One person has posted a guide on how to figure out the not-so-subtle hints that the newspapers are dropping about the identity of the celebrities in question: http://popbitch.com/home/2016/03/31/up-the-injunction/ And then the legal threat they received after posting it: http://popbitch.com/home/2016/04/14/the-letter-of-the-law/
If you strike a parked car at a certain speed, your airbags must go off: that's (approximately) what the law you quoted says. It does not say that the parked car's airbags must deploy.
Sometimes, the right thing to do is root for the bad guy. In this case, the bad guy won, and it's a good thing.
On the other hand, I can't help but feel a little schadenfreude in hoping that this guy's lawsuit gets national coverage and that the whole nation gets to find out what an asshole he is.
IANAL, but the ISP probably has a clause in the Terms of Service saying that they can block or restrict traffic in the name of quality of service. That's not what that clause is generally used for, but I can see them being pretty confident that that clause can shield them in this instance.
HTTPS would only allow the ISP to see that I have opened a connection to https://www.bestnettech.com and not necessarily which page I've downloaded. However, if there are Google ads on BestNetTech, then my browser would form a separate https connection to https://ads.google.com (or whatever).
It's not hard for the ISP to just block content from https://ads.google.com without blocking any content from https://www.bestnettech.com itself.
On the one hand, I think that what they're doing now, in patching the vulnerability, is absolutely the right thing to do. It is their responsibility, as the publisher of the operating system, to ensure the security of the operating system.
However, as the publisher of some of the affected software, I think that it is also their responsibility to supply patches for that software so that it will continue working on the newest version of Windows (especially if they will be patching 7 and Vista to and causing games to stop working on earlier versions of Windows).
They should take the initiative here, and release patches that neuter or remove the DRM. Yes, it's their responsibility to keep their software secure, but it's also their responsibility to not break one piece of software by updating another.
Who knows? If they release free, timely patches and fix the stuff that they broke, perhaps other publishes will follow suit.
In theory, TPMs are a good idea. The TPM stores a digital signature, and verifies that the code that you're running has been signed by that signature. That signed code inspects and loads the operating system, which inspects and loads the other software. In theory, this creates a chain of trusted software, so that, if malware does appear on your machine, you know where to look for it (in any un-signed code), because you know what code is genuine. This can work to secure any operating system.
It only becomes a problem when the manufacturer of the TPM decides that the consumers shouldn't be able to determine what constitutes acceptable software.
If you are not fully satisfied with your disparagement fee at our restaurant, we will charge you an additional disparagement fee starting at but not limited to $100 per person.
As much as I like the idea, I think I'll wait for the second iteration.
Best case scenario, it gives them a chance to prove that they can mass-produce quality merchandise.
Worst case, I miss out on a product that doesn't have a V2, which probably means the company went out of business and the original product is no longer supported.
If they were on the edge of being funded, I might be willing to buy in and help push them over, but this is already 390% funded.
Google already releases the number of government requests that they get.
Can't they say, "We have received 100,000 goverment request, including FISA requests."
And then say, somewhere else, "We have received 50,000 X request, 20,000 Y requests, and 3,000 Z requests. We cannot disclose the number of FISA requests we have received."
That, technically, would not be telling us how many FISA requests they've received, but reading between the lines, the number would look a lot like 27,000.
Last chance?
But, but, but...
I thought it was our last change to get it at this price on May 3!
One person has posted a guide on how to figure out the not-so-subtle hints that the newspapers are dropping about the identity of the celebrities in question:
http://popbitch.com/home/2016/03/31/up-the-injunction/
And then the legal threat they received after posting it:
http://popbitch.com/home/2016/04/14/the-letter-of-the-law/
CO2NCRETE
I can't think of a non-problematic way to pronounce it.
Backup copies?
Has anyone downloaded it yet, so that if they do force him to take it down, it doesn't stay down?
Never fear!
They will only use this capability on people who America hates.
To reassure everyone else, the CIA, NSA, etc. will be merging into a new "Ministry of Love."
