How tight is the "noose of the surveillance state" when it takes them years to stop groups like this? For example, the smokeloader malware mentioned in the post has been around since at least 2011 [1]
>In addition, Europol released information on eight fugitives suspected of involvement in dropper services and who are wanted by Germany
4 people in the initial arrests. They already have arrest warrants for at least another 8.
It seems they have arrested someone who provided a lot of infrastructure so it wouldn't surprise me if they were able to roll that into more arrests in the near future.
>“It has been discovered through the investigations so far that one of the main suspects has earned at least EUR 69 million in cryptocurrency by renting out criminal infrastructure sites to deploy ransomware,”
>Khan said the ICC’s prosecution team is also seeking warrants for Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as two other top Hamas leaders — Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al-Masri, the leader of the Al Qassem Brigades who is better known as Mohammed Deif, and Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’ political leader.
That is it..? Hamas has thousands of militants and hundreds of officials in Gaza and Qatar. At minimum the ICC should be issuing warrants for every Hamas member of al-qassam (their military wing) and Hamas core leadership.
3k Hamas fighters attacked Israel and posted it openly on social media. Half of those died in the initial attack and lots have surely died in the war since but there is no reason not to get arrest warrants for these war criminals who directly posted their war crimes to the internet.
Are they also supposed to submit arrest warrants for all the IDF soldiers who committed war crimes and shared them on social media? It's the job of the political/government/military leaders to keep their soldiers in check, and the job of the ICC to keep the leaders in check. (In theory at least)
> Or are you saying we should force the road builders to ensure the road has enough capacity to allow everyone to have a siren?
I don't know why you are trying to complicate the issue with a bad analogy. There is no reason for ISPs to be able to sell 'fast lanes' to consumers. There is no benefit to it at all and it directly impedes the service for everyone else.
>Bandwidth is limited. If you have have a surge of data and have to drop some, is it too crazy to think that the videoconference for an emergency responder should be the thing to not drop instead of the youtube video?
Sometimes bandwidth is limited. When it is truly limited latency goes up but it doesn't meant the ISP has to start blocking stuff. Anyways if an ISP is having bandwidth issues regularly they need to get that fixed and not try and gouge more money out of customers by offering 'fast lanes'.
Net neutrality doesn't mean ISPs can't do QoS. They just can't target specific applications or sources/destinations in an effort to pry more money out of customers.
You video conference example just makes no sense. Under net neutrality ISPs can still give priority to emergency responders and other critical government agencies. Go read your ISPs service agreement policy and state/federal laws if you don't believe me.
Commonly other drivers must stop for emergency vehicles. And how can you give certain vehicles priority without dedicating lanes or requiring other drivers to yield?
The rules expressly do not limit how providers address the needs of emergency communications. They allow speed limits and congestion management also.
>The rules expressly do not limit how providers address the needs of emergency communications.
Exactly. FCC has required emergency responders and other critical agencies to have priority for years. The new rules have zero impact on that. Anyone acting like these rules somehow inhibit emergency response is either at best wrong or at worse arguing in bad faith.
A lot of the outrage is because how riot has acted. They have repeatedly dismissed the concerns of security experts and their community in offhand/very dismissive ways. I don't think the outrage would be anywhere nearly as bad if they took the time to address the legitimate concerns raised and took steps to ease everyone mind (they could be more transparent about it and release the source for example).
Because people will find exploits that allow them to bypass it. Anti cheats in general rely on tons of factors but mainly a lack of knowledge on exactly how HWID bans are enacted, what injections by what processes are put under scrutiny, etc. With source available, all of that stuff is going to be a cake walk for cheaters to bypass. It’s not just a matter of “here’s the source but we are running as ring -n so it doesn’t matter”. full knowledge of AC behavior is a huge boon to bypassing, because there’s almost certainly problems with the implementation that a 15 year old will go on to discover and exploit.
