Legally thwarting FBI surveillance of libraries and ISPs
I'm one of those that believes that agrees with Louis Brandice's dissenting opinion about the constitutionality of wiretaps. That they violate the privacy of those parties who call or are called by the party being wiretapped. I have written on this in 2002/2003. There seem to be at least two legal ways to both obey court orders and also allow the monitored parties a way to learn of the activity. 1 - The basic notion is for the University/ISP/library to allow all its premises to be bugged. Every room (except maybe the restroom) by its clients (or their proxies). All communication could be monitored and the ISP would have no control. My understanding of court orders is that they must be served on the ISP at its business address. Once the order is opened or discussed by the designated employee who receives the data all its clients would know in short order. The employees and management will not have been responsible because they have not taken any affirmative actions to allow the information to escape their custody. They will have protected the info with the same diligence they show their own data. ;-) 2 - Alternatively, the organization implements a policy of replying positively to all inquiries if asked by a patron/student the when their account is free of such court orders. If a request does come in then the db admin can either: fail to respond (monitoring implied), tell them they are being monitored (violating the law) or lie and say they are not even if they are. They can charge a fee for this service and use it as a new revenue source. Looks like at least one library is trying a variation the method I suggested... The Patriot Act also prohibits libraries and others from notifying patrons and others that an investigation is ongoing. At least one library has tried a solution to beat the system by regularly informing the board of directors that there are no investigations. If the director does not notify the Board that there are no investigations, it can serve as a clue that something may be happening. http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/1706/1/41 Can the Feds require a librarian to lie to a customer who inquires whether their library usage is being monitored? 3 - For libraries another is available. Libraries routinely assess overdue fines and thus most have a cash register at the checkout desk. If they allow patrons to remove books without showing ID and charge them, as a refundable deposit, the full replacement value in cash, then no records need be created which can be turned over to law enforcement. A receipt might be provided to the patron showing them the last day they may return the book without forfeiting the deposit. They can charge a fee for this service and use it as a new revenue source. Steve
Legally thwarting FBI surveillance of libraries and ISPs
I'm one of those that believes that agrees with Louis Brandice's dissenting opinion about the constitutionality of wiretaps. That they violate the privacy of those parties who call or are called by the party being wiretapped. I have written on this in 2002/2003. There seem to be at least two legal ways to both obey court orders and also allow the monitored parties a way to learn of the activity. 1 - The basic notion is for the University/ISP/library to allow all its premises to be bugged. Every room (except maybe the restroom) by its clients (or their proxies). All communication could be monitored and the ISP would have no control. My understanding of court orders is that they must be served on the ISP at its business address. Once the order is opened or discussed by the designated employee who receives the data all its clients would know in short order. The employees and management will not have been responsible because they have not taken any affirmative actions to allow the information to escape their custody. They will have protected the info with the same diligence they show their own data. ;-) 2 - Alternatively, the organization implements a policy of replying positively to all inquiries if asked by a patron/student the when their account is free of such court orders. If a request does come in then the db admin can either: fail to respond (monitoring implied), tell them they are being monitored (violating the law) or lie and say they are not even if they are. They can charge a fee for this service and use it as a new revenue source. Looks like at least one library is trying a variation the method I suggested... The Patriot Act also prohibits libraries and others from notifying patrons and others that an investigation is ongoing. At least one library has tried a solution to beat the system by regularly informing the board of directors that there are no investigations. If the director does not notify the Board that there are no investigations, it can serve as a clue that something may be happening. http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/1706/1/41 Can the Feds require a librarian to lie to a customer who inquires whether their library usage is being monitored? 3 - For libraries another is available. Libraries routinely assess overdue fines and thus most have a cash register at the checkout desk. If they allow patrons to remove books without showing ID and charge them, as a refundable deposit, the full replacement value in cash, then no records need be created which can be turned over to law enforcement. A receipt might be provided to the patron showing them the last day they may return the book without forfeiting the deposit. They can charge a fee for this service and use it as a new revenue source. Steve
Re: [fc-discuss] Financial Cryptography Update: On Digital Cash-like Payment Systems
At 11:14 AM 10/24/2005, cyphrpunk wrote: Note that e-gold, which originally sold non-reversibility as a key benefit of the system, found that this feature attracted Ponzi schemes and fraudsters of all stripes, and eventually it was forced to reverse transactions and freeze accounts. It's not clear that any payment system which keeps information around to allow for potential reversibility can avoid eventually succumbing to pressure to reverse transactions. I don't think E-gold ever held out its system as non-reversible with proper court order. All reverses I am aware happened either due to some technical problem with their system or an order from a court of competence in the matter at hand. Only a Chaumian type system, whose technology makes reversibility fundamentally impossible, is guaranteed to allow for final clearing. And even then, it might just be that the operators themselves will be targeted for liability since they have engineered a system that makes it impossible to go after the fruits of criminal actions. Its not clear at all that courts will find engineering a system for irreversibility is illegal or contributory if there was good justification for legal business purposes, which of course there are. Steve
Re: [fc-discuss] Financial Cryptography Update: On Digital Cash-like Payment Systems
At 11:14 AM 10/24/2005, cyphrpunk wrote: Note that e-gold, which originally sold non-reversibility as a key benefit of the system, found that this feature attracted Ponzi schemes and fraudsters of all stripes, and eventually it was forced to reverse transactions and freeze accounts. It's not clear that any payment system which keeps information around to allow for potential reversibility can avoid eventually succumbing to pressure to reverse transactions. I don't think E-gold ever held out its system as non-reversible with proper court order. All reverses I am aware happened either due to some technical problem with their system or an order from a court of competence in the matter at hand. Only a Chaumian type system, whose technology makes reversibility fundamentally impossible, is guaranteed to allow for final clearing. And even then, it might just be that the operators themselves will be targeted for liability since they have engineered a system that makes it impossible to go after the fruits of criminal actions. Its not clear at all that courts will find engineering a system for irreversibility is illegal or contributory if there was good justification for legal business purposes, which of course there are. Steve
The price of failure
Quick, before they change it: search Google using the term failure (without the quotes)
The price of failure
Quick, before they change it: search Google using the term failure (without the quotes)
Re: Wired on Secrecy Power Sinks Patent Case
At 09:14 AM 9/20/2005, Tyler Durden wrote: Very interesting CPunks reading, for a variety of reasons. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68894,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 Of course, the fact that Lucent has been in shit shape financially must have nothing to do with what is effectively a state-sponsored protection of intellectual theft and profiting by Lucent (merely keeping the tech under wraps would have been possible in a closed-doors session. Remember that connectors can easily cost $50 per or more, so these guys were really ripped off and Lucent probably made out quite well.) [Cross posted from another list] Ian G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I don't understand about that case is that the precedent already exists. If a defendent declines to defend by supplying documents then the judge does not force them to do so in a civil case, instead the award goes against them. What is not clear is why the judge awarded in the favour of the government. By not supplying files, they clearly indicated they were using the patent. And even that wasn't ever in doubt. He should have just awarded summarily for the patent owners and that would have been that. And, it was only for a measly half million. By saving a half million in patent fees, Lucent and the USG have reduced their reputation for fair dealing, had the whole case blow up in their faces and now we're all poking around looking for how the patent was used by the _Jimmy Carter_
Re: Wired on Secrecy Power Sinks Patent Case
At 09:14 AM 9/20/2005, Tyler Durden wrote: Very interesting CPunks reading, for a variety of reasons. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68894,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 Of course, the fact that Lucent has been in shit shape financially must have nothing to do with what is effectively a state-sponsored protection of intellectual theft and profiting by Lucent (merely keeping the tech under wraps would have been possible in a closed-doors session. Remember that connectors can easily cost $50 per or more, so these guys were really ripped off and Lucent probably made out quite well.) [Cross posted from another list] Ian G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I don't understand about that case is that the precedent already exists. If a defendent declines to defend by supplying documents then the judge does not force them to do so in a civil case, instead the award goes against them. What is not clear is why the judge awarded in the favour of the government. By not supplying files, they clearly indicated they were using the patent. And even that wasn't ever in doubt. He should have just awarded summarily for the patent owners and that would have been that. And, it was only for a measly half million. By saving a half million in patent fees, Lucent and the USG have reduced their reputation for fair dealing, had the whole case blow up in their faces and now we're all poking around looking for how the patent was used by the _Jimmy Carter_
Re: GPS Jammer Firm nearly ejected from Russian air show.
At 09:27 PM 8/22/2005, Bill Stewart wrote: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2005/08/22/002.html Monday, August 22, 2005. Issue 3235. Page 1. Irksome Firm Nearly Ejected From Air Show By Lyuba Pronina Staff Writer Ivan Sekretarev / AP Spectators watching the Patrouille de France aerobatic team perform during the MAKS air show at the Zhukovsky airfield outside Moscow on Saturday. ZHUKOVSKY, Moscow Region -- The jamming equipment made by Aviakonversia is so effective against U.S. planes and missiles that it apparently provoked an angry phone call to the Kremlin from U.S. President George W. Bush in the first days of the Iraq war. Some unclassified U.S. military analysis of the the Aviakonversia portable GPS/GLONASS jammer from 1997 http://www.ac11.org/gps1.htm Some of the guided munitions foiled by GPS jammers http://www.f-16.net/index.php?module=pagesetterfunc=printpubtid=6pid=9 Articles about jammer kits and countermeasures http://www.letterneversent.com/index.php/archives/2002/12/29/gps-jamming/ http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news001/gpsnews001.htm http://www.mayflowercom.com/products.html http://www.gpsworld.com/gpsworld/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=81907 Steve
Re: GPS Jammer Firm nearly ejected from Russian air show.
At 09:27 PM 8/22/2005, Bill Stewart wrote: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2005/08/22/002.html Monday, August 22, 2005. Issue 3235. Page 1. Irksome Firm Nearly Ejected From Air Show By Lyuba Pronina Staff Writer Ivan Sekretarev / AP Spectators watching the Patrouille de France aerobatic team perform during the MAKS air show at the Zhukovsky airfield outside Moscow on Saturday. ZHUKOVSKY, Moscow Region -- The jamming equipment made by Aviakonversia is so effective against U.S. planes and missiles that it apparently provoked an angry phone call to the Kremlin from U.S. President George W. Bush in the first days of the Iraq war. Some unclassified U.S. military analysis of the the Aviakonversia portable GPS/GLONASS jammer from 1997 http://www.ac11.org/gps1.htm Some of the guided munitions foiled by GPS jammers http://www.f-16.net/index.php?module=pagesetterfunc=printpubtid=6pid=9 Articles about jammer kits and countermeasures http://www.letterneversent.com/index.php/archives/2002/12/29/gps-jamming/ http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news001/gpsnews001.htm http://www.mayflowercom.com/products.html http://www.gpsworld.com/gpsworld/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=81907 Steve
Apple to add Trusted Computing to the new kernel?
People working with early versions of the forthcoming Intel-based MacOS X operating system have discovered that Apple's new kernel makes use of Intel's Trusted Computing hardware. If this feature appears in a commercial, shipping version of Apple's OS, they'll lose me as a customer -- I've used Apple computers since 1979 and have a Mac tattooed on my right bicep, but this is a deal-breaker. http://www.boingboing.net/2005/07/31/apple_to_add_trusted.html
Re: Well, they got what they want...
At 06:17 PM 7/23/2005, Tyler Durden wrote: Saw a local security expert on the news, and he stated the obvious: Random searches and whatnot are going to do zero for someone determined, but might deter someone who was thinking about blowing up the A train. In other words, everyone here in NYC knows that we've given up a lot for the sake of the appearence of security, but no one seems to give a damn. The term 'securisimilitude' (from verisimilitude) comes to mind. Steve
Re: Well, they got what they want...
At 06:17 PM 7/23/2005, Tyler Durden wrote: Saw a local security expert on the news, and he stated the obvious: Random searches and whatnot are going to do zero for someone determined, but might deter someone who was thinking about blowing up the A train. In other words, everyone here in NYC knows that we've given up a lot for the sake of the appearence of security, but no one seems to give a damn. The term 'securisimilitude' (from verisimilitude) comes to mind. Steve
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050706-094903-3663r.htm At the grass-roots, the most amusing development is a push by a citizens' group to seize the Weare, N. H., home of Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, author of the Kelo opinion, for a development project to be called the Lost Liberty Hotel. The hotel would include a museum on the loss of freedom in America. A spokesman insists this is not a prank. Perhaps not. Steve
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050706-094903-3663r.htm At the grass-roots, the most amusing development is a push by a citizens' group to seize the Weare, N. H., home of Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, author of the Kelo opinion, for a development project to be called the Lost Liberty Hotel. The hotel would include a museum on the loss of freedom in America. A spokesman insists this is not a prank. Perhaps not. Steve
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
At 10:36 AM 6/24/2005, J.A. Terranson wrote: Not surprising at all. The Bush camp's court agenda is spearheaded by members of the Federalist Society which wants to roll back many of the SC's decisions of the early-mid 20th century (esp. the Social Security Act and the expansion of the Commerce Clause during FDR's reign). You're on crack. They just expanded the Commerce Clause to it's logical limits with the California medical maryjane case. The Bushie agenda may seem traditional reactionary on the surface, but look carefully and you;ll see significant differences in modern neocon vs old family Nixon. Shrub doesn't want Federalism, he wants full theocracy with a Federal bent. Its true that he and many of is supporters are conservatives and not libertarians. Perhaps I'm misrepresenting the essence of the Federalist Society also. Its not clear that they adhere to a single strong ideology, but rather to a vague view of limited government and an 'originalist' interpretation of the Constitution.http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/fedsoc.htm But I can't think of a single case where the SC limited an important authority the government thought it had granted itself. It seems such rollbacks historically only occur on the heels of major protests, threat or actual civil war. So it will be interesting if Bush gets to appoint some of the judges he desires on the SC and if this indeed leads to an eventual rollback of Commerce Clause interpretation. For me an equal bone of contention is the very questionable passage of the 14th Amendment. Even worse than the lack of serious debate which surrounded the Patriot Act, the 14th was passed with Congress violating its own rules of majority and plurality. They simply refused to allow already seated members into the chambers for the vote. They also 'manipulated' the state voting results and neglected to send the result to the President, as Constitutionally required. When a case challenging the 14th was brought to the SC, it ruled that they had no authority to rule on Congresss' failure to follow the Constitutional processes. A total cop-out. But what did anyone expect with 500,000 Americans recently killed on the battle field to keep the Union together. When push comes to shove, the Constitution is only a piece of paper to those in power. Lenny Bruce was certainly right when he said.. In the halls of justice, the only justice is in the halls. Steve
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
At 10:36 AM 6/24/2005, J.A. Terranson wrote: Not surprising at all. The Bush camp's court agenda is spearheaded by members of the Federalist Society which wants to roll back many of the SC's decisions of the early-mid 20th century (esp. the Social Security Act and the expansion of the Commerce Clause during FDR's reign). You're on crack. They just expanded the Commerce Clause to it's logical limits with the California medical maryjane case. The Bushie agenda may seem traditional reactionary on the surface, but look carefully and you;ll see significant differences in modern neocon vs old family Nixon. Shrub doesn't want Federalism, he wants full theocracy with a Federal bent. Its true that he and many of is supporters are conservatives and not libertarians. Perhaps I'm misrepresenting the essence of the Federalist Society also. Its not clear that they adhere to a single strong ideology, but rather to a vague view of limited government and an 'originalist' interpretation of the Constitution.http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/fedsoc.htm But I can't think of a single case where the SC limited an important authority the government thought it had granted itself. It seems such rollbacks historically only occur on the heels of major protests, threat or actual civil war. So it will be interesting if Bush gets to appoint some of the judges he desires on the SC and if this indeed leads to an eventual rollback of Commerce Clause interpretation. For me an equal bone of contention is the very questionable passage of the 14th Amendment. Even worse than the lack of serious debate which surrounded the Patriot Act, the 14th was passed with Congress violating its own rules of majority and plurality. They simply refused to allow already seated members into the chambers for the vote. They also 'manipulated' the state voting results and neglected to send the result to the President, as Constitutionally required. When a case challenging the 14th was brought to the SC, it ruled that they had no authority to rule on Congresss' failure to follow the Constitutional processes. A total cop-out. But what did anyone expect with 500,000 Americans recently killed on the battle field to keep the Union together. When push comes to shove, the Constitution is only a piece of paper to those in power. Lenny Bruce was certainly right when he said.. In the halls of justice, the only justice is in the halls. Steve
Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good
At 10:19 PM 6/23/2005, you wrote: On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Jay Listo wrote: Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you know you've been Bush-whacked. Maybe you should take another look at who voted how. The Bushies dissented on this opinion. Go figure. Not surprising at all. The Bush camp's court agenda is spearheaded by members of the Federalist Society which wants to roll back many of the SC's decisions of the early-mid 20th century (esp. the Social Security Act and the expansion of the Commerce Clause during FDR's reign). Steve
Re: AP For Starvation Judge
At 10:35 PM 3/26/2005, Eric Cordian wrote: That which we may do to ourselves, if we are functioning, exceeds that which we may require others to do to us if we are not. I can deny myself food, water, and air, for instance. I cannot instruct others to deny me those things if I am rendered incapable of making my own decisions. Of course you can. That's what living wills and powers of attorney, etc. are for. But because we cannot assure that our nominees will do our bidding, what's really needed is assurance policies in which you contract for your demise. The 'payout' is triggered if you fail to contact your agent at regular intervals. Miss two appointments and a 'wet worker' is dispatched Steve
Re: WiFi Launcher?
At 02:21 PM 3/25/2005, Bill Stewart wrote: especially if you've got to do a DNS lookup or two. Directional Antennas are unlikely to be useful - if you've got them aimed right, you might win, but you're much more likely to miss entirely or have only a few meters that you're in range. Horizontally directional perhaps not but vertically is a possibility. By this I mean an omni antenna with gain, like a stacked dipole. What this means is antenna with gain in all compass points but with a flat 'pancake' vertical profile. In many driving situations the hot spot is likely to be within 10 degrees of horizontal. They are commonly used in commercial TV and radio broadcast. I think its possible to get 6 or more db gain this way with a small antenna. 6 db effectively doubles your range. Steve
Re: WiFi Launcher?
At 02:21 PM 3/25/2005, Bill Stewart wrote: especially if you've got to do a DNS lookup or two. Directional Antennas are unlikely to be useful - if you've got them aimed right, you might win, but you're much more likely to miss entirely or have only a few meters that you're in range. Horizontally directional perhaps not but vertically is a possibility. By this I mean an omni antenna with gain, like a stacked dipole. What this means is antenna with gain in all compass points but with a flat 'pancake' vertical profile. In many driving situations the hot spot is likely to be within 10 degrees of horizontal. They are commonly used in commercial TV and radio broadcast. I think its possible to get 6 or more db gain this way with a small antenna. 6 db effectively doubles your range. Steve
The Register: Anonymity no protection for online libellers
The tenuous nature of online anonymity was underlined yesterday, thanks to the final ruling in the Motley Fool libel case. Terry Smith, chief executive of city firm Collins Stewart Tullett, won undisclosed damages from Jeremy Benjamin, a fund manager. Benjamin had posted what he now accepts as false allegations on the Motley Fool forum, www.fool.co.uk under the pseudonym analyser71. Mark Weston, technology law specialist at MAB Law, says the ruling was another link in the chain of judicial authority saying that you cannot be anonymous. He likened this element of the ruling to cases where ISPs have been forced to reveal the identity of filesharers to the British Phonographic Industry (BPI). It should make posters more careful. The supposed anonymity online is only temporary, he told us. Just as in the offline world, as long as someone knows who you are, they can be forced to reveal your identity. [Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead] Read the complete article at: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/24/motley_ruling/
Re: [p2p-hackers] good-bye, Mnet, and good luck. I'm going commercial! plus my last design doc (fwd from zooko@zooko.com)
At 03:42 AM 3/11/2005, Eugen Leitl wrote: *** PGP Signature Status: good *** Signer: Eugen Leitl (makes other keys obsolete) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Invalid) *** Signed: 3/11/2005 3:42:52 AM *** Verified: 3/11/2005 12:49:27 PM *** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE *** On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 10:48:12PM -0800, Steve Schear wrote: Why? BT is designed with zero privacy in mind. And this was a profound error, IMHO. One of the epiphanies from my work at It was a deliberate decision on Bram Cohen's part. BT is a very useful medium to deliver software updates, movies und most for what there are currently broadcast media for. I didn't say that Bram didn't do this on purpose, I just think it was a mistake in judgement. If you want to be invisible to lawyers, you have to use something else. or run BT-like apps within something else. For BT clients its straightforward to run most (e.g., Azureus) via a proxy that keeps no logs (e.g., Metropipe). For Trackers its more difficult. All I am saying is that Brahm should have paid a bit more attention to tracker protection. (Or at least run BT on a large zombie cloud, so you have plausible deniability). Like TOR/I2P. MN was that a secrecy-oriented proxy network development and successful deployment needed to precede P2P file sharing if such networks were to survive determined technical and legal challenges. End users often care If a network has been declared illegal, and you're a part of that network, and somebody receives packets from you which are part of IP-protected binary blob, and your ISP rats on you, your ass is grass with the right kind of IP nazi legislation. Obvously, the only way to prevent that from happening is not be part of that network, not make your ISP rat on you -- or, much better, do not let that legislation happen at all. Its quite unlikely, at least in the U.S. that networks (e.g., those operated in a truly distributed fashion) will be declared illegal. Its even less likely that such networks will enable ISPs to capture anything significant about your activities. But trackers must still be widely accessible by the general population of BT users and can you offer the content or obtain it without likely identification? Web pages have static addresses in DNS. Search on P2P in dynamic IP is much more ephemeral, and requires ISPs to keep track of (customer IPv4 time_period) tuples long enough so that their logs can be subpoenaed. Using DNS to resolve the addresses of future trackers is probably a fools errand. Steve
Re: [p2p-hackers] good-bye, Mnet, and good luck. I'm going commercial! plus my last design doc (fwd from zooko@zooko.com)
At 12:15 AM 3/10/2005, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I worked with Bram and Zooko at Mojo Nation (where both BT and Mnet got their respective genesis) and was frankly surprised when the MPAA was so easily able to target and put out of commission BT's trackers. The Why? BT is designed with zero privacy in mind. And this was a profound error, IMHO. One of the epiphanies from my work at MN was that a secrecy-oriented proxy network development and successful deployment needed to precede P2P file sharing if such networks were to survive determined technical and legal challenges. End users often care little about what 'under the hood' of their P2P app only that they can get the content conveniently and they are not subjected to annoyances like spy or adware. exposure of the trackers was a prominent topic of MN planning discussions and its odd that precautions, like distributing the tracker functions into clients or hiding them inside a TOR-like proxy network weren't taken You can post BT links on a P2P network. But trackers must still be widely accessible by the general population of BT users and can you offer the content or obtain it without likely identification? Steve
Re: [p2p-hackers] good-bye, Mnet, and good luck. I'm going commercial! plus my last design doc (fwd from zooko@zooko.com)
At 12:14 PM 3/9/2005, Eric Cordian wrote: If you had a thousand hours of genius programmer time, would you spend it embracing and extending Bittorrent, or shoveling through the indecipherable bowels of legacy Mnet and Freenet code? I worked with Bram and Zooko at Mojo Nation (where both BT and Mnet got their respective genesis) and was frankly surprised when the MPAA was so easily able to target and put out of commission BT's trackers. The exposure of the trackers was a prominent topic of MN planning discussions and its odd that precautions, like distributing the tracker functions into clients or hiding them inside a TOR-like proxy network weren't taken earlier. Steve
