If you trust closed source security software... good luck.
Indeed. After Dave Schroeder, a Navy Information Warfare Officer[1], recently gave me Vint Cerf's email address, I posited in a 35 page manifesto[2] that ssh + IPv6 + gstreamer would make a good open source encrypted video network phone solution. Of course I haven't actually tried it, and no doubt the performance would initially suck. But I imagine a week of tuning parameters and you'd have something usable (when need dictates). And in a year if it caught on, I'm sure the performance would probably become excellent. Of course, it kind of helps to have a 'network neutral'(my definition as per manifesto) broadband connection and an IPv6 'server' process listening on your device for incoming connection requests (a.k.a. phone calls). In any event, interesting to see this slashdot article a couple days later.
But if there are three people lined up behind you waiting to do that job for that pay the moment you turn your back, a strike doesn't seem like a good idea.
The angle that I don't think you are factoring in is the unique public image prominence of Foxconn and the iPhone5 specificly. That changes the equation as to what might be a good idea. If China sees free speech 20 years down the road, these folks might get themselves some book deals or otherwise cash in somehow. Or they'll get themselves and their loved ones in trouble. My hat is off to their courage.
1. I thought your Google manifesto was very good (I know it's a work in progress). 2. I think you're reading WAY too much into certain things.
On 1, my deepest gratitude. On 2, you may be right, or I may request your forgiveness for using arguably 'information warfare' tactics in this to achieve an end such as (1). Or rather, the more specific end, Vint Cerf's attention. I just emailed my brother asking for Mr. Cerf's email address (because googling 'vint cerf email address' didn't help). But I doubt he wants to be involved with this (and rightly so as he has nothing AFAIK directly to do with GoogleFiber), so I'll also ask for it from you- please send to dmc@cloudsession.com .
I'll hold off on detailed comments to the rest of what you said, which, makes a certain amount of sense, but at the same time doesn't. But I'm hoping that some feedback from Mr. Cerf will shed important light on the nature of specifically those confusions. Thanks again for the feedback. -dmc
You know, why don't you just email Vint Cerf and see what he thinks about the core of your net neutrality question wrt Google Fiber? He just might respond.
The answer is simple: in our country and system of government, the military fundamentally, and as a matter of law, answers to civilian authorities.
That's not a simple answer at all. It's an easy 'corporate' line. But the truth is that strategic economic decisions made on the behalf of the US for the past 20 years have put China in a position to be able to use vast amounts of US currency to influence civilian businesses. But no, it's not like I think I'm telling you something you don't know. I just think that we deserve apologies from the companies that got rich selling out the human rights of the Chinese (e.g. the first public caving of Yahoo handing over a free speaking dissident to the authorities. Then up to e.g. the amount of Chinese cyber intrusions that all these companies covered up for years, providing the internet users of the world false illusions of levels of communication security).
The military doesn't need to have day-to-day "control", but we need to have the capability, when attacked militarily, to defend ourselves militarily -- including in the "cyber" realm.
Yeah, OK, whatever, pull the plug on Skynet. You guys have a lot of guns and bombs and money, and in a 'military defense' posture, can no doubt again, ask the network operators to pull the plug on Skynet. But the issue I brought up, which I think is central and stated in terms that most of us here can understand- Is it a good thing that the FBI is asking Google and Facebook to mandatorily backdoor ssh (or, if you want to be pedantic, any subsequent point release of ssh that includes fixed algorithms that block all exploits the US gov has. I.e. that could be 0 or more exploits now for all I or any civilian knows, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to believe that at some point some minor point release of ssh, if not secure from the USgov, might become secure again for awhile. And the cnet disclosure of that FBI pressure on businesses, described a policy that boils down in essence to outlawing non-backdoored versions of ssh.
The mistake people make is believing it's a binary either/or; either civilian or military.
OK, nice strawman then, as it was your super highlighted article that made that point which you now purport to tear down. I agree, it's not black or white, so lets get back to my question- government mandated backdoors in ssh??
The fact is that our information capabilities are so critical that they need appropriate levels of protection. The notion that civil authorities can defend systems from a cyber attack is a fine notion, but not realistic if we are under a coordinated cyber attack from a nation-state explicit seeking to cripple us. If a foreign military is bombing civilian targets within our own borders, is not the purpose of our military to protect us? Sure, civil first responders will be involved, too, but I think most would expect a military response.
That's almost funny. Where has this military response been for the last 10 years? All I've seen are lazy greedy corporations that don't give a rats ass about human rights or privacy, at least when it comes to standing up to threats to those arena from China. And then there is sad of how economic policy, i.e. to the point of folks like me not really believing there is a relevant line between the China and US governments. I mean, can folks like you do anything but order another drink and sigh when you look at the ongoing deficit issue with China, and then pretend that this can be looked at as a military issue between two superpowers, rather than a citizenship of the world issue trying to figure out how to live under a new government that is effectively, if not superficially, a single unified entity?
We as a nation are so used to the military being something we use in foreign lands and faraway places that the concept of our military being here to defend ourselves at home is a concept tha
ok, you trolled me into reading that first page of that one article, and then replying when drunk and stoned. So I read that, particularly the last lines of the page. As you seem to be someone doing a good job of portraying themselves as a rational actor- How do _you_ think the issue should come down on whether or not it is the civilians or the military that should have the crown of control over the internet? You make some legitimate references to people who too easily dismiss the foreign threat in the name of fearing their own government. How do you personally come down on the issue of whether or not the tech for actually secure communications belonging in the hands of all civilians or not? Should ssh be mandatorily backdoored as the FBI is currently requesting Google and Facebook to fall in line with? Is that your assessment of the best path forward?
All Internet 'speech' is hosted by third parties,...
Well, actually if fixed broadband internet service providers respected the last sentence of paragraph 13 of FCC's 10-201 Report and Order Preserving the Open Internet, then no, each and every end user as well as edge provider could host whatever services and applications they want to on the 'general purpose technology' of the internet (now that IPv6 has solved the address shortage issue). Unfortunately Google and all the other residential ISPs are playing protectionist games with their non-ISP commercially competitive server hosting businesses. If you want to read more, recently an internal Googler leaked comments between Larry Page and Google's CFO. Apparently Page is pretty annoyed by the current situation (as I am)- http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3106555&cid=41288357
P2P infrastructure depends on peers wanting to connect to you. If you're seen as 'toxic' then noone will.
This may sound like a good point for the general case when considering this video with the allegations of dubbing and fraud. But it wasn't so long ago that all of these same issues applied to the South Park episode featuring Mohommed. One should not look to this current video as the canonical example of free speech in this case. I mean, it's good as one extreme example, but for the sake of social policy, one should also consider the South Park case, and myriad of similar cases as well. In the general case, this 'toxic' issue with P2P dynamics that you speak of disappears. Yes, there will be some large, perhaps majority even, portion of the internet that considers you toxic. But if you can only have 1% of the internet that considers you non-toxic, that is enough for, IMHO people to consider their voice to have been heard. Which is I think the bottom line free speech issue here.
No, let the assholes see it and get used to it because it's here to stay. And fuck the US Governent condemning it like it did with those cartoons.
This I completely agree with, though might replace the word 'fuck' with 'damn', though please don't respond to that sentiment which would make good troll-bait if that were its intent
It started with Bush's bullshit that Islam is the "religion of peace" and continues to this day. It's not.
This is where I think you are as wrong as the people you are calling wrong. No religion is the religion of X or not the religion of X. All religions are collections of vast individuals, that have really rather varying beliefs about such things as when to be at peace and when to be at war.
But again, I totally agree with that first sentiment. Though I sympathize _almost_ with Obama sacrificing the first ammendment to keep the lid on a shitstorm of a world region that due to the last administration, has seen over a million civilian casualties chalked up as 'collateral damage'.
What does "crazy" mean? Anything that gets on the radar as potentially commercially competing with any existing or future commercial google endeavor or aspiration?
"What if your job is pen testing will they ban you for hacking/cracking then?"
If you hack/crack any system you don't have permission to, I'd presume yes, else I'd presume no. I think when you hack a shell to a server you own, there is no substantive difference as far as being banned from a network than if you had logged in with ssh normally. Of course, if your method results in some side-effect traffic going to any system other than one you own or have rights to 'crack', then yeah, I hope you get banned from the network immediately. $0.02...
"I don't see them invoking this unless you're running something that brings down the whole area of town."
I'd like to believe that basic automatic network management features of the relevant hardware, or at worst, more intelligent custom software written by google, can trivially enforce sharing of network resources in an application and service agnostic way. The only way you should be able to bring down any segment of the network would be through some serious blatantly criminal level hacking. Or accidentally helping Google to discover a bug they fix the next day.
That is why I'm fighting the language of the terms of service here, rather than just caring about what happens at the network level.
This was posted by an Anonymous Coward. Sounds plausible enough that I'll post it again to help its visibility-
Posting anonymously for reasons that will be obvious.
Larry Page is really annoyed by the "no servers" clause. In an internal weekly all-hands meeting he repeatedly needled Patrick Pichette about the limitation, and pointedly reminded him that the only reason Google was able to get off the ground was because Page and Brin could use Stanford's high-speed Internet connection for free. Page wants to see great garage startups being enabled by cheap access to truly high-speed Internet. Pichette defended it saying they had no intention of trying to enforce it in general, but that it had to be there in case of serious abuse, like someone setting up a large-scale data center.
I don't think anyone really has to worry about running servers on their residential Google Fiber, as long as they're not doing anything crazy. Then again it's always possible that Page will change his mind or that the lawyers will take over the company, and the ToS is what it is. If I had Google Fiber I'd run my home server just as I do on my Comcast connection, but I'd also be prepared to look for other options if my provider complained.
FCC-10-201, paragraph 13, last sentence. It sure sounds to me as though _all end users_ are allowed to create content, applications, services, and devices with their 'neutral' fixed broadband internet service links.
"Because Internet openness enables widespread innovation and allows all end users and edge providers (rather than just the significantly smaller number of broadband providers) to create and determine the success or failure of content, applications, services, and devices, it maximizes commercial and non-commercial innovations that address key national challenges— including improvements in health care, education, and energy efficiency that benefit our economy and civic life.19"
I understand the whole 'business class' thing. I'm trying however to make a legal point that the last sentence of paragraph 13 of FCC-10-201(aka net neutrality), can logicly be seen as criminilizing such differentiation of service through network level (or I would argue, evil-tos level) blocking. The whole 'neutral' aspect of 'network neutrality'.
I've recently filed an FCC form 2000F complaint regarding how your current terms of service for google fiber prohibit hosting any server of any kind. I feel this is in violation of paragraph 13 of FCC-10-201 which I believe cements my right as an end-user to provide novel services to the internet at large via a server hosted at my residence connected to my fixed broadband internet service. While I have communicated secondhand with Milo Medin about this, perhaps this is a more official channel. Please tell me if I've misunderstood the concept of "Net Neutrality" or your Terms of Service. All I want is to host a linux lamp server. I.e. web pages and files served with apache via IPv6 to other IPv6 clients on the internet. And probably I'd want to host a quake3 server as well as other entrepreneurial servers I conceive of and deploy due to the abundance of helpful free and open source server software available to me.
A length debate on the subject (57 posts, 15 authors) was recently held on the discussion forum for the Kansas Unix and Linux User's Association (ironicly hosted on google groups rather than someone's server at home running linux+mailman). I encourage an official response clarifying the situation from Google.
(note, this online/form tract was reached after selecting that the target of the complaint was a fixed broadband internet service provider, believed to be in violation of the 2nd(blocking) of the 3 primary open internet rules layed out in the FCC's 10-201 report and order preserving the free and open internet.
--- 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.
Forgive my pedanticism (really), but no, eating organic food instead of 'non-organic' food is nothing at all like a 'leap of faith'. That phrase implies that if your faith was misplaced, you will be leaping/falling to your doom. In this case, the consequence if your unproven theory turns out to be innaccurate, is that maybe you spent a 25% premium, and maybe helped out the environment, perhaps infinitesimally so. Not a 'leap of fatih' by any means. Please return to your regularly scheduled non-pedantic arguments....
" "There's no particular reason why any one of those functions could only be carried out on a centralized system. I can envision a distributed protocol with many different servers, or 'nodes,' run by different hosting companies, and each 'node' can be used to store many accounts "
*I* can envision a distributed protocol with many different servers, or 'nodes', run by *the users themselves*, and each 'node' can be used to store many accounts...
Note that I've recently filed an FCC Form 2000F complaint about Google's anti-network-neutrality bahavior as they are entering the fixed broadband ISP market here in Kansas City, Kansas. It's something of a quixotic war about the right for all end users of fixed broadband connections protecting their FCC-10-201(p13) rights to create successful content, applications, services, and devices on the general purpose technology of the (IPv6) internet. You can read the 57 post, 14 author (out of 23 members) thread in the discussion forum of the Kansas Unix and Linux Users Association here-
"No one really "needs" to learn how to read anything more advanced than a children's book, especially if they're a carpenter or plumber."
