Re: Another one ...
It's like the GDPR has given us all a free filter for spamware/spyware sites!
Posts by Jamie Jones
4306 publicly visible posts • joined 14 Jun 2007
Page:
US websites block netizens in Europe: Why are they ghosting EU? It's not you, it's GDPR
Friday 25th May 2018 18:34 GMT 
Re: THIS IS AN AWESOME SOLUTION TO #GDPR
I think it's childish and petty of them.
They could have removed tracked ads, tracking cookies, and left the rest as it is.
This way they are saying "look at the crap site your evil EU has forced us to give you."
Why don't they throttle the bandwidth too whilst they're at it?
Friday 25th May 2018 18:31 GMT
Re: "who want to stop those nasty American companies"
@LDS: Spot on.
I also think that many Americans are so used to government making laws for corporations that they automatically assume all other places in the world are the same.
There's a knee-jerk reaction I'm seeing: facist EU removing our freedoms.. stupid bureaucracy, government control etc.
They seem to think suddenly we are restricted in what *we* want to do with our personal information, whilst in reality, the only "freedoms" being removed are the freedoms of the corporations to expoit our data without permission.
It's also saddenning to see that so many seem to think it's no big deal. It's no wonder the culture of facebook, google, and android ad-brokers flurish in such conditions.
Oh but no! In reality, we are just jealous of American companies, and want to destroy them *rollseyes*
Some Americans deserve the corporate-overlords they get... I feel sympathy for the rest of them (and we'l be heading that way too once UK.GOV gets us out of the EU)
Friday 25th May 2018 14:30 GMT
Re: Here we go
Hello? Hello?
Are we still here?
Funny, we appear to be.. On a website that contains adverts, and hasn't needed us to fill in opt-in/opt-out/opt-shake-it-all-about forms or anything.
The sky hasn't fallen in. If other online newspapers have shut you out, it should make you wonder what the hell they were doing in the first place.
Anyone blocking the EU is either dodgy/stupid/having a hissy fit - or a combination of them
Friday 25th May 2018 13:34 GMT
Anyone from the EU who wants to do business with us will have to figure a way to contact us without getting blocked by the geoblocking, and will have to explicitly and completely consent to whatever we want, or they can bloody well fuck off.
Thank-you. If anyone ever doubted the need for GDPR, just reading your post will put them straight.
'Facebook takes data from my phone – but I don't have an account!'
Friday 25th May 2018 15:10 GMT
Re: 'Let us know if the mint suggestion worked!'
Interesting idea, though location data can be transfered in 4 bytes.. It would be pretty easy to hide that somewhere, without uploading an image... Uploading an image would set my alarm bells off immediately! Have they got control of my camera?!
Ok, I found this. I wrote a script that deletes all the spying data files, but this is obviously one I missed:
44 -rw-rw---- 1 u0_a194 u0_a194 43043 Aug 27 2016 /data/data/air.SpaceZombies2/shared_prefs/Appodeal.xml
Look for "Appodeal.xml" in the shared_prefs folder of any app (you'll need to be root though)
This is a 43K file, starting off like:
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8' standalone='yes' ?>
<map>
ap>
<string name="banner">{"status":"ok","ads":[{"status":"mopub","id":"YktV,,, etc.
decoding it gives a json file, uploading variables such as:
gender:
alcohol:
smoking: (how the f??? does it know that?)
Interestingly, it's also hacked other apps and uploaded their unique ids that were given to me, including: "admob, applovin, chartboost, inmobi, mopub, smaato"
The worst is this URL listed:
"url":"http://soma.smaato.net/oapi/reqAd.jsp?adspace=130015622
\u0026apiver=415
\u0026bundle=air.SpaceZombies2
\u0026device=Dalvik%2F2.1.0+%28Linux%3B+U%3B+Android+5.1.1%3B+R68G+Build%2FLMY48G%29
\u0026devicemodel=rockchip+R68G
\u0026devip=88.109.36.106
\u0026dimension=full_320x480
\u0026dimensionstrict=true
\u0026format=all
\u0026formatstrict=true
\u0026gender=m
\u0026googleadid=6d7d7151-9edf-4085-aa19-67726fd7dd1c
\u0026googlednt=false
\u0026gps=51.65765765765766%2C-4.0371868876609485
\u0026iabcategory=IAB95
\u0026kws=puzzle%2Ctools%2Cadventure
\u0026mraidver=2
\u0026pub=1001000335
\u0026response=html"
All those details were accurate at the time - as I said, I don;t even have gps on here, but if you look at the "gps" field, if you threw a hand-grnade at those coordinates, you'd blow up my sofa! (OK, slight exageration, but it's the coordinates of the playing field opposite!)
Friday 25th May 2018 14:45 GMT
Re: 'Let us know if the mint suggestion worked!'
I'm getting confused - there seem to be 2 different anons posting here!
The format... It was just grid coordinates in text, not hidden.. It was part of a json or something. I've blocked all these ad slurpers on my router now.. .I'll see if I can find an example....
Friday 25th May 2018 11:39 GMT
Re: 'Let us know if the mint suggestion worked!'
Please ping me if you have an update, or want to investigate further. I'm unlikely to notice any replies to this topic in the future (sucky El reg forums - how on Earth do people track replies on here?)
The "-journal" ending implied to me it was sqlite3, but they were images.. Hmm. maps of your location?
I don't have access to an android *phone* so can't check, but I can comfirm that at least until android lollipop you could grab the wlan mac, and the host mac on a tablet even without being granted the privileges "needed", so nothing would surprise me ( https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/3520637 )
Of course, the host mac is good as a unique id (if the 'official device unique id' is denied)
Also, the wlan mac can be used to track you from their big database of snarfed wlan mac address.
Incidentally, I worked out how to do this after accidentally stumbling on an app that had my precise location in it's config/data file - despite me never authorising it, or even having GPS (not really much point on a TV box!)
Even some apps from "reputable" companies do this - it appears that the ad brokers follow no rules when it comes to what they'll try and grab... Don't they know unauthorised access is a crime?
Wednesday 23rd May 2018 09:59 GMT 
Bollox
We have partnered with mobile operators and device manufacturers to pre-install Facebook apps on Android devices to help people have the best experience on Facebook right out of the box and during the life of the device. By having Facebook apps pre-installed, we ensure people have the latest version of the application installed on their device, giving them access to bug fixes, critical security enhancements, and other new product features.
Is this bullshit expected to work? Straight out of the Trump/Conway/Huckerbee-Sanders/Chemical Ali school of brazen crap.
Even if their reasoning was true, it would be pre-installed as a user-app not a system one.
It's because of this type of shit the EU came up with GDPR - Facebook et al. should be careful that the US government doesn't do similar....
HAHAHAHA - I'm joking, of course - America is run by the BOD (Business Orientated Democracy) - but don't feel alone, apparrently a large number of UK citizens don't enjoy rights either, so we voted to leave the EU. I'm sure the UK will dilligently play catchup to our American overlords.
[ We really need a "bullshit" icon ]
You know that silly fear about Alexa recording everything and leaking it online? It just happened
IPv6 growth is slowing and no one knows why. Let's see if El Reg can address what's going on
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 16:05 GMT
Re: redesign
Steal part of the data field to hold a header extension with new 64-bit addresses (and other stuff if required)Define a "magic" IPv4 address which indicates that the "real" extended IPvX addresses are at the start (or end) of the data field.
A true dual-stack IPv4/IPvX device would read the address in the header, and either route the packet as IPv4 from an old device or understand the "magic" address and retrieve the real addresses for correct IPvX routing.
In others words a (presumably transitional but not necessarily) gateway between OLD protocol, and NEW protocol, not a 'compatible protocol'.
Well, we now have the NEW protocol in IPv6 (though "new" is only relatively speaking) - nothing stopping you or anyone else writing the gateway you describe - at least, nothing that any "different IPvX" could solve.
The local stack would need to be altered... unless you just ran the conversion on your edge router... and then.... you've just designed a new form of IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel!
Incidentally, your proposal is basically the same as the already existing 6to4 scheme (not to be confused with the more traditional manually configured tunnel, 6in4)
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 15:50 GMT
Re: I can take a stab at it..
"1. Usability sucks"
Not true. Was maybe true 15 years ago.
"2. Massive capex required to replace incompatible kit"
Not true. You'll get IPv6 when you next update your kit anyway. That's why the preferred deployment is dual-stack, so you can run IPv4 as long as necessary.
Don't scare them with facts - when it comes to Ipv6, for some reason there are a bunch of detractors here who downvote without commenting, or provide no legitimate argument against it.
They just hate what they don't understand.
They are like the fox news/republicans of IPv6
downvote-baby-downvote!
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 15:43 GMT
Re: Privacy issues with IPv6?
Protocols with insecure defaults or options always seem to end up getting exploited. Take SSL/TLS for example. Not good enough. Back to the drawing board!
I agree. Get rid of SLAAC and leave IPv6 without it, it's perfect then. No need to arse around "redoing" IP6 itself as you are implying.
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 15:40 GMT
Re: Privacy issues with IPv6?
Does the standard still call for the mac address to be included in the packet? Maybe that's why nobody wants it?
Whilst what you are describing would literally be true in some cases, the case you describe is actually when the MAC is incorporated as part of the hosts IP adddress. - There is no "MAC field" in an IP packet.
Someone had this bright idea to say that a local lan has to be at least 64 bits wide, so that any host can guarantee itself a unique IP address without needing to use DHCP6 - simply by setting the 64 bits to contain the MAC address, and the rest of the address set to the subnet address.
Ugly, horrible, stupid. What happens if someone intentionally manually sets their IP to match what yours should be? There are many other ways to do it (e.g. DHCP6 which - as its name suggests - is the IP6 version of IP4)
So, it only applied to stateless IP configuration - there was never any such leakage if you just apply a normal address statically.
This is my only criticism of IP6, and it turns out to be administrative rather than technical (if you ignore statless addressing (SLAAC) as a requirement)
In my opinion, this basically wastes 56bits - meaning they could have just as well made IPv6 72 bits instead of 128.
Anyway, sod that. SLAAC will never exist on anything I control if I have any say in the matter. If I have 2 neighbouring IP6 lans, I'll be buggerred if I'm going to apply for a second /64 and if It's a "router -> WAN <-> router" setup, it will be a /126 - far easier and more efficient.
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 15:25 GMT
Re: Unintentional benefits
My international links are constantly and consistantly better over IPv6 - often due to different network routes being used, but even that's not always the reason.
I ran this just now, in parallel - Swansea, UK to Sydney, AU - often the difference is better than this:
--- catmint.dyslexicfish.net ping6 statistics ---
562 packets transmitted, 562 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 293.132/296.183/330.526/4.885 ms
--- catmint.dyslexicfish.net ping statistics ---
565 packets transmitted, 565 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 298.804/301.995/343.655/4.852 ms
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 12:35 GMT
Quote: "...You go to your ISP and ask them to open up a certain port.."Misleading. Three steps are needed and ANYONE can run an external ftp service on their home network:
It's OK to be wrong sometimes.
It's less cool to be wrong when "correcting" someone. Do some research next time.
FB actually wrote: You're stuck behind a NAT along with quite a few other home users.
Hint: Google "carrier grade NAT"
Facebook Android app caught seeking 'superuser' clearance
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 13:39 GMT
Re: Did you knew ?
I forgot to mention: Whilst "cat /proc/net/arp" will give you the mac of the router, to find your own mac, again, WITHOUT any special privileges, open a socket to AF_NETLINK, or from the command line:
iplink
If that doesn't exist, download a "busybox" binary, and type "busybox iplink"
So there you have it: MACs of both the router and your own device. - without permissions - at least as far as Lollipop.
As I said, look at android from a Linux point of view, rather than from an android point of view - you'll be surprised.
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 07:09 GMT
Re: Did you knew ?
Utter nonsense....
https://stackoverflow.com/a/11705949
Before Android 6.0 you needed a permission, since then, it's no longer available...
Congratulations, you get my fail of the week.
Hey Mr anon. A quick tip:
People often make mistakes - we are after all, human.
However, if you are going to call somones post out as "utter nonsense" or accuse them of being your "fail of the week", you better be bloody sure you are correct.
You aren't.
So, in the spirit of your condescending reply, I respond:
My post is true, not nonsense.
Unlike you, "anon", my post was based on personal investigation, not on "what someone else says".
Unlike you, "anon", if I'm going to dispute what someone says, I'm not arrogant enough that I don't check my facts first.
Try it yourself:
Create an app, with NO PRIVILEGES - then read the text file /proc/net/arp
To help you out, I just modified an apk for you to test it yourself: http://www.jamielandegjones.com/android/get-mac-without-privs.apk
Now, normally you wouldn't sideload an unknown app from "random internet poster", right? But, as you are so confident of the android security model, you'll have no problem installing this - it clearly requests no privileges.
Fire it up. It's a terminal emulator, installed with zero permissions.
Now type:
cat /proc/net/arp
This works up to android 5 at least, and I suspect it works on 6 and maybe even 7 - access to proc was restricted in 7 or maybe 8, but I haven't had a chance to test it to see how thorough the restriction is.
Whilst here, use that app to have a good old nose around, install some homemade c executables to test ioctl and other calls.
You'll be surprised at what you see.
So, in summary, the utter nonsense is your reply. How's that "fail of the week" going now?
Sunday 20th May 2018 07:55 GMT
Re: Did you knew ?
Additionally, there are major problems due to the retarded use of FAT for external sdcard access (they are attempting to tighten it down with emulated filesystem layers hacks these days) [presumably so you can shove your card straight into your pc - despite MTP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Transfer_Protocol being available ]
An app may legitimately ask for "media/sd/external storage access" to store large amount of details, but granting it gives full access (read write) to the whole card, as there are no file-ownership attributes - that includes all apps that may use it for storage and code - all your videos, pics, etc.etc. -- everything).
Some of the other permissions are actually quite lax too (like facebook, appeasing the developer not protecting the consumer, and assuming developers will play nice)
Sunday 20th May 2018 07:47 GMT
Re: Did you knew ?
The android sandbox is rather leaky. Even with *no additional privileges* it is allowed network access, and general "world" rights on the Linux sub-system.
For instance, you can be uniquely tracked (Mac address), located (wifi-location services via arp lookup of AP mac address), sites you connect to (netstat), os version/patch level/hardware info (uname, etc,) - and all sorts of other stuff.
Imagine if you were running linux on your home desktop - what could an application do with a 'guest login' shell, and the ability to phone home? - there's the problem - that's what an android app has.
Microsoft, Google: We've found a fourth data-leaking Meltdown-Spectre CPU hole
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 12:17 GMT
Re: Removing speculative execution
I've no idea.
Interesting question though... If you're wasting so many cycles on disabling/stengthening/kludging these fixes, there must be a point where simply removing all trace of it would be more efficient, and leave more "CPU space" for other improvements.
Mind you, maybe a redesign is needed, but I don't see why it's so hard for speculative execution to be done securely. Timing attacks are nothing new.
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 12:13 GMT
we should ask ourselves why on earth we allow javascript and similar technologiesto actually run code able to snoop on cache memory in the first place.
A few years ago I would have been indifferent to this - subject to the usual security provisions of course.
But now, seeing the stuff that runs on android, most of it - even from "reputable" companies is basically spyware, and so blatant they don't give a shit about it.
With my programmers hat on, I have no sympathy for those complaining about GDPR etc. - they brought it on themselves.
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 12:05 GMT
Re: Show some understanding, people
And, to some extent, I blame software developers like myself. We have got lazy. "CPU's are fast" we say, "we don't need to bother about the efficiency of our code".
Speak for yourself!
Of course, this is all true, especially so when microsoft was dominant - they wanted to bloat the system so that their hardware partners would get more sales, and they'd sell more licenses.
In the mid to late 90's we used to HATE this. The philosophy was there with newbie programmers, even managers.
It became the culture - the 'norm'.
"Running slow? Nothing to do with inefficent software - you need a faster machine."
"Low on memory? You need more, obviously! It's perfectly reasonable for "hello world" to need 8Mb!"
And of course, this all lead to comments I'm sure we've all heard: "Well, all computers crash, or need to be rebooted every few days"
The same "couldn't care less" attitude gave us "this site best viewed in IE6 - update your browser, loser - microsoft is da shizz"
But we were just old shites who were pleased to reduce code cycles in bytes, and speed in OP cycles. What would we know?
A bit of a wakeup with Y2K, and a bigger wakeup when mobile phones became more capable, but still relatively underpowered... Of course, as mobile cpu/ram got better, that hope was soon lost.
So now we have a similar "we know better" related to internet and 'cloud".
Many of us facepalm at the lack of security in IoT shite, house door-locks that require internet access, shoving all data onto someone elses servers etc. but still, those of us who have been using the internet since the 80's and are intimate with it's design principles... what would we know..... Door lock not working? Get more memory! Toaster slow? It needs a faster CPU! Your whole system has stopped working? Not our fault, someone has deleted their githib account we were live-linking to!
</get off my lawn you kids>
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 07:44 GMT 
I'm confused..
I still don't see how this valuable secret data that is now in the cache can be accessed by a third party. Even if it's based on a timing attack, if someone attempts to access data they aren't allowed to read, I'd have thought the cache wouldn't affect the speed of response, because the cached data would be unavailable anyway.
Also, generally, they say virtual servers are likely to be badly affected, but I'd assume most of the hosts of these servers are not going to be idling, so the CPU shouldn't ever do 'idle-time' speculation, and just to be sure, wouldn't running something like SETI or crack in idle time solve that..
Which leads me to another thought... CPU idle speculation must have an impact on kernel process scheduling, imagine:
Case 1: A heavy job runs - not much else running on system. CPU speculates during brief idle times.
Case 2: A heavy job runs. SETI etc. set to run at idleprio only - so shouldn't ever impact on the heavy job. However, in this case, the heavy job now loses the potential CPU speculative advantage, as the CPU is no longer idling as much.
Argggh, too much to handle, and I've not had my coffee yet...
Kittens.
I like kittens.
Furry, purry, cuddly kittens...
Ahhh. Much better!
OK, this time it's for real: The last available IPv4 address block has gone
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 08:18 GMT
Re: Time to claw some back
part of the scheme uses an IPv4 /30 block, which basically wastes 3 of the addresses. In reality, a scheme that uses something _like_ PPPoE or some other kind of tunneling protocol would only require 1 IP address in a block of 255 to be a gateway address. The additional bandwidth you might get by having to NOT use a tunneling or PPP-derived protocol (maybe 5%, let's say) would be compensated for by a much lower price. The ISP would be able to sell 3 times (or more) as many fixed IPv4 addresses to customers that need them.
What scheme? I believe you, but I've never seen it myself apart from a few niche (and practical) cases. I hope it's just one ISP, not a general USA 'tang?
Most residential services I know use at least /24 or a /23 for their provisions.
But even if they use that reasoning that it's to avoid needing tunnelling, they are wrong.
My current connection isn't tunnelled any more - no PPPoE. - authorisation is done based on the physical connection - i.e. who is "me" is tied to the physical line (even in my days of adsl with PPPoE I'm pretty sure you couldn't login with someone elses user/password on your line - so the authorisation of PPPoE wasn't the prime purpose of its use.)
At the moment, my single external IP address is sitting on a /20 - I don't have the "local lan traffic" sent to me - the remote router deals with that.
Any connections I do try to make to my "local lan" - the remote router replies to arp requests with it's own MAC (proxy arp) which then acts as a bridge to the remote address.
Upshot, single IP address from ISP. No PPP overhead. No small netblock allocation. No leakage of anyone elses data (more importantly, their dross doesn't needlessly slow my link)
From my routers point of view, it's just a normal machine in a /20 network - sending IP packets "directly" to other users machines "on my lan", and routing to the router for addresses off-lan. The remote end deals with the realities.
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 07:59 GMT
Re: Time to claw some back
I left ICL in 2001 - they had already at that point switched their internet link from a fully routed (but firewalled as approriate) internal network (145.227.0.0/16) to some seperate proxy / gateway in another net range run by ICLNET. 145.227.0.0 has basically been dead to the world since then, but is still allocated to (now) Fujitsu.
Sure, the renumbering of internal machines to the new 'private lan' scheme was taking ages, and most stuff still used 145.227.0.0/16 when I left, but it doesn't matter - the only internet access they have is through application-level proxies so they'll never need to route to a "real" 145.227.0.0/16 address if it was relinquished.
Same goes for most others - there is no need for them to all renumber before giving up a netblock.
Lawyers for Marcus Hutchins: His 'I made malware' jail phone call isn't proper evidence
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 07:25 GMT
Re: Signed a Miranda waiver form after being read his rights
Apparently he was coherent enough to remember someone's phone number, use a pay phone and conduct a collect call; yet too incoherent to understand Miranda... right--get real.
