I spent over a year complaining to the FCC, and the Kansas Attorney General about this. To this day the FCC hasn't uttered a single sentence analysis of either my original 1000 character complaint, or the 53 page escalation-manifesto that the KS-AG threw back at them like a hot potato. The backing off came after a period of time - measured in hours - after pictures like these hit the web (children who probably don't know the issues holding picket signs)

http://crossies.com/IMAG0778.jpg

The subsequent backing off into 'no commercial servers' allowed only bolsters my arguments that the issue was from the beginning, entirely about suppressing commercial home-hosted server competition from the internet services marketplace, and nothing at all about protecting the internet with 'reasonable network management' from the inherent danger of the 'server-ness' of any particular device. The real bottom line issue has always been simple fraud about the 'no data caps' claims. There is a cap, it is just arbitrarilty and selectively enforced by restricting whatever devices Google doesn't want off of its network. In this case, servers that commercially compete with the millions of servers Google has connected to it's endpoints of 'the internet'.

Sorry, but it was announced last year here on slashdot that the Lawyers have long since taken control. Seriously-

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3106555&cid=41288357 (quoted entirely here-)

Posting anonymously for reasons that will be obvious.

Larry Page is really annoyed by the "no servers" clause. In an internal weekly all-hands meeting he repeatedly needled Patrick Pichette about the limitation, and pointedly reminded him that the only reason Google was able to get off the ground was because Page and Brin could use Stanford's high-speed Internet connection for free. Page wants to see great garage startups being enabled by cheap access to truly high-speed Internet. Pichette defended it saying they had no intention of trying to enforce it in general, but that it had to be there in case of serious abuse, like someone setting up a large-scale data center.

I don't think anyone really has to worry about running servers on their residential Google Fiber, as long as they're not doing anything crazy. Then again it's always possible that Page will change his mind or that the lawyers will take over the company, and the ToS is what it is. If I had Google Fiber I'd run my home server just as I do on my Comcast connection, but I'd also be prepared to look for other options if my provider complained.

I believe you are naive, and buying or regurgitating the plausible denial that has been crafted by Google. Even if Google truly is that innocent in intent, they have been negligent in securing that data so that it can't be stolen from them, even if they themselves aren't selling it. My oldest brother is an engineering VP at Google. There has been some serious kool-aid drinking there and in silicon valley over the last 10 years. And it's not so much that I believe he was misinformed, but rather, secretly informed, and doing a very good job of towing the public line which was a conspiracy to keep the public disinformed about the real state of security.

Again, this is the naive line. Look at my epic saga over the past year complaining about GoogleFiber's terms of service that first "prohibited any kind of server" and now merely prohibit any kind of "commercial server". This is a conspiracy by Google, the NSA, and others, to keep the kinds of tools it would be necessary for people to secure their data at home - *as if it were their 'papers' (per 4th ammendment) - out of the marketplace. Call me a kook all you want, but the idea that chilling the market for commercial home server software (open source and otherwise), is consistent with what network neutrality was designed for... I mean really. You seriously believe you're employers line? Oh, that's right, enjoy your nice fat paychecks twice a month, and don't dare 'bite the hand that feeds'. Good luck to you brother.

The reason that in 2013 IPv6 isn't the simple answer is IMHO conspiracy. This new alliance reeks of "don't look over there at just obviously using the 'internet protocol' as designed and intended and independent of our existing transnational corporate influence. Instead, use this shit we 'invent', and in a few years, the ISPs will be filtering everything else because they consider it 'reasonable network management', and they are fellow establishment players like us.". This is just an extra taxation of the internet by an establishment rightfully afraid of 'disruptive technologies' such as IPv6 combined with any sense of an ISP as an agent of free speech, rather than mainstream media control (as the internet was supposed (/long advertised) to do to the prior cable network).

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/google-we-can-ban-servers-on-fiber-without-violating-net-neutrality/

And welcome to the hell of the neo-Kompromat the NSA (no doubt with wider geopolitical collaboration) has created for every human on earth. I.e, they love to break security and pick locks to have all the info on everyone they can, in case targeted defamation or provocation becomes tactically useful. But the worse hell is that they themselves, though they may think, and perhaps even temporarily are "informationally dominant" - they are not invulnerable. So in the end, they damage the fabric of human security even more than they intended. Yes, this is just redundantly making a less succint point. But it's a damned important point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kompromat

And then the next moment deciding to create and use a Kompromat database to prevent any undesired changes to the system. A revelation like this leads me to these sorts of philosophical and ethical ponderings- Would the sorts of NSA employees that decided to engage in these sorts of 'political ratfucking campaigns' also have thought that it would have been ethical to- e.g. pay a million dollars to a monica lewinski to seduce a president, in order to discredit him? I mean, after all, it's just a little victimless 'penetration testing' to increase the security of the overall system right? Just like breaking a little law against cruel and unusual punishment of a fellow human being in order to serve a greater good against terrorist criminals? Or would it make a difference depending on whether or not Hillary gave the thumbs up to the operation? Just musings on justice...

In addition,"The Final Cut" is a gem of a Robin Williams movie on this subject many may not have seen-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Final_Cut_(2004_film) (below is wikipedia summary)

The Final Cut is a 2004 film written and directed by Omar Naim. It stars Robin Williams ... ... The story takes place in a near future in which people can pay to have their babies implanted with memory chips. These "Zoe Implants", developed by EYE Tech company, record every moment of their lives, so that they may be viewed by loved ones after one's death. The plot centers on Alan Hakman, a "cutter", whose job it is to edit the Zoe footage into a feature-film length piece, called a "Rememory".

The Final Cut is about subjectivity, memory and history; posing the question, "If history is what is written and remembered, then what happens when memories are edited and rewritten?"

The film won the award for best screenplay at the Deauville Film Festival and was nominated for best film at the Catalonian International Film Festival and Berlin International Film Festival.

Good point. We're going to need more canaries. A lot more canaries. Like a canary per user. Or per piece of user's data even. Hmm... sounds like a new piece of metadata........

While you may have a technical point here, practically it is far less relevant. Those that are on the other side of this are vulnerable to the light such a prosecution would bring to their actions. They know that what they are doing is so completely fundamentally illegal for so many reasons, that even if they are 100% right legally about the situation you describe, their system of injustice could never withstand actual litigation in such a scenario. Sadly, this means that they will result to less above-board tactics of coercion to achieve their ends.

The problem you aren't paying enough attention to is the relationship between "feasible" and "profitable". Real security could come about through Google leading the industry away from server-prohibition terms of service for residential ISPs. Or the recently modified "commercial-server-prohibited" terms. Once people en-masse are allowed to host their own data (and encryptedly replicate their friends), that will remove the real crux of the issue- An internet services architecture that is fundamentally flawed in that it piles the majority of users data in places with thousands of employees, and drastic vulnerability to economic leverage. Such data piles are trivial, and always will be trivial for the gestapo to infiltrate and copy for themselves. So, is it "feasible" for Google to get a freaking clue and take my side agreeing that there is absolutely nothing inherently interesting about a "server" (commercial or not) that is damaging to the network? Well, doing so opens up the floodgates for residential servers to compete with their countless servers. So no, to your management, it is not 'feasible'. There is no hope in Google. The only hope would be that these tech-smarts you describe in your workplace persist after the decent tech workers abandon the company which is 'too big for the NSA to allow it to fail'.

My older brother is a VP-Eng at Google (maps). I can assure you that the whole thing is utterly corrupt. The day after active duty U.S. Navy Information Warfare Officer Dave Schroeder posted publicly here that he thought my GoogleFiber "Right To Serve" Manifesto[1] was "very good" and that he agreed with everything I wrote about the core net neutrality argument, my brother finally said he agreed with some part of my arguments. To this day he has never clarified which part, though still asserts that I should have gone about my complaint in "the better way", namely submitting myself subserviantly to the Google technocratic leaderships opinion. The fact of the matter is, IMHO, that being able to host server/s on your residential internet connection, and being able to expect the user/customer base of all "internet service" to have the same basic right, is a key aspect of reclaiming our informational privacy and security on the internet. No, it's not bulletproof, but it's the foundation with which to have a fighting chance. I personally wish the EFF would get some guts and go further in their call. The fact of the matter is that I am right about my Net Neutrality argument, though certainly resolved to believe that after the forthcoming verizon ruling, that is not legally likely going to be relevant. But I think to reclaim our ability to use the internet, rather than being used by it, we need to demand that hosting servers that control our own data, is something everyone ought to be able to do from home. And in order for the residential server software market to thrive, there can't be arbitrary bullshit raqueteering loopholes like Google's new "no-commercial-servers-allowed" activity. I mean, why the fuck is it ok for residential users to commercially profit on transactions with a 3rd party like ebay, but not if they independently run their own LAMP stack and accept payment by check via USPS? I mean seriously, what the fuck?!?

[1] http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121024.pdf
http://www.provobuzz.com/google-fiber-now-allows-home-servers/
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/google-neutrality/
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/google-fiber-continues-awful-isp-tradition-banning-servers
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/01/198327/googles-call-for-open-internet.html

You are being disingenuous, or are merely ignorant of the wider context (IMHO). You can't debate this subject honestly without seriously discussing the CIA and USA's role in attempting a violent overthrow of Chavez, early in his widely accepted as legitimate democratic leadership. Something the USA is famous for. I'm thinking right now that some machiavellian elite of the USA are probably pretty happy with being able to drive a country to insanity and suffering the way it appears they are succeeding in driving Venezuela (or this is all some B.S. slashdot twisting of reality, but I come here for the philisophical debate that results). Sort of like that line in Hotel Rwanda explaining how some elites convinced two sets of natives to be racist against one another based on their nose shape or something. Divide and Conquer. Or the machiavellian move here- fuck with other countries leaders- not kill them mind you- but just keep on fucking with them in order to get their country to be weaker so that you can perpetually dominate them.

It's a jungle out there kids... Good Luck.

Obligatory "Starve The Beast" link. Neocons and others are so god damned crazy that responsible accounting, the likes of which most high school students could comprehend (aiming for lack of debt, cuz like, it's better to have money than to owe it), will probably not return to our leadership until the "ending badly" you spoke of comes even more to pass than it already has.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

The level of abuses - both the spying itself, subsequent known abuses of the data, and countless likely unknown abuses - has already done enough damage to the fabric of the ideal of democracy, that an open and straightforward conversation is not enough. When there are very real threats that people will be tortured to preserve government secrecy about this...

It's too late for the straightforward sensible conversation. Heads need to roll. Figuritively or literally. I stopped voting when Obama broke his 1 year GITMO pledge. I thought I would make an exception if Hillary was the only female top spot on one of the two main parties. I think this slashdot troll headline will make me give up on that. It'd be nice to see a non-male president of the U.S. But Hillary Clinton is day by day demonstrably failing to live up to the kind of standard which I would use if I could muster the belief that voting could help this in the same sensible fashion she is after. Things are *messed up*.

I also love the Roddenberry canon, but I disagree with your evaluation. I think you are missing the kind of "love of the contradictions" attitude that I think it shares with other religious canons. For instance, take money. We start with a vision of earth utopia 300 years in the future, where nobody is short on cash, short on food, short on housing, or short on medical care. NOBODY. And no more national wars on our planet. All that shit was *solved by smart people over a long period of time*. Or so the vision of utopia goes. But then comes the story of the voyage and exploration. Just as soon as we widen the sentient-social galactic camera angle to just a bit wider view, you see that all of a sudden, our side, is back to having wars (cardassians, borg, dominion). Oh, and I forgot the other big utopian factor- *NO STATE SPONSORED OR CONDONED TORTURE* (allegedly, we'll get to section 31 soon). But as soon as we meet the cardassians, the borg, the dominion, we see that our side is again no longer in any actual future utopia, but rather subject to the timeless problems stemming from the darwinian nature of life, just at a fractally increasing scale. In fact I love Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda because it takes this to the level of galaxies as large complex life forms, also in a straightforward darwinian struggle for survival at a larger scale. I'm sure someone could write a book about multiple 3D universes all born of 4D black holes in some similar struggle for survival, reproduction, durabiity, and otherwise continued existence. In general those complex systems that fight to exist, unsurprisingly populate existence (or at least, the fittest contenders among them). But now, lets not forget about God. The Trek canon also does an extremely good job of obvious sci-fi imaginings of many different God-like entities. That all (or most) interestingly "ring true" with what many spiritual people see as interaction with "God". Satans too. These stories I think help many anti-religious people to understand religious people, and vice versa. If there is any kind of art we need more of in the world, I think that is it. Or helping people of one religion, better understand those of another. Or even racists vs non-racists. Trek is overtly racial, with species taking place of races, and embracing significant cultural and biological differences. I.e. not trying to have a naive anti-racist view of "we are all created equal". We aren't. We are different. Some thrive and survive, some don't. Often it's a viscious cruel battle to see who does.

But I digress, getting back to your point- it's about embracing the contradiction. It's about the shades of gray. Utter, 100% loyalty to orders is something that needs to be shown and taught as horrendously dangerous. We do this with the history of WW2 and elsewhere. We do this with artwork like Trek. Trek shows a *balanced* view of what acting ethically means. Trek shows a *realistic* view of what kinds of situations military leaders and others face. Every kind of ordinary common corruption in today's world has been expertly dealt with by Trek (if you search for the steganographed theme played out in a fictional future).

To claim that ethics will ever boil down to anything other than the type of "maverick captain" scenarios described by trek is I think the problem with your opinion. The ethics of Trek may lead people in positions like Snowden to say- "To Hell With The Law. An unjust law is no law at all.". And that is a good thing. It is the final check and balance on society, more fundamental than even the concept of democracy. You have a choice. It's part of being alive. Get used to it.