Purchased movie: Insert disk, push play. FBI warning Homeland Security warning Other warning Unskippable ad for a movie released three years ago Unskippable ad for a movie released five years ago More warnings More unskippable ads Finally the movie starts, and you have already finished your popcorn.
Don't put functionalclaim.com into an ad-blocker. Not at all. Sidestep the whole problem.
Have a new type of software that is a SITE blocker. It can block you from ever visiting various sites for any reason of your choosing. One valid reason an end user might want to NOT visit a site is because it makes reference to functionalclaim.com. After all, I don't want to circumvent your technology. I really don't! Not at all! I simply don't want to ever have to visit any site using your technology -- as is my right. You can't make me visit sites I don't want to visit.
An undisclosed exploit probably also means an undisclosed vulnerability which that exploit takes advantage of.
What possible care is an end user expected to take against an undisclosed and therefore unknown vulnerability?
Even if you know that the rebel alliance has the death star plans, what measures can you take if you don't know what the vulnerability is and how it will be exploited? Once you try to analyze how the X wing fighters are attacking, it is probably too late.
Don't put the domain "functionalclaim.com" on a list of URLs. Have an alternate list of hashed domain names that contains only hashes. Nobody can be completely sure what URL might have generated the hash -- but hey, if the hash matches the domain the ad blocker is looking it -- then it triggers the ad blocking.
If you want to argue that a hash really is a pretty strong indicator of uniqueness, then I would argue that you're using the wrong hash for this particular application.
I am not trying to circumvent your anti-adblocking technology. I really have no interest in circumventing your technology.
All I ask is to know what web sites you work with so that I CAN AVOID EVER VISITING THEM.
FOREVER.
It doesn't matter if they change their mind. Whatever sites are using this, I am done with. Forever. Period. I won't come back to sites that can serve up malware and want me to lower my defenses. If they will do this today, God only knows what they will do tomorrow.
Advertising run amok ruins ever medium it ever appears in. Newspapers. Magazines. Radio. Television. Let me pause a moment. The great promise of Cable TV was: no ads! Yeah, right. But once they let the advertising get its foot in the door, Cable TV was eventually overrun by ads. More ads than content even in some time slots! Ads that would pop up after the ads, and on top of the content, obscuring the program you're trying to watch -- right after a bunch of ads! Ads ruin the web. Websites with dozens of ads on a page, with one paragraph of content, or one picture, begging you to click the Next button to get the next page with a picture or paragraph of text and dozens of ads. No thanks!
Now poor Naruto, with the litigation behind him, can move on to other ambitions. Such as running for US President. He can't do worse than we have now. And I get the impression there may be a job opening soon.
Did James S. Davis suddenly have an attack of personal conscience and ethics? Or is something deeper going on below the publicly known facts? Something that we cannot see (yet).
For example, could this copyright trolling business _already_ be in trouble in front of lower level courts, similar to how the Prenda fiasco got started? I still remember the lawyer who supposedly represented his client, but didn't actually represent them, couldn't bind them to anything, etc. The questioning by the judge was enlightening.
Did James S. Davis, or one of his coworkers find themselves in a difficult situation in front of a judge with a defendant who was standing up to fight? Then James S. Davis suddenly realized, especially in light of Prenda, what a deep pile of, um, steaming something, that he had gotten himself into?
I have suggested this idea before online numerous times. It specifically addresses this . . .
"The market can't fix this because neither the buyer nor the seller cares. [. . .]
Make the MANUFACTURER of the broken IoT device liable for all actual damages caused by their IoT device getting hacked. Including third party damages, like DDOS and ransomeware. And by liable, I mean, make it EASY to recover those damages from the manufacturer.
I am specifically NOT proposing any kind of government design standards. Or testing. Or certification. Or registration. Merely putting the costs where they belong, instead of upon the customers who buy broken IoT, or worse, on third parties who had no involvement with the broken IoT devices.
Here is how this fixes the broken perverse incentives that currently exist. Presently, the manufacturer is incentivized to spend nothing on security. To ignore it. Keep the retail price as low as possible. Would my idea cause the cost of IoT devices to rise? Probably. And this is as it should be. Put the costs where they belong instead of on innocent third parties getting DDOSed or ransomeware.
Manufacturers might reconsider whether some devices even should be connected to the clod. Do we really need a clod connected toy teddy bare bear for children?
This would incentivize manufacturers to cooperate on security. They might get together and build a common secure Linux base upon which to create their various products.
Can devices be made completely secure? Maybe, or maybe not. But we could go WAY further than we do now. If you've ever had to look at PCI compliance in order to do credit card processing, you have a good idea of the enormous additional steps that could be taken. And cooperating would help reduce these costs.
While I am not proposing government testing or certification, nothing would prevent the industry from creating voluntary testing and certification, sort of like the UL tirademark that can only be applied if you have the actual certification. Such certification would give consumers assurance that the device meets some significant safety standards.
At times when I have proposed this idea, I get the argument that startups couldn't bear the risk involved. So what? If they can't, then don't build it. If I buy a $1,200.00 "smart" taster connected to the clod, I have the same expectation that it won't burn my house down as I would have of a $12 toaster from Target. If a startup can't build, and certify it with that same assurance of fire safety, then don't build it at all.
The cop was merely planting evidence. It's not that serious a crime. He will move on to another job and it will be soon forgotten.
It's not like he was committing copyright infringement or something equally serious where he could lose his life savings, face prison, asset forfeiture, and even extradition upon the mere accusation of such a serious crime.
Terwilliger offers no fixes. Instead, he heads down the Forfeiture Trail of Tears, reminding readers that drug dealers are bad and the things they do are bad.
. . . reminding readers that COPS are bad and the things they do are bad.
It was in mid 2013 that the Snowden leaks occurred.
At that point, what everyone suspected was confirmed to not only be true, but be far worse than we thought.
The NSA defenders at the time argued that all this information would never be misused by the government. Nor would it be more widely disseminated within the government later.
Some argued that maybe it won't be today, but one day, there could be an insane madman in power and then what are you gonna do. And now here we are today.
Please stop offering door locks on both the residential and commercial buildings you construct. It's not that the government is trying to weaken locks. It's simply that people don't want locks.
Thank you for your cooperation, which will make it unnecessary to legislate the removal or weakening of locks.
On the post: The MPAA Narrative About Piracy Flips To Danger From Pirate Sites Now That It Has Lost The Moral Argument
Re: Re: Switch from Moral argument to Convenience argument
On the post: The MPAA Narrative About Piracy Flips To Danger From Pirate Sites Now That It Has Lost The Moral Argument
Switch from Moral argument to Convenience argument
Pirated movie: Insert disk, push play, enjoy moie.
Purchased movie: Insert disk, push play.
FBI warning
Homeland Security warning
Other warning
Unskippable ad for a movie released three years ago
Unskippable ad for a movie released five years ago
More warnings
More unskippable ads
Finally the movie starts, and you have already finished your popcorn.
On the post: How The DMCA's Digital Locks Provision Allowed A Company To Delete A URL From Adblock Lists
Re: Re: Re: An idea
It's that I want to avoid ever visiting your site. Period.
On the post: How The DMCA's Digital Locks Provision Allowed A Company To Delete A URL From Adblock Lists
Re: Re: An idea
Don't put functionalclaim.com into an ad-blocker. Not at all. Sidestep the whole problem.
Have a new type of software that is a SITE blocker. It can block you from ever visiting various sites for any reason of your choosing. One valid reason an end user might want to NOT visit a site is because it makes reference to functionalclaim.com. After all, I don't want to circumvent your technology. I really don't! Not at all! I simply don't want to ever have to visit any site using your technology -- as is my right. You can't make me visit sites I don't want to visit.
On the post: Former NSA Official Argues The Real Problem With Undisclosed Exploits Is Careless End Users
Careless end users?
What possible care is an end user expected to take against an undisclosed and therefore unknown vulnerability?
Even if you know that the rebel alliance has the death star plans, what measures can you take if you don't know what the vulnerability is and how it will be exploited? Once you try to analyze how the X wing fighters are attacking, it is probably too late.
On the post: How The DMCA's Digital Locks Provision Allowed A Company To Delete A URL From Adblock Lists
An idea
If you want to argue that a hash really is a pretty strong indicator of uniqueness, then I would argue that you're using the wrong hash for this particular application.
On the post: How The DMCA's Digital Locks Provision Allowed A Company To Delete A URL From Adblock Lists
Dear Admiral
All I ask is to know what web sites you work with so that I CAN AVOID EVER VISITING THEM.
FOREVER.
It doesn't matter if they change their mind. Whatever sites are using this, I am done with. Forever. Period. I won't come back to sites that can serve up malware and want me to lower my defenses. If they will do this today, God only knows what they will do tomorrow.
Advertising run amok ruins ever medium it ever appears in. Newspapers. Magazines. Radio. Television. Let me pause a moment. The great promise of Cable TV was: no ads! Yeah, right. But once they let the advertising get its foot in the door, Cable TV was eventually overrun by ads. More ads than content even in some time slots! Ads that would pop up after the ads, and on top of the content, obscuring the program you're trying to watch -- right after a bunch of ads! Ads ruin the web. Websites with dozens of ads on a page, with one paragraph of content, or one picture, begging you to click the Next button to get the next page with a picture or paragraph of text and dozens of ads. No thanks!
Sincerely,
On the post: Warner/Chappell Issues Copyright Claim Over YouTube Video Deliberately Containing None Of Its Music
Those Thieving Thief Pirate Thieves!
Yet, the music is so powerful, that you can "hear" it even when it is not there.
On the post: ACLU Tells Court Long-Term Cell Site Location Tracking Should Require A Warrant
Define Long Term
You need a warrant if you are going to track someone for longer than 24 months. Otherwise it is unconstitutional.
The Trump is in the details.
On the post: Bob Murray To Court: The ACLU Is Too Biased To File Its 'Eat Shit, Bob' Brief
Too biased?
On the post: US Senators Unveil Their Attempt To Secure The Internet Of Very Broken Things
Re: Re: An idea
On the post: Monkey Selfie Case May Settle: PETA Knows It'll Lose, And The Photographer Is Broke
Poor Naruto
On the post: Voltage Picture's Lawyer Sues Copyright Trolling Participants, Calls Lawsuits Unethical
What I want to know
For example, could this copyright trolling business _already_ be in trouble in front of lower level courts, similar to how the Prenda fiasco got started? I still remember the lawyer who supposedly represented his client, but didn't actually represent them, couldn't bind them to anything, etc. The questioning by the judge was enlightening.
Did James S. Davis, or one of his coworkers find themselves in a difficult situation in front of a judge with a defendant who was standing up to fight? Then James S. Davis suddenly realized, especially in light of Prenda, what a deep pile of, um, steaming something, that he had gotten himself into?
On the post: US Senators Unveil Their Attempt To Secure The Internet Of Very Broken Things
An idea
I have suggested this idea before online numerous times. It specifically addresses this . . .
Make the MANUFACTURER of the broken IoT device liable for all actual damages caused by their IoT device getting hacked. Including third party damages, like DDOS and ransomeware. And by liable, I mean, make it EASY to recover those damages from the manufacturer.
I am specifically NOT proposing any kind of government design standards. Or testing. Or certification. Or registration. Merely putting the costs where they belong, instead of upon the customers who buy broken IoT, or worse, on third parties who had no involvement with the broken IoT devices.
Here is how this fixes the broken perverse incentives that currently exist. Presently, the manufacturer is incentivized to spend nothing on security. To ignore it. Keep the retail price as low as possible. Would my idea cause the cost of IoT devices to rise? Probably. And this is as it should be. Put the costs where they belong instead of on innocent third parties getting DDOSed or ransomeware.
Manufacturers might reconsider whether some devices even should be connected to the clod. Do we really need a clod connected toy teddy bare bear for children?
This would incentivize manufacturers to cooperate on security. They might get together and build a common secure Linux base upon which to create their various products.
Can devices be made completely secure? Maybe, or maybe not. But we could go WAY further than we do now. If you've ever had to look at PCI compliance in order to do credit card processing, you have a good idea of the enormous additional steps that could be taken. And cooperating would help reduce these costs.
While I am not proposing government testing or certification, nothing would prevent the industry from creating voluntary testing and certification, sort of like the UL tirademark that can only be applied if you have the actual certification. Such certification would give consumers assurance that the device meets some significant safety standards.
At times when I have proposed this idea, I get the argument that startups couldn't bear the risk involved. So what? If they can't, then don't build it. If I buy a $1,200.00 "smart" taster connected to the clod, I have the same expectation that it won't burn my house down as I would have of a $12 toaster from Target. If a startup can't build, and certify it with that same assurance of fire safety, then don't build it at all.
On the post: Canadian Man Somehow Gets Trademark On His Own County's Name, Govt. Says Legal Action Is The Only Remedy
Dear Mr. Stinson
Dear Mr. Stinson,
Legal action is not your only option.
In the next TechDirt article up, the guy uses a DDOS attack, saying it was his only option.
On the post: Body Cam Footage Of A Cop Planting Evidence Leads To Dozens Of Dismissed Cases
It's not a serious crime, get over it
It's not like he was committing copyright infringement or something equally serious where he could lose his life savings, face prison, asset forfeiture, and even extradition upon the mere accusation of such a serious crime.
On the post: Former DOJ Prosecutor Steps Up To Defend DOJ's New Asset Forfeiture Rules
Re: Choice of Words
More choice of words . . .
. . . reminding readers that COPS are bad and the things they do are bad.
On the post: 2013 Authority Expansion Means A Whole Lot Of People On Capitol Hill Can View Unminimized NSA Collections
Funny it is called 2013 authority
At that point, what everyone suspected was confirmed to not only be true, but be far worse than we thought.
The NSA defenders at the time argued that all this information would never be misused by the government. Nor would it be more widely disseminated within the government later.
Some argued that maybe it won't be today, but one day, there could be an insane madman in power and then what are you gonna do. And now here we are today.
On the post: Trump Says Cops Should Rough Up Suspects; Receives Backlash From Police Officials
Dear Mr. Trump
On the post: UK Home Secretary Doesn't Want Backdoors; She Just Wants Companies To Stop Offering Encryption Because No One Wants It
Dear building construction companies
Thank you for your cooperation, which will make it unnecessary to legislate the removal or weakening of locks.
Next >>