46806619
submission
Chewbacon writes:
The policy explains how used game retailers can survive Xbox One destroying the used game market as we know it: they have to agree to their terms and conditions to do so. In summary, the used game retailer can still buy the game from the consumer, they report the consumer relinquishing their license to play the game to a Microsoft database, and sell it at a market price, but the publisher will get a cut of the price. This will undoubtedly only hurt the trade in value for consumers and will not allow the private sale of games between two consumers. The article goes on to explain Xbox One will phone home every 24 hours to verify a player hasn't sold the game according to the mentioned database. Suspicions among gamers are correct, and it should be no surprise: this plan for used games has nothing to do with countering piracy, but only serves corporate greed.
45192257
submission
Chewbacon writes:
If you can't hack it, smash and grab it. Video streaming service Vudu has emailed customers informing them of the theft of hard drives containing customer information. CNET reports the information on the stolen drives included: names, e-mail addresses, postal addresses, phone numbers, account activity, dates of birth, and the last four digits of some credit card numbers. Vudu's Chief Technology Officer Prasanna Ganesan said while no complete credit card numbers were stored on the hard drives and expressed confidence in password encryption, he felt the need to be proactive with the password reset and encouraged users to be proactive as well should the encrypted passwords become compromised. Vudu fails to mention, perhaps in a downplaying move, the last 4 digits of a credit card and much of the other information stolen is often enough to access an account through virtually any company's phone support.
38027745
submission
Chewbacon writes:
Looking for a third-party charger for your iPhone 5? AppleInsider says hold off on buying one. A tear-down of the Lightning cable, the new connector introduced with the iPhone 5, reveals an "authentication chip" which may render third-party cables useless. Many people buy these third-party cables to avoid the Apple premium, but Apple has decided to literally block the competition from charging their latest iDevice. How is this not an antitrust issue?
2865079
submission
Chewbacon writes:
I've read a number of stories about the RIAA going after ISPs for file sharing such as Limewire or torrent services. My provider was featured in a local newspaper for not threatening to turn over file sharers, but disabling their service and forcing customers to call their security department to have it restored and even as far as adding hefty fines to their bill. The first scenario happened to someone I worked with and he said, "Oh, we have Wi-Fi, it wasn't us." The ISP even told him what file was being downloaded. They lectured him on Wi-Fi security and how he's responsible for protecting his network from unauthorized access and illegal activity. I discussed this with someone I know working for the ISP and he backed up what his company told my colleague. When I explained Wi-Fi encryption standards are compromised all the time and how MAC addresses can be spoofed to circumvent filters, he said the company still has ground to punish their customers for file sharing even if the perpetrator is someone who compromises a customer's protected network. Are there any other ISPs doing this? Has anyone heard of this backfiring for providers or impacting the lives of innocent people?
