SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From ZDnet:
If Comcast thinks you're downloading copyrighted material, you can be sure it'll let you know. But how it does it has raised questions over user privacy. The cable and media giant has been accused of tapping into unencrypted browser sessions and displaying warnings that accuse the user of infringing copyrighted material -- such as sharing movies or downloading from a file-sharing site.
Jarred Sumner, a San Francisco, Calif.-based developer who published the alert banner's code on his GitHub page, told ZDNet in an email that this could cause major privacy problems. Sumner explained that Comcast injects the code into a user's browser as they are browsing the web, performing a so-called "man-in-the-middle" attack. (Comcast has been known to alert users when they have surpassed their data caps.) This means Comcast intercepts the traffic between a user's computer and their servers, instead of installing software on the user's computer.
A Comcast spokesperson said in an email on Monday that this is "not new," adding that engineers "transparently posted an Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) white paper about it" as early as 2011, which can be found here.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @03:00AM
My ISP should just be a dumb pipe and nothing more. I pay it to access the Internet, and they provide the service. Now companies which have monopolies (or duopolies if you're lucky) in so many areas violate your privacy and fuck with your traffic. It's not an ISP's job to enforce copyright or try to find Evil Things; their only job is to act as a dumb pipe. Why are there no regulations against this bullshit?
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday November 25 2015, @03:25AM
Well, between stuff like this and the wonderful new 'free streaming' (as long as they register with us, etc) it looks like net neutrality's pretty much gone already.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @03:47AM
Sometimes the wonderful new "free streaming" really is wonderful. T-Mobile does free streaming of audio from any web server, no registration required. Your indie band site is equal to the big label radio sites as far as T-Mobile Music Freedom is concerned. Now sure Music Freedom violates net neutrality, but in a fair and neutral sort of way. It prioritizes traffic based on content regardless of source.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Wednesday November 25 2015, @04:11AM
Citation needed. I'm very skeptical that T-Mobile did this in any transparent way.
Even if they did, do they publish how they detect a given stream is audio and not - for example - realtime data from the LHC? Or a low-resolution webcam? Are they assuming based on the protocol? How does that work out for them with encrypted traffic?
Finally, even if all the above questions are satisfactorily answered, what happens when some bright folks find a novel, more efficient way to transmit audio - but T-Mobile's magical detection service doesn't recognize it as audio? They have a massive barrier to entry compared to existing players.
This is why you never want the ISP playing favorites. It always, without fail, ends up favors existing players and stifling new entrants. If T-Mobile can handle this data, they should price and meter it accordingly to all users. End of story.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @05:49AM
I wish I had a citation for you, but the method is not published, and no one is brave enough to blog about it. Here are the details:
Unencrypted HTTP traffic on ports 80 and 8080 with Content-Type: audio is unthrottled and unmetered.
T-Mobile Music Freedom traffic is not charged and does not appear on your bill.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @03:32AM
Just from hanging out at geek sites, it's very clear that geeks are unwilling to self-police or cooperate with existing laws against piracy. Instead, they keep claiming (shouting, really) that piracy laws are obsolete and/or corrupt, but that IMMIGRATION laws need to be rigorously enforced, and H1-B regulations need to be overhauled to admit orders of magnitude fewer immigrants.
If you're a Congressman, an FCC bureaucrat, or a telco executive, you're going to look at that and say hookay guys. Whatever. You're not serious about solving the problem so we're going to solve it without your help.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Wednesday November 25 2015, @03:56AM
it's very clear that geeks are unwilling to self-police or cooperate with existing laws against piracy
Actually, it appears that the number of geeks who condone robbery on the high seas is negligibly small.
Instead, they keep claiming (shouting, really) that piracy laws are obsolete and/or corrupt
The only consistent complaining about obsolete and/or corrupt laws on geek sites is about the rampant theft from the public domain caused by obsolete and/or corrupt copyright laws.
If you're a Congressman, an FCC bureaucrat, or a telco executive, you're going to do as your paymaster tells you
Minor correction.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @04:12AM
Just from hanging out at geek sites, it's very clear that geeks are unwilling to self-police or cooperate with existing laws against piracy. Instead, they keep claiming (shouting, really) that piracy laws are obsolete and/or corrupt, but that IMMIGRATION laws need to be rigorously enforced, and H1-B regulations need to be overhauled to admit orders of magnitude fewer immigrants.
Nope. [gnu.org]
You seem to think that these laws are legitimate. Whatever. But that doesn't make any measure taken to enforce these laws necessarily good. What if it violates innocent people's liberties and decreases privacy? Do the ends always justify the means to you? I'd say other things are far more important than stopping unauthorized copying. We don't allow police to randomly break into people's homes just because there might be bad guys inside, because we recognize that the ends don't justify the means even if it is effective. So why is it that copyright goons think they can go to any lengths to stop people from copying certain data without permission, to the point of violating people's rights, scrapping due process, violating everyone's privacy, and just generally disregarding the principles that our society is supposed to aspire to?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by anubi on Wednesday November 25 2015, @05:02AM
The same snooping techniques used to see if you are doing something someone else does not want you to do can also be used to also tap into financial transactions as well as getting names, account numbers, transaction info, and other information needed for precision spearphishing attacks directed against anyone placing a financial transaction over the internet.
And as far as "piracy" aka. copyright infringement goes... to me this is a lot like the eminent domain done in the Kelo vs. New London [ij.org] case. Turns out someone wanted something someone else had. So they got up a gang of city councilmen and simply took it. United States Supreme Court "Justices" wearing black robes said this kind of theft was OK by them. So, whether one calls it "eminent domain" or "copyright violation", to me it all seems a lot the same, but worse for Kelo, as its not that others have a copy of her house... she lost her house! But the men who wear black robes did not seem to think anything was wrong with that picture. Does the fact anyone has a politician sign their wish-list into some sort of law make it right? I believe politicians have passed so many one-sided laws that respect for all laws is being diluted. I am beginning to see lobbyists, politicians, and their enforcement mechanisms more like an out-of-control street gang than a public service.
It sure seems like we are giving up a helluva lot in order to try to grant ownership to things that cannot really be owned by anyone. If I had a fire, how am I to tell who else had a fire kindled from my fire and try to demand payment?
This whole scheme of ownership of things that cannot be owned ( a secret ) is leading us down a path of immense frustration for all. I believe the best one can really do under these circumstances is to use economies of scale to enforce natural monopolies - which will fall apart if they get so inefficient that others begin mounting the barriers to entry and building their own production infrastructure.
Whatever happened to "survival of the fittest", aka "competition", aka "free enterprise"? Why are we actually paying and obeying politicians coining law deliberately designed to create artificial shortages of that which is in damned near unlimited supply - just for the benefit of their cronies who stand to profit big-time by forcing us to pay far more for something than what it costs to produce?
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @10:53PM
Your words are a relief to read; there's only a handful of people online I've seen that can convey how folks trying to treat unlimited information as a physical restricted thing leads to serious complications / headaches! Thanks for your post!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @05:23AM
>If you're a Congressman, an FCC bureaucrat, or a telco executive, you're going to look at that and say hookay guys. Whatever. You're not serious about solving the problem so we're going to solve it without your help.
We are enemies.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Wednesday November 25 2015, @05:56AM
What problem exactly? Serious question.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @09:22AM
In what world "solving the problem" is not the worst possible thing that could happen from the point of a monopolist telco exec? In one where they could just follow Kant's imperative and just ignore this whole "business" thing and not get immediately sacked and perhaps even thrown to jail for pissing all over shareholder interest?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @12:14PM
Obviously. It's also painfully clear that all geeks are retarded gamergators living in their relatives' basements on doritos and hot pockets and none of them eg. work for anything remotely related to aforementioned entities, nevermind anything crrrrazy like having actually founded a company around some sort of intellectual property.
What's it like in your bubble? Is it made of straw perhaps?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 25 2015, @03:44PM
Just from hanging out at geek sites, it's very clear that geeks are unwilling to self-police or cooperate with existing laws against piracy. Instead, they keep claiming (shouting, really) that piracy laws are obsolete and/or corrupt, but that IMMIGRATION laws need to be rigorously enforced, and H1-B regulations need to be overhauled to admit orders of magnitude fewer immigrants.
Imagine that, having opinions about the merits and flaws of individual laws.
It's almost like we can form our own opinions based on the specific facts in question instead of just blindly following some all-regulation=bad ideology.
And, to really screw with your brain this geek thinks we should reduce copyright and INCREASE immigration. I know, it's crazy, but we all don't believe the same thing, either.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday November 25 2015, @05:58PM
While this piece has subtle tones of constructivism, particularly the use of all caps for the word immigration, taken as a whole, features such as nearly uniform sentence length, good but not perfect grammar, and closing implying that we are powerless leave the reader with a distinct impression of postmodernism.
In particular, the reader is left with a sense of helplessness and uncertainty. The reader asks herself, “Have I been wrong about these things all along?” One is reminded of the notion that geeks live in their mother's basements instead of the “real world” Additionally, it is difficult to even be certain that the post is a troll and not somebody who really does see herself as a “sheep dog” and wanted to leave Soylent a reminder of the “real world.”
Note that the piece reads mostly in a level-headed and rational tone, however the author has been careful to avoid adding anything tangible to the work.
Finally, the placement the author chose in this discussion adds to the sense of unreality but also finality about the power of telcos over our lives. Instead of placing this piece in the Bernie Sanders or H-1B discussion, the author uses the placement of the comment itself to underscore the sense of uncertainty and inevitability.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @08:17PM
Just from hanging out at geek sites, it's very clear that geeks are unwilling to self-police or cooperate with existing laws against piracy. Instead, they keep claiming (shouting, really) that piracy laws are obsolete and/or corrupt, but that IMMIGRATION laws need to be rigorously enforced, and H1-B regulations need to be overhauled to admit orders of magnitude fewer immigrants.
If you're a Congressman, an FCC bureaucrat, or a telco executive, you're going to look at that and say hookay guys. Whatever. You're not serious about solving the problem so we're going to solve it without your help.
Geek here. Never pirated anything in my life. And do believe that people have a right to be paid for their creativity, and don't like copyright violators. But I like even less all the "solutions" provided which end up porking me up the ass in restricting me in how I will use the property I've purchased when I never have pirated anything. And if they think they can stop or even truly slow the rate at which such things occur it goes to prove that the congressmen, telco executives, and bureaucrats are the obsolete ones who don't understand enough to tell me what their solutions are.
Nice strawman with the H1-B, by the way.
Now fuck off and die, mmmkay shill?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @03:38AM
Because the regulators grew up in a time where "telecom" meant rotary phones and gigantic plugboards, or if they're younger, only paid enough attention in college to get through law school, and didn't care about any of that "technology stuff".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @05:59AM
only paid enough attention in college to get through law school,
Owww! That hurts! Expect my cease and desist registered letter in the next post.
Yours, I.M. Illiterat, Attorney at Law
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday November 25 2015, @06:53AM
My ISP should just be a dumb pipe and nothing more.
Then perhaps you should know better than to buy ISP services from one of the largest big media conglomerates [wikipedia.org] on the planet.
They shouldn't have been allowed to buy NBC, but nobody stopped them, and now they are protecting their investments.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25 2015, @01:44PM
Because otherwise the public sector would have to enforce the law and that would be pinko-commie-socialist-fascist-athiest un-American.
Taxes would have to go up! Let the Market police itself and only the fittest survive.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grayson on Wednesday November 25 2015, @04:00PM
ISPs should be treated as common carriers and if they inspect traffic they should be held liable for any/all infringement which occurs on their networks.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday November 25 2015, @11:06PM
They're probably are, or at they're at the very least being strongly contemplated. It's completely irrelevant though, since the industry acts like victims under attack from immoral highwaymen, and totally and completely refuses to participate at all.
The industry does whatever the fuck it wants, whenever it wants to do so.
All of those billions U.S taxpayers gave them in the form of government handouts, easements, eminent domain land seizures, etc. are complete and totally wasted. The industry took the money, as if it were free gubermint money(tm) with no string attached, and used it for trips, hotels, hookers, houses, etc. whatever. Government actually needed to tell them recently to use these funds only for their intended purposes. The industry believes it owes nothing to anyone, and everything is owed to it though the explicitly superior morality of the Capitalist system.
Over 90% of America came together, cooperated, participated, and said quite loudly to the industry that we did in fact want "dumb pipes" and all of the "bullshit" to stop. The industry has literally tried to bring the entire country to its KNEES financially by using their corrupt influences to hijack politicians into throwing the monkey wrench into the great machine. If they can't have their industry with zero regulations, we don't get an entire fucking country and a way of life.
Regulations against this bullshit? That implies these people are even willing to play as if they are regulated at all. The industry is completely out of control with sociopaths willing to bring our country down if they can't have their abusive monopolies. You already have a major, major, government agency, the FCC, attempting to regulate. Attempting..... and failed. How can the FCC regulate shit when the corporations it regulates have the power to remove their budget for the year? The industry has never acted in good faith with America for one single second, and we've never actually taken them to task for their abject failures in delivering on their contractually obligated duties to provide free or discounted service to schools, libraries, rural areas, etc.
I don't have the power to get a highway patrolman fired for trying to give me a ticket, and have them end up unemployed. Which is good damn reason why they're are effective regulations against me doing 130mph in the fast line whenever I feel like it. The industry in a very real way is saying, "I'll destroy you!!! You'll never work in this town again you hear me!!! Do you know how I am????!!!!!", when confronted with the regulators. In our world we might find ourselves on TV with people shaking their heads at our entitled attitudes. In Congress, these people have their asses kissed when acting this way.
That's why there are no effective regulations against this deeply entrenched anti-consumer behavior.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.