Topic: =/\= internet freedom and americans

[stoneyface]

there was an interesting article today calling for "ground rules" pertaining to and protecting the internet in this country. i found it encouraging since i have been watching as the government slowly but surely has been pushing for things like a "kill switch" "in case of emergency" as they claim and net neutrality and other things that on the surface look like they are trying to help us but in reality could be used "not as intended". we say egypt pull the plug on their entire internet infrastructure in an attempt to curtail the civil unrest there. i very much see the government in our country wanting a kill switch for the same purpose. they may claim all they want that it is in case of terrorist net attacks (which i admit is a REMOTE possibility, no pun inteneded) but i really think it is more of a way for the government to be able to deprive us of the internet if there is some form of internal revolution. i also see our government slowly but surely backing down from net neutrality. i expect that we will be forced to deal with tiered internet someday. so much for the right to "free" information.
so anyway, here is the article. http://www.dbune.com/news/tech/4409-clinton-calls-for-qground-rulesq-protecting-internet-freedom-and-security.html

[Sirgod]

I agree with you Stoney, and It is why I have taken a stance against these kinds of things.

Stephen

[marstone]

The only kill switch our government really needs for terrorist attack is on their own systems.  Set up the Washington complex on a WAN that can be unplugged from the internet so if you get a nasty attack, just pop it off the net and the whole government can still run the computer systems between themselves until the attack is done.  Simple, easy, doesn't effect the real world.

[Capt_Bearslayer_XC]

You need to stop making so much sense, Marstone.....

[Kreeargh]

The only kill switch our government really needs for terrorist attack is on their own systems.  Set up the Washington complex on a WAN that can be unplugged from the internet so if you get a nasty attack, just pop it off the net and the whole government can still run the computer systems between themselves until the attack is done.  Simple, easy, doesn't effect the real world.

I agree but it must be done for EVERY pc in goverment use your talking several trillion$ for that kind of upgrade. I dont think it could be done or cost worthy in govs eyes.  You dont even know how much info a lamer real low level goverment employee can access. Ie say the local nrcs or say the local forest service pc was hacked entire network of data not "top secret" could be hacked and looked at by thugs .
The best way is not to use the damn net on those pcs that have data/info  that will secure the country Usb stick the data to transfer or something else would be better.

[marstone]

Actually it isn't done at the PC level.  But on how you wire the networks of the Capital.  You have the internet come into specific access points that are set to be disconnected.  Then you run routers and switches to set up the networks between the buildings.  That way local computers are just plugged into the network and doesn't have to be setup at all.  The whole control is done at the upper network level.  Heck the buildings should already be wired in a form similar to what I am talking about, it just takes putting in a procedure to do the disconnect from the actual internet backbone when needed.

I know  the local University I work at already has the network set up that would work with what I am saying.  Each building is wired with local networks that link into a larger network.  So cost wise, it should almost all be covered already, just how you handle the systems would change.

[Bonk]

http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/113947/20110218/internet-free-software-freedom-box-columbia-law.htm
(caution, insanely huge page, I had to disconnect the modem to get it to stop after 7 minutes of downloading - believe it was the iframed ad at

Code: [Select]

http://www.dianomioffers.co.uk/smartads.epl?id=807 that was to blame, probably a malware download...)

Nevertheless the story was kind of interesting. That law prof's page:
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/now


The current quote on fsf.org's front page is appropriate to this topic:

A strong free software movement focused on the principled issues of software freedom — and a strong FSF in particular — will determine what freedoms the next generation of computer users enjoy. At stake is no less than the next generation's autonomy.

— Benjamin Mako Hill, writer, technologist and FSF board member

I'm curious what this page linked from the fsf site might have to say but after five minutes on dialup the page is still blank. http://windows7sins.org/ Some web designers just have no idea. I would love to read the page, but they have cleary filled it so much javascript and pretty pictures that I get no content at all. Pretty dumb. So I guess whatever it is they have to say is not very important... (note the nature of Eben Moglen's page. - he has important stuff to say, and his pages download in seconds or less even on dialup.)

Speaeking of network freedom, this tendency to clog pages with megabyte upon megabyte of useless crap that prevents the page from being read at all by the millions of dialup users out there is a real threat to internet freedom that exists right now, today. Dummies.

* Bonk XC shakes head

So windows7sins.org ... whatever you had to say is lost, I will never know. That is not how websites are supposed to work, they are supposed to provide information... not useless undisplayable random bits... 

[stoneyface]

this is exactly the kind of behind the scenes crap i am talking about. they publicly announce trying to work on net neutrality, but then turn around and kill funding for it with little to no announcement... do you really still think our government works for your rights? or theirs?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/house-passes-amendment-to-block-funds-for-net-neutrality-order-20110217

[Sirgod]

Oh definitely theirs man. Why else would they have tried to control the internet, Capitalism, and Private enterprise through net neutrality in the first place?  It wasn't because they where concerned for the private persons rights.

Stephen

[knightstorm]

this is exactly the kind of behind the scenes crap i am talking about. they publicly announce trying to work on net neutrality, but then turn around and kill funding for it with little to no announcement.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/house-passes-amendment-to-block-funds-for-net-neutrality-order-20110217

No it isn't.  Its an example of divided government in action.  You have one party which controls the executive branch pushing for net neutrality, while the other party which controls the house is trying to block it.

[Bonk]

Apologies for the below. I just could not help myself. I keep seeing this image when I think of this topic. 

[marstone]

without getting into to much on the debate side.  I have to say, I can not support the so called net neutrality laws.  While it can sound good on one side, and it makes the companies sound bad, you also have to see that it is forcing more government control over us all.  They say it is to remove tiered services, and open the way so you can have free use of all network stuff.  But it also makes a company that had dumped alot of cash to make the best and fastest network (either wired or wireless) only able to charge as much as the slowest networks do (to be fair).  So the money spent will not be recouped and thus, why spend it.  It will in the end limit more then it will open up the networks.  Many other reasons, but would push debate over the edge to the secret boards (maybe).

[Bonk]

I dunno... in the expanse of Canada it comes down to who, if anyone, will lay the fiber? I predict it will only come when people start stripping copper directly from the poles. (Glass has a much lower resale/recovery value than copper.) The question of bandwidth is somewhat moot to me. FCC regulations apply, even here. (max 48kbps on the wire) More realistically, as I see it, new, more sophisticated, perhaps musical, digital to analog encoding algorithms are required. (as well as mod_lzma and accept-encoding:lzma... )

The cost of high-speed services is irrelevant to much of the world. I would even go so far as to say that the lack of rural bandwidth partially drives current urbanisation trends, it almost certainly does. I can say for sure that in the long run, laying fiber across the country will cost less. How can one "buy local" when there is nobody on the farm anymore? But alas, great national achievements are a thing of the past. Could the Canadian National Railway be built today? I think not. Last spike indeed. 

[marstone]

That is the point.  Net neutrality will make it even less likely that a company will put the money in laying high speed glass.  It is more expensive as it doesn't have the range that wire does between booster stations.  Which in my area (very rural) high speed wireless is not feasable as we don't have the wired speed that can actually support a 4G network (let alone the 3G+ networks being done right now). 

IF NN would come about, it would basicly make it a government job to lay the infrastructure as why would any company spend the money so everyone else can use it and not get paid anough to get your investment back timely.  It is not the governments job to lay that stuff (at least not in the US, not a power of the feds)  Let the market work.  As for options, heck even in my bass ackwards area of the country I have four options (at least) for internet.  I have less options for electricity, water, tv, and many other things.

The other thing, as you know, once you let the government get its fingers in something. You can't get them out, and they will muck it up.

[Bonk]

Lolz. One word. Latency.

Actually, add to that three more words: proprietary packet compression.

Bonk-to-normal-mind-translation: Wireless networking is not an acceptable solution. It is the perfect billing solution however.

When it comes to lack of national projects... calculate the cost of employment insurance (or whatever the equivalent is called in the US). I worked it out one day, the man-hours lost are staggering. Idle Canadians could build the great pyramids three times over within 30 years. (just as an example) Instead, these people sit home "waiting for the big one", all with the belief that they can make it to the top (or complete disillusionment)... but sorry, there is only ever room for one Wayne Gretzky, or one Sidney Crosby... hopefully the analogies are clear. But I can say no more on the subject in a public forum. Nor do I want to say more, been down that road, it is pointless to try and convince people, time will just have to teach them, or as history has shown, we may never learn.

[Sirgod]

Hey Bonk, correct me if I'm wrong here bro, but wasn't there a huge bruhaha up north about throttling, bandwidth caps etc?  I barely remember hearing how Canada was forcing all the ISP's to change there plans.

stephen

[Bonk]

Not that I recall, the big issue that told me all of this was coming and it does not matter what we say was back in 2001: something our department of justice called: "Lawful Access". Which meant they intend to log everything. And I mean everything. Every packet, every IP address. I have no idea how we will be able to afford the resources. It is probably eating into our defense and national security budget like nothing else. I expect this is also why American defense spending continues to balloon larger than the visible results as well.

Just wait till IPv6 rolls out completely and your LG fridge and dryer are online and accessible from your smartphone (see current LG offerings - gawd - even the name...). The volume of data to be monitored is insanely huge. No computing budget in the world could possibly compare.

I don't know if our department of justice has since abandoned this insane idea, I don't monitor such things anymore, too depressing. The lack of knowledge, the lack of understanding, it all just brings me down. I like to play with SFC and work on it. It makes me happy. I have to hide. I cannot comment. I always say this but always comment anyway, I am such a dichotomy of myself. 

Edit: as far as net neutrality and bandwidth caps etc... I'm sure whatever the criminal organisation known as Rogers tells the government they need is how it will be. I have no other explanation for how they continue to get away with highway robbery and fiscal irresponsibility year after year.

P.P.S... are people aware of the Chinese internet hijack? Where all traffic was routed through China for nearly a day back in April 2009 I think it was... they used a simple and well known routing hack... the following year they announce the most powerful supercomputer yet? SSL comms decryption anyone? This is probably the main cause of governments wanting internet kill switches. Too much stuff over SSL encrypted VPNs that people treat as secure. Boeing... etc.

Always keep a carrier pigeon handy, just in case. We cannot depend on technology for our freedom. That much is clear.

[Bonk]

That is the point.  Net neutrality will make it even less likely that a company will put the money in laying high speed glass.  It is more expensive as it doesn't have the range that wire does between booster stations.  Which in my area (very rural) high speed wireless is not feasable as we don't have the wired speed that can actually support a 4G network (let alone the 3G+ networks being done right now). 

IF NN would come about, it would basicly make it a government job to lay the infrastructure as why would any company spend the money so everyone else can use it and not get paid anough to get your investment back timely.  It is not the governments job to lay that stuff (at least not in the US, not a power of the feds)  Let the market work.  As for options, heck even in my bass ackwards area of the country I have four options (at least) for internet.  I have less options for electricity, water, tv, and many other things.

The other thing, as you know, once you let the government get its fingers in something. You can't get them out, and they will muck it up.

Talking to Mackie just reminded me to rethink this fallacious argument. How come they can do it but we cannot? (The Finns and Norwegians that is, and it is a purely rhetorical question, I know the answer.)

[FoaS_XC]

Thanks, bonk, i was just about to bring that up.

[marstone]

Rhetorical but I am going to answer anyway.

1.  For the US. It is limited by the constitution. States could. Fed can't.

2.  Scale.  Take any of the European countries that have done free internet or something like it. They have socialist leanings and they are small.

3.  Cost. because of number two, costs are not as high. 
4.  The other contries have done it as a government works project style. While net neutrality seeks to take the investments of private companies away, basicly a step toward nationaling and taking over the companies (small step is regulating them so tightly that the business can't make it's own choices). Kind of what obamacare does to health insurance companies. But for internet and cell networks it would regulate fees and services that have to be provided making it so they can't turn a profit and continue. (Worst case of course)

You see they talk net neutrality and internet kill switches also. Too much control.