[liberationtech] Internet misuse in Gambia
New law in Gambia makes using the Internet to incite dissatisfaction with the government punishable by up to 15 years in jail and $100,00 fine: http://frontpageinternational.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/internet-is-being-used-as-platform-for-nefarious-and-satanic-activities/ Looks like other governments are following David Cameron's lead. He could also add satanism to porn in his new firewall. -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Fwd: [jitsi-users] New XMPP Server
On 28 July 2013 12:44, Bernard Tyers - ei8fdb ei8...@ei8fdb.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 For those interested, these two forwarded mails mention two separate secure Jabber servers with no-logging. I cannot vouch for the validity of them. IMO, any alternative to running the now closed (as in no non-GTalk users can talk directly) Google Talk service. There's also OTR, of course: http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/. Doesn't hide who's talking to who, but does hide content. regards, Bernard Begin forwarded message: From: John Perry li...@jpunix.net Date: 28 July 2013 09:21:23 GMT+01:00 To: Jitsi Users us...@jitsi.org Subject: Re: [jitsi-users] New XMPP Server Reply-To: Jitsi Users us...@jitsi.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 7/27/2013 5:44 PM, Anthony Papillion wrote: I know that Emil has stated that the jit.si server is an experimental one and, with the developed focused on making the Jisti software even more kick butt, it's probably a bit hard for them to constantly troubleshoot server and config problems with the service. So I've set up a similar service at http://patts.us and invite anyone interested to use it. We support voice, video, and IM and run a Jingle node. We are also completely unlogged (even the web server). Just putting it out there to anyone who's interested. Not trying to poach users from the jit.si service. Hopefully, this will give Emil and the team a little breathing room. Best Regards, Anthony Papilloon I don't want to steal any of Anthony's thunder but I also have a server located at xmpp://chat.jpunix.net that has no logging and pretty much does what Anthony's does and is open to anyone that want's to use it. - -- John Perry == Begin forwarded message: From: Anthony Papillion papill...@gmail.com Date: 27 July 2013 23:44:36 GMT+01:00 To: Jitsi Users us...@jitsi.org Subject: [jitsi-users] New XMPP Server Reply-To: Jitsi Users us...@jitsi.org I know that Emil has stated that the jit.si server is an experimental one and, with the developed focused on making the Jisti software even more kick butt, it's probably a bit hard for them to constantly troubleshoot server and config problems with the service. So I've set up a similar service at http://patts.us and invite anyone interested to use it. We support voice, video, and IM and run a Jingle node. We are also completely unlogged (even the web server). Just putting it out there to anyone who's interested. Not trying to poach users from the jit.si service. Hopefully, this will give Emil and the team a little breathing room. Best Regards, Anthony Papilloon -- - -- Bernard / bluboxthief / ei8fdb IO91XM / www.ei8fdb.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR9QQmAAoJENsz1IO7MIrr6ZcIAKxL8vUD8/BuCzQckcJQDUOw draNqwLOu+RIzm2IASVSeqw5SiXl0XRxUEi4MiBdRJuYOXumhrM2SScsAWyYLPJx bvoogbPRaN3jaAvH8opGUoL/GUnlyO9lSxEuQKlxb8cLV+b9Ub4HwBJbyCtMWc7T aOjzgGW3AnpXhWMftaYGkLeBH+zDgWW1VwL6fRKcYNWwcpHF6+RALVdwgtTeVSwX aH5HH7Pnowl8wIYAefycXktx5swhpYlbwuJZ392odcJUaxMgTzgd4wF/4vovXjtn uJR8ChFSGw05oZq8deVR/J3DTSivfzL4lCkfOxZ8y0HRX/XCrv/uOFAt7hUysAE= =oWr4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Fwd: [jitsi-users] New XMPP Server
Hi Ben, Ben Laurie b...@links.org wrote: On 28 July 2013 12:44, Bernard Tyers - ei8fdb ei8...@ei8fdb.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 For those interested, these two forwarded mails mention two separate secure Jabber servers with no-logging. I cannot vouch for the validity of them. IMO, any alternative to running the now closed (as in no non-GTalk users can talk directly) Google Talk service. There's also OTR, of course: http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/. Doesn't hide who's talking to who, but does hide content. Yes definitely agree. I use it and suggest it to everyone I know. The point here was running a self-hosted XMPP server which allows you to communicate with anyone running XMPP which allows users on different servers to communicate, unlike GTalk or Facebook. Sent from my tiny electronic gadget. Please excuse my brevity and (probable) spelling mistakes. -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Internet misuse in Gambia
