Are you counting "corrupt cops in the LA basin who have falsely entered non gang-members into a gang database ON TUESDAYS THAT HAD A FULL MOON"?
There are plenty more than "twenty to go." The LAPD has 9000 officers. The Sheriff has almost 18000.
Stats suggest that in those 27,000 people there are a shit-ton more than 20 to go. Maybe 20,000, maybe 2,000 but either way ORDERS of magnitude more.
There are two types of cops: bad cops, and the ones who let them keep doing it. Reform the process, and defund* where reform fails.
E
By "defund" I don't mean "move some funds to social programs" -- although that helps -- I mean take out police department units that won't reform, disband police unions that fight reform, and ALSO fund social programs to handle e.g. disabled, autistic, deaf, and meth-using people, among others.
This started off short but that didn't work.
TL;DR - Starlink will have regulatory challenges from lots of countries. Don't expect it to be the panacea of providing access to those prohibited by their regime.
Splinterization has been a process 25+ years in the making. Like boiling a frog the water is now boiling and it won't get better.
Long version follows.
Ehud
Allow me to dismiss the Starlink thing before going further.
unrestricted internet feeds will be available for anyone with the right receivers
Oh you can get the right receiver, if your government lets you. But until SpaceX gets the license from that entity's FCC equivalent (or PTT) SpaceX will be forbidden to transmit into that country.
Further, unless they pay the fees to have the ground transceivers transmit through the entity airspace and up to StarLink, that won't work either. So yes, StarLink COULD change how people who are now restricted into the "splinternet" COULD access The Internet, don't hold your breath to happen at all. There's a history here... when X.25 was popular and then IP became popular, some countries demanded lots of restrictions and settlement fees -- much as they had for postal services. That was the beginning of fragmentation -- and it came long before IP was global (or as global as it is).
And now onto Splinternet.
Once upon a time there was no Internet, and then there was the ARPAnet, and then the NSFnet, and then the commercial Internet (CIX, MAE-WEST, etc.) and large carriers (e.g. Global Crossing, Worldcom, AT&T) dropped undersea fibers to hook up other countries at high speed, instead of slow speed over latent satellite links with little to no intra-country distribution.
Once the high speed stuff was in there was a lot of negotiation to be had and eventually there was a stiff agreement. Then malware hit, originally spam -- which originated in real life, then on Usenet ("green card lawyers), then on the Internet.
That created the beginning of balkanization as people put policies in place to prevent "some of the content" from getting through. In time, as the attacks got more sophisticated, having a policy was not enough, and scripts were written.
Conveniently, the explosion of use of IPv4 necessitated NAT (or as Cisco called it PAT) and eventually CGNAT. This meant everyone who needed lots of addresses needed an appliance... and now that appliance could do all these functions.
Thus was formed the IPS/IDS/NAT box we ubiquitously call by any of those names or... simply "the firewall." This completed the user side of balkanization because now it was up to each user ("company", "home", whatever) to determine their specific policy of what they would accept, and what they would send. See the "Robustness Principle" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle) which says be liberal in what you accept... and now that was no longer true.
Authoritarian governments (China, Russia, Turkey, and if you want to add porn the UK and Australia, and if you want to add sex workers the US) started a new policy of prohibiting what they didn't like. Some like FOSTA incur penalties. Some include stripping of social rights (China social score) and some include outright blocking of the Net at will (Turkey, Russia, China, some African countries https://qz.com/africa/1808728/african-internet-shutdowns-were-more-frequent-in-2019/).
That is the frog boiling in the pond. Through initiating the original measures and sucking up to the marketing organizations, and not going after the malware spreaders, then establishing firewalls to block parts of the net but nobody but your organization knows which ones, and then "letting" regimes block the entire net to the country, this world has created this splinternet.
Splinternet is real, and as the Chinese work to rewrite URLs in real time so the news you read doesn't mention Tianenman Square, and Google and Apple self censor to reach that market, this is a real thing. Starlink won't save us from this. It will be interesting to see how many countries do a deal with Starlink/SpaceX and how many hold out for cash.
