Just remember: They're not making blacklists. The politically-neutral technical term is BLOCKlist.
QuoteThe Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, recently introduced in the U.S. Senate, would potentially force Internet providers, domain name registrars (companies that register domain names) and domain name registries (organizations that maintain the domain name database) to block access to specified domain names.
This domain name block list – already being dubbed the Great Firewall of America – would be created through a censorship court order obtained by the U.S. Attorney General. The court order could be used to shut down a site located within the U.S. or to order Internet providers to block access to the domain name if the site resides outside the country.
Moreover, the Department of Justice could identify additional domain names that are "dedicated to infringing activities." Despite the absence of any court oversight, this second list would also likely involve blocked domains since Internet providers would be immune from liability provided they curtail access to them.
This notably targets websites located anywhere in the world, since any domain – wherever located – may placed on the list. In fact, since the core of the domain name system resides in the U.S., it is possible that the site could be blocked at a global level if it was removed or rendered inaccessible from the "master" domain name database.
more at this heah link (http://www.thestar.com/article/865576--geist-u-s-uses-domain-names-as-new-way-to-regulate-the-net). Apologies if it's already been posted.
LAND OF THE FREE! :lulz:
Rhizome, don't you wish YOU lived in America™, instead of Red Canada?
:sad:
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 27, 2010, 08:12:28 PM
:sad:
Hey, they're protecting you from badwrong ideas.
Some people have no gratitude.
wtf....
i saw this and thought, 'Oh that's some cockamamy shit that wont get any support....' so i look on govtrack to confirm, and this shit already has 14 cosponsors?!
:argh!:
hopefully wont make it anywhere near leaving committee...
Introduced by:
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT]
Cosponsors:
Evan Bayh [D-IN]
Benjamin Cardin [D-MD]
Thomas Coburn [R-OK]
Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
Lindsey Graham [R-SC]
Charles Grassley [R-IA]
Orrin Hatch [R-UT]
Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Herbert Kohl [D-WI]
Charles Schumer [D-NY]
Arlen Specter [D-PA]
George Voinovich [R-OH]
Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]
OHHH this gives a totally creepy and morbid twist to a Tori Amos song:
Quote from: China
China all the way to New York
I can feel the distance getting close
You're right next to me
but I need an airplane
I can feel the distance as you breathe
Sometimes I think you want me to touch you
How can I when you build the Great Wall around you
In your eyes I saw a future together
But you just look away in the distance
China decorates our table
Funny how the cracks don't seem to show
Pour the wine dear
You say we'll take a holiday
But we never can agree on where to go
Sometimes I think you want to me to touch you
But how can I when you build the Great Wall around you
In your eyes I saw a future together
But you just look away in the distance
China all the way to New York
Maybe you got lost in Mexico
You're right next to me
I think that you can hear me
Funny how the distance learns to grow
Sometimes I think you want me to touch you
But how can I when you build the Great Wall around you
I can feel the distance getting close
Can you feel the distance getting close?
:crankey:
I was expecting something like this, it's inevitable. But I didn't expect it so soon.
Goddamned pigfuckers.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Voinivich, we hardly knew ya! Siding with Hatch? Oh, my! :lulz:
My guess is, it sails through committee gathering riders like barnacles, and will be opposed by Russ Feingold and the ghost of William Howard Taft, and nobody else.
And nobody will do much of anything to stop it. Americans simply don't have the concern or the intestinal fortitude to do a fucking thing the government doesn't allow.
Quote from: Iptuous on September 27, 2010, 08:15:52 PM
wtf....
i saw this and thought, 'Oh that's some cockamamy shit that wont get any support....' so i look on govtrack to confirm, and this shit already has 14 cosponsors?!
:argh!:
hopefully wont make it anywhere near leaving committee...
Introduced by:
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT]
Cosponsors:
Evan Bayh [D-IN]
Benjamin Cardin [D-MD]
Thomas Coburn [R-OK]
Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
Lindsey Graham [R-SC]
Charles Grassley [R-IA]
Orrin Hatch [R-UT]
Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Herbert Kohl [D-WI]
Charles Schumer [D-NY]
Arlen Specter [D-PA]
George Voinovich [R-OH]
Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]
I blame Obama for this, all his hand-wringing and bellyaching about bi-partisanship. This is a perfect example of why it isn't all it's cracked up to be. If the only time they're going to get along is when they're doing crap like this, I say, bring on the gridlock!
This is their answer to the oh-no threat of internet terrorism? Always and forever it's the curtailing of freedom, rather than education. Fuckers. Fucking Feinstein.
Ugh.
You people are so ungrateful. :lulz:
Anyone know if using a proxy outside of the US would get around this?
I suppose Chuck Grassley is just trying to protect us from the cyber-Death Panels that wanna invade the hospitals and pull the plug on Grandma.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 27, 2010, 08:30:35 PM
I suppose Chuck Grassley is just trying to protect us from the cyber-Death Panels that wanna invade the hospitals and pull the plug on Grandma.
And Dick Durbin did it so nobody would yell at him. :lulz:
Leahy's a real surprise, especially the fact that he's the author.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 27, 2010, 08:09:25 PM
Rhizome, don't you wish YOU lived in America™, instead of Red Canada?
They won't let me in unless I learn to say "Wouldn't you like to see a picture of me holding an AK47?" with a straight face. :sad:
But if this goes through, it won't matter where you are (from what I understood in the Geist article). The U.S. blocks it -- it's blocked everywhere... But that's just for some domain names.
Still getting my head around this, honestly. Trying to figure out how it'd be any different from Tunisia, Saudi Arabia (etcetcetc). Sure, we can guess how it'll be *spun* differently, but how it'll be different in practice? No idea. Morbidly wondering what the block page might look like... who already has the contract...
Quote from: Agent Rhizome on September 27, 2010, 08:41:42 PM
But if this goes through, it won't matter where you are (from what I understood in the Geist article). The U.S. blocks it -- it's blocked everywhere... But that's just for some domain names.
Well, yes. It's our interbutts, if you want to talk with economic terrorists, you'll have to make your own.
Quote from: Agent Rhizome on September 27, 2010, 08:41:42 PM
Still getting my head around this, honestly. Trying to figure out how it'd be any different from Tunisia, Saudi Arabia (etcetcetc).
Because we're censoring it for Freedom™, and they're doing it because they're tyrants.
I fail to see how this is so hard to understand.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 27, 2010, 08:29:52 PM
Anyone know if using a proxy outside of the US would get around this?
I'm sure within 30 seconds of this going up there will be alternate DNS servers that ignore the law, no need for a fullblown proxy.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 27, 2010, 08:18:33 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Voinivich, we hardly knew ya! Siding with Hatch? Oh, my! :lulz:
My guess is, it sails through committee gathering riders like barnacles, and will be opposed by Russ Feingold and the ghost of William Howard Taft, and nobody else.
And nobody will do much of anything to stop it. Americans simply don't have the concern or the intestinal fortitude to do a fucking thing the government doesn't allow.
Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul will probably chip in and similarly be ignored.
Anyway I'm sure the AG will never abuse this power by, say, domain name blocking Al-Jazeera or Wikileaks.
Quote from: Cain on September 27, 2010, 08:48:42 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 27, 2010, 08:18:33 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Voinivich, we hardly knew ya! Siding with Hatch? Oh, my! :lulz:
My guess is, it sails through committee gathering riders like barnacles, and will be opposed by Russ Feingold and the ghost of William Howard Taft, and nobody else.
And nobody will do much of anything to stop it. Americans simply don't have the concern or the intestinal fortitude to do a fucking thing the government doesn't allow.
Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul will probably chip in and similarly be ignored.
Anyway I'm sure the AG will never abuse this power by, say, domain name blocked Al-Jazeera or Wikileaks.
