[pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

Dear all After having read the whole NSA thread on this list, it came up to my mind that pfsense web GUI could declare itself "conform to US laws" upon the point when there are known backdoors included or otherwise the code was compromised on pressure of govermental authorities. It would be the s

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

Excellent idea. Really. But that would kill the project probably. Regards, On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:57:52 +0200 Adrian Zaugg wrote: > (...) > mind that pfsense web GUI could declare itself "conform to US laws" > (...) It would be the sign for the users > Regards, Adrian. -- Przemysław Pawełczyk

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

Probably would not work (or would get whoever did that thrown in jail). This is similar to a Warrant Canary, but the USDoJ has indicated that Warrant Canaries would probably be grounds for prosecution of violation of the non-disclosure order. - Y On Friday, October 11, 2013, Adrian Zaugg wrote:

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

On 11-10-2013 11:57, Adrian Zaugg wrote: > Dear all > > After having read the whole NSA thread on this list, it came up to my > mind that pfsense web GUI could declare itself "conform to US laws" upon > the point when there are known backdoors included or otherwise the code > was compromised on pr

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

On 11-10-2013 11:57, Adrian Zaugg wrote: > Dear all > > After having read the whole NSA thread on this list, it came up to my > mind that pfsense web GUI could declare itself "conform to US laws" upon > the point when there are known backdoors included or otherwise the code > was compromised on pr

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

On 11/10/13 2:37 pm, Seth Mos wrote: And which country would that be? I mean the Brittish MI4? tapped the Belgian telecom network for over a year to listen into the EU politicians... Who is this MI4 of whom you speak? :-) In very broad terms, UK to USA equivalents would be as follows: GCHQ =

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

On 2013-10-11 16:37, Seth Mos wrote: On 11-10-2013 11:57, Adrian Zaugg wrote: Dear all After having read the whole NSA thread on this list, it came up to my mind that pfsense web GUI could declare itself "conform to US laws" upon the point when there are known backdoors included or otherwise th

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

On 2013-10-11 13:54, Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote: On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:57:52 +0200 Adrian Zaugg wrote: (...) mind that pfsense web GUI could declare itself "conform to US laws" (...) It would be the sign for the users Regards, Adrian. Excellent idea. Really. But that would kill the project

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

On 2013-10-11 12:57, Adrian Zaugg wrote: After having read the whole NSA thread on this list, it came up to my mind that pfsense web GUI could declare itself "conform to US laws" upon the point when there are known backdoors included or otherwise the code was compromised on pressure of govermenta

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

On 2013-10-11 16:20, Yehuda Katz wrote: Probably would not work (or would get whoever did that thrown in jail). This is similar to a Warrant Canary, but the USDoJ has indicated that Warrant Canaries would probably be grounds for prosecution of violation of the non-disclosure order. - Y On Fr

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

As I see it, there are are two things that can happen here 1) NSA breaks into pfSense without knowledge of the staff => The only solution is source code and binary review. This is not an option for people like Thinker Rix or other non coders. The mostly spot for this to happen is upstream from the

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

Who would you trust more that ESF? Why,specifically, would you trust another group of people to be more trustworthy? I admit to have a USA bias, but for the issue in question, I don't there being a much better choice. The UK has less freedoms in this matter. But then this is turning into a case of

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Thinker Rix wrote: > Probably would not work (or would get whoever did that thrown in jail). > This is similar to a Warrant Canary, but the USDoJ has indicated that > Warrant Canaries would probably be grounds for prosecution of violation of > the non-disclosure o

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

On 2013-10-11 21:20, Walter Parker wrote: Who would you trust more that ESF? Why,specifically, would you trust another group of people to be more trustworthy? The point is not untrusting ESF or anybody else. The point is that ESF is based in the USA, a country where the current government can

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

Yes, you have been informed correctly. There are more than 2. According the World Atlas (http://www.worldatlas.com/nations.htm#.UlhOHVFDsnY) the number is someone between 189 and 196. But you did not answer the question asked: Name the country that you would move the project to and why you believe

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Thinker Rix wrote: > On 2013-10-11 21:20, Walter Parker wrote: > >> Who would you trust more that ESF? Why,specifically, would you trust >> another group of people to be more trustworthy? >> > > The point is not untrusting ESF or anybody else. The point is that ESF

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

On 10/11/13 8:20 PM, Walter Parker wrote: > Unless, of course, you are willing to contribute time and money to > fixing this issue. Otherwise this just an armchair general telling other > people how to run the project. I don't think it is a problem to find a sponsered hosting here in Switzerland

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

Don't be too sure about Switzerland... https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/nsa_backdoors_i.html Which talks about a story that was in the German papers in the late 90's.. For half a century, Crypto AG, a Swiss company located in Zug, has sold to more than 100 countries the encryption m

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

This story is about a private company and about technology. We talk about the legal situation. And btw. it is a criminal act to eavesdrop and to hack into other's systems under Swiss law. Regards, Adrian. On 10/11/13 9:54 PM, Walter Parker wrote: > Don't be too sure about Switzerland... > https:/

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

Thank you all for your messages. I consider my suggestion as declined. No wonder... :-) Regards, Adrian. On 10/11/13 8:21 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Thinker Rix > wrote: > >> Probably would not work (or would get whoever did th

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

On 10/11/13 2:13 PM, Walter Parker wrote: As I see it, there are are two things that can happen here Not yelling at Walter. The problem with all of this is that as long as our Congress (and the equivalent in other countries) passes laws that allow such backdoors with a threat of jail if you

