The excuse for piracy is that WiFi is easily hacked. So "secure" or "open" doesn't mean anything by that standard. Clearly, his wifi could have been hacked and used as a seed point for torrents while he was out of the country.
If you had actually read the post or watched the video, you would have seen that his router did not have wifi built in to it, and thus wifi was not an issue. While it was possible that someone could have accessed his wifi, it would have shown up on his router statistics, which it didn't. The nightmare scenario would have to be, after obtaining illicit access to the wifi and seeding their torrents, they somehow broke into the router and deleted only the traffic from their seeds while allowing the rest of the traffic to remain accounted for. In my experience, hackers don't do this. They either break in to the router and delete everything, including their traces, or they don't delete anything. Most "wifi pirates" don't do anything, because it is hard enough to find them anyway.
Even more, if the hacker had broken into the wifi to seed their torrents, he would have seen the results when he disconnected his connection to the cable modem and connected to the cell network, which he didn't.
And another question.. why the heck is comcast TYPING mac addresses into any system?!?!?!? I'm guessing the failure rate on accuracy is pretty high here.
I believe that is part of the provisioning process. They have a bunch of devices that are connected to their network that have not been provisioned, so when the user calls up to add a device, they get the MAC address from the user and then search their database of unprovisioned devices and match the found unprovisioned device to the user's account.
However, if they input the incorrect MAC address, the provisioning process should fail because the wrong modem will be activated. Thus the user doesn't get internet because the wrong device is provisioned. A good programmer would detect that this MAC address doesn't exist in the pool and yell at the tech, but so far Comcast hasn't convinced me that they have good programmers. What would be scary here is if the wrong device is somehow linked to their account, so I could call in, have the wrong MAC address, and have someone else's modem accidentally linked to my account. Maybe after discovering my modem still wasn't working, called the tech and they added the correct MAC address to my account so now I have both modems linked to my account.
That is what I suspect happened here was that, somehow during the process of provisioning the modem, one user's modem was added to another user's account during the provisioning process. I wouldn't be surprised if *that* happened more often than it is reported.
The fact that he even got any internet response - remember that the MAC is embedded into every TCP/IP packet - tells me that Comcast is trying to avoid responsibility.
The MAC address is found in the Ethernet/DOCSIS Frame. It isn't found in the TCP/IP packet. However, you are correct, most head-end routers are configured not to provide an DHCP address to the modem unless the modem's MAC address is provisioned. Theoretically, there shouldn't be two identical MAC addresses on the network, and thus one of the two should be forced offline at any particular time. However, DOCSIS does things a little differently than Ethernet. Its been a while since I've played with DOCSIS, but I guess if two modems had the same MAC address, they could theoretically exist on two separate head-end routers and be given different IP addresses and still have the system work.
In this case, however, it looks like both devices were provisioned properly using their own, non-identical MAC addresses, and then the accounting system was set up incorrectly to add both addresses to a single account, probably by linking the other person's connection to his account via an improperly entered MAC address, which seems to be a horrible primary key for a database (since it changes each time he gets a new modem.)
It would be interesting to see they finally get regulated as utilities. How much does a Gb cost to be transferred. I don't think it's 'fair' though, most of us would agree that we don't want to pay for bw used by advertising, telemetry and other annoyances.
Yeah, this is where they would fail...it costs much less than what they currently charge to transfer data. Though I suspect they'd just increase the "ready to serve" costs to match what they are currently taking as profit, like all the other utilities do.
Does it really cost $60 a month in infrastructure costs to deliver water to me? Maybe. But considering we keep having busted pipes around here, I doubt they are spending $60/month to actually maintain the infrastructure.
As much as I hate it, the Cox.com usage meter is surprisingly accurate, though it isn't current. They seem to update once a day, which means you won't see the current usage until tomorrow (which may be too late.) But they don't charge you extra, and don't cut your connection, just send you a nasty-gram. According to my router, I've used 605.40 GB for the month, and their website says I've used 605.61 GB (that is a difference of 215.04 MB in their favor, maybe traffic that reached the head-end but never got to my router. With a 2TB cap, I rarely get close to it, though back when my cap was 350GB, I'd regularly go over it and would see the emails.)
Still, I've had as much difficulty with folks reading my water and power meters (I caught my power company estimating my bill (which I never asked for, and they only did before installing smart meters because my meter was in a "difficult place to safely get access to" long after they installed "smart-meters" which could give a minute by minute accounting of my power without sending out a meter reader,) so I am not sure that if Cox was held to a higher standard, they would have issues.
Still, being charged for someone elses' traffic seems like something they would have caught quickly if they were regulated properly, if they could get that (I doubt we currently get good regulation with other utilities which often have to get noticed by the media to fix too.)
