Slashdot Mirror
Rightscorp's New Plan: Hijack Browsers Until Infingers Pay Up
A few weeks ago, Rightscorp announced plans to have ISPs disconnect repeat copyright infringers. mpicpp (3454017) wrote in with news that Rightscorp announced during their latest earnings call further plans to require ISPs to block all web access (using a proxy system similar to hotel / college campus wifi logins) until users admit guilt and pay a settlement fine (replacing the current system of ISPs merely forwarding notices to users). Quoting TorrentFreak: [Rightscorp] says 75,000 cases have been settled so far with copyright holders picking up $10 from each. ... What is clear is that Rightscorp is determined to go after "Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Cable Vision and one more" in order to "get all of them compliant" (i.e forwarding settlement demands). The company predicts that more details on the strategy will develop in the fall, but comments from COO & CTO Robert Steele hint on how that might be achieved. ...
"[What] we really want to do is move away from termination and move to what's called a hard redirect, like, when you go into a hotel and you have to put your room number in order to get past the browser and get on to browsing the web."
The idea that mere allegations from an anti-piracy company could bring a complete halt to an entire household or business Internet connection until a fine is paid is less like a "piracy speeding ticket" and more like a "piracy wheel clamp", one that costs $20 to have removed.
aka "extortion"
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
No.
If you download stuff that the rights-holders don't want to sell you, and you end up paying $20, of which $10 goes to the copyright holder, that's pretty damn decent.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
they can be sued out of existence for every mistake they make, I'm cool with it.
none of my fingers are going to pay up.
It's what's for dinner.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The trouble is, that this is just a nuisance fee. I can pay $20 out-of-pocket to make a bogus "piracy claim" go away. I'm sure, though, that they'll include contractual language asserting my guilt, even though I've never downloaded from The Pirate Bay or its ilk. Once they've confirmed that I'm willing to pay, how many times will they come back? The article mentioned settling accounts exceeding $300 for multiple "infringements."
Also, how are they going to convince my ISP, with whom I have both an ongoing relationship and competitive alternatives, to do this?
These Rightscorp asshats should be prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and serve multiple-lifetime prison sentences each.
So, if I say that I have evidence that you're using water flowing into your house to make drugs, I guess you're absolutely fine with having that water cut off until you can prove that you're not indeed using it to make drugs. If you are making drugs, I guess you're ok with your family going thirsty even though it's not their crime.
Cryptolocker malware creators should sue Rightscorp for stealing their idea.
Seems to me that any ISP that redirects browser HTTP requests becomes liable to suit from the customers - for substantially more than $20.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"The Computer Misuse Act (1990) was introduced to help deal with the problems caused by the misuse of computers and communication systems, especially that of âhacking' and âunauthorised access.' The Act introduced three offences; it is illegal for any unauthorised person to access programs or data, the unauthorised modification of that data, and having unauthorised access with further criminal intent."
Seems clearly within the description of this law.
If I can't use it?
A top-notch, full-speed, multi-country VPN service can be had for $40/year, with $20/year deals available if you shop around a bit.
Be a SHAME if something happened to it..........
is a crime on most countries... Good luck.
Explain how that would work when the ISP has blocked all your access? did you think they would block 80 and leave VPN open allowing this? Somewhat defeats the point doesn't it?
So just how would one handle the issue of not ever having ever downloaded any copyrighted content and still having gotten locked out wrongly? Oh yah, just pay the $20.00 fee and then challenge it later to get reimbursed....SURE! This friends is the business model of the future of entertainment. Grab your ankles and say "thank you sir, may I have another?"
A Walled Garden.
I mean, at least call it what it is. It's a Pay Walled Garden based on how bad you are.
Does anyone know who owns the copyright to this? I think we need to shut off someone's access to the cosmonaut.
Sneakernet.
Try and stop that, you pathetic bloodsucking turds.
I walk around with a 128GB flash drive full of all kinds of goodness,
and I charge nothing and I share it ALL. Take that and shove it up
your cunt, Rightscorp.
Anonymous needs to reverse hack these B@$ta@rd$! enough of this kind of cr@pola!
The first way is to guillotine all the executives of Rightscorp. This is messy, they probably can take counter-measures in terms of security, and it's probably technically illegal (although you could mount a plausible defense against murder charges by arguing that the execs are not, in fact, human beings). Plus, we're in general a lazy lot, so that option is probably not feasible.
