Part of it is that the incumbents count upload and download equally so when you compare a 500GB upload/download plan to a 300GB download only plan they don't compare. Take my usage last month: 185.32GB down on a 300GB/m plan. Barely meet the average for TSI. Except that that identical usage with the likes of Bhell, Robbers, Cogeblow, or any of the other incumbents I would have been at 957.35GB of 500GB/m. I don't do anything special and easily come close to/hit 1TB.
The theoretical maximum data transfer you can do in a month on a TSI 25/10Mbps 300GB/m plan without overages is 5.367TB. TSI would not care if you hit that if you did your 300GB download outside of the 8pm-12pm peak window. The only time they care about is that window because that determines their costs under Capacity Based Billing. The reason their 100/5 package is so much is simply the $1800 per 100Mbps required to meet the peek usage for any given month. It's a broken billing system based on double dipping of costs by the incumbents.
a) If you're with Teksavvy you're not in their 99th percentile at 400GB/month. I'm with TSI as well and their 99th percentile is 1TB+. You're above average but not anywhere near their top end
b)
You aren't entitlted to stream uncompressed bluray rips 24 hours a day while performing daily encrypted non-differential backups to a cloud provider for $60 month.
You are entitled to do so in Canada (assuming they are legal rips) on a $60 plan - heck you're entitled to do so on a $20 plan. Uploads are free with TSI with zero restrictions.
c) My point was that you don't need bonding or business to do terabytes per month - people do it on a regular basis with 25/10 plans.
a) you're not even close to the 99th percentile. There are users of Teksavvy's 300gb/m services that manage over 1.5TB of data in a month without overages (they give free upload, free download from 2am to 8am)
b) You are in Canada.
c) or just get the unlimited package or "Zap the Cap" (trade prime time speed for unlimited data transfer)and do as many terabytes as your speed will allow.
That approach makes more sense than some that think simply declaring US ISPs as utilities will be a step forward.
The title 2 change is simply a legally convenient way around waiting for congress to give them the authority they need to deal with the problems. Otherwise it'll be whack-a-mole situation that will cost millions in legal battles over language and authority of regulation.
And what regulation, exactly, enabled that competition? Simply declaring ISPs as utilities will certainly not encourage that type of competition.
Forcing the incumbents to, simply put, "wholesale" to IISPs. We went from a choice of 1 DSL provider and 1 cable provider per area to over 200 registered ISPs across the country. It's no where near as good as functional separation but it's better than the US system.
Firefox: Add SQLite Manager addon - take a look at the data that's being stored that shouldn't be. Experiments that are downloaded to gather data without your consent/knowledge. Data submissions if you go to the health report page, regardless of your settings not to participate. All sorts of crazy stuff.
The doubleclick thing is easily remedied in Firefox just install the opt out extension
I don't want to pay the Mozilla devs. They just like to masturbate their egos rather than fixing huge/serious privacy flaws with sqlite.places, the decay frecancies algorithm, monitoring experiments that have no privacy oversight, etc. Their "privacy team" is supposed to meet once a month - ONCE. Last time I checked it'd been 3-4 months since they actually did it.
Again, it's specific to your local laws, in Ontario: "(2). There is a presumption that access for lawful purposes to the door of a building on premises by a means apparently provided and used for the purpose of access is not prohibited."
ahh - Canadian law is different. You need only "surreptitiously observe/record" someone where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy or cause to be nude in that space or observe/record for a sexual purpose.
1) That was my point, people from outside the area can scan outdoor cameras in the area to help find the missing child. 2) Random doors would require a key I do not have - but as stated much earlier in this conversation, laws relating to doors and interception of communications are very different. 3) I was referring to the law/ethics of it, not what that particular site is doing which is illegal in many cases.
Just because something is legal does not mean it is ethical.
It was unethical to find and report a security issue at a military instillation? It's unethical to scan publicly available security cameras in an area during an Amber Alert? It's unethical to locate cameras that do give access to private homes for the purpose of notifying them - often GPS data available to allow you to notify local police to follow up?
There are many many ethical reasons for accessing such cameras.
I'd direct your attention to your own words: "Roped off areas", "ask you to leave", and the fencing/signs/security/etc around "our white house". Those are deemed notices that it's prohibited to enter a specific area. In the absence of those things it would be legal until you are given notice.
Effectively, except that voyeurism laws that apply to staring into someones window for an extended period also apply to these video signals. ie: you can peek just don't linger/keep coming back.
That was just a simple example of how it works in Ontario. There's a long list of ways to legally notify someone that they are not permitted to enter. Everything from "employees only" signs to fencing to yellow/red paint. The "Private Lot" sign would have done it. Approaching a doorway, regardless of how many you try, is legally protected - just not entering if notice is given. ie: feel free to go up and knock like a mail man or someone seeking assistance might do but stop before you get to a B&E
Not exactly. Speaking in terms of Canadian law the "key" and the "authority" are separate. It would actually be a crime to place such a bowl (mischief) because you induced mischief or acted in a reckless manner that would "probably result in an act" (even if one doesn't occur, that is a danger to life, damage to property, etc). It's called "Wilfully causing event to occur".
Where it gets interesting is the "key" and "authority" being given out (ie: default password) belongs to the device manufacturer. It's the owner's responsibility to create a new "key" for which they control the "authority". Because the manufacturer has to give the public the authority to use the default password that means that it's no longer reasonable to expect the "communication" remain private. Voyeurism laws still apply so if you enter, discover it to be a household, you have to exit - but that's no different than glancing into a window - you're not a peeping tom unless you linger.
We posted the password on the front door of the library
Then you wouldn't be doing much guessing, would you now?
It was the default password, but that was my point - when the password is public knowledge (be it default or otherwise) entry is reasonable.
In Canadian law you actually commit a crime if you fail to act to prevent certain things. The duty it imposes means you have to act to prevent "danger to life"; anything that "obstructs, interrupts, interferes, damages, or destroys" property or data; or:lawful use or enjoyment" of property (but not data). The only exemption to this duty is if you have another legal justification/excuse with colour of right. Still pretty grey regarding this subject but does have interesting implications for "hacktivism".
I believe someone got arrested for trespassing a few months ago for entering an unlocked door into my office building, which is definitely commercial, but not public access either; no on-premise services or point of sale.
Are you in Ontario? Your reference to the "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" suggests not. Canadian law is different. In Ontario companies must post notice, make it obvious entry is prohibited, or he would have had to have been told to leave and then refused to do so.
The door was unlocked, but the intruder just had no business being on the property, tripped a silent alarm when they entered, and someone called the cops.
This is kind of the situation that the Ontario law seeks to keep from being abused. If the lights are on and the door is unlocked and someone walks in thinking the business is open, even if they have no real reason to be there, it's not a crime here. The benefit of the doubt is given to the individual because it can't be proven what their intent was. In that identical situation where the sign on the door said "Closed" they are trespassing because notice was provided that entry was prohibited at that time.
Yup. It's done that way so if you once had a key but were kicked out/fired you can't use that key to gain access after authorization has been withdrawn.
What you describe is not a free society. It is trespassing and unauthorized access. I'm not saying you can't find some cool stuff if you dig around, but don't fool yourself into thinking you are free to go anywhere you want as long as the door's unlocked.
Luckily I live in Canada where fraudulent intent must be proven and that I do not have any colour of right when it comes to "unauthorized access"
Trespass is provincial and in my province the property "that is enclosed in a manner that indicates the occupier’s intention to keep persons off the premises or to keep animals on the premises." must be met - otherwise I am free to enter until I'm told to leave.
If the owner wishes to access that device remotely and don't wish for the device to be accessed by the general public, perhaps it would be wise to put a password on it? Not the default password that everybody and their mother knows, either; after all, it's not illegal to enter through a door for which you have a key.
Technically speaking it is. Breaking and Entering is two parts of a crime - the first part is for breaking the seal formed by the door, the second for entering the premises (regardless of whether the door was open or by alternate means). The thing is that only applies to private residences or locked public/commercial buildings. An unlocked version of the latter is considered open to the public.
They've stated on numerous occasions that Activision has nothing to do with Blizzard's internal workings. If Activision was anything like, say, EA, they would have shipped Ghost and Titan, then rolled up the shop.
I can't speak to the internal dynamics. At the end of the day they have to report to the holding company that owns them and their shareholders. What I do know is that I've played & owned every game & expansion they put out from 1991 to 2007. Since then I've tried Starcraft 2 part 1 (ugh) and Diablo 3 (bore) and not purchased/wanted to play anything else. Maybe a key person left, maybe pressure to be profitable changed something, I don't know. As someone who has over 1000 games on the shelf it says something when I'm so underwhelmed by their offerings that I don't buy. They're just safe/generic/predictable/uninspired.
This game seriously feels like a skinned version of Shadowrun with a TF slant
Slashdot Mirror
Part of it is that the incumbents count upload and download equally so when you compare a 500GB upload/download plan to a 300GB download only plan they don't compare. Take my usage last month: 185.32GB down on a 300GB/m plan. Barely meet the average for TSI. Except that that identical usage with the likes of Bhell, Robbers, Cogeblow, or any of the other incumbents I would have been at 957.35GB of 500GB/m. I don't do anything special and easily come close to/hit 1TB.
The theoretical maximum data transfer you can do in a month on a TSI 25/10Mbps 300GB/m plan without overages is 5.367TB. TSI would not care if you hit that if you did your 300GB download outside of the 8pm-12pm peak window. The only time they care about is that window because that determines their costs under Capacity Based Billing. The reason their 100/5 package is so much is simply the $1800 per 100Mbps required to meet the peek usage for any given month. It's a broken billing system based on double dipping of costs by the incumbents.
a) If you're with Teksavvy you're not in their 99th percentile at 400GB/month. I'm with TSI as well and their 99th percentile is 1TB+. You're above average but not anywhere near their top end
b)
You aren't entitlted to stream uncompressed bluray rips 24 hours a day while performing daily encrypted non-differential backups to a cloud provider for $60 month.
You are entitled to do so in Canada (assuming they are legal rips) on a $60 plan - heck you're entitled to do so on a $20 plan. Uploads are free with TSI with zero restrictions.
c) My point was that you don't need bonding or business to do terabytes per month - people do it on a regular basis with 25/10 plans.
a) you're not even close to the 99th percentile. There are users of Teksavvy's 300gb/m services that manage over 1.5TB of data in a month without overages (they give free upload, free download from 2am to 8am)
b) You are in Canada.
c) or just get the unlimited package or "Zap the Cap" (trade prime time speed for unlimited data transfer)and do as many terabytes as your speed will allow.
That approach makes more sense than some that think simply declaring US ISPs as utilities will be a step forward.
The title 2 change is simply a legally convenient way around waiting for congress to give them the authority they need to deal with the problems. Otherwise it'll be whack-a-mole situation that will cost millions in legal battles over language and authority of regulation.
And what regulation, exactly, enabled that competition? Simply declaring ISPs as utilities will certainly not encourage that type of competition.
Forcing the incumbents to, simply put, "wholesale" to IISPs. We went from a choice of 1 DSL provider and 1 cable provider per area to over 200 registered ISPs across the country. It's no where near as good as functional separation but it's better than the US system.
Sounds like you are benefiting more from the competition than from the regulation.
Competition introduced by regulation.
Firefox: Add SQLite Manager addon - take a look at the data that's being stored that shouldn't be. Experiments that are downloaded to gather data without your consent/knowledge. Data submissions if you go to the health report page, regardless of your settings not to participate. All sorts of crazy stuff.
The doubleclick thing is easily remedied in Firefox just install the opt out extension
I don't want to pay the Mozilla devs. They just like to masturbate their egos rather than fixing huge/serious privacy flaws with sqlite.places, the decay frecancies algorithm, monitoring experiments that have no privacy oversight, etc. Their "privacy team" is supposed to meet once a month - ONCE. Last time I checked it'd been 3-4 months since they actually did it.
Their index is tiny though
You also need to disable the preloading and directory ping
Again, it's specific to your local laws, in Ontario: "(2). There is a presumption that access for lawful purposes to the door of a building on premises by a means apparently provided and used for the purpose of access is not prohibited."
ahh - Canadian law is different. You need only "surreptitiously observe/record" someone where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy or cause to be nude in that space or observe/record for a sexual purpose.
1) That was my point, people from outside the area can scan outdoor cameras in the area to help find the missing child.
2) Random doors would require a key I do not have - but as stated much earlier in this conversation, laws relating to doors and interception of communications are very different.
3) I was referring to the law/ethics of it, not what that particular site is doing which is illegal in many cases.
Just because something is legal does not mean it is ethical.
It was unethical to find and report a security issue at a military instillation? It's unethical to scan publicly available security cameras in an area during an Amber Alert? It's unethical to locate cameras that do give access to private homes for the purpose of notifying them - often GPS data available to allow you to notify local police to follow up?
There are many many ethical reasons for accessing such cameras.
I'd direct your attention to your own words: "Roped off areas", "ask you to leave", and the fencing/signs/security/etc around "our white house". Those are deemed notices that it's prohibited to enter a specific area. In the absence of those things it would be legal until you are given notice.
Effectively, except that voyeurism laws that apply to staring into someones window for an extended period also apply to these video signals. ie: you can peek just don't linger/keep coming back.
That was just a simple example of how it works in Ontario. There's a long list of ways to legally notify someone that they are not permitted to enter. Everything from "employees only" signs to fencing to yellow/red paint. The "Private Lot" sign would have done it. Approaching a doorway, regardless of how many you try, is legally protected - just not entering if notice is given. ie: feel free to go up and knock like a mail man or someone seeking assistance might do but stop before you get to a B&E
no, it's about default passwords. in your analogy, that would be like looking for the keys under the doormat or in other obvious hiding places.
How so?
Not exactly. Speaking in terms of Canadian law the "key" and the "authority" are separate. It would actually be a crime to place such a bowl (mischief) because you induced mischief or acted in a reckless manner that would "probably result in an act" (even if one doesn't occur, that is a danger to life, damage to property, etc). It's called "Wilfully causing event to occur".
Where it gets interesting is the "key" and "authority" being given out (ie: default password) belongs to the device manufacturer. It's the owner's responsibility to create a new "key" for which they control the "authority". Because the manufacturer has to give the public the authority to use the default password that means that it's no longer reasonable to expect the "communication" remain private. Voyeurism laws still apply so if you enter, discover it to be a household, you have to exit - but that's no different than glancing into a window - you're not a peeping tom unless you linger.
We posted the password on the front door of the library
Then you wouldn't be doing much guessing, would you now?
It was the default password, but that was my point - when the password is public knowledge (be it default or otherwise) entry is reasonable.
In Canadian law you actually commit a crime if you fail to act to prevent certain things. The duty it imposes means you have to act to prevent "danger to life"; anything that "obstructs, interrupts, interferes, damages, or destroys" property or data; or :lawful use or enjoyment" of property (but not data). The only exemption to this duty is if you have another legal justification/excuse with colour of right. Still pretty grey regarding this subject but does have interesting implications for "hacktivism".
I believe someone got arrested for trespassing a few months ago for entering an unlocked door into my office building, which is definitely commercial, but not public access either; no on-premise services or point of sale.
Are you in Ontario? Your reference to the "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" suggests not. Canadian law is different. In Ontario companies must post notice, make it obvious entry is prohibited, or he would have had to have been told to leave and then refused to do so.
The door was unlocked, but the intruder just had no business being on the property, tripped a silent alarm when they entered, and someone called the cops.
This is kind of the situation that the Ontario law seeks to keep from being abused. If the lights are on and the door is unlocked and someone walks in thinking the business is open, even if they have no real reason to be there, it's not a crime here. The benefit of the doubt is given to the individual because it can't be proven what their intent was. In that identical situation where the sign on the door said "Closed" they are trespassing because notice was provided that entry was prohibited at that time.
Yup. It's done that way so if you once had a key but were kicked out/fired you can't use that key to gain access after authorization has been withdrawn.
What you describe is not a free society. It is trespassing and unauthorized access. I'm not saying you can't find some cool stuff if you dig around, but don't fool yourself into thinking you are free to go anywhere you want as long as the door's unlocked.
Luckily I live in Canada where fraudulent intent must be proven and that I do not have any colour of right when it comes to "unauthorized access"
Trespass is provincial and in my province the property "that is enclosed in a manner that indicates the occupier’s intention to keep persons off the premises or to keep animals on the premises." must be met - otherwise I am free to enter until I'm told to leave.
If the owner wishes to access that device remotely and don't wish for the device to be accessed by the general public, perhaps it would be wise to put a password on it? Not the default password that everybody and their mother knows, either; after all, it's not illegal to enter through a door for which you have a key.
Technically speaking it is. Breaking and Entering is two parts of a crime - the first part is for breaking the seal formed by the door, the second for entering the premises (regardless of whether the door was open or by alternate means). The thing is that only applies to private residences or locked public/commercial buildings. An unlocked version of the latter is considered open to the public.
They've stated on numerous occasions that Activision has nothing to do with Blizzard's internal workings. If Activision was anything like, say, EA, they would have shipped Ghost and Titan, then rolled up the shop.
I can't speak to the internal dynamics. At the end of the day they have to report to the holding company that owns them and their shareholders. What I do know is that I've played & owned every game & expansion they put out from 1991 to 2007. Since then I've tried Starcraft 2 part 1 (ugh) and Diablo 3 (bore) and not purchased/wanted to play anything else. Maybe a key person left, maybe pressure to be profitable changed something, I don't know. As someone who has over 1000 games on the shelf it says something when I'm so underwhelmed by their offerings that I don't buy. They're just safe/generic/predictable/uninspired.
This game seriously feels like a skinned version of Shadowrun with a TF slant