July 2018 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: [FoRK] moar change we can believe in!
by Koen Holtman 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: [...] > This is a complicated topic and goes way beyond RFID. The world is > very rapidly becoming pervasively wired with network-connected > sensors, and the state of this reality is far beyond what most people > imagine it is. In my day job I work a bit on pervasive networked sensors and RFID. In fact the introduction of these has been less rapid than I would have predicted 5-10 years ago. When you get down to it, making a solid business case to roll out this type of technology on a massive scale is not that easy. What we really need is an irrational sensor bubble but I am not holding my breath. The actually existing scary pervasive network-connected sensor device is otherwise known as the internet enabled mobile phone. Data mining user-generated internet traffic is also a lot easier than collecting lots of camera/sound/sensor/rfid data and correlating it to people afterwards. The good news is that, at least for this type of scary pervasive sensor, the companies that are technically best placed to capture and mine all data generated are still somewhat regulated when it comes to privacy. Nevertheless technology is on a path where it becomes more and more easy for institutions to gather massive amounts of data about individuals. This is a threat to the correct functioning of states and markets, because it creates new opportunities to game the system for the benefit of a few. I can't see a purely technical fix. The only way to counter-balance this technical trend is by legislation and citizen/consumer education. Memes that will become increasingly useful: - All data about me is my own property, not the property of the people who managed to collect it. - They might happen to know this, but is it not legal for them to act on it. - Nobody is perfect. - If buyer and seller have hugely different access to information you cannot have a fair market. - Shouldn't my every word and gesture by covered by copyright law? After all I am at least as good an artist as <fill in here>. Koen. _______________________________________________ FoRK mailing list http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork ----- 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: SHA-1 rumors
by John Black 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> >No, it was on the compression function, but not in any sense "reduced". But >you had to start with particular values of the chaining variables, and in >practice no-one knows how to do that, so MD5 (as a whole) isn't broken by >this, at least until tomorrow evening. The rumour here is that MD5, HAVAL, >and RIPE-MD are all goners. We know SHA-0 is toast too. There might also be >results against SHA-1. Hash functions are hard. > What I've heard (also at CRYPTO right now like Greg) is that the four Chinese researchers (Wang, Fang, Lai, Yu) have found collisions in MD4, MD5, HAVAL, and RIPEMD. They state that SHA-0 collisions can be found as well. However, the collision they list for MD5 doesn't produce work because the Chinese translation of [MOV] had an error which caused an endianness problem. So they have a collision for a PARTICULAR IV. One of the four researchers is back in China, so they are on the phone trying to fix the problem for the announcment tomorrow evening. However, they have announced nothing regarding SHA-1 or any of the larger-output SHA versions like SHA-256, etc. We haven't seen their methods yet, but one has to believe that their methods are fairly general given the range of hash functions they've attacked. This would SEEM to put the SHA family into jeopardy as well, but we should know more tomorrow evening. John Black [MOV] Menezes, van Oorschot, Vanstone; Handbook of Applied Cryptography, CRC Press. _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)metzdowd.com --- 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

EDRI-gram newsletter - Number 5.13, 4 July 2007
by EDRI-gram newsletter 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

============================================================ EDRI-gram biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe Number 5.13, 4 July 2007 ============================================================ Contents ============================================================ 1. EDRI signs "Keep The Core Neutral" petition 2. Final agreements between EU and USA on PNR and SWIFT 3. OECD pushes for privacy co-operation 4. The Austrian government has postponed the law for data retention 5. Italian officials prepare the law for a DNA database 6. French Internet users are not properly informed on DRM 7. German legislation troubles the big Internet companies 8. ENDitorial : The End of Multilateral Broadcast Treaty 9. Recommended Reading 10. Agenda 11. About ============================================================ 1. EDRI signs "Keep The Core Neutral" petition ============================================================ European Digital Rights Initiative (EDRI) has joined more than 100 individuals and organizations from around the world in signing the petition "Keep The Core Neutral" urging ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ) to resist efforts to evaluate applications for new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) based on non-technical criteria such as ideas about morality and competing national political objectives. The "Keep the Core Neutral" coalition is concerned that ICANN's draft policy includes evaluation criteria that go well beyond technical considerations of operational stability and security and exceeds the organization's mandate of technical coordination. In particular, ICANN is considering policy that would reject applications for new gTLDs if they violate globally fixed standards on "morality" or "public order". But the lack of global standards on morality and policy objectives invites nations with restrictions on free expression to impose censorship on the entire world by blocking the creation of certain domains. There is also concern that religious institutions and business competitors will be allowed to object to new domain name