Skeptics Society conference

I've returned from the Skeptics Society conference on "The Environmental Wars," and there wasn't much warring between speakers, though there were some debates among audience members between sessions. The most controversial speaker was John Stossel, who was the only person to proclaim himself a global warming skeptic (and did so without having witnessed any of the day's presentations, which made it abundantly clear that (a) there is global warming and (b) it is caused by human activity). Michael Crichton managed to avoid the global warming subject in his talk, though in the Q&A he agreed that (a) there is no debate that the globe is warming (contrary to the position in State of Fear that it's an artifact of city "heat islands"), (b) there is no debate that CO2 has increased as a result of human activity, and (c) there's no debate about the greenhouse effect.

I'll comment more later on at least some of the talks, but for now I'll refer you to conference presenter Jonathan Adler's live-blogged descriptions of the talks and Chris Mooney's summary of his initial debate presentation.

UPDATE June 7, 2006: Also check out desmogblog's coverage of the conference.

UPDATE (July 18, 2009): Looks like my only further comment was on Jonathan Adler's talk on federal environmental regulation, though I did post this on the JREF Forums on June 30, 2008:

I very much enjoyed the Skeptics Society "Environmental Wars" conference. I thought it was a good mix of long-term history on climate change (Prothero), current scientific evidence on climate change (Schneider), what to do about it from an economic perspective (Arnold), what doesn't work from a regulatory perspective (Adler), what wild and crazy mitigation techniques might be available and what they'll cost (Benford), and a little debate on politicization of science (Mooney vs. Bailey), and a couple of climate change skeptics who didn't really address any of the science presented during the conference (Crichton and Stossel). It was also a chance to see one of Paul MacCready's last public appearances before he died.

Michael Crichton and John Stossel were no Mike Reiss (Simpsons writer who gave a hilarious talk in 2005), but I still thought they provided entertainment.

Part II of Botnets Interview

Part II of my interview on Michael Santarcangelo's Security Catalyst podcast is now available.

(Part I is here.)

Kevin Drum gets it wrong on net neutrality and common carriage

Kevin Drum writes:

The 1996 Telecommunications Act defined two different types of service, information services (IS) and telecommunications services (TS), and cable companies were originally classified as IS and telephone companies as TS.

Right so far, except that Internet service is classified as an information service, not a telecommunications service. Keep that in mind as you read his next two sentences:

Although both cable companies and telcos provide local internet access, the backbone of the internet is carried exclusively by telcos, which were regulated as common carriers under the tighter TS rules. The common carrier rules effectively enforced the principles of net neutrality on the internet backbone.

This is just wrong. Common carriage rules require telcos to allow third parties to connect to their telephony networks or to use their networks for private line connections between two points. Common carriage does not require interconnection to anybody's Internet network. There is not and there has never been a legal requirement that any Internet service provider or backbone allow all comers to connect to their Internet services--and thank goodness, because that means ISPs and NSPs can deny services to spammers or other entities that don't agree to their terms of service/acceptable use policies. ISPs qua ISPs and NSPs qua NSPs are not common carriers!

While there are Internet backbone links that use telco networks, these were typically the networks of long-distance telcos (AT&T, Sprint, MCI) or next-generation fiber telcos (Qwest, Global Crossing, Level 3) rather than the last-mile telcos (such as the Regional Bell Operating Companies). Now AT&T, MCI, and Qwest have been acquired by or acquired last-mile telcos (SBC, Verizon, and U.S. West, respectively), but the last-mile telcos subject to common carriage didn't build the backbones.

Why do net neutrality advocates continue to get this wrong, even after being corrected repeatedly?

UPDATE: BTW, I should note that Harold Feld (who has commented here) has specifically agreed that he'd like to impose common carriage requirements on broadband providers (meaning that last-mile telcos and cable companies would have to allow others to provide services over their access networks, so you could buy Earthlink, AOL, Yahoo, or Panix Internet service from your local cable company or telco--the situation would be like it used to be with DSL providers and local telcos). I'm not sure what other elements he would advocate--whether he'd apply similar requirements to wireless providers (requiring them to let anybody be a mobile virtual network operator), ban QoS, ban anything less than full Internet service over any medium, count non-residential services as broadband, etc. (And Harold, if you read this, I'm still waiting to hear responses from you here (on your own blog) and here (on mine, about HR 5417).)

By contrast, Timothy Karr at Save the Internet has explicitly denied that he's equating net neutrality and common carriage, but hasn't said what he does mean. (And Tim, you haven't responded to my final comment here on your own blog, either.)

UPDATE June 11, 2006: Tim Lee rightly questions Drum on this point as well, asking whether Internet backbones have really been under such regulations, which leads to some further information about peering agreements. I've pointed him to this post from last November about peering (see in particular the linked Geoff Huston paper).

"The Environmental Wars" Skeptics Society conference

Einzige and I will both be at the Skeptics Society conference in Pasadena tomorrow and Saturday and would welcome greetings from any blog readers, assuming the intersection of our readership and the conference attendees is non-null. At least I'll be able to say hello to Chris Mooney, whose blog I read regularly...

Worst net neutrality analogy ever?

From Susan Crawford:

Think of the pipes and wires that you use to go online as a sidewalk. The question is whether the sidewalk should get a cut of the value of the conversations that you have as you walk along. The traditional telephone model has been that the telephone company doesn't get paid more if you have a particularly meaningful call -- they're just providing a neutral pipe.

If you're going to use a sidewalk as an analogy for a communications pipeline, then the users of the sidewalk need to stand for the communications traffic. Then the question becomes, should users of different types have to pay different rates for the use of the sidewalk to those who build and maintain it (not to the sidewalk itself!). Further, the sidewalk has to keep being made bigger to support all the traffic being carried, and some of the users are in a bigger hurry and are likely to collide with those who aren't, and some of the latter are holding big gatherings between their residences, like a block party in the neighborhoods. Should those guys get to do that for free, or at the same cost as their neighbors who aren't interested in a block party?

UPDATE: I had issued a trackback ping to Susan Crawford's blog post which was accepted, but apparently she decided to delete it. That's rather ironic--she supports net neutrality, but blocks critical trackbacks to her blog. I guess her support of net neutrality isn't based on any principle of fairness or free speech.

UPDATE (June 8, 2006): Susan Crawford responded to a query about this, and attributed the deletion to automatic anti-spam defenses, and invited me to re-issue a trackback, which I will shortly do. I retract the last two sentences of the above update, and apologize to her for my erroneous inference.

UPDATE (March 13, 2008): Actually, I never regained the ability to issue trackbacks or even to reference this blog's URL in comments posted on Susan Crawford's Blogware blog, so all of my comments there refer to my discord.org website instead. She moved her blog in late 2007, but I've not commented or issued any trackbacks to the new one.

Fuck jurisprudence

No, that's not an imperative, it's a description of a new area of law explored in a recent law journal article.

(Hat tip to John Lynch at stranger fruit.)

The Abstract Factory on net neutrality

"Cog" at The Abstract Factory has a good, thoughtful post on net neutrality--and gets hit by astroturfing shills in the comments who almost seem to be trying to change his mind. (He comments further on the shills, a few of which have appeared in the comments at this blog, here.)

Scientologists pay another web visit

As I noted in my "Scientology Sampler" post on March 4, my web sites still get periodic visits from Church of Scientology IP addresses, at that time most recently on January 1. They just came by again on May 22, attempting to look at my online copy of Russell Miller's biography of L. Ron Hubbard, Bare-Faced Messiah, as well as the article I co-authored with Jeff Jacobsen, "Scientology v. the Internet," and my skeptical links pages on Scientology. Here's an example web log entry:

[Mon May 22 11:42:00 2006] [error] [client 205.227.165.11] client denied by server configuration: path deleted/03.3.jl-jj-scientology.html, referer: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2005-09%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=Jim+Lippard+Scientology

Then, yesterday afternoon, this blog got a visit and a comment (from a brand-new Blogger account) on my post on Arizona legislators accepting trips from the Church of Scientology in return for sponsoring bills for Scientology's front group the Citizens Commission on Human Rights. This poster, asking why I don't support Scientology's mental health efforts, came across the entry by Googling for "CCHR":

Time of Visit           May 29 2006 4:49:43 pm
Last Page View          May 29 2006 4:59:42 pm
Visit Length            9 minutes 59 seconds
Page Views              4
Referring URL           http://search.blogger.com/?ui=blg&q=cchr
Search Engine           search.blogger.com
Search Words            cchr
Visit Entry Page                http://lippard.blogs...ponsoring-bills.html
Visit Exit Page         http://lippard.blogs...ponsoring-bills.html
Out Click               a number of Arizona legislators have been sponsoring bills
http://www.azcentral...cientologists11.html
Time Zone               UTC-6:00

This individual's source IP, however, is an Ameritech/SBC IP out of Springfield, Illinois (not a big Scientology stronghold like Los Angeles or Clearwater, FL). Illinois is, however, the location where Scientology won a battle to get an exhibit that compares psychiatry to Nazis put back on public property in the Thompson Center--so it looks like the CCHR Chicago has a bit of pull.

Anyway, this is a good opportunity to recommend reading Janet Reitman's "Inside Scientology" from Rolling Stone magazine from February, an excellent overview and introduction to Scientology's beliefs and history.

Children detained at Guantanamo Bay

The London Independent reported yesterday that more than 60 detainees at Guantanamo Bay were under 18 at their time of capture, including some boys as young as 14. One child prisoner, Mohamed el Gharani, was accused of involvement in a 1998 al Qaeda plot in London, even though he was 12 years old at the time and living with his parents in Saudi Arabia.

British officials say the UK had been assured that juveniles would be held in a special facility called "Camp Iguana," but only three juveniles were treated as children.

A senior Pentagon spokesman says that no one being held now at Guantanamo Bay is a juvenile, though London lawyers say there are at least 10 still being held who were 14 or 15 when captured. (Those statements are not contradictory.)

Dishonesty from Paul Nelson

Paul Nelson, who has usually been known as one of the few honest major advocates of intelligent design at the otherwise disreputable Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, has fallen temptation to make his case stronger by being deceptive about what one of his opponents said in a debate. Ed Brayton gives the full account.

UPDATE (May 30, 2006): The discussion continues, with Paul Nelson's involvement in the comments, here.