There's two separate issues here. The first is the security or flaws of the software itself -- zero day exploits in Windows, Heartbleed, that sort of thing. But I don't think any of that is relevant to the discussion of cryptography algorithms. Even if they put in some ridiculous key escrow system, those flaws would still have to be patched.
What the government wants are just weaker encryption protocols. And virtually any software that uses encryption is already designed to use multiple different protocols. So you have a special government patch that re-enables the existing secure algorithms or adds some new ones, and those are only available on government devices. Shouldn't be THAT hard to do. Sure, that patch might leak, but anyone using would automatically be a criminal and could be arrested just for that. They get your data, or they get you in a cage; either way they win.
Long-term it might cause a loss of security knowledge (or maybe not -- there's still plenty of other security bugs to chase)...but not nearly fast enough to get the law actually repealed. Most of the people pushing for such laws would probably be retired by the time that became a problem for them. And there's always the possibility that they could keep that knowledge internally -- they've done it before. We already have evidence that the NSA was ten years ahead of academic crypto at one point in time, so clearly they have (or had) some ability to keep decent internal talent for things like that.
They don't care. Why would they care? Any crypto regulation will grant the government itself an exemption -- whether the law directly states that or not, they would never get prosecuted for any violations. So strong crypto allowed by law gives them precisely nothing, while making strong crypto illegal gives them a huge power advantage. Why would they oppose that?
Largely, I think the purpose of movies has changed. It used to be that TV shows were a short 20-40 minute story, where movies let you explore a longer, more complicated plot.
But these days people binge watch TV shows, and the shows definitely seem to be adjusting to that. Longer, more complex plots spanning the entire series (or multiple) without the need for the constant "Remember this from last episode??" reminder breaks. Often complex dramas are skipping the "Previously on..." setups entirely, using that time for a longer episode, and assuming that you'll remember what happened last time because you literally just watched it. Granted, there's always been simpler shows and more complex shows, but on average I think they're getting far more involved. The crazy philosophical ideas used to be mostly in movies, but now it's all on TV.
And in response it seems that movies are getting simpler. Every year another Avengers and another Star Wars, same story as last year -- much like TV used to be the same basic story as last week.
But the budgets haven't changed to match. Movies still have bigger effects budgets and higher cost stars. So they're charging high prices to recover those costs, while not putting out any content that's really driving people in.
The price is high, but it's not like it's totally insane compared to other ways of spending a night out. My girlfriend keeps talking about wanting to go see a movie, and I've got no problem paying for it, but every time we look at what's playing we can't find anything that either one of us really want to see. I'll pay $20 a seat for a GOOD story, no problem. But if I'm going to see the fifth sequel of something I've never seen and I'm pretty much just going for the explosions and effects...I can get the same thing sitting at home watching the first Iron Man on my projector. I don't care about these characters. I don't care about this plot. So what the heck am I paying for?
"If the criminals were smart, they would have threatened the dirty cops with exposing them in exchange for a portion of the seized funds."
Why? It DID get exposed. So exactly what were the consequences for the cops that they needed to be so afraid of? What were these consequences which were so severe that it would have been worth giving up thousands of dollars to avoid it?
It was not seized by the government because it was not recorded in the evidence inventory, therefore it was plain theft by a citizen which isn't a 4th amendment violation.
The fact that the government will then refuse to prosecute that citizen because he also happens to be a cop is also not a violation, it's merely prosecutorial discretion.
Crowd funding the state's legal fees makes exactly as much sense as having "private donations" pay for a statue to be erected on public property. Why aren't the people who paid to have it built paying for the resulting legal fees? Guess they don't care THAT much...
"It may help to think of a hypothetical: if you have, say, dialup AOL for internet service, do you really want AOL to be able to filter out all information about broadband and other providers that offer faster, better, cheaper service, on the grounds that AOL claims that such information that might lead to you leaving AOL is offensive."
