Stop SOPA
I didn’t take part in the Internet blackout today, as I’m a lazy sod and also I’m just back at work after a very hard weeks drinking. However I would note that as many many people have observed:

  1. This is very similar to our RIPA act, but from a country with more power to break stuff
  2. It’s utterly pointless, and won’t stop serious piracy in anyway
  3. It will result in an awful lot of collateral damage
  4. It will have a chilling effect and be trivial to be misused

I’d also predict that if it did come to pass then it wouldn’t be applied in the reverse direction to take off line large companies that steal content from smaller on-line artists and content providers. As one of the fundamental shifts which big media is fighting is that anyone can now be a content provider and they’ve actually got to compete on quality*

However unless this move is protested and every move like it sooner or later this sort of censorship at the behest of large media will come to pass and we’ll all be back to the walled garden days of AOL and the internet as a creative environment, medium for the free exchange of ideas and innovative business will cease to be (in the US at least). The problem with the US proposals is the same as we had with RIPA in that it allows for the blocking and removal of content before any proof of infringement, instead the blocked site has to prove it didn’t infringe (roughly speaking).

For far better summations of what the problem is with the legislation, let me pass you over to providers of original content over on the other side of the pond where they’re proposing this stuff Wondermark:
“What’s likely to happen?

• What burglars there are, will take another route. (SOPA/PIPA do not target pirates, but rather sites that link to alleged piracy. Real pirates can easily sidestep the restrictions.)

• Law-abiding business trucks, scared of the dynamite, will ALSO take another route. (The huge legal and financial burden of compliance with the new law will discourage startups, stifling independent businesses based in the United States.)
br/>• The dynamite is likely to go off whenever the trigger person sees anybody who looks slightly suspicious — burglar or not. (Claims of “piracy” could be used as a weapon against websites to silence them for competitive or political reasons.)

Despite the fact that nobody in Congress can agree on health care, the budget, or anything else, bought-and-paid-for politicians from both sides of the aisle have lined up to defend these bills. It’s pretty disgusting. Movie piracy is simply not more important than the safety and integrity of the entire Internet, which is my whole livelihood.”

Also in case you needed more convincing even Hitler is against it!**

Actually even more convincing than Hitler the MPAA oppose the SOPA protests and support the legislation.

* lets face it look how many remakes and re-imaginings etc. there are in the mainstream media, they’re churning out the same level of rip off’s as the internet but on a bigger budget.
** That mashup could result in the whole on YouTube being taken down under the proposed SOPA/PIPA laws.

 

As I’m sure I’ve mentioned before I don’t really think all that much of “anonymous” or at least of their public actions. I can’t help but think they are at best well intentioned idiots – with, much like wikileaks, little concern for the collateral damage they cause as long as they get headlines. Time and again I wonder who they cause more damage to, or course it’s the nature of the “anonymous” movement that anyone can do anything and claim it was an act of “anonymous” – want to blow up a nuclear power station and claim it was the work of anonymous go ahead and do it all you need is a youtube clip and who’s to say you’re not a genuine part of “anonymous”?

Sticking though to real events and an article from earlier in the year, apparently “anonymous” plan to “wreak havoc at Facebook and other social networking web sites” – presumably those would be the same social networks that have been being used to organise and co-ordinates all sorts of protests and direct actions against the state and big business? The may charge the charities for the privilege, and from what I know if you accept too many fraudulent payments you can lose you ability to accept credit card payments. So that’ll all help the charities a bunch won’t it. Of course all of this extra cost gets factored into the interest rates we all pay for using credit cards. So the only people who definitely won’t be out of pocket are the very banks “anonymous” wants to target.

The most recent target of this cunning ruse was a company called Stratfor security and judging by this bit of “anonymous” publicity about it, literacy doesn’t seem to be a strong point of “anonymous” (supporters at least)*. Stratfor Security apparently provide a news letter about security and political issues globally and some of their customers are large corporations so they’re a target, the stolen credit card details of course also belong to private individuals that want to keep abreast of the same issues for themselves. Now who’s going to be more inconvenienced by a credit card problem the evil global company (assuming they’re even paying by credit card) or the private individual? Also is it not at all likely that people fighting against evil global companies might find such a news letter of interest?

Venturebeat has a nice little FAQ about the hack. In the meantime watching these “anonymous” attacks, and considering how easily their previous DDoS attacks led been to their supporters, I do wonder if they aren’t the US army of cyber warfare and the safest place to be is in front of them.

