Comcast: We Won't Terminate Your Account Under Six Strikes; We'll Just Block Every Single Website
from the well,-there's-that dept
The various ways in which the big ISPs would implement their version of the "six strikes" Copyright Alert System had mostly been leaked over the past few months, but there had been nothing coming out of Comcast. AT&T planned to block "frequently visited websites" after the fourth strike. Verizon planned to throttle speeds so low that it would drive users crazy. It looks like Comcast is doing something similar to Time Warner, which means that after four accusations (not convictions, not proof of guilt, just accusations), anyone using the account of someone who hits that strike will have all of their browsing hijacked and sent to a landing page that they cannot get around. Oddly, for reasons that don't make much sense, the page that TorrentFreak links to on Comcast's site disappeared. If I go to it, I get a 404 not found. But if I do a search on the keyword "mitigation," it still shows up in the index. Then I click, and the page is still gone. Either way, while it's technically true that they're not "cutting off" people, they are clearly cutting them off from the wider web."If a consumer fails to respond to several Copyright Alerts, Comcast will place a persistent alert in any web browser under that account until the account holder contacts Comcast's Customer Security Assurance professionals to discuss and help resolve the matter,"No information is given on what it means to "resolve the matter." It's hardly a surprise that Comcast would choose the most extreme option, considering that it owns NBC Universal, whose execs supposedly drove much of the discussion around the CAS system. In the meantime, are we still supposed to believe, as per the cheery video that the Center for Copyright Information put out, that this is all for the benefit of ISP users?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cas, copyright alert system, pop ups, proxies, six strikes
Companies: comcast
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Oh, wait...
...Isn't this basically malware?
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So...
do you still think that or are you willing to admit that you were...
Dr. Cox, if you would...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQxhOYqLPdY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
do you still think that or are you willing to admit that you were...
Dr. Cox, if you would...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQxhOYqLPdY
Seems fine to me.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
LOL !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zNjQecyjE8
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Perfect Answer for ISPs...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Perfect Answer for ISPs...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A Perfect Answer for ISPs...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A Perfect Answer for ISPs...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A Perfect Answer for ISPs...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Perfect Answer for ISPs...
It might if the FCC had jurisdiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Perfect Answer for ISPs...
The Federal Communications Commission doesn't have jurisdiction over ISPs?
"The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories."
That sounds like jurisdiction to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In any case I think we should start a broad campaign to spoof every and single US based IP and use them to download very popular infringing files =)
Also, all Americans should get an open wireless connection up and running and sue the ISPs requiring them to present evidence that anyone in the household was the real infringers.
Hopefully Americans will cause such a huge headache to the ISPs that the Govt will be forced to acknowledge these six strikes agreements are both illegal and unconstitutional.
Let the mayhem begin!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If they were smart they would simply use a walled garden approach, which basically sends all traffic to a specific web page like a cafe internet sign-up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is totally illegal. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act strictly forbids that practice.
"If they were smart they would simply use a walled garden approach, which basically sends all traffic to a specific web page like a cafe internet sign-up."
Let us pray they didn't learn the same lesson that AOL once did way back in 1995....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
At least the FBI uses due process. The FBI and DOJ are separate competing agencies. The FBI actually bargained with Aaron Swartz when he was first caught and during the interrogation had aggreed with Swartz that the information he was downloading from JSTR was in fact public domain. They dropped the charges. The same cannot be said of the DOJ.
If I were accused committing computer fraud by the Department of Justice I would pray that if or when I got caught, it would be an FBI field agent and not some bureaucratic asshole attorney general arresting me on faulty claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Was it the FBI that used post-it notes to get info on subscribers from the phone companies, or was that someone else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Make up your mind so I know whether to disagree with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They are all separate branches of government. The FBI and all law enforcement pertaining to arrests and information gathering is a part of the executive branch of government. This is supposed to make sure that not one of the branches holds more power over the other. I guess you could call it a triumvirate republic democratic (not the party) government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Prosecutors are executive branch, Wally. And you didn't address my question: are you claiming due process includes investigations, or that it doesn't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I use a program to rotate through openNIC, Blockaid, OpenDNS ect.
Fuck censorship in the A.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
While they state that they are not inspecting packet content, they are mangling packets in order to inject the javascript into session layer, and this IMHO is highjacking still at an OSI level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What if your contract with them indicates that they can do this whenever they want? Even if it's illegal, that's academic. They are a large corporation doing something the government approves of. They would never get prosecuted for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In fact, I'm tunneled into it now. I'm going to skew the stats for the site because I am viewing from the US but it looks like it is coming from somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Gee, it would be a shame if some anonymous group started submitting thousands of accusations at randomly chosen IP addresses, thus shooting the false positive ratio through the roof, and showing what a horrible, expensive, badly implemented idea this is. Why, in that event, you wouldn't be able to know what was a "real" accusation, and what was a false one, and the whole system would collapse.
It would be just horrible, I say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The conclusion is that the above solution would probably work, and should be employed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It would be less of a shame if they sent thousands of accusations against the home accounts of executives of the ISPs and media companies. And posted the accusation messages publicly somewhere so the ISPs couldn't pretend they weren't happening. If that didn't work, then maybe proceed to millions of accusations against everybody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> six strikes agreements are both illegal and
> unconstitutional.
This six-strike things may be a bad idea in a lot of ways, but there's nothing either illegal or unconstitional about them.
You're contracting with a private party (ISP) and your sole remedy if you don't like the terms of the contract is to refuse to do business with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Comcast on the other hand will be using a malicious code. Any amount of hacking at the OSI level is illegal and by tapping into that realm, the contract with the ISP becomes null and void.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do you have a reference for that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's only one other mention of OSI in this thread by anyone other than yourself, which uses the term correctly (he refers specifically to the session layer just before mentioning OSI, indicating which part he was talking about). You seem to have then not only repeated the term without understanding what it's referring to, but used that term to make claims that are clearly false to anyone with the correct knowledge.
You're stated things like "Any amount of hacking at the OSI level is illegal" and "The only way one could permanently redirect traffic is if one injected code at the OSI level.", which are not only nonsense but are asserting a certainty that you obviously don't have. If you're going to make claims, be prepared to back them up, and definitely make sure you understand the words you're using to make those claims.
It's great that you're open to correction when you're caught out at this kind of thing, but why keep doing it? To anyone who understands what the terms actually mean, you're clearly talking rubbish, and for those who don't you're just confusing the issue. If you see a term you don't fully understand, either learn what it means or don't use it to form arguments of your own.
I see someone's already told you what OSI actually refers to, but it is a really basic theoretical concept to anyone who's studied networking, and it forms the basis of everything from Cisco and COMPTIA's entry-level networking exams onwards. You can't study networking with at least coming across these concepts, and every exam I've ever sat on the subject expects you to be able to name the layers from memory, at the very least. Given that you didn't recognise this idea from its name, you should be making assertions while using the term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is excellent advice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> a malicious code. Any amount of hacking at
> the OSI level is illegal and by tapping into
> that realm, the contract with the ISP becomes
> null and void.
It's not illegaal if you agree to allow them to do that in your subscriber contract.
And regardless, whether it's illegal or not, use of such code has nothing to do with the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How will this help against an accusation?
Serious question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can no longer trust your ISP as neutral man-in-the-middle. You clearly haven't run through the possibilities that opens up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd recommend that you read up on TLS and VPN. VPN is designed precisely to avoid man-in-the-middle vulnerabilities, whether that "man" is a neighbor sniffing your wireless, a hotel access point, or a nefarious ISP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It doesn't work that way. For them to do a MITM attack, they'd have to forge the credentials of your VPN provider (possible, but very difficult and easy to get caught at). Simply listening in on the communication does not reveal the keys to them. Deducing the key would take far more resources than even a Comcast would be willing to throw at a single person.
You never could, so that's not new.
This is my business. I think about attack vectors every single day. I'll be the first to say that I haven't thought of every possible vector -- I'd be a very wealthy man if I could do that -- but the ideas you're suggesting so far are well-known and obvious. And also impractical at best and impossible at worst. ("Impractical" means "expensive", which means you'd have to be far more interesting than a pirate for them to do it.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, you're pretty successful as a verbal punching bag. Also, if Masnick ever needs a court jester, he'd be crazy not to bring you aboard (though he doesn't really believe in paying people. Otherwise, check Craigslist and try to find a village looking to replace its idiot. You may even want to stretch your abilities and put in an application to WalMart as a greeter, but that'd be a real reach. Good luck!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You forgot to use the "Left Caret" symbol "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Does this mean I have a future in another field???,/i>"
You forgot to use the "Left Caret" symbol on the end of your HTML hash tag there oh technologically superior one...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I fail to see how this stops accusations. Unless you assume they are going to play fair. Not a bet I would take.
I don't recall "I was using a VPN, so it is impossible for you to have my IP address" being one of the allowed defenses to tick in the check boxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
HA! I've been getting those when on The Internet Archive! Don't know that it's significant (because I modified the certs area after some DNS scare and don't recall exactly), but IS new of late to get such notices.
But see my other response for your notion that ISP can't look into what you believe is encrypted! MAN.IN.THE.MIDDLE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The man in the middle can only see garbage. That's the magic of encryption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Java really has nothing to do with modem firmware.
You can't successfully inject something into a VPN session unless you can perform a man in the middle attack, which to the best of my knowledge has never happened in the wild.
The most likely course of action is a simple DNS redirect. But that won't work if you don't use their DNS and it won't work for direct access by IP. They could use java injection, but that will not work for all forms of traffic.
If they are really serious they will just set DHCP to assign you to a private address, that their firewall will block from wider access, AND setup DNS redirect which is what I would do, because it would be almost impossible to get around from the end device and would block all traffic, even direct IP and VPN.
From a news story about this: Please cite a definitive source that shows they are using "Java Injection".
Also go ahead and cite information on how "The injection can happen when they update the firmware of their modems.".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Great summary of his life!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And doesn't have to be either java or javascript. What the heck is it with you people who don't see that the ISP, whenever your computer sends ANY packet (browser, for HTML), just makes up a page of whatever it wants, then sends it to you and it's displayed? ... Guess you're all only on VPN, which isn't necessarily the major problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never said it had to be java or javascript, that wouldn't be my choice at all.
The method used depends on what they are trying to accomplish. DNS Redirects are the easiest for them to use, in fact they are used now for new accounts to accept TOS... but there is an arsenal of way to accomplish what they want. However, since they likely aren't going after people with a great deal of knowledge about how networking works and since they already utilize DNS redirects it would seem to be a logical choice.I do understand what is technically possible with various methods, that was not the point of the reply. The speculation (and that is all anyone really has at this point that I am aware of) is over what method(s) they will choose to use.
And yes I do have several VPNs setup between my home and various work sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps Comcast has changed, but when Comcast bought out our local cable company years ago and I was forced into their service I had no problems for about 6 months. When I had a problem and called for support they then got all kinds of upset because I didn't have a 'standard configuration' and I had not accepted their on-line TOS...
When I reconfigured to their specs, DNS Redirect. Configure to my specs, no redirect and the internet just works. In that case they were using DNS redirects. This is why I said it would be easiest for them, because it certainly appeared to be what was in use by them when I had issues years ago. Adding a different redirect to their control system would be easy, setting up a new control system - hard.
