The discussion was about a bunch of unauthenticated data dumped to the internet by unknown persons, as far as I could tell. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just wanted to illustrate my point with a real-world example. I'm satisfied that I have, but I take your points as well.
I think he's talking about the overhead of streaming, and making the point that once you have the speed to download rather than stream, you free up even more bandwidth than you would expect.
Of course what he doesn't talk about is how scared content providers will be when they hear that the user will have downloaded the file. Downloaded?!?!? Oh, noes - piracy! Arrgh!!
I'm embarrassed for/. that it took an AC to make this point. THIS is the key point in the conversation, and the reason Cerf is living in fantasyland. As long as the service providers are the same people with the pipe monopoly, they will continue to gobble up the content providers and NEVER support building out networks further. At every step of the way it is against their sense of self-interest, and it will be a major factor in the decline of US competitiveness over the next 30-40 years.
The public good is served by municipal last mile and strict separation of ISPs and major content providers. It's obvious at this point that they've known it for some time, and we've all but lost a war that the American public don't understand, or even know exists.
Now if only they could have highlighted incompetent security with courage and integrity. Instead, I consider the good outcomes of their actions a beneficial side-effect of criminal actions. And not the kind of Robin Hood or Jean Val Jean criminal...more the Joker dickhead criminal that few will mourn.
I'd have to agree with this, but I'm still going to be glad for better outcomes.
Are you sure that a group defining itself "the world's leaders in high-quality entertainment at your expense" is working for a better world?
Maybe not, but the honesty is refreshing. Ironically, the bald statement of hostility makes me trust them more than all the people and organizations insisting they're doing things for my own good while crushing all the ideals I hold dear.
this is stupid. you don't go picking locks to make your neighbor get better locks
Not to single you out personally, but this is a meme I'm seeing a lot of in these more recent articles - the implication is that us regular schmucks may be vulnerable because WE may end up with the kind of power that would be threatened by the actions of Lulz, etc. But individuals are not corporations, banks, or governments. This is how political leaders get people to vote against their own interests.
I know that's not exactly what you were saying, but using an analogy that replaces Comcast NBC Viviendi Viacom Universal GE with Joe the plumber supports a false correlation. The FBI isn't out to save our pensions (whoops! what pensions?), they're out to protect major interests which usually don't serve us and often work against our best interests as individuals and as a society.
I'm not saying AntiSec is a Good Thing, but I don't think it's reasonable to behave as though they are The Enemy, either.
it's not like they're freedom fighters being stepped on by the government.
It seems to me that it is precisely like that in some people's eyes.
Watching the class clown get sent to the office where he is butt-raped by the principal probably doesn't inspire lots of others to take up the mantle and carry on the cause of lulz.
There have been a few counter-examples over the course of US history. One man's lulz are another man's proactive defense of liberty. People like the class clown, and seeing him raped as punishment for making faces in class will enrage at least as many people as it will cow.
Thanks for the apology, I was confused how their actions could in any way be compared to theft. Now I see that theft is a crime totally unrelated to the actual actions of the individuals in question. It reminds me of my confusion when people suggest infringement is the same as theft, when they're totally different classes of crime.
So you wouldn't mind if I broke into your bank account, and moved some information around so you had nothing left in your account? I didn't actually steal anything, just moved some data around...
Oh god, I didn't realize they emptied bank accounts. That is definitely theft, and should be punished as such. Do you have a link to that article? I don't see anything about that in the summary link.
That is exactly what they are doing. They have already made the baseless accusation that the government is corrupt, and now they are going to 'find' some information to prove it. And what are you going to 'peer review'? There is only ONE source of data, and it can't be authenticated.
I wouldn't say the accusation that the government is corrupt is entirely baseless - there seems to be a significant amount of circumstantial evidence to at least support investigation, and you can hardly expect a suspect office to investigate itself.
As for cloud peer review, you have no basis for an assertion that any leak cannot be authenticated by some other means, because we aren't actually talking about a real leak but some theoretical future leak. Someone within an organization, or an affiliate organization, may have access to information that Lulzsec do not, and may feel compelled to help (or hinder) corroboration.
Let's see if they scare anything up, and then we can take it apart and see if any of it holds water - if you'll excuse the fractured metaphors.
Except that it's never as simple as MegaCorp paying $10million to PoliticianA. These idiots don't have the tools to do what the FBI and others do every day.
Maybe. You know that old saw about everything looking like a nail if all you have is a hammer? Well with enough hammers, anything can be used as a nail.
Yeah, a bunch of unauthenticated data dumped to the internet by unknown persons is really valuable stuff. Or are we just supposed to take their word for it? Or maybe, if the (unauthenticated) data indicates someone you don't like did something improper, then it simply MUST be true?
No, you're right. Better to not publish anything for peer review and instead make baseless accusations.
Right now the FBI could already have a computer identity database.
You don't have to look very hard to find the FBI tracking and targeting individuals involved in anti-war and civil rights groups. This is a pattern documented heavily since at least the 60s. It's perfectly safe to assume they already have such a database and are actively engaged in its development, regardless of an individual's actual affiliations. See: domestic wiretapping.
They will become the reason for the cybercops and aid the thought police.
Not the reason, the excuse. Which, in my mind, is precisely the point of the movement. Those laws not on the books are already written, earmarked, and supported by powerful non-governmental interests. It's like a frog in hot water. Turn up the heat faster, the frog may have time to jump out.
Slashdot Mirror
So? It's his second amendment right to have a gun. You haplophobes freak out over the slightest things.
I'm not afraid of guns. I'm afraid of people with guns.
The discussion was about a bunch of unauthenticated data dumped to the internet by unknown persons, as far as I could tell. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just wanted to illustrate my point with a real-world example. I'm satisfied that I have, but I take your points as well.
Best,
AS
I enjoyed your comment, but why on earth did you link to an embedded youtube video on metacafe?
Here's the actual link:
Well *I* laughed.
Sorry to come back to this old thread. This conversation got stuck in my head somehow. The topic was authentication of data.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110623-714031.html
It seems the first leak has already been authenticated at the source. See? Peers! =)
AS
I think he's talking about the overhead of streaming, and making the point that once you have the speed to download rather than stream, you free up even more bandwidth than you would expect.
Of course what he doesn't talk about is how scared content providers will be when they hear that the user will have downloaded the file. Downloaded?!?!? Oh, noes - piracy! Arrgh!!
I'm embarrassed for /. that it took an AC to make this point. THIS is the key point in the conversation, and the reason Cerf is living in fantasyland. As long as the service providers are the same people with the pipe monopoly, they will continue to gobble up the content providers and NEVER support building out networks further. At every step of the way it is against their sense of self-interest, and it will be a major factor in the decline of US competitiveness over the next 30-40 years.
The public good is served by municipal last mile and strict separation of ISPs and major content providers. It's obvious at this point that they've known it for some time, and we've all but lost a war that the American public don't understand, or even know exists.
It's more than troubling, now. It's chilling.
Now if only they could have highlighted incompetent security with courage and integrity. Instead, I consider the good outcomes of their actions a beneficial side-effect of criminal actions. And not the kind of Robin Hood or Jean Val Jean criminal...more the Joker dickhead criminal that few will mourn.
I'd have to agree with this, but I'm still going to be glad for better outcomes.
'Magine that! Consumers demanding something instead of whining to the government about it...I guess there is still hope.
Not if those consumers are branded as terrorists.
Are you sure that a group defining itself "the world's leaders in high-quality entertainment at your expense" is working for a better world?
Maybe not, but the honesty is refreshing. Ironically, the bald statement of hostility makes me trust them more than all the people and organizations insisting they're doing things for my own good while crushing all the ideals I hold dear.
this is stupid. you don't go picking locks to make your neighbor get better locks
Not to single you out personally, but this is a meme I'm seeing a lot of in these more recent articles - the implication is that us regular schmucks may be vulnerable because WE may end up with the kind of power that would be threatened by the actions of Lulz, etc. But individuals are not corporations, banks, or governments. This is how political leaders get people to vote against their own interests.