* Yes I realise I may well be a poi calling a kettle black here but…

 

I do apologise to wander once more onto geekier topics, but largely un-noticed today is World IPv6 Day. Which was hoping to make people more aware of IPv6 and the need to get ready for it – I’m not sure how well it’s done outside of people who already knew about it. Outside of the techy press the Gaurdian picked up on it and apparently Ed Vaizey said something about it. Despite it being a very low key event this is something you need to care about, as it will actually be terribly important. So get a cup of tea whilst I give a brief bit of back ground before I tell you why it matters.

So IPv6 is the 6th version of the Internet Protocol, currently the entire internet is running on version 4 (we don’t talk about version 5). The problem with IPv4 (or today’s internet) is that it was designed when people thought 640k was more memory than you’d ever need and that there was probably only the need for a half dozen super computers in the entire world. Fortunately for us, they were wrong and things have moved on a lot since then. Unfortunately the current system can’t cope with all those smart phones, smart TV’s, tablets and other internet connected dohickeys. So things are getting more crowded and people and web sites are having to share ever fewer addresses – this is a bad thing ™. To solve this enter IPv6 stage left – with vastly more space. Of course to handle this larger space requires larger addresses and well all the bits of clever computers that tie the internet together really weren’t built to handle that, so it all needs upgrading. This is neither cheap nor painless, so everyone has been waiting for everyone else to do something first and kind of hoping to retire before it became an actual problem.

Ok that’s the back ground over with, you can wake up again now – maybe go for a quick walk. Then I’ll continue as to why it matters.

Well for starters the Internet won’t grind to a sickening halt (not for a while) as we can all make better use of the space and share addresses and all that manner of clever stuff. This however is a bad thing(tm), mainly at least, as the more machines that share an address the less secure it all gets, and eventually the slower. Also to manage all that sharing the clever bits of kit run by your ISP and in places the government will have to pay more attention to who’s talking to what and maybe what they’re saying. Personally I’d rather the fewer people looking at my traffic the better. Of course the flip side is it’s also harder for them to prove who did what due to all the shared addresses (in much the same way pinning down who threw a cigarette butt out of a coach window is trickier than pining down who threw it out of a chauffeur driven limo). So as IPv4 runs out it will get harder for individuals to run their own servers, and we’ll be gradually squeezed into the equivalent of high rise tower blocks .

So that’s the bad, but moving to IPv6 has a lot of good especially for those of us that quite like to be able to communicate with each other without too much hindrance from the powers that be. Do you recall I said that the new system gave us more space – well I meant it a lot more space. No more than that much more than that. In todays world ISP’s charge you for a static IP and then charge more if you want a whole 5 IP addresses, in the new world the smallest number of addresses you can have is 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 (18 quintillion). Yes at home you’ll have enough address space to address all of your cornflakes and more. Now the downside of us all having nice (probably stable) public addresses, is that it’s easier to see who we’re talking to but due to inbuilt security it’s much much harder to see what we’re saying or interfere with it.

The really really interesting bit though is if we’re all on public addresses we can talk securely directly to each other, with no middleman (if we want to). If you want to set up a web server for you radical free hamsters on the land group no problems give it a public address you’ve still another 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 to play with. Given this is such an obvious use along with direct person-to-person networking you can be pretty sure that people will produce tools to make this as easy as calling a phone. In fact people are already working on it with things such as the freedom box aimed at letting you take back control of your social networking, your email and where you blog. You can run all of your email on a plug computer that costs less than 100 pounds (and the price is dropping), allowing you to exchange email securely directly with someone with a similar set up, without leaving any logs (subject to intercept laws) on your ISP’s mail servers. Keep it all on a small solid state disk and if you need to you can walk away with it all or destroy it. Plus of course no data mining of your email to improve the customer experience.

The thing is you don’t need to wait to be offered this, you can start playing with it today for free, using providers such as gogo6, Hurrican Electric or Sixxs. So whilst our great and good are making speeches, we can be building new infrastructure and ways of using it so they’ll be playing catch up so hard their on going attempts to limit what we say, how we say it and who we say it to, will make old Canute’s efforts look viable. Of course we’re still mainly stuck using centralised infrastructure, but there are ways round that as well if we feel like it.

So hopefully if you’re still with me, some of that has made sense. Go find a friendly geek if you need to and get onto the next generation of the internet whilst those that would control it are still talking about how to make it happen.

See you in the future – or maybe the past

 

Quite a while back I bemoaned the fact that MI5 weren’t kind enough to provide an RSS feed of the current UK threat level so I wrote a little script so I could know in real time if I should be more or less afraid, and so make sure that my fear and paranoia were at government approved levels at all times.

Well it seems that they’ve finally* got round to providing an official RSS feed which is very nice of them and far more reliable than my efforts. You can find it here:
https://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/threat-level-rss.html

Note it’s available over both HTTP and HTTPS so you can be sure that no one will be snooping to find out how afraid the government thinks you should be.

