Slashdot Mirror

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...

Ajit Pai, as many in this administration, is just trying to co-opt the narrative and build some alternate reality that agrees with his own agenda. It's just sad that some people still listens to their garbage.

It still stuns me when people say stuff like this. But then I remember, maybe they weren't here, and didn't see what happened.

The net has always been neutral. From time to time an ISP would try to test the boundaries, and then we would stop them:

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.

2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)

2011-2013, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

2015 was just the FCC formalizing what we've had since the internet was first invented. The Internet only exists because it was always neutral. This is about breaking the entire premise of the internet, after decades of it working properly.

You think you can have meaningful competition in "last mile" for internet, any more than you can have it for electricity? Hilarious. Someone's going to start up a new ISP, somehow get right of way to everyone's last mile? That's your competitive marketplace?

"Oh but the local governments." I can give you another list of all the cities and towns full of people who can't get decent service at all, from any ISP, and then when they try to build their own, the big ISPs sue and harass them to stop them from doing it...

MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.

So they got fined by the FCC and stopped doing it

https://www.cnet.com/news/telc...

COMCAST: In 2005, the nationâ(TM)s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

The FCC ruled against them and they said they'd move to different mechanisms to handle 'high bandwidth customers'.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

TELUS: In 2005, Canadaâ(TM)s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.

This is bad. On the other hand Google and Facebook have also blocked content on political grounds on Youtube and Facebook and everyone told me 'private company, First Amendment doesn't apply'.

Obviously it's Canada so the First Amendment doesn't apply, and neither do FCC rules. It seems very bad though

https://thetyee.ca/News/2005/0...

AT&T: From 2007â"2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such âoeover-the-topâ voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

Apple operate a walled garden and if AT&T convinced them to block apps from their store, they can do that. Net Neutrality doesn't affect this

WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstreamâ(TM)s own search portal and results.

They were exposed in the press and backed off the change.

https://www.dslreports.com/sho...

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizonâ(TM)s court challenge against the FCCâ(TM)s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agencyâ(TM)s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

The service seems pretty terrible but who cares? It's not like you don't have a choice of other mobile carriers if you don't like it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
" Slate's Farhad Manjoo panned the service by suggesting that MetroPCS was able to

"ME is turning into a colossal dumpster fire."

Or maybe the equivalent of a billion dollar ad campaign against Intel.

Customers don't want spyware. It seems that, if Intel continues to try to force spyware on customers, Intel will eventually go bankrupt. That would be a very, very bad conclusion to the very, very bad management by Intel.

It is EXTREMELY important for the entire world, in my opinion, that Intel stay healthy. (The world needs AMD to stay healthy, also.)

Did the present Intel managers lack the social ability to understand that providing hidden access for hidden invaders would damage Intel's reputation? Apparently Intel needs a new CEO. Maybe other Intel managers should be replaced, also. Most of the technology development parts of Intel has seemed healthy to me; it's the business management that is failing, apparently.

The world was told more than 3 years ago about the hidden control: Secret of Intel Management Engine by Igor Skochinsky. (Mar 12, 2014)

Intel was told that there would be problems: Intel's Management Engine is a security hazard, and users need a way to disable it. (May 8, 2017)

Did the present managers lack the social ability to understand that it was likely that hackers would find defects in the Intel Management Engine? One article: Intel Patches Major Flaws in the Intel Management Engine. (Nov 22, 2017) Intel's reaction: Intel Management Engine Critical Firmware Update (Intel-SA-00086). (Dec 5, 2017)

When the regulators sat down in that meeting they must have acted in response to a specific trouble caused by lack of net neutrality prior to that. What was that trouble? I am genuinely interested.

Here is a simple definition of net neutrality and links to further reading that will clear up you questions.

https://www.eff.org/issues/net...

The main problem with net neutrality is everyone has their own definition. Wu's is just one.

This is what the alt-right and "fake news" would want you to believe. "Nothing has meaning, so any bad thing we do can be framed as good. The truth cannot be known, so just believe Trump."

