- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Saying b Do no evilb excludes you from any serious conversation about Google
by Kragen Javier Sitaker 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Google has had an unofficial motto for many years: b Donbt be evil.b It came up as a joke during a meeting (including, among others, Paul Buchheit and Amit Patel) seeking a mission statement. A particular Googler liked it and went around anonymously doodling it on whiteboards until it became a permanent part of the culture. Although it was not originally intended for distribution outside the company, it became known, and was explained in Googlebs 2004 IPO documents. Part of the humor of the slogan is that it shouldnbt need saying at all. Itbs satisfied by having the tiniest modicum of ethical achievement; almost nobody is evil according to the moral code they aspire to live by, except, perhaps, for comic-book villains, Jeffrey Dahmer, and certain pedophile priests. The only reason itbs even worth mentioning is that Google was born in a world dominated by Microsoft and Doubleclick, which were generally agreed to actually be evil, and Google aspired to do better. b Do no evilb is a distortion. ----------------------------- The slogan has always been a serious irritant to certain people --- mostly, the most cynical, those who think b goodb and b evilb are merely hypocritical terms used by the powerful to conceal their pursuit of their own interests; but perhaps there are some sincere people irritated by it too, those who are disappointed by Googlebs choices and priorities. Of those rankled by Google, a few have been so dishonest as to rewrite the slogan as b Do no evilb. This may appear to be a small difference, but itbs not. Almost none of us *are evil*, but every moral agent does *do evil* from time to time. Doing no evil is an impossible goal except for the dead. Youbd have to be incorruptible and probably omniscient. Perhaps certain critics of Google would like to paint the company as a hubristic, arrogant know-it-all. But the ones who have a real case to make donbt need to resort to lying about it, and the ones who are lying about it probably donbt have a real case to make. b You can make money without doing evil.b ---------------------------------------- Some critics might point to this quote, from [Ten things we know to be true][], to show that the company really does think it can b do no evilb. I donbt think thatbs what it means. You can debate different interpretations, but in context, I think it refers to avoiding *net* evil, more evil than good, not avoiding the merest taint of evil. [Ten things we know to be true]: http://www.google.com/about/corporate/company/tenthings.html Summary ------- b Do no evilb is an aspiration to godlike perfection. b Donbt be evilb is something anyone can do, and should. The distinction between the two could hardly be more pronounced. Anyone who brings up b Do no evilb as a supposed slogan of Google is trying to trick you because telling the truth would undermine their points. Conflicts of interest? ---------------------- I have never worked for Google and probably never will. For ethical reasons, I donbt keep my email in Gmail, even though itbs a pretty good mail service. Google is a big proprietary software vendor, even though theybve made important contributions to free software. But lots of my friends, family, and Burning Man campmates work at Google, and even more have in the past. Ibve eaten lunch at Google headquarters any number of times. In short, I donbt hate Google, but I donbt love it either. But I want whatever criticism it receives to be deserved. -- To unsubscribe: http://lists.canonical.org/mailman/listinfo/kragen-tol ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Re: [ExI] Efficiency of algorithmic trading
by Rafal Smigrodzki 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen(a)leitl.org> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 06:10:38AM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > >> ### Well, why should the clueless expect to gain? Inefficient actions > > There's a considerable incitement to bet large fractions of your > retirement fund into stocks, at least in USia (Roth IRA etc.). ### That actually prevents you from being a small investor, since you are using institutional intermediaries - and if they are using algorithmic trading on your behalf, you gain as well. Long-term stock investment as retirement savings is not a problem, it's the solution. --------- > Inversely, in Europe we have a pension model which is equally a Ponzi > scheme, based on particular expectations in economic growth, > wealth distribution and demography. Both models are broken. ### The broken parts of the US system are the involvement of the state in Social Security (which is the opposite of investing, it's fleecing workers to allow immediate consumption by parasites and bureaucrats, indeed a Ponzi scheme like the ones in Europe), and the money counterfeiting actions of the Fed (which have a negative effect on the stability of stocks, bonds and currency). -------------------- > >> am all with you in the decentralization camp but I haven't heard any >> interesting specifics from you yet. The fraud is mostly related to > > It's basically just Tim May's vision, slightly souped up for > today's end user cloud (freedom-box-like systems). The idea is > to move critical parts of finance (like the monetary system, mint, > individual transactions, and higher level functions based on above > primitives. Reputation tracking, notarization, uncensorable permanent > public record, and such. ### I am all with you there. But where do you see the problem with algorithmic trading? Wouldn't algorithmic trading be still possible (and of course, useful) in distributed financial system independent of large counterfeiters? --------------------------- > >> government involvement in banking, otherwise it tends to be a > > You need to shield the system from manipulation on part of end > users or user groups. Of course cryptography is no panacea (and > would require diversity to avoid becoming a pivotal point of failure) > but then it's not hard to improve on the track record of federal > and corporate crooks. ### Again, full agreement. -------------------------- > >> self-sanitizing business (just like other branches of the economy >> where reputation is key, and performance is easily measurable by >> outsiders). > > One of the key functions if providing an unfalsifyable, publically > inspectable track record of interactions, so that nym reputation > for the particular scope can be obtained in realtime. > > Yes, most of the above are extremely hard problems. The smart > people who still think Wall Street quant is a glorious occupation > should get on that track instead. ### Wall Street (i.e. the system of large government-regulated banks and businesses) is a centralized government creation, and I fully agree with you that devising technologies that could allow distributed short-feedback money management would a boon for humanity. One of the reasons why governments succeeded in taking control of the monetary system (aside from simple brute force) was the sheer difficulty in establishing verifiable information flows about solvency of various intermediaries and creditors in the pre-electronic era. An FDIC, for example, initially provided some short term benefits by imposing a floor on the quality of banks (in the long term it contributed to a hollowing-out of the system by inducing a false sense of security in users). It's possible that the acceleration in information flow possible with modern communication tools could allow the existence of a self-policed private banking system (and mean really private, not like Goldman-Sachs, Chase or other government regulated banks) with low latency of response to solvency changes. Rafal _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat(a)lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Saying b Do no evilb excludes you from any serious conversation about Google
by Kragen Javier Sitaker 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Google has had an unofficial motto for many years: b Donbt be evil.b It came up as a joke during a meeting (including, among others, Paul Buchheit and Amit Patel) seeking a mission statement. A particular Googler liked it and went around anonymously doodling it on whiteboards until it became a permanent part of the culture. Although it was not originally intended for distribution outside the company, it became known, and was explained in Googlebs 2004 IPO documents. Part of the humor of the slogan is that it shouldnbt need saying at all. Itbs satisfied by having the tiniest modicum of ethical achievement; almost nobody is evil according to the moral code they aspire to live by, except, perhaps, for comic-book villains, Jeffrey Dahmer, and certain pedophile priests. The only reason itbs even worth mentioning is that Google was born in a world dominated by Microsoft and Doubleclick, which were generally agreed to actually be evil, and Google aspired to do better. b Do no evilb is a distortion. ----------------------------- The slogan has always been a serious irritant to certain people --- mostly, the most cynical, those who think b goodb and b evilb are merely hypocritical terms used by the powerful to conceal their pursuit of their own interests; but perhaps there are some sincere people irritated by it too, those who are disappointed by Googlebs choices and priorities. Of those rankled by Google, a few have been so dishonest as to rewrite the slogan as b Do no evilb. This may appear to be a small difference, but itbs not. Almost none of us *are evil*, but every moral agent does *do evil* from time to time. Doing no evil is an impossible goal except for the dead. Youbd have to be incorruptible and probably omniscient. Perhaps certain critics of Google would like to paint the company as a hubristic, arrogant know-it-all. But the ones who have a real case to make donbt need to resort to lying about it, and the ones who are lying about it probably donbt have a real case to make. b You can make money without doing evil.b ---------------------------------------- Some critics might point to this quote, from [Ten things we know to be true][], to show that the company really does think it can b do no evilb. I donbt think thatbs what it means. You can debate different interpretations, but in context, I think it refers to avoiding *net* evil, more evil than good, not avoiding the merest taint of evil. [Ten things we know to be true]: http://www.google.com/about/corporate/company/tenthings.html Summary ------- b Do no evilb is an aspiration to godlike perfection. b Donbt be evilb is something anyone can do, and should. The distinction between the two could hardly be more pronounced. Anyone who brings up b Do no evilb as a supposed slogan of Google is trying to trick you because telling the truth would undermine their points. Conflicts of interest? ---------------------- I have never worked for Google and probably never will. For ethical reasons, I donbt keep my email in Gmail, even though itbs a pretty good mail service. Google is a big proprietary software vendor, even though theybve made important contributions to free software. But lots of my friends, family, and Burning Man campmates work at Google, and even more have in the past. Ibve eaten lunch at Google headquarters any number of times. In short, I donbt hate Google, but I donbt love it either. But I want whatever criticism it receives to be deserved. -- To unsubscribe: http://lists.canonical.org/mailman/listinfo/kragen-tol ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[tahoe-dev] revived: proposal to change the default to K=H=N=1
by Zooko O'Whielacronx 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Folks: I remember getting angry about this topic the last time we discussed it. It's strange how I get all hot under the collar about minor technical details such as the default erasure coding parameters in a secure distributed storage system. Anyway, the topic has come up again. I just posted this note on the ticket: https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1082#comment:12 Regards, Zooko ------- This issue came up again. Omnifarious on IRC was explaining why he was giving up on his attempt to play with Tahoe-LAFS: <Omnifarious> Yeah, I have to create a bunch of storage nodes (I think) and I think an introducer and figure out what the introducers furl is or something. Also I was hanging out with Brian Warner a couple of nights ago and he tried to upload a file to a newly created test grid with only one server and was annoyed that it didn't work. For what it is worth, I have spent a lot of time over the years talking to people who deploy Tahoe-LAFS and paying attention to the process they go through and especially to what deters them or trips them up. I've probably learned about the experiences of more than 100 different people who've deployed, or attempted to deploy, Tahoe-LAFS over the last five or so years. I doubt that even one of those people would have accidentally used K=H=N=1 in their production grid without realizing the reliability implications. I think every one of them would have chosen to change K, H, and N after testing it out and before starting to rely on it for long-term storage. Therefore, I would like to re-open this dormant ticket and *strongly* suggest that we change the default values of K, H, N from 3, 7, 10, to 1, 1, 1, and we change the documentation to warn that if you want the erasure-coding features of Tahoe-LAFS then you have to choose your own K, H, and N based on your personal preferences and the shape of your grid. In addition to believing that this will not harm almost any users who are relying on Tahoe-LAFS for safe, long-term storage, and in addition to believing that this will greatly help newcomers who are trying to experiment with Tahoe-LAFS in a few spare minutes of their time, I also believe that it will help people understand the extremely important security properties of Tahoe-LAFS, most of which are actually independent of the erasure coding and are best understood without the complication of the erasure coding. _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list tahoe-dev(a)tahoe-lafs.org https://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Re: [liberationtech] And right on cue, the flush our civil liberties down the toilet boys rear their ugly heads
by Shava Nerad 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

I was fascinated today to see Mother Jones and many others reposting, entirely without reflection or comment, what seemed to me to be not "crowdsourced" images but second story surveillance camera shots of the FBI suspects. (Who, in addition, are being howled after as guilty until proven innocent in this digital manhunt - and thank God the NYPost "exonerated" their suspects before that turned into something ugly...) Well, yes, the FBI is doing their job with the tools available, and as I live in metro Boston I would most healthily STFU... But if this incident had happened in London, I can't help but think MJ et al might have engaged a moment of reflection and spine in the middle of that process, perhaps? Interesting times... ---- Shava Nerad shava23(a)gmail.com -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at companys(a)stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[Beowulf] High Performance SSH/SCP
