Richard Stallman's Tin-Foil Hat (Bruce Perens' Journal) [LWN.net]

Richard Stallman's Tin-Foil Hat (Bruce Perens' Journal)

Posted Nov 21, 2005 18:36 UTC (Mon) by hamjudo (guest, #363) [Link] (11 responses)

The tinfoil pouch theory is good, but we need to continuously reverify it in practice. For a faraday cage to block radio waves, it has to act as a completely sealed box at the frequencies of interest.

The classic counter-intuitive experiment: put a wireless device inside your refrigerator and see how well it works with the door closed. At least my cell phone works in my fridge. Google for "slot antenna" and note how the slot around the door might work as well as the slot in the antenna or might not, the slot antenna is designed for a particular range of wavelengths, whereas the rubber seal around a refrigerator door is just designed to make an air tight gap, the thickness is controlled for ideal RF properties.

Microwave ovens are designed to contain RF, the seal around the door on a microwave oven might let air through, but it better not let RF through, at least not RF at or below the oven's operating frequency. As expected, my cell phone did not work from inside my microwave oven. I don't have any RF equipment that operates at significantly higher frequencies, so I can't try that experiment. At a sufficiently high frequency, the little holes on the RF shield in the window will become little RF radiators.

One of the problems with the RFid tags, is they don't usually tell you what frequency(ies) they operate at. The lower the frequency, the sloppier you can be when you wrap the card in foil.

For any RF technology, you can improve the range by using a higher gain antenna, a more sensitive reciever and/or a more powerfull transmitter. The range is even adjustable for some RFID tag readers. So, a tinfoil pouch might be sufficient to block a reader set for close range, but not sufficient for the same reader set on long range. Then it might not work at all, if they upgrade to higher frequency tags and readers.

After Stallman's little training exercise, the security folks are probably researching higher gain antennas.

As you can imagine, I have no faith in tinfoil hats, because, there is no way to make an RF tight enclosure out of aluminum foil, that isn't also air tight. Breathing is even more important to me, than privacy.

A Better Tin-Foil Hat ?

Posted Nov 21, 2005 19:03 UTC (Mon) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] (2 responses)

For a faraday cage to block radio waves, it has to act as a completely sealed box at the frequencies of interest.

A couple of questions from a SW guy:

What would it cost to make some sort of package rated RF-proof, as a function of frequency?
Could a transparent-ish material be used in places with visible information (your photo, your authorization level, whatnot), allowing people to look at the badge while keeping your RF data inside? If the holes in the microwave work, would (metal) mesh screening of the type found on old window screens do well enough up (down?) to the wavelength at which its holes are permeable?

Tinfoil is probably the best response on the spur of the moment, but there should be a better answer, given more time. Might even be a niche market there.

A Better Tin-Foil Hat ?

Posted Nov 21, 2005 19:43 UTC (Mon) by MathFox (guest, #6104) [Link] (1 responses)

What would it cost to make some sort of package rated RF-proof, as a function of frequency?

A tin, as you can find in the supermarket filled with canned meat, fish, beans, etc. is as good as you can get it: keeping all electromagnetic waves out upto X-ray frequencies. We're talking about cent prices in quantity. Any reasonable metal box (without holes) will shield RFID chips.

Light is a kind of electromagnetic wave, so you'll need to find a transparant material that reflects the (low frequency) radio waves, but allows (high frequency) light to pass through. These materials are available, but more expensive than tinfoil. Getting the window solidly connected to the rest of the material could be a problem too.

water is a good transparent absorber for RF

Posted Nov 21, 2005 21:25 UTC (Mon) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link]

Light is a kind of electromagnetic wave, so you'll need to find a transparant material that reflects the (low frequency) radio waves, but allows (high frequency) light to pass through. These materials are available, but more expensive than tinfoil.

At least for microwave (2.45GHz) RFID, which is used for the longest-range applications from what I'm reading, there is at least one very common and cheap material available that absorbs the RF but is optically transparent: water.

