

Run a Wi-Fi Network? HBO and Showtime Want to You to Police Your Users - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/run-wifi-network-hbo-and-showtime-want-you-police-your-users

======
jrockway
I read through the court order and didn't see the part where the court orders
Wi-Fi networks to block the infringing content. Is it even common for
enterprise-grade access points to have support for blocking specific content?
How does the court want it to be implemented? Removing DNS records? Active SSL
inspection? Are they compelling CAs to issue fake certificates?

This seems poorly thought out and poorly implemented. But I wonder if it's
time to cancel my HBO subscription.

~~~
DiabloD3
I'm not going to directly blame HBO here. HBO had to fight for at least the
last decade to even be able to stream their stuff online.

Their major shareholders try to force HBO to do things that are neither
healthy for the US population, HBO's viewers, and also sometimes not even
their shareholders.

Example: Sure, HBO Go, right? iOS, Android, etc etc... but until recently,
only if you already had HBO service from a participating cable or sat company.
Time Warner, the second largest cable company in the US, decided to not
participate.

After much fighting with shareholders, rightsholders, and other forms of
dickholders, they finally can sell you HBO Go service without requiring you to
be an HBO customer (ie, finally you can have HBO _and_ be a cordcutter; it is
now 2015).

All of that said: court orders about technology rarely make sense in any terms
that are meaningful to people like us, the people who actually understand how
the technology works.

What I don't like about this entire thing is they are trying to go after major
WiFi hotspot providers (ie, the companies that do it for the Starbuckses and
McDondaldses that don't do it in house) instead of using the powers already
granted to them by Congress; or powers they already abuse such as just
stealing domains from major torrent and restreamer sites.

Honestly, this is why I support an Internet that everything is SSL secured to
help APs from being attacked by a legal system that is simply outpaced by the
speed of the evolution of technology; and don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming
the government, some of this technology really is difficult to understand, and
I don't expect them to understand it no more than I expect to understand how
to build a house, do brain surgery, or perform complex choreographed dance
moves.

~~~
smsm42
I just went to the HBO Go site and the only subscription options I found is
either through TV provider or through HBO now, the latter is for Apple iOS
platforms only. So I'm still not sure how I could get HBO in 2015 not through
designated provider. Though I know how I could get any HBO shows in
approximately 3 clicks, for free and without any hassle, if I wanted to go
this way. So it's still hard to understand what they're trying to do there.

~~~
DiabloD3
HBO Now is indeed their new offering, and they are only partnering with Apple
for the launch, available on iOS and AppleTV only; however it will be rolled
out to other devices eventually.

Apple cut the price of the AppleTV to $69, so if you _really_ want it, its not
expensive to get in. However, I'll just wait for a future Netflix deal
instead.

~~~
smsm42
I thought about getting AppleTV, but after learning the latest model has no
jailbreak I decided not to spend my money on a product the manufacturers of
which spent so much time on denying me full access to the device.

That and also I already have Pi, Chromecast and Amazon TV and I'm running out
of HD ports on my TV :)

------
scurvy
Google pre-emptively blocked DNS requests of the A record for sportship.org. I
was curious to see how sportship was going to handle the load, but Google says
they know better than all of us.

OpenDNS is not censoring this content.

Friends don't let friends use Google public resolvers.

~~~
scurvy
Also, this is why you should donate to quality organizations like the EFF.
They're not just nerds. They're nerds with law degrees.

------
monochromatic
How can the court issue an order to someone who's not a party to the lawsuit?

------
lerxst
Nowhere in the court order does it state that wireless access point operators
must monitor their users. Concerns about the legality of effectively shutting
down a website aside, the order deals primarily with service providers that
enable the services mentioned, not those who would be attempting to access the
content. While the phrase "providers of computer and network resources through
which video transits" could be interpreted as access point operators, it seems
unlikely that any court would interpret it that way.

