What is Digg?94 Comments
- Morky, on 11/15/2007, -0/+58Welcome to ***** China.
- autosovereign, on 12/06/2008, -0/+41This sounds exciting. And not only will it affect AT&T customers, it'll also affect anyone else whose data passes through their network. Which is probably everyone here. I'm very curious as to what all the other countries will think about having U.S. corporations police the internet.
- sophiaperennis, on 11/15/2007, -0/+40This will not work if the P2P distributed file in question is archived in e.g., a ZIP file, or any other compression format for that matter. This is a wonderful example of how corporations like AT&T will spend so much money on R&D to figure out a way to filter P2P content, and how it simply gets beaten by a technique that takes 5 minutes and costs nothing.
- Shigglyboo, on 11/15/2007, -3/+39if only these dastardly companies like at&t & comcast weren't so ridiculously entrenched we could boycott them. I'm pretty damn confident if I had the cash I could start my own telecom company, ISP, cellphone provider, etc. and DESTROY these guys. It'd be simple, I would charge fair prices, treat people with respect, hire friendly people who know their ass from their elbow, oh and I wouldn't break the law.
- DiggMasterJ, on 11/15/2007, -0/+25It's no accident that the richest guy in the world isn't a king or a sheik or an oil tycoon, but a telecoms operator. It's a commodity like water and gas, so you have everybody balls in a vice. All it takes is a government that accepts cash, and you can do whatever you want.
- ravage86, on 11/15/2007, -0/+19It's AT&T, what's their motivation? Nobody's going to see this and think to themselves, "Content filtering? Awesome! I gotta switch to AT&T!". The only logical result is losing customers. As a public company, isn't it illegal for them to do this? Don't they have to work to increase the value of their stock?
- dillyhoo, on 11/15/2007, -1/+19I know, they've been filtering out my calls mid-conversation for years.
- groovechamp30, on 11/15/2007, -1/+15I put my faith in the geeks of the world to outsmart these asshats.
- TheUngod, on 11/15/2007, -1/+14Goodbye common carrier status
- RedHerringHack, on 11/15/2007, -0/+13You cannot trust someone that insists that they are trustworthy. It's all about actions, not words.
- IADTatami, on 11/15/2007, -2/+15You mean copyright infringers.
Thieves steal things. Nothing's been/being stolen, here. - Maddoktor2, on 11/15/2007, -2/+14***** AT&T.
- drato, on 11/15/2007, -0/+11Don't we all wish. Of course we know they'll buy their way out of that little conundrum too.
- Numarx, on 11/15/2007, -0/+10I agree, I don't see how this would work, zip files are corrupted without the entire file intact. So just getting a tiny tiny chunk of it wouldn't be enough information to filter it out.
- Slungsolow, on 11/15/2007, -0/+7I love how at&t recently changed their slogan again to "the company you can trust". Isn't this the third slogan change in as many months? "The company with the fewest dropped calls" >> "More bars in more places" (excellent slogan for the city of Scranton, PA BTW) >> "The company you can trust". hmmm...
- TritonX, on 11/15/2007, -1/+8Well, someone's got to know both the law and the technology, I guess there is not many of these peoples, and obviously they are not in the governement.
- TritonX, on 11/15/2007, -0/+6Sigh,
It's just going to complicate things further. You could use compression, you could also use some kind of encryption, where the key is obtained through another channel so they couldn't possibly unencrypt the stream on the fly, and there is probably hundreds of other ways to go around this or any kind of barriers. In brief, they are a bunch of idiots who don't understand how powerful the Internet can be. - TheUngod, on 11/15/2007, -0/+6Thats a very interesting way to look at it. However I'm sure they can come up with a reason they think this will increase the value of their stock, even if its BS.
- CondoleezzaRice, on 11/15/2007, -1/+6What about passworded (encrypted) RARs?
- Pinhedd, on 11/15/2007, -1/+6um, hate to break it to you but password encrypted RAR files are unable to be broken by anything but brute force, and I HIGHLY doubt that anything on the face of this planet can break encryption that fast.
- Phearce, on 11/15/2007, -0/+5Your world: designed by the company with your best interests in mind. Trust us.
- computerfreedom, on 11/15/2007, -0/+5exactly, what they are trying to do is..IMPOSSIBLE..how many super computers do they want tracking my 5 encrypted bit torrent transfers? this must look nice on an MPAA or RIAA powerpoint slide, but it is hardly plausible...Don't think incomplete .zip files are the only problem, we can encrypt our p2p content
- toastgodsupreme, on 11/15/2007, -1/+6That's how EVERYTHING runs though.
The people who make decisions, usually are NOT the people who should be making them. If it were a handful of us, from Digg as their analysts, they would've scrapped the project due to us pointing out all it's flaws and how it's not a feasable mechanism to deploy (unless the MPAA or someone was dumping a ***** TON of cash in their lap for doing this, then there'd really be no reason not to deploy).
Oh well, I'm not worried, most of the stuff I grab comes rar'ed up. What sucks is that we can't do anything to stop them. It's like watching your mom and dad agree to beat you every other day. There's nothing you can do to change their mind, they're bigger and in charge. - knobtwiddler, on 11/15/2007, -1/+5everyone needs to use encrypted p2p protocols. they wont even have the opportunity to test their video analysis software in a production environment if we encrypt everything.
- Identity4, on 11/15/2007, -1/+5"I would charge fair prices, treat people with respect, hire friendly people who know their ass from their elbow, oh and I wouldn't break the law."
Well, you better keep lawyers and government officials FAR away from your stuff, then. They seem to stive on making the world screwed up and complicated. - knobtwiddler, on 11/15/2007, -0/+4crypto
- groovechamp30, on 11/15/2007, -0/+4I hope to god (proverbial) that the corporate dicks in the US don't screw it up for everyone. Its a case of people not realising that something horrible is happening, most people and most of the media don't really understand what's going on so don't make a fuss.
- CheeseburgerBro, on 11/15/2007, -1/+5Dude, we have no idea where you live. Why don't you ask a friendly policeman?
Personally, I live in Canada. - Ellipsys, on 11/15/2007, -0/+41. This content doesn't belong to an ISP. Second, and most importantly... the damage done to society by having totally regulated, filtered, and lawsuit ready telecom infrastructure grossly outdoes the damage done by having people download copyrighted content Think about it another way: We could nearly totally prevent violent crimes; all we would have to do is have cameras and law enforcement on every corner, 24/365. Every person would need a genetic based ID card, and everything from going to the grocery store to work would be 'approved', timed, and monitored. Does this sound like a world you would want to live in?
- contrlkaos, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3I have PAXIO as my fiber Internet provider, and I must say that I am one of the lucky ones. These guys have unbelievable symmetric speeds, I'm at 25,600kbps download and upload for $48.50 a month. There's always a local tech or sales rep available when you call them, and they all know their stuff. I guess it's one of the perks for living in the Silicon Valley. They're at http://www.paxio.com.
- jacksprrow, on 11/15/2007, -2/+5its because 99% of the content we trade online isnt worth nearly what the companies want us to pay for the product. instead of focusing on how to stop us from sharing their over priced products.. they should work on lowering prices to a reasonable amount and they should also work on making products such as movies not SUCK ASS so much. Who's gonna pay for a few hours of advertisements on a dvd or BLURAY..*cough* transformers *cough* I say we all work on creating a good VPN network with trusted groups of peers.. completly encrypted and private. one group could connect to another group allowing both groups set of users to communicate securely after youve detirmined that the new group is trustworthy. kinda like the private torrent sites..
- etandrib, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3They were forced to change from "The company with the fewest dropped calls" because it simply wasn't true. They actually were the company with the most dropped calls in almost every major US city… So they changed to "The company you can trust" so they could still air their commercials except with different audio overlaid. It was more of a legal thing not some conspiracy to brainwash Americans - except for the normal marketing brainwashing of course. :-)
- Phearce, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3Not trying to call out the Tin Foil Hat brigade, but this seriously reminds me of the Project for the New American Century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_A ...
In short, a strategy outlined in the 90's designed to "promote American global leadership" with the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world." This document is widely cited as the genesis of both the "War on Terrorism" and intelligence gathering programs like the warrantless wire taps.
Regardless of your political views (or country of citizenship), you owe it to yourself to become familiar with the Project for the New American Century. - TritonX, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3Yeah I know, that's why they just keep piling up the legislations without ever having a clue how to enforce it. What is sad is that we are the one paying for it, financially and technologically. I like to think that one day all these ignorants won't be in power anymore and it will our time to govern. In 20+ years I guess most people will be aware of the internet and how it works and it's possibilities. I also like to think that by then internet will be a public service, like the roads and police, but when I look at how they administer their current affair, I'm not sure they could keep it simple.
- Lennalf, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3This technology is fairly similar to the filters that have been added to sites such as YouTube. If they can automatically scan the content and prevent people from breaching copyright law, then at least you won't have these cases where completely clueless Kazaa users are getting sued for thousands. I'm sure those intent on putting up restricted material will still find a way.
- AndreiOttawa, on 11/15/2007, -1/+3This is not ISP's content
- jacksprrow, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2its because 99% of the content we trade online isnt worth nearly what the companies want us to pay for the product. instead of focusing on how to stop us from sharing their over priced products.. they should work on lowering prices to a reasonable amount and they should also work on making products such as movies not SUCK ASS so much. Who's gonna pay for a few hours of advertisements on a dvd or BLURAY..*cough* transformers *cough* I say we all work on creating a good VPN network with trusted groups of peers.. completly encrypted and private. one group could connect to another group allowing both groups set of users to communicate securely after youve detirmined that the new group is trustworthy. kinda like the private torrent sites..
- mingistech, on 11/15/2007, -4/+6Just zipping a file will not protect it against packet analysis. I work at Ford and our Corporate Firewall will block certain content if it's zipped or not. Splitting it into rars doesn't even help. It's a very advanced firewall.
- knobtwiddler, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2dont forget the genesis of 911 itself, the "new pearl harbor"
oh and my persona favorite -
"genome- [race] specific bioweapons can be a useful political tool"
good thing they have the rumsfeld-monsanto-searle not-so-secret weapon. - kwilliam71, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2I wouldn't put it past AT&T to start blocking password encrypted P2P transfers?
- DemonCold9, on 11/15/2007, -1/+3What I feel is it isn't the ISP's place to willingly employ content-filtering technology with revenue that would be better served increasing their own bandwidth. There needs to be a substantial monetary incentive from the RIAA or another party which this would matter to. The only benefit visible to me is users being deterred from maxing out their AT&T bandwidth 24/7, or so their plan might go. As was mentioned earlier, though, .RAR puts a dagger through any circumvential measures.
- mirunit, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2ATT Tilt + Home Media Server (Vista, Media Center XP, Server 2003 R2). You can stream whatever media you have at home to your 3G device.
- OBKenobi, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2And that's after they stole $200 billion in taxes for FTTH they never bothered to deploy.
- Phearce, on 11/15/2007, -1/+3My guess is it has more to do with AT&T's reading of the DMCA. It could be as CLShortFuse points out and they want to license the technology, or they could just be taking a proactive stance and covering their own ass (against potential litigation).
- ThetaDot, on 11/15/2007, -3/+5"It'd be simple"
yeah okay. - Pinhedd, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2yes it will, password protected files are unable to be broken by anything but brute force.
- OBKenobi, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2NSAT&T.
- SiNN4R, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4I suggest you don't talk to a policeman then.
- Graves138, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3I have ethics, but over paying for something I can get for free isn't one of them. I don't feel any particular allegiance to any of these companies, it's their responsibilities of adapt and offer something I want. You can't just sit there and expect everyone to keep handing you money for something that is both easier and cheaper to get else where.
- flux1, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Ofcourse, with what all they are doing already for the gov, I'm sure nothing will happen to AT&T regarding losing common carrier if any complaints are made.
-
Show 51 - 92 of 92 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is