« September 2005 | Main | April 2006 »

January 04, 2006

Bush the Crook

I'm reeling at the George W. Bush's claim of authority to break well established and considered law, despite his repeated assertions that "rule of law" must prevail back when it benefited him in the year 2000 elections. Whose laws is he working by? Certainly not the ones that Congress put in place.

In ordering unfettered wiretapping, Bush has committed crimes against the hundreds of millions of people in this country, and he must be held accountable for this activity.

The personal security of each American is at stake, and Congress must now act. Bush must be impeached and tried, as must Dick Cheney, who was complicit in these activities. The crimes against the people in the form of warrantless surveillance cannot be permitted to continue.

Posted by Pat at 02:25 PM

January 06, 2006

Expansive Home Phone System

Even before moving into a great old house we bought, I realized that the phone wiring was ancient. Two rooms were wired with twisted 3-conductor cable, though the newer jacks all appeared to be wired with Cat3 cable. However, only one pair was connected at any of the jacks because the house only ever had a single phone line. This line's demarcation was a screw terminal on one of the joists in the basement, and all the wires were screwed in here. With a second Verizon line and three Voice over IP lines, this arrangement simply wouldn't do.

First there's the house phone. Then I have a line I use for my home office, that I forward to wherever I happen to be traveling to. A VoIP phone gives us a second house line and a fax line. And a second VoIP phone gives me portable phone service wherever I happen to carry it to, including deep in the bowels of office buildings where cell coverage is iffy at best. No, five phone lines in a house wired for one is difficult.

The typical residential solutions to multiple lines don't work that well either. Most homes with more than one phone line just have a second line. And yeah, it's easy enough to activate the second pair (on those cables that have one, anyway!). But that still doesn't solve my dilemma. Furthermore, what had been a screw terminal for a single pair had become a mess over a month of casual reconfiguration.

That reconfiguration included the relocation of the drop from the pole, moving it from the front of the house to the back of the house; installation of a real NID outside the house; and installation of a second POTS (plain old phone service) line. I then ran a Cat5 from the NID to an RJ45 jack just inside the house. From that jack I could run a Cat5 anywhere I wanted to and build the wiring infrastructure out from there. At first it just ran to the clump of wires, and with some unconventional wiring I put a POTS and a VoIP line at the house's jacks lines 1 and 2, while putting my leaving a cordless phone and fax machine by my VoIP equipment so I wouldn't have to run wires to them.

I chose the location for all the computer equipment in a small spare room. However, that room soon became a walk-in closet, and the computer equipment began getting in the way of further developing the room into a closet. (On the side, I don't know what we're going to do when we expand the tiny adjacent bathroom into that space!) Clearly the computers needed to move, but due to lack of wiring there was nowhere to move them to.

At last the solution to my phone dilemma was in reach, though I'd been planning it for a while. That solution? Build out my data/communications infrastructure to let me relocate computers and phone equipment. And while I'm at it, put together a way to connect whatever phone lines I need to wherever they need to go.

In went a 66 block (one of those giant phone company connectors with 100 pins) to replace the old screw terminals. All phone jacks in the house got wired to it. This particular model 66 block has an RJ21X connector on it so that I can connect a cable and bring each of the phone pairs somewhere more convenient. At first I hardwired an RJ21X connector to connect each phone pair to the correct line, but that's difficult to maintain (to say the least).

Over New Year's weekend I ran, among other things, four Cat5 cables from my basement up to my third floor office. One of them is dedicated to phone service, and it carries both of my Verizon POTS landlines up from the basement; in addition, it carries the VoIP house voice and fax back down to the basement. Like the other phone lines, this one terminates at the 66 block. I also bought a 48-port patch panel and a 25' length of 25-pair cable with an RJ21X connector at the end. Putting this all together, each phone pair runs from a jack somewhere in the house, to the 66 block, through the cable, and to a port on the patch panel. By connecting the different ports together, I can route each phone line anywhere it needs to go.

This is the type of solution that is becoming commonplace in commerical offices. At first glance it appears to be overkill inside a house, but when you consider that I (a) want flexibility, and (b) have lots of phone lines for legitimate reasons, it turns into a very workable system.

My patch panel still has 23 open ports. I'm probably going to run ethernet cables to those so I can get the house online.

Posted by Pat at 01:25 PM

January 08, 2006

Massport Versus WiFi

Massport takes issue with airlines and others offering their own WiFi service at Logan airport, using security as their justification. As an information security specialist, I have a couple of words to say about that, and Massport won't like hearing them.

The recent battle over WiFi (wireless internet) availability at the airport has been brewing for a little while now. The airlines want to offer this service to their premier travelers for low or no cost, which means that Logan's $8/hour service gets less business. Of course, this makes it harder for Massport or its chosen WiFi vendor to earn revenue from travelers that are most likely to be able to spend the money.

I've been wondering for some time, though, about Massport's claims of diminished security that resulting from other WiFi services. Thinking about the problem from a technical standpoint, it's pretty clear to me that Massport either has no legitimate argument, or they are relying on WiFi for things they shouldn't be. I'll talk about this but try to keep the explanations understandable.

Massport's premise here is that a private WiFi hotspot diminishes airport security. In other words, if people connect to that private hotspot, they can disrupt or cause harm to Massport or Logan. In what ways could this possibly happen?


These are the only direct security concerns I can come up with. Neither of these justifies a prohibition on alternative hotspots, though.

WiFi denials of service can happen just by flooding the airwaves with bogus traffic, or jamming WiFi frequencies. Somebody who wants to prevent the use of WiFi can do it easily. A bigger question is why this is even a travel security concern for Massport, if indeed this is the case. If Massport is relying on WiFi for its own critical operations, then it has made a mistake that can't be corrected by quashing alternative hotspots. The only guarantee against a DoS attack is to operate within a closed network, which WiFi is not.

The ability to monitor communications has become a topic of discussion in the mainstream press recent. Massport, like any other ISP, has the ability to monitor the internet connections made by its WiFi clients, and to examine the information contained within those communications. By setting up a hotspot, Massport enables itself to review and store all of the messages it carries. Following an attack against an airliner or a facility, the logged data might help reconstruct terrorist activities leading up to the event.

However, who says that terrorists will use Massport's WiFi? Who says they've even use one of the alternative hotspots? Perhaps they are using their own 2-way radios, completely untraceably. Or they could be using cell phones, like many other Logan passengers and relatively untraceably. They could even be using Massport's own WiFi, but using VPN software to conceal their communications from anybody who might be watching.

If Massport thinks it can prevent or mitigate attacks by being the only WiFi game in town, it is mistaken. The "Security" argument falls down pretty quickly, leaving the astute observer to realize that the real reason Massport doesn't want competing WiFi hotspots is that it wants to collect all the revenue - the one argument that doesn't fall flat on its face.

When "Security" becomes the catch-all justification for decisions, especially when it's not accompanied by any justification, people stop listening. What we really need is thoughtful security, and Massport needs to be party to this. Shutting down competing WiFi services is neither thoughtful nor effective, and Massport needs to rethink this decision.

Posted by Pat at 10:19 PM

January 19, 2006

Billy Joel Concert

For the third time in my life, I went to see Billy Joel in concert! This Rock & Roll icon came to Boston tonight and played to a sellout crowd at the Shawmut Center, make that Fleet Center, no, I meant the TD BankNorth Garden. Or, as Billy Joel called it, the "something Garden, or is that `GAHden'".

I was guessing beforehand what the demographics would be, and I settled on 30's and up, with some 20's and nobody under 20. I was surprise to see lots of 20-somethings present and enjoying the classic tunes we've come to love from Billy Joel over the decades. The stories in his songs are timeless, and for many of us they are part of the backdrop of our youth.

I love seeing Billy Joel play. You look at the stage and see that it is clean of props, and full of instruments, and you know that the man and his band mean business. It's quite a band too--I lost count, but I think there were two saxophone players, two percussionists, a keyboard, guitar, and bass. Add in the guy playing flugelhorn (and I'm sorry I don't remember his last name, but he played that instrument in ways I would never have imagined!), and so far we're up to 9 people on stage. This is all about the music, and I wouldn't want it any other way.

The playlist:

Apparently Wilson Pickett passed away today, and he was a favorite artist of Billy Joel. Wait 'Til the Midnight Hour was played in tribute to his work.

All in all, a great time despite our seats behind the stage and almost in the rafters.

Thanks to Dan, Lori, Steven, and Jonathan for helping make the concert more fun by joining me and Mark.

Posted by Pat at 11:59 PM

January 31, 2006

Denial of Cindy Sheehan's Rights

Call me old fashioned, but guests to the State of the Union address really ought to be appropriately dressed. Unfortunately for Cindy Sheehan, a vocal critic of the war in Iraq whose son was killed during the conflict, she chose to wear a tee shirt with an anti-war slogan and was not only ejected from the speech, but she was arrested by the Capitol Police.

Unfortunately for Cindy Sheehan, the Capitol Police felt that the message on her shirt was illegal. And unfortunately for the people of the United States of America and for the cause of freedom, a citizen has been trampled down by the government for exercising her first amendment right to free speech. Her alleged crime: "Unlawful Conduct".

There was no indication that Ms. Sheehan actually intended to commit an illegal act, or even that she would disrupt the event by inappropriate behavior, such as heckling the President. All she did was wear a tee shirt with a message containing the number of service people killed in Iraq and asking how many more. Wearing a tee shirt with controversial social or political message is not only not illegal, it is a long-accepted means of personal expression.

It is understandable that Ms. Sheehan would be dismissed from the speech due to inappropriate attire, after she revealed her tee shirt and was asked to cover it. But that a person in this country would be arrested for the act of displaying such a message stands contrary to our ideals and to our history, and is more suggestive of other regimes that attempt to control what their citizens think and say. This is not who America is, this is not what America is about, and anybody who would claim otherwise is leading us down a path of something that America must never become.

The Capitol Police will have many questions to answer in the days and weeks ahead. My very first question is, "Wouldn't it have been enough to eject this woman from the event?", immediately followed by, "As police, you have a sworn duty to uphold the constitution, among other responsibilities. The constitution is a foundational document on which our other laws hang. What conceivable interpretation of this document would lead you to believe that arresting a citizen for expressing a viewpoint is legal and appropriate?" There will be many other questions as well, and it is my hope that the Capitol Police are held accountable for their questionable actions.

As Americans we are entitled to our exercise our rights responsibly. As members of a nominally free nation, including the freedom to think and to and express those thoughts, we should be very concerned about what may lie down the road.

[ed: Corrections made based on additional news available the next morning, 2/1/06]

Posted by Pat at 10:29 PM