Sure, because the overseas hackers find U.S. broadband connections easy to compromise. And the "bullet proof" hosting is almost all in China and Korea.
I'd want the help of law enforcement if someone was stealing things from my place of business.
So would I (disregarding for a moment the fact that copyright infringement, while perhaps unethical, isn't stealing). But the only people being helped here are large corporations like Adobe, Disney, etc., who lobby for the passing and enforcement ever harsher laws (q.v. Sklyarov) to enforce an artificial form of "property."
Any small shop who had infringing materials "protected" by any of these raids benefited from the results of a pure accident--campaign contributions talk--the FBI doesn't care one whit for a small developer. Don't believe me? Write a shareware app, wait for the crack to get posted, and see how fast they act against that case handed on a silver platter.
Insensitive he may be, but not long after lamenting the human cost, I wondered also what this would do to the cost of DRAM. Call me insensitive. I prefer pragmatic.
I have similarly blocked Cyveillance and their ilk on my low volume site, but given Google's penetration in the search market, no one making money with their sites will dare to do the same against Google.
Google is in a unique position to sell information to:
copyright holders--can give up the hosts and posters about infringing software and cracks
government agencies and security-sensitive companies--queries by IP address correlated with ISP databases can provide a "database of intentions" helpful in vetting candidates for security clearances or ferreting out those potentially plotting crimes against the state
corporations--Google's massive index can help dig up parody sites, sucks sites, and other places where ordinary people "defame" corporations or brands by daring to tell the truth online.
Summary--Google's best moneymaking potential is in the black helicopter arena, where their assets will blow away startups like BayTSP, Cyveillance, and Genuone despite the startups having had the first mover advantage.
Yes, this doesn't square with "Don't be evil." Neither does helping the PRC subjagate its people by assisting with censorship. And a publically traded company, as any Cryptonomicon MBA here can tell you, cannot have the luxury of a conscience.
No, but I bet they wouldn't have much trouble getting judgements against the major premium NNTP providers. That's probably fairly low on the priority list right now, though.
Actually, I find that my spam load decreased precipitously once I started running wget in a tight loop against the spamvertised sites. I'm down to just a couple a day, and those are usually Nigerian spams, and if they're using a legitimate mail provider, I send a note to abuse and get the box shut. Once in a while, I still get a website--for example, the one in my.sig.,
I do believe that bulletproof hosting in Russia and China has mob connections--of course, the governments of those countries themselves could be considered Mafioso.
The FBI isn't very effective on knocking on the doors of the Russian and Chinese mafias--what would work is a fast-track protocol for killing their merchant accounts after some determined number of spam reports.
You honestly don't believe there's a difference in degree between the "LAN guy" on an unswitched network and a spy agency with the resources of a government? Do you come home through a network of concrete and steel barriers, navigate a barbed wire boundary, and low crawl under tracer rounds to get to the retinal scanner which will allow you into the man trap that leads to the blast-hardened elevator to your bunker below?
I agree with you that it would be great for everyone who uses crypto to use the best available, but sometimes other considerations (in this case compatibility with something with a much larger installed base). Perhaps if gaim supported the SecureIM protocol and supplanted some Trillian installs, those using it would eventually switch to using verifiable keys once each discovered someone other than him or herself is using a capable client.
This reminds me of the FCC, and how electronic devices must recieve harmful interference, instead of being hardend.
The statement on devices that says they "must accept any interference received" doesn't mean that the devices can't be hardened against interference (e.g. with a tinfoil hat)--it means that users of the devices have no legal cause to complain to the FCC that someone else's whozit is interfering with their device.
And that end justifies the stopping of citizens, who ostensibly enjoy the presumption of innocence, by armed forces of the state, impeding their right to travel. Uh-huh.
A popular and useful service would be to point out the locations of current radar traps and Fourth Amendment violating DUI checkpoints. Of course, this might cause the flow of data from municipalities to dry up pretty quickly once it started impacting government revenue negatively.
Yes, it's vulnerable--to someone who knows enough math and is sufficiently adept at crypto and TCP/IP programming to take over the connection at both ends, intercept and fake both public values, and sniff all the subsequent traffic based on the bogus combined key.
I submit that perhaps someone worried about the biological weapons secrets he's talking about with Libyan agents on AIM needs to worry about this, but that the people trying to keep relatively unskilled network Nazis out of their personal chit-chat don't.
Ah--honestly, though, I'd rather have the person next to me on his or her cell phone than trying to bend my ear with conversation. Not that I'm antisocial, but most of the time, I'm pretty wiped out when on planes and am in no mood to chat.
The only thing that worries me is that people will start using it for VOIP to get around any anti-cellphone regulations.
Why would that be a problem? Assuming the VoIP equipment doesn't have the potential to interfere with navigation (and doesn't cause the rapid cell hop that's the real reason cells are banned on board), what business is it of the airline's?
This is what services like Webcertificate were made for. It creates a stored value MasterCard which you could use to limit your exposure when using something like this. As an added bonus, last time I experimented, there's no verification of the recipient's name, providing a layer of obfuscation (not anonymity, since I'm sure Webcertificate would give you up in a heartbeat if anyone with a badge asked).
I don't think that it's unreasonable to ask intellectual "property" holders to give up regionalized markets in return for global enforcement. Of course, neither is ever going to completely happen.
I know just what to do!" The Grinch Laughed in his throat.
And he made a quick Slashdot link and a post.
And he chuckled, and clucked, "What a great Grinchy trick!
"With this link and this post, I'll Slashdot Saint Nick!"
Slashdot Mirror
See my .sig. I keep a recently spamvertised site there at all times.
Sure, because the overseas hackers find U.S. broadband connections easy to compromise. And the "bullet proof" hosting is almost all in China and Korea.
So would I (disregarding for a moment the fact that copyright infringement, while perhaps unethical, isn't stealing). But the only people being helped here are large corporations like Adobe, Disney, etc., who lobby for the passing and enforcement ever harsher laws (q.v. Sklyarov) to enforce an artificial form of "property."
Any small shop who had infringing materials "protected" by any of these raids benefited from the results of a pure accident--campaign contributions talk--the FBI doesn't care one whit for a small developer. Don't believe me? Write a shareware app, wait for the crack to get posted, and see how fast they act against that case handed on a silver platter.
Insensitive he may be, but not long after lamenting the human cost, I wondered also what this would do to the cost of DRAM. Call me insensitive. I prefer pragmatic.
I have similarly blocked Cyveillance and their ilk on my low volume site, but given Google's penetration in the search market, no one making money with their sites will dare to do the same against Google.
Summary--Google's best moneymaking potential is in the black helicopter arena, where their assets will blow away startups like BayTSP, Cyveillance, and Genuone despite the startups having had the first mover advantage.
Yes, this doesn't square with "Don't be evil." Neither does helping the PRC subjagate its people by assisting with censorship. And a publically traded company, as any Cryptonomicon MBA here can tell you, cannot have the luxury of a conscience.
No, but I bet they wouldn't have much trouble getting judgements against the major premium NNTP providers. That's probably fairly low on the priority list right now, though.
I made sure of it :). Actually, with rounding, it did come out even.
I do believe that bulletproof hosting in Russia and China has mob connections--of course, the governments of those countries themselves could be considered Mafioso.
The FBI isn't very effective on knocking on the doors of the Russian and Chinese mafias--what would work is a fast-track protocol for killing their merchant accounts after some determined number of spam reports.
I agree with you that it would be great for everyone who uses crypto to use the best available, but sometimes other considerations (in this case compatibility with something with a much larger installed base). Perhaps if gaim supported the SecureIM protocol and supplanted some Trillian installs, those using it would eventually switch to using verifiable keys once each discovered someone other than him or herself is using a capable client.
The statement on devices that says they "must accept any interference received" doesn't mean that the devices can't be hardened against interference (e.g. with a tinfoil hat)--it means that users of the devices have no legal cause to complain to the FCC that someone else's whozit is interfering with their device.
And that end justifies the stopping of citizens, who ostensibly enjoy the presumption of innocence, by armed forces of the state, impeding their right to travel. Uh-huh.
The Supreme Court's error doesn't change the fact that it's a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Fair use is not an "allowence."
A popular and useful service would be to point out the locations of current radar traps and Fourth Amendment violating DUI checkpoints. Of course, this might cause the flow of data from municipalities to dry up pretty quickly once it started impacting government revenue negatively.
I submit that perhaps someone worried about the biological weapons secrets he's talking about with Libyan agents on AIM needs to worry about this, but that the people trying to keep relatively unskilled network Nazis out of their personal chit-chat don't.
Ah--honestly, though, I'd rather have the person next to me on his or her cell phone than trying to bend my ear with conversation. Not that I'm antisocial, but most of the time, I'm pretty wiped out when on planes and am in no mood to chat.
Important question: If you cyber on the plane, does that make you a member of the Mile High Club?
Why would that be a problem? Assuming the VoIP equipment doesn't have the potential to interfere with navigation (and doesn't cause the rapid cell hop that's the real reason cells are banned on board), what business is it of the airline's?
What--that a bunch of ineffective ass covering is essential to the corporate work experience?
This is what services like Webcertificate were made for. It creates a stored value MasterCard which you could use to limit your exposure when using something like this. As an added bonus, last time I experimented, there's no verification of the recipient's name, providing a layer of obfuscation (not anonymity, since I'm sure Webcertificate would give you up in a heartbeat if anyone with a badge asked).
I don't think that it's unreasonable to ask intellectual "property" holders to give up regionalized markets in return for global enforcement. Of course, neither is ever going to completely happen.
I know just what to do!" The Grinch Laughed in his throat.
And he made a quick Slashdot link and a post.
And he chuckled, and clucked, "What a great Grinchy trick!
"With this link and this post, I'll Slashdot Saint Nick!"