I think the internet is going to shrink like a democrat's enthusiasm, day fucking one.
At this stage, I'm not holding out much hope, unless the root servers get turned over to ACLU and Amnesty International or something, of the internet being even remotely free by 2030.
This really blows.
Quote from: Cain on September 27, 2010, 08:52:28 PM
At this stage, I'm not holding out much hope, unless the root servers get turned over to ACLU and Amnesty International or something, of the internet being even remotely free by 2030.
Well, we'll have to hope for a rag-tag rebel alliance to save us, then, won't we?
J/K. :lulz: By 2015, there'll be nothing but bad pron and ads for pills. You will be required to watch both.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 27, 2010, 08:48:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 27, 2010, 08:29:52 PM
Anyone know if using a proxy outside of the US would get around this?
I'm sure within 30 seconds of this going up there will be alternate DNS servers that ignore the law, no need for a fullblown proxy.
that's what I wonder.
In my science fiction future, you'll have the internet, which is closely regulated and monitored.
and if you have a friend who can give you an access key, you can also get on one of the darknets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet), where all the piracy, gambling, and weird porn takes place.
I mean, the technology that the internet uses is actually pretty simple. I always wonder why we don't just build a second parallel system which is not technically "The Internet" and thereby dodges the legislation and regulation.
I wonder if there'll be reward money for turning in people using proxies or running anonymous servers.
I want to do my part to keep America safe.
Its just a small step from regulating the Internet to regulating the Darknets isnt it?
After all, telecommunications are stricly legislated - you cant just go and make a radio station, theres tons of permits and stuff that have to be approved right?
Besides Wikileaks, which other sites do you all think will be the first to go?
I think Cram, when we discussed this before, it was decided the main barrier to a parallel internet would be the cost of the physical infrastructure, which would be necessary to ensure a free internet.
I can see many, many groups being interested in such a project, however they'd have to devote years of their full operating budgets to such a project. It might be possible to get some philantrophists behind the project as well, but it'd be a hard slog.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 27, 2010, 08:58:38 PM
Its just a small step from regulating the Internet to regulating the Darknets isnt it?
After all, telecommunications are stricly legislated - you cant just go and make a radio station, theres tons of permits and stuff that have to be approved right?
Besides Wikileaks, which other sites do you all think will be the first to go?
Al-Jazeera
Cryptome
Any site owned by the Russian Business Network
The entire ir.gov subdomain.
Quote from: Cain on September 27, 2010, 09:00:53 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 27, 2010, 08:58:38 PM
Its just a small step from regulating the Internet to regulating the Darknets isnt it?
After all, telecommunications are stricly legislated - you cant just go and make a radio station, theres tons of permits and stuff that have to be approved right?
Besides Wikileaks, which other sites do you all think will be the first to go?
Al-Jazeera
Cryptome
Any site owned by the Russian Business Network
The entire ir.gov subdomain.
ACLU.org
Wikileaks
Amnesty.com
ThePirateBay.org
Wikileaks
Certain sections of Wikipedia
thewhitehouse.com is doomed. :lulz:
Something to consider, other nations have been really pissy about the US controlling the master DNS servers up to now, the US has always made the excuse that the US doesn't censor the internet. If they start doing this it'll renew the debate on who should control those.
Quote from: Cain on September 27, 2010, 08:59:20 PM
I think Cram, when we discussed this before, it was decided the main barrier to a parallel internet would be the cost of the physical infrastructure, which would be necessary to ensure a free internet.
I can see many, many groups being interested in such a project, however they'd have to devote years of their full operating budgets to such a project. It might be possible to get some philantrophists behind the project as well, but it'd be a hard slog.
If the best they can come up with is censoring the DNS servers, a darknet should be pretty easy, you just need some kind of peer to peer DNS service that gets triggered whenever a DNS query comes up blank, or possibly with its own extension (.darknet or the like) no new wires are necessary, and there are no servers to shut down.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 27, 2010, 08:29:52 PM
Anyone know if using a proxy outside of the US would get around this?
If the site is hosted within the US, then the site owner is going to be forced to relocate or shut down, and no amount of proxying will save you. If you're physically within the US, an encrypted proxy will theoretically make it impossible to block your requests specifically, but there's a bunch of
really cool research coming out on how to get information about net traffic without actually reading the packets. For example, there's a new routing program out that can tell the difference between "good" high bandwith use (like streaming video) and "bad" network use (like p2p services) based on things like whether you're uploading and downloading at the same time, or talking to an unusual number of computers at once.
Just....before we all get our panties in a knot....
Are there ANY Democrats anywhere supporting this? Is there even a majority of ANYONE supporting this?
Cuz, remember, we have a Democrat President, a Democratic Congress, and roughly 3 Million AMURRIKANZ who just LOVE their interwebz. All of which _should_ be voting personal freedom over The Abominable Patriot Act.
Call me crazy but I think this is one conspiracy that won't pan out any time soon.
Quote from: The Great Pope of OUTSIDE on September 28, 2010, 04:58:17 AM
Just....before we all get our panties in a knot....
Are there ANY Democrats anywhere supporting this? Is there even a majority of ANYONE supporting this?
Cuz, remember, we have a Democrat President, a Democratic Congress, and roughly 3 Million AMURRIKANZ who just LOVE their interwebz. All of which _should_ be voting personal freedom over The Abominable Patriot Act.
Call me crazy but I think this is one conspiracy that won't pan out any time soon.
They're so cute when they're naive.
Protip: Over half of the bill's sponsors are Democrats. And the Democratic President you mentioned is too busy ordering the unilateral assassination of his own citizens (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/sep2010/awla-s27.shtml) to worry about little details like this bill.
Quote from: The Great Pope of OUTSIDE on September 28, 2010, 04:58:17 AM
Just....before we all get our panties in a knot....
Are there ANY Democrats anywhere supporting this? Is there even a majority of ANYONE supporting this?
Cuz, remember, we have a Democrat President, a Democratic Congress, and roughly 3 Million AMURRIKANZ who just LOVE their interwebz. All of which _should_ be voting personal freedom over The Abominable Patriot Act.
Call me crazy but I think this is one conspiracy that won't pan out any time soon.
Quote
Introduced by:
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT]
Cosponsors:
Evan Bayh [D-IN]
Benjamin Cardin [D-MD]
Thomas Coburn [R-OK]
Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
Lindsey Graham [R-SC]
Charles Grassley [R-IA]
Orrin Hatch [R-UT]
Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Herbert Kohl [D-WI]
Charles Schumer [D-NY]
Arlen Specter [D-PA]
George Voinovich [R-OH]
Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]
Crazy.
Gotta love it when both parties work together. :lulz:
So very not surprised to see Hatch on that list.
BIPARTISANSHIP PRODUCES THE BEST RESULTS FOR OUR COUNTRY
\
:nigel:
Well well well.
It was bound to happen eventually. :horrormirth:
Wonder if google will pull out of the american market too :lulz:
Quote from: Vartox on September 28, 2010, 05:26:15 AM
Quote from: The Great Pope of OUTSIDE on September 28, 2010, 04:58:17 AM
Just....before we all get our panties in a knot....
Are there ANY Democrats anywhere supporting this? Is there even a majority of ANYONE supporting this?
Cuz, remember, we have a Democrat President, a Democratic Congress, and roughly 3 Million AMURRIKANZ who just LOVE their interwebz. All of which _should_ be voting personal freedom over The Abominable Patriot Act.
Call me crazy but I think this is one conspiracy that won't pan out any time soon.
Quote
Introduced by:
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT]
Cosponsors:
Evan Bayh [D-IN]
Benjamin Cardin [D-MD]
Thomas Coburn [R-OK]
Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
Lindsey Graham [R-SC]
Charles Grassley [R-IA]
Orrin Hatch [R-UT]
Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Herbert Kohl [D-WI]
Charles Schumer [D-NY]
Arlen Specter [D-PA]
George Voinovich [R-OH]
Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]
Crazy.