At 2.45GHz, 3cm of water should be sufficient to attenuate the reflected RF power by over 98% according to the numbers here. If you use salt water then the absorption is even greater.

Unfortunately, for longer wavelengths water may be impractical.

Richard Stallman's Tin-Foil Hat (Bruce Perens' Journal)

Posted Nov 21, 2005 19:09 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (guest, #216) [Link] (1 responses)

I think that in this case the aluminum foil was more important from a visibility (i.e., protest) standpoint than an actual RF shield. At least it seemed to act that way...

I only wish I had as much ganas...or to use a more widely-known term, 'chutzpah'. :-)

Richard Stallman's Tin-Foil Hat (Bruce Perens' Journal)

Posted Nov 21, 2005 19:29 UTC (Mon) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link]

What're they gonna do? Arrest you for tinfoil? Right in the middle of a UN meeting?!?! Not likely. Go Richard! I do think the comment about killing Bob Kramer was not well-considered though. I'm sure it was meant as a joke but, well, it's not very funny and the people involved in these issues seem to take that kind of talk far more seriously than they should. Best not to give them any ammo, as it were... ridiculous as it may seem.

RF shields do not need to be "air-tight"

Posted Nov 21, 2005 20:41 UTC (Mon) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] (3 responses)

As you can imagine, I have no faith in tinfoil hats, because, there is no way to make an RF tight enclosure out of aluminum foil, that isn't also air tight. Breathing is even more important to me, than privacy.

It should be sufficient for any holes to be much smaller than the wavelength. I don't know much about RFID, but I just Googled it and it seems that the highest frequency for current RFID is 2.45GHz, which corresponds to about 12cm. Coincidentally, 2.45GHz is, I believe, the same as the frequency used in a typical microwave oven—just as the mm-scale holes in the grille on the oven door don't let a significant fraction of the microwave energy out, the much smaller air gaps in an aluminum-foil wrapping shouldn't be penetrable by an RFID detector at 12cm and greater wavelengths.

RF shields do not need to be "air-tight"

Posted Nov 22, 2005 1:20 UTC (Tue) by hamjudo (guest, #363) [Link] (2 responses)

AM pocket radios don't work inside cars and steel frame buildings unless they are "close enough" to a window. The shortest wavelength in the AM broadcast band (in the US) is about 175 meters, yet the radios can sometimes get a signal through a hole that is less than half a meter across. So a mesh with millimeter scale holes will only work reliably, when the mesh is kept a safe distance away from the antenna. (A distance that I don't know how to calculate.)

I've got a couple other reservations and another experiment.

Bruce's card didn't indicate that it had an RFID built in to it at all, so it certainly didn't indicate the operating frequency. I'm afraid we won't get a memo when "they" upgrade RFID to 5.8 Ghz in a few years, or 10 Ghz a few years after that. So a pouch effectively blocks everything at 2.45 Ghz, may not do anything usefull at 5.8 Ghz.
The pouch only works if all sides are connected together through a low impedance path. Aluminum foil wears out after too much flexing.
I just tried putting my cell phone into a translucent anti-static bag. The signal strength went from 5 bars to 2 bars. So don't try lining your wallet with antistatic wrap, it's not good enough.

On the plus side, I have established myself as enough of a kook, that they won't feel the need to monitor me. So I don't need to shield my entire body, I will just want to protect my wallet.

RF shields do not need to be "air-tight"

Posted Nov 22, 2005 2:39 UTC (Tue) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] (1 responses)

Regarding the AM radio inside the car, that's not relevant here: if you have a thin metal surface perforated by subwavelength holes, then the amount of radiation that gets through (barring resonant effects that only occur with specially arranged holes) is proportional to the fraction of the surface area occupied by the holes. For your car, a large proportion of the surface area is taken up by the windows, and hence a large proportion of the RF energy can get in (or out). For an object wrapped in metal foil, however, the ratio of hole/surface is tiny.
Regarding going from 2.45 to 10GHz in the future, that's still 3cm wavelength, which is still much larger than than any apertures in an object wrapped in foil.
Regarding needing a continuous low-impedance path all around the object, I don't think that's correct: even if you had "flakes" of aluminum foil pasted together with insulating paste, as long as they completely covered the object and the gaps between them were of negligible area, it should still block RF. The size of the flakes only needs to be much larger than the skin depth of the RF in the aluminum (which is tiny, see below).

