guideline means what you want it to mean, no matter what it ways. I predict that within a couple years all the cache types I outlined above will not be allowed, and this guideline, which you see as so innocuous, will be the justification.

 

Because, whether you like it or not, your interpretation of the guideline is not what it means in standard English.

 

I'm finished arguing high-school-level grammar, though. Actually, come to think of it, I'm finished with this subject altogether. Maybe I will go contribute to a literacy project somewhere.

:rolleyes: Funny but if I said that I "may" give you a beer, does that mean that I will give you a beer? I think that the guidelines love using the word "may" because it makes the guidelines discretionary. There is such is large gray area that you need a trained admin to interpret these areas on a case by case basis.
Link to comment

From the "Solicitations" section: "Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity."

 

I believe that the guidelines are not written by lawyers who spend hours poring over thesauruses.

 

It "may" be the case that certains words "could" be slightly ambiguous or "might" not mean what everyone thinks. If the reviewers consistently interpret them in ways which tick people off, it will come to the attention of the community and Groundspeak, and something will be done.

 

This is not a democracy here, which on the downside means that you don't get to vote in advance, but on the upside means that once decisions are taken, they can be changed in reaction to "the market". The USA is a democracy, which is on balance a good thing, but that doesn't help Senator Stevens' wife very much when a rule prevents her getting on a plane.

Link to comment

As a case in point, I just replaced a company computer (primarily because the lease was up) that took literally minutes to open the right click menu on certain file types, but ONLY if the computer was connected to a network connection. My (fortune 100) company's IT gurus couldn't figure it out.

 

My gut feeling is this was caused by inadvertently downloading some kind of spy ware that was trying to send information somewhere for whatever purpose.

 

If "experts" can't find malware problems, can we realistically expect the "average Joe" to really protect himself from these threats?

 

My guess is that it was "the virus known as Windows". :rolleyes: For any given file type, Windows builds a list of possible programs that can be used to open it. Over time, between the user's profile (which typically follows you from PC to PC in a corporate network) and the PC, you can end up with some of the elements which go to build up this list, being on network resources that are inaccessible (either named computers, or unmapped drive letters), and there's a timeout of 30 seconds or more on each attempt to connect. OTOH, if there's no network connection, Windows knows not to bother trying.

Link to comment

Since we're into a dictionary argument, why not cite one?

 

Main Entry: 1may

Pronunciation: 'mA

Function: verbal auxiliary

Inflected Form(s): past might /'mIt /; present singular & plural may

Etymology: Middle English (1st & 3d singular present indicative), from Old English mæg; akin to Old High German mag (1st & 3d singular present indicative) have power, am able (infinitive magan), and perhaps to Greek mEchos means, expedient

1 a archaic : have the ability to b : have permission to <you may go now> : be free to <a rug on which children may sprawl -- C. E. Silberman> -- used nearly interchangeably with can c -- used to indicate possibility or probability <you may be right> <things you may need> -- sometimes used interchangeably with can <one of those slipups that may happen from time to time -- Jessica Mitford> -- sometimes used where might would be expected <you may think from a little distance that the country was solid woods -- Robert Frost>

2 -- used in auxiliary function to express a wish or desire especially in prayer, imprecation, or benediction <long may he reign> <may the best man win>

3 -- used in auxiliary function expressing purpose or expectation <I laugh that I may not weep> or contingency <she'll do her duty come what may> or concession <he may be slow but he is thorough> or choice <the angler may catch them with a dip net, or he may cast a large, bare treble hook -- Nelson Bryant>

4 : SHALL, MUST -- used in law where the sense, purpose, or policy requires this interpretation

usage see CAN

 

So both interpretations of "may" (defs 1 and 4) are valid "standard English".

 

I'm guessing that the guidelines were written with definition 1c in mind, but since the guidelines are a quasi-legal document in this context, it's easy to see why the OP on this thread feels that definition 4 is implied.

 

-eP

 

PS: Source = M-W 11C

Edited by ePeterso2
Link to comment

And it quite clearly states that puzzles that require data to be downloaded are now illegal.

No it doesn't Fizzy. It says it MAY be. ...The guideline is not as black and white as you are making it out to be.

