You are quite wrong. Why the ignorant post? Do I have to teach you how to use WHOIS? You don't need any domain name and I most frequently end up using WHOIS without any access to a domain name. This happens when some process is attempting to access an Internet IP address, that call out is caught by a 'reverse firewall' such as Little Snitch on Mac, and I'm not going to allow the call out to occur until I know exactly WHOIS that IP address. Do you comprehend now?
IASSOTS. Think before you post please.
Equally obvious: Before GDPR, any friendly, helpful, kind, useful IP owner published who they are along with their IP address / Domain name. That meant that anyone could verify that the data being sent from their computer was going to an acceptable place.
EXAMPLE: Via WHOIS anyone used to be able to learn that an IP address of 17.x.x.x meant an Apple owned IP address. On a Mac, of course it is fine for a process to send data to Apple.
But when some entirely unknown IP address shows up, and there is nothing vie WHOIS or anytying else to tell the user who owns that IP address, of course you don't want your data being sent there!
Thankfully, this detrimental nonsense, inflicted by the stupid GDPR, can be overcome in an application such as LittleSnitch by way of the application having created its own WHOIS listing of IP addresses willing to allow the world to know exactly who they are.
And obviously my point is that ALL (every) IP address should have an identity associated with it, no opt-out, no GDPR nonsensical obfuscation over every IP address ever assigned.
Do you get that as well, yet? Do stop being obtuse, please.
As expected, the big catastrophe of the GDPR is WHOIS.
Whoever thought that was a good idea is a fool.
Now every evil Internet IP address is ANONYMOUS.
Idiocracy in the EU.
'Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services”'
03/28/2017, Marsha Blackburn (R, Tennessee) was liar-in-chief on the floor of the House of Representatives. The lies told were that the FCC had no ability to regulate ISPs (internet service providers) and that the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) did. Both lies were caught out during debate. Liar Marsh Blackburn admitted to both. That didn't stop the House from approving the resolution. It was signed by The Trump 04/03/2017, effectively providing for NO oversight of ISP collection of customer data, NO oversight of citizen privacy required by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. ISPs can, as a result, collect surveillance data of all customer behavior on the Internet. They can then sell that data to any interested parties or provide it upon request to law enforcement without warrant.
IOW: Unconstitutional.
Author of the resolution: Sen. Flake, Jeff (R, Arizona).
Sponsors of the resolution: Sen. Johnson, Ron [R-WI], Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY], Sen. Blunt, Roy [R-MO]*, Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR], Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV], Sen. Cochran, Thad [R-MS], Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX], Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR], Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX], Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE], Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT], Sen. Heller, Dean [R-NV], Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT], Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY], Sen. Roberts, Pat [R-KS], Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL], Sen. Shelby, Richard C. [R-AL], Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK], Sen. Thune, John [R-SD], Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS], Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS], Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY], Sen. Rounds, Mike [R-SD].
Would that all for voted for it (including many Democrats) were jailed for subverting the US Constitution. That would effectively 'drain the swamp.'
Stop inspiring my hashtag #MyStupidGovernment. Learn what you're talking about. Stop sitting in a position of authority and speak outright nonsense that demonstrates your unwillingness to understand the subject.
Computing 101: Start there. Then learn about the ongoing abominable state of computer coding security. There's something to rely upon.
Privacy is our right. We have no evidence to believe it won't be abused by government and law enforcement as well as criminals and murderous authoritarians.
Hmm. I think perhaps I should not have made my point about WHOIS here. I'm baffled by the lack of comprehension, despite my (from my point of view) clarity.
For those interested: A 'reverse' firewall monitors outbound rather than inbound computer data traffic. Regular firewalls do NOT commonly stop outgoing queries to the Internet.
Have a read about the 'reverse' firewall I use on macOS:
It presents the IP address being queried by specific running processes. It also provides, if it can find it (using a reverse DNS look up), the domain name that matches the IP address. But if there is no such domain name, its listed in Little Snitch as unavailable. At that point, the user has to turn to a WHOIS query for information. This is where WHOIS is, IMHO, a crucial service on and of the Internet that must never be censored.