The real problem you may have is for low frequency RFID, where the thickness of the foil (0.03mm according to Wikipedia) is less than the skin depth (the distance for the power to decay by exp(-2) ~ 90%). At microwave frequencies (GHz), the foil is many skin-depths thick and the transmission through it should be negligible. At the lowest frequency RFID, around 130KHz according to Wikipedia, the foil is only 1/10 of the skin depth in thickness, which is not enough to attenuate the power by much. On the other hand, you can simply wrap your object in 20-30 layers of the foil.

RF shields do not need to be "air-tight"

Posted Nov 22, 2005 2:57 UTC (Tue) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link]

...the amount of radiation that gets through is proportional to the fraction of the surface area occupied by the holes

Whoops, sorry, it's worse than that: the transmitted radiation is proportional to the hole's fraction of the surface area multiplied by (d/λ)⁴, where d is the hole diameter and λ is the wavelength. (H. Bethe, Phys Rev. 66, p. 163, 1944.)

However, once the hole occupies a significant fraction of the solid angle around the antenna (as when you bring your radio close to a window), then the problem completely changes because you are in the near field and you can't treat the incident field as ~constant amplitude in the vicinity of the hole. This shouldn't be the case for an object wrapped in foil, however.

Stopping antennae with antennae

Posted Nov 21, 2005 20:43 UTC (Mon) by kirkengaard (guest, #15022) [Link] (1 responses)

So, essentially, we're building a closed waveguide around the transmitter to perfectly collect its incident radiation; any openings in the surface become possible transmission points. We're also blocking transmissions from outside, such that the casing perfectly receives the incident probe and does not transmit it to the interior.

How about a double-layer design, two conducting shields spaced by a dielectric? Up to the dielectric's ionization point, we get no conduction of incident energy between shields, and past that, we're left with a better Faraday cage.

Do we need to worry about resonance?

We obviously need to worry about how to reclose the enclosure securely; thinking at most basic of a plastic easter egg, you have two cups, one precisely smaller than the other, such that their open sides nest. The opening betwen these sides would have to be smaller than our wavelength. This would require designing a latch mechanism that effectively blocks useful frequencies while allowing useful mechanical operation. Even a bent slot is an effective transmission gap at the right lengths. What frequencies are we working with/against?

--
Some Rights Reserved: Creative Commons (BY:) (!$) (SA)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/

Stopping antennae with antennae

Posted Nov 26, 2005 1:20 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

Later responses to the same comment give some numbers. They show that there really isn't any tightness of seal concern.

Richard Stallman's Tin-Foil Hat (Bruce Perens' Journal)

Posted Nov 21, 2005 18:46 UTC (Mon) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link]

Richard acquired an entire roll of aluminum foil and wore his foil-shielded pass prominently. He willingly unwrapped it to go through any of the visible check-points...

Once more, viva Stallman! His perfectly-reasonable response to a situation in which the Powers-That-Be implied that he had no privacy worries unmasked the fact that he, in fact, did.

An outstanding example of how to react when such a situation arises: If they're truthful, they'll be fine with the response. If they're not fine...

Why not make it standard?

Posted Nov 21, 2005 19:32 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (7 responses)

So, why don't they just make a standard case for RF ID thingies that prevents random scanning, while allowing people to use the card for identification at checkpoints. Maybe RMS should patent his invention? ;-)

Why not patent it?

Posted Nov 21, 2005 20:09 UTC (Mon) by kirkengaard (guest, #15022) [Link] (2 responses)

Too much prior art. :) Not that that would stop the USPTO.

Why not patent it?

Posted Nov 22, 2005 7:47 UTC (Tue) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] (1 responses)

Right. Prior art (even over thousands of years) is nothing to USPTO:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&...

Ahh, but coverage is narrow.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 18:48 UTC (Tue) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link]

From the patent abstract:

The wheel includes [...] spoke portions [...] wherein said spokes extend radially outwardly between the hub and rim [....]

Whew! I was scared for a moment there. Sincy my bicyle spokes are roughly tangential to the outer edge of the hub, I'm safe.

But I'd better patent that arrangement, before someone comes around looking for money. :-/

Why not make it standard?

Posted Nov 21, 2005 20:27 UTC (Mon) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] (1 responses)

>Maybe RMS should patent his invention?

RMS is a modern paladin. While I don't always agree with the gentleman, he is among the few I could name whose integrity is more or less beyond price.

Why not make it standard?

Posted Nov 23, 2005 11:48 UTC (Wed) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]

Yes. You can agree or disagree with his views as well as his methods. But you can't seriously doubt one thing: He is a a man of principles.

If Richard says something, you bet he'll stand for it. If he said 20 years ago that something is a matter of principle, then you can rest assured that that hasn't changed in the sligthest.

Why not make it standard?

Posted Nov 26, 2005 1:25 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

Well, think about why people use RFID. If you had to unsheath it every time you wanted it used, it would defeat the purpose.

If we want privacy more than the convenience of RFID scanning, we could just go back to a magnetic stripe ID badge that you swipe or a key that you plug into a socket.

Why not make it standard?

Posted Nov 26, 2005 2:24 UTC (Sat) by shane (subscriber, #3335) [Link]

This is basically what has been decided regarding using RFID in US passports. Bruce Schneier (of Crypto-gram fame) has written about this extensively (and, IIRC, was on the committee that advised the government about the security of putting RFID in passports).

Well done, Richard!

Posted Nov 21, 2005 20:15 UTC (Mon) by nicku (guest, #777) [Link] (20 responses)

I loved reading about this. If there were more people like Richard, we'd enjoy much more freedom than we do.

Well done, Richard!

Posted Nov 21, 2005 21:48 UTC (Mon) by flan (guest, #15520) [Link] (1 responses)

I also think that we'd enjoy freedom much more.

When RMS gave a talk at my old university, the department chairman and a bunch of other professors took him to the univeristy club for lunch. Apparently the special was chicken pot pie and Richard said, "I'll take the pot pie if it really has pot in it."

Still, that doesn't compare with rhinophytonecrophilia.

Well done, Richard!

Posted Nov 22, 2005 9:17 UTC (Tue) by james (subscriber, #1325) [Link]

At Guadec II, Telsa Gwynne:

...watched Richard Stallman ask one of the waiting staff whether the spring rolls did indeed spring and whether they would bounce. I don't think she entirely understood this question.

Well done, Richard!

Posted Nov 21, 2005 21:50 UTC (Mon) by cventers (guest, #31465) [Link] (17 responses)

People dog on Stallman all the time for being some crazy communist freak,
or for being too extremist. Eric S. Raymond seems to think Stallman gives
himself too much credit.

Perhaps. Open Source isn't totally Stallman's invention.

But I will say that things like the GPL, and the extremist philosophy,
are why open source thrives like it does today. Copyleft is one of the
major factors that makes Linux so comercially robust where BSD is not
(That's the major irony - the BSD license is often touted as more
business-friendly. Since it simply enables businesses to rob without
giving back, the benefit is entirely short term whereas the GPL
requirement to contribute enhancements means Linux races ahead at light
speed, simultaneously providing benefit to every Linux-using company,
period)

Some may think me crazy for saying this, but Richard Stallman for
president!

