Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:surprising really (Score 1) 184

But if there are three people lined up behind you waiting to do that job for that pay the moment you turn your back, a strike doesn't seem like a good idea.

The angle that I don't think you are factoring in is the unique public image prominence of Foxconn and the iPhone5 specificly. That changes the equation as to what might be a good idea. If China sees free speech 20 years down the road, these folks might get themselves some book deals or otherwise cash in somehow. Or they'll get themselves and their loved ones in trouble. My hat is off to their courage.

Comment Re:That's one problem with cyber (Score 1) 212

A couple of things:

1. I thought your Google manifesto was very good (I know it's a work in progress).
2. I think you're reading WAY too much into certain things.

On 1, my deepest gratitude. On 2, you may be right, or I may request your forgiveness for using arguably 'information warfare' tactics in this to achieve an end such as (1). Or rather, the more specific end, Vint Cerf's attention. I just emailed my brother asking for Mr. Cerf's email address (because googling 'vint cerf email address' didn't help). But I doubt he wants to be involved with this (and rightly so as he has nothing AFAIK directly to do with GoogleFiber), so I'll also ask for it from you- please send to dmc@cloudsession.com .

I'll hold off on detailed comments to the rest of what you said, which, makes a certain amount of sense, but at the same time doesn't. But I'm hoping that some feedback from Mr. Cerf will shed important light on the nature of specifically those confusions. Thanks again for the feedback. -dmc

 

You know, why don't you just email Vint Cerf and see what he thinks about the core of your net neutrality question wrt Google Fiber? He just might respond.

Comment Re:That's one problem with cyber (Score 1) 212

The answer is simple: in our country and system of government, the military fundamentally, and as a matter of law, answers to civilian authorities.

That's not a simple answer at all. It's an easy 'corporate' line. But the truth is that strategic economic decisions made on the behalf of the US for the past 20 years have put China in a position to be able to use vast amounts of US currency to influence civilian businesses. But no, it's not like I think I'm telling you something you don't know. I just think that we deserve apologies from the companies that got rich selling out the human rights of the Chinese (e.g. the first public caving of Yahoo handing over a free speaking dissident to the authorities. Then up to e.g. the amount of Chinese cyber intrusions that all these companies covered up for years, providing the internet users of the world false illusions of levels of communication security).

The military doesn't need to have day-to-day "control", but we need to have the capability, when attacked militarily, to defend ourselves militarily -- including in the "cyber" realm.

Yeah, OK, whatever, pull the plug on Skynet. You guys have a lot of guns and bombs and money, and in a 'military defense' posture, can no doubt again, ask the network operators to pull the plug on Skynet. But the issue I brought up, which I think is central and stated in terms that most of us here can understand- Is it a good thing that the FBI is asking Google and Facebook to mandatorily backdoor ssh (or, if you want to be pedantic, any subsequent point release of ssh that includes fixed algorithms that block all exploits the US gov has. I.e. that could be 0 or more exploits now for all I or any civilian knows, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to believe that at some point some minor point release of ssh, if not secure from the USgov, might become secure again for awhile. And the cnet disclosure of that FBI pressure on businesses, described a policy that boils down in essence to outlawing non-backdoored versions of ssh.

The mistake people make is believing it's a binary either/or; either civilian or military.

OK, nice strawman then, as it was your super highlighted article that made that point which you now purport to tear down. I agree, it's not black or white, so lets get back to my question- government mandated backdoors in ssh??

The fact is that our information capabilities are so critical that they need appropriate levels of protection. The notion that civil authorities can defend systems from a cyber attack is a fine notion, but not realistic if we are under a coordinated cyber attack from a nation-state explicit seeking to cripple us. If a foreign military is bombing civilian targets within our own borders, is not the purpose of our military to protect us? Sure, civil first responders will be involved, too, but I think most would expect a military response.

