The French/Germans/etc do not have: - ELINT / SIGINT capabilities on par with the US (at least in terms of volume capability) - Fully staffed military base(s) nearby. - Readiness to go to war (politically and psychologically)
The South Koreans ARE on the front-line of a cold war that could become extremely hot, and I guess they feel the need to: - Not antagonize the only ally with real capability to help them if the North starts shooting. - Have access to some intelligence regarding NK and the PRC.
As for Singapore, it's not much different. They are dwarfed by neighbors that have immense populations hand would be able to over-power them easily. Compound that with the imbalance of wealth between citizens of Singapore and it's neighbors, and you have a situation which can easily be exploited by politicians that may want to "extend their reach" and provoke a war. This means that Singapore needs allies to balance this situation (US and Australia). That means: - Keeping on good terms with prospective allies - Have access to some intelligence regarding their neighbors.
The amount of information obtained in the "french affair" isn't attainable via "tapping cables". It entails access to switching equipment, call detail records, etc.
This access is via either of two ways: - Backdoors - Agents in place that have access to those systems. It also entails some very fat "pipes" connecting to those systems.
These aren't new issues regarding security (and I don't mean "cyber security").
Maybe the powers that be need to start mandating more security to that part of the infra-structure.
That, and : - Auditing of software and hardware (and not just rubber-stamping) - Increased security for physical assets (data-centers, overland cables, etc...) - And active enforcment of anti-espionage laws will mitigate the problem.
What won't solve it, and will certeanly lead to more abuse and friction between states, is just shrugging it of or brushing it under the carpet.
The NSA is chartered to do that by a specific nation. The USA.
Why should independent nations not react to the (very real and ilegal) actions ot the NSA against those nations' interests and citizens?
For anyone that is minimaly informed about history and politics, the desire of the NSA (or any other inteligence agency) to have access to EVERYTHING is obvious. My surprise is limited to the extent to which the NSA as been allowed to gain that information. The level and volume of information that it is said that the NSA acquires regarding communications inside european countries would'nt be possible without: - A faily big operational capability (which isn't neither new nor chocking in itself) - Cooperation from local entities , government and private (which is very unsettling) - The belief by those that make the decisions, in Europe, allowing access by the NSA to local resources, that that access wouldn't be abused. (which was unbelievable as it is mind-bogllingly STUPID).
Putting it bluntly, these actions by the NSA are illegal in most (if not all) of the european countries. - It's agents and enablers are breaking laws. Those should be punished legaly when caught (yes, prison).
Also, "good will" with regards to access to some information sources should be re-evaluated. Those include the aforementioned finantial data and should also include the passenger information now routinely shoveled out by the EU to the US, even regarding flights that don't touch the USAs airspace.
The features you talk about (local applications, copying files to the phone) are , mostly for "power users". This is a basic phone, with capabilities to interact with the web/cloud/etc..
The people who will be looking to this phone are those that aren't able (or willing) to spend the 300 to 600 USD that a Nexus 4 costs in Brazil, and still need to check their e-mail or interact with services (banking, government, etc...).
Also, keep in mind that income in Brazil is much lower that what you may be used to, and for some this phone could be the first real interface to the web that a lot of people would be able to afford. I would guess, that for a lot of people, even the 60 USD that this phone costs on contract will be steep.
If you change Brazil for any number of nations that are developing their infra-structure but still need a cheaper mode of access to (the growing number of) services that are available online, you have a huge market ( India, Indonesia, Philipines, all of Africa, etc...).
I don't know the specifics about the Brazilian Customs, but most countries' postal systems (and courier/distribution companies) go through customs, and you end-up paying the relevant local taxes.
If on top of that you have to deal with the red-tape it generates, and paying the processing fees (which when you import in bulk are diluted across the final price of the goods imported), some times it is just not worth it to go that route, or just marginaly so.
Phones in Brazil are more expensive than in the US.
In Brazil the price for the nexus 4 would be between 300 and 600 USD , according to this: http://www.tudocelular.com/LG/precos/n2361/LG-Google-Nexus-4.html
According to this http://tecnologia.ig.com.br/2013-10-22/sem-alarde-lg-traz-primeiro-smartphone-com-firefox-os-para-o-brasil-por-r-129.html The Fireweb phone costs about 205 USD. If acquired via contract , it goes down to 60 USD.
Apples to apples, oranges to oranges, on the right market....
Acording to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMTS), UMTS and GSM aren't frequency and interface compatible. That implies that operators have to deploy equipment and buy frequency licenses for UMTS. And since:
- There is a lot of installed GSM base stations (which must be amortized)
- GSM frequency licenses have been paid / are being paid (and did cost quite a lot,
which must be amortized)
- UMTS broadband traffic and "simple" voice traffic co-exist (and I would bet the demand does fill available capacity in most metropolitan locations). I would say that in most locations where there is UMTS there is also GSM traffic.
No to talk about developing and undeveloped nations where the cellular network is basic (read no frills, only voice and SMS), for which it is not cost-effective to deploy UMTS and advanced functionality.
I would think that GSM will not be going away anytime soon...
It's rather simple to block most IM, if you already have a Firewall that blocks ALL but the strictly necessary ports/services. If you don't already do this, i'm sure you have a hard time keeping up with whatever traffic goes in and out of your network. Most (All?) networks don't need full access to the outside, much less need full access from the outside. This isn't an issue of freedom, but of security.
You just need three steps:
1st - Find out the urls and ports that the IM(s) use to connect to the servers.
2nd - Make sure the firewall blocks the service ports for the IM(s) you want to block.
Pay attention that some IM(s) can use the telnet or ftp port.
You can get around this by implementing a dedicated telnet/ftp proxy
(see http://www.fwtk.org/), restricting what machines you allow to connect through
this proxy and making sure that anyone that needs to telnet/ftp must use this proxy.
3rd - Use an HTTP proxy for web access, and block the urls that the IM(s) use to
connect to the servers.
I did it on squid (http://www.squid-cache.org), and i just created an ACL with those urls, and
denied the connections.
Keep in mind that some users may have a legitimate reason to use an IM (Contacting co-workers that aren't on the corporate network,etc...) and that it may cut telephone expenses for some trivial (even if personal) contacts.
"Bad thing for Africa's ecology". It really may be so, but so is the mining on some african territories. Some of this minning produces raw-material that is used in many of our "not-so-basic-necessity" consumer products.
If it is possible to greatly impact the spread of a major health problem, and at the same time enable increased output of agricultural products to a very needy population, i don't see why us , overweight and spoilled westerners/europeans/americans/wathever, could have any moral objection over this.
As for bio-diversity, if people have full stomachs, then they will be, by far, less likely to go poaching on protected species.
Slashdot Mirror
The French/Germans/etc do not have:
- ELINT / SIGINT capabilities on par with the US (at least in terms of volume capability)
- Fully staffed military base(s) nearby.
- Readiness to go to war (politically and psychologically)
The South Koreans ARE on the front-line of a cold war that could become extremely hot, and I guess they feel the need to:
- Not antagonize the only ally with real capability to help them if the North starts shooting.
- Have access to some intelligence regarding NK and the PRC.
As for Singapore, it's not much different. They are dwarfed by neighbors that have immense populations hand would be able to over-power them easily.
Compound that with the imbalance of wealth between citizens of Singapore and it's neighbors, and you have a situation which can easily be exploited by politicians that may want to "extend their reach" and provoke a war.
This means that Singapore needs allies to balance this situation (US and Australia). That means:
- Keeping on good terms with prospective allies
- Have access to some intelligence regarding their neighbors.
The amount of information obtained in the "french affair" isn't attainable via "tapping cables".
It entails access to switching equipment, call detail records, etc.
This access is via either of two ways:
- Backdoors
- Agents in place that have access to those systems.
It also entails some very fat "pipes" connecting to those systems.
These aren't new issues regarding security (and I don't mean "cyber security").
Maybe the powers that be need to start mandating more security to that part of the infra-structure.
That, and :
- Auditing of software and hardware (and not just rubber-stamping)
- Increased security for physical assets (data-centers, overland cables, etc...)
- And active enforcment of anti-espionage laws
will mitigate the problem.
What won't solve it, and will certeanly lead to more abuse and friction between states, is just shrugging
it of or brushing it under the carpet.
The NSA is chartered to do that by a specific nation. The USA.
Why should independent nations not react to the (very real and ilegal) actions ot the NSA against those nations' interests and citizens?
For anyone that is minimaly informed about history and politics, the desire of the NSA (or any other inteligence agency) to have access to EVERYTHING is obvious.
My surprise is limited to the extent to which the NSA as been allowed to gain that information.
The level and volume of information that it is said that the NSA acquires regarding communications inside european countries would'nt be possible without:
- A faily big operational capability (which isn't neither new nor chocking in itself)
- Cooperation from local entities , government and private (which is very unsettling)
- The belief by those that make the decisions, in Europe, allowing access by the NSA to local resources, that that access wouldn't be abused. (which was unbelievable as it is mind-bogllingly STUPID).
