7 ms·

You're likely being down voted for not adding to the conversation, and simply trying to cheerlead.

by pstop 12y ago

shmerl 12y ago
Could be, but my point was to show the irony of the subject. Netflix deserves to be viewed as a threat, though for different reasons from what the subject suggests. And what is a criteria of "adding to the conversation" in this context? I see downvotes here as a nervous reaction of those who are blind to DRM (a valid reason to view it as a threat), but suddenly feel offended when Netflix is pictured as a threat for invalid reasons.
sigzero 12y ago
That is exactly the reason. "Netflix deserves to be seen as a threat" is just nonsense.
- shmerl 12y ago
  > Netflix deserves to be seen as a threat" is just nonsense. No, any DRM deserves such treatment. It's not more nonsense than DRM treating all its users as potential criminals by default. It's a symmetrical response. And, all sensible security experts agree that DRM never makes security better - on the contrary, it always makes it worse.
  - pstop 12y ago
    > It's not more nonsense than DRM treating all its users as potential criminals by default. It is nonsense, treating a user as a criminal is not a security threat. DRM is just encryption, and although I'll agree that some containers (flash primarily) have been vectors, so has every other piece of software that has any filesystem access. The DRM itself is NOT a security threat. I dislike DRM, and clearly envision a day where it's no longer used. But your argument doesn't address the article, nor does it add any value to the DRM conversation as a whole. Again, cheerleading.
    - shmerl 12y ago
      It addresses the criticism of the article which (criticism) misses the forest behind the trees. I.e. Netflix deserves to be viewed as a threat indeed. Just for different reasons. > It is nonsense, treating a user as a criminal is not a security threat. DRM is just encryption Tell it to these folks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_rootkit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_rootkit Or to security experts: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/drm_in_windows_1.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/drm_in_window... DRM is obviously a security threat because of its very nature.
      - pstop 12y ago
        Nope. Still not understanding.
        shmerl 12y ago
        It's really simple. Trust is a mutual relation. I.e. since DRM always views users as potential criminals, it's natural always to view DRM as potential malware (and thus a security threat). Here it's put in easy to understand terms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgFbqSYdNK4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgFbqSYdNK4 Practice proves that point spectacularly, because DRM always has an overreaching unethical nature (since it's an overreaching preemptive policing which uses the logic of presumption of guilt). As the Sony exec voiced the core idea behind DRM: > We will develop technology that transcends the individual user. We will firewall Napster at source - we will block it at your cable company. We will block it at your phone company. We will block it at your ISP. We will firewall it at your PC... These strategies are being aggressively pursued because there is simply too much at stake. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_rootkit#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_rootkit#Background ). I.e. overreaching nature of DRM straight from the DRM proponents mouth. And it applies to all DRM by its very definition.

You're likely being down voted for not adding to the conversation, and simply trying to cheerlead.

by pstop 12y ago

You're likely being down voted for not adding to the conversation, and simply trying to cheerlead.

Could be, but my point was to show the irony of the subject. Netflix deserves to be viewed as a threat, though for different reasons from what the subject suggests. And what is a criteria of "adding to the conversation" in this context? I see downvotes here as a nervous reaction of those who are blind to DRM (a valid reason to view it as a threat), but suddenly feel offended when Netflix is pictured as a threat for invalid reasons.

sigzero 12y ago

That is exactly the reason. "Netflix deserves to be seen as a threat" is just nonsense.

shmerl 12y ago
> Netflix deserves to be seen as a threat" is just nonsense. No, any DRM deserves such treatment. It's not more nonsense than DRM treating all its users as potential criminals by default. It's a symmetrical response. And, all sensible security experts agree that DRM never makes security better - on the contrary, it always makes it worse.
- pstop 12y ago
  > It's not more nonsense than DRM treating all its users as potential criminals by default. It is nonsense, treating a user as a criminal is not a security threat. DRM is just encryption, and although I'll agree that some containers (flash primarily) have been vectors, so has every other piece of software that has any filesystem access. The DRM itself is NOT a security threat. I dislike DRM, and clearly envision a day where it's no longer used. But your argument doesn't address the article, nor does it add any value to the DRM conversation as a whole. Again, cheerleading.
  - shmerl 12y ago
    It addresses the criticism of the article which (criticism) misses the forest behind the trees. I.e. Netflix deserves to be viewed as a threat indeed. Just for different reasons. > It is nonsense, treating a user as a criminal is not a security threat. DRM is just encryption Tell it to these folks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_rootkit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_rootkit Or to security experts: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/drm_in_windows_1.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/drm_in_window... DRM is obviously a security threat because of its very nature.
    - pstop 12y ago
      Nope. Still not understanding.
      - shmerl 12y ago
        It's really simple. Trust is a mutual relation. I.e. since DRM always views users as potential criminals, it's natural always to view DRM as potential malware (and thus a security threat). Here it's put in easy to understand terms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgFbqSYdNK4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgFbqSYdNK4 Practice proves that point spectacularly, because DRM always has an overreaching unethical nature (since it's an overreaching preemptive policing which uses the logic of presumption of guilt). As the Sony exec voiced the core idea behind DRM: > We will develop technology that transcends the individual user. We will firewall Napster at source - we will block it at your cable company. We will block it at your phone company. We will block it at your ISP. We will firewall it at your PC... These strategies are being aggressively pursued because there is simply too much at stake. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_rootkit#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_rootkit#Background ). I.e. overreaching nature of DRM straight from the DRM proponents mouth. And it applies to all DRM by its very definition.