Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
The FSF doesn't endorse Gentoo?
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cord
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeddySeagoon wrote:
The stage3 distributed by gentoo and the few binary packages that Gentoo distributes could well be FSF approved, I've not checked. but that's not enough for a working install.

No, it's not - stage3 contains:
Code:
=sys-devel/flex-2.6.1              FLEX
>=app-arch/unzip-6.0_p20           Info-ZIP
>=app-text/docbook-xml-dtd-4.5-r1  docbook
=sys-apps/man-pages-4.09           man-pages
>=sys-apps/man-pages-posix-2013a   man-pages-posix-2013
>=app-arch/bzip2-1.0.6-r8          BZIP2
=net-misc/iputils-20151218         rdisc
=sys-apps/debianutils-4.7          SMAIL
=sys-libs/glibc-2.23-r4            PCRE inner-net rc

These licenses are not FSF approved. AND, as I mentioned above, glibc is hosted at https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/libc/ and there's non-FSF-approved code inside glibc archive.
So, they distribute code they themselves don't approve :!:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5080
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the real question is ... why do you hold FSF approval in such esteem?

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/License_Groups/FSF-APPROVED
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king


Last edited by Naib on Thu Oct 26, 2017 5:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2340

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ACCEPT_LICENSE= would never satisfy FSF. They are fanatics who do no believe any proprietary code should exist for any reason and that distros must eliminate any proprietary code and DRM-compatible code from their repository.

The only way Gentoo could be approved is if the portage tree, including the kernel, where purged of any proprietary material and take steps to discourage users from installing it themselves. That would include vanilla-sources, flash, and basically any web browsers. Such a tree does exist and is FSF approved, Ututo. Needless to say that would severely limit the utility of Gentoo and be contrary to the mission statement of "build it to your specification."

FSF fanaticism only hurts Linux. Users simply are not going to switch if they can't user their computer by design. A happy medium is the only way to go.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2044

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

R0b0t1 wrote:
1clue wrote:
You're extremely wrong.

FCC approval (and the equivalent in every other country, by international convention) states that a device may not transmit out of band from its license or in a way which interferes with other operators. This includes deliberate design choice and accidental noise. If a radio transmitter (e.g. phone in this case) transmits out of band because of some flaw in the design then the manufacturer bears the penalty. If the device was modified or used in a way so as to cause interference then the operator bears the penalty.

Look at pretty much any device that uses radio, or its owner's manual. Baby monitors for example. It says something to the effect that this device must not cause interference and must tolerate any interference caused.
The device as designed by the manufacturer can not do those things. If I modify it (via code or hardware) the device is no longer compliant and it is illegal to operate it.

It is not up to the manufacturer to prevent me from modifying it. Naib and yourself are merely repeating your views and not justifying them in any way. Please address the point I made about the comparable situation involving car or gun manufacturers.


I will not turn this into a gun debate. I will not participate in a gun debate. In my strongly held opinion, your insistence that this discussion use a gun analogy strongly indicates that you intend this thread to turn into a flame war.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2044

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Doctor wrote:
ACCEPT_LICENSE= would never satisfy FSF. They are fanatics who do no believe any proprietary code should exist for any reason and that distros must eliminate any proprietary code and DRM-compatible code from their repository.

The only way Gentoo could be approved is if the portage tree, including the kernel, where purged of any proprietary material and take steps to discourage users from installing it themselves. That would include vanilla-sources, flash, and basically any web browsers. Such a tree does exist and is FSF approved, Ututo. Needless to say that would severely limit the utility of Gentoo and be contrary to the mission statement of "build it to your specification."

FSF fanaticism only hurts Linux. Users simply are not going to switch if they can't user their computer by design. A happy medium is the only way to go.


Yeah, they have issues with the kernel itself, and therefore Linux is not FSF approved. So why is it we're stuck in yet another thread just like the thousand other threads on the net discussing whether such-and-such distro is not FSF-approved and why don't we make it that way?

You might also take a moment to ponder why the HURD's market share is what it is compared to the Linux market share. I bet some of you google "HURD" because you've never heard (hurd?) of it.

FSF are extremists, by definition. They believe all software should be FSF-approved, and that means free in a way that many Open Source licenses are not free. They believe the world must comply to their narrow definition of freedom, which IMO is even more restrictive than what Microsoft wants.

Yes, the FSF fights for the rights of free software, but very few Linux users actually believe that FSF is the end-all good guy in this. Most of the Linux users I know are system admins who have dozens of physical boxes and hundreds of VMs. They run commercial software on their boxes. They pay for customer support. They interact freely with proprietary applications on other boxes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of that, so long as they ensure that they haven't broken an EULA.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5080
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1clue wrote:
R0b0t1 wrote:
1clue wrote:
You're extremely wrong.

FCC approval (and the equivalent in every other country, by international convention) states that a device may not transmit out of band from its license or in a way which interferes with other operators. This includes deliberate design choice and accidental noise. If a radio transmitter (e.g. phone in this case) transmits out of band because of some flaw in the design then the manufacturer bears the penalty. If the device was modified or used in a way so as to cause interference then the operator bears the penalty.

Look at pretty much any device that uses radio, or its owner's manual. Baby monitors for example. It says something to the effect that this device must not cause interference and must tolerate any interference caused.
The device as designed by the manufacturer can not do those things. If I modify it (via code or hardware) the device is no longer compliant and it is illegal to operate it.

It is not up to the manufacturer to prevent me from modifying it. Naib and yourself are merely repeating your views and not justifying them in any way. Please address the point I made about the comparable situation involving car or gun manufacturers.


I will not turn this into a gun debate. I will not participate in a gun debate. In my strongly held opinion, your insistence that this discussion use a gun analogy strongly indicates that you intend this thread to turn into a flame war.

Not only that it's a non sequitur. As I stated & I will quote myself again
Quote:
what modification to a car or a gun would stop other car/guns from working? none..

If I modify my gun/car such a modification does NOT stop other people's gun/car from working

If I modify my router it CAN stop other people routers & other devices from working. The joys of electrical engineering and EMC. It's funny listening to softies with no idea argue their self declared rights trumps other people's rights and in a field they have no idea.

As Neddy stated some modifications to a gun/car can also be illegal.


But that is a digression as that is about explaining the gpl3 isnt all it is proclaimed to be. This is about Gentoo and getting some seal of approval from some zealots and whether such a seal from such a cabal is something to aspire to
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2044

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The cell phone example is a real world scenario where the radio and its software must not be altered. It pertains directly to the discussion.

It's also one I have some knowledge of. I used to be a licensed radio operator, and I know that if you transmit on the wrong wavelengths -- even by interference not on the main frequency -- then the military may just decide to come after you with helicopters. The premise that you can do anything you want is patently false.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5080
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An even better example is HMS Sheffield. Anyone that has had anything to do with EMC will know of this example.

And yes I can those in this thread that have an appreciation or more obviously those that are ignorant of it. I deal with motor drives so I have the added complexity of power quality and EMC. 4the gen IGBT have switching rates knocking on the lower frequency of EMC profiles. I'm looking into GAN at the moment and while it is <3 from power qual and control. It's a nightmare for EMC
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
szatox
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Aug 2013
Posts: 1501

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Geez....
Quote:
If I modify my router it CAN stop other people routers & other devices from working. The joys of electrical engineering and EMC. It's funny listening to softies with no idea argue their self declared rights trumps other people's rights and in a field they have no idea.
Dude, we're talking about licensing and legal issues in this topic. Who gets harmed and in what way is completely irrelevant *
The important bit is: "who would has to pay for it".
You place the blame on manufacturer, then you say that misbehaving user is responsible for his actions, and then you place the blame on manufacturer again "because the manufacturer did not prevent modifications".** Make your mind up, please?
You don't need a gun to do some killing. You don't have to modify your car to crash into someone. You don't need a certified-then-modified transmitter to jam radio signal. It doesn't matter.

* The law, practicality, justice and ethics do not necessarily go together. The question was "what the implications of some particular license are", not "why R0b0t1 wants to be a jerk". I acknowledge you didn't say that.
** I also acknowledge you explicitly said you don't place the blame on manufacturer. I dare say the examples you brought do not agree with you.


