[Freedombox-discuss] FreedomBox Testing 2012.0617 Image Published
In the model I have, the FBX is not a streamer to share another person's
Internet. I don't believe that's legal in most cases anyway as you
agree to terms and licenses when you sign up for Internet access and
these restrict who else can share your "portal". Perhaps it's not the
same in other countries.
I'll add the ability to introduce filters on what / how much / from whom
can be passed through your FBX as a conduit from A to C, you being B.
Right now my primary interest / concern is getting FBXs up and running
to create a mesh network with the most minimal amount of setup possible
(something only like needing to know either a relative coordinate (to
other FBXs), or a true GPS coordinate).
Rick C. Hodgin
On 06/19/2012 03:27 AM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Rick C. Hodgin<foxmuldrster at yahoo.com>
>> To: Jonathan Wilkes<jancsika at yahoo.com>
>> Cc: John Gilmore<gnu at toad.com>; "freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org"<freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:05 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] FreedomBox Testing 2012.0617 Image Published
>> I'm thinking that messages would be sent from A to B using keys that only A
>> and B know about. So even if they went through the air, they would not be
>> decipherable (easily) by someone without the keys. Each FBX simply becomes a
>> "willing participant in the conduit" to move data around without
>> regards to its contents, unless it's addressed to it, or as is required to
>> route it.
> On the one hand, it's good to differentiate between "friend" and "neighbor/conduit".
> On the other hand, I think that's very hard to do because any sharing of internet
> connections among neighbors implicitly blurs that line. If A sends a message to B
> that includes a url, for example, and B goes visits the website using "conduit" C's shared
> internet connection, then there better be a lot more letters involved in the network--
> otherwise C has the potential to become an "implicit friend", either accidentally or
> otherwise since the url and timestamp is now in his/her log.
> Regarding data content-- for the sake of edification I wonder if it wouldn't be a
> good idea to make a nice, simple interface to allow the FBX owner to view and filter the
> data passing through their box based on the content, and maybe have a way to mine
> logs for naughty content (or dissident content). The point being that the only way to
> move data around without regard to content is to make it impossible for third parties
> to regard content. (And still, it would be nice to see pretty statistics about where my
> box is moving data, what protocols are the most popular, etc.)
>> My idea of having a wireless grid is not for heavy bandwidth, but merely for the
>> ability to communicate with others. I envision some need to coordinate people
>> together, to get the message out. It doesn't need to be real-time updated,
>> but just "meet us tomorrow at 6am at the corner" sort of things. I
>> also envision a texting-like ability, where you send a message to X, and they
>> respond when they get it, which may be a few minutes later.
>> I have the entire method of working out how this WiFi communication could be
>> workably developed, including allowing FBXs to come up and fall off the
>> "grid" as a living entity.
>> I would like to produce the GUI demo to show how it works, what messages are
>> transmitted, etc. Will do so when I can find the time.
>> Best regards,
>> Rick C. Hodgin
>> On 06/19/2012 12:57 AM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: John Gilmore<gnu at toad.com>
>>>> To: Rick C. Hodgin<foxmuldrster at yahoo.com>
>>>> Cc: freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org
>>>> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 9:43 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] FreedomBox Testing 2012.0617 Image
>>>>> This is the path I'd like to explore for developing
>> Freedombox tools --
>>>> the ability to communicate off the grid using point-to-point with
>> routing beyond
>>>> to some remote 3rd party.
>>>>> Are there WiMAX add-on boards which do the same (for longer
>>>> I strongly suggest using *wires* rather than wireless, whenever
>>>> You can trivially push a gigabit of traffic through an Ethernet cable
>>>> that can stretch from one apartment to another, or from one house to
>>>> another along a fence. And this gigabit won't conflict or compete
>>>> any other traffic you're handling to other neighbors, nor compete
>>>> wireless nodes.
>>>> With a couple of readily available converter boxes, you can plug that
>>>> gigabit Ethernet into a fiber that can go to a destination up to 80km
>>>> WiFi is sexy, but Ethernet (and Ethernet running over fibers) is what
>>>> runs most real dependable Internet services worldwide. If you share
>>>> your Internet connection with your closest neighbor over Ethernet, via
>>>> a FreedomBox, you'll unclog your wireless spectrum, and improve the
>>>> reliability and privacy of both of your Internet connections.
>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but until you hit a certain threshold in terms
>>> # of users and geographical variety, you'd be improving reliability at
>>> expense of privacy. Also, the lack of choice of ISP in many areas
>>> may make the reliability increase insignificant, as an upstream outage
>>> would most likely affect all the neighbors, too.
>>> On the other hand, it would be quite interesting to see what a dorm full
>>> of college students would do with a pile of Freedomboxes and a
>>> spindle of ethernet cable.
>>>> PS: Wires and fibers are much harder to wiretap than radio signals.
>>>> Freedombox-discuss mailing list
>>>> Freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org