* Putting code which will attempt to invade the computer of one or more users, as was done this month on Freedom Hosting, by the FBI or the NSA.
I gotta say, I still don't understand that. Because they put it up indiscriminately on all the sites Freedom Hosting hosted, including all the most definitely not illegal ones (like TorMail), the resulting data they got is totally useless. They couldn't (or maybe that's shouldn't) be able to even use it to get a warrant, because they have no way to prove the IP in question actually was trying to access a site with illegal content (like child porn) instead of something like TorMail. The reality of the situation would be "well Your Honor, we have this IP that might have tried to access a child porn site, but it might not have and we'd like a warrant..." I can't see that flying in even the FISA court.
So either it was incompetence on a grand scale, or someone didn't think things through very well...
I agree she should have seen it, and been aware of it, but my impression of the statement was that the NSA simply hadn't given the full report to the committee. Which would seem to fit their pattern of making sure there's no oversight by not providing any information to the overseers.
I actually kind of hope that's what happened, because it's now making the NSA's more ardent supporters look like total idiots and they're going to get mad at the NSA for causing that. It's a most excellent way for the NSA to lose their supporters in congress.
You could probably manage to fly or take a boat to Canada or Mexico then drive across the border. But that's still not guaranteed (and expensive). It's ridiculous innocent people have to go through that.
I'm pretty sure the system setup they're talking about is an initial connection to link to Xbox live's servers and such. I think the Xbox360 has something similar. While I don't trust Microsoft, even with this about face, I don't think they're talking about a connection every time you add a new game.
In fact they specifically say that trading, buying used and renting games will all work. This implies no activation per game.
What I don't get, does the comcast IP belong to a broadband customer contract vs. an IP you get with a server? Can customer IP's be that static?
I don't know if it's a business or consumer class connection, but Comcast in my area (in Tennessee) practically gives out static IPs to consumer connections. Mine changes maybe twice a year at best, and seems to go along with major maintenance periods so they probably were redoing some network routing anyway when it happens. So it's quite possible it's a consumer connection and has had the same IP for a looooong time with Comcast.
All the idiocy about how the lack of used games will cause price cuts is dumb. There's people who complain about people who use Steam don't buy new games when they're released because they wait for the price cut.
And you can bet that if they succeed in killing the used market and it's no longer there to use as the whipping boy, they'll be turning on Steam and its sales next. Prices won't go down, there will always be some new excuse.
You can always lower the price after release, but you can't increase it.
Sure you can, it's called a sale. You put the new game on sale for a few days to boost sales and get buzz about the title, and it goes back up to regular price afterward. Steam does it all the time with games, admittedly not with new releases usually.
They just don't want that, in their minds selling it for less means less profit. The games industry overall seems to not understand that you can make more money from higher volume. They seem to think it's all higher per-unit profit or nothing at all. At least Valve gets it with Steam, but they're unusual in that regard.
Right, they don't lose value from use, but occasionally lose value from age (although, some might even say they increase in value in other ways).
Some games DO increase in value. If it's a popular game, and new copies are no longer available, it tends to be hard to find even a used copy so the price goes way up.
If you make a good game, it'll have value, even if you stop selling it and the market goes totally to used copies. If your game is crap, it'll end up in the bargain bin unable to sell for even a couple of bucks.
Re: Re: As I've said, police aren't even thugs now, just attack dogs.
Oh, and take this egregious tenuously related dig: I bet EVERY ONE of those savages played violent video games until they could do it in real life. How could violent games possibly lead to any other behavior than savagery?
Once again Blue ignores any evidence contrary to his predetermined beliefs.
Even knowing OOB's history, I took that part of his comment as sarcasm, as in taking a dig at the people (including many cops) who claim that violent video games make people do violent crimes. Basically saying that since the police apparently beat this guy to death they must have been playing violent video games to cause them to do such a horrible thing.
Sadly I wouldn't be surprised to see them try that as an excuse if this ever goes to trial.
Comcast Sports Net should be ashamed of themselves for 1) Not being loyal to an employee and 2) Giving the public a bullshit excuse of their actions and expecting us to believe it. This is disgusting.
Being loyal to your employees went out a looooooong time ago. Nowadays it's all about abusing your employees to make as much money as possible, firing anyone who dares complain (but always done in a way that it can't be proven so the company can't be successfully sued over it) and looking at the short term picture ONLY. Employees are now just so much cattle, there to make the upper management rich. That doesn't excuse the behavior, but it is the norm in the US now.
You're quite correct that it's disgusting. Someday this is all going to come back and bite companies though. Having no loyalty to your employees works both ways, they also have no loyalty to you. At some point in the future it's all going to fall apart when the remaining employees don't care enough to keep the company from failing. But all the current upper management will be long gone with all their money, so they won't care. It's kinda like a Ponzi scheme, only with employment.
