Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Your Rights Online

Virgin Media To Trial Filesharing Monitoring In UK 280

Posted by timothy
from the deep-pocket-inspection dept.
Shokaster writes "The Register reports that Virgin Media are to begin monitoring file sharing using a deep packet inspection system, CView, provided by Deltica, a BAE subsidiary. The trial will cover about 40% of customers, although those involved will not be informed. CView's deep packet inspection is the same technology that powered Phorm's advertising system. Initially Virgin Media's implementation will focus on music sharing and will inspect packets to determine whether the content is licensed or unlicensed, based on data provided by the record industry. Virgin Media emphasised that records will not be kept on individual customers and that data on the level of copyright infringement will be aggregated and anonymised."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Virgin Media To Trial Filesharing Monitoring In UK

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 26, 2009 @07:19PM (#30241066)
    Deep packet inspection? All sounds like a porn operation to me.
    • by pushf popf (741049) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @07:38PM (#30241202)
      If they thought DPI was expensive, wait until they try real-time decryption
      • by phpster (1636789)
        Vuze / Azerus already does this. Uses RC4 as the algorithm. But it should be enough to stop the virgin in it's tracks. Especially if they encode each download with a different key, like a random hash
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by davester666 (731373)

          And by "aggregated and anonymised", they mean they will send all the records to the record labels grouped by address. They won't even send the DSL subscribers name to the record label. Promise.

        • by rts008 (812749)

          Vuze / Azerus already does this. Uses RC4 as the algorithm. But it should be enough to stop the virgin in it's tracks.

          Indeed, from the linked artcle:

          Klein added that encryption of data would cause major problems for CView. "Encryption of the data packet would defeat us," he said. "We're not going to put the processing power into defeating it."

          Most p2p software is able to encryption now days....use it.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by MichaelSmith (789609)

            But unless client and server agree on a private key in advance, by offline means, a Man in the Middle can still proxy the key negotiation and access the plaintext.

            • by jamesh (87723)

              But unless client and server agree on a private key in advance, by offline means, a Man in the Middle can still proxy the key negotiation and access the plaintext.

              I can't help but think that that might be just a little illegal unless it was done by law enforcement with a warrant, as would any form of decrypting an encrypted transmission.

            • a Man in the Middle can still proxy the key negotiation and access the plaintext.

              But wouldn't this be illegal?
              Let's leave aside P2P, in which you may or may not have the right to transfer particular copyright material (depending on the material, of course). If you protect your personal communications - in which copyright belongs to you - with a DRM scheme such as a non-trivial encryption, then decrypting it would be an unauthorized circumvention of that DRM. The mechanism used, whether brute-force or Man in the Middle, is merely a technical detail.

              It would be an outrage if ISP condi

      • by Nerdfest (867930) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @07:50PM (#30241274)
        I've got a better idea. Have your legislators ensure they stay the hell out of your content. They aren't allowed to listen to your phone calls, wy the hhell should they be allowed to look at your data. Seriously ... if they suspect people of committing a crime, they should get a warrant.
        • by Cryacin (657549) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @07:58PM (#30241334)

          if they suspect people of committing a crime, they should get a warrant.

          But that would involve due process and presumption innocence, and well, we can't have that now. What's next? Right to a fair trial?

        • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @08:21PM (#30241482)

          They aren't allowed to listen to your phone calls, wy the hhell should they be allowed to look at your data

          Yeah, and look at how well governments followed that law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy [wikipedia.org]

          Any human rights documents from any western country (UK, US, Canada, etc) are quickly becoming no more than toilet paper.

          The only way we have to stop them is to make it physically impossible for them to trample our rights. Encryption is one way we can stop this abuse of power. Laws only get us so far when "national security" is on the line.

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Any human rights documents from any western country (UK, US, Canada, etc) are quickly becoming no more than toilet paper.

            Isn't that an interesting coincidence that they all became this way at (relatively) the same time? You'd think that the ones who don't become this way would enjoy a degree of economic and social prosperity that would give them quite a competitive edge against the other nations.

