"For all their incessant bickering in the first two presidential debates over conflicts of interest and government regulation, PopMech columnist Glenn Derene is puzzled that the candidates have yet to be challenged on a vital issue directly related to both those topics: Net neutrality. John McCain and Barack Obama have stated elsewhere their opposing views on the issue, with McCain being opposed to Net neutrality and favoring light regulation of the Internet, while Obama is in favor of neutrality and seeks Government involvement. In any case, since there is no standard accepted definition of "network neutrality," until the candidates elaborate on their positions (which they both declined to do for this piece, nor anywhere else so far, for that matter), "both sides can make a credible case that they're the ones defending freedom of innovation and open communication.""
And we should all know when the Government gets involved (for good or evil) the whole thing starts circling the drain. And just what is "light regulation"? Are both candidates clueless or just stupid? Which one is the lesser of 2 evils?
Probably a better way of enforcing network neutrality is to encrypt all communications (say, using IPSEC) to the point, where ISPs are *NOT ABLE* to tell content apart, and to use anonymity networks like TOR so ISPs are *NOT ABLE* to tell who is connecting to what. Time is ticking though. Software and users need to act fast to set a precedent of being untrackable and untraceable before ISPs set a precedent of inspecting and controlling all traffic.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:33, James Sissel jimsissel@yahoo.com wrote:
"For all their incessant bickering in the first two presidential debates over conflicts of interest and government regulation, PopMech columnist Glenn Derene is puzzled that the candidates have yet to be challenged on a vital issue directly related to both those topics: Net neutrality. John McCain and Barack Obama have stated elsewhere their opposing views on the issue, with McCain being opposed to Net neutrality and favoring light regulation of the Internet, while Obama is in favor of neutrality and seeks Government involvement. In any case, since there is no standard accepted definition of "network neutrality," until the candidates elaborate on their positions (which they both declined to do for this piece, nor anywhere else so far, for that matter), "both sides can make a credible case that they're the ones defending freedom of innovation and open communication.""
And we should all know when the Government gets involved (for good or evil) the whole thing starts circling the drain. And just what is "light regulation"? Are both candidates clueless or just stupid? Which one is the lesser of 2 evils? _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
--- On Thu, 10/9/08, Billy Crook billycrook@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:33, James Sissel jimsissel@yahoo.com wrote:
"For all their incessant bickering in the first two presidential debates over conflicts of interest and government regulation, PopMech columnist Glenn Derene is puzzled that the candidates have yet to be challenged on a vital issue directly related to both those topics: Net neutrality. John McCain and Barack Obama have stated elsewhere their opposing views on the issue, with McCain being opposed to Net neutrality and favoring light regulation of the Internet, while Obama is in favor of neutrality and seeks Government involvement. In any case, since there is no standard accepted definition of "network neutrality," until the candidates elaborate on their positions (which they both declined to do for this piece, nor anywhere else so far, for that matter), "both sides can make a credible case that they're the ones defending freedom of innovation and open communication.""
Probably a better way of enforcing network neutrality is to encrypt all communications (say, using IPSEC) to the point, where ISPs are *NOT ABLE* to tell content apart, and to use anonymity networks like TOR so ISPs are *NOT ABLE* to tell who is connecting to what. Time is ticking though. Software and users need to act fast to set a precedent of being untrackable and untraceable before ISPs set a precedent of inspecting and controlling all traffic.
Encryption takes extra processor cycles, requiring more powerful computers and quite likely all brand new computers. I'm a little skeptical about how "fast" anyone could change the entire Internet to an encrypted network requiring all brand new computers, when we are in the middle of a financial and credit crisis, where no one will be able to get enough credit to replace all their computers, and even those with good paychecks may find their employers unable to meet payrolls due to having no line of credit with their banks.
The tinfoil hat crowd might point out at this point that the current situation seems a little too ideal for preventing the population of the U.S.A. form implementing just such an "encrypted Internet" scheme. Since corporations are essentially in control of Congress, and they are also the ones who caused the current financial and credit crisis, it could be argued that the end of net neutrality could have been one goal of a deliberate financial and credit crisis.
