illinois

TCP Congestion Control Algorithm 的選擇

先前 Ubuntu 桌機用 BBR 跑了一陣子，但有遇到一些問題 (可以參考「Dropbox 測試 BBRv2 的結果」這篇)，所以暫時換成 Westwood，但還是陸陸續續會看一下各種研究。

剛剛在「[tor-relays] TCP CCA for Tor Relays (and especially Bridges)」這邊看到一個經驗談：

Here are my completely unscientific scribbles of how all the various algorithms behaved. The scenario is uploading for a minute or so, observing the speed in MB/sec visually, then recording how it appeared to change during that minute (and then repeating this a couple of times to be certain).

tcp_bic.ko       -- 6...5...4
tcp_highspeed.ko -- 2
tcp_htcp.ko      -- 1.5...3...2
tcp_hybla.ko     -- 3...2...1
tcp_illinois.ko  -- 6...7...10
tcp_lp.ko        -- 2...1
tcp_scalable.ko  -- 5...4...3
tcp_vegas.ko     -- 2.5
tcp_veno.ko      -- 2.5
tcp_westwood.ko  -- <1
tcp_yeah.ko      -- 2...5...6

上面是「目視法」觀察到的速度 (MB/sec)，看了一下維基百科上 TCP-Illinois 的說明，看起來設計的目的是提供給頻寬大、latency 高的情境下：

It is especially targeted at high-speed, long-distance networks.

來跑跑看好了...

Bose 販賣用戶隱私被告

Unroll 在旁邊燒的時候 (參考 Uber 戰火蔓延到 Unroll)，Bose 也不甘寂寞決定跟上科技業的潮流：「Bose headphones spy on listeners: lawsuit」。

Bose 直接將他們 app 收集到的資訊拿出來賣：

Bose Corp spies on its wireless headphone customers by using an app that tracks the music, podcasts and other audio they listen to, and violates their privacy rights by selling the information without permission, a lawsuit charged.

這次打算控告的產品包括這些 (這邊提到的 Zak 是原告)：

Zak is seeking millions of dollars of damages for buyers of headphones and speakers, including QuietComfort 35, QuietControl 30, SoundLink Around-Ear Wireless Headphones II, SoundLink Color II, SoundSport Wireless and SoundSport Pulse Wireless.

編號可以記一下，之後可以拿來追蹤：

The case is Zak v Bose Corp, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, No. 17-02928.

Facebook 的臉部辨認系統將被搬上法院，確認是否違法

在「Lawsuit challenging Facebook’s facial recognition system moves forward」這邊提到了 Facebook 的臉部辨認系統將被搬上法院確認是否違法。

Facebook 首先提出 Terms of Service 內規定不受依利諾州法律管理，只受加州以及聯邦法律管理，而依利諾州推翻這項規範，認為原告有權在依利諾州提起訴訟：

Today's decision focused on the question of whether the Illinois law is applicable to Facebook, one of the major legal hurdles facing the plaintiffs. Facebook's Terms of Service maintains that the the company is only bound by California and federal laws, and the company had moved to dismiss the case on those grounds. But today, the judge ruled that the terms-of-service clause isn't sufficient to nullify the Illinois law. As a result, the plaintiffs have a valid claim under the Illinois biometrics law and the case can proceed.

來拉板凳了...