Re: [LINK] Google has removed Canberra buses from directions in google maps

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm …

10%-15% of their Australian advertising revenue would be fair, and not as open 
to tax evasion/avoidance as an income tax. Whether its allocated to the media 
barons, or directly to a fund to encourage/pay for a transition to online 
journalism, or to conventional (obsolete) journalism business models … I don’t 
really care. That’s a matter our politicians

That said, I don’t much like the idea of paying right wing tax evading vampires 
on the body politic like Murdoch, Stokes, Nine and the rest, to continue with 
their failed/failing business model and to continue producing utter tripe and 
reactionary opinion, rather than quality  news that they should be producing. 
Perhaps the payments could be made conditional on their going to support 
investigative journalism and quality news product that is worth paying for,

The bottom line is that advertisers have found it more efficient and effective 
to advertise through Google and Facebook, and presumably they generate more 
‘hits’ from clients than the conventional media alternatives … and nothing the 
government says or does is gonna change this. Indeed, with the current 
legislation they are just pissing into the wind … I can’t see any way in which 
it is a winner.

Just my 2 cents worth


> On 22 Feb 2021, at 3:04 pm, Kim Holburn  wrote:
> 
> I don't understand why people think this bill is a good idea in any way at 
> all.  It's an extortionate tax for google and facebook and a free government 
> handout to prop up our foreign-owned commercial media oligopoly.
> 
> I don't like google and facebook as much as the next guy, but why don't we 
> just make them pay tax properly?  And for god's sake let Murdoch media and 
> nine media pay proper tax and die like the dinosaurs they are.
> 
> On 2021/02/22 1:43 pm, David wrote:
>> On 2021-02-19 13:21, Kim Holburn wrote:
>>> https://imgur.com/ujYck8B
>>> [...]
>> I have never been able to understand why the ABC thought putting their 
>> programs and audience feedback on Facebook or Twitter was a good idea.  Do 
>> they not understand Facebook's business model?  Does the ABC consider 
>> sacrificing audience privacy in return for a free service is acceptable?  Or 
>> have these corporations "guaranteed" privacy?
>> 
>> When will some Australian Government legislate a privacy code with 
>> appropriate penalties and apply them?
>> 
>> Malcolm Turnbull was interviewed on ABC TV recently (on 7:30 I think).  He 
>> appeared to me to be running an argument that Facebook's actions were a 
>> disaster for Australia, Facebook (et al) were too big to fight, and 
>> therefore the Australian Government should:
>> (a)  not interfere and allow them to continue making free use of other's 
>> labour,
>> (b)  institute some form of broader tax and distribute the proceeds as 
>> compensation to the originators.
>> 
>> I have to say I'm extremely disappointed to hear that logic from Turnbull, 
>> assuming I interpret him correctly.  It would appear to sanction all manner 
>> of business dealings on the basis that Might is Right.
>> 
>> If Zuckerberg thinks he doesn't need Australian media input, let Facebook do 
>> without.  And if he does, Facebook should pay for it.
>> 
>> David Lochrin
>> 
> -- 
> -- 
> Kim Holburn
> IT Network & Security Consultant
> +61 404072753
> mailto:k...@holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
> skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] If Google pulls search....

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm …

If it comes down to a choice between Google, and Rupert Murdoch’s right wing 
rags, ranting Fox News opinions and divisive demagoguery, Sky News and Sports, 
and News (in name only) Ltd journalism … I know which I’d pick.

Murdoch would like a return to the pre-internet 'good old days’  … with trapped 
advertisers and readers …  but that ain’t gonna happen and not have to change 
his business model. So his solution is to attack the Web …can anyone imagine 
the Web without hyperlinking? … or a search engine? … and feed off the Search 
Engines like a vampire.

If I was Google I’d simply stop indexing News Ltd/Fox/Sky pages on the Web, 
prune any hyperlinks to News Ltd domains (here and overseas) and give them no 
coverage or linking capability in their search engines and apps at all. Reduce 
their ‘presence’ to that which News Ltd can provide on their sites … and see 
how Rupert likes it. After a year of that we’d know for sure who needs who.

At the moment he’s acting like the soul destroying vampire he’s always been … 
feeding/sucking the life out of off government, third parties who deal with 
him, and now Google

I’d like to see Rupert/News/Fox/Sky stand on their own two feet and see how 
they can do without a full service Internet.

Just my 2 cents worth …

> On 25 Jan 2021, at 8:57 pm, jw...@internode.on.net wrote:
> 
> I'm so tired of ill-informed people in power screwing with stuff they
> don't understand to satisfy Rupert Murdoch, and lately, Peter
> Costello.

___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] COVIDSafe app downloads update

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm …

From my experience they tend to hide behind catch-phrases like “World’s Best 
Practice” and award themselves self assessed gongs and appropriations, rather 
than face the simple truth that the vast majority of their IT projects are 
debacles and disasters.

That said, the I find the fact that the government are basically and 
fundamentally incompetent at IT projects (especially major large scale ones) 
very reassuring from a privacy and police state perspective. Dutton and his 
blackshirts, the highly politicised Federal Police and our all pervasive 
national security agencies, and our more-and-more police state welfare services 
seem to have problems getting any data, in any usable format,, even collected … 
let alone processed …

In short, their monumental IT incompetence saves the rest of us from their 
police-state ambitions. It doesn’t stop an ever increasing proportion of the 
Federal budget going the way of ‘intelligence’ and ‘intelligence services’ ... 
but given that 95% of that budget is wasted on utter IT crap we don’t have much 
to worry about.

Just my 2 cents worth ..
---
> On 31 May 2020, at 2:35 pm, Bernard Robertson-Dunn  
> wrote:
> 
> On 31/05/2020 1:49 pm, Karl Schaffarczyk wrote:
>> So, people have lost interest. But what of it?
> 
> It's the duplicity of the government that annoys me. Sometimes the full
> force of the legal system crashes down on them (cf RoboDebt), but until
> the public service learns the lessons I believe we have to keep
> hammering away at them, pointing out (using their own data) their failings.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Regards
> brd
> 
> Bernard Robertson-Dunn
> Canberra Australia
> email: b...@iimetro.com.au
> 
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Stephen Loosely on a live stream

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm …

First deal with the crisis … and that looks like being ongoing for a year or 
two … then hold the post mortem.

This whole thing smacks of politics, supporting the despicable Trump (who is 
casting around for someone, anyone, to blame for his woeful performance from 
Day 1 of the crisis in the USA, and looking to run a lowest common denominator 
election in November), and a misplaced short-term political opportunism on the 
part of the government.

On a side note … when the post mortem does get going I do hope the number of 
COVID19 cases that Australia imported from the USA (during Trump’s ’no problem’ 
period) comes to light. We nearly lost the Dog Whistler in Charge … sorry, I 
meant to say Peter Dutton our Home Affairs Minister … to that. Imagine what a 
tragedy that would have been!

Just my 2 cents worth …

> On 2 May 2020, at 2:15 am, Stephen Loosley  wrote:
> 
> Kim writes,
> 
>> Isn't it way too early to talk about investigating the origins of
>> corona virus right now? Shouldn't that wait until we are over
>> the crisis?
> 
> 
> Yes, agree completely Kim. Throughout January, concerned Chinese medical
> experts published FIVE scientific papers in Lancet regarding this corona 
> virus.
> Yet during February, few countries took much notice, or did anything. And it
> wasn’t until mid-March that many countries began to take notice. And, some
> of these countries now appear to be trying to blame China for their problems.
> 
> Slow to listen .. quick to blame.
> 
> Yes we need thorough analysis but not conducted in the heat of the moment.
> All of the factors need to be considered, many of which will be still to 
> emerge
> and surely will in the fullness of time. Hence as you say Kim, let us not 
> rush to
> any ill-considered judgement. History will truly decide. It always does 
> anyway.
> 
> Cheers,
> Stephe
> 
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] What happened to broadband in Australia? (Part2)

[Frank O'Connor]

Yes, for the last six years we’ve been Running with the Morons.

I thought we’d reached peak stupid with Abbott, but the government luminaries 
(both political and in NBN’s management) since then have boldly gone into 
single neurone territory again and again. Not for them the advice of network 
specialists, scientists, communications luminaries, or people who actually know 
anything about broadband and networking … no, they’re gonna rely on party 
apparatchiks, ideologues, and economists like Henry Ergas to make their 
decisions.

I blame Abbott, Ergas, Turnbull, Switkowski, Morrow and our laughingly 
incompetent current Communications Minister (who seems more obsessed with 
dismantling the ABC rather than fixing the debacle that the NBN has become) 
most of all … but the list of other responsible warm bodies is also legion.

Collectively these people are about as much use as a gelignite suppository, or 
a nuclear powered computer controlled intercontinental ballistic duck. They are 
deliberately informationally deprived, technological incompetents. They glory 
in their own ignorance. By their definition of an NBN, paying 110% of the costs 
of a full fibre NBN for a network barely capable of 5% of the performance … and 
I’m being generous there … is a rational bloody decision.

They’ve condemned this country to technological obsolescence … and they were 
warned, time and time and time again.

But they are so fundamentally stupid and narcissistic they don’t even realise 
the harm that they’ve done.

They seem to have all the brains God gave a duck’s arse. They are 
cranio-rectally inverted. They have IQ scores lower than it takes to grunt, If 
their scores were two points higher they’d be bloody rocks. They are living 
proof that nature does not abhor a vacuum. The wheels are spinning but the 
hamster’s dead. They probably think cellular phones are carbon based life 
forms, and that Moby Dick is a venereal disease. About the only use for their 
heads is to keep the rain out of their necks.

It’s simply amazing to me that any single one of them could be considered a 
‘leader’ or to have any potential for anything at all.

They are either brain dead, or deliberate wreckers of their country’s future … 
and either way we should be rid of them as soon as possible. And after they are 
gone, we should bill them personally for the White Elephant they have 
bequeathed us and, more importantly, our young.

Just my 2 cents worth ...

> On 27 Feb 2019, at 3:52 pm, Stephen Loosley  
> wrote:
> 
> (2/2)


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

[LINK] This explains a lot ...

[Frank O'Connor]

https://www.fastcompany.com/40584777/were-all-getting-dumber-says-science 


Seems that IQ scores have been dropping since the 1970’s
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Bitcoin is hitting new highs—here’s why it might not be a bubble

[Frank O'Connor]

M …

I pretty much view Bitcoin as a bit of an ethereal digital fraud in the making 

1. It fails as a means of exchange for commercial/household transactions due to 
inbuilt effluxion of time (it’s not instantaneous like a credit card or cash 
transaction), transaction validation and lack of accountability.

2. It’s long gone past the stage where it could be considered viable for 
‘micro-transactions’, if any micro-transaction facilitation will ever be needed 
in any e-commercial context. What’s wrong with conventional small running 
balances for God’s sake?

3. It’s not backed or administered by anybody I'd trust (and given the way some 
exchanges have gone down owing hundreds of millions/billions at today’s Bitcoin 
values, I’d be a fool to trust any of them), the value fluctuates wildly on a 
daily basis, and if any currency needed a unit split (when 1 Bitcoin currently 
equals 6 or 7 thousand dollars) it’s Bitcoin.

4. Currently the ONLY people seriously using it are the speculators … and we 
know where Booms and Bubbles like that usually end up.

It’s still ostensibly a solution in search of a problem, without any of the 
structures, processes and safeguards that protect and add value, predictability 
and stability to other more conventional currencies.

Just my 2 cents worth …
---

> On 20 Nov 2017, at 11:32 am, David  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:30:02 Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> 
>> The only thing of value in that article is the comments, which are a lot 
>> more sceptical than the article itself.
> 
> One of those comments states:
> 
>> For bitcoin to be considered a currency it needs to achieve three key uses: 
>> store of value, unit of account and medium of exchange.
>> 
>> So far it's just the last one and even then primarily just criminals, 
>> including money laundering.
> 
> I think he's right about open crypto-currencies, which are really bartering 
> tools.  If too much (and unknown) value is locked up in them outside the 
> control of national governments, hard currencies will begin to suffer.  
> Bitcoin could become another significant tax-haven, though legal enforcement 
> of contracts might be difficult.
> 
> A Wikipedia article reports two countries which have adopted the technology, 
> presumably at a treasury level, not in the marketplace:
> -  e-Dinar, Tunisia's national currency, was the first state currency using 
> blockchain technology.
> -  eCFA is Senegal's blockchain-based national digital currency.
> 
> It's interesting stuff, especially the mathematics...
> 
> David L.
> 
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Peter Martin Economist (?) blames Labor for NBN!

[Frank O'Connor]

But, an interesting and very-much-to-the-point rant.

For the record, the same thing happens to me every time I comment on the LNP's 
farcical (and tragic for the country) NBN.

A waste of money, time, and effort and a compromise of the country's future for 
the next 20 to thirty years ... all sheeted home to people who glory in their 
own technological ignorance like Abbott, or seek power without purpose like his 
'Mr Broadband', or who are uninspired ignorant flunkies like Fifield, Ergas, 
Switkowski and Morrow.

The network designed for yesterday that Australia's building for tomorrow ...

Just my 2 cents worth ...

Give me a coffee, and no-one gets hurt


> On 17 Aug 2017, at 3:46 pm, Craig Sanders  wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:38:42AM +1000, David Lochrin wrote:
>> 
>> And neither HFC nor the copper network were engineered to be part of a
>> broadband network in the first place
> 
> HFC is basically cable TV repurposed for internet use.  Which might have made
> sense in the US where cable tv is almost ubiquitous.  It never made much sense
> in Australia.
> 
> It certainly doesn't make any sense at all as part of the NBN, which is
> (was?) an infrastructure project with the purpose of replacing old analog
> communications infrastructure with modern digital infrastructure suitable for
> the next 50-100 years.
> 
> FFS! Optical fibre has almost no attentuation (effectively zero compared to
> copper or any other cable carrying electrical rather than light signals)
> so supports extremely long cable lengths with little or no signal loss or
> distortion, and can carry numerous multiplexed laser signals - allowing for
> in-place upgrades without having to dig up the fucking cable and replace it.
> What's so fucking difficult to understand about that being inherently superior
> to electrical cables?
> 
> Putting copper cable in at any part of the infrastructure side of the link
> (i.e. outside the customer premises) is either fatuously stupid and ignorant
> or criminally corrupt. or both.
> 
> 
> 
> Copper cables served us well in their day. that day has long past. and
> the cables in the ground have NOT been maintained at all well, especially
> not since the corporatisation of Telecom and later the privatisation of
> Telstra...T's managemement have known for many years that copper cable was
> dead or dying and had no desire to waste money on maintaining a dead-end
> technology.  They must have laughed their fucking heads off when they
> forced the government to make the NBN buy their shitty copper network from
> them, along with all their un-remediated asbestos-lined pits (thus delaying
> the NBN's rollout until Abbott could come in and give it a new, exciting,
> kamikaze-oriented mission)
> 
> 
> 
> So what makes actual sense (financial sense or any other kind of sense)?
> 
> 1. Spending many tens of billions of dollars replacing the nation's
> communication network with something modern and usuable for many decades to
> come?
> 
> or
> 
> 2. spending roughly the same amount (or more) just doing a crappy patch job on
> it, knowing that it will have to be done properly anyway within a decade?
> 
> 
> Fuck the Liberals and their bullshit about "Cost-Benefit Analysis" and their
> bogus financial figures.  That's just a stupid slogan they troll out whenever
> they object to something. They never want it applied to anything THEY want
> to do, like cutting taxes for the rich and multinationals, or legalising
> currently illegal forms of tax evasion, or marriage equality plebiscites or
> enormous adani coal mines or cashless welfare cards or drug-testing benefit
> recipients.
> 
> craig
> 
> ps: sorry. this grew from the original two-paragraph comment I intended to an
> extended rant.
> 
> --
> craig sanders 
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Aussie households pay highest power prices in the world

[Frank O'Connor]

M,

One of the most ‘energy rich’ countries in the world (although we seem to 
redeem a pittance from it by way of royalties or charges on the gas we export - 
1/50th of what Qatar charges, for example), and we don’t even get the advantage 
of this abundance in either gas prices (which feed into our power prices) and 
domestic gas supply, or our ‘world record energy prices.

Factor in that our Energy and Conservation Minister (it must have taken some 
REALLY creative and Machiavellian logic to justify bundling up those two 
functions into one portfolio) has refused to rule at out more coal fired power 
(which will cost $70 per megawatt hour …. way more than the $40 the current lot 
accounts for) … the only reason for which I can possibly come up with being 
that he doesn’t want to cut one of their major donators (and vacuum on the 
public purse) coal industry adrift.

So, Direct Action (in which we pay the power industry ANOTHER $5 billion from 
the public purse - presumably for the INCREASING of their emissions which has 
been noted in recent carbon stats), and more expensive coal, and more expensive 
gas, which in the final analysis has been given away by our priceless (sarcasm 
intended) politicians to mainly overseas rent seekers who are endearingly 
burying themselves inside the bank accounts of Joe and Josephine Public with 
world record domestic prices … whilst gas, oil and coal prices drop through the 
floor to those we export to.

If ANYONE can explain the logic and ‘public good' behind this, feel free.

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
> On 17 Aug 2017, at 11:17 am, Stephen Loosley  
> wrote:
> 
> Australian households pay highest power prices in the world
> 
> By Ben Potter  EXCLUSIVEAug 4 2017, Updated Aug 5 2017
> http://www.afr.com/news/australian-households-pay-highest-power-prices-in-world-20170804-gxp58a?
> 
> 
> Australian residential customers are paying the highest electricity prices in 
> the world - two to three times more than American households ...
> 
> South Australian households are paying the highest prices in the world at 
> 47.13¢ per kilowatt hour, more than Germany, Denmark and Italy which heavily 
> tax energy, after the huge increases on July 1, Carbon + Energy Markets' 
> MarkIntell data service says.
> 
> When the eastern states' National Electricity Market was formed in the late 
> 1990s, Australia had the lowest retail prices in the world along with the 
> United States and Canada, CME director Bruce Mountain said.
> 
> The shocking reversal explains why Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has 
> summoned energy retailer chief executives to Canberra next week to explain 
> why they are charging households and small businesses so much compared to 
> their counterparts in other countries.
> 
> In a letter he complained that big retailers are content to let customers 
> slip off the deep discounts they attracted them with after a year or two, and 
> onto a costly standing offer or a much smaller discount.
> 
> Punish Loyal Customers
> 
> AGL Energy chief executive Andy Vesey admitted last year that big power 
> companies were guilty of punishing their most loyal customers in this way, 
> but claimed subsequently AGL was abandoning the practice.
> 
> Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman Rod Sims said last 
> week he wanted to help consumers find better offers and lower barriers to new 
> entrants to curtail the market power of AGL, Origin Energy, EnergyAustralia 
> and Queensland's state owned power duopoly.
> 
> NSW households typically pay 39.1¢/KWh - hard on Italy's heels - while 
> Queensland and Victoria's typical retail charges of 34.7c to 35.7c /KWh 
> exceed those in all but the four or five most expensive European countries, 
> the MarkIntell data shows.
> 
> When taxes are excluded, the four Australian NEM states are the costliest 
> residential electricity in the world. American households - which benefit 
> from a large market and cheap and abundant natural gas - pay just US12.5c/KWh 
> (15.75¢), the US Energy Information Administration says.
> 
> The annual cost to households of accepting a standing offer from one of the 
> big three retailers instead of the best offer in the market has been 
> estimated at $830 in Victoria, $900 in Queensland and $1400-$1500 in NSW and 
> SA by the St Vincent de Paul Society.
> 
> Mr Mountain said power bills are constructed in such a complex way that 
> ordinary customers without sophisticated spreadsheet and analytical skills 
> have little hope of analysing competing offers to work out which offers them 
> the best deal.
> 
> Private comparison websites do not include all market offers and charge 
> retailers for switching customers, while the websites offered by the 
> Australian Energy Regulator and the Victorian government do not provide the 
> tools customers need to discriminate among offers.
> 
> Market ideology
> 
> "It's a market characterised by very high search costs 

Re: [LINK] Progress Report on Googong Wings

[Frank O'Connor]

Yeah, 

Seems like another application of the old saying that ‘just because you can do 
something, doesn’t mean you should do something.’

I’m guessing that the next big improvement with delivery by drones will be 
'biological enhancement'. The idea will be for pigeons to be implanted with 
control systems that override their normal homing instinct, and force them to 
carry mail to consumers. Then we’ll be right back to the pigeon post of the 
19th and early 20th Centuries … and Amazon, Google and the like might see where 
they’ve gone wrong. Of course, they might not … in which case the next 
iteration of the bio-mechanical product will be ever bigger eagles with 
implants. (Which is probably unfair on the eagles .. at least one of whom 
managed to bring down a drone that annoyed it recently.)

It’s terrific how the drone theorists/fetishists have thrown away little 
numbers like economies of scale and efficiency in their singleminded pursuit of 
finding another use for drones other than snooping on the world at large. 

And the blokes who come up with all these useless drone ideas are paid how much 
for adding such little value to the lives of so many?

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
> On 7 Aug 2017, at 8:16 am, Roger Clarke  wrote:
> 
> [Google Wings is piloting its delivery drones (in both senses of the word) at 
> a small new residential area called Googong, outside Queanbeyan NSW:
> http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/google-sister-company-project-wing-chooses-googong-as-autonomous-drone-delivery-test-site-20170715-gxbu0o.html
> http://www.smh.com.au/act-news/canberra-airport-not-told-about-project-wing-drone-delivery-testing-nearby-at-googong-20170722-gxgnl5
> 
> A new article has been published, copy below.
> 
> [Here's my alternative report based on the evidence so far:
> 
> Official confirmation was provided today that the Google experiments with 
> drones as urban delivery vehicles has been going pretty badly.
> 
> Google company Project Wing said that the most advanced testing with 
> participants to date occurred in a low-density greenfields site 10km from the 
> nearest town, the flight-path used was only 1km and affected only six 
> households, and the reception by participants was at best lukewarm.
> 
> The usual safety-margins were reduced, but the drones were not permitted to 
> fly within 15 metres of people or property.  This of course limits the scope 
> for services to areas with no higher densities than 5-acre properties.
> 
> The company hopes to get approval to move beyond visual line of sight 
> operation, which will reduce the number of warehouses needed in order to 
> cover medium-density eastern Australia below the currently-estimated 200,000.
> 
> [Read on, and tell me whether you think I'm misinterpreting the data ...]
> 
> 
> Google company Project Wing looking to expand testing in Canberra region
> Elliot Williams
> The Canberra Times
> August 6 2017
> http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/google-company-project-wing-looking-to-expand-testing-in-canberra-region-20170805-gxq3fj.html
> 
> Google sister company Project Wing is seeking approval from the Civil 
> Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to extend their approved testing distance 
> within Australia.
> 
> The US company hope CASA will grant approval to fly beyond one kilometre and 
> staff will search the region for a suitable new test site.
> 
> Project Wing just completed a two week test of their autonomous drone 
> delivery system with the help of residents in Googong.
> 
> During the two week period the drones flew within one kilometre while always 
> in a pilot's line of sight in case of emergency.
> 
> CASA's Peter Gibson said the main issue with granting further approval was 
> the line of sight requirement. Basic drone regulations in Australia enforce a 
> line of sight rule for all drone operators.
> 
> Commercial operators are able to seek approval to operate drones not in 
> visual line of sight and CASA grants these on a case by case basis once risks 
> are identified and mitigation strategies are in place.
> 
> Project Wing use the operator licence of Brisbane-based Unmanned Systems 
> Australia and Mr Gibson said that CASA "look forward to assessing their 
> application."
> 
> A spokeswoman for Project Wing said there would be no changes sought to the 
> restrictions that their drones may not fly within 15 metres of people or 
> property who provided consent.
> 
> James Ryan Burgess, Co-Lead of Project Wing, said before testing began that 
> the company "want to give all our devotion and attention to this area".
> 
> He also signalled an intention to eventually test in Canberra but there has 
> been no updates on a timeline for that.
> 
> Despite early concerns from some residents and Canberra Airport, the company 
> are 

Re: [LINK] AMD introducing 16 core processors

[Frank O'Connor]

Thanks for that, Steve,

Yeah … they had to do something to combat the Intel ‘Machine' in a shrinking 
desktop and laptop market.

That said, the benefits of multiple cores remain to be seen when the large 
majority of software is still being written and compiled for single core 
architectures, and the major operating systems … Windows, MacOS, the different 
variants of LINUX etc … only offer limited support for multiple cores - 
although multi-threading support is quite good now.

Are AMD  offering programming environments and compilers that allow developers 
to make use of the 16 threads/instruction streams? Even the development tools 
for existing 2 and 4 core CPU’s only offer rudimentary support.

I’ve been waiting for years to see any real benefits from my existing 4 core 
Intel CPU’s …

That said, the multicore CPU’s in Pads and Phones seem to be being used much 
more efficiently and effectively … so all is not lost.

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
> On 17 May 2017, at 8:19 pm, Stephen Loosley  
> wrote:
> 
> AMD reveals 16-core monster Ryzen processor destined for ‘world’s fastest’ PCs
> 
> 
> By Darren Allan 39 minutes ago
> http://www.techradar.com/news/amd-reveals-16-core-monster-ryzen-processor-destined-for-worlds-fastest-pcs
> 
> Threadripper is shaping up to be a big worry for Intel
> 
> 
> AMD has confirmed that it is bringing out ‘Threadripper’ 16-core (32-thread) 
> processors, aimed at enthusiasts and high-end desktop PCs, and promising 
> blistering performance.
> 
> Jim Anderson, Senior VP, trumpeted the arrival of the monster processor at 
> the firm’s financial analyst day.
> 
> Anderson said that: “Ryzen Threadripper is targeted at the absolute ultra 
> high-end of performance in desktop.”
> 
> The slide that AMD shared was brief on details, simply showing the number of 
> cores and threads of the flagship model, and stating that Threadripper chips 
> would arrive in the summer, and that the range was “targeting the world’s 
> fastest ultra-premium desktop systems”. No actual specs were mentioned save 
> for the core-count.
> 
> We’ve heard plenty of rumors about Threadripper or Ryzen 9 CPUs before, of 
> course, and indeed there was a major leak yesterday, which suggested that the 
> 16-core flagship Ryzen 9 1998X will have a base clock of 3.5GHz (with boost 
> to 3.9GHz) and a TDP of 155W.
> 
> That remains to be seen, but if true, it’s certainly a beefy base clock speed 
> for a 16-core chip, and some equally impressive work on the power efficiency 
> front.
> 
> It’ll certainly be a major worry for Intel in this case, particularly if AMD 
> goes all-out with the pricing on these high-end processors, which seems 
> likely to happen given that Ryzen chips have previously been pitched at 
> extremely competitive levels.
> 
> Intel’s rumored Core i9 rival CPUs will be topped by the flagship 7920X which 
> will reportedly have 12-cores (24-threads) and a TDP of 140W, again if leaked 
> details are on the money. It will inevitably be eye-wateringly expensive, 
> though, and this is where AMD may well win the battle for the attention – and 
> the wallets – of enthusiast PC owners.
> 
> Whatever happens, the high-end CPU world is about to get a big shakeup which 
> is only likely to be good news for those looking to buy a beefy multi-core 
> chip for their premium desktop PC.
> 
> Also note that at the other end of the spectrum, AMD confirmed that budget 
> Ryzen 3 processors would arrive in the third quarter of this year.
> 
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

[LINK] NBN articles ...

[Frank O'Connor]

Seems the US media (unlike our own) isn’t shy about calling the NBN an 
unmitigated failure …

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/world/australia/australia-slow-internet-broadband.html?smid=tw-nytimes=cur&_r=1
 


And seems that Telstra is admitting that their NBN clientele isn’t always 
getting what they’ve paid for …

http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/nbn/telstra-admits-to-overcharging-some-nbn-customers-over-unattainable-speeds-will-offer-reimbursement/news-story/b852587fea03756db631089aa9308d14
 


As a recent NBN connectee, and having a supposed 100/40 connection - but 
getting only 40/20 on average no matter what time of day … I have to agree with 
them. That said, I don’t blame Telstra for the very very average network 
performance of my HFC connection. I blame the NBN and its ‘spin doctor’ 
executive. I blame the technological troglodytes of the LNP, and in particular 
Abbott, Turnbull and now Fifield, who consistently REFUSED to listen to 
networking experts and scientists when they proposed, and continued to try to 
justify, the change to the MTM model.

No … 'they knew best’ what Australia needed and wanted.

What we’ve got now - at a probably non-redeeemable cost of $60 billion - is an 
obsolete outmoded network that will redeem nowhere near its build cost when 
offered for private shareholding, let alone make a profit, with massive ongoing 
fixed costs (for power, maintenance and repair) and which has to be redone to 
the original fibre to the home specifications to even meet basic network needs 
and expectations even before it is ‘finished’. A massive White Elephant with 
political and penny pinching (read 'Henry Ergas approved') technical 
limitations that renders it unfit for purpose long before it is complete.

So … once again a big 'well done' to all involved in this debacle. You have 
ensured your place in history, and now even those in other countries, who don’t 
have to pay for your incompetence and bull-headed technical ignorance, are 
recognising your monumental mistakes.