YOU MAY BEGIN KNOTTING PANTIES NOW.
Quote from: Cain on September 27, 2010, 08:59:20 PM
I think Cram, when we discussed this before, it was decided the main barrier to a parallel internet would be the cost of the physical infrastructure, which would be necessary to ensure a free internet.
I can see many, many groups being interested in such a project, however they'd have to devote years of their full operating budgets to such a project. It might be possible to get some philantrophists behind the project as well, but it'd be a hard slog.
I don't entirely agree with the outcome of the discussion before, though :)
First, in this particular case, it's the government that wants to limit the Internet, but the ISPs own the infrastructure.
Second, it's entirely possible to run this parallel Internet on the existing infrastructure, even
inside the current Internet. And that's what many projects already are doing (such as Freenet, and in some sense, even Tor).
Third, but this is more like a pipe-dream, with all the ubiquitous wireless these days, consumer appliances (wireless routers, mobile devices, even laptops) can become the infrastructure itself, in a peer-to-peer manner. Of course you won't have the performance of glass-fibre, but it is my opinion that you can get by with much less bandwidth than we generally have available anyway (in the sense that we didn't use to have this kind of bandwidth, and IMO the success of the Internet comes from everybody using it, not the fact that bandwidth has been steadily increasing over the years).
Also, this censorship can't possibly block everything (email, encryption, etc) so if necessary you can use the "real" Internet to get data across to places that aren't in direct wireless connection.
The bigger danger is that even with a darknet, only people on the darknet will have access. That limits the reach of a place like wikileaks.
Of course, the Streisand effect make also prove dominant, and every time they try to shut something down it'll be duplicated and redistributed with a vengeance.
Another thing about the darknet is that it would really only appeal to the worst scum of the internet now, trolls, hijackers, and the worst sort of perverts.
Free information like what we have here would be nigh non-existent.
And don't even get me started on revisionist history.... :/
Damn.
Quote from: The Great Pope of OUTSIDE on September 29, 2010, 01:58:18 AM
Another thing about the darknet is that it would really only appeal to the worst scum of the internet now, trolls, hijackers, and the worst sort of perverts.
Free information like what we have here would be nigh non-existent.
And don't even get me started on revisionist history.... :/
Damn.
Uh... :lulz:
Yeah. Dunno how to break it to you but...
:p Thanks. Nice to know just who exactly I'm surrounded by here. :lol:
I was actually referring more to those on 4Chan
Most of that place is pretty okay, if you're interested in the non /b/ areas. I get all my best wallpapers from there.
All I've heard is that the people on there are the sort that will find you, stalk you, and rape you in your sleep, sooooooo I just tend to stay away. :/
The majority of them just like funny things, even if their idea of funny is dead cats and repetetive absurdism. There are some dirtbags, naturally.
Just not my idea of funny then. :/
Some boards are better than others. /tg/ has been kinda amusing (though I've only been hanging out there a couple weeks, so maybe I just haven't noticed the endless repetition yet).
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 29, 2010, 07:31:16 AM
Some boards are better than others. /tg/ has been kinda amusing (though I've only been hanging out there a couple weeks, so maybe I just haven't noticed the endless repetition yet).
I drift in and out of /tg/. There's repetition, yeah, but there's also new stuff coming out periodically. Updates on various people' homebrews, neat game logs, etc. to keep it interesting.
Quote from: Remington on September 28, 2010, 05:17:59 AM
Quote from: The Great Pope of OUTSIDE on September 28, 2010, 04:58:17 AM
Just....before we all get our panties in a knot....
Are there ANY Democrats anywhere supporting this? Is there even a majority of ANYONE supporting this?
Cuz, remember, we have a Democrat President, a Democratic Congress, and roughly 3 Million AMURRIKANZ who just LOVE their interwebz. All of which _should_ be voting personal freedom over The Abominable Patriot Act.
Call me crazy but I think this is one conspiracy that won't pan out any time soon.
They're so cute when they're naive.
Protip: Over half of the bill's sponsors are Democrats. And the Democratic President you mentioned is too busy ordering the unilateral assassination of his own citizens (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/sep2010/awla-s27.shtml) to worry about little details like this bill.
Fucking hell
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 29, 2010, 06:37:39 PM
Quote from: Remington on September 28, 2010, 05:17:59 AM
Quote from: The Great Pope of OUTSIDE on September 28, 2010, 04:58:17 AM
Just....before we all get our panties in a knot....
Are there ANY Democrats anywhere supporting this? Is there even a majority of ANYONE supporting this?
Cuz, remember, we have a Democrat President, a Democratic Congress, and roughly 3 Million AMURRIKANZ who just LOVE their interwebz. All of which _should_ be voting personal freedom over The Abominable Patriot Act.
Call me crazy but I think this is one conspiracy that won't pan out any time soon.
They're so cute when they're naive.
Protip: Over half of the bill's sponsors are Democrats. And the Democratic President you mentioned is too busy ordering the unilateral assassination of his own citizens (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/sep2010/awla-s27.shtml) to worry about little details like this bill.
Fucking hell
CHANGE! :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 29, 2010, 06:38:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on September 29, 2010, 06:37:39 PM
Quote from: Remington on September 28, 2010, 05:17:59 AM
Quote from: The Great Pope of OUTSIDE on September 28, 2010, 04:58:17 AM
Just....before we all get our panties in a knot....
Are there ANY Democrats anywhere supporting this? Is there even a majority of ANYONE supporting this?
Cuz, remember, we have a Democrat President, a Democratic Congress, and roughly 3 Million AMURRIKANZ who just LOVE their interwebz. All of which _should_ be voting personal freedom over The Abominable Patriot Act.
Call me crazy but I think this is one conspiracy that won't pan out any time soon.
They're so cute when they're naive.
Protip: Over half of the bill's sponsors are Democrats. And the Democratic President you mentioned is too busy ordering the unilateral assassination of his own citizens (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/sep2010/awla-s27.shtml) to worry about little details like this bill.
Fucking hell
CHANGE! :lulz:
Because
WE NEED it!
NO FUCKING KIDDING
Quote from: The Great Pope of OUTSIDE on September 29, 2010, 01:58:18 AM
Another thing about the darknet is that it would really only appeal to the worst scum of the internet now, trolls, hijackers, and the worst sort of perverts.
Free information like what we have here would be nigh non-existent.
And don't even get me started on revisionist history.... :/
Damn.
That will change with government control of the intertubes.
Fuck, now Im going to have to learn how to use Tor.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on September 30, 2010, 04:24:40 AM
Quote from: The Great Pope of OUTSIDE on September 29, 2010, 01:58:18 AM
Another thing about the darknet is that it would really only appeal to the worst scum of the internet now, trolls, hijackers, and the worst sort of perverts.
Free information like what we have here would be nigh non-existent.
And don't even get me started on revisionist history.... :/
Damn.
That will change with government control of the intertubes.
Oh, boy, here we go. Sermon time.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on September 30, 2010, 04:28:29 AM
Fuck, now Im going to have to learn how to use Tor.
Tor is like trying to squeeze molasses through a damned coffee filter.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 05:02:43 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on September 30, 2010, 04:24:40 AM
Quote from: The Great Pope of OUTSIDE on September 29, 2010, 01:58:18 AM
Another thing about the darknet is that it would really only appeal to the worst scum of the internet now, trolls, hijackers, and the worst sort of perverts.
Free information like what we have here would be nigh non-existent.
And don't even get me started on revisionist history.... :/
Damn.
That will change with government control of the intertubes.
Oh, boy, here we go. Sermon time.
Sorry to disappoint. I'm actually not that knowledgeable on proxies, darknets, and pseudonymous surfing.
000 or Enki could almost undoubtedly offer a better sermon.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on September 30, 2010, 04:28:29 AM
Fuck, now Im going to have to learn how to use Tor.
There's no need for Tor, the government is only trying to control DNS servers (this is what turns a web address into a IP address), its *much* easier to replace your DNS server than it is to proxy your entire connection.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on September 30, 2010, 05:46:29 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 05:02:43 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on September 30, 2010, 04:24:40 AM
Quote from: The Great Pope of OUTSIDE on September 29, 2010, 01:58:18 AM
Another thing about the darknet is that it would really only appeal to the worst scum of the internet now, trolls, hijackers, and the worst sort of perverts.
Free information like what we have here would be nigh non-existent.
And don't even get me started on revisionist history.... :/
Damn.
That will change with government control of the intertubes.
Oh, boy, here we go. Sermon time.
Sorry to disappoint. I'm actually not that knowledgeable on proxies, darknets, and pseudonymous surfing.
000 or Enki could almost undoubtedly offer a better sermon.
Except I believe Dok's Sermon would be about the apathetic complacency of human monkeys and their preference of a government-controlled intertubes that at least has Perez Hilton and American Idol versus the interesting scummy and free variant.
Even though the territory is digital, I still believe he's the expert on the monkey business topic ;-)
Well, I wasn't referring to one of MY sermons, I think I've said all there is to say on the subject.
I just wince every time a Libertarian/Anarchist gets a chance to harp about the government, for the same reason I wince every time a religious nut gets a chance to harp about faith healing, or my mother calls me to tell me what she last heard on that that shitbag "Dr Oz" show.
I don't understand why everyone is surprised. United States, Goosestepping since 1969.
Just don't block MySpace and FaceBook and there will be no revolution.
Quote from: Henny Youngman on September 30, 2010, 03:44:47 PM
I don't understand why everyone is surprised. United States, Goosestepping since 1969.
I love the new name. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 30, 2010, 05:40:07 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on September 30, 2010, 03:44:47 PM
I don't understand why everyone is surprised. United States, Goosestepping since 1969.
I love the new name. :lulz:
:lulz:
I figured you would get it.
Update: U.S. senate's hearing on that COICA bill has been put off til after midterm elections. So -> stalled.
Apparently this online petition (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/open-letter) had something to do with it. Worth reading, imo. :)
QuoteWe, the undersigned, have played various parts in building a network called the Internet. We wrote and debugged the software; we defined the standards and protocols that talk over that network. Many of us invented parts of it. We're just a little proud of the social and economic benefits that our project, the Internet, has brought with it. We are writing to oppose the Committee's proposed new Internet censorship and copyright bill.
Small victory (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/victory-internet-censorship-bill-delayed), but lovely nonetheless.
i think it has more to do with the Democrats not wanting to remind the American public just how much they want to screw us over a month before the election.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 03, 2010, 05:23:46 AM
i think it has more to do with the Democrats not wanting to remind the American public just how much they want to screw us over a month before the election.
Yep. That shit comes
after.
ARRRGH THIS SHIT IS RIGGED HOW DO I FIXED AMERICAAAAA :x
It gets better:
http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2010/10/crypto-wars-obama-wants-new-law-to.html
QuoteIn a reprise of the crypto wars of the 1990s, the U.S. secret state is mounting an offensive that would force telecommunication companies to redesign their systems and information networks to more easily facilitate internet spying.
Touted as a simple technical "fix" that would "modernize" existing legislation for wiretaps, government security officials will demand that telecommunication firms and internet service providers provide law enforcement with backdoors that would enable them to bypass built-in encryption and security features of electronic communications.
With the Obama administration rivaling, even surpassing antidemocratic moves by the Bush regime to monitor and surveil the private communications of the American people, The New York Times reported last week that "federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations for the Internet."
Following closely on the heels of FBI raids on antiwar and international solidarity activists, the "change" administration now wants Congress to require all providers who enable communications "to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order."
Times' reporter Charlie Savage informs us that the administration will demand that software and communication providers build backdoors accessible to law enforcement and intelligence agencies, thus enabling spooks trolling "encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct 'peer to peer' messaging like Skype" the means "to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages."
Calling new legislative strictures a "reasonable" and "necessary" tool for law enforcement that will "prevent the erosion of their investigative powers," FBI mouthpiece, general counsel Valerie E. Caproni, told the Times, "We're talking about lawfully authorized intercepts."
Really?
Caproni's assertion that the Bureau and spy shops such as the National Security Agency are not interested in "expanding authority" but rather "preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security," is a thin tissue of lies lacking credibility.
In fact, the state's "existing authority" to spy upon private communications under the USA Patriot Act and assorted National Security- and Homeland Security Presidential Directives (NSPD/HSPD) in areas as such as "continuity of government" (NSPD 51/HSPD 20), "cybersecurity" (NSPD 54/HSPD 23) and "biometrics" (NSPD 59/HSPD 24), have led to the creation of overly broad and highly classified programs regarded as "state secrets" under Obama.
As I have written many times, most recently in August (see: "Obama Demands Access to Internet Records, in Secret, and Without Court Review," Antifascist Calling, August 12, 2010), since his 2009 inauguration President Obama has done nothing to reverse this trend. Indeed, he has taken further steps through the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI), a highly-sanitized version of NSPD 54/HSPD 23, to ensure that the "President's Surveillance Program" (PSP) launched by Bush remains a permanent feature of daily life in the United States.
In a widely circulated report last year, the inspectors general from five federal agencies, including the Justice Department, the Defense Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, noted that following advice from the Office of Legal Counsel under torture-enablers Jay Bybee and John C. Yoo, "the President authorized the NSA to undertake a number of new, highly classified intelligence activities" that went far beyond warrantless wiretapping in their scope, encompassing additional unspecified "activities" that have never been disclosed to the public.
What were once regarded by Democrats and their ever-shrinking base of acolytes, cheerleaders and toadies as unspeakable crimes when carried out by Republican knuckle-draggers, are now regarded as "forward thinking," even "visionary" policies when floated by the faux "progressive" occupying the Oval Office.
And with "homegrown terrorism" and "cybersecurity" high priorities on the administration's to-do list, White House changelings and their friends from the previous regime are pulling out all the stops.
Last week, speaking at a Washington, D.C. "Ideas Forum," former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, currently a top executive with the spooky Booz Allen Hamilton private security corp, said that cybersecurity is the "wolf at the door" and that a "large-scale" cyberattack "could impact the global economy 'an order of magnitude surpassing' the attacks of September 11," The Atlantic reported.
McConnell and former Bushist Homeland Security Adviser, Frances Fragos Townsend, the current chairwoman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA), a D.C. lobby shop catering to security and intelligence grifters, urged the Obama administration to transform "how it defends against cyberattacks," claiming that the secret state "lack(s) the organizational ability and authorization to prevent and respond to cybersecurity threats."
Their prescription? Let NSA pit bulls off the leash, of course! Townsend said that "the real capability in this government is in the National Security Agency."
True enough as far as it goes, however Townsend mendaciously asserted that NSA is legally forbidden from domestic spying, not that it prevented her former boss from standing up NSA's internal surveillance apparatus through programs such as STELLAR WIND and PINWALE, the agency's domestic email interception program.
Both Townsend and McConnell claim that the "laws haven't kept up" with the alleged threat posed by a cyberattack and urged the administration to give the NSA even more authority to operate domestically.
No mention was made by liberal interventionist-friendly Atlantic reporter Max Fisher that McConnell's firm has reaped multiyear contracts worth billions for their classified cybersecurity work for the secret state.
