Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hulu Blocks VPN Users

Posted by Soulskill on from the you-can't-get-there-from-here dept.

New submitter electronic convict writes: "Hulu, apparently worried that too many non-U.S. residents are using cheap VPN services to watch its U.S. programming, has started blocking IP address ranges belonging to known VPN services. Hulu didn't announce the ban, but users of the affected VPNs are getting this message: 'Based on your IP-address, we noticed that you are trying to access Hulu through an anonymous proxy tool. Hulu is not currently available outside the U.S. If you're in the U.S. you'll need to disable your anonymizer to access videos on Hulu.' Hulu may make Hollywood happy by temporarily locking out foreign users — at least until they find new VPN providers. But in so doing it's now forcing its U.S. customers to sacrifice their privacy and even to risk insecure connections. Hulu hasn't even implemented SSL on its site."

43 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. Privacy is bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How dare you try to bypass our arbitrary and senseless restrictions, and how dare you try to obtain a bit of privacy!

    1. Re:Privacy is bad by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because you need my money to exist. I don't need your product to exist.

      Guess who needs who.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Privacy is bad by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      I don't need your product to exist.

      hahahaha oh you silly consumer thinking you have free will in the matter.

      The problem is that most of the world works around psychology of consumerism. Only the strongest of mind are able to exert the kind of free will that says "I don't need your product." Many think they can, but suddenly they NEED that product when the word "Sale" is written next to it, or when they see it on the back of the bus, or when their favourite celebrity endorses it.

      They don't need your money to exist. If anything companies can come and take a shit on the front lawn of most consumers and they will happily clean it up, say thank you, and keep on consuming.

    3. Re:Privacy is bad by gonnagetya · · Score: 2

      I was about to make a more civil post in reply but honestly, yours makes it for me in a similar fashion.

      Although the phrase "you need my money to exist, I don't need your product to exist" sounds insightful and powerful, it's ultimately worthless because as you say, ignorant or week-minded/willed consumers will ensure that companies continue to act like dicks because there isn't enough motivation for them not to do so.

      The idea that companies will get punished for being assholes has been shown time and time again to be completely bullshit because of the power of being huge and controlling the system. You can of course elect not to contribute to the system by not spending money on said assholes if you can, but they won't notice unless a significant number of people make the same decision (and publicly). And of course, this only works for luxury items that you can do without...

  2. I don't think, they worry about non-US users by mi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you're in the U.S. you'll need to disable your anonymizer to access videos on Hulu.

    I suspect, it is the anonymity, that they wish to defeat — to be able to track users and sell the information.

    Hulu may make Hollywood happy by temporarily locking out foreign users

    That may be only a secondary concern.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:I don't think, they worry about non-US users by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, Hulu is ad-supported. If I was one of their 'sponsors', I might be a bit annoyed that Hulu was billing me for ads delivered to countries where I don't even do business.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:I don't think, they worry about non-US users by nospam007 · · Score: 2

      "Also, Hulu is ad-supported. If I was one of their 'sponsors', I might be a bit annoyed that Hulu was billing me for ads delivered to countries where I don't even do business."

      People who use VPNs usually also use adblockers, they are the same crowd.

    3. Re:I don't think, they worry about non-US users by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're in the U.S. you'll need to disable your anonymizer to access videos on Hulu.

      I suspect, it is the anonymity, that they wish to defeat — to be able to track users and sell the information.

      Hulu may make Hollywood happy by temporarily locking out foreign users

      That may be only a secondary concern.

      No. Hulu is owned by Hollywood. This is entirely about them controlling content. Hulus biggest problem from the start has been all the disparate interests of all the media companies involved in its ownership and operation. It benefits from sweet deals with those companies, but suffers from their idiotically uncreative ideas about how video on the Internet should work.

    4. Re:I don't think, they worry about non-US users by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why, when Hulu detects a visitor arriving from a country other than the United States, does it not refer the user to the licensee doing business in that particular country?

