Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Could Be Classified As a 'Cybersecurity Threat' Under New CISPA Rules
Jason Koebler (3528235) writes "The cybersecurity bill making its way through the Senate right now is so broad that it could allow ISPs to classify Netflix as a "cyber threat," which would allow them to throttle the streaming service's delivery to customers. "A 'threat,' according to the bill, is anything that makes information unavailable or less available. So, high-bandwidth uses of some types of information make other types of information that go along the same pipe less available," Greg Nojeim, a lawyer with the Center for Democracy and Technology, said. "A company could, as a cybersecurity countermeasure, slow down Netflix in order to make other data going across its pipes more available to users.""
Wouldn't throttling Netflix count as making Netflix "less available," thereby making the ISPs themselves a "cybersecurity threat?"
Politicians write a bill for our "safety" and "protection" that just so happens to benefit major campaign contributors!
Wow! I tell you, some of the random things that just happen!
According to the bill a threat is anything which is anything which is part of an unauthorized effort to deny access. Netflix streaming which inadvertently leads to a denial of access would not be part of an effort to deny access.
Here is the bill.
http://www.feinstein.senate.go...
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
DRM also makes "information less available". Finally a bill that makes EME, HDCP and alike illegal!
Pretty sure Time Warner is great at making "information unavailable or less available".
You should throttle your connection to them.
Wait...
CISPA was authored by corporations, for the purpose of reigning in "pirates" and the like. Every "rights holder" in the world will become partners with the government, and search out any of us who don't comply with every draconian rule they can think up.
CISPA is most definitely unconstitutional.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Okay then, Google and the rest should be saying: we'll find a way to directly hook into the home as if this were the early days and we owned everything except the dirt we buried the cables in though sometimes we own that too. Silicon Valley needs to grow up and swing its weight. A tax protest from just a few major corporations would be costly, and if they encouraged their employees to join, the impact would be ten fold. It's time we got together and, as a people, told the government it is not taking another step without our damn permission.
Yeah for real. I have Netflix and I use it now and then with netflix-desktop, which is pretty nice if you ask me, but all things being equal, you can always just install QtWeb, block everything, and hit up TPB on a daily basis. It's a waste of time trying to have morals in a situation where even when you pay what you're supposed a third party thinks it has the right to stop you.
You do realize that the problem you experienced was likely due to your ISP refusing to do the proper upgrades so they could either extort Netflix for your business or pitch their own to you, right?
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
"that may result in an unauthorized effort to adversely impact the security, availability, confidentiality, or integrity of an information system or information that is stored on, processed by, or transiting an information system."
It's not an effort (authorized or unauthorized) to adversely impact any of those things. It is an effort to deliver video.
You changed "effort" to "impact". You're changing the meaning of the sentence.
If someone were to hijack Netflix' traffic to create an effort to deny service, then that would be a denial of service attack and ISPs could counter that, as ISPs already counter DoS attacks.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Politechnician? Re-Engineering the internet for political reasons.
CISPA was authored by corporations, for the purpose of reigning in "pirates" and the like. Every "rights holder" in the world will become partners with the government, and search out any of us who don't comply with every draconian rule they can think up.
CISPA is most definitely unconstitutional.
Freedom of speech implies freedom to listen. Since there are more listeners than speakers
the value of "listener" needs to be strongly considered in all of this.
Manipulation of bandwidth to listeners as a whole must be even handed.
If a content delivery company __Your_Cable_Company__ does not throttle
their content in the same way they throttle the likes of Netflix, HBO-Go, NBC,
etc. they are crossing a line I do not want crossed.
If they throttle content because of a phone call from a branch of the government
we have a larger problem!
There are technologies that can help. Much content from Netflix and others
has a large audience and is ideal for p2p caching and bandwidth boost in
the same way that bittorrent amplifies the bandwidth of a single seeding
site. My DOCSIS 3 modem is an eight down four up device and could host
a p2p caching service that amplifies the cross sectional bandwidth of my
cable service. Xfinity is already selling "spare bandwidth" as WiFi connectivity.
My digital TV recorder and decoder uses different channels
and different tricks to deliver on demand and live content. It is already one
of the most serious power consumers in the house and could be replaced by
a more power efficient unit that also has p2p caching abilities that utilize the
multi channel bandwidth of cable coax a couple fold locally and orders of
magnitude better in a community.
Sadly they are looking for a political power grabbing solution and not
at a more net neutral technical solution.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
...p2p caching...
Not a good idea if there are caps on your service. The one and only solution is to elect politicians who will turn the ISPs into common carriers and make the internet a public utility (and defund the NSA, bring the troops home, and legalize weed, etc) Everything else is lipstick on a pig and polishing turds.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
99+% of the terrorists *I* see are in movies and most of my movies are from Netflix.
Between CISPA and the ruling against Aereo restricting the rights of others is it any wonder the Republicrats and Democans popularity is at an all time low. They are so far out of touch with realitythey don't give a damn about the rights of anyone but the rich and passing laws and regulations that favor them. Because of that anyone who has voted and will vote Republicrat or Democan, shut up and go sit on the sidelines. You've already demonstrated that you want an intrusive, activist government and as such you have no room to complain. You ASKED FOR THIS.
______________________________________ A vote against a Libertarian candidate is a vote to abolish the Constitution itself
Strange. You encourage people to self-censor on the one hand, while strongly implying your support for free speech (via your sloganeering) with the other. So which is it, AC? Do you want the "blessings of Liberty" or do you want those who disagree with you to, as you put it, "shut up and go sit on the sidelines?" You can't have it both ways.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
That is one way to stop them i guess.. Then the content wont matter, just the act of engaging is enough to get you labeled.
( and bandwidth caps.. )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Today ISPs want to throttle Netflix using bandwidth as an excuse. Tomorrow the ISPs will want to throttle slashdot or other websites (you know, the ones you use). They might use other excuses or not. Where does it end?
I don't know about you, but I don't vote for big money. The money they spend is wasted on me. However, it does provide a good reference to who the politicians' owners are. It's not the money's fault when a corrupt politician takes it. And it's not just the individuals. We have to vote out the institutional party. And the thing is, if you can elect a politician to change the rules, then you already solved the problem. The fact is that nothing has to change except everybody's vote.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I don't know about you, but I don't vote for big money. The money they spend is wasted on me. However, it does provide a good reference to who the politicians' owners are. It's not the money's fault when a corrupt politician takes it. And it's not just the individuals. We have to vote out the institutional party. And the thing is, if you can elect a politician to change the rules, then you already solved the problem. The fact is that nothing has to change except everybody's vote.
Sadly, it's not wasted on the vast majority of voters. It's a catch-22 -- the folks who are in a position to remove the money from the political system are the ones who benefit the most from that money. One strategy could be to vote for those who don't take the money. Who might those folks be? It certainly isn't clear to me.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
What the fuck?
How the fuck can we keep allowing knee-jerk idiots to continue making decisions in technical areas where they have no fucking experience or knowledge?
All this shit's being driven by the same assholes who come up with ideas like "x-strikes and you're banned from the net."
Wise up.
STOP RE-ELECTING FAILURE. VOTE FROM THE ROOFTOPS.