Hey, I'm currently more coherent and cleverer than that!
I can currently remember someones phone number, and use a pay phone, and am clever enough to know that when you say "collect call" you mean "reverse charge", and even conduct said reverse-charge call.
There are even more things, ... I can probably remember 2 peoples phone number to be honest, and know how to work a mobile phone as well as a pay phone!
But, I digress, the reason for my reply: "Who's Miranda?"
Blood spilled from another US high school shooting has yet to dry – and video games are already being blamed
Tuesday 22nd May 2018 05:44 GMT
Re: Really powerfull
People & media love to blame the NRA not allowing stricter gun laws and even some confiscation of certain types of weapons but have you REALLY looked at the numbers?
NRA membership is about 5M out of 365M Americans.
You conveniently forgot to mention the bribes (*cough* donations)
92% of Americans want to keep net neutraility.... How's that working out?
Sunday 20th May 2018 08:26 GMT
Re: Always from the same school?
Incidentally, one person was killed and another injured at another school shooting incident in Georgia on the same day. Georgia school shooting: One killed, two injured.
I bet hardly anyone knows about this. One school death won't make the headlines....
Sunday 20th May 2018 07:22 GMT
"Here at El Reg, we have one top-class rifle shooter who practices his art in the UK, ..."
I thought all firearms (except licensed shotguns for farmers, hunters and gamekeepers) were banned in the UK? Didn't the Hungerford shooter use an AK47?
A popular misconception.
And yeah, if you google reg hack "Gareth Corfield" you'll find lots of shooting related pics of him.
There are legal shooting ranges and clubs all over the UK - some even have semi-automatics - even AR-15's. [ http://www.thetunnel.co.uk/shooting-experiences ]
There is of course, trained supervision. I guess in the UK, our arms are available to the "well trained militia"
Sunday 20th May 2018 07:00 GMT
Re: Always from the same school?
For all I know the kid could have been bullied for most of his time at school and eventually snapped and decided to take things to extremes.
A fellow student said that the shooter ALWAYS wore a dirty old long trenchcoat, and smelled badly, and was often mocked/teased for it.
{Source: https://youtu.be/EZpUUFEZ3t8)
I know you aren't using this as an excuse - but many people will - it's a diversionary topic - Growing up, there were kids like that in my school. I'm sure everyone here was in school with someone similar. There were presumably also kids who were being abused, kids mocked for their sexuality, kids from broken homes etc.etc.etc. - didn't make them mass murderers though.
Domain name sellers rub ICANN's face in sticky mess of Europe's GDPR
Open justice FTW! El Reg fought the law – and El Reg won
US Congress mulls expanding copyright yet again – to 144 years
Sunday 20th May 2018 08:19 GMT 
I have a BIG disagreement with one of your points
While it's understandable that the enormous value of music ranging from Ella Fitzgerald to Elvis Presley to David Bowie should be protected, critics are frustrated that lawmakers are effectively condemning vast swathes of culturally important recordings to the dustbin of history by extending a blanket copyright rather than requiring copyright holders to assert their rights.
I generally agreed with the article, but you contradict your argument by saying "some" music is valuable, and so deserves to be protected for longer... That sort of philosophy ONLY means extending copyright for everything, else why is something "culturally important" considered off limits just because it's still making a buck for the artists great-great grandson (or more likely, the publishing company)
Sunday 20th May 2018 08:13 GMT
Re: 100 Years Of Hell
Yes, the enemy are the politicians, not their political leaning.
They prefer the population to believe in one party or the other (even if it's not their party) - it keeps the population distracted arguing amongst themselves, whilst the politicians (left and right) make loads of money from legal bribes from corporations, who are NOT acting in the peoples interests.
Sunday 20th May 2018 08:09 GMT
Re: As many have observed
I would have said the other way around - if the law is reasonably to protect the financial rights of relatives after someones death, it should be like life insurance.
After all, they "claim" that artists need their work protected after death otherwise they may not enter the industry for fear of not being able to financially support their family for a while after they've gone.
Die at 99 when you only wrote a book a year previously is going to have less of an impact than if you die at 35.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
