content owners vs. ISPs
"Copyright holders aren't going to be happy with Freenet and Gnutella," Mohr said. "They are going to want to start monitoring people at the ISP level, and that means there is going to be a coming war between individual privacy versus network security." http://wired.com/news/business/0,1367,42438,00.html
I'm sorry, there will be no war _between_ security of any kind, and privacy of any kind. One implies the other. If something is private, it must be secure If something is secure, there is obviously something worth keeping restricted. Now how exactly are they going to start monitoring people at the ISP level, when we are all free to make use of things such as IPSec, Freedom, etc? If we don't exercise our rights, they can of course take them away. Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: "Blank Frank" <bf@mindspring.com> To: <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:54 PM Subject: CDR: content owners vs. ISPs
"Copyright holders aren't going to be happy with Freenet and Gnutella," Mohr said. "They are going to want to start monitoring people at the ISP level, and that means there is going to be a coming war between individual privacy versus network security."
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Joseph Ashwood wrote:
I'm sorry, there will be no war _between_ security of any kind, and privacy of any kind. One implies the other.
If something is private, it must be secure If something is secure, there is obviously something worth keeping restricted.
private <> secure. secure <> restricted private ~ resticted (stricly speaking, there are levels of restiction) Your logic is flawed. ____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Right now, attempts to control the internet lean on ISP's and backbone sites pretty heavily. Most of the nodes on the internet have exactly ONE route to the internet, and if you can get to somebody's upstream, she's toast. In the long run, I don't think the machinery of freedom is going to work very well until most of the nodes on the internet have at least three or four different routes to the internet. One person connected to one ISP is easy to monitor, easy to interfere with. But if a dozen people connected to a dozen ISP's are also all connected to each other directly, then each and every one of them becomes much harder to interfere with. Unfortunately, extra phone lines and nailed-up connections cost money, and at that point they'd just start going for the phone companies instead of the ISP's anyway. The benefit is that common carrier anti-censorship laws might be a little stronger with phone lines. Bear On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Joseph Ashwood wrote:
I'm sorry, there will be no war _between_ security of any kind, and privacy of any kind. One implies the other.
If something is private, it must be secure If something is secure, there is obviously something worth keeping restricted.
Now how exactly are they going to start monitoring people at the ISP level, when we are all free to make use of things such as IPSec, Freedom, etc? If we don't exercise our rights, they can of course take them away. Joe
----- Original Message ----- From: "Blank Frank" <bf@mindspring.com> To: <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:54 PM Subject: CDR: content owners vs. ISPs
"Copyright holders aren't going to be happy with Freenet and Gnutella," Mohr said. "They are going to want to start monitoring people at the ISP level, and that means there is going to be a coming war between individual privacy versus network security."
900MHz packet (<$100/site) coupled with Plan 9 is the base you want to start from using current tech. It will require updating firewall software so that it also handles bandwidth throttling and fail-over routing. On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote:
In the long run, I don't think the machinery of freedom is going to work very well until most of the nodes on the internet have at least three or four different routes to the internet.
Unfortunately, extra phone lines and nailed-up connections cost money, and at that point they'd just start going for the phone companies instead of the ISP's anyway. The benefit is that common carrier anti-censorship laws might be a little stronger with phone lines.
____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
900MHz packet (<$100/site) coupled with Plan 9 is the base you want to start from using current tech. It will require updating firewall software so that it also handles bandwidth throttling and fail-over routing.