The second way is to identify all companies and artists, of all media, who use Rightscorp services, and stop buying their shit. Don't buy their DVDs, don't buy their Blu-Rays, don't buy their CDs, don't buy their streaming videos, don't buy their downloaded mp3s, don't go to their movies, don't go to their concerts. Don't even torrent their shit either! Carve them out of your life, in all ways, completely.
Deny them the two things they need to survive: money and attention.
If enough people would do this, Rightscorp would have no clients (or at least, no paying clients). But not enough people will do this. We never do.
I don't know how it works in other countries, but here in the USofA, there's a little thing known as "the presumption of innocence," meaning that the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. This does the exact opposite by assuming that anybody who's accused must be guilty and penalizing them without allowing them to present a defense. No judge would ever be stupid enough to rule in favor of Rightscorp, making the idea DOA at best, even if they don't get sued into bankruptcy the first time they try to enforce it.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
they are forcing you to admit guilt for something you MAY or MAY NOT do, without a trial, in exchange of your right to use a service you already payed... that's because more than 90% of their prosecutions end with inocense, because more than 90% of their "proof" is false and or circunstancial (there are ransomwares that produce traffic to illegal/copyrighted content sites and wifi users that hijack accesspoints to access to that kind of content without risking their own connections, and just because you acces p2p servers dowsn't mean you are downloaded copyrighted material... ISPs may know you are using a p2p network but they doesn't know WHAT you are downloading)
Hmmm....$20 per song, or $60 for a year of VPN. This could take a bit of thinking.
It's implied that I've paid their extortion fees I'm free to download as much as I want. Right? Sure it costs a bit more than Netflix but TPB has a better selection anyway...
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Isn't this just another problem for encrypted darknets to solve?
I had some software I bought legitimately and one day it was suddenly deactivated with the company saying I stole the product key. That was the last time I paid for software.
It really is that simple. If my ISP signs up for this, and subsequently cuts off my access, I simply stop paying my ISP. They cannot legally charge me for a service they do not provide.
Hit them in their pocketbook, money is the only thing they understand.
I note in the OP that they are focussed on "Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Cable Vision and one more" which is basically means they are only going to bother with cable providers that have localised monopolies where subscribers can't just switch to a new ISP.
While that may work where cable monopolies exist (i.e. USA) it would fail utterly in markets where xDSL is the more predominant carriage method as most people would just churn from one ISP to the next rather than pay a "fine" and admit guilt, especially if the "fine(s)" add up to more than the cost of changing.
Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
Ironically, it'd still be cheaper than paying for them.
Well, but that was a while ago. Now the legal system is using rationales like "hey, your MONEY doesn't have any rights, so we don't need due process to seize it, just suspicion" and also "terrorism", "you are on this list", and the big winner, "I think I'll just shoot you" (and often your dog, even, every once in a while, your cat), plus "we like searching your finances and communications without a warrant, so we do (IRS, NSA, DEA, other TLAs)", etc.
You gotta keep up a little better.
Also, the 4th constrains the federal government. With significant optimism poured on the 14th amendment, plus a judge who hasn't received his most recent bribes, the 4th also constrains state governments. It does not, however, constrain corporations or individuals. That is, of course, if anyone was still paying it serious notice, which is clearly not the case anyway.
This stuff actually depends upon civil law, and there, the rules are *completely* different and not at all what you expect. Or will enjoy. Civil law exists specifically so the system can hammer you in the event that criminal law is not up to the job. Any other usefulness is wholly coincidental.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I'd really love to see them do this to somebody who takes them to court for it. Rightscorp and the ISP will have to prove the guilty party is the account owner. If they can't, then they still have to prove who the guilty party is, and make them pay. It's called burden of proof. This company is simply attempting to circumvent the U.S. legal system because in most cases, they won't be able to prove who was downloading the copyrighted material.
The problem is rooted in the fact that an IP address is not the same as an individual. Take for example, a household of Dad, Mom, and two children. Which device in the house was used to download the copyrighted material? Which individual was using that device at the time? How does anyone know if maybe a family friend was visiting and used the device? Is it possible that a trojan or other malware was on the device and did it without any user consent? The company would have to be able to prove which individual was using the device that was downloading the material at the time it was downloaded, and probably need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was downloaded with the user's consent. Determining all that, is next to impossible in almost all the cases.
Rightscorp & The ISP's case, is very weak if anyone challenges it.