Re: [p2p-hackers] good-bye, Mnet, and good luck. I'm going commercial! plus my last design doc (fwd from zooko@zooko.com)
At 03:42 AM 3/11/2005, Eugen Leitl wrote: *** PGP Signature Status: good *** Signer: Eugen Leitl (makes other keys obsolete) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Invalid) *** Signed: 3/11/2005 3:42:52 AM *** Verified: 3/11/2005 12:49:27 PM *** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE *** On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 10:48:12PM -0800, Steve Schear wrote: Why? BT is designed with zero privacy in mind. And this was a profound error, IMHO. One of the epiphanies from my work at It was a deliberate decision on Bram Cohen's part. BT is a very useful medium to deliver software updates, movies und most for what there are currently broadcast media for. I didn't say that Bram didn't do this on purpose, I just think it was a mistake in judgement. If you want to be invisible to lawyers, you have to use something else. or run BT-like apps within something else. For BT clients its straightforward to run most (e.g., Azureus) via a proxy that keeps no logs (e.g., Metropipe). For Trackers its more difficult. All I am saying is that Brahm should have paid a bit more attention to tracker protection. (Or at least run BT on a large zombie cloud, so you have plausible deniability). Like TOR/I2P. MN was that a secrecy-oriented proxy network development and successful deployment needed to precede P2P file sharing if such networks were to survive determined technical and legal challenges. End users often care If a network has been declared illegal, and you're a part of that network, and somebody receives packets from you which are part of IP-protected binary blob, and your ISP rats on you, your ass is grass with the right kind of IP nazi legislation. Obvously, the only way to prevent that from happening is not be part of that network, not make your ISP rat on you -- or, much better, do not let that legislation happen at all. Its quite unlikely, at least in the U.S. that networks (e.g., those operated in a truly distributed fashion) will be declared illegal. Its even less likely that such networks will enable ISPs to capture anything significant about your activities. But trackers must still be widely accessible by the general population of BT users and can you offer the content or obtain it without likely identification? Web pages have static addresses in DNS. Search on P2P in dynamic IP is much more ephemeral, and requires ISPs to keep track of (customer IPv4 time_period) tuples long enough so that their logs can be subpoenaed. Using DNS to resolve the addresses of future trackers is probably a fools errand. Steve
Re: [p2p-hackers] good-bye, Mnet, and good luck. I'm going commercial! plus my last design doc (fwd from zooko@zooko.com)
At 12:15 AM 3/10/2005, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I worked with Bram and Zooko at Mojo Nation (where both BT and Mnet got their respective genesis) and was frankly surprised when the MPAA was so easily able to target and put out of commission BT's trackers. The Why? BT is designed with zero privacy in mind. And this was a profound error, IMHO. One of the epiphanies from my work at MN was that a secrecy-oriented proxy network development and successful deployment needed to precede P2P file sharing if such networks were to survive determined technical and legal challenges. End users often care little about what 'under the hood' of their P2P app only that they can get the content conveniently and they are not subjected to annoyances like spy or adware. exposure of the trackers was a prominent topic of MN planning discussions and its odd that precautions, like distributing the tracker functions into clients or hiding them inside a TOR-like proxy network weren't taken You can post BT links on a P2P network. But trackers must still be widely accessible by the general population of BT users and can you offer the content or obtain it without likely identification? Steve
Re: [p2p-hackers] good-bye, Mnet, and good luck. I'm going commercial! plus my last design doc (fwd from zooko@zooko.com)
At 12:14 PM 3/9/2005, Eric Cordian wrote: If you had a thousand hours of genius programmer time, would you spend it embracing and extending Bittorrent, or shoveling through the indecipherable bowels of legacy Mnet and Freenet code? I worked with Bram and Zooko at Mojo Nation (where both BT and Mnet got their respective genesis) and was frankly surprised when the MPAA was so easily able to target and put out of commission BT's trackers. The exposure of the trackers was a prominent topic of MN planning discussions and its odd that precautions, like distributing the tracker functions into clients or hiding them inside a TOR-like proxy network weren't taken earlier. Steve
ZipLip ends secure email service
Thank you for using ZipLip's free secure mail service. We appreciate your patronage and wish to inform you that we will be discontinuing our service on June 30th, 2005. For various reasons, including new U.S. legislation which significantly impacts the individual's privacy rights, ZipLip is no longer able to provide its free secure email services with any reasonable assurance of privacy and security, particularly in the context of a hosted service. We will revisit the service issue when our legislature reinstates our privacy rights. Please make the necessary arrangements to use another Webmail service before June 30th. We are unable to offer any data migration services. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused. https://www.ziplip.com/ps/PmApp/zlp_dummy?mgc=1NextPage=/app/services/en/register.jsp
Re: [Htech] Tracking a Specific Machine Anywhere On The Net (fwd from eugen@leitl.org)
Perhaps I'm missing something but doesn't the use of a proxy strip off information essential to this exploit? If so, only newbies and lusers will ID'd. Steve
Re: Auto-HERF: Car Chase Tech That's Really Hot
At 10:15 AM 2/4/2005, R.A. Hettinga wrote: The beautiful part of using the (microwave) energy is that it leaves the suspect in control of the car, he said. He can steer, he can brake, he just can't accelerate. Sorry Charlie, but I think newer vehicles are moving to fly-by-wire steering, especially hybrids that don't have an internal combustion engine running all the time so they can't easily use traditional hydraulic servo steering. Steve
Re: Auto-HERF: Car Chase Tech That's Really Hot
At 10:15 AM 2/4/2005, R.A. Hettinga wrote: The beautiful part of using the (microwave) energy is that it leaves the suspect in control of the car, he said. He can steer, he can brake, he just can't accelerate. Sorry Charlie, but I think newer vehicles are moving to fly-by-wire steering, especially hybrids that don't have an internal combustion engine running all the time so they can't easily use traditional hydraulic servo steering. Steve
RE: Researchers Combat Terrorists by Rooting Out Hidden Messages
At 02:07 PM 2/1/2005, Tyler Durden wrote: Counter-stego detection. Seems to me a main tool will be a 2-D Fourier analysis...Stego will certainly have a certain thumbprint, depending on the algorithm. Are there certain images that can hide stego more effectively? IN other words, these images should have a lot of spectral energy in the same frequency bands where Stego would normally show. Images that ideal for hiding secret messages using stego are those that by default contain stego with no particular hidden content. A sort of Crowds approach to stego. Steve
RE: Researchers Combat Terrorists by Rooting Out Hidden Messages
At 02:07 PM 2/1/2005, Tyler Durden wrote: Counter-stego detection. Seems to me a main tool will be a 2-D Fourier analysis...Stego will certainly have a certain thumbprint, depending on the algorithm. Are there certain images that can hide stego more effectively? IN other words, these images should have a lot of spectral energy in the same frequency bands where Stego would normally show. Images that ideal for hiding secret messages using stego are those that by default contain stego with no particular hidden content. A sort of Crowds approach to stego. Steve
ABC News: Some Say U.S. No Longer Feels Like Home - are leaving
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=235904page=1 ...Sinicki, who has been job hunting in his wife's native France, doesn't blame Bush for what he believes is happening in America, but he doesn't believe Bush will change things for the better, either. All these things were going on before Bush got elected, he said. But I also think they got worse since Bush got elected. He's a symptom of the problem and he's making it worse.
Re: F*ck the South
have easily and correctly argued that short-barreled shotguns had been popular military weapons in the trenches of the First World War. It was lucky for the federal government that he was dead. Still, the decision set off alarm bells in D.C. Federal prosecutors couldn't wait to weaken Miller. In Cases v. U.S. in 1942 they found their opportunity. The robed ones didn't see a straightforward way to eviscerate Miller. Instead they accepted many of the ruling's conclusions, but tried to draw a fence around it application However, we do not feel that the Supreme Court in Miller was attempting to formulate a general rule applicable to all cases. In view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket ... But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities -- almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day -- is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute. Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. Right, what legitimate reason does Steve Schear have for keeping a fully armed tank in their back yard? While this certainly seems reasonable to most citizens, was this type of limitation intended when the Framers drafted the 2nd? Does Original Intent still matter? According to Mr Lessig's analysis of Supreme Court judicial conduct, Translating Federalism: United States v Lopez, one of the challenges faced by those attempting to interpret the Constitution is that there has been a qualitative change in the depth of understanding of common citizens regarding the fictions and conventions that underlie it. He cites de Tocqueville, following his early 1800s U.S. tour, to support the assumption that The government of the Union rests almost entirely on legal fictions. The Union is an ideal nation which exists, so to say, only in men's minds and whose extent and limits can only be discerned by the understanding. Everything in such a government depends on artificially contrived conventions, and it is only suited to a people long accustomed to manage its affairs, and one in which even the lowest ranks of society have an appreciation of political science. The system is not fundamentally different, in this sense, from baseball: For no one would say that baseball is just the rules of the game; more than the rules, it is the understandings of those rules, and the practices that they envision, that constitute the knowledge necessary to play the game. But what happens when this diverse knowledge and discernment disappear? When these artificially contrived conventions lapse, how does a constitutional regime respond? More particularly, how does written constitution survive when the fictions upon which it rested indeed become fiction? His answer is not very well. This is the distinctive feature of constitutionalism in America. It is not that conventions and understandings behind the constitutional text disappear; it is that they change. They change both in their substance, and in their location: They not only direct different readings of the constitutional text, but they are possessed, or understood, no longer by the common people, instead by a constitutional elite lawyers, law professors, and members of government. The distinctive problem of American constitutionalism is how to read this constitutional text, when these understandings are fundamentally different from what they were. The result of this erosion of common understanding is that the Supreme Court swings, sometimes wildly, between two poles Mr. Lessig calls orginalism and texturalism. Originalism attempts to maintain fidelity and articulate these previously understood conventions, and apply them today to assure that the constitutional structure original established is, so far as possible, preserved. The effort, we could say, is to translate that original structure into the context of today. Texturalism is less focused on fidelity. Its method is more direct. It simply reads a text according to relatively simple rules of interpretation, finding that understanding of the text that is most compelling in the current context. It doesn't worry whether that current reading
Re: Tilting at the Ballot Box
At 10:10 AM 8/31/2004, Justin wrote: On 2004-08-30T17:40:25-0700, Steve Schear wrote: At 05:23 AM 8/30/2004, Justin wrote: Are States geopolitical distortions as well? Are countries? If you're going to propose an alternate system, please clearly identify 1) the voting pool, and 2) what they're voting for. If the pool is voting for a party instead of individuals, how does a winning party pick representatives? Is that selection method fair? While this is certainly a value judgement, almost every other nation thinks so. Even if we used it here, the fate of legislation would still be determined by the dominant party in the Senate, which would still rarely if ever admit 3rd parties, and by the president's veto. While I agree that at, least initially, the Senate would continue be populated only by Republicrats, this could eventually change if minority parties gain a good enough foothold in the House. Both major parties contain major 'single issue' blocks (e.g., the Republican Party's fiscal conservatives and Christian fundamentalists) are only sometimes satisfied with the platforms and conduct of the major parties. These voters now have no alternatives, but if they thought they could have more legislative muscle through minority party seats they could well abandon the majors. I assume you're criticizing only House election procedures because that's the only thing that can be attacked without completely restructuring the federal legislature. If it were possible, would you prefer to see nation-wide proportional representation if it included mandatory geographical distribution requirements like those you described? Yes. steve
Re: Tilting at the Ballot Box
At 05:23 AM 8/30/2004, Justin wrote: On 2004-08-29T20:55:19-0700, Steve Schear wrote: I am not discussing presidential elections, this is another matter. Fine. Steve Schear wrote: The problem is that use of voting districts seems to have always resulted in gerrymandering in our political system. A proportional system can eliminate these geopolitical distortions. At 02:49 PM 8/27/2004, Justin wrote: State and Federal House of Reps. are proportional. (Yeah, I know Nebraska is unicameral, excuse the generalization). What part of the System isn't proportional other than most States' selection of presidential electors? The part that isn't proportional has to do with the very establishment of 'voting districts' within the states that are the key to the two major parties maintaining their electoral monopolies. Oh, you want to eliminate voting districts. I apologize for not reading your intentions into your earlier comments. Are States geopolitical distortions as well? Are countries? If you're going to propose an alternate system, please clearly identify 1) the voting pool, and 2) what they're voting for. If the pool is voting for a party instead of individuals, how does a winning party pick representatives? Is that selection method fair? While this is certainly a value judgement, almost every other nation thinks so. Its fair if each party is free to select its own basis for selecting candidates. That way voters can take into consideration both the party and individual ideology and any geographical interests before deciding what party to vote for. The most important thing, in my opinion, is that the number of seats is awarded by, in our situation, state election results and not solely by district where independent candidates will almost never represent a majority and thus never get elected to office. In some countries parties select candidates to fill seats awarded in an election, in others candidates for each party are selected in a primary election and (e.g., based on votes per candidate received) seat the candidates in order of popularity, in still other countries voters are free to write in candidate names. I prefer some combination of the last two methods plus some localization means to prevent the major population centers from monopolizing candidate selection. This might involve some sort of district rotation or randomization so that primary election candidates would be required to come from only those districts in the rotation. I am sure there are other means to address this issue. There are many, many ways to conduct elections, and your proportional representation system has serious problems of its own. It underrepresents regional interests, and doesn't guarantee a geographically diverse set of representatives. You could complain that geography (and in general physical boundaries) isn't important, but you'd be wrong IMO. I agree that without geographic adjustments other unfairness would become problematic. steve
Re: Tilting at the Ballot Box
At 05:23 AM 8/30/2004, Justin wrote: On 2004-08-29T20:55:19-0700, Steve Schear wrote: I am not discussing presidential elections, this is another matter. Fine. Steve Schear wrote: The problem is that use of voting districts seems to have always resulted in gerrymandering in our political system. A proportional system can eliminate these geopolitical distortions. At 02:49 PM 8/27/2004, Justin wrote: State and Federal House of Reps. are proportional. (Yeah, I know Nebraska is unicameral, excuse the generalization). What part of the System isn't proportional other than most States' selection of presidential electors? The part that isn't proportional has to do with the very establishment of 'voting districts' within the states that are the key to the two major parties maintaining their electoral monopolies. Oh, you want to eliminate voting districts. I apologize for not reading your intentions into your earlier comments. Are States geopolitical distortions as well? Are countries? If you're going to propose an alternate system, please clearly identify 1) the voting pool, and 2) what they're voting for. If the pool is voting for a party instead of individuals, how does a winning party pick representatives? Is that selection method fair? While this is certainly a value judgement, almost every other nation thinks so. Its fair if each party is free to select its own basis for selecting candidates. That way voters can take into consideration both the party and individual ideology and any geographical interests before deciding what party to vote for. The most important thing, in my opinion, is that the number of seats is awarded by, in our situation, state election results and not solely by district where independent candidates will almost never represent a majority and thus never get elected to office. In some countries parties select candidates to fill seats awarded in an election, in others candidates for each party are selected in a primary election and (e.g., based on votes per candidate received) seat the candidates in order of popularity, in still other countries voters are free to write in candidate names. I prefer some combination of the last two methods plus some localization means to prevent the major population centers from monopolizing candidate selection. This might involve some sort of district rotation or randomization so that primary election candidates would be required to come from only those districts in the rotation. I am sure there are other means to address this issue. There are many, many ways to conduct elections, and your proportional representation system has serious problems of its own. It underrepresents regional interests, and doesn't guarantee a geographically diverse set of representatives. You could complain that geography (and in general physical boundaries) isn't important, but you'd be wrong IMO. I agree that without geographic adjustments other unfairness would become problematic. steve
Re: Tilting at the Ballot Box
At 02:49 PM 8/27/2004, Justin wrote: On 2004-08-27T13:14:47-0700, Steve Schear wrote: At 04:12 AM 8/27/2004, you wrote: As I understand it (I wasn't there, but perhaps you were), their complaint was that their representatives weren't from the region they claimed to represent, and that they weren't chosen democratically. You and I have no such claim. I can't claim lack of representation just because my fellow citizens are idiots who subscribe to the Libertarian or Socialist or Zoroastrian platform yet vote for a Republican or Democrat. Although some voters registered with minority parties do indeed cross lines and vote for the majority candidate they feel is the lesser of two evils, they are not the focus of my interest but rather what representation is afforded those that do vote with their registered parties. In almost all other democracies independent voter turnouts in the magnitude of U.S. elections would guarantee at least one seat in a state (equivalent) or national assembly. But in the U.S these voters are being denied effective representation (and here 'effective' cannot be defined to mean the choice of the majority when voting is by district which eliminates any practical chance that a minority party candidate can be seated). The fact that 'my' representatives are not the ones I wanted nor any of the independent independent party voters wanted is paramount. What you or I want has nothing to do with it. I don't get to redefine election procedure whenever my preferred candidate doesn't win an election. No, but voters should be able to withhold their tax money, where possible, until they do. I think these disenfranchised voters would feel much less damaged if they weren't financially supporting a such an undemocratic system. I'm not voting for either Bush or Kerry. Neither represents my views. No matter who wins, the winner is my president and my representative. I can't claim otherwise. The best I can do is blame all the idiot voters who cling to party-ID as if it were their only hope of survival. You are attempting to substitute an inherently winner-take-all contest for the legislative contests I have been discussing. One has nothing to do with the other. Representation is about interests and ideology. If a significant segment of voters don't get anyone to represent these interests and ideologies bad things can happen (e.g., they can become radicalized). Representation can be an important outlet for these disenfranchised voters. Well, one district in TX managed to elect someone who's decent - Ron Paul. It's possible. The fact that libertarians or fascists everywhere don't get their candidates elected has more to do with the fact that they vote Republican or Democrat because a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. Blame the morons in the electorate for not electing representatives that mirror their views. That's where the blame lies. Its only 'wasted' because there is no chance that a majority in their voting district will also vote for the same candidate. What do you want? Do you want everyone to vote Democrat, Libertarian or Republican, then apportion the House of Representatives and the Senate appropriately? Who picks the representatives? The manners for the selection of candidates under a proportional system are varied but well understood outside the U.S. Perhaps these links might educate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation and http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/howprwor.htm The reason we don't have any socialists or libertarians or fascists in Congress is that not a single district votes for one. The U.S. has this fixation on voting for one of the two major parties. Other countries do not; that's why some of them have multi-(3+)-party representation in their parliaments. No, the reason the U.S. has a fixation on voting for one of two major parties is because of a lack of proportional representation like elsewhere. I am certain you have the cause and effect interchanged. Incidentally, some northeastern state allows each congressional district to pick one elector, and the State as a whole picks two. (Electors = Senators + House Reps). If you're complaining about presidential elector selection, that blame lies with the States; the States dictate how their electors are chosen. I am not discussing presidential elections, this is another matter. The problem is that use of voting districts seems to have always resulted in gerrymandering in our political system. A proportional system can eliminate these geopolitical distortions. State and Federal House of Reps. are proportional. (Yeah, I know Nebraska is unicameral, excuse the generalization). What part of the System isn't proportional other than most States' selection of presidential electors? The part that isn't proportional has to do with the very establishment of 'voting districts' within the states that are the key to the two
Re: Tilting at the Ballot Box
At 04:12 AM 8/27/2004, you wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-08-25T11:25:09-0700, Steve Schear wrote: At 09:18 AM 8/25/2004, R. A. Hettinga wrote: http://www.business2.com/b2/web/articles/print/0,17925,683182,00.html Business 2.0 - Magazine Article - Printable Version - Tilting at the Ballot Box Entrepreneur David Chaum's e-money venture flopped. Now he wants to fix electronic voting. For once, is the brilliant inventor right on time? By John Heilemann, September 2004 Issue Like a shoemaker who only has hammers in his toolkit, Chaum is trying to fix the wrong problem. The problems with voting in the U.S. aren't current or even potential fraud at the ballot box its a complete lack of proportional representation. Is this solvable? Chaum is solving a problem that evidently can be solved. Perhaps once those problems are solved it will be easier to direct public attention at other more fundamental problems with our representative democracy. Why would u guess this? These problems have been around since almost the founding of the republic. You have a strange notion of what the Colonists meant by that phrase. You do have representation. The fact that your representatives are not the ones you wanted is irrelevant. The Colonists had representatives too, its just that they were chosen by King George :) The fact that 'my' representatives are not the ones I wanted nor any of the independent independent party voters wanted is paramount. Representation is about interests and ideology. If a significant segment of voters don't get anyone to represent these interests and ideologies bad things can happen (e.g., they can become radicalized). Representation can be an important outlet for these disenfranchised voters. IMO, your complaint about gerrymandering is valid. There are a variety of formulaic ways to ensure voting district compactness. See e.g. http://www.hmdc.harvard.edu/micah_altman/disab.shtml Clearly, no matter what you do, there are problems. If the district size is 1 million, there's a city of 499k and a city of 1501k, what then? The city of 499k is screwed unless there's a nearby population center with similar culture. Even then, the numbers won't be equitable, and someone, somewhere will whine about lack of representation. The problem is that use of voting districts seems to have always resulted in gerrymandering in our political system. A proportional system can eliminate these geopolitical distortions. steve
Re: Tilting at the Ballot Box
At 09:18 AM 8/25/2004, R. A. Hettinga wrote: http://www.business2.com/b2/web/articles/print/0,17925,683182,00.html Business 2.0 - Magazine Article - Printable Version - Tilting at the Ballot Box Entrepreneur David Chaum's e-money venture flopped. Now he wants to fix electronic voting. For once, is the brilliant inventor right on time? By John Heilemann, September 2004 Issue Like a shoemaker who only has hammers in his toolkit, Chaum is trying to fix the wrong problem. The problems with voting in the U.S. aren't current or even potential fraud at the ballot box its a complete lack of proportional representation. Hey Dude, Where's My Rep? The rallying cry of American Colonists was No Taxation Without Representation. Although U.S politicians frequently present their political system as some paragon of representative democracy, I am unaware of any country since the Civil War adopting this winner-take-all, gerrymandered, model. Almost all opted for a parliamentary system with proportional representation. Today, unless you vote either Republican or Democrat you are effectively denied representation. Almost no independent candidates are ever elected to U.S. state, not alone federal office, even though in other democracies some would surely have gotten members of their party seated. If one accepts that the American Colonists were right to refuse to pay taxes to the British Crown until they received representation then why should today's independent voters pay state and federal taxes? steve
Downloading for Democracy
By Kim Zetter 02:00 AM Jul. 19, 2004 PT http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,64237,00.html While legislators in Washington work to outlaw peer-to-peer networks, one website is turning the peer-to-peer technology back on Washington to expose its inner, secretive workings. But outragedmoderates.org isn't offering copyright music and videos for download. The site, launched two weeks ago, has aggregated more than 600 government and court documents to make them available for download through the Kazaa, LimeWire and Soulseek P2P networks in the interest of making government more transparent and accountable.
Re: Why there is no anonymous e-cash
At 08:41 AM 7/19/2004, James A. Donald wrote: As I predicted, transactions are increasingly going on line. And as Hettinga predicted, the more anonymous and irreversible the transaction service, the cheaper and more convenient its services. All happening as predicted. So why don't we have anonymous chaumian cash by now? Because, the more anonymous and irreversible its services, the more fraudsters use it to convert other people's bank accounts, obtained by phishing, into usable money. Only if you ignore soft/hard money issues and your internal fraud controls are not up to par. Why don't we have anonymous e-cash? - because IE and outlook express are full of massive security holes, and because people are idiots. Or e-currency vendors don't use effective anti-phishing and key logger measures. They do seem to exist. steve
Re: Why there is no anonymous e-cash
At 08:41 AM 7/19/2004, James A. Donald wrote: As I predicted, transactions are increasingly going on line. And as Hettinga predicted, the more anonymous and irreversible the transaction service, the cheaper and more convenient its services. All happening as predicted. So why don't we have anonymous chaumian cash by now? Because, the more anonymous and irreversible its services, the more fraudsters use it to convert other people's bank accounts, obtained by phishing, into usable money. Only if you ignore soft/hard money issues and your internal fraud controls are not up to par. Why don't we have anonymous e-cash? - because IE and outlook express are full of massive security holes, and because people are idiots. Or e-currency vendors don't use effective anti-phishing and key logger measures. They do seem to exist. steve
Re: Secure telephones
At 11:45 AM 7/17/2004, Thomas Shaddack wrote: Pondering construction of a secure telephone. (Or at least a cellphone in general. The user interfaces and features available on virtually all the mass-market phones suck, to put it very very mildly, not even mentioning that there's no access to their firmware (so no chance of audit), poor or no support for SSL (while running HTTP through the operator's proxy), and typically no possibility to run more than one Java applet (or other program) at the same time. A combination of a GSM/GPRS module with a suitable embedded Linux-running computer could be the right solution.) How about building a secure cell phone using GnuRadio as a core? That way you have maximum control afforded by the protocols. steve
Re: USA PATRIOT Act Survives Amendment Attempt
At 01:44 PM 7/9/2004, you wrote: On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Steve Schear wrote: Quite a few book stores (including the local Half-Priced Books) now keep no records not required and some do not even automate and encourage their patron to pay cash. In California book sellers to such used/remaindered stores must identify themselves for tax purposes. The Patriot gag orders lead me to a thought. Is it possible to write a database access protocol, that would in some mathematically bulletproof way ensure that the fact a database record is accessed is made known to at least n people? A way that would ensure that either nobody can see the data, or at least n people reliably know the record was accessed and by whom? This may best be accomplished by placing the data offshore and empowering the db operators with some non-repudiatable right of disclosure (especially under duress of a warrant). Some months back I discussed a procedural methodology where patrons could find out if their records hand been accessed in a way that circumvented court orders. I was told that it might work but that frustrated prosecutors might press charges of conspiracy before the fact to evade lawful orders that 'might' be issued, even if the defendant had no reasonable expectation that this might occur. steve The law is an ass. -- Charles Dickens
Re: USA PATRIOT Act Survives Amendment Attempt (fwd from brian-slashdotnews@hyperreal.org)
At 06:27 AM 7/9/2004, Eugen Leitl wrote: *** PGP Signature Status: good *** Signer: Eugen Leitl (makes other keys obsolete) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Invalid) *** Signed: 7/9/2004 6:27:50 AM *** Verified: 7/9/2004 11:27:24 AM *** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE *** - Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 9 Jul 2004 13:26:01 - To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: USA PATRIOT Act Survives Amendment Attempt User-Agent: SlashdotNewsScooper/0.0.3 Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/09/1145225 Posted by: michael, on 2004-07-09 12:49:00 Topic: us, 90 comments from the i-feel-safer-already dept. crem_d_genes writes A bill to modify the USA PATRIOT Act that would have blocked part of the legislation's provisions that allow for the investigation of people's reading habits [1]was defeated by a 210-210 vote in the U.S House of Representives. The House leaders kept the roll call open for 23 minutes past the 15 minute deadline to persuade 10 Representatives to change votes. According to the article 'Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., said he switched his initial yes vote to no after being shown Justice Department documents asserting that terrorists have communicated over the Internet via public library computers.' On the other hand, 'Critics of the Patriot Act argued that even without it, investigators can get book store and other records simply by obtaining subpoenas or search warrants.' Quite a few book stores (including the local Half-Priced Books) now keep no records not required and some do not even automate and encourage their patron to pay cash. In California book sellers to such used/remaindered stores must identify themselves for tax purposes. steve
Re: USA PATRIOT Act Survives Amendment Attempt
At 01:44 PM 7/9/2004, you wrote: On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Steve Schear wrote: Quite a few book stores (including the local Half-Priced Books) now keep no records not required and some do not even automate and encourage their patron to pay cash. In California book sellers to such used/remaindered stores must identify themselves for tax purposes. The Patriot gag orders lead me to a thought. Is it possible to write a database access protocol, that would in some mathematically bulletproof way ensure that the fact a database record is accessed is made known to at least n people? A way that would ensure that either nobody can see the data, or at least n people reliably know the record was accessed and by whom? This may best be accomplished by placing the data offshore and empowering the db operators with some non-repudiatable right of disclosure (especially under duress of a warrant). Some months back I discussed a procedural methodology where patrons could find out if their records hand been accessed in a way that circumvented court orders. I was told that it might work but that frustrated prosecutors might press charges of conspiracy before the fact to evade lawful orders that 'might' be issued, even if the defendant had no reasonable expectation that this might occur. steve The law is an ass. -- Charles Dickens
Re: USA PATRIOT Act Survives Amendment Attempt (fwd from brian-slashdotnews@hyperreal.org)
At 06:27 AM 7/9/2004, Eugen Leitl wrote: *** PGP Signature Status: good *** Signer: Eugen Leitl (makes other keys obsolete) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Invalid) *** Signed: 7/9/2004 6:27:50 AM *** Verified: 7/9/2004 11:27:24 AM *** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE *** - Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 9 Jul 2004 13:26:01 - To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: USA PATRIOT Act Survives Amendment Attempt User-Agent: SlashdotNewsScooper/0.0.3 Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/09/1145225 Posted by: michael, on 2004-07-09 12:49:00 Topic: us, 90 comments from the i-feel-safer-already dept. crem_d_genes writes A bill to modify the USA PATRIOT Act that would have blocked part of the legislation's provisions that allow for the investigation of people's reading habits [1]was defeated by a 210-210 vote in the U.S House of Representives. The House leaders kept the roll call open for 23 minutes past the 15 minute deadline to persuade 10 Representatives to change votes. According to the article 'Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., said he switched his initial yes vote to no after being shown Justice Department documents asserting that terrorists have communicated over the Internet via public library computers.' On the other hand, 'Critics of the Patriot Act argued that even without it, investigators can get book store and other records simply by obtaining subpoenas or search warrants.' Quite a few book stores (including the local Half-Priced Books) now keep no records not required and some do not even automate and encourage their patron to pay cash. In California book sellers to such used/remaindered stores must identify themselves for tax purposes. steve
Re: Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto proxies
At 01:09 PM 7/7/2004, Adam Back wrote: Then we implemented a replacement version 2 mail system that I designed. The design is much simpler. With freedom anonymous networking you had anyway a anonymous interactive TCP feature. So we just ran a standard pop box for your nym. Mail would be delivered to it directly (no reply block) for internet senders. Freedom senders would send via anonymous IP again to get sender anonymity. Used qmail as the mail system. Unfortunately they closed down the freedom network pretty soon after psuedonymous mail 2.0 [3] was implemented. I wonder if the mail 2.0 code could be publicly released so it could be used with the forthcoming i2p IP overlay http://www.i2p.net/ ? steve
Re: Faster than Moore's law
At 09:31 PM 7/7/2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 02:55 PM 7/7/04 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote: A few years ago. Lets call it two years ago. That would make the average hi-cap drive around 30gb. Just want to remind y'all that drive capacity has increased *faster* than semiconductor throughput, which has an 18 month doubling time. But access time has not nearly kept pace. Which is why all manner of database architectures have been created to make up for this shortcoming. steve
Re: Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto proxies
At 07:28 AM 7/7/2004, Tyler Durden wrote: If you think the cable landings in Va/Md are coincidental, you are smoking something I've run out of. Its all recorded. I'm sure the archiving and database groups in Ft. Meade will get a chuckle out of your the right to idioms. Well, I don't actually believe it's all recorded. As I've attempted to explain previously, they almost certainly have risk models in place. When several variables twinkle enough (eg, origination area, IP address, presence of crypto...) some rule fires and then diverts a copy into the WASP'S Nest. There's probably some kind of key word search that either diverts the copy into storage or into the short list for an analyst to peek it. Perhaps, but at a Bay Area meeting a few years back held to discuss NSA/SIGINT, I think it was held on the Stanford campus, a developer disclosed that an American contractor manufacturer had won a contract to install 250,000 high-capacity disk drives at one of these agenicies. stveve
Re: Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto proxies
At 07:28 AM 7/7/2004, Tyler Durden wrote: If you think the cable landings in Va/Md are coincidental, you are smoking something I've run out of. Its all recorded. I'm sure the archiving and database groups in Ft. Meade will get a chuckle out of your the right to idioms. Well, I don't actually believe it's all recorded. As I've attempted to explain previously, they almost certainly have risk models in place. When several variables twinkle enough (eg, origination area, IP address, presence of crypto...) some rule fires and then diverts a copy into the WASP'S Nest. There's probably some kind of key word search that either diverts the copy into storage or into the short list for an analyst to peek it. Perhaps, but at a Bay Area meeting a few years back held to discuss NSA/SIGINT, I think it was held on the Stanford campus, a developer disclosed that an American contractor manufacturer had won a contract to install 250,000 high-capacity disk drives at one of these agenicies. stveve
Re: New Radar Sees Through Walls (fwd from brian-slashdotnews@hyperreal.org)
At 11:42 AM 7/4/2004, Eugen Leitl wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2 Jul 2004 19:26:10 - To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: New Radar Sees Through Walls User-Agent: SlashdotNewsScooper/0.0.3 Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/02/158257 Posted by: CowboyNeal, on 2004-07-02 16:46:00 Topic: privacy, 278 comments from the watching-me-watching-you dept. [1]artemis67 writes A [2]small Israeli company has [3]developed a radar system that uses ultra-wideband technology to produce three-dimensional pictures of the space behind a wall from a distance of up to 20 meters. The pictures, which reportedly resemble those produced by ultrasound, are relatively high-resolution and are produced in real time. Wow, it sounds like the potential benefits of this device are huge, saving lives of soldiers, firemen, or police; the potential for privacy invasion, however, is similarly large. References 1. http://slashdot.org/~artemis67/journal/ 2. http://www.radarvision.com/ 3. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39246 Should be interesting to see what insulated walls which include aluminum foil, common in U.S., do to penetration. stvee
Re: New Radar Sees Through Walls (fwd from brian-slashdotnews@hyperreal.org)
At 11:42 AM 7/4/2004, Eugen Leitl wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2 Jul 2004 19:26:10 - To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: New Radar Sees Through Walls User-Agent: SlashdotNewsScooper/0.0.3 Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/02/158257 Posted by: CowboyNeal, on 2004-07-02 16:46:00 Topic: privacy, 278 comments from the watching-me-watching-you dept. [1]artemis67 writes A [2]small Israeli company has [3]developed a radar system that uses ultra-wideband technology to produce three-dimensional pictures of the space behind a wall from a distance of up to 20 meters. The pictures, which reportedly resemble those produced by ultrasound, are relatively high-resolution and are produced in real time. Wow, it sounds like the potential benefits of this device are huge, saving lives of soldiers, firemen, or police; the potential for privacy invasion, however, is similarly large. References 1. http://slashdot.org/~artemis67/journal/ 2. http://www.radarvision.com/ 3. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39246 Should be interesting to see what insulated walls which include aluminum foil, common in U.S., do to penetration. stvee
Re: my name is Doe, John Doe
After a hard day, I'm safe at home Foolin' with my baby on the telephone Out of nowhere somebody cuts in and Says, 'Hmm, you in some trouble boy, we know where you're been.' I'm out on the border I thought this was a private line Don't you tell me 'bout your law and order I'm try'n' to change this water to wine Never mind your name, just give us your number, mm Never mind your face, just show us your card, mm And we wanna know whose wing are you under You better step to the right or we can make it hard I'm stuck on the border All I wanted was some peace of mind Don't you tell me 'bout your law and order I'm try'n' to change this water to wine From On the Boarder, The Eagles
Re: my name is Doe, John Doe
After a hard day, I'm safe at home Foolin' with my baby on the telephone Out of nowhere somebody cuts in and Says, 'Hmm, you in some trouble boy, we know where you're been.' I'm out on the border I thought this was a private line Don't you tell me 'bout your law and order I'm try'n' to change this water to wine Never mind your name, just give us your number, mm Never mind your face, just show us your card, mm And we wanna know whose wing are you under You better step to the right or we can make it hard I'm stuck on the border All I wanted was some peace of mind Don't you tell me 'bout your law and order I'm try'n' to change this water to wine From On the Boarder, The Eagles
Theres No Such Thing As an Illegal Alien
Written by Marc Stevens Theres an incredible amount of energy expended on the subject of so-called illegal aliens. These are men, women and children who allegedly are not in the country legally. People who think theyre citizens believe physical force may be used against illegal aliens to cage them and send them back to their country. This use of physical violence is called deportation. One of the biggest complaints about these so-called illegals is how much they cost citizens and taxpayers in welfare and other social programs. However, just as its a myth theres a country or nation called the United States, theres no such thing as an illegal alien. Theyre all part of the government hoax. To prove theres no such thing as an illegal alien, one needs to examine what a nation or country is. A nation, such as the pretended United States, is supposed to be a voluntary association of individuals. The mere fact physical violence is used to deport so-called illegals contradicts the professed voluntary nature of a nation. A nation is composed of citizens, and a citizen is supposed to be a member of a political body (nation) who owes a duty of allegiance in return for a duty of protection. These two duties are the only things separating men who are citizens from men who are illegal aliens. Do these alleged duties exist and if so, exactly how were they created? Is the protection offered by the United States government offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis like other services? No, of course not. Citizen is not synonymous with customer. Customers, unlike citizens, have the choice to say no to a particular service or product without being threatened and killed. You accept and pay for the services provided by men and women doing business as a state or be murdered: The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is thisthat it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority - Lysander Spooner. Its fundamental no duty or obligation is created by threats of violence and violence. This is one of the fatal flaws in statist theology. Men and women calling themselves government violently impose themselves on victims called citizens, and ordain scriptures called laws that define the way government does business as a crime. I love the following example of this quoted in my article The Government Hoax: racketeer. The organized use of threats, coercion, intimidation, and violence to compel the payment for actual or alleged services of arbitrary or excessive charges under the guise of membership dues, protection fees, royalties, or service rates. United States v McGlone (DC Pa) 19 F Supp 285, 286. Ballentines Law Dictionary, page 1051. This describes exactly how men and women calling themselves a state, nation and government operate. Now if duties and obligations are not created by violence, then theres no duty to protect anyone and there is no duty of allegiance. These are the only two things separating men who are citizens from men who are illegal aliens and neither one exists. Because neither duty exists there are no citizens and no nation. It then follows there is no such thing as an illegal alien. The only officially recognized legal status with any existence is called res nullius meaning: The property of no one. Ballentines Law Dictionary, page 1105. This is why the very idea of a free government is ridiculous. Because human beings are not property there can be no valid government as govern means control and control implies ownership: The right of absolute and irresponsible dominion is the right of property, and the right of property is the right of absolute, irresponsible dominion. The two are identical; the one necessarily implying the other. No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority - Lysander Spooner. The illegal problem is classic diversion: instead of focusing on the real problem, viz., men and women violently controlling other men and women (government, slavery etc.), the focus is diverted to non-existent illegal aliens. Men and women pretending to be a state steal money from their victims (pretended citizens) and give it to other men, women and children (pretended illegals). Instead of refusing to be victims and not permitting their money to be stolen, the victims only complain the people stealing their money shouldnt give it away. Focusing on the non-existent illegals instead of the robbery only gives the violent men and women pretending to be a state legitimacy. It is tantamount to a bank being robbed and the bank managers only complaint is the robber buys crack with the money. Hey, dont buy crack! Thats stupid. You should buy more guns and soldiers so you can steal more money. It seems irrational to complain how stolen money is being used. When money is stolen the only relevant issue is that it was stolen, not what the anti-social parasite is doing with it. While illegal aliens are not real, violent
Re: [IP] When police ask your name, you must give it, Supreme Court says (fwd from dave@farber.net)
WASHINGTON - A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that people who refuse to give their names to police can be arrested, even if they've done nothing wrong. The court previously had said police may briefly detain people they suspect of wrongdoing, without any proof. But until now, the justices had never held that during those encounters a person must reveal their identity. The court's 5-4 decision upholds laws in at least 21 states giving police the right to ask people their name and jail those who don't cooperate. Law enforcement officials say identification requests are a routine part of detective work. Not a problem. Its legal to use any name you wish, including those that use gyphs and sounds which cannot be represented by standard Roman and non-Roman alphabets (as is common in some African tribes). So, those that wish to avoid this data base nightmare can legally adopt name which does not conform. Steve
Re: We're jamming, we're jamming, we hope you like jammin too
At 06:16 AM 5/13/2004 +1000, Ian Farquhar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would almost bet money that the commercial interests currently evaluating RFID tags will push for a legislative ban on RFID jamming. And I'll bet they get it too. I really won't matter what they prohibit, it will get out into the market anyway if its cheap enough to manufacture and there is sufficient demand. Cellular jammers, which should be much more expensive to make than those for RFID, are a good example. AFAIK they are illegal for the average citizen to posses one, yet they are as close as your browser to purchase. steve
Re: We're jamming, we're jamming, we hope you like jammin too
At 06:16 AM 5/13/2004 +1000, Ian Farquhar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would almost bet money that the commercial interests currently evaluating RFID tags will push for a legislative ban on RFID jamming. And I'll bet they get it too. I really won't matter what they prohibit, it will get out into the market anyway if its cheap enough to manufacture and there is sufficient demand. Cellular jammers, which should be much more expensive to make than those for RFID, are a good example. AFAIK they are illegal for the average citizen to posses one, yet they are as close as your browser to purchase. steve
RE: [IP] One Internet provider's view of FBI's CALEA wiretap push
At 07:43 AM 4/23/2004, Trei, Peter wrote: If you're dealing with a state-level attacker, any scheme involving explosives or incendiaries would get the attackee in as much or more trouble than the original data would. This is a hard problem. I suspect any solution will involve tamper-resistant hardware, which zeroizes itself if not used in the expected mode. Right, there are at least two workable solutions- Hard drives with user alterable firmware. I surprised that none of the major drive manufacturers seems to have thought about offering a version of their controllers, for substantially more money, that offers this. A retrofit device that screws into the side of the hard drive and is set to inject a corrosive that almost instantly destroys the drive surfaces. The device can be triggered by any number of intrusion detectors or a voice-activated system keyed to the operators voice print. steve
Smartcard patents
http://www.financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/000121.html Cryptography Research, the California company that announced the discovery of differential power analysis around late 1997, have picked up a swag of patents covering defences against DPA. One can't read too much into the event itself, as presumably they filed all these a long time ago, way back when, and once filed you just have to stay the distance. It's what companies do, over that side, and if you didn't predict it, you were naive (I didn't, and I was). What is more significant is the changed market place for smart cards. The Europeans dominated this field due to their institutional structure. Big contracts from large telcos and banks lead to lots of support, all things that were lacking in the fragmented market in the US. Yet the Europeans kept their secrets too close to the chest, and now they are paying for the vulnerability. CR managed to discover and publish a lot of the stuff that the Europeans thought they had secretly to themselves. Now CR has patented it. What a spectacular transfer of rights - even if the European labs can prove they invented it first (I've seen some confidential stuff on this from my smart card days) because they kept it secret, they lose it. Secrets don't enjoy any special protection. Security by obscurity loses in more ways than one. What's more, royalties and damages may be due, just like in the Polaroid film case. When both sides had the secret, it didn't matter who invented it, it was who patented it first that won. We will probably see the switch of a lot more smart card work across to CR's labs, and a commensurate rush by the European labs to patent everything they have left. Just a speculative guess, mind. With those patents in hand, CR's future looks bright, although whether this will prove to be drain or a boon to the smart card world remains to be seen.
RE: [IP] One Internet provider's view of FBI's CALEA wiretap push
At 07:43 AM 4/23/2004, Trei, Peter wrote: If you're dealing with a state-level attacker, any scheme involving explosives or incendiaries would get the attackee in as much or more trouble than the original data would. This is a hard problem. I suspect any solution will involve tamper-resistant hardware, which zeroizes itself if not used in the expected mode. Right, there are at least two workable solutions- Hard drives with user alterable firmware. I surprised that none of the major drive manufacturers seems to have thought about offering a version of their controllers, for substantially more money, that offers this. A retrofit device that screws into the side of the hard drive and is set to inject a corrosive that almost instantly destroys the drive surfaces. The device can be triggered by any number of intrusion detectors or a voice-activated system keyed to the operators voice print. steve
Smartcard patents
http://www.financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/000121.html Cryptography Research, the California company that announced the discovery of differential power analysis around late 1997, have picked up a swag of patents covering defences against DPA. One can't read too much into the event itself, as presumably they filed all these a long time ago, way back when, and once filed you just have to stay the distance. It's what companies do, over that side, and if you didn't predict it, you were naive (I didn't, and I was). What is more significant is the changed market place for smart cards. The Europeans dominated this field due to their institutional structure. Big contracts from large telcos and banks lead to lots of support, all things that were lacking in the fragmented market in the US. Yet the Europeans kept their secrets too close to the chest, and now they are paying for the vulnerability. CR managed to discover and publish a lot of the stuff that the Europeans thought they had secretly to themselves. Now CR has patented it. What a spectacular transfer of rights - even if the European labs can prove they invented it first (I've seen some confidential stuff on this from my smart card days) because they kept it secret, they lose it. Secrets don't enjoy any special protection. Security by obscurity loses in more ways than one. What's more, royalties and damages may be due, just like in the Polaroid film case. When both sides had the secret, it didn't matter who invented it, it was who patented it first that won. We will probably see the switch of a lot more smart card work across to CR's labs, and a commensurate rush by the European labs to patent everything they have left. Just a speculative guess, mind. With those patents in hand, CR's future looks bright, although whether this will prove to be drain or a boon to the smart card world remains to be seen.
Re: Fortress America mans the ramparts
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storyprint.cfm?storyID=3559809 New Zealand Herald Online - Newspaper Sunday April 11, 2004 [An American flight crew member (left) is photographed and fingerprinted with by an immigration official. Picture / Reuters] Fortress America mans the ramparts 10.04.2004 - Travellers to the US face fingerprinting and being photographed. CHRIS BARTON investigates if terrorism is reducing us all to numbers I am not a number, I am a free man! So cried Number 6 (Patrick McGoohan) in the 1967 cult TV classic The Prisoner as he fled Rover, the sinister white balloon that patrolled The Village - sort of Shangri-La meets the Gulag - in which he was contained. Otago University computer security and forensics professor and cryptography expert Hank Wolfe, who is also an American citizen, sees liberty under threat. If you look at America I don't think it's the land of the free, home of the brave any more. It's more appropriately called Fortress America. Wolfe is also scathing of steps taken post September 11 to protect airports. It's not real security. This is eyewash security. This is for public consumption so that people think that they are doing something. Several years ago, on this list I belive, I coined a word to describe such foolery - securisimilitude. steve
Re: Research Shows Explosives Remain Part Of Human Hair
At 10:08 AM 4/8/2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote: And McVeigh used ammonium nitrate which wasn't tested, and as a highly soluable (in fact deliquescent) inorganic it probably won't persist like a nitrated organic. Also common as dirt in agville. He also added nitromethane to the mix, obtained through the common auto racing channels. Nothing like dropping a little Miracle Gro in the men's room at the airport to keep the mass spec goon awake :-) Note that if hair is collected they've got your DNA too. Wonder if screeners will insist on taking a sample of hair from other body areas if you are bald? steve
Re: Research Shows Explosives Remain Part Of Human Hair
At 07:03 PM 4/7/2004, R. A. Hettinga wrote: Depilatory becomes a new standard accessory for the well-...um...-dressed terrorist... Nah, just a plastic shower cap during explosive handling. steve http://www.sciencedaily.com/print.php?url=/releases/2004/04/040406083933.htm Source: University Of Rhode Island Date: 2004-04-06 URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/04/040406083933.htm Research Shows Explosives Remain Part Of Human Hair KINGSTON, R.I -- March 17, 2004 -- The comb, that simple device millions of people pass through their hair every day, could become the latest tool in the battle against terrorism. Thatís because a group of University of Rhode Island researchers has found that chemicals used to make bombs remain in the hair of explosives handlers long after repeated washings.
Some more anarchy and capitalism -- Fwd: [dgc.chat] Starving the Bastards in Bolivia
Bolivia is a poor country. Nevertheless, no one, however poor, ever starves in Bolivia: food is dirt cheap and readily available. In contrast, the government is starving to death. What joy! It is desperate for increased revenue and is preoccupied with schemes for new taxes etc. You may recall that last year the president, Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, was driven out of the country because he tried to impose an income tax. The new president, Carlos Mesa, has proposed 3 (three!) separate programs in the last few months for various new kinds of taxes to raise revenue. And he has been forced to withdraw all of them. The bureacrats' whining is getting deafening. http://www.el-deber.net/20040317/nacional_3.html Mesa negocia fondos externos para salarios Mesa seeks external fund for salaries El Presidente insistió ayer en Cochabamba en la necesidad de mejorar la situación financiera del Estado Yesterday in Cochabamba, the president urged the necessity of improving the financial situation of the State. El gobierno teme un colapso fiscal. Ya no hay dinero para pagarles a los funcionarios públicos y por ello apela a un pacto para salir de la crisis. The government is afraid of a fiscal collapse. There is now no money to pay the public servants and for that it appeals for an agreement for escaping the crisis. Tras alertar sobre la posibilidad de un colapso fiscal del país, el presidente Carlos Mesa reveló ayer que su gobierno negocia con la comunidad internacional fondos para el pago de salarios en el sector público. Announcing the possibility of a fiscal collapse of the country, the president Carlos Mesa revealed yesterday that his government is negotiating with the IMF in order to pay the salaries of the public sector. Note that he says there might be a fiscal collapse of the *country* when it is not the country but the government that might collapse. There is no chance of the civil society collapsing. We can only hope that the government does so the society will be freed from it. Also note what foreign aid is sought for: not to aid the people of Bolivia but to prop up the apparatus of the State. Best, CCS -- Anarchy may not be a better form of government, but it's better than no government at all.
Re: Research Shows Explosives Remain Part Of Human Hair
At 10:08 AM 4/8/2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote: And McVeigh used ammonium nitrate which wasn't tested, and as a highly soluable (in fact deliquescent) inorganic it probably won't persist like a nitrated organic. Also common as dirt in agville. He also added nitromethane to the mix, obtained through the common auto racing channels. Nothing like dropping a little Miracle Gro in the men's room at the airport to keep the mass spec goon awake :-) Note that if hair is collected they've got your DNA too. Wonder if screeners will insist on taking a sample of hair from other body areas if you are bald? steve
Some more anarchy and capitalism -- Fwd: [dgc.chat] Starving the Bastards in Bolivia
Bolivia is a poor country. Nevertheless, no one, however poor, ever starves in Bolivia: food is dirt cheap and readily available. In contrast, the government is starving to death. What joy! It is desperate for increased revenue and is preoccupied with schemes for new taxes etc. You may recall that last year the president, Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, was driven out of the country because he tried to impose an income tax. The new president, Carlos Mesa, has proposed 3 (three!) separate programs in the last few months for various new kinds of taxes to raise revenue. And he has been forced to withdraw all of them. The bureacrats' whining is getting deafening. http://www.el-deber.net/20040317/nacional_3.html Mesa negocia fondos externos para salarios Mesa seeks external fund for salaries El Presidente insistió ayer en Cochabamba en la necesidad de mejorar la situación financiera del Estado Yesterday in Cochabamba, the president urged the necessity of improving the financial situation of the State. El gobierno teme un colapso fiscal. Ya no hay dinero para pagarles a los funcionarios públicos y por ello apela a un pacto para salir de la crisis. The government is afraid of a fiscal collapse. There is now no money to pay the public servants and for that it appeals for an agreement for escaping the crisis. Tras alertar sobre la posibilidad de un colapso fiscal del país, el presidente Carlos Mesa reveló ayer que su gobierno negocia con la comunidad internacional fondos para el pago de salarios en el sector público. Announcing the possibility of a fiscal collapse of the country, the president Carlos Mesa revealed yesterday that his government is negotiating with the IMF in order to pay the salaries of the public sector. Note that he says there might be a fiscal collapse of the *country* when it is not the country but the government that might collapse. There is no chance of the civil society collapsing. We can only hope that the government does so the society will be freed from it. Also note what foreign aid is sought for: not to aid the people of Bolivia but to prop up the apparatus of the State. Best, CCS -- Anarchy may not be a better form of government, but it's better than no government at all.
Re: Research Shows Explosives Remain Part Of Human Hair
At 07:03 PM 4/7/2004, R. A. Hettinga wrote: Depilatory becomes a new standard accessory for the well-...um...-dressed terrorist... Nah, just a plastic shower cap during explosive handling. steve http://www.sciencedaily.com/print.php?url=/releases/2004/04/040406083933.htm Source: University Of Rhode Island Date: 2004-04-06 URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/04/040406083933.htm Research Shows Explosives Remain Part Of Human Hair KINGSTON, R.I -- March 17, 2004 -- The comb, that simple device millions of people pass through their hair every day, could become the latest tool in the battle against terrorism. Thatís because a group of University of Rhode Island researchers has found that chemicals used to make bombs remain in the hair of explosives handlers long after repeated washings.
Re: MR
At 12:46 AM 3/22/2004, javve wrote: Mr. Are the are anny spy device can look trough the wall too see you? If the are with one? IR systems capable of locating warm objects within structures have been available for a long time. They are routinely used for search and rescue in collapsed building. Resolution is low. they could not be used to see anything much beyond a warm blob through rubble. There are purported to be devices using ultra wideband RF and microwave frequencies and millimeter wave active or passive devices to do this. Resolution of the microwave devices should be even lower than the IR and perhaps suitable only for determining occupant location, for example prior to breaking down the door during a SWAT raid. Millimeter waves are emitted by warm bodies, such as own own, and can be used to passively see thorough clothing. Not sure if passive devices would work through walls due to attenuation, but active devices probably could. steve --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.605 / Virus Database: 385 - Release Date: 3/1/2004
Re: MR
At 12:46 AM 3/22/2004, javve wrote: Mr. Are the are anny spy device can look trough the wall too see you? If the are with one? IR systems capable of locating warm objects within structures have been available for a long time. They are routinely used for search and rescue in collapsed building. Resolution is low. they could not be used to see anything much beyond a warm blob through rubble. There are purported to be devices using ultra wideband RF and microwave frequencies and millimeter wave active or passive devices to do this. Resolution of the microwave devices should be even lower than the IR and perhaps suitable only for determining occupant location, for example prior to breaking down the door during a SWAT raid. Millimeter waves are emitted by warm bodies, such as own own, and can be used to passively see thorough clothing. Not sure if passive devices would work through walls due to attenuation, but active devices probably could. steve --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.605 / Virus Database: 385 - Release Date: 3/1/2004
New remailer uses hashcash
My remailer will only deliver postings which contain a valid hashcash token. To get your posting through you must provide a Hashcash token. http://www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org/hashcash/index.html steve --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.605 / Virus Database: 385 - Release Date: 3/1/2004
RE: J.P. Morgan Is Facing Heat Of Patriot Act
At 09:14 AM 3/11/2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 02:27 PM 3/10/04 -0800, Steve Schear wrote: At 11:49 AM 3/10/2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote: This is how the US intimidates such that the USG can monitor all transactions. A serious practical problem for e$ when it needs to interface to atoms. not really. it means there is a need for a more P2P approach, like Kawalah, where trusted individuals act as entry and exit points using their own banking accounts in exchange for the lion's share of the service fees. Kawalah, isn't that a terrorist tool? ;-) If it isn't already, it will be declared one. The money order and small payment industry sought and got exemptions covering smaller operators (I think the upper limit is $10,000 per day). E-gold secondaries easily fit within that umbrella. Its unlikely that federal laws will effectively be tightened to keep such ad hoc small transfer businesses from operating legally. steve --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.605 / Virus Database: 385 - Release Date: 3/1/2004
RE: J.P. Morgan Is Facing Heat Of Patriot Act
At 09:14 AM 3/11/2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 02:27 PM 3/10/04 -0800, Steve Schear wrote: At 11:49 AM 3/10/2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote: This is how the US intimidates such that the USG can monitor all transactions. A serious practical problem for e$ when it needs to interface to atoms. not really. it means there is a need for a more P2P approach, like Kawalah, where trusted individuals act as entry and exit points using their own banking accounts in exchange for the lion's share of the service fees. Kawalah, isn't that a terrorist tool? ;-) If it isn't already, it will be declared one. The money order and small payment industry sought and got exemptions covering smaller operators (I think the upper limit is $10,000 per day). E-gold secondaries easily fit within that umbrella. Its unlikely that federal laws will effectively be tightened to keep such ad hoc small transfer businesses from operating legally. steve --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.605 / Virus Database: 385 - Release Date: 3/1/2004
RE: J.P. Morgan Is Facing Heat Of Patriot Act
At 11:49 AM 3/10/2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 10:11 AM 3/10/04 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: Holy Crap this seems bizarre. This isn't even really a case of know your customers, but know your customers' customers, isn't it? Is this some kind of snipe hunt or mere Brazil-like government incompetence and mindless application of half-baked laws? Optimist. This is how the US intimidates such that the USG can monitor all transactions. A serious practical problem for e$ when it needs to interface to atoms. not really. it means there is a need for a more P2P approach, like Kawalah, where trusted individuals act as entry and exit points using their own banking accounts in exchange for the lion's share of the service fees. this is not uncommon now in e-gold where secondary players offer such transactions. steve --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.605 / Virus Database: 385 - Release Date: 3/1/2004
Re: Evidence is clear: Videos convict
Transferring home videos from tape to PC is a common and inexpensive consumer practice today. Tapes are cheap and trashing them after use for recording of incriminating evidence is an effective way to get rid of that copy. Once transferred to PC users can also now easily encrypt the videos. Eventually only the ignorant criminals that record their crimes will be in such embarrassing situations. steve At 04:44 PM 3/8/2004, R. A. Hettinga wrote: http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=84540 Twelve jurors and two alternates sat almost unblinkingly in a 10th-floor courtroom and watched a 21-minute videotape on two television monitors. Some squirmed in the swivel seats in the jury box but their eyes remained riveted on the screens, watching images of two men having sex with an apparently unconscious woman in a Newport Beach apartment as techno music droned in the background. The trial of Allen Ward Crocker provided jurors with a rare chance to see exactly what happened in a case of alleged sexual assault. They face trial next month in the alleged rape of an unconscious 16-year-old girl in July 2002. Haidl, 18, videotaped the encounter in Newport Beach, and now prosecutors are using those images against him. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.605 / Virus Database: 385 - Release Date: 3/1/2004
Re: Gentlemen reading mail part II
At 06:50 AM 3/2/2004, Tyler Durden wrote: How about a pseudo random conversation generator appliance for the person trying to mask their speech. If it closely models the vocal tract, language and language characteristics of the speaker it might be extremely difficult to remove as background noise. There are plenty of CDs of conversations out there. Moreover, it would be easy to simply record a fairly banal conversation oneself was having. Then put it on a CD player that has repeat mode. That would require too much work on the part of the person and could only be used safely as a one-time pad. Reuse would expose it to more simplified removal. Of course, I'm willing to believe this can still be chopped through with the appropriate eavesdropping gear. I'm not so sure. If the appliance can create the ambience of a noisy party and all its reflected sound qualities, with one or more of the voices very close to your own, it may be beyond current signal processing techniques to extract your real voice. But the point is that with about $10 bucks of investment, you now force eavesdroppers to deploy $1000s (or more) of gear and people. Adds a kind of reverse DC-bias to the situation, no? Now, only the determined will be going after you, not someone merely fishing for levers to be used against you. Now, they have to send a truck' Indeed. steve --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.605 / Virus Database: 385 - Release Date: 3/1/2004
Re: Gentlemen reading mail part II
At 06:50 AM 3/2/2004, Tyler Durden wrote: How about a pseudo random conversation generator appliance for the person trying to mask their speech. If it closely models the vocal tract, language and language characteristics of the speaker it might be extremely difficult to remove as background noise. There are plenty of CDs of conversations out there. Moreover, it would be easy to simply record a fairly banal conversation oneself was having. Then put it on a CD player that has repeat mode. That would require too much work on the part of the person and could only be used safely as a one-time pad. Reuse would expose it to more simplified removal. Of course, I'm willing to believe this can still be chopped through with the appropriate eavesdropping gear. I'm not so sure. If the appliance can create the ambience of a noisy party and all its reflected sound qualities, with one or more of the voices very close to your own, it may be beyond current signal processing techniques to extract your real voice. But the point is that with about $10 bucks of investment, you now force eavesdroppers to deploy $1000s (or more) of gear and people. Adds a kind of reverse DC-bias to the situation, no? Now, only the determined will be going after you, not someone merely fishing for levers to be used against you. Now, they have to send a truck' Indeed. steve --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.605 / Virus Database: 385 - Release Date: 3/1/2004
Re: Offshoring of commercial data...
At 07:44 AM 2/11/2004, Tyler Durden wrote: Steve Schear wrote... This is why all such records, if they are generated at all, should be held offshore and accessible only through a procedure which includes a duress clause. This leads me to an interesting set of ideas I've been playing with recently. Let's say I work for a large commercial entity with very large amounts of data about lots of US (and other) consumers. Let's also say that I'm starting to feel that the integrity of this data can't be assured under the current (or future) regime in DC. (And this lack-of-integrity may play out as a very real marketing/customer service issue.) Let's also say that I've convinced the relevant parties within this commerical entity to start moving this data (or a copy of it, perhaps) offshore, where it can be more readily 'protected'. Has this kind of thing been done already? (I'm talking about huge amounts of commercial data.) And, how is that data placed so that there's a reasonable level of confidence that it's 'safe' (ie, if the data were moved to the UK I would assume our cronies over there would be eager to help DC dig out whatever they needed). Do we need a few copies in varying political regimes in order for this to work? Since some very sensitive citizen data is already being accessed and processed offshore I doubt there are laws against its only copy being moved offshore as well. The companies doing so, of course, would need to prevent the data's corruption or misuse. ALso, anybody know if there are any legal consequences/risks here in the US if this was even attempted? (ie, 'moving' data really means copying overseas and then destroying the local copy...I assume a big corporation could do this without any legal consequences...). Also, is this even worth doing or is there some big hole in the logic here? (Tyler Durden being a Cypherpunk of the Stoopid variety...) In at least a few cases large companies have been blackmailed by offshore workers unhappy with pay. I can't recall the exact details but one situation, I think, involved some Pakistanis threatening to release confidential medical patient data, a clear violation of the HIPPA regs., if they didn't get more dosh. steve --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.574 / Virus Database: 364 - Release Date: 1/29/2004
Re: Offshoring of commercial data...
At 07:44 AM 2/11/2004, Tyler Durden wrote: Steve Schear wrote... This is why all such records, if they are generated at all, should be held offshore and accessible only through a procedure which includes a duress clause. This leads me to an interesting set of ideas I've been playing with recently. Let's say I work for a large commercial entity with very large amounts of data about lots of US (and other) consumers. Let's also say that I'm starting to feel that the integrity of this data can't be assured under the current (or future) regime in DC. (And this lack-of-integrity may play out as a very real marketing/customer service issue.) Let's also say that I've convinced the relevant parties within this commerical entity to start moving this data (or a copy of it, perhaps) offshore, where it can be more readily 'protected'. Has this kind of thing been done already? (I'm talking about huge amounts of commercial data.) And, how is that data placed so that there's a reasonable level of confidence that it's 'safe' (ie, if the data were moved to the UK I would assume our cronies over there would be eager to help DC dig out whatever they needed). Do we need a few copies in varying political regimes in order for this to work? Since some very sensitive citizen data is already being accessed and processed offshore I doubt there are laws against its only copy being moved offshore as well. The companies doing so, of course, would need to prevent the data's corruption or misuse. ALso, anybody know if there are any legal consequences/risks here in the US if this was even attempted? (ie, 'moving' data really means copying overseas and then destroying the local copy...I assume a big corporation could do this without any legal consequences...). Also, is this even worth doing or is there some big hole in the logic here? (Tyler Durden being a Cypherpunk of the Stoopid variety...) In at least a few cases large companies have been blackmailed by offshore workers unhappy with pay. I can't recall the exact details but one situation, I think, involved some Pakistanis threatening to release confidential medical patient data, a clear violation of the HIPPA regs., if they didn't get more dosh. steve --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.574 / Virus Database: 364 - Release Date: 1/29/2004
Re: Feds win rights to war protesters records.
At 04:09 PM 2/7/2004, Harmon Seaver wrote: Also, activists subpoened to grand jury. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storyu=/ap/20040207/ap_on_re_us/activist_investigation This is why all such records, if they are generated at all, should be held offshore and accessible only through a procedure which includes a duress clause. steve
Seven years jail, $150,000 fine if you don't tell the world your email and home address
Senator Lamar Smith of Texas - chairman of the Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee - yesterday produced from nowhere extensions to the 1946 Trademark Act that would make giving false contact information for a domain name a civil and criminal offence. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/35376.html A foolish Constitutional inconsistency is the hobgoblin of freedom, adored by judges and demagogue statesmen. - Steve Schear
Re: Feds win rights to war protesters records.
At 04:09 PM 2/7/2004, Harmon Seaver wrote: Also, activists subpoened to grand jury. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storyu=/ap/20040207/ap_on_re_us/activist_investigation This is why all such records, if they are generated at all, should be held offshore and accessible only through a procedure which includes a duress clause. steve
Scary Psychological Test
Scary Psychological Test Read this question, come up with an answer, and then scroll down to the bottom for the result. This is not a trick question. It is as it reads. No one I know has gotten it right - including me. A woman, while at the funeral of her own mother, met this guy whom she did not know. She thought this guy was amazing, She believed him to be her dream and she fell in love with him right there but did not ask for his number and no matter how hard she tried shecould not find him. A few days later she killed her sister. Question: What is her motive in killing her sister? Give this some thought before you answer. (Scroll Down) Answer: She was hoping that the guy would appear at the funeral again. If you answered this correctly, you think like a psychopath. This was a test by a famous American Psychologist used to test if one has the same mentality as a killer. Many arrested serial killers took part in the test and answered the question correctly. If you didn't answer the question correctly - good for you. If you got the answer correct, please let me know so I can take you off of my email list unless that will tick you off, then I'll just be extra nice to you from now on.
Re: Avoiding US mail fraud charges while protecting your financial privacy
At 11:47 AM 1/26/2004, Pete Capelli wrote: I thought the USPS creation act forbid any competition in this area? Using the US postal system can be damaging to your freedom. I was thinking of re-selling pre-paid domestic, private carrier, envelopes as this circumvents the USPS and the associated discretionary federal charges (e.g., mail fraud). Do any on the list think there would be interest? Will not maintain any postal info after ack of receipt. Haven't thought about price but it won't be a gouging. I'm sure it does, but since few if any lightweight courier envelopes are opened for such inspection who is to know? steve
Re: Encrypted phones/scramblers, etc.
At 07:15 PM 1/25/2004, Harmon Seaver wrote: Someone was just trying to tell me that the FCC, et al, won't allow encrypted phones or even the old style scramblers to be sold anymore. Have there been any moves in that direction? I worked for Cylink, where we sold industrial strength crypto phones. I continue to follow this area and know of no such restrictions. steve
Re: Encrypted phones/scramblers, etc.
At 07:15 PM 1/25/2004, Harmon Seaver wrote: Someone was just trying to tell me that the FCC, et al, won't allow encrypted phones or even the old style scramblers to be sold anymore. Have there been any moves in that direction? I worked for Cylink, where we sold industrial strength crypto phones. I continue to follow this area and know of no such restrictions. steve
Avoiding US mail fraud charges while protecting your financial privacy
[From another list..] A charge of mail fraud or securities fraud doesn't mean jack shit anymore. If you exchange money or other financial instruments a prosecutor can nail you for something. Real fraud does occur, but prosecutors prefer to go after targets they want to cut down to size, such as Michael Milken or Martha Stewart. They base their cases on obscure subjective laws that violate private property rights and are designed to ensnare everyone. Using the US postal system can be damaging to your freedom. I was thinking of re-selling pre-paid domestic, private carrier, envelopes as this circumvents the USPS and the associated discretionary federal charges (e.g., mail fraud). Do any on the list think there would be interest? Will not maintain any postal info after ack of receipt. Haven't thought about price but it won't be a gouging. steve
Re: Hey be careful, I have three balms in here
At 02:27 AM 1/21/2004, Graham Lally wrote: Surprised this hasn't gone through the list yet. Did it get much coverage in the US? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/3415525.stm 'According to the arrest report, Miss Marson placed her bag on the belt at a security check, telling a Transportation Security Administration screener: Hey be careful, I have three bombs in here Nahh! She should have used English homonyms to make fools of them, like a Monty Python skit. Instead of she had three bombs, she should have said she had three balms (lip balms) in there. Hehe. steve
Re: Hey be careful, I have three balms in here
At 02:27 AM 1/21/2004, Graham Lally wrote: Surprised this hasn't gone through the list yet. Did it get much coverage in the US? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/3415525.stm 'According to the arrest report, Miss Marson placed her bag on the belt at a security check, telling a Transportation Security Administration screener: Hey be careful, I have three bombs in here Nahh! She should have used English homonyms to make fools of them, like a Monty Python skit. Instead of she had three bombs, she should have said she had three balms (lip balms) in there. Hehe. steve
Hand-Held Device for DVD Movies Raises Legal Issues
Hand-Held Device for DVD Movies Raises Legal Issues PARIS -- Hollywood's bid to control how its movies are copied, stored and played is being tested by an unlikely source: a former French oil engineer in an out-of-the-way Paris suburb, Wednesday's Wall Street Journal reported. Henri Crohas's company, Archos SA, makes a small hand-held device, like a bulky Palm Pilot, that can record and then play back scores of movies, TV shows and digital photos on its color screen or a TV set. The gadget -- which in effect does to movies what Apple Computer Inc.'s iPod does to music -- already has sold 100,000 units world-wide during the past six months, beating the big consumer electronics makers to the U.S. market. Archos's device, which costs about $500 to $900 depending on the model, ignores an anticopying code found on a majority of prerecorded DVDs. That means consumers can plug the Archos device into a DVD player and transfer a movie to it. Users also can transfer recorded TV programs and digital music files to the Archos device. The Archos uses a video compression standard called MPEG-4 to cram as many as 320 hours of video at near-DVD quality onto its hard drive, the company says -- the equivalent of 160 two-hour movies. A second kind of anticopying protection thwarts users from recording a playable copy of a DVD movie onto the hard-drive of a personal computer and then onto the Archos. But videos can be transferred from the Archos to a PC, where they could be burned onto a DVD or sent over the Internet, though that would likely violate copyright laws. The gadgets alone aren't likely to spawn a Napster-style boom in online film piracy. Already, scofflaws with a PC equipped with a DVD player and special software can rip off films and share them over the Internet. And the process is slow: It takes as long to copy a DVD movie to the Archos device as it does to watch the movie. Still, Mr. Crohas and his 150-employee team at Archos ( pronounced AR kos) present a fresh headache for Hollywood because they show how the industry's campaign to keep control of its films could be challenged by small players. Wall Street Journal Staff Reporters Kevin J. Delaney and Bruce Orwall contributed to this article.
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
At 11:23 PM 1/12/2004, Tim May wrote: During the Carnivore debate, I argued that mandatory placement of computer agents in systems was equivalent to quartering troops: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg03198.html The Third Amendment, about quartering troops, is seldom-applied. But if I own a computer and I rent out accounts to others and the FBI comes to me and says We are putting a Carnivore computer in your place, how else can this be interpreted _except_ as a violation of the Third? This was from July, 2000. I believe it also came up in earlier discussions, including in a panel I was on with Michael Froomkin at a CFP in 1995. I could assume this also applies to the the TCPS (if it is ever required) and FCC's new mandate that DTV video devices sold in the U.S. after December 31, 2004 include a 'cop' inside to enforce compliance with the broadcast flag. steve
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
At 10:48 AM 1/13/2004, Tim May wrote: On Jan 13, 2004, at 8:41 AM, Steve Schear wrote: This was from July, 2000. I believe it also came up in earlier discussions, including in a panel I was on with Michael Froomkin at a CFP in 1995. I could assume this also applies to the the TCPS (if it is ever required) and FCC's new mandate that DTV video devices sold in the U.S. after December 31, 2004 include a 'cop' inside to enforce compliance with the broadcast flag. In its purest form, I think not. If Alice is told that she must place some device in something she owns, which was the example with Carnivore, then the Third applies (she has been told to quarter troops, abstractly, in her home). If, however, Bob is told that in order to build television sets or VCRs he must include various noise suppression devices, as he must, or closed-captioning features, as he must, or the V-chip (as I believe he must, though I never hear of it being talked about, as we all figured would be the case), or the Macrovision devices (as may be the case), then this is a matter of regulation of those devices. Whether Alice then _chooses_ to buy such devices with troops already living in them, abstractly speaking, is her choice. Now the manufacturer may have a claim, but government regulation of manufacturers has been going on for a very long time, and unless a manufacturer can claim that the devices must be in his own home or operated in his premises, he cannot make a very strong case that _he_ is the one being affected by the quartering. It would seem that once GNURadio comes to fruition that many devices, including those the FCC would like to regulate, could be built from its generic, non-video, architecture. In that case, wouldn't FCC mandates applied to end-users (since end users will be the only ones who will configure the SW, FW and HW for an application the FCC would like to regulate, be a 3rd Amend. issue? steve
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
At 11:23 PM 1/12/2004, Tim May wrote: During the Carnivore debate, I argued that mandatory placement of computer agents in systems was equivalent to quartering troops: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg03198.html The Third Amendment, about quartering troops, is seldom-applied. But if I own a computer and I rent out accounts to others and the FBI comes to me and says We are putting a Carnivore computer in your place, how else can this be interpreted _except_ as a violation of the Third? This was from July, 2000. I believe it also came up in earlier discussions, including in a panel I was on with Michael Froomkin at a CFP in 1995. I could assume this also applies to the the TCPS (if it is ever required) and FCC's new mandate that DTV video devices sold in the U.S. after December 31, 2004 include a 'cop' inside to enforce compliance with the broadcast flag. steve
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
At 10:48 AM 1/13/2004, Tim May wrote: On Jan 13, 2004, at 8:41 AM, Steve Schear wrote: This was from July, 2000. I believe it also came up in earlier discussions, including in a panel I was on with Michael Froomkin at a CFP in 1995. I could assume this also applies to the the TCPS (if it is ever required) and FCC's new mandate that DTV video devices sold in the U.S. after December 31, 2004 include a 'cop' inside to enforce compliance with the broadcast flag. In its purest form, I think not. If Alice is told that she must place some device in something she owns, which was the example with Carnivore, then the Third applies (she has been told to quarter troops, abstractly, in her home). If, however, Bob is told that in order to build television sets or VCRs he must include various noise suppression devices, as he must, or closed-captioning features, as he must, or the V-chip (as I believe he must, though I never hear of it being talked about, as we all figured would be the case), or the Macrovision devices (as may be the case), then this is a matter of regulation of those devices. Whether Alice then _chooses_ to buy such devices with troops already living in them, abstractly speaking, is her choice. Now the manufacturer may have a claim, but government regulation of manufacturers has been going on for a very long time, and unless a manufacturer can claim that the devices must be in his own home or operated in his premises, he cannot make a very strong case that _he_ is the one being affected by the quartering. It would seem that once GNURadio comes to fruition that many devices, including those the FCC would like to regulate, could be built from its generic, non-video, architecture. In that case, wouldn't FCC mandates applied to end-users (since end users will be the only ones who will configure the SW, FW and HW for an application the FCC would like to regulate, be a 3rd Amend. issue? steve
Re: US Finally Kills The 2nd Ammendment
At 06:53 PM 1/10/2004, Steve Furlong wrote: On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 19:02, J.A. Terranson wrote: What good is a Jury when the judge can pick and choose which arguments and evidence you can provide in support of your case? I've occasionally handed out pamphlets on jury nullification outside the local county courthouse. Never been arrested for it, but I've caught a raft of shit from cops. The cops were acting, presumably, under direction from the judges or maybe the DA. Those guys just hate jurors thinking for themselves, you know. Did you carry and present ID? steve