>From my perspective, nothing about the internet changed since then (my experience did not upgrade or downgrade). People stopped talking about it, there weren't major protests, news about it even largely disappeared from the front page of HN (!). ... What, then, is the impetus for restoring the net neutrality rules, given there is always some political cost to any action like this? Has the lack of net neutrality caused issues that I just have not heard about?
IMO it seems likely ISPs knew the rules were likely to come back so they avoided most of the practices that would generate outrage (throttling streaming and other popular services unless you pay an additional fee). I have no doubt if they could get away with it they would haha. Many providers did roll out zero rating programs.
As for why this is important just because ISPs aren't currently doing it on a large scale doesn't mean steps shouldn't be taken to prohibit it. We already know what happens in the long run when ISPs are allowed to double dip https://restofworld.org/2024/south-korea-twitch-exit-problem...
> IMO it seems likely ISPs knew the rules were likely to come back so they avoided most of the practices that would generate outrage (throttling streaming and other popular services unless you pay an additional fee).
It had nothing to do with market effects. Some states and even quite a few local governments made their own net neutrality laws once the Trump admin nixed it federally. Complying with NN laws in some places but not others would have been way too complicated, so they just let it be.
NN being saved by consumer backlash doesn't really make sense in the US, anyway, where many (most?) people only have one or two choices for internet service. ISPs don't really need to care if their customers don't like their policies.
> It had nothing to do with market effects. Some states and even quite a few local governments made their own net neutrality laws once the Trump admin nixed it federally. Complying with NN laws in some places but not others would have been way too complicated, so they just let it be.
If that's the case, which I doubt it is, it's not like it's expensive to charge some customers more money and not others, no need for FCC regulation then, right?
No, it doesn't take this much time. It's just that net neutrality wasn't a priority for the Biden administration, so they dragged their feet until the very last minute. IIRC, there's been a flurry of rule-making just now because they are running up against a Congressional Review Act deadline.
> It's just that net neutrality wasn't a priority for the Biden administration, so they dragged their feet until the very last minute.
The FCC was deadlocked until September 2023 and started this process a few days later. Maybe they could have started in 2022 if Biden had nominated someone else after Republicans blocked his 1st choice. But Democrats believed Republicans would block anyone who would restore net neutrality.
> The FCC was deadlocked until September 2023 and started this process a few days later.
I am aware of that.
> Maybe they could have started in 2022 if Biden had nominated someone else after Republicans blocked his 1st choice. But Democrats believed Republicans would block anyone who would restore net neutrality.
And they were proven wrong, and didn't even try to test their theory until half his term was over. That counts as "not a priority" in my book.
I think you expect that government works "fast" and that is usually not the case unless it's a dire emergency. The wheels of government are just slow. Net Neutrality is important to codify/enact and that's what they've done, I'm certainly not going to complain about it. There are a lot of other nits I have to pick with Biden's policies but this isn't one of them, better late than never like it was going to be under a second Trump term, and could be again.
That’s not entirely what happened. The prior candidate didn’t withdraw until March 2023. Biden nominated Gomez in May 2023. Presumable the two months intervening included negotiations and background. That doesn’t sound like a priority issue.
It really didn't have to in this case. It would have been perfectly acceptable to crib California's NN law, ctrl-r "California" "United States of America" and call it a day.
The FCC has a legally mandated process (see Administrative Procedure Act) including a public comment period that is open to judicial review. They can’t just copy California’s law and call it a day, they have to actually take public comments into consideration. If they don’t follow this process the courts will overturn the rules.
They couldn’t seat the fifth person (democrat) because the GOP was blocking it. As soon as the person was seated, they moved forward with restoring net neutrality. Hands were tied until then because they couldn’t get the 3-2 vote. They didn’t have 5 until September 2023 so it’s been just over half a year
No, literally, there is a legal requirement for certain process; debates over whether it was properly followed tied the Trump repeal up in court for a while though it was eveentually resolved in favor of the Administration.
Not even bothering to follow the clear objective formal requirements of that process (the question about Trump was more about good faith in the substance) would make it trivial to defeat in court.
No they shouldn't. I don't think that logic makes any sense at all. No one is paying increased costs because their neighbor is watching netflix, youtube, or browsing reddit. Users already pay for internet service they shouldn't have to pay again because the ISP wants to be greedy and double dip from fees to avoid throttling.
If netflix traffic is straining ISPs to the point of requiring hardware upgrades etc., I think it is fair for ISPs to ask them to pay some of that cost.
It isn't netflix traffic it is ISP customer traffic which they pay for. Hardware upgrade, bandwidth costs, and other operating costs are already paid for by the ISP customers. The ISP should not be able to double dip by charging netflix or the customer a second time.
If the ISP isn't able to provide the service they advertised and sold they should be investigated and be issuing refunds at the very least. Can't provide the service you said you could? Maybe don't advertise and defraud customers.
it's not a double-dip. if a single service is behind load problems and causing general service degradation, I think it is fair to throttle that service.
Customer pays for say, 1Gbps bidirectional. ISP has a total capacity of 1Tbps. They find that the average usage rate from users is 100Mbps bidirectional, so they sign on 10x as many users as they could truly offer a full 1Gbps to, taking a risk. Then new services come along, and the customer average usage increases to 500Mbps.
Instead of upgrading their total capacity, reducing their user count by 5x or reducing the speeds they promise, the ISP decides that it's the service's fault that they can't provide the 1 Gbps they're selling. This is obviously double dipping. They want to both sell higher bandwidths than they can provide, and charge others for making them have to provide what they're advertising.
It is a double dip. The ISP customer already pays for that bandwidth and internet connection. Asking the customer to pay a second time or asking netflix to pay is clearly double dipping. Trying to call it something else is just silly!
>causing general service degradation
Customers using their internet service they pay for isn't causing service degradation. If the ISP oversold or lied about being able to provide the service they were selling that is another issue. The response to that shouldn't be charging more for a service customers already pay for.
These companies already have fine print that the advertised speed is not a guarantee. My point in this thread is this policy takes away a tool ISPs had to control traffic in their networks, which I believe will lead to higher costs.
> If netflix traffic is straining ISPs to the point of requiring hardware upgrades etc., I think it is fair for ISPs to ask them to pay some of that cost.
It is fair for ISPs to ask their customers to pay for required upgrades. Netflix's ISPs can ask Netflix. Netflix's customers' ISPs can ask Netflix's customers.
They should be able to throttle across the board to load balance. They sell an IP protocol service. They should honor the customer's wishes by delivering those packets fairly, not necessarily reliably.
The ISP customers already paid for that. The ISP customer already paid for the bandwidth, hardware, and all other costs. Not sure why this is confusing for you. The ISP isn't paying more because Bob next door decides to watch netflix for a few hours a night.
>Who do you think is paying?
The customer..? Are you really confused about this?
The ISP’s customers pay for their costs. The problem started when those ISPs decided they weren’t satisfied with 15-20% profit margins and started finding other ways to generate revenue like selling their customers’ activity data to advertisers, injecting ads, or by trying to get popular services to double-pay their operating costs.
You can tell it’s not a real barrier to the business in two ways: one is that it only affects MBA-infested companies - small ISPs and municipal broadband never seems to have a problem providing better service for less money – and the other is that they’re not asking their customers to pay more. If their cost of providing service had actually gone up, they’d have been open about that and own the claim that a few Mbps costs more than it used to despite all evidence to the contrary. Keeping as a back room deal lets them try to hide all of the details behind NDAs.
Yes, and then they charge $Z dollars for a certain bandwidth allotment to each of their customers. It does not cost the ISP more money to route a MB/s to Netflix than it does to route a MB/s to Reddit.
>In some cases. In other cases, it hasn't even happened yet.
..? By the point ISP customers receive internet they have either already paid for the service, paid a deposit, or agreed to pay for it the following month like other utilities. In all of these cases by the time the user makes use of their service they have already agreed to pay for the internet service which includes data, hardware, and other infrastructure fees.
