Actually, several of the @home resellers are doing this, including Comcast. In addition, both Cox and Comcast (and probably many more) have already stated that you will be automatically credited for any downtime.
So if you hire private security guards to protect your house, do you expect them to forcibly keep out the FBI when they have a warrant?
But how do you know that the people spreading the virus keylogger are the FBI? How long do you think it will take between the time they use this and the time hackers figure out how to use it too.
Do you expect your security guard to forcibly keep someone out who shows up and claims to be the FBI but doesn't have any way of identifying themselves as really working for the FBI? The difference is that in the physical world, FBI/police agents will have uniforms, badges, ID's, warrants (not that these can't be faked either), but on the net none of that exists. Your internet security guard is just automatically assuming that the copy of Magic Lantern which is trying to invade your system is run by the FBI.
The RIAA is a monopoly. Please name a commercially successful band that was not under contract with them. They have the ability to tell bands to either sign a contract with them and make didley squat, or go out on your own and just make squat.
They own all the copyrights, control all the content, and are the only distrubition point. The artists have no choice, and neither do the customers.
The problem with this is if you could change your comment after it was moderated. Say you post something intelligent and it gets moded to +5. Than you could go back and edit it to say "First Post" or something , and basically get around the whole moderation system.
If comment editing is put in place, at least make it so that you can only edit the comment if it has not been moderated yet. This will allow people to make quick corrections right after they post, but hopefully avoid the abusive implications of an edit feature.
How many colleges will turn you down because you ONLY got a 1590 on the SAT? In reality, it makes absolutely no difference, so why do you care?
Just the same, what real difference does it make if you have 50 karma or 500 karma. After the +1 bonus at 20 something, the rest is meaningless, so why do you care?
We see a RIAA exec rolling in a room full of cash while "artists" slave away in an ajoining dungeon. The artists are begging for a.025% raise this year, and the RIAA exec responds "Shut up or we'll sue you for having free will".
Fade the scene to a room next door where a line of customers are bent over...
Yeah, but the nice thing about wood is that it's cheap and literally grows on trees. In a country like we're talking about here, it makes a much better alternative than paying for cases with money they don't have. In addition, I don't imagine they get many donated Athlons and 3dfx video cards.
While this idea probably doesn't make sense for most of us, it does make perfect sense for their situation.
This is what I find annoying, however: No one has argued banning all encryption.
Obviously this is all moot now anyway, but I believe the initial proposal was to put back doors in ALL encryption. How do you put back doors (or ban, to use your words) only the encryption that the bad guys use? This is what the original person who started this thread was trying to point out. The stuff the bad guys use, is the same as the stuff the good guys use. You CAN'T make changes to one without affecting the other.
He was saying that we should somehow make our lawmakers understand this, since it's obvious from the proposed "back door" law that they don't, or that they are at least trying to paint the political picture of encryption being a "bad guy thing".
Why would you think this is strange -- at all? That's like saying, "isn't it strange how 'bankrobbing' is bad, but 'bank withdrawals' are good despite the fact that they are the exact same thing? Criminals rob banks, but brinks trucks make 'legal withdrawals'".
Robbery and making a withdrawl are not the same thing, so it's not quite a valid analogy. However, criminals encrypting their stuff and businesses using secure transmissions ARE the same thing, as far as the tool is concerned. The problem with trying to put a backdoor in encryption schemes, is that once you do, anybody can break in. This will effectively punish the people who use it legally as well as the ones who don't. In your example, this would have the effect of stopping ALL withdrawls (by criminal or customer) because some people are bankrobbers.
The point he's trying to make is that the attitude of "criminals use encrypted transmissions so it must be stopped" will also have the effect of halting "banks using secure transmissions". But the officials who were behind this idea don't understand that.
We at the RIAA have done studies stating that 90% of the human population at one point or another in their lives has heard music that they have not properly paid us for. Therefore, we are having our whipping dogs in Congress pass a law whereby we will tax every birth in the US $20,000, that will cover our lost revenue for the lifetime of the customer.
Anybody caught commiting birth piracy will be terminated by our lawyers.
When VA first started, there was basically no one else that was offering an "out of the box" linux installed hardware system for business use. The fact that they offered support and pre-installs, taking care of hardware integration and drivers, for linux was a pretty cool thing. Their uniqueness is what brought them alot of business.
However, with the popularity of linux as a server system rising, we are starting to see the big boys such as Compaq and Dell get into the act. I'm guessing that VA has seen that they will not be able to compete with the larger hardware vendors, and are opting to stick with linux consulting/development roles. In one sense it's a shame to see VA driven out of the hardware role by the larger corps, but on the other hand it's a strong indication of linux's success.
How is requiring an ID card to use internet cafes any different from having to have a library card to check out books...
Or, more specifically, how is the indian government issuing ID cards to track what you're doing in a cybercafe (notice they're talking public access points here, nobody said anything about them issuing ID cards for using the internet in your own home), different than say a certain well known government censoring what sites you're allowed to visit at your local library public library?
I've actually been trying to point this out for awhile when the topic comes up about Napster.
How can you ban/blacklist anybody based solely upon the title of a file. Other than "absolutely nothing", what does the name of a file have to do with the contents of that file? If I really wanted to host Metallica files on Napster, I would name them all "Little_Bo_Peep_Sings_The_Blues.mp3" and then advertise on a webpage/usenet that the above file is actually "Master of Puppets by Metallica".
Their search engines would be absolutely useless in the previous scenario. Not to mention the case of banning people based upon a filename, when the contents of the file itself are completely benign.
This is a pretty bogus way of searching for "bad" people on Naptser, and goes to prove that the whole notion of scanning what users are trading is totally impossible. They don't have the resources available to audibly analyze every file in their system to determine if it is RIAA owned material or not, and have to make assumptions. However, those assumptions completely negate any claim they have in court.
"Yes your honor, they did catch me hosting a file called "Master_of_puppets.mp3" on Napster, but it was really a recording of my little sister burping... I swear. They just assumed it was a copyrighted song."
Napster seems to be sticking its neck out in guaranteeing the music biggies $1B. If people jump ship to up and coming free p2p protocols for exchanging their MP3's, Napster is in alot of trouble.
This leads to the question... If Napster gets this rubber stamped by the RIAA, anybody else who offers the ability to exchange MP3's other than Napster now becomes "Enemy number 1" to Napster. Is their next move to try and get some kind of patent on searching/trading MP3 files between individual users online, so they can use it as ammunition against potential rivals in order to recoup their $1B promise?
1. Security through obscurity never works. What you'll end up with is the crackers knowing about the holes before the network admins do. All that does is help them cause more havoc.
2. Who decides whether or not you're allowed to know the "privledged" information. I run a network at home. Granted I don't allow DNS lookups through my external firewall, but the point is, just because I'm a home enthusiast do I deserve the ability to patch security holes any less than big companies, and where do you draw that line? Is a mom and pop web store that runs their own DNS for their domain (probably not many of those out there, but still) not allowed to know about holes in their system promptly? Are smaller operations not "important" enough to get the same level of information about security bugs in their networks?
If the answer to this is that anyone who runs a bind server should have the information, then you've opened it up to a wide enough community that you may as well make it public information anyway.
Napster going to subscriptions is old news. However, what I remember when this was originally announced was that they would still retain a free service. There weren't too many details then about what features would be pay only though.
Does anyone know if this is still their plan, or have they decided to make it subscription only? This article didn't go into much detail.
I know there are regulations about requesting personal information from minors on websites, but does this apply?
On one hand they're not asking for any information directly from the kiddies, but they are apparently using their filtering software to track online usage for them. Would the kids have to be told that they're being tracked (and if so, what's their alternative if they don't want the info saved), or is it enough that the company provides no way to map their statistics back to individual minors (and how would anyone know they can't do this)?
I sure hope someone from the USPTO is reading this article and realizing how stupid they are.
Then again, if they actually read what people put in front of them (instead of blindly rubber stamping everything), most of these patents wouldn't be passed in the first place.
I wonder if the guy who submitted the article is the one who's auctioning the stuff. Slashdoting your ebay auction would be a hell of a way to get the goods past as many eyes as possible (and therefore a high price too). Not that I'm saying that's a bad thing, just curious. I'm surprised we haven't seen more of these... or maybe we have and the editors just reject the stories.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, several of the @home resellers are doing this, including Comcast. In addition, both Cox and Comcast (and probably many more) have already stated that you will be automatically credited for any downtime.
But how do you know that the people spreading the virus keylogger are the FBI? How long do you think it will take between the time they use this and the time hackers figure out how to use it too.
Do you expect your security guard to forcibly keep someone out who shows up and claims to be the FBI but doesn't have any way of identifying themselves as really working for the FBI? The difference is that in the physical world, FBI/police agents will have uniforms, badges, ID's, warrants (not that these can't be faked either), but on the net none of that exists. Your internet security guard is just automatically assuming that the copy of Magic Lantern which is trying to invade your system is run by the FBI.
They own all the copyrights, control all the content, and are the only distrubition point. The artists have no choice, and neither do the customers.
Get in bed with enough politicians, and you start sounding like one.
If comment editing is put in place, at least make it so that you can only edit the comment if it has not been moderated yet. This will allow people to make quick corrections right after they post, but hopefully avoid the abusive implications of an edit feature.
Just the same, what real difference does it make if you have 50 karma or 500 karma. After the +1 bonus at 20 something, the rest is meaningless, so why do you care?
Fade the scene to a room next door where a line of customers are bent over...
Yeah, but the nice thing about wood is that it's cheap and literally grows on trees. In a country like we're talking about here, it makes a much better alternative than paying for cases with money they don't have. In addition, I don't imagine they get many donated Athlons and 3dfx video cards.
While this idea probably doesn't make sense for most of us, it does make perfect sense for their situation.
Obviously this is all moot now anyway, but I believe the initial proposal was to put back doors in ALL encryption. How do you put back doors (or ban, to use your words) only the encryption that the bad guys use? This is what the original person who started this thread was trying to point out. The stuff the bad guys use, is the same as the stuff the good guys use. You CAN'T make changes to one without affecting the other.
He was saying that we should somehow make our lawmakers understand this, since it's obvious from the proposed "back door" law that they don't, or that they are at least trying to paint the political picture of encryption being a "bad guy thing".
Robbery and making a withdrawl are not the same thing, so it's not quite a valid analogy. However, criminals encrypting their stuff and businesses using secure transmissions ARE the same thing, as far as the tool is concerned. The problem with trying to put a backdoor in encryption schemes, is that once you do, anybody can break in. This will effectively punish the people who use it legally as well as the ones who don't. In your example, this would have the effect of stopping ALL withdrawls (by criminal or customer) because some people are bankrobbers.
The point he's trying to make is that the attitude of "criminals use encrypted transmissions so it must be stopped" will also have the effect of halting "banks using secure transmissions". But the officials who were behind this idea don't understand that.
We at the RIAA have done studies stating that 90% of the human population at one point or another in their lives has heard music that they have not properly paid us for. Therefore, we are having our whipping dogs in Congress pass a law whereby we will tax every birth in the US $20,000, that will cover our lost revenue for the lifetime of the customer.
Anybody caught commiting birth piracy will be terminated by our lawyers.
Read carefully what they're stating... "end-user access" IS the icons. They never say they're giving you the ability to remove IE from the system.
--
However, with the popularity of linux as a server system rising, we are starting to see the big boys such as Compaq and Dell get into the act. I'm guessing that VA has seen that they will not be able to compete with the larger hardware vendors, and are opting to stick with linux consulting/development roles. In one sense it's a shame to see VA driven out of the hardware role by the larger corps, but on the other hand it's a strong indication of linux's success.
--
Or, more specifically, how is the indian government issuing ID cards to track what you're doing in a cybercafe (notice they're talking public access points here, nobody said anything about them issuing ID cards for using the internet in your own home), different than say a certain well known government censoring what sites you're allowed to visit at your local library public library?
--
How can you ban/blacklist anybody based solely upon the title of a file. Other than "absolutely nothing", what does the name of a file have to do with the contents of that file? If I really wanted to host Metallica files on Napster, I would name them all "Little_Bo_Peep_Sings_The_Blues.mp3" and then advertise on a webpage/usenet that the above file is actually "Master of Puppets by Metallica".
Their search engines would be absolutely useless in the previous scenario. Not to mention the case of banning people based upon a filename, when the contents of the file itself are completely benign.
This is a pretty bogus way of searching for "bad" people on Naptser, and goes to prove that the whole notion of scanning what users are trading is totally impossible. They don't have the resources available to audibly analyze every file in their system to determine if it is RIAA owned material or not, and have to make assumptions. However, those assumptions completely negate any claim they have in court.
"Yes your honor, they did catch me hosting a file called "Master_of_puppets.mp3" on Napster, but it was really a recording of my little sister burping... I swear. They just assumed it was a copyrighted song."
--
This leads to the question... If Napster gets this rubber stamped by the RIAA, anybody else who offers the ability to exchange MP3's other than Napster now becomes "Enemy number 1" to Napster. Is their next move to try and get some kind of patent on searching/trading MP3 files between individual users online, so they can use it as ammunition against potential rivals in order to recoup their $1B promise?
--
1. Security through obscurity never works. What you'll end up with is the crackers knowing about the holes before the network admins do. All that does is help them cause more havoc.
2. Who decides whether or not you're allowed to know the "privledged" information. I run a network at home. Granted I don't allow DNS lookups through my external firewall, but the point is, just because I'm a home enthusiast do I deserve the ability to patch security holes any less than big companies, and where do you draw that line? Is a mom and pop web store that runs their own DNS for their domain (probably not many of those out there, but still) not allowed to know about holes in their system promptly? Are smaller operations not "important" enough to get the same level of information about security bugs in their networks?
If the answer to this is that anyone who runs a bind server should have the information, then you've opened it up to a wide enough community that you may as well make it public information anyway.
Now maybe I can actually get something done at work!
Does anyone know if this is still their plan, or have they decided to make it subscription only? This article didn't go into much detail.
Yes, the lawsuits were a joke, but the patent on :-( itself is real.
On one hand they're not asking for any information directly from the kiddies, but they are apparently using their filtering software to track online usage for them. Would the kids have to be told that they're being tracked (and if so, what's their alternative if they don't want the info saved), or is it enough that the company provides no way to map their statistics back to individual minors (and how would anyone know they can't do this)?
Uhm... I think that's a guy.
Then again, if they actually read what people put in front of them (instead of blindly rubber stamping everything), most of these patents wouldn't be passed in the first place.
Let us know when you get your cease and desist order :-)
I wonder if the guy who submitted the article is the one who's auctioning the stuff. Slashdoting your ebay auction would be a hell of a way to get the goods past as many eyes as possible (and therefore a high price too). Not that I'm saying that's a bad thing, just curious. I'm surprised we haven't seen more of these... or maybe we have and the editors just reject the stories.