            When are you guys going to wake up and realize that sovereign nations hardly exist anymore? If you want to

          • by Cimexus (1355033) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @11:31PM (#30242570)

            I fully agree. The rise of surveillance of telecommunications (of whatever method) in the West is getting a bit alarming. Ubiquitous encryption will become the standard I feel. We are moving towards a word where all new software, systems and protocols that get developed, will include encryption to a greater or lesser extent.

            It started with the widespread logging and monitoring of all phone calls entering and leaving the US after 9/11 (this really irritates me as a non-American - that my calls TO America are getting logged and possibly intercepted). Since then though I feel that it is the UK that is becoming the worst offender. AU and NZ are still pretty much surveillance-free ... although that's mostly a product of them being isolated and not having suffered a direct attack, rather than them having stricter protections against this kind of thing. I'm sure if there were an attack or threat there, there would be impetus to implement similar systems to the US/UK.

            So yeah, I would urge everyone to use encryption in their daily lives as much as they can. Of course, most of us have nothing to hide in this respect, but it's really the ~principle~ of the thing that is at stake here, rather than an actual need to encrypt. If we make it technically or financially unfeasible to monitor communications en masse, then Governments will be more reluctant to do it, and will return to concentrating on tapping into only particular, suspected communications, by way of a proper warrant. Like they ~should~ be doing.

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by StripedCow (776465)

              If we make it technically or financially unfeasible to monitor communications en masse, then Governments will be more reluctant to do it

              or... governments will switch to more radical forms of tapping, like pointing a directional microphone at your house...

            • by Tom (822) on Friday November 27, 2009 @06:59AM (#30244540) Homepage Journal

              Of course, most of us have nothing to hide

              I hear that all the time and it's time to stop this lie by the surveillance fanatics once and for all.

              Of course we all have something to hide! It's called our private life. You have no business snooping around in it. Not if you're a cop, not it you're an ISP, not if you're god.

      • by QuantumG (50515) *

        Wouldn't using encryption be "circumventing a copyright protection mechanism" .. oh, UK, sorry.

        • by Dunbal (464142)

          Wouldn't using encryption be "circumventing a copyright protection mechanism" .. oh, UK, sorry.

                Wouldn't trying to crack my encryption be "circumventing a copyright protection mechanism"? After all you can't know what's in the packet until you "open" the packet.

        • > Wouldn't using encryption be "circumventing a copyright protection mechanism"

          Not in the USA, but of course this is in Europe.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by MichaelSmith (789609)

        If they thought DPI was expensive, wait until they try real-time decryption

        Encryption can get you into trouble [theregister.co.uk] in the UK/

    • Not a porn operation but a Phorm operation.
  • How do they know? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nursie (632944) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @07:19PM (#30241072)

    I have a friend who's an amateur musician and devices (his mobile phone) have started to deny him the ability to play his own music due to it being "unlicensed".

    How the hell do these clowns expect to be able to figure out what's unauthorised copying?

    • Re:How do they know? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by zonky (1153039) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @07:21PM (#30241078)
      What mobile phone make/model was this?
    • by timmarhy (659436)
      why would they bother? all they have to do is make legal threats and demand payment or they will haul you into court which will be even more expensive for you.

      people on here think they have somehow been winning this fight to control media, when they have been kidding themselfs. the fight hasn't even STARTED yet...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The more false-positives they measure, the more they can make the case for increasingly intrusive DPI which will inevitably include personally identifying users and meddling with their traffic if not disconnecting them.

      It's nice to see the military industrial complex involved in the music industry's problem.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Only the RIAA is allowed to distribute music there will be no other source or at least that is looking like their plan.

      I suggest a boycott during the 3rd Quarter: April 1, 2010- June 30, 2010, and 4th Quarter: July 1, 2010 - September 30, 2010
      Someone could set up a nice website, people could vote on a list of demands/consumer rights, and people could start an email/facebook campaign. A dent in the industries profits might get these people's attention.

      I for one think the Public Domain needs to be given back

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Boycotts do not work. I would think we would fingered that out after what Jefferson and Madison did in the start of the 1800's. "Free ships make free trade"
      • Look, the RIAA and their equivalents in other countries do not see losses in profit as "hey, we better do something different", no they say "PIRACY!!!11!1111!1!1" and use that to fuel more crap laws to extend copyright. Boycotts do not work. Even if indie records outsell RIAA records, the big labels would simply buy the smaller labels.
    • by Dr. Evil (3501)

      Don't worry. It'll all be throttled soon. I predict that anyone who wants to produce content will need a special business line.

      To use VoIP, that'll be throttled, as will non-branded chat apps. Anything that will allow a telco-style grab for features. The most expensive will be the one which permits encryption for working from home... unless you're a big company who can afford a mutual kickback relationship with the telco.

      The days of the free Internet are coming to an end. It'll be as dead as devoid

      • The days of the free Internet are coming to an end.

        Perhaps it's time we invented something else. We're still here, aren't we?

        How about some peer-to-peer mechanism that bypasses the ISP's altogether?

        Ok, that's at least half said in jest. But this whole matter, relative to the sheer astounding amount of information that passes between people, puts me in mind of trying to dig the sea out of a sand castle. The rough note is that we have to stay ahead of the bastards who try to limit the means of communication, or put a tap on it for control and money. The c

        • by jimicus (737525)

          How about some peer-to-peer mechanism that bypasses the ISP's altogether?

          Easy enough if you're using dialup. Kind of hard, however, when the ISP owns the line going into your house.

    • Not only that, those packets they're "inspecting" could be for anything. If you back up your Mac (including your music collection) to MobileMe, does it flag your file transfers as unauthorized filesharing? What about if you access your files over a VPN? What if you email your favourite music to your Gmail account so you can listen to it from work or on vacation? What if you upload them to your phone to use as a ringtone?

      • by ShakaUVM (157947)

        >>What about if you access your files over a VPN?

        If they can tell what files I'm sending over an encrypted VPN link, then they have some impressive technology indeed.

        But your point is valid - how do they know if the music I'm sending is an authorized transfer or not? What if I'm the person who owns the content?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by jimicus (737525)

          If they can tell what files I'm sending over an encrypted VPN link, then they have some impressive technology indeed.

          At the risk of being branded a tinfoil-hat wearing nutcase, my employer used to use CIPE for a VPN between two offices. At the time I started, CIPE had already been discredited as being fundamentally insecure but nobody really thought it was going to be intercepted unless you had pissed off a government somewhere.

          Then we had a problem. SIP traffic of any description going over that VPN link didn't make it across. (Kind of important when your employer produces SIP software).

          Everything else made it fine.

    • I have a friend who's an amateur musician and devices (his mobile phone) have started to deny him the ability to play his own music due to it being "unlicensed".

      Its not his music. All music belongs to the properly recognised music industry. You see the music industry is God, therefore nothing can be created except by them or with their help.

      He is clearly some sort of hippy communist terrorist music thief.

  • Quick, everyone start sharing Barry Manilow songs.
    • by Fex303 (557896) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @08:28PM (#30241538)
      Mr Manilow, this is an outstanding viral marketing campaign. I congratulate you on your forthcoming resurgence among the hard to reach tween/teen demographics.
    • by IBBoard (1128019)

      Or flood it out - everyone share public domain versions of classical music etc! (Stuff that will be recognised as "a known song that doesn't need a license").

      Either that or everyone should just torrent large amounts Linux ISOs so that the DPI system generally has to monitor loads of stuff anyway before it determines that it isn't relevant.

  • by Ynot_82 (1023749) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @07:29PM (#30241152)

    27th May 2010

    Just 6 months after the announcement to monitor their network for illegal filesharers, Virgin Media has seen a dramatic decline in subscribers.
    90% of their top tier customers (renting 20Mb/sec) have canceled their subscriptions
    This figure is similar (82%) for their 10Mb/sec tier

    Furthermore, the cost of the controversial detection methods (Deep Packet Inspection) has meant that the company has had to increase monthly subscription costs across all tiers by 10-20%
    This has seen decline (albeit much smaller, at 47%) in their lowest tier of service

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 26, 2009 @07:33PM (#30241164)

      Only in your fantasies. Nothing will change. They'll keep the same subscriber level, and if there's any changes in level it will be due to deteriorating economic conditions.

      Face it: the average schlub doesn't give a rat's ass about the security of their internet connection from the ISP itself. In their thoughts: "Why should I? I've got nothing to hide!"

      • by causality (777677)

        Only in your fantasies. Nothing will change. They'll keep the same subscriber level, and if there's any changes in level it will be due to deteriorating economic conditions.

        Face it: the average schlub doesn't give a rat's ass about the security of their internet connection from the ISP itself. In their thoughts: "Why should I? I've got nothing to hide!"

        When are people going to learn that it's not about whether you have something to hide? It's about what they want to find and it always was.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Lord_Jeremy (1612839)
        Except the average schlub is probably illegally downloading movies or music. So when they find out that their internet company is going to stop them from doing it, they're going to react badly. Piracy is very quickly becoming a mainstream phenomenon. It's not only "cool" to pirate stuff, it's practical and often expected.
        • by jimicus (737525)

          I think you overestimate the anger that would be experienced.

          While most people may do it, they usually know full well it's illegal. It's just that the risk of suffering any serious consequences is miniscule.

          My guess is that most people will shrug their shoulders and say "Ah well. It was nice while it lasted".

          Be interesting to see how many people continue to subscribe to the most expensive, fastest deal though...

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Hurricane78 (562437)

        You’re the master of self-fulfilling prophecies aren’t you??

        Half the reason that sometimes nothing changes, is the people constantly repeating that, taking all belief of the possiblility out of people.
        That again is half the strategy to keep people from rising up.

        Because in the end, it’s all in the mind. If ten million people want to rise up, but believe they are the only ones, then it will be much more unlikely that they really do it.
        But if ten people believe that they really can change th

    • there BIG LACK of HD is killing off subscribers as well and this maybe to topper as people will give faster internet for FULL INTERNET.

    • by Attaturk (695988)
      Well here's one Virgin cable customer (£30/month) that'll definitely be cancelling next week and specifying the reason for cancelling as deep packet inspection. Hopefully I won't be the only one with the sense to send that message.
    • by jimicus (737525)

      Virgin are in a strong position in the UK and they know it.

      Firstly, ADSL 2 has yet to see widespread rollout. If you're in a cabled area, they hold a nationwide monopoly over that cable and it's far and away the fastest option for Internet access.

      Secondly, every time something like this is announced virtually every other ISP is not far behind. It's unlikely - nay, unthinkable - that the company flogging this to Virgin isn't trying to flog it to every other ISP and with the government seriously advocating

  • More details here: (Score:4, Informative)

    by D-R0C (1358485) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @07:30PM (#30241154)
    "Virgin Media executive director of broadband, Jon James, told ZDNet UK on Thursday that the trial will go live "within days". He added that the use of such traffic-monitoring technology was part of its distribution deal with media company Universal." http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39906062,00.htm [zdnet.co.uk]
    • by Anonymous Cowpat (788193) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @08:07PM (#30241400) Journal

      So now I know what their engineers have been doing instead of upgrading the upstream infrastructure so that my 10Mbit connection can provide better than 500kbit with 33% packet loss. Trebles all round.

    • by martin-boundary (547041) on Friday November 27, 2009 @01:18AM (#30243042)
      Excellent! I presume that Virgin Media have also built the infrastructure to comply with EU/UK privacy regulations?

      Such as, e.g., a facility to allow *every* broadband customer to be informed of and if they so choose to view *all* the information being gathered about themselves, and allow *any* of this data to be edited for accuracy by the customer, and allow *all* of this data to be deleted from *all* their servers if the customer decides to end the contract with Virgin at any time, etc.

      Moreover, I presume that Virgin Media have ensured that the nature of the data they do collect is technically necessary for the provision of their ISP service to each customer, and not simply a gratuitous and illegal collection of data that is requested for a completely independent purpose set out in a completely different contract with another entity, and to which the customer himself is not actually a party.

      These are bad economic times, and it would be a pity if some idle British lawyer were to look a little too closely at this announcement...

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mario_grgic (515333)

        This is what the banks have been doing for decades. They are happily giving details of your credit card transactions to a privately owned third party company that keeps this record about you and sells digested report about you, popularly known as credit rating, to interested other parties.

        If you wish to see the information they collect about you, you have to pay money to them, and correcting wrong information about you (since it otherwise can ruin your life) is not easy or even possible either.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by AmiMoJo (196126)

        The Data Protection Act does allow you access to this data for a nominal £10 fee. In a month or two I'll be sending them a cheque with a request for all data held about me.

        What is not clear is how this works with anonymous data. It's still my data, even if it can no longer be associated with me.

    • So are they an entertainment delivery company or an ISP? Do you want to buy content or connectivity?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 26, 2009 @07:36PM (#30241194)

    Which is worse: All data being free, including data you don't personally like? Or regimes of data control?

  • by Winckle (870180) <mark@[ ]ckle.co.uk ['win' in gap]> on Thursday November 26, 2009 @08:01PM (#30241354) Homepage

    Here's a bit of a dilemma, they crack down on filesharing, yet run a free usenet server for their customers with alt.binaries included with 5 days retention.

    Will they issue a takedown to themselves?

    • by Bandman (86149)

      Frankly, I find it amazing that Usenet is still on anyone's radar. Even the alt.binaries groups. It's been a long time since I've found an ISP that includes a free usenet server. The reliable ones are the ones that you have to pay for, and honestly, if you're going to pay to pirate things, you're probably doing it wrong.

      • by Winckle (870180)

        Actually usenet is probably the best way to go, and the rates for premium servers are incredibly cheap.

      • Paying to pirate solves a lot of problems, like things not being available in your country, or only in an DRM'd format. It could be well worth it.

    • by Bull_UK (944763) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @09:27PM (#30241900) Homepage
      Please dont mention use*** the last thing I want is for them to realise they still have it.
    • by syousef (465911)

      Here's a bit of a dilemma, they crack down on filesharing, yet run a free usenet server for their customers with alt.binaries included with 5 days retention.

      Will they issue a takedown to themselves?

      Due to the repeated issuance of takedown notices (by our own company but we're not telling you that) we regret that we have been forced to remove free access to alt.binaries. If you wish to use that service please subscribe to our new service - PayPerViewBinaries - for just 12.99 per month (well until we increase

  • by erroneus (253617) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @08:04PM (#30241380) Homepage

    I guess I'll fill in some space down here because slashdot will not likely let me post a subject-only comment, but seriously, what more needs to be said? I can't believe they are even saying that with a straight face. Governments barely have anyone or anything to answer two when they lie to people. Businesses like Virgin media most certainly do not. The only thing that their bullshit proves is that they are aware of what the public response will be and that they are afraid of it at some level.

  • by BitterOak (537666) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @08:17PM (#30241458)
    Ok. They're monitoring their customers for illegal file sharing, even going so far as to identify whether or not the copied material has been licensed by the copyright holders. Does this not make them guilty of contributory infringement? They are providing the networks which allow users to infringe copyright. They know that infringement is taking place via their deep packets inspection, down to the level of individual acts of infringement. Then they are destroying data which can identify infringers, but they continue to provide them with networks service. How is this legal?
    • > How is this legal?

      In the USA they would be protected by the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA. In the UK, however...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by d36 (1442889)
      because they have enough money to buy the government?
    • by Xest (935314) on Friday November 27, 2009 @05:26AM (#30244168)

      Yes, I think it's actually illegal, but for different reasons. From what I can tell this is exactly why the UK is facing legal procedings from the EU over Phorm.