No, it says "may not be." Try as I might, I could not find the phrase "may be" in the guideline.

 

While your interpretation may be what was intended, it is not what the guideline says. The meaning of the phrase "may not" is quite well-established, thank you. It does not mean the same thing as "might not." It means a prohibition.

That's right, Fizzymagic. Because this portion reads "may not be published" rather than "shall not be published" leads one to believe that the process of downloading data is not outlawed, but is instead left to the discretion of the reviewer who "may" not publish the listing.

Link to comment
Which is kind of like saying the adventurer must somehow know that an earthquake is going to happen just as he reaches up for a handhold on a class 5 climb.

Ever heard of the "Reasonable Man" argument? You've gone way over the top with that argument--which could logically be extended to a comet striking you down as you read this. :rolleyes:

 

The rest of the post doesn't address the optional downloading of malicious code. Only the required downloading is prohibited (maybe) and that's my point. There's simply no protection at all in regards to optional downloads thus the reason I think the guideline a bit, well, weird.

 

No, it doesn't. It says they may not be published. It doesn't say they won't be published.

My prediction--though it wasn't much of one as it was pretty much a foregone conclusion--didn't get past the first page before it came true.

 

Fizzy is absolutely right. Regardless of the intent a reviewer will interpret it literally. Remember the fiasco with letterbox hybrids being considered the same as traditional caches? That clearly, to a few of us anyway, wasn't the intent as evidenced by the recent change, but it was written as such and thus interpreted as such. The same will be the case here.

 

One would have thought those re-writing the guidelines would have picked up on this.

 

No, you don't need to write it in legalese, just unambiguous language. The issue was brought up before so it's not as if TPTB weren't aware that folks might interpret "may" two different ways. It's not as if there are no lawyers on staff or no one in the forums watching these discussions. It makes one wonder.

 

My only conclusion is the ambiguity is on purpose and built in. The only question that then remains is, "why?"

Link to comment
I think the meannig of "may not" is pretty clear, if you contrast it with the paragraph that follows it:

Oh, I give up.

 

You go on believing that the guideline means what you want it to mean, no matter what it ways. I predict that within a couple years all the cache types I outlined above will not be allowed, and this guideline, which you see as so innocuous, will be the justification.

 

Because, whether you like it or not, your interpretation of the guideline is not what it means in standard English.

 

I'm finished arguing high-school-level grammar, though. Actually, come to think of it, I'm finished with this subject altogether. Maybe I will go contribute to a literacy project somewhere.

:rolleyes: Funny but if I said that I "may" give you a beer, does that mean that I will give you a beer? I think that the guidelines love using the word "may" because it makes the guidelines discretionary. There is such is large gray area that you need a trained admin to interpret these areas on a case by case basis.

You may give me a beer! :wub:

Link to comment
My only conclusion is the ambiguity is on purpose and built in. The only question that then remains is, "why?"

I think that is exactly why it's worded the way it is.

 

The rules for Scrabble can be printed on the back of the box, but the tournament rules are 23 pages long. Golf is an easy game ... swing the club, hit the ball, try to get it in the hole, but the USGA and R&A rulebook is huge, not to mention the companion book on decisions related to the rules.

 

Do we really want the cache listing guidelines to expand to be a comprehensive set of legally defensible statements?

 

I know I don't. I'd rather have a set of loose guidelines, inconsistently applied, than a comprehensive legal system. Maybe that's what TPTB want, too.

 

You may give me a beer!

I'm all in favor of free beer, using all definitions of "free" (free speech, free if you call in the next 20 minutes, and Free Willy).

 

-eP

Link to comment

Fizzy is absolutely right. Regardless of the intent a reviewer will interpret it literally.

 

Or, "a reviewer may/might/could interpret it literally". Or not. If reviewers were as easy to program as that, then Groundspeak would have invested a bit of R&D in it, I reckon. :rolleyes:

 

My only conclusion is the ambiguity is on purpose and built in. The only question that then remains is, "why?"

 

To the extent that it is on purpose and built in - about which I have my doubts - it would have the happy side-effect of leaving the reviewer, if s/he so chooses, a certain amount of room for manoeuvre.

