Pika

In the US we need modifications to the first sale doctrine. I don’t think it should be done away with all-together but, It should be forced like you said to be MSRP as the ceiling. They also need to codify that licenses to use and digital goods apply to the doctrine meaning that any digital good must have a capability to resell/transfer rights of. Because with everything becoming digital only, its making the entire doctrine useless.

It’s because presale isn’t actually against their policy. What is against their policy is someone putting an inventory up that they haven’t confirmed they are going to have.

So like if they have the email from Valve saying “this is the timeframe you get this” and that timeframe is more less than than 40 days out, as long as they can confirm shipment within 40 days of the item listing it’s allowed.

I wonder if you get a new report option if the page has been active for more than 40 days, or if said issue requires a buyer to report them when they don’t ship within 40

Being said, I think valve should crack down on the resale of their product on platforms like ebay, if they can find a listing that links to a steam account terminate future sales. With how overarching their system is they could likely cite Policy violation and close the entire account as well.

I assume it would be fairly easy to look for identical card numbers across the platform, or require the primary account on the device to be the account that purchased it for at least X amount of days having the system like how phone carriers do with carrier locking.

Said backdoor isn’t possible with the current day key exchange process. Without the servers in use private key, the most law agencies can do without acquiring the private key is force the CA to revoke a cert, which will disallow properly configured clients from accessing and transferring data with the server.

LE doesn’t have enough information to recreate the private key based off the public key, the only key distributed during the CSR process is the servers public key via a certificate signing request which is signed using your private key, which the CA then signs with it’s own intermediate key (which is signed by it’s root server certificate) and hands back to the private server.

The CA doesn’t have the ability to create that private key, and as such doesn’t have a way to decrypt traffic that is using that key. There is no concern for a backdoor in that process.

In order for the “backdoor” to exist, they would need to either copy the private key as part of the signing process (which it doesn’t), or somehow force the server admin to use a new private key (that the CA also holds) or somehow compromise the servers key generation process to allow for an escrow on the private key when it was generated which would allow the CA to be able to recreate the private key using the master & public key.

Now don’t take me wrong, you can still have a MiTM impersonation attack or a full impersonation bypass by the CA issuing a new certificate and having the DNS registrar have the web address go to a new server that is using the new key but, that’s not something the CA alone has the capability of doing, and any traffic that is issued to the original server still wouldn’t be compromised, its just clients visiting your site will end up at the other site and as such will end up using keys that the other side generated instead of your own keys and additionally said new keys would also be appearing in Certificate transparency logs, or modern day clients would refuse to use them.

I don’t think anyone’s going to solve the problem in general, to be honest.

Like, Let’s Encrypts goal is super novel, but also expensive as shit to actually run, and requires a lot of coordination because it needs to be a trust authority. If this ever happened, it would probably be at the backing of some government structure, because I don’t see many people wanting to jump at that as an expense.

Is this accurate? Like, I know what you’re meaning, but I’m pretty sure it’s not ICANN doing it, and more so your domain registrar handing it over to the US government.

I think the most control that ICANN has over it is they could theoretically, if they wanted to, delete an entire top level domain. Since they do control the DNS root, but that is the most that they control from what I understand.

I don’t know if they have the ability to delete or transfer control over an individual domain on legal request. I think that’s outside of what their actual system allows for.

the ironic part of this is in some cases it can. Pirate broadcasts and media boxes are becoming increasingly common to have subscription models for way cheaper than you would having the traditional streaming subs.

We are in a world where even piracy is starting to cost money in some cases fair cause convienence, but its still weird to think about. Everything always goes full circle.

We have… I’m more impressed that you found a toaster that doesn’t. I don’t think I’ve had a toaster in the last ten years that didn’t give a little bit of leeway on the lever to let you pull up a little bit more to be able to grab it.