Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences
Perhaps you could explain what you mean here as your comment seems rather a non sequitur. M -Original Message- From: liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Karl Fogel Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 9:30 PM To: liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Subject: Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences If we'd all stop using the verb publish when we really mean endorse, much conversation on this topic would be clearer. (Not aimed at anyone here, by the way; just a general observation :-) .) -Karl Richard Brooks r...@acm.org writes: Part of the problem is the use of publications to drive academic retention, tenure, promotion. Publications should be vetted by a set of peers that only allow publication of quality goods. The journals are supposed to be the gate-keepers and enforcers of quality. This means that the people trying to publish have an incentive to publish as much as they can. Having the authors pay gives the supposed gatekeepers an economic incentive to publish more and lower quality. If costs are not paid by the subscribers (who should in principle only pay for quality goods) then it is hard to find a model that is going to keep the bar high enough. Professional societies (IEEE, ACM, etc.) can probably maintain quality in this scenario. But that decreases the number of journals and the amount of available info... On 04/08/2013 04:19 PM, michael gurstein wrote: I'm wondering whether some global equivalent of the copyright collection societies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_collective might not work although they would need to be updated to reflect current issues around CC and related licensing… Richer institutionscould pay in for access to Open Access journals perhaps on a pay per usage basis and given a relatively modest cost structure for OA journals this might be sufficient to cover operating costs on a Robin Hood basis for poorer and LDC libraries. …just a thought. M *From:*liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] *On Behalf Of *LISTS *Sent:* Monday, April 08, 2013 10:58 AM *To:* liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu *Subject:* Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences Indeed, this would be a problem. However, it's already a problem, which is to say that poorer universities cannot afford subscriptions to EBSCO and whatnot to begin with, and thus their faculty have trouble keeping up with research in comparison to those at richer schools. What I'm suggesting here could at least alleviate this problem, because richer schools would subsidize /access/ to research. Moreover, I'm imagining that the cost of pay-to-publish would be far lower than for-profit schemes like TF and Elsevier, thus enabling poorer school's libraries to save money and actually increase their faculty's ability to do research (assuming that's their mission). However, I don't have numbers on this, so I could be wrong. - Rob Gehl On 04/08/2013 11:52 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: The problem with this is that faculty from wealthier universities will have much more capability to publish than faculty from less wealthy universities. And those who can get their work supported by those with money have an upper hand of getting more information out than those who do not have their work supported. There is already enough of this in grants perhaps. Maybe we could envision something like low cost subscriptions so that individuals or universities could pay a small fee to journals they use a lot. This works well on a number of political blogs. Michael From: liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu [liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] on behalf of LISTS [li...@robertwgehl.org mailto:li...@robertwgehl.org] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 1:45 PM To: liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu mailto:liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Subject: Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences Or, potentially, university libraries could shift from buying subscriptions to paying for their university faculty's publication fees. If the ultimate product is an open access publication, then the issue isn't paying for access, but rather paying to produce the public good. - Rob Gehl On 04/08/2013 11:42 AM, michael gurstein wrote: Publishing may be dirt cheap but any systematic/formal e.g. academic publishing isn't free... So the problem is that while there is a
[liberationtech] Yahoo Hacks (Was: Increased email blocking/spam filtering)
On 9 April 2013 01:29, Steven Clift cl...@e-democracy.org wrote: Part of the problem maybe yahoo mail hacked accounts which are an ongoing disaster. What's the deal with that - I seem to get lot's of YahooMail spam... couldn't find anything reporting on it when I googled though -- Love regards etc David Miller http://www.deadpansincerity.com 07854 880 883 -- 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] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences
On 9 April 2013 08:29, Petter Ericson pett...@acc.umu.se wrote: Gettings things published (as in, readable by the public) is no longer a problem Quite. However, they still need to pick-and-choose... which they would then endorse, rather than publish. Which has long been one of the challenges created by democratising publishing text :) Any link suggestions to journals that do this particularly well I may have missed? In my world, Pub Med Central [1] and Bio Med Central [2] - who even have a JSON API [3] for searching papers ! [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/tools/openftlist/ [2] http://www.biomedcentral.com/ [3] http://www.biomedcentral.com/search/results?format=jsonterms=salbutamol -- Love regards etc David Miller http://www.deadpansincerity.com 07854 880 883 -- 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] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences
If I understand what you are saying I think you've got it a wee bit mixed up... -Original Message- From: liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Petter Ericson Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 12:29 AM To: liberationtech Subject: Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences Gettings things published (as in, readable by the public) is no longer a problem, and journals should, frankly, not concern themselves with this any more. [MG] but this is precisely what journals do... i.e. they publish (after selecting what to publish* However, they still need to pick-and-choose among the myriads of published works to get a high-quality and on-topic selection of articles, which they would then endorse, rather than publish. [MG] they pick and choose among the myriad of non-published* works to getetc.etc. The problem is how to make money and repute flow properly through this system, without getting bad side effects (i.e. no publishing for poor people/institutions, no access to what endorsements were made for poor people/institutions, every journal turns (even more) into an echo chamber etc. etc.). [MG] okay... That, at least, is my understanding of it. [MG] er... and mine M Best /P [MG] *publishing of course means something different post-Internet... I think what it means is putting something into a context which authenticates the process of publication i.e. it is published because we/they/someone says that it is being published... But maybe in the end we are saying the same thing but using words in a slightly different way. On 08 April, 2013 - michael gurstein wrote: Perhaps you could explain what you mean here as your comment seems rather a non sequitur. M -Original Message- From: liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Karl Fogel Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 9:30 PM To: liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Subject: Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences If we'd all stop using the verb publish when we really mean endorse, much conversation on this topic would be clearer. (Not aimed at anyone here, by the way; just a general observation :-) .) -Karl Richard Brooks r...@acm.org writes: Part of the problem is the use of publications to drive academic retention, tenure, promotion. Publications should be vetted by a set of peers that only allow publication of quality goods. The journals are supposed to be the gate-keepers and enforcers of quality. This means that the people trying to publish have an incentive to publish as much as they can. Having the authors pay gives the supposed gatekeepers an economic incentive to publish more and lower quality. If costs are not paid by the subscribers (who should in principle only pay for quality goods) then it is hard to find a model that is going to keep the bar high enough. Professional societies (IEEE, ACM, etc.) can probably maintain quality in this scenario. But that decreases the number of journals and the amount of available info... On 04/08/2013 04:19 PM, michael gurstein wrote: I'm wondering whether some global equivalent of the copyright collection societies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_collective might not work although they would need to be updated to reflect current issues around CC and related licensing… Richer institutionscould pay in for access to Open Access journals perhaps on a pay per usage basis and given a relatively modest cost structure for OA journals this might be sufficient to cover operating costs on a Robin Hood basis for poorer and LDC libraries. …just a thought. M *From:*liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] *On Behalf Of *LISTS *Sent:* Monday, April 08, 2013 10:58 AM *To:* liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu *Subject:* Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences Indeed, this would be a problem. However, it's already a problem, which is to say that poorer universities cannot afford subscriptions to EBSCO and whatnot to begin with, and thus their faculty have trouble keeping up with research in comparison to those at richer schools. What I'm suggesting here could at least alleviate this problem, because richer schools would subsidize /access/ to research. Moreover, I'm imagining that the cost of pay-to-publish would be far lower than for-profit schemes like TF and Elsevier, thus enabling poorer school's libraries to save money and actually increase their faculty's ability to do research (assuming that's their mission). However, I don't have numbers on this, so I could be
Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences
Journals semifrequently acquire an exclusive copyright license, meaning that you the author can not actually put your own article up for free downloading. Instead, you need an article subscription to even access the text (except possibly unfinished versions). That, in short, is the difference between publishing and endorsing a specific article. Though, of course, we could just wait for Karl to wake up and tell us what he meant :) Best /P On 09 April, 2013 - michael gurstein wrote: If I understand what you are saying I think you've got it a wee bit mixed up... -Original Message- From: liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Petter Ericson Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 12:29 AM To: liberationtech Subject: Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences Gettings things published (as in, readable by the public) is no longer a problem, and journals should, frankly, not concern themselves with this any more. [MG] but this is precisely what journals do... i.e. they publish (after selecting what to publish* However, they still need to pick-and-choose among the myriads of published works to get a high-quality and on-topic selection of articles, which they would then endorse, rather than publish. [MG] they pick and choose among the myriad of non-published* works to getetc.etc. The problem is how to make money and repute flow properly through this system, without getting bad side effects (i.e. no publishing for poor people/institutions, no access to what endorsements were made for poor people/institutions, every journal turns (even more) into an echo chamber etc. etc.). [MG] okay... That, at least, is my understanding of it. [MG] er... and mine M Best /P [MG] *publishing of course means something different post-Internet... I think what it means is putting something into a context which authenticates the process of publication i.e. it is published because we/they/someone says that it is being published... But maybe in the end we are saying the same thing but using words in a slightly different way. On 08 April, 2013 - michael gurstein wrote: Perhaps you could explain what you mean here as your comment seems rather a non sequitur. M -Original Message- From: liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Karl Fogel Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 9:30 PM To: liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Subject: Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences If we'd all stop using the verb publish when we really mean endorse, much conversation on this topic would be clearer. (Not aimed at anyone here, by the way; just a general observation :-) .) -Karl Richard Brooks r...@acm.org writes: Part of the problem is the use of publications to drive academic retention, tenure, promotion. Publications should be vetted by a set of peers that only allow publication of quality goods. The journals are supposed to be the gate-keepers and enforcers of quality. This means that the people trying to publish have an incentive to publish as much as they can. Having the authors pay gives the supposed gatekeepers an economic incentive to publish more and lower quality. If costs are not paid by the subscribers (who should in principle only pay for quality goods) then it is hard to find a model that is going to keep the bar high enough. Professional societies (IEEE, ACM, etc.) can probably maintain quality in this scenario. But that decreases the number of journals and the amount of available info... On 04/08/2013 04:19 PM, michael gurstein wrote: I'm wondering whether some global equivalent of the copyright collection societies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_collective might not work although they would need to be updated to reflect current issues around CC and related licensing… Richer institutionscould pay in for access to Open Access journals perhaps on a pay per usage basis and given a relatively modest cost structure for OA journals this might be sufficient to cover operating costs on a Robin Hood basis for poorer and LDC libraries. …just a thought. M *From:*liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] *On Behalf Of *LISTS *Sent:* Monday, April 08, 2013 10:58 AM *To:* liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu *Subject:* Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals conferences Indeed, this would be a problem. However, it's already a problem, which is to say that poorer universities cannot afford subscriptions to
