Re: [liberationtech] Privacy, Moglen, @ioerror, #rp12
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 08:45:08PM -0500, Steven Clift wrote: >As a relic non-profit dating to 94 before Google and Facebook that hosts >two-way online community, our biggest competition from everyday potential >users and in particular those most likely to put energy into starting a >new online neighbor forums is ... > >Why not just use Facebook? > >We are working up a blog post with all sorts of reasons, but in general >control and capitalism aren't going resonate with 85% of our users and the >other 15% aren't the donating types. Well, maybe some are. True capitalism (anarchocapitalism) is not about control (it is voluntarily society). I would not call the current system "capitalistic", it is more a socialistic corporativism. Pavol -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Privacy, Moglen, @ioerror, #rp12
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:17:25AM -0700, Jacob Appelbaum wrote: > > True capitalism (anarchocapitalism) is not about control (it is voluntarily > > society). I would not call the current system "capitalistic", it is more > > a socialistic corporativism. > > > > Anarchist theory generally suggests that so-called "anarchocapitalism" > is a co-option of anarchist theory. Generally speaking anarchism > requires mutual aid, solidarity, democracy and order enforced through > consent, not force. To be clear - I'm talking about anarchist theory and > not about some Hobbesian notion of the world as chaos without a State. > > If we don't quibble about every point above and just look at democracy, > we can see that capitalism is oriented at devaluing each person in order > to enrich a few. There are lots of benefits and just as many downsides. This is not true - our society is not a "zero-sum" game as many people think (i.e. "rich people" means that some other people have to be "poor"), our society is a "positive-sum" game. If you are a (honest) rich man, usually you gain a lot of money because some other people give you them voluntarily in exchange for some "life-quality-improving" services. It means that in voluntary business benefits are mutual on both sides. > Capitalism attempts to value a person in society by their collection and > accumulation of wealth. This is inherently anti-democratic - one person Don't forget that if people give you money voluntarily, they also have benefits from your accumulation of wealth. You provide them something that improves their life (because they buy it). > is valued far above another as a matter of fact - in theory, capitalists > say this is because of merit but in practice, I find this to be rubbish. I think that anything that is not voluntary is not fair, including "forced solidarity" taxes for poor people. Solidarity simply cannot be forced (and that's what our governments do). > > Corporations are the core of capitalist ideology in the modern > implementation. I would say that Facebook is however not a socialistic This not entirely true, in a real free society, you can also have non-profit, non-commercial organizations or voluntary "communistic" companies where all employees are also their shareholders. You can create any kind of organization on voluntary basis. > corporation at all - it is all a matter of so-called "voluntary" > "choices" - of course ignores the network effect and other lots of > subtle things. > > The current system is capitalism and it's hilarious to hear cries of > failure about it not being "pure" enough. One hears this from communists > all the time in defense of communism, despite Stalin's reign of terror > in the 20th century. Facebook is a capitalist success - private capital, > free association, investment, private property, riches - in the end, it > is happening because of the value of surveillance and control. What will > become of it? What is happening now as a result I admit that Facebook does some privacy threatening things (datamining, corellations, etc) in order to improve their business impact, but do not forget that surveillance and control is usually _too expensive_ for normal business and many companies just do it because it is enforced by the government's regulations and anti-terroristic laws (and of course paid from our taxes), not because that they voluntarily want it. Consider censorship, data retention laws - from the business point of view it does not make sense - on a free market censorship is definitely not a competitive advantage, nobody voluntarily will pay for censored Internet, also data retention is usually too expensive in contrast with fact that most ISPs want to offer as cheap as possible services because it is another competitive advantage. So personally I think our freedom is primarily threatened by our governments, not corporations (they just care about their business and their customers and restrictions on freedom are simply not good for their business, because people would prefer their competitors). > > As it turns out - notions of "voluntary" participation are not all > they're cracked up to be if one looks at things on a small scale. Most > people have little choice about joining such networks once they become > the defacto standard. I've chosen to opt-out, a few others will as well > - probably at some kind of societal cost we do not yet understand. But this is their decision. If you do not like these networks, you can inform people about their security risks, promote security awareness etc, but I think you have no moral right to regulate these social networks using money from taxes of all people. If people are not aware of the security risks of their behaviour and also ignore your security awareness activities, they should just bear the consequences of their actions. > Ahem. I'm sure Dmytri will have lots to say on the matter. We don't > always agree about the words we use;
Re: [liberationtech] Privacy, Moglen, @ioerror, #rp12
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:50:41PM -0400, Fran Parker wrote: > Carl Sagan, as the Narrator of Cosmos, describes a statue on the > main wall of the Amsterdam Town Hall: > > "Justice, with a golden sword, and golden scales. And who is it that > justice is trampling underfoot? Why, it is avarice and envy, the > gods of the merchants. The Dutch knew that the unrestrained pursuit > of profit posed serious threats to the soul of the nation." And it was the free-market with the least regulations which made the Netherlands a very prosperous country :-) Pavol -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Privacy, Moglen, @ioerror, #rp12
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:01:41PM +0200, Andre Rebentisch wrote: > Am 10.05.2012 05:22, schrieb Pavol Luptak: > >Consider censorship, data retention laws - from the business point > >of view it does not make sense - on a free market censorship is > >definitely not a competitive advantage, nobody voluntarily will > >pay for censored Internet, also data retention is usually too > >expensive in contrast with fact that most ISPs want to offer as > >cheap as possible services because it is another competitive > >advantage. > > Behind EU data retention was largely the content industry. AT&T > (without genuine business in Europe) lobbied heavily in Brussels. > Formal pretext was the Madrid bombing. There are also more cynical > arguments like saving the children. But this is still not a problem of corporations, but governments as a SPOF (Single-Point-of-Failure) what means that they are monopolies for law and therefore can be easily lobbied and corrupted by private corporations. Without the governments (or their monopoly to laws) it would be impossible to enforce the data retention law widely in the whole EU Many people do not realize this fact but without governments, big corporations would probably have smaller power than now, because now they can lobby easily governments to approve various laws to protect their business. Especially critical this is in Slovakia (see one of the biggest scandal here http://www.economist.com/node/21543398 ) that revealed that our Slovak government is under a direct control of big financial groups (Penta, J&T), so we have do not have 'democracy', but a pure corporativism (the situation is not much different in the US I guess :-) And the power of these private financial groups is big just because they lobby our government and control the laws to support their businesses. Without the government they would loose the "government-control ability" and would be probably much more weaker on a free-market. > In ordoliberal terms the purpose of a strong state is to make a > genuine market happen, to enforce competition. Dominant companies > have no genuine interest in competition in a market system because > it eats their profits away. Firstly, I think that monopolies are created by the governments (we are not protected by the governments against dominant companies' monopolies as many people think). The explanation is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO8ZU7TeKPw I can tell you many examples how monopolies/olygopolies are created by the EU regulations. > > Think of a small and weak state which entirely depends on the > banking industry or oil or fisheries. It is a matter of balance and Every small and weak state can decide to become offshore and gain a big competitive advantage compared to the other countries :-) > gravity. If you complain about Paypal's services in Europa you'd > wonder why Luxembourg has not the balls to enforce basic customer > service standards. If you pay taxes wonder why IT companies formally > base their EMEA operations in Ireland. Luxembourg is a country with strong economical stability (some Luxembourg economical laws are from Napoleon's times :) and this stability is a reason why many companies prefer this country in spite of the fact they lack some service standards. So in this situation you choose between a company with really stable background in Luxembourg or company with customer service standards... Pavol -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Privacy, Moglen, @ioerror, #rp12
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:56:16PM +0200, Andre Rebentisch wrote: > Am 10.05.2012 12:59, schrieb Pavol Luptak: > >And it was the free-market with the least regulations which made the > >Netherlands a very prosperous country :-) > Your model is being tested in Somalia. ;-) http://c4ss.org/content/1201 My model will be tested here http://www.seasteading.org/ So be patient :) Pavol -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Privacy, Moglen, @ioerror, #rp12
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 08:05:51AM -0400, Fran Parker wrote: > I am not sure that's the case. > > Maybe what Carl Sagan saw was that, despite how he felt, if left > unchecked, greed takes all -- at the expense of all. > > Therefore there must at least be *some* checks and balances to > prevent greed from taking all. The question how this "balance" can be enforced. Stealing my money (using coercion state) for many social programs I don't like, is definitely not a good solution. Doing some nasty things using Tor is also bad. But enforcing regulations against it, is even worse for society. > If giving in to allow at least *some* checks and balances, then you > might find that it also opens the doors for the greed to corrupt the > very checks and balances meant to do good... Exactly :-) Central checks and controls can be good if we have ideal people. But we do not (and will not), so we need to learn how to live in decentralized society without central checks. > Sadly, I think there is a very good chance that is what happened in the USA. Yes, you have 2 options - bad "competitive" corporations on a freemarket or single monopoly government we have to trust. I do not like corporations, but choose the first option, because it is less worse. Pavol -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Privacy, Moglen, @ioerror, #rp12
