Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



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:So when do we get to SEE these rules? (Score 1) 618

by diamondmagic (#49152375) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

That was the fault of Cogent, not Comcast, under their peering arrangement not exchanging data symmetrically. That had nothing to do with Net Neutrality and everything to do with Netflix taking 1/3rd of Internet traffic on top of bad routing.

Netflix was not uniquely targeted. The proposed FCC rules would have done jack.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc... may also be of interest.

Comment: Semantic games (Score 4, Insightful) 87

by diamondmagic (#49142809) Attached to: OPSEC For Activists, Because Encryption Is No Guarantee

So it would appear that POTUS is now towing a line advocated by none other than whistler-blower Snowden who asserted [8] that “properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on.”

Only there’s a problem with this narrative and its promise of salvation: When your threat profile entails a funded outfit like the NSA, cyber security is largely a placebo.

How many pointless articles could be avoided if authors and editors understood the difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition? Of course comsec is not a solution per se, Ulbricht can tell you all about that! (And how many more pointless discussions could be avoided if everyone knew "per se" = "by itself".)

Comment: Re:Department of Fairness can not be far behind (Score 1) 618

by diamondmagic (#49142317) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

300+ pages of justification, like Eric Holder's secret justification on how it's constitutional to shoot down unarmed American citizens without any charge or trial.

They voted on the entire thing, Title II the FCC an enormous amount of power over whatever system it covers (and it does not include the Internet imo - If the FCC is right, can you name any company that'll fall under the "information service" label, now? No?), and at least one of the FCC commissioners who wants to publish the rules seems to disagree with that assertion anyways.

Comment: Re:Department of Fairness can not be far behind (Score 1) 618

by diamondmagic (#49142243) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

So then WHY IS RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT BEING KEPT SECRET? That wasn't a rhetorical question.

Nor was the inquiry as to what actual effect this would have now, except that the FCC gets more power to control the Internet, something we've fought long and hard AGAINST in the past?

Comment: Re:Department of Fairness can not be far behind (Score 1) 618

by diamondmagic (#49140791) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

Another FCC commissioner seems to disagree:

The rules are eight pages. However, the details with respect to forbearance, the regulations from which we will not be taking action—that alone is 79 pages. Moreover, sprinkled throughout the document, there are uncodified rules — rules that won’t make it in the code of federal regulations that people will have to comply with in the private sector. On top of that, there are things that aren’t going to be codified, such as the Internet Conduct Standard, where the FCC will essentially say that it has carte blanche to decide which service plans are legitimate and which are not, and the FCC sort of hints at what factors it might consider in making that determination.

And if it's really responding to public comments to the rules... WHY IS RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT BEING KEPT SECRET?

Help, stop, the transparency, it's blinding me.

Comment: Re:Department of Fairness can not be far behind (Score 1) 618

by diamondmagic (#49140691) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

An "Open Internet" doesn't need 300+ pages of FCC Packet Police powers! All you have to do is go to a court and say "This person promised me 20Mbps to the Internet and I'm only seeing 1Mbps/nothing at all" and the court says "Yep, looks like fraud." Why have the courts been insufficent?

Can you point to ONE example of a "Net Neutrality" violation happening today? Ever? Can you then be so confident that the same people who brought you the Broadcast Flag are the right people to be enforcing this?

Comment: Re:Department of Fairness can not be far behind (Score 1) 618

by diamondmagic (#49140043) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

Citation needed... Oh that right, you can't, because we don't even know the rules they voted on!

The FCC is, however, claiming a broad discretion to review non-neutral practices that may “harm” consumers or edge providers and force action. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

Repeat after me: "The FCC is not my friend." These are not "Net Neutrality" regulations, these are Title II rules that claims the Internet is not an "information system." Ha. Haha.

"Consequences, Schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." -- "Ali Baba Bunny" [1957, Chuck Jones]

Working...