Re: Confiscation of Anti-War Video
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 09:11:51AM -0800, Tim May wrote: Alice uses a laptop or beltpack machine, with a Webcam or DV camcorder. (Minor details of using the laptop while closed...some laptops support this, others shut down. Hence the mention of beltpack/gargoyle machines.) [...] Alice broadcasts, Bob receives, Alice is arrested for thoughtcrime, Bob later uploads. Some of the Indymedia folks have been planning this for the next round of protests in DC, with the addition of Bob doing a live uplink. They're stymied so far by lack of cash, but as prices fall, I'd expect this to become standard activist hardware. Then the cops will respond by jamming, etc. -Declan
Re: Flight security analysis (was Re: Confiscation of Anti-War Video)
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 01:35:06PM -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 02:45 PM 11/1/02 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 30K feet, you have about half a minute before you pass out Which isn't the problem it's the -40F that kills you. You freeze your ass off well before you ever die from lack of oxygen. The vast majority of folks can hold their breath long enough for a jet to go from 30k to 10k in a emergency dive. Less than 60s. Wow, Choate biophysics now. Do the thermal conductivity/inertia calcs. -40F *air* can't drop your coretemp in 30 seconds. Do the math. Or go up to the Dakotas this winter and step outside for half a minute. It hurts but doesn't kill that quickly. We lived for a long, long time in far northern MN in a cabin with no electricity or running water. When I had to pee in the middle of the night, I'd just run outside and pee in the yard. Summer or Winter, it made no difference, and I never found it a problem standing out there buck naked and barefoot at 30 below. Can't imagine that 40 below would be much different. And since my wife objected to yellow snow right by the house, I had to walk at bit away, not clear to the outhouse, but a piece. OTOH, I did once when we lived up about halfway between Jasper and Prince George, BC fall thru the ice in the Fraser River up to my waist (fully clothed tho) and my legs lost all feeling almost immediately. Of course, that river up there was pretty close to being straight off a glacier and was too cold to swim in even in July or August. I likewise went thru the ice to my waist in N. MN once and it wasn't bad at all. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com War is just a racket ... something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small group knows what its about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. --- Major General Smedley Butler, 1933 Our overriding purpose, from the beginning through to the present day, has been world domination - that is, to build and maintain the capacity to coerce everybody else on the planet: nonviolently, if possible, and violently, if necessary. But the purpose of US foreign policy of domination is not just to make the rest of the world jump through hoops; the purpose is to faciliate our exploitation of resources. - Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General http://www.thesunmagazine.org/bully.html
Re: Confiscation of Anti-War Video
At 12:01 PM 10/28/02 -0800, Tim May wrote: ... By the way, there are perfectly good fixes to the current hysteria about things carried on board planes. Besides the obvious absurdity of issuing alarms when fingernail clippers are found (but ignoring razor sharp edges in things like laptops with metal cases!), there are many fixes which can be applied: I think the best fix is to accept that a determined suicidal attacker will probably manage to bring down the plane, but make sure that's the worst he can do. That removes the externality problem. The current algorithm for this is some combination of pilots being told not to go along with hijackers' demands, and maybe some chance of getting a military jet in place to shoot the hijacked plane down, if it is taken over by the hijackers. (It seems like this wouldn't be practical most of the time, e.g., if someone takes over the plane as it's approaching landing, there probably wouldn't be anyone in place to shoot in time. And faster response time means less time to discover a mistake.) I've heard of an idea for a mechanism for putting some kind of remote-control piloting mechanism on the plane, so that it can be taken over from the ground. This adds new attack points, but it might be workable. And of course, rockets have long had self-destruct mechanisms; presumably, there's stuff off the shelf from NASA or the DoD that does this with some reasonable level of security. (This last one would be politically unacceptable, but it's not really all that different from having a fighter shoot the hijacked plane down.) Both of these introduce a bunch of new vulnerabilities, though. Your list left out the obvious technique, which I think is more-or-less used by El Al: Screen your passengers really well, probably using secret databases, various kinds of racial profiling, etc. Routinely turn passengers away, or make boarding the plane such an ordeal that they elect not to fly anymore. (One of the many problems with this is that most flights are within the US; make flying sufficiently nasty, and people will take trains, busses, or their own cars. I think this is already happening a great deal, which is one reason most airlines are doing so poorly.) ... 4. Finally, market solutions are usually best. Any of the above could be implemented. If customers feel safer with a different baggage policy, they'll pick it. ... I can't imagine this being done in practice, but I wish it were. The problem *is* an externality, but not the one you pointed out. Politicians in office right now will be blamed if there's another hijacking. So if I choose to fly Allahu Akbar Airlines for the short security checking lines, I get the benefit, but part of the cost lands on incumbent congressmen and the President. And those incumbents, unlike most people who get stuck with such costs, have the power to do something about it. (Something pretty similar happens with the FDA, right? If you get the new cancer drug a year earlier, you get all the benefit (maybe you get to go on living); the FDA gets the added risk of their being some horrible side effect. So they force a different trade-off on you than you'd prefer.) --Tim May --John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED] // [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Confiscation of Anti-War Video
At 1:52 PM -0800 10/31/02, Steve Schear wrote: At 11:37 AM 10/31/2002 -0800, you wrote: Another fix that is being used is passengers who will act to keep the plane from being used as a weapon. If the hijackers have to kill people with small sharp objects that they can smuggle on board, instead of mass killing devices like machine guns, then a large number of passengers can overcome a small number of hijackers. This assumption may not be a good one. Considering the level of current security checks, it should be trivial to smuggle some sort of anesthetic or poisonous gas generator aboard. No need for sharp objects. AFAIK, the air supply aboard current U.S. fleets is shared between passengers and cockpit. IIRC, the regs call for pilots to either wear oxygen masks, or have quick to put on masks readily at hand. Cheers - Bill - Bill Frantz | The principal effect of| Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | DMCA/SDMI is to prevent| 16345 Englewood Ave. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | fair use. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Re: Confiscation of Anti-War Video
At 04:28 PM 10/31/2002 -0800, Bill Frantz wrote: At 1:52 PM -0800 10/31/02, Steve Schear wrote: At 11:37 AM 10/31/2002 -0800, you wrote: Another fix that is being used is passengers who will act to keep the plane from being used as a weapon. If the hijackers have to kill people with small sharp objects that they can smuggle on board, instead of mass killing devices like machine guns, then a large number of passengers can overcome a small number of hijackers. This assumption may not be a good one. Considering the level of current security checks, it should be trivial to smuggle some sort of anesthetic or poisonous gas generator aboard. No need for sharp objects. AFAIK, the air supply aboard current U.S. fleets is shared between passengers and cockpit. IIRC, the regs call for pilots to either wear oxygen masks, or have quick to put on masks readily at hand. Unfortunately, there are many gasses which kill or disable with only a small dosage (e.g., VX). Unless the cabins are equipped with toxic air sensors (possible in a few years with all the biochip work underway) I think the masks may be be too little too late. steve
Re: Confiscation of Anti-War Video
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Adam Shostack wrote: (Changing the rules on a regular basis has some security value, as it makes it likely that plans will be ruined. But it has the cost that passengers can't plan..) Some animals are more equal than others. It's interesting to look back in these past few years to see how more and more we've been conditioned to give up our freedoms. Fun stuff. More and more schools being modeled after jails, kids being kicked out for asprins or for pretending chicken nuggets are guns, having to wear uniforms, etc. It's interesting to see how much stuff that was in the interest of national security being declassified and available after 50 years. Lots of cool stuff on the history channel lately. I wonder what evil will surface fifty years from now on the history channel about the present? (Assuming that we don't actually turn into a dictatorship of course... grand assumption that.) It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. -Hume Except in the case of national security and terrorist acts? Hmmm, we used to have the four horsemen of the apocalypse. I guess the horseman of terror has become the meta-horseman.
Re: Confiscation of Anti-War Video
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 10:32:17AM -0500, Sunder wrote: | It's interesting to see how much stuff that was in the interest of | national security being declassified and available after 50 years. Lots | of cool stuff on the history channel lately. I wonder what evil will | surface fifty years from now on the history channel about the | present? (Assuming that we don't actually turn into a dictatorship of | course... grand assumption that.) You mean remain? There are multiple American citizens being held on nothing more than the order of the President. There are restrictions on free speech, free assembly, etc, etc. | It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. | -Hume | | Except in the case of national security and terrorist acts? Hmmm, we used | to have the four horsemen of the apocalypse. I guess the horseman of | terror has become the meta-horseman. I stand by Hume. Such losses are indeed seldom. Little insidious losses are far more common. Adam -- It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. -Hume
Re: Confiscation of Anti-War Video
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Marcel Popescu wrote: 3. Put it between brackets: [http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryInformation/IndustryInfo rmationExternal/NewsDisplayArticle/0,1471,1888,00.html] Ok, I'm not very sure about the last one... but I read that it works. Angled brackets, not squre brackets. http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryInformation/IndustryInformationExternal/NewsDisplayArticle/0,1471,1888,00.html
Re: Confiscation of Anti-War Video
At 10:08 AM 10/28/02 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: In antoher context I've wondered about the possibility of wireless, near-real-time video upload. With 3G this will cetainly be easy, but I'm wondering if there are soft/hard gadgets that can auto-upload stuff. Plenty of webcams come with software to auto upload (e.g., ftp). They require a computer though. You mean an embedded device? A 2.5 G phone with a camera, and the 'feature' to autosend periodically, would be a fine vidbug. Reminds me of that LEO notice a while back that captors were leaving their cell phones, and leaving them on, in the copcars. ... BTW JY needs to learn the Tomlinson trick of switching his chips. A wee bit of slight of hand.
Re: Confiscation of Anti-War Video
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Tyler Durden wrote: In antoher context I've wondered about the possibility of wireless, near-real-time video upload. With 3G this will cetainly be easy, but I'm wondering if there are soft/hard gadgets that can auto-upload stuff.(In addition, 3G looks like it's going to roll out in the US only in fits and starts over the next bunch of years.) Ideally, this upload would be made directly to WWW, but upload to a safe-haven would certainly be better than nothing (particularly if one does not even have any knowledge about where some copies of the upload are auto-uploaded to!). Anyone done anything like this? You probably can do something like it in Tokyo right now. There are lots of cell phones with cameras built in there. You just press a button and send it as e-mail. Not exactly streaming video, but 1 frame every couple of seconds by 5 people could be done very easily. I saw 10 year old kids playing with the things. They were taking pictures of their noses, and watching their friends on another train send pictures back. It felt like I was living in the dark ages coming back to the US! Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Confiscation of Anti-War Video
Well, the possibility of using 802.11b had occurred to me, but right now I would think it's too vulnerable. First of all, there will be a visible and stationary box somewhere. Second, this has to exist at the termination of either a DSL link, cable modem, or T1/fractional T1. All of these infrastrctural elements will theoreically be identified by the Power that Be. (And Powers that Be this would not necessarily be a local thing, but perhaps other regimes overseas willing to take more obvious measures to prevent information percolation.) Of course, Cell-based wireless is similar, but the difference (I think) is that if the cell site is shut down, cell service in the area dissappears...I would think this kind of accidental outage would be a hell of lot more conspicuous (and less probable) than an 802.11 switch dying. As for the guy who posted about the Japanese kids, I would think that's a 3G-type application, but it of course doesn't have to be. From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Confiscation of Anti-War Video Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:11:51 -0800 On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 08:44 AM, Optimizzin Al-gorithym wrote: At 10:08 AM 10/28/02 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: In antoher context I've wondered about the possibility of wireless, near-real-time video upload. With 3G this will cetainly be easy, but I'm wondering if there are soft/hard gadgets that can auto-upload stuff. Plenty of webcams come with software to auto upload (e.g., ftp). They require a computer though. You mean an embedded device? A 2.5 G phone with a camera, and the 'feature' to autosend periodically, would be a fine vidbug. Reminds me of that LEO notice a while back that captors were leaving their cell phones, and leaving them on, in the copcars. Seems to me that WiFi solves this problem, at least for public places. Alice uses a laptop or beltpack machine, with a Webcam or DV camcorder. (Minor details of using the laptop while closed...some laptops support this, others shut down. Hence the mention of beltpack/gargoyle machines.) Bob is within WiFi range, a few hundred feet, but is not obvious to the Thought Police. Alice broadcasts, Bob receives, Alice is arrested for thoughtcrime, Bob later uploads. --Tim May That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. --Samuel Adams _ Get faster connections -- switch to MSN Internet Access! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
Re: Confiscation of Anti-War Video
On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 08:44 AM, Optimizzin Al-gorithym wrote: At 10:08 AM 10/28/02 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: In antoher context I've wondered about the possibility of wireless, near-real-time video upload. With 3G this will cetainly be easy, but I'm wondering if there are soft/hard gadgets that can auto-upload stuff. Plenty of webcams come with software to auto upload (e.g., ftp). They require a computer though. You mean an embedded device? A 2.5 G phone with a camera, and the 'feature' to autosend periodically, would be a fine vidbug. Reminds me of that LEO notice a while back that captors were leaving their cell phones, and leaving them on, in the copcars. Seems to me that WiFi solves this problem, at least for public places. Alice uses a laptop or beltpack machine, with a Webcam or DV camcorder. (Minor details of using the laptop while closed...some laptops support this, others shut down. Hence the mention of beltpack/gargoyle machines.) Bob is within WiFi range, a few hundred feet, but is not obvious to the Thought Police. Alice broadcasts, Bob receives, Alice is arrested for thoughtcrime, Bob later uploads. --Tim May That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. --Samuel Adams
Re: Confiscation of Anti-War Video
At 12:01 PM 10/28/02 -0800, Tim May wrote: It's going to be interesting to see how airlines and other security narcs deal with fuel cells. The energy content of a small canister/container of the fuel can be high. Given that butane lighters are now banned... Based on personal experience (e.g., last month), I don't think so re butane. Something like a disposable lighter is ok. A refilling-canister is not. Flammable liquids (e.g., 150 proof rum, explicitly mentioned in places) are not. And if these fuel cells are banned on airlines, there goes 90% of the market. Tourists and business travelers just won't buy fuel cell-based laptops and camcorders if they can't carry them in airports, into Disneyland, in public buildings, etc. Suppose the fuel cartridges were cheap, like nail clippers. You could sell them at airport exits. In flight, up-scale planes supply AC jacks to passengers. You get off, get your bags, and buy a cartridge so you can power up in the taxi. Or, since sealed cartridges are 'safe', your own supply could travel in your checked bag, much like an unloaded gun. Also, Fuel cells may have integral batteries eg for dealing with transient heavy loads. (Some cell phones use supercaps in the same way. Drain the Li cell at the rate it prefers, but the RF power amp has access to the Coulombs stored in the Farads.) The batteries could carry you between fuel cartridges for those times when you can't have open ones.
RE: Confiscation of Anti-War Video
Tim May[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 11:08 AM, Trei, Peter wrote: Batteries are becoming the main drag on this stuff. Hopefully, fuel cells will be available soon. It's going to be interesting to see how airlines and other security narcs deal with fuel cells. The energy content of a small canister/container of the fuel can be high. Given that butane lighters are now banned... And if these fuel cells are banned on airlines, there goes 90% of the market. Tourists and business travelers just won't buy fuel cell-based laptops and camcorders if they can't carry them in airports, into Disneyland, in public buildings, etc. I assume the developers of fuel cells (Motorola?) are thinking about this issue. Actually, the DoT has already ruled positively that one fuel cell from Polyfuel can be carried on board. They appear to have a cartridge for the methanol, similar to a ink cartridge. It's a pity it's methanol - I want to be able to tell the stewardess Bring me a double Absolut! My laptop is running low! Even if this company turns vaporware, others won't. (my Microsoft email software will of course mangle the URL:) http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryInformation/IndustryInfor mationExternal/NewsDisplayArticle/0,1471,1888,00.html - start quote - Direct Methanol Fuel Cell Approved for Carriage on Aeroplanes 07 October 2002 Author: Mark Cropper, Fuel Cell Today Provider: Fuel Cell Today According to reports in BusinessWeek, the US Department of Transportation has ruled that a new fuel cell developed by US company Polyfuel can be taken on airplanes. The announcement clears the way for the commercialisation of fuel cells as an alternative to batteries in notebook computers. The use of direct methanol fuel cells on aeroplanes has been questioned as they contain methanol, which is flammable. According to Jim Balcom, Polyfuel's CEO, the US DOT said that a fuel cell designed by his company could be taken into aircraft cabins when it goes on sale because it contains a relatively low concentration of methanol. Fuel cells are viewed as a promising power source in notebook comptuers as they are instantly refuellable (using fuel cartridges) and will power laptops two to three times longer than standard batteries. - end quote -
Re: Confiscation of Anti-War Video
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 04:13:31PM -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: | Actually, the DoT has already ruled positively that one fuel cell from | Polyfuel | can be carried on board. They appear to have a cartridge for the methanol, | similar to a ink cartridge. It's a pity it's methanol - I want to be able to | tell | the stewardess Bring me a double Absolut! My laptop is running low! | Even if this company turns vaporware, others won't. The rules, Mr. Trei, are what we say the rules are. Now you will be taking hold of your ankles without further delay! (Changing the rules on a regular basis has some security value, as it makes it likely that plans will be ruined. But it has the cost that passengers can't plan..) But as anyone who has ever tried flying without ID knows, the rules are not rules, employees are not trained on them, and a little social engineering went a long way. PS: http://www.apfa.org/public/articles/News-Events/STUPID_RULES.HTML Adam -- It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. -Hume
Re: Confiscation of Anti-War Video
My notion was that Bob, who receives Alice's WiFi signal, is also using a laptop, which he simply walks off with. He doesn't need a DSL or cablemodem or whatever. Could be an interesting exercise for the next cpunk meeting. The goal is to leave the meeting with some content on the laptop anonymously, ie. no one knows *who* left the meeting with that content. The content should be made available by one or two insiders via 802.11b. They don't even say which protocol they are using (except windoze-proprietary shit which is out of question ... appletalk is OK :-) The LEA agents then post a list of suspects. The Morpheus agents then post the content. If there is no match, it means that fully anonymous cooperative dissemination is doable. You broadcast, and you don't know who will relay it. = end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