A simple example is being presented with an IP address beginning with 17, as in 17.xxx.xxx.xxx. Little Snitch has no idea who owns that IP. If one didn't know better, one would worry it's the server address of a botnet wrangler, a place malware bots go to get their orders. Perform a WHOIS on that IP and you learn that 17.anything belongs to Apple. They own the lot! Therefore, if some new or obscure process you've never seen before is making that querie, you know it's looking to Apple servers for something or sending something to Apple servers.
As for WHOIS querie results having to give away phone numbers or email addresses or physical addresses, that's not what's crucial in the simple case I'm describing. What one wants to know is whether the questionable call out to the Internet by the mysterious process is to a legitimate location or not! If there is no WHOIS data available from any of the WHOIS services, I DENY the querie! If the resulting WHOIS data names some company or person I've never heard of and I can't connect them to the process calling out to that IP address, I DENY the querie.
Apparently, 'reverse' firewalls aren't used or understood by some people here. They are NOT part of common computer or router firewalls, which only filter queries coming INTO a computer or its LAN. The firewalls built into Windows and macOS, for instance, offer only crude blocking of queries out the Internet, typically based upon applications being run within the client's account. If I install and run an application that gathers and sends my client data to Google Analytics, for example, an OS level firewall is perfectly happy to allow that to happen! But I am not! Because I'm running a 'reverse' firewall, those queries to Google Analytics are caught and presented to me for approval or denial. I DENY them.
There is a lot of documentation about 'reverse' firewalls out on the net. Here are a few:
No, I did not confuse anything. You simply don't understand what I'm doing, which is actually quite ordinary. You're also attempting to pretend I said things I never said, like wanting access to 100% of the database.
Move along. This is too complicated for you. Propagandist exaggeration, confabulation and insults have no use here. Back under the bridge with you.
Rubbish and snarky replies to my clear and important response to the removal WHOIS data access?
Sorry kiddies, but this is a serious conversation. Get along home now and do some relevant research of WHOIS and how it is used daily by those of us who understand the importance of computer security and privacy. Silly replies are not appreciated.
Here's an example of why WHOIS is required, why GDPR's obfuscation of WHOIS data is outright detrimental and dangerous:
I use what's called a reverse firewall on my computers. It catches all calls out of my computers to IP addresses on the Internet and allows me to choose to allow them or not. Reverse firewalls are crucial for stopping malware bots and nefarious software from sending and gathering data to and from nefarious sources. The most common of these 'phone home' events is sending my personal, private data to Google Analytics, which I never allow.
But what happens when my reverse firewall can't resolve who owns a particular IP address when a process on my computer is attempting to call out to the Internet? What happens is that I am left with NO RESOURCES I can use to decide whether the call out to the net is legitimate or abusive.
Today, when I run into this problem, my recourse is WHOIS and only WHOIS. I use it at least weekly for specifically this purpose. It let's me know that an obscure IP address a process is attempting to access is only Akamai, or it's only Apple's servers, or instead it's some place I've never heard of in Russia, or the EU for that matter. With this WHOIS data I am able to CHOOSE what connections my computer makes to the Internet. I am able to DEFEND MY PRIVACY and the integrity of my computer systems.
GDPR takes ALL of that away, unless I play elaborate and annoying bureaucratic games that no mere human wants to endure. Instead, GDPR enables anonymous cowards and criminals to get away with Internet user abuse from which Internet users have only meagre recourse and redress. That's not acceptable! What we have no works for the benefit of all. If an IP address owner wants to be entirely anonymous, I say NO!
Therefore: Hands Off WHOIS! Get rid of that aspect of GDPR.
Either way, #MyStupidGovernment is again showing off it's disinterest in respecting US citizen's constitutional rights. Watch them turn up the FUD volume to 11...
This particular 89% off proXPN 'lifetime' offer is bombarding the Internet at the moment by way of a multitude of different websites. Perform a search for something to the effect of "proXPN VPN: Premium Lifetime Subscription For 89% Off" and see what I mean. That's warning sign #1.
Warning sign #2 is the use of the word 'lifetime'. I NEVER trust that word when it comes to paying for something, not matter what the deal. I've never seen the word 'lifetime' live up to that promise. Not ever.
Warning sign #3 is the fact that NOWHERE on the proXPN website is there any ability to actually buy a 'lifetime' subscription for ANYTHING, including their premium service. Huh?!
Warning sign #4 is the fact that I've TWICE written proXPN directly for verification of this offer, providing them with its details. They have NEVER replied to me.
Warning sign #5 is a comment posted at 9To5Toys.com, one of the many sites listing this offer. The comment from a fellow named Eric Cook who reports: "It's say lifetime, but they also says "You're now subscribed to 2 Years of proXPN Premium", which one is it? or am I expected to live for only 2 years?"
Warning sign #6 is another comment at 9To5Toys.com from a fellow named Ryan Nguyen who reports: "Ok I just bought and I thought it was proXPN but when you buy it, it is actually TigerVPN by proXPN, not sure what that means but hopefully that helps clear things up."
Warning sign #7 is the fact that TigerVPN is located in Slovakia. Plus their website pushes Canvas tracking images into visitor's web browsers, not a good sign of integrity from a VPN service!
7 warning signs is my limit. I call "SHENANIGANS!"
The US Congress already gave up their constitutional obligations of "Advice and Consent" regarding TPP when they approved 'Fast Track'. (US Constitution, Article II, Section 2). IOW: They broke from the US Constitution. Why was this done? So there would be NO discussion or debate regarding the final draft of TPP. All they now get is yes or a not vote, which is entirely unconstitutional. Why did the corporatocracy demand this illegal, traitorous decision by the US Congress? Because they want ALL of TPP enacted, not just bits and pieces, forcing renegotiation of the abomination.
Summary: CRIME. USA: Criminal Nation is the goal. Let's be China. Except let the corporations be our overlords, instead of some bogus 'communist' party. The end result is the same: TOTALITARIANISM. Screw citizen's rights.
I personally consider Wall Street Journal to be entirely worthless, thanks to it being merely a tentacle of News Corp.
As a victim of Time Warner Cable, I might as well have been reading nonsense with that hated company as the by-line instead of Holman W. Jenkins. It's corporatocracy at work. Lie to the customer. Gouge the customer. Screw the customer.
Neo-Feudalism in action.
Cable TV is over. Customer retribution for decades of abuse is here. We get what we want. Deal with it or sell off your crap companies to someone who considers the customer to be a collaborator, not an enemy.
What started upsetting me about 'Food Science' ice cream was the infestation of propylene glycol. I don't eat industrial chemicals, especially that one.
Then I figured out that the fluffy stuff in the containers was being sold by volume, not by mass. That means the fluffy stuff is composed largely of air. The more air you can inject into the fluffy stuff, the more profit you can make per container.
Then I realized the consistency and density are all wrong. The flavors are largely fake and no where near as delicious as actual ice cream. The fluffy stuff is industrial food science 'product'. All I want is actual ice cream. That is the only 'ice cream' I will buy and eat. I'll enjoy the calories, versus not enjoying the fake mock-up of 'ice cream'.
Sadly, identifying actual ice cream can still be difficult, despite a simple 'natural' ingredients list on the package. There is still the injected air factor and the quality of ingredients. Then there is the quality of dairy products, with or without growth hormone and antibiotics, etc.
Taking all of this into account, it's amazing what utter and udder crap has infiltrated the grocery stores.
Does this phrase describe the NSA? Let's change that. The US Constitution is how We The People rule the USA, NOT our elected government and their assigned lackeys . Deal with it or drop out and leave. No '1984' scenarios are welcome.
The level of demanded lunacy in 'data exclusivity' points out that the LAST entities that should be ruling the world are corporations. They represent a GAMING SYSTEM called 'finance', NOT real life.
No thank you to allowing game players to run anything IRL. Stick to playing your game, corporate kiddies! Stay Out of my REAL life please.
So many arguments for unconstitutional citizen surveillance are based on the 9/11 story. But darn! That yarn has been proven to have some whopping holes in it. So now what?
Re: Re:
You are quite wrong. Why the ignorant post? Do I have to teach you how to use WHOIS? You don't need any domain name and I most frequently end up using WHOIS without any access to a domain name. This happens when some process is attempting to access an Internet IP address, that call out is caught by a 'reverse firewall' such as Little Snitch on Mac, and I'm not going to allow the call out to occur until I know exactly WHOIS that IP address. Do you comprehend now?
IASSOTS. Think before you post please.
Equally obvious: Before GDPR, any friendly, helpful, kind, useful IP owner published who they are along with their IP address / Domain name. That meant that anyone could verify that the data being sent from their computer was going to an acceptable place.
EXAMPLE: Via WHOIS anyone used to be able to learn that an IP address of 17.x.x.x meant an Apple owned IP address. On a Mac, of course it is fine for a process to send data to Apple.
But when some entirely unknown IP address shows up, and there is nothing vie WHOIS or anytying else to tell the user who owns that IP address, of course you don't want your data being sent there!
Thankfully, this detrimental nonsense, inflicted by the stupid GDPR, can be overcome in an application such as LittleSnitch by way of the application having created its own WHOIS listing of IP addresses willing to allow the world to know exactly who they are.
And obviously my point is that ALL (every) IP address should have an identity associated with it, no opt-out, no GDPR nonsensical obfuscation over every IP address ever assigned.
Do you get that as well, yet? Do stop being obtuse, please.
(untitled comment)
As Many Lies As It Takes!
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/34/text
'Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services”'
03/28/2017, Marsha Blackburn (R, Tennessee) was liar-in-chief on the floor of the House of Representatives. The lies told were that the FCC had no ability to regulate ISPs (internet service providers) and that the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) did. Both lies were caught out during debate. Liar Marsh Blackburn admitted to both. That didn't stop the House from approving the resolution. It was signed by The Trump 04/03/2017, effectively providing for NO oversight of ISP collection of customer data, NO oversight of citizen privacy required by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. ISPs can, as a result, collect surveillance data of all customer behavior on the Internet. They can then sell that data to any interested parties or provide it upon request to law enforcement without warrant.
IOW: Unconstitutional.
Author of the resolution:
Sen. Flake, Jeff (R, Arizona).
Sponsors of the resolution:
Sen. Johnson, Ron [R-WI], Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY], Sen. Blunt, Roy [R-MO]*, Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR], Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV], Sen. Cochran, Thad [R-MS], Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX], Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR], Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX], Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE], Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT], Sen. Heller, Dean [R-NV], Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT], Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY], Sen. Roberts, Pat [R-KS], Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL], Sen. Shelby, Richard C. [R-AL], Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK], Sen. Thune, John [R-SD], Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS], Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS], Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY], Sen. Rounds, Mike [R-SD].
Would that all for voted for it (including many Democrats) were jailed for subverting the US Constitution. That would effectively 'drain the swamp.'
Customer-As-Criminal
What these clowns accomplish is more resolve for retribution, creating and encouraging media piracy. Congratulations. Mission FAILed.
What works better? Respect and other forms of positive reinforcement. Psych 101. Apparently, they flunked out.
Willful Computer Security Ignorance Is Not Acceptable Mr. Wray!
Computing 101: Start there. Then learn about the ongoing abominable state of computer coding security. There's something to rely upon.
Privacy is our right. We have no evidence to believe it won't be abused by government and law enforcement as well as criminals and murderous authoritarians.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hands Off WHOIS!
For those interested: A 'reverse' firewall monitors outbound rather than inbound computer data traffic. Regular firewalls do NOT commonly stop outgoing queries to the Internet.
Have a read about the 'reverse' firewall I use on macOS:
Little Snitch
https://www.obdev.at/products/littlesnitch/index.html
It presents the IP address being queried by specific running processes. It also provides, if it can find it (using a reverse DNS look up), the domain name that matches the IP address. But if there is no such domain name, its listed in Little Snitch as unavailable. At that point, the user has to turn to a WHOIS query for information. This is where WHOIS is, IMHO, a crucial service on and of the Internet that must never be censored.
A simple example is being presented with an IP address beginning with 17, as in 17.xxx.xxx.xxx. Little Snitch has no idea who owns that IP. If one didn't know better, one would worry it's the server address of a botnet wrangler, a place malware bots go to get their orders. Perform a WHOIS on that IP and you learn that 17.anything belongs to Apple. They own the lot! Therefore, if some new or obscure process you've never seen before is making that querie, you know it's looking to Apple servers for something or sending something to Apple servers.
As for WHOIS querie results having to give away phone numbers or email addresses or physical addresses, that's not what's crucial in the simple case I'm describing. What one wants to know is whether the questionable call out to the Internet by the mysterious process is to a legitimate location or not! If there is no WHOIS data available from any of the WHOIS services, I DENY the querie! If the resulting WHOIS data names some company or person I've never heard of and I can't connect them to the process calling out to that IP address, I DENY the querie.
Apparently, 'reverse' firewalls aren't used or understood by some people here. They are NOT part of common computer or router firewalls, which only filter queries coming INTO a computer or its LAN. The firewalls built into Windows and macOS, for instance, offer only crude blocking of queries out the Internet, typically based upon applications being run within the client's account. If I install and run an application that gathers and sends my client data to Google Analytics, for example, an OS level firewall is perfectly happy to allow that to happen! But I am not! Because I'm running a 'reverse' firewall, those queries to Google Analytics are caught and presented to me for approval or denial. I DENY them.
There is a lot of documentation about 'reverse' firewalls out on the net. Here are a few:
http://qa.answers.com/Q/What_is_reverse_firewall
https://askubuntu.com/questions/274237/reverse-f irewall-or-application-firewalls
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8453227B2/en
Thank you to those who've posted thoughtful replies to my post.
Re: Re: Re: Hands Off WHOIS!
Move along. This is too complicated for you. Propagandist exaggeration, confabulation and insults have no use here. Back under the bridge with you.
Re: Hands Off WHOIS!
Sorry kiddies, but this is a serious conversation. Get along home now and do some relevant research of WHOIS and how it is used daily by those of us who understand the importance of computer security and privacy. Silly replies are not appreciated.
Re: Hands Off WHOIS!
I want caffeine, now! ;-)
Hands Off WHOIS!
I use what's called a reverse firewall on my computers. It catches all calls out of my computers to IP addresses on the Internet and allows me to choose to allow them or not. Reverse firewalls are crucial for stopping malware bots and nefarious software from sending and gathering data to and from nefarious sources. The most common of these 'phone home' events is sending my personal, private data to Google Analytics, which I never allow.
But what happens when my reverse firewall can't resolve who owns a particular IP address when a process on my computer is attempting to call out to the Internet? What happens is that I am left with NO RESOURCES I can use to decide whether the call out to the net is legitimate or abusive.
Today, when I run into this problem, my recourse is WHOIS and only WHOIS. I use it at least weekly for specifically this purpose. It let's me know that an obscure IP address a process is attempting to access is only Akamai, or it's only Apple's servers, or instead it's some place I've never heard of in Russia, or the EU for that matter. With this WHOIS data I am able to CHOOSE what connections my computer makes to the Internet. I am able to DEFEND MY PRIVACY and the integrity of my computer systems.
GDPR takes ALL of that away, unless I play elaborate and annoying bureaucratic games that no mere human wants to endure. Instead, GDPR enables anonymous cowards and criminals to get away with Internet user abuse from which Internet users have only meagre recourse and redress. That's not acceptable! What we have no works for the benefit of all. If an IP address owner wants to be entirely anonymous, I say NO!
Therefore: Hands Off WHOIS! Get rid of that aspect of GDPR.