Somebody needs to get a red light ticket, then when they come into court to challenge it, either demand the state brings the traffic camera into court so you can face your accuser, or just have somebody go tear it off and bring it in yourself.
Not that you'd ever get into the courthouse with it, but it might bizarre enough to get media attention to the issue and convince some people to complain about red light cameras in a more organized manner.
suppose you run a vpn from home. they can't easily put a redirect in when its not port 80 (etc) traffic.
wonder what they plan to do with us vpn guys?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Robert Steele is not a god. But maybe someone could prove me wrong?
You don't want to cut off their web browsing, you want to cut their power. Get the electric companies to cut the power till they pay up. Can't download or watch them infringing files with no power.
Cut the power!!!!
Be seeing you...
you can sue for tortious interference. You won't win, but you can sue.
What a country!
Find em, arrest them (RICO violations), sentence them to minimum life in prison per violation.
We won't see them til the entropy death of the universe.
It's called Hacking / Wire Fraud -it's illegal to tamper with DNS / internet streams as that violates net neutrality.
So Rightscorp, go fuck yourselves, or the people of the internet will fuck you over.
They have no rights whatsoever to illegally block customer internet services.
If someone hacks another person's internet service, what right does Rightscorp have to block a family that's done absolutely nothing to infringe from accessing the internet.
They have to catch the *person* in the act - ie physically be there and then arrest the person in question, which can only be done by law enforcement.
Anything else is heresay or worse and will not stand up in court.
End of discussion. Time to disconnect rightscorp and all of their employees from the internet forever for their illegal antics.
Only a matter of time before Rightscorp gets sued. No one will get their $20, but the lawyers will win and Rightscorp will end up with a nice bill.
Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals.
is less like a "piracy speeding ticket" and more like a "piracy wheel clamp"
No, it is not. A wheel clamp is attached by police, i.e. the executive branch of the government elected by the people. Like it or hate it, it's part of the democratic system and it is authorized to do this.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
If that gets to be a problem they can always just block all traffic except for the payment site.
This sounds familiar, looks like a protection racket to me.
time for the old anti-mafia laws to be broken out and used against these people with extreme prejudice.
Another lame attempt by people who don't know how the Internet works.
I have not had a single non-VPN connection in the Snowdon era.
Consider from their point of view with MPAA, RIAA and other trolls constantly harassing them. They cannot police their users. They often turn over lists of IP addresses and customers.
This would allow ISPs to turn over traffic inspection, enforcement, and resolution, and let someone else deal with the headache.
I can see large ISPs having teams to deal with these issues, but small ISPs having their hands forced :(
Dunno, but we should all get a tab and drop by Rightscorp to let them know how we feel about them.
http://www.rightscorp.com/cont... I personally found it exhilarating.
BOMBS AWAY!
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
They say $20 in the headlines, but tfa says more like $200-$500 is a typical 'settlement'.
What I don't understand is that a household usually has more than one person.
Even if a person lives alone, he sometimes has guests.
How do they turn of the internet for the unknown 'bad' guy without collateral damage to the rest of the household?
Surely they are not intentionally also targeting non-infringers.
Or, if they are, they need their hands slapped.
Perhaps there is a potential for money to flow the other way for damages to the rest of the household.
No doubt, it's just a matter of time before their internet timeout causes an innocent real damage.
Lawyers must be lickin their chops!
Rightscorp is saying folks should be responsible for their actions.
I think this may make them the folks being made responsible.
This sort of thing is best handled by turning their weapon against them. If a corp can block anyone's internet connection because they maybe pirated something - then you can do the same. We all create "content". Write an essay - or a forum posting. Or take a picture. Whoops - content! Now you can troll arround just like that corp. Claim that someone pirated your stuff.
And who to bother? Anyone in Rightscorp and their friends and families would be a good start. Also, anyone in the justice system; cops, lawyers, judges. And the corporations themselves - corps are "persons" and can surely have internet access revoked by their ISPs.
People in power won't like to loose internet access themselves. So striking back like this will either have the law repealed - or strict punishment for falsely claiming piracy. In the latter case, apply that punishment to trigger-happy corps. You win either way.
This actually sounds like a brilliant savings plan to me. Now I can pirate all that I want for $10/mo. I can consolidate Spotify, Netflix, Hulu....
We have freedoms because others fought for them; either pay it forward when your turn comes, or stop complaining, because by caving in, you're part of the problem.
Sometimes "paying it forward" just means inconvenience. Sometimes it costs money. Sometimes it means more ... it's for each person to decide - and if they want to make that decision based on a cost-benefit analysis ("it costs more to fight than to give in") rather than what's right or wrong, that's their decision - but it means their principles are for sale.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Per the headline, what's an infinger? Possibly the finger used to respond to this action.
So what if I only have an ubuntu server running at my house with no graphical browser.... I don't think Lynx is up to the task.
sheesh.
"This site has been blocked because it has been determined by Web Reputation Filters to be a security threat to your computer or the corporate network. This web site has been associated with malware/spyware."
Love it.
It is unwise to ascribe motive
"[What] we really want to do is move away from termination and move to what's called a hard redirect,
Is this a fancy phrase for extortion?
If my ISP did that I'd call them , asked them to remove it and if they will not I'd disconnect service. $20 worth my $100/mo indefinitely?
Not everyone has multiple ISP options but I do and I'll swap providers in a heartbeat.
Not "sheeple" so much as having other pressing financial concerns. If your money is being driven towards home repairs, car repairs, medical costs, and trying to maintain a decent standard of living (not extravagant but putting food on the table and clothes on your family) despite rising costs of living and non-rising-to-match salaries, you aren't going to have the money to hire a lawyer and you aren't going to have the time to take off of work to fight a court case. Unfortunately, our legal system is set up so that fighting for your rights takes money that many people don't have. So if you sue someone and offer a quick low-cost settlement, they will take it because it's the one that will eat less of their precious income.
Just because someone can't afford to do X doesn't mean that person is a "sheeple" for not doing it. Especially if doing X would cost money that instead is being used to feed their family and put a roof over their head.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Nice internet connection you have there. hate for something bad to happen to it.
Hi,
My internet connection no longer works please cancel. Phone up ISP B yes I would like to open an account. When ISP B starts redirecting you could probably setup service again with ISP A. The smarter way of course is to cover your tracks so you don't get the attention of for profit copyright whore's to begin with.
What's amazing to me however is that the content providers don't see the correlation with piracy and their pricing models.
Everyone affected but such a scam should file a small claims suit for the maximum in their state. Let Rightscorp fight each one.
Watch as I refuse to pay my internet bill due to my internet no longer working. Why would an ISP agree to such a thing?
... and your argument depends on people being sheeple.
By and large, people don't have the time, money, or knowledge to challenge petty nonsense like this. But it's still morally wrong to have a system in place where a mere accusation results in an actual punishment.
I wish more people would fight it, but they demonstrably won't. Does that make any of this right? Absolutely not. This company should be punished severely.
"No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation." -- General Douglas MacArthur.
That's practical advice. None of this makes it right. You absolutely have a right to complain when someone does unethical things like this.
Only problem with VPN is that some pages block you. More and more often when using VPN and google I'll get messages that my IP has exceeded the number of certain actions for the day... so I can't search anymore, or sign up for thing. All because the VPN is used by most people to do no good...
Is apparently heavily involved with this company: https://www.google.com/finance...
He is a regular speaker at HOPE, and tries to stay involved with open source and hacker communities, and is a looney tune. It's gotten to the point where people who attend his talks play "the Robert Steele drinking game" and have to drink whenever he makes ludicrous unsupportable claims.
Comcast is in the middle of turning home wfi into hotspots http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/16/technology/security/comcast-wifi-hotspot/
so now that the ISP has gone and done this to many of their customers who bares the burden of guilt when its some one using your ISP's hotspot from your home?
this is a mondegreen - it's confidante, not cosmonaut
If the company is doing wrong to so many people, then there's always a shark willing to take 30% for a class action. Now, what the company is doing is not illegal if they have proof of illegal downloading. To the contrary, it's better to have only violators pay rather than all users pay a "piracy tax" like we do now on CDs and other storage media. Why should you or I pay for someone else's actions?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
If the company is doing wrong to so many people, then there's always a shark willing to take 30% for a class action.
Not good enough. Subverting the court system that provides checks and balances is simply a fundamentally flawed and morally wrong idea to me and other freedom-minded individuals.
To the contrary, it's better to have only violators pay rather than all users pay a "piracy tax" like we do now on CDs and other storage media. Why should you or I pay for someone else's actions?
I don't, so here's an idea: Reject both ideas, because they're both unjust. Defeating false dichotomies is easy.
I like the concept, and hope it works well in actual execution.
"I tore apart your stupid hosts file crapola." - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage
Then why'd you run from disproving my points that give users added speed, security, reliability & more here this week where YOU started up your usual b.s. with me, then -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
---
"and one way to monetize your hosts file is to put a few bogus entries in that go to bogus "monetizing" sites" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage
I don't "monetize it": I give it away so folks have more speed, security, reliability & more for FREE - it's the right thing to do. I have the ability to do so & it's better than ANY single competitor by far, doing more with less.
(ALL I let users add is their favorite sites (for speed, & reliability) + to import known bad sites or adbanners (for safety & speed) blocking entries from 12 reputable sources in the security community - & users control it, not I!)
---
"Who has independently vetted it?" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage
The BEST in the security antimalware & antispyware business currently, http://www.av-test.org/en/news... who also host my program for hosts, is who -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
The best in the business recommend it as "best of breed" @ the TOP of that last link's page (MalwareBytes' hpHosts page).
APK
P.S.=>
"After all, you post anonymously" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage
Better than having multiple sockpuppet accounts like you for upmodding yourself & downmodding those you can't get the best of:
http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2...
http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson...
Which YOU have used to libel me with falsehoods like where you attempt to libel me & harm my professional programming career http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
... apk
"I tore apart your stupid hosts file crapola." - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage
Then why'd you run from disproving my points that give users added speed, security, reliability & more here this week where YOU started up your usual b.s. with me, then -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
---
"and one way to monetize your hosts file is to put a few bogus entries in that go to bogus "monetizing" sites" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage
I don't "monetize it": I give it away so folks have more speed, security, reliability & more for FREE - it's the right thing to do. I have the ability to do so & it's better than ANY single competitor by far, doing more with less.
(ALL I let users add is their favorite sites (for speed, & reliability) + to import known bad sites or adbanners (for safety & speed) blocking entries from 12 reputable sources in the security community - & users control it, not I!)
---
"Who has independently vetted it?" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage
The BEST in the security antimalware & antispyware business currently, http://www.av-test.org/en/news... who also host my program for hosts, is who -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
The best in the business recommend it as "best of breed" @ the TOP of that last link's page (MalwareBytes' hpHosts page).
APK
P.S.=>
"After all, you post anonymously" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage
Better than having multiple sockpuppet accounts like you for upmodding yourself & downmodding those you can't get the best of:
http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2...
http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson...
Which YOU have used to spread falsehoods like where you attempt to libel me & harm my professional programming career http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
... apk
"I tore apart your stupid hosts file crapola." - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage
Then why'd you run from disproving my points that give users added speed, security, reliability & more here this week where YOU started up your usual b.s. with me, then -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
---
"and one way to monetize your hosts file is to put a few bogus entries in that go to bogus "monetizing" sites" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage
I don't "monetize it": I give it away so folks have more speed, security, reliability & more for FREE - it's the right thing to do. I have the ability to do so & it's better than ANY single competitor by far, doing more with less.
(ALL I let users add is their favorite sites (for speed, & reliability) + to import known bad sites or adbanners (for safety & speed) blocking entries from 12 reputable sources in the security community - & users control it, not I!)
---
"Who has independently vetted it?" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage
The BEST in the security antimalware & antispyware business currently, http://www.av-test.org/en/news... who also host my program for hosts, is who -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
The best in the business recommend it as "best of breed" @ the TOP of that last link's page (MalwareBytes' hpHosts page).
APK
P.S.=>
"After all, you post anonymously" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage
Better than having multiple sockpuppet accounts like you for upmodding yourself & downmodding those you can't get the best of:
http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2...
http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson...
Which YOU have used to spread falsehoods like where you attempt to libel me & harm my professional programming career http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
... apk
Rightscorp was harassing me for a time because my phone number once belonged to an Army Sgt. who, apparently, violated a copyright. I shudder to think what could happen to other innocents.
We see grannies in Kiev dodging bullets to fight for basic freedoms, and we're too unmotivated, too helpless, to even take a stand on minor irritants that, if unopposed, just encourage others to do come up with similar tactics to bleed us dry by the death of a thousand cuts? I simply don't buy it.
That's why I'm saying that we have a duty to ensure our rights continue to be respected. All rights come with duties, responsibilities, or obligations. Freedom simply isn't free.
I'm not saying this as idle speech. I've taken quite a few hits for standing up for people's rights. One of the latest examples is the ongoing battle between 100 tenants and the new landlords, who want to kick everyone out and integrate the 4 buildings into a housing co-op with significant rent increases. At the public meeting on October 31st, I tore apart their claims that they could unilaterally terminate the tenants leases without cause, and pointed out that what they claimed was "the maximum compensation permitted by law" wasn't even the minimum. To try to shut me up, their director proceeded to me as a transsexual to all my neighbours who were at the meeting, as well as others. That's the sort of toothpaste that not only can't be stuffed back in the tube, but spread quickly through the community. Between December and January I was assaulted 3 times. Connection?
2 weeks ago the director had to publish a public notice. In the largest daily newspaper. In the regular news section. It reads, in part, "I, Daniel Lefebvre, sincerely apologize to Madame Barbara Hudson if I I offended her in any way with words making reference to her transsexuality at the information meeting for residents of Anthony Street."
It's one thing to be out on slashdot (2006, iirc), quite another in my own community. I paid the price for standing up for my neighbours and I'd do it again, even though it's caused quite a bit of friction in the family. After all, it's everyone's duty to "pay it forward" out of respect for the men and women who throughout history have fought to give us the rights we have today. Those who won't because it's "too inconvenient" are pissing on the sacrifices of previous generations.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
"I tore apart your stupid hosts file crapola." - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage
Then why'd you run from disproving my points that give users added speed, security, reliability & more here this week where YOU started up your usual b.s. with me, then -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
---
"and one way to monetize your hosts file is to put a few bogus entries in that go to bogus "monetizing" sites" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage
I don't "monetize it": I give it away so folks have more speed, security, reliability & more for FREE - it's the right thing to do. I have the ability to do so & it's better than ANY single competitor by far, doing more with less.
(ALL I let users add is their favorite sites (for speed, & reliability) + to import known bad sites or adbanners (for safety & speed) blocking entries from 12 reputable sources in the security community - & users control it, not I!)
---
"Who has independently vetted it?" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage
The BEST in the security antimalware & antispyware business currently, http://www.av-test.org/en/news... who also host my program for hosts, is who -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
The best in the business recommend it as "best of breed" @ the TOP of that last link's page (MalwareBytes' hpHosts page).
APK
P.S.=>
"After all, you post anonymously" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage
Better than having multiple sockpuppet accounts like you for upmodding yourself & downmodding those you can't get the best of:
http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2...
http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson...
Which YOU have used to spread falsehoods like where you attempt to harm my professional programming career via libeling me http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
... apk
They better fucking hope my uncle's 911 service through his voip service doesn't get fucked with or some serious lawsuits are coming their way.
Well, why NOT have violators pay? You speed, you get caught, you pay. You steal, you get caught, you pay. You kill someone, you get caught, you pay. In all these examples, there are exceptions for mitigating circumstances. If you're speeding because you have a passenger who needs to get to the hospital ASAP or they die ... If you steal because someone's holding a relative hostage ... If you kill someone in self-defense ...
The current situation requires everyone to pay for illegal downloaders via levies on storage media and devices that incorporate storage media. I don't illegally download, why should I be penalized by those levies? And why shouldn't illegal downloaders, when caught, not be held accountable for their actions, barring any mitigating circumstances?
There have always been, and always will be, those who are falsely accused, whether it's speeding, theft, or murder. We don't deal with this by refusing to bring charges against anybody, ever, but by allowing everyone to have their day in court. To do otherwise would be to subvert the justice system, and the public of their rights to recourse. How would you like it if there were no laws against theft? Or doing 150 in a school zone? Or bumping someone off, 'just cuz'?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Class action lawsuits don't subvert the court system
No, they don't, but then again, I didn't say they did. Rightscorp's scheme is what doesn't use the court system, and their scheme is immoral.
The current situation requires everyone to pay for illegal downloaders via levies on storage media and devices that incorporate storage media. I don't illegally download, why should I be penalized by those levies?
Take that up with the copyright thugs.
And why shouldn't illegal downloaders, when caught, not be held accountable for their actions, barring any mitigating circumstances?
Take them to *court* if you want them punished. Don't just have the ISP try to force them to cough up money based on an accusation and faulty evidence. This shit should go to court, and nowhere else. That's what pretty much everyone is saying.