Re: Echelon press coverage

2000-02-24 Thread t byfield

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thu 02/24/00 at 06:02 PM -0500):

 The mainstrem American press has finally noticed Echelon.  See
 
 http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/02/biztech/articles/24spy.html

heh. with notices like this one, we'd be better off if they
ignored it. i'm no fan of the Rag of Record, but the journo
who scribbled this screed must be aiming to break markoff's
record for New Journalistic Lows.

   Fears that the United States, Britain and other English-
   speaking countries are using a cold-war eavesdropping
   network to gain a commercial edge roused passions across
   Europe today, even after the notion had been roundly denied
   in Washington and London. 

'cold war'? ancient history! those wacky euros--they don't trust 
the USG? 

   The hubbub grew from a report prepared for the European
   Parliament that found that communications intercepted by a
   network called Echelon twice helped American companies gain
   an advantage over Europeans. 
   
all this hubbub over two tiny incidents!

   Whatever the merits of the latest allegations, suggestions
   of commercial spying have surfaced regularly in recent
   years. They have infuriated many Europeans who seem to have
   little trouble believing that military espionage systems
   developed in the cold war would now be used to help
   businesses in English-speaking nations. 
   
credulous peasants. heh--let's sell them some dotcom stocks!

   Echelon is a network of surveillance stations stitched
   together in the 1970's by the United States National
   Security Agency with Australia, Britain, Canada and New
   Zealand to intercept select satellite communications,
   according to recently declassified information in
   Washington. 
   
i mean, all the USG did was cobble together some toilet-paper tubes, 
bailing wire, duct tape, and some osborne 1s, and they're getting 
their codpieces bent over this? jeez...

[etc., etc.]

that the NYT would lead off its coverage of echelon with this kind
of rubbish suggests--like anyone needed a hint--that its silence
on the subject spoke volumes. just not the same kind of volumes
they were speaking, say, when they published the pentagon papers.

cheers,
t



Re: Blue Spike and Digital Watermarking with Giovanni

2000-01-15 Thread t byfield

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sat 01/15/00 at 06:06 PM -0800):

   arguments can be made for why you don't need to get that many texts
   even given no knowledge of the watermark system. I'll post more if
   pushed --PM]
  
 Please do, this sounds interesting.

ditto.

   [Joe Sixpack has nothing to to lose and almost no odds of being caught
   giving away two or three copies... --PM]
 
 The point of watermarking is that you can personalize each piece,
 linking it to the customer's identity. Percolation of warez through
 buddy networks would eventually reveal original purchaser.

if these meager functions are all that watermarking accomplishes,
it's a technology whose time isn't coming. serial numbers already
personalize each piece, with the result that serial numbers them-
selves have become a commodity in warez 'markets'--just like the
identical, mass-produced objects they serve to serialize. 

have software industry orgs ever shown any interest in pursuing 
original purchasers? why bother? it'd be a rare jury that'd punish 
a schlemiel for having software 'stolen by his (kid|neighbor|house-
cleaner|cousin).' but for distributing warez, or making a profit 
using them, well, that's another story--and that's who they *will* 
go after.

 Of course this is unlikely to be implemented, but in theory it's doable.

the whole idea of serializing mass market commodities in order to
control their disposition beyond the point of sale is idiotic. in
very controlled, very limited settings it can make sense, but not
in an economy of scale.

cheers,
t



Re: Is there an anonymous contribution protocol?

1999-10-20 Thread t byfield

 Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 15:48:28 -0400 
 From: Reusch [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Subject: Is there an anonymous contribution protocol?
 
 A couple of months ago, someone (unfortunately, I don’t
 recall the name or date)  wrote to the New York Times,
 suggesting that all political contributions be made
 anonymously.  

http://www.counterpane.com/street_performer.html

 Using this protocol, people would place donations in escrow,
 to be released to an author in the event that the promised
 work is put in the public domain. This protocol has the
 potential to fund alternative or "marginal" works. 

the analogy seems clear. 

cheers,
t