That's almost funny. Where has this military response been for the last 10 years? All I've seen are lazy greedy corporations that don't give a rats ass about human rights or privacy, at least when it comes to standing up to threats to those arena from China. And then there is sad of how economic policy, i.e. to the point of folks like me not really believing there is a relevant line between the China and US governments. I mean, can folks like you do anything but order another drink and sigh when you look at the ongoing deficit issue with China, and then pretend that this can be looked at as a military issue between two superpowers, rather than a citizenship of the world issue trying to figure out how to live under a new government that is effectively, if not superficially, a single unified entity?

We as a nation are so used to the military being something we use in foreign lands and faraway places that the concept of our military being here to defend ourselves at home is a concept that is, well -- foreign.

Huh? I was propogandized with everyone else here in grade school about the issues of 'standing armies in times of peace' and so on and so forth. And that whole congress power to declare war and related stuff that the current world order completely ignores. I think what you meant to say, is the 'cyber' dimension is the game changer. Not the idea of domestic military. People who have an opinion one way or the other tend to have opinions about the domestic role of the military.

There can certainly be (and already are) public-private partnerships, civilian-military cooperation, etc. This also doesn't mean that secure systems and protocols should be "backdoored" for the government

Glad you think so, but it seems Obama and the FBI have different opinions-

"
In May, CNET disclosed that the FBI is asking Internet companies not to oppose a proposed law that would require firms, including Microsoft,
Facebook, Yahoo, and Google, to build in back doors for government surveillance. The bureau's draft proposal would require that social-networking
Web sites and providers of VoIP, instant messaging, and Web e-mail alter their code to ensure their products are wiretap-friendly. ...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57518265-38/fbi-renews-broad-internet-surveillance-push
"

, but it might mean having some combination of infrastructure, equipment, accesses, standards, partnerships, rules, and similar in place at civilian facilities.

Describe for me the most obviously controversial such measure that would reside in my home, if I wanted to be running a civilian web server. I posit that the above suggests that Obama/FBI wants backdoors in ssh and any similarly encrypted protocol I use hosting a linux lamp server at my home, serving free speech to other americans and citizens of the world.

I think the problem people have is that we can see planes, tanks, and soldiers -- we are worried we can't "see" what "the government" is doing, as is the case in the digital realm. But what we can "see" is the law and a robust system of oversight. Yes, history tells us that there have been abuses. There no doubt will be again. It is a system made up of humans and all of their requisite imperfections.

But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater -- just because we know we can't do something perfectly doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

Unless you tackle the hearts of the issue. E.g. hosting a shell access server at your home with ssh, ala the infamous 'nyx.net', then this sounds like superflous B.S. Talk specifics. Lets start with ssh getting backdoored.

Does the benefit outweigh the risks? Some believe that giving any military or intelligence service ANY control over defense of systems and networks represents too big a risk -- I would ask those people to get a broader perspective.

Again, I think that's a bit of a strawman. Again, you guys have an immeasurable amount of money, guns, and manpower at your disposal. The real issue here is 'undeclared wars'. It seems as if your post to slashdot was, in some niche realm, part of a declaration of cyberwar with China. I mean, until yesterday, I hadn't really spent any time troll-battling alleged navy information warfare officers. Today seems to be a new day, and I'm just trying to figure out WTF the ground rules of the internet are. As from my manifesto, you can see I believe that even the paragons of the internet- Google, are blatantly and willfully confusing the issue (ToS says 'any server of any kind is prohibited from being hosted at your residence connected to the Google Fiber ISP in Kansas City'. But leaked to slashdot and yet to be denied, Google's CFO is 'really annoyed' by the no server clause, and Google's CFO say's it won't be enforced except for a 'large scale datacenter'. Then you get paranoid folks like me reading that, and the cnet/fbi/ssh-backdoor issue, and then a navy information warfare officer replying to clam666 on slahsdot's announcement of cyberwar with China, and I'm like- forget this internet thing, I'll just go find me a big enough bottle of vodka to drink my farewell sorrows from the internet away from. Honestly, if the disinformation on this issue was only coming from people like you I would't be so pissed. But the disinformation seems to be coming from all sides and I'm about ready to start throwing bricks through windows it's so infuriatingly frustrating.

Hope this answers at least part of your question; this is just my own view.

We'll see what the Kansas Attorney General and/or Vint Cerf say to my manifesto when I send it. Thanks for humoring me.

-dmc

Comment Re:That's one problem with cyber (Score 1) 212

ok, you trolled me into reading that first page of that one article, and then replying when drunk and stoned. So I read that, particularly the last lines of the page. As you seem to be someone doing a good job of portraying themselves as a rational actor- How do _you_ think the issue should come down on whether or not it is the civilians or the military that should have the crown of control over the internet? You make some legitimate references to people who too easily dismiss the foreign threat in the name of fearing their own government. How do you personally come down on the issue of whether or not the tech for actually secure communications belonging in the hands of all civilians or not? Should ssh be mandatorily backdoored as the FBI is currently requesting Google and Facebook to fall in line with? Is that your assessment of the best path forward?

-dmc

fyi, my manifesto is located here- (work in progress)- http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121001.pdf

Comment Re:Much of that speech? Try 'All' (Score 1) 727

All Internet 'speech' is hosted by third parties, ...

Well, actually if fixed broadband internet service providers respected the last sentence of paragraph 13 of FCC's 10-201 Report and Order Preserving the Open Internet, then no, each and every end user as well as edge provider could host whatever services and applications they want to on the 'general purpose technology' of the internet (now that IPv6 has solved the address shortage issue). Unfortunately Google and all the other residential ISPs are playing protectionist games with their non-ISP commercially competitive server hosting businesses. If you want to read more, recently an internal Googler leaked comments between Larry Page and Google's CFO. Apparently Page is pretty annoyed by the current situation (as I am)- http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3106555&cid=41288357

P2P infrastructure depends on peers wanting to connect to you. If you're seen as 'toxic' then noone will.

This may sound like a good point for the general case when considering this video with the allegations of dubbing and fraud. But it wasn't so long ago that all of these same issues applied to the South Park episode featuring Mohommed. One should not look to this current video as the canonical example of free speech in this case. I mean, it's good as one extreme example, but for the sake of social policy, one should also consider the South Park case, and myriad of similar cases as well. In the general case, this 'toxic' issue with P2P dynamics that you speak of disappears. Yes, there will be some large, perhaps majority even, portion of the internet that considers you toxic. But if you can only have 1% of the internet that considers you non-toxic, that is enough for, IMHO people to consider their voice to have been heard. Which is I think the bottom line free speech issue here.

Comment Re:Great Response... (Score 2) 622

No, let the assholes see it and get used to it because it's here to stay. And fuck the US Governent condemning it like it did with those cartoons.

This I completely agree with, though might replace the word 'fuck' with 'damn', though please don't respond to that sentiment which would make good troll-bait if that were its intent

It started with Bush's bullshit that Islam is the "religion of peace" and continues to this day. It's not.

This is where I think you are as wrong as the people you are calling wrong. No religion is the religion of X or not the religion of X. All religions are collections of vast individuals, that have really rather varying beliefs about such things as when to be at peace and when to be at war.

But again, I totally agree with that first sentiment. Though I sympathize _almost_ with Obama sacrificing the first ammendment to keep the lid on a shitstorm of a world region that due to the last administration, has seen over a million civilian casualties chalked up as 'collateral damage'.

Comment Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed (Score 1) 241

"What if your job is pen testing will they ban you for hacking/cracking then?"

If you hack/crack any system you don't have permission to, I'd presume yes, else I'd presume no. I think when you hack a shell to a server you own, there is no substantive difference as far as being banned from a network than if you had logged in with ssh normally. Of course, if your method results in some side-effect traffic going to any system other than one you own or have rights to 'crack', then yeah, I hope you get banned from the network immediately. $0.02...

Comment Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed (Score 1) 241

"I don't see them invoking this unless you're running something that brings down the whole area of town."

I'd like to believe that basic automatic network management features of the relevant hardware, or at worst, more intelligent custom software written by google, can trivially enforce sharing of network resources in an application and service agnostic way. The only way you should be able to bring down any segment of the network would be through some serious blatantly criminal level hacking. Or accidentally helping Google to discover a bug they fix the next day.

That is why I'm fighting the language of the terms of service here, rather than just caring about what happens at the network level.

