Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Netflix Could Be Classified As a 'Cybersecurity Threat' Under New CISPA Rules

timothy posted about 3 months ago | from the negative-I-am-a-meat-popsicle dept.

Government 125

Jason Koebler (3528235) writes "The cybersecurity bill making its way through the Senate right now is so broad that it could allow ISPs to classify Netflix as a "cyber threat," which would allow them to throttle the streaming service's delivery to customers. "A 'threat,' according to the bill, is anything that makes information unavailable or less available. So, high-bandwidth uses of some types of information make other types of information that go along the same pipe less available," Greg Nojeim, a lawyer with the Center for Democracy and Technology, said. "A company could, as a cybersecurity countermeasure, slow down Netflix in order to make other data going across its pipes more available to users.""

cancel ×

125 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ob (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345157)

When Netflix is outlawed, only outlaws will have Netflix

Re:Ob (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 3 months ago | (#47345279)

or XBMC anyway

Re:Ob (2)

phmadore (1391487) | about 3 months ago | (#47345321)

Yeah for real. I have Netflix and I use it now and then with netflix-desktop, which is pretty nice if you ask me, but all things being equal, you can always just install QtWeb, block everything, and hit up TPB on a daily basis. It's a waste of time trying to have morals in a situation where even when you pay what you're supposed a third party thinks it has the right to stop you.

Re:Ob (1)

cheater512 (783349) | about 3 months ago | (#47347317)

Why go to TPB daily? Why not just use Sickbeard which will get your shows for you automatically?

Re:Ob (1)

amxcoder (1466081) | about 3 months ago | (#47348047)

MashUp is a good one if you have XBMC too. XBMC running on RaspberryPi with MashUp app.

Re:Ob (4, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 3 months ago | (#47345313)

CISPA was authored by corporations, for the purpose of reigning in "pirates" and the like. Every "rights holder" in the world will become partners with the government, and search out any of us who don't comply with every draconian rule they can think up.

CISPA is most definitely unconstitutional.

Re:Ob (4, Interesting)

niftymitch (1625721) | about 3 months ago | (#47345657)

CISPA was authored by corporations, for the purpose of reigning in "pirates" and the like. Every "rights holder" in the world will become partners with the government, and search out any of us who don't comply with every draconian rule they can think up.

CISPA is most definitely unconstitutional.

Freedom of speech implies freedom to listen. Since there are more listeners than speakers
the value of "listener" needs to be strongly considered in all of this.

Manipulation of bandwidth to listeners as a whole must be even handed.
If a content delivery company __Your_Cable_Company__ does not throttle
their content in the same way they throttle the likes of Netflix, HBO-Go, NBC,
etc. they are crossing a line I do not want crossed.

If they throttle content because of a phone call from a branch of the government
we have a larger problem!

There are technologies that can help. Much content from Netflix and others
has a large audience and is ideal for p2p caching and bandwidth boost in
the same way that bittorrent amplifies the bandwidth of a single seeding
site. My DOCSIS 3 modem is an eight down four up device and could host
a p2p caching service that amplifies the cross sectional bandwidth of my
cable service. Xfinity is already selling "spare bandwidth" as WiFi connectivity.

My digital TV recorder and decoder uses different channels
and different tricks to deliver on demand and live content. It is already one
of the most serious power consumers in the house and could be replaced by
a more power efficient unit that also has p2p caching abilities that utilize the
multi channel bandwidth of cable coax a couple fold locally and orders of
magnitude better in a community.

Sadly they are looking for a political power grabbing solution and not
at a more net neutral technical solution.

Re:Ob (0)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#47346075)

Netflix is already well aware of technologies that could make the net neutrality issue die overnight. But those methods would not be as profitable to them as just taking their video stream and shoving it up the ISPs collective asses which is what they are doing now. If in the future the courts somehow find against netflixes business model, I wouldn't be surprised if they rolled out a client within days that would fix the whole problem. Netflix is just as, if not more evil than the ISPs everyone keeps hating on.

Re: Ob (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47347045)

Today ISPs want to throttle Netflix using bandwidth as an excuse. Tomorrow the ISPs will want to throttle slashdot or other websites (you know, the ones you use). They might use other excuses or not. Where does it end?

Re:Ob (1)

Jason Goatcher (3498937) | about 3 months ago | (#47347701)

Maybe that's why when you look at Netflix in all capital letters, it looks kinda like Netfux.

Re:Ob (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47347979)

taking their video stream and shoving it up the ISPs collective asses which is what they are doing now.

if it was not for companies like netflix they wouldn't be able to sell bandwith to us at these prises. We already pay for the bandwidth in question. Why should they be allowed to sell it again and then change the payed for product by throttling that payed for bandwidth? Companies like netflix are the reason we want this insane amaount of bandwidth anyway so we are the reason this bandwidth is a sellable product.

Re:Ob (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#47346133)

...p2p caching...

Not a good idea if there are caps on your service. The one and only solution is to elect politicians who will turn the ISPs into common carriers and make the internet a public utility (and defund the NSA, bring the troops home, and legalize weed, etc) Everything else is lipstick on a pig and polishing turds.

Re:Ob (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about 3 months ago | (#47346633)

...p2p caching...

Not a good idea if there are caps on your service. The one and only solution is to elect politicians who will turn the ISPs into common carriers and make the internet a public utility (and defund the NSA, bring the troops home, and legalize weed, etc) Everything else is lipstick on a pig and polishing turds.

Amen, brother. The big problem with effecting such a solution is the outsized influence of money in political campaigns. Unfortunately, until we get the slurry of filthy lucre out of our political system, it's just a pipe dream IMHO.

Re:Ob (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#47347091)

I don't know about you, but I don't vote for big money. The money they spend is wasted on me. However, it does provide a good reference to who the politicians' owners are. It's not the money's fault when a corrupt politician takes it. And it's not just the individuals. We have to vote out the institutional party. And the thing is, if you can elect a politician to change the rules, then you already solved the problem. The fact is that nothing has to change except everybody's vote.

Re:Ob (2)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about 3 months ago | (#47347253)

I don't know about you, but I don't vote for big money. The money they spend is wasted on me. However, it does provide a good reference to who the politicians' owners are. It's not the money's fault when a corrupt politician takes it. And it's not just the individuals. We have to vote out the institutional party. And the thing is, if you can elect a politician to change the rules, then you already solved the problem. The fact is that nothing has to change except everybody's vote.

Sadly, it's not wasted on the vast majority of voters. It's a catch-22 -- the folks who are in a position to remove the money from the political system are the ones who benefit the most from that money. One strategy could be to vote for those who don't take the money. Who might those folks be? It certainly isn't clear to me.

Re:Ob (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about 3 months ago | (#47347259)

I don't know about you, but I don't vote for big money. The money they spend is wasted on me. However, it does provide a good reference to who the politicians' owners are. It's not the money's fault when a corrupt politician takes it. And it's not just the individuals. We have to vote out the institutional party. And the thing is, if you can elect a politician to change the rules, then you already solved the problem. The fact is that nothing has to change except everybody's vote.

Sadly, it's not wasted on the vast majority of voters. It's a catch-22 -- the folks who are in a position to remove the money from the political system are the ones who benefit the most from that money. One strategy could be to vote for those who don't take the money. Who might those folks be? It certainly isn't clear to me.

Let me qualify that -- It's not clear to me that *anyone* who actually gets elected (especially in national elections) isn't bought and paid for by the monied interests. Perhaps I'm wrong, but, sadly, I don't think so.

Re:Ob (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47346911)

No, a working band-aid to "fix" or obviate a broken, gov't mismanaged market for intellectual property rights, just so Joe Lamer can get his fill of mind-candy and programming would be lipstick on a pig and polishing turds.

Fix the problem, don't just make it palatable.

Goddam populists...

Re:Ob (1)

niftymitch (1625721) | about 3 months ago | (#47346957)

...p2p caching...

Not a good idea if there are caps on your service. The one and only solution is to elect politicians who will turn the ISPs into common carriers and make the internet a public utility (and defund the NSA, bring the troops home, and legalize weed, etc) Everything else is lipstick on a pig and polishing turds.

