Because ads had gotten so completely out of control and had gone so vastly overboard that it became worth someone's investment of time to create an ad blocker.
Now the ad industry wants to cry about it?
They should have thought about policing themselves a little bit better.
Rather than democratic governments as proposed, I suggest an approach more likely to ensure the continuity of service and permanent operation of these servers.
Two problems you point out: 1. chicken and egg problem, The only real way to tell if encrypted traffic is "doing something evil" is to decrypt it. 2. the problem of getting people to actual use this.
The two problems interact and solve each other.
Evil traffic is indicated by the fact that it is encrypted and NOT using this insecure scheme.
The way you get people to use the insecure scheme is to have a horiffical terrorful punishment for not using it. Other regimes have done similar things and the past.
After all, it's for your own security.
For your own security, use insecure security. Used by all oxymorons.
Another possibility: 3. He is not an incredibly naive nerd, understands the actual issue perfectly well, and based on his understanding comes up with this proposal.
If true, what would that tell you?
As for your other questions:
Q. How do you select the nine persons with keys? A1. By lottery. A2. By a national to the death steel cage match to find the nine toughest people. A3. Based on the size of their, um . . ., bank account. A4. Save a lot of time and trouble by letting the US Congress appoint them via secret proceedings. And keep the identities of the nine golden key holders a secret.
[que song: 'cause I've got a golden key! to tune from Charlie and the Chocolate factory.]
Q. How do you guarantee that the golden keys are not compromised? A. In the event of a key compromise the government would be obligated by law to publish a notice in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
Golden Keys are just back doors by another deceptive name.
Haven't all past notions of introducing back doors ASSUMED that the back door would be carefully controlled?
Or are the 'golden key' advocates thinking they can pass out the golden keys like candy at Halloween?
Just because Chaum's golden key would be 'carefully controlled' doesn't make his argument any different different. All the past objections to backdoors WERE about 'carefully' controlled back doors, or golden keys, or whatever you want to call them.
The problem is: what happens once the backdoor is hacked by the Russians, the Chinese, Anonymous, the NSA or other bad actors?
How about a stautory penalty for bogus DMCA notices?
How about a statutory $150,000 fine per instance for every bogus DMCA takedown?
If you are not the copyright owner or registered agent. If you have no reason to believe you actually own the rights to the material you are falsely claiming to own.
How about a HUGE punitive fine if it is brazenly obvious that you don't own it. Such as the material is a recording of nature sounds made by the person who uploaded that recording.
How about a punitive fine if it is clear that you are filing a DMCA takedown for a non copyright purpose. Such as to silence speech. Either the speech contains a fair use clip, or you don't even claim to have a copyright on the material at all, you just want it taken down with super powers.
How about a punitive fine, AND DAMAGES if you use the DMCA to broadly overreach in your takedown. There was an infringing clip on YouTube, so all of YouTube should be taken down. Now apply that to any other blog, or news site, or even commercial site that is not as well known.
Then there are the more gray areas such as fair use. If something is obviously fair use, then there should be a statutory fine, and possibly damages. Criticism is the most obvious fair use. And Parody. And news reporting. If these are the obvious uses of the material, then there should be a statutory fine and possibly damages for the takedown.
Maybe there should be a six strikes for DMCA abuse?
These might a be a good starting point for some DMCA reform.
With the great super powers of the DMCA comes some great responsibility.
All consumer equipment which has DRM, right down to your toaster and vacuum cleaner, should be continuously connected to the internet to enable monitoring by the manufacturing company.
For your protection, naturally. (think: Macrovision quality protection)
Devices could be continually up to date with the latest firmware. For your protection.
Think how much this would improve your life vs the olden days when your TV, VCR, toaster and vacuum cleaner could not get updates from the manufacturer which could fundamentally change their technology. (think: PS3 getting downgraded after you buy it)
The ability to make remote connections into your devices would only be used to update the DRM. Never anything else. Not for spying. Collecting and correlating information between vendors. And certainly not by hackers. All these devices inside your firewall continuously connected to their respective mother ships would not represent a security concern.
Imagine if the MPAA could disable your kitchen appliances and lock the refrigerator door when the TV is playing a commercial.
The biggest benefit of all is that continuously updated devices would never be obsolete.
On the post: Pioneer In Internet Anonymity Hands FBI A Huge Gift In Building Dangerous Backdoored Encryption System
Re: Re: Re: Two possibilities
Or using actual secure encryption that everyone else will use despite what the government says is good for you?
On the post: GQ And Forbes Go After Ad Blocker Users Rather Than Their Own Shitty Advertising Inventory
Why were ad blockers created?
Now the ad industry wants to cry about it?
They should have thought about policing themselves a little bit better.
On the post: Pioneer In Internet Anonymity Hands FBI A Huge Gift In Building Dangerous Backdoored Encryption System
Re: Re: Re:
But then, you got me thinking.
If they all did leak their key part to the public, would that necessarily be a bad outcome?
This whole scheme would come crashing down in flames faster than the MPAA can send a DMCA notice to Google.
On the post: Pioneer In Internet Anonymity Hands FBI A Huge Gift In Building Dangerous Backdoored Encryption System
Re:
I think the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, Congress, and Dianne Feinstein will trip over one another trying to accept it first.
On the post: Pioneer In Internet Anonymity Hands FBI A Huge Gift In Building Dangerous Backdoored Encryption System
The question IS whether you can build a SECURE system with a back door.
The answer is: NO
Therefore the FIB wants to force an insecure system upon everyone.
On the post: Pioneer In Internet Anonymity Hands FBI A Huge Gift In Building Dangerous Backdoored Encryption System
Rather than democratic governments as proposed, I suggest an approach more likely to ensure the continuity of service and permanent operation of these servers.
Make them co-located on the same servers used by:
the pirate bay
On the post: Pioneer In Internet Anonymity Hands FBI A Huge Gift In Building Dangerous Backdoored Encryption System
Re:
1. chicken and egg problem, The only real way to tell if encrypted traffic is "doing something evil" is to decrypt it.
2. the problem of getting people to actual use this.
The two problems interact and solve each other.
Evil traffic is indicated by the fact that it is encrypted and NOT using this insecure scheme.
The way you get people to use the insecure scheme is to have a horiffical terrorful punishment for not using it. Other regimes have done similar things and the past.
After all, it's for your own security.
For your own security, use insecure security. Used by all oxymorons.
On the post: Pioneer In Internet Anonymity Hands FBI A Huge Gift In Building Dangerous Backdoored Encryption System
Re:
Glenn Greenwald
Julian Assange
On the post: Pioneer In Internet Anonymity Hands FBI A Huge Gift In Building Dangerous Backdoored Encryption System
Re: Two possibilities
3. He is not an incredibly naive nerd, understands the actual issue perfectly well, and based on his understanding comes up with this proposal.
If true, what would that tell you?
As for your other questions:
Q. How do you select the nine persons with keys?
A1. By lottery.
A2. By a national to the death steel cage match to find the nine toughest people.
A3. Based on the size of their, um . . ., bank account.
A4. Save a lot of time and trouble by letting the US Congress appoint them via secret proceedings. And keep the identities of the nine golden key holders a secret.
[que song: 'cause I've got a golden key! to tune from Charlie and the Chocolate factory.]
Q. How do you guarantee that the golden keys are not compromised?
A. In the event of a key compromise the government would be obligated by law to publish a notice in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
On the post: Pioneer In Internet Anonymity Hands FBI A Huge Gift In Building Dangerous Backdoored Encryption System
carefully controlled backdoor
Haven't all past notions of introducing back doors ASSUMED that the back door would be carefully controlled?
Or are the 'golden key' advocates thinking they can pass out the golden keys like candy at Halloween?
Just because Chaum's golden key would be 'carefully controlled' doesn't make his argument any different different. All the past objections to backdoors WERE about 'carefully' controlled back doors, or golden keys, or whatever you want to call them.
The problem is: what happens once the backdoor is hacked by the Russians, the Chinese, Anonymous, the NSA or other bad actors?
On the post: Pioneer In Internet Anonymity Hands FBI A Huge Gift In Building Dangerous Backdoored Encryption System
Re: Re: Seen before
On the post: US Copyright Office Asks For Public Comments On DMCA's Notice And Takedown
How about a stautory penalty for bogus DMCA notices?
If you are not the copyright owner or registered agent. If you have no reason to believe you actually own the rights to the material you are falsely claiming to own.
How about a HUGE punitive fine if it is brazenly obvious that you don't own it. Such as the material is a recording of nature sounds made by the person who uploaded that recording.
How about a punitive fine if it is clear that you are filing a DMCA takedown for a non copyright purpose. Such as to silence speech. Either the speech contains a fair use clip, or you don't even claim to have a copyright on the material at all, you just want it taken down with super powers.
How about a punitive fine, AND DAMAGES if you use the DMCA to broadly overreach in your takedown. There was an infringing clip on YouTube, so all of YouTube should be taken down. Now apply that to any other blog, or news site, or even commercial site that is not as well known.
Then there are the more gray areas such as fair use. If something is obviously fair use, then there should be a statutory fine, and possibly damages. Criticism is the most obvious fair use. And Parody. And news reporting. If these are the obvious uses of the material, then there should be a statutory fine and possibly damages for the takedown.
Maybe there should be a six strikes for DMCA abuse?
These might a be a good starting point for some DMCA reform.
With the great super powers of the DMCA comes some great responsibility.
On the post: Warner Brothers, Intel Begin Futile Legal Assault To Defend Ultra HD And 4K DRM
Re:
And similarly for any other MPAA member?
Or RIAA member for that matter.
(answers left as an exercise for the reader)
On the post: Warner Brothers, Intel Begin Futile Legal Assault To Defend Ultra HD And 4K DRM
How to prevent making consumer equipment obsolete
For your protection, naturally. (think: Macrovision quality protection)
Devices could be continually up to date with the latest firmware. For your protection.
Think how much this would improve your life vs the olden days when your TV, VCR, toaster and vacuum cleaner could not get updates from the manufacturer which could fundamentally change their technology. (think: PS3 getting downgraded after you buy it)
The ability to make remote connections into your devices would only be used to update the DRM. Never anything else. Not for spying. Collecting and correlating information between vendors. And certainly not by hackers. All these devices inside your firewall continuously connected to their respective mother ships would not represent a security concern.
Imagine if the MPAA could disable your kitchen appliances and lock the refrigerator door when the TV is playing a commercial.
The biggest benefit of all is that continuously updated devices would never be obsolete.
Oh, the blessings of technology.
On the post: Warner Brothers, Intel Begin Futile Legal Assault To Defend Ultra HD And 4K DRM
Re: Re: Re: Is more necessary or just better to some?
On the post: Dutch Government Supports Encryption, Opposes Backdoors
Why can't smart people solve this?
And locked locks that are unlocked when they are locked.
And windows that are only transparent if you are looking into someone's house for a legitimate purpose, otherwise the windows are opaque.
Golden Keys to open Back Doors that only work for good guys, assuming you can even define who the good guys are.
On the post: Anne Frank's Diary... And Hitler's Mein Kampf Hit The Public Domain In Europe - Despite Concerns About Both
Concern about these books going into the public domain
Or better yet, burn them all.
Hasn't that always worked in the past?
It's not like burning books leads eventually to burning humans.
/sarc
On the post: Police Union Thinks Cops Should Receive Less Scrutiny Than Retail Workers
Re: REALLY??
On the post: Police Union Thinks Cops Should Receive Less Scrutiny Than Retail Workers
Re: Yay!
Conversely, if everyone else can be screened for drugs, then police should especially be expected to be screened.
On the post: Police Union Thinks Cops Should Receive Less Scrutiny Than Retail Workers
How about testing Congress and state lawmakers?
Next >>