To do that there are two parts of the standard you'd have to meet:
Choice of what category of commerce you're applying to trademark. "Government issued monopoly of names" is not one, but even if was, you have hurdle number
No prior users of this mark exist and I'm the first
For that latter one, btw, font counts. So in essence, no.
Best of luck to you. If you get that registration I'm shorting your stock!
First, before 1984 it was Bell System, but unrelatedly NANP came up with these codes -- which for practical purposes are 3 digit numbers and not product identifiers (UPCs, SKUs, etc.)
To register for a trademark you need to show that
you're using it in commerce
the trademark identifies YOU as the producer
other who use this mark might confuse the consumer into thinking YOU'RE involved but you're not
reduces profit (causes damages)
There's more but that's the basic gist.
You can't JUST register a trademark for 414... you need to have a product and show that you're using it in commerce. Otherwise, everyone could register 200-909+920-999. Bullpucky.
This is a stupid USPTO registration (as was said in the original article) and while we can armchair lawyer it, will someone (PH, ACLU?) step up and help defend against it?
The North American Numbering Plan (NANP) allows for the assignment of Number Plan Areas (NPAs) which are colloquially called "area codes". Except they're not area code. Between "splits" and "overlays" they are now exactly as intended -- numbering plan areas.
This doesn't change the gist of the argument. Whatever you call them, they are unique numerical codes used to direct calls to that NPA.
There is no "confusions of consumers" between an NPA and a product named for the NPA of one of its phone numbers. It is also ... short sighted... says me... to name your business after an NPA that will possibly be split/overlayed with another NPA in the same area.
For example: 404. That's Atlanta, or an HTTP error code (page not found). 678? What's that? Oh that's Atlanta also. If there was a 404-Brewery that moved two streets over and tried to get a new number it would likely by a (678) NPA ("Area Code"). No consumer confusion there.
There are 10,000 numbers per NPA... and some of those won't exist because they are reserved (e.g. "(NPA)555-xxxx) and (NPA)0xx-xxxx, and (NPA)911-oxxx) but none of those are business designators.
Our USPTO is "confused" and it will take congressional action, IG action, or a lawsuit to correct.
A well crafted bill would weigh the consequences against it's purpose.
There are two types of congress-critters, those who represent the people who elected them, and those who "know better" and end up representing the lobbyists. The latter get their bills passed.
The second part of the formula is not just the greater good or the cost, but understanding the issue. Congress-critters (Ron Wyden excepted) have shown a ludite desire to not be mired in an understanding of technlogy. /s
So we have people who
don't want to know about the technology
will take lobbyist fodder word for word and put it in a bill
defend it as if they either understand it (narp) or wrote it (narp)
call their oponents leftists or rightists or antifa or whatever their word of the day is
...and you talk of a well-crafted bill.
Well Celyxise, you have my vote. Please run for office and fix this s...tuff.
Well, MM, you've covered a lot of it, and the 24 people before me have added much. Having founded, owned, and ran ISPs (note: not telecom companies) I will try to add my humble thoughts.
"Live answer" is expensive so we use auto-attendants/interactive-voice-response (AA/IVR) and often accept messages for a call back.
nobody works 8 hours a day 5 days a week. Even if you ignore federal holidays the 9-5 workday includes bathroom breaks, drink breaks, smoke breaks, lunch, etc. (We don't stagger employees' breaks because we REALLY WANT them to take breaks together and enjoy some offtime without the pressure of handing off tickets.)
There's no current law anywhere on the books that I'm aware of that tells any industry to "man the phones".
If there was it should be for Verizon Wireless (42 minute wait on Friday), Comcast (37 minute wait on Monday), and other companies that offer telecom services.
Having an Internet connection is a commodity. It's simple.
Setting up a website is trivial. Lots of resellers, lots of CMSs, etc.
Moderating a website is a biatch, but MM... you've covered that.
BUT HAVING TO MAINTAIN A PHONE LINE WITH A LIVE HUMAN is even worse than requiring moderation.
I'm sorry you don't understand the protocols and have a "feeling" that anything is about me or what I dislike or not.
When you discuss protocol features it's not about "like", "dislike", and "the world is moving past you" but ... wait for it... protocol features and how they work.
Thank you for your opinion on what you feel my opinion is. As expected, you're wrong. Just as those who think that encrypted DNS as currently implemented is a magic panacea. You might want to look that word up before you respond, anonymous POS.
Everyone who doesn't want to waste their time because the proposed solution is 100x more time consuming.
"Efficient" and "pro-consumer" and "ergonomic" say so also.
If you come up with something that meets that criteria, do tell. Until then, asking "Who care[sic]" just means YOU don't care. But you're nobody, so whether YOU care or not is not relevant. The market cares. Consumers care.
DNS:
Client --> One UDP packet
Server --> One UDP packet
Encrypted DNS:
Client --> establish connection
Server --> me too
Client --> Send certificate
Server --> me too
[verification CPU processing time left out of this network exchange]
Client --> request
Server --> reply
Either side --> teardown connection
Other side --> Yeah, sure
Next time you go to a webpage hit "View Source" (ctrl-U on firefox variants) and count the number of domain names. Now multiply that by the difference between 2 UDP packets of under 128Bytes and an entire encryption setup, dialogue, query, and teardown.
Sure, encryption is great. Go write it on a piece of paper and hide it in your pocket and give it to your secret crush in the classroom. NOBODY WILL KNOW. Bandwidth is low, latency is high, jitter is through the roof, but OH THANK GOD NOBODY KNOWS.
Well that was really cute! You showed almost a 3rd grade level of comprehension!! The websites pegged you as an absolute moron but I feel you could possibly make 2nd grade as you keep declining.
Thank you so much for contributing to the conversation, and one day when you can read, TechDirt will still be here for you to enjoy. I hope you won't be here for anyone else to enjoy.
Either FB could say "We have no way of doing this", or the FBI could say "We have no way of doing this" but nobody thought to make that six-figure payout go from the lawful agency investigating the issue to the security researcher.
FB failed us. I will never trust them, and I don't violate and threaten young girls like this piece of >>>>. Of course we have to say that because the cases that make the news are the heinous ones where the defendant is socially indefensible.
The FBI failed us. They used the tool, but did not participate in open disclosure, leaving the TAILS team to figure out "wut?"
Yes, a piece of >>>> was arrested, plead guilty to 41 charges, and will likely spend 2-5 years in prison thinking on his next scheme. In the meantime BILLIONS of FB users now should be wondering when FB will "decide on its own" their privacy is worth just about nothing.
The "tradeoff" between "security" and "privacy" and "obeying the law [in the jurisdiction where you are]" are not absolute. FB has now made this even murkier.
On the post: Three LAPD Officers Facing Criminal Charges For Faking Gang Database Records
Twenty to go?
Are you counting "corrupt cops in the LA basin who have falsely entered non gang-members into a gang database ON TUESDAYS THAT HAD A FULL MOON"?
There are plenty more than "twenty to go." The LAPD has 9000 officers. The Sheriff has almost 18000.
Stats suggest that in those 27,000 people there are a shit-ton more than 20 to go. Maybe 20,000, maybe 2,000 but either way ORDERS of magnitude more.
There are two types of cops: bad cops, and the ones who let them keep doing it. Reform the process, and defund* where reform fails.
E
On the post: Understanding The 'Splinternet'
Splinternet and Starlink
This started off short but that didn't work.
TL;DR - Starlink will have regulatory challenges from lots of countries. Don't expect it to be the panacea of providing access to those prohibited by their regime.
Splinterization has been a process 25+ years in the making. Like boiling a frog the water is now boiling and it won't get better.
Long version follows.
Ehud
Allow me to dismiss the Starlink thing before going further.
Oh you can get the right receiver, if your government lets you. But until SpaceX gets the license from that entity's FCC equivalent (or PTT) SpaceX will be forbidden to transmit into that country.
Further, unless they pay the fees to have the ground transceivers transmit through the entity airspace and up to StarLink, that won't work either. So yes, StarLink COULD change how people who are now restricted into the "splinternet" COULD access The Internet, don't hold your breath to happen at all. There's a history here... when X.25 was popular and then IP became popular, some countries demanded lots of restrictions and settlement fees -- much as they had for postal services. That was the beginning of fragmentation -- and it came long before IP was global (or as global as it is).
And now onto Splinternet.
Once upon a time there was no Internet, and then there was the ARPAnet, and then the NSFnet, and then the commercial Internet (CIX, MAE-WEST, etc.) and large carriers (e.g. Global Crossing, Worldcom, AT&T) dropped undersea fibers to hook up other countries at high speed, instead of slow speed over latent satellite links with little to no intra-country distribution.
Once the high speed stuff was in there was a lot of negotiation to be had and eventually there was a stiff agreement. Then malware hit, originally spam -- which originated in real life, then on Usenet ("green card lawyers), then on the Internet.
That created the beginning of balkanization as people put policies in place to prevent "some of the content" from getting through. In time, as the attacks got more sophisticated, having a policy was not enough, and scripts were written.
Conveniently, the explosion of use of IPv4 necessitated NAT (or as Cisco called it PAT) and eventually CGNAT. This meant everyone who needed lots of addresses needed an appliance... and now that appliance could do all these functions.
Thus was formed the IPS/IDS/NAT box we ubiquitously call by any of those names or... simply "the firewall." This completed the user side of balkanization because now it was up to each user ("company", "home", whatever) to determine their specific policy of what they would accept, and what they would send. See the "Robustness Principle" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle) which says be liberal in what you accept... and now that was no longer true.
Authoritarian governments (China, Russia, Turkey, and if you want to add porn the UK and Australia, and if you want to add sex workers the US) started a new policy of prohibiting what they didn't like. Some like FOSTA incur penalties. Some include stripping of social rights (China social score) and some include outright blocking of the Net at will (Turkey, Russia, China, some African countries https://qz.com/africa/1808728/african-internet-shutdowns-were-more-frequent-in-2019/).
That is the frog boiling in the pond. Through initiating the original measures and sucking up to the marketing organizations, and not going after the malware spreaders, then establishing firewalls to block parts of the net but nobody but your organization knows which ones, and then "letting" regimes block the entire net to the country, this world has created this splinternet.
Splinternet is real, and as the Chinese work to rewrite URLs in real time so the news you read doesn't mention Tianenman Square, and Google and Apple self censor to reach that market, this is a real thing. Starlink won't save us from this. It will be interesting to see how many countries do a deal with Starlink/SpaceX and how many hold out for cash.
Ehud
On the post: More Disputes Over Trademarked Area Codes. Why Is This Allowed Again?
Re: I wonder if you could trademark "USPTO"?
To do that there are two parts of the standard you'd have to meet:
For that latter one, btw, font counts. So in essence, no.
Best of luck to you. If you get that registration I'm shorting your stock!
E
On the post: More Disputes Over Trademarked Area Codes. Why Is This Allowed Again?
Oxford says it is
Maybe I can make up for my math error by sharing this:
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/trademark
On the post: More Disputes Over Trademarked Area Codes. Why Is This Allowed Again?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NPA
Wait, I'm being stupid. You're right.
Time to go to bed. My apologies, and MY F minus.
E
On the post: More Disputes Over Trademarked Area Codes. Why Is This Allowed Again?
Re: Re: Re: Re: NPA
Yeah, that's wrong. It's simple math.
(NPA) NXX-XXXX
You have seven digits to play with in each NPA. That's at most 1,000,0000 numbers (one million).
Take away the parts you can't use and you get less.
There's NO WAY WHATSOEVER you can represent 7.9M numbers with 7 digits. Please show your work, then take this report card to your parents: F-.
E
On the post: More Disputes Over Trademarked Area Codes. Why Is This Allowed Again?
AT&T
First, before 1984 it was Bell System, but unrelatedly NANP came up with these codes -- which for practical purposes are 3 digit numbers and not product identifiers (UPCs, SKUs, etc.)
To register for a trademark you need to show that
There's more but that's the basic gist.
You can't JUST register a trademark for 414... you need to have a product and show that you're using it in commerce. Otherwise, everyone could register 200-909+920-999. Bullpucky.
This is a stupid USPTO registration (as was said in the original article) and while we can armchair lawyer it, will someone (PH, ACLU?) step up and help defend against it?
E
On the post: More Disputes Over Trademarked Area Codes. Why Is This Allowed Again?
Re: Re: NPA
Yup, my post was off by a factor of 10.
10,000 numbers per NPA.
Some exchanges not available (0XX, 555, 011, X11, etc.)
Some number of numbers within exchanged not available either.
E
On the post: More Disputes Over Trademarked Area Codes. Why Is This Allowed Again?
NPA
The North American Numbering Plan (NANP) allows for the assignment of Number Plan Areas (NPAs) which are colloquially called "area codes". Except they're not area code. Between "splits" and "overlays" they are now exactly as intended -- numbering plan areas.
This doesn't change the gist of the argument. Whatever you call them, they are unique numerical codes used to direct calls to that NPA.
There is no "confusions of consumers" between an NPA and a product named for the NPA of one of its phone numbers. It is also ... short sighted... says me... to name your business after an NPA that will possibly be split/overlayed with another NPA in the same area.
For example: 404. That's Atlanta, or an HTTP error code (page not found). 678? What's that? Oh that's Atlanta also. If there was a 404-Brewery that moved two streets over and tried to get a new number it would likely by a (678) NPA ("Area Code"). No consumer confusion there.
There are 10,000 numbers per NPA... and some of those won't exist because they are reserved (e.g. "(NPA)555-xxxx) and (NPA)0xx-xxxx, and (NPA)911-oxxx) but none of those are business designators.
Our USPTO is "confused" and it will take congressional action, IG action, or a lawsuit to correct.
Ehud
On the post: Knight Foundation Grant To Copia To Research Content Moderation, Governance, Rules & Norms For Internet Infrastructure
Congratulations!
I have loved the Knight Foundation since Wilton Knight first brought Michael into the fold.
Best wishes / best of luck / stay safe.
Ehud
P.S. go KITT!
On the post: Another Day, Another Bad Bill To Reform Section 230 That Will Do More Harm Than Good
Better crafted bills
There are two types of congress-critters, those who represent the people who elected them, and those who "know better" and end up representing the lobbyists. The latter get their bills passed.
The second part of the formula is not just the greater good or the cost, but understanding the issue. Congress-critters (Ron Wyden excepted) have shown a ludite desire to not be mired in an understanding of technlogy. /s
So we have people who
...and you talk of a well-crafted bill.
Well Celyxise, you have my vote. Please run for office and fix this s...tuff.
E
On the post: Another Day, Another Bad Bill To Reform Section 230 That Will Do More Harm Than Good
Working Hours
Well, MM, you've covered a lot of it, and the 24 people before me have added much. Having founded, owned, and ran ISPs (note: not telecom companies) I will try to add my humble thoughts.
If there was it should be for Verizon Wireless (42 minute wait on Friday), Comcast (37 minute wait on Monday), and other companies that offer telecom services.
Having an Internet connection is a commodity. It's simple.
Setting up a website is trivial. Lots of resellers, lots of CMSs, etc.
Moderating a website is a biatch, but MM... you've covered that.
BUT HAVING TO MAINTAIN A PHONE LINE WITH A LIVE HUMAN is even worse than requiring moderation.
Just Saying. For a friend.
E
On the post: It's Long Past Time To Encrypt The Entire DNS
Re: Re:
I'm sorry you don't understand the protocols and have a "feeling" that anything is about me or what I dislike or not.
When you discuss protocol features it's not about "like", "dislike", and "the world is moving past you" but ... wait for it... protocol features and how they work.
Thank you for your opinion on what you feel my opinion is. As expected, you're wrong. Just as those who think that encrypted DNS as currently implemented is a magic panacea. You might want to look that word up before you respond, anonymous POS.
E
On the post: It's Long Past Time To Encrypt The Entire DNS
Everyone who doesn't want to waste their time because the proposed solution is 100x more time consuming.
"Efficient" and "pro-consumer" and "ergonomic" say so also.
If you come up with something that meets that criteria, do tell. Until then, asking "Who care[sic]" just means YOU don't care. But you're nobody, so whether YOU care or not is not relevant. The market cares. Consumers care.
E
On the post: It's Long Past Time To Encrypt The Entire DNS
Re: Uummmmm
I can set up real DNS in 3 seconds. That's 100x (2 orders of magnitude better). Sorry, not a win.
Wanna go for a better score?
E
On the post: It's Long Past Time To Encrypt The Entire DNS
That's cute!
DNS:
Client --> One UDP packet
Server --> One UDP packet
Encrypted DNS:
Client --> establish connection
Server --> me too
Client --> Send certificate
Server --> me too
[verification CPU processing time left out of this network exchange]
Client --> request
Server --> reply
Either side --> teardown connection
Other side --> Yeah, sure
Next time you go to a webpage hit "View Source" (ctrl-U on firefox variants) and count the number of domain names. Now multiply that by the difference between 2 UDP packets of under 128Bytes and an entire encryption setup, dialogue, query, and teardown.
Sure, encryption is great. Go write it on a piece of paper and hide it in your pocket and give it to your secret crush in the classroom. NOBODY WILL KNOW. Bandwidth is low, latency is high, jitter is through the roof, but OH THANK GOD NOBODY KNOWS.
Or just freaking live with DNS.
E
On the post: Why Using Cellphones To Trace The Pandemic Won't Save Black Lives
"...ready and willing to :CHOKE THE LIFE OUT OF YOU ASSHOLES!"
I think you got confused by TechDirt's "SUBMIT" button and anything.
Good job on the copy and paste! One day when you learn to read you can come back and visit this site (and other) where you can contribute.
Sucks to be an illiterate MAGA idiot, donut? Oh wait, you'll have to get someone to read this to you.
E
P.S. I think you were looking for "underage teen porn for illiterate anonymous idiots" site. This wasn't it.
On the post: Why Using Cellphones To Trace The Pandemic Won't Save Black Lives
Well that was really cute! You showed almost a 3rd grade level of comprehension!! The websites pegged you as an absolute moron but I feel you could possibly make 2nd grade as you keep declining.
Thank you so much for contributing to the conversation, and one day when you can read, TechDirt will still be here for you to enjoy. I hope you won't be here for anyone else to enjoy.
E
On the post: Why Using Cellphones To Trace The Pandemic Won't Save Black Lives
Awesome summary
That was the most awesome summary of what problems are facing contact tracing (with or without apps).
Thank you, thank you, thank you, for saying all in one place what various people have been saying in pieces all over.
Ehud
Tucson AZ <-- #1 state in COVID rise of cases June 2020.
On the post: Tradeoffs: Facebook Helping The FBI Hack Tails To Track Down A Truly Awful Child Predator Raises Many Questions
There's no winning here...
Either FB could say "We have no way of doing this", or the FBI could say "We have no way of doing this" but nobody thought to make that six-figure payout go from the lawful agency investigating the issue to the security researcher.
FB failed us. I will never trust them, and I don't violate and threaten young girls like this piece of >>>>. Of course we have to say that because the cases that make the news are the heinous ones where the defendant is socially indefensible.
The FBI failed us. They used the tool, but did not participate in open disclosure, leaving the TAILS team to figure out "wut?"
Yes, a piece of >>>> was arrested, plead guilty to 41 charges, and will likely spend 2-5 years in prison thinking on his next scheme. In the meantime BILLIONS of FB users now should be wondering when FB will "decide on its own" their privacy is worth just about nothing.
The "tradeoff" between "security" and "privacy" and "obeying the law [in the jurisdiction where you are]" are not absolute. FB has now made this even murkier.
See you later, and not on FB, ever.
E
Next >>