Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Isn't the real problem something else? (Score 2) 139

I don't understand.

No, you do understand

isn't this all a bit irrelevant?

relative to whay you suggest is the main concern- yup. it's called propaganda. nothing like the smell of it in the morning.

Isn't the splitter the big worry?

Yup. +1 for listening to the logical parts of your brain.

You might have fun reading about the crusade I've been on for the last 9 or 10 months- (and longer really)

Right To Serve -- http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3929983&cid=44170993

Comment Re:Screw 'em all (Score 2) 139

Outfits like the EFF and ACLU, not to mention people like Snowden and Manning who take great personal risk, have the moral high ground; but perhaps less so with the 'army of effective lobbyists and vast financial resources'.

You lost me. But these companies do deserve to be punished for their simple network/security mistakes (that had grand consequence). They simply built the wrong software. In my opinion home serving software that keeps people in control and possession of their "papers", combined with open source pervasive encryption, was and remains the obvious right answer. These companies should be firing the inneffective employees that didn't see this coming long ago, and choose a better strategy than "wait for the day it all blows up in our faces".

Right To Serve. Period. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3929983&cid=44170993

Comment Never Forget (Score 5, Informative) 58

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/cases/china-shi-tao
"
Shi Tao was sentenced in April 2005 to 10 years’ imprisonment and two years’ subsequent deprivation of his political rights. According to the court verdict, part of the evidence for the case was account holder information supplied by Yahoo!. Spokespersons for Yahoo! claimed the company was simply following local laws.
"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/28/yahoo_seeks_dismissal_human_rights_lawsuit/
"
Yahoo! has asked a US court to dismiss a lawsuit accusing it of "aiding and abetting" acts of torture and other human rights abuses against Chinese dissidents. The company handed over information about its users to the Chinese government, which led to the arrests of the dissidents.
"

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/yahoo-helps-china-jail-dissidents-says-rights-group
"
Human Rights in China, a New York-based group, said Thursday that Wang Xiaoning was sentenced to 10 years in prison in Sept 2003 for "incitement to subvert state power" after Yahoo provided authorities with his email address.
"

and call me a tinfoil hatter all you want, but I do think this and the Snowden-crash issues are related-
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3929983&cid=44170993

Comment Re:The demise of an empire (Score 0) 193

All it actually really takes to change everything and take everything evil down, is changing your beliefs (and making sure they're not delusional) and having enough public confidence to make others change theirs too.
The rest is a result of the self-fulfilling prophecy.

The evil ones got in power that way... and they get out of power that way.

I think you and most Americans still actually are "land of the free, home of the brave" Americans. And from now on, you will trust yourselves again.
Deal?

Jesus Christ! and I say that because if he can pay more attention to this argument, I want him to. I am a non-anonymous United Statesian of (half) German descent (or polish, it's a bit fuzzy, borders are not static). While I agree with your +5 insightful comment, I wish I could somehow add an extra dimension of +3 condescending. I've been bleeding for the last 10 years trying to change the minds of others ( lulu.com/cx1 ). And while the Snowden-crash (neil stephenson geek ref) gives me hope, I DEFINATELY think that the viscious power structures that can SPEND (vast amounts of) MONEY on their end of the psychological warfare game are nowhere near as "imaginary" a threat as your condescending attitude suggests. This shit is so much more real than what your comment suggests. Maybe as a brother of a Google VP I am one of the few to whom this psychological war is much more real. But as one closer to the frontlines, I am STILL SCARED SHITLESS that 30 years from now we will see a brand of draconians just as bad as the nazis, BUT WITH THE POWER OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY. And I do NOT BELIEVE that "and from now on, you will trust yourselves again, deal?" is the kind of attitude that can ward that kind of future off. Yes, Evil destroys and consumes itself inevitably. I just don't want to fucking live through that for the remainder of my fairly short time on this planet. This "game" is so much more serious than your condescending feel good attitude would have people believe.

Comment Re:As if (Score 1) 181

That has to be the most disturbingly accurate and *apropos* analogy I have heard yet...

There, FTFY. Given that what we've learned is that the powers that be will consider it our parents fault if they happened to have their laptop/gameconsole/mobilephone's cameras (err. 'sensors') aimed at the bed that night. Because they collect it by default because that might help national security. And they keep it forever. In a world of big brother, the only way to go forward is with little brother tactics...

http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121024.pdf

Comment Re:"Right To Serve" (with your home ISP) related?? (Score 1) 353

What "many" people want is irrelevant. ...

Sorry bud, you lost me there (well, each subsequent sentence confirmed the initial suspicion). You are wrong. That is really anything that anyone fundamentally needs to immediately gleem from your, admittedly high quality writing/comment. I think you have good insight Luckyo, but you need to check your premises that led you to lead with that statement. Choosing to lead with that statement is what makes you appear to be in league with the precise intimidation apparatus you skillfully describe. Next time, try leading with something like-

What "many" people want may be the core value of democracy, but... life stinks in all these specific ways... *but* here are some ideas of how to get from here to somewhere better with less of that stink.

Comment "Right To Serve" (with your home ISP) related?? (Score 1) 353

It just looks like the gloves came off with the whole Snowden affair. They now know they can get away with pretty much anything

To be more of an optimist- keep in mind that "They" is a lot of people. Some of them are helping trample human rights. Many of them however just need to be shown an effective way to fight back against the organized criminal snoops. I know this will sound very tinfoil hattish, but hey, it's the snow crash season I think, so, I'll just spam about how I think my current 53-page manifesto that just got served to Google(Fiber) via the FCC(and Kansas Attorney General, and with schneier@schneier.com wishing my cause "Good Luck.")...

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3929983&cid=44170993

I've used the fact that GoogleFiber was my first ISP choice involving IPv6 to press a new novel interpretation of NetworkNeutrality. It seems to be going somewhere. ComIntercept(FCC->Google):

"The enclosed informal complaint, dated September 1, 2012, has been filed with the Commission by Douglas McClendon against Google pursuant to section 1.41 of Comissions's Rules, 47 C.F.R. // 1.41. Also attached is Mr. McClendon's October 24, 2012 complaint forwarded to the FCC by the Kansas Office of the Attorney General. Mr. McClendon asserts that Google's policy prohibiting use of its fixed broadband internet service (Google Fiber connection) to host any type of server violates the Open Internet Order, FCC 10-201, and the Commission's rules at 47 C.F.R. // 8.1-11.

We are forwarding a copy of the informal complaint so that you may satisfy or answer the informal complaint based on a thorough review of all relevant records and other information. You should respond in writing specifically and comprehensively to all material allegations raised in the informal complaint, being sure not to include the specifics of any confidential settlement discussions. ...

Your written response to the informal complaint must be filed with the Commission contact listed below by U.S. mail and e-mail by July 29, 2013. On that same day, you must mail and e-mail your response to Douglas McClendon.

The parties shall retain all records that may be relevant to the informal complaint until final Commission disposition of the informal complaint or of any formal complaint that may arise from this matter. See 47 C.F.R. //1.812-17. (seriously, can't I and Google just depend on the NSA's backups of our records? :)

Failure of any person to answer any lawful Commission inquiry is considered a misdemeanor punishable by a fine... ... ...

http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/mcclendon_notice_of_informal_complaint.pdf
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/mcclendon_oct24_2012_complaint.pdf

This represents Google getting 'served' this week, my form 2000F 'informal' 53 page complaint that suggests that NetNeutrality provides protections against ISP blocking to my home servers as well as to Skype's. Google has been compelled by the government to respond to me on July 29th. GoogleFiber's 'evil' terms of service prohibit hosting any kind of server without prior written permission against your residential connection. And zero transparency for any alternate server-allowed plan rates, or what kinds of reasons they might use to disallow a requested written permission (which is laughable as the FCC 10-201 NetNeutrality document goes out of it's way to laud Tim Berner Lee's invention of the web atop tcp/ip, specifically, without having to have gotten any permission from any government or network provider)

I forwarded the documents to schneier@schneier.com and requested any insight he might have into the matter. I got an email response (theoretically perhaps spoofed) that read "Thanks.\n\nGood Luck."

Comment "Right To Serve" might help (Score 4, Interesting) 191

I've used the fact that GoogleFiber was my first ISP choice involving IPv6 to press a new novel interpretation of NetworkNeutrality. It seems to be going somewhere. ComIntercept(FCC->Google):

"The enclosed informal complaint, dated September 1, 2012, has been filed with the Commission by Douglas McClendon against Google pursuant to section 1.41 of Comissions's Rules, 47 C.F.R. // 1.41. Also attached is Mr. McClendon's October 24, 2012 complaint forwarded to the FCC by the Kansas Office of the Attorney General. Mr. McClendon asserts that Google's policy prohibiting use of its fixed broadband internet service (Google Fiber connection) to host any type of server violates the Open Internet Order, FCC 10-201, and the Commission's rules at 47 C.F.R. // 8.1-11.

We are forwarding a copy of the informal complaint so that you may satisfy or answer the informal complaint based on a thorough review of all relevant records and other information. You should respond in writing specifically and comprehensively to all material allegations raised in the informal complaint, being sure not to include the specifics of any confidential settlement discussions. ...

Your written response to the informal complaint must be filed with the Commission contact listed below by U.S. mail and e-mail by July 29, 2013. On that same day, you must mail and e-mail your response to Douglas McClendon.

The parties shall retain all records that may be relevant to the informal complaint until final Commission disposition of the informal complaint or of any formal complaint that may arise from this matter. See 47 C.F.R. //1.812-17. (seriously, can't I and Google just depend on the NSA's backups of our records? :)

Failure of any person to answer any lawful Commission inquiry is considered a misdemeanor punishable by a fine... ... ...

http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/mcclendon_notice_of_informal_complaint.pdf
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/mcclendon_oct24_2012_complaint.pdf

This represents Google getting 'served' this week, my form 2000F 'informal' 53 page complaint that suggests that NetNeutrality provides protections against ISP blocking to my home servers as well as to Skype's. Google has been compelled by the government to respond to me on July 29th. GoogleFiber's 'evil' terms of service prohibit hosting any kind of server without prior written permission against your residential connection. And zero transparency for any alternate server-allowed plan rates, or what kinds of reasons they might use to disallow a requested written permission (which is laughable as the FCC 10-201 NetNeutrality document goes out of it's way to laud Tim Berner Lee's invention of the web atop tcp/ip, specifically, without having to have gotten any permission from any government or network provider)

I forwarded the documents to schneier@schneier.com and requested any insight he might have into the matter. I got an email response (theoretically perhaps spoofed) that read "Thanks.\n\nGood Luck."

Comment here come the gargoyles (Score 1) 108

from http://www.elemental.org/~daleg/gargoyle/
"
What is the Gargoyle?

        The Gargoyle wearable computer is a project I am undertaking to study and
        improve apon current technologies and adapt them for use in a wearable computer
        application and a environment of every-day, practicle use. I am naming the
        prototype I am building "Gargoyle". This name comes from Neil Stephenson's
        popular cyberpunk novel "Snow Crash". In this a book, a Gargoyle refers to
        a person who wears a wearable computer of sorts, and is constantly collecting
        information or intel about his/her surroundings, and is near-constantly
        jacked into the Metaverse (a futuristic MUSH-like version of the Internet).
"

Comment Re:Don't trust 'em (Score 1) 97

in case people aren't familiar with my non-drunken-but-close-enough debate style- scratch the tcp/ from the first sentence. And obviously I was just flailing against webrtc and this quic thing which smells like it is also trying to address the more general problem space of - "well, since we don't really have an open ipv6 internet that works for everyone, lets waste our lives engineering this big mess over here..."

Comment Re:Don't trust 'em (Score 2, Informative) 97

I have serious doubts in ANY new network tech not having backdoors of some sort.

Oh, come on. This is a network protocol. Sure, protocols *can* have flaws, but it's a very long stretch from being forced to run an unknown binary. Just implement it on your own if you're paranoid enough.

The problem with trying to implement a new protocol over tcp/ip (the internet) like Tim Berners-Lee did with the web, is that the mythical 'Open Internet' has been degraded. QUIC and webRTC reek to me of some orwellian attempt to make the lies about home servers being less worthy of net-neutrality protections than skype's servers make sense. I.e. allowing 'client to client' file transfers and video chats. All this is because of the conspiracy to deprive residential internet users the power to serve. Now, don't get me wrong, the things webRTC, and I'm guessing QUIC work around (legacy nat traversal when no simple 'open internet' directly routable path is available) are useful. But it is disingenous to look at QUIC without also looking at the fact that when Google entered the residential ISP business, they actually pushed the server persecution further, with a blanket 'prohibited from hosting any kind of server' terms of service language.

