Helge Rohde wrote:
cut coercive detention
Yes that's true but look on the bright side as long as you don't
cooperate you're still not convicted, though you may still be rotting in
a cell. The legal hook in this case is that they argue that they have
strong suspicion on evidence present in the
On 2007-03-09 02:28, Helge Rohde wrote:
On Friday 09 March 2007 00:57, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
Helge Rohde wrote:
cut
Which is precisly why i always envyid that windoze partition encryption
thingy, cant remember the name now, but it provides 2 keys, one will open
the (actual) container and
On 3/9/07, Helge Rohde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which is precisly why i always envyid that windoze partition encryption
thingy, cant remember the name now, but it provides 2 keys, one will open the
(actual) container and another one will open another encrypted container with
all legal and
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 01:28:10AM +, Helge Rohde wrote:
Yeah, i would have thought so too. But apparently they do bend their rules
when the see the need, atleast in Germany they *can* put you into jail until
you tell them the passphrase and i have heard similar from other european
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 01:28:10AM +, Helge Rohde wrote:
Yeah, i would have thought so too. But apparently they do bend their rules
when the see the need, atleast in Germany they *can* put you into jail until
you tell them the passphrase and i have heard similar
Am 09.03.2007 um (09) 02:28 schrieb Helge Rohde:
(...)
countries. I believe the reasoning goes along the lines of: they
have an
urgent suspicion that there is evidence against you (the encrypted
partition ), so they can put you into 'Beugehaft' (= coercive
detention)
As I understand it,
On Friday 09 March 2007 17:54, Clemens Hintze wrote:
countries. I believe the reasoning goes along the lines of: they
have an
urgent suspicion that there is evidence against you (the encrypted
partition ), so they can put you into 'Beugehaft' (= coercive
detention)
As I understand it,
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 19:53, Dmitri Nikulin wrote:
All of this is entirely possible. So either you encrypt something and
accidentally reveal the key through normal use or OS compromise, or
you hide the key perfectly and are charged with destruction of
evidence, which is no picnic.
Helge Rohde wrote:
cut
Which is precisly why i always envyid that windoze partition encryption
thingy, cant remember the name now, but it provides 2 keys, one will open the
(actual) container and another one will open another encrypted container with
all legal and perfectly harmless files.
On Friday 09 March 2007 00:57, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
Helge Rohde wrote:
cut
Which is precisly why i always envyid that windoze partition encryption
thingy, cant remember the name now, but it provides 2 keys, one will open
the (actual) container and another one will open another
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 06:45:27AM +1100, Dmitri Nikulin wrote:
And if you've upset the government enough that a warrant is issued,
any amount of their impressive technology will completely side-step
the cryptography anyway - e.g. tempest emissions or a surprise seizure
of belongings.
Sorry,
On 3/7/07, Joerg Sonnenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, but this is complete bull shit. The average policy agency
*anywhere* does have no fucking chance to deal with cryptography. Even
the secret services have no chance dealing with it from the stored data
alone. It is somewhat different
cut
And always remember it's easier to create fake evidence that hold up in
any court then it's to brute force a cipher text.
I think the key is that you just don't do the things that makes
government officials creative, they hate to be creative ;-)
--
mph
Snip/
: I'm guessing you're serious, so I'll mention why this is a risky idea.
: IRC has chewing-gum authentication and it's almost trivial for a
: malicious bot to fool a server into ignoring people by pretending to
: be them, and this can be done in many points*. Basically, the entire
: utility
Snip
: I recommend using Twisted Python as a framework, which gives you an
: IRC protocol client out of the box, good efficiency, and very neat
: daemon behavior (using twistd, for instance).
Snip/
I will take your suggestion about Twisted and look into a rewrite. Thanks
for pointing it out.
:
On Mon, March 5, 2007 8:16 am, Adrian Michael Nida wrote:
Snip/
: I'm guessing you're serious, so I'll mention why this is a risky idea.
: IRC has chewing-gum authentication and it's almost trivial for a
: malicious bot to fool a server into ignoring people by pretending to
: be them, and
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 08:16:04AM -0500, Adrian Michael Nida wrote:
Snip/
: I'm guessing you're serious, so I'll mention why this is a risky idea.
: IRC has chewing-gum authentication and it's almost trivial for a
: malicious bot to fool a server into ignoring people by pretending to
: be
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 11:27:55AM -0500, Peter Avalos wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 08:16:04AM -0500, Adrian Michael Nida wrote:
Snip/
: I'm guessing you're serious, so I'll mention why this is a risky idea.
: IRC has chewing-gum authentication and it's almost trivial for a
: malicious
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:50:23AM +, B. Estrade wrote:
To be honest, I was halfway serious. I generally don't hide my
identity when on irc because I don't go on to just 'hang out', but I
do like to monitor the #dragonflybsd channel.
You know that most IRC users also log the channels
:When I read the original message I thought it was a joke. Now that we're
:getting serious, could we please stop? The idea of obscuring an IRC log
:is preposterous. IRC isn't authenticated, and the log is only going to
:show nicknames. What the point of obscurity? My vote is just leave it
:as
Yah, it's pretty silly. People have been logging IRC sessions and
putting them up on the web for over a decade. Nobody should have
any expectation of privacy on IRC.
I thought even the default(?) install of irssi logs all the channels
you join so I just checked and my machine has
Here it is as it has some stuff from before the bot started recording,
it goes back to Dec 20, 2006:
On second thought I think it was irresponsible to post this
without asking permission as it logs things that happened
back before the issue of logging was raised(?), and to be
courteous to those
@crater.dragonflybsd.org
: Subject: Re: wiki log of #dragonfly irc channel
:
: Here it is as it has some stuff from before the bot started
: recording,
: it goes back to Dec 20, 2006:
:
: On second thought I think it was irresponsible to post this
: without asking permission as it logs things
Now, I'm happy to add whatever changes need to be done. When a consensus is
reached, I'll do it.
I think the last irc log had last 1000 lines or something like that. Maybe
just keep a short time period like last 12 hours or last 1000 lines.
On 3/6/07, Matthew Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yah, it's pretty silly. People have been logging IRC sessions and
putting them up on the web for over a decade. Nobody should have
any expectation of privacy on IRC.
Some organizations in many nations have been logging everything
On 3/6/07, Adrian Michael Nida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just curious what's not beautiful about it? I appreciate the criticism, but
it would be more beneficial for me to hear what it needs to look like,
rather than hearing it's ugly :-)
Feel free to reply to me directly, if you wish.
It's
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 06:57:13AM +1100, Dmitri Nikulin wrote:
...
Still, the code is so short and simple all of this could be fixed in
less time than it took to write this email. But it's something you'll
have to get used to doing yourself, because you will soon love Python
and be unable to
On 3/3/07, Adrian Michael Nida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is only my second python program, so it could probably use some work.
Some features I'd like to add are:
* Reconnect after disconnect
* Ability to fork into server mode so I can write startup/shutdown scripts
If any phython hackers
On 3/4/07, B. Estrade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nice one. Just realize that most people don't mind the last 100-1000
lines of chatting up so that others can catch up, but providing 24/7
logging of a channel is a bit unnerving ... to me anyway. Maybe you
can either only do the last few hundred
I tried my hand at some python the other day and pieced together an IRC
logging bot. I placed it within the channel last night, and it's keeping
the logs under:
http://www.labthug.com/~adrian/LabBot/dragonflybsd/
In /MM/DD.html format
This is only my second python program, so it could
:It was coming from Andreas Hauser's IRC bot, which he has taken out of
:commission. We're moving the wiki to sit on leaf, and a new logging bot
:would have to sit on leaf to reinstate that log there. I have no
:experience in setting up something like that. (It's Matt's call if he
:even wants
Hi
I was very interested in the above but it seems to have been withdrawn
from service. Is this a temporary disruption or not? Being on dialup
it is not feasible for me to lurk live.
TIA
-jr
On Sun, February 25, 2007 8:28 am, Ja'far Railton wrote:
Hi
I was very interested in the above but it seems to have been withdrawn
from service. Is this a temporary disruption or not? Being on dialup
it is not feasible for me to lurk live.
It was coming from Andreas Hauser's IRC bot, which
33 matches
Mail list logo
