putting media/news in the hands of proper citizens
on
BBC to Try TV On Demand
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It's a considerable boon to the future of de-centralized media to see a company like the BBC giving this a shot. If Internet users can acclimate towards using an Internet-based tv show broadcasting service, that could put media in the hands of those that deserve it, rather than those that have money and/or are already established as major players in the media industry. i.e. web sites like Slashdot could begin to leverage their user-base into targetted commercial ads, allowing the formation of "television" style shows online.
Plus, the last thing we need is a software company like MS in control of the media because it's software is the platform to connect to all the sundries of devices.
That's the point. Having a static IP makes it a cakewalk to track a user's sharing behaviors over time and give plenty of time to build a case. It would force record companies to be even more invasive and thorough to track you, especially if you used an encrypted proxy server (as I mentioned in the parent post).
The point is, I think it's backwards that ISPs aren'y lobbying for user privacy -- think about the windfall of tech users to an ISP that began to offer increasingly anonymous service?
If more ISPs just assigned a dynamic IP address, privacy would be increased substantially since record companies would have to force ISPs to figure out who leased the IP address during the time of the infraction.
Frankly, I think ISPs should not be held responsible nor accountable for the actions of their users, and in fact, there should be a strong sense of privacy protection among ISPs.
Sure, you can isolate your traffic to specific ports and encrppt using things like secure-tunnel.com, but ISPs should not be listening in on you nor identifying you to ANY company. That'd be like your telephone company mentioning that you call 1-900 numbers just because your employer asked them.
Our rights mustn't be trampled by these organizations for any reason. These companies should not be able to control DIGITAL / ELECTRONIC impulses that are shared, nor identify who is sharing what series of 0s and 1s.
We need to grow up as a society and mind our own business. If what you're doing isn't working anymore, find something else. Taking away civil liberties to protect yourself is a gross affront to the greater good.
The post doesn't say it, but it definitely insinuates that the nefarious RIAA and possibly the BSA is behind this latest worm. Unfortunately, that kind of knee-jerk reaction is counterproductive to finding the real virus spreaders.
It's not counterproductive. While these orginazations are stampeding over the rights of individuals, they deserve intense scrutiny.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a considerable boon to the future of de-centralized media to see a company like the BBC giving this a shot. If Internet users can acclimate towards using an Internet-based tv show broadcasting service, that could put media in the hands of those that deserve it, rather than those that have money and/or are already established as major players in the media industry. i.e. web sites like Slashdot could begin to leverage their user-base into targetted commercial ads, allowing the formation of "television" style shows online. Plus, the last thing we need is a software company like MS in control of the media because it's software is the platform to connect to all the sundries of devices.
That's the point. Having a static IP makes it a cakewalk to track a user's sharing behaviors over time and give plenty of time to build a case. It would force record companies to be even more invasive and thorough to track you, especially if you used an encrypted proxy server (as I mentioned in the parent post). The point is, I think it's backwards that ISPs aren'y lobbying for user privacy -- think about the windfall of tech users to an ISP that began to offer increasingly anonymous service?
If more ISPs just assigned a dynamic IP address, privacy would be increased substantially since record companies would have to force ISPs to figure out who leased the IP address during the time of the infraction. Frankly, I think ISPs should not be held responsible nor accountable for the actions of their users, and in fact, there should be a strong sense of privacy protection among ISPs. Sure, you can isolate your traffic to specific ports and encrppt using things like secure-tunnel.com, but ISPs should not be listening in on you nor identifying you to ANY company. That'd be like your telephone company mentioning that you call 1-900 numbers just because your employer asked them. Our rights mustn't be trampled by these organizations for any reason. These companies should not be able to control DIGITAL / ELECTRONIC impulses that are shared, nor identify who is sharing what series of 0s and 1s. We need to grow up as a society and mind our own business. If what you're doing isn't working anymore, find something else. Taking away civil liberties to protect yourself is a gross affront to the greater good.
I suspect the first mainstream application of this will involve watching porn at the office.
The post doesn't say it, but it definitely insinuates that the nefarious RIAA and possibly the BSA is behind this latest worm. Unfortunately, that kind of knee-jerk reaction is counterproductive to finding the real virus spreaders.
It's not counterproductive. While these orginazations are stampeding over the rights of individuals, they deserve intense scrutiny.