      Because in most cases, there is no licensee doing business in that particular country. Sure here in Canada we have Netflix, but there sure isn't anything close to Hulu. Same hold true in many other countries, but really since I didn't use it I don't care too much, but I'm sure this is going to tick quite a few people off. It's quite similar as to the whole bit with HBO and Game of Thrones, and their other TV series. They *could* be making money hand over fist by selling it people online, but they don't. Instead it has to go through cable companies, which require you to buy into HBO via a part of a package which may cost you upwards of $100-200/mo on top of your normal cable bill.

      And they wonder why piracy is running wild for that show. Derp.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re:I don't think, they worry about non-US users by tlambert · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Also, Hulu is ad-supported. If I was one of their 'sponsors', I might be a bit annoyed that Hulu was billing me for ads delivered to countries where I don't even do business."

      People who use VPNs usually also use adblockers, they are the same crowd.

      Ad blockers are pretty poor at doing their named job when the next 1800 frames inserted into the video stream are going to be 60 seconds worth of commercials, and you can go pee or not go pee, talk to your family, or whatever, but those are the 1800 frames @ 30FPS you are going to be getting over the next 60 seconds. Hulu has a fairly captive audience, due to their implementation of streaming.

      The big argument with Aereo streaming content legally received on antennas within a given region where the information is broadcast is that the Aereo subscribers are unlikely to be customers of the local ads which paid (in theory) for the broadcast service to those devices. In other words, it's about regionality for the ads for ad-sponsorred content.

      In practice, it's no different than taking your DVR with you on vacation, and using DVR time shifting, but the ad conversion rate is closer to 0 than if the ads were being viewed by someone local, instead of someone on vacation in a hotel room in Rome. Advertisers care about conversion rate, so media providers also care about conversion rate, and anything that lowers their conversion rate lowers the advertising rate they are able to charge.

    6. Re:I don't think, they worry about non-US users by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm fairly sure if such a service was offered in their country, people would not resort to VPN hoops to jump through.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:I don't think, they worry about non-US users by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Logic? Really? How long have you been on this planet that you try to argue with logic when it comes to copyright matters?

      Content distribution is heavily territory protected. When I have the "right" to distribute in this part of the world, nothing, but NOTHING, you do to distribute here is acceptable. No, not even when I don't provide this service. Or when you try to pay me. Allowing you to do something in my territory might create a dangerous precedent. Because sooner or later you might take over my territory, slice by slice.

      Why the content owners and studios don't simply do away with the local distributors? Because they learned their lesson from what happened with Apple. Divide and conquer is far more profitable to them. It is easier to press a local distributor into a contract, one of the many out there who you could easily replace, if you're one of the big 5 studios, rather than if you're one of the 5 studios and there's only one global distributor you can talk to who can easily simply dump you in favor of the other 4 if you don't want to play by his rules. It's not that much different in video content.

      You see, studios have no interest AT ALL in large "partners". Mostly 'cause they don't treat their partners as such.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. There is no conspiracy. by um...+Lucas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Regardless of the users IP, Hulu can track those users and sell their information, VPN or not. They've got those subscribers billing credentials, after all. A VPN is useful if you don't want someone else looking into your connection, but for the site you're visiting, especially one that needs your credit card, a VPN isn't meant to be a protection from them getting your info. Your ISP won't (or at least shouldn't) have a clue that you're visiting Hulu, should you be using a VPN, though.

    So no, there is no attack on anonymity here.

    1. Re:There is no conspiracy. by BiIl_the_Engineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Missed this bit of garbage:

      This just seems like more nerd entitlement syndrome to me. It's Hollywood's content, not yours.

      Entitlement? So, criticizing a company means you're entitled? You're holding a gun to their head and demanding they change their ways, or saying that you deserve everything? If not, then there is no entitlement; just criticism. If you think criticizing a company for its actions means you have "nerd entitlement syndrome," then you're a god damned idiot, and your definition of "entitlement" is completely worthless. I'm tired of people abusing these terms and using them to describe anyone who says anything they don't like about a company.

