Re: Color Laser Printer Snitch Codes
At 12:24 PM 10/17/05 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote: Soon we'll find out that toothbrushes are able to determine what I ate for dinner and are regularly sending the info... Soon there will be sensors in urinals that page the DEA..
Judy Miller needing killing
So this dupe/spy/wannabe journalist thinks that journalists should be *special*.. how nice. Where in the 1st amendment is the class journalists mentioned? She needs a WMD enema. LAS VEGAS (AP) -- New York Times reporter Judith Miller defended her decision to go to jail to protect a source and told a journalism conference Tuesday that reporters need a federal shield law so that others won't face the same sanctions. http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=BreakingstoryId=1104064
Re: [fc-discuss] Financial Cryptography Update: On Digital Cash-like Payment Systems
Just presented at ICETE2005 by Daniel Nagy: http://www.epointsystem.org/~nagydani/ICETE2005.pdf Abstract. In present paper a novel approach to on-line payment is presented that tackles some issues of digital cash that have, in the author s opinion, contributed to the fact that despite the availability of the technology for more than a decade, it has not achieved even a fraction of the anticipated popularity. The basic assumptions and requirements for such a system are revisited, clear (economic) objectives are formulated and cryptographic techniques to achieve them are proposed. This is a thorough and careful paper but the system has no blinding and so payments are traceable and linkable. The standard technique of inserting dummy transfers is proposed, but it is not clear that this adds real privacy. Worse, it appears that the database showing which coins were exchanged for which is supposed to be public, making this linkage information available to everyone, not just banking insiders. Some aspects are similar to Dan Simon's proposed ecash system from Crypto 96, in particular using knowledge of a secret such as a hash pre-image to represent possession of the cash. Simon's system is covered by patent number 5768385 and the ePoint system may need to step carefully around that patent. See http://www.mail-archive.com/cpunks@einstein.ssz.com/msg04483.html for further critique of Simon's approach. CP
Re: [fc-discuss] Financial Cryptography Update: On Digital Cash-like Payment Systems
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 11:27:53PM -0700, cyphrpunk wrote: Just presented at ICETE2005 by Daniel Nagy: http://www.epointsystem.org/~nagydani/ICETE2005.pdf This is a thorough and careful paper but the system has no blinding and so payments are traceable and linkable. The standard technique of inserting dummy transfers is proposed, but it is not clear that this adds real privacy. Worse, it appears that the database showing which coins were exchanged for which is supposed to be public, making this linkage information available to everyone, not just banking insiders. Some aspects are similar to Dan Simon's proposed ecash system from Crypto 96, in particular using knowledge of a secret such as a hash pre-image to represent possession of the cash. Simon's system is covered by patent number 5768385 and the ePoint system may need to step carefully around that patent. See http://www.mail-archive.com/cpunks@einstein.ssz.com/msg04483.html for further critique of Simon's approach. At the time of writing, I was already familiar with Simon's proposal and its above mentioned critique (I learnt about them from Stefan Brands' blog). At that time, the design and the implementation were already complete and the process of writing up the paper was also well advanced. Wishing to postpone the discussion of patents for as long as possible, I decided against citing Dan Simon's work in references, which may be regarded as an act of academic dishonesty on my part. Mea culpa. I am reasonably confident that I can legally defend the point that there are sufficient differences between my proposal and Simon's, but I might not be ready to fight off a legal assault from Microsoft (lack of time and money) right now. Leaving the patent issue at that, let us proceed to the substance. I will probably need to write another paper, clarifiing some of these issues. Let me, however, re-emphasize some of the points already present in the paper and perhaps cast them in a slightly different light. In my paper, I am explicitly and implicitly challenging Chaum's assumptions about the very problem of digital cash-like payment. One can, of course, criticize my proposal under chaumian assumptions, but that would miss the point entirely. I think, a decade of consistent failure at introducing chaumian digital cash to the market is good enough a reason to re-think the problem from the very basics. Note that nowhere in my paper did I imply that the issuer is a bank (the only mentioning of a bank in the paper is in an analogy). This is because I am strongly convinced that banks cannot, will not and should not be the principal issuers of digital cash-like payment vehicles. If you need explaination, I'm willing to provide it. I do not expect payment tokens to originate from withdrawals and end their life cycles being deposited to users' bank accounts. Insider fraud is a very serious risk in financial matters. A system that provides no safeguards against a fraudulent issuer will sooner or later be exploited that way. Financial systems (not just electronic ones) often fall to insider attacks. They must be addressed in a successful system. All chaumian systems are hopelessly vulnerable to insider fraud. And now some points missing from the paper: Having a long-term global secret, whose disclosure leads to immediate, catastrophic failure of the whole system is to be avoided in security engineering (using Schneier's terminology, it makes a hard system brittle). The private key of a blinding-based system is exactly such a component. Note that in the proposed system, the digital signature of the issuer is just a fancy integrity protection mechanism for public records, which can be supplemented and even temporarily substituted (while a new key is phased in in the case of compromise) by other mechanisms of integrity protection. It is the public audit trail that provides most of the security. Using currency is, essentially, a credit operation, splitting barter into the separate acts of selling and buying, thus making the promise to reciprocate (that is the eligibility to buy something of equal value from the buyer) a tradeable asset itself. It is the trading of this asset that needs to be anonymous, and the proposed system does a good enough job of protecting the anonymity of those in the middle of the transaction chains. Hope, this helps. -- Daniel
Re: Judy Miller needing killing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 My understanding is that she only went to jail because of a federal law passed in the early 80's designed to protect undercover federal agents. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I was under the impression that were it not for that law, there would be no need for a shield law...just stronger clarification of that law. Did this issue go before the supreme court...have they ruled that the law is constitutional? Freedom of the press should protect a reporter from prosecution fromt he reporting of ANYTHING. Reporting about a felon is fine(i don't think current laws dispute this). If in addition to that, the reporter is breaking ANOTHER law by shielding a felon, thats another issue altogether. We're talking freedom to report things, not freedom for a reporter to do anything they wish. Shawn Duffy wrote: Unfortunately, it's not as simple as protecting a source. Most shield laws, or proposed shield laws, as I understand them, protect a journalist from revealing a source who is exposing wrongdoing that is in the public interest. This is not the same thing. The act of leaking the identity of Ms. Plame is, itself, a crime, not the exposing of wrongdoing. Now, sending her to jail certainly betrays the spirit of shield laws, but freedom of the press does not necessarily protect a journalist who is shielding a felon. On 10/19/05, Chris Clymer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're just trolling, right? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Sending a reporter to jail for not revealing her source sure sounds like its infringing on freedom of the press to me. The issue isn't HER. The issue is that if I'm someone that wants to blow the whistle on something, I'm going to be less likely to do it if the reporter I tell might reveal me as her source. And of course, reporters might be less likely to cover such stories if they may end up choosing between protecting the source and jail. On July of 2005, Miller was jailed for contempt of court by refusing to testify before a federal grand jury investigating a leak naming Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent. Miller did not write about Plame, but is reportedly in possession of evidence relevant to the leak investigation. According to a subpoena, Miller met with an unnamed government official ? later revealed to be Scooter Libby, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff ? on July 8, 2003, two days after former ambassador Joseph Wilson published an Op-Ed in the Times criticizing the Bush administration for twisting intelligence to justify war in Iraq. (Plame's CIA identity was revealed by political commentator Robert Novak on July 14, 2003.) That woman went to jail for not revealing the source, on a story SHE NEVER EVEN WROTE. Thats dedication. Major Variola (ret.) wrote: So this dupe/spy/wannabe journalist thinks that journalists should be *special*.. how nice. Where in the 1st amendment is the class journalists mentioned? She needs a WMD enema. LAS VEGAS (AP) -- New York Times reporter Judith Miller defended her decision to go to jail to protect a source and told a journalism conference Tuesday that reporters need a federal shield law so that others won't face the same sanctions. http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=BreakingstoryId=1104064 -- Chris Clymer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: E546 19B6 D1EC 47A7 CAA0 8623 C807 398C CD27 15B8 - -- Chris Clymer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: E546 19B6 D1EC 47A7 CAA0 8623 C807 398C CD27 15B8 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDVo3MyAc5jM0nFbgRAtKQAJ427wj//CP8W7eyV4zzzlytFX1RZwCfd3Zi pmfTHmDlqSqLwMNAlZs++gY= =MAHe -END PGP SIGNATURE- begin:vcard fn:Chris Clymer n:Clymer;Chris org:Youngstown Linux User Group adr:;;252 Colonial Drive;Canfield;Ohio;44406;United States of America email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Founder tel;cell:330.507.3651 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.chrisclymer.com version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: Judy Miller needing killing
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as protecting a source. Most shield laws, or proposed shield laws, as I understand them, protect a journalist from revealing a source who is exposing wrongdoing that is in the public interest. This is not the same thing. The act of leaking the identity of Ms. Plame is, itself, a crime, not the exposing of wrongdoing. Now, sending her to jail certainly betrays the spirit of shield laws, but freedom of the press does not necessarily protect a journalist who is shielding a felon. On 10/19/05, Chris Clymer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 You're just trolling, right? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Sending a reporter to jail for not revealing her source sure sounds like its infringing on freedom of the press to me. The issue isn't HER. The issue is that if I'm someone that wants to blow the whistle on something, I'm going to be less likely to do it if the reporter I tell might reveal me as her source. And of course, reporters might be less likely to cover such stories if they may end up choosing between protecting the source and jail. On July of 2005, Miller was jailed for contempt of court by refusing to testify before a federal grand jury investigating a leak naming Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent. Miller did not write about Plame, but is reportedly in possession of evidence relevant to the leak investigation. According to a subpoena, Miller met with an unnamed government official ? later revealed to be Scooter Libby, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff ? on July 8, 2003, two days after former ambassador Joseph Wilson published an Op-Ed in the Times criticizing the Bush administration for twisting intelligence to justify war in Iraq. (Plame's CIA identity was revealed by political commentator Robert Novak on July 14, 2003.) That woman went to jail for not revealing the source, on a story SHE NEVER EVEN WROTE. Thats dedication. Major Variola (ret.) wrote: So this dupe/spy/wannabe journalist thinks that journalists should be *special*.. how nice. Where in the 1st amendment is the class journalists mentioned? She needs a WMD enema. LAS VEGAS (AP) -- New York Times reporter Judith Miller defended her decision to go to jail to protect a source and told a journalism conference Tuesday that reporters need a federal shield law so that others won't face the same sanctions. http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=BreakingstoryId=1104064 - -- Chris Clymer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: E546 19B6 D1EC 47A7 CAA0 8623 C807 398C CD27 15B8 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDVnALyAc5jM0nFbgRAhiIAKCCDAizX/32F3U8BEAEZo1jmbufjACeOATk UAp601vKKywgkklcAWd0iaI= =73ed -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Judy Miller needing killing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 You're just trolling, right? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Sending a reporter to jail for not revealing her source sure sounds like its infringing on freedom of the press to me. The issue isn't HER. The issue is that if I'm someone that wants to blow the whistle on something, I'm going to be less likely to do it if the reporter I tell might reveal me as her source. And of course, reporters might be less likely to cover such stories if they may end up choosing between protecting the source and jail. On July of 2005, Miller was jailed for contempt of court by refusing to testify before a federal grand jury investigating a leak naming Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent. Miller did not write about Plame, but is reportedly in possession of evidence relevant to the leak investigation. According to a subpoena, Miller met with an unnamed government official ? later revealed to be Scooter Libby, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff ? on July 8, 2003, two days after former ambassador Joseph Wilson published an Op-Ed in the Times criticizing the Bush administration for twisting intelligence to justify war in Iraq. (Plame's CIA identity was revealed by political commentator Robert Novak on July 14, 2003.) That woman went to jail for not revealing the source, on a story SHE NEVER EVEN WROTE. Thats dedication. Major Variola (ret.) wrote: So this dupe/spy/wannabe journalist thinks that journalists should be *special*.. how nice. Where in the 1st amendment is the class journalists mentioned? She needs a WMD enema. LAS VEGAS (AP) -- New York Times reporter Judith Miller defended her decision to go to jail to protect a source and told a journalism conference Tuesday that reporters need a federal shield law so that others won't face the same sanctions. http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=BreakingstoryId=1104064 - -- Chris Clymer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: E546 19B6 D1EC 47A7 CAA0 8623 C807 398C CD27 15B8 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDVnALyAc5jM0nFbgRAhiIAKCCDAizX/32F3U8BEAEZo1jmbufjACeOATk UAp601vKKywgkklcAWd0iaI= =73ed -END PGP SIGNATURE- begin:vcard fn:Chris Clymer n:Clymer;Chris org:Youngstown Linux User Group adr:;;252 Colonial Drive;Canfield;Ohio;44406;United States of America email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Founder tel;cell:330.507.3651 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.chrisclymer.com version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: Judy Miller needing killing
On 10/19/05, Chris Clymer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're just trolling, right? [snip] Major Variola (ret.) wrote: So this dupe/spy/wannabe journalist thinks that journalists should be *special*.. how nice. Where in the 1st amendment is the class journalists mentioned? She needs a WMD enema. The problem is that reporters want to be made into a special class of people that don't have to abide by the same laws as the rest of us. Are you a reporter? Am I? Is the National Inquirer? How about Drudge? What about bloggers? Which agency will you have to apply to in order to get a Journalism License? And will this License to Report entitle one to ignore subpoenas from federal grand juries? Reporters should have no rights the rest of us don't have. It's hard to imagine the framers of the constitution approving an amendment that said freedom of the press is granted to all those who first apply for and receive permission from the government. GH _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Re: Judy Miller needing killing
Justin [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On 2005-10-19T19:59:18+, Gil Hamilton wrote: Reporters should have no rights the rest of us don't have. It's hard to imagine the framers of the constitution approving an amendment that said freedom of the press is granted to all those who first apply for and receive permission from the government. Blame the framers. They separately enumerated freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which suggests at least a little bit that freedom of the press includes something extra. Yes, it specifies printed material rather than spoken; this wouldn't have been unusual to them -- English law has long distinguished libel from slander, for example. Your statement implies that you think the framers were being deliberately vague or encoding various sorts of subtle nuances in the amendment's language. It's much simpler to presume that they said what they intended to say. GH _ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Re: Judy Miller needing killing
Dave Howe wrote: Gil Hamilton wrote: The problem is that reporters want to be made into a special class of people that don't have to abide by the same laws as the rest of us. Are you a reporter? Am I? Is the National Inquirer? How about Drudge? What about bloggers? Which agency will you have to apply to in order to get a Journalism License? And will this License to Report entitle one to ignore subpoenas from federal grand juries? Problem there is - Miller didn't write the story, pass on the info to anyone else, or indeed do much more than have a conversation with an unnamed source where a classified name was revealed. The Grand Jury is aware that Miller had this info but refused to reveal who the informant was. I've never heard it disclosed how the prosecutor discovered that Miller had had such a conversation but it isn't relevant anyway. The question is, can she defy a subpoena based on membership in the privileged Reporter class that an ordinary person could not defy? On the other hand - Robert Novak got the same information, REPORTED it - and isn't in any sort of trouble at all. Somehow this isn't the issue though... and I wonder why? I don't know this either; perhaps because he immediately rolled over when he got subpoenaed? GH _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Re: [Politech] More on Barney lawyer yearning to hack copyright infringers' sites [ip]
On 2005-10-19T10:37:55-0700, Declan McCullagh wrote: Previous Politech message: http://www.politechbot.com/2005/10/17/barney-lawyer-recommends/ Responses: http://www.politechbot.com/2005/10/19/more-on-barney/ Some of the first-round responses mentioned the iniquities involved in attacking hosted sites, but what if the site that appears to be involved in copyright infringement isn't? There is no assurance that the suspect IP address isn't forwarding illegal (outgoing) traffic from some other machine, or that it doesn't forward incoming traffic to some other machine. Suppose someone has a wireless firewall appliance set up to forward a number of common ports to an interior server. Attacking a suspect IP results in an attack on an uninvolved interior server. The copyright violation might be some unauthorized person connecting through a wireless gateway, so the owner of the interior server might not be in any way connected to the copyright violation. Suppose someone is running a web proxy. An attack on a suspect IP address results in an attack on the machine running the web proxy. An open web proxy, while it may violate an ISP contract, is not illegal, and by itself the proxy is not connected to any illegal activity (except maybe in China, etc.). Suppose someone is involved in copyright infringement, but forwards all incoming connections on certain ports [while dropping traffic to the rest...] to an IP address associated with the Chinese Embassy. Is it clear who's responsible when a copyright holder ends up attacking a Chinese computer? Even if the person who set up the port forwarding is responsible for _connections_ to the Chinese Embassy made as a result, does that make him responsible for willful attacks conducted by copyright holders? If copyright hackers get immunity as long as they attack the public IP address that appears to be distributing copyrighted material, the consequences will be much worse than those of DMCA take-down provisions. ISPs everywhere would police their own networks with a vengeance to mitigate the risk that some copyright holder would find something first, attack the ISP, and cause major damage (not to mention subsequent loss of customers). At least with the DMCA, ISPs get notified and have a chance to act before something bad happens, which generally means low levels of in-house policing.
Re: Judy Miller needing killing
Gil Hamilton wrote: The problem is that reporters want to be made into a special class of people that don't have to abide by the same laws as the rest of us. Are you a reporter? Am I? Is the National Inquirer? How about Drudge? What about bloggers? Which agency will you have to apply to in order to get a Journalism License? And will this License to Report entitle one to ignore subpoenas from federal grand juries? Problem there is - Miller didn't write the story, pass on the info to anyone else, or indeed do much more than have a conversation with an unnamed source where a classified name was revealed. The Grand Jury is aware that Miller had this info but refused to reveal who the informant was. On the other hand - Robert Novak got the same information, REPORTED it - and isn't in any sort of trouble at all. Somehow this isn't the issue though... and I wonder why?
Re: Judy Miller needing killing
On 2005-10-19T19:59:18+, Gil Hamilton wrote: Reporters should have no rights the rest of us don't have. It's hard to imagine the framers of the constitution approving an amendment that said freedom of the press is granted to all those who first apply for and receive permission from the government. Blame the framers. They separately enumerated freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which suggests at least a little bit that freedom of the press includes something extra. -- Do you know what your sin is?
