I think its to have something against apple/google to encrypt phones by default. They cannot block you from providing secure TLS on your website, but they can force companies to implement a backdoor in their hardware encryption.
he can say it as often as he wants to. Free speech and so. He can compare it to whatever he wants and mark fields with red for other tools and green for his tool. We do not need to give a fuck.
Imagine a system, where you have 1 GB of RAM full of data. you send it to two peers, which discard their storage and store your data. Everyone does it, every new member can inject up to 1 GB. The data is most the time on the network and some time in the RAM of different nodes.
You're having plausibly deniability. And they know it. Not plausible as in "we know, every truecrypt user has a hidden volume", but as in "we know, that the protocol does not permit you to have the encryption keys"
No, not even there is a difference. You can say, you think Snakeoil will cure cancer. If you tell, it really does, you can be held liable, even as person. If you told in good faith, you will not be liable for telling lies about it, maybe for exaggerating its healthiness. Of course, the penalty for lying about it will be higher, if you do so to sell it. So make sure to have sources for your claims and add references to them where its needed, then you'll be save. Otherwise you can even get problems if you blog about something, which is not clearly marked as cite or opinion.
yes and no. First: Free Speech is about to speak free to those, who want to listen. Not to get a platform everywhere. Full ACK. But: Free Speech should protect companies as well.
What can be compared to your post in germany is the right to "private copies", which means you can legally copy the CD for your car radio and you can give the copy even to relatives or close friends. Which excludes wider audiences or even companies.
But a.torrent is like a map. Nobody should forbid you to print a map with a big red X where you can buy drugs. Its even good for the cops, they look at the map and find the dealer. But the governments are taking another route: confiscate the map and tell everyone you solved the problem. While the junkies still have a copy of the map or now the location without map.
i did not specify this too exact. If you really want to nitpick, probably both and pirated stuff are not, because the download itself is not forbidden in many jurisdication, only the ownership and the distribution. What i meant, and i guess you know it, is that the illegal copy of a file is something which can be taken down with a DMCA, if the hoster is liable in this jurisdication. But taking down a link to this stuff is censorship.
an illegal download... is illegal. But a link to this download on the google page per se is free speech. Now a DMCA censors this free speech of google to link this page for the correct search terms. That's what chillingeffects records.
> That's just retarded since any protocol analyzer will be able to represent the data in a consice way for anyone who cares to know you are saying it. You need a protocol analyser. No more netcat or telnet, you will need stuff like tcpdump or wireshark or some special http2 tool to look into the data. The more complicated the tools for testing get, the harder debugging gets. So you actually can optimize less than before, because testing takes more time and efford.
if your site has 30% traffic for http-headers, you're doing it wrong. Have a look at websockets or server-sent events, if you need to get push data that often. even long polling will solve your problem.
we are talking about a few bytes, not even kilobytes.
With your argument you DO NOT want http/2 or spdy, because they push ressources you have not requested, like ads. You won't see them with your adblocker, but you still download them, because they are just sent.
1) Who cares, if its faster, if you shave off like 20 bytes? With your 28k modem this was real time, but even with umts you do not notice the difference. Even with hundereds of connections (which do not work very good via umts for other reasons). And every little logo on a homepage makes you pay more than the 20 bytes saved in the http header.
boils all down to the same: When you need to break a protocol (you need to, because of bigger addresses), then take the opportunity to fix all other mistakes as well.
Or at least something backward compatible, no stinking binary protocols.
Compression? Bandwidth is bigger and cheaper than ever. So why? SPDY had in the first draft the nice feature, to require TLS, which was dropped, too. So not even this advantage stays there for spdy/http2
always the same old "but i do not have something to hide / i am not interesting" argument. This is just an excuse for "i am too lazy to protect me". You do not need to be interesting to the NSA. Nobody would have something against agencies hunting terrorists. But the NSA collects everything. everything. THIS is the problem. And they collect your data, too.
Slashdot Mirror
I think its to have something against apple/google to encrypt phones by default. They cannot block you from providing secure TLS on your website, but they can force companies to implement a backdoor in their hardware encryption.
he can say it as often as he wants to. Free speech and so.
He can compare it to whatever he wants and mark fields with red for other tools and green for his tool.
We do not need to give a fuck.
Its SystemV vs. SystemD. Isn't it obvious?
