Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Government Shutdown on the Web

cato.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: The Government Shutdown on the Web

#41

Post by rietta »

darkstar999 wrote: post #27
rietta wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an idea! It would be fun to run SSH over packet radio while no one is around to enforce Part 97!

Off topic, but what's the reasoning behind the rule against encrypted traffic on amateur bands?

I actually researched this long ago - 2004 - when I was a student at Tech and gave a presentation to the Atlanta Radio Club about cryptographically secure authentication that would be Part 97 friendly. Nothing came of it, but I did later post the write up to my blog it 2009: http://blog.rietta.com/blog/2009/08/17/authentication-withou...

My opinion at the time was: " What Does Part 97 Say?

Section 97.113 (4) '…messages in codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning thereof, except as otherwise provided herein…' (emphasis added).

Based on the above quote, we can use any method at our disposal to provide for secure authentication which does not obscure the meaning of communications. As we start using more computing environments and bring the Internet to ham radio, we have to make sure that service is not provided to non-licensed users. In voice space, it is generally easy to spot a non-ham, but when everyone is using the same software there is not a similarly intuitive way to distinguish between the licensed user and the unlicensed user. "

Re: The Government Shutdown on the Web

#42

Post by adestefan »

olefoo wrote: post #14
16s wrote: post #12

The FCC is down. As a radio operator, I find this extremely disappointing: http://www.fcc.gov

That just means that now is the time for all those Software Defined Radio experiments we've been putting off. Spread spectrum mesh networks encrypted so NSA can't spy on them... for the win.

The FCC doesn't actively police the amateur spectrum. Instead they rely on self-reporting from the community. The official observers will file reports after the FCC reopens. It takes months for them to take actions on the reports. So this really changes nothing.

Re: The Government Shutdown on the Web

#43

Post by 16s »

rietta wrote: post #41
darkstar999 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off topic, but what's the reasoning behind the rule against encrypted traffic on amateur bands?

I actually researched this long ago - 2004 - when I was a student at Tech and gave a presentation to the Atlanta Radio Club about cryptographically secure authentication that would be Part 97 friendly. Nothing came of it, but I did later post the write up to my blog it 2009: http://blog.rietta.com/blog/2009/08/17/authentication-withou... My opinion at the time was: " What Does Part 97 Say? Section 97.113 (4) '…messag…

Where I'm from Tech means Virginia Tech. We beat Georgia Tech in football this year too ;)

Just joking... thanks for that write-up. I'd rather keep the Internet away from Radio (it's too centralized). I much prefer station to station communication over the air rather than packets over some government/corporate controlled network.

Re: The Government Shutdown on the Web

#44

Post by acdha »

BrandonMarc wrote: post #37
adelevie wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a rather simplistic view of "bosses in the government." Sure agency heads and managing directors might have their own opinions on the shutdown, especially since they were nominated by President Obama (or appointed by someone who was). But they have their own responsibilities as stewards of an agency. One responsibility is ensuring the agency acts within the law and shields itself from liability. Shutting down…

With all this talk o liability, would it not be cheaper to simply add a disclaimer to every homepage, etc, saying "due to the shut down some info may be inaccurate"? I imagine that might be even easier than going through the steps to ensure a website goes offline. But, that would avoid spreading panic and pain, which is what the powers that be want in order to score points. It's like the April sequestration all over…

You're missing the point: people can't touch anything until the shutdown ends. You put up that disclaimer and go home for awhile. Tomorrow, you have drive fail or someone defaces it tomorrow and you cannot – by federal law – fix it until the budget passes, so you're basically hoping the essential staff — who, remember, are juggling a ton of new responsibilities – notice and can at least pull shut it down without causing too much extra damage.

Re: The Government Shutdown on the Web

#45

Post by runamok »

acdha wrote: post #44
BrandonMarc wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all this talk o liability, would it not be cheaper to simply add a disclaimer to every homepage, etc, saying "due to the shut down some info may be inaccurate"? I imagine that might be even easier than going through the steps to ensure a website goes offline. But, that would avoid spreading panic and pain, which is what the powers that be want in order to score points. It's like the April sequestration all over…

You're missing the point: people can't touch anything until the shutdown ends. You put up that disclaimer and go home for awhile. Tomorrow, you have drive fail or someone defaces it tomorrow and you cannot – by federal law – fix it until the budget passes, so you're basically hoping the essential staff — who, remember, are juggling a ton of new responsibilities – notice and can at least pull shut it down without caus…

I understand that absolutely CAN happen though in my experience it's fairly rare. However, it's akin to shutting down all public roads because a few may develop potholes we can't fix until funds are available. You are removing a critical resource from the hands of people that paid for it in the first place.

Re: The Government Shutdown on the Web

#46

Post by bradleyjg »

001sky wrote: post #28
bradleyjg wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Anti-Deficiency Act, and opinions interpreting it from Attorneys General dating back to the Carter administration, is the basis for OMB Memo M-13-22[1] which provides guidelines to heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on how to plan for a lapse in appropriations. Pages 13 and 14 deal with websites and other IT concerns and specifically reference the Anti-Deficiency Act. Here's question 5 from page 14: Q5:…

How do they pay the cost of shut down, if they "can't pay" the cost of operation? Just curious. Math, and all that.

The 1981 AG memo, which unfortunately seems not to be online anywhere (if you have access to Westlaw or LexisNexis the cite is 43 Op. Att’y Gen. 293) interprets the law as implicitly allowing shutdown costs after the budget authority is exhausted.

Re: The Government Shutdown on the Web

#47

Post by acdha »

runamok wrote: post #45
acdha wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point: people can't touch anything until the shutdown ends. You put up that disclaimer and go home for awhile. Tomorrow, you have drive fail or someone defaces it tomorrow and you cannot – by federal law – fix it until the budget passes, so you're basically hoping the essential staff — who, remember, are juggling a ton of new responsibilities – notice and can at least pull shut it down without caus…

I understand that absolutely CAN happen though in my experience it's fairly rare. However, it's akin to shutting down all public roads because a few may develop potholes we can't fix until funds are available. You are removing a critical resource from the hands of people that paid for it in the first place.

Congress is removing it, not the federal workers following the rules. If you don't like the laws or don't like the way they're stalling on authorizing spending, contact your representatives and express your displeasure.

Re: The Government Shutdown on the Web

#48

Post by dragonwriter »

bradleyjg wrote: post #46
001sky wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do they pay the cost of shut down, if they "can't pay" the cost of operation? Just curious. Math, and all that.

The 1981 AG memo, which unfortunately seems not to be online anywhere (if you have access to Westlaw or LexisNexis the cite is 43 Op. Att’y Gen. 293) interprets the law as implicitly allowing shutdown costs after the budget authority is exhausted.

> The 1981 AG memo, which unfortunately seems not to be online anywhere (if you have access to Westlaw or LexisNexis the cite is 43 Op. Att’y Gen. 293)

Well, I found it in the first page of Google results for the citation you provide:

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/10/f3/Shutdown.OLC_....

Re: The Government Shutdown on the Web

#49

Post by dragonwriter »

001sky wrote: post #28
bradleyjg wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Anti-Deficiency Act, and opinions interpreting it from Attorneys General dating back to the Carter administration, is the basis for OMB Memo M-13-22[1] which provides guidelines to heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on how to plan for a lapse in appropriations. Pages 13 and 14 deal with websites and other IT concerns and specifically reference the Anti-Deficiency Act. Here's question 5 from page 14: Q5:…

How do they pay the cost of shut down, if they "can't pay" the cost of operation? Just curious. Math, and all that.

> How do they pay the cost of shut down, if they "can't pay" the cost of operation? Just curious. Math, and all that.

Math is not an issue. The legal issue isn't the quantity of funds that can be spent in the absence of appropriations, but the purpose for which funds can be spent in the absence of appropriations.

Re: The Government Shutdown on the Web

#50

Post by olefoo »

adestefan wrote: post #42
olefoo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just means that now is the time for all those Software Defined Radio experiments we've been putting off. Spread spectrum mesh networks encrypted so NSA can't spy on them... for the win.

The FCC doesn't actively police the amateur spectrum. Instead they rely on self-reporting from the community. The official observers will file reports after the FCC reopens. It takes months for them to take actions on the reports. So this really changes nothing.

You are assuming that the FCC will reopen in anything like it's present capacity. That assumption may not be fully justified.
Post reply on HN