3 ms·

As the claim is regarding circumventing access control, I doubt the specific technical means by which it is blocked is relevant - Admiral's interpretation of th

As the claim is regarding circumventing access control, I doubt the specific technical means by which it is blocked is relevant - Admiral's interpretation of the DMCA considers the outcome (the domain is blocked), not that the list includes a domain which they own.

est 9y ago
How about split the blacklist into multiple entities (like Shamir's Secret Sharing) with absolute no affiliation with each other. Each one downloaded can not block anything But if a user combines some of the data, certain website gets blocked.
- zb3 9y ago
  This time I really don't understand why you've been downvoted. Now it feels like some powerful users know something I don't, but they won't tell
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    Because it was a response to a statement that the result matters more than the implementation details that consisted of achieving the same effect by cleverly modifying the implementation..
    - zb3 9y ago
      Result matters, but who's to attack when it's in fact the user who mixes some theoretically unrelated things to achieve such result? Sadly I know it wouldn't work in practice, but that's how I understood that comment
      - khedoros1 9y ago
        Three separate services, each hosting segments of a file that have to be put back together in some way. Either those three sites will have information on how to rebuild the file (revealing the reason they're hosting it in the first place), or there'll be a 4th party involved that provides the information. It starts looking like an organized conspiracy, if a court ends up looking at it. And that's the answer: The target companies file suit against whatever sites seem to be involved in the conspiracy. Either that, or it ends up being so obscure that the target company(ies) never notice.
    - cgmg 9y ago
      I see it as a kind of reductio ad absurdum.
    - est 9y ago
      I really meant something like this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability#Use_in_cryptography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability#Use_in_c...

est 9y ago

How about split the blacklist into multiple entities (like Shamir's Secret Sharing) with absolute no affiliation with each other. Each one downloaded can not block anything But if a user combines some of the data, certain website gets blocked.

zb3 9y ago
This time I really don't understand why you've been downvoted. Now it feels like some powerful users know something I don't, but they won't tell
- khedoros1 9y ago
  Because it was a response to a statement that the result matters more than the implementation details that consisted of achieving the same effect by cleverly modifying the implementation..
  - zb3 9y ago
    Result matters, but who's to attack when it's in fact the user who mixes some theoretically unrelated things to achieve such result? Sadly I know it wouldn't work in practice, but that's how I understood that comment
    - khedoros1 9y ago
      Three separate services, each hosting segments of a file that have to be put back together in some way. Either those three sites will have information on how to rebuild the file (revealing the reason they're hosting it in the first place), or there'll be a 4th party involved that provides the information. It starts looking like an organized conspiracy, if a court ends up looking at it. And that's the answer: The target companies file suit against whatever sites seem to be involved in the conspiracy. Either that, or it ends up being so obscure that the target company(ies) never notice.
  - cgmg 9y ago
    I see it as a kind of reductio ad absurdum.
  - est 9y ago
    I really meant something like this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability#Use_in_cryptography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability#Use_in_c...