An ISP we all need!

Historically, ISPs have readily handed over subscriber info to ‘authorities’ for the asking – no waiting for a warrant or such silly concepts as ‘due process’.

Subscribers had no choice in the matter:  if you wanted to hook up to the internet, the pipeline was controlled by ISPs who all placed submissiveness to authorities above protecting the civil liberties of their subscribers.  Their subscription contracts made this clear – either waive your civil liberties or get your internet service from somebody else!

Except that this condition was in all the ISPs contracts, so that there was nobody else to go to!

So much for ‘free markets’…  When all the terms of service were – at least, in this respect – almost identical, there was no consumer choice:  no way to vote with your dollar.

When civil libertarians and privacy watchdogs pointed out how these ‘industry practices’ abrogate civil liberties of the consumers and that it may, in fact, be illegal, legislators quickly passed laws to permit it.

This, in effect, permits the ISPs to share content of your email (this might be a good time to check out HushMail), your web-surfing history – heck, they can even install key-loggers and pass all that information on to agents of ‘the State’.  Expectation of privacy?  What is this ‘privacy’ thing – this word no longer exist in the dictionary!

This is about to change.  If Nick Merrill has anything to say about it, that is!

From CNET News:

‘Merrill, 39, who previously ran a New York-based Internet provider, told CNET that he’s raising funds to launch a national “non-profit telecommunications provider dedicated to privacy, using ubiquitous encryption” that will sell mobile phone service, for as little as $20 a month, and Internet connectivity.

The ISP would not merely employ every technological means at its disposal, including encryption and limited logging, to protect its customers. It would also — and in practice this is likely more important — challenge government surveillance demands of dubious legality or constitutionality.’

Which is the thing we truly need!

So, some might say, what about the ‘baddies’?  What about organized crime or terrorists or child pornographers?  They will be the first to want to take advantage of this, would they not?

Of course:  but that is why we have the police forces. It is their job to ferret these ‘baddies’ out:  but, with great power comes great responsibility.

In the case of the police, this responsibility is checked by judicial oversight.  Sure, it is more legwork – but we know that humans nature is always the weakest link in the chain, and it precisely because of human nature that these checks and balances have been instituted, it is to make sure power is not abused that due process must be followed.  Knowing the police are not taking shortcuts will even make the public trust them more, making their jobs easier, instead of the growing distrust people have that police and/or other ‘authorities’ will abuse their position to our detriment.

When agents of the State are permitted to circumvent judicial oversight and what we consider to be ‘due process’ – whether by relaxing the standards so that this becomes ‘standard’ and ‘accepted’ practice (like government agents routinely asking for – and receiving – private information about someone from a third party without judicial oversight) or by passing laws that reduce the integrity of what constitutes ‘due process’ (oh, like, say, ‘The Patriot Act’), we all loose!

I, for one, escaped from a life in a police state. It pains me greatly so see our society move – slowly, but definitely – towards the type of state which I escaped from.

So – civil-liberties-mided, customer-privacy-focused ISP providers:  COME ON!  WE’VE BEEN WAITING FOR YOU!

Can Volunteers Protect Communities?

When police officers patrol the streets, their right to do so does not derive from the State – it derives from the right of all citizens to protect their selves, family and property.  Just because we have permitted the police officers to perform these tasks on our behalf (as opposed to just their own individual behalf) does not, in any way, shape or form, abrogate both our right and our responsibility to also do so ourselves.

It is therefore with great sadness that I hear of incidents like ‘the Spiceman’, where a man who protected his family and property with a broom and tossed a handful of spices at his attacker was arrested by the police and charged with assault with a weapon and administering a noxious substance – while the original perp was not charged with anything.

While most commentators agree that it is ridiculous to suggest that the restaurateur did not have the right to protect his property, I would go further:  he not only had that right, he had the obligation to do so.  To do anything less would be an abdication of his civic responsibilities with respect to his fellow neighbours.

As for the actions of the police….don’t even get me started!  They have no problem trampling over the civil liberties of people who have not broken any laws (kettlin, anyone? – trap them all and not worry about any silly civil liberties), but repeated calls regarding property damage are simply ignored. (Or how about the frivolous dismissal of death threats against Tarek Fatah as he lay in a hospital bed?) That is abdication of their duties by the police officers on two different counts:  their professional duties as well as their basic citizenship duties.

And don’t even get me started on Caledonia!

Yet, we have been so trained to accept police officers’ dismissal of our complaints and concerns that we no longer question it.

I know that I no longer report minor theft or property damage to the police:  like, when my car got broken into last week and my purse got stolen.  (Luckily, my wallet was not in my purse – I like to keep a ‘packed’ back-up purse in my car as a ‘coping mechanism’ because I get forgetful and might need the stuff when I am out and about – but I would never leave my wallet/keys in an unattended car.  My purse just contains necessities:  a notepad/puzzles, 5-10 pens, some cyanoacrylate glue, change, mints/gum, a sewing kit, a couple of books, 1st aid kit – you know, necessities you should not leave home without.)  Since the last time the car was broken into, the cops’ attitude was ‘what do you want us to do about it?’, I really did not see the point in the hassle:  I would not benefit from reporting it and certainly no effective action would be taken if I did – so why waste the tax-money by reporting it?

While I don’t know how to fix this disconnect from, indifference to and, at times, open hostility towards the citizenry from our Police forces, it is important that we search for various ideas and examine their merit.  It is in this spirit that I would like to show you the following video:

Obviously, not a perfect solution.  But, it is thinking in the right direction….

Pat Condell: Israel and the United Nations

V3: Swedish researchers uncover key to China’s Tor-blocking system

Pretty soon, not just China but just about all national and supra-national governments will build firewalls in order to disarm its citizenry by denying them access to accurate information.  Whether this is done in the name of anti-piracy/IP protection or for security concerns, this frontal assault on the freedom of the internet is only going to become stronger.

That is why it is essential that we employ all tools available to us to protect ourselves and the free flow of information amongst peoples!

Of course, the more strategies we have, the longer we can hold them off – the more ways to circumvent we find – the better our future will be.

Which is why the following story is both interesting and important:

‘It has been long-known that the ‘Great Firewall Wall of China’ has attempted to block citizens from using the Tor network, by blocking access to some IP addresses or using HTTP header filters to weed out suspect traffic.

But Philipp Winter and Stefan Lindskog of Karlstad University in Sweden have discovered that Chinese authorities have recently increased the sophistication of their filtering tools, making it more difficult for citizens to browse the web freely, by blocking so-called Tor bridges.’

‘The researchers were able to show that by using so-called packet fragmentation tools, which split TCP streams in to small segments, it is possible to disguise Tor traffic, making it harder to detect.’

C. G. P. Grey: Canada Gets Rid of the Penny

The coin, that is…

 

Reason Rally 2012: AronRa chats up some young creationists

The videos from this weekend’s Reason Rally 2012 in Washington D.C. are only just beginning to pop up.

While the lineup is studded with stars like Richard Dawkins (whose message I detest because of his inaccurate use of language which leads to more confusion than it clears up) who came to stand up for science and logic and reality.  Great.

But these are not really the most interesting or fun of the videos.  I prefer dialogue to speeches, so it is perhaps natural that I find videos like the one below much more interesting.  And, I do like AronRa!

Rat-bots: a more effective solution for a dispersed, un-censorable wi-fi net

Yesterday, I linked to a TorrentFreak article which showed a video of an elegant aerial ballet performed by wi-fi-emiting file-sharing fly-bots.  Beautiful, as well as a functional method of un-censorable, un-regulatable, distributed wi-fi network.

Today, I came across a response to this for a much less elegant, but perhaps more practical solution:  instead of aerial bots, create rat-bots.

‘In the city, you are never more than three metres away from a rat. They’re spectacularly successful. We’ve built them a wonderful habitat replete with high-speed autoroutes — storm drains and sewers — and convenience stores to snack from in the shape of dumpsters and trash. And ground level is where most of us wifi users happen to be, most of the time.

Small ground-traversing robots would not be subject to the same weight penalties as airborn drones. The wifi range would be shorter, but their power consumption would be lower and they’d be far more concealable — it’s quite easy to imagine a ratbot that is, literally, no larger than a real rat.’

The author goes on to evaluate the operational advantages, from power consumption to range, and suggest practical evasion and re-fuelling techniques, including charging mats and, perhaps, including bio-fuel conversion and primitive hunting/foraging programming…

Fascinating!

And inspiring…

Dan Hannan: Common law, not EU law

This is something very important – something we do not pay sufficient attention to:  common law.

It is the basis of our freedoms:  the legislature with all its lawmakers are not the source of our rights and freedoms – they do not grant them to us from above.  Rather, core rights and freedoms are something we are born with, not something that comes from the state.

Yes, we recognize that in order to co-exist with others, we may agree to put some restrictions on our freedoms:  that is the role of our elected representatives.

In common law, there is the explicit recognition that rights come from within each individual and that governments – all governments – are there to restrict these freedoms.  The less (smaller) the government, the fewer restrictions on our rights and the more free we will be.  The bigger th government, the more restrictions and the fewer freedoms….

This is a philosophy which views each human being as an individual, full of potential and free to fulfill this potential or not.

It is in sharp contrast to the view that every person is born as a cog in a machine, a member of a society which has the ultimate power over her or him.  Under this philosophy, it is the society which is the source of right in as much as it permits each member of the society to fulfil a role it deems most beneficial for the society.  In this type of a set up, one only has the options that the society opens for them, no freedoms to choose things or actions outside of what the group would benefit from.  This is called the civil law…

We must never forget the distinction between the two – and we must never give up our heritage of freedom for the gilded cage of civil law.

Just last night, I was reading to my son a 19th century traveller’s description of the Magna Carta Island – and the writer had permitted his imagination to float back across the centuries to that unforgettable June morning in 1215 when King John was brought there and forced to acknowledge this principle – already old then, but in danger of being eroded…

Sure, the Magna Carta is an imperfect document – as all human products are.  But, it is the source of – and vastly superior to – all further re-tellings of it, from the US Constitution to the Canadian one, and so on.  Along the way, the documents have become more and more cumbersome and less and less perfected…so we can trace just how much of our birthright we are permitting ourselves to give up in order to live in ‘civilized’ society.

But, do not lose heart!

Precisely because from Magna Carta on, all these documents are mere affirmations of our pre-existing rights, it is our rights that are supreme should there ever be a disagreement.  Precisely because it was the rights that were pre-existing!

Now, if we could only have judges who see it as clearly as this!

Pat Condell: Tell the truth about Islam

 

Daniel Hannan’s speech to the Manning Networking Conference in Ottawa