Re: Kaspersky wants to make Tor illegal and supports a globalized policed internet.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:41:28AM -0500, Flamsmark wrote: > > I want very much for it to be real. > > Looks like a bunch of gibberish to me; and not very good gibberish at that. It might well that it is gibberish, but the concept itself is sound. You can route simply (using only local knowledge) in dense node assemblies (both 2d and 3d) where link density decays with distance, especially if link latency is a good measure of distance, which is especially true for very large networks and/or for line of sight and/or relativistic cut-through. With DTN this can be used for mobile nodes, whether on foot, car, balloon, plane or birds in LEO. -- Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Kaspersky wants to make Tor illegal and supports a globalized policed internet.
> > hIf The Internet >>> is restricted in such ridiculous ways as Kaspersky suggests, then >>> other internets will just spring up to replace it. >>> >> >> For those who don't know, such a project already exists, run by >> Freaknet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netsukuku >> > > > Netsukuku is very interesting. > > It's also very difficult to tell whether it is gibberish or not: > > http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/10/6/101832/209 > > I want very much for it to be real. Looks like a bunch of gibberish to me; and not very good gibberish at that.
Re: Kaspersky wants to make Tor illegal and supports a globalized policed internet.
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:35:59 + (UTC) John Case wrote: >On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, Sharif Olorin wrote: > >> Bids like Kaspersky's are exceptionally unlikely to be successful. The >> people who keep the Internet running are, for the most part, the >> people who are most opposed to this kind of control. >> >>> If The Internet >>> is restricted in such ridiculous ways as Kaspersky suggests, then >>> other internets will just spring up to replace it. >> >> For those who don't know, such a project already exists, run by >> Freaknet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netsukuku > > >Netsukuku is very interesting. > >It's also very difficult to tell whether it is gibberish or not: > >http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/10/6/101832/209 > >I want very much for it to be real. This may be slightly off topic, but there is some software around that might be considered prerequisite components for networking schemes like Netsukuku. 802.11s is in various stages of implementation already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11s http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_26#head-26b4a3f6eb606c21056e4f906a4dae88077346f5 http://wiki.freebsd.org/WifiMesh http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3561.txt Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ** * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * ** * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army." * *-- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * ** *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Kaspersky wants to make Tor illegal and supports a globalized policed internet.
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, Sharif Olorin wrote: Bids like Kaspersky's are exceptionally unlikely to be successful. The people who keep the Internet running are, for the most part, the people who are most opposed to this kind of control. If The Internet is restricted in such ridiculous ways as Kaspersky suggests, then other internets will just spring up to replace it. For those who don't know, such a project already exists, run by Freaknet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netsukuku Netsukuku is very interesting. It's also very difficult to tell whether it is gibberish or not: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/10/6/101832/209 I want very much for it to be real. *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Kaspersky wants to make Tor illegal and supports a globalized policed internet.
Bids like Kaspersky's are exceptionally unlikely to be successful. The people who keep the Internet running are, for the most part, the people who are most opposed to this kind of control. > If The Internet > is restricted in such ridiculous ways as Kaspersky suggests, then > other internets will just spring up to replace it. For those who don't know, such a project already exists, run by Freaknet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netsukuku Sharif Olorin -- PGP/GPG key ID: 5738DC39 *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Kaspersky wants to make Tor illegal and supports a globalized policed internet.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:29:26PM -0500, Brian Mearns wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 9:04 PM, John Case wrote: > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, Jacob Todd wrote: > [clip] > >>> I'd like to change the design of the Internet by introducing > >>> regulation--Internet passports, Internet police and international > >>> agreement--about following Internet standards. And if some countries > >>> don't agree with or don't pay attention to the agreement, just cut > >>> them off. > > > > > > Let's say this is successful ... it will simply lead to a parallel, mostly > > wireless network that is even more decentralized than the current Internet. > > How much does it cost these days to link 10mbps across 10 km ? > > > > In a few years, with "n" hardware flooding the market, how much will it cost > > to link 100mbps across 50 km ? > [clip] > > Agreed. You would think a man at the head of an Internet Security firm > would have a better understand of Internet vs. internet. His comment > about the Internet being "designed" illustrates to me that he doesn't > actually know much about the history of networking, and apparently > doesn't even have a good understanding of how ad-hoc these things > really are. > > Anyway, like I said, I totally agree with your point. If The Internet > is restricted in such ridiculous ways as Kaspersky suggests, then > other internets will just spring up to replace it. Maybe to this end > we should all make an effort to establish de-centralized networks in > our own worlds: connect a few neighbors together with CAT5, or hell, > even RS232, and you've got a network. Connect one of these to the > neighbors on the next block, and you've got an internet. How about > Sneakernets? Onion routing by snail-mail and courier? Packet > transmission by encrypted email? The Internet grew out of nothing, > once, and that when network theory was only in its infancy. There's no > reason we couldn't go it again. > > -Brian I havent read Kaspersky's report but the general argument is supportable. The hardware on which the high speed internet runs is increasingly concentrated under fewer owners. How many internet access providers exist where you live and do they significantly differ in Terms of Service, i.e. friendly to privacy? Google alone now carries from 6 to 10% of all the traffic. viz. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/youtube-bandwidth/ The laws governing (or attempting to) what is allowed on the internet are also swinging in favour of more control and traceability. Indeed, if the ACTA currently being negotiated is implemented, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/leaked-acta-internet-provisions-three-strikes-and- Tor could well become illegal, (a) because it can be used to circumvent restriction of copyrighted content by country and (b) because you can use it to hide identity while filesharing (even though we discourage that). EFF and friends succeeded in repealing some PATRIOT act insanity, but national insecurity and corporate greed continue to infect all areas of law and social reality including the internet. Anyway, there is a volunteer project which may help Tor work on the kind of grassroots internet you describe: https://www.torproject.org/volunteer.html.en Simulator for slow Internet connections *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Kaspersky wants to make Tor illegal and supports a globalized policed internet.
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 9:04 PM, John Case wrote: > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, Jacob Todd wrote: [clip] >>> I'd like to change the design of the Internet by introducing >>> regulation--Internet passports, Internet police and international >>> agreement--about following Internet standards. And if some countries >>> don't agree with or don't pay attention to the agreement, just cut >>> them off. > > > Let's say this is successful ... it will simply lead to a parallel, mostly > wireless network that is even more decentralized than the current Internet. > How much does it cost these days to link 10mbps across 10 km ? > > In a few years, with "n" hardware flooding the market, how much will it cost > to link 100mbps across 50 km ? [clip] Agreed. You would think a man at the head of an Internet Security firm would have a better understand of Internet vs. internet. His comment about the Internet being "designed" illustrates to me that he doesn't actually know much about the history of networking, and apparently doesn't even have a good understanding of how ad-hoc these things really are. Anyway, like I said, I totally agree with your point. If The Internet is restricted in such ridiculous ways as Kaspersky suggests, then other internets will just spring up to replace it. Maybe to this end we should all make an effort to establish de-centralized networks in our own worlds: connect a few neighbors together with CAT5, or hell, even RS232, and you've got a network. Connect one of these to the neighbors on the next block, and you've got an internet. How about Sneakernets? Onion routing by snail-mail and courier? Packet transmission by encrypted email? The Internet grew out of nothing, once, and that when network theory was only in its infancy. There's no reason we couldn't go it again. -Brian -- Feel free to contact me using PGP Encryption: Key Id: 0x3AA70848 Available from: http://keys.gnupg.net *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Kaspersky wants to make Tor illegal and supports a globalized policed internet.
On 10/21/2009 10:00 AM, Scott Bennett wrote: > I don't think that Sinn Fein enjoyed the death and fear that was the result >> of IRA actions either. However, they shared a belief in a more unified >> Ireland, much as 'pirates' and Piratpartiet share a belief in more >> reasonable copyright laws, and execution, as well as a variety of other >> electronic and surveillance freedom issues. If you think that what I said >> was slanderous, you may be interpreting more of a normative view than I was >> trying to espouse. >> > Is this still about tor? Or has it strayed enough that it should depart > this list for more appropriate fora? Yes, this has strayed enough off topic. Kaspersky doesn't like online anonymity, we get it. -- Andrew Lewman The Tor Project pgp 0x31B0974B Website: https://torproject.org/ Blog: https://blog.torproject.org/ Identi.ca: torproject *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Kaspersky wants to make Tor illegal and supports a globalized policed internet.
