{"id":1530,"date":"2019-01-21T18:43:19","date_gmt":"2019-01-21T18:43:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/control-h.org\/wordpress\/?p=1530"},"modified":"2019-01-21T18:43:19","modified_gmt":"2019-01-21T18:43:19","slug":"seven-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/control-h.org\/index.php\/2019\/01\/21\/seven-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Six"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>This <a href=\"https:\/\/www.shmoocon.org\/speakers\/#eff\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"talk (opens in a new tab)\">talk<\/a> wasn&#8217;t any better than the sixth.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>I understand the idea of encrypting all traffic, but it relies on two assumptions: <\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>All traffic needs to be private, and;<\/li><li>End-user connectivity is every-expanding.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>Let&#8217;s look at those assumptions one-by-one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>What&#8217;s the problem if I fetch Facebook&#8217;s favicon.ico?  Why does that need to be private?  There&#8217;s lots of things that people do online that aren&#8217;t the least bit objectionable.  Does it matter to anyone that I ordered Pizza Hut for dinner last night?  Whatever.  I brushed my teeth twice yesterday, too, and used different brands of toothpaste.  (The tube I took to Shmoocon was still in the suitcase, so I used the other one in the bathroom.)  <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Perhaps if I was looking at some nice, wholesome porn, I wouldn&#8217;t want people to know about it, but for the vast majority of my Internet use, I really couldn&#8217;t care less who could see.   That that favicon.ico gets fetched multiple times per day by multiple people on my network is not a problem.  Maybe there should be a way to cache that common content, so it doesn&#8217;t have to be fetched from the source every time.  Like a shared cache?  <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\"Squid (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"http:\/\/www.squid-cache.org\" target=\"_blank\">Squid<\/a>, perhaps?  Oh, but that doesn&#8217;t work when all content is encrypted.  My professional experience shows that there&#8217;s many times when bandwidth availability does not increase, which brings me to point two.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>There&#8217;s lots of instances where, despite your cable company bumping your cable modem speed, significantly that bandwidth has not increased.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In one of my not-too-distant past projects, we had remote sites connected by a 9600bps satellite connections.  Much of the bandwidth available on these fifteen-minute-per-hour connections was spent <em>just&nbsp;sending&nbsp;and&nbsp;receiving&nbsp;SMTP&nbsp;<\/em>traffic  How much less traffic would have been exchanged with the encryption overhead?  Yes, maybe, there&#8217;s faster methods of communication available that would enable encrypted communications, but there&#8217;s also contracts in place binding payment of the slow services for years to come.  Even on the ground, there&#8217;s contracts with telcos that can&#8217;t be broken, even in light of faster options.  So maybe having cashe-friendly web content, and unencrypted email makes sense there?  Maybe?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The EFF, and the blind promotion of arcane &#8220;net neutrality&#8221; rules don&#8217;t take any of that into consideration;  they assume everyone is using a fast cable modem, or US-based cell network.  No, there&#8217;s tons of people who aren&#8217;t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>So the solution is to hand the decision-making process over to an unelected group of bureaucrats relying on technology from the middle of last century?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>GMAFB.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But, then, I guess I&#8217;m just not woke enough to know that I&#8217;m paying less for my mobile phone with far better data than I was before NN was repealed.  Sorry &#8217;bout that.  I suppose, also, that the places with defined contracts also got faster with the FCC controlling things.  Oh, they did.  Totally.  Those 9600bsp connections are now 10M full-duplex.  Guess I missed that.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This talk wasn&#8217;t any better than the sixth. I understand the idea of encrypting all traffic, but it relies on two assumptions: All traffic needs to be private, and; End-user connectivity is every-expanding. Let&#8217;s look at those assumptions one-by-one. What&#8217;s the problem if I fetch Facebook&#8217;s favicon.ico? Why does that need to be private? There&#8217;s [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[25,31],"class_list":["post-1530","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-shmoocon","tag-netneutrality","tag-shmoocon"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/control-h.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1530","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/control-h.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/control-h.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/control-h.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/control-h.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1530"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/control-h.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1530\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/control-h.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1530"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/control-h.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1530"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/control-h.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1530"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}