You can't counter a bully raining windmill punches on you by reminding them of the Marquess of Queensberry rules of boxing.
The rules by which you define this behaviour as 'lawless' no longer apply. You have handed the power to selectively apply and redefine the rules to the very actors who are breaking the existing ones.
When someone smart enough to know better argues and continues to double down on the patently ridiculous side of an issue so tenaciously, I have to wonder what the real agenda is. The entire rational world warned of the folly of this move, yet it was pushed through at full force without scrutiny or debate. There's gotta be something rotten driving it; it just hasn't surfaced yet. There was absolutely no reason for the govt to score such a huge own goal with no apparent upside, so it intrigues me what could possibly motivate them to do so.
Reminds me of my daughter's experience with her art school textbook back in 2012
https://www.bestnettech.com/2012/09/17/university-requires-students-to-pay-180-art-history-text-that-has-no-photos-due-to-copyright-problems/
I propose a slight amendment, whereby any such whitelisted political spam is clearly identified as having benefited from this wonderful policy. I will definitely want to route them for special attention.
I would like a clear definition of the problem they are proposing to fix. How is password sharing "bad" and how will they make changes that fix it without breaking valid usage?
The Netflix service my wife and I use provides up to 2 concurrent streams. If we try to stream beyond two connections, access is denied and we must kick off one of the existing connections to continue. If we were to share our login with 20 people, we could still never use more than two sessions at once. Is this a problem? How? Why?
How do you identify the unwanted behaviour?
How do you determine a login is being "shared" (exact definition required)? Does it have to do with what devices are using it from which IP addresses?
My wife and I can currently use Netflix from any computing device on our home network, any of our mobile devices via WiFi or mobile data, from a hotel or office or coffee shop, or at a friend or relative's house, perhaps while on holiday or business trip abroad. I can think of at least 15 legitimate devices using at least 6 different operating systems and many more source IP addresses across multiple continents that would cover all of these completely reasonable accesses to the service just for the two of us without sharing with anyone.
Solution
can a solution
- identify offensive behaviour
- solve the problem
- not break valid and common usage
This is assuming I'm convinced that there IS a problem, which I am not; however I would truly like to know if anyone could propose a workable solution that does not ruin the existing perfectly functional and demonstrably profitable experience.
I would like a clear definition of the problem they are proposing to fix. How is password sharing "bad" and how will they make changes that fix it without breaking valid usage?
The Netflix service my wife and I use provides up to 2 concurrent streams. If we try to stream beyond two connections, access is denied and we must kick off one of the existing connections to continue. If we were to share our login with 20 people, we could still never use more than two sessions at once. Is this a problem? How? Why?
Yow do you identify the unwanted behaviour?
How do you determine a login is being "shared" (exact definition required)? Does it have to do with what devices are using it from which IP addresses?
My wife and I can currently use Netflix from any computing device on our home network, any of our mobile devices via WiFi or mobile data, from a hotel or office or coffee shop, or at a friend or relative's house, perhaps while on holiday or business trip abroad. I can think of at least 15 legitimate devices using at least 6 different operating systems and many more source IP addresses across multiple continents that would cover all of these completely reasonable accesses to the service just for the two of us without sharing with anyone.
Solution
can a solution
- identify offensive behaviour
- solve the problem
- not break valid and common usage
This is assuming I'm convinced that there IS a problem, which I am not; however I would truly like to know if anyone could propose a workable solution that does not ruin the existing perfectly functional and demonstrably profitable experience.
You can play whack-a-mole targeting sources of misinformation all you want, but it's not going to make a difference until you address the real problem, which is gullibility.
The majority of the population, subjected to the same barrage of misinformation, has not been swept up in it or conned by it, or at the very least affected to a lesser extent. Maybe increased focus on providing skills and tools to help defend against inevitable levels of misinformation will better help those who have limited capacity to resist.
It's tough because those who fall for it don't think they need help, and people who haven't fallen for it aren't motivated to help those that have. Overcoming this will require a surge in collective altruism from the user community, the press, and tech providers.
Art and technology by their very nature take a combinative form, building new by adapting and improving elements of old. Copyright, a legal fiction to assign restrictions to the otherwise natural flow and recombination of ideas, is supposed to be meant to promote advancement by giving time-limited ownership as incentive to creators to increase their motivation to share. Instead it is commonly used to inhibit sharing, to impede improvement and innovation, and with ever-increasing terms, to essentially permanently assign ownership.
Imagine a campaign that calls for doing away with end-to-end encryption for banking, healthcare, business VPNs, and Cloud. That's the same end result, and people need to understand that calling for one is equivalent to calling for the other.
Of course the risk would be that somehow this patently ridiculous straw-man notion gains momentum in this bizarro world political climate.
I'm perplexed that the scope of this encryption debate always seems to be limited to encrypted messages between humans that the govt wants to be able to see, or file and disk encryption used by miscreants on their phones and computers.
That's just the bathwater, and it's full of babies whose loss would have much greater impact. Outlawing (or invalidating the efficacy of) encryption is nothing less than the outlawing of secure communication.
The entire world's business and financial systems rely on the confidential transfer and storage of information. The very same highly-placed people who press for broken encryption would stand to lose everything in very short order. The entire payment card industry (PCI) knows the value of encryption; how is it that these folks can have missed the boat?
You can't talk about encryption and not know that the scope of the conversation encompasses the very foundations of commerce. Corporate and personal information would be free for the taking in a world where secure communication is made ineffective. Passwords transferred and stored without valid encryption are practically worthless and will soon be found and published, as they already are in places where people do not use effective security measures.
Why are people not asking the proponents of these measures how they expect to continue to trust online banking, corporate WANs, DRM and a host of other technologies they rely on to remain stable and powerful, when compromised? Even if they think the master keys are secure in their own govt hands, surely in this polarized political climate they should see the problems inherent in the process of transitioning from one regime to the next. You may not trust the keyholders down the road.
Anyone with an Android phone or a Chromebook is running a Linux-based kernel. Even the poorly-named Windows 10 "Windows Subsystem for Linux" has the GNU toolset, although it's not strictly Linux because it doesn't use the kernel.
Perhaps you mistake my observation of an absurd reality for a call to action. In the current bizarro political climate, I would not suggest attempting such reverse psychology gamesmanship, as you might well get exactly what you are pretending to ask for.
I think the fastest way to get legislators to abandon all attempts to pursue secondary liability would be to lobby wholeheartedly for it, but make sure it also applies to the manufacture and sale of firearms.
Clearly went over your head. The erudite right, everybody.
Elon's spawn
He's a cheeky little diphthong. A diacritical little glyph.
This ain't a boxing ring.
You can't counter a bully raining windmill punches on you by reminding them of the Marquess of Queensberry rules of boxing. The rules by which you define this behaviour as 'lawless' no longer apply. You have handed the power to selectively apply and redefine the rules to the very actors who are breaking the existing ones.
Something rotten
When someone smart enough to know better argues and continues to double down on the patently ridiculous side of an issue so tenaciously, I have to wonder what the real agenda is. The entire rational world warned of the folly of this move, yet it was pushed through at full force without scrutiny or debate. There's gotta be something rotten driving it; it just hasn't surfaced yet. There was absolutely no reason for the govt to score such a huge own goal with no apparent upside, so it intrigues me what could possibly motivate them to do so.
Deja vu all over again
Reminds me of my daughter's experience with her art school textbook back in 2012 https://www.bestnettech.com/2012/09/17/university-requires-students-to-pay-180-art-history-text-that-has-no-photos-due-to-copyright-problems/
Identification
I propose a slight amendment, whereby any such whitelisted political spam is clearly identified as having benefited from this wonderful policy. I will definitely want to route them for special attention.
Albright in West Texas, Gilstrap in East Texas, it's long been a fluid landscape of NPE-friendly jurisdiction shopping.
Dodged a bullet
I came here to say this. Good thing I checked first or you might have sent me a stern letter from West Texas.
What is the problem they are proposing to fix?
Problem definition
I would like a clear definition of the problem they are proposing to fix. How is password sharing "bad" and how will they make changes that fix it without breaking valid usage? The Netflix service my wife and I use provides up to 2 concurrent streams. If we try to stream beyond two connections, access is denied and we must kick off one of the existing connections to continue. If we were to share our login with 20 people, we could still never use more than two sessions at once. Is this a problem? How? Why?How do you identify the unwanted behaviour?
How do you determine a login is being "shared" (exact definition required)? Does it have to do with what devices are using it from which IP addresses? My wife and I can currently use Netflix from any computing device on our home network, any of our mobile devices via WiFi or mobile data, from a hotel or office or coffee shop, or at a friend or relative's house, perhaps while on holiday or business trip abroad. I can think of at least 15 legitimate devices using at least 6 different operating systems and many more source IP addresses across multiple continents that would cover all of these completely reasonable accesses to the service just for the two of us without sharing with anyone.Solution
can a solution - identify offensive behaviour - solve the problem - not break valid and common usage This is assuming I'm convinced that there IS a problem, which I am not; however I would truly like to know if anyone could propose a workable solution that does not ruin the existing perfectly functional and demonstrably profitable experience.What is the problem they are proposing to fix?
Problem definition
I would like a clear definition of the problem they are proposing to fix. How is password sharing "bad" and how will they make changes that fix it without breaking valid usage? The Netflix service my wife and I use provides up to 2 concurrent streams. If we try to stream beyond two connections, access is denied and we must kick off one of the existing connections to continue. If we were to share our login with 20 people, we could still never use more than two sessions at once. Is this a problem? How? Why?Yow do you identify the unwanted behaviour?
How do you determine a login is being "shared" (exact definition required)? Does it have to do with what devices are using it from which IP addresses? My wife and I can currently use Netflix from any computing device on our home network, any of our mobile devices via WiFi or mobile data, from a hotel or office or coffee shop, or at a friend or relative's house, perhaps while on holiday or business trip abroad. I can think of at least 15 legitimate devices using at least 6 different operating systems and many more source IP addresses across multiple continents that would cover all of these completely reasonable accesses to the service just for the two of us without sharing with anyone.Solution
can a solution - identify offensive behaviour - solve the problem - not break valid and common usage This is assuming I'm convinced that there IS a problem, which I am not; however I would truly like to know if anyone could propose a workable solution that does not ruin the existing perfectly functional and demonstrably profitable experience.Re: Re: less offence, more defence
Alas, I fear you are right. The Neville Chamberlain appeasement approach isn't going to draw these folks back to rationality.
less offence, more defence
You can play whack-a-mole targeting sources of misinformation all you want, but it's not going to make a difference until you address the real problem, which is gullibility.
The majority of the population, subjected to the same barrage of misinformation, has not been swept up in it or conned by it, or at the very least affected to a lesser extent. Maybe increased focus on providing skills and tools to help defend against inevitable levels of misinformation will better help those who have limited capacity to resist.
It's tough because those who fall for it don't think they need help, and people who haven't fallen for it aren't motivated to help those that have. Overcoming this will require a surge in collective altruism from the user community, the press, and tech providers.
AITA?
Yes, Excolo Law, you are TA
Variation on a theme
This reminds me of 9 years ago with my daughter's Art History textbook with no images. (see https://www.bestnettech.com/articles/20120917/01060120399/university-requires-students-to-pay-180-art-history-text-that-has-no-photos-due-to-copyright-problems.shtml)
Art and technology by their very nature take a combinative form, building new by adapting and improving elements of old. Copyright, a legal fiction to assign restrictions to the otherwise natural flow and recombination of ideas, is supposed to be meant to promote advancement by giving time-limited ownership as incentive to creators to increase their motivation to share. Instead it is commonly used to inhibit sharing, to impede improvement and innovation, and with ever-increasing terms, to essentially permanently assign ownership.
Copyright reform is long overdue.
Reframe the issue
Imagine a campaign that calls for doing away with end-to-end encryption for banking, healthcare, business VPNs, and Cloud. That's the same end result, and people need to understand that calling for one is equivalent to calling for the other.
Of course the risk would be that somehow this patently ridiculous straw-man notion gains momentum in this bizarro world political climate.
Scope
I'm perplexed that the scope of this encryption debate always seems to be limited to encrypted messages between humans that the govt wants to be able to see, or file and disk encryption used by miscreants on their phones and computers. That's just the bathwater, and it's full of babies whose loss would have much greater impact. Outlawing (or invalidating the efficacy of) encryption is nothing less than the outlawing of secure communication. The entire world's business and financial systems rely on the confidential transfer and storage of information. The very same highly-placed people who press for broken encryption would stand to lose everything in very short order. The entire payment card industry (PCI) knows the value of encryption; how is it that these folks can have missed the boat? You can't talk about encryption and not know that the scope of the conversation encompasses the very foundations of commerce. Corporate and personal information would be free for the taking in a world where secure communication is made ineffective. Passwords transferred and stored without valid encryption are practically worthless and will soon be found and published, as they already are in places where people do not use effective security measures. Why are people not asking the proponents of these measures how they expect to continue to trust online banking, corporate WANs, DRM and a host of other technologies they rely on to remain stable and powerful, when compromised? Even if they think the master keys are secure in their own govt hands, surely in this polarized political climate they should see the problems inherent in the process of transitioning from one regime to the next. You may not trust the keyholders down the road.
Re: Re: When everybody is special, nobody is special
MacOS is not a derivative of Linux. It comes from the BSD side of the Unix family tree.
When everybody is special, nobody is special
Anyone with an Android phone or a Chromebook is running a Linux-based kernel. Even the poorly-named Windows 10 "Windows Subsystem for Linux" has the GNU toolset, although it's not strictly Linux because it doesn't use the kernel.
I guess we're all suspicious hacker types now.
Re: Re: Fulsome support
Perhaps you mistake my observation of an absurd reality for a call to action. In the current bizarro political climate, I would not suggest attempting such reverse psychology gamesmanship, as you might well get exactly what you are pretending to ask for.
Fulsome support
I think the fastest way to get legislators to abandon all attempts to pursue secondary liability would be to lobby wholeheartedly for it, but make sure it also applies to the manufacture and sale of firearms.