Content deleted Content added
→Limitations of Internet Card Sharing: Giving 3O |
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Television}}. Tag: |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Television |importance=Low}}
}}
==Limitations of Internet Card Sharing==
The changes to the article by @Notwillywanka were reverted because the number of clients on a card sharing network is limited by a number of practical considerations. The most obvious limitation is that the card clients have to have a receiver capable of using the key stream. There is a limit to the number of possible receivers or clients on a card sharing network due to the latency of the network (the time taken for the data from the server to travel to the receiver) and the period between the updated keys. If the latency is greater than the period between the updated keys, the receiver/decoder (IRD) will miss a key and the signal may become encoded again. The decrypted key has to arrive within a specific timeframe and if the latency causes it to miss that window, the IRD will lose lock and stop decoding the signal. With large ISP networks, it may work well but on high-latency or poor connections, it will not be as effective and the signal on the IRD will stop being decoded if it misses too many keys. A related factor is that as the size of the card sharing network grows, the probability of detection increases. If the number of card clients on the card sharing network is high enough, then the Pay TV providers or law enforcement agencies may identify the network and neutralise it (either by identifying the cards being shared, or by identifying the operator and customers and taking legal action). Thus it is often in the best interests of the card sharing network operator to limit the number of clients on one card sharing network. In theory, one card can run a country's decoders however the real work practicalities make that difficult. [[User:Jmccormac|Jmccormac]] ([[User talk:Jmccormac|talk]]) 01:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Line 10 ⟶ 13:
You obviously don't seem to understand the part simple mathematics plays in this hack and you just don't understand the concept of how the number of devices capable of utilising the key stream dictates the maximum number of clients in a card sharing network at any given time. You seem to be approaching this from a non-technical Arts point of view rather than a technological one. It is not simply a question of semantics. The maximum number of devices capable of using the key stream is finite and this finite value at any given time determines the maximum number of clients in a card sharing network. The number changes as old devices fail or are switched off and new devices become available. However it is not an unlimited number of devices at any given and neither is there an infinite number of viewers. You are merely trying to impose your opinion as fact and your opinion is wrong. [[User:Jmccormac|Jmccormac]] ([[User talk:Jmccormac|talk]]) 21:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
'''Third Opinion:''' Someone asked for a [[WP:3O|Third Opinion]]: Both of you are wrong, because pursuant to the [[WP:V|verifiability policy]] no information should be introduced into Wikipedia without a [[WP:SOURCES|reliable source as defined by Wikipedia]] (which is very different from the plain English meaning of "reliable source") ''and that's how we work out disputes such as this: we look at the reliable sources, judge their reliability, and see what the surviving sources actually say.'' Engaging in the kind of argumentation you are having is absolutely prohibited under the [[WP:NOR|no original research]] policy; we only present information which can be verified through reliable sources without having to reason through or synthesize information from those policies. The two of you need to quit arguing over this and start finding and inserting reliable sources for the information which is already in this article or someone's going to come along and nominate it for deletion. In the meantime, you can pretty much forget getting any help from any of the regular Wikipedia processes because the kind of argument you're having is meaningless by Wikipedia standards. Regards, [[User:TransporterMan|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:blue; font-variant:small-caps;">'''TransporterMan'''</span>]] ([[User talk:TransporterMan|<
== Moving problem section to talk for editing discussion ==
Line 19 ⟶ 22:
The first section now reflects the reality of a card sharing network. As there is a card sharing article, it might be unnecessary duplication of information and the brief pointer might be sufficient for this article. [[User:Jmccormac|Jmccormac]] ([[User talk:Jmccormac|talk]]) 19:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
:Wouldn't that still run into the problem where the only detailed sources of technical background info for much of this were online message forums, which would normally not meet [[WP:RS]] and which tend to appear and disappear rather frequently? The article is rubbish, but there are no good sources to repair it. [[User:K7L|K7L]] ([[User talk:K7L|talk]]) 01:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
:: There are some patents (NDS/News Datacom) and academic papers that actually cover countermeasures and state the concept of card sharing. [[User:Jmccormac|Jmccormac]] ([[User talk:Jmccormac|talk]]) 08:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
==Merger Proposal==
| |||