Putting it bluntly, these actions by the NSA are illegal in most (if not all) of the european countries.
- It's agents and enablers are breaking laws. Those should be punished legaly when caught (yes, prison).
Also, "good will" with regards to access to some information sources should be re-evaluated.
Those include the aforementioned finantial data and should also include the passenger information now routinely shoveled out by the EU to the US, even regarding flights that don't touch the USAs airspace.
You are looking at the wrong market.
The features you talk about (local applications, copying files to the phone) are , mostly for "power users".
This is a basic phone, with capabilities to interact with the web/cloud/etc..
The people who will be looking to this phone are those that aren't able (or willing) to spend the 300 to 600 USD that a Nexus 4 costs in Brazil, and still need to check their e-mail or interact with services (banking, government, etc...).
Also, keep in mind that income in Brazil is much lower that what you may be used to, and for some this phone could be the first real interface to the web that a lot of people would be able to afford. I would guess, that for a lot of people, even the 60 USD that this phone costs on contract will be steep.
If you change Brazil for any number of nations that are developing their infra-structure but still need a cheaper mode of access to (the growing number of) services that are available online, you have a huge market ( India, Indonesia, Philipines, all of Africa, etc...).
I don't know the specifics about the Brazilian Customs, but most countries' postal systems (and courier/distribution companies) go through customs, and you end-up paying the relevant local taxes.
If on top of that you have to deal with the red-tape it generates, and paying the processing fees (which when you import in bulk are diluted across the final price of the goods imported), some times it is just not worth it to go that route, or just marginaly so.
Phones in Brazil are more expensive than in the US.
In Brazil the price for the nexus 4 would be between 300 and 600 USD , according to this:
http://www.tudocelular.com/LG/precos/n2361/LG-Google-Nexus-4.html
According to this http://tecnologia.ig.com.br/2013-10-22/sem-alarde-lg-traz-primeiro-smartphone-com-firefox-os-para-o-brasil-por-r-129.html
The Fireweb phone costs about 205 USD. If acquired via contract , it goes down to 60 USD.
Apples to apples, oranges to oranges, on the right market....
Acording to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMTS), UMTS and GSM aren't frequency and interface compatible.
That implies that operators have to deploy equipment and buy frequency licenses for UMTS.
And since:
- There is a lot of installed GSM base stations (which must be amortized)
- GSM frequency licenses have been paid / are being paid (and did cost quite a lot,
which must be amortized)
- UMTS broadband traffic and "simple" voice traffic co-exist (and I would bet the demand does fill available capacity in most metropolitan locations).
I would say that in most locations where there is UMTS there is also GSM traffic.
No to talk about developing and undeveloped nations where the cellular network is basic (read no frills, only voice and SMS), for which it is not cost-effective to deploy UMTS and advanced functionality.
I would think that GSM will not be going away anytime soon...
It's rather simple to block most IM, if you already have a Firewall that blocks ALL
...) and that it may cut telephone expenses for some trivial (even if personal) contacts .
but the strictly necessary ports/services.
If you don't already do this, i'm sure you have a hard time keeping up with whatever traffic goes in and out of your network. Most (All?) networks don't need full access to the outside, much less need full access from the outside. This isn't an issue of freedom, but of security.
You just need three steps:
1st - Find out the urls and ports that the IM(s) use to connect to the servers.
2nd - Make sure the firewall blocks the service ports for the IM(s) you want to block.
Pay attention that some IM(s) can use the telnet or ftp port.
You can get around this by implementing a dedicated telnet/ftp proxy
(see http://www.fwtk.org/), restricting what machines you allow to connect through
this proxy and making sure that anyone that needs to telnet/ftp must use this proxy.
3rd - Use an HTTP proxy for web access, and block the urls that the IM(s) use to
connect to the servers.
I did it on squid (http://www.squid-cache.org), and i just created an ACL with those urls, and
denied the connections.
Keep in mind that some users may have a legitimate reason to use an IM (Contacting co-workers that aren't on the corporate network,etc
"Bad thing for Africa's ecology" .
It really may be so, but so is the mining on some african territories. Some of this minning produces raw-material that is used in many of our "not-so-basic-necessity" consumer products.
If it is possible to greatly impact the spread of a major health problem, and at the same time enable increased output of agricultural products to a very needy population, i don't see why us , overweight and spoilled westerners/europeans/americans/wathever, could have any moral objection over this.
As for bio-diversity, if people have full stomachs, then they will be, by far, less likely to go poaching on protected species.