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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Who said what? (Score 1) 391

While I know your comment was meant to be sarcastic (and I hope you get a funny mod or two for it), I really do wonder what would happen if every white person (regardless of gender or orientation) in the world stopped working for a week. Every male (regardless of race or orientation) for an additional week, then every cisgender (regardless of race, physical gender, or orientation) for another week, and every heterosexual (regardless of the other factors, as well) for yet another week.

That is, for each of those labels (white, cisgender, hetero, male) that applies to you, you take a week off. I wonder how we'd be valued then.

Comment Re:Who said what? (Score 1) 391

It is important to be able to identify people who should be avoided. What better term is there to apply to them than the one they choose for themselves?

I'm not invested in it at all; I'm interested in staying out of it. In order to do so, however, I must know what an SJW is and how to identify them so that I can avoid them.

Comment Re:Admission (Score 1) 126

If CloudFlare would stop providing bulletproof hosting for criminals and spammers, the internet would be a better place.

Eh? CloudFlare provides hosting now? That's news to me.

Oh, wait, they don't.

If CloudFlare were to stop providing hosting to these sites, they would first have to start providing hosting to these sites. This would, arguably, make the internet a worse place, at least temporarily.

Comment Re:Passing the buck? (Score 1) 126

More to the point and perhaps something you didn't consider: by simply stopping the packages they would actually be contributing more than by delivering them. They'd be alerting both the distributor and the recipient that they'd been discovered and giving them time to flee. Better is to silently alert the authorities, otherwise carrying on as if you didn't know anything, wait for the warrant, then turn over additional details without hesitation.

If you actually want to see a criminal organization taken down and the people running it successfully prosecuted, don't interfere and don't give police everything you have up front. Leave the situation alone, let police know *what* information you have, give them enough of a taste that they'll be able to get a warrant, and assure them that you'll hand it over the moment they show up with such. This ensures the following:
A) They will seek a warrant
B) They will not raid your house at 3AM to obtain the evidence
C) There will be sufficient proof of how said evidence was obtained that even the best and most expensive lawyers won't be able to have it thrown out

Expanding on point C, without the warrant it is entirely possible that a good lawyer could argue parallel construction, or prove that you collected said evidence via means through which it would have been illegal for police to have done so and argue that, in doing so, you were acting as an agent of the state. Boom, evidence thrown out, case dismissed due to lack of evidence, bad guys know who you are and aren't in prison... have fun with that.

I know you're interested in Global Thermonuclear War, but I implore you: How about a nice game of Chess?

Comment Re:Passing the buck? (Score 1) 126

they charge for it and they charge more for the service they provide than what it costs them

Funny, I've been using them for years and I've never paid them a cent. If $0.00 is more than it costs them, that cost would appear to be negative.

No, the reality is that the bandwidth and minuscule amount of storage required by most sites is far a cheaper advertising cost than, say, AdWords; so, they give their core CDN service away literally for free and bank on charging for more enterprise-level features.

Comment Re:Passing the buck? (Score 1) 126

What's more valuable: shutting the site down immediately, or allowing law enforcement to collect evidence and obtain and serve a warrant for the account details, including billing information (identifying the site owner) and actual IP addresses of servers (identifying the hosting provider)?

Once they've identified the hosting provider, they can easily get another warrant for the account details held there and the servers hosting the site. They, then, have two sets of billing details identifying one or more child porn site operators, as well as the contents of the servers filed away in evidence and can go arrest and prosecute the site operators so they're not on the street to spring up more such sites in place of the ones you're saying they should take down on sight.

Now, then, the question remains: does CloudFlare notify the proper authorities when such a site is found? They should, and I like to believe they do. They should not provide any details beyond the address of the site, however, until a warrant is presented, at which point they should do so without hesitation or argument; a good lawyer could argue they were acting as an agent of the state in providing said details without a warrant and have a case thrown out.

And no, you can't say "the sites are still up so, clearly, CloudFlare hasn't turned them in". Yes, that's one possibility; others include:
A) They did turn the sites in; investigations are still underway and CloudFlare has been asked (neigh: ordered) to leave them alone
B) They did turn the sites in; the sites are FBI honeypots and CloudFlare has been asked (neigh: ordered) to leave them alone
C) The sites are hosted outside of the jurisdiction of the agency to which they were reported and CloudFlare has been asked (neigh: ordered) to leave them alone while the proper agencies are pulled in
D) Some combination of A, B, and C
E) Something else I've not thought of here

Full disclosure: I interviewed at CloudFlare a while back and know several engineers there. I've actually asked how they handle these types of situations in the past and the answer is universally along the lines of "we take steps to ensure such sites disappear for good; beyond that, I am not allowed to discuss it". To me, that implies that they do care and that they do turn in such sites.

Comment Re:Saving Money (Score 5, Informative) 188

*if* you didn't already use those services.
I found that my kids and I almost never watched broadcast TV, but we used Netflix (and Amazon Prime to a much lesser extent) more than TV. It was so bad that we lost the remote control and no one cared. so I turned it all of, data only. Totally worth it. The only real difference is now when a series I really like hits one of the streaming services I don't get enough sleep because I binge, rather than DVR and watching (roughly) when it was broadcast.
-nb

Comment Re:Passing the buck? (Score 1) 126

Yes, a CDN hosts content. In this case they're hosting images, stylesheets, javascript, and maybe a bit of XML; CloudFlare does not cache much beyond that.

Unless the claim is that the pirate sites are using unlicensed images and ripped off site templates (which it is fully possible and more than likely that they are doing; though I don't understand that to be the nature of the claims against them), CloudFlare is not contributing to the piracy in any way.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Programmers think better when playing Adventure or Rogue.

Working...