In fact, there are clear and concise definitions of Net Neutrality to be had. Found this easily.

https://www.eff.org/issues/net... [eff.org]

But, you just proved his point by linking to yet another group's definition. Nothing to do with 'alt-right' or 'fake news' (whatever those terms are supposed to mean today as opposed to last week's definitions).

Look, I agree there needs to be protections put in place to prevent market abuses, but that's a trade issue that should be handled by the FTC, not the FCC. Congress passed a law that forbid the FCC from regulating the internet as it was 'information technology'. The FCC under Tom Wheeler(D)isney up and decided they'd just 'reclassify' the internet all on their own, side-stepping Congress and the law, and declare it under FCC jurisdiction.

Besides such reclassification being outside the powers of the FCC, ISPs being classified as common-carriers like telcos means they fall under CALEA requirements mandating law enforcement (and Homeland Security/TLAs) access and ability to intercept/decrypt all traffic (it's illegal for example to use a voice-scrambler on the US phone network as it prevents LEAs from being able to listen in).

Don't destroy the internet in order to save the internet. Do it the right way and have Congress pass legislation.

Strat

The main problem with net neutrality is everyone has their own definition. Wu's is just one.

This is what the alt-right and "fake news" would want you to believe. "Nothing has meaning, so any bad thing we do can be framed as good. The truth cannot be known, so just believe Trump."

In fact, there are clear and concise definitions of Net Neutrality to be had. Found this easily.

https://www.eff.org/issues/net...

On the surface it seems really simple just to say 'Net Neutrality is obviously good because reasons', and I agree with most of the reasons I have found.

But I look a step or 2 deeper and there does appear to be some legitimate questions about competition and internet nuts and bolts type stuff that we may all take for granted.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

Maybe there are some people here who can give some insight or add some nuance to the 'underbelly' of the Net Neutrality question.

Ironically TFA is on a site that's full of trackers. I'm using the EFF's Privacy Badger extension, and I get:

detected 23 potential trackers on this page.

And yet, Net Neutrality proponents have already conflated the same thing:

• An Attack on Net Neutrality Is an Attack on Free Speech -- EFF
• Net neutrality is foremost free speech issue of our time -- Al Franken
• Net Neutrality Critical for Truly Free Speech -- ACLU

The problem here is that most citizens don't understand what they are actually arguing for. Who doesn't want the net to be neutral? Neutral should mean that the people who use more of a service pay for more of a service, like toll roads. Heck, look at NYC bridge tolls just to enter the city by car, which in this case is an economic deterrence that is trying to drive social behavioral changes (using public transportation instead). But, when we apply this principal to internet content providers (Twitter, FaceBook, YouTube, etc) somehow they need to have socialized costs instead of paying proportional to the bandwidth they are delivering.

There's a lot of foot in door speculation about what the private sector could do, if its things like low latency traffic for gamers, it'll be fine. If its going back to permanent tracking cookies injected:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
It'll fail in the free market, as consumers seek net neutral providers. Don't forget the effects of unethical financial products, the 2008 housing meltdown with govt bailout. What could the 2020 ISP meltdown look like??? If they're not ethical, we'll find out.

You can't have a gov't that looks out for your interests but not your neighbors (well, not unless you're very, very rich). Elections have consequences. Here's one right now.

The Republican-appointed FCC chairman did this, yes. And the Democrats rather heavily supported SOPA and have been trying to get it past under our noses ever since, except worse (think TPP's many nasty provisions that have nothing to do with trade).

I'd do a lot more research to refute this, but to be honest, I doubt you'll read it. Your blind adherence to the narrative is to your own detriment. Neither party is innocent or good here, and we'd "merely" have draconian Internet regulation and probable censorship in the name of copyright enforcement if Hillary was elected. This kind of rigid, party-centric thinking is what's going to be our undoing.

https://supporters.eff.org/don...
Political opinions aside, the EFF has been pretty solid in standing up for the People in opposition to corporate greed.

