Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jimmy Wales Threatens To Obstruct UK Government Snooping

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the different-kind-of-man-in-the-middle dept.

Government 198

judgecorp writes "Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has threatened to encrypt communications between Wikipedia and UK users in order to frustrate the proposed Communications Bill, known as the Snooper's Charter, which would give the UK government the right to routinely track citizens' web and phone use. Wales was addressing the committee which is scrutinising the Bill before it is considered by Parliament."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good (5, Insightful)

netwarerip (2221204) | more than 2 years ago | (#41247399)

Nice to see someone has a pair of balls. Not very common on an adult named 'Jimmy'.

Re:Good (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41247429)

Nice to see someone has a pair of balls. Not very common on an adult named 'Jimmy'.

"The Outlaw Jimmy Wales"

Re:Good (5, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | more than 2 years ago | (#41247561)

The virgin Connie Swail?

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41248849)

Wrong movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092925/
Right movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075029/

12 Inch Personality (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41247661)

So there's this black guy at a bar. He's chattin up a beautiful white woman and she really likes him. They have a few drinks and really hit it off. Things are going well.

She likes him so much that later in the evening she offers to take him home. The black man smiles and eagerly accepts. Since she doesn't usually make such an offer herself, to a man, she's so happy he says yes. It looks like it's just going to be a wonderful evening.

So they get in the car together and finally they're alone together. She smiles a mischevious smile. She says to the black man, "so, hehehe, is it true, what they say about you people? you know..." He looks her right in the eye. He says "why yes, yes it is true." He then pulls out a gun, points it at her head, and says "GIMME ALL YOUR MONEY BITCH!"

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

camionbleu (1633937) | more than 2 years ago | (#41247947)

Yes, a good gesture indeed. However, encrypting the packets will not prevent traffic analysis by the UK government. To avoid that, individual users will have to take their own security measures (such as using Tor). Nevertheless, it's nice to see high-profile opposition to the Communications Bill.

Explain me? SSL is not sufficient? (1)

JcMorin (930466) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248531)

Yes, a good gesture indeed. However, encrypting the packets will not prevent traffic analysis by the UK government. To avoid that, individual users will have to take their own security measures (such as using Tor).

I'm not sure to understand, if I'm using SSL, my ISP or any computer between me and the web site doesn't know the url I'm requested, he only know the IP address and the size of the file. Tor is a good way for surfing non SSL web site but I think if every web site would be encrypted the web would safe from snooping.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41248719)

For the average person to figure out how to use TOR *properly* - well, forget it, cause that will never happen. Improperly configuring TOR is more likely to give someone a false sense of anonymity and get them into more trouble. TOR has been significantly compromised now that the governments' researchers have gamed it by strategically controlling a large number of nodes (particularly exit nodes) and performing side-channel attacks, etc. to identify the originating hosts. That's not to say you can't force yourself to use lists of known safe nodes, but again that goes back to *proper configuration of TOR* which is beyond the average person. Nonetheless, the average person still deserves the same rights as anyone else regardless of what they are researching and that includes the right to not be snooped on for no good reason. If they (Wikipedia) implement secure encrypted connections for their UK users - it means the government can see that person X connected to Wikipedia's servers, but not that data that they are sending/receiving. If you are suggesting this makes them "guilty of something" then by the same logic it is possible to see that someone has connected themselves to the TOR network and assume that they are guilty of something, right? Connect to TOR all you want, but again if it isn't configured properly to use encryption then what is the point? - I can't readily see your end destination but your data is wide open to look at. By that measure I would still be able to identify your destination host.

TL;DR - The encryption aspect of the communications is important in any case - be it through TOR or a direct connection.

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248897)

UK GOV: We can't read it so it must be pedophile terrorists trading MP3s.

Euphemism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41248005)

"Jimmies" is a euphemism for balls, so it shouldn't be a surprise.

Re:Euphemism (5, Funny)

NonUniqueNickname (1459477) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248943)

Also, his last name is Wales, so it's not surprising he enjoys sticking it to the English.

