Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Does SaaS change everything? (Score 1) 78

Now that most interesting new software is delivered to us over the web or via other network protocols, does this marginalize the contributions of open source and free software? For example Google, Amazon, and Facebook all have had some involvement with open source software as both users and contributors, but for the most part their technology stacks above the OS level (Linux) are under lock and key.

This sounds like a good question to me. Trying to hype my own little unpopular cause of the moment, I'd add the obvious note that what is required for open source (top to bottom) solutions to compete with the Gang Of Four (Google/Amazon/Facebook/...) is the 'Right To Serve'. I.e. my legal theory all end users of the internet in the US, due to Network Neutrality (FCC-10-201, subparagraph13), have the right to host and run servers connected to their residential fixed broadband service. Any help or on the record comments that I can get from noteworthy thinkers will be greatly appreciated. Mr. Vint Cerf of Google claimed last week to be investigating the matter internally at Google. Mr Page of Google apparently, from an AC leak on slashdot is also "very annoyed with the no servers clause" of Google Fiber's (their new ISP to Kansas City) terms of service.

Comment Re:Here's another alternative... (Score 1) 84

... focus on releasing those millions of parked domainnames or atleast fix the administrative gap that allows registrars to keep those millions of domains parked for practically free. The problem isn't a lack of TLD's, it's a lack of decent domainnames and most of those are wasted on yet another money grabbing scheme.

Umm... please do explain said gap. I'd like to save money on a few that I've 'parked', though without any ads, and not in any way to scam other companies.

Comment Re:Do(/Should) I have a 'Right To Serve' on the 'N (Score 1) 56

Mod parent up, seems like an important question. The internet is turning into oligarchy instead of its former peer to peer nature. These choke points make censorship and surveillance easier. How long before email can only be sent from gmail to gmail?

At the risk of losing my excellent slashdot karma for the first time in my life, I'll shamelessly continue my network flooding to get this issue into the public debate. Especially since I remembered after posting the question last night that I had already brought the issue to the attention of over a month ago. Unless my words are being censored by Navy Information Warfare Officers, I'm still boggled by how off the radar this topic is. Part of me hopes Mr. Cerf answers me by the one week(and a bit) deadline I gave him/Google. But given no response yet, I'm now leaning towards the theory that Google's lawyers have taken over (which given my aggressive language throughout, is understandable. Though I would hope Mr. Cerf, if anyone on the planet, could rise above the lawyer level. In several ways, I've already sacrificed any personal legal case I have, and put myself on the mercy of the system, and hopefully the validity or not of my logical and moral arguments).

Comment Do(/Should) I have a 'Right To Serve' on the 'Net? (Score 1) 56

I've recently been championing an interpretation of Network Neutrality which assumes that all ISP customers (of all service tiers) have the right to host and run servers from their connections (presuming IPv6 environment, ignoring IPv4 address scarcity case). I apparently even got Dave Schroeder, someone who publicly identifies themselves in slashdot comments as a Navy Information Warfare Officer to give high praise[1] to a draft of my manifesto[2], which, with his help (getting an email address) has led it to the inbox of one Mr. Vint Cerf who is now reading it and investigating further (unless someone impersonated him via insecure email). Anyway, I think from my manifesto it is clear that I likely share some visions with the FreedomBox project, which I suspect is just as effectively dependent on a 'Right To Serve' landscape/net-ground-rules as I am rallying for.



Comment Re:And this is why (Score 1) 946

If it leads to vendor GPU drivers being developed in the open then I'm in!

Why were you upset again?

...because it won't, and never will, and because this is the Linux community attempting to force Nvidia to develop open-source drivers, which is just about the exact opposite of freedom. Or at least, that is what it looks like to me.......

What it looks like to me is that in order to use _some_ features of _some_ kernels NVidia must do some driver work in the open (source). Whereas the prior situation to this kerfluffle included NVidia being of the position that in order for linux users to use _some_ features of _some_ NVidia hardware, that they must accept drivers that are closed source.

Big whoop. NVidia has a choice to make. Ignoring a potentially lucritive market is one of their options. (not to mention how things like individual human good or ill will towards companies tends to spill across markets in non-obvious ways...)

Comment the "Right To Serve"? (Score 1) 332

A luxury or a human right. What there isn't a middle ground here?

Yes, they asked a leading question based on a false dichotomy and got a stupid answer. Internet access is a utility, like electricity or clean water. Like those things, the more people have access to it, the better off they will be. However, equating utilities with the likes of freedom of speech and freedom from slavery is a slap in the face of anyone who has struggled for those true human rights.

I respectfully disagree. Without utilities like the information superhighway, or the actual highway, or clean water, things like 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom from slavery' are almost meaningless. I'm reminded of the scene in the movie 'The Matrix' where Neo first encounters 'supernatural' physics. After Neo demands his 'right to a phone call', agent Smith wryly states - "What good is a phone call, if you are unable to speak" (as Neo's lips become sealed shut due to the Matrix's master's control over 'reality'.

Of course my own delusionality is that this slashdot article is a Navy psy-op architected by Information Warfare Officers[1] such as Dave Shcroeder who recently gave high praise to my "Right To Serve" network neutrality manifesto, as well as Vint Cerf's email address to help me cut to the heart of the issue. From my initial ack, Mr. Cerf is currently reading my draft[2] and investigating further.



Comment Re:Closed Source. (Score 2) 121

If you trust closed source security software... good luck.

Indeed. After Dave Schroeder, a Navy Information Warfare Officer[1], recently gave me Vint Cerf's email address, I posited in a 35 page manifesto[2] that ssh + IPv6 + gstreamer would make a good open source encrypted video network phone solution. Of course I haven't actually tried it, and no doubt the performance would initially suck. But I imagine a week of tuning parameters and you'd have something usable (when need dictates). And in a year if it caught on, I'm sure the performance would probably become excellent. Of course, it kind of helps to have a 'network neutral'(my definition as per manifesto) broadband connection and an IPv6 'server' process listening on your device for incoming connection requests (a.k.a. phone calls). In any event, interesting to see this slashdot article a couple days later.



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 .

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. ...

, 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 '', 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.


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?


fyi, my manifesto is located here- (work in progress)-

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)-

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'.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." -- Richard P. Feynman