>The ISP spends $X to build and maintain infrastructure for Y Gbps internet.
EXACTLY. You are proving my point! The customer of the ISP has already paid for that. It doesn't cost the ISP any more money if I make use of my service by sending data to netflix, reddit, or whoever! If I watch netflix 12 hours a day it costs the ISP exactly $0 extra dollars. Asking me to pay more money or be throttled is ridiculous.
Hell, if you have one of the largest ISPs they pay nothing for any amount of data transfer over their networks anyway so your argument is even weaker lol.
I bought a 1 gigabit connection. If the 10-20 mbps data stream from Netflix is overloading my ISP, then my ISP is not providing me with what I paid for.
Changing government policy isn't always an instant process. Most of the FCC rules go through the "notice and comment" process that takes quiet a long time. The net neutrality rule for example has been in the works since at least January 2022 [1].
The depressing part is that U.S. government structure and the 3 branches of government are part of the 4th/5th grade curriculum. This implies that the (presumably pre-teen/teenaged) kids who called Congress had already passed that part of their schooling, and so they're going to grow up into age 18+ voters that still don't know what Congress is.
I recently had a conversation with a 33 year old who I would consider both intelligent and well-educated, including some college. His uncle is a lawyer (I met him at some family+friends party or another) who he spent a lo of time around.
I mentioned something about a SCOTUS opinion and he was very surprised that the court published its opinions. We delved a bit further and he also didn't realize that you could read bills or laws or executive orders.
I have never been more alarmed or scared about the future of our democracy.
Yes, I have similar experiences with people in the same age bracket. I'm not sure what the root problem is, I'm sure it's myriad in its origins, but there's some combination of individuals being fully checked-out of the democratic process taking the structure for granted and letting it kind of wash over them, and also a systematic failure of education which has completely failed to impart certain vital aspects of knowledge.
Like you I would classify most of these people as intelligent, and although literally qualified, (possession of university degrees at various levels), they are actually completely uneducated.
As a counterpoint, I know a lot of people from that age group who do know a lot about government and have intelligent conversations about it. Similar as your situation, I mostly hang out with either musicians or engineers or both as that includes my major hobbies and work crew.
Well, before everything went on the internet it was much harder to find published opinions and laws as they happened. In the 90s when the guy was a child he probably only had exposure to historical documents, not current ones. I actually don’t know where you would have found the full text of those pre internet. The public library? I also found it kind of novel to read current court opinions not too long ago. Government function stuff seems like the kind of thing you learn about as a kid and don’t really update actively.
Nah, I grew up in the 80s and 90s and you could learn a lot from newspapers, magazines, television, or a trip to the library where you could get plenty more. There's no excuse for believing the stuff was secret. Not easy to get, sure, a trip downtown, maybe, but "secret from the press" for example, that's ridiculous for anyone that's ever turned on the nightly news channel in the 70s, 80s, or 90s where I have actual pre-internet experience. Also, by the early 90s you could get it all on the actual internet, pre-web, by going to a library with an internet connection and gopher. Bills, rulings, regulations, and other government publications could be found and accessed through Gopher directories maintained by government agencies, legislative bodies, and other organizations. Being away from all of this is OK if you at least know that it does in fact exist and other people use it. But believing that it doesn't exist, that government works in secret, that's just a busted education right there.
Government isn't something that people deal with in their daily lives outside of their municipal government offices, like the DMV.
Between that and daily life being a grind for most people, it is very understandable for someone to not know that the SCOTUS does these things.
Honestly, while everyone (myself included) should be more aware and involved in government, this blissful ignorance is a testament to the stability and freedoms offered by our government.
Not knowing they're public and published is alarming. I was reading this stuff on Gopher servers 35 years ago at the library. That was pre-web internet and it was plenty good for government documents.
[1] https://attack.mitre.org/software/S0226/
reply