H/T to Maggie Koerth-Baker for the link.
September 22, 2010
September 13, 2010
QotD: An alternate history we might have suffered
Thought experiment: imagine an Internet in which email and web addresses were centrally issued by government agencies, with heavy procedural requirements and no mobility — even, at a plausible extreme, political patronage footballs. What kind of society do you suppose eventually issues from that?
I was there in 1983 when a tiny group called the IETF prevented this from happening. I had a personal hand in preventing it and yes, I knew what the stakes were. Even then. So did everyone else in the room.
Thought experiment: imagine a future in which everybody takes for granted that all software outside a few toy projects in academia will be closed source controlled by managerial elites, computers are unhackable sealed boxes, communications protocols are opaque and locked down, and any use of computer-assisted technology requires layers of permissions that (in effect) mean digital information flow is utterly controlled by those with political and legal master keys. What kind of society do you suppose eventually issues from that?
Remember Trusted Computing and Palladium and crypto-export restrictions? RMS and Linus Torvalds and John Gilmore and I and a few score other hackers aborted that future before it was born, by using our leverage as engineers and mentors of engineers to change the ground of debate.
[. . .]
Did we bend the trajectory of society? Yes. Yes, I think we did. It wasn’t a given that we’d get a future in which any random person could have a website and a blog, you know. It wasn’t even given that we’d have an Internet that anyone could hook up to without permission. And I’m pretty sure that if the political class had understood the implications of what we were actually doing, they’d have insisted on more centralized control. ~For the public good and the children, don’t you know.~
So, yes, sometimes very tiny groups can change society in visibly large ways on a short timescale. I’ve been there when it was done; once or twice I’ve been the instrument of change myself.
Eric S. Raymond, “Engineering history”, Armed and Dangerous, 2010-09-12
September 5, 2010
Craigslist surrenders, problem totally resolved
Dan Tynan recounts the glorious moral victory scored by unhappy state legislators against the final bastion of sin and decadence, Craigslist:
Bowing to pressure from 17 state attorneys general, Craigslist has begun censoring its Adult Services ads. Visitors coming to any of the 400+ Craigslist sites will encounter a big black CENSORED tab where Adult Services used to be.
As we all know, the scourge of prostitution had been entirely eradicated from modern society before Craigslist came along. And now that Adult Service ads are banned, you can expect all those hard-working gals to pack up their condoms and lubricants and enroll in secretarial school.
Alas, we fear that — despite the best intentions of 17 state attorneys general desperately trying to get re-elected — a ban on Adult Services won’t quite put an end to adult-oriented advertising on Craigslist.
August 23, 2010
QotD: Peak Culture
The height of their society peaked in 1969. They used militarism and socialism to put two guys on the Moon, they trotted out their public-private partnership (Concorde) to build exclusive supersonic transport for the rich. Max Faget and some other brilliant engineers designed a space shuttle fleet of ten vehicles capable of hundreds of flights a year to make access to low Earth orbit cheap and routine. And the Advanced Research Projects Agency had some geeks create an inter-networking protocol that could survive a nuclear war.
Obviously, they shot their wad, as it were, and no longer put guys on the Moon. They no longer fly supersonic transports. Their space shuttle is going to stop flying soon, if it hasn’t already. Those geeky guys went on to develop open source cryptography, open source software, and totally private economic transactions. The future we’re creating is going to be very, dramatically different. It is going to be decentralised to a fare thee well.
Right now, today, two people anywhere in the world *can* have a totally private economic exchange that cannot be detected by anyone else. And since it cannot be detected, it cannot be regulated, it cannot be prohibited, and it cannot be taxed. Even inflation cannot tax it, if the exchange is denominated in some money like silver or gold. Which means that those who dream of ruling the world sowed the seeds of their own damnation?
Jim Davidson, “Peak Culture”, Libertarian Enterprise, 2010-08-22
August 20, 2010
“C will not only let you shoot yourself in the foot, it will hand you a new magazine when you run out of bullets”
Charles Stross enumerates some of the ways “we went wrong” in the rush to today’s computing world:
According to one estimate pushed by the FBI in 2006, computer crime costs US businesses $67 billion a year. And identity fraud in the US allegedly hit $52.6Bn in 2004.
Even allowing for self-serving reporting (the FBI would obviously find it useful to inflate the threat of crime, if only to justify their budget requests), that’s a lot of money being pumped down a rat-hole. Extrapolate it worldwide and the figures are horrendous — probably nearer to $300Bn a year. To put it in perspective, it’s like the combined revenue (not profits; gross turnover) of Intel, Microsoft, Apple, and IBM — and probably a few left-overs like HP and Dell — being lost due to deliberate criminal activity.
