Re: [liberationtech] Sharing children's lives online?
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Nathan of Guardian wrote: > Seriously though, I would check those photos for EXIF data, to see if > they are posting GPS as well (not that it wouldn't be hard to get the > address from the website). With older kids, someone could check the date/time and derive their class schedule from it. That's spooky. (Assuming the camera is set correctly and original EXIF data is preserved). ~Griffin -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
[liberationtech] [serval-project-dev] New algorithm for message dissemination in decentralized networks faster than its predecessors and guarantees delivery
- Forwarded message from "8f6e5...@gmail.com" <8f6e5...@gmail.com> - From: "8f6e5...@gmail.com" <8f6e5...@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:09:50 +0100 To: serval-project-developers Subject: [serval-project-dev] New algorithm for message dissemination in decentralized networks faster than its predecessors and guarantees delivery Reply-To: serval-project-develop...@googlegroups.com http://phys.org/news/2013-01-algorithm-message-dissemination-decentralized-networks.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Serval Project Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to serval-project-develop...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to serval-project-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/serval-project-developers?hl=en. - End forwarded message - -- Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Safe app like Dropbox?
Gilson Schwartz writes: >I did install Cloudfogger but after a trial I just can´t find my way >out of the app. > >Any hints? Their Help desk was unsupportive after a first mail asking >for help. On the general topic of this thread: FileRock just got open sourced. I haven't used it, but have seen it billed as "a secure Dropbox clone". http://blog.filerock.com/2012/12/were-going-open-source/ -Karl >On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Brad Beckett >wrote: > >Or better yet -- encrypt your data with CloudFogger, it's free: >http://www.cloudfogger.com/en/ > > >I told DropBox long ago that encryption would reck havoc on their >de-duplication and that people would continue to use it until they >feel their data is secure. > > >2 years ago I asked for two factor authentication. They ignored >me, and a lot of accounts were compromised. Now they have 2 >factor. > > >I still do not trust my data on Amazon servers therefor I encrypt. > > >The nice thing about CloudFogger is that well it's free and also >has matching mobile apps. > > >- Brad Beckett > > >On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 2:05 AM, Eugen Leitl >wrote: > > >On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Jerzy Łogiewa wrote: >> Hello! >> >> Dropbox is completely convenient, but source is closed and I >do not really want storing my data on their server. >> >> What other app exist? Anything truly open and support own >remote storage, but working as: drop into folder, auto syncro >happens on a supported platform? > > >Try OwnCloud. > > >-- >Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: >https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > >-- >Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: >https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > > >-- >Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: >https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Nokia's MITM on HTTPS traffic
The words "Nokia" and "MITM" are bound to attract attention. There is a substantive difference between this and CarrierIQ situation; the matter in question is a common, although older, trend that is certainly not limited to the browsers in question. Pages are rendered by a third party for a number of reasons: 1.) the device is underpowered and probably cannot support all the scripts and images of modern webpages, 2.) this enables Flash and other third party plugins not available for the platform, 3.) saves data costs, 4.) this acts as a web proxy, allowing the device to access content filtered in the country. Perhaps the failure is explaining the privacy implications to the user, but other than that, this is not news. On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:13 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > h/t to Lauren Weinstein via his "nnsquad" mailing list. > > Writeup: > > > http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/01/09/nokia-seems-to-be-hijacking-traffic-on-some-of-its-phones-grabbing-your-https-data-unencrypted/ > > Original: > > https://gaurangkp.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/nokia-https-mitm/ > > Question: does there exist a coordinated/organized/systematic effort > to test all extant phones for this and similar problems? Because as > this and CarrierIQ demonstrate, we certainly can't trust the vendors > or the telcos. > > ---rsk > -- > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > -- *Collin David Anderson* averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C. -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
[liberationtech] Nokia's MITM on HTTPS traffic
