deliver their symmetric gigabit uncapped, unfiltered
Please reconcile that deception with these terms of service:
(Note, after 9 months of being lied to and ignored by the FCC, this complaint will supposedly be "served" to google on Monday, according to Rosemary McHenry at the FCC's Enforcement Beaureau) --- FCC NetNeutrality 2000F Complaint REF# 12-C00422224 --- Google's current Terms Of Service[1] for their fixed broadband internet service being deployed initially here in Kansas City, Kansas, contain this text-
"You agree not to misuse the Services. This includes but is not limited to using the Services for purposes that are illegal, are improper, infringe the rights of others, or adversely impact others enjoyment of the Services. A list of examples of prohibited activities appears here. "
where 'here' is a hyperlink[2] to a page including this text- "Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do so, you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber connection"
In my professional opinion as a graduate in Computer Engineering from the University of Kansas (and incidentally brother of a google VP) I believe these terms of service are in violation of FCC-10-201.
IMHO the reason it will or won't happen is entirely up to the FCC and their Network Neutrality rules. I believe the NetNeutrality rules as written (10-201) protect the fully symmetry of the internet. I.e. my right for clients on the internet to not be blocked from my server, even if my server is sitting in my living room connected to GoogleFiber as my residential ISP. Google, and historically the FCC, have seemed to disagree, and believe it is the place of residential citizens to not host servers that compete with gmail/facebook/skype/etc, and instead know their place as *consumers* of content, rather than *producers* and *distributors* and *publishers* of content. Until the FCC and Google realize that *all* internet end users should demand the "right to serve"[1] the market for home server software can be considered to be well and truly muzzled.
While the secrecy and surveillance in the US are worthy of criticism, Chinese people like myself can still see some clear differences. For example, where are dissenting CPC members when it comes to censorship, targeting of journalists, jailing of political writers? Where are the Leahys and Pauls of Chinese government? What happens to the Glenn Greenwalds and Noam Chomskys of Chinese journalism and academia?
Indeed. The recent NSA revelations are quite bad, but there is a long way to go between that, and forbidding journalistic coverage of Tiananmen Square in '89. That Google/Yahoo/Microsoft saw fit to collaborate with that censorship while building their digital financial empire of data and servers on the internet...
honestly on my end, it was in part due to the fact that I had had to immediately end a #2 ahead of schedule to take the call. On her end, my best guess is that it could betray a slight sense of non-straightforwardness that is not hidden by the fact that the complaint has remained live, and unanswered with a single sentence of explanation for 9 months now. And how it might relate to the interrellation between my complaint and it's fight to enable U.S.A. citizens to host their data on their own services on their own servers at their own homes. (GoogleFiber prohibits any kind of server hosting for residential users in terms of service, and selectively enforces, effectively putting a muzzle on the market for home-server software that could compete with things like gmail/ghangouts/skype/etc)
Incoming from 717 338 2772 to 785 979 7723, 13:26CDT 2013/06/12 -- A: Anna Baughman, FCC Consumer and Governmental Affairs D: Douglas McClendon -- A: Hi, it's Anna from the FCC, how are you?
D: Hi, I'm OK, uh, I don't suppose I could call you back in 5 minutes
A: Well, Um, Actually I'm leaving here in 5 minutes
D: Oh, never mind then, it's not that big a deal
A: I just wanted to let you know that umm we are again having the Enforcement Beaureu look at this complaint and someone from that office will be in contact with you... we are not ignoring you
D: (laughs) Ok, that's nice to know, umm, I, I have been worried and the fact that I suppose after nine months (A: right) i can say that its still under some kind of enforcement review should indicate to me that there is at least you believe there is at least some substance even if its confused that you need to educate me about right?
A: right, but we're going to um, i just spoke with my supervisor again and we're going to um hopefully, well no we *will*, someone from E.B. will be in contact with you (D: and). It may take a couple of days but we are on/
D: Ok, a couple days, but, but, not a couple weeks? but not a couple weeks, or a couple months?
A: I would say next week sometime
D: Ok, so if I don't hear back in, if I don't hear back in 2 weeks then I can be worried or call back and start annoying you again
A: just call me back, feel free to call me back anytime but if you want to hang tight for a week or two
D: that thats fine, as long as you tell me that things are being worked on that thats the feedback I need to know to stop bugging you every day
A: Oh, well that's OK, Oh all right, well you have a good day
his point was that he believes it is possible. You apparently disagree. My own assessment is that it is possible, or, with the current trajectory of technology and social usage of it, will become possible in the near term (10 years). The way to combat it in my opinion, is to view the sorts that engage in it as criminals, and violaters of the constitution. The silicon valley types like to say "the perception is the reality". If we perceive these people as being legitimate, reasonable actors in our society... well, it's gonna be unfun in my opinion. But if we perceive them as criminals, and engage in an engineering war against them (i.e. I use duct tape to cover the camera on my mobile devices phones, but if we were at war with the spooks, there would be reasonable market share of phones with hard dip switch banks to cut the power/signal to the cam, mic, accelerometers, antennas, etc. I may be deluding myself that such physical things will be useful for long with ever shrinking scale nanotech. But the fact that anyone who has tried has failed utterly, due, I think to the buying public's lack of education about what these devices are really being used for (by the 'other users' of 'their' device), then I think such products would have at least somewhat succeeded in the market in the last 10 years. But it seems more that the NSA has successfully suppressed technical literacy to the point where our populace is ripe for the surveillance harvesting.
