Interesting People mailing list archives
more on Free Speech fading at UC Berkeley
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 18:56:13 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Paul Biggar <paul.biggar () gmail com> Date: May 4, 2005 4:23:20 PM EDT To: dave () farber net Cc: dpreed () reed com Subject: Re: [IP] Free Speech fading at UC Berkeley Reply-To: Paul Biggar <paul.biggar () gmail com> Dave, At first I was convinced the author had misunderstood the function and purpose of a firewall. After perusing Dr. Reed's bio, the only possible solution is that it's a test to see if we're paying attention. The article makes an analogy between setting up a firewall and oppressing free speech, as if unrestricted access to port 80 was a constitutional right. He says 'it may seem like a stretch', and frankly, it is. A firewall is no more a violation of free speech than a police officer is. Both protect the innocent, prevent theft, and make sure that there's no funny business going on. And while police officers have been known to be over-zealous in the enforcement of their jobs, we're all real glad they're there sometimes. From Dr. Reed's language, we appear to have no more than a simple firewall here. If you want to run a service on a box behind it, you email the admin, and ask for the firewall to be opened to allow connections to your machine on a particular port: "Can you open port 80 to 10.0.0.59, please". This prevents such things as trojans and bots-nets (which he seems not to regard as a problem) as well as reducing the problem of email borne viruses (say, those which create an anonymous spam relay). He alleges that firewalls offer no security to the end user; how he reaches this conclusion he does not say. In a time when machines are compromised before there is time to download Windows Service Pack 2, this attitude is bewildering. I note that this article does not lack the familiar trio of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Clearly aimed at those without a technical background, it attempts to imply that the security gestapo is reading your mail and "mucking with it's contents", and that a precedent is being set to ban the use of encryption. It further creates a faulty analogy to the regulation of cellular phone usage. I can imagine scenarios in which a firewall would lead to damage to free speech (China, anyone?). But Dr. Reed has brought none to our attention. Has permission to run essential services (such as a web site) been denied? Have individuals been singled out based on their beliefs? Has UCB even 'claimed ownership' of the traffic flowing through its network, or has it simply secured the medium? Firewalls can surely be used to prevent free speech, but there is no evidence of this here. Not having a firewall is irresponsible and dangerous for your users. Neither research nor free speech are being damaged by this. If they are, then I'd like to hear about it. Berkeley have simply put a cop on every corner, and its users can sleep more soundly knowing one is there.
Dave - UC Berkeley now requires permission to receive TCP connections at any port on any computer. This policy is typical of "locked down"corporations, but now applies to all parts of UC Berkeley, including CS.So you might find this interesting. http://www.satn.org/archive/2005_05_01_archive.html#111521463872601897
-- Paul Biggar paul.biggar () gmail com ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on Free Speech fading at UC Berkeley David Farber (May 04)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- more on Free Speech fading at UC Berkeley David Farber (May 04)
- more on Free Speech fading at UC Berkeley David Farber (May 04)