The BFC Computing Weblog

I recieved an e-mail notice today informing me that I was a member of a class-action suit against Seagate, for supposedly shorting customers by about 7% on hard drive capacity. I’m not sure if the claim is about formatting size or the gigabyte/gibibyte issue, but I haven’t been shorted on any of the hundreds of Seagate drives I’ve purchased or ordered. I know good guys who have gone to work at Seagate, and they don’t leave, giving me the impression that it’s a good company. Besides, class action suits usually do little other than to enrich the plaintiff’s attorneys.

Now, you’d think I can just click to opt out of the suit, right? But no, I have to write a letter and mail it to opt out. There are several things wrong here:

• First, it costs me money to opt out. Material costs include paper, envelope, postage, toner, wear, electricity, gasoline. And my time is worth something, at least I have my clients convinced of that.
• Second, the costs are asymmetrical. The plaintiffs get to send me an e-mail, which costs about zero, the class needs to spend millions of dollars to out out.
• Third, the instructions say not to contact Seagate about this, and I assume the court has agreed to this letter. Seagate would be the one entity which could most easily centralize and de-cost this process, but it would seem they’re not able to .

Two things need to happen here:

• First, folks who are fed up with frivolous lawsuits need to suck it up and write the letter, so that this kind of suit becomes unprofitable. My faith in my fellow Americans will be tested here.
• Apparently we need legislation to level the playing field here so that the costs are borne equally by both sides. I assume this is Federal, since it’s an interstate commerce matter.

And finally, I’d like to hear from others who might know if this is typical or if Seagate just has poor representation.

Here’s my letter (of dubious correctness) for others to copy & paste:

          YOUR NAME
          YOUR ADDRESS
          TOWN, STATE ZIP
          EMAIL TO WHICH YOUR NOTICE WAS ADDRESSED
          
          Hard Drive Settlement
          c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
          P.O. Box 1240
          Minneapolis MN 55400-1240.
          
          
          To whom it may concern:
          
          
          This letter will serve as written request to exclude me from the settlement class in the matter of Cho v. Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., 
          San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. 453195.
          
          
          
          Sincerely,
          
          
          YOUR NAME
          

The ISC is running an interesting note from Craig Goranson today about penetration testing’s potential effects on Bluetooth-enabled medical devices.

In the past, some medical device manufacturers have played it fast and loose with the rules or best-practices. For instance the FCC gave medical devices an exception for radiation, so they didn’t bother to shield anything. And so when wireless network devices started getting near some of these, they went haywire, since they accept interference as well as they restrict it. I know of a respirator that just stopped working when an 802.11b device went near it.

I hope that things have changed recently (I’ve been out of medical for a few years), but I imagine if a rough service scan for bluetooth didn’t take out a device, fuzzing one would. I’d guess that the device manufacturers don’t write their own Bluetooth stacks, and the upstream provider might not have life-critical systems in mind when designing it. I hope I’m wrong on both counts. And I further hope they’re properly watchdogged to reset after a crash. This would make a good study.

It would also be interesting to know what kind of reviews were done on these kinds of devices for some of the high profile people who have them. Do groups like the Secret Service study these things, know how far Bluetooth signals can be transmitted, etc.? There are some crazy implications for security done wrong here.

I previously wrote some thoughts on the Trustees Decision of 2007, which for those who haven’t read them, it basically boils down to “it sucks, but it won’t last.” But I didn’t specify any mechanisms by which change would be effected.

Since I wrote last I’ve done some more reading on the roles of the Trustees, the Charter, the Alumni Constitution, and who has power and authority over what. I doubt any lawsuits are going to change the current situation - I think the AoA has been mortally wounded. “I’m not Dead Yet!” is only worth something until the undertaker’s club meets its target, but go ahead and prove me wrong on these points, I want to be wrong.

The debate is certainly rancorous and many of the discussion boards have descended into acrimonious anonymous postings, debasing the reputation of all Alumni. I suspect this is a bit of ridicule on the part of those defeated in recent elections and a feeling of helplessness, betrayal even, by those on the other side. Emotions run high and it serves none well.

So, this is here to declare the situation not helpless. Now I do believe it is futile for anonymous posters to whine, “fine, I’m not sending my yearly contribution” online, but the power of the Alumni *is* in those contributions, both large and small. When the question is asked, “what right do Alumni think they have to have a say in how the College is run?” the answer is, “the College couldn’t run without their support.” I can’t exactly say to what degree that’s true - if somebody can tease apart the annual report and find that number, please post a comment.

We can also figure out what percentage of the alumni voted for the ‘insurgent’ candidates but I’m not sure anybody on the outside can tell what percentage of giving that group represents. This would be very handy to know.

So, what choice do they have? Stop giving to the College they love and thus weaken it? Give anyway, and just accept that the Alumni shall have no real control over the College’s destiny? No, as I wrote earlier, the Alumni derive power not just through their contributions (which isn’t remarkably different today than in the past), but through their ability to organize (that’s what’s new and deeply troubling to the status quo). So, this needs to be applied to the cynical version of the Golden Rule.

Alumni Investment Corporation. As of this writing the term has no hits on Google. Maybe it exists by another name - somebody educate me, I am not expert in the ways of educational fundraising, though I’ve never heard of this idea before. But here’s the basic idea: form an investment vehicle for like-minded Alumni to donate funds into in lieu of making donations directly to the College. The corporation would have to have a clear set of principles, by-laws, etc. so contributors know where their money is going. Being an investment vehicle, the investors would be issued shares and thus be able to pull their money out should the governance of the fund go astray. Changes to the fund’s policies would be done though a shareholder vote (stop me if you’ve heard this before) and there’d be nothing to stop competing funds, should they become necessary (though a proliferation of funds would incur weakness to each). The fund would need to be well-managed, so that it grows safely over time, and it would probably have to do the same kinds of fundraising (or smarter) that the College does. It would disperse funds to the College on its own terms, with strings attached. If the College were uncooperative, the fund would instead grow, until such time as the College were willing to accept the money.

There isn’t much here that’s new - there are mutual funds that organize to effect social change - the twist here is a select set of potential contributors and a very specific set of potential beneficiaries. The fund would have to be properly organized to garner a charity status so it would be as attractive a donation target under our Federal Income Tax regime. Obviously, profits from shareholder withdrawals would be taxable.

This arrangement leverages the two powers the Alumni really have and largely ignores the one that has been or can be abrogated from it. It allows the disaffected Alumni to continue to donate to the College, but in a manner they find morally acceptable and fiscally prudent.

Now, I have no idea how to organize this nor the time or expertise to manage it (I’m busy trying to get a startup funded), so somebody take the ball and run with it. I might even donate.

Things change.

Sometimes there’s something you can do do stop it. And sometimes there’s not, but you try anyway.

On Saturday, the Dartmouth Board of Trustees enacted changes to the Dartmouth Constitution, last modified over a century ago, to change the balance of power from 50/50 alumni-voted/administration-appointed to a 33/66 split, in favor of the administration. They fancy to implement a model closer to Harvard’s, which isn’t all that well regarded by folks who aren’t in the habit of appointing trustees. Much more info on what happened and why can be found at Dartblog.

The strategy isn’t even all that creative - Roosevelt tried this in 1939 when the Supreme Court wasn’t voting the way he expected it should, and it’s seen as the most egregious political blunder of his Presidency (quite the curious model to emulate). Just as that move enraged the other three branches of government, this has sparked talk about getting big name law firms involved in the process. It’s even brought ridicule from the non-academic intellectuals - the Wall Street Journal gave the idea a good dressing down. A shame, but this will passs.

What won’t pass is the surge in Alumni participation in governance in the College, and that’s why this article appears on my blog. It’s about the Internet.

10 years ago, Dartmouth offered its alumni (n.b.: this blog is in English, not Latin) a lifetime e-mail account. Then it added some alumni services websites, access to the Library, online voting, social networking, etc. The idea was to keep the Alumni closer to the College. And guess what? It worked.

But rather than just fondly fire up BlitzMail and think, “boy, I think I’ll send those guys $100 today,” they also thought, “where’s that money going … what are these guys up to?” And so they checked in and the majority didn’t like what they saw.

So, they organized websites, campaigns, analysis sites, and decided to set out to change things, in the liberal democratic fashion set out for them in the Constitution.

Now, these alumni didn’t share the same values and plans that the incumbents shared, and they were batting a thousand. The Trustees weren’t used to the Alumni exercising their rights as laid forth in the Constitution. So “something had to be done”. And it was. But it won’t last.

You see, the Internet isn’t going away. The power of Alumni to communicate and collaborate is only going to get stronger over time. They can look in whenever they want, even if they can’t get up to Hanover, or to the U.S., even.

Just as Linux (the poster-boy for all of Open Source Software) appeared just as soon as there was an Internet to support its development, Alumni Governance will come to be seen as an emergent property of Alumni linked together with the ability to easily cooperate. It’s no mystery that all of this happened just as soon as it was feasible - what’s mysterious is that some think they can hold back the sea.

Google is throwing its wealth around to encourage the FCC to:”

1. let customers download and use any software on the network
2. let customers use any device on the network
3. sell wireless space to any third-party wireless provider at commercial rates
4. allow the wireless network to interconnect with other Internet service providers.

” in the upcoming auction of the 700MHz spectrum. The Old-Telco companies want none of it, but the FCC has already sided with Openness on the first two. Now Google is showing that the FCC can Do The Right Thing without losing out on revenue from the auction. If Old-Telco won’t play, Google will.