Hardly slouches themselves when it comes to electronic eavesdropping, the FBI is seeking to expand their already-formidable capabilities through their "Going Dark" program.
As Antifascist Calling previously reported (see: "FBI 'Going Dark.' Budget Request for High-Tech Surveillance Capabilities Soar," May 17, 2009), the Bureau sought--and received--$233.9 billion in FY 2010 for the development of a new advanced electronic surveillance program.
ABC News first disclosed the program last year, and reported that "the term 'Going Dark' does not refer to a specific capability, but is a program name for the part of the FBI, Operational Technology Division's (OTD) lawful interception program which is shared with other law enforcement agencies."
According to ABC, "the term applies to the research and development of new tools, technical support and training initiatives."
The New York Times reported last week that OTD spent $9.75 million last year "helping communications companies" develop "interception capabilities" for the Bureau.
Administration Hypocrisy
The administration's push for more control is all the more ironic considering that the U.S. State Department according to Reuters, said in August it was "disappointed" that "the United Arab Emirates planned to cut off key BlackBerry services, noting the Gulf nation was setting a dangerous precedent in limiting freedom of information."
As The Washington Post told us at the time, UAE securocrats claimed that "it will block key features on BlackBerry smartphones because the devices operate beyond the government's ability to monitor."
Citing--what else!--"national security concerns," the measure "could" be motivated "in part" by state fears that "the messaging system might be exploited by"--wait!--"terrorists or other criminals who cannot be monitored by local authorities."
That regional beacon of democracy, Saudi Arabia, said it would follow suit. In response, State Department shill P.J. Crowley said that the United States is "committed to promoting the free flow of information. We think it's integral to an innovative economy."
With a straight face, Crowley told a State Department news briefing, "It's about what we think is an important element of democracy, human rights and freedom of information and the flow of information in the 21st century."
"We think it sets a dangerous precedent," he said. "You should be opening up societies to these new technologies that have the opportunity to empower people rather than looking to see how you can restrict certain technologies."
Pointing out the Obama regime's hypocrisy, Yousef Otaiba, the UAE Ambassador to the United States counteracted and said it was Crowley's comments that were "disappointing" and that they "contradict the U.S. government's own approach to telecommunication regulation."
"Importantly," Otaiba said, "the UAE requires the same compliance as the U.S. for the very same reasons: to protect national security and to assist in law enforcement."
The BBC informed us in July that Emirate officials are concerned that the encrypted software and networks used by Research in Motion, BlackBerry's parent company, "make it difficult for governments to monitor communications."
Although this is precisely the autocratic mindset that rules the roost here in the heimat, corporate media report identical moves by the U.S. government with nary a critical word, failing to point out the disconnect between administration rhetoric and ubiquitous "facts on the ground."
Among the proposals being considered by the administration, the Times reports that officials "are coalescing" around several "likely requirements" that include the following: "Communications services that encrypt messages must have a way to unscramble them." U.S. law will apply to overseas businesses, not just domestic firms. The Times avers that "Foreign-based providers that do business inside the United States must install a domestic office capable of performing intercepts." And finally, a kiss of death for privacy rights, "Developers of software that enables peer-to-peer communication must redesign their service to allow interception."
Firms that fail to comply "would face fines or some other penalty." The Times neglected to tell us however, what penalties await software developers or individual users who have the temerity to design--or avail themselves--of systems that bypass backdoors mandated by the secret state.
An Electronic Police State
Far from being an "enhanced security feature," the administration's proposal for peer-to-peer snooping would be a boon to hackers, thieves and other miscreants who routinely breech and exploit whatever "firewall" grifting firms and their political allies devise to "keep us safe."
In fact, as computer security and privacy researchers Christopher Soghoian and Sid Stamm revealed in their paper, Certified Lies: Detecting and Defeating Government Interception Attacks Against SSL, secret state agencies have already compromised the Secure Socket Layer certification process (SSL, the tiny lock that appears during supposedly "secure," encrypted online transactions), and do so routinely.
In March, Soghoian and Stamm introduced the public to "a new attack, the compelled certificate creation attack, in which government agencies compel a certificate authority to issue false SSL certificates that are then used by intelligence agencies to covertly intercept and hijack individuals' secure Web-based communications."
The intrepid researchers provided "alarming evidence" suggesting "this attack is in active use," and that a niche security firm, Packet Forensics, is already marketing "extremely small, covert surveillance devices for networks" to government agencies.
It now appears that the Obama administration will soon be seeking legislative authority from Congress that legalizes surreptitious snooping by security officials and a coterie of outsourced contractors who grow fat subverting our privacy rights.
Commenting on the administration's proposal in a recent post, Soghoian points out that when wiretap reporting requirements were amended in 2000, similar arguments were made that strong encryption would "harm national security."
Congress inserted language that compelled secret state agencies like the FBI to "include statistics on the number of intercept orders in which encryption was encountered and whether such encryption prevented law enforcement from obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted pursuant to such order."
It didn't.
However in a replay of the crypto wars of the 1990s, FBI general counsel Caproni brushed off breech of privacy concerns and told the Times that service providers "can promise strong encryption. They just need to figure out how they can provide us plain text."
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) argued a decade ago that "compiling the statistics would be a 'far more reliable basis than anecdotal evidence on which to assess law enforcement needs and make sensible policy in this area'."
"Since then," Soghoian writes, "the Administrative Office of the US Courts has compiled an annual wiretap report, which reveals that encryption is simply not frequently encountered during wiretaps, and when it is, it never stops the government from collecting the evidence they need."
In light of statistical evidence provided by the government itself, demands that communications' providers cough-up their customers' private data to unaccountable government snoops is quintessentially a political decision, and not, as mendaciously claimed, a "law enforcement" let alone a "national security" problem.
In fact, while police and intelligence agencies "look through thousands of individuals' email communications, search engine requests or private, online photo albums each year," they don't "obtain wiretap orders to intercept that data in real time. Instead," Soghoian tells us "[they] simply wait a few minutes, and then obtain what they want after the fact as a stored communication under 18 USC 2703," the Stored Communications Act.
"Unfortunately," Soghoian avers, "while we have a pretty good idea about how many wiretaps law enforcement agencies obtain each year, we have no idea how many times they go to email, search engine and cloud computing providers to compel them to disclose their customers' communications and other private data."
Therefore, "we find ourselves in the same situation as 12 years ago, where law enforcement officials were making anecdotal claims for which no evidence existed to prove, or disprove them."
As security expert Bruce Schneier pointed out, while the "proposal may seem extreme ... it's not unique." Averring that sinister snooping laws were "formerly reserved for totalitarian countries," Schneier writes "this wholesale surveillance of citizens has moved into the democratic world as well."
Citing moves by Sweden, Canada and Britain to hand "their police new powers of internet surveillance" compelling "communications system providers to redesign products and services they sell," securocrats, as is their wont, are lusting after the capacity to transform all aspects of daily life into "actionable intelligence."
On top of this, as Schneier and others such as Cryptohippie and Quintessenz have revealed, so-called democratic states, not just usual suspects like China (whose "Golden Shield" was designed by Western firms, after all) "are passing data retention laws, forcing companies to retain customer data in case they might need to be investigated later."
In their 2010 report, The Electronic Police State, Cryptohippie informed us that data retention "is criminal evidence, ready for use in a trial, and that "it is gathered universally ('preventively') and only later organized for use in prosecutions."
How does such a system work? What are the essential characteristics that differentiate an Electronic Police State from previous forms of oppressive governance? Cryptohippie avers:
"In an Electronic Police State, every surveillance camera recording, every email sent, every Internet site surfed, every post made, every check written, every credit card swipe, every cell phone ping... are all criminal evidence, and all are held in searchable databases. The individual can be prosecuted whenever the government wishes."
