Related link: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_17/b3780009.htm

Addendum 4/25/02

After a few more email exchanges with Heather Green, it has become apparent that the original freenetworks.org reference was an unintentional error on BW’s part. It’s difficult to tell from their online edition, but the print edition is actually three separate pieces about how people are using Wi-Fi. In the print edition, it is obvious that Heather Green was one contributor (of four) on the piece that accused FreeNetworks of posting vulnerable private wlan information. And in the greater context of all of the pieces, it does seem (to me, anyway) that they are getting closer to reporting on what community networks are all about.

At any rate, they have promised to print a correction (although their online edition has yet to be updated…) While the initial mistake was unfortunate (and shouldn’t have happened in the first place, considering how long Schuyler, Matt, and others were interviewed) it appears that they do intend to correct it.

Addendum 4/23/02

I received this response from Heather Green. They are evidently going to print a retraction. The damage is already done, but it’s good to see at least an attempt at repairs…

From: Heather Green
Date: Tue Apr 23, 2002  10:46:16 AM US/Pacific
To: Rob Flickenger
Subject: Re: "All Net, All the Time"

Thanks for your email. I appreciate you pointing this out. We absolutely
will run a correction. It was an unfortunate mistake.

Rob Flickenger wrote:

I'm sure you've received plenty of complaints before this, so I'll keep
it brief.

Your article posted at:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_17/b3780009.htm

...clearly accuses FreeNetworks.org (http://freenetworks.org) of
encouraging people to engage in computer trespassing, by publishing the
location of unprotected wireless access points.

FreeNetworks.org is a central aggregation point for organizers of
community networks, and has never encouraged anyone to engage in illegal
activities.  There are no network maps posted to the site, nor have
there ever been (unless you count the stylized "from space" view of free
and LEGAL open networks on the front page.)  Your remarks are incorrect,
inappropriate, and alarmist.

As these facts are easily verified online (and, indeed, in a number of
people I know that you interviewed while researching this piece) I
expect that it is simply an editorial oversight, and will be repaired
post haste.

I expect an apology and printed retraction in your next issue.

--Rob Flickenger
Author, "Building Wireless Community Networks", O'Reilly & Associates
Founder, http://nocat.net/

Original Blog

An otherwise uninspired article grabbed my attention with the following little gem:

“Some Wi-Fi aficionados hunt down unprotected networks that anyone can use to surf the Web surreptitiously. In tech havens like New York and Silicon Valley, these laptop-toting enthusiasts put $50 antennas into their computers and ride around town sniffing out corporate networks. They then post maps with the locations at Web sites like Freenetworks.org.”

Beyond alarmist, this statement is simply wrong. The editors have obviously failed to recognize that not only are FreeNetworks.org (an excellent information aggregation point for Wireless Community Network organizers) and NetStumbler.com (the home page of an excellent network analysis tool for 802.11b) completely different sites, they are in no way affiliated.

FreeNetworks has never promoted network discovery and trespassing, and suggesting that it does can only serve to further sensationalize a story that doesn’t exist.

YES, it is possible to setup insecure networks. YES, some people will always exploit systems for their own profit. But Community Networks aren’t about theft, they’re about solidarity and the fundamental desire for people to communicate with each other. Equating the efforts of FreeNetworks to the tabloid exploits of common network crackers may sell more magazines, but it’s still an insult. And it’s a lie.

Do you think that the recent Business Week article is misleading?

Related link: http://bio.perl.org

Bioperl is the leading open source project for the use of Perl in bioinformatics, providing extensions to Perl for handling biological data. After almost 7 years in the making, the Bioperl project has posted its 1.0 release.

Facilitated by the Open Bioinformatics Foundation, work on Bioperl is coordinated with related bio* efforts including biojava.org, biopython.org, DAS, bioruby.org, and biocorba.org.

O’Reilly & Associates recently cosponsored two bioinformatics “hackathons” — the first one was in Tucson at our recent Bioinformatics conference — which were a big help in moving these open source efforts along. Along with Electric Genetics, O’Reilly arranged these events so the programmers involved could get together face-to-face and do some serious coding.

Getting the best bioinformatics programmers from around the world together in a room full of computers proved to be a really good idea. Jason Stajich, a core developer for Bioperl, and the coordinator of the BioCORBA project, says “the real-time interactions that I was able to have with the other developers allowed us to quickly address problems and discuss solutions.”

A partial list of feature additions to BioPerl that were achieved during the hackathons include OBDA data access, Bio::Graphics (a sequence drawing module), and
Bio::Biblio (a bibliographic query objects module). Sequence caching and sequence parsing speedup were also tackled, as well as interoperability
testing and debugging with the other toolkit projects.

While the geographic spread of the bio* programmers make these projects models of collaborative development, sometimes there’s still no replacement for pizza, coffee, a whiteboard, and a late night of hacking. Stajich summed up the sentiments of many of the programmers,
“It’s incredible how much we were able to get done when we could bounce problems and solutions off each other and not wait for timezone email lag.”

Related link: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2002/tc2002041_1823.htm

Business Week online is running an extensive report on the current state of Wi-Fi, or 802.11b, as it is also known. While Wi-Fi has been regularly praised in the technical press, the fact that fast wireless LANs are rapidly being built today from inexpensive off-the-shelf components is now getting lots of attention.

The article notes that Cahners In-Stat expects sales of wireless network cards and Wi-Fi base stations to grow from $1.9 billion in 2001 to $5.2 billion in 2005, despite big declines in the prices of such equipment.

One reason companies are flocking to Wi-Fi is the cost-savings it can result in over wired LANs. An example is given of a Boston consulting firm that spent $30,000 last year wiring up their office LAN, where similar results today could be achieved with a $500 Wi-Fi installation. While those numbers seem a little hard to believe, it’s true that Wi-Fi base stations and network cards are relatively inexpensive, and getting more so.

The cellular carriers are also definitley taking notice. While their “3G” systems that promised to offer high-bandwidth wireless data services continue to struggle to get out of the starting gate, Wi-Fi is here now, and far cheaper than 3G will likely ever be considering the massive infrastructure and licensing investments these carriers are making to implement this technology. Now carriers like VoiceStream and Sprint PCS are incorporating Wi-Fi into their networks, and handset makers like Nokia and Ericsson are building it into their phones.