The fact that this isn't a listed option only reinforces the "News for Nerds" stereotype.
On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with Verizon. The court also threw out an FCC rule that barred providers from blocking Internet traffic outright."
Link to Original Source
WASHINGTON — A U.S. appeals court has struck down the government's latest effort to require internet providers to treat all web traffic equally, meaning mobile carriers and other broadband providers may reach agreements for faster access to specific content crossing their networks.
The Federal Communications Commission's open Internet rules, passed in late 2010, require internet providers to treat all Web traffic equally and give consumers equal access to all lawful content, a principle known as net neutrality.
But the FCC lacked legal authority to enact the regulations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on Tuesday, siding with Verizon Communications Inc that challenged the rules.
Verizon has argued the rules violated the company's right to free speech and stripped control of what its networks transmit and how.
"Even though the commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates," Judge David Tatel said.
The FCC has classified broadband providers as information service providers as opposed to telecommunications service providers and that distinction created a legal hurdle for the FCC to impose the net neutrality rules.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler on Tuesday said the agency was considering "all available options, including those for appeal, to ensure that these networks on which the Internet depends continue to provide a free and open platform for innovation and expression, and operate in the interest of all Americans."
The FCC could appeal the ruling to the full appeals court or to the U.S. Supreme Court. Or it could attempt to rewrite the regulations to clear up its authority over broadband providers — a move urged by consumer advocacy groups.
Supporters of the rules worry that without FCC's rules, internet providers such as Verizon or Comcast Corp would be free to charge websites for faster access to their content or slow down or even block access to particular sites.
"That's just not the way the internet has worked until now," Matt Wood, policy director at public interest group Free Press, told Reuters.
But opponents say the rules inhibit investments, represent government meddling in free Internet and are not necessary to ensure open access to the Internet.
"Today's decision will not change consumers' ability to access and use the Internet as they do now," Randal Milch, Verizon's general counsel and executive vice president for public policy, said in a statement.
"Verizon has been and remains committed to the open Internet which provides consumers with competitive choices and unblocked access to lawful websites and content when, where, and how they want. This will not change in light of the court's decision," Milch said.
Similarly, the Broadband for America coalition representing various internet service providers and CTIA, the wireless industry association, pledged commitments to an open Internet.
Major content providers Netflix Inc and Google Inc who may face new hurdle referred inquiries to the Internet Association representing them.
"The Internet Association supports enforceable rules that ensure an open Internet, free from government control or discriminatory, anticompetitive actions by gatekeepers," the group's President and CEO Michael Beckerman said.
Facing strong resistance from Republicans, Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday pledged to help FCC redraft its rules to regain authority over broadband providers."
Link to Original Source
Working infosec for a dozen years or so, I tend to harden things by default. I view any app on my system as a potential vulnerability, so if I don't need it or aren't using it, off it goes.
My point is that buying a new car with DRM is a choice. Don't want DRM? Don't buy new; there are plenty of viable alternatives out there. Or, buy new from a manufacturer that hasn't gone the DRM route. If enough people make those choices, it starts to hit the manufacturers where it counts the most, in the profit/loss statements. Doesn't always work, but it works often enough.
I own a 1980 Triumph TR-8. No ABS, anti-lock, traction control, air bags, EFI (it's carbureted), bluetooth, or GPS; therefore, no computers. The most modern thing in it is the stereo, a Clarion from 1993. It's even got manual door locks and windows. Analog clock. Mechanical speedo, tach and odometer.
I'd like to see them try to apply DRM to it.
Sometimes, being a partial Luddite can be a good thing.
Oh, yeah, it's a real kick to drive....
For states that set up their own exchanges, there are generally offices available as well as phone lines people can call. Many of the states that opted out are also trying their damnedest to block any perceived successes for the ACA, and have taken steps to hinder their establishment. How much help someone can expect in signing up depends entirely on what state you're talking about.
I have no doubt it will happen at some point, but only after those of us with 30+ years of driving under our belts are either gone or no longer able to drive. I've seen too many malfunctions of new technology over the years; couple that with a lifetime spent in IT and information security and seeing first-hand just how fragile even the most robust systems are, and it comes to too much cynicism to trust my life to a computer like that.
Doubtless someone will point out autopilots on airplanes. There's a lot larger margin of error in the air; planes generally don't fly 4-6 feet apart in high density. If an plane's autopilot is off by 1% or more, that's something that can be detected and corrected for before it becomes a life-threatening issue. If my car drifts 1% on a crowded freeway going 70 MPH, that can become an issue in seconds.
Plus, I doubt Julie Hagerty is available to help motorists if their autopilot "deflates."
Some deep watering and maybe a little Miracle Gro, I bet we can get those suckers down to the Permian.
Can't wait for The Stig to take it round the track. Some say his home computer is a Commodore Amiga, and he still believes 640K is more than enough RAM for anyone.
In this case, a weakness in the Wi-Fi authentication protocol used by Windows phones for WPA2 authentication could allow an attacker to steal credentials from a connected device. Microsoft said that it is not aware of any active attacks, just a public report on the weakness in the protocol.
The problem is in the PEAP-MS-CHAPv2 protocol, Microsoft said.
“To exploit this issue, an attacker controlled system could pose as a known Wi-Fi access point, causing the targeted device to automatically attempt to authenticate with the access point, and in turn allowing the attacker to intercept the victim’s encrypted domain credentials,” the advisory said. “An attacker could then exploit cryptographic weaknesses in the PEAP-MS-CHAPv2 protocol to obtain the victim’s domain credentials.”"
Heh. That's cute.
Use WPA2 with AES (not TKIP). You'll be about as secure as you're going to get. Hidden SSIDs, MAC whitelists and static IPs are barely speed bumps to a determined attacker. You gain nothing by using them, apart from administrative headaches and a false sense of security.
There's no sure way to protect the data, but this comes close:
1. Unplug the server/storage array/whatever
2. Put it in a safe. Lock the safe, lose the combo.
3. Dig a large hole.
4. Insert safe into hole.
5. Fill hole with concrete.
Of course, even this plan has its flaws: What if the safe is discovered? Your only hope is that it's discovered by a Redditor; it will never be opened then.
I would use this as the music under the title: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrYhWVMqf-4
I'd much rather pay royalties to Stravinsky's estate than to the publishing company.
I changed my name to "GOTO" so I could be vilified.