Pemerintah berencana untuk menaikkan Biaya Hak Penggunaan (BHP) Frewnsi Penyiaran agar tidak terjadi pemborosan penggunaan spektrum frekwensi dan agar ada keseimbanagn antara BHP Frekwensi untuk Telekomunikasi dan Frekwensi untuk Penyiaran. Berikut ini adalah berita lengkapnya: (Click gambar untuk memperbesar)
Dengan makin meluasnya implementasi Jaringan Broadband, baik itu Fixed-line (Serat Optik, DSL, FWA) maupun Mobile Wireless Broadband, maka FCC merasa perlu membuat aturan agar dimasa depan prinsip netralitas pemanfaatan jaringan Broadband itu lebih dapat dijamin.
Aturan ini akan melarang Penyelenggara Jaringan Fixed-line Broadband seperti Comcast dan Qwest untuk memblokir akses ke Situs-situs Web dan Aplikasi tertentu (yang dianggap operator jaringan itu sebagai pesaing layanannya), dan sekaligus juga membolehkan pembatasan yang wajar oleh Penyelenggara Jaringan Broadband Wireless atas akses ke Jasa dan Aplikasi tertentu (disebabkan oleh keterbatasan kapasitas jaringan Broadband Wireless).
Diharapkan dengan dibuatkannya aturan ini, maka Netralitas Jaringan Internet sebagai sumber Kreativitas dan Inovasi dapat lebih terjamin.
Dalam kaitannya dengan penysunan UU Konvergensi Indonesia, pada kesempatan ini kami ingin mengusulkan agar UU itu disusun dengan basis 3-Unsur Utama, yaitu Konten, Infrastruktur dan Sumber Daya. Ini merupakan kesimpulan dari hasil diskusi MASTEL dengan Konsultan Australia pada minggu lalu. UU Konvergensi mengatur ke-tiga unsur ini, sehingga berbagai kasus konvergensi dapat lebih mudah dan lebih sederhana untuk ditangani.
Gambar diatas ini menunjukkan Model Regulasi 3-Layer, yaitu:
The Federal Communications Commission appears poised to pass a controversial set of rules that broadly create two classes of Internet access, one for fixed-line providers and the other for the wireless Net.
The proposed rules of the online road would prevent fixed-line broadband providers like Comcast and Qwest from blocking access to sites and applications. The rules, however, would allow wireless companies more latitude in putting limits on access to services and applications.
Before a vote set for Tuesday, two Democratic commissioners said Monday that they would back the rules proposed by the F.C.C. chairman, Julius Genachowski, which try to satisfy both sides in the protracted debate over so-called network neutrality. But analysts said the debate would soon resume in the courts, as challenges to the rules are expected in the months to come.
Net neutrality, broadly speaking, is an effort to ensure equal access to Web sites and cutting-edge online services. Mr. Genachowski said these proposed rules aimed to both encourage Internet innovation and protect consumers from abuses.
“These rules fulfill a promise to the future — to companies that don’t yet exist, and the entrepreneurs that haven’t yet started work in their dorm rooms or garages,” Mr. Genachowski said in remarks prepared for the commission’s meeting on Tuesday in Washington. At present, there are no enforceable rules “to protect basic Internet values,” he added.
Many Internet providers, developers and venture capitalists have indicated that they would accept the proposal by Mr. Genachowski, which Rebecca Arbogast, a regulatory analyst for Stifel Nicolaus, a financial services firm, said “is by definition a compromise.”
The companies have said the rules would provide some regulatory certainty. In private, they have acknowledged the proposal could have been much worse. If approved, they “will give some assurances to the companies that are building Web applications — companies like Netflix, Skype and Google — that they will get even treatment on broadband networks,” Ms. Arbogast said.
But a wide swath of public interest groups have lambasted the proposal as “fake net neutrality” and said it was rife with loopholes. One group, Public Knowledge, said that instead of providing clear protections, the F.C.C. “created a vague and shifting landscape open to interpretation. Consumers deserved better.”
Notably, the rules are watered down for wireless Net providers like AT&T and Verizon, which would be prohibited from blocking Web sites, but not from blocking applications or services unless those applications directly compete with providers’ voice and video products, like Skype.
F.C.C. officials said there were technological reasons for the wireless distinctions, and that they would continue to closely monitor the medium.
Citing the wireless proposal, Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, said over the weekend that the F.C.C. was effectively allowing discrimination on the mobile Net, a fast-growing sector.
“Maybe you like Google Maps. Well, tough,” Mr. Franken said on Saturday on the Senate floor. “If the F.C.C. passes this weak rule, Verizon will be able to cut off access to the Google Maps app on your phone and force you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it is not as good. And even if they charge money, when Google Maps is free.”
He added, “If corporations are allowed to prioritize content on the Internet, or they are allowed to block applications you access on your iPhone, there is nothing to prevent those same corporations from censoring political speech.”
Mr. Franken and other critics say the rules come with major caveats; for instance, they would allow for “reasonable network management” by broadband providers. And they would discourage but not expressly forbid something called “paid prioritization,” which would allow a media or technology company to pay the provider for faster transmission of data, potentially creating an uneven playing field.
The F.C.C. officials also said that the order would require transparency about those network management practices. “That sunshine will help deter bad behavior,” one of the officials said. They spoke only on the condition of anonymity because the F.C.C. order has not been made public.
President Obama has repeatedly indicated his support for net neutrality principles, and his chief technology officer, Aneesh Chopra, said on Dec. 1 that the F.C.C. proposal was an “important step in preventing abuses and continuing to advance the Internet as an engine of productivity growth and innovation.”
The two Democratic commissioners, Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn, acknowledged on Monday that the order was not as strong as they would have liked. But they said it had been improved this month in discussions with Mr. Genachowski, and they said they would not oppose it.
Their votes along with Mr. Genachowski’s would be enough to approve the order at the F.C.C. meeting on Tuesday.
Two Republican commissioners, Meredith Baker and Robert McDowell, are expected to oppose it. Republicans have suggested that the net neutrality rules are an example of government overreach; in an opinion piece on Monday in The Wall Street Journal, Mr. McDowell asserted that “nothing is broken that needs fixing.”
In a statement Monday afternoon, Mr. Copps strongly disagreed. He said he wanted to ensure that the Internet “doesn’t travel down the same road of special interest consolidation and gate-keeper control that other media and telecommunications industries — radio, television, film and cable — have traveled.”
“What an historic tragedy it would be,” he said, “to let that fate befall the dynamism of the Internet.”
Rilis paling jelas dari Departemen Luar Negeri pekan ini bukan kabel bocor namun "Hari Kebebasan Pers Dunia" pengumuman.
Just as the rest of the US government was hounding companies not to do business with WikiLeaks, the department hailed the ability of new media to empower citizens in “environments sometimes hostile” to freedom of expression . Sama seperti sisa pemerintah AS menggangguku perusahaan untuk tidak melakukan bisnis dengan WikiLeaks, departemen memuji kemampuan media baru untuk memberdayakan warga negara dalam "lingkungan kadang-kadang bermusuhan" untuk kebebasan berekspresi .
“At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information,” it went on to say. "Pada saat yang sama, kita prihatin tentang penentuan beberapa pemerintah untuk menyensor dan individu diam, dan untuk membatasi aliran informasi yang bebas," lanjut itu dengan mengatakan.
You gotta love that. Kau harus cinta itu.
But as well as the unembarrassed hypocrisy, it reminds us that internet freedom is severely vulnerable to attacks by governments, and not just the usual culprits such as China and Iran. Tetapi serta kemunafikan unembarrassed, mengingatkan kita bahwa kebebasan internet adalah sangat rentan terhadap serangan oleh pemerintah, dan bukan hanya pelaku biasa seperti China dan Iran.
A month ago the flap about China “hijacking” web traffic pointed to the fragility of the BGP routing infrastructure which underpins IP traffic management. Sebulan yang lalu, flap tentang Cina "pembajakan" lalu lintas web menunjuk ke kerapuhan infrastruktur routing BGP yang menyokong manajemen trafik IP.
The WikiLeaks saga shows how the DNS system is a chokepoint and thus also vulnerable. Hikayat WikiLeaks menunjukkan bagaimana sistem DNS adalah chokepoint dan dengan demikian juga rentan.
The DDoS attacks on WikiLeaks forced its registrar, EveryDNS, to cancel its domain registration in order to protect its other 500,000 customers. The serangan DDoS pada WikiLeaks dipaksa registrar nya, EveryDNS, untuk membatalkan pendaftaran domain dalam rangka melindungi lainnya 500.000 pelanggan.
Then the retaliatory attacks this week by hacktivists on Visa and Mastercard further demonstrated the power of DDoS to take websites off the air. Kemudian balasan serangan pekan ini oleh hacktivists pada Visa dan Mastercard lebih lanjut menunjukkan kekuatan DDoS untuk mengambil situs dari udara.
WikiLeaks is online thanks to hundreds of mirror sites, but that's not an option for other websites that come under attack. WikiLeaks adalah berkat online ke ratusan situs cermin, tapi itu bukan pilihan bagi website lain yang diserang.
The lesson from WikiLeaks is that cyberspace is a lawless zone where the weak are prey to the strong. Pelajaran dari WikiLeaks adalah bahwa dunia maya adalah zona tanpa hukum mana yang lemah mangsa yang kuat.
What we need is a cyberspace police force to protect the rights of legitimate sites, and an effective judicial forum to settle disputes. Apa yang kita butuhkan adalah kekuatan polisi dunia maya untuk melindungi hak-hak situs yang sah, dan forum peradilan yang efektif untuk menyelesaikan sengketa.
Obviously that would require the cooperation of the world's powers, and for the US to cede its dominance. Jelas bahwa akan memerlukan kerja sama dari kekuatan dunia, dan bagi AS untuk menyerahkan dominasinya. Obviously it ain't going to happen soon. Jelas itu tidak akan terjadi segera. Or ever. Atau pernah.
But the US assault on WikiLeaks has exposed giant cracks in web governance. Namun serangan AS WikiLeaks telah terkena retakan raksasa di pemerintahan web. They will only get bigger. Mereka hanya akan mendapatkan lebih besar.
Professor Nicholas Negroponte, Mantan Kepala Lab Media Institut Teknologi Massachusetts (MIT) yang sangat kreatif dan innovatif dalam merancang sebuah laptop kecil atau netbook dengan harga US$100 sehingga makin banyak masyarakat yang dapat menikmati internet sebagai sumber informasi dan pengetahuan, agar mereka dapai mengikuti kemajuanteknologi, menjadi lebih cerdas untuk dapat meningkatkan kesejahteraan mereka.
Para Hackers dan Cyberpranksters di Dunia Maya yang awalnya terdiri dari anak-anak muda yang senang usil mengganggu ketenangan di Dunia Maya, sekarang menemukan alasan untuk membela Wikileaks yang sedang dibungkam oleh kekuatan Pemerintahan Negara-negara Barat melalui tuduhan atas pelecehan seksual oleh Julian Assange, si Pendiri Wikileaks.
Kelompok anak-anak muda ini bergabung dalam Organisasi Tanpa Bentuk "Anonymous" dan berkomunikasi melalui Jejaring Sosial, seperti FB, Twitter, Blogs, Milis dan Chat Rooms, dimana hanya dengan menggunakan kode singkat untuk memulai serangan "Fire Now" dapat melumpuhkan Situs-situs milik Pemerintah dan Swasta yang memusuhi Wikileaks, menggunakan sistem serangan Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) yang sulit dihentikan karena sumber serangan yang jumlahnya ribuan atau jutaan lokasi pada satu saat.
Kalau dahulu para Cyberpranksters ini hanya mengganggu tanpa merusak Situs, maka kali ini kelompok Cyberanarchists ini dapat melakukan serangan yang lebih fatal, sebab mereka menggunakan software koordinasi serangan yang lebih canggih. Software ini di-download sebanyak 1000 per jam.
Anggota kelompok Anonymous ini umumnya adalah anak-anak muda berusia 18-24 tahun. Namun anggota kelompok ini yang tertangkap Polisi di Belanda berusia hanya 16-tahun di rumah orang-tuanya.
Mereka-mereka yang tertangkap itu umumnya karena kurang pandai dalam menghapus jejaknya di Dunia Maya.
Kelompok lain yang bersimpati kepada Wikileaks adalah Electronic Frontier Foundation yang dipimpin oleh Mr. Barlow, karena memiliki prinsip kebebasan dan netralitas di Internet. Namun mereka kurang setuju dengan cara serangan DDoS Anonymous itu, walapuan mengaguminya. Mereka menginginkan keterbukaan publik dalam penyelenggaraan Pemerintahan maupun dalam bisnis Swasta, makanya mereka juga menginginkan tetapnya keberadaan Wikileaks.
Apapun yang sedang terjadi saat ini di Dunia Maya akan mepengaruhi prinsip-prinsip kebebasan, netralitas dan netiqette yang selama ini kita anut dalam penyelenggaraan Internet Global.
Akan mampukan perangkat-perangkat hukum yang ada di Indonesia untuk mengatur dan menangkal kekacauan di Dunia Maya saat ini?
Silahkan ditanggapi.
They got their start years ago as cyberpranksters, an online community of tech-savvy kids more interested in making mischief than political statements.
But the coordinated attacks on major corporate and government Web sites in defense of WikiLeaks, which began on Wednesday and continued on Thursday, suggested that the loosely organized group called Anonymous might have come of age, evolving into one focused on more serious matters: in this case, the definition of Internet freedom.
While the attacks on such behemoths as MasterCard, Visa and PayPal were not nearly as sophisticated as some less publicized assaults, they were a step forward in the group’s larger battle against what it sees as increasing control of the Internet by corporations and governments. This week they found a cause and an icon: Julian Assange, the former hacker who founded WikiLeaks and is now in a London jail at the request of the Swedish authorities investigating him on accusations of rape.
“This is kind of the shot heard round the world — this is Lexington,” said John Perry Barlow, a co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties organization that advocates for a freer Internet.
On Thursday, the police in the Netherlands took the first official action against the campaign, detaining a 16-year-old student in his parents’ home in The Hague who they said admitted to participating in attacks on MasterCard and Visa. The precise nature of his involvement was unclear, but in past investigations, the authorities have sometimes arrested those unsophisticated enough not to cover their tracks on the Web.
Meanwhile, a lawyer for Mr. Assange, 39, said he strongly denied that he had encouraged any attacks on behalf of WikiLeaks.
“It is absolutely false,” the lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in London on Thursday. “He did not make any such instruction, and indeed he sees that as a deliberate attempt to conflate hacking organizations” with “WikiLeaks, which is not a hacking organization. It is a news organization and a publisher.”
Although Anonymous remains shadowy and without public leaders, it developed a loose hierarchy in recent years as it took on groups as diverse as the Church of Scientology and the Motion Picture Association of America.
The coordination and the tactics developed in those campaigns appeared to make this week’s attacks more powerful, allowing what analysts believe is a small group to enlist thousands of activists to bombard Web sites with traffic, making them at least temporarily inaccessible. Experts say the group appears to have used more sophisticated software this time that allowed supporters to repeatedly visit the sites at a specific time when the command was given.
The Twitter account identified with the Anonymous movement contained messages with little more than the words “Fire now.”
The attacks thus far have been of limited effect, shutting down the MasterCard Web site, not its online transactions.
But to security experts and people who have tracked or participated in the Anonymous movement, they indicated a step forward for cyberanarchists railing against the “elites” — corporations and governments with power over both the machinery and, critics increasingly argue, the content on the Web.
“In the past, Anonymous made quite a lot of noise but did little damage,” said Amichai Shulman, chief technology officer at Imperva, a California-based security technology company. “It’s different this time around. They are starting to use the same tools that industrial hackers are using.”
Despite the name, Anonymous can be found in many locations and formats. Members converse in online forums and chat rooms where friendships and alliances often build.
“It’s the first place I go when I turn on my computer,” said one Anonymous activist, reached on an online chat service, who did not want to be named discussing the structure of the organization.
Groups of these friends, who form new conversations, or threads, sometimes decide on a topic or an issue that they feel is deserving of more attention, the activist said.
“You post things, discuss ideas and that leads to putting out a video or a document” for a campaign. In the case of WikiLeaks, the activist said, it appears that two groups decided almost simultaneously to mount a concerted effort against the site’s enemies.
“I got e-mailed these two links on Sunday or Monday,” he said. Denouncing “what’s being done to Julian and WikiLeaks,” he said, he decided to join in.
These ideas bubble up, but ultimately a small group decides exactly what affiliated site should be attacked and when, according to a Dutch writer on the Anonymous movement, who writes a blog under the name Ernesto Van der Sar. There is a chat room “that is invite only, with a dozen or so people,” he said, that pick the targets and the time of attack.
He described the typical Anonymous member as young; he guessed 18 to 24 years old.
While Anonymous has recently had success with attacks on sites related to copyright infringement cases, the WikiLeaks cause has brought a much greater intensity to its efforts.
The campaigns are part of Operation Payback, created in the summer to defend a file-sharing site in Sweden that counts itself part of the mission of keeping the Internet unfettered and unfiltered and that was singled out by the authorities.
“We could move against enemies of WikiLeaks so easily because there was already a network up and running, there was already a chat room for people to meet in,” said Gregg Housh, an activist who has been involved in Anonymous campaigns but disavows a personal role in any illegal online activity.
The software used to coordinate the attacks is being downloaded about 1,000 times per hour, with about one-third of those downloads coming from the United States. Recently the software was improved so that a command could be sent to a supporter’s computers and the attack would begin — no human needed.
But even Mr. Barlow of the Electronic Frontier Foundation appeared to have second thoughts about where such escalation could lead: On Thursday, he said that the Anonymous group members represented “a stunning force in the world.
“But still,” he said, it is “better used to open, not to close.” He added that he opposed denial-of-service attacks on principle: “It’s like the poison gas of cyberspace. The fundamental principle should be to open things up and not close them.”
Things were hardly so serious when Anonymous first made a name for itself. The group grew out of online message boards like 4chan, an unfiltered meeting place with more than its share of misanthropic behavior and schemes.
Mr. Housh said of Anonymous: “It was deliberately not for any good. We kind of took pride in it.”
That changed when Mr. Housh and a few dozen others were incensed by the Church of Scientology’s attempt to use copyright law to remove a long video in which the actor Tom Cruise had spoken about church beliefs.
With its work on behalf of WikiLeaks, Anonymous has found a much more high-profile cause. As the campaign expands, many fear a more contentious Internet as governments and businesses respond to more serious attacks by activists who benefit from improvements in bandwidth and readily available hacking tools.
“Home field advantage goes to the attacker,” said Gunter Ollmann, vice president of research at Damballa, an Atlanta-based firm that specializes in Internet protection. “With a little bit of coordination and growing numbers of participants, these things will continue to happen regularly.”
Perang Dunia Maya atau Cyber War dimulai 12-jam setelah Pengadilan Inggris memutuskan untuk menahan pendiri Wikileaks, Julian Assange atas tuduhan kejahatan sex saat ia berada di Swedia. Penahannya didasarkan atas surat perintah penahanan dari Polisi Swedia, untuk mengadili Julian Assange dan meng-ekstradisi ke Swedia.
Dampak dari serangan para Hackers ini adalah terhentikannya operasi Situs-situs perusahaan yang memusuhi Wikileaks, seperti Visa.com, Master Card, dan Amazon.com serta Pemeritah seperti Swedia untuk beberapa saat karena gencarnya serangan Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) yang tidakdapat dihindarkan.
Sementara itu banyak pendukung Julian Assange di Astralia, Inggris dan Swedia yang melakukan protes atas ditangkapya Julian, yang menurut mereka adalah tuduhan yang dibuat-buat untuk membungkam Wikileaks.
Berikut iniadalah beritanya dari The New York Times.
LONDON — In a campaign that had some declaring the start of a “cyberwar,” hundreds of Internet activists mounted retaliatory attacks on Wednesday on the Web sites of multinational companies and other organizations they deemed hostile to the WikiLeaks antisecrecy organization and its jailed founder, Julian Assange.
Within 12 hours of a British judge’s decision on Tuesday to deny Mr. Assange bail in a Swedish extradition case, attacks on the Web sites of WikiLeaks’s “enemies,” as defined by the organization’s impassioned supporters around the world, caused several corporate Web sites to become inaccessible or slow down markedly.
Targets of the attacks, in which activists overwhelmed the sites with traffic, included the Web site of MasterCard, which had stopped processing donations for WikiLeaks; Amazon.com, which revoked the use of its computer servers; and PayPal, which stopped accepting donations for Mr. Assange’s group. Visa.com was also affected by the attacks, as were the Web sites of the Swedish prosecutor’s office and the lawyer representing the two women whose allegations of sexual misconduct are the basis of Sweden’s extradition bid.
The Internet assaults underlined the growing reach of self-described “cyberanarchists,” antigovernment and anticorporate activists who have made an icon of Mr. Assange, a 39-year-old Australian.
The speed and range of the attacks also appeared to show the resilience of the backing among computer activists for Mr. Assange, who has appeared increasingly isolated in recent months amid the furor stoked by WikiLeaks’s Web site posting of hundreds of thousands of secret Pentagon documents on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Mr. Assange has come under renewed attack in the past two weeks for posting the first tranche of a trove of 250,000 secret State Department cables that have exposed American diplomats’ frank assessments of relations with many countries, forcing Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to express regret to world leaders and raising fears that they and other sources would become more reticent.
The New York Times and four other news organizations last week began publishing articles based on the archive of cables made available to them.
In recent months, some of Mr. Assange’s closest associates in WikiLeaks abandoned him, calling him autocratic and capricious and accusing him of reneging on WikiLeaks’s original pledge of impartiality to launch a concerted attack on the United States. He has been simultaneously fighting a remote battle with the Swedish prosecutors, who have sought his extradition for questioning on accusations of “rape, sexual molestation and forceful coercion” made by the Swedish women. Mr. Assange has denied any wrongdoing in the cases.
American officials have repeatedly said that they are reviewing possible criminal charges against Mr. Assange, a step that could lead to a bid to extradite him to the United States and confront him with having to fight for his freedom on two fronts.
The cyberattacks in Mr. Assange’s defense appear to have been coordinated by Anonymous, a loosely affiliated group of activist computer hackers who have singled out other groups before, including the Church of Scientology. Last weekend, members of Anonymous vowed in two online manifestos to take revenge on any organization that lined up against WikiLeaks.
Anonymous claimed responsibility for the MasterCard attack in Web messages and, according to one activist associated with the group, conducted waves of attacks on other companies during the day. The group said the actions were part of an effort called Operation Payback, which began as a way of punishing companies that attempted to stop Internet file-sharing and movie downloads.
The activist, Gregg Housh, who disavows a personal role in any illegal online activity, said that 1,500 supporters had been in online forums and chat rooms organizing the mass “denial of service” attacks. His account was confirmed by Jose Nazario, a senior security researcher at Arbor Networks, a Chelmsford, Mass., firm that tracks malicious activity on computer networks.
Most of the corporations whose sites were targeted did not explain why they severed ties with WikiLeaks. But PayPal issued statements saying its decision was based on “a violation” of its policy on promoting illegal activities.
Almost all the corporate Web sites that were attacked appeared to be operating normally later on Wednesday, suggesting that any economic impact was limited. But the sense of an Internet war was reinforced when Netcraft, a British Internet monitoring firm, reported that the Web site being used by the hackers to distribute denial-of-service software had been suspended by a Dutch hosting firm, Leaseweb.
A sense of the belligerent mood among activists was given when one contributor to a forum the group uses, WhyWeProtest.net, wrote of the attacks: “The war is on. And everyone ought to spend some time thinking about it, discussing it with others, preparing yourselves so you know how to act if something compels you to make a decision. Be very careful not to err on the side of inaction.”
Mr. Housh acknowledged that there had been online talk among the hackers of a possible Internet campaign against the two women who have been Mr. Assange’s accusers in the Swedish case, but he said that “a lot of people don’t want to be involved.”
A Web search showed new blog posts in recent days in which the two women, identified by the Swedish prosecutors only as Ms. A. and Ms. W., were named, but it was not clear whether there was any link to Anonymous. The women have said that consensual sexual encounters with Mr. Assange became nonconsensual when condoms were no longer in use.
The cyberattacks on corporations Wednesday were seen by many supporters as a counterstrike against the United States. Mr. Assange’s online supporters have widely condemned the Obama administration as the unseen hand coordinating efforts to choke off WikiLeaks by denying it financing and suppressing its network of computer servers.
Mr. Housh described Mr. Assange in an interview as “a political prisoner,” a common view among WikiLeaks supporters who have joined Mr. Assange in condemning the sexual abuse accusations as part of an American-inspired “smear campaign.”
Another activist used the analogy of the civil rights struggle for the cyberattacks.
“Are they disrupting business?” a contributor using the name Moryath wrote in a comment on the slashdot.org technology Web site. “Perhaps, but no worse than the lunch counter sit-ins did.”
Jaringan 3G, baik itu CDMA 2000 1X maupun UMTS/WCDMA/HSDPA memang di-disain untuk layanan Voice, SMS, Fax, Data berkecepatan rendah, karena carrier pembawa data hanya dibuat ukuran kecil (narrow band), sekitar 1.25 MHZ, sehingga kita tidak bisa mengharap banyak hasilnya. Terbukti dilapangan, bahwa layanan 3G yang ada ternyata sangat tidak memuaskan pelanggan, walaupun di klaim oleh para operator kecepatan transmisi data puncaknya sebagai 3,6 Mbps, 7,2 Mbps, 14,7 Mbps, 21 Mbps, dan terakhir HSPA+ dengan kecepatan transmis 42 Mbps.
Semuanya belum terbukti dilapangan, di Ponsel, Laptop, di PDA, di PC, dll, kecuali di saat testing awal saja saat ULO.
Kemarin di Milis MASTEL ada berita menarik dari seorang anggota, yaitu Pak Richard Kartawijaya yang menguji-coba gratis layanan WiMAX Sitra 4G First Media dirumahnya, dan hasilnya sungguh memuaskan hatinya, karena ia menikmati kecepatan "TRUE" Broadband: Youtube bisa didownload cepat dan tidak terlihat "ndut-ndutan", email instant, download/upload files terlihat mendekati kecepatan instant...
Kalau rakyat Malaysia saat ini sudah bisa menikmati layanan "True Broadband" itu dengan kecepatan yang sangat tinggi dari 4-oprator WiMAX 16e, sehingga penetrasi Broadband di negeri itu pada akhir tahun 2010 ini mencapai 50% perumahan (Household) dan menjadi 90% tahun 2011, maka kita perlu iri-hati. Tahun 2010 ini rata-rata penduduk Malaysia memakai data sebesar 13 GB per bulan, dan tahun depat diramalkan akan mencapai rata-rata 50GB per bulan.
Prof. Budi Rahadjo melalui postingnya di Twitter menyatakan kalau beliau butuh tiap bulan data download/upload sebesar 100 GB per bulan. Namun ada berapa orang di Indonesia yang butuh download/upload data sebesar ini tiap bulan?
Jadi Indonesia sebenarnya juga mampu untuk memberikan layanan serupa dengan Malaysia, sehingga penetrasi Broadband sebagai indikator kemajuan perekonomian nasional melalui dampak Broadband Economy-nya, seharusnya juga sudah dinkmati rakyat Indonesia.
Dari data empiris, maka tiap 10% peningkatan penetrasi Broadband akan menumbuhkan GDP sevesar 1,38%. Jadi kalau kita terlambat menerapkan Broadband selama 3-tahun, ini sama artinya kalau kita sudah kehilangan potensi sebesar 3x1,38%xGDP Indonesia (US$1 Trilyun) = Rp 414 Trilyun.
Mau sampai kapan lagi kita menunda kehadiran True Broadband di Indonesia? Haruskah kita menunggu hadirnya LTE yang merupakan produk proprietary, yang harus dibayar lisensinya, padahal kita sudah siap dengan manufaktur WiMAX 16d dan 16e dengan kandungan lokal yang tinggi?
Kalau ini disebabkan karena para Operator 3G takut kehilangan pasarnya, ini hanyalah ketakutan yang berlebihan, sebab seperti dibuktikan di banyak negara maju, opartor 3G juga mengoperasikan WiMAX 16e tanpa ketakutan kehilangan pasar 3G, malah memang ini strateginya untuk offload traffic data 3G yang sudah overload seperti halnya di Indonesai, dan menggantikannya dengan teknologi baru 4G yang memang benar-benar dirancang khusus untuk traffic data, yaitu WiMAX 16d dan 16e (juga LTE, namun khan kita masih harus menunggu lebih lama untuk operasionalnya, sebab sekaran masih tahap ujicoba dan trial skala kecil, sehingga harganya masih sangat mahal).
Jadi saran saya kepada Regulator, agar layanan WiMAX 16d dan 16e dioperasikan pada pita frekwensi 2,3GHz yang memang sejak awal diproyeksikan untuk itu. Jangan ditunda lagi, sebab dampaknya adalah potensi kerugian nasional sebesar Rp 138 Trilyun tiap tahun. Untuk LTE, yang merupakan Roadmap jaringan 3G hendaknya dialokasikan pada pita 3G yang ada, serta pada pita hasil Digital Dividend pada 700 MHz dan 2,6 GHz, sekaligus memberikan kesempatan kepada manufaktur lokal lainnya yang katanya sedang mempersiapkannya.
Berfikirlah positif demi kemajuan bangsa dan negara yang kita cintai. Lupakan segala argumentasi masa lalu yang tidak produktif dan konstruktif. Mari kita semua melihat kedepan, Zaman keemasan Indonesia, Indonesia yang aman, adil, makmur dan sejahteran bagi seluruh rakyatnya.
Silahkan ditanggapi, disanggah atau didukung, dengan tujuan demi kemajuan bangsa dan negara yang kita cintai.
Wassalam,
S Roestam
http://wirelesstekno.blogspot.com
http://wartaduniamaya.blogspot.com
http://mastel.wordpress.com
1. "Waiting Game is a Losing Game"
Kita sudah tertinggal selama 3-tahun dalam menerapkan Broadband Wireless Access sebagai infrastruktur utama untuk menjadikan jaringan Broadband sebagai enabler pertumbuhan perekonomian bangsa. Untuk tiap 10% penetrasi jaringan Broadband, maka secara empiris diperoleh pertumbuhan GDP sebesar 1,38%. GDP Indonesia pada tahun 2010 diperkirakan sebesar US$1.000 milyar. Bila kita angap tiap tahun jaringan broadband itu tumbuh sebesar 10%, maka dalam 3-tahun seharusnya GDP itu tumbuh sebagai dampak Broadband Economy sebesar 3x1,38%xUS41.000 milyar = US$41,4 milyar atau Rp414 Trilyun. Ini merupakan lost of opportunity dari bangsa Indonesia.
2. "The Future is on Mobile Broadband Technology"
Saat ini di Dunia sudah ada 5-milyar perangkat Mobile Wireless. jadi untuk menggenapkan jumlah itu menjadi 6-milyar penduduk Dunia, maka "The Next Billion" adalah Mobile Wireless users, utamanya adalah Mobile Broadband Wireless users.
Peniliti OVUM memperkirakan bahwa pada tahun 2015 didunia akan ada 750-juta Fixed Broadband lines, termasuk didalamnya 150-juta Serat Optik. Pada tahun yang sama jumlah Mobile Wireless Broadband Users sudah akan mencapai 3,2-milyar orang atau lebih dari 4-kali lipat dari Fixed Broadband lines.
3. Indonesia sudah siap mengembangkan IDN Broadband WiMAX di Pita 2,3 GHZ
Setelah berjuang selama 3-tahun akhirnya Indonesia memiliki kemampuan untuk menguasai Core Teknologi Broadband Wireless Access WiMAX atau Chipset WiMAX, baik itu WiMAX 16d maupun 16e, dimana malah produk WiMAX 16e telah berhasil di-expor ke berbagai negara di luar negeri. Bila berhasil dikembangkan lebih lanjut menuju ke teknologi WiMAX 2.0 (Generasi ke-2), yaitu WiMAX 16m yang telah diakui oleh ITU sebagai "True 4G" (Teknologi Seluler Generasi ke-4) yang setara dengan LTE-Advanced, dimana akan dapat dicapai kecepatan transmisi puncak sampai 340 Mbps, maka akan dapat turut dikembangkan industri pendukungnya di dalam negeri, seperti antena, casing, content dan aplikasi-aplikasinya, after-sales-service, training dan education, dll.
Ini merupakan sebuah kesempatan emas untuk membangun industri manfaktur dalam negeri Indonesia, dimana bila kesempatan emas ini dilewatkan, maka mungkin kesempatan emas serupa tidak akan hadir dalam jangka waktu 100 atau 1000-tahun lagi. Kita harus ingat pengalaman 3-tahun y.l., "Waiting Game is a Losing Game", melihat ke butir 1 diatas.
4. Indonesia belum siap membangun Core Technology LTE, perlu waktu minimum 3-tahun lagi.
Teknologi LTE adalah teknologi yang sudah dipatent-kan, Kekayaan Intelektual-nya (IPR-nya) sudah dimiliki oleh negara-negara lain, yaitu Eropa, Cina, Korea dan USA. Kalaupun kita ingin mengembangkan Core Technology LTE sendiri, maka akan perlu waktu lebih dari 3-tahun. Kalau beli lisensi, maka akan mahal, lagipula mengembangkan teknologi milik orang lain hanya akan menghasilkan nilai tambah yang sangat minimal.
Maka berlaku lagi pengalaman pada butir 1 diatas, yaitu "Waiting Game is a Losing Game....."
5. Teknologi WiMAX 16e sudah sangat matang, harga CPE-nya sekitar $30, sedangkan Teknologi LTE masih pada tahap awal, harga CPE-nya diatas ribuan Dollar.
Teknologi WiMAX adalah teknologi Broadband Wireless yang sudah sangat matang, sebab sudah berjalan selama lebih dari 3-tahun, merupakan teknologi yang hasilnya terjangkau masyarakat luas, harga CPE-nya sekitar $30 tahun depan, memiliki ecosystem industri yang robust (kuat), sudah ada lebih dari 300-jenis perangkat yang terkait, digunakan pada 500 jaringan telekomunikasi diseluruh dunia yang mencakup populasi sebanyak 800 juta orang.
Sedangkan Teknologi LTE adalah teknologi yang baru saja dikembangkan (masih bayi, infant). Untuk mencapai tahap kesiapan seperti Teknologi WiMAX diatas, maka akan butuh waktu sekitar 2-3 tahun lagi, sehingga pengalaman pada butir 1 diatas berlaku lagi: "Wating Game is a Losing Game..."
6. Pita 2,3GHZ paling cocok untuk WiMAX, bukan untuk LTE yg akan menjadi keputusan yang aneh.
Sejak awal memang pita frekwensi 2,3GHz sudah dialokasikan untuk Teknologi Broadband Wireless Access WiMAX. Menempatkan LTE pada pita 2,3GHz menjadi sebuah keputusan yang aneh, membuat pelanggan LTE Indonesia menjadi terkucilkan, tidak bisa membawa keluar perangkat ponsel LTE, PDA LTE atau Laptop LTE ke luar negeri saat kita bepergian, sebab menggunakan pita frekwensi diluar standar Internasional. Kalaupun ingin membuat CPE Indonesia bisa roaming, maka perlu ditambahkan fitur multi-band dengan menambah biaya bagi masyarakat penggunanya, dan membebani keuangan mereka dengan biaya yang tidak seperlunya.
Regulator perlu menetapkan pita 2,3GHz sebagai Teknologi Netral untuk WiMAX (16d dan 16e).
Kerugian lainnya, perangkat LTE produksi Indonesia pada pita 2,3GHz tidak bisa di ekspor ke LN, sehingga membuat industri DN LTE ini sulit untuk berkembang.
Solusi yang terbaik bagi LTE Indonesia adalah menempatkannya pada pita 3G karena LTE adalah kelanjutan dari teknologi itu, atau pada pita hasil Digital Dividend siaran Broadcast TV di 700 MHz, dan pada pita 2,6MHz seperti yang telah dirancang oleh mayoritas negara-negara lain di Dunia.
7. Keuntungan Masa Depan dari Operator 3G yang berevolusi ke LTE tidak akan dinikmati oleh Operator Non-3G dan Operator Baru.
Para operator telekomunikasi 3G memang mendapat keuntungan penghematan CAPEX ketika ber-evolusi ke LTE, sebab ada common RF Equipment di BTS yang dapat di-share oleh kedua teknologi itu. Namun bagi para operator Non-3G, seperti para ISP, Cable-TV, dan para operator pendatang baru, tidak mendapatkan keutungan itu ketika menerapkan Teknologi LTE.
8. Perlu ada keputusan yang tepat dan cepat.
Semua pengalaman dan penderitaan bangsa ini selama tiga tahun yang lalu perlu kita ambil sebagai sebuah pengalaman dan pelajaran yang mahal namun juga berharga, cukup sudah lost opportunity sebesar Rp 414 Trilyun, jangan ditambah lagi. Maka kini tiba saatnya kita semua mengambil keputusan yang tepat dan cepat....
Silahkan ditanggapi, disanggah, dibenarkan atau didukung, sehingga kita bisa yakin bahwa keputusan yang diambil adalah yang terbaik, demi kemajuan bangsa dan negara Indonesia yang kita cintai.
Wassalam,
S Roestam
http://wirelesstekno.blogspot.com
http://wartaduniamaya.blogspot.com
http://mastel.wordpress.com
Menarik sekali topik yang dibahas, yaitu kegagalan Garuda menerapakan Sistem Informasi yang canggih yang dinamakan:
Integrated Operation Control System (IOCS). Berikut ini contoh iklan dari Lufthansa tentang IOCC (Control Center) yang sama dengan IOCS itu, sbb:
"Today, it̢۪s not enough to be aware of market conditions, financials and the competition.
You must be able to make the right decisions, right away.
Lufthansa Systems’ IOCC Platform gives you the business process integration that puts you squarely in the pilot's seat…at the controls… and in control.
It drives the essential efficiencies and economies throughout your airline̢۪s operations.
From short-term schedule management, operations control, and crew management to flight planning and weight & balance, the IOCC Platform is suitable to increase operational and economical benefits unattainable with any standalone system."
Jadi fokus keunggulan yang akan diperoleh adalah integrasi sistem control Garuda yg akan menghasilkan efisiensi operasi dan biaya operasional perusahaan.
Dalam membuat keputusan investasi CAPEX TI ini biasanya dilakukan melalui sebuah Komite yang anggotanya terdiri dari para excecutives bisnis maupun MIS Department/CIO. Apakah proses IT Good Governance ini sudah dilaksanakan dengan baik?
Pertanyaan lain, apakah Garuda sedang melakukan Business Process Improvement (BPI) ataukah Business Process Reengineering (BPR)?
Kalau ada perubahan Proses Bisnis, tentu hal ini harus diselaraskan dengan dengan Visi, Misi, Objectives serta Strategi Perusahaan. Dengan perubahan ini, maka diperlukan pula perubahan organisasi Garuda yg sesuai dengan proses bisnis yg baru ini.
Juga perlu ada kejelasan, apakah dilakukan perubahan drastis organisasi (BPR), ataukan perubahan secara bertahap (BPI)? Bila Proyek IOCS Garuda itu dilakukan dalam kurun waktu singkat, maka ini termasuk BPR, dan bila dalam waktu panjang dan bertahap, maka ini termasuk BPI. Adakah yg tahu, berapa lama proses transisi IOCS Garuda itu dilaksanakan?
Apakah sudah ada sosialisasi yg intensif dengan para stakeholders di Garuda, terutama para executives-nya dan karyawannya?
Kalau ada kawan2 yg bersedia memberikan jawaban atas pertanyaan2 diatas itu, akan sangat baik untuk dijadikan dokumentasi tentang kegagalan implementasi Sistem Informasi yang bisa dijadikan bahan pembelajaran bagi mahasiswa Business Schools di Indonesia maupun di LN.
Kasus serupa juga pernah terjadi di perusahaan penerbangan JetBlue dari AS tahun 2007 saat terjadinya topan es yang melanda Pantai Timur AS pada tahun 2007 yang lalu, dimana ada 1000 jadwal penerbangan harus dibatalkan dalam kurun waktu 5-hari. Ribuan penumpang terlantar di JFK Airport, New York saat itu. Ini bisa terjadi karena Sistem Informasi (Reservation System) yang dipakai terbatas kemampuannya/kapasitasnya, sehingga saat ada peak demand, sistem itu collapse.
Apakah yang sebenarnya terjadi di IOCS Garuda beberapa hari yang lalu? Apakah sekarang sudah dapat melakukan recovery?
Silahkan ditanggapi dan diberikan masukan yang positif agar kita dapat belajar dari pengalaman ini.
sAn annual report to Congress touched off a round of speculation Wednesday about the motives of a small Chinese Internet service provider that briefly rerouted as much as 15 percent of the world’s Web traffic on two occasions last spring.
The report, by the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, noted that the service provider, IDC China Telecommunication, broadcast inaccurate Web traffic routes for about 18 minutes on April 8. That information was then retransmitted by China’s state-owned China Telecommunications, effectively forcing data from the United States and other countries to pass through Chinese computer servers. A similar episode in March drew less attention.
The report said the move affected data traveling over both the government and military networks of the United States, including information from the Senate, the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, the secretary of defense’s office, NASA, the Department of Commerce and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as from many American companies.
The incidents, which were widely reported when they occurred, were never explained, although Chinese engineering managers said that the routing errors were accidental.
The commission said it had no evidence that the misdirection was intentional. “Evidence related to this incident does not clearly indicate whether it was perpetrated intentionally and, if so, to what ends,” it said in the report. “However, computer security researchers have noted that the capability could enable severe malicious activities.” The 12-member commission was established in 2000 to submit an annual report to Congress on the national security implications of the United States’ economic relationship with China.
American computer network engineers who met with Chinese technicians visiting the United States at the time said they did not believe that the Chinese had given them a full description of what had happened.
While sensitive data such as e-mails and commercial transactions are generally encrypted before being transmitted, the Chinese government holds a copy of an encryption master key, and there was speculation that China might have used it to break the encryption on some of the misdirected Internet traffic.
There was also speculation that the rerouting might have been a test of a cyberweapon that could be used to disrupt the Internet during a crisis or a war.
There has been no evidence presented to support either theory, and Chinese technical experts rejected the suggestion that the routing changes were intentional.
“The Web information flow is controlled by the U.S., while China just holds a branch line of the global traffic,” Lu Benfu, director of the Internet Development Research Center at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said on the Web site of Global Times, a state-run newspaper. “So this kind of accusation is technically unfeasible.”(sumber: The New York Times)
Berikut ini adalah artikel tentang kepastian bahwa Virus Stuxnet yang menyerang perankat Cetrifuge di Reaktor Nuklir Iran memang didedikasikan untuk itu....
Experts dissecting the computer worm suspected of being aimed at Iran’s nuclear program have determined that it was precisely calibrated in a way that could send nuclear centrifuges wildly out of control.
Their conclusion, while not definitive, begins to clear some of the fog around the Stuxnet worm, a malicious program detected earlier this year on computers, primarily in Iran but also India, Indonesia and other countries.
The paternity of the worm is still in dispute, but in recent weeks officials from Israel have broken into wide smiles when asked whether Israel was behind the attack, or knew who was. American officials have suggested it originated abroad.
The new forensic work narrows the range of targets and deciphers the worm’s plan of attack. Computer analysts say Stuxnet does its damage by making quick changes in the rotational speed of motors, shifting them rapidly up and down.
Changing the speed “sabotages the normal operation of the industrial control process,” Eric Chien, a researcher at the computer security company Symantec, wrote in a blog post.
Those fluctuations, nuclear analysts said in response to the report, are a recipe for disaster among the thousands of centrifuges spinning in Iran to enrich uranium, which can fuel reactors or bombs. Rapid changes can cause them to blow apart. Reports issued by international inspectors reveal that Iran has experienced many problems keeping its centrifuges running, with hundreds removed from active service since summer 2009.
“We don’t see direct confirmation” that the attack was meant to slow Iran’s nuclear work, David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington that tracks nuclear proliferation, said in an interview Thursday. “But it sure is a plausible interpretation of the available facts.”
Intelligence officials have said they believe that a series of covert programs are responsible for at least some of that decline. So when Iran reported earlier this year that it was battling the Stuxnet worm, many experts immediately suspected that it was a state-sponsored cyberattack.
Until last week, analysts had said only that Stuxnet was designed to infect certain kinds of Siemens equipment used in a wide variety of industrial sites around the world.
But a study released Friday by Mr. Chien, Nicolas Falliere and Liam O. Murchu at Symantec, concluded that the program’s real target was to take over frequency converters, a type of power supply that changes its output frequency to control the speed of a motor.
The worm’s code was found to attack converters made by two companies, Fararo Paya in Iran and Vacon in Finland. A separate study conducted by the Department of Homeland Security confirmed that finding, a senior government official said in an interview on Thursday.
Then, on Wednesday, Mr. Albright and a colleague, Andrea Stricker, released a report saying that when the worm ramped up the frequency of the electrical current supplying the centrifuges, they would spin faster and faster. The worm eventually makes the current hit 1,410 Hertz, or cycles per second — just enough, they reported, to send the centrifuges flying apart.
In a spooky flourish, Mr. Albright said in the interview, the worm ends the attack with a command to restore the current to the perfect operating frequency for the centrifuges — which, by that time, would presumably be destroyed.
“It’s striking how close it is to the standard value,” he said.
The computer analysis, his Wednesday report concluded, “makes a legitimate case that Stuxnet could indeed disrupt or destroy” Iranian centrifuge plants.
The latest evidence does not prove Iran was the target, and there have been no confirmed reports of industrial damage linked to Stuxnet. Converters are used to control a number of different machines, including lathes, saws and turbines, and they can be found in gas pipelines and chemical plants. But converters are also essential for nuclear centrifuges.
On Wednesday, the chief of the Department of Homeland Security’s cybersecurity center in Virginia, Sean McGurk, told a Senate committee that the worm was a “game changer” because of the skill with which it was composed and the care with which it was geared toward attacking specific types of equipment.
Meanwhile, the search for other clues in the Stuxnet program continues — and so do the theories about its origins.
Ralph Langner, a German expert in industrial control systems who has examined the program and who was the first to suggest that the Stuxnet worm may have been aimed at Iran, noted in late September that a file inside the code was named “Myrtus.” That could be read as an allusion to Esther, and he and others speculated it was a reference to the Book of Esther, the Old Testament tale in which the Jews pre-empt a Persian plot to destroy them.
Writing on his Web site last week, Mr. Langner noted that a number of the data modules inside the program contained the date “Sept. 24, 2001,” clearly long before the program was written. He wrote that he believed the date was a message from the authors of the program, but did not know what it might mean.
Last month, researchers at Symantec also speculated that a string of numbers found in the program — 19790509 — while seeming random, might actually be significant. They speculated that it might refer to May 9, 1979, the day that Jewish-Iranian businessman Habib Elghanian was executed in Iran after being convicted of spying for Israel.
Interpreting what the clues might mean is a fascinating exercise for computer experts and conspiracy theorists, but it could also be a way to mislead investigators.
Indeed, according to one investigator, the creation date of the data modules might instead suggest that the original attack code in Stuxnet was written long before the program was actually distributed.
According to Tom Parker, a computer security specialist at Securicon LLC, a security consulting firm based in Washington, the Stuxnet payload appeared to have been written by a team of highly skilled programmers, while the “dropper” program that delivered the program reflected an amateur level of expertise. He said the fact that Stuxnet was detected and had spread widely in a number of countries was an indicator that it was a failed operation.
“The end target is going to be able to know they were the target, and the attacker won’t be able to use this technique again,” he said.
Pemerintah AS menuduh Pemerintah Cina mengalihkan 15% traffic Internet Global selama 18-menit, dimana dalam waktu yang relatif singkat itu 5000 domain name terpengaruh, dan data-data rahasia dari Pemerintah AS telah berhasil di-akses. Informasi ini disampaikan oleh Kevin Anderson, Technology Journalist dari AS.
Pemerintah Cina balik menuduh Pemerintah AS bahwa AS masih terpengaruh oleh Mentalitas Perang Dingin yang dialaminya di masa kejayaan Pemerintahan Komunis Uni Sovyet tahun 1950-1980-an
Perusahaan Anti-Virus McAfee juga menyatakan bahwa akan makin banyak serangan-serangan di Dunia Maya dalam waktu dekat ini.
Awal tahun ini juga ada berita tentang serangan Cyber ke Reaktor-reaktor Nuklir Iran yang disebabkan adanya celah security dalam perangkat centrifuge pemrosesan Uranium buatan Siemens. Virus komputer yang digunakan untuk menyerang Sistem Reaktor Nuklir Iran itu bernama STUXNET, yang dijuluki "Super Cyber Weapon".
Pada bulan Oktober yang lalu, Arnold Schwarznegger Gubernur California, USA, melakukan kunjungan kerjasama ke Moscow, Rusia, dan hasilnya satu orang tokoh Spammer dunia asal Rusia bersedia menghentikan aktivitasnya. Ini dapat dideteksi dari turunnya Volume eMail Spam sebesar 100 milyar email per hari dari sebelumya yang berjumlah total 300 milyar email Spam per hari.
Minggu depan Secretary of State AS Hillary Clinton akan mengadakan pertemuan dengan Uni Eropa untuk membahas masalah Cyber War ini dan cara-cara pencegahannya. Serangan Cyber ini memang bisa cukup membahayakan existensi suatu negara. Selain dapat mencuri informasi penting dan rahasia dari suatu negara, serangan itu dapat pula merusak atau mematikna sistemsistem komputer nasional, mematikan jaringan listrik nasional, dan lain-lain lagi yang dapat mengakibatkan dampak yang luas.
Salah satu yang dapat dilakukan secara internasional adalah dengan menyusun sebuah Treaty atau Konvensi Cyber Security tingkat internasional oleh PBB.
Sebagai catatan kecil, bahwa sampai saat ini para pemakai komputer dengan Operating System Linux atau Open Source hampir tidak pernah kena serangan virus yang merusak data-data yang tersimpan dalam Komputer. Selain dapat menghemat biaya lisesnsi, memang sistem ini juga sangat aman untuk dipergunakan bagi masyarakat Indonesia.
Silahkan ditanggapi dan semoga bermanfaat.
Produk paling populer dari Samsung, yaitu Galaxy Tab tidak perlu mematikan iPad untuk dapat meraih sukses di pasar Smartphone global.
Samsung’s Galaxy Tab landed in stores with a lot of fanfare, and a lot of speculation as to whether this device will be the long anticipated “iPad Killer,” and if it is, to what degree. So having spent time looking at these devices (along with some others) let me say right up front that it’s not an iPad Killer. But that’s kind of like saying that a BMW 328 isn’t a Dodge Minivan killer. In both cases these aren’t the same kind of device; they’re not aimed at the same markets and while they seem similar, they really aren’t.
Because of this, the Galaxy Tab can be successful even if it doesn’t dent the iPad’s sales at all. They’re two different devices, aimed at different types of users. It’s unlikely that someone seriously thinking of buying an iPad will be diverted to the Galaxy Tab. The same thing is true for people seriously considering the Samsung device. In this the situation is somewhat different from what it is in the smartphone world.
When people shop for smartphones there are several factors that matter. They care about the applications that the device runs, of course. But in the case of iOS and Android devices, there are lots of applications for both. They care about the carrier, but it’s unlikely that anyone is buying an iPhone just so they can get AT&T service. With tablets, it’s a different story.
When people are thinking about tablets, applications matter a lot, and those applications have to meet their needs while also functioning usefully in a tablet form factor. Both the Android tablets and the iOS tablets have such applications, although the iPad has a lot more that are designed for that device because it’s been around longer. But people also buy a tablet because they find the device comfortable to use, and they find that it meets their needs in other ways, such as by having a data plan that makes sense. And they choose because they like the form factor.
Setting aside the Android vs. iOS battle for a moment, mainly because it’s not that relevant for anyone but the fanatics on either side, the two devices are about as different as they can be for two lightweight tablets. The Galaxy Tab is relatively small–about the size of an Amazon Kindle. It’s about half the weight of the iPad. It has two cameras, one of which points at the user so they can do video conferencing.
The Apple iPad, on the other hand, has a fairly large screen, it weighs about a pound and a half, and for now it’s camera-free. Both devices can be had with both WiFi and 3G connectivity. But only the iPad has WiFi without 3G. On the other hand, the data plans being offered for the Galaxy Tab have a wider array of options, and some plans can be implemented for very short periods of time for relatively little money.
So if you’re trying to use your tablet as an e-reader, then there’s something to be said about access to brief periods of 3G. If you’re going to be spending a lot of time streaming music or video, they you’re going to need a real data plan regardless of which device you decide you want.
Now, I have to confess that I’ve been looking at these devices lately because I have some international travel planned and carrying a tablet is a lot easier than carrying a briefcase full of books. My experience looking at the Galaxy Tab is that it’s smaller, lighter and the screen is small enough that it’s probably kind of hard to use for reading a book. I also have no idea whether it’s reliable enough to depend on for a long trip, and whether the battery life will really last through a flight and the related time in airports, on trains and the like. I don’t want to find myself two hours from my destination without battery power.
But when I looked at the iPad, its weight was the first thing I noticed. It weighs as much as the books I’m trying not to carry. It seems to have good battery life, however, and you don’t have to use the 3G capability if you don’t want to run up huge bills when abroad. Of course you can turn off the 3G in the Samsung device as well. But if you depend on WiFi, then you’re forced to pay something like 12 Euros a day for WiFi, which is probably worse than paying for 3G.
I also looked at the other tablet-like devices including the Kindle and the Nook. Both of these are better for reading, but they’re not tablets like the Samsung or the Apple devices. So it seems like this market is breaking down into segments that don’t really compete with each other. The Samsung is small, light and equipped with Android so you can get lots of software. Unfortunately, nearly all of the software is designed for phones rather than tablets.
The Apple iPad is larger and heavier, but at least there are a lot of applications designed for that platform. There will be people who like the iPad for what it is and those who like the Samsung Tab. But I don’t think they’re going to be the same people. Then there will be the e-reader buyers who aren’t really looking for a tablet as much as they are looking for a replacement for paper. They’ll go for the Kindle or the Nook which do compete with each other.
Unfortunately, what I’ve found is that I don’t think any of these choices really works for extended travel. Maybe the thing to take for that isn’t a tablet computer. Maybe it’s an Ambien.
When word of Facebook's new e-mail product, code-named Project Titan, broke Nov. 12, the assumption was that the social network was building some sort of super Webmail product geared to kill Google's Gmail, Yahoo Mail and Windows Live Hotmail. But releasing such "killer" products has not been Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's MO. Rather, he and his team have set forth to augment Facebook with software services that are germane to the network. Everything lives within the context of the walled garden, whose access to the outside world extends to third-party Websites only through carefully federated API connections. Facebook Messages is the messaging product, but rather than running as a stand-alone offering, the service streamlines users' direct messages, SMS texting, e-mail and chat. Users who receive an invite to the beta will receive @fb.com addresses. Messages lacks the subject lines, carbon copies and blind carbon copies of regular e-mail service, but it provides a great deal more messaging efficiency to the social network, whose 500 million-plus users may be tired of fragmented communications. "We don't expect anybody to wake up tomorrow and say, 'OK, I will shut down my Yahoo or Gmail account and switch exclusively to Facebook,'" Zuckerberg said at the launch. Perhaps not so soon, but it is his belief that people will want to move all of their online communication to Facebook where it makes sense. Expect calls via Facebook, similar to what Google did in Gmail with Google Voice. Facebook could use Skype for video calling. The possibilities are many. Meanwhile, here is a brief overview of the launch and the Messages setup.
Apple’s iPhones are the most reliable smartphones in terms of failure rates, according to a new study from SquareTrade, a company that sells electronics warranties.
SquareTrade reportedly conducted the study, which compared the iPhone, Android devices from Motorola and HTC, RIM BlackBerry handsets and “an aggregated pool of all other smartphones” by analyzing data from 50,000 failure reports, in order to help consumers make smart choices.
“A $200 camera that breaks will cost $200 to replace, but an Android phone purchased for a discounted $200 with a new contract could cost $600 to replace if it breaks before the contract is up,” SquareTrade CEO Steve Abernethy, said in a Nov. 9 statement.
What SquareTrade found is that smartphones ain’t what they used to be — thankfully.
“The problems that plague earlier smartphone technologies have been resolved,” states the report. “In fact, iPhone and BlackBerry malfunction rates have dropped over 60 percent in the past two years, and owner accidents, not manufacturer problems, are now the No. 1 reason most smartphones fail.”
According to the report, the iPhone 3GS and BlackBerry handsets had the lowest overall failure rates, with 11.8 percent and 13 percent, respectively, reporting a failure over the first year of use.
“The major Android phone manufacturers and the iPhone 4 all failed at similar rates,” states the report, “with 14.5 percent to 15.9 percent projected to fail over 12 months.” Overall, it continues, the Apple, RIM, Motorola and HTC handsets fared better than the rest, of which 16.9 percent, on average, failed during the first 12 months.
Failure rates, the study continues, are a combination of failures, accidents and normal malfunctions. When it came to malfunctions, Apple led in reliability, followed by Motorola.
“We project fewer than 2.5 percent of iPhone and Motorola owners will report a malfunction in the first 12 months of use, with iPhone 4s leading the pack,” states the report. “HTC came next with a one-year malfunction rate of 3.7 percent, and BlackBerry's 6.3 percent was the highest of the four manufacturers examined. All other smartphones taken together fared the worst, with 6.7 percent reporting a malfunction.”
When it comes to accidents, however, RIM’s BlackBerry prevailed, with a 12-month accident rate of 6.7 percent, compared to 9.4 percent for the iPhone 3GS, 10.2 percent for the “other smartphones” and 12.2 percent each for Motorola and HTC. The iPhone 4, with its front and back glass panes, fared the worst, at 13.8 percent.
From there, SquareTrade broke down the accidents to drops and spills. A coffee slosh is the least threatening, it turns out, to the iPhone 4, followed by, respectively, the iPhone 3GS and, in a tie, the HTC and Motorola handsets. When it came to drops, however, the iPhone 4 proved the most vulnerable by far, with 11.1 percent expected to experience damage from a drop over the course of a year. The iPhone 3GS came in at 6 percent, Motorola at 7 percent, HTC at nearly 9, and BlackBerry—with a score nearly three times better than the iPhone 4’s—came in at 3.9 percent.
“The data seems to suggest that the likelihood of drop damage is directly proportional to the amount of glass on the device,” reports SquareTrade. “With dual-sided glass, the iPhone 4 has twice the fragile surface area of the other smartphones. Both Motorola and HTC, whose most popular phones feature full glass screens, also have higher than average drop damage rates.
The bottom line? Be careful!
“Accidents accounted for 77 percent of all failures in the four manufacturers that we looked at closely, and nearly 90 percent for the iPhone 4,” states the report, adding that cases and screen covers can help the matter.
In some more good news, SquareTrade adds that laptops and netbooks all malfunction with greater frequency than smartphones. Scoring the worst, however, are basic feature phones, which were found to have a one-year malfunction rate of 6.9 percent, compared to 3.9 percent for smartphones and 3.4 percent for digital cameras.
0