 

At my work, I supervise a number of help-desk staff. They do not have a tight script to stick to; they have general principles and are allowed quite a degree of flexibility. The disadvantage of this is that sometimes, one customer gets better service than another, say 9/10 instead of 8/10. The advantages are /a/ even the worst-served customer gets better service than the best-served customer would get if everything was nailed down (we wouldn't do better than 7/10); and /b/ the help-desk staff have high morale and low turnover.

 

I imagine that the reviewers are, by and large, just like other geocachers, which means they enjoy exercising freedom and responsibility, don't enjoy being hidebound by rules, and don't imagine that they have an immediate solution for every possible situation. Plenty of people have to put up with lots of BS in their day job; to ask someone to volunteer to do it unpaid in the evenings as well, won't necessary bring forward the quality of people you'd like.

Link to comment
My only conclusion is the ambiguity is on purpose and built in. The only question that then remains is, "why?"

I think that is exactly why it's worded the way it is.

 

The rules for Scrabble can be printed on the back of the box, but the tournament rules are 23 pages long. Golf is an easy game ... swing the club, hit the ball, try to get it in the hole, but the USGA and R&A rulebook is huge, not to mention the companion book on decisions related to the rules.

 

Do we really want the cache listing guidelines to expand to be a comprehensive set of legally defensible statements?

 

I know I don't. I'd rather have a set of loose guidelines, inconsistently applied, than a comprehensive legal system. Maybe that's what TPTB want, too.

 

You may give me a beer!

I'm all in favor of free beer, using all definitions of "free" (free speech, free if you call in the next 20 minutes, and Free Willy).

 

-eP

I did say that I "may" give a free beer. I would have to review the situation on a case by case basis. :rolleyes: By the way, isn't the right to free beer an amendment? Maybe I got that question wrong when I was in college... :wub:
Link to comment
My only conclusion is the ambiguity is on purpose and built in. The only question that then remains is, "why?"

I think that is exactly why it's worded the way it is.

 

The rules for Scrabble can be printed on the back of the box, but the tournament rules are 23 pages long. Golf is an easy game ... swing the club, hit the ball, try to get it in the hole, but the USGA and R&A rulebook is huge, not to mention the companion book on decisions related to the rules.

 

Do we really want the cache listing guidelines to expand to be a comprehensive set of legally defensible statements?

 

I know I don't. I'd rather have a set of loose guidelines, inconsistently applied, than a comprehensive legal system. Maybe that's what TPTB want, too.

 

You may give me a beer!

I'm all in favor of free beer, using all definitions of "free" (free speech, free if you call in the next 20 minutes, and Free Willy).

 

-eP

I did say that I "may" give a free beer. I would have to review the situation on a case by case basis. :rolleyes: By the way, isn't the right to free beer an amendment? Maybe I got that question wrong when I was in college... :wub:

So what you're saying is, you'll definitely give me a beer. Awesome!

Link to comment
I think the meannig of "may not" is pretty clear, if you contrast it with the paragraph that follows it:

Oh, I give up.

 

You go on believing that the guideline means what you want it to mean, no matter what it ways. I predict that within a couple years all the cache types I outlined above will not be allowed, and this guideline, which you see as so innocuous, will be the justification.

Marking February 23, 2009 on my calendar. :rolleyes:

Edited by Prime Suspect
Link to comment
My only conclusion is the ambiguity is on purpose and built in. The only question that then remains is, "why?"

I think that is exactly why it's worded the way it is.

 

The rules for Scrabble can be printed on the back of the box, but the tournament rules are 23 pages long. Golf is an easy game ... swing the club, hit the ball, try to get it in the hole, but the USGA and R&A rulebook is huge, not to mention the companion book on decisions related to the rules.

 

Do we really want the cache listing guidelines to expand to be a comprehensive set of legally defensible statements?

 

I know I don't. I'd rather have a set of loose guidelines, inconsistently applied, than a comprehensive legal system. Maybe that's what TPTB want, too.

 

You may give me a beer!

I'm all in favor of free beer, using all definitions of "free" (free speech, free if you call in the next 20 minutes, and Free Willy).