I’ve added the official feed to this blog as well as my home grown version – just in case the two ever diverge.

Just as a matter of interest the threat level hasn’t been less than substantial since August 2006 when they started telling us what was going on.

* To be fair they may have done it ages ago I’ve not been paying that much attention.

 

The Bloggers bash at the Adam Smith Institute was rather fun last night (even though I had to leave far too quickly due to other commitments). Was terribly good to catch up with Katabasis (helping break the sea of suits) and The Salted Slug. Glad to say the free booze was much better, Meantime pale ale, and Nanny state from Brew Dog – how can one complain.

I found the direction of the questions asked of the panel fascinating, and assuming they reflect what most bloggers are concerned about/interested in – I think I may be following a different path. But then I’ve never been terribly good at this whole making money out of stuff business. Then again I was also terribly amused at everyone waiting around outside 5 minutes before the start rather than just sticking their heads in and making for the free booze? If bloggers can’t develop a much better instinct for getting to the free booze as quickly as possible how do they ever hope to replace traditional journalists?

Next year name tags with blog names on would definitely be a good idea.

Finally to pass on a link from Katabasis apparently Churnalism.com is a terribly handy tool for checking if a news article is in fact just a rehashed press release.

See you all next year, or maybe at the Rally against debt (or rally for debt as it was briefly called last night).

 

Soho
Like many people I wasn’t in the John Snow when that infamous kiss took place, I don’t know the landlord or the people who were kissing. So I’ve got no reason to believe either of them over the other. The few things that we do know for certain is that the LandLord acted after a complaint, they claim it was quick peck on the cheek the person who complained says it was more (and some supprto this). Quite frankly I don’t care, we’ve no evidence that the landlord would have acted any different if someone had complained about a straight couple kissing, or in regards to any other complaint from another customer. Yet as I’ve heard it described asking someone to leave a pub because someone else has complained has “upset the internet”. Despite it being “insane” to throw out a gay couple in SoHo because you’ll surely go out of business action must still be taken by the mob to make sure this pub, or at least the landlord, suffers this fate. Simply not using that pub and going to another isn’t enough.

All that aside though what puzzles me is this idea that all of SoHo is this gay paradise where every venue must be a suitable place for snogging/kissing who ever you like. Look at the map the line in red outlines the traditional boundaries of SoHo, the rod in pink is Old Compton street which is the heart of queer SohO. Between Old Compton street and where the pub is (that little symbol thing) lies various sex shops, strip joints (I believe mainly heterosexual), a fruit market, numerous fabric shops, offices and houses. Really by the time you get to Broadwick street you could be almost any where in London. If you have to be mad to run a business where people kissing may not always be welcome someone better tell Nickleodeon and Hamily’s. As Wikipedia says these days it “is predominantly a fashionable district of upmarket restaurants and media offices”*. So it would seem the internet is an angry ill-educated lynch mob, which only wants the law applied selectively, which really isn’t new and shouldn’t surprise me. But someone should probably warn all the businesses, houses, religious buildings and such in SoHO that the “internet” is apparently watching and if someone gets upset on twitter then the full might of the internets will be turned upon them in a giant hissy fit. On the other hand if any film directors out there want a load of people kissing in a venue for cheap you know what to do.

Ho hum.

Mind generally when I’ve been asked to leave a pub in the past, I’ve found it simplest to do so – but then I’ve also left pubs just becasue I didn’t like the atmosphere much.

* Normally I don’t treat Wikipedia as a reliable resource but it’ll do for now.

 

Happy Christmas

So the government have come up with another jolly wheeze to control the Internet, we have to opt in to be allowed to access “porn” on computers we pay for over connections provided at our expense by private companies.
Oh and as Anna Raccoon points out anything with too much of #FFE5B4 could be iffy. The implications of such restrictiosn have already been nicely covered by Leg Iron amongst others and Make it stop have suggested the tradtional internet response to anyone trying to block anything.
“Make lots more of it avaialble”
Or for those of a more classical bent the cry is
I am Pornacus!
Which is as good an excuse as any to post some seasonal eye candy.

And there was me thinking reports that the plan is to give parents the ability to “opt out” of getting porn on their computers. Which conjures the bizarre image of ISPs insisting that you install an application that will automatically download porn on your behalf. As they observe it’s already quite possible to not visit porn sites, and if you’re worried about your children downloading thigns they shouldn’t you can supervise them or invest in software to put on your own computer to stop porn there without anyone having to snoop on everyone’s internet usage. Though the details do suggest it’s intended to be far more of an opt-in to get porn than an opt-out.

Hello Santa!

Of course the Government sys they don’t “want” to legislate (and The Register oddly seem to have more faith in this expressed desire than I do) but I suspect as has happened before if the ISPs don’t make suitable movements the Government will find it self unfortunately forced to legislate due no doubt to popular demand. Of course if there really was popular demand you could opt for “porn filtering” as part of your internet provision (just as if there had been sufficient popular demand for smokefree pups they’d also have happened without legislation). I am quite prepared to believe them though when they say:
“We are not coming at this from an anti-porn perspective. We just want to make sure children aren’t stumbling across things we don’t want them to see
(emphasis mine) as there’s your feature creep right there, it’s about “children” seeing things the Government doesn’t want them to see, like say blogs that don’t think they’re doing a wonderful job? The Register may be right and this may just be about the Government being seen to make suitable noises for mumsnet and the like, bet even if that is the case no harm in making sure that they know it’s not just mumsnet they have to consider. As I think I’ve mentioned before challenging these stupid ideas every time they come up does seem to be the only option to prevent them becoming mainstream ideas and then accepted and acted upon. The thin end of the wedge may already be in with the recent legislation on “extreme pornography” also springs to mind as being an ill defined broadly worded Government imposed limit on content, but who could object to extreme pornography being controlled. Next up who can object to children being protected from porn?

Reassuringly the Inquirer does report that the ISP’s have said they can’t stop all porn, though that “all” may be the key point. The Government may just ask them to block most of it and do a better job of filtering as technology improves, and in the meantime the technology for filtering undesirable content gets put into place. Obviously the ISPs don’t want to put the technology in, but they are interested in monitoring and adjusting the content we receive for their own purposes (see: PHORM). So perhaps when there’s sufficient public demand that something must be done the Government might be amenable to a deal which lets the ISPs watch out traffic to add adverts and charge us more to access “premium” content, in return for which they block the content the Government asks and provide access to all that lovely traffic logging data, and it would help crack down on those nasty pirate and horrible wikileaks site. That way everyone wins, except of course us, free speech and trivial matters like that.

 

No commentary here just a few links.

 

I’m afraid another post about wikileaks, even though really not much has been happening except for script kiddies running badly written code to stick it to the man (If you were a nasty person that’s just the sort of program to shove a back door into). The script kiddies at the behest of anonymous* have been targeting anyone anonymous has decided is anti-wikileaks, which is probably the best bet if you’re twelve. Adults might consider writing and threatening the companies to stop using their services (oddly past campaigns have suggested that commercial ventures care quite a bit about publicity and things hurting their profits). other strategems might include suing companies for suspending contractual services or highlighting/hosting some of the leaked material on a robust site like oh say that of another government. That sort of response would probably work quite well especially if it turns out that some companies jumped the gun and hadn’t actually been told not to deal with wikileaks, or were quite happy to sell the Wikileaks documents after cutting WikiLeaks off. Perhaps Hillary Clinton will help with tools to circumvent politically motivated censorship.

The most damaging think still to come out of this latest act in the wikileaks drama is that the state doesn’t like the people much, and will react very aggressively to anything which threatens the states secrets and control structures – but surely we knew that already? Nice to have such public evidence I guess.

When considering Mr Assagne’s current plight in jail it’s worth keeping in mind that despite Wikileaks collecting money expressly for the purpose they’ve not chipped in a penny yet for the defence fund of Bradley Manning the US army private actually responsible for the leaks. Meanwhile of course there is still the question of where the balance between transparency and the need for privacy lies and long term should that be decided by unaccountable individuals operating by secret rules in cohorts with profit driven media organizations (According to Channel 4 news the schedule for releasing material on Wikileaks is decided at least in part by discussion with partner media organizations)

* Given the iconography I’ve used previously and the name of this site, you might be led to believe that I’m a fan of anonymous – you’d be very mistaken.

 

Following the on going saga of the actions taken against both Wikileaks and Julian Assange personally, he has now been arrested and denied bail despite turning up to court voluntarily and realistically probably not being much of a flight risk. Which does make one wonder about the reasons for such action when serveral people offered surety and to cover the bail. The final charges do seem to potentially be quite serious if one can trust any of the reports one hears both from prior to his actually being charged and subsequently due to the difference in how offences are labelled here and in Sweden. The confusion being made murkier by the paper that initially reported the leaked charges also employing Mr Assange as a columnist, which as observed at the Ministry of Truth does cause one to pause and wonder where their leaked and confusing information came from.

But beyond Mr Assanges personal plight, and the unusual and troubling way in which both he and Wikileaks are being hounded by various states remain pertinent questions as to WikiLeaks own agenda. It is also worth remembering that they’re not the only player in the publishing leaked information game, and with (like so many wiki sites) so much tied into Mr Assange as a “celebrity” it may not be the best bet due to it’s own lack of transparency

© 2011 Anonymong Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha