I was thinking the same, but for different reasons.
I don't know much about British law, but Techdirt has published several stories about parallel construction. It sounds like GCHQ might have been doing the same thing. It casts doubt over any court cases involving Lulsec and Anonymous.
I wonder, if The UK have the same problem with most cases ending with the defendant pleading guilty. Here in the US they'll have nice men with badges and guns take family members of the defendant out of work and ask them to call him or her. The threat being that since they also benefited from the alleged crime that they'll be charged as well. Unless, of course, the defendant agrees to immediately plead guilty to the judge that they have waiting down at the courthouse.
The problem is that DRM requires native code execution. So you're replacing one plugin with another. Given the way the media companies operate it will probably require root/administrator privileges too. It's a security nightmare waiting to happen.
The NSA also loves Yahoo for just that reason. At the same presentation where Jacob Applebaum talked about the NSA's bios and hardware hacking the slides specifically singled out Yahoo quite a few times. Probably because it's a site with poor security that many non techies use.
Re: Re: Wrong AC @ #1: Next step, MORE surveillance.
You'd be surprised what the government could get away with. Even if you ignore the blackmail potential that the NSA's data provides, they could: a) fine the company a bajillion dollars b) have the SEC crack down on the company c) just arrest the poor low level guy who told them no
While I agree that some companies have been voluntarily working with the NSA, many don't have a choice.
Like people even know what the candidates stand for
Have you tried to research who you're voting for?
Where I am the only third party that I can find that even mentions the candidates is my local newspaper, and there online site is paywalled. So if I miss picking up the issue that focuses on the candidates I'm SOL. Worse, they only talk about the Democrat and Republican candidate. Third parties are barely mentioned. I've tried the candidates websites. When they even existed almost all of them were useless.
I understand why many people don't vote. Despite what politicians want people to believe, an uninformed vote is worse than no vote at all. Combine this with the way that election districts work for house members and it's no wonder we get people like this in office.
I really with the US had some sort of percentage representation in the house. Kind of like how most civilized countries handle it.
While I tend to agree, don't forget the hipocracy that's going on here.
These are the same police that charged others as well. Most of these offenses would result in firing from any other job. Hell, in some cases they did result in an officer getting fired, but the LA Sheriff hired them back into the police force.
Everyone should be held to the same standard and treated the same. If anything people who have the power to violate someone's rights should be held to a higher standard.
Re: Re: Forcing you to accept TOS to use a product should be illegal
I agree completely. Unfortunately, the Sony PS3 case shows that the courts do not.
The PS3 MUST receive firmware updates to play new games. Every firmware update requires the end user to accept the new EULA. If they do not, then the console is useless. They can not even downgrade to the original firmware.
Worse, this new firmware can remove features. This was the big thing when Sony removed the ability to run Linux on the PS3. The courts found that there's nothing wrong with any of this. You can't even get your money back.
I can see one of two things happening when the contractor's lawyers hear about this. They could fix the issue, or they could laugh in the face of the software devs.
If they try the second then they're just begging to be sued for several hundred million cases of infringement. With a statutory max of $150,000/infringement. You're talking the entire national debt right there. If you're talking minimum that's still at least $75 billion.
Hua wei, Cisco, HP, and other manufacturers are a good jumping off point for the NSA to hack other networks. Something the US specifically authorizes them to do. Plus, Huawei has so many bugs that their OS is a giant backdoor.
The thing everyone has a problem with is the over reach of the NSA. Targeted attacks, even to third parties, to obtain specific intel aren't really something that most people worry about here in the US. It's making sure that there's a proper legal channel to get a warrant through an adversarial proceeding that annoys me personally.
You have a good point, but there are problems with HSMs.
First, they're expensive. A good HSM easily can run into the hundred thousand dollar range. Second, you can only have one server terminating all SSL connections. Since the HSM wont let anyone get the key, then the server with the HSM must be able to handle everyone. Then there's the downtime that occurs if the server or HSM ever breaks. They'd need to get a whole new Cert issued.
The big reason why companies don't use Hardware Security Modules to store their SSL keys is the way that HSMs work. In order to make sure the keys never leave the HSM, the HSM itself decrypts all the data. Something that just isn't feasible when dealing with multiple SSL connections.
Look at some of the other techdirt articles. Brazil is depating legislation which will require internet companies to keep all their data in Brazil. If every country did this then every internet company will have to have hundreds of data centers. This also lets the government more easily censor the internet.