JetLib News

Hugh Pickens writes “Network World summarizes an RSA Conference panel discussion in which former NSA technical director Brian Snow said that cryptographers for the NSA have been losing ground to their counterparts in universities and commercial security vendors for 20 years, but still maintain the upper hand in the sophistication of their crypto schemes and in their ability to decrypt. ‘I do believe NSA is still ahead, but not by much — a handful of years,’ says Snow. ‘I think we’ve got the edge still.’ Snow added that that in the 1980s there was a huge gap between what the NSA could do and what commercial encryption technology was capable of. ‘Now we are very close together and moving very slowly forward in a mature field.’ The NSA has one key advantage (besides their deep staff of Ph.D. mathematicians and other cryptographic experts who work on securing traffic and breaking codes): ‘We cheat. We get to read what [academics] publish. We do not publish what we research,’ he said. Snow’s claim of NSA superiority seemed to rankle some members on the panel. Adi Shamir, the “S” in the RSA encryption algorithm. said that when the titles of papers in NSA technical journals were declassified up to 1983, none of them included public key encryption; ‘That demonstrates that NSA was behind,’ said Shamir. Snow replied that when technologies are developed separately in parallel, the developers don’t necessarily use the same terms for them.”

Source: NSA Still Ahead In Crypto, But Not By Much

Hugh Pickens writes “A new study shows that the patterns of collaboration among Wikipedia contributors directly affect the quality of an article. ‘These collaboration patterns either help increase quality or are detrimental to data quality,’ says Sudha Ram at the University of Arizona. Wikipedia has an internal quality rating system for entries, with featured articles at the top, followed by A, B, and C-level entries. Ram and graduate student Jun Liu randomly collected 400 articles at each quality level. ‘We used data mining techniques and identified various patterns of collaboration based on the provenance or, more specifically, who does what to Wikipedia articles,’ says Ram. The researchers identified seven specific roles that Wikipedia contributors play (PDF starting on page 175): Casual Contributor, Starter, Cleaner, Copy Editor, Content Justifier, Watchdog, and All-round Editor. Starters, for example, create sentences but seldom engage in other actions. Content justifiers create sentences and justify them with resources and links. The all-round contributors perform many different functions. ‘We then clustered the articles based on these roles and examined the collaboration patterns within each cluster to see what kind of quality resulted,’ says Ram. ‘We found that all-round contributors dominated the best-quality entries. In the entries with the lowest quality, starters and casual contributors dominated.’”

Source: Why Wikipedia Articles Vary So Much In Quality

Hugh Pickens writes “Journalist Alan D. Mutter reports on his blog ‘Reflections of a Newsosaur’ that a coalition of traditional and digital publishers is launching the first-ever concerted crackdown on copyright pirates on the Web. Initially targeting violators who use large numbers of intact articles, the first offending sites to be targeted will be those using 80% or more of copyrighted stories more than 10 times per month. In the first stage of a multi-step process, online publishers identified by Silicon Valley startup Attributor will be sent a letter informing them of the violations and urging them to enter into license agreements with the publishers whose content appears on their sites. In the second stage Attributor will ask hosting services to take down pirate sites. ‘We are not going after past damages’ from sites running unauthorized content says Jim Pitkow, the chief executive of Attributor. The emphasis, Pitkow says is ‘to engage with publishers to bring them into compliance’ by getting them to agree to pay license fees to copyright holders in the future. Offshore sites will not be immune from the crackdown: almost all of them depend on banner ads served by US-based services, and the DMCA requires the ad service to act against any violator. Attributor says it can interdict the revenue lifeline at any offending site in the world.” One possible weakness in Attributor’s business plan, unless they intend to violate the robots.txt convention: they find violators by crawling the Web.

Source: Web Copyright Crackdown On the Way

Hugh Pickens writes “The NY Times has an interesting article about Human-flesh search engines — renrou sousuo yinqing — that have become a phenomenon in China: they are a form of online vigilante justice in which Internet users hunt down and punish people who have attracted their wrath. The goal is to get the targets of a search fired from their jobs, shamed in front of their neighbors, or run out of town. It’s crowd-sourced detective work, pursued online — with offline results. ‘In the United States, traditional media are still playing the key role in setting the agenda for the public,’ says Jin Liwen. ‘But in China, you will see that a lot of hot topics, hot news or events actually originate from online discussions.’ In one well known case, when a video appeared in China of a woman stomping a cat to death with the sharp point of her high heel, the human flesh search engine tracked the kitten killer’s home to the town of Luobei in Heilongjiang Province, in the far northeast, and her name — Wang Jiao — was made public, as were her phone number and her employer. ‘Wang Jiao was affected a lot,’ says one Luobei resident. ‘She left town and went somewhere else.’ The kitten-killer case didn’t just provide revenge; it helped turn the human-flesh search engine into a national phenomenon. Searches have also been directed against cheating spouses, corrupt government officials, amateur pornography makers, Chinese citizens who are perceived as unpatriotic, journalists who urge a moderate stance on Tibet and rich people who try to game the Chinese system.”

Source: China’s Human Flesh Search Engine

Hugh Pickens writes “The NY Times reports that the BBC has yielded to critics of its aggressive expansion, and is planning to make sweeping cuts in spending on its Web site and other digital operations. Members of the Conservative Party, which is expected to make electoral gains at the expense of the governing Labor Party, have called for the BBC to be reined in and last year James Murdoch criticized the BBC for providing ‘free news’ on the internet, making it ‘incredibly hard for private news organizations to ask people to pay for their news.’ Mark Thompson, director-general of the BBC, said ‘After years of expansion of our services in the UK, we are proposing some reductions.’ The BBC is proposing a 25 percent reduction in its spending on the Web, as well as the closure of several digital radio stations and a reduction in outlays on US television shows. The Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union, which represents thousands of workers at the BBC, says that instead of appeasing critics, the proposed cuts could backfire. ‘The BBC will not secure the politicians’ favor with these proposals and nor will the corporation appease the commercial sector, which will see what the BBC is prepared to sacrifice and will pile on the pressure for more cuts,’ says Gerry Morrissey, general secretary of the union.”

Source: BBC To Make Deep Cuts In Internet Services

Hugh Pickens writes “The LA Times reports that Orange County officials are locked in a legal battle with a couple accused of violating city ordinances for replacing the grass on their lawn with wood chips and drought-tolerant plants, reducing their water usage from 299,221 gallons in 2007 to 58,348 gallons in 2009. The dispute began two years ago, when Quan and Angelina Ha tore out the grass in their front yard. In drought-plagued Southern California, the couple said, the lush grass had been soaking up tens of thousands of gallons of water — and hundreds of dollars — each year. ‘We’ve got a newborn, so we want to start worrying about her future,’ said Quan Ha, an information technology manager for Kelley Blue Book. But city officials told the Has they were violating several city laws that require that 40% of residential yards to be landscaped predominantly with live plants. Last summer, the couple tried to appease the city by building a fence around the yard and planting drought-tolerant greenery — lavender, rosemary, horsetail, and pittosporum, among others. But according to the city, their landscaping still did not comply with city standards. At the end of January, the Has received a letter saying they had been charged with a misdemeanor violation and must appear in court. The couple could face a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine for their grass-free, eco-friendly landscaping scheme. ‘It’s just funny that we pay our taxes to the city and the city is now prosecuting us with our own money,’ says Quan Ha.”

Source: Officials Sue Couple Who Removed Their Lawn

Hugh Pickens writes in with an update on the warnings we discussed a year back about the dangers of a “solar Katrina.” Now NPR is reporting on a tabletop exercise mounted in Boulder, Colorado by government workers attempting to model the effects of a worst-case solar electromagnetic storm. “…an exercise held in Boulder, Colorado, has investigated what might happen if the Earth were struck by a solar storm as intense as the huge storms that occurred in 1921 and 1859 — a sort of solar Katrina — and researchers found that the impact is likely to be far worse than in previous solar storms because of our growing dependence on satellites and other electronic devices that are vulnerable to electromagnetic radiation. ‘In many ways, the impact of a major solar storm resembles that of a hurricane or an earthquake,’ says FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate, except that a solar Katrina would cause damage in a much larger area — power could be knocked out almost simultaneously in countries from Sweden to Canada and the US. In the exercise, the first sign of trouble came when radiation began disrupting radio signals and GPS devices, says Tom Bogdan, who directs the Space Weather Prediction Center. Ten or 20 minutes later electrically charged particles ‘basically took out’ most of the commercial satellites that transmit telephone conversations, TV shows, and huge amounts of data we depend on in our daily lives. But the worst damage came nearly a day later, when the solar storm began to induce electrical currents in high voltage power lines strong enough to destroy transformers around the globe, leaving millions of people in northern latitudes without power.”

Source: An Exercise To Model a “Solar Radiation Katrina”

Hugh Pickens writes “Pulitzer Prize-winning science journalist Deborah Blum has an article in Slate about the US government’s mostly forgotten policy in the 1920s and 1930s of poisoning industrial alcohols manufactured in the US to scare people into giving up illicit drinking during Prohibition. Known as the ‘chemist’s war of Prohibition,’ the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, killed at least 10,000 people between 1926 and 1933. The story begins with ratification of the 18th Amendment in 1919, which banned sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in the US. By the mid-1920s, when the government saw that its ‘noble experiment’ was in danger of failing, it decided that the problem was that readily available methyl (industrial) alcohol — itself a poison — didn’t taste nasty enough. The government put its chemists to work designing ever more unpalatable toxins — adding such chemicals as kerosene, brucine (a plant alkaloid closely related to strychnine), gasoline, benzene, cadmium, iodine, zinc, mercury salts, nicotine, ether, formaldehyde, chloroform, camphor, carbolic acid, quinine, and acetone. In 1926, in New York City, 1,200 were sickened by poisonous alcohol; 400 died. The following year, deaths climbed to 700. These numbers were repeated in cities around the country as public-health officials nationwide joined in the angry clamor to stop the poisoning program. But an official sense of higher purpose kept it in place, while lawmakers opposed to the plan were accused of being in cahoots with criminals and bootleggers. The chief medical examiner of New York City during the 1920s, one of the poisoning program’s most outspoken opponents, liked to call it ‘our national experiment in extermination.’”

Source: US Government Poisoned Alcohol During Prohibition

Hugh Pickens writes “The NY Times reports that an independent board of scientists will be appointed to review the workings of the world’s top climate science panel, which has faced recriminations over inaccuracies in a 2007 report that included a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035, although there is no scientific consensus to that effect. That brief citation — drawn from a magazine interview with a glaciologist who says he was misquoted — and sporadic criticism of the panel’s leader have fueled skepticism in some quarters about the science underlying climate change. Nick Nuttall, a spokesman for the United Nations Environment Program, said the review body would be made up of ’senior scientific figures’ who could perhaps produce a report by late summer for consideration at a meeting of the climate panel in October in South Korea. ‘I think we are bringing some level of closure to this issue,’ says Nuttall. One area to be examined is whether the panel should incorporate so-called gray literature, a term to describe nonpeer-reviewed science, in its reports. Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals, is crucial to seeking a complete picture of the state of climate science.”

Source: UN To Create Independent Panel To Review IPCC

Hugh Pickens writes “The New York Times reports that Chatroulette, the social Web site created by a 17-year-old Russian named Andrey Ternovskiy, drops you into an unnerving world where you are connected through webcams to a random, fathomless succession of strangers from across the globe. The site activates your webcam automatically; when you click ’start’ you’re suddenly staring at another human on your screen and they’re staring back at you, at which point you can either choose to chat (via text or voice) or just click ‘next,’ instantly calling up someone else. Entering Chatroulette is akin to speed-dating tens of thousands of perfect strangers — some clothed, some not. You see them, they see you. You talk to them, they talk to you. ‘It’s very strange, and not just because you are parachuting into someone else’s life (and they yours), a kind of invited crasher,’ writes Nick Bilton. ‘It is also the eerie thrill of true randomness — who, or what, will show up next?’ The Web has long allowed anonymous conversations among strangers. Text-based chat rooms are rife with deceit — people pretending they are someone else. Video makes this harder — even if you’re wearing a mask. ‘From my experience on the site, echoed by those I’ve spoken to, it seems as if 90 percent of users are genuinely looking for novel and unexpected conversation,’ add Bilton. ‘The rest — well, let’s just say they have debauchery in mind.’”

Source: The Surreal World of Chatroulette