 

-eP

I did say that I "may" give a free beer. I would have to review the situation on a case by case basis. :wub: By the way, isn't the right to free beer an amendment? Maybe I got that question wrong when I was in college... :wub:

So what you're saying is, you'll definitely give me a beer. Awesome!

Have you been drinking beer already? :wub::rolleyes::wub:

 

df6dfc45-985c-42cc-a331-0791c7925353.jpg

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

....The only certain protection is to keep one's computer disconnected from ANY network. But since that is not practical, MINIMIZING the number of files downloaded from unknown sources is prudent.

 

Once a destructive link is established by publishing a cache with malware, literally thousands of computers could be compromised before the offending cache owner could be "banninated".

 

It is also possible that the malware could be included in the cache puzzle unbeknownst to the owner or could be added by a hacker.

 

Lots of things are possible. But there are far more effective methods to infecting a computer than a data file for a single cache. It's a non issue and should not be a guidelines for listing your cache.

Link to comment
I think the meannig of "may not" is pretty clear, if you contrast it with the paragraph that follows it:

Oh, I give up.

 

You go on believing that the guideline means what you want it to mean, no matter what it ways. I predict that within a couple years all the cache types I outlined above will not be allowed, and this guideline, which you see as so innocuous, will be the justification....

 

When my kids ask me about something and I just don't feel like saying "no" I say "we'll see" which in guidelines terms is "may". It means "No without saying no" but it leaves the door open for them to change their mind about the "no".

 

It's now a rule with the door open for an exeption. I don't think you need to wait. I'd rather get rid of the rule and not have the fuss. Alas I can't shut up so I may not be the one for

Link to comment

When my kids ask me about something and I just don't feel like saying "no" I say "we'll see" which in guidelines terms is "may"

 

My kids have figured out that when I say "We'll see", it usually means No, but they also understand there's a small chance I may buckle. If you asked my 8 year old, she could probably identify the difference in the wording that we adults are arguing about.

Link to comment
Rather than arguing what the definition of "is" is, how many people have taken the time to write to their normal reviewer?

 

I took the time to ask my normal reviewer about puzzles with multiple solutions, with one adhering to the guidelines, you should too.

I talked to my reviewer back when you first posted your thread that made me aware of this change. I am also not aware a a single issue we have had in our area regarding people's computers getting messed up because of a puzzle cache. So it looks like our reviewer is correctly applying the guideline.
Link to comment
Which is kind of like saying the adventurer must somehow know that an earthquake is going to happen just as he reaches up for a handhold on a class 5 climb.

Ever heard of the "Reasonable Man" argument? You've gone way over the top with that argument--which could logically be extended to a comet striking you down as you read this. :rolleyes:

Just how many "reasonable men" do you know that understand windows? I think understanding women would be less of a stretch! :rolleyes:

 

....The only certain protection is to keep one's computer disconnected from ANY network. But since that is not practical, MINIMIZING the number of files downloaded from unknown sources is prudent.

 

Once a destructive link is established by publishing a cache with malware, literally thousands of computers could be compromised before the offending cache owner could be "banninated".

 

It is also possible that the malware could be included in the cache puzzle unbeknownst to the owner or could be added by a hacker.

 

Lots of things are possible. But there are far more effective methods to infecting a computer than a data file for a single cache. It's a non issue and should not be a guidelines for listing your cache.

 

i assume you mean by "more effective methods" that you think I am talking about deliberate attempts to introduce malware on users' computers.

 

I don't think the issue is necessarily limited to deliberate attempts to infect someone's computer. My point is that even the guruest of computer geeks sometimes inadvertently write code that interferes with other software and processes. It is really quite impossible for anyone to know all the possibilities of different software combinations that might be running on a given computer. Conflicts are inevitable.

 

If you download unknown data and especially executables, you take a chance, period. The only questions are, is it worth it for a game and is GC willing to assume some blame if something bad happens?

 

I believe the answers are "it aint" and "they aint" respectively.

 

"May", "might", "shall" - just knit-picking semantics, the gist of it is utilising untested off-site code is not really a good practice as far as GC is concerned.

 

Edit: fixed the quote thingy

Edited by Confucius' Cat
Link to comment

...i assume you mean by "more effective methods" that you think I am talking about deliberate attempts to introduce malware on users' computers. ...

 

Yes, I meant deliberate attempts. However the point stands. This site should not ban a variation on puzzle/mystery caches just because of a risk that exists even if geocaching didn't exist.

 

Computer safety here is just a smoke screen. It's easy to use safety as the excuse given to ban something. Heck it's almost always given as an excuse by everbody who bans everthing.

 

Banning Data in a digital era...That's just funny. Especially when this site can not gurantee that it's data and the website itself will never cause digital harm in any way.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

...i assume you mean by "more effective methods" that you think I am talking about deliberate attempts to introduce malware on users' computers. ...

 

Yes, I meant deliberate attempts. However the point stands. This site should not ban a variation on puzzle/mystery caches just because of a risk that exists even if geocaching didn't exist.

 

Computer safety here is just a smoke screen. It's easy to use safety as the excuse given to ban something. Heck it's almost always given as an excuse by everbody who bans everthing.

 

Banning Data in a digital era...That's just funny. Especially when this site can not gurantee that it's data and the website itself will never cause digital harm in any way.

Care to let us in on the real reason behind this "smokescreen"?

 

Do you think Jeremy is gleefully rubbing his hands together, twirling the ends of his handlebar mustache, shouting, "Ya ha ha! I've managed to fiendishly destroy another method of creating puzzle caches! I won't stop until no one is able to create caches!!! Then my nefarious, yet impossible to understand scheme will be complete!! Now if I only had a damsel to tie to the railroad tracks, at least 150 feet from any caches..."

 

:laughing:

Link to comment

Everything on your computer is data. Thus, all current caches are illegal.

 

How about this?

 

No cache which requires data with an executable flag (+x) to be downloaded from the cache page may be approved.

 

The underlying cause is stupid operating system design on the part of a large monopoly.

Link to comment

...Care to let us in on the real reason behind this "smokescreen"?

 

Do you think Jeremy is gleefully rubbing his hands together, twirling the ends of his handlebar mustache, shouting, "Ya ha ha! I've managed to fiendishly destroy another method of creating puzzle caches! I won't stop until no one is able to create caches!!! Then my nefarious, yet impossible to understand scheme will be complete!! Now if I only had a damsel to tie to the railroad tracks, at least 150 feet from any caches..."

 

I can only speculate on the real reason since I did not make the decision. However, I would lay odds that this site made a simple decision that they just didn't want to mess with listing those kinds of caches.

 

No need for gleeful hand rubbing or damsels tied to RR tracks, and yes a variation on a puzzle cache has been killed until this site is willing to host the data files directly so they can be accessed from the cache page per the rules.

Link to comment

I don't see it asked yet, so I will. What about a cache that requires you to send an email to an email address (not through gc.com), perhaps to get an autoreply back?

I would look at these on a case-by-case basis.

 

One of the inherent problems with using e-mail communications between the geocacher and the cache owner as part of finding a cache is the permanence or durability, if you will, of the e-mail address and/or the auto-reply function. Even with good intentions, players sometimes do drop out of the game, get sick, take vacations, lose access to their ISP, have their e-mail accounts disrupted, etc.

 

An auto-reply mitigates some of these potential issues, but I would ask the cache owner to help me clearly understand how the ongoing functionality of the auto-responder is being ensured.

Link to comment

1) In the interest of file security, caches that require the downloading, installing or running of data and/or executables may not be published.

 

2) In the interest of file security, caches that require the downloading, installing or running of data and/or executables may not be published.

 

These have two distinct meanings. I think the OPs point is that be substituting either 'might not' or 'shall not' would resolve the ambiguity. My original interpretation of the rule was the same as the OP. Now that I've read this thread, I understand the real intent of the rule. But those who come along a year from now 'may not' have the benefit of this thread to guide them.