I can't wait to see TD's post about this:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/rcmp-blackberry-project-clemenza-global-encryption-key-canada
I already refused to watch Episode VII because of Disney nuking the Expanded Universe.
It doesn't look like I'll have to look fare for reasons to avoid Rogue One.
Disney: If you want my money, you're not doing a particularly good job at motivating me to give it to you..
Re: April Fools!
Nah, they just took it down from their website for 24 hours.
The link should start working again tomorrow:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gullible
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is normal
Exactly. A parked car isn't decelerating.
If you strike a parked car at a certain speed, your airbags must go off: that's (approximately) what the law you quoted says. It does not say that the parked car's airbags must deploy.
Re: Re: This is normal
If the car isn't running, the airbag won't deploy, and OnStar won't be contacted.
If you are in the car, take down the other guy's licence plate number, and make the other guy pay for it though his insurance.
I don't see the issue.
Re: wtf
Can you please translate your nonsense into English?
Time to sue!
I sent them the suggestion that they should reply to all suggestions with legal boilerplate years ago!
Imagine how much money I can make by suing them for using my idea!
Sometimes, the right thing to do is root for the bad guy. In this case, the bad guy won, and it's a good thing.
On the other hand, I can't help but feel a little schadenfreude in hoping that this guy's lawsuit gets national coverage and that the whole nation gets to find out what an asshole he is.
Re: Any Lawyers?
IANAL, but the ISP probably has a clause in the Terms of Service saying that they can block or restrict traffic in the name of quality of service. That's not what that clause is generally used for, but I can see them being pretty confident that that clause can shield them in this instance.
Re: This may be a good thing to happen
Not quite.
HTTPS would only allow the ISP to see that I have opened a connection to https://www.bestnettech.com and not necessarily which page I've downloaded. However, if there are Google ads on BestNetTech, then my browser would form a separate https connection to https://ads.google.com (or whatever).
It's not hard for the ISP to just block content from https://ads.google.com without blocking any content from https://www.bestnettech.com itself.
The responsibility is on Microsoft...
On the one hand, I think that what they're doing now, in patching the vulnerability, is absolutely the right thing to do. It is their responsibility, as the publisher of the operating system, to ensure the security of the operating system.
However, as the publisher of some of the affected software, I think that it is also their responsibility to supply patches for that software so that it will continue working on the newest version of Windows (especially if they will be patching 7 and Vista to and causing games to stop working on earlier versions of Windows).
They should take the initiative here, and release patches that neuter or remove the DRM. Yes, it's their responsibility to keep their software secure, but it's also their responsibility to not break one piece of software by updating another.
Who knows? If they release free, timely patches and fix the stuff that they broke, perhaps other publishes will follow suit.
Re: Re:
In theory, TPMs are a good idea. The TPM stores a digital signature, and verifies that the code that you're running has been signed by that signature. That signed code inspects and loads the operating system, which inspects and loads the other software. In theory, this creates a chain of trusted software, so that, if malware does appear on your machine, you know where to look for it (in any un-signed code), because you know what code is genuine. This can work to secure any operating system.
It only becomes a problem when the manufacturer of the TPM decides that the consumers shouldn't be able to determine what constitutes acceptable software.
Our even fuller satisfaction guarantee:
If you are not fully satisfied with your disparagement fee at our restaurant, we will charge you an additional disparagement fee starting at but not limited to $100 per person.
Waiting for V2
As much as I like the idea, I think I'll wait for the second iteration.
Best case scenario, it gives them a chance to prove that they can mass-produce quality merchandise.
Worst case, I miss out on a product that doesn't have a V2, which probably means the company went out of business and the original product is no longer supported.
If they were on the edge of being funded, I might be willing to buy in and help push them over, but this is already 390% funded.
Can't they work around this?
Google already releases the number of government requests that they get.
Can't they say, "We have received 100,000 goverment request, including FISA requests."
And then say, somewhere else, "We have received 50,000 X request, 20,000 Y requests, and 3,000 Z requests. We cannot disclose the number of FISA requests we have received."
That, technically, would not be telling us how many FISA requests they've received, but reading between the lines, the number would look a lot like 27,000.