July 2018 - cypherpunks-legacy

[Politech] Computers, Freedom and Privacy 2007: Call for proposals for May 1-4 conference [priv]
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

[Disclaimer: I have the pleasure of being on the CFP program committee this year. Proposals for panels, etc. are due January 31, 2007 (I'm hoping to see some good ones on data retention). Hope to see many of you in Montreal in May. --Declan] http://www.cfp2007.org/live/proposals.html The Program Committee of the Seventeenth Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy (CFP2007) seeks your proposals for innovative conference sessions and speakers. The Computers, Freedom & Privacy Conference has been a leading venue for public debate on the future of computing, privacy and freedom in the online world for the past 16 years. Each year, key representatives from government, business, education, and non-profits, including the legal, law enforcement, security, media, consumer, and hacker communities, have gathered together to discuss new technologies, anticipate policy trends and issues and to help map the future of society. Attendees will meet next May 1-4 in Montreal, Canada, to address cutting edge questions and issues in computing, freedom and privacy. This is only the second time that this conference has met in Canada, and it is fitting that the theme this year is Autonomy in the 21st century. When the Internet was young, and this conference started out in San Francisco where the watchword of a new generation was b the Internet wants to be freeb, hackers, social activists, scientists and government officials faced off over issues like free speech, censorship, pornography and cryptography controls. Now we live in a world where expectations of privacy and security appear to have plummeted in some parts of our society, and in some parts of the Internet sub-culture. Autonomy of the individual is threatened by control of personal information and by the shift of control of computing from the owner and user to the manufacturer and software developers. New digital rights management schemes appear, constantly eroding the rights and autonomy of the purchaser of content. Autonomy of groups is threatened by increasing surveillance of all society, but especially the vulnerable. Autonomy of countries and democracies is threatened by international agencies which set standards and are less accountable to democratic governments and the citizens, on issues from aviation control to cybercrime and product safety. Who is making the real decisions? What oversight is there? How can the average individual stay empowered in this digital age? How can transparency, open government, and democracy itself survive in the fearful global environment that we live in? Proposals are welcomed on all aspects of computers, freedom, and privacy. We strongly encourage proposals that explore some of the most important issues affecting autonomy of the individual, of groups, and of countries. We are looking at issues facing the Internet and freedom, including: global activism; technology and monopoly; individuals and ubiquitous computing; technology and weapons; ICANN and Internet governance; borders and censorship; the digital divide and the disenfranchisement of vulnerable populations; biometric systems; consumer privacy; wireless privacy and security; hacktivism; intellectual property and intellectual freedom; digital rights management and privacy; public records and private lives. We are seeking proposals for tutorials, plenary sessions, workshops, technical demonstrations, parallel sessions and birds-of-a-feather sessions. We are also seeking suggestions for speakers and topics. The conference runs from Tuesday, May 1, to Friday, May 4, and permits a range of format and time slots, which the program committee will juggle once we have your input. Panel sessions should present a wide range of thinking on a topic by including speakers from different viewpoints. Complete submission instructions appear on the CFP2007 web site at http://www.cfp2007.org/submissions/. All submissions must be received by January 20, 2007. Proposals will be reviewed by the CFP2007 Program Committee. The Program Committee will notify submitters of the status of proposals no later than February 10th. Submission Guidelines General: All submissions must be made using the CFP2007 electronic submission system. After filling out your contact information and other basic information, you may e-mail the body (in plain text) of your submission to us if you prefer at submissions(a)cfp2007.org. You will receive instructions about where to mail the body of your submission after you fill out the basic information on the submission form. Submitters' contact information will be used only to contact them about their submissions and to send them information about the CFP conference. Session, tutorial, and workshop submissions must be received by November 30, 2006. BOF submissions may be right up to the date of the conference, but rooms will be available on a first-come, first-serve basis. We encourage late interventions that deal with breaking stories and events, and will try to accommodate them on the program If you have an idea for a session or other activity but do not have a complete session proposal, please use the "topic or activity" suggestion form. If you would like to nominate a speaker, please use the "speaker" suggestion form. The Program Committee will give preference to complete session proposals, but will also consider these suggestions as well. We are particularly interested in suggestions for keynote speakers. When providing information about proposed presenters, please do not submit each presenter's entire resume! Just provide a few relevant details. The Program Committee may accept parts of submissions without accepting the entire submission. For example, the Program Committee might combine multiple proposals, take a session topic but fill it in with different speakers, or take a proposal submitted as a plenary session and turn it into a workshop. CFP generally does not provide speaker honoraria. We will waive the conference registration fees for speakers from academic, non-profit, and government institutions (except for BOFs). In addition, travel funding may be available for some speakers on a case-by-case basis. Plenary/Panel sessions: Plenary sessions are sessions held in the main ballroom, which are attended by all the conference participants (about 500 people). They may take the form of a panel discussion or debate, but we encourage other formats, including talk shows, games, moot courts, role plays, and other creative ideas. Plenary sessions are 1 to 2 hours, and should include at least 20 minutes for audience questions and discussion. When they take the form of a panel discussion, we recommend that the panel include no more than 3 to 5 participants (including a moderator). Plenary sessions should be organized by the submitter (with help from the Program Committee). The submitter may be one of the presenters, but that is not required. We prefer submissions in which all the proposed presenters have been confirmed by the submitter. However, we will also consider submissions in which not all the speakers are confirmed, especially if you list alternative speakers in case your top choices are not available. You might also list