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] The experts agree, Turnbull’s NBN is ‘a national tragedy’

[Frank O'Connor]

Well, I’d nominate Tony Abbott, ‘Mr Broadband’, Henry Ergas, Ziggy Switkowsi 
and Morrow for the positions on the Parliamentary Lawn. And I'll volunteer to 
ignite the stupid, ignorant, expert opinion denying, sods.

What a waste of $60 billion this has been!

And the final disaster won’t be saleable to ANYONE in private industry - 
because they know how much it will const to maintain, regularly repair, and 
power.

And the idea of upgrading the complex 80,000 node design for fibre … well, that 
will cost twice as much as this debacle has cost. It would be cheaper simply 
trashing the nodes and installing fibre direct to the home?

Wait a minute … didn’t someone else have that idea in the first place? Wasn’t 
that the idea before the disastrous MTM was adopted?

I’m due to get my HFC connection installed over the next month or so. You can 
imagine how excited I am. :(

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
> On 11 Apr 2017, at 9:43 am, David Boxall  wrote:
> 
> I've heard it said that, by the time we've made this mess, cleaned up the 
> mess and built what we need, Australia will have spent the better part of 
> $200 billion (half of it wasted on the mess). The delay in getting the 
> infrastructure that we so sorely need will lead to us missing decades of 
> opportunities.
> 
> Someone should be tied to a stake in the forecourt of Parliament House, 
> roasting over a slow fire.
> 
>> The disastrous rollout of Australia’s NBN is a national tragedy, according 
>> to new research by one of the country’s most respected engineers.
>> 
>> Professor Rodney Tucker, of Melbourne University, argues that Prime Minister 
>> Malcolm Turnbull’s fateful decision as Communications Minister to opt for 
>> Fibre to the Node (FTTN), has been an extremely costly disaster.
>> 
>> While the rest of the world is opting for Fibre to the Premises (FTTP), 
>> Australia is embracing an obsolete technology.
>> 
>> Professor Tucker’s paper, The Tragedy of Australia’s National Broadband 
>> Network, just published in the 
>> Australian Journal of Telecommunications and Digital Technology, argues that 
>> a worldwide tipping point has been reached.
>> 
>> Globally, the majority of connections are now through FTTP. Australia is one 
>> of the very few countries using mass deployment of FTTN, with poor results.
>> 
>> Professor Tucker concludes: “This situation is nothing short of a national 
>> tragedy and a classic example of failed infrastructure policy that will have 
>> long-term ramifications for Australia’s digital economy.”
>> 
>> The news comes after reports that Australia has slower internet speeds than 
>> Kenya or Latvia – and is continuing to sink dramatically down the world 
>> rankings.
>> 
>> America now has 250 “gigabit” cities using FTTP, proving a boon for local 
>> economies. Australia has none.
>> 
>> Professor Tucker told The New Daily: “The NBN is a great loss of 
>> opportunity. We are becoming a broadband backwater. It will have profound 
>> effects.”
>> 
>> Associate Professor Mark Gregory, of RMIT University in Melbourne, was 
>> equally scathing when he spoke to The New Daily.
>> 
>> “Every Australian expert could see what was happening with technology,” he 
>> said. “The economic case used by the Coalition government was nonsense from 
>> the outset.
>> 
>> “This is the largest single waste of public funds in Australia’s history. 
>> Turnbull must take ownership of this mess. The cost to the taxpayer is 
>> currently at $49.5 billion and there is every indication the government will 
>> have to tip in another $5-10 billion.”
>> 
>> Paddy Manning, author of the Turnbull biography Born to Rule, told The New 
>> Daily that Malcolm Turnbull had been sceptical of the NBN from day one.
>> 
>> A tangle of copper wires in a puddle of stagnant water sums up the NBN, 
>> experts say
>> A tangle of copper wires in a puddle of stagnant water sums up the NBN, 
>> experts say.
>> “In the 1990s Turnbull made a fortune from the internet, more than $40 
>> million,” Mr Manning said. “Unfortunately he drew the wrong lessons from his 
>> experience. He thought there would not be enough demand for superfast 
>> broadband.
>> 
>> “There was also a knee-jerk ideological wariness of government enterprise 
>> and an unwillingness to embark on genuine long term nation building 
>> infrastructure projects.
>> 
>> “The Coalition has to shoulder the blame for FTTN. It is a mistake. It will 
>> prove an even bigger mistake when we have to find an untold amount of money 
>> to upgrade it.”
>> 
>> Chief Executive of Internet Australia Annie Hurley told The New Daily the 
>> government urgently needed to rethink the failed NBN. She advocated a 
>> bipartisan approach, bringing together the finest engineering minds in the 
>> country, including Professor Tucker, to plan a way 

Re: [LINK] Brandis rushes to release telco metadata for civil proceedings

[Frank O'Connor]

This debate has gotten a bit like a Software Licence Agreement … in the end you 
have to ignore everything and just click ‘I agree’.

I still seriously disagree with much of what you say, (on network, technical, 
operational and legal grounds), and think you are vastly overestimating 
government capabilities and underestimating the security/technical difficulties 
of VPN interception (basic traffic analysis and metadata extraction is one 
thing, but getting into the contents of heavily encrypted packets in which even 
the metadata is buried is another), but can’t see any point debating the matter 
as we have drifted seriously off the course of my original missive… which was 
concerning the AG’s intent to provide data to litigants in civil actions.

Happy Christmas one and all ...
---
> On 23 Dec 2016, at 3:33 pm, David Lochrin <dloch...@key.net.au> wrote:
> 
> On Friday 23 December 2016 14:31:32 Frank O'Connor wrote:
> 
>> Situation with a 'three hop’ VPN …  For Hop 1 a tunnelled socket established 
>> with client, encrypted and transmitted to Server 1. Once there it is 
>> decrypted and another tunnelled socket established with Server 2 (in another 
>> jurisdiction) for Hop 2, there it is  encrypted and transmitted to Server 3 
>> (in yet another jurisdiction) for Hop 3 … which then on-sends the data/data 
>> request.
>> 
>> In other words … you’re messing with three separate jurisdciations, three 
>> separate geographic locations, from  any one of possibly hundreds of 
>> dynamically assigned load balanced servers in different server farms, most 
>> of which will be clearing their logs dynamically an regularly once they no 
>> longer serve a network or billing purpose.
>> 
>> Hard to get transaction information out of that little miasma.
> 
> But all the local authority has to do is to crack encryption on the first 
> (local) hop between client and server-1.  Do they care how much it's fiddled 
> with after that?
> 
> 
>>> Alternatively, IPsec allows both ends to use a prearranged key, or keys 
>>> might be created and destroyed on a per-session basis.  But that introduces 
>>> the old recursive problem of securing key distribution!
>> 
>> The standards for encryption and keys vary widely across VPN servers - and 
>> many use non-open standard key allocation and keys.
> 
> Sure, but the only options are either symmetric or asymmetric (public key) 
> encryption & decryption whichever way you do it.  There's nothing wrong with 
> symmetric encryption per se.  Its weakness lies in the necessity to 
> distribute a key of some sort which can be intercepted.  Of course you can 
> encrypt the key distribution, but that requires another key...
> 
> I believe that was the undoing of the German Enigma machine used during the 
> second krieg, an otherwise very fine piece of symmetric encryption; it wasn't 
> just the the result of pure brilliance by Alan Turing as portrayed in the 
> movie a little while ago.
> 
> 
>> I’m not saying it would be impossible. If the agency/authority had the 
>> reach, expertise, resources and manpower to monitor all of the possible 
>> server combinations, across all of the geographic political boundaries on 
>> the planet, if they had a ‘presence’ everywhere, if they had effectively 
>> unlimited IT resources to devote to the problem of  decrypting and analysing 
>> the data streams, or alternatively if they didn’t mind going to the client’s 
>> physical point of origin and physically analysing the traffic/logs/contents 
>> of stored data of everyone who established a secure socket (on whatever 
>> range of ports data is encrypted … and nowadays that range is increasing) … 
>> the contents and metadata of said transaction would be effectively concealed.
> 
> Not true, I think - see above.
> 
> 
>> Finally … you said:
>>> First a nitpick... UDP is a stateless protocol but not TCP, however it's 
>>> true TCP doesn't maintain any higher-level (application) state information.
>> 
>> I think you’ll find that with TCP, UDP and ICMP  … all of the different 
>> packet types transmitted over TCP/IP … packet handling under TCP/IP is all 
>> stateless. Bottom line TCP/IP was set up at its creation as a really low 
>> maintenance network protocol. Its creators realised that the useful bits of 
>> network traffic were the requests for and the sending/receipt of data … so 
>> they saw no reason to maintain state between client and server once those 
>> transactions had been completed.
> 
> IP is the network-level (routing) protocol and TCP, UDP, etc. are 
> session-level protocols.  Unlike UDP, TCP has to keep state information so it 
>

Re: [LINK] Brandis rushes to release telco metadata for civil proceedings

[Frank O'Connor]

I wrote this reply about three days back but for one reason or another it has 
been held up by the Moderator … I think David received it, but it wasn’t posted 
into the List … so I’ll just reply again and see if it takes ...

"This debate has gotten a bit like a Software Licence Agreement … in the end 
you have to ignore everything and just click ‘I agree’.

I still seriously disagree with much of what you say, (on network, technical, 
operational and legal grounds), and think you are vastly overestimating 
government capabilities and underestimating the security/technical difficulties 
of VPN interception (basic traffic analysis and metadata extraction is one 
thing, but getting into the contents of heavily encrypted packets in which even 
the metadata is buried is another), but can’t see any point debating the matter 
as we have drifted seriously off the course of my original missive… which was 
concerning the AG’s intent to provide data to litigants in civil actions.

Happy Christmas one and all …"
---
> On 23 Dec 2016, at 3:33 pm, David Lochrin <dloch...@key.net.au> wrote:
> 
> On Friday 23 December 2016 14:31:32 Frank O'Connor wrote:
> 
>> Situation with a 'three hop’ VPN …  For Hop 1 a tunnelled socket established 
>> with client, encrypted and transmitted to Server 1. Once there it is 
>> decrypted and another tunnelled socket established with Server 2 (in another 
>> jurisdiction) for Hop 2, there it is  encrypted and transmitted to Server 3 
>> (in yet another jurisdiction) for Hop 3 … which then on-sends the data/data 
>> request.
>> 
>> In other words … you’re messing with three separate jurisdciations, three 
>> separate geographic locations, from  any one of possibly hundreds of 
>> dynamically assigned load balanced servers in different server farms, most 
>> of which will be clearing their logs dynamically an regularly once they no 
>> longer serve a network or billing purpose.
>> 
>> Hard to get transaction information out of that little miasma.
> 
> But all the local authority has to do is to crack encryption on the first 
> (local) hop between client and server-1.  Do they care how much it's fiddled 
> with after that?
> 
> 
>>> Alternatively, IPsec allows both ends to use a prearranged key, or keys 
>>> might be created and destroyed on a per-session basis.  But that introduces 
>>> the old recursive problem of securing key distribution!
>> 
>> The standards for encryption and keys vary widely across VPN servers - and 
>> many use non-open standard key allocation and keys.
> 
> Sure, but the only options are either symmetric or asymmetric (public key) 
> encryption & decryption whichever way you do it.  There's nothing wrong with 
> symmetric encryption per se.  Its weakness lies in the necessity to 
> distribute a key of some sort which can be intercepted.  Of course you can 
> encrypt the key distribution, but that requires another key...
> 
> I believe that was the undoing of the German Enigma machine used during the 
> second krieg, an otherwise very fine piece of symmetric encryption; it wasn't 
> just the the result of pure brilliance by Alan Turing as portrayed in the 
> movie a little while ago.
> 
> 
>> I’m not saying it would be impossible. If the agency/authority had the 
>> reach, expertise, resources and manpower to monitor all of the possible 
>> server combinations, across all of the geographic political boundaries on 
>> the planet, if they had a ‘presence’ everywhere, if they had effectively 
>> unlimited IT resources to devote to the problem of  decrypting and analysing 
>> the data streams, or alternatively if they didn’t mind going to the client’s 
>> physical point of origin and physically analysing the traffic/logs/contents 
>> of stored data of everyone who established a secure socket (on whatever 
>> range of ports data is encrypted … and nowadays that range is increasing) … 
>> the contents and metadata of said transaction would be effectively concealed.
> 
> Not true, I think - see above.
> 
> 
>> Finally … you said:
>>> First a nitpick... UDP is a stateless protocol but not TCP, however it's 
>>> true TCP doesn't maintain any higher-level (application) state information.
>> 
>> I think you’ll find that with TCP, UDP and ICMP  … all of the different 
>> packet types transmitted over TCP/IP … packet handling under TCP/IP is all 
>> stateless. Bottom line TCP/IP was set up at its creation as a really low 
>> maintenance network protocol. Its creators realised that the useful bits of 
>> network traffic were the requests for and the sending/receipt of data … so 
>> they saw no reason to maintain state between clien

Re: [LINK] Brandis rushes to release telco metadata for civil proceedings

[Frank O'Connor]

> On 23 Dec 2016, at 12:14 pm, David Lochrin  wrote:
> 
> The IPsec VPN protocol provides authentication and/or encryption.  A 
> single-hop VPN packet carries the original source & destination IP addresses 
> and also relies on public-private key pairs, so the local end could be raided 
> to recover its private key and a recorded session then decrypted after the 
> event.  (Presumably the other end's public key is generally available.)  I 
> can't see how multiple hops would improve security because the last hop is 
> surely the only one which needs to be cracked?

You’re confusing ‘hops’ with traditional IP hops … the point at which the 
transaction/data passes through a route ron its way to the ultimate network 
destination

Situation with a 'three hop’ VPN …  For Hop 1 a tunnelled socket established 
with client, encrypted and transmitted to Server 1. Once there it is decrypted 
and another tunnelled socket established with Server 2 (in another 
jurisdiction) for Hop 2, there it is  encrypted and transmitted to Server 3 (in 
yet another jurisdiction) for Hop 3 … which then on-sends the data/data request.

In other words … you’re messing with three separate jurisdciations, three 
separate geographic locations, from  any one of possibly hundreds of 
dynamically assigned load balanced servers in different server farms, most of 
which will be clearing their logs dynamically an regularly once they no longer 
serve a network or billing purpose.

Hard to get transaction information out of that little miasma.

> 
> Alternatively, IPsec allows both ends to use a prearranged key, or keys might 
> be created and destroyed on a per-session basis.  But that introduces the old 
> recursive problem of securing key distribution!

The standards for encryption and keys vary widely across VPN servers - and many 
use non-open standard key allocation and keys.

> 
> SSH & SSL keys are created per-session and volatile, so the original 
> user-data is difficult to recover by simply monitoring a session.  However 
> these protocols still require one end to use a public-private key pair (?).

Mmmm …

> 
> I think those considerations would apply to any VPN-type scheme, so it's 
> really a question of how much money & time whatever authority is prepared to 
> spend on recovering data.  Having the other end of the (first) VPN connection 
> outside the jurisdiction would help.  But in the end, the target information 
> still exists on some hard drive.

I’m not saying it would be impossible. If the agency/authority had the reach, 
expertise, resources and manpower to monitor all of the possible server 
combinations, across all of the geographic political boundaries on the planet, 
if they had a ‘presence’ everywhere, if they had effectively unlimited IT 
resources to devote to the problem of  decrypting and analysing the data 
streams, or alternatively if they didn’t mind going to the client’s physical 
point of origin and physically analysing the traffic/logs/contents of stored 
data of everyone who established a secure socket (on whatever range of ports 
data is encrypted … and nowadays that range is increasing) … the contents and 
metadata of said transaction would be effectively concealed.

Finally … you said:
> First a nitpick... UDP is a stateless protocol but not TCP, however it's true 
> TCP doesn't maintain any higher-level (application) state information.

I think you’ll find that with TCP, UDP and ICMP  … all of the different packet 
types transmitted over TCP/IP … packet handling under TCP/IP is all stateless. 
Bottom line TCP/IP was set up at its creation as a really low maintenance 
network protocol. Its creators realised that the useful bits of network traffic 
were the requests for and the sending/receipt of data … so they saw no reason 
to maintain state between client and server once those transactions had been 
completed.

This is why it was necessary to invent little numbers like Cookies (which only 
imitate maintaining state between client and server by storing 
session/transaction/preference information on the client that can be uploaded 
when connections are re-established). TCP/IP doesn’t maintain connections for 
any complicated transaction on the Internet, and the only way it can actually 
be done/faked is at application level by proprietary protocols - cut in 
client-server side JAVA, Javascript, VBScript or whatever - embedded in the 
data stream. And even then it’s a bit of a kludge - compared to, for example, 
IBM’s X500 and other more much much high maintenance and complex protocols.

Just my 2 cents worth …

___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Brandis rushes to release telco metadata for civil proceedings

[Frank O'Connor]

Sorry, fired that off before I replied.  :)

> On 23 Dec 2016, at 9:43 am, Christian Heinrich 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Jim Birch  wrote:
>> The biggest user segment in Australia are people who want to access the
>> more extensive content on US Netflix, but there are other people who want
>> to hide their connections for various reasons.  In terms of metadata
>> collected by the Australian government, this should show a single encrypted
>> connection to single overseas ip address (which they may know as a vpn
>> provider) but not all the stuff you browse or access.
> 
> This is the core issue, their offering is for geolocation rather than privacy.
> 

I won’t go into the specific technicalities … BUT:

1. Establishing a connection between a server in Kazakhstan and a user in 
Australia, and

2. Repackaging the original HTTPS data packets, including the packet headers, 
and bundling them into new packets in a real time encrypted data stream, which 
are decryoted at the othe rend, have different IP and other packet header 
information assigned to make the requests/conduct the session

… does a heap to ensure a private connection.

The server at the other end takes over the TCP/IP application requests or data 
receipt (and remember TCP/IP is a stateless protocol … simply opening and 
closing connections to pass data) and repackages the results of same for 
transmission back to the user

And if you factor in ’double hop’ or even ‘triple hop’ VPN services …. where 
the connection is handled by two or three remote servers sequentially … and I 
can point you at any number of VPN services and servers that offer this extra 
level of security/tunnelling/concealment … you can factor in even grater levels 
of privacy.

The point is that the VPN server removes the initial IP address and origin 
identifying information as it reconstructs the packets so that it is 
effectively the client for the transaction, and then passes the network results 
back to the user at the other end of the data socket. And if that’s not 
concealing identity … then what is?

Just my 2 cents worth ...
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Brandis rushes to release telco metadata for civil proceedings

[Frank O'Connor]

> On 23 Dec 2016, at 9:43 am, Christian Heinrich 
>  wrote:
> 
> Jim,
> 
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Jim Birch  wrote:
>> I suggest you read lifehacker's pages on VPN.  This compares services and
>> is updated periodically.
> 
> I'd recommend 
> https://torrentfreak.com/anonymous-vpn-service-provider-review-2015-150228/
> 
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Jim Birch  wrote:
>> The biggest user segment in Australia are people who want to access the
>> more extensive content on US Netflix, but there are other people who want
>> to hide their connections for various reasons.  In terms of metadata
>> collected by the Australian government, this should show a single encrypted
>> connection to single overseas ip address (which they may know as a vpn
>> provider) but not all the stuff you browse or access.
> 
> This is the core issue, their offering is for geolocation rather than privacy.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Christian Heinrich
> 
> http://cmlh.id.au/contact
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Brandis rushes to release telco metadata for civil proceedings

[Frank O'Connor]

G’day Christian,

> On 23 Dec 2016, at 9:39 am, Christian Heinrich 
> <christian.heinr...@cmlh.id.au> wrote:
> 
> Frank,
> 
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Frank O'Connor
> <francisoconn...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> Don’t know about that. Prior to 2014, and even early last year, VPN’s and 
>> other security
>> software had pretty average front ends and GUI’s, were fairly technical to 
>> set up,
>> impacted heavily on network performance (both in throughput and latency), 
>> were
>> relatively expensive ($10-$20 per month), and didn’t offer access to the 
>> complete
>> range of protocols that the current ones do automatically.
> 
> These service providers will either consent to the order or close
> down, such as https://lavabit.com/ due to their low cost.

What happens to which provider depends on their patronage, business model, 
server location(s) and the laws governing same. Lavabit was basically just an 
e-mail provider, and the keys remained consistent across sessions, so it was 
much more vulnerable than a service that spontaneously allocated new randomised 
keys as part of the socket connection process. Finally, Lavabit was 
geographically bound to one nation state (the US) and relied on the American 
Constitution for protection, whereas most VPN suppliers have 30 or 40 servers 
distributed around the world under different jurisdictions that can be used 
spontaneously and by choice (when initiating the connection) by the user.

(Note: As we’ve seen time and time again, when it comes down to it the American 
Constitution more often than not is more a statement of good intent that the US 
Supreme Court feels free to interpret based on the political and other 
prejudices of the current members of same, than something the average American 
can rely on to enforce and protect their Rights. That said, time and again, 
somewhere down the track the US Supreme Court usually revises the more 
biased/egregious decisions on the provisions of the Constitution to restore the 
Rights they took away. Doesn’t help those who got nailed in the first place … 
e.g. the Nisei Japanese, various minority groups, various electorates etc. … 
but does rectify the situation for those who follow)

Anyway, equating Lavabit with the situation of VPN providers - especially now … 
is a bit of a chalk and cheese exercise.
> 
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Frank O'Connor
> <francisoconn...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> With VPN and proxy services the user has no idea what the key is. That is 
>> simply
>> allocated by the server on a per-session basis … at  the time of 
>> establishing the tunnelled
>> (and heavily encrypted) connection/socket.
> 
> What about the passphrase or 2FA token to the VPN?

The passphrase does not equate to the session keys, and the session keys 
determine what algorithm and variables will be applied when applying the 
socket’s encryption.

> 
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Frank O'Connor
> <francisoconn...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> And data should only be available from the originators of same (the telcos), 
>> and only be
>> available under warrant, subpoena or other court supervised order.
> 
> I haven't read anything that states this will change?

I haven’t read anything that says it will apply (i.e. the telcos providing the 
information directly to litigating third parties).

Read the Consultation Paper. The government is specifically saying that they 
want to investigate releasing the data THEY RECEIVE from the Telco to third 
parties in support of civil actions. They make no mention of a court order 
being received before the data will be released BY THE GOVERNMENT. (Given that 
we are not talking the Telco providing the information to a third party, hey 
additionally make no mention of how they are going to validate and provenance 
the data for evidentiary purposes, how they are going to identify the data for 
evidentiary purposes, and how they are going to provide even basic evidentiary 
substance to the metadata without running into issues of evidentiary 
substantiation.)
> 
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Frank O'Connor
> <francisoconn...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> The government should not become involved in civil litigation between 
>> independent third
>> parties. The moment it does so it falls down on the side of one party or the 
>> other. And the
>> moment it does that it contravenes so many provisions in the Judiciary Act, 
>> so many
>> Rules of Evidence, and so many simple rules of fair play and procedure 
>> established for
>> good reason through thousands of years of history - that it becomes a bad 
>> government.
> 
> This isn't changing as the court registrar and magistrate will only
> allow subpoenas for metadata for

Re: [LINK] Brandis rushes to release telco metadata for civil proceedings

[Frank O'Connor]

G’day Christian,

> On 22 Dec 2016, at 2:46 pm, Christian Heinrich 
> <christian.heinr...@cmlh.id.au> wrote:
> 
> Frank,
> 
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Frank O'Connor
> <francisoconn...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> At the moment, very few Australian Internet users take advantage of secure 
>> proxy
>> services (like TOR), or strongly encrypted IP tunnelling (through a plethora 
>> of private
>> VPN’s), or other application based (secure e-mail, routine browser based SSL 
>> connections,
>> software update applications, gaming, proprietary - e.g.Apple, Windows etc 
>> etc -
>> applications and protocols et alia) point-to-point encryption measures … but 
>> the proposal to
>> make the already collected metadata available to non-government third 
>> parties for
>> civil litigation (and possibly other purposes in future? Perhaps later on 
>> you could sell the
>> data to the highest bidder?) will no doubt see an explosion of traffic on 
>> these high level
>> encryption and data security services.
> 
> I still doubt there will be a significant uptake of encrypted services
> based on the usage data published since 2014.

Don’t know about that. Prior to 2014, and even early last year, VPN’s and other 
security software had pretty average front ends and GUI’s, were fairly 
technical to set up, impacted heavily on network performance (both in 
throughput and latency), were relatively expensive ($10-$20 per month), and 
didn’t offer access to the complete range of protocols that the current ones do 
automatically.

In essence, it’s now pretty easy for a neophyte to download some pretty user 
friendly client software (usable across multiple platforms), achieve very 
acceptable performance levels (although latency is still a bit of a problem), 
at a very minimal stipend (I’ve seen some VPN providers offering services at 
less than $20 per annum). And they now pretty much cover the field as to the 
support they offer for TCP/IP protocols and applications, usually with large 
numbers of high performance servers in multiple network and geographic (and 
political) locations that are user selectable on a session basis depending on 
what the user plans to do.

> 
> Also, I am aware that
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/s3la.html
> has compelled a person in Victoria to release their SSH Private Key to
> an interstate host already so these types of technical controls are
> less effective now.

With VPN and proxy services the user has no idea what the key is. That is 
simply allocated by the server on a per-session basis … at the time of 
establishing the tunnelled (and heavily encrypted) connection/socket.

> 
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Frank O'Connor
> <francisoconn...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> See: 
>> http://www.zdnet.com/article/brandis-rushes-to-release-telco-metadata-for-civil-proceedings/
> 
> The consultation is to consider the extension proposed by the
> Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS)
> such as "family law proceedings involving violence or international
> child abduction cases" to quote ZDNet and driven by the jurisdiction
> issues when serving subpoenas overseas.

I have problems with this, as well as with most other conceivable third party, 
non-governemnt, uses for the metadata (collected by telcos) that the government 
wants to provide to said third parties. And aside from this, there are any 
number of other potential CIVIL litigants. Hell, I even have some doubts about 
the the use the government will put said metadata to.

I’m not saying lock the data up … but I think the government should stick with 
its indemnities and guarantees of 2014 and 2015, made when it wanted to get the 
legislation passed, that it now seems to want to abandon … willy nilly. (Which 
is why I mentioned selling the metadata in my submission … because a lot of it 
could be REALLY valuable to commercial concerns. I mean, is that the NEXT 
‘relaxation’ of the rules?)

And data should only be available from the originators of same (the telcos), 
and only be available under warrant, subpoena or other court supervised order.

> 
> However, I don't doubt there will be submission(s) from rights
> holder(s) seeking extensions specific to copyright during this
> consultation too.

Oh, I think we can pretty much guarantee that. They seem to want to feed at the 
pot via grants … to publishing, film and music industries via public funds - 
some grants being in the 10’s of millions of taxpayer dollars for single 
projects, changes to the copyright and other IP legislation to extend copyright 
and IP beyond the limitations now in force, and any number of measures to see 
that they can continue to feed at a revenue stream long long long and longer 
afte

[LINK] Brandis rushes to release telco metadata for civil proceedings

[Frank O'Connor]

Over at ZDNET Stilgherrian wrote an article on the AG’s new proposal to make 
the supposedly strictly secure ‘held only by the government' metadata collected 
by the government available to un-named third parties (IP holders, moral 
crusaders, marriage partners … who knows) in CIVIL actions.

See: 
http://www.zdnet.com/article/brandis-rushes-to-release-telco-metadata-for-civil-proceedings/

I fired off a quick response to the proposal, basically condemning it on 
security grounds (see below) but that are any number of reasons that this 
proposal is a REALLY BAD IDEA on other ‘good government’, 'trust in government’ 
ethical, legal and technical grounds for opposing same.

Anyway, I’d encourage people to lodge submissions to this Committee by 
mid-January … as establishing a Review and requiring submissions on the topic 
during the short window of the  holiday season usually means there are plans 
afoot to rush ahead with some questionable policy initiatives - hopefully out 
from under the radar of public scrutiny.

Such is democracy in Australia today …:(

Just my 2 cents worth ...
—
My Submission:

"At the risk of pointing out the obvious, proceeding with this proposal will 
simply make life far more difficult for our various security agencies.

At the moment, very few Australian Internet users take advantage of secure 
proxy services (like TOR), or strongly encrypted IP tunnelling (through a 
plethora of private VPN’s), or other application based (secure e-mail, routine 
browser based SSL connections, software update applications, gaming, 
proprietary - e.g.Apple, Windows etc etc - applications and protocols et alia) 
point-to-point encryption measures … but the proposal to make the already 
collected metadata available to non-government third parties for civil 
litigation (and possibly other purposes in future? Perhaps later on you could 
sell the data to the highest bidder?) will no doubt see an explosion of traffic 
on these high level encryption and data security services. 

At present it only makes sense for either the nefarious or the more 
technologically informed to do so. (And at what currently amounts to between $3 
and $5 per month, the economics of comprehensive encrypted data and 
communications security are within the reach of all.)

Threaten to make your data available to non-government third parties - and the 
incentives to use said anonymising and encryption services increases. And given 
that many packages to do same are much more available, advertised and user 
friendly than they were say even two years ago, said services are much more 
accessible to the average Internet user that you perhaps realise.

Which means that Joe Public will have an incentive to subscribe to ‘secure 
communications’ protocols, VPN’s and secure applications protocols like never 
before. Strong encryption and data tunnelling will become de-riguer and 
increasingly common, rather than a manageable (by our security agencies) 
exception to the rule. And in the case of the services mentioned I might remind 
you what we are talking about is private keys assigned at the moment of 
establishing the socket by the secure remote server. (In other words, the 
client has no idea of how to decrypt the data, because they don’t possess the 
keys and can’t give same to security agencies no matter what they are 
threatened with.)

Now ask yourselves whether Australian security agencies have either the 
computing power and resources to track all this real-time ‘false positive’ 
encrypted traffic between ‘innocent’ clients and servers across the world, or 
whether their metadata analysis efforts would be severely impacted. Do they 
need to be monitoring a thousand times the encrypted traffic that they 
currently do? Do their packet traffic analysis techniques depend on examining 
data packet characteristics. Do they need to have even the metadata from the 
packet headers buried deep in encrypted packets between the local client and 
overseas based (in God knows what friendly and/or unfriendly jurisdictions) 
secure server on an effectively impenetrable encrypted link?

Because that is what will happen if the average Internet user activates even 
routine IP security. Ever more ubiquitous strongly encrypted real-time data 
communications means that our security agencies will be buried under data that 
is to all intents and purposes useless.

And the quality of the collected metadata will drop through the floor to the 
point of being unusable, whilst the quantity of ‘junk’ metadata increases 
astronomically.

… and that is what will happen if you carry through with this idea of making 
metadata available to non-government third parties. Australians trust their 
government with their metadata - especially in the current security situation, 
but they don’t trust unelected anonymous private third parties. And they will 
take measures to secure their communications from eyes they don’t trust."

Re: [LINK] NBN: A Nation Building Project - Dr Mark Gregory

[Frank O'Connor]

M,

$60 billion, and all the wasted years and effort, down the tubes - because 
Abbott, Turnbull, Ergas, Ziffy and the rest of the ‘MTM NBN’ couldn’t accept 
that the original idea of building for the next 50 years, rather than building 
for 2010, was the go.

$60 billion to be spectacularly behind the rest of the world in infrastructure 
and capabilities.

$60 billion utterly and completely wasted. Only an utter technological moron or 
someone looking to throw money away would buy into the NBN’s privatisation now 
… so it’s all gone, wasted ... by politicians and their flunkeys to whom 
ideology and politics were more important than technological expertise and 
nation building.

I really hope these destructive short sighted pricks are remembered for what 
they have done …

Just my 2 cents worth
---
> On 21 Nov. 2016, at 5:22 pm, Andy Farkas  wrote:
> 
> On 21/11/2016 15:22, David Boxall wrote:
>> About an hour of depressing viewing.
>> https://youtu.be/jNajgT07rRg
>> 
> 
> Yeah, watched that a couple weeks ago
> 
> This is even more depressing:
> 
> 
> http://www.innovationaus.com/2016/11/NBN-bailout-a-political-mockery
> 
> -andyf
> 
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] WIPO Adopts Open Access Policy for its Publications

[Frank O'Connor]

Ironic. :)

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
> On 18 Nov. 2016, at 8:57 pm, Antony Broughton Barry  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2016/article_0016.html
> 
> Sent from Pocket - Get it free!
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] 'Public-Private cybersecurity centres'

[Frank O'Connor]

Right On, Roger,

What utter BS!

Government security mavens (in the DSD) lost me when they told me something I 
was trying to implement was TOO SECURE (PGP based secure e-mail), they couldn’t 
crack it, and therefore they couldn’t approve it.

But little numbers like establishing a government AusCERT, 5 or 10 years back, 
instead of funding the existing (and very well performed, independent local 
CERT in Queensland reinforced this opinion. I can imagine the rationale, “Yes, 
CERT is doing a great job, yes they’re experienced and have a terrific record, 
yes they’re pretty much on top of it with their threat matrix and advices, yes 
it would only cost us a fraction of what the government run alternative would, 
sure we have very few (read ‘none’) security experts of our own and none of 
them are even remotely familiar with TCP/IP and up to date threats and 
techniques…. but think of the Empire we’ll be able to create, the massive 
annual Budget allocations we’ll get. No people, we definitely need AusCERT - 
otherwise all that lovely moolah will go elsewhere.”

An what has AusCERT since done for us?

And then there was the presumed sign off by our government security mavens on 
the recent Census site … ‘Nuff said.

Their highest state of alert seems to be 'Asleep at the Wheel’ … but their 
default is ‘Lying Under the Truck’ I probably have better security on my home 
network than anything the government has in place … and I don’t obsess about 
security.

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
> On 26 Oct. 2016, at 1:43 pm, Roger Clarke  wrote:
> 
> [The cybersecurity field really is pretty farcical.]
> 
> Public-Private cybersecurity centres
> Allie Coyne
> itNews
> Oct 26 2016
> http://www.itnews.com.au/news/govt-defends-against-criticism-of-cyber-centres-439995
> 
> ...
> "It came back to basic cyber security hygiene. One idea was to focus all our 
> effort on one thing - like one of the ASD's top four strategies to mitigate 
> targeted cyber intrusions - and say everyone in Australia should be 
> [compliant with one] by a certain time," a source who attended the meeting 
> said.
> ...
> 
> [The DSD/ASD's ISM identifies maybe 100 to 200 threats.
> 
> [DSD started with 35 strategies:
> http://asd.gov.au/infosec/mitigationstrategies.htm
> http://asd.gov.au/infosec/top-mitigations/mitigations-2014-table.htm
> 
> [When they couldn't get any traction with that, they tried 4:
> http://asd.gov.au/publications/protect/top_4_mitigations.htm
> 
> [That's too hard for agencies and corporations, so we're down to 1 now!
> 
> 
> -- 
> Roger Clarke http://www.rogerclarke.com/
>   
> Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd  78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
> Tel: +61 2 6288 6916http://about.me/roger.clarke
> mailto:roger.cla...@xamax.com.auhttp://www.xamax.com.au/
> 
> Visiting Professor in the Faculty of LawUniversity of N.S.W.
> Visiting Professor in Computer ScienceAustralian National University
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Completely off-topic

[Frank O'Connor]

Now that is cool …

… WAAAY COL!

It’s good to get a reminder that things like this are happening in our world ...

Just my 2 cents worth :)
---
> On 7 Oct. 2016, at 12:25 am, Stephen Loosley  
> wrote:
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/562fzy/what_is_the_most_pleasant_and_uplifting_fact_you/
> 
> 
> 7 hours ago 
> 
> Smallpox emerged over 10,000 years ago. At its peak the disease killed 15 
> million people a year, maimed millions more and caused 1/3 of all blindness. 
> 
> Between the 1850s and the 1910s, mandatory vaccination drove smallpox out of 
> North America and Europe. A coordinated UN effort from 1950 to the 1970s 
> eliminated smallpox from the rest of the world. 
> 
> There hasn't been a single case since 1977.
> 
> Working together, every country in the world teamed up to destroy an enemy 
> that killed an estimated 400-500 million people in the 20th Century alone. 
> And it took less than three decades to make it happen. 
> 
> The campaign to eliminate smallpox is proof that a united humanity is capable 
> of incredible things.
> 
> 
> 5 hours ago 
> 
> Polio is projected to be eradicated in 2018. This, by the way, in case people 
> didn't know, is awesome. 
> 
> There were like ... 106 recorded cases worldwide last year. There were 350 
> the year before.  
> 
> This year so far? There have only been 29 worldwide.
> 
> We rock!
> 
> Source http://polioeradication.org/polio-today/polio-now
> 
> --
> 
> Cheers,
> Stephen
> 
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Telstra trials 5G mobile network, the next 'quantum leap' in technology

[Frank O'Connor]

> On 20 Sep 2016, at 9:31 PM, David Boxall  wrote:
> 
> And they're coming out of the woodwork again.
> "This is what the government should be investing in not fibre to the home."
> 

Mmmm … I wonder how they imagine the phone towers can handle that sort of 
bandwidth simultaneously across multiple phones in their area. And I wonder if 
they realise that Telstra and Optus are co-opting network and NBN subscribers 
with dual purpose WiFi modems to spread the load, even with just 4G.

Nah … it can all be done magically over the mobile phone.

Some people are simply too dumb to own and operate technology.

Just my 2 cents worth …
---



___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] NBN gets to Albury, Sussan Ley is impressed

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm,

> On 20 Sep 2016, at 11:35 AM, Bernard Robertson-Dunn  
> wrote:
> 
> FTTH would have no big street box requiring maintenance, no
> environmentally bad batteries, no electronics with very limited upgrade
> options..

… no huge power overheads and costs - with the attendant vulnerabilities that 
confers on the street boxen, maximum scalability and performance ‘out of the 
box’, less vulnerability to environmental (weather, flood, storm, lightning, 
fire, etc) and accidental (car prangs, service/maintenance accidents etc) 
variables, etc. etc. etc.

And, as you say, Ley regards it as a major triumph.

Which it was, I suppose … a triumph of politics and ideology over technical, 
physical, scientific advice, and common sense. It’s what happens when you mix 
Church and State.

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Fwd: The rise and fall of the Gopher protocol | MinnPost

[Frank O'Connor]

Archie, Gopher, Veronica ... Mmmm, the all bring back memories

Not single composite hyperlinked documents combining text, graphics and other 
files ... Which later HTTP and HTML did ... What you got was distinct tex, 
graphic and other files opening on your screen - but a major upgrade on the 
text only apps and protocols that had preceded them.

Yeah, Gopher and its relations opened our eyes to other richer interfaces and 
possibilities on the Net. Fond memories.

Just my 2 cents worth,

Give me a coffee, and no-one gets hurt


> On 19 Aug 2016, at 7:42 PM, Antony Barry  wrote:
> 
> I built them. They were the basis of CWIS systems which I gave presentations 
> about around the country for about two years but then after that I was saying 
> “Opps I’m wrong use the web”.
> 
> They were magic times. It started with archie. Who remember archie now?
> 
> https://www.minnpost.com/business/2016/08/rise-and-fall-gopher-protocol 
> 
> 
> Phone : 02 6174 4749, Mobile: 04 3365 2400, 
> Email : antonybbarry at me.com
> http://www.facebook.com/people/antonybbarry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

[LINK] Language please ...

[Frank O'Connor]

See: 
http://www.zdnet.com/article/my-health-record-dumb-and-useless-australian-privacy-foundation/

…. For some rather strong (but merited) language from our own BRD.

Pretty much EVERY digital health initiative over the last 20 years has come to 
the same sordid end - hamstrung from within and without by politics, 
incompetence and the old ‘solution in search of a problem’ syndrome … but they 
do keep trying. 

I know a few Linkers have been involved with these efforts over the last few 
years, and having worked (at the periphery) of government IT myself for a few 
years appreciate how things can, and most often do, disappear up the 
bureaucratic fundament in a disastrous implosion of time, money and effort on 
ever increasing numbers of government IT projects … but you'd think they would 
learn!

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] RFI: Census Site Implosion

[Frank O'Connor]

Actually, like the ATO, the ABS is a division of Treasury.

So, if anyone is ultimately responsible it’s ScoMo.

That said, he’ll just write it off as an ‘on water’ matter and therefore deem 
it not necessary to comment.

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
> On 11 Aug 2016, at 9:47 AM, JanW  wrote:
> 
> At 09:39 AM 11/08/2016, Marghanita da Cruz wrote:
> 
>> Worth noting the ABS now comes under the Minister for Small Business which 
>> is in the outer ministry.
>> https://www.pm.gov.au/your-government/ministers
> 
> Plus the guy has only had responsibility for it for 2 weeks. Abbott then Mal 
> didn't assign ABS to anyone (I think I have that right) or didn't hire the 
> CEO for a very long time. And I'm talking years, not months. 
> 
> Poison chalice?
> 
> Of course giving it to "Small Business" doesn't mean much. Hardly any 
> minister has ANY background in ANY of their portfolios. Why should this be 
> any different?
> 
> Jan
> 
> 
> I write books. http://janwhitaker.com/?page_id=8
> 
> Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
> jw...@janwhitaker.com
> Twitter: JL_Whitaker
> Blog: www.janwhitaker.com 
> 
> Some psychopaths become serial killers, and other psychopaths become 
> prosecutors. - Bob Ruff, Truth and Justice, June 2016
> 
> Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how do you 
> fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space. 
> ~Margaret Atwood, writer 
> 
> _ __ _
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] RFI: Census Site Implosion

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm …. and its still down now (6 am Thursday morning).

Bottom line: If there really was a series of DDOS attacks (which has been by no 
means proved, and will probably only be proved if third parties verify traffic 
stats .. and the ABS produces the logs) then the ABS are incompetent and should 
not be trusted to collect and store our data. If there wasn’t an attack, then 
the ABS are liars … as well as being incompetent.

Neither situation is good for the ABS, neither situation puts any of the ABS’s 
guarantees and indemnities regarding data security and the need for identity 
data in a good light (personally I can’t see any way that the requirement for 
names was anything but redundant data - with a security risk) , and neither 
will alleviate any concern over ABS policies, procedures and conduct of this 
Census.

And finally, spreading the data collection over two or three months - as now 
looks to be the case - will severely impact on the reliability and validity of 
the ‘snapshot of Australia’ that the Census is supposed to provide.

Just my 2 cents worth …

> On 10 Aug 2016, at 11:59 PM, Bernard Robertson-Dunn  
> wrote:
> 
> On 10/08/2016 11:11 PM, Ambrose Andrews wrote:
>> I haven't head anyone even try to explain or justify why ABS kept
>> asking people to try again in fifteen minutes long after they'd
>> decided to shut the thing down.
> 
> Go to
> https://www.census.abs.gov.au/eCensusWeb/welcome.jsp#top2
> and click on Complete my Census.
> 
> Then they tell you "Thank you for participating in the Census. The
> system is very busy at the moment. Please wait for 15 minutes before
> trying again. Your patience and cooperation are appreciated. [code 9]"
> 
> 28 hours after "taking the site down"
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Regards
> brd
> 
> Bernard Robertson-Dunn
> Sydney Australia
> email: b...@iimetro.com.au
> web:   www.drbrd.com
> web:   www.problemsfirst.com
> Blog:  www.problemsfirst.com/blog
> 
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] RFI: Census Site Implosion

[Frank O'Connor]

No, nope … I think incompetence covers it.

O course they will say they tested it, that the servers should have handled the 
demand within their load sharing tolerances, that their systems are ‘world’s 
best practice’, and that it was all the fault of some completely unforeseeable 
glitch that nobody could have predicted.

These same excuses, or one’s pretty much approximating same, will no doubt be 
used when they have extensive (but ‘utterly unforeseeable’) breaches and loss 
of personal taxpayer data (now with names attached), that spawns an identity 
fraud on Australian taxpayers that will be unmatched in its severity until the 
next time they mess up with ‘serving the Australian public’ … but that’s pretty 
much par for the course.

Thinking this would no doubt happen, I logged on and entered my data during the 
day … and had no problems completing the puppy. 

When dealing with Australian government ‘systems’, and ‘gateways’ and 
‘portals', it pays to be a pessimist. 

Murphy is their CTO. 

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
> On 9 Aug 2016, at 9:00 PM, Roger Clarke  wrote:
> 
> [Declaration:  I've been knee-deep in the policy aspects of the Census since 
> March.  But this question is specifically about the technical aspects of the 
> site.]
> 
> The comprehensiveness of the debacle during the evening of the Census seems 
> to me to challenge the normal presumption that you choose incompetence over 
> vindictiveness.
> 
> I'm not so much suggesting that either ABS insiders or IBM staff might have 
> indulged in sabotage.  (Now that *would* be significant!).  But I'm wondering 
> whether some skilled hackers might have done so.
> 
> Alright, allow for both, e.g.:
> (1) inadequate implementation and hence easily-found vulnerabilities, and
> (2) script-kiddies using mainstream attack tools.
> (Apologies if I'm using dated terminology).
> 
> In case they're of use for the purposes of collaborative post-debacle 
> sleuthing, a couple of snapshots are below.
> 
> Two aspects of the whois listing are contributors to my suspicions:
>> Updated 23 minutes ago
> The snapshot was taken c. 20:30 UT+10
> OTOH, Last Modified shows 22-Mar-2016 05:20:10 UTC
>> DNSSEC:   unsigned
> 
> Okay, given that the traceroutes to *both* DNS-servers get nowhere fast, 
> there's a possibility that some of the nearby networks weren't scaled for the 
> hammering that they got this evening?  (Self-inflicted DDOS?).
> 
> But, as linkers know, I'm not very good once we get under the bonnet ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ; <<>> DiG 9.3.6-APPLE-P2 <<>> abs.gov.au any
> ;; global options:  printcmd
> ;; Got answer:
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 48375
> ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 3, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2
> 
> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> ;abs.gov.au.  IN  ANY
> 
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> abs.gov.au.   3846IN  A   144.53.228.30
> abs.gov.au.   2089IN  NS  ns1.abs.gov.au.
> abs.gov.au.   2089IN  NS  ns1.telstra.net.
> 
> ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
> abs.gov.au.   2089IN  NS  ns1.telstra.net.
> abs.gov.au.   2089IN  NS  ns1.abs.gov.au.
> 
> ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
> ns1.abs.gov.au.   6397IN  A   144.53.226.90
> ns1.telstra.net.  54738   IN  A   139.130.4.5
> 
> ;; Query time: 17 msec
> ;; SERVER: 192.168.2.1#53(192.168.2.1)
> ;; WHEN: Tue Aug  9 20:28:38 2016
> ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 151
> 
> _
> 
> http://www.whois.com/whois/abs.gov.au
> abs.gov.au registry whois
> 
> Updated 23 minutes ago - Refresh
> 
> Domain Name: abs.gov.au
> Last Modified:   22-Mar-2016 05:20:10 UTC
> Status:  ok
> Registrar Name:  Digital Transformation Office
> 
> Registrant:  Australian Bureau of Statistics
> Registrant ID:   OTHER n/a
> Eligibility Type:Other
> 
> Registrant Contact ID:   GOVAU-WAAR1000
> Registrant Contact Name: Duncan Anderson
> Registrant Contact Email:Visit whois.ausregistry.com.au for Web based 
> WhoIs
> 
> Tech Contact ID: GOVAU-WAAR1001
> Tech Contact Name:   Duncan Anderson
> Tech Contact Email:  Visit whois.ausregistry.com.au for Web based 
> WhoIs
> 
> Name Server: ns1.telstra.net
> Name Server: ns1.abs.gov.au
> Name Server IP:  144.53.226.90
> DNSSEC:  unsigned
> 
> ___
> 
> traceroute to 139.130.4.5 (139.130.4.5), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
> 1    0.813 ms  0.350 ms  0.347 ms
> 2    0.773 ms  1.420 ms  5.011 ms
> 3    14.454 ms  14.832 ms  14.789 ms
> 4    14.553 ms  16.984 ms  14.401 ms
> 5    14.413 ms  14.615 ms  14.066 ms
> 6  te2-0-0.bdr1.cbr1.on.ii.net (59.167.21.185)  14.343 

Re: [LINK] Machine Learning Was: Re: Robot cars and the fear gap

[Frank O'Connor]

M,

Well, without the richness of experience of the outside world we, and every 
other life-form on this planet, have hard wired into us, and which has evolved 
in us over 3 billion years, and realisations that both the outside world exists 
and that it is populated by self-motivated ‘others’, you can’t expect a 
software based AI 'life form' to have much in the way of empathy, a 
live-and-let-live philosophy, an appreciation of the need to ‘get along’ with 
others, or a predilection to ‘play nice’ with other sapient and sentient selves.

Of course this lack could be made worse by making the AI system paranoid (as in 
a defence system) or greedy and venal (as in a transaction/trading system), or 
by applying any number of (un-needed) human motivators to its instructions and 
data …. because then you’d have an AI as inherently flawed as its creators. 
That said, those same motivators (and senses) are what gives us our richness of 
experience and emotion -without which life and existence would be a pale 
experience.

You say … "We wouldn't equate our fingers or tongues or eyes to our brains. 
They are the receptors and the brain reacts to the sensation, which is pretty 
much what a computer does.”

I disagree. And we do have a name for this sentience … it’s called ‘body image’ 
which is a large part of our ’self'. At a base level, we don’t distinguish 
between our component parts and our beings. We have a sense of self built up by 
our physical interactions with the real world and our perceptions of them. My 
fingers and toes are as much a part of ‘me’ as my eyes and ears - possibly more 
so because I can see them. In our brains this provides an image of who and what 
we are and how we interact with the real world and others like us, a means of 
developing ever more sophisticated heuristics, philosophies and knowledge of 
our environment based on our sense of ’self’ and where we fit in the great 
scheme of things.

Personally I think AI’s are a long way from developing this ‘understanding’ - 
especially at the hard wired instinctive level that pretty well all fauna and 
Animalia on this planet do.

And that could be problematic for any truly sapient AI that we develop.

I don’t know if this is making any sense … but what the heck!

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
> On 28 Jul 2016, at 8:01 AM, JanW <jw...@internode.on.net> wrote:
> 
> At 09:19 PM 27/07/2016, Frank O'Connor wrote:
> 
>> I think computers are likely to develop into sapience before sentience 
> which may be problematic - as this whole discussion so far  points to.
> 
> Hmm...I reckon in a rudimentary yet multiple way, computers already are 
> sentient, as in sensors - light, sound at least. Touch could be considered in 
> terms of we touch pads and they respond. Taste not so much unless you 
> consider specialist systems that can measure acid/base levels that I don't 
> know for sure exist, but wouldn't surprise me in some lab. Physical analysis 
> is even more developed in some computer systems. Consider what they can do 
> with DNA analysis that we can't do with our own senses. 
> 
> I think this works. We wouldn't equate our fingers or tongues or eyes to our 
> brains. They are the receptors and the brain reacts to the sensation, which 
> is pretty much what a computer does.
> 
> Or is the key word in your sentence "develop"? As in making themselves become 
> sapient?
> 
> Frank, you should have been in our discussion. It extended into this topic 
> from 'animal testing and experimentation'.
> 
> Jan
> 
> 
> I write books. http://janwhitaker.com/?page_id=8
> 
> Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
> jw...@janwhitaker.com
> Twitter: <https://twitter.com/JL_Whitaker>JL_Whitaker
> Blog: www.janwhitaker.com 
> 
> Some psychopaths become serial killers, and other psychopaths become 
> prosecutors. - Bob Ruff, Truth and Justice, June 2016
> 
> Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how do you 
> fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space. 
> ~Margaret Atwood, writer 
> 
> _ __ _
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Machine Learning Was: Re: Robot cars and the fear gap

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm,

There’s a BIG difference between the two.

It could even be argued that a single (although complex) celled amoeba is 
sentient - it possesses the necessary sensory capabilities to appreciate the 
world around it, and it is capable of movement to avoid light - responding to 
stimuli, as well as autonomic functioning, so on a REALLY rudimentary level it 
may have a sense of self and demonstrably ‘feels’ so is therefore technically 
sentient. So there are huge degrees of sentience as well. At a biological 
level, effectively the rule seems to be more complex your nervous system the 
more sentient you are. 

It’s all a matter of how you are capable of perceiving the world. If one judges 
the whole thing on scent, dogs are the most sentient beings on the planet, 
sight … well, the avian raptors probably have that one covered, sound … well, 
I’m looking at you Mr Whale or Dolphin.

But sapience … the ability to symbolise, and think, and problem solve, assess 
alternatives, predict and control … tends to require a rather large and dynamic 
brain and the associated mnemonic capability to first store and then 
interconnect all the prior experiences, education and knowledge you have 
absorbed.

I think computers are likely to develop into sapience before sentience … which 
may be problematic - as this whole discussion so far points to.

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
> On 27 Jul 2016, at 3:32 PM, JanW  wrote:
> 
> At 03:06 PM 27/07/2016, Jim Birch wrote:
> 
>> Maybe in your case.  My cat is certainly conscious - i.e. aware of and
>> responding to it's surroundings - but doesn't do a lot of symbols. 
> 
> We were discussing this very thing yesterday --- sapient versus sentient. 
> Animals are sentient. Humans are sapient as well.
> 
> Machines - not so much. Although IBM is working on one.
> 
> Jan
> 
> 
> I write books. http://janwhitaker.com/?page_id=8
> 
> Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
> jw...@janwhitaker.com
> Twitter: JL_Whitaker
> Blog: www.janwhitaker.com 
> 
> Some psychopaths become serial killers, and other psychopaths become 
> prosecutors. - Bob Ruff, Truth and Justice, June 2016
> 
> Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how do you 
> fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space. 
> ~Margaret Atwood, writer 
> 
> _ __ _
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] O/T: The Moron's Bark

[Frank O'Connor]

It would appear that the moron density is dropping.:)

The Political Commentariat and the MSM were the ones that looked like morons 
after Saturday’s result. 

Politicians? Yeah, but short sighted morons with a high degree of rat cunning.

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
> On 2 Jul 2016, at 10:58 AM, David Lochrin  wrote:
> 
> Here's something for Election Day...
> 
> Moron's Bark
> Leunig
> 
> Late last night when all was dark
> I thought I heard a moron bark
> And as the sound began to die
> I heard another one reply
> 
> And then the sound became a din
> As more and more morons joined in
> And suddenly I realised
> That they were getting organised
> 
> My blood ran cold, my skin turned grey
> Remembering election day
> Was not so terribly remote
> And morons had the right to vote!
> 
> Australia has some nasty things
> The crocodile, the fish that stings.
> The snake, the spider and the shark
> But worst of all, the moron’s bark!
> 
> David L.
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Four different Aussies on four different NBN technologies

[Frank O'Connor]

Pretty much what you’d expect from News Ltd (or any MSM outlet in Oz)

Anecdotes from News Ltd selected individuals … if that ain’t unimpeachable 
evidence, what is?

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
> On 19 Jun 2016, at 2:45 PM, David Boxall  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Boxall|  Any given program,
>|  when running correctly,
> http://david.boxall.id.au   |  is obsolete.
>|   --Arthur C. Clarke
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Voter fury rising over sluggish internet speeds

[Frank O'Connor]

> On 11 Jun 2016, at 10:34 AM, Bernard Robertson-Dunn  
> wrote:
> 
> The NBNco site tells me that the NBN it is not currently available and
> there is no scheduled date for rollout.

Lucky Sod! The NBN has been posited for my area by Q2 2016 … hey!That’s now! … 
but nobody’s seen hide nor hair of any trucks, construction or personnel to 
date.

I’m guessing that they aren’t exactly running to timetable, but we’ll have to 
wait for another whistleblower to confirm that. Ziggy, who lives not a mile or 
so from where I am, hasn’t said anything.

> 
> This voter isn't happy. At least Bronnie won't be on the ballot paper,
> but that's small consolation.

Yes, but its a bit of a sleeper issue and most voters haven’t cottoned on to 
the fact that building this dogs breakfast for an admitted $60 billion, and 
expecting to sell it for an estimated $20 billion (to either idiots who have no 
idea how much work will be needed to bring it up-to-standard, or network 
monopolists like Telstra looking to lock in short term profits whilst a serious 
broadband network is built - hey, nobody gets any choice about whether they 
connect to this technological abortion) … means a loss of $40 billion to the 
revenue the instant its sold.

But I suppose when you lump it on top of $72 billion for the abortive F35, and 
$50 billion for what amounts to obsolete submarines that will probably be blown 
out of the water within 20 seconds of a war being declared this is small 
potatoes.

Just my 2 cents worth …

___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Will humans be banned from driving?

[Frank O'Connor]

Sorry, fired that last puppy off before I’d finished.

> On 1 Jun 2016, at 11:11 PM, Bernard Robertson-Dunn  
> wrote:
> 
> Table 1
> 1970-1982 road deaths were over 1000/year peaking in 1978 at 1384
> The latest year reported, 2014 was 303.
> 
> Deaths per 1000 persons
> 1978   0.27 (population 5,054,000)
> 2014   0.04 (population 7,517,000)
> 
> Total crashes
> 1974 128,842 (Peak)
> 2014   36,981
> 
> Crashes per 1000 persons
> 1978   26.3 (population 4,894,000)
> 2014 4.9 (population 7,517,000)
> 
> The pdf has a range of other statistics, all of which show a reduction
> to approximately one tenth of those in 1970 and to a third of those in
> the early 1990s 

That’s a 40 year spread.

I did say that in the last 20 years there had been little variation, and if you 
compare the stats between 1995 and 2015 you’ll see - beyond a doubt - that 
there has been little observable effect on the crash rates or fatalities. Prior 
to that 20 year cut off date the figures were catastrophic - here in Victoria 
we were losing about 1100 people per annum to motor vehicle fatalities - we had 
a big 'Ten-Eighty’ (1080) campaign in the 70’s as a result, the figures and 
trends were probably the same or worse in NSW and other states.

