visitor maps

Translation-Traduction

Saturday, October 27, 2018

Pourquoi le Maroc change-t-il de fuseau horaire ?

Un Conseil de gouvernement exceptionnel s'est tenu le 26 octobre pour adopter de façon permanente, et à titre expérimental, l'heure du Maroc à GMT+1. Une décision motivée par des avantages économiques que le Maroc peut tirer du changement de fuseau horaire.

Par Soufiane Chahid


    Le Maroc change-t-il de fuseau horaire ? Sur proposition du ministre de la Réforme de l’Administration et de la Fonction Publique, Mohamed Ben Abdelkader, un Conseil de gouvernement exceptionnel a adopté, le 26 octobre, le projet de décret n°2.18.855 relatif à l’heure légale. Ce projet de décret vise à maintenir de façon permanente l’heure d’été.

    « Nous avons fait une étude sur le bilan de cinq ans d’application de l’heure d’été, avec des critères pris en compte pour la première fois, comme l’impact sur la santé, mais aussi des critères économiques et sociaux. L’étude a conclu que le changement d’heure provoque effectivement des perturbations chez les citoyens. Nous avons aussi réalisé un sondage d’opinion auprès d’un large échantillon, et plus de 65 % ont exprimé leur mécontentement quant à ces changements, et dit qu’ils préféraient la stabilité », nous explique le ministre délégué chargé de la Réforme de l’Administration et de la Fonction publique.

    « Nous avions dans ce cas deux choix : revenir à GMT ou rester sur GMT+1. Nous avons étudié les deux scénarii, puis nous avons décidé qu’à la vue des avantages économiques, il valait mieux être dans le GMT+1″, continue le ministre.

    Dans ce cas, il ne s’agit plus d’heure d’été, mais de changement de fuseau horaire du royaume. Le Maroc passera ainsi en GMT+1, c’est-à-dire le même fuseau horaire que celui de la France, de l’Espagne, ou encore de l’Algérie et de la Tunisie. Cette heure ajoutée à nos montres ne servira donc plus à réaliser des économies d’énergie, mais à opérer pour une intégration économique avec les partenaires traditionnels du pays, et ce plus particulièrement avec la France et l’Espagne.

    Mohamed Ben Abdelkader assure cependant aux citoyens que les horaires des écoles et des administrations vont s’adapter à ce changement d’heure. « À travers des décrets, nous nous dirigerons vers plus de souplesse dans les heures d’entrées de sorties des écoliers et des fonctionnaires », nous dit-il.

    Cette décision a inspiré certains twittos :

    Epicure@E_picure

    Dans quelques années, le gouvernement Talbi Alami adoptera le GMT+7 pour s'aligner sur notre partenaire chinois et vous n'allez rien comprendre.

    doni@donilapute

    Changement d'heure , maintenant je comprends pourquoi on appelle les pjdistes " les obscurantistes " , ils nous réveillent dans l'obscurité.

    Originellement, la France et le Maroc étaient sur le même fuseau horaire, soit GMT, avant que la France, en 1940 durant l’occupation de l’hexagone par l’Allemagne nazie, passe à « l’heure allemande ». La France sera ainsi en décalage d’une heure par rapport à sa colonie marocaine, qui elle ne changera pas d’heure. Désormais, c’est le Maroc qui passe à « l’heure française ».

    Friday, November 7, 2014

    King's Strong Speech Gives Polisario an Opportunity

     

     

    Along with the Arab-Israeli conflict, the struggle between Morocco and the separatist Polisario Front over the southern half of Morocco's territory is one of the longest in the history of diplomacy. The United Nations has an office devoted to mediating the conflict and American, European and Arab diplomats have spent decades trying to find a solution.

    So whenever someone in authority steps forward with a solution, it is worth paying attention. Is one of the modern world's oldest territorial disputes about to come to an end?

    Morocco's King Mohammed VI has just given a surprising and strong speech that could be the key to peace in that ever-volatile corner of North Africa. His words were measured and powerful and established a framework for rethinking this thorny diplomatic conundrum.

    In the southern region of Morocco -- which the Sahrawi separatists refer to as "Western Sahara -- the facts on the ground are changing. Billions of dollars in investment has poured in from the king and kingdom's coffers to build airports, marine ports, highways and public housing. The private sector has followed with hotels and offices and jobs. Dakhla, the southernmost major city in Morocco, has gone from being a small Spanish garrison town in 1975 to a bustling city and busy port today. Leaders in neighboring countries point to it as example.

    Critics who say that Morocco is stealing the wealth of the southern peoples have got the math backwards. For every dirham that the south produces, seven more dirhams pour in from the north in trade, investment, subsidies and government spending.

    The north is showering the south with money, the king said, out of sense of national solidarity. The king said: "The Sahara is not the only cause of the Saharawi [the people of the Sahara]. The Sahara is the business of all Moroccans." As a result of this solidarity philosophy, what was once one of the poorest parts of Morocco (and, indeed, one of the poorest parts of the world) is now equal or slightly ahead of the north on a per-capita income basis. That is quite an achievement in 40 years. While the separatists have built bombs and diplomatic roadblocks, Morocco has built a modern economy in the disputed lands.

    The economic miracle could not have been performed by the south alone, but only the sacrifices of the north. The king made this point clearly. "And I say frankly: Moroccans have supported the development costs of the southern provinces. They gave out of their pockets, and levied on the livelihood of their children so that their southern brethren can live with dignity." the king said.

    Calls for secession on the basis that the south was somehow economically abused run counter to reality.

    The king, with perhaps his strongest words to date on the future of the south: "Morocco will remain in its Sahara, Sahara will remain in Morocco until the end of time."

    Then the king announced a vision of devolution, designed to meet his critics more than halfway.He described a new legal framework to allow the southern provinces to be self-governing on local matters, much as individual states in the United States govern on local issues of law and order, education, highway construction and so on.

    While the vision is clear and beautiful, the king did not want to dictate the details. Instead, he called for opening a "national dialogue and a responsible and serious debate on different ideas and possible designs in order to develop clear answers to all the questions and concerns of populations the region, and within the framework of national unity and territorial integrity of the country."

    The king said he would be willing to negotiate with any party (including the United Nations, the separatists) and cited his meetings with separatist officials in Tindouf, Algeria, when he was crown prince. "I have no problem with that because I was negotiating with Moroccan citizens, and because it was a question of defending the rights of Morocco."

    He offered only one precondition: "We must insist on the fact that Morocco's sovereignty over all its territory is immutable, inalienable and non-negotiable."

    Short of dividing his country, the king is willing to consider any proposal. "The autonomy initiative is the maximum that Morocco has to offer as part of negotiations to find a definitive solution to this regional conflict."

    He urged the American and European diplomats to lay aside certain tired misconceptions. The most common one is that Morocco is somehow a "colonial" power. Morocco reclaimed the lands from Spain, which was the colonial power. The southern region of Morocco has been recognized as part of the kingdom for many centuries. Indeed, that is why Spain returned it to Morocco and not some other nation.

    Another misconception is that Morocco, a member state at the United Nations, is diplomatically equivalent to a separatist movement that is runs a one-party dictatorship on borrowed land in southern Algeria. Indeed, the lawlessness present in the separatist camps--drug-running, arms dealing, exploitation and denial of basic human rights outlined in the U.N. Charter--raises serious questions about the future that the Polisario Front offers to the people they seek to represent. This false equivalency simply slows down any negotiated peace and overlooks the other nation-state that must be brought to the table for peace to be made.

    The final misconception, cited by the king, is explosive--but peace often requires the saying of hard truths. The king said that as long as Algeria fails to play its part, the conflict will continue.

    Algiers may just shrug this off, as another olive branch to ignore. America's first African-American president famously likes to say that he has "a pen and a phone." He should phone Algiers and ask their leaders not to miss this opportunity for peace. Later he could use the pen to sign a peace treaty, much as President Carter did with the leaders of Israel and Egypt. Peace is worth taking another chance.

    King's Strong Speech Gives Polisario an Opportunity |

    Wednesday, October 15, 2014

    Morocco Grabs Limelight as Companies Focus on Frontiers

     

      Renault’s $1.2 billion investment in its factory in Morocco is prompting other multinational companies to look for opportunities in the North African country.
      Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

      Corporate sentiment toward frontier markets has improved noticeably over the past three months, according to the latest WSJ Frontiers/FSG Frontier Markets Sentiment Index. Based on a sample of around 200 multinational companies, the index, created exclusively for WSJ Frontiers by Washington-based consultancy Frontier Strategy Group, suggests companies are sharpening their focus on key frontier countries such as Kenya, Saudi Arabia and Morocco.

      Africa continues to attract more attention than any other region, contributing five of the countries in the top 10, and 12 of the countries in the top 20. But the data demonstrated a noticeable increase in corporations’ interest in North Africa. In the previous survey, published in June this year there were nine sub-Saharan African countries among the top 20 and only two—Morocco and Algeria—from North Africa.

