[A2k] Obama and Free Software
Aslam Raffee
aslamr@gmail.com
Wed May 13 18:17:01 2009
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Hi Bob,
Perfect timing, the case "state vs chun" underscores your point beautifully
(http://www.dwi.com/new-jersey/state-v-chun/ and
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/05/software_proble.html)
"After two years of attempting to get the computer based source code for the
Alcotest 7110 MKIII-C, defense counsel in State v. Chun were successful in
obtaining the code, and had it analyzed by Base One Technologies, Inc.
By making itself a party to the litigation after the oral arguments in
April, Draeger subjected itself to the Supreme Court's directive that
Draeger ultimately provide the source code to the defendants' software
analysis house, Base One.".....
..."Base One, however, did an extensive evaluation, finding 19,400 potential
errors in the code."......
"Among its findings are:
2. Readings are Not Averaged Correctly: When the software takes a series of
readings, it first averages the first two readings. Then, it averages the
third reading with the average just computed. Then the fourth reading is
averaged with the new average, and so on. There is no comment or note
detailing a reason for this calculation, which would cause the first reading
to have more weight than successive readings. Nonetheless, the comments say
that the values should be averaged, and they are not.
3. Results Limited to Small, Discrete Values: The A/D converters
measuring the IR readings and the fuel cell readings can produce values
between 0 and 4095. However, the software divides the final average(s) by
256, meaning the final result can only have 16 values to represent the
five-volt range (or less), or, represent the range of alcohol readings
possible. This is a loss of precision in the data; of a possible twelve bits
of information, only four bits are used. Further, because of an attribute in
the IR calculations, the result value is further divided in half. This means
that only 8 values are possible for the IR detection, and this is compared
against the 16 values of the fuel cell.
4. Catastrophic Error Detection Is Disabled: An interrupt that detects
that the microprocessor is trying to execute an illegal instruction is
disabled, meaning that the Alcotest software could appear to run correctly
while executing wild branches or invalid code for a period of time. Other
interrupts ignored are the Computer Operating Property (a watchdog timer),
and the Software Interrupt."
...'While Draeger's counsel claims that the "The Alcotest [7110] *is the
single best microprocessor-driven evidential breath tester on the marke*t" '
----------------------
There are 12 findings, worth a read.
Regards,
Aslam
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe@gmail.com>wrote:
> Jeffrey,
>
> 2009/5/11 Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>:
> > Paul and all,
> >
> > I tried to comment on Huff, but so far it hasn't posted. So much for
> > openness and transparency by Huff. I'll remain hopeful of A2K in
> > this response...
> >
> > My comment was essentially that I don't believe that Barack or
> > his administration is interested in seeing ideology drive software
> development.
> > As a developer myself for nearly 30 years, some of which is/was free
> > software and much of which is in use somewhere today, and from
> > every thing I can tell is well liked and/or desired. Free software has
> > been a useful driving force for IT and Internet usage early on, and
> > remains so but perhaps to a lessor degree. I have little doubt that
> > I will continue to from time to time developing free software.
> >
> > Where I think the Obama administration is concerned is with crypto
> > software that is beyond NIST's standard, or superior to same, which
> > makes LEA's nervous as they have no way of breaking it, which is
> > of course one of the reasons such development efforts are in existance
> > today. A cookie cutter approach to cybersecurity via cryptographic
> > means is never going to be secure enough and gives miscreants very
> > little disincentive to continue their activities, and in fact only acts
> to
> > some as a challenge which they find difficult to resist.
> >
> > A dictator sort of efficiency as Paul rightly quoted Turban in
> > regards to has little to do with what and how any administration
> > should reasonably select whatever software they wish to use.
> > Some free software is good some not so good and should be
> > avoided.
>
> This is certainly true. As indeed it is for non-free, non-open or
> what-have-you software. Some is good. Some is not so good. And its
> really significant when you consider cryptographic software. I doubt
> very much NIST will use cryptographic software for which they don't
> have the source - not that they would tell me anyway. And of course
> they don't need to use free software to get it. They can either write
> it themselves or demand the source from whoever did. But knowing that
> the source is available to many others offers some assurance that the
> algorithms are correctly implemented.
>
> >How one determines which is which is where the rubber
> > meets the road.
> >Where the publics information individually is
> > involved or effected IMO the Obama administration should
> > select the best that current technology can provide. Good
> > enough is not expectable where the publics safety and privacy
> > is involved.
>
> Which seems to suggest that free software is really a pragmatic,
> non-ideological requirement for cryptographic software (and any
> software where the public's information is individually involved).
> And if the free software is not good enough then they probably
> shouldn't be keeping the information if they respect the privacy
> rights of citizens. Of course I am not a citizen so they can store
> individual data on me using any old proprietary snake-oil software.
> But I would have thought you citizens would be demanding more.
>
> Cheers
> Bob
>
> >
> > Paul Lehto wrote:
> >
> >> Responding to Jamie's HuffPo piece linked below, Canadapundit calls it
> >> a "push poll" and suggests that we not "handcuff" government agencies
> >> in their ability to select the most efficient and efficacious
> >> software. Suggesting that sometimes the "open source" that
> >> Canadapundit claims to support will meet the tests of efficiency and
> >> efficaciousness and sometimes not, Canadapundit concludes by saying:
> >>
> >> "It is the job of the administration to select the best tool for the
> >> job... regardless of the ideology behind it."
> >>
> >> My response is at this jump link:
> >>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/obama-and-free-software_b_201166.html?show_comment_id=24089032#comment_24089032
> >>
> >> FOr those really short on time, I point out that "Freedom" is an
> >> "ideology" and that the business values canadapundit cites, especially
> >> "efficiency" don't exactly have the best freedom and democracy track
> >> record. Quoting US President Harry Truman:
> >>
> >> "If you want efficiency, you'll get a dictatorship."
> >>
> >> More on why this critique of Jamie's post is so messed up, IMHO, at
> >>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/obama-and-free-software_b_201166.html?show_comment_id=24089032#comment_24089032
> >>
> >> Paul Lehto
> >>
> >> On 5/9/09, James Love <james.love@keionline.org> wrote:
> >> >
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/obama-and-free-software_b_201166.html
> >> >
> >> > Obama and Free Software
> >> > Huffington Post
> >> > James Love, May 9, 2009
> >> >
> >> > One of the more interesting aspects of the modern knowledge society is
> >> > the free software movement. The most famous and influential leader of
> >> > this movement is Richard M. Stallman (RMS). Richard recognized the
> value
> >> > of a new model for software development and the various risks to that
> >> > model. He also created a philosophical and ideological framework, and
> a
> >> > new set of slogans, legal strategies and ideas to protect and promote
> >> > the environment that would make free software more common and
> powerful.
> >> > If Richard had not began his work in the 1980s, the Internet today
> would
> >> > be less open, less innovative, and less useful.
> >> >
> >> > In recent years the free software movement has grown in many different
> >> > dimensions, and become much more diverse in terms of its leadership
> and
> >> > approach. Playing an important role are Stallman critics like Eric
> >> > Raymond or Bruce Perens[2], gifted software development leaders like
> >> > Linus Torvalds, thousands of independently managed software
> development
> >> > communities, corporate supported ventures like OpenOffice, MySql,
> Redhat
> >> > or Ubuntu, and a host of influential academics like Eben Moglen or
> >> > Yoachi Benkler. Today Google Scholar has 53,900 hits for the term
> "free
> >> > software."[3]
> >> >
> >> > [Pictures, clockwise: Obama ( Marc Nozell) and free software leaders
> >> > Richard Stallman (Leonid Dmitriev), Eben Moglen (Andrew McMillan),
> Linux
> >> > Torvalds (t3rmin4t0r), Bruce Perens (Manon Ress) and Michell Baker
> (Dead
> >> > Squid). All photos available under licenses from Author, Wikimedia or
> >> > Flickr]
> >> >
> >> > While free software was once considered by some as a fringe movement,
> it
> >> > is now mainstream. Fortune 500 companies are embracing free software
> >> > programs like R to analyse data. Linux, Apache, MySql and PhP (LAMP)
> >> > servers power much of the Internet. Many cell phones, Kindle 2, and
> >> > other devices run Linux. There is enormous interest in the development
> >> > of every aspect of free software tools and applications. Some of the
> >> > most profitable software companies today are those that are providing
> >> > services over free software platforms. Free software also is important
> >> > for empowering and protecting other social movements that routinely
> rely
> >> > upon free software for a wide range of services.
> >> >
> >> > The "free" part of the free software movement is an important element
> of
> >> > this. The ability to innovate, and specifically to create innovations
> >> > that serve social needs, is well served by platforms, like the
> Internet,
> >> > that are based upon openness and freedom.
> >> >
> >> > What does all this have to do with Obama? Actually, quite a bit.
> >> >
> >> > As important as free software has become economically and socially, it
> >> > gets almost no respect among U.S. political leaders. People should
> >> > insist that elected and appointed government officials be more
> explicit
> >> > about policies. I would start by asking the Obama Administration to
> >> > answer the following initial questions:
> >> >
> >> > Is free software important?
> >> >
> >> > 1. To what extent is free software used today?
> >> >
> >> > 2. What are the efficiency benefits of free software, in terms of
> >> > allowing code to be freely reused and re-purposed?
> >> >
> >> > 3. What are the benefits of having software code transparent?
> >> >
> >> > 4. What are the benefits of users having the freedom to modify
> software
> >> > to meet their needs?
> >> >
> >> > 5. Does free software play an important role in avoiding harm from the
> >> > monopoly control over software products and platforms?
> >> >
> >> > 6. How much money do users save by using free software solutions?
> >> >
> >> > 7. Does free software make it easier for young people to learn about
> and
> >> > contribute to the development of software?
> >> >
> >> > Next, I would ask the Obama Administration to address certain policy
> >> > questions relevant to procurement and government services:
> >> >
> >> > 8. Does government procurement policy recognize the benefits of free
> >> > software solutions?
> >> >
> >> > 9. If so, do procurement policies encourage or discourage the supply
> and
> >> > use of free software?
> >> >
> >> > 10. Does the Obama Administration recognize the strategic importance
> and
> >> > value of interoperability and open standards in the software field?
> >> >
> >> > 11. Does the Obama Administration recognize the strategic importance
> of
> >> > open standards for data formats?
> >> >
> >> > 12. Does the Administration have a strategy to support and promote
> >> > interoperability and open standards, including open data formats? If
> so,
> >> > what is this strategy?
> >> >
> >> > 13. To what extent can someone who uses free software fully interact
> >> > with government agencies, such as by editing collaborative documents,
> >> > using web based services, viewing multimedia content, or using
> >> > government funded databases?
> >> >
> >> > Grant Related Issues:
> >> >
> >> > 14. Does the federal Bayh-Dole Act provide the flexibility for the US
> >> > government to insert appropriate conditions in grants that would
> >> > increase public access to the software code developed under a
> government
> >> > grant?
> >> >
> >> > 15. Should federal grants require recipients to publish and share data
> >> > in open standardized formats?
> >> >
> >> > Competition Issues.
> >> >
> >> > 16. Is the impact of a merger of the free software sector relevant to
> a
> >> > proposed merger? For example, will the Obama Administration examine
> the
> >> > impact of the Oracle acquisition of Sun on the future viability of
> >> > MySQL, Java or OpenOffice?
> >> >
> >> > 17. Would an agreement among the owners of the two leading proprietary
> >> > operating systems to not distribute software on the Linux platform be
> >> > considered a violation of competition laws? If competition law is not
> a
> >> > good tool to address such issues, what is?
> >> >
> >> > 18. Would an aggressive effort to break an open standard for data
> >> > formats be considered a violation of competition law?
> >> >
> >> > Patent issues.
> >> >
> >> > 19. Should there be a zone of fair use for software patents when used
> in
> >> > free software projects?
> >> >
> >> > A lot of these issues are technical, but the issues are quite
> important
> >> > economically and socially. The trick is to make these geeky issues
> >> > political enough that politicians engage.
> >> >
> >> > --Notes
> >> >
> >> > [1]Yoachi Benkler, Coase's Penguin, or Linux and the Nature of the
> Firm,
> >> > 112 Yale L.J (2002); Yoachi Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: How
> Social
> >> > Production Transforms Markets and Freedom (Yale University Press
> 2006).
> >> > Eben Moglen, "Anarchism Triumphant: Free Software and the Death of
> >> > Copyright," First Monday (August, 1999)
> >> >
> >> > [2] Eric S Raymond, The cathedral and the bazaar: Musings on Linux and
> >> > open source by an accidental revolutionary, 2001, O'Reilly &
> Associates.
> >> > http://perens.com/policy/open-source/
> >> >
> >> > [3]http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22free+software%
> >> > 22&btnG=Search
> >> > --
> >> > James Love, Director, Knowledge Ecology International
> >> > http://www.keionline.org | mailto:james.love at keionline.org
> >> > Wk: +1.202.332.2671 | US Mobile +1.202.361.3040 | Geneva Mobile
> >> > +41.76.413.6584
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > A2k mailing list
> >> > A2k@lists.essential.org
> >> > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> >> P.O. Box #1
> >> Ishpeming, MI 49849
> >> lehto.paul@gmail.com
> >> 906-204-2333
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> A2k mailing list
> >> A2k@lists.essential.org
> >> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
> > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
> > Abraham Lincoln
> > "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama
> >
> > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
> >
> > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> > ===============================================================
> > Updated 1/26/04
> > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
> > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
> > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
> > jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > My Phone: 214-244-4827
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > A2k mailing list
> > A2k@lists.essential.org
> > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
> >
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
>