applications based on non-technical and non-legal criteria. Creating a precedent for generalized public governance would be dangerous, as the private corporation does not have a democratic governance structure that is accountable to the public or that includes protections for the rights of Internet users. The proposed policy also threatens to extend unrelated concepts derived from commercial trademark law onto non-commercial expression, but domain names are distinct from trademarks in significant ways. Trademark rights only regulate a particular type of commercial speech, while ICANN policy could expand trademark restrictions onto non-commercial expression and prevent online criticism of companies and products. In a 27 June 2007 workshop at the San Juan ICANN meeting, a distinguished panel of legal and technical experts addressed these issues including former ICANN Board Member and attorney Michael Palage, who co-authored a 2006 essay "Please, Keep the Core Neutral", which served as inspiration for the coalition's global petition. Keep The Core Neutral : Global Petition Urges ICANN to Protect Free Expression and Innovation in Domain Name Policy (30.06.2007) http://www.keep-the-core-neutral.org/node/26 Global Petition to ICANN Board of Directors: "Keep the Core Neutral" (11.06.2007) http://www.keep-the-core-neutral.org/petition Transcript of Keep the Core Neutral Workshop (27.06.2007) http://sanjuan2007.icann.org/files/sanjuan/SanJuan-NCUCALACWorkshop-27June0… ============================================================ 2. Final agreements between EU and USA on PNR and SWIFT ============================================================ After a long and difficult period of negotiations, on 28-29 June 2007, final agreements were reached between EU and USA on the data regarding European financial transactions operated by Belgian consortium SWIFT and on the passenger name records (PNR) issue respectively. Regarding the access to financial data from SWIFT, the US has committed to use any data received from SWIFT exclusively for counter-terrorism purposes, the data retention period being of 5 years. SWIFT is also bound to "adequately" protect the privacy of data according to EU principles as laid out in 2000 and further more, from now on, all banks using SWIFT will have to inform their customers about any transfers of their data. According to a spokesman for Commission Vice-President Franco Frattini, an "agreement had been reached on the substance of the new Passenger Name Records (PNR) system, with only technical details and EU national parliaments' opinion still to be resolved". The agreement will replace the interim agreement due to expire at the end of July 2007. Both sets of negotiations resulted in the EU having obtained the power to inspect US investigators' use of European data. The EU has insisted on this, considering that US privacy laws would not protect European citizens' data from being abused. However, according to Gus Hosein from Privacy International, the EU won only limited oversight over the US use of PNR data. The PNR agreement reduced the number of pieces of data that can be collected by the US authorities from 34 pieces to 19, including name, contact information, payment details, travel agency, itinerary and baggage information, but excluding sensitive data such as ethnicity. The US will be allowed to store the data for a seven year period under an "active" or "operational" regime and can extend this period by 8 years for "dormant" data which would be accessible under stricter rules. This means a 15 year storage period in total as compared to three years as previously agreed. The EU officials however state that the agreement has more safeguards than before. In a letter to the German interior minister Wolfgang Schauble, the European Data Protection Supervisor Peter Hustinx has still shown concern believing that the privacy rights of air passengers between the EU and US will be threatened by the agreement struck on 29 June. A good point is that, for the first time, EU citizens will also be covered by the US Privacy Act which means they can enforce their rights in US courts. The new PNR system deal must be ratified by national parliaments before taking effect as expected at the end of July 2007. But the PNR data started to look interesting also for the European officials. Just a few days after the car bomb attack in Glasgow and London, the commissioner Franco Frattini announced that he would propose in October a new draft containing anti-terrorism measures, including creating a European PNR system. In this way, the airlines flying to the EU would be obliged to share passengers private data with Europe's secret services. It is not clear yet if the scheme will cover intra-European flights. Draft text - PNR Agreement (28.06.2007) http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/jul/eu-usa-pnr-agreement-2007.pdf EU-US data-sharing deals renew privacy concerns (29.06.2007) http://www.euractiv.com/en/security/eu-us-data-sharing-deals-renew-privacy-… EU legitimises US travel and bank data snoops (28.06.2007) http://euobserver.com/22/24384 US gives in to EU demands over data (29.06.2007) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/29/us_eu_data_use/ Europe's banks must inform customers of US snooping (27.06.2007) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/27/swift-disclosure_rules_for-european… New PNR Agreement with the United States of America - Peter Hustinx letter to the German Minister of Interior (27.06.2007) http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/jun/eu-us-pnr-hustinx-letter.pdf Air passengers to face EU anti-terror screening (4.07.2007) http://www.euractiv.com/en/transport/air-passengers-face-eu-anti-terror-scr… EU plans air passenger data exchange system (3.07.2007) http://euobserver.com/9/24416 ============================================================ 3. OECD pushes for privacy co-operation ============================================================ A new framework has been agreed by the 30 members of OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) regarding the co-operation in the enforcement of privacy laws, updating a 27 year old statement (OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data). The large volume of the data being exchanged across borders and the changes in the character of these exchanges having increased the risks to privacy for individuals have brought up the need for a better co-operation between authorities in charge with data protection. The framework, included in the new OECD Recommendation on Cross-Border Co-operation in the Enforcement of Laws Protecting Privacy, developed by the OECD Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policy (ICCP), through its Working Party on Information Security and Privacy (WPISP), shows the commitment of the governments to improve their national privacy legislation to allow co-operation and mutual assistance among each other for an efficient enforcement of privacy laws. "A consensus has emerged on the need to promote closer co-operation among privacy law enforcement authorities to help them exchange information and carry out investigations with their foreign counterparts," says the recommendation which also reads: "Globalisation, the emergence of 'follow the sun' business models, the growth of the internet and falling communication costs dramatically increase the amount of personal information flowing across borders. This increase in transborder information flows benefits both organisations and individuals by lowering costs, increasing efficiency and improving customer convenience. At the same time, these personal information flows elevate concerns about privacy, and present new challenges with respect to protecting individuals' personal information." OECD has developed two model forms to facilitate the co-operation: one to assist in the creation of a list of contact points in each country to co-ordinate requests for assistance and another one to be used by an authority in requesting assistance. The recommendation will be introduced at regional events and at the 29th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners that will be hosted in September 2007 in Montreal by Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart Privacy Commissioner of Canada who also conducted the work on the development of the framework. OECD Recommendation on Cross-border Co-operation in the Enforcement of Laws Protecting Privacy - Press release http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,3343,en_2649_34223_38771516_1_1_1_1,00.ht… OECD Recommendation on Cross-border Co-operation in the Enforcement of Laws Protecting Privacy - full text http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/28/38770483.pdf Net growth prompts privacy update (30.06.2007) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6254650.stm International effort on privacy protection is launched (26.06.2007) http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=8182 ============================================================ 4. The Austrian government has postponed the law for data retention ============================================================ A spokesman of the Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology has confirmed that due to the flood of responses to the law proposal there is no way to have data retention ready before the deadline set by the directive. The ministry received a total of 90 statements from various organisations. Most of them voiced severe concerns about the suggested implementation of data retention. The supporters were various bodies of the entertainment industry, demanding longer retention periods and a lower threshold. They demanded extending access to retained data for violations of copyright, by a law that is being implemented to help fight terrorism. The ministry needs to process all those statements in a diligent way and it will do so, even if the EU issues a caution against the Republic of Austria. Furthermore there have been talks with the Ministry of Justice to embed data retention in the criminal law concerning the degree of penalty and periods. The criminal law has already exemptions for lawyers, physicians, journalists and other groups of society handling highly sensitive personal data. The retention period of six months both for telephone and Internet traffic data was not questioned. More results of these talks will be due in Autumn after the summer break. The background to this turnaround is that a general aversion against data retention has been growing in Austria, and the resistance is pretty broad. Hardly anybody turns up in Austrian public to express support for this measure. The Austrian Chambers of Commerce and Labour both oppose data retention. Those bodies, called "social partnership", are the pillars of real political life representing small and middle businesses (Conservatives) and Labour. Even the federal Chancellor's office expressed concerns about a possible violation of Austria's constitution. Various academic institutions stepped in as well. All quoted bodies are more or less closely related to one of the two big political parties. The discussion here started very late, as it took print and TV media journalists quite a long time to understand what data retention of network traffic data could mean for their jobs in general. During the month of June the topic was covered by all Austrian media - late, but better than never. AT: Data Retention gets delayed until Autumn (only in German, 28.06.2007) http://www.quintessenz.org/d/000100003888 Quintessenz doqubase about data retention http://quintessenz.org/data_retention The Truth about the Costs for Data Retention (only in German, 29.06.2007) http://futurezone.orf.at/it/stories/203760/ Data Retention Delayed (only in German, 28.06.2007) http://futurezone.orf.at/it/stories/203295/ Data Retention in Austria arrives later (only in German, 28.06.2007) http://www.heise.de/newsticker/result.xhtml?url=/newsticker/meldung/91913 (Contribution by EDRI-member quintessenz.org - Austria) ============================================================ 5. German legislation troubles the big Internet companies ============================================================ Yahoo and Google seems to have problems adapting their business to the tough requirements of the German law regarding content harmful to minors and the implementation of the data retention directive, respectively. Yahoo has recently changed the way the content filter setting for its photo-sharing service Flickr works for German members so that they can't view photos labelled as "moderate" or "restricted" via the search function. This caused a lot of complaints from German users, that created special groups on the platform such as Against Censorship! Also they started uploading anti-Flickr pictures in the Yahoo photo sharing service and tag them as "thinkflickrthink". In the end Flickr allowed the German users to turn SafeSearch off to allow photos flagged as 'moderate' and tried to explain the situation. "Flickr's intent is never to censor content, but rather to comply with local legal restrictions. In Germany, local law (Jugendmedien-Staatsvertrag JMStV) requires stringent age verification in order to display online content that could be considered harmful to minors." explained Flickr's co-founder Stewart Butterfield. Community Manager, Heather Champ added : "The central problem is that Germany has much more stringent age verification laws than its neighbouring countries," she said. She described the risks of breaking these laws as being punished with "much harsher penalties, including jail time, for those with direct responsibility." The German draft law for the implementation of the data retention directive also raises problems with the online service providers. The draft foresees that providers of e-mail services will basically have to keep records of the following: the user's IP address for each e-mail sent and for each access to the inbox as well as the sender's network ID for every e-mail received. According to an interview to the German economics magazine Wirtschaftswoche, Peter Fleischer, Google privacy counsellor considered the draft law as "a severe blow to privacy " and praised the possibility to have anonymous email accounts. According to Heise he also declared that : "If need be we will simply switch off Google Mail in Germany", but this was later considered as a misinterpreted quote, and the correct statement was : "We think that this law is bad for users and bad for privacy on the Internet. Google believes that users should have the right to create an email account without going through the hassle of having to prove exactly who they are. Anonymous email is particularly important for political dissidents, for example." Google also hoped that the German federal government will change its plans in this respect. User protests against and Yahoo's justification for filters at Flickr (18.06.2007) http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/91279 Against Censorship! at Flickr http://www.flickr.com/groups/againstcensorship/ (Official Topic) German SafeSearch settings (20.06.2007) http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/43626/ Google threatens to shut down e-mail service in Germany (25.06.2007) http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/91681 Lost In Translation: German Gmail Stays Put (27.06.2007) http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/06/lost-in-transla.html EDRI-gram: Data retention and increased surveillance in Germany (25.04.2007) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.8/germany-data-retention ============================================================ 6. French Internet users are not properly informed on DRM ============================================================ The UFC- Que Choisir association has revealed the results of an online study performed in February 2007 regarding the use of DRM (Digital Rights Management) systems imposing third-party restrictions on the users of a reading device. The poll has shown that most French Internet users have not been properly informed on the restrictions that DRM systems involve and that they definitely would like these technical protections out. The poll covered about 800 Internet users that had already bought music online. Out of these, 51% stated they had never been informed on the usage restrictions that DRM imposes and 65% of them thought they could listen to the music they had legally bought on any device without any constraints. 72% of the iPod users had no idea they could listen on their devices only music bought on iTunes. According to the study, 20% of the respondents have already experienced the situation of buying music online that they could not listen to on the devices they had. Most respondents (about 90%) consider it is very important to be able to use any kind of device to read the music they buy. UFC-Que Choisir association asks from the French Government to revise the so-called DADVSI law in order "to refuse the producers the unilateral freedom to impose DRM contrary to the basic consumers' rights". UFC-Que Choisir's main preoccupation is interoperability for the consumers. "The musical world can very well live without the DRM. Even better" said Edouard Barreiro, in charge with new technologies within the association. "If the legislator cannot interdict the use of DRM, the industry should at least be imposed to use at least a unique DRM format to provide the interoperability". Some of the music distribution companies such as EMI group or Universal have already started having initiatives of providing DRM free music online. As Denis Olivennes, owner of Fnac commercial website, stated: A non-restricted title is sold twice a DRM bound one. The Internet users do not know DRM well (only in French, 26.06.2007) http://www.01net.com/editorial/352653/les-internautes-connaissent-mal-les-d… Music : the consumer does not want DRM (only in French, 28.06.2007) http://www.clubic.com/actualite-75858-musique-consommateur-drm.html DRM: the consumers do not want restrictions (only in French, 27.06.2007) http://www.ecrans.fr/spip.php?article1656 EDRI-gram:France establishes the DRM-regulation authority (12.04.2007) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.7/drm-authority-france ============================================================ 7. Italian officials prepare the law for a DNA database ============================================================ Italy is preparing its DNA database law, claiming that it needs harmonization with the other European states situation, but forgetting about the privacy concerns. According to col. Luciano Garofano from RIS (Reparti Investigazioni Scientifiche), it is not very long until the law allowing archiving DNA data will be in place. In Garofano's opinion, Italy is actually one of the last to have a legislation in the domain and the problem is that although Italy has signed the Pr|m treaty to exchange data, it has no data to exchange. The colonel believes that Italy needs this database that would be efficient in identifying criminals as well as innocent people. Experts however fear that there is a risk of theft of genetic data that could be used abusively as well as of the possibility of relying too much on this database ignoring checks of various typologies and sources. Garofano believes advantage should be taken of the new technologies and data privacy issues should not stand in the way of security. He thinks privacy should not be a justification not to draft a law that would be for the security of the Italian citizens. A draft law has already been made by the National Committee for Biosecurity, Biotechnology and Life Science (Comitato Nazionale per la Biosicurezza, le Biotecnologie e le Scienze della Vita), a draft that stipulates the gathering of data from those that have infringed the law and might face more than 3 years of imprisonment as well of those that are imprisoned. "A law is absolutely necessary but it must be evaluated with extreme caution. It is a good think that the gathered data is based on alphanumerical sequence and not on biological samples" said Francesco Pizzetti, the president Italian Data Protection Authority (Garante per la protezione dei dati personali). He also expressed the hope that the authority's experience would be taken into consideration and that the Parliament would listen to the opinions of the Authority. Italy - ready for the Big Genetic Database (only in Italian, 29.06.2007) http://punto-informatico.it/p.aspx?i=2029006 ============================================================ 8. ENDitorial : The End of Multilateral Broadcast Treaty ============================================================ The summer special session of United Nation's World Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPO) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related rights (SCCR) ended with an outcome that effectively killed the proposed treaty for protection of broadcast organisations (Broadcast Treaty). The committee called off the Diplomatic Conference that was supposed to take place in November to approve the treaty. Even if the treaty remains on the agenda of SCCR, it is unlikely that there will be any serious push to overcome the vastly different positions on key issues relating to objectives, scope and object of protection. There were several reasons for this outcome. The treaty was unwanted by many countries. The United States lost interest after webcasting was removed from the scope of the treaty and - perhaps more importantly - after the US technology and telecommunication industries made their opposing position loudly known. There was also disagreement within the North American Broadcasters' Association. This left the EU and Japan in a much weaker position against the countries known as "Friends of Development", who saw little use in new property rights for broadcasters but instead considered the treaty as an opportunity to inject new elements such as competition, access to knowledge and cultural diversity into the global copyright regime. The second reason was spirited opposition by the rest of the stakeholders (i.e. other than broadcasters) against the treaty. In particular the organizations representing civil society constantly asked questions about the rationale of the treaty and brought transparency to the process by transcribing the discussions during the plenary sessions. This exposed in almost real-time the lack of any real substance to the proponents' arguments. One can also speculate on the role of the long-time chairman of the committee, Jukka Liedes, in the demise of the treaty. It became widely known that he and Mr. Tilman L|der (who represents the European Commission) did not agree on a strategy (or much else for that matter). Mr. Liedes also took many times positions that were seen as detached from the reality of the committee as he tried to push the treaty to the Diplomatic Conference. Still, the outcome of the negotiations was always likely to be a failure because of the divergent political situation on global IP policy. The big question now is what the outcome will mean for WIPO and SCCR. A rather direct hint could be found from this comment by Tom Rivers, external legal adviser to the Association of Commercial Television in Europe (ACT): "If Wipo is not the right forum for this issue to be addressed then broadcasters will need to raise (their) concerns at regional or bilateral level instead". So, in practice the broadcasters will try to use the sympathy of European Commission civil servants to advance their agenda by forcing the developing countries to accept extensive "investment protection clauses" to their bi-lateral trade agreements. This will be a key issue for EDRI. Finally, a more fundamental question must asked. Why are these kinds of investment protection schemes, which have nothing to do with creativity or culture, dealt with under the copyright system in the first place? It unfortunately seems that the so-called related rights have become a sweet spot for blatant corporate rent seeking. The European Commission seems to accept all kinds of demands from the stakeholders without the merest hint of economic justification. Even when their own studies find clear evidence that these types of protection are harmful (such as with the sui generis database right), there is no reaction on their part. Isn't it time that European IP policy was based on economic evidence rather than the interests of a small number of large right holders? Second Special Session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) (18-22.06.2007) http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=12744 Piracy collapses broadcasting treaty (24.06.2007) http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/24062007/399/piracy-collapses-broadcasting-treaty.h… EDRI-gram: Results of the WIPO's SCCR Special Session 1 (31.01.2007) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.2/wipo_sccr1 EFF's resource page on the WIPO Broadcasting Treaty http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/broadcasting_treaty/ Some NABA (North American BroadcastersAssociation) members opposed the treaty (20.06.2007) http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2007-June/002418.html (Contribution by Ville Oksanen - EDRI-member Electronic Frontier Finland) ============================================================ 9. Recommended Reading ============================================================ Findings of the Open Rights Group Election Observation Mission in Scotland and England The Open Rights Group (ORG) believes that the problems observed at the English and Scottish elections in May 2007 raise serious concerns regarding the suitability of e-voting and e-counting technologies for statutory elections. E-voting is a 'black box system', where the mechanisms for recording and tabulating the vote are hidden from the voter. This makes public scrutiny impossible, and leaves statutory elections open to error and fraud. http://www.openrightsgroup.org/e-voting-main/ http://media.ito.com/kevinmarks/org_election_report.pdf Article 29 Working Party Opinion 4/2007 on the concept of personal data (20.06.2007) http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2007/wp136_en.pdf ============================================================ 10. Agenda ============================================================ 6 July 2007, EU Two years anniversary of the rejection of the software patents directive http://www.free765.eu/ 8 May - 22 July 2007, Austria Annual decentralized community event around free software lectures, panel discussions, workshops, fairs and socialising http://www.linuxwochen.at 8-12 August 2007, near Berlin, Germany Chaos Communication Camp 2007 "In Fairy Dust We Trust!" http://events.ccc.de/camp/2007/ 5-11 September 2007, Linz, Austria Ars Electronica Festival - Festival for Art, Technology and Society http://www.aec.at/en/festival2007/index.asp 21 September 2007, Amsterdam, Netherlands Bits of Freedom organizes the 5th Dutch Big Brother Awards Nominations can be sent to info at bigbrotherawards.nl until the end of August. http://www.bigbrotherawards.nl/ 25 September 2007, Montreal, Canada Civil Society Workshop: Privacy Rights In A World Under Surveillance A one-day workshop organized by the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG) in cooperation with Canadian and international civil rights and privacy organizations ahead of the 29th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners in Montreal. http://www.thepublicvoice.org/events/montreal07/default.html 25-28 September 2007, Montreal, Canada 29th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners http://www.privacyconference2007.gc.ca/Terra_Incognita_home_E.html 12-15 November 2007, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil The Government of Brazil will host the second Internet Governance Forum meeting. http://www.intgovforum.org/ http://cgi.br/igf/ ============================================================ 11. About ============================================================ EDRI-gram is a biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe. Currently EDRI has 25 members from 16 European countries. European Digital Rights takes an active interest in developments in the EU accession countries and wants to share knowledge and awareness through the EDRI-grams. All contributions, suggestions for content, corrections or agenda-tips are most welcome. Errors are corrected as soon as possible and visibly on the EDRI website. Except where otherwise noted, this newsletter is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License. See the full text at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ Newsletter editor: Bogdan Manolea <edrigram(a)edri.org> Information about EDRI and its members: http://www.edri.org/ - EDRI-gram subscription information subscribe by e-mail To: edri-news-request(a)edri.org Subject: subscribe You will receive an automated e-mail asking to confirm your request. unsubscribe by e-mail To: edri-news-request(a)edri.org Subject: unsubscribe - EDRI-gram in Macedonian EDRI-gram is also available partly in Macedonian, with delay. Translations are provided by Metamorphosis http://www.metamorphosis.org.mk/edrigram-mk.php - EDRI-gram in German EDRI-gram is also available in German, with delay. Translations are provided Andreas Krisch from the EDRI-member VIBE!AT - Austrian Association for Internet Users http://www.unwatched.org/ - EDRI-gram in Serbian EDRI-gram is also available in Serbian, with delay. Translations are provided by Aleksandar Markovic http://sr.edrigram.googlepages.com/ - Newsletter archive Back issues are available at: http://www.edri.org/edrigram - Help Please ask <edrigram(a)edri.org> if you have any problems with subscribing or unsubscribing. ----- 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

[liberationtech] Finfisher Spy Kit Revealed in Bahrain
by Ronald Deibert 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

For Immediate Release >From Bahrain With Love: FinFisherbs Spy Kit Exposed? July 25, 2012 -- The Citizen Lab announces the publication of a detailed post analyzing several pieces of malware targeting Bahraini dissidents, shared with us by Bloomberg News. The analysis suggests that the malware used is "FinSpy," part of the commercial intrusion kit, Finfisher, distributed by the United Kingdom-based company, Gamma International. The commercial market for computer network attack, exploitation, and targeted surveillance products and services is growing. Several reports have identified these products and services being marketed to regimes that violate human rights or employ them to quell political opposition. However, the market is shrouded in secrecy with some companies going so far as advertising their clandestine capabilities. The market has been controversial: In September 2011, the EU Parliament passed a resolution that bans the export of information technology systems that can be used b in connection with a violation of human rights, democratic principles or freedom of speech [b&] by using interception technologies and digital data transfer devices for monitoring mobile phones and text messages and targeted surveillance of Internet use.b While there have been reports and descriptions of Gamma International's products (including revelations that they had been sold to the Egyptian government's state security apparatus), this is the first public analysis of the Finfisher toolkit. Malware analysis by Morgan Marquis-Boire and Bill Marczak. Assistance from Seth Hardy and Harry Tuttle gratefully received. Special thanks to John Scott-Railton. Thanks to Marcia Hofmann and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). We would also like to acknowledge Privacy International for their continued work and graciously provided background information on Gamma International. For full report, please see: https://citizenlab.org/2012/07/from-bahrain-with-love-finfishers-spy-kit-ex… For Bloomberg news report, please see here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-25/cyber-attacks-on-activists-traced-… For press inquiries, please contact info(a)citizenlab.org Ronald J. Deibert Professor of Political Science Director, The Canada Centre for Global Security Studies and The Citizen Lab Munk School of Global Affairs University of Toronto r.deibert(a)utoronto.ca http://deibert.citizenlab.org/ twitter.com/citizenlab _______________________________________________ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech(a)lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech ----- 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

[p2p-hackers] is economics off-topic?
by Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Dear all members of p2p-hackers: Speaking as the moderator of p2p-hackers mailing list, I don't consider this to be too "off-topic". I don't think I'll have to ask anyone to quiet down just because they are going on about economics. Honestly, I have always kind of thought that p2p theory and practice was incomplete without the addition of a lot of economics, so I actually kind of regard economics as pretty much right on topic for this list! Now, even if I'm not going to ask you to pipe down, you might still decide to limit your posting on the topic because you suspect that a lot of the readers are bored or annoyed by it, or because you're just expressing your opinion about politics and nobody is really going to learn anything new or change their minds from reading what you've said. (They're just going to express *their* opinion about politics, thus leaving both of you no wiser and wasting twice as much of everyone else's time scrolling through it.) If you, oh Members of this List, really hate to see such conversation and feel that it is detracting from your opportunity to have a better conversation on a different topic, then please post publicly or email me privately and say so. Maybe if there's an upwelling of strong difference of opinion on that then I could create another list called "p2p-econ" or something. My guess is that there won't be enough people who complain vociferously enough to motivate me to make a new list for this. Regards, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn Founder, CEO, and Customer Support Rep https://LeastAuthority.com _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers(a)lists.zooko.com http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers ----- 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

[tp] Neuroscience, Special Forces, and Ethics at Yale
by Hughes, James J. 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

http://www.psychologytoday.com/print/119672 Published on Psychology Today (http://www.psychologytoday.com) Neuroscience, Special Forces, and Ethics at Yale By Roy Eidelson, Ph.D. Created Mar 6 2013 Last month, a proposal to establish a U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) Center for Excellence in Operational Neuroscience at Yale University died a not-so-quiet death. The broad goal of "operational neuroscience" is to use research on the human brain and nervous system to protect and give tactical advantage to U.S. warfighters in the field. Crucial questions remain unanswered about the proposed center's mission and the unusual circumstances surrounding its demise. But just as importantly, this episode brings much needed attention to the morally fraught and murky terrain where partnerships between university researchers and national security agencies lie. A Brief Chronology Let's start with what transpired, according to the news reports and official press releases. In late January, the Yale Herald reported that the Department of Defense had awarded $1.8 million to Yale University's School of Medicine for the creation of the new center under the direction of Yale psychiatrist Charles Morgan III. Descriptions of the proposed center's work revolved around the teaching of Morgan's interviewing techniques to U.S. Special Forces in order to improve their intelligence gathering. To heighten the soldiers' cross-cultural awareness and sensitivity, Morgan reportedly intended to draw volunteer interviewees from New Haven's immigrant communities. Such details typically become public only after a university center has been formally established and its funding officially secured. In this case, however, the early news reports - which included statements from director-to-be Morgan - quickly led last month to a widely circulated Yale Daily News op-ed, an online petition, a Facebook page, and protests by students and local groups outraged over reports of Yale's support for the military center and plans to treat immigrants as "guinea pigs." According to ABC News/Univision, in response Morgan explained that he was approached by the Defense Department to help "promote better relations between U.S. troops and the people whose villages they work in and around" - by teaching soldiers "better communication skills" and "how to ask non-leading questions, how to listen to what people are saying, how to understand them." A public affairs officer for U.S. SOCOM initially confirmed that it was providing funding for the center. Shortly thereafter, Yale University representatives issued a conflicting statement. Characterizing the center as "an educational and research center with a goal of promoting humane and culturally respectful interview practices among a limited number of members of the armed forces, including medics," they emphasized that no formal proposal had been submitted for academic and ethical review. Yale also noted that volunteer interviewees "selected from diverse ethnic groups" would be protected by university oversight, and that public reports about the center were in part "based on speculation and incomplete information." Three days later, SOCOM's spokesperson retracted his previous statement, explaining that the information provided had been incorrect, and that no funds for the center would be forthcoming. Yale confirmed that the center would not be established at the university. Two days later, SOCOM declared that, in fact, they had decided a year earlier not to fund Morgan's proposal. Ethical Risks of Operational Neuroscience The name of the proposed center - the U.S. SOCOM Center of Excellence for Operational Neuroscience - deserves more attention and scrutiny than it has received thus far.The burgeoning interdisciplinary field of operational neuroscience - supported by hundreds of millions of dollars from the Department of Defense - is indisputably much larger and much more worrisome from an ethical perspective than the mere teaching of interview techniques and people skills would suggest. What makes this particular domain of scientific work so controversial is not only its explicit purpose of advancing military goals. The methods by which these ends are pursued are equally disquieting because they raise the specter of "mind control" and threaten our deeply held convictions about personhood and personal autonomy. In a presentation to the intelligence community five years ago, program manager Amy Kruse from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) identified operational neuroscience as DARPA's latest significant accomplishment, preceded by milestone projects that included the Stealth Fighter, ARPANET, the GPS, and the Predator drone. National security interests in operational neuroscience encompass non-invasive, non-contact approaches for interacting with a person's central and peripheral nervous systems; the use of sophisticated narratives to influence the neural mechanisms responsible for generating and maintaining collective action; applications of biotechnology to degrade enemy performance and artificially overwhelm cognitive capabilities; remote control of brain activity using ultrasound; indicators of individual differences in adaptability and resilience in extreme environments; the effects of sleep deprivation on performance and circadian rhythms; and neurophysiologic methods for measuring stress during military survival training. Anthropologist Hugh Gusterson, bioethicist Jonathan Moreno, and other outspoken scholars have offered strong warnings about potential perils associated with the "militarization of neuroscience" and the proliferation of "neuroweapons." Comparing the circumstances facing neuroscientists today with those faced by nuclear scientists during World War II, Gusterson has written, "We've seen this story before: The Pentagon takes an interest in a rapidly changing area of scientific knowledge, and the world is forever changed. And not for the better." Neuroscientist Curtis Bell has called for colleagues to pledge that they will refrain from any research that applies neuroscience in ways that violate international law or human rights; he cites aggressive war and coercive interrogation methods as two examples. Research Misapplied: SERE and "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" Some may argue that these concerns are overblown, but the risks associated with "dual use" research are well recognized and well documented. Even though a particular project may be designed to pursue outcomes that society recognizes as beneficial and worthy, the technologies or discoveries may still be susceptible to distressing misuse. As a government request for public comment recently highlighted, certain types of research conducted for legitimate purposes "can be reasonably anticipated to provide knowledge, information, products, or technologies that could be directly misapplied to pose a significant threat with broad potential consequences to public health and safety...." Yale's Morgan must surely be aware that operational neuroscience research can be used for purposes contrary to its purported intent - as this appears to be what happened with some of his own work. Morgan's biographical sketch on the School of Medicine website refers to his research on the "psycho-neurobiology of resilience in elite soldiers" and "human performance under conditions of high stress." Both of these topics are related to his extensive study of the effects of the military's physically and psychologically grueling Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) training program. In SERE training, soldiers are subjected to extreme conditions in order to inoculate them against enemy interrogation should they be captured and subjected to torture by forces that don't observe international laws prohibiting prisoner abuse. The techniques applied during the trainee's simulated incarceration and mock interrogations include isolation, stress positions, sleep and food deprivation, loud noises, sexual humiliation, extreme temperatures, confinement in small spaces, and in some cases waterboarding. Along with colleagues, Morgan has published a series of research articles examining the psychological, physiological, and biological effects of the SERE program. In summarizing key findings of this research, Morgan and his co-authors highlighted the following: the stress induced by SERE is within the range of real-world stress; SERE students recover normally and do not show negative effects from the training; and the mock interrogations do not produce lasting adverse reactions as measured by physiological and biological indicators. However, after reviewing these same studies, the authors of a Physicians for Human Rights report reached a starkly different conclusion: "SERE ... techniques, even when used in limited and controlled settings, produce harmful health effects on consenting