Re: "NOTHING beats FREE"
Tell that to World of Goo. He released a game cheap as chips and people STILL pirated it, EXTENSIVELY. And he had proof of it, too.
16605 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
Except this time BluRay players can ONLY be set-top boxes AND they REQUIRE the use of encrypted host processors. Based on what I've seen in the smartphone front, encrypted OS images HAVE NOT been cracked (the keys are stored on the processors themselves and contain suicide circuits and the like, think FIPS-compliant crypto modules), and they use government-standard encryption algorithms which means if they can find a way to crack them, they'd have a lot bigger fish to fry.
IOW, this time they've done their homework. The video streams are never presented on the wires in a decrypted format until they reach the actual screens (HDCP 2.0 mandates this IINM), by which time the data is too large (raw pixels) to capture in a lossless way.
"Get the MPAA and RIAA DRM out of our tv equipment (HDMI/HDCP) and stop it getting baked in to the internals of our browsers.
The media companies should be able to utilise the peoples internet but not shape it to become their own content delivery content network where they have control over who can play what and where along with what websites can be seen at their behest."
Trouble is, it's ultimately THEIR content. Copyright means they get the final say on where their content gets shown and under what conditions. If you can't abide by those conditions, just don't watch. But since they still make a killing, that would put you in the minority.
Yes, actually. Malware can tell using timing attacks and so on. DRM systems can do the same, and there's really no way to prevent them, say, doing time trials and using external time servers (which you can't block) to figure out if they're in a VM or not.
Why do you think 4K BluRay players are so strict? They know all the tricks and are working extremely hard to keep all those doors closed. PCs aren't allowed to touch the stuff, only set top boxes, and those are encrypted up the wazoo, including using new DHCP keys (some even require online registration).
It's also, as Sir Berners-Lee notes, inevitable due to simple realities. The content providers can withhold and stick to the classic models; people still pay bookoo bucks to sit down at cinemas, and so on. People come to them, not the other way around. So unless you want to abandon the Internet, you better hunker down. If it isn't EME, it'll be something else completely proprietary but, because it's the only show in town, accepted.
PS. Thumbing down that simple fact isn't going to make it any less true. Their content, their rules. Take it or leave it.
"There is a limit to how many monthly subs people can bear. $35/month is a hefty one on top of Sky/VM and the latest Galaxy phone from EE."
Except if you "cut the cord" and only use the cable company for broadband, you can come out ahead since your average cable TV subscription starts around $50/month and can usually go as high as $100/month+ once you factor in boxes (which you can't buy outright or transfer between services, remember, especially since they're now all-digital so your TV can't do it) and channels which are intentionally split into different packages.
But what if it WAS someone they knew? What if there really WAS someone in the firm named Jeff Manning complete with records and so on?
Besides, there's also the possibility he knew the audit was coming and found a way to conceal the name FROM the audit using root tricks and so on.
"it was a chance for the bank to audit what that officer had been doing."
But AGAIN, who audits the AUDITOR? Especially since the firm was of a type where they lacked a second IT person with the same level of expertise? Besides, someone THAT high up would probably know enough to be able to hide their stuff FROM auditors.
"My smartphone sits mostly discharged by the computer (since the moment you think of calling someone the battery drains 90%) and I generally use a dumbphone that can give me a few days standby and several hours talk. I'd forgotten about the access some apps want to ask for, and also didn't realise you need a CC for Uber (CC use is still relatively rare in NZ)."
Uber has pay-with-cash prepaid cards, though, at least in the US (saw one loaded just yesterday). Does Uber require you to register in order to use those?
According to other sources, Uber can get pretty aggressive. They look up publicly-known details about officers and so on, use GPS to check for requests from known government facilities, and so on. According to the BBC version of the article, Uber employees even go to cell phone companies in order to catch plods trying to buy burner phones in an attempt to cover their tracks.
"Assuming that being a uber driver is a crime in city A, unless Uber are arguing there are no drivers, until the police fire up the app, then the "crime" is happening anyway, and the police are just trying to catch one in the act - much like loitering to see who tries to sell you drugs."
Or the ol' Bait Car. It's a form of honey trap operation, which if kept within the rules of engagement is admissible in court.
"Tends to foster corruption."
That may be why you make the pool big. Big enough a pool will likely have an Untouchable that can rat on the rest, keeping everyone honest. Unless you can show a very large body able to be bribed completely down to the last agent...
"Still amazes me that we have so many prisons, and claims that we need more. Expensive, clearly not much deterrent, and pretty ineffectual in preventing re-offending."
But it keeps them off the streets. Or would you rather have them looking for YOU next?
As for increasing the shakedowns, there's also the matter of budgets.
"Remeber you cant outrun the (fancy)bear, you just need to outrun the other internet users."
Except the bear will still be hungry and will keep going. Ultimately, he'll reach you. Meanwhile, there's the discerning tiger who might recognize you as a tastier meal and single you out.
"I personally liked the bit where the person answering the mobile call (on some systems) paid part of the cost."
Well, it makes perfect sense since the answering mobile uses the airwaves, too. Otherwise, who pays for the airtime when a landline (who even back then was normally flat-rate) calls a mobile?
Banning importation of ANYTHING is a fool's errand in a country like the United States with so much border: both terrestrial (why do you think "coyotes" can still cross the border so easily) and oceanic (Cover several thousand miles of coastline, some of which are prime beach estate? Please...).
And let's not get started with all those plans for homemade guns and ammo on the loose. Not to mention the historic American attitude of defiance toward government. Even a small minority of such is usually enough to give any government a headache.
IOW, if you consider guns a problem in the United States, it's already past the Point of No Return. Too ubiquitous, too coveted, and too rebellious.
"What a load of bollocks, IPv6 doesn't fix this, it just resets the mess for it to slowly become a mess again."
If you can choke 64 bits of addressing, I'd love to see how you produce the matter needed to create that many nodes.
"IPv4 routing tables are not choking, its a matter of memory and cpu. "
And guess what? Backbone routers have FIXED memory, not to mention not a lot of time to do their work so they do most of their routing in hardware, limiting the amount of RAM they can use. Thus why IPv4 routing tables are FIXED at 512,000 entries. Plus because they're high-performance, they're expensive.
"I'm not hearing people moaning about CGNAT. How the hell can a whole continent (clients and servers) be behind CGNAT? Just how does that work. If commerce and clients are behind CGNAT and it still works and no one complains because they are all behind it, then what's the problem? Sounds like the only one with a problem is you."
Because like I said most of them do business locally (which to them is BEHIND the NAT).
"the only NAT of significance that my home traffic passes through is the one i have control of, yes i hide my proxy traffic behind my FW IP, I can also do manual NAT too especially useful for the non www systems at home i remotely connect to. The NAT on my works infrastructure hasn't stopped me connecting to my home either, their proxy polices have stopped access to my home web server (curse that bluecoat not letting me connect to IP's or free hosting URL's), there are however workarounds."
Wait until you're behind a CARRIER-grade NAT (CGNAT). Then you WON'T be in control, and odds are asking for a port or even an exposed IP address will be harder than a moonshot. Then you'll be at the mercy of other providers who can abuse their position to become Big Brothers.
"My home systems are currently only controlled by me and only me. yes i have remote access, IOT etc all works fine. If i had a need i'd purchase static IP's from my ISP, the 1 dynamic address i currently have is ok."
And if NONE of the ISPs in your area offer it? It's not like you can just move (which in the US may not be an option, either, since you'll just move from one monopoly to another).
"The problem is the insistence & belief that NAT is evil, its not, its an enabler & should not be disregarded. IETF has even recognised and conceded that IPv6 NAT is necessary and come up with a partial reinstatement with NAT66. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6296"
Which is one-to-one. They don't have any problem with one-to-one NAT. It's one-to-many they don't like because it removes the capability. Give us the option. CGNAT prevents the option from ever existing.
"I'd prefer IPv4's maturity with more addressing so people can run home servers / IOT if need be."
You can have one or the other, NOT BOTH because you'll scramble the IPv4 routing tables, and these are choking the backbone routers. One of the things IPv6 fixes is this by structuring the front half of the addresses to prevent a recurrence.
"How many people will host servers at home?if you want, do as this article suggests and share out your port 80 and 443 to a number of named URL's if a static IP is that important, buy some from your ISP"
Oh, so you want the ISP to be Big Brother?
"How many people are affected by CGNAT, If eBay, Amazon, google where impacted by users on CGNAT not able to reach them they'd devise means to over come that."
Ask the Asians, many of whom are now behind one or more CGNATs. Or big cell phone providers, who can have more than 16 million customers at a time: too big for even an /8 internal network. Thus why they're some of the biggest forerunners of IPv6. You want to talk to cell phones? Better learn IPv6. Amazon, Google, etc. ARE on IPv6 because they know this. And BTW, the reason Asia doesn't help push IPv6 is because most of their commerce is LOCAL (BEHIND the NATs) in nature. Like how Baidu's the main e-commerce site in China.
"Think for 2 seconds, do you really think you are constantly connected to the same server when you connect to google or facebook? your not, requests are sent to the next available machine for processing, your session is a DB entry in some session controller system, removed from the server actually dishing out the http(s)"
Think for 2 seconds. Do you want your home systems controlled by YOU and ONLY YOU, with only a home server to link up that uses neither HTTP, HTTPS, OR SNI? Or do you want what's happening now, with vendors providing the NAT-piercing links and becoming Big Brothers while they're at it?
TL;DR: I would prefer the anarchy of IPv6 and the ability to determine whether or not my endpoints are hooked up (using firewalls) than the police state of being forced to run behind one or more NATs that aren't likely to be under my control and therefore be beholden to big Internet companies and their lack of humanity or due care and attention.
PS. There's more to the Internet than just the World Wide Web.
But without true end-to-end connectivity, you necessarily limit the abilities of many Internet users, preventing things like home-hosted servers. Peer-to-peer systems also take a big hit. And these problems get worse with CGNAT. These in turn are creating more central-controlled systems that become threats to privacy. Which would you prefer?