a type of person rather than name specific people (for example, an academic intellectual property lawyer, or a musician who distributes music on the Internet for free). However, it is helpful if you can list some possible names, so that the Program Committee has some confidence that you will be able to find the kind of people you describe. Plenary and panel sessions are identical except that that panel sessions will run concurrently whereas plenary sessions will be for the entire conference. [Example Plenary/Panel session submission] If you have an idea for a plenary session but are not proposing to organize it, please submit it as a "topic or activity suggestion." See CFP 2006, Federal Privacy Legislation 11:15-12:30 (plenary session) and Concurrent Panel Sessions 1:00-2:00. http://www.cfp2006.org/progwed.html Tutorials: We are particularly interested in half-day tutorials (3 hours, including break) that provide a crash course in a topic of interest to CFP audiences. For example, tutorials on cyberspace law for non-lawyers and encryption for non-technical people have been popular in the past. We will also consider 1-1/2 hour tutorials and full-day tutorials. Tutorials may be presented by a single presenter or a team of presenters. Tutorials should be submitted by one of the proposed presenters. If you have an idea for a tutorial but are not proposing to present it, please submit it as a "topic or activity suggestion." submissions closed Workshops: Workshops sessions are sessions held in parallel, with 30 to 200 conference attendees expected to attend each session. Workshop submissions may include similar content to plenary sessions; however, we are particularly interested in workshop submissions that take advantage of having a smaller audience and promote audience interaction. In addition to the formats suggested for plenary sessions, workshops might take the form of a town hall meeting or a single speaker and audience discussion. Workshops might also be proposed in which the participants are broken up into small groups for brainstorming or discussion and then the groups are brought back together. Workshops should be organized by the submitter (with help from the Program Committee). The submitter may be one of the presenters, but that is not required. We prefer submissions in which all the proposed presenters have been confirmed by the submitter. However, we will also consider submissions in which not all the speakers are confirmed, especially if you list alternative speakers in case your top choices are not available. You might also list a type of person rather than name specific people (for example, an academic intellectual property lawyer, or a musician who distributes music on the Internet for free). However, it is helpful if you can list some possible names, so that the program committee has some confidence that you will be able to find the kind of people you describe. If you have an idea for a workshop but are not proposing to organize it, please submit it as a "topic or activity suggestion." [Example workshop session submission] Birds-of-a-Feather Sessions BOFs are informal evening sessions, usually attended by anywhere from 10 to 50 conference participants. They may include presentations, group discussions, open meetings of organizations, or informal opportunities for people with a common interest to meet each other. BOF submitters should be prepared to organize the BOF that they submit. [Example BOF submission] See CFP 2004, BOFs Thursday April 22, 10-12 pm" http://cfp2004.org/program/ Hyde Park Corner Soapbox Over the years, CFP has been noted for long queues at the question microphones, and often questioners have indulged in ranting themselves, rather than asking questions. We have decided to give this activity a home this year, by instituting the CFP Hyde Park Corner Microphone. If you have something that has to be said, book your time on the soapbox now, to avoid disappointment. The mike will be open at breakfast, breaks and lunchtime. hydepark(a)cfp2007.org If you have further questions about submissions, please e-mail submissions(a)cfp2007.org ### _______________________________________________ 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> 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

[IP] Microsoft told to explain e-mail deletion memos
by dave＠farber.net 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

...... Forwarded Message ....... From: Barry Ritholtz <ritholtz(a)optonline.net> To: Dave Farber <dave(a)farber.net> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:44:02 -0500 Subj: Microsoft told to explain e-mail deletion memos Dave, This is an enormous development, given the history of all the litigation against Microsoft. The Judge's order implies a concern over a very conscious decision by the software giant to eliminate incriminating emails -- after receiving a judicial order to archive all of them during the Anti-Trust case. Additionally, being ordered to search the legal department's archive suggests (in my biased opinion) that because of the affirmative actions of the company in ordering email destruction, they are not able to hide behind Attorney-Client privilege. Further, this implies that some Microsoft employees perjured themselves during prior sworn testimony. As previously disclosed, I am on the Board of Burst, and have absolutely no objectivity whatsoever. But read the report yourself, and reach your own conclusion. Barry L. Ritholtz Market Strategist Maxim Group britholtz(a)maximgrp.com (212) 895-3614 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Microsoft told to explain e-mail deletion memos http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/174343_msftburst21.html Friday, May 21, 2004 By JAMES ROWLEY BLOOMBERG NEWS A federal judge ordered Microsoft Corp. yesterday to search a company computer to help explain why Vice President James Allchin told employees in 2000 to eliminate e-mails. U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz in Baltimore issued the order in an antitrust and patent suit by Burst.com Inc., which has accused Microsoft of stealing its technology for broadcasting sound and video over the Internet at high speeds. Burst.com charges that Microsoft destroyed e-mails that may help the smaller rival win its case. Motz told the company to search a legal department computer for any evidence that Microsoft lawyers advised Allchin and others to adopt a policy of scrapping e-mails. A written policy circulated in 1997 by company computer operators advised employees not to save e-mails for more than 30 days "due to legal issues." "I want to know as much as I can how 'due to legal issues' got in there," Motz told Microsoft lawyer John Treece at a hearing yesterday. "I want to know who talked to Mr. Allchin from the legal department before the e-mail was sent and what was said." Motz didn't accept Microsoft's explanation that the information technology department inserted the words in the company policy statement to make it easier to persuade employees to delete e-mails after 30 days to save computer memory space. "It may be true, but it doesn't have the ring of truth to me," the judge said. Allchin's Jan. 23, 2000, e-mail said: "do not archive your mail. 30 days." Allchin told employees, "This is not something that you get to decide. This is ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as rah(a)shipwright.com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

[Politech] Surveillance in the sky: Homeland Security wants aerial drones with cameras [priv]
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have long been used over Iraq and Afghanistan. Now local police and Homeland Security want to use them in the U.S. for aerial surveillance. This raises two interesting issues: privacy and safety. The privacy one is familiar to Politech readers. If you have a fleet of UAVs overhead on a clear day, they could track when your car leaves your driveway, where you go, who you visit, how long you stay, how fast you drive, and add all that data to a massive information store that could be available to any Fed for the asking. (Networked terrestrial cameras and facecams raise essentially the same issue.) The safety issue involves sharing airspace with pilots carrying passengers. News coverage: http://news.com.com/Drone+aircraft+may+prowl+U.S.+skies/2100-11746_3-6055658. html Photos of UAVs: http://news.com.com/2300-11397_3-6055507.html The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association's writeup of a North Carolina county's use of an UAV for monitoring its citizens: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060215uav.html Summary of a House hearing on this today is below. -Declan --- http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/03-29-06/03-29-06memo.html PURPOSE The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or Unmanned Aerial Systems in the National Airspace System (NAS) and the authority of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to provide safety oversight and air traffic control over these systems in the NAS. BACKGROUND According to the Congressional Research Service, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have been referred to in many ways: remotely piloted vehicle, drone, robot plane, and pilotless aircraft are a few such names. UAVs, which may have a wingspan as large as a Boeing 737 or be as small as a radio-controlled model airplane, are defined by the Department of Defense (DOD) as powered, aerial vehicles that * do not carry a human operator, * use aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift, * can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, * can be expendable or recoverable, and * can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload. There are two different types of UAVs: drones and remotely piloted vehicles (RPVs). Both drones and RPVs are pilotless, but drones are programmed for autonomous flight. RPVs are actively flown b remotely b by a ground control operator. While historically UASs have been used primarily by the DOD in military settings outside of U.S. borders to enhance warfighting capabilities, there is growing demand to operate UAVs in the integrated NAS. In fact, Congress has repeatedly called for and funded programs to study and eventually mandate the use of UAVs in support of homeland security missions and for other purposes. Federal agencies, such as the Customs and Border Protection Service (CBP), the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and State and Local law enforcement agencies are interested in utilizing UAVs in the NAS. Public uses include border security, port security, surveillance, drug interdiction, search and rescue, fire fighting, and other law enforcement and homeland security initiatives. Some of these activities are taking place today; for instance, the CBP conducts UAV surveillance operations along the Nationbs southern border; a NASA-sponsored program has produced civilian UAVs to monitor pollution and measure ozone levels; and the Department of Energy is looking at UAVs outfitted with radiation sensors to detect potential nuclear reactor accidents. UAVs are also an emerging segment of the commercial aviation industry and commercial entities would like to be able to operate UAVs in the NAS. There are many possible commercial uses of UAVs. In fact, the FAA acknowledges that manufacturers and operators are conducting research on, or are designing, aircraft that could fill niche markets unimagined just a decade ago. According to the FAA, some of the research and development activities the commercial aviation industry already performs include supporting law enforcement, homeland security, firefighting, weather prediction and tracking activities. ROLE OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION The FAA has sole authority over the safe and efficient use of the NAS. The FAA is responsible for overseeing the safety of the civil airspace, including operations by the military, government, private pilots and commercial entities. To this end, the FAA must take appropriate actions to ensure the safety of the public, which includes the flying public, as well as people and property on the ground. Public Uses of the Civil Airspace - Certificate of Waiver or Authorization According to the FAA, when the military or a government agency wants to fly a UAV in civil airspace (outside of Special Use Airspace or Military Operation Areas which are b no flyb areas and therefore not integrated with other operators), the FAA examines the request and issues a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA), generally based on the following principles: * The COA authorizes an operator to use defined airspace for a specified time (up to one year, in some cases) and includes special provisions unique to each operation. For instance, a COA may include a requirement to operate only under Visual Flight Rules (VFR). * Most, if not all, COAs require coordination with an appropriate air traffic control facility and require the UAV to have a transponder able to operate in standard air traffic control mode with automatic altitude reporting. * To make sure the UAV will not interfere with other aircraft, a ground observer or an accompanying b chaseb aircraft must maintain visual contact with the UAV. The COA process has made possible research and development efforts and provided a means to introduce UAVs into the air traffic system. This process has aided the FAA, other government agencies, and the UAV manufacturers in identifying potential safety issues. Identified issues, such as the ability to b detect, see and avoidb other traffic, need to be addressed through further technological advancements and additional research and development efforts. Currently, the COA process is not available to commercial entities. Public Uses of the Civil Airspace b Temporary Flight Restrictions In order to address a request by the CBP to conduct UAV operations along the southern border, the FAA established a Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) along the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona and New Mexico. The approximately 300 nm-long, 17-nm wide in most places, corridor is to prevent U.S. Customs and Border Patrol UAV aircraft from colliding with other civilian aircraft. The TFR is in effect from 12,000 to 14,000 feet and is active from 5 p.m. until 7 a.m. daily. The TFR is scheduled to be in effect until December 31, 2006, and may be renewed next year. Commercial Uses of the Civil Airspace To address the increasing needs of the civil market and the desire by civilian operators to fly UAVs in the NAS, the FAA has set up a UAV office and is developing new policies, procedures and approval processes. The FAA anticipates having draft UAV guidance in two years. The approach is to have the appropriate level of oversight without being overly restrictive in the early stages. More immediately, the FAA is reviewing certification requests from several UAV manufacturers. The first airworthiness certificates in the b Experimentalb category (for research and development, crew training, or market survey) were issued in 2005. RELATED ISSUES There are a number of other issues facing the FAA related to the emerging commercial UAV industry, including: Safety oversight: The FAA has identified two primary UAV safety issues that must be addressed for them to operate safely in the integrated civil airspace. * The need for proven UAV command and control redundancies should there be a disruption in communication or should the operator lose contact with the vehicle; and * The need for reliable b detect and avoidb capability so that UAVs can sense and avoid other aircraft. Short term: The use of COAs, experimental certificates and TFRs are intended to be temporary fixes. As it stands today, the lack of UAV standards, operational procedures and regulations is problematic. The demand for UAV operations is growing, and the short-term safety processes put in place, while allowing the FAA to gather important operational data, are not feasible in the long-term. Permission to fly UAVs in the NAS typically takes 60-90 days and permission is often accompanied by operational restrictions. In addition, FAA regions are not always interpreting the existing regulations the same way, leading to inconsistent regulation and enforcement. The FAA, other government agencies, UAV manufacturers, and commercial aviation stakeholders must continue to look for innovative solutions to address the safety issues related to UAVs in the NAS. Long term: The FAA has asked RTCA, Inc., a private, not-for-profit corporation that develops consensus-based recommendations for the agency on technical issues, to help develop UAV standards. RTCA will answer two key questions: How will UAVs handle command and control, and how will they detect and avoid other aircraft? Both of these questions are dependent upon the development of technology and operational procedures. In the long term, it must be demonstrated to the FAA that UAVs can operate at the equivalent level of safety as a manned aircraft. This process will take time. All the stakeholders, the FAA, DOD, DHS, other Government agencies, the NAS users, and the UAV industry must work together to achieve this safety goal. Research and Development Programs and ACCESS 5: Until recently, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) sponsored a government-industry project called ACCESS 5. The project brought together NASA, the FAA, the DOD, the DHS and the UAV National Industry Team (UNITE) to integrate UAVs or Remotely Operated Aircraft (ROA) into the national civil airspace via a four-step process. The first two steps of that process were funded by NASA in the High-Altitude, Long-Endurance Remotely Operated Aircraft in the National Airspace System (HALE ROA in the NAS) project. The HALE ROA in the NAS project was established in 2004 to develop policies, procedures and technical standards to enable remotely or autonomously operated aircraft to fly reliably and routinely in civil airspace with an equivalent level of safety as planes flown by on-board pilots. The last two steps in Access 5 were not part of NASA's HALE ROA in the NAS project, and funding them was left dependent upon the success achieved in the first two steps. The HALE ROA in the NAS project was funded primarily by NASA's Aeronautics Mission Directorate, with a planned budget for steps one and two of about $103 million through fiscal year 2009, or about 75 percent of the project's estimated cost over that five-year period. Industry members of the Access 5 project were contributing funding, with roughly 75 percent of the project's funding from NASA and 25 percent from industry. Unfortunately for UAV research and development efforts, NASA has recently announced a comprehensive restructuring of its research programs. As such, Access 5 has been defunded and important UAV research and development work has stopped. To date, no other agency or entity has taken on, or agreed to, fund the project. International cooperation: The use of UAVs in the civil airspace is a global issue. The FAA and other Government agencies continue to work closely with their international counterparts to harmonize standards, policies, procedures, and regulatory requirements. Recreational Model Aircraft Appropriate oversight of model aircraft operations must be considered as the FAA and interested parties develop standards and regulations for the use of UAVs in the NAS. The term b model aircraftb is defined by the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) as a non-human-carrying device capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, not exceeding the limitations established in the Official AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code, exclusively for recreation, sport, and/or competition activities. The AMA has been in existence since 1936, and is a non-profit organization whose purpose is to promote the development of model aviation as a recognized sport and worthwhile recreation activity. The AMA coordinates with the FAA and self-polices the operation of model aircraft in AMA sanctioned events. Some of the operational requirements for AMA sanctioned activities include: * A maximum takeoff weight of a model aircraft, including fuel, is 55 pounds, except for those flown under the AMA Experimental Aircraft Rules; * Operations shall not take place higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level, when within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator; * Yielding the right-of-way and avoiding flying in the proximity of full-scale aircraft and utilizing a spotter when appropriate; * Operators of radio control model aircraft shall control the aircraft from the ground and maintain un-enhanced visual contact with the aircraft throughout the entire flight; and * No model aircraft shall be equipped with devices that would allow for autonomous flight. The AMAbs position is that model aircraft should not be included in the standards and regulations for UAVs, and that in establishing the definition of UAV, the focus should be on the purpose of the vehicle operation as opposed to the size or ability of the vehicle. _______________________________________________ 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> 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

[Politech] Computers, Freedom and Privacy 2007: Call for proposals for May 1-4 conference [priv]
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

[Disclaimer: I have the pleasure of being on the CFP program committee this year. Proposals for panels, etc. are due January 31, 2007 (I'm hoping to see some good ones on data retention). Hope to see many of you in Montreal in May. --Declan] http://www.cfp2007.org/live/proposals.html The Program Committee of the Seventeenth Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy (CFP2007) seeks your proposals for innovative conference sessions and speakers. The Computers, Freedom & Privacy Conference has been a leading venue for public debate on the future of computing, privacy and freedom in the online world for the past 16 years. Each year, key representatives from government, business, education, and non-profits, including the legal, law enforcement, security, media, consumer, and hacker communities, have gathered together to discuss new technologies, anticipate policy trends and issues and to help map the future of society. Attendees will meet next May 1-4 in Montreal, Canada, to address cutting edge questions and issues in computing, freedom and privacy. This is only the second time that this conference has met in Canada, and it is fitting that the theme this year is Autonomy in the 21st century. When the Internet was young, and this conference started out in San Francisco where the watchword of a new generation was b the Internet wants to be freeb, hackers, social activists, scientists and government officials faced off over issues like free speech, censorship, pornography and cryptography controls. Now we live in a world where expectations of privacy and security appear to have plummeted in some parts of our society, and in some parts of the Internet sub-culture. Autonomy of the individual is threatened by control of personal information and by the shift of control of computing from the owner and user to the manufacturer and software developers. New digital rights management schemes appear, constantly eroding the rights and autonomy of the purchaser of content. Autonomy of groups is threatened by increasing surveillance of all society, but especially the vulnerable. Autonomy of countries and democracies is threatened by international agencies which set standards and are less accountable to democratic governments and the citizens, on issues from aviation control to cybercrime and product safety. Who is making the real decisions? What oversight is there? How can the average individual stay empowered in this digital age? How can transparency, open government, and democracy itself survive in the fearful global environment that we live in? Proposals are welcomed on all aspects of computers, freedom, and privacy. We strongly encourage proposals that explore some of the most important issues affecting autonomy of the individual, of groups, and of countries. We are looking at issues facing the Internet and freedom, including: global activism; technology and monopoly; individuals and ubiquitous computing; technology and weapons; ICANN and Internet governance; borders and censorship; the digital divide and the disenfranchisement of vulnerable populations; biometric systems; consumer privacy; wireless privacy and security; hacktivism; intellectual property and intellectual freedom; digital rights management and privacy; public records and private lives. We are seeking proposals for tutorials, plenary sessions, workshops, technical demonstrations, parallel sessions and birds-of-a-feather sessions. We are also seeking suggestions for speakers and topics. The conference runs from Tuesday, May 1, to Friday, May 4, and permits a range of format and time slots, which the program committee will juggle once we have your input. Panel sessions should present a wide range of thinking on a topic by including speakers from different viewpoints. Complete submission instructions appear on the CFP2007 web site at http://www.cfp2007.org/submissions/. All submissions must be received by January 20, 2007. Proposals will be reviewed by the CFP2007 Program Committee. The Program Committee will notify submitters of the status of proposals no later than February 10th. Submission Guidelines General: All submissions must be made using the CFP2007 electronic submission system. After filling out your contact information and other basic information, you may e-mail the body (in plain text) of your submission to us if you prefer at submissions(a)cfp2007.org. You will receive instructions about where to mail the body of your submission after you fill out the basic information on the submission form. Submitters' contact information will be used only to contact them about their submissions and to send them information about the CFP conference. Session, tutorial, and workshop submissions must be received by November 30, 2006. BOF submissions may be right up to the date of the conference, but rooms will be available on a first-come, first-serve basis. We encourage late interventions that deal with breaking stories and events, and will try to accommodate them on the program If you have an idea for a session or other activity but do not have a complete session proposal, please use the "topic or activity" suggestion form. If you would like to nominate a speaker, please use the "speaker" suggestion form. The Program Committee will give preference to complete session proposals, but will also consider these suggestions as well. We are particularly interested in suggestions for keynote speakers. When providing information about proposed presenters, please do not submit each presenter's entire resume! Just provide a few relevant details. The Program Committee may accept parts of submissions without accepting the entire submission. For example, the Program Committee might combine multiple proposals, take a session topic but fill it in with different speakers, or take a proposal submitted as a plenary session and turn it into a workshop. CFP generally does not provide speaker honoraria. We will waive the conference registration fees for speakers from academic, non-profit, and government institutions (except for BOFs). In addition, travel funding may be available for some speakers on a case-by-case basis. Plenary/Panel sessions: Plenary sessions are sessions held in the main ballroom, which are attended by all the conference participants (about 500 people). They may take the form of a panel discussion or debate, but we encourage other formats, including talk shows, games, moot courts, role plays, and other creative ideas. Plenary sessions are 1 to 2 hours, and should include at least 20 minutes for audience questions and discussion. When they take the form of a panel discussion, we recommend that the panel include no more than 3 to 5 participants (including a moderator). Plenary sessions should be organized by the submitter (with help from the Program Committee). The submitter may be one of the presenters, but that is not required. We prefer submissions in which all the proposed presenters have been confirmed by the submitter. However, we will also consider submissions in which not all the speakers are confirmed, especially if you list alternative speakers in case your top choices are not available. You might also list a type of person rather than name specific people (for example, an academic intellectual property lawyer, or a musician who distributes music on the Internet for free). However, it is helpful if you can list some possible names, so that the Program Committee has some confidence that you will be able to find the kind of people you describe. Plenary and panel sessions are identical except that that panel sessions will run concurrently whereas plenary sessions will be for the entire conference. [Example Plenary/Panel session submission] If you have an idea for a plenary session but are not proposing to organize it, please submit it as a "topic or activity suggestion." See CFP 2006, Federal Privacy Legislation 11:15-12:30 (plenary session) and Concurrent Panel Sessions 1:00-2:00. http://www.cfp2006.org/progwed.html Tutorials: We are particularly interested in half-day tutorials (3 hours, including break) that provide a crash course in a topic of interest to CFP audiences. For example, tutorials on cyberspace law for non-lawyers and encryption for non-technical people have been popular in the past. We will also consider 1-1/2 hour tutorials and full-day tutorials. Tutorials may be presented by a single presenter or a team of presenters. Tutorials should be submitted by one of the proposed presenters. If you have an idea for a tutorial but are not proposing to present it, please submit it as a "topic or activity suggestion." submissions closed Workshops: Workshops sessions are sessions held in parallel, with 30 to 200 conference attendees expected to attend each session. Workshop submissions may include similar content to plenary sessions; however, we are particularly interested in workshop submissions that take advantage of having a smaller audience and promote audience interaction. In addition to the formats suggested for plenary sessions, workshops might take the form of a town hall meeting or a single speaker and audience discussion. Workshops might also be proposed in which the participants are broken up into small groups for brainstorming or discussion and then the groups are brought back together. Workshops should be organized by the submitter (with help from the Program Committee). The submitter may be one of the presenters, but that is not required. We prefer submissions in which all the proposed presenters have been confirmed by the submitter. However, we will also consider submissions in which not all the speakers are confirmed, especially if you list alternative speakers in case your top choices are not available. You might also list a type of person rather than name specific people (for example, an academic intellectual property lawyer, or a musician who distributes music on the Internet for free). However, it is helpful if you can list some possible names, so that the program committee has some confidence that you will be able to find the kind of people you describe. If you have an idea for a workshop but are not proposing to organize it, please submit it as a "topic or activity suggestion." [Example workshop session submission] Birds-of-a-Feather Sessions BOFs are informal evening sessions, usually attended by anywhere from 10 to 50 conference participants. They may include presentations, group discussions, open meetings of organizations, or informal opportunities for people with a common interest to meet each other. BOF submitters should be prepared to organize the BOF that they submit. [Example BOF submission] See CFP 2004, BOFs Thursday April 22, 10-12 pm" http://cfp2004.org/program/ Hyde Park Corner Soapbox Over the years, CFP has been noted for long queues at the question microphones, and often questioners have indulged in ranting themselves, rather than asking questions. We have decided to give this activity a home this year, by instituting the CFP Hyde Park Corner Microphone. If you have something that has to be said, book your time on the soapbox now, to avoid disappointment. The mike will be open at breakfast, breaks and lunchtime. hydepark(a)cfp2007.org If you have further questions about submissions, please e-mail submissions(a)cfp2007.org ### _______________________________________________ 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> 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

Secrecy News -- 07/31/12
by Steven Aftergood 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Format Note: If you cannot easily read the text below, or you prefer to receive Secrecy News in another format, please reply to this email to let us know. SECRECY NEWS from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy Volume 2012, Issue No. 77 July 31, 2012 Secrecy News Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/ ** ANTI-LEAK MEASURES IN SENATE BILL TARGET PRESS, PUBLIC ** TRADE WITH SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA, AND MORE FROM CRS ANTI-LEAK MEASURES IN SENATE BILL TARGET PRESS, PUBLIC The Senate Intelligence Committee markup of the FY2013 Intelligence Authorization Act, which was officially filed yesterday, devotes an entire title including twelve separate provisions to the issue of unauthorized disclosures of classified information, or leaks. But several of those provisions aim to disrupt the flow of unclassified information to the press and the public rather than to stop leaks of classified information. As reported in the Washington Post today, one of the proposed measures (section 506 of the bill) would dictate that only agency leaders could present background briefings to the press. Other agency personnel, such as intelligence analysts, would be barred from providing any background information to the press, even when such information is unclassified. Background briefings are essential "because they help journalists understand the full context of a story, get key details right, and ensure that individuals or the United States as a whole will not be harmed by the publication of incorrect information," according to the Sunshine in Government Initiative, a press advocacy coalition. Questioned by the Post, Senate Intelligence Committee chair Sen. Dianne Feinstein acknowledged that she had no evidence that such briefings, which are prized by reporters as valuable sources of information, had contributed to unauthorized disclosures. And yet they would be forbidden. See "Anti-leak measure targets background briefings" by Greg Miller, Washington Post, July 31: http://wapo.st/R3HKmo Other provisions in the new bill were also roundly criticized by public interest groups concerned with access to government information. A provision to prevent former government officials from providing paid commentary to news media outlets on intelligence matters is very likely unconstitutional, said Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies in a new analysis of the bill. "The over-breadth of this provision in prohibiting commentary and analysis even when no classified information is disclosed would violate the First Amendment," Ms. Martin wrote. "Indeed the provision seems drafted in order to chill public discussion of information that is not classified rather than being narrowly tailored to simply target disclosures of classified information." http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2012/07/cnss073012.pdf Another provision (in section 511) would grant intelligence agency heads the authority to unilaterally revoke the pension of an employee if the agency head "determines" that the employee has violated his or her non-disclosure obligations. This section "would give intelligence agency heads nearly unrestrained discretion to suppress speech critical of the intelligence community-- even after an employee has resigned or retired from an intelligence agency-- and to retaliate against disfavored employees or pensioners, including whistleblowers," wrote the Project on Government Oversight and several other public interest organizations in an open letter to the Senate Committee yesterday. http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2012/07/anti-speech.pdf