April 2006 - cypherpunks-legacy

[edrigram@edri.org: EDRI-gram newsletter - Number 4.7, 12 April 2006]
by Eugen Leitl 12 Apr '06

12 Apr '06

----- Forwarded message from EDRI-gram newsletter <edrigram(a)edri.org> -----

1 0

Looking to ReFi or a Home Equity Loan?
by Dario Larsen 12 Apr '06

12 Apr '06

1 0

Hey sweetie, hope you're well
by Lenny Hendrix 12 Apr '06

12 Apr '06

1 0

Privacy, Anonymity, and John Q. Public
by Damian Gerow 11 Apr '06

11 Apr '06

I'm in the midst of committing myself to leading a series of discussions about privacy and anonymity on the Internet (though, to properly tackle the subject, I'll have to embrace meatspace as well) with a given number of likely non-technical persons. Though I'm fairly comfortable discussing such matters amongst persons of a technical inclination, when starting to prepare some outlines, I realized that these two demographics have some significant differences. I have pulled through any number of papers, publications, websites, books, etc. that I still have kicking around, and though it /should/ be enough to fill up all my allotted time, I thought a solicitation for help and pointers couldn't hurt. If you were to lead a discussion on privacy and anonymity (regardless of the involvement of the Internet), what topics would you want to discuss? Which areas would you want to focus on? How would you start out?

2 2

privacy threats
by coderman 11 Apr '06

11 Apr '06

if you had to rank each of the following in order from greatest to least privacy invasion, how would you rank them? - global eavesdroppers: NSA, etc. - corporate aggregators: Acxiom, ChoicePoint, etc. - social network sites and blogs: MySpace, LiveJournal, etc. NSA is often a villain due to the shear breadth of data they monitor. But corporate privacy invaders can get a level of detail on your person that even Big Brother envies. and just how much personal detail do people willingly broadcast to the world through social networks and online journals (knowingly or unknowingly)? how would you protect your privacy in each of these three contexts?

3 2

Last chance for lower rates
by Joy Griffin 11 Apr '06

11 Apr '06

1 0

[arma@mit.edu: Tor 0.1.1.18-rc is out]
by Eugen Leitl 11 Apr '06

11 Apr '06

----- Forwarded message from Roger Dingledine <arma(a)mit.edu> -----

1 0

[Re: [s-t] Details on the AT&T/NSA wiretapping]
by Eugen Leitl 11 Apr '06

11 Apr '06

[from somelist] > That's what it appears we are up against, folks. Real-time semantic data > monitoring on a huge scale. A scale beyond what most of us can even > comprehend. It's scarey. > > http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/8/14724/28476 DailyKos just got around to noticing that EFF had sued AT&T? The suit was filed in January! http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_01.php No wonder the Republicans are winning; their opponents don't notice what each other are doing. Yes, this type of monitoring is why Gonzales said: "'It would have been difficult, if not impossible' to amend FISA to provide the wiretap authority." http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Congressmen_tear_into_Gonzales_over_NSA_04 06.html Gonzales never elaborates on why, but it appears to be because FISA is about granting individual wiretaps one by one, and that isn't how this stuff works. If he filed even the retroactive wiretap requests FISA permits, he'd be filing hundreds or thousands or more per day, which would cause a bit of notice as to what he was really doing. And this would explain why the other day he said he "can't rule out" domestic wiretaps among U.S. citizens: http://www.krqe.com/expanded.asp?ID=14679 Because they're already doing it, since that's how this stuff works: it hoovers up everything it can get into its maw and looks for patterns. An unattributable source remarks that they can't really be hoovering up *everything*. Maybe not, but they can pick selected major links, most of which will probably have some purely domestic traffic on them, too. Also, while semantic on the one hand can mean simply selecting ports from packet headers, semantic to NSA has also for many years meant pattern matching on message data contents. So if the former type of semantic monitoring, perhaps in combination with IP address information, is used to select data for the latter type of semantic monitoring, we have a plausible mechanism for what this wiretap system is doing. Is that really what it's doing? Maybe EFF's lawsuit will result in an answer to that question. I doubt we'll ever get one directly from Gonzales. The scary part is that Gonzales' stonewalling can't really be intended to keep terrorists from finding out this is going on. We know some well-known terrorist organizations have competent technical people who could do the same analysis DailyKOS just did. So who is he trying to hide it from? Could it be... Congress? Which means he doesn't trust Congress or the public to agree with what the administration is doing, and he thinks the solution is to do it anyway. Which means he and his boss are subverting the Constitution. Which is exactly what high crimes and misdemeanors are about. Restore the Republic: impeach Bush. > -ken -jsq [Yes. I can readily believe that they can sort traffic by IP address and protocol. If they have a target list, this hardware looks capable of keeping track of the activities of those targets. Up to, and including, "anyone who visits Moveon.org" or even "dailykos.org" ---p*zz*] ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

Ratess will skyrocket soon
by Arnulfo Givens 10 Apr '06

10 Apr '06

1 0

Pre-approved Application #ptyjgkoL307242
by Kenny Larsen 10 Apr '06

10 Apr '06

1 0