Hi! It's a pity that Russia becomes the source of nonsense for international news, again. But it would be even more pity for tor to be associated with such political bullshit as quoted below. Alexander Cherepanov On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:03:32 +0400, James Brown wrote: > Very thanks for this information. > I think that A/V is a big shit so as an antivirus product and as the > above causes. > But that problem is more than that "bla-bla-bla" from Mr. Kaspersky. > Mr. Kaspersky is only a dirty prostitute of the bloody new Russian > Putin's and Medvedev's dictatorial regim. > His words about fighting anonimity and the Tor is only executing of > instructions of Putin's satraps. > Some weeks ago Mr. Nurgaliev, the chief of the criminal organization > "the Ministry of Interior of Russia" the real functions of which is like > of functions the nazi SS, told such words. > And after Mr. Kaspersky such words conserning ban the anonimity are told > by a representative of the Russian Orthodox Church - the orqanizations > of extreme yahooism, which also prositute for the Putin's bloody > dictatorship. > I want that the World will know that the regim of Putin and Medvedev is > the bloodiest tyranical regim last centuries, like the Hitler's regim or > exen worse. > Now there are many people arested, disappered or simply killed without > any proceedings in Russia. > There are no independent just court in Russia, all courts stamp > decisions needed for this regim against honest people. > Only one wishing to eat in hunger Russia, only trying to earn for eating > and only one word against Putin, Medvedev or members ot their band > named "United Russia" (/Edinaya Rossiya) /now consider by Putin's > terrible inquisition as a crime and as a ground for an arrest, an > imprisonment or simply for a murder of such "dissident". > Two weaks ago in Moscow the bloody Putin's secret police arrested a > young girl about 20 years for only her writing in internet-forums and > detain her in terrible Putin's torture chambers. > It is very terrible to live in Russia this days! > I am afraid that this speeching of Nurgaliev, Kaspersky and of a cleric > may be a preparation for establishing of criminal ban of using Tor an etc. > As you know, for the fighting with anonimity they establsih that from 1 > October 2009 a person wanted to purshase a domain name in the "ru" zone > must submit his passport!!! > And all the world is silent for this tyrannical innovation... *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Kaspersky wants to make Tor illegal and supports a globalized policed internet.
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:09:27 -0400 Flamsmark wrote: >2009/10/21 Eugen Leitl > >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 08:35:10AM -0400, Flamsmark wrote: >> >> > I don't really want to stretch this analogy too far, and I certainly >> don't >> > think that it's reasonable to compare people who obtain, share and >> > distribute media in ways often suggested to violate local laws; with an >> > organised group of armed political activists/terrorists who killed many >> in >> > bombings. Nonetheless, wouldn't Piratpartiet already be the Sinn Fein >> > (completely legitimate political arm) to the massive group of sometimes >> > self-identified pirates (the legally dubious underground organisation)? >> >> Spoken as a Pirate Party member, that's pure slander. >> >> Among its many goals, Pirate Party does not want to abolish copyright >> altogether. >> However, it definitely wants to change the current status quo, which is >> unacceptable, and hurts both the artists/content producers and consumers. > > >I don't think that Sinn Fein enjoyed the death and fear that was the result >of IRA actions either. However, they shared a belief in a more unified >Ireland, much as 'pirates' and Piratpartiet share a belief in more >reasonable copyright laws, and execution, as well as a variety of other >electronic and surveillance freedom issues. If you think that what I said >was slanderous, you may be interpreting more of a normative view than I was >trying to espouse. > Is this still about tor? Or has it strayed enough that it should depart this list for more appropriate fora? Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ** * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * ** * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army." * *-- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * ** *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Kaspersky wants to make Tor illegal and supports a globalized policed internet.
2009/10/21 Eugen Leitl > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 08:35:10AM -0400, Flamsmark wrote: > > > I don't really want to stretch this analogy too far, and I certainly > don't > > think that it's reasonable to compare people who obtain, share and > > distribute media in ways often suggested to violate local laws; with an > > organised group of armed political activists/terrorists who killed many > in > > bombings. Nonetheless, wouldn't Piratpartiet already be the Sinn Fein > > (completely legitimate political arm) to the massive group of sometimes > > self-identified pirates (the legally dubious underground organisation)? > > Spoken as a Pirate Party member, that's pure slander. > > Among its many goals, Pirate Party does not want to abolish copyright > altogether. > However, it definitely wants to change the current status quo, which is > unacceptable, and hurts both the artists/content producers and consumers. I don't think that Sinn Fein enjoyed the death and fear that was the result of IRA actions either. However, they shared a belief in a more unified Ireland, much as 'pirates' and Piratpartiet share a belief in more reasonable copyright laws, and execution, as well as a variety of other electronic and surveillance freedom issues. If you think that what I said was slanderous, you may be interpreting more of a normative view than I was trying to espouse.
Re: Kaspersky wants to make Tor illegal and supports a globalized policed internet.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 08:35:10AM -0400, Flamsmark wrote: > I don't really want to stretch this analogy too far, and I certainly don't > think that it's reasonable to compare people who obtain, share and > distribute media in ways often suggested to violate local laws; with an > organised group of armed political activists/terrorists who killed many in > bombings. Nonetheless, wouldn't Piratpartiet already be the Sinn Fein > (completely legitimate political arm) to the massive group of sometimes > self-identified pirates (the legally dubious underground organisation)? Spoken as a Pirate Party member, that's pure slander. Among its many goals, Pirate Party does not want to abolish copyright altogether. However, it definitely wants to change the current status quo, which is unacceptable, and hurts both the artists/content producers and consumers. -- Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Kaspersky wants to make Tor illegal and supports a globalized policed internet.
2009/10/21 grarpamp > Perhaps the worldwide spread > of the Pirat Partiet will take upon this cause. But they > would need a corporate branch... like Sinn Fein to the IRA. I don't really want to stretch this analogy too far, and I certainly don't think that it's reasonable to compare people who obtain, share and distribute media in ways often suggested to violate local laws; with an organised group of armed political activists/terrorists who killed many in bombings. Nonetheless, wouldn't Piratpartiet already be the Sinn Fein (completely legitimate political arm) to the massive group of sometimes self-identified pirates (the legally dubious underground organisation)?
Re: Kaspersky wants to make Tor illegal and supports a globalized policed internet.
> And all the world is silent for this tyrannical innovation... One might suggest to join together all the random anon activist groups to counter this cause of innovation with a new corporate voice. Perhaps the worldwide spread of the Pirat Partiet will take upon this cause. But they would need a corporate branch... like Sinn Fein to the IRA. Kaspersky has that anti-anon voice, who will counter? Where are the ISP's offering onion/i2p/anon hosting, no logs, etc... *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Kaspersky wants to make Tor illegal and supports a globalized policed internet.
Kyle Williams wrote: > People who seek to control society fear society having anonymity, for > it's with anonymity that society can stand up against corruption of > the state when it occurs. The latest Iran election and the actions > that followed are a great example of this, and it's was technology > such as Tor that helped them get the truth out about what was being > done. When was the last time a trojan horse or virus helped a country > regain liberty or help bypass censorship? To treat Tor as such > malware is down right insulting to people's rights everywhere. > > Normally I would never think about the following, but as a developer, > I'm weighing the idea of detecting, disabling, and/or deleting > Kaspersky before installing any of the projects I work on. Such > action should be brought to the users attention, and the action to do > something about it should be evoked by the user. However, if > Kaspersky does go too far and labels Tor as malware, you can be damn > sure JanusVM, *maybe* Tor VM, and Chromium Browser VM will take > automated action to prevent itself from being attacked by Kaspersky > products, and will do so in a very harsh way. > > Something worth noting, today's A/V solutions do not scan inside > virtual machines and would not be able to detect Tor easily. Use > encryption with the VM and it'll be impossible for any A/V product to > scan the data inside. If you use an external anonymity device like > januspa or a linux router + Tor, then you would not feel the affects > of bad A/V software against your anonymity. > > Personally, I will be encouraging everyone I know to stay as far away > from this company and their products simply out of principle at this > point. I had no problem with Kaspersky until I read this. If > Kaspersky is going to treat non malicious software as malware, then we > might as well treat their software with the same regard. > > Spread the word, Kaspersky Labs is not a friend of Tor. > > Best regards, > Kyle > > "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do > nothing." - Edmund Burke > *** > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with > unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/ > > Very thanks for this information. I think that A/V is a big shit so as an antivirus product and as the above causes. But that problem is more than that "bla-bla-bla" from Mr. Kaspersky. Mr. Kaspersky is only a dirty prostitute of the bloody new Russian Putin's and Medvedev's dictatorial regim. His words about fighting anonimity and the Tor is only executing of instructions of Putin's satraps. Some weeks ago Mr. Nurgaliev, the chief of the criminal organization "the Ministry of Interior of Russia" the real functions of which is like of functions the nazi SS, told such words. And after Mr. Kaspersky such words conserning ban the anonimity are told by a representative of the Russian Orthodox Church - the orqanizations of extreme yahooism, which also prositute for the Putin's bloody dictatorship. I want that the World will know that the regim of Putin and Medvedev is the bloodiest tyranical regim last centuries, like the Hitler's regim or exen worse. Now there are many people arested, disappered or simply killed without any proceedings in Russia. There are no independent just court in Russia, all courts stamp decisions needed for this regim against honest people. Only one wishing to eat in hunger Russia, only trying to earn for eating and only one word against Putin, Medvedev or members ot their band named "United Russia" (/Edinaya Rossiya) /now consider by Putin's terrible inquisition as a crime and as a ground for an arrest, an imprisonment or simply for a murder of such "dissident". Two weaks ago in Moscow the bloody Putin's secret police arrested a young girl about 20 years for only her writing in internet-forums and detain her in terrible Putin's torture chambers. It is very terrible to live in Russia this days! I am afraid that this speeching of Nurgaliev, Kaspersky and of a cleric may be a preparation for establishing of criminal ban of using Tor an etc. As you know, for the fighting with anonimity they establsih that from 1 October 2009 a person wanted to purshase a domain name in the "ru" zone must submit his passport!!! And all the world is silent for this tyrannical innovation... *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Kaspersky wants to make Tor illegal and supports a globalized policed internet.
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, Jacob Todd wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/16/kaspersky_rebukes_net_anonymity/ " In Kaspersky's world, services such as??Psiphon??and??The Onion Router (Tor)??- which are legitimately used by Chinese dissidents and Google users alike to shield personally identifiable information - would no longer be legal. Or at least they'd have to be redesigned from the ground up to give police the ability to surveil them. That's not the kind of world many law-abiding citizens would feel comfortable inhabiting. As far as any authority is concerned , one bit of SSL traffic is indistinguishable from any other bit of SSL traffic. So while current anonymity models may not be workable in 5 or 10 years, if people are generating strongly encrypted traffic to arbitrary hosts, _some_ models will be workable. Multinational, corporate interests will not allow information security (SSL, VPNs) to just go away. Further, if TPTB have "broken" SSL, they aren't going to tip their hand to the rest of the world to blow the nym you access twitter with. I am pessimistic about the march of freedom and the limits of state power, but these are now basic to all commerce and infrastructure worldwide. The cats out of the bag, I'm afraid. He's talking about supporting a police state, where the "law" can watch everything you do. http://www.zdnetasia.com/insight/security/0,39044829,62058697,00.htm " [Q:] Are you saying that people often don't understand the complexities of the work security researchers are involved in? Consumers, businesses and even governments? [A:] Governments do understand because they are more and more in touch with these problems. Enterprises, big enterprises, some of them have dedicated teams of security experts and they really understand what's going on. Consumers generally have no clue, but they don't need to understand. He's lobbying. He sees the money that cisco, et. al, have made building the great firewall and he wants a piece of the action. I'd like to change the design of the Internet by introducing regulation--Internet passports, Internet police and international agreement--about following Internet standards. And if some countries don't agree with or don't pay attention to the agreement, just cut them off. Let's say this is successful ... it will simply lead to a parallel, mostly wireless network that is even more decentralized than the current Internet. How much does it cost these days to link 10mbps across 10 km ? In a few years, with "n" hardware flooding the market, how much will it cost to link 100mbps across 50 km ? Something worth noting, today's A/V solutions do not scan inside virtual machines and would not be able to detect Tor easily. Use encryption with the VM and it'll be impossible for any A/V product to scan the data inside. If you use an external anonymity device like januspa or a linux router + Tor, then you would not feel the affects of bad A/V software against your anonymity. Personally, I will be encouraging everyone I know to stay as far away from this company and their products simply out of principle at this point. I had no problem with Kaspersky until I read this. If Kaspersky is going to treat non malicious software as malware, then we might as well treat their software with the same regard. Will there really be any intersection between end users using reactionary, clueless, least-common-denominator snake oil like this, and users of Tor ?
Re: Kaspersky wants to make Tor illegal and supports a globalized policed internet.
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 04:38:57AM -0700, Kyle Williams wrote: > I just read two articles that moved me to bring this to the attention > of others. Kaspersky Labs thinks anonymity is the problem with the > Internet. > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/16/kaspersky_rebukes_net_anonymity/ > " > In Kaspersky's world, services such as Psiphon and The Onion Router > (Tor) - which are legitimately used by Chinese dissidents and Google > users alike to shield personally identifiable information - would no > longer be legal. Or at least they'd have to be redesigned from the > ground up to give police the ability to surveil them. That's not the > kind of world many law-abiding citizens would feel comfortable > inhabiting. > " > > He's talking about supporting a police state, where the "law" can > watch everything you do. > > http://www.zdnetasia.com/insight/security/0,39044829,62058697,00.htm > " > [Q:] Are you saying that people often don't understand the > complexities of the work security researchers are involved in? > Consumers, businesses and even governments? > [A:] Governments do understand because they are more and more in touch > with these problems. Enterprises, big enterprises, some of them have > dedicated teams of security experts and they really understand what's > going on. Consumers generally have no clue, but they don't need to > understand. > " > > The only thing that works better than his A/V software is a well > informed and educated user. > My mom didn't know shit about what to do and not to do on the Internet > and downloaded everything that was free, and that's why I would have > to "fix" his computer every few months even though she uses AVG and > SpyBot. Finally I sat her down, explained to her why this was > happening, and told her not to do that anymore if she wanted her > computer to work right. She listened, and hasn't had any serious > problems for a few years now. > > From the same article... > " > [Q:] If you had the power to change up to three things in the world > today that are related to IT security, what would they be? > [A:] Internet design--that's enough. > > [Q:] That's it? What's wrong with the design of the Internet? > [A:] There's anonymity. Everyone should and must have an > identification, or Internet passport. The Internet was designed not > for public use, but for American scientists and the U.S. military. > That was just a limited group of people--hundreds, or maybe thousands. > Then it was introduced to the public and it was wrong…to introduce it > in the same way. > I'd like to change the design of the Internet by introducing > regulation--Internet passports, Internet police and international > agreement--about following Internet standards. And if some countries > don't agree with or don't pay attention to the agreement, just cut > them off. > " > > This is scary talk from a man who owns the largest anti-virus company > in the eastern hemisphere. Read these articles, and you'll see this > guy talks about a global "Internet police" or "Internet Interpol". > That's serious globalization talk from someone who millions trust to > protect their computers. All they need to do is label some code as > malicious, and it'll be removed from your PC after the next A/V > updateeven if you use it to regain lost civil liberties. How long > until Kaspersky labels Tor a trojan or virus? If that happens, then > what? > > People who seek to control society fear society having anonymity, for > it's with anonymity that society can stand up against corruption of > the state when it occurs. The latest Iran election and the actions > that followed are a great example of this, and it's was technology > such as Tor that helped them get the truth out about what was being > done. When was the last time a trojan horse or virus helped a country > regain liberty or help bypass censorship? To treat Tor as such > malware is down right insulting to people's rights everywhere. > > Normally I would never think about the following, but as a developer, > I'm weighing the idea of detecting, disabling, and/or deleting > Kaspersky before installing any of the projects I work on. Such > action should be brought to the users attention, and the action to do > something about it should be evoked by the user. However, if > Kaspersky does go too far and labels Tor as malware, you can be damn > sure JanusVM, *maybe* Tor VM, and Chromium Browser VM will take > automated action to prevent itself from being attacked by Kaspersky > products, and will do so in a very harsh way. > > Something worth noting, today's A/V solutions do not scan inside > virtual machines and would not be able to detect Tor easily. Use > encryption with the VM and it'll be impossible for any A/V product to > scan the data inside. If you use an external anonymity device like > januspa or a linux router + Tor, then you would not feel the affects > of bad A/V software against your anonymity. > > Personally, I wi
Kaspersky wants to make Tor illegal and supports a globalized policed internet.
I just read two articles that moved me to bring this to the attention of others. Kaspersky Labs thinks anonymity is the problem with the Internet. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/16/kaspersky_rebukes_net_anonymity/ " In Kaspersky's world, services such as Psiphon and The Onion Router (Tor) - which are legitimately used by Chinese dissidents and Google users alike to shield personally identifiable information - would no longer be legal. Or at least they'd have to be redesigned from the ground up to give police the ability to surveil them. That's not the kind of world many law-abiding citizens would feel comfortable inhabiting. " He's talking about supporting a police state, where the "law" can watch everything you do. http://www.zdnetasia.com/insight/security/0,39044829,62058697,00.htm " [Q:] Are you saying that people often don't understand the complexities of the work security researchers are involved in? Consumers, businesses and even governments? [A:] Governments do understand because they are more and more in touch with these problems. Enterprises, big enterprises, some of them have dedicated teams of security experts and they really understand what's going on. Consumers generally have no clue, but they don't need to understand. " The only thing that works better than his A/V software is a well informed and educated user. My mom didn't know shit about what to do and not to do on the Internet and downloaded everything that was free, and that's why I would have to "fix" his computer every few months even though she uses AVG and SpyBot. Finally I sat her down, explained to her why this was happening, and told her not to do that anymore if she wanted her computer to work right. She listened, and hasn't had any serious problems for a few years now. >From the same article... " [Q:] If you had the power to change up to three things in the world today that are related to IT security, what would they be? [A:] Internet design--that's enough. [Q:] That's it? What's wrong with the design of the Internet? [A:] There's anonymity. Everyone should and must have an identification, or Internet passport. The Internet was designed not for public use, but for American scientists and the U.S. military. That was just a limited group of people--hundreds, or maybe thousands. Then it was introduced to the public and it was wrong…to introduce it in the same way. I'd like to change the design of the Internet by introducing regulation--Internet passports, Internet police and international agreement--about following Internet standards. And if some countries don't agree with or don't pay attention to the agreement, just cut them off. " This is scary talk from a man who owns the largest anti-virus company in the eastern hemisphere. Read these articles, and you'll see this guy talks about a global "Internet police" or "Internet Interpol". That's serious globalization talk from someone who millions trust to protect their computers. All they need to do is label some code as malicious, and it'll be removed from your PC after the next A/V updateeven if you use it to regain lost civil liberties. How long until Kaspersky labels Tor a trojan or virus? If that happens, then what? People who seek to control society fear society having anonymity, for it's with anonymity that society can stand up against corruption of the state when it occurs. The latest Iran election and the actions that followed are a great example of this, and it's was technology such as Tor that helped them get the truth out about what was being done. When was the last time a trojan horse or virus helped a country regain liberty or help bypass censorship? To treat Tor as such malware is down right insulting to people's rights everywhere. Normally I would never think about the following, but as a developer, I'm weighing the idea of detecting, disabling, and/or deleting Kaspersky before installing any of the projects I work on. Such action should be brought to the users attention, and the action to do something about it should be evoked by the user. However, if Kaspersky does go too far and labels Tor as malware, you can be damn sure JanusVM, *maybe* Tor VM, and Chromium Browser VM will take automated action to prevent itself from being attacked by Kaspersky products, and will do so in a very harsh way. Something worth noting, today's A/V solutions do not scan inside virtual machines and would not be able to detect Tor easily. Use encryption with the VM and it'll be impossible for any A/V product to scan the data inside. If you use an external anonymity device like januspa or a linux router + Tor, then you would not feel the affects of bad A/V software against your anonymity. Personally, I will be encouraging everyone I know to stay as far away from this company and their products simply out of principle at this point. I had no problem with Kaspersky until I read this. If Kaspersky is going to treat non malicious software as malware, then we
