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!

Broadband Service as P2P Distro Experiment

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the you-learn-something-new-everyday dept.

71

Not another doctor wrote to mention a PC Doctor article about the Sky by Broadband service. In addition to providing access to the internet, the service also helpfully downloads and installs the Kontiki P2P service. From the article: "What this really means is that Sky in all their advertising are making out that you are downloading content directly from them rather than other users. Also, the P2P link continues to run in the background after you've shut down the main application, eating up bandwidth by allowing others to download the files from your PC. Kontiki also collects and sends back to Sky a lot of information about your PC. There is no mention as to how this data is protected from unauthorized access, however, initial examination with Ethereal seems to show that all data is at least encrypted during transmission."

cancel ×

71 comments

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

Enigma cracking client opens a backdoor (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14806390)

The Enigma cracking client posted earlier opens a backdoor on Windows systems. Look for an "enigma-client" user with the password "nominal". Zonk won't edit the original story or post a new one so please mod this up so it gets noticed by someone.

If it's too good to be true... (0, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806401)

So you've decided to illegally download movies...

If you play with fire, you're bound to get burnt. Whether it's Sky's Kontiki client or some other P2P app, you're always running the risk of sucking up bandwidth with background services. And so what if you are? The maximum throughput is only slightly decreased and you get a bunch of extra features. Isn't that worth the tradeoff? Did you really think you could get something for nothing?

Re:If it's too good to be true... (3, Insightful)

macadamia_harold (947445) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806449)

So you've decided to legally download movies... If you play with fire, you're bound to get burnt. Whether it's Sky's Kontiki client or some other P2P app, you're always running the risk of sucking up bandwidth with background services. And so what if you are? The maximum throughput is only slightly decreased and you get a bunch of extra features. Isn't that worth the tradeoff?

Fixed that for you.

Re:If it's too good to be true... (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806478)

... legally ...
Yeah, but there's still no Linux support as the files are DRM'd.

Re:If it's too good to be true... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14806645)

Shouldn't matter, because "no copy-protection scheme is foolproof"* and "information wants to be free,"** not to mention "the internet changes everything"*** and "economics as we know it is obsolete."**** Did I get that right, you foul-smelling hippie Slashtard?

* Hint: Adequate doesn't imply foolproof.
** No, it doesn't.
*** No, it didn't.
**** You're fucking retarded--you and your ilk--and you'll find your Stallmanesque, Dorito-studded beard isn't quite as attractive to ladies in real life as you'd think to judge by the babe parade on your flickering CRT, once you finally get around to sponging that crusty exoskeleton of what used to be semen off your flesh and leaving your basement shrine to Napoleon Dynamite, which you probably misspell as "Napolean." Any day now.

Re:If it's too good to be true... (0, Troll)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806690)

***** Just because you say it, doesn't make it true.

Re:If it's too good to be true... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14806878)

Exactly correct. Though Slashtards may find some measure of redemption in their sad, tiny lives by whiling the hours 'til their coronaries insisting, as though their lives depended on it, that intellectual property is meaningless as a concept, they nevertheless, as you point out, have yet failed to precipitate ideological revolution. The most massive paradigm shifts they may ever hope to experience are their twice-daily trips to the toilet and back--if they can even manage that much.

Re:If it's too good to be true... (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806700)

Actually, I just wanted a semi-related post to go with my new .sig 8P

Re:If it's too good to be true... (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 8 years ago | (#14808575)

Well, no content protection is bullet proof, and information really wants to be free. That is why you can always go to the nearest corner and buy some pirate content that will play on your Linux machine.

Now, if the content makers refuse to let you buy their stuff, too bad for them.

Your sig [offtopic] (1)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 8 years ago | (#14814392)

Arnold Schwarzenegger [schwarzeneggerfacts.com] Facts

Who would win in a fight? Arnold Schwarzenegger or Chuck Norris?

Please mod parent down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14806665)

The parent obviously didn't RTFA.

Just so we're clear here... (4, Funny)

numbski (515011) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806402)

...we're INTENTIONALLY creating Sky-net.