Re: [liberationtech] Cloud encryption
Some people think this is an elaborate troll. Not a Mac user so I can't really evaluate this and as I understand it the actual details of the iMessage implementation are not known publicly anyway. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130405/01485922590/dea-accused-leaking-misleading-info-falsely-implying-that-it-cant-read-apple-imessages.shtml Basically the claim is that Apple retains the encryption keys so that while it is true as they say in the leak that they can't get the data from the carriers even with a court order, they could get it by going to Apple. On 4/8/2013 14:31, fr...@journalistsecurity.net wrote: I imagine people here might have thoughts about this. Comes from a Texas-based, civil liberties-oriented blog. Encryption for cloud communications may best protect Fourth Amendment rights via Grits for Breakfast by Gritsforbreakfast on 4/6/13 http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2013/04/encryption-for-cloud-communications-may.html Says readwrite mobile: With government requests for personal data on the rise, there are few guarantees in place that you or I won't have our private communications snooped through. Since the Fourth Amendment hasn't yet caught up with the lightning fast pace of technological change, some of the best privacy protections are often the ones implemented by tech companies themselves. Well put. The comment comes in response to a DEA complaint that encryption on the Apple iPhone's chat services made them indecipherable, even with a warrant. Continued writer John Paul Titlow: By architecting iMessage the way it did, Apple created a messaging protocol more secure and private than standard text messages, which is how millions of people communicate every day. As we fire those texts back and forth, we're all creating a digital trail that can be snooped upon or hacked more easily than we care to think about. But if they're being and sent and received from iPhones running iOS 5 or later, those messages are invisible to wiretaps by law enforcement or other prying eyes. Apple didn't have to build iMessage with end-to-end encryption. Gmail isn't encrypted this way, nor are the Facebook messages that are increasingly used like texts on mobile devices. Clearly, SMS text messages aren't particularly well-secured either. Whether winning privacy points was its motivation or not, Apple definitely racks up a few for this. Legislation like Texas Rep. Jon Stickland's HB 3164 to require warrants to access electronic communications is one way to protect privacy for third-party facilitated communications, but a far more effective one would be if Gmail, Facebook, and other major providers encrypted user messages. Those companies may or may not have an economic incentive to do so, but they're arguably in a better position in many cases than legislatures or the courts to protect privacy and Fourth Amendment rights. Frank SmythExecutive DirectorGlobal Journalist Securityfrank@journalistsecurity.netTel. + 1 202 244 0717Cell + 1 202 352 1736Twitter: @JournoSecurityWebsite: www.journalistsecurity.netPGP Public 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 -- Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. William Pitt (1759-1806) -- 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] Cloud encryption
There you go. The same beef with Skype - encrypted communications, but Skype retains the encryption keys (assuming it works the same under Microsoft ownership), so a no-no for privacy/security-minded organizations and individuals. Best Regards | Cordiales Saludos | Grato, Andrés L. Pacheco Sanfuentes a...@acm.org +1 (817) 271-9619 On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Wayne Moore wmo...@stanford.edu wrote: Some people think this is an elaborate troll. Not a Mac user so I can't really evaluate this and as I understand it the actual details of the iMessage implementation are not known publicly anyway. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130405/01485922590/dea-accused-leaking-misleading-info-falsely-implying-that-it-cant-read-apple-imessages.shtml Basically the claim is that Apple retains the encryption keys so that while it is true as they say in the leak that they can't get the data from the carriers even with a court order, they could get it by going to Apple. On 4/8/2013 14:31, fr...@journalistsecurity.net wrote: I imagine people here might have thoughts about this. Comes from a Texas-based, civil liberties-oriented blog. Encryption for cloud communications may best protect Fourth Amendment rights via Grits for Breakfast by Gritsforbreakfast on 4/6/13 http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2013/04/encryption-for-cloud-communications-may.html Says readwrite mobile: With government requests for personal data on the rise, there are few guarantees in place that you or I won't have our private communications snooped through. Since the Fourth Amendment hasn't yet caught up with the lightning fast pace of technological change, some of the best privacy protections are often the ones implemented by tech companies themselves. Well put. The comment comes in response to a DEA complaint that encryption on the Apple iPhone's chat services made them indecipherable, even with a warrant. Continued writer John Paul Titlow: By architecting iMessage the way it did, Apple created a messaging protocol more secure and private than standard text messages, which is how millions of people communicate every day. As we fire those texts back and forth, we're all creating a digital trail that can be snooped upon or hacked more easily than we care to think about. But if they're being and sent and received from iPhones running iOS 5 or later, those messages are invisible to wiretaps by law enforcement or other prying eyes. Apple didn't have to build iMessage with end-to-end encryption. Gmail isn't encrypted this way, nor are the Facebook messages that are increasingly used like texts on mobile devices. Clearly, SMS text messages aren't particularly well-secured either. Whether winning privacy points was its motivation or not, Apple definitely racks up a few for this. Legislation like Texas Rep. Jon Stickland's HB 3164 to require warrants to access electronic communications is one way to protect privacy for third-party facilitated communications, but a far more effective one would be if Gmail, Facebook, and other major providers encrypted user messages. Those companies may or may not have an economic incentive to do so, but they're arguably in a better position in many cases than legislatures or the courts to protect privacy and Fourth Amendment rights. Frank SmythExecutive DirectorGlobal Journalist Securityfrank@journalistsecurity.netTel. + 1 202 244 0717Cell + 1 202 352 1736Twitter: @JournoSecurityWebsite: www.journalistsecurity.netPGP Public 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 -- Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. William Pitt (1759-1806) -- 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] Participatory Design Conference PDC'14 - First call for papers
Call for Papers: The 13th biennial Participatory Design Conference (PDC) in Windhoek, Namibia. 6. – 10. October 2014 www.pdc2014.org Join us in Windhoek, Namibia in 2014 to celebrate the 13th Participatory Design Conference (PDC). The conference theme of the PDC 2014 is “Reflecting connectedness”. We are currently experiencing a technologically pushed trend in ‘being always connected’. This is manifested in a number of designed artifacts, such as smart-phones, social networks, computer supported cooperative work and distributed working tools. By ‘reflecting connectedness’ in PD, we acknowledge influential relations across continents, societies, people, disciplines and time, beyond the direct involvement of stakeholders. While PD has evolved as a discipline on its own, we should continuously reflect on interrelations of theories and practices within and across the field and thereby enriching PD within a wider context. We must further engage in critical debates of what it means to design within and for a multilayered network, such as the on-line world versus off-line interactions, the blurring distinction of designers and users, researchers and artists, design and research ‘in the wild’, designing for social justice, inclusiveness, and sustainability. We invite authors to deliberate on these relations within and beyond the field of PD, which affect its conceptualization and practices all over. The 2014 PDC seeks to attract submissions from different disciplines, academics, practitioners and artists in form of tutorials, workshops, doctorial consortiums, participatory art encounters, papers, and industry cases. Important dates: Conference dates: 6. – 10. October 2014 Research Papers due: 15. January 2014 Short Papers due: 31. January 2014 Interactive workshops due: 1. March 2014 Tutorials due: 1. March 2014 Industry Cases due: 1. March 2014 Participatory Art Installations due: 1. March 2014 Doctorial Consortium due: 1. March 2014 Nomination to the Artful Integrators Award due: 1. March 2014 Notification to authors: 1. May 2014 PDC’14 invites submissions in the following categories: Research papers: (full papers - maximum 10 pages). Research papers should report on original research which advances Participatory Design (PD) and reflect on state of the art themes in our field. As a single track conference, and the only one exclusively dedicated to PD, PDC Research papers have a broad impact on the development of PD theory, approaches and practices. Research papers will be published in the ACM International Conference series. Each submitted paper will be double blind reviewed by at least 3 reviewers. Each submission will be managed by a meta-reviewer to ensure that feedback is relevant, the learning experience significant and the process fair. Please make sure your submission is correctly anonymized. Accepted papers should be revised according to the review reports and the language should be checked by a native English speaker. Short papers: (short papers – maximum 4 pages). Short papers should present original, unpublished ideas and research that advances the field of Participatory Design (PD) and reflect on its potential future developments. As discussed in parallel, thematic sessions, PDC Short Papers can benefit from a clear scope and are expected to contribute to the emergence of new possibilities for PD. Compared to Research Papers, Short Papers may offer a more limited discussion of related work, or they may, for example, provide a novel design, method or theoretical concepts, without a full evaluation or with less detailed explanation. Short Papers are reviewed to the same standard of scientific quality as Research Papers, but the contribution is more focused and clear-cut. Each submitted short paper will be double blind reviewed by at least 3 reviewers. Please make sure submissions are anonymous. Accepted papers should be revised according to the review reports and the language should be checked by a native English speaker. Interactive Workshops:(maximum 2 pages) The workshop proposal should describe half day or full day sessions on topics that include methods, practices, and other areas of interest related to Participatory Design (PD). They should support an interactive format wherein active participation is possible, beyond a presentation format. These formats could include a mapping of a problem definition, small discussion groups, etc. The proposal must be written in a format that can be used for recruitment via the web. It should justify the need for the workshop and should contain a title, goals, format, method or technique, its relevance to PD and a schedule. Intended participants and how they will be recruited should also be described. In the recruitment procedure important dates should be clearly communicated to the participants (see timing). Also, it should be clear to the organizers and the participants what the maximum amount
Re: [liberationtech] Cloud encryption
I entirely agree that the information could be accessed by targeting Apple (or, likely, Skype) to access information either retroactively or going forward. But, one thing that did strike me as potentially an issue for LEAs after reading the memo: given that communications aren't uniformly going through a single point that can ID communications (i.e. the carrier doesn't seem to know if you're using iMessage, or skype messages, or whatever) then LEAs might be in a situation of having to send requests for data to a host of communications service providers (Apple, Skype, etc). Should this be the case, then the fragmentation of what used to be 'carrier-owned' communications environment (i.e. SMS/MMS) could pose a problem. This problem is made worse for non-American LEAs, on the basis that many of the mechanisms to get Facebook, Google, or Apple to disclose information depends either on corporate quasi-judicial evaluations of court orders (e.g. is a Canadian warrant for X sufficiently close to a US warrant for us to decide to disclose data, outside of the MLAT process) or going through MLATs. This isn't an argument for centralizing communications at a single point to make things easier for LEAs. However, if carriers are presently unable to tell LEAs what communications service providers their customers are using to communicate then I can image legislative or regulatory proposals to 'resolve' this 'problem'. Specifically, such solutions could require carriers to monitor communications flows to know what their subscribers use to communicate, on the basis of potential LEA needs in the future. I imagine that such political maneuverings could/would be spun as being 'privacy protective', insofar as security officials could maintain that 'we don't want to know who you're talking to, or what you're saying, just how you're saying it'. (Note, that my musings aren't meant as endorsement of such regimes, but instead thinking through a possible implication of the 'leaked' memo for carriers and citizens in democratic Western states.) ~Chris * Christopher Parsons Doctoral Candidate Political Science, University of Victoria http://www.christopher-parsons.com ** On 9 April 2013 09:44, Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes alps6...@gmail.com wrote: There you go. The same beef with Skype - encrypted communications, but Skype retains the encryption keys (assuming it works the same under Microsoft ownership), so a no-no for privacy/security-minded organizations and individuals. Best Regards | Cordiales Saludos | Grato, Andrés L. Pacheco Sanfuentes a...@acm.org +1 (817) 271-9619 On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Wayne Moore wmo...@stanford.edu wrote: Some people think this is an elaborate troll. Not a Mac user so I can't really evaluate this and as I understand it the actual details of the iMessage implementation are not known publicly anyway. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130405/01485922590/dea-accused-leaking-misleading-info-falsely-implying-that-it-cant-read-apple-imessages.shtml Basically the claim is that Apple retains the encryption keys so that while it is true as they say in the leak that they can't get the data from the carriers even with a court order, they could get it by going to Apple. On 4/8/2013 14:31, fr...@journalistsecurity.net wrote: I imagine people here might have thoughts about this. Comes from a Texas-based, civil liberties-oriented blog. Encryption for cloud communications may best protect Fourth Amendment rights via Grits for Breakfast by Gritsforbreakfast on 4/6/13 http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2013/04/encryption-for-cloud-communications-may.html Says readwrite mobile: With government requests for personal data on the rise, there are few guarantees in place that you or I won't have our private communications snooped through. Since the Fourth Amendment hasn't yet caught up with the lightning fast pace of technological change, some of the best privacy protections are often the ones implemented by tech companies themselves. Well put. The comment comes in response to a DEA complaint that encryption on the Apple iPhone's chat services made them indecipherable, even with a warrant. Continued writer John Paul Titlow: By architecting iMessage the way it did, Apple created a messaging protocol more secure and private than standard text messages, which is how millions of people communicate every day. As we fire those texts back and forth, we're all creating a digital trail that can be snooped upon or hacked more easily than we care to think about. But if they're being and sent and received from iPhones running iOS 5 or later, those messages are invisible to wiretaps by law enforcement or other prying eyes. Apple didn't have to build iMessage with end-to-end encryption. Gmail isn't encrypted this way, nor are the Facebook messages that are increasingly used
[liberationtech] Securing Cyberspace in a World Without Borders - 4/11 - 4/12 at Stanford Law School
Just a reminder... Symposium: The Virtual Battlefield: Securing Cyberspace in a World Without Borders April 11, 2013 - April 12, 2013 at Stanford Law School, Crown Quadrangle http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjil/virtual-battlefield.fb For tech-savvy Silicon Valley, there is nothing more important than a free and open Internet. Yet recent reports of cyberattacks against top-tier enterprises demonstrate a need for increased vigilance in defending the networks that launched the Digital Age. The *Stanford Journal of International Law’s*http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjil/2013 Symposium, The Virtual Battlefieldhttps://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=439395212803674set=a.439395192803676.1073741825.295517640524766type=1theater: Securing Cyberspace in a World Without Borders, is an invitation for some of the foremost experts in business, law, and technology to share insights about global cyberthreats and cybersecurity. The symposium will begin on Thursday, April 11th with a keynote address by Dr. Hamadoun Touré, who presided over December’s controversial World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT). On Friday, April 12th, the symposium will continue with panels focusing on the nature of the cyberthreat, private actors’ role in policing the Internet, and the potential for multilateral treaties to resolve cybersecurity issues. Thursday's session will begin at 6:00 PM in *Stanford Law School Room 290, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, CA 94305*https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=enclient=firefox-aq=559+Nathan+Abbott+Way,+Stanford,+CA+94305ie=UTF-8hq=hnear=0x808fbad6a36ce4d7:0x93138cc9e8ea91a8,559+Nathan+Abbott+Way,+Stanford,+CA+94305gl=usei=H7g3UbXuNMWxywH4gYGoBwved=0CDAQ8gEwAA . Friday's session will begin at 10:00 AM in *Schwab Hall, Vidalakis Conference Room, 680 Serra Street, Stanford, CA 94305*https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8client=firefox-aq=680+Serra+Streetie=UTF-8hq=hnear=0x808fbad9c9c5cdfb:0x19f62af2eaafb598,680+Serra+St,+Stanford,+CA+94305gl=usei=cbc3UaGPBLPlyAHMv4DIBwved=0CDMQ8gEwAA . -- 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] sudo apt-get install torbrowser
Hey libtech, For the last couple months I've been working on a project called Tor Browser Launcher that I hope will eventually turn into the recommended way for GNU/Linux (and eventually Windows and Mac) users to install Tor Browser Bundle. It downloads the correct TBB for your architecture and language, verifies signatures, auto-updates, and adds an application launcher. I want to get it in deb.torproject.org, and eventually in Debian and Ubuntu. Here's the code: https://github.com/micahflee/torbrowser-launcher It's just about ready for it's first release! Here's a blog post I just wrote asking for people to test it out and submit bugs to github. Please help me test it! https://micahflee.com/2013/04/sudo-apt-get-install-torbrowser/ Since Tor Browser Launcher actually verifies gnupg sigs and auto-updates, I believe it's currently the most secure way to install TBB for regular use in GNU/Linux. -- Micah Lee https://twitter.com/micahflee -- 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] Article 19 Digital Security YouTube video
The Paris-based NGO Article 19 has put some digital security videos on YouTube that may be of interest to anyone involved or interested in training. At the very least it shows an attempt to try and meet the need for such information that has long gone unmet. Any comments or thoughts one way or another about the video and its content would be helpful as other groups including my organization begin moving in the same direction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb4Ior64IEAfeature=youtu.be Frank SmythExecutive DirectorGlobal Journalist Securityfrank@journalistsecurity.netTel. + 1 202 244 0717Cell + 1 202 352 1736Twitter: @JournoSecurityWebsite: www.journalistsecurity.netPGP Public 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] Article 19 Digital Security YouTube video
Hi Frank, Thought it might be a good time to out myself. I've been lurking a bit on the list here as I've recently subscribed. I appear in a couple of those videos, so would also be happy to hear any comments or thoughts. You can view the full videos with their interactive content here: http://www.article19.org/online-protection/ Dirk Slater Lead Consultant/Founder Fabriders www.fabriders.net twitter: fabrider skype: dirkslater On 9 Apr 2013, at 21:20, fr...@journalistsecurity.net wrote: The Paris-based NGO Article 19 has put some digital security videos on YouTube that may be of interest to anyone involved or interested in training. At the very least it shows an attempt to try and meet the need for such information that has long gone unmet. Any comments or thoughts one way or another about the video and its content would be helpful as other groups including my organization begin moving in the same direction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb4Ior64IEAfeature=youtu.be Frank SmythExecutive DirectorGlobal Journalist Securityfrank@journalistsecurity.netTel. + 1 202 244 0717Cell + 1 202 352 1736Twitter: @JournoSecurityWebsite: www.journalistsecurity.netPGP Public 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 -- 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] Article 19 Digital Security YouTube video
Pleasure to meet you, Dirk. I think the videos are a good idea, and an effective way to introduce basic and more elaborate concepts and some basic training. There may well different opinions on this list, of course. And I do hope they weigh in to help us improve guidance and training. But one way or another we need to find ways like you and Article 19 are doing to make digital security more accessible. So thank you for beginning the effort. See you in San Jose for the UNESCO conference around WPFD, if you will be there, as I hope you are. Frank Frank SmythExecutive DirectorGlobal Journalist Securityfrank@journalistsecurity.netTel. + 1 202 244 0717Cell + 1 202 352 1736Twitter: @JournoSecurityWebsite: www.journalistsecurity.netPGP Public Key Original Message Subject: Re: [liberationtech] Article 19 Digital Security YouTube video From: Dirk Slater d...@fabriders.net Date: Tue, April 09, 2013 5:19 pm To: liberationtech liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Cc: liberationtech liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Hi Frank, Thought it might be a good time to out myself. I've been lurking a bit on the list here as I've recently subscribed. I appear in a couple of those videos, so would also be happy to hear any comments or thoughts. You can view the full videos with their interactive content here: http://www.article19.org/online-protection/ Dirk Slater Lead Consultant/Founder Fabriders www.fabriders.net twitter: fabrider skype: dirkslater On 9 Apr 2013, at 21:20, fr...@journalistsecurity.net wrote: The Paris-based NGO Article 19 has put some digital security videos on YouTube that may be of interest to anyone involved or interested in training. At the very least it shows an attempt to try and meet the need for such information that has long gone unmet. Any comments or thoughts one way or another about the video and its content would be helpful as other groups including my organization begin moving in the same direction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb4Ior64IEAfeature=youtu.be Frank SmythExecutive DirectorGlobal Journalist Securityfrank@journalistsecurity.netTel. + 1 202 244 0717Cell + 1 202 352 1736Twitter: @JournoSecurityWebsite: www.journalistsecurity.netPGP Public 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/liberationtechhr-- 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
