That seems like a pretty big security flaw in encryption. I guess I always assumed that with encryption it would stagger and mix the content of packets because otherwise it is such an obvious hole..
Thats really what I was wondering - is this a vulnerability in encryption. Thanks for answering. It seems that all they are doing is drawing attention to a flaw in the general use of encryption, which will then hopefully be fixed.
And yes, I agree the vans are bullshit. My very first thought when reading the article was that its just PR for another non-existent scheme designed to scare people into compliance. Its the same deal with their letters - they will bombard you with threats regarding investigations and legal proceedings, but they are just hot air.
Actually- surely this is bollocks anyway. If you can determine who's watching iplayer by looking at encrypted packets then surely encryption is broken? Anyone with more experience care to comment?
I just came to say what everyone else already has - I use ethernet for streaming so fuck you BBC!
Although I don't watch it anyway - anything good appears on other streaming services eventually anyway and I'm long past caring about seeing things on day zero. I already get letters almost weekly telling me they are now in the last stages of their investigation (for not paying my license fee). They are welcome to visit anytime, but unless they have a warrant my answer to any of their questions will be " "
This ^. I picked up an S4 mini for just over £100 all in. It does everything I need, runs everything and its phone sized. There's zero chance that I will ever buy a brand new phone again especially since I didn't have to tie myself to a contract to get it.
And I'd be prepared to accept that, if the facts fall that way. I just don't believe that competing with China on who can care less about environmental controls is the way to go (which is what the original post seemed to be suggesting).
I think requiring companies to pay a 50% salary when a non-compete is in effect is brilliant as they can dictate for whom you can work (and, as such, the ability earn a comparable salary).
I totally agree. Its pretty scary the power they seem to have in this.
In the UK a non compete (or any restrictive covenant) will generally be held invalid by a court unless they can prove it is reasonable and necessary to protect legitimate business interests. This means they can't prevent you from carrying out your chosen profession, can't have blanket statements such as 'not allowed to work for any competitor' and must only last as long as is required to protect those interests and no longer. It pretty much means you can't have one-size-fits all non-competes and you can really only prevent people from poaching clients if they leave.
What that means is that, unless you are an exec with access to trade secrets, a non-compete is pretty much useless and unenforceable.
Uber sell taxi services - they are a taxi company. Full stop. They find the customer and they set the price. If it was a marketplace then there would be a negotiation involved.
I agree totally. I'm pretty sure the only reason there is any question about what Uber is, is because Uber are paying lots of money to try and keep the question open..
Thank you. Its scary the number of people of lower socio-economic background that are voting for Brexit without realising they are simply voting for a return to good old Victorian Values (lower wages, loss of employment rights, privatised everything and the return of the workhouses).
Slashdot Mirror
You must admit, your posts are often inflammatory and very, very inconsistent.
We are.
Just one small thing. We're talking about the BBC. BBC != Government.
That seems like a pretty big security flaw in encryption. I guess I always assumed that with encryption it would stagger and mix the content of packets because otherwise it is such an obvious hole..
Thats really what I was wondering - is this a vulnerability in encryption. Thanks for answering. It seems that all they are doing is drawing attention to a flaw in the general use of encryption, which will then hopefully be fixed.
And yes, I agree the vans are bullshit. My very first thought when reading the article was that its just PR for another non-existent scheme designed to scare people into compliance. Its the same deal with their letters - they will bombard you with threats regarding investigations and legal proceedings, but they are just hot air.
Actually- surely this is bollocks anyway. If you can determine who's watching iplayer by looking at encrypted packets then surely encryption is broken? Anyone with more experience care to comment?
I just came to say what everyone else already has - I use ethernet for streaming so fuck you BBC!
Although I don't watch it anyway - anything good appears on other streaming services eventually anyway and I'm long past caring about seeing things on day zero. I already get letters almost weekly telling me they are now in the last stages of their investigation (for not paying my license fee). They are welcome to visit anytime, but unless they have a warrant my answer to any of their questions will be " "
I'm already on it - no need to nag!
You're old?
Thanks McLovin
Or perhaps he suffers from the delusion that wealth and expensive toys aren't the only measure of a life's value?
Let me out first!
This ^. I picked up an S4 mini for just over £100 all in. It does everything I need, runs everything and its phone sized. There's zero chance that I will ever buy a brand new phone again especially since I didn't have to tie myself to a contract to get it.
And I'd be prepared to accept that, if the facts fall that way. I just don't believe that competing with China on who can care less about environmental controls is the way to go (which is what the original post seemed to be suggesting).
We were talking about environmental controls holding America back
Assuming a race to the bottom is the optimum route.
I think requiring companies to pay a 50% salary when a non-compete is in effect is brilliant as they can dictate for whom you can work (and, as such, the ability earn a comparable salary).
I totally agree. Its pretty scary the power they seem to have in this.
In the UK a non compete (or any restrictive covenant) will generally be held invalid by a court unless they can prove it is reasonable and necessary to protect legitimate business interests. This means they can't prevent you from carrying out your chosen profession, can't have blanket statements such as 'not allowed to work for any competitor' and must only last as long as is required to protect those interests and no longer. It pretty much means you can't have one-size-fits all non-competes and you can really only prevent people from poaching clients if they leave.
What that means is that, unless you are an exec with access to trade secrets, a non-compete is pretty much useless and unenforceable.
(IANAL, etc, etc)
Its 'Anarchy Lite' - all the great flavour of anarchy, with no loss of privelage
Funny how AC Uber supporters are always out in force.
Uber sell taxi services - they are a taxi company. Full stop. They find the customer and they set the price. If it was a marketplace then there would be a negotiation involved.
But then you known that.
I agree totally. I'm pretty sure the only reason there is any question about what Uber is, is because Uber are paying lots of money to try and keep the question open..
If its Europe of Tories, give me Europe!
I thought it was either eternal vigilance or tree fiddy.
Thank you. Its scary the number of people of lower socio-economic background that are voting for Brexit without realising they are simply voting for a return to good old Victorian Values (lower wages, loss of employment rights, privatised everything and the return of the workhouses).
Very true. It will be a great place to leave your money. Just a shit-hole to work in.