But if you don't log you have no record of the abuse.
Also, what if the motivation for network logging is to measure bandwidth consumption
and identify bandwidth abusers, not to
troll for other network abuse. I guess my
original
question is something like If network logging makes an invasion of privacy possible,
but is justified by other means, is it still
an invasion of privacy?. I think its analogous
to asking If owning a gun makes murder possible, but is justified for other uses, is owning a gun wrong?.
I've written some network monitoring/logging
software at the University where I work.
Some people have suggested that
it might invade people's privacy.
What do you think?
Is logging only TCP/IP headers
(ip addresses/ports/packet size) an invasion
of privacy?
How about if we log packet data as well?
What if this data is deleted after a fixed interval and only looked at when there's
evidence of a security problem?
Under what circumstances would you see
traffic logging as a problem?
The real import of
the Linux wristwatch is ecological, though, rather than practical, because it illustrates
Linux's unparalleled ability to take advantage of something called adaptive radiation
I'd like to put forward another Linux analogy -
its like English (or Lingua Franca, or
whatever your language of choice).
That's why Linux users take it personally.
How would you like it if some corporation
(say M$) owned your language (OS), and you couldn't
coin your own words or expressions (apps) but
rather you'd have to use only what the corporation
provides? You could say that OS'es like Windows
restrict our expression like "newspeak"
did in Huxley's Brave New World.
"Newspeak" was a limited language
designed by the government to restrict thought
and expression.
<ramble on>
I've always
had the impression that Windows was designed
to suit Microsoft first, second and third.
It was designed
to overwhelm programmers with an overly
complex interface.
After the programmer has mastered all the books,
journals
and training, the constant stream of new
Microsoft APIs and initiatives
he would have
no spare time to
learn a competing platform.
The programmer would not even have time to learn
about the app he's supposed to program.
Windows, which should have made the programmer's
job easier, has instead become his job.
Thus only
large organizations could gather the number of
specialized programmers necessary build any significant
application. I find it very encouraging that
relatively small informal teams can produce
GNU/Linux software approaching the complexity formerly
only attempted by commercial ventures.
I think that fact speaks to the superiority
of GNU/Linux to Windows for app development.
Full-blown Windows 2000 networking (i.e. not old-style Win9x) with Active Directory and such is
designed to require MS Win2K servers. While
based on standards like LDAP, Kerberos and
Dynamic DNS Microsoft "cleverly" modified those
protocols so that they cannot be provided by
standard Unix based servers, but instead must be
provided by M$ W2K servers. Furthermore, these M$ W2K servers *will* serve standard LDAP, Kerberos and Dynamics DNS clients.
The result is that if you have W2K and UNIX on
the same network, you're almost forced use W2K
platforms to provide these network services.
Presto - by corrupting standards M$ has made themselves the network server platform of choice.
I'd be ecstatic if we could provide these "necessary" W2K services from an open platform. Hopefully Samba or something else will
provide this soon.
I like protien folding, but when I downloaded
the client there was no source code, just
a binary. How do I know I'm not running a trojan,
or am I too paranoid.
This could be the stepping stone to Linux's "World Domination". Computer newbies can rent/buy the computer, OS and ISP in one step. Since the OS is free, the price will be competitive to Win platforms, and hopefully they'll integrate the hardware, software and OS to make installation a breeze. This could be Linux for the masses - it might be big.
Has physics made any comparable great leaps in understanding since the advent of Relativity and Quantum theory? If not do you foresee comparable advances in the future? Or might physics be entering a period of diminishing returns, with physicists working steadily harder for smaller advances in understanding? (The question is about fundamental physics, I assume applied physics will continue to flower.)
The author argues against the "newness" of the Open Source phenomenon,
Open source is a completely new progressive phenomenon (bright future of mankind) with no analogs in history. Partially true as open source is an Internet-based phenomenon. But it is mostly untrue, because the OSS community is more like a regular scientific community than some OSS apologists would like to acknowledge.
He says the only thing new about Open Source is that it is an Internet-based phenomenon, and not fundementally new because it is based on the scientific community. I think this is very wrong. (1) The internet allows collaboration on an entirely new scale, an exponential increase over previous methods. This is a case where an extreme increase in quantity is truly a jump in quality. (2) Collaboration in software devlopment is very different from collaboration in science. I would say that scienctific collaboration involves a lot of subtraction, meaning that much work in science turns out later to be wrong or merely besides the point. The ultimate contributions of the individual scientist are usually small. How many published articles sit in the college library unread? Efforts in software development produce a much higher yield, each contributed line of code is more likely to end up in the finished product (I think, maybe someone else has some info on that). Thus collaborative software grows much quicker than collaborative science. Furthermore, some scientific advances requires little collaboration. It is interesting to note that Albert Einstein once said that an ideal job for a theoretical physicist would be that of isloated Lighthouse Keeper, because it left plenty of time for private thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, what if the motivation for network logging is to measure bandwidth consumption and identify bandwidth abusers, not to troll for other network abuse. I guess my original question is something like If network logging makes an invasion of privacy possible, but is justified by other means, is it still an invasion of privacy?. I think its analogous to asking If owning a gun makes murder possible, but is justified for other uses, is owning a gun wrong?.
Is logging only TCP/IP headers (ip addresses/ports/packet size) an invasion of privacy? How about if we log packet data as well? What if this data is deleted after a fixed interval and only looked at when there's evidence of a security problem? Under what circumstances would you see traffic logging as a problem?
Thanks.
I'd like to put forward another Linux analogy - its like English (or Lingua Franca, or whatever your language of choice). That's why Linux users take it personally. How would you like it if some corporation (say M$) owned your language (OS), and you couldn't coin your own words or expressions (apps) but rather you'd have to use only what the corporation provides? You could say that OS'es like Windows restrict our expression like "newspeak" did in Huxley's Brave New World. "Newspeak" was a limited language designed by the government to restrict thought and expression.
<ramble on>
I've always had the impression that Windows was designed to suit Microsoft first, second and third. It was designed to overwhelm programmers with an overly complex interface. After the programmer has mastered all the books, journals and training, the constant stream of new Microsoft APIs and initiatives he would have no spare time to learn a competing platform. The programmer would not even have time to learn about the app he's supposed to program. Windows, which should have made the programmer's job easier, has instead become his job.
Thus only large organizations could gather the number of specialized programmers necessary build any significant application. I find it very encouraging that relatively small informal teams can produce GNU/Linux software approaching the complexity formerly only attempted by commercial ventures. I think that fact speaks to the superiority of GNU/Linux to Windows for app development.
Yada yada ..
</ramble off>
The result is that if you have W2K and UNIX on the same network, you're almost forced use W2K platforms to provide these network services. Presto - by corrupting standards M$ has made themselves the network server platform of choice.
I'd be ecstatic if we could provide these "necessary" W2K services from an open platform. Hopefully Samba or something else will provide this soon.
I like protien folding, but when I downloaded the client there was no source code, just a binary. How do I know I'm not running a trojan, or am I too paranoid.
This could be the stepping stone to Linux's "World Domination". Computer newbies can rent/buy the computer, OS and ISP in one step. Since the OS is free, the price will be competitive to Win platforms, and hopefully they'll integrate the hardware, software and OS to make installation a breeze. This could be Linux for the masses - it might be big.
Sorry for the pessimistic note.
Don't know what it means tho...
If you don't proclaim yourself moral, who else will do it for you?
YES. I want someone to make an Open Source Encyclopedia. But not me. But maybe they'll let me write an article or two.
(1) The internet allows collaboration on an entirely new scale, an exponential increase over previous methods. This is a case where an extreme increase in quantity is truly a jump in quality.
(2) Collaboration in software devlopment is very different from collaboration in science. I would say that scienctific collaboration involves a lot of subtraction, meaning that much work in science turns out later to be wrong or merely besides the point. The ultimate contributions of the individual scientist are usually small. How many published articles sit in the college library unread? Efforts in software development produce a much higher yield, each contributed line of code is more likely to end up in the finished product (I think, maybe someone else has some info on that). Thus collaborative software grows much quicker than collaborative science. Furthermore, some scientific advances requires little collaboration. It is interesting to note that Albert Einstein once said that an ideal job for a theoretical physicist would be that of isloated Lighthouse Keeper, because it left plenty of time for private thought.