1. automated more efficient and thus more financially profitable marketing and advertising.
2. political persecution. It's hard to get away with an old-school execution style A-list B-list purge, though certainly correlating the accelerometer data of mobile phones with the words on the web page visible at that second makes the list sorting much easier, if you don't care much about some false positives. And you can get your B list down from 50% to 1%, because computer targeting based on aggregated data really just is that good.
3. insider trading.
4. ratfucking anyone and everyone, from your brother, to the local congresscritter's close relatives under the age 14 that you don't like.
5. lots more shit that would keep me more awake at night than I can afford if I bothered to not repress the thoughts.
Suffer an even higher level of scrutiny that they will never know about because it is secret?
Or are you suggesting that there are or will be innocent people who, based on "false positives" are actually tried and convicted for crimes that they haven't committed.
Both pure capitalism, and pure communism work great... *in theory*. In practice, you find out that when people are not 'like minded' ('hive minded'), things work out much more messily. The people who suffer the higher level of scrutiny will come to know it. Secrets don't stay secret. And you don't have to be convicted of a crime, to have your livelyhood, and abiity to help provide for and protect your family extremely compromised. It is not the "non-misuse" of these systems that is most worrying (even though I do find it patently objectionable). It is the innevitable, and so vast it's almost unquantifiable temptation to abuse these systems for financial and other predatory gain (the prey being those without equivalent access to the systems), that will lead to their extreme abuse. Think the SS, or the Stasi. The end of the road is a 24/7 camera aimed at your bed, and your involuntary choice to have faith that such a system will be used to the benefit of you or humanity, and not as a tool for its sale into cyberslavery.
residential citizens are almost universally prohibited from running servers via terms of service and lack of competing alternatives with equivalent bandwidth rates and better terms of service. This is the blueprint for how a dictatorship can control the internet. Star topology. Centralized Services and tap points. Distributed encrypted communication like that of pgp/gpg combined with smtp node servers including your local workstation (a system familiar to old geeks) is simply not an option in a dictatorship, because, strong encryption is pretty strong.
best 4 score 0 post thread I've read ever probably. Lets enjoy this spectacle while it lasts. I for one, will pray that things get more better than worse. I say the three of us form a fake betting pool for fun, speculating on when the next spectacle will be, that involves the govt engaging in slurping mic and camvideo data from mobile phones when they are not making calls. We can make a seperate pool for when the next spectacle after that happens, and it is discovered that they have been slurping the same sensor data while the phone is allegedly 'off' (soft-off reprogrammed to be a black-screen, silent audio and leds app).
Good thing there is a good corn crop each year (here in my home state where I've been openly growing cannabis for the last 18 months or so). We'll never run out of popcorn.
you sound a little like the Ayn Randian Libertarian I was 20 years ago. I suggest you pay a little more attention to the intimacy that our relatively recent history with outright slavery, and subtler forms of exploiting those who in various large subsets of humanity, have had their freedom of speech severely curtailed with no recourse to any effective system of justice.
Not only do I think your final sentence borders on silly (that the person you are replying to is the 'root cause' of these woes), but I think you are generally wrong. Having social safety nets in place, amongst a system that is almost unavoidably quite leisse-fair predatory (predatory in the sense that some of the winners are completely content winning while directly profiting from some of the losers that they are clearly, directly, stifling the free speech or other rights of)-... is a good idea.
Now, I do believe that charity should generally be voluntary. But giving a person shelter, food, and clothing, rather than watching them waste away in the elements, is not only a pleasant thing to do, but also overall net profitable to everyone who failed to see the better wisdom of putting forth the effort necessary to have those safety nets sufficiently in place that there is no demand for a governmental safety net.
While it might be logical and judicial to impeach Obama for this, in a colorblind way, I think we need to remember that his is the first non-white male leader of a nation with a relatively recent history of slavery against a large portion of his racial heritage.
But your general point, that the justice system has become farcical due to the unpunished justice of the prior administration, is spot on.
I myself therapeutically grow cannabis in the Free State of Kansas.
So what do I do when my Congressmen already publicly appose these tactics yet I have the suspicion that they privately support them? The two party system is working out well for the US. Either vote someone in who publicly discards your privacy or vote someone in who will denounce the very thing they're doing.
I think the standard answer is- get a job, work hard, get trust (misplaced or not), power, and money, then get access to the systems that are ripe for abuse. Then you will face a moral dilemna. On the one hand you could abuse those systems to gain more power and money. On the other hand you could pretend that they don't exist. On the other other hand, you could become an NSA whistleblower, and wonder what they will do to your wife and kids at GITMO. It's a toughey.
And those that stayed to fight could be correctly described as "militants", no?
Only if your intent was to mislead spectators of this debate. Since clearly these "militants" would actually be fighting _against_ the subset of "militants" that the U.S. forces were fighting against.
So for the purposes of this discussion, *NO*, the people in group B would not be called "militants" because at least superficially, they are specifically the kind of resident native that our government at least claims to be interested in protecting, not executing.
Or perhaps I'm too intoxicated to be trying to parse your sentence. But the general idea is that there are some "militants" in foreign countries whose goal is to slaughter as many civilian US citizens as possible. And there are some "militants" whose goal is stay in their home and raise their families, and wish to harm no US citizen blindly (now, they may have a personal beef with somebody, but they aren't out to kill citizens due to their specific citizenship). And from where I'm standing, it seems like your comment was meant to somehow confuse the two groups. Probably your just a semantic troll. But we are talking about killing people, via remote control, who bore the unfortune of having parents who fucked in a part of the world that decades later happened to become very dangerous for people that stubbornly just want to live in the land they were born in. And the more of those we kill, and literally propogandistically write off as "militants", the more dozens of people will fantasize about suicide missions killing the appeasing populace of the country that accidentally droned their family member to bits, for being the wrong gender, and age, and skin color, in the wrong geographic region that happened to be their homeland, at the wrong time. Or so it seems to me.
Former FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has had since September 2012 to respond to my complaint about GoogleFiber joining the "any kind of server prohibited to residential ISP internet users". His administration at the FCC refused to give me in all this time, a single sentence explaining to me whether they agreed with any or all of my complaint that started as a sub-1000 character 2000F complaint, and evolved to a 53 page small font dead tree document delivered by the office of my state's Attorney General asking them to take the issue back over. That was back in 2012 as well. I still wait for a single sentence suggesting whether or not network neutrality can be thought of bidirectionally, in the naturally as-designed symmetric InternetProtocol(v6 in this case), as giving consumers a right to provide their own independent (of any mandated corporate or government service affiliation) service via servers connected to their "neutral" residential internet jack.
Insightful? No. Bush('s administration) tortured and otherwise intimidated enough people that he was never held accountable for war crimes. "Within the law", no, I live in a different mental universe than you.
I currently have an outstanding 53 page complaint with the FCC about how GoogleFiber's ISP terms of services seem disturbingly like a network-neutrality-hypocrisy-of-the-first-order attempt to prevent ordinary citizens from being able to deploy home-hosted services that are functional competitors to gmail. But Dave Schroeder, the Navy Information Warfare Officer who posts here, is still naive enough to think that this issue isn't about taking citizens servers and the empowerment that they manifest away from them.
XBone is full of spying gear.. don't buy one. Problem solved.
Not exactly. Every android and iOS phone is nearly as bad. People who are able to doublethink have remained aware of this for the past decade. I mean seriously, use the android tricorder app and look how sensitive those accelerometers are. The thing can measure my fucking pulserate as I read webpages. I only own one because I'm the type that is so far gone they've already written their all-american orwellian self published scifi novel.
You're glib answer to the "your papers please" question is historically equivalent to "don't like showing your papers? don't leave your own property".
These human rights violaters need to to be stopped. There should have been outrage when yahoo turned over email account information to China, a government known for massacring it's own citizens when they engaged in peaceful demonstration for democracy (in '89, as the doubelethinking chinese know it). There should have been outrage, when Google boosted it's profits and entrenched its market share and destroyed it's competition by partnering with the Chinese government to filter their internet-worldview of any dangerous reference to "Tiananmen Square" that otherwise had statistically significant results via Google's pagerank algorithm.
You are right, the government is still scared shitless of us (not much different than any other time in history when radicals threatened the established dominance of the white-male of the species).
The problem is that the powers of persuasion that technology has enabled for the government are so horrifying, that we are beginning to finally see defectors like this. It gives me some hope.
I think someone erred and the first line should read something like "Forbes journalists writes..." rather than "jahard writes". Unless of course user jahard is the same person as the Forbes reporter, in which case disregard. But being the penultimate Google "Hater", I figured I'd take the time to spill some of that deserved hate on/., if appropriate.
In what way is Google Glass significantly more threatening with regards to privacy than the situation of ubiquitous camera embedded in cell phones situation that we already have today, where probably 7 out of every 10 people you see are carrying something they could use to take pictures or video at any time anyways?
agree, strongly. Thanks for the vocalizing of the issue which has been remarkably off the public debate radar for the last 10 years.
Secondly, actively *highly* secret recording devices, like spy cameras and the like, which can be embedded in glasses or other very inconspicuous places, far less noticeable than Glass, have been available for quite some time. In what way does Google Glass pose a greater threat to privacy than devices like these? Why is there not a similar interest in banning such devices, which anyone is perfectly permitted to buy?
agree again.
I'm not saying that critics who are concerned about privacy are wrong because of the above points, but I'm personally very interested in how critics of Glass would address those issues
Thanks in advance.
Well, I guess I addressed them by agreeing with them. And I think the emphasis of my remaining 'criticism' here (other than being a Google critic for network neutrality hypocrisy[1]), is that I find enlightening the recent lawsuits against android manufacturers that they patch or replace known insecure consumer mobile phones in operation. That issue, and at least what makes it a real issue even if you disagree with the prescribed solution, is a big deal. And Google Glass is just a little I/O attachment for mobile phones. Bluetooth headset +video in/out. Ok, whatever.
Look up Kansas City Startup Village. It is a small business park that has Google fiber. Kansas City and Google both brag about this. There are many businesses in there that host servers and Google does not care. Google is actively encouraging Internet start ups.
This issue to me, is about what an average, er, *every* average joe should be able to expect from something sold as an "internet service". I believe it means the full use of the *symmetric* nature of the Internet Protocol (v6 as advertised here).
Comparing apples to oranges, but the "No Servers" in the ToS is similar to the Google Docs ToS requiring that you give them copyright permissions.
Uhh... right, yeah, both those things sound pretty insane and in need of sanity rewriting to me (as you described them).
The legalistic nature of the USA effectively makes ISPs put in a "No Server" clause, otherwise the ISP would have nothing to fall back on if someone was using the network is an obviously abusive manner.
This is the kind of line I might expect to hear from Google's defense lawyers. But it is stupid if you actually read it as something purporting to be a logical sentence. I.e. it is *precisely* the legalistic nature of the USA that gives everyone involved *countless* methods of fallback if someone is enganging in using the network in an obviously abusive manner. I've heard defenses that complain about making it easier to set up phishing fake sites. I.e. my own paypal website with the content copied to my own apache server and malicious code added. You know what laws that violates? Fraud. Logo/trademark. Copyright. And probably no less than a dozen others. It is purely insane to suggest that cutting off the power of hosting servers/services to the vast class of internet users known as residential users is the only way to deal with such things. Again, it is *precisely* the legalistic nature of the USA that makes such a "No Server" clause as the only claimed solution to those issues, INSANE!!!
I have a local ISP that has a ToS that explicitly states that they are net neutral. You cannot "host servers", but they also state that they will not watch your traffic for any reason other than requested by law or by the end user and they will not traffic shape or block any traffic. Well then, why put in a "No Server" clause in your ToS if you have no way of detecting? If you decide to host up a service and a competitor decides to DDoS your connection and the ISP goes, WTF is this 10Gb of traffic hitting our trunk?! Then they can fall-back to the ToS and say "You're running a server, stop it or get disconnected".
translation: protecting against DDoS on the internet is hard. real solution: by making the problem of DDoSd servers something that can happen to everyone interested in hosting a server, not only a minute fraction of people, more effective mitigation and prevention means will be engineered. Every existing server (and there are lots of them) suffer from this same threat, and their upstream ISPs have to deal with this. I genuinely don't believe that this is such an untractable problem of the day to day internet, that it's only solution is to cut off the empowering ability to host servers/services from the vast class of internet end points known as "residential users" Or again, regular people like you and me and the other 7 billion of us on the planet.
If the ISP has to drop traffic to your/my IP until the DDoS subsides because it is technically unable to do anything else, so be it. I'll use my time offline to contact the FBI and ask them what cybersecurity national resources they may have that might be interested in testing their abilities against my ongoing att
effectively makes ISPs put in a "No Server" clause, otherwise the ISP would have nothing to fall back on if someone was using the network is an obviously abusive manner.
and
Without that clause, the ISP would have no way to protect itself legally in a case like that
This is the logic that the ISP oligarchy would like to sell the masses on why things _have_(?!?) to be the way they are. These are obviously fallacious comments. Yes Google, if you defended yourself like this, I would simply call you god-damned liars.
There are many other legal methods of recourse an ISP (or *cough* the department of justice of the U.S.A.) has to deal with "obviously abusive" internet users, or DDoS attacks. Don't give me this bullshit about the only method of recourse being effectively shutting down the core _symmetric_ nature of the internet protocol to the vast swath of nodes known as "residential users". Which means "ordinary people, human beings like you and me, using the global information superhighway to communicate and conduct business with friends and neighbors across the globe".
That would be like outlawying knives as eating utensils, because it was the only way the authorities could fight the threat of stabbings.
And in this case, the reason the ISPs are trying to sell this line, is because they are entirely buddy buddy with the established form of the internet, and it's established moneymaking servers. And IPv6 and residentially hosted servers, are a very real, and I would say long awaited, threat to that established set of business models. You can call me delusional, insane, paranoid. But that is what I believe to be the real issue here.
Slashdot Mirror
deliver their symmetric gigabit uncapped, unfiltered
Please reconcile that deception with these terms of service:
(Note, after 9 months of being lied to and ignored by the FCC, this complaint will supposedly be "served" to google on Monday, according to Rosemary McHenry at the FCC's Enforcement Beaureau)
--- FCC NetNeutrality 2000F Complaint REF# 12-C00422224 ---
Google's current Terms Of Service[1] for their fixed broadband internet
service being deployed initially here in Kansas City, Kansas, contain
this text-
"You agree not to misuse the Services. This includes but is not limited
to using the Services for purposes that are illegal, are improper,
infringe the rights of others, or adversely impact others enjoyment of
the Services. A list of examples of prohibited activities appears here. "
where 'here' is a hyperlink[2] to a page including this text-
"Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do
so, you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber
connection"
In my professional opinion as a graduate in Computer Engineering from
the University of Kansas (and incidentally brother of a google VP) I
believe these terms of service are in violation of FCC-10-201.
