more on Free Speech fading at UC Berkeley

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Paul Biggar <paul.biggar () gmail com>
Date: May 4, 2005 4:23:20 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: dpreed () reed com
Subject: Re: [IP] Free Speech fading at UC Berkeley
Reply-To: Paul Biggar <paul.biggar () gmail com>


Dave,

At first I was convinced the author had misunderstood the function and
purpose of a firewall. After perusing Dr. Reed's bio, the only
possible solution is that it's a test to see if we're paying
attention.

The article makes an analogy between setting up a firewall and
oppressing free speech, as if unrestricted access to port 80 was a
constitutional right. He says 'it may seem like a stretch', and
frankly, it is. A firewall is no more a violation of free speech than
a police officer is. Both protect the innocent, prevent theft, and
make sure that there's no funny business going on. And while police
officers have been known to be over-zealous in the enforcement of
their jobs, we're all real glad they're there sometimes.

From Dr. Reed's language, we appear to have no more than a simple
firewall here. If you want to run a service on a box behind it, you
email the admin, and ask for the firewall to be opened to allow
connections to your machine on a particular port: "Can you open port
80 to 10.0.0.59, please". This prevents such things as trojans and
bots-nets (which he seems not to regard as a problem) as well as
reducing the problem of email borne viruses (say, those which create
an anonymous spam relay). He alleges that firewalls offer no security
to the end user; how he reaches this conclusion he does not say. In a
time when machines are compromised before there is time to download
Windows Service Pack 2, this attitude is bewildering.

I note that this article does not lack the familiar trio of Fear,
Uncertainty and Doubt. Clearly aimed at those without a technical
background, it attempts to imply that the security gestapo is reading
your mail and "mucking with it's contents", and that a precedent is
being set to ban the use of encryption. It further creates a faulty
analogy to the regulation of cellular phone usage.

I can imagine scenarios in which a firewall would lead to damage to
free speech (China, anyone?). But Dr. Reed has brought none to our
attention. Has permission to run essential services (such as a web
site) been denied? Have individuals been singled out based on their
beliefs? Has UCB even 'claimed ownership' of the traffic flowing
through its network, or has it simply secured the medium?

Firewalls can surely be used to prevent free speech, but there is no
evidence of this here. Not having a firewall is irresponsible and
dangerous for your users. Neither research nor free speech are being
damaged by this. If they are, then I'd like to hear about it. Berkeley
have simply put a cop on every corner, and its users can sleep more
soundly knowing one is there.



> Dave -
>
> UC Berkeley now requires permission to receive TCP connections at any
> port on any computer.  This policy is typical of "locked down"
> corporations, but now applies to all parts of UC Berkeley,  
> including CS.
>
> So you might find this interesting.
>
> http://www.satn.org/archive/2005_05_01_archive.html#111521463872601897


--
Paul Biggar
paul.biggar () gmail com


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/