Just want to make sure I'm understanding this right. Don't mind me, I'm going to go hide in the Vet office.

Re:Just so we're clear here... (0, Offtopic)

Douglas Simmons (628988) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806433)

That's a reference to The Terminator, fyi people.

Re:Just so we're clear here... (0, Offtopic)

magicchex (898936) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806506)

Thanks for clearing that up for us Douglas.

really (2, Insightful)

thepotoo (829391) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806536)

sheesh. You should have at least included wiki [wikipedia.org] links to Terminator [wikipedia.org] and Skynet [wikipedia.org] .

I think I just 1-UP'd you on the smart-ass score.

Re:Just so we're clear here... (1)

mollymoo (202721) | more than 8 years ago | (#14852510)

I thought you meant "Douglas" as in Douglas Hurd, rhyming slang for "turd". But I see the poor guy is actually called Douglas.

Re:Just so we're clear here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14806475)

In Belgium, the country's biggest ISP is http://www.skynet.be/ [skynet.be]

Re:Just so we're clear here... (1)

ThePengwin (934031) | more than 8 years ago | (#14807286)

Where's John connor when we need him...

What year was he supposed to be born?

we have to protect him!!

they ARE being honest.... (1, Interesting)

ChrisGilliard (913445) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806407)

From the website that is linked to from the article: "There is, however, a darker side to the Sky by Broadband - it installs onto your system a P2P (Peer-to-Peer) application called Kontiki. The purpose of this is to allow others to access the movie data that lives on your PC. This means that they entire Sky by Broadband system is a big P2P experiment and everyone wanting in on Sky by Broadband has to take part."

From the PC Doctor: What this really means is that Sky in all their advertising are making out that you are downloading content directly from them rather than other users.

Sky is being very honest about this despite what the PC Doctor says. I think it's very clear from the website that you are downloading the the movies peer to peer. What ELSE could they say to spell it out? I don't get it.

Re:they ARE being honest.... (1, Funny)

NoGuffCheck (746638) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806429)

What ELSE could they say to spell it out? I don't get it.

"All Your Base Are Belong to Us".

Re:they ARE being honest.... (1)

MikeURL (890801) | more than 8 years ago | (#14814652)

Oh come on, that isn't a troll. That was actually pretty funny (remarkable given how overused the phrase is).

Re:they ARE being honest.... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14806535)

From the website that is linked to from the article: "There is, however, a darker side to the Sky by Broadband - it installs onto your system a P2P (Peer-to-Peer) application called Kontiki. The purpose of this is to allow others to access the movie data that lives on your PC. This means that they entire Sky by Broadband system is a big P2P experiment and everyone wanting in on Sky by Broadband has to take part."

No, that's from the article, written by a third party. The website [sky.com] says no such thing. No marketing department would be so foolish as to say their service has a "darker side". The FAQ answers some questions about the P2P nature of the system (quite reasonably, I think), but if you just click through the "Experience Sky Broadband" and "Sign up" links, you'll never know it's P2P.

Spam (3, Insightful)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806424)

Submitter was created for the sole purpose of commenting on this article. His link leads back to the PC Doctor website, which I don't think most of us have heard of. It sells tech books and support.

On topic, this is pretty serious if true. We really do need a P2P content distribution system, but having it on the sly doesn't really work. I'd like a system whereby it's cheaper if you agree to seed for a bit voluntarily.

Re:Spam (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14806456)

"initial examination with Ethereal seems to show that all data is at least encrypted during transmission."

Is it just me, or doesn't this sound like somebody who tried to track down a few rogue packets, and just couldn't figure out how to decipher them?

I read P2P, but I hear FUD.

Re:Spam (2, Insightful)

redthefed (713416) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806487)

Submitter was created for the sole purpose of commenting on this article. His link leads back to the PC Doctor website, which I don't think most of us have heard of. It sells tech books and support.

So what if the submitter created an account to post this story? I read slashdot for years before registering. And of course his link leads to his site, where else would it? Just because it's from his site it's spam? Come on. It's news, fair and plain.

