Re: No revocation?
They're not certifying who you're talking to, except that they control the server, merely providing encrypted channels to all. If you want to trust the site and don't know its other features, look for extended verification.
19 posts • joined 14 Dec 2009
One of the points of LE's setup is that SSL is a basic element of the web, and it's all automated. They are pointedly not verifying the identity of the requester, simply making sure that encryption to a particular server that is controlled by the requester is secure. We need to educate users to look for actual verification if they don't trust the source.
The service they provide is no worse than every other CA that does domain authentication as their basic SSL cert level. Most of the low-value sites I use that just need SSL for logging in or protecting a small amount of content seem to have the $10 domain certificates. If you want the browser bar to turn green, you're still going to need a verified certificate, which costs much more, and isn't offered by LE.
Essentially they're saying that SSL is a basic of the web (good and bad) these days, and are bringing the lowest level of certification, domain, to anyone for free. If you want to know who the website is run by, check that it's got an actually verified certificate.
When you are sharing a Dropbox folder and someone saves their document over yours while you're still editing, you have to work out the differences and merge them. Online app suites like Google Docs or Office 365 avoid this problem with everyone seeing the edits of other collaborators as they're made.
From your Out-Law link: "Whilst live sporting events themselves are not protected by copyright, broadcasts of them and film, sound recordings, graphics, music and other features included within a broadcast are."
That seems to say that pictures and recordings of the game are copyrightable - "broadcasts of them and film, sound recordings ... are." A phone recording does have a copyright, but it belongs to the person who was using the phone at the time. They may, however, be in breach of a contract they entered into when buying their ticket, not to take recordings...
In the case above, I read that as saying that the Premier League had licensed their stream to a foreign provider, who sold the decoder card back to the UK. Preventing this by contract would be a breach of EU free trade laws, so those companies abroad have the right to show the copyrighted film of the game anywhere in the EU. Because separate copyrights exist in the logos and anthem, the Premier League *can* stop those being shown. Seems a pretty unclear case all round, though.
However, nothing I've seen says which the League will be looking for: footage captured from TV signals or that from illicit recordings made at the match.
Every small equipment box I've worked with for electronics projects has essentially been a ribbed container, usually of plastic. Adding "made of glass" surely doesn't make this patentable, so you'd hope that the fusing process was super-clever for this to be an innovation.
Except that when there's a major new release to work on, CentOS seems to stop issuing security updates. Perhaps the new version is much more fun than repackaging bug fixes, or perhaps it's just that they want everyone to upgrade ASAP, but that's unacceptable for a production system, and I switched away about a year ago.
And yet, Disney and other corporations weren't the target of original copyrights. I bet the creators of the concept of copyright understood fairly well that some things never go out of style (the bible springs to mind), but thought that twenty-odd years return on a creative work was incentive enough for anyone to keep producing. If those artists wanted a pension, they'd have to save for it, not just spend all the income and hope that their work became "timeless" enough to keep them in luxury through old age. And Disney would't even have half material they use if older copyrights hadn't expired on the works.
Copyright was an incentive to produce new work, not a cash cow to help society stagnate.
if you take it as a mnemonic for what the server has to do. Sure, it's generated by the server, rather than programmed by hand, but you're basically turning the web into an interpreter, generating single-use programs that take the cookie as one of their input instructions and return different output based on that. Sounds pretty much like a procedure call in any other programming language.
Well, that's one possible argument....
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019