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 29 Jul 2013, at 15:26, Richard Brooks wrote: New law in Gambia makes using the Internet to incite dissatisfaction with the government punishable by up to 15 years in jail and $100,00 fine: http://frontpageinternational.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/internet-is-being-used-as-platform-for-nefarious-and-satanic-activities/ Looks like other governments are following David Cameron's lead. He could also add satanism to porn in his new firewall. Wow, incite dissatisfaction? I don't suppose they've been helpful by defining what dissatisfaction is? Is complaining about government bureaucracy on Facebook incitement of dissatisfaction? Bernard - -- Bernard / bluboxthief / ei8fdb IO91XM / www.ei8fdb.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR9piNAAoJENsz1IO7MIrr8FcIAIS3hUqGr54XSasZHEec7gyt lPfKwSbyYKIBjCzNuZqRrtjpRd9OuKfTmguuVRE8Nb0MJzpdmHQx8o1YqYjQD0Jc 9aAfk+L8MzkvjyjdieHdWV6JBu0OWGxYvrUF8Qnqk3i4IE70lCVOfpVY/9Vt7t5M 5Wc8EwLgMuby1kRmEfyQVjiISvBaY4cBwbjtN/T0javFo+KaK5tAWPh7uwz3aIC7 NZE7Munclc14kI1/bIT1++uRdL79esfVpt1Pn7SZpNVMbxahrBlWhOsIwQaBCmI7 +qRy4uqM/2X51mcxEJLPF7Fk+0p2T1QD+FogZS7lkVY9c4XV4N0ZHm9xibbZOU0= =IgoW -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Internet misuse in Gambia
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - From what I hear, yes complaining about the government on Facebook or Twitter would easily qualify. To give you an idea, Guinea where the government soldiers rounded up large segments of the population in 2009, put them in a stadium for mass beatings, public rapes, and killings, is ranked better in human rights than Gambia. In other news, social media monitoring of the recent election in Togo can be found at (helps if you know French): http://nukpola.org/public2/ On 07/29/2013 12:30 PM, Bernard Tyers - ei8fdb wrote: On 29 Jul 2013, at 15:26, Richard Brooks wrote: New law in Gambia makes using the Internet to incite dissatisfaction with the government punishable by up to 15 years in jail and $100,00 fine: http://frontpageinternational.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/internet-is-being-used-as-platform-for-nefarious-and-satanic-activities/ Looks like other governments are following David Cameron's lead. He could also add satanism to porn in his new firewall. Wow, incite dissatisfaction? I don't suppose they've been helpful by defining what dissatisfaction is? Is complaining about government bureaucracy on Facebook incitement of dissatisfaction? Bernard -- Bernard / bluboxthief / ei8fdb IO91XM / www.ei8fdb.org -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlH2o6sACgkQEwFPdUjsHjALmwCgj402KjCWv+9Tg3Qy/xWiOJDd 6ygAoOFukqW/BgAO6Dt7qzq7giPwkQ82 =9bBD -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Fwd: [jitsi-users] New XMPP Server
On 29 July 2013 16:04, Bernard Tyers ei8...@ei8fdb.org wrote: Hi Ben, Ben Laurie b...@links.org wrote: On 28 July 2013 12:44, Bernard Tyers - ei8fdb ei8...@ei8fdb.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 For those interested, these two forwarded mails mention two separate secure Jabber servers with no-logging. I cannot vouch for the validity of them. IMO, any alternative to running the now closed (as in no non-GTalk users can talk directly) Google Talk service. There's also OTR, of course: http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/. Doesn't hide who's talking to who, but does hide content. Yes definitely agree. I use it and suggest it to everyone I know. The point here was running a self-hosted XMPP server which allows you to communicate with anyone running XMPP which allows users on different servers to communicate, unlike GTalk or Facebook. Doesn't help if the other server logs, tho, right? Sent from my tiny electronic gadget. Please excuse my brevity and (probable) spelling mistakes. -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] My design to implement PGP in commercial email system
On 29/07/2013 01:45, Percy Alpha wrote: key and plain public key to Google. Because Google doesn't know your password, Google cannot server you a fake secret key, even though you download your encrypted secret key from Google every time you login. this is using encryption (your password) to provide verification. I don't believe this is safe (even if I can't came up with a way to break it). When the users tries to send an email to another Gmail user B for the first time, B's public key will be downloaded from Google and signed by A. Any subsequent times when A tries to send email to B, A will not only download B's key from Google but also verifies the authenticity of B's key. This prevents MITM attack if Google is hacked or forced by law enforcement. (For advanced users, Google can present the option to manually verify the public key for the first email. ) but what if Gmail provides a fake key for B? Why should you automatically trust that key? Also, I miss the point of signatures: A signs B's key, but noone cares about that signature in that scheme. Am I missing something? I think that this scheme relies on trust on your email provider and on https not being MITM-ed, which I think is not common between people that want to use PGP. -- boyska -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] My design to implement PGP in commercial email system
uh? why commercial? http://bitmail.sf.net is open source. Regards 2013/7/29 Percy Alpha percyal...@gmail.com PGP is great for privacy but rather hard to use for common users. I came up with a simple design that can be implement in main-string email system while preserving the usability. Take Gmail for example. First Google should adopt zero-knowledge password proof for its account while asking users to choose recovery questions. To recover password, users will answer 3 secret questions and the password is encrypted with the answers. This ensures that users can recover password and get old emails back without letting Google know the password. Then when users first log into Gmail, the browser will generate the keypair using JavaScript locally and encrypt the secret key with login password(with PBKDF2, etc). Then the user will upload the encrypted secret key and plain public key to Google. Because Google doesn't know your password, Google cannot server you a fake secret key, even though you download your encrypted secret key from Google every time you login. When the users tries to send an email to another Gmail user B for the first time, B's public key will be downloaded from Google and signed by A. Any subsequent times when A tries to send email to B, A will not only download B's key from Google but also verifies the authenticity of B's key. This prevents MITM attack if Google is hacked or forced by law enforcement. (For advanced users, Google can present the option to manually verify the public key for the first email. ) To send email between Gmail and Hotmail, Google should be able to request a Hotmail user's public key from Microsoft server. To prevent spam, Microsoft should return some random public key for non-exist account and perhaps always return this fake public key for this non-exist account to prevent cross reference. The only downside of this approach is that email providers are not able to filter spam or provide related Ads based on email content. Even this might be solved in the future because of private outsourced computation. Percy Alpha(PGP https://en.greatfire.org/contact#alt) GreatFire.org Team -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
[liberationtech] Request: Information on use of smartphones by the socially vulnerable
From: Araba Sey araba...@uw.edu ** A colleague in Brazil is looking for examples of projects or studies at UW that look at “the use of smart phones amongst people in social vulnerability”. If you are or have been involved in such work, please let me know. ** ** Thanks! araba ** ** Araba Sey Research Assistant Professor University of Washington Information School Technology Social Change Group tascha.washington.edu Tel 206-685-3724 ** -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] PGP is hard to use and needs stuff installed on your computer. Use PassLok instead.
@Tony On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Francisco Ruiz ruiz at iit.edu https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech wrote: * - How do I communicate a password to Bob? Before I get a crucial bit** of information to Bob, I need to first get a crucial bit of information** to Bob? Alice should send her Lock (public key) to Bob rather than anything** secret.*** How? At the very least Alice/Bob need an authenticated/trusted channel for this. If Alice sends Bob her public key over an untrusted channel, it can be intercepted by an MitM posing as Bob who can then intercept all traffic between Alice/Bob -- Tony Arcieri Hi Tony, I actually worried about this quite a bit. The best solution I could think of is making a hashed ID of the public key (PassLok has a button for that), which Alice/Bob can dictate over the phone, thus authenticating the key. Any other ideas? Francisco -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] PGP is hard to use and needs stuff installed on your computer. Use PassLok instead.
Hi. I think you're slowly reinventing PGP. Just to summarize what you have so far: 1. Alice and Bob each generate key pairs locally. 2. Both securely store their private keys. 3. Both generate hash values of their public keys. 4. Both mutually exchange public keys over an untrusted channel. 5. Both use some existing trusted communication channel to manually verify their keys. 6. Alice encrypts a password with Bob's public key and sends it to Bob. 7. Alice uses the password to encrypt a message using server-side code. 8. Bob decrypts the message with the password using server-side code. #1-#3 require client-side software and secure key storage. #5 assumes that there is a safe communications channel already. #6 is not forward secure. #7-#8 are vulnerable to attacks on the server. #8 is vulnerable to phishing. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Francisco Ruiz r...@iit.edu wrote: Hi Tony, I actually worried about this quite a bit. The best solution I could think of is making a hashed ID of the public key (PassLok has a button for that), which Alice/Bob can dictate over the phone, thus authenticating the key. -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] My design to implement PGP in commercial email system
To boyska, but what if Gmail provides a fake key for B? Why should you automatically trust that key? Also, I miss the point of signatures: A signs B's key, but noone cares about that signature in that scheme. Am I missing something? At first time, B's public key will be downloaded from Google and signed by A.. Any subsequent times, A also verifies the authenticity of B's key. So Google can provide a fake key only at the first time. I said For advanced users, Google can present the option to manually verify the public key for the first email. Google cannot MITM any subsequent communications because fake key of B is not signed by A and will be detected. I think that this scheme relies on trust on your email provider and on https not being MITM-ed, which I think is not common between people that want to use PGP. I'm targeting the common people(email provider to the common people),not the existing PGP users. Now, only people who are technical savvy can make the conscious decision to use PGP. My design is totally transparent to the users and can greatly boost the privacy of common communications without users even knowing what PGP is. Those high profile users can keep using the desktop version. -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] My design to implement PGP in commercial email system
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Randolph D. rdohm...@gmail.com wrote: uh? why commercial? http://bitmail.sf.net is open source. Regards Again, I want common people to use PGP. I want every communication to be encrypted. You recommendation is great but a client app(especially an app designed by cryptographer, no offense) just will not attract common users. A simple, familiar web mail that can provide PGP in default without any extra configuration is the only way to push it to the mass.(And even after everyone adopts it, the mass will still no nothing about PGP) -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
[liberationtech] Self-determined publics
Folks, Below I define what I call self-determined publics. Has anything similar been attempted before? A self-determined public is an open, topical community that proclaims the definitive bounds of its own communications. The proclamation takes the form of a timely sequence of references (e.g. web links) each pointing to a communication of the public, such that all references together define the total of that public's communications in time and space. For example: Ago Place Title (click to visit thread) --- - -- 17 min r/Foo How do we attach the doohickey? 5 hrFoo-L The problem with so and so's proposal. 1 day FuBarz Who are these Foos, anyway? 1 day r/Foo This, that, and the next thing. 2 days FooStack What's the best thingamy for such and such? . . . and so on The boundary proclamation is similar in form to a conventional news feed. It concerns a specific topic or category. Differences are in a) the exclusion of mass communications, b) the claim to totality, and c) the self-determination that redeems that claim. (a) A principle criterion for inclusion is that one may immediately join any of the referenced communications as a peer. One-way, mass communications are excluded. (b) The boundary proclamation claims to cover the entire public discussion of the topic across all communication media and sites. It claims to be the most complete, accurate and timely overview of the extended discussion that is available anywhere. (c) This claim is redeemed by the public members themselves who submit the references, self-organize the necessary labour, and self-constitute the necessary government. No aspect of this redeeming self-determination is controlled by an external authority. I'm looking for brief pointers, please. I don't know of any actual implementations of this, or projects that are working on it. I'll share what's found. -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Self-determined publics