h/t to Lauren Weinstein via his "nnsquad" mailing list. Writeup: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/01/09/nokia-seems-to-be-hijacking-traffic-on-some-of-its-phones-grabbing-your-https-data-unencrypted/ Original: https://gaurangkp.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/nokia-https-mitm/ Question: does there exist a coordinated/organized/systematic effort to test all extant phones for this and similar problems? Because as this and CarrierIQ demonstrate, we certainly can't trust the vendors or the telcos. ---rsk -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Google Bows Down To Chinese Government On Censorship
..on Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 08:37:31PM +0800, Martin Johnson wrote: > Good link Julian. The article makes some very good points. Others are > misleading though. For one, most porn sites are not blocked, and I don't > think that's a reason for circumventing the GFW (that and more in > https://en.greatfire.org/blog/2012/dec/8-absurd-quotes-censorship-china). > Also, I've never seen messages like "Sorry, the host you were looking for > does not exist, has been deleted, or is being investigated." The error > messages you get when you try to access blocked websites are standard > errors set by the browser - "The connection has timed out", "The connection > was reset" etc. > > I also think the estimates of how many people circumvent the GFW are often > exaggerated. Facebook itself doesn't claim to have more than a million > users in China. That is, they reach less than 0.2% of the Internet > population. Thanks for the clarifications Martin. Again, it's good to read people 'on the ground'! Cheers, Julian > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Julian Oliver wrote: > > > ..on Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 02:01:10PM +0200, Maxim Kammerer wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Martin Johnson > > wrote: > > > > Yes, the question is what you call "working well". The > > censorship-warning > > > > feature added last year was clearly improving the user experience. > > Removing > > > > it worsened the user experience again. > > > > > > Is this backed up by actual user experiences from China? > > > > > > “When Wired.co.uk spoke to a few Chinese residents about the disabled > > > Google feature, they were not even aware of it because they used VPNs, > > > demonstrating Google might not be taking into account just how savvy > > > its users are at all.” [1] > > > > I found the article 'Five Myths about the Chinese Internet' a very useful > > read, > > especially as regards savvy-factor of users. We in the West love to > > generalise > > 'the situation' in China but often have little or no idea as to the scale, > > scope > > or dynamics at play. Another reason I find it particularly valuable to be > > reading people on this list that are operating there. > > > > The article was walled off at ForeignPolicy.com (ironically) but is > > available > > here in its entirety: > > > > Five Myths about the Chinese Internet: > > > > > > http://strategicstudyindia.blogspot.de/2012/11/five-myths-about-chinese-internet.html > > > > "Chinese Internet users are cosmopolitan, educated, and informed. Many > > use, > > or at least know they can use, circumvention technology like VPNs > > (Virtual > > Private Networks) to access blocked content." > > > > Cheers, > > > > -- > > Julian Oliver > > http://julianoliver.com > > http://criticalengineering.org > > -- > > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > > > -- > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- Julian Oliver http://julianoliver.com http://criticalengineering.org -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Google Bows Down To Chinese Government On Censorship
Good link Julian. The article makes some very good points. Others are misleading though. For one, most porn sites are not blocked, and I don't think that's a reason for circumventing the GFW (that and more in https://en.greatfire.org/blog/2012/dec/8-absurd-quotes-censorship-china). Also, I've never seen messages like "Sorry, the host you were looking for does not exist, has been deleted, or is being investigated." The error messages you get when you try to access blocked websites are standard errors set by the browser - "The connection has timed out", "The connection was reset" etc. I also think the estimates of how many people circumvent the GFW are often exaggerated. Facebook itself doesn't claim to have more than a million users in China. That is, they reach less than 0.2% of the Internet population. Martin Johnson Founder https://GreatFire.org - Monitoring Online Censorship In China. https://FreeWeibo.com - Uncensored, Anonymous Sina Weibo Search. https://Unblock.cn.com - We Can Unblock Your Website In China. On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Julian Oliver wrote: > ..on Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 02:01:10PM +0200, Maxim Kammerer wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Martin Johnson > wrote: > > > Yes, the question is what you call "working well". The > censorship-warning > > > feature added last year was clearly improving the user experience. > Removing > > > it worsened the user experience again. > > > > Is this backed up by actual user experiences from China? > > > > “When Wired.co.uk spoke to a few Chinese residents about the disabled > > Google feature, they were not even aware of it because they used VPNs, > > demonstrating Google might not be taking into account just how savvy > > its users are at all.” [1] > > I found the article 'Five Myths about the Chinese Internet' a very useful > read, > especially as regards savvy-factor of users. We in the West love to > generalise > 'the situation' in China but often have little or no idea as to the scale, > scope > or dynamics at play. Another reason I find it particularly valuable to be > reading people on this list that are operating there. > > The article was walled off at ForeignPolicy.com (ironically) but is > available > here in its entirety: > > Five Myths about the Chinese Internet: > > > http://strategicstudyindia.blogspot.de/2012/11/five-myths-about-chinese-internet.html > > "Chinese Internet users are cosmopolitan, educated, and informed. Many > use, > or at least know they can use, circumvention technology like VPNs > (Virtual > Private Networks) to access blocked content." > > Cheers, > > -- > Julian Oliver > http://julianoliver.com > http://criticalengineering.org > -- > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Google Bows Down To Chinese Government On Censorship
I am in China. Google is said to have a 5% market share in China. There are at least 500 million Internet users so that makes for about 25 million users. The number of users using VPNs or circumvention tools is unknown but likely much smaller. For example, Twitter is estimated to have less than 20,000 active users in China ( https://en.greatfire.org/blog/2013/jan/there-are-not-millions-twitter-users-china-heres-proof ). Commercial VPNs require credit cards to sign up and are used by very few. Free circumvention tools like FreeGate reach many more but are also continuously targeted by authorities making them slow and unstable. Users who can circumvent the GFW do not always do it. Connecting is slow and, for running a general Google search, unnecessary. All this means that Google's user experience without a VPN matters a lot. Because of the decision they took in December, that user experience got worse. The users Wired talked to were not representative of Chinese netizens. As for the Techcrunch statements, "sources suggest" doesn't make it true. But it is true that "since the notification feature was implemented, access to Google’s search engine in China has been blocked more often than usual". That is, it was blocked once (on November 9) as opposed to "usual" which is that it isn't blocked. This blocking being part of Google's decision to disable the feature was exactly the argument that we were making. The authorities blocked Google and likely used this and the threat to permanently block it to pressure Google into doing their bidding. Martin Johnson Founder https://GreatFire.org - Monitoring Online Censorship In China. https://FreeWeibo.com - Uncensored, Anonymous Sina Weibo Search. https://Unblock.cn.com - We Can Unblock Your Website In China. On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Maxim Kammerer wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Martin Johnson > wrote: > > Yes, the question is what you call "working well". The censorship-warning > > feature added last year was clearly improving the user experience. > Removing > > it worsened the user experience again. > > Is this backed up by actual user experiences from China? > > “When Wired.co.uk spoke to a few Chinese residents about the disabled > Google feature, they were not even aware of it because they used VPNs, > demonstrating Google might not be taking into account just how savvy > its users are at all.” [1] > > “Sources close to the matter suggest Google pulled the feature because > it was making it more difficult for users to access its search > services. […] However, since the notification feature was implemented, > access to Google’s search engine in China has been blocked more often > than usual […] meaning even fewer users were able to use Google > search.” [2] > > [1] > http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-01/04/google-china-anti-censorship-fail > [2] > http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/04/google-quietly-removes-censorship-warning-feature-for-search-users-in-china/ > > -- > Maxim Kammerer > Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte > -- > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Google Bows Down To Chinese Government On Censorship
..on Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 02:01:10PM +0200, Maxim Kammerer wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Martin Johnson > wrote: > > Yes, the question is what you call "working well". The censorship-warning > > feature added last year was clearly improving the user experience. Removing > > it worsened the user experience again. > > Is this backed up by actual user experiences from China? > > “When Wired.co.uk spoke to a few Chinese residents about the disabled > Google feature, they were not even aware of it because they used VPNs, > demonstrating Google might not be taking into account just how savvy > its users are at all.” [1] I found the article 'Five Myths about the Chinese Internet' a very useful read, especially as regards savvy-factor of users. We in the West love to generalise 'the situation' in China but often have little or no idea as to the scale, scope or dynamics at play. Another reason I find it particularly valuable to be reading people on this list that are operating there. The article was walled off at ForeignPolicy.com (ironically) but is available here in its entirety: Five Myths about the Chinese Internet: http://strategicstudyindia.blogspot.de/2012/11/five-myths-about-chinese-internet.html "Chinese Internet users are cosmopolitan, educated, and informed. Many use, or at least know they can use, circumvention technology like VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) to access blocked content." Cheers, -- Julian Oliver http://julianoliver.com http://criticalengineering.org -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Google Bows Down To Chinese Government On Censorship
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Martin Johnson wrote: > Yes, the question is what you call "working well". The censorship-warning > feature added last year was clearly improving the user experience. Removing > it worsened the user experience again. Is this backed up by actual user experiences from China? “When Wired.co.uk spoke to a few Chinese residents about the disabled Google feature, they were not even aware of it because they used VPNs, demonstrating Google might not be taking into account just how savvy its users are at all.” [1] “Sources close to the matter suggest Google pulled the feature because it was making it more difficult for users to access its search services. […] However, since the notification feature was implemented, access to Google’s search engine in China has been blocked more often than usual […] meaning even fewer users were able to use Google search.” [2] [1] http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-01/04/google-china-anti-censorship-fail [2] http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/04/google-quietly-removes-censorship-warning-feature-for-search-users-in-china/ -- Maxim Kammerer Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Safe app like Dropbox?
I did install Cloudfogger but after a trial I just can´t find my way out of the app. Any hints? Their Help desk was unsupportive after a first mail asking for help. Thanks, Gilson On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Brad Beckett wrote: > Or better yet -- encrypt your data with CloudFogger, it's free: > http://www.cloudfogger.com/en/ > > I told DropBox long ago that encryption would reck havoc on their > de-duplication and that people would continue to use it until they feel > their data is secure. > > 2 years ago I asked for two factor authentication. They ignored me, and a > lot of accounts were compromised. Now they have 2 factor. > > I still do not trust my data on Amazon servers therefor I encrypt. > > The nice thing about CloudFogger is that well it's free and also has > matching mobile apps. > > - Brad Beckett > > On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 2:05 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Jerzy Łogiewa wrote: >> > Hello! >> > >> > Dropbox is completely convenient, but source is closed and I do not >> really want storing my data on their server. >> > >> > What other app exist? Anything truly open and support own remote >> storage, but working as: drop into folder, auto syncro happens on a >> supported platform? >> >> Try OwnCloud. >> -- >> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: >> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech >> > > > -- > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Google Bows Down To Chinese Government On Censorship
Since the function was disabled, Google is back to functioning the way it used to in China. That is, if you search for any of the thousands of keywords that are blocked by the GFW ( https://en.greatfire.org/search/google-searches), you get a Connection Reset warning in your browser. There are no results and no instructions what to do. The user hopefully clicks the back button and tries a different search. However, whatever that search is, the same Connection Reset warning will be the result. That is because the GFW blocks any subsequent connections to the same website for about a minute. So, the user has to wait for a minute, reload the page and search for something else. Yes, the question is what you call "working well". The censorship-warning feature added last year was clearly improving the user experience. Removing it worsened the user experience again. Martin Johnson Founder https://GreatFire.org - Monitoring Online Censorship In China. https://FreeWeibo.com - Uncensored, Anonymous Sina Weibo Search. https://Unblock.cn.com - We Can Unblock Your Website In China. On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Maxim Kammerer wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Martin Johnson > wrote: > > Even in theory, I don't understand how the GFW could block the function > > "while still typing the words". > > Perhaps this is not the correct technical explanation. The point is > that users would still find themselves blocked, rendering the system > ineffective and possibly detrimental. > > > Unless you can show me otherwise - in practice, or in theory - I stand by > > our original story. The function was working well until Google decided to > > disable it. > > The question is what do you call “working well”. If it was me on the > Chinese side, the first thing I would do given Google's alternative > suggestions system is use some ontology-based Bayesian network to > determine sets of words in subsequent searches that would be used to > block users. Perhaps that's what the Chinese did (or, more likely, > something much more primitive yet working by the same principle). > > -- > Maxim Kammerer > Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte > -- > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Google Bows Down To Chinese Government On Censorship
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Martin Johnson wrote: > Even in theory, I don't understand how the GFW could block the function > "while still typing the words". Perhaps this is not the correct technical explanation. The point is that users would still find themselves blocked, rendering the system ineffective and possibly detrimental. > Unless you can show me otherwise - in practice, or in theory - I stand by > our original story. The function was working well until Google decided to > disable it. The question is what do you call “working well”. If it was me on the Chinese side, the first thing I would do given Google's alternative suggestions system is use some ontology-based Bayesian network to determine sets of words in subsequent searches that would be used to block users. Perhaps that's what the Chinese did (or, more likely, something much more primitive yet working by the same principle). -- Maxim Kammerer Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Google Bows Down To Chinese Government On Censorship
Regarding "the Chinese moved the block to an earlier phase when the user is still typing the words": Like I said before I believe the function was working up until Google disabled it in early December. To verify, I just ran the latest HTML file that was saved by our test system, downloaded on Dec 5. If I type in 六四, I get the warning message. This is simply by opening the static HTML file in a browser - no external files are loaded. Even in theory, I don't understand how the GFW could block the function "while still typing the words". They can block external files (which they did in the past, and so Google moved the code to it's HTML file). They can block the whole site. But they can't block individual code blocks on a given page. Unless you can show me otherwise - in practice, or in theory - I stand by our original story. The function was working well until Google decided to disable it. The point is not to bash Google. They do a lot of good work. Particularly, in China, their Gmail service is very valuable. But, as we stated in the original post, this is a new development since Google themselves decided to disable an anti-censorship feature. It indicates a new direction in the relationship between Google and the Chinese government. Martin Johnson Founder https://GreatFire.org - Monitoring Online Censorship In China. https://FreeWeibo.com - Uncensored, Anonymous Sina Weibo Search. https://Unblock.cn.com - We Can Unblock Your Website In China. On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Maxim Kammerer wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Martin Johnson > wrote: > > I also don't know how "Chinese cyber experts" could have disabled the > > function. All the code was embedded on the front page. > > From what I understand, the Chinese moved the block to an earlier > phase when the user is still typing the words, before Google could > warn the user. What I think should be clear here is that Google is > considered a high-profile target, so this is not a case of > circumventing some generic GFC rules by a clever system — rather, it > is an arms race with unclear implications for people affected if it > continues, as Karl Fogel noted above. > > I mean, I like to bash Google just as the next guy — they suck talent > while being a purely engineering company that produces nearly nothing > original, and is focused on advertising, of all things. And their > baseless hype machine is unbearable. But you have to give them the > benefit of the doubt when they face Chinese experts. [1] > > [1] http://www.contextis.com/files/Targeted_Attacks_Whitepaper.pdf > > -- > Maxim Kammerer > Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte > -- > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Google Bows Down To Chinese Government On Censorship
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Martin Johnson wrote: > I also don't know how "Chinese cyber experts" could have disabled the > function. All the code was embedded on the front page. >From what I understand, the Chinese moved the block to an earlier phase when the user is still typing the words, before Google could warn the user. What I think should be clear here is that Google is considered a high-profile target, so this is not a case of circumventing some generic GFC rules by a clever system — rather, it is an arms race with unclear implications for people affected if it continues, as Karl Fogel noted above. I mean, I like to bash Google just as the next guy — they suck talent while being a purely engineering company that produces nearly nothing original, and is focused on advertising, of all things. And their baseless hype machine is unbearable. But you have to give them the benefit of the doubt when they face Chinese experts. [1] [1] http://www.contextis.com/files/Targeted_Attacks_Whitepaper.pdf -- Maxim Kammerer Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