I stopped reading your long comment there. You should try furthering your own carpentry or plumbing skills by just a recreational bit, then rethink that thought.
Any type? A gaming server for multiplayer games even? That would be ridiculous.
And that is why I fully expect at least some level of backpedalling on that language, as long as people like me are able to publicly shame google into doing so by shining a light on EVIL-TOS
Now do me a favor and excercise your sense of irony by rereading your own comment, but while task switching your brain to the concept of "network neutrality" at the same time.
Sorry, but the quoted clause was from the terms of service, which left itself so vague as to use the wording "improper use" (by whose metric of 'proper'?). The TOS next to that clause, gives a link to the aforementioned section which lays out what defines 'bad use'. So that _is a rule written into the Google-Fiber contracts_ _already_ (as if there were any customers already bound by the TOS).
"Isn't this pretty much a universal condition for residential internet?"
sadly yes, the only way I can envision that landscape changing quickly would be if google would step up and aspire to be something better than the current 'universal residential internet' service. If those other 'universal' providers were asked about that clause, I'd guess they might plausibly lie through their teeth explaining that shared bandwidth concerns are their reason for not TOS allowing things like a quake3 or alienarena or old-school unix talk server. Tell me google, what excuse do you have? (forgive me for being invested in this issue, but I live in Kansas City, and my older brother is a VP of Engineering at google (not in charge of fiber-to-kc though).
Slashdot Mirror
If you trust closed source security software... good luck.
Indeed. After Dave Schroeder, a Navy Information Warfare Officer[1], recently gave me Vint Cerf's email address, I posited in a 35 page manifesto[2] that ssh + IPv6 + gstreamer would make a good open source encrypted video network phone solution. Of course I haven't actually tried it, and no doubt the performance would initially suck. But I imagine a week of tuning parameters and you'd have something usable (when need dictates). And in a year if it caught on, I'm sure the performance would probably become excellent. Of course, it kind of helps to have a 'network neutral'(my definition as per manifesto) broadband connection and an IPv6 'server' process listening on your device for incoming connection requests (a.k.a. phone calls). In any event, interesting to see this slashdot article a couple days later.
[1]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41516877
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41530745
[2]
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121007.pdf
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121007.txt
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121001.pdf
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121001.txt
But if there are three people lined up behind you waiting to do that job for that pay the moment you turn your back, a strike doesn't seem like a good idea.
The angle that I don't think you are factoring in is the unique public image prominence of Foxconn and the iPhone5 specificly. That changes the equation as to what might be a good idea. If China sees free speech 20 years down the road, these folks might get themselves some book deals or otherwise cash in somehow. Or they'll get themselves and their loved ones in trouble. My hat is off to their courage.
A couple of things:
1. I thought your Google manifesto was very good (I know it's a work in progress).
2. I think you're reading WAY too much into certain things.
On 1, my deepest gratitude. On 2, you may be right, or I may request your forgiveness for using arguably 'information warfare' tactics in this to achieve an end such as (1). Or rather, the more specific end, Vint Cerf's attention. I just emailed my brother asking for Mr. Cerf's email address (because googling 'vint cerf email address' didn't help). But I doubt he wants to be involved with this (and rightly so as he has nothing AFAIK directly to do with GoogleFiber), so I'll also ask for it from you- please send to dmc@cloudsession.com .
I'll hold off on detailed comments to the rest of what you said, which, makes a certain amount of sense, but at the same time doesn't. But I'm hoping that some feedback from Mr. Cerf will shed important light on the nature of specifically those confusions. Thanks again for the feedback. -dmc
You know, why don't you just email Vint Cerf and see what he thinks about the core of your net neutrality question wrt Google Fiber? He just might respond.
The answer is simple: in our country and system of government, the military fundamentally, and as a matter of law, answers to civilian authorities.
That's not a simple answer at all. It's an easy 'corporate' line. But the truth is that strategic economic decisions made on the behalf of the US for the past 20 years have put China in a position to be able to use vast amounts of US currency to influence civilian businesses. But no, it's not like I think I'm telling you something you don't know. I just think that we deserve apologies from the companies that got rich selling out the human rights of the Chinese (e.g. the first public caving of Yahoo handing over a free speaking dissident to the authorities. Then up to e.g. the amount of Chinese cyber intrusions that all these companies covered up for years, providing the internet users of the world false illusions of levels of communication security).