It's not quite the same because they aren't blocking information about the other service, they're just blocking you from using both at once. Kinda like if dialing into AOL killed any existing connection into Earthlink (which, in most cases, it would have to since most users only have one modem...). In most cases, subscribers would actually probably appreciate that so they aren't paying for multiple redundant services. Just like most people running multiple anti-virus programs often don't know they're doing it and don't realize that it's the reason their computer is so damn slow!
I think that's a much better argument for Malwarebytes to be making though -- if you've already got one anti-virus, a second competing one can really screw up your computer and therefore is likely to be unwanted, so it certainly should fall under "PUP" protections.
Clearly this judge has never had to "fix" a computer after some idiot decided that "MORE IS BETTER!" and installed a half dozen different anti-virus programs all at once. IME, that typically results in a computer which literally can take up to an hour for the friggin' start menu to appear. Anti-virus should always flag any other anti-virus and at least give a warning before they start throwing each other into what I assume are infinite loops of quarantining each others' quarantine directories...
I certainly do. I don't even subscribe to cable but I have that problem with online streaming. I pay five bucks a month for ten channels where I only watch one of them. Then I pay another five bucks a month for another hundred channels where I only watch three or four. Then I pay another ten bucks a month for another dozen channels where I only watch one. And then you've got services with partial overlap, so a couple of the channel I watch I can get two or three different places, but I still have to subscribe to all of those in order to get other channels that are exclusive to one or the other...
Of course, now one of my channels is talking about splitting into three or four different channels, and charging separately for each one...which sucks too. But in that case it's the same genre of content, produced by the same company, with the same hosts and producers, so splitting that up seems rather silly.
The thing that annoys me the most though is when you pay extra for "exclusive access" only to find that this new pay site is just a collection of embedded private YouTube clips. If I wanted to watch you on YouTube, I'd just do it directly...The main reason I'd want to pay is to get away from Google.
The problem with this is that if they charge a flat fee no matter how much you watch, then the people who only care about one of those programs are subsidizing the costs of the people who watch many of them. Which is exactly what they want -- to keep you inside their own platform. If you paid per program then they'd have to actually have a lot of good content, instead of one good show and enough mediocre to garbage ones that they can advertise "hundreds of channels!"
Nah. Let them rot in prison. Let them complain; let them appeal; let it get media coverage again and again. Let them rot and make sure the rest of 'em KNOW that's what is happening, let the other corrupt cops (redundant, I know...) never stop worrying if they're going to be next.
This doesn't happen often enough that we can let it fade away so quickly.
People have gone to prison based on far less though. Just do a web search for "bite mark analysis in criminal prosecutions" and you'll find page after page after page of insanity -- people going to prison based on a PHOTO of a bite that "experts" claimed was a match, EVEN WHEN THE DNA IN THE SALIVA DID NOT MATCH. Heck, even when there was one expert saying the bite mark matched, and a second expert saying that it didn't, and that was the only evidence presented...the guy still ended up in prison. You must be incredibly naive if you think "fingerprints are unreliable anyway" would be a sufficient defense in court...
"If the law authorizes the DMV to sell information to credit reporting agencies, does that count and mean that your information may be sold even if you check the NO box?"
I hope not, though it's not THAT hard to go look up some laws. If that was authorized, I'd certainly find that newsworthy. But "agency which asks users if they'd allow disclosing data is disclosing data!!!11!" is a pretty worthless headline, and that's certainly all I'm seeing in this article...
Yeah, as I said they could improve the wording a bit, but I don't think it's THAT bad when you include the full context. Because the question starts with "EXCEPT", therefore you know that it does not apply to the disclosures authorized by law, so "such disclosures" can only mean those which would require consent.
I'm a Rhode Island resident, and I very clearly remember seeing a checkbox on the license renewals which would grant them permission to sell your data to third parties. I remember it because it seemed rather idiotic -- I never give them permission, and I'm not sure why anyone would, but I assume they're counting on people not actually reading the damn contracts they're signing and just checking boxes at random...
So, are they violating that and selling information without consent? Because otherwise, what they're doing kinda sucks, but it's also kinda your own fault if you get screwed by it....
Heck, even Sanders as quoted only said that they shouldn't do it "without meaningful consent". I think what they already have counts as 'meaningful consent'. What more would you want -- are they supposed to send out a separate letter every single time they want to sign a new sales contract? That would be pretty annoying to those of us who just want to give a blanket 'NO'. Perhaps they could improve the language/layout of the form a bit...but it's NOT buried "in fine print" as claimed in the summary above, it's NOT an opt-out, it's NOT automatic...you have to give them a clear "YES, you have permission to share my data". Seems like meaningful consent to me. It's not perfect, but it's a FAR higher ethical standard than most data collection agencies that keep it buried in some click-through EULA that they damn well know most users aren't reading.
"Where do we draw the line and say, 'No one can own [these things] and everyone is free to use them -- profit from using them -- without charge?'"
You are (practically, if not legally) free to use them in the time window between when the original owner disappears and therefore is no longer filing lawsuits, and the time when a new owner acquires a new copyright/trademark to the same works.
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Commercial speech" is not First Amendment Speec
"In the case of Amazon, the seller is always identifies right there in the listing."
One of the arguments made in Oberdorf was that neither the buyer nor Amazon themselves were able to actually identify and get in contact with the seller. The listing contains an alias, sure, but that's all it is. It doesn't actually give you their true identity or any way to locate them.
Re: Re: Passwords -- I see where they are coming from
"But, the correct remedy there would be for Netflix to control the access to their servers, not to hunt after the people who took part in a perfectly legal private transaction."
It's not a 'perfectly legal private transaction', it's a violation of the license agreement. Downloading content that you don't have a valid license for is copyright infringement, isn't it? If nothing else it's probably some form of trespassing or CFAA violation for accessing the service without permission. You enter into a contract when you sign up for Netflix, and sharing your login credentials violates that contract.
"The publishing industry would prefer if people didn't share books or sell secondhand, that doesn't mean they should be able to ban that or go after the people borrowing books."
The difference is that you aren't letting multiple people read the same book at the same time. the way you can (and plenty do) with shared Netflix passwords. You can probably give your credentials to someone else, but you cannot share your credentials with them.
Re: Other Countries Have The Same Mental Health Problems ...
China doesn't have the guns; they just have mass stabbings. Maybe it's not the weapons that make people do these things but the circumstances. Maybe people aren't just buying guns and saying "Well, I've got this gun now, dunno what to do with it, I guess I'll go murder some people."
London also has string gun control; and they've recently started banning the sale of kitchen knives due to the high number of stabbings. Maybe we ought to look at what direction their politics/society is going right now and run the other way. Only problem is I think they're roughly following us...
On the post: You'd Think The FBI Would Be More Sensitive To Protecting Encrypted Communications Now That We Know The Russians Cracked The FBI's Comms
Re: Re: They'd be exempt, of course
There's two separate issues here. The first is the security or flaws of the software itself -- zero day exploits in Windows, Heartbleed, that sort of thing. But I don't think any of that is relevant to the discussion of cryptography algorithms. Even if they put in some ridiculous key escrow system, those flaws would still have to be patched.
What the government wants are just weaker encryption protocols. And virtually any software that uses encryption is already designed to use multiple different protocols. So you have a special government patch that re-enables the existing secure algorithms or adds some new ones, and those are only available on government devices. Shouldn't be THAT hard to do. Sure, that patch might leak, but anyone using would automatically be a criminal and could be arrested just for that. They get your data, or they get you in a cage; either way they win.
Long-term it might cause a loss of security knowledge (or maybe not -- there's still plenty of other security bugs to chase)...but not nearly fast enough to get the law actually repealed. Most of the people pushing for such laws would probably be retired by the time that became a problem for them. And there's always the possibility that they could keep that knowledge internally -- they've done it before. We already have evidence that the NSA was ten years ahead of academic crypto at one point in time, so clearly they have (or had) some ability to keep decent internal talent for things like that.
On the post: You'd Think The FBI Would Be More Sensitive To Protecting Encrypted Communications Now That We Know The Russians Cracked The FBI's Comms
They'd be exempt, of course
They don't care. Why would they care? Any crypto regulation will grant the government itself an exemption -- whether the law directly states that or not, they would never get prosecuted for any violations. So strong crypto allowed by law gives them precisely nothing, while making strong crypto illegal gives them a huge power advantage. Why would they oppose that?
On the post: The MoviePass Mess Has Finally Come To An End
Re: Unanswered Question
It does say they're giving refunds...what would be the point of continuing to charge people money just to refund it?
On the post: The MoviePass Mess Has Finally Come To An End
Re:
I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
Largely, I think the purpose of movies has changed. It used to be that TV shows were a short 20-40 minute story, where movies let you explore a longer, more complicated plot.
But these days people binge watch TV shows, and the shows definitely seem to be adjusting to that. Longer, more complex plots spanning the entire series (or multiple) without the need for the constant "Remember this from last episode??" reminder breaks. Often complex dramas are skipping the "Previously on..." setups entirely, using that time for a longer episode, and assuming that you'll remember what happened last time because you literally just watched it. Granted, there's always been simpler shows and more complex shows, but on average I think they're getting far more involved. The crazy philosophical ideas used to be mostly in movies, but now it's all on TV.
And in response it seems that movies are getting simpler. Every year another Avengers and another Star Wars, same story as last year -- much like TV used to be the same basic story as last week.
But the budgets haven't changed to match. Movies still have bigger effects budgets and higher cost stars. So they're charging high prices to recover those costs, while not putting out any content that's really driving people in.
The price is high, but it's not like it's totally insane compared to other ways of spending a night out. My girlfriend keeps talking about wanting to go see a movie, and I've got no problem paying for it, but every time we look at what's playing we can't find anything that either one of us really want to see. I'll pay $20 a seat for a GOOD story, no problem. But if I'm going to see the fifth sequel of something I've never seen and I'm pretty much just going for the explosions and effects...I can get the same thing sitting at home watching the first Iron Man on my projector. I don't care about these characters. I don't care about this plot. So what the heck am I paying for?
On the post: Ninth Circuit Upholds Its Previous Declaration That Cops Stealing Your Stuff Doesn't Violate The Constitution
Re: Decision is correct
"If the criminals were smart, they would have threatened the dirty cops with exposing them in exchange for a portion of the seized funds."
Why? It DID get exposed. So exactly what were the consequences for the cops that they needed to be so afraid of? What were these consequences which were so severe that it would have been worth giving up thousands of dollars to avoid it?
On the post: Ninth Circuit Upholds Its Previous Declaration That Cops Stealing Your Stuff Doesn't Violate The Constitution
Re: Warrant? What warrant?
It was not seized by the government because it was not recorded in the evidence inventory, therefore it was plain theft by a citizen which isn't a 4th amendment violation.
The fact that the government will then refuse to prosecute that citizen because he also happens to be a cop is also not a violation, it's merely prosecutorial discretion.
On the post: New Mexico City Starts Crowdfunding Effort To Pay For Its Stupid Defense Of Constitutional Violations
Makes as much sense as the statue...
Crowd funding the state's legal fees makes exactly as much sense as having "private donations" pay for a statue to be erected on public property. Why aren't the people who paid to have it built paying for the resulting legal fees? Guess they don't care THAT much...
On the post: Ninth Circuit Reverses Course While Quoting Its Own Precedent Saying Otherwise; Says Section 230 Doesn't Cover Anti-Competitive Moderation
Re: Re: Re:
"It may help to think of a hypothetical: if you have, say, dialup AOL for internet service, do you really want AOL to be able to filter out all information about broadband and other providers that offer faster, better, cheaper service, on the grounds that AOL claims that such information that might lead to you leaving AOL is offensive."
It's not quite the same because they aren't blocking information about the other service, they're just blocking you from using both at once. Kinda like if dialing into AOL killed any existing connection into Earthlink (which, in most cases, it would have to since most users only have one modem...). In most cases, subscribers would actually probably appreciate that so they aren't paying for multiple redundant services. Just like most people running multiple anti-virus programs often don't know they're doing it and don't realize that it's the reason their computer is so damn slow!
I think that's a much better argument for Malwarebytes to be making though -- if you've already got one anti-virus, a second competing one can really screw up your computer and therefore is likely to be unwanted, so it certainly should fall under "PUP" protections.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Reverses Course While Quoting Its Own Precedent Saying Otherwise; Says Section 230 Doesn't Cover Anti-Competitive Moderation
Flag 'em ALL
Clearly this judge has never had to "fix" a computer after some idiot decided that "MORE IS BETTER!" and installed a half dozen different anti-virus programs all at once. IME, that typically results in a computer which literally can take up to an hour for the friggin' start menu to appear. Anti-virus should always flag any other anti-virus and at least give a warning before they start throwing each other into what I assume are infinite loops of quarantining each others' quarantine directories...
On the post: Comcast Sues Maine For Demanding It Sell TV Channels À La Carte
Re: Re: surprisedpikachu.gif
"Consumers don't want everything a la carte"
I certainly do. I don't even subscribe to cable but I have that problem with online streaming. I pay five bucks a month for ten channels where I only watch one of them. Then I pay another five bucks a month for another hundred channels where I only watch three or four. Then I pay another ten bucks a month for another dozen channels where I only watch one. And then you've got services with partial overlap, so a couple of the channel I watch I can get two or three different places, but I still have to subscribe to all of those in order to get other channels that are exclusive to one or the other...
Of course, now one of my channels is talking about splitting into three or four different channels, and charging separately for each one...which sucks too. But in that case it's the same genre of content, produced by the same company, with the same hosts and producers, so splitting that up seems rather silly.
The thing that annoys me the most though is when you pay extra for "exclusive access" only to find that this new pay site is just a collection of embedded private YouTube clips. If I wanted to watch you on YouTube, I'd just do it directly...The main reason I'd want to pay is to get away from Google.
The problem with this is that if they charge a flat fee no matter how much you watch, then the people who only care about one of those programs are subsidizing the costs of the people who watch many of them. Which is exactly what they want -- to keep you inside their own platform. If you paid per program then they'd have to actually have a lot of good content, instead of one good show and enough mediocre to garbage ones that they can advertise "hundreds of channels!"
On the post: Houston Police Officer Who Led Botched Raid That Killed Two People Now Facing Felony Murder Charges
Re: Death penalty
Nah. Let them rot in prison. Let them complain; let them appeal; let it get media coverage again and again. Let them rot and make sure the rest of 'em KNOW that's what is happening, let the other corrupt cops (redundant, I know...) never stop worrying if they're going to be next.
This doesn't happen often enough that we can let it fade away so quickly.
On the post: The DMV Is Selling Your Data To Vast Array Of Third Parties
Re: Re:
People have gone to prison based on far less though. Just do a web search for "bite mark analysis in criminal prosecutions" and you'll find page after page after page of insanity -- people going to prison based on a PHOTO of a bite that "experts" claimed was a match, EVEN WHEN THE DNA IN THE SALIVA DID NOT MATCH. Heck, even when there was one expert saying the bite mark matched, and a second expert saying that it didn't, and that was the only evidence presented...the guy still ended up in prison. You must be incredibly naive if you think "fingerprints are unreliable anyway" would be a sufficient defense in court...
On the post: The DMV Is Selling Your Data To Vast Array Of Third Parties
Re: Re: Rhode Island informs us...
"If the law authorizes the DMV to sell information to credit reporting agencies, does that count and mean that your information may be sold even if you check the NO box?"
I hope not, though it's not THAT hard to go look up some laws. If that was authorized, I'd certainly find that newsworthy. But "agency which asks users if they'd allow disclosing data is disclosing data!!!11!" is a pretty worthless headline, and that's certainly all I'm seeing in this article...
On the post: The DMV Is Selling Your Data To Vast Array Of Third Parties
Re: Re: Re: Rhode Island informs us...
Yeah, as I said they could improve the wording a bit, but I don't think it's THAT bad when you include the full context. Because the question starts with "EXCEPT", therefore you know that it does not apply to the disclosures authorized by law, so "such disclosures" can only mean those which would require consent.
On the post: The DMV Is Selling Your Data To Vast Array Of Third Parties
Rhode Island informs us...
I'm a Rhode Island resident, and I very clearly remember seeing a checkbox on the license renewals which would grant them permission to sell your data to third parties. I remember it because it seemed rather idiotic -- I never give them permission, and I'm not sure why anyone would, but I assume they're counting on people not actually reading the damn contracts they're signing and just checking boxes at random...
Here's the form...top of section G. Note that it is NOT opt-out, you must select either yes or no.
http://www.dmv.ri.gov/documents/forms/license/LI-1.pdf
So, are they violating that and selling information without consent? Because otherwise, what they're doing kinda sucks, but it's also kinda your own fault if you get screwed by it....
Heck, even Sanders as quoted only said that they shouldn't do it "without meaningful consent". I think what they already have counts as 'meaningful consent'. What more would you want -- are they supposed to send out a separate letter every single time they want to sign a new sales contract? That would be pretty annoying to those of us who just want to give a blanket 'NO'. Perhaps they could improve the language/layout of the form a bit...but it's NOT buried "in fine print" as claimed in the summary above, it's NOT an opt-out, it's NOT automatic...you have to give them a clear "YES, you have permission to share my data". Seems like meaningful consent to me. It's not perfect, but it's a FAR higher ethical standard than most data collection agencies that keep it buried in some click-through EULA that they damn well know most users aren't reading.
On the post: Intellectual Property Is Neither Intellectual, Nor Property: Discuss
Re:
Because the feds can't tax property and the local governments can't regulate IP
On the post: USPTO Gets One Right: Refuses To Allow Farmers Market To Trademark City's Nickname
Re: Re: It's all Property!
"Where do we draw the line and say, 'No one can own [these things] and everyone is free to use them -- profit from using them -- without charge?'"
You are (practically, if not legally) free to use them in the time window between when the original owner disappears and therefore is no longer filing lawsuits, and the time when a new owner acquires a new copyright/trademark to the same works.
On the post: The Internet Remains Broken In The Ninth Circuit And, At Least For Now, The Third
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Commercial speech" is not First Amendment Speec
"In the case of Amazon, the seller is always identifies right there in the listing."
One of the arguments made in Oberdorf was that neither the buyer nor Amazon themselves were able to actually identify and get in contact with the seller. The listing contains an alias, sure, but that's all it is. It doesn't actually give you their true identity or any way to locate them.
On the post: Big News: Appeals Court Says CFAA Can't Be Used To Stop Web Scraping
Re: Re: Passwords -- I see where they are coming from
"But, the correct remedy there would be for Netflix to control the access to their servers, not to hunt after the people who took part in a perfectly legal private transaction."
It's not a 'perfectly legal private transaction', it's a violation of the license agreement. Downloading content that you don't have a valid license for is copyright infringement, isn't it? If nothing else it's probably some form of trespassing or CFAA violation for accessing the service without permission. You enter into a contract when you sign up for Netflix, and sharing your login credentials violates that contract.
"The publishing industry would prefer if people didn't share books or sell secondhand, that doesn't mean they should be able to ban that or go after the people borrowing books."
The difference is that you aren't letting multiple people read the same book at the same time. the way you can (and plenty do) with shared Netflix passwords. You can probably give your credentials to someone else, but you cannot share your credentials with them.
On the post: White House Pushing Proposal That Would Subject Mentally Ill People To Increased Surveillance
Re: Other Countries Have The Same Mental Health Problems ...
China doesn't have the guns; they just have mass stabbings. Maybe it's not the weapons that make people do these things but the circumstances. Maybe people aren't just buying guns and saying "Well, I've got this gun now, dunno what to do with it, I guess I'll go murder some people."
London also has string gun control; and they've recently started banning the sale of kitchen knives due to the high number of stabbings. Maybe we ought to look at what direction their politics/society is going right now and run the other way. Only problem is I think they're roughly following us...
Next >>