Link to comment

If the intent of the rule is that in the interest of file security, caches that require the downloading, installing or running of data and/or executables might not be published, then we have another rule that depends on reviewer judgements. While I know that some reviewers are quite knowledgeable about computer security, I seriously doubt that this is currently a requirement to become a reviewer. What would a evidence would a person need to provide to the reviewer to show that the data and/or executables required to solve their cache is safe to run? What will the appeal mechanism be for caches that are denied based on this guideline? I predict that reviewers will soon tire of the hassel with dealing with this. The intent will then become that caches that require the downloading, installing or running of data and/or executables will not be published. Perhaps there will be a waypuzzling.com site with categories for video caches, enigma codes, interactive games, bar codes, steganography, etc <_<

Link to comment

I predict that reviewers will soon tire of the hassel with dealing with this.

 

You're forgetting 2 things:

1. There just aren't going to be that many of them.

2. This is NOT a new guideline. They've been following this guideline for some time now, as a search of the forums will tell you. This is just a more refined explanation of the guideline that's been in place for a while now.

Link to comment

There is a great hide in my area that requires the downloading and running of a little program written by the hider. Scary stuff - plus I could not get the program to work. Lucky someone else gave me the coordinates so I could make the find.

 

I'm not a techie but I love this game. IMO geocaching does not need caches that require potentially harmful downloads. They scare people, are too difficult for us non-techies to evaluate before using, and contribute nothing positive to the experiance.

 

I think the new guideline is pretty clear and allows for common sense. Obviously looking at webpages is not banned here, nor are various common file types like .wav I FTF'd a new cache that would have used Google Earth, but because Google Earth requires downloading software, they found another way to do the same thing with Google Maps. I think that actually made for a better cache - even though Google Earth is not a problem as far as I know.

Link to comment

There should be a Supreme Tribunal of Reviewers, that interpret the guidelines as set forth by GC.com to which all other lower reviewers must interpret cache submissions based upon the Supreme Tribunal interpretation. Of course then we must develop an appeals process for cache submissions.!!!!

Link to comment

Yes...apparently WAV files (and MP3) are banned too...it is a data file that has to be downloaded and run.

 

Not really. WAVs or MP3s shouldn't be considered more of 'data files' than an image file on a cache page is, since you can play wav files inline in your browser, just like an image. (even without user interaction, if you know how)

Edited by benh57
Link to comment

***Not really. WAVs or MP3s shouldn't be considered more of 'data files' than an image file on a cache page is, since you can play wav files inline in your browser, just like an image. (even without user interaction, if you know how)***

 

Here is a link that one of the Moderators gave (Mtn-Man) to some articles on Google. This was interesting reading and something I didn't know.

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=i...G=Google+Search

Link to comment

***Not really. WAVs or MP3s shouldn't be considered more of 'data files' than an image file on a cache page is, since you can play wav files inline in your browser, just like an image. (even without user interaction, if you know how)***

 

Here is a link that one of the Moderators gave (Mtn-Man) to some articles on Google. This was interesting reading and something I didn't know.

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=i...G=Google+Search

What I got from the articles was the presence of a virus in one of the files on the iPod, not embedded in an MP3 file. The iPod can be used as a mass storage device and that's what the virus infects, any mass storage device.

 

Image files can hold viruses too.

It's a theoretical virus. The articles say the virus can only deliver its payload as an .exe. file. It is spread as a .jpg. You'd have to convert the .jpg to an .exe and run it. I'm not aware of any browsers that "run" a picture file.

 

Neither of these issues raise the first concern for me to download some random MP3 file from the internet.

 

Additionally, the first true iPod virus requires user intervention in order to get it to run and it's still not a sound file.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment
Image files can hold viruses too.

It's a theoretical virus. The articles say the virus can only deliver its payload as an .exe. file. It is spread as a .jpg. You'd have to convert the .jpg to an .exe and run it. I'm not aware of any browsers that "run" a picture file.

 

Neither of these issues raise the first concern for me to download some random MP3 file from the internet.

 

Additionally, the first true iPod virus requires user intervention in order to get it to run and it's still not a sound file.

The Perrun virus was an .exe that spread an infection among JPG files. That was in 2002. More recent image viruses use vulnerabilities in certain image viewers and processors rather than relying on a viral .exe. I haven't seen anything yet where the image file alone is a threat.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...