Good point about capacity limits, but my thought is that the local modem being property of the service would have
local memory or flash and tools to manage bandwidth billing. i.e. the p2p bandwidth your modem
generates is not covered by your service cap. Download service caps likewise can be
adjusted because the expensive long haul links are not involved. AND the p2p channels
are fully managed (and sold as service, see also Akami) by the ISP.

Have you ever noticed that on a phone or IPV6 link that your location can move half
a continent away... Why because the network is not well meshed and well connected.
This lack of mesh and connections is one of the big problems.

Re:Ob (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47348291)

DOCSIS 3 isn't required to run 8/4. You could easily do that on DOCSIS 2. Just saying.

Re:Ob (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47347135)

Freedom of speech implies freedom not to speak. Why can't your ISP decide for itself what traffic it wants to carry?

Unless it's claiming 'common carrier' protections in some other area, the constitution is not the document you're looking for here.

Re: Ob (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47347243)

By the same rules wouldn't a lack of bandwidth also imply a "threat"? If I started my own ISP using nothing more than a single 56k incoming and ten or twenty subscribers, by this law I would have to throttle my entire user base to around 2400bps. Would that speed then be considered alieviating congestion? What is the level of service that each user would have to have for the "safety" of my users?

Throttling = "less available"? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345159)

Wouldn't throttling Netflix count as making Netflix "less available," thereby making the ISPs themselves a "cybersecurity threat?"

Re: Throttling = "less available"? (2)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 3 months ago | (#47345251)

Yea, but an ISP isn't going to classify itself as a cyber security threat to itself and then throttle itself.

Re: Throttling = "less available"? (5, Funny)

davester666 (731373) | about 3 months ago | (#47345385)

I'm sure there are plenty of people willing to drop by the ISP headquarters and spend 15-30 minutes throttling the CEO. For free.

Re: Throttling = "less available"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345689)

Yea, but an ISP isn't going to classify itself as a cyber security threat to itself and then throttle itself.

I was caught throttling myself once... It was rather embarrassing.

Re: Throttling = "less available"? (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 3 months ago | (#47348349)

The question then who is the claim of cyber security threat limited too. Can the end users launch a mass claim of cyber security threat by the ISP for throttling and censoring the data from to those affected individuals. "any action that may result in an unauthorized effort to adversely impact the security, confidentiality and availability of an information system or of information stored on such system. Countermeasures can be employed against such threats absent risk of liability." So I as the end user can claim that the ISP interfered with my right to access data without specific authorisation (a blanket authorisation would have to be illegal, as the contract would be contradictory, we agree to supply you something except when we supply you nothing, you can write it down but it will fail in court). Forcing the ISP to seek approval each and every time they take any action to throttle or censor data without express authorisation to throttle or censor that data. So you can legally hack the ISP absent the risk of liability, youch, that's a bit strong. Class action law suite time.

Re:Throttling = "less available"? (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 3 months ago | (#47345283)

error ERROR!!!!

Re:Throttling = "less available"? (5, Funny)

aix tom (902140) | about 3 months ago | (#47345345)

Hey, it gets even more fun.

DMCA = Congress = "making information less available" = Cyber-security threat.

So when do the drones start bombing congress?

Re:Throttling = "less available"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47346149)

As soon as Palpatine... Er... Obama dissolves the republic and declares the first Galactic Empire.

This is, of course, after he issues Order 66 to remove the ACLU, EFF, and other liberty advocacy groups.

Re:Throttling = "less available"? (2)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 3 months ago | (#47345627)

Not if it interferes with the mission critical aspects of the network, such as the ISP's video on demand products.

Re:Throttling = "less available"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345809)

I used to throttle my roommates. The nitwits were always torrenting, and would leave their boxes seeding 24/7. We actually blew through the 250GB comcast limit right around the time that cap was first introduced, which was what tipped me off. Instead of just asking them to stop torrenting (this never works, trust me), I just capped all upload speeds not from my IP at 10kb/s. Internet was smooth as silk after that.

Re:Throttling = "less available"? (1)

djdanlib (732853) | about 3 months ago | (#47345947)

I did this to a former roommate as well. He would have HD videos (Netflix, Youtube, etc) streaming on his computer AND game consoles at the same time, while he was uploading videos he was editing and downloading games and stuff like that.

Re:Throttling = "less available"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345887)

I would REALLY love to throttle some ISPs.

Re:Throttling = "less available"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345957)

Umm does that apply to the government , NSA et al stone walling replies to digital Freedom of Information requests?

I guess my ISP is a threat (1)

Y-Crate (540566) | about 3 months ago | (#47345161)

Pretty sure Time Warner is great at making "information unavailable or less available".

Re:I guess my ISP is a threat (2)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | about 3 months ago | (#47345275)

Pretty sure Time Warner is great at making "information unavailable or less available".

You should throttle your connection to them.

Wait...

What a coincidence! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345165)

Politicians write a bill for our "safety" and "protection" that just so happens to benefit major campaign contributors!

Wow! I tell you, some of the random things that just happen!

Re:What a coincidence! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345455)

Because otherwise we all might as well live in SOMALIA!!!!Q!!!11! At least according to the New Statists on here.

no, it's not true (5, Informative)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | about 3 months ago | (#47345203)

According to the bill a threat is anything which is anything which is part of an unauthorized effort to deny access. Netflix streaming which inadvertently leads to a denial of access would not be part of an effort to deny access.

Here is the bill.

http://www.feinstein.senate.go... [senate.gov]

That's your argument. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345305)

Netflix is unauthorized effort. Intentional? Maybe not. Never the less, it is an unauthorized effort to deny access.

See?

That's why there are courts because no matter how much verbiage you put into a bill or law, someone will figure out a way to interpret said law to their advantage.

Of course, non of this would be necessary if politicians didn't have to protect their campaign contributors.

I really empathized with Herman Cain's suggestion that all laws shouldn't be more then 3 pages or 3 paragraphs - I've forgotten - when he ran in '12.

It seams as though the more verbiage, the more loopholes and ways that the law can be interpreted beyond its scope.

And at 39 pages this bill, if it becomes law, will be used in many ways to hurt us - the consumer.

It always works out that way. No matter what the good intentions are, we the people always lose because we don't have the money for the legal council to make these things work for us.

the PATRIOT Act being the poster boy.

Re:That's your argument. (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47345821)

If it's not intentional, I don't see how it's "effort".

Re:no, it's not true (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345311)

According to the bill a threat is anything which is anything which is part of an unauthorized effort to deny access.

Can you explain why you think so? Granted I don't often read those bills, but the statement below seems to say that anything that MAY result in an unauthorized impact (as in, if someone _could_ highjack Netflix's traffic for bad purposes, that may count). Your phrasing is what I would expect, but that's not what the text says, necessarily.

The term ââcybersecurity threatâ(TM)â(TM) means an action, not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, on or through an information system that may result in an unauthorized effort to adversely impact the security, availability, confidentiality, or integrity of an information system or information that is stored on, processed by, or transiting an information system.

it's not not an effort (2)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | about 3 months ago | (#47345381)

"that may result in an unauthorized effort to adversely impact the security, availability, confidentiality, or integrity of an information system or information that is stored on, processed by, or transiting an information system."

It's not an effort (authorized or unauthorized) to adversely impact any of those things. It is an effort to deliver video.

You changed "effort" to "impact". You're changing the meaning of the sentence.

If someone were to hijack Netflix' traffic to create an effort to deny service, then that would be a denial of service attack and ISPs could counter that, as ISPs already counter DoS attacks.

Re:no, it's not true (1)

camg188 (932324) | about 3 months ago | (#47345479)

Key words seem to be:
"an action, not protected by the First Amendment"
and "unauthorized".

Some clarification would be nice, but Netflix is protected by the first amendment.
Not sure exactly what they mean by "unauthorized", but I'd bet that Netflix is in compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Re:no, it's not true (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345779)

"unauthorized" is in there so that you know, if they throttle your bandwidth, denying access to a service that needs higher bandwidth, that's ok, because they authorized themselves to do so. "unauthorized" means that the law only applies if you haven't bought politicians first.

Re:no, it's not true (1)

niftymitch (1625721) | about 3 months ago | (#47345813)

According to the bill a threat is anything which is anything which is part of an unauthorized effort to deny access. Netflix streaming which inadvertently leads to a denial of access would not be part of an effort to deny access.

Here is the bill.

http://www.feinstein.senate.go... [senate.gov]

Thanks for the link....
I think Feinstein is missing a detail.
A better approach might be to reserve bandwidth for demand use by state
and local government. Sure this is a glass half full/ half empty thing but
it is important to identify what services we wish to protect from denial of
service.

I have not checked the math and details but "sbrook" on a forum noted:
"Remember that through that same cable you have to push a lot of TV channels and
Radio channels, Digital phone and internet.

"The top frequency is about 900 MHz, so that gives you just shy of 1500 channels
times 42 Mbps would be the theoretical max down a single coax ... absolutely
stunning! But you've got to share upstream channels.

"Now depending on the company, you might have about 100 to 500 customers passed
by a single coax. (More TV etc channels, few customers) But in theory you could
have 600,000 customers on one coax ... wouldn't work too well though!"

My point is the cable providers give themselves almost 1500 channels to deliver their content
and only eight or so for other content providers like Netflix.

A law needs to look at the 1500 channels as a single pool and if bandwidth is
to be throttled the eight that the likes of Netflix use can only be throttled
if the 1500-(8+4) used by my provider for their content are throttled in a like
manner.

Yes behind the cable is optical and other hardware but no one discusses
the fundamental lack of cross sectional bandwidth possibilities that modern
network provides. All conversations are centered on the one to many service
model where the internet design was many to many with multicast tossed
in later for the one to many case.

This single minded power centric ego centric flawed thinking by regulators
and legislators needs to be changed (by education) and IMO is
at the heart of most of the stupidity we see.

Re:no, it's not true (1)

kwbauer (1677400) | about 3 months ago | (#47348247)

Feinstein is generally missing a whole bunch of details...

Re:no, it's not true (0)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#47346151)

I'm going to play the ad hominem card here and say that anything that comes from Feinstein should immediately be tossed into the round file and shredded. What kind of bacon does she take home that keeps people voting for her?

Re:no, it's not true (1)

radarskiy (2874255) | about 3 months ago | (#47346417)

Read the actual bill? That's crazy talk!

Re:no, it's not true (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 3 months ago | (#47346829)

So ordering Netflix is "unauthorized", and using your connection you paid for to access services is an "effort" to deny access? Netflix doesn't attempt to deny anything, and exerts no effort to do so, and the data from it is "authorized", in that it's as intended as any other data. Unless the data is 100% Netflix, then you could just as easily assert the HTTP is the cyberthreat. Arbitrarily picking a "competitor" to be the threat is absurd, and hopefully the first judge this makes it in front of will recognize such.

'Threat' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345209)

Surely that would mean that the ISP would then be considered a 'cyber threat' for making the information from Netflix less available

Re:'Threat' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345233)

Surely that would mean that the ISP would then be considered a 'cyber threat' for making the information from Netflix less available

Don't be silly. Horses don't have bank accounts.

If Netflix, then DRM too (5, Interesting)

NotInHere (3654617) | about 3 months ago | (#47345225)

DRM also makes "information less available". Finally a bill that makes EME, HDCP and alike illegal!

Re:If Netflix, then DRM too (1)

grahammm (9083) | about 3 months ago | (#47345639)

As do territorial rights/restrictions - you cannot access this information because of where you are (or where geolocation of your IP address thinks you are). Or "we do not support the browser/OS you are using.

Do your worst! (1)

itsenrique (846636) | about 3 months ago | (#47345277)

I have a cheap Time Warner "High Speed" Lite connection. My Netflix is already so throttled I literally do not beleive a lower quality stream is possible.

Re:Do your worst! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345331)

if there is one thing you can believe in, it is companies will find new ways to screw their customers and make more money everytime.