      As for whether it's "Hollywood's content," I don't believe you can own content, although they certainly try. Problem is, it's not working out for them, and no matter how much people cry and scream, it will never work out. If Hulu is going to kick people off for using VPNs, many of those people will likely just find alternatives, 'legitimate' or not.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    2. Re:There is no conspiracy. by retchdog · · Score: 2

      By "entitlement," I was referring to the asserted 'right' to use a VPN to access a service. There is no such right. I could have been more clear.

      You should criticize Hulu all you want, but they're the middleman. You're not making a whole lot of sense. Do you agree that the problem is Hollywood's stupid licensing fetishism, or are you still maintaining that this is Hulu's conspiracy to track that you rewatch Strictly Sexual every Friday night and sell that information to OKCupid and Lubriderm?

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    3. Re:There is no conspiracy. by Kalriath · · Score: 2

      How is it stealing at all? I pay for Hulu Plus, watch the commercials, and when I see something that I think is worth getting, I'll even circumvent yet more unnecessary regional restrictions in order to buy it. The only ads that are literally worthless to me are the ones for cars, Comcast, and not texting and driving in Nevada (actually, that's still relevant- it's illegal here too).

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    4. Re:There is no conspiracy. by BiIl_the_Engineer · · Score: 2

      The only reason? Some people use a VPN for everything, or for privacy. You say that there is only one reason, but that is false.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  4. How terrible by Leo+Sasquatch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I mean, it's not as if there's any other sites on the net where you can get streaming video, or canned video, or torrents, or people sharing their favourite shows.

    It's not like it takes about 5 mouse-clicks to find an alternate source for practically anything. No, Hulu clearly have everyone completely over a barrel and we must just do everything they say if we're to be allowed to consume their entertainment the way they want us to.

  5. Not their fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Oh I'm sure they think it's just as senseless, but if they don't restrict it, then Hollywood won't let them use their IP as cheaply as otherwise (or at all). I'm not associated with Hulu but I've worked for another internet streaming company, and trust us, we really hate Hollywood restrictions--they are shoved down our throats, we have no choice.

    Do you /really/ think devs in the industry would implement DRM if we didn't have to? It's a pain in the neck to code and it keeps some of our customer base from using it at all! Half of us are Linux users at home and are just as pissed as you are when things won't work with it.

    1. Re:Not their fault by Solozerk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Do you /really/ think devs in the industry would implement DRM if we didn't have to? It's a pain in the neck to code and it keeps some of our customer base from using it at all! Half of us are Linux users at home and are just as pissed as you are when things won't work with it.

      Then leave. Find a job elsewhere. Or even better: spend some of your free time writing and publishing (anonymously, of course - use tor) DRM-defeating software based on what you implemented at work - you already have the tech details since you implemented the DRM stuff (or just publish the tech details anonymously and let others implement the stuff). They can't continue playing this kind of games if no developer are helping them.

      And I don't think doing so would stop the release or funding of entertainment stuff, either (be it games, movies or music); people have been making music & art for thousand of years without that kind of shit, and people are genuinely ready to pay for content if it's quality, easily available, and reasonably priced; even if it's available elsewhere for free. They are also ready to pay to finance that kind of development even when a release is not certain (look at the many successful crowdfunded projects). It would certainly decrease the amount of shitty games/movies created, though.

      The very fact that we have the technological capability to massively distribute culture at a very low cost and we don't because of greed/artificially enforced scarcity is truly depressing.

    2. Re:Not their fault by rogoshen1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      man, while DRM is total bullshit, suggesting someone to do something that almost certainly would end with them getting fired (that's the best case, worse is being sued into oblivion) is just as bad.

    3. Re:Not their fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Previous AC again: The streaming we have now is a lot better for our culture than what we had 10 years ago, and it's a lot more accessible to more people and cheaper than DVDs. I'm very okay with this kind of "freedom" proceeding slowly, even taking a couple steps backwards once in a while, because the advancements that it does bring are completely worth it when compared to not-100%-perfect ethical mores. It's region control of an entertainment luxury, not killing puppies...I don't think I would call it "depressing".

      Technology advances the fastest when people with LOTS of money have their way, and while it's a very imperfect system, it's not a net harm to our culture by any stretch. It certainly advances a lot faster than if the giant Hollywood moguls weren't throwing money at it, and I have faith that--eventually--it will approach the kind of freedom you're after.

      (I did leave that company a few years back, but certainly not because information wants to be free!)

    4. Re:Not their fault by Hadlock · · Score: 2

      Hollywood owns Hulu, jointly owned by several studios and broadcasters, in fact. The idea was to own and control content distribution of TV over the internet while avoiding fracturing the market, and they've done a pretty good job of it.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    5. Re:Not their fault by Solozerk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm very okay with this kind of "freedom" proceeding slowly, even taking a couple steps backwards once in a while, because the advancements that it does bring are completely worth it when compared to not-100%-perfect ethical mores.

      I'm not - why should we settle for small steps, when we already have the capability to make giant ones ? where would we be right now as a species if even half the money spent in DRM schemes/IP protection stuff had been thrown in global network deployment (there are still large parts of the planet's population with no access to the Internet, or even no electricity) and putting online courses/teaching material/culture online ?

      Technology advances the fastest when people with LOTS of money have their way

      While the rest of your post seems pretty reasonable and possibly less utopic/optimistic than mine, this I strongly doubt. It seems to me that the very resources inequalities we're seeing currently - the very fact that some people posess thousands times more money/power than most - is a major part of such an artificially enforced scarcity. It's just concentration of power, and people in power wanting to keep that power.

      Maybe I'm just too young / not cynical (call it realistic if you will) enough; that being said, once again, having the capability to diffuse culture massively and willingly limiting that capability seems like a form of madness to me. Makes you wonder what'll happen when material, real-life scarcity will no longer be an issue (and I personally think we're not that far of).

    6. Re:Not their fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't think I was quite that idealistic back in the day, but I've gotten more cynical over time, yeah.

      Resource inequality is a bad thing, but I have a hard time getting mad about entertainment luxury inequality. (Some things, like textbooks, are pretty inexcusable--but we have Wikipedia, and I grew up back in the day where encyclopedias were ungodly expensive, so I'm in a good mood about that at least.) But there's certainly good things that have come from pursuit of money. Oh yeah, great evils too, but also plenty of good.

      Example. Modern blockbuster movies with stupidly large budgets. Directors do that because they think they'll get their investment back and then some. Sure they enjoy the act of creating an impressive creative work (well, some movies are), but movies that cost hundreds of millions of dollars need more inspiration than just "I like making movies". Sure lots of them suck...but you know what, I think I'm glad that they spent all that cash on the Avengers movies. They are turning out really good, in my opinion at least. I don't think they would be so good on a Creative Commons budget.

      Anyway...Funding those movies. They make some of that back in theaters, but there's a VERY long, fat tail on that income--and that income is kept large by some of the stupid restrictions they have. Like, while it's in the theaters you can't get it at home; for X weeks out of it goes out of theaters, you can buy it but not rent it; then you can rent it but not televise it. It's a careful curve to maximize money.

      Region control is part of the same scheme, and it's not always to customers' detriment. If you can't afford to see a movie in theater for $20, maybe you can afford to buy it for $15. If you can't afford that, maybe you can rent it for $5. But if you could rent it right away, you might not see it in the theater at all. Similarly: Americans are rich enough to buy a movie for $15. In eastern Europe, where money is more scarce, the industry might sell it for $5 instead. If the price was the same everywhere, then either eastern Europe gets shafted, or they make less money in the USA, and like it or not, that money does let them make better media. Region control is super important to let them charge different amounts in different regions, and *if done correctly* the consumer in secondary markets is better off.

      Of course, in practice, companies are dumb about actually using region control, and they put off actually selling things to secondary market for months or years (sorry Australia) or they don't ever export them at all. But just because the technology is not optimally used, does not mean it is bad! Much like theoretical capitalism, or theoretical communism, a theoretical region control really does give optimal prices to every user, where they can pay a fair price for their location, and everyone wins. It's not free, but see above...if it was free we wouldn't get modern special effects.

      Look, modern DRM is universally badly implemented, but it's getting better, and in a truly perfect world it isn't hostile to the consumer. In the little picture, yeah, it's bad for you personally, but in the big picture it enables some sweeping market reforms that are pretty cool for people that otherwise couldn't afford stuff. It's hard to see from the consumer level, but if you look into the market forces at work...well, they don't actually suck. Anyway, just because we're not at a perfectly customer-unhostile implementation yet doesn't mean we should scrap the technology altogether; Rome wasn't built in a day and getting this stuff right (on the technical side and the social side) are both hard as hell. Current stuff hurts the consumer, most obvious solutions tend to hurt the media cartels, but I think someday there will be implementations that don't hurt customers or publishers. I'm okay with paying for my media--and someday, I hope that imperfect implementations won't keep me from actually using it.

      In any case...I think I'm going to go watch Netflix now, and r

    7. Re:Not their fault by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      man, while DRM is total bullshit, suggesting someone to do something that almost certainly would end with them getting fired (that's the best case, worse is being sued into oblivion) is just as bad.

      Um... you didn't get that GP was recommending they quit anyway?

      There DOES come a point at which your principles are worth more than a fat paycheck. Some people seem to have forgotten this.

    8. Re:Not their fault by russotto · · Score: 2

      Oh I'm sure they think it's just as senseless, but if they don't restrict it, then Hollywood won't let them use their IP as cheaply as otherwise (or at all).

      Hulu IS Hollywood. They're not so much a streaming-media company as a PR move so Hollywood can say "See, look, we even have Hulu and these freetards still pirate! You need to pass the Ban Computers And Throw Everyone In Pound Me In The Ass Federal Prison Act NOW!"

    9. Re:Not their fault by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      well no shit. but leaking details on how to circumvent what you're doing is not the solution. Sometimes the opportunity to snark outweighs reading comprehension i guess.

    10. Re:Not their fault by PRMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      One time, my company asked me to write a spam engine. Seven of us developers go together and threatened to quit. And we would have.

      They also tried to get me to write gambling software for an offshore casino. I refused that as well. I told my boss not to take the contract. They got investigated by the FBI shortly thereafter.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  6. Welcome to the 21st century by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    where you can find TV set the size of the Berlin wall with a resolution so high you can't see the pixels up close, so thin they can be hung on the wall and look like paintings, able to display movies in 3D, almost affordable by ordinary people, and that display content controlled by cartels who decide who can watch what, where, how and for how much, like in the middle ages.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  7. Re:My VPN service still works by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I suspect most will continue to work, because they will simply change their IP ranges if providing access to Hulu is at all important for them.

    You can't really block someone on the internet reliably with an IP ban. Or well, you can, but the effort you'll need to keep on swatting the changing IP addresses is going to be significant.

  8. Re:And people will just bend over too. by BiIl_the_Engineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right. I'll just drop Comcast and switch to the other ISP with decent speeds in my area: Comcast.

    Well, the situation is most certainly not the same with Hulu. It's trivial to find another place to watch such videos, 'legitimate' or not.

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  9. Use your own VPS instead by dejanc · · Score: 4, Informative

    1. Rent a cheap VPS
    2. Tunnel connection through it (e.g. via a SOCKS proxy) or set up your own VPN
    3. Keep the IP to yourself so you don't get flagged

    That's how I get to watch BBC's premiers at the same time people in London do, and if I care about something in the US, I just switch to another VPS.

  10. If Netflix is in Canada, why isn't Hulu? by tepples · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hulu has no legal way to provide a global service.

    Hulu could open Hulu Canada and license the rights for Canada from the copyright owners. Hulu could open Hulu Britain and license the rights for Ireland and Great Britain from the copyright owners. Hulu currently happens to choose not to do so.

    1. Re:If Netflix is in Canada, why isn't Hulu? by Hackysack · · Score: 2

      I'm in Canada, and I don't use Hulu.

      The point though, is that for people wanting to pay for the content they consume, there needs to be options.

      If you don't allow me a timely (ie: available at the same time as the earliest showing somewhere else in the world), reasonably priced (ie: charge me for the show, not for a base tier + advanced tier + channel subscription costs), high quality (1080p) steam that I can pay for; then I will just torrent or otherwise pirate said content.

      Personally I wouldn't ever do Hulu as I understand that they show advertising to paying subscribers. I refuse to support advertising.

  11. make your own tunlr clone by Corporate+Gadfly · · Score: 2

    Rent a cheap VPS and run your own tunlr clone (similar to other commercial DNS-based geo-unlocking services like Unlocator, unblockus, etc.)
    http://corporate-gadfly.github...

    --
    Corporate Gadfly
    Jonathan Archer: the most beaten up Enterprise captain in Star Trek history
  12. Hello, they are douchebags, what is the problem? by mauriceh · · Score: 3, Informative

    To quote from Wikipedia:
    "Hulu is a joint venture of NBCUniversal Television Group (Comcast),[5] Fox Broadcasting Company (21st Century Fox) and Disney–ABC Television Group (The Walt Disney Company),[6] with funding by Providence Equity Partners, the owner of Newport Television, which made a US$100 million equity investment and received a 10% stake.[7] In October 2012, Providence sold its 10% stake in Hulu.[8]"

    So why exactly are you surprised?

    --
    Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
  13. Re:Cheap VPN Howto by Punto · · Score: 3, Informative

    AWS is one of the "VPN" services that were blocked.

    --

    --
    Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

  14. Watch it live the way the BBC intended by davidwr · · Score: 2

    Go to Great Britain and watch it live on a taxed television set.

    Oh, you mean how can you watch it without the hassles of international travel? Why didn't you say so in the first place? :^)

    If BBC got smart, it would change its international licensing agreements with companies like BBC America to reserve the right to show all future shows world-wide on an on-demand, a la carte basis. It might have to agree to charge a minimum-but-affordable per-episode fee to not completely gut the overseas television market.

    If it did this for future seasons of Dr. Who, for example, it might charge a per-episode fee so that if someone legally paid for each episode, they would pay several times what they would if they waited until the end of the season and bought the DVD. Yes, die-hards with money to burn would do it, and yes, people would invite their friends over just like they do now, but at least it would be legal. It would also be priced high enough that there would be a market for cable networks like BBC America to buy the rights to air the shows. Those same die-hards would probably buy the DVDs anyways because they tend to be the kind of people who like the DVD extras and they like to have them on their shelves to show their friends how much of a die-hard they really are.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  15. Re:Cheap VPN Howto by bloodhawk · · Score: 2

    As someone that personally already blocks AWS where I work due to its use as an attack platform and anonymous proxy I would be shocked if this wasn't one of the first address ranges blocked.

  16. Re:And people will just bend over too. by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    yep, I use a VPN for Netflix and Hulu, I happily pay for the service, but if they block those I won't bother finding new ways around it, I will just go back to pirating the content, if they don't want my money fine!

  17. Re: BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or is it that someone might be snooping on your dirty little secret that you watch My Little Pony when no one is home? The only possible concern is for people who use the same passwords on multiple services and that someone could snoop and suddenly get your Warcraft password.

    Wrong. Encrypt only "important" stuff, and people know exactly where to look for the juicy stuff. Encrypt everything, and people don't know where to start.

  18. Re:BTW! by flyneye · · Score: 2

    "Hulu hasn't even implemented SSL on its site."

              SHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Damn, keep your mouth shut!
    Man, I can"t take you anywhere!

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!