I know that's not exactly what you were saying, but using an analogy that replaces Comcast NBC Viviendi Viacom Universal GE with Joe the plumber supports a false correlation. The FBI isn't out to save our pensions (whoops! what pensions?), they're out to protect major interests which usually don't serve us and often work against our best interests as individuals and as a society.
I'm not saying AntiSec is a Good Thing, but I don't think it's reasonable to behave as though they are The Enemy, either.
(I didn't say it was a slap on the wrist, just that they won't be getting 30 years in the electric chair like these asshats).
I knew some US States were harsh, but is 30 years really necessary before switching the chair off? Jeez!
Talk about carbon footprints...
it's not like they're freedom fighters being stepped on by the government.
It seems to me that it is precisely like that in some people's eyes.
Watching the class clown get sent to the office where he is butt-raped by the principal probably doesn't inspire lots of others to take up the mantle and carry on the cause of lulz.
There have been a few counter-examples over the course of US history. One man's lulz are another man's proactive defense of liberty. People like the class clown, and seeing him raped as punishment for making faces in class will enrage at least as many people as it will cow.
noone wants to start filling up prisons with skiddies
I wouldn't say no one.
Thanks for the apology, I was confused how their actions could in any way be compared to theft. Now I see that theft is a crime totally unrelated to the actual actions of the individuals in question. It reminds me of my confusion when people suggest infringement is the same as theft, when they're totally different classes of crime.
I'll try to read more carefully in the future.
So you wouldn't mind if I broke into your bank account, and moved some information around so you had nothing left in your account? I didn't actually steal anything, just moved some data around...
Oh god, I didn't realize they emptied bank accounts. That is definitely theft, and should be punished as such. Do you have a link to that article? I don't see anything about that in the summary link.
But I just wanted my air conditioning fixed...
That is exactly what they are doing. They have already made the baseless accusation that the government is corrupt, and now they are going to 'find' some information to prove it. And what are you going to 'peer review'? There is only ONE source of data, and it can't be authenticated.
I wouldn't say the accusation that the government is corrupt is entirely baseless - there seems to be a significant amount of circumstantial evidence to at least support investigation, and you can hardly expect a suspect office to investigate itself.
As for cloud peer review, you have no basis for an assertion that any leak cannot be authenticated by some other means, because we aren't actually talking about a real leak but some theoretical future leak. Someone within an organization, or an affiliate organization, may have access to information that Lulzsec do not, and may feel compelled to help (or hinder) corroboration.
Let's see if they scare anything up, and then we can take it apart and see if any of it holds water - if you'll excuse the fractured metaphors.
Fool.
Those that disagree you dismiss as stupid.
Typical.
I can't imagine what I could add that would invalidate your argument more succinctly.
Thanks!
Watch out for a run on pet stores. Price of lizards is going to skyrocket.
You think it's bad now, wait until bitcoins start using lizards as backing.
Chaos.
Except that it's never as simple as MegaCorp paying $10million to PoliticianA. These idiots don't have the tools to do what the FBI and others do every day.
Maybe. You know that old saw about everything looking like a nail if all you have is a hammer? Well with enough hammers, anything can be used as a nail.
Yeah, a bunch of unauthenticated data dumped to the internet by unknown persons is really valuable stuff. Or are we just supposed to take their word for it? Or maybe, if the (unauthenticated) data indicates someone you don't like did something improper, then it simply MUST be true?
No, you're right. Better to not publish anything for peer review and instead make baseless accusations.
Right now the FBI could already have a computer identity database.
You don't have to look very hard to find the FBI tracking and targeting individuals involved in anti-war and civil rights groups. This is a pattern documented heavily since at least the 60s. It's perfectly safe to assume they already have such a database and are actively engaged in its development, regardless of an individual's actual affiliations. See: domestic wiretapping.
They will become the reason for the cybercops and aid the thought police.
Not the reason, the excuse. Which, in my mind, is precisely the point of the movement. Those laws not on the books are already written, earmarked, and supported by powerful non-governmental interests. It's like a frog in hot water. Turn up the heat faster, the frog may have time to jump out.
+1 literate
It's easy to make those sorts of ignorant potshots
Fun, too!