You're painting yourself in a corner and then complain you can't reach the door.
No, he's standing in the middle of an open field and complaining that he can't get access to something inside a jail cell unless he allows himself to be locked in. So of course the natural reaction is to say "fuck that, I'll get it another way."
Except Netflix DRM doesn't represent any sort of 'lock in' at all. They've never, ever claimed to sell you anything. They're allowing you to use it in exchange for the subscription fee, which implies that they retain the power to stop you from using it at some point. Since it is digital, DRM makes a lot of sense, within that model.
Give a certificate to each user of Netflix, provide all the necessary APIs, any play operation needs to use the user certificates which would need to be authenticated against a Netflix mandated certificate authority.
The movies would be of course encrypted with the private key associated to the user, which remains under Netflix control
That sounds like a mind-blowingly huge amount of CPU time on a per-user, per-video scale! Assuming this solution were already developed, implemented, and in use by millions, Netflix STILL likely wouldn't use it on the basis of all the overhead.
Your bank doesn't get to decide this because they have no choice but to individually encrypt each transaction. People don't share bank accounts, generally. Further, dollar values are infinitesimally smaller than video data, particularly at HD qualities, so their overhead is likely a lot less.
A shared-key system, while less compatible and ultimately less secure, would likely always be the best choice for a system where multiple users are viewing the same content over and over again. Knowing what keys the client will be using means they can pre-encrypt their entire library in advance and store the media in that state, saving them a lot of processing time.
Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car
on
Today's WikiLeaks News
·
· Score: 1
Leaking documents that are equivalent to "Water is wet, the sky is blue, and fire is hot." is not productive.
They're a direct rebuttal to the government's claims that water is dry, the sky is orange, and fire is tepid.
Proper channels were not followed. Reuters was trying to get the video from the military, and Assange released it. Reminds me of how W went into Iraq before Hans Blix could finish his investigation and eliminate WMD as an excuse.
Don't change the subject.
The proper order is:
1) Reuters tried, repeatedly to get the video from the military and was denied, repeatedly
2) Manning leaked it
3) Wikileaks (Assange) published it
You're asserting that there was not adequate effort during step '1' above, but this simply not true. Reuters conducted their own investigation into the deaths of their employees, including a properly filed and processed FOIA request, in 2007. It was 'blocked by the Pentagon' that same year. The leak didn't occur until 2009.
The government lied and would never have revealed the truth.
This is but a single example, as well. I don't wish to derail this topic, but what of the Pat Tillman/Jessica Lynch situations? Again, I say there is zero expectation that proper channels would be effective. Leaks are not necessarily the only answer, but they are acceptable in light of the alternatives.
...And as every U.S. military recruit is taught before going to boot camp...the punishment for treason in times of war is death. He's getting off easy so far.
Any American who'd willingly kill him is displaying the only actual example of treason in this scenario.
Or at least, he might have thought of that BEFORE HE STARTED FUCKING BRAGGING ABOUT IT.
To be completely fair, I don't believe he did. I've been suspicious since I first heard the telling that Lamo was operating a sting on Manning at the gov's behest.
This claim is false. Remember the 'collateral murder' video? Proper channels were followed, and the request was illegally denied. Imagine that Manning had leveed a successful argument that these things should be released. The request could simply be denied and the entire nature of the proceedings made a state secret. Without leaks, we'd never even know the question was posed, let alone the response, who made it, and why. There is zero expectation that the government will obey its own laws in regards to their secrets, and thus your entire argument that the law offers recourse is invalid.
If he were, would he be any more or any less of a human being? It isn't as if 'prisoner of war' status somehow confers differing degrees of what is decent and what is deplorable. The very reason the Geneva Convention even took place was because the various countries around the world had too little decency towards one another during war. It shouldn't matter what the details of the agreement say when the clear spirit of it is being violated.
...Manning will be judged an honorable man who stood up for what was right in the face of terrifying opposition. It is hard to find conduct more worthy of praise than that.
This.
I say we pardon him on the courage of his convictions alone, but maybe that's just me.
Cut the guy a tiny bit of slack. He hates Assange, Wikileaks, and Manning. All with the fervor of an employee doing a very good job in the name of his government overseer. Not that this is the case, but one has to respect a job well done for a cause, even when such cause isn't supportable.;)
Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car
on
Today's WikiLeaks News
·
· Score: 1
Such an action may well open up the challenge that 'internet = press', and such a button could well become an interesting topic indeed.
Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car
on
Today's WikiLeaks News
·
· Score: 1
Wikileaks should stop Assange's little feud with the US and get back to doing something productive.
I challenge your assertion that "Assange's little feud" is not "productive". It seems to have produced quite a lot, from where I sit, particularly compared to the efforts of just about everyone else currently in this arena of exposing secrets.
So yes, the code is open, the code is visible, the code can and could be audited. But here is the thing, being auditable is not the same as being audited.
Except this is OpenBSD we're talking about, where code audits happen frequently and often.
And personally, I would not be shocked if a full audit was run if something might be found.
A full audit would be run repeatedly over the course of this coming year even if this accusation had not come out. After all, we are talking about OpenBSD.