You (Sanders) and your neighbor (Clinton) live in a duplex that shares a front door to an antechamber that houses the doors to both of your abodes. You find that the front door lock is broken, so you test the front doors to your and your neighbors house in order to assess the extent to which everyone's security has been compromised. You find that the locks on all 3 doors are broken, so you report it to your landlord (Schultz).
And then your landlord gets pissed at you, locks you into your house, and throws away the key.
Absolutely. Though I am not sure that the landlord was even notified in this case (none of the articles I've read have indicated that Sanders' team has notified the DNC about the flaw, but that may just be bad reporting, since they were made aware of it somehow.)
Uretsky told CNN Friday morning that he and others on the campaign discovered the software glitch Wednesday morning and probed the system to discover the extent of their own data’s exposure. He said there was no attempt to take Clinton information but said he took responsibility for the situation.
“We investigated it for a short period of time to see the scope of the Sanders campaign’s exposure and then the breach was shut down presumably by the vendor,” he told CNN. “We did not gain any material benefit.”
Weaver said the Sanders campaign never downloaded or printed any of the data, meaning it is no longer in possession of any proprietary information. He squarely blamed NGP VAN for the glitch — and blamed the DNC for hiring the company.
It sounds like they discovered it, probed it to find out what was broken/how much access they had, but were cut off before they could do much.
Stu Trevelyan, the chief executive of NGP-VAN, told the Guardian: “The security and privacy of our customers’ data is our top priority. This was an isolated incident where as the result of a software patch, for a brief window, the voter data that is searchable across campaigns in VoteBuilder included specific data points it should not have, on a specific part of the system.”
I really despise it when companies are allowed to say this with impunity. If the security and privacy of your customers' data was your top priority, why did you allow anyone with access to the system to access the data without protections in place?
I also can't stand the "front door is unlocked, someone goes in and helps themselves" mantra either... It is always used to beat up security researchers too...we discover a flaw, and immediately someone (usually the company who hasn't even done due diligence,) throws out this trope. While in this case, it is far more apropos since the staffer accessed data he shouldn't have, it shouldn't be used to assassinate the messenger just because they found you exposed.
People, fix your shit. Stop blaming everyone else for your lack of security.
National trade and immigration embargoes are vastly different from embargoes based on religious tests.
Don't agree *at all* with GP, but that has happened too...I seem to recall that Irish Catholics were turned away during the 1820-1850 time period. The so-called quota system for American immigration was caused by the sudden influx of Irish Catholics immigrating to the US who were different from the existing, mostly Protestant communities.
Maybe not as direct, but I believe similar discussions were made by the Know-Nothing movement in the 1850s. Then again, history isn't my strong suit.
By thst I presume that you mean that the original inhabitants of North America were scared of the immigrant europeans.
I believe he was talking about the racism and anti-immigrant hysteria of the Irish, French, Chinese and Japanese immigrant/racism that occurred before and during the early years of the founding of the United States, i.e. the Alien and Sedition Act, the "China Town" and anti-asian sentiments.
Will the surveillance include knowing who buys guns ?
They bought them legally in California. The California Department of Justice already knew who bought the guns, when they bought them, how much they paid for them, and who they bought them from, and that they complied with the mandatory 10-day waiting period before picking them up. They also know that the purchaser had completed and passed the mandatory gun safety test required to purchase a gun in California.
Knowing who buys guns didn't really help much in this case.
Further, and let's be fair here, what are the chances of someone receiving three totally invalid DMCA notices if they are not file sharing? Users do have to accept at least some responsibility for their own actions here.
Says someone who apparently has never had a guest on their wireless network.
I can receive three DMCA notices and not be responsible for any file sharing. How can I be responsible for actions that I am not committing. It is an accusation made to the person who pays the bill for the connection, not to the person who may or may not be infringing. Prenda et al used to rely on that to get their trolling operations going.
But, as someone who has never received a DMCA notice, I am not sure what I would do if I did. I suspect I'd look at it, consult a lawyer, and then respond accordingly, but I am sure a lot of people would see it for what it really is, junk mail from a "legal" scam artist given the fact that many of them are junk (DMCA from someone who doesn't own what they are DMCA'ing, DMCA for something that isn't infringing, DMCA to suppress 1st Amendment, DMCA to wrong person, DMCA for items made available by a legal/non-infringing entity.)
