Posts by Charles 9

Yes, they do. They ONLY cede those rights when the copyright expires. That's why their name is attached. And we're talking about how new releases which are MEANT to be within copyright's purview.

Re: And will this DRM realise its been run in a VM and is a chocolate teapot?

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.

Re: And will this DRM realise its been run in a VM and is a chocolate teapot?

They don't work with 4K discs because they use HDCP 2.0, which uses different keys and IINM forbids the use of splitters.

Re: DRM means you don't own your content

"And to do anything else you want to to it or with it unless that act is specifically illegal."

That includes PHOTOCOPYING it.

Re: And will this DRM realise its been run in a VM and is a chocolate teapot?

But I bet you they're NOT coming from BluRay rips, though. And I think many of them aren't real 4Ks but upscaled 1080s passing off as 4Ks. Plus some of those copies are supposed to be watermarked.

No, THEY get the final say because they're the providers. The seller ALWAYS gets the final call. They don't HAVE to sell or provide, AND they can give ultimatums: take it or leave it. If you leave it, it's YOUR loss, not theirs (they can always find another customer).

Re: All the whining in the world...

But that's searching for unicorns because NOTHING beats FREE.

"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.

Re: And will this DRM realise its been run in a VM and is a chocolate teapot?

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).

Re: DRM means you don't own your content

You NEVER own that content. It's ALWAYS been LICENSED to you. That's what copyright is all about.

Re: Any Restriction Placed on the Internet

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.

Re: Since when did Google ...

According to the article, this time they're paying for it and passing on the costs via the $35/month subscription. IOW, they're playing by the rules.

Re: Nice advert you have there.

"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.

Re: How about his replacement?

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.

Re: @AC: top man

"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.

Re: tbh, Uber has a point

By my understanding, at least under US law, an act is by default legal until it is declared illegal by law, and ONLY for future commissions (retrospective laws are prohibited). Perhaps you can elaborate on what kinds of acts can be neither legal nor illegal.

Re: I'm more interested to know where they're getting their data from

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.

Re: tbh, Uber has a point

Put it this way. If bait cars are legal, so is this. Look up "honey trap".

Re: Cleared?

"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.

Re: Faraday

You'd have to cover overhead, too. Impractical or they'd be using it to prevent air drops.

Unless, of course, the pillow or a blanket's between the catcher and the tinfoil. Prisoners quickly become experts at lines of sight.

Re: A cheaper option in the long run?

"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...

Re: A cheaper option in the long run?

"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.

And what about the guards' radios? Make it hard to coordinate riot control...

Re: Happy 1Password User

I got news for you. It's only the law that allows wills to be enforced, and wills canmot condone illegal acts, so law trumps will. Indeed, if there is a dispute over a will, then probate courts step in to resolve them.

Re: All flaws are not equal

Trouble is, they can fuck back, tell their friends, and make sure you can never work productively again.

Re: "our advice to the customers is to always update their apps"

Well, for many, cheapie means a feature phone or an Android phone so crippled you can't really run anything on it (IOW, $50 tops).

Re: Command-line password manager?

"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.

Re: "our advice to the customers is to always update their apps"

And if isn't yours to throw away or you can't afford a new one (and the cheapos don't work on your network)?

Re: Most Unpopular Administration

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.

Re: @Wolfetone .... Meh!

PS. There IS a Meh icon. It's the straight face.

Mr. Wizard sped up the process by pouring cold water on the container.

Re: End to end is a myth

"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.

Re: End to end is a myth

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?

Re: There are quite a few IP addresses if the corporates share

Plus there's the other matter IPv6 solves: ROUTING, which IPv4 scrounging will only complicate because you'll be scrambling the routing tables even more, and they're ALREADY to the point that backbone routers are starting to choke.