July 2018 - cypherpunks-legacy

urgent response
by michelle savimbi 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0034_01C221EC.6C64F7B0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000ams X-MimeOLE: Produced by Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 I asked around, and a man, described as being black (or is the word African-American these days?), roughly 30, with an accent which seemed half London and half African had been in the cafe with a laptop and had a number of visitors call into his booth and had been there at the given time. I hate spam more than I hate crackers. I hate spam more than I hate virus writers. I wanted to catch this guy in the act and I wanted to see him hauled off in a paddywagon. We contacted the police, who unfortunately didn't seem willing to do anything about it unless we caught someone in the act of doing something illegal. The daily staff in the cafe were instructed to let me know if said individual turned up again, though honestly, who could be that stupid? My hopes weren't high. Evidently, a 419er is that stupid. The very next Friday (2nd of April 2004) he turned up again. I was on the bus at the time, just about to go in for another day of world altering research. I ran down as fast as I could and was told that he was on the second floor and hadn't plugged in yet because he wanted one particular booth which is somewhat secluded and was willing to wait. I sat myself down at a computer in another room, started tailing the daemon.log and waited for the telltale entries. I took a quick flick through the tcpdump manpage, just to make sure I didn't screw up. 20 minutes later, it started to happen. He plugged in, and his Windows XP laptop started to blabber away. WindowsUpdate, Netbios, passport logins. Nothing much happened for a while. The odd DNS request here, the occasional search: GET /search.php?Keywords=male%20erection&p (I'm not messing!) on 64.21.81.131, which seems to belong to some direct marketing whorehouse. He logged into this as well: 66.180.174.12, which seems to be some sort of mail harvesting database. The login is done over SSL, so I can't find out more. If any militant anti-spam vigilantes want to get a good look at how these people organize themselves, that's probably a good place to start. Then, he spent a bit of time on http://www.emailspidereasy.com. Don't you just love the fake google-textads? He logged into mail.com next, using the email address kendoda at accountant.com. Whatever hash they use for passwords was aaka7zxkcNo. Then, he logged into his yahoo mail account. This was probably to check the account that in which he receives those mails. It looks like the rest happened over SSL. Then it started. The screen started showing an awful lot of smtp traffic heading out onto the net. I knew that I had to let it go, even if it meant another 48 hours of being blacklisted. If it meant he could be convicted of committing a crime, then I figured it was worth the price. I hope those who received the mail also feel that way. (sorry :-/) Before I phoned my contact in the Gardai, I had to make sure that he was actually sending out his vile wares. I scped the partial dumpfile onto my laptop, and opened it up in ethereal. Guess what? 220 serverXXXXXXXXXX ESMTP Postfix HELO 192.168.1.70 250 serverXXXXXXXXXX MAIL FROM:<mjsavimbi2000 at yahoo.co.uk> 250 Ok RCPT TO:<poXXXXXXXXXXries.com> 250 Ok DATA 354 End data with <CR><LF>.<CR><LF> Reply-To: "michelle savimbi" <mjsavimbi200From: "michelle savimbi" <mjsavimbi2000 at yaSubject: urgent response Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:48:20 +0100 Organization: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundX-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2X-MimeOLE: Produced by Microsoft MimeOLE V ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C221EC.6C64F7BContent-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Dear Sir, I would like to introduce myself to you [....] [I've noticed that some characters are missing. This seems to be due to our server not being able to keep up] And on it went. To lots of people. 1178 of them. By that time, two Gardai had called in and wanted to wait until he had sent as many as he was going to. They seemed fairly convinced at that point that our friend was engaged in something less than honest. These weren't computer specialists, but they walked up, knocked on the window of the booth and introduced themselves. He asks them what the problem is and is told to step away from the computer. He doesn't seem too happy about this, but does so. He's asked his name and is told that he might like to come down for a chat in the local station. He says his wallet and ID are in the booth, so he walks in, rips a USB memory stick from the side of his laptop, tries to swallow it and makes a run for it. Detective number 1 grabs and tries to cuff him, detective 2 starts to do the same. A struggle ensues and goes on for a full 10 minutes, basically trying to pin him on the floor and then getting his arms behind so he can be handcuffed. Michelle agrees to co-operate on numerous occasions and each time tries to run to the booth to destroy whatever is on that machine. Eventually, 2 more gardai arrive and he's cuffed and brought out, crying like a little girl claiming police brutality (which is untrue, they would probably never have even formally arrested him if he hadn't attempted to run). Detective 1 was explaining to me how it's extremely difficult to restrain someone without hurting them. They could have had him subdued in about 10 seconds flat, but there have been instances in the past where a few gardai in this country have caused quite a bit of controversy with their liberal application of force. So this eyewitness applauds the superb work done by these gardai in a very difficult situation. 10 minutes of struggling with someone is pretty tough work. So he's carted off in a car back to the local station., where he'll get a cozy cell. Myself and detective 1 take a look at the equipment he had... A "mentor" network card (based on the cameo chipset), a badly chewed (but fairly undamaged looking) USB memory stick and a bulky laptop running Windows XP. Open on the screen is MS Word with the exact text of our beloved email and some bulk email program (the icon had a yellow background with a black @ symbol). His phone is ringing in his coat constantly. One of his many guests from his previous visit must want to talk to him. At one point, 3 guys who would appear to be of similar ethnic background want to come into the room where Michelle was working. They are told we are closed due to a technical problem. They were friendly and understood the situation and departed quickly enough. Some guys from the computer crime unit turn up, 3 of them. We have a good chat about what evidence I have on the guy. We look through my tcp trace, they same happy enough with what's there. They ask if I managed to sniff any other traffic, http and so forth. They're really hoping that they can get his email password, so with appropriate judicial permission (I assume) they can take a look at who has been mailing him. Yahoo are apparantly extremely uncooperative in this area. He seemed to be using a mail.com address as well. Proof that he is intending on scamming people out of money is what the gardai need. I'm not sure if it's illegal to pretend to be someone you aren't and offer a stranger money that you don't have. I'm guessing that with the tcpdump I gave them, their technicians will be able to get something out of it. I'm more interested in the contents of that USB stick. So anyway, that's my tale. Michelle has been charged with assault (he tore off detective 1's wrist watch) and is claiming that he can't speak any English. Given the potential scale of the scamming operation, detective 1 reckoned that they'd probably end up handing the evidence over to interpol or whoever works in Quantico (that's the FBI, right?). What have I learned? Firstly, digging up evidence on criminals is an exciting activity. Secondly, if you're an absentee sysadmin for an Internet cafe, transperantly proxy as much traffic as you can. The logs will prove useful if you are trying to track an abuser's traffic 24 hours after they have left. I was lucky in this respect, I was proxying smtp and http to postfix and squid. The added headers in the mails makes things easier to track. Thirdly, there doesn't seem to be sufficient clarity among those employed in law enforcement concerning the legalities of spam. Hell, I don't know what the laws regarding this sort of thing are. I just know it sucks. Finally, it's a bit out there, but the gardai should forge closer links with the research community Among us, we have a whole lot of knowledge of just about every issue under the sun. We're mostly idealists, and those ideals include a spam-free Internet. And heck, we're cheap! Hope that provided some amusement. Forward it on to anyone who is interested. Really. I want to see it on the front page of slashdot and el reg within a week. And yes it really happened. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

1 0

[Politech] In China, U.S. tech companies face free speech choices [fs]
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/09/18/MNGDUEPNLA1.… L Chinese Internet vs. free speech Hard choices for U.S. tech giants Carrie Kirby, Chronicle Staff Writer Sunday, September 18, 2005 U.S. tech giants are helping the Chinese express themselves online -- as long as they don't write about democracy, Tibet, sex, Tiananmen Square, Falun Gong, government corruption or any other taboo subject. Microsoft bans "democracy" and "Dalai Lama" from the Chinese version of its blog site. Yahoo recently turned over information that helped the Chinese government track down and imprison a journalist for the crime of forwarding an e-mail. Google omits banned publications from its Chinese news service. Critics say that cooperating with governments to suppress free speech violates human rights, international law and corporate ethics. But what the experts can't agree on is what the companies should do about it. The Internet -- even with limitations -- is generally considered a powerful democratizing force. If international companies withdrew from the Chinese Internet market, the result might mean even fewer chances for free communications there. [...remainder snipped...] _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/) ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 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

[tt] Tech Republic: You are probably breaking at least one law with your computer right now
by Premise Checker 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

You are probably breaking at least one law with your computer right now http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/window-on-windows/?p=3389&tag=nl.e064 * Date: November 24th, 2010 * Author: Deb Shinder For many years, the Internet was the "final frontier," operating largely unregulated--in part because of the jurisdictional nightmare involved in trying to enforce laws when communications crossed not just state lines but also national boundaries. That was then; this is now. Legislation that affects the use of Internet-connected computers is springing up everywhere at the local, state and federal levels. You might be violating one of them without even knowing. In this article, we'll take a look at some of the existing laws and some of the pending legislation that can influence how we use our computers and the Internet. Nothing in this article should be construed as legal advice; this is merely an overview of some of the legislation that's out there, how it has been interpreted by the courts (if applicable), and possible implications for computer users. Note: This article is also available as a [49]PDF download and was originally published in the [50]10 Things Blog in March 2010. 1: Digital Millennium Copyright (DMCA) Act Most computer users have heard of this law, signed in 1998 by President Clinton, implementing two World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties. The DMCA makes it a criminal offense to circumvent any kind of technological copy protection--even if you don't violate anyone's copyright in doing so. In other words, simply disabling the copy protection is a federal crime. There are some exemptions, such as circumventing copy protection of programs that are in an obsolete format for the purpose of archiving or preservation. But in most cases, using any sort of anti-DRM program is illegal. This applies to all sorts of copy-protected files, including music, movies, and software. You can read a summary of the DMCA [51]here. If you're a techie who likes the challenge of trying to "crack" DRM, be aware that doing so--even if you don't make or distribute illegal copies of the copyrighted material--is against the law. 2: No Electronic Theft (NET) Act This is another U.S. federal law that was passed during the Clinton administration. Prior to this act, copyright violations were generally treated as civil matters and could not be prosecuted criminally unless it was done for commercial purposes. The NET Act made copyright infringement itself a federal criminal offense, regardless of whether you circumvent copy-protection technology and whether you derive any commercial benefit or monetary gain. Thus, just making a copy of a copyrighted work for a friend now makes you subject to up to five years in prison and/or up to $250,000 in fines. This is the law referred to in the familiar "FBI Warning" that appears at the beginning of most DVD movies. You can read more about the NET Act [52]here. Many people who consider themselves upstanding citizens and who would never post music and movies to a P2P site think nothing of burning a copy of a song or TV show for a friend. Unfortunately, by the letter of the law, the latter is just as illegal as the former. 3: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) This treaty is still in negotiation between the United States, European Commission, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, Canada, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates. The most recent round of negotiations took place in Mexico in January 2010, and the next is scheduled for April 2010 in New Zealand. As with the DMCA, many regard the ACTA as a workaround for governments to impose regulations and penalties through international treaties that they would not be able to pass into law through their regular legislative processes. ACTA covers a number of areas, including counterfeit products and generic medicines, but the part that affects computer users is the chapter titled "Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights." Although the treaty negotiations are conducted in secret, a leaked document indicated that one provision in the treaty would force ISPs to give information about customers suspected of copyright infringement without requiring a warrant. According to reports, another provision would allow customs agents to conduct random searches of laptops, MP3 players, and cell phones for illegally downloaded or ripped music and movies. Not surprisingly, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is a supporter of the treaty. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) opposes it, as does the Free Software Foundation. You can read the EFF's stance on ACTA [53]here. 4: Court rulings regarding border searches Most Americans are aware of the protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution's fourth amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures. In general, this means that the government cannot search your person, home, vehicle, or computer without probable cause to believe that you've engaged in some criminal act. What many don't know is that there are quite a few circumstances that the Courts, over the years, have deemed to be exempt from this requirement. One of those occurs when you enter the United States at the border. In April 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of Customs officers to search laptops and other digital devices at the border (the definition of which extends to any international airport when you are coming into the country) without probable cause or even the lesser standard of reasonable suspicion. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and other groups strongly disagree with the ruling. You can [54]read more on the EFF Web site. Meanwhile, be aware that even though you've done nothing illegal and are not even suspected of such, the entire contents of your portable computer, PDA, or smart phone can be accessed by government agents when you enter the Unites States. So if you have anything on your hard drive that could be embarrassing, you might want to delete it before crossing the border. Stay on top of the latest Microsoft Windows tips and tricks with TechRepublic's Windows Desktop newsletter, delivered every Monday and Thursday. [55]Automatically sign up today! 5: State and federal laws regarding access to networks Many states have criminal laws that prohibit accessing any computer or network without the owner's permission. For example, in Texas, the statute is Penal Code section 33.02, Breach of Computer Security. It says, "A person commits an offense if the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer network or computer system without the effective consent of the owner." The penalty grade ranges from misdemeanor to first degree felony (which is the same grade as murder), depending on whether the person obtains benefit, harms or defrauds someone, or alters, damages, or deletes files. The wording of most such laws encompass connecting to a wireless network without explicit permission, even if the Wi-Fi network is unsecured. The inclusion of the culpable mental state of "knowing" as an element of the offense means that if your computer automatically connects to your neighbor's wireless network instead of your own and you aren't aware of it, you haven't committed a crime. But if you decide to hop onto the nearest unencrypted Wi-Fi network to surf the Internet, knowing full well that it doesn't belong to you and no one has given you permission, you could be prosecuted under these laws. [56]A Michigan man was arrested for using a cafi's Wi-Fi network (which was reserved for customers) from his car in 2007. Similar arrests have been made in Florida, Illinois, Washington, and Alaska. The federal law that covers unauthorized access is Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1030, which prohibits intentionally accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access. But it applies to "protected computers," which are defined as those used by the U.S. government, by a financial institution, or used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce. In addition to fines and imprisonment, penalties include forfeiture of any personal property used to commit the crime or derived from proceeds traceable to any violation. You can read the text of that section [57]here. In [58]a recent case regarding unauthorized access, a high profile lawsuit was filed against a school district in Pennsylvania by students who alleged that district personnel activated their school-issued laptops in their homes and spied on them with the laptops' webcams. The FBI is investigating to determine whether any criminal laws were broken. Because the school district owned the computers, there is controversy over whether they had the right to remotely access them without the permission of the users. 