"If you are on a company computer, prove they don't have a keylogger on it?"
Prove that your personal computer doesn't have one. Unless you've personally reviewed all the code and circuitry that could possibly be used for such a purpose, I shall not believe you.
"When the end cert is presented by an unknown party, it's a MITM."
It's a MITM when it's done by any party, known or unknown. If the data is being decrypted and captured as it flows between the endpoints of an HTTPS connection, the party doing so is a Man in the Middle.
"When it's done by the computer owner, under explicit ToS you agreed to, what's the complaint?"
Whatever the complaint, it involves the fact that "agree to" and "agree with" are different concepts.
A trusted proxy is a "Man in the Middle", so I presume your objection is to the word "attack"? Whatever you choose to call it, the fact is that SSL certificates are transparently being rewritten in order to capture data each website's SSL certificate was meant to stop from being captured. "Trusted proxy" is just a friendly euphemism which attempts to justify what may or may not be a legitimate practice, depending on what's being collected and whether or not the users are, in fact, specifically aware of it.
Sadly, the law in most areas says no expectation of privacy in public places which includes at a bar.
Why "sadly"? You're out where anyone can see you. This includes artificial eyes like camera lenses and sensors. The "reasonable expectation of privacy" doctrine is a strength, not a fault.
"Yes and no. I am pretty sure the only reason BD/DVD/CDs can be transferred us because local law grants consumers that right."
It's the other way around: I can transfer BD/DVD/CDs because local law does not prevent me from doing so.
"The fact that physical media and manuals accompany the product is not sufficient to grant you the right to transfer the license UNLESS laws specifically grant you that right."
Again, it's the other way around: Attaching a license to a product does not in any way restrict my actions unless the law recognizes that license as valid and binding.
In this sense Valve does not engage in "fraudulent advertising" because it is well understood that they sell licenses, not complete copyrights for software products. Or in other words: You buy a right to use the software in a limited way, you do not buy the complete copyright and full intellectual property. And giving your license to someone is really noting more than handing them proof that you are the rightful user of said license. The license itself is not transferred.
You are operating under the false assumption that buying software means either buying a license to the software or buying the right to make copies and derivatives of that software. There is actually a third choice: buying copies of the software. When you buy a disc for a game console you are free to play, lend, and resell it without permission (see the "first sale doctrine"). You are buying a copy, and the right to use that copy is implied; it requires no explicit license.
So... is buying a game on Steam like paying for a license, or is it more like buying a copy? Valve wants us to think it's a license, but it sure does feel a lot like purchasing a copy at the point of sale.
This has baffled me. I know you can be held accountable for yelling fire in a crowded theater. But even then, the act of yelling fire in a crowded theater is not illegal itself. Just the deaths as a result of yelling fire can be attributed to the yeller.
Anytime someone mentions fire in a crowded theater, I think of this:
"Fire, fire, fire, fire. Now you’ve heard it. Not shouted in a crowded theatre, admittedly, as I seem now to have shouted it in the Hogwarts dining hall. But the point is made. Everyone knows the fatuous verdict of the greatly over-praised Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who, when asked for an actual example of when it would be proper to limit speech or define it as an action, gave that of shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre.
It’s very often forgotten what he was doing in that case was sending to prison a group of Yiddish speaking socialists, whose literature was printed in a language most Americans couldn’t read, opposing Mr. Wilson’s participation in the First World War, and the dragging of the United States into that sanguinary conflict, which the Yiddish speaking socialists had fled from Russia to escape. In fact it could be just as plausible argued that the Yiddish speaking socialists who were jailed by the excellent and greatly over-praised Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes were the real fire fighters, were the ones shouting fire when there really was a fire in a very crowded theatre indeed."
People offer it as an example of the limits of free speech, all the while completely unaware of the saying's origin.
They also accounted for warranted searches. It's not self-incrimination to surrender your shed keys when you've got a naked co-ed chained inside.
A key is a thing I have, not a thing I know. That may be enough to make the difference. Actual knowledge of the co-ed's presence can also make the difference.
"He knew the password, the police had probable cause, and he intentionally impeded an investigation. I can't speak to British legal procedure, but in America that'd almost certainly be enough to be charged with obstruction of justice."
You're wrong about America. The law is far from settled, but in some jurisdictions probable cause is hardly enough to compel a suspect to reveal an encryption password. Actual knowledge of the drive's contents may be necessary to compel a person to decrypt it, as otherwise it would violate the suspect's right against self incrimination.
Yelp's terms of service are irrelevant. Public statements against public figures aren't libelous unless they are false. Factual statements made by non customers are factual by definition. False statements made by customers are likewise necessarily false. The libel is in claiming something happened that never did. It doesn't matter whether the person who wrote it was a customer.
[International agreements], exactly, is what gives.
OK, but aren't such agreements usually limited to those specific terms which signatories agree to incorporate into local law?
Do these agreements instead create a situation where US copyright holders can sue in the United States without regard to what the law says in the defendant's place of residence?
How does a US federal court gain jurisdiction over a company located in Panama?
A ruling prior to this settlement held that Hotfile could be subject to vicarious liability for failing to comply with the DMCA (they allegedly ignored a bunch of DMCA takedown requests and failed to shut down a bunch of accounts despite repeat infringements), but the DMCA is US law, not Panama law. Unless copyright is somehow a special case (due to, say, international agreements), I fail to see why Hotfile should be subject to US copyright law anymore than US companies should be subject to Chinese or Iranian censorship laws.
"In the real world if I walked into a jewelry store and stole a $3,000 Rolex and offered the owner $100 for the watch, I would be guilty of shoplifting."
Thank you, Captain Obvious, for letting us know that if you stole a watch you'd be guilty of shoplifting.
"If you want a dedicated connection with a 1:1 contention ratio you're going to have to pony up more than $50/mo."
There's a difference between the natural degradation of signal due to demand and the intentional throttling of bandwidth according to content, IP address, or protocol. The problem is not contention, but neutrality.
No rational person would claim the coffee shop has to provide more than 300 gallons of coffee to a single customer.
No rational person would think a person can drink 300 gallons of coffee in a single visit. However much a person might drink outside your silly imaginary world, however, the coffee shop damn well better deliver.
"With the ISP I work for currently, 0.1% of our customers cost us 50% of the bandwidth. It isn't right that a few punks think they can try to destroy service for everyone else with what looks like an attack."
It isn't right to advertise high speeds only to cripple people's connections for making full use of the advertised bandwidth. If you can't deliver on what you promise, stick to promising 28.8 kbps and see how that works out for you.
Google not in France Not obligated to do shit for the Frogs Court orders, Just ignore them.
Google does have a French subsidiary, which places them under French jurisdiction. A bigger problem is the fact that Google has been ordered to block the images worldwide. Whether France has the authority to do that or not, I have no idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Prove that your personal computer doesn't have one. Unless you've personally reviewed all the code and circuitry that could possibly be used for such a purpose, I shall not believe you.
It's a MITM when it's done by any party, known or unknown. If the data is being decrypted and captured as it flows between the endpoints of an HTTPS connection, the party doing so is a Man in the Middle.
Whatever the complaint, it involves the fact that "agree to" and "agree with" are different concepts.
As opposed to those whose use it. Those whose information is being encrypted to supposedly protect against interception.
Except, of course, for websites not recognized by the proxy as containing "banking" or "health" information.
A trusted proxy is a "Man in the Middle", so I presume your objection is to the word "attack"? Whatever you choose to call it, the fact is that SSL certificates are transparently being rewritten in order to capture data each website's SSL certificate was meant to stop from being captured. "Trusted proxy" is just a friendly euphemism which attempts to justify what may or may not be a legitimate practice, depending on what's being collected and whether or not the users are, in fact, specifically aware of it.
