Four short links: 23 Jan 2009

Potty mouth, piracy, pointers to the future of the web, and Presidential technology woes, all in today's link roundup.

1. F*ck the Cloud - Jason Scott's brilliant (and profanity-strewn) rant about cloud computing and the things people throw away without thinking about. Jason, an Internet historian, has a unique perspective and I think what he says makes a lot of sense. "[I]f you’re not asking what stuff means anything to you, then you’re a sucker, ready to throw your stuff down at the nearest gaping hole that proclaims it is a free service".
2. Pirating the Oscars - Andy Baio summarizes online piracy of the Oscar-nominated movies, as he has done since 2003. It's interesting to see what's new this year: movies are taking longer to leak, but more of them are being leaked.
3. Webkit Owns Mobile - Alex Russell lays out the case that Webkit "has mobile all sewn up". I've been saying for the last umpty years that the Web is at a Windows 286 stage of development--we need 3.1 to come along and standarize the widgets that presently everyone reinvents. I recognized that in this line from Alex: "If we look at the APIs of Dojo, Prototype, or jQuery as a set of suggestions for the APIs that the web should expose, then it becomes pretty clear that we’ve still got a long long way to go".
4. New Staff Find White House Tech in Dark Ages - they've gone from a startup to The Enterprise (not Star Trek, alas, just a big company) and now are learning the pain of IT rules that are bigger than they are.

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

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)