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

[Ben Anderson]

> > With a good political advocate, it's still possible.  I'm not this
person,
> > anyone want to step up to the plate?
>
> I can have a bash at it after easter.
> I was driving past the Brunswick Town Hall and thought about asking them
as
> they have a history of being very progressive.  Plus they have a hall we
might
> be able to use.

Sounds good.

> > Show the council how a UPN can make them money,
>
> And it can do this by ... ?

The ramifications of better communication have long-reaching effects, one of
them is to stimulate economic growth.  There's plenty of examples of this...


> > 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.
>
> Jawohl.

Hmmm... I'm assuming that's some kind of insult based on:
"Jawohl

Jawohl, jawohl, jawohl ich liebe Alkohol.
Ich liebe dich und andra hål.
Ich liebe Alkohol.
Jawohl, jawohl, jawohl ich liebe Alkohol.
Ich trinke keine Wasser,
Ich trinke Alkohol."

Which is a finnish poem, translated "Jawohl, jawohl I loves alcohol"

Or you could have just punched a whole pile of random buttons and come up
with that...



> > And presented
> > it this way to media outlets will probably get this situation changed
quite
> > quickly.
>
> Interesting tack on it.  It's certainly worth a go, though.  One for the
> Propaganda Squad, I guess.

Certainly.  Though it needs to be dealt with quite carefully...  Lack of
tack basically destroys others chances by there being a "case history" that
allows the beaurocrats to make the decision easily, without having to think
about it based on someone else saying no.


> > > 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.
>
> This is a silly statement to make until you know what I'm talking about.

Then by simple logic, I therefore know what you're talking about, assuming
our previous assertions are correct..


> And no, I don't either  :-)

That's dissapointing :)  I'd like a magic solution to fix all the issues I
have :)


> > None of those links functioned at all...  Anyone got a mirror?
>
> I have, and they ALL worked for me last night, I tested them.
>
> Anyone who wants either file mail me and I'll mail it to them, or, errr,
keep
> trying? Beats me.

Send it to me...

> > 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.
>
> Man, you don't just reinvent the wheel, you leap right into caterpillar
tracks
> and giant stalking leg-things.
> Can you *imagine* the size of the data stream you'd need, plus the
> computational overhead? Per packet?

Firstoff, thanks for the compliment :)
It's a mathematical problem.  And yes, I'm aware there's potentially
computational issues.. Though taking something like DES, and proving that
there's multiple keys that can decrypt one stream to a multitude of
different outputs should be enough that we don't actually have to do
anything different.
Finding a single example should be enough to satisfy the courts that the
data isn't implicitly contained within the encrypted file without the key.


> > 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.
>
> "should"
>
> "test case"
>
>
> "you"
>
> "feel free. Bucko"

Umm, pass :)  Obscurity for me as much as possible.  Keep off the radar, and
it matters a whole lot less if it's legal or not.


> > 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>
>
> I, personally, would rather we just don't do bustable stuff, than
*presume*
> we'll be safe, and *assume* that our mad haxxor skillz will keep The Man
out.

Agreed.  Though providing enabling technology such that other people can do
bustable stuff doesn't bother me quite as much *grin*
It's a good way of having a test case made without being the test case...

> > And there is no spoon :)
>
> Dang.  Candygram?

Mmmmm candy....

> > > 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?
>
> This is arguably the dumbest question I have seen since September 12th.
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
> Totally.

So I should automattically assume you're a murderer, a prostitute, a rapist,
a dentist and a child pornographer just because you haven't proved
otherwise?
I think that "Totally" statement arguably just trumped my "dumbest
question".


> > > 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...
>
>
> You're joking, right?  They will if they have to, it depends on how many
of us
> there are.
> Think of the police resources used to crack any crime. Consider what they
> *might* be able to wave at us, hysterically, if they cannot see into the
> network.

There are limits to resources.  There are realistic limits on the power of
the police if a large slab of the population mobilises.  Making martyrs
doesn't help much, if history is any indication.


> That being said, I'm totally in favour of max encryption, but to keep
hackers
> and snoops out, not asio.

Hell, to keep everyone out, but sssssh.. let's let them think it's all
honky-dory, and you're not the child-pornographer you haven't proved your
not ;)


> Hell, they'll just hack into out computers to read the plaintext.

If your dumb enough to store plaintext.  Or to be that easily hackable.
Asio have realistic limits on their power to hack -- set in concrete by
technology.  I don't think they're legally allowed (at least yet) to
break-and-enter to plant evidence.


> > 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.
>
> "should"
>
> "test case"
>
>
> "you"
>
> "feel free. Bucko"

Again, pass.  I've got more interesting things to spend my time doing.  If I
was going to re-engineer the legal system, I'd like to do it properly.  I'm
unlikely to ever be given an opportunity to test my theories (at least till
I become a part of the mars colony ;) so I'll spend my time doing something
I may actually acheive.

> > > > 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...
>
> "should"
>
> "test case"
>
>
> "you"
>
> "feel free. Bucko"

Where have I read that before?
I'm not "typical" and thus, i don't think I'd make a good test case.

> Don't count on it.
> I mean hell, look at the dog's breakfast they made of the data casting
laws,
> to protect entrenched interests.
>
> That's a thought, can we legally transmit video?

We probably can't legally walk out the door in the morning.  Yet everyone
does it.  You're not allowed to have a piece of wire in your car that
resonates with radar guns, yet I'd suppose that just about everyones cars
has such a piece of wire.
How the law relates to us, and how we relate to the law doesn't seem to be a
fixed-hard-and-fast metric...  As long as we do what's socially acceptable,
we're likely to be able to appeal to media and get society on our side, and
then there's stuff all they can do about it.  Unless they break our kneecaps
while we're not looking, but that would be illegal, wouldn't it?  (Murder or
grevious bodily harm isn't legalised yet, is it?)

> > 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.
>
> !!
>
> Errr, they do? The New York Times took 3 days to crack Al Qaeda's
strongest
> encryption.  How long will it take ASIO to break ours? I'm not going to
rely o
> encryption to keep the govt out.  Especially given the recently-found
weakness
> in the RSA algorithm, or whichever one it was.

Got a link to the "strongest encryption"?
Were they just writing on the back of stones with a pencil, or what?
I doubt the new york times has a supercomputing facility, or a decent array
of cryptanalysts.

> > > 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.
>
> Errr, I meant that we are all targets nowadays and it's not a good time to
do
> it./

When is a good time?  I say mobilise en masse, and the amount of damage they
can do is minimised.

> Not that that's stopping me.  But it'd be cool if we were where we are now
2
> years ago.

We need to contact some legal boffins and set up a wireless network for 'em,
so they can donate some time to dealing with issues surrounding this...
Cheap and crappy lawyers that are likely to be the ones who've commented on
this so far ain't gonna cut the chop in a test case.


> > 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'd like to think so.  However we should not rely on this.

Let's sit at home, watch tv, and work our titties off so we can buy stuff we
don't need then shall we?


> > 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.
>
>
> Okay.
>
>
> I was thinking this when I wrote it, actually, but thought, hmmm, naaaah,
we'd
> be okay.

Protecting it with strong encryption ain't likely to be good enough either,
as each node along the way of the 'path discovery' before source routing
starts has to give away the co-ordintes to each node along the way for it to
be able to know which direction to pass it.
I'm not sure there is a solution that gets around this limitation...  In
fact, I'm starting to be very strongly convinced there isn't...  But don't
let that stop anyone trying to convince me otherwise.  I _want_ to believe
:)

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