From: Dave Burstein dslprime.com
Date: Monday, August 24, 2015
Subject: “5G the Free WiFi Killer” EE Times
The Intel/Verizon/Ericsson model of future wireless has everything controlled by a (carrier-managed) gateway. This report from the Intel Developers’ Forum suggests troubling consequences.
The EE Times article below may be making some assumptions I don’t share, but the underlying point is on target. The author fears a carrier gateway will impede WiFi and more. To be proven.
50-70% of wireless traffic now goes over WiFi, a figure that will increase as faster WiFi routers become common and more home gateways are configured to share unused bandwidth.
That’s an existential threat to phone companies depending on revenue from expanding data usage. They are fighting back in industry fora, including defining LTE-U/LAA as “LTE spectrum owners only” and seeking to dedicate 40 MHz of current WiFi spectrum to the 4 telcos.
Anyone who believes in a “multi-stakeholder” “open” Internet should be worried. In particular, the carriers are bringing this to industry only organizations especially 3GPP (the LTE standard setter), EU 5G groups, the Flex5GWare
project and Horizon2020
We badly need to get a consumer voice in these groups. I’ve raised the issue to Larry Strickling (U.S. Gov) and Kathy Brown (ISOC). vocal supporters of “multi-stakeholder.” The decisions being made in these groups will have more impact on consumers than the limited scope of the ITU/ICANN debate. I’m only one voice and I hope more speak up on the importance of the public interest.
5G the Free WiFi Killer
Integrating comm comes at a price
SAN FRANCISCO, Calif.—5G may be not much more than a moniker for what comes after 4G, but Intel clarified its vision recently at a keynote during the Intel Developer Forum 2015 (IDF, San Francisco, Aug.18-20). “Seamless” is the goal and it comes at a price.
The top-line is that Intel hopes to apply all its expertise in computing, networking and wireless communications to make a seamless 5G solution that incorporates distributed intelligence at all levels–from the smartphone to the router to the basestation aggregator to cloudlets, clouds and our fastest supercomputers.
The bottom line is that cellular, WiFi, centimeter- and millimeter wavelength bands must be seamlessly integrated from the user’s point-of-view, according to Aicha Evans, vice president of platform engineering group and general manager of the communications and devices group at Intel.
“5G is not about faster, but about integrating all types of connectivity,” Evans told her keynote attendees at IDF. “The building blocks of 5G are already here today.”
To the carriers this integration will come at a price, since 5G-for-all presents the opportunity to kill free WiFi and instead charge users for every data packet they send or receive, no matter which of the integrated communications technologies is used. At Evans’ keynote she gathered together carriers, service providers and strategists to outline what it is that they expect from 5G, including Alex Choi, chief technical officer (CTO) of SK Telecom (Asia), Bin Shen, Verizon’s vice president of strategy (U.S.) and Paul McNamara, vice president of Ericsson’s corporate strategy group (Europe).
However, before the panel painted the world-changing picture of extraordinary speeds and ultra-low latency–at a price–Intel’s Sandra Rivera, vice president of the data center group and general manager of the Internet of Things (IoT) described the benefits of 5G to the users.
“Intelligence will begin with at the base station,” Rivera asserted to the crowd at IDF. <snip>
Editor, Fast Net News, Net Policy News and DSL Prime
Author with Jennie Bourne DSL (Wiley) and Web Video: Making It Great, Getting It Noticed (Peachpit)
The Wassenaar Arrangement (full name: The Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies) is a multilateral export control regime (MECR) with 41 participating states including many former COMECON (Warsaw Pact) countries.
An FRN issued on 5/20/2015
describes a proposal by Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) for a license requirement for the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of systems, equipment or components specially designed for the generation, operation or delivery of, or communication with, intrusion software; software specially designed or modified for the development or production of such systems, equipment or components; software specially designed for the generation, operation or delivery of, or communication with, intrusion software; technology required for the development of intrusion software; Internet Protocol (IP) network communications surveillance systems or equipment and test, inspection, production equipment, specially designed components therefor, and development and production software and technology therefor.
The FRN notes that BIS is seeking information about the effect of this rule and would appreciate the submission of comments, and especially answers to the following questions:
1. How many additional license applications would your company be required to submit per year under the requirements of this proposed rule? If any, of those applications:
a. How many additional applications would be for products that are currently eligible for license exceptions?
b. How many additional applications would be for products that currently are classified EAR99?
2. How many deemed export, reexport or transfer (in-country) license applications would your company be required to submit per year under the requirements of this rule?
3. Would the rule have negative effects on your legitimate vulnerability research, audits, testing or screening and your company’s ability to protect your own or your client’s networks? If so, explain how.
4. How long would it take you to answer the questions in proposed paragraph (z) to Supplement No. 2 to part 748? Is this information you already have for your products?
* The ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule includes information about how to submit comments.
As you may know, there are three cybersecurity information sharing bills pending before Congress right now. These bills would weaken privacy laws and enable surveillance at a time when we need stronger privacy protections. These are surveillance bills, not security bills.
Every one of the bills is an end run around privacy laws in the name of improving security information sharing with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The bills define “cyber threat indicators” in a confusing manner that could include server logs, the contents of emails, damage estimates, and more. This kind of private data is not what is generally needed to secure systems. Nevertheless, the bills say that private entities will be immune from liability for sharing this information with DHS (and other parts of government) “notwithstanding” any privacy laws.
Surveillance reform advocates are trying to stop these bills. There is a lot of support in Congress and from the White House. So, to succeed, we need your help and we need it now. We expect the bills to come to a vote mid-April.
As a security expert, would you be willing to sign a letter helping to educate Congress about what kind of information experts actually share to further cybersecurity and secure systems from future attack? By helping Congress understand what information is useful in security, we can stop a bill that would needlessly waive privacy.
Please let me know if you can sign on by no later than 8pm ET Sunday, April 12. Email to jennifer at law.stanford.edu your name, title and affiliation. We plan to use your titles and affiliations for information purposes only, not to indicate that your employer is also signing the letter. For example, my signature would be Jennifer Stisa Granick, Director of Civil Liberties, Stanford Center for Internet and Society* and the asterick text would say “*Titles and affiliations are for information purposes only.” If you want to sign but don’t want to include your title or affiliation, or don’t have one, please indicate so, and we will respect your wishes.
My plan is to circulate the letter to the sponsors of the bills and to the rest of Congress on Monday, April 13.
Please feel free to email me or set up a call with me if you have any questions about the bills or the letter.
Once again, I can be reached at jennifer at law.stanford.edu
Finally, please do forward this request to anyone you think might be knowledgeable about security information sharing, and interested in sighing the letter.
For more information on these laws, you can read here:
Jennifer Granick—The Right Way to Share Information and Improve Cybersecurity: http://justsecurity.org/21498/share-information-improve-cybersecurity/
OTI—VERSION 2.0 OF THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE’S CYBER INFORMATION SHARING ACT IS CYBER-SURVEILLANCE, NOT CYBERSECURITY:http://www.newamerica.org/oti/version-20-of-the-senate-intelligence-committees-cyber-information-sharing-act-is-cyber-surveillance-not-cybersecurity/
CDT—Analysis of Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2014: https://cdt.org/insight/analysis-of-feinstein-chambliss-cybersecurity-information-sharing-act-of-2014/
Thank you for your time, attention, and assistance in this important matter.
It took a shakedown, it took a threat, take their privacy away and “now” they see the light! Doesn’t matter what is happening to us the 99% until the 1% are effected by it. And Microsoft was happy to let the 99% twist in the wind until politicians put pressure on Microsoft to hand over the “files”. Only after that do we the 99% get any privacy that we all deserved in the first place from the bad actors above!
‘Checking email from the beach, Washington?‘
“Checking email from the beach, Washington?” Microsoft says in the ad, which refers vacationers to a website it set up about the case. “Then you may be just as concerned as most Americans about who has access to your emails saved in the cloud.”
Starting Wednesday, the software giant is running full-page ads in the newspapers of a number of popular beach spots frequented by Washingtonians to make the case for why the company should not have to turn over emails stored on a foreign server. The ads are running in weekly newspapers in Rehoboth Beach, Del., Martha’s Vineyard and North Carolina’s Outer Banks.
The company noted that 83 percent of people in a recent poll it commissioned thought that the same protections should apply to information stored digitally as on paper.
“Microsoft believes you own your emails no matter where they are stored,” it said. “That’s why we’ve gone to court to ask the government to follow long-established, internationally agreed upon processes to obtain emails rather than forcing technology companies to turn them over.”
A federal judge recently ruled against the software company, though Microsoft has pledged to appeal.
Other major tech firms including Apple, Verizon and AT&T have signed on in support of Microsoft, as has the digital rights organization Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The ad comes in response to a federal judgement in which Microsoft was ordered to share the private email data of users with investigators as part of a criminal case.
Microsoft has been pushing for new privacy rules ever since a federal judge this summer ordered the company to turn over a customer’s e-mails from an overseas server to U.S. law enforcement. Microsoft and several privacy advocates argued that doing so would set a dangerous precedent that would allow the U.S. government to order firms to give up content regardless of where the data are stored.
Your government has an interest in gaining access to communications stored overseas without having to rely solely on cooperation from foreign law enforcement. Currently your email is treated as a company’s business records – Imagine That! My email is MINE!
Microsoft is squaring off against the Justice Department in a case that could have drastic ramifications for the protections on people’s data. Not to mention their bottom line. If microsoft can’t protect your privacy then what business around the world is going to want to do business with microsoft software <THINK CHINA>
legal protections for emails and documents stored in data centers abroad, turning the issue into a landmark battle over digital privacy is only about their 1% bottom line.
Who is going to want to do business with Microsoft products?
Microsoft challenged the warrant, claiming that the U.S. government does not have any authority to go after information stored in Ireland, without permission from the local government. Instead, Microsoft argues that the U.S. needs to go through a treaty process that allows it to get evidence from foreign countries.
Repairing the public’s trust? I don’t think so!!
After more than a year of disclosures from our hero Edward Snowden caused many to be wary of American tech products, and learning about the conflicting laws between different nations this is about microsoft losing market share as well. The European Union, for instance, which has taken a much stronger approach to privacy, might take issue with a company that shuttled data stored abroad back to the U.S. government.
Judge Loretta Preska agreed with the government that the question came down to who controls the data, not where it is stored. Preska also ruled that personal emails are considered a “business record” under the law.
Someone better take Loretta to school it’s 2014.
1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act outlines rules for protecting digital information under the constitutional right to privacy, but does not provide a clear legal framework for dealing with the data stored on servers outside of U.S. territory, since the concept of multinational data centers.