Open Source is NOT RMS's invention

Posted Nov 21, 2005 22:09 UTC (Mon) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] (9 responses)

RMS stands for Free Software, not Open Source. There is a world of (philosophical) difference. I prefer the Free Software philosophy, myself, and when I refer to the generic kind which also includes Open Source, I call it Free Source Software.

Open Source is NOT RMS's invention

Posted Nov 21, 2005 22:16 UTC (Mon) by cventers (guest, #31465) [Link]

Ah, well, you're right. I suppose both terms have been shouted from the
same hills for so long that the two have become one in my head.

I too am a Free Software proponent.

Open Source is NOT RMS's invention

Posted Nov 21, 2005 22:23 UTC (Mon) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] (7 responses)

I was thinking of posting a similar comment, then I read Bruce's speech at the same link above. This part caught my eye:

I am honored to follow Doctor Richard Stallman, the giant upon whose shoulders Open Source stands. When I say Open Source, I mean the same thing that Richard means when he says Free Software. There has been factionalism, but only because of personalities that no longer matter.

Open Source is NOT RMS's invention

Posted Nov 22, 2005 13:09 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (6 responses)

When I say Open Source, I mean the same thing that Richard means when he says Free Software.

That's very funny. Being a pragmatic kind of guy, I would say that this should be applicable to any two people except Stallman and Perens. (Well, ESR is a given.)

Now, in my book, being pragmatic in this case does not mean: ignore that there actually is a difference between Free Software and Open Source software. So I'm not quite sure how to interpret Bruce's statement.

Open Source is NOT RMS's invention

Posted Nov 22, 2005 15:22 UTC (Tue) by arafel (subscriber, #18557) [Link] (5 responses)

Well, fair's fair - I don't understand your first paragraph either. :-)

I'd interpret Bruce's statement as exactly what he said, to be honest - that by "open source" he (not necessarily anyone else) means "free software". It seems like a way to try and bring the two 'factions' closer together, which is probably worth a shot.

Open Source is NOT RMS's invention

Posted Nov 22, 2005 23:49 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (4 responses)

Well, fair's fair - I don't understand your first paragraph either. :-)

;-)

I'm quite sure that RMS doesn't share Bruce's sentiments regarding the relation between Open Source software and Free Software. To me, Bruce's statement suggests otherwise. And the thing is, of all people, Bruce should know that, because he was involved in defining "Open Source". He can't afford to neglect the difference, because he's defined it. Look at the Open Source definition. Note that it repeats the statement.

Subtle.

Free Software and Open SOurce

Posted Nov 23, 2005 8:42 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (3 responses)

When I wrote the OSD, then called the Debian Free Software Guidelines, Richard blessed it as a good definition of Free Software. He was not prompted to construct another definition of Free Software until some years later when he felt the need to differentiate it from Open Source.

My intent was always that Open Source be a gentle introduction to Richard's viewpoint for business people. I was horrified that Eric took it in another direction, and that he chose to directly deprecate Richard and his efforts.

I'll leave it to you to decide which personality has of late become irrelevant :-)

Bruce

Free Software and Open SOurce

Posted Nov 23, 2005 11:57 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (2 responses)

He was not prompted to construct another definition of Free Software until some years later when he felt the need to differentiate it from Open Source.

But isn't it because of statements like the one we're discussing here that RMS feels the need to accentuate the difference between the definitions of Free Software and Open Source software? (I have lost track now of who is redefining what and to what purpose, to be honest. ;-)

Could you explain it a bit, please? What exactly do you mean when you say that, to you, Free Software and Open Source software are the same thing, given the two different definitions? (I'll stress it again: your own definitions, yours and RMS's.) And what's the purpose?

If it's really just a matter of "What name is the better one, Open or Free?", let's not beat around the bush then and spread the word -- any word. ;-) Or, if the OSD is merely meant to emphasise or explain aspects of Free Software that are of interest to business people, why not choose a proper name for it? One that stresses the practical implications of the foundation laid down by the Free Software definition, i.e. something to do with methodology, not software, for instance -- layer your definitions properly.

(And, uhm, if this is nothing more than a "my definition is bigger than yours" powertrip: drop it, drop it now. It makes you look quite stupid -- both of you, whether it's your own doing, or the other's. Accept the fact that you cannot control everything, least of all the way people interpret things; the word "free" has a third meaning now, you know: free as in "free software". Think about that.)

By the way: ironically, business people are not at all afraid of rebranding, if it makes sense. What they do not like, however, is uncertainty.

Free Software and Open SOurce

Posted Nov 23, 2005 13:19 UTC (Wed) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] (1 responses)

Chess vs. poker.
The GPL insists that all source code information remain in plain sight in the market at all times. There is an implicit community spirit.
BSD(ish) licenses support greater vendor control of the market, by allowing information to escape plain sight.
In a private email, RMS admonished me not to confuse 'freedom' with 'power'. BSD(ish) licensing, one might argue, gives a vendor inordinate power, which may or may not be used in a nefarious way in the market.

Free Software and Open SOurce

Posted Nov 23, 2005 22:17 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link]

Chess vs. poker.

I can't really follow you, so forgive me if this seems a bit dense to you.

Comparing Free Software to Open Source software is not the same as comparing the GPL to the BSD license. Technically, Free Software is a subset of Open Source software, which shows you immediately that comparisons between the two can't be inverted thoughtlessly: all Free Software is also Open Source software, but not all Open Source software is Free Software.

The gap is wider in a non-technical sense. The Free Software definition serves to enforce the rights of users by restricting those of distributors. The Open Source definition tries to make a bit of a U-turn by focusing on distributors' rights. There's nothing wrong with that of course, and it's understandable if you take into account its history (the Debian Free Software Guidelines) -- it's just not exactly the same.

If that was what you meant, well, I agree. ;-)

(And please, let's not get into another flamewar about the interpretation of the term "rights". ;-)

Well done, Richard!

Posted Nov 22, 2005 2:36 UTC (Tue) by xoddam (guest, #2322) [Link]

> the GPL, and the extremist philosophy, are why open source
> thrives like it does today

The only extremism in Stallman's philosophy is his unwillingness to give
up Franklin's "essential liberty".

> Some may think me crazy for saying this, but Richard
> Stallman for president!

There's a story (possibly apocryphal) that Noam Chomsky was once asked if
he'd like to be the President. He demurred, saying he would soon enough
have to impeach himself for all the war crimes he was about to commit.

President of What ?

Posted Nov 22, 2005 6:50 UTC (Tue) by surajvijayan (guest, #17740) [Link] (5 responses)

It would be better if comments made here do not assume everyone considers President means President of United States.. Suggest you should show a bit more respect to other countries around the world.

President of What ?

Posted Nov 22, 2005 11:08 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

I think making him President of other countries is fine, too. (although of course in my locale it would be 'Stallman for King!')

President of What ?

Posted Nov 23, 2005 8:45 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (2 responses)

It would be better if comments made here do not assume everyone considers President means President of United States.

Why not? The US owns your country too. :-)

President of What ?

Posted Nov 23, 2005 16:26 UTC (Wed) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link]

Gates has been on a ballot? <gagging emoticon>

I, for one

Posted Nov 28, 2005 15:49 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

welcome our new Republican overlords.

:-{

My hat is off to the d'yuke as well; rms and his followers really have changed the world, yada yada yada. :-) (no, seriously: my comments on earlier threads here should make clear that I mean that...)

On the actual topic of this thread, the most common current RFID equipment seems to work at 13.56MHz, according to the industry mags I've seen, which seems to make the whole Faraday cage thing a bit difficult.

I know!

Transparent Aluminum!

President of What ?

Posted Nov 26, 2005 1:52 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

It would be better if comments made here do not assume everyone considers President means President of United States..

True, but since no one in this thread has made that assumption, except possibly you, I can't imagine why you're bringing it up.

The phrase "Stallman for President!" isn't even a serious recommendation of Stallman to any particular presidency; it's just a metaphorical expression of the belief that he would be a good leader of society. Maybe that expression isn't known in places where people don't elect a "President," but it shouldn't be very hard to figure out.

Richard Stallman's Tin-Foil Hat (Bruce Perens' Journal)

Posted Nov 21, 2005 21:15 UTC (Mon) by sdenlinger (subscriber, #24239) [Link] (8 responses)

Bruce's account of RMS is funny and engaging, but Bruce's speech itself, provided at that link, is really exceptional. It's a very elegant introduction to and defense of Free Software/Open Source, aimed at a non-technical audience. It needs to see wider circulation. Thanks, Bruce.

Richard Stallman's Tin-Foil Hat (Bruce Perens' Journal)

Posted Nov 21, 2005 22:34 UTC (Mon) by zedman (guest, #12798) [Link] (6 responses)

How do we get the message out?
Is there an URL to Bruce's speech?

Ian Peake

Richard Stallman's Tin-Foil Hat (Bruce Perens' Journal)

Posted Nov 22, 2005 2:23 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] (3 responses)

Maybe LWN should make is a separate story?

A long term solution would be to ask SourceLabs sysadmins to install better context management software. Right now, all Bruce's entries are placed on a single page without even HTML anchors, let alone permanent links.

Richard Stallman's Tin-Foil Hat (Bruce Perens' Journal)

Posted Nov 23, 2005 8:52 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (2 responses)

Actually, I threw out Sourcelabs content management: Movable Type. Not Open Source. It would be rather hypocritical for me to use it.

I need something that creates static files, as I get slashdotted regularly.

Bruce

Richard Stallman's Tin-Foil Hat (Bruce Perens' Journal)

Posted Nov 23, 2005 15:49 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

How about blosxom?

Typo might be useful

Posted Nov 23, 2005 17:10 UTC (Wed) by emk (subscriber, #1128) [Link]

If you're feeling *really* trendy, and you're looking for an excuse to mess around with Ruby and/or Rails, you might want to take a look at Typo. I've been quite pleased with it recently, and it's super easy to hack.

Typo uses the caching support in Rails to automatically save *.html files to disk. These are then served directly by Apache until such time as Typo purges the cache.

If you get Slashdotted, your server should only smoke a little. :-)

On the other hand, if you have no desire to mess around with Rails, Typo probably isn't worth the effort right now.

Richard Stallman's Tin-Foil Hat (Bruce Perens' Journal)

Posted Nov 22, 2005 9:15 UTC (Tue) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] (1 responses)

Since Bruce is reading LWN, Bruce, is it ok to redistribute your speech on sites with better usability and translate it to other languages?

And to others, since this is a speech made at a UN meeting, is it public domain? Or something equivalent, at least freely distributable as a whole without modifications?

Richard Stallman's Tin-Foil Hat (Bruce Perens' Journal)

Posted Nov 23, 2005 8:49 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

There is a redistribution permission on the site. Look for the word "PRESS".

Richard Stallman's Tin-Foil Hat (Bruce Perens' Journal)

Posted Nov 23, 2005 8:49 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

It does burn me some that I had to cover a funny story about Richard before I could get anyone interested in devoting the slightest bit of attention to Open Source at WSIS. It used to be that Slashdot did this, but Slashdot has become a "geek culture" site now, without establishing a clear successor for its Open Source role.

Bruce

Richard Stallman's Tin-Foil Hat (Bruce Perens' Journal)

Posted Nov 21, 2005 22:09 UTC (Mon) by greve (guest, #8385) [Link]

FYI: FSFE has been active in the WSIS for several years now and I personally have participated in almost all conferences of the first phase in the German governmental delegation, as well as part of the second phase purely for FSFE. You can find quite a bit of the accumulated information here. Also, in case you're interested in some more stories, there are some in my blog.

The one about apparent censorship of Free Software by the Austrian government is one you should definitely check out.

Regards, Georg