Why "sadly"? You're out where anyone can see you. This includes artificial eyes like camera lenses and sensors. The "reasonable expectation of privacy" doctrine is a strength, not a fault.
It's the other way around: I can transfer BD/DVD/CDs because local law does not prevent me from doing so.
Again, it's the other way around: Attaching a license to a product does not in any way restrict my actions unless the law recognizes that license as valid and binding.
That's your interpretation. Whether or not the courts agree is a different matter.
You are operating under the false assumption that buying software means either buying a license to the software or buying the right to make copies and derivatives of that software. There is actually a third choice: buying copies of the software. When you buy a disc for a game console you are free to play, lend, and resell it without permission (see the "first sale doctrine"). You are buying a copy, and the right to use that copy is implied; it requires no explicit license.
So... is buying a game on Steam like paying for a license, or is it more like buying a copy? Valve wants us to think it's a license, but it sure does feel a lot like purchasing a copy at the point of sale.
And a very bad ruling, at that. Find out why.
Anytime someone mentions fire in a crowded theater, I think of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
People offer it as an example of the limits of free speech, all the while completely unaware of the saying's origin.
A key is a thing I have, not a thing I know. That may be enough to make the difference. Actual knowledge of the co-ed's presence can also make the difference.
You're wrong about America. The law is far from settled, but in some jurisdictions probable cause is hardly enough to compel a suspect to reveal an encryption password. Actual knowledge of the drive's contents may be necessary to compel a person to decrypt it, as otherwise it would violate the suspect's right against self incrimination.
Yelp's terms of service are irrelevant. Public statements against public figures aren't libelous unless they are false. Factual statements made by non customers are factual by definition. False statements made by customers are likewise necessarily false. The libel is in claiming something happened that never did. It doesn't matter whether the person who wrote it was a customer.
I bet it's good to know you are better than all those people.
It's a good thing we don't need standing to express ourselves in public.
OK, but aren't such agreements usually limited to those specific terms which signatories agree to incorporate into local law?
Do these agreements instead create a situation where US copyright holders can sue in the United States without regard to what the law says in the defendant's place of residence?
How does a US federal court gain jurisdiction over a company located in Panama?
A ruling prior to this settlement held that Hotfile could be subject to vicarious liability for failing to comply with the DMCA (they allegedly ignored a bunch of DMCA takedown requests and failed to shut down a bunch of accounts despite repeat infringements), but the DMCA is US law, not Panama law. Unless copyright is somehow a special case (due to, say, international agreements), I fail to see why Hotfile should be subject to US copyright law anymore than US companies should be subject to Chinese or Iranian censorship laws.
What gives?
"The passwords ... are valid for only a brief time window each day, they said."
How does that work?
Something's rotten in the state of Texas.
"In the real world if I walked into a jewelry store and stole a $3,000 Rolex and offered the owner $100 for the watch, I would be guilty of shoplifting."
Thank you, Captain Obvious, for letting us know that if you stole a watch you'd be guilty of shoplifting.
"If you want a dedicated connection with a 1:1 contention ratio you're going to have to pony up more than $50/mo."
There's a difference between the natural degradation of signal due to demand and the intentional throttling of bandwidth according to content, IP address, or protocol. The problem is not contention, but neutrality.
No rational person would think a person can drink 300 gallons of coffee in a single visit. However much a person might drink outside your silly imaginary world, however, the coffee shop damn well better deliver.
It isn't right to advertise high speeds only to cripple people's connections for making full use of the advertised bandwidth. If you can't deliver on what you promise, stick to promising 28.8 kbps and see how that works out for you.
Google does have a French subsidiary, which places them under French jurisdiction. A bigger problem is the fact that Google has been ordered to block the images worldwide. Whether France has the authority to do that or not, I have no idea.
"Anyway we can go back to 2001 or so with the design?"
Here you go. There's also 1998?