This story in the Wall Street Journal is about convicted murderer who spends 15 years working to unearth overwhelming evidence of misconduct by prosecuting attorneys in their efforts to secure a conviction.
This reveals a fundamental difference between how the system is supposed to work and how it actually works.
The district attorney, representing the people, is supposed to be primarily concerned with finding the truth. Opposing him is a defense attorney whose primary responsibility is to mount a vigorous defense for his client and establish reasonable doubt that the D.A.'s theory of "the truth" is actually true.
What happens, in reality, is that both sides take on the role of advocating an outcome.
The D.A. becomes concerned with a conviction more than he is concerned about the truth. In that moment, the system becomes obscenely distorted. We end up with government attorneys fighting the introduction of clearly exonerating evidence because it hurts their case. Damn right it hurts their case. But an ethical attorney representing a search for the truth will acknowledge this and be open to the possibility that they have the wrong guy.
I don't know. Perhaps this kind of behavior should be criminalized. That is my reflex, though the criminal justice system being what it is, I am not sure how much good it would do.
The bottom line is the damage this kind of behavior does to the society.
When people lose faith in the notion that the government's actions are fair, the government loses its legitimacy. The consequences are not pretty. This is just one small example. Congress is another.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
I'm Glad I'm on CDMA... for now.
Although GSM wireless has been known to have security issues for a long time, these guys have demonstrated a far more specific (and cheap) attack.
Here is what it comes down to.
If these hackers have done it today, governments have already done it. The difference is they don't tell anyone because communications security is not in the interest of governments. They just want you to feel secure, not to be secure.
Now that this is out in the open, I would hope (though not wager) thatCingular ATT, as the largest GSM network in the U.S. takes immediate measures to secure their traffic. If we see P.R. assurances that everything is OK, then we will know they aren't going to do that, and instead will rely on hope.
All in all, it is people like this, who take on the challenge to find the cracks, that keep all of us safer. Why? Because these guys make their information public. The threat (to our privacy) are the people who discover exploits and don't tell anyone.
Why worry if you have nothing to hide?
Because what is innocuous today could become a problem tomorrow with a simple policy change (like electing an administration with different priorities...)
Here is what it comes down to.
If these hackers have done it today, governments have already done it. The difference is they don't tell anyone because communications security is not in the interest of governments. They just want you to feel secure, not to be secure.
Now that this is out in the open, I would hope (though not wager) that
All in all, it is people like this, who take on the challenge to find the cracks, that keep all of us safer. Why? Because these guys make their information public. The threat (to our privacy) are the people who discover exploits and don't tell anyone.
Why worry if you have nothing to hide?
Because what is innocuous today could become a problem tomorrow with a simple policy change (like electing an administration with different priorities...)
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
3D TV - DOA?
This article, backed up by a comprehensive Nielson survey, says consumers are not jumping onto the 3D television bandwagon.
People expect a different experience in a theater than they do at home. There is an expectation of social isolation in the theater. There is an expectation of interaction at home. The focus simply is not 100% on the show.
Perhaps if the smart people can create the 3D experience without the glasses, so it is just there, this will work. It will also work (in its current state) for hard core gaming, and other experiences where people expect to be immersed.
Ultimately, though, we are reaching the point where home video is over-delivering features. That is to say, it is offering up things that fewer and fewer people will find compelling enough to pay for.
Fortunately (for the industry), there doesn't seem to be a game changing technology on the horizon or they would be facing The Innovator's Dilemma here. Or am I missing something that is emerging out of left field?
Less than 10 percent of consumers worldwide said they would be buying a 3-D TV over the next 12 months, with an additional 15 percent saying they probably will purchase a 3-D capable set during that time. But those global trends don’t extend to North America, where only 3 percent of consumers surveyed said they would definitely buy a 3DTV over the next year, with an additional 3 percent saying they probably will buy one.This just shows again that the simple existence of a technology does not mean anyone is interested.
People expect a different experience in a theater than they do at home. There is an expectation of social isolation in the theater. There is an expectation of interaction at home. The focus simply is not 100% on the show.
Perhaps if the smart people can create the 3D experience without the glasses, so it is just there, this will work. It will also work (in its current state) for hard core gaming, and other experiences where people expect to be immersed.
Ultimately, though, we are reaching the point where home video is over-delivering features. That is to say, it is offering up things that fewer and fewer people will find compelling enough to pay for.
Fortunately (for the industry), there doesn't seem to be a game changing technology on the horizon or they would be facing The Innovator's Dilemma here. Or am I missing something that is emerging out of left field?
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
1500 Questions
On OKCupid's model is questions. Thousands of them. Some are created by the staff, but the overwhelming majority are created by other users. I've got to admit that I have found those questions a bit addicting - to the point where I have answered over 1500 of them (!).
Why? Honestly, less to reveal myself to others than the chance at introspection. I have had an interesting journey watching my own responses, and my own answers. Many of the questions are redundant, and they serve in loose way as validators would on a more formal survey instrument. I become aware of my own inconsistency, as well as the topics I am unsure about or uncomfortable with.
One thing that surprised me is how adamant I am about atheism. I have always felt I was benignly ambivalent about strongly held religious beliefs. Now I have to look in the mirror and admit, nope, that isn't true. Faced with pretty strong evidence to the contrary I have to admit that I am not ambivalent at all, about religion or people who try to spread a non-logical belief system. It is a truth I am glad to embrace, and doing so reduces a lot of internal stress.
The other thing I am learning is that I am struggling with how I define myself. Thanks to a few pretty deep message exchanges with another member I came to realize just how much I define who I am by what I know, or what I know about. In other words, I have always liked the fact that I can hold up my end of a pretty deep conversation across a pretty wide spectrum of topics. If I am confronted by something I don't know, the Google fingers are working and I am finding out.
I can embrace that too, but I am also trying to change it. I guess embracing it is the first step.
Don't get me wrong - I truly would never give up my geeky side. I love to think, I love to be provoked to think. I want to understand how things work. Now I am turning that onto myself.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Boy Scouts Worried About Declining Membership
Back in November, the NY Times published this article about the Boy Scouts (USA) organizational concern that their ranks are declining.
Let's see.
I would say that excluding kids who are different from their "standards" is pretty exclusionary to me.
And might it be that some of the kids they would "accept" into their ranks don't want to be associated with an organization like that?
If you think about it, the only kids in the organization are going to be the ones who are comfortable with keeping out the others.
That sounds pretty exclusionary to me. I'd venture to say it is more than a perception.
The "shifting demographics" are pretty straight forward.
People are growing up and rejecting your message.
The Boy Scouts are clinging to a vision of an America that actually never existed. It seemed like "simpler times" but in reality it was a time when one group suppressed others with fear an intimidation. There are not more gays or more atheists today than there were in those "simpler times." Instead, the rest of society has begun the process of accepting that there is no legitimate reason to exclude them.
Because the organization is dominated bysocial conservatives religious fanatics, I don't believe the Boy Scouts will ever be able to man up and embrace even the groups they are trying to recruit. There will always be an undercurrent of discrimination and hostility toward "those people."
They are no longer a mainstream organization because they have never represented the values they claim to.
The scandals about sexual abuse of the kids are another topic entirely. Funny (not actually) how they share those values with the Catholic Church, and started addressing the issue only when they could no longer suppress the story.
Let's see.
The declines reflect the difficulties of keeping up with changing times and shifting demographics, as well as of battling a perception that the organization is exclusionary because it bars gay people and atheists, not to mention girls under 13.A perception that they are exclusionary?
I would say that excluding kids who are different from their "standards" is pretty exclusionary to me.
And might it be that some of the kids they would "accept" into their ranks don't want to be associated with an organization like that?
If you think about it, the only kids in the organization are going to be the ones who are comfortable with keeping out the others.
That sounds pretty exclusionary to me. I'd venture to say it is more than a perception.
The "shifting demographics" are pretty straight forward.
People are growing up and rejecting your message.
The Boy Scouts are clinging to a vision of an America that actually never existed. It seemed like "simpler times" but in reality it was a time when one group suppressed others with fear an intimidation. There are not more gays or more atheists today than there were in those "simpler times." Instead, the rest of society has begun the process of accepting that there is no legitimate reason to exclude them.
Because the organization is dominated by
They are no longer a mainstream organization because they have never represented the values they claim to.
The scandals about sexual abuse of the kids are another topic entirely. Funny (not actually) how they share those values with the Catholic Church, and started addressing the issue only when they could no longer suppress the story.
An even bigger challenge emerged this year as a jury ordered the Scouts to pay $18.5 million in damages to a man who had been abused by a scout leader as a boy. The trial focused renewed attention on the secret files that the Scouts’ national office in Texas has kept for more than 70 years of claims of sexual abuse by troop leaders and volunteers.And you want a responsible parent to turn their kid over to this organization?
Saturday, December 18, 2010
AG Requests Data, Google Refuses
This AP Story carried on Yahoo News says that the Connecticut Attorney General has "requested" information from Google pertaining to their admittedly inadvertent collection of data fragments from open WiFi networks during their drive-by data collection for Street View.
While I am disappointed that Google collected more information than locations and SSIDs being broadcast, the Connecticut Attorney General "requested" the information, and Google is well within their rights to decline. I am more disappointed that the Connecticut AG has chosen to respond to the rebuff with a press release.
Here is the bottom line.
This is just another facet of the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.
I hope Google stands its ground here, and if pressed, places its considerable resources behind a defense.
Oh - and I am a lot less worried about Google inadvertently collecting email fragments than I am about the government reading them.
While I am disappointed that Google collected more information than locations and SSIDs being broadcast, the Connecticut Attorney General "requested" the information, and Google is well within their rights to decline. I am more disappointed that the Connecticut AG has chosen to respond to the rebuff with a press release.
Here is the bottom line.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Put simply, if an AG wants information from Google, or anyone else for that matter, to "review the information" so they can determine if a crime was committed, they can get a warrant.
This is just another facet of the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.
...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...Government has no right to compel anyone to comply with a fishing expedition.
I hope Google stands its ground here, and if pressed, places its considerable resources behind a defense.
Oh - and I am a lot less worried about Google inadvertently collecting email fragments than I am about the government reading them.
Mexican Drone Crashes in Texas
The story is summarized here, with link backs to the original source.
Here is my question.
What would have happened if a U.S. Predator drone had crashed in Mexico? Would they have quietly given it back while we denied it was ours?
Or would there have been outrage over violation of Mexican sovereign airspace?
Just sayin...
Here is my question.
What would have happened if a U.S. Predator drone had crashed in Mexico? Would they have quietly given it back while we denied it was ours?
Or would there have been outrage over violation of Mexican sovereign airspace?
Just sayin...
Free Speech and Secrets
As the Wikileaks saga moves into Phase II, I think it is kind of unfortunate that Julian Assange is such a narcissistic ass. His personality is contaminating the real issue here - what are the limits of free speech and freedom of the press. If he weren't the face of Wikileaks, he would be just one more narcissistic ass accused of sexual misconduct, and all of this stuff with the bail hearing would not even make the "local news" section of the London Times.
The central issue here is that he published government secrets, and threatens to publish more.
While it clearly is annoying to a lot of people, is it a crime?
Going back into ancient (to me) history, the precedent was set with Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers case.
The way I see it is that governments have a legitimate interest in keeping secrets. I do not say that easily because I would see the legitimate interest far more narrowly than any U.S. administration ever has. But I will concede that there are some things that are best kept secret, at least for a time.
In order to protect those secrets, government can restrict who is allowed to know them. Government can issue security clearances based on trust and "need to know." Government may take reasonable steps to secure the information.
But if those controls break down, then the information is out in the wild. Anyone who isn't trusted and cleared has access to it. None of those people have promised to keep it a secret. There may be stolen documents and illegally copied files, but "information" itself flows freely. (Commercial copyrights protect copying, but not transfer).
Once I know something, if I have not previously agreed to keep it a secret (or I do not agree after the fact), I am under no obligation to do so. (Your mileage may vary if you are in a less free society such as the People's Republic of China, Russia, or the United Kingdom.) As annoyed as everyone is, Mr. Assange is not obligated by any law to keep this stuff to himself once he comes into possession of it.
Of course governments being what they are, they will try to find an angle, some obscure law they can use to attempt prosecution. They may even succeed, and if they don't, they can still bankrupt a miscreant by making him mount a legal defense against an unlimited budget. And the governments of less free states (hopefully not the USA) may (and do) use, how shall we put this politely, "extra-judicial methods" to silence someone.