      WSJ Frontiers Newsletter

      The FM Sentiment Index is compiled from data gathered by FSG detailing which countries its multinational companies are watching for potential future investment. The data provide two key metrics: absolute sentiment, measured by the number of companies including a particular country on their watch lists, and the change in sentiment over the past quarter.

      In the third-quarter survey, Tunisia joined its North African neighbors in the top tier and Morocco jumped from 12th to 6th. Morocco and Tunisia also saw the greatest positive change in sentiment as changing global dynamics encouraged firms to take a renewed interest in North Africa.

      David Wickham, London-based director for global frontier and emerging markets at HSBC, attribute’s Morocco’s increasing popularity among corporations to its “relative political stability, its favorable legal environment for foreign investment, the availability of skilled workers with wages much lower than those in the European Union, and its close proximity to Europe.”

      Mr. Wickham believes multinationals have also taken note of the fact that in 2012 auto manufacturer Renault invested $1.3 billion in 300-hectare car assembly plant in coastal city of Tangier.

      According to Mamoune Bouhdoud, Morocco’s minister delegate for industry trade investment and the digital economy, the automotive sector is experiencing double-digit growth and represents one of the key elements of the country’s export mix. But, he says, the production of complete cars is just the “visible part of the iceberg. There is a whole range of SMEs working in this sector—suppliers for Renault in Tangier—and also huge exports of parts for factories in Europe.”

      While Morocco’s proximity to Europe and its free-trade agreements with Europe and the U.S. are key factors in attracting foreign investment, Mr. Bouhdoud believes its relationship with Africa is an increasingly important factor. “Everyone believes Africa is the next area of growth,” he notes. “The problem is, there are a lot of countries in Africa and if you want to make your investment valuable you need to find a place where you can put your headquarters. You need to manage your risk. You need a strong country with great connectivity. Morocco could be this for foreign companies.”

      Those foreign companies are clearly looking for opportunities in Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa has tightened its grip on the FM Sentiment index, with Nigeria retaining its leading role as the frontier-market country most corporations are watching, and Kenya leaping into second place from fifth in the previous survey.

      Despite the fact that much of the news emerging from Africa over the past three months has been negative, says FSG’s global head of advisory and analytics, Matt Lasov, multinational corporations are staying the course in sub-Saharan Africa. “While the unprecedented and tragic outbreak of Ebola is affecting short-term headline growth rates, it is also temporarily changing the structure of affected economies, boosting certain sectors,” Mr. Lasov explains. “In Nigeria, for example, aviation, hospitality and tourism are suffering, but e-commerce has benefitted as more people shop online instead of in public markets.”

      Two East African nations that traditionally have failed to attract much investor attention joined the top 10 this quarter. Tanzania, which has seen some huge discoveries of natural gas off its Indian Ocean coast, and Ethiopia, with its near-100 million population and stable government, are both attracting more attention from multinationals.

      At the same time, sentiment toward Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) declined sharply as the region was hobbled both by the continuing torpor in Western Europe’s economy and the turmoil in Ukraine. Of the 68 countries included in the index, the three worst performers over the past three months are all in Central Europe. Croatia, which had seen a revival in corporate interest earlier this year, fell hardest with a 7.45 percentage point slump in the index, followed closely by Romania and Slovakia.

      Multinationals showed less interest in 20 of the 68 countries in the index, of which 11 were in the CEE region. FSG’s Mr. Lasov believes companies are taking less notice of Central European countries because they’re small. “More multinationals are putting Central Europe and the Balkans into their own organizational structure, grouping the larger Russia/CIS division into a separately managed unit that gets more corporate attention. Central European markets are small, and well-penetrated across industries, reducing corporate attention there,” he adds.

      Asia’s frontier markets saw some improvement in sentiment, with Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Laos all finding a place among the 20 countries that saw the sharpest increase in attention. Pakistan, which experienced the greatest rise in attention in June’s results, attracted only slightly more interest from companies. Vietnam experienced only a modest increase in the number of companies tracking it but retained its status as the only Asian frontier market in the top 10.

      Argentina and Venezuela are also still resolutely among the top 10 frontier countries that companies are focused on, but Mr. Lasov attributes that partly to the fact that many multinationals have substantial investments in the two troubled Latin American economies and are anxious to understand developments there.

      WSJ Frontiers will be reviewing the FM Sentiment Index on a quarterly basis.

      Write to Dan Keeler at dan.keeler@wsj.com.

      Morocco Grabs Limelight as Companies Focus on Frontiers - Frontier Markets News - Emerging & Growth Markets - WSJ

      Monday, September 29, 2014

      Your iOS 8 Data is Not Beyond Law Enforcement’s Reach… Yet. | Jonathan Zdziarski's Domain

       

      In a recent announcement, Apple stated that they no longer unlock iOS (8) devices for law enforcement.

      On devices running iOS 8, your personal data such as photos, messages (including attachments), email, contacts, call history, iTunes content, notes, and reminders is placed under the protection of your passcode. Unlike our competitors, Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data. So it’s not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants for the extraction of this data from devices in their possession running iOS 8.”

      This is a significantly pro-privacy (and courageous) posture Apple is taking with their devices, and while about seven years late, is more than welcome. In fact, I am very impressed with Apple’s latest efforts to beef up security all around, including iOS 8 and iCloud’s new 2FA. I believe Tim Cook to be genuine in his commitment to user privacy; perhaps I’m one of the few who can see just how gutsy this move with iOS 8 is.

      It’s important to take a minute, however, to note that this does not mean that the police can’t get to your data. What Apple has done here is create for themselves plausible deniability in what they will do for law enforcement. If we take this statement at face value, what has likely happened in iOS 8 is that photos, messages, and other sensitive data, which was previously only encrypted with hardware-based keys, is now being encrypted with keys derived from a PIN or passcode. No doubt this does improve security for everyone, by marrying encryption to the PIN (something they ought to have been doing all along). While it’s technically possible to brute force a PIN code, that doesn’t mean it’s technically feasible, and thus lets Apple off the hook in terms of legal obligation. Add a complex passcode into the mix, and it gets even uglier, having to choose any of a number of dictionary style attacks to get into your encrypted data. By redesigning the file system in this fashion (if this is the case), Apple has afforded themselves the ability to say, “the phone’s data is encrypted with a PIN or passphrase, and so we’re not legally required to hack it for you guys, so go pound sand”. I am quite impressed, Mr. Cook! That took courage… but it does not mean that your data is beyond law enforcement’s reach.

      In a recent blog post, I outlined a number of measures Apple took with iOS 8 to prevent many forensic artifacts from being dumped off of the device by existing commercial forensics tools. These services had completely bypassed the user’s backup encryption password, affording the consumer virtually no protection from the many law enforcement forensics tools that took advantage of these vulnerabilities. Apple closed off many of these services in iOS 8. This was a great start to better securing iOS 8, but not everything has been completely protected.

      In addition to what’s been fixed, I also outlined some things that haven’t yet been. What’s left are services that iTunes (and Xcode) talk to in order to exchange information with third party applications, or access your media folder. Apple wants you to be able access your photos and other information from your desktop while the phone is locked – for ease of use. This, unfortunately, also opens up the capability for law enforcement to also use this mechanism to dump:

      • Your camera reel, videos, and recordings
      • Podcasts, Books, and other iTunes media
      • All third party application data

      Existing commercial forensics tools can still acquire these artifacts from your device, even running iOS 8. I have tested with my own private forensics tools, as well, and confirmed this. I dumped all of my third party application data (including caches, databases, screenshots, etc), as well as my camera reel and other media… all within a few minutes and from my locked iPhone running iOS 8 GM.

      There is one big caveat though, but it’s not a big problem for law enforcement. This technique requires access to a trusted pairing record on a desktop / laptop machine that is paired with your phone, and as of iOS 8 requires physical access to the phone. What does this mean? This means that if your’e arrested, the police will seize both your iPhone and all desktop / laptop machines you own, and use files on the desktop to dump and access all of the above data on your iPhone. This can also be done at an airport, if you are detained.

      How does it work? While your photos and messages might indeed now be encrypted with a key derived from your PIN, the pairing records stored on your desktop have a “backup copy” of your keybag keys (the escrow bag), which can be used to unlock the encryption on your phone – without a PIN. Again, this was added so that iTunes could talk to your phone while it is still locked.

      Fortunately, there are some precautions you can take to ensure your privacy. One small trick is to shut down your iPhone whenever you go through airport security or customs. Why? Because Apple has included a kill switch that prevents your pairing records from being able to unlock your iPhone if it’s been shut down. The pairing record vulnerability only works if you’ve used your phone since it was last rebooted. Secondly, make sure you’re using strong encryption on your desktop / laptops, and make sure your computers are all shut down when not in use… especially when going through airport security. There are a number of forensics tools capable of dumping the memory (and therefore, encryption keys) of your encrypted disk if you’ve left your computer asleep or in hibernate mode. Shut it down.

      While setting a backup password is critical to protecting the rest of your private data on an iPhone, it won’t help you here, because none of these interfaces honor the consumer’s backup password. Your data is not encrypted when dumped from these services. If you don’t lock your device with a PIN, of course, all of this data is at risk all of the time, so be sure to use a PIN too.

      Apple could stand to greatly improve this by either requiring the user enter their backup password for iTunes to talk to it while the device is locked (and encrypt all of this with that password), or to simply offer the user the option (via iTunes) to prevent the iPhone from being accessible at all while locked. Many users would gladly check that box for improved security.

      Apple has done a great job of breaking a number of law enforcement forensics tools and features with the release of iOS 8. Some existing features are still likely to work, however, and your third party application data and media folder are still potentially at risk from anyone with access to these commercial tools, or someone with the know-how to use open-source tools such as libimobiledevice.

      On a philosophical note, some seem genuinely upset about Apple’s latest decision, arguing law enforcement is “entitled” to your data, in order to fight crime. The other side of the coin is this: should manufacturers be required to weaken the strength of their encryption (and the security of their products) just to make law enforcement forensics possible? Wouldn’t that amount to engineering back doors into all products? If you still feel this way, consider also that by improving the security of their products, Apple has improved it for everyone – CEOs, the President (who’s been seen using an iPad to receive daily briefings), congressmen, judges, our own military and many others. If you’re going to weaken security to make forensics possible, you’re also weakening it for everyone, opening the door for foreign governments and cyber criminals to attack all of us. For the sake of privacy and overall security, the only logical solution is to make products as secure as possible, and let good detective work do the crime solving, rather than an easy button.

      Tuesday, July 22, 2014

      Apple's iOS 7 is secure against hackers, but not law enforcement

       

       

      Forensic scientist and author Jonathan Zdziarski has some mixed news for privacy advocates. Apple’s iOS 7 is “reasonably secure” from attack from a malicious hacker.

      However, though the use of backdoor security mechanisms, Cupertino has “worked hard to ensure that it can access data on end-user devices on behalf of law enforcement,” according to Zdziarski.com (via MacRumors).

      According to Zdziarski:

      I am not suggesting some grand conspiracy; there are, however, some services running in iOS that shouldn’t be there, that were intentionally added by Apple as part of the firmware, and that bypass backup encryption while copying more of your personal data than ever should come off the phone for the average consumer. I think at the very least, this warrants an explanation and disclosure to the some 600 million customers out there running iOS devices. At the same time, this is NOT a zero day and NOT some widespread security emergency. My paranoia level is tweaked, but not going crazy. My hope is that Apple will correct the problem. Nothing less, nothing more. I want these services off my phone. They don’t belong there.

      Zdziarski says that it is possible to limit access to these backdoor services — at least to block third-party forensic software. His solution will not protect the device contents if it is sent to Apple for analysis.

      To do so, users should enable a complex passcode in iOS and use the enterprise Apple Configurator application to set Mobile Device Management (MDM) restrictions and enable Pair locking, which will delete all pairing records.

      Last month, the United States Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that police need a warrant to search cell phones. Therefore, I don’t have a problem with Apple making it easier for law enforcement officials to check user devices — once they get a warrant to do so.

      Thursday, April 24, 2014

      When it comes to net neutrality, either the FCC thinks we’re idiots, or it just doesn’t care

       

       

      The proposed network neutrality rules the FCC is settling on don’t appear neutral at all. Here’s the conversation we should be having if the FCC really thinks our network policies need a rewrite.

      Net neutrality

       

      With its latest plan to twist the concept of network neutrality into something that appears to be the opposite of neutral, the Federal Communications Commission has revealed that it believes the public can’t understand the issues — or that it is so in thrall of the companies it regulates that it doesn’t care what ordinary people think.

      The FCC’s plans for implementing network neutrality came to light Wednesday in a Wall Street Journal article. The plans took the hallmark of network neutrality — the notion that ISP shouldn’t discriminate between the traffic flowing over their networks — and turned it on its head. Under the proposed framework for so-called net neutrality, the FCC does away with the concept of non discrimination and instead offers up a new standard designed to prohibit “commercially unreasonable” practices.

      Is this the pay-to-play internet model?

      Tom Wheeler, pictured standing to the right of the president.

      Tom Wheeler, pictured standing to the right of the president.

      Most net neutrality advocates have understood the FCC’s decision to mean that the agency will allow ISPs to charge content companies for better traffic flow provided it isn’t “commercially unreasonable.”

      It’s important to note that the FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler came out a few hours after the Journal article (and others) appeared to respond that the media has his policy plans “flat out wrong.” The statement, offered below, neglects to address the crucial aspect of his proposed change: the idea that there’s room for any commercial practices in delivering a customer’s network packets.

      Here’s Wheeler’s statement:

      “There are reports that the FCC is gutting the Open Internet rule. They are flat out wrong. Tomorrow we will circulate to the Commission a new Open Internet proposal that will restore the concepts of net neutrality consistent with the court’s ruling in January. There is no ‘turnaround in policy.’ The same rules will apply to all Internet content. As with the original Open Internet rules, and consistent with the court’s decision, behavior that harms consumers or competition will not be permitted.”

      Whether or not you think this is a good idea, inserting any sort of commercial relationship into delivering last mile web content –outside of what the end-consumer pays the ISP — is not network neutrality. So let’s stop calling it that.

      Turning a technical argument into a commercial one

      The FCC should man up and say exactly what it is doing here: It is implementing a double-sided market for the internet that could allow businesses to enter into commercial relationships with ISPs — who do not operate in a competitive market in the U.S. — for faster delivery of their content. And because capacity on broadband networks is limited, the flip side is that companies that don’t pay will see their content delivered more slowly.

      Many will see this as a battle between the Netflix’s of the world and the smaller video providers who might not be able to pay. But this is actually about differentiating between different classes of content. For example, if you are a streaming video provider, those faster speeds will probably affect the user experience. You’ll need to pay up, because your competitors certainly will and eventually the best effort access isn’t going to cut it — especially as traffic on networks increase.

      Photo by Thinkstock/wx-bradwang

      Photo by Thinkstock/wx-bradwang

      However, if you are a backup company like Dropbox or Carbonite that can train users to send their files overnight, then you may not care about slower speeds. Because this is true: Not all web content is created equal. As we put more content online, many people knowledgeable about network infrastructure point out the ridiculousness of trying to build out an ever-expanding network that’s capable of handling Netflix traffic as if it were the same as a downloading software.

      It’s like trying to build a highway that can handle Lamborghinis, Chevy Volts and bicycles all driving in the same lane. Instead, these network experts argue that we need to figure out how to divide the lanes of traffic while ensuring that all vehicles can travel on the road without discrimination. That’s actually a completely fair and legitimate debate to have, but I’m not sure that is the debate we’re going to be having if the FCC’s plans go through.

      Where is the burden of proof in this standard?

      That’s because instead of discussing the real challenges of managing the growing amount of traffic on the web that has different delivery requirements, the FCC is going to let the ISPs decide — not just how those lanes are divided, but also the rules that govern who can travel where and how much they should pay. It has said it will not allow blocking and that ISPs must be transparent, but this “commercially unreasonable” framework strikes me as putting the burden of proof on the consumer or injured party to complain to the FCC long after the horse has left the barn — or their packets have failed to reach the user.

      I don’t think that’s the way this conversation should play out. The FCC and ISPs may argue that because the ISPs built the original roads (their underlying network infrastructure) that it is the ISP’s right to decide the rules of that road and how much people will pay to access it. But at some point since the FCC first declared that broadband was an information product and not subject to the common carrier rules at the heart of today’s network neutrality fight, broadband has become a utility for consumers and businesses.

      The idea that we would let ISPs make decisions that could lead to ISPs setting commercial terms that would impose taxes on startups and existing companies all without ensuring any sort of lowered price for consumers or network upgrades from the ISPs, is ridiculous. Broadband networks are not a public utility, but they are the foundation for our economy.

      And as such we owe it to all participants to have a real debate about how we’re going to deliver the exponential increase in network traffic over our private networks. That’s a debate that the FCC must referee, not after the damage has been done, but in advance. Instead of calling its efforts net neutrality when they clearly aren’t, it should be honest and point out that it thinks neutral networks won’t work given the technical demands we’re placing on the internet. Then we can have a conversation about if that’s the case, and then what we should do about it.

      We can’t let ISPs operating in a duopoly just set the rules for us.

      Absent competition, the proposed rules look like a way for ISPs to get more money, set rules that will affect the shape of what is developed on the internet, and do all of these things with no guarantees that consumers or the broadband economy get anything in return. I don’t find that reasonable at all.

      IBM unveils Power8 and OpenPower pincer attack on Intel’s x86 server monopoly

       

      IBM Power8 die shot, high res

      IBM has taken the wraps off the first servers that are powered by its monstrously powerful Power8 CPUs. With more than 4 billion transistors, packed into a stupidly large 650-square-millimeter die built on IBM’s new 22nm SOI process, the 12-core (96-thread) Power8 CPU is one of the largest and probably the most powerful CPU ever built. In a separate move, IBM is opening up the entire Power8 architecture and technical documentation through the OpenPower Foundation, allowing third parties to make Power-based chips (much like ARM’s licensing model), and to allow for the creation of specialized coprocessors (GPUs, FPGAs, etc.) that link directly into the CPU’s memory space using IBM’s new CAPI interface. You will not be surprised to hear that Nvidia, Samsung, and Google — three huge players among hundreds more who are beholden to Intel’s server monopoly — are core members of the OpenPower Foundation. The Power8 CPU and the OpenPower Foundation are the cornerstones of a very big, well-orchestrated plan to finally put an end to x86′s reign, and place a fairer, more powerful architecture at the head of the server table.