Re:Do your worst! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345493)

"High Speed Lite" is a marketing term. Did you check the actual download speed? Your Netflix problems may due to your selection of service more than TWC.

Or just cancel. (1)

skogs (628589) | about 3 months ago | (#47345317)

I just canceled my subscription. Had it since 2006. When I called to complain that my Wii, my Roku, and my computers were having trouble...in addition to them not having a Linux client...they told me to contact my ISP so that they could 'speed it up'. I have a commercial line...and every other streaming service in full HD works just fine. They refused to open up a ticket to have it looked into, so I cancelled.

I give zero @#'s about their problems.

Re:Or just cancel. (3)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 3 months ago | (#47345379)

You do realize that the problem you experienced was likely due to your ISP refusing to do the proper upgrades so they could either extort Netflix for your business or pitch their own to you, right?

Re: Or just cancel. (1)

skogs (628589) | about 3 months ago | (#47345997)

Actually they did reach an agreement with the provider a couple months ago. That is actually when it got worse, not better.

We Have to Start Thinking Around Them (3, Interesting)

phmadore (1391487) | about 3 months ago | (#47345319)

Okay then, Google and the rest should be saying: we'll find a way to directly hook into the home as if this were the early days and we owned everything except the dirt we buried the cables in though sometimes we own that too. Silicon Valley needs to grow up and swing its weight. A tax protest from just a few major corporations would be costly, and if they encouraged their employees to join, the impact would be ten fold. It's time we got together and, as a people, told the government it is not taking another step without our damn permission.

Re:We Have to Start Thinking Around Them (1)

camg188 (932324) | about 3 months ago | (#47345535)

Isn't that what elections are for? Your suggestion is just a small group of people (some of whom may not even be US citizens who can vote) throwing a tantrum until they get what they want.

Re: We Have to Start Thinking Around Them (1)

wpgsteve88 (3720145) | about 3 months ago | (#47346365)

Why do you think that one politician is any more honest than the next? Politicians represent the PARTY not you.

Re: We Have to Start Thinking Around Them (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about 3 months ago | (#47346665)

Why do you think that one politician is any more honest than the next? Politicians represent the PARTY not you.

An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.

--Simon Cameron

Re: We Have to Start Thinking Around Them (1)

camg188 (932324) | about 3 months ago | (#47348163)

You are advocating that "a few major corporations" tell the government what to do.
Which corporations get to pick the agenda? Just the ones that do no evil? What is your recourse if you don't happen to agree with these few major corporations?
Wouldn't be a better idea, for the sake of each individual citizen's rights, to take all the effort expended on a tax protest and use that to promote a candidate, educate the electorate and convince them to vote for them?

Besides, I agree with Otter about protests, "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part."

Re:We Have to Start Thinking Around Them (1)

westlake (615356) | about 3 months ago | (#47345837)

Google and the rest should be saying: we'll find a way to directly hook into the home as if this were the early days and we owned everything except the dirt we buried the cables in

In the early days, ca. 1880, the telephone company owned the phone and the wire.

At least one local telephone exchange in the Northeast began experimenting with phonographic music-on-demand over the lines about ten years later.

The courts began looking at the use of the public airways for paid subscription services no later than the 1920s. Then and now such services were regarded by the courts as far too useful to be compromised by the cheap and the greedy.

Then and now the courts have had no trouble whatever assigning different rights to the energy which falls from the sky and the information it may carry.

Re:We Have to Start Thinking Around Them (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 3 months ago | (#47345915)

That's a whole new aspect to contention ratio when you can't hear Irving Berlin's "Always" because they don't have enough phonographs / copies free...

Re:We Have to Start Thinking Around Them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47346675)

SiVal companies use accounting tricks and offshore shells to avoid taxes, I never realized it but they're already mounting a "tax protest" and have been for years!

Interesting (1)

ItMustBeEsoteric (732632) | about 3 months ago | (#47345325)

Wouldn't, by doing this, the ISPs also meet the same definition of "cyber threat," as they are making data "less available"? I certainly hope so. :-P

Seems a funny definition... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345335)

"..."A 'threat,' according to the bill, is anything that makes information unavailable or less available...."

Not only the Motion Picture Association of America, but the entire World Patent structure, makes information less available. So does the CIA, MI6, GCHQ and pretty much every politician.

They're going to be very busy...

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345369)

Do let people legislate something that they clearly don't understand.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345529)

blame the Newt! http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/junejulyaugust_2014/features/the_big_lobotomy050642.php?page=all

politician + technician == ?? (2, Funny)

kermyt (99494) | about 3 months ago | (#47345401)

Politechnician? Re-Engineering the internet for political reasons.

Re:politician + technician == ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345805)

Declan [politechbot.com] might claim trademark infringement?

RIP cat videos (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345469)

I am sure we will all be pleased to see that politicians have finally taken a stand to rid the interwebs of those damn cat videos.

ISPs are threats too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345487)

So not upgrading your pipe with the ludicrous sums of money you've extracted from your customers makes ISPs themselves cyber threats?

Makes sense.

The government said every needed a telephone many years ago and the service providers needed to make that happen, now they're saying the same thing about packets.

Dear Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345537)

Move to Canada, where our laws are still a bit more sane.

For now, anyway.

Threat? I got 'yer cybersecurity threat. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345735)

Dear Sen. Feinstein, please don't hand-wave "cybersecurity" when what we all know what you really mean here is "Anti-trust exemption for (some, so-called, Wall St.) ISPs", and finally ramming home CISPA. "Cybersecurity" is not just a magic buzzword you get to use to sanction whatever policital scam you happen to be pulling at the moment.

IETF and network operators require RFC's, not legislation. Please leave the engineering to the engineers, and the security, as well.

Thanks for listening, and good luck with your next election.

Another 'thin edge of the wedge' moment. (1)

Mr307 (49185) | about 3 months ago | (#47345771)

I have not read all the comments or the FA, but my knee jerk thinking is this is another in a long history of 'thin edge' moments.

So many negative and 'unforeseen' consequences would follow something like a law including wording of a 'cyber threat', once the framework is in place allowing things to be classified a such, the whole game changes to what is or isn't a cyber threat, and the root problem(the law) is forgotten. Much like what happened with DMCA, Patriot Act and so much more.

Its been my experience that the 'internet' takes care of itself and when there are attacks we all find ways to fix them and don't need a law to 'help' with doing that.

What do you think?

They should be able to - TEMPORARILY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345797)

If unusuall high traffic from any source threatens to disrupt many other users, then an ISP should be able to take some actions including throttleing. BUT, they should also be required to report to regulators, the traffic originators and customers:

    - What they did.
    - Why.
    - What they plan on doing to fix this long term.
    - When full servce will be restored.

Congress Is Composed of Narcissistic Morons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345847)

Congress Is composed of narcissistic morons who rarely read or understand the bills they vote on. They rarely understand the intended consequences of their legislation and they probably rarely give thought to the unintended consequences they unleash on America.

They all need to go. The sooner the better. Vote against the incumbent and press for term limits.

The MPAA must be behind this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345863)

Yes, that makes perfect sense. Netflix is trying to make Hollywood content available fairly easy and reasonably priced. They must be stopped at all costs so people can go back to the Pirate Bay.

The real threat... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345871)

is all the sophistry and self-serving rationalizaton encapsulated in this bill.

I can only speculate that it is a perfect example of why the general welfare clause needs to be more clearly defined and limited. Not to mention making a good case for the repeal of the 17th amendment, as if one more were really needed

More alarmist bullshit on Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47345939)

So what else is new?

web hosting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47346055)

to getting uptime web hosting with free domain at affordable pricing www.sthoster.com

No it wouldn't allow them to throttle (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | about 3 months ago | (#47346167)

ISPs could not throttle Netflix, if they made it less available then they would be making themselves out to be "cyber" security threats themselves.

ISP's? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47346281)

"A 'threat,' according to the bill, is anything that makes information unavailable or less available.

So ISP's themselves could be a threat if they restrict my access to information or deliver less bandwidth that they sold me?

Good to know.

Makes sense really. (2)

linear a (584575) | about 3 months ago | (#47346305)

99+% of the terrorists *I* see are in movies and most of my movies are from Netflix.

If you didn't vote Libertarian you ASKED FOR THIS! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47346313)

Between CISPA and the ruling against Aereo restricting the rights of others is it any wonder the Republicrats and Democans popularity is at an all time low. They are so far out of touch with realitythey don't give a damn about the rights of anyone but the rich and passing laws and regulations that favor them. Because of that anyone who has voted and will vote Republicrat or Democan, shut up and go sit on the sidelines. You've already demonstrated that you want an intrusive, activist government and as such you have no room to complain. You ASKED FOR THIS.

______________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian you ASKED FOR TH (2, Insightful)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about 3 months ago | (#47346565)

Between CISPA and the ruling against Aereo restricting the rights of others is it any wonder the Republicrats and Democans popularity is at an all time low. They are so far out of touch with realitythey don't give a damn about the rights of anyone but the rich and passing laws and regulations that favor them. Because of that anyone who has voted and will vote Republicrat or Democan, shut up and go sit on the sidelines. You've already demonstrated that you want an intrusive, activist government and as such you have no room to complain. You ASKED FOR THIS.

______________________________________ A vote against a Libertarian candidate is a vote to abolish the Constitution itself

Strange. You encourage people to self-censor on the one hand, while strongly implying your support for free speech (via your sloganeering) with the other. So which is it, AC? Do you want the "blessings of Liberty" or do you want those who disagree with you to, as you put it, "shut up and go sit on the sidelines?" You can't have it both ways.

Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian you ASKED FOR TH (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47348027)

A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself

You can't vote against a candidate, dumbass.

www.kralsexshop.com (-1, Offtopic)

Levent Avcı (3720245) | about 3 months ago | (#47346483)

great

By that logic .... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 3 months ago | (#47346551)

... Verizon, AT&T and Comcast are all cybersecurity threats for throttling select data sources.

ISPs don't have the final say in classifying traffic priority. Customers do.

I realize that no one actually read... (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about 3 months ago | (#47346605)

The bill or the letter criticizing it that were linked in TFS, but there are so many more important freedoms (sharing of data with the DOD/NSA, further erosion of the Fourth Amendment, inadequate protection of Personally Identifiable Information and more) at risk than throttling streaming of the latest Hollywood garbage.

It amazes me that the poster would choose to focus on something both so innocuous and so unlikely, rather than the important issues. Sigh. One can only hope that there will soon be a new Darwin Award winner. Sigh.

Lawyers discover capacity management (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47346785)

Finally, the issues of the real world are starting to throttle down to the legal sphere. And behold what they do about it. Also, the Sun might go nova within the next 5 billion years so lets issue a cap-and-trade scheme on hydrogen, for our Sun might need replenishment at any time.

Torrents (2)

nurb432 (527695) | about 3 months ago | (#47346899)

That is one way to stop them i guess.. Then the content wont matter, just the act of engaging is enough to get you labeled.

( and bandwidth caps.. )

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47347107)

So does that mean that National Security Letters are now considered cyber threats?

Sat TV is also a Cybersecurty Threat (1)

thirty2bit (685528) | about 3 months ago | (#47347185)

Classify satellite TV as a cybersecurity threat also. I have to pay for a "package" in order to get certain channels. Other channels are then denied to me. Also when satellite providers can't reach an agreement with a network (FOX, ABC etc.) then I suddenly lose channels. I'm not getting my information. Before you throw any rocks this way: c'mon, it's the same as the title. It's some jacked-up idea that looks great on paper to a committee making theoretical decisions of how the world actually works outside of a carefully crafted bubble they live. So tack on articles such a DRM and dipshit patents before you send this one up, because they are holding up progress all the same by denying access to information.

of course (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 3 months ago | (#47347865)

Actually... you know, using the internet is a cybersecurity threat. The highest security is, like, when the internet is quiet. (Inevitably someone says, Too quiet...)

It reminds me of what us sysadmins were always saying. This job would be so easy if it weren't for all the damned users.

mayday.us (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47347933)

Mayday.us is the solution. Please donate.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>