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 03:06:18PM +0200, Andre Rebentisch wrote: > Am 10.05.2012 14:27, schrieb Pavol Luptak: > >Yes, you have 2 options - bad "competitive" corporations on a freemarket or > >single monopoly government we have to trust. I do not like corporations, > >but choose the first option, because it is less worse. > It is not a choice between the two. > > From an ordoliberal perspective a "free competitive market" has to > be engineered because it is no natural allocation (since companies > themselves won't embrace competition). > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism "In contrast to Hayek's theory of group selection, Eucken believed in a rational and moral setting of rules by government." This is a false assumption of ordoliberalism. This may be work in Norway where are highly ethical/moral politicians, but it does not work at all in my country (Slovakia) or other Central/Eastern European countries where are massively corrupted governments. Governments cannot be moral when we have no ideal people and without possibility of direct economical feedback of their citizens (you have to pay your taxes whether your government is corrupted, bad or not). > > In the same way, a free net has to be actively protected by law and rights. Yes, that's true, but personally I do not believe in the government's centralized legal system (prefer decentralized and private ones). In Slovakia the government's legal system is the most corrupted government's institution. > e.g. > Open Standards - a dominant player has no interest in open interfaces. In Slovakia open standards are mainly violated by our government :-) (and it is because strong lobby of Microsoft and other corporations). > Net Neutrality - ISPs may prefer to build cartels with the media industry > Privacy - Cloud companies would sell your data to the highest bidder > including foreign governments Building cartels/monopolies is extremely difficult in really non-regulated markets (see the video I've already sent). If such cartels are created, there will be still a strong commercial demand for free/unfiltered Internet, so new ISPs start to offer unfiltered and free Internet Pavol -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Privacy, Moglen, @ioerror, #rp12
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 06:03:51PM +0200, Andre Rebentisch wrote: > Am 10.05.2012 17:07, schrieb Pavol Luptak: > >This may be work in Norway where are highly ethical/moral > >politicians, but it does not work at all in my country (Slovakia) > >or other Central/Eastern European countries where are massively > >corrupted governments. > > > Who "corrupts" government? Commercial interests. What do dominant Of course. But this is not a problem of commercial companies, but the government which is a "single-point-of-failure" because its monopoly for regulations/laws. The government is corrupted because from the economical point of view it is just cheap and effective for corporations to lobby the laws that protect their businesses. In a pure freemarket it would be much more expensive and difficult to corrupt all your competitors (or someone) because of its decentralized character. Without the government (or very limited government) the corruption would become much more expensive because there would be no single centralized institution to corrupt. > commercial interests want? Government to not get in their way, lower > taxes and/or state aid/contracts. In other words you advocate for > suicide in fear of death. Lowering/increasing taxes is just a game for sheep-citizens, because FED can print arbitrary lot of money without your consent and using the inflation regulates your real tax burden (and of course all without "touching" your "official taxes"). And the same applies to ECB that can easily steal money from all EU citizens by printing new euros. That's a reason why it is a good idea not to have state monopolies to currencies and stop using these fiat moneys. > >In Slovakia open standards are mainly violated by our government > >:-) (and it is because strong lobby of Microsoft and other > >corporations). > > Indeed, because there is no sufficient expectation of your > government officials to act on principled grounds and set > regulation. But even when they your government officals sell out > they get paid. Corruption usually trickles down. Probably two reasons why the situation is so bad in Slovakia: 1. No politician in Slovakia has been ever criminalized or sentenced because of his corruption scandals. 2. Systematic fail of democracy system that motivates politicians to maximizes their profit during 4-year election term (because after this period, there will be new politicians and their interests, so why not to steal just now? ) > Generally speaking you believe that without market intervention > cartels get winded up by market forces. That is often true. The > ordoliberal view is that we know that in a perfect market no cartels > exist, so we intervene and then let the silent hand do the rest to > approximate that market allocation. I just do not believe in the central authority that is moral and fair. I have many logical reasons why fair and honest people do not tend to work for these autorities and why these authorities attract greedy and dominant people (at least in our government, maybe you have the honest government). I just think that we cannot afford to have centralized governments just because people are too bad and too greedy (and all these people are attracted by the governments because of their nature). Authoritatian systems (I include also democracy system here - because if you choose democratically your slaver, it will be still just your slaver) maximize the power of these bad/greedy people because of guaranted money of tax payers (without feedback) and exploitation of many advantages of state monopolies. And you are IT geeks and know that p2p decentralized systems are usually more stable and offer more freedom than centralized systems, so why do you think that we need strictly centralized governments instead of decentralized society? > Government procurement is a powerful leverage on the demand side. I > would also like to suggest that certain companies are more powerful > than your small state, and your state is defined by what it could do > for citizens. If it doesn't do that, then that is an indication of > the powers of the high seas. That's true. But these big companies still do not have the privileges and monopolies that my small state has. And still there is a voluntarily relationship betweeen customers and these big companies and anybody can decide to accept or reject the company rules (and find another company). I admit that in the past central/authoritatian governments made sense and provided a lot of advantages for our society, but in these days our society is so complex, so interconnected between individuals, that is extremely difficult to control it by single central governments. Hayek's explanation is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNbYdbf3EEc Of course this wo
Re: [liberationtech] Privacy, Moglen, @ioerror, #rp12
of different interpretations of a >product); they're trying to be the absolute best in their corner of the >market. It stands to reason that the most efficient way to do this would >not necessarily be to innovate, but rather to simply copy whatever the >current market leader is doing to the greatest extent legally possible. All my childhood I lived in the socialistic regime (Czechoslovakia) and I can say that even your deformed free market society was definitely better that ours. This is quite interesting regarding many Americans I know, they have no practical experiences with socialistic regime, so many of them really tend to these crazy ideas :-) Unfortunately I have these experiences and never more. >Unbridled competition can thus be seen as an impediment to, rather than a >catalyst for, true innovation - and a powerful driver of the expansion of >the influence of the corporate world on individual behavior. > >My point is simply that corporations exert plenty of regulatory power in >and of themselves, even in the presence of so-called competition. And if >there are no external mechanisms for reigning large corporations' pursuit >of market dominance, they may end up regulating us in ways that are far >more disturbing and dangerous than the government regulation that so many >seem inclined to vilify. Personally I believe in the decentralized reputable legal systems (for more info see David Friedman books/videos) that can solve these bad things in case that some corporation start to exploit its position on the market against some others. Pavol -- __ [Pavol Luptak, Nethemba s.r.o.] [http://www.nethemba.com] [tel: +421905400542] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Privacy, Moglen, @ioerror, #rp12
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 03:31:01PM -0400, Fran Parker wrote: > Wow, that is the second posting from you Shava that was a wow moment > in this discussion. > > So many great thoughts from so many today! > > It really does seem that ethics are often sacrificed in the presence > of the influence* of power AND/OR greed regardless of the source > (government, corporate, religious). > > *influence -- how many times have we seen greedy government > officials give over slowly but surely to corporate interests in the > presence of corporate lobbyists/influence whether in thought and/or > through their own greed. People are greedy, they were and they will. They care about their self-interest. It's evolutional. If you put these greedy people to the decentralized free-market, they want (as company owners) to gain as much as possible money. On a free-market this can be achieved by selling their products/services to many customers. If you want to address many people, you just need to offer high-quality products/services, low prices or just better products/services than your competitors. As you can see this "entrepreneur's greediness" is transformed to real benefits of all people in the society. And now imagine when you put these greedy people to the government :-) Pavol -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Privacy, Moglen, @ioerror, #rp12
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 06:26:20PM -0400, Jacob Appelbaum wrote: > > People are greedy, they were and they will. They care about their > > self-interest. It's evolutional. > > This is too one dimensional - people are more than their greed and while > everyone has needs and desires, it's an easy reductionist argument to > simply say greed is the sole defining attribute of a person. > > Furthermore, when you discuss greed, it's unclear to me if you only > include money or property - do you also include power over other people, > even when it comes in direct conflict with wealth? OK, I would distinguish between self-interest and greediness. The difference between these two terms is that greediness is when your self-interest harm other people. So this pure self-interest we can consider to be natural and not bad (that's why we are living :-) So I mean self-interest in this case. People care about their self-interest and being altruistic can be also considered as their self-interest (because they are internally satisfied with that). Please correct me if I am wrong, English is not my native language and my communication skills are a bit limited. > > As you can see this "entrepreneur's greediness" is transformed to real > > benefits of all people in the society. > > This only follows if they don't build up a killing squid and simply rob > you. The drug cartels in Mexico seem to be a perfect counter example to Of course I mean mutual voluntarily business relationship. > your dream state of a free-market. The free-market in Mexico has managed > to overpower the state in most affairs where they clash. Today, the It's not a real free-market. It's just a corporativism where cartels corrupt the government that should provide a functional legal system, but it does not. An no other reputable free-market legal systems work here. So it lacks a lot of attributes of real free-market society. > Mexican government found over forty bodies with heads cut off. This kind > of reality is often ignored by people arguing for a completely free-market. And this is because of non-functional corrupted monopolized legal system. And there are no other better legal systems / protection agencies there. > > I wouldn't be surprised if those killed were the "competitors" who had > lower prices or higher-quality goods. > > Shall everyone carry their own private armies to protect themselves? No, they just become clients of voluntarily chosen protective agencies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVG1-I1wAoM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP4f68Va9kA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw > Shall everyone pave their own roads? Shall we create a society based > entirely on free-markets and nothing else? What good will a philosophy > degree do for anyone? What good will come from studying humanities? What > is the point of art - is it it only of value in a market? Firstly I am talking about society based on voluntarily decisions. (It does not mean free-markets only). I am talking about a society where anybody can create any kind of voluntary organization (also non-profit, owned by all members, etc). People would do anything they want and they receive money/support because some other people would appreciate their work. If you appreciate work of people who have a philosophy degree or who are studying humanities, don't hesitate to support them (financially or by some other way). But do not force other people to pay them by their taxes if they simply do not want (maybe you love philosophy or arts, but many people not, so do not force them). I have nothing even against the state/government, if there is no coercion and people voluntarily will pay taxes because they really want to have the government's services (of course this is just an utopia). > > > > And now imagine when you put these greedy people to the government :-) > > I hear your point but your statements remind me of someone who is > reacting to living in a "communist" country, thinking the "free-market" > is the solution to *everything* - this is like the hipsters of the US > who think "communism" is the solution to our "free-market" problems. I > don't imagine that the *only* solution is actually to switch from one > extreme to the other! I am primarily talking about voluntary society based on many principles (not only free-market). Only voluntary society can work as a framework for all other communities (including communistic ones). In a free society you can create your own communistic organization with communistic rules and if someone voluntarily decide to become your member, these rules will apply to him (e.g. he will pay you 80% of his monthly salary and you will provide him all social benefits). As you can see, technically no other society can be a framework for all other societies (you cannot build the free voluntary society inside of communistic society in which some things are enforced). > > Sometimes the (largely capitalist) governments of th
Re: [liberationtech] Privacy, Moglen, @ioerror, #rp12
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 08:17:24PM -0500, Douglas Lucas wrote: >> I believe that if ever there will be a better society than this one, >> it has to be based on voluntary decisions and non-coercion. > >I wish I could accept that all coercion is wrong, but building a society >based on voluntary decisions and non-coercion wouldn't work, in my >opinion, because both concepts are gray areas, both concepts admit of >degrees. Especially where there are vast inequalities in power. For Solving inequalities in power by enforcing much more bigger power (that can be misused, because people in the governments are as bad as the other common people if not worse) - is a loop >example, when a ginormous company buys big blinking billboards outside my >home to assault my visual field, I'm coerced into seeing them, since my >need to leave the house isn't very optional, isn't fully voluntary. That's >not an argument against billboards or for central planning or anything >else, really, except to say that "voluntary" and "non-coercive" are not as >simple of terms as they might first appear. In the free society you can try to sue this company with blinking billboards (as well as you can do it now). Just will use private decentralized reputable legal system. Many people think that in the free society anybody can build an atom bomb on his private land without any problems. No he can't. He apparently endangers other people that will sue him. Regardless of the fact, that building the atom bomb is extremely expensive and those who can afford it now, they are usually those who are writing "laws" (or can easily modify them). All these concerns that the strongest one will govern us are crazy (they already did it :-) > >However government winds up organized, I think we need (some degree of) >regulations and social insurance -- and thus, coercion -- to keep things >fair. Otherwise some of us gorillas will rig the system to keep hoarding The goal of social insurance is to provide solidarity to poor people. But solidarity has to be voluntary, if it is coercion solidarity, it is not solidarity anymore. >most of the bananas. Show me a different world in a thousand years and >maybe I'll change my mind. See this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ak3TwNXA0w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7fJCtv90Pc and Banksy: https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/525039_37832941619_187021001345803_1069616_1371610356_n.jpg Pavol -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Commercialization makes your online rights irrelevant, more thoughts from my talk with @ioerror at #rp12
Just few notes:
1. It's the commercialization (economical profit motivation) that drives
technological progress and that's why these "centralized social media
monopolies" have so many features, they are so user-friendly and so successful
for the masses
2. If these "social media monopolies" become really bad for their users, they
just move to diaspora / identi.ca or something else.
Now this level of "evil" is too low for the most people, so they simply do not
care.
3. You have no moral right to steal money from taxpayers and use them to
regulate business of these social media monopolies, because you think their
users deserve a better privacy protection.
Pavol
PS: I am a big fan of opensource, openness, freedom, but also voluntary
decisions.
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 02:30:58PM +0200, Dmytri Kleiner wrote:
> Commercialization makes your online rights irrelevant, more thoughts
> from my talk with @ioerror at #rp12
>
>
> Last week I wrote about one of the topics Jacob Appelbaum and I
> discussed at our talk at Re:publica 2012 {1}; that as a result of
> the commercialization of the Internet, we have moved from free and
> open social platform, to the centralized social media monopolies we
> know today. Today I want to mention another issue that we covered,
> how commercialization is putting an end to the Internet as a public
> space.
>
> It's import to understand that it's not that capital does not want
> to fund free and open platforms, or that capitalists choose not to:
> capital simply can not do so.
>
> Capital can not fund free and open platforms because capitalists
> must capture profit or lose their capital, and thus for-profit
> platforms that can not capture profit must eventually vanish.
>
> In order to capture profit, capitalist funded platforms must
> introduce choke-points and/or toll-gates into there platforms,
> because their business models depends on the control of user data
> and interaction, and therefore these platforms can not be free and
> open.
>
> Thus, the prospects for free and open platforms returning in any
> mainstream form seem slim without alternatives to the profit motive
> to finance them.
>
> Free and open communication platforms that don't surveil, control or
> exclude can only be provided socially, as a public good.
>
> However, in the current era of unchallenged neoliberal ideology
> imposing public austerity and community precariousness everywhere,
> building the social capacity to create alternative platforms at a
> scale that can displace Facebook and the others seems unlikely.
>
> As these are commercial platforms, which are operated for profit,
> you only have the privilege of using the private platforms so long
> as you use them in ways that benefit the platform operator.
>
> The result of this, is that using these platforms becomes the only
> popularly accessible way to communicate with the masses, whether
> your an activist, an artist, a journalist or anybody who has
> something to say, privately run social media platforms are the only
> way you have to reach the majority of people.
>
> Activists, artists and journalists often have things to say that
> upset people, sometimes powerful people, who can create problems for
> the platform operators.
>
> As nobody has any explicit right to use a private social platform,
> these platforms have a strong incentive to remove users and content
> that may may create controversy.
>
> The early internet was conceived as a sort of virtual public space.
> In his 1996 "Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" John
> Perry Barlow writes "We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere
> may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear
> of being coerced into silence or conformity."
>
> Barlow's colleague John Gilmore famously claimed "The Net interprets
> censorship as damage and routes around it."
>
> The critical feature of the Net that gave rise to such freedom was
> the mesh topology of the network and the distributed and
> peer-to-peer architecture of the applications that ran on it.
>
> The early Internet was a social platform that allowed groups and
> individuals to interact directly with each other, and thus, such
> communications where unmediated by any public or private third
> party. As a result, it was difficult to monitor and control such
> communications.
>
> To preserve this freedom Barlow and Gilmore became two of the
> founders of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, with Barlow's
> declaration becoming something of a manifesto for the group.
>
> The immediate threat was Government legislation intended to make the
> net more suitable for the purposes of commerce and law enforcement.
>
> Barlow's declaration warns how legislation such as the
> "Telecommunications Reform Act" (Telecommunications Act of 1996) are
> threatening to destroy the freedom of cyberspace. Barlow was so
> offended he claimed that the US 1996 act is one "which repudiates
> your own Constitution
Re: [liberationtech] Commercialization makes your online rights irrelevant, more thoughts from my talk with @ioerror at #rp12
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 03:01:21PM +0200, Dmytri Kleiner wrote: > > On 20.05.2012 13:52, Pavol Luptak wrote: > >Just few notes: > > > >1. It's the commercialization (economical profit motivation) that > >drives > >technological progress and that's why these "centralized social media > >monopolies" have so many features, they are so user-friendly and so > >successful > >for the masses > > If they received similar financing, p2p and distributed applications From who? > >2. If these "social media monopolies" become really bad for their > >users, they > >just move to diaspora / identi.ca or something else. > >Now this level of "evil" is too low for the most people, so they > >simply do not > >care. > > Those alternatives do not have the network size, nor sophistication > of the social media monopolies, and this is exactly because they > have no comparable source of financing. And how do you want to solve it without stealing money from the other people? > > >3. You have no moral right to steal money from taxpayers and use > >them to > >regulate business of these social media monopolies, because you > >think their > >users deserve a better privacy protection. > > Please read some basic macroeconmics, the government does not spend > taxpayer's money. > > http://www.dmytri.info/tax-payers-lament/ ??? Do you know at least one famous and world-know economist who shares your opinion? Some extracts from your article: > The government does not collect taxes because it needs this money to spend. > All money, meaning here the national currency of the country, originally > comes from the government. If the government did not spend or lend, there > would be no such money in the economy. The government creates money. Unfortunately yes. Our governments have money-monopolies (thanks to FED or ECB) what is absolutely bad, because it is an official tool how to steal money from their citizens (by printing new money and causing inflation). Imagine the situation that I would have my own currency and force you to use this currency (so you would use it for buying/selling all services/products). If I want to steal you, you even don't need to pay me any taxes, just use my money. Anytime I can print new a new money papers and buy from you any your services or products (and you MUST to accept my money, because you have no other options and I am your government). Still you think, it's not stealing? Theoretically we don't need taxes, because FED/ECB can print as much as money as it wants (and tax people using inflation). But it would look quite strange for most people:-) And maybe inflation would become hyperinflation... > In most countries, the price of commodities like alcohol and tobacco is > substantially made up of taxes, yet nobody expects that the sellers of > these goods absorb the cost of such taxes in reduced profits, everybody > knows they are passed-on in the prices paid. Of course not, if you increase taxes, people will start to look other ways to buy cheaper products from cheaper countries (including alcohol and tobacco) or smuggling. The USA is a nice example how big taxes totally kill smart people and companies and they just simply leave, see: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html http://www.opposingviews.com/i/technology/internet/facebook-co-founder-eduardo-saverin-moves-singapore-avoid-us-taxes And I would do it in the same way if it is possible. And yes, I am a fan of free banking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_banking > By the way, if you live in an apartment building, is it morally > reprehensible to ask you to contribute in some way in order to live > there? It depends on your agreement with the apartment's owner of course. If it is voluntary and you refuse to contribute, you should bear all consequences... > So far, you have given me no reason to care what you think, to be > honest, since you are just rehashing long discredited > "anarchocapitalist" garbage. I don't like term 'anarchocapitalist', I would prefer 'voluntaryist' in my case. I have nothing against any communistic / democratic or other voluntary society based on free society. > > Have you read any Benjamin Tucker? > > http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker13.html > http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/an_or_cap.html > > I'm a big fan of Mutualism and Individualist Anarchism. I do not believe in this public "property", e.g. because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons I have practical experiences from Czechoslovakia where everything belong to ev
Re: [liberationtech] Commercialization makes your online rights irrelevant, more thoughts from my talk with @ioerror at #rp12
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 09:31:56PM -0400, J. Gaboriault wrote: > On 5/20/12 5:54 PM, StealthMonger wrote: > > >Speak for yourself. Others simply go their own way in peace, perhaps > >occasionally temporarily detouring to cooperate with others in some > >mutually beneficial endeavor. > > I will allow that Dymitri speaks for me, too, although I don't know > him, owe him, or agree 100% with everything he's ever written. > > Consider that representation without taxation. When you have government's monopolies for printing money (the case of US/EU) taxation is done through inflation (which is also stealing), you don't need to pay any taxes. -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Commercialization makes your online rights irrelevant, more thoughts from my talk with @ioerror at #rp12
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:18:01AM +0200, Dmytri Kleiner wrote: > > Nothing I have read from anthropology nor psychology bears this out, > both portray us as a deeply social species and suggest that our > primary motivations are social ones, not individual utility > maximization. We don't temporary detour to co-operation, > co-operation is our natural state, and the reason for of our success > as a species. It's quite the opposite, those that "go there own way" > are either on a temporary detour, or simply outliers. There are 7 > billion of us, and by large we work together, share and compromise > with each other, and our survival depends on this. Don't forget that almost every individual profit can be reached thanks to social interactions and socialization (and this is almost inevitable). And I am not talking about financial profit only. People do a lot of things (helping to other people) just because of good feelings and secondary this is also their individual profit. > >Democracy does not respect freedom (the secret ballot has no > >shame) and > >becomes tyranny of the majority -- the most robust kind of tyranny. > > So how do you propose we make collective decisions? Might makes right? demand + market. If there is a demand, someone will always do it. Including building highways, streets and all other services that are provided by the state at this moment. Pavol -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Commercialization makes your online rights irrelevant, more thoughts from my talk with @ioerror at #rp12
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 05:02:35PM +0200, Dmytri Kleiner wrote: > We have a world to share, and to do so, we need to respect each > other. Not to mention that the distribution of wealth and power is > currently extremely unequal, so even if some magic system of mutual > utility maximization could work in an already-fair world (not that I > believe this), it doesn't explain how we can overcome the unpleasant > reality that the present extreme inequality allows the powerful to > maximize their utility at the expense of the rest of us, and we can > not change this without a moral prerogative to prevent them form > "maximizing their utility" in this way. Therefore we clearly have a > right to determine social outcomes collectively. Even when certain > individuals, i.e. the rich, may not agree with such outcomes, i.e., > more social and economic equality. But this intervention is simply not fair (and I also admit that the current corporativism system where the big corporations corrupt our governments and poor people are exploited, is also not fair). But people are different, have different skills, genetic predispositions, some of them are smart, some or them are stupid and lazy. It is absolutely natural that some of them would be rich and some of them would be poor (it's just a reflection of their skills and abilities). You can say - it is not fair, most people can not influence that they were born stupid or have some genetic disabilities. And that's why we need to involuntarily take money from the rich and smart people and support these poor people. I think it's immoral, because this should be done on voluntary basis only. But imagine the another example: If you are born to be sexy, you will likely also have many beautiful girls around you and have sex everyday. If you are born to be very ugly, it's likely that you have no sex in your whole life. And this also not fair, most people can not influence that they were born ugly and without sexual attractiveness. But in our fair society, we can solve it easily - just take (involuntarily) beautiful girls from all sexy people and give them to all these ugly people (of course, they will deserve it!) I know this is a crazy comparison (you cannot force these beautiful girls to do anything like this), but as well as people are born to be ugly or sexy, they are born to be smart and rich or stupid and poor. Of course not all smart people are rich and not all stupid people are poor. All I want to say is that if you are born to be poor or ugly or with some mental/physical disabilities, it's really unfair. But you cannot force all other people to help you. They have to do it voluntarily. And if you are smart and rich and you don't like this situation, don't hesitate to create a great charity for all poor and ugly people for improving their sex life. I will be your supporter :) Pavol -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] AES-encyrpted telephony in Iran?
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 04:29:47AM +, Naiz Mudin wrote: >Ladies & Gentlemen, >I have discovered, by serendipity, an iOS application that is evidently >also available for Windows Phone and Symbian (soon to be replaced with >Windows Phone 8). It is called, "SafeSession" and claims 256-bit AES >encryption between known and trusted users. >Is this a viable opportunity for an Iranian audience? On iOS market, the >price is at $299 USD, clearly out of the price range of an Iranian economy >reeling from the effects of sanctions and out-of-control inflation. Can it >be migrated, or somehow ported? It does not make sense for me, especially if you can buy any "reputable" SIP/TLS+SRTP VoIP client to your iPhone for few dollars. Pavol -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Finfisher Spy Kit Revealed in Bahrain
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:54:33PM +0200, Andre Rebentisch wrote:
> Am 27.07.2012 12:58, schrieb Erich M.:
> >Here is my take [German alas] on that matter including the
> >reaction of the Social Democrat fraction in Europarl. MEP
> >Leichtfried from .AT has been the rapporteur and the guy who
> >managed to introduce surveillance software into the catalogue of
> >"dual use" goods.
>
> Software is a service, not a good. Without discouraging the efforts:
> While it may undermine the commercial base it won't help to stop the
> spread of these tools.
> The Service aspect frames it more into commercial assistence of
> foreign espionage, here foreign domestic espionage. "Services" imply
> that the export nations do not develop the capabilities themselves
> and allows for all kind of trojan horses ("export versions") and
> contacts, from which you could assess the current capabilities of
> the regime.
>
> Ironic: During the 90ths we voiced strong opinions against crypto
> export regulations, now virtually the same community seeks export
> controls for surveillance technology.
I am a bit skeptical about it. From the technical point of view to prohibit
a business between EU/US companies and dictatorship countries is almost
impossible (because they can use dozens of subcontractors in many 'grey'
countries and they do it if they want). Therefore, it is hard to say if this
should be regulated by a law, I would prefer market - personally I would never
buy anything from the company that supports a dictator regime. The most
companies cannot afford to do it, because otherwise their reputation can be
endangered.
Pavol
--
___
[wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
liberationtech mailing list
liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu
Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above)
next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?"
You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in
monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator.
Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Finfisher Spy Kit Revealed in Bahrain
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 08:40:33PM +, Jacob Appelbaum wrote: > > Likewise, the free market has yet to deal with Cisco, EMC, and the myrid > of companies like Nokia Siemens, Huawei and others who directly sell > surveillance, censorship and outright tracking systems. The "market" has > rewarded Cisco for their efforts with the Golden Shield project. This is > even after Cisco was caught red handed advertising it for use in hunting > down unwanted (religious) groups of people. Of course I really don't like this situation. But I am not sure if any draconian government's laws against these corporations would work. > > I don't believe that export controls or total absolute sanctions are the > right path forward. Rather, we should hold these companies to account > for their actions _in the US and Europe_ where they would not be > reasonable, legal or ethical. Specifically when they do this for a > profit and disregard the impact on society as a whole - something most > of these companies are doing without even a slight regard for human life. Definitely. And propagation of all information about these "bad companies" (e.g. I really like http://werebuild.telecomix.org/wiki/Blue_cabinet). I try to choose my network vendor according to the information in this document and also recommend this list to many my friends/customers. Maybe I am completely out of reality, but still think that the "pressure" against these bad corporations should be made primarily by people (human activists/organizations, potential/real customers of these corporations, etc.), not governments. Because it's a primary ethical problem, then the legal one. Pavol -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] FinFisher is now controlled by UK export controls
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 08:17:37PM +0100, Ryan Gallagher wrote: >Export controls on cryptographic items is not a new development in the UK >or anywhere else - >https://www.gov.uk/specialist/export-of-cryptographic-items > >The question in the case of FinSpy was whether it was to be classed as a >Dual Use item. The UK government appears to now be recognising that FinSpy >is indeed a Dual Use item and falls under Annex I of EC export >regulations. Annex I is designed to control exports of goods >(cryptographic or otherwise) "designed or modified for military use." So >what the UK government is implicitly recognising here is that FinSpy can >be used as a military tool -- a bit like a weapon -- and should be subject >to the same controls. If they implement this, it will mean Gamma will have >to make an application for every sale it wants to make outside of the EU, >and this will have to be assessed with the Dual Use criteria in mind. So >any export will have to be considered in terms of "the respect of human >rights and fundamental freedoms in the country of final destination." If >the UK government suspects it could be used for internal repression in the >country of final destination, for example, they will (theoretically at >least) refuse the export. Any reason why should Gamma International (UK) Ltd. stay in the UK and respect this funny regulation? There so many countries in the world where they can do a business with no such regulations and really low taxes... :-) And of course - all economical regulations will just support these countries (including offshores..) Pavol -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] FinFisher is now controlled by UK export controls
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 03:59:52PM -0400, Collin Anderson wrote: >export. http://www.bis.doc.gov/encryption/encfaqs6_17_02.html#6 >Here is a really good, succinct primer presentation on >regulatory jurisdictions: > http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Documents/WebcastSlides-EncryptionExportControls-02-21-2012.pdf >I would also point out that no cryptography software is allowed to be >exported to "Terrorist Supporting Countries," to the extent that Firefox >was advised a few years ago that it could not export to Syria, et al >unless it opted to not track download locations. And of course this does not work, because of plenty resellers between UK/USA and "terrorist supporting sountries" and most UK/USA companies have no idea where their products finally end up... Economical regulations do not work, if there is a demand (and there is a huge demand). Instead of forcing these regulations, western governments should support a liberation/freedom activities in these countries... (EFF is great in doing this). Pavol -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] FinFisher is now controlled by UK export controls
o know that the British > >> Government has decided to place FinFisher under UK export controls. There > >> are a ton of questions that remain to be answered, and it's only part of > >> the bigger goal to control the export of surveillance technology, but it's > >> a good first step! > >> > >>> In a letter sent earlier in August to Privacy International's lawyers > >>> Bhatt Murphy, a representative of the Treasury Solicitor stated: > >>> > >>> The Secretary of State, having carried out an assessment of the FinSpy > >>> system to which your letter specifically refers, has advised Gamma > >>> International that the system does require a licence to export to all > >>> destinations outside the EU under Category 5, Part 2 (‘Information > >>> Security’) of Annex I to the Dual-Use Regulation. This is because it is > >>> designed to use controlled cryptography and therefore falls within the > >>> scope of Annex I to the Dual-Use Regulation. The Secretary of State also > >>> understands that other products in the Finfisher portfolio could be > >>> controlled for export in the same way." > >>> > >>> Press release is here: > >>> https://www.privacyinternational.org/press-releases/british-government-admits-it-has-already-started-controlling-exports-of-gamma > >>> > >>> Full copy of the letter: > >>> https://www.privacyinternational.org/sites/privacyinternational.org/files/downloads/press-releases/2012_08_08_response_from_tsol.pdf > >> Best, > >> > >> Eric > > > > This is absolutely fucking horrible. They're controlling it based on > > *cryptography* after we WON the cryptowars? What. The. Fuck. And even > > worse, they must require a license? And they don't state categorically > > that they'll deny it on some kind of humanitarian or anti-crime related > > basis? > > > > I mean, I am sure this is the result of a lot of hard work by many > > people and I don't mean to imply any disrespect. Did this just undercut > > the work from the 90s? Wany people explicitly fought hard to win the > > decision of having our free speech rights apply to the net for code as > > speech. > > > > Argh, > > Jake > > -- > 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 -- __ [Pavol Luptak, Nethemba s.r.o.] [http://www.nethemba.com] [tel: +421905400542] -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] FinFisher is now controlled by UK export controls
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:00:16AM +0100, Bernard Tyers - ei8fdb wrote: > > I had to reread the article and the documents a few times, but I think this > control is *for the short term* very good news. Congrats to PI and all > involved for sticking a well-placed oar in. Probably very short. Relocating company to the new country is usually question of few weeks. The UK government just does it because they want to show their citizens that they care (from taxpayer's money). Because there thousands ways how to circumvent it, this regulation is not useless only, but also unfair to the taxpayers (as the most "we really care about you" government's regulations like millions of CCTV cameras in London). > In the long term the regulation isn't going to stop FinFisher sale. Clearly > the Gamma International people are reasonably smart people, whatever you may > say about their morals/ethics. The best it can do is cause them some > short-medium term operational problems. Lots of project managers and business > people running around figuring out what it is they can now actually do. What > they need to talk to the UK government for, what documentation is needed, > etc. They will be paying a lot of money and time to their lawyers (there's a > question, who represents them legally?), and their project managers to juggle > projects/engineers/developers time. What can we change to continue operation, > without breaking the law? I know many UK companies that just moved to Cyprus (or Caribic), because of the stupid regulations. I don't see a reason why Gamma International should stay in the UK if they want to do a big business. > > I hope the UK government actually follow-up, and keep a close eye on what > they are doing. Instead of being able to offer the installation > files/media/training material, etc as a download via a server hosted in > [INSERT FOREIGN COUNTRY] to your friendly dictator surveillance > operation/dictator controlled telco, they will now presumably have to go to > the UK government and ask for permission to conduct business outside of the > EU. They have to follow UK laws only if they want to stay the UK company... And this can be changed easily if they want to continue in their business. > > Like you said in a previous mail, Gamma can just move the business to > Italy/Germany and carry on exporting from there, but presumably the UK > government could punish them for doing that? This will not stop Finspy sale > forever, but if the UK Government closely monitor Gammas operation regarding > this, it will certainly cause delays and upset. ??? Of course not! Why _anybody_ should ask the UK government if he can start his own company in any country in the world? We are free people - anyone can start company in any country (if this country has no problem with it). You cannot prohibit the Gamma people to start company anywhere they wish. > > What constitutes an export, in the case of software? Is it the initial > agreement to sell services/provide products? Is it download from a fileserver > hosted in the UK to the client country? If it involves hardware, this could > be circumvented by referring the client to some other hardware supplier. This is difficult to monitor, especially if you have a chain of suppliers and the first supplier does not know the last one. But yes, you can have quite strict agreements that enforce it. > > About the "relying on cryptography" excuse - again long run it's probably not > very useful, but if the UK government are going to restrict it due to its use > of cryptography, Gamma have their hands tied, in the short term. Removing the > cryptography would mean evading the restrictions, and lead to punishment? Again, people behing Gamma international they are free people, they can start company anywhere in the world they wish (despite of the fact the UK government likes it or not). > > If this software was created by a "hacker" group, would be classified as > illegal software, and would carry a prison sentence for it's use. Any upset > in operations, no matter how short, to companies who create software like > this can only be a good thing. But I guess this software was not created by a "hacker group". Making any software ilegal is absolutely stupid, because software is just tool, you can criminalize just people for using this software for malicious purposes. And it's even true for assassination market software ( http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jimbellap.htm ). Pavol -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] secure text collaboration platforms
Hi, On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 04:25:39PM +0700, Sam de Silva wrote: > > Can someone help me out - Is http://www.piratepad.net secure? I thought it > was, but I can't seem to access it via SSL. Download the source code of etherpad ( http://code.google.com/p/etherpad/ ), perform its security audit and run it on your own hardened server. No reason to trust to http://www.piratepad.net. Pavol -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] secure text collaboration platforms
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 01:10:28PM +0100, Michael Rogers wrote: > As far as I know, the pad software used by PiratePad and similar > services doesn't support SSL. It might be possible to combine the This is not true - etherpad supports SSL natively (directives sslKeyStore and sslStorePassword ). I run it without problems. Pavol -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Bitcoin and The Public Function of Money
since commodities have a fixed > available supply. And though many ignorant or simply disingenuous > commentators, such as promoters of austerity, present this to be the > case even now, in a modern monetary economy based upon fiat money > issued by the public for public purpose, this is factually not the > case. > > The thing about public money is that we can have as much of it as we > want to have. How much we spend relative to how much we tax is a > public policy choice, and the right-wing dogma that the appropriate > choice is for the budget to be balanced, for taxes to be equal to > spending, is universally understood to be false, even among the most > celebrated right-wing economists. In his 1948 article "A Monetary > and Fiscal Framework for Economic Stability", "Chicago Boys" > patriarch Milton Friedman proposed a counter-cyclical policy, where > government spending would be increased beyond taxation during > economic downturns, similar to Abba Lerner's "Functional Finance" > which is often referred to as "Keynesian" economic policy. Whatever > their ideological stripes, there is little disagreement among > economists that to the degree that public budgets need to be > balanced, they must be balanced relative to economic cycles and > sectoral balances and not merely between annual public spending and > taxation. > > The balance between spending and taxes is simply the balance of the > public "Heads" side of the coin, always in counter-balance with the > private "Tails" side of the coin, as expressed by the activity of > private interests in the global market. > > It is no secret that the national State form is unsatisfactory. Not > only is it burdened by its aristocratic roots, and not only is it > corrupted by the fact that its modern form is largely captured by > the international corporate elite, but the State is clearly > unsatisfactory for modern publics as a result of the fact that > static territorial forms are increasingly ineffective and > inappropriate structures to serve global, distributed communities. > > The public form has to evolve from the state form to the networked > form, but for that to happen, new, networked public forms will need > to emerge that are able to take over the socially necessary public > functions. Including the management of forms of public money. > > The critical feature required of public money is that we can > socially determine how much of it there is, and how much of we want > to apply to public purpose. We need ways to create and destroy > public money so that we can can have a counter-balance to private > activity, to manage cycles, to counter-balance economic sectors, and > to socially pursue public objectives, such as health, education, and > justice. > > Thus, Bitcoin's innovation in terms of creating a networked form of > commodity money is not useful in creating networked forms of public > money, and as a result it does not create a way for networked public > forms to replace the current State forms. > > > I'll be at Stammtisch this evening at 9pm, please come if you're in > Berlin, if not, R15N continues at Mal au Pixel in Paris, you can > join the network by calling +33 181 97 97 11 > > > online version is here: > http://www.dmytri.info/bitcoin-and-public-money/ > > > -- > Dmytri Kleiner > Venture Communist > -- > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- __ [Pavol Luptak, Nethemba s.r.o.] [http://www.nethemba.com] [tel: +421905400542] -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Silent Circle Going Open Source
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:55:49AM +0100, Julian Oliver wrote: > > ..on Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 08:15:12PM -0500, Nadim Kobeissi wrote: > > A huge thanks to Silent Circle for doing the right thing! > > https://github.com/SilentCircle > > Great start. It remains to be seen if they'll open up the server side code. If > not then it can't be considered a great win - more akin to an API model such > that developers create custom clients for their closed and centralised service > (a la Google, Twitter, Facebook et al). Do they plan to release also source code for other parts of their products? At https://github.com/SilentCircle, there is just a source for silent-text (nothing else). Pavol -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Bitcoin and The Public Function of Money
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 No, it's not their own fault. But you cannot force people (using aggression) to help poor people. But you can ask them to do it and explain them why voluntary supporting poor people is really important. Solidarity has to be voluntary, otherwise it's not ethical consistent. Regarding pollution of rivers. In a free society you don't need to have a central authority to force people not to pollute rivers. Because there will be just a private property. So if you start to pollute my river, I will sue you (using decentralised free market legal system) and I will win, because you are damaging my own property. Pavol Dmytri Kleiner wrote: > >I mean it's their own fault they where born poor, right? > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: APG v1.0.8 iHAEAREIADAFAlCruRgpHFBhdm9sIEx1cHRhayA8cGF2b2wubHVwdGFrQG5ldGhl bWJhLmNvbT4ACgkQkBK3tbitpXOGZACgiZ1BjxuGLMLka5U8GVdR9CjOEFAAnA7y zEcB/834DuulqouTs6ya4vvZ =areP -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] /. ITU Approves Deep Packet Inspection
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 07:27:27PM +0100, Christian Fuchs wrote:
> If this approval by the ITU is true - then it is no surprise at all,
> but what one would expect. What else has the ITU in the past ever
> been than an instrument that supports capitalist interests and
> commodification of the ICT and telecommunications industries?
>
> DPI can advance large-scale monitoring of citizens by the
> state-capital complex that is connected by a right-wing state
> ideology of fighting crime and terror by massive use of surveillance
> technologies and a neoliberal ideology of capitalist organisations
> that want to make a profit out of surveillance and want to hinder
> the undermining of intellectual property rights.
DPI censorship is not a 'competitive' advantage, so it's quite likely that
in a pure market society ('anarchocapitalism') without strong socialistic
governments and their stupid Internet regulations, most Internet providers WILL
NOT censor their connections, otherwise they will loose their customers. Most
customers are not willing to pay for censored Internet if they can choose
unfiltered free Internet. And the only one who can take them this right is
a monopoly for laws/regulations - the centralized government.
Pavol
--
___
[wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678]
--
Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] /. ITU Approves Deep Packet Inspection
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 01:19:47PM +0100, KheOps wrote:
> > DPI censorship is not a 'competitive' advantage, so it's quite likely that
> > in a pure market society ('anarchocapitalism') without strong socialistic
> > governments and their stupid Internet regulations, most Internet providers
> > WILL
> > NOT censor their connections, otherwise they will loose their customers.
> > Most
> > customers are not willing to pay for censored Internet if they can choose
> > unfiltered free Internet. And the only one who can take them this right is
> > a monopoly for laws/regulations - the centralized government.
>
> I'd say it can happen for purely economic reasons. For instance, in
> France, some ISPs used to have marketing agreements with Dailymotion and
> consequently slowed down Youtube access.
This is completely fine if customers decide for this kind of "marketing / ads"
Internet connection for free (and accept all related advertisements).
I am more than sure there will be also an economical demand for non-ads,
non-filtered and fast Internet and many people will be willing to pay for it.
So market will work.
Pavol
--
___
[wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678]
--
Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] /. ITU Approves Deep Packet Inspection
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 01:25:46PM +0100, Julian Oliver wrote: > Great examples. > > I've often experienced what appears to be severe throttling of an Alice DSL > connection (Germany) after using bittorrent, whether that be to download a > Linux > ISO or otherwise. It persists for an hour or so after the bittorrent > application > is stopped. Telling locals about it one night it appears it's quite common. If there are enough people willing to pay for fast bittorrent downloads, I am sure that for someone it will make sense to build a new ISP especially for needs of these people. Pavol -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Namecoin: secure, anti-censorship naming system based on bitcoin
See http://dianna-project.org/wiki/Design_Overview Pavol On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 01:19:42PM +0100, Laurens Vets wrote: > Hello Fabio, > > Namecoin has been dead for over a year (no updates etc...). NMC > merged mining is also slowly disappearing. > > On 2012-12-21 11:57, Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) wrote: > >Hi all, > > > > i encountered such a project called Namecoin: > >http://dot-bit.org/Main_Page [1] > > > >Namecoin [2] is a peer-to-peer GENERIC name/value datastore system > >based on Bitcoin [3] technology (a decentralized cryptocurrency). It > >allows you to: > > > > * Securely register and transfer arbitrary names, NO POSSIBLE > >CENSORSHIP! > > * Attach values to the names (up to 1023 bytes) > > * Trade and transact namecoins, the digital currency NMC. > > > > There's also a proposal to use NameCoin for naming system for Tor > >http://dot-bit.org/Namespace:Tor [4] . > > > > I am wondering if this system has been already seriously considered > >as a resilient human readable crypto naming system for other crypto > >and anti censorship projects, as it seems quite promising but i > >didn't > >get deeper technically. > > > > Any opinion? > > > > Fabio > > > > > >Links: > >-- > >[1] http://dot-bit.org/Main_Page > >[2] http://dot-bit.org/Namecoin > >[3] http://www.bitcoin.org/ > >[4] http://dot-bit.org/Namespace:Tor > > > >-- > >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 -- __ [Pavol Luptak, Nethemba s.r.o.] [http://www.nethemba.com] [tel: +421905400542] -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Mexico's most vulnerable reporters lack digital security skills
n 34 languages. It encrypts all of your conversations, >> preserves your privacy and works in your browser. >> >> If you are a Mexican journalist and your opponent is not highly >skilled in >> information technology intelligence (not a government, but a drug >cartel) >> then you should try Cryptocat. It does not leave a record of >conversations >> anywhere and does not transmit anything in the clear. >> >> Get Cryptocat here: https://crypto.cat >> Make sure to read the warnings on the site to get familiar with the >app's >> limitations. >> >> >> NK >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Brian Conley >wrote: >> >>> Hi Kyle, >>> >>> I've been developing a tool called StoryMaker for journalists and >citizen >>> journalists. >>> >>> It's private/secure by design, so ideal for this use case. >>> >>> A There is a 10 lesson curriculum in mobile digital safety, and the >app >>> itself that could all be translated into Spanish. Then perhaps the >app >>> and/or curriculum might be used to educate and assist them in their >work? >>> >>> https://www.transifex.com/projects/p/storymaker/language/es/ >>> >>> Resources 20-29 + 210 are the digital safety lessons. >>> >>> cheers >>> >>> brian >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Kyle Maxwell >wrote: >>> >>>> I'm curious how the infosec community, particularly those of us >who >>>> speak and write Spanish, can assist in helping Mexican activists >and >>>> journalists. I understand that a large portion of that community >>>> actively exchanges data on Twitter; any pointers would be >appreciated. >>>> >>>> Feel free to contact me off-list if desired. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:02 PM, G.W. Schulz > >>>> wrote: >>>>>> "Most Mexican journalists and bloggers reporting on highly >sensitive >>>>>> topics (such as crime, corruption, violence and human rights >issues) >>>> do not >>>>>> fully understand the risks and threats they face when they use >digital >>>> and >>>>>> mobile technology, even though the topics they cover make them >even >>>> more >>>>>> vulnerable, a new survey by Freedom House and the International >Center >>>> for >>>>>> Journalists finds." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> > > http://ijnet.org/stories/mexicos-most-vulnerable-reporters-lack-digital-security-skills >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Kyle Maxwell [krmaxw...@gmail.com] >>>> http://www.xwell.org >>>> Twitter: @kylemaxwell >>>> -- >>>> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: >>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> Brian Conley >>> >>> Director, Small World News >>> >>> http://smallworldnews.tv >>> >>> m: 646.285.2046 >>> >>> Skype: brianjoelconley >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >-- >Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by >emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings >at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > > -- > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by > emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > -- > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by > emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- __ [Pavol Luptak, Nethemba s.r.o.] [http://www.nethemba.com] [tel: +421905400542] -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
[liberationtech] Android Privacy Guide
Some of you may be interested in my short presentation: Prezi online: http://prezi.com/y9xwygcxmv0u/android-privacy-guide/ PDF version: http://www.nethemba.com/AndroidPrivacyGuide.pdf -- __ [Pavol Luptak, Nethemba s.r.o.] [http://www.nethemba.com] [tel: +421905400542] -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Ostel: encrypted phone calls
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:12:22PM +0200, KheOps wrote: > Hi all, > > Just came accross that: https://ostel.co/ > > Open source software for encrypted calls, with a client that apparently > runs on a lot of platforms. > > Anyone ever used/reviewed it already? I used it with my Android SIP clients (CSIPSimple, Acrobits Softphone), It should be completely based on opensource FreeSWITCH http://www.freeswitch.org/ with enabled ZRTP support. CSIPSimple + FreeSWITCH is probably the best opensource ZRTP solution for end-to-end encrypted calls. BTW, what do you think about security of Threema http://threema.ch/en/? Now they have out Android version and it is very user-friendly, unfortunately it's still closed/proprietary software, so I am not sure about security. Pavol -- __________ [Pavol Luptak, Nethemba s.r.o.] [http://www.nethemba.com] [tel: +421905400542] -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] NSA, FBI, Verizon caught red handed spying on US citizens in the US
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 12:56:33PM -0500, Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes wrote: > If the US government starts a war, it doesn't matter if 49.99% opposed > it. It's still going on and people get killed. For those people, and > their "circles," the US government is MONOLITHIC. https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/942400_478286445573487_2110837671_n.jpg -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Question about otr.js
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 07:44:35PM +0200, Jurre andmore wrote: >Pidgin is a terrible client. It has quite a bit of issues. Their SSL >handling is terrible and possible to mitm, I audited the Windows build >last August and found known vulnerabilities since 2006 in 2012.. only >recently in february that the Pidgin team released a security update.. > >Avoid using Pidgin at all costs. BTW, I use mcabber with OTR/PGP support http://mcabber.com/ Any security opinion? -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Cell phone tracking
Some information yoy may consider to be interesting: 1. It is possible to buy completely anonymous SIM cards (with data roaming that works everywhere in Europe including the UK) in Czech Republic. For 1.2 GB roaming data it costs about 800 Kc (31 €) monthly. I've already activated it for some of my friends who travelled around Europe and wanted to access to the Internet anonymously. 2. It should be possible to change IMEI on the fly (regardless the fact that this is illegal in most countries), I found this "STEALTH-PHONE" that should be able to do it: http://www.endoacustica.com/details_stealth_phone_en.htm The Stealth Phone is able to change IMEI code in different ways: systematically or manually, using simple procedures. Do you have any experiences with that? 3. There are many ways how to pay for mobile/Internet connection anonymously (e.g. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_7:_Rapidly-adjusted_.28micro.29payments_to_a_pre-determined_party) There is an evil plan that is probably viable: 1. Come to your 'favourite' parliament with IMSI/IMEI catcher and make a nice list of IMEIs of your 'favourite' politicians. 2. Buy multiple anonymous SIM cards (multiple IMSI). 3. Buy STEALTH-PHONE capable to change IMEI on-the-fly 4. In your STEALTH-PHONE enumerate IMEI frequently of each politician's phone + change frequently your anonymous SIM cards 5. Be free & stealthy :-) Regarding two (or more) same IMEI of enabled phones - in one network this can caused a collision - one of them can be blacklisted (the question is if it was your clone or the original:) In the worst case, this can be a nice phone DoS against the system :) But according to this: http://forum.gsmhosting.com/vbb/f131/what-will-happen-if-two-phones-same-imei-run-same-network-3965/ it should work: I test it on two T10 in the same network & same room . We can speak with one fone with the other fine. but probably these checks depends on the mobile provider. BTW, if you are attending OHM2013 in Netherlands this year, Karsten Nohl will have there a presentation: SIM card exploitation – by [2]Karsten Nohl The protection pretense of SIM cards is based on the understanding that they have never been exploited. This talk ends this myth of unbreakable SIM cards and illustrates that the cards –like any other computing system– are plagued by implementation and configuration bugs. Pavol On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 09:16:54AM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 10:16:20PM -0400, Nathan of Guardian wrote: > > In summary, if the focused threat you need to address is location > > tracking by carriers/operators, and you live in an area with a decent > > saturation of "open" wifi hotspots, I feel there is something you can do > > about it. Now your adversaries have to work a bit harder (tracking IPs > > to hotspots, physical surveillance, etc) to build a geo map of your > > comings and goings. > > In re this topic, please see this paper: > > Unique in the Crowd: The privacy bounds of human mobility > http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130325/srep01376/full/srep01376.html > > Abstract: > > We study fifteen months of human mobility data for one and a half > million individuals and find that human mobility traces are highly > unique. In fact, in a dataset where the location of an individual > is specified hourly, and with a spatial resolution equal to that > given by the carrier's antennas, four spatio-temporal points are > enough to uniquely identify 95% of the individuals. We coarsen > the data spatially and temporally to find a formula for the > uniqueness of human mobility traces given their resolution and > the available outside information. This formula shows that the > uniqueness of mobility traces decays approximately as the 1/10 > power of their resolution. Hence, even coarse datasets provide > little anonymity. These findings represent fundamental constraints > to an individual's privacy and have important implications for > the design of frameworks and institutions dedicated to protect > the privacy of individuals. > > And remember Schneier's maxim: attacks always get better. So the work > which these researchers have done (and it appears to me to be fine work) > will be extended, refined, improved. > > ---rsk > -- > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by > emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] [cryptopolitics] [cryptography] skype backdoor confirmation
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 07:31:59PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: > democracies downfall. The most dangerous aspect is the secerecy - not only > do they want to collect the biggest dossier on everyone ever, they want to > do it in secret, with secret courts, secret legal interpretations, and gag > orders on those in industry forced to participate. Secret laws are not > hallmarks of a democratic process. https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/943487_324377737694270_933715187_n.jpg :) -- ______ [Pavol Luptak, Nethemba s.r.o.] [http://www.nethemba.com] [tel: +421905400542] -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Physical Hacks to Protect Privacy/Freedom
Any hacks to make a privacy modification of cellphone where a microphone can be physically disconnected? Something like this http://www.stahlke.org/dan/phonemute/, but for recent phones. Pavol On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 11:30:24AM -0400, Nathan of Guardian wrote: > On 07/01/2013 11:21 AM, Lorenzo Franceschi Bicchierai wrote: > > Any other cool examples you can think of? I'd like to get as many examples > > as possible, so I thought I'd ask here since you guys must know many more. > -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] safermobile.org / mobileactive.org manuals
And my updated Android Privacy Guide: http://prezi.com/y9xwygcxmv0u/android-privacy-guide/ On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 03:14:26PM +, Kody Leonard wrote: >Here's the Mobile Security Survival Guide for Journalists that I looked up >awhile ago: > https://www.aswat.com/files/Mobile%20Journalist%20Survival%20Guide.pdf > >On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Laurent Giacobino >wrote: > > Hi list > > Does anyone know where to find a repository of the safermobile / > mobileactive manuals? > Both safermobile.org and mobileactive.org are now down but I supposed > 'someone' has archived the numerous manuals that used to sit there and > would be ok to share them. > > Thanks for your help. > > Yours > Laurent > -- > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by > emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > -- > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by > emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- __ [Pavol Luptak, Nethemba s.r.o.] [http://www.nethemba.com] [tel: +421905400542] -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Stability in truly "Democratic" decision systems
In the past I had quite similar thoughts and was trying to analyse the most effective / fair models of democracy (and I really spent a lot of time by this). And I ended up like anarchocapitalist / voluntaryist, everything else was logically/ethically inconsistent for me, so I perceive a democracy like a dead-end - especially in these days when most Americans are OK with PRISM / surveillance and democracy apparently fails. And people still believe in the illusion of democracy (regardless the fact that democracy permanently fails -> Lukashenko, Hugo Chavez, Morsi, Bush -> all these people were democratically elected). Pavol On Sun, Jul 07, 2013 at 12:47:52PM -0700, Peter Lindener wrote: > Watching Egypt iteratively attempt to find something that resembles a >democratic form government feels quite uncomfortable for me. Not only that >in the senseless confusion many lives will be lost, but also, closer to >home, here at Stanford, deeper reflections of the human condition seem >still to be leaving our institution's interest in promoting forms of >democracy that are more likely to function in a state of disarray.. > I find it encouraging that Stanford has the kind of vision, value >system and intellect that prompt it to support both a program on >Liberation Techonolgy, as well as the Center for Democracy and the rule of >Law... > Then I have to ask why it seems maintenance of the existing >Socio-Political power schema some how seems to trump moving ahead with the >stated intentions of each of these promising programs..? > While not all seem ready for the rigor of formal methods in information >and Game theory towards building our society's better understanding of >what it truly means to achieve a more genuine sense of democracy (i.e. a >government for the people, by the people)... It would see that to just sit >by and watch, as we preach to others that democracy is good, and then fail >in any truly meaningful way to show how to achieve it, feels discouraging, >at least for me. > In a nut shell, the truly democratic group decision process, can best >be understood as an information process that under some circumstances must >endure varying amounts of game stress. as varying interests within a >group attempt to maximize there influence on the group's decision outcome. > >The good news here is that: Significant insights can be gained, as one >looks at the truly democratic group decision, as an information process.. >These include: > 1. Profoundly improved, individually selected, issue specialized, >expertise leveraged, representation can be achieved by way of >individualized Social Network based key word triggered proxy directives.. > > 2. Wide open alternative Cardinal ranked group choice systems, that are >essentially free of the spoiler effect, will empower the implementation of >crowd sourced "idea percolators", that will tend to leverage the best >thinking and problem solvers within our society. > Now I know that some (perhaps from there ivory tower) may be wanting to >dismiss what it is I'm saying hereeven as we sit watching the >situation in Egypt potentially melt down Some might point to Arrow's >Impossibility Theorem, and then declare that there is nothing more to >discuss... >Then a few (including a few very bright Stanford students) might be >taking note of Von Neumann*Morgenstern utility theorem, and realize that >there would seem to be more to understand... >Working towards the dream of government, for the people, by the >people, I will continue to make my self available as a resource for >discussion surround the concept of Information Theoretic Democracy. > Sincerely your's > -Peter Lindener > > -- > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by > emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- __ [Pavol Luptak, Nethemba s.r.o.] [http://www.nethemba.com] [tel: +421905400542] -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Surespot? Re: Feedback on Threema - Seriously secure mobile messaging.
er the > users are now friends, the two friends can access each other's public > keys, which allows key derivation and message exchange. The scenario > plays out as follows at a high level glance: > adam wants to send cherie a message > adam asks the server for the latest version of cherie's public key > adam verifies cherie's public key (which is signed by the server) > against the hard coded server public key in the app and proceeds if valid > adam derives the shared secret > adam encrypts the message using AES 256bit GCM using the derived shared > secret as the key and sends it to cherie, the to and from key version > used to generate the message are included as part of the message > cherie receives the encrypted message > cherie downloads and verifies the version of adam's public key needed to > derive the shared secret for the message > cherie derives the (same) shared secret > cherie decrypts the message using the shared secret > > Data stored on device- surespot ensures that no message data or keys are > stored on the device an unencrypted fashion. This means that even if > someone has your device they will not be able to get the information > without knowing your password. Users will be prompted to create a secure > password upon creating an identity. > > > -- > Moritz Bartl > https://www.torservers.net/ > -- > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by > emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- __ [Pavol Luptak, Nethemba s.r.o.] [http://www.nethemba.com] [tel: +421905400542] -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Surespot? Re: Feedback on Threema - Seriously secure mobile messaging.
Thanks guys for info! Pavol On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 05:04:25PM -0400, Nathan of Guardian wrote: > On 07/15/2013 05:00 PM, Pavol Luptak wrote: > > Of course, I can use Jabber+OTR, but I think there is even no > > opensource alternative of Jabber+OTR client on iOS platform yet. > > ChatSecure! > chatsecure.org > https://github.com/ChatSecure > https://github.com/chrisballinger/Off-the-Record-iOS > > Fully interoperable XMPP and OTR. > > It does have its limitations (i.e. iOS limits background apps > capabilities), but it is getting better all the time. > > +n > -- > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by > emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- ______ [Pavol Luptak, Nethemba s.r.o.] [http://www.nethemba.com] [tel: +421905400542] -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Surespot? Re: Feedback on Threema - Seriously secure mobile messaging.
But there is a strong disadvantage of Jabber+OTR compared to Threema (and probably Heml.is): Jabber+OTR needs a running client on both sides (two-way interactive communication) -> offline messages are not supported by Jabber+OTR ( offline messages are supported by XMPP, but not with OTR ). But Jabber+PGP works for offline messages (I use it in my mcabber), but PGP is probably not supported by these smartphone jabber clients :( Any idea how to have offline secure messaging (when Jabber+OTR is not possible to use)? (this is probably the reason why Heml.is would use XMPP + PGP instead of OTR). Pavol On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 02:04:34PM -0700, Parker Higgins wrote: > On 7/15/13 2:00 PM, Pavol Luptak wrote: > > Of course, I can use Jabber+OTR, but I think there is even no > > opensource alternative of Jabber+OTR client on iOS platform yet. > > There is ChatSecure: http://chrisballinger.info/apps/chatsecure/ > > Thanks, > Parker > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:41:45PM +0200, Moritz Bartl wrote: > >> Surespot looks like an open source alternative: > >> > >> https://www.surespot.me/ > >> https://www.surespot.me/documents/how_surespot_works.html > >> > >> technical overview > >> > >> User creation- When a user is created in surespot two ECC > >> (secp521) key pairs are generated, one for key derivation, and > >> one for signing. > >> > >> The username plus keypairs create a 'surespot identity'. This > >> identity is stored on the device symmetrically encrypted using > >> 256 bit AES-GCM with a PKCS5S2 key derived from the user's > >> password (plus salt and other data). The public keys are uploaded > >> to the server where they are signed by the server using the > >> server's private key. A user may create multiple identities and > >> switch between them at will. > >> > >> User authentication- To login the client generates a signature > >> using the identity's private signing key against the username, > >> password, and randomly generated data. The server validates the > >> client provided username, password, and aforementioned signature > >> against its stored public signing key for the identity in > >> question. If successfully verified the client is issued a session > >> cookie which authenticates them for future requests until the > >> session expires or they logout. > >> > >> As the exchange occurs over SSL, session cookies are thought to > >> be a secure enough mechanism to facilitate authentication, but in > >> the future every request could be validated against the > >> signature. The fact that messages could not be decrypted by a > >> session hijacker given the end to end encryption nature of the > >> system also factors into this decision. > >> > >> Identity backup/restore- As the private key stored on the device > >> is the, uh key, to unlocking all of the data, it is of utmost > >> importance. In the case of a lost or stolen device, if the key is > >> lost along with it, so is all of the data. Identity > >> backup/restore and key versioning help to mitigate this problem. > >> A user may backup their (encrypted) identities (username and key > >> pair history) to device storage, or the cloud and restore them > >> upon demand. Obviously the security is only as strong as the > >> password used to store the identity in whatever cloud service > >> and the surespot password, so make them strong! Never shall a > >> private key be stored on a surespot server. > >> > >> Man in the middle- MITM is currently thwarted by the following: > >> standard SSL implementation. When a user is created and its > >> public keys uploaded to the server, the server signs the public > >> keys. Clients that download the public key then validate the > >> signature of the key against the hardcoded server public key in > >> the client. This ensures a MITM attack trying to use a rogue key > >> pair to impersonate a user will be prevented. > >> > >> Key versioning/revoking- A user may generate a new pair of key > >> pairs at any time. This process is as follows: the user requests > >> a ?key token? from the server the user generates a new pair of > >> key pairs and uploads them to the server along with an > >> authentication signature (username, password, random) and a token > >> signature (the received key token, password) generated by the > >> identity's existing signing private key. the serv
Re: [liberationtech] Freedom Hosting, Tormail Compromised // OnionCloud
But, this is the Firefox / Tor Browser Bundle exploit. The question is how FBI gained access to Freedom Hosting? What kind of exploits did they use? Pavol On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 09:08:49PM -0500, Kyle Maxwell wrote: > According to THN[0] and several linked supporting sites from there > (particularly notable are analyses from Kenneth Buckler[1] and Vlad > Tsyrklevich[2]), the payload delivered the MAC address and Windows > hostname to 65.222.202.54[3]. I've read in public sources that that > address is assigned to SAIC but I have not seen any hard data on that. > > [0]: > http://thehackernews.com/2013/08/Firefox-Exploit-Tor-Network-child-pornography-Freedom-Hosting.html > [1]: > https://code.google.com/p/caffsec-malware-analysis/source/browse/trunk/TorFreedomHosting/ > [2]: http://tsyrklevich.net/tbb_payload.txt > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:22 PM, wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 06:18:02PM -0400, r...@privacymaverick.com wrote > > 0.6K bytes in 0 lines about: > > : Does anybody have any indication on how the alleged operator of > > : Freedom Hosting was identified. Everybody seems to be focusing on > > : the javascript exploit but from what I've read, it appears that was > > : placed on the server after the alleged operator was taken down and > > : the operation compromised, or is my timing off? > > > > This is far more interesting to me than anything else. I've been > > wondering the same thing. > > -- > @kylemaxwell > -- > Liberationtech list is public and archives are searchable on Google. Too many > emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing > moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- __ [Pavol Luptak, Nethemba s.r.o.] [http://www.nethemba.com] [tel: +421905400542] -- Liberationtech list is public and archives are searchable on Google. Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Mexico's drug cartels love social media
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 10:19:41AM -0500, Rafal Rohozinski wrote: >Civil society groups are not the only ones flooding into social media*. > liberation technologies can also empower less libertarian groups. it's a >popcorn article, but nonetheless useful to reflect upon as a goes to the >heart of the debate between defending individual liberties and ensuring >collective community security. >Rafal > > http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/mexicos-drug-cartels-are-using-the-internet-to-get-up-to-mischief But this is just a nice demonstration of failure of the state - Mexican's government, no? If drugs were legal everywhere, there would be no violence, no dangerous cartels, but just serious drug companies (like the alcohol producers in these days). Pavol -- ___ [wil...@trip.sk] [http://trip.sk/wilder/] [talker: ttt.sk 5678] -- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu.