I've looked at that, but I'm unsure about it... the problem is that if not enough people have it you're out of range - but if too many people have it, you're choked for bandwidth and get interference problems. With a range of a few hundred feet to a few miles, routing can also become problematic. It would be nice though: a $100 'packet box' for each station, that allows you to set up independent IP connections with your neighbors. If you can get them common enough, it would be impossible to cut someone off by cutting their ISP access -- 'cause out in the wild, a packet is a packet is a packet, and if all the stations run IP protocol, even if every ISP in the world rejects a packet, it could still make its way across any continent in short hops from station to station. And this is not just an anti-censorship thing, either; this is more properly a tool for 24/7 uptime for people who can't afford t3's and can't get PacBell's attention to fix their damn line in the first minute after it goes down. I can picture that sales pitch appealing to a lot of home businesses who get cut off from their DSL connection for a week at a time while PacBell pulls its head out of its collective ass. Or Cinci Bell, or Southern Bell, or NTT, or Deutsche Telecomm, or whoever serves their area. I like it. Every station an ISP. Bear
It's important to recognize some points, - It's a backup system, consider bad weather and emergency services. CB radio should be broadened to allow this on designated channels for the same sort of reasons. - Most people wouldn't be sending heavy packets all the time. - It would be useful for large audience broadcast (say a church wishing to broadcast voice_over_IP to its immediate neighborhood) - Your kids could have a 'neighborhood chat room'. - Some sort of encryption is required. (Which will be a lot easier sell after the IR search thing is found unconstitutional) - Maxim is making a 900MHz chip that supports 1Mb/s. Using burst and spread spectrum I suspect that a network with suitable bandwidth and routing rules couldn't generate more bits than it could handle with respect to distance between sites. On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote:
On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
900MHz packet (<$100/site) coupled with Plan 9 is the base you want to start from using current tech. It will require updating firewall software so that it also handles bandwidth throttling and fail-over routing.
I've looked at that, but I'm unsure about it... the problem is that if not enough people have it you're out of range - but if too many people have it, you're choked for bandwidth and get interference problems.
With a range of a few hundred feet to a few miles, routing can also become problematic.
It would be nice though: a $100 'packet box' for each station, that allows you to set up independent IP connections with your neighbors. If you can get them common enough, it would be impossible to cut someone off by cutting their ISP access -- 'cause out in the wild, a packet is a packet is a packet, and if all the stations run IP protocol, even if every ISP in the world rejects a packet, it could still make its way across any continent in short hops from station to station.
And this is not just an anti-censorship thing, either; this is more properly a tool for 24/7 uptime for people who can't afford t3's and can't get PacBell's attention to fix their damn line in the first minute after it goes down. I can picture that sales pitch appealing to a lot of home businesses who get cut off from their DSL connection for a week at a time while PacBell pulls its head out of its collective ass. Or Cinci Bell, or Southern Bell, or NTT, or Deutsche Telecomm, or whoever serves their area.
I like it. Every station an ISP.
____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 08:44 AM 3/17/01 -0800, Ray Dillinger wrote:
I like it. Every station an ISP.
There are amazing technical things you can do *if* you can get every node to cooperate (and spend power and compute time). You could drop military sensors that talked to each other and route info back to the closer edge of the area you monitor. You could probably do neat things, in some circumstances, with cell phones if your cell phone could route or relay others' calls. In the old Fidonet/uucp world this is just adding an RF i/f. Or packet-switched radio? In today's world you'd have to have ISPs that let you do this if you routed others' packets through them. And of course, Gnutella/Process Tree/etc... .......
Jim Choate wrote:
900MHz packet (<$100/site) coupled with Plan 9 is the base you want to start from using current tech.
Microwave networking providers price vary considerably, and a number of ISPs are reluctant to unroll this stuff due to implementation pricing. Can anyone recommend good nice, and inexpensive packet radio LAN technology ? I've heard that breezecom is pretty nice, what do you guys think ? How secure are the spread spectrum modulation schemes on these things anyway ?
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001, madmullah wrote:
Microwave networking providers price vary considerably, and a number of ISPs are reluctant to unroll this stuff due to implementation pricing.
Which is irrelevant to the point we're talking about. ____________________________________________________________________ If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution not the final precedence since it's the primary authority? The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Dillinger wrote:
In the long run, I don't think the machinery of freedom is going to work very well until most of the nodes on the internet have at least three or four different routes to the internet.
On that note, what's the most inexpensive way of becoming trully multi homed, and how much of a pain is it to set up BGP ? What are the requirements for getting an ASN number ? Can a smaller ISP pull this off ? This is a serious question, I can't find a whole lot of information on this.
madmullah writes:
On that note, what's the most inexpensive way of becoming trully multi homed, and how much of a pain is it to set up BGP ? What are the requirements for getting an ASN number ? Can a smaller ISP pull this off ? This is a serious question, I can't find a whole lot of information on this.
The main issue is not getting an AS number, or setting up BGP, but whether your routing advertisement will be accepted by the rest of the world. Most small ISPs cannot justify a large block of addresses, which renders it less likely that the rest of the world will accept the advertisement.
participants (8)
-
Blank Frank -
David Honig -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate -
jmalcolm＠uraeus.com -
Joseph Ashwood -
madmullah -
Ray Dillinger