Great Firewall/Australia censorship proposal

X-No-Archive: Yes

I think some Fortune 500 companies are cutting out filtering to save money. Since many filter makers demand "per seat" licensing, which can really add up in a large company, in these recessionary times

I have noticed, in the past few weeks, that visits to my radio station, and website, from office networks has outright EXPLODED, and even more so from the networks of a few Fortune 500 companies and other large corporations. A lot of corporations appear to be cutting out filtering in order to save money, which is a boon for us in the online radio biz, becuase it means that more people can listen from work. For large corporations, the cost can be in the tens, or even hundreds of thousands per year. And when every penny counts, filtering is the easiest thing to cancel.

And since NOTHING compes on the screen anymore telling them they are doing something forbidden, they cannot be accused stealing company resoruces, While it may be hard times for everyone else, for those of us in the online radio industry, it will be boom times for us, as long as corporate networks cut out filtering.

Proper filtering doesn't cost a penny. Use of "Some" filters can cost, but you can filter for free very easily.

You are nothing but a troll and unethical business person.

X-No-Archive: Yes

Well, the Christmas music programme we run from Oct. 31 to through Dec

25th has always been popular, but not like it has been this year. Even with proxies, workplace listening has not reached the levels it has this year. Everytime Iook at the StatCounter logs to see where listening is coming from, I am amazed. A lot of the visits reads like a whos-who of the Fortune 500. Like I said, when companies have to cut costs like they have to now in this economy, they will obviously knock off anything, including filtering.

Its not just me. A lot of other broadcasters on the Live 365 network, and all genres, are reporting marked increasing in listenership, especially from workplaces, as many companies knock off filtering in order to save money in these tough ecoonomic times.

X-No-Archive: Yes

Well, like I said in another thread, it could be companies cutting off filtering in order to save money in these tough economic times. Our Christmas programme (when not airing live programming) has always been popular, but not like this year. Our listenership has gone THROUGH THE ROOF, and there are more connections coming directly from office networks.

As I said, we can block access to ANY/All of your sites without cost and we don't have to know where they are either.

You are still an unethical person.

Ha Ha!

And people will pay for the bandwidth?

You really are a stupid little spamming jerk.

Ha Ha.

No argument then that you're being unethical.

It is very easy for admins to monitor network traffic on their LAN and to identify abuse simply by the meta-data. I've been asked on a number of occasions to identify who is using excessive amounts of bandwidth quota and for what purpose. That's not been difficult to determine at all. Reports were submitted.

Sites that I support have existing policies or have adopted the simple one that I provide at no (extra) cost. All employees and contractors are required to agree to the policy.

DCMs issued to offenders by management. That was before the "financial crisis". Companies always watch their spending.

You are an ignoramus. And you seem to have foolish customers whose jobs are at risk because you MISREPRESENT your product as being hidden from scrutiny. I you've taken their money. The money trail leads to you. And those sacked for abuse by their employers may seek civil damages from you. You'd better make sure that none of your customers are good lawyers or highly-paid professionals. Most countries have laws against false advertising.

Employee salary/wage costs are far higher than those for filtering. The licence cost for effective filtering can be as low as $0.00 Annual maintenance costs of the filters are around the 20 hours, averaged over 5 years.

Libre Policy Document:

Corporate Data Policy

• Data processing facilities are provided for the benefit of the company.

Computers and networks are provided for the company to conduct its business in a cost-effective, efficient and professional manner.

Use for any other purpose must not impair business use; either directly or by distraction of others doing their work.

• Data are a valuable resource

Data represents the fruits of labour. Data belong to the people who initially produce the data, unless they give those rights away to somebody else. Data are often used to make business decisions.

Data security is necessary to protect the data from being seen or changed by those who shouldn't; and from being lost or corrupted due to equipment failure and human error.

X-No-Archive: Yes

We provide a variety of services. With the online television station that we also run as well, I have been, for a few years, providing services to one group that travels to broadcast solar eclipses. After the problem they ran into once, in Panama, some years ago, with having to get a government permit just to film a solar eclipse and broadcast on the Internet, we have been providing services that allow them to make an encrypted connection into my servers, to avoid ever having that problem again, no matter WHAT country they travel to.

By connecting to my VPN server, and sending the broadcast to the online television station that I own and run, they avoid problems, becuase the VPN connection makes it impossible for the local authorities to know WHAT they are doing. This avoids the problems of having to get a government permit, like they did in Panama over a decade ago. Because they are making an encryptd VPN tunnel to my server, their filming and broadcasing any solar eclipse will be IMPOSSIBLE to detect.

We providing encrypted services to them, even before VPNs became commonplace. We will be providing services to them again in July when they go to broadcast the very long total eclipse from China. With the VPN tunnel to my U.S. server, there will be no POSSIBLE way for the Chinese authorities to know WHAT they are up to. THey connect to my VPN server and then the feed is sent out via our online television station.

Chilly8 wrote in news:72100e92-b90d-4567-89f2- snipped-for-privacy@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com:

idiot

Ha. Ha.

Twaddle.

Are you going to stand in front of the firing squad instead of the suckers who believe you?

You're unscrupulous.

Despite his claims, he knows he has something to hide. Interesting.

But your VPN connection stands out like a red-flare on a dark night - both the source IP and the destination IP are plainly visible.

VPN is easy to block and since your destination IP is not a business need, it would not be permitted by default.

DevilsPGD wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Probably trying to hide his online activities from his employer for fear of getting fired.

Brian

X-No-Archive: Yes

I just might have FOUND one solution to filtering problems. To be legal, you have to launch through the provider's (Live 365, LoudCity, etc) web site, based on copyright law. A few LoudCity broadcasters have found a nifty way to solve this problem. They create their own HTML page for their station page, and then provide a direct lnk to their streams that way. Since the launch still occures to the LC website, it is legal. Among other things, it allows a direct link that anyone could just simply plug into from work, into Windows Media Player. One bloke created a subdomain under his domain, and pointed it at the server that LoudCity has assigned him to. Since his domain is not any filtering lists, all someone at work has to do is plug the URL for his stream into Windows Media Player, and launch the stream. No circumvention, no muss, no fuss. Since NOTHING comes on the screen saying they are doing something forbidden, they cannot be held criminally liable for any unauthorised access, in most countries. I am trying to find whether Live 365 allows the same thing that LoudCity does. If they do, it will allow me to find a way to avoid being filtered. All I will have to do is simply create a subdomain under my domain, put that on my broadcaster page, and anyone at work will have a direct link they can plug into Windows Media Player, and listen from work.

While many companies are cutting back on filtering, I want to avoid being filtered by those companies that still filter, and I think I have found a way to do it.

Won't work from a properly secured network, period.

Chilly8 wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com:

Idiot.

X-No-Archive: Yes

Since adding the LoudCity feed, I am seeing more people sigining on from work, becuase the LoudCity stream works with more kinds of proxies than Live 365 does.

I just had one woman, in England, in my chat room who appreciates what I do, and that fact that I have a stream on LoudCity. She simply plugs the bookmarkd stream URL that she gets from Winamp, into a phpProxy site, and she listens from work all day. She loves "jammin on the j-o- b", as we say in the industry, to my station. She has even used my proxy at times to listen to my station. She considers the music we play, when not running live programming, to be a good at-work mix, and she has me on all the time at work now. She just LOVES what I do. She is also a big figure skating fan and will be tuning in when we do Europeans in the latter part of January.

Anything from LoudCity is far to get to work with a proxy, than Live

365. And I am seeing more workplace listening as a result. A lot of times, the listenership reads like a whos-who of the Fortune 500.

And before anybody says anything about crimiinal liability, I have NO part of my operations in England, so I am NOT SUBJECT to ANY part of British laws, so her company CANNOT hold ME liable for HER using my proxy to bypass workplace filtering.

Which doesn't change the fact that you're a unethical person.

If you provide her with information on HOW to bypass security you can be liable.

X-No-Archive: Yes

Not my my SERVERS are NOT in England. Since NO part of my operation is in the United Kingdom, I am NOT SUBJECT to British laws.