Stealing* the Pirate Bay's domain names will only result in TPB becoming decentralized. Others can already spin up their own instances of the server. Anywhere.
This is going to be hilarious to watch as it happens.**
*Stealing is the correct word. Stealing is a more applicable to the taking domain names without compensation than the word would apply to mere copyright infringement.
**Disclaimer: I do not use TPB and never have. But I'm sure that won't stop what's its name.
I can't, right off the top of my head, think of a reason why Hollywood hates Google so much. (Other than their general hatred of technology and progress. Or their propensity to be irrational.)
How does Google providing a search engine hurt Hollywood?
Hasn't YouTube bent over backwards to make it easy, in fact way too easy, for Hollywood to get content removed from YouTube?
There might be a rational reason for the hate. But I am not seeing it.
Broadband already demonstrably suffers from LACK of net neutrality. And lack of effective competition.
So how could net neutrality make it any worse?
In a situation where you are the only broadband provider in town, how could net neutrality make things any worse? ISP's are already supposed to route my packets to and from me. The source and destination of those packets (eg Netflix) should be irrelevant. Charge me for how much bandwidth I use. Make the cost of bandwidth clear for all to see. Netflix already pays at their end for the bandwidth they use. There is no reason in the 21st century why a reasonably priced broadband service cannot support one or more simultaneous video streams. If it can't then you aren't upgrading your infrastructure. You need to charge enough to build the infrastructure that customers are willing to pay for.
Only the Big Brother divinely appointed by the Administration can pull the Golden Key from the Stone. No other will be able to perform this remarkable act. Only the Administration has the quantum superposition Holy Grail of secure but insecure cryptography. All Subjects of the Administration are henceforth commanded to use only this most worthy form of encryption.
Hopefully so much feedback from experts will send a strong message to politicians. Predictably, when politicians get so much unified feedback from so many experts, they will give it strong consideration and then do the exact opposite of this good advice.
There are two different kinds of Leaks of Classified information.
1. A person who swore to maintain the secrecy of classified information reveals it to the public. 2. A person who swore to maintain the secrecy of classified information reveals it to the public.
In leak number 1, the fact the the government is creating an apparatus to become a police state is kept as a secret. In leak number 2., the the public becomes aware that the government is becoming a police state.
Leak number 1 can go overlooked. Leak number 2 cannot be overlooked.
> We force their hands, making back doors to bypass > the encryption become mandatory.
If that's the way it must go, then that is better than what we have now.
If we're going to make back doors mandatory, then let's get it out in the open in front of God and everybody. None of this sneaking around crap.
That way, everyone can clearly see how their governments are acting and then judge whether it is in their best interests. That way, everyone, even politicians can see that it is them too who are being spied upon by the state apparatus.
> Certificates get lost or fall into the wrong hands. And it still doesn't > protect you that well against a man-in-the-middle attack.
Certificates can be revoked.
There have only been two attempts at a third party abusing CA powers -- and they were both detected early. The ramifications of the discovery were big.
More and more parties are actively looking for MITM attacks. For example, even though Honest Achmed's Trusty Certificates of Tehran Iran may be recognized by your browser, it would be a dead giveaway if they (or Verizon) were to issue a Google.com certificate.
There is Certificate Pinning. There are browser extensions that people run to see what CA originally signed every certificate and notice if that ever changes and raise a red flag.
Despite the imperfections of the CA system, it is a whole lot better than doing nothing. And it can be improved.
> The biggest problem is that the lack of knowledge about HTTPS and SSL > will increase the vulnerability of specific systems, not decrease them.
Making HTTPS and SSL more widely used will solve that problem. I remember when I first started using it in a commercial web application about six years ago. I had to learn a lot. But it was worth it.
> Which only works as long as your browser or app gets updated when the certificate changes...
I would suspect that browser manufacturers are smarter than you think about this. Paranoid even.
Here is my unproven hunch. Speculation. I'll just use Chrome as an example. Google could use a private self-signed certificate that nobody else, including Verizon can impersonate. This self signed certificate is not from any CA. Google would have their own private CA. When Google's Chrome browser communicates with the mother ship to get an update, it would check that the update is signed by a certificate from Google's private CA. That way the integrity of updates is completely protected, even from a successful MITM attack against the existing CA infrastructure. The browser would not care that any other CA signed the download. Only Google's private internal CA would be the one that your existing browser on your computer would trust to sign an update before it would be accepted.
Very similarly I bet Microsoft (and Ubuntu, and others) use this approach to verify the integrity of updates to operating systems.
If an OS or browser maker were really paranoid, they might build in a list of other apparently unrelated places to check for the availability of an update. That way, it is unlikely that Verizon could block the browser or OS from discovering the availability of an update. That way, the end user would soon be told that the update cannot be obtained because it is being attacked by an MITM.
The day that Verizon abuses it's CA power to impersonate websites is the day that some browsers, especially Mozilla and Chrome, will drop Verizon's CA trust completely.
That will suddenly mean that all of Verizon's CA signed certificates look suspicious to millions of users.
Suddenly everyone who ever bought a certificate from Verizon will get a new one from a different CA, and possibly sue Verizon for making their old certificate suddenly worthless.
> protest when people start telling you your > not allowed to speak
Your never going too get you're weigh on this. Their are just two many people out they're using there words wrong too get to upset. Sew don't loose you're cool about it. You can sea mini common examples that exist of incorrect usage. People pick the write words two use according too there porpoises. But you'd have two be a fool to begin or end a sentence with the word "but". And only an idiot would begin or end a sentence with "and". And a preposition is a very bad word too end a sentence with.
> you have to protest when people start telling you your > not allowed to speak even if they are not stopping you!
Nobody is telling you that you are not allowed to speak.
But people can tell you to speak your mind elsewhere.
I would immediately jump to your defense if I actually believed your freedom of speech were in danger. It is not. Your ultimate remedy would be to set up your own website and speak all you want to. Yes, really! Attract vast numbers of people from far and wide who want to come and hear your wiz-dumb.
I won't try to refute it. To merely state it again is to refute it.
Comcast injects ads into unencrypted traffic, because "it's a courtesy, and it helps address some concerns that people might not be absolutely sure they're on a hotspot from Comcast".
Ok, you can stop laughing now. Stop it! Stop it, I say!
If I am concerned whether I am on a hotspot from Comcast, I need look no further than to check my download speeds, or whether certain protocols or even port numbers get throttled.
On the post: Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood Insists His Emails With The MPAA Are Super Secret
Re: Never interrupt your enemy...
This is going to be hilarious to watch as it happens.**
*Stealing is the correct word. Stealing is a more applicable to the taking domain names without compensation than the word would apply to mere copyright infringement.
**Disclaimer: I do not use TPB and never have. But I'm sure that won't stop what's its name.
On the post: Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood Insists His Emails With The MPAA Are Super Secret
Why does Hollywood hate Google?
How does Google providing a search engine hurt Hollywood?
Hasn't YouTube bent over backwards to make it easy, in fact way too easy, for Hollywood to get content removed from YouTube?
There might be a rational reason for the hate. But I am not seeing it.
On the post: Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood Insists His Emails With The MPAA Are Super Secret
Wingate
Unrelated to Microsoft Windows. :-)
On the post: AT&T Stops Pouting Over Net Neutrality, Backs Off Network Investment 'Freeze' That Never Was
Broadband Suffering
So how could net neutrality make it any worse?
In a situation where you are the only broadband provider in town, how could net neutrality make things any worse? ISP's are already supposed to route my packets to and from me. The source and destination of those packets (eg Netflix) should be irrelevant. Charge me for how much bandwidth I use. Make the cost of bandwidth clear for all to see. Netflix already pays at their end for the bandwidth they use. There is no reason in the 21st century why a reasonably priced broadband service cannot support one or more simultaneous video streams. If it can't then you aren't upgrading your infrastructure. You need to charge enough to build the infrastructure that customers are willing to pay for.
On the post: Pretty Much Anyone With Any Understanding Of Crypto Tells President Obama That Backdooring Crypto Is Monumentally Stupid
Re:
On the post: Pretty Much Anyone With Any Understanding Of Crypto Tells President Obama That Backdooring Crypto Is Monumentally Stupid
So much feedback sends a strong message
On the post: Pretty Much Anyone With Any Understanding Of Crypto Tells President Obama That Backdooring Crypto Is Monumentally Stupid
Re:
On the post: US Officials Leak Info About ISIS Raid More Sensitive Than Anything Snowden Ever Leaked
Re: There are no such things as good and bad leaks
Bad leaks make the public aware that the government is becoming a police state and building the apparatus to do so.
Good leaks merely compromise capabilities and endanger the lives of operatives while not revealing that the government is becoming a police state.
On the post: US Officials Leak Info About ISIS Raid More Sensitive Than Anything Snowden Ever Leaked
There are different kinds of Leaks
1. A person who swore to maintain the secrecy of classified information reveals it to the public.
2. A person who swore to maintain the secrecy of classified information reveals it to the public.
In leak number 1, the fact the the government is creating an apparatus to become a police state is kept as a secret. In leak number 2., the the public becomes aware that the government is becoming a police state.
Leak number 1 can go overlooked. Leak number 2 cannot be overlooked.
On the post: Appeals Court Gets It Right The Second Time: Actress Had No Copyright Interest In 'Innocence Of Muslims'
Re: Re:
On the post: Yes, Switching To HTTPS Is Important, And No It's Not A Bad Thing
Re: Encourage, don't require
> the encryption become mandatory.
If that's the way it must go, then that is better than what we have now.
If we're going to make back doors mandatory, then let's get it out in the open in front of God and everybody. None of this sneaking around crap.
That way, everyone can clearly see how their governments are acting and then judge whether it is in their best interests. That way, everyone, even politicians can see that it is them too who are being spied upon by the state apparatus.
On the post: Yes, Switching To HTTPS Is Important, And No It's Not A Bad Thing
Re:
On the post: Yes, Switching To HTTPS Is Important, And No It's Not A Bad Thing
Re: Troublesome certificates...
> protect you that well against a man-in-the-middle attack.
Certificates can be revoked.
There have only been two attempts at a third party abusing CA powers -- and they were both detected early. The ramifications of the discovery were big.
More and more parties are actively looking for MITM attacks. For example, even though Honest Achmed's Trusty Certificates of Tehran Iran may be recognized by your browser, it would be a dead giveaway if they (or Verizon) were to issue a Google.com certificate.
There is Certificate Pinning. There are browser extensions that people run to see what CA originally signed every certificate and notice if that ever changes and raise a red flag.
Despite the imperfections of the CA system, it is a whole lot better than doing nothing. And it can be improved.
On the post: Yes, Switching To HTTPS Is Important, And No It's Not A Bad Thing
Re: Troublesome certificates...
> will increase the vulnerability of specific systems, not decrease them.
Making HTTPS and SSL more widely used will solve that problem. I remember when I first started using it in a commercial web application about six years ago. I had to learn a lot. But it was worth it.
On the post: Yes, Switching To HTTPS Is Important, And No It's Not A Bad Thing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Troublesome certificates...
I would suspect that browser manufacturers are smarter than you think about this. Paranoid even.
Here is my unproven hunch. Speculation. I'll just use Chrome as an example. Google could use a private self-signed certificate that nobody else, including Verizon can impersonate. This self signed certificate is not from any CA. Google would have their own private CA. When Google's Chrome browser communicates with the mother ship to get an update, it would check that the update is signed by a certificate from Google's private CA. That way the integrity of updates is completely protected, even from a successful MITM attack against the existing CA infrastructure. The browser would not care that any other CA signed the download. Only Google's private internal CA would be the one that your existing browser on your computer would trust to sign an update before it would be accepted.
Very similarly I bet Microsoft (and Ubuntu, and others) use this approach to verify the integrity of updates to operating systems.
If an OS or browser maker were really paranoid, they might build in a list of other apparently unrelated places to check for the availability of an update. That way, it is unlikely that Verizon could block the browser or OS from discovering the availability of an update. That way, the end user would soon be told that the update cannot be obtained because it is being attacked by an MITM.
On the post: Yes, Switching To HTTPS Is Important, And No It's Not A Bad Thing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Troublesome certificates...
That will suddenly mean that all of Verizon's CA signed certificates look suspicious to millions of users.
Suddenly everyone who ever bought a certificate from Verizon will get a new one from a different CA, and possibly sue Verizon for making their old certificate suddenly worthless.
On the post: Yes, Switching To HTTPS Is Important, And No It's Not A Bad Thing
Re: Re: Re: And held for "moderation"
> protest when people start telling you your
> not allowed to speak
Your never going too get you're weigh on this.
Their are just two many people out they're using there words wrong too get to upset.
Sew don't loose you're cool about it.
You can sea mini common examples that exist of incorrect usage.
People pick the write words two use according too there porpoises.
But you'd have two be a fool to begin or end a sentence with the word "but".
And only an idiot would begin or end a sentence with "and".
And a preposition is a very bad word too end a sentence with.
On the post: Yes, Switching To HTTPS Is Important, And No It's Not A Bad Thing
Re: Re: Re: And held for "moderation"
> not allowed to speak even if they are not stopping you!
Nobody is telling you that you are not allowed to speak.
But people can tell you to speak your mind elsewhere.
I would immediately jump to your defense if I actually believed your freedom of speech were in danger. It is not. Your ultimate remedy would be to set up your own website and speak all you want to. Yes, really! Attract vast numbers of people from far and wide who want to come and hear your wiz-dumb.
On the post: Yes, Switching To HTTPS Is Important, And No It's Not A Bad Thing
The most hilarious thing I've read all week
Ok, you can stop laughing now. Stop it! Stop it, I say!
If I am concerned whether I am on a hotspot from Comcast, I need look no further than to check my download speeds, or whether certain protocols or even port numbers get throttled.
On the post: Senate Fight Is On Over NSA Surveillance Reform
I prefer a Steel Cage Match
When they're all gone, vote new ones in. Let the old ones be an example of what not to do.
Next >>