Category Archives: networking

Value in the “Internet of Things”

Posted by on 4 October 2011 15:14 1 comment

Phil Windley has a great article titled “Personal Event Networks: Building the Internet of Things.” His discussion of value is insightful:

The customer sees more value in products that cooperate than in products that are merely online.

The reason I bought a Kindle 2 when the Nook had arguably more enticing hardware is because of how the device was connected–it had the Amazon ecosystem backing it, and it integrated well with some other things like Facebook and Twitter. I never even considered the Sony ereader because it was just an ereader with no connection outside itself.

All the same, I wish my Kindle updated Goodreads for me–that would give me a lot of value. Instead, I have to enter my progress manually in Goodreads, and copy and paste quotes I want to share. The services don’t talk to each other. Reading ten pages on the Kindle ought to be enough for Goodreads to update my progress, rather than requiring it to be a discrete action. This leads to another of Phil’s points:

Note that I’m not using the app to plan the trip, I’m using the product—the GPS—but the app sees the events from the GPS and the car and links them together. This is an important distinction because the product, naturally, is the locus of my activity. Rather than forcing the user to interact through a phone interface in a video game-like virtual world, I merely use products as they were intended. The UX is the natural interactions I have with things in my life.

(emphasis added)

An event network is the best model to enable these kinds of interactions. The Kindle needn’t implement the Goodreads API; it could just raise events. Then I can use a language like KRL to glue it together with Goodreads.

Cell phone service on NYC subway platforms

Posted by on 26 September 2011 20:24 4 comments

AT&T and T-Mobile are expected to roll out cell phone service tomorrow to several platforms in the New York subway system. This is not unprecedented; California’s BART and Boston’s MBTA have had similar systems for years. This is a good move technologically, but many passengers have come to value their time in subway tunnels as a respite from the hectic above-ground life. As I’ve written before, we still need time to think, disconnected from cell phones and WiFi. Offering cell phone service in the subway extends the enticing tentacles of connection, making it harder to put away the devices and ponder. Ultimately, however, it’s still our choice whether to use that time for quiet reflection or feverish emailing.

BART and free speech

Posted by on 25 August 2011 17:02 No comments

There was some backlash against BART’s decision a few weeks ago to shut down cell phone and data service in its tunnels to stifle a suspected protest. In a “special meeting” today, they stated that this was a mistake that would only be repeated in the event “at the 9-11 magnitude”.

I first wondered how they were able to “shut down” cell service. This Scientific American article incorrectly claims that all the cell service underground ran on BART’s own WiFi network, which they might have rights to shut down at will. Cell phone service could only be provided by repeaters from the cellular providers themselves. BART’s initial statement on the installation of the system back in 2008 confirms this: AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint all cooperated in the installation of repeaters underground.

That presents a bit of a problem. If BART wanted to shut down cell service, they would have to shut down the equipment provided by the cellular companies. EFF Austin has an excellent statement on the matter. Here’s a relevant piece:

We do find it somewhat interesting that the mobile service providers claim to have had no involvement in, or previous knowledge of, the decision and action to take down. If this is true, then it appears there have been at least two separate violations of federal law.

One violation was of section 333 of the Communications Act, on the part of BART. The other is a little more interesting. The cellular companies didn’t know beforehand that BART wanted to take down their repeaters, yet BART was still able to do it. That suggests that they had given at least some control of their hardware over to BART, which violates their FCC licenses. That doesn’t bode well either for BART or for the service providers.

One thing strikes me as ironic. Here’s what happened when BART was originally considering installing the system:

When BART first broached the idea in mid-2001 of wiring its nether regions for wireless reception, many passengers squawked about having to listen to nonstop chatter from cellular phones.

In response, BART conducted a pair of polls — one a random telephone survey, the other an online poll open to anyone with Internet access. The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks occurred while the surveys were being taken, and BART officials believe the widely publicized use of cell phones during the attacks persuaded many passengers to support wiring the tunnels.

Nine-eleven was cited as one of the factors that swayed public opinion to favor underground cell service. An emergency like that showcases the invaluable uses of technology in disaster management and recovery. Yet BART now cites that type of emergency as a legitimate reason to shut down the service.

Interesting.

Time to think

Posted by on 12 August 2011 9:36 4 comments

I recently read an article entitled “Why We Should Keep Wi-Fi Off Airplanes” by Scott Belsky. Here’s what he said:

In the era of “reactionary workflow,” when we’re always eager to react, respond, and surf the tops of our many feeds and inboxes, we seldom start a thought on our own. We don’t disconnect for long enough to really think organically, without interruption.

In an era where most thoughts are prompted by a stimulus of the hyper-connected-twitter-e-mail kind, we seldom disconnect long enough to think organically—independent of the stuff we are reacting to.

I’ve pondered this problem before. One of the things I loved when I first got a smartphone was the constant connectivity, no matter whether I was in Wi-Fi range or not. I received emails within minutes of their being sent. Twitter mentions got my immediate attention. Even Facebook notifications came to my home screen. It was great.

Then several months ago, I decided to switch back to a dumbphone and use my iPod Touch for everything else. The thing I loved about the switch was how liberated I felt. No longer was I always connected, with emails and tweets constantly clamoring for my attention. Even when I was in Wi-Fi range, those things weren’t nearly as intrusive. It was wonderful. I could live life disconnected when I wanted to.

One thing I appreciate about religion is the invitation to ponder, meditate, and think. Without that, I would be running around constantly connected and never stopping to think for myself or enjoy life for its own sake. That has become such an important thing for me that I try to devote an entire day to it once a week. Sunday is a welcome break from the noise and distraction of the rest of my life.

Technology has allowed us humans to connect in many ways that were never possible before. But the most fulfilling interactions still come in old-fashioned ways–talking face to face, doing things together, enjoying nature or the arts. Those things prompt independent, “organic” thought, as Scott calls it. That is critical to our functioning as humans.

I disagree that it means we need to keep Wi-Fi off planes. Instead, the desire for thought and meditation ought to be an intrinsic motivator itself that guides us to give it priority.

EDIT (17 Aug 2011): Dave Pell wrote a post today entitled “Does the Internet Make You More Connected?” that I highly recommend. It fits nicely with my thoughts here.

Holy bandwidth, Batman!

Posted by on 12 May 2011 21:05 No comments

Ran some SpeedTest.net tests tonight in my office at BYU just for kicks. Here are the results:

BYUGuest, an unsecured network for campus visitors (or students too lazy to install antivirus software):

BYUSecure, the standard secured network for students and faculty:

The wired CS network in the Talmage building:

It’s 9:00 at night, so there aren’t many people here. But still. I got 130 Mb/s and 135 Mb/s download speed on the two previous tests, so it wasn’t just a fluke.

Suffice it to say I am thoroughly impressed.

Convenient security flaw in BYU network authentication

Posted by on 17 February 2010 13:01 No comments

My 54 Mbps NetGear router

A few months ago I purchased a Netgear wireless router for my dorm room at Brigham Young University. It’s just a simple, low-end router, but it does the job. And I recently discovered an interesting way of using this to get around BYU network authentication procedures.

In the past, any user connecting to the residential network was required to authenticate about once a week with their NetID (a personally identifiable username on the BYU network) and password. This had to be done through a web browser (a process with which I disagree, but that’s a topic for another post). The system would record the MAC address or something and use that to link all network activity originating from that address with that NetID. In this way, BYU network security analysts have a way to pin down any suspicious activity to a responsible person.

That is still in force, but starting this month a new layer of security is being added. All Windows computers connecting to the BYU network are required to have (a) the most recent operating system patches from Windows Update and (b) an approved, up-to-date virus protection program. Note that this only applies to Windows computers. Macs and Linux boxes can get onto the network with just a NetID and password.

BYU has had these security measures on their campus-wide wired and wireless networks since last fall, but this is the first time these measures are being implemented in the residential wired network.

This is where it gets interesting. Enter NetGear router.

My router manages the laptops that my roommate and I use (which are connected to it via Ethernet), as well as my iPod, my Palm Pre, and any of my other roommates’ computers (via the router’s wireless). The two laptops on the Ethernet have Linux or Windows (or both), my iPod is recognized as a Mac, and the login page doesn’t know what to call my Palm Pre. Of all of those, the Windows side of my laptop is the only one the network authentication will quarantine for virus checking.

Because the router assigns private IP addresses (192.168.1.x) to all the devices connected behind it, the only thing the BYU network ever sees is the IP address it gave my router through the DHCP. As far as the network can tell, I have only one device connected.

Because of that, I can run through the network authentication using my Linux box, or my iPod, or even my Palm Pre. None of those are required to have anti-virus or the latest Windows updates. That clears the way for me to connect any virus-infected, out-of-date PC to that router, and the network will never know the difference.

Brilliant. Network security circumvented.

Of course, everything that goes onto the network through my router will be linked to whatever NetID I used to authenticate it. So that still leaves me in charge of making sure nobody does anything stupid through my router.

I don’t know if there’s any way for our beloved network administrators to fix this (rather large) hole in the system. But until they do, my router will carry on connecting anyone and everyone I authorize, regardless of whether BYU thinks them fit for the network.