December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Deconstructing DH/NII (was: Should we oppose...?)
by fnerd＠smds.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Godwin asks what Tim May is against when he says he's against the NII ("National Information Infrastructure"), or DH ("Data Superhigh- way.") Mike also points out that EFF is not into government funding or regulation, but (I paraphrase) as long as the govt is going to be involved, why not try to convince them to be involved in the right way? One way he mentions is providing incentives to steer the industry in good directions since we're going to [future tense] have *some* kind of data superhighway anyway. Mike is certainly right that there are directions it would be nice to steer the government in in these issues, and I'm sure grateful for his (and EFF's) efforts on that front. I think this "that's not what we meant...but why not..." situation that Mike finds himself in is due to the nature of "initiatives" like NII. We are afloat in connotations, suggestions and perverse pep. The phrases "National Information Infrastructure" and "Data Super- highway" do not conjure an anarchist vision. They do not suggest companies and people working independently in parallel, free from centralized interference. They do not convey the idea that the net is what you make of it, what your exploring and connecting bring together for you, out of a hodgepodge of methods, links, databases and groups of friends. The fact that NII and DH are new terms, and that they are talked about as future goals, does not convey the fact that the data superhighway is here today. I'm understating, of course. These terms connote all the opposite things. Centralization, government funding, premature standar- dization, regulation--and finally a decent data network as a result. I'm not being unfair. These connotations are there because that's exactly what many of the people using these terms mean. They want all the wrong things, and all the wrong ideas attach themselves to national project proposals like this. There's an additional misleading connotation, that there is some watershed mark that we're all talking about, some point--in the future--when we'll finally have "enough" or the "right" communi- cations underpinning*. This is partly just boosterism--Clinton and Gore wanting to be JFK going to the moon--but also there's the hint that once the big guys implement the right way to do things, we consumers shouldn't complain. I mean there's an implication in terms like "infrastructure" of experts knowing what is needed. And of course this discounts the efforts of the people who have brought us to where we are. There's a hint that what we've got is fine for hackers, but it's not, well, *organized* enough to be suitable for the real world. (Partly true but still an insult and a backhanded dismissal of the purposefulness of our anarchy.) (*There is no watershed. You can get a T1 line now. Prices will go down, bandwith up, ubiquity and commonness up, standardization and ease of use up, complication down, I hope--continuously for the forseeable future as they have been doing so far.) Still it's all only connotations and impressions, and anyone in particular may not mean this or that. But given that there are lots of people who really *do* intend the bad ideas, I wish people who come from a whole different point of view would make that really really clear. Starting by not using the same slogans. So, we need some alternatives. Slogans for how the real network is: Hmm, the anarchic data backroad (adb--nope, taken)... Or, "The Network's Fine" (as in, "Come on in...")--TNF. You Are Here---YAH... Or we can invent slogans for what the DH/NII really mean: Or, "Drag The Government Kicking and Screaming Into The Eighties" (or do I mean the seventies, a la ethernet and UUCP?)--DG8. The Federal Technical Catchup (FTC--oops, another one taken)... No, I know--the Federal Communications Catchup... Big Brother with a Human Face... Work with me on this, folks. -fnerd(a)smds.com quote me -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a aKxB8nktcBAeQHabQP/d7yhWgpGZBIoIqII8cY9nG55HYHgvtoxiQCVAgUBLMs3K ui6XaCZmKH68fOWYYySKAzPkXyfYKnOlzsIjp2toust1Q5A3/n54PBKrUDN9tHVz 3Ch466q9EKUuDulTU6OLsilzmRvQJn0EJhzd4pht6hanC0R3seYNhUYhoJViCcCG sRjLQs4iVVM= =9wqs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Personality BS (was: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?)
by doug＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Alan (Gesture Man) Wexelblat" <wex(a)media.mit.edu> said: >Hunh. Doug, I'm sorry to oppose you on this, but I think that the sort of >bullshit pry-into-your-personal-life stuff that companies are resorting [...] >[The questions have to do with all kinds of shit like "Have you ever had a >homosexual experience?" and "Have you ever shoplifted anything?" and "How >do you feel about XXX?". Totally unrelated to my job skills.] We're not in opposition, I very strongly agree. It's just that we're talking about slightly but importantly different things. The thing you're referring to is indeed outrageous. So are the presumption-of-guilt drug tests that I understand that 80% of all Fortune 1000 companies now require. (The latter is particular heinous, since all tests have a non-zero false-positive rate, for one thing.) But what I was referring to was the common interviewing strategy of trying to figure out whether someone will get along with the existing group, not by prying into their personal life or giving them personality tests, but just by the age-old method of discussing everyone's impressions of the candidate. This all by itself is what we were told is unacceptable discrimination (against the personality-challenged, presumably. :-) >It's a total load of crap and should be illegal. I, for one, am glad the >gov't is telling its contractors NOT to do that. Sorry, but I am pretty sure that giving personality tests is quite ok, so long as they are one of those bullshit Supposedly Scientific things based on Meyers Briggs or the Minnesota Multiphasic Aptitude Test or some such, and as long as they are uniformly given to all candidates. So they're outlawing the reasonable and allowing the unreasonable, the worst of both worlds. Doug

1 0

Re: Ever buy encryption software? YOU WILL!
by smb＠research.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I found this on comp.dcom.telecom and have elided some marketing material. My editorial comments are enclosed in brackets. Amazing. _AT&T_, the same folks that were trying to bring us Clipper, are going to sell DES over-the-counter. I'd be happier with triple-DES, but this blows my tiny little mind. Disclaimer: I'm speaking for myself, not AT&T. I've said this before, but it's worth repeating. For the most part, corporations exist to make money. They don't take moral stances. (Aside: I'm not saying that this is good or bad; rather, I'm saying that it just is.) If you offer a company a way to make money, it will probably do it. Unified visions, of the sort you're implying AT&T had on encryption, are generally seen as long-term ways to make money, i.e., if the company picks some standard, it will be easier or cheaper to make or sell some future set of products. In the case of Clipper, there was a clear market: the government wanted to buy Clipperphones. AT&T already sells secure phones (STU-III's) to the government; the question here (and I wasn't privy to any of the discussions) was whether or not it would cost more to develop the phone than the potential profits. But Clipper isn't, and can't be, the be-all for encryption, even apart from the moral questions. See if you can dig up AT&T's response to the proposed key escrow FIPS. I suspect you'd be surprised. I don't think I have it handy, but it points out things like the unsuitability of key escrow for software implementations -- and the products you describe are exactly that. Yes, AT&T as a company thinks that there is a market for privacy devices. (And it's no secret that the defense market is drying up, due to budget cuts.) Clipper can't fill certain market niches. DES -- or triple DES, or IDEA, or RC2, or whatever -- can.

1 0

hearing on Nov. 15 at 10 am in Gilmore v. NSA case
by Lee Tien 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Many of you know of John Gilmore's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against NSA, which was written up in WIRED. In September, Judge Henderson dismissed the case, ruling that there was no claim for an injunction against NSA for its regular, routine failure to respond to FOIA requests within the time limits provided by the law. John has moved for reconsideration of the dismissal on a variety of legal grounds. The hearing on Monday 11/15 10 a.m. is in Courtroom 12, on the 19th floor of the U.S. Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco. Lee Tien

1 0

re: Should we build the Data Superhighway/NII
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

DISCLAIMER; This is for the private reading of the members of the Cypherpunks list, and may not be redistributed without permission. The opinions expressed are strictly my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ameritech or it's alliance partners. My two bits on the data highway; - on universal access Ameritech, the consortium of the five regional midwest RBOC's filed a plan for complete deregulation and access to the local loop the first week in March under the title of "Advanced Universal Access" The gist of it? If you remove the regulations against us competeing in everyone elses markets, we will allow and provide complete unbundled access to the local loop. Number plan the whole bit, right to the copper pair if you want. My two bits? we don't have any problem with any and all forms of competition. Do you want "Universal Access"? Then all participants have to share the costs involved. In Illinois alone there are more than 30 companies providing local loop service, each functions as a "Monopoly" within it's geographic area. Sprint the long distance company owns and is a "Local Loop Monopoly" in about 8 areas that I recall,(This was the result of there purchase of Centel) GTE, all the big boys are here. Large corporate customers are directly connected with long distance carriers without touching the local loop. - Bell Atlantic and TCI merger? couldn't care less, bring them on! I am involved with a number of projects that pertain to the "Data Highway" concept. - The Extended classroom, part of the "Superschools" project. This will provide E-mail services and basic info services to K-12 students. The next stage calls for Internet/Usenet Access and interactive MultiMedia (Hyperlearning) access. - Health services network, this is already providing shared info between various medical agencies and hospitals, it is limited right now by regulatory restrictions. - Announced just this morning....Ameritech has announced an alliance with Citibank to provide for "Display Telephone" access to Citibank financial services, this will also provide access to directory services and advanced telephone services. This is basically a variation of the French "Minitel" system from the look of it. I intend on pushing for Internet/Usenet access as well. Of course this is only the start, got an idea for a service? give us a call. All are welcome, I expect to see numerous "Garage" startups providing content of all sorts. - Video Dialtone, basically a piece of cake if you have the bandwidth, currently works well down to T-1 speeds (1.54 MPS) The Battle to build the "Superhighway" has been called the battle of 250 million trenches. This refers to the notion that 250 million sections of local loop will have to be replaced with fiber eventually. It's true that ISDN can play a part and ADSL (Asymetrical digital subscriber loop) which has been successfully tested at 3MPS over UTP and should clear 6MPS in the next 6 months will help fill the gaps. Some Cable companies will have their own offerings, as will various "Telecosm" pioneers we've yet to see. The cost of building the initial "Fibersphere" has been estimated at 250 billion dollars. Who's going to foot the bill? The existing cable plant is more than sufficient for the services the telco's are currently permitted to offer. We've made our point clear ( see the FCC filing "Advanced Universal Access") Turn us loose, and we'll build it, or at least contribute to it, ;) and equal access will be provided to all competitors. We're going to build it anyway, " Are you with me men!" Brian Williams Cypherpatriot Extropian * Telecosm and Fibersphere are from the works of futurist George Gilder, his work is highly recommended. * Hyperlearning is from the work of Lewis J. Perelman particularly "Schools Out, Hyperlearning, the new technology, and the end of education." Also highly recommended.

2 1

Cost of Internet (was: Should we oppose ... Superhighway)
by Wabasha-Kellogg High School 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please don't confuse New York with the vast reaches of Rural America. ALL Internet access is a long distance call from many many location in the world, including here. I would *love to have a free national net available, 'cause I think I know how to use it. Others might abuse it, but I woul work the heck out of it. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1993 17:29:18 -0500 From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger(a)lehman.com> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII? jdblair(a)nextsrv.cas.muohio.edu says: > I'm not sure what you mean by "various groups," but I do think that > a very basic net connection, with minimal services (access to > government records, public domain postings, and similar information) > should be provided either free or at a very minimal cost. In New York City, the effective variable cost of an internet mail/news connection is $27 a month -- less than you can panhandle in about threen hours during rush hour, and I'm assuming you never use the phone for anything else and call a couple times a day. The cost is still dropping, and will doubtless be nearly invisible even without any government intervention within a few years. My poorest unemployed friend living in Hell's Kitchen in a fifth floor walkup apartment in roach-infested tenement (no joke) has an internet connection via Panix. I therefore see no reason for government guarantees of net access -- it is obvious that anyone with even minimal initiative can get one already, or will be able to within a few years. The cost of a net connection is far less than the cost of, say, smoking, and there are homeless people who still manage to smoke. Perry

3 2

Fwd: [gtoal@an-teallach.com (Graham Toal)]Info on Clipper chip and fabrication of it
by Postmaster＠cproject.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <9311092013.AA09822(a)vangogh.VIS.ColoState.EDU> nate(a)vis.colostate.edu writes: > Last I heard, hte model of the ARM series used in the Newton (the > ARM 610 processor) cranked out about 30,000 Drystones and used > _very_ little power. Oh boy, wait till the guys on comp.sys.acorn hear about this! I can tell why the arm was chosen: it comes as a drop-in circuit that manufacturers can use in their own designs. Not many of the other low-power fast CPUs are available like this. And its very small, and blindingly fast. G -- Personal mail to gtoal(a)gtoal.com (I read it in the evenings) Business mail to gtoal(a)an-teallach.com (Be careful with the spelling!) Faxes to An Teallach Limited: +44 31 662 4678 Voice: +44 31 668 1550 x212

1 0

Re: Are we gatewayed to Usenet?
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think there's a difference between a gateway into USENET and a gateway from USENET. The latter would give us a feed from Sternlight, Pope, et al. - Carl

1 0

oops
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

please ignore the previous message (I must be tired). Access from the net to cpunx is already trivial. so much for that.

1 0

Re: Should we oppose the
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

D >The problem is that bandwidth is a highly limited resource, just like D >real estate is a limited resource. Eventually we will complete D >saturate network bandwidth no matter what technology is used. This has D >been discussed in various forums for many years. Then why have telecoms prices been declining for years? A three minute phone call from the US to England cost $25 in 1955 (in 1955 dollars). Where in the current comms spectrum do you see saturation and rising prices? It seems to me that in most resources we get predictions of shortages for centuries but those shortages never appear because the market eliminates or dodges them. DCF --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165

2 1