 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scott com> wrote:
> > Soon we will be in a situation where you really can't speak against
> > your government (about certain issues) without being fined or jailed,
> Happens in a lot of countries already regarding certain events during the
> war - doesn't seem to affect anyone apart from the people wanting to cause
> trouble for the sake of it. Is that a problem for you?
You demonstrate perfectly the kind of mentality. Limiting freedom of
speech is completely "acceptable" when the subject in question is taboo
enough.
People are already being fined in many western countries for expressing
their opinion *without* causing any trouble. It's getting worse by the day.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> I would hazard a guess that blocking BitTorrent is *infeasible* too.
>> It's not like it runs on a Well Known Port. It will run on any damned
>> port you like!
>
> Some ISPs started blocking it or throttling speed by detecting the protocol.
Now, see, if I paid money to access the Internet, and then my ISP tried
to prevent me accessing the Internet, I'd be... quite upset.
> So now many clients support encryption. Run it through port 443 and they
> can't tell it apart from online banking :)
...except for the massive quantity of data. :-P
Traffic analysis, anyone?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>> So now many clients support encryption. Run it through port 443 and they
>> can't tell it apart from online banking :)
>
> ...except for the massive quantity of data. :-P
>
> Traffic analysis, anyone?
Hmm, massive amounts of data encrypted and obscured are bound to raise a
few eyebrows.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>
>>> So now many clients support encryption. Run it through port 443 and they
>>> can't tell it apart from online banking :)
>>
>> ...except for the massive quantity of data. :-P
>>
>> Traffic analysis, anyone?
>
> Hmm, massive amounts of data encrypted and obscured are bound to raise a
> few eyebrows.
Indeed. A typical HTTPS session transaction is, what, 200 KB?
Transferring multiple GB of data in both directions might look
*slightly* suspicious...
Thinking about it, all an ISP *really* needs to do is block any network
transaction involving "large" amounts of data. That'll block any
concievably file-sharing technology, not just BitTorrent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You demonstrate perfectly the kind of mentality. Limiting freedom of
> speech is completely "acceptable" when the subject in question is taboo
> enough.
You *really* believe you have complete freedom of speech? What gives you
the right to expect that? The general public expect that if you lie to an
official, or tell others to commit crimes, or speak in a way that damages
anyone else mentally, you should be suitably punished. I'd hate to live
somewhere where those sorts of acts went unpunished.
> People are already being fined in many western countries for expressing
> their opinion *without* causing any trouble.
Care to give any examples?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>
>>>> So now many clients support encryption. Run it through port 443 and
>>>> they
>>>> can't tell it apart from online banking :)
>>>
>>> ...except for the massive quantity of data. :-P
>>>
>>> Traffic analysis, anyone?
>>
>> Hmm, massive amounts of data encrypted and obscured are bound to raise
>> a few eyebrows.
>
> Indeed. A typical HTTPS session transaction is, what, 200 KB?
> Transferring multiple GB of data in both directions might look
> *slightly* suspicious...
>
> Thinking about it, all an ISP *really* needs to do is block any network
> transaction involving "large" amounts of data. That'll block any
> concievably file-sharing technology, not just BitTorrent.
Or they can just start charging you by the MB once you've exceeded a
certain monthly cap. Some ISPs in the U.S. are doing just that.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Thinking about it, all an ISP *really* needs to do is block any
>> network transaction involving "large" amounts of data. That'll block
>> any concievably file-sharing technology, not just BitTorrent.
>
> Or they can just start charging you by the MB once you've exceeded a
> certain monthly cap. Some ISPs in the U.S. are doing just that.
Yeah, I've heard of such things.
Of course, no ISP can truly offer an "unlimited" Internet access
package. The difference is that some of them will *tell* you what the
limit is, and others will make it up as they go along...
(If the limit is in the T&C, then that's the limit they have to follow.
If the T&C are more vague, they can cap you to whatever suits their
pockets...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Hehe you could say the same with guns. Actually no, a much higher
>> proportion of people use guns for legal activity :-)
>
> Hmm not really... Guns were *made for* killing.
And you really think it's a coincidence that bitTorrent was released at
almost exactly the same time Napster was closed down?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> (If the limit is in the T&C, then that's the limit they have to follow. If
> the T&C are more vague, they can cap you to whatever suits their
> pockets...)
For my mobile broadband, the usage is capped at 5GB per month, but after
that the speed is simply limited to 64kb/s. Seems pretty sensible to me as
there are no hidden charges and no sudden loss of connection.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> And you really think it's a coincidence that bitTorrent was released at
> almost exactly the same time Napster was closed down?
I was under the impression the original Bit Torrent paper was somebody's
final year project or something?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
