They count by keeping track of the user-agent string in the http headers sent when a web user requests one of WebSideStory's transparent tracking GIFs. These tracking images are embedded, much like ads, in some web pages. IMO, Firefox users are more likely than IE users to block these images for privacy reasons, which would lead to a disproportionate percentage of IE users requesting the tracking images. Thus we can assume that Firefox enjoys a higher user share than WebSideStory reports.
Tor is not steganographic. If the regime decides that simply using Tor is reason for suspicion or surveillance, all they have to do is monitor for outgoing TCP connections on port 9001. Tor also sends packets in standard sizes. Cue thugs breaking down your door.
I think they would say that Tor is not designed for this "threat model". This is not to say that onion routing could not be used for this purpose if it were better hidden.
Sending an encrypted message drive-by style over an open WAP seems to pretty secure, as long is it is not near your home and you don't use it more than once.
You are incorrect. Many cases the Supreme Court considers do not involve Constitutional questions, but questions of federal law, which Congress has the power to change. In the MGM v. Grokster case, the issue is whether Grokster (et al.) is engaging in contributory copyright infringement by creating P2P software that allows its users to commit copyright infringement. This question must be decided based on copyright law as it currently stands, not based on the Constitution. Neither side made any Constitutional arguments in their briefs. Furthur, Fair Use Doctrine is not Constitutional, it is common law and statutory. Congress can change it.
If Grokster is decided against the interests of the MPAA, they could lobby Congress to change copyright law in their favor. The Supreme Court's decision would not preclude this.
Congress also has the power to give the FCC the authority to implement the Broadcast Flag. I'm not aware of any Constitutional issues there.
From TFA, "Website measurement and marketing firm WebSideStory said"
Could it be that Firefox users are blocking marketing firm WebSideStory's tracking images? These guys are just as evil as DoubleClick in assembling a massive database of information on web users' browsing history. Wouldn't ignorant IE users be more likely to allow WebSideStory to track them?
"[Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:] (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."
Obviously the key to your question is the definition of "publicly", found in Section 101:
"To perform or display a work "publicly" means--
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times."
Restricting internet radio (for example) has nothing to do with transient copying, but with the public performance aspect of copyright. If your stream of copyrighted audio is limited to a few friends, i.e., not a public performance, then it does not violate copyright law and therefore does not need fair use protection. Copyright holders receive statutorily defined license fees for music broadcast (to the public) over the radio. Similar mandatory fees exist for public places like stores and restaurants. These fees originate in the public performance right of copyright, not in the right to restrict copying.
The law allows copyright holders to restrict (1) producing copies and (2) public performances of copyrighted works. Fair Use Doctrine provides exceptions to these restrictions. However, playing a record at a private party or loaning it to a friend do not involve making copies (1) or performing publicly (2). Those acts are outside the scope of copyright law -- they are irrelevant to fair use.
That's the fallacy of pseudonymity on the web. Have you ever posted something using your pseudonym from your real IP address? Or used both your real identity and pseudonym while maintaining the same tracking cookie in your web browser? Or leaked personally identifiable semantic information by posting from the same brain (google stylometry)?
Once the two identities are linked by a single careless move (like those mentioned above), your pseudonym is compromised retroactively. You are now personally accountable for everything you thought was done anonymously. Don't think Google won't automate this in the future, if they aren't doing it already...
Slashdot Mirror
They count by keeping track of the user-agent string in the http headers sent when a web user requests one of WebSideStory's transparent tracking GIFs. These tracking images are embedded, much like ads, in some web pages. IMO, Firefox users are more likely than IE users to block these images for privacy reasons, which would lead to a disproportionate percentage of IE users requesting the tracking images. Thus we can assume that Firefox enjoys a higher user share than WebSideStory reports.
Tor is not steganographic. If the regime decides that simply using Tor is reason for suspicion or surveillance, all they have to do is monitor for outgoing TCP connections on port 9001. Tor also sends packets in standard sizes. Cue thugs breaking down your door.
I think they would say that Tor is not designed for this "threat model". This is not to say that onion routing could not be used for this purpose if it were better hidden.
Sending an encrypted message drive-by style over an open WAP seems to pretty secure, as long is it is not near your home and you don't use it more than once.
You are incorrect. Many cases the Supreme Court considers do not involve Constitutional questions, but questions of federal law, which Congress has the power to change. In the MGM v. Grokster case, the issue is whether Grokster (et al.) is engaging in contributory copyright infringement by creating P2P software that allows its users to commit copyright infringement. This question must be decided based on copyright law as it currently stands, not based on the Constitution. Neither side made any Constitutional arguments in their briefs. Furthur, Fair Use Doctrine is not Constitutional, it is common law and statutory. Congress can change it.
If Grokster is decided against the interests of the MPAA, they could lobby Congress to change copyright law in their favor. The Supreme Court's decision would not preclude this.
Congress also has the power to give the FCC the authority to implement the Broadcast Flag. I'm not aware of any Constitutional issues there.
Could it be that Firefox users are blocking marketing firm WebSideStory's tracking images? These guys are just as evil as DoubleClick in assembling a massive database of information on web users' browsing history. Wouldn't ignorant IE users be more likely to allow WebSideStory to track them?
Section 106(6) of Title 17 states,
"[Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:] (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."
Obviously the key to your question is the definition of "publicly", found in Section 101:
"To perform or display a work "publicly" means--
Restricting internet radio (for example) has nothing to do with transient copying, but with the public performance aspect of copyright. If your stream of copyrighted audio is limited to a few friends, i.e., not a public performance, then it does not violate copyright law and therefore does not need fair use protection. Copyright holders receive statutorily defined license fees for music broadcast (to the public) over the radio. Similar mandatory fees exist for public places like stores and restaurants. These fees originate in the public performance right of copyright, not in the right to restrict copying.
The law allows copyright holders to restrict (1) producing copies and (2) public performances of copyrighted works. Fair Use Doctrine provides exceptions to these restrictions. However, playing a record at a private party or loaning it to a friend do not involve making copies (1) or performing publicly (2). Those acts are outside the scope of copyright law -- they are irrelevant to fair use.
That's the fallacy of pseudonymity on the web. Have you ever posted something using your pseudonym from your real IP address? Or used both your real identity and pseudonym while maintaining the same tracking cookie in your web browser? Or leaked personally identifiable semantic information by posting from the same brain (google stylometry)?
Once the two identities are linked by a single careless move (like those mentioned above), your pseudonym is compromised retroactively. You are now personally accountable for everything you thought was done anonymously. Don't think Google won't automate this in the future, if they aren't doing it already...