Since he is a narcissistic ass, Julian Assange may well believe his ultimate fate is to be a martyr. I think the press will tire of him first, unless a government does something stupid.
Oh - note to U.S. State Department - I really don't understand how, in the world of compartmented security clearances, security firewalls, and simple Windows 7 file folder protection, a junior enlisted man was able to download that mountain of information onto a CD and walk out the door with it. Yes, he committed a crime. But if Tiffiny's left the doors open, the counters unlocked and the merchandise out when everybody went to lunch, they wouldn't get much sympathy if someone helped themselves to some diamonds.
The central issue here is that he published government secrets, and threatens to publish more.
While it clearly is annoying to a lot of people, is it a crime?
Going back into ancient (to me) history, the precedent was set with Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers case.
The way I see it is that governments have a legitimate interest in keeping secrets. I do not say that easily because I would see the legitimate interest far more narrowly than any U.S. administration ever has. But I will concede that there are some things that are best kept secret, at least for a time.
In order to protect those secrets, government can restrict who is allowed to know them. Government can issue security clearances based on trust and "need to know." Government may take reasonable steps to secure the information.
But if those controls break down, then the information is out in the wild. Anyone who isn't trusted and cleared has access to it. None of those people have promised to keep it a secret. There may be stolen documents and illegally copied files, but "information" itself flows freely. (Commercial copyrights protect copying, but not transfer).
Once I know something, if I have not previously agreed to keep it a secret (or I do not agree after the fact), I am under no obligation to do so. (Your mileage may vary if you are in a less free society such as the People's Republic of China, Russia, or the United Kingdom.) As annoyed as everyone is, Mr. Assange is not obligated by any law to keep this stuff to himself once he comes into possession of it.
Of course governments being what they are, they will try to find an angle, some obscure law they can use to attempt prosecution. They may even succeed, and if they don't, they can still bankrupt a miscreant by making him mount a legal defense against an unlimited budget. And the governments of less free states (hopefully not the USA) may (and do) use, how shall we put this politely, "extra-judicial methods" to silence someone.
Since he is a narcissistic ass, Julian Assange may well believe his ultimate fate is to be a martyr. I think the press will tire of him first, unless a government does something stupid.
Oh - note to U.S. State Department - I really don't understand how, in the world of compartmented security clearances, security firewalls, and simple Windows 7 file folder protection, a junior enlisted man was able to download that mountain of information onto a CD and walk out the door with it. Yes, he committed a crime. But if Tiffiny's left the doors open, the counters unlocked and the merchandise out when everybody went to lunch, they wouldn't get much sympathy if someone helped themselves to some diamonds.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Neil Armstrong Comments on Moonwalk Blog Post
Robert Krulwich, NPR's science blogger, had a cool post a few days ago, about our understanding of the relative size of things.
One of his examples showed just how small an area was actually traversed by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin during the Apollo 11 lunar mission. The entire area would fit easily onto a soccer field or a baseball diamond.
One of his examples showed just how small an area was actually traversed by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin during the Apollo 11 lunar mission. The entire area would fit easily onto a soccer field or a baseball diamond.
What is uber cool, though, is the response he got from none other than Neil Armstrong himself!
Now I've got to tell you, I was not even in my terrible two's when all of this happened. But maybe because my brothers held it all in awe, I share some of that feeling. This is, in my mind, the greatest accomplishment of the 20th century, and it the event creates a watershed between eras of history.
But effusing aside, Neil Armstrong has led a very private life since these days, so getting a response for something as mundane as this should have been quite something.
You can read the post about Armstrong's response here.
I grew up with the space shuttle, and as interesting and exciting as NASA has tried to make it, I know, they know, everybody knows, that they peaked during the Apollo era.
Here's to getting serious about exploring again someday. But (and you heard it here first), the next Americans on the moon will be there under corporate sponsorship, and they will meet the Chinese when they get there.
Friday, December 10, 2010
I'm Glad I Don't Fly Much
With the TSA thing dying down in the media, I have to say I am glad I don't have to fly very much.
But the debate, as sensationalized as it was, brought up some interesting points.
"Flying is a privilege, if you don't like the security, don't take a plane." I suppose this is true. I can always drive 2500 miles to visit my mom. Or I can take a train.
Except that trains are next. The TSA is already talking about upping security on trains.
Trains are already targets in Europe - though I don't think they have TSA type security for trains yet over there. (do they?)
We are hearing about the backscatter technology being put into mobile vans that can cruise up and down the road and look into our cars.
Of course "driving is a privilege, not a right."
But then, that same van-mounted backscatter imagery technology can look at people walking the same way it can look at you at the airport.
"But we are only looking for terrorists."
OK, so I have nothing to fear from the government peering through my car, or through my clothes, as I am on a public street. Or nothing to fear from them "just checking" through the walls of my house. What happens when my innocent and legal possession of, say, a firearm is indistinguishable from what a "terrorist" would look like? Do they stop and question me? Is it now up to me to prove that my legal act is, indeed, legal? Would I have to now mount an expensive legal defense to establish this point?
Flying is a privilege, not a right.
Again, that argument allows a steady slicing away of the means of travel until travel itself becomes a privilege. We might all be safer if we had internal passports, and government checkpoints at the approaches to major cities. (We might not as well.) But "terror" is about creating fear in the hope of causing us to change our policies. (That is another story.) If it gets to that point, then the terror is probably winning.
Here is the core problem for me.
There are no boundaries.
And unbounded government power will always grow until it hits a boundary.
If that boundary is the patience of the people, social unrest results.
And that is exactly what the terrorists are trying to do.
The government is doing exactly what the terrorists are trying to get it to do.
The terrorists are pulling the strings here, and the government is falling for it.
But the debate, as sensationalized as it was, brought up some interesting points.
"Flying is a privilege, if you don't like the security, don't take a plane." I suppose this is true. I can always drive 2500 miles to visit my mom. Or I can take a train.
Except that trains are next. The TSA is already talking about upping security on trains.
Trains are already targets in Europe - though I don't think they have TSA type security for trains yet over there. (do they?)
We are hearing about the backscatter technology being put into mobile vans that can cruise up and down the road and look into our cars.
Of course "driving is a privilege, not a right."
But then, that same van-mounted backscatter imagery technology can look at people walking the same way it can look at you at the airport.
"But we are only looking for terrorists."
OK, so I have nothing to fear from the government peering through my car, or through my clothes, as I am on a public street. Or nothing to fear from them "just checking" through the walls of my house. What happens when my innocent and legal possession of, say, a firearm is indistinguishable from what a "terrorist" would look like? Do they stop and question me? Is it now up to me to prove that my legal act is, indeed, legal? Would I have to now mount an expensive legal defense to establish this point?
Flying is a privilege, not a right.
Again, that argument allows a steady slicing away of the means of travel until travel itself becomes a privilege. We might all be safer if we had internal passports, and government checkpoints at the approaches to major cities. (We might not as well.) But "terror" is about creating fear in the hope of causing us to change our policies. (That is another story.) If it gets to that point, then the terror is probably winning.
Here is the core problem for me.
There are no boundaries.
And unbounded government power will always grow until it hits a boundary.
If that boundary is the patience of the people, social unrest results.
And that is exactly what the terrorists are trying to do.
The government is doing exactly what the terrorists are trying to get it to do.
The terrorists are pulling the strings here, and the government is falling for it.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Google Chrome
I actually watched the stream cast of Google's meandering "announcement" on Tuesday.
The press was speculating that Google would be launching a Chrome based netbook computer.
That information was at least partly accurate, more so than the come-and-went rumor that a Google pad would be announced on Black Friday.
What it really was... well, imagine that a deadline for a major project has come up but you aren't done, not even close. So you go to the boss and put the best possible spin on it by showing all of the cool things you are working on, and you promise it will be really spectacular when you are done, but you are not sure when that is.
And that's what we got on Tuesday.
The other thing that became glaringly apparent is that in the time that has passed since Google announced the project, the ground has shifted out from under them... only the Chrome OS team didn't notice. They stayed focused on building a laptop computer with a "Nothing but the net" operating system. That's all well and good, but honestly, I have that now if I want it.
Yes, Chrome OS is faster, more efficient, more inherently secure (assuming they deliver on what they said), but it does not bring any really new capability. It just packages and presents things differently.
No... what our friends in Mountain View missed is what happened in Cupertino.
The iPhone changed the landscape of phones forever. Google was well positioned to throw some serious competition at it with Android. But in the notebook computer arena, I'm going out on a limb and saying that the MacBook is going to look an awful lot like an iPad with a keyboard sooner rather than later. It is not a big leap. Apple is just coming there from a different direction.
What Google needs to do, and do it quickly, is get Chrome OS working on a tablet device. If they had announced a tablet on Tuesday that did the things they were demonstrating, I would have been in line to get one that afternoon. In fact, the way the event was structured, I could see them building to that... but at the final moments, well, let's just say they left me excited by the possibilities, but not satisfied. And they were doing such a good job too. I really wanted what they were having, but they came up short.
The press was speculating that Google would be launching a Chrome based netbook computer.
That information was at least partly accurate, more so than the come-and-went rumor that a Google pad would be announced on Black Friday.
What it really was... well, imagine that a deadline for a major project has come up but you aren't done, not even close. So you go to the boss and put the best possible spin on it by showing all of the cool things you are working on, and you promise it will be really spectacular when you are done, but you are not sure when that is.
And that's what we got on Tuesday.
The other thing that became glaringly apparent is that in the time that has passed since Google announced the project, the ground has shifted out from under them... only the Chrome OS team didn't notice. They stayed focused on building a laptop computer with a "Nothing but the net" operating system. That's all well and good, but honestly, I have that now if I want it.
Yes, Chrome OS is faster, more efficient, more inherently secure (assuming they deliver on what they said), but it does not bring any really new capability. It just packages and presents things differently.
No... what our friends in Mountain View missed is what happened in Cupertino.
The iPhone changed the landscape of phones forever. Google was well positioned to throw some serious competition at it with Android. But in the notebook computer arena, I'm going out on a limb and saying that the MacBook is going to look an awful lot like an iPad with a keyboard sooner rather than later. It is not a big leap. Apple is just coming there from a different direction.
What Google needs to do, and do it quickly, is get Chrome OS working on a tablet device. If they had announced a tablet on Tuesday that did the things they were demonstrating, I would have been in line to get one that afternoon. In fact, the way the event was structured, I could see them building to that... but at the final moments, well, let's just say they left me excited by the possibilities, but not satisfied. And they were doing such a good job too. I really wanted what they were having, but they came up short.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Omegle
Now and then I hang out on Omegle for a little bit.
Aside from the unsurprising inquiries about the details of my pubic hair, I have had some really cool conversations about things like the existence of a god, giving advice about meeting girls, international relations.
It's interesting (to me) because, well, who would think it possible to strike up a rich, and sometimes emotionally intimate, conversation with a stranger from a random place in the world?
Maybe it is the anonymity, there is nothing to lose in revealing one's self, only an upside. It is reasonably safe so long as no one takes offense over being disconnected suddenly. Sometimes the stranger at the other end wants to extend this little connection into another arena like email or IM. I have (mostly) resisted doing so. That would end the who idea of chatting with a random stranger, wouldn't it? Actually I have given out my email address twice. But no one has actually used the address to contact me.
Aside from the unsurprising inquiries about the details of my pubic hair, I have had some really cool conversations about things like the existence of a god, giving advice about meeting girls, international relations.
It's interesting (to me) because, well, who would think it possible to strike up a rich, and sometimes emotionally intimate, conversation with a stranger from a random place in the world?
Maybe it is the anonymity, there is nothing to lose in revealing one's self, only an upside. It is reasonably safe so long as no one takes offense over being disconnected suddenly. Sometimes the stranger at the other end wants to extend this little connection into another arena like email or IM. I have (mostly) resisted doing so. That would end the who idea of chatting with a random stranger, wouldn't it? Actually I have given out my email address twice. But no one has actually used the address to contact me.
Internet Evolving to What It Was Intended
The original concept of the Internet was as a peer-to-peer network of hosts, sending information to each other as required. There was no DNS, each host kept its own local file of who was who.
Of course the explosive growth eventually made that structure untenable.
Commercialization moved us to a client-server model.
"The cloud" is the latest move in that direction where even client applications are being moved to servers.
But a couple of weaknesses are beginning to show in that model.
One is technical, the other is political.