Here in the USA, it's a high crime to rip a DVD but perfectly legal to rip a CD
It is only illegal to rip a DVD if you bypass the CSS "copy-protection" scheme (in quotes because it does neither of those things...you can create a perfect copy of the DVD without breaking CSS, and it is marginally better protection than leaving the DVD out on the sidewalk with a sign that says "please don't copy this.") Otherwise, you can rip a DVD without issue. There are quite a few companies that release titles without Digital Restrictions Management (or, as the IP-Maximalists call it, Digital Rights Management, which is just stupid...no rights are respected, only restrictions to those rights which already exist by nature/technology/culture) now. The DMCA is illogical, period, but its application here is entirely logical...you can rip whatever doesn't use encryption to prevent you from ripping.
After cutting cable 9 years ago I just signed up again this past week. This is due to it being cheaper to get cable with internet than just internet.
Does this include the cost of "fees"? My cable bill dropped by a significant amount when I cut TV out, despite the bundling, mainly because of the additional "Franchise Fee", "Universal Access Fee" and "Service Fee" that got tacked on to my cable TV bill. My internet bill is $99, with no fees, and bundled with cable TV it was closer to $150 despite the "$10 off for bundling."
Yup, it's the law. It has nothing to do with kidnapping, human trafficking, blackmail, paying down "debts" related to illegal immigration, or needing a way--any way--to support a drug habit
Ahem...most of us who work for a living in a legitimate job or industry (though I'd certainly argue that prostitution should be considered a legitimate industry if done correctly,) could be doing the same. Ask anyone standing near a Home Depot looking for a job, or ask the many people working under the table in construction, agriculture, and domestic services industries where their money is going, and I suspect you'll find they are doing the same.
Hell, I am using my paycheck to pay off my debts too. What's to say that one or more of these debts may be illegal too (though they certainly weren't when I took them on,) just because some politician somewhere felt that they should get more of the pie in order to make the system more fair for others?
I get it, let's make working illegal, and send everyone to jail because someone somewhere may be using their paycheck to do something illegal.
This income was partly used to digitise the collection, which is only 1/3 of the way through - leaving 200 000 pictures unavailable to the public domain until they can figure out a new way to pay for it.
It doesn't sound like any of it was in the public domain to begin with if they are charging people for reproduction rights on the photographs of the public domain works.
What I really don't understand about this is why NPG doesn't view this for what it is...advertising. Put the pictures up on wikipedia themselves, with attribution and a free/open license (or public domain,) and it serves as great advertising for folks visiting Germany to stop by and see the real thing in person. Of course, the real reason is that they make way too much mad-money using an unethical loophole in the copyright process to re-lock-up public domain works, but I suspect the museum probably has a big sign everywhere outlawing pictures of the works too.
Gotta lock up that culture, for the sake of everyone, so nobody gets to look at it without paying the toll (troll).
Connections was brilliant, and it's still fun to watch the delivery of the material
I still wish they would play Connections (the first season,) as mandatory material for budding IP Maximalists...and anyone who trots out the line "Why build on someone elses' stuff, build your own new concept/idea" should have Connections beamed into their head 24/7/365 until they understand that there are no new concepts/ideas, and everything in the world is built on stuff that came before it.
Kinda reminds me of the short-lived X-Files spin-off (lot of hyphens there...) The Lone Gunmen.
Sad that show only aired thirteen episodes and was cancelled after one season. At least they aired all thirteen of them before killing the show, unlike another awesome show that only had 13 episodes before it was killed, two years later.
Fox, where good shows are killed off in their infancy or left on way too long after they stopped being watchable, ahem, Simpsons, X-Files. (Though Simpsons does still have some watchability.)
I know at least one person who swore never to use Hulu again who resubscribed because they introduced this feature (though to be fair his problem was technical issues with the ad streaming, no opposition to their existence). I wonder how many more people have been considering a switch now that the majority of shows won't have ads if you pay $5/month more.
I had technical issues with them that caused me to drop supporting them too...even though I appreciated the fact that I was paying to watch advertisements on my set top box when folks who were going to Hulu via a web-browser on a computer were seeing the same advertisements for free.
My issue was that they wouldn't support any device older than a year old. My two year old LG Blu-Ray player stopped working with Hulu, and their technical support spent six months using me as a guinea pig (while I paid for the privilege) to figure out why their system wasn't working.
When my year old set-top box started to see the same issues, I could no longer use their service, and told them to stop charging me. Haven't been back (except maybe once or twice via a computer.) Won't come back until they can show that they fixed their technical support issues. In their defense, they did offer me a couple refunds for months in which I could not use their service because of technical issues, but the number of refunds was less than the amount of money I spent with no service.
I'm surprised they hadn't obtained the different variations of their name before. Domains are so cheap, you can afford 100$/year to buy the .com's .org's et all.
Maybe they would actually like to spend that money helping others, not having to be stupid and waste the money on building up huge portfolios of misspelled and potentially-fraudulent-sounding domain names? The EFF does good work. Why do you want to saddle them with huge debts just to make the domain name industry a little more money?