I manage a couple of servers, I just checked that site for the IPs of them all, and one server it has listed. But... It's configured to not allow recursion except to a limited set of IP addresses that are other servers specifically allowed to access it for DNS lookup. I just tested it and it is NOT allowing recursion to other addresses, so it's working properly.
Apparently BIND reports that recursion is enabled, even if it's not available for the IP address doing the check. So how many of those servers are like mine, allowing recursive lookups for only specific IPs and not doing recursion to the Internet at large? Those servers aren't part of the problem.
The site seems to recognize this but not explicitly, only saying that of the 27 million servers they list, only roughly 25 million post a threat. If they want the owners of servers to fix things, they need to provide more information than they have available. Hopefully this is just a hurried attempt to get the site up and they'll be adding more info. Otherwise I suspect it's going to be useless in the goal of reducing the number of open resolvers.
The problem is that the "carrot" is exclusively decided by the prosecutor, the same person applying the "stick". As we saw in the Aaron Swartz case, this may not have anything to do with fairness. What if the carrot here is plea-bargaining to a minimum of 20 years in prison and Brown hasn't agreed yet because he thinks that's extreme? (Even if Brown did everything he's accused of I'd consider that extreme myself.)
The problem is that prosecutors, by deciding both the carrot and the stick, and piling on more and more charges, are becoming judge, jury and executioner. They're deciding who gets punished and for how long. And they seem to have no sense of fairness what-so-ever, so the system is falling apart completely.
Brown's probably guilty of quite a bit of stuff, but if the prosecutor feels the need to pile on charges past 90 years worth of prison time, then the "carrot" he's determined Brown should plead to is probably too extreme. And that's wrong, punishment should be commensurate to the crime, no matter what the crime is.
OxyContin's supposed to be an extended time release formula, over 12 hours. What has happened is that addicts crush the drug up and take it all at once to get one major dose of the drug, instead of a dribble of medicine over 12 hours. So done properly (the body still dissolves it gradually) it wouldn't have any effect on people taking it properly, but would make it harder for addicts to get their fix.
So basically he was known to have mental health problems and the prosecutor knew this (or should have known if she'd done her job and research) and still pushed him as hard as possible (threatening jail terms most murderers don't see)? This makes what she did better somehow? To me it makes it worse.
Accountability takes different forms than just being charged with a crime. In this case the prosecutor (and her assistants if they went along all gung-ho) can be held accountable by losing their jobs. If they're doing their jobs poorly, they should be losing them in the first place, and if they're driving people to suicide, they most definitely aren't doing them properly.
Of course for that to work they'd have to lose their jobs and also never be considered for such a high level position in the future. But that's part of the responsibility that comes with such positions: if you fuck up royally and ruin lives, your life/career may be ruined as well. People taking such positions know (or damn well should know) this is the case, so they have no room to complain when it happens.
So basically they need to be "charged" with "doing a totally horrible job" and the remedy is losing that job.
They also claim they didn't mention the June 2010 warrant, but they did
Another little bit of misdirection is this:
Similarly unfounded is the allegation by Megaupload that the government "planted Megaupload's alleged knowledge of infringing files" and misled the Court. Megaupload Supp. Br. 11-12. Megaupload claims that the government inserted a misleading "snippet" into "each relevant affidavit," id. at 2, and that the "snippet" misinformed the Court by highlighting Megaupload's failure to remove content deemed infringing in the June 24, 2010 warrant. To the contrary, no such "snippet" appears anywhere in the primary search warrant at issue in Mr. Goodwin's motion. That warrant, the search warrant executed at Carpathia Hosting in January 2012 (Case No. 1:12 SW 41), does not even mention the June 24, 2010 search warrant.
Which may be technically true (I can't find a copy of SW 41 online), but if you look at the redacted search warrant to GoDaddy to seize the domains names (SW 34, available here) you'll see this:
17. On or about June 24, 2010, members of the Mega Conspiracy were informed, pusuant to a criminal search warrant from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, that thirty-nine infringing copies of copyrighted motion pictures were present on their leased servers at Carpathia Hosting, a hosting company headquarted in the Eastern District of Virginia. A member of the Mega Conspiracy informed several of his co-conspirators at that time that he located the named files using internal searches of the Mega Conspiracy's systems. As of November 18 2011, thirty-six of the thirty-nine infringing copies of copyrighted motion pictures were still being stored on servers controlled by the Mega Conspiracy.
So maybe they didn't mention it in that particular warrant but they mentioned it and relied on it in seizing other stuff, so pretending they didn't rely on the June 2010 warrant for their case is highly misleading.