Technically, as more and more work gets shifted to servers, the need for power for those services increases. Where today data is stored on your local machine, the "cloud" model has your machine accessing that data from a remote server. The two or three gigs of data that, today, you move around inside your computer every day now get pulled in and pushed out over that little blue wire (or your WiFi, which uses even MORE power). The server on the other end has to be able to handle that increased bandwidth.
The result is an explosive growth in the power consumption of the entire system. Simply put, the growth of the current model is unsustainable, and will eventually result in limits being placed upon it.
But the more interesting development is political.
The U.S. government's recent heavy-handed shutdown of domains that were suspected of carrying "pirated" information is concerning some very smart people.
Up to this point, the de-facto control of the Internet by the U.S. government has been regarded as fairly benign, because the U.S. government's behavior has been benign, even protective, of internet as a conduit for open exchange of information. This makes sense given the historic bias within the USA that political freedom follows.
But that benign behavior now seems to be shifting with the U.S. government increasingly acting according to the commercial interests of large corporations. The recent shutdown of torrent sites is only the beginning. There really is no due process here, and whenever governments seize the power to do good by arbitrary means, that power rapidly becomes more and more subject to abuse. "Doing good" becomes anyone's opinion, and he who has the power plug in his hand wins. Such is the case with the internet.
The other thing that is happening, though, is that the power of computers in the hands of everyday people is also exploding. Today I have more computing power in my telephone than existed in an entire building when the current internet architecture was being designed.
The first step was taken by the Bit Torrent people.
http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-based-dns-to-counter-us-domain-seizures-101130/
They are working to develop a decentralized DNS that will eliminate the single point of vulnerability.
This technology is going to spread, and eventually we will have an internet composed of a TRUE web of peer-to-peer connections, with no ability for central control. And what warms my heart is that there isn't any way anyone can stop it.
Of course the explosive growth eventually made that structure untenable.
Commercialization moved us to a client-server model.
"The cloud" is the latest move in that direction where even client applications are being moved to servers.
But a couple of weaknesses are beginning to show in that model.
One is technical, the other is political.
Technically, as more and more work gets shifted to servers, the need for power for those services increases. Where today data is stored on your local machine, the "cloud" model has your machine accessing that data from a remote server. The two or three gigs of data that, today, you move around inside your computer every day now get pulled in and pushed out over that little blue wire (or your WiFi, which uses even MORE power). The server on the other end has to be able to handle that increased bandwidth.
The result is an explosive growth in the power consumption of the entire system. Simply put, the growth of the current model is unsustainable, and will eventually result in limits being placed upon it.
But the more interesting development is political.
The U.S. government's recent heavy-handed shutdown of domains that were suspected of carrying "pirated" information is concerning some very smart people.
Up to this point, the de-facto control of the Internet by the U.S. government has been regarded as fairly benign, because the U.S. government's behavior has been benign, even protective, of internet as a conduit for open exchange of information. This makes sense given the historic bias within the USA that political freedom follows.
But that benign behavior now seems to be shifting with the U.S. government increasingly acting according to the commercial interests of large corporations. The recent shutdown of torrent sites is only the beginning. There really is no due process here, and whenever governments seize the power to do good by arbitrary means, that power rapidly becomes more and more subject to abuse. "Doing good" becomes anyone's opinion, and he who has the power plug in his hand wins. Such is the case with the internet.
The other thing that is happening, though, is that the power of computers in the hands of everyday people is also exploding. Today I have more computing power in my telephone than existed in an entire building when the current internet architecture was being designed.
The first step was taken by the Bit Torrent people.
http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-based-dns-to-counter-us-domain-seizures-101130/
They are working to develop a decentralized DNS that will eliminate the single point of vulnerability.
This technology is going to spread, and eventually we will have an internet composed of a TRUE web of peer-to-peer connections, with no ability for central control. And what warms my heart is that there isn't any way anyone can stop it.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Hi, it's me...
I'm Samantha.
Sometimes I have something to say, and just want to say it.
You will get an opportunity to read it. :)
I have no illusions about becoming well read or famous, there are millions of people doing this. Writing about stuff helps me develop my own thoughts, so that's why I'm doing it.
That's all for now.
Sometimes I have something to say, and just want to say it.
You will get an opportunity to read it. :)
I have no illusions about becoming well read or famous, there are millions of people doing this. Writing about stuff helps me develop my own thoughts, so that's why I'm doing it.
That's all for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)