i am proud too, but i would hardly call this censorship. removing a story about how president Bush is a prick would be censorship.This was about piracy. why can't people see that?
It's also interesting how this is repeatedly referred to as a "crack", which is an interesting way of putting it.One thing I'd be interested in, to any BBC employees or users reading, is how they'll feel if Mark "Lavish American fact-finding mission" Thompson oversees the proposed shift of BBC online media from its current system, to a Microsoft Windows Media media cartel-type thing - ostensibly to prevent British license payers "stealing" the content they've presumably already paid to make - "stealing" it, I might add, from the rather large BBC web universe they pay to maintain.I'd also be wondering, as a Brit license payer, whether Microsoft would like to be paying for the exclusive content, instead of the license-paying public, as there doesn't seem to be very much reasoned justification for the new exclusivity to a particular corporation.Also, is it ethically sound if the proposition is implemented, since they would be a publicly funded, public service broadcaster enforcing the monopoly of a company that's been found in court on both sides of the atlantic to be an illegal taker and maintainer of monopolies.Something for Hislop to look at maybe - if it gets done, it's going to look pretty damned dodgy.If anyone was still following me by the end of that rather rambling question, firstly well done, secondly, what's your position on that?
"""Good comment chairboy, good to see that there are some digg users who actually think before posting. The problem is that there are all of these pseudo-hacking preteens who think they are "l33t h4x0rs" because they visited a Doom9 post and got the key. The funny thing is, most of these kids who keep reposting they keys have no idea what to do with the key or even have HD-DVD drive in the first place. Pretending to be a hacker seems to be coming back in style for these kids."""Since it wasn't about the hex value, and the same thing would have happened if it had been some other arbitrary bunch of characters but the same circumstances, I have to answer "No, not really."You've focused on the wrong thing and missed the point of what it was about. It was the manifestly repressive and sinister behaviour that's centred around the whole subject, and the prospect of Digg being controlled and censored by it, that sparked the revolt and unleashed all sorts of frustrations.
"""It seems inevitable that Digg is going to land in legal trouble over this. They've willfully and publicly disobeyed the law."""I expect you'll find that if they can make any repercussions stick for Digg it will be through sheer legal attrition. The trouble is, they can do that. I wouldn't go around shooting your mouth off about Digg having broken the law, because that's HIGHLY debatable if you do some research into the facts. That'd be a question for court, to be honest.From a technical standpoint, the simple fact of the matter is that you can't give someone the data AND mechanism with which to decrypt and access the data, then expect the encryption technique to be proof against that person - it will always be crackable - that really is simple objective fact.If I were those with the encrypted information, I'd be realistic, revoke the key and use another - anything more aggressive than that would be futile, and very bad PR.
No it wasn't. No mechanism was given out, and the principal use of that hex value (a hex value which was already in the public domain), when used with such a mechanism, is to watch a legitimately owned disk in a third party application.Let's recap:Not a mechanism to circumvent copy protection.Not a trade secret or anything like that as it was already in the public domain (and a matter of public record, too)Not copyrightable (you cannot copyright a number for very very obvious reasons)and so on.The legal threats are one thing. Slashdot and so on saw them for what they were, Digg didn't. Nobody minds when a company is pragmatic about frivolous legal threats, it was the way it was handled, and the frustrations that we all have about the DRM issues just didn't help that.
LOL Well played indeed. I hadn't had a chance to play on Digg until late that dreadful day. I came home to a chaotic circus... of insanity. I envisioned an army of young geeks who don't do anything politically productive, outside of digging a story about politics, who felt compelled to fight against an example of tyranny. No doubt this was fueled by disgruntled old timers who felt Digg lost it's way in 2006 and some rich, fat, old guy somewhere laughing.To me, this is just Digg. A place where rational meets the guy from Texas. I love the perceptive mother f**kers on here as well as the douche bags that can't help but express their retardedness so vehemently. I hope they make a made for TV movie about this s**t, really. I'd actually watch it. You could call it "The Day Digg Grew Up" or "The Idiots of Silicon Valley". I don't know, it doesn't really matter.The point is that Digg shouldn't be the place you decide to force change. Try that in your f**king real life. Digg is here for my amusement so don't f**k it up!