Comment Larry Page Agrees (partly) with me? (Score 2, Informative) 241

This was posted by an Anonymous Coward. Sounds plausible enough that I'll post it again to help its visibility-

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.

Comment Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed (Score 2) 241

FCC-10-201, paragraph 13, last sentence. It sure sounds to me as though _all end users_ are allowed to create content, applications, services, and devices with their 'neutral' fixed broadband internet service links.

"Because Internet openness enables widespread innovation and allows all end users
and edge providers (rather than just the significantly smaller number of broadband providers) to
create and determine the success or failure of content, applications, services, and devices, it
maximizes commercial and non-commercial innovations that address key national challenges—
including improvements in health care, education, and energy efficiency that benefit our economy
and civic life.19"

Comment Re:EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed (Score 1) 241

I understand the whole 'business class' thing. I'm trying however to make a legal point that the last sentence of paragraph 13 of FCC-10-201(aka net neutrality), can logicly be seen as criminilizing such differentiation of service through network level (or I would argue, evil-tos level) blocking. The whole 'neutral' aspect of 'network neutrality'.

Comment EVIL: No Server Hosting Allowed (Score 5, Interesting) 241

(my support email to google fiber-)

Hello,

I've recently filed an FCC form 2000F complaint regarding how your
current terms of service for google fiber prohibit hosting any server of
any kind. I feel this is in violation of paragraph 13 of FCC-10-201
which I believe cements my right as an end-user to provide novel
services to the internet at large via a server hosted at my residence
connected to my fixed broadband internet service. While I have
communicated secondhand with Milo Medin about this, perhaps this is a
more official channel. Please tell me if I've misunderstood the concept
of "Net Neutrality" or your Terms of Service. All I want is to host a
linux lamp server. I.e. web pages and files served with apache via IPv6
to other IPv6 clients on the internet. And probably I'd want to host a
quake3 server as well as other entrepreneurial servers I conceive of and
deploy due to the abundance of helpful free and open source server
software available to me.

A length debate on the subject (57 posts, 15 authors) was recently held
on the discussion forum for the Kansas Unix and Linux User's Association
(ironicly hosted on google groups rather than someone's server at home
running linux+mailman). I encourage an official response clarifying the
situation from Google.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/kulua-l/LxsOtdglNM0

Thanks for any feedback, Regards,

-dmc
Douglas McClendon
da...@cloudsession.com

(note, this online/form tract was reached after selecting that the
target of the complaint was a fixed broadband internet service provider,
believed to be in violation of the 2nd(blocking) of the 3 primary open
internet rules layed out in the FCC's 10-201 report and order preserving
the free and open internet.

--- REF# 12-C00422224 ---
Google's current Terms Of Service[1] for their fixed broadband internet
service being deployed initially here in Kansas City, Kansas, contain
this text-

"You agree not to misuse the Services. This includes but is not limited
to using the Services for purposes that are illegal, are improper,
infringe the rights of others, or adversely impact others enjoyment of
the Services. A list of examples of prohibited activities appears here. "

where 'here' is a hyperlink[2] to a page including this text-
"Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do
so, you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber
connection"

In my professional opinion as a graduate in Computer Engineering from
the University of Kansas (and incidentally brother of a google VP) I
believe these terms of service are in violation of FCC-10-201.

[1] http://fiber.google.com/legal/terms.html
[2]
http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2659981&topic=2440874&ctx=topic

--- (end of form 2000F complaint text)

Comment Re:Health and fashion (Score 1) 497

Forgive my pedanticism (really), but no, eating organic food instead of 'non-organic' food is nothing at all like a 'leap of faith'. That phrase implies that if your faith was misplaced, you will be leaping/falling to your doom. In this case, the consequence if your unproven theory turns out to be innaccurate, is that maybe you spent a 25% premium, and maybe helped out the environment, perhaps infinitesimally so. Not a 'leap of fatih' by any means. Please return to your regularly scheduled non-pedantic arguments....

Slashdot Top Deals

"Laugh while you can, monkey-boy." -- Dr. Emilio Lizardo

Working...