Heck, I just do that no matter what WiFi I'm connected to out of habit. Even at the in-laws house where I'm the designated network administrator (the guy who configures the router and gets called when something breaks) I use the VPN to home for all my network traffic. About the only time I don't use VPN is when I'm at home and need to use the printer...
Always assume all networks are insecure. You're always correct.
True, but some are more "secure" than others and people don't pay attention to this, which is the point of this little social experiment.
Actually, IMHO the security issue of open WiFi needs attention at two points. First, you need a really good and effectively configured firewall on your device. Second, those providing services over the web need to secure all data in transit. It's helpful if the users are aware of the risks, but in today's day and age I don't see your average users able to comprehend the problem enough to deal with it effectively. Those who provide services over the internet must therefore be responsible because you are not going to keep people from connecting to that "Free WiFi" no matter what you do.
Personally, I configure all my portable devices to use encrypted VPN's that force all my traffic though my home network, using DNS servers I control, firewall rules I know about and web filters I control. It's a bit much for personal security and I did it to see if I could, but there are services out there that offer the same things and I'd suggest everybody use something like that.
In Snowden's case? The Espionage Act has likely been violated, so a fair trial likely would involve a guilty verdict.
But make no mistake, that's not what Snowden or his supporters want. They want to make this into a referendum on the moral and ethical affects of the Espionage Act, specifically as it applies to Snowden and his multiple acts that violated various parts of the law as written. They want to make this into a huge moral crusade and attempt to claim that Snowden shouldn't be punished and try this case in the court of public opinion, not in a "fair trial" based on long standing legal principles, rules of evidence and other such established traditions that few younger people today actually understand.
The problem here is that it's impossible for Snowden and his supporters to define exactly what constitutes a "fair trial" in legal terms. I don't think Snowden "gets it" here. A fair trial is one where the jury is impartial, where the evidence presented is controlled by the process and where the jury is charged with deciding if the law was broken. Snowden's defense will not be allowed to try this case "in the court of public opinion" any more than the prosecution would be allowed to do so. There would likely be gag orders on both sides, which would have the Snowden support crowd up in arms about how unfair things are, but the truth would be that both sides are required to argue their cases "in court before the jury" where the facts matter and are tightly controlled.
The only hope Snowden has is Jury Nullification, which is where the jury chooses to not enforce the law as written. Where this is always an option, it's usually NOT an option presented to a jury by the judge after the trial is over but before deliberations start. I also don't think a judge would allow a discussion of nullification during the trial, but if Snowden wants to hold that as a requirement, that he will give himself up for trial if the jury is allowed to hear arguments about nullification, I'm interested in that option. If THAT's what Snowden is talking about, not trying his case in the court of public opinion but asking for the nullification of the law, I wouldn't be opposed to that. I'd think he'd loose that case too, but as long as he isn't allowed to turn this into a three ring circus, let him try.
I would suggest not putting me on the jury though....
You bet the Olympic Committee cares.... In so far as the media is covering it. Otherwise they would just be minding their own business, cashing the checks and arranging the kickbacks.
Look, anybody who thought Rio was a good idea for the summer Olympics from a security and safety perspective has obviously never been there. It's not the worst situation I've seen down in South America, but it's pretty bad for a halfway civilized industrial country and not something you are going to be able to "clean up" enough put on something like the Summer Olympic Games without some serious costs and effort. Rio and the Olympic committee don't have enough money or time to do this right and we can only hope they manage to get close.
All I can say is I'm glad I will be able to watch this with my family from my living room because I'd NEVER go to Rio with the family in the first place. It's way to dangerous unless you carefully stay at a hotel ON the beach, never stray inland more than a block or so and have arranged reliable transportation to/from the airport preferably with armed guards. The beach is beautiful although not always "family friendly", but the majority of the rest of the town is an open sewer both culturally and literally. Tourists who get off the beach do so at great risk and that goes double for you ugly American types who think loud English is more understandable than when it's whispered.
Personally I have a fleet of WNDR4300's to play with myself. I have to build my own OpenWRT software for them, but the configuration to do so is out there. I'm just looking a that AC1900 and drooling given it's extra elbow room, USB 3 and eSATA port. The WNDR4300 is about $40 used on E-Bay, where the AC1900 is seen at $130 all day long and sometimes less than that.
Unfortunately your WNDR4500 doesn't seem to be supported and with the Broadcom legal issues doesn't seem likely it ever will.
OK... Before I get savaged.... They ARE refunding anybody who has paid Apple to repair their phone.... No mention of those who just purchased a new phone though...
Being caught or making a mistake that messed up your customers' phones?
I'll believe you are truly sorry about messing things up if you now turn around and *fix* those phones which are now useless because they may have had non OEM parts installed. Otherwise, I'm going to believe that you are just sorry for getting caught.
I didnt say it was hard, i said it was a half-assed compromise that no one wanted.
What else can I assume if you are unhappy and having difficulty making it work for you. IF you wanted a turnkey solution, call TiVo, if not, roll your own. I don't see any reason the FCC needs to do anything else beyond the CableCARD. We already have third party access to the STB market though CableCARD. Now if your provider is messing with you and that's why you are so unhappy with your CableCARD solution, I suggest you file a complaint with the FCC...
It may be that the CableCARD solution was unwanted, but it's what we have and it's sufficient for this purpose. Which is MY point. The FCC has already addressed this issue and doesn't need to mess things up further.
Yea, I've not used Verizon's STB's for almost 8 years. Prior to that, they where slow with lagging user interface updates and didn't have what I considered an intuitive user interface for things like parental controls and hiding content I didn't whish to see. My last STB would also spontaneously reboot multiple times a week and require that I unplug it about once a month. I sure hope they fixed that stuff.
But I don't want the STB anyway. It costs too much, It offers all that streaming on demand garbage and insists on splashing advertisements on my screen when all I want to do is change channels.
If you like it, have fun writing the monthly checks to pay for it. Personally, I don't.
So you are complaining because you got ripped off for the monthly rental fees when you didn't know better? I feel so sad for you.... So sorry your are ignorant of your options.
But, at this point, your issue is with customer education, not with what's possible and already regulated by the FCC.
I don't know there... I was able to set up my Homerun Prime with Windows Media Center in an afternoon... Based on your other posts you don't consider me all that bright so it cannot be THAT hard. Had I purchased a TiVo, I'm sure they have excellent customer support for new users. It's not like this is rocket science.
Now if you cannot figure out how to make this work, you get to pay your provider for their turnkey solution and nothing the FCC can do will make that any different. The Cable Company isn't going to support your Windows Media Center (or what ever solution you choose) install unless you pay them, I don't care what the FCC does at this point.
CableCARD is mandated by FCC rule. If you have cable TV, your provider MUST provide you a CableCARD if you ask for it. If they don't, please complain to the FCC and get the situation fixed.
You cannot seriously think the Cable Company is going to just toss you the necessary keys to decrypt every channel you purchase without there being some kind of physical token that cannot be duplicated to control who can decrypt that stream. Or can you? The whole point here is to prevent unauthorized users from being able to decrypt the channels they've not paid to see, but only have to send the encrypted stream once. How do you do that without some kind of physical token?
There is no reason they can't just do it with software and a protocol for key exchange.
Ah, yes, they are working on that, but security requires that there be some kind of physical token, a piece of hardware, there to validate stuff. Plus, having a program running in memory of a device you don't control just invites hacking so I don't think the cable companies will let that happen. More importantly, I don't think the content providers will be willing to let the cable companies put their content at risk like that.
No, I don't think so. CableCARDs fit into a lot of things, TV's, TiVo's and other Third party devices so there is some costs, both up front and monthly for the cable company with CableCARDs. If you could request 20 of them for free, this might not be fair to the cable company. Perhaps if you had some kind of limit on the number you can get for free or something... But even then, they will just roll the costs into their prices...
Right now, things work fine. For a very low monthly cost, they provide the card and the managing the infrastructure that keeps everything authorized for the right things. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
All are available for CableCARD devices if you know where to look. I will admit that the schedule data is going to cost you.... But it costs you something when you use the Cable Company's version too.
Oh, and don't forget my personal pet-peeve... "Offer for new Verizon FIOS customers ONLY!"
I've been a FIOS customer for nearly a decade and they wouldn't honor the introductory advertised price for new customers last time I tried to discuss it with them.
Yea, but $5/month to "rent" their CableCARD isn't all that expensive given their boxes run in excess of $25/month.
I don't care what solution we end up with, the key and authorization management costs the cable company something and the customer is going to pay that cost regardless of what line items show up on your bill.
Personally, I wish they'd let me just buy the CableCARD hardware and provide my own if I wished, but $5/month is not that unreasonable either.
OK, but given the encryption part of how all this works, I'm not sure how else to protect the video content but though some scheme where you have some kind of physical token that cannot be modified and allows the cable company to manage the content you are allowed to see. My point is that the FCC has mandated this solution to be Cable Cards, which works fine.
Now if you are wanting to insist that we be allowed to purchase and own our own cable card from a provider and force providers to support customer supplied cable cards, I can support that.
OK, so if the cable company offers streaming services, then the FCC has a point, but watching TV or having a DVR solution is already a solved problem. All they would really need to do here is mandate that the cable company provide a web interface for their streaming content which is available to customers on their networks. Something tells me though, the FCC won't go with the obvious solution....
BTW, most of this already IS standard's based, even at the video streaming level. I forget the exact RFC's involved, but, at least for Verizon FIOS customers, the streaming solution is standards based.
But you can get a cable card from them, by law. If they cannot provide you a cable card, you complain to the FCC and force them to support them. It's the Cable Card that you need to decrypt the video stream and what your third party vendor needs to support. It's a known standard and it works.
So, the FCC has already solved this problem. You can already buy third party set top boxes and tuners that use the cable card standard.
Slashdot Mirror
Heck, I just do that no matter what WiFi I'm connected to out of habit. Even at the in-laws house where I'm the designated network administrator (the guy who configures the router and gets called when something breaks) I use the VPN to home for all my network traffic. About the only time I don't use VPN is when I'm at home and need to use the printer...
MS-Dos 5.0 with Windows 3.11, or if you really insist, OS2.
Always assume all networks are insecure. You're always correct.
True, but some are more "secure" than others and people don't pay attention to this, which is the point of this little social experiment.
Actually, IMHO the security issue of open WiFi needs attention at two points. First, you need a really good and effectively configured firewall on your device. Second, those providing services over the web need to secure all data in transit. It's helpful if the users are aware of the risks, but in today's day and age I don't see your average users able to comprehend the problem enough to deal with it effectively. Those who provide services over the internet must therefore be responsible because you are not going to keep people from connecting to that "Free WiFi" no matter what you do.
Personally, I configure all my portable devices to use encrypted VPN's that force all my traffic though my home network, using DNS servers I control, firewall rules I know about and web filters I control. It's a bit much for personal security and I did it to see if I could, but there are services out there that offer the same things and I'd suggest everybody use something like that.
In Snowden's case? The Espionage Act has likely been violated, so a fair trial likely would involve a guilty verdict.
But make no mistake, that's not what Snowden or his supporters want. They want to make this into a referendum on the moral and ethical affects of the Espionage Act, specifically as it applies to Snowden and his multiple acts that violated various parts of the law as written. They want to make this into a huge moral crusade and attempt to claim that Snowden shouldn't be punished and try this case in the court of public opinion, not in a "fair trial" based on long standing legal principles, rules of evidence and other such established traditions that few younger people today actually understand.
The problem here is that it's impossible for Snowden and his supporters to define exactly what constitutes a "fair trial" in legal terms. I don't think Snowden "gets it" here. A fair trial is one where the jury is impartial, where the evidence presented is controlled by the process and where the jury is charged with deciding if the law was broken. Snowden's defense will not be allowed to try this case "in the court of public opinion" any more than the prosecution would be allowed to do so. There would likely be gag orders on both sides, which would have the Snowden support crowd up in arms about how unfair things are, but the truth would be that both sides are required to argue their cases "in court before the jury" where the facts matter and are tightly controlled.
The only hope Snowden has is Jury Nullification, which is where the jury chooses to not enforce the law as written. Where this is always an option, it's usually NOT an option presented to a jury by the judge after the trial is over but before deliberations start. I also don't think a judge would allow a discussion of nullification during the trial, but if Snowden wants to hold that as a requirement, that he will give himself up for trial if the jury is allowed to hear arguments about nullification, I'm interested in that option. If THAT's what Snowden is talking about, not trying his case in the court of public opinion but asking for the nullification of the law, I wouldn't be opposed to that. I'd think he'd loose that case too, but as long as he isn't allowed to turn this into a three ring circus, let him try.
I would suggest not putting me on the jury though....
You bet the Olympic Committee cares.... In so far as the media is covering it. Otherwise they would just be minding their own business, cashing the checks and arranging the kickbacks.
Look, anybody who thought Rio was a good idea for the summer Olympics from a security and safety perspective has obviously never been there. It's not the worst situation I've seen down in South America, but it's pretty bad for a halfway civilized industrial country and not something you are going to be able to "clean up" enough put on something like the Summer Olympic Games without some serious costs and effort. Rio and the Olympic committee don't have enough money or time to do this right and we can only hope they manage to get close.
All I can say is I'm glad I will be able to watch this with my family from my living room because I'd NEVER go to Rio with the family in the first place. It's way to dangerous unless you carefully stay at a hotel ON the beach, never stray inland more than a block or so and have arranged reliable transportation to/from the airport preferably with armed guards. The beach is beautiful although not always "family friendly", but the majority of the rest of the town is an open sewer both culturally and literally. Tourists who get off the beach do so at great risk and that goes double for you ugly American types who think loud English is more understandable than when it's whispered.
Personally I have a fleet of WNDR4300's to play with myself. I have to build my own OpenWRT software for them, but the configuration to do so is out there. I'm just looking a that AC1900 and drooling given it's extra elbow room, USB 3 and eSATA port. The WNDR4300 is about $40 used on E-Bay, where the AC1900 is seen at $130 all day long and sometimes less than that.
Unfortunately your WNDR4500 doesn't seem to be supported and with the Broadcom legal issues doesn't seem likely it ever will.
We will never know for sure.
OK... Before I get savaged.... They ARE refunding anybody who has paid Apple to repair their phone.... No mention of those who just purchased a new phone though...
Being caught or making a mistake that messed up your customers' phones?
I'll believe you are truly sorry about messing things up if you now turn around and *fix* those phones which are now useless because they may have had non OEM parts installed. Otherwise, I'm going to believe that you are just sorry for getting caught.
I didnt say it was hard, i said it was a half-assed compromise that no one wanted.
What else can I assume if you are unhappy and having difficulty making it work for you. IF you wanted a turnkey solution, call TiVo, if not, roll your own. I don't see any reason the FCC needs to do anything else beyond the CableCARD. We already have third party access to the STB market though CableCARD. Now if your provider is messing with you and that's why you are so unhappy with your CableCARD solution, I suggest you file a complaint with the FCC...
It may be that the CableCARD solution was unwanted, but it's what we have and it's sufficient for this purpose. Which is MY point. The FCC has already addressed this issue and doesn't need to mess things up further.
Yea, I've not used Verizon's STB's for almost 8 years. Prior to that, they where slow with lagging user interface updates and didn't have what I considered an intuitive user interface for things like parental controls and hiding content I didn't whish to see. My last STB would also spontaneously reboot multiple times a week and require that I unplug it about once a month. I sure hope they fixed that stuff.
But I don't want the STB anyway. It costs too much, It offers all that streaming on demand garbage and insists on splashing advertisements on my screen when all I want to do is change channels.
If you like it, have fun writing the monthly checks to pay for it. Personally, I don't.
So you are complaining because you got ripped off for the monthly rental fees when you didn't know better? I feel so sad for you.... So sorry your are ignorant of your options.
But, at this point, your issue is with customer education, not with what's possible and already regulated by the FCC.
I don't know there... I was able to set up my Homerun Prime with Windows Media Center in an afternoon... Based on your other posts you don't consider me all that bright so it cannot be THAT hard. Had I purchased a TiVo, I'm sure they have excellent customer support for new users. It's not like this is rocket science.
Now if you cannot figure out how to make this work, you get to pay your provider for their turnkey solution and nothing the FCC can do will make that any different. The Cable Company isn't going to support your Windows Media Center (or what ever solution you choose) install unless you pay them, I don't care what the FCC does at this point.
Try Google... Yahoo even has sources... Good luck, I think YOU might need it.
CableCARD is mandated by FCC rule. If you have cable TV, your provider MUST provide you a CableCARD if you ask for it. If they don't, please complain to the FCC and get the situation fixed.
You cannot seriously think the Cable Company is going to just toss you the necessary keys to decrypt every channel you purchase without there being some kind of physical token that cannot be duplicated to control who can decrypt that stream. Or can you? The whole point here is to prevent unauthorized users from being able to decrypt the channels they've not paid to see, but only have to send the encrypted stream once. How do you do that without some kind of physical token?
There is no reason they can't just do it with software and a protocol for key exchange.
Ah, yes, they are working on that, but security requires that there be some kind of physical token, a piece of hardware, there to validate stuff. Plus, having a program running in memory of a device you don't control just invites hacking so I don't think the cable companies will let that happen. More importantly, I don't think the content providers will be willing to let the cable companies put their content at risk like that.
No, I don't think so. CableCARDs fit into a lot of things, TV's, TiVo's and other Third party devices so there is some costs, both up front and monthly for the cable company with CableCARDs. If you could request 20 of them for free, this might not be fair to the cable company. Perhaps if you had some kind of limit on the number you can get for free or something... But even then, they will just roll the costs into their prices...
Right now, things work fine. For a very low monthly cost, they provide the card and the managing the infrastructure that keeps everything authorized for the right things. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
All are available for CableCARD devices if you know where to look. I will admit that the schedule data is going to cost you.... But it costs you something when you use the Cable Company's version too.
Oh, and don't forget my personal pet-peeve... "Offer for new Verizon FIOS customers ONLY!"
I've been a FIOS customer for nearly a decade and they wouldn't honor the introductory advertised price for new customers last time I tried to discuss it with them.
Yea, but $5/month to "rent" their CableCARD isn't all that expensive given their boxes run in excess of $25/month.
I don't care what solution we end up with, the key and authorization management costs the cable company something and the customer is going to pay that cost regardless of what line items show up on your bill.
Personally, I wish they'd let me just buy the CableCARD hardware and provide my own if I wished, but $5/month is not that unreasonable either.
So... If it takes one printer 9 months, can you get 9 printers to make one in 1 month?
OK, but given the encryption part of how all this works, I'm not sure how else to protect the video content but though some scheme where you have some kind of physical token that cannot be modified and allows the cable company to manage the content you are allowed to see. My point is that the FCC has mandated this solution to be Cable Cards, which works fine.
Now if you are wanting to insist that we be allowed to purchase and own our own cable card from a provider and force providers to support customer supplied cable cards, I can support that.
OK, so if the cable company offers streaming services, then the FCC has a point, but watching TV or having a DVR solution is already a solved problem. All they would really need to do here is mandate that the cable company provide a web interface for their streaming content which is available to customers on their networks. Something tells me though, the FCC won't go with the obvious solution....
BTW, most of this already IS standard's based, even at the video streaming level. I forget the exact RFC's involved, but, at least for Verizon FIOS customers, the streaming solution is standards based.
But you can get a cable card from them, by law. If they cannot provide you a cable card, you complain to the FCC and force them to support them. It's the Cable Card that you need to decrypt the video stream and what your third party vendor needs to support. It's a known standard and it works.
So, the FCC has already solved this problem. You can already buy third party set top boxes and tuners that use the cable card standard.