Is Open Source the Enemy?
Published March 4, 2010 | 
Networkworld.com had an article on the International Intellectual Property Alliance’s (IIPA) efforts to paint nations that endorse open source software as an enemy to intellectual property. They produce an annual “Special 301 watchlist”.
The Special 301 watchlist is drawn up annually by the IIPA in conjunction with the U.S.T.R. and other federal agencies, a list of nations whose acts, policies or practices “deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights or fair and equitable market access for U.S. persons relying on intellectual property protection.”
Several nations on the watchlist have been targeted because they support the adoption of open source software because it “weakens the software industry and undermines its long-term competitiveness.” What a crock. Many countries are moving towards open source (have you seen whitehouse.gov lately?), and this is a good move. I can understand why businesses that make a profit by selling proprietary software fear open source, but welcome to the work of the competitive market. Make a better product, that adds sufficient value to justify the extra expense. If someone can’t afford to run your proprietary software, either accept that they will be using an illegal copy of your software, or welcome their move to open source. You can never going to be able to make people pay for software that they can’t afford.
I looked at some of the .pdf’s associated with the 301 report and this is some of the more interesting quotes:
On the Philippines: IIPA was concerned regarding reports of consideration of a Free Open Source Software bill which would require government offices to use open source software. Passage of that bill would deny technology choice regarding software usage and ultimately would stunt the growth of the IT industry in the Philippines.
On Indonesia: For example, in March 2009, the Ministry of Administrative Reform (MenPAN) issued Circular Letter No. 1 of 2009 to all central and provincial government offices including State-owned enterprises, endorsing the use and adoption of open source software within government organizations. While the government issued this circular in part with the stated goal to “reduc[e] software copyright violation[s],” in fact, by denying technology choice, the measure will create additional trade barriers and deny fair and equitable market access to software companies.
On Thailand: Conversely, IIPA is concerned by the proposed preference policy of the Prime Minister mandating government agencies to buy open source software, which is inconsistent with APEC policy guidance on technology choice.
If you are a poor nation, what “technology choice” do you have. You can steal, or use open source. Open source software is not always the best software out there, but in many cases, it is “good enough”. Even open source software have viable business models surrounding it as RedHat has proven. It isn’t easy, and you have to prove your worth and compete on what your customers may feel that they should get for free. I don’t see how breaking the law and having a “technology choice” is better than using open source. And for that matter, there is often plenty of choices within the open source community.
Perhaps someday the IIPA will understand that open source is not their enemy, and that putting a gun to nations that support open source isn’t going to win them friends. Better yet, maybe the US Government will learn to not support such stupid accusations against companies. The U.S.T.R. should not be involved with this. If a lobbyist wants to make themselves look like fools, I can’t stop them… but I’m ashamed that anyone in our government took part in this.
NetTalk vs. MajicJack
Published March 3, 2010 | One commenter recommended that I look at NetTalk in response to my MajicJack experience. I went over to NetTalk and took a quick look around. In all, it is very similar to MajicJack, and based on browsing their forum, they are having many of the same problems as MajicJack. I do have to give them a kudo’s for at least having a forum, where you can even find negative reviews. You don’t find anything similar to that on MajicJack’s site. NetTalk seams to actually be listening to customers, whereas there is no easy way to judge how MajicJack is working with customers.
NetTalk and MajicJack use the same type of technology, although the implementation is different. NetTalk probably took a look at some of the criticisms of MajicJack such as requiring being plugged into a computer, and addressed them. As for the quality, I can’t say. I’m not really interested in buying one to try out, and I really don’t make enough phone calls to justify anything beyond my current cell phone plan. If I had to choose between the two on functionality, I’d go with NetTalk.
Their billing structure is different. Unlike MajicJack, NetTalk costs more upfront, but you get “lifetime” free calls after that. Really, that is one business model that will allow NetTalk to bring in more income, and if it fails, they made more money than they would have if they charged a yearly fee like MajicJack. It is a way for them to milk the customer on an unproven product, and if anyone really thinks that this will be used for a lifetime beyond a couple of years, you have to be kidding. If they are lucky they will survive this business and will be around for a long time. The odds are against them, but who knows. If you intend on going out of business in the near-term (not saying that they are), then any business model that maximizes income in the near-term is good. I almost feel being set up for failure… but maybe that is just me.
Well, whichever you choose, there are risks and benefits. I prefer MajicJacks business model, but I give a nod to NetTalk’s functionality and their much more open communication model.
How will the US defend against UAVs
Published March 2, 2010 | Newsweek has an interesting article on the possibility that foreign nations or terrorist could use unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in US airspace. UAVs are proliferating all over the place, and even some individuals have developed and flown their own. UAVs have come a long way from the old fashioned remote control airplanes.
UAVs range from very small to larger than some airplanes. They are most commonly built from carbonfiber and fly slow, two aspects that make them difficult to track by radar. Too easy to get confused with a bird. As the article states, it is possible to shoot them down with a Patriot, but that is a costly solution and I doubt that it will work very well. Perhaps for some of the smaller UAVs, lasers may be a cheaper solution (like those used by Israel against rockets). This technology is proliferating fast and to date, I haven’t even heard any discussions on how we might actually detect them over our airspace.
AF Chief of Staff: ABL not going anywhere
Published March 1, 2010 | Engadget is reporting on comments from the US Air Force’s Chief of Staff about the Airborne Laser:
Seeing a Boeing 747 destroy a liquid-fueled ballistic missile with a megawatt-class laser is undoubtedly one of the tech highlights of the year so far. Unfortunately, as impressive as the demonstration was, it’s unlikely to be militarized in its current state. While the Air Force’s chief of staff, General Norton Schwartz, called the demonstration “a magnificent technical achievement,” he has no intention of introducing the fat tub of chemical goo into the theater of war. Solid state lasers are the future “coin of the realm,” according to Schwartz, not Boeing’s chemical laser which he claims, “does not represent something that is operationally viable.” Of course, the chemical core of the laser was just a single component of the ALTB that managed to track, target, and destroy a moving projectile from an airborne platform. And while the technology might not be viable for broad deployment, that doesn’t mean that it won’t be fitted into a special forces AC-130 Gunship for covert operations until solid state lasers (currently limited to about 100kW) achieve megawatt status. Just saying.
Well, I’m glad to see that Gen Schwartz agrees with me. If it wasn’t for the fact that the ABL is a flying chemical plant, it would be a good idea. He is right that it is an amazing technical achievement, but it simply isn’t suited for deployment. Now, to me this is obvious, so I have to wonder why we spent hundreds of millions of dollars to develop the ABL, when it was clear that it would never be suited for deployment. Sounds like a waste of money. Maybe I’m missing something… or someone just hated the idea of not spending the money.
MagicJack suit thrown out of court
Published February 28, 2010 | MagicJack sued Boing Boing and their suit was thrown out of court. Boing Boing reported in 2008 that the MagicJack EULA states that the customer must give up their right to sue the company and that they may analyze your phone calls to target ads. The EULA still states this today. What was most bothersome was that the EULA was not accessible from the MagicJack webpage in 2008 (it is now if you search on the term “EULA”).
I bought and used a MagicJack a couple of years ago. I was underwhelmed with its performance and it was nearly impossible to find any useful information on the webpage. As Boing Boing stated, there is no way to uninstall the software (maybe there is now), and I had to rebuild my computer to uninstall the software. I like the concept but I was bothered by the customer experience, especially if you needed help. I think their website is designed to dissuade users from draining any of their support personnel time. Given the cost they sell this device for, I’d be surprised if they have many, if any, support staff. I finally gave up on using the device and stuck with using my cell phone instead.
Lack of expertise in NHTSA impacts Toyota investigation
Published February 27, 2010 | According to thecarconnection.com, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no software engineers or electrical engineers on staff. They are actually citing a Washington Post article where during the investigation, NHTSA admitted
NHTSA officials told investigators that the agency doesn’t employ any electrical engineers or software engineers.
This is unforgivable. How can the NHTSA expect to do their job if they don’t have anyone that understands the technology found on every new car, and has been in cars for well over a decade. I think the post said it best:
The agency has an annual budget of more than $800 million, and it employs 635 thousands of people. That not a single one of them is an EE or software engineer borders on the criminally insane.
According to the post, it was later clarified that NHTSA actually has 2 EE’s on staff (no mention on if they have any software engineers).
This is insane. Cars are becoming the poster child for the fusion of hardware, software, and electronics. Software and electronics are becoming more and more important. I do hope that the NHTSA will hire the right folks that can do the job.
Can the US survive a Cyber War?
Published February 27, 2010 | Net-Security.org had a story on a recent exercise regarding the US’s ability to detect and defend against a cyber attack. The article starts with:
The inability to deflect even a simulated cyber attack or mitigate its effects shown in the exercise that took place some six days ago at Washington’s Mandarin Oriental Hotel doesn’t bode well for the US.
It begs the question, does the US Government have an obligation to defend the US from cyber attack? I don’t think… maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think there is anything in the Constitution stating that the Government has an obligation to defend against cyber attack. If the US Government took the necessary steps to detect and defeat a cyber attack, then Government would be accused of interfering in business and spying on its own people. To detect a cyber attack, you must have a way to monitor internet traffic. The Government would have to instrument the internet, including the servers at your ISP. If they did so, there would be a public outcry that it is an invasion of privacy to monitor everyone’s internet traffic. As a nation we will have to choose either privacy or cyber security, you technically can’t have both. And I’m not sure if it is even the role of the Government to protect individual citizens or corporate networks. I agree that they should protect government networks, but beyond that it gets very difficult to justify that the benefit outweighs the risks. It should be a corporate or individual obligation to protect your own computer.
So the exercise demonstrated that we can’t survive a cyber attack. Not really a surprise, now is it. It is a real threat that we should not ignore it, and it makes sense that private businesses should combine their efforts to defend the corporate networks of the US. I suspect that much of this is actually happening behind the scenes. Let’s hope that they do, and we can sleep soundly… on a mattress stuffed with money (just in case).
Israel Drones Targeting Iran
Published February 23, 2010 | Al Jazeera reported today that Israel has announced that it now has Heron TP drones with enough range to target Iran. This really isn’t surprising since Israel is one of the worlds leaders in unmanned aerial vehicles. They have been at this for years, and to develop something with that type of range, while challenging, isn’t out of their technical expertise.
This isn’t a real game changer in the ongoing struggle between Israel and Iran. Israel and Iran are struggling over many things, but militarily it is over the possible use of nuclear weapons by Iran. Iran in response to the threats from the West, including Israel have moved their nuclear program well underground. Unfortunately, the West is only guessing as to what sites are nuclear related, and no drone is going to be able to carry a large enough weapon to make a difference to any hardened facility. This certainly will help Israel to keep an eye on Iran and will help their planning. This can augment any manned reconnaissance flights or their use of commercial satellite imagery.
The most likely mission for the Heron TP is simply to gather intelligence, either SIGINT or IMINT. While it may be capable of being armed, it is probably limited to one or two precision guided bombs. Now, it’s primary mission may be to help Israel locate the Iranian nuclear facilities, but I doubt that this is going to really make a difference in finding them. It may prove best at simply being a constant eye over the Persian Gulf to monitor traffic in and out of Iran. As long as it is flying legally and in international territory, Iran will have a hard time deterring them.
AZ Speed Camera Revolt
Published February 20, 2010 | 
As a recovering victim of Arizona’s speed camera system, I was delighted to see this report from the LA Times on how the citizens of Arizona are revolting against the cameras.
Speed limit enforcement using photo radar is a misuse of technology. I don’t argue that many speeders will get ticketed through the system. The problem is that often the cities or in this case, state that uses them forgets that they are ticketing people. They are wrapped around the idea of the technology and the possible income source to forget that it is their own citizens that will be targeted by this technology. There is contradictory evidence on the effectiveness of photo enforcement. Some say that they reduce the number of speeders and improve the safety of the roads, and other evidences suggest that drivers efforts to avoid the cameras actually cause more accidents by disrupting the flow of traffic.
So, what is AZ forgetting:
- It’s people receiving these tickets. Most speeders are willing to accept responsibility if they perceive that it was fair and square. Every speeder knows that they are taking a chance on getting caught. If a cop pulls you over, okay… it is your turn. But at least you have a human to talk to, to explain your “special circumstances” to, and at least there’s a human bond there. Speeders don’t like getting tickets, and they may not be the nicest of people to the police, but most folks will accept it. Cameras are impersonal and do not offer the speeder the same experience, or anything like it. It is like trying to have a discussion with an automated phone service at your bank, when all you want to do is talk to a human. In once since it is fair since the camera has no biases as to who to issue a ticket to, but it is not the same, nor is it even close to the same experience.
- Arizona has clearly set this up to generate income. Some may state that it is for safety, but that argument gets lost when you take into account the efforts of Arizona to make it easy to “just pay the fine”… no point on your license, no insurance issues, etc. It may actually serve a dual purpose, to raise income and promote safety, but safety is quickly drowned out in the argument. And unlike a human police officer, the cameras only catch speeders and red light runners, but doesn’t offer any judgment on if your actions are safe or not. A police officer can tell if someone is driving safe or not, and can pull over the drunk driver that is driving within the speed limit. Getting rid of the officers reduce the cost to generate this income, but also reduces the safety on the road. So, all of the evidence suggest that Arizona’s motivation for these cameras was primarily for making money. But wait, it does so by fining the citizens of Arizona who elect those that put this system into place. You can only piss in your own pool so long until someone notices the water changing color.
- People want to be heard. Whether you call it an “excuse” or a “reason” for speeding, people want to be heard. If not by the police officer that pulled you over, then by the judge. If you cut out the police officer, you end up with a lot of people that want to be heard by the judge. According to the article, there are courts in Arizona booked through 2011 with these cases. You can make it enticing for people to “just pay your fine”, but if someone feels strong enough, they are willing to pay more… but only after they have been heard. So, now the traffic courts in Arizona are overloaded. According to the report, only 38% of the fines have been paid, and 50% of the cases are pending while waiting for court. That’s a lot of people that want to be heard, and a lot of voters with a burning issue with their elected officials.
Technology is all fine and good, but when technology intersects with humans there are always issues. You can never forget that it is a human with emotions and feelings that are at the receiving end of this technology. The technology itself may be straightforward but when mixed with emotions, nothing is ever straightforward. Even if without a doubt that photo that arrived in the mail is me, and yes, I was speeeding… I have a strong emotional response to it. It isn’t a cold calculation that yep, I’m guilty and I should pay my fine. When this happened to me I felt violated in that I didn’t have even a small chance to confront my accuser, or explain my behavior. I don’t live in Arizona and was simply driving through the state when I got caught, so I suppressed my anger and frustration and signed up for “traffic school” (a whole other income generating scheme by the state of Arizona). The technology got me into trouble and I used technology (from the same evil bastards) to get out of the ticket.
I hope the citizens of Arizona will vote to end the use of photo radar. I know I have one more trip I must take to Arizona next month, but after that… I’m not inclined to visit ever again. I love the area, but after getting that ticket, I simply don’t feel welcomed in that state. Maybe if the citizens of Arizona ban the use of these systems, at least they will feel welcomed in their own state.
Millions for this Crap?
Published February 20, 2010 | CNN is reporting that a “bomb scanner” purchased by Iraq, Thailand, and others is a hoax. According to CNN:
The Thai government announced Tuesday that the GT200 failed rigorous tests carried out by scientists and the army in Thailand, after concerns were raised that the device was an elaborate hoax.
Unless you live completely in the Star Trek universe, who could reasonable believe that a device that is no more than a dowsing rod with a chip can actually find bombs. There have been previous reports about the GT200′s extensive use in Iraq, and that the US Military expressed concerns over their use. “Global Technology”, the makers of this device have and continue to defend their product despite the wide disbelief of their abilities. This is a case of “if it is too good to be true, then it probably isn’t”. If this worked, it would be great. It’s a small device, human powered, and highly accurate for a wide range of explosives. For a small price you can replace the explosive dogs, the massive detection systems in our airports, and so on. But there is no science that I’m aware of that would allow this thing to work. For any sensor to work, they have to receive input, either a reflection of what they sent out (such as radar), or passively (such as your ear). This device just fails the common sense test.
According to e-k9.net this is how the GT200 works:
The GT200 works on the principal of dia/para magnetism. All substances carry a magnetic charge that, when stimulated by an impulse of electricity, (static) creates an attraction between the substance being detected and the GT200 unit itself. This is called EMA or Electro Magnetic Attraction.
The simple way to explain this technology is to take an inflated balloon and rub it on your hair. A static charge is being created making that balloon “attract” it to say, a wall. Provided that there is enough charge on that balloon, it will remain “attracted” to the wall for an indefinite amount of time. However, once the “charge” has dissipated, the balloon will then “unattached” between itself and fall to the ground.
What the GT200 is doing is creating an “attraction” between itself and the substance it wants to detect. Through the Substance Sensor Card and the movement of an operator, an attracting field is created in the card reader that, in turn causes the Receiver”s antenna of the GT200 to lock onto a signal, indicating the direction in which the substance can be located. When the magnetic signal of the substance that the GT200 is searching for, is located within its detection range, the GT200 receiving antenna will move toward the direction that the substance exist. In essence the GT200 functions like a hyper sensitive receiver.
Yeah… right… doesn’t quite follow Maxwell’s equations now does it. How much static electricity would you need to create to excite a substance away to be detectable to a human powered detector? Maybe if you got really close to the explosive, placed some static-y material on top, and rubbed it hard… then maybe if you haven’t blown yourself up to pieces it may work. The worse part of this is that even today on their website, they are defending this product. They should pull it off the market immediately, and offer full refunds. I just hope that no one has been killed while trusting this device to work.