Flames of Hate

Warning, this video involves GRAPHIC scenes of recent violence on South Africa streets:

http://multimedia.thetimes.co.za/photos/2008/05/flames-of-hate/

There is no unlimited

Lots of UK ISPs offer ADSL (Broadband) packages that have an "unlimited bandwidth" option but this is nowhere near realisticly unlimited. As I have mentioned in "iPlayer and BitTorrent: The truth about so-called unlimited broadband" you are likely to get the same throughput (bandwidth) as a cheaper "limited" package but with a decreased quality to stretch it out over the month. New technologies are exposing this "unlimited" bandwidth and showing us that simply is not there.

"The Ofcom Consumer Panel has called on regulators to pull their fingers out and demand that ISPs are more honest with us about the limitations of broadband.

"The group wants a new mandatory code of practice to force providers to qualify their dodgy 'up to' speed claims, which accompany virtually all broadband marketing. The slowdown effects of contention, distance from the exchange, and network status should be made clear, it argues."

Your "up to" 8 Meg line might run effectively at 4 Meg, or maybe only 64 Kbps and this is within the product description. That "up to" is a way of ISPs promising you everything but then not having to give you anything. If you try to complain that the speed is not as advertised they will tell you that your speed is reliant on the conditions of the cable and your distance from the exchange. What they do not tell you is that if they are unable to provide what they offered you will need a damn good solicitor to sue them for breach of contract because the terms and conditions say that whatever they offer you get whatever you get. Sorry.

The full truth is even more shady. You have no actual way of knowing how fast an effective speed (after network errors, throttles, shaping, resets, delays and network lag are taken into account) you get. Your ISP can choke the effective speed down to save the budgeted bandwidth for business users (who pay better).

In "The truth about so-called unlimited broadband" I examined how the BBC had braught this issue to a head:

If you live in the UK you will be sure to be aware that the BBC (known fondly as Aunty) has launched it's own peer-to-peer media player. The BBC's iPlayer uses software called Kontiki (similar to BitTorrent) which also powers "Sky Anytime" and "4od". This enables the BBC to off set the massive requirements of distributing it's "free" media by having the consumers take part in providing the stream.

Kontiki is basically a peer-to-peer system and so like BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer programs it sends lots of data accross the network.

Plusnet, according to Bob Pullen from plusnet (see my blog post for more on that), tells me that plusnet do not offer an unlimited package and that they use a "quality of service" system to give priority to things like Aunty's iPlayer while thier site says peer-to-peer traffic is down at the bottom of the priority list. Take from that what you will.

ISPs have to transmit the packets through their networks and they do not really like it. The issue here is that the previous monopoly (BT) charge ISPs in a bizzar way. When ISPs get connected to the BT network the only cost to BT is the man power and connection equipment. Once it is set up it is effectively cost free but for the ISP the cost is just starting as they are charged for every packet of data that passes through that connection.

This increase in bandwidth usage is not so sudden and should have been easily predictable by the ISPs but they have been caught with their pants down. What they should have been doing is investing heavily in scalable solutions so that as the demand increased so could they. Woops no - they are worried that if you use what you paid for they will go bust.

What ISPs see as an answer is called "traffic shaping" - they throttle the bandwidth so that the connection speed might be 7.5 Mbps but your effective speed is sometimes likely to be more like 0.4 Mbps. When it comes to peer-to-peer they get even more aggressive and attempt to block your use of such services (such as peer-to-peer services iPlayer or BitTorrent) using a range of techniques that can include data fraud and spying. Some ISPs may actually "spy" on every packet of data you transmit through their network and when they see peer-to-peer packets they inject extra data into the steam as it passes through which is a "reset signal" that disconnects you from peers.

This inspection is not so different to automated wiretapping and definitely threatens your privacy. This may or maynot be against the law but this has never been tested. One answer is to use an encrypted connection whenever you can but not all sites have https support and not all peer-to-peer clients support it but as the ISPs get more aggressive in not giving you what they promise so to the users are getting smarter.

This is not an issue that is going to go away and without strong calls for increased transparency over the methods used to "shape traffic" ISPs will do whatever they like. Where does this leave us?

Well... it leaves us asking more questions and seeing few answers. I'm going to quiz Bob as he has stepped up to join in so keep an eye on me here and else where as the answers start to arrive (or fail to).

Obama the winner!

Time magazine has declare Barack Obama the winner of the Democratic race. Sort of...

Love the asterisk. I wonder if Time is behaving in a responsible manner by declaring that Obama will win the race.

Although Hillary is not out, the media (and it would seem the majority of voters [um... except in West Virginia]) have turned against her completely.

It would seem America isn't ready for a female candidate for President, let alone President (sorry, Condi!)

But Obama has to be feeling happy that until the convention, the media is going to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy about his seemingly inevitable nomination.

Why I Must Learn French

I am thinking that I must learn to speak french. I don't just mean "Bonjour" and a spattering of phrases I'm talking chattering away in french as if there was nothing to it.

I feel I must because I want the option to get the hell out of the UK when it completes it's transformation into a nazi state.

They can fingerprint me and record personal data about me if I commit a crime but not otherwise. I do not see a good reason to hand over every form of data about me to a group that can not even keep my name and address a secret.

Let me tell you about that.

When I wrote "Open Letter to The British Government Regarding the Loss of Sensitive Personal Information on every household with a child under 16 years old." it was with the hope that I would be able to show just how badly the govenment does not understand IT.

I pointed to a free peace of technology that would allow me to store whatever I felt on a hard drive tot he point that all of MI5 with the help of the CIA, the FBI or any number of 1337 script kiddies would never be able to break into with plausible deniability to it's existence in the first place. I officially have no encrypted volumes and I do not store notes in them.

Meanwhile as regular power users are able to store our data so safely that even if you steal our computers you will find nothing at all the Government idea of secure is text based password. Even vista has disk encryption as standard (if you switch it on).

So let's talk about your password protect file that I (in theory) have on my theoretical hard drive.

A dictionary attack will open most files inside six minutes - that's just enough time to fix a cup of coffee. Failing that if I know what some of the locked text says (or if I can see the encrypted password) a rainbow table attack will break most very quickly.

Let's talk password locks for a moment. Not all password protected files are unreadable it is just that the software asks you to give the password. All I need to know is the file format (or a good guess at it) and I'll have half the content out of the file while you were scratching your head.

Let me remind you that a dedicated attacker with access to criminal “botnets” (used by many kinds of “cyber criminal” for activities such as blackmail, spamming, Distributed Denial of Service attacks or “brute force” password attempts) or other large co-operative systems might be able to make the work of years in to the work of a few days. With access to a modern Mainframe computer this can be done many times quicker still.

So while the UK govenment does not even understand how to make safe use of passwords I know how to make my files unfindable forever - forget trying to break in - you have to find it first.

No let us talk network security. Most networks are secured using passwords. All I need to break in is (a) to guess your password, (b) trick the password out of you, (c) steal the password using a virus, keylogger or other malware or (d) use "smart" brute force methods to systematically guess a password. If I don't fancy any of that lot I can look for an exposed computer that is not up to date and exploit it or I could get a job (I have no criminal record) or pay someone else to get a job working inside or I couldblackmail a junior worker, line manager or similar. Frankly there are more ways into a govenment network than there are people working on that network.

If I'm good I might even set up some back doors to the system and document all flaws for next time.

There is no way that a system so badly set up that disks are sent in the post with nothing more than a human generated password to "lock them" is secure. I would bet money that there are right now over one hundred ways into every file the government keeps.

So when they indicate that they want to keep track of enough data that someone with half my skills could get at and then use to pretend to be me I know it is time to give up my citizenship and move out.

Don't even get me started on the privacy and human rights side of the debate...

Xenophobia in Alex: Another shame of South Africa

Last night I was having dinner with great friends, and afterwards over coffee, in the tradition of the chattering classes, we got down to talking about the ethical bankruptcy of our civic society. That South Africans as a general rule are lawless and lack empathy or respect for the lives and integrity of other human beings, this explains our high violent crime rate, and the taking of lives for things worth no more than a few pounds.

This total failure to empathise, to care about other human beings, is finding itself manifested in the criminal and violent attacks on foreigners in the Alexandra township in Johannesburg. But can we really be surprised?

In a society were violence goes unpunished by the government, the authority figures appointed by the people, and there is no common sense of dignity for one's fellow man, how can we be surprised when mobs rise up and lash out at those who are different.

This is surely a criminal act, but it speaks to a deeper issue in society. It speaks to the complete absence of avenues for change. South Africans will continue to turn to violence to resolve civil issues - the tools of the violent criminals that terrorise our nation are to become the tools of the abused society that government has failed in its duty to protect.

The first cause of a government is security for the people. Secondary concerns such as education and health, and tertiary concerns such as diplomacy and financial regulation are all out of whack in the ANC government.

And let us not forget that the South African government belongs to the ANC. The cadres who now fight and drink and swear at conferences around the nation, who support Zuma and his 'change' are the same people who have done NOTHING for the last 10 years as South Africa's government and infrastructure turns to dust; and the ones who suffer the most, the poor, go unfed, insecure and uncared for.

South Africans are not secure. And now they are venting their rage, in a criminal and inhumane way, against foreigners who don't deserve their violence. But it is a stark reminder that South Africa is no haven from violence : yes, the violence of African conflicts does not exist in South Africa yet, but a far more insidious violence dominates South African society, it is a violence and criminality that goes unchecked by South African leaders. They DO NOT CARE! No member of the ANC can say that they care about the man in the street when they are complicit in the greatest crime of all: the death of empathy and dignity in the South African nation.

The South African Liberal Constitution is a fiction. Because the people, and the government South Africans choose DOES NOTHING to ensure the rights and freedoms entrenched in it, are delivered by the government. A South African's right to health care, education, housing, safety and security ARE NOT PAID FOR BY HIS TAXES. Therefore if he doesn't have the means to pay for these services and rights privately, he would not have those things, the government wouldn't keep its end of the social contract.

That is a failed society.

South Africa is a society to be ashamed of.

South Africa is a society which must be renewed.

Bring of the elections of 2009, so that The People can decide on the ANC's policy of self enrichment and oppression of the poor.

The Quiet Revolution in South Africa

I was reading the Time 100 recently, and it included Jacob Zuma, the President of the ruling ANC party.

A very important point was made. Zuma, for all his faults (which are numerous, and will hopefully be found out in the South African courts in August) succeeded, despite his seemingly impenetrable traditional veneer, to conduct a very unafrican process in South Africa: the taking down of an entrenched and established centralised autocrat from within (Thabo Mbeki); without bloodshed and without civil war.

As this weekend's tripartite summit proves, Mbeki is a lame duck president. This may have more to do with Mbeki's atrocious handling of this country, and less to do with the enigmatic yet flawed Zuma.

But there is a glimmer of hope. As was stated previously to me at a dinner party, all politicians are on some level crooked; I agree. And Jacob Zuma might be as bad as any, again I'd agree. But the real victors in the impending removal of Thabo Mbeki from the high office in this country is that it sends a strong message to all future presidents, first and foremost Zuma, that civil society in South Africa, especially amongst the black majority, will not tolerate an autocrat.

Now that is a very interesting and powerful thing; and a true sign that the African renaissance is taking place - but not in the way Mbeki had suspected it would.

Clinton's ideologue tells her to throw in the towel.

George McGovern, the former Senator and Democratic Icon, has told Clinton she should give up in her race against Barack Obama.

His 1972 campaign inspired Clinton to get into politics. She's a hard woman, and I doubt the personal nature of the denouncement will cut her to the core, I suspect it will give her some pause as to whether or not continue with her campaign.

More on this story at the NYT and Washington Times