Fundamentally, the Senate bill "changes the relationship between the press and the federal government," according to the Sunshine in Government Initiative. Drafted in secret and without the benefit of any public hearing, the Senate bill includes provisions that are "crude and dangerous," the Washington Post editorialized today. See "A bill to stop security leaks puts a plug on democracy," July 31: http://wapo.st/T1WxfQ The bill was approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee by a vote of 14 to 1, with Sen. Ron Wyden in opposition. The text of the bill is here: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2012_cr/s3454.pdf The accompanying Committee report including commentary on each provision and Sen. Wyden's dissent may be found here: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2012_rpt/srpt112-192.pdf TRADE WITH SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA, AND MORE FROM CRS Newly updated reports from the Congressional Research Service that Congress has not authorized for broad public distribution include the following. U.S. Trade and Investment Relationship with Sub-Saharan Africa: The African Growth and Opportunity Act and Beyond, June 26, 2012: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL31772.pdf The Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI): Budget Authority and Request, FY2010-FY2013, July 27, 2012: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41845.pdf Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, July 26, 2012: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32665.pdf Housing for Persons Living with HIV/AIDS, July 3, 2012: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34318.pdf Federal Pollution Control Laws: How Are They Enforced?, July 7, 2012: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34384.pdf Cuba: Issues for the 112th Congress, July 20, 2012: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41617.pdf _______________________________________________ Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the Federation of American Scientists. The Secrecy News Blog is at: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/ To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, go to: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/subscribe.html To UNSUBSCRIBE, go to http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/unsubscribe.html OR email your request to saftergood(a)fas.org Secrecy News is archived at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html Support the FAS Project on Government Secrecy with a donation: http://www.fas.org/member/donate_today.html _______________________ Steven Aftergood Project on Government Secrecy Federation of American Scientists web: www.fas.org/sgp/index.html email: saftergood(a)fas.org voice: (202) 454-4691 twitter: @saftergood ----- 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: [tor-talk] Tor as ecommerce platform
by grarpamp 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> 4. Tor and hidden services are good enough for an ecommerce platform. Be careful the words... this is like saying the US Gov is doing great at preventing 'terrorist' attacks simply because there haven't been any. And although I might trust Tor, it's not wise to trust a GPA such as the NSA, nor its supposed restriction on communicating with law enforcement etc against SR. Even without that, it's pretty easy to presume some reverse mail covers against the sellers are in effect. SR's only been around for a year or two. It takes at least that long for any really big sealed case to go down in public. So we truly must wait much longer in order to presume the statement in (4) is true. >> Perhaps the Silk Road people should donate to Tor. Perhaps they >> should fund hidden service improvements in Tor. Perhaps both. > I doubt that the Tor Project will ever acknowledge such support. Tor cannot accept known 'illegal' money, therefore acknowledgement is moot. About the best Tor could do is be able to accept anonymous donations in the first place. Then publish a bitcoin address for donations from anyone. Then surely some unaffiliated and helpful bird would send to SR the links to that address and to this thread. Not sure, but I think at one point Tor accepted bitcoin, but then recanted. Link to paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.7139v1 _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk(a)lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk ----- 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

[tor-talk] End-to-end correlation for fun and profit
by Maxim Kammerer 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Hello gentlemen, Here and there I see references to b globalb or b state-levelb powerful adversaries when it comes to end-to-end traffic correlation b i.e., it's supposed to be very hard. Because Tor network has many nodes, there are guard nodes, there is research, blog posts, CIA funding (well, not anymore, but similar funding from EU is in the works), useless bureaucracy, college kids playing in serious development, yada yada b you know the drill. Anyway, let's do some math. Below, you will find a table where left column denotes the number of Guard+Exit+Fast+Stable Tor relays one needs to sniff at Class-C level, and right column denotes the probability that a given circuit will go through both intercepted entry and exit nodes. This is slightly imprecise, because same node can't be both entry and exit for a circuit, and there are other ignored intricacies (e.g., port policies) that push the estimates in the other direction b the reason is that I am better with writing quick scripts [1] than with Excel. The consensus taken for analysis is from a few hours ago, and I read Tor server code from current stable version in Gentoo (0.2.2.35) b this probably doesn't matter. 10 11.50% 11 14.56% 12 16.52% 13 16.80% 14 17.69% 15 17.98% 16 18.90% 17 19.20% 18 19.50% 19 20.46% 20 20.46% 21 21.76% 22 22.77% 23 23.43% 24 23.43% 25 24.48% 26 24.48% 27 24.82% 28 25.55% 29 25.90% 30 25.90% As you can see, sniffing just 25 Class-C networks (or 42 individual nodes) lets an adversary correlate ~25% of (non-.onion) circuits. Which networks are these? DE 31.172.30.[1-4] GB 146.185.23.179 NL 77.247.181.{162,164} RO 109.163.233.{200,201,205} CA 198.96.155.3 US 199.48.147.{35,36,37,38,39,40,41} DE 212.84.206.250 FR 178.32.211.{130,140} US 204.8.156.142 US 173.254.216.[66-69] SE 78.108.63.44 US 96.44.189.102 GB 178.33.169.35 CZ 212.79.110.28 US 66.180.193.219 DE 88.198.100.{230,233} LU 212.117.180.65 SE 81.170.186.175 CH 62.220.135.129 SE 84.55.117.251 DE 85.31.187.132 CA 8.18.172.156 FR 213.251.185.74 US 69.42.212.2 FR 37.59.82.50 All of these servers are in US/CA or EU jurisdiction, so even an unsophisticated LE operation can issue ~20 wiretapping orders at ISP level (many of these networks are operated by same hosting providers), and immediately deanonymize ~25% of Tor traffic. So far for anonymity! Oh, and if you are just into looking what sites Tor users visit, the situation is even better b intercepting the same 25 Class-C networks will let you see 72% of the traffic. Picking better non-Guard Exits will improve this figure to 78%. That's right b 4/5th of Tor traffic exits through just 25 LANs. [1] http://pastebin.com/hgtXMSyx -- Maxim Kammerer LibertC) Linux: http://dee.su/liberte _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk(a)lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk ----- 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

[IP] The DNA round-up on Cape Cod
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

------ Forwarded Message From: "Richard M. Smith" <rms(a)computerbytesman.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:18:42 -0500 To: <dave(a)farber.net> Subject: The DNA round-up on Cape Cod Hi, I live in the town of Truro on Cape Cod about 4 or 5 months out of the year. This past week, the Truro has been on the national news because the local police are attempting to obtain DNA samples of all men of the town in order to solve a three-year old murder case. Here are a couple of the articles that give the details of what is going on in this DNA round-up: To Try to Net Killer, Police Ask a Small Town's Men for DNA http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/national/10cape.html Truro abuzz over 'swab' DNA testing http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/truroabuzz7.htm I am headed back to my Truro house later this week. If I am approached by the police to provide a DNA sample for their round-up of Truro males, I am planning to refuse. However, I just realized that I already gave a DNA sample to the Town of Truro recently. I paid my property tax bill to the Truro tax collectors office two weeks ago. My DNA is on the tax payment envelope that I licked. Envelopes are apparently a good source of DNA material according to this article: DNA on Envelope Reopens Decades-old Murder Case http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_052103_dnaarrest.html Richard M. Smith http://www.ComputerBytesMan.com ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen(a)leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- 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

For IP: Italy requires logging of personal info at cybercafes
by Brett Glass 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Want to check your e-mail in Italy? Bring your passport. An antiterror law makes Internet cafe managers check their clients' IDs and track the websites they visit. By Sofia Celeste | Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor ROME - Looking out over the cobblestone streets of Rome's Borgo Pio neighborhood, Maurizio Savoni says he's closing his Internet cafe because he doesn't want to be a "cop" anymore. After Italy passed a new antiterrorism package in July, authorities ordered managers offering public communications services, like Mr. Savoni,to make passport photocopies of every customer seeking to use the Internet, phone, or fax. "This new law creates a heavy atmosphere," says Savoni, his desk cluttered with passport photocopies. He is visibly irritated, as he proceeds to halt clients at the door for their ID. Passed within weeks of the London bombings this summer, the law is part of the most extensive antiterror package introduced in Italy since 9/11 and the country's subsequent support of the Iraq war. Though the legislation also includes measures to heighten transportation security, permit DNA collection, and facilitate the detention or deportation of suspects, average Italians are feeling its effect mainly in Internet cafes. But while Italy has a healthy protest culture, no major opposition to the law has emerged. Before the law was passed, Savoni's clients were anonymous to him. Now they must be identified by first and last name. He must also document which computer they use, as well as their log-in and log-out times. Like other owners of Internet cafes, Savoni had to obtain a new public communications business license, and purchase tracking software that costs up to $1,600. The software saves a list of all sites visited by clients, and Internet cafe operators must periodically turn this list into their local police headquarters. "After 9/11, Madrid, and London, we all have to do our utmost best to fight terrorism," says a government official who asked not to be named. Italy claims that its new stance on security led to the arrest of Hussein Osman, also known as Hamdi Issac - one of the men behind the failed bombing of the London underground July 21. "Hamdi was well known to our security people and had relatives here with whom he communicated, in some form," says the government official in an e-mail interview. But Silvia Malesa, a young Internet cafe owner in the coastal village of Olbia, Sardinia, remains unconvinced. "This is a waste of time," says Ms. Malesa in a telephone interview. "Terrorists don't come to Internet cafes." And now, would-be customers aren't coming either, say Savoni and Malesa. Since the law was enacted, Savoni has seen an estimated 10 percent drop in business. "So many people who come in here ask 'why?' and then they just leave," Savoni says. Most tourists who wander in from the streets, he explains, leave their passports at home or are discouraged when asked to sign a security disclaimer. Savoni says the new law violates his privacy, comparing it to America's antiterrorism law that allows authorities to monitor Internet use without notifying the person in question. "It is a control system like America's Patriot Act," he says. Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union have criticized the Patriot Act because it permits the government to ask libraries for a list of books someone has borrowed or the websites they have visited. Under Italy's new antiterror legislation, only those who are on a black list for terrorist connections are in danger of having their e- mails read, according to the government official. Interior Minister Giuseppe Pisanu has declared Italy will stop at nothing to fight terror. "I will continue to prioritize action to monitor the length and breadth of the country, without ever underestimating reasonably reliable reports of specific threats," said Mr. Pisanu in a Sept. 29 interview with Finmeccanica Magazine. Pisanu has also called for developing sophisticated technology to combat terror on Italian soil. "There is no doubt that, to achieve maximum efficiency, we need the support of the best technological applications," Pisanu affirmed. As a result, Pisanu has formed the Strategic Anti-terrorism Analysis Committee, which aims to examine and take action against all terror threats. Due to new measures, more than 25 Islamic extremists were arrested on Italian soil in 2005, according to the Interior Ministry. The ministry also reported that they are conducting "rigorous surveillance" of high-risk areas of terrorist activity and over 13,000 strategic locations in Italy. On Aug. 12 and 13 alone, a reported 32,703 checks were carried out on suspicious individuals. Despite the inconvenience, most Italians seem relatively unfazed by the law. "If I am not doing anything wrong, fundamentally nothing is going to happen to me," says Mauro Pallotta, a young artist, after checking his e-mail at Savoni's cafe. URL: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1004/p07s01-woeu.htm ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen(a)leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- 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

[IP] Italy requires logging of personal info at cybercafes
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Begin forwarded message:

1 0