131–140 of 143 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which makes me wonder, is there a way to make an ad-hoc, decentralized internet that a government could not shut down?
Yes, it's called HAM radio.
It's time to implement RFC 1149. :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the resources it'd take to kill the internet manually matter They only need to turn off one big ISP or 2 before the others are going to shut down themselves. Look at what happened with Wikileaks. If someone can always find a flaw in crypto implementations, why bother with cryptography? That's a pretty big IF, because it depends on finding flaws, and there is no recipe for that and you're also not certain if y…
What did you think of my point: 'They' could already turn off the internet. So why bother with the effort to make a killswitch? Because the resources it'd take to kill the internet manually matter. I think of that in terms of 1) simple manpower, 2) cooperation, and 3) perception.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it's called HAM radio.
Unfortunately, a determined governing body with the resources to back it could still track HAM operators down.
On another note, during WWII the mere possession of a radio was grounds for execution in plenty of places, let alone a transmitter, but that didn't stop people from having radios concealed in the most ingenious ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Take out a few core locations and you'd have a very hard time getting to google, or most other sites for that matter. Definitely untrue. How familiar are you with how the Internet works? Google and other major websites are massively multihomed: they peer with tens or hundreds or perhaps thousands of other ISPs and backbones in as many different peering points around the world. > All it takes for the vast majority o…
> How familiar are you with how the Internet works? Familiar enough with it to have written a TCP/IP stack. You? > Google and other major websites are massively multihomed: they peer with tens or hundreds or perhaps thousands of other ISPs and backbones in as many different peering points around the world. Yes, that was the point, the hosts are still up but you can't reach them. Kill port 53 and the net might as well…
I work directly with it on one of the world's busiest destination ASes on a daily basis.
> Yep, those would be first to go. Technically those are under the control of the US military anyway, they're on US soil and within 100 miles of an army base.
I'm not quite sure what to do with such a glaringly incorrect statement. 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 are anycast-routed ips with multiple servers in places across the globe. Here's a list of the servers that host those ips:
64.233.162.0/24 gru
64.233.168.0/24 iad
66.102.12.0/24 grq
72.14.202.0/24 tpe
72.14.212.0/24 dls
74.125.112.0/24 chs
74.125.114.0/24 chs
74.125.126.0/24 dls
74.125.152.0/24 tpe
74.125.154.0/24 dls
74.125.156.0/24 atl
74.125.158.0/24 atl
74.125.38.0/24 fra
74.125.42.0/24 ber
74.125.44.0/24 atl
74.125.46.0/24 atl
74.125.52.0/24 dls
74.125.64.0/24 atl
74.125.66.0/24 atl
74.125.76.0/24 grq
74.125.78.0/24 grq
74.125.86.0/24 bud
74.125.90.0/24 mrn
74.125.92.0/24 mrn
74.125.94.0/24 cbf
208.117.247.0/24 pao
209.85.142.0/24 dub
209.85.174.0/24 kul
209.85.224.0/24 cbf
209.85.226.0/24 bru
209.85.228.0/24 bru
How many of those do you think the US government can shutdown? It would have to find some way to blackhole Google's AS entirely to do so. Do you think that's within its capabilities?
> I think you're vastly underestimating the capabilities of the US army...How many sys admins do you know that will take a bullet to keep their router up after being commanded to shut it down?
I think you're vastly underestimating the autonomy of individual soldiers in the Army. I know a lot of soldiers--my wife's an active duty O-3--and I don't know a single one who would actually shoot a person for refusing to shut down a router, especially in the context of an attempted government shutdown of the Internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not trying to hit anyone over the head with a worldview, merely trying to dispel the notion that "friendly" governments in the middle east are somehow "good". Your assertion that Egypt is "committed to peace", and therefor good for the region, is mistaken. I didn't say committed to peace, so it's pretty low to quote me. I also didn't say friendly. I did say good, but not in the context you use. If, on the other h…
Sorry, "committed to peace" came from elsewhere; your words were "active in working towards regional peace". I'm not sure how these differ, but given your opposition to my previous characterization, I would be interested in hearing your views on the matter. As for "good", you implied that a propagation of Mubaraks would be a good thing. If I'm reading that wrong, again, feel free to correct me. "I explained what offe…
As for "good", you implied that a propagation of
Mubaraks would be a good thing. If I'm reading that
wrong, again, feel free to correct me.
When Eastern Europe broke up, the only significant school of thought against the current system was a western style parliamentary dictatorship. They were ethnically homogenous countries. There weren't strong crusade narratives amongst the people. Whereas in the middle east, there's a strong attraction towards religious dictatorship, plenty of ethnic diversity, and plenty of people willing to die for the cause.
I'm not sure where your offense comes from.
I took issue, however, with your claim that a
middle east of Mubaraks would be better than the
current situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still not decided. I want someone secular, capitalist and liberal. Someone with a good history and background in economics and politics. He'll get some good promotion, as I'll be dedicating all my summer for pushing his campaign forward :)
>I still not decided. I want someone secular, capitalist and liberal. Good luck with finding someone like that. Contact me if you want some help.
* message could not be sent, are you sure your email is correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How familiar are you with how the Internet works? Familiar enough with it to have written a TCP/IP stack. You? > Google and other major websites are massively multihomed: they peer with tens or hundreds or perhaps thousands of other ISPs and backbones in as many different peering points around the world. Yes, that was the point, the hosts are still up but you can't reach them. Kill port 53 and the net might as well…
> Familiar enough with it to have written a TCP/IP stack. You? I work directly with it on one of the world's busiest destination ASes on a daily basis. > Yep, those would be first to go. Technically those are under the control of the US military anyway, they're on US soil and within 100 miles of an army base. I'm not quite sure what to do with such a glaringly incorrect statement. 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 are anycast-rout…
> I don't know a single one who would actually shoot a person for refusing to shut down a router, especially in the context of an attempted government shutdown of the Internet.
That's called desertion.
Would they also refuse to take foreigners hostage and place them in confinement outside of US soil to stop them from having access to the courts?
Typically when people with guns show up the options are 'do this or else', where or else can be anything from we'll take you prisoner to we'll put holes in you where they do not belong. And you will end up doing what you're told.
Really this is an insane discussion, no ISP would hold out for more than 15 minutes to the moment of shutdown, you can choose it to be an orderly one with a chance of getting stuff back up once the order is lifted to one where stuff will be shut down by major force. Shutdown the power (and the generators) and it's curtains anyway.
I understand that you'd like it to be otherwise. Let's hope we'll never find out who was right ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, a determined governing body with the resources to back it could still track HAM operators down.
They wouldn't have to do much tracking, there is a public registry. On another note, during WWII the mere possession of a radio was grounds for execution in plenty of places, let alone a transmitter, but that didn't stop people from having radios concealed in the most ingenious ways.