4 ms·

I'm curious why you're very curious why I'm curious. I would think Netflix would be protective of their content and would likely have monitoring to detect mass

by Buge 10y ago

I'm curious why you're very curious why I'm curious. I would think Netflix would be protective of their content and would likely have monitoring to detect mass downloading. The adversarial nature of one person trying to do something and other people trying to detect and stop them is interesting to me. I find JSOR's account of their monitoring, detection, and attempted blocking of Aaron Swartz's downloading of academic papers (not just metadata like this post), and the cat and mouse game that followed to be very interesting. https://docs.jstor.org/summary.html https://docs.jstor.org/summary.html And the perspective from the other side: the authors of this paper, whether they were concerned with being detected by Netflix and possibly blocked or even banned from Netflix for life, and maybe took action to avoid that such as using multiple accounts or VPNs.

toast0 10y ago
How is Netflix going to ban someone for life? Get a new email address, a new IP, a new credit card, and you're a new person. You may have lost your ratings, but maybe a fresh start is nice from time to time.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  Possible but not that simple since a new CC is also tied to your identity and billing address. Paypal does do checks to ensure that blocked accounts are not easily resurrected. Netflix has less incentive to perform such a costly operation but it's more than possible, this is what every credit and background check agency can do. Sure if you want to get a completely new identity, credit history and address you can probably fool most of these but you are going to be violating a few laws in the process and it would be probably be cheaper to purchase the entire Netflix library on DVD/BR at that point.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - toast0 10y ago
    > Possible but not that simple since a new CC is also tied to your identity and billing address. Billing address sort of, but address verification is usually only on the numbers, not the names of the street. Very few credit card systems pass the name on to the bank when requesting authorization. If you're only using streaming, it doesn't really matter if the street address isn't correct. Credit and background checks usually request a lot more information than netflix does; nobody would give netflix their social security number, or recent addresses.
ap46 10y ago
Although Swartz's intentions were noble, what he did with concealing equipment in a locker(IIRC) was illegal.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  He connected to and bridged a secure government network with an unauthorized device this was what triggered the whole thing. The FBI was involved before it was even discovered who it was or what was the purpose of the device. When an institution discovers such an incident when an unauthorized device is plugged to a secure network and in a covert manner their hands are tied.
  - extra88 10y ago
    It was MIT's network, not a government network. The network was not "secure," campus guests can use it though leaving a computer connected 24/7 in a wiring closet (that could have been locked but wasn't) clearly exceeds the campus policy. The JSTOR link makes it pretty clear that his activity, including that which involved using the hidden computer, came before federal involvement. Given the language of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, I think the outcome could have been the same for an MIT student or faculty member, it would've mattered to the federal attorney. JSTOR's and MIT's hands were tied in the sense that they were not party to the aggressive prosecution of Swartz, the federal attorney had a lot of discretion as to how to handle the case and chose to be very aggressive.
otterley 10y ago
It's also possible that they got Netflix's permission to do this research.

by Buge 10y ago

toast0 10y ago

How is Netflix going to ban someone for life? Get a new email address, a new IP, a new credit card, and you're a new person. You may have lost your ratings, but maybe a fresh start is nice from time to time.

dogma1138 10y ago
Possible but not that simple since a new CC is also tied to your identity and billing address. Paypal does do checks to ensure that blocked accounts are not easily resurrected. Netflix has less incentive to perform such a costly operation but it's more than possible, this is what every credit and background check agency can do. Sure if you want to get a completely new identity, credit history and address you can probably fool most of these but you are going to be violating a few laws in the process and it would be probably be cheaper to purchase the entire Netflix library on DVD/BR at that point.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- toast0 10y ago
  > Possible but not that simple since a new CC is also tied to your identity and billing address. Billing address sort of, but address verification is usually only on the numbers, not the names of the street. Very few credit card systems pass the name on to the bank when requesting authorization. If you're only using streaming, it doesn't really matter if the street address isn't correct. Credit and background checks usually request a lot more information than netflix does; nobody would give netflix their social security number, or recent addresses.

ap46 10y ago

Although Swartz's intentions were noble, what he did with concealing equipment in a locker(IIRC) was illegal.

dogma1138 10y ago
He connected to and bridged a secure government network with an unauthorized device this was what triggered the whole thing. The FBI was involved before it was even discovered who it was or what was the purpose of the device. When an institution discovers such an incident when an unauthorized device is plugged to a secure network and in a covert manner their hands are tied.
- extra88 10y ago
  It was MIT's network, not a government network. The network was not "secure," campus guests can use it though leaving a computer connected 24/7 in a wiring closet (that could have been locked but wasn't) clearly exceeds the campus policy. The JSTOR link makes it pretty clear that his activity, including that which involved using the hidden computer, came before federal involvement. Given the language of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, I think the outcome could have been the same for an MIT student or faculty member, it would've mattered to the federal attorney. JSTOR's and MIT's hands were tied in the sense that they were not party to the aggressive prosecution of Swartz, the federal attorney had a lot of discretion as to how to handle the case and chose to be very aggressive.

otterley 10y ago

It's also possible that they got Netflix's permission to do this research.