The military doesn't need to have day-to-day "control", but we need to have the capability, when attacked militarily, to defend ourselves militarily -- including in the "cyber" realm.
Yeah, OK, whatever, pull the plug on Skynet. You guys have a lot of guns and bombs and money, and in a 'military defense' posture, can no doubt again, ask the network operators to pull the plug on Skynet. But the issue I brought up, which I think is central and stated in terms that most of us here can understand- Is it a good thing that the FBI is asking Google and Facebook to mandatorily backdoor ssh (or, if you want to be pedantic, any subsequent point release of ssh that includes fixed algorithms that block all exploits the US gov has. I.e. that could be 0 or more exploits now for all I or any civilian knows, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to believe that at some point some minor point release of ssh, if not secure from the USgov, might become secure again for awhile. And the cnet disclosure of that FBI pressure on businesses, described a policy that boils down in essence to outlawing non-backdoored versions of ssh.
The mistake people make is believing it's a binary either/or; either civilian or military.
OK, nice strawman then, as it was your super highlighted article that made that point which you now purport to tear down. I agree, it's not black or white, so lets get back to my question- government mandated backdoors in ssh??
The fact is that our information capabilities are so critical that they need appropriate levels of protection. The notion that civil authorities can defend systems from a cyber attack is a fine notion, but not realistic if we are under a coordinated cyber attack from a nation-state explicit seeking to cripple us. If a foreign military is bombing civilian targets within our own borders, is not the purpose of our military to protect us? Sure, civil first responders will be involved, too, but I think most would expect a military response.
That's almost funny. Where has this military response been for the last 10 years? All I've seen are lazy greedy corporations that don't give a rats ass about human rights or privacy, at least when it comes to standing up to threats to those arena from China. And then there is sad of how economic policy, i.e. to the point of folks like me not really believing there is a relevant line between the China and US governments. I mean, can folks like you do anything but order another drink and sigh when you look at the ongoing deficit issue with China, and then pretend that this can be looked at as a military issue between two superpowers, rather than a citizenship of the world issue trying to figure out how to live under a new government that is effectively, if not superficially, a single unified entity?
We as a nation are so used to the military being something we use in foreign lands and faraway places that the concept of our military being here to defend ourselves at home is a concept tha
ok, you trolled me into reading that first page of that one article, and then replying when drunk and stoned. So I read that, particularly the last lines of the page. As you seem to be someone doing a good job of portraying themselves as a rational actor- How do _you_ think the issue should come down on whether or not it is the civilians or the military that should have the crown of control over the internet? You make some legitimate references to people who too easily dismiss the foreign threat in the name of fearing their own government. How do you personally come down on the issue of whether or not the tech for actually secure communications belonging in the hands of all civilians or not? Should ssh be mandatorily backdoored as the FBI is currently requesting Google and Facebook to fall in line with? Is that your assessment of the best path forward?
-dmc
fyi, my manifesto is located here- (work in progress)- http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121001.pdf
All Internet 'speech' is hosted by third parties, ...
Well, actually if fixed broadband internet service providers respected the last sentence of paragraph 13 of FCC's 10-201 Report and Order Preserving the Open Internet, then no, each and every end user as well as edge provider could host whatever services and applications they want to on the 'general purpose technology' of the internet (now that IPv6 has solved the address shortage issue). Unfortunately Google and all the other residential ISPs are playing protectionist games with their non-ISP commercially competitive server hosting businesses. If you want to read more, recently an internal Googler leaked comments between Larry Page and Google's CFO. Apparently Page is pretty annoyed by the current situation (as I am)- http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3106555&cid=41288357
P2P infrastructure depends on peers wanting to connect to you. If you're seen as 'toxic' then noone will.
This may sound like a good point for the general case when considering this video with the allegations of dubbing and fraud. But it wasn't so long ago that all of these same issues applied to the South Park episode featuring Mohommed. One should not look to this current video as the canonical example of free speech in this case. I mean, it's good as one extreme example, but for the sake of social policy, one should also consider the South Park case, and myriad of similar cases as well. In the general case, this 'toxic' issue with P2P dynamics that you speak of disappears. Yes, there will be some large, perhaps majority even, portion of the internet that considers you toxic. But if you can only have 1% of the internet that considers you non-toxic, that is enough for, IMHO people to consider their voice to have been heard. Which is I think the bottom line free speech issue here.
No, let the assholes see it and get used to it because it's here to stay. And fuck the US Governent condemning it like it did with those cartoons.
This I completely agree with, though might replace the word 'fuck' with 'damn', though please don't respond to that sentiment which would make good troll-bait if that were its intent
It started with Bush's bullshit that Islam is the "religion of peace" and continues to this day. It's not.
This is where I think you are as wrong as the people you are calling wrong. No religion is the religion of X or not the religion of X. All religions are collections of vast individuals, that have really rather varying beliefs about such things as when to be at peace and when to be at war.
But again, I totally agree with that first sentiment. Though I sympathize _almost_ with Obama sacrificing the first ammendment to keep the lid on a shitstorm of a world region that due to the last administration, has seen over a million civilian casualties chalked up as 'collateral damage'.
What does "crazy" mean? Anything that gets on the radar as potentially commercially competing with any existing or future commercial google endeavor or aspiration?
"What if your job is pen testing will they ban you for hacking/cracking then?"
If you hack/crack any system you don't have permission to, I'd presume yes, else I'd presume no. I think when you hack a shell to a server you own, there is no substantive difference as far as being banned from a network than if you had logged in with ssh normally. Of course, if your method results in some side-effect traffic going to any system other than one you own or have rights to 'crack', then yeah, I hope you get banned from the network immediately. $0.02...
"I don't see them invoking this unless you're running something that brings down the whole area of town."
I'd like to believe that basic automatic network management features of the relevant hardware, or at worst, more intelligent custom software written by google, can trivially enforce sharing of network resources in an application and service agnostic way. The only way you should be able to bring down any segment of the network would be through some serious blatantly criminal level hacking. Or accidentally helping Google to discover a bug they fix the next day.
That is why I'm fighting the language of the terms of service here, rather than just caring about what happens at the network level.
This was posted by an Anonymous Coward. Sounds plausible enough that I'll post it again to help its visibility-
Posting anonymously for reasons that will be obvious.
Larry Page is really annoyed by the "no servers" clause. In an internal weekly all-hands meeting he repeatedly needled Patrick Pichette about the limitation, and pointedly reminded him that the only reason Google was able to get off the ground was because Page and Brin could use Stanford's high-speed Internet connection for free. Page wants to see great garage startups being enabled by cheap access to truly high-speed Internet. Pichette defended it saying they had no intention of trying to enforce it in general, but that it had to be there in case of serious abuse, like someone setting up a large-scale data center.
I don't think anyone really has to worry about running servers on their residential Google Fiber, as long as they're not doing anything crazy. Then again it's always possible that Page will change his mind or that the lawyers will take over the company, and the ToS is what it is. If I had Google Fiber I'd run my home server just as I do on my Comcast connection, but I'd also be prepared to look for other options if my provider complained.
MOD PARENT UP (until determined to be a made-up story instead of factually accurate)
FCC-10-201, paragraph 13, last sentence. It sure sounds to me as though _all end users_ are allowed to create content, applications, services, and devices with their 'neutral' fixed broadband internet service links.
"Because Internet openness enables widespread innovation and allows all end users
and edge providers (rather than just the significantly smaller number of broadband providers) to
create and determine the success or failure of content, applications, services, and devices, it
maximizes commercial and non-commercial innovations that address key national challenges—
including improvements in health care, education, and energy efficiency that benefit our economy
and civic life.19"
I understand the whole 'business class' thing. I'm trying however to make a legal point that the last sentence of paragraph 13 of FCC-10-201(aka net neutrality), can logicly be seen as criminilizing such differentiation of service through network level (or I would argue, evil-tos level) blocking. The whole 'neutral' aspect of 'network neutrality'.
(my support email to google fiber-)
Hello,
I've recently filed an FCC form 2000F complaint regarding how your
current terms of service for google fiber prohibit hosting any server of
any kind. I feel this is in violation of paragraph 13 of FCC-10-201
which I believe cements my right as an end-user to provide novel
services to the internet at large via a server hosted at my residence
connected to my fixed broadband internet service. While I have
communicated secondhand with Milo Medin about this, perhaps this is a
more official channel. Please tell me if I've misunderstood the concept
of "Net Neutrality" or your Terms of Service. All I want is to host a
linux lamp server. I.e. web pages and files served with apache via IPv6
to other IPv6 clients on the internet. And probably I'd want to host a
quake3 server as well as other entrepreneurial servers I conceive of and
deploy due to the abundance of helpful free and open source server
software available to me.
A length debate on the subject (57 posts, 15 authors) was recently held
on the discussion forum for the Kansas Unix and Linux User's Association
(ironicly hosted on google groups rather than someone's server at home
running linux+mailman). I encourage an official response clarifying the
situation from Google.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/kulua-l/LxsOtdglNM0
Thanks for any feedback, Regards,
-dmc
Douglas McClendon
da...@cloudsession.com
(note, this online/form tract was reached after selecting that the
target of the complaint was a fixed broadband internet service provider,
believed to be in violation of the 2nd(blocking) of the 3 primary open
internet rules layed out in the FCC's 10-201 report and order preserving
the free and open internet.
--- 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
[2]
http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2659981&topic=2440874&ctx=topic
--- (end of form 2000F complaint text)
Forgive my pedanticism (really), but no, eating organic food instead of 'non-organic' food is nothing at all like a 'leap of faith'. That phrase implies that if your faith was misplaced, you will be leaping/falling to your doom. In this case, the consequence if your unproven theory turns out to be innaccurate, is that maybe you spent a 25% premium, and maybe helped out the environment, perhaps infinitesimally so. Not a 'leap of fatih' by any means. Please return to your regularly scheduled non-pedantic arguments....
The part you lost me at was here-
"
"There's no particular reason why any one of those functions could only be carried out on a centralized system. I can envision a distributed protocol with many different servers, or 'nodes,' run by different hosting companies, and each 'node' can be used to store many accounts
"
*I* can envision a distributed protocol with many different servers, or 'nodes', run by *the users themselves*, and each 'node' can be used to store many accounts...
Note that I've recently filed an FCC Form 2000F complaint about Google's anti-network-neutrality bahavior as they are entering the fixed broadband ISP market here in Kansas City, Kansas. It's something of a quixotic war about the right for all end users of fixed broadband connections protecting their FCC-10-201(p13) rights to create successful content, applications, services, and devices on the general purpose technology of the (IPv6) internet. You can read the 57 post, 14 author (out of 23 members) thread in the discussion forum of the Kansas Unix and Linux Users Association here-
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/kulua-l/LxsOtdglNM0
"No one really "needs" to learn how to read anything more advanced than a children's book, especially if they're a carpenter or plumber."
I stopped reading your long comment there. You should try furthering your own carpentry or plumbing skills by just a recreational bit, then rethink that thought.
Any type? A gaming server for multiplayer games even? That would be ridiculous.
And that is why I fully expect at least some level of backpedalling on that language, as long as people like me are able to publicly shame google into doing so by shining a light on EVIL-TOS
"Sucks, but makes sense."
Now do me a favor and excercise your sense of irony by rereading your own comment, but while task switching your brain to the concept of "network neutrality" at the same time.
"
"should not" is not "can not"
"
I might be able to go with your creative reading of the sentence were it not for the use of the very clear word "permitting" in the prior sentence-
"
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
"
http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2659981&topic=2440874&ctx=topic [google.com] [google.com]
Sorry, but the quoted clause was from the terms of service, which left itself so vague as to use the wording "improper use" (by whose metric of 'proper'?). The TOS next to that clause, gives a link to the aforementioned section which lays out what defines 'bad use'. So that _is a rule written into the Google-Fiber contracts_ _already_ (as if there were any customers already bound by the TOS).
"Isn't this pretty much a universal condition for residential internet?"
sadly yes, the only way I can envision that landscape changing quickly would be if google would step up and aspire to be something better than the current 'universal residential internet' service. If those other 'universal' providers were asked about that clause, I'd guess they might plausibly lie through their teeth explaining that shared bandwidth concerns are their reason for not TOS allowing things like a quake3 or alienarena or old-school unix talk server. Tell me google, what excuse do you have? (forgive me for being invested in this issue, but I live in Kansas City, and my older brother is a VP of Engineering at google (not in charge of fiber-to-kc though).
"so it's unlikely to make much difference unless you're planning to host a reasonably heavy server..."
Good Luck With That-
-1 google, your shiny is now worthless to me
"
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
"
http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2659981&topic=2440874&ctx=topic [google.com]
-1 google, your shiny is now worthless to me
"
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
"
http://support.google.com/fiber/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2659981&topic=2440874&ctx=topic