Australia Ueber Alles
Totalitarianism = FAILure = Citizen Abuse.
Techno Illiteracy or Totalitarianism?
7 Warning signs: I call "SHENANIGANS!"
Warning sign #2 is the use of the word 'lifetime'. I NEVER trust that word when it comes to paying for something, not matter what the deal. I've never seen the word 'lifetime' live up to that promise. Not ever.
Warning sign #3 is the fact that NOWHERE on the proXPN website is there any ability to actually buy a 'lifetime' subscription for ANYTHING, including their premium service. Huh?!
Warning sign #4 is the fact that I've TWICE written proXPN directly for verification of this offer, providing them with its details. They have NEVER replied to me.
Warning sign #5 is a comment posted at 9To5Toys.com, one of the many sites listing this offer. The comment from a fellow named Eric Cook who reports: "It's say lifetime, but they also says "You're now subscribed to 2 Years of proXPN Premium", which one is it? or am I expected to live for only 2 years?"
Warning sign #6 is another comment at 9To5Toys.com from a fellow named Ryan Nguyen who reports: "Ok I just bought and I thought it was proXPN but when you buy it, it is actually TigerVPN by proXPN, not sure what that means but hopefully that helps clear things up."
Warning sign #7 is the fact that TigerVPN is located in Slovakia. Plus their website pushes Canvas tracking images into visitor's web browsers, not a good sign of integrity from a VPN service!
7 warning signs is my limit. I call "SHENANIGANS!"
Re: Re: Re: Corporatocracy
Summary: CRIME. USA: Criminal Nation is the goal. Let's be China. Except let the corporations be our overlords, instead of some bogus 'communist' party. The end result is the same: TOTALITARIANISM. Screw citizen's rights.
News Corp, Our Information Overlords
As a victim of Time Warner Cable, I might as well have been reading nonsense with that hated company as the by-line instead of Holman W. Jenkins. It's corporatocracy at work. Lie to the customer. Gouge the customer. Screw the customer.
Neo-Feudalism in action.
Cable TV is over. Customer retribution for decades of abuse is here. We get what we want. Deal with it or sell off your crap companies to someone who considers the customer to be a collaborator, not an enemy.
Corporatocracy
Corporatocracy - ACTA
Corporatocracy - TPP/TPPA
Corporatocracy - TTIP/TAFTA
Corporatocracy - TISA
To hell with democracy. :-P
This is Neo-Feudalism.
Real vs Fake Fluffy Stuff
Then I figured out that the fluffy stuff in the containers was being sold by volume, not by mass. That means the fluffy stuff is composed largely of air. The more air you can inject into the fluffy stuff, the more profit you can make per container.
Then I realized the consistency and density are all wrong. The flavors are largely fake and no where near as delicious as actual ice cream. The fluffy stuff is industrial food science 'product'. All I want is actual ice cream. That is the only 'ice cream' I will buy and eat. I'll enjoy the calories, versus not enjoying the fake mock-up of 'ice cream'.
Sadly, identifying actual ice cream can still be difficult, despite a simple 'natural' ingredients list on the package. There is still the injected air factor and the quality of ingredients. Then there is the quality of dairy products, with or without growth hormone and antibiotics, etc.
Taking all of this into account, it's amazing what utter and udder crap has infiltrated the grocery stores.
Totalitarian Surveillance Maniac Traitors
#MyStupidCorporatocracy
The level of demanded lunacy in 'data exclusivity' points out that the LAST entities that should be ruling the world are corporations. They represent a GAMING SYSTEM called 'finance', NOT real life.
No thank you to allowing game players to run anything IRL. Stick to playing your game, corporate kiddies! Stay Out of my REAL life please.
Speaking of Lies and 9/11...
http://www.911truth.org
So many arguments for unconstitutional citizen surveillance are based on the 9/11 story. But darn! That yarn has been proven to have some whopping holes in it. So now what?
More comments from DerekCurrie >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by DerekCurrie.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt