An internet kill switch violates Amendments 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 14. Most importantly: 10. (Congress shall exercise no power not granted to it by the states.)
The FCC has indicated in the past that all communications on the internet are inherently interstate commerce.
The constitution provides teh government the authority to regulate said commerce as they see fit.
However; I think it's naive to believe the kill switch is in the hands of the US government.
There are a variety of different kill switches in different shadowy organizations' hands.
I would be really surprised if we don't already have one.
We have one, but the government isn't in control of it.
The organization in control of it is the same as the one that is mostly in control of the government.
Due to the effect pulling the switch would have on the economy, it probably won't be pulled
unless/until the powers that be are finally ready to attempt to discredit the US government or chief executive,
in order to install a takeover (non-democratic) government.
The old design was fine and comfortable... I didn't see much a need for the visual redesign unless there was a technological/performance improvement basis for it.. "if it aint broke...... "
But that's beside the point.
The breakage when trying to follow a 'replied comment' link from the messages page is annoying; having to re-expand and "guess" where the new reply is.
However, compared to Facebook's layout and privacy issues, I can't complain about the new redesign. At least it's still usable; that's kind of what counts the most, even though it is a good bit harder to use.
Is it a dirty hack? Yes, but it'll save face in most cases... not all of course.
If an application server is compromised, or a hole is found in the application, it is possible that the attacker will change the code or produce an SQL injection that will change database server contents, without having direct access to the database server.
If you were really paranoid.... instead of "hard coding"; you would have a special corporate procedure for changing important pages, such as PGP signing of the correct page, and IDS that continuously monitors for any changes (in-line with page loads); and frequent scripts checking the page from another hardened server, and automatically sets off alarms and disables/blocks the high profile page with a generic temporary error message, if an unauthorized change to the pages in the database or anomolous redirect is detected, or the proper procedure was not followed.
fixed IP addresses anyway; just like our currently fixed phone numbers
IP addresses are a characteristic of the network equipment is plugged into,
not a characteristic of the equipment itself.
If you take your laptop to a coffee shop and plug in, your IP address will change, even with IPv6.
(Unless you tunnel to a machine with a fixed IP)
You can always tunnel to a machine outside jurisdictions that require retention.
Though I suppose it won't be too long before governments require ISPs to wiretap your connection
and make records about which subscribers are using encrypted tunnels and how often/when/where/etc
Shall we require walmart to stamp every inch of duct tape with a serial number, and retain records for every single customer of all items purchased, so we can map the unique id to a customer?
Are we forgetting the real concern here? Privacy is a concern for end users. But for large ISPs, a problem is cost and technical
capability of storing precise information.
And the fact that tracking by ISPs is easily circumvented by tunnelling, proxying, and wireless.
Due to widespread NAT, a single IP address doesn't even map to an individual user,
and the collection of usage data by the ISP for any significant amount of time is basically useless.
Since a reliable trace/track can only be performed for a short time.
Once a few hours have passed, the 'tracked' computer can easily be moved.
It may not even belong to the subscriber; particularly in WiFi, public place, and various other scenarios.
And, since you ignored the RFC (5290) that comes up first when you Google for "best-effort rfc"
Google is not the RFC Index.
RFC 5290 definitely doesn't define the terminology used by the differentiated services standards.
When people speak of 'best effort' in regards to QoS, they are referring to the definition as it is defined in the differentiated services, and major router vendors use the same terminology, so this is what is accepted by the language using community.
Apparently you missed the heading of RFC 5290.
Status of This Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
IESG Note
The content of this RFC was at one time considered by the IETF, and
therefore it may resemble a current IETF work in progress or a
published IETF work.
This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. The
IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for any
purpose and notes that the decision to publish is not based on IETF
review apart from IESG review for conflict with IETF work.
As well as the part of RFC 2474 that states accordingly
A reasonable implementation of this PHB would be a queueing discipline that sends packets of this aggregate whenever the output link is not required to satisfy another PHB.
I think this unattractive to true spammers due to the $0.01 per hundred messages charge, and they'll just be terminated anyways.
The real spammers send millions of messages a day, most of them to invalid recipients that never get anywhere.
Most spam abuse of SES is likely to come from the uninformed, or misguided newbies.
When you first register, you'll have access to the SES "sandbox" where you can send email only to addresses that you have verified. The verification process sends a confirmation email to the address to be verified; the recipient must click on a link embedded in the email in order to verify the address. You must also verify the email address (or addresses) that will be used to send messages.
At this point, with verified addresses in hand, you can send up to 200 messages per day, at a maximum rate of 1 message per second.
Once your application is up and running, the next step is to request production access using the SES Production Access Request Form. We'll review your request and generally contact you within 24 hours.
Once granted production access, you will no longer have to verify the destination addresses and you'll be able to send email to any address.... SES will begin to increase your daily sending quota and your maximum send rate based on a number of factors including the amount of email that you send, the number of rejections and bounces that occur, and the number of complaints that it generates. This will occur gradually over time as your activities provide evidence that you are using SES in a responsible manner.
Newly verified production accounts can send up to 1,000 emails every 24 hours.
Sorry, I meant to refer to "connectionless" networks, not packet-switched. You obviously can have packets on both types of network.
Worn out arguments about packet vs circuit switching really have no relevance.
Nowadays you can oversubscribe circuit switched networks; and you can have packet switched networks with guarantees -- few/nobody might do it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
QoS is about guaranteeing an aggregate service level anyways, not about guaranteeing the delivery of each individual packet, which can die for a multitude of reasons.
Just like when you try to call someone on the phone, there might not be a free circuit available, the cat might have eaten part of the phone cord, caused a brief short, and then it momentarily came back to normal in the middle of your conversation.
QoS in this case is about the system dropping other people's ongoing call to free up a circuit for someone who just dialed 911.
That doesn't mean the dropped call was not treated with best effort; it's just that there is prioritization and overriding consideration (based on policy).
Extreme circumstances (such as hardware failures) will cause guarantees not to be met, regardless of technology.
But aside from those, you can make certain guarantees in regards to packet switched networks, and QoS is a name for the toolbox of things that let you make those (often very limited) guarantees.
This is totally, 100% wrong. "best effort" refers to the fact that in packet-switched networks, there are NO GUARANTEES whether a packet will reach its destination.
Bzzt... wrong.
Did it not occur to you that what exactly 'best effort' entails depends on the context in which it is used?
If you tell your kid you want them to put in their Best Effort to get an A in chemistry; this does not mean you want them to violate rules of the system (such as looking at another student's paper during the test, stealing the answer key, etc).
When we are talking about QoS, the accepted definition for best effort is noted in RFC2474, RFC 3644
rfc 2474,
A "default" PHB MUST be available in a DS-compliant node. This is
the common, best-effort forwarding behavior available in existing
routers as standardized in [RFC1812]. When no other agreements are
in place, it is assumed that packets belong to this aggregate.
Such
packets MAY be sent into a network without adhering to any particular
rules and the network will deliver as many of these packets as
possible and as soon as possible, subject to other resource policy
constraints.
A reasonable implementation of this PHB would be a
queueing discipline that sends packets of this aggregate whenever the
output link is not required to satisfy another PHB. A reasonable
policy for constructing services would ensure that the aggregate was
not "starved". This could be enforced by a mechanism in each node
that reserves some minimal resources (e.g, buffers, bandwidth) for
Default behavior aggregates. This permits senders that are not
differentiated services-aware to continue to use the network in the
same manner as today. The impact of the introduction of
differentiated services into a domain on the service expectations of
its customers and peers is a complex matter involving policy
decisions by the domain and is outside the scope of this document.
The RECOMMENDED codepoint for the Default PHB is the bit pattern '
000000'; the value '000000' MUST map to a PHB that meets these specifications. The codepoint chosen for Default behavior is
compatible with existing practice [RFC791]. Where a codepoint is not
mapped to a standardized or local use PHB, it SHOULD be mapped to the
Default PHB.
A packet initially marked for the Default behavior MAY be re-marked
with another codepoint as it passes a boundary into a DS domain so
that it will be forwarded using a different PHB within that domain,
possibly subject to some negotiated agreement between the peering
domains.
That doesn't make any sense. If they are really making their best effort, it would be the same as guaranteed priority.
You're missing the point.
These are accepted industry terms, not subject to dispute by people who think they know something about computer networking.
Suggesting there is something wrong with the terms is just equivalent to brandishing your own errors/lack of understanding:
Quality of services clases impose constraints on the system, by assigning traffic to different queues with different sizes and latency/drop preferences. The priority queues are constraints, and not to be violated in order to deliver a packet. They are usually of a fixed size, so even some packets from prioritized streams can wind up dropped into lower priority classes.
Best effort refers to the best effort to deliver packets in that class, without violating any constraints imposed on the system.
Priority queues are constraints; packets in a higher priority queue cannot be dropped at a higher rate than allowed, for the purpose of delivering best effort packets.
Best effort is basically near the very bottom. The only worse traffic class is called Less than best effort; typically applied to non-drop non-latency sensitive traffic such as bulk transfers, e.g. FTP, FXP, SMB, Peer to Peer networks,
sometimes SMTP.
That said, this sounds like a disruptive technology so either its bullshit or some large oil companies will buy up the tech and bury it until they run out of oil to sell at ridiculously high prices.
For them to buy it up, the owners of the tech would have to offer them that opportunity.
They might be more interested in producing oil at a $30 per barrel cost to them, and selling at the predominant market rate, with care not to overproduce.
That would likely provide a continuous stream of much larger revenue much larger than an oil company would be willing to pay.
Maybe... maybe not... just because someone asked them if they'd be willing to consider that deal does not necessarily mean Youtube will go asking for that deal.
I think the best thing for the internet right now, would be for anyone trying to make a deal like that to be exposed publicly, so the public can choose whether they still want to patronize that web site.
Except for the fact that it doesn't make any sense. How can it be the "best effort" if something can be prioritised ahead of it?
It makes perfect sense. When a QoS scheme is being designed; traffic is divided into classes, and (typically) each class is assigned to queues based on priority; each queue has a certain size.
The class that is not associated with any priority queue at all is called "best effort".
The reason it is called best effort, is, unlike other traffic classes -- there is no priority or reservation.
Other traffic has priority in the form of something close to a guarantee; meaning, if prioritized traffic does not exceed the size of the priority queue, it is guaranteed to be delivered even in the face of congestion. Whereas the remaining traffic is just "best effort".
The traffic that is best effort will be delivered if possible (in the face of congestion), but it might be dropped, best effort is weaker than guaranteed priority.
equip the pilots with multiple screens showing feeds from cameras scattered strategically around the outside of the aircraft.
I'm in favor of equipping commercial aircraft with tactical air to ground missiles that lock on to the source of green laser light and detonate, covering the perpetrator with hot pink paint and simultaneously dispatching local authorities to arrest the moron.
Unfortunatly the human eye sees green as the brightest colour. If you're putting filters on the pilot's eyes, he'll be seeing less at night, or in foggy conditions or something similar.
In foggy conditions, the pilot does not need to wear this protection, as fog attenuates laser light.
and just beat the shit out of them for being well on their way towards having those fun laser pointers banned completely?
Even that won't stop these idiots, because they already possess the laser pointers, and they won't magically vanish from their possession just because a ban is passed.
Only plants which tie the CO2 up in wood or which get burried and turned into oil take more out of the atmostphere than they put back.
Ok... if these plants (cyanobacteria) produce hydrocarbons, when they photosynthesize, which contain carbon, then where does the CO2 they respire come from?
Perhaps if they produced an excess of oil, and pumped it back into the earth for safe keeping, there would be a net reduction of atmospheric CO2.
Whatever you think of global warming, pollution is nasty, and giving us such delightful things as asthma.
Ok... well.. mining operations aren't too environmentally friendly either.
Something interesting about this bacteria... consider, cyanobacteria produces its energy through photosynthesis.
That means, if this bacteria is used over massive acres to produce oil, using sunlight and air,
it will fix CO2, releasing O2 and the hydrocarbons.
This is overall more favorable for the environment than extracting from the ground and burning it, because extracting from the ground and burning it results in a net release of CO2.
But if the petro is produced by cyanobacteria,
some CO2 molecules had to be fixed for every hydrocarbon molecules released, so this could actually be beneficial (even if there is still some pollution).
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is the kind of terrorism we can all get behind - where the terrorist blows himself up without harming other people.
What's even better than this... is, now, a spammer can go to jail for involuntary manslaughter.
Yes, the only person slain was a terrorist, but the spammer did not know that.
If I dial 255.255.255.255, can I make all the phones in the world ring at once?
Only if you dial 9 first for an outside line.
An internet kill switch violates Amendments 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 14. Most importantly: 10. (Congress shall exercise no power not granted to it by the states.)
The FCC has indicated in the past that all communications on the internet are inherently interstate commerce.
The constitution provides teh government the authority to regulate said commerce as they see fit.
However; I think it's naive to believe the kill switch is in the hands of the US government.
There are a variety of different kill switches in different shadowy organizations' hands.
I would be really surprised if we don't already have one.
We have one, but the government isn't in control of it. The organization in control of it is the same as the one that is mostly in control of the government.
Due to the effect pulling the switch would have on the economy, it probably won't be pulled unless/until the powers that be are finally ready to attempt to discredit the US government or chief executive, in order to install a takeover (non-democratic) government.
But the insurance would never cover that..
And if something goes wrong with your DIY surgery, your family can't sue your corpse for malpractice/wrongful death
Unladen slashdot looks like this
The old design was fine and comfortable... I didn't see much a need for the visual redesign unless there was a technological/performance improvement basis for it.. "if it aint broke...... " But that's beside the point.
The breakage when trying to follow a 'replied comment' link from the messages page is annoying; having to re-expand and "guess" where the new reply is.
However, compared to Facebook's layout and privacy issues, I can't complain about the new redesign. At least it's still usable; that's kind of what counts the most, even though it is a good bit harder to use.
Is it a dirty hack? Yes, but it'll save face in most cases ... not all of course.
If an application server is compromised, or a hole is found in the application, it is possible that the attacker will change the code or produce an SQL injection that will change database server contents, without having direct access to the database server.
If you were really paranoid.... instead of "hard coding"; you would have a special corporate procedure for changing important pages, such as PGP signing of the correct page, and IDS that continuously monitors for any changes (in-line with page loads); and frequent scripts checking the page from another hardened server, and automatically sets off alarms and disables/blocks the high profile page with a generic temporary error message, if an unauthorized change to the pages in the database or anomolous redirect is detected, or the proper procedure was not followed.
Perhaps, but probably only his privacy and security. He can't give up the advertising revenue; it's FB's lifeblood.
fixed IP addresses anyway; just like our currently fixed phone numbers
IP addresses are a characteristic of the network equipment is plugged into, not a characteristic of the equipment itself.
If you take your laptop to a coffee shop and plug in, your IP address will change, even with IPv6. (Unless you tunnel to a machine with a fixed IP)
You can always tunnel to a machine outside jurisdictions that require retention.
Though I suppose it won't be too long before governments require ISPs to wiretap your connection and make records about which subscribers are using encrypted tunnels and how often/when/where/etc
Shall we require walmart to stamp every inch of duct tape with a serial number, and retain records for every single customer of all items purchased, so we can map the unique id to a customer?
Are we forgetting the real concern here? Privacy is a concern for end users. But for large ISPs, a problem is cost and technical capability of storing precise information.
And the fact that tracking by ISPs is easily circumvented by tunnelling, proxying, and wireless.
Due to widespread NAT, a single IP address doesn't even map to an individual user, and the collection of usage data by the ISP for any significant amount of time is basically useless.
Since a reliable trace/track can only be performed for a short time. Once a few hours have passed, the 'tracked' computer can easily be moved. It may not even belong to the subscriber; particularly in WiFi, public place, and various other scenarios.
And, since you ignored the RFC (5290) that comes up first when you Google for "best-effort rfc"
Google is not the RFC Index. RFC 5290 definitely doesn't define the terminology used by the differentiated services standards. When people speak of 'best effort' in regards to QoS, they are referring to the definition as it is defined in the differentiated services, and major router vendors use the same terminology, so this is what is accepted by the language using community.
Apparently you missed the heading of RFC 5290.
Status of This Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. IESG Note
The content of this RFC was at one time considered by the IETF, and therefore it may resemble a current IETF work in progress or a published IETF work.
This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.
The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for any purpose and notes that the decision to publish is not based on IETF review apart from IESG review for conflict with IETF work.
As well as the part of RFC 2474 that states accordingly
I think this unattractive to true spammers due to the $0.01 per hundred messages charge, and they'll just be terminated anyways. The real spammers send millions of messages a day, most of them to invalid recipients that never get anywhere.
Most spam abuse of SES is likely to come from the uninformed, or misguided newbies.
As described on amazon's site
:
Sorry, I meant to refer to "connectionless" networks, not packet-switched. You obviously can have packets on both types of network.
Worn out arguments about packet vs circuit switching really have no relevance.
Nowadays you can oversubscribe circuit switched networks; and you can have packet switched networks with guarantees -- few/nobody might do it, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
QoS is about guaranteeing an aggregate service level anyways, not about guaranteeing the delivery of each individual packet, which can die for a multitude of reasons.
Just like when you try to call someone on the phone, there might not be a free circuit available, the cat might have eaten part of the phone cord, caused a brief short, and then it momentarily came back to normal in the middle of your conversation.
QoS in this case is about the system dropping other people's ongoing call to free up a circuit for someone who just dialed 911. That doesn't mean the dropped call was not treated with best effort; it's just that there is prioritization and overriding consideration (based on policy).
Extreme circumstances (such as hardware failures) will cause guarantees not to be met, regardless of technology.
But aside from those, you can make certain guarantees in regards to packet switched networks, and QoS is a name for the toolbox of things that let you make those (often very limited) guarantees.
This is totally, 100% wrong. "best effort" refers to the fact that in packet-switched networks, there are NO GUARANTEES whether a packet will reach its destination.
Bzzt... wrong.
Did it not occur to you that what exactly 'best effort' entails depends on the context in which it is used?
If you tell your kid you want them to put in their Best Effort to get an A in chemistry; this does not mean you want them to violate rules of the system (such as looking at another student's paper during the test, stealing the answer key, etc).
When we are talking about QoS, the accepted definition for best effort is noted in RFC2474, RFC 3644
rfc 2474,
So, that would be their best effort, then?
No, that is incorrect. The treatment of prioritized VoIP traffic can be properly called above best effort, however, in QoS terms.
That doesn't make any sense. If they are really making their best effort, it would be the same as guaranteed priority.
You're missing the point. These are accepted industry terms, not subject to dispute by people who think they know something about computer networking. Suggesting there is something wrong with the terms is just equivalent to brandishing your own errors/lack of understanding:
Quality of services clases impose constraints on the system, by assigning traffic to different queues with different sizes and latency/drop preferences. The priority queues are constraints, and not to be violated in order to deliver a packet. They are usually of a fixed size, so even some packets from prioritized streams can wind up dropped into lower priority classes.
Best effort refers to the best effort to deliver packets in that class, without violating any constraints imposed on the system.
Priority queues are constraints; packets in a higher priority queue cannot be dropped at a higher rate than allowed, for the purpose of delivering best effort packets.
Best effort is basically near the very bottom. The only worse traffic class is called Less than best effort; typically applied to non-drop non-latency sensitive traffic such as bulk transfers, e.g. FTP, FXP, SMB, Peer to Peer networks, sometimes SMTP.
That said, this sounds like a disruptive technology so either its bullshit or some large oil companies will buy up the tech and bury it until they run out of oil to sell at ridiculously high prices.
For them to buy it up, the owners of the tech would have to offer them that opportunity. They might be more interested in producing oil at a $30 per barrel cost to them, and selling at the predominant market rate, with care not to overproduce.
That would likely provide a continuous stream of much larger revenue much larger than an oil company would be willing to pay.
Maybe... maybe not... just because someone asked them if they'd be willing to consider that deal does not necessarily mean Youtube will go asking for that deal.
I think the best thing for the internet right now, would be for anyone trying to make a deal like that to be exposed publicly, so the public can choose whether they still want to patronize that web site.
Except for the fact that it doesn't make any sense. How can it be the "best effort" if something can be prioritised ahead of it?
It makes perfect sense. When a QoS scheme is being designed; traffic is divided into classes, and (typically) each class is assigned to queues based on priority; each queue has a certain size.
The class that is not associated with any priority queue at all is called "best effort". The reason it is called best effort, is, unlike other traffic classes -- there is no priority or reservation.
Other traffic has priority in the form of something close to a guarantee; meaning, if prioritized traffic does not exceed the size of the priority queue, it is guaranteed to be delivered even in the face of congestion. Whereas the remaining traffic is just "best effort".
The traffic that is best effort will be delivered if possible (in the face of congestion), but it might be dropped, best effort is weaker than guaranteed priority.
equip the pilots with multiple screens showing feeds from cameras scattered strategically around the outside of the aircraft.
I'm in favor of equipping commercial aircraft with tactical air to ground missiles that lock on to the source of green laser light and detonate, covering the perpetrator with hot pink paint and simultaneously dispatching local authorities to arrest the moron.
Unfortunatly the human eye sees green as the brightest colour. If you're putting filters on the pilot's eyes, he'll be seeing less at night, or in foggy conditions or something similar.
In foggy conditions, the pilot does not need to wear this protection, as fog attenuates laser light.
and just beat the shit out of them for being well on their way towards having those fun laser pointers banned completely?
Even that won't stop these idiots, because they already possess the laser pointers, and they won't magically vanish from their possession just because a ban is passed.
Only plants which tie the CO2 up in wood or which get burried and turned into oil take more out of the atmostphere than they put back.
Ok... if these plants (cyanobacteria) produce hydrocarbons, when they photosynthesize, which contain carbon, then where does the CO2 they respire come from?
Perhaps if they produced an excess of oil, and pumped it back into the earth for safe keeping, there would be a net reduction of atmospheric CO2.
Whatever you think of global warming, pollution is nasty, and giving us such delightful things as asthma.
Ok... well.. mining operations aren't too environmentally friendly either. Something interesting about this bacteria... consider, cyanobacteria produces its energy through photosynthesis.
That means, if this bacteria is used over massive acres to produce oil, using sunlight and air, it will fix CO2, releasing O2 and the hydrocarbons.
This is overall more favorable for the environment than extracting from the ground and burning it, because extracting from the ground and burning it results in a net release of CO2.
But if the petro is produced by cyanobacteria, some CO2 molecules had to be fixed for every hydrocarbon molecules released, so this could actually be beneficial (even if there is still some pollution).
Now we just need a bacterial fuel additive to eliminate CO2 emissions :)