However, the financial and credit crisis which would prevent an overall conversion of the Internet into an encrypted network by the end users, most likely will delay the "untrustworthy" ISPs as well, hence "acting fast" is only "fast" relative to the resolution of the financial and credit crisis. Tracking systems take extra processor power too, and most ISPs don't currently have universal tracking capabilities. They can do spot checks if a member of law enforcement gets a warrant, but they currently do not have the resources to check everyone's traffic all the time.
The financial situation which prevents individuals from upgrading all their computers to encrypt all their traffic, also prevents ISPs from upgrading their computers to track all their traffic.
It's a decent point except for the fact that Moore's Law pretty much guarantees that the horsepower, if not already here, will be here shortly.
I don't think the issue currently is _computers_. I think the issue is more of when smaller devices, such as cellphones, PDAs, iPods, etc get powerful enough chips to be able to do that kind of encryption on the fly. But given the fact that my iPod Touch is probably more powerful than my original 386 PC, I can't imagine it taking that long to happen. 4 years maybe?
J.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:14 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
Encryption takes extra processor cycles, requiring more powerful computers and quite likely all brand new computers. I'm a little skeptical about how "fast" anyone could change the entire Internet to an encrypted network requiring all brand new computers, when we are in the middle of a financial and credit crisis, where no one will be able to get enough credit to replace all their computers, and even those with good paychecks may find their employers unable to meet payrolls due to having no line of credit with their banks.
The tinfoil hat crowd might point out at this point that the current situation seems a little too ideal for preventing the population of the U.S.A. form implementing just such an "encrypted Internet" scheme. Since corporations are essentially in control of Congress, and they are also the ones who caused the current financial and credit crisis, it could be argued that the end of net neutrality could have been one goal of a deliberate financial and credit crisis.
However, the financial and credit crisis which would prevent an overall conversion of the Internet into an encrypted network by the end users, most likely will delay the "untrustworthy" ISPs as well, hence "acting fast" is only "fast" relative to the resolution of the financial and credit crisis. Tracking systems take extra processor power too, and most ISPs don't currently have universal tracking capabilities. They can do spot checks if a member of law enforcement gets a warrant, but they currently do not have the resources to check everyone's traffic all the time.
The financial situation which prevents individuals from upgrading all their computers to encrypt all their traffic, also prevents ISPs from upgrading their computers to track all their traffic.
--- On Fri, 10/10/08, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:14 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
The financial situation which prevents individuals from upgrading all their computers to encrypt all their traffic, also prevents ISPs from upgrading their computers to track all their traffic.
It's a decent point except for the fact that Moore's Law pretty much guarantees that the horsepower, if not already here, will be here shortly.
Moore's Law only "guarantees" (if such a word can be used with an abstraction like Moore's Law) that the technology improves, not that the technology becomes widespread. If people don't have the available cash for a new $400 device and the bank won't give them any credit, then the technology might as well not even exist yet.
I don't think the issue currently is _computers_. I think the issue is more of when smaller devices, such as cellphones, PDAs, iPods, etc get powerful enough chips to be able to do that kind of encryption on the fly. But given the fact that my iPod Touch is probably more powerful than my original 386 PC, I can't imagine it taking that long to happen. 4 years maybe?
I used computers as the example because the end user currently has a lot of control over what is run on his or her PC. This is frequently not the case with a smaller device such as a PDA or cellphone.
I was at a friend's house on Thursday and we were discussing her new iPhone. It has a lot of fun and interesting features, such as finger gestures for moving and zooming the screen, and even a QWERTY keyboard, but there are a few things missing from the normal computing experience: a cut-and-paste function, and my friend normally types in Dvorak and can't find an iPhone altenative keymapping. Device limitations may well prevent some devices from incorporating encryption, whether or not the user wants it.
One project which might allow the end user to have as much control over their cellphone as they do over their home PC is the Open Moko project, http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Main_Page, developing an open source platform for use in cellphones. Right now only one phone is fully supported (the Neo1973), but they are working on others, http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Supported_Hardware. I'm fairly certain Open Moko is embedded Linux, as Open Moko applications can run on Linux PCs.
