They responded in writing to Google so nobody can claim they weren't informed. They also had enough resources to go all the way to a Supreme Court so even though Google has more money Equustek could have fought it; so Tim's opinion that they knew they would probably lose anyway is reasonable.
The only argument that shuts these guys up is this:
Weaken encryption in the U.S. and all exports of software and network-related technology "made in U.S.A."will dry up. Everybody, Americans included, will shop elsewhere for tech.
That's trillions of dollars in new trade deficits, hundreds of billions in lost profits to tech industries and tens of billions in lost taxes every year until a new administration undoes the damage and stops the bleeding.
Arguing about security and rights of the American people has no effect on these clowns because they hold the public in contempt, and always will. Show them what effect their dumb- ass meddling will do to their billionaire friends and corporate backers and they'll quietly let the issue die off without ever having to admit why it was a stupid idea to start with.
[Yes, I've said it before; and I'll say it again every time. ;]
Clock speeds have stopped rising and we are now resorting to more cores, memory and storage capacities to maintain progress. Todays PCs and devices will be good enough for awhile. so watch for prices to start dropping instead.
There are more than one type. This simply moves the LAN from the inside, NAT zone to the DMZ which is still firewalled but has full internet access with public addresses. It is very useful when everyone uses P2P or has a lot of traffic.
That makes it a simplified type of single-firewall DMZ with the whole LAN included and your PC is both gateway/router and firewall. It also is much easier to manage, being a single zone.
If you want to add a zone of users behind NAT you can add another router and plug it's WAN port into the hub you built your DMZ around, resulting in a single-firewall DMZ with two zones. By activating the second router's firewall you get a typical double-firewall DMZ. I would use the second zone only for light users and simple devices because such routers can't handle heavy traffic
Actually your whole LAN becomes a DMZ because there is no NAT in effect even though you are also protecting everything transparently with more powerful firewalling through your PC.
Think of as getting the best of both situations, much higher performance by getting a weak router out of the way and improved protection of more powerful firewall software.
I've actually been using DMZs and bridging for about 20 years. My dad was a plant tech when DSL rolled out and I signed up. What I described above is doing precisely that by applying a DMZ over your whole home network and using a designated PC as a gateway/firewall with far superior capacity than those typically underpowered ISP-supplied routers.
I started doing it because they can't handle my traffic. The modems are fine but all cheap routers are too weak. ;]
You are right that ISP bandwidth meters are simple counters. They are unhackable as they are on the CO side, available to plant techs or specific, whitelisted proprietary consoles. Worms and most any internet malware on your own computers and devices would certainly waste your bandwidth but are less likely to affect the proprietary equipment of an ISP.
That's another good feature of bridging through your own gateway. Such malware can't waste much of your bandwidth without you being able to detect it.
In bridge mode your modem becomes simply a modem and it's own IP address disappears, leaving only your PC visible on the net. They can't even ping it because it functionally is nothing more than a peripheral of your PC at that point.
Now that it's literally out of the way all the previously hidden garbage traffic becomes visible to your PC and, in addition to blocking it your PC doesn't have to respond to it, thus ending all the back-and-forth traffic which was inflating the bandwidth count. Once your end stops responding with these various nonessential services and protocols, their end also slows down to just the occasional ping or probe. That's how the problem is easily solved.
Note that this does nothing at all to impair their metering, which in itself is a lawful and acceptable practice, but what it does do is effectively eliminate all that [surely "unintentional"] traffic from wasting your bandwidth and padding the counts. ;]
As for IP addresses, your PC was bridging to begin with. If you have more users than automatically provided IP addresses it is easy to enable the built-in router service on your PC to act as a NAT for additional users, and the users wouldn't have to do a thing because, to them, it would just work as usual.
DMZ is an optional setting in some routers to allow all inbound traffic to a particular IP address. It is generally used by knowledgeable users who wish to use P2P and other online-intensive apps without having to constantly babysit the router by adding port-forwarding rules in order for those apps to function properly. What I outlined above does away with all that by shifting all the router functions away from the company-controlled modem and into the PC connected between it and all your users. Essentially you designate your whole network a DMZ while simultaneously giving you [presumably the most advanced user] total control over all of it. From there, you can easily protect everyone simultaneously by simply protecting your PC because it has replaced that modem as your main gateway. You could optionally put some users behind NAT but it's much easier on everyone to just manage one firewall.
ISP bandwidth counters always reside on the ISP Central Office Equipment, not the Customer Premises Equipment. [Their modem, not yours, so nobody can deny them access.] What you are taking away from them is the ability to abuse the Customer Premises Equipment to conceal nonessential internet traffic waste to deliberately [or "accidentally"] inflate your bandwidth usage count on their Central Office Equipment counters without letting you use all the bandwidth you already paid for.
They can't complain because you did nothing to equipment under their legal custody and it's legal for you to configure equipment in your custody as long as it doesn't knock anybody else offline. They can't complain of "stealing" access either because you didn't generate an entirely new internet account or connection. All they lose is a low level bandwidth service fraud scam, which they don't dare complain about because never stopped paying your bill. ;]
On the post: Equustek No-Shows Legal Challenge Of Canadian Court Order Demanding Google Delist Sites Worldwide
weren't informed. They also had enough resources to go all
the way to a Supreme Court so even though Google has more
money Equustek could have fought it; so Tim's opinion that
they knew they would probably lose anyway is reasonable.
On the post: Australian Lawmakers Propose Outlawing Parody, Having A Sense Of Humor
Nawww, those words weren't cursing…
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 142: Who Still Needs A Personal Computer?
Plus:
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 142: Who Still Needs A Personal Computer?
Here's another, critically important feature of PCs:
When I'm out and about I'm never stumbling into traffic
or becoming easy, oblivious bait for muggers and thieves. ;]
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 142: Who Still Needs A Personal Computer?
It takes special effort…
Not only that, most refuse to start once the battery dies,
and often those batteries are unavailable after a few years.
Those things are designed to be replaced. PCs to be kept.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 142: Who Still Needs A Personal Computer?
When it breaks…
Upgrades also extend it's usable lifespan so
that it's still useful for decades to come.
I'm using a 13-year-old PC right now.
Laptops are disposable, thus not worth my time or money.
On the post: How To Avoid Future Krack-Like Failures: Create Well-Maintained 'Fat' Protocols Using Initial Coin Offerings
Nibble harder!
On the post: New Whistleblowers Highlight How Russia's Information War On U.S. Was Larger Than Initially Reported
Had they listened...
On the post: Adidas Opposes Turner Broadcasting's ELEAGUE Logo Trademark Because Of Lines
God doesn't sue…
Most times he reserves judgement for the sentencing phase. ;]
On the post: DOJ Continues Its Push For Encryption Backdoors With Even Worse Arguments
The only argument that shuts these guys up is this:
and network-related technology "made in U.S.A."will dry up.
Everybody, Americans included, will shop elsewhere for tech.
That's trillions of dollars in new trade deficits, hundreds
of billions in lost profits to tech industries and tens of
billions in lost taxes every year until a new administration
undoes the damage and stops the bleeding.
Arguing about security and rights of the American people has
no effect on these clowns because they hold the public in
contempt, and always will. Show them what effect their dumb-
ass meddling will do to their billionaire friends and corporate
backers and they'll quietly let the issue die off without ever
having to admit why it was a stupid idea to start with.
[Yes, I've said it before; and I'll say it again every time. ;]
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Since he actually published it three times in three places…
…and it is notable enough for it's own Wikipedia page,
I'll accept that enough evidence is asserted. ;]
On the post: Internet Archives Liberates Old Books Using Never Used Before Provision Of Copyright Law
Don't forget that Sonny Bono was a scientologist…
in the USENET war were coming due to enter the public domain.
Sonny failed at first but Mickey took over after he died. ;]
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: October 1st - 7th
The number of transistors on a chip are directly affected by
scaling and that scaling is the main factor in clock speeds.
Shrinking of features is slowing their advances and clock
speed advances are inevitably slowing in lock-step.
Thus, clock speeds can't be separated from Moore's Law and
have been following it all along from the '60s.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: October 1st - 7th
more cores, memory and storage capacities to maintain progress.
Todays PCs and devices will be good enough for awhile. so watch
for prices to start dropping instead.
On the post: As Broadband Usage Caps Expand, Nobody Is Checking Whether Usage Meters Are Reliable
There are more than one type. This simply moves the LAN
from the inside, NAT zone to the DMZ which is still firewalled
but has full internet access with public addresses. It is very
useful when everyone uses P2P or has a lot of traffic.
That makes it a simplified type of single-firewall DMZ with
the whole LAN included and your PC is both gateway/router
and firewall. It also is much easier to manage, being a
single zone.
If you want to add a zone of users behind NAT you can add
another router and plug it's WAN port into the hub you
built your DMZ around, resulting in a single-firewall DMZ
with two zones. By activating the second router's firewall
you get a typical double-firewall DMZ. I would use the
second zone only for light users and simple devices because
such routers can't handle heavy traffic
On the post: As Broadband Usage Caps Expand, Nobody Is Checking Whether Usage Meters Are Reliable
NAT in effect even though you are also protecting everything
transparently with more powerful firewalling through your PC.
Think of as getting the best of both situations, much higher
performance by getting a weak router out of the way and
improved protection of more powerful firewall software.
On the post: NSA Warned Trump Staffers Against Personal Email/Device Use; Were Ignored
On the post: As Broadband Usage Caps Expand, Nobody Is Checking Whether Usage Meters Are Reliable
My dad was a plant tech when DSL rolled out and I signed up.
What I described above is doing precisely that by applying
a DMZ over your whole home network and using a designated
PC as a gateway/firewall with far superior capacity than
those typically underpowered ISP-supplied routers.
I started doing it because they can't handle my traffic.
The modems are fine but all cheap routers are too weak. ;]
You are right that ISP bandwidth meters are simple counters.
They are unhackable as they are on the CO side, available
to plant techs or specific, whitelisted proprietary consoles.
Worms and most any internet malware on your own computers
and devices would certainly waste your bandwidth but are
less likely to affect the proprietary equipment of an ISP.
That's another good feature of bridging through your own
gateway. Such malware can't waste much of your bandwidth
without you being able to detect it.
On the post: As Broadband Usage Caps Expand, Nobody Is Checking Whether Usage Meters Are Reliable
own IP address disappears, leaving only your PC visible on
the net. They can't even ping it because it functionally
is nothing more than a peripheral of your PC at that point.
Now that it's literally out of the way all the previously
hidden garbage traffic becomes visible to your PC and, in
addition to blocking it your PC doesn't have to respond to
it, thus ending all the back-and-forth traffic which was
inflating the bandwidth count. Once your end stops
responding with these various nonessential services and
protocols, their end also slows down to just the occasional
ping or probe. That's how the problem is easily solved.
Note that this does nothing at all to impair their metering,
which in itself is a lawful and acceptable practice, but what
it does do is effectively eliminate all that [surely "unintentional"]
traffic from wasting your bandwidth and padding the counts. ;]
As for IP addresses, your PC was bridging to begin with.
If you have more users than automatically provided IP
addresses it is easy to enable the built-in router service
on your PC to act as a NAT for additional users, and the
users wouldn't have to do a thing because, to them, it
would just work as usual.
On the post: As Broadband Usage Caps Expand, Nobody Is Checking Whether Usage Meters Are Reliable
inbound traffic to a particular IP address. It is generally
used by knowledgeable users who wish to use P2P and other
online-intensive apps without having to constantly babysit
the router by adding port-forwarding rules in order for
those apps to function properly. What I outlined above
does away with all that by shifting all the router
functions away from the company-controlled modem and into
the PC connected between it and all your users. Essentially
you designate your whole network a DMZ while simultaneously
giving you [presumably the most advanced user] total
control over all of it. From there, you can easily protect
everyone simultaneously by simply protecting your PC
because it has replaced that modem as your main gateway.
You could optionally put some users behind NAT but it's
much easier on everyone to just manage one firewall.
ISP bandwidth counters always reside on the ISP Central
Office Equipment, not the Customer Premises Equipment.
[Their modem, not yours, so nobody can deny them access.]
What you are taking away from them is the ability to abuse
the Customer Premises Equipment to conceal nonessential
internet traffic waste to deliberately [or "accidentally"]
inflate your bandwidth usage count on their Central Office
Equipment counters without letting you use all the bandwidth
you already paid for.
They can't complain because you did nothing to equipment
under their legal custody and it's legal for you to configure
equipment in your custody as long as it doesn't knock
anybody else offline. They can't complain of "stealing"
access either because you didn't generate an entirely new
internet account or connection. All they lose is a low
level bandwidth service fraud scam, which they don't dare
complain about because never stopped paying your bill. ;]
Next >>