As the World Socialist Web Site points out, the proposal by the Obama regime "goes far beyond anything envisioned by the Bush administration."
While the White House claims that new legislation is needed to combat "crime" and "terrorism," socialist critic Patrick Martin writes that "the Obama administration has defined 'terrorism' so widely that the term now covers a vast array of constitutionally protected forms of political opposition to the policies of the US government, including speaking, writing, political demonstrations, even the filing of legal briefs."
Just ask activists raided last month by FBI bully-boys in Minneapolis and Chicago!
The American Civil Liberties Union denounced the proposal and called on Congress to reject calls "to make the Internet wiretap ready."
ACLU Legislative Counsel Christopher Calabrese derided the move, saying: "Under the guise of a technical fix, the government looks to be taking one more step toward conducting easy dragnet collection of Americans' most private communications."
Clamping Down on the Freedom of Information Act
Entreaties by civil libertarians however, are likely to fall on deaf ears in the Democratic-controlled Congress.
In a clear sign that the Obama administration is moving to clamp down further on the free flow of information even as they seek access to all of ours', Politico reported that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) "appears to be on the verge of prevailing in an attempt to put some information it receives from other intelligence agencies beyond the reach of Freedom of Information Act requests."
National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter pushed through an onerous section to Intelligence Authorization Act legislation that exempts so-called "operational files" from four secret state agencies--the CIA, NSA, National Reconnaissance Office and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency--from FOIA requests.
Apparently the American people, long the targets of illegal driftnet spying by the intelligence and security apparatus, will soon find another door slammed shut, even as the administration claims sweeping new powers, including the right to assassinate American citizens deemed "terrorists," in secret and without due process, anywhere on the planet.
(http://i56.tinypic.com/ih61ra.png)
Its dangerous to go alone. Take this.
\
:tinfoilhat:
The more information that comes in, the more it appears to be a world wide issue, not just a US issue. I have long suspected Magic Jack, the $19.95 a year phone company to be a tad more than it appears. Now the internet is being compacted to the point where it is anything but secure.
Cell phones, any electronic device or transaction is all suspect. Soon someone is going to come out with an implant that will allow you world wide access from anywhere.
Of course, that will surely be trustworthy.
The best way to subdue a people is to first cut off free and open communication, then to cut off any 'subversive' information. We all know what that means.
I think I will look at ways to begin reducing my electronic footprint.
Aaaaand it's time for me to learn encryption and Internet security.
Quote from: Remington on October 05, 2010, 04:14:54 PM
Aaaaand it's time for me to learn encryption and Internet security.
My Spidey senses tell me it won't be enough.
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 05, 2010, 04:20:47 PM
Quote from: Remington on October 05, 2010, 04:14:54 PM
Aaaaand it's time for me to learn encryption and Internet security.
My Spidey senses tell me it won't be enough.
I just hope AES doesn't have a backdoor in it.
Logic says it does.
Quote from: Vartox on September 29, 2010, 06:06:38 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 29, 2010, 07:31:16 AM
Some boards are better than others. /tg/ has been kinda amusing (though I've only been hanging out there a couple weeks, so maybe I just haven't noticed the endless repetition yet).
I drift in and out of /tg/. There's repetition, yeah, but there's also new stuff coming out periodically. Updates on various people' homebrews, neat game logs, etc. to keep it interesting.
CK is pretty good, if you're into that kind of thing.
Quote from: Remington on October 05, 2010, 04:54:23 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 05, 2010, 04:20:47 PM
Quote from: Remington on October 05, 2010, 04:14:54 PM
Aaaaand it's time for me to learn encryption and Internet security.
My Spidey senses tell me it won't be enough.
I just hope AES doesn't have a backdoor in it.
Logic says it does.
AES is one of the most heavily scrutinized encryption schemes out there. I doubt it. Besides, it'd be far easier to sneak a backdoor into say, the keygen program Microsoft includes with windows.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 05, 2010, 06:35:16 PM
Quote from: Remington on October 05, 2010, 04:54:23 PM
Quote from: Henny Youngman on October 05, 2010, 04:20:47 PM
Quote from: Remington on October 05, 2010, 04:14:54 PM
Aaaaand it's time for me to learn encryption and Internet security.
My Spidey senses tell me it won't be enough.
I just hope AES doesn't have a backdoor in it.
Logic says it does.
AES is one of the most heavily scrutinized encryption schemes out there. I doubt it. Besides, it'd be far easier to sneak a backdoor into say, the keygen program Microsoft includes with windows.
I got my Windows from Napster about 8 years ago. I upgraded to Vista last year, but 45 minutes later, scrapped that turd of an OP, and went back to XP. In future, if it ain't broke, I'm not going to try and fix it.
Quote from: Cain on October 05, 2010, 12:40:36 PM
It gets better:
http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2010/10/crypto-wars-obama-wants-new-law-to.html
Quote<really long article that anyone who cares for these matters would do VERY good to read in its entirety (looking at Ratatosk, Requia, ENKI, TenTonMantis, FictionPuss and other tech- and privacy-savvy peeps--and anyone else, if you don't understand what things means, feel free to ask me)>p
WOW. :eek:
summarizing the hypocrisy of the first (least scary) part:
It is Right if We do it, it is Wrong if They do it because We are the Good Guys and They are the Bad Guys.
One bit after that especially stood out to me:
QuoteIn fact, as computer security and privacy researchers Christopher Soghoian and Sid Stamm revealed in their paper, Certified Lies: Detecting and Defeating Government Interception Attacks Against SSL, secret state agencies have already compromised the Secure Socket Layer certification process (SSL, the tiny lock that appears during supposedly "secure," encrypted online transactions), and do so routinely.
First I was "WTF?! How did they do that, SSL is quite secure [when applied properly], they would need to have found a ground-breaking vulnerability in RSA itself .. no way", but then:
QuoteIn March, Soghoian and Stamm introduced the public to "a new attack, the compelled certificate creation attack, in which government agencies compel a certificate authority to issue false* SSL certificates that are then used by intelligence agencies to covertly intercept and hijack individuals' secure Web-based communications."
So it's "just" Rubber-hose Cryptanalysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-hose_cryptanalysis), which is WAY WORSE because you can always figure out new and better cryptography, but if they just hit you over the head until you give up the key, it's no use.
* btw I don't think they're "false", rather the agencies have the private key and can therefore easily decrypt the communications.
QuoteThe intrepid researchers provided "alarming evidence" suggesting "this attack is in active use," and that a niche security firm, Packet Forensics, is already marketing "extremely small, covert surveillance devices for networks" to government agencies.
Quote"Since then," Soghoian writes, "the Administrative Office of the US Courts has compiled an annual wiretap report, which reveals that encryption is simply not frequently encountered during wiretaps, and when it is, it never stops the government from collecting the evidence they need."
And THIS gives me shivers for the (near) future:
QuoteIn their 2010 report, The Electronic Police State, Cryptohippie informed us that data retention "is criminal evidence, ready for use in a trial, and that "it is gathered universally ('preventively') and only later organized for use in prosecutions."
How does such a system work? What are the essential characteristics that differentiate an Electronic Police State from previous forms of oppressive governance? Cryptohippie avers:
"In an Electronic Police State, every surveillance camera recording, every email sent, every Internet site surfed, every post made, every check written, every credit card swipe, every cell phone ping... are all criminal evidence, and all are held in searchable databases. The individual can be prosecuted whenever the government wishes."
WHAT THIS MEANS is that they basically can (and will) build a database of prosecutable offences made by individuals. This database naturally will be too large to actually prosecute. Plus, they don't want to prosecute everybody cause they need to arbeit and pay taxes. But IF an individual ever becomes a "problem", they can just look up and cherry-pick an offence and prosecute you for that. And the worst is, by then there is nothing you can do about it because you did commit a crime and the prosecution has the records to show it!
