What are virtual private networks?

A few weeks ago, Ranveer wrote a post about the different ways you can surf the net anonymously. In it he mentioned that you could surf using a VPN client. In this article I am going to explain what a VPN is.

A VPN (or virtual private network) is a secure network connection, which can be used to send files, browse the net and download material securely. As the transfer is protected by encryption, the data sent can’t be read if intercepted.

A padlock on an ethernet cableThere are three key parts of a VPN: a host computer which can send and receive data; the internet, which is used as a medium to transport/transmit the data; and a device which can connect to the network, in order to receive the data. The last part of the network (the receiver) isn’t essential, but without anything to view the data, what’s the point in sending it?

Put simply, a VPN allows two computers to talk, as though they were connected on a private network, when in fact they are connected via a public network – the internet.

The way VPNs work is by establishing virtual point-to-point connections, using encryption or dedicated connections. Unless you are an IT engineer, you probably don’t need to worry about how it works though, just know that it does!

VPNs are very useful for businesses, as it enables employees to access secure internal files, remotely, without a security risk, as the network connection is private.

There are many reasons why an organisation may choose to have a VPN. VNPs can reduce firms need to hire dedicated secure long-distance lines to transmit data, as they use the existing infrastructure in place which the internet uses.

VNPs also reduce the need for long-distance telephone calls, which can often be very costly, therefore reducing them could save a business a lot of money!

As a VPN is a way of privately and securely connecting, it therefore be used to access the internet anonymously. That links back to what Ranveer discussed in terms of browsing the net anonymously. The way a VPN works, the data you request from a website when browsing, would go through the VPN first, before it gets to you, therefore if you are in the UK and the VPN is in the US, the site would think you were in the US due to it being the VPN requesting the data. Make sense?

There are definitely benefits of having a VPN for businesses, and if secure data needs to be shared to remote locations, it is one of the safest. That said, if the host has an unreliable IP, then the entire network is affected. Furthermore, they can also be costly to set up, as you need expert knowledge to establish them, which is why many organisations choose to outsource them, offloading the costs onto a third party who’s core business is VPN, and can therefore offer the service cheaper.

Do you have access to a VPN as part of your work? I would be interested to know, so if you do feel free to share your experiences in the comments.

Facebook site governance vote – what you need to know

If you use Facebook, I highly recommend you read this article.

If you have an active Facebook account, then in the last week you should have received an email from the social network that looks a bit like the one below.

Our Global Site Governance Vote

The email that Facebook sent out to all users about the vote on its global site governance.

Facebook is planning on making some major changes to the way it operates, specifically concerning its Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (SRR) and Data Usege Policy.

Since Monday of this week, until next Monday (10th of December) users of the social network get to vote on the proposed changes.

Which documents should govern the Facebook site?The ‘ballot paper’ gives you two options, to vote for:

  1. Proposed Documents: The proposed SRR and Data Use Policy
  2. Existing Documents: The current SRR and Data Use Policy

The vote will only be binding if one third of active users (around 300 million) vote, so your vote is very important!

So, what you probably want to know before you vote is what do the top options mean.

Option 1 – The proposed SRR and Data Use Policy

The proposed SRR and Data Use Policy, in a nutshell want to remove users voting rights. To make major changes to the site, Facebook in theory is currently obliged to ask users to vote on proposals. Facebook wants to stop this, giving itself complete control. It will instead ask users for their comments and feedback, and then (it claims) it will act on these to make changes to the platform, which the company believes are beneficial to users.

Option 1 also allows the network to share user data with its affiliates, across all its brands – like FriendFeed and Instagram. This is similar to what Google did earlier this year, when it changed its privacy policy. Google’s changes were much disputed, because of the ’empire’ of brands it owns. Facebook isn’t quite as big, but the changes are still important if you use more than one of its services.

The other major change that Option 1 would bring is that it would allow more people to message you, so if you like to have a more private and personal account, it could be harder to keep yourself as private on the network. It will do this by setting new ‘filters’ on the messaging service.

Option 1 will also see a change in how Facebook refers to certain products.

Option 2 – The current SRR and Data Use Policy

Option 2 votes to keep things as they are currently. To make any major privacy changes to the site, Facebook need to get approval via a vote, which must have a percentage of active users participate.

If you don’t like the current system, but are even more worried about the proposed changes, then Option 2 is more favourable, but really you are stuck between a rock and a hard place, as there are only two options.

Impartiality – In Facebook’s Defence…

As you can probably tell from the way I have been writing, I am more in favour of Option 2 than the proposed changes of Option 1. However, I try to ensure my writing remains as impartial, so I should give Facebook their say.

Facebook claim that the updates would be in line with what is currently “standard in the industry” in which it operates. It feels the changes would promote the “efficient and effective use of the services Facebook and its affiliates provide.”

Facebook also says that the current system favours the quantity of comments over their quality, which I can’t argue with. Currently a majority vote is needed from at least 30% of users to decide something, however were Facebook to better act on individual users opinions, and focus on what individuals are saying, rather than forcing people to vote for one option over another, should, in theory create a better social network.

That said, Facebook is likely to only act on the comments that will gain it users (or stop it from loosing them) and make it a profit. After all, it is a public limited company with a responsibility to make profits for its shareholders.

My counter argument is, if high-quality feedback is better than voting, why do many arguably successful and democratic countries around the world (like the UK, Australia, USA, all EU members etc.) elect their leaders? Why does the ballot paper have candidates on and not a ‘suggestions’ box? Then again in Facebook’s favour I suppose one could argue that 30% turnout from an online community is quite high, and could stop things moving forward, but then why not lower this to a more reasonable figure – say 15% or 20% of active users?

Enough waffling from me, it’s time to vote. To find out more about the vote, and to cast yours, head over to the official Facebook Governance Vote page.

Which option gets your vote?

Data Storage Problems

This week the New York Times published a long article about the problem of data storage, and I would like to summarize some of their findings. The article is available here in Saturday’s technology section.

The article is an attack at what the author sees as wasteful use of resources in data storage centres. There are now hundreds of thousands of these huge centres spread throughout the world, and the problem is they use an incredible amount of electricity. The servers have to be kept cool and they have to have spare capacity so that we can download whatever we want whenever we want.

Inside a US data centre

Inside a US data centre

Worldwide these centres use about 30 billion watts of electricity, and that is about 30 nuclear power plants worth of power. A single data center uses about the same amount as a small town, and the main criticism is the nature of the usage.

In the US 2% of all electricity used goes to these data centers, but the vast majority of this resource is wasted. Typically many servers are left to run 24 a day but never or rarely used (more than half in this study), and the average machine in operation uses less than 10% of its capacity. Servers are left running obsolete programs or in ‘comatose’ because nobody wants to risk a mistake and turn them off.

All of this means that any data center might use 30 times as much electricity as is needed to carry out the functions it performs.

All of these centres also have to have a back up in case of power failure, and so are surrounded by diesel generators and stacks of batteries, and many have been found in breach of environmental regulations and fined. The article gives details but the companies are names that we all know and use.

If you read the more than 300 comments however you will discover that a lot of people do not agree with the findings as reported. Many technicians argue that the companies cited are investing huge amounts of money into making the storage of data more efficient, and are constructing wind farms and using solar power in an attempt to cut costs and emissions. The article has its agenda and exploits it fully, but the problem is real.

I personally believe that we are witnessing the results of a digital culture change. We no longer have to store data on our machines, we can store it in some mythical cloud out there in the cyber-universe. This makes us think that it somehow exists without the need for a hard drive, but this is not true. As a result we keep things that we do not need. I have 500 e mails in my inbox, with attachments, photos that I will never again look at and other useless things, and they are all in storage somewhere.

Technology advances, storage gets cheaper and uses less space, but the amount of data created is growing at an incredible rate. My question is, can we do anything about it? Are we not the ones who should take some responsibility and think about the consequences of our actions. We think about not using paper to print emails but we don’t think about not sending them!