[1] http://fiber.google.com/legal/terms.html [google.com]
[2]
http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2659981&topic=2440874&ctx=topic [google.com]
--- (end of form 2000F complaint text)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3106555&cid=41288357
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41530745
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41516877
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121007.pdf
IMHO the reason it will or won't happen is entirely up to the FCC and their Network Neutrality rules. I believe the NetNeutrality rules as written (10-201) protect the fully symmetry of the internet. I.e. my right for clients on the internet to not be blocked from my server, even if my server is sitting in my living room connected to GoogleFiber as my residential ISP. Google, and historically the FCC, have seemed to disagree, and believe it is the place of residential citizens to not host servers that compete with gmail/facebook/skype/etc, and instead know their place as *consumers* of content, rather than *producers* and *distributors* and *publishers* of content. Until the FCC and Google realize that *all* internet end users should demand the "right to serve"[1] the market for home server software can be considered to be well and truly muzzled.
[1] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3643919&cid=43438341
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3871729&cid=44023567
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3503531&cid=43033891
While the secrecy and surveillance in the US are worthy of criticism, Chinese people like myself can still see some clear differences. For example, where are dissenting CPC members when it comes to censorship, targeting of journalists, jailing of political writers? Where are the Leahys and Pauls of Chinese government? What happens to the Glenn Greenwalds and Noam Chomskys of Chinese journalism and academia?
Indeed. The recent NSA revelations are quite bad, but there is a long way to go between that, and forbidding journalistic coverage of Tiananmen Square in '89. That Google/Yahoo/Microsoft saw fit to collaborate with that censorship while building their digital financial empire of data and servers on the internet...
honestly on my end, it was in part due to the fact that I had had to immediately end a #2 ahead of schedule to take the call. On her end, my best guess is that it could betray a slight sense of non-straightforwardness that is not hidden by the fact that the complaint has remained live, and unanswered with a single sentence of explanation for 9 months now. And how it might relate to the interrellation between my complaint and it's fight to enable U.S.A. citizens to host their data on their own services on their own servers at their own homes. (GoogleFiber prohibits any kind of server hosting for residential users in terms of service, and selectively enforces, effectively putting a muzzle on the market for home-server software that could compete with things like gmail/ghangouts/skype/etc)
My conversation with Anna Baughman at the F.C.C. - (see this mod5 comment for the GoogleFiber/NetNeutrality/USNavyInformationWarfareOffice context http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3643919&cid=43438341 )
Incoming from 717 338 2772 to 785 979 7723, 13:26CDT 2013/06/12
--
A: Anna Baughman, FCC Consumer and Governmental Affairs
D: Douglas McClendon
--
A: Hi, it's Anna from the FCC, how are you?
D: Hi, I'm OK, uh, I don't suppose I could call you back in 5 minutes
A: Well, Um, Actually I'm leaving here in 5 minutes
D: Oh, never mind then, it's not that big a deal
A: I just wanted to let you know that umm we are again having the Enforcement Beaureu look at this complaint and someone from that office will be in contact with you ... we are not ignoring you
D: (laughs) Ok, that's nice to know, umm, I, I have been worried and the fact that I suppose after nine months (A: right) i can say that its still under some kind of enforcement review should indicate to me that there is at least you believe there is at least some substance even if its confused that you need to educate me about right?
A: right, but we're going to um, i just spoke with my supervisor again and we're going to um hopefully, well no we *will*, someone from E.B. will be in contact with you (D: and). It may take a couple of days but we are on/
D: Ok, a couple days, but, but, not a couple weeks? but not a couple weeks, or a couple months?
A: I would say next week sometime
D: Ok, so if I don't hear back in, if I don't hear back in 2 weeks then I can be worried or call back and start annoying you again
A: just call me back, feel free to call me back anytime but if you want to hang tight for a week or two
D: that thats fine, as long as you tell me that things are being worked on that thats the feedback I need to know to stop bugging you every day
A: Oh, well that's OK, Oh all right, well you have a good day
D: you too thank you
A: bye now
D: ok bye bye
his point was that he believes it is possible. You apparently disagree. My own assessment is that it is possible, or, with the current trajectory of technology and social usage of it, will become possible in the near term (10 years). The way to combat it in my opinion, is to view the sorts that engage in it as criminals, and violaters of the constitution. The silicon valley types like to say "the perception is the reality". If we perceive these people as being legitimate, reasonable actors in our society... well, it's gonna be unfun in my opinion. But if we perceive them as criminals, and engage in an engineering war against them (i.e. I use duct tape to cover the camera on my mobile devices phones, but if we were at war with the spooks, there would be reasonable market share of phones with hard dip switch banks to cut the power/signal to the cam, mic, accelerometers, antennas, etc. I may be deluding myself that such physical things will be useful for long with ever shrinking scale nanotech. But the fact that anyone who has tried has failed utterly, due, I think to the buying public's lack of education about what these devices are really being used for (by the 'other users' of 'their' device), then I think such products would have at least somewhat succeeded in the market in the last 10 years. But it seems more that the NSA has successfully suppressed technical literacy to the point where our populace is ripe for the surveillance harvesting.
and what would be the point?
1. automated more efficient and thus more financially profitable marketing and advertising.
2. political persecution. It's hard to get away with an old-school execution style A-list B-list purge, though certainly correlating the accelerometer data of mobile phones with the words on the web page visible at that second makes the list sorting much easier, if you don't care much about some false positives. And you can get your B list down from 50% to 1%, because computer targeting based on aggregated data really just is that good.
3. insider trading.
4. ratfucking anyone and everyone, from your brother, to the local congresscritter's close relatives under the age 14 that you don't like.
5. lots more shit that would keep me more awake at night than I can afford if I bothered to not repress the thoughts.
Suffer an even higher level of scrutiny that they will never know about because it is secret?
Or are you suggesting that there are or will be innocent people who, based on "false positives" are actually tried and convicted for crimes that they haven't committed.
Both pure capitalism, and pure communism work great... *in theory*. In practice, you find out that when people are not 'like minded' ('hive minded'), things work out much more messily. The people who suffer the higher level of scrutiny will come to know it. Secrets don't stay secret. And you don't have to be convicted of a crime, to have your livelyhood, and abiity to help provide for and protect your family extremely compromised. It is not the "non-misuse" of these systems that is most worrying (even though I do find it patently objectionable). It is the innevitable, and so vast it's almost unquantifiable temptation to abuse these systems for financial and other predatory gain (the prey being those without equivalent access to the systems), that will lead to their extreme abuse. Think the SS, or the Stasi. The end of the road is a 24/7 camera aimed at your bed, and your involuntary choice to have faith that such a system will be used to the benefit of you or humanity, and not as a tool for its sale into cyberslavery.
residential citizens are almost universally prohibited from running servers via terms of service and lack of competing alternatives with equivalent bandwidth rates and better terms of service. This is the blueprint for how a dictatorship can control the internet. Star topology. Centralized Services and tap points. Distributed encrypted communication like that of pgp/gpg combined with smtp node servers including your local workstation (a system familiar to old geeks) is simply not an option in a dictatorship, because, strong encryption is pretty strong.
best 4 score 0 post thread I've read ever probably. Lets enjoy this spectacle while it lasts. I for one, will pray that things get more better than worse. I say the three of us form a fake betting pool for fun, speculating on when the next spectacle will be, that involves the govt engaging in slurping mic and camvideo data from mobile phones when they are not making calls. We can make a seperate pool for when the next spectacle after that happens, and it is discovered that they have been slurping the same sensor data while the phone is allegedly 'off' (soft-off reprogrammed to be a black-screen, silent audio and leds app).
Good thing there is a good corn crop each year (here in my home state where I've been openly growing cannabis for the last 18 months or so). We'll never run out of popcorn.
you sound a little like the Ayn Randian Libertarian I was 20 years ago. I suggest you pay a little more attention to the intimacy that our relatively recent history with outright slavery, and subtler forms of exploiting those who in various large subsets of humanity, have had their freedom of speech severely curtailed with no recourse to any effective system of justice.
Not only do I think your final sentence borders on silly (that the person you are replying to is the 'root cause' of these woes), but I think you are generally wrong. Having social safety nets in place, amongst a system that is almost unavoidably quite leisse-fair predatory (predatory in the sense that some of the winners are completely content winning while directly profiting from some of the losers that they are clearly, directly, stifling the free speech or other rights of)- ... is a good idea.
Now, I do believe that charity should generally be voluntary. But giving a person shelter, food, and clothing, rather than watching them waste away in the elements, is not only a pleasant thing to do, but also overall net profitable to everyone who failed to see the better wisdom of putting forth the effort necessary to have those safety nets sufficiently in place that there is no demand for a governmental safety net.
While it might be logical and judicial to impeach Obama for this, in a colorblind way, I think we need to remember that his is the first non-white male leader of a nation with a relatively recent history of slavery against a large portion of his racial heritage.
But your general point, that the justice system has become farcical due to the unpunished justice of the prior administration, is spot on.
I myself therapeutically grow cannabis in the Free State of Kansas.
Actually, they don't need access to Google and Facebook data, they have direct access to all communications at the connection points [zerohedge.com].
umm... https dude
this
we are not crazy. They are misleading us, and it gets insane when they feel so guilty that have to resort to these tactics.
So what do I do when my Congressmen already publicly appose these tactics yet I have the suspicion that they privately support them? The two party system is working out well for the US. Either vote someone in who publicly discards your privacy or vote someone in who will denounce the very thing they're doing.
I think the standard answer is- get a job, work hard, get trust (misplaced or not), power, and money, then get access to the systems that are ripe for abuse. Then you will face a moral dilemna. On the one hand you could abuse those systems to gain more power and money. On the other hand you could pretend that they don't exist. On the other other hand, you could become an NSA whistleblower, and wonder what they will do to your wife and kids at GITMO. It's a toughey.
And those that stayed to fight could be correctly described as "militants", no?
Only if your intent was to mislead spectators of this debate. Since clearly these "militants" would actually be fighting _against_ the subset of "militants" that the U.S. forces were fighting against.
So for the purposes of this discussion, *NO*, the people in group B would not be called "militants" because at least superficially, they are specifically the kind of resident native that our government at least claims to be interested in protecting, not executing.
Or perhaps I'm too intoxicated to be trying to parse your sentence. But the general idea is that there are some "militants" in foreign countries whose goal is to slaughter as many civilian US citizens as possible. And there are some "militants" whose goal is stay in their home and raise their families, and wish to harm no US citizen blindly (now, they may have a personal beef with somebody, but they aren't out to kill citizens due to their specific citizenship). And from where I'm standing, it seems like your comment was meant to somehow confuse the two groups. Probably your just a semantic troll. But we are talking about killing people, via remote control, who bore the unfortune of having parents who fucked in a part of the world that decades later happened to become very dangerous for people that stubbornly just want to live in the land they were born in. And the more of those we kill, and literally propogandistically write off as "militants", the more dozens of people will fantasize about suicide missions killing the appeasing populace of the country that accidentally droned their family member to bits, for being the wrong gender, and age, and skin color, in the wrong geographic region that happened to be their homeland, at the wrong time. Or so it seems to me.
Former FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has had since September 2012 to respond to my complaint about GoogleFiber joining the "any kind of server prohibited to residential ISP internet users". His administration at the FCC refused to give me in all this time, a single sentence explaining to me whether they agreed with any or all of my complaint that started as a sub-1000 character 2000F complaint, and evolved to a 53 page small font dead tree document delivered by the office of my state's Attorney General asking them to take the issue back over. That was back in 2012 as well. I still wait for a single sentence suggesting whether or not network neutrality can be thought of bidirectionally, in the naturally as-designed symmetric InternetProtocol(v6 in this case), as giving consumers a right to provide their own independent (of any mandated corporate or government service affiliation) service via servers connected to their "neutral" residential internet jack.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3643919&cid=43438341
Insightful? No. Bush('s administration) tortured and otherwise intimidated enough people that he was never held accountable for war crimes. "Within the law", no, I live in a different mental universe than you.
I currently have an outstanding 53 page complaint with the FCC about how GoogleFiber's ISP terms of services seem disturbingly like a network-neutrality-hypocrisy-of-the-first-order attempt to prevent ordinary citizens from being able to deploy home-hosted services that are functional competitors to gmail. But Dave Schroeder, the Navy Information Warfare Officer who posts here, is still naive enough to think that this issue isn't about taking citizens servers and the empowerment that they manifest away from them.
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121007.pdf
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121007.txt
XBone is full of spying gear .. don't buy one. Problem solved.
Not exactly. Every android and iOS phone is nearly as bad. People who are able to doublethink have remained aware of this for the past decade. I mean seriously, use the android tricorder app and look how sensitive those accelerometers are. The thing can measure my fucking pulserate as I read webpages. I only own one because I'm the type that is so far gone they've already written their all-american orwellian self published scifi novel.
You're glib answer to the "your papers please" question is historically equivalent to "don't like showing your papers? don't leave your own property".
These human rights violaters need to to be stopped. There should have been outrage when yahoo turned over email account information to China, a government known for massacring it's own citizens when they engaged in peaceful demonstration for democracy (in '89, as the doubelethinking chinese know it). There should have been outrage, when Google boosted it's profits and entrenched its market share and destroyed it's competition by partnering with the Chinese government to filter their internet-worldview of any dangerous reference to "Tiananmen Square" that otherwise had statistically significant results via Google's pagerank algorithm.
You are right, the government is still scared shitless of us (not much different than any other time in history when radicals threatened the established dominance of the white-male of the species).
The problem is that the powers of persuasion that technology has enabled for the government are so horrifying, that we are beginning to finally see defectors like this. It gives me some hope.
"poisoning the well" is the name of the information warfare theory you are describing. Yes.
I think someone erred and the first line should read something like "Forbes journalists writes..." rather than "jahard writes". Unless of course user jahard is the same person as the Forbes reporter, in which case disregard. But being the penultimate Google "Hater", I figured I'd take the time to spill some of that deserved hate on /., if appropriate.
In what way is Google Glass significantly more threatening with regards to privacy than the situation of ubiquitous camera embedded in cell phones situation that we already have today, where probably 7 out of every 10 people you see are carrying something they could use to take pictures or video at any time anyways?
agree, strongly. Thanks for the vocalizing of the issue which has been remarkably off the public debate radar for the last 10 years.
Secondly, actively *highly* secret recording devices, like spy cameras and the like, which can be embedded in glasses or other very inconspicuous places, far less noticeable than Glass, have been available for quite some time. In what way does Google Glass pose a greater threat to privacy than devices like these? Why is there not a similar interest in banning such devices, which anyone is perfectly permitted to buy?
agree again.
I'm not saying that critics who are concerned about privacy are wrong because of the above points, but I'm personally very interested in how critics of Glass would address those issues
Thanks in advance.
Well, I guess I addressed them by agreeing with them. And I think the emphasis of my remaining 'criticism' here (other than being a Google critic for network neutrality hypocrisy[1]), is that I find enlightening the recent lawsuits against android manufacturers that they patch or replace known insecure consumer mobile phones in operation. That issue, and at least what makes it a real issue even if you disagree with the prescribed solution, is a big deal. And Google Glass is just a little I/O attachment for mobile phones. Bluetooth headset +video in/out. Ok, whatever.
[1] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3643919&cid=43438341
Ok, let's do this-
Look up Kansas City Startup Village. It is a small business park that has Google fiber. Kansas City and Google both brag about this. There are many businesses in there that host servers and Google does not care. Google is actively encouraging Internet start ups.
Google is only paying lip service to 'garage internet startups' - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3106555&cid=41288357
This issue to me, is about what an average, er, *every* average joe should be able to expect from something sold as an "internet service". I believe it means the full use of the *symmetric* nature of the Internet Protocol (v6 as advertised here).
Comparing apples to oranges, but the "No Servers" in the ToS is similar to the Google Docs ToS requiring that you give them copyright permissions.
Uhh... right, yeah, both those things sound pretty insane and in need of sanity rewriting to me (as you described them).
The legalistic nature of the USA effectively makes ISPs put in a "No Server" clause, otherwise the ISP would have nothing to fall back on if someone was using the network is an obviously abusive manner.
This is the kind of line I might expect to hear from Google's defense lawyers. But it is stupid if you actually read it as something purporting to be a logical sentence. I.e. it is *precisely* the legalistic nature of the USA that gives everyone involved *countless* methods of fallback if someone is enganging in using the network in an obviously abusive manner. I've heard defenses that complain about making it easier to set up phishing fake sites. I.e. my own paypal website with the content copied to my own apache server and malicious code added. You know what laws that violates? Fraud. Logo/trademark. Copyright. And probably no less than a dozen others. It is purely insane to suggest that cutting off the power of hosting servers/services to the vast class of internet users known as residential users is the only way to deal with such things. Again, it is *precisely* the legalistic nature of the USA that makes such a "No Server" clause as the only claimed solution to those issues, INSANE!!!
I have a local ISP that has a ToS that explicitly states that they are net neutral. You cannot "host servers", but they also state that they will not watch your traffic for any reason other than requested by law or by the end user and they will not traffic shape or block any traffic. Well then, why put in a "No Server" clause in your ToS if you have no way of detecting? If you decide to host up a service and a competitor decides to DDoS your connection and the ISP goes, WTF is this 10Gb of traffic hitting our trunk?! Then they can fall-back to the ToS and say "You're running a server, stop it or get disconnected".
translation: protecting against DDoS on the internet is hard. real solution: by making the problem of DDoSd servers something that can happen to everyone interested in hosting a server, not only a minute fraction of people, more effective mitigation and prevention means will be engineered. Every existing server (and there are lots of them) suffer from this same threat, and their upstream ISPs have to deal with this. I genuinely don't believe that this is such an untractable problem of the day to day internet, that it's only solution is to cut off the empowering ability to host servers/services from the vast class of internet end points known as "residential users" Or again, regular people like you and me and the other 7 billion of us on the planet.
If the ISP has to drop traffic to your/my IP until the DDoS subsides because it is technically unable to do anything else, so be it. I'll use my time offline to contact the FBI and ask them what cybersecurity national resources they may have that might be interested in testing their abilities against my ongoing att
You had me till
effectively makes ISPs put in a "No Server" clause, otherwise the ISP would have nothing to fall back on if someone was using the network is an obviously abusive manner.
and
Without that clause, the ISP would have no way to protect itself legally in a case like that
This is the logic that the ISP oligarchy would like to sell the masses on why things _have_(?!?) to be the way they are. These are obviously fallacious comments. Yes Google, if you defended yourself like this, I would simply call you god-damned liars.
There are many other legal methods of recourse an ISP (or *cough* the department of justice of the U.S.A.) has to deal with "obviously abusive" internet users, or DDoS attacks. Don't give me this bullshit about the only method of recourse being effectively shutting down the core _symmetric_ nature of the internet protocol to the vast swath of nodes known as "residential users". Which means "ordinary people, human beings like you and me, using the global information superhighway to communicate and conduct business with friends and neighbors across the globe".
That would be like outlawying knives as eating utensils, because it was the only way the authorities could fight the threat of stabbings.
And in this case, the reason the ISPs are trying to sell this line, is because they are entirely buddy buddy with the established form of the internet, and it's established moneymaking servers. And IPv6 and residentially hosted servers, are a very real, and I would say long awaited, threat to that established set of business models. You can call me delusional, insane, paranoid. But that is what I believe to be the real issue here.