RE: Libel lunacy -all laws apply fnord everywhere
At 6:11 PM -0800 on 12/12/02, Lucky Green wrote: Agreed. A few years ago, some would advocate that on the Internet, no national laws apply. This was, of course, nonsense. Instead, every single national, regional, and local law in effect today anywhere in the world applies to anything you do to the extent that said law can be enforced. Yup. At least until the internet boycott against Australia succeeds, we're closer to Tim May's signatures about ~~this posting void where prohibited by law, may offend local sensibilities, etc~~ than to just speedbumps on the information superhighway. Or at best, they're the kind of speedbumps designed to generate extra business for the local car-repair shops... At 11:10 PM 12/12/2002 -0500, R. A. Hettinga wrote: The next trick will be to drive a stake into the heart of modern society's present mystification of identity and is-a-person credentials by moving money and financial assets, significantly cheaper than we do now, using systems that don't require identity at all to clear and settle transactions. Systems which are, paradoxically, cheaper *because* they're anonymous, or at least, identity agnostic, just like physics is religiously agnostic. It was nice to believe this for a while. Is there any evidence that it's actually becoming practical or even possible to have identity-less systems that are less expensive than current processes? Moore's Law is making it easier to afford fast crypto, but it and the similar effects in networking costs are making identity-based settlement systems progressively cheaper, to the extent that it may not be worth switching. Or is that just because the companies that have the critical patents keep going nowhere while they keep the technology locked down? I'm reminded somewhat of the IP telephony situation - it's east to get ham-radio-quality VOIP to talk to your friends, and building a whole new infrastructure based on VOIP would be radically cheaper than building it with old technology, and replacing the whole antique structure at once would be impossible, but would also be much cheaper than doing it piecemeal, because the interconnections between the old and new sides are ugly. It's easy to get incremental 0.1 cent minutes, instead of 2-cent minutes, but there's enough fixed startup cost that it's not worth it for most business applications (though it would be worth it to replace 29-cent minutes.)
Re: [CHOATE FIX] No quantum postcards (Re: Libel lunacy -all laws apply fnord everywhere)
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Major Variola (ret) wrote: Seems I have to explain why IP packet routing is not broadcasting some more. Those of you who understand that postcards have one trajectory from you to me can skip this. My first post was a first-order Choate fix. This post is a second-order fix. I refuse to respond to the next gripe, where JC brings up quantum postcards that take all paths at the same time, until you open your mailbox. Yada yada yada...same old CACL bullshit. At 07:12 AM 12/17/02 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Major Variola (ret) wrote: The network? Sorry, its one wire from here to there. No it isn't, try a traceroute to a regular site that isn't over your internal network over several days, why does it change? In a *virtual* connection, the *physical* paths may change transparently. Transparently says you, change the rules in the middle of the game and hope nobody notices. Thank you for making my point. One must have a physical connection prior to a virtual connection. That physical network connection is equivalent for this comparison to the physical connection between radio transmitter and receiver, which is also shortest path (usually). That phsical connection will change based on many variables. It is true that more intelligent routers will cache various pieces of data, and provided the cache doesn't go stale your route 'from here to there' will stay the same. The reason that the intelligence was put into the routers was because the packets were bopping around the network until their TTL went to zero (each individual packet gets it's TTL decremented each time it hits a router, until it hits zero when it's dropped, each router either sends it to a known host on its local net or it's default route - where the process starts all over again on that adjacent physical localnet). The comparison to radio and multi-path distortion is also valid with reference to receipt of multiple copies of a packet (and how prey tell does that happen? Does the single router send out the same packet twice? Nope, Different routers send them out and they get to the recipient who takes them based on first come, first served -by different intermediate paths-). Bottom line, if there are n hosts on a network link and a packet is injected each host gets a shot at it. If the host has sufficient info it can make intelligent decisions, otherwise it drops back to the TTL so the network doesn't get completely clogged by stale packets floating around in limbo for perpetuity. Each IP packet has one path though the sequence of packets may take different routes. Gibberish. Perhaps the mailing-postcards analogy is better than the telco one, since Ma Bell doesn't diddle the route after call setup AFAIK. But your postcards, once injected into the Postal Network, may take different routes. Not that you or your recipient knows. No they won't. If you drop your postcard in a specific drop point then it will be picked up and delivered to a specific central routing point. There it will be collected with others of a similar destination. Then it will be sent to the appropriate distribution center for that region. From there it will be sent via truck or air to another distribution center, where the reverse process takes place. About the only variance is the plane/truck that is travelling the route between regional distribution centers probably isn't the same one that took yesterdays mail, but it could be. The USPS doesn't want your mail being sent all over hell and half of Georgia, that costs us all way too much money. Nobody (but perhaps you by inference) is claiming it is identical, however, it -is- a broadcast (just consider how a packet gets routed, consider the TTL for example or how a ping works). Each packet you send out goes to many places -besides- the shortest route to the target host (which is how the shortest route is found). Modulo CALEA and multi-/broadcast packets, each postcard is handed off to exactly one other device, or dropped. Actually it's not. Take for example when my ISP send my packet (say this email for example) out on their T3 or SONET link, there will be MANY other hosts who will look at it and their inbound routers will try to route it, unless they happen to know that destination IP is not in their domain. Once the packet gets on a backbone -many- potential routes see it and decide to pass it on to their default routes or drop it based on the routing table and protocols (which are not spec'ed by TCP/IP). This sort of broadcast is also why Ethernet itself uses the collision detection and resend the way it does. It's also why Ethernet gets bogged to near uselessness when the actual network bandwidth load approaches 50%. This is analogous to tuning your radio to a specific frequency (ie IP = frequency; protocol = modulation technique). The other issues that you raise are -really- strawmen. --
Re: Libel lunacy -all laws apply fnord everywhere
At 02:29 PM 12/15/02 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Steve Schear wrote: From the article: The court dismissed suggestions the Internet was different from other broadcasters, who could decide how far their signal was to be transmitted. This is totally bogus thinking. The Internet is not broadcast medium. Yes, it is. Every site that emits a packet broadcasts it onto the network. The network? Sorry, its one wire from here to there. Even a router with multiple NICs only copies a given packet to a single interface. One can even make a comparison between 'frequency modulation' with 'IP service'. Information from Web sites must be requested, the equivalent of ordering a book or newspaper, Or tuning your browser to the 'frequecy' of the web server. For purposes of thinking about *channels* you can use the old Marconi way of thinking of frequency as channel-selector. The net has under 2^32 x 2^16 (IP x port) endpoints or 'channels'. However in detail this mildly useful metaphor breaks down. In particular, most protocols (e.g., TCP) set up a virtual, temporary circuits. Clients have to request such circuits. Servers have to grant them. Not the case for a true broadcast net, eg radio. More like making a phone call. Do you think when you speak on the phone that you are broadcasting into the Network? You are not. --- Of course, words mean different things in Choate-prime. Apologies to the C-prime filterers.
Re: CDR: Re: Libel lunacy -all laws apply fnord everywhere
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Miles Fidelman wrote: On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Jim Choate wrote: On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Steve Schear wrote: From the article: The court dismissed suggestions the Internet was different from other broadcasters, who could decide how far their signal was to be transmitted. This is totally bogus thinking. The Internet is not broadcast medium. Yes, it is. Every site that emits a packet broadcasts it onto the network. One can even make a comparison between 'frequency modulation' with 'IP service'. Information from Web sites must be requested, the equivalent of ordering a book or newspaper, At the IP level, sending an IP packet to a specific address is no more a broadcast than sending a piece of mail through the postal service. Nobody (but perhaps you by inference) is claiming it is identical, however, it -is- a broadcast (just consider how a packet gets routed, consider the TTL for example or how a ping works). Each packet you send out goes to many places -besides- the shortest route to the target host (which is how the shortest route is found). The comparison is close enough to have validity. -- We don't see things as they are, [EMAIL PROTECTED] we see them as we are. www.ssz.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anais Nin www.open-forge.org
Re: Libel lunacy -all laws apply fnord everywhere
at Tuesday, December 17, 2002 5:33 AM, the following Choatisms were heard: Nobody (but perhaps you by inference) is claiming it is identical, however, it -is- a broadcast (just consider how a packet gets routed, consider the TTL for example or how a ping works). ping packets aren't routed any differently from non-ping packets - they bounce up though your ISPs idea of best route to the recipient's ISP, who then use their idea of best route to the target (leaving aside the via IP flag). The reply bounces up their ISP's idea of best route to your ISP, and down though your ISP's best route to you. There isn't a sudden wave of ping packet travelling out across the internet like a radar pulse, and reflecting back to you - it is a directed transfer of a single discrete packet. The best analogy (made by someone else here earlier) is a telephone call; each call follows a routing path defined by the phone company's best idea of pushing comms one step closer to the destination at that time; it may be that a longer route (bouncing via a third country to get to a second, rather than using the direct line) has a lower cost due to the usage at that time, so that route is used.
Re: Libel lunacy -all laws apply fnord everywhere
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Steve Schear wrote: From the article: The court dismissed suggestions the Internet was different from other broadcasters, who could decide how far their signal was to be transmitted. This is totally bogus thinking. The Internet is not broadcast medium. Yes, it is. Every site that emits a packet broadcasts it onto the network. One can even make a comparison between 'frequency modulation' with 'IP service'. Information from Web sites must be requested, the equivalent of ordering a book or newspaper, Or tuning your browser to the 'frequecy' of the web server. -- We don't see things as they are, [EMAIL PROTECTED] we see them as we are. www.ssz.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anais Nin www.open-forge.org
Re: Libel lunacy -all laws apply fnord everywhere
Jim Choate wrote: On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Steve Schear wrote: From the article: The court dismissed suggestions the Internet was different from other broadcasters, who could decide how far their signal was to be transmitted. This is totally bogus thinking. The Internet is not broadcast medium. Yes, it is. Every site that emits a packet broadcasts it onto the network. One can even make a comparison between 'frequency modulation' with 'IP service'. no, it isn't. By that argument, you could say that a hard disk is a broadcast medium - because the data is there and you can just tune to any track and sector and pull back the information - or a library is a broadcast medium because you can retrieve books by going there and locating them by section and ISBN number Webcast is marginally a broadcast medium - because ISPs can aggregate multiple requests into a single datastream - but the internet is largely search-and-retrieve; it would be surprising to find a webserver sending data to your isp anyhow just in case you request it
Re: Libel lunacy -all laws apply fnord everywhere
On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Jim Choate wrote: On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Steve Schear wrote: From the article: The court dismissed suggestions the Internet was different from other broadcasters, who could decide how far their signal was to be transmitted. This is totally bogus thinking. The Internet is not broadcast medium. Yes, it is. Every site that emits a packet broadcasts it onto the network. One can even make a comparison between 'frequency modulation' with 'IP service'. Information from Web sites must be requested, the equivalent of ordering a book or newspaper, At the IP level, sending an IP packet to a specific address is no more a broadcast than sending a piece of mail through the postal service. ** The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618 Miles R. Fidelman, President Newtonville, MA 02460-0006 Director, Municipal Telecommunications Strategies Program 617-558-3698 fax: 617-630-8946 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://civic.net/ccn.html Information Infrastructure: Public Spaces for the 21st Century Let's Start With: Internet Wall-Plugs Everywhere Say It Often, Say It Loud: I Want My Internet! **
RE: Libel lunacy -all laws apply fnord everywhere
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At 6:11 PM -0800 on 12/12/02, Lucky Green wrote: Agreed. A few years ago, some would advocate that on the Internet, no national laws apply. This was, of course, nonsense. Instead, every single national, regional, and local law in effect today anywhere in the world applies to anything you do to the extent that said law can be enforced. Everything illegal everywhere all the time. A legislative singularity akin to early modern discoveries in physics (the end of the geocentric universe) and engineering (peasant-fired projectile weapons making noble armor obsolete) once and forever violating the laws of god. The next trick will be to drive a stake into the heart of modern society's present mystification of identity and is-a-person credentials by moving money and financial assets, significantly cheaper than we do now, using systems that don't require identity at all to clear and settle transactions. Systems which are, paradoxically, cheaper *because* they're anonymous, or at least, identity agnostic, just like physics is religiously agnostic. If that works, sooner or later we'll have the technical equivalent of the thirty years' war, which only the ubiquitous and instantaneous application or threat of private, local, force will solve. The result will be a software/protocol Treaty of Westphalia, giving us actual markets for force instead of confiscatory monopolies for same. In the end, if necessary we'll know, absolutely, where *every*body is, and what they're doing, all the time, because we'll all be watching our *own* stuff, supervising our *own* property with our *own* equipment, like, um, god, meant us to do :-). But, paradoxically, because it'll be cheaper and more secure to do instantaneously-settled functionally anonymous transactions, we won't know, we won't *care* where anybody gets, spends, or invests their money, and we won't give damn about it because it works better than the Friedmanian mummenschantz(1) we currently call law and order. Markets will create better order than laws ever could. Cheers, RAH (1) See David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom where he describes the finance of the modern nation state as this ceremonial game in which 50 people sit in a circle with a hundred pennies stacked in front of each person. The politician comes along, and with great pomp and circumstance (and two guys with guns on either side of him), takes everyone's pennies and dumps them into a fancy bowl. Then, at random, he stands in front of someone, and slowly, with great fanfare, counts off 50 pennies and gives them to the lucky recipient. After repeating this 49 more times without repeating anyone, the politician and his associates go off to the local pub and buy themselves a beer. The victims are left marvelling at all the free money they just got. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBPfldFsPxH8jf3ohaEQIdqwCg3KMwGcxZP+JiAFcq3/+GgPVMGbAAoJvX rMD2BLN0WvuZC8i7ZhBVu5Sc =YJy7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA Every election is a sort of advance auction of stolen goods. -- H.L. Mencken
Re: Libel lunacy -all laws apply fnord everywhere
Quoth Steve: Under this logic a retailer in one country, selling a controversial book to someone in another country, could involve publishers in yet a third country to litigation in the second country. Bizarre. The real question is whether any judgement is enforceable. Depends if the Dow Jones CEOs ever go to Australia. Ask Mr. Skylarov about enforceability. Better yet, ask his wife or newborn.
RE: Libel lunacy -all laws apply fnord everywhere
Steve wrote: This is totally bogus thinking. The Internet is not broadcast medium. Information from Web sites must be requested, the equivalent of ordering a book or newspaper, for delivery. Under this logic a retailer in one country, selling a controversial book to someone in another country, could involve publishers in yet a third country to litigation in the second country. Bizarre. The real question is whether any judgement is enforceable. Agreed. A few years ago, some would advocate that on the Internet, no national laws apply. This was, of course, nonsense. Instead, every single national, regional, and local law in effect today anywhere in the world applies to anything you do to the extent that said law can be enforced. --Lucky
Re: Libel lunacy -all laws apply fnord everywhere
At 11:28 AM 12/11/2002 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: Internet Libel Fence Falls Court in Australia Says U.S. Publisher Can Be Sued There By Jonathan Krim Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, December 11, 2002; Page A10 An Australian businessman, in a court ruling that could change how publishers view their ability to distribute information around the world, won the right to sue a U.S. news organization in his home country over a story published on the Internet. snip http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37437-2002Dec10.html From the article: The court dismissed suggestions the Internet was different from other broadcasters, who could decide how far their signal was to be transmitted. This is totally bogus thinking. The Internet is not broadcast medium. Information from Web sites must be requested, the equivalent of ordering a book or newspaper, for delivery. Under this logic a retailer in one country, selling a controversial book to someone in another country, could involve publishers in yet a third country to litigation in the second country. Bizarre. The real question is whether any judgement is enforceable. steve
