Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Oct 2014 @ 5:22am
Re:
100% agree. This is why I keep coming back to TD, and why TD is my first choice for news.
It's also amazing to me that Mike and the other TD writers can fit so much more useful and informative information or commentary in a few short paragraphs than the "in-depth" articles on other sites that are 5 times as long because they've got so much useless filler.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Oct 2014 @ 7:22am
Sad I missed reading this last week, but I have a different take on this. I think Google is playing the long game. I don't think you're giving Google enough credit.
Google is giving the studios enough rope to hang themselves with (as they've been doing with the newspaper publishers). As you mentioned, they are basically asking for a flood of bogus DMCA notices. And when there are so many bogus notices coming in - they have a case on how unreliable they are, how much of a burden it is, and how something needs to be done to fix the law.
Also, Google has repeatedly shown they are experts (in the long run) of preventing people from messing with their rankings. Whenever a SEO figures out some way to manipulate rankings against the good of the end users, the tactic is found and killed off - we have semi-regular stories on Techdirt of just this, don't we?
There probably will be unforeseen consequences and causalities, but I think Google can withstand them better than the studios and knows exactly what they're doing.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 15 Oct 2014 @ 10:14am
Re: Re: Re:
"Independent artists" as a term has been corrupted pretty heavily. There's so many independent artists on "independent labels" which really are still owned by the big guys, or have deals and contracts just as onerous as a typical music industry contract designed to screw over artists.
Artists who hold their own copyrights get 100% of the proceeds, while artists who have allowed someone else to hold it get whatever their contract says (if they're lucky).
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 15 Oct 2014 @ 7:18am
Re: Re: Re: legitimate use?
The issue is why a security-disabling MitM-attack feature exists at all.
Because everyone's needs are different, and that feature is just a tool that has legitimate uses.
and just happens to allow that corporation to log all the emails that went through their firewall.
That is a perfectly legitimate use - if you've never worked in a highly regulated industry - like banking and financial services - then you might not be aware that there are regulations that require just that in some situations.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Oct 2014 @ 1:49pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Calm down and read what I actually posted and not what you misinterpreted through that fog of anger.
I never said a misconfigured mail server would modify a packet in transit. I said that a misconfigured mail server or spam rules could explain the screenshot. I also said jumping to the conclusion of modified packets without evidence from both ends of the connection wasn't warranted based on the extremely brief information presented in the article. I'll stand by that judgement. Any claim requires evidence, and their claim of an ISP deliberatly breaking email encryption was a heavy one. And now since we have a plausible explanation of a default configuration on a router that could cause exactly what is shown, I'll stand by my first comment: Stupidity, not Malice.
And I'll be sure to let my boss know I should be fired because some anonymous person on the internet said so.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Oct 2014 @ 1:32pm
Re: Re:
I think that's a mostly specious argument. Even if there are some bad file names, most are going to be what they claim to be.
A much better argument is that it was the users of Mega that uploaded and shared those files. If it was the users, the Mega is just a service provider, and since they took down links in accordance with the DMCA, they're safe.
If the government can actually show that Kim or other Mega executives uploaded those files, then they're in the same position of Grooveshark. However, it's been almost 3 years since the raid, and the if the government had evidence, they would have said so long before now, just to shut the internet up. That they haven't is telling.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Oct 2014 @ 1:17pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then find me a case even vaguely similar to Megaupload, where a service provider was found guilty of aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement despite no one else even being charged with the direct infringement.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Oct 2014 @ 11:52am
Re: Re:
No one under the guise of stupidity alters packets in transit
Happens all the time. Misconfigured mail servers or aggressive spam rules could both explain the responses given.
in attempts to disable security.
It remains to be seen if that was the intent. There's just not enough data given to lead to a conclusion here. We don't know the methodology of the tests. We don't know what service this result was from. All we know for sure based on the graphic and description is that they did a telnet session over port 25 to apps.[redacted].com and got some admittedly odd results. Is the redacted server under Golden Frog's control, or is it the ISP's or someone else's?
My point isn't that there isn't malice here, but before jumping to the 'this mobile wireless service is disabling encryption on my email' you should examine other possibilities and give more evidence than a single screenshot. If you think packets are being altered, then proof I would expect would be packet capture logs from both sides showing that. That's not a new concept - its how the P2P forced reset packets Comcast was injecting were discovered.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Oct 2014 @ 10:42am
I hope this is stupidity over malice. I wonder if someone's spam prevention measures are ill-thought-out. It's not quite clear what's happening from the graphic or description, and I can't see the filing (at work) if it's got additional details.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Oct 2014 @ 10:16am
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the unlikely event the DOJ has to give him a fair trial, the TSA has been instructed to put him on the no-fly list so he can't show up to defend himself.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Oct 2014 @ 9:51am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You've thoroughly confused me by accepting I was right. Is this one of those rabbit season/duck season exchanges where you expect me to reflexive take the position opposite yours?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Oct 2014 @ 9:33am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The obvious response to your statement is that no one needs to "prove his innocence" in a free country. If the government wants his stuff or to deprive him of his freedom, it needs to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Oct 2014 @ 9:05am
Re:
The obvious response to this is that 18 U.S.C. 2 criminalizes aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement--and that's the statute that Dotcom is charged under.
Has this legal argument been tested in other cases, or is it just as novel as all the rest of the DOJ's bullshit?
We're all skeptical of the government case because they have submitted zero solid evidence of their allegations, have repeatedly tried to have possible exculpatory evidence destroyed, and frankly are among friends in bumbling legal arguments as Prenda, Roca Labs, or your average pro se litigant submitting briefs about CIA mind control chips and the antichrist in crayons.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Oct 2014 @ 1:41pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Intent
Does the same thought process apply to other areas?
For example, sending bogus DMCA notices. If a copyright holder is running a system, or paying someone else to do so, that sends out thousands or millions of bogus notices, are they liable for the costs and damages to ISPs and service providers that have to deal with them?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Oct 2014 @ 8:32am
Re: Skeptically Cynical
why it really even matters
It matters for transparency.
Even post-Snowden, the public still does not have a good idea what is and how much they are being surveilled, and all in their own name. Don't confuse "peole who read Techdirt or are familiar with the debate" with "the general public".
"Consent of the governed" and "By the people, for the people" aren't just abstractions. It really matters what the government is doing in our names.
On the post: This Post Is Not About GamerGate
Re:
It's also amazing to me that Mike and the other TD writers can fit so much more useful and informative information or commentary in a few short paragraphs than the "in-depth" articles on other sites that are 5 times as long because they've got so much useless filler.
On the post: FBI Director Says Congress Will Fix Phone Encryption 'Problem;' Congress Says 'Bite Us'
Re: Re: Re: And this is different from...
On the post: Google Continues To Try To Appease Hollywood, Though It Is Unlikely To Ever Be Enough
Google is giving the studios enough rope to hang themselves with (as they've been doing with the newspaper publishers). As you mentioned, they are basically asking for a flood of bogus DMCA notices. And when there are so many bogus notices coming in - they have a case on how unreliable they are, how much of a burden it is, and how something needs to be done to fix the law.
Also, Google has repeatedly shown they are experts (in the long run) of preventing people from messing with their rankings. Whenever a SEO figures out some way to manipulate rankings against the good of the end users, the tactic is found and killed off - we have semi-regular stories on Techdirt of just this, don't we?
There probably will be unforeseen consequences and causalities, but I think Google can withstand them better than the studios and knows exactly what they're doing.
On the post: YouTube Has Paid $1 Billion To Copyright Holders Via ContentID; What Happened To Stories About It Destroying Content?
Re: Re: Re:
Artists who hold their own copyrights get 100% of the proceeds, while artists who have allowed someone else to hold it get whatever their contract says (if they're lucky).
On the post: Revealed: ISPs Already Violating Net Neutrality To Block Encryption And Make Everyone Less Safe Online
Re: Re: Re: legitimate use?
Because everyone's needs are different, and that feature is just a tool that has legitimate uses.
and just happens to allow that corporation to log all the emails that went through their firewall.
That is a perfectly legitimate use - if you've never worked in a highly regulated industry - like banking and financial services - then you might not be aware that there are regulations that require just that in some situations.
On the post: Revealed: ISPs Already Violating Net Neutrality To Block Encryption And Make Everyone Less Safe Online
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never said a misconfigured mail server would modify a packet in transit. I said that a misconfigured mail server or spam rules could explain the screenshot. I also said jumping to the conclusion of modified packets without evidence from both ends of the connection wasn't warranted based on the extremely brief information presented in the article. I'll stand by that judgement. Any claim requires evidence, and their claim of an ISP deliberatly breaking email encryption was a heavy one. And now since we have a plausible explanation of a default configuration on a router that could cause exactly what is shown, I'll stand by my first comment: Stupidity, not Malice.
And I'll be sure to let my boss know I should be fired because some anonymous person on the internet said so.
On the post: Megaupload Say US Gov't Is Trying To Steal Assets Based On Crimes That Are 'Figments Of The Gov't's Boundless Imagination'
Re: Re:
A much better argument is that it was the users of Mega that uploaded and shared those files. If it was the users, the Mega is just a service provider, and since they took down links in accordance with the DMCA, they're safe.
If the government can actually show that Kim or other Mega executives uploaded those files, then they're in the same position of Grooveshark. However, it's been almost 3 years since the raid, and the if the government had evidence, they would have said so long before now, just to shut the internet up. That they haven't is telling.
On the post: Megaupload Say US Gov't Is Trying To Steal Assets Based On Crimes That Are 'Figments Of The Gov't's Boundless Imagination'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Revealed: ISPs Already Violating Net Neutrality To Block Encryption And Make Everyone Less Safe Online
Re: Re: Re:
https://stomp.colorado.edu/blog/blog/2012/12/31/on-smtp-starttls-and-the-cisco-asa/
On the post: Revealed: ISPs Already Violating Net Neutrality To Block Encryption And Make Everyone Less Safe Online
Re: Re:
Happens all the time. Misconfigured mail servers or aggressive spam rules could both explain the responses given.
in attempts to disable security.
It remains to be seen if that was the intent. There's just not enough data given to lead to a conclusion here. We don't know the methodology of the tests. We don't know what service this result was from. All we know for sure based on the graphic and description is that they did a telnet session over port 25 to apps.[redacted].com and got some admittedly odd results. Is the redacted server under Golden Frog's control, or is it the ISP's or someone else's?
My point isn't that there isn't malice here, but before jumping to the 'this mobile wireless service is disabling encryption on my email' you should examine other possibilities and give more evidence than a single screenshot. If you think packets are being altered, then proof I would expect would be packet capture logs from both sides showing that. That's not a new concept - its how the P2P forced reset packets Comcast was injecting were discovered.
On the post: Revealed: ISPs Already Violating Net Neutrality To Block Encryption And Make Everyone Less Safe Online
On the post: Megaupload Say US Gov't Is Trying To Steal Assets Based On Crimes That Are 'Figments Of The Gov't's Boundless Imagination'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Megaupload Say US Gov't Is Trying To Steal Assets Based On Crimes That Are 'Figments Of The Gov't's Boundless Imagination'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Megaupload Say US Gov't Is Trying To Steal Assets Based On Crimes That Are 'Figments Of The Gov't's Boundless Imagination'
Re: Re: Re:
2013?
It's not some crazy theory that the government cooked up just for Dotcom.
The MegaUpload shutdown happened in January 2012.
So at the very least, the government cooked this up for Dotcom and then used it on someone else no one has heard of later.
On the post: Megaupload Say US Gov't Is Trying To Steal Assets Based On Crimes That Are 'Figments Of The Gov't's Boundless Imagination'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your dictatorial authoritarianism is showing.
On the post: Megaupload Say US Gov't Is Trying To Steal Assets Based On Crimes That Are 'Figments Of The Gov't's Boundless Imagination'
Re: Re: Re:
And you don't think that's so seriously fucked up as to call in question the motivations of the government?
On the post: Megaupload Say US Gov't Is Trying To Steal Assets Based On Crimes That Are 'Figments Of The Gov't's Boundless Imagination'
Re:
Has this legal argument been tested in other cases, or is it just as novel as all the rest of the DOJ's bullshit?
We're all skeptical of the government case because they have submitted zero solid evidence of their allegations, have repeatedly tried to have possible exculpatory evidence destroyed, and frankly are among friends in bumbling legal arguments as Prenda, Roca Labs, or your average pro se litigant submitting briefs about CIA mind control chips and the antichrist in crayons.
On the post: Hadopi Strikes Again: Net User Fined For Not Understanding How A Program Installed By Someone Else Works
Re: Re: Re: Re: Intent
For example, sending bogus DMCA notices. If a copyright holder is running a system, or paying someone else to do so, that sends out thousands or millions of bogus notices, are they liable for the costs and damages to ISPs and service providers that have to deal with them?
On the post: Tech Execs Express Extreme Concern That NSA Surveillance Could Lead To 'Breaking' The Internet
On the post: Appeals Court Very Concerned About Gag Orders On National Security Letters
Re: Skeptically Cynical
It matters for transparency.
Even post-Snowden, the public still does not have a good idea what is and how much they are being surveilled, and all in their own name. Don't confuse "peole who read Techdirt or are familiar with the debate" with "the general public".
"Consent of the governed" and "By the people, for the people" aren't just abstractions. It really matters what the government is doing in our names.
Next >>