Ok, the censorship part of this has been covered. I'm interested in how the system determines what to censor. It sounds like it knows what to skip based on the movie.
"Subscribers can then watch standard copies of the 500-or-so films on its list, with the assurance that they will automatically skip over mute anything that children or the squeamish may not like. "
But can I pick and choice to see the sex scenes but not the drug sense or I think that *&%! is ok but not %$#&*!. How upset is a parent going to be when they buy a new movie not on the list and pop it in to babysit their kids and find out it isn't censored?
Everyone seems to be giving this guy credit and claiming he should have went about disclosing the flaws in a legal way. Well, no where in the article does it verify a real flaw. He offers a "a step-by-step summary of how we were able to penetrate your Web site" for $2.5 million. This implies he wasn't planning on revealing the details of the flaw until the money was in his account. So he could just be a con artist hoping to make some money off of high tech fears.
First of all, governments are hardly ever rational. Second, if you want to live in a "free" society, why would you want the government to be setting mandates for it. Isn't that the same as having a monopoly on proprietary software?
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, the censorship part of this has been covered. I'm interested in how the system determines what to censor. It sounds like it knows what to skip based on the movie. "Subscribers can then watch standard copies of the 500-or-so films on its list, with the assurance that they will automatically skip over mute anything that children or the squeamish may not like. " But can I pick and choice to see the sex scenes but not the drug sense or I think that *&%! is ok but not %$#&*!. How upset is a parent going to be when they buy a new movie not on the list and pop it in to babysit their kids and find out it isn't censored?
Everyone seems to be giving this guy credit and claiming he should have went about disclosing the flaws in a legal way. Well, no where in the article does it verify a real flaw. He offers a "a step-by-step summary of how we were able to penetrate your Web site" for $2.5 million. This implies he wasn't planning on revealing the details of the flaw until the money was in his account. So he could just be a con artist hoping to make some money off of high tech fears.
First of all, governments are hardly ever rational. Second, if you want to live in a "free" society, why would you want the government to be setting mandates for it. Isn't that the same as having a monopoly on proprietary software?