Consider this - if this backdoor existed then or exists today, what would that say about the process?
Certainly there could be deliberate timing effects, etc, but everyone these days should be using crypto implementations which protect against such things.
This alone is enough to warrant research into the matter. Admittedly we may be fine, security-wise, for today, but what of the last ten years and/or what about tomorrow? The alleged behavior, in my view, is a lot more interesting than the actual impact.
No, TFA rather does make the assertion that the Scott Lowe angle is more than mere speculation. It's clearly labeled as such in the email, but the article's author apparently could only reach these two men, so he went with what he had?
Well it might have existed sometime in the past and been removed long ago, making the point moot.
Not quite moot, no. Our FBI is prohibited from meddling in our publications (First Amendment) and from eavesdropping without oversight (Fourth Amendment), so even were this immediately removed the very fact that someone attempted to do it is a valid point.
Especially in security code, it the lead maintainer can't comprehend the code it becomes immediately suspect.
Yeah, sure, very true. What if the lead maintainer is complicit? What then?
It looks like you trimmed your link. This goes to the root of the entire CSV. We'd want to see the specific code in the allegation, as it was submitted back in 2000/2001. Got THAT link?
You know that it isn't that simple. I can tell by the way you're droning on and on about it. You're not trying to convince ME, but you're arguing with your own dissonance.
I'll be kind, and allow you the last word. Again, take care.
You're still trying to make this about me. My observation is about you, based on your comments. You have sympathy for veterans who could have avoided their injury by not volunteering for war. That's fine, but it's a glaring double standard. You have sympathy for MS but not for obesity, again your call. In your mind you have attributed 'fat' to 'lazy' and it is causing you harm. I wish you all the best, and genuinely hope you never suffer from someone holding your own prejudices. Nobody can be anorexic forever, my friend.
Anyway, I would have said the same had you attributed 'black' to 'lazy' or any other grossly inappropriate, bigoted remark. I'm just doing my part to make the world a teeny bit better of a place. It's assholes like you that make otherwise decent people feel like monsters, and you ought to be caused to reflect upon that from time to time.
Being disabled isn't a disability either, then. It's a result of some avoidable accident, or undesirable genetics, or whatever judgement bigots like you would pass on them.
You judge people you do not know in negative ways by their outward appearance. You can try and make that about me all you want, you you're the one still posting in this thread. I've well-communicated my point.
Slashdot Mirror
You're painting yourself in a corner and then complain you can't reach the door.
No, he's standing in the middle of an open field and complaining that he can't get access to something inside a jail cell unless he allows himself to be locked in. So of course the natural reaction is to say "fuck that, I'll get it another way."
Except Netflix DRM doesn't represent any sort of 'lock in' at all. They've never, ever claimed to sell you anything. They're allowing you to use it in exchange for the subscription fee, which implies that they retain the power to stop you from using it at some point. Since it is digital, DRM makes a lot of sense, within that model.
You're right. Install Windows and your hardware should work fine.
That has DEFINITELY not been my experience of Windows.
Try 7...
Give a certificate to each user of Netflix, provide all the necessary APIs, any play operation needs to use the user certificates which would need to be authenticated against a Netflix mandated certificate authority.
The movies would be of course encrypted with the private key associated to the user, which remains under Netflix control
That sounds like a mind-blowingly huge amount of CPU time on a per-user, per-video scale! Assuming this solution were already developed, implemented, and in use by millions, Netflix STILL likely wouldn't use it on the basis of all the overhead.
Your bank doesn't get to decide this because they have no choice but to individually encrypt each transaction. People don't share bank accounts, generally. Further, dollar values are infinitesimally smaller than video data, particularly at HD qualities, so their overhead is likely a lot less.
A shared-key system, while less compatible and ultimately less secure, would likely always be the best choice for a system where multiple users are viewing the same content over and over again. Knowing what keys the client will be using means they can pre-encrypt their entire library in advance and store the media in that state, saving them a lot of processing time.
Leaking documents that are equivalent to "Water is wet, the sky is blue, and fire is hot." is not productive.
They're a direct rebuttal to the government's claims that water is dry, the sky is orange, and fire is tepid.
Proper channels were not followed. Reuters was trying to get the video from the military, and Assange released it. Reminds me of how W went into Iraq before Hans Blix could finish his investigation and eliminate WMD as an excuse.
Don't change the subject.
The proper order is:
1) Reuters tried, repeatedly to get the video from the military and was denied, repeatedly
2) Manning leaked it
3) Wikileaks (Assange) published it
You're asserting that there was not adequate effort during step '1' above, but this simply not true. Reuters conducted their own investigation into the deaths of their employees, including a properly filed and processed FOIA request, in 2007. It was 'blocked by the Pentagon' that same year. The leak didn't occur until 2009.
The government lied and would never have revealed the truth.
This is but a single example, as well. I don't wish to derail this topic, but what of the Pat Tillman/Jessica Lynch situations? Again, I say there is zero expectation that proper channels would be effective. Leaks are not necessarily the only answer, but they are acceptable in light of the alternatives.
...And as every U.S. military recruit is taught before going to boot camp...the punishment for treason in times of war is death. He's getting off easy so far.
Any American who'd willingly kill him is displaying the only actual example of treason in this scenario.
Or at least, he might have thought of that BEFORE HE STARTED FUCKING BRAGGING ABOUT IT.
To be completely fair, I don't believe he did. I've been suspicious since I first heard the telling that Lamo was operating a sting on Manning at the gov's behest.
P.S. You're not being reasonable here.
Hence the 'winky'. Good to see you're paying attention, though.
This claim is false. Remember the 'collateral murder' video? Proper channels were followed, and the request was illegally denied. Imagine that Manning had leveed a successful argument that these things should be released. The request could simply be denied and the entire nature of the proceedings made a state secret. Without leaks, we'd never even know the question was posed, let alone the response, who made it, and why. There is zero expectation that the government will obey its own laws in regards to their secrets, and thus your entire argument that the law offers recourse is invalid.
Manning isn't a prisoner of war.
If he were, would he be any more or any less of a human being? It isn't as if 'prisoner of war' status somehow confers differing degrees of what is decent and what is deplorable. The very reason the Geneva Convention even took place was because the various countries around the world had too little decency towards one another during war. It shouldn't matter what the details of the agreement say when the clear spirit of it is being violated.
For all good and decent human beings, anyway.
...Manning will be judged an honorable man who stood up for what was right in the face of terrifying opposition. It is hard to find conduct more worthy of praise than that.
This.
I say we pardon him on the courage of his convictions alone, but maybe that's just me.
Cut the guy a tiny bit of slack. He hates Assange, Wikileaks, and Manning. All with the fervor of an employee doing a very good job in the name of his government overseer. Not that this is the case, but one has to respect a job well done for a cause, even when such cause isn't supportable. ;)
Such an action may well open up the challenge that 'internet = press', and such a button could well become an interesting topic indeed.
Wikileaks should stop Assange's little feud with the US and get back to doing something productive.
I challenge your assertion that "Assange's little feud" is not "productive". It seems to have produced quite a lot, from where I sit, particularly compared to the efforts of just about everyone else currently in this arena of exposing secrets.
Yep...
So yes, the code is open, the code is visible, the code can and could be audited. But here is the thing, being auditable is not the same as being audited.
Except this is OpenBSD we're talking about, where code audits happen frequently and often.
And personally, I would not be shocked if a full audit was run if something might be found.
A full audit would be run repeatedly over the course of this coming year even if this accusation had not come out. After all, we are talking about OpenBSD.
Consider this - if this backdoor existed then or exists today, what would that say about the process?
Certainly there could be deliberate timing effects, etc, but everyone these days should be using crypto implementations which protect against such things.
This alone is enough to warrant research into the matter. Admittedly we may be fine, security-wise, for today, but what of the last ten years and/or what about tomorrow? The alleged behavior, in my view, is a lot more interesting than the actual impact.
No, TFA rather does make the assertion that the Scott Lowe angle is more than mere speculation. It's clearly labeled as such in the email, but the article's author apparently could only reach these two men, so he went with what he had?
Well it might have existed sometime in the past and been removed long ago, making the point moot.
Not quite moot, no. Our FBI is prohibited from meddling in our publications (First Amendment) and from eavesdropping without oversight (Fourth Amendment), so even were this immediately removed the very fact that someone attempted to do it is a valid point.
Especially in security code, it the lead maintainer can't comprehend the code it becomes immediately suspect.
Yeah, sure, very true. What if the lead maintainer is complicit? What then?
Here you go: The Code.
It looks like you trimmed your link. This goes to the root of the entire CSV. We'd want to see the specific code in the allegation, as it was submitted back in 2000/2001. Got THAT link?
You know that it isn't that simple. I can tell by the way you're droning on and on about it. You're not trying to convince ME, but you're arguing with your own dissonance.
I'll be kind, and allow you the last word. Again, take care.
You're still trying to make this about me. My observation is about you, based on your comments. You have sympathy for veterans who could have avoided their injury by not volunteering for war. That's fine, but it's a glaring double standard. You have sympathy for MS but not for obesity, again your call. In your mind you have attributed 'fat' to 'lazy' and it is causing you harm. I wish you all the best, and genuinely hope you never suffer from someone holding your own prejudices. Nobody can be anorexic forever, my friend.
Anyway, I would have said the same had you attributed 'black' to 'lazy' or any other grossly inappropriate, bigoted remark. I'm just doing my part to make the world a teeny bit better of a place. It's assholes like you that make otherwise decent people feel like monsters, and you ought to be caused to reflect upon that from time to time.
Anyway, again, all the best - take care!
Being disabled isn't a disability either, then. It's a result of some avoidable accident, or undesirable genetics, or whatever judgement bigots like you would pass on them.
You judge people you do not know in negative ways by their outward appearance. You can try and make that about me all you want, you you're the one still posting in this thread. I've well-communicated my point.
You're completely free to be so, but I'm also free to find it repugnant that you would judge people by their physical characteristics.
You may as well be a racist, in my view.
Have a great day!
You've already demonstrated that you were bigoted in the earlier post, why follow that up?