No, he says you are wrong (2, Funny)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806655)

Look. His handle is Not another doctor and the article is on the website of PC Doctor.

Obviously he's not connected with them. What are you, paranoid or something?

Re:No, he says you are wrong (3, Funny)

paedobear (808689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806785)

well, "Not another doctor", you never know. If the submitter was "** doctors-doctors", then I'd be suspicious.

p2pclient.txt (4, Insightful)

chub_mackerel (911522) | more than 8 years ago | (#14807251)

Gee, never saw this [slashdot.org] coming, did we?

Anyway, content owners want the benefits of P2P without the risks. The MACHINE is OURS, however, so we can play hardball right back at them with a firm ethical foundation to stand on. We can fight back with the same methods:

We need something like a P2P "robots.txt" file that is somehow accessible to outside entities, containing the conditions under which our machines can become part of any content distribution system. It could implement (through standard settings) a license under which your machine can be used for such purposes by a third party.

Example: using such a file, I should be able to rig up my machine so that it advertises the fact that any content distributed on the machine must be public domain, open source, in uncrippled formats, etc. Distribution of any other content on such a system would constructively create a license to use that content in specified ways.

In other words, if you stream your content (even in part) through MY machine, then you're giving me the rights to distribute, copy, modify, reverse engineer, etc., that content. If you're not happy with that, don't distribute using my machine.

Putting this in a technical setting like a metatag or *.txt file makes it possible for any distribution software to check the setting. So when they argue that you "clicked the EULA" you can argue right back that the software "agreed to the terms of distribution on my machine." Then they get to argue that it's harder for software to employ a clear and standard permission check than it is for an average person to read and understand a crafty EULA that hides away the fact that you're becoming a peer in the distribution network.

I don't know if my explanation was clear but I think it's a good idea.

Re:p2pclient.txt (1)

generic-man (33649) | more than 8 years ago | (#14807833)

Get a firewall. Windows even includes one nowadays. When an application requests permission to send stuff out to the Internet, deny it. Problem solved. It works much better than your system of "anything traveling through my pipes becomes my property," which is roughly equivalent to kidnapping the mailman and reading through his entire bag of mail just because he stepped up to your front door.

Re:p2pclient.txt (1)

Kuxman (876286) | more than 8 years ago | (#14808559)

I think more accurately this would be like putting the mailman under citizens arrest and searching him for illegal substances because he broke into and then entered your house (or just entered if the front door and/or Windows(c) are left unlocked).

Re:p2pclient.txt (1)

generic-man (33649) | more than 8 years ago | (#14808657)

Why bother with the breaking-and-entering analogy? He was on your property already, after all. As another example, when the neighbors are playing bases-ball and the ball lands on my lawn, I keep it! It's my ball now! Not theirs!

</coot>

Re:p2pclient.txt (1)

Kuxman (876286) | more than 8 years ago | (#14809259)

IANAL, but I believe the mailman is covered by federal law to get to your mailbox.

Re:p2pclient.txt (1)

justthinkit (954982) | more than 8 years ago | (#14816500)

Get a firewall. Windows even includes one nowadays. When an application requests permission to send stuff out to the Internet, deny it. Problem solved.

Problem is that the Windows firewalls to date only filter incoming packets.

Mod Story -1: Troll (4, Informative)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806447)

Just a troll article looking for pageviews, from the fraking SKy by broadband page:

How does Sky use Kontiki's secure peer-to-peer technology to deliver videos to my PC?

Sky by broadband displays the video content available for you to download. Kontiki offers the underlying peer-to-peer technology which delivers the videos you choose in a secure, efficient manner, enabling very large, high-resolution videos to be delivered to your computer.

Specifically, the Kontiki technology determines how to download the video you selected by searching for sources of that video on locations which may include Sky's own network, or other users of Sky's Kontiki network or "grid". If the video can be delivered to you more quickly and efficiently from another computer, that's exactly what Kontiki will do! Conversely, your computer is also part of Sky's Kontiki grid, so your computer might be used as a source location for transferring a video to another Sky user.


Pretty much says it's doing what TFA is bitching about them not saying.

It's spelt out very clearly on the Sky website (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14806454)

Specifically, the Kontiki technology determines how to download the video you selected by searching for sources of that video on locations which may include Sky's own network, or other users of Sky's Kontiki network or "grid". If the video can be delivered to you more quickly and efficiently from another computer, that's exactly what Kontiki will do! Conversely, your computer is also part of Sky's Kontiki grid, so your computer might be used as a source location for transferring a video to another Sky user.

I can't see how this is being sneaky! It's in plain english.

This is not adware, this is using P2P technology to speed up transfers.

I vote the article as a -1 troll

Kontiki is used by Gamespot (1)

Wizarth (785742) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806458)

Kontiki is what Gamespot uses as an alternate way of accessing their content, I believe. They may not use it anymore though, it's been a little while.

Re:Kontiki is used by Gamespot (1)

artificialj (873081) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806555)

By "Gamespot...content" you mean flash banner ads for free ipods?

Re:Kontiki is used by Gamespot (1)

Baricom (763970) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806565)

download.com also used to use it to speed up downloads. Kontiki has been around for a while. They may even pre-date BitTorrent, but I can't find hard dates to know for sure.

Common carriers (1)

murderlegendre (776042) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806473)

How much public data does a user need to receive & transmit before that user is accorded common carrier status, and the attached protections? A fast broadband connection can pass as much inforamtion as a small telephone exchange.

So what if your little enterprise collects no revenue, nor puts any conditions on its 'subscribers'?

Re:Common carriers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14806882)

"How much public data does a user need to receive & transmit before that user is accorded common carrier status, and the attached protections?"

How much public data does a user need to receive & transmit before that user is accorded the FINANCIAL REWARDS FOR THEIR SERVICES! In other words, why the hell would I pay for content travelling through infrastructure that I own. P2P is a reciporical arrangement, I share content I have wth others so I can access content they have. What sort of broken business model assumes it can insert iself into a network of PEERS and profit. As long as Sky are happy to stump up the $15/month I am charging for my cycles and relay fees I guess we're even, free internet for all!!! I don't think any more needs saying.

Re:Common carriers (1)

murderlegendre (776042) | more than 8 years ago | (#14814126)

Wow, that is +Insightful. Don't waste comments like that on the AC.

skype (1)

nfarrell (127850) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806511)

Sounds similar to Skype. If your firewall allows incoming connections you act as a relay for those who don't. Combine this with a dodgy ISP which charges you for your uploads (http://bigpond.com.au/ [bigpond.com.au] ) and newbies are in a world of pain.

Applications like this would be great if they were opt-in: if you had to say how much upload bandwidth you were willing the application to use, fine.

Re:skype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14806557)

For those who don't know, Telstra Bigpond is the largest ISP in Australia (mainly due to mum & dad customers, who sign up because telstra are also the phone company). Trouble is, their main plan only gives a 10GB usage allowance, and they count uploads towards this usage. Most plans shape users' speeds after they use all their allowance, but plans have obscene excess usage charges (in the league of $180/GB). So leave this going overnight uploading... ouch...

Anybody read Cringley? (1)

baomike (143457) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806574)

This kinda seems to be what he was talking about.

Has Sky broken the law? (2, Interesting)

BrianUofR (143023) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806629)

Sky is smart for using a P2P architecture, a cool solution to an engineering problem. I have serious concerns about the partial uninstallation issue though.

Was the broken uninstaller a mistake or a "feature"? They have something to gain from using your computer as a P2P host. If, say, an investigation produced emails showing it was in the design spec, has a fraud been comitted? Deceiving someone to profit at their expense (resources--bandwith, CPU, etc) sounds like fraud. Have they broken the law?

Can anyone familiar with UK law comment?

Re:Has Sky broken the law? (2, Interesting)

kt0157 (830611) | more than 8 years ago | (#14807281)

Computer laws are pretty out-of-date in the UK (e.g. they are only just considering DoS being an offence). But there is an "unauthorised" use law, which might cover this. And generic fraud laws ("attempting to obtain pecuniary advantage by deception"). The term "deception" might well cover incomprehensible and unfair click-through terms.

Would have to be tested in court, and you'd have to get the Crown Prosecution Service to take the case to get a criminal prosecution. Very unlikely, especially given the malign hold over the Government by Rupert Murdoch.

More likely to succeed is a civil case for damages.

K.

Re:Has Sky broken the law? (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 8 years ago | (#14808587)

Computer laws are pretty out-of-date in the UK

The computer misuse act is rather fuzzy when it comes to "unauthorised use" - it rather predates the notion of public network servers. What constitutes "unauthorised use"?

I.e. if you're running a publically accessible web server and I connect my browser to it, is that "unauthorised use"? You haven't given me written permission to use your web server.
Lets say you argue that publically accessible web servers are obviously authorised, otherwise you'd have to get permission from every webmaster before visiting their site - what if someone leaves their DSL router's web based administration page accessible to the internet? Does accessing that constitute unauthorised access? How were you to know that it wasn't a web server you were allowed to access before you actually accessed it?

Under a strict interpretation of the law it seems that it's illegal to access any computer without prior permission, which kinda outlaws most of the internet.

So far I've talked about network servers where you have to actively go out of your way to connect to them to discover if they are really public servers. What about open 802.11 networks? They actively _advertise_ the fact that they are public access points and there's no way to tell the difference between a real public AP and someone's home AP that's been set up by a complete moron. So is using a system that is actively inviting you to use it considered unauthorised? I would've thought that broadcast advertisements constitute authorisation.

The laws certainly need to catch up with modern technology, clearly if someone has firewalled off a service or encrypted their 802.11 network then you shouldn't be using it. However, I'm not sure what you can do to protect people who are stupid enough to leave their networks open without legislation killing off legitimate services - how do you legislate that people shouldn't use accidentally open access points without killing legitimately open access points at the same time?

Re:Has Sky broken the law? (1)

kt0157 (830611) | more than 8 years ago | (#14808628)

>What about open 802.11 networks?

You jail users:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm [bbc.co.uk]

K.

Re:Has Sky broken the law? (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 8 years ago | (#14808746)


You jail users:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm [bbc.co.uk]


I'm well aware that people have been jailed for unauthorised use of open APs, but my questions are:
1. If using a device that is actively broadcasting invitations for the public to use it is considered "unauthorised", surely it would be considered even more unauthorised if you were to go out of your way and actually probe a service to see if it's there (this is the case whenever you access any web server).
2. How is the user to know whether an open access point is supposed to be open or not? Shouldn't it be up to the owner of the access point to prevent it from inviting the public to use it? If I were to leave the door to my house open and hang a pub sign on the front, should I _really_ complain when someone comes in looking for a drink? Do I have the right to throw that person in jail? I'd argue not.

This isn't a question about network security - this is simply a question of how the defendent is supposed to _know_ whether they were authorised to use the access point.

Re:Has Sky broken the law? (1)

kt0157 (830611) | more than 8 years ago | (#14808929)

"This isn't a question about network security - this is simply a question of how the defendent is supposed to _know_ whether they were authorised to use the access point." That's the point. You don't know. It might be OK. It might not. If you get your door kicked in by the police then it wasn't OK, else it was. It becomes de facto prohibited because it leaves any law-abiding person in sufficient doubt to not do it. It's known as a "chilling effect" in American English. There's a lot of it about these days. K.

Re:Has Sky broken the law? (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 8 years ago | (#14809404)

It becomes de facto prohibited because it leaves any law-abiding person in sufficient doubt to not do it.

Extending the analogy a bit, what if some non-free software "accidentally" came with free licences? Would the authorities be expected to protect the software publishers by arresting anyone exercising the rights that licence gives them? If so, would it then be ok for free software to be defacto-banned because noone knows which software is really free?

I can't understand how using a network that's *broadcasting* *invitations* can possibly be considered unauthorised. If the network owner didn't want to authorise your access then they damned well shouldn't have configured their access point to invite everyone to use it. Are we going to extend this interpretation of the law to prevent pwople from accessing *any* public network services? if not, why not?

Re:Has Sky broken the law? (1)

MikeURL (890801) | more than 8 years ago | (#14814751)

"I can't understand how using a network that's *broadcasting* *invitations* can possibly be considered unauthorised. If the network owner didn't want to authorise your access then they damned well shouldn't have configured their access point to invite everyone to use it. Are we going to extend this interpretation of the law to prevent pwople from accessing *any* public network services? if not, why not?"

Also, if Joe Sixpack makes a mistake and selects his neighbor's unsecured "linksys" (and sets it as default) rather than his own unsecured "linksys" should he be arrested?

Re:Has Sky broken the law? (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 8 years ago | (#14815234)

Also, if Joe Sixpack makes a mistake and selects his neighbor's unsecured "linksys" (and sets it as default) rather than his own unsecured "linksys" should he be arrested?

It doesn't even need to be the user's mistake - if you tell a client to associate with your access point with SSID "linksys", it'll happilly associate with any access point with the SSID "linksys" (which will almost certainly hand out a DHCP lease too) without the user doing *anything*. This is of course how 802.11 roaming works.

Is it sane to arrest someone because a feature that's present in every piece of 802.11 hardware has automatically done what was intended?

If anyone should be held responsible for people associating with open access points it surely should be the person who set up the thing in the first place and maybe the AP manufacturer for making it easy (or even default) to set up an open network. There are uses for open access points, but the vast majority of people really don't want one so you should really have to look for the buttons to turn _off_ the encryption rather than it defaulting that way.

If a car manufacturer started shipping cars with no locks because "it's easier for the customer to use" then I'm sure there'd be hell to pay.

Re:Has Sky broken the law? (2, Interesting)

ardle (523599) | more than 8 years ago | (#14807709)

I reckon that if they knowingly shipped software whose p2p component fails to uninstall, then they have betrayed their customers to a greater extent than Sony did with their rootkit; Sony's transgression could possibly lead to a victm's bandwidth being used by zombie processes such as spam, Sky's will result in the victim's bandwidth being used to distribute content on Sky's behalf. In terms of money, it's clear that Sky is ripping off their customers (even those customers who only try the service for a while). I think legal systems can easily identify lawbreakers when they can identify who is taking whose money, and for what ;-)

Why would Sky treat their customers - and internet users in general - so badly? Because they are not really an ISP, they are a content distribution company and in the world of content distribution the customer is the enemy.

As far as I can make out, there is no cost to customers at the moment (service is only available to customers who have signed up to full movie or sport TV packages) but I'd imagine that this is likely to change in the future. Sky would do well to appreciate that if they are not actually distributing the content that they are selling, then they are not actually selling content but merely licences to view that content and to reflect this in their pricing.

Fishman OTIII (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14806659)

The head of the Galactic Federation (76 planets around larger stars visible from here) (founded 5,000,000 years ago, very space opera) solved overpopulation (250 billion or so per planet, 178 billion on average) by mass implanting. He caused people to be brought to Teegeeack (Earth) and put an H-Bomb on the principal volcanos (Incident II) and then the Pacific area ones were taken in boxes to Hawaii and the Atlantic area ones to Las Palmas and there "packaged". His name was Xenu. He used renegades. Various misleading data by means of circuits etc. was placed in the implants. When through with his crime loyal officers (to the people) captured him after six years of battle and put him in an electronic mountain trap where he still is. "They" are gone. The place (Confederation) has since been a desert. The length and brutality of it all was such that this Confederation never recovered. The implant is calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it. This liability has been dispensed with by my tech development. One can freewheel through the implant and die unless it is approached as precisely outlined. The "freewheel" (auto-running on and on) lasts too long, denies sleep etc and one dies. So be careful to do only Incidents I and II as given and not plow around and fail to complete one thetan at a time. In December 1967 I knew someone had to take the plunge. I did and emerged very knocked out, but alive. Probably the only one ever to do so in 75,000,000 years. I have all the data now, but only that given here is needful. One's body is a mass of individual thetans stuck to oneself or to the body. One has to clean them off by running incident II and Incident I. It is a long job, requiring care, patience and good auditing. You are running beings. They respond like any preclear. Some large, some small. Thetans believed they were one. This is the primary error. Good luck.

