On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 06:29 -0500, David A. Bandel wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:30 AM, Roger Oberholtzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 06:12 -0500, David A. Bandel wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:46 AM, Roger Oberholtzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 18:41 -0700, Lonni J Friedman wrote: > >> >> Sadly, I know the guy in the first picture: > >> >> http://hehe2.net/linuxhumor/linux-and-sex-debunking-the-myth/ > >> > > >> > Our overzealous company has set up a filter called webwash. It blocked > >> > this. What I really dislike about the filter is that there is no > >> > mechanism to register a complaint that the filter is wrong or should at > >> > least be reviewed. I have been blocked from legitimate development > >> > software related sites, with no apparent recourse. Given Sweden's new > >> > 'FRA' law (http://www.thelocal.se/12534/20080618/), I guess I should > >> > just get used to a different internet... > >> > >> I've said it for years, internet communications are not secure. You > >> don't want your e-mail read, encrypt it. I routinely encrypt e-mails > >> to individuals. Obviously to lists like this, you wouldn't want to do > >> that, but all other communications should just be encrypted as a > >> matter of routine. Then laws like this wouldn't bother you in the > >> least. > > > > I do not expect it to be secure. I also do not expect to be monitored by > > a civilian organization who will need no approval to access things. > > There is no control over the access. This is not being done by the > > police or military, over which there is some sort of control or > > monitoring of their activities. This is by a civilian organization who > > could sell the information they harvest without needing to ask anyone. > > Fact is, neither the government nor military run any of the telecoms, and > they have the capability and access to do this anyway -- perhaps not without > risking the consequences of a major backlash, but still ... your comms are > _not_ private and you should have no expectation of that without using > encryption. Then you do have an expectation of privacy. > > > > > It does bother me. Telia Sonera, a big telecoms company in these parts, > > has moved all servers out of Sweden, since they cannot guarantee things, > > like IP telephony between two Finns - nothing to do with Sweden, will > > not be effected. Their communications would have passed through a > > Swedish server, making all content available. Google have said all > > servers it has and would consider placing in Sweden will now go > > elsewhere. Many other companies are following suite. Sweden's place as a > > major telecom player (Ericsson is Swedish), with a very good national > > network, is at risk. This national network exists, to a large extent, > > because many companies located their services here. As they leave, a big > > reason for maintain this network goes as well. > > And this makes a good argument for fighting the new law and getting it > overturned, but does not impact privacy. > > > > > It is not a mater of having something to hide. It is a matter of now > > feeling a need to hide that which previously would not have been hidden. > > A play on the USA Prohibition era stories of people starting to drink > > only because it was now forbidden. > > Even folks who have nothing to hide don't want everything published in the > local newspaper. Invasion of privacy makes one feel vulnerable. Nothing to > do with illegal, immoral, or even fattening. > > > > >> Also, since a _lot_ of e-mail is via web, folks should get used to > >> using https vice http. > > > > Every port is monitored. It is full communication access. And, > > encryption only slows down the government. If they want to read it, they > > will. > > Um. No. If you encrypt it, there are inferences they can draw based on > statistics and heuristics, but they cannot read it. Even NSA doesn't have the > resources to even begin to try to decrypt a small percentage of the email on > the internet. > > > > > Just because technology allows me to move my stuff in more secure > > fashion does not in any way make it ok for the government to monitor as > > they now will. I think this will probably result in making their job > > more difficult. You know that secure communications will now be a big > > industry in these parts. > > Didn't imply this. I said you have no expectation that someone won't read > your mail if you send a note on a postcard. The mailman may read it only > because he can. > > > > >> I have nothing to hide, but don't think my private communications are > >> any of anyones business, so I encrypt everything I can just because. > >> Part of the reason I think little of sending someone who needs it a > >> password to something via e-mail. If the e-mail is strongly > >> encrypted, via either gnupg or s/mime (I use whatever the other party > >> uses -- most Linux folks like gnupg and most Windoze lusers like > >> s/mime with a private e-mail cert via Thawte), it's secure enough > >> against prying eyes. > >> > >> My laptop drive is also encrypted for some of the same reasons. Will > >> probably do this for all my personal systems in the future. > > > > On a similar note, I read in the paper yesterday that doctors think too > > many people believe that a condom is 100% protection against STDs. > > And your encrypted mail can be read from your drive or the recipients drive > (but not in transit or if intercepted, assuming you're using strong > encryption and a good passphrase). > > > > > I get your point, David, but I do not think the world is safer because > > of this. If I was a terrorist, I would add my message to JPEGS or TIFFS. > > Anyone who really wants to transmit something unseen is probably already > > doing so. Swedes value their privacy as much as the next, so I think > > there will be a big fight over this law. > > Not talking about safer. But there's more than one way to skin a cat. > Intercepting messages is one thing. Someone reading them is another. If > suddenly 99% of all messages (except spam) were encrypted, interception would > serve no purpose and any organization permitted to do so would find little > fruit in continuing to intercept messages (except to win government $$$ or do > general analysis of traffic flows).
But if it does not make Sweden or the world safer, what point is it? It is just a bit (in this case a very big bit) more control over the population solely for the sake of control. > Encryption is one way of "fighting" this kind of silliness. Voting those who > favor these kinds of bills out of office is another. Both would probably > send a very strong message. But it would take action, like actually > bothering to get an e-mail certificate. True. But in wanting to protect one's own country, it seems wrong to have to fight one's own government. I am not naive. Just a little bit more depressed. > But most folks would just rather complain than even go to the "trouble" of > getting an e-mail cert and letting their computer automagically encrypt > everything. These folks deserve to have all their e-mail read and have no > right to complain (IMHO). Yes and no. Just because the government/postman CAN read your mail does not mean they SHOULD read the mail. It does not give them the moral right to actually read it. If I leave money on the table, mu daughter CAN just take it. But as she knows, that does not mean she SHOULD take it. Of course, so far my daughter is far better behaved than any government. Even though her taste in clothes seems to veer in the direction of defense budgets :) My understanding is that the processing will be search-engine-like. They will then be able to play google with the info to look for trends, for who and where keywords are interesting. Just play with the data and see what comes up. I have a gmail account. I understand that this is done with mail stored there. google explained that this was why it was free. Up front. Take it or leave it. If only the government was as honest as google :) -- Roger Oberholtzer OPQ Systems / Ramböll RST Ramböll Sverige AB Kapellgränd 7 P.O. Box 4205 SE-102 65 Stockholm, Sweden Office: Int +46 8-615 60 20 Mobile: Int +46 70-815 1696 And remember: It is RSofT and there is always something under construction. It is like talking about large city with all constructions finished. Not impossible, but very unlikely. _______________________________________________ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/general
