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

 



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

Comment Re: So basically ... the attack wins? (Score 5, Insightful) 192

They weren't hosting him for free, there's no such thing as free.

They were hosting him because it was good PR for them to be able to say "Yeah, we're capable of holding up this high value target's website just fine regardless of all the attacks he regularly comes under".

This is a tacit admittance that Akamai's business model has changed from high end bulletproof host to just another host that will not keep your site up in the face of a DDOS. This is rather unfortunate for them, because such low end hosts are widely available, and at a far lower price point.

I wish them luck with their new model as just another host chasing the low hanging fruit. They've sacrificed an incredibly important unique selling point for them - their reputation as a host that will keep you going no matter what.

Comment Re:He's just showboating (Score 1) 374

Not that I'm defending him, but there are some issues with your points, particularly context is important.

Part the reason you have to understand why someone might think the UK is safer than Sweden is because it was at a point at which public distaste for the UK's extradition treaty was at an all time high over cases such as the McKinnon case, extradition of Assange would've tipped it over the edge and have gotten the British public to force the whole treaty to be torn up. I suspect he saw a lot of political merit in trying to force that.

He went to Sweden I believe before he thought there was a threat of extradition to the US, the charges against him were raised, then dropped and he was told he was free to leave the country, at which point he went to the UK (in large part because he had a lot of high profile celebrity friends here). The charges were then raised again in Sweden after he'd been told he was free to live.

So whilst I'm not really disputing the rest of it, the questions you raise are easily answered in the context of the case at the time.

Comment Re:Fooled me once (Score 1) 14

Interesting to hear this as I nearly bought the Hero 4 black for taking footage whilst diving, but was warned off it by numerous people saying that in the housing the thing just overheated and shutdown within about 10 minutes.

Sure enough, hundreds of complaints about this online. I ended up buying the Hero 4 silver which has been a fantastic piece of kit and I can't complain at all about it, but I still to this day can't for the life of me understand why the Hero 4 black was even allowed to stay on sale given that it was basically faulty out the box in that it would fail quickly in the housing it was shipped with.

I'd never buy a new GoPro release now if they're willing to ship something so fundamentally broken on release and keep it on sale for years after their tech support are admitting to people that that's just how it is. This is a real shame because their working kit is really impressive.

Comment Re: Arrest warrent is being drawn up now (Score 1) 337

"First this is an American website, the correct spelling is favor."

Just because you're a nation of illiterates doesn't mean you have to bring everyone else down to your level. I'll stick with the actual international English spelling thanks. Last I checked there was no stars and stripes flying over the site's banner, nor any rules that claim we have to conform to American English, or in fact, English at all.

"Second, this kid probably would be found guilty of theft of services but that is only because judges have been misreading the law in corporations favor.. not just in these cases but pretty much across the board."

Or it could simply be because he did actually engage in theft of services and bragged about it across the internet. You know, just a thought.

Comment Re: Arrest warrent is being drawn up now (Score 1) 337

That's an extraordinary claim, I await your extraordinary evidence with intrigue.

More likely it was (naively) never assumed that anyone would try and masquerade URLs through a speedtest URL and bypass the restrictions as a result. This doesn't help the kid though, naively leaving your car or front door unlocked doesn't give a criminal free reign to steal the car or rob your home.

Comment Re: Arrest warrent is being drawn up now (Score 1) 337

But that's really the point isn't it? They engineered their network for speedtest URLs to bypass all their security measures.

The very act therefore of dressing something up as something it isn't - i.e. masquerading non-speedtest URLs as speedtest URLs is in itself clear an attempt to bypass the purpose of their engineering efforts. No one can rationally put forward a "How could he have known he wasn't allowed to do it argument" not least because the kid has fucking admitted that he recognises this wasn't their intention and that their intention is that he pays for data, and yet has done it anyway.

The problem is that it's hard in general to come up with any reason how or why you might "accidentally" proxy everything through a speedtest URL and hence accidentally bypass data usage restrictions - it's the sort of thing that's just never going to happen unless their is an intent to bypass restrictions, and when that intent is there any hope of winning a defence against argument of theft of services is basically impossible at that point.

This isn't like copyright infringement where you can reasonably argue that you were already paying for the bandwidth and you would never have bought the copyright material anyway, and thus no one has been deprived of anything and thus this isn't theft. This is someone using a service that actually costs the carrier money to maintain and provide, bandwidth that has to be paid for across networks by the carrier, and so the carrier has genuinely been deprived of data that it can now not provide to other users, instead it has to pay for more data transit costs for those users instead. That's why this is reasonable to describe as genuine theft unlike copyright infringement.

Comment Re: Arrest warrent is being drawn up now (Score 1) 337

Hey I'm not defending T-Mobile's practices, no need to conflate the argument with that as I absolutely wouldn't dispute that with you, I'm just saying that the guy I responded too's "analysis" of the law was, at best, frankly completely and utterly retarded and would be laughed at in a court of law. It was classic internet forum lawyer drivel.

Comment Re: Arrest warrent is being drawn up now (Score 5, Insightful) 337

As much as all this might have sounded good in your head, when you wrote it, I outright guarantee you that a judge, and jury would trivially be persuaded that your attempt to twist the language has absolutely no legal validity.

This is why we have lawyers, to advise on reality of such things, unfortunately you're clearly not one, so you should probably stop pretending you are in case you give someone completely misguided advice and get them into trouble.

You obviously haven't been keeping track of trends in law relating to digital issues, if you had you'd know that there is no get out clause in the law that allows for wishful thinking posted on the internet by a random non-lawyer.

Like it or not, theft of services is a thing, and this kid would be guaranteed to have been found guilty of it regardless of how desperately you may wish to try and mis-read the law in your favour.

I know this because such cases have been brought and won succesfully since at least the time of the widespread use of phreaking in the 80s. If you want to argue this guy wouldn't be caught you'd need to explain why this guy's bypass of the security measures in place is somehow different to anyone elses. I think you'll struggle though, simply because it's really not.

Comment Re:It's the new war on drugs! (Score 1) 136

This is only for criminal piracy - i.e. piracy to make a profit, and the maximum sentence is only for the most serious cases, so for example if someone is selling pirated software online as legitimate software and then using that money to fund al-Qaeda or whatever then they might get 10 years.

People downloading the latest movies, TV series, or music aren't affected by this as they're not engaging in criminal piracy, it's still a civil issue and there is no prison sentence for civil offences.

Comment Re:People, this is how the system works. (Score 1) 526

Even if you want to ignore a large segment of your population for absolutely no reason whatsoever there are still higher standards of living in the countries I mentioned, for starters no one goes without healthcare, no matter how poor they may be.

The idea that those nations are almost entirely white is rather odd, and again I don't really understand why skin colour is a factor here, population of a country is population of a country, you can't segregate based on something entirely arbitrary. As you apparently haven't paid any attention to the news over the last two years though, Europe has had a massive influx of migrants, and countries like Sweden and Norway have been prime target destinations, the idea that the US somehow has it hard or has it unique in terms of migrants is rather odd - relative to their per head of population these nations have received far more.

You're absolutely right that the US is sought after, it's far better than most 3rd world situations many people in the Central and South America regions live in (even if the countries in those areas themselves aren't 3rd world in their entirety). Crossing to the US is far easier for them as it's a large land border. I suspect if Canada shared a border with Mexico (or in fact the countries I mentioned) then you'd actually see many choose those nations instead. People cross into the US because it's there, and it's easier than the alternatives, not because they have a love for more extreme brands of capitalism.

Comment Re:People, this is how the system works. (Score 3, Insightful) 526

Actually I think it's merely that no system is inherently perfect, and any attempts to tend towards one extreme, be it capitalism, communism, or something else results in problems.

I think the reality is you have to put aside preconceived notions of this system is bad, or this system is good and consider that each system has it's merits.

The real solution is to try and balance the best parts of all the systems as far as possible. From what I've seen over the years for example, a healthy blend of socialism and capitalism seems to result in a far healthier, happier, more educated society than tending too far towards just socialism or just capitalism - countries like Sweden, Norway, New Zealand and so forth are some of the most sought after places in the world to live as a result of this.

I think really all countries like the US need are more socialism to counter the corrupting influence of too much capitalism - just not so much that you replace capitalist corruption with socialist corruption.

It's a difficult balancing act for sure, but balance always seems far better than extremism.

Comment Re:Next the gov't decides YOU have too much money. (Score 1) 579

This is such a nonsensical argument, it's entirely akin to arguing that once a burglar has committed a burglary it's too late to arrest them and seize the goods back because to do so would be a violation of ex post facto.

The reality is that many crimes are dealt with after they happen, some crimes require many years to investigate in deal with in part because of their complexity, and in part because of lack of availability of information or resources required.

However much Apple fanboys may wish to argue this is a retroactive change it's simply not, it was illegal as far back as 1979 for Ireland to offer preferential rates to certain companies that other companies had no access to - that's before Apple engaged in this form of tax evasion and so it's lawyers and accountants should've full well advised it that it was breaking the law, if they didn't then that's their problems, no one elses.

This is really the fundamental point - that long running mantra in defence of tax evaders of "They're legally avoiding tax!" has now been proven false, that doesn't mean you get to declare their tax evasion as mere avoidance, on the contrary, the reality is that what you previously declared mere legal avoidance has now been deemed illegal evasion, and that's the problem here - these companies have been engaging in illegal tax evasion with the assistance of the Irish state and now they've finally been caught and sentenced.

For a long time because no action was taken against these companies you could indeed simply shout "It's just avoidance, they're doing nothing wrong!". That's simply no longer true, we now know that it was evasion after all, that they were in fact doing wrong, and that they're being rightly punished for it. This doesn't just apply to this particular ruling but to the fines enforced against Google, Fiat, and all the others - the reality is that these corporations are tax evaders, no matter how hard they may have tried to push the PR view that they're merely engaging in avoidance, they weren't, their actions are criminal evasion and people like you will just have to accept now that you were wrong all along about it all merely being legal avoidance. You don't get to declare it any other way, because you're not the law, and the law isn't on your side, those you were defending broke it and have been busted. Get over it - you don't even owe them anything.

Comment Re:Greed wins (Score 1) 302

That's not really a problem, there's no real issue with that as that's perfectly legal. They just have to explain to the world and their citizens next time they go bankrupt why they couldn't fund public services, and when the public ask if maybe it's because they only have a corporation tax rate of 5% they'll have difficult questions to answer wont they?

The problem is that they're economically reliant on the rest of the companies in the country paying 12.5% - independent shops, smaller and medium businesses, those who can't afford to try and pay for global scale tax avoidance/evasion. If therefore they reduce the rate overall then that means smaller companies are now playing on a level playing field to Apple, but it also means they'll get less tax revenue overall. It may well be that they'll get more global companies using them as a haven, but it may also be that countries outside the EU then slap massive tarrifs on Irish origin products too. It's also possible that far wealthier, far more fundamentally economically sound countries like Norway could just destroy them at their own game because Ireland just isn't a financially solid enough country to ever win in a race to the bottom. They'd fail hard.

So yes, you're right, they could do that, but then they'd fail again, and then their people would be furious again, because this time external help wouldn't be forthcoming, so it probably wouldn't be the smartest of moves.

If Ireland really wants to carry on like this then it's welcome to leave the EU and do so, but it can't complain when it gets tarrifed through the roof and loses the financial cushion the EU provides. Alternatively, Ireland, could simply just stop trying and failing at being a tax haven and start actually trying to become a productive member of the global economy rather than a mere leech.

You know what they say, there aint no such thing as a free lunch, that remains true throughout all walks of life.

Slashdot Top Deals

I never cheated an honest man, only rascals. They wanted something for nothing. I gave them nothing for something. -- Joseph "Yellow Kid" Weil

Working...