Quoting property names in JavaScript

JavaScript is relatively lax when it comes to valid object syntax. Property names can be quoted or unquoted in most circumstances. These two examples are identical.


I’ve noticed recently that I’ve developed my own quoting style at some point that seems to be rather uncommon so I decided to finally share it and why I’ve come to use it. I’m sure I’m not the first, nor will I be the last to come up with this system but it’s probably worth a blogpost anyway.

A lot of the time in my job I find myself having to work with JavaScript objects derived from JSON (or JSON Schema). Functions consume them, or construct them, and output a modified version of them based on user input. These objects have very strict rules over what properties they can have, but certain property keys are user configurable (In JSON Schema, these are ‘additional properties’.

NB: By user input here I mean any input into your function. It could be user input, or it could be input from an external component that interfaces with your functions in some manner.

Consider the following example JSON Schema where quoted property names are never used.

The same example, but this time with every property name is quoted


Now tell me. At a glance is it obvious which property names are open to manipulation by the user, rather than being a schema-defined name from the schema (in this case JSON Schema)? At a glance, what is the type of the somethingElse property under filed?

Contrast that with the following example, where I quote fields as I would under my system.


To me it makes it much clearer which properties the user chose, and also makes it easier to visually navigate eg if this is in a test file and I need to update a particular fields type to reflect new behavior, because syntax highlighting now colors them differently.

This example happened to be an instance of JSON Schema, but I feel this technique works equally well for any object where the user can control the structure of the object, as opposed to just the content. Every object your code is working with will have some structure to it.

More generally I guess I’d phrase this as quoting significant property names, or ‘Significant Quoting’ as opposed to always quoting or never quoting.

Obviously there’s a couple of drawbacks in representing objects this way in test files. JavaScript quoting rules are somewhat complex, and so mandating a property name be quoted or not sometimes has to depend on the name itself rather than the source of the property name. The other drawback is that there is no linting rule I’m aware of to enforce this. Which, as an advocate of automated rule enforcement and correction, bugs me. A linting system to enforce this could probably be devised with enough investment and time defining typescript style rules or annotations for the objects you work with.

Despite those drawbacks though, I really do feel that in code and especially in test files, this quoting system can make it much easier and quicker to comprehend the structure and navigate down a complex object.

Questions on the Bethesda reselling drama

For context the drama I’m referring to is described over in this polygon article. It’s been updated a couple of times since original publication so you may not have read the most recent version.

A brief summary however is that a firm that’s been hired by Bethesda demanded that a third-party amazon seller take down their listing for a still-sealed game that they no longer wanted and had listed as being ‘new’. The reasoning given by the firm is that they are an unauthorised seller, and thus it comes without a [manufacturer] warranty (I assume this is because the warranty only applies when bought through an authorised retailer). This, they claim, creates a material difference which means that first-sale doctrine (remembering we’re talking about the US here) does not apply. Notably they are not, as far as we can tell, going after products listed as ‘used’. Presumably because if it’s listed as used that makes clear that any manufacturer warranty likely wouldn’t apply.

Now with the background set this raises some interesting (to me) questions.

Is new an accurate description of the product in this case?

Does it being listed as new imply that it comes with a manufacturer warranty?

Should a manufacturer warranty be able to be limited to just purchases through an authorised seller; bearing in mind in this case it’s unopened unused software and thus should be in factory-perfect condition.

Let’s imagine this wasn’t a marketplace order (which afaik is never the default shown seller, but instead a formal business who can be the default seller).

Would a consumer know it’s an unauthorised seller? As it was listed on amazon, amazon might default to showing this seller depending on their Algorithms, when a consumer searches for the game. The only indication would be they ‘sold by’ tagline.

What about if this merchant uses Fulfilled by Amazon, so the seller ships goods to an amazon warehouse and then when it sells it ships from an amazon warehouse (which means Prime delivery /shipping fees for the consumer)? This seems straightforward until you remember than Amazon will commingle inventory from different sellers, including their own.

(Slight segue: what this means is that if Amazon, Seller A and Seller B all sell Widget X; Amazon will put their own inventory and inventory shipped to them by Seller A and Seller B all in the same bins. When you buy Widget X ‘sold by Seller A Shipped by Amazon’; you might get the Widget X that Seller A shipped in to amazon, or one that Seller B shipped in, or even one Amazon themselves directly received. Sellers can opt-out of commingling like this – but it involves paying amazon more money)

In this commingled case someone may have bought a copy ‘sold by Amazon’ and that will be printed on their receipt, and presumably entitled to the manufacturer warranty with Amazon being an authorised seller… but they might actually receive a copy stocked into an amazon warehouse by an unauthorised seller (who, for instance, may have bought their copies in bulk in a sale, and then listed them once the sale ended at a small markup on the sale price below the current non-sale price). Does this matter? Does it even make sense when commingling is involved to have a concept of ‘authorised sellers’?

I ask these questions because the discussion around this seems to be getting caught up in the implications for selling used copies – which is, to me, a much less interesting discussion given that this case is specifically around something being sold as ‘new’.

On dismantling online identities

I’ve written before how I wanted to start killing my unified online identity.

And, just over a year since I posted that, it has begun.

The death knell has been struck for the previous lynch-pin – my Twitter. It was the easiest account of mine to find online (a work colleague found it with a 30 second Google search). It made easy to follow links to numerous other online identities of mine, as I cross posted. It was public.

Well, no more.

Yesterday I took the drastic step of just leaving that account. I’ve made a new Twitter. A protected Twitter, so that my tweets cannot be seen by all and sundry. I’ve added some of those that came first to mind as people who I trust with my new account. Hopefully this will enable me to censor myself less on there. There have been things I’ve wanted to retweet, things I’ve wanted to @ reply to, that I haven’t been able to because my tweets were public. And that was getting uncomfortable for me.