Earlier this week the FCC finally after 9 months 'served' my NetNeutrality (2000F) complaint against Google, along with the longer 53 page manifesto that now reached google via the FCC via the Kansas Attorney General('s office). Yesterday after pinging schneier@schneier.com for any insight to prepare for google's July 29th compelled response, he (or someone spoofing him) replied- "Thanks.\n\nGood Luck.".

http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/mcclendon_notice_of_informal_complaint.pdf
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121024.pdf
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3643919&cid=43438341 (score 5 comment about the situation, with further links)

Comment Re:unfiltered my ass (Score 1) 81

where it lauds Tim Berners-Lee for having been able to invent the world wide web on top of the internet protocol "without having had to get permission from any government or network authority"

Yeah well... Tim Berners-Lee did not do this for free. And CERN was not buying a cut-rate residential service; if anything, they were paying business and above rates for their telecommunication services, which did not restrict their use --- but they paid for every amount of resource that was available to use to them.

I'm not suggesting people deserve free bandwidth. Where did you get that idea from my words? As far as "cut-rate" internet service- yes I am fully aware that Google is both technically able, and could see a profitable path offering an internet service that charges different traffic rates for Google service usage that stays on it's combined ISP/content network, and then charge 10 times that amount for traffic that goes to destinations outside of the Google-sphere. But that is precisely the kind of intentional crippling of the "general purpose technology" of the internet, that Network Neutrality rules were written to prevent. I'm just waking the FCC up to the fact that my servers at home need the same legal protections as Skype's while I'm using GoogleFiber as my ISP.

The rest of your arguments are just as specious, however I'll wait to completely address them until I get Google's compelled response to my complaint on July 29th. If there were in fact a legal concept of "cut-rate" internet service that nullified my arguments, I would have hoped that within the first 9 months of the complaint being live, that someone at Google or the FCC might have referred me to the legal codes where the special treatment for "cut-rate" internet services were defined. Honestly, I loathe the business models of - razors/blades, gaming-consoles/software, mobile-phones/contract-locking. I.e. using the long term benefits of "stack lock-in" to "tax" the consumer, and remove competition from the field. But, if the FCC doesn't mind letting google do the printers-ink captialistic game to the internet and have "cut-rate internet service" in a way marketed similarly to actual legitimate "internet service" that doesn't charge different rates for the same packet with the same source and destination address, based on which end (the residential or remote) was the 'client' and which was the 'server'. Well, if they want a printers-ink model of the internet, so be it. But I'm going to make them say it out loud in clear language that educates people as to the real, precise level of Network Neutrality that Google is interested in. Namely, just enough to protect their servers, but not enough to protect the home servers of the global populace.

Comment Re:unfiltered my ass (Score 1) 81

Prohibitions against resale of their service to third parties, by providing many people internet connectivity: or by running a web server or other commercial service to consume their resources and derive profit from them.

There is a difference between wiring up my next door neighbor, and operating a web server including a wiki that provides a service over the general purpose internet to both my neighbor, and perhaps my friend on the other side of the globe, and perhaps the global public at large.

By your logic, operating a web or any server with many clients is tantamount to "resale of their service to third parties" because *technically* operating a wiki server is distributing the utility/value(of)internetservice to both my next door neighbor, and the rest of the world.

Now... personally, I might be happier with simple per-bit charging and the ability to resell service to my neighbor if for some reason they think they'd rather do that than purchase service from the same provider (perhaps they live on the border of the service area, or perhaps they view my firewall as a value-add to the internet service). But I'm not holding my breath for that even though it seems the most logical to me.

Are common restrictions: they are contractual rules, not filtering of applications, or non-neutrality.

These are subtle issues, don't try to gloss over the reality. What you described, are in fact common restriction, but what Google implemented, was a simplified language that "prohibits hosting any kind of server (without prior written permission)". If you actually read FCC-10-201 and where it lauds Tim Berners-Lee for having been able to invent the world wide web on top of the internet protocol "without having had to get permission from any government or network authority", you might begin to see the obvious problem with google's language. Though you won't fully realize the motives involved, until you stare at the abominable market for home server software that can compete with gmail, but provide enhanced 4th ammendment protections by being able to consider your data to be your "papers" at home, rather than something you entrusted to a company that is not at all concerned with your privacy if they think they can make a penny by selling it out.

It means that Netflix can't swoop in there, setup a residential datacenter: pay $30 a month for Google fiber, and saturate the network connections.

The way networking works, no one user can destroy the network. It's a shared resource. I might not be able to run a business like old-school slashdot from my home server (when they had 100K users already), but I might well be able to start something like an old-old-school slashdot (say, 1000 users) from a home server, and build up momentum and revenue to enable me to then scale as needed with servers beyond the ones in my home. You are saying that such aspirations can be thwarted by ISPs that also have non-broadband-carrier divisions that have been making billions operating their own servers on the internet. I find it _too_ convenient that the "unfortunate expansion of our terms of service safetynets" manages to horribly throttle the home server software market that Vint Cerf, in an interview in my college networking textbook 10 years ago, envisioned flourishing in the new IPv6 world. Or as he writes on Google's IPv6 education page.

Similarly... it means that ISPs or Tunnel/Proxy providers, or web hosting farms, cannot come in and abuse the service -- degrading service for other users, or imposing undue costs on Google, to pay for attempts to commercially exploit a service that is being provided for personal use.

When my neighbors all watch the latest thing released on netflix, and I see my pr0n bandwidth rates lessened because we share network trunks, can I claim that my neighbors are "abusing" the service? Or are they merely "using" the service? I just want my fair share, no more, no less. Sending a packet to or from a remote client connected to my local server, is no more or less expensive for the ISP than sending a packet to or from a remote server from my local client. QED.

Comment Re:Yes, let's deal with this NSA thing first (Score 1) 81

Out of curiosity, why did you pick Google Fiber to complain about? Every ISP includes the same terms.

reasons, not necessarily in any order-

1) I was a kansas city resident at the time
2) I have a degree in computer engineering
3) about 20 years ago in college (and in fact in college when I was still attending high school), I enjoyed smoking pot, and playing doom at my university's computer center. After my subsequent education and carreer beginnings, I became passionate about pursuing the dream of running my own business, with my own server, at home. With enough freedom of speech on the internet to effectively clone slashdot (it's open source) and try to compete with them, maybe not using Google as my advertising partner (maybe gasp, not having an advertising partner at all).
4) GoogleFiber was the first residential ISP offering me IPv6, and coincidingly, gigabit rates
5) My brother happens to be a Google VP. Not google fiber related, however before becoming a google employee, his early carreer included being a director of engineering at @home, perhaps the first big name cable modem broadband provider. He then reported to Milo Medin, who is in fact now the google VP in charge of google fiber. And in fact this nepotistic relation enabled me to be in a position to debate the issue with highly relevantly educated and knowledgeable people. In fact, Milo invited me to rewrite their terms of service in a way that would allow e.g. a home user to run a quake3 server, but would otherwise "protect the potential cloud profits of google". In other words, to maintain the conditions that exclude home server software from realistically entering the market and competing with gmail, to provide a solution that is more protected by the 4th ammendment, since you would never be handing your papers/data over to a 3rd party commercial service whose terms of service you've probably never bothered to read closely.
6) Vint Cerf, one of two "fathers of the internet" for developing the "Internet Protocol" (v4 and v6) is also VP at google, and in fact has made statements on their IPv6 education web page that led me to believe google would not be the sort of company to engage in this
7) you are actually wrong. I know of 2 large cable modem ISPs that have no general server ban. Now, they do have instead pages upon pages of things I might argue against. But I'm sure not going to try arguing with them, if my argumentative abilities cannot succeed in persuading a company like Google, that has actually advocated instead of opposed network neutrality, to change their ways. Note well that there was a slashdot AC leak of a google all hands meeting where the CEO "repeatedly needed" the CFO about the no server hosting clause because Page disagreed with it. The CFO defended it saying that it "had to be there to prevent large datacenter style abuse". Which is a lie.

Slashdot Top Deals

User hostile.

Working...