6: "Tools of a crime" laws Some states have laws that make it a crime to possess a "criminal instrument" or the "tool of a crime." Depending on the wording of the law, this can be construed to mean any device that is designed or adapted for use in the commission of an offense. This means you could be arrested and prosecuted, for example, for constructing a high gain wireless antenna for the purpose of tapping into someone else's Wi-Fi network, even if you never did in fact access a network. Several years ago, a California sheriff's deputy made the news when he declared [59]Pringles can antennas illegal under such a statute. 7: Cyberstalking and Cyberbullying laws Stalking is a serious crime and certainly all of us are in favor of laws that punish stalkers. As Internet connectivity has become ubiquitous, legislatures have recognized that it's possible to stalk someone from afar using modern technology. Some of the "cyberstalking" laws enacted by the states, however, contain some pretty broad language. For example, the Arkansas law contains a section titled "Unlawful computerized communications" that makes it a crime to send a message via email or other computerized communication system (Instant Messenger, Web chat, IRC, etc.) that uses obscene, lewd, or profane language, with the intent to frighten, intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass another person. Some of the lively discussions on mailing lists and Web boards that deteriorate into flame wars could easily fall under that definition. Or how about the furious email letter you sent to the company that refused to refund your money for the shoddy product you bought? Closely related are the [60]laws against cyberbullying. Such laws have been passed by some states and local governments. In April 2009, the [61]Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act (H.R. 1966) was introduced in the U.S. Congress. The act would make it a federal crime to "intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to another person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated and hostile behavior." Subcommittee hearings have been held and the bill is continuing through the legislative process. Opponents of the proposed law point out that the language is open to interpretation, and could be construed to apply to someone who merely gets into heated discussions on a web board or email list. The best policy is to watch your language when sending any type of electronic communications. Not only can a loss of temper when you're online come back to embarrass you, it could even get you thrown in jail. 8: Internet gambling laws Like to play poker online or bet on the horse races from the comfort of your home? The federal [62]Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 criminalizes acceptance of funds from bettors--but what about the bettors themselves? Are they committing a crime? Under this federal law, the answer is no, but some state laws do apply to the person placing the bet. For example, a Washington law passed in 2006 makes gambling on the Internet a felony. The King County Superior Court just [63]recently upheld that law, although challengers have vowed to take it to the Supreme Court. Be sure to check out the state and local laws before you make that friendly online bet. 9: Child pornography laws We all want to protect children and keep pedophiles away from them, but could you be arrested for possession of child pornography or for exposing children to pornography even though you would never voluntarily indulge in such a thing? Unfortunately, as the laws are written and enforced, the answer is "yes." In January 2007, a substitute teacher in Norwich, CT, was convicted of four felony pornography charges, although she claimed the offending pictures were the result of pop-ups and that she did not knowingly access the Web sites in question. The [64]conviction was set aside after forensics and security experts examined her hard drive and found the school's antivirus software was out of date and the computer had no anti-spyware, firewall, or pop-up blocking technology. The teacher ended up pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge. Pornographic images of children are illegal to possess. This includes not just photographs of actual children, but also computer-generated pictures and drawings in which no real people are involved and photos of models who are of adult age but look like children. There are many ways such images can get on a computer. Viruses can infect your system and allow another person to remotely access your hard drive. Your computer can be taken over to become a bot, controlled by someone else without your knowledge. Someone can email you an illegal image. You can click a link on a non-pornographic Web site that takes you to a site where the illegal images are displayed, and they're then downloaded into your Web cache on your hard drive. In another 2007 case, [65]a 16-year-old was charged with possession of child pornography and got 18 months probation and over a quarter of a million dollars in legal fees, even though he passed polygraph tests in which he denied knowledge of the images and an examination of the hard drive found more than 200 infected files and no firewall. 10: Pro IP Act Returning to the copyright front, the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act (Pro IP Act), which was signed into law in 2008, imposes stricter penalties for copyright infringement. It created a new position of "copyright enforcement czar" (formally called the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator) in the federal bureaucracy and gives law enforcement agents the right to seize property from copyright infringers. This may all sound fine in theory, but when you look at the way other seizure and forfeiture laws have been applied (for instance, the ability of drug enforcement officers to seize houses, computers, cars, cash, and just about everything else that belongs to someone tagged as a suspected drug dealer--and in some cases, not returning the property even when the person is acquitted or not prosecuted), it makes many people wary. Read more about the bill [66]here. Some local jurisdictions have also established [67]seizure authority for piracy. In September 2009, Victoria Espinel was appointed as the [68]first copyright czar. She has asked for public input by March 24, 2010. References 49. http://downloads.techrepublic.com.com/abstract.aspx?docid=1623817 50. http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/10things/ 51. http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf 52. http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/hr2265.html 53. http://www.eff.org/issues/acta 54. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/no-cause-needed-search-laptops-border 55. http://nl.com.com/MiniFormHandler?brand=techrepublic&list_id=e064 56. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070522-michigan-man-arrested-for-usi… 57. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html 58. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10457126-71.html 59. http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/wifi-cantennas-now-illegal/ 60. http://www.cio-today.com/news/Teen-Suicide-Spurs-Cyberbullying-Law/story.xh… ?story_id=12000B111K60 61. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1966 62. http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/internet-gambling-ban.htm 63. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004418390_gambling16m.html 64. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/11/proof-porn-pop/ 65. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244009,00.html 66. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080508-house-overwhelmingly-passes-c… 67. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080509-piracy-now-public-nuisance-in… 68. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/23/intellectual-property-and-risks-p… _______________________________________________ tt mailing list tt(a)postbiota.org http://postbiota.org/mailman/listinfo/tt ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> 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

1 0

[tt] Tech Republic: You are probably breaking at least one law with your computer right now
by Premise Checker 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

You are probably breaking at least one law with your computer right now http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/window-on-windows/?p=3389&tag=nl.e064 * Date: November 24th, 2010 * Author: Deb Shinder For many years, the Internet was the "final frontier," operating largely unregulated--in part because of the jurisdictional nightmare involved in trying to enforce laws when communications crossed not just state lines but also national boundaries. That was then; this is now. Legislation that affects the use of Internet-connected computers is springing up everywhere at the local, state and federal levels. You might be violating one of them without even knowing. In this article, we'll take a look at some of the existing laws and some of the pending legislation that can influence how we use our computers and the Internet. Nothing in this article should be construed as legal advice; this is merely an overview of some of the legislation that's out there, how it has been interpreted by the courts (if applicable), and possible implications for computer users. Note: This article is also available as a [49]PDF download and was originally published in the [50]10 Things Blog in March 2010. 1: Digital Millennium Copyright (DMCA) Act Most computer users have heard of this law, signed in 1998 by President Clinton, implementing two World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties. The DMCA makes it a criminal offense to circumvent any kind of technological copy protection--even if you don't violate anyone's copyright in doing so. In other words, simply disabling the copy protection is a federal crime. There are some exemptions, such as circumventing copy protection of programs that are in an obsolete format for the purpose of archiving or preservation. But in most cases, using any sort of anti-DRM program is illegal. This applies to all sorts of copy-protected files, including music, movies, and software. You can read a summary of the DMCA [51]here. If you're a techie who likes the challenge of trying to "crack" DRM, be aware that doing so--even if you don't make or distribute illegal copies of the copyrighted material--is against the law. 2: No Electronic Theft (NET) Act This is another U.S. federal law that was passed during the Clinton administration. Prior to this act, copyright violations were generally treated as civil matters and could not be prosecuted criminally unless it was done for commercial purposes. The NET Act made copyright infringement itself a federal criminal offense, regardless of whether you circumvent copy-protection technology and whether you derive any commercial benefit or monetary gain. Thus, just making a copy of a copyrighted work for a friend now makes you subject to up to five years in prison and/or up to $250,000 in fines. This is the law referred to in the familiar "FBI Warning" that appears at the beginning of most DVD movies. You can read more about the NET Act [52]here. Many people who consider themselves upstanding citizens and who would never post music and movies to a P2P site think nothing of burning a copy of a song or TV show for a friend. Unfortunately, by the letter of the law, the latter is just as illegal as the former. 3: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) This treaty is still in negotiation between the United States, European Commission, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, Canada, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates. The most recent round of negotiations took place in Mexico in January 2010, and the next is scheduled for April 2010 in New Zealand. As with the DMCA, many regard the ACTA as a workaround for governments to impose regulations and penalties through international treaties that they would not be able to pass into law through their regular legislative processes. ACTA covers a number of areas, including counterfeit products and generic medicines, but the part that affects computer users is the chapter titled "Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights." Although the treaty negotiations are conducted in secret, a leaked document indicated that one provision in the treaty would force ISPs to give information about customers suspected of copyright infringement without requiring a warrant. According to reports, another provision would allow customs agents to conduct random searches of laptops, MP3 players, and cell phones for illegally downloaded or ripped music and movies. Not surprisingly, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is a supporter of the treaty. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) opposes it, as does the Free Software Foundation. You can read the EFF's stance on ACTA [53]here. 4: Court rulings regarding border searches Most Americans are aware of the protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution's fourth amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures. In general, this means that the government cannot search your person, home, vehicle, or computer without probable cause to believe that you've engaged in some criminal act. What many don't know is that there are quite a few circumstances that the Courts, over the years, have deemed to be exempt from this requirement. One of those occurs when you enter the United States at the border. In April 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of Customs officers to search laptops and other digital devices at the border (the definition of which extends to any international airport when you are coming into the country) without probable cause or even the lesser standard of reasonable suspicion. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and other groups strongly disagree with the ruling. You can [54]read more on the EFF Web site. Meanwhile, be aware that even though you've done nothing illegal and are not even suspected of such, the entire contents of your portable computer, PDA, or smart phone can be accessed by government agents when you enter the Unites States. So if you have anything on your hard drive that could be embarrassing, you might want to delete it before crossing the border. Stay on top of the latest Microsoft Windows tips and tricks with TechRepublic's Windows Desktop newsletter, delivered every Monday and Thursday. [55]Automatically sign up today! 5: State and federal laws regarding access to networks Many states have criminal laws that prohibit accessing any computer or network without the owner's permission. For example, in Texas, the statute is Penal Code section 33.02, Breach of Computer Security. It says, "A person commits an offense if the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer network or computer system without the effective consent of the owner." The penalty grade ranges from misdemeanor to first degree felony (which is the same grade as murder), depending on whether the person obtains benefit, harms or defrauds someone, or alters, damages, or deletes files. The wording of most such laws encompass connecting to a wireless network without explicit permission, even if the Wi-Fi network is unsecured. The inclusion of the culpable mental state of "knowing" as an element of the offense means that if your computer automatically connects to your neighbor's wireless network instead of your own and you aren't aware of it, you haven't committed a crime. But if you decide to hop onto the nearest unencrypted Wi-Fi network to surf the Internet, knowing full well that it doesn't belong to you and no one has given you permission, you could be prosecuted under these laws. [56]A Michigan man was arrested for using a cafi's Wi-Fi network (which was reserved for customers) from his car in 2007. Similar arrests have been made in Florida, Illinois, Washington, and Alaska. The federal law that covers unauthorized access is Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1030, which prohibits intentionally accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access. But it applies to "protected computers," which are defined as those used by the U.S. government, by a financial institution, or used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce. In addition to fines and imprisonment, penalties include forfeiture of any personal property used to commit the crime or derived from proceeds traceable to any violation. You can read the text of that section [57]here. In [58]a recent case regarding unauthorized access, a high profile lawsuit was filed against a school district in Pennsylvania by students who alleged that district personnel activated their school-issued laptops in their homes and spied on them with the laptops' webcams. The FBI is investigating to determine whether any criminal laws were broken. Because the school district owned the computers, there is controversy over whether they had the right to remotely access them without the permission of the users. 6: "Tools of a crime" laws Some states have laws that make it a crime to possess a "criminal instrument" or the "tool of a crime." Depending on the wording of the law, this can be construed to mean any device that is designed or adapted for use in the commission of an offense. This means you could be arrested and prosecuted, for example, for constructing a high gain wireless antenna for the purpose of tapping into someone else's Wi-Fi network, even if you never did in fact access a network. Several years ago, a California sheriff's deputy made the news when he declared [59]Pringles can antennas illegal under such a statute. 7: Cyberstalking and Cyberbullying laws Stalking is a serious crime and certainly all of us are in favor of laws that punish stalkers. As Internet connectivity has become ubiquitous, legislatures have recognized that it's possible to stalk someone from afar using modern technology. Some of the "cyberstalking" laws enacted by the states, however, contain some pretty broad language. For example, the Arkansas law contains a section titled "Unlawful computerized communications" that makes it a crime to send a message via email or other computerized communication system (Instant Messenger, Web chat, IRC, etc.) that uses obscene, lewd, or profane language, with the intent to frighten, intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass another person. Some of the lively discussions on mailing lists and Web boards that deteriorate into flame wars could easily fall under that definition. Or how about the furious email letter you sent to the company that refused to refund your money for the shoddy product you bought? Closely related are the [60]laws against cyberbullying. Such laws have been passed by some states and local governments. In April 2009, the [61]Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act (H.R. 1966) was introduced in the U.S. Congress. The act would make it a federal crime to "intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to another person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated and hostile behavior." Subcommittee hearings have been held and the bill is continuing through the legislative process. Opponents of the proposed law point out that the language is open to interpretation, and could be construed to apply to someone who merely gets into heated discussions on a web board or email list. The best policy is to watch your language when sending any type of electronic communications. Not only can a loss of temper when you're online come back to embarrass you, it could even get you thrown in jail. 8: Internet gambling laws Like to play poker online or bet on the horse races from the comfort of your home? The federal [62]Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 criminalizes acceptance of funds from bettors--but what about the bettors themselves? Are they committing a crime? Under this federal law, the answer is no, but some state laws do apply to the person placing the bet. For example, a Washington law passed in 2006 makes gambling on the Internet a felony. The King County Superior Court just [63]recently upheld that law, although challengers have vowed to take it to the Supreme Court. Be sure to check out the state and local laws before you make that friendly online bet. 9: Child pornography laws We all want to protect children and keep pedophiles away from them, but could you be arrested for possession of child pornography or for exposing children to pornography even though you would never voluntarily indulge in such a thing? Unfortunately, as the laws are written and enforced, the answer is "yes." In January 2007, a substitute teacher in Norwich, CT, was convicted of four felony pornography charges, although she claimed the offending pictures were the result of pop-ups and that she did not knowingly access the Web sites in question. The [64]conviction was set aside after forensics and security experts examined her hard drive and found the school's antivirus software was out of date and the computer had no anti-spyware, firewall, or pop-up blocking technology. The teacher ended up pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge. Pornographic images of children are illegal to possess. This includes not just photographs of actual children, but also computer-generated pictures and drawings in which no real people are involved and photos of models who are of adult age but look like children. There are many ways such images can get on a computer. Viruses can infect your system and allow another person to remotely access your hard drive. Your computer can be taken over to become a bot, controlled by someone else without your knowledge. Someone can email you an illegal image. You can click a link on a non-pornographic Web site that takes you to a site where the illegal images are displayed, and they're then downloaded into your Web cache on your hard drive. In another 2007 case, [65]a 16-year-old was charged with possession of child pornography and got 18 months probation and over a quarter of a million dollars in legal fees, even though he passed polygraph tests in which he denied knowledge of the images and an examination of the hard drive found more than 200 infected files and no firewall. 10: Pro IP Act Returning to the copyright front, the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act (Pro IP Act), which was signed into law in 2008, imposes stricter penalties for copyright infringement. It created a new position of "copyright enforcement czar" (formally called the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator) in the federal bureaucracy and gives law enforcement agents the right to seize property from copyright infringers. This may all sound fine in theory, but when you look at the way other seizure and forfeiture laws have been applied (for instance, the ability of drug enforcement officers to seize houses, computers, cars, cash, and just about everything else that belongs to someone tagged as a suspected drug dealer--and in some cases, not returning the property even when the person is acquitted or not prosecuted), it makes many people wary. Read more about the bill [66]here. Some local jurisdictions have also established [67]seizure authority for piracy. In September 2009, Victoria Espinel was appointed as the [68]first copyright czar. She has asked for public input by March 24, 2010. References 49. http://downloads.techrepublic.com.com/abstract.aspx?docid=1623817 50. http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/10things/ 51. http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf 52. http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/hr2265.html 53. http://www.eff.org/issues/acta 54. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/no-cause-needed-search-laptops-border 55. http://nl.com.com/MiniFormHandler?brand=techrepublic&list_id=e064 56. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070522-michigan-man-arrested-for-usi… 57. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html 58. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10457126-71.html 59. http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/wifi-cantennas-now-illegal/ 60. http://www.cio-today.com/news/Teen-Suicide-Spurs-Cyberbullying-Law/story.xh… ?story_id=12000B111K60 61. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1966 62. http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/internet-gambling-ban.htm 63. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004418390_gambling16m.html 64. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/11/proof-porn-pop/ 65. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244009,00.html 66. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080508-house-overwhelmingly-passes-c… 67. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080509-piracy-now-public-nuisance-in… 68. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/23/intellectual-property-and-risks-p… _______________________________________________ tt mailing list tt(a)postbiota.org http://postbiota.org/mailman/listinfo/tt ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> 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

1 0

None
by Greg Broiles 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> I don't follow the other list you mentioned, so I don't know what the > actual problem to solve is - my guess is that this is an anti-bot > protection measure, intended to make sure that only human participants can > engage in a conversation. Yep, that's it. > If that's the problem - or if it's similar - you'll also need to make the > puzzle difficult enough that > it's hard to brute-force or solve statistically - let's say you provide the > other party with 20 images, > 19 cats and 1 dog, and ask them to identify the dog. > > What keeps a bot from answering the question 20 times? Let's assume the > first arms-race countermeasure prevents answering the question more than > once by generating puzzles on-the-fly from known cat and dog images - so > the bot just picks an answer randomly, and keeps doing that until they hit. Oops... never thought of that. > Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it? No, just as he can't create round squares. What's that got to do with anything? > This sounds like maybe it's essentially a credentialling/ID problem, where > you're generating credentials on the fly based on a short-form Turing test. > Can you restate the problem so that instead of a Turing test it's a more > familiar multi-channel authentication process? (e.g., require new > participants to have "introductions" from existing participants, track > introductions, and remove the access for accounts found to be bots, or > found to have introduced bots .. or similar.) Well... one of the points of Freenet is to have anonymity (even if not cryptographically strong, just statistical anonimity). I don't know how well that can work with "introductions". [Maybe the public / private key proposals - which I haven't followed up closely - could me modified to be used as some sort of a pseudonym.] Mark

1 0

urgent response
by michelle savimbi 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0034_01C221EC.6C64F7B0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000ams X-MimeOLE: Produced by Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 I asked around, and a man, described as being black (or is the word African-American these days?), roughly 30, with an accent which seemed half London and half African had been in the cafe with a laptop and had a number of visitors call into his booth and had been there at the given time. I hate spam more than I hate crackers. I hate spam more than I hate virus writers. I wanted to catch this guy in the act and I wanted to see him hauled off in a paddywagon. We contacted the police, who unfortunately didn't seem willing to do anything about it unless we caught someone in the act of doing something illegal. The daily staff in the cafe were instructed to let me know if said individual turned up again, though honestly, who could be that stupid? My hopes weren't high. Evidently, a 419er is that stupid. The very next Friday (2nd of April 2004) he turned up again. I was on the bus at the time, just about to go in for another day of world altering research. I ran down as fast as I could and was told that he was on the second floor and hadn't plugged in yet because he wanted one particular booth which is somewhat secluded and was willing to wait. I sat myself down at a computer in another room, started tailing the daemon.log and waited for the telltale entries. I took a quick flick through the tcpdump manpage, just to make sure I didn't screw up. 20 minutes later, it started to happen. He plugged in, and his Windows XP laptop started to blabber away. WindowsUpdate, Netbios, passport logins. Nothing much happened for a while. The odd DNS request here, the occasional search: GET /search.php?Keywords=male%20erection&p (I'm not messing!) on 64.21.81.131, which seems to belong to some direct marketing whorehouse. He logged into this as well: 66.180.174.12, which seems to be some sort of mail harvesting database. The login is done over SSL, so I can't find out more. If any militant anti-spam vigilantes want to get a good look at how these people organize themselves, that's probably a good place to start. Then, he spent a bit of time on http://www.emailspidereasy.com. Don't you just love the fake google-textads? He logged into mail.com next, using the email address kendoda at accountant.com. Whatever hash they use for passwords was aaka7zxkcNo. Then, he logged into his yahoo mail account. This was probably to check the account that in which he receives those mails. It looks like the rest happened over SSL. Then it started. The screen started showing an awful lot of smtp traffic heading out onto the net. I knew that I had to let it go, even if it meant another 48 hours of being blacklisted. If it meant he could be convicted of committing a crime, then I figured it was worth the price. I hope those who received the mail also feel that way. (sorry :-/) Before I phoned my contact in the Gardai, I had to make sure that he was actually sending out his vile wares. I scped the partial dumpfile onto my laptop, and opened it up in ethereal. Guess what? 220 serverXXXXXXXXXX ESMTP Postfix HELO 192.168.1.70 250 serverXXXXXXXXXX MAIL FROM:<mjsavimbi2000 at yahoo.co.uk> 250 Ok RCPT TO:<poXXXXXXXXXXries.com> 250 Ok DATA 354 End data with <CR><LF>.<CR><LF> Reply-To: "michelle savimbi" <mjsavimbi200From: "michelle savimbi" <mjsavimbi2000 at yaSubject: urgent response Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:48:20 +0100 Organization: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundX-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2X-MimeOLE: Produced by Microsoft MimeOLE V ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C221EC.6C64F7BContent-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Dear Sir, I would like to introduce myself to you [....] [I've noticed that some characters are missing. This seems to be due to our server not being able to keep up] And on it went. To lots of people. 1178 of them. By that time, two Gardai had called in and wanted to wait until he had sent as many as he was going to. They seemed fairly convinced at that point that our friend was engaged in something less than honest. These weren't computer specialists, but they walked up, knocked on the window of the booth and introduced themselves. He asks them what the problem is and is told to step away from the computer. He doesn't seem too happy about this, but does so. He's asked his name and is told that he might like to come down for a chat in the local station. He says his wallet and ID are in the booth, so he walks in, rips a USB memory stick from the side of his laptop, tries to swallow it and makes a run for it. Detective number 1 grabs and tries to cuff him, detective 2 starts to do the same. A struggle ensues and goes on for a full 10 minutes, basically trying to pin him on the floor and then getting his arms behind so he can be handcuffed. Michelle agrees to co-operate on numerous occasions and each time tries to run to the booth to destroy whatever is on that machine. Eventually, 2 more gardai arrive and he's cuffed and brought out, crying like a little girl claiming police brutality (which is untrue, they would probably never have even formally arrested him if he hadn't attempted to run). Detective 1 was explaining to me how it's extremely difficult to restrain someone without hurting them. They could have had him subdued in about 10 seconds flat, but there have been instances in the past where a few gardai in this country have caused quite a bit of controversy with their liberal application of force. So this eyewitness applauds the superb work done by these gardai in a very difficult situation. 10 minutes of struggling with someone is pretty tough work. So he's carted off in a car back to the local station., where he'll get a cozy cell. Myself and detective 1 take a look at the equipment he had... A "mentor" network card (based on the cameo chipset), a badly chewed (but fairly undamaged looking) USB memory stick and a bulky laptop running Windows XP. Open on the screen is MS Word with the exact text of our beloved email and some bulk email program (the icon had a yellow background with a black @ symbol). His phone is ringing in his coat constantly. One of his many guests from his previous visit must want to talk to him. At one point, 3 guys who would appear to be of similar ethnic background want to come into the room where Michelle was working. They are told we are closed due to a technical problem. They were friendly and understood the situation and departed quickly enough. Some guys from the computer crime unit turn up, 3 of them. We have a good chat about what evidence I have on the guy. We look through my tcp trace, they same happy enough with what's there. They ask if I managed to sniff any other traffic, http and so forth. They're really hoping that they can get his email password, so with appropriate judicial permission (I assume) they can take a look at who has been mailing him. Yahoo are apparantly extremely uncooperative in this area. He seemed to be using a mail.com address as well. Proof that he is intending on scamming people out of money is what the gardai need. I'm not sure if it's illegal to pretend to be someone you aren't and offer a stranger money that you don't have. I'm guessing that with the tcpdump I gave them, their technicians will be able to get something out of it. I'm more interested in the contents of that USB stick. So anyway, that's my tale. Michelle has been charged with assault (he tore off detective 1's wrist watch) and is claiming that he can't speak any English. Given the potential scale of the scamming operation, detective 1 reckoned that they'd probably end up handing the evidence over to interpol or whoever works in Quantico (that's the FBI, right?). What have I learned? Firstly, digging up evidence on criminals is an exciting activity. Secondly, if you're an absentee sysadmin for an Internet cafe, transperantly proxy as much traffic as you can. The logs will prove useful if you are trying to track an abuser's traffic 24 hours after they have left. I was lucky in this respect, I was proxying smtp and http to postfix and squid. The added headers in the mails makes things easier to track. Thirdly, there doesn't seem to be sufficient clarity among those employed in law enforcement concerning the legalities of spam. Hell, I don't know what the laws regarding this sort of thing are. I just know it sucks. Finally, it's a bit out there, but the gardai should forge closer links with the research community Among us, we have a whole lot of knowledge of just about every issue under the sun. We're mostly idealists, and those ideals include a spam-free Internet. And heck, we're cheap! Hope that provided some amusement. Forward it on to anyone who is interested. Really. I want to see it on the front page of slashdot and el reg within a week. And yes it really happened. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

1 0

[Politech] In China, U.S. tech companies face free speech choices [fs]
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/09/18/MNGDUEPNLA1.… L Chinese Internet vs. free speech Hard choices for U.S. tech giants Carrie Kirby, Chronicle Staff Writer Sunday, September 18, 2005 U.S. tech giants are helping the Chinese express themselves online -- as long as they don't write about democracy, Tibet, sex, Tiananmen Square, Falun Gong, government corruption or any other taboo subject. Microsoft bans "democracy" and "Dalai Lama" from the Chinese version of its blog site. Yahoo recently turned over information that helped the Chinese government track down and imprison a journalist for the crime of forwarding an e-mail. Google omits banned publications from its Chinese news service. Critics say that cooperating with governments to suppress free speech violates human rights, international law and corporate ethics. But what the experts can't agree on is what the companies should do about it. The Internet -- even with limitations -- is generally considered a powerful democratizing force. If international companies withdrew from the Chinese Internet market, the result might mean even fewer chances for free communications there. [...remainder snipped...] _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/) ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 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

Re: Scroogle is allowing Tor again [Was: Re: Strange problem with Tor/Scroogle]
by kr＠i2pmail.org 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Hi, > I think Scroogle's blocking of Tor exit nodes may have been a mistake in > setting up block lists somewhere; I can access it again through Tor. > > Anyone else want to confirm? forwarded with David Brandts permission:

1 0

MIT Circumvention Landscape Report
by basile 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Hi everyone, This is not something we didn't know about already, but I saw it on slashdot and thought I'd share (in case you don't keep up with your slashdot!) http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/05/1334220&from=rss http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2009/2007_Circumvention_Landscape… -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Chair of Information Technology D'Youville College Buffalo, NY 14201 USA (716) 829-8197 ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> 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

1 0

Re: Scroogle is allowing Tor again [Was: Re: Strange problem with Tor/Scroogle]
by kr＠i2pmail.org 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Hi, > I think Scroogle's blocking of Tor exit nodes may have been a mistake in > setting up block lists somewhere; I can access it again through Tor. > > Anyone else want to confirm? forwarded with David Brandts permission:

1 0