Im sticking with Comcast, its annoying, not fatal (2, Funny)

228e2 (934443) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806664)

From the site's Term and Conditions [sky.com]
5.4We will be liable for any fraudulent misrepresentations We make and for any death or personal injury caused by Our negligence. We will not be responsible or liable to You for any other loss or damage that You or any third party may suffer as a result of using or in connection with Your use of the Sky Site.
Honey, put the Emergency room on call! Im about to surf the web!

Oh for Gods Sake... (1)

nickgrieve (87668) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806675)

Also, the P2P link continues to run in the background after you've shut down the main application, eating up bandwidth by allowing others to download the files from your PC.

Then kill it by other means, or pull the plug, or somthing... If you know what this all means your quite capable of finding a work around, if not, then, well, you know, ignorance is bliss.

This is not uncommon - they all do it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14806719)


Movielink
Cinema Now
Vongo
Kontiki
NetcableTV

They all do this in one way or another. I'd be surprised if it's not in the EULA.

That's the way furture video distro is going to be, it's the only way they can make it work economically.

If you don't like it, don't install.

Summary is wrong, as usual (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#14806912)

In addition to providing access to the internet

If you were to bother to read the requirements page [sky.com] , you'll see that one of the requirements is "A broadband internet connection of at least 512KB (1MB is recommended)".

This service does not provide connectivity, that's a separate requirement. Also, I don't know quite why PC Doctor is getting so upset about this. I briefly checked out the Sky by Broadband info a week or two ago, and from a few minutes clicking around the linked site it was perfectly plain to me that it involved installing the Kontiki P2P app. Ok, they may not shout it from the front page, but they're not exactly hiding the fact, either.

On top of that, the service is free to existing qualifying customers. It's not like you're paying to have the eevil Sky corporation steal your bandwidth...

Re:Summary is wrong, as usual (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 8 years ago | (#14807316)

It's pretty clear that this "PC Doctor" is sufficiently upset that he's created a user to get a front-page link from /. to the website he sells books from.

Nothing to his own advantage of doing that, then misleading people here to get all upset with Murdoch, is there?

UK ISPs charge for per-gigabyte usage (1)

Ned_Network (952200) | more than 8 years ago | (#14807571)

I don't know quite why PC Doctor is getting so upset about this. I briefly checked out the Sky by Broadband info a week or two ago, and from a few minutes clicking around the linked site it was perfectly plain to me that it involved installing the Kontiki P2P app. Ok, they may not shout it from the front page, but they're not exactly hiding the fact, either.
It may be perfectly clear to you, but it probably isn't perfectly clear to Joe Sixpack, Sky's main & target audience. Joe Sixpack just sees "great, a way to watch movies that I'd otherwise miss because I'm at work, and junior can watch them on the PC in his bedroom".

Meanwhile UK ISPs are introducing download limits as low as a couple of gig per month [wanadoo.co.uk] , and charging for excessive usage [adslguide.org.uk] .

Same as the BBC (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14806989)

I applied for the BBC's online show trial and after reading the terms and conditions i abandoned it because it infact uses the same kontiki p2p service as sky apparently are. I emailed the bbc help address regarding this and was told if you dont like it you can turn your pc off...

Oxy-oxy-moronic (1)

tod_miller (792541) | more than 8 years ago | (#14807109)

"Kontiki also collects and sends back to Sky a lot of information about your PC. There is no mention as to how this data is protected from unauthorized access, however, initial examination with Ethereal seems to show that all data is at least encrypted during transmission."

So they know the encrypted data is sending back information about your computer. And they also don't know that the data is encrypted, because there is no mention as to how the data is protected from unauthorized access.

Erm. *tightens tin foil hat*. End of world, cats and dogs, soviet russia, O RLY.

please type the word in this image: biopsies random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org

Re:Oxy-oxy-moronic (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 8 years ago | (#14808220)

So they know the encrypted data is sending back information about your computer. And they also don't know that the data is encrypted, because there is no mention as to how the data is protected from unauthorized access.

RTFA and pay attention. They know that it's sending back information about your PC because Sky says it is, and they know it's encrypted somehow because they've packet-sniffed it, but Sky don't say how they protect the data from unauthorised access (the encryption could be XORing the data with "ENCRYPTED", the server it's stored on could be wide open, etc.)

The article's still slightly tin-foil-hattish, but you could at least not misread it in such a way that it appears more so...

The problem is the software (5, Informative)

gataylor (609192) | more than 8 years ago | (#14807121)

Whether you agree that specifying the P2P nature in the Terms and Conditions is enough, the Kontiki P2P software is hard to uninstall.

Uninstalling Sky By Broadband does NOT uninstall the Kontiki peer to peer. So, anyone who tries Sky By Broadband, doesn't like it, and uninstalls it, is still participating in the P2P network - and most likely doing so without their knowledge. I bet they're all wondering why teh internets have gone all slow...

I wrote some uninstall instructions on my blog last month for the Sky By Broadband Kontiki P2P server:
http://www.opinionatedgeek.com/Blog/blogentry=0017 5/Blog.aspx [opinionatedgeek.com]

And here's another set of uninstall instructions:
http://www.nanagram.co.uk/sky.htm [nanagram.co.uk]

The big question in my mind is whether it is incompetence that makes the software hard to uninstall, or is it a deliberate attempt to grow their network.

Unintentional supernodes? (1)

Jivha (842251) | more than 8 years ago | (#14807173)

So here's a really implausible thought:

All Sky has to do is find one sucker each on a high-speed connection to download each movie they have on offer. After that they turn those computers into supernodes and sit back and watch while the movies are copied from user machines everywhere. A small notification is sent to them with each download that allows for billing/payments.

Of course that was really implausible. I'm sure media companies would never sink that low!

ah excellent... (1)

wetelectric (956671) | more than 8 years ago | (#14807179)

"Kontiki also collects and sends back to Sky a lot of information about your PC. There is no mention as to how this data is protected from unauthorized access, however, initial examination with Ethereal seems to show that all data is at least encrypted during transmission." ..its nice to know my information is being stolen from me safely.

Sky Has Suckered All Its Subscribers Anyway... (2, Interesting)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 8 years ago | (#14807243)

Sorry, call me old fashioned but I thought the idea was you paid for your TV service and got no advertisements OR you got free TV service with adverts every 10 minutes. All credit to Sky's marketing in that they seem to have combined the two into one great big ripoff.

Kontiki is Sky realising they've got away with one ripoff and are now embarking on a second to leech even more money from their customers - no different than just about every other big corporation that we the cattle masses have allowed to get too big for it's own damn good.

Wake up and smell the coffee people! If you don't like how a corporation is screwing you then don't buy their products, it really is THAT SIMPLE. The more people that do that, the more they have to take notice and stop treating their customers like mindless cattle.

And as for Sky, don't bother with them. Wait a year or two and all those nice TV programs you want to see get released in a handy DVD box set that you can probably buy for less than a month's subscription to Sky anyway.

Sky Movies on Demand - architecture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14808524)

Sky movies on demand works as below (i helped deliver the product)

bskyb encrypts the films and stores them on seed file servers.

A user connects to a bunch of j2ee apps browses the film list and selects a film to download. The film is then downloaded, either initially from bskyb file servers or later, once many users have a copy, from the p2p at large. Thus solving inherent bandwidth and technology constraints of 7 million UK punters trying to download GB films from a single source.

When playing the film the users pc connects to bskyb, traverses some j2ee code and makes a request for a microsoft DRM key (couple of 2003 DMR servers in the farm).

A key is provisioned and playback commences.

easy as 1,2,3

Earth to Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14812040)

People don't want to be surveilled no matter how many of these stories you float.

Contiki is a TCP/IP stack for 8bit computers (1)

Crass Spektakel (4597) | more than 8 years ago | (#14815612)

can't they make up a new and original name?
Check for New 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>