Quote:
The cell phone example is a real world scenario where the radio and its software must not be altered.(...)
if you transmit on the wrong wavelengths -- even by interference not on the main frequency -- then the military may just decide to come after you with helicopters

Of course. So if I happen to disrupt military transmission, I'm in for quite a bit of trouble. Does it mean the vendor is actually obliged to prevent tinkering with their products to the point where they are legally not allowed to release the source code?
Altering the "never close the code" license to to make it compatible with the law by allowing the vendors to close the code suggests that it is.
I don't know how it actually works. I'm just picking on things that don't make much sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5080
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

szatox wrote:
Geez....
Quote:
If I modify my router it CAN stop other people routers & other devices from working. The joys of electrical engineering and EMC. It's funny listening to softies with no idea argue their self declared rights trumps other people's rights and in a field they have no idea.
Dude, we're talking about licensing and legal issues in this topic. Who gets harmed and in what way is completely irrelevant *
The important bit is: "who would has to pay for it".
You place the blame on manufacturer, then you say that misbehaving user is responsible for his actions, and then you place the blame on manufacturer again "because the manufacturer did not prevent modifications".** Make your mind up, please?
You don't need a gun to do some killing. You don't have to modify your car to crash into someone. You don't need a certified-then-modified transmitter to jam radio signal. It doesn't matter.

* The law, practicality, justice and ethics do not necessarily go together. The question was "what the implications of some particular license are", not "why R0b0t1 wants to be a jerk". I acknowledge you didn't say that.
** I also acknowledge you explicitly said you don't place the blame on manufacturer. I dare say the examples you brought do not agree with you.


Again... I have been VERY consistent on this. If the manufacturer wants to sell such a device they need to lock down the transmission side, if they don't they will be unable to sell. IF they do manage to get their product to pass FCC/CE approval then the onus is on the end-user. IF they modify it such that it invalidates its fingerprint they are legally liable.

and whom may get harmed is perfectly valid because this is WHY there are transmission regulations and it comes down to your rights end where my rights begin and this selfish view that people should be able to do what they like is childish.
IF/WHEN an incident occurs and it is proven to be due to EMC issues the 1st thing that will occur is the offending device will be checked, it will be check to see if it has the relevant FCC and CE markings. IF they are valid and the audit trail exists the OEM is no longer in focus (the device could have fraudulent marking and then the full weight of the law will come down on the OEM). The specifics of the device are checked, if they are within the limits that passed the original equipment then the end-user is no longer the focus (if it isn't and it is shown that an end-modification has significantly changed its fingerprint then the full weight of the law will come down on the end-user) . IF everything is looking ok up till this the specifics of the susceptibility will be understood and an up-issue of the test criteria will occur...
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hu
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 11449

PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 1:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No one is seriously suggesting that users ought to be legally immune for modifications that operate the device in ways outside local regulation. Some people are suggesting, quite reasonably, that while manufacturers ought to include sufficient safeguards that users cannot accidentally violate local regulation, that manufacturers ought not be required, and ought not voluntarily implement when not required, lockouts that prevent wholly unrelated legal uses solely because that's the only practical way to absolutely ensure that no one uses the device in violation of local regulation. We went through this with copyright/VHS decades ago. VHS can be used to make infringing copies of copyright-protected works. Making such copies is a violation of copyright law, and users who use the technology that way expose themselves to legal liability. Yet we still permitted VHS tapes and VHS recorders to be sold, because there were substantial non-infringing uses.

If the manufacturer wants to ship a router that has a software lockout, or even a hardware lockout, that keeps it in compliance with local regulation, that's fine by me. I take issue with the idea that they ship a router that has a software or hardware lock preventing user modification out of paranoia that a user might perform a modification that takes the device out of regulation. Some people have substantial non-violating uses for custom router software, particularly around adding features that the manufacturer should have included, but did not. Users who exploit that freedom to load software that can violate local regulations must exercise care not to violate, on pain of legal liability.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2044

PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 2:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm saying that the cell phone transciever is an example of why some source code should stay closed and immutable except by licensed entity.

I'm saying that the vendor of a device containing some combination of open and closed source which could be easily modified in a way that would violate serious laws in the areas the device is marketed are vulnerable to a lawsuit. Which means there is valid cause to prevent modification like that, at least to a reasonable extent.

I can't see how a vendor should be liable for a hack by an educated, determined force intent on subverting a law. That's where the law should go after the black hats.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Akkara
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 6364
Location: &akkara

PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 4:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

1clue wrote:
I'm saying that the cell phone transciever is an example of why some source code should stay closed and immutable except by licensed entity.

I'm saying that the vendor of a device containing some combination of open and closed source which could be easily modified in a way that would violate serious laws in the areas the device is marketed are vulnerable to a lawsuit. Which means there is valid cause to prevent modification like that, at least to a reasonable extent.

I can't see how a vendor should be liable for a hack by an educated, determined force intent on subverting a law. That's where the law should go after the black hats.

I have to disagree strongly with the compliance-via-lockout approach.

Why should it be up to the device to enforce laws? And what happens when those laws change? By that logic, why don't hammers come with anti-bludgeoning safeguards, to prevent people from harming each other with them. Doesn't make any sense.

The vast majority of people are law-abiding. It is proper for a device to have safeguards that guard against unintentional out-of-band emissions. But it shouldn't have to go out of its way to stop intentional modification. Such modifications are much more likely to be made for the purpose of fixing bugs and expanding functionality, than for doing something they shouldn't be doing.

Acceptance of software locks in one area opens the door to the very slippery-slope of software as a means of control. What else is illegal that others might want to use software-lockout for? How long before software-as-police becomes the norm? How long before it becomes illegal to run your own code on your own machine? Already the movie industry is doing everything in its power to limit what one can do with one's own device and restrict how one can watch the content. And it doesn't work. It hasn't stopped piracy. All that it has done is get in the way and annoy legitimate purchasers who are simply trying to view what they purchased.

Likewise, RF firmware won't stop the bad guys. It can't. Amplifiers are a thing. So are frequency translators. Someone bent on denial of service and being an a**hole can make a crappy transmitter using ordinary stuff found at typical hardware stores, and blanket an area with a couple KW of RF garbage. So you'll still need enforcement to catch the bad guys. All that firmware locks does is frustrate the bright kid who might want to experiment with this stuff. And we should be doing everything we can to encourage the curious to try things out, not stopping them. You never know which garage the next Wozniak and Jobs will be coming out of.
_________________
The reason there appears to be no god in the world, is because he's overwhelmed constantly pulling all those miracles that are needed to keep all the software we're using, mostly working.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ant P.
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 4540

PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Akkara wrote:
Someone bent on denial of service and being an a**hole can make a crappy transmitter using ordinary stuff found at typical hardware stores, and blanket an area with a couple KW of RF garbage.

kW would be overkill for that. For the price of one consumer router you can buy enough spark gap transmitters (9V batteries and wire wool) to cripple a few city blocks. This isn't even secret knowledge, kids' electronics kits teach you how to do it.

And unlike a router or phone with honest firmware, this has no EULA, no limits on usable spectrum, no MAC address, and no traceability. Which is why any manufacturer or regulator that claims proprietary radio firmware is necessary is lying.
_________________
*.ebuild // /etc/service/*
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2340

PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem with RF is that the "bright kid playing around" can do an exceptional amount of damage, including potentially lethal damage, without even knowing it. The airwaves are a very limited resource.

Food for thought. Aircraft communicate on frequencies divided by 25 kHz in the 118-137 MHz range. Under the best of conditions these communications are prone to interference. Can you imagine an airliner full of passengers rendered unable to communicate due to a modified cellphone? Its a basic AM radio and very sensitive to interference.

Or GPS. The signal strength is notoriously weak. One small modification to a device and you will have disabled all navigation systems near by.

These devices must lock out unauthorized tampering because any modification will damage legitimate users of the airwaves. No maybe. You mess with RF you are either overpowering legitimate users, or interfering with them. Probably both. The bright kid playing with RF is a menace, as is anyone messing about without knowing exactly what they are doing and thoroughly testing it. There are plenty of things to play with that don't damage other people's ability to use their devices.

The only reason your cell phone works is because the airwaves are so tightly regulated. This isn't meant to stop the bad guys. Its meant to stop people from unknowingly polluting the airwaves, and it works.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5080
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ant P. wrote:
Akkara wrote:
Someone bent on denial of service and being an a**hole can make a crappy transmitter using ordinary stuff found at typical hardware stores, and blanket an area with a couple KW of RF garbage.

kW would be overkill for that. For the price of one consumer router you can buy enough spark gap transmitters (9V batteries and wire wool) to cripple a few city blocks. This isn't even secret knowledge, kids' electronics kits teach you how to do it.

And unlike a router or phone with honest firmware, this has no EULA, no limits on usable spectrum, no MAC address, and no traceability. Which is why any manufacturer or regulator that claims proprietary radio firmware is necessary is lying.
Excuse me? Think about this for a second... While a 9V battery can deliver 1W of power, it can only source 120mA. Shorting out a 9V battery something a number of kids have done with their tongue for a little TINGLE will not produce a spectrum detectable by a tuned antenna, a 75R F-connection. Shorting with steel wool will produce a FIRE not RF of any significant magnitude over 10cm away... Sure the power is there & if you do the maths you only need 8mW (in the field of the antenna, zero losses) to cover 80m^2 across one wifi channel HOWEVER power is the easy bit, the antenna isn't, EXCITING the antenna isn't. Steal wool is crap at RF transmission, its nowhere near a dipole.

The best you will achieve is disrupting your own wifi router if you did this right next to your own router to disrupt the near-field such that the far field cannot be established

even if you don't accept that... look at your own router, start walking away from your house and in about 3m you have no signal for a 100mW (in the field) transmitter that is optimised for 2.4GHz.


Akkara wrote:
..
Four SCR's, a microwave inductor, some R's and C's and I can knock up an self-firing current source inverter that would wreck havok for everyone on my PCC such that their own houses would start to deny their own services, including other electrical goods not just RF-based. But that is a criminal act, just like un-licences transmitter. By definition criminals break the law. You cannot use the excuse that "bad guys can do something similar" to advocate free market access to a resource that is densely utilised. This is a communal resource that functions because of regulation as to where in the spectrum items operate and how.

You have a bubble of -50dBm in/around your residence. You can do what you like in that up to that level. Outside of that is NOT your bubble.
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krinn
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 5982

PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem is that they are indeed locking down device for security or safety, but allowing that without control, you endup with them locking down for whatever reason they wish.
Look at the PS3, at first you could boot another os, and people were booting a linux, then for no reason, sony lock down alternate os booting, and people that have brought the PS3 because of the feature were fuck. Where is the security there?

There should be just no lock down allow in any device except by exception and exception must not be written, but asked, justified and grant per device.
We all know tomorrow all devices will be more intelligent and connected, what if your fridge stop working, because well, its manufacturer have seen you didn't change it for X years and it should be taken down, well, you know, for security, because your X years fridge works ok but is no longer "in the norms".
What if your brand new car is taken down the next year, because sure it is electric car, but its batteries are no more into the norms, so they shut it off ; for security of course.
And i'm asking you, do sony have sent an offer to pay back user of ps3 that have brought it with the alternate os booting feature?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2044

PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Akkara wrote:
1clue wrote:
I'm saying that the cell phone transciever is an example of why some source code should stay closed and immutable except by licensed entity.

I'm saying that the vendor of a device containing some combination of open and closed source which could be easily modified in a way that would violate serious laws in the areas the device is marketed are vulnerable to a lawsuit. Which means there is valid cause to prevent modification like that, at least to a reasonable extent.

I can't see how a vendor should be liable for a hack by an educated, determined force intent on subverting a law. That's where the law should go after the black hats.

I have to disagree strongly with the compliance-via-lockout approach.

Why should it be up to the device to enforce laws? And what happens when those laws change? By that logic, why don't hammers come with anti-bludgeoning safeguards, to prevent people from harming each other with them. Doesn't make any sense.


I'm not saying how I think it should be. I'm saying how it is right now in the USA.

Quote:

The vast majority of people are law-abiding. It is proper for a device to have safeguards that guard against unintentional out-of-band emissions. But it shouldn't have to go out of its way to stop intentional modification. Such modifications are much more likely to be made for the purpose of fixing bugs and expanding functionality, than for doing something they shouldn't be doing.


So why does your house have a lock on its door? The vast majority of people are law-abiding right? Why does your car have a key and door locks? Why does your computer have a password?

Quote:

Acceptance of software locks in one area opens the door to the very slippery-slope of software as a means of control. What else is illegal that others might want to use software-lockout for? How long before software-as-police becomes the norm? How long before it becomes illegal to run your own code on your own machine? Already the movie industry is doing everything in its power to limit what one can do with one's own device and restrict how one can watch the content. And it doesn't work. It hasn't stopped piracy. All that it has done is get in the way and annoy legitimate purchasers who are simply trying to view what they purchased.

Likewise, RF firmware won't stop the bad guys. It can't. Amplifiers are a thing. So are frequency translators. Someone bent on denial of service and being an a**hole can make a crappy transmitter using ordinary stuff found at typical hardware stores, and blanket an area with a couple KW of RF garbage. So you'll still need enforcement to catch the bad guys. All that firmware locks does is frustrate the bright kid who might want to experiment with this stuff. And we should be doing everything we can to encourage the curious to try things out, not stopping them. You never know which garage the next Wozniak and Jobs will be coming out of.


You are correct in that a determined, educated black hat can do whatever they want, including building a new radio. Manufacturers today make a best effort to prevent their hardware from being misused. The law today considers easy modification to be the same as complicity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2044

PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ant P. wrote:
Akkara wrote:
Someone bent on denial of service and being an a**hole can make a crappy transmitter using ordinary stuff found at typical hardware stores, and blanket an area with a couple KW of RF garbage.

kW would be overkill for that. For the price of one consumer router you can buy enough spark gap transmitters (9V batteries and wire wool) to cripple a few city blocks. This isn't even secret knowledge, kids' electronics kits teach you how to do it.

And unlike a router or phone with honest firmware, this has no EULA, no limits on usable spectrum, no MAC address, and no traceability. Which is why any manufacturer or regulator that claims proprietary radio firmware is necessary is lying.


Spark gap became officially illegal by name like 100 years ago. They transmit way out of band, therefore they're illegal. And any transmitter can be traced, even a spread spectrum encrypted set. You can triangulate on the noise using normal handheld equipment that any amateur could own. Like a scanner.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5080
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

even then that is in the 10's of MHz range & is a sinusoidal exponentially damped signal .. not going to do jack to wifi or cellular. Sure AM will get hit if it was turned to a specific station and well we are back at illegal transmissions again and the definition of a criminal is someone that breaks laws.
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2044

PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naib wrote:
even then that is in the 10's of MHz range & is a sinusoidal exponentially damped signal .. not going to do jack to wifi or cellular. Sure AM will get hit if it was turned to a specific station and well we are back at illegal transmissions again and the definition of a criminal is someone that breaks laws.


What's sinusoidal? Spark gap is not, or it would still be legal to use in radio communication. Spark gap is essentially a spark plug only outside of a metal container and hooked up to an antenna. Electrons jump across a gap at an approximately regular rate, resulting in an extremely distorted radio signal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5080
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the EM waveform is an exponentially decaying sinus where the fundamental is determined by the tank components and the period governed by the timeconstant for the spark to re-occur. That is obviously a tuned sparkgap to maximise energy into the transmission rather than a poor generator that will produce broad RF (with an even lower transmission radius...)

again to push home this sparkgap nonsense in blacking out a block... consider the more fun usage of a sparkgap... Jacobs ladder or even better Tesla coil. a few MHz, easily need 1kW of power... upt 6m away there will be wideband RF that will disrupt wifi/cellular etc... outside of that its fine (unless the Tesla is of higher power)
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king


Last edited by Naib on Fri Oct 27, 2017 6:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2044

PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naib wrote:
the EM waveform is an exponentially decaying sinus where the fundamental is determined by the tank components and the period governed by the timeconstant for the spark to re-occur. That is obviously a tuned sparkgap transmitted to maximise energy into the transmission rather than a poor generator of broad RF (with an even lower transmission radius...)

again to push home this sparkgap nonsense in blacking out a block... consider the more fun usage of a sparkgap... Jacobs ladder or even better Tesla coil. a few MHz, easily need 1kW of power... upt 6m away there will be wideband RF that will disrupt wifi/cellular etc... outside of that its fine (unless the Tesla is of higher power)


My cousin built a jacob's ladder by attaching it to the wall behind his computer. He used ceramic offsets to about an inch from the wall, used plastic screws to hold the wires.

So my first call was, "why doesn't my wifi work?" I showed up, looked at the jacob's ladder and said, "turn that off and try it." Went home figuring that was the end of the ladder.

About a week after that, "Why doesn't my computer work anymore?" I showed up and that damned jacob's ladder was still going.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
szatox
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Aug 2013
Posts: 1501

PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So why does your house have a lock on its door? The vast majority of people are law-abiding right? Why does your car have a key and door locks? Why does your computer have a password?
Because it is MY house and I can do as I please. After you bought it, you are free to replace the lock or even remove the door completely.
And when we are at leaving the door wide open: in our little discussion on RF transmitter's firmware this would translate to leaving a big, variable capacitor equipped with a convenient knob, right on the front of that device.
Altering the source code by yourself is not much different from using a soldering iron.


Quote:
Food for thought. Aircraft communicate on frequencies divided by 25 kHz in the 118-137 MHz range. Under the best of conditions these communications are prone to interference. Can you imagine an airliner full of passengers rendered unable to communicate due to a modified cellphone? Its a basic AM radio and very sensitive to interference.
Actually, taking down a plane is not that easy. The only subsystem truly vulnerable to interferences is so called "Instrumental Landing System" used for landing in bad weather conditions (like fog heavy enough to blind the pilots). So, yes, this part is dangerous and you better switch off your electronic devices should you ever find yourself in a plane landing at 0 visibility. Fortunately planes are designed _not_ to fail even in case of a direct lightning strike (which, by the way, is not uncommon).
Basically, the industry in this area does the sane thing shielding the pieces that need protection and doubling the critical components in case of random faults.
Locking out low-power transmitters fails the same way gun control does: those who do mean harm would not care whether it's legal or not, which means they are the only ones equipped with those devices after you make them illegal.
Since the vast majority does _not_ mean harm, allowing those devices and educating people on using them safely is a much better bet. (I do admit that radio transmitters do not discourage the offenders as effectively as guns do, but it does not invalidate the rule.)

Quote:
About a week after that, "Why doesn't my computer work anymore?" I showed up and that damned jacob's ladder was still going.
This one is pretty good, and I like how it goes along with the above.
The guys showing big sparks to the general public tend to put those sparks in metal cages. Sure, those cages keep people from approaching and disrupting the show, but this could be achieved by other means as well. I never asked them for their reasons, but I'm pretty sure those cages do a pretty good job at containing the radiation, so lets say they are educated enough not to pollute the area :)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2044

PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

szatox wrote:
Quote:
So why does your house have a lock on its door? The vast majority of people are law-abiding right? Why does your car have a key and door locks? Why does your computer have a password?
Because it is MY house and I can do as I please. After you bought it, you are free to replace the lock or even remove the door completely.
And when we are at leaving the door wide open: in our little discussion on RF transmitter's firmware this would translate to leaving a big, variable capacitor equipped with a convenient knob, right on the front of that device.
Altering the source code by yourself is not much different from using a soldering iron.


You can do lots of things with your house, but not anything. You can't run a meth lab, an opium den or a brothel, at least in the USA. You can't sell stolen goods from there. Depending on where you live and who you bought your land/house from, there may be laws regarding running your business from your house (zoning restrictions) or limits on what kind of animals you can keep (neighborhood covenants).

Quote:

...
Locking out low-power transmitters fails the same way gun control does: those who do mean harm would not care whether it's legal or not, which means they are the only ones equipped with those devices after you make them illegal.
Since the vast majority does _not_ mean harm, allowing those devices and educating people on using them safely is a much better bet. (I do admit that radio transmitters do not discourage the offenders as effectively as guns do, but it does not invalidate the rule.)


And people bitch about easy conversions with guns too. Bump stocks are a popular political discussion right now. In both cases a lot of people lobby (or have lobbied) for systems which are less easy to hack. Oddly enough the NRA agrees that it might be a good idea to legislate control for bump stocks.

I agree with you that prohibition never works. The only way that you could control bump stocks is by prohibition, which means the good guys won't have them and the bad guys will. But what WILL happen is that mere possession of one would be a criminal offense, which would justify a closer look at the person who possessed it and their property.

Quote:

Quote:
About a week after that, "Why doesn't my computer work anymore?" I showed up and that damned jacob's ladder was still going.
This one is pretty good, and I like how it goes along with the above.
The guys showing big sparks to the general public tend to put those sparks in metal cages. Sure, those cages keep people from approaching and disrupting the show, but this could be achieved by other means as well. I never asked them for their reasons, but I'm pretty sure those cages do a pretty good job at containing the radiation, so lets say they are educated enough not to pollute the area :)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum