Cody-99

Making an already rough economic situation in Egypt even worse.

>who were collaborating in a decade of torture; that he had to be protected by Ecuador is an utter shame.

Oh come on. No matter your opinion on the whole situation you can't say sitting in an Ecuadorian embassy is torture lol. Dude had his girlfriend, internet, and pets. Calling the self imposed stay torture is beyond absurd. BFFR

>He was sent a Windows NT password hash, he ran hashcat over it, couldn't successfully reverse it, and gave up.

Yeah..? He played an active role with his conspirator lol. He doesn't pretend to be some fool who accidentally got involved so there is no reason for you to do so on his behalf by trying to deny his crimes.

>At the time of this "crime" occurring he was not physically in the USA, not a citizen of the USA, and hence not subject to its laws.

An abused claim. Plenty of Russian hackers aren't US citizens or in the US when they commit credit card fraud or launch ransomware attacks but obviously they are still able to be charged under US law (or the law of any country they attack). And no one can seriously argue otherwise. Sitting in a different jurisdiction doesn't mean you can't be charged with a crime. For example, the South American drug lord isn't free to traffic drugs into Europe just because he isn't in Europe or a European citizen. That would be stupid and isn't how the world works.

>Unless you think the USA is the world government and can police anyone, anywhere, for anything?

US law can apply to the whole world if the US wants to enforce it (and so do most countries for plenty of crimes like cybercrime, terrorism, money laundering).

>Prosecuting him for this "heinous crime against the state" has cost US and UK taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

I mean sure; trying any person for a crime cost money. Not really relevant.

Why are some many people here spouting conspiracies lol? Manning, his partner in crime, has been out of prison and living a normal life for years but Assange is going to get disappeared for some reason? If the US government wanted to keep him in a hole they could have not offered a plea deal and kept going through the extradition process in the UK (where he would have stayed in jail since he has a history of fleeing).

Assange played an active role in breaking into government systems. He wasn't asking "can you get this for me?".

Turns out taking an active role in breaking into government systems is a bad idea. The whole situation is funny because he would have been out years ago had he not done everything in his power to avoid a trial haha.

> This is not because of the technology but because of broken governance.

I mean it has a pretty big thing to do with it. It objectively doesn't work

>It'd require scrapping the next planned Soyuz mission - it may take several months to get that ready. I believe they have to (and would) have to send it up manned.

Soyuz can be launched to the ISS with no crew. The Russians sent up a Soyuz with no crew a few years ago when the Soyuz they used to get up there stared leaking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_MS-23

(Of course it probably would launch manned because they would only be picking up 2 people)

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]

[1] https://attack.mitre.org/software/S0226/

>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,”

The plutonium, uranium, and other high explosives fall back to earth. Pretty tame compared to what happens if you fail to intercept!

Yes..? If someone commits war crimes and posts the evidence of them doing so on the internet one would hope the ICC would take note.

>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.

>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.

This is a silly argument IMO.

> 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.

Makes sense. If you are offering a 'fast lane' then you are just slowing down everyone who doesn't pay.

Yes..? Why would that render it useless? I don't see how vanguard would be any less effective by publishing the source code.

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).

>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.

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.

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?

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.

>So, I would be beyond shocked if this was an election year issue of substance.

Because it isn't an election year issue. This has been in the works since at least 2022.https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/net-neutrality-will-make-...

The rule making process takes time!

>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...

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.

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].

[1] https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/net-neutrality-will-make-...

Except the kids aren't voters. The story I read said many were kids who didn't even know what congress was.

Maybe useless was a bit strong of a word. Combined with some VPN/proxy to bypass the great firewall they of course would become functional.

Honestly I'm surprised most of them were even available for download to begin with. Signal and telegram have been blocked on a network level for years so even if you could download them they were mostly useless.

Saying only the wealthy and top 5% of students should receive higher education is unhinged. That might be a popular opinion on HN and libertarian land but no one can seriously argue that with a straight face lol.

So only the wealthy get to receive higher education. Good one! I know this is HN but this take goes beyond the typical level of unhinged. Honestly it seems like straight up trolling.

Someone who received public loans to attend university and who spent 10, 20, or 25 years paying them off at which point the rest was cancelled isn't really irresponsible.