"Or with other words, the company/entity that holds the physical network (the cable, fiber, whatever) MUST NOT be allowed to hold the virtual one."
I, and a lot of other people in the US, also agree with this. But it wasn't the point I was making.
"And of course in order to avoid hidden monopoly like sharing the fiber only to our guys, that's why the "sharing" principle was implemented."
Fine. But whatever the reasoning behind it, the simple fact is that there is a strong correlation between forced sharing of backbone resources, and actual competition in the market.
I don't know about where you live, but there is also the issue that much of those backbone resources make use of public right-of-way, or government (and therefore taxpayer) grant of the rights to use certain public facilities. Very little of it was built entirely with private money with no use at all of public resources.
There is a lot of public sentiment that nobody should be able to exclusively profit when using public resources.
"As always, it's a matter of cost/benefit ratio. Keeping support for IE versions below 9 is relatively expensive, because they do way too many things differently from other common browsers, so you need two very different code path for the same things."
I don't disagree with you, but I also don't think you got the entire point. It's not just about browsers, it's about Operating Systems.
It isn't that XP doesn't support IE 8 or 9... it's that IE 8 and 9 don't run on XP.
Many systems that run XP just fine won't run Windows 7 or 8 worth a damn. And a lot of people don't much care... they're happy with XP. So they don't see the need to upgrade both their hardware and software, just to run a new browser. It's probably a bad business decision, in a lot of cases.
So they'll stick with XP as long as they can, and run Firefox or something instead. And when that doesn't work anymore, they'll go with Linux and keep using most of their old tools, rather than shelling out hundreds per machine for newer Windows.
No, XP is not going to be around forever. However, last I checked (which has admittedly been a while), something like 30% of PC users were still running Windows XP.
I feel it is a big mistake to abandon such a huge user base, even if Microsoft does want to force people to move on. The PC market is not the same as it was 8 or 10 years ago, and lots of people are satisfied with what they have.
"Actually US construction steel from the time did due to the high sulphur content of most US coal and the expense required to remove it from the molten iron before it becomes steel. These days magnesium is used to remove it."
Then why does FEMA's paper call it anomalous?
I recall something different and was replying with that in mind. What exactly are you claiming then? I'm happy with the paper but I recall your claims didn't match what the paper said.
The only thing that *I* recall claiming was there was strong evidence that there was high-tech thermite in the debris.
"Where does it say in the paper that thermite was planted?"
I didn't claim that it was "planted", I merely stated that the paper said it was present. Don't try to put words in my mouth.
What it does say is that a building made from the same components as thermite (aluminium and iron in the form of steel) can fail in a way that produces something that is effectively thermite made from finely ground powder in terms of fire risk.
Either you did not actually read the sources I gave you, or you're just making shit up. For just one example of many: does the steel from the building normally contain sulfur in the form and quantities found? No, it does not.
And again, you are failing to account for the fact that "nano-thermite" has properties quite different from "normal" thermite.
"I'm not shooting the messenger, I'm dismissing the twisted chinese whispers that are only very loosely based on the message."
From your comments here, I don't even think you read the "message".
I repeat: if you can refute anything the paper actually says, then have at it. And be specific. Until then, you're just blowing smoke. And that's putting it as politely as I can.
Hmmmm... this is just a guess, but you somehow thought that "Ehhhhhh" was some kind of attempt to mock the name "Ehud"??? I really don't know, so I'm taking a stab at it here.
I repeat that I do not do that kind of crap. But at the same time, it's a pretty big leap to conclusions on your part, to think that some random bit of onomatopoeia was some kind of personal attack. Paranoid much, are we?
As for "misinformation": I cited my source, and not only does it have solidity and reputation, what it stated is as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer. Your calling it "misinformation" does not make it so.
"When you make fun of my name, you drop yourself even lower than ad-hominem attacks."
I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. Does "gavron" have something to do with "buzzer"? I neither know nor care. In any case, I wasn't mocking anyone's name. I don't do that kind of crap.
Note: You didn't say "content" but later you clarified you meant it in context to imply content."
YOU first mentioned "content". YOU set the context and topic, not me, and it is ridiculous for you to come back and try to chastise me for discussing the very topic you mentioned. Your reasoning here seems to be a bit skewed.
Now go back and read my response where I pointed out that Federal agencies HAVE and DO request
[with court orders] pen/trace on email headers and IP packets.
Of course they do. That is not even remotely any kind of evidence that these are covered by CALEA. Court decisions, in fact, contradict the idea that they are.
"I also appreciate that you labeled the three links I gave and a google search result (which has many more)
as "liberal University[sic] professors and journalists" but your ad-hominem attack only detracts from any claim you might have."
I will concede that the one comment could have been considered "ad hominem" (and it wasn't intentionally meant that way), but nevertheless, I still place more credibility on those who have actively been litigating these matters, over those who could in all generosity might be called bench-warmers.
"Unfortunately your lack of knowledge and insisitence that the EFF is the only source of knowledge..."
This is a mis-statement. I did nothing of the sort. I simply stated that they had practical experience in the field; nowhere did I try to claim they were the only authority. Get your own facts straight.
"Finally, having personally been presented these court orders (and no, these were not National Security Letters;
these were plain old "Tap this, send us this" orders) by US three-letter agencies, I know it to be fact."
Your interpretation of the law, when presented with official papers, is anecdotal evidence AT BEST, and entirely subjective. If you were to show me a competent attorney's analysis of such paperwork, I might be convinced. However, I am guessing that there is about a 95% probability that you never bothered to get any. You simply took their word for it.
Ehhhhhh... (sound of an obnoxious buzzer). Your position lacks evidence. I have given you source for mine.
Come on, answer me. Why should I pay attention to someone who doesn't even live here, who spouts opinions about MY laws, and doesn't even have the stones to stand up and give a name?
"This is the most straw-grabbingly pathetic rationalisation I've seen you come out with in the face of being demonstrably wrong on slashdot to date, and you do that very regularly. "
Haha. Go ahead. ASK the EFF if this is "straw-grabbing". They've used it -- successfully -- in court.
And if you say "I do it regularly", why are you posting as Anonymous Coward, you sockpuppet asshole? No balls?
Agreed. But it is hard to explain how this works to people who are not familiar with the concept. They tend to think it is a "government takeover" of private enterprise and/or property.
There is a very high correlation (outside the U.S., which hasn't tried it so it's irrelevant) between regions that have required leasing of backbone bandwidth, and those that have not. Those that have mandated sharing deliver remarkably high bandwidth at astoundingly low prices, compared to those that do not.
So, although it seems counter-intuitive to many people, mandating the sharing of the infrastructure actually promotes free-market capitalism. And I'm all for it. We just need to kick some Congressional asses and get it done.
However, my comment assumed the CONTEXT that you used in your own comment; your reply abandoned that context.
Fact:
No law of any jurisdiction in the United States currently requires any ISP to provide any content monitoring. The only requirements close to that are to allow Law Enforcement access should they have the right to it -- CALEA [askcalea.net].
According to the EFF (which has actually been involved in litigation of this matter, and is a source I trust far more than your liberal University professors or journalists), CALEA does NOT require monitoring of content, which was the matter under discussion. CALEA only requires recording of header data: times of activity, etc.
But the context here was CONTENT, which you seem to have forgotten in your reply.
CALEA does not apply to internet CONTENT, at all. It does not, in itself, allow Law Enforcement monitoring of the content of internet traffic. It DOES allow that for telephony.
From the EFF website:"CALEA requires communications carriers to be capable of providing both "call-identifying information" (CII) and call content to law enforcement. In the circuit-switched world of traditional telephony, the meaning of CII was clear: telephone numbers are CII, and the conversations are content. But in the packet-mode world of the Internet, communications are encapsulated (see 16 below â" link), and each protocol layer is associated with different "signaling information." Whether a component is "signaling information" or "content" depends on which layer is reading it. Thus CII on the Internet is not a clearly defined concept, although it is in traditional telephony
...
Law enforcement is now attempting to broaden CALEA by requiring communications service providers to design their networks to make it easy and fast for law enforcement to perform wiretaps, pen-register, and trap-and-trace surveillance on a large number of people."
In simple terms: it ain't done yet. And maybe it never will be.
"Its a different situation, one the feds approve of, due to the mass payoffs ( err, donations ) of the *AAs."
Yes, it's a different situation, but that does not change the law. Deep packet inspection is illegal. It doesn't matter WHY you are doing it, unless it's called for by a judicial warrant.
I am familiar with the Spooner situation. (And just as an aside, I think everybody should read Spooner's essay, "Vices Are Not Crimes.)
However, there is an issue here:
"... there is nothing preventing me from starting a better, more privacy friendly ISP aside from the startup costs."
Yes, there is. In my town, the City Council is required every year to evaluate and vote on service providers. And every year, so far, they have voted to NOT allow competition in the cable business, because (so they say) of problems with overhead cabling (telephone poles, etc.).
Clearly their reasoning is bullshit, and they are just engaging in Crony Capitalism (which is not real capitalism at all). Nevertheless, so far they have managed to get away with it, and the only alternatives to the one cable company are DSL, which is inferior, and satellite, which has high latency.
As a result, in this community we CAN get good cable service, but it probably costs about 3 times what it should. Bandwidth has been getting ever cheaper for the ISPs, but they have been steadily increasing their prices. There is no correlation between their cost, and their prices.
"Once one ISP has an area cabled up, it's no longer financially viable for another to move in."
That's why some smart communities have decided to let the city or county build the cable infrastructure, using tax dollars. Then they rent the infrastructure to data providers.
Not only do they save money, they are not subject to coercion by monopolies.
Which amounts to allowing a third party to interfere in my private contract, without my consent... which is very much against the most basic contract law.
"No law of any jurisdiction in the United States currently requires any ISP to provide any content monitoring. The only requirements close to that are to allow Law Enforcement access should they have the right to it -- CALEA."
Fact: CALEA applies only to telephony; to date, it does not apply to the internet at all.
Congress has introduced some bills that would make CALEA -- or something very like it -- apply to the Internet. So far without success.
Has everybody somehow forgotten the ruling of several years ago? Comcast was forced by the government to stop its deep packet inspection that it used for throttling traffic.
If it goes that route again, it's just going to get slapped down again.
Pardon me. Bad day. The above may appear to be gibberish, or at least out of context. Please see my other reply, in which I have tried to be a little more intelligible.
Sigh. Fumble-fingering links and such on a foggy-headed Sunday morning.
Apologies. I'll try to put this all together coherently:
You can capture IP headers and timing data. This is certainly possible, no question.
However, that information alone is generally not useful, after the fact, for determining what content was sent in those packets. And the ENTIRE issue here is content.
In order to store content information, you could not simply monitor the entire internet, or even the "border routers". The amount of data is just too vast.
This is the essential problem faced by the copyright trolls: while it is possible to say that THIS party sent packets to THAT party at a given time, we only have the copyright troll's word on what the content of those packets actually is. They do not obtain rigorous proof, at all; rather, they rely on circumstantial evidence and assumptions. But even if that were rock-solid, their evidence is still weak because an IP address does not identify individuals.
Slashdot Mirror
"Or with other words, the company/entity that holds the physical network (the cable, fiber, whatever) MUST NOT be allowed to hold the virtual one."
I, and a lot of other people in the US, also agree with this. But it wasn't the point I was making.
"And of course in order to avoid hidden monopoly like sharing the fiber only to our guys, that's why the "sharing" principle was implemented."
Fine. But whatever the reasoning behind it, the simple fact is that there is a strong correlation between forced sharing of backbone resources, and actual competition in the market.
I don't know about where you live, but there is also the issue that much of those backbone resources make use of public right-of-way, or government (and therefore taxpayer) grant of the rights to use certain public facilities. Very little of it was built entirely with private money with no use at all of public resources.
There is a lot of public sentiment that nobody should be able to exclusively profit when using public resources.
"As always, it's a matter of cost/benefit ratio. Keeping support for IE versions below 9 is relatively expensive, because they do way too many things differently from other common browsers, so you need two very different code path for the same things."
I don't disagree with you, but I also don't think you got the entire point. It's not just about browsers, it's about Operating Systems.
It isn't that XP doesn't support IE 8 or 9... it's that IE 8 and 9 don't run on XP.
Many systems that run XP just fine won't run Windows 7 or 8 worth a damn. And a lot of people don't much care... they're happy with XP. So they don't see the need to upgrade both their hardware and software, just to run a new browser. It's probably a bad business decision, in a lot of cases.
So they'll stick with XP as long as they can, and run Firefox or something instead. And when that doesn't work anymore, they'll go with Linux and keep using most of their old tools, rather than shelling out hundreds per machine for newer Windows.
No, XP is not going to be around forever. However, last I checked (which has admittedly been a while), something like 30% of PC users were still running Windows XP.
I feel it is a big mistake to abandon such a huge user base, even if Microsoft does want to force people to move on. The PC market is not the same as it was 8 or 10 years ago, and lots of people are satisfied with what they have.
My ISP is not part of the government.
Perhaps I should have written, "illegal without a warrant or subpoena".
"Actually US construction steel from the time did due to the high sulphur content of most US coal and the expense required to remove it from the molten iron before it becomes steel. These days magnesium is used to remove it."
Then why does FEMA's paper call it anomalous?
I recall something different and was replying with that in mind. What exactly are you claiming then? I'm happy with the paper but I recall your claims didn't match what the paper said.
The only thing that *I* recall claiming was there was strong evidence that there was high-tech thermite in the debris.
"Where does it say in the paper that thermite was planted?"
I didn't claim that it was "planted", I merely stated that the paper said it was present. Don't try to put words in my mouth.
What it does say is that a building made from the same components as thermite (aluminium and iron in the form of steel) can fail in a way that produces something that is effectively thermite made from finely ground powder in terms of fire risk.
Either you did not actually read the sources I gave you, or you're just making shit up. For just one example of many: does the steel from the building normally contain sulfur in the form and quantities found? No, it does not.
And again, you are failing to account for the fact that "nano-thermite" has properties quite different from "normal" thermite.
"I'm not shooting the messenger, I'm dismissing the twisted chinese whispers that are only very loosely based on the message."
From your comments here, I don't even think you read the "message".
I repeat: if you can refute anything the paper actually says, then have at it. And be specific. Until then, you're just blowing smoke. And that's putting it as politely as I can.
Hmmmm... this is just a guess, but you somehow thought that "Ehhhhhh" was some kind of attempt to mock the name "Ehud"??? I really don't know, so I'm taking a stab at it here.
I repeat that I do not do that kind of crap. But at the same time, it's a pretty big leap to conclusions on your part, to think that some random bit of onomatopoeia was some kind of personal attack. Paranoid much, are we?
As for "misinformation": I cited my source, and not only does it have solidity and reputation, what it stated is as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer. Your calling it "misinformation" does not make it so.
"When you make fun of my name, you drop yourself even lower than ad-hominem attacks."
I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. Does "gavron" have something to do with "buzzer"? I neither know nor care. In any case, I wasn't mocking anyone's name. I don't do that kind of crap.
Funny how often I have gotten modded "over-rated" or sometimes "troll", and then received a reply to by a certain Anonymous Coward.
Hint, guy: You aren't as anonymous as you seem to think.
That's quite true. However, your traffic is STILL going through your ISP. There literally isn't any way around that.
Which is precisely why we must not allow ISPs to monitor.
"Competition is much nicer."
Amen, brother.
(Note: I am not particularly religious; it just seemed a simple way to express my agreement.)
Note: You didn't say "content" but later you clarified you meant it in context to imply content."
YOU first mentioned "content". YOU set the context and topic, not me, and it is ridiculous for you to come back and try to chastise me for discussing the very topic you mentioned. Your reasoning here seems to be a bit skewed.
Now go back and read my response where I pointed out that Federal agencies HAVE and DO request [with court orders] pen/trace on email headers and IP packets.
Of course they do. That is not even remotely any kind of evidence that these are covered by CALEA. Court decisions, in fact, contradict the idea that they are.
"I also appreciate that you labeled the three links I gave and a google search result (which has many more) as "liberal University[sic] professors and journalists" but your ad-hominem attack only detracts from any claim you might have."
I will concede that the one comment could have been considered "ad hominem" (and it wasn't intentionally meant that way), but nevertheless, I still place more credibility on those who have actively been litigating these matters, over those who could in all generosity might be called bench-warmers.
"Unfortunately your lack of knowledge and insisitence that the EFF is the only source of knowledge..."
This is a mis-statement. I did nothing of the sort. I simply stated that they had practical experience in the field; nowhere did I try to claim they were the only authority. Get your own facts straight.
"Finally, having personally been presented these court orders (and no, these were not National Security Letters; these were plain old "Tap this, send us this" orders) by US three-letter agencies, I know it to be fact."
Your interpretation of the law, when presented with official papers, is anecdotal evidence AT BEST, and entirely subjective. If you were to show me a competent attorney's analysis of such paperwork, I might be convinced. However, I am guessing that there is about a 95% probability that you never bothered to get any. You simply took their word for it.
Ehhhhhh... (sound of an obnoxious buzzer). Your position lacks evidence. I have given you source for mine.
Come on, answer me. Why should I pay attention to someone who doesn't even live here, who spouts opinions about MY laws, and doesn't even have the stones to stand up and give a name?
Do you really think that deserves any respect?
"This is the most straw-grabbingly pathetic rationalisation I've seen you come out with in the face of being demonstrably wrong on slashdot to date, and you do that very regularly. "
Haha. Go ahead. ASK the EFF if this is "straw-grabbing". They've used it -- successfully -- in court.
And if you say "I do it regularly", why are you posting as Anonymous Coward, you sockpuppet asshole? No balls?
Agreed. But it is hard to explain how this works to people who are not familiar with the concept. They tend to think it is a "government takeover" of private enterprise and/or property.
There is a very high correlation (outside the U.S., which hasn't tried it so it's irrelevant) between regions that have required leasing of backbone bandwidth, and those that have not. Those that have mandated sharing deliver remarkably high bandwidth at astoundingly low prices, compared to those that do not.
So, although it seems counter-intuitive to many people, mandating the sharing of the infrastructure actually promotes free-market capitalism. And I'm all for it. We just need to kick some Congressional asses and get it done.
However, my comment assumed the CONTEXT that you used in your own comment; your reply abandoned that context.
Fact:
No law of any jurisdiction in the United States currently requires any ISP to provide any content monitoring. The only requirements close to that are to allow Law Enforcement access should they have the right to it -- CALEA [askcalea.net].
According to the EFF (which has actually been involved in litigation of this matter, and is a source I trust far more than your liberal University professors or journalists), CALEA does NOT require monitoring of content, which was the matter under discussion. CALEA only requires recording of header data: times of activity, etc.
...
But the context here was CONTENT, which you seem to have forgotten in your reply.
CALEA does not apply to internet CONTENT, at all. It does not, in itself, allow Law Enforcement monitoring of the content of internet traffic. It DOES allow that for telephony.
From the EFF website: "CALEA requires communications carriers to be capable of providing both "call-identifying information" (CII) and call content to law enforcement. In the circuit-switched world of traditional telephony, the meaning of CII was clear: telephone numbers are CII, and the conversations are content. But in the packet-mode world of the Internet, communications are encapsulated (see 16 below â" link), and each protocol layer is associated with different "signaling information." Whether a component is "signaling information" or "content" depends on which layer is reading it. Thus CII on the Internet is not a clearly defined concept, although it is in traditional telephony
Law enforcement is now attempting to broaden CALEA by requiring communications service providers to design their networks to make it easy and fast for law enforcement to perform wiretaps, pen-register, and trap-and-trace surveillance on a large number of people."
In simple terms: it ain't done yet. And maybe it never will be.
"Its a different situation, one the feds approve of, due to the mass payoffs ( err, donations ) of the *AAs."
Yes, it's a different situation, but that does not change the law. Deep packet inspection is illegal. It doesn't matter WHY you are doing it, unless it's called for by a judicial warrant.
Even if you use an external DNS, your traffic is still going through your ISP. There is no getting around that.
However, there is an issue here:
"... there is nothing preventing me from starting a better, more privacy friendly ISP aside from the startup costs."
Yes, there is. In my town, the City Council is required every year to evaluate and vote on service providers. And every year, so far, they have voted to NOT allow competition in the cable business, because (so they say) of problems with overhead cabling (telephone poles, etc.).
Clearly their reasoning is bullshit, and they are just engaging in Crony Capitalism (which is not real capitalism at all). Nevertheless, so far they have managed to get away with it, and the only alternatives to the one cable company are DSL, which is inferior, and satellite, which has high latency.
As a result, in this community we CAN get good cable service, but it probably costs about 3 times what it should. Bandwidth has been getting ever cheaper for the ISPs, but they have been steadily increasing their prices. There is no correlation between their cost, and their prices.
"Once one ISP has an area cabled up, it's no longer financially viable for another to move in."
That's why some smart communities have decided to let the city or county build the cable infrastructure, using tax dollars. Then they rent the infrastructure to data providers.
Not only do they save money, they are not subject to coercion by monopolies.
Which amounts to allowing a third party to interfere in my private contract, without my consent... which is very much against the most basic contract law.
"No law of any jurisdiction in the United States currently requires any ISP to provide any content monitoring. The only requirements close to that are to allow Law Enforcement access should they have the right to it -- CALEA."
Fact: CALEA applies only to telephony; to date, it does not apply to the internet at all.
Congress has introduced some bills that would make CALEA -- or something very like it -- apply to the Internet. So far without success.
Has everybody somehow forgotten the ruling of several years ago? Comcast was forced by the government to stop its deep packet inspection that it used for throttling traffic.
If it goes that route again, it's just going to get slapped down again.
Pardon me. Bad day. The above may appear to be gibberish, or at least out of context. Please see my other reply, in which I have tried to be a little more intelligible.
Sigh. Fumble-fingering links and such on a foggy-headed Sunday morning.
Apologies. I'll try to put this all together coherently:
You can capture IP headers and timing data. This is certainly possible, no question.
However, that information alone is generally not useful, after the fact, for determining what content was sent in those packets. And the ENTIRE issue here is content.
In order to store content information, you could not simply monitor the entire internet, or even the "border routers". The amount of data is just too vast.
This is the essential problem faced by the copyright trolls: while it is possible to say that THIS party sent packets to THAT party at a given time, we only have the copyright troll's word on what the content of those packets actually is. They do not obtain rigorous proof, at all; rather, they rely on circumstantial evidence and assumptions. But even if that were rock-solid, their evidence is still weak because an IP address does not identify individuals.