6 ms·

A Frightening Week

86 points by cwan 16y ago

quanticle 16y ago
The Internet was designed to be immune to such things. It wasn't. That's a common misconception. The Internet Protocol was designed to be a simple, easy to route protocol that would push computational load towards the edge of the network and away from its center. Resistance to damage wasn't a design consideration.
- ThomPete 16y ago
  Hmm interesting got any references?
  - influx 16y ago
    "It was from the RAND study that the false rumor started, claiming that the ARPANET was somehow related to building a network resistant to nuclear war. This was never true of the ARPANET, only the unrelated RAND study on secure voice considered nuclear war. However, the later work on Internetting did emphasize robustness and survivability, including the capability to withstand losses of large portions of the underlying networks" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET#Misconceptions_of_design_goals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET#Misconceptions_of_desig...
    - ThomPete 16y ago
      Very enlightening thanks.
quellhorst 16y ago
This is why the "Internet Kill Switch" is a bad idea. Also, ISPs need to say no to the government more often.
- protomyth 16y ago
  An ISP's default answer to government should be "No".
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    It should have been 'no' too when the government wanted unlimited tapping abilities of internet traffic, instead the answer was 'how much?'.
  - mickt 16y ago
    Maybe ISP's in Egypt did, but they probably didn't have a choice in the matter! It's hard to argue with an armed police or a soldier or a regime who'll do anything to stay in power. Also, when the government has a free hand to create legislation that allows them to do such a thing, it's hard not to comply without loosing one's business or life. Vodafone's been quoted as saying something to that affect: "Under Egyptian legislation the authorities have the right to issue such an order and we are obliged to comply with it ... " From: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/08dbe398-2abb-11e0-a2f3-00144feab49a.html#axzz1CaNFTKGe http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/08dbe398-2abb-11e0-a2f3-00144feab4...
kiba 16y ago
I believe that technological solution is better than the political solution, primary because we don't have to get everyone interested in anti-censorship tech. So if we can invent a censorship mesh network(pardon my ignorance), two geeks can set it up and connect to each other. Then, another geek come along, and connect his node to their. Next week, doubled the geeks come. Next week, double the geeks come, but also documentation on how to build such a wireless mesh node. Well, you get the idea. Once a lot of people is interested, geeks that manufactured anti-censorship kit can achieve an economy of scale. Empower one individual; empower an entire crowd.
- alecco 16y ago
  Land based wireless communications are trivial to track and authoritarian governments already do so. A better solution could be satellite based communications. Or directional microwave/laser. It's a very hard problem.
  - rst 16y ago
    But satellites would also likely be controlled by entities subject to government pressure. (Perhaps a different government than the one in control of the local territory, but whichever, it won't always be in sympathy with the people on the ground.) Tight-beam directional laser is an interesting idea, but does require a fair amount of advanced setup and calibration. And the base stations would still be vulnerable to detection if they're transmitting to something else that isn't tight-beam, like mobile handsets. Perhaps balloon-based relay stations in the stratosphere, or solar-powered drones, which could be deployed without the expense of a satellite launch? It is indeed a very hard problem. EDIT: Further discussion, both on base stations and alternatives (packet radio, and the severe limitations thereof) here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2158111 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2158111
- jacquesm 16y ago
  If only it was that simple. Another thread on this subject: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2158111 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2158111
whereareyou 16y ago
When I saw the title of this post, I thought it might be about Yuri Milner and SV Angel's new Start Up Fund!
- fredwilson 16y ago
  that gave me a chuckle however, i'm not frightened by anything that helps entrepreneurs
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- movingahead 16y ago
  I thought this was about a possible bubble in the VC and Angel market. On a different note, a lot has to be done to ensure fast, no/high cap wired/wireless broadband to the world. All our dreams are based on a platform which operators are making weak every day.
jdp23 16y ago
"My business interests are based on the availability of the wired and wireless Internet to everyone all over the world. Our firm has been active in working with the US government to make sure that continues to be the case in our country. We support net neutrality rules and oppose legislation such as COICA and the Internet Kill Switch." Well said. Now would be a good time for Hacker News to re-examine its bias against discussion of civil liberties. EDIT: downvoted! Are you (a) saying the Fred Wilson quote isn't useful or (b) saying civil liberties are such a poisonous topic that we can't even propose talking about them?
- dstorrs 16y ago
  I wasn't among those who downvoted you, but here's my two cents: 1) I don't think the quote added anything new to the discussion. Nor was it a good summary of the article. 2) You asked a loaded question that implied a bias on the part of your listeners. You are deliberately creating a situation where discussion is impossible, since only one answer is "right". Why, then, would anyone want to engage with you?
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - jdp23 16y ago
    Thanks for the feedback. On point #1, I wasn't trying to summarize, but thought it was pretty relevant that a superstar VC like Fred Wilson sees these civil liberties issues as affecting the companies he invests in. Entrepreneurs should be paying attention to stuff like this, and nobody else had mentioned it. On #2, I'm not the one who created the situation. RiderOfGiraffes announced that he'd be downvoting anything TSA related and encouraged others too. 'tptacek (who's got the highest karma on HN) weighed in that the posts were "manifestly off topic". Paul changed the ranking algorithm to penalize TSA posts and commented that they were a "danger" because "if there's a road from hacking to politics, it's probably civil liberties." When I replied to his post, he didn't respond. It seems to me like I want to engage in dialog and others don't. How does it look to you? > only one answer is "right" If you care about civil liberties, then I would love to hear why you see "we won't talk about civil liberties and will downvote anybody who does" as a good answer.
guelo 16y ago
Governments will always have the power over the physical infrastructure that the internet lives on top of. The only way to protect our access is via education, people need to see the internet as owned by the people, not the government (backdoors, unlimited taps) or corporations (net neutrality, anti-competitive caps). It needs to be seen as a new basic human right in the 21st century. http://i.imgur.com/YU3Ww.jpg http://i.imgur.com/YU3Ww.jpg
thisrod 16y ago
Summary: the author, who is apparently not familiar with the terms "buggery act", "13th amendment" and "people's republic", realises that freedom ain't free.

86 points by cwan 16y ago

The Internet was designed to be immune to such things. It wasn't. That's a common misconception. The Internet Protocol was designed to be a simple, easy to route protocol that would push computational load towards the edge of the network and away from its center. Resistance to damage wasn't a design consideration.

ThomPete 16y ago
Hmm interesting got any references?
- influx 16y ago
  "It was from the RAND study that the false rumor started, claiming that the ARPANET was somehow related to building a network resistant to nuclear war. This was never true of the ARPANET, only the unrelated RAND study on secure voice considered nuclear war. However, the later work on Internetting did emphasize robustness and survivability, including the capability to withstand losses of large portions of the underlying networks" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET#Misconceptions_of_design_goals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET#Misconceptions_of_desig...
  - ThomPete 16y ago
    Very enlightening thanks.

quellhorst 16y ago

This is why the "Internet Kill Switch" is a bad idea. Also, ISPs need to say no to the government more often.

protomyth 16y ago
An ISP's default answer to government should be "No".
- jacquesm 16y ago
  It should have been 'no' too when the government wanted unlimited tapping abilities of internet traffic, instead the answer was 'how much?'.
- mickt 16y ago
  Maybe ISP's in Egypt did, but they probably didn't have a choice in the matter! It's hard to argue with an armed police or a soldier or a regime who'll do anything to stay in power. Also, when the government has a free hand to create legislation that allows them to do such a thing, it's hard not to comply without loosing one's business or life. Vodafone's been quoted as saying something to that affect: "Under Egyptian legislation the authorities have the right to issue such an order and we are obliged to comply with it ... " From: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/08dbe398-2abb-11e0-a2f3-00144feab49a.html#axzz1CaNFTKGe http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/08dbe398-2abb-11e0-a2f3-00144feab4...

kiba 16y ago

I believe that technological solution is better than the political solution, primary because we don't have to get everyone interested in anti-censorship tech. So if we can invent a censorship mesh network(pardon my ignorance), two geeks can set it up and connect to each other. Then, another geek come along, and connect his node to their. Next week, doubled the geeks come. Next week, double the geeks come, but also documentation on how to build such a wireless mesh node. Well, you get the idea. Once a lot of people is interested, geeks that manufactured anti-censorship kit can achieve an economy of scale. Empower one individual; empower an entire crowd.

alecco 16y ago
Land based wireless communications are trivial to track and authoritarian governments already do so. A better solution could be satellite based communications. Or directional microwave/laser. It's a very hard problem.
- rst 16y ago
  But satellites would also likely be controlled by entities subject to government pressure. (Perhaps a different government than the one in control of the local territory, but whichever, it won't always be in sympathy with the people on the ground.) Tight-beam directional laser is an interesting idea, but does require a fair amount of advanced setup and calibration. And the base stations would still be vulnerable to detection if they're transmitting to something else that isn't tight-beam, like mobile handsets. Perhaps balloon-based relay stations in the stratosphere, or solar-powered drones, which could be deployed without the expense of a satellite launch? It is indeed a very hard problem. EDIT: Further discussion, both on base stations and alternatives (packet radio, and the severe limitations thereof) here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2158111 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2158111
jacquesm 16y ago
If only it was that simple. Another thread on this subject: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2158111 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2158111

whereareyou 16y ago

When I saw the title of this post, I thought it might be about Yuri Milner and SV Angel's new Start Up Fund!

fredwilson 16y ago
that gave me a chuckle however, i'm not frightened by anything that helps entrepreneurs
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
movingahead 16y ago
I thought this was about a possible bubble in the VC and Angel market. On a different note, a lot has to be done to ensure fast, no/high cap wired/wireless broadband to the world. All our dreams are based on a platform which operators are making weak every day.

jdp23 16y ago

"My business interests are based on the availability of the wired and wireless Internet to everyone all over the world. Our firm has been active in working with the US government to make sure that continues to be the case in our country. We support net neutrality rules and oppose legislation such as COICA and the Internet Kill Switch." Well said. Now would be a good time for Hacker News to re-examine its bias against discussion of civil liberties. EDIT: downvoted! Are you (a) saying the Fred Wilson quote isn't useful or (b) saying civil liberties are such a poisonous topic that we can't even propose talking about them?

dstorrs 16y ago
I wasn't among those who downvoted you, but here's my two cents: 1) I don't think the quote added anything new to the discussion. Nor was it a good summary of the article. 2) You asked a loaded question that implied a bias on the part of your listeners. You are deliberately creating a situation where discussion is impossible, since only one answer is "right". Why, then, would anyone want to engage with you?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- jdp23 16y ago
  Thanks for the feedback. On point #1, I wasn't trying to summarize, but thought it was pretty relevant that a superstar VC like Fred Wilson sees these civil liberties issues as affecting the companies he invests in. Entrepreneurs should be paying attention to stuff like this, and nobody else had mentioned it. On #2, I'm not the one who created the situation. RiderOfGiraffes announced that he'd be downvoting anything TSA related and encouraged others too. 'tptacek (who's got the highest karma on HN) weighed in that the posts were "manifestly off topic". Paul changed the ranking algorithm to penalize TSA posts and commented that they were a "danger" because "if there's a road from hacking to politics, it's probably civil liberties." When I replied to his post, he didn't respond. It seems to me like I want to engage in dialog and others don't. How does it look to you? > only one answer is "right" If you care about civil liberties, then I would love to hear why you see "we won't talk about civil liberties and will downvote anybody who does" as a good answer.

guelo 16y ago

Governments will always have the power over the physical infrastructure that the internet lives on top of. The only way to protect our access is via education, people need to see the internet as owned by the people, not the government (backdoors, unlimited taps) or corporations (net neutrality, anti-competitive caps). It needs to be seen as a new basic human right in the 21st century. http://i.imgur.com/YU3Ww.jpg http://i.imgur.com/YU3Ww.jpg

thisrod 16y ago

Summary: the author, who is apparently not familiar with the terms "buggery act", "13th amendment" and "people's republic", realises that freedom ain't free.