You can never be secure.
You will either fall victim to trust, or you will live in an apocalyptic "state of nature" where no one trusts anyone else.
There is no society without trust, only chaos. When trust exists, cooperation and society are possible, yet there will always be people who will misuse trust to further their own ends.
Government actions such as the Patriot Act (versions one and two), as well as private "security" initiatives such as surveillance cameras, have little real effect on the "bad guys". All they do is set up more trip wires for the stupid ones, at the expense of instilling a culture of suspicion.
Determined bad guys will always find a way to do bad things, despite the best efforts of society, because of trust.
You can never be secure. Deal with it.
After reading about Vivato's newly announced Wi-Fi switch, I have some questions.
The first issue is related to the hidden node problem. 802.11 devices use CSMA/CA, or "listen before talking". The hidden node problem most commonly occurs when two STAs are associated to the same AP, but the STAs cannot hear each other, so they both try to talk to the AP at the same time. The RTS/CTS sequence is a bandwidth-reservation mechanism that is included in 802.11 as a way to mitigate this problem. However, RTS/CTS is an optional feature since it reduces throughput. Vivato says there is no required changes to the STAs that wish to talk to their switch, so I'm assuming that means RTS/CTS is not required. If this is the case, I do not see how a switch with "3 steerable Wi-Fi beams" will be able to handle STAs that cannot hear each other very well. The hidden node problem is exacerbated when you extend the range of STAs so they can't hear each other. Ask any wireless ISP about it! Without bandwidth reservation (RTS/CTS) or polling (e.g. PCF), nothing is preventing STAs from all talking to the Vivato switch at the same time. For a normal AP, simultaneously received messages can corrupt each other, because APs use omni-directional antennas. The Vivato switch, which effectively sets up point-to-point links, is less susceptible to interference. If multiple STAs transmit to the switch at the same time, the Vivato switch may be pointing to only one of the STAs, so the message may not be clobbered by the others.
To make things worse, the Vivato switch can communicate simultaneously on the 3 non-overlapping channels in the FCC domain (1, 6, 11). This means, with 3 steerable beams, there is only 1 beam per channel. How is this different from a normal AP, apart from the range increase?
Next issue: why two gigabit and two 10/100 ethernet ports? The Vivato switch has 3 steerable beams, each delivering data at 11 Mbps (max throughput of 6 to 8 Mbps, due to overhead). So, 3 beams x 8 Mbps/beam = 24 Mbps data throughput. Isn't a single 10/100 enough to handle this? The only reason I can think of for 2 of each port is so the Vivato can act as a "real" ethernet switch for existing 10/100 or gigabit drops. Kind of an expensive switch...
That said, the Vivato product appears to be fully featured and enterprise grade. It also appears to be an attractive alternative to complex WLAN installations, and as a way to simplify WLAN maintenance tasks.
I can't wait to see the statistics from one of these Vivato switches in action!
Glenn Fleishman, author of the most excellent blog Wi-Fi Networking News, was interviewed by Pyramid Research. See an excerpt here.
I especially like the apt description of the last mile problem: "sucking watermelons through straws". Nice one, Glenn!
Some cool entries over on Boing Boing. There's an entry about the Linksys Wireless Digital Media Adapter, and an entry about the Sony FSV-PGX1.
This is an excellent article about the current state of 802.11g products, over at Small Net Builder.
An entry over on Doc's weblog titled "Ownership (does not equal) Exclusivity" points to a question posed by Brent Ashley about misaligned property analogy:
"What pervasive meme can we come up with that will be strong enough to counter the powerful theft/piracy images?"
After reading the blog entries, I was reminded of a discussion in an economics class about public goods. Classic public goods display two characteristics:
1) Inexhaustible - Non-rival in consumption; i.e. my consumption doesn't reduce others' consumption.
2) Non-excludable - Difficult (costly) or impossible to exclude non-payers from consuming.
This definition has not been applicable to intellectual property -- until recently. Let's pick on the music industry, for purposes of this article.
Professionally produced music has historically been both exhaustible and excludable. There are production costs for the media, which result in limited production runs. Also, exclusion was feasible because media duplication technology was either non-existent (vinyl LPs) or inferior in quality (dubbing your own cassettes). You had to buy the media from the source, or you made do without, or with reduced quality.
However, the arrival of easy-to-use digital duplication technology has made music close to inexhaustable. And, the internet makes it much more difficult for music companies to exclude use. Effectively, music is becoming a public good.
In our econ class, we were hard-pressed to come up with a true public good that fit the classic definition. The one I remember most clearly is a lighthouse. Use of the lighthouse does not reduce the ability of others to use it. And, it is nearly impossible to exclude people from using the lighthouse.
Intellectual property that can easily be put in digital form is now like light from a lighthouse. Owners of this kind of intellectual property are now presented with a new challenge -- how to exclude non-paying customers from using the light from their lighthouse.
That's the new meme I'm proposing: "Like light from a lighthouse". When I use the light, it doesn't reduce anyone else's ability to use it. And the supply is practically inexhaustible.
I am deeply saddened by the tragic loss of the space shuttle Columbia. My heart goes out to those brave souls, and their families.
I have nothing new to contribute except my personal ties to the Columbia, so rather than rehash over everything the media is (over)reporting, I will describe how I am personally affected.
I was fortunate enough to write software for the Multifunction Display Unit (MDU). The MDU is a rugged, high-performance LCD display that is part of the space shuttle cockpit upgrade in the late 90s. The "glass cockpit" upgrade replaced the vintage electromechanical gauges and readouts, which were no longer readily available (read: expensive), with LCD screens and menu buttons. (I have some mock-up cockpit pictures that I can post, if anyone is interested.)
Part of the MDU program was an onsite visit from NASA astronauts, who were personally there to see the displays and to approve the screen layouts. They flew their fighter jets into our local airport, and wore their flight suits during their visit. They were friendly and personable, but with a confident, no-nonsense air of professionalism at the same time. These astronauts were among the most impressive people I have ever met, in both achievement and character.
All of the orbiters now have glass cockpits, with nine forward MDUs and two aft ones, running my software.
So did Columbia.
Another way I was affected is in my discussion with my wife, Lori, about whether to apply to NASA as an astronaut candidate -- a mission specialist. I started seriously thinking about it last year, and we have been periodically talking about the pros and cons. I have all the forms, and I've started to fill them out, but before sending them in we have to be prepared to 1) relocate, 2) have Lori leave her job, and 3) have me take a reduced salary. Our discussions have centered around whether we are socially and financially ready to make that move.
On Saturday, as the TV was describing the astronauts and their families, Lori turned to me and said, "I don't want to be in their place."
That adds another element to the decision. It seems selfish and inconsiderate of me to even think about putting her in that position. But, if I have the ability and desire to contribute to the advancement of the human race through space exploration, it seems almost irresponsible to stand aside in consideration to others. Especially now, after such a blow to NASA, am I needed more than ever? Or are there plenty of others who will step up? What if they are all thinking the same way I do?
If you're interested in how to become an astronaut, you can look here and here.
Thank you, heroes of STS-107. You will be missed.