Some deep-sea luminescent creatures I've seen videos of flicker their lights in surprisingly intricate patterns. Too fast for hormonal cotrol. I would guess neural. There is a nice starting point to sequence.
They can NAT, then double-NAT. If they really need addresses, they can buy from someone else who has some left over. Now that IPv4 addresses are in shortage, they become a commodity.
IPv4 should have run out by now, but its dominance is being prolonged by many organisations doing whatever they can to postpone the very difficult and very expensive upgrade process. Eventually there will come a point where the difficulty of continuing to keep IPv4 running through scarce addressing and multi-level NAT will grow so great that switching to IPv6 will seem easier, but that point is many years away. For now, it's always easier to buy time with a little more improvisation.
And then they send the agents round to steal the server? In the real world, chances are your little server isn't going to have anything of interest to the government. There is always the chance it'll be used by some criminals to secretly communicate without your knowing, but it's unlikely.
"Your kid's netbook isn't going to cough up goatse, lemonparty, tubgirl, 2girls1cup, mr hands, etc via a random click."
You underestimate porn. There is a tradition of trolls posting such shock pics in unsuspecting forums, blog posts and chat as a joke, and if the common sites are censored they'll just upload the file to imageshack - it'll last long enough before it gets pulled. Then there is the same thing with real porn, which is often spread between friends. I've even seen pornographic spray-logos in TF2. Then the dodgy sites with Zs in the name will have their porn popups still, possibly switching to refering to server by IP to avoid censorblocks that might cut into their ad revenue. If you use the internet, you will see porn. It is unavoidable.
Once there is a filter in place, all the political and legal issues are overcome, it wouldn't take much to impliment IP blocking as well. It wouldn't be presented as a new filter, merely as a way to enforce existing law.
The people of America arn't going to rise up either. They have television. If they don't like their government, the worst they are going to do is go on the internet and rant. You might get the odd extremeist here and there, but not enough to trigger a true uprising.
Incidentially, this is common practice in the field of cartography. Map-making is big business, espicially in urban or suburban areas where maps need updating every few years. To prevent competitors copying their maps, publishers often include deliberate mistakes - usually an extra dead-end road or something of the type, so it wouldn't interfere with anyone trying to nagivate. As the extra road doesn't really exist, should it turn up in another publisher's book of maps it serves as definative proof of copying.
A really clever anti-leak system could use some form of stenography in the document text itsself - say, every fifty-fourth capital letter may or may not be decapitalised. It's look like the occasional typo, quite unnoticeable unless you know what to look for, but it's enough to hide a hidden identifier uniquely encodeing the person who requested the document.
Being in the army makes this a special case - they have their own seperate legal system, with things like court martials and military tribunals. The normal legal princibles don't apply in there.
Re:it already is almost dead due to ISP's
on
BitTorrent Turns 10
·
· Score: 1
As a networker, I understand why that can happen - but only under conditions of very high RTT. Very high. Unless you're getting pings on the order of a second or so, that shouldn't happen.
You are mostly right, though there is still one area that I think you might want to concede: Staged releases. Pirates like to get things fast, preferably fast enough to see them at the same time as their friends. While you can legally download films now, you can't do it right away - first it's cinema time, and then blu-ray and online. If you live outside of the first release country it's a lot worse, as by the time you can see the film it's already last-months fad and you've heard all the spoilers and missed out the chance to complain about how much it sucks. If the studios are to have any hope of removing the non-financial motivation for piracy, they are going to have to drop the practice of region-stageing releases and just let every country see it at the same time.
In this case, 'legitimate' means 'Has either business ties with a major ISP, or the money to pay them for the deal.' Netflix is legitimate, but Small Town Studio trying to distribute their low-budget independent movie is not.
Because it's being done the right way: Police investigation, gathering of evidence, court order, criminal charges, fair(ish) trial and right of appeal, and right to file a civil claim for compensation should there be a mistake. As opposed to the censorship method, where a secretive organisation declares a site forbidden and not even the site owners are informed, with none of the safeguards provided by courts and no right of appeal.
I don't know about how things will be done in AU, but here in the UK they wouldn't get a 'blacklisted' error. They would get a fake 404 page, so they never know they were trying to look at a blocked site. It's just a lot easier for the list operators, as if they should screw up and block something they shouldn't then chances are no-one will ever notice.
Because that requires effort and expense. Real child porn sites are probably going to be hosted somewhere in a third-world dustbowl, Russia or a *stan that dislikes the entire western world. Shutting one down requires cooperating with another country's place force through mountains of paperwork, serving subpoenas, dealing with uncooperative ISPs stalling for time, going through financial records, eliminating the false leads from stolen credit cards... it could take weeks and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in police time, and that's just the investigation to find out who really runs the server and maybe get an email address or two from it. Blocking websites, on the other hand, impresses the voters and costs next to nothing.
The alternative is to find the idiot pedophiles - just as in any other population, some of them are just dumb and will do things like send their child-porn-filled computer to a PC repair shop or look at it from work.
I imagine that after child porn, there will be influencial pressure groups demanding the blocking of the following:
- Sites aiding or promoting copyright infringement
- Sites deemed libelous by an Australian court, even if author and site are based outside of the country
- Site deemed threatening to national security (Wikileaks)
- Sites deemed to promote racial or religious hate
- All pornography, probably by an extension of the AU retail rating system to include online distribution.
- Non-pornography sites deemed harmful to children, such as pro-anorexia blogs.
Chances are that eventually, some of those pressure groups will get their way. It may take a few years, but they are persistent and they are powerful.
For obvious reasons, no-one not directly involved in the list's management will ever be permitted to see it. You'll just have to trust that the secretive agency with the power to block any site on the internet and no public oversight is doing the right thing.
It also assumes there is some competence on the part of the list administrators. I'm sure everyone here recalls the incident when the UK's child-porn-blocking body blocked an image on Wikipedia and in the process screwed up the site's anti-vandal measures - even though the offending image was an album cover that could be seen on Amazon.com. There was also a leak of an early version of the Australian list which showed it to be full of the strangest non-offensive random things like the webpage of a hair salon. There is no public oversight of this, and there never can be - as the censor-list would (if even partially accurate) be a shopping list of child porn, releasing it for any form of inspection is out of the question. Since a lot of ISPs impliment the list in a deniable way by faking domain-not-found or 404 errors so the users don't even realise they have been blocked, there is no way to be sure of it's accuracy. The list managers are given vast powers, and the public just have to take their word that they are being put to responsible use.
Slashdot Mirror
Some deep-sea luminescent creatures I've seen videos of flicker their lights in surprisingly intricate patterns. Too fast for hormonal cotrol. I would guess neural. There is a nice starting point to sequence.
They can NAT, then double-NAT. If they really need addresses, they can buy from someone else who has some left over. Now that IPv4 addresses are in shortage, they become a commodity.
That would be the 'very expensive' part of the upgrade process.
IPv4 should have run out by now, but its dominance is being prolonged by many organisations doing whatever they can to postpone the very difficult and very expensive upgrade process. Eventually there will come a point where the difficulty of continuing to keep IPv4 running through scarce addressing and multi-level NAT will grow so great that switching to IPv6 will seem easier, but that point is many years away. For now, it's always easier to buy time with a little more improvisation.
And then they send the agents round to steal the server?
In the real world, chances are your little server isn't going to have anything of interest to the government. There is always the chance it'll be used by some criminals to secretly communicate without your knowing, but it's unlikely.
If you read right-leaning websites, they don't refer to that as the Bush cuts expiring... they call it Obama's tax increase.
For now, officially... but once the technology is in place, there will be a lot of powerful pressure groups calling for expansion.
"Your kid's netbook isn't going to cough up goatse, lemonparty, tubgirl, 2girls1cup, mr hands, etc via a random click."
You underestimate porn. There is a tradition of trolls posting such shock pics in unsuspecting forums, blog posts and chat as a joke, and if the common sites are censored they'll just upload the file to imageshack - it'll last long enough before it gets pulled. Then there is the same thing with real porn, which is often spread between friends. I've even seen pornographic spray-logos in TF2. Then the dodgy sites with Zs in the name will have their porn popups still, possibly switching to refering to server by IP to avoid censorblocks that might cut into their ad revenue. If you use the internet, you will see porn. It is unavoidable.
Once there is a filter in place, all the political and legal issues are overcome, it wouldn't take much to impliment IP blocking as well. It wouldn't be presented as a new filter, merely as a way to enforce existing law.
I'm sure the Church of Scientology loves the idea, given their history of suing their critics for copyright infringement.
American? I think that could be said of most countries.
The people of America arn't going to rise up either. They have television. If they don't like their government, the worst they are going to do is go on the internet and rant. You might get the odd extremeist here and there, but not enough to trigger a true uprising.
Incidentially, this is common practice in the field of cartography. Map-making is big business, espicially in urban or suburban areas where maps need updating every few years. To prevent competitors copying their maps, publishers often include deliberate mistakes - usually an extra dead-end road or something of the type, so it wouldn't interfere with anyone trying to nagivate. As the extra road doesn't really exist, should it turn up in another publisher's book of maps it serves as definative proof of copying.
A really clever anti-leak system could use some form of stenography in the document text itsself - say, every fifty-fourth capital letter may or may not be decapitalised. It's look like the occasional typo, quite unnoticeable unless you know what to look for, but it's enough to hide a hidden identifier uniquely encodeing the person who requested the document.
Being in the army makes this a special case - they have their own seperate legal system, with things like court martials and military tribunals. The normal legal princibles don't apply in there.
As a networker, I understand why that can happen - but only under conditions of very high RTT. Very high. Unless you're getting pings on the order of a second or so, that shouldn't happen.
You are mostly right, though there is still one area that I think you might want to concede: Staged releases. Pirates like to get things fast, preferably fast enough to see them at the same time as their friends. While you can legally download films now, you can't do it right away - first it's cinema time, and then blu-ray and online. If you live outside of the first release country it's a lot worse, as by the time you can see the film it's already last-months fad and you've heard all the spoilers and missed out the chance to complain about how much it sucks. If the studios are to have any hope of removing the non-financial motivation for piracy, they are going to have to drop the practice of region-stageing releases and just let every country see it at the same time.
In this case, 'legitimate' means 'Has either business ties with a major ISP, or the money to pay them for the deal.' Netflix is legitimate, but Small Town Studio trying to distribute their low-budget independent movie is not.
Because it's being done the right way: Police investigation, gathering of evidence, court order, criminal charges, fair(ish) trial and right of appeal, and right to file a civil claim for compensation should there be a mistake. As opposed to the censorship method, where a secretive organisation declares a site forbidden and not even the site owners are informed, with none of the safeguards provided by courts and no right of appeal.
I don't know about how things will be done in AU, but here in the UK they wouldn't get a 'blacklisted' error. They would get a fake 404 page, so they never know they were trying to look at a blocked site. It's just a lot easier for the list operators, as if they should screw up and block something they shouldn't then chances are no-one will ever notice.
Because that requires effort and expense. Real child porn sites are probably going to be hosted somewhere in a third-world dustbowl, Russia or a *stan that dislikes the entire western world. Shutting one down requires cooperating with another country's place force through mountains of paperwork, serving subpoenas, dealing with uncooperative ISPs stalling for time, going through financial records, eliminating the false leads from stolen credit cards... it could take weeks and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in police time, and that's just the investigation to find out who really runs the server and maybe get an email address or two from it. Blocking websites, on the other hand, impresses the voters and costs next to nothing.
The alternative is to find the idiot pedophiles - just as in any other population, some of them are just dumb and will do things like send their child-porn-filled computer to a PC repair shop or look at it from work.
I imagine that after child porn, there will be influencial pressure groups demanding the blocking of the following:
- Sites aiding or promoting copyright infringement
- Sites deemed libelous by an Australian court, even if author and site are based outside of the country
- Site deemed threatening to national security (Wikileaks)
- Sites deemed to promote racial or religious hate
- All pornography, probably by an extension of the AU retail rating system to include online distribution.
- Non-pornography sites deemed harmful to children, such as pro-anorexia blogs.
Chances are that eventually, some of those pressure groups will get their way. It may take a few years, but they are persistent and they are powerful.
In Australia, it'd be illegal to draw stick-figure porn if you drew an arrow to one and labeled it 'child.'
For obvious reasons, no-one not directly involved in the list's management will ever be permitted to see it. You'll just have to trust that the secretive agency with the power to block any site on the internet and no public oversight is doing the right thing.
It also assumes there is some competence on the part of the list administrators. I'm sure everyone here recalls the incident when the UK's child-porn-blocking body blocked an image on Wikipedia and in the process screwed up the site's anti-vandal measures - even though the offending image was an album cover that could be seen on Amazon.com. There was also a leak of an early version of the Australian list which showed it to be full of the strangest non-offensive random things like the webpage of a hair salon. There is no public oversight of this, and there never can be - as the censor-list would (if even partially accurate) be a shopping list of child porn, releasing it for any form of inspection is out of the question. Since a lot of ISPs impliment the list in a deniable way by faking domain-not-found or 404 errors so the users don't even realise they have been blocked, there is no way to be sure of it's accuracy. The list managers are given vast powers, and the public just have to take their word that they are being put to responsible use.