However, most people will be purchasing a portable device over which they have inadequate control to introduce encryption and other obfuscation methods to prevent outside agencies from spying on and/or controlling their online experience.
Going back to Moore's Law, four years is a long time, during which time all kinds of government mandates can be dropped on new device technology. The horsepower may arrive with monkeys already on its collective back, negating the ability of the end user to implement privacy methods.
--- On Fri, 10/10/08, Jeffrey Watts jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:14 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
The financial situation which prevents individuals from upgrading all their computers to encrypt all their traffic, also prevents ISPs from upgrading their computers to track all their traffic.
It's a decent point except for the fact that Moore's Law pretty much guarantees that the horsepower, if not already here, will be here shortly.
Moore's Law only "guarantees" (if such a word can be used with an abstraction like Moore's Law) that the technology improves, not that the technology becomes widespread. If people don't have the available cash for a new $400 device and the bank won't give them any credit, then the technology might as well not even exist yet.
I don't think the issue currently is _computers_. I think the issue is more of when smaller devices, such as cellphones, PDAs, iPods, etc get powerful enough chips to be able to do that kind of encryption on the fly. But given the fact that my iPod Touch is probably more powerful than my original 386 PC, I can't imagine it taking that long to happen. 4 years maybe?
I used computers as the example because the end user currently has a lot of control over what is run on his or her PC. This is frequently not the case with a smaller device such as a PDA or cellphone.
I was at a friend's house on Thursday and we were discussing her new iPhone. It has a lot of fun and interesting features, such as finger gestures for moving and zooming the screen, and even a QWERTY keyboard, but there are a few things missing from the normal computing experience: a cut-and-paste function, and my friend normally types in Dvorak and can't find an iPhone altenative keymapping. Device limitations may well prevent some devices from incorporating encryption, whether or not the user wants it.
One project which might allow the end user to have as much control over their cellphone as they do over their home PC is the Open Moko project, http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Main_Page, developing an open source platform for use in cellphones. Right now only one phone is fully supported (the Neo1973), but they are working on others, http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Supported_Hardware. I'm fairly certain Open Moko is embedded Linux, as Open Moko applications can run on Linux PCs.
However, most people will be purchasing a portable device over which they have inadequate control to introduce encryption and other obfuscation methods to prevent outside agencies from spying on and/or controlling their online experience.
Going back to Moore's Law, four years is a long time, during which time all kinds of government mandates can be dropped on new device technology. The horsepower may arrive with monkeys already on its collective back, negating the ability of the end user to implement privacy methods.
This XKCD is its own argument for asserting privacy/neutrality/anonymity via encryption.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:05, Billy Crook billycrook@gmail.com wrote:
Probably a better way of enforcing network neutrality is to encrypt all communications (say, using IPSEC) to the point, where ISPs are *NOT ABLE* to tell content apart, and to use anonymity networks like TOR so ISPs are *NOT ABLE* to tell who is connecting to what. Time is ticking though. Software and users need to act fast to set a precedent of being untrackable and untraceable before ISPs set a precedent of inspecting and controlling all traffic.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:33, James Sissel jimsissel@yahoo.com wrote:
"For all their incessant bickering in the first two presidential debates over conflicts of interest and government regulation, PopMech columnist Glenn Derene is puzzled that the candidates have yet to be challenged on a vital issue directly related to both those topics: Net neutrality. John McCain and Barack Obama have stated elsewhere their opposing views on the issue, with McCain being opposed to Net neutrality and favoring light regulation of the Internet, while Obama is in favor of neutrality and seeks Government involvement. In any case, since there is no standard accepted definition of "network neutrality," until the candidates elaborate on their positions (which they both declined to do for this piece, nor anywhere else so far, for that matter), "both sides can make a credible case that they're the ones defending freedom of innovation and open communication.""
And we should all know when the Government gets involved (for good or evil) the whole thing starts circling the drain. And just what is "light regulation"? Are both candidates clueless or just stupid? Which one is the lesser of 2 evils? _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
-
Billy Crook -
James Sissel -
Jeffrey Watts -
Leo Mauler