By auto-destruction, I wasn't using it in a literal sense. I was talking about the ability for the possibility of decryption to expire.
Which is impossible unless the data is actually destroyed, in which case nobody has access to it anymore. I don't think I want my medical records unavailable to anybody just because the consulting doctor got delayed, or somebody entered the wrong password too many times.
But, as long as the data is stored somewhere, it can be decrypted (since the key is available), even if the "DRM system" isn't the one to do the decrypting. Since no DRM system has ever survived a thorough attack (some haven't been cracked because nobody cared enough to bother), I can't understand why anybody would suggest using DRM to try to ensure that data doesn't get revealed.
And you can't restrict who or when something is decrypted with simple encryption/decryption.
And, DRM doesn't solve this problem, either, as DVDs, Blu-Rays, and Amazon e-books all show.
The point of using DRM in that case is to require 3 variables to decrypt; a key, a timeframe, and a piece of hardware. Even if you use just the 1st two, you require DRM.
What you are saying is that DRM is designed to prevent someone who has access to the decryption key from decypting except if "authorized". If you "work with encryption daily", you would see why it is impossible for DRM to ever restrict access to someone who really wants it. Yes, it will stop casual people, but it will never actually protect your data. In fact, because the decryption key is easily available, DRM actually makes it less likely that your data will remain protected.
Don't buy Televisions from Westinghouse. They're using DRM to restrict over-the-air broadcast reception - the primary purpose of a TV! You have to get a special code from them just to use your TV.
This is one of the very few cases where DRM benefits the consumer, as it keeps the price of the TV lower. Westinghouse does this so that they only have to pay patent royalties for the tuner technology if the tuner is actually used.
Once the tuner is activated, it is permanent until a complete reset of the TV. Even with a reset, the same code will re-activate the tuner, as it is only tied to the serial number. So, yeah, it's a very weak form of DRM, but it's not much of a problem as far as real world use is concerned.
The theory would rely on Video Poker being the *one* slot machine in the casino that uses random chance in shuffling.
Video poker isn't a slot machine, and the shuffling is purely random.
The skill comes in knowing what cards to keep on the "hard" hands, but other people have figured it out for you, so you don't have to be as "smart", just have a good memory.
The machines were working exactly as they were programmed to work.
The casinos may not like the fact that they paid out more money than they "should", but they were not malfunctioning. If it was a single unit instead of units all over the US, I'd agree you definitely could call it a "malfunction", but with every unit acting that way, the line is a lot harder to draw.
That goes both directions.
Actually, it doesn't, as only the casino gets to decide if it was a "malfunction". I've never heard any story about a machine that was paying out too little and the casino made it right.
Video Poker is very different from the game your friends play. There are no other individuals to play against, only a computer screen.
Despite this, a video poker player with skill will do far better than one without.
The pay table on the machine will tell you if it is a good machine to play in the first place (skill required to know what is "good"), and then once you do play, knowing what to keep for the draw involves a lot of skill, which varies based on the exact pay table. With this sort of correct play, some video poker machines pay back over 100% in the long run.
Just an FYI, the magic time for play time average was always about 2:30 to 3:30, less than that and repeat players leave, more than 4 minutes and you don't make money either.
That's a big reason why good pinball machines started to disappear even before the Williams pulled out of the business. The last set of pinball machines were more like lotteries as far as free play (either games or balls) went. They had configs like extremely short time limits while the "extra ball" was lit, or the free game score was insanely high, and only hitting the "super amazing jackpot" would ever give you enough points to do that.
Before that, many games were just a matter of steady scoring (i.e., keeping the ball in play) to hit the replay score. Unfortunately, on those types of machines, two initial credits could last an hour or more with skilled players.
There are other ways that modern machine design has done things to reduce play time, and much of it reduces fun. Some games have replaced the mechanical plunger with an electronic one which launches the ball automatically after a certain delay. Not only is this annoying when you need to take a leak, but it removes the skill of the initial shot. Likewise, there seem to be more machines with more "certain death" paths where the ball will always drain, regardess of speed. Often these machines have a "safety" feature where the ball is resumed if this happens too soon after the initial launch, but that's just a concession that the design isn't really that good.
