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


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re: Why doesn't law enforcement get it? (Score 1) 145

Just print out the contract and amend it to require a subpoena before releasing relating to you. If the company accepts the change in terms it is then legally bound to request the subpoena. This is no different to crossing out terms that you don't agree with. Just get the changes initialled by the companies representative.

If we all do this the changes will become part of the standard contract.

Comment Re:Yup. Me too. (Score 1) 229

Complain to your consumer affairs people. Netflix are choosing to implement a disruptive solution rather than a non disruptive solution (e.g. redirect to a IPv4 only set of servers). You have paid for your service. You are not attempting to circumvent geo fencing. It is Netflix's responsibility to do geo fencing to the best of their ability which they clearly are not doing.

Comment Re:YUP (Score 1) 229

And Netflix have chosen to do this "solution" rather than a real solution which will work with the IPv6 network as it was when they turned on IPv6 for themselves.

HE's tunnel prefixes are reasonable well known. It doesn't that a rocket scientist to say "Is the connection coming from this block" and redirect to IPv4. Do the same for the other IPv6 tunnel brokers.

This is different for a IPv4 in IPv4 tunnel.

Comment Re:IPv6 and NAT (Score 1) 112

No. It has not endorsed NAT. In fact is explicitly discouraged. RFC 6296 is
a experimental (not standards track) RFC which says DO NOT DO THIS
but if you do this is a least worst way.

For reasons discussed in [RFC2993] and Section 5, the IETF does not
recommend the use of Network Address Translation technology for IPv6.
Where translation is implemented, however, this specification
provides a mechanism that has fewer architectural problems than
merely implementing a traditional stateful Network Address Translator
in an IPv6 environment. It also provides a useful alternative to the
complexities and costs imposed by multihoming using provider-
independent addressing and the routing and network management issues
of overlaid ISP address space. Some problems remain, however. The
reader should consider the alternatives suggested in [RFC4864] and
the considerations of [RFC5902] for improved approaches.

Comment Re: Safe Harbor and ContentID (Score 2) 246

The point of the safe harbour legislation is to remove this path provided the ISP meets the requirements of the safe harbour legislation.

You can sue (nobody can prevent you doing that) but the chances of success are negligible unless you can show the ISP isn't meeting the requirements of the safe harbour legislation.

Comment Re:There won't be a better test case (Score 1) 293

Only if they want a contempt of court charge. While they are allowed to challenge orders they are not allowed to take steps which would prevent them doing what the court has ordered now that they are subject to a court order.

If you routinely destroy all correspondence after x days, you won't be in contempt if the court asks you for something that has been destroyed. If you destroy it after you have been asked for it you will be.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Ignorance is the soil in which belief in miracles grows." -- Robert G. Ingersoll