I’ll keep the old account lying around, I’ll use it mostly to tweet links to IRL things, e.g. if I get a new job or promotion; or tweet links to these posts. But my real Twitter is now only for my close friends. Those who have been let past my second level of barriers. It’s a shame. There are those I really do enjoy interacting with on Twitter – people from work, and those I am friends with, but I need to draw the line somewhere on the new account otherwise I will end up back in the same situation as before.

So, with my Twitter now mostly inactive, I’ve taken one of the biggest steps towards splitting up my online identities. Obviously, my ISP and such like will still be able to correlate (I’m not yet using Tor for all accounts – it seems particularly pointless using it for accounts where people know who I am in real life), and there will always be the possibility of my social graphs causing a link. But that kind of seepage is a lot harder for a generally interested person to find, than scrolling down my twitter history to find where I’ve linked to my other accounts.

In addition, as my Twitter was the source for most of my FB posts, that is also going to be going rather quiet. I mostly use FB for messages now anyway, so I guess not much has changed in that regard.

Now I just need to swap out my other accounts for new ones as well. That’s a lot easier when they don’t enforce real name policies. But that can wait until this new Twitter has settled down.

Speaking of which, it’s likely that there are people reading this who aren’t yet following my new Twitter, but could be. Contact me via private means if you’re interested (Twitter DM on my original account, FB message, Email etc). I do reserve the right to not share it though – as I said, I don’t want to start censoring myself on there like I have been before.

Dear Facebook, (On Real Names)

Sort your policies around ‘names’ and ‘usernames’ out. Please. Just please fix it. Here I’ll provide a source for everything I’m about to hurl at your stupid artificial petty little system that’s aimed entirely at trying to make our data seem more ‘accurate’ and ‘valuable’ and ‘easily analysable’.

So, here’s a list of 40 Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names.

I’ll wait here while you go and peruse it.

*twiddles thumbs*

Done? Excellent. Now, let me go and grab a few screenshots, and we’ll start looking at how your system falls foul of it, and is causing me unnecessary pain.

Firstly, the Name section of the ‘General Account Settings’ screen.


So, here we are. Firstly, let’s click on the little ‘Learn More’ link to find out exactly what you mean by ‘real name’  (I’m hoping you won’t be falling foul of falsehoods 3,4. That wouldn’t be a good start).

Names can’t include:

  • Symbols, numbers, unusual capitalisation, repeating characters or punctuation
  • Characters from multiple languages
  • Titles of any kind (ex: professional, religious, etc)
  • Words, phrases, or nicknames in place of a middle name
  • Offensive or suggestive content of any kind

Other things to keep in mind:

  • The name you use should be your real name as it would be listed on your credit card, student ID, etc.
  • Nicknames can be used as a first or middle name if they’re a variation of your real first or last name (like Bob instead of Robert)
  • You can also list another name on your account (ex: maiden name, nickname, or professional name), by adding an alternate name to your Timeline
  • Only one person’s name should be listed on the account – Timelines are for individual use only
  • Pretending to be anything or anyone is not allowed

Oh. Oh. So that’s falsehoods 3 and 4 right there (One canonical name, and one full name at this point in time). You at least let us change the name, which gets you out of falsehood 1, 2, and 7; although you limit the number of changes, which puts you foul of rule 5.

For those keeping count they’ve so far fallen to falsehoods 3, 4, 5.

By specifically calling out multiple languages not being allowed, I’m going to give you a pass on falsehood 9, as I’m going to assume you’d be ok with me using a Japanese, non-Romanised name. But you call out ‘symbols’, ‘unusual capitalisation’ among other things as not OK. Would Japanese characters fall foul of this? It’s unclear. and arbitrary. Who are you to decide if capitalisation is unusual (falsehoods 12,13,16). You call out as well that you don’t allow mixing languages – I think that might possibly be violation of falsehood 10.

No titles of any kind? Even religious ones? Interesting. Titles are a kind of prefix. Falsehood 14. And for some would arguably be a large part of their identity that it could be disrespectful to not use it when communicating with them.

No numbers? Falsehood 15.

Falsehoods violated so far: 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

The Display As box offers First Middle Last, First Last, Last First. That sounds suspiciously like thinking there’s an order to peoples names. Falsehood 8.

No suggestive or offensive language? Can I find this objective list? Are you assuming that you can know what is suggestive or offensive in every single country and culture in which you operate (or allow users to select as their country from that nice drop-down list you have). Falsehood 31.

On the off chance someone does have a name that falls foul of this, then they must be a weird outlier. Falsehood 39 (Bonus points for alienating a user)

I’m going to give you a pass on falsehood 40, that people have names, as even I recognise that is a far larger battle than just facebook.

So, there we have violations of: 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 31, 39

There’s probably more there, but I’m not going to start trying to use up my limited name changes to see if you fall foul of the internationalisation related falsehoods.


You see Facebook. You also have this nice little thing called ‘usernames’ that dictate what address a Facebook Users profile can be accessed at (facebook.com/USERNAME). Let’s take a little look shall we?


Oh. Oh dear. Oh dear dear dear.

Should include your real name

I can change my username once. I hereby revoke your exemption to falsehoods 1, 2 and 7. You’re also trying to ram peoples names into a URL. That’s…. probably going to end badly. I have better things to do though than waste my one username change to check if this is the case, so I’m not going to say you fall into any falsehood there.

Let’s click that little question mark icon, to see if that has any wisdom for us.

