"I assume you are implying that checking the history doesn't verify anything."
Nonono! That's not at all. It was an entirely sarcasm-free post.
I really am impressed that someone actually checked the history to determine the trustwortiness of the article. In my experience, most people just make a snap judgement one way or the other without checking up.
To be more precise, the OpenBSD team's response was to acknowledge the problem and agree to fix it first, and then go nuclear over form.
The resulting flamewars were not constructive, and neither is the current one. The last one left a lot of bad feelings on both sides, and I expect this one will be no different.
I suspect folks are making a big deal out of it because of a recent brouhaha in which an OpenBSD developer mistakenly made GPL-code available in a BSD-licensed CVS tree. OpenBSD acknowledged and fixed the problem really quickly, but there was still a big stink about it and how it was handled that left bad feelings on both sides.
Now a Linux developer has been seen doing something that at first glance looks worse, so I suppose we can expect another flamewar even if it turns out to be no big deal.
I am not directly involved with the OpenBSD project. However I am an OpenBSD user and (small) donor, and I do appreciate their attitude towards software freedom.
Asking strictly for myself, and without any knowledge about who you are or what your projects are, would you please relicense them to add the ISC license?
I am not directly involved with the OpenBSD project. However I am an OpenBSD user and (small) donor, and I do appreciate their attitude towards software freedom.
Asking strictly for myself, and without any knowledge about who you are or what your projects are, would you please relicense them to add the ISC license?
"Whoever came up with the water fountain analogy above was right on the money."
Agreed. To extend it a bit, the water fountain is accessible without stepping off the sidewalk. (The sidewalk being a public right-of-way on private property, similar to the unlicensed EM spectrum.)
"They need to be designed such that it would be impossible to to access a network without prior *human* authorization."
They have that capability even with WEP. (Yes, I know it's trivially easy to break WEP, but there are many crappy locks in the world, too. Cracking a WEP key and picking a lock are almost identical acions in their effect; both should be illegal for people who don't own what the lock protects. What's more, nearly everything sold today supports WPA or WPA2, which are harder to break than nearly any physical lock.)
And while in an ideal world you may be right, that's not what the reality is now. Remember that when you buy a door or a fence gate from the hardware store, it generally does not have a lock pre-installed; you must secure it yourself. Like access points, these devices take a little configuration to make their proper operation be non-public.
"This is a tech problem, not a legal problem."
The tech inherently offers several solutions - any of which is adequate but not ideal - and yet the law fails to recognize them. The law also (apparently) fails to distinguish between merely open and intentionally-shared networks; it seems the police could arrest a person for using a network without permission, and later find it to be an intentionally-shared network on which all comers are authorized. Together, IMHO, these issues make it a legal problem.
"You are tapping into a privately owned communicatons network."
Well, sure. But when out shopping I use privately-owned drinking fountains and toilets, too, and benefit greatly from private lighting and HVAC systems. I even walk on sidewalks which are, by and large, on a public easment of private property. There are plenty of privately-owned services which are publically available, and you probably use them most every day. Just because something is privately-owned doesn't mean it can't be shared.
Of course, I respect "No Tresspassing" signs, and "Private Road" signs, and - unless incredibly desperate - I'd never even ask to use the toilet in a place which posts "No Public Restrooms".
So why is wireless different? I'd argue it's not. The access point owner can, in any of several ways, post metaphorical "No Tresspassing" signs or fences around their network; these things are even included in the AP software. (Whereas "welcome" signs are not.*) These signs and fences - if posted - will be automatically respected by all devices attempting to casually connect. If the AP owner does not erect any of these barriers, why should a passerby not assume the network is provided as a public courtesy?
I understand fully that this argument is a political problem for geeks, by the way. But that doesn't preclude the possibility that the geeks have got this one right. We shouldn't be too quick to roll over in an attempt to be inoffensive.
[*: Although it's arguable that a broadcast SSID is itself a welcome sign, as it acts in every respect like an invitation.]
Not arguing that the law doesn't allow for prosecution. I'm arguing that it's a pretty stupid law.:-) Unauthorized access should be illegal, yes. But it would make more sense for "unauthorized" to be defined such that the user is only in violation if they actually break a security layer.
If I am in a public place and my laptop is receiving a broadcast on unlicensed spectrum using a public protocol that includes SSID from an access point, and if the protocol tells my computer that the AP is unsecured, and if a connection attempt grants me an IP, a route, and net access, why is it unsafe to assume that it is in fact an intentionally shared AP? And if I don't want to assume that, how do I determine whom to ask for permission?
The AP owner has got to take some responsibility here.
"But that EM radiation is converted into a signal that travels along their wired internet connection. And if you use X bandwidth, that's X bandwidth that they can no longer use"
Certainly true, and I'll buy the (somewhat dodgy) argument that deprivation of (possibly unused) bandwidth could be theft.
However, it becomes a very hard argument if an unauthorized user connects to a securable but unsecured access point, then gets a DHCP response with a default route, and then the default router passes traffic. The host network computers act in every meaningful way as if the intruder is allowed, so why should the unauthorized user assume differently?
It's quite another thing if one breaks a security layer (even WEP) or manually sets their IP without getting a DHCP response, though.
The vehicle fell from only about 20 feet. Much too low for a parachute. As the repost above says, their failure analysis is already pretty much complete. They know what went wrong to cause the condition that led to the fall.
Although it seems like they think a little more analysis and procedure documentation might have saved them a vehicle here.
I lurk on an amateur rocketry mailing list where a few AA personnel participate, and it's interesting to read about their opinion of lessons learned. Between this and the Scaled accident I think they'll be a bit more cautious and deliberate for a while.
Texel was one of two essentially identical vehicles that Armadillo put together last year for the Lunar Lander Challenge. The other is Pixel, which is the one they actually flew last year (and that had a good shot at winning) at the LLC level 1 event. Pixel is still flightworthy. This crash of Texel doesn't take them out of the LLC race, although it will lower their chances of success; it is going to make them much more cautious about banging Pixel up ahead of the next LLC competition and therefore they'll get flight less testing in.
They're also working on a set of new vehicles they call Modules, of which I gather they have one essentially complete and five in production.
It'd be a shame if the proxy-advertising spam simply told the censors which sites to add to their national filter's blacklist... which seems like the most obvious result.
Besides, who among the intended proxy users would trust a proxy advertised via spam? Personally, I'd assume a proxy address I'd been spammed with is a sting-proxy set up by the censors as a way of identifying censorship evaders.
"You hear lots of stories about people who, say, build a house next to a pasture full of cows because they love they idea of living close to "nature", and then start trying to get city ordinances passed to require the rancher to control the smell and the flies."
Yep. Oregon recently lost its last rendering plant due to this effect, and there was a tannery in Sherwood that had to close a couple years after a subdivision went in across the street. When these things were built their inevitable nasty smells weren't a problem because they had no close neighbors... that's why they located where they did. But after many years of having no problems, suburban sprawl wiped 'em out.
Slashdot Mirror
See politicalcompass.org for an explanation of why describing libertarians as left-wing or right-wing is not very useful.
Remember kids, "data" is not the plural form of "anecdote".
I've read that in a bunch of places, but I have yet to see a supporting study.
"I assume you are implying that checking the history doesn't verify anything."
Nonono! That's not at all. It was an entirely sarcasm-free post.
I really am impressed that someone actually checked the history to determine the trustwortiness of the article. In my experience, most people just make a snap judgement one way or the other without checking up.
Not to mention how nifty it is that he actually checked the history on the wikipedia entry before deciding to trust it.
Hmm. Maybe it's too good to be true, and it's just cleverly-crafted sarcasm?
No worries. It sounded like you were just waiting for someone to ask, so I thought I'd ask. :-)
Which was also the exact same situation which sparked the previous flamewar, only that time it was a BSD developer's mistake.
Folks - on both sides - need to cut each other a bit of slack and assume goodwill.
"The OpenBSD team's response was to go nuclear."
To be more precise, the OpenBSD team's response was to acknowledge the problem and agree to fix it first, and then go nuclear over form.
The resulting flamewars were not constructive, and neither is the current one. The last one left a lot of bad feelings on both sides, and I expect this one will be no different.
Sigh.
I suspect folks are making a big deal out of it because of a recent brouhaha in which an OpenBSD developer mistakenly made GPL-code available in a BSD-licensed CVS tree. OpenBSD acknowledged and fixed the problem really quickly, but there was still a big stink about it and how it was handled that left bad feelings on both sides.
Now a Linux developer has been seen doing something that at first glance looks worse, so I suppose we can expect another flamewar even if it turns out to be no big deal.
I am not directly involved with the OpenBSD project. However I am an OpenBSD user and (small) donor, and I do appreciate their attitude towards software freedom.
Asking strictly for myself, and without any knowledge about who you are or what your projects are, would you please relicense them to add the ISC license?
Thanks!
(No Funny mods, please... I'm quite serious.)
I am not directly involved with the OpenBSD project. However I am an OpenBSD user and (small) donor, and I do appreciate their attitude towards software freedom.
Asking strictly for myself, and without any knowledge about who you are or what your projects are, would you please relicense them to add the ISC license?
Thanks!
(No Funny mods, please... I'm quite serious.)
"Whoever came up with the water fountain analogy above was right on the money."
Agreed. To extend it a bit, the water fountain is accessible without stepping off the sidewalk. (The sidewalk being a public right-of-way on private property, similar to the unlicensed EM spectrum.)
"They need to be designed such that it would be impossible to to access a network without prior *human* authorization."
They have that capability even with WEP. (Yes, I know it's trivially easy to break WEP, but there are many crappy locks in the world, too. Cracking a WEP key and picking a lock are almost identical acions in their effect; both should be illegal for people who don't own what the lock protects. What's more, nearly everything sold today supports WPA or WPA2, which are harder to break than nearly any physical lock.)
And while in an ideal world you may be right, that's not what the reality is now. Remember that when you buy a door or a fence gate from the hardware store, it generally does not have a lock pre-installed; you must secure it yourself. Like access points, these devices take a little configuration to make their proper operation be non-public.
"This is a tech problem, not a legal problem."
The tech inherently offers several solutions - any of which is adequate but not ideal - and yet the law fails to recognize them. The law also (apparently) fails to distinguish between merely open and intentionally-shared networks; it seems the police could arrest a person for using a network without permission, and later find it to be an intentionally-shared network on which all comers are authorized. Together, IMHO, these issues make it a legal problem.
"You are tapping into a privately owned communicatons network."
Well, sure. But when out shopping I use privately-owned drinking fountains and toilets, too, and benefit greatly from private lighting and HVAC systems. I even walk on sidewalks which are, by and large, on a public easment of private property. There are plenty of privately-owned services which are publically available, and you probably use them most every day. Just because something is privately-owned doesn't mean it can't be shared.
Of course, I respect "No Tresspassing" signs, and "Private Road" signs, and - unless incredibly desperate - I'd never even ask to use the toilet in a place which posts "No Public Restrooms".
So why is wireless different? I'd argue it's not. The access point owner can, in any of several ways, post metaphorical "No Tresspassing" signs or fences around their network; these things are even included in the AP software. (Whereas "welcome" signs are not.*) These signs and fences - if posted - will be automatically respected by all devices attempting to casually connect. If the AP owner does not erect any of these barriers, why should a passerby not assume the network is provided as a public courtesy?
I understand fully that this argument is a political problem for geeks, by the way. But that doesn't preclude the possibility that the geeks have got this one right. We shouldn't be too quick to roll over in an attempt to be inoffensive.
[*: Although it's arguable that a broadcast SSID is itself a welcome sign, as it acts in every respect like an invitation.]
"Not my problem the FCC is a bunch of idiots"
I wouldn't be so hard on them. If it weren't for unlicensed spectrum, you'd probably have no wireless network at all.
Not arguing that the law doesn't allow for prosecution. I'm arguing that it's a pretty stupid law. :-) Unauthorized access should be illegal, yes. But it would make more sense for "unauthorized" to be defined such that the user is only in violation if they actually break a security layer.
If I am in a public place and my laptop is receiving a broadcast on unlicensed spectrum using a public protocol that includes SSID from an access point, and if the protocol tells my computer that the AP is unsecured, and if a connection attempt grants me an IP, a route, and net access, why is it unsafe to assume that it is in fact an intentionally shared AP? And if I don't want to assume that, how do I determine whom to ask for permission?
The AP owner has got to take some responsibility here.
"But that EM radiation is converted into a signal that travels along their wired internet connection. And if you use X bandwidth, that's X bandwidth that they can no longer use"
Certainly true, and I'll buy the (somewhat dodgy) argument that deprivation of (possibly unused) bandwidth could be theft.
However, it becomes a very hard argument if an unauthorized user connects to a securable but unsecured access point, then gets a DHCP response with a default route, and then the default router passes traffic. The host network computers act in every meaningful way as if the intruder is allowed, so why should the unauthorized user assume differently?
It's quite another thing if one breaks a security layer (even WEP) or manually sets their IP without getting a DHCP response, though.
No such thing as "your" signal in an unlicensed band, either.
Doh! Yes, "Giga" is, in fact, not abbreviated with an "M".
I shall go flog myself forthwith.
Then stop stealing my sunlight, ya daft bastard! ... what? Sunlight can't be stolen, but 2.4MHz EM signals can? It's all EM radiation.
The vehicle fell from only about 20 feet. Much too low for a parachute. As the repost above says, their failure analysis is already pretty much complete. They know what went wrong to cause the condition that led to the fall.
Although it seems like they think a little more analysis and procedure documentation might have saved them a vehicle here.
I lurk on an amateur rocketry mailing list where a few AA personnel participate, and it's interesting to read about their opinion of lessons learned. Between this and the Scaled accident I think they'll be a bit more cautious and deliberate for a while.
Texel was one of two essentially identical vehicles that Armadillo put together last year for the Lunar Lander Challenge. The other is Pixel, which is the one they actually flew last year (and that had a good shot at winning) at the LLC level 1 event. Pixel is still flightworthy. This crash of Texel doesn't take them out of the LLC race, although it will lower their chances of success; it is going to make them much more cautious about banging Pixel up ahead of the next LLC competition and therefore they'll get flight less testing in.
They're also working on a set of new vehicles they call Modules, of which I gather they have one essentially complete and five in production.
There is a catalytic heat and steam source using hydrogen peroxide as fuel, but I can't find a rocket anywhere in TFA other than in the headline.
It'd be a shame if the proxy-advertising spam simply told the censors which sites to add to their national filter's blacklist... which seems like the most obvious result.
Besides, who among the intended proxy users would trust a proxy advertised via spam? Personally, I'd assume a proxy address I'd been spammed with is a sting-proxy set up by the censors as a way of identifying censorship evaders.
"You hear lots of stories about people who, say, build a house next to a pasture full of cows because they love they idea of living close to "nature", and then start trying to get city ordinances passed to require the rancher to control the smell and the flies."
Yep. Oregon recently lost its last rendering plant due to this effect, and there was a tannery in Sherwood that had to close a couple years after a subdivision went in across the street. When these things were built their inevitable nasty smells weren't a problem because they had no close neighbors... that's why they located where they did. But after many years of having no problems, suburban sprawl wiped 'em out.