#allow UDP traffic so that VPN works.ufw allow out 1194/udp

ufw allow out 1194/udp
ufw allow out 1198/udp

#Allow DNS queries
ufw allow out 53/udp

Allow connections over all interfaces of Ubuntu updates:

ufw allow out proto tcp to 23.246.0.0/18 port 80
ufw allow out proto tcp to 23.246.0.0/18 port 443
ufw allow out proto tcp to 54.239.54.0/23 port 80
ufw allow out proto tcp to 54.239.54.0/23 port 443
ufw allow out proto tcp to 54.239.13.128/25 port 80
ufw allow out proto tcp to 54.239.13.128/25 port 443
for x in 54.239.122.0 54.239.126.128; do for y in 80 443; do ufw allow out proto tcp to ${x}/25 port ${y}; done; done
ufw allow out proto tcp to 64.15.0.0/16 port 80
ufw allow out proto tcp to 64.15.0.0/16 port 443
for x in 54.239.145.0/24 54.239.145.0/24 64.15.119.0/24 91.189.91.23 91.189.91.26 91.189.88.149 91.189.88.152 91.189.88.162 91.189.88.161; do for y in 80 443; do ufw allow out proto tcp to ${x} port ${y}; done; done

#Get the interface addresses and allow stuff on the local subnet(s)
for y in $(ifconfig | awk ‘/inet/ && / 192/ || / 172\.16/ || / 10\./ {print $2}’); do ufw allow to ${y}/24; ufw allow in from ${y}/24; done

#get the IP addresses for the VPN servers. In this case, privateinternetaccess.com
for z in $(for x in ca ca-toronto sweden swiss france germany israel; do host ${x}.privateinternetaccess.com; done|awk ‘{print $NF}’| sort | uniq); do ufw allow in from ${z} to any; done

#allow traffic on tun0, the VPN interface.

ufw allow in on tun0 from any to any
ufw allow out on tun0 from any to any

#Deny connections by default
ufw default deny incoming
ufw default deny outgoing

#Enable the firewall
ufw enable

I first set it up as a router, which led to the discovery that the existing router in my house, a Buffalo WZR-HP-G300NH, was holding me back. I had a USB 3.0 Gigabit Ethernet dongle as the second interface for the laptop, and when I set up simple IP Masquerading on Ubuntu and pointed a computer at it, I found that my download speeds jumped from ~70Mb/s to ~170Mbs. That led me to look for a wife-friendly (i.e., free) way to improve things. My first choice was my favorite firewall software, OpenWRT. There is an x86 version which is developed alongside the embedded device versions I am so accustomed to using. I grabbed the ISO, then discovered the issue I’ve seen with other Linux distributions, it would not see the storage. Eventually, I installed it to a USB key, which was fine. Along the way, I upgraded to the trunk build and discovered that the OpenWRT which was running could now see the (unused) MMC storage. Perhaps it would now work.

Initially, I wrote an image to the eMMC storage, and booted, but it froze during the boot process. After a bit of tinkering, I found out that if you edit the grub entry so that root=/dev/mmcblk0p2 rather than UUID=-2, it would boot correctly. After booting, just mount /dev/mmcblk0p1 to /mnt, then edit /mnt/boot/grub/grub.cfg to change the UUID entry to /dev/mmcblk0p2, and everything works correctly. You will need to install kmod-usb-net-asix-ax88179 to use the USB Ethernet adaptor. From there, it’s a very normal OpenVPN setup.

Cipher for Telegraphic Correspondence — a code book used by Union General Joseph Hooker’s code clerk

When I was younger, I often heard people debating whether the state should attempt to ensure equality of opportunity for people or equality of outcome. This has generally focused on areas associated with race or gender. Libertarians have consistently maintained that equality of opportunity is all that the government should properly enforce. The most progressive people push for equality of outcome in some situations, though many will say that historical biases are being overcome, so it is meaningful equality of opportunity that they seek. It strikes me however, that the recent public confrontation between Apple and the FBI provides us with similar arguments being made.

The state has long had the recognized authority to seize property and search it with a warrant. Many of the discussions surrounding the iPhone in question mention that the government can issue orders to look through private property and that the iPhone in question is no different. I’ve seen comparisons, for example to breaking into a home and taking papers for examination.

This is where I think the parallels to civil rights situations can come into play. If the police take your papers, do they have the right to the intelligibility of those papers and effects, or simply to the effects themselves. That is, if the papers are in some language or code that they do not know, do they have the right to force someone to translate it or to teach them the language? In the cases of both plain English papers and the iPhone, they have the same opportunity to examine, but the lack of knowledge (of the pass code, password, or encryption key) may make the outcomes very different.

Another analogy I have seen is that of a safe. Imagine a safe with a completely impregnable lock. What does the state do? Well, there are ways to get into safes without using the lock. You could cut your way in, or blow it up. However, it is at least possible that these other methods may destroy something of value within the safe. Does the government have the right to force the  to come up with a method for opening the lock? Further, do they have the right to force  to only make locks which can be opened without the owner’s consent? In the case of the confiscated iPhone, there may well be ways to “open” the data without the owner’s consent, but those methods may destroy the information which is sought.

It is entirely possible that this case may have effects which reach outside of the world of technology. The most fundamental of notions being examined are whether the state is entitled to a process or a product? The process is the issuing of warrants and the collection of property. The seizure of property is no guarantee of specific uses of that property. And it is the specific uses that the state demands. Is it appropriate for the state to insist on a specific outcome for a policy or is it appropriate that an agreed upon process be followed? In the justice system, I have heard many times over the years that the purpose is to follow the process. Justice is the ideal outcome, but a particular outcome is not what the state promises citizens. It promises them a process. Yet, it appears as though the state is not satisfied to have the same situation in cases involving itself: it demands an outcome. As we move forward and various technologies are developed, this guarantee of outcome will necessarily create greater and greater burdens on hardware and software developers. It may be effectively illegal for a small independent developer to create an encrypted product, for example, because the day may come where each instance of a product will require some sort of individualized method for accessing whatever data is held within it. That implies a substantial data handling infrastructure which companies, and individuals, may soon be required to maintain.

after setting up ssh keys to allow root to log in as itself via localhost with no password. This will cause your server to listen on port 1080, and any SOCKS client on your home network can just point to it. After that, you can force all outbound traffic through that proxy if you wish, and limit the direct access to the Internet for internal machines.

The proponents for autonomous cars largely come from the technologically sophisticated left. There are some significant potential efficiency and safety gains to be had from self-driving vehicles. The driver is the most unreliable part of a car. Driver behavior has a large impact on energy usage as well. Up to this point, there has not been much in the way of vocal opposition to driverless cars. There are concerns, yes. Perhaps they will make traffic worse. There are potential ethical dilemmas. But these are not serious impediments to adoption. The serious impediment to the adoption of autonomous cars is the state.

Some of the things being touted as benefits of autonomous cars are threats to some parties. Let’s look at safety. Assume an autonomous car obeys all traffic laws. What does that do to various governments who depend on ticketing revenue? Driving irregularities are a leading reason for traffic stops which allow for the detection of drug trafficking, which is another major source of revenue for local police departments. Will police departments and municipalities be onboard for technology which will potentially eliminate the majority of their revenues? I think not.

Assuming the limited testing of computer controlled cars is promising, what are likely reactions from governments? If a driverless car is really safer and more efficient, how long before anything else is banned? Look at technologies such as airbags and backup cameras. These things went from high-end features to mandatory ones within 3 car generations. How long before something which could save considerably more lives would be similarly mandated? And that would spark outrage among both car enthusiasts and the automakers who cater to those enthusiasts. Those are moneyed interests whose influence should not be underestimated.

I do not expect these reasons to be the explicit cases for banning or at least slowing the adoption of autonomous vehicles. They are too cynical to be digested by the public. There will be other reasons given. I’m sure many factions are chomping at the bit for the first fatality which is caused or at least exacerbated by some sort of failure or design flaw in an autonomous car. When that happens, it will be put to maximum use by political interests who have had to largely remain silent due to their somewhat unsavory motivations. I expect us to have autonomous vehicles. But not without a fight, and not when the technology is ready. Perhaps a generation after the technology is readily available, the political climate will have sufficiently changed to allow them to become commonplace, but I don’t expect them to be common on American roads for at least 20 years after we have fully operational, reliable, cost-effective prototypes. The state will probably not allow it to happen any sooner than that.