p2pnet news | P2P:- “Since this resume’s last update I wrote a complete VoIP/videoconferencing application (iglance.com), joined/grew/sold a P2P startup (Red Swoosh), and – that’s right – got fired from Akamai for declining to give up all future rights to free speech while falsely confessing to a non-existent policy violation,” writes software engineer David Barrett.

And while he waits for his destiny to continue to unfold, “I’m fascinated by the notion of software defined radios,” he blogs, saying in particular he’s intrigued by the, “potential for hackers to take over the radio waves like they have so effectively dominated the internet”.

Consider the following futurological daydream, he suggests in Quinthar in Will Spectrumrights Fare Better than Copyrights?, continuing >>>

1) FCC mandates all US cellphone carriers must accept any compatible device onto their networks.

2) TuxPhone quickly establishes connectivity with the major carriers.

3) TuxPhone adopts support for the Android application stack and becomes a feasible (albeit chunky) daily cellphone for hackers.

4) TuxPhone is ported to the GNU Radio platform, thereby replacing “pre-approved hardware modules” with firmware/software.

So the above isn’t too far fetched — all those guys have an interest in joining forces, and everything they’re doing is in line with conceivable law (assuming (1) happens).

But once the above is done, there will be an easily available platform for hackers to ply their trade. In particular, there will be a widely available, low-cost platform with sufficient “non-infringing purpose” such that the devices themselves cannot be restricted. At first it’ll start out relatively benign:

5) .public adopts TuxPhone as the development platform of choice for real-world testing of a completely encrypted, wireless, decentralized communication mesh.

But then it’ll start to get more interesting:

6) A researcher submits a patch to .public enabling frequency-hopping spread spectrum communication, clearly marked in such a fashion that it would be illegal to use it outside of certain, default frequency ranges. But those ranges will be user definable, and it will be easy to override the default and set the range to “all”.

7) Someone packages it into an extremely simple application where anybody can enter in a password that serves as the “seed” for the pseudorandom frequency generator. Any two individuals (in radio range) with the same password can thus generate the same random set of frequencies and thereby hop in sequence to the same frequencies. (Though realistically it’ll first just establish an SSH session using public keys over a standard narrowband connection, exchange the symmetric key (aka random seed), and then jump. Passwords are so passe.)

Somebody figures out how to make a spread-spectrum repeater that also happens to serve as a fantastic narrowband repeater. Thus mid-range mesh communications gain the benefits of pseudorandom frequency hopping, but in a way that isn’t obviously illegal (because it also enables legal narrowband meshes).

9) As technology improves, there becomes no reason *not* to broadcast at the maximum legal power. Thus the coverage and capacity of each node in the mesh increases. In parallel, as costs fall and average utility increases, the density of the mesh also increases. Taken together, identifying the precise location and identity of any given node becomes more and more difficult — encouraging more egregiously illegal behaviors as enforcement fails.

10) Ultimately, mesh coverage is “good enough” for anybody to exchange high-bandwidth information with anybody within a hundred miles (especially in urban areas, where most people live). On top of this, secure tunnels through “global” networks (satellite, fiberoptic) become as plentiful as anonymizing proxies are today.

Witness the start of perfectly secure, untraceable, global communication.

Legally, this starts to blur the meaning of spectrum ranges, which the major carriers have paid billions to lock up. But technically, it’ll be very hard to stop. I’m curious if the futile battle for spectrum rights will play out in a similar way to the currently futile battle for copyright.

All this despite the fact that spread spectrum technology *obviates* the need for fixed spectrum bands. The resulting technology might actually be *better*: more reliable, higher capacity, cheaper, and more flexible than narrowband technology. Thus while the “old guard” becomes increasingly dependent upon legal war to maintain their narrowband business models (tied to ridiculously expensive spectrum licenses), the hackers will have shown that they’re no longer needed — just like they’re doing today with copyright.

But the most unfortunate re-enactment of all will be if the full potential for spread-spectrum, frequency-hopping, software-controlled radios is stymied in its most crucial phases by entrenched interests, preventing any legitimate business investment in this groundbreaking technology and instead driving it underground into the hands of pirates and insurgents.

Sound familiar?

Stay tuned

. .Stumble It!

fired from Akamai – The Music Industry’s New Extortion Scheme, March 28, 2007
Quinthar – Will Spectrumrights Fare Better than Copyrights?, June 17, 2008

---

Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!

Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php

---

Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 18th, 2008 at 6:44 am and is filed under Freedom, P2P. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

HOME

Viewed 2575 times