Why not air as default?
Imagine a system, where you have 1 GB of RAM full of data. you send it to two peers, which discard their storage and store your data. Everyone does it, every new member can inject up to 1 GB. The data is most the time on the network and some time in the RAM of different nodes.
This is called Betteridge's law.
There may be other reasons. Like my passphrase had 30 chars and was on a piece of paper, which i flushed down the toilet just a minute ago.
You're having plausibly deniability. And they know it.
Not plausible as in "we know, every truecrypt user has a hidden volume", but as in "we know, that the protocol does not permit you to have the encryption keys"
And its called freenet.
You store encrypted chunks of data, you can access your data by its hash. It has some other nice features.
No, not even there is a difference.
You can say, you think Snakeoil will cure cancer. If you tell, it really does, you can be held liable, even as person. If you told in good faith, you will not be liable for telling lies about it, maybe for exaggerating its healthiness. Of course, the penalty for lying about it will be higher, if you do so to sell it. So make sure to have sources for your claims and add references to them where its needed, then you'll be save. Otherwise you can even get problems if you blog about something, which is not clearly marked as cite or opinion.
yes and no.
First: Free Speech is about to speak free to those, who want to listen. Not to get a platform everywhere. Full ACK.
But: Free Speech should protect companies as well.
What can be compared to your post in germany is the right to "private copies", which means you can legally copy the CD for your car radio and you can give the copy even to relatives or close friends. Which excludes wider audiences or even companies.
But a .torrent is like a map. Nobody should forbid you to print a map with a big red X where you can buy drugs. Its even good for the cops, they look at the map and find the dealer. But the governments are taking another route: confiscate the map and tell everyone you solved the problem. While the junkies still have a copy of the map or now the location without map.
yeah, a lot of metaphors :)
maybe its not where you live. in europe it is.
i did not specify this too exact. If you really want to nitpick, probably both and pirated stuff are not, because the download itself is not forbidden in many jurisdication, only the ownership and the distribution. What i meant, and i guess you know it, is that the illegal copy of a file is something which can be taken down with a DMCA, if the hoster is liable in this jurisdication. But taking down a link to this stuff is censorship.
Piracy Links are free speech.
an illegal download ... is illegal.
But a link to this download on the google page per se is free speech. Now a DMCA censors this free speech of google to link this page for the correct search terms. That's what chillingeffects records.
> That's just retarded since any protocol analyzer will be able to represent the data in a consice way for anyone who cares to know
you are saying it. You need a protocol analyser. No more netcat or telnet, you will need stuff like tcpdump or wireshark or some special http2 tool to look into the data. The more complicated the tools for testing get, the harder debugging gets. So you actually can optimize less than before, because testing takes more time and efford.
if your site has 30% traffic for http-headers, you're doing it wrong. Have a look at websockets or server-sent events, if you need to get push data that often. even long polling will solve your problem.
we are talking about a few bytes, not even kilobytes.
With your argument you DO NOT want http/2 or spdy, because they push ressources you have not requested, like ads. You won't see them with your adblocker, but you still download them, because they are just sent.
1) Who cares, if its faster, if you shave off like 20 bytes? With your 28k modem this was real time, but even with umts you do not notice the difference. Even with hundereds of connections (which do not work very good via umts for other reasons). And every little logo on a homepage makes you pay more than the 20 bytes saved in the http header.
maybe they are the last thing, because a sane webdevelopers let the page load its important parts before it loads the ads?
boils all down to the same: When you need to break a protocol (you need to, because of bigger addresses), then take the opportunity to fix all other mistakes as well.
you can't use the same cartoon for all matters. this is not a problem of a competing standard.
Or at least something backward compatible, no stinking binary protocols.
Compression? Bandwidth is bigger and cheaper than ever. So why?
SPDY had in the first draft the nice feature, to require TLS, which was dropped, too. So not even this advantage stays there for spdy/http2
Its better. Its like Windows XP vs. Windows 8.
http://stribika.github.io/2015...
that's how to secure ssh
always the same old "but i do not have something to hide / i am not interesting" argument. This is just an excuse for "i am too lazy to protect me". You do not need to be interesting to the NSA. Nobody would have something against agencies hunting terrorists. But the NSA collects everything. everything. THIS is the problem. And they collect your data, too.