Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 1:11am
If only there was this system where people could purchase content without advertising and it would allow them to have control over the where and when they can watch... maybe some of them would stop doing it for free.
What??? Offer people a service they want????? That's just crazy-talk, man! No-one would ever pay for that!!
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 1:00am
Another useful feature shot down in flames
Just thought of another effect of this ruling even assuming you aren't a criminal now just for using WiFi in the first place...
Most enterprise level WiFi controllers allow the detection and quashing of "rogue" WiFi signals in range, including detecting APs impersonating your own network. This often includes the ability to impersonate the rogue AP to "steal back" any clients that have attached to it. To do that of course, it has to "wire tap" the rogue.
Looks like that feature will have to be disabled, huh? Way to make corporate networks less secure.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 12:50am
Re:
Because in order to first connect to a network you need to scan it, to find out the ssid, and what encryption you need to use.
It's worse than that. Every time you are in range of a network your wireless receiver is receiving every single packet all the time. It then chooses to discard the stuff based on looking at it to see the network name on each packet.
So if you carry this ruling to its logical conclusion, you're a felon every time you use WiFi in a built up area.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 18 Sep 2013 @ 8:10am
Re:
Because, given how the country is being run, they could if they wanted to...
Well perhaps, except;
1/ Most countries are in little better state governmentally than the US
2/ They seem to be doing just fine at it by themselves after just the one nudge in 2001 so arguably it would be wasted effort.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 Sep 2013 @ 10:11am
Doesn't take Einstein...
This is also why the supposed "proper steps" whistleblowers are supposed to follow are completely useless. Systemic problems are rarely solvable by insiders
...To figure that this is damn near always true and that the "proper steps" are more about PR ("See we're looking out for our propert- uh, workers.") than anything ever intended to be effective. Or maybe it does take Einstein...
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 13 Sep 2013 @ 3:57pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's where I think you didn't get the idea. They can turn off the cameras.
No, I did get that bit, just not convinced it won't be abused for what will amount to political gain. Are you really sure for example that the GPS will be actually off? The NSA's pretty much disproven that haven't they?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 13 Sep 2013 @ 9:08am
Re: Re: Re:
But you see, while on the job it seems reasonable.
Yes, I agree. I was pointing out that there is a privacy trade-off that, reasonable or not, has to occur for it to happen and that "Well if they're complaining it must be because they're dirty cops" (yes I know he didn't go that far) may not be the reason for objecting.
If you work at some place you can't complain about having cameras all around.
Well, yes you can, though you may not get far. But this isn't "cameras all around", this is far more intimate and personal to a single individual not a single location.
You seriously wouldn't object to your employer knowing where you are to the metre every moment of your work day and what you're doing? How often you go to the toilet? Whether you take a moment of personal time to call a loved one or arrange a secret assignation while at work? Whether you nip into a shop to grab a pint of milk during a quiet time? How often you take a smoke break? The occasional time when you've just thought "f*ck it!" and done nothing for a bit because your brain's not engaged in the task? Or any one of a thousand other little things that you might naturally do each working day that could be construed as "stealing time" from your employer?
Would you trust those running the NYPD not to misuse something intended for public security as a blunt weapon against their own staff internally?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 13 Sep 2013 @ 3:41am
Re:
Those that complain the loudest, have the most to hide.
That's getting dangerously close to "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" territory.
While I agree more or less that "CopCam" is probably a good thing, I can see the argument of a cop who might not necessarily want it or trust the uses that the data could/would be put to whether they are "dirty" or not.
You aren't OK with someone knowing where you are and what you're doing every moment of the day and that reticence wouldn't vanish just because you became a public servant. Neither, as far as I'm aware, does taking an oath of office make your right to privacy for its own sake vanish.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 11 Sep 2013 @ 12:00pm
Re: Much easier to ask for forgiveness than permission
I am so sad that more people are just not that upset by all these revelations.
A cynic might say that this is part of the reason for the huge debates about Syria. It smacks a little of "Wag The Dog" to me...
"Hey! Look over there at that dramatic war and pay no attention to the fact we totally ignore your rights and have broken the internet..."
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 11 Sep 2013 @ 3:12am
Re: To broadcast or not to broadcast, that is the question
it feels like the distinction here is that WiFi interactions aren't purely broadcast
Yes. They Are. Unsecured WiFi is like having a shouted conversation across a crowded restaurant. People choose not to pay attention.
Secured WiFi on the other hand is more like having the same conversation in Attic Greek - everyone can hear it but no-one can understand unless they break the "code". This would fit better with your "snail mail" analogy.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 11 Sep 2013 @ 3:04am
Re: Re: To broadcast or not to broadcast, that is the question
The only protection is that the letters are all written using a 1960's crackerjack box encoder device, so you have to have a piece of red Cellophane to read them.
A great turn of phrase, but that's secured WiFi you're talking about - at least secured by WEP.
Un-secured WiFi would be like me posting this and then saying "I'm only talking to you so no-one else read it please".
In other words, fairly common technology can read any unencrypted, unsecured wifi connection
You mean every single WiFi device in existence. This is how WiFi works. Your WiFi card receives every packet and then chooses whether to throw it away afterwards based on who it says it's for.
If it's like mail at all as PW says then would be like a postcard - a polite postman might not read what's next to the address, but would you really expect him not to?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 10 Sep 2013 @ 3:33pm
Oh great!
So because a US court is dumb, in theory the entire structure of WiFi needs to be rebuilt? You can't not "sniff" WiFi... a wireless card that's on receives every packet in range and decides what to discard. That's how broadcast works. So now we'll all breaking the law again it seems...
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 10 Sep 2013 @ 10:06am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll say again. retransmitting without permission
Except that's not what you're saying. You've already said yourself that paying someone else to re-transmit things to you is fine. Perhaps you have an issue with having the same someone do the same thing to multiple people at once? I also notice that as well as "re-transmit" you keep using the word "re-broadcast". Perhaps this is where the misunderstanding lies?
What Aereo are doing is not broadcasting but instead multiple instances of unicasting. As I understand it, the law does indeed make broadcasting illegal without a license (which presumably was originally intended for airway control and just shows how little law keeps up with the real world), but I've yet to see anyone say where point-to-point retransmitting is illegal.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 10 Sep 2013 @ 9:07am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, Aero is not some personal custodian of your, and others, equipment.
So, by that rationale, if they wrote their bills like this:
June 2013
Equipment rental: $x
Monthly Maintenance charge: $y
Total: $z
It would suddenly be OK to be providing the same service?
They set out to retransmit to large numbers of people.
So it doesn't matter if you end up providing a service for loads of people as in my example above, just if that was the intention to start with?
You still haven't made clear at all exactly what you think is or should be illegal about what they're doing. As far as I'm aware, "being like a cable company" even if true is not a valid charge, neither is "making money providing a service".
On the post: Former NSA Boss Hayden Says Snowden Likely To Become An Alcoholic Because He's 'Troubled' And 'Morally Arrogant'
Re: Pulled rank
On the post: Another Court Won't Block Dish's AutoHopper; TV Networks Plan To Shoot Selves In Foot In Response
On the post: Another Court Won't Block Dish's AutoHopper; TV Networks Plan To Shoot Selves In Foot In Response
Re:
On the post: How Ruling On WiFi Snooping Means Security Researchers May Face Criminal Liability
Re:
On the post: How Ruling On WiFi Snooping Means Security Researchers May Face Criminal Liability
Another useful feature shot down in flames
Most enterprise level WiFi controllers allow the detection and quashing of "rogue" WiFi signals in range, including detecting APs impersonating your own network. This often includes the ability to impersonate the rogue AP to "steal back" any clients that have attached to it. To do that of course, it has to "wire tap" the rogue.
Looks like that feature will have to be disabled, huh? Way to make corporate networks less secure.
On the post: How Ruling On WiFi Snooping Means Security Researchers May Face Criminal Liability
Great theory...
On the post: How Ruling On WiFi Snooping Means Security Researchers May Face Criminal Liability
Re:
So if you carry this ruling to its logical conclusion, you're a felon every time you use WiFi in a built up area.
On the post: Former NSA Boss Hayden Says Snowden Likely To Become An Alcoholic Because He's 'Troubled' And 'Morally Arrogant'
Re:
1/ Most countries are in little better state governmentally than the US
2/ They seem to be doing just fine at it by themselves after just the one nudge in 2001 so arguably it would be wasted effort.
On the post: The NSA Has No Solution For The Real 'Snowden Problem' And It's Only Going To Get Worse
Doesn't take Einstein...
Or maybe it does take Einstein...
On the post: If You Can't Trust A Cop... 13-Year Veteran Of Seattle PD Makes Body Cameras For Cops
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If You Can't Trust A Cop... 13-Year Veteran Of Seattle PD Makes Body Cameras For Cops
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If You Can't Trust A Cop... 13-Year Veteran Of Seattle PD Makes Body Cameras For Cops
Re: Re: Re:
You seriously wouldn't object to your employer knowing where you are to the metre every moment of your work day and what you're doing? How often you go to the toilet? Whether you take a moment of personal time to call a loved one or arrange a secret assignation while at work? Whether you nip into a shop to grab a pint of milk during a quiet time? How often you take a smoke break? The occasional time when you've just thought "f*ck it!" and done nothing for a bit because your brain's not engaged in the task? Or any one of a thousand other little things that you might naturally do each working day that could be construed as "stealing time" from your employer?
Would you trust those running the NYPD not to misuse something intended for public security as a blunt weapon against their own staff internally?
On the post: If You Can't Trust A Cop... 13-Year Veteran Of Seattle PD Makes Body Cameras For Cops
Re:
While I agree more or less that "CopCam" is probably a good thing, I can see the argument of a cop who might not necessarily want it or trust the uses that the data could/would be put to whether they are "dirty" or not.
You aren't OK with someone knowing where you are and what you're doing every moment of the day and that reticence wouldn't vanish just because you became a public servant. Neither, as far as I'm aware, does taking an oath of office make your right to privacy for its own sake vanish.
On the post: Declassified Documents Prove NSA's Bulk Metadata Collections Completely Unnecessary
Re: Much easier to ask for forgiveness than permission
"Hey! Look over there at that dramatic war and pay no attention to the fact we totally ignore your rights and have broken the internet..."
On the post: Should Wikipedia Force All Users To Use HTTPS?
Re: Re:
On the post: Court Says WiFi Isn't Radio Because It's Not Audio; Therefore WiFi Sniffing Can Be Wiretapping
Re: To broadcast or not to broadcast, that is the question
Secured WiFi on the other hand is more like having the same conversation in Attic Greek - everyone can hear it but no-one can understand unless they break the "code". This would fit better with your "snail mail" analogy.
On the post: Court Says WiFi Isn't Radio Because It's Not Audio; Therefore WiFi Sniffing Can Be Wiretapping
Re: Re: To broadcast or not to broadcast, that is the question
Un-secured WiFi would be like me posting this and then saying "I'm only talking to you so no-one else read it please".
You mean every single WiFi device in existence. This is how WiFi works. Your WiFi card receives every packet and then chooses whether to throw it away afterwards based on who it says it's for.
If it's like mail at all as PW says then would be like a postcard - a polite postman might not read what's next to the address, but would you really expect him not to?
On the post: Court Says WiFi Isn't Radio Because It's Not Audio; Therefore WiFi Sniffing Can Be Wiretapping
Oh great!
On the post: As Expected, TV Networks Win Copyright Ruling Against Alki David's Name-Changing TV Streaming Service
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What Aereo are doing is not broadcasting but instead multiple instances of unicasting. As I understand it, the law does indeed make broadcasting illegal without a license (which presumably was originally intended for airway control and just shows how little law keeps up with the real world), but I've yet to see anyone say where point-to-point retransmitting is illegal.
On the post: As Expected, TV Networks Win Copyright Ruling Against Alki David's Name-Changing TV Streaming Service
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
June 2013
Equipment rental: $x
Monthly Maintenance charge: $y
Total: $z
It would suddenly be OK to be providing the same service?
So it doesn't matter if you end up providing a service for loads of people as in my example above, just if that was the intention to start with?
You still haven't made clear at all exactly what you think is or should be illegal about what they're doing. As far as I'm aware, "being like a cable company" even if true is not a valid charge, neither is "making money providing a service".
Next >>