      It's effectively a breach of the European Declaration of Human Rights which we are signatories to, specifically it is a clear breach of the right to privacy.

      I think realistically this will end up in European courts. It wont end up in British courts or be looked into by the police here because they are merely puppets of the Labour government here which supports this as demonstrated by the new supreme court refusing to hear McKinnon, the refusal of investigations into Phorm even though it was blatantly illegal and so on.

      Nowadays in Britain we have to rely on the European courts for any semblance of justice on these sorts of things, but on the upside they do generally rule in favour of the citizen on things like this where it is a clear breach of law. God knows where we as citizens of Britain would be if it weren't for Europe, I'd imagine it would resemble something like Germany circa 1937. In fact, there's a certain irony in that whole sentence, how times change eh?

  • Encrypt (Score:5, Insightful)

    by some_guy_88 (1306769) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @08:20PM (#30241472) Homepage

    Everything.

    • Re:Encrypt (Score:4, Funny)

      by dbIII (701233) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @09:18PM (#30241838)

      Everything.

      Ok
      cewqqwavkbqfycpligfbnoppilrsbmfDshcaswlpgjxyeuwhkz2gejdtx6wzhutcofalcwTl

    • by Bios_Hakr (68586)

      It won't help much. Thanks to Bit Torrent, it's rather easy to identify file sharers; they connect to thousands of peers. You draft a AUP that states file sharing will not be tollerated. Then you use NTOP to identify potential file sharers. Finally, you redirect them to a web page explaining what they need to do if they want to get back online.

      For repeatr offenders, you kick them completely.

  • This won't work (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sammydee (930754)
    This won't work, most modern bittorrent clients use encryption by default now anyway. Shame they don't just save the money and spend it on upgrading their infrastructure instead...
    • by Malc (1751)

      I don't fully understand how BT works, but it seems that most people accept all peers, so does that mean they can use a modified BT client to connect to your system and get information irrespective of encryption?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by sammydee (930754)

        Most clients use encryption by default, but will accept plaintext incoming connections yes. It's fairly easy to configure your torrent client to only allow encrypted connections if you are feeling paranoid.

        Deep packet inspection does not extend to joining swarms with a modified client. At least I'd hope not...

  • misnomer (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 26, 2009 @08:44PM (#30241642)

    Judging by their behaviour they should probably rebrand themselves Whore Media.

  • For torrents, encrypting them to block this sort of thing would appear to be straightforward. Just include the encryption key in the *.torrent file itself. Make it a nice long randomly generated key using lots of bits with whatever freely available encryption algorithm is thought to be the most secure.

    What sort of CPU overhead is needed for this kind of encryption processing, though? Would it add up to anything significant on modern 1 GHZ+ multicore CPUs at the current data rates?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      openssl speed aes-128-cbc aes-256-cbc

      type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes
      aes-128 cbc 93137.34k 124663.87k 140590.61k 144921.90k 145808.33k
      aes-256 cbc 60556.97k 91740.58k 103621.96k 107994.02k 108521.49k

      Those benchmarks are on a 3 year old CPU (single core only). Hence encryption is not a limiting factor for end users - instead, network bandwidth is the limiting factor. I'd argue that encryption isn't a limiting factor for mass data surveill

  • Implied (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Shadyman (939863) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @09:43PM (#30241994) Homepage
    "Virgin Media emphasised that records will not be kept on individual customers and that data on the level of copyright infringement will be aggregated and anonymised."

    For Now. Later? Who knows.
  • In Other News... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by florescent_beige (608235) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @11:07PM (#30242438) Journal

    All public and private communications of all executives of companies in the UK valued at 500 million or more will be monitored for illegal, unethical, and undesired behaviour.

    "If we had only known what certain Wall Street bankers had been up to the world could have avoided financial losses in the trillions. In a world of high speed communication and free flowing capital, the expectations of privacy have to be balanced against the interests of all stakeholders." said noted expert florescent_beige.

Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson

Working...