Subject: China blocking Wired?

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 22:32:30 -0600

According to this article (links to Wired):

http://snurl.com/u1gr0

Wired Magazine was or is being blocked by the Chinese national  
firewall, and they don't know why.

Very interesting, from an IETF-hosting perspective.

--
Dean

---

From: "Health" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:01:13 +0800

I am from China.

just test it in Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China.

it is the website's problem.

the result is below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Windows XP [版本 5.1.2600]
(C) 版权所有 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\health>ping snurl.com

Pinging snurl.com [75.126.161.224] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 75.126.161.224: bytes=32 time=254ms TTL=47
Reply from 75.126.161.224: bytes=32 time=259ms TTL=47
Reply from 75.126.161.224: bytes=32 time=251ms TTL=47
Reply from 75.126.161.224: bytes=32 time=258ms TTL=47

Ping statistics for 75.126.161.224:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 251ms, Maximum = 259ms, Average = 255ms

C:\Documents and Settings\health>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dean Willis" <[email-masked]>
To: "IETF-Discussion list" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 12:32 PM
Subject: China blocking Wired?

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:41:10 +0700

> just test it in Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China.

Uh-huh, except that you pinged the wrong address: should be www.wired.com (58.97.45.35).

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:18:37 -0800

>Very interesting, from an IETF-hosting perspective.

<snark>I cannot imagine going to an IETF meeting and not being able to read Wired magazine while I am there.</snark>

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:32:40 -0800 (PST)

What China blocks or doesn't block is quite irrelevant to what kind of 
service we can expect on the IETF meeting network in Beijing, as has
previously been carefully explained. We have a document that has been
humorously referred to as the Host Requirements Document.

Enough said.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> <snark>I cannot imagine going to an IETF meeting and not being able 
> to read Wired magazine while I am there.</snark>
> 
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:11:50 -0600

> to read Wired magazine while I am there.</snark>

So, are there likely to be problems with paper copies of the magazine  
at customs? Is it available at English-language newsstands?

What other sorts of publications should our attendees leave at home  
for fear of violating national standards with which me might not be  
familiar?  Are thre likelto be be digital media searches of the sort  
feared at US and UK customs checkpoints?

I suppose DVDs with copies of "Pure Heart. Clear Mind" episodes would  
be right out. We wouldn't want to end up like this guy:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/appeals-for-action/end-persection-falun-gong-practitioner

What other land mines are we likely to step on by accident? Who is  
going to provide training to the community to keep these sorts of  
incidents from happening?

Sorry, I seem to be just chock full of snarky questions today.

--
Dean

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:21:19 -0800

On 1/11/2010 10:11 AM, Dean Willis wrote:
> What other sorts of publications should our attendees leave at home for
> fear of violating national standards with which me might not be
> familiar?

This sort of pre-reality schadenfreude can't possibly serve any constructive 
purpose.

Really, it would be nice to have this list spared from such inventive, 
inflammatory fantasies.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:41:41 -0500

--On Monday, January 11, 2010 12:11 -0600 Dean Willis
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> What other sorts of publications should our attendees leave at
> home for fear of violating national standards with which me
> might not be familiar?  Are thre likelto be be digital media
> searches of the sort feared at US and UK customs checkpoints?
>...

Dean,

Many of us have been to China multiple times.  I am not aware of
anyone who has been granted a business or professional visa, and
who has gone and behaved professionally, having nearly the
problems with entry or exit that have been typical of the US in
recent years (even returning US citizens).  I've encountered
some long lines, bad multilingual signage, and miscellaneous
confusion on occasion, but China clearly has no monopoly on
those.

However, if you are feeling this threatened about the situation,
I would encourage you to make comments on your visa application
that are harshly critical of the Chinese government.  The visa
will probably be denied on that basis (almost any government
that requires that visas be issued prior to arrival would do the
same thing), and then you would get to complain about being
excluded from the meeting -- that would be lots more fun than
making things up to be frightened about.

    john

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:21:41 -0800 (PST)

Dean,

Get real. When have you EVER had any reading material inspected by ANY 
authority ANYWHERE in the world? OK, so I am not aware of your 
particular reading habits and yes, I *can* imagine that *some* 
material *might* attract the attention of customs officials in any
given part of the world, but it would have to be pretty extreme and
you would have to literally wave it in front of their faces. WIRED
Magazine does NOT in any way fall into the sort of material I am
imagining, and I think you know that.

We should obviously obey the laws of the country in which we have our
meeting, but dreaming up worst case scenarios isn't helpful. Really.

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Dean Willis wrote:

> 
> So, are there likely to be problems with paper copies of the magazine at
> customs? Is it available at English-language newsstands?
> 
> I suppose DVDs with copies of "Pure Heart. Clear Mind" episodes 
> would be right out. We wouldn't want to end up like this guy:
>

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:52:27 -0600

> confusion on occasion, but China clearly has no monopoly on

Thanks, John! I feel very reassured.

How about some practical guidance for the folks who haven't been there  
multiple times, beyond "Behave professionally and don't do anything  
stupid." We have lots of people who don't know they're "being stupid"  
because in their world, what they're doing is absolutely normal and  
they have absolutely no expectation of consequences.

These sorts of things can be subtle. A friend's brother was arrested  
in the UAE last year for possession of melatonin, which is a common  
over-the-counter sleep therapy in most of the world but is apparently  
considered a major narcotic in their airport (although you can  
supposedly buy it OTC in stores in-country).  He was very surprised at  
this, having never even thought it might be an issue. If we were  
meeting in Dubai, I'd expect  medications to be a major problem. But  
we're not meeting in in Dubai, but China, and China quite likely has  
equivalent surprises in store. Quite possibly, neither you nor I have  
ever run afoul of them due to a combination of luck and discretion  
(which I occasionally DO exercise). But also quite possibly, they'll  
trip up some of our colleagues. Unlike the US, whose border- 
liabilities are fairly well understood by IETFers, I'm pretty sure we  
generally don't know what the likely problems are in China. We need to  
find out, and we need to educate our community about them.

If we (the IETF) can't even figure out what China is doing to Internet  
traffic, how are we supposed to understand the laws that aren't in our  
area of expertise? If they think Wired Magazine is dangerous enough  
that it must be blocked, chances are that they'd find the contents of  
my home PC appalling (I do too, it runs Windows XP). How about what's  
on Alice's laptop?

For example: As I understand it, one is allowed to bring only one  
camera and one computer, not two of each. Will this affect camera-and- 
computer loving IETFers? Possibly, if it's still true. Does the camera  
in your cell phone count against the quota? How about the one built in  
a Macbook?

I'm much more concerned about the prohibition that goes "Printed  
matter, films, photos, gramophone records, cinematographic films,  
loaded recording tapes and video- tapes,compact discs (video&audio),  
storage media for computers and other articles which are detrimental  
to the political, economic, cultural and moral interests of China."  
That's pretty nebulous. It reads to me like "leave behind all personal  
digital media, just in case" which is what I generally do. I travel in  
a fairly sanitized mode, for numerous reasons. Will the average IETFer  
do this? If not, what, if anything, is likely to surprise them?

How many IETFers are going to lose their currency-exchange receipts  
and consequently be unable to legally turn their excess yuan back into  
dollars? Or is this still even a problem?

--
Dean

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:55:00 +1300

On 2010-01-12 07:11, Dean Willis wrote:
>> <snark>I cannot imagine going to an IETF meeting and not being able to
>> read Wired magazine while I am there.</snark>
>>
> 

Well, it is just as relevant to suggest that you don't take the last
Economist for 2009 to Malaysia for the next APRICOT meeting (naked Adam
and Eve on the front cover) and don't carry pseudoephedrine tablets on
your next vacation in New Zealand. Oh, and don't travel to the Anaheim
IETF from Nigeria.

   Brian

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:21:59 -0600

> imagining, and I think you know that.

That's a pretty naive position, Ole.  I've had training manuals  
confiscated at the Canadian border, had my laptop "data searched" in a  
couple of places,  had my bags detained for setting off chemical  
detectors (although returned after secondary searching), had a science- 
fiction paper-back book confiscated (apparently the cover image was  
"pornographic", although they didn't bother to arrest me, and  
thankfully, I had already finished the book), and probably quite a few  
other events over the years. I've even had the sorts of jobs where  
everything on my person, including papers, got inspected by guards  
when I was going in and out of the workplace each day.

  I'm really surprised you haven't had events like this yourself.

> meeting, but dreaming up worst case scenarios isn't helpful. Really.

Sometimes it is hard for outsiders to understand those laws you so  
blithely say we should obey. Laws can and do catch people by surprise.  
One of the most effective ways to prevent surprise is by as king "what  
if" questions. Do you not think it is reasonable to subject the real- 
world to the same sort of scenario analysis that we would demand of a  
transport protocol?

--
Dean

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:24:24 -0800

On 1/11/2010 11:52 AM, Dean Willis wrote:
> because in their world, what they're doing is absolutely normal and they
> have absolutely no expectation of consequences.

Methinks you are implicitly suggesting that the IETF's pages for a site should 
include some "getting along in the site's country" guidance as an on-going 
requirement.  Methinks this is an excellent idea.

Happily, "Doing Business in..." types of books are common, as is online information.

For example:

    Chinese Etiquette
    <http://www.goingtochina.com/misc/chinese_etiquette.htm>

    China (especially see the Appearance, Behavior and Communications sections)
    <http://www.cyborlink.com/besite/china.htm>

    Chinese Culture
    <http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/businessculture.html>

>  But also quite possibly, they'll trip up some
> of our colleagues. Unlike the US, whose border-liabilities are fairly
> well understood by IETFers,

Probably not as well "understood" as we might think, and less so, now, with the 
newly-explicit policy of being unpredictable.

Historically, inconsistencies from one US airport to another have been pretty 
common.  It's really great fun to have a staffer at one airport firmly instruct 
me on how to avoid future problems at security, with what I carry and how I pack 
it, given conflicting, firm instruction that I'll get a few months later at 
another airport.

Here's an example, from my personal repertoire:  How many batteries is 
acceptable for you to carry?  Is it the same at every airport?  How can yo find 
out the answer?

> area of expertise?

Go to pick someone up at San Francisco International, at International Arrivals. 
  There are signs that shout that this is only for immediate pickup.  There is a 
solid line, away from the curb.

Cross that line, and stop at the curb, with the passenger not already standing 
there -- that is, if you expect to wait a (very) short time -- and you will get 
a ticket.  Not a warning, but a ticket.  There is nothing in the signage to tell 
you this.

Not knowing local laws is a pervasive problem.

On 1/11/2010 11:55 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
 >  Oh, and don't travel to the Anaheim
 > IETF from Nigeria.

Let's be fair.  Traveling to Orange County even from San Francisco is pretty 
risky, if they find out you are from Northern California.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:36:22 -0500

On 2010-01-11, at 14:52, Dean Willis <[email-masked]> wrote:
>  Unlike the US, whose border-liabilities are fairly well understood  
> by IETFers,

Seriously?  I cross the US-Canada border all the time, and I'm a  
citizen of both countries, and I can still barely keep up with the  
constant, apparently random revocations niggly little details of local  
conventions at each crossing since last I crossed there. That people  
whose native language isn't English are totally flummoxed by the US  
rules is amply demonstrated to me every time I enter the US.  Not to  
mention US citizens who cannot _believe_ that these rules apply to them.

I don't want to get into a (IMO fatuous) debate about which  
geopolitical arrangement is more troubling than others. I merely want  
to point out that it's just nonsense to use the current US conventions  
as an example of those obviously well understood.

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
<[email-masked]>

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:48:49 -0800

Dean,

Oddly, I've had none of the experiences you've had and I've been known to travel a bit (1.6 million miles on United, top frequent flier "honors" on 3 carriers (UAL, NWA, JAL) simultaneously, etc.), including to quite a few places where folks from the US weren't particularly popular.  The only place I've had "secondary screening" has been in the US (most recently last week flying from IAD to LAX).  The only country in which I've had to even power on equipment to demonstrate it isn't a prop has been the US.  I've never had anything confiscated.  Well, OK, I did have a nail cuticle clipper (with a 1/4 inch blade) confiscated in Singapore but somehow I was able to survive.

This really isn't that hard.  Unless you have diplomatic or some other treaty-based immunity, you are subject to the laws of the country you are in and it is your responsibility to be aware of those laws.  Some countries follow the rule of law more than others and some countries are more corrupt than others.  China is better than some, worse than others.  That's reality.  If you don't like this, don't go.

Regards,
-drc

On Jan 11, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Dean Willis wrote:

> That's a pretty naive position, Ole.  I've had training manuals confiscated at the Canadian border, had my laptop "data searched" in a couple of places,  had my bags detained for setting off chemical detectors (although returned after secondary searching), had a science-fiction paper-back book confiscated (apparently the cover image was "pornographic", although they didn't bother to arrest me, and thankfully, I had already finished the book), and probably quite a few other events over the years. I've even had the sorts of jobs where everything on my person, including papers, got inspected by guards when I was going in and out of the workplace each day.
> 
> Sometimes it is hard for outsiders to understand those laws you so blithely say we should obey. Laws can and do catch people by surprise. One of the most effective ways to prevent surprise is by as king "what if" questions. Do you not think it is reasonable to subject the real-world to the same sort of scenario analysis that we would demand of a transport protocol?
> 
> --
> Dean
>

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:53:09 -0900

On Jan 11, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> constant, apparently random revocations niggly little details of  
> local conventions at each crossing since last I crossed there.

I'm in the same situation and I've frequently got dogs
with me, and the understanding of what's okay and what's
not varies not only by which border crossing I'm using but
also by which agent - they have problems keeping up with
policies and especially policy changes, too.  That said,
I've got a very good idea of what to expect and how it
will go.  In all these years I've only been really surprised
once, and it was by a Canadian customs agent, not an
American.

What Dean said seems tautologically true to me, at least
for people who travel.  On the other hand, I've found that
a policy of "Don't be a jerk to the people in the booth"
has been sufficient even in places that were completely
unfamiliar to me and is a reasonable substitute for
specific knowledge.

Melinda

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:53:48 -0600

On Jan 11, 2010, at 2:24 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>
>
> Methinks you are implicitly suggesting that the IETF's pages for a  
> site should include some "getting along in the site's country"  
> guidance as an on-going requirement.  Methinks this is an excellent  
> idea.
>

Excellent idea. Specifically, the IETF-type information should be  
focussed on those things that are likely to impact IETFers, as opposed  
to conventional business-folks, at a given destination.  We aren't  
average business travelers: We dress more casually, carry much more  
electronic equipment, often sport unusual haircuts, have a broader  
array of medical conditions and food issues, have potentially more  
diverse reading habits, and so on. We're also a lot more likely to  
form in clusters that engage in loud debates about politically- 
sensitive topics. And obviously, we aren't ordinary tourists. How many  
ordinary tourists show up with a backpack full of wireless access  
points? Is that legal in China? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure one  
or more of us will do it.

And frankly, we're probably more blasé about international travel than  
"well prepared business people" might be. The pickpockets in Paris had  
an absolute field day with IETFers. I'm sure they were quite grateful  
for our lack of preparedness, relaxed-fit casual pants pockets, richly  
loaded wallets and expensive cell phones. We seem to have an  
assumption that every place is pretty much like every other place,  
they're all happy to see us, and one hotel conference room is the same  
as all the others.

The risks that a "typical IETFer" might encounter in Beijing are  
probably different from what you or I or Ole might encounter, given  
our ages, fairly conservative appearances, and past travel  
experiences. I think it might be very useful to think through the  
possibilities and see if we can pre-empt some of them.

I did do a quick scan on the references you thoughtfully provided  
above, and I found the "Appearance, Behavior, and Communications)  
reference especially interesting, because I just can't imagine a pack  
of IETFers complying with that set of rules.

This is starting to sound like it might be a good Wiki project. Who  
knows, maybe the IETF can collaborate to produce some useful IPR that  
isn't an RFC ;-)?

--
Dean

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:54:46 -0600

I try not to follow up to postings on this topic, but since I can comment on 
specifics...

> For example: As I understand it, one is allowed to bring only one  camera 
> and one computer, not two of each. Will this affect camera-and- computer 
> loving IETFers? Possibly, if it's still true. Does the camera  in your 
> cell phone count against the quota? How about the one built in  a Macbook?

Nope. I entered China in November (Shanghai, for an IPv6 transition workshop 
the week before IETF 76) with the same two computers that I usually carry to 
IETF meetings - my work laptop, and an ASUS netbook that I use to drive 
projectors (which also has a webcam built in), and a cell phone that has a 
camera built-in, along with my camera.

I was admitted to China with no discussion of any of these items.

Past performance is not an indicator of future topics of interest, but 
that's the way it went.

Thanks,

Spencer, who is amazed that the lines to enter the US from Matamoros are 
longer than the lines to enter China in either Hong Kong or Shanghai... and 
move more slowly, even for US citizens!

---

From: Zhen Cao <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:31:57 +0800

Hi, I just tried in Beijing China, everything is fine while accessing
www.wired.com

Thanks,
Zhen
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Dean Willis <[email-masked]>wrote:

> Wired Magazine was or is being blocked by the Chinese national firewall,
> and they don't know why.
>

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:35:51 -0800

At 11:31 AM +0800 1/12/10, Zhen Cao wrote:

Hi, I just tried in Beijing China,
everything is fine while accessing www.wired.com

That doesn't mean everything is fine: Dean can still come up with
a list of hypothetical problems that would affect the China meeting
(but could, of course, never affect meetings in other
locations).

--Paul Hoffman, Director

--VPN Consortium

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:24:42 -0800

Dean:

The first time I went to China was in 1998; I have been there several  
times a year most years since. I bring with me a bible, which is  
likely to be a lot more threatening to a communist government than a  
thousand naked ladies dancing in the airport, and encryption software  
(Cisco VPN and GPG), which at least at one time was technically  
illegal in the country.

I don't make an issue of it, and in my experience they have not either.

I'll tell you the one uncomfortable experience I have had in China.  
This is June 1999. I was speaking at a conference called ChinaInet,  
and was asked to speak about the security of the Internet. In the  
talk, I mentioned cryptographic authentication as the strongest means  
we had to identify a communicant. At the word "cryptographic", the  
translator stopped talking, and picked up again on the next slide.  
Following that talk, I was ushered to a room where I was "given an  
opportunity to rest" without contact with the other people at the  
conference. In my next session, I had a different translator (supplied  
by a government agency) and the audience was not permitted to ask  
questions. However, I was able to participate in the remainder of the  
conference without problem, and have never had an issue since. I  
suspect that someone had to find out whether what I said was OK, and  
since I was neither advocating the use of encryption (authentication ! 
= encryption) and was not criticizing the government (which is the one  
real no-no), it blew over.

I use encryption every time I travel, including to China. I have never  
had an issue doing so, including trips to France, China, Russia, and  
Bulgaria. If you're concerned about the contents of your disk drive,  
you have a few options. Obviously, make a backup before you leave. You  
can leave your computer at home and bring a few files on a USB key.  
You can wipe the drive and bring only things you don't mind being  
seen. You can use filevault/pgp/whatever. Take the steps you consider  
appropriate.

Please feel free to ask questions. When you are given answers, please  
feel free to listen to the experience of people who have been to the  
country. Please do not feel free to crawl the walls calling people who  
have more experience than you "naive" etc. The PRC is not the US, for  
sure. Finns and Swedes will tell you that the US can be kind of scary  
at times. Get used to it. People from the PRC don't have horns. Really.

Fred

On Jan 11, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Dean Willis wrote:

> confiscated at the Canadian border, had my laptop "data searched" in  
> a couple of places,  had my bags detained for setting off chemical  
> detectors (although returned after secondary searching), had a  
> science-fiction paper-back book confiscated (apparently the cover  
> image was "pornographic", although they didn't bother to arrest me,  
> and thankfully, I had already finished the book), and probably quite  
> a few other events over the years. I've even had the sorts of jobs  
> where everything on my person, including papers, got inspected by  
> guards when I was going in and out of the workplace each day.
>
> blithely say we should obey. Laws can and do catch people by  
> surprise. One of the most effective ways to prevent surprise is by  
> as king "what if" questions. Do you not think it is reasonable to  
> subject the real-world to the same sort of scenario analysis that we  
> would demand of a transport protocol?
>
> --
> Dean
>

http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:06:02 -0800

On 1/12/2010 1:24 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
>  People from the PRC don't have horns. Really.

Actually, they have world-class performers for the full range of musical 
instruments.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:07:00 -0600

> Actually, they have world-class performers for the full range of musical

non-musical too ...

Jorge

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:26:24 -0500

It was all a big mistake.

Someone in the Chinese govt decided that they wanted the entire
country to have 'wireless Internet' by 2010. Someone made a mistake
and thought they had asked for a 'Wired-less Internet'.

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Dean Willis <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Wired Magazine was or is being blocked by the Chinese national firewall, and
> they don't know why.
>

-- 
-- 
New Website: http://hallambaker.com/
View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week,
http://quantumofstupid.com/

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:30:37 -0500

This is all being overtaken by events.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/12/google.china/index.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/chinese-internet-activists-applaud-google-1866551.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8455712.stm

http://publicaddress.net/6413#post6413

Regards
Marshall

On Jan 12, 2010, at 5:26 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Dean Willis <[email-masked] 
> > wrote:

---

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:29:17 -0500

Dave CROCKER wrote:

> requirement.  Methinks this is an excellent idea.

Dave,

I think that this is a *very good* idea, no matter where were are going!

                                               Ron

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:01:42 -0800

Dave CROCKER wrote:

> Historically, inconsistencies from one US airport to another have been
> pretty common.  It's really great fun to have a staffer at one airport
> firmly instruct me on how to avoid future problems at security, with
> what I carry and how I pack it, given conflicting, firm instruction that
> I'll get a few months later at another airport.
> 
> acceptable for you to carry?  Is it the same at every airport?  How can
> yo find out the answer?

that's one of those questions you ask the DOT.

http://phmsa.dot.gov/portal/site/PHMSA/menuitem.ebdc7a8a7e39f2e55cf2031050248a0c/?vgnextoid=24e4ffc638ef6110VgnVCM1000001ecb7898RCRD&vgnextchannel=8fd9f08df5f3f010VgnVCM1000008355a8c0RCRD&vgnextfmt=print

or for that matter tsa...

http://safetravel.dot.gov/whats_new_batteries.html

it's not a secret it's not part of some wierd anti terrorist measure
which is inconsistently enforced for the purposes of obfuscation, it's
just an FAA rule.

---

From: "Gary E. Miller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:19:28 -0800 (PST)

Yo Joel!

> which is inconsistently enforced for the purposes of obfuscation, it's

DOT != FAA.

If it is an FAA rule can you show us where it says that on the FAA
web site: http://www.faa.gov/

Almost nothing I hear attributed to the FAA is really FAA policy.

RGDS
GARY
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97701
	[email-masked]  Tel:+1(541)382-8588

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:42:52 -0800

> Almost nothing I hear attributed to the FAA is really FAA policy.

You could have just googled up some background instead of assuming I am
wrong.

quote:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is an agency of the United
States Department of Transportation with authority to regulate and
oversee all aspects of civil aviation in the U.S. (National
Airworthiness Authority). The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 created the
group under the name "Federal Aviation Agency", and adopted its current
name in 1967 when it became a part of the United States Department of
Transportation.

the report summarized in this ppt resulted in the rule.

http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/ppt/systems/lithium%20bat%20060602.ppt

The notable observation for cargo holds is:

Halon 1301 is ineffective in suppressing a lithium battery fire

> RGDS
> GARY
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------