Re:Good (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248079)

>>>a pair of balls. Not very common on an adult named 'Jimmy'.

Jimmy Swaggert (stood-up against segregation)
Jimmy Carter (stood-up against Arab terrorists)
Jimmy Stewart (World War 2 fighter pilot)
Jimmy Buffett (okay this is a bit of a stretch)

Re:Good (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248141)

Those are excellent examples, but my brother-in-law, Jimmy, acts as a sort of maturity-credit offset to all of them and then some.

Re:Good (2)

Roberticus (1237374) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248347)

Minor correction: Jimmy Stewart flew bombers, not fighters.

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41249055)

Oddly enough, the distinction is tricky as we move from the WWII era to the modern era.

WWII Bombers were heavily armed with anti-air weapons. Even if you ignore their payload, they were more heavily armed than any fighters (There may be some exception to this). WWII Bombers probably had a pretty good chance to be involved in air-to-air combat. Certainly not the iconic dogfights we imagine, but they certainly trained for and expected it.

As we moved onward, bombers air-to-air offensive/active defenses were slowly stripped out and the 'standard' image of the bomber we have today was born. A large high flying cargo-like aircraft with almost no active defences is what most imagine bombers to be. It is strange though that the popular conception of bombers excludes attack aircraft even though they fill very similar roles when used for the purpose of delivering dumb or semi-guided bombs.

I guess what I'm saying is that the distinction is an odd one, in that a modern pilot could be considered a fighter pilot, and a bomber pilot as well for certain aircraft.

Don't mind me, I'm just rambling.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41248647)

Except for back in the good ole days when Men were men and sheep were nervous Jimmy was often used as a name for any one of working class origins called James.

Many of them miners / iron workers etc and built like a brick shit house, I doubt you would have said that to their face.

second post (-1, Offtopic)

lexa1979 (2020026) | more than 2 years ago | (#41247405)

or did i get first ?

Here we go... (4, Funny)

benjymous (69893) | more than 2 years ago | (#41247481)

Re:Here we go... (4, Informative)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248131)

HTTPS Everywhere [eff.org]

If I were a Russian meerkat, I'd be sucking my teeth right now.

Re:Here we go... (4, Informative)

tomtomtom (580791) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248355)

It's also worth pointing out HTTPS Finder [mozilla.org] which will work for the random sites you visit that aren't in HTTPS Everywhere's default list. And of course you might want to use some other privacy-protecting addons to stop info leaking out to ad-trackers over plain old HTTP and/or alert you to a potential compromise of your HTTPS certificate chain of authority.

Why not just do it? (4, Interesting)

MisterP (156738) | more than 2 years ago | (#41247491)

I understand that wikipedia is a non-profit and has limited resources, but why not just do it? This doesn't seem like a radical stance at all. This should be on their roadmap. Given wikipedia history of taking sides on issues like this, they should be pioneers in doing this sort of thing.

Plain text HTTP is on its way to becoming a legacy protocol.

Re:Why not just do it? (4, Interesting)

xded (1046894) | more than 2 years ago | (#41247679)

Given the traffic volume experienced by Wikipedia every day, switching the entire UK (or worldwide) traffic to HTTPS would represent a significant hit on the servers CPU load if they're not using cryptographically capable hardware (and maybe even if they do, however IANANE and I'm not sure how this could work with load balancing).

Re:Why not just do it? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41247763)

I'm not sure how this could work with load balancing

Their load balancers probably already handle the SSL and unwrap it for the web servers.
Most decent load balancers support hardware-SSL these days.

Re:Why not just do it? (4, Interesting)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248017)

I totally agree with the idea that he should just go ahead and do it, but

Most decent load balancers support hardware-SSL these days.

That's gotta at least increase the wattage. Nothing is ever really free though in 2012 you'd think crypto would be dirt cheap. If your 20 year old computer can do it...

Re:Why not just do it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41248257)

opencl+a couple graphics cards. Not energy-free, but I'll guarantee even if you use the high-wattage cards it'll use a lot less cycles to do the same amount of work (this is of course assuming you have enough spare slots and i/o bandwidth in the system, but it's also the direction AMD claims they're heading next cpu generation for their servers.... given how bad *dozer is turning out to be, it seems likely.)

Re:Why not just do it? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41247767)

Perfect response to the many people saying the same thing over and over... 'why not just DO it??!??!?'. They're threatening for now because it would require a significant financial and time investment to follow through. There's also the chances of downtime, server overload, etc... that needs to be taken into consideration. With Wikipedia's reputation, at least from all i can tell, of having a solid and stable domain, it wouldn't do well to fight on a stance like this and cripple itself in the process.
Besides, with the widespread use of Wikipedia, it's a good way to get the word out there to the millions who use the site daily.
I've said it before, and will reiterate now...
V for Vendetta's view of England seems to be coming closer to reality with every passing year.

-- Valor958

Re:Why not just do it? (4, Informative)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248379)

Wikipedia already supports SSL, all they seem to *really* be threatening is making it *default* for UK users (either through a redirect or some other method). Anyone with "HTTPS Everywhere" already has it enabled.

Re:Why not just do it? (2)

Seumas (6865) | more than 2 years ago | (#41247835)

If only they were able to raise tens of millions of dollars per year for their "non-profit". Perhaps via some banner at the top of every page on their site, so they could afford servers.

Re:Why not just do it? (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248171)

https is the answer but it should be a voluntary thing.

According to the politicians & judges we have "no expectation of privacy in a public arena". It's why they camcord us in the streets, and why we can camcord them as they are writing tickets or beating people with clubs. So isn't the world wide web also a public venue? The politicians appear to be saying "yes".

Re:Why not just do it? (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248423)

Your second paragraph doesn't back up the first in the slightest. Give me a SINGLE valid reason for preferring http over https (from a normal user's perspective).

Re:Why not just do it? (3, Insightful)

tolan-b (230077) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248665)

With HTTPS there's less caching going on in general so it's a bit slower. Doesn't bother me but it's definitely a valid reason.

Re:Why not just do it? (2)

LihTox (754597) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248505)

So isn't the world wide web also a public venue? The politicians appear to be saying "yes".

Which is like saying that because Harry Potter is a publicly published book series, reading a Harry Potter book in bed is a public act.

Re:Why not just do it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41248317)

HTTPS used to be a problem for CPU load back in the old days, that isn't so much the case now though.

Re:Why not just do it? (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248409)

Google released a report a year or so back. I'm sure the figures they quoted showed 1-2% extra CPU usage.

Re:Why not just do it? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248101)

Plain text HTTP is on its way to becoming a legacy protocol.

No it's not. What do you think that SSL/TLS session is encapsulating?

Re:Why not just do it? (2)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248489)

Talk about nit-picking. You know what he meant, but you had to pick on how he said it instead.

Is this any better? "Unencrypted HTTP is on its way to becomming a legacy protocol."

(Typo left in so you can ignore my point, too, and instead nit pick on something else.)

Re:Why not just do it? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248799)

It's still not legacy, as it's unencrypted HTTP as soon as the SSL/TLS layer is removed.

It's not nit picking if you're correcting someone who's just plain wrong.

Re:Why not just do it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41248495)

that's being a bit pedantic ...

by this definition there is no such thing as an encrypted protocol. "No no it's not encrypted, it's plain text encapsulated by encryption"

Re:Why not just do it? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248769)

False. If your protocol includes encryption out-of-the-box, it's an encrypted protocol.

Re:Why not just do it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41249091)

You may as well consider that your "out-of-the-box encrypted protocol" is going to encrypt plain text at one end and give you back plain text at the other end. If you remove the encryption layer, it's just plain text.

I understand that you meant that in this specific case HTTP is still "under-the-hood" of HTTPS and is going nowhere. But still, arguing between "HTTPS is a plain text protocol with an encryption layer on top of it" vs. "HTTPS is an encrypted protocol" is what I'd call being pedantic.

Re:Why not just do it? (1)

trancemission (823050) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248287)

Yes I agree it sould be on their roadmap, the issue I see is there is now real need for it at this point and Wikipedia is run by only a few people IIRC [Volunteers?]

Technically and financially it is very feesable as it is already in place.

Practically could be quite difficult for a small group of people with a large infrastructure to switch off HTTP.

Why "threaten"? That's lame (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41247497)

Just do it! What's stopping him?

Re:Why "threaten"? That's lame (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41247529)

Cost. https is slightly more expensive because it can't be cached, and as such, every access will hit his servers rather than someone's cache servers.

Re:Why "threaten"? That's lame (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41247795)

There are other governments already doing what the Brits want to do. Why is he singling them out? I would doubt his sincerity if he's more worried about some cost/benefit ratio over protecting people's rights. I hope that's not the case. Self defense against government intrusion should be a priority.

  I don't like threats. I prefer action.

Re:Why "threaten"? That's lame (5, Informative)

xaxa (988988) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248011)

He lives in Britain (in London), so perhaps he chooses to get more involved in politics here than anywhere else.

Re:Why "threaten"? That's lame (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#41247943)

Not only that, but moving everything over to https can be time consuming as you track down all the places that assume http is available. Depending on what is lurking in those configuration files, simply cutting off port 80 might not be enough. I know when I tried to do it to some of our servers, some worked fine, others started having mysterious errors that took a while to run to ground. One I gave up because people needed the service immediately and the cause was not obvious.

Re:Why "threaten"? That's lame (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248439)

You can still cache the content, you just have to re-encrypt the content. Many load balancing systems and site caches support SSL already.

Re:Why "threaten"? That's lame (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248949)

Which is why you don't have your webservers do the encryption, you use some sort of https load balancer acting as an https proxy. Throw in some caching and there you go.

Re:Why "threaten"? That's lame (4, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#41247719)

Because *threats* get more publicity than *action*. Especially when the action is this simple (force HTTPS), but the threat is phrased as something more complex (defeat the government's system).

Re:Why "threaten"? That's lame (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41247833)

Well, he could act. And then make the press release. To me, that's the better course of action. It would prove he means business.

Not really (4, Insightful)

oGMo (379) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248481)

Well, he could act. And then make the press release. To me, that's the better course of action. It would prove he means business.

You're missing the point. Action is undesirable. Threat of action means that people scratch their heads and wonder what it means, what the fallout could be, if their political careers might be impacted. Possibly unrealistic worst cases are made. If not, an ultimatum ("next friday") is delivered. Stirs things up, gets people wondering and talking (like this!).

Action, on the other hand, leads only to the question "is there a major outcry, and how long will it last?" Most people don't notice unless they can't access the site. Doesn't actually accomplish much, unless outcry can be sustained for a considerable period of time, which would require a lot more than "we're going SSL-only" ... like UK-wide wikipedia blackout. And that hurts more than it helps.

Re:Why "threaten"? That's lame (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248001)

Maybe you run a web server from your house that gets 12 hits a day. Or. Maybe you run something for a company that just gives you all the cash you request.
For everyone else forcing HTTPS is not "simple".

Not a threat, just a statement (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41247499)

From what I read of TFA, it doesn't look like Jimbo is actually making a threat. He's just saying "Your idea sucks because I, and any competent server operator, could bypass it in 30 seconds."

Threat? (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#41247503)

It is interesting to refer to this as a "threat" -- what exactly is being threatened here? There is nothing illegal about using cryptography in the UK, and the UK has a key disclosure law. It is only logical for people to use cryptography when they have good reason to suspect that untrusted third parties might be reading their traffic, and frankly, we should have been encrypting our communications from the start.

cryptoparties (1)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | more than 2 years ago | (#41247919)

Yes. We (and Wikipedia) should be encrypting our communications from the start. A lot has been written about why we should use encryption [wikibooks.org] , some of it from around 20 years ago. It's an uphill fight still these days and many won't become interested until it is too late. If you haven't already, consider throwing your own cryptoparty [falkvinge.net] .

Re:Threat? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248457)

History shows the far and away most dangerous, most untrustworthy 3rd party is government.

Snooper's Charter? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41247523)

How does a bill like this even get proposed in this day and age? What ever happened to privacy?

I'd hate to make the ridiculous V for Vendetta reference.. but yikes. The UK really isn't supposed to be going that way.

Re:Snooper's Charter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41247887)

Air Strip One was ever thus. Thoughtcrime is death.

Re:Snooper's Charter? (1)

BMOC (2478408) | more than 2 years ago | (#41247957)

UK Citizens unfortunately trust their government too much. I like UK citizens, and I think they're very very rational people, but they can't seem to grasp that no matter how reasonable and rational a politician might seem, they still want power over you, so they can't be trusted

Re:Snooper's Charter? (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#41247995)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Kaye_v._Andrew_Robertson_and_Sport_Newspapers_Ltd [wikipedia.org]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wainwright_v_Home_Office [wikipedia.org]

The UK is not the USA; here in the US, we can point to our constitution and say, "We are supposed to have these rights, so what's up with this snooping by the government?!" In the UK, there is no such guarantee of a right to privacy.

Re:Snooper's Charter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41249093)

Much like the US government, namely Bush, pointed to the constitution and laughed, decrying it as just a piece of paper.

What good is a constitution if it cannot be enforced anymore. Exactly that, a piece of paper!

Re:Snooper's Charter? (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248125)

How does a bill like this even get proposed in this day and age? What ever happened to privacy?

I'd hate to make the ridiculous V for Vendetta reference.. but yikes. The UK really isn't supposed to be going that way.

Smile for the cameras, now!

Smith! 6079 Smith W! Sit up straight!

Re:Snooper's Charter? (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249039)

How does a bill like this even get proposed in this day and age? What ever happened to privacy?

George Orwell of 1984 fame was British. It was not a coincidence, you know?

Shouldn't Jimmy Wales be more concerned (-1, Troll)

toddmbloom (1625689) | more than 2 years ago | (#41247531)

Shouldn't Jimmy Wales be more concerned with how he's going to keep scamming users for more money with his stupid "pledge drives"?

Seems like Wales is trying to be another boneheaded Assange-like figure and make up wild accusations just to try and get a media spotlight.

Re:Shouldn't Jimmy Wales be more concerned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41247651)

He uses the donation to keep the site running, since this is what he claimed he'd use the donations for it's not correct to say this is a scam.

Re:Shouldn't Jimmy Wales be more concerned (2, Funny)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 2 years ago | (#41247755)

You must be popular with your government.

Re:Shouldn't Jimmy Wales be more concerned (1)

hypergreatthing (254983) | more than 2 years ago | (#41247881)

Why? are they going to deport him to Sweden?

Re:Shouldn't Jimmy Wales be more concerned (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248459)

Nah, because he's relying on ad homarus attacks.

(...cause like, he seems a little crabby.)

Re:Shouldn't Jimmy Wales be more concerned (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41247985)

Shouldn't Jimmy Wales be more concerned with how he's going to keep scamming users for more money with his stupid "pledge drives"? Seems like Wales is trying to be another boneheaded Assange-like figure and make up wild accusations just to try and get a media spotlight.

You know most of the time I disagree with down-modding people. I prefer to call them out instead, tell them why they're wrong and why their reason is faulty. I think that's more useful for the rest of the readers even if the asshat in question is too stubborn to admit obvious fault. Obvious fault like "it's a voluntary donation, why shouldn't people be free to make a gift when they want to", etc.

But you, sir, are making me reconsider that point of view. There's no reasoning with people like you. You don't like Wikipedia, its administration, or anything about it, that's fine, don't use it. No one is going to force you to access the site. But that's not good enough, no not for you. You can't stand that other people derive value from it and want to see it prosper, and some of those people are willing to back that up by putting their money where their mouth is. You call this a "scam".

Naturally everyone who disagrees with you is "stupid". If I like a beer you don't like then clearly I have substandard taste. If I like a song you don't like then obviously I know nothing about music. If I use an OS you don't use then of course I am a brainwashed fanboy. Yeah, I know how you think. There's lots of people like you. I wish there were other habitable planets our technology could reach, so then the rest of us can leave all of you to your own devices instead of having to partake of the taint you promote on this planet.

Video... (5, Informative)

trancemission (823050) | more than 2 years ago | (#41247551)

Video: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=11355 [parliamentlive.tv] [Windows silverlight warning!]

To highlight what we are up against - the chairman wasn't aware that 'kids' these days are able to chat to each other in games using their Xbox - 'Good Lord' was his reaction.

The committee really do not have a clue, and have no real chance of getting it if the goverment machine gets their way - the witnesses here showed this.

The 25% arguement is laughable [That being it is claimed that 25% of internet data is not available to collect thorugh current legislation]

Just do it anyway? (2)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#41247617)

Why "threaten" to do it?
Like Nike says, Just Do It.

Yes, just simply do it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41247745)

If you have the balls, just do it. Empty threats like this make you sound like a yapping chihuahua.

Re:Just do it anyway? (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248905)

Great then we can look forward to another few months of begging for money after the Wikipedia servers turn into a puddle at the bottom of a 19" rack. SSL has some serious overhead issues, kind of a problem when you run a website which attracts 2500 pageviews each second.

That's fine and all (0)

Quakeulf (2650167) | more than 2 years ago | (#41247749)

Now how about cleaning up internally so that all these moderators on Wikipedia become productive, useful additions to its service?

self signed (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41247779)

I'd love to see him use a self signed cert. intstead of one of these centeral authority issued ones..

Self-signed, published in British papers (2)

davidwr (791652) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248431)

Bonus points if the Foundation publishes a picture of WikiMedia Foundation officers holding up a clearly-legible copy of the certificate along with yesterday's copy of The Times in every major British newspaper.

That way people can verify for themselves that the self-signed certificate is legit.

Well, they can if they have faith that Photoshop, er, I mean an open-source photo-manipulation program wasn't involved.

Re:self signed (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41248527)

That'd be interesting actually, opinions would be split into 2 different camps

1. WHY IS HE SELF SIGNING ZOMG INSECURE!!!

2. That is intelligent of him for sticking it to the signing authorities of which some have been proven to have back doors and / or sign willy nilly for government espionage.

I am with 2.

All these attacks to freedom will end (1)

aglider (2435074) | more than 2 years ago | (#41247903)

Once we'll all switch to peer-to-peer encrypted communication.
Using HTTPS is not enough, though.

Re:All these attacks to freedom will end (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248087)

No, they won't end... Not until we can create an internet without a central service provider. They can just restrict encryption to 'authorized' (a government white list) connections. The attacks will never end. Self defense is the only way to render them useless.

Re:All these attacks to freedom will end (1)

aglider (2435074) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248263)

Internet? Why Internet?
Mesh wireless networks!

Re:All these attacks to freedom will end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41248597)

OFCOM would treat those the same was as they do WiFi networks during the Olympic games.

Guns V Nerds

Guns always win, in the end.

Re:All these attacks to freedom will end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41248635)

Mesh networks only work when everyone gets along. What happens if you are a black person in a white neighborhood and everyone within range is a racist who refuses to peer with you?

  When there is no law, there is no uniform behavior or rule of law.

Decentralized Internet created ... decades ago (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248365)

In principle - and in practice prior to commercialization - the Internet worked fine without a "central service provider."

Central service providers DO provide several key services, but these can be done without a central authority. These include:

* blessing protocols as "standards," especially routing protocols between "autonomous" addressing zones.
* preventing or at least defining the behavior of namespace collisions, especially addressing-namespaces.

In theory, instead of a central authority, you can have a "first to reserve the name gets it, anyone who wants to fight over it can use outside channels like lawsuits, payoffs, assassination, war, etc. to get what they want, anyone who makes mischief by stomping on a reserved name or implementing protocols that disrupt others' ability to communicate between each other risks lawsuits, disconnection, shunning, assassination, war, etc." system. When scaled up to "world" scales, such a system is usually called "a gentleman's agreement," "might makes right," or "anarchy," depending on whether people are behaving like gentlemen and if not, whether a "strongman" emerges.

Re:All these attacks to freedom will end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41248123)

Freedom has been under attack since the dawn of organized coercion. What makes you think a trend that has been intact for tens of thousands of years (i.e. consolidation and centralization of power) is finally ready to break down?

As the famous saying goes, "freedom is the process of setting man free from men". Look around at the world today -- that process hasn't even begun.

I'll humor the question and say that human beings will NOT be set free from other human beings, on a world-wide scale, for at least another 1000 years (assuming that war doesn't destroy the human race permanently).

I'm doing my part. (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248031)

I run a Tor relay and an I2P node 24/7. Both can be configured to only use a certain amount of bandwidth over a certain amount of time, for those on metered connections.

A personal appeal (5, Funny)

ultrasawblade (2105922) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248049)

A personal appeal by Wikipedia founder, Jimmy Wales

  mQGiBEe68W8RBACVuFuv4d+roDSCdRO1SuO8dQwds4VTjVOqgVKQtq6+8Fe95RY8
  BAf1IyLj4bxvWPhr0wZdVwTosD/sFoPtdCyhVcF932nP0GLHsTEeVwSz9mid22HI
  O4Kmwj2kE+I+C9QdzAg0zaWQnVaF9UC7pIdMR6tEnADI8nkVDdZ+zb2ziwCg6Yqu
  tk3KAzKRT1SNUzTE/n9y2PED/1tIWiXfGBGzseX0W/e1G+MjuolWOXv4BXeiFGmn
  8wnHsQ4Z4Tzk+ag0k+6pZZXjcL6Le486wpZ9MAe6LM31XDpQDVtyCL8t63nvQpB8
  TUimbseBZMb3TytCubNLGFe5FnNLGDciElcD09d2xC6Xv6zE2jj4GtBW1bXqYWtl
  jm0PA/4u6av6o6pIgLRfAawspr8kaeZ8+FU4NbIiS6xZmBUEQ/o7q95VKGgFVKBi
  ugDOlnbgSzBIwSlsRVT2ivu/XVWnhQaRCotSm3AzOc2XecqrJ6F1gqk0n+yP/1h1
  yeTvvfS5zgqNTG2UmovjVsKFzaDqmsYZ+sYfwc209z9PY+6FuLQnQXBhY2hlVGVz
  dCAoVGVzdGluZykgPGFwYWNoZUBsb2NhbGhvc3Q+iF4EExECAB4FAke68W8CGwMG
  CwkIBwMCAxUCAwMWAgECHgECF4AACgkQJE9COu2PFIEGDwCglArzAza13xjbdR04
  DQ1U9FWQhMYAnRrWQeGTRm+BYm6SghNpDOKcmMqruQENBEe68XAQBADPIO+JFe5t
  BQmI4l60bNMNSUqsL0TtIP8G6Bpd8q2xBOemHCLfGT9Y5DN6k0nneBQxajSfWBQ5
  ZdKFwV5ezICz9fnGisEf9LPSwctfUIcvumbcPPsrUOUZX7BuCHrcfy1nebS3myO/
  ScTKpW8Wz8AjpKTBG55DMkXSvnx+hS+PEwADBQP/dNnVlKYdNKA70B4QTEzfvF+E
  5lyiauyT41SQoheTMhrs/3RIqUy7WWn3B20aTutHWWYXdYV+E85/CarhUmLNZGA2
  tml1Mgl6F2myQ/+MiKi/aj9NVhcuz38OK/IAze7kNJJqK+UEWblB2Wfa31/9nNzv
  ewVHa1xHtUyVDaewAACISQQYEQIACQUCR7rxcAIbDAAKCRAkT0I67Y8UgRwEAKDT
  L6DwyEZGLTpAqy2OLUH7SFKm2ACgr3tnPuPFlBtHx0OqY4gGiNMJHXE=

Re:A personal appeal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41248657)

ApacheTest (Testing) apache@localhost

He should (1)

andrew2325 (2647845) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248205)

There are a good number of Christians and other peaceful groups in the UK that are discriminated against for various reasons. I think he should. More power to Mr. Wales.

I have a dream (1)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248219)

A dream that all web sites use https for everything. Why do so many web sites still not use https? Do they *like* third-parties being able to snoop on their visitors?

https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere/faq [eff.org]
https://httpsnow.org/ [httpsnow.org]
http://arstechnica.com/business/2011/03/https-is-more-secure-so-why-isnt-the-web-using-it/ [arstechnica.com]
http://arstechnica.com/business/2011/03/https-is-great-here-is-why-everyone-needs-to-use-it-so-ars-can-too/ [arstechnica.com]
http://serverfault.com/questions/161854/how-to-set-up-https-without-paying-anything-anywhere-but-with-no-warnings-from [serverfault.com]

Re:I have a dream (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41248335)

Cost. Money rules the internet now that short sighted corporations make up the majority of providers. They don't realize that restricting the internet, fracturing it and refusing to give anything back to the once open creation will make it whither and die in its intended form. Think of it like a bad relationship where one person does nothing but take and take.

Re:I have a dream (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248787)

To use HTTPS, you need a certificate from a CA. What kind of CA that is recognized by the browser vendors do you suggest for small website owners, whose certificates don't cost an arm and a leg, year after year after year?

SSL Certificate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41248279)

Wait... hold the press.. Wikipedia is now almost 13 years old, and Jimmy's considering pulling out his creditcard to purchase a SSL Certificate!

Wow, this should be on the front page of CNN and all major news papers!

Thank Goodness (2)

sfhock (1308629) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248399)

that snooping stuff could NEVER happen here in the U.S.! Whew!

Re:Thank Goodness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41248793)

Say hi to the AT&T backroom 641A

Communications white paper 2000 (1)

Martin S. (98249) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248707)

In 2000 the previous government tried something similar with the Communications white paper [homeoffice.gov.uk] that would require every ISP and data carrier to keep every byte of data carried for eight years.

At the time I worked for a small subsidiary of a local telco, our Chairman of our Board was well connected member of the House of Lords. I prepared a position paper for him pointing out that our division alone would need as much storage as was sold annually in the UK to fulfil our obligation.

IT Professional the country over lobbied against RIPA like this behind the scenes and the worst was quietly dropped.

Time to do the same again. Checkout out your companies boards and non-execs for Lords and member of the establishment and point out the stupidity and competitively crippling the current proposals are to UK Business.

Re:Communications white paper 2000 (1)

mrbester (200927) | more than 2 years ago | (#41249057)

That's the thing though. On one hand you have the Govt. passing a law that means you have to declare what tracking you do via cookies (and Silktide have just said "go ahead and sue us for not doing so") while they are proposing to pass a law that requires ISPs to route via a black box that performs MITM SSL interception to track ALL visits to ANY site, regardless of security *and not tell anyone*

Charge for governmental use (1)

Peter (Professor) Fo (956906) | more than 2 years ago | (#41248771)

The national, local and various agencies of the UK government could be charged say 1p (or 5p etc) per view. That would bring in many £000. It should be easy to see the domain of ...gov.uk in the logs and send a bill each week. (Obviously it doesn't address the original issue but it does send a message that wealthy organisations should support a socially useful resource instead of just leaching.)

Each Of US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41248847)

I think if we all send a bit of heavily encrypted messages back and fourth to friends that the expense of decoding traffic would become so great that governments would shy away from the notion of that kind of spying.
                But really, there is the very real question as to whether we are better off with communications being studied. That is not a simple issue at all. If it could save us from a major terrorist strike or breaks up a lot of criminal activity we could learn to love governmental snooping. I wonder how many groups or gifted hackers have in mind some computer stunt designed to bring chaos and ruin to the US.

Encrypt anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41249041)

Not sure why Wikipedia doesn't encrypt all connections anyway.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?