For me it looks more like Orange not wishing to do peering with Cogent and Tata, both used by Megaupload. As bandwidth through the other links costs Orange money, they probably throttle bandwidth with megaupload or something like that.
At the old place I worked at, they had an internal website that had a 2 MB viewstate on a single page, this being used several times a day by about 80-100 employees.
And you suppose they should just ban everything with the text "AloneInTheDark" in the name, as if nobody can upload some some screenshots or some machinima movie or some game mod or some fan related stuff for Alone In The Dark... Just look up Youtube to see how many videos are for "Alone in the dark", only 5040 videos.
The reality is the name of the file has nothing to do with the content... and if you enforce something like this, soon you'll find files called a.rar, a.r01 and so on, and copyright owners won't even find the pirated stuff because people posting pirated content will just type the description, do a print screen and post the picture with the details instead of text. And how is that going to help anyone?
True...I'm looking right now at a CD that sits in the drawer of my desk - burned in 2001. I'm sure I have in some cardboard box some CDs that I burned on an external HP CD writer, connected through the parallel port to the PC. But the metal reflective layer on those already had some pin sized holes - luckily it was only shareware and some music on those.
You forgot to mention the 149 euro setup fee. Basically you're pre-paying for about 30% of the server and then from that 49 EURO about 20 euro is monthly pay for the server cost and 29 euro is colocation/bandwidth.
Hetzner is OK, no comment here, but you do have to mention the downsides, such as absolutely no erotic content allowed (nudity, art, regular porn - have one person post a NSFW picture on your forum and you may get terminated) and relatively poor speed to some parts of US (I've seen average of 400 KB/s to Texas)
They lost my interested when I saw... RED... 3 letters... as if 7-10% of the human male population aren't color blind (to red-green).. there's a good reason why reCaptcha is black on white.
And it's even easier to solve than reCaptcha, just drop everything that's not red in each frame , look for something the shape of letters, then decode it. If they're using the same font or a collection of fonts, it's basically easy to just scale up or down each letter and match it with what's on screen.
In both US and Europe, prices are as long as 1$ or 1euro per megabit for large commitments - meaning 1000mbs or more. Tier 1, premium bandwidth... anything between 3 and 10$ per megabit, depending on how smart you are and what account manager you discuss with. Even if we go the middle and say it's 5$ per megabit, that's 5$ for 330 GB of data flowing through the wires.
I just bought a couple of days ago Frontlines Fuel of War from Steam.... paid about 2-3$ for it and the download size is 12 GB.
If you want to, I guess you can really reach the limit of those accounts, spending 10-15$ a month. And I'm paying 20$ a month for 25/4 unrestricted connection.
If this is among the smartest bots then I'm sorry for this... I logged in and said just this.... what's on right of -------- it's my comment now.
marius - hi [ Af:2 At:9 Sp:0] Good afternoon. marius - whas up -------- intentional typo to see if it understand I probably wanted to say what's up - so that would be a question, therefore I expect an answer from them. It replies with unrelated subject and question - he's therefore bot. [ Af:2 At:9 Sp:0] What's the biggest crime you've gotten away with? marius - i killed a bot [ Af:2 At:10 Sp:0] I don't believe you. marius - well that's your problem [ Af:2 At:10 Sp:0] It is? marius - uhuh [ Af:1 At:10 Sp:0] Then you must have been being sarcastic. That's not very polite. marius - i don't really know what polite means [ Af:1 At:13 Sp:0] I love talking with you. I have never seen what polite means ---- never seen what polite means... really ? marius - i think you're a computer generated fabulation [ Af:1 At:14 Sp:0] Do you discriminate against computers? marius - no i actually appreciate them a lot [ Af:1 At:16 Sp:0] So you disagree. marius - i'm married with one [ Af:1 At:16 Sp:0] Hip hip hooray ---- yeah like when I chat with someone I expect this kind of answer.
Just a note... UPC is not an Irish ISP in particular... they're also in other countries, like Romania where I am. In other countries it's called Chello but they're slowly re-branding in some: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chello
I got 114 spams for Linkedin on two email accounts from the 24th 11:18 pm GMT+2 to 27th 11:50 GMT +2.... 80% of these were blocked automatically by simple rules like checking for Reverse DNS and checking if the sender IP is blacklisted.
Funny enough, all websites used in the messages point to a file 1.html - I guess they used some bots and some vulnerability of those websites to upload the html file with that particular name.
The GIF issue is NOT eliminated by going to 64 bit - the problem is still there, your browser will still use a lot of memory, your system can still slow down and so on.
For example, one bad person out there can just cause a (sort of) denial of service on a forum by posting inline links to several images which when posted seem ok but after a few minutes, he just replaces them with huge GIF files.
So Firefox will gladly start decoding them, go over 2GB of memory and crash on 32bit OS, otherwise will go over and use 3 GB, 4 GB, 6 GB at which point you end up filling the whole computer's memory (who has more than 4-6GB on their systems) even on 64bit OS, so the system will start dumping memory to swap and trash the hard drive.
Ok, user by now will see something's wrong and close the tab but the damage was done already - Firefox already had to purge some of its cache to make room for the decoded GIFs so Firefox will use a lot of bandwidth after this happens to retrieve all content lost before.
It does not happen a lot because it's a poor way to annoy someone as it's only a problem in Firefox and in some measure on Internet Explorer - Opera and Chrome don't have issues.
So it's not a critical bug but there is potential to be a huge problem.
And who uses GIF anyway? Anyone who needs small animations and banners. It's out of patents so it's safe just like JPG, APNG didn't catch on, rendering and animating stuff using SVG and canvas is still too incompatible, for a while PNG with transparency layer was not supported so GIF had to be used... so people still have reasons to use GIF. Even Slashdot uses GIF for a few pictures.
Now the css color bug? Look around the net at the most popular file upload sites or websites that allow you to upload files. All have to resort to Flash or some Javascript and hiding the input field, just so that the user experience is the same on various browsers.
Is any user affected? No. But developers are, having to support additional things just because someone is too lazy or doesn't feel like making a major part of html work right (I'm talking about both css color and style rules for input fields AND upload progress which doesn't work, again inly in Firefox)
You say I should fix it. Unfortunately that's impossible, even if I could. You submit a patch proposal for review. A week later.. "You used 4 spaces instead of a tab here, correct and submit it again and I'll look at it when I come back from my 2 week holiday", - "Looks good but before we would implement this we have to fix these other 10 bugs", "Ok but submit a test case first" or even worse: - "HTML standard doesn't say colors have to be applied on input fields so there's no need to support this, marking WONTFIX" - "HTML standard doesn't have any rules about how many pixels have to be between the text field and the browse button" so we won't change this - "HTML standard doesn't have any rules about where and how the Browse button is positioned so we won't support methods of placing the button below the text field and aligned to the right, just so it would look pretty in a form with other text fields." (how stupid is this?)
Even if you're patient enough it can take months just to cross all the obstacles they get in your face, so for many it's not worth the aggravation.
Unfortunately it's not something particular to Firefox, it's in the human nature and happens everywhere some people are put in a position of power: they tend to guard and protect their territory and what they worked on so newcomers are not welcome.
I can blame Firefox as much as I want when the same 8 MB grayscale GIF that crashes Firefox (>2 GB memory) makes Chrome use only 50 MB and Internet Explorer only 900 MB of memory.
A 728x90 GIF banner would use 250 KB per frame and at about 30-100 frames per banner, you're looking at 10-30 MB per banner. How many GIF's are in an average page? Lots. How many GIFs are in lots of tabs? Lots. How many bug reports and complaints are on the 'net about Firefox using a lot of memory? Lots.
It *is* a bug that affects very few people *critically* (crashes) but it is one that makes the browser generally look bad in reviews and other tests, due to the memory usage.
The problem that's brought up every time is that it's impossible to know how big a GIF file is until it's fully downloaded, so they say they have to decode each frame and keep it cached in memory. However, a simple solution would be to keep both the compressed and uncompressed frames in memory and when a memory threshold is reached, dump the uncompressed frames and switch to real time decoding. This way, for example, with a 32 MB threshold, small GIFs like banners would be fully decoded and kept in memory but with larger gifs, once the 32 MB limit is reached, the decompressed frames are dropped and only the compressed frames would be kept in memory, so Firefox would not crash.
Would have done it myself but I'm not good at the language used by Firefox developers.
It would also be faster if you go to Options and disable loading of images and Javascript. Why don't you go and do that?
By the time Firefox will make GPU acceleration work right, which is probably 1-2 years, two video card generations will come and go and the technology will be already obsolete. We'll then have 12-16 core processors capable of working with video as fast as they plan to make video work with GPU now.
You can see that with DXVA, implemented in Windows 2000 first, which is already not supported in Windows Vista. Video players to this day have problems using either DXVA 1.0 or DXVA 2.0 and drivers don't fully support these two yet.
Oh, and should I mention that 30-50% of the computers around have Intel integrated graphics which suck at GPU acceleration? The most recent integrated video card is barely able to accelerate videos.
So, websites would also have to have a fallback mechanism so they'll most likely resort to CPU + Canvas + some Direct2D or OpenGL and we'll still have Flash or CPU rendering on canvas in 2015.
Your "proper upload progress" would most likely involve Javascript or Flash, which not all people may have enabled or even installed on their computers.
The file input field bug is again one of the main reasons why lots of websites resort to using Flash or complex Javascript libraries to simulate an input field, because it's the only way to be sure it looks the same in all browsers (Chrome is a real problem here as their file input field looks totally different than the rest)
It's a pain in the ass to do workarounds and the ones hurt are the actual developers - one of the big reasons Firefox was started in the first place.
I find it ridiculous how browsers battle over something like this when they can't fix very old and stupid bugs, and fully support some older standards such as CSS 1 and CSS 2.
For example, Firefox crashes when a user loads a 2-3 MB GIF file, because each frame is kept decoded in memory and the browser goes over the 2 GB memory barrier (for 32 bit applications). https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=523950 Or, another example, the file input box ignores any css color rules simply because the html specs doesn't specify any rule so for several years nobody is able to decide something. It's actually since 2000 ffs: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52500 Or, for several years now, when uploading a file using a form, the progress is stuck somewhere around 50% and it's discussed over and over but nobody can actually do even a temporary simple fix. Since 2004: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=249338
It's actually surprising they're able to code something as complex as gpu acceleration when they can't fix small bugs and at the same time it's unfortunate that basic things are forever and ever skipped in the hunt to get the latest "features" (sometimes just to check something on a feature list) instead of actually getting some things working properly.
You can't compare the quality bandwidth of a CDN (fast download speed, consistency, multiple points of presence close to users) at 10 cents a GB with an unreliable, poor quality, possibly throttled bandwidth home users who may turn off their computers at any time.
P2P connections are good as addition to good regular connections and good quality bandwidth becomes cheaper and cheaper so p2p in my oppinion should only be used as last measure.
The average price of 1 GB of transferred data on CDN's is 10-15 cents. I'd be surprised if they don't get 10 cents from advertising by the time people do 1 GB worth of downloads. IMHO the companies are just abusing the people's bandwidth without caring about the consequences.
And just fyi, I can buy today a dedicated server with a 1gbps unmetered connection (guaranteed and tested) for about 600$ a month. That's 0.18 CENTS per GB of transferred data.
If they have my credit card information and details, it means somebody else who may not be "a good guy" may have the data, or the data may already be somewhere where there's little to no accountability.
I'm already screwed, so by making things public I may be inconvenienced but it forces the banks to take measures in protecting the clients and some changes may happen that would improve the security of all people.
There was an interview with the guy that copied the movies about that airstrike that killed some reporters among other non-combatants... Can't find the actual chat but here's a story talking about it:
For five days, Bradass87 opened his heart to Lamo. He described how his job gave him access to two secret networks: the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, SIPRNET, which carries US diplomatic and military intelligence classified "secret"; and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System which uses a different security system to carry similar material classified up to "top secret". He said this had allowed him to see "incredible things, awful things that belong in the public domain and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC almost criminal political backdealings the non-PR version of world events and crises."
Bradass87 suggested that "someone I know intimately" had been downloading and compressing and encrypting all this data and uploading it to someone he identified as Julian Assange. At times, he claimed he himself had leaked the material, suggesting that he had taken in blank CDs, labelled as Lady Gaga's music, slotted them into his high-security laptop and lip-synched to nonexistent music to cover his downloading: "i want people to see the truth," he said.
It's much easier to "justify" bringing in a CD than a memory card.
I guess you never heard of compression. Text files containing basically the same words just various formulations compress very well. The 15 MB 7z file on Wikileaks contains a 70 MB file on it so that's already a 75% reduction... 1.3 GB would be compressed to about 300 MB, or half of a CD. Can be easily hidden on a CD as several audio tracks.
Slashdot Mirror
... and created this nice presentation that's worth watching : http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2505-Sex-in-Games
For me it looks more like Orange not wishing to do peering with Cogent and Tata, both used by Megaupload. As bandwidth through the other links costs Orange money, they probably throttle bandwidth with megaupload or something like that.
They probably have some ASP page refreshing in the background, to retrieve weather info or something like that...
Maybe they forgot about the VIEWSTATE and resend it at every refresh ... one of the biggest stupidities I ever saw: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms972976.aspx#viewstate_topic9
At the old place I worked at, they had an internal website that had a 2 MB viewstate on a single page, this being used several times a day by about 80-100 employees.
And you suppose they should just ban everything with the text "AloneInTheDark" in the name, as if nobody can upload some some screenshots or some machinima movie or some game mod or some fan related stuff for Alone In The Dark... Just look up Youtube to see how many videos are for "Alone in the dark", only 5040 videos.
The reality is the name of the file has nothing to do with the content... and if you enforce something like this, soon you'll find files called a.rar, a.r01 and so on, and copyright owners won't even find the pirated stuff because people posting pirated content will just type the description, do a print screen and post the picture with the details instead of text. And how is that going to help anyone?
True...I'm looking right now at a CD that sits in the drawer of my desk - burned in 2001. I'm sure I have in some cardboard box some CDs that I burned on an external HP CD writer, connected through the parallel port to the PC. But the metal reflective layer on those already had some pin sized holes - luckily it was only shareware and some music on those.
You forgot to mention the 149 euro setup fee. Basically you're pre-paying for about 30% of the server and then from that 49 EURO about 20 euro is monthly pay for the server cost and 29 euro is colocation/bandwidth.
Hetzner is OK, no comment here, but you do have to mention the downsides, such as absolutely no erotic content allowed (nudity, art, regular porn - have one person post a NSFW picture on your forum and you may get terminated) and relatively poor speed to some parts of US (I've seen average of 400 KB/s to Texas)
or just move the connector on a side.
They lost my interested when I saw ... RED ... 3 letters ... as if 7-10% of the human male population aren't color blind (to red-green).. there's a good reason why reCaptcha is black on white.
And it's even easier to solve than reCaptcha, just drop everything that's not red in each frame , look for something the shape of letters, then decode it. If they're using the same font or a collection of fonts, it's basically easy to just scale up or down each letter and match it with what's on screen.
In both US and Europe, prices are as long as 1$ or 1euro per megabit for large commitments - meaning 1000mbs or more. Tier 1, premium bandwidth... anything between 3 and 10$ per megabit, depending on how smart you are and what account manager you discuss with. Even if we go the middle and say it's 5$ per megabit, that's 5$ for 330 GB of data flowing through the wires.
I just bought a couple of days ago Frontlines Fuel of War from Steam.... paid about 2-3$ for it and the download size is 12 GB.
If you want to, I guess you can really reach the limit of those accounts, spending 10-15$ a month. And I'm paying 20$ a month for 25/4 unrestricted connection.
If this is among the smartest bots then I'm sorry for this... I logged in and said just this.... what's on right of -------- it's my comment now.
marius - hi ... really ?
[ Af:2 At:9 Sp:0] Good afternoon.
marius - whas up -------- intentional typo to see if it understand I probably wanted to say what's up - so that would be a question, therefore I expect an answer from them. It replies with unrelated subject and question - he's therefore bot.
[ Af:2 At:9 Sp:0] What's the biggest crime you've gotten away with?
marius - i killed a bot
[ Af:2 At:10 Sp:0] I don't believe you.
marius - well that's your problem
[ Af:2 At:10 Sp:0] It is?
marius - uhuh
[ Af:1 At:10 Sp:0] Then you must have been being sarcastic. That's not very polite.
marius - i don't really know what polite means
[ Af:1 At:13 Sp:0] I love talking with you. I have never seen what polite means ---- never seen what polite means
marius - i think you're a computer generated fabulation
[ Af:1 At:14 Sp:0] Do you discriminate against computers?
marius - no i actually appreciate them a lot
[ Af:1 At:16 Sp:0] So you disagree.
marius - i'm married with one
[ Af:1 At:16 Sp:0] Hip hip hooray ---- yeah like when I chat with someone I expect this kind of answer.
Just a note ... UPC is not an Irish ISP in particular ... they're also in other countries, like Romania where I am. In other countries it's called Chello but they're slowly re-branding in some: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chello
or just paste the url of each page in Google and you'll get the first result a link to the page with "cached" link in the bottom right.
I got 114 spams for Linkedin on two email accounts from the 24th 11:18 pm GMT+2 to 27th 11:50 GMT +2.... 80% of these were blocked automatically by simple rules like checking for Reverse DNS and checking if the sender IP is blacklisted.
Funny enough, all websites used in the messages point to a file 1.html - I guess they used some bots and some vulnerability of those websites to upload the html file with that particular name.
The GIF issue is NOT eliminated by going to 64 bit - the problem is still there, your browser will still use a lot of memory, your system can still slow down and so on.
For example, one bad person out there can just cause a (sort of) denial of service on a forum by posting inline links to several images which when posted seem ok but after a few minutes, he just replaces them with huge GIF files.
So Firefox will gladly start decoding them, go over 2GB of memory and crash on 32bit OS, otherwise will go over and use 3 GB, 4 GB, 6 GB at which point you end up filling the whole computer's memory (who has more than 4-6GB on their systems) even on 64bit OS, so the system will start dumping memory to swap and trash the hard drive.
Ok, user by now will see something's wrong and close the tab but the damage was done already - Firefox already had to purge some of its cache to make room for the decoded GIFs so Firefox will use a lot of bandwidth after this happens to retrieve all content lost before.
It does not happen a lot because it's a poor way to annoy someone as it's only a problem in Firefox and in some measure on Internet Explorer - Opera and Chrome don't have issues.
So it's not a critical bug but there is potential to be a huge problem.
And who uses GIF anyway? Anyone who needs small animations and banners. It's out of patents so it's safe just like JPG, APNG didn't catch on, rendering and animating stuff using SVG and canvas is still too incompatible, for a while PNG with transparency layer was not supported so GIF had to be used... so people still have reasons to use GIF. Even Slashdot uses GIF for a few pictures.
Now the css color bug? Look around the net at the most popular file upload sites or websites that allow you to upload files. All have to resort to Flash or some Javascript and hiding the input field, just so that the user experience is the same on various browsers.
Is any user affected? No. But developers are, having to support additional things just because someone is too lazy or doesn't feel like making a major part of html work right (I'm talking about both css color and style rules for input fields AND upload progress which doesn't work, again inly in Firefox)
You say I should fix it. Unfortunately that's impossible, even if I could. You submit a patch proposal for review.
A week later.. "You used 4 spaces instead of a tab here, correct and submit it again and I'll look at it when I come back from my 2 week holiday",
- "Looks good but before we would implement this we have to fix these other 10 bugs",
"Ok but submit a test case first" or even worse:
- "HTML standard doesn't say colors have to be applied on input fields so there's no need to support this, marking WONTFIX"
- "HTML standard doesn't have any rules about how many pixels have to be between the text field and the browse button" so we won't change this
- "HTML standard doesn't have any rules about where and how the Browse button is positioned so we won't support methods of placing the button below the text field and aligned to the right, just so it would look pretty in a form with other text fields." (how stupid is this?)
Even if you're patient enough it can take months just to cross all the obstacles they get in your face, so for many it's not worth the aggravation.
Unfortunately it's not something particular to Firefox, it's in the human nature and happens everywhere some people are put in a position of power: they tend to guard and protect their territory and what they worked on so newcomers are not welcome.
I can blame Firefox as much as I want when the same 8 MB grayscale GIF that crashes Firefox (>2 GB memory) makes Chrome use only 50 MB and Internet Explorer only 900 MB of memory.
A 728x90 GIF banner would use 250 KB per frame and at about 30-100 frames per banner, you're looking at 10-30 MB per banner. How many GIF's are in an average page? Lots. How many GIFs are in lots of tabs? Lots. How many bug reports and complaints are on the 'net about Firefox using a lot of memory? Lots.
It *is* a bug that affects very few people *critically* (crashes) but it is one that makes the browser generally look bad in reviews and other tests, due to the memory usage.
The problem that's brought up every time is that it's impossible to know how big a GIF file is until it's fully downloaded, so they say they have to decode each frame and keep it cached in memory. However, a simple solution would be to keep both the compressed and uncompressed frames in memory and when a memory threshold is reached, dump the uncompressed frames and switch to real time decoding.
This way, for example, with a 32 MB threshold, small GIFs like banners would be fully decoded and kept in memory but with larger gifs, once the 32 MB limit is reached, the decompressed frames are dropped and only the compressed frames would be kept in memory, so Firefox would not crash.
Would have done it myself but I'm not good at the language used by Firefox developers.
It would also be faster if you go to Options and disable loading of images and Javascript. Why don't you go and do that?
By the time Firefox will make GPU acceleration work right, which is probably 1-2 years, two video card generations will come and go and the technology will be already obsolete. We'll then have 12-16 core processors capable of working with video as fast as they plan to make video work with GPU now.
You can see that with DXVA, implemented in Windows 2000 first, which is already not supported in Windows Vista. Video players to this day have problems using either DXVA 1.0 or DXVA 2.0 and drivers don't fully support these two yet.
Oh, and should I mention that 30-50% of the computers around have Intel integrated graphics which suck at GPU acceleration? The most recent integrated video card is barely able to accelerate videos.
So, websites would also have to have a fallback mechanism so they'll most likely resort to CPU + Canvas + some Direct2D or OpenGL and we'll still have Flash or CPU rendering on canvas in 2015.
Your "proper upload progress" would most likely involve Javascript or Flash, which not all people may have enabled or even installed on their computers.
The file input field bug is again one of the main reasons why lots of websites resort to using Flash or complex Javascript libraries to simulate an input field, because it's the only way to be sure it looks the same in all browsers (Chrome is a real problem here as their file input field looks totally different than the rest)
It's a pain in the ass to do workarounds and the ones hurt are the actual developers - one of the big reasons Firefox was started in the first place.
I find it ridiculous how browsers battle over something like this when they can't fix very old and stupid bugs, and fully support some older standards such as CSS 1 and CSS 2.
For example, Firefox crashes when a user loads a 2-3 MB GIF file, because each frame is kept decoded in memory and the browser goes over the 2 GB memory barrier (for 32 bit applications). https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=523950
Or, another example, the file input box ignores any css color rules simply because the html specs doesn't specify any rule so for several years nobody is able to decide something. It's actually since 2000 ffs: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52500
Or, for several years now, when uploading a file using a form, the progress is stuck somewhere around 50% and it's discussed over and over but nobody can actually do even a temporary simple fix. Since 2004: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=249338
It's actually surprising they're able to code something as complex as gpu acceleration when they can't fix small bugs and at the same time it's unfortunate that basic things are forever and ever skipped in the hunt to get the latest "features" (sometimes just to check something on a feature list) instead of actually getting some things working properly.
I don't get what you're trying to say.
You can't compare the quality bandwidth of a CDN (fast download speed, consistency, multiple points of presence close to users) at 10 cents a GB with an unreliable, poor quality, possibly throttled bandwidth home users who may turn off their computers at any time.
P2P connections are good as addition to good regular connections and good quality bandwidth becomes cheaper and cheaper so p2p in my oppinion should only be used as last measure.
The average price of 1 GB of transferred data on CDN's is 10-15 cents. I'd be surprised if they don't get 10 cents from advertising by the time people do 1 GB worth of downloads. IMHO the companies are just abusing the people's bandwidth without caring about the consequences.
And just fyi, I can buy today a dedicated server with a 1gbps unmetered connection (guaranteed and tested) for about 600$ a month. That's 0.18 CENTS per GB of transferred data.
If they have my credit card information and details, it means somebody else who may not be "a good guy" may have the data, or the data may already be somewhere where there's little to no accountability.
I'm already screwed, so by making things public I may be inconvenienced but it forces the banks to take measures in protecting the clients and some changes may happen that would improve the security of all people.
There was an interview with the guy that copied the movies about that airstrike that killed some reporters among other non-combatants...
Can't find the actual chat but here's a story talking about it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/wikileaks-war-logs-back-story
For five days, Bradass87 opened his heart to Lamo. He described how his job gave him access to two secret networks: the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, SIPRNET, which carries US diplomatic and military intelligence classified "secret"; and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System which uses a different security system to carry similar material classified up to "top secret". He said this had allowed him to see "incredible things, awful things that belong in the public domain and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC almost criminal political backdealings the non-PR version of world events and crises."
Bradass87 suggested that "someone I know intimately" had been downloading and compressing and encrypting all this data and uploading it to someone he identified as Julian Assange. At times, he claimed he himself had leaked the material, suggesting that he had taken in blank CDs, labelled as Lady Gaga's music, slotted them into his high-security laptop and lip-synched to nonexistent music to cover his downloading: "i want people to see the truth," he said.
It's much easier to "justify" bringing in a CD than a memory card.
I guess you never heard of compression. Text files containing basically the same words just various formulations compress very well. The 15 MB 7z file on Wikileaks contains a 70 MB file on it so that's already a 75% reduction ... 1.3 GB would be compressed to about 300 MB, or half of a CD. Can be easily hidden on a CD as several audio tracks.