Breaking the key apart is "security through obfuscation". Breaking it into more parts increases the level of obfuscation, but anything that relies on "security through obfuscation", no matter the level of obscurity, it can be reversed engineered.
"It could mean they are choosing their battles carefully and efficiently as they should be."
When their weapons for battle are overly broad, punitive, and numerous (double-jeopardy) laws, then they can efficiently "administer justice" by the letter of the law (but rarely the spirit).
"...consumers can choose not to use Google or Facebook"
I disagree. While we can explicitly not use their "direct" services, like going to Facebook.com, it's harder to not use their "indirect" services where many 3rd-party websites implement their code (ads, Google Analytics, FB Comments, etc).
They could go the same way that they have with currencies. Ask manufactures of cameras to voluntary adhere to the EURion Constellation and have the software blur the ballot. Of course, I would be annoyed by this as a consumer, but it solves the issue of impeding on free speech because it becomes an issue between the user and the company selling the camera.
This clerical error could have easily been avoided with basic workflow technology where all parties to a case can see the current status of motions and rulings. Newegg would have been able to see that there was an order staying the case and could have made contact asking why and it would have been resolved right then-and-there.
"Powerful corporate interests, like Pandora, are determined to stand in the way of meaningful music licensing reform so that they may continue to shortchange songwriters." --- ASCAP CEO Beth Matthews response (found on their website)
Interesting that she's playing the "powerful corporate" card against Pandora... I guess I was wrong about the (weak!?) music labels being the ones that "shortchange songwriters"...
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 5A: Knowingly causes the transmission of a [...] command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
I would like a prosecutor to get them for a CFAA violation, because we all know how it can be applied broadly... I would argue that the servers they sent their commands to were protected computers (need user account), they subsequently caused damage to the data (false reports), and all of that was unauthorized (Waze terms of service).
Would the proposed Title II classification of ISPs and wireless networks apply to universities? I can see an argument both ways since they are not an ISP per se, but they build a network on their campus and offer that access for a fee (usually covered by student fees). If so, would blocking apps then become illegal under the newly proposed rules?
The disclaimer on the 'Raiders' remake states: "Note: This posting is for educational purposes only".
But the purpose of the website is to sell you merchandise. The website is even titled "A one-of-a-kind marketplace from Steven Soderbergh". It says this a few lines above the 'educational' disclaimer.
I would argue that the post is not 'educational', but rather a marketing ploy to get people into his commerce website (landing page).
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Brian Landblom.
"The lowest percentage of "yes" vote was Woodland Park in Teller County with 55 percent."
That's probably because of a small, local ISP that services the area offering gigabit speeds.
"Had the data been transmitted in an encrypted format the data stream would be of no evidentiary value as it could not be analyzed."
Does this suggest that the NIT they used required this data to be transmitted in the open so that they could intercept it at another point?
Re: Better Idea
Breaking the key apart is "security through obfuscation". Breaking it into more parts increases the level of obfuscation, but anything that relies on "security through obfuscation", no matter the level of obscurity, it can be reversed engineered.
Re: need or want (repost)
I work from home as software developer. My internet access is completely necessary so I would be unable to boycott without missing work.
Try to think outside of your own viewpoint and realize that something that may be true for you is not true for someone else!
Re:
"It could mean they are choosing their battles carefully and efficiently as they should be."
When their weapons for battle are overly broad, punitive, and numerous (double-jeopardy) laws, then they can efficiently "administer justice" by the letter of the law (but rarely the spirit).
"...consumers can choose not to use Google or Facebook"
I disagree. While we can explicitly not use their "direct" services, like going to Facebook.com, it's harder to not use their "indirect" services where many 3rd-party websites implement their code (ads, Google Analytics, FB Comments, etc).
Anyone find it odd that Comcast is not rolling out it's "fairness" program in any Colorado locations? /s
Re:
Call center employees are not the brightest. My guess is they believe what they are reading.
"[..] loads the page via the hotspot, then make three edits [..]"
Maybe website owners should go after the ISPs for copyright violations.
They could go the same way that they have with currencies. Ask manufactures of cameras to voluntary adhere to the EURion Constellation and have the software blur the ballot. Of course, I would be annoyed by this as a consumer, but it solves the issue of impeding on free speech because it becomes an issue between the user and the company selling the camera.
This clerical error could have easily been avoided with basic workflow technology where all parties to a case can see the current status of motions and rulings. Newegg would have been able to see that there was an order staying the case and could have made contact asking why and it would have been resolved right then-and-there.
What if Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc setup "profile canaries" for each user. That way, each user can see if the government is snooping around.
"Powerful corporate interests, like Pandora, are determined to stand in the way of meaningful music licensing reform so that they may continue to shortchange songwriters." --- ASCAP CEO Beth Matthews response (found on their website)
Interesting that she's playing the "powerful corporate" card against Pandora... I guess I was wrong about the (weak!?) music labels being the ones that "shortchange songwriters"...
At least she left loop holes for national security and the police...
Should an engineer who designs a gun be put in prison because he knows that sometimes it will be used for criminal activity?
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 5A: Knowingly causes the transmission of a [...] command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
I would like a prosecutor to get them for a CFAA violation, because we all know how it can be applied broadly... I would argue that the servers they sent their commands to were protected computers (need user account), they subsequently caused damage to the data (false reports), and all of that was unauthorized (Waze terms of service).
Would the proposed Title II classification of ISPs and wireless networks apply to universities? I can see an argument both ways since they are not an ISP per se, but they build a network on their campus and offer that access for a fee (usually covered by student fees). If so, would blocking apps then become illegal under the newly proposed rules?
The disclaimer on the 'Raiders' remake states: "Note: This posting is for educational purposes only".
But the purpose of the website is to sell you merchandise. The website is even titled "A one-of-a-kind marketplace from Steven Soderbergh". It says this a few lines above the 'educational' disclaimer.
I would argue that the post is not 'educational', but rather a marketing ploy to get people into his commerce website (landing page).