  • You can’t claim a username someone else is already using.
  • Choose a username you’ll be happy with for the long term. Usernames are not transferable and you can only change your username once.
  • Usernames can only contain alphanumeric characters (A-Z, 0-9) or a period (“.”).
  • Periods (“.”) and capitalisation don’t count as a part of a username. For example, johnsmith55, John.Smith55 and john.smith.55 are all considered the same username.
  • Usernames must be at least 5 characters long and can’t contain generic terms.
  • You must be manager-level admin to choose a username for a Page.
  • Your username must adhere to Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.

Oh. oh dear. This is worse than I thought.

Let’s try and reconcile this shall we?

Usernames can only contain alphanumeric characters (A-Z, 0-9) or a period (“.”).

Combined with

Should include your real name

Well. That’s EVERY. SINGLE. INTERNATIONALISATION. THING. FAILED. Falsehoods 9. 10. 11. 24. 25. 26.

And, as you force everyone to use a username with their real name, that means you think that the number of duplicate names is low enough that the amount of crap people will have to add to get a unique username is low. That’s Falsehood 23.

Bang up job there facebook. A field that shouldn’t even have anything to do with someones real name single handedly fails 10 falsehoods, and that’s before I go back over the earlier ones related to the real name policy (such as offensive names).

So Facebook.

Your grand total of failures here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 23, 24, 25, 26 31, 39

That’s 21 failures, on a list of 40. And That’s with me being generous because I’m not wasting my precious name changes on checking out your validation.

– Sincerely,

A User Who Just Wanted A New Username So My Profile Cant Be Easily Found.

A User Who Really Wants To Get Rid Of Their ‘Legal’ Name From Facebook.

A User Who Hates You More Than Ever.

Stripe CTF3 write-up

I’ve been kinda distracted throughout work for about a week now, because of the third Capture the Flag competition hosted by Stripe. The first CTF was on application security – you had a ‘locked down’ account on a computer, possibly with various programs available. And you had to break out of the account to read a file you weren’t meant to be able to access, containing the password for the next level. I wasn’t aware of that first competition.

The second one was on Web Application security – you were presented with web access to a web app, and the source code for the apps (each level in a different languages), and had to exploit various vulnerabilities in order to get the password for the next level. The web apps ranged from basic HTML form processing, to rudimentary AJAX twitter clones, to APIs for ordering pizza. The vulnerabilities ranged from basic  file upload validation to SHA-1 length extension attacks, Javascript injection all culminating in a level that involved using port numbers to dramatically reduce search space for a 12 character password. I completed that one and won a t-shirt.

The third one, the one that has just happened, was different. It was ‘themed’ around Distributed Systems, rather than security. You’d be given some sample code that you’d have to speed up, either by finding bottle necks in the code or by making the system distributed and fault tolerant. Spoilers will follow. Although the contest is now over, the level code (and associated test harness) is available here if you still want a go. I will note that it’s entirely possible to rewrite each level into a language you’re familiar with (I didn’t take that approach though, given that half the fun is not knowing the language).

So. To details.

I didn’t mange to finish it, although I made it to the last level, of which I sunk far more time into than was healthy – I’m fairly certain my tiredness at work for a couple of days was due to this level.

Level 0

Level 0. A basic Ruby program that reads in text, and if a word appears in a dictionary file it will enclose the word in angle brackets.

I didn’t know Ruby, but I had a good inkling of where to tackle this level, given how simple the program was. A quick google of Ruby Data Structures, and Ruby’s String split() method confirmed my idea. The original code did a string.split() on the dictionary and then repeatedly looked up each word against the Array that function returns. By transforming that array into Ruby’s notion of a Set, I could gain the speedboost from super-fast hash based checking.

I also modified the comparison to do an in place replacement as it saved the cost of duplicating the entire string. I’m unsure how much weight that had against the Array->Set change.

Level 1

A bash script that tries to mine the fictional currency of Gitcoin. Gitcoin is essentially like Bitcoin. You “mine” gitcoins by adding a valid commit to the repository. That commit must modify the ledger file to add one to your own total of gitcoins. A valid commit is one whose commit hash is lexicographically less than the value contained in difficulty – that is to say, if the difficulty contained 00001 your commit hash would have to start with 00000[0-F]. Because of how git works you have to find such a commit before anyone else mining against the same repository finds a valid commit.

There was one main thing in this level to fix. And that’s the call out to git that mock hashes the commit object to see if it’s valid. If it isn’t it alters the commit message text in some way, and then hashes again. This is slow. It’s slow because of a couple of reasons. Git likes to lock its repository files during operations, so you can’t do parallel searches for valid commits. But also because git objects have to have a very specific format, which git takes time to go and generate before returning the hash. The final thing is that each commit contains the hash of the parent commit as part of it, so naturally should another miner find a gitcoin before you, you have to start the search over again.

To achieve this, I moved the SHA1 testing over to Python. I formed the commit object that git creates manually – the header consisting of the term “commit ” and the length of the commit body, with a null byte. I left the body (which itself has to have a very specific format) as it was in the original script. I called pythons SHA1 library to do the work, which is a non-blocking operation, thus meaning I could set 8 separate processes going at once, each trying a unique set of commit messages. Upon success they then spat out a commit message into a file.

Annoyingly my solution then became quite clunky, with myself manually changing the filename to read in a copy of the original script that bypassed the searching. That pushed the correct commit. Ideally I’d have automated that into the first script, but it was enough to get me a valid commit pushed to Stripes git servers, thus meaning the next level was unlocked.

Incidentally this level had a bonus round, where instead of being against four stripe bots mining, you’d be competing against the other players who had completed the level. Needless to say, people very quickly started throwing GPU based SHA1 tools at it, and I was outclassed by a wide degree.

Level 2

Node.js, again I had no experience (although I do know javascript). You were given skeleton code that had to mitigate a DDoS attack. Your code would be placed in front of an under attack web service, and it had to ensure all legitimate requests got through, and strangely enough illegitimate requests to keep the servers busy, but not falling over. (You lost points in the scoring system for how long the target servers were idle.