Interestingly, this is the strategy advocated by Ron Paul when he visited Google recently. It wasn’t clear from the video that they liked his response at the time, but apparently it’s grown on them. Watch the video, it’s a good listen:

(Flash Movie Above)

The following towns in NH don’t feel the need to take away the rights of their citizenry to send off fireworks for Independence Day. If you’re going to be going somewhere to watch town-sponsored fireworks, head to one of those where the people still know why we’re launching them in the first place (and support their local economy while you’re there).

          ACWORTH
          ALEXANDRIA
          ALLENSTOWN
          ALSTEAD
          AMHERST
          ATKINSON
          BARNSTEADBARRINGTON
          BELMONT
          BRENTWOOD
          BRIDGEWATER
          BROOKLINE
          CANDIA
          CANTERBURY
          CARROLL
          CHARLESTOWN
          CHATHAM
          COLEBROOK
          DALTON
          DANBURY
          DOVER
          DUNBARTON
          EAST
          EXETER
          FRANKLIN
          GRAFTON
          GREENVILLE
          GROTON
          HANOVER
          HARRISVILLE
          HENNIKER
          HILL
          HILLSBORO
          HINSDALE
          HOLLIS
          JAFFEREY
          KINGSTON
          LACONIA
          LANDAFF
          LANGDON
          LITCHFIELD
          LONDONDERRY
          LYME
          MANCHESTER
          MARLOW
          MASON
          MILFORD
          NEW CASTLE
          NEW LONDON
          NEWBURY
          NEWTON
          NORTHUMBERLAND
          NORTHWOOD
          OSSIPEE
          PIERMONT
          PITTSFIELD
          PLAINFIELD
          PLYMOUTH
          ROCHESTER
          RYE
          SALISBURY
          SANBORNTON
          SHELBURNE
          STARK
          SULLIVAN
          SWANZEY
          TAMWORTH
          TUFTONBORO
          UNITY
          WESTMORELAND
          WOODSTOCK
          

Source: NH Dept of Fire Safety.

You can sign a petition here asking the national representatives to ISO to not approve Microsoft’s OpenOfficeXML (nothing to do with OpenOffice, of course - just named to seed confusion) application for standards-approval by ISO. The most absurd part of the standard is that parts of it are secret, so it’s not even a standard at all. The Open Office Open Document Format is a much better standard, which is free to read and free to implement, and covers the needs of office applications. This is why everybody, including Microsoft, is embracing or at least implementing ODF readers and writers. ODF is already an ISO Standard and it meets the basic criteria for a standard.

Here’s the best thing companies can do to help Open Source - patent their software… and release it under the GPLv3 license.

You’ll not get any argument from me that the patent system is broken. Firstly, the Patent Office hands out T-shirts to their examiners that read, “We’re the Patent Office, Not the Rejection Office”. OK, that should give you a slight inkling of where they stand on the issue. But more importantly, patent examiners are paid to

1. open a case
2. ‘dispose’ of a case

If they reject a patent it’ll come back with a challenge. They don’t get paid for this. Guess what they do?

But, back to the thesis at hand - GPLv3 states that if you release a piece of code that the code can’t become non-free by a patent you have on the code. This means the code effectively comes with a patent license. Code can be copied, reused, etc., under the GPLv3, so the patent license extends to all uses of the code.

Since the patent system is broken, we have to work with what we’ve got (fixing it is something to be done in parallel, but a separate issue). Companies who support Open Source, need to file for as many patents as they can to prevent the usual patent offenders from filing bogus patents and then threatening to prosecute the Open Source community.

Dan sent me a link to a great essay by Bruce Schneier about privacy being a human right, not a government allowance. The money quote:

We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for reflection or conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the privacy of the shower, and write letters to secret lovers and then burn them. Privacy is a basic human need.

Something to consider the next time somebody tells you you only need privacy if you have something to hide.

Quoting FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, from an e-Week article:

“Can we finally agree that something drastic needs to be done? We can start by facing up to our problem and doing our level best to diagnose its causes. We need to know why so many Americans do not have broadband, and why those who do, or think they do, are paying twice as much for connections one-twentieth as fast those enjoyed by customers in some other countries. This is not just an exercise in self-flagellation, though we certainly deserve that by now. Rather, it is the first step in coming up with some solutions that can start to reverse our nation’s slide into technological and communications mediocrity. For several years now, I have been greatly disappointed by the Commission’s broadband data-gathering and presentation. As scholars, industry and the Government Accountability Office have documented, our semi-annual statistical reports currently fail to measure even basic concepts such as the extent of broadband deployment across the country, including in rural and tribal areas, and the degree of competition among broadband providers and modalities. Our statistical methodology seems almost calculated to obscure just how far our country is falling behind many other industrialized nations in broadband availability, adoption, speed and price … Indeed, the lack of reliable government data on the present state of our broadband market is a fundamental obstacle to developing a national strategy to reverse our inexcusable broadband performance. Until we know where we stand today, how can we possibly build the broadband future that our nation deserves? And if the FCC doesn’t gather this data, who will?”

Somebody let me know if Copps prefers flowers or chocolates.