I'm still really pissed about how this article only uses the term 'net neutrality' once. I think if the EFF was 'solid' we'd be able to run servers without violating ToS, due precisely to Net Neutrality. In fact, their update fails to highlight how the 'non-commercial' angle is absolutely damning to the position that Google is doing anything other than the kind of evil talked about elsewhere in this discussion. Namely trying to leverage their position as ISP to take tribute/tax from the most $$ valuable subscriber use of bandwidth.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/google-fiber-continues-awful-isp-tradition-banning-servers

Say what you want about the EFF, and I admit few other sources were as supporting of my complaint, but if the EFF had been "solid" on net neutrality, we'd be allowed to operate home servers in this day and age. That we can't, makes me pretty ambivalent about the rest of net neutrality possibly getting discarded (though my bet is on 'tradition' prevailing. Establishment wins again, sigh.)

https://supporters.eff.org/don...
Political opinions aside, the EFF has been pretty solid in standing up for the People in opposition to corporate greed.

You want this: https://www.eff.org/privacybad...

> And I would have thought the NSA would be better than the FBI at keeping secrets

You may wish to rethink that. The charter of the NSA is aimed primarily at investigate foreign communications, not protecting US communications. See https://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Key...,

I work with more than one attorney who is much more dubious about the appellate court ruling

Have those lawyers actually read the ruling? I've talked to lawyers who were dubious about it, but none of those had actually read it. If you do know a lawyer who has read it and formed a coherent argument why it is false, that would be interesting to hear (or if they've formed a coherent argument even without reading it, that would be interesting to here as well).

There will be more litigation and maybe this new ruling will be overturned, or maybe not.

The appellate court ruling is high quality, clear, and logically ties together a lot of the loose ends in software copyright. It will not be overturned, and will guide software copyright for generations to come (that is, although there are still procedural ways it could be overturned, any reasonable judge is likely to be convinced of the solidness of that decision). Future litigation will revolve around what exactly should be filtered out, and what can be abstracted, thus building on the appellate court decision.

The whole truth please. In 2016 a jury found that Google's use of Oracle's (newly deemed) copyrighted APIs is fair use. Final score: greed 0, common sense 1.

Never mind that the "high quality" appellate decision you laud is actually idiocy in the supreme, the structure and sequence of function declarations not deserving any more copyright protection than a list of names and phone numbers does. Now that that stupidity has been effectively neutered by a jury it does not matter whether it stands or falls, but in any case it remains an embarrassment to the rule of common sense.

As a result of the new finding, I do not believe that dynamic linking works as an insulator between GPL and proprietary software...I always felt that dynamic linking of proprietary and GPL was risky and never advised my customers and their attorneys to do it.

It is almost certain that dynamic linking (or any other kind of linking!) is not an insulator between GPL and proprietary software......For example, even connecting over the network will not prevent it from being infringement, if the connector is a derivative work. The was clear that the abstraction, filtration, comparison test should be used. Briefly, you filter out everything (in the accused code) that was not derived (at least conceptually) from the original code, and whatever remains is infringing (interoperability fair use can still apply).

There will be more litigation and maybe this new ruling will be overturned, or maybe not.

The appellate court ruling is high quality, clear, and logically ties together a lot of the loose ends in software copyright. It will not be overturned, and will guide software copyright for generations to come (that is, although there are still procedural ways it could be overturned, any reasonable judge is likely to be convinced of the solidness of that decision). Future litigation will revolve around what exactly should be filtered out, and what can be abstracted, thus building on the appellate court decision.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

"Responsible" encryption lasted about 3 days before it was crucified by the EFF https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

so lets see just how long "unreasonable" encryption goes. The fact of the matter is plain and simple. In any of these shootings, the ability to read the killers instagram posts and grindr chats isnt going to magically re-animate the dead. beating the motive horse for a killer just helps draw attention away from the real issues like competent gun control and healthcare reform in the US that isnt hinged on Reagan era de-institutionalization.

The replacement should be Sovereign Keys which solve not only rogue CA problems, but also rogue registrar problems which have been on the rise, particularly at Google's own registrar.

The replacement should be Sovereign Keys which solve not only rogue CA problems, but also rogue registrar problems which have been on the rise, particularly at Google's own registrar.

It's not meaningful to distinguish between registrar and CA. These days, for many people, they're the same company, about $12/yr for each function.

The difference of DANE is trusting only one Registrar/CA instead of trusting all the CAs not to issue fake certs. Certificate transparency accomplishes the same thing.

It's not a real solution because registrars aren't trustworthy, either. The real solution is Sovereign Keys.

DANE has an appealing orderliness to it that satisfies people with OCD, but if you apply the attack model correctly it's a half-measure, and strictly inferior to Sovereign Keys.

It's not meaningful to distinguish between registrar and CA. These days, for many people, they're the same company, about $12/yr for each function.

The difference of DANE is trusting only one Registrar/CA instead of trusting all the CAs not to issue fake certs. Certificate transparency accomplishes the same thing.

It's not a real solution because registrars aren't trustworthy, either. The real solution is Sovereign Keys.

DANE has an appealing orderliness to it that satisfies people with OCD, but if you apply the attack model correctly it's a half-measure, and strictly inferior to Sovereign Keys.

The cell phone services, mapping services, and various vendor profiling tools already have identifiable information of your phone number, your cell phone SIM ID and your MAC address. See https://ssd.eff.org/en/module/... for some sense off the variety of tracking information already shared by portable devices.

Don't worry, we'll find another piece of garbage to infest our computers, tie up CPU cycles unnecessarily and generally annoy internet users and make webpages unsufferably bloated long before Flash's demise.

Found it!

https://www.w3.org/2005/10/Pro...

See 3.3 Concensus. I imagine a Formal Objection was part of the process. https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/... would seem to be that objection. Also at https://dev.w3.org/html5/statu...

Why not hop over to: https://supporters.eff.org/don...

and sing up to donate a couple bucks a month to the EFF?

I did a short while ago to give them my support in light of https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... and am very happy that I did.

They're fighting the good fight.

^^^
This really needs modding up. I am surprised the advertisers are even slightly concerned about cookies anymore when browser fingerprinting is a far more insidious and (currently) difficult to overcome privacy invasion for the end-user.

Since Google has persuaded almost everyone and their kid brother to run adsense code on the page, they have a canvas-fingerprint-trackable record of clickstream from page-to-page/site-to-site.

Tools like panopticlick and ipduh can give you an immediate sense of the problem, but trying to reduce it is tricky.

To sidestep fingerprinting pretty much means running the Tor browser or Firefox with Random Agent Spoofer, Decentraleyes, and a custom user.js set up with something like pyllyukko's prefs.

Modern FTP clients and servers support STARTTLS as a command to initiate TLS

Unless the ISP intercepts the STARTTLS command sent by the client and turns it into a garbage command that produces a 502 Method Not Supported response, fooling the client into thinking the server doesn't support TLS. This has happened, Ars Technica has reported on it, and there's even a proof of concept in PyPI. What's FTP's counterpart to HSTS?

So despite knowing that Microsoft is an early NSA collaborator, forcing and tricking users into "upgrading" to Windows 10, distributes proprietary software (all of which is untrustworthy by default which prevents even technical users from fixing problems and distributing improved software to others), and Microsoft blatantly disregarded user choice and privacy, shipped with bad defaults for privacy, got caught lying to users about how Windows 10's euphemistically named "privacy controls" worked, you believe the headline that Microsoft "will soon give users more control over app permissions" and therefore want to talk about this in the context of the rose-colored vision of the past for Windows users? Microsoft has made so many choices against "giving users more control" over anything there's no reason to believe they'll ever make such choices, just like any other software proprietor.

Forget the past, history begins now.

I agree that there's some subjectivity to the idea of hate crimes, but documenting the most egregious does not seem to be a slippery slope toward totalitarianism.

No, of course not. Until someone cuts off your Internet access and starts controlling the content you are allowed to post on the Internet in general. After all, as we all know, the Great Firewall of China is no big deal. Right?

Seriously I don't think we're going to go down that path, but only because in the weeks or months to follow, all this virtue signaling will no longer matter, and cooler heads will prevail. (Or at least be reminded of their legal obligations as a common carrier not to editorialize the content that travels through their systems, or run the risk of liability for every. last. byte that travels over their service. I mean, you can't stand for Net Neutrality, but only for people you like, right?)

"Fair use" once Java was released under GPL(2007). Appeals court agreed.. However Oracle filed another appeal, so it seems that is not over yet.

It is an interesting dilemma, but it is 'solving' the problem with market forces instead of laws, which is an interesting phenomena.

Be careful with how you praise 'market forces'. It could very well lead to organizations buying out domains that are critical of them.
Before domains were mainly considered a type of property, they belonged to the owner as long as they kept up on their registration fees and it was up to the owner if he wanted to keep it or not.

But now that GoDaddy and Google have decided to refuse registration based on the content how far is it till they decide to sell domain names to the highest bidder? Or cancel registration if they get a better offer? ripoffreport.com could easily be bought out by one of the companies it has named, and the EFF is already operating in the red last year, how well do you think they would fair in a bidding war for their own domain against any organization that would love to shut them down? Do not cheer for 'market forces' at work in what is one of the most important subsystems in the internet, be wary because it could happen to you next.

Perens actually wrote: "it's my opinion that..."

Opinion, not assertion of fact. This lawsuit will be thrown out almost immediately.

Prefacing things that you say with "in my opinion" does not automatically make them incapable of being false and a basis for a claim of defamation. Even the EFF doesn't fall into that trap.

The following are a couple of examples from California cases; note the law may vary from state to state. Libelous (when false):
*Charging someone with being a communist (in 1959)
*Calling an attorney a "crook"
*Describing a woman as a call girl
*Accusing a minister of unethical conduct
*Accusing a father of violating the confidence of son

Accusing a company of violating the GPLv2 and claiming that their customers are themselves potentially liabe as "contributory infringers" is perfectly in line with California's defamation precedents.

Personally I think that GRsecurity should amend its complaint to include a declaratory judgment count for non-infringement, which would be anti-SLAPP proof. Bruce is a kernel contributor and has published claims that the company is infringing. The company has a right to challenge that claim in court and obtain a judgment, even if Bruce can't bring himself to follow up on his claims with a copyright infringement suit.

Private/incognito browsing mode matters less than you think.

It is pretty easy for websites to tell if it is enabled, and fingerprint your browser anyway.

To see how this is done, go to the EFF's Panopticlick System and look at the detailed fingerprint information it can pull about your browser.

58% of Americans view drone warfare as positive even though they also feel that the US has failed to achieve its goals in Afghanistan. The US intelligence services continue to spy on all Americans. In comparisons the garbled tweets of the President are constantly analyzed by the 24 hour press.

Personally I believe DANE is the future of secure websites.

DANE is unquestionably superior, but it just moves the CA to the registrar and makes the Let's Encrypt server-to-CA protocol unnecessary. Sovereign Keys are the real replacement for CAs because they take power away from the registrars as well.

The constitution absolutely DOES protect anonymous speech. The EFF website says it much better than I can so to quote:

Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A frequently cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:

        Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

One of the pieces of information that the Trump administration is demanding from the states is how voters voted. They want to know if you voted for Trump or one of his opponents.

Let that sink in for a second. Imaging the Slashdot comments section if a President Clinton or President Obama demanded this same information from the states. Remember, the Constitution gives the power over all US elections to the states.

Oh, they did far worse than that, and we kinda ignored it over here. Remember the 4th Amendment? Thanks to a rule change by the Obama admin, it's effectively gone for anyone using a computer.

I'm sure we'll all go down singing the praises of Saint Obama the Clueless for the next 30 years, but lets be frank here. He was a pretty shitty president and had serious issues with privacy, rule of law, and transparency.

Good for the EFF. Donated $50 because of this very issue. https://www.eff.org/issues/drm

TV journalists, and whistle blowers. A similar issue came up last month with government contractor whistle blower Reality Winners, who failed to realize every page from a color laser printer has an id pattern watermark. They're difficult to see without a loop and blue/black light. The printers I've used the pattern was in yellow, lower left corner of the page.

https://www.theatlantic.com/te...
https://www.eff.org/pages/list...

If that's your idea of a gotcha, you should have spent the hour it took to craft that reply actually reading the site which has covered the standards for defamation over and over and over again. Almost like the author was trying to explain how even sites like NPR get the standards wrong in their coverage. You can go read the EFF's article on it to at least get the basics. Also, it's kind of on you to prove your assertion that it is. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, i.e. TimothyHollins or you if you wish to take up that torch. I can't very well shoot down a non-specific assertion that made no attempt whatsoever to connect the facts of the matter to the elements of a claim of defamation, after all.

In short, please come back when you can explain how "fraudulent news" is a specific claim of provable fact in light of Morningstar, Inc. v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.App.4th 676, 691 (1994) and Information Control v. Genesis One Computer Corp., 611 F.2d 781, 784 (9th Cir.1980).

I'll want specifics of exactly which article(s) are "fraudulent", who was defrauded of what, which specific person(s) allegedly perpetrated the fraud, and you'll have to get that information by quoting specific Trump statements in contexts where he made the statement(s) you claim meet all the elements of a defamation claim. CNN is a public figure, so you will also have to prove actual malice here, once you figure out what that is.

Good luck!

I'm surprised no one else mentioned the EFF's Privacy Badger browser addon. It handles this problem:

How does Privacy Badger work?
When you view a webpage, that page will often be made up of content from many different sources. (For example, a news webpage might load the actual article from the news company, ads from an ad company, and the comments section from a different company that's been contracted out to provide that service.) Privacy Badger keeps track of all of this. If as you browse the web, the same source seems to be tracking your browser across different websites, then Privacy Badger springs into action, telling your browser not to load any more content from that source. And when your browser stops loading content from a source, that source can no longer track you. Voila!

At a more technical level, Privacy Badger keeps note of the "third party" domains that embed images, scripts and advertising in the pages you visit. If a third party server appears to be tracking you without permission, by using uniquely identifying cookies (and, as of version 1.0, local storage super cookies and canvas fingerprinting as well) to collect a record of the pages you visit across multiple sites, Privacy Badger will automatically disallow content from that third party tracker. In some cases a third-party domain provides some important aspect of a page's functionality, such as embedded maps, images, or stylesheets. In those cases Privacy Badger will allow connections to the third party but will screen out its tracking cookies and referrers.

How is Privacy Badger different from Disconnect, Adblock Plus, Ghostery, and other blocking extensions?

Privacy Badger was born out of our desire to be able to recommend a single extension that would automatically analyze and block any tracker or ad that violated the principle of user consent; which could function well without any settings, knowledge, or configuration by the user; which is produced by an organization that is unambiguously working for its users rather than for advertisers; and which uses algorithmic methods to decide what is and isn't tracking. Although we like Disconnect, Adblock Plus, Ghostery and similar products (in fact Privacy Badger is based on the ABP code!), none of them are exactly what we were looking for. In our testing, all of them required some custom configuration to block non-consensual trackers. Several of these extensions have business models that we weren't entirely comfortable with. And EFF hopes that by developing rigorous algorithmic and policy methods for detecting and preventing non-consensual tracking, we'll produce a codebase that could in fact be adopted by those other extensions, or by mainstream browsers, to give users maximal control over who does and doesn't get to know what they do online.

Just take a look at what the US forced Colombia to do. 8 years of prison for sharing a single scientific article. Just imagine what punishment they would push for SciHub (which is one of the largest repositories of scientific articles in the world). Maybe 5 million years in prison? Summary execution? I don't know.

Killing the publishers CEO would have gotten a lighter sentence claim temporary insanity and get a holiday for a year

It may be meaningful. Such a judgment may make it easier to get the site delisted from US-based search engines. It may also make it easier to cut off Visa/Mastercard donations to the site and possibly stop other forms of revenues coming from US-based companies.

Also, when the leader of the Republic of Kazakhstan dies, he's 76 years old now. There will be two factions, a Russian-alignment faction and a US/NATO-alignment faction. If the US/NATO faction wins, and if US troops can be placed there before Russia invades (which won't be easy), many people in Kazakhstan will be relieved, but that that doesn't mean that the woman who created SciHub won't go to prison for the rest of her natural life.

Just take a look at what the US forced Colombia to do. 8 years of prison for sharing a single scientific article. Just imagine what punishment they would push for SciHub (which is one of the largest repositories of scientific articles in the world). Maybe 5 million years in prison? Summary execution? I don't know. But if Kazhakstan gets in bed with the US, that woman needs to drop everything she's doing and defect to Russia.

Please read the full EFF response letter. https://www.eff.org/files/2017... Zillow's TOS do not and *cannot* contain any basis for action in this case. Even the attribution line below the photos saying that they were found on Zillow.com is nominative fair use of the trademarked name.

Pai said this back in May: "Just last week, we heard from 22 small ISPs, companies that nobody has ever heard of in towns very few people will ever visit, and what they told us is, look, we are being inhibited." As far as I know, Pai has never named the ISPs nor shared the communications. Whereas this week 40 ISPs through the EFF signed a letter stating the opposite. I'll let you decide who is not telling the whole truth.

Considering the fact that Obama was trying to ram TPP through, trying to blame this on the Republicans and Trump is ridiculous.

First of all, realize that the TPP is NOT about free trade. It's about intellectual property control and a variety of other topics. "Free trade" is a generic cover for the whole thing. The real motivators are things that would be balked at if they were negotiated separately.

For details as to what TPP really IS about, well, here's a very short summary:

The TPP and Intellectual Property

And the EFF's position on it:

EFF on TPP
EFF and the Copyright Trap

I'm not going to go into a lot of research for that particular question since this has already been hashed out a million times before.

However, as for the Democrat portion... well, first off, Obama spearheaded TPP and intended to try to get it rammed through towards the end of his term.

Obama and the TPP

Hillary in fact praised it as the "gold standard" while it was in development (in secret, I might add, to the point where Congressmen had to go to a secure room to look at the drafts and could not keep their notes on it with them):

Hillary on the Gold Standard

TPP Secrecy (note the caption on the picture)

Now she did try to back off on this and flip-flopped, although this might well have been a pose for the campaign:

Hillary and TPP

But the fact is that the Democrats did not officially oppose it.

Rejecting formal TPP opposition

Some would say that the fact that Hillary is particularly likely to lie about this to get elected, even among politicians. But people specifically close to her indicated that, if she was elected, she'd flip-flop on it pretty rapidly.

Terry McAuliffe's view on TPP flipping

Additionally, while people seem to very much enjoy shitting on the Republicans for draconian copyright laws, fact is that the Democrats are just as bad, and in some cases, worse:

Congressional support for SOPA and PIPA

This raises doubts as to what parts of TPP would be "renegotiated," if that had happened, which was one option that seemed to be spoken of for a Hillary presidency. Suffice it to say that it is likely that the IP law portions would not receive renegotiation that would be considered consumer-friendly.

Stereotypical "Republicans are evil 'cuz Republicans" and "Trump is evil 'cuz Trump" is not going to fly here, unless you're also willing to jump on board the "Democrats are evil 'cuz Democrats" train. Fact of the matter is, both sides are bought and paid for by the technology and content generation industries. This was the sentiment when SOPA was defeated by massive Internet backlash:

Backlash after massive SOPA protests

And Democrats were certainly benefiting from Hollywood donations which "encouraged" them to support SOPA:

So in short, both sides are filthy here. You can blame one side or the other for the majority of the problem a