DNS redirects can be quite effective, you just return extremely short TTL (Time to Live). Of course a cache can be configured to ignore the TTL but that is a separate issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fortunately, (and this is the only good thing I have to say about Comcast) they do a good job of maintaining their network and outages are rare. so I don't have to call them to report problems. Which is good because they would just get all pissed off at my configuration again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I also run a highly nonstandard configuration, and have never accepted their online TOS. But Comcast never said anything to me about it, and their install techs have never given me grief when connecting the service. When I make the appointment, I tell them to bring their own laptop to configure it with, as I don't run any Windows machines that they can run their install software on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
MITM attacks have been around for quite awhile. Check out FireSheep for a simple session highjack. For Comcast since they are using Squid, it's simply "configure –enable-icap-client –enable-ssl" though it will display an error message on any SSL site and for VPNs there is usually a secondary encryption method. (Here's a rather long piece with various SSL VPN issues throughout: http://www.ncp-e.com/fileadmin/pdf/techpapers/Debunking_the_Myths_of_SSL_VPN_Security.pdf)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Regardless I am referring to other methods such as IPSEC or L2TP VPNs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
SSL is fairly simple to MITM if your in the right spot on the network (obviously the ISP would be in that spot).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just for accuracy's sake -- this has happened in the wild (and relatively recently) through the use of forged CA certificates. It's hard to do and rare, but it is possible.
It's also very easy to detect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was really thinking more along the lines of IPSEC or L2TP, though admittedly, I did not make that clear, when I said I hadn't heard of an attack in the wild.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hence, no need to have the injection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Bye bye bob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just a few might be downloading open source software such as linux. Blizzard Entertainment uses bittorrent to distribute patches for Diablo III, WOW... bitTorrent is even used to distribute information at Universities. Podcasting is another popular use of BitTorretn.
None of that content is illegal. BitTorrents just mean that the content is gathered from many sources and that there is less need for a provider to have a big fat pipe to serve content from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> guilt by accusation with no due process.
Contract law doesn't require due process. If you sign a contract with an ISP which allows them to do these things without due process, it's a valid contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
However, with Six Strikes, there's THREE parties. Before Six Strikes, I had never heard of two people signing a contract where one of them agreed to be judge, jury and executioner if a third person accused the first.
If I sign a contract with my landlord that states that any damages to his house must come out of my pocket, fine, I can accept that. I'll have seen the contract. However, if Suzy down the road talks to my landlord and asks who lives in House no. 5, (and the landlord gives Suzy my information) then says I'm at fault for damages to her house...the landlord can't just up and say I'm guilty automatically. He's not deputized by the government to act as police. I'd have to be taken to court first, and found guilty before I can be punished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> sure the terms of all their contracts are
> functionally the same in one area what law
> does that fall under?
If they actually all get together, then that would be an anti-trust violation. However if they arrive at these policies on their own, it's not a violation of anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just being curious here.
I really don't remember "signing" (with an actual pen) any contract with my ISP. I did sign off on the installation work order, but I don't remember any mention of the TOS or anything on that.
Also, what about the occasional updates to the TOS that come in mail with that really, really small type where they unilaterally change the terms on you and say "by continuing to use our service you agree to..." (possibly even received AFTER the date of the change - so you have already been using the service with the new terms). Are those really binding legal contracts even without an actual signature?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If it was the law, it would require due process, which this obviously lacks. If it was the law, it would need to be applied uniformly (not just against residential internet accounts).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok, and please tell me if I am wrong, and I assure you this is out of plain curiosity...Isn't connecting your computer to the internet an execution in general?
I thought that could firmware be encoded to have Java VM and a Java Application that triggers an execution of that code when data packets are sent out and be programmed to piggyback on the return ping to whatever website you visited? This is something similar to how an NAT works in a router.
Java VM can be encoded as firmware. The best known example I can really think of is a BluRay Player. The firmware is designed to automatically detect a disc. Through certain Boolean operations set by the user of the bluray player to in fact automatically execute code when the disc is entered to start running the disc operations? The menu's on BluRay discs are written in JavaScript. So by entering the disc and having "Auto Play" or whatever the Hell it is...the code on the disc gets executed because data starts streaming through the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't understand this question.
This is unclear as well, but I'll take a stab at it.
First, yes, the modem is just a computer and can run a Java VM just like anything else. In practice, it doesn't matter, though. Anything the modem can do, though, the ISP can do at their server, so I'm not clear of the relevance.
I'm not sure what you mean by "piggyback on the return ping", but that description doesn't seem to fit with how NAT works.
As I understand it, you're postulating the injection of Java code into the user's browser. In that case, the VM running the Java must be on your machine, not the modem or anywhere else, as it's your machine that must execute the Java.
If you've disabled Java and Javascript (as everyone should), then these attack vectors vanish. It doesn't matter if there's a VM on the modem or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I bounce between optimism, pessimism, and abject cynicism faster than it takes AJ to throw out another ad hom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The scare quotes around "voluntary agreement" are because it's as much voluntary as when you "voluntarily" pay an extortionist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For example someone who hates activists like koch brothers, could pay someone to file false copyright infringements: Against activist and activist leaders, that are stonewalling the KXL pipeline. Thus effectively cutting off said activist or activist leader from its primary source of communication with their organization. therefore putting an effective censorship on said activist.
here is perfect example from the DMCA side
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130911/18073124494/mpaa-gets-its-wish-court-basically-says-i t-can-file-bogus-dmca-takedowns-without-concern-fair-use.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ummm
Contract law supersede a lot of other laws like civil rights, constitutional rights.
example arbitration clauses. supersedes right to trial by judge, jury or class action.(constitutional law.)
You break "terms of use" they can enact pretty much any punishment, they want.
They are police, judge and executioner in this situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Soemthing must be done about the billions lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ac·cu·sa·tion
/ˌakyəˈzāSHən/
Noun
A charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.
The action or process of making such a charge or claim.
You're a big fan of using "Stealing is Stealing" so let me put this in a way you can understand.
Accusations are Accusations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're a pretty funny lady, most of the time. But maybe you should get some new material - 'pirate mike' is one tired old hyperbole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
but that could confuse the french speaking readership
who may not be aware what the term entrepreneur means, not having a word for it in their own language and all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We could start by getting the IP addresses of you morons leaked so that we can get you kicked off the web and adult conversation is allowed. The irony would be sweet, since every time someone brings up the "there's no due process and the evidence is often wrong" reasons for this stuff being unacceptable, you just attack them with lies.
Then, perhaps your corporate gods might like to try business models that don't involve blocking half the planet from legally accessing content, ripping off everyone that does buy then complaining when people go elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whatever Mike is or isn't, you simply are not adding anything to the conversation. Get bent, asshat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A FALSE out_of_the_blue from a LIAR. Real one below.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A FALSE out_of_the_blue from a LIAR. Real one below.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A FALSE out_of_the_blue from a LIAR. Real one below.
**smells self** yep I'm blue alright
www.youtube.com/watch?v=68ugkg9RePc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A FALSE out_of_the_blue from a LIAR. Real one below.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A FALSE out_of_the_blue from a LIAR. Real one below.
About a blue guy
That lives in a blue world
And all day and all night and everything he sees is
Just blue like him inside and outside
Blue his house with a blue little window
And a blue Corvette and everything is blue for him
And himself and everybody around him
'Cause he aint got nobody to listen...
I'm blue Dah bah dee dah bah die Dah bah dee dah bah die dah bah dee dah bah dee dah bah die
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A FALSE out_of_the_blue from a LIAR. Real one below.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How many people will be able to see their contracted TOS through their ISP's e-mail service when the only means of seeing notifications are on said e-mail service? I mean really, how many people actually use their ISP e-mail service one iota?
How is this article supporting piracy of any kind when it is questioning the legality of the methods that Comcast uses to notify users support of piracy?
Jus tot give you a perspective on how Comcast can do this...they mess with the firmware of the modem you rent from them, and it injects a virus or code of some sort into whomever uses that same network. They are utilizing web browser security flaws and their own web services to spread their virus. It is in fact a virus. It infects the user's computer and after that no matter where the user goes, with a laptop for instance, outside of Comcast, they still get redirected no matter the ISP they connect to. Unless they share the code or someone reverse engineers it in some way..there will be no way to run a security patch to fix the problem. Does that sum it up for you??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not only don't I use it, I don't even know what the login credentials for my Comcast account are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/19/tech/web/microsoft-outlook-hotmail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It reminds me of the B&N TOS case Mike Mansick had written about one day....It exisits, but it isn't entirely easily accessible..which may invalidate the ISP's side of the TOS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
what if this whole fiasco is about trying to trick people to admit guilt about copyright infringement on a recorded phone conversation. And then use the recorded conversation in court as proof of infringement, when one hasn't occurred. in order to make a killing in court fees.
Copyright troll v 2.0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1 Down.. I wonder if 5 more people would also accuse you of stuff just because they dont like you...
You know what... I think for this one I will hold my breath... shouldn't take too long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Earthlink
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sadly, they're regional so you can't switch to their DSL product, but Qwest/CenturyLink has always been a great ISP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Where you been? read their "terms of use" lately?
Hello arbitration clause??
hello 250gb data caps service so only 250gb netflix vs no data cap on their own prism tv?
I have filed complaint against Centurylink due to the terms. It was good when it was Qwest.
if later centurylink follows path of comcast. you and I are screwed, because of the arbitration clause.
only difference in the two is who is leader and who is follower.
centurylink will wait to see if there is any legal fallout, when there is none, they will implement the same. They are simply letting other companies take the brunt of the expensive legal battles.
They did that with the data cap and arbitration clause. follow the leader. and all the fees they saved avoiding legal battles is pure profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I change ISP's, say from Comcast to AT&T and Comcast still shows me their notice, I am going to have a major problem (and so are they). Now if I just type www.att.com and it redirects to their page (while I am connected to Comcast's cable modem) that is OK, but I am just connecting to a site, not an ISP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To a point. In my area I'd say that they're actually the lesser of two evils. (The other being Comcast) A few years ago Qwest temporarily disconnected my DSL because they received several DMCA notices linked to my account and I had to call customer service to have access restored.
More recently, I decided to download as much of my Steam library as my hard drives would allow. After 3 months of continuous downloading Centurylink injected a popup into my browser (sound familiar?) informing me that I had exceeded my download cap for the last three months and that I needed to decrease my usage or upgrade to a business account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CenturyLink
I had a business account with them, and they couldn't keep my service up.
They claimed I was too far from the node.
Sure, sure, I get it. Distance is difficult, yeah.
Except... I could throw a rock from the back door of my office building and hit the back of their local corporate office.
Interesting subnote: techdirt's comment system actively inserts deprecated html (the break tag) into the comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you don't get caught nothing happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a Bad Plan
Brilliant...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a Bad Plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not a Bad Plan
Service agreements do not equate to contracts. Not on a legal standpoint.
Actually I'll save you the trouble
http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/Customers/Policies/HighSpeedInternetAUP.html
How does Comcast address inappropriate content and transmissions?