      First, we should talk about the new Power8 chip. There are 12 CPU cores, each with 512KB of L2 SRAM and 8MB of L3 EDRAM, for a total of 6MB L2 and 96MB L3 cache respectively. There is then a further 230GB/sec of bandwidth to 1TB of DRAM. Whereas each Intel Xeon core is capable of two-way simultaneous threading, and Power7+ cores can do four threads, Power8 ups the ante to eight simlutaneous threads (SMT). As you’d expect, other parts of the chip have been similarly expanded to cater for the Power8′s massive parallelism: There are eight decoders (up from 6), six dispatches per clock cycle, a doubling of load units (4), the data cache can now process four 128-bit transactions per cycle, and the bus width between the L2 and data cache is now 512 bits. Take a look at the block diagram below and be awed by its massive parallelism and throughput.

      IBM Power8 microarchitecture block diagram

      IBM Power8 microarchitecture block diagram [Image credit: The Linley Group]

      We expect the Power8 will eventually be capable of clock speeds around 4.5GHz, with a TDP in the region of 250 watts. At this speed, the Power8 CPU will be around 60% faster than the Power7+ in single-threaded applications, and more than two times faster in multithreaded tasks. In certain cases, IBM says the Power8 is capable of analyzing Big Data workloads between 50 and 1,000 times faster than comparable x86 systems (the same amount of RAM, the same number of cores).

      Compared to its competitors (Power 7+, the Oracle Sparc T5, the Intel Xeon), the Power8 is anywhere between two and three times more processing power per socket. This is mostly due to the massive thread count (96 vs. 30 for the latest 15-core E7-8890 v2 Xeon), and utterly insane memory bandwidth (230GB/sec vs. 85GB/sec). In terms of performance per watt, though, the Xeon (~150W TDP) is probably just ahead of the Power8 — but in general, when you’re talking servers, power consumption generally plays second fiddle to performance density (how many gigaflops you can squeeze out of a single server).

      IBM Power8 CPU die shot, labeled

      IBM Power8 CPU die, labeled

      Beyond raw SPECint and SPECfp performance, Power8 also introduces CAPI (Coherence Attach Processor Interface). CAPI is a direct link into the CPU, allowing peripherals and coprocessors to communicate directly with the CPU, bypassing (substantial) operating system and driver overheads. CAPI is similar to Intel’s QPI, but where QPI is closed and proprietary, IBM is opening up CAPI to third parties. IBM’s Power Systems CTO, Satya Sharma, told me in an interview that in the case of flash memory attached via CAPI the overhead is reduced by a factor of 20. More importantly, though, CAPI can be used to attach coprocessors — GPUs, FPGAs — directly to the Power8 CPU for some truly insane workload-specific performance boosts. It is due to these CAPI-attached coprocessors that a Power8 system can be 1,000 times faster than a comparable x86 system.

       

      The OpenPower Foundation

      While the Power8 chip is veritably beastly, it will take a lot more than a fancy piece of hardware to dislodge Intel x86 as the undisputed king of servers (Intel chips currently power somewhere in the region of 95% of all servers.) What IBM needs is a full top-to-bottom Power architecture stack, from first-party and third-party hardware, through to a broad, healthy ISV (independent software vendor) ecosystem. This is where the OpenPower Foundation comes in.

      Basically, IBM is making the Power8 architecture and detailed technical documentation open to members of the Foundation. Currently, the foundation consists of Altera, Google, Nvidia, Micron, Samsung, Tyan, ZTE, and others. Each of these members will use the Power documentation in different ways. Altera is developing FPGAs that connect directly into the Power8 chip via CAPI, to provide stupendous speed-ups for specific tasks. Tyan, with help from Google, will create third-party motherboards that are compatible with the Power8 chip, with the goal of producing cheap, Power8-based machines for internet-scale server farms. Nvidia, like Altera, will develop a Tesla-like GPU coprocessor that connects directly to the CPU via CAPI. Suzhou will license the Power architecture to make its own Power8-compatible chips for China’s domestic server market.

      Taking down Intel

      IBM's Power8 chip, backside. It's huge.

      IBM’s giant Power8 chip, being held in a normal-sized hand.

      The hope is that, by cultivating a broad hardware and software ecosystem, Power will be able to challenge Intel in the server space. IBM wants to be the ARM of servers, basically: In much the same way that ARM’s open architecture and licensing model allowed it to squash Intel in the mobile and embedded spaces, IBM wants to do the same thing in servers.

      Usually I would say that it’s a fool’s errand to challenge Intel, but if anyone can do it, it’s IBM. There is a lot of antipathy towards Intel and the strategies it has used to dismantle everyone and everything that has threatened to disrupt its dominion over the computing industry. Server vendors (IBM, HP, Dell) and internet-scale service providers (Google, Facebook) use x86 chips, but only because Intel has ensured that there’s no other viable option. I don’t think there’s a single company that doesn’t want to get out from underneath the choking heft of Intel x86 — and now, at long last, IBM might be offering a way out. If the surge in mobile computing has taught us anything it’s that Intel isn’t unbeatable — that there’s a chink in its armor that IBM and the rest of the OpenPower Foundation think it can exploit. “We are entering some new spaces,” Sharma told me. “It’s a transformational event for Power. It’s going to take Power to new spaces we haven’t gone before.”

      New Power8 servers, being tended to by a couple of IBMers

      New Power8 servers, being tended to by a couple of IBMers

      IBM also announced today that Canonical’s Ubuntu Server will be available for all Power8-based systems, and that it will continue to invest in Linux (IBM/Power is historically Unix-focused, not Linux). “Now is the time to expand into the Linux space,” Sharma said as our interview was wrapping up. “Ubuntu is now one of the primary targets for Power.”

      The first Power8 servers will be available from June 10, with a range of 1- and 2-socket 2U and 4U models. The Power S812L and Power S822L (both 2U) will exclusively run Linux. The flagship of the Power8 line is the Power S824, a 4U design with two CPU sockets, maxing out at 24 cores (192 threads) and 1TB of RAM. The low-end Linux-powered S812L server starts at $8000. (IBM wouldn’t tell us the exact pricing of a standalone Power8 CPU, but it’s probably in the region of $5,000.)

      Tuesday, April 8, 2014

      Change Your Passwords: A Massive Bug Has Put Your Details at Risk

       

      478186613

      The little lock icon (HTTPS) signaling that we were on a secure website and that all our passwords, personal emails, and credit card information was safe, was making that private information accessible hackers.KTSDESIGN—Getty Images

      Internet users are advised to be on the alert as security experts race to assess the damage done by Heartbleed — a newly discovered bug in technology that runs encryption for two-thirds of the Internet

      A newly discovered bug in software supposed to provide extra protection for thousands of the world’s most popular websites has exposed highly sensitive information such as credit card numbers, usernames, and passwords, security researchers said.

      The discovery of the bug, known as Heartbleed, has caused several websites to advise their users to change their passwords.

      “This might be a good day to call in sick and take some time to change your passwords everywhere — especially your high-security services like email, file storage, and banking, which may have been compromised by this bug,” Tumblr wrote in a note to its many users.

      “The little lock icon (HTTPS) we all trusted to keep our passwords, personal emails, and credit cards safe, was actually making all that private information accessible to anyone who knew about the exploit.”

      Yahoo, the owner of Tumblr, confirms that its users’ passwords have been compromised.

      The bug was discovered late last week in the OpenSSL technology that runs encryption for two-thirds of the Internet. The researchers who discovered it said that most Internet users “are likely to be affected either directly or indirectly.”

      It was found simultaneously by a Google security researcher and a small security firm named Codenomicon and disclosed Monday night.

      Experts are now scrambling to asses the extent of the security breach, because the bug remained undiscovered for two years. Hackers may have exploited it without leaving footprints.

      “We have tested some of our own services from attacker’s perspective. We attacked ourselves from outside, without leaving a trace,” Codenomicon wrote on their newly created website about the bug.

      According to several security experts, it is one of the most serious security flaws uncovered in many years.

      “Heartbleed is like finding a faulty car part used in nearly every make and model, but you can’t recall the Internet and all the data you put out on it,” Jonathan Sander, vice president of research and technology for Stealthbits Technologies, a cybersecurity firm, told the Los Angeles Times.

      The U.S. government’s Department of Homeland Security has advised all businesses using the vulnerable versions of the software to review their servers.

       

       

       

      Friday, August 23, 2013

      Exclusive: UK’s secret Mid-East internet surveillance base is revealed in Edward Snowden leaks

      Data-gathering operation is part of a £1bn web project still being assembled by GCHQ

      Duncan Campbell, Oliver Wright, James Cusick, Kim Sengupta

      Friday 23 August 2013

       

      The surveillance station in the Middle East intercepts and processes vast quantities of emails, telephone calls and web traffic

       

      Britain runs a secret internet-monitoring station in the Middle East to intercept and process vast quantities of emails, telephone calls and web traffic on behalf of Western intelligence agencies, The Independent has learnt.

      The station is able to tap into and extract data from the underwater fibre-optic cables passing through the region.

      The information is then processed for intelligence and passed to GCHQ in Cheltenham and shared with the National Security Agency (NSA) in the United States. The Government claims the station is a key element in the West’s “war on terror” and provides a vital “early warning” system for potential attacks around the world.

      The Independent is not revealing the precise location of the station but information on its activities was contained in the leaked documents obtained from the NSA by Edward Snowden. The Guardian newspaper’s reporting on these documents in recent months has sparked a dispute with the Government, with GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives containing the data.

      The Middle East installation is regarded as particularly valuable by the British and Americans because it can access submarine cables passing through the region. All of the messages and data passed back and forth on the cables is copied into giant computer storage “buffers” and then sifted for data of special interest.

      Information about the project was contained in 50,000 GCHQ documents that Mr Snowden downloaded during 2012. Many of them came from an internal Wikipedia-style information site called GC-Wiki. Unlike the public Wikipedia, GCHQ’s wiki was generally classified Top Secret or above.

      The disclosure comes as the Metropolitan Police announced it was launching a terrorism investigation into material found on the computer of David Miranda, the Brazilian partner of The Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald – who is at the centre of the Snowden controversy.

      Edward Snowden (AFP/Getty)Edward Snowden (AFP/Getty)

      Scotland Yard said material examined so far from the computer of Mr Miranda was “highly sensitive”, the disclosure of which “could put lives at risk”.

      The Independent understands that The Guardian agreed to the Government’s request not to publish any material contained in the Snowden documents that could damage national security.

      As well as destroying a computer containing one copy of the Snowden files, the paper’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, agreed to restrict the newspaper’s reporting of the documents.

      The Government also demanded that the paper not publish details of how UK telecoms firms, including BT and Vodafone, were secretly collaborating with GCHQ to intercept the vast majority of all internet traffic entering the country. The paper had details of the highly controversial and secret programme for over a month. But it only published information on the scheme – which involved paying the companies to tap into fibre-optic cables entering Britain – after the allegations appeared in the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung. A Guardian spokeswoman refused to comment on any deal with the Government.

      A senior Whitehall source said: “We agreed with The Guardian that our discussions with them would remain confidential”.

      But there are fears in Government that Mr Greenwald – who still has access to the files – could attempt to release damaging information.

      He said after the arrest of Mr Miranda: “I will be far more aggressive in my reporting from now. I am going to publish many more documents. I have many more documents on England’s spy system. I think they will be sorry for what they did.”

      David Miranda, left, with Glenn Greenwald (AP)David Miranda, left, with Glenn Greenwald (AP)

      One of the areas of concern in Whitehall is that details of the Middle East spying base which could identify its location could enter the public domain.

      The data-gathering operation is part of a £1bn internet project still being assembled by GCHQ. It is part of the surveillance and monitoring system, code-named “Tempora”, whose wider aim is the global interception of digital communications, such as emails and text messages.

      Across three sites, communications – including telephone calls – are tracked both by satellite dishes and by tapping into underwater fibre-optic cables.

      Access to Middle East traffic has become critical to both US and UK intelligence agencies post-9/11. The Maryland headquarters of the NSA and the Defence Department in Washington have pushed for greater co-operation and technology sharing between US and UK intelligence agencies.

      The Middle East station was set up under a warrant signed by the then Foreign Secretary David Miliband, authorising GCHQ to monitor and store for analysis data passing through the network of fibre-optic cables that link up the internet around the world

      The certificate authorised GCHQ to collect information about the “political intentions of foreign powers”, terrorism, proliferation, mercenaries and private military companies, and serious financial fraud.

      However, the certificates are reissued every six months and can be changed by ministers at will. GCHQ officials are then free to target anyone who is overseas or communicating from overseas without further checks or controls if they think they fall within the terms of a current certificate.

      The precise budget for this expensive covert technology is regarded as sensitive by the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office.

      However, the scale of Middle East operation, and GCHQ’s increasing use of sub-sea technology to intercept communications along high-capacity cables, suggest a substantial investment.

      Intelligence sources have denied the aim is a blanket gathering of all communications, insisting the operation is targeted at security, terror and organised crime.

      Monday, December 17, 2012

      Computers that will see, hear, smell: Next, world domination?

       

      By Deborah Netburn

      December 17, 2012, 3:15 p.m.

      IBM's 5 in 5 -- a list of five innovations that could change the world in five years -- focuses on how computers are developing the ability to taste, touch, hear, see and listen just like humans do, except way better.

      It is kind of exciting and kind of terrifying, but mostly just really cool.

      For example, Hendrik Hamann, a research manager of physical systems for IBM, describes a smartphone that could use a computerized nose to "smell" if we are sick. Forget the thermometer and the doctor's visit -- we will simply breathe into our cellphones to find out if we have the flu.

      Robyn Schwartz describes how smartphones of the future might use vibrations to allow us to virtually "touch" a piece of material and feel its texture. This technology is already available for some video games, but she imagines a world in which online shoppers don't just see and read about an item of clothing, they can stroke it as well.

      Dimitri Kanevsky, a research scientists at IBM, explains that sound sensors may be able to "hear" an earthquake coming, long before a human would sense it. And John Smith explains that a computer that knows how to make sense of what it can "see" would be able to diagnose a cancerous growth on your skin. 

      Finally, Lav Varshney describes a computer program that can learn what pleases your taste buds on a molecular level, and can then design healthy recipes that taste delicious to you, based on that information. 

      So far, so cool, right? But what made me feel a little scared was this paragraph in an essay by IBM's chief innovation officer, Bernard Meyerson, about this year's 5 in 5.

      He writes:

      "In the coming years, computers will become even more adept at dealing with complexity. Rather than depending on humans to write software programs that tell them what to do, they will program themselves so they can adapt to changing realities and expectations. They’ll learn by interacting with data in all of its forms -- numbers, text, video, etc. And, increasingly, they’ll be designed so they think more like the humans."

      Later in the essay he explains that IBM is not interested in replacing human thinking with machine thinking. He actually says it twice. Instead he imagines a future where humans and machines work together to make the world a better place. 

      I hope that prediction, at least, is correct.

      Friday, November 16, 2012

      Anonymous attacks Israeli websites in response to Gaza attacks

       

      Anonymous says it has launched attacks on Israeli websites in response to attacks and threats by the IDF to cut Gaza's telecom links. Reports say the attacks brought down some Israeli sites temporarily, and defaced others with pro-Palestinian messages.

      According to The Huffington Post, early on Thursday morning, Anonymous said it had launched "OpIsrael" campaign. The group explained that by issuing threats to cut Gaza telecommunications links, Israel had "crossed a line in the sand." The hacktivist group, said: "We are ANONYMOUS and NO ONE shuts down the Internet on our watch."

      A statement by the group, said: "To the people of Gaza and the 'Occupied Territories,' know that Anonymous stands with you in this fight. We will do everything in our power to hinder the evil forces of the IDF arrayed against you. We will use all our resources to make certain you stay connected to the Internet and remain able to transmit your experiences to the world."

      Anonymous later posted a message saying it had taken down Israeli's "top security and surveillance website," a claim Forbes described as "hyperbolic."

      According to Forbes, the statement included a photo of what the group claimed were burning buildings in Gaza with a message that said: "We Anonymous will not sit back and watch a cowardly Zionist State demolish innocent people’s lives.”

      Forbes reports that another message attributed to Pakistani Anonymous hackers, said, “The people of Pakistan are always supporting the brave people of Gaza, we love you!”

      The Huffington Post reports Anonymous made a call to its followers on Twitter to bring down websites that belong to the Israeli government and its military.

      Wednesday, November 14, 2012

      HP unveils PowerCARD payment management software

      06 November 2012  |   Source: HP

      image        http://ellipticalmedia.com/images/AllianceONE_partner_black_000.png

      HP today announced that banks, retailers and telecom operators can now boost the cost-effectiveness of their card operations with PowerCARD payment management software.

      With this agreement, HP now offers customers a card payment solution across Europe, Middle East and Africa. This solution complements HP's existing card services utilities which are already available to clients in the Americas and in the Asia-Pacific regions.

      HPS, an HP AllianceONE partner, is a leading payment software company who currently provides state-of-the-art card, ATM and POS management systems for over 320 financial institutions in 70 countries. As part of the HP AllianceONE program, HP and HPS will jointly offer outsourced payments solutions based on PowerCARD software in the Europe, Middle East and African (EMEA) region. HP offers a broad solution set for both in-house processing and outsourced services and works with clients globally to define the appropriate strategic fit for their cards and payments business.

      "Organisations now have the opportunity to improve their card solutions by replacing legacy hardware and software with something much more flexible and cost-effective," says Ed Adshead-Grant, EMEA card and payments practice head, HP. "HP is viewed by many as the OEM of the payment industry, and our tests confirm PowerCARD as a robust, scalable complement to HP's own Payments Solutions for the EMEA region. Organisations of all sizes can now boost the cost-effectiveness and competitive positioning of their card issuing, switching and acquiring solutions."

      In a series of rigorous tests conducted over five weeks on the latest HP Superdome2 servers, the HP European Performance Centre scaled PowerCARD payment software up to 100 million accounts with processing cycles of 3,000 transactions per second for up to 5,000 concurrent users. Performing online data and batch processing with economical HP-UX server infrastructures ensures that resource is readily available, and enables changes to products and services to be delivered in a fraction of the time taken by a mainframe solution.

      "The HP tests clearly demonstrate that the reliability, availability and scalability required for 24x7 card processing services can be achieved by running PowerCARD software on HP-UX servers," says Abdeslam Alaoui, Managing Director, HPS. "The collaboration between HPS and HP in this project has been excellent. As an AllianceOne Partner, HPS will continue working with HP to deliver modernisation programs in electronic payment for any financial institution that is looking to win market share or escape the technology legacy trap."

      HP AllianceONE is a comprehensive partner program for technology companies focused on HP's Converged Infrastructure strategy of providing a shared services model to deliver secure, best-in-class applications. 

      Monday, October 22, 2012

      Qatar's Qtel eyeing stake in Maroc Telecom-paper

       

      PARIS Oct 22 (Reuters) - Qatar Telecom, the telecoms group controlled by Qatar, has expressed interest in Vivendi's controlling stake in Maroc Telecom, Morocco's largest telecoms operator, as part of the French media group's strategic review, the Financial Times reported on Monday.

      QTel is preparing itself to make a bid for a 53 percent stake in Maroc Telecom but it faces competition from Etisalat, the United Arab Emirates-based telecoms company, the paper said, citing two sources close to the matter.

      Earlier this month, Vivendi asked Credit Agricole and Lazard to gauge appetite the 53 percent stake in Maroc Telecom without giving them a formal mandate for the sale, sources familiar with the matter had told Reuters.

      Vivendi declined to comment.

      Wednesday, October 17, 2012

      Google Throws Open Doors to Its Top-Secret Data Center

       

       

      A server room in Council Bluffs, Iowa.

      Photo: Google/Connie Zhou

      If you’re looking for the beating heart of the digital age — a physical location where the scope, grandeur, and geekiness of the kingdom of bits become manifest—you could do a lot worse than Lenoir, North Carolina. This rural city of 18,000 was once rife with furniture factories. Now it’s the home of a Google data center.

      Engineering prowess famously catapulted the 14-year-old search giant into its place as one of the world’s most successful, influential, and frighteningly powerful companies. Its constantly refined search algorithm changed the way we all access and even think about information. Its equally complex ad-auction platform is a perpetual money-minting machine. But other, less well-known engineering and strategic breakthroughs are arguably just as crucial to Google’s success: its ability to build, organize, and operate a huge network of servers and fiber-optic cables with an efficiency and speed that rocks physics on its heels. Google has spread its infrastructure across a global archipelago of massive buildings—a dozen or so information palaces in locales as diverse as Council Bluffs, Iowa; St. Ghislain, Belgium; and soon Hong Kong and Singapore—where an unspecified but huge number of machines process and deliver the continuing chronicle of human experience.

      This is what makes Google Google: its physical network, its thousands of fiber miles, and those many thousands of servers that, in aggregate, add up to the mother of all clouds. This multibillion-dollar infrastructure allows the company to index 20 billion web pages a day. To handle more than 3 billion daily search queries. To conduct millions of ad auctions in real time. To offer free email storage to 425 million Gmail users. To zip millions of YouTube videos to users every day. To deliver search results before the user has finished typing the query. In the near future, when Google releases the wearable computing platform called Glass, this infrastructure will power its visual search results.

      The problem for would-be bards attempting to sing of these data centers has been that, because Google sees its network as the ultimate competitive advantage, only critical employees have been permitted even a peek inside, a prohibition that has most certainly included bards. Until now.

      A central cooling plant in Google’s Douglas County, Georgia, data center.
      Photo: Google/Connie Zhou

      Here I am, in a huge white building in Lenoir, standing near a reinforced door with a party of Googlers, ready to become that rarest of species: an outsider who has been inside one of the company’s data centers and seen the legendary server floor, referred to simply as “the floor.” My visit is the latest evidence that Google is relaxing its black-box policy. My hosts include Joe Kava, who’s in charge of building and maintaining Google’s data centers, and his colleague Vitaly Gudanets, who populates the facilities with computers and makes sure they run smoothly.

      A sign outside the floor dictates that no one can enter without hearing protection, either salmon-colored earplugs that dispensers spit out like trail mix or panda-bear earmuffs like the ones worn by airline ground crews. (The noise is a high-pitched thrum from fans that control airflow.) We grab the plugs. Kava holds his hand up to a security scanner and opens the heavy door. Then we slip into a thunderdome of data …

      Urs Hölzle had never stepped into a data center before he was hired by Sergey Brin and Larry Page. A hirsute, soft-spoken Swiss, Hölzle was on leave as a computer science professor at UC Santa Barbara in February 1999 when his new employers took him to the Exodus server facility in Santa Clara. Exodus was a colocation site, or colo, where multiple companies rent floor space. Google’s “cage” sat next to servers from eBay and other blue-chip Internet companies. But the search company’s array was the most densely packed and chaotic. Brin and Page were looking to upgrade the system, which often took a full 3.5 seconds to deliver search results and tended to crash on Mondays. They brought Hözle on to help drive the effort.

      It wouldn’t be easy. Exodus was “a huge mess,” Hölzle later recalled. And the cramped hodgepodge would soon be strained even more. Google was not only processing millions of queries every week but also stepping up the frequency with which it indexed the web, gathering every bit of online information and putting it into a searchable format. AdWords—the service that invited advertisers to bid for placement alongside search results relevant to their wares—involved computation-heavy processes that were just as demanding as search. Page had also become obsessed with speed, with delivering search results so quickly that it gave the illusion of mind reading, a trick that required even more servers and connections. And the faster Google delivered results, the more popular it became, creating an even greater burden. Meanwhile, the company was adding other applications, including a mail service that would require instant access to many petabytes of storage. Worse yet, the tech downturn that left many data centers underpopulated in the late ’90s was ending, and Google’s future leasing deals would become much more costly.

      For Google to succeed, it would have to build and operate its own data centers—and figure out how to do it more cheaply and efficiently than anyone had before. The mission was codenamed Willpower. Its first built-from-scratch data center was in The Dalles, a city in Oregon near the Columbia River.

      Hözle and his team designed the $600 million facility in light of a radical insight: Server rooms did not have to be kept so cold. The machines throw off prodigious amounts of heat. Traditionally, data centers cool them off with giant computer room air conditioners, or CRACs, typically jammed under raised floors and cranked up to arctic levels. That requires massive amounts of energy; data centers consume up to 1.5 percent of all the electricity in the world.

      Data centers consume up to 1.5 percent of all the world’s electricity.

      Google realized that the so-called cold aisle in front of the machines could be kept at a relatively balmy 80 degrees or so—workers could wear shorts and T-shirts instead of the standard sweaters. And the “hot aisle,” a tightly enclosed space where the heat pours from the rear of the servers, could be allowed to hit around 120 degrees. That heat could be absorbed by coils filled with water, which would then be pumped out of the building and cooled before being circulated back inside. Add that to the long list of Google’s accomplishments: The company broke its CRAC habit.

      Google also figured out money-saving ways to cool that water. Many data centers relied on energy-gobbling chillers, but Google’s big data centers usually employ giant towers where the hot water trickles down through the equivalent of vast radiators, some of it evaporating and the remainder attaining room temperature or lower by the time it reaches the bottom. In its Belgium facility, Google uses recycled industrial canal water for the cooling; in Finland it uses seawater.

      The company’s analysis of electrical flow unearthed another source of waste: the bulky uninterrupted-power-supply systems that protected servers from power disruptions in most data centers. Not only did they leak electricity, they also required their own cooling systems. But because Google designed the racks on which it placed its machines, it could make space for backup batteries next to each server, doing away with the big UPS units altogether. According to Joe Kava, that scheme reduced electricity loss by about 15 percent.

      All of these innovations helped Google achieve unprecedented energy savings. The standard measurement of data center efficiency is called power usage effectiveness, or PUE. A perfect number is 1.0, meaning all the power drawn by the facility is put to use. Experts considered 2.0—indicating half the power is wasted—to be a reasonable number for a data center. Google was getting an unprecedented 1.2.

      For years Google didn’t share what it was up to. “Our core advantage really was a massive computer network, more massive than probably anyone else’s in the world,” says Jim Reese, who helped set up the company’s servers. “We realized that it might not be in our best interest to let our competitors know.”

      But stealth had its drawbacks. Google was on record as being an exemplar of green practices. In 2007 the company committed formally to carbon neutrality, meaning that every molecule of carbon produced by its activities—from operating its cooling units to running its diesel generators—had to be canceled by offsets. Maintaining secrecy about energy savings undercut that ideal: If competitors knew how much energy Google was saving, they’d try to match those results, and that could make a real environmental impact. Also, the stonewalling, particularly regarding The Dalles facility, was becoming almost comical. Google’s ownership had become a matter of public record, but the company still refused to acknowledge it.

      In 2009, at an event dubbed the Efficient Data Center Summit, Google announced its latest PUE results and hinted at some of its techniques. It marked a turning point for the industry, and now companies like Facebook and Yahoo report similar PUEs.

      Make no mistake, though: The green that motivates Google involves presidential portraiture. “Of course we love to save energy,” Hölzle says. “But take something like Gmail. We would lose a fair amount of money on Gmail if we did our data centers and servers the conventional way. Because of our efficiency, we can make the cost small enough that we can give it away for free.”

      Google’s breakthroughs extend well beyond energy. Indeed, while Google is still thought of as an Internet company, it has also grown into one of the world’s largest hardware manufacturers, thanks to the fact that it builds much of its own equipment. In 1999, Hözle bought parts for 2,000 stripped-down “breadboards” from “three guys who had an electronics shop.” By going homebrew and eliminating unneeded components, Google built a batch of servers for about $1,500 apiece, instead of the then-standard $5,000. Hölzle, Page, and a third engineer designed the rigs themselves. “It wasn’t really ‘designed,’” Hölzle says, gesturing with air quotes.

      More than a dozen generations of Google servers later, the company now takes a much more sophisticated approach. Google knows exactly what it needs inside its rigorously controlled data centers—speed, power, and good connections—and saves money by not buying unnecessary extras. (No graphics cards, for instance, since these machines never power a screen. And no enclosures, because the motherboards go straight into the racks.) The same principle applies to its networking equipment, some of which Google began building a few years ago.

      Outside the Council Bluffs data center, radiator-like cooling towers chill water from the server floor down to room temperature.
      Photo: Google/Connie Zhou

      So far, though, there’s one area where Google hasn’t ventured: designing its own chips. But the company’s VP of platforms, Bart Sano, implies that even that could change. “I’d never say never,” he says. “In fact, I get that question every year. From Larry.”

      Even if you reimagine the data center, the advantage won’t mean much if you can’t get all those bits out to customers speedily and reliably. And so Google has launched an attempt to wrap the world in fiber. In the early 2000s, taking advantage of the failure of some telecom operations, it began buying up abandoned fiber-optic networks, paying pennies on the dollar. Now, through acquisition, swaps, and actually laying down thousands of strands, the company has built a mighty empire of glass.

      But when you’ve got a property like YouTube, you’ve got to do even more. It would be slow and burdensome to have millions of people grabbing videos from Google’s few data centers. So Google installs its own server racks in various outposts of its network—mini data centers, sometimes connected directly to ISPs like Comcast or AT&T—and stuffs them with popular videos. That means that if you stream, say, a Carly Rae Jepsen video, you probably aren’t getting it from Lenoir or The Dalles but from some colo just a few miles from where you are.

      Over the years, Google has also built a software system that allows it to manage its countless servers as if they were one giant entity. Its in-house developers can act like puppet masters, dispatching thousands of computers to perform tasks as easily as running a single machine. In 2002 its scientists created Google File System, which smoothly distributes files across many machines. MapReduce, a Google system for writing cloud-based applications, was so successful that an open source version called Hadoop has become an industry standard. Google also created software to tackle a knotty issue facing all huge data operations: When tasks come pouring into the center, how do you determine instantly and most efficiently which machines can best afford to take on the work? Google has solved this “load-balancing” issue with an automated system called Borg.

      These innovations allow Google to fulfill an idea embodied in a 2009 paper written by Hözle and one of his top lieutenants, computer scientist Luiz Barroso: “The computing platform of interest no longer resembles a pizza box or a refrigerator but a warehouse full of computers … We must treat the data center itself as one massive warehouse-scale computer.”

      This is tremendously empowering for the people who write Google code. Just as your computer is a single device that runs different programs simultaneously—and you don’t have to worry about which part is running which application—Google engineers can treat seas of servers like a single unit. They just write their production code, and the system distributes it across a server floor they will likely never be authorized to visit. “If you’re an average engineer here, you can be completely oblivious,” Hözle says. “You can order x petabytes of storage or whatever, and you have no idea what actually happens.”

      But of course, none of this infrastructure is any good if it isn’t reliable. Google has innovated its own answer for that problem as well—one that involves a surprising ingredient for a company built on algorithms and automation: people.

      At 3 am on a chilly winter morning, a small cadre of engineers begin to attack Google. First they take down the internal corporate network that serves the company’s Mountain View, California, campus. Later the team attempts to disrupt various Google data centers by causing leaks in the water pipes and staging protests outside the gates—in hopes of distracting attention from intruders who try to steal data-packed disks from the servers. They mess with various services, including the company’s ad network. They take a data center in the Netherlands offline. Then comes the coup de grâce—cutting most of Google’s fiber connection to Asia.

      Turns out this is an inside job. The attackers, working from a conference room on the fringes of the campus, are actually Googlers, part of the company’s Site Reliability Engineering team, the people with ultimate responsibility for keeping Google and its services running. SREs are not merely troubleshooters but engineers who are also in charge of getting production code onto the “bare metal” of the servers; many are embedded in product groups for services like Gmail or search. Upon becoming an SRE, members of this geek SEAL team are presented with leather jackets bearing a military-style insignia patch. Every year, the SREs run this simulated war—called DiRT (disaster recovery testing)—on Google’s infrastructure. The attack may be fake, but it’s almost indistinguishable from reality: Incident managers must go through response procedures as if they were really happening. In some cases, actual functioning services are messed with. If the teams in charge can’t figure out fixes and patches to keep things running, the attacks must be aborted so real users won’t be affected. In classic Google fashion, the DiRT team always adds a goofy element to its dead-serious test—a loony narrative written by a member of the attack team. This year it involves a Twin Peaks-style supernatural phenomenon that supposedly caused the disturbances. Previous DiRTs were attributed to zombies or aliens.

      Some halls in Google’s Hamina, Finland, data center remain vacant—for now.
      Photo: Google/Connie Zhou

      As the first attack begins, Kripa Krishnan, an upbeat engineer who heads the annual exercise, explains the rules to about 20 SREs in a conference room already littered with junk food. “Do not attempt to fix anything,” she says. “As far as the people on the job are concerned, we do not exist. If we’re really lucky, we won’t break anything.” Then she pulls the plug—for real—on the campus network. The team monitors the phone lines and IRC channels to see when the Google incident managers on call around the world notice that something is wrong. It takes only five minutes for someone in Europe to discover the problem, and he immediately begins contacting others.

      “My role is to come up with big tests that really expose weaknesses,” Krishnan says. “Over the years, we’ve also become braver in how much we’re willing to disrupt in order to make sure everything works.” How did Google do this time? Pretty well. Despite the outages in the corporate network, executive chair Eric Schmidt was able to run a scheduled global all-hands meeting. The imaginary demonstrators were placated by imaginary pizza. Even shutting down three-fourths of Google’s Asia traffic capacity didn’t shut out the continent, thanks to extensive caching. “This is the best DiRT ever!” Krishnan exclaimed at one point.

      The SRE program began when Hözle charged an engineer named Ben Treynor with making Google’s network fail-safe. This was especially tricky for a massive company like Google that is constantly tweaking its systems and services—after all, the easiest way to stabilize it would be to freeze all change. Treynor ended up rethinking the very concept of reliability. Instead of trying to build a system that never failed, he gave each service a budget—an amount of downtime it was permitted to have. Then he made sure that Google’s engineers used that time productively. “Let’s say we wanted Google+ to run 99.95 percent of the time,” Hözle says. “We want to make sure we don’t get that downtime for stupid reasons, like we weren’t paying attention. We want that downtime because we push something new.”

      Nevertheless, accidents do happen—as Sabrina Farmer learned on the morning of April 17, 2012. Farmer, who had been the lead SRE on the Gmail team for a little over a year, was attending a routine design review session. Suddenly an engineer burst into the room, blurting out, “Something big is happening!” Indeed: For 1.4 percent of users (a large number of people), Gmail was down. Soon reports of the outage were all over Twitter and tech sites. They were even bleeding into mainstream news.

      The conference room transformed into a war room. Collaborating with a peer group in Zurich, Farmer launched a forensic investigation. A breakthrough came when one of her Gmail SREs sheepishly admitted, “I pushed a change on Friday that might have affected this.” Those responsible for vetting the change hadn’t been meticulous, and when some Gmail users tried to access their mail, various replicas of their data across the system were no longer in sync. To keep the data safe, the system froze them out.