by Douglas Eadline 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Just saw this mentioned on Slashdot. High Performance SSH/SCP - HPN-SSH http://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/hpn-ssh/ The internal flow control buffers in openssh are small and static. The guys at Pittsburgh SC have created a patch that can be applied to openssh that dynamically increases the buffers which dramatically improves performance. They also multi-threaded the crypto. So if you were wondering about what to do with that extra core, now you have your answer. -- Doug _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf(a)beowulf.org To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[IP] Bruce Schneier: Unchecked police and military power is a
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

security threat X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) Reply-To: dave(a)farber.net Bruce Schneier: Unchecked police and military power is a security threat Bruce Schneier June 24, 2004 SCHNEIER0624 As the U.S. Supreme Court decides three legal challenges to the Bush administration's legal maneuverings against terrorism, it is important to keep in mind how critical these cases are to our nation's security. Security is multifaceted; there are many threats from many different directions. It includes the security of people against terrorism, and also the security of people against tyrannical government. The three challenges are all similar, but vary slightly. In one case, the families of 12 Kuwaiti and two Australian men imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay argue that their detention is an illegal one under U.S. law. In the other two cases, lawyers argue whether U.S. citizens -- one captured in the United States and the other in Afghanistan -- can be detained indefinitely without charge, trial or access to an attorney. In all these cases, the administration argues that these detentions are lawful, based on the current "war on terrorism." The complainants argue that these people have rights under the U.S. Constitution, rights that cannot be stripped away. Legal details aside, I see very broad security issues at work here. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were designed to ensure the security of people: American citizens and visitors. Their limitations of governmental power are a security measure. Their enshrinement of human rights is a security measure. These measures were developed in response to colonial tyranny by Britain, and have been extended in response to abuses of power in our own country. Laws mandating speedy trial by jury, laws prohibiting detention without charge, laws regulating police behavior -- these are all laws that make us more secure. Without them, government and police power remains unchecked. The case of Jose Padilla is a good illustration. Arrested in Chicago in May 2002, he has never been charged with a crime. John Ashcroft held a press conference accusing him of trying to build a "dirty bomb," but no court has ever seen any evidence to support this accusation. If he's guilty, he deserves punishment; there's no doubt about that. But the way to determine guilt or innocence is by a trial on a specific indictment (charge or accusation of a crime). Without an indictment, there can be no trial, and the prisoner is held in limbo. Surely none of us wants to live under a government with the right to arrest anyone at any time for any reason, and to hold them without trial indefinitely. The Bush administration has countered that it cannot try these people in public because that would compromise its methods and intelligence. Our government has made this claim before, and invariably it turned out to be a red herring. In 1985, retired Naval officer John Walker was caught spying for the Soviet Union; the evidence given by the National Security Agency was enough to convict him without giving away military secrets. More recently, John Walker Lindh -- the "American Taliban" captured in Afghanistan -- was processed by the justice system, and received a 20-year prison sentence. Even during World War II, German spies captured in the United States were given attorneys and tried in public court. We need to carry on these principles of fair and open justice, both because it is the right thing to do and because it makes us all more secure. The United States is admired throughout the world because of our freedoms and our liberties. The very rights that are being discussed within the halls of the Supreme Court are the rights that keep us all safe and secure. The more our fight against terrorism is conducted within the confines of law, the more it gives consideration to the principles of fair and open trial, due process and "innocent until proven guilty," the safer we all are. Unchecked police and military power is a security threat -- just as important a threat as unchecked terrorism. There is no reason to sacrifice the former to obtain the latter, and there are very good reasons not to. Bruce Schneier, Minneapolis, is chief technology officer of Counterpane Internet Security Inc. and the author of "Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World." <http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/4843840.html> ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen(a)leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

1 0

[Beowulf] High Performance SSH/SCP
by Douglas Eadline 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Just saw this mentioned on Slashdot. High Performance SSH/SCP - HPN-SSH http://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/hpn-ssh/ The internal flow control buffers in openssh are small and static. The guys at Pittsburgh SC have created a patch that can be applied to openssh that dynamically increases the buffers which dramatically improves performance. They also multi-threaded the crypto. So if you were wondering about what to do with that extra core, now you have your answer. -- Doug _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf(a)beowulf.org To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[serval-project-dev] Re: Serval Legal Issues
by harry k 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Hi Paul, This is the concise version :) > how we ensure that the serval technology does not get tied up under > telecommunications regulation. This is a moot point unless Serval a) is in the radio hardware business, b) causes the radio device to exceed its power output or c) convinces the output stage to not skip across at least XX frequencies. 915b928 ; 1 W - A minimum of 20 hopping frequencies must be used. 2400b2483.5 ; 500 mW - A minimum of 15 hopping frequencies must be used. 2400b2483.5 ; 4 W - A minimum of 75 hopping frequencies must be used. 5725b5850 ; 4 W - A minimum of 75 hopping frequencies must be used. see: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010C00659 http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_1768 The real smarts of Serval is in the software and its application that relies on a 3rd party OS, sitting inside some vendor's hardware that uses wireless comms. The bands have been defined, the license issued (Class licences do not have to be applied for, and no licence fees are payable. They are issued by the ACMA by a notice published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette) under the Radiocommunications (Low Interference Potential Devices) Class Licence - supporting the use of short-range spread spectrum and digital modulation devices. Working with these frequencies the following is the ACMA caveat for anyone's radio dovalacky in these bands... "must not cause interference to other radiocommunications services and will not be afforded protection from interference caused by other radiocommunications services" which means low power communication devices must accept interference from licensed users of that frequency band, including that from the cat dryers. The converse is that Serval must not impinge on the licensed users (ie, carriers) as their interests are vested and most have paid a gob load to guarantee spectrum to themselves as a for-profit operation. That is what makes a 'telecommunications carrier', a protected monopolist in most countries. > In particular, the question of when something becomes a > telecommunications carrier, and thus needs (serious) licensing and is > subjected to a more onerous regulatory regime. Even if one was to install 4 W boosters and relays in the metro areas, it would be a good argument for ACMA and the lawyers whilst there was no charge to play. That is, if there is money involved, then ACMA and others want a slice. I smell a blank audio cassette / blank CD royalty here. > My understanding of the Telecommunications Act here in Australia is > that: > 1. links of <500m are automatically excluded, provided they don't > include wires over/through public property (so under your fence to a > neighbour is clearly exempt, but across the road, even if between > properties you do own, isn't exempt). Where did 'distance' come into it? Only reference i can find in the standards is about output power and frequency hopping. Although... "A wireless local area network (WLAN) is the generic term used for equipment that can form data networks with other equipment over short distances (usually less than 500 metres) without the use of connecting wires. " might explain things a bit. It is misleading, naughty ACMA. The 'wires' thingy is a left over from the copper days, i remember them... but the air is free (except for the carbon dioxide tax and spectrum auctions). Monopoly protection of the dominant copper pair carrier was the regulatory intent of this 'copper over public places' mainly for telephony originally and then the never-show-a-profit pay and cable tv guys, Murdoch 25% Packer 25% Telstra 50% (give thanks and praise to Kim W for that) > 2. WiFi (or is the ISM2400 band) is more or less exempt in any form or > distance within the allowable power limits (but this needs > clarification). If the hardware complies with the output power and frequency hopping requirements, then go for your life with 'smart' software over the top of it. > This applies to _single elements_ of the network. > What happens if a group of people using our technology over WiFi form > a larger network that does "connect distinct places in Australia"? As long as each node in the mesh operates within its limits, where is the problem? The other anachronism that will confound some a bit, is the 'connect distinct places' as stated by ACMA... " Category 1 - single line links connecting distinct places in Australia (12) A single line link connecting distinct places within Australia that are at least 500 metres apart. A power exists for the Minister to extend these distances if this is considered appropriate at a future date. " a) intended for permanent point-to-point comms such as microwave links and the like between populated places where there are people / businesses who can pay to play. b) the link operates in an 'always on' mode providing a permanent link. This concept goes out the window with spread spectrum technology. > What happens if all the phones in that network are owned by different > people or if they are owned by just one person? Once upon a time... _all_ handsets were owned by the PMG / Telecom and you paid a rental for them. Yes, even today this Telstra mug tax still exists if you allow it. The deal is, you rent the line and handset, but the ACCC put a stop to that and you can connect any approved handset to the PTSN system. > In the former case it would seem very tenuous to suggest that any one > person is running a telecommunications network, even if the behaviour > of a telecommunications network can be argued to emerge from the many > parts. Is the network permanently on? Does any one individual or group own the whole of the parts? > In the latter case, perhaps it is a little more grey, as it could be > argued that that person owns a telecommunications network. This is > when the issue of the distance of individual links and the exemption > of WiFi/ISM2400 (if it really is exempt). Again, the license relates to output power and frequency hopping _not_ distance. > What responsibility is their for providing 000 access? As Serval and the mesh is not a telecommunications carrier, there is no obligation. It is an adhoc network. Although it would be a neat feature if one node, which is outside of a PSTN connection, could establish one from the WiFi mesh, where it would over ride the repeater like a party-line switchboard* and route the 000 call out to the PSTN. Would need a way of notifying the over ridden node owner / user that a 000 call is in progress. Similar issues exist with the ham radio community and makes for good reading as to the problems Serval will face... soon. * - http://mallala.nowandthen.net.au/index.php?title=Mallala_Telephone_Exchange > How does a "best-effort" fall-back capability fit into the carrier- > grade centric intent of the Telecommunications Act? Why worry, the whole Serval / mesh thingy is outside of the onerous nature of money making from permanent radio comms and / or broadcasting. > These are the main things that are floating through my head, Hope this has helped. Two areas of background would be the ham radio repeater community and how early telephone networks worked, ie party lines. Best regards, Harry K. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Serval Project Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to serval-project-developers(a)googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to serval-project-developers+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/serval-project-developers?hl=en. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[serval-project-dev] Re: Serval Legal Issues
by harry k 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Hi Paul, This is the concise version :) > how we ensure that the serval technology does not get tied up under > telecommunications regulation. This is a moot point unless Serval a) is in the radio hardware business, b) causes the radio device to exceed its power output or c) convinces the output stage to not skip across at least XX frequencies. 915b928 ; 1 W - A minimum of 20 hopping frequencies must be used. 2400b2483.5 ; 500 mW - A minimum of 15 hopping frequencies must be used. 2400b2483.5 ; 4 W - A minimum of 75 hopping frequencies must be used. 5725b5850 ; 4 W - A minimum of 75 hopping frequencies must be used. see: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010C00659 http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_1768 The real smarts of Serval is in the software and its application that relies on a 3rd party OS, sitting inside some vendor's hardware that uses wireless comms. The bands have been defined, the license issued (Class licences do not have to be applied for, and no licence fees are payable. They are issued by the ACMA by a notice published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette) under the Radiocommunications (Low Interference Potential Devices) Class Licence - supporting the use of short-range spread spectrum and digital modulation devices. Working with these frequencies the following is the ACMA caveat for anyone's radio dovalacky in these bands... "must not cause interference to other radiocommunications services and will not be afforded protection from interference caused by other radiocommunications services" which means low power communication devices must accept interference from licensed users of that frequency band, including that from the cat dryers. The converse is that Serval must not impinge on the licensed users (ie, carriers) as their interests are vested and most have paid a gob load to guarantee spectrum to themselves as a for-profit operation. That is what makes a 'telecommunications carrier', a protected monopolist in most countries. > In particular, the question of when something becomes a > telecommunications carrier, and thus needs (serious) licensing and is > subjected to a more onerous regulatory regime. Even if one was to install 4 W boosters and relays in the metro areas, it would be a good argument for ACMA and the lawyers whilst there was no charge to play. That is, if there is money involved, then ACMA and others want a slice. I smell a blank audio cassette / blank CD royalty here. > My understanding of the Telecommunications Act here in Australia is > that: > 1. links of <500m are automatically excluded, provided they don't > include wires over/through public property (so under your fence to a > neighbour is clearly exempt, but across the road, even if between > properties you do own, isn't exempt). Where did 'distance' come into it? Only reference i can find in the standards is about output power and frequency hopping. Although... "A wireless local area network (WLAN) is the generic term used for equipment that can form data networks with other equipment over short distances (usually less than 500 metres) without the use of connecting wires. " might explain things a bit. It is misleading, naughty ACMA. The 'wires' thingy is a left over from the copper days, i remember them... but the air is free (except for the carbon dioxide tax and spectrum auctions). Monopoly protection of the dominant copper pair carrier was the regulatory intent of this 'copper over public places' mainly for telephony originally and then the never-show-a-profit pay and cable tv guys, Murdoch 25% Packer 25% Telstra 50% (give thanks and praise to Kim W for that) > 2. WiFi (or is the ISM2400 band) is more or less exempt in any form or > distance within the allowable power limits (but this needs > clarification). If the hardware complies with the output power and frequency hopping requirements, then go for your life with 'smart' software over the top of it. > This applies to _single elements_ of the network. > What happens if a group of people using our technology over WiFi form > a larger network that does "connect distinct places in Australia"? As long as each node in the mesh operates within its limits, where is the problem? The other anachronism that will confound some a bit, is the 'connect distinct places' as stated by ACMA... " Category 1 - single line links connecting distinct places in Australia (12) A single line link connecting distinct places within Australia that are at least 500 metres apart. A power exists for the Minister to extend these distances if this is considered appropriate at a future date. " a) intended for permanent point-to-point comms such as microwave links and the like between populated places where there are people / businesses who can pay to play. b) the link operates in an 'always on' mode providing a permanent link. This concept goes out the window with spread spectrum technology. > What happens if all the phones in that network are owned by different > people or if they are owned by just one person? Once upon a time... _all_ handsets were owned by the PMG / Telecom and you paid a rental for them. Yes, even today this Telstra mug tax still exists if you allow it. The deal is, you rent the line and handset, but the ACCC put a stop to that and you can connect any approved handset to the PTSN system. > In the former case it would seem very tenuous to suggest that any one > person is running a telecommunications network, even if the behaviour > of a telecommunications network can be argued to emerge from the many > parts. Is the network permanently on? Does any one individual or group own the whole of the parts? > In the latter case, perhaps it is a little more grey, as it could be > argued that that person owns a telecommunications network. This is > when the issue of the distance of individual links and the exemption > of WiFi/ISM2400 (if it really is exempt). Again, the license relates to output power and frequency hopping _not_ distance. > What responsibility is their for providing 000 access? As Serval and the mesh is not a telecommunications carrier, there is no obligation. It is an adhoc network. Although it would be a neat feature if one node, which is outside of a PSTN connection, could establish one from the WiFi mesh, where it would over ride the repeater like a party-line switchboard* and route the 000 call out to the PSTN. Would need a way of notifying the over ridden node owner / user that a 000 call is in progress. Similar issues exist with the ham radio community and makes for good reading as to the problems Serval will face... soon. * - http://mallala.nowandthen.net.au/index.php?title=Mallala_Telephone_Exchange > How does a "best-effort" fall-back capability fit into the carrier- > grade centric intent of the Telecommunications Act? Why worry, the whole Serval / mesh thingy is outside of the onerous nature of money making from permanent radio comms and / or broadcasting. > These are the main things that are floating through my head, Hope this has helped. Two areas of background would be the ham radio repeater community and how early telephone networks worked, ie party lines. Best regards, Harry K. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Serval Project Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to serval-project-developers(a)googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to serval-project-developers+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/serval-project-developers?hl=en. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0