The classic pinball machines that people are still talking about were tough but fair, and I think that's a requirement for any future machines if the industry wants to resurrect itself.
Lets see, over the past 30 years we are seeing declining sales, declining profits, record companies going bankrupt, record companies merging for cost savings, more record companies going bankrupt, fewer albums that are being released, and fewer artists being launch.
You're just talking about the recording promoting and publishing business, which largely consists of old-guard companies that refuse to adapt to new business models.
Overall, the music business is growing. For the "[citation]" poster who will come along:
The problem with DRM is that it turns everything into a rental.
I'm not sure that is necessarily true, but even if we accept the premise, I don't see a problem with rental as long as everyone knows up-front what the deal is.
DRM allows Amazon to delete/de-authorize e-books months or years after purchase. This is not clearly documented anywhere on their site, so I don't think "everyone knows up-front".
Microsoft pushed its "Plays For Sure" very hard, and many people purchased music with the belief that the tracks were theirs to listen to forever. Once the authorization servers were de-activated, all that music stopped working. Again, this was not something that "everyone knew up-front".
I could list examples like this until I far exceed the maximum post size that/. permits.
the way they do it now is easily considered to be more fundamentally flawed, and that's by using focus groups. there is no possible way you can with any level of accuracy gauge how well a TV show or movie is going to perform by sampling such a tiny group of people.
Much of the "focus group" mentality was caused by Friends and ER.
That was the first time after "the big three" had become "the big four" and also had competition from cable TV that not just one but two shows had stormed out of the gates as the #1 show in their category (comedy/drama) and kept that spot for an extended period of time. Although this sort of thing did happen when there was a lot fewer choices, once there was some competition, it always took a few episodes (and sometimes many more, like for Seinfeld and Cheers for shows to catch on.
This is why it is very hard for "cult" shows to survive...the network won't give the audience a chance to build. The exceptions are usually shows that the network has a large amount of stake in the production. And, that also explains why there are some fairly bad shows that don't get cancelled nearly as quickly as they should. If the WB/CW hadn't devolved into the "tween targeting" network, it might have been able to give us more quality shows that need time to catch on. Cable networks are now the only chance for that, and the premium networks (HBO, etc.) seem to rely too much on the fact that they don't have to censor as much to keep some of the audience. Seriously, without the sex and nudity, it's likely that Game of Thrones would be another minor blip in the sci-fi/fantasy genre.
I dont have anything worthy of having to mass source it, and my 3$ a month "unlimited bandwidth" website has taken 400 gigs in a month downloads before without a sweat.
That's an awesome price, even if the overall speed isn't that great.
Everything I have found that gives you more than a few GB of disk space and truly unlimited bandwidth costs a lot more than that per month.
Occasionally iso's for grub magic, ultimate boot CD, and such. All of that legal. And I usually leave it up at least long enough that my share ratio is 100% (1.0).
For such tiny things (latest UBCD is 486MB), I pretty much seed forever, as it doesn't really cost me anything. I'm at 67:1 on the latest UBCD, and over 400:1 on some other much smaller torrents.
I leave them running because I don't artificially limit my upload rate on a per-torrent basis, only as a total for all torrents (and that limit is quite high, as I have Verizon FiOS). It really bugs me when I try to download an older torrent and the only seeds are uploading at a few KB/sec. Even on a 100MB torrent, it can take 5-6 hours to download.
The entire point of swarm topology is to move data to a lot of places at the same time. If you just need to get data from A to B without sharing it with anyone else, rsync it.
One huge advantage of bittorrent is that error checking/correcting is built in.
Although you would still need to re-download the block with the error, it's a very small amount of data (usually a few KB). This solves the problem of errors that happen after any data transport verification, as most bittorrent clients can be configured to do a final re-check after the torrent is complete. In addition, the data transport can be encrypted if you need it to be. Although it's not the strongest of encryptions, it would stop most casual snoopers.
33+% less on most books (and therefore 33+% less sales tax) than your local brick and mortar is still a hell of good deal. As long as Amazon's prices are significantly lower, sales taxes are lower since you pay tax based on the price you pay, not the MSRP. Still a better deal than regular stores.
In addition, it only takes about a month after first release for a book to have quite a few high quality used copies available from Amazon sellers, often at even better prices.
Amazon proper plus all the sellers makes it much better than any B&M bookstore for selection and price. Add in the fact that it's not just books, and it's hard to beat, regardless of sales tax.
Scrolling all that text without 2D accelerated hardware (not likely to be in place that early) likely adds more to the startup time than loading and displaying a graphical progress bar.
If you disable graphical boot, the console doesn't switch to "graphic" mode until fairly late in the boot sequence. It's pretty easy to see this happen as the font visibly changes.
So, it's all text mode during the most critical time, and only slow on pretty ancient hardware. Any video card even halfway decent (like less than 10 years old) will do just fine in either mode.
It's a rental service. I have not purchased these videos. I do not own them. Therefore I have no expectation of any sort of rights to do what I want with them.
What so? You can (or used to be able to) rent DVDs and do whatever the hell you liked with them within the bounds of copyright law. Making something a rental does not magically make it different.
Legally, you can't do anything other than watch a rented DVD any place you can physically take the DVD player plus the content (the rented DVD).
The Netflix model is identical, in that you can watch the content anywhere you can physically take the Netfilix player device and the content. The Netflix player device might be a phone or a standalone box (Roku, etc.) and the content is streamed from a server. This means that anywhere you have Internet access and can take the player device and connect it to the Internet, you can play the content.
Says the man with a good internet connection.
I find it much better to download a high quality local copy and then watch that, then delete it (e.g. on iPlayer). That's also a perfectly reasonable way to use such a service, especially as with that I'm not held to ransom by my crappy internet connection.
And can you rent a copy, put it on your phone (no not stream to the phone) as a downloaded copy so you can watch it with no cell service?
If Netflix doesn't offer the features you want, then you can pay for a service that does. It's not likely you'll find any service that has a price point anywhere near that of Netflix for your use case, though, as most "rent and download to view offline" services are charging at least $2/movie, and usually closer to $4. As long as you only want to watch 2-3 movies/month, then Netflix isn't a good deal, but for more than that, it's pretty much unbeaten, although Amazon Prime isn't bad, as you also get other benefits.
> There's much better ways to go about getting a good copy of whatever content is out there, especially since BluRay and DVD encryption have been broken for a long time.
i don't think that line of argument will convince netflix (or the studios) that easily breakable DRM is good enough.
You're almost certainly right about the studios wanting DRM on streaming despite the fact that most current DRM has been broken.
What the studios don't understand is they'd get even more revenue if they just opened everything up, with no blackout periods, exclusive agreements, or DRM. If people knew that they could have all the content you wanted streamed to any device, anytime, anywhere, all for a reasonable ($20/month or so) price, they wouldn't bother copying the content. They'd just pay the money and watch.
This doesn't mean that file sharing would stop, as there's always somebody who won't even pay $0.01.
Yet it's enough a single person to decrypt their streams with the necessary means, and distribute the content over p2p networks, where people can easily download and that's it.
For a service like Netflix, this is really only important for exclusive content. Anything that is available on DVD, Blu-Ray, or even premium HDTV channels is already easy to distribute.
and all mails you get will be delayed by an hour or more, pretty unacceptable when you get an urgent complaint that something is down.
In a correctly configured greylist, only the first e-mail ever received from a particular IP address will be delayed. Once you know an IP addresss follows the RFC and retries, then you know that even if they do send you spam, delaying it won't change that. In order to allow for the actual machine behind an IP address changing, instead of a permanent whitelist, you pick a timeout that is long enough but not too long. I use 40 days, which allows a once-monthly mailing list to not be delayed (since the timeout is reset each time you receive an e-mail from an IP). You also pre-load the database with whitelists for Google, Amazon, Yahoo, etc.
I also set just a 4 minute delay, which means that the one e-mail is rarely even delayed by 10 minutes. I could probably get by with as short as one minute, since that would still handle the spambots that try all MX records but never try again.