Michael and Libtech, Not sure I can be much help other than this - you might find relevant Heather Marsh's writings on Concentric Groups, Knowledge Bridges and Epistemic Communities: https://georgiebc.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/concentric-groups-knowledge-bridges-and-epistemic-communities-2/ :-Douglas On 07/29/2013 11:45 PM, Michael Allan wrote: Folks, Below I define what I call self-determined publics. Has anything similar been attempted before? A self-determined public is an open, topical community that proclaims the definitive bounds of its own communications. The proclamation takes the form of a timely sequence of references (e.g. web links) each pointing to a communication of the public, such that all references together define the total of that public's communications in time and space. For example: Ago Place Title (click to visit thread) --- - -- 17 min r/Foo How do we attach the doohickey? 5 hrFoo-L The problem with so and so's proposal. 1 day FuBarz Who are these Foos, anyway? 1 day r/Foo This, that, and the next thing. 2 days FooStack What's the best thingamy for such and such? . . . and so on The boundary proclamation is similar in form to a conventional news feed. It concerns a specific topic or category. Differences are in a) the exclusion of mass communications, b) the claim to totality, and c) the self-determination that redeems that claim. (a) A principle criterion for inclusion is that one may immediately join any of the referenced communications as a peer. One-way, mass communications are excluded. (b) The boundary proclamation claims to cover the entire public discussion of the topic across all communication media and sites. It claims to be the most complete, accurate and timely overview of the extended discussion that is available anywhere. (c) This claim is redeemed by the public members themselves who submit the references, self-organize the necessary labour, and self-constitute the necessary government. No aspect of this redeeming self-determination is controlled by an external authority. I'm looking for brief pointers, please. I don't know of any actual implementations of this, or projects that are working on it. I'll share what's found. -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Self-determined publics
I really like the way you frame this. Please do share anything you find on this! You might find interesting (if you haven't seen it already) Chris Kelty's term *recursive public*, which he uses to describe geekdom (with an emphasis on open source software communities) as a whole. http://p2pfoundation.net/Recursive_Public A recursive public is a public that is vitally concerned with the material and practical maintenance and modification of the technical, legal, practical, and conceptual means of its own existence as a public; it is a collective independent of other forms of constituted power and is capable of speaking to existing forms of power through the production of actually existing alternatives. If you'll forgive the self-promotion, you might find this work on Weird Twitter (an on-line community not unlike what you describe) and symbolic bounded network communities of interest. http://ethnographymatters.net/2013/06/30/why-weird-twitter-part-1/ On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com wrote: Folks, Below I define what I call self-determined publics. Has anything similar been attempted before? A self-determined public is an open, topical community that proclaims the definitive bounds of its own communications. The proclamation takes the form of a timely sequence of references (e.g. web links) each pointing to a communication of the public, such that all references together define the total of that public's communications in time and space. For example: Ago Place Title (click to visit thread) --- - -- 17 min r/Foo How do we attach the doohickey? 5 hrFoo-L The problem with so and so's proposal. 1 day FuBarz Who are these Foos, anyway? 1 day r/Foo This, that, and the next thing. 2 days FooStack What's the best thingamy for such and such? . . . and so on The boundary proclamation is similar in form to a conventional news feed. It concerns a specific topic or category. Differences are in a) the exclusion of mass communications, b) the claim to totality, and c) the self-determination that redeems that claim. (a) A principle criterion for inclusion is that one may immediately join any of the referenced communications as a peer. One-way, mass communications are excluded. (b) The boundary proclamation claims to cover the entire public discussion of the topic across all communication media and sites. It claims to be the most complete, accurate and timely overview of the extended discussion that is available anywhere. (c) This claim is redeemed by the public members themselves who submit the references, self-organize the necessary labour, and self-constitute the necessary government. No aspect of this redeeming self-determination is controlled by an external authority. I'm looking for brief pointers, please. I don't know of any actual implementations of this, or projects that are working on it. I'll share what's found. -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
