[MLB-WIRELESS] Applications on the melb-wireless network

[Ben Anderson]

> wow, did your fingers get sore?

heh, I've been typing since I was a young grasshopper... My fingers are
short and stubby to prove it *grin*


> > If we go guerilla fibre to the desktop, rough calculations suggest we
can
> > install the network at similar cost of a years cable internet access...
> > Yes, I do realise that this calculation relies on high-density
sign-up --
> > which is doable, though it means a fairly impressive 'neighbourhood
> > co-operation' and doorknocking type scheme to get everyone onboard...
> > Finance could be looked at, for those with "600 upfront" issues...
>
> This is ultra-cool, but highly unlikely.  Mainly because of council regs.
> There have been people trying this overseas, The Little Garden in SF did
it
> years ago, as did the Seattle Networking Co-Op or whatever they were
called.
> But they got local govt permission.

With a good political advocate, it's still possible.  I'm not this person,
anyone want to step up to the plate?


> Seattle People's Internet Collective
> damn, no links. Oh well.
>
> Now, I'd like to think councils will think this is great, but like I said
> earlier, it was tried in Williamstown and the council refused permission.
And
> I seem to recall something about not running comms cables across property
> lines without a carrier's license.

Show the council how a UPN can make them money, and is generally beneficial
for the community, and I suspect they'll be with us.  If not, then they're
not really representing the people and should be voted out.  And presented
it this way to media outlets will probably get this situation changed quite
quickly.

> > 'held back or slowed down' -- implies we need large buffers on the
> > backbone...  And then that limits the usability of the network...  if
ping
> > times go to 30 seconds, the usefulness drops so that the only
application
> > that's really useful is shifting bulk amounts of data around -- exactly
the
> > type of traffic that's likely to _cause_ the congestion.  So effectivly,
> > games, IP phone, IRC, chatting, all get DoS'd by people trading mp3's.
If
> > we don't mind doing nothing but trading mp3's, then fine, just do a
blind
> > queue.  Or is there another solution that you're proposing to this
problem
> > that I'm not reading into your response properly?
>
> Doesn't tcp/ip have a priority which is never used?  That was the basis of
> varian's pay-for-priority scheme years ago, I'm assuming that is still the
> case.

If it does, it's not good enough for what I'm talking about.

> > (the U stands for ubiquitous, not utopian...  utopian is infinite
infinite,
> > and can't happen...  Ubiquitousness is possible, utopia realistically
isn't)
> > When a client *moves* they'd have to retransmit their location back to
some
> > fixed 'home' node for that device.  Whether it's dns-like or not, I
haven't
> > decided yet.  I haven't found an alterative that solves the scalability
> > problem while still allowing nodes to roam on the network.  If you can
see
> > one, please pipe up :)
>
> I have a link to something which seems to cover this. An MIT doctoral
thesis.
> I have a mirror if it is not online.
>
> from: http://www.aetherwire.com/UWBWG_Archive/msg00020.html
> ---------
> During the meeting at Interval Research last week, the thesis entitled
> "Decentralized Channel Management in Scalable Multihop Spread-Spectrum
> Packet Radio Networks" by Timothy Jason Shepard then a student at MIT
> came up. I came up because his concept practically demands UWB.
> ---------
>
> aha!
>
> this was REALLY hard to find:
> ftp://ftp.tapr.org/ss/MIT-LCS-TR-670.pdf
> ftp://ftp.tapr.org/ss/MIT-LCS-TR-670.ps
>
>
> and in fact I ***highly*** recommend trawling through
>
> ftp://ftp.tapr.org/ss/
>
>
> and the entire
>
> http://www.tapr.org/ website.
>
> These guys have been doing spread-spectrum research and design since at
LEAST
> 94, if not earlier.

None of those links functioned at all...  Anyone got a mirror?


> > Hmmm, another example...  DeCSS can be done with a prime number.
Numbers
> > are not illegal, and don't make sense to be made illegal.  When data is
> > encrypted, they become just numbers without the key.  I'm pretty sure
> > there's been a test case on this, which means the liability can be
> > effectilvy dissipated.  Or at very least, assuming it still is illegal,
the
> > nodes are protected by the security of the encryption -- nobody knows
what
> > the data is unless they have a key.  It's going to be difficult to
prosecute
> > someone for a number that's difficult/impossible to prove exactly what
it's
> > content decrypts to.
>
> In the UK you'll go to gaol for refusing to reveal your passphrase and
secret
> key.
> I'm not sure if that is the case here, but it has been illegal to use ANY
> encryption method the govt cannot circumvent since World War 2.

So we use an encryption technique where there's multiple keys for each piece
of data...  One will decrypt it too a picture of papa smurf, the other will
decrypt it to xyz.  Prove which key is "correct".  Mathematically, there
should be a lot of keys that decrypt something into pretty much *any*
arbitary data.  Which means the key is more a representation of the actual
data, than the data itself.  Posession of the key that decrypts a large
number to xyz should then be illegal, not possession of that number.  Of
course, this is all theoretical, and what I think makes sense...  Once we
start talking kiddie porn etc, all the conservative mummies start going
crazy restricting everything...  And governments tend to like that, and
leverage that in being able to select the policy they want to control...
</pessimism>

> > Give me examples of abuse, and I'll design defenses into the initial
> > specification.
>
> Rowry!     <---- (authentic frontier gibberish)

And there is no spoon :)


> > Powerful enough machine == all the computers in the world for hundreds
of
> > years (including machines that follow mores law from the future) means
that
> > the network will work for now.
>
> Except for in britain where they'll just assume the worst and sentence
> accordingly  (really, that's how the law works).

What the hell happened to "innocent until proven guilty" and "benefit of the
doubt" -- has the whole world gone barmy?


> I, personally, would not rely on unbreakable encryption since they can
break
> *you* to get at your encryption.

But if everythings encrypted, they can't take the entire population of the
network to court...  To be able to do that they have to have some reason to
take a small section to court, which means that at least they have to be
able to decrypt or prove to be able to get a warrant to start with...  It's
more than just the "pure" legal interpretation, there's the realistic "able
to prosecute" factor as well, and I think that a generically encrypted
network leverages this quite well, despite the pure legal ramifications...

MP3's of copyrighted works are "illegal" but they're not "illegal" yet, if
you know what I mean.


> > Yes, the encryption will need to improve
> > along with the speed of computers to maintain the safety of the networks
> > nodes.
>
> Watch legal developments as well.

Sure, but hopefully the legal developments will catch up to us,
incorporating what actually makes sense...


> >  High speed, high security encryption is not beyond cheap technology
> > thesedays.  a pentium 200 can encrypt DES at around 10Mbits/sec.
> > A node having kiddie porn does in **no way guarantee** that the nodes
around
> > it are guilty of broadcasting it.  The data could have come on CD, on a
> > wired network, on a roaming wireless node...  And being encrypted,
unless
> > someone is sitting there taking a copy of the network layer data, then
it's
> > going to be basically impossible to prove beyond any kind of reasonable
> > doubt.
>
> Which ASIO will do they moment they smell a rat, and they probably WILL
ANYWAY
> until they get the hang of what we are doing, just to be safe and sure.

which still isn't a problem as unless there actually is a way to factorise
large numbers quickly, they aren't going to be able to do anything with the
data they've got anyway.

> We are in heady times for this sort of power-to-the-people stuff.

Perhaps.  There's been "revolutions" much more 'out in the open' than this.
We're comparitivly behind the scenes, low-priority stuff...  We're unlikely
to cause civil unrest, so governments will probably largely leave us
alone...


> > I realise GPS has privacy issues, but I'm at a loss to find an
alternative
> > technology that both allows the network to scale, and protect privacy
> > effectivly.
>
> GPS is not as accurate as you think.  No one will be able to find your
house
> with just GPS co-ordinates.

GPS is accurate enough...  I don't want a nutter who's pissed that I
challenged his idea of the colour red appearing at my house, or my
neighbours house.  25M accuracy is probably good enough to isolate a single
house anyway.  I'd prefer not to transmit this data, I just haven't come up
with an alternative yet, and I'm not sure there is one.

Cheers,
Ben.


--
To unsubscribe, send mail to minordomo at wireless.org.au with a subject of 'unsubscribe melbwireless'  
Archive at: http://www.wireless.org.au/cgi-bin/minorweb.pl?A=LIST&L=melbwireless
IRC at: au.austnet.org #melb-wireless