Comcast reserves the right to refuse to transmit or post, and to remove or block, any information or materials, in whole or in part, that it, in its sole discretion, deems to be in violation of Sections I or II of this Policy, or otherwise harmful to Comcast's network or customers using the Service, regardless of whether this material or its dissemination is unlawful so long as it violates this Policy. Neither Comcast nor any of its affiliates, suppliers, or agents have any obligation to monitor transmissions or postings (including, but not limited to, email, file transfer, blog, newsgroup, and instant message transmissions as well as materials available on the Personal Web Features as defined below) made on the Service. However, Comcast and its affiliates, suppliers, and agents have the right to monitor these transmissions and postings from time to time for violations of this Policy and to disclose, block, or remove them in accordance with this Policy, the Subscriber Agreement, and applicable law.
And further down...
How does Comcast enforce this Policy?
[excerpt only]Comcast prefers to inform customers of inappropriate activities and give them a reasonable period of time in which to take corrective action. Comcast also prefers to have customers directly resolve any disputes or disagreements they may have with others, whether customers or not, without Comcast's intervention. However, if the Service is used in a way that Comcast or its suppliers, in their sole discretion, believe violates this Policy, Comcast or its suppliers may take any responsive actions they deem appropriate under the circumstances with or without notice. These actions include, but are not limited to, temporary or permanent removal of content, filtering of Internet transmissions, and the immediate suspension or termination of all or any portion of the Service.
Which they are doing because they are doing 3 notices then blocking at that point to get you to call in so they can work with you. What exactly they do I'm not sure as I'm not a customer of theirs. I only know people who use their services.
Their customer agreement too
http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/Customers/Policies/SubscriberAgreement.html
I found with internet services that it is a good idea to at least review the agreements you are giving consent to. It at least lets you know what you are giving them permission to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not a Bad Plan
Service agreements do not equate to contracts. Not on a legal standpoint.
Could you leave the lawyering to a lawyer? Your ISP agreed to provide a service that you agreed to pay for. What are the terms and conditions of that service that you agreed to pay for? See the terms of service or service agreement and related matters. So, yes, is part of the contract.
Next, how much negotiating did you do with respect to your contract with your ISP? Was offered to you on a take it or leave it basis? So is a contract of adhesion, and so the court is going to pay extra care to the matter of whether the condition(s) and/or term(s) at issue are unconscionable, and if so, will not be enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a Bad Plan
The AT&T arbitration suit set case law in that regard. that when given enough means for the customer to dispute the issue it holds up in court.
At&T had given enough concussions that benefited the user that the court said it was allowed to force its users to adhere to their rules.
This is most likely what comcast is relying on by setting the number of warnings at 6 giving customers enough rope to hang themselves with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This Comcast page is one you only get to if accused of 4 presumably separate (although we know how copyright maximalists like to multiple count the same items) infringements and does not respond to any of them.
Barring what will undoubtedly be egregious other terms, one presumes that contacting them to say, you've sent these infringement notices and I haven't actually infringed any copyright will be sufficient to avoid the webpage of doom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Really? I would not be so fast to "presume" such a thing.
The official six strikes system has a very involved "appeals process" in which you have to pay $35 and are only limited to a few possible defenses. Comcast likely will just pass people off to that, rather than clearing you up via a call.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike, that doesn't make much sense. The appeals process is for strikes you dispute, not simply being reeducated.
if they fined you to reinstate you, that would still not be an appeal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You do the bare minimum to say you are complying and game the system so you don't get flooded with complaints.
If you just encrypt your traffic, I doubt very much that Comcast will do any real effort to see what is going on behind the curtains.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is being handled in similar fashion as the DMCA claims. where the DMCA claims do not have to prove that its even their content.
one of the reasons is the sheer volume of DMCA take-downs occurring.
comcast can claim that it would take too much effort to screen every single complaint. Thus validate that they don't require proof
I am not sure but I believe that the DMCA rules apply in regards to the infringement filed If they don't do something about it they could loose their immunity protection under DMCA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A user would receive approximately 4 notices by email and telephone about a perceived downloading/uploading issue.
About the 5th or 6th notice one can request a review (yes, there is a fee that is refundable if you prevail).
While this does impose burdens on users (likely only a very few), if problems continue after 4 notices, it does seem reasonable for an ISP to question how one is using his/her ISP service.
Mind you, P2P is a technology and not the problem. The problem is how that technology is being used by certain persons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You mean it seems reasonable to determine how accurate the accusation service is?
Piracy is rampant, isn't it? Or is it likely only a very few?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
ALSO, as I read intents (from their TOS), a VPN will NOT help you: they're monitoring by both amount and TYPE of traffic, and as I've said torrenting is easily detected. It's not even clear whether your IP must FIRST be specifically fingered by Big Media. -- They may well be so intertwined as to POINT YOU OUT as torrenting to Big Media! Which then looks at tapped data and complains, which then allows ISP to look more closely at you! THIS IS A CONSPIRACY, FOLKS! Not going to be easy to get around.
Now, it's also not anything complicated with javascript as someone muses above, NOR is it a re-direct (probably why you can't see it, Mike): it just plain hijacks your browser by sending back all requests with customized HTML of whatever they want in it. They can put just a header on, or totally remove all other content. You CAN'T GET AROUND IT (from your MAC address, NOR of course will the ISP permit unknown MAC addresses). This is a man-in-the-middle whom you now can't trust.
SO, my take is: THANKS AGAIN, PIRATES, for making ME subject to this tyranny. You just can't keep your little fingers off other people's data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
Everytime I bring the belt down, you need to remember it's Timmy's fault I have to treat y'all like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
We know, ootb, we know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
"I still don't know how VPNs work, let alone the internet or the reasons people object to this crap"
We know, ootb, we know..."
----------------
I understand VPN adequately. It's not enough to hide your IP from Big Media when your man--in-the-middle ISP is ratting you out! You missed the key point that I conjecture the ISP is directly looking at upload/download ratio OR amount of data to determine torrenting or other unusual rates, then asking Big Media to examine the actual content for an opinion. I tacitly admit it's a BIG conjecture. It's based on reading the TOS which hints at those methods.
So it's YOU who are behind the times on how much monitoring ISPs are doing. You're obviously a dolt who thinks inside a tiny box. Better minds than yours are WAY ahead of you on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
So how will they tell the difference between netflix traffic and torrent traffic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
I downloaded BlackMesa Source (a Half-Life 2 Mod) using a BitTorrent client. It is roughly 3.7GB in size and I uploaded about 768 Megabytes of that unknowingly to other users downloading the same material.
The general way a P2P network runs is that all the computers on the network are assigned to send a little piece of data of the same resource from here and there to be compiled on the client side. The more Seeders sending a client (leacher) the faster the network goes. Slowdowns occur when the number of leachers is greater than that of the seeders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
Secondly, an ISP is not able to examine the actual content that you exchange through a VPN; that channel is encrypted. Your computer encrypts the data, sends it to your VPN, your VPN decrypts it, and sends it to the destination. Likewise, the destination sends the response (as cleartext) to your VPN, your VPN encrypts it, and forwards it to you. The destination site has no way of determining who you are, and your ISP has no way of knowing what you are sending or to whom you are sending it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
Actually, it is -- unless your VPN provider is ratting you out.
If you're using a VPN then it is not possible for them to examine the actual content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
Actually, you really don't.
"You missed the key point that I conjecture the ISP is directly looking at upload/download ratio OR amount of data to determine torrenting or other unusual rates, then asking Big Media to examine the actual content for an opinion."
Uh, yeah, no. That's not at all what's happening. Instead, what the reality and facts have already described as happening is that the ISPs and Copyright Holders have hired a third party to monitor peer to peer traffic and forward to them any IP addresses engaging in copyright infringement. At which point the ISPs are forwarding the notices (or better said not forwarding so much as hijacking your browser and serving you a notice) to the customers.
"I tacitly admit it's a BIG conjecture."
Translation: I don't know what I'm talking about at all, but for the sake of argument I'm going to pretend I'm right and do know what I'm talking about.
Or, perhaps it'd be better said to quote the late, great Douglas Adams for what you actually mean with that bit. "...for though it cannot hope to be useful or informative on all matters, it does at least make the reassuring claim, that where it is inaccurate it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it's always reality that's got it wrong."
Sums you up pretty nice and is just as fitting for you as well as The Guide.
"It's based on reading the TOS which hints at those methods."
Ah yes, reading and comprehension, both of which are mutually unknown to you.
Other websites, with more technical expertise than you could ever hope to have, have already weighed in on the matter and gotten information (facts and evidence) to support what I've already stated is transpiring above. Suffice it to say, your interpretation of the Terms of Service agreements is not only inaccurate, but so wrong it actually causes those of us with some technical expertise acute and glaring pain.
"So it's YOU who are behind the times on how much monitoring ISPs are doing. You're obviously a dolt who thinks inside a tiny box. Better minds than yours are WAY ahead of you on this."
Wow. It's like you read my mind and wrote exactly what I was going to say to you and about you. Kudos to you Blue, for the scathing retort which you should have directed at yourself (due to the fact that when directed at you it is completely and totally factually based in reality).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
You should change your profile name to that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
Are the iditos from the MAFIAA paying them or is coming out of Comcast's pockets?
Comcast's spokesperson said that a simple VPN would bypass all those measures.
Which is a great hint to you and anybody else betting on this crap, what this really means.
It means Comcast is gently saying to people to "encrypt that fraking traffic" so others can look at it and the idiots stop complaining that we must do something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
Because there's no legitimate use for this type of P2P technology, right? There's this music festival, SW-something. They made all the songs available in 2 torrents that were like 8Gb total. Then there's Blizzard and similar P2P distributing system for their content. But never mind that, you are firmly stuck in your false beliefs.
So what you are saying is that if I download Diablo III using P2P via VPN they'll just assume I must be a pirate. Nice.
SO, my take is: THANKS AGAIN, PIRATES, for making ME subject to this tyranny. You just can't keep your little fingers off other people's data.
Pirates are just a convenient scapegoat, if there were no pirates they'd blame whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
This guy lied again.
MarkMonitor is collecting IP addersses from BT swarms. That's why they level a copyright infringement accusation - because, derp, they have evidence that someone infringed copyright.
Mike and co., when someone comes onto this site and posts stuff he knows is blatantly false, that calls for a ban. This guy hurts rightsholders, your readers and everybody else. Even the First Amendment does not cover yelling fire in a crowded theater, and you don't get a much better example of that then this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
No, I am Spartacus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
Don't really care. ANY OOTB-labeled post is auto-report to me, now and forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
pirates aren't causing this redirect. comcast and/or the MAFIAA are. Thank them, dumbass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
You have no understanding of how VPNs function. An ISP cannot tell anything about the type or content of data within the encrypted VPN. They cannot tell if it is a WOW patch, a piece of public domain content, or the latest episode of Game of Thrones.
By analyzing the traffic flow, as in the amount, frequency and direction of traffic, they might be able to tell that it is filesharing traffic, but that would be the limit. They cannot tell what file you were sharing, they cannot tell who you are talking to (other than the VPN service).
And there are some things you or the VPN service can do to thwart traffic analysis. One way is to have a constant flow of junk data as padding between you and the VPN to maintain a level flow of traffic in both directions - so instead of the signature of filesharing traffic flow, it looks entirely different. Now, only very few VPNs (for the particularly paranoid) have anything like this, but you can do something similar yourself easily enough. Route both your torrent traffic through it and stream something from Netflix via the VPN at the same time, and you'll change the signature of encrypted filesharing to something unrecognizable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
VPN traffic is encrypted. They might be able to block it, but they can't inject content into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
I'm telling ya, it's man-in-the-middle vulnerability. They may finger you to Big Media for analysis from upload amount, then a separate Big Media torrenter (it'd only be on most popular of course), could collate that with their own traffic. And since all they need is "probably", based on amount and type of traffic, that's adequate. Remember too that the ISP can collect traffic to identify specific packets, besides exact details such as MAC address and other uniquely identifying pieces.
Stuffing your tubes full a data won't work, neither: not only are data caps integral to this, but it screams "I'm hiding something".
Again, start thinking what it means that you now can't trust your ISP! Get outside your notion that you've a safe haven.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
Notably here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1029
(a) Whoever—
(1) knowingly and with intent to defraud produces, uses, or traffics in one or more counterfeit access devices;
(2) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics in or uses one or more unauthorized access devices during any one-year period, and by such conduct obtains anything of value aggregating $1,000 or more during that period;
(3) knowingly and with intent to defraud possesses fifteen or more devices which are counterfeit or unauthorized access devices;
(4) knowingly, and with intent to defraud, produces, traffics in, has control or custody of, or possesses device-making equipment;
(5) knowingly and with intent to defraud effects transactions, with 1 or more access devices issued to another person or persons, to receive payment or any other thing of value during any 1-year period the aggregate value of which is equal to or greater than $1,000;
(6) without the authorization of the issuer of the access device, knowingly and with intent to defraud solicits a person for the purpose of—
(A) offering an access device; or
(B) selling information regarding or an application to obtain an access device;
(7) knowingly and with intent to defraud uses, produces, traffics in, has control or custody of, or possesses a telecommunications instrument that has been modified or altered to obtain unauthorized use of telecommunications services;
(8) knowingly and with intent to defraud uses, produces, traffics in, has control or custody of, or possesses a scanning receiver;
(9) knowingly uses, produces, traffics in, has control or custody of, or possesses hardware or software, knowing it has been configured to insert or modify telecommunication identifying information associated with or contained in a telecommunications instrument so that such instrument may be used to obtain telecommunications service without authorization; or
(10) without the authorization of the credit card system member or its agent, knowingly and with intent to defraud causes or arranges for another person to present to the member or its agent, for payment, 1 or more evidences or records of transactions made by an access device;
shall, if the offense affects interstate or foreign commerce, be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
Here is subsection (b) which indicates that not only will Comcast be in trouble, but so will the MPAA and RIAA it is very short compared to other sections:
(b)
(1) Whoever attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense attempted.
(2) Whoever is a party to a conspiracy of two or more persons to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section, if any of the parties engages in any conduct in furtherance of such offense, shall be fined an amount not greater than the amount provided as the maximum fine for such offense under subsection (c) of this section or imprisoned not longer than one-half the period provided as the maximum imprisonment for such offense under subsection (c) of this section, or both.
On to subsection (c):
(c) Penalties.—
(1) Generally.— The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is—
(A) in the case of an offense that does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section—
(i) if the offense is under paragraph (1), (2), (3), (6), (7), or (10) of subsection (a), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both; and
(ii) if the offense is under paragraph (4), (5), (8), or (9) of subsection (a), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both;
(B) in the case of an offense that occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both; and
(C) in either case, forfeiture to the United States of any personal property used or intended to be used to commit the offense.
(2) Forfeiture procedure.— The forfeiture of property under this section, including any seizure and disposition of the property and any related administrative and judicial proceeding, shall be governed by section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act, except for subsection (d) of that section.
Lets see what U.S.C 18 Article 1030 has to say (note I jumped ahead to accesses and damages):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
(5)
(A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
(B) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or
(C) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage and loss. [2]
(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if—
(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or
(B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States; [3]
(7) with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any—
(A) threat to cause damage to a protected computer;
(B) threat to obtain information from a protected computer without authorization or in excess of authorization or to impair the confidentiality of information obtained from a protected computer without authorization or by exceeding authorized access; or
(C) demand or request for money or other thing of value in relation to damage to a protected computer, where such damage was caused to facilitate the extortion;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
(b) Whoever conspires to commit or attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
(c) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) or (b) of this section is—
(1)
(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and
(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
(2)
(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3), or (a)(6) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph, if—
(i) the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(ii) the offense was committed in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State; or
(iii) the value of the information obtained exceeds $5,000; and
(C) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3) or (a)(6) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
(3)
(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(4) or (a)(7) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and
(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(4), [4] or (a)(7) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
(4)
(A) except as provided in subparagraphs (E) and (F), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of—
(i) an offense under subsection (a)(5)(B), which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, if the offense caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused)—
(I) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;
(II) the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;
(III) physical injury to any person;
(IV) a threat to public health or safety;
(V) damage affecting a computer used by or for an entity of the United States Government in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security; or
(VI) damage affecting 10 or more protected computers during any 1-year period; or
(ii) an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
(B) except as provided in subparagraphs (E) and (F), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, in the case of—
(i) an offense under subsection (a)(5)(A), which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, if the offense caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused) a harm provided in subclauses (I) through (VI) of subparagraph (A)(i); or
(ii) an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
(C) except as provided in subparagraphs (E) and (F), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, in the case of—
(i) an offense or an attempt to commit an offense under subparagraphs (A) or (B) of subsection (a)(5) that occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section; or
(ii) an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
(D) a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, in the case of—
(i) an offense or an attempt to commit an offense under subsection (a)(5)(C) that occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section; or
(ii) an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
(E) if the offender attempts to cause or knowingly or recklessly causes serious bodily injury from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both;
(F) if the offender attempts to cause or knowingly or recklessly causes death from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A), a fine under this title, imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both; or
(G) a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both, for—
(i) any other offense under subsection (a)(5); or
(ii) an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph.
So there you have your safe haven out_of_the_blue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
In short to all this:
While Comcast agreed to terms and conditions therein with the media industries to crack down on piracy, they did not make an agreement on how their version of six Strikes would be implimented. Comcast is in fact owned by NBC Universal and the Six Strikes agreement pushed by the industry left out the implementation of methods involving how to employ the agreement.
It is a mighty convenient loophole on the grounds of agreements because the agreement only stated that they cannot cut off service completely.
However since we all know Comcast is owned by NBC Universal, it is fairly safe to assume that by simply employing a method that merely cripples the use of the World Wide Web to the point of permanent redirection regardless, but will not cut off basic services would get around the whole "No cutting off the connection completely" agreement.
That being said, the articles highlighted above imply that the way Comcast is implementing its anti-piracy measures completely violate the law.
Under a contractual agreement, any arbitration clauses becomes null and void if the law is in fact violated.
What is my point in pointing that out specifically? Simply this:
Comcast is injecting a malicious code through a firmware "update" to its modems. The modem itself injects a piece of code to the Java API on the computer itself..not the web browser. This is done without the user's knowledge or consent and no matter where the user connects to the internet, even through another ISP, the code that causes the redirect remains on the computer itself. Thus redirecting traffic to their servers.....which is illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6108
At least I give them credit for being open and honest on exactly how the system works....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
I mean seriously...you're the one asserting to everyone that I'm a fool, yet here you are validating my claims. This only proves you're a troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
Is almost correct. Except they don't even need the "probably". They can just accuse you for no reason at all if they wish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
"By analyzing the traffic flow, as in the amount, frequency and direction of traffic, they might be able to SUSPECT that it is filesharing traffic, but that would be the limit."
They cannot tell for sure WHAT type of traffic it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
No but they can tell you are using encrypted data as a home user. Therefore you are guilty. This is not a court of law. Proof not required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
So using a VPN connection to work from home counts as piracy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
Apparently not. You've just shut down numerous home businesses, hundreds of thousands of teleworkers, huge numbers of IT contractors and on call workers, and basically anyone who needs a secure connection to do their jobs - or even to run their business in the first place. All because you're too stupid to understand the reasons why a certain technology is used.
You're an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Comcast-to-Roll-Out-Botnet-Notification-System-Nationwide-1590 44.shtml
http://forums.comcast.com/t5/Security-and-Anti-Virus/CONSTANT-GUARD-BOT-WARNING/td-p/10952 05
But I see your point about this getting out of hand. (from the comment deal at top.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
" a VPN will NOT help you: they're monitoring by both amount and TYPE of traffic, and as I've said torrenting is easily detected."
VPNs encrypt the traffic so the ISP cannot see what it is. That is the very point of a VPN and they are used WIDELY by businesses. So you can't block VPNs and you can't tell what is in a VPN. So how then is torrenting easily detectable?
Even moving on from that massive fail as to what the ISP can tell about VPNs. Torrenting is perfectly LEGAL. It is by far the best way to get Linux distributions. There are tons of legal torrents, so just "torrenting" is no cause to kill a connection.
Of course all that does not even begin to address your total epic fail about how the ISP can block people. Hijacks your browser? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
REALLY! Good heavens, you ignorant simp, that's the way cable co initial sign-up is done now. You can't get anywhere until your MAC address is in the system (as verified on site by installer), and then it sends you to the sign-up, and until that's through the system, you can only get "page not found" errors, plus whatever CGI notices they want to put in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
If you would only look at these threads in threaded mode , you would see how much of an ass you look like in retorting to any comments. It's like you can't figure out that the page can be viewed in a hierarchical format to make responses easier to those you wish to deride or derail.
please click on the following link out_of_the_blue:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130227/14231422143/comcast-we-wont-terminate- your-account-under-six-strikes-well-just-block-every-single-website.shtml?threaded=true&sp=1#com ments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
The code is injected into the Java API on your computer directly by the modem...the modem gets modified to have it's firmware inject the malicious code rather than redirecting your data packets to their anti-piracy site through their own servers."
There's NO Java app on my computer, nor ANY possibility of such. You are totally wrong on this point. Who am I going to believe, you or my own eyes?
@ "If you would only look at these threads in threaded mode , you would see how much of an ass you look like in retorting to any comments. It's like you can't figure out that the page can be viewed in a hierarchical format to make responses easier to those you wish to deride or derail."
WRONG AGAIN. Can't you see that when I reply to YOUR post, I AM in threaded? See the "Re: Re: Re: Re:"? What an insane little fixation you have there, and only bit yourself in the ass with it, fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
Ok, you're more computer oriented than most people out there. Maybe you don't have Java turned on...but the issue is that most of the people that use the internet, are not as savvy as the rest of us. They leave JavaScript enabled and update it regularly, and they use it.
Not all people or person's who use the internet regularly are computer geeks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
You can make stand alone, non web-based apps with it.
A worm can easily do things on its own as the standard virus cannot be spread without human help. The execution of connecting to the internet, in any way, could could trigger the injection. The code injection could be triggered simply when data packets are sent through the modem (which stores the malware infected firmware)to their website.
Simply put the worm could be programmed to piggyback on the return ping of confirmation your signal was sent to Comcast's anti-piracy page, thus permanently redirecting you there.
The reason I cited JavaScrip and/or Java itself is because it is a standard to use Java and or Java Script to program the menus you see when watching a movie on BluRay. The encryption code in the firmware on all BluRay players is written in Java. We have to update said firmware some times when DRM is used and the only movie I can cite for that was Avatar's brief stint on BluRay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
I ask mainly because if they're using flaws in Java, disabling JavaScript in your browser won't do anything about that, other than if they're using some JavaScript implementation flaws to download or start executing the Java in the first place. If they're using flaws in JavaScript for the worm itself, having Java installed or not will have no effect.
I understand that the menus are likely programmed in Java, a lot of things are. I don't want to sound like I'm questioning that at all. I just want you to figure out which you really mean and stick to that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
I think you're still confusing them.
Java is the one that runs on a lot of embedded devices and often used for offline apps. It's also the one used in Blu Rays (look at the Blu-J standard). Recent exploits have attacked Java, specifically the virtual machines supplied by Oracle. It can easily be removed from PC or turned off in the control panel, and the version used by Blu ray players and other embedded devices is a different version to the one typically used on desktops.
Javascript is the one that's usually used in conjunction with HTML/XML to create dynamic pages (hence the J in the acronym AJAX). It's supplied by most browsers and cannot usually be uninstalled, although most browsers have security options that include the ability to disable it completely as it's a traditional vector for malicious content. As far as I'm aware, no Blu Rays use Javascript, although competing standards have used ECMAScript.
They are completely different technologies, and mixing up the 2 terms is confusing whatever point you think you're making.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
Ok so now that you have clarified that for me, I now politely ask you to look at the point I was making. I will shorten it and for the sake of not mixing things up in terminology I will now refer my point using the word "Code".
My point is this. Comcast has pointed out that no matter where a user goes after they have been redirected to their anti-piracy website, even onto another Internet connection on another ISP, they will still get redirected to Comcast's anti-piracy web site. This means that they might have to inject a malicious code through the embedded firmware on their modems. It doesn't matter whether it is Java-based code or not.
Thanky you PaulT you are awesome :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
As for you point about Comcast, I'm not familiar with their setup or what they've announced, but it does seem relatively unlikely that they'd keep an exploit open just to mess with customers. Most ISPs, especially cable ISPs, have direct access to their equipment in the home and can alter the firmware, etc. at will. It's technically a rental unit under many contracts so they can change the software when they want. It's more likely that this is what they're doing rather than using a Java exploit, but even if they are doing that, it's a very different situation from exploits found on home PCs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
I agree PaulT, but there are better ways to correct people on their assertions. The AC that was being an ass in general and did in fact troll on several other occasions in the past.
That particular AC always asserted that I was wrong more than citing any actual noticeable correction to my claims. Most of the actual message he response he leaves pertains in actions thereto attempting to push my buttons and basically get an angry reaction out of me. That in of itself is trolling.
It isn't whether or not the AC in our case is right or wrong that makes him a troll or not, it is his execution. He uses adhom proxying to carry out his message by writing lengthy retorts. That is also trolling.
In short, it is all about execution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
look everyone a moron!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
If you're using a VPN, then they cannot tell what type of traffic it is (aside from it being a VPN connection). So they're going to accuse you of piracy for simply using a VPN? They're going to accuse you of piracy just for using a lot of bandwidth? Just for using bittorrent?
Since all of those things are legal and widely used for noninfringing purposes, what you're claiming they'll do is even more offensive than what they're claiming they'll do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
That being said, no matter how you try to surf the web on a totally different ISP....that JavaScript implementation of code downloaded by the modem you obligatorily rent from Comcast stays on your computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
"The only problem is, it is at the modem level." -- THIS is important, and I WISH you'd highlighted it instead of saying they'd run Java on MY computer; that's not possible. But now I have yet more to worry about, so thanks, though I'm pretty sure my modem (which I own even if they modified the firmware), won't be annoying me as you imply.
Here you're wrong again, though: "they will be monitoring you server side" -- THEY ARE, dang it! I can call up a page to tell me how much I've downloaded. The TOS state this and that which outline means, and they're more comprehensive than you've considered, not least because must work for all connections, not just Windows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
"they will be monitoring you server side"
*they will not be monitoring you server side....
My guess is they will, but only for BitTorrent Trafic. The redirection of your traffic won't be server side...that is the JavaScript code injected to the API doing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
I'm not sure why this matters. By the time any data reaches your modem, you've already encrypted it with the VPN. In terms of exploiting a system or monitoring, there is no difference between the modem and the ISPs servers.
Your accusation of hacking is possible, but no different than any random website could do, and just as illegal. Personally, I doubt that Comcast is doing this -- it doesn't really gain them anything and exposes them to liability -- but I've seen stupider moves *cough*Sony*cough*, so who knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
"it doesn't really gain them anything and exposes them to liability -- but I've seen stupider moves *cough*Sony*cough*, so who knows?"
True, I think this may be the internet implementation of the Sony BMG Rootkit scandal...only Comcast being the hackers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
All one has to do is use command prompt and send a nibble of a ping to any website and see where the return signal comes from. Good old command prompt :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
No Comcast does NOT require you to rent their modem. I am on Comcast, and I am using my modem. All of my clients, residential and commercial purchased their own modems and do not rent them from Comcast (Renting a $30 modem for $8 a month is not smart).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
You don't have to use their cable boxes either (except for On Demand and other features that require two way communication...) They will provide Smart Cards free of charge (1 per device)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
Rather quickly I was transferred to another tech desk who informed me the basic settings shipped with the router were different than those in the firmware. Knowing that I could then go in and fix the problem.
Right or wrong, to this day, I will not again upgrade firmware from these idiots.
The router/modem I now use isn't theirs. It's mine that I purchased at a store with my own money, driving there on my own gas and vehicle. It doesn't belong to the ISP. If I were to upgrade firmware it wouldn't do any good as it is not their equipment and they don't support it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
There's no way for the modem to inject malicious code into an encrypted VPN connection. Anything inserted by the modem would effectively become garbage data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
Which, of course, is why you have to register any new computer you buy with them. So they have a record of the MAC.
Seriously, does not knowing anything about a subject ever stop you from telling people all about a subject?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So... To all pirates who think 6 Strikes can't work...
Which, of course, is why you have to register any new computer you buy with them. So they have a record of the MAC. "
Really? I've never had to do that, and I've had FIVE ISPs.My first was an over-the-air thing used a proprietary modem (do a Google Image search for Ripwave modem). Clearwire was the same type, again, proprietary modem. The next one I had after that was fibre, then the last two were DSL through a phone line.
At no point did I have to register my MAC. Maybe the first three did that automatically with their propriety devices, but the two most recent ones? Nope. I received a login from the ISP that works on any modem. Hell, the router I'm using now for the current ISP is actually the one from the last ISP (they never bothered collecting it). At no point have I been told to find the MAC for my computers. On this connection, I've so far had two desktops, two laptops, an Android tablet, a PS3, an Xbox 360, an iPad, two or three Kindles, and a 3DS. Not once have I had to register them, whatever that means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So many ways to reorder the words and such fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- "For a small (large) additional fee you too can purchase a special 'executive privacy' account from your ISP, This special account will mask your IP even from your own ISP - because you deserve the best 'security' money can buy."
Anyone think I'm being too cynical?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nope. Nicholas Merrill is looking to start an ISP that is encrypted end-to-end and even the ISP itself wouldn't be able to snoop on the user. Plus they would fight against the government's ever increasing surveillance outside the rule of law, instead of caving in like pretty much every other ISP.
https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/New-ISP-Promises-No-Surveillance-119205
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe. Nicholas Merrill is the guy who spent six years fighting the government's use of National Security Letters and the accompanying gag orders and won. He would certainly be aware of what fighting against the government entails.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100810/16414110575.shtml
Apparently Calyx also has some pretty good talent on board ranging from former NSA technical director Brian Snow to the Tor Project's Jacob Appelbaum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumb Pipes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dumb Pipes?
Will these programs affect the standing of the ISP's as service providers since they are now actively monitoring for certain content and no longer are just "dumb pipes". Will this ultimately open themselves up to liability for the actions of their users?
Could the legacy content gatekeepers turn around and use this against the ISP's if they don't continue to bow to their wishes in the future?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dumb Pipes?
No, the reason they're going along with this is because they get specific immunity from liability if they do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dumb Pipes?
Hmm. Figures.
I wonder how that immunity works for a rights holder entity who isn't involved with the negotiations. Not sure how that immunity would extend those who are not party to this agreement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dumb Pipes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dumb Pipes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Claim that anyone who supports 6 Strikes is a witch. Of course they can't fight against such an accusation because then they would be a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmm, I wonder if anyone has a patent on 'a means of preventing the use of digital materials by redirecting or blocking the signal.' That could be worth something right about now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have fun outlawing and striking trading disk drives, mates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
I think such fraud is something both in your interest and that you're reasonably required to suppress. And having been asked, inaction would be aiding the fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
Anonymity works both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
I'm the real out_of_the_blue.
Any fool can duplicate your screen name; the rest is a bit difficult to determine. Do you wish me to start posting under your screen name? HMM? Do you support fraud, or only when it's directed against some people?
Well, Mike has SOME responsibility to stop that. He does some with the identicons, but it's not foolproof, or if I don't protest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
Actually, he has NO responsibility to stop that. Fraud is when someone steals your identity or portrays your actual person. Usually not your online persona. In this case, someone has made a mockery of your online person. (The irony is that you do that to yourself every time you post.)
At the end of the day though, what was done and is being done is in no way illegal or wrong. I'd wager it falls under "parody" if anything, thereby making it perfectly legal.
So by all means, keep shaking that fist at the screen and yelling at those clouds. It'll get you exactly to the same place that telling Mike to "do something about it" will. I'll give you a hint where that is, nowhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
Make a goddamn account, bitchface. Mike has no responsibility to stop this activity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
You have stolen my face, yet I shall return to reap a harvest sown of meager comments and loud, outspoken swill!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
SECONDED
February 28th will go down in history as OOTB day. A day to celebrate the festivities of relentless, incoherent rabbling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
In fact, let's go one better. Have the article's author be Average_Joe. Make something up, write it in his style, and make sure he spends half the time saying "It's the FUCKING LAW!!!! And you're DEMONS for violating it, no matter how insane it is!"
Then we in the comments, will take turns writing comments, make them as absurd as possible (or for simplicity's sake, simply copy and paste what they've said before in other articles). One person can start of as "Blue." Then "bob" will reply to him, and so on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
Unless, of course, it's a nose-picking contest.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike sez: uploader + file host + links site + downloader = perfectly "legal" symbiotic piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
That's not really fraud, blue. It's what you get when you choose not to register an account. Anyone can duplicate your username at will when you choose to comment without an account. And you would have to be as dumb as a box of rocks if you believe otherwise. Techdirt has no obligation to rectify something that is of your own doing, regardless if you ask or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
I'm the real out_of_the_blue.
Any fool can duplicate your screen name; the rest is a bit difficult to determine. Do you wish me to start posting under your screen name? HMM? Do you support fraud, or only when it's directed against some people?
Well, Mike has SOME responsibility to stop that. He does some with the identicons, but it's not foolproof, or if I don't protest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
The "@" is perfectly cromulent on teh internets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
Kind of funny coming after you telling (oh I'm sorry - "strongly suggesting with veiled threats" I should say) what Techdirt should do:
and
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
What you gonna do now, blue, threaten to leave the site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
You won't get my icon nor will those comments show up in my profile history.
Well, Mike has SOME responsibility to stop that. He does some with the identicons, but it's not foolproof, or if I don't protest.
No blue. The responsibility is on you. Get an account if such things bother you. Just because you CHOOSE not to doesn't place the onus on Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
But no, I won't be taking your advice to commit fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
I'm sorry. When did you prove anything wrong? I must have missed that.
Not sure what "obvious drawback" you are referring to, really. If you mean the whole "fraud" part then I didn't "brush that aside" at all. It was just to ridiculous to comment on any further, that's all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
Go register an account with the same screen name and avatar as Gwiz which also posts to his comment history, then I'll believe that there's inadequate protection on the names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
How MAFIAA like from the troll, expect everyone else to deal with their problems instead of doing what they can to deal with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ Mike: I ask you to state that the other Anonymous Cowards are all false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
-----------
Erm, well done, if you're the real ootb, you've just identified the reason why people should log into the site since there's no other way to identify a consistent username. Either use a login, or accept that your anonymity means that you can be spoofed - and that whatever idiocy is spouted by your doppelganger, it doesn't seem out of place enough for anyone to have noticed.
-------------
"As you well know, my browser header and "email" address that I use are almost certainly uniquely identifying. That's why I keep it."
No they're not. Comments here do not require authentication unless you have an account, so any email address can be used by anyone (and given the quotes you used around email, you're presumably not even using a real one). Your headers are meaningless, and will change depending on time, location, browser and any number of other factors - so they're not even the same between session you're using. As ever, you're technically clueless, and still don't know the definition of "fraud". You want to be uniquely identified? Create and account or STFU.
Plus, you realise you're advocating censorship and the removal of anonymous comments just because your little feelings were hurt? Poor baby. The internet isn't your personal plaything - GTFO if you don't like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL, I wonder what their response would be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Probably something along those lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
LOL, I wonder what their response would be?"
Thats easy. You would be branded a pirate because those things you listed are considered (to them) de facto havens for piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bets now being taken on:
2) when P2P software will start injecting random IP addresses into swarms;
3) when the first lawsuit will be filed on this royal cockup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bets now being taken on:
2) Years, P2P software is a pretty fractured market
3) As soon as the EFF gets enough donations together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bets now being taken on:
5. Comcast gets walled garden failing to learn what AOL had roughly 18 years ago and subsequently wrote an 83 page manual for help desk personnel to keep its customers...
6. Comcast gets charged with violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there a bounty on them, yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, and the $35 neutral arbitrator fee? They AREN'T neutral, arbitrators almost always side with the corporation over the individual, because the corporation is going to keep on getting into arbitration cases, and the corporation picks the arbitrator, so if the arbitrator sides against the corporation Comcast they lose money when Comcast dumps them for a more sympathetic arbitrator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CAS
If they want to not have my money, this is a great way to lose a customer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CAS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CAS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CAS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: CAS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CAS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A correction if I may....
It's amazing the things some people assume - including that all BitTorrent and P2P use equals 'piracy'.
;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Big talk. Go ahead, you first. Make sure you let us know how that works for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How embarrassing it must be to be you. Do you ever tire of going around with shit on your face?
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/comcast-buying-g-e-s-stake-in-nbcuniversal -for-16-7-billion/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
People, Mr. Applegate/PaulT/myself, have tried to be polite to you and point out some of your errors and "minor mistakes" in the past, and rather recently, and you insist on being wrong, begin insulting others (and labeling everyone who questions/challenges/corrects you as "trolls") and so on and so forth.
And in this thread alone, I've seen you do nothing but post things that were so blatantly false/incorrect, I honestly just bit my tongue rather than ATTEMPT to correct you. Lest I be accused of trolling Wally the all knowing.
Look kid, you have a degree in psychology (and I highly doubt that, or you wouldn't commit many of the grave errors you do, as they relate to psychology studies). That doesn't mean you know jack about technology. At all. Studying for your Comp TA blah blah blah, same thing. You're studying the basics. You have no understanding of the more intricate things, much less even basic grasp of some of the ideas.
For all our sake's, stop trying to be an expert on everything. I told you the other day, "I don't know" is an acceptable and even respect earning response to give. Or better yet, silence. If you don't know, don't talk. But either option is better than spewing misinformation. And again, if you don't like being corrected, politely or otherwise, stfu and stop talking about things you know nothing about. It's sad/annoying. If you don't like how people respond to your nonsense, kindly get off the internet. You're obviously too thin skinned to survive on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once again, you are being hypocritical in hashing up useless arguments that nobody else but you cared about.
End of Story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wally, I know more about you and your family than I know about some of my personal best friends. Why? Because you have this weird thing about sharing all your life details on a website where they have no reason to be shared.
I'm not hashing up any arguments. Merely pointing out, that it's funny that you would ask others to be polite in correcting you, when history shows the moment anyone even tries to correct you (and most do so politely) you get on the defensive in the extreme and begin with the name calling and insult hurling.
Also, just fyi, I don't stalk you. I'm on this site regularly and was long before you showed up. I go out of my way to NOT reply to you, because frankly you annoy me to the point of dislike and also because responding to you, intelligently and politely, is an exercise in futility ("Wally is never wrong, even when he clearly and demonstrably is").
But yeah, I'm a troll stalker who goes out of their way to correct you or point out to others how replying to you, regarding anything non-Apple and technology related, is a waste of time. You're worse than some of the trolls. Goal post shift regularly, what you mean to say changes regularly, etc.
You sir are a child who can't handle being wrong or admitting his mistakes. End of story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you expect some sort of reaction out of me to your response?
"Look kid, you have a degree in psychology (and I highly doubt that, or you wouldn't commit many of the grave errors you do, as they relate to psychology studies). That doesn't mean you know jack about technology."
I might not know too much about technology at all. I am never afraid to admit that. It is a hobby of mine and as a result of my numerous mistakes (which you love pointing out at an obsessive compulsive level/rate trolling) I am taking classes on it and learning new things I never knew about. You need to seek treatment. The human being of a psychologist in me hopes that you will seek treatment.
"But yeah, I'm a troll stalker who goes out of their way to correct you or point out to others how replying to you, regarding anything non-Apple and technology related, is a waste of time. You're worse than some of the trolls. Goal post shift regularly, what you mean to say changes regularly, etc."
You say you are not trying to hash up old arguments, but then you blatantly try to provoke me into them. I myself have witnessed a pattern in myself to respond to old, off subject arguments, and I am working to correct that.
"For all our sake's, stop trying to be an expert on everything. I told you the other day, "I don't know" is an acceptable and even respect earning response to give."
Once again I point out that you do not do the same for me that which you request from me. That statement is purely FTFY. Respect swings both ways and you have not shown nearly as much respect as I can...I am willing to admit, however, that it is very bad for you that I am the one pointing that out because I know exactly how much respect you have given me....none.
"Wally, I know more about you and your family than I know about some of my personal best friends."
LOL seriously??? In your words "Citation Please"...and do not cite any articles on Techdirt because you know I talk about my family on occasion. Funny thing is, you know nothing of me or my family and friends outside of what I said on Techdirt.
"But yeah, I'm a troll stalker who goes out of their way to correct you or point out to others how replying to you, regarding anything non-Apple and technology related, is a waste of time."
So does that gain you any credibility whatsoever? nope....
I do try to have conversations with people, but honestly, If I assert my claims, at least it tells me and other I am sure of myself and self confident....which is the least I can say compared to you....you don't have much self confidence, otherwise you would not be singling me out to prove that you're correct.
"But yeah, I'm a troll stalker..."
Glad you admit that at least. Honestly, nobody really cares when you correct people the way you do. For once, I got a good, valid, non-trolling response from out_of_the_blue today because of how you pointed all this crap out last time.....which I worked on and acted on to correct myself.
Yet once again here you are saying that you are not a troll and that you are not hashing up old arguments. Then, when you see me paying your message to me forward to those who repeatedly do it, you call me out with the usual crap. Believe it or not, that is the exact behavior that makes you a troll, and a stalker and a hypocrite. I am the only person you go after...even when I am correct, or only mildly wrong about the minor details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I guess you missed the sarcasm on the stalker part. Also, you're not the only person I "go after". I'm harsh and correct bob, out_of_the_blue and numerous others. I can't stand stupidity.
As for the "citation please", I've never said that, at least attribute things to me I've said. And by I know more about you I meant I know you and your wife (supposedly) suffer from Asberger's. I know you got banned from Ars for a (supposedly) bullshit reason. I know you were dropped on your head as a child, combine that with changes in the weather and it makes you have emotional breakdowns on Techdirt. I know quite a bit more shit about you that I would rather not know and which has no business being posted on Techdirt at all.
I'd put the definition of a "troll" up for you to see/read, but I have a feeling it might do harm to that ego of yours. What with your fanboy ways and all. If I wanted to "drag up old things", Wally my child, I'd post EVERY SINGLE INCORRECT statement/"fact" you've ever made on this site. Truth be told I could, since I suffer from insomnia and don't have much to do late at night, but suffice it to say I have no inclination to wade through the minefield that is "Wally's words of inaccuracy and stupidity" again. Once, per item, is more than enough.
And you are aware that if you really think I'm a troll, you'd do well to ignore my comments/not feed me. As for respect, it's earned. You haven't, nor will you I doubt, earn mine. As for "it swings both ways", you seem to have me confused with someone who cares about what people think of me. (Newsflash: I don't. At all.) So stuff your respect in a sack, as George Costanza would say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow!! That explains why an article from way back in December 2012 ended up ended up getting a sudden, random, rating of 5.5 in the Essential reading column under the "Hot Topics" pane for a bit.
You ask me numerous times to provide links when I tell you about things I have experienced.
"Look kid, you have a degree in psychology (and I highly doubt that, or you wouldn't commit many of the grave errors you do, as they relate to psychology studies)"
Do I sense a hypocritical duality and a proxy?
"Because you have this weird thing about sharing all your life details on a website where they have no reason to be shared."
Citation:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130227/14231422143/comcast-we-wont-termina te-your-account-under-six-strikes-well-just-block-every-single-website.shtml#c3944
Comment:
Ther e goes your theory about me not having Asperger's Syndrome. That itself is a classic symptom.
Oh and I know you and the AC above you are the same person:
"You're so hilarious it's almost sad. That you think my world revolves around "trolling" you of all people is sad."
I find it particularly hard not to laugh and cry (from frustration) as a psychologist knowing full well that either you are paranoid as hell and there is nothing I can do for you (because believe it or not, you piece of shit, I do care about your well being.
Or you have personality disorders beyond your control and seriously need some sort of psycho social attention to alleviate your issue. The issue I see in that is this. You are projecting how you are treated in real life onto the one person in the entire world who would actually give a shit about you and, pay attention to you and your troubled life....a psychologist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whether he is trolling or not is quite debatable, but I do know that he's been "pushing my buttons" since I got banned from Ars Technica (long story).
He fails quite miserably on the fact that he thinks I am either "wrong" because I make a minor mistake in terminology and attacks that in stead of looking for the point....Or he does this crap and tries to tell everyone how wrong I am when most everyone else doesn't seem to mind the way I think outside of the proverbial box.
You may be asking me why I am telling you all this. I will tell you:
He is a troll. Poor home life or not, he is a troll. He is projecting his issues and personal life by selecting a seemingly weaker target, and gets his frustrations out by imposing his "authority" over his target because he does not get to do that in his own life. He is acting like a bully in that regard. 99.9% of all bullies and trolls like him stem from a bad home life. So while I cannot blame him for outing his frustrations on "weaker" targets in such a way, I can blame him and his actions for how he is acting here...in stead of getting out and seeking treatment or counsel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I hardly think that is remotely being nice either...how about you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Suck it. "Dr." Wally. How's that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your correction was extremely rude and I politely ask that you look at the time stamps as to when I was corrected vs when I made my minor mistake.
I repeatedly said it without being corrected until now and if you had actually looked at the time stamps concerning the mistakes I was making, you would notice that AB was the first to correct me where I would notice the correction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your correction was extremely rude and I politely ask that you look at the time stamps as to when I was corrected vs when I made my minor mistake.
I repeatedly said it without being corrected until now and if you had actually looked at the time stamps concerning the mistakes I was making, you would notice that AB was the first to correct me where I would notice the correction.
More bullshit from "Dr." Wally.
Wally Post # 165: Comcast is in fact owned by NBC Universal and the Six Strikes agreement pushed by the industry left out the implementation of methods involving how to employ the agreement.
However since we all know Comcast is owned by NBC Universal, it is fairly safe to assume that by simply employing a method that merely cripples the use of the World Wide Web to the point of permanent redirection regardless, but will not cut off basic services would get around the whole "No cutting off the connection completely" agreement.
My post #177: Corrects the moron
Wally post #198: Repeats his stupidity
AB post #215: corrects Wally the dope again.
And the point isn't even that you are an idiot. That's a given. The point is you continue to lie and cover up and talk out your ass time and time again. Worse yet, you're like some sort of annoying anal fungus that is almost impossible to get rid of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ "Contracts are not one way streets."
NOW you people begin to see why cable companies should be treated as "common carriers" that can't discriminate for types of traffic, as the FTC wished, NOT as "information services" that can. Bureaucratic definitions matter. REGULATING corporations is NECESSARY. All that old-time law existed precisely because needed for the common good.
You'll also all one day regret not heeding my warnings about Google. Corporate behavior is as predictable as that wasps will sting you at every chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ "Contracts are not one way streets."
You just stated the loophole. The agreement between the industries in question specifically states they cannot cut off the connection to your internet. It never said anything about how to implement the anti-piracy measures. So as long as you stay connected, they are good to go. They can however redirect you to their anti-piracy, propaganda spewing website.
Comcast must have figured that all they have to do is simply keep their traffic going to either their website or to a 403. The redirect at the server level is not illegal one bit as long as it is not permanent. That's all fine and dandy. However, the way the policies of their (Comcast's) implementation of it is not on the server side at all.
The only way one could permanently redirect traffic is if one injected code at the OSI level. Comcast's policy indicate in plain language that no matter where the customer connects.....even if it isn't through a Comcast ISP....their traffic will be rerouted to their servers. That is a huge violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does the Telcos monitor phone calls and if Talk about a recent movie or have music playing the background does the operator cut in or do they cut my phone service?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Does the Telcos monitor phone calls and if Talk about a recent movie or have music playing the background does the operator cut in or do they cut my phone service?
No but Google will mine your email for keywords and bombard you with targeted advertising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Haven't seen an ad on google for years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And speaking of ootb, it seems he is more contagious then I thought. I guess I should take this as a lesson to always mark my sarcasm clearly in threads with a high troll index.
For those who thought I was serious, yes I am very well aware that Google displays adds. However I only see them on other peoples computers because I use something called Adblock (and yes, people like me are one of the reasons those adds pay so little and usually require someone to actually click on them before paying out).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The outlook on him seeing any more light is slimmer than one-ply toilet paper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue_is_stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: out_of_the_blue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Momyyyyyyyyyyyy...!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pain Coming For Comcast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would be one thing if the ISP were themselves making the claim directly. If I sign an agreement with the ISP, that in exchange for me giving them money, they give me service, and then one day they accuse me of not paying, that's all between me and them. Whatever dispute we have that involves the two of us would be resolved in the method we agreed upon when I signed the contract.
However, not so with Six Strikes. Here, a THIRD PARTY is coming up to the ISP and accusing you of violating the law. The ISP is NOT a government body or deputized to resolve accusations of law-breaking (whether civil or criminal doesn't matter). Think of it like...you buy a car from a dealership, you borrow the money to pay for it from a bank, you pay the bank month by month and then two weeks later, some random schmuck off the street tells your bank that he's accusing you of driving on his private land. Would you honestly expect the bank to repossess the car on his word alone? The contract you signed with your bank/ISP is between YOU and THEM. YOU are the only two parties in that contract. In a proper, sane world, the bank/ISP would say "Well, in that case, if you want to accuse him, you can get a court order so that we have to give out the driver's (net subscriber's) information and then, you take it through the legal system. The driver/subscriber signed NO AGREEMENT with you (the accuser) that any accusations would be handled OUTSIDE of the courts. Barring any such agreement, you must handle it with the courts, with due process and evidence allowed. If we were to take action, we'd be overstepping our authority, as we are not deputized by the government to handle accusations".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_bold, er blue's make-do LAST WORD:
I'm sure you guys believe it annoys me, but no, you can't help but serve my purposes by devaluing Techdirt and exposing it as lair of nasty little trolls. NOTE that I don't regard or intend that MY efforts in any way harm the value of the site, but regard them as improving the forum and have definite signs of it: if not for my incisive and blunt critiques, Mike Masnick wouldn't have eliminated his vulgarity, and "Dark Helmet" wouldn't have ceased his bizarre rants on irrelevant sexual matters.
But I am pleased at eliciting childish responses to my substance. You may disagree with my opinions, but Mike thanks me personally for my every post. ... Hey, wait a second. That's just a machine response! -- Well, when you make a machine available for public "bulletin board" use, then by common law you can't discriminate solely because of opinions expressed, despite any alleged "Terms of Service"; I've stated here that I don't accept those. -- In any case, Mike doesn't believe in censoring, our one point of firm agreement. Nor has he communicated to me through posts for quite some time now, let alone any warning that my content is out of line. -- Some here such as the one Mike called "Techdirt's comment enforcer", Timothy Geigner, aka Dark Helmet, have set a very low standard for vulgarity and personal viciousness that I'm always well above.
And fraudsters: another of my purposes is to show that some regulars here regard "free speech" only as their being able to get links to infringing content, while in practice wishing to silence dissent even here.
I've protested the vulgarity and the fraud committed by false use of the screen name that I use: I can do no more at the moment, but even that much is legally significant. -- The comments by some above to organize a fraud of deliberately posting under someone else's screen name with malicious intent to discredit, bully, drive off, and even harm that poster are quite interesting in this new era. I'd advise you self-stifle, as I'm sure Mike doesn't wish to become a precedent for site owner responsibility. In the highly unlikely event it were ever at issue.
Anyway, I'm going to do an innovative bold-faced "Last Word" here to summarize points (mostly mine) because lost in the childish and vulgar babble plus fraudulent comments some made above:
- Your ISP is now an untrustable man-in-the-middle. This changes everything.
- A VPN is not necessarily a way around "6 Strikes" warnings.
- Even if encrypted the ISPs may have simply directly read your key.
- ISPs seem to monitor for types of traffic; for unusual upload to download ratio; or just for amount. All those may finger you.
- ISPs are clearly colluding with Big Media and may well be passing detailed data directly to them. It's irrelevant to me how, but I suggest Mike look into that.
- No other legalities apply than in the "Terms Of Service" which you probably DID sign and pretty much nails you down as agreeing to. They're doubtless comprehensive, and besides, you'll go broke trying to contest them.
- Wally makes the important point of modifying firmware in the cable modem. It's a good question what that might do. All I can say is that the installer took mine out to truck and had some briefcase gadget that may have connected to its ethernet port -- I wasn't suspicious enough then, didn't watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: out_of_the_bold, er blue's make-do LAST WORD:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: out_of_the_bold, er blue's make-do LAST WORD:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: out_of_the_bold, er blue's make-do LAST WORD:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: out_of_the_bold, er blue's make-do LAST WORD:
Well, for your bolded comments, I actually agree (apart from the bit about VPNs) but that one takes the cake.
So...let's say the Terms of Service I have with my ISP is that I murder a person every month, or steal a car and drive it to their head office. Since a TOS, in your view, trumps the law, then I'm allowed to do that.
Contracts CANNOT contain points that violate the LAW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: out_of_the_bold, er blue's make-do LAST WORD:
This has always been the case, thus encryption is not only necessary but mandatory.
- A VPN is not necessarily a way around "6 Strikes" warnings.
It's the best thing you have, but why stop at a simple VPN, there multiple layers of encapsulation that can occur and make it almost virtually impossible to decrypt. IE Use a VPN and encrypted torrent connections.
- Even if encrypted the ISPs may have simply directly read your key.
They can't read your key, most of the encryption vulnerabilities are programmers using predictable and low bit rate keys.
- ISPs seem to monitor for types of traffic; for unusual upload to download ratio; or just for amount. All those may finger you.
As a bandwidth hog, but the end-users bandwidth is so limited when viewed from an ISP perspective this generally has little to no effect beyond the customer termination point.
- ISPs are clearly colluding with Big Media and may well be passing detailed data directly to them. It's irrelevant to me how, but I suggest Mike look into that.
If they do start to do this, I'm sure it would violate many laws both in the US and abroad especially if any customer information is included.
- No other legalities apply than in the "Terms Of Service" which you probably DID sign and pretty much nails you down as agreeing to. They're doubtless comprehensive, and besides, you'll go broke trying to contest them.
This is sadly true about the legal system of the US but the internet is a global system. I'm sure some lawyers in other countries would love to sue ISPs in the US.
- Wally makes the important point of modifying firmware in the cable modem. It's a good question what that might do. All I can say is that the installer took mine out to truck and had some briefcase gadget that may have connected to its ethernet port -- I wasn't suspicious enough then, didn't watch.
Comcast used to limit bandwidth and give channel access on the modem through firmware, but as a layer2 device with little to no horsepower and very little storage space, I highly ever doubt they would perform any DPI at the customer end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: out_of_the_bold, er blue's make-do LAST WORD:
Lol at the "fraudsters" part. Someone else using your unregistered moniker isn't fraud - but whatever, call it what you want.
...another of my purposes is to show that some regulars here regard "free speech" only as their being able to get links to infringing content, while in practice wishing to silence dissent even here.
I personally have no desire to suppress dissenting views whatsoever. I welcome them. One can learn quite a bit from seeing both sides of an issue.
That said, I will say that I am a bit prejudiced. My prejudice is towards stupid. I have a very low tolerance for stupid and drops even lower when someone is being stupid loudly. You tend to do that often. Just sayin'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: out_of_the_bold, er blue's make-do LAST WORD:
For what Blue is claiming to be fraud by any stretch of the imagination, then out_of_the_blue would have to be his legal name, the one on his birth certificate, his passport and driver's license. As it is, blue, what you chose to use (and what I chose when I name myself Rikuo) is not a legal identity. I cannot pass through borders saying "Rikuo", nor can I enter contracts with it. Can you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: out_of_the_bold, er blue's make-do LAST WORD:
And apparently can't get laid with it either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: out_of_the_bold, er blue's make-do LAST WORD:
The way most of us on the Six Strikes deal are being notified of our first 5 warnings is via the ISP provided e-mail service...which almost none of us actually really use. Nor do most ISP's ever tell you your e-mail service credentials when you sing up for service...which was what we used to do during the dial-up days of internet service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: out_of_the_bold, er blue's make-do LAST WORD:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: out_of_the_bold, er blue's make-do LAST WORD:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOTS OF WORDS. I TALK A LOT. I HAVE A GRANDIOSE SENSE OF SELF. I HAVE AN INFLATED EGO. TAKE THAT TECHDIRT. I AM SO AWESOME.
and then some more how I think I have any effect on what other people say or do, and how I think of things no other human being could ever possibly think of.
Your ISP is not the one inspecting your traffic, CCI is.
VPN's are most certainly the way around it.
ISPs can't have your key, they arent the issuing authority.
Unusual upload or download amount won't factor in at all, since they are joining swarms and looking for IPs.
ISPs are not sending the info to anyone, but CCI is sending IP addresses to the ISPs and the only thing the ISP does is contact the user. Full stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not at the OSI level.
"ISPs can't have your key, they arent the issuing authority."
Say that to anyone who has ever rented a modem.
"Unusual upload or download amount won't factor in at all, since they are joining swarms and looking for IPs."
They are monitoring both and accusing you based on either A)Your IP address...which the ISP provides you and has tied to your account information; B)Your torrent Upload/Download ratio...which is moot 99.9% of the time because some BitTorerent Clients typically force you to upload unless you find a way to work around it; or C) Both A and B apply.
The point is there is no way around it because no matter what you do your modem will be programmed (and most are) to go through your ISP's servers before you connect to the internet. The VPN you try to connect to goes through their server first.
"ISPs are not sending the info to anyone, but CCI is sending IP addresses to the ISPs and the only thing the ISP does is contact the user. Full stop."
Under the agreement, the ISP's will do this, but when you realize that most of them are so kind as to provide it through their own in house e-mail service..that argument becomes sort of moot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Learn about networking first man...
The OSI model consists of 7 layers.
1. Physical
2. Data Link
3. Network
4. Transport
5. Session
6. Presentation
7. Application
When I stated they are at least highjacking at an OSI layer, I meant that a JScript insert would probably occur at the Session layer or above depending on methods used. So technically they are not mangling anything on the lower levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More bullshit, "Dr." Wally. My neighbor got one yesterday, ?The notice was sent to his e-mail address, not one associated with the ISP. Go spread your uninformed nonsense elsewhere, loser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While I am glad you put your response to me in a place that I would notice, you were still rather rude about it. So I can hardly take your statement as seriously as you wish me to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Obviously, because your response was irrelevant to his post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which labels you as worthless troll who has nothing to contribute in the first place.
"Face it "Dr." Wally: you are a loser. Not a psychologist, not an IT pro; but simply a loser."
My wife disagrees. My brother....jokingly agrees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least its not the Mediacom method...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TWO kinds of infringement notices?
The strike agreement only involves the MPAA and RIAA, who are the ones using MarkMonitor. That's how they argue they can charge for "appeals" - the strikes are verified, not spam, not lies, etc.
So if you're a porn or e-book producer and you want to issue a cease and desist, Comcast will still pass those along too? Customers will get two kinds of notices now?
If unverified, unvetted notices from third parties count as strikes, this whole thing is a time bomb. if not, Comcast has to either refuse to pass them along or confuse its customers.
All to impress a couple of stockholders. Hope it's worth it, Comcast NBC Universal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conflict of interest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conflict of interest
AT LAST!!!!!! Someone bright enough to understand the true dynamic- rather than prattle on about how "Hollywood" strong-armed the poor, helpless ISP's into this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comcast doesn't have my email - how would I know?
And comcast doesn't have any information on any of my used email addresses - not sure how 'notification' works IRL...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, wait...
...Isn't this basically malware?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if your ISP can recognize torrent usage behind the encrypted VPN imagine the warning letter as compared to a actual violation letter that has real (spoofed or otherwise) IP or modem MAC (the modem MAC address is in your ISPs account, its your unofficial account number and technically how it recognizes you uniquely otherwise it could not 'talk' to you at all) addresses along with file names. If you had your VPN up and running all they could say was that they were suspicious and that would be that. There are hundreds of thousands of legitimate torrents being downloaded every second.
Examples: go to the transformed MiniNova site which sponsors 100% legit torrents of public commons licensed artists. (a great new way to bypass the middlemen of culture) Its also becoming more popular to disseminate software updates via torrents also. Ninja: thats a great example! Of the extremely popular South by Southwest® (SXSW®) http://sxsw.com/ live event and the torrent method of live music distribution.
VPNs are used by many business firms to create a secure tunnel connection from any unsecured hot-spot wifi location to the home office. Its like normal SOP. (Standard Operation Procedure)
There is no possible way the existence of torrent use, evidence, is conclusive proof of copyright violation(s). So. Basically what we are being fed is FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). And, more importantly, at the technical level all this is obvious and they must know it.
Its hard to comment on the method of warning its got to be a hands off walled garden (DNS redirect) approach which would not require any clever programming. Its hard to imagine even the heavy hands of Concrast of trying to insert code into anyones computer browser. If you have a VPN its actually impossible to insert anything anyway. Man in the Middle attacks are actual subterfuge and doubt this will be used and you cant do it on the fly. The legal risks, for either, would be insane and -drooling- the resulting lawsuits would be GREAT TechDirt. At the very least hijacking is hijacking, why the double standard?
Some hints of privacy on Internet: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130222/14191722072/six-strikes-officially-begins-monday.shtml#c17 52 Purchase your own modem and router. Also, smart Internet users turn off Javascript (NoScript) and never have installed flash. (and have never gotten a virus either even without a virus scan) Its best to have two browsers installed, one with your fave flashy scripts enabled to go to a known site that needs (needlessly?) it and one locked down for general purpose browsing.
Terms Of Service (TOS) are traps and anyone who avoids such nonsense gets points. Its hilarious how cable firms (through lax federal enabling) can change such terms at their whims. I mean that when you originally signed up you agreed to certain terms but... they change over time and become worse and worse from a users perspective in the same way your car insurance company sends you a little note with every in every renewal payment that basically says, in very fine print, that your insurance coverage is less. Why would anyone agree to a contract that changes over time and you have no input/choice in the matter? Its commercial insanity and borged contract law gone wild.
Quest is a rare example of a firm that stood up to the 'war on terror' nonsense. Kudos and lucky are they who have Quest as an option. Good luck and support to them. Yay!
Mike: 35 bucks to review on a case by case basis has GOT to be the goal of the entire 6-strikes effort ' In Comclasts eyes because now we have the scent of money. Money is its own draw. (Adam Chandler historical cultural reference “follow the money”) Am sure such a review would be short and not in ones favor. 35usd sounds low but its a starting point and will surely be bumped up to 135 soon enough.
Laughable are the warning e-mails sent to ones ISP e-mail accounts (which are likely filed with 6,000 or more Viagra spams) and ignored by almost all. The quote from Douglas Adams is hilarious.
The 6 strikes (youuuuur Out!) is only a symptom of the runaway eternal copyright industry acting, as middlemen of culture, problem. My theme lately is limiting the terms of copyright to much less that the lives of the audience say 15-30 years or so. Better yet kick the entire copyright amendment out and enact a 'Right of Origin' amendment. (or call it what you will)
The abolishment of the present copyright amendment (and related legislation) makes for great controversial party conversation, of imagined consequence, (while talking about some obscure legislation is boring silence) even if you lose the argument (which is likely atm) it gets people to think about it. (just wait till their kids rack up a few strikes)
the comments about Clamcast merger with NBC/Universal conflict of interest seems important.
Wow I am sooooooooo late to this huge party (again. Ha!). More great comments that were inspiring. Thanks. I admit some of it was over my programing head but... I have learned stuff. (salem witch trials... yes.) And, thank you trolls... your contrast is refreshing.
Josh: “Naive, innocent, starry-eyed and optimistic” thats me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I dont care.
This is like Napster all over again.
How about this. we pick a day and on that day we all call comcast at the same time and cancel our service.
Thus bankrupting them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I dont care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This happened to me...
What I would like to know, does anyone have any free, safe, downloadable programs that will check my computer to make sure I don't have anything that 'they' deem unacceptable? I am not the most tech-savvy and I did not know I was doing anything wrong. I mean, everyone has Ares...I didn't think it was illegal, but call me naive, I really didn't think it was. I figured it was like if you had a friend that purchased a CD and let you listen to it or borrow it, so what? It is the same thing. But apparently not. So if I want to continue to have Comcast as my ISP I have to stop. Doesn't seem right to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This happened to me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Info watching unauthorized video is not illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
here we go.........................
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net Neutrality
There are too many fathers and mothers, heads of families, that have teenagers that download anything their urges deem necessary, and 6 strikes and you are banned rules put too many parents on the hook for not ever being able to control teens possibly illegal or copyrighted downloads.
Corporations and big companies have already proven with their track records that they can not be trusted to regulate themselves as profit is their bottom line and greed is their god. they are not concerned in the long run with the common good of the people. Their unified resistance and opposition to the Net Neutrality law the FCC just communicated for the protocols and rules of ISPs proves that they need regulation and control.
True, copyrighted material and their owners need to have justice avenues and rights to be protected, but that is in the legal system already and they have their venues to achieve such control. The internet has long been needing the same controls a common telephone has, with the same rights to privacy and legal restraints to protect that privacy. As a public utility service it now has attain and gained that status. It will also help in subordinating government intrusions by helping later laws to be applied that guarantees privacy for American citizens in their communiques to each other, and help prevent or minimize government intrusions into their private conversations online, just as they have to or are suppose to seek court permissions to wire tap or monitor phone calls.
For the ISP itself to start monitoring and controlling your activity on the internet, no matter what they themselves create as "terms of service" contracts, watching to see what you are downloading simply because you download and thus use the internet more than other families, is merely an abuse of your privacy all over again. they are laying the ground work for corporation controlled society.
They already won with "Citizens United" and operated successfully with that under the guise of claiming and labeling it to be for the common good of the people, when in reality it was merely to attain more power to control, if not the government then the power to elect candidates into office who are sympathetic to their own greedy desires. That is the only reason they have spent multi-millions and billions in promoting and winning such legislative matters.
Fall to their false reasoning following republican Party excuses and justifications and you simply sell your freedoms along the way, all under the facade of gaining and ensuring your freedom while in reality you are signing it away.
This time, the government actually won one for the people, and kept the power to control the internet in their own hands and out of Corporate hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm still waiting for the noose to tighten. Stop slacking and pull the damn thing or I'll spend the next year not taking you seriously. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship for and by the few
Our nation sure is sprinting in the wrong direction....fueled by the few players left on the monopoly board, Capitalism is heading the wrong destructive direction: proof = http://usdebtclock.org
The problems with censorship and control of speech given over to the few profiteering entities that have looted us (thanks to chain of command, the looters will go unpunished).
Imagine eyes being restricted from seeing a matter!
If you are trying to access our website from within the confines of the Court System please either use an alternative computer from another public location or type in our url using the free proxy site here.
The website that has our evidence laid out (video, audio, signed and certified communications, etc.) is:
http://municipal-court.ddns.net
If you are wanting to see the present appeal to the aforementioned matter, it is:
http://municipal-court.ddns.net/appeals.html
oh hell I'm just throwing this out unedited, somebody else read between the lines!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There once was an out of the blue
Who hated the process of due
Each six strikes he'd paid
Was DMCAed
And shoved up his ass with a screw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]