I understand what you're saying Derrick, but somehow I think that the few in the great big world out there really give a s**t about Digg.This site offers little value to you unless you just like to rant anonymously online. The site, after all, has no original content (aside from aforementioned rants).
silverchrysalisMay 3, 2007
welcome
liamnevilleMay 3, 2007
i am proud too, but i would hardly call this censorship. removing a story about how president Bush is a prick would be censorship.This was about piracy. why can't people see that?
blackadderiiiMay 3, 2007
It's also interesting how this is repeatedly referred to as a "crack", which is an interesting way of putting it.One thing I'd be interested in, to any BBC employees or users reading, is how they'll feel if Mark "Lavish American fact-finding mission" Thompson oversees the proposed shift of BBC online media from its current system, to a Microsoft Windows Media media cartel-type thing - ostensibly to prevent British license payers "stealing" the content they've presumably already paid to make - "stealing" it, I might add, from the rather large BBC web universe they pay to maintain.I'd also be wondering, as a Brit license payer, whether Microsoft would like to be paying for the exclusive content, instead of the license-paying public, as there doesn't seem to be very much reasoned justification for the new exclusivity to a particular corporation.Also, is it ethically sound if the proposition is implemented, since they would be a publicly funded, public service broadcaster enforcing the monopoly of a company that's been found in court on both sides of the atlantic to be an illegal taker and maintainer of monopolies.Something for Hislop to look at maybe - if it gets done, it's going to look pretty damned dodgy.If anyone was still following me by the end of that rather rambling question, firstly well done, secondly, what's your position on that?
blackadderiiiMay 3, 2007
"""Good comment chairboy, good to see that there are some digg users who actually think before posting. The problem is that there are all of these pseudo-hacking preteens who think they are "l33t h4x0rs" because they visited a Doom9 post and got the key. The funny thing is, most of these kids who keep reposting they keys have no idea what to do with the key or even have HD-DVD drive in the first place. Pretending to be a hacker seems to be coming back in style for these kids."""Since it wasn't about the hex value, and the same thing would have happened if it had been some other arbitrary bunch of characters but the same circumstances, I have to answer "No, not really."You've focused on the wrong thing and missed the point of what it was about. It was the manifestly repressive and sinister behaviour that's centred around the whole subject, and the prospect of Digg being controlled and censored by it, that sparked the revolt and unleashed all sorts of frustrations.
blackadderiiiMay 3, 2007
"""It seems inevitable that Digg is going to land in legal trouble over this. They've willfully and publicly disobeyed the law."""I expect you'll find that if they can make any repercussions stick for Digg it will be through sheer legal attrition. The trouble is, they can do that. I wouldn't go around shooting your mouth off about Digg having broken the law, because that's HIGHLY debatable if you do some research into the facts. That'd be a question for court, to be honest.From a technical standpoint, the simple fact of the matter is that you can't give someone the data AND mechanism with which to decrypt and access the data, then expect the encryption technique to be proof against that person - it will always be crackable - that really is simple objective fact.If I were those with the encrypted information, I'd be realistic, revoke the key and use another - anything more aggressive than that would be futile, and very bad PR.
blackadderiiiMay 3, 2007
No it wasn't. No mechanism was given out, and the principal use of that hex value (a hex value which was already in the public domain), when used with such a mechanism, is to watch a legitimately owned disk in a third party application.Let's recap:Not a mechanism to circumvent copy protection.Not a trade secret or anything like that as it was already in the public domain (and a matter of public record, too)Not copyrightable (you cannot copyright a number for very very obvious reasons)and so on.The legal threats are one thing. Slashdot and so on saw them for what they were, Digg didn't. Nobody minds when a company is pragmatic about frivolous legal threats, it was the way it was handled, and the frustrations that we all have about the DRM issues just didn't help that.
xxx420xxxMay 3, 2007
LOL Well played indeed. I hadn't had a chance to play on Digg until late that dreadful day. I came home to a chaotic circus... of insanity. I envisioned an army of young geeks who don't do anything politically productive, outside of digging a story about politics, who felt compelled to fight against an example of tyranny. No doubt this was fueled by disgruntled old timers who felt Digg lost it's way in 2006 and some rich, fat, old guy somewhere laughing.To me, this is just Digg. A place where rational meets the guy from Texas. I love the perceptive mother f**kers on here as well as the douche bags that can't help but express their retardedness so vehemently. I hope they make a made for TV movie about this s**t, really. I'd actually watch it. You could call it "The Day Digg Grew Up" or "The Idiots of Silicon Valley". I don't know, it doesn't really matter.The point is that Digg shouldn't be the place you decide to force change. Try that in your f**king real life. Digg is here for my amusement so don't f**k it up!
derrekitoMay 6, 2007
Maybe your right second, but still, all the publicity Digg got, Bad still = good in this case.
secondguesserMay 11, 2007
I understand what you're saying Derrick, but somehow I think that the few in the great big world out there really give a s**t about Digg.This site offers little value to you unless you just like to rant anonymously online. The site, after all, has no original content (aside from aforementioned rants).
woowoogirlJan 25, 2008
Yeah! Go Digg GO??