Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Claims?? (Score 1) 162

As we've seen in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, China, Libya, and others, the government having the ability to block internet or phone access for some or all users is going to get many people killed one day.

There is a lot of ground to cover before the government of NZ or its neighboring nations even remotely resemble the governments you've listed, and alarmist attitudes contribute nothing to reasoned debate.

And how do they get this power to censor? By blocking other things (porn, copyrighted material, etc).

Censorship and enforcement of copyright protection are completely different topics. If you believe anyone should be permitted to distribute materials protected under the copyrights of others without permission and without repercussions from a court system designed to handle such matters (which NZ actually has, if you care to visit the link I provided earlier), you're welcome to speak against copyright in principle. However, it is the law, whether you like it or not.

Even nuclear secrets aren't dangerous enough to warrant a system of censorship.

Speaking as someone who has served aboard an Ohio class submarine, I cannot stress strongly enough how incredibly wrong you are.

Comment Re:Claims?? (Score 2) 162

What I take issue with is misrepresentation of the current state of affairs and sensationalist/deceptive reporting. Sure, anything could happen, but it isn't happening now. As things stand at present, NZ actually appears to have a fairly standard method of dealing with claims in court. If that changes, I would absolutely encourage anyone and everyone to scream bloody murder. Unfortunately, sensationalist crap like this "story" do nothing but make people who care about the topic look like a bunch of nutjobs in the meantime, and probably serves to damage the cause of freedom.

Comment Re:Claims?? (Score 5, Informative) 162

TFA doesn't do a very good job of referencing relevant materials. It appears NZ has a copyright tribunal that hears cases of alleged copyright infringement and makes rulings based on evidence submitted by both parties, and there is an appeals process that goes through a high court. I'm not intimately familiar with the nuts and bolts of NZ law, but at a minimum TFA could have done a bit more to provide useful information. While the copyright tribunal is mentioned in passing, no link is provided. Then again, this is TorrentFreak we're talking about.

Comment Re:Wonder if Bit.ly is still happy about their URL (Score 5, Informative) 77

Root servers for the ly TLD:

  • dns.lttnet.net
  • auth02.ns.uu.net
  • ns-ly.ripe.net
  • phloem.uoregon.edu
  • dns1.lttnet.net

All of these would have to inoperable before all .ly domains would stop resolving, and there's still the matter of caching at intermediate DNS servers until the TTL expires for records. Additionally, bit.ly isn't hosted within Libya. In short, I don't expect bit.ly to be going down over this.

Debian

Submission + - KVM Virtualization with Debian 6 (Squeeze) (palegray.net)

palegray.net writes: "Whether you'd like to set up your own "personal cloud" for development purposes, or just want to learn more about server virtualization using open source software, this guide to KVM virtualization on Debian 6 gives you everything you need to get started (server not included). From installing Debian on your host server, to configuring KVM and installing your first guest VM, every step is covered. Enjoy!"

Comment Re:I don't think they care (Score 1) 744

Where, precisely, in that post did I mention LOIC? To put it simply, anyone using that particular method to participate in a DDoS attack is a moron, and deserves what's coming to him. However, since you mentioned the civil aspect of this issue, I'll once again wish you "good luck" in getting any compensation whatsoever out of anyone actually subject to a civil penalty in such a case. Your armchair lawyering aside, history has more than adequately demonstrated the folly of what you're advocating. Oh, and don't forget about the technical consultation fees required to actually get beyond the "reasonable doubt" aspect of the case, the sheer enormity of the number of potential defendants you'll need to chase down, the legal fees involved in putting the matter through the courts (time isn't free, even if you're an attorney yourself), additional repercussions and continued attacks from those who are displeased by such actions, etc.

Once again, "good luck with that."

Comment Re:I don't think they care (Score 3, Informative) 744

If they have anyone technically competent around it would be trivial for them to identify and sue participants in a DDOS, ADDING to their cash flow.

You've just demonstrated a severe lack of knowledge about the basics of DDoS operations. It is most assuredly not trivial, especially when tens of thousands of compromised machines owned by people who are barely aware of the location of the power switch are involved. Even assuming a handful of folks were stupid enough to carry this out in a manner that were to permit their apprehension, there are probably going to be jurisdictional issues to contend with (likely crossing national borders), coupled with the age old adage that "you can't get blood out of a stone." In other words, good luck identifying any actual willful participant, and good luck getting any money out of said person should you manage to drag him into court.

tl;dr version == Ha, good luck with that.

Slashdot Top Deals

Every little picofarad has a nanohenry all its own. -- Don Vonada

Working...