Where does this parasitic drag come from? Where did we go wrong?
I’m compiling a little list, of architectural sins of the founders (between 1945 and 1990, more or less) that have bequeathed us the current mess. They’re fundamental design errors in our computing architectures; their emergent side-effects have permitted the current wave of computer crime to happen . . .
I make it a rule never to believe the order of magnitude claimed by a self-interested party about how much money is “lost” because of their current hobby-horse mopery and dopery. Even if the amount claimed by the FBI is off by an order of magnitude, that’s still serious money.
August 16, 2010
Practically speaking, the end is in sight for passwords
Advances in computing are not always uniformly beneficial: short passwords are increasingly vulnerable to brute-force cracking:
The availability of password-cracking tools based on increasingly powerful graphics processors means that even carefully chosen short passwords are liable to crack under a brute-force attack.
A password of less than seven characters will soon be “hopelessly inadequate” even if it contains symbols as well as alphanumerical characters, according to computer scientists at the Georgia Tech Research Institute. The security researchers recommend passwords at least 12 characters long.
The number crunching abilities of graphics processors were recently applied to commercial password auditing and recovery tools from Russian developer ElcomSoft. It’s a safe assumption that black hats are able to use the same type of technology for less laudable purposes. Richard Boyd, of the Georgia Tech Research Institute, told the BBC that the number-crunching capacity of graphics cards compares to those of supercomputers built only 10 years ago.
Passwords are going to go away, sooner rather than later. All of us have too many passwords to remember that it’s pretty much guaranteed that you’re using one of the following coping strategies:
- Using the same password on many different sites (or, shudder, all of them)
- Using a simple password (among the most commonly used are “password” and “letmein”)
- Leaving a sticky note on your monitor or your keyboard with your passwords listed
- Using the name of the site as your password for that site
There are tools available to generate passwords that avoid the most obvious pitfalls (too short, no numeric or non-alphanumeric characters, using full words), but very few people use them consistently. I don’t know what the replacement for passwords will be, but we clearly need to move to more secure ways of verifying identity as soon as we can.
August 11, 2010
Felicia Day talks about making The Guild
More at Fast Company.
August 9, 2010
IPv6 still not ready for primetime?
As you’ve probably heard, the current internet addressing system, IPv4, is running out of unallocated addresses. The replacement is called IPv6 and was supposed to be in use by now. Security concerns are holding it back:
The internet’s next-generation addressing scheme is so radically different from the current one that its adoption is likely to cause severe security headaches for those who adopt it, a researcher said last week.
With reserves of older addresses almost exhausted, the roll-out of the new scheme — known as IPv6 or Internet Protocol version 6 — is imminent. And yet, the radical overhaul still isn’t ready for prime time — in large part because IT professionals haven’t worked out a large number of security threats facing those who rely on it to route traffic over the net.
“It is extremely important for hackers to get in here fast because IPv6 is a security nightmare,” Sam Bowne, an instructor in the Computer Networking and Information Technology Department at the City College of San Francisco, said on day one of the Defcon hacker conference in Las Vegas. “We’re coming into a time of crisis and no one is ready.”
Chief among the threats is the issue of incompatible firewalls, intrusion-prevention devices, and other security appliances, Bowne said. That means many people who deploy IPv6 are forced to turn the security devices off, creating a dangerous environment that could make it easier for attackers to penetrate network fortresses.
July 30, 2010
July 20, 2010
Paywall experiment not going to plan
A drop in use was probably expected when the Times put up a paywall on their website, but I doubt they expected the drop to be on the order of 90%:
The Times has lost almost 90% of its online readership compared to February since making registration mandatory in June, calculations by the Guardian show.
Unregistered users of thetimes.co.uk are now “bounced” to a Times+ membership page where they have to register if they want to view Times content. Data from the web metrics company Experian Hitwise shows that only 25.6% of such users sign up and proceed to a Times web page; based on custom categories (created at the Guardian) that have been used to track the performance of major UK press titles online, visits to the Times site have fallen to 4.16% of UK quality press online traffic, compared with 15% before it made registration compulsory on 15 June.
These figures can then be used to model how this may impact on the number of users hitting the new Times site. Based on the last available ABCe data for Times Online readership (from February 2010), which showed that it had 1.2 million daily unique users, and Hitwise’s figures showing it had 15% of UK online newspaper traffic, that means a total of 332,800 daily users trying to visit the Times site.
If none of the people visiting the site have already registered, the one-on-four dropout rate means that traffic actually going from the registration site to the Times site is just 84,800, or 1.06% of total UK newspaper traffic – a 93% fall compared with May.
I have to admit that the paywall meant I just didn’t bother going to the Times at all, and no longer link to anything there (because most of my readers wouldn’t be able to open the link anyway). The Times might as well have gone out of business, from the online perspective.
July 15, 2010
Pleated-Jeans identifies the modern Maslow’s hierarchy
Pleated-Jeans has done the heavy lifting to pull the old, outdated Maslow diagram into the 21st century:

H/T to Michael O’Connor Clarke who advises “Caution: may cause psych majors to eject hot coffee through nasal passages.”
July 12, 2010
June 25, 2010
Internet access forces retirement of military TV network
Strategy Page notes the imminent demise of two media staples: Armed Forces Network (AFN) broadcast television and the traditional base newspaper:
U.S. military television stations in Europe are halting the broadcasting of their signals. Not because so many American troops have left Europe since the end of the Cold War, but because everyone has cable. A few broadcasting towers will keep operating, for the few areas where barracks are not yet wired for cable. The big losers are American retirees and military families living off the base. In addition, a lot of locals enjoyed the availability of the “American Channel” and the military oriented content. It was something they could not find on the largest local cable plans. AFN often broadcast American TV shows before they were bought by local networks for broadcast in dubbed format. The dubbing is often poor, and many Europeans speak English, and like to get American TV shows as soon as they come out. But now that’s all history.
[. . .] the technology tidal wave is also destroying the oldest form of American military media; the base newspaper. Four years ago, U.S. Air Force bases began to scrap a century old tradition; the base newspaper. Some bases later brought the papers back, because they found there were a significant minority of base residents who did not use the Internet (which was supposed to replace the newspaper.) But that is not going to last long.
These weeklies were almost standard on military bases, mainly as a vehicle for getting out information of use to all those who lived or worked there. There were administrative announcements, as well as social ones. The base newspapers served a morale function, as well as a practical one. But the news papers cost money, some $3,000-$5,000 a week. The papers were distributed for free, and now there’s a trend towards eliminating the papers, and just putting out all the information on the base web site. All bases now have web sites, and troops, especially younger ones, find these more useful than newspapers. Surveys indicate that most junior troops don’t even read newspapers (nor do their civilian peers). But all these young troops rely on the web for news, and other information. The troops also note that, when they are deployed overseas, or just away from the base for a few days, they only way to stay in touch with what’s happening on the base is via the web site. But many older NCOs and officers, along with their spouses, do still read newspapers. It’s a generational thing, so the base newspaper is still doomed.
June 24, 2010
Australia changes PM
I hadn’t realized just how unpopular Kevin Rudd had become:
Although he scored a landslide election victory against an 11-year-old Liberal government led by John Howard in November 2007, he had said he was confident he would win the challenge. But commentators were already writing him off. “He’s a goner. You can stick a fork in him,” Nick Economou of Monash University told Reuters.
For Rudd, the transformation in his political fortunes has been startling. Only six months ago, with the opposition going through its third leadership change since he beat Howard, Rudd and his government seemed untouchable.
A year ago he rivalled Bob Hawke as Australia’s most popular prime minister. Now he will join Hawke as the only other Labor prime minister to be dumped by his party, making him the first one-term prime minister since 1932.
The new prime minister is Julia Gillard, who appears to be facing the kind of challenge that the first female prime minister of Canada faced: being held responsible for the sins of the last leader (Kim Campbell led the Progressive Conservatives into their worst election defeat ever, dropping from holding a decisive majority to only 2 seats).
Update: The Register thinks that one of the first changes Gillard will make is to fire the current Communications Minister:
Speculation was rife this morning (or evening, over in Australia) that controversial Communications Minister and architect of Australia’s great firewall project, Stephen Conroy may shortly be for the chop.
In his place, it is suggested, Australia’s new PM Julia Gillard might prefer the more conciliatory — and also better-informed — approach of Senator Kate Lundy.
If so, this is likely to prove a victory for those opposed to Conroy’s hard line on internet censorship, as Ms Lundy has made it clear over the last few months that she prefers to win support from Australia’s voters for an opt-in filter — instead of imposing a mandatory filter from the centre, which is the hardline stance favoured by the present Communications Minister.
If true, that will be a bit of good news for internet users in Australia.




