It really depends on the terms of the deal (and their deal with Cogent). Let's assume Netflix is paying Comcast the same price / Mbps as they're paying Cogent. Let's also assume Netflix can easily scale up and down the bandwidth they're purchasing from Cogent and Comcast. Because each byte sent directly through Comcast to a Comcast subscriber is a byte that doesn't need to transit through Cogent, that allows Netflix to offset any additional costs from Comcast by a proportional decrease in costs from Cogent. Ditto if Verizon and other ISPs start hopping on. All that's happening is that
These assumptions may obviously not be true. Netflix may be paying Comcast a higher per unit price than Cogent. And I'm sure there are plenty of fixed costs and overhead involved with dealing with more ISPs, rather than just one. But it's theoretically possible at least for these deals to be structured in a way that has a negligible impact on Netflix's bottom line.
"The MPAA then contacted Homeland Security, which oversees movie theft."
Here's the bigger issue -- why is HOMELAND SECURITY overseeing movie theft?
I kind of get that ICE is under DHS, and ICE deals with customs which occasionally deals with bootleg DVDs going through customs. But seriously, unless this movie theater was in an airport or something, this is absurd.
If you ask the British, Ben Franklin WAS a traitor. He betrayed his old country in the interests of his new country. It may very well have been justified, but what he did was literally treason.
The end game for Ben Franklin was a revolutionary war. Let's hope it never comes to that. Inane quotes about revolution and liberty aside, war sucks. Violence sucks. And the batting average for successful (violent) revolutions is terrible as of late.
Under U.S. law, if there's a conflict, speech wins. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The Civil Rights Act (or equivalent statute in this case) is what protects the right of a person to equal service. The First Amendment is a constitutional provision and therefore trumps the Civil Rights Act, which is a mere statute.
It's why "hate crimes" are generally punishable in the U.S. but "hate speech" is not.
You're correct if I agree to take a photo of a car and then later take a photo of a house, that's a breach of correct. But you can't force me to agree to that contract in the first place. Were it otherwise, you could pass a law forcing wedding photographers to take pictures of boats.
Yes, but it only needs to go one-way for the argument to work. If you want to maintain anonymity, you cannot adopt certain security measures like analyzing each packet going in and out of your network. Without adopting those measures, you may be at greater risk of having private information accessed by third parties. That's the point being made by Art Coviello. If the right to anonymity trumps security, then other private information is at risk. Security analysis may be questionable, but the logical chain is fine.
To act as devil's advocate (or advocate) to the point made in my own post, the concern would be that excessive security measures ultimately decrease security (and privacy). If we're using backdoors or analysis of centralized repositories of user data to detect attacks, not only are we hurting anonymity but we're making our network less secure (and private) as well.
Again, I don't entirely agree with his line of thinking, but it's not about "real names". Suppose, as a matter of network security, you were analyzing packets entering or leaving your network and comparing them against historical records of network data. This would enable you to detect security anomalies but also raises privacy concerns.
By way of analogy, it's sort of like saying, "I want to be able to access my grandma's e-mail to make sure she didn't reply to some identity theft scam." The goal isn't to find real names, but to detect unusual behavior. Creepy and paternalistic? Yes. But not about real names per se.
How Coviello arrives at the conclusion that anonymity is damaging privacy isn't exactly clear. It may be the enemy to security (or at least, unhelpful to retributive actions), but the online anonymity shielding crooks doesn't threaten users' privacy, at least not directly.
I don't entirely agree with him, but the point he's trying to make is pretty straight-forward actually: Anonymity decreases security. Without security, criminals (or the NSA) can break in and access your private information. That's bad for privacy.
This sort of belies Snowden's claims that he carefully vetted materials going out to journalists for things for things that might affect national security. The rationale for Snowden doing public was that the U.S. was conducting illegal surveillance on its own citizens (something that violates the NSA's mandate and raises 4th Amendment issues).
In contrast, spying on the French or the Germans may be a bad idea, but it's not illegal or unconstitutional. It's part of the NSA's job to spy on foreign leaders (even our allies). It's one thing to whistleblow on illegal behavior. It's another to release classified information because you have a policy disagreement.