Four short links: 12 August 2009

Health Data, Python Term Extraction, Network Neutrality, New Database

by Nat Torkington | @gnat | comments: 0

1. Improving Health Care -- Adam Bosworth's speech to the Aspen Health Forum. It starts strong and just gets better: There is a lot of talk about improving health care. And there is a lot to improve. Inadequate Evidence: We don’t know enough about what works. We should require sharing of population statistics across practices and hospitals in order to better determine what works for whom. We should reward practices and hospitals that are delivering the best most cost-effective long-term outcomes and penalize those that deliver the worst.
2. topia.termextract -- Python library for term extraction, so you can get a list of the nouns and noun phrases used in a piece of text. (via Simon Willison)
3. Key to Understanding Network Neutrality -- David Pennock neatly identifies the crucial issue, that service quality and price levels be uniformly applied and not arbitrary based on how much the service provider thinks they can gouge from the customer. The key to understanding this debate is recognizing the difference between anonymity and egalitarianism. A mechanism is anonymous if the outcome does not depend on the identity of the players: two players who bid the same are treated equally. It doesn’t matter what their name, age, or wealth is, what company they represent, or how they plan to use the item — all that matters is what they bid. This is a good property for almost any public marketplace that ensures fair treatment, and one worth fighting for on the Internet.
4. (the item I linked to releases in a week's time, I will link again when it's live--sorry for the inconvenience. In the meantime, please enjoy this video of a monkey washing a cat)

Sprint blocking Cogent network traffic...

by Jesse Robbins | @jesserobbins | comments: 3

It appears that Sprint has stopped routing traffic (called "depeering") from Cogent as a result of some sort of legal dispute. Sprint customers cannot reach Cogent customers, and vice versa. The effect is similar to what would happen if Sprint were to block voice phonecalls to AT&T customers.

Here's a graph that shows the outage, courtesy of Keynote :

Rich Miller at DataCenterKnowledge has a great summary of the issues behind the incident, which has happened with Cogent before. Rich says:

At the heart of it, peering disputes are really loud business negotiations, and angry customers can be used as leverage by either side. This one will end as they always do, with one side agreeing to pay up or manage their traffic differently.

I think this is particularly Radar-worthy because it provides an example of the complex issues around Net Neutrality . In this case customers are harmed and most (especially Sprint wireless customers) will have no immediate recourse.

(continue reading)

The wiretapping accusation against P2P and copyright filtering: evidence that we need more user/provider discussion

by Andy Oram | @praxagora | comments: 5

I would by no means argue with celebrated law expert Paul Ohm when he suggests that cable companies and other ISPs might be breaking the federal wiretap law by doing deep packet inspection. This was the recent news from a WIRED reporter blogging from Computers Freedom & Privacy.

I will leave it up to the lawyers to decide whether the wiretap law was passed with the intent to keep providers from reducing traffic that strains their bandwidth, or from complying with requests from movie studios to prevent the unauthorized exchange of first-run films. I'll also let lawyers decide whether the ISPs are shielded by exemption that allows them to protect their service.

But I can't help observing that the same kinds of deep inspection that Ohm decries (and that permits China and other governments to censor content) is also used for spam and virus filtering. Superficial traffic analysis could perhaps, someday, identify spam and viruses, but it's currently critical to check for the signatures of malicious content. Would Professor Ohm like to personally handle the 2000% increase in email he'd get if he forced his ISP to stop filtering?

On the other hand, I wonder whether web mail services such as Hotmail, Yahoo! and Google would be guilty of wiretapping if they check traffic. After all, they are not delivering traffic to another system as Comcast is; they are terminating the traffic on their own systems, where their users access it. I'd think they have a much stronger defense, partly because the data is technically on their own systems, and partly through the claim that they need to run filters to protect these systems from viruses, or even just excessive traffic.

These dilemma suggest to me that the relationship between ISPs (or mail service providers) and customers has to change, and perhaps that the wiretap statute has to adapt. What we want is that most perplexing of legal solutions: to screen out malicious behavior and impacts that users don't like, while leaving positive and desired behavior alone.

(continue reading)