> My view is that incremental changes
> will take us only so far. Look out for black swans and disruptive
> technologies - not a natural development.

We’ll talk about it in 20 or 30 years. 

See, I’m still an optimist.   :)

Just my 2 cents worth ...
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Will humans be banned from driving?

[Frank O'Connor]

Yo Ivan,

> On 1 Jun 2016, at 6:24 PM, Ivan Trundle <i...@itrundle.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 1 Jun 2016, at 6:01 PM, Frank O'Connor <francisoconn...@bigpond.com> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> And yes, I know it’s great to have a ‘backup system’ to the auto-pilot in a 
>> plane, and I doubt I wold want to fly in a plane that didn’t have one … but 
>> that doesn’t take away from the effectiveness and capabilities (and widely 
>> used capabilities) of the autopilot in modern planes.
> 
> Commercial planes, maybe. Some of us use other forms of flight, much the same 
> as cars. There is a huge range that we are talking about here.

Mmmm … again, it’s all incremental development. What happens at the Big End 
inevitable trickles down to the Little End - especially in high tech fields 
like aeronautics.

> 
>> Like it or not, factoring humans out of the decision-making and control of 
>> aircraft proceeds apace … and doesn’t seem to have adversely affected safety 
>> and efficiency of air transport. In fact, quite the contrary.
> 
> Again, this doesn’t apply across the entire spectrum of flying, and probably 
> won’t in our lifetime: look at the resistance to ADS-B just as one example. 
> Or the fact that most of the General Aviation airframes are approaching an 
> average age of over 20 years… I can’t see GA pilots retro-fitting any level 
> of automation without a fight (on $$$ grounds mostly), and there is a point 
> at which having a human pilot in RPT planes is cost-effective, if only 
> because if offers options, and a level of assurance to flying passengers. But 
> this was about cars, which is very different. As different as ships.

As I said, it will happen incrementally.

> 
>> Finally, as I said … I see the whole fazing humans out of the equation as an 
>> incremental development, over decades, rather than anything that’s gonna 
>> happen overnight.
> 
> Not disagreeing at all, but why assume that all vehicles will be used the 
> same way? I can see many instances in both aviation and terrestrial transport 
> where the act of being a ‘pilot’ of the machine gives much pleasure. I also 
> see instances where it gives no pleasure at all: so there will aways be both 
> ends of the spectrum supported by industries which evolve to offer 
> market-driven vehicles with either full autonomy, or none, and everything 
> in-between.

Well, mixing human controlled and robot controlled vehicles in any given 
transport environment would probably introduce complications and complexities 
that would make neither more pleasant, efficient, quicker, or error free.

> 
>> …not least because of the economic circumstances they are in, and the fact 
>> that they don’t see the need for that sort of capital investment for an 
>> asset that has depreciated by better than 25% the moment they take 
>> delivery),…
> 
> So who pays for the capital investment in the robotics? Conflating the 
> ability of vehicle manufacturers to push a market into buying so frequently 
> that they depreciate faster than ice-cream on a hot day only works when there 
> is a viable and rapacious market to sell into. Look at Cuba for a market 
> where that didn’t happen, and where cars do not depreciate.

It’s all a function of economics. 

Capitalism is suppose to work so that the capitalist has to make the decision 
between labour and capital dependent on the relative costs. If labour prices 
itself too high then the capitalist is supposed to invest more in productive 
capital/machines. For example, Uber drivers used to remit 20% to Uber and keep 
80% to themselves, Uber has lately pushed for 25% from new drivers, and will in 
all likelihood push for increasing their take/margins in future as shareholders 
require bigger returns. Then, as drivers inevitably kick up, it may become a 
decision for Uber to abandon the idea of drivers altogether, take the hit for 
buying the cars and fully automate their fleet for a 100% revenue stream. Or 
maybe it will lease automated cars from investors and pay them, say, 50% of the 
takings. The financial decisions, tax effectiveness and prospective returns can 
be dependent on whatever structures and business models they develop.

That’s one reason why I'd never encourage people to become Uber drivers. 
Basically the company has them over a barrel, and they can be hammered any time 
Uber feels like it.

The point is that if the SERVICE is desirable, if there’s a market for it, and 
Uber and taxi companies seem to have proved it is, then there is money to be 
made - and a service requiring those robotics likely becomes economically 
viable down-the-track.

> 
> Not being a luddite here, but the argument often hurdles towards the extreme 
> end of the potential development of robotic systems, often by people who 
>

Re: [LINK] Will humans be banned from driving?

[Frank O'Connor]

Yo BRD,

Keeping this private … :)

> On 1 Jun 2016, at 5:02 PM, Bernard Robertson-Dunn <b...@iimetro.com.au> wrote:
> 
> On 1/06/2016 4:24 PM, Frank O'Connor wrote:
>> Actually, commercial aeroplanes have pretty much been fully automated. You 
>> can enter coordinates/destinations/flight plans into the modern autopilot 
>> and the plane will take off, fly to the destination and land without any 
>> human intervention at all. I’m not too sure about the taxiing, but 
>> everything about the flying can effectively occur without any intervention 
>> from the pilot.
> 
> But the pilot can still take over if necessary. And (s)he has to undergo
> lots of training/assessment every year to keep their skills up. A
> problem created by the solution.

Actually the biggest problem encountered with the modern auto-pilot was keeping 
said human pilots awake for the duration of the journey. There have been 
numerous instances of the entire cabin crew drifting off to NoddyLand for a 
large percentage of the flight. Given this, I’d guess that the degree of 
confidence of said pilots in the auto-pilot is pretty high.

And yes, I know it’s great to have a 'backup system’ to the auto-pilot in a 
plane, and I doubt I wold want to fly in a plane that didn’t have one … but 
that doesn’t take away from the effectiveness and capabilities (and widely used 
capabilities) of the autopilot in modern planes.

Like it or not, factoring humans out of the decision-making and control of 
aircraft proceeds apace … and doesn’t seem to have adversely affected safety 
and efficiency of air transport. In fact, quite the contrary.

>>> And changing technology can be much harder than changing human behaviour
>>> - given the right incentives.
> 
> I wasn't referring to long term behavioural changes, I was talking about
> instant change of behaviour in rapidly changing, unexpected or unplanned
> circumstances.

OK … perhaps you were unclear.

I could enumerate any number of situations where that would not apply - where a 
human is often incapable of making the right decision, or completing the 
correct motor reaction. When the car is skidding on patchy ice, getting blown 
about by huge gusts on an exposed wind swept surface, planing on water covered 
road surfaces, struggling to avoid multiple out-of-control vehicles bearing 
down on it, or simply failing to properly negotiate an off camber corner … an 
automated system may/would recognise and try to control the problem faster that 
a human. The human response in such a situation may be to panic and brake, 
which would endanger not only those in the car but also fellow motorists and 
pedestrians on the same road. That’s why many of the improvements in modern car 
design have happened.

And in many other complex, sudden or crisis situations on the road … a human 
will get confused, their reaction times will slow, they will make bad 
decisions. Decisions that often depend on complementary rational decisions 
being made by drivers around them. Who are also panicked or operating under 
stress.

And a lot of those ‘unplanned circumstances’ are the direct result of what 
OTHER HUMANS are doing on the road around you. The speeding guy barging through 
traffic shooting for getting to work on time, the idiot who changes lanes 
without indicating, the prick who changes into your fast lane, and then slows 
to a crawl, the bloke who has just smoked a joint or downed a slab of beer and 
is on his way home, the distracted woman on the phone to her mother, the 
speeding car full of teenage kids having a moving party, the unfortunate who 
just dropped a lit cigarette into his lap, etc. etc. etc. They aren’t exactly 
the most rational and in-control parties to be moving along with, on a packed 
freeway, at 100Kmh in a two ton vehicle with all the necessary kinetic energy 
to reduce anything they hit to a bloody smashed heap of powdered bone and blood 
… are they?

But they’re easier to improve than the technology which removes them from the 
equation? Give me a break!

And I take your comments regarding your engineering expertise advisedly, but am 
at a loss for your refusal to admit that over time vehicle safety and 
controllability has been improved by previous incremental engineering, 
automation and technological improvements, and your averral that future 
incremental technological improvements are not likely to occur or be of 
benefit. 

Bottom line: To what extent is your position a function of your engineering 
expertise, and to what extent is it a function of your bias toward direct 
personal control of whatever technology you use. (I’m assuming you enjoy 
driving and cars.)

Finally, as I said … I see the whole fazing humans out of the equation as an 
incremental development, over decades, rather than anything that’s gonna happen 
overnight. But with the road toll pretty much stymied (for the last 20 years) 
a

Re: [LINK] Will humans be banned from driving?

[Frank O'Connor]

G’day BRD,

> On 1 Jun 2016, at 3:33 PM, Bernard Robertson-Dunn  wrote:
> 
> If you look at flying air planes, why are they not all fully automatic?
> Flying a plane is a far simpler problem. The reasons why planes haven't
> been fully automated may well apply to cars. And cars have their own,
> additional problems.

Actually, commercial aeroplanes have pretty much been fully automated. You can 
enter coordinates/destinations/flight plans into the modern autopilot and the 
plane will take off, fly to the destination and land without any human 
intervention at all. I’m not too sure about the taxiing, but everything about 
the flying can effectively occur without any intervention from the pilot.

A number of airlines got themselves into trouble with this - putting people 
behind the control column who were effectively the world’s worst (but cheapest) 
pilots.

The range of conditions and emergencies that autopilots can handle also 
increases on an annual basis.

That’s not to say that autopilots don’t have their limitations … sensors may 
fail, hardware may fail, software may hit a set of conditions nobody imagined … 
but MANY more accidents occur when the human pilot doesn’t trust the 
instruments and sensors, when external pilot feedback fails due to clouds, 
storms, night conditions or low light, when rough weather/microblasts occur too 
fast and too erratically for a human to react to, etc. etc.

> 
> I'd be far happier if the objective was to develop cars with an
> automatic mode that could be engaged under specific circumstances (like
> an advanced cruise control). Across the board, all cars being driverless
> seems a stretch too far. Too much Jetsons.

Jetsons is probably 50 years away … as I said, the road to transport automation 
will be a gradual one - if for no other reason that we simply don’t have either 
the money or resources to implement any all encompassing ‘solution’ in one fell 
swoop. We’re talking an infrastructure and technology investment of hundreds of 
billions (just for Australia) if we wanted to do it that way.

> 
>> Bottom line, there are risks with both ‘systems’ … but the automated one is 
>> more likely to be fine tuned and perfected much more easily. The one that 
>> relies on humans, with all their inherent imperfections, will continue to 
>> carry all the attendant risks. I’ve seen nothing in my life that indicates 
>> that the human race will improve … but technology does demonstrably improve.
> 
> Sometimes. Sometimes it makes things worse. And it can get worse faster.

True.

> And changing technology can be much harder than changing human behaviour
> - given the right incentives.

I did Honours level Psychology, amongst other things, during my academic career 
and would dispute that statement. First, only a Behaviouralist would agree with 
you, and I’d suggest they would be agreeing with you without much evidence. 
Secondly, many human mental ‘pathologies’ and emotions (recklessness, 
frustration, fear, anger, grief, guilt, panic, excitement or even simple joie 
de vis etc etc) and behaviours that affect driving capabilities and performance 
are either regarded as so common they don’t need to be treated, or are regarded 
as so endemic to the human condition as to not need treatment. Third, for those 
of the standover/threat school of adjusting human behaviour, we have in place a 
huge body of Law and a police force that’s meant to make driving safe, but 
accidents still occur, traffic jams and congestion still happen, and the Courts 
are full of an increasing incidence of serious driver and traffic offences - 
even after years of same. (Do we need to go back to the bloke running ahead of 
the car with a flag to reduce it?)

As for technology. well, seat belts came in for a reason - and did what they 
were mandated to do. I still don’t like them, but I can’t deny their 
effectiveness. Air bags have stopped numerous casualties. The 
collapsing-front-end design of modern cars makes them less lethal, ABS lets you 
brake more controllably, independent suspension makes your ride more 
comfortable. The rear mounted cameras are - probably (I’ve seen no figures yet) 
- reducing accidents. The same will probably occur with all the other 
(prospective) incremental changes that we’ve already covered. Technology will 
improve driving, improve survivability, improve traffic and other vehicle 
handling capabilities.

Nothing I’ve seen indicates that humans are on anything like that 
safety/performance improvement curve. In fact, quite the opposite. Removing 
humans from the equation can only be an improvement. (That said, I’ve been a 
grumpy old anthropomorphic bastard for years … so my views on automation may be 
coloured by my dislike of my fellow Man.)

Just my 2 cents worth ...
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Will humans be banned from driving?

[Frank O'Connor]

Yo BRD,

> On 1 Jun 2016, at 2:34 PM, Bernard Robertson-Dunn <b...@iimetro.com.au> wrote:
> 
> On 1/06/2016 2:12 PM, Frank O'Connor wrote:
>> Mmmm, 
>> 
>> As will the attendant hardware - and no I don’t just mean the cars.
>> 
>> Roads will need to be maintained with highly visible white marking and/or 
>> embedded sensors.
> 
> How about off-road driving? Dirt tracks, driveways, ad hoc parking,
> grass verge parking, tradesmen's utes, caravan/horsebox/boat/trailer towing?

Yes, I agree. Initially.

Vehicles for said purposes will probably need to be redesigned. Navigational 
abilities would probably need to rely more on in-car sensors, previously 
ascertained maps and GPS rather than road based sensors and centralised control 
systems. Software would/could switch between driving modes dependent on the 
technical sophistication of the driving environment. New vehicle types may need 
to be designed for those purposes … though todays simple modular cabin/chassis 
and tray designs would probably be adaptable for purpose.

As for towing trailers and the like … well, we have to attach power/signal 
cords for brake and signal lights on same today, so what’s the problem with 
feeding more data/sensor information down the cord. The car would then adjust 
its performance parameters based on the data it received from the towed vehicle.

As for the enthusiasts … the 'metal heads’. Well, no need for restrictions on 
private roads or off-road facilities created for purpose, but when using public 
rods and facilities they operate to the same rules as the rest of us - as they 
do today. Indeed, there’s more room for latitude with how the vehicle is driven 
(by human or automatically) in off-road situations … I’d suggest a ‘drive at 
own risk’ regime (with all the insurance and other ‘reasonable man’ 
implications that has) could be easily implemented.

> 
> The problem with automation is that you need to cover every eventuality,
> error condition and exception. Humans tend to be much better, on
> average, than machines when it comes to exceptions and unexpected
> conditions. Unless of course they drive so infrequently that their skill
> levels and reaction times deteriorate.
> 

So you’d consider a demented 90 year old driving with no controls, someone ill 
with a high fever, headache or delusions bought on by same, someone going 
through a schizoid episode, a hyper aggressive Double Y hormone man, a drunk or 
stoned individual, a frustrated down and out going through a messy divorce, or 
even someone who’s late for work ... as qualified to drive a car? You’d say 
that having effectively no real controls about who gets behind what wheel at 
any given time is preferable to automating our driving experience?

Bottom line, there are risks with both ‘systems’ … but the automated one is 
more likely to be fine tuned and perfected much more easily. The one that 
relies on humans, with all their inherent imperfections, will continue to carry 
all the attendant risks. I’ve seen nothing in my life that indicates that the 
human race will improve … but technology does demonstrably improve.

And I’m NOT saying that the automated driving regime would or should be bought 
in willy nilly over the course of a day or a week or a month. It will happen 
gradually. Today you can buy a car with a rear view camera. Tomorrow this will 
also include a radar/sensor for collision detection that will auto stop the car 
from reversing. Next month you may have the same sensor mounted on the front of 
your car. And the government may upgrade city and main roads. And GPS may 
improve in its next iteration. And Google will map to roads to to centimetric 
levels of accuracy, including altimeter and other data. And new signalling 
sensors will be added to complement the current lights and other traffic 
control hardware - that are capable of dialling up and down speeds that cars 
are capable of. 

Again, just my 2 cents worth ...


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Will humans be banned from driving?

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm, 

As will the attendant hardware - and no I don’t just mean the cars.

Roads will need to be maintained with highly visible white marking and/or 
embedded sensors. GPS satellites will have to improve from their current 
accurate within 50 metres, to accurate within 5 … and not be subject to having 
the accuracy dialled up or down at the military’s discretion. Overall traffic 
redirection and control feedback will probably have to be centralised, as will 
real time in-car communications and traffic control algorithms.

I think Google may have ironed out some of the more obvious software and 
detection difficulties with their autonomous Google Maps/Street View cars 
(there’s been no serious reports of accidents that I’m aware of).

As for humans being better than their robotic counterparts - debatable. Human 
drivers are confused by emotions, varying capabilities, and a paradoxically a 
need for ‘efficiency' which in the final analysis makes traffic jams and high 
accident rates pretty much inevitable. Concentrate any 100,000 autonomous 
wet-ware drivers in two ton vehicles capable of sustained power output and high 
speed within a few square kilometres of driving space and you have a recipe for 
disaster - as our current traffic statistics show. (Indeed I’m surprised there 
isn’t even more death and destruction.)

For mine … there will be glitches yes, and the problem involves more players 
than just the car manufacturers - but if it’s universally supported and 
implemented it should be quite solvable. We already do it for trains, ships and 
to a large extent commercial planes … this will simply be an upscaling of that.

Just my 2 cents worth …

> On 1 Jun 2016, at 1:37 PM, Jim Birch  wrote:
> 
> Driving software will improve relentlessly.  It's on a different curve to
> human driving.
> 
> (Smart and attentive) humans are currently better and more adaptable
> drivers.  It's a matter of when, not if, they get overtaken for each
> different driving requirement.  This is pretty much how goes, whether for
> chess, tennis line calls, or driving.
> 
> Jim
> 
> Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote:
> 
>> My local shopping mall is being redeveloped. Driving through the myriad
>> diversions, obstacles, temporary traffic lights, traffic control
>> officers (workers waving flags) is hard enough for a human, let alone an
>> autonomous vehicle.
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Conspiracy theory ;)

[Frank O'Connor]

The ABC has tended to look at the NBN through rose coloured glasses for the 
last couple of years.

On the ABC technology now amounts to Good Game, and trite rewrites of PR 
material handed to them by whoever has a policy or product that they want to 
sell.

After the latest $40 million cut to their budget you’d have thought that they’d 
have gotten the idea that toeing the government’s line doesn’t pay or limit the 
damage … but I’m guessing they’re just getting numbed and beaten.

ZDNet, The Register and other IT rags provide a lot more balanced and detailed 
coverage of technology ... and the NBN.

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
> On 14 May 2016, at 11:10 AM, David Boxall  wrote:
> 
> Trawling through the Wayback Machine 
>   >, it looks like the ABC's special on the NBN 
> 
>  disappeared from their site around the time of the 2013 election. 
> Self-censorship?
> 
> -- 
> David Boxall|  For when the One Great Scorer comes
>|  To mark against your name,
> http://david.boxall.id.au   |  He writes-not that you won or lost-
>|  But how you played the game.
> --Grantland Rice
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Aussie farmers go digital

[Frank O'Connor]

That’s a bit rough … and probably inaccurate ….   :)

> On 22 Apr 2016, at 1:11 PM, David Boxall  wrote:
> 
> How much has Australia lost, thanks to decades of political onanism?

I suppose the bottom line is that they’re not screwing themselves, they’re 
screwing the country, it’s people and its future.

Of course, I wouldn’t take any bets that they’re not doing same to themselves … 
in a less figurative and symbolic sense. They are after all, political wankers 
...

Just my 2 cents worth
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] A non-sensationalist look at Australian internet speeds

[Frank O'Connor]

> On 26 Mar 2016, at 10:28 AM, JanW  wrote:
> 
> Fairfax is dying. Their best journos jumped ship long ago, moving to places 
> where scrutiny is valued. Murdoch press will follow.
> 

Mmmm … I’ve noticed that. There are still a few worth reading (Michael West, 
Kate McKlymont, Adele Ferguson etc etc) but there’s a long coterie of younger 
bods that seem to have trouble distinguishing between 
government/industry/political public relations and real news.

As an example, Nicole Hashem did a piece yesterday on people ‘ripping off’ DFAT 
overseas by taking out emergency loans (for emergency medical treatment and the 
like) and not repaying them. Apparently the cost of this heinous activity in 
one year alone amounted to $215,000, and some people even took out loans for a 
whole $15,000 and didn’t repay them. No mention of course that this is 
precisely what DFAT is supposed to do for Australian passport holders (it’s 
part of their job description), and that DFAT makes approximately $240 million 
per annum from those of us who take out or renew passports - aside from what 
they get from the government. It looked like the whole article was a neocon 
plant written simply to make out that Joe Hockey's ‘leaners' were taking 
advantage of the DFAT lifters again. It looked like it was written by DFAT.

Another example, Nassim Khadem has been on the back of the ATO generally for 
more than 2 years now on the subject of taxpayer’s rights (you know, those 
things neocons promote for multi-nationals and the Big End of Town, but deny to 
the rest of us), and lauding the ‘Inspector General of Taxation’ (God I love 
that pretentious title!). She’s been essentially cheerleading for the tax 
avoidance industry and using the Big 4 accounting firms, perennial tax avoiders 
and those who don’t pay their tax to support her commitment to the cause. She’s 
moderated her approach recently (as nasties concerning the tax avoidance crowd 
she’s so enamoured with keep surfacing with monotonous regularity) … but now 
the bottom is falling out of the revenue, I guess she feels 'her work is done’.

Bottom line; Of late I look to the Age and the SMH for far more trite and PR 
handout driven articles and analysis than was customary in the past. Fairfax is 
fast losing its edge, and as you say a lot of good Fairfax journalists have 
migrated to media which appreciates their talents. 

Sign of the times I suppose … paper really is dead, and most of the incisive 
and hard edged journalism is moving to digital, blogs, twitter and the like. I 
thought years ago that hubs for news and opinion would appear, places where 
content was aggregated and (sadly) tailored for individual consumers/readers … 
but it’s all happening faster than even I predicted. Now all they need to do is 
find a business model that works … but I subscribe to a few of them for actual 
money, advertisers seem to be coming onboard, and I’m guessing we’ll push to 
some public funding or other model in future.

The good thing is that Rupert (who’s digital efforts have not been particularly 
successful - some would argue disastrous) and his maniacal right wing neocon 
outlets will also be subsumed in the conflagration, and that his content 
business (Foxtel, film production, national geographic) will have to actually 
fight for online space with far more nimble, distributed and offbeat content 
distribution competitors … but it’s sad to see a once proud mainstream media 
company like Fairfax going down in flames.

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Does NBN need a third satellite?

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm,

But the NBN since the government took it over has had a history of wildly 
optimistic projections concerning bandwidth usage and requirements … apparently 
in 2020 Australian households will only need 15Mbs of bandwidth, which is why 
the MTM NBN is shooting for at least 25Mbs per household, but not guaranteeing 
anything. The fact that bandwidth to households has increased by a factor of 
more than 200 in the last 10 years is apparently not a trend anyone should take 
any interest in.

Factor in that the new media distribution and business models (NETFLIX et 
alia), new ways of delivering services (like medicine, home based aged care, 
government service delivery etc etc), the need for synchronous simultaneous 
multichannel services if we’re actually gonna be competitive and upload digital 
goods, designs, processes and services from home and business through the Net, 
and a host of other possibilities that the rest of the world is examining at 
the moment that will require huge amounts of ADDITIONAL bandwidth … and there 
may be, just maybe, a few more demands on the system than our legal and 
accounting geniuses who occupy benches in parliament seem to realise.

But I’m sure it will all work out. 

I mean, how can you doubt a government that appoints Wind Farm Commissioners to 
forestall wind farm development, whilst continuing to poor billions into the 
bottomless  pit of ‘clean coal research’ - the majority of which has gone 
overseas for the last 20 years. A government that supports every bully’s right 
to bully - because homophobic bullies are (Christian) people too. A government 
that seeks to emasculate the CSIRO’s climate science capability, and has 
installed a CEO who justifies it on the ground sthat the ‘science is settled’ 
whilst supporting more research into water divining. A government that burdens 
its young (and even chase them to the grave to recover them) with education 
costs and placing obstacles in the way of the talented but poor, but trumpets 
on about being ‘innovative and agile’. A government that delights in 
monitoring, spying on and intruding on the rights of its citizens in the name 
of ‘freedom’. 

Political parties that raise money in a secretive and probably corrupt manner, 
and then have the gall to label taxpayers and their electorate as ‘leaners’. 
Who accept the ‘unbiased opinions of climate skeptics in the pay of the fossil 
fuel industries over that of 97% of the world’s climate scientists, who are 
apparently working to some anti-free market agenda and profiting richly from 
their magnificent government remuneration.

And finally, from the NBN perspective, we rely on political, economic and 
1970’s nuclear physics geniuses like Henry Ergas, Malcolm Turnbull, Ziggy 
Switowski, Maurice Newman and others to modify the design of a broadband and 
expect it to work … against the advice of political neophytes with a million 
times more IT and networking experience. Hey, what would they know?

These idiots don’t live on the same planet as the rest of us.

Just my ranting 2 cents worth …
---
> On 25 Mar 2016, at 1:47 PM, Karl Auer  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 2016-03-25 at 13:16 +1100, Paul Brooks wrote:
>> The initial NBN satellite was planned ... with latent capacity
>> to cater for a decade of future growth.
> 
> Capacity for a decade of future growth?
> 
> Hhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
> hahahahahahaha 
> 
> :-)
> 
> Oh, very good. Very good.
> 
> Regards, K.
> 
> -- 
> ~~~
> Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au)
> http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
> http://twitter.com/kauer389
> 
> GPG fingerprint: E00D 64ED 9C6A 8605 21E0 0ED0 EE64 2BEE CBCB C38B
> Old fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] NBN chief seeks advice of US tech giants as broadband technology debate rages

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm …

As it stands, most estimates nowadays are that the MTM NBN will redeem less 
than $30 billion of its capital costs when on-sold to a gullible private 
industry. Thats a $30 billion capital loss on the books after sale.

Personally I doubt whether it’s worth even $20 billion …. but a non-gullible 
Telstra or other big player may be able to depreciate it quickly on their books 
… and hey, Telstra has gotten $11-15 billion out of the government for the 
initial build anyway - for ducts and services - before they have to go to/build 
fibre as they should have done in the first place. 

Hey, the telcos will have a clientele (the Australian public) trapped in 20th 
Century network performance envelope … but that won’t worry them.

Mr Broadband is building us a $60 billion White Elephant that everybody seems t 
think is a colossal waste of money … and all for politics. All because the MTM 
‘idea' (and I use that term loosely) isn’t Labor’s.

Sadly, if this matter is allowed to die in the coming long election campaign 
nobody will be held accountable for this debacle - and Mr Broadband really 
deserves some real public attention for this waste of public monies and ever so 
damaging politicking.

Just my 2 cents worth …

> On 22 Mar 2016, at 6:41 AM, Paul Brooks  wrote:
> 
> By building for the far-off future - which doesn't require significantly more 
> upfront cost - makes it more likely to make a financial return, not less 
> likely, by extending the time period they can receive wholesale rental 
> revenue by a  decade or more.
> 
> 
>  Original Message 
> From: David Boxall 
> Sent: 21 March 2016 8:53:16 pm AEDT
> To: Link 
> Subject: [LINK] NBN chief seeks advice of US tech giants as broadband 
> technology debate rages
> 
> 
>> He said those advocating for NBN to build for the far-off future were 
>> ignoring the fact that it was set up as an enterprise required to make 
>> a financial return, rather than as a public service.
> 
> Can't have government providing services, can we?
> 
> -- 
> David Boxall | "Cheer up" they said.
>  | "Things could be worse."
> http://david.boxall.id.au| So I cheered up and,
>  | Sure enough, things got worse.
>  |  --Murphy's musing
> 
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
> 
> -- 
> Sent unplugged
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] How fast is the NBN?

[Frank O'Connor]

> On 1 Mar 2016, at 8:57 AM, Tom Worthington <tom.worthing...@tomw.net.au> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Is a vision of broadband limited to mobile uses rational?
> 
> Is it rational to suggest the trend to mobile devices will end?

I haven’t seen anywhere, in this or any other LINK topic, where anybody has 
made such a suggestion, Tom.

> 
> 
> On 28/02/16 13:46, Frank O'Connor wrote:
> 
>> So all the observed trends, the increase in speeds ... aren’t gonna
>> appear...
> 
> Speeds will increase, but people want stuff they can carry around with
> them, not have it stuck on a desk at home.

Trust me Tom, people will REALLY want it in their homes as well. (And the 
telcos will really need to get people to want it in their home if they hope to 
provide cell phone coverage in a more pervasive and distributed manner.)

And fibre is the best, most scalable, maintenance free, cost efficient means of 
providing that.

> 
>>> Cell phones were invented to overcome the limited spectrum.
>> 
>> ... I’m interested in knowing EXACTLY what you were trying to say.
>> ...
> 
> Cell phones use radio transmission in small geographic areas, called
> "cells", which allows the spectrum to be reused. The cells were
> originally many kilometers, but now can be tens of meters (for
> example covering a few houses in a street):
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_network#Frequency_reuse

So … Telstra and Optus and Vodafone are gonna go on a massive build of 
mini-phone towers?

Or are they, just maybe, just maybe gonna do what it looks like Telstra is 
doing? (Piggybacking on the home services using publicly accessible WiFi modems 
they supply to the homes for their Internet and phones.)

I look for the day I see these, let’s call them Worthington Stations, nailed to 
street poles all around the country … but I’m thinking the telcos are MUCH more 
likely to use existing high bandwidth connected infrastructure in people’s 
homes. (If they can convince people that paying for the power to provide 
services to others that the telco charges for is a good idea, and also allay 
fears that there may be security considerations with a shared router on their 
network). I other words … the home connection and its pervasiveness is becoming 
absolutely critical to mobile coverage. (Yes, I know I’ve said that before … 
but from the above comment, I think you may have missed it.)

For mine, the cell phone is presently a tad too unreliable - service wise and 
battery-wise (and small screened) to rely on for mission critical usage down 
here in Rye (and in summer when the beach-going population increases our 
numbers by a factor of 10 it becomes seriously overloaded and unavailable), 
carrying my relatively heavy and bulky iPad everywhere would be tiresome, and 
watches and other light devices are again too small for my ever more myopic 
eyesight. I’d guess that goes for a lot of people of my generation in my 
location. 


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] NBN backup service

[Frank O'Connor]

I considered this in a private reply to Jan, on the same thread you quote … 
when she queried the battery thing … to whit:

"At a guess, and as I said, I have no idea about the design and circuitry in 
the nodes, in case of power failure you’d need backup power in both the node 
(hey, the calls will be transmitted through them) and at the premises (where 
the phone needs to be powered and the line needs to be connected with the node).

And I’m guessing that if the system failed spectacularly (and NBN phone-call 
routing - VOIP? - died in the ass due to a catastrophic node failure), all 
those old exchanges/tech that had previously been point-to-point routing our 
calls and handling our ADSL connections, would need to be in place to transmit 
the call to the requisite number … which means that many of the efficiencies 
and resource savings we should expect from the NBN won’t be achieved. (Think of 
the real-estate benefits to Telstra if the exchanges could be sold off.) But 
Alas, all those obsolete exchanges will still need to take up real estate, and 
be powered and maintained … this MTM NBN will be a boon for jobs in the 
telephone industry.

But I’m sure that’s part of ‘Mr Broadband’s’innovation policy. What a guy!

Anyway, I’m a big one for the el cheapo mobile being provided to those who 
don’t have one, that can be used in circumstances when all else fails. Anything 
else is just way too expensive, and unlikely to meet the need in the case of 
catastrophic failure (truck, car runs over node, bushfire burns it, flood 
floods it etc etc) when nothing would work.

But, but … that would be impossible.

I mean, ‘Mr Broadband’ is behind this design. He’s taken everything into 
consideration.

Nah … what was I thinking! We don’t need no stinkin’ backup - We’re the 
Innovation Nation. Power and technology don’t fail here. Our coal fired network 
is 'world’s best practice’, Baby!

'Mr Broadband’ says so.”

I suppose the upshot is that the MTM NBN design seems to have a number of flaws 
that necessitate doubling up on infrastructure, keeping the old tech 
expensively in play in case failure, and a redundancy strategy in the case of 
catastrophic failure - that won’t work anyway because of the above-ground 
open-to-all-manner-of-destruction-amd-damage nodes/terminators.

Bottom line, and I’m eager to be corrected on this, the MTM NBN seems to have 
have been designed to fail spectacularlyly - especially when it is needed for 
critical emergency services. Let’s call it the ‘Ooopsie!’ feature - a few 
deaths due to failure to communicate during the odd natural disaster are just a 
cost that we need to pay for the wonder of the MTM design. 

It’s gonna be a ‘world’s best practice’ design disaster. Only Australia could 
have done this. And we should remember that it’s also designed with that 
terrific innovative flair that is characteristic of 'Mr Broadband’ … so that’s 
OK. 

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
> On 26 Jan 2016, at 12:21 PM, David Lochrin  wrote:
> 
> On 2016-01-08 22:06 Bernard Robertson wrote:
> 
>>> [Jan] Let's examine the reason the back-up battery is needed. To operate 
>>> the phone, right, when the NBN goes out? Which at the moment takes its 
>>> power from the copper we have now, but won't when we switch to NBN, 
>>> otherwise it would all still work. So the power goes off. We need a phone 
>>> for emergencies. If the power is off in the area, what is this phone going 
>>> to operate across? Aren't those systems also going to be off? We're told we 
>>> won't have copper PSTN any more, just the NBN. But it needs power to 
>>> operate.
>>> 
>>> What am I missing in this picture?
>> 
>> The nodes also have batteries; large things that cost money and need 
>> maintenance.
> 
> Just a detail, but will those batteries keep all services running (POTS, 
> ADSL, HFC, etc.) so those relying on VoIP will continue to have a voice 
> service?  I wonder for how long?
> 
> I wonder whether any consideration was given to running power from the 
> exchanges?
> 
> David L.
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Nick Ross has left the building

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm,

It’s undeniable that the NBN went right off the ABC’s topic list after early 
2013.

My guess is that its inadvisable to lump your national broadcaster under the 
Communications Department banner and expect some objectivity of Communications 
Department issues.

The terrific thing is that when the NBN MTM vs fibre fiasco really hits the fan 
in a few years time, we’ll have so many to blame (‘Mr Broadband’, Abbott and 
his technological troglodytes, the MTM generally - who are unremittingly 
hostile to the new medium that has so messed up their business model, market 
economists and beancounters who were listened to rather than network engineers, 
scientists and other networking specialists etc. etc) that the ABC may be 
forgotten.

But we should remember how it abrogated its responsibility, and edited facts in 
favour of politics .. so I do hope it won’t come down with an ‘I am holier than 
thou’ line when it all hits the fan. By its conscious editorial omissions  the 
ABC made itself an integral part of the NBN problem and the looming fiasco, and 
it will deserve all the condemnation and blame that the others will get.

Just my 2 cents worth 
---
> On 14 Jan 2016, at 6:50 PM, Andy Farkas  wrote:
> 
> So, yeah, seems the ABC has not been reporting about the NBN/MTM debacle 
> on purpose.
> 
>  < 
> https://delimiter.com.au/2016/01/14/journo-claims-abc-gagged-his-nbn-coverage/>
> 
> Hopefully Nick can now comment freely.
> 
> -andyf
> 
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Detailed analysis of NBN Co’s finances shows FTTP better value than FTTN

[Frank O'Connor]

I’d guess the operating costs of the MTM model NBN are blown out by:

1. Power requirements at the node. It costs to power up all that copper and all 
those nodes … not an issue with fibre.

2. Maintenance costs at the node/aboveground box. Hey all these above ground, 
complex, exposed to the elements, mixed composite (with fibre, copper, power 
wiring - of various qualities), exposed to motor vehicle traffic and other 
collision/accident probabilities, connected to up and down the line nodes - 
with all the networking error possibilities that entails, and 80,000 additional 
possible points of failure through said nodes means the MTM NBN have a few 
service and repair overheads. Of course floods and bushfires will create 
absolute chaos (how do you splice melted fibre?) o the above ground nodes, and 
any number of other natural disasters will achieve maximum disruptive network 
effect … but hey, ‘Mr Broadband’ knows better.

3. The maintenance and repair of the copper or HFC wiring to the premises from 
the node that Tom refers to. Rumour has it that a lot of the copper, and a 
large amount of the HFC network, is not, as they say’ ‘fit for purpose’ … but 
hey, what’s a few tens of billions of taxpayer dollars between friends. And we 
can simply pay the ‘friends’ more taxpayer money to fix what they should have 
been required to fix before we contracted with them … but hey, that’s the ‘Mr 
Broadband’ way (and if that’s not innovative, what is?)

4. The likelihood of the need to upgrade the physical connections from the node 
to the premises as consumers elect to dramatically upgrade their bandwidth 
through a fibre connection over the next few years - although that cost will 
fall on the consumer rather than the NBN I’d still argue that it means a ‘tax’ 
in no uncertain terms - because it should have been done right in the first 
place.

5. Batteries at the consumer end to provide back-up power to the copper and HFC 
connections. Personally I think they could do away with these and simply let 
consumers rely on mobiles, but I suppose a sizeable proportion of the public 
still doesn’t have cell phones, or may not live close to a tower, and I don’t 
know anything about the node design or circuitry which allows for back-ending 
line based phone calls, so I guess it may still need to be offered as an option.

6. The need to replace a hell of a lot of copper and HFC after they get to the 
node build stage in various locations … when they realise that what they 
thought was good networking material was in fact garbage.

7. The difficulty of diagnosing network problems and connectivity causes on 
such a complex mixed technology model. Now we have to wait a few weeks for 
Telstra or Optus or whoever to properly diagnose and fix network problems, in 
this MTM environment you can look at that blowing out by a factor of at least 
5. And expenses for correctly diagnosing (probably necessitating multiple 
physical call outs to the same address) will be similarly higher.

On top of that you can run little numbers like Opportunity Cost (of the now 
nearly $60 billion the government is wasting on this turkey). How much could it 
have made, or saved, on the $60 billion if put to more constructive use?

And the project was commenced on the basis that after the build, the NBN would 
be privatised to redeem the capital costs and put the network in private hands.

Possible purchasers of the NBN - via a public float or whatever - are seriously 
unlikely to view it’s value as even close to the build cost incurred (hey, the 
amount of money to be spent on operating costs, upgrading the network (and 
personally I reckon they’d be better off just starting from scratch and doing 
it right) to offer the bandwidth that consumers will need and demand in 10 
years time, and indeed it’s ‘fitness for purpose’ when completed mean they’ll 
be up for serious amounts of capital expenditure just to meet said needs and 
demand. I’m guessing that’s gonna be another $40 billion down the tubes in 
todays dollars … but what the hell, it’s just taxpayer money.

Oh yeah … I think the NBN’s estimates, even if they do show FTTP being better 
value than FTTH, GROSSLY UNDERESTIMATE the difference between the two.

But as I said, ‘Mr Broadband’ has staked his reputation on the MTM model, and 
he knows best. And who are we of the peasantry to second guess him?

Just my 2 cents worth ...

> On 5 Jan 2016, at 9:12 AM, Tom Worthington  
> wrote:
> 
> On 04/01/16 20:46, David Boxall wrote:
> 
>> ... FTTP was significantly cheaper to run on an ongoing basis ($220
>> less per connection per year ...
> 
> Because optical cable doesn't corrode like copper?
> 
>> ... more average revenue (close to $10 per month per ...
> 
> Is the higher revenue from charging more for higher speed or more download?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Tom Worthington FACS CP, TomW Communications Pty Ltd. t: 0419496150
> The Higher Education Whisperer 

Re: [LINK] Strange call from "Telstra"

[Frank O'Connor]

Definitely not Telstra.:)

Probably from the same people who have bought us the ‘Windows Technical 
Services Department’

My guess is that we’re looking at a fishing expedition there. They keep you 
talking, get to verify your username and logon-passwords, maybe get you to 
connect to their site and install a 'diagnostic tool’ because the traffic stats 
indicate some serious activity that could be a terrible virus, and whilst 
they’re about it they can check out your PC’s health, …. What’s that you say? 
It doesn’t work now? Well we do have this product for only $39.99 that will fix 
that. Just give me your credit card details. … etc etc.

I had a call a few months back pretty much like yours … said he was from the 
Telstra Technical Department ...and had some fun playing with the uber-creep.

“Really?” Puts hand imperfectly over the handset. “Yo Errol, we’ve got one here 
Mate. Run a trace, and get the Feds on the line”

Uncovers handset ...“And you say, I may have a virus? That sounds serious. Hang 
on a second.” Imperfectly covers handset. “Routed through Sydney, hey? Look get 
the Feds up there on it now … I can’t keep this guy online indefinitely. Once 
we’ve traced the bastard we can …”

Click!

Haven’t heard from them since.

The really SAD thing about all this is that Telstra (and Optus and whoever your 
comms provider is), could probably quite easily block these calls …. but 
they’re happy to take the hit to their reputations when people get defrauded, 
because a billable call is apparently sacrosanct. (I don’t know what Telstra 
gets from incoming overseas scam calls but it must be huge.)

No wonder people churn …

> On 3 Dec 2015, at 12:56 PM, Jan Whitaker  wrote:
> 
> Has this ever happened to anyone? 
> I had a call from someone with a South Asian accent telling me my Telstra 
> internet connection is going to be turned off this week because of hackers. I 
> told him Telstra isn't my ISP, but I stayed on the line. He says that Telstra 
> supplies all internet connections across the country. So now do I understand?
> 
> I asked for his name and telephone number. He asks why and I say because I 
> don't believe him about any of this. He says, ok if you don't believe me hang 
> up. So I did.
> 
> That is one of the strangest calls I've ever had. Just wondering if anyone 
> else has been hit like this? It's a doozy.
> 
> Jan
> 
> I write books. http://janwhitaker.com/?page_id=8
> 
> Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
> jw...@janwhitaker.com
> Twitter: JL_Whitaker
> Blog: www.janwhitaker.com 
> 
> Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how do you 
> fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space. 
> ~Margaret Atwood, writer 
> 
> _ __ _
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] NBN got what it paid for—will now cost almost half as much again to fix it

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm,

> On 27 Nov 2015, at 10:47 AM, Bernard Robertson-Dunn  
> wrote:
> 
> “The nbn board are political hacks. They are incompetent. They did not 
> know what they were doing,” the former communications minister raged. 

I have to admit that as soon as I saw Ziggy Switowski appointed to the NBN, I 
pretty much wrote off all the NBN Executive. Morrow and the like haven’t 
exactly inspired confidence either - but Switowski (and Mansfield) presided 
over Telstra during a period in which Telstra distinguished itself by dropping 
the ball domestically, letting the local network infrastructure die in the ass, 
failing to take advantage of Telstra’s market position and plan for the and 
invest for the future, alternatively investing their humungous short term 
profits in money losing overseas bit player telcos in SE Asia (that they more 
often than not subsequently took billion dollar baths on), a huge customer 
churn … and a share price drop from about $8.50 to $4.

By any measure, his tenure there was a complete failure.

Then he became a nuclear industry lobbyist … which he also performed pretty 
badly, and then Turnbull appointed him to the NBN. Another terrific decision … 
dare I say ‘Captain’s Pick’ … by ‘Mr Broadband’.

Ziggy doesn’t have a sparkling record with anything he’s touched … but he seems 
to retain the confidence of our LNP politicians for one reason or another. I 
think of him like I think of Henry Ergas - another LNP stalwart who carries a 
lot of the blame for the current state of the NBN - an unimaginative hack who 
will do as he’s told and say what he’s told to say ...

As for the HFC … well, that puppy was never gonna be in the most pristine 
condition - irrespective of whether it was FoxTel or Optus’s network … and was 
already showing it age when they proposed buying it.

For mine … the HFC network was only an interim solution anyway, as it would 
have in no way compared to fibre on speed, scalability and reliability measures.

But now we have ‘Mr Broadband’s’ MTM model … of which it is an integral part. 

Thankfully there’s no HFC where I live … but there’s a hell of a lot of old 
Telstra copper.

Just my 2 cents worth ..
---

___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Turnbull's faster, cheaper NBN - Background Briefing - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

[Frank O'Connor]

Well, I propose that we refer to him as ‘Mr Broadband’ from now on in all our 
missives, messages into the List, and  conversations from others with others 
from now on.

Because if we refer to him as ‘the Prime Minister’ or ‘Mr Turnbull’ he’ll just 
weasel his way out of any responsibility for this $60 (but more probably $100) 
billion debacle and White Elephant, which will probably have to be redone from 
scratch the day after it is ‘complete’.

And I don’t want to see that happen. I want Turnbull, Abbott, Hockey and the 
troglodytic LNP to be remembered as utter failures, and testaments to how 
political expediency and stupidity triumphed during their reign, and left this 
country unprepared for the challenges that even Blind Freddie could have 
foreseen were coming down on us like a train …

Kazakhstan guarantees their citizens 100 Mbs over fibre for God’s sake, but in 
Australia we have problems realising that the 25Mbs they are shooting for (but 
won’t guarantee because they don’t know that it will get there) in 7 years time 
won’t be enough.

Yes, I want Turnbull, Abbott, Hockey and the LNP to be forever remembered for 
this disaster … and not to be allowed to weasel out from under the 
accountability and responsibility that is so manifestly theirs.

‘Agile’ my ass!

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
> On 8 Nov 2015, at 10:35 AM, Jan Whitaker  wrote:
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/turnbulls-faster-cheaper-nbn/6895762
> 
> The last paragraph just made me very sad.
> One of the most urban nations on the planet has been shafted by an 
> incompetent Minister, now PM, just because he once ran an ISP.
> 
> Jan
> 
> 
> 
> I write books. http://janwhitaker.com/?page_id=8
> 
> Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
> jw...@janwhitaker.com
> Twitter: JL_Whitaker
> Blog: www.janwhitaker.com 
> 
> Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how do you 
> fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space. 
> ~Margaret Atwood, writer 
> 
> _ __ _
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] NBN spent $14m on 1800km of new copper for FTTN

[Frank O'Connor]

No,

It goes beyond ‘dumb’.

Sadly, that’s been a hallmark of our country for the last three years or so, so 
I’m guessing you’re using the ‘not that dumb’ assessment when measured against 
other landmark political decisions we’ve seen on refugee policy, climate 
policy, transport policy, fiscal policy, budgetary policies, environmental 
approvals and other terrific examples of public policymaking that have become 
the norm rather than the exception of late.

The MTM NBN is simply a 60 billion dollar White-Elephant-In-The-Making, 
disaster-waiting-to-happen, monumental-waste-of-public-funds, 
obsolete-before-it-is-complete, politically motivated screw up … but of little 
moment, compared to the rest of the policies on the table that really make 
Australia and Australians look bad.

On the upside, hopefully this increased copper demand will see the price of 
copper soar, so those with shares in the copper miners should be ecstatic.

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
> On 21 Oct 2015, at 1:30 PM, Michael Still  wrote:
> 
> Well, lets ignore that they actually said the copper was to hook the 60,000
> node pillars up to the existing copper. It's still dumb, but not that dumb.
> 
> That's only 30 meters per pillar.
> 
> Michael
> On 21 Oct 2015 1:17 PM, "David Boxall"  wrote:
> 
>> What's the logic here? :/
>> <
>> http://www.itnews.com.au/news/nbn-spent-14m-on-1800km-of-new-copper-for-fttn-410778
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> David Boxall|  Dogs look up to us
>>|  And cats look down on us
>> http://david.boxall.id.au   |  But pigs treat us as equals
>>--Winston Churchill
>> ___
>> Link mailing list
>> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
>> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>> 
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Rachel Polanskis -- RIP

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm …

She’ll be missed. She was there at the beginning of the LINK list, there at the 
beginning of ISOC, and pretty much there as a contributor from the beginning of 
the Internet in Oz (way back in the 1980’s).

As you say, she was quick to respond to pleas for help - which was always 
especially useful and welcome, given her technical and other expertise as an 
administrator and IT tech, and sometimes showed her frustration with the state 
of play in IT and the shenanigans of the ‘major players’ as they jockeyed for 
market position whilst ignoring the rights and needs of their users and the 
public.

And she was pretty eclectic, IT wise. Many of us find our comfort zone with one 
major OS, one major networking system, one major hardware family and the like 
…. but Rachel pretty much played across the field. Over the years she adapted 
to many flavours of UNIX, LINUX, Windows and the MacOS and IOS, Android and 
others. It didn’t matter to Rachel - she simply picked up new stuff and played 
with it (unlike more ossified souls like myself) and appreciated each for its 
strengths and weaknesses.

On the List, she was always courteous and helpful, and often had a number of 
original and useful insights that wouldn’t have occurred to most of the rest of 
us

As you said … we’ll miss her.

She made a difference and improved the quality of life of others - and that’s 
more than most can say.
---
> On 26 Sep 2015, at 8:12 am, Jan Whitaker  wrote:
> 
> Linkers,
> It's probably not my place to share this, but I just got a message that 
> Rachel passed away yesterday. I am sitting here quite stunned. I'm so hoping 
> this isn't true.
> 
> Rachel was a long time contributor to Link, always a 'go to' person for help. 
> I will miss her greatly.
> 
> My condolences to her partner, Rob, and their family and friends.
> 
> Jan
> 
> 
> 
> I write books. http://janwhitaker.com/?page_id=8
> 
> Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
> jw...@janwhitaker.com
> Twitter: JL_Whitaker
> Blog: www.janwhitaker.com 
> 
> Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how do you 
> fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space. 
> ~Margaret Atwood, writer 
> 
> _ __ _
> ___
> Link mailing list
> Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] itN: Telcos don't like regulation

[Frank O'Connor]

Yup …Shock! Horror!

Of course, the argument and merits of their case depends on how much of the 
green stuff they’ve sent the way of the major parties … so I’m well content 
that the rational decision will be made.

That said, Telstra did get $11billion from the government for a fully 
depreciated asset (and I do so hope they declare same as a profit on their tax 
return - hey, they have been claiming the depreciation for years) so maybe some 
more quids have become necessary for our party politicians send another Golden 
Goose their way pro quo.

But I’m not relying on the telco rent seekers suffering in any way - Hey, that 
would be downright un-Australian

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
 On 31 Aug 2015, at 2:04 pm, Roger Clarke roger.cla...@xamax.com.au wrote:
 
 Aussie telcos push for severe restructure of ACMA
 Allie Coyne on Aug 31, 2015 12:29 PM (1 hour ago)
 http://www.itnews.com.au/News/408630,aussie-telcos-push-for-severe-restructure-of-acma.aspx
 
 Optus wants regulator replaced, Telstra lobbies for deregulation.
 ...
 
 [Well, there's a surprise.]
 
 -- 
 Roger Clarke http://www.rogerclarke.com/
   
 Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd  78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
 Tel: +61 2 6288 6916http://about.me/roger.clarke
 mailto:roger.cla...@xamax.com.auhttp://www.xamax.com.au/
 
 Visiting Professor in the Faculty of LawUniversity of N.S.W.
 Visiting Professor in Computer ScienceAustralian National University
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] What Do I tell the Public About Cookies?

[Frank O'Connor]

Cookies were created because HTTP as a protocol can't maintain 'state'. This 
was both a good thing - because it allows the Web to simply drop the connection 
once it has passed the requested Web page - and a bad thing, because sometimes 
you need to do things in sessions, or even across sessions, that require the 
Web server to interact with the remote client, and keep track of 'state'.

Cookies were invented to remedy this deficiency, and allow 'state' to be 
maintained between server and client

That said, cookies can also be used to store any number of data items and 
information, and to be persistent (always there) and to report back on any 
amount of things that have little or nothing to do with allowing you to run a 
seamless interaction between server and client across session(s) the next time 
you connect to a server capable of reading them

And that's where they can be a danger to privacy and leave you vulnerable to 
marketers and the like.


Give me a coffee, and no-one gets hurt


 On 26 Aug 2015, at 3:21 pm, Tom Worthington tom.worthing...@tomw.net.au 
 wrote:
 
 I will speaking about HTTP cookies on ABC Radio Canberra (666), Friday 
 morning. What should I say?
 
 Here is all the advice I could find from the Australian Government:
 
 Cookies are small bits of information left on your computer by websites 
 you have visited which let the website 'remember' things about you. Even 
 temporary information, such as the items you have in your shopping cart 
 at a web retailer, may depend on cookies. 
 https://www.communications.gov.au/what-we-do/internet/stay-smart-online/computers/secure-your-internet-connection
 
 
 -- 
 Tom Worthington FACS CP, TomW Communications Pty Ltd. t: 0419496150
 The Higher Education Whisperer http://blog.highereducationwhisperer.com/
 PO Box 13, Belconnen ACT 2617, Australia  http://www.tomw.net.au
 Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards
 Legislation
 
 Adjunct Senior Lecturer, Research School of Computer Science,
 Australian National University http://cs.anu.edu.au/courses/COMP7310/
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] What Do I tell the Public About Cookies?

[Frank O'Connor]

Yeah,

 Nowadays there are any number of other ways to maintain state, carry little 
numbers like user preferences across sessions (server side tech), or even 
validate transaction processes in sessions (using server side JavaScript, 
client-server JAVA, client JavaScript for data and process validation, XML for 
data-types, etc etc) but Cookies still persist.

I'm guessing they still have some (low tech) utility for low end usage, as well 
as a degree of convenience ... But privacy and security wise it's hard to 
justify them nowadays.

That said, we tend to forget that they were not always 'evil' and did represent 
a solution to a problem posed by HTTP's design for low maintenance and low 
network overheads.
 
Just my 2 cents worth ...

Give me a coffee, and no-one gets hurt


 On 26 Aug 2015, at 4:32 pm, Roger Clarke roger.cla...@xamax.com.au wrote:
 
 At 4:17 PM +1000 26/8/15, Frank O'Connor wrote:
 Cookies were created because HTTP as a protocol can't maintain 'state'. This 
 was both a good thing - because it allows the Web to simply drop the 
 connection once it has passed the requested Web page - and a bad thing, 
 because sometimes you need to do things in sessions, or even across 
 sessions, that require the Web server to interact with the remote client, 
 and keep track of 'state'.
 
 Cookies were invented to remedy this deficiency, and allow 'state' to be 
 maintained between server and client
 
 That said, cookies can also be used to store any number of data items and 
 information, and to be persistent (always there) and to report back on any 
 amount of things that have little or nothing to do with allowing you to run 
 a seamless interaction between server and client across session(s) the next 
 time you connect to a server capable of reading them
 
 And that's where they can be a danger to privacy and leave you vulnerable to 
 marketers and the like.
 
 I thought I was going to hve some disagreements, but by the end of it no.
 
 Here's the version that I originally wrote in mid-1996, plus bits to 2001:
 http://www.rogerclarke.com/II/Cookies.html
 
 The earliest archived copy of the Netscape spec is from Oct 1996:
 https://web.archive.org/web/19961027104920/http://www3.netscape.com/newsref/std/cookie_spec.html
 
 And the earliest bit in Javascript documentation is from Aug 2000:
 https://web.archive.org/web/2816092701/http://developer.netscape.com/docs/manuals/communicator/jsref/doc1.htm
 
 _
 
 On 26 Aug 2015, at 3:21 pm, Tom Worthington tom.worthing...@tomw.net.au 
 wrote:
 
 I will speaking about HTTP cookies on ABC Radio Canberra (666), Friday 
 morning. What should I say?
 
 Here is all the advice I could find from the Australian Government:
 
 Cookies are small bits of information left on your computer by websites 
 you have visited which let the website 'remember' things about you. Even 
 temporary information, such as the items you have in your shopping cart 
 at a web retailer, may depend on cookies. 
 https://www.communications.gov.au/what-we-do/internet/stay-smart-online/computers/secure-your-internet-connection
 
 
 -- 
 Tom Worthington FACS CP, TomW Communications Pty Ltd. t: 0419496150
 The Higher Education Whisperer http://blog.highereducationwhisperer.com/
 PO Box 13, Belconnen ACT 2617, Australia  http://www.tomw.net.au
 Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards
 Legislation
 
 Adjunct Senior Lecturer, Research School of Computer Science,
 Australian National University http://cs.anu.edu.au/courses/COMP7310/
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
 
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
 
 -- 
 Roger Clarke http://www.rogerclarke.com/
 
 Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd  78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
 Tel: +61 2 6288 6916http://about.me/roger.clarke
 mailto:roger.cla...@xamax.com.auhttp://www.xamax.com.au/ 
 
 Visiting Professor in the Faculty of LawUniversity of N.S.W.
 Visiting Professor in Computer ScienceAustralian National University
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] web: Stunning blow for Dallas Buyers Club in copyright case - Computerworld

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm,

A surety of $600,000, his previous warnings on going on 'fishing expeditions’ 
and his caution against demanding unconscionable damages, as well as our ISP’s 
requesting that their costs for this scheme being met in full, have put a 
little bit of a dampener on IP and copyright legal actions.

However, I remain confident that George Brandis will continue to do his utmost 
to see that Australian consumers pay through the nose to the current IP and 
copyright rent seekers, and Andrew Robb will continue to push the TPP with its 
increases in extent and duration of copyright and IP (on drugs, physical 
product and invention, content and processes) to ensure that we pay more, for 
longer, for less, and for mostly out-of-date product into the foreseeable 
future.

And its not like the government cares … given that they are dropping investment 
in education, infrastructure and anything else that would ensure Australia has 
a future place at the IP and copyright table as anything other than a consumer. 
We’ll just be uneducated rubes either buying, renting, watching or listening to 
the IP and copyright of others … a really terrific economic plan IMHO.

Regards,
---
 On 14 Aug 2015, at 10:39 am, Jan Whitaker jw...@janwhitaker.com wrote:
 
 A case of be careful what you ask for. One smart judge!!
 
 
 http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/581935/stunning-blow-dallas-buyers-club-copyright-case/
 
 
 
 I write books. http://janwhitaker.com/?page_id=8
 
 Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
 jw...@janwhitaker.com
 Twitter: https://twitter.com/JL_WhitakerJL_Whitaker
 Blog: www.janwhitaker.com 
 
 Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how do you 
 fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space. 
 ~Margaret Atwood, writer 
 
 _ __ _
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] NSW Transport for Internet Explorer only

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm … the use of platform specific binaries and browser extensions sort of 
defeats the idea of a ubiquitous open standards network, doesn’t it?

It’s almost as if these bureaucrats and government departments don’t realise 
that the era of the closed proprietary network has passed them by, and that 
they can’t specify the hardware or software requirements that must be adopted 
by their external users (the taxpayers who pay - through-the-nose in most cases 
- for these useless systems) so that they can provide a ‘service’. (I’d also 
argue that the ‘services’ they offer tend to be more along the lines of “You do 
our data entry and run through the hoops for all our requirements … and we’ll 
give you the same average service and service delivery that we gave you when it 
was done with paper forms.” In other words, there isn’t a hell of a lot of 
incentive for the average punter to even think about using their technology.)

Back to the topic … I was once advised by a government department that I would 
have to downgrade my operating system to an earlier (and less secure) version 
and use an effectively obsolete browser if I wanted to make use of their 
services. (I can’t remember what I told the bloke who specified that, but I’m 
pretty sure it was unpleasant.)

The bottom line is that it isn’t rocket science  to do business on the Web in a 
platform and browser agnostic manner, and the rest of the world is doing it 
with very few problems. But these incompetents, and government in Australian 
generally, seems to have no idea how to do so.

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
 On 2 Jul 2015, at 1:04 pm, Marghanita da Cruz marghan...@ramin.com.au wrote:
 
 Linda,
 
 Good Luck with the complaint on Linux - first you will have to explain what 
 it is.
 
 You might be better off saying you can't use it on your Android or iPhone!
 
 By the way, the ATO support Linux either. One would believe in 2015, you 
 could implement an OS 
 independent system on the Internet.
 
 Complain to your local MP and the Minister - don't bother with the 
 department. When I tried to get 
 my M5 Cashback the supervisor on the help desk told me to try another 
 computer.
 
 Marghanita
 
 
 On 02/07/15 12:48, Linda Rouse wrote:
 snip
 They didn't even mention Safari! Next they'll be saying you can't use a
 Mac or Linux! I'll be making a complaint!
 snip
 
 -- 
 Marghanita da Cruz
 Telephone: 0414-869202
 http://www.ramin.com.au
 
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] web: Border Force Act: detention secrecy just got worse - The Drum (Australian B ...

[Frank O'Connor]

Well, yeah but … we’ll be saved by our media - won’t we? The old Fourth Estate, 
those guardians of the public weal, won’t desert us. Will they?

Maybe not ...

1. In the press (both Fairfax and News Ltd) I see articles on a daily basis 
from the Fourth Estate, and/or retired politicians and bodies like the IPA 
condemning us … for condemning politicians, government and our betters on and 
in various Net forums - and lambasting us for not engaging with those who 
oppose us politically on a more 'civilised and constructive' basis.

2. We are also condemned for having the attention span of budgies on Speed with 
respect to politics, and told that our source for political information 
(presumably the media Commentariat) is what we should be listening to rather 
than the ‘noise’ of the Internet. 

And let’s see how weak this attention span actually is at the next election, 
shall we?

3. The media got really excited recently about about the data retention and 
snooping legislation ONLY when the provisions affected THEIR ability to report 
and engage with whistleblowers, and THEIR liability for prosecution. Prior to 
that, when the provisions affecting John Citizen were being implemented, 
largely without serious debate, the media was ‘lock, stock and two smoking 
barrels’ behind the government’s anti-terrorism measures and supportive of 
curbing the rights and privileges of Joe and Josephine public in the interests 
of ‘public safety'.

4. The Australian media seems to pretty much fall in behind EVERY manufactured 
crisis that this government (and indeed both the Tweedledum-Tweedledee 
political parties that we’re all so disillusioned with) seem to invent on a 
daily basis. A lone crazy gunman kills two people in Sydney, and we’re all 
gonna be KILLED IN OUR BEDS unless we introduce these measures and restrict our 
rights and priveleges, and send a few hundred troops into Iraq, take on a 
sectarian war, oppose the sect that hasn’t done anything to us (the Iranians 
and the Shia) and ally with those who have been exporting terror (the Sunnis. 
Wahhabists, Salafists, Saudis, Qatar and Emirates etc) because they’re 'our 
friends’ and the Shia, who haven’t tried exporting the violence, aren’t. 

This bit of our laughingly named ‘Foreign Policy’ and ‘War on Terror’ is the 
one I really find amusing - especially how the Commentariat fall right in 
behind it. “Let’s kill all the people who aren’t doing anything to us, to 
support those who are.” Makes perfect sense.

And the other solutions? The bottom is falling out of the government’s revenue 
… so the solution is to target expenses of the young, the weak, the poor and 
the sick. To nail education, health and social welfare … but provide handouts 
the rich and middle class. Yeah, that’s gonna fix things right up.

5. The media fell in uncritically behind the last Budget, despite the fact that 
it pretty much included all the ‘unfairness’ of the previous Budget (yes folks 
- pretty much none of those provisions were rescinded by this Budget), didn’t 
address any of the economic structural problems (the collapse in revenue, 
destruction of manufacturing, cyclically low resource prices, ageing of the 
country, and various Sacred Cow handouts - like negative gearing, 
superannuation concessions, capital gains concessions and the like - and was 
largely comprised of handouts (read ‘pork barreling’) for voting segments 
important to politicians for the next election.

On the upside, the occasional article is now appearing which demonstrates an 
awareness of the Budget cop-out - but why it passed without comment for a 
couple of weeks is a ‘mystery’, isn’t it? Are our journalists incompetent … or 
complicit?

6. Little numbers like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which will adversely 
affect all Australian consumers, taxpayers and the ability of any future 
governments of this country to actually govern, seem to be passing without 
comment. They are asking questions in the US (about why intellectual property 
and copyrights are so central to what is ostensibly just a trade treaty, and 
who benefits from same, and how IP and copyright is being extended by stealth 
with same etc etc), but not here in Oz. The American press is doing its job … 
but the Australian press (and obviously our politicians) don’t seem to give a 
damn. If everything’s OK for the multinationals and the Big End of Town, it’s 
OK by our media. (Of course, 70% of Australia’s media is owned by the biggest 
'tax risk' multinational content provider and media empire in the world … but 
that has nothing to do with the coverage of little numbers like the TPP. Does 
it?)

7. The government is allowed to get away with egregious breaches of human 
rights, UN treaties, environmental obligations, and as Jan has pointed out, the 
rights and privileges of its own citizens, without comment - or, if there is 
any comment something that appears on Page 10 or later. The media simply 
doesn’t give a damn.

8. And those 

Re: [LINK] Gridlocked cities to cost more than $53 billion a year by 2031 without action: Infrastructure Australia

[Frank O'Connor]

 On 23 May 2015, at 10:04 am, Marghanita da Cruz marghan...@ramin.com.au 
 wrote:
 
 Gridlock can only be addressed by Mass Transit/Public Transport. 

Very true … but Mass Transit/Public Transport doesn’t seem to sit well with our 
current government. They are willing (no EAGER!) to waste billions of public 
monies on what even they admit are temporary solutions to road traffic 
problems, and scorn any investment in alternatives.

But in their world, the internal combustion engine (invented 150 years ago) is 
the peak of technology, and all this new fangled stuff will simply go away. 
They look to the past for their inspiration, in so many many things - and seem 
incapable of, as you say, ‘doing the maths’, considering the environment, doing 
a cost-benefit analysis or examining alternatives to the hideously expensive 
and outdated alternatives proposed by those who give them lots of political 
donations.

In their world, technology is never going to get more efficient and pervasive, 
the Internet is a flash-in-the-pan, transport alternatives will not appear, 
providing infrastructure and support to encourage said alternatives is not 
their job, virtual travelling via work-from-home and other changes to work 
practices won’t occur, and everything will go on as it has for the last 100 
years. In their world the 1950’s was the Golden Age everyone should aspire to, 
everyone would respect them and institutions like religion (but only the 
Christian variants) and the electorate would be subservient and do what it’s 
told.

These people are technological troglodytes (and I’m sorry if any cave dwellers 
still on the planet feel insulted by that) incapable of appreciating any of the 
changes on the horizon, that are bleeding obvious to the rest of us.

But we elect them … so we’ve gotta take some of the blame.

Just my 2 cents worth ...
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] New Ford GT employs 10 million lines of code ‘

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm,

Every new line of code can represent another possible point of failure.

And in the good old days all we had to worry about was failure in a car part. 
And one of the reasons cars are impossible to DIY service nowadays is the need 
for plugging it into the million dollar diagnostic machine that the companies 
ration out to 'approved servicers’ - with their 'charge-like-a-wounded-bull’ 
service costs.

Their comparison with the F22 Raptor was also instructive. A few years back a 
squadron of those suckers almost shut down when they crossed the International 
Date Line in a flight across the Pacific to Japan. A 'bug in the code' was 
blamed.

Microsoft also used to boast about the number of lines of code in each variant 
of Windows it released (XP - 12 million lines, Windows 7 - 50 million lines 
etc. etc.) until they decided that quality control and security were big 
concerns a few years back. Now code quality is mentioned over quantity.

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
 On 15 May 2015, at 12:31 am, Bernard Robertson-Dunn b...@iimetro.com.au 
 wrote:
 
 On 14-May-15 1:58 PM, Stephen Loosley wrote:
 http://www.msn.com/en-au/motoring/reviews/new-ford-gt-operating-system-has-more-lines-of-code-than-a-boeing-787-dreamliner/
 
 Pity the old Top Gear crew aren't around to give their opinion of this car.
 
 Sounds to me they write their code like they build their cars. Big, 
 bloated and they fall off the road trying to go fast round corners.
 
 -- 
 
 Regards
 brd
 
 Bernard Robertson-Dunn
 Sydney Australia
 email: b...@iimetro.com.au
 web:   www.drbrd.com
 web:   www.problemsfirst.com
 Blog:  www.problemsfirst.com/blog
 
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Tools for Compiling to JavaScript

[Frank O'Connor]

 On 14 Apr 2015, at 9:54 pm, Roger Clarke roger.cla...@xamax.com.au wrote:
 
 
 Once upon a time, computing terms had clear meanings.
 
 Compile meant to convert source-code into executable code, i.e. the 
 machine-language of a given computer.

Unless you were using one of the early versions of PASCAL with its bloody 
minded single pass compiler.

In which case the compiler was converting source code into a cascading stream 
of ever more horrible executable fatal errors that were more than difficult to 
debug …. and this even if only one or two syntax or other minor errors existed 
in the original source code.

Yeah …. those were the days. :(

I still wake up, now and then, in a cold sweat and cursing Nicholas Wirth - the 
sadistic creep.

Just my 2 cents worth …





___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

[LINK] US FCC changes broadband definition

[Frank O'Connor]

See: 
http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7932653/fcc-changed-definition-broadband-25mbps

Minimum for 'broadband' as accepted by the Federal Communications Commission is 
now 25Mbs download and 3Mbs upload. And that lags the current European 
definitions. And that is for the CURRENT US definition. God knows what 
'broadband' will be in 10 years time ... but we won't be getting it in 
Australia, so i don't suppose it matters.

That, to put it mildly, makes the NBN estimates (only 15Mbs needed in 10 years 
time) and the MTM network look a tad debatable as a worthy project for network 
requirements in 10 years time.

But what the heck ... it's still 'World's Best Practice'.

I just wish they'd abandon it and wait for a government with a more realistic 
view of network requirements to do it properly in the future, because at the 
moment, the scaled down NBN project has all the hallmarks of the most massive 
waste of public monies in the last 50 years. Only an idiot would buy shares in 
this turkey, and I'm guessing the government will have to really scale down 
what it can redeem from its effort when it privatises same.

Just my 2 cents worth ...
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Aussie Cyber Warfare

[Frank O'Connor]

 On 28 Jan 2015, at 10:07 pm, Stephen Loosley stephenloos...@zoho.com wrote:
 
 Quoting: 
 http://www.afr.com/p/technology/australia_launches_cyber_weapons_hR1B30qv3c6bYKJvquVzoO
 
 
 Australian Cyber Offensive
 
 Australia is no passive participant in cyber conflicts. 
 
 Multiple intelligence sources have told The Australian Financial Review that 
 for more than a decade we have been building an offensive computer network 
 attack (CNA) capability inside the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD), 
 which openly advertises for hackers who are passionate about breaking and 
 securing computer systems with knowledge of offensive and defensive 
 techniques to protect Australia's interests.
 
 http://www.asd.gov.au/publications/Cyber_Ops_Careers_Brochure_for_Industry.pdf
 
 Sources say ASD has launched cyber-attacks on terrorists in the Middle East 
 that were conspiring against Australia. 
 
 ASD's small team of CNA specialists, which are a fraction of the people 
 working in its computer network exploitation area (which steals foreign 
 intelligence), develop their own malware and borrow payloads from the larger 
 CNA resources residing inside America's NSA and Britain's GCHQ.

Suffice it to say, I think the level of expertise in the old DSD (now the ASD) 
on things IT is not something to worry about compared to the US, China and the 
serious powerhouses. I had some run-ins with these guys during my working life 
and they were FAR from impressive technically.

 
 Australia has also allegedly harnessed its offensive cyber skills to hit back 
 against a non-democratic state that was pilfering our public and private 
 secrets, intelligence sources say.

Seeking, yet again, an increase their annual Budget, no doubt. I love these 
'anonymous' sources.

 
 This involved implanting malware on foreign servers that erased data and 
 disabled the cooling systems such that they were ultimately fried. (end 
 quote)
 

 
 [Then follows AFR rant regarding necessity for support of mandatory data 
 retention policies. Eg quote, Many of those who rail against metadata 
 retention are the same anarcho-libertarians who dismiss the tsunami of 
 evidence that the internet is being hijacked by individuals and state and 
 non-state entities that want to undermine our way of life.]

Mmmm ... it pretty much doesn't matter what the political leaning, the 
Australian press is UNIFORMLY hostile to the Internet and its developments, and 
seems to support any controls imposed on it. News, Fairfax, Stokes, ACP  
whatever. They all unconsciously view the Internet as a threat to their 
livelihoods (which it is, I suppose ... if you're planning on a long and 
prosperous journalistic career in the current conventional media outlets) and 
therefore something that should be stymied and controlled at all costs.

The sad thing is that even papers like the Guardian and The Age do it ... and 
seem unaware of their bias.

Not that their bias, or opinions, or wishes will mean anything in the long run. 
The media business will change, adapt or fade away.

Just my 2 cents worth ...


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] NBN Malcolm style

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm,

Makes just about as much technical sense as the MTM design does.

I can see the design meeting now: OK, we need to design a multi-technology 
rather than single technology network with as many possible points of failure 
as possible. 60-80,000 possible points of failure ... lets call them ‘nodes’ … 
would be great for a start … the rest we can make up from the copper bits that 
fail with monotonous regularity even now. Under no circumstances do we test the 
design in real world conditions. It’s got to be maintenance and repair 
intensive, and to connect to a last yard which will make its performance 
comparable with the network it is replacing. After all, our Estimates people 
are quite sure that Australians will need no more than 15Mbs in 10 years time. 
The client end of the network must have comparatively humungous power 
requirements, and huge copper replacement costs built in. The cost of upgrading 
it to a serious 21st century network has be at least twice the build cost, and 
the build cost for the already obsolete network has to be so astronomical that 
everybody at this table will be remembered as White Elephant Creators 
Extroadinaire. Oh, and no matter what happens … we don’t listen to network 
experts, we don’t monitor the far more scalable, powerful and capable networks 
that have already been installed overseas, or are in the process of being 
installed, and we all spout phrases like ‘World’s Best Practice’ any time we 
are questioned about it. Our leader, Mr Broadband, has spoken.

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
 On 25 Jan 2015, at 10:54 am, Jan Whitaker jw...@janwhitaker.com wrote:
 
 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8JtliHCEAEARv0.jpg
 
 
 Jan
 
 
 Lost Anchors - Now available on Amazon in both print and Kindle versions.
 Print: http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Anchors-J-Kirsten/dp/1502541556/
 Ebook : http://mybook.to/lostanchorsmyBook.to/lostanchors 
 
 
 Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
 jw...@janwhitaker.com
 Twitter: https://twitter.com/JL_WhitakerJL_Whitaker
 Blog: www.janwhitaker.com 
 
 https://www.amazon.com/author/jlwhitakerJL Whitaker
 On A Life's Edge -
 US Amazon print and digital http://viewBook.at/OALEdge 
 Apple iTunes: 
 https://itunes.apple.com/au/book/on-a-lifes-edge/id893736824?mt=11
 
 Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how do you 
 fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space. 
 ~Margaret Atwood, writer 
 
 _ __ _
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Surviving Climate Change

[Frank O'Connor]

Personally, I don't have a lot of time for either the 'What a Work is Man' 
argument or the sanctity of Nature arguments.

The bottom line is that if we were even remotely collectively intelligent we 
would realise that you can't keep dumping your garbage in a closed system (the 
world), and you can't keep using up its resources faster than they can be 
replaced, and expect to have a long term future in that closed environment.

Any remotely intelligent race would realise that you effectively have three 
choices in such an eventuality ... pollute yourself into an ever more resource 
scarce environment in which you end up with the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse 
potentially controlling things, make plans to leave that closed system for 
'greener pastures' as they say, or control and conserve what you've got to eke 
out a few more years. And I don't see the third strategy as a viable one, for 
what I think of as the long term.

But we seem incapable of controlling our population, and everyone wants the 
'lifestyle' that the current generation of 'privileged' have - or better lives 
for their children, and our perspective is such that we are pretty much 
short-term thinkers (we may make plans that cover 10 years ... but rarely think 
ahead more than that), bound by the extent our short brutish lives (our 50-80 
years is NOTHING in the context of the planet - which has supported life in one 
form or another for nearly 2 billion years).

Mankind has been around in its current homo sapiens (and I'm convinced that 
species name was ironic) form for about 150,000 years (again nothing in the 
context of life on Earth) and as far as I can see is much more ruled by its 
genes than the collective neurons of its members. But every time it comes down 
to it, we fall back on the instincts of those plains ape ancestors of 2 or 3 
million years ago. The behavioural similarities between any group of humans and 
the average troop of chimpanzees are astonishing.

In an evolutionary sense, there is NOTHING special about us. We are still the 
same old opportunistic omnivores who make hay whilst the sunshines with little 
thought for the long term future (say 50,000 years or more on). 

If we were intelligent, we'd either be conserving the closed system we live in, 
or making plans to leave it for greener pastures

The problem with both arguments is that they don't look long-term enough. They 
don't try and extrapolate what would happen to the species if either strategy 
was adopted - and believe me there are many many downsides to either. 

On one extreme you could look forward to a hunter-gatherer future of rustic 
simplicity for a population of maybe 100-150 million (and probably much less) 
world wide - and even that may be too many. On the other you can write off the 
Earth, and become techno bunnies living in sterile solar powered space habitats 
and other on-world sealed enclaves, and off-world colonies. In between, which 
is the area I tend to favour you can pursue energy efficiencies (and in the 
final analysis the whole problem really is about energy availability and 
usage), recycling of resources, technology and research to eke out a reasonable 
standard of life whilst we determine the optimum level of population and 
colonisation that the planet can support to extend the life of our species.

My bet however is on the Four Horsemen. As soon as economic and environmental 
stresses hit, we'll do what we've always done ... we'll squabble over what's 
there, get into Wars, create Famines, let Diseases get out of control, and 
ultimately Death and a great Dying will reduce the load we're putting on the 
planet.

And within a few generations, we'll do it all over again.

At some stage we may push the environment into a new climate equilibrium ... 
which would be bad, and which at the moment we have very few means of reversing 
... which probably won't kill all of us, but it will environmentally stress us 
out (a bit like the dinosaurs were by vulcanism and other Continental Drift 
side-effects at the end of the Cretaceous) ... and we are ever more vulnerable 
to extinction level events in those times of stress. We evolved in a relatively 
benign period of Earth's climate ... and it remains to be seen how well we 
would adapt to significantly warmer, and perhaps more environmentally hostile 
conditions.

The Permian Extinction of 280 million years ago started relatively benignly ... 
massive vulcanism in Siberia leaked green house gases into the atmosphere, the 
Earth warmed by a couple of degrees, there was a die off of many of the algae 
and other oxygen producing organisms in the sea, large areas of the ocean 
effectively died and exuded more greenhouse gases (methane and other products 
of the die off), temperatures increased some more land based vegetation began 
to die off in huge swathes, ogygen generation dried up and the carbon sinks 
disappeared, the carbon-cycle (where carbon dioxide is absorbed) failed. And it 

Re: [LINK] From my friend re NBN change

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm,

Telstra is also encouraging existing customers to sign uo for new deals which 
include a new router.

I'm guessing (and this is my nasty suspicious nature at work) that the new 
routers are all models that Telstra is using to implement its Gee Whiz Wow' 
Last Gen Public WiFi network ... with the public IP turned on by default. That 
raises all sorts of security considerations for me, as well as the fact that 
I'm providing Telstra with the power to run their network gratis, and 
presumably sharing my bandwidth and getting lower performance in times of high 
public IP demand as the router struggles to juggle two competing data streams.

I'm currently considering dropping my landline, reverting to an ADSL connection 
with a third party ISP for about 2/3 of the costs, and using my mobile as my 
major phone, as Telstra has penny ante'd its way into my heart way too much of 
late.

Just my 2 cents worth ...
---
 On 12 Dec 2014, at 4:10 pm, Jim Birch planet...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Paul Brooks wrote:
 
 
 3. Telstra appear to be forcing all NBN connections to buy and connect a
 Telstra-provided home gateway/router to the NBN connection to provide the
 telephone
 service as VoIP using the Telstra gateway, not using the in-built VoIP
 capability of
 the NBN box.
 
 
 Is there a technical or commercial reason for this?  It's a fairly onerous
 constraint to go to a telstra router if you want to do anything non
 standard with your connection (as I would.)
 
 Jim
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Australian Patents

[Frank O'Connor]

My feelings on the patents system (particularly the US payments system) are 
probably somewhat different to others. I don't necessarily see them as a good 
thing.

Once you start patenting ideas and techniques as property - especially to the 
extent that is applicable in the US -  you effectively attack science and 
dissemination of knowledge and ideas.

Scientific advancement specifically, is generally an investigation of new 
functions of two knowns. We examine or re-examine knowns to hypothesise a new 
known/function/relationship. Phenomena may be incompletely known, but when you 
derive a new relationship between the two (mass and acceleration, energy and 
mass, lever length and pivots, etc etc etc) you move science along. And if the 
original concepts/phenomena/ideas etc are copyrighted/patented, you effectively 
stymie development and research in that phenomena whilst the lawyers sort it 
out.

And as for experimental equipment ... well, suffice it to say that if the 
Bunsen Burner, or Galileo's lenses, or test tubes, or anyone of a thousand 
useful pieces of common experimental apparatus had been patented/copyrighted 
then a hell of a lot of science and research would not have applied. 

We'd have been stuck in a legalistic Inquisition during the Golden Age of 
Science (which I'd argue was the 17th to 19th centuries) and nothing would have 
happened. Patents and Copyright would have served those who liked to keep us 
poor and ignorant, and more importantly consumers.

Second, as a species we tend to move along by disseminating knowledge and 
ideas. We 'live on the shoulders of giants' as one scientist put it. New 
techniques, new knowledge of our environment, newly revealed phenomena and 
patterns and the like make our lives better. And disseminating them freely has 
a 'networking effect' that accelerates our development, accelerates the solving 
of problems, makes our lives better, advances our species into new and exciting 
pursuits.

But the patent copyright system works to the Economics of Scarcity, and 
actively dissuades against dissemination of knowledge.

As an example, scientific journals and the like used to be a huge source of 
freely available relatively cheap, knowledge, new techniques, new inventions 
and development  but now they are expensive, privatised and very restricted 
in what they can carry. Information is restricted and locked up ... because it 
is seen as too valuable (to someone) to be released. A few benefit from it to 
the exclusion of the rest of us. And they do with it what they like.

They monetise 'cures' for old age cancer, type 2 diabetes, the cold and acne 
... but because there's no money in malaria, Ebola or other diseases that 
affect billions of people, ignore those diseases that kill millions annually. 
The affected people are too poor to be a market for them. Look at what they did 
with the AIDS medication patents if you want an example of this. Whole 
countries in Africa decimated by the disease, but the pharmaceutical giants 
wouldn't let go their iron hold over the copyright/patents to save lives  
they wanted their hundreds of dollars per dose, that Africans simply could not 
afford as that represented a year's income for a single dose.

And those who 'protest too much'  and I'm looking at the US here - are 
hypocrites of the highest order. Throughout the 19th and early 20th Centuries, 
the US infringed terribly on the copyright and patents of Britain and Europe. 
They copied the inventions and plundered the research of established economic 
powerhouses to become an economic powerhouse in their own right. They improved 
on many of the devices and inventions that they copied, but they ignored the 
protestations of the Europeans concerning patents and copyright (and patent and 
copyright law was well established by the middle of the 19th century) and 
simply did what they wanted. Europe similarly plundered the Chinese in the 14th 
and 15th Centuries  the time of the European Renaissance.

What goes around comes around. :)

Yet, when the Japanese in the 1950's and 1960's, and the East Asians generally 
in the 1990's, and now China in the Naughties did the same things in their rush 
to advance and feed billions of people, the USA has condemned them  
hypocritically as I said.

To me, it's a result of the rush to monetarise ideas and knowledge (which in 
the last 20 years has produced a quagmire of unenforceable restrictions and 
legalistic quicksand), its the Economics of Scarcity working in a dysfunctional 
way, it's nationalism working against the supposed globalist push, it's a 
restriction on science, the advancement of the human race, the dissemination of 
knowledge and ideas, and economic activity generally.

Unlike many others  I don't see the patents and copyright system we're 
currently saddled with, as a Great Leap Forward. But the Western world, led by 
the USA, who, now that they've 'outsourced' the 

Re: [LINK] NBN new roll-out map

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm,

Like you're not going to notice if the NBN has started in your area or not.

Utterly pointless.

Something that outlined a timetable however.

That said, since they moved to the LNP's MTM model of the NBN, I've been 
beastly unconcerned with its progress or anything else about it. It simply 
won't offer any performance or other attributes that will affect me.

Just my 2 cents worth 
---
 On 1 Dec 2014, at 11:58 am, Jan Whitaker jw...@janwhitaker.com wrote:
 
 If NBN Co. spent more time on actually building a network instead of telling 
 us where they *aren't* putting in services, we might eventually get 
 somewhere. What a waste this thing is.
 
 http://www.nbnco.com.au/develop-or-plan-with-the-nbn/check-rollout-map.html#.VHuz5GSUd0Y
 
 
 
 
 Lost Anchors - Now available on Amazon in both print and Kindle versions.
 Print: http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Anchors-J-Kirsten/dp/1502541556/
 Ebook : http://mybook.to/lostanchorsmyBook.to/lostanchors 
 
 
 Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
 jw...@janwhitaker.com
 Twitter: https://twitter.com/JL_WhitakerJL_Whitaker
 Blog: www.janwhitaker.com 
 
 https://www.amazon.com/author/jlwhitakerJL Whitaker
 On A Life's Edge -
 US Amazon print and digital http://viewBook.at/OALEdge 
 Apple iTunes: 
 https://itunes.apple.com/au/book/on-a-lifes-edge/id893736824?mt=11
 
 Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how do you 
 fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space. 
 ~Margaret Atwood, writer 
 
 _ __ _
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] RFC: Data Retention

[Frank O'Connor]

And another excellent article on data retention ... and specifically the 
problems of metadata, from our old mate, Stil

(Does he still frequent the List?)

At any rate ... it's worth a read.

http://www.zdnet.com/can-snowden-finally-kill-the-harmless-metadata-myth-733717/

On 15 Sep 2014, at 11:41 pm, Stephen Loosley stephenloos...@outlook.com wrote:

 
 
 
 An appropriate response Roger. Also one might say, after Snowden's continued 
 revelations today, that Aussie efforts regarding any secret retention of 
 local data in future might well be irrelevant given probable NSA 
 interception. Haha, apparently the Americans will be 'secretly' collecting 
 all of our local digital communications anyway, so we might as well not 
 bother. Only problem is, I doubt Brandis has any idea about such NSA 
 activities.
 
 I'd greatly appreciate .. pointers to good references  ..  
 http://www.rogerclarke.com/DV/DRPS.html
 
 http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/security-it/edward-snowden-reveals-tapping-of-major-australianew-zealand-undersea-telecommunications-cable-20140915-10h96v.html
 
 Quote: A major undersea telecommunications cable that connects Australia and 
 New Zealand to North America has been tapped to allow the United States 
 National Security Agency and its espionage partners to comprehensively 
 harvest Australian and New Zealand internet data ...
 
 The latest revelations from Mr Snowden's trove of leaked intelligence 
 documents are likely to fuel debate in Australia about the Commonwealth 
 Government's controversial proposals for compulsory retention of metadata by 
 telecommunications and internet service providers for access without warrant 
 by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and law enforcement 
 agencies. Attorney-General George Brandis yesterday confirmed the Australian 
 Government's determination to introduce legislation to mandate the compulsory 
 data retention later in the year. End quote.
 
 Cheers,
 Stephen
 
 
 
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] web: Serious flaws in Turnbull's NBN cost-benefit analysis report

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm,

The idea that I'll need less bandwidth in 10 years time that I have now seems 
to me to be a tad flawed.

Better they just abandon the construction and save the $30 billion in my book. 
This is shaping up to be the greatest (deliberate) waste of public monies ever.

Just my 2 cents worth ...

On 8 Sep 2014, at 1:08 pm, Jan Whitaker jw...@janwhitaker.com wrote:

 Opinion piece. The graphs are worth looking at.
 
 
 http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/government-it/serious-flaws-in-turnbulls-nbn-costbenefit-analysis-report-20140907-10dqu0.html
 
 Jan   
 
 
 Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
 jw...@janwhitaker.com
 Twitter: https://twitter.com/JL_WhitakerJL_Whitaker
 Blog: www.janwhitaker.com 
 
 https://www.amazon.com/author/jlwhitakerJL Whitaker
 On A Life's Edge -
 US Amazon print and digital http://viewBook.at/OALEdge 
 Apple iTunes: 
 https://itunes.apple.com/au/book/on-a-lifes-edge/id893736824?mt=11
 
 Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how do you 
 fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space. 
 ~Margaret Atwood, writer 
 
 _ __ _
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Australian Crime Commission's ambit claim

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm, but they're simply doing what that great Protector of 'Freedom', George 
Brandis, wants,

It's remarkable how selective he is with his 'freedom'. Bigots must be free, 
but the rest of us must be under control and do what the government wants. 
'Freedom of Speech' is Paramount - but no way in hell would he award that to 
Joe Public in a  Bill of Rights. Freedom of Association is OK for despicable 
sexist foul mouthed Young Liberals, but not for bikies and Muslims. You can 
have your Freedom of Religion - but only as as long as you're a Christian, and 
preferably a Roman Catholic Christian. 

Privacy? Protection from the State? Court based curbs on the State's power.

Why do you need that? We mean you no harm. It's all for your own good. I mean, 
you want to be secure don't you? Well, security means you have to give things 
up.

Sometimes I despair of anything approaching rational policy coherence from our 
Attorney General.

Just my 2 cents worth ...
---
On 5 Sep 2014, at 1:28 am, Stephen Loosley stephenloos...@outlook.com wrote:

 
 
 
 Australian Crime Commission rejects limits on website blocking
 
 ACC also wants inquiry to examine penalties for non-compliant ISPs
 
 
 By Rohan Pearce (Computerworld) on 04 September, 2014
 http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/554221/
 http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Infrastructure_and_Communications/Inquiry_into_the_use_of_section_313_of_the_Telecommunications_Act_to_disrupt_the_operation_of_illegal_online_services/Submissions
 
 
 The Australian Crime Commission has rejected calls for limits on the 
 government agencies that can issue notices under Section 313 of the 
 Telecommunications Act 1997.
 
 The ACC has also raised the possibility of creating some mechanism for 
 penalising ISPs for not complying with Section 313 notices.
 
 The success of s.313 for the lawful blocking of websites relies upon private 
 sector compliance with law enforcement requests, states an ACC submission to 
 a parliamentary inquiry examining the use of Section 313.
 
 It is noted that failure to comply with a request to lawfully block a 
 website pursuant to s.313 does not carry any consequences. In addition to the 
 terms of reference being considered by this inquiry, consideration could also 
 be given to addressing this issue.
 
 The federal government launched the inquiry in July. The inquiry follows 
 bungles by ASIC in 2013. In an attempt to block websites implicated in 
 investment fraud, the financial watchdog issued Section 313 notices that also 
 blocked access to unrelated websites.
 
 The ACC's submission also rejected the creation of a list of government 
 agencies authorised to issue Section 313 notices because it will not enable 
 flexible responses to the inevitable evolution of the online landscape.
 
 In a similar vein, the organisation argued against requests being limited to 
 a list of defined offences.
 
 However, recognising the extent of power to disrupt online services s313 
 provides, there is merit in considering the proportionality of the activity 
 being conducted or facilitated, the ACC submission stated.
 
 Adding a proportionality threshold would provide response agencies with 
 sufficient flexibility to respond to a wide range of criminal or national 
 security threats, the ACC argued.
 
 Submissions to the inquiry by iiNet, the Internet Society of Australia 
 (ISOC-AU), and industry bodies the Australian Mobile Telecommunications 
 Association (AMTA) and the Communications Alliance all called for 
 restrictions on the government agencies that can issue Section 313 requests.
 
 The ACC said it believes that the agencies should be able to continue to 
 self-authorise their Section 313 notices, with staff of an organisation 
 submitting a written application to an authorised officer.
 
 The submission also argued that although the ACC supports consideration of a 
 formal transparency and accountability regime — although organisations that 
 issue the notices should not be required to publish certain information 
 that could jeopardise investigations or the safety of individuals.
 
 A transparency regime could include measures such as an appeals mechanism or 
 a reporting regime similar to the annual report published by the government 
 on the use of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.
 
 Cheers,
 Stephen
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Bitcoin .. ATO's draft guidance

[Frank O'Connor]

I sort of expected this - even though I haven't been involved in any way for 
many many years.

The bottom line is that no government will willingly assist other currencies to 
flourish in competition to their own, especially currencies that operate 
outside government control altogether. This is for a number of sound economic 
and other reasons ... but includes the facts that:

1. The competing currency can be used to generate currency movements that 
affect the national economy as a whole. Think of the movement to the 
unrestrictedly available US dollar in the Argentinian economy over the last 20 
years as an example of this. Argentina has one of the largest dollar reserves 
of any country (but in multiple hands that it cannot possibly control, or even 
detect), whilst the peso drops through the floor through lack of support. The 
central banks pretty much control the amounts in circulation, interest rates, 
bond rates and other variables which largely 'control' the national currency 
... but this would not be possible with a competing uncontrolled currency.

2. Trafficking in the competing currency is extremely useful for criminal, 
black economy, tax evading and other fraternities that need/want to avoid 
detection to make their bucks, and/or store value away from prying eyes.

3. Unrestricted untrackable digital transfers ... without intervening trusted 
sources keeping open records of same (like central banks, banks, financial 
institutions and the like) also facilitate the above activities.

4. The current middlemen ... banks and financial institutions ...  don't like 
competition, have extremely deep pockets and powerful voices - and historically 
(if the last 2000 odd years is any guide) will fight ruthlessly to maintain 
their turf. I mean, you've all seen how the recent FOFA kerfuffle worked out 
... in which the government rolled over to the banks, and Mathias Cormann 
undoubtedly got his belly rubbed as they caved to the financial industry and 
the banks over consumer protection (or the lack of it that the banks wanted to 
see continued).

5. At this stage, I think Bitcoin and its competitors have a long way to go 
before they can prove that they are seriously adding value to the current 
financial infrastructure. I look at them basically as a currency stockmarket or 
bookmaker who deals in money movements. Like the more conventional world 
finance industry they book up thousands of transactions to add value. In 
contemporary conventional banking, currency and other financial instrument 
speculation turns over more than 500 times the volume of transactions necessary 
for the annual entirety world trade ... and make their money - or lose it - on 
the movements of fractions of cent in currency values, or the billions of 
transaction charges and fees that are levied during trading, or the tax losses 
they can generate by such transactions, or ... well, you get the idea. There's 
already a market doing what Bitcoin does, but it's doing it more predictably 
and with more centralised controls.

6. For security, ease of use, universality and utility the current currency 
regime takes a lot of beating. Think about the enormous number of relatively 
convenient and secure ways you can pay for anything anywhere. Cash. Credit. 
Debit card. Cheque. Money Order. Direct Transfer. etc. etc.  The banks may be 
pooing in their own pond a bit, especially when they add their plethora of 
fees, charges and sundries to the mix ... but unless they totally cruel their 
market, there's not a lot of room for newcomers to move. 

To me, Bitcoin - and its competitors - are in many ways a solution in search of 
a problem.

On the article in particular ...

On 21 Aug 2014, at 10:32 pm, Stephen Loosley stephenloos...@outlook.com wrote:

 
 
 
 ATO set to apply GST and capital gains tax to Bitcoin
 
 By Brian Karlovsky on 21 August, 2014
 http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/552924
 
 The Australian Tax Office is set to apply GST and capital gains tax to 
 bitcoin in its first move to tax the digital currency.
 
 The ATO does not deem bitcoin as a currency but has confirmed that bitcoin is 
 a legitimate asset for CGT purposes, according to the ATO's long awaited 
 guidance on bitcoin.

Which means that as its value appreciates (or depreciates for a capital loss) a 
capital gains liability to be incurred. Presumably the liability for CGT would 
be triggered by an 'event', such as using the Bitcoin to pay for goods or 
services, or transferring it to others for payment of a debt, receiving it (in 
payment) or otherwise disposing of it.

This puts an overhead on Bitcoin transactions that doesn't occur with 'real 
currency' (and I use the term advisedly) transactions. CGT, plus income tax on 
the profit of the sale converted back into real moolah ... rather than just a 
simple income tax debt is probably going to be more expensive. However, any 
capital loss on the Bitcoin trigger event would be applicable/deductible 
against any 

Re: [LINK] Remember the power to the nodes issue?

[Frank O'Connor]

Loved this at the Guardian, in reply to an article in which Rupert Murdoch 
again trashed the NBN:

Out here in Ust-Kamenogorsk in far east Kazakhstan, the government is putting 
in FTTP all across our city, old and new buildings alike, expanding to other 
cities and regions in Kazakhstan as they go.
Whilst our pipe to the outside world may be small, the upload and download 
speeds (100/100) I have here are far faster than what I had in Darling Point in 
Sydney.

I guess because a lot of our buildings here are pre-fab apartment blocks, some 
dating from the Soviet-era, makes it easier to install. The installers just 
come in, drill a hole between each landing floor and install a box and fibre 
goes to the apartment on each side.

But I guess because the various tentacles of Murdoch wouldn't get a cut, that 
sort of simplicity won't fly in Australia ...

So, Kazakhstan gets FttP at 100Mbs or better ... but Australia can't get a 
25Mbs guaranteed network out of 'Mr Broadband'.

Says it all really.   :)
---
On 12 Jul 2014, at 9:23 pm, JanW jw...@internode.on.net wrote:

 At 09:05 PM 12/07/2014, Frank O'Connor you wrote:
 
 There's the mundane copper/fibre reliability thingie. Exactly how 
 'fit for purpose' is the majority of Telstra's copper, how much has 
 oxidised and been damaged in bits of the 'final yards' that we don't 
 know about?
 
 And the *current* cable failure rate that is taking Telstra 3 WEEKS 
 to fix at a friend's house, as well as another friend, and at least 3 
 to 4 others in a sample of about 30 people yesterday. Doesn't bode well.
 
 Yeah  there's a heap of questions that I still have about the 
 FttN architecture. Obviously the builders and operators are in the same boat.
 
 But, hey, the MD of NBN Co. is raking it in, taking his 30% bonus, 
 unlike Quigley, and is the 2nd highest paid PS in the country at the moment.
 
 There's money to be made in this thingie, you know, if you know the 
 right people named Malcolm and Co.
 
 Jan
 
 
 
 Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
 jw...@janwhitaker.com
 Twitter: JL_Whitaker
 
 JL Whitaker
 On A Life's Edge -
 US Amazon print and digital 
 http://www.amazon.com/On-Lifes-Edge-J-Whitaker/dp/1499787154/
 Australia Amazon: ebook only 
 http://www.amazon.com.au/Lifes-Edge-J-Whitaker-ebook/dp/B00KYW2YA8/
 and other Kindle sites around the world.
 Available 13 June on Kindle
 
 Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how 
 do you fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space.
 ~Margaret Atwood, writer
 
 _ __ _
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Remember the power to the nodes issue?

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm,

There are any number of issues that haven't even been looked at with respect to 
those pesky nodes.

There's the power thingie, as Jan mentions.

There's the maintenance thingie (I mean, these 80,000 odd puppies are out there 
in the weather, being regularly opened and closed to service/connect/disconnect 
those pesky subscribers ... and wind and water - and lightning - do nasty 
things to the copper and metal bits)

There's the traffic/disaster thingie. (I mean, these puppies are out on the 
street, at ground level ... open to collisions and the like from those motor 
vehicle thingies and all manner of other collision and mishap disasters)

There's the mundane copper/fibre reliability thingie. Exactly how 'fit for 
purpose' is the majority of Telstra's copper, how much has oxidised and been 
damaged in bits of the 'final yards' that we don't know about?

There's the compounding effect that an error cascade from one local node may 
have on surrounding nodes. I mean, one node going down or otherwise faulting 
could have effects on other nodes up-and-down the network, aside from the forty 
of fifty subscribers who are connected to it. Each node offers yet another 
possible point of failure, that can affect the network generally.

There's the connection thingie. I mean, I haven't seen the designs, but can 
anyone tell me how modular the node design is for mixed connections, how easily 
they can be done, whether connection parts are interchangeable, how the mix of 
copper (for we of the peasantry) and fibre (for those willing to pay for it) 
... will play out in the nodes.

There's the pipeline thingie. I mean, just suppose ... suppose that I live in 
Ritchie Rich's neighbourhood and everybody else gets fibre ... will the 
pipeline to the node be sufficient for their needs. And given the proportion of 
that pipeline capability a pathetic copper connection will be entitled to, what 
will I, as a copper subscriber, actually get?

And that's not even touching on the economics, projected bandwidth (growth) 
requirements in the next 10 years, the need for serious rather than token 
asynchronous performance improvements (unless the government envisages us to be 
the consumers rather than producers of content ... in which case, obviously, 
they could simply scrap any upload capability at all), the pathetic 25Mbs 
guarantee ... which is no longer a guarantee ... but the government is gonna 
make these node thingies work if it kills them, and a host of other questions 
...

Yeah  there's a heap of questions that I still have about the FttN 
architecture. Obviously the builders and operators are in the same boat.

Just my 2 cents worth ...
---
On 12 Jul 2014, at 7:40 pm, Jan Whitaker jw...@janwhitaker.com wrote:

 It's finally dawned on someone and they have yet to solve it. Nine 
 months. ZERO connections to FTTN.
 
 http://michaelwyres.com/2014/07/turnbull-dismally-fails-first-nbn-test/
 
 Jan
 
 
 Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
 jw...@janwhitaker.com
 Twitter: JL_Whitaker
 
 JL Whitaker
 On A Life's Edge -
 US Amazon print and digital 
 http://www.amazon.com/On-Lifes-Edge-J-Whitaker/dp/1499787154/
 Australia Amazon: ebook only 
 http://www.amazon.com.au/Lifes-Edge-J-Whitaker-ebook/dp/B00KYW2YA8/
 and other Kindle sites around the world.
 Available 13 June on Kindle
 
 Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how 
 do you fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space.
 ~Margaret Atwood, writer
 
 _ __ _
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

[LINK] ABC site problems ...

[Frank O'Connor]

I've had problems with inputting any data onto the ABC site for the last month 
or so ... all I get are innocuously numbered server errors.

Doesn't matter whether I'm attempting to vote on an issue they want feedback 
on, sending a message into The Drum feedback or even accessing the ABC Web 
Meister to advise them of the issue. Every time I get back a supremely 
uninformative server error, and I have no way to contact the ABC site to 
determine the cause of same.

Anybody else having the same problem? I may be failing a server test, and the 
site may only be open to right wing ideologues from now on ... but it's more 
likely some server/browser glitch that I can't nail down.

I'm gonna give them a rest for a couple of months, and zot off to other news 
sites around the Web ... it's not like we're not spoiled for choice ... but it 
is passing irritating that they're effectively locked out to me.

___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Uber?

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm,

And like most/many others I already pay a user-pays levy for my visits to the 
GP (twice a year) via the Medicare Levy - which effectively increases every 
year. And I also pay a private user-pays levy via my private health insurance 
... which I wouldn't have entered into if it didn't make sense from a tax/levy 
perspective. And now I'm being asked to handle ANOTHER levy of $7 for each of 
my six monthly trips to the doctor ... 30% of which is being absorbed as an 
administrative fee by my doctor (who doesn't bulk bill and charges about twice 
the scheduled fee).

Well, I'm gonna do what the government wants. I'm gonna restrict my visits to 
the GP to once every 9 months, and hope that a few others also register a 
protest. The GP can do with less of my business, I can do with less oversight 
by him, the government makes even more of a profit out of me, the private 
health insurance fund just keeps getting its 'money for nothing' ... and 
everybody's happy. Hey, it comes off the GP's trade, but he can make a mint 
over-servicing all those sick and unhealthy pensioners, unemployed and the like 
... Oh, wait a moment.

Well, somebody's gotta pay ... and for me, it's gonna be the medical profession.

Just my 2 cents worth ...
---
On 14 May 2014, at 1:03 pm, Hamish Moffatt ham...@cloud.net.au wrote:

 On 14/05/14 11:52, Jim Birch wrote:
 
 Hamish Moffatt  wrote:
 
whether a user-pays approach to everything is really in our best
interests in the long term
 
 
 I'm not in favour of user-pays as some kind of general moral/economic 
 principle, but I am strongly in favour of the Pigovian approach to 
 things that cause problems, eg, congestion or CO2.  Pricing does 
 modify behaviour, especially in the long-term.
 
 
 Doesn't everything become a problem along these lines as society grows? 
 Now we're going to have a $7 co-payment to visit the GP, which is just 
 as much as disincentive as it is genuinely a co-payment... User-pays to 
 call a government hotline next?
 
 
 Hamish
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] RFI: Boomerang Traffic

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm,

In theory the any given data path should correspond with the lowest hop-count, 
but this rarely applies in today's modern and private networks.

I used to note that my traffic to the US and Europe got routed through West 
Australia and the Indo-Chinese/Japanese routers when I was with iiNet, Telstra 
favours the Pacific route and other providers presumably try to route their 
international traffic through whatever pipes they own/lease/control.

In country, various peering and other alliances and arrangements can also 
result in seemingly illogical routes and higher hop counts ... with monotonous 
regularity. I've had e-mail (probably the easiest protocol to route check) from 
here in Victoria routed through Sydney, and mail-servers seem to change change 
network locations with monotonous regularity. It's strange that a mail item to 
a bloke down at Rosebud from here in Rye (6 or 7 miles away geographically) can 
be routed through Sydney ... but it has happened. Network and geographic 
locations only rarely correspond. And mail servers can be sited anywhere.

I'm guessing that business exigencies and economies, ISP contracts and 
agreements with providers 'down the line', peering arrangements, and a whole 
heap of other commercial realities get in the way of how TCP/IP and its various 
application protocols are supposed to work  which is probably not 
surprising.

That said, I can't think of ANY commercial or physical reason to route local 
Australian traffic through any other country ... especially given the huge fees 
and charges the US end of the equation adds for traffic. MountainView and other 
mega-nodes in the US used to be (and probably still are) critical to getting 
Australian traffic to the world ... but there's no commercial or technical 
reason I can think of to route purely domestic Australian traffic through them.

I could of course be badly mistaken, but I'm assuming that some of the 
variables mentioned above apply to Canada (and am sure that they apply in 
Europe). Especially given their close geographic and network locations to each 
other. Some of that ex-country traffic may be a simple exercise of the routers 
determining traffic through an another country's routers would be faster than 
an alternate domestic route, but a lot of it may be forced by the provider or 
telco.

In these days of multinational corporates and transnational operations and 
agreements there are any number of reasons why internal network traffic could 
cross international borders ... ranging from network exigencies, business 
priorities, economics, corporate tax evasion ... Nope, No VAT is due on that 
purely international transaction, business relationships and arrangements with 
peers, spying (as Snowden and others have pointed out) or even be routed for 
more nefarious purposes.

Just my 2 cents worth ...
---
On 29 Apr 2014, at 8:49 am, Roger Clarke roger.cla...@xamax.com.au wrote:

 A colleague in Canada has conducted an interesting project on:
 
 Data Privacy Transparency of Canadian ISPs:
 http://ixmaps.ca/transparency.php
 
 Among other things, it co-opts the 'boomerang' concept:  A boomerang 
 route is a data packet path that starts and ends in Canada, but 
 travels through the USA for part of the journey.
 
 Angela Merkel's Schengen Net notion addresses the same issue from a 
 European perspective.
 
 He's asked me about the Australian situation.
 
 To what extent does traffic from an end-point in Australia to another 
 end-point in Australia travel outside Australia?
 
 Is that only via the USA, or are there intermediaries in Asia as well?
 
 And to what extent does traffic from an end-point in Australia to 
 another end-point in Australia travel entirely within Australia but 
 pass through one or more devices controlled by companies that are 
 subject to extra-territorial reach by another government?
 
 (Naturally there's the USA, with its PATRIOT Act, FISAA and now 
 search-warrant-based demands on all US companies operating 
 everywhere.  But there's also Singtel Optus, and there's Huawei.  And 
 maybe other instances?).
 
 
 -- 
 Roger Clarke http://www.rogerclarke.com/
 
 Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd  78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
 Tel: +61 2 6288 6916http://about.me/roger.clarke
 mailto:roger.cla...@xamax.com.auhttp://www.xamax.com.au/
 
 Visiting Professor in the Faculty of LawUniversity of N.S.W.
 Visiting Professor in Computer ScienceAustralian National University
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] FTTP soon normal

[Frank O'Connor]

Sorry, 

I meant CDMA ... collision detection. Error correction, as Hamish said ... is a 
level 3 Feature.

Again ... just my 2 cents worth ...
---
On 28 Apr 2014, at 6:39 pm, Hamish Moffatt ham...@cloud.net.au wrote:

 On 28/04/14 18:22, Frank O'Connor wrote:
 Well, yeah ... but:
 
 1. ANY form of networking causes 'slow-downs' simply by its very nature, 
 irrespective of what the data interface is capable of.
 
 1Gbs hard wired Ethernet? Sure ... if you only have 2 devices connected, are 
 running a single networked application ... and even then all you'll get is 
 300-500Mbs max due to error correction (huge overhead in Ethernet which 
 increases logarithmically as nodes activate), data scheduling problems and 
 lots of negotiations (e.g.ACK/NACKS, non-data packets ... ICMP for example, 
 and other high level protocols inherent in TCP/IP) between the devices.
 
 It doesn't much matter what network architecture you use ... the overheads 
 persist (as they were designed to do by the network protocol inventors) and 
 slow traffic way below the optimum. With networks its important that little 
 numbers like error detection and recovery work ... especially in 
 non-tolerant applications and devices.
 
 I think you're getting your layers pretty mixed up here. 
 1000base-T/802.3ab (Gigabit Ethernet) has no error correction (it has 
 error detection), and given that's it's almost always switched won't 
 have problems scaling as you add more devices and applications unless 
 your switch is completely hopeless. Of course it has overheads that mean 
 you won't actually get 1000Mbit/sec of user data (HTTP or whatever) but 
 the performance is pretty predictable and quite close to the theoretical 
 with modern computers.
 
 TCP/IP adds overheads to get its work done but there's no interference 
 between nodes and applications there either.
 
 
 2. Bottom line: WiFi is no more or less efficient than hard wired network 
 protocols. Indeed, low level WiFi protocols are typically Ethernet protocols 
 ... and hence subject to the SAME efficiency and effectiveness limitations 
 as the wired protocols they emulate. The difference is that with WiFi you 
 can overlay channels more easily than you can on an Ethernet connection ... 
 which doesn't handle packet crowding very well at all.
 
 WiFi of course is working on a shared channel, while switched ethernet 
 effectively has a separate channel for each connection.
 
 
 
 Hamish
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] FTTP soon normal

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm,

Most WiFi routers you buy nowadays are 380Mbs, or better, multichannel devices 
that can handle much more bandwidth than the old 54Mbs puppies. The default 
WiFi in any 'puter you buy nowadays can handle this no problems. New WiFi 
standards are on the horizon to take routers and PC WiFi cards to 1 Gbs ... 
again mainly by channel combination, but what the heck you take bandwidth any 
way you can get it.

And 4G and other standards are already stressing the capability of mobile 
infrastructure to deliver, rather than phones and tablets and the like to 
receive.

Ethernet is now hitting 10 Gbs (but I only have a 1Gbs port on the back of my 
18 month old Mac) and new I/O standards like USB 3 have hit 5 Gbs, Thunderbolt 
2 is 20 Gbs and there are a couple of other connector standards that are also 
pushing the baselines out. 

For practical purposes I've found USB 3 about 2/3 the effective speed of 
Thunderbolt ... but I haven't tested the ports with the same drives which could 
have a huge effect on performance (and the faster RAID drive is attached to the 
10 Gbs Thunderbolt 1 port) ... so effectively there may be little between them 
if the same hardware is attached. That said, both are a huge and very 
noticeable improvement over my previous USB 2 and Firewire 3.

HDMI and other multimedia standards are fairly well documented, but are already 
hitting the wall with some new content and resolution standards

I suppose the point is that no matter what bandwidth the NBN eventually brings 
to the home, there are a horde of readily available and installed interface 
standards already in place that can more than take care of it and much much 
more. The problem won't be stressing the interfaces and devices, it will be the 
stressing of the NBN's capability to deliver.

Just my 2 cents worth ...
---
On 28 Apr 2014, at 9:43 am, Jan Whitaker jw...@internode.on.net wrote:

 At 09:32 AM 28/04/2014, Richard Archer you wrote:
 Sorry to be a spoil sport, but your story about networking inside the
 premises has nothing to do with FTTP nor FTTN.
 
  ...R.
 
 True, Richard, but it does set up a 'last meter/yard/whatever' 
 connection question. What is the transfer speed available throughout 
 the home from the termination point and how would you do it?
 
 I believe my wifi is 55Mbps as I have an old router/modem. Do the 
 newer ones carry faster data speeds?
 I think ethernet is a top end of 100Mbps. Is there a faster ethernet nowadays?
 And even if you could get faster than ethernet speed, can the devices 
 on the end -- tablets, laptops, smart TVs, etc. -- deal with those speeds?
 
 I guess the full benefit is going to be only as fast as the end 
 device can handle in any event, but the value to a full household is 
 multiple devices using the wider bandwidth that will be provided and 
 being 'future proofed' against the time that the devices catch up.
 
 Tom, have a talk with your friend about what he actually needs the 
 speed for and if his end devices can handle it beyond ethernet speed. 
 He may find the 55Mbps of wifi is adequate in any case.
 
 Jan
 
 
 Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
 jw...@janwhitaker.com
 
 Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how 
 do you fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space.
 ~Margaret Atwood, writer
 
 _ __ _
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Brandis loves companies, hates people

[Frank O'Connor]

Give him a break  he's gotta think about his life after politics, not the 
electorate that voted him in, not the general public, and definitely not the 
good of the country.

He's sold his (probably non-existent) soul to the content industry, come down 
on the side of people who buy (not create) IP, and is dedicated to increasing 
their hold on that IP even more. These rent seekers are his natural 
constituency.

'Fair Use?' Pshaw! Consumers, the electorate, the people who voted him and his 
confederates in ... only deserve the ever decreasing rights over the copyright 
that the industry and government see fit to leave them. Authors, songwriters , 
musicians and those communist creative types rightly assign that copyright to 
his constituency for a pittance to these greys suited middle men ... who now 
control said copyright for 70, 80 even 100 years if Andrew Robb gets to sign 
off on the TPP 'free trade' treaty.

Copyright? The fruits of creativity. The right to innovate and build on past 
works and inventions (which in the final analysis is how human progress has 
been defined for the last few thousand generations) ... Much, much too good for 
the peasantry ... could even be dangerous ... we need to stop all that now. 
Better to concentrate it in the hands of the few, and ensure that the few earn 
an inordinately good living off it for time immemorial. 

'What about the public?', you say? Hell ... we only need to worry about them 
every three years or so.

What we want is a nice pliant little population of consumers of copyright and 
IP, bought from actual creative people, who don't rock the boat and expect 
society to advance or develop in any way. 

Got news for you, George  our so called elites don't control the 
information flow anymore and the Australian public is getting really restive 
with a political elite that increasingly represents global business rather than 
our interests. It's been happening for 25-30 years, and both sides of politic 
are on the nose, but over the last 5-10 years people have been tuning out from 
mainstream media and the channels you use to pontificate from on high, and have 
been exploring divergent non-mainstream opinion and ideas, content and culture.

I doubt he's even conscious of this shift ... and still thinks its all under 
control.

I'm thinking that Brandis lives about 20 years in the past, and has no idea how 
the world is changing.

And as for corporations being persons rather than entities ... the US Supreme 
Court has a lot to answer for with respect to that. It was a recent decision 
... last year from memory. But our Australian politicians (no matter what their 
political leanings) have been in the pockets of big corporations since the late 
60's and probably before that.

It's one of the reasons we love them so much. :)

And as I said ... Brandis will need other income sources when he retires from 
politics (what good politician doesn't ... aside from Ted Mack that is) ... so 
what harm if he begins feathering his nest now?

I mean. I mean  he's 'entitled' (to the most expensive bookshelf and office 
renovations in the land, to all those superannuation and other niceness, to 
those oodles of privileges, cards, expense reimbursements, travel and all the 
other stuff our political elite has fought so hard for over the last one 
hundred and fourteen years).

Just my 2 cents worth ...
---
On 14 Feb 2014, at 4:13 pm, Roger Clarke roger.cla...@xamax.com.au wrote:

 [Even worse than merely increasing corporate welfare, the Govt has:
 -   adopted the industry's blatantly illogical 'theft' and 'piracy'
 rhetoric in relation to copyright infringement, and
 -   proposes to impose police functions on ISPs.
 
 [The one piece of good news is that there's a chance this could 
 involve court-issued injunctions, which would force corporations to 
 produce evidence, and should therefore filter out large numbers of 
 spurious take-down notices.]
 
 
 Brandis to tak hard line on Internet piracy through copyright law
 Mitchell Bingemann
 The Australian
 14 February 2014
 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/brandis-to-take-hard-line-on-internet-piracy-through-copyright-law/story-e6frg8zx-1226827168539http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/brandis-to-take-hard-line-on-internet-piracy-through-copyright-law/story-e6frg8zx-1226827168539
 
 THE Attorney-General has flagged a rewrite of the Copyright Act that 
 could force the nation's internet service providers to crack down on 
 pirates who illegally download TV shows and movies.
 
 Speaking at the Australian Digital Alliance forum in Canberra this 
 morning Attorney-General George Brandis said he was considering a 
 number of proposals to protect the rights of content owners, 
 describing the act of illegally downloading copyrighted material as 
 theft.
 
 The illegal downloading of Australian films online is a form of 
 theft. I say Australian films, but of course the illegal downloading 
 of 

Re: [LINK] Brandis loves companies, hates people

[Frank O'Connor]

No Janet ... the US Corporations get it all. Limited liability, and the rights 
and privileges of people (or a limited subset thereof having regard to the 
ethereal nature of a corporation).

And you know what the really good thing is?

The good thing is that if Andrew Robb and his laughingly named 'negotiators' 
sign off on the TPP, not only will said corporations be entitled to litigate if 
Australian government policy and/or legislation messes with their business 
interests, but in all likelihood the corporations will be able to avail 
themselves of those rights and privileges as parties to the action that they 
bring (no doubt in a US or other friendly jurisdiction court) and there won't 
be a thing our stalwart Australian government representatives will be able to 
do about it.

God I love living in this country ...:)

Just my 2 cents worth ...
---
On 14 Feb 2014, at 5:47 pm, Janet Hawtin ja...@hawtin.net.au wrote:

 On 14 February 2014 17:05, Frank O'Connor francisoconn...@bigpond.com wrote:
 
 And as for corporations being persons rather than entities ... the US Supreme 
 Court has a lot to answer for with respect to that. It was a recent decision 
 ... last year from memory. But our Australian politicians (no matter what 
 their political leanings) have been in the pockets of big corporations since 
 the late 60's and probably before that.
 
 It's one of the reasons we love them so much. :)
 
 If corporations are people do all people get limited liability or do all 
 companies forfeit pty ltd to become people? 

___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Who needs Google Glass?

[Frank O'Connor]

Well, 

Yeah ... but ...

Up until recently it's been pretty obvious when somebody has been pushing a 
lens in your face or a microphone to your mouth. Even whacking a smart phone in 
someone's face or up to your eye is pretty obvious.  And there have been 
protections ... for example on beaches, in toilets, in spaces where privacy is 
expected ... to protect one from intrusion. There are certain venues now where 
you simply cannot take any camera of recording device.

But what happens with the 'always on' Google prescription glasses, or 
sunglasses, or these 'sports glasses' or 'spy glasses' as they call them? 
That's the question.

I mean, when you wear it, and it has other justifications and purposes, and its 
so unobtrusive and ubiquitous, and it's way hard to distinguish from its less 
capable, bland and non-threatening counterparts ... well, that raises issues. 
And for making HD 'cam' or 'tele synched' copies of movies, performances and 
copyrightable material they can't be beat ... aside from the camera shake 
thingie that will no doubt be licked by image stabilisation in higher end 
models (and eventually all models in a couple of years).

Paparazzi will love them, your average obsessed fan will be delighted, private 
detectives will go into ecstasy at the very notion of them, the perverted will 
be onto them like a rash - hours and hours of HD recordings on a single card 
with little likelihood of detection. They'd never miss a thing.

I suppose the point is that laws, regulations and policies could easily be 
circumvented by these puppies ... by referral to the primary and other 
functions of the glasses or worn device ... and a reasonably capable lawyer 
could argue their way out of their clients responsibility unless the offences 
are made specific. (e.g You record anything in this venue, in this context, of 
non-consenting, or minor, or lawful privacy threatened, subjects then you are 
guilty of an offence ... even if the devices used to so record have multiple 
lawful capabilities and purposes in other contexts, and if you require it to be 
on at all times, and to have said recording device up and running to fulfil 
such capability or purpose.)

(Personally I'd specify that the offending devices be only available in a 
garish and gaudy colour that alerted all and sundry to their capabilities ... 
but that would never fly, especially when the devices become as pervasive as 
they are likely to, and will probably be a fashion statement in their own right 
for young adopters.)

At any rate ... I still think the issues need to be addressed. Personally, I 
don't know that I'd like to live in a world where my every move and word and 
behaviour is likely to be recorded with impunity.

Just my 2 cents worth ...
---
On 30 Jan 2014, at 10:47 pm, Janet Hawtin ja...@hawtin.net.au wrote:

 On 30 January 2014 22:10, Frank O'Connor francisoconn...@bigpond.com wrote:
 Yeah, they'd probably be terrific for that ... and I am a bike rider.
 
 But they'd also be terrific for your average voyeur, and any number of other 
 people who want to invade your personal space and privacy for various 
 nefarious reasons.  :)
 
 Hence the probable push for controls over their use, admissibility as 
 evidence under certain restricted and controlled circumstances, and a whole 
 host of other issues that will need to be ironed out.
 
 In a world of guilt by statistical correlation actual personal video might be 
 handy?
 All of these things depend on which end of the telescope dataset or camera 
 you're at. 
 photographer, data owner, subscriber, subject, object, 
 it is probably the relations that need space rather than the specific tools?
 
 Just my 2 cents worth ...

___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Who needs Google Glass?

[Frank O'Connor]

Not really related to Stephen's comment, but for another take on this puppy:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/30/google_glass_car_ban_bills/

Just someone else's 2 cents worth ...:)
---
On 31 Jan 2014, at 2:41 am, step...@melbpc.org.au wrote:

 Frank and Janet write,
 
 At any rate ... I still think the issues need to be addressed. 
 
 In a world of guilt by statistical correlation actual personal video
 might be handy? All these things depend on which end of the telescope
 dataset or camera you're at. photographer, data owner, subscriber ...
 
 
 Would agree with both. Google Glasses raise both problems, and solutions.  
 
 For an example, according to today's Deloitte Global Technology Media and
 Telecommunications predictions report .. “There are many opportunities for
 applying wearables to improve safety and efficiency, by providing quicker
 and safer access to data.”  Johnston also said, “a recent trial of Google
 Glass by police in US towns resulted in an 80 percent drop in accusations
 of police brutality, and a drop in cases of excessive use of force by 
 police.”
 
 Personally, I can see a good case for all public servants being required
 to wear them whilst on duty, and interacting with the public. And with a
 copy of all recordings of the interactions readily available to citizens.
 
 Cheers,
 Stephen
 
 Ref: 
 http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/537096/phablets_wearables_hit_prime_time_2
 014_deloitte/
 
 
 
 Message sent using MelbPC WebMail Server
 
 
 
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

[LINK] Snowden nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

[Frank O'Connor]

See: http://www.zdnet.com/snowden-nominated-for-nobel-peace-prize-725763/

I really hope he is awarded the puppy because:

a) It would be a signal of support to whistleblowers everywhere.

b) It would provide a heap of protection against the vindictiveness and power 
of the US intelligence community, which he (very) effectively outed.

c) It would be a blow for privacy and individual rights versus the state across 
the world.

That said, I'm not holding my breath until its awarded. The Nobel Committee has 
a distressing history of supporting the 'powers that be' for a body that's 
supposed to recognise individual achievements, and in the case of this award, 
recipients who actually make a difference in the pursuit of peace.

Jut my 2 cents worth ...
---
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Even MORE secrecy

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm  and hypocrisy ...

It's what politicians, government bureucracies and intelligence agencies 
specialise in.

They'll argue that the secrecy keeps the information valuable and useful, but 
it's also a cloak that lets truly execrable and mendacious behaviour escape 
public view, and hence one of the most effective controls to prevent it ever 
happening again.

As for Timor, yeah  Brandis is a litigant wearing two hats, and very 
uncomfortably if I may say so. I'd be surprised is the courts were as a 
sanguine as he is about how this is panning out. It could be argued (big-time) 
that what we have here is an unmitigated abuse of process.

Just my 2 cents worth ...
---
On 27 Jan 2014, at 7:25 pm, Jan Whitaker jw...@janwhitaker.com wrote:

 Check this out:
 http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/brandis-moves-to-protect-what-australia-knew-of-indonesian-war-crimes-20140127-31igo.html
 
 Especially the last two paragraphs of who the Director of the 
 Archives is and his former job.
 Disgusting. I think that's called conflict of interest???
 
 Jan
 
 
 Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
 jw...@janwhitaker.com
 
 Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how 
 do you fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space.
 ~Margaret Atwood, writer
 
 _ __ _
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Drones For Schools

[Frank O'Connor]

On 27 Jan 2014, at 11:34 pm, Janet Hawtin ja...@hawtin.net.au wrote:

 
 
 it might be interesting to see what playing a game of shooting in public
 looks like to passers by

Not a chance, Janet

The gun industry and NRA and the like would ensure that any such scenes never 
saw the light of day.

'Reality' is OK ... as long as its not really real.

Just my 2 cents worth (and going way off topic)
---
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

[LINK] Congrats Brenda ...

[Frank O'Connor]

That Aynesly woman was awarded an Australia Day gong for services to the IT 
industry.

She goes from strength to strength. ACS, SAIA, Pearcey Foundation and now this.

Could she also be the one who is going to be nominated for GG today?

Now I await THAT announcement with bated breath.   :)

___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] iiNet refuse NBN Agreement

[Frank O'Connor]

An excellent analogy. :)

Just my 2 cents worth.
---
On 21 Jan 2014, at 7:22 am, Richard Archer r...@juggernaut.com.au wrote:

 On 20/01/14 10:47 PM, step...@melbpc.org.au wrote:
 It's like trying to remodel your kitchen and not knowing whether
 you'll be using gas or electricity.
 
 It's more like remodelling your kitchen and not knowing whether you'll 
 be using gas or a camel dung camp fire.
 
  ...R.
 
 
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Equivalency: technology yesterday and today

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmm,

There's an app for that. And much more besides.

And God knows what a single, probably wearable, device will integrate by way of 
functions and applications in 10-20 years time. If it's something like Google 
Glass, with inbuilt headphones and other high res output capabilities it could 
include the dedicated PC with a few terabytes of storage and a heavy duty 
64-cored CPU in the glasses rims, a dedicated gaming machine, a high res TV 
with a far greater viewing angle, a dedicated library and the functionality of 
any number of other household, education and business devices that suck up 
power and space at present. We'll probably at once become more connected to the 
world, and less connected to our immediate surroundings than were are at 
present thanks to these little wonders.

All of this of course will require personal high bandwidth and always-on 
connectivity, and it's unlikely that we'll have the network access points 
necessary to really take advantage of it (and the simultaneous ubiquitous 
'Internet of devices') in this country thanks to the somewhat crippled variant 
of the NBN we're gonna be served with ... but we can thanks the LNP for that.

Not sure if I'd personally like that level of connectivity ... but it won't be 
my problem - because first, I'm not likely to be around then, and second, those 
who have grown up with a high bandwidth always-available network will probably 
adopt same in much the same way the smart phone is now so pervasive.

Just my 2 cents worth
---
On 17 Jan 2014, at 6:28 pm, Jan Whitaker jw...@janwhitaker.com wrote:

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-cichon/radio-shack-ad_b_4612973.html
 
 What you can get on your phone today that used to be sold at Radio 
 Shack separately.
 
 
 
 Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
 jw...@janwhitaker.com
 
 Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how 
 do you fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space.
 ~Margaret Atwood, writer
 
 _ __ _
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Big Data - bad or otherwise

[Frank O'Connor]

Reminds me of the old science joke:

Q. What does DNA stand for?

A. The National Dyslexia Association.

Just my (somewhat warped) 2 cents worth
---
On 15 Jan 2014, at 3:08 pm, Bernard Robertson-Dunn b...@iimetro.com.au wrote:

 On 15/01/2014 2:13 PM, Jan Whitaker wrote:
 [waves at NSA because I used their TLA in this]
 
 If the NSA did follow up all uses of NSA, they'd have to trawl through 
 those many emails and SMS from people using NSA to mean No Strings Attached.
 
 Or:
 Notary Signing Agent
 National Scrabble Association
 National Student Association
 National Steeplechase Association
 National Sound Archive
 Nikkei Stock Average
 National Shipping Authority
 National School of Administration (China)
 etc.
 
 There are 127 listed at http://www.acronymfinder.com/NSA.html
 
 And then there's all those seNSAtional words which would give rise to 
 many traNSActions.
 
 The trouble with data is that you often don't know what they mean, what 
 they used to mean, what they might mean and what they were intended to mean.
 
 -- 
 
 Regards
 brd
 
 Bernard Robertson-Dunn
 Sydney Australia
 email: b...@iimetro.com.au
 web:   www.drbrd.com
 web:   www.problemsfirst.com
 Blog:  www.problemsfirst.com/blog
 
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Net retailing

[Frank O'Connor]

I think the writer, Blair Speedy, underestimates the problems facing Australian 
'bricks 'n mortar' retailers ...

To my mind they have any number of problems competing:

# They have to maintain a 'bricks 'n mortar' presence, with all its 
inefficiencies and attendant costs, IN ADDITION to the online presence ... so 
it is unlikely their pricing will ever get down to levels affordable by pure 
online retailers.

# They pretty well have to duplicate their product offerings with what's 
offered in their 'bricks 'n mortar' stores ... which means that the same 
limited selection, the same limited availability (you'll have to wait four 
weeks for delivery, Sir), the same often obsolete product lines (usually 
lagging a year or so behind what's available in the pure online stores) that 
they managed to buy in cheaply a the end of the producers product cycle.

# Because of this, the range of products (and more importantly competing 
products) they offer is a lot less than a competing purely online store. 

# They seem to have pretty much the same attitude to customer service as they 
have in the physical stores. (From Would you like warranty extensions, prompt 
delivery, insurance and whatever else we can extract from your wallet with 
that, Sir to Go see the manufacturer/deliverer/insurer, it's not our 
problem. if the goods prove faulty, aren't delivered, or fail after they've 
gotten your added cash.) I've found purely online merchants much more 
understanding and helpful after sales, than any of the major chains in 
Australia have ever been - and not as much into the hard sell.)

# Delivery and sealing the transaction seems to take longer than with a 
competing purely online store ... probably because they use the same product 
delivery and storage infrastructure that serves their physical stores.

# For some reason they don't do product specifications as well on their online 
stores, as 'real' online stores do. They also don't publish actual user reviews 
(unless they are glowing ones), or offer links to the product manufacturers 
sites and third party product review sites like serious online commerce sites 
do. (Probably for fear that their customers will see how out-of-date and 
limited their product line-up actually is.)

# Finally, they don't offer much in the way of consumer inducements and 
promotions on their sites ... it's pretty much a 'take it or leave it' 
attitude. In short, their sites are no places to go if you are looking for real 
bargains and sales.

There are any number of other deficiencies and irritants associated with 
dealing with the big chains online ... but the above are just a few off the top 
of my head.

So yeah ... they've got a long way to go ... but I don't think it's gonna be as 
easy to fix as some pundits suggest. The Big 3 or 4 still harken back to the 
days when they were the importers and customers took whatever they could get 
... but with serious online shopping, the customer is now in the box seat and 
the big retailers have yet to realise this.

Just my 2 cents worth ...
---
On 6 Jan 2014, at 12:24 am, step...@melbpc.org.au wrote:

 (Local) Retailers have way to go to get their online act together
 
 BY BLAIR SPEEDY THE AUSTRALIAN JANUARY 04, 2014 
 
 THE two biggest reasons shoppers cite for buying online are first, price, 
 and second, the convenience of the web as opposed to the drive to the mall 
 and, in the cities at least, battling the crowds.
 
 For a number of reasons, including labour and rent costs, retailers find it 
 hard to compete with China-based warehouse operations.
 
 We ain't world-competitive, and we ain't got a chance of being world-
 competitive, Myer boss Bernie Brookes said during the federal election 
 campaign last year as he called for an end to penalty rates that meant shop 
 staff were paid as much as $62 an hour on public holidays.
 
 Brookes is right and it could be said it's this, and not so much the GST 
 holiday that buyers have on international goods being shipped here (and 
 that local merchants have campaigned so stridently against) that is the 
 competitive issue.
 
 And that is why it's so important to get the convenience part right and why 
 Myer's week-long internet debacle is so much more damaging than the $1m it 
 will lose in sales.
 
 Brookes has been bullish in his forecasts for internet growth, and with 
 overall sales having fallen by more than 3 per cent over the past five 
 years, he's right to be focusing on one of the few areas of the business 
 that are moving forward.
 
 But in highlighting how little the company expects its website breakdown to 
 cost in lost sales, he's highlighted just how far Myer has to go.
 
 Myer's online sales more than tripled last year but still accounted for 
 less than 1 per cent of the company's $3.1 billion in annual sales.
 
 Brookes says they can get to 10 per cent of sales within five years. 
 Assuming zero growth in overall sales, that's going to require online to 
 record 

Re: [LINK] Trends 2014

[Frank O'Connor]

So, I was 'before my time'.

I remember days 20 years ago, sucking corporate data off mainframes on my 
multi-CPU portable (well, 'portable' for the time) called Big Hoover, only to 
transfer the mainframe data over to Humungo my multi-boot data analysis box. 
and massage the hoovered data using little numbers like Monarch to give it some 
structure, then Audit Command Language (ACL) to delve into the accounts and run 
various audit tests and the like, then examining reprocessed data using 
Auditor's WorkBench to establish things like corporate connections and 
structures along the lines that the finances were supposedly travelling, and 
then producing an Excel spreadsheet for the 'real auditor' with my results so 
they could get to work.

Those were the days. I had to be legally entitled to get the data and pretty 
judicious about how I used my powers, and I, more often than not, had to have a 
court order allowing me to collect the data, and requiring them to co-operate,  
from uncooperative corporates ... but I was an embryonic data scientist.   
:)

Of course, nowadays the data is meta-data ... so there's no moral or other 
problems with collecting it, collating it, storing it, analysing it and using 
it for whatever purposes you want.

And obviously court supervision of the process isn't required, because 
government and private enterprise is only concerned about what's good for us.

And anyway ... who needs those privacy and personal-aspects-of-life thingies, 
anyway ... what I want to see is jobs for all the data collectors, collaters 
and analysers - because jobs are important. 

And who cares if 95% of the process is automated anyway, meaning less 
jobs-for-the-boys I suppose, because its important that we continue to escalate 
the budgets and increase the size of the Empires of our intelligence community 
(both government and private) until they cost more than that devoted to the 
welfare of the citizenry ... because it's important that our intelligence 
community and private sector are happy.

I mean ... without that I wouldn't be able to sleep nights.

Suffice it to say, I have a bit more jaundiced view than most about 
data-science. :)

Just my 2 cents worth ...
...
On 3 Jan 2014, at 12:54 pm, step...@melbpc.org.au wrote:

 This time of year, with the turning points and new beginnings,  combined
 with a little holiday reflection time, seems to engender reflections upon
 what technology and social trends might characterize our coming 2014 year.
 
 Seems to me that the world has now produced and disseminated many personal
 data-collection technology devices. The 'Internet of Things' is being more
 and more established.  Each of these new technology devices has its unique
 and specific purpose, but many also are in effect little sensors recording
 social activity and environment data. Because of the Internet of Things it
 means they now interconnect more and more, producing and enabling Big-Data.
 
 For the first time, many people now carry sensors of all kinds that report
 back to home-base. This is either socially intentional like navigation, or
 a secondary function and owner unknown, and, simply an operational fact of
 normal utilization. Here my main point point is the world now has billions
 of electronic sensors, all reporting back both specific-data and meta-data.
 
 And, all this data is being collected.
 
 Hence in my view, 2014 will be the year of the data-scientist.
 
 By that I mean, we will begin to see the rapid and extensive rise of folks
 whose whole career involves the collection, and, data analysis, of all our
 Internet of Things. Thars is gold in them thar hills of world digital data.
 
 So, IT people will not only run machines anymore, but fundamentally gather
 accurate information to help business make best-business decisions so that
 they can adjust their business in real time, based on this information. If
 used well they'll be able to spot trends and opportunities far faster than
 they could in the past. Also of course thus greatly applies to governments.
 
 Secondly privacy will also play a role in the evolution of the Internet of
 Things and in which consumers and business currently don't see eye to eye. 
 
 According to one ISACA report consumers are mostly concerned about hackers
 accessing their information whereas most IT professionals surveyed believe
 consumers should be concerned about not knowing whom can access their data
 information and how data will be used by the companies collecting it. This
 means businesses selling tech devices and services will need to be calming
 a customers fear in two ways: assuring them that their products are secure,
 and also establishing trust in how they'll use this data. With the growing
 attention on the use of customer's data this will be one key issue for the
 2014 tech market's future imho.
 
 www.arnnet.com.au/article/535081/gadgets_can_hear_track_watch_dominate_ces
 
 Cheers,
 Stephen
 
 
 
 Message sent 

Re: [LINK] NYT: Snowden is a whistleblower and should be offered a plea to return home

[Frank O'Connor]

I'd hoped he would be awarded Nobel Peace Prize, or some other high profile 
award that would have effectively made him immune to the 'powers that be' (hey, 
who wants to be the one caught whacking a Nobel Peace Prize winner behind 
bars), but it was not to be. 

They chose ANOTHER organisation, rather than a person, to receive the prize ... 
one which of all things was lauded for getting rid of chemical weapons - the 
Committee's naivete in the face of evidence to the contrary is sometimes 
stunning - but then again, these are the sods who awarded one to Obama in 2009 
for doing precisely nothing (and since then, he has no doubt disappointed them 
rather badly).

Anyway, unless and until Snowden receives accolades and appropriation from 
either bodies the US cares about or major states that they see as allies, the 
safest place for young Edward is probably where he is.

Just my 2 cents worth ...
---
On 2 Jan 2014, at 2:30 pm, Fernando Cassia fcas...@gmail.com wrote:

 Great, well researched editorial with lots of links
 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/opinion/edward-snowden-whistle-blower.html?smid=tw-share_r=0
 
 FC
 -- 
 During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary
 act
 Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un Acto
 Revolucionario
 - George Orwell
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Wireless Broadband for Regional Australia

[Frank O'Connor]

Well, yeah  ... but:

1. The original NBN design specified that the 7% of Australia not covered by 
the FTTP would be covered by a mixture of satellite and/or fixed WiFi. They 
didn't really mean conventional wireless or WiFi however, they meant 4G.

2, The guaranteed MINIMUM speed for any of these connections was 12Mbs (with 
the fibre connected wireless station using 4G LTE from memory). Think of it as 
a fibre connected 4G phone tower providing access.

3. Satellite probably would have been more pervasive, available and quicker 
than fixed 4G WiFi in many cases (which involved fibre to the wireless node) 
but the NBN was running short of channels on satellite in 2012/3, and had 
planned to launch a couple of new K-Band satellites in 2015 adding another 160 
Gbs capability. More satellites were slotted for 2017 to up the bandwidth 
available.

4. The 4G WiFi could have been expected to suffer from the same limitations as 
overused 3G and 4G points near urban centres, and siting and channel 
availability for 'always on' Internet may have been problematic in so called 
'WiFi' situations - especially if subnetted routers weren't involved at the 
'premises'. Of course for really flat low population situations (like the 
Nullarbor Plain, Gibson Desert or the Centre ... except for that damn Rock) it 
would have been ideal.

5. Personally, I think that satellite (with regular upgrades) or eventual 
laying of pervasive fibre, was the answer to maintaining universal coverage in 
the bush, rather than 4G towers dotted over the landscape  unless the NBN 
was to cater to two classes of Australians permanently. 

6. Given our past commitment to a Universal Service Obligation I had no 
problems paying a premium for universal access to broadband services. 

I thought the NBN Mark 1 design was quite feasible, and indeed early adopters 
in the bush loved it. They did get speeds and services an order of magnitude 
better than they had been getting. It looked like it could provide 
communications an order of magnitude better than what's available now

What we're getting now however is a dog's breakfast that will serve everybody 
poorly, particularly those future generations I mentioned in my missive.

Now, Tom is questioning whether the bandwidth will be necessary (and I still 
think it will), and citing his lack of use of networks and networked services 
as a justification for this. 

I still think he is in error and that there are any number of services that 
will require high bandwidth communications in 10-15 years,  I still think the 
'compromises' involved in the 'new NBN' make it effectively useless (for remote 
country as well as urban users), and I still think that the original design was 
the most cost effective for easing the 7% of remote and rural users not covered 
by the FTTP into the network ... as long as they could look forward to full 
network connectivity and services in the near future. 

That is now unlikely to happen, and that's what I still see as the tragedy of 
my generation. We're selfish shortsighted users rather than builders ... as I 
said.

Just my 2 cents worth ...
---
On 26 Dec 2013, at 5:54 pm, step...@melbpc.org.au wrote:

 Hope I'm not intruding:
 
 Ditto.
 
 Appears that every post in this thread is thoughtful, and quite correct. 
 
 But, Tom's thread-subject is *regional* Australia. And the original NBN
 proposal (whomever the politician was that initially proposed and drove
 the original NBN concept should be awarded a medal) included a wireless
 and satellite component for regional Australia. Imho, Tom is being very
 imaginative with this Link exploration of various and original regional
 wireless modus-operandi conceptualizations.
 
 Indeed, any newer wireless distribution ideas may well apply to ALL of
 us Aussies, with this current government's NBN plans. Personally, I am
 hoping for a above-gound cable compromise. Same speed but much cheaper. 
 Whatever I seriously doubt small country towns will even see ANY cable.
 
 But, you too will only have NBN wireless yourselves, wherever you live.
 
 So please guys  gals, encourage any and all left-field wireless ideas!
 
 
 Cheers,
 Stephen
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Re: [LINK] Wireless Broadband for Regional Australia

[Frank O'Connor]

Yeah Jan,

The NBN was the one thing that my generation could have passed down to others 
... our one legacy if you like.

We've failed on the big things, I can't think of a single major infrastructure 
project we've actually initiated in the last 30 years. We've talked about a 
lot, but we can't agree on anything ... short term cost, self interest, 
not-in-my-neighbourhood, myopia, can't-be-done, and failure of imagination seem 
to rule. We're talkers not doers.

All we have done, is complete the infrastructure projects started by our 
parents and grandparents 40-50 years ago.

We can't even come to agreements on how to fix failing infrastructure and 
facilities (e.g. the Murray Darling River System, the rail network, the power 
network, sewerage and water in the cities, new airports and public transport 
services) because self interest and myopia rule. 

And it's not just infrastructure, it's the problems we're passing on to 
succeeding generations with no thought for the future. Pollution, climate 
change, housing affordability, erosions of rights and privileges, society 
sanctioned employment practices and the rise of the working poor, the ageing 
population bomb etc. etc. ... hell, if I was a GenY'er or GenX'er I'd be 
seriously miffed with the preceding generation. I don't blame them one bit when 
they rail against us ... telling us to get out of the way.

As I said to someone else ... we won the lottery when we were born, but we've 
just peed it all away.

Just my 2 cents worth ...
---
On 26 Dec 2013, at 8:41 pm, Jan Whitaker jw...@internode.on.net wrote:

 At 07:26 PM 26/12/2013, Frank O'Connor wrote:
 
 That is now unlikely to happen, and that's what I still see as the 
 tragedy of my generation. We're selfish shortsighted users rather 
 than builders ... as I said.
 
 Not quite everyone, Frank, or else NBN Mark I wouldn't have been on 
 offer at all. It's Abbott's destroyers, as many commenters to 
 articles in the Age keep calling the current lot, who are the short 
 sighted ones at their worst. I just hope we won't have to put up with 
 them for more than one term, if that.
 
 Hope all our Linkers had a restful holiday and a super feast. I'm 
 still recovering.
 
 Jan
 
 
 
 Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
 jw...@janwhitaker.com
 
 Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how 
 do you fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space.
 ~Margaret Atwood, writer
 
 _ __ _
 ___
 Link mailing list
 Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
 http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link


___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link