Last, since I already have a database, it makes it really easy to build my own "IP address reputation" based on the incoming e-mail, which allows me to do things like temporarily blacklist an IP that has sent a lot of spam recently, etc.
But if it only applies to a "home", then no warrant would be required to search a business.
One isn't required if the target of the search isn't the business itself.
For example, if the police suspect that an employee of Initrode Global committed a murder, they don't need a warrant to search that person's office desk. All they need is permission from someone in the company. In this case, even though the desk is a "personal area", it's not a "private" one.
As for the 4th Amendment using the term "house" specifically, it actually says "persons, houses, papers, and effects," so there shouldn't be any difference at all in the way it's interpreted for your email, unless you want to claim that because people use digital documents now instead of actual paper there are no rules.
There is no difference in the interpretation for physical vs. electronic.
In either case, handing your "papers and effects" to a third party who isn't your legal counsel means that they are free to do whatever they want with them, and the government doesn't have to get a warrant. Now, that third party might refuse to give them up without some sort of legal force, and in this case the 180-day law is the force being used.
I was amazed to hear they are moving this company (200k+ employees) over to Gmail for emails and contacts as well as a bunch of other things.
This pretty much means you aren't in any industry that has government contracts, or deals with health care in any way, or a bunch of other industries that require some guarantees of data protection. And, that you don't want to do business with such companies.
I've also learned that having e-mail that requires your ISP connection to be up and not overloaded is not a good thing. The CEO doesn't care that somebody is downloading service packs or new software versions that are important for your business when he can't connect to the e-mail server to send a message. Also, that 1MB attachment (a photo from the company picnic) that he put in the e-mail to "all employees" will now cost you 209GB of ISP bandwidth for your 200K+ people to download.
Slashdot Mirror
By auto-destruction, I wasn't using it in a literal sense. I was talking about the ability for the possibility of decryption to expire.
Which is impossible unless the data is actually destroyed, in which case nobody has access to it anymore. I don't think I want my medical records unavailable to anybody just because the consulting doctor got delayed, or somebody entered the wrong password too many times.
But, as long as the data is stored somewhere, it can be decrypted (since the key is available), even if the "DRM system" isn't the one to do the decrypting. Since no DRM system has ever survived a thorough attack (some haven't been cracked because nobody cared enough to bother), I can't understand why anybody would suggest using DRM to try to ensure that data doesn't get revealed.
And you can't restrict who or when something is decrypted with simple encryption/decryption.
And, DRM doesn't solve this problem, either, as DVDs, Blu-Rays, and Amazon e-books all show.
The point of using DRM in that case is to require 3 variables to decrypt; a key, a timeframe, and a piece of hardware. Even if you use just the 1st two, you require DRM.
What you are saying is that DRM is designed to prevent someone who has access to the decryption key from decypting except if "authorized". If you "work with encryption daily", you would see why it is impossible for DRM to ever restrict access to someone who really wants it. Yes, it will stop casual people, but it will never actually protect your data. In fact, because the decryption key is easily available, DRM actually makes it less likely that your data will remain protected.
Don't buy Televisions from Westinghouse. They're using DRM to restrict over-the-air broadcast reception - the primary purpose of a TV! You have to get a special code from them just to use your TV.
This is one of the very few cases where DRM benefits the consumer, as it keeps the price of the TV lower. Westinghouse does this so that they only have to pay patent royalties for the tuner technology if the tuner is actually used.
Once the tuner is activated, it is permanent until a complete reset of the TV. Even with a reset, the same code will re-activate the tuner, as it is only tied to the serial number. So, yeah, it's a very weak form of DRM, but it's not much of a problem as far as real world use is concerned.
The theory would rely on Video Poker being the *one* slot machine in the casino that uses random chance in shuffling.
Video poker isn't a slot machine, and the shuffling is purely random.
The skill comes in knowing what cards to keep on the "hard" hands, but other people have figured it out for you, so you don't have to be as "smart", just have a good memory.
Malfunction voids the game.
The machines were working exactly as they were programmed to work.
The casinos may not like the fact that they paid out more money than they "should", but they were not malfunctioning. If it was a single unit instead of units all over the US, I'd agree you definitely could call it a "malfunction", but with every unit acting that way, the line is a lot harder to draw.
That goes both directions.
Actually, it doesn't, as only the casino gets to decide if it was a "malfunction". I've never heard any story about a machine that was paying out too little and the casino made it right.
Video Poker is very different from the game your friends play. There are no other individuals to play against, only a computer screen.
Despite this, a video poker player with skill will do far better than one without.
The pay table on the machine will tell you if it is a good machine to play in the first place (skill required to know what is "good"), and then once you do play, knowing what to keep for the draw involves a lot of skill, which varies based on the exact pay table. With this sort of correct play, some video poker machines pay back over 100% in the long run.
Just an FYI, the magic time for play time average was always about 2:30 to 3:30, less than that and repeat players leave, more than 4 minutes and you don't make money either.
That's a big reason why good pinball machines started to disappear even before the Williams pulled out of the business. The last set of pinball machines were more like lotteries as far as free play (either games or balls) went. They had configs like extremely short time limits while the "extra ball" was lit, or the free game score was insanely high, and only hitting the "super amazing jackpot" would ever give you enough points to do that.
Before that, many games were just a matter of steady scoring (i.e., keeping the ball in play) to hit the replay score. Unfortunately, on those types of machines, two initial credits could last an hour or more with skilled players.
There are other ways that modern machine design has done things to reduce play time, and much of it reduces fun. Some games have replaced the mechanical plunger with an electronic one which launches the ball automatically after a certain delay. Not only is this annoying when you need to take a leak, but it removes the skill of the initial shot. Likewise, there seem to be more machines with more "certain death" paths where the ball will always drain, regardess of speed. Often these machines have a "safety" feature where the ball is resumed if this happens too soon after the initial launch, but that's just a concession that the design isn't really that good.
The classic pinball machines that people are still talking about were tough but fair, and I think that's a requirement for any future machines if the industry wants to resurrect itself.
Lets see, over the past 30 years we are seeing declining sales, declining profits, record companies going bankrupt, record companies merging for cost savings, more record companies going bankrupt, fewer albums that are being released, and fewer artists being launch.
You're just talking about the recording promoting and publishing business, which largely consists of old-guard companies that refuse to adapt to new business models.
Overall, the music business is growing. For the "[citation]" poster who will come along:
The problem with DRM is that it turns everything into a rental.
I'm not sure that is necessarily true, but even if we accept the premise, I don't see a problem with rental as long as everyone knows up-front what the deal is.
DRM allows Amazon to delete/de-authorize e-books months or years after purchase. This is not clearly documented anywhere on their site, so I don't think "everyone knows up-front".
Microsoft pushed its "Plays For Sure" very hard, and many people purchased music with the belief that the tracks were theirs to listen to forever. Once the authorization servers were de-activated, all that music stopped working. Again, this was not something that "everyone knew up-front".
I could list examples like this until I far exceed the maximum post size that /. permits.
the way they do it now is easily considered to be more fundamentally flawed, and that's by using focus groups. there is no possible way you can with any level of accuracy gauge how well a TV show or movie is going to perform by sampling such a tiny group of people.
Much of the "focus group" mentality was caused by Friends and ER.
That was the first time after "the big three" had become "the big four" and also had competition from cable TV that not just one but two shows had stormed out of the gates as the #1 show in their category (comedy/drama) and kept that spot for an extended period of time. Although this sort of thing did happen when there was a lot fewer choices, once there was some competition, it always took a few episodes (and sometimes many more, like for Seinfeld and Cheers for shows to catch on.
This is why it is very hard for "cult" shows to survive...the network won't give the audience a chance to build. The exceptions are usually shows that the network has a large amount of stake in the production. And, that also explains why there are some fairly bad shows that don't get cancelled nearly as quickly as they should. If the WB/CW hadn't devolved into the "tween targeting" network, it might have been able to give us more quality shows that need time to catch on. Cable networks are now the only chance for that, and the premium networks (HBO, etc.) seem to rely too much on the fact that they don't have to censor as much to keep some of the audience. Seriously, without the sex and nudity, it's likely that Game of Thrones would be another minor blip in the sci-fi/fantasy genre.
I dont have anything worthy of having to mass source it, and my 3$ a month "unlimited bandwidth" website has taken 400 gigs in a month downloads before without a sweat.
That's an awesome price, even if the overall speed isn't that great.
Everything I have found that gives you more than a few GB of disk space and truly unlimited bandwidth costs a lot more than that per month.
Occasionally iso's for grub magic, ultimate boot CD, and such. All of that legal. And I usually leave it up at least long enough that my share ratio is 100% (1.0).
For such tiny things (latest UBCD is 486MB), I pretty much seed forever, as it doesn't really cost me anything. I'm at 67:1 on the latest UBCD, and over 400:1 on some other much smaller torrents.
I leave them running because I don't artificially limit my upload rate on a per-torrent basis, only as a total for all torrents (and that limit is quite high, as I have Verizon FiOS). It really bugs me when I try to download an older torrent and the only seeds are uploading at a few KB/sec. Even on a 100MB torrent, it can take 5-6 hours to download.
The entire point of swarm topology is to move data to a lot of places at the same time. If you just need to get data from A to B without sharing it with anyone else, rsync it.
One huge advantage of bittorrent is that error checking/correcting is built in.
Although you would still need to re-download the block with the error, it's a very small amount of data (usually a few KB). This solves the problem of errors that happen after any data transport verification, as most bittorrent clients can be configured to do a final re-check after the torrent is complete. In addition, the data transport can be encrypted if you need it to be. Although it's not the strongest of encryptions, it would stop most casual snoopers.
33+% less on most books (and therefore 33+% less sales tax) than your local brick and mortar is still a hell of good deal. As long as Amazon's prices are significantly lower, sales taxes are lower since you pay tax based on the price you pay, not the MSRP. Still a better deal than regular stores.
In addition, it only takes about a month after first release for a book to have quite a few high quality used copies available from Amazon sellers, often at even better prices.
Amazon proper plus all the sellers makes it much better than any B&M bookstore for selection and price. Add in the fact that it's not just books, and it's hard to beat, regardless of sales tax.
The big problem was reduced running time. Going from 21 minutes down to 18 really hurts storytelling.
The first half of season 7 of Futurama averaged 21:20 per episode (sans commercials, including credits), with none less than 21 minutes.
Scrolling all that text without 2D accelerated hardware (not likely to be in place that early) likely adds more to the startup time than loading and displaying a graphical progress bar.
If you disable graphical boot, the console doesn't switch to "graphic" mode until fairly late in the boot sequence. It's pretty easy to see this happen as the font visibly changes.
So, it's all text mode during the most critical time, and only slow on pretty ancient hardware. Any video card even halfway decent (like less than 10 years old) will do just fine in either mode.
Maybe my diskspace is a bit more than yours?
I've got a Fedora install with over 10TB of space in ext4 and I reboot about as often as you do.
Despite that, fsck adds only about 30 seconds to my boot.
It's a rental service. I have not purchased these videos. I do not own them. Therefore I have no expectation of any sort of rights to do what I want with them.
What so? You can (or used to be able to) rent DVDs and do whatever the hell you liked with them within the bounds of copyright law. Making something a rental does not magically make it different.
Legally, you can't do anything other than watch a rented DVD any place you can physically take the DVD player plus the content (the rented DVD).
The Netflix model is identical, in that you can watch the content anywhere you can physically take the Netfilix player device and the content. The Netflix player device might be a phone or a standalone box (Roku, etc.) and the content is streamed from a server. This means that anywhere you have Internet access and can take the player device and connect it to the Internet, you can play the content.
Says the man with a good internet connection.
I find it much better to download a high quality local copy and then watch that, then delete it (e.g. on iPlayer). That's also a perfectly reasonable way to use such a service, especially as with that I'm not held to ransom by my crappy internet connection.
And can you rent a copy, put it on your phone (no not stream to the phone) as a downloaded copy so you can watch it with no cell service?
If Netflix doesn't offer the features you want, then you can pay for a service that does. It's not likely you'll find any service that has a price point anywhere near that of Netflix for your use case, though, as most "rent and download to view offline" services are charging at least $2/movie, and usually closer to $4. As long as you only want to watch 2-3 movies/month, then Netflix isn't a good deal, but for more than that, it's pretty much unbeaten, although Amazon Prime isn't bad, as you also get other benefits.
> There's much better ways to go about getting a good copy of whatever content is out there, especially since BluRay and DVD encryption have been broken for a long time.
i don't think that line of argument will convince netflix (or the studios) that easily breakable DRM is good enough.
You're almost certainly right about the studios wanting DRM on streaming despite the fact that most current DRM has been broken.
What the studios don't understand is they'd get even more revenue if they just opened everything up, with no blackout periods, exclusive agreements, or DRM. If people knew that they could have all the content you wanted streamed to any device, anytime, anywhere, all for a reasonable ($20/month or so) price, they wouldn't bother copying the content. They'd just pay the money and watch.
This doesn't mean that file sharing would stop, as there's always somebody who won't even pay $0.01.
solved by HDCP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content_Protection
And un-solved by the HDFury and other similar devices.
Yet it's enough a single person to decrypt their streams with the necessary means, and distribute the content over p2p networks, where people can easily download and that's it.
For a service like Netflix, this is really only important for exclusive content. Anything that is available on DVD, Blu-Ray, or even premium HDTV channels is already easy to distribute.
and all mails you get will be delayed by an hour or more, pretty unacceptable when you get an urgent complaint that something is down.
In a correctly configured greylist, only the first e-mail ever received from a particular IP address will be delayed. Once you know an IP addresss follows the RFC and retries, then you know that even if they do send you spam, delaying it won't change that. In order to allow for the actual machine behind an IP address changing, instead of a permanent whitelist, you pick a timeout that is long enough but not too long. I use 40 days, which allows a once-monthly mailing list to not be delayed (since the timeout is reset each time you receive an e-mail from an IP). You also pre-load the database with whitelists for Google, Amazon, Yahoo, etc.
I also set just a 4 minute delay, which means that the one e-mail is rarely even delayed by 10 minutes. I could probably get by with as short as one minute, since that would still handle the spambots that try all MX records but never try again.
Last, since I already have a database, it makes it really easy to build my own "IP address reputation" based on the incoming e-mail, which allows me to do things like temporarily blacklist an IP that has sent a lot of spam recently, etc.
But if it only applies to a "home", then no warrant would be required to search a business.
One isn't required if the target of the search isn't the business itself.
For example, if the police suspect that an employee of Initrode Global committed a murder, they don't need a warrant to search that person's office desk. All they need is permission from someone in the company. In this case, even though the desk is a "personal area", it's not a "private" one.
As for the 4th Amendment using the term "house" specifically, it actually says "persons, houses, papers, and effects," so there shouldn't be any difference at all in the way it's interpreted for your email, unless you want to claim that because people use digital documents now instead of actual paper there are no rules.
There is no difference in the interpretation for physical vs. electronic.
In either case, handing your "papers and effects" to a third party who isn't your legal counsel means that they are free to do whatever they want with them, and the government doesn't have to get a warrant. Now, that third party might refuse to give them up without some sort of legal force, and in this case the 180-day law is the force being used.
I was amazed to hear they are moving this company (200k+ employees) over to Gmail for emails and contacts as well as a bunch of other things.
This pretty much means you aren't in any industry that has government contracts, or deals with health care in any way, or a bunch of other industries that require some guarantees of data protection. And, that you don't want to do business with such companies.
I've also learned that having e-mail that requires your ISP connection to be up and not overloaded is not a good thing. The CEO doesn't care that somebody is downloading service packs or new software versions that are important for your business when he can't connect to the e-mail server to send a message. Also, that 1MB attachment (a photo from the company picnic) that he put in the e-mail to "all employees" will now cost you 209GB of ISP bandwidth for your 200K+ people to download.