Disqus - Latest Comments for Adam_Marcus

Re: Privacy Solutions Series: Part 3 - Internet Explorer Privacy Features

Adam_Marcus — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:39:46 -0000

Thanks for the correction Adrian. I've updated the post.

Re: Nuts & Bolts: A User’s Guide to ISP Network Management

Tim Lee — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:00:31 -0000

But if everyone (or, more accurately, every application) demanded prioritization, then prioritization is meaningless.

Exactly. Which is why prioritization based on application isn't going to be a viable long-term strategy. No application developer is going to voluntarily downgrade the performance of his own software. Nor is a user going to meekly accept slower performance merely because an ISP has decreed that he's running a "low-priority" application. This is why any viable network management strategy needs to let end users, rather than network owners, decide which packets are high-priority, and to do so in a way that gives them an incentive to be sparing with the "high priority" flag. In other words, any practical prioritization scheme is likely to be consistent with the end-to-end principle.

Personally, I have my doubts about whether prioritization is useful at all, but if it is made to work, it will be an end-to-end-friendly protocol like DiffServ, not a clumsy hack like Sandvine.

Re: Nuts & Bolts: A User’s Guide to ISP Network Management

Adam_Marcus — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:16:11 -0000

I think DiffServ is a great idea, but wasn't really designed to be used by end-users. And my understanding is that there really aren't any mechanisms in place to deal with packet prioritization across networks owned by different companies. But Bandwidth Brokers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_Broker) may provide a solution for both end-users and inter-ISP networks.

Re: Nuts & Bolts: A User’s Guide to ISP Network Management

ryanradia — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:00:36 -0000

What are your thoughts on DiffServ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differentiated_ser... I think the idea would be that ISPs maintain not just bandwidth tiers but also priority tiers, such that pricing would differ depending on the priority level of a packet.

Re: Nuts & Bolts: A User’s Guide to ISP Network Management

Adam_Marcus — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:26:20 -0000

Tim: You may not want Cox deciding which of your packets are high priority, but you may very well want Cox deciding that *your* VoIP packets (which are time-sensitive) should be prioritized over your *neighbor's* BitTorrent packets (which aren't as time-sensitive). There's nothing to stop BitTorrent users from encrypting their headers to evade detection (which would result in BitTorrent being prioritized). But if everyone (or, more accurately, every application) demanded prioritization, then prioritization is meaningless. Similarly, if every vehicles on the roads had sirens and flashing lights, then police, fire, and EMS vehicles would have *slower* response times. But that kind of prioritization is something that most everyone agrees is a good thing.

A better solution to the network management issue may be for application developers themselves to decide whether their application needs to be prioritized and indicate such in the packet headers, but to my knowledge there isn't a network management system in use that would allow for that. There is also the concern that if application developers could do this with no consequences, then every application developer would do so and we'd be no better than if we didn't have network management.

Re: The Right Way to Allow Cell Phone Jammers - And the FCC’s Way

Adam_Marcus — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 01:30:26 -0000

The other obvious use mentioned in the patent is to remotely disable the recording functions of portable digital devices. Movie studios would love the ability to easily prevent people from recording films shown in theaters and "a locker room patron may feel justifiably ill-at-ease upon seeing other locker room patrons making use of camera phones or digital cameras."

Re: 5 Digital Technologies That Improved My Life in 2008

Adam_Marcus — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:02:33 -0000

The CoinStar machines used to spit out actual plastic gift cards, but the last time I used one it just printed a paper receipt with a special code on it. That was for Amazon. I don't know if it does the same for Starbucks.

Re: 5 Digital Technologies That Improved My Life in 2008

Adam_Thierer — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:32:29 -0000

I see that Coinstar now also offers vouchers for Starbucks or iTunes. How do you redeem the voucher with Starbucks? Do they give you a Starbucks card? Regardless, I've got a lot of coffee coming my way once I get this figured out. I've got buckets of change sitting all over my house.

Re: 5 Digital Technologies That Improved My Life in 2008

Adam_Marcus — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 11:22:12 -0000

My top 5:

1. AutoHotKey - This is a simple yet powerful macro scripting program for Windows. I created a simple one-line script (MButton::Media_Play_Pause) so that whenever I click the scroll wheel button on my mouse (which I never used), it instead is interpreted as the pause button on multimedia keyboards (which is already understood by most media applications). Since I already have my hand on the mouse most of the time, it allows me to pause my music near-instantly whenever someone comes into my office or the phone rings. And when I'm browsing the Web and come across a page with audio or video, I can pause my background music while I listen to what's on the page, and then un-pause the background music when its done. There's lots more that AutoHotKey can do, but I just compiled my little "MouseMiddleButtonMediaPause" script into a 200kb executable that runs automatically when Windows starts and I don't think any more about it. The truly excellent tools are the ones you forget about. Other than the icon in the system tray, you'd think that was always what the scroll wheel button was for.

2. Digsby - This is an integrated IM and social networking client that supports AIM, Yahoo, Google Talk, MSN Messenger, Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, and MySpace. It also alerts me when I get new email on my Gmail account so I don't have to constantly check it manually.

3. Motorola MOTOROKR S9 Bluetooth stereo headphones - I've been using my phone (see below for more on the phone) as my mobile music player, and the addition of these headphones makes the experience that much more enjoyable. I don't have to worry about snagging the cord or breaking the jack on my phone, and I can also adjust the volume and skip and pause tracks without having to get my phone out of my pocket.

4. HTC Apache (AKA Sprint PPC-6700 and Verizon VX-6700) - With the addition of some third party software, this phone is an amazingly useful device. It's my portable media player, email client, calendar, notepad, camera, flashlight, portable flash drive, and more. Here are just two especially noteworthy examples of what I've used it for in the past year.

Updated a website - For a while I worked at a place that really locked down its computers. I received an urgent email with a website update I needed to make ASAP, and at first I thought I'd have to run home over my lunch break to do it. But then I realized what I could do with my phone. I downloaded the update (sent as an email attachment) to the phone, used a FTP client for the phone to download the webpage I needed to update, connected the phone to my office computer using an application that makes the phone appear as a flash memory device, moved the text from the saved email attachment into the downloaded webpage in Notepad on the office computer, transferred the updated file back to the phone, and then FTPed it to the website straight from the phone. I could have done everything on the phone itself, but it was just a bit easier to use the full-size keyboard and full-resolution screen of my work computer.

Got directions - One time I went to get a Zipcar I had reserved but it wasn't there. I called the company to find that because of the Marine Corps Marathon, the car had been parked a few blocks away. They gave me the address, and using Google Maps I figured out how to get to the car. When I don't have an adddress already, I often use Microsoft Live Search to get it. Microsoft Live Search will also map the results.

5. Coinstar - I hate pocket change. When I get change, it goes in my pocket (or in a compartment in my messenger bag) and there it sits until I get home, at which time I dump it all into a small jar on my nightstand. When the jar starts to get full, I just take it to a grocery store that a Coinstar machine. In 10 minutes, I have an empty jar and a voucher for the online merchant of my choice. Counting and rolling change is a complete waste of time that I'd happily pay to have someone else do for me. Coinstar is happy to charge you a fee if you want to turn your coins into cash, but the service is completely free if you opt instead for the voucher. And who can't find a use for a voucher to Amazon.com?

Re: NebuAd Lawsuit

Adam_Marcus — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:01:36 -0000

Matthew,

I agree that most ISP ToSes eliminate any expectations of privacy on the part of users (though I'm not saying I agree with those practices). If "disclosure" can only be disclosure to a human being, then electronic eavesdropping laws (both Federal and state) that focus on disclosure instead of interception are exactly what I'm suggesting. Similarly, I think there needs to be a distinction between "third parties" that are corporations with human employees and "third parties" that are simply machines.

When I dial a phone number, there are lots of machines that "know" what number I've dialed--they need to know this to be able to connect me to the person I'm trying to call. But it's a different matter when that number is disclosed to a person.

If ISPs wanted to, they could write ToSes that clearly explain that communications will not be disclosed to humans unless necessary to investigate problems with the service, and even then the disclosures will be only to the extent necessary and no disclosed information will be used for other purposes. E.g. if a phone technician needs to listen to a line to confirm that it's working, and they happen to listen in on a guy having a steamy conversation with his girlfriend, the technician should not have the right to record the conversation and share it with others just because he initially had the right to momentarily listen to the conversation. This is similar to the notion of someone exceeding the explicit or implicit security level they've been granted on a computer system. Just because you *can* access certain areas of a computer system, doesn't mean that you're *supposed* to access those areas, and doing so could be a violation of computer crime laws.

Re: NebuAd Lawsuit

Matthew Henry — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:41:43 -0000

Adam,

Under the law, it makes no difference whether it is a human or a machine that is monitoring your communications and information. It is the disclosure that it critical, not by whom or by what it is read or even if it is read at all. You have no reasonable expectations of privacy in the phone numbers you dial (Smith v. Maryland) and in your bank records (U.S. v. Miller), even though, generally, no other human actually ever sees this information. There is no privacy in this information because you have disclosed it to a third party.

By using a network that you know to be inspected by DPI, for purposes such as NebuAd, you have made a similar knowing disclosure and you have no expectations of privacy. Without expectations of privacy, there is no confidentiality and, thus, privacy rights cannot be maintained in your Internet communicatiosn. This is the Third Party Doctrine and it is black letter law.

You should check your ISP's ToS and privacy policy because they very clearly authorize monitoring and inspection. Under your ToS, I would argue that you have no expectations of privacy (see Heckenkamp and Angevine) and that DPI is, thus, not a violation of any privacy rights. I would also say that these ToS are unconscionable and unenforceable should they ever be challenged in court.

Re: NebuAd Lawsuit

Adam_Marcus — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:12:40 -0000

There needs to be a distinction between a computer monitoring someone's communications and a human monitoring someone's communications. With NebuAd's system, it's a computer doing the monitoring. And the logged information, even if read by a human, probably wouldn't be that useful. (I’m assuming that the categories used are fairly broad, e.g. "interested in cars"). Actual law enforcement monitoring systems (e.g. <a href=” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON”>ECHELON</a>) are designed to alert their human operators when any suspicious activity is noticed (based on the same sorts of triggers that 4th-party ad networks like NebuAd and Phorm use) and then allow those operators to monitor all of a user's activity. Although it takes some getting used to and some trust, I think people will eventually come to accept computer monitoring, but they should be rightly suspicious of human monitoring.

The history of surveillance cameras informs what’s happening with deep packet inspection. When first introduced, people railed against surveillance cameras. But when the only footage the public saw from those cameras was of actual crimes taking place and/or the faces of the perpetrators of those crimes in an attempt to locate them and bring them to justice, people became less suspicious of the cameras and began to see them as beneficial. Although there have been instances of security personnel using surveillance cameras to ogle women, we've stopped consciously noticing the cameras and worrying about what they're recording.

With time, what has happened with security cameras will happen with DPI. But what will be interesting is what will happen when the information gathered from DPI can be used without disclosure to humans. Right now, DPI data is used to serve up ads. Soon (if not already) it will be used to serve up custom coupons. But what will people think if, when they apply for a job, in additional to a financial credit check, the employer does a ‘Internet surfing history’ check. The result could be just a numerical score of the "wholesomeness" of their Internet surfing habits, so that no actual data is disclosed, but if a low score looses them the job, the damage is still done. Would this be a privacy violation if their ISP's terms of service clearly stated that this type of monitoring could be done?

Current privacy laws focus primarily on the collection of data. Maybe the focus should instead be on how that data is used and disclosed to humans.

--Adam

Re: DTV Transition Humor

Adam_Marcus — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:32:16 -0000

This isn't too far from the truth. The FCC messaging isn't making it clear enough at the outset that if you have cable or satellite TV, you have nothing to worry about. In the case of the elderly, many retirement communities have cable service included in the unit maintenance fees and so residents really don't know what they have. But instead of saying something like "If you have CNN [or some other common cable-only channel], this doesn't appy to you", the FCC materials talk about multicasting and freeing up spectrum.

Re: Forget Duopoly - Fear the Quadropoly!

Adam_Marcus — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:37:12 -0000

Someone should point out to Senator Kohl that (at least in the case of Verizon), if the carrier raises its rates, it can be characterized as having an adverse effect on the customer which gives the customer the right to terminate their contract without an Early Termination Fee. This has been done successfully not [url=http://consumerist.com/consumer/readers/script-for-escaping-verizon-contracts-without-fee-based-on-text-message-rate-raises-234164.php]once[/url] but [url=http://crastinate.com/2008/07/27/video-tutorial-how-to-get-out-of-your-verizon-contract-without-an-early-termination-fee/]twice[/url]) in the past year. This alone wont solve the problem of collusion (if that is the case), but if enough customers jump ship when a carrier raises its rates, it may be enough.

Re: Enough anti-iPhone rants… just get another phone!

Adam Marcus — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:57:10 -0000

Alex makes it very clear that we should not dismiss what Apple is doing as merely a software update (though I didn't get that impression from the WSJ article), but his own post is a bit misleading on what exactly Apple has done. First he describes the complained-of function as a "remote kill switch." I'd say that's a good analogy. But then he starts going on and on about "remote control," writing "There are appropriate ways to address spyware, taking control of the user’s computer is not one of them."

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I see a big difference between a remote kill switch and "taking control of the user's computer." When I think "remote kill switch," I think of someone else having control of a car's brakes, like when you learn to drive in those special cars with a second set of brakes for the instructor. When I think "remote control," I think of someone else having control of not just the brakes, but also the accelerator and steering wheel. The iPhone remote kill switch is just a way for Apple to remotely disable a misbehaving application.

I agree with Alex that Apple should provide more details on what would cause it to "pull that lever," but I don't think the Wall Street Journal is the appropriate forum. Alex criticizes the author of the article for not spending enough time discussing the kill switch issue. But the WSJ is not Slashdot!

Alex then writes "[W]e don’t give Apple, Dell, Microsoft, HP, Google, or any other software/hardware seller remote control over our purchases and devices." Really? General Motors will be equipping 1.7 million of its 2009 model year cars with a feature called Stolen Vehicle Slowdown that uses the OnStar system to let police remotely slow a car down to a stop. According to OnStar, 95% of subscribers want this. And judging by the sales figures for the 3G iPhone, people like the iPhone.

Alex seems most upset about the fact that others are not upset that Apple didn't reveal that the new iPhone 2.0 firmware has a "remote kill switch" function. "Where is the outrage?!" he writes, and suggests that it's because "people seem not to mind the taste of Jobs' Kool-Aid." But since the iPhone was first announced in January 2007, it has been common knowledge that the only way an application will get onto an iPhone is through Apple. So why should it come as any surprise that 'What Jobs giveth, Jobs can taketh away.' People who bought iPhones knew they were getting a "walled garden". Its why I haven't bought an iPhone. The fact that Apple can now rip out some of the pretty flowers it just started selling a month ago just reaffirms that decision. Buy hey, some people like gardening and some people don't like getting their hands dirty.

Re: The Technology Liberation Front » Archive » Cerf on managing networks & the need for industry discussion

Adam Marcus — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:05:30 -0000

As Vint says, "the real question for today's broadband networks is not whether they need to be managed, but rather how." In a sense, managing the Internet is like managing highways. As more highways (and more lanes) are built, people move further from where they work and commute for longer distances. It's called induced demand. Similarly, as the supply of bandwidth increases, the demand for bandwidth increases. See here and here. As Berin Szoka put it, "trying to solve network congestion problems simply by increasing the amount of bandwidth available is like a pie-eating contest where the prize is… more pie." Just as full-screen standard-definition video over the Internet is becoming a reality, everyone starts clamoring for high-definition video over the Internet. So at some point (whether because the network isn’t built fast enough, a natural disaster makes everyone pick up their phone, or Victoria’s Secret does an online lingerie show), traffic congestion will force routers to delay or drop packets. When that happens, following a simple "first in, first out" approach just doesn’t make sense. Just as we want ambulances and fire engines to be given priority on our roadways, most people would rather their VoIP conversations get through than someone’s file download finishes a few seconds or minutes faster.

Vint suggests that "Internet traffic should be managed with an eye towards applications and protocols." In a sense, Comcast was doing exactly that by limiting BitTorrent traffic. BitTorrent is a specific application with a specific protocol. It is not time-sensitive like VoIP so it makes sense to limit BitTorrent traffic first when network congestion becomes a problem. But Comcast (according to the FCC’s press release) was limiting BitTorrent traffic at all hours of the day and in all sorts of areas, presumably even in areas where network congestion wasn’t a problem. Vint clarifies his position: "such prioritization should be applied across the board to all low latency traffic, not just particular application providers." So managing a specific application is bad, but prioritization in general is good. What's needed is an agnostic way to prioritize packets.

There *is* such an agnostic method for controlling traffic. Every TCP/IP packet can be flagged with a certain priority level, and routers can be programmed to handle packets differently depending on their priority. But this sort of packet prioritization has not been widely implemented. Maybe it should be.

Let's assume packet prioritization was widely implemented and application providers abused it by assigning all of their packets a high priority. Would an ISP run afoul of the FCC if it lowered the priority of packets based on application type, for example by lowering the priority of BitTorrent traffic?