      The diagnosis had taken 20 minutes, designing the fix 25 minutes more—pretty good. But the event went down as a Google blunder. “It’s pretty painful when SREs trigger a response,” Farmer says. “But I’m happy no one lost data.” Nonetheless, she’ll be happier if her future crises are limited to DiRT-borne zombie attacks.

      One scenario that dirt never envisioned was the presence of a reporter on a server floor. But here I am in Lenoir, earplugs in place, with Joe Kava motioning me inside.

      We have passed through the heavy gate outside the facility, with remote-control barriers evoking the Korean DMZ. We have walked through the business offices, decked out in Nascar regalia. (Every Google data center has a decorative theme.) We have toured the control room, where LCD dashboards monitor every conceivable metric. Later we will climb up to catwalks to examine the giant cooling towers and backup electric generators, which look like Beatle-esque submarines, only green. We will don hard hats and tour the construction site of a second data center just up the hill. And we will stare at a rugged chunk of land that one day will hold a third mammoth computational facility.

      But now we enter the floor. Big doesn’t begin to describe it. Row after row of server racks seem to stretch to eternity. Joe Montana in his prime could not throw a football the length of it.

      During my interviews with Googlers, the idea of hot aisles and cold aisles has been an abstraction, but on the floor everything becomes clear. The cold aisle refers to the general room temperature—which Kava confirms is 77 degrees. The hot aisle is the narrow space between the backsides of two rows of servers, tightly enclosed by sheet metal on the ends. A nest of copper coils absorbs the heat. Above are huge fans, which sound like jet engines jacked through Marshall amps.

      The huge fans sound like jet engines jacked through Marshall amps.

      We walk between the server rows. All the cables and plugs are in front, so no one has to crack open the sheet metal and venture into the hot aisle, thereby becoming barbecue meat. (When someone does have to head back there, the servers are shut down.) Every server has a sticker with a code that identifies its exact address, useful if something goes wrong. The servers have thick black batteries alongside. Everything is uniform and in place—nothing like the spaghetti tangles of Google’s long-ago Exodus era.

      Blue lights twinkle, indicating … what? A web search? Someone’s Gmail message? A Glass calendar event floating in front of Sergey’s eyeball? It could be anything.

      Every so often a worker appears—a long-haired dude in shorts propelling himself by scooter, or a woman in a T-shirt who’s pushing a cart with a laptop on top and dispensing repair parts to servers like a psychiatric nurse handing out meds. (In fact, the area on the floor that holds the replacement gear is called the pharmacy.)

      How many servers does Google employ? It’s a question that has dogged observers since the company built its first data center. It has long stuck to “hundreds of thousands.” (There are 49,923 operating in the Lenoir facility on the day of my visit.) I will later come across a clue when I get a peek inside Google’s data center R&D facility in Mountain View. In a secure area, there’s a row of motherboards fixed to the wall, an honor roll of generations of Google’s homebrewed servers. One sits atop a tiny embossed plaque that reads july 9, 2008. google’s millionth server. But executives explain that this is a cumulative number, not necessarily an indication that Google has a million servers in operation at once.

      Wandering the cold aisles of Lenoir, I realize that the magic number, if it is even obtainable, is basically meaningless. Today’s machines, with multicore processors and other advances, have many times the power and utility of earlier versions. A single Google server circa 2012 may be the equivalent of 20 servers from a previous generation. In any case, Google thinks in terms of clusters—huge numbers of machines that act together to provide a service or run an application. “An individual server means nothing,” Hözle says. “We track computer power as an abstract metric.” It’s the realization of a concept Hözle and Barroso spelled out three years ago: the data center as a computer.

      As we leave the floor, I feel almost levitated by my peek inside Google’s inner sanctum. But a few weeks later, back at the Googleplex in Mountain View, I realize that my epiphanies have limited shelf life. Google’s intention is to render the data center I visited obsolete. “Once our people get used to our 2013 buildings and clusters,” Hözle says, “they’re going to complain about the current ones.”

      Asked in what areas one might expect change, Hözle mentions data center and cluster design, speed of deployment, and flexibility. Then he stops short. “This is one thing I can’t talk about,” he says, a smile cracking his bearded visage, “because we’ve spent our own blood, sweat, and tears. I want others to spend their own blood, sweat, and tears making the same discoveries.” Google may be dedicated to providing access to all the world’s data, but some information it’s still keeping to itself.

       

      Google Throws Open Doors to Its Top-Secret Data Center

      Amazing IT : Explore a Google data center with Street View

       

      IT are Aamazing

      Mastercard under fire for tracking customer credit card purchases to sell to advertisers

       

      • Credit card firm refuses to reveal 'proprietary' technique that allows it to anonymously track customers and target them with online ads

      • Privacy campaigners accuse firm of 'treating details of our personal behaviour like their own property'
      • System tracks information about the date, time, amount and merchant
      • Credit card firm says system is only operational in US 

       

      Mastercard has come under fire for tracking its US customer's purchases and selling the data to advertisers.

      The credit card company’s MasterCard Advisors Media Solutions Group boasts it can target the most affluent customers and tell advertisers who is most likely to buy their products.

      The firm does this by tracking a consumer's credit card details - although it says their identity remains secret.

      Scroll down for video

      Mastercard has admitted it tracks its customers transaction so that it can sell data to advertisers about their spending habits - but claims the system never reveals their personal details.

      Mastercard has admitted it tracks its customers transaction so that it can sell data to advertisers about their spending habits - but claims the system never reveals their personal details.

      However, it refuses to reveal how the system works, and a privacy group today accused the firm of 'treating details of our personal behaviour like their own property.'

      'The foundation of all of our solutions is transaction data,' Susan Grossman, senior vice president at MasterCard Advisors Media Solutions Group said in a presentation seen by MailOnline.

      When a consumer swipes a credit card in a store, she says MasterCard’s data-packaging division receives information about the date, time, amount and merchant.

      The firm tracks billions of anonymous transactions from customers, which it then aggregates into small segments which comprise of similar transactions.

      More...

      This allows the firm to sell details of these very specific 'segments' of data to advertisers.

      'What if you could know the biggest week for spend and then reach those shoppers who are twice as likely to spend leading up to that week and then create campaigns?', the firm asks in an online presentation .

      Called 'Leveraging MasterCard Data Insights to Reach Holiday Shoppers', the presentation is designed to attract advertisers.

      However, the firm refuses to reveal how offline MasterCard purchases would follow you online to make you a target for specific ads.

      In the presentation, Grossman called MasterCard’s methods 'proprietary.'

      The online presentation which reveals Mastercard's tracking of its customer's purchases to sell to advertisers.

      The online presentation which reveals Mastercard's tracking of its customer's purchases to sell to advertisers.

      But she says none of the data collected or sold includes personally identifiable information such as names or addresses.

      MasterCard, which processes 34 billion transactions a year in 210 countries and territories, said it started the initiative in February.

      Ms Grossman said protecting privacy was 'core' to MasterCard’s values.

      'We recognise that consumers entrust us with their information so it is of the utmost importance that we ensure no individual or personally identifiable information is used in our media solutions product,' she said.

      Ms Grossman said the company’s main clients for much of their history had been their issuing banks and for them MasterCard did a significant amount of statistical modelling and predictive modelling and found that those propensity models were application to companies other than banks, such as media.

      Nick Pickles, director of privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch, said: 'If this data has value, then it should be up to Mastercard to ask customers for permission to use their information and offer consumers something in return.

      'Instead they are treating details of our personal behaviour like their own property to be bundled up and sold on without any regard to what customers might want.

      The slides reveal that Mastercard collects transaction from its customer to use to target advertisments at them

      The slides reveal that Mastercard collects transaction from its customer to use to target advertisments at them

      'Have Mastercard made any effort to seek customer’s consent for processing their shopping habits and selling it on? How do consumers opt out? It’s exactly this kind of behaviour that leads consumers to question whether companies are more interested in their own profit than respecting people’s privacy.'

      Mastercard today confirmed the scheme's existence.

      A spokesman for Mastercard said: 'MasterCard is committed to protecting individual privacy.

      'No personally identifiable information is collected, disclosed or used in the analysis and development of any products or services.

      'In creating MasterCard Audiences, MasterCard uses aggregated and anonymized transaction data.

      'MasterCard’s transaction data does not contain the cardholder’s name or any other personal data.

      'The service leverages anonymized and aggregated transaction data to provide clients with insight into trends around US consumer buying behavior based on custom audience segments or specified categories including Restaurant, Hotel, Travel, Retail, Financial Services, Automotive, Entertainment, and Telco/Cable.'

      The firm also said the scheme was only running in the US.

      In the presentation the firm boasts of having access to 1.8 billion payment cards for its data

      In the presentation the firm boasts of having access to 1.8 billion payment cards for its data

      VIDEO: MasterCard reveals the "anatomy of a transaction":

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2219069/Mastercard-tracking-purchases-sell-advertisers.html

      Mastercard under fire for tracking customer credit card purchases to sell to advertisers

      Clubic.com - Articles / Tests / Dossiers