In practise this was rather simple as the requests were easily differentiated – each legitimate IP would only make a few requests and relatively far apart. Simply keeping a log of the IPs seen and when they were last seen was enough to differentiate the legitimate mice from the illegitimate elephants. You also had to load balance between the two servers that were available – they would fall over if they had to process more than 4 requests at a time. You knew how long it each request would have before the backend servers timed the connection out, so by keeping a log of when each request was proxied, and to which server, you could check how many requests were likely to still be on the server.

Pretty simple.

Level 3

The penultimate level. Scala. I had great troubles with language on this one, I suspect partly because it’s close enough to Java that I get confused mentally when translating what I want to do into the scala syntax.

You were given four servers – a master one, and three slave servers that would never be contacted by the test harness. You were provided with a directory which you had to index all the files under. Then you had to respond to a barrage of search requests (for which you were also expected to return substring matches).

The default code was incredibly poor, so there were some immediate optimisations that were obvious. Firstly, the master server only ever sent search requests to the first of the slave nodes, which also had to index  and search the entire corpus. There’s two approaches now – split the corpus and send each search to all nodes, or split the searches but make each node index the entire corpus. I went with the former. I split the corpus based on root subdirectory number. So the slave0 would index when subDir%3 = 0. Any files directly under the root directory would have been indexed by all nodes.

The second obvious improvement was that the index was an object containing a list of files that the searcher needed to search. That object was serialised to disk, the searcher would read that in. Then for each query it would go off and load the file from disk before searching the file. My first change was to never serialise the object out, but keep it in memory. That didn’t make much of a difference. Then two options presented themselves. I could try constructing an Inverted Index – that would contain each trigram (as I had to handle substring searches)  and a list of the files and lines where that trigram was found. Or I could take the lazy option of reading all the files in at indexing time (you had 4 minutes until the search queries would start) and storing those directly in the in-memory index. I took that option. I transformed the index list into a HashMap of FilePath to Contents.  And that pretty much got me to pass. Somehow. I don’t feel like that was enough work myself, but that was more than made up for by the last level.

Level 4

I couldn’t crack this one. I tried for days. I think it was from Sunday through Wednesday, excepting some time out for the day job.

The language was Go. I know no Go. The challenge: A network of servers, each with a SQLite database. The network is unreliable with lag and jitter randomly added, and network links being broken for seconds at a time. Search queries will be directed to any of the nodes for 30 seconds. All answers they give as a network must be correct. You are disqualified instantly should you return an inconsistent answer. You gain points for each correct response. You lose points for every network byte of network traffic. Oh, and unlike in the other examples, the sample code they provided you with doesn’t pass the test harness – it gets disqualified for inconsistent output.

So. This level was about distributed consensus – how to get multiple nodes to agree on the order of operations given communication problems. I’m just thankful we didn’t also have to contend with malicious nodes trying to join or modify the traffic. If you could get traffic through it was unmodified.

The starter help text contained pointers to a Distributed Consensus Protocol called Raft. Vastly simplifying the intricacies: Nodes elect a leader. Only the leader can make writes to the log (in this case an SQLite Database). The leader will only commit a log once a majority of nodes have confirmed that they have written to the log themselves. If the leader goes missing, the remaining nodes will elect a new leader.

There’s a library already written for Go, Go-Raft. This seemed like a sure fire winner. Just drop in Raft right? Although dropping the library in was very easy it wasn’t that simple. Raft is a very chatty protocol requiring heartbeat signals, leader elections and in our case, request forwarding to the leader as followers do not have authority to commit to the log.

Beyond that though, the go-raft library had issues. It didn’t work with Unix Sockets (that the test harness required) out of the box (although Stripe had had a commit merged into Go-Rafts master branch that made fixing that extremely simple. It could fail to elect a leader. It also had a bug that seemed to bite a lot of people in IRC – I only saw it once, and I’m still not sure on what exactly the cause is – I suspect a missing/misplaced lock() that caused a situation with the log that is fatal for the raft consensus algorithm.

After battling with Unix sockets and getting an excellent passing score locally – at one point I got 150 points normalised, whilst you only needed 50 to pass, I pushed to remote. And it fell over horrendously. I ended up with a negative point score before normalisation. Needless to say that was demoralising. It turns out that reading the original Raft protocol paper, understanding it theoretically, and getting it to work with some easier test cases is very different to getting it to work in a much more hostile set of conditions.

My problems on this level were compounded by the infrastructure regularly falling over and needing the Stripe guys to give the servers a kick or 10.

But beyond that, I feel that there’s something I failed to grok. When my connections could get through it worked fine – SQL was always consistent, leaders were always elected, requests were forwarded properly (barring one case that I have since read about where the request is forwarded and executed successfully but the response is lost due to jitter).  And yet when running on remote I either suffered from End of File errors (i.e. socket closed), or requests timing out. Although I eventually managed to reproduce those issues locally by manually downloading the test case, it didn’t help me in diagnosing the problem – I regularly had a case where one node, in the entire 30 second test runs, never managed to join the consensus (which takes a grand total of one successful request to do). And I didn’t know what to do. I think that the most valuable thing this level taught me, beyond the theory of distributed systems, is how bad I am at fixing problems when there’s no errors that are directly caused by my code. As far as I could tell everything was fine – if I ran it manually without the test harness in the middle it all worked. But when I put the test harness in, it all fell over. My own logic tells me that therefore the problem must be with the test harness. Except I know people managed to pass the level with go-raft. I need to go and look at some solutions people have posted to see how they coped.

At the end of the day, however fun this was overall, the last level left a bad taste in my mouth – the infrastructure problems were pretty endemic especially nearer the end, and the difference between local and remote in the last level was absolutely disheartening. I can accept some difference, but a score that locally is three times higher than the threshold (after normalisation) shouldn’t get negative points on remote. I just wanted the T-Shirt!

Choosing a new phone

In the vein of a previous post exploring why I chose to move my email over to Office 365, I shall today be exploring how I chose my new phone.

Or, more specifically the OS of the phone (given that hardware doesn’t interest me as a thing – one black fondleslab is much like another black fondle slab).

As that previous post indicated, I currently have a BackBerry. Not one of the new BBOS10 ones, but an older one (although it was new when I took my contract out).

The phone market today is radically different from the one where I first switched to BlackBerry (4 going on 5 years ago). BackBerry has essentially died a death ( in the consumer market anyway, we’ll see if their refocus back on enterprise, and the opening of BBM to other phone OSs makes a difference). Android has risen to become the dominant phone OS – although the device manufacturers haven’t quite got the hang of OTA updates and multi-year support (I’ll get to the issue of so-called bloat-ware in a minute). IPhone and it’s iOS has seen a more sedate rise, but has figured out OTA updates that cut the carrier out of the picture. Windows Phone has also emerged as a serious contender.

Between them, these 4 OSs have the overwhelming majority of the market – few people could name any other OS that is still going today. This post will take each in turn to weigh the advantages and disadvantages, for me according to my needs and desires. I make no claims that my answer is the one true answer, or that even my disadvantages won’t be someone else’s advantages. (although I am right, and everyone else is wrong).


There’s no denying that BlackBerry has had a rocky road recently. Their latest OS 10 is a major shift from their previous direction. A major UI overhaul, coupled with keeping their excellent security features should stand them in good stead in this battle. But alas, I don’t want another BlackBerry – their troubles don’t speak well for being around much longer, or at the very least that consumers will not have the focus they once did. BBM is something I rarely use, and even if I did there’s no longer any need for a BlackBerry itself. Even email, the killer feature it handled exceedingly well, is no longer a differentiator – the competition has caught up, and BlackBerry hasn’t advanced. Their attempt to boost their App Store by making their OS ‘compatible’ with Android apps, to me speaks of a desperation. A last gasp as it were. Perhaps it will be enough, perhaps not. But I don’t want to be take the risk that I’ll be left with an unsupported brick a couple of years down the line (phones to me are at least a two year investment, if not more).

Windows Phone 8

A relatively recent contender, Windows Phone 8 is Microsofts latest attempt to break into the mobile market – a successor to the previous Windows Phone 7 and the Windows Mobile OS family. It inherits a lot of its look from Windows 8 and its Metro UI, and this certainly makes it the most distinctive of the OSs out there. Yet it hasn’t been a massive success, although it is showing steady growth. Perhaps it came too late to the market, or perhaps it hasn’t been marketed well – a common feature of Microsofts mobile attempts. One thing is certain though – app developers haven’t gone crazy for it. Despite the fact that I only use a core set of apps on my phone regularly (mostly social media), I do like to try out apps, and part of me wonders if it’s due in large part to the fact that BlackBerry’s app selection is abysmal.

iOS 7 on iPhone

I already have many Apple devices. I use a Macbook Pro at home, I have an iPod Touch which is my media center, and I have an iPad which sees infrequent use. I have a large collection of apps on my iPod, although again I only have a core set that I actually use. So surely an iPhone is a natural next step? Well, maybe not. iPhones are expensive (I know, that’s hardware – but unlike the other OSs, Device and OS are tied together here). I already have an iPod Touch for all my Appley needs. I know of no-one who uses iMessage or FaceTime – so those have no appeal. My apps are already on my iPod Touch, and I don’t hate the wifi-only nature of it. There’s also Apples iCloud, which is very much a walled garden as far as syncing services go. I use it as minimally as I can for my needs right now (mostly to save connecting via cable to transfer photos).


Oh Android. Google’s attempt at a mobile OS. Phenomenally successful. Open Source, except for when it’s not. Android. It came on to the scene with a terrible UI at the time, although the UI has improved dramatically with recent revisions. But then, with Android, the UI is kind of moot. It’s open source (except when it isn’t), people have written entirely separate launchers and themes – see many of the carrier/manufacturer branded versions for examples. In fact, this really makes it very hard to talk about Android with any meaningful detail. Google’s Android is very different from the Open Source Android – the Keyboard with the cool swipey-pathy-typey-thing? Closed source. Googles Mail app? Closed source. It’s well documented that Google has been closing down Android slowly but surely. And although you have the possibility of side-loading apps, very very few are actually distributed like this. They almost all go through Google Play Store. It seems that Open Source is a flag google wave for community support, to blind the community to just how hard it actually would be to create a successful Android fork – look at what Amazon has to go through to clone the APIs provided by the closed source Google Play Services. CyanogenMod also have to dance around the redistribution of the closed APIs that many apps assume are present, by backing up the original Google Apps, and then reloading it after their version is flashed. Also, how meaningful waving the Open Source flag is when the core platform APIs of the project are developed in private is…….. yeah.

I make no secret that I don’t trust Google these days. You are an advertising target to them. Everything they do that is intended for consumers will eventually feed back into their advertising algorithms. This is why it will surprise you that I went with Android as my next phone OS. I’m not sure yet, how I’ll remove or limit Googles tendrils on the device. Running stock AOSP? Possibly if I can get my social media apps to work without the Google Play Services. Using a separate account for Play Store things? Possibly. I’ll most certainly be limiting apps permissions as much as possible. I was surprised to learn that Android only recently got the ability to limit GPS access on a per-app basis – iOS has had Location Services control for ages. Perhaps I’ll put CyanogenMod on it, although frustratingly I can’t find a full description on their site of what changes they actually make to AOSP. I’ll certainly disable Google Now, and its always listening “Ok Google”. I’d better buckle up, because this is going to be an interesting ride. Especially as I find apps I just want to try if only for 5 minutes.

Safe Spaces

Quick note before the post proper: I do have an analysis of The World Inside in the works, but it’s proving rather troublesome to tame into coherence. For now, this post.

I regularly see people declaring that somewhere or other is a “safe space”. So let’s pick this concept apart, and see just how easy or hard it is to create a safe space.

What is a “Safe Space”? The idea behind it is simple – a place where someone (usually of a minority group, though not necessarily) can write, talk, discuss their beliefs without any mockery, without trolls, and without a risk of them being offended (or in some cases distressed – known as triggered) by content within the area. For example, a Safe Space for a Homosexual person would be a space where you aren’t condemned for being homosexual. You won’t be mocked with homophobic slurs. Such a person can talk frankly about their experience. A transgender person meanwhile would have a space where they won’t be called and number of the transphobic slurs, nor would they be confronted with such slurs unexpectedly.

Sometimes you see people claiming that a particular tumblr tag is a “safe space” and that people should keep their hate out of the “transgender” tag, for example. This, is a futile request. The nature of tagging (on most sites, including tumblr) is that tags are public and unmoderated (beyond generic site-level moderation). Such tags will naturally be used by anyone who wishes too. And whilst sites may have “community guidelines” and so forth, against homophobic material etc, such policies tend to rely on user-reporting, and notably tend not to be as strict in their moderation as safe-spaces require.

Another angle is for example the /r/lgbt subreddit, which claims itself as a safe-space for any and all gender, sexual and romantic minorities, and it does work. Kind of. Reddit provides subreddit moderators (sub-reddits are essentially a forum board) with tools to remove any posts they wish. And this subreddit in particular has very pro-active moderators ensuring that any (even slightly) anti-lgbt material is removed quickly. So they have a safe space. Great. except, as is common in the case of highly active moderators, anything that doesn’t fit with their world-view is also removed. As such it creates a community that is perceived to be ‘all on the same page’. Even posts that aren’t anti-lgbt, but question, for example the ever expanding alphabet soup are removed.

Moving into the real world, a “safe space” tends to be a meeting area where there are people in authority, with the power to remove people from the space – such as University LGBT societies. These tend to be less prone to the ‘heavy-handedness’ of internet community moderation – by virtue of the fact that without the online disinhibition effect (Something I learned a great deal about for a University coursework) the number of trolls and “extreme” views tend to be minimised.

That said, online “safe spaces” are needed – providing people who experience homophobia, transphobia, and even things such as sexual assault or have attempted suicide, an area where they can pseudonymously communicate with others in the same boat is vital. It encourages the community to connect, to network, and thus to become stronger. And it insulates them from the problems that they face elsewhere in life (sometimes frighteningly regularly).

Safe Spaces need to be actively moderated, otherwise they are impossible to maintain. But it is important to recognise that this moderation can go too far, which can cause a narrowing world-view and even rejection, not acceptance, from the wider society (or even from within the same minority group – see the split from /r/lgbt to /r/ainbow).

On Pornography

Welp. Cameron’s done it. Bent over backwards to introduce unworkable, unrelated policies in a confused mess designed to appeal to comfort traditional Tory Middle-Class Daily Mail reading idiots I mean, voters.

So let’s look at the proposals he has outlined.

  1. A ‘crackdown’ on those accessing child pornography/ child abuse images.
  2. Internet Filters that will by default block access to all pornography on those using residential ISPs.
  3. The criminalisation of simulated rape pornography.

The crackdown.

I don’t think many people would disagree with child sexual abuse being absolutely disgusting. My mum was a Special Educational Needs teacher, and she has worked with children who have been abused. It is so wrong the damage it can do to them. That out of the way, let’s have a look at this

The way this is currently handled is you have CEOP, a branch of the police, who track down the people committing the abuse, rescue children, and find people who are viewing the content. You have the IWF, an independent charity who handle reports of child abuse images submitted by the public. They create the blacklist of URLs that is passed to search engines and ISPs to block access, and filter out those pages containing the content. They also forward information to CEOP and equivalent agencies worldwide after deeming content to be potentially illegal.

The proposals include getting search engines to redirect results, so someone searching for “child sex” for example, might get results for “child sex education”. There will also be pages displayed when someone tries to access a page blocked under this scheme that will warn them that looking for such material is a criminal offence. I imagine it would look similar to the ICE notice placed on seized domains by the US Government.

The thing here though, is that Google (and most other search engines) already remove results pointing to child abuse imagery. My thoughts on the IWF being the determiners for what gets blocked (which they already do)  are long enough for another blog post – but suffice it to say, I’m not sure that an independent, unaccountable charity should have “special permission” to view and classify the images without any form of oversight – especially as it’s generally hard to work out that something has been blocked – See the Wikipedia Blocking Fiasco. I have another point about the effectiveness of blocking content – but that will be the main thrust of the next section.


Blocking of Pornography

So, the second issue is the implementation of filters on Residential UK Broadband connections that will prohibit access to porn, should the account holder not opt-out of the blocks. This is a further example of how our internet use is getting more and more restricted over time. First they had CleanFeed, which blocked the IWFs list. Then they blocked The Pirate Bay and other similar sites. Now they want to block Pornography (albeit on an opt-out basis for the moment).

So, firstly what is pornography? Images of oral, anal or vaginal sex? How about “Kink” images of bondage, where no genitalia are visible? Pictures of female breasts? Cameron has already announced that Page 3 won’t be blocked.


How about the written word – many fan-fiction pieces get very steamy, not to mention the entire erotica bookcase at your local bookshop (or Sainsburys).

Of course, our mobile internet connections are already filtered by default – so we can look at those to see what will be blocked. “User-generated content sites”. Oh yes, I suppose they could contain pornography. Reddit in fact has many sub-reddits dedicated to such things. ISPs have even indicated that categories such as “anorexia”, “web forums:” and even “esoteric content” may be blocked. Of course, one natural side effect of that will be the (accidental) blocking of sexual education resources. No filter is 100% perfect, so it’s inevitable that sites will get blocked. We can look at what mobile operators have blocked “by mistake” in the past – a church website blocked as adult, a political opinion blog(!) and even eHow – a site that posts tutorials and educates on how to do everyday things.

This is to say nothing of the LGBT websites that might be blocked – vital resources for any person questioning their gender or sexuality – but especially for young people who may not feel comfortable talking with their parents about these things. This by itself will actively cause harm (if these proposals didn’t cause harm I wouldn’t be so strongly against them), but there is further harm to come from these – parental complacency.

There are bad parents. There are parents who don’t communicate with their children. We all know they exist. And any right minded parent would fear their children seeing something on the internet that they weren’t ready to see. But these filters will make parents think their kids are “safe”. That they don’t need to talk with their kids about sex, about things they might see on the internet, that they don’t need to use the internet with their children. So when children do stumble across adult content, they’ll be even less prepared to talk about it. And these filters suppose one thing – that the children are less tech-savvy than those writing the filters. Anyone who has worked with children, or works in Computer Software will know how fast kids adapt to new technology. Those older children who do want to seek out this material aren’t stupid. They’ll know how to get around these filters – unless you want to block searches for proxies (or VPNs for those more technically inclined). And all the time the parents will think their kids are safe, and wrapped securely in cotton wool. This is possibly one of the most damaging effects.

Simulated Rape Pornography

The final measure announced in this slate of news was the criminalisation of simulated rape pornography – aiming to close a loophole in Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act – affectionately known as the “Extreme Porn Law”. To be clear this proposal is talking about the banning of consensual, fictional “rape-play” images. For context – studies from the late 70s and 80s have shown that the idea of forced sex is one of the most common fantasies. Somewhat amusingly this announcement came shortly after the Crown Prosecution Service had adjusted the prosecution guidelines for offences under this act.

To try and criminalise images of consensual, legal things is utter madness. My objections to this are very much the same as my objections to the original section of the act. It makes the assumption that we are unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality. It makes the assumption that there is evidence of harm by looking at consensual images. We’re happy to let people run around and kill simulated people, but to watch a consensual act is somehow damaging. To me this stems from our cultures attitude towards sex in general. Which is that it’s something to be done behind closed doors, without disturbing the neighbours, and without discussing it afterwards. To something so natural, that’s a very weird attitude. It, incidentally, is the same reason I believe the pornography-blocking proposals will cause harm.


Overall, these proposals are terrible. They won’t work, they’ll cause actual harm, and they’ll make people with common fantasies feel victimised.

You can sign the OpenRightsGroup petition here, and a DirectGov ePetition here – although neither address the criminalisation of simulated rape.

Tor, Freedom Hosting, TorMail, Firefox and recent events

So, there’s been…. a lot of panic in the Tor community over the last 24 hours. Let’s have a look at some facts shall we?

Firstly, it would be good if you knew some basics of Tor – I have a previous article on it here. Secondly, forgive the number of Reddit Comments I’ve linked to – but given the lack of mass media coverage of this news, there’s not much choice)

News broke that the FBI had issued an arrest warrant and extradition request to Ireland for Eric Marques. The article frames him as a large distributor of Child Abuse Images. Whether that is accurate or not remains to be seen in court, but one thing that is (now) known is that he was the man behind “Freedom Hosting” which provided hosting for Tor Hidden Sites. A number of those sites apparently hosted Child Abuse Images or videos. It’s not yet known if he had any connection with any of those sites beyond being their hosting provider.

One immediate question that presents itself is how did they find out that this guy was operating the Freedom Hosting site? I haven’t seen any evidence on how this happened. It’s possible that they used a server exploit to find out the machines real IP address. Or that they tracked him down via other means (financial records etc), and then happened to find out he was behind it. Incidentally, the only evidence that the Tor community has that he ran it was the timing of all these events.

So, all the sites hosted by Freedom Hosting disappeared from the Tor network. Then, a few days later they showed up again. But this time, some (but not necessarily all) the sites hosted included an extra iframe  that ran some javascript code (Link is to a pastebin, so is safe to click). Needless to say this javascript code is an attempt to break anonymity.

Now, a small amount of background. Tor (for end users) is mostly run through the Tor Browser Bundle these days. This combines Tor with a patched version of Firefox – to fix some anonymity leaks, as well as some Firefox extensions such as HTTPSEverywhere, and NoScript. NoScript is a Firefox extension that prevents Javascript from running according to the users preferences (block all, whitelist domains, blacklist domains, block none). Great, so the Javascript wouldn’t run? Well…. no. Tor Browser Bundle ships with NoScript in the “run all scripts” mode. Tor have had an FAQ about this setting up for a while. The short answer is that because Tor tries to look like a normal machine – always reporting a Windows NT Kernel (even on other OSs) for example, that disabling JS would leave you in a minority, as well as making it harder to actually use the normal javascript-reliant internet. Needless to say, Tor are reevaluating this tradeoff. This is especially true as their patches to Firefox should, in theory, make it harder for Javascript to break out and find the users normal IP.

So, this script can run. What does it do? Well it specifically targets Firefox 17 on Windows. Firefox 17 is the Extended Support Release of Firefox, which is what the Tor Browser Bundle is based on. Claims that this is a 0-day attack have been abound, but further examination has revealed that in fact, it had already been patched in Firefox 17.0.7 – which had been packaged into a Tor Browser Bundle at the end of June/early July. When you put this together it means that the script only affects users of old Tor Browser Bundles on Windows. The script appears to use the vulnerability above to try and send your real IP to another server. It also tries to set a cookie, presumably to track you as you browse the internet and onion land.

Notably TorMail, (a service which provides public email facilities over Tor), was also apparently hosted on Freedom Hosting, so far more than just people accessing Child Abuse Images are potentially affected. Anyone who wanted a truly anonymous email account has been affected. This makes it likely (although not guaranteed) that the FBI now have access to every e-mail stored on that server.

Freedom Hosting, whilst not the only Tor Hosting Service, was certainly one of the largest and well known. And TorMail was unique in its service. What this will mean for whistleblowers and others who used TorMail remains to be seen.

eBooks, Apple, Amazon and pricing

Given the recent US judgement against Apple in US courts for eBook price fixing, I figured my views would make a decent topic for another post here.

Firstly, some history.

When eBooks first started becoming mainstream (before iBooks was launched), eBooks were sold using the traditional “wholesale” pricing model. This model is the same as the one used to sell physical books everywhere. The publisher has a wholesale price they sell to retailers at, who are then free to determine their own pricing on their shelves – creating the situation where one retailer may have a book at $12.99, whilst another might have it at $11.99, with the wholesale cost being less than this cost (bookstores have storage, customer service etc overheads). It’s common for retailers to occasionally sell books as “loss leaders” – such things happen mostly with popular new releases – where the retailer chooses to sell the book below wholesale price (i.e. less than they paid) to encourage more people to visit the shop and spend more (due to feeling that they got a “good deal”).

The benefit of this pricing model is obvious – in theory market forces will lower the prices for the consumer by ensuring that there is competition between retailers, and new retailers can enter the ring to try and compete.

When Amazon first launched the Kindle the eBooks were sold with the wholesale model. However, Amazon sold every eBook as a “loss leader” in an attempt to sell more Kindles. They sold for $9.99, whilst being bought by Amazon for $13. Due to a combination of factors including Amazons (at the time) huge eBook market share – over 90% according to the WSJ; Publishers insistence on DRM causing consumer Lock-In; The possibility of Amazons pricing becoming ‘right’ (and thus a ‘loss for publishers); and the general tension between publishers and Amazon, Publishers wanted to raise eBook prices quickly. But with no major competitor their negotiation position was poor – at the time if they didn’t put eBooks on Amazon, their eBook sales would be decimated.

Enter Apple. Apple based its iBooks pricing on the model used in the iTunes Store – so called ‘Agency Pricing’. In this pricing model the publisher decides the retail price, and it has to be sold for that price – the retailer simply gets a percentage cut of that price (in Apples case, 30%). Suddenly the publishers could work with Apple to break Amazons stranglehold on the eBook market. Apple included a clause in the contract for the iBook Store that stated that eBooks must not be sold less elsewhere – i.e. if it was sold cheaper elsewhere then that price had to be used in the iBook Store as well. With these contracts in place the Publishers suddenly had a much stronger position to negotiate with Amazon.

For a short while Amazon held out – causing the infamous situation of an entire publishers catalogues becoming unavailable overnight. Eventually Amazon gave way and allowed publishers to use the Agency Pricing model on Kindle eBooks. Ebooks on Amazon now cost more than the old “wholesale” price due to collaboration between the major publishers and Apple. The seeds for the Price Fixing charge had been sown.

A couple of notes before moving in to my own opinions on the case. Some publishers are now experimenting with DRM-Free eBooks. The proliferation of alternative devices has meant that ePub is now the dominant standard for eBook formats – in all cases except Kindle which still uses the MobiPocket standard. Publishers also claim that physical production and transportation of a book is only a tiny fraction of a books cost.


Right, my own thoughts on this. It’s clear that Apple and the Publishers did break the law. They collaborated as a cartel to raise consumer prices. One of the few kinds of behaviour that is ‘per-se illegal’ (illegal in and of itself) is horizontal price fixing, that is fixing the price across an entire market. There is no defence in law.

That said, morally I’m not sure it’s wrong. The market back when the Agency model was introduced was heavily skewed in Amazons favour (and the publishers position was incredibly weak). They were a monopoly, and charging all ebooks as loss leaders meant it would be very hard for another store to break into the market, unless they could offer something above Amazons offering (which being cloudy is very seamless). If Apple hadn’t managed to break Amazons pricing structure its possible that their own eBook store wouldn’t have been anywhere nearly as successful – especially given there is a Kindle app for iOS. Yes consumers ended up paying more for eBooks – but for the convenience of having them anywhere and having hundreds in my pocket I’d be willing to pay a premium. That premium was, in my opinion, needed as a means of breaking up the market. I’d also argue that Amazon was abusing its dominant position by selling as a blanket loss leader.

It should be said however, that now that Apple has been forbidden from using the Agency model, I have no idea what is going to happen to eBook prices now. The public has become used to the near-retail prices of eBooks, I doubt that a switch to wholesale would see any decrease in price from Apple.

Finally as a disclaimer: I don’t like Amazon as a bookstore. I say this whilst having Amazon Prime, and having ordered books from them recently, and many over the years. Their attempts to become fully integrated vertically by becoming a direct publisher, their questionable practises of remotely wiping books from Kindles, and their sheer advantage of economies of scale disturbs me. When possible I buy from brick and mortar stores, but I must hold my hands up and say that I do still order from Amazon – particularly if I don’t have plans to go to the nearest bookshop within 24 hours. I’m very weak willed when it comes to book purchasing. It’s entirely plausible that this has tainted my own opinions, although I hope they still make logical sense without them.