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

> On Oct 11, 2013, at 12:39, Thinker Rix wrote: > > Again: The real threat by my comprehension is not some "guy in the internet" > trying to place malicious code into the code base, but simply and plainly > some NSA officers knock the door an force the project leaders to do it. Please cite th

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Walter Parker wrote: > > 2) NSA forces pfSense to put a backdoor in the software. Tells pfSense to > be quite about it. > > The problem with doing that to open source is that it's easy to verify that it happened (especially after someone provides an anonymous hin

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

Thank you for the final word Jim. I have a real issue brought up by this thread; Gmail now considers a significant amount of the list.pfSense.org mail spam, and this thread (and a few others) was just that. I'd complain more but others told Thinker exactly what I would say and he doesn't care. M

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

I second nixing the thread. pfSense does not benefit from this. Mehma On Oct 11, 2013, at 3:40 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: > >> On Oct 11, 2013, at 12:39, Thinker Rix wrote: >> >> Again: The real threat by my comprehension is not some "guy in the internet" >> trying to place malicious code int

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

On 2013-10-09 19:38, Jim Thompson wrote: So asking the question is stupid On 2013-10-09 19:50, Jim Thompson wrote: IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the question in stroking their own ego. On 2013-10-12 01:40, Jim Thompson wrote: Otherwise: get off my lawn. I'm no

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

On 2013-10-11 22:33, Walter Parker wrote: Yes, you have been informed correctly. There are more than 2. According the World Atlas (http://www.worldatlas.com/nations.htm#.UlhOHVFDsnY) the number is someone between 189 and 196. No kidding! ;-) But you did not answer the question asked: Name th

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Thinker Rix wrote: > On 2013-10-09 19:38, Jim Thompson wrote: > >> So asking the question is stupid >> > > On 2013-10-09 19:50, Jim Thompson wrote: > >> IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the question >> in stroking their own ego. >> > > O

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

On Oct 12, 2013, at 7:20 AM, Thinker Rix wrote: > On 2013-10-11 22:33, Walter Parker wrote: >> Yes, you have been informed correctly. There are more than 2. According the >> World Atlas (http://www.worldatlas.com/nations.htm#.UlhOHVFDsnY) the number >> is someone between 189 and 196. > > No k

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

- Original Message - > From: "Oliver Hansen" > To: "pfSense support and discussion" > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 11:23:56 AM > Subject: Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Thinker Rix < >

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 01:41:40PM -0400, Adrian Wenzel wrote: > > I can't say I agree with Thinker Rix on everything but on this I do > > agree. I have been on this list for many years (mostly just reading) > > and have always been impressed with the professionalism of most > > members who write

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

- Original Message - From: "Adrian Wenzel" To: "pfSense support and discussion" Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 10:41:40 AM Subject: Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws > > I can't say I agree with Thinker Rix on everything but on this I

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

> On 2013-10-12 01:40, Jim Thompson wrote: >> >> I'm not willing to endure this uninformed Alex Jonesian crapfest. Nice position to take, except Alex Jones was right. ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinf

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

+1 On 10/12/2013 12:41 PM, Adrian Wenzel wrote: I'm behind Jim on this. ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

On Oct 12, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Chris L wrote: > >> On 2013-10-12 01:40, Jim Thompson wrote: >>> >>> I'm not willing to endure this uninformed Alex Jonesian crapfest. > > Nice position to take, except Alex Jones was right. Sigh. As much as this doesn’t belong on the pfsense list… I actually k

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

On Oct 12, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Oliver Hansen wrote: > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Thinker Rix wrote: > On 2013-10-09 19:38, Jim Thompson wrote: > So asking the question is stupid > > On 2013-10-09 19:50, Jim Thompson wrote: > IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

g [mailto:list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org] På vegne af Yehuda Katz Sendt: 11. oktober 2013 20:22 Til: pfSense support and discussion Emne: Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Thinker Rix mailto:thinke...@rocketmail.com>> wrote: Probably would no

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

I have been following this discussion since the start and I have to say that it has been very informative (mostly from a social perspective), but I have been disappointed with the, um, vigorous responses from all sides. The original post was somewhat blunt and probably could be labeled as insensit

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

You would have hated the 90s then. Though annoying at times, these displays on mailing lists have also sparked some great technology projects too. Those around in the early BSD days recall such episodes. Not that I am promoting or encouraging such behavior. You will always have “that guy”, at a bar

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Robert Skinner wrote: > You would have hated the 90s then. > Interesting time that was, no particular hate though for that period.. Now the 80's on the other hand :*) > Though annoying at times, these displays on mailing lists have also > sparked some great techno

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

On Oct 15, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Alex DiMarco wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Robert Skinner > wrote: > You would have hated the 90s then. > > Interesting time that was, no particular hate though for that period.. > Now the 80's on the other hand :*) It was only the music that suc

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

Am 15.10.2013 16:15, schrieb Jim Thompson: So what excuse do I have, given that I was stone sober? (In France at the time, but still… sober.) Maybe you were immersed long enough to assimilate the French attitude? (Think "French Soldier" in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" - http://www.imdb.co

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

> > >> Interesting time that was, no particular hate though for that period.. > Now the 80's on the other hand :*) > > > It was only the music that sucked in the 80s… Oh, and the clothing / hair > styles, and the politics, and … :-) > I do have a soft spot for the music > > So what excuse do