Picture of the Internet
Locked
 
|
This Is the Most Detailed Picture of the Internet Ever (and Making it
Was Very Illegal) http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/this-is-most-detailed-picture-internet-ever "The resultant map isn't perfect, but it is beautiful. Based on the parameter's of the researcher's study, the map is already on its way to becoming obsolete, since it shows only devices with IPv4 addresses. (The latest standard is IPv6, but IPv4 is still pretty common.) The map is further limited to Linux-based computers with a certain amount of processing power. And finally, because of the parameters of the hack, it shows some amount of bias towards naive users who don't put passwords on their computers." -- glen e. p. ropella http://tempusdictum.com 971-255-2847 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Very Interesting in many dimensions
(technical/social/...) here's what I believe to be the original
paper.
http://internetcensus2012.bitbucket.org/paper.html This Is the Most Detailed Picture of the Internet Ever (and Making it Was Very Illegal) http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/this-is-most-detailed-picture-internet-ever "The resultant map isn't perfect, but it is beautiful. Based on the parameter's of the researcher's study, the map is already on its way to becoming obsolete, since it shows only devices with IPv4 addresses. (The latest standard is IPv6, but IPv4 is still pretty common.) The map is further limited to Linux-based computers with a certain amount of processing power. And finally, because of the parameters of the hack, it shows some amount of bias towards naive users who don't put passwords on their computers." ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Picture of the Internet
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ep ropella
Me parece increíble que 420.000 usuarios de Linux sean tan descuidados y no le presten el mínimo de atención a la más básica medida de seguridad como es tener un password para ingresar al perfil. También es interesante ver el nivel de acceso de Linux en todo el mundo. 2013/5/1 glen e p ropella <[hidden email]> This Is the Most Detailed Picture of the Internet Ever (and Making it ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
On 5/1/13 12:22 PM, Alfredo Covaleda
Vélez wrote:
Me parece increíble que 420.000 usuarios de Linux sean tan descuidados y no le presten el mínimo de atención a la más básica medida de seguridad como es tener un password para ingresar al perfil. También es interesante ver el nivel de acceso de Linux en todo el mundo. I can not believe 420,000 Linux users are so careless and do not pay the least attention to the most basic security measure is to have a password to enter the profile. It is also interesting to see the level of access of Linux worldwide.I have read the paper (but only once through) and it appears that most if not all of the machines in question are in fact "embedded" computers running inside of printers, webcams, NAS devices, set-top internet devices (game consoles/Netflix boxes/etc) and even industrial control systems. I do not see anywhere where "real computers" are excluded, I assume that they are (mostly) self-excluded by not having a telnet port open and/or having more security than no password or admin/admin or root/root as password. I would call this more of an exploit than a hack (if the difference matters)... and the humility shown in the work and in the paper is surprising. If you read deep enough, you will discover that a side-effect of this work was to take very limited steps to lame another botnet being deployed at the same time, known as "Aida". All of the resulting data is available online ~.6TB worth... I'll be interested in subsequent analysis! My own work in the area is 6-10 years old and while I folllowed most of the jargon and acronyms in the paper, I felt incredibly out of date! - Steve This researcher/engineer ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ep ropella
On 5/1/13 9:54 AM, glen e p ropella wrote:
> This Is the Most Detailed Picture of the Internet Ever (and Making it > Was Very Illegal) > > http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/this-is-most-detailed-picture-internet-ever > > "The resultant map isn't perfect, but it is beautiful. Based on the > parameter's of the researcher's study, the map is already on its way to > becoming obsolete, since it shows only devices with IPv4 addresses. (The > latest standard is IPv6, but IPv4 is still pretty common.) The map is > further limited to Linux-based computers with a certain amount of > processing power. And finally, because of the parameters of the hack, it > shows some amount of bias towards naive users who don't put passwords on > their computers." > http://xkcd.com/1138/ about "heat maps" and normalization. But (s)he also references XKCD as the source of his "Hilbert Map". I *told* you that XKCD is becoming an important source of reference information! ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
I can't help but wonder why we don't extend the "virus" (or "infection") metaphor all the way out. The way viruses interact with our bodies is pretty !@#@$@& complex. I don't know of any naturally occurring viruses that are (purely) beneficial. But there are many that are, in some sense, neutral. It's reasonable to think there exist beneficial viruses, analogous to probiotic gut flora. Toss that into the hat with endogenous retroviruses and a somewhat rebellious attitude I hear from some people about purposefully exposing themselves to dirty contexts and refusing to use hand sanitizers in order to keep their immune system in good shape, and you begin to see a stark difference between the metaphor as used in computer networks versus the real thing. (Sheesh, is that a run-on sentence?) I know a few radically "open" advocates here in Portland who refuse to secure their wifi access points/routers with passwords, allowing their neighbors and passers by to access a demilitarized zone on their network. This results in a "donation" of bandwidth to the public. But despite their technical efforts and skills with their internal firewalls, it still puts their network at risk. I would think we might extend the "infection" metaphor deeper and develop layers and sub-systems of different sorts of "immunity" against botnet, worm, and virus infections. But some of them, perhaps running BOINC or like this mapping botnet, could be considered healthy infections, perhaps even crowding out bad infections (e.g. Aida) like the good bacteria in our guts. On 05/01/2013 11:46 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > I have read the paper (but only once through) and it appears that most > if not all of the machines in question are in fact "embedded" computers > running inside of printers, webcams, NAS devices, set-top internet > devices (game consoles/Netflix boxes/etc) and even industrial control > systems. I do not see anywhere where "real computers" are excluded, I > assume that they are (mostly) self-excluded by not having a telnet port > open and/or having more security than no password or admin/admin or > root/root as password. > > I would call this more of an exploit than a hack (if the difference > matters)... and the humility shown in the work and in the paper is > surprising. If you read deep enough, you will discover that a > side-effect of this work was to take very limited steps to lame another > botnet being deployed at the same time, known as "Aida". All of the > resulting data is available online ~.6TB worth... I'll be interested in > subsequent analysis! -- glen e. p. ropella http://tempusdictum.com 971-255-2847 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Glen -
> I can't help but wonder why we don't extend the "virus" (or "infection") > metaphor all the way out. The way viruses interact with our bodies is > pretty !@#@$@& complex. I don't know of any naturally occurring viruses > that are (purely) beneficial. But there are many that are, in some > sense, neutral. It's reasonable to think there exist beneficial > viruses, analogous to probiotic gut flora. Toss that into the hat with > endogenous retroviruses and a somewhat rebellious attitude I hear from > some people about purposefully exposing themselves to dirty contexts and > refusing to use hand sanitizers in order to keep their immune system in > good shape, and you begin to see a stark difference between the metaphor > as used in computer networks versus the real thing. (Sheesh, is that a > run-on sentence?) this general area, I'm not up on why/how it is (not) implemented in the real world. You might have known her during your time at SFI? Last time I had an in-depth visit with her was maybe 2007 and I'm sure a great deal has happened since! It seemed like a lot was funded by DARPA at the time and therefore some of that wasn't being published in the open (or was being delayed?) http://www.cs.unm.edu/~immsec/research.htm > > I know a few radically "open" advocates here in Portland who refuse to > secure their wifi access points/routers with passwords, allowing their > neighbors and passers by to access a demilitarized zone on their > network. This results in a "donation" of bandwidth to the public. But > despite their technical efforts and skills with their internal > firewalls, it still puts their network at risk. I would think we might > extend the "infection" metaphor deeper and develop layers and > sub-systems of different sorts of "immunity" against botnet, worm, and > virus infections. But some of them, perhaps running BOINC or like this > mapping botnet, could be considered healthy infections, perhaps even > crowding out bad infections (e.g. Aida) like the good bacteria in our guts. are considered an invitation to mischief. All the mischief I have experienced in my life has been in *in spite of* such precautions... most house-door locks are easily defeated (and certainly are the easily broken windows throughout most houses without alarms/bars) as are car windows (smash and grab). The aesthetic of leaving an open WiFi is not just bandwidth of course, but access... I'm not trying to make it easy for my teenage neighbor to double his bitTorrent feeds, I'm trying to make it easy for his friend who visits to hop on a network and check his email without having to go through the (often elaborate) transaction of getting a password. I use my internet as if it is being monitored (wait, it probably is, even if my wifi is locked down) just as I assume anyone who wants to can get into my vehicle on a whim... (Don't leave valuables in plain sight, if you lock the door, they still get them, but you also have a window to replace now). Convertible owners often don't lock their doors, who wants the top slashed just so someone can riffle your glove box and look under the seats for the hidden valuables? "do you have WiFi? can I use it?" "sure" "I see your network requires a WPA Password, do you know it?" "let me see.. my dad set that up... I think it was..." "did he write it down" "yuh... its around here somewhere.." "do you remember a mnemonic?" "yuh... it was something about his birthdate and his first pet and his grandmother's maiden name.." "ok... hmmm..." "shuffle shuffle"... "nevermind, I see your neighbor has an open WiFi, I'll just pop on that." "great!" "no problem, thanks (for nuthin)" In Berkeley ca 2005, if I felt sluggish (I mean my internet), I would go check my DHCP logs on my router to see how many people were on it... it was often a significant fraction of the limit I had set of 30. At the time I only typically had 1-3 devices of my own on it. Within my reach there was usually 1 or 2 other open nets and dozens (there was a large apartment building right next door) of closed ones. If any of the connections seemed to be using egregious amounts of bandwidth (this was 802.11G) I would bump them off and block them if they came back too often (using big bandwidth). If I was grumpy or in a hurry I would just shake everyone off and see how many came back quickly. Fundamentally I never felt abused. It was healthy to be reminded that my network traffic was transparent to anyone interested in looking (not just those with enough resources to tap the local/regional backbones). Don't send anything clear-text. HTTPS and SSH are your friends. Keep your *services* passworded, etc. There are those who prefer to wear a belt *with* their suspenders and there are those that don't. - Steve On 05/01/2013 11:46 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >> I have read the paper (but only once through) and it appears that most >> if not all of the machines in question are in fact "embedded" computers >> running inside of printers, webcams, NAS devices, set-top internet >> devices (game consoles/Netflix boxes/etc) and even industrial control >> systems. I do not see anywhere where "real computers" are excluded, I >> assume that they are (mostly) self-excluded by not having a telnet port >> open and/or having more security than no password or admin/admin or >> root/root as password. >> >> I would call this more of an exploit than a hack (if the difference >> matters)... and the humility shown in the work and in the paper is >> surprising. If you read deep enough, you will discover that a >> side-effect of this work was to take very limited steps to lame another >> botnet being deployed at the same time, known as "Aida". All of the >> resulting data is available online ~.6TB worth... I'll be interested in >> subsequent analysis! > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
On 05/01/2013 03:06 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> You might have known her during your time at SFI? > > Last time I had an in-depth visit with her was maybe 2007 and I'm sure a > great deal has happened since! It seemed like a lot was funded by DARPA > at the time and therefore some of that wasn't being published in the > open (or was being delayed?) Yeah, I talked to her a number of times while I was there. It would be interesting to find out she's continued to work on it, or if someone else took it further. > In Berkeley ca 2005, if I felt sluggish (I mean my internet), I can imagine a more urban area being more problematic. I've heard that some ISPs include restrictions on wifi sharing in their terms of service "agreements": http://w2.eff.org/Infrastructure/Wireless_cellular_radio/wireless_friendly_isp_list.html -- glen e. p. ropella http://tempusdictum.com 971-255-2847 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
>> In Berkeley ca 2005, if I felt sluggish (I mean my internet), > I can imagine a more urban area being more problematic. I've heard that > some ISPs include restrictions on wifi sharing in their terms of service > "agreements": > > http://w2.eff.org/Infrastructure/Wireless_cellular_radio/wireless_friendly_isp_list.html While the agreements tend to be a little vague and biased *against* the consumer (not a surprise given who writes them?), there *is* some common sense we use everywhere. We don't take an all-you-can-eat salad bar plate and feed a family from it but we might give a child or a partner a morsel from our plate without guilt. We don't help our neighbor tap our water main so they can shut off their own service but we might water an isolated corner of their lawn or a flowerbed that is close to our own but hard to reach from their own infrastructure. We don't steal pencils and pens from our workplace to avoid buying them for our children's school or our own home desk but we don't panic when we leave work with one in our pocket. We don't insure a car for a high-risk driver to use without putting them on the list of drivers but we might let them borrow our car now and again. This seems like another form of tragedy around the commons? So, how *do* legitimate Mesh Networks get created/propogated if access to the backbone is controlled by angry trolls at the gates? I am sure that in Berkeley there were any number (probably much less than 50% of the households) who depended on the goodwill of folks like myself to avoid obtaining their own service. On the other hand, my experience with PacBell suggests these folks felt that may have felt they had no good options. PacBell required that I sign a 12 month agreement to get internet... even though I told them I only planned to live there 11 months... they had no option so I took the 12 month deal. When it was time to leave, I tried to get them to waive the $200 "early termination fee" when I was shutting down 20 days before my 365... they weren't having it. So finally I told them I would keep the service until the year was up and they said that as soon as they detected that all my devices were disconnected from the service *they* would terminate my service (unattended service?), which they did, and then levied the $200 fee which I ignored which still plagues me everytime I try to refinance my house! In the post subprime mortgage world, it seems a smudge as faint and explainable as that can move you from super-prime to questionable! Students who likely move through apartments as frequently as on a semester basis are just SOL unless good samaritans (scofflaws?) like myself provide an alternative? - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ep ropella
On 5/1/13 6:16 PM, glen e p ropella
wrote:
Per my last question of "how is a mesh network to get started, propogate, etc.?" the list above *does* address this somewhat...http://w2.eff.org/Infrastructure/Wireless_cellular_radio/wireless_friendly_isp_list.html From her CV, here are the things I guess she is working on now!You might have known her during your time at SFI? Last time I had an in-depth visit with her was maybe 2007 and I'm sure a great deal has happened since! It seemed like a lot was funded by DARPA at the time and therefore some of that wasn't being published in the open (or was being delayed?)Yeah, I talked to her a number of times while I was there. It would be interesting to find out she's continued to work on it, or if someone else took it further.
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Picture of the Internet
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 07:00:12PM -0600, Steve Smith wrote:
> > On the other hand, my experience with PacBell suggests these folks > felt that may have felt they had no good options. PacBell > required that I sign a 12 month agreement to get internet... even > though I told them I only planned to live there 11 months... they > had no option so I took the 12 month deal. When it was time to > leave, I tried to get them to waive the $200 "early termination fee" > when I was shutting down 20 days before my 365... they weren't > having it. So finally I told them I would keep the service until > the year was up and they said that as soon as they detected that all > my devices were disconnected from the service *they* would terminate > my service (unattended service?), which they did, and then levied > the $200 fee which I ignored which still plagues me everytime I try > to refinance my house! In the post subprime mortgage world, it > seems a smudge as faint and explainable as that can move you from > super-prime to questionable! Students who likely move through > apartments as frequently as on a semester basis are just SOL unless > good samaritans (scofflaws?) like myself provide an alternative? > That is so daft. I can understand them not refunding the remainder of the 12 month contract, but to levy an early termination fee when the pro-rata refundable amount is less than the levy is crazy. How long a period of disconnection counts as an unattended service anyway? I regularly power down all my computers, routers, phones etc., when going on extended holidays (more than a few days), partly as a green measure to prevent unnecessary usage of electricity, but also as prevention against hackers, lightning strikes and other calamities. If that were in Australia, you'd lodge an objection with the ACCC. And I'd expect you'd win. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [hidden email] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Picture of the Internet
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ep ropella
On 5/1/13 3:39 PM, glen e p ropella wrote:
> I would think we might > extend the "infection" metaphor deeper and develop layers and > sub-systems of different sorts of "immunity" against botnet, worm, and > virus infections. But some of them, perhaps running BOINC or like this > mapping botnet, could be considered healthy infections, perhaps even > crowding out bad infections (e.g. Aida) like the good bacteria in our guts. > What is good or bad? If someone installs an internet webcam without a password, why would they expect internet users not to reach that webcam? If someone installs a set-top box to a cable TV coax, do they seriously not expect that their viewing habits won't be recordable? Immunity to the "bad" first has to determine that something can even be defined to be bad. When a person shops at a mall, do they expect to be anonymous? If so, I hope they wear dark glasses and a trench coat! Or if they go to a favorite restaurant and the waiter asks "The usual?" should they be alarmed? What's the general "immunity" here? Choosing to be conversational or aloof is personality trait, not a universal. If the waiter doesn't ask a second time, that's a choice of the waiter, presumably a function of the model they've inferred of their patron's behavior. In so far as computing environments, or operating systems, are concerned, I think the goal should be to state a clear security model and implement it correctly. I think these "evolutionary" layers are just a way of saying, "Golly, we just don't understand what we want or how to implement it." If the goal is to have a open negotiation process between all kinds of agents over scheduling, that's a novel use case for connected devices. But I'd say most people aren't interested in facilitating computational internet terrariums (though that would be neat). That there exist botnets is just to say there exist exploitable bugs, and that users have a poor understanding of what they expect -- that there exist careless and irresponsible people. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Steve Smith wrote at 05/01/2013 06:00 PM:
> This seems like another form of tragedy around the commons? I view all this the same way I view laws and selective enforcement by DAs and LEOs. Laws are there to provide options for the LEOs to selectively choose who to "suppress". (As with our disagreement about the "scientific method", we probably disagree on this, too. Perhaps the authors of the law have other intentions. But from what I've seen of legislative bodies, especially those - like Oregon - with "initiative" processes, whatever intentions might be there are lost in the noise of money and contradictory ideology, kneaded by massively pragmatic, amoral efficiency oriented bureaucrats.) So it is with the various terms of agreement we click through without ever reading. If/when an individual emerges as a threat to the corporation or government, rules are cherry-picked to bring the hammer down on that individual in order to coerce them into behaving how they "should" behave. As long as you don't emerge as a threat, then you can get away with pretty much anything. To me, this is why "bards" and jesters are so valuable and powerful. They manage to walk that very fine line between being a no-op and being a threat. cf: http://egyptianchronicles.blogspot.com/2013/05/bassemyoussef-saga-continues-khaled.html > Students who likely move through > apartments as frequently as on a semester basis are just SOL unless good > samaritans (scofflaws?) like myself provide an alternative? Heh, that's all very alien to me. I lived in an old corps dorm with concrete walls, group showers, and no air conditioning. I had a few "rich" friends who lived in the new dorms on the other side of campus, with their own toilets, or off campus in (what seemed like) wildly expensive apartments and houses. They had their own phones, cars, etc. Most of them could even buy their food at the grocery store rather than eating whatever the cafeteria provided on the "food plan". ;-) All my "internet access" came in the form of a green or orange screen in various basements across campus. Luckily, in large swaths of Portland, free wifi abounds due to the heroes at the Personal Telco project: https://personaltelco.net/wiki -- =><= glen e. p. ropella I can tell just by the climate, and I can tell just by the style ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
I think you answer your own questions, right? The reason for people's (false) expectations regarding computers like set top boxes or webcams is _because_ of your latter argument. If the goal is a "clear security model", then when I install a webcam on my TV, I expect a clear security model, not sporadic hack attempts by script kiddies or anonymous internet mappers. Your advocacy of engineering is what provides the false/misplaced confidence of the average Joe. Personally, I think we should stop trying to convince average Joes that there exist white hat engineers who spend their time looking out for us. Instead, we should tell the average Joe that these devices are _fun_ and anytime you bring a fun device to a party, there will be at least one or two yahoos at the party who will use it in a way you cannot predict. Similarly, if someone else brings a device to a party, you are _obligated_ to abuse that device in some way befitting your personality. If they didn't want their device abused, they should have left it at home, preferably turned off, in their safe ... or better yet, smash it with a hammer and stop buying fun devices. Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 05/01/2013 08:39 PM: > What is good or bad? If someone installs an internet webcam without a > password, why would they expect internet users not to reach that > webcam? If someone installs a set-top box to a cable TV coax, do they > seriously not expect that their viewing habits won't be recordable? > > Immunity to the "bad" first has to determine that something can even be > defined to be bad. When a person shops at a mall, do they expect to be > anonymous? If so, I hope they wear dark glasses and a trench coat! Or > if they go to a favorite restaurant and the waiter asks "The usual?" > should they be alarmed? What's the general "immunity" here? > Choosing to be conversational or aloof is personality trait, not a > universal. If the waiter doesn't ask a second time, that's a choice of > the waiter, presumably a function of the model they've inferred of their > patron's behavior. > > In so far as computing environments, or operating systems, are > concerned, I think the goal should be to state a clear security model > and implement it correctly. I think these "evolutionary" layers are > just a way of saying, "Golly, we just don't understand what we want or > how to implement it." > > If the goal is to have a open negotiation process between all kinds of > agents over scheduling, that's a novel use case for connected devices. > But I'd say most people aren't interested in facilitating computational > internet terrariums (though that would be neat). That there exist > botnets is just to say there exist exploitable bugs, and that users have > a poor understanding of what they expect -- that there exist careless > and irresponsible people. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted. -- Bertrand Russell ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Picture of the Internet
|
|
On 5/2/13 11:25 AM, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> I think you answer your own questions, right? The reason for people's > (false) expectations regarding computers like set top boxes or webcams > is _because_ of your latter argument. I don't agree, I think it's just because people don't think about the consequences of their own actions. They want some parental type person looking out for them in some vague general sense (the white hat engineer). But what that means is something no one could really agree on, and most definitions we might agree on would just be oppressive. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 05/02/2013 10:38 AM:
> I don't agree, I think it's just because people don't think about the > consequences of their own actions. I definitely agree with that. > They want some parental type person looking out for them in some vague > general sense (the white hat engineer). But you can't make that cut cleanly. We live in a marketing society. And even if you consider a 3rd world economy, you can say that an individual's expectations are, to a significant extent, determined by the culture in which the individual lives. In such social forcing contexts, what an individual _wants_ is partly determined by what society _tells_ them they want. When internet ads tell me I want a new car, it's difficult to solely place the blame on me for wanting a new car. When internet ads tell me I want an underweight supermodel for my girlfriend, or I want my abs to look like a movie star's six-pack, it's difficult to solely blame me for wanting those things. The same is true for foods without poison or bacteria in them, tap water that's drinkable, and set top boxes that resist hack attempts. If we stop telling them that they want such things, they might stop wanting such things. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com You work three jobs? Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. -- George W. Bush ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |