OME DEBATES are rarely tolerated because they challenge fundamental assumptions that are repeated over and over again. One of them is that by locking doors at all times we are all very much safer, insular from a world we assume to be only hostile and never altruistic. And this assumption will be challenged now with an example.

When I go to bed I generally always keep my door open — both main door and bedroom door of the apartment. Why? Well, because I know all my neighbours in the area and I generally trust them. Some people think it’s over-trusting, but they just don’t know the neighbours. They are people whom I know. I also don’t think of them as physical threat to me, in fact if someone was to assault them, I’d hurry up to help them, not having to struggle with barricaded doors. Statistically, break-in is not a high profile problem. It hardly happens and we have 3-layer gating, so one could intrude — maybe, at most — the ground floor. One might wish to worry more about heart attacks people might have than a burglar. And if a neighbour had a collapse and screamed for help, then a locked door would probably lead to a death that could be prevented.

I am generally in a position where I also realise that people like in Holland (famously even if it’s no longer true) would be in less risk. It is valuable to remember that when one locks oneself from the outside, he or she also locks the outside from oneself. Many issues are potentially caused by this. Ask a person why he or she gives a key to a neighbour or a friend. Sometimes when there is an issue like fire it’s good when someone else can rush in to extinguish it. A lot of people tend not to think of it, But here’s a thought: if a person gives keys to many neighbours, he or she might be robbed, even accidentally through loss of keys by another person. But robbery is not death. Basically, the person might want to consider how often — on average — for a neighbour to come in can help save a life or a home. In Holland, some people allegedly leave their houses unlocked (even whilst away). Then it’s a little harder to justify, as personal safety is not at stake.

Risk calculations are worthwhile. Like assessing the impact of war on drugs. Some people are shy to ask what would happen if these got legalised. What would police pay more attention to? Who would be locked up except the addicts? And these are legitimate questions. Not delving into these issues means that our law gets motivated by dogma and not always by pure logic that adapts to the times. Depending on the situation, it might be safer to leave the door open, especially when one lives on his/her own and is indoors.

he United Kingdom has come under a wave of violence. For those who are living under a rock, financial markets all around the world are trembling yet again, just like in October of 2008. A stampede-like motion away from the markets in every country characterises this seemingly-irreversible trend. Here in Manchester we don’t have riots, quite surprisingly in fact as Birmingham and Liverpool joined London in this insanity which is violence against the state. Whether it relates to the markets or not is irrelevant but these two issues are concurrent and there is an atmosphere of emergency here. Even parliament is scrambling to do something. Those whose property got vandalised or looted soon realise that this crisis affects also those who are part of the workforces and are outside the stock market. In a society which is not civilised this becomes just collateral damage and in days to come it will become a little clearer whether those riots are a temporary nuisance (they do not have goals, it is not a protest) and whether the stock markets are poised to suffer the second large dip which mirrors what happened 3 years after the events acting as a precursor to the great depression (1929 was the market crash, but it took a few years more for a total collapse).

People’s greed and endless sense of endless entitlement has had them assume that they can take crazy loans and/or offer crazy loans (the bankers). Now we pay the price for decades of deregulation. In some ways, the so-called ‘stimulus’ (bailout) of 2008 may have made things worse because it assured that the inevitable conclusion would be more severe. But it gave bankers another 3 years to hoard bonuses.

oogle Plus (G+) and Google Profiles look very similar and almost identical. Is Google merging them? It seems possible. It actually goes deeper than this. Google has become a major content network and not just a gateway to information. Not anymore anyway. Will Google use people’s personal data to push ads? Well, it’s already doing this. The transaction is hosting in exchange for changing one’s perception on behalf of advertisers, but the real problem is the proprietary nature of G+).

“As of 07/01/2011,” say a lot of older profile pages, “Groups profiles have been disabled. Your profile information will be available for export from your profile until 11/01/2011. This change will not affect the nicknames you might have chosen for yourself to participate in groups. It will only affect the custom profiles fields, such as your photo, location, and occupation. More details are available here.” The cited page says: “Beginning July 1, 2011, you will not be able to change your Google Groups profiles. You will be able to download the contents of your profile until November 1, 2011, at which time your Google Groups profile will be deleted.” Just deleted, eh? Unless Google Groups is shutting down, it seems possible that a migration route to G+ might be offered with an ultimatum of sorts.

The date is very close to that of G+. Might it be the reason for change? Groups profiles were ripe to abuse by trolls who abuse the scoring system (Google allows the same user vote an infinite number of times and thus game the system). The key question is, will Google try to convert many users to people with a G+ account, without going through conventional routes? Other than privacy invasion, there is not much to be gained from such networks. The way Google treats personal information matters because Google is… well, Google.

Summary: How to make Internet-based phonecalls and also record them with Free software and open standards

TECHBYTES has had to do some research into recording shows with Free software. It was actually our intention since the early days of the show (November 2010) to look into a pipeline which is entirely Free software based. Because of convenience or laziness, we settled for and ended up recording the show under Skype, then doing the rest with Free software. We actually started by experimenting with SIP to some extent while simultaneously looking into a recorder which was compatible with Skype for GNU/Linux. As the show involved many guests (especially at the start) we needed to facilitate Skype access and curtailed the pursuit for a SIP replacement until more recently. Then came the time to record with Richard Stallman, which coincided with the disturbing rumour that Facebook would buy Skype. Eventually it was Microsoft, which can be seen as equally bad.

This post summarises my findings and to some extent Tim’s observations too. We spent many long hours researching the subject, testing many packages, testing the process inside many calls, and making a lot of test recordings, then refining them and adjusting parameters including volume levels. Some listeners provided valuable advice. Some gave application recommendations and here is what was found after a fairly thorough exploration.

SIP Communicator

I started using sip-communicator after Gordon Forbes had made the recommendation (about 4 months ago). It is pretty impressive, it is very features-heavy, and it was built with Java, which makes it somewhat heavy too. The version I use is still not very polished. It has some debugging-level code in it. The good thing about it is the built-in recording capability, webcam support (which works well, unlike Skype which never ever worked for me with any webcam), and automatic detection of all the underlying hardware. It worked with my webcam over the network, but not so consistently though. Some buttons seem to not yet have a callback function associated with them, at least in the version I have installed. It is like a development build. But, having said that, it’s a decent cross-platform application with good SIP support, assuming it can connect to the other side successfully.

Linphone

This good client does not appear to support video although Tim claims otherwise and my experience with it is very limited (the binary to run is linphone-3 on *buntu-based systems, not linphone) . It did not quite succeed with the callers I tested it with. It does have echo cancellation, just like Ekiga, which is the main application that I use.

Ekiga

So, that brings me to Ekiga. Fine application, although the toolkit it uses for the UI does not integrate so beautifully into KDE4. Even Skype sorted that out not so long ago (Qt Curve added), but Skype is out of the question here. Ekiga does everything, including video, reasonably well. Its Windows version is not so official however. When it comes to camera support, it does not consistently transport the image to the other side. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not, for whatever reason. It worked for us with webcam over the network, but most of the time it does not.

Blink

One listener told me about Blink, which is cross-platform and quite good looking. It is abundantly easy to use. I have not had so much time to test it, having installed it from unofficially-approved repositories (quite successfully and without issues though). Its cross-platform support seems like a big advantage considering the fact that Ekiga may not support a lot of platforms reliably. Maybe the Skype exodus will motivate developers to hurry up with such development endeavours. Telephony is one of those areas where multiple sides are involved, so ports to proprietary platforms can be more easily justified.

Mumble

For a call with multiple participants this piece of software can be handy. it is cross-platform, it has wonderful setup wizards, and it is easy to use. We may use it in the future. Asterisk has a reputation of something that is hard to set up for similar tasks. Based on TLLTS, there are also recording quality issues associated with it. This downsamples everyone on the line. Of course, it is always possible to record separately on each side and then merge everything. But this is time-consuming and it requires manual synchronisation work.

Left out from this survey we have lots of GNU-affiliated packages and we of course do not bother with so-called ‘Cloud’ Computing options from Google (or Gizmo), which is Fog Computing and proprietary. It’s hardly better than Skype in that regard, as both are cross-platform.

Recording

Recording is another important part of the pipeline. As an alternative to Skype Call Recorder (which works with GNU/Linux) we considered using SIP Communicator and later Blink, which we were told has some recording facility. We have not found that in the GNU/Linux version yet. In any case, recording all system sounds from PCM seemed reasonable and alsamixer enables this to be done at some lower level, if not other mixers that are graphical. Failing to attain high quality, we may just record locally and then merge at the end, as Linux Outlaws is doing for example.

Audacity

Here are some instructions on how to get things working with Audacity. It may not work on all systems and filters might be needed to compensate for noise. But still, it is better than nothing. Since Audacity is also our editor of choice, integration of this sort is desirable.

GTK RecordMyDesktop

The package gtk-recordmydesktop is a front end to a program which requires some command-line-fu. The settings in the GUI are easy to follow and there are detailed tooltips too (optional). For additional command line options such as strict coordinates from which to capture can be specified in the GUI too, if necessary. Those who developed the product did a fine job simplifying screencasts, which is essentially how we process video-based shows. Encoding can be done at the end of recording in order to lower CPU load, especially if compression is used to compact large videos that are mostly static throughout.

Editing

For editing we have only used Audacity with a bunch of filters that we know help improve the quality of raw audio. The program is good for mixing several tracks, Except for that, my only prolonged editing experience goes back to Windows 3.11 days with Sound Blaster software. As I was about 11 or 12 at the time, that does not count for much. We are still improving and since we never edit any of the speech part (not even editing out or having second takes, the editing is mostly mixing oriented).

Encoding

To re-encode videos we use mencoder and ffmpeg, which are command line utilities that do the job pretty well. Some reasonable commands that we routinely run are gathered in a text files.

Postscript: Tim says that Linphone supports cameras and this Wikipedia page, sent by a reader while working on this text, might be handy.

Regarding phone books management, some applications were simpler to manage than others. My personal choice is Ekiga’s, which also has a complete historical calls trail. It is very useful.

If we left out important options, be sure to tell us.

obile phones are a marvel of innovation and their small size is a testament to human achievement. But mobile phones as mere phones go a long way back, decades in fact. Their functionality today has hardly changed when it comes to core objectives like making and receiving calls. So how have people come to the point of treating them as accessories and status items in our increasingly superficial social system? Why are my colleagues advertising a phone brand in all their E-mails for example? Why are people without a phone (or a Facebook account for that matter) frowned upon? Must everyone be semi-detached to a phone? Is it a status symbol? Is that how it’s marketed? Wrist watches were like that sometimes, e.g. Rolex.

I personally no longer carry a mobile phone (or cellphone to Americans) for reasons that I explained a lot of times in many different places. I do, however, carry a PDA (it was even used to compose this post with a full-sized keyboard). It’s not something that I love to talk about as it is controversial and my view is an unpopular views. Usually I avoid naming the reasons in order to avoid a pointless conversation. But here is an attempt to cohesively explain some of the factors that led me to giving up mobile phones in 2003. I am unlikely to get one again as it is like an addiction in the sense that once one is purchased, it is hard to get out of the cycle, due to people expecting your number to work, the phone to always be switched on, and for you to be near a computer even when you are not. Moreover, there are strings like contracts, which give nothing other than more complications and paperwork. Getting a mobile phone is easy, but getting out/rid of it is the hard part, as I learned 8 years ago. Among the factors that cause discomfort, as mentioned earlier in other contexts, is the associated complications that resemble getting utility bills and having to challenge mistakes, set up direct debit, check billing addresses, handle repairs, etc. Another of course is the inability to distance oneself from work. People expect people with a mobile phone to be accessible anywhere, at any time. It is unreasonable given that the phone owner might not have Internet access at every moment of the day, which is crucial for some people to operate properly in a professional way. But then there are also the elephants in the room, which make people moody or confrontational when the subject is brought up. There are primarily two such elephants; the first is privacy and the second is health. Enough said, no? The industry which profits from mobile phone extravaganza funds research to deny the health implications of associated radiation, whereas almost any study not funded by those entities shows the opposite. It’s like the tobacco lobby back in the days. Please don’t attack the messengers just because the truth is not convenient. Also, do not be selective so as to fit one’s belief of choice; it’s like faith which overcomes reasoning, even confirmation bias. Regarding privacy, more people appear to be catching up with the problem, especially recently. Using triangulation it has always been possible for carriers to determine the position of the callers (geographically) and as time goes on and antennas density increases, the identification is further refined. In the past it was not as bad as before because carriers were not legally required and retain this information for the government. They are now, as friends who work for British telcos tell me with complete confidence. This is a serious step back which shows how hostile phones are becoming. This data is not there for the user, so it can mostly be used against the user. It never goes away, either. To make matters worse, even makers of the operating systems of the phone are now probing for one’s location. How can that ever be useful to the user? Marketing? To spin this attack on privacy as something positive people might say that it’s for one’s safety, in case someone gets lost/injured/abducted and becomes “missing”. In practice, however, It is rarely the case that the phone becomes a saviour unless a call is being made. So the privacy part of it (location recording with a long trail of history) is an entirely invalid point. Why retention?

The subject of privacy is better understood by those whose activities might be seen as subversive by some who themselves subvert society. The vigilant ones amongst us understand that privacy protects us from those who have too much power.

The one major circumstance where having a mobile phone would be invaluable is when trying to coordinate a meeting with someone out in town or some streets where a land line is not easily accessible. But that someone would have to be unreliable as people could arrange meetings and avoid being late long before mobile phones. Today’s generation got accustomed to the idea of using a phone to justify being late (people are still late, but they get reassurances and estimated times of arrival, which is not ideal either). If the train system was run like this, there would be considerable trouble.

The matter of fact is, a lot of people these days use their mobile phones for purposes they were not designed for, e.g. loud conversations about what’s available for lunch. It becomes an attention-seeking apparatus and less of a tool of necessity. People give away phones to workers or family in order for them to be contacted rather than in order for them to make contact and if they cannot be reached there is an unsubstantiated fear and paranoia. Rather than quell and suppress uncertainty (when someone can or cannot be reached) it just causes more anxiety.

Do you still carry a mobile phone? And if so, have you tried carrying none for a whole month as an experiment? It would probably not be an ideal experiment due to the tie-up or addiction mentioned at the start of this post. It’s a cyclic trap, more so than addictive computer games. Social interaction manifests peer pressure. The truth is, even without a mobile phone people can do all the same things; there are substitutes for everything and nothing ever rings to interrupt an epiphany.

VERY once in a while we all get a break from everyday life and potentially introspect. As the year 2011 is almost upon us, it’s time to explain — on a more personal note for a change — what needs improving. First of all, from a professional point of view, it would be important to ensure effectiveness and to spend less time responding to Internet trolls and other such distractions. It’s just too easy to descend to gossip sometimes, however it gets nobody anywhere. There are some people who revel in harassment of progressive individuals and the worst those latter individuals can do is lose sight of their goals, then engage with the harassers. It’s tempting to do so (one’s own defense), but it’s counter productive as it leads to more of the same. When one expresses strong opinions on any matter, detractors will exist; the polite ones are worth debating with.

On the subject of research, my plan is to ensure that I maintain contact with my roots in computer science with emphasis on computer vision. I may soon have a start-up on the side, but there is no final decision on that yet. Research can produce a skills-based service that helps individuals. This can be an ethical service which even advances software freedom.

Last but not least (quite the opposite in fact), living an ethical life is not the priority of those to whom keeping score means accumulating wealth, even when it comes at the expense of someone else’s (even one’s own) health. We only live once and we must take advantage of this opportunity to do something positive for our neighbours to enhance solidarity. The Earth’s resources are finite and wealth is relative, where one person’s well-being often depends on someone else’s labour (typically dissociated geographically). For harmonious co-existence on this planet people need to increasingly work together and this sometimes means sharing of knowledge, commodities, food, water, and shelter. It’s too easy for people in the West to pretend that the world is just the West when in fact it accounts for less than 20% of the world’s population. Legislators must begin to take into account that inequality is not necessarily the result of imbalanced motivation and determination among minds; many people are born with little or no opportunities and particular conditions imposed by international laws keep it that way. Institutions like WIPO, WTO, WB, and IMF are just part of it and with gradual reform a safer world for everyone to live in is not a distant fantasy. The only real wars are class wars and dimensions like religion/race/nationality are often just instruments that act as surrogates for those in power, not a replacement for identical, scientific, and social doctrines.

ransparency can be a way of life to those who wish to expose what they are doing. Since 2002 when I built this Web site I have made many aspects of my life public and this did not cause much trouble at all. Transparency leads to a state where there are no secrets and thus there is little room for scandals or mischief. Last night I was challenged by a friend to whom my preference of transparency seemed inadequate. This is fine. Well, more and more people willingly become more transparent over time (sadly in Web sites like Facebook which exploit them) and their eagerness to share personal material is proving infectious. Governments too are starting to find out that sooner or later data which they keep secret will leak and Neelie Kroes rightly pointed out that Wikileaks/Cablegate will push more governments toward becoming transparent.

Transparency breeds trust. Secrecy breeds misconduct.