Re: Echelon press coverage
[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
[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?
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 dont 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
