Re: [freenet-chat] Interesting post on /.
--- Stefan Reich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Question: would you be willing to trade your personal privacy for maybe some further measure of security from terrorists? Would you grant the people running Carnivore greater rights into your life in order to perhaps prevent more events like this? Is the encryption export ban such a bad thing when stacked against 50,000 people's lives? Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Just as gun control usually only helps keep guns away from honest citizens, encryption control would only allow the government to monitor people who use standard encryption packages. You'd have to be a pretty stupid terrorist to use an encryption protocol that you knew the government had a back door to. When there are so many that don't have a back door available from your nearest encryption textbook, why use one that has a gaping hole in it. As somebody else pointed out, it's not even necessary to use encryption, when you can hide messages in pre-arranged code words. So to summarize, allowing the government to tap into my communications will only catch terrorists without any brains while significantly reducing my ability to have privacy from the government. Now if the hypothetical government monitoring could actually help catch terrorists then I'd be in more of a moral quandry. While the famous saying He who trades freedom for safety deserved neither comes to mind, lack of privacy isn't necessarily lack of freedom. I would probably still object just on the principle (I don't believe the government has any business poking into my business), I don't really want terrorists to be able to kill 5000 people in a fell swoop. __ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/ ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Interesting post on /.
Mr. Smith wrote: Now if the hypothetical government monitoring could actually help catch terrorists then I'd be in more of a moral quandry. While the famous saying He who trades freedom for safety deserved neither comes to mind, lack of privacy isn't necessarily lack of freedom. I would probably still object just on the principle (I don't believe the government has any business poking into my business), I don't really want terrorists to be able to kill 5000 people in a fell swoop. The suspects all had a frigging nothing on their crminal histories. There was no chance ever to find anything on them before this one thing. You also can't jail or otherhow sort out people who like planes and flying, own flight simulator programs, books about flying, and travel to an airport for plane spotting, or maybe making a flight themselves - there's millions who do that. All you'll find from tracking all communications about flight simulators and air travel is all these people, all of them perfectly law-abyding. But there was a way how even the single-cell brained CIA could have had human access to the Taliban and to bin Laden : Massood, dead since yesterday leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance (and as much as I can tell from documentation, politically moderate and about as Muslim as Clinton is Christian), has a secret service running that know and do their dan job, and bloody well so - or they wouldn't manage to exist against a Taliban that's been financed 43 million $ from the US three months ago to combat opium growing (at the expense of the local farmers finally starving to death) and holds 90% of the country, for many years already, and after doing same with ten years occupation by the Soviet Union's largest army of the world with an endless supply the biggest tanks and combat helicopters. Had they asked, they'd have gotten the hints they need out of that place. Or out of Massood's back channels in the former Soviet republic of Tadjikistan. But nooo, doing economic spying against Western Europe and Japan via satellite tapping is so much more rewarding. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Interesting post on /.
Stefan Reich wrote: Here's an interesting issue and one that is well to debate on Slashdot. It is said on just about all the major news networks that there has been an intelligence breakdown. That the terrorists use sophisticated encryption measures and that our intelligence agencies are under-funded and don't have the ability to keep tabs on the terrorists. Question: would you be willing to trade your personal privacy for maybe some further measure of security from terrorists? Would you grant the people running Carnivore greater rights into your life in order to perhaps prevent more events like this? Is the encryption export ban such a bad thing when stacked against 50,000 people's lives? (http://slashdot.org/articles/01/09/11/1842258.shtml) Nonsense discussion from the outset. But chillingly serious all the same. Intelligence breakdown? I'll say - except it happened about 20 years ago when the US intelligence network trained and armed bin Laden to run terror operations against the russians - Osama bin Laden comes home to roost: http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp Salon article on blowback: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/12/blowback/ there's no mention of this in any mainstream media - I guess it must be 'unpatriotic' to criticize anything that the US gov. does, has done, or will do. That means, when W announces that encrypted/anonymous communications are to blame for the disaster, there will be no rebutal or critique in the media - and running a freenet node will very quickly be equated with 'harbouring terrorism'. already people are shutting down remailers, ISPs are installing carnivore - and I have a hunch that the SSSCA will sail through congress without debate... ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Interesting post on /.
Jim Carrico wrote: Osama bin Laden comes home to roost: http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp Salon article on blowback: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/12/blowback/ there's no mention of this in any mainstream media - I guess it must be 'unpatriotic' to criticize anything that the US gov. does, has done, or will do. I dont think thats true. A good many people already knew about CIA training islamic militants to fight communist powers in Afgh. Its simply old news. Even the movie 'The Seige' or something like that covered the topic in detail. But for most americans, they probably dont care. That means, when W announces that encrypted/anonymous communications are to blame for the disaster, there will be no rebutal or critique in the media - and running a freenet node will very quickly be equated with 'harbouring terrorism'. Yup. And I dont know about you, but even being 'suspected' of running a service that aided terrorist communications (whether or not it is true) is not a situation I would like to be in. Confiscated computer equipment is almost never returned (maybe 2 years later) and a few nights in the clink isnt much fun either. already people are shutting down remailers, ISPs are installing carnivore - and I have a hunch that the SSSCA will sail through congress without debate... The SSSCA is something entirely different, and I doubt it will sail through. It has far to wide reaching impact, such as making it illegal to attach a computer without DRM controls to the internat, or internal school networks, etc. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Interesting post on /.
Stefan Reich wrote: Here's an interesting issue and one that is well to debate on Slashdot. It is said on just about all the major news networks that there has been an intelligence breakdown. That the terrorists use sophisticated encryption measures and that our intelligence agencies are under-funded and don't have the ability to keep tabs on the terrorists. Question: would you be willing to trade your personal privacy for maybe some further measure of security from terrorists? Would you grant the people running Carnivore greater rights into your life in order to perhaps prevent more events like this? Is the encryption export ban such a bad thing when stacked against 50,000 people's lives? (http://slashdot.org/articles/01/09/11/1842258.shtml) Nonsense discussion from the outset. I am you do we are it is he and she go to be the or Sixteen words, the shortest and most frequently used in plain, common English. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f Sixteen numbers, which make up Base16, or hexadecimal encoding. Any number, and word, any computer data can be expressed in any string of these. The words above and the numbers are replaceable by each other. Fill other words between them, and any message can be hidden - in clear sight of bright daylight. Even the line you read here can already contain the words Attack, now!. I could write this idea in my little room, without ever having been to university learning encryption mathematics. There is no possibility to stop anyone from using such means of encryption and data hiding. And there is no way to tell whether they do. - Here's two copies of Macchiavelli's book, from 500 years ago, about how to become ruler of a country, and stay that. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/machiavelli-prince.html http://members.tripod.com/EsotericTexts05/Machiavelli.ThePrince.htm His bottom line is, be respectable, and TRY NOT TO BE HATED by others. The whole mumblage over security measures is as valuable, long term, in this context, as gun control is towards reducing crime. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
