1 Aug 2011 05:09
Re: IEEE rushes through legislation on SuperWiFi
You raise an interesting point, Ashok. To be frank, I have not seen any compilation that specifically draws on this theme.
What attracted my attention was the automotive example, which reminded me of the anti-collision system designed (or promoted) by B. Rajaram for the railways, which is slowly coming into use, I
think considerably more than a decade (and several horrific accidents) since its design.
Of course, there is a huge difference between systems designed for public and private transportation, chiefly because the dangers to intrusion into private
space.
Let us take the case of GPS anti-theft systems. Made possible due to the 'opening up' of US GPS navsats data, GPS two way systems were conceived as convenient ways in which to track commercial transport, for which some advantages were obvious - ability to finely track and monitor the movement of goods, prevent or trailback diversion of the transporter, minimisation of carriage of illegal/illicit goods or persons, and so on. Later on, more insidious 'features' were introduced - monitoring of the driver, for instance, thought to be convenient in order to monitor driver performance, but having plenty of scope for the kind of personal monitoring that goes a bit beyond.
Then came GPS two-way systems for private cars, said to be effective as anti-theft systems, but quickly used (and sold), for instance, by parents to monitor their children's movements (in the US minor children - 16 years old, I think, at least in some states - can get driver licenses).
My point is that systems like this are designed and developed (right down to the standards) quite remote from public examination and review, unlike public policy. Not that India has a sterling track record in
public involvement with policy directions and setting, but that is hardly the point. We are discussing policy directions, not just Indian
policy.
We (human society) do not have a good way to resolve the complications between technological development and what might be called reasoned or debated choice. On this list, and many like it, we have seen the tussle between the technology underlying the Internet, and that of governments who want to control both content and content delivery on it. In many cases, the technology paradigm, business decisions, government policies and the expressed wishes of people are four different things. IPv6 is one such case, with its scope for facilitating multi-tiered accessibility. It is nearly upon us, yet as far as I can see, absolutely no headway has been made in finding a solution to myriad social problems that may arise from its adoption.
Well over two hundred years ago, the textile industry in what is now the UK faced the same kind of problems. Technology meant to make the work of spinners and weavers simpler was actually deployed to create the most inhuman factories and cities imaginable, setting up the basis for an unsustainable global fiscal paradigm that is looking very fragile indeed today, and may look worse tomorrow (US time). People who objected were ruthlessly crushed, leading to a violent movement whose eradication led to a very erroneous meaning being attached to the word 'Luddite' - someone who opposes technology, rather than someone who wants technology to work for humans, and not the other way around. In the cyberworlds, we find a similar error very
commonly applied these days - 'hacker', someone who breaks into secure networks to steal data,
rather than someone who develops better and more efficient code and systems, often meant to benefit people. At least hacker is usually spelt with small caps, unlike Luddite, which is supposedly named after a legendary union organiser, Ludd. Just like the legendary members of Anonymous, hardly anything is known about Ludd.
At least, for the automotive 'anti-collision systems' (one might also call them 'independent automotive communication systems', because that is what how they will function) for which standards are currently being developed, there is burgeoning consciousness amongst human rights supporters that something needs to be done to make the process of debate and discussion more open and proactive. It remains to be seen whether this will result in a positive intervention.
Vickram
http://communicall.wordpress.com
http://vvcrishna.wordpress.com
http://communicall.wordpress.com
http://vvcrishna.wordpress.com
From: Ashok Jhunjhunwala <ashok-JWifh0Q/tGjINaghk1cIrg@public.gmane.org>
To: "india-gii-exipcMZXGhH9nmKIgjYY/w@public.gmane.org" <india-gii-exipcMZXGhH9nmKIgjYY/w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "india-gii-exipcMZXGhH9nmKIgjYY/w@public.gmane.org" <india-gii-exipcMZXGhH9nmKIgjYY/w@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Sunday, 31 July 2011, 17:51
Subject: Re: [india-gii] IEEE rushes through legislation on SuperWiFiDear Vikram,I agree that techies sometime go wrong. But can one to begin with, give reasons why this technique is not good -- is there a good reference to standard? While there has been work, I have not seen authentic articles yet.
