The FCC is asking for comments on a proposal to to lock down computing devices (routers, PCs, phones)
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
I am a member!
As Jason said, they did, but we're working on moving the site to a server which can handle the traffic spikes from the likes of Slashdot, Reddit, and other media outlets. It's currently linked to a cached page on archive.is from www.savewifi.org. Hopefully we'll have a better looking site dedicated to it soon enough. Josh and the FSF is working on it...
I mainly registered the domain as a short cut - particularly for radio though. Though it appears we'll end up with a real site on a server dedicated to www.savewifi.org shortly. Or maybe it'll just get pointed to fsf.org/savewifi depending... apparently the fsf.org server is equipped to handle significant traffic loads.
I am a member!
After the article the other day on hackaday regarding the FCC story I contacted them about the Save Wifi campaign. As I'm sure many here read already they entirely missed the call to action. Today I read on Slashdot about a new article they did in response to my email. While they have a mistake or two still (like the date of the FCC comment period, I've sent an update) they've successfully written a new story. Yes!
http://hackaday.com/2015/09/02/save-wifi-act-now-to-save-wifi-from-the-fcc/
I've also now now reached out to Wired and Ars Technica. I'm planning to also call into a radio show (Off the Hook) in the NYC area (though they have a worldwide base online due to the popular 'hacker' magazine 2600) tonight to bring up the issue. I believe anyway that they take calls last I recall. Though there phones might still be down (they were last week).
Hello guys,
I was noticed about the FCC proposal of restricting wireless devices modifications, and I decides to help stop this threat. I started a petition in Avaaz to try to stop this bill. I also contacted the US Pirate Party for support.
But the Chairman of the Pirates replied saying that the lock down is an extreme fantasy, it is ignoring some of the facts, and that "The (FCC's) position is that versions of this open source software can be used as long as they do not add the functionality to modify the underlying operating characteristics of the RF parameters."
I'm attaching the conversation we had, in order that you can see if our attempts of stopping this proposal are really needed.
Sincerely,
Manuel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Here starts the Chairman's mail)
Hi. I understand your concerns. However I've been in contact with the
FCC (back from when I started the Net Neutrality thing) as have others
I've talked to, and the basic answer is that NO, they're not trying to
lock down devices.
A lot of what you've been told is extreme fantasy and is not based int
he realities - I'll bet you've not even been told that this whole thing
is just a proposal right now, and that the FCC is taking public comments
for the next few weeks (until october 8)
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=15-170
And of course, the FCC's own statement is "The (FCC's) position is that
versions of this open source software can be used as long as they do not
add the functionality to modify the underlying operating characteristics
of the RF parameters."
Basically, they admit their statements are badly worded.
Mike Masnick at Techdirt has a better writeup than I could,
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20150831/07164532118/no-fcc-is-not-intentionally-trying-to-kill-third-party-wi-fi-router-firmware.shtml
The bottom line though is that the 'fears' are overblown hysteria, that
is as likely to make things worse as improve them, because no matter how
well intentioned they may be, they're deliberately ignoring some of the
facts.
Andrew Norton
(Here starts my mail)
> Dear Mr. Norton:
>
> I'm a Chilean Pirate sympathizer, interested to preserve and improve the
> citizen power over the malicious corporations. I write to you to tell
> you(if you don't know already) that the Federal Communications
> Commission of the US(the FCC) is considering a proposal to lock down any
> electronic device with wireless capability, in order to prevent their
> modification. This proposal(according to SaveWiFi), if is applied, would:
>
> - Restrict installation of alternative operating systems on your
> PC, like GNU/Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, etc.
> - Prevent research into advanced wireless technologies, like mesh
> networking and bufferbloat fixes
> - Ban installation of custom firmware on your Android phone
> Discourage the development of alternative free and open source WiFi
> firmware, like OpenWrt
> - Infringe upon the ability of amateur radio operators to create
> high powered mesh networks to assist emergency personnel in a disaster.
> - Prevent resellers from installing firmware on routers, such as for
> retail WiFi hotspots or VPNs, without agreeing to any condition a
> manufacturer so chooses.
>
> We need to stop this proposal to become law. That's why I ask you and
> the US Pirate Party to help preserve freedom, for the US and(because
> many free software and hardware developers are based in the US) the rest
> of the planet.
>
> I've started a petition at Avaaz to ask the FCC to keep our freedom, you
> can help by signing it and sharing it:
>
> You also can find other ways to help at
> https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Save_WiFi
>
> I hope you can help us,
>
> Manuel Caicedo
I am a member!
Reply to his email and tell him the article gets a lot of things wrong, quotes people who haven't fully understood the issue, and makes or implies false claims about the campaign. Let him know that he should contact the josh at the FSF if he wants the full scoop. Or get on the mailing list.
The author gets a lot of things wrong. He NEVER talked to the Save Wifi project or the people who are actively investigating this issue which includes software developers like Adrian Luis (who *actually* worked on some of the impacted device chipsets), manufacturers, multiple Qualcomm employees current and ex, the FSF, the EFF, lawyers involved in prior FCC regulations, OpenWRT developers, LibreCMC developers, mesh networking groups, and others. The people the author interviewed for the story were inappropriate, wrong, and did little more than make good sound bytes for the story backing up the impression being presented that it was a non-issue.
Is it a proposal? Yes. That entirely misses the point though. You don't wait until its passed to fight it. It becomes an near-impossible fight to win at that point. If you don't want to fight the proposed rules fine. But what do you have to say about the rules which have already in passed and in effect now? Should we ignore those too and pretend it isn't an issue? Pretending this is a non-issue or outright ignoring it won't result in a solution to the problem.
The FCC's stated 'position' is irrelevant if the rules for manufacturers are resulting in the locking down of devices. What the FCC is doing is 'double talk'. Within the same quote the FCC has indicated that they both don't care if there is third party firmware loaded, but then goes on to state as long as it complies with the rules, which ultimately is why you can't load the third party firmware. The way the rules are manufacturers will institute digital locks and are *already* doing so. In the very quotes within that article one of the technical people they quoted even admits to there still being a problem AND nobody ever said there were *only* proposed rules that were a problem. It's a much bigger issue.
They are also confusing issues in relation to whats passed, whats proposed, and completely failed in discussing whats coming to Canada and Europe.
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios