Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Ah, come one, don't we trust the Feds? (Score 1) 44

by Shakrai (#49190997) Attached to: US Marshals Service Refuses To Release Already-Published Stingray Info

Some of us have worked on the ISP side of the house (disclosure: I worked for a small one that was crushed by Time Warner a long time ago) and view the Netflix debacle in a different light. Netflix has a history of trying to pass their costs onto third parties, by abusing settlement free peering, pushing their "Open Connect" devices on ISPs without offering to pay the usual co-location expenses, or trying to cheap out on envelopes that wound up jamming in sorting machines and causing USPS all manner of difficulties. That one turned into a major spat as I recall, with USPS having to threaten to revoke their bulk mailing/pre-sort price discounts before Netflix was willing to back down.

The long standing model for internet traffic has been sender pays. If you're dumping more traffic into my network than you take off my hands you pay me to get it closer to its destination. If you're taking more off my hands than I'm taking from you then I pay you. In the final example, we exchange roughly equal amounts of traffic and agree to do so without remuneration.

Is that model still valid today? It's hard to say. It did build the internet as we know it today, for better or worse. It would be easier for me to be sympathetic if this wasn't a pissing contest between Netflix and ISPs. The arrogance of Netflix is truly astounding, from my perspective as someone who worked in the ISP business, and I see it as billionaires arguing with other billionaires about who should foot the bill for their respective business models.

Comment: Re:Compare the alternatives (Score 1) 319

by Mike Van Pelt (#49190991) Attached to: French Nuclear Industry In Turmoil As Manufacturer Buckles

>Are people living in the Chernobyl area? No? THAT is my point.

Actually, a few people are living in the Chernobyl area. Some of the old folks didn't evacuate, and some of them moved back.

Interestingly, the people who moved back to Chernobyl and Pripyat are doing better, health and longevity wise, than the people who stayed away.

Comment: Re:How does stingray connect to the wider network? (Score 1) 44

by Shakrai (#49190863) Attached to: US Marshals Service Refuses To Release Already-Published Stingray Info

Which may have value in intelligence operations aboard but is completely pointless domestically, where the law requires that telecommunications providers provide for lawful interception, interception that can happen while you sit in the police station rather than chasing your target all over town trying to maintain a MITM attack against his cell phone.

Comment: Re:How does stingray connect to the wider network? (Score 2) 44

by Shakrai (#49190719) Attached to: US Marshals Service Refuses To Release Already-Published Stingray Info

It doesn't. It just acts as a fake base station; if you happen to connect to one you'll have no service. They don't use these things to intercept your traffic, they can do that Verizon/AT&T/Sprint/T-Mobile's switch, without having to follow you all over town. These devices are used for two purposes:

1. To localize idle cell phones with greater precision than the macro cellular network can.
2. To determine which cell phones are being carried in a specific area.

#2 sounds Orwellian but it has legitimate purposes during criminal investigations, i.e., trying to figure out the IEMIs of burner phones being carried by suspects you have under surveilliance. Once you have the IEMIs you can wiretap them with lawful interception technology built into the phone company's switch.

Comment: Re:Ah, come one, don't we trust the Feds? (Score 1) 44

by Shakrai (#49190667) Attached to: US Marshals Service Refuses To Release Already-Published Stingray Info

The latest FCC actions were DECADES in the making.

Using a law that was first written when your telephone had a hand crank and last updated when 33.6kbit/s voiceband modems represented the "bleeding edge" of consumer internet connectivity.

This op-ed raises an interesting question: "The real issue is who pays for new Internet investment. Do big users like Netflix and Facebook bear some costs or are these left to the ISPs -- which shift them to the monthly bills of households? For example: In 2014, Netflix agreed to pay Comcast for smoother streaming of its videos. The open question is whether the FCC will permit these interconnection payments and, if so, at what level. But the FCC has weakened the ISPs' bargaining position by requiring them to accept all comers."

Comment: Re:Ah, come one, don't we trust the Feds? (Score 1) 44

by Shakrai (#49190471) Attached to: US Marshals Service Refuses To Release Already-Published Stingray Info

If we trust FCC to ensure "fairness" of Internet Service Provision:

If the Federal Government can't determine what's fair, then who can?

why don't we trust the Marshals Service to be fair as well? Are they being controlled by a different President or something?

People here are kind of like John Kerry, they were in favor of the Government before they were against it.

Comment: Re:could not keep watching it (Score 4, Insightful) 95

by circletimessquare (#49189827) Attached to: A Critical Look At CSI: Cyber

I was going to say people aren't that stupid.

But then I remembered that old episode of The Wire where they stick a kid's hand on a copier machine, ask him questions like it's a lie detector, and after he answers, a detective presses the copy button and "LIE" on a piece of paper comes out. The kid actually fell for it when the detectives structured the questions to show he was lying and he broke down and revealed the truth of the incident and gave them their lead.

Found it, apparently based on real life Baltimore PD interrogation techniques:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

So I guess they could make this new CSI Cyber even 10x more stupid, and a few months later you'd probably start hearing from people something like...

the NSA can use coffee cups to playback conversations from half an hour ago because of reverberating echoes still trapped inside the cup.

(I just made that up, CSI writing team: give me attribution please.)

Comment: misleading summary, inaccurate article (Score -1, Flamebait) 218

First off, it's Québécois, not Quebecker.

Second, I can't believe that he refused to turn over the password, rather than immediately surrendering as any good Frenchmen would. Hey Quebec, if you're wondering why the French don't actually believe you're French.... ;)

Comment: Re:Fascinating ship (Score 1) 106

Those treaties were irrelevant by the time the Two-Ocean Navy Act passed. The Iowa class was free of treaty limits, as was the envisioned Montana class. The North Carolina and South Dakota classes were built within treaty limits and were nearly the equal of the Iowa class. I would have sailed with confidence in those "treaty battleships" against anything put to sea by the Axis Powers, including Yamato and Musashi. They can hit first, at greater range, thanks to their superior fire control, and even if they took hits Allied damage control techniques were better.

As far as Germany, she never had the resources to compete with the Allied powers at sea, so it really didn't matter what she built. The submarine campaign could have made a difference and it may have made more sense to pour ALL naval resources into subs, although this negates the Norwegian Campaign and who can say what impact that would have had? There's also an argument to be made that every sub launched represented tanks and aircraft that could have been sent to the Eastern Front....

Parts that positively cannot be assembled in improper order will be.

Working...