Look, I get the whole "way out of line" point of the article, but I'm going to be the one who sides on "justice" in this case: it could have been worse.
In fact, had Keys been given the chance to turn over credentials of a higher power within the organization, would he have?
The realization this was only "graffiti" is noted, but he deserves much more than 2 years in prison.
He gave away credentials to a network with the sole intention of watching someone else perform the abuse.
No offense, but I can't imagine anyone at Techdirt would be "Oh, it's okay Tim, we fully understand you gave away credentials as a joke to see what someone would do to our site" with a laugh and a hug.
They'd be pissed. So would readers, when it's discovered why the site suddenly turned all TMZ (or worse!) on them.
Keys admitted he turned over the credentials to Anonymous.
Guilty. 10 years. Minimum.
Because in this day and age, he did commit fraud and abuse via computer.
Be thankful it was only for the website.
What about the next person who gives credentials to Anonymous for banking info? Let them off with a hug too?
Damn it. How many times must I say this: The FCC does not and can not protect consumers from broadband pricing. The FCC can only regulate the industry infrastructure.
This being said, what's more important is this: To protect consumers from unfair pricing (gouging, fixing) is the sole responsibility of the FTC, which can and does levy fines against industries for worst consumer practices.
While the letters are very similar, the departments are very different.
Even if the bill should become law, the FCC really has no authority anyway, so this bill is pointless to protect ISP business.
Now, if only the damn FTC would get off its fat, lazy ass can the industry be slapped with enough fines as to stop harassing customer wallets, then things may change.
Until then, all this is nothing but pointless rhetoric from both sides. The FTC reclassifies, and nothing changes.
If Apple wants to know how the FBI cracked its phones, it's not hard to figure out. Just follow the same trail the FBI did.
First, hit up the Chinese government and offer them buckets of cash to gain access to Chinese businesses.
Second, head over to Foxconn, with official documentation.
Third, watch closely as Foxconn details how it can manipulate the components it sends to the US in its phones (note: this applies to all Foxconn phones).
Fourth, lie to everyone about how it was done.
It's no secret the Chinese have had backdoors to our electronic devices for decades. Several chip makers have pressured the US government to stop importing their (govt system) chips because it was impossible to determine how the backdoors were implemented.
So why did cable have a better-than-usual fourth quarter? Charter, Time Warner Cable and Comcast have all been deploying faster speeds and new cable set top boxes, which appear to be luring back some customers that had previously fled to satellite and telcoTV alternatives. I'm not buying this for one second.
The only reason growth restored is the oligopoly rule which states "If you want our top of the line service, you'll have to get a bundle. It's not available as a stand alone product."
AT&T has a 72Mbps connection in its U-Verse lineup. However, if you want only this, you can't get it. It's only available to (qualified customers) and with AT&Ts bundle of cable (phone optional, not required).
The biggest insult comes in the form of the generous 20% discount you can receive off your monthly cable bill if you also switch to AT&T's wireless plan.
In short: give them all your money, and watch as the company throttles the crap out of your high speed "choice".
For the most part, Techdirt has been up front with alerting its readers the site requires disabling AdBlock, leaving the choice to the user.
It's been working, though I can see this being tedious to include in every article, especially since the issue is growing.
A suggestion: atop the page, denote links coded in red point to sites demanding ad blocking be disabled. In addition, add tooltips/jQuery popup to alert the same.
This way, authors don't have to worry about adding the disclaimer in each and every time.
Personally, I wouldn't link to them at all nor would I mention the site by name. If information came from the NYT then I'd write it as: "A source from a major news publication published an editorial on..."
Because if they're going to treat their readers like this, then they're effectively treating everyone like this, and all for the lousy price of $0.0001 per read.
Hardly worth the price of admission and if more sites stand up to stop linking to these sites even if such content doesn't require removing adblock, then that's going to drive the point even faster.
Conde Nast needs to be taught a lesson and perhaps this is the best way to show value isn't something companies control.
Vote: no links to any site that demands ad block be removed even if said content isn't blocked.
Of the millions of CenturyLink High-Speed Internet customers, a very small fraction has exceeded the download usage limits provided with their monthly plan. It is for this reason that CenturyLink has made the decision to place download limits on residential plans.
We threw the baby out with the bathwater because someone peed in your neighbor's pool.
It’s pretty egregious for a corporation to try to bully a news organization into deep-sixing comments from its own readers. I laughed at this, literally. Not to say Gawker takes part in what I'm about to do, but my Magic Internet Pencil™ has to be used:
It’s pretty egregious for a news corporation to try to bully a news organization into deep-sixing comments from its own readers. All I did was add one word, and damn, how perfect it fits other articles by Techdirt where news sites are trashing their own comments.
Yeah. Nothing says customer appreciation like Apple's "You're $700 phone is now a piece of shit because we think you had it repaired at a service center where we don't get a cut." response to affected phones.