ashok jhunjhunwala, iit madrasSent from my iPad'Standards' is, of course, a more appropriate term to use than 'legislation'.We are seeing, repeatedly, insidious attempts by a community of techies (in one sci-fi story I read, the term used was 'political engineer') to emplace constrictions on society by the adoption of singular variants of technology. One of the earliest was of course, in radio itself, where any attempt to create wireless signalling on the electromagnetic spectrum was ruthlessly crushed (this would have mainly been around the pre-Word War 1 days), in favour of the Marconi system. This also probably (the connection seems obvious, much like the dog that didn't bark in the night) the reason that Tesla and Stubblefield wireless power transmission and distribution (they represent two different approaches) is so little researched.There is no question of 'legislation'. IEEE does not represent, by any standard (if you'll pardon the pun) the common person in any democratic country. Yet its pronouncements are, like those of the ITU, taken as gospel in many nations, especially those like ours, where official representation that endorses a national policy approach in the matter of specific technology standards and developments is non-existent, thus making a mockery of any pretensions to democracy within IEEE.And before anyone gets up on a hobbyhorse, I am not in the least advocating that non-technical persons sit on technical committees - but it would be helpful to the progress of human society if the technical people, who did, were at least officially informed about the consequences (to their own country, and even to the world) of such directions.The latest inroads into wireless communication openness have come, not from IEEE, but from the automotive industry. Under the pretext of building reliable anti-collision systems (about the need for which, of course, nobody is likely to seriously be in denial, although one can easily see the scope to draw a comparison to a sledgehammer being used to drive in a thumbtack), the auto industry is putting together control systems that so seriously invade the privacy of car users that it is simply breathtaking. The systems will pull in personal identification, through annunciating driver licenses, vehicle identification, through onboard data systems (part of the control systems of every modern car), locational systems (a combination of public GPS and cell-tower locationing, thus pulling in telcos as well as satellite operators in order to precisely define location overground and under cover (city streets often include areas invisible to satellites). Since such systems are already potentially tied in with government-provided database systems, such as licensing of vehicles and drivers, the scope for truly intrusive and invasive monitoring of personal transportation is stupendous. And yet, not a word from legislators, in any democratic country, to question the necessity for such systems to interlink without legislative oversight of application of laws to protect personal privacy.Vickram
http://communicall.wordpress.com
http://vvcrishna.wordpress.comFrom: Kiritkumar Lathia <kplathia-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: india-gii-exipcMZXGhH9nmKIgjYY/w@public.gmane.org
Cc: India- gii <india-gii-oOvZX6Rv2P8@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Friday, 29 July 2011, 13:01
Subject: Re: [india-gii] IEEE rushes through legislation on SuperWiFiOn 28 July 2011 19:35, sajan venniyoor <venniyoor-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:As the story says, white space technology is "especially useful for serving less densely populated areas, such as rural areas, and developing countries where most vacant TV channels can be found." There are plenty of white spaces in the analogue TV spectrum in India, but I wonder if DoT will ever allow unlicensed operations in that band.SajanThe website which will provide more information is the "IEEE Standards Association" - the Standards body of IEEE: http://standards.ieee.org/.
As I have been mentioning, India is essentially a "standards/technology" consumer so the interest of those (manufacturing) entity would be to see if there is an Indian market interest (which would then provide the necessary economy of scale) as it is highly unlikely that in USA, Europe, China, etc. the standard7technology can be used although in theory it the utilises "unlicensed" spectrum, it would need to prove that there is no harmful interference to the just liberated "digital dividend" TV spectrum. The regulators in many countries are looking for additional revenues from the sale of these "digital dividend" spectrum as mobile operators look for additional (4G) spectrum to address the same market using the LTE technology.
So is this yet another attempt (by WiMax technology IPR owners) to have another try at the market using a different standard/technology? Remember it is not always the best technology which wins the market!best wishes,Kirit
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
india-gii-exipcMZXGhH9nmKIgjYY/w@public.gmane.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
india-gii-unsubscribe-exipcMZXGhH9nmKIgjYY/w@public.gmane.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/india-gii
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
india-gii-exipcMZXGhH9nmKIgjYY/w@public.gmane.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
india-gii-unsubscribe-exipcMZXGhH9nmKIgjYY/w@public.gmane.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/india-gii
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
india-gii-exipcMZXGhH9nmKIgjYY/w@public.gmane.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
india-gii-unsubscribe-exipcMZXGhH9nmKIgjYY/w@public.gmane.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/india-gii
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
india-gii@...
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
india-gii-unsubscribe@...
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/india-gii
RSS Feed