I know it. They will do it, I'm sure. Because if they can do all this already (FUCK DAMN the rubber-hose cryptanalysis DAMNSHITPOOP), stuff that I thought "nahhh, that'll never happen" only a few years ago, it no longer makes sense to keep optimistic about it.
QuoteThe American Civil Liberties Union denounced the proposal and called on Congress to reject calls "to make the Internet wiretap ready."
"wiretap ready" :vom:
(and this is where I copy/paste the post to notepad for not losing it)
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 05, 2010, 01:00:36 PM(http://i56.tinypic.com/ih61ra.png)
ooh nice, I coded stuff like that too. different, but similar. problem is, who's gonna use it?
Quote from: Remington on October 05, 2010, 04:54:23 PMQuote from: Henny Youngman on October 05, 2010, 04:20:47 PMQuote from: Remington on October 05, 2010, 04:14:54 PMAaaaand it's time for me to learn encryption and Internet security.
My Spidey senses tell me it won't be enough.
I just hope AES doesn't have a backdoor in it.
Logic says it does.
No it doesn't. That's why they have to fall back to the rubber-hose cryptanalysis for SSL, and that's why they have to legislate peer-to-peer communication protocols like Skype and Blackberry to implement backdoors.
The difference is, AES is one of the (many) core building blocks of cryptography. It's been tested very extensively, and to crack it you need a mathematical revolution. You can't build a backdoor into an algorithm. There's testing suites widely available: encrypt plaintext X with key Y and unless you get exactly ciphertext Z, you don't have AES (and no AES tool will accept it).
That's the mathematical part. They can't backdoor that. But there's another equally important part to secure cryptography*, which is the whole negotiation, key-exchange, authentication, verification, digital signing, hashing and perhaps down to cipherblock chaining modes. That stuff can be backdoored, possibly.
* which is also much easier to understand, btw. if you want to get "into" cryptography, skip the math part and assume it works as advertised primitives to work with. I do. I tried but it's too hard for me. But this bit just requires a hard analytical mind, it's still not easy because you can go wrong in so many ways, but it's totally figure-out-able. It even leaves room for creativity if you figure out how to use the primitives in a novel way (just be sure you don't accidentally open a new hole).
HOWEVER Charley/Henny is right in that it's probably not enough. But that's not because the cryptographical primitives can be cracked (government may be powerful and hire smart people but this stuff is pretty good), it's because of the whole legal rubber-hose thingy.
What you need to do is not only learn to use encryption, but also keep a close eye on how well you can trust the software that uses your encryption. For this goes: Open-source is better. Actually, no: Open-source is the ONLY option. That means Skype is right out, if it wasn't already. It also means I might have to drop Opera in favour of Firefox to browse the web with some day :(
There are just two (somewhat related) things that I think may help if (when) this comes to fruition:
- there's just too much data. think of all the data on the internet. multiply that by the amount of people using it every day. it's orders of magnitude. it's going to be a very tough nut to crack if they want to get everything out of it.
- steganography. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography there was this recent sort of proxy like thing called Haystack, which was hyped a lot, supposed to help Iranians hide their internet communications inside innocuous-looking other internet communications. Unfortunately it sucked donkey-balls because the guy who made it had no clue what he was doing and wouldn't tell anyone exactly how it worked (which is, granted, an important part of Stego, so I don't blame him for that, it just sucks).
Well, if yuor not duing anyting ilegle, then yuo havnt got anyting to worry aboot, havve you? And it willl stop childe pron, and teh terrerists freom steeling yuor ID, and spending teh money on boms. And that is good, rite?
QuoteWHAT THIS MEANS is that they basically can (and will) build a database of prosecutable offences made by individuals. This database naturally will be too large to actually prosecute. Plus, they don't want to prosecute everybody cause they need to arbeit and pay taxes. But IF an individual ever becomes a "problem", they can just look up and cherry-pick an offence and prosecute you for that. And the worst is, by then there is nothing you can do about it because you did commit a crime and the prosecution has the records to show it!
I know it. They will do it, I'm sure. Because if they can do all this already (FUCK DAMN the rubber-hose cryptanalysis DAMNSHITPOOP), stuff that I thought "nahhh, that'll never happen" only a few years ago, it no longer makes sense to keep optimistic about it.
I've considered this to be a possibility for a while.
Apparently, 60% UK citizens commit a crime every week, give or take. And even the best criminal lawyers don't actually understand more than a fraction of the law....making it virtually impossible for the vast majority of the population, especially anyone who may be inclined to make trouble, to avoid prosecution.
I've already planned for that eventuality, though. If I'm ever dragged in front of an open court, I'm just going to keep on blurting out stuff that should be under the Official Secrets Act until I'm offered a deal.
Yeah, they'll just take you round the back, and shoot you in the head. Like poor ol' Yeller. . . .
That's probably better than going into some prisons in this country. And the lead up is far more amusing.
QuoteWHAT THIS MEANS is that they basically can (and will) build a database of prosecutable offences made by individuals. This database naturally will be too large to actually prosecute. Plus, they don't want to prosecute everybody cause they need to arbeit and pay taxes. But IF an individual ever becomes a "problem", they can just look up and cherry-pick an offence and prosecute you for that. And the worst is, by then there is nothing you can do about it because you did commit a crime and the prosecution has the records to show it!
I know it. They will do it, I'm sure. Because if they can do all this already (FUCK DAMN the rubber-hose cryptanalysis DAMNSHITPOOP), stuff that I thought "nahhh, that'll never happen" only a few years ago, it no longer makes sense to keep optimistic about it.
True, but, granted I don't know much outside of MA law, but aside from murder (and in federal cases, any crimes punishable by death, and
some acts of terrorism), there is still a statute of limitations for prosecution of most crimes. So even with this giant database of crimes, they would still need to prosecute you within the appropriate timeframe (with the noted, exceptions above) to get you for that crime.
/optimism
Of course, that's assuming they don't find a way to get rid of/get around the statute of limitations. That, and I suppose if they really wanted to get you, they could find a way to shove you into one of the crimes without limitations and/or otherwise get around this.
:( Back to regularly scheduled Big Brother
that's where the whole 'one crime a week' thing comes in.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 06, 2010, 06:16:43 PM
that's where the whole 'one crime a week' thing comes in.
Slacker.
Also many European criminal codes do not have expiration dates on them. Remember, the Code Napoleon is still the basis of much of the Continental legal system, not common law.
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on October 06, 2010, 05:44:10 PM
Of course, that's assuming they don't find a way to get rid of/get around the statute of limitations. That, and I suppose if they really wanted to get you, they could find a way to shove you into one of the crimes without limitations and/or otherwise get around this. turn you into a "state secret".
Basically if they can't catch you in complete transparency, well there MUST be something terribly secret going on and they kill you in obscurity.
So I guess the question here is, why?
Why the sudden shift towards authoritarianism?
Im going to go out on a limb here and guess that muslims with AKs and bombs made from cell phone parts arent a big enough threat to justify this.
So who stands to gain from this?
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 07, 2010, 11:43:53 PM
So I guess the question here is, why?
Why the sudden shift towards authoritarianism?
Im going to go out on a limb here and guess that muslims with AKs and bombs made from cell phone parts arent a big enough threat to justify this.
So who stands to gain from this?
Sudden? What sudden? This has been building for decades. One small step at a time, until they realized small steps are no longer needed.
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 07, 2010, 11:48:56 PM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 07, 2010, 11:43:53 PM
So I guess the question here is, why?
Why the sudden shift towards authoritarianism?
Im going to go out on a limb here and guess that muslims with AKs and bombs made from cell phone parts arent a big enough threat to justify this.
So who stands to gain from this?
Sudden? What sudden? This has been building for decades. One small step at a time, until they realized small steps are no longer needed.
Still doesnt answer my question. Who is doing this and what do they have to gain?
Power
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 07, 2010, 11:43:53 PM
So I guess the question here is, why?
Why the sudden shift towards authoritarianism?
Im going to go out on a limb here and guess that muslims with AKs and bombs made from cell phone parts arent a big enough threat to justify this.
So who stands to gain from this?
301,000,000 monkeys with bad wiring. Why do you ask?
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 08, 2010, 02:32:01 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 07, 2010, 11:48:56 PM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 07, 2010, 11:43:53 PM
So I guess the question here is, why?
Why the sudden shift towards authoritarianism?
Im going to go out on a limb here and guess that muslims with AKs and bombs made from cell phone parts arent a big enough threat to justify this.
So who stands to gain from this?
Sudden? What sudden? This has been building for decades. One small step at a time, until they realized small steps are no longer needed.
Still doesnt answer my question. Who is doing this and what do they have to gain?
You and everyone you know, and you stand to gain the primate pack identity that you and your fellow primates crave.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 03:12:11 AM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 08, 2010, 02:32:01 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 07, 2010, 11:48:56 PM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 07, 2010, 11:43:53 PM
So I guess the question here is, why?
Why the sudden shift towards authoritarianism?
Im going to go out on a limb here and guess that muslims with AKs and bombs made from cell phone parts arent a big enough threat to justify this.
So who stands to gain from this?
Sudden? What sudden? This has been building for decades. One small step at a time, until they realized small steps are no longer needed.
Still doesnt answer my question. Who is doing this and what do they have to gain?
You and everyone you know, and you stand to gain the primate pack identity that you and your fellow primates crave.
So your saying that its not a shadowy organization guiding us in the direction of authoritarianism but that its some subconscious part of humanity that is leading us towards it?
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 08, 2010, 03:41:27 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 03:12:11 AM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 08, 2010, 02:32:01 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 07, 2010, 11:48:56 PM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 07, 2010, 11:43:53 PM
So I guess the question here is, why?
Why the sudden shift towards authoritarianism?
Im going to go out on a limb here and guess that muslims with AKs and bombs made from cell phone parts arent a big enough threat to justify this.
So who stands to gain from this?
Sudden? What sudden? This has been building for decades. One small step at a time, until they realized small steps are no longer needed.
Still doesnt answer my question. Who is doing this and what do they have to gain?
You and everyone you know, and you stand to gain the primate pack identity that you and your fellow primates crave.
So your saying that its not a shadowy organization guiding us in the direction of authoritarianism but that its some subconscious part of humanity that is leading us towards it?
At the end of the day it doesn't matter which. The only thing that matters is to avoid the snares.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 08, 2010, 03:41:27 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 03:12:11 AM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 08, 2010, 02:32:01 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 07, 2010, 11:48:56 PM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 07, 2010, 11:43:53 PM
So I guess the question here is, why?
Why the sudden shift towards authoritarianism?
Im going to go out on a limb here and guess that muslims with AKs and bombs made from cell phone parts arent a big enough threat to justify this.
So who stands to gain from this?
Sudden? What sudden? This has been building for decades. One small step at a time, until they realized small steps are no longer needed.
Still doesnt answer my question. Who is doing this and what do they have to gain?
You and everyone you know, and you stand to gain the primate pack identity that you and your fellow primates crave.
So your saying that its not a shadowy organization guiding us in the direction of authoritarianism but that its some subconscious part of humanity that is leading us towards it?
Yes.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 08, 2010, 03:41:27 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 03:12:11 AM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 08, 2010, 02:32:01 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 07, 2010, 11:48:56 PM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 07, 2010, 11:43:53 PM
So I guess the question here is, why?
Why the sudden shift towards authoritarianism?
Im going to go out on a limb here and guess that muslims with AKs and bombs made from cell phone parts arent a big enough threat to justify this.
So who stands to gain from this?
Sudden? What sudden? This has been building for decades. One small step at a time, until they realized small steps are no longer needed.
Still doesnt answer my question. Who is doing this and what do they have to gain?
You and everyone you know, and you stand to gain the primate pack identity that you and your fellow primates crave.
So your saying that its not a shadowy organization guiding us in the direction of authoritarianism but that its some subconscious part of humanity that is leading us towards it?
Yes. It's the Machine.
You can tell by the fact that all the wiretapping and CCTVs and paranoid airport luggage checking aren't really effective for
anything or anybody. It doesn't find any more terrorism, it costs loads of money to implement and is a huge economic drag on those (innocent) who it affects most, all the while being pushed for by secret yet headless organisations that nobody (including those in "power") can check or control, going about their business commanded by a feedback loop of echos. And from this, nobody is really profiting, not in money or power. Well, not exactly, there are always those who profit of course, but they too are just along for the ride, not behind the steering wheels on the path to destruction of our privacy.
If you want to know how it ends, watch the movie Cube:
there is no conspiracy
nobody is in charge
big brother is not watching you
it's a headless blunder
operating under the illusion
of a master plan
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 08, 2010, 03:41:27 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 03:12:11 AM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 08, 2010, 02:32:01 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on October 07, 2010, 11:48:56 PM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on October 07, 2010, 11:43:53 PM
So I guess the question here is, why?
Why the sudden shift towards authoritarianism?
Im going to go out on a limb here and guess that muslims with AKs and bombs made from cell phone parts arent a big enough threat to justify this.
So who stands to gain from this?
Sudden? What sudden? This has been building for decades. One small step at a time, until they realized small steps are no longer needed.
Still doesnt answer my question. Who is doing this and what do they have to gain?
You and everyone you know, and you stand to gain the primate pack identity that you and your fellow primates crave.
So your saying that its not a shadowy organization guiding us in the direction of authoritarianism but that its some subconscious part of humanity that is leading us towards it?
Yep. Tyrants don't just show up with a resume. They arrive when the people demand them.
A short history of the security industry boom
9/11 happens
People get afraid
Demagogues in the media and government fan the flames of fear for political gain and to increase sales
People get more frightened
It suddenly becomes (more) politically viable to designate billions in designing new airport security tech, surveillance systems, flying killer robots etc
Rinse, wash and repeat.
Now that the War on Terror is a neverending self-feedback loop (US drones carry out attacks in Pakistan, which kill civilians, which create more terrorists, which cause more strikes....), I wouldn't expect this to change anytime soon
I think that cyber warfare terrifies a lot of military / gov people. We've never seen a real cyber war, we don't really know what it'll look like or what it'll involve. An optimistic part of me suspects that a massive national firewall aims at protecting us from stuff like botnet attacks and stuxnet style viruses which target commercial or industrial processes.
(http://thepiratesdilemma.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/want-to-believe.jpg)
I think if it terrified them, they'd actually take it seriously. Instead, they're making big bucks off of the vague nature of the threats cyberwarfare may produce (scenarios probably invented by Hollywood screenwriters, and not anyone involved in hacking or creating cyberwarfare capabilities).
Quote from: Cramulus on October 08, 2010, 03:27:30 PM
I think that cyber warfare terrifies a lot of military / gov people. We've never seen a real cyber war, we don't really know what it'll look like or what it'll involve. An optimistic part of me suspects that a massive national firewall aims at protecting us from stuff like botnet attacks and stuxnet style viruses which target commercial or industrial processes.
(http://thepiratesdilemma.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/want-to-believe.jpg)
Of course it scares them. I remember something on the news awhile back about the plan that would be put in place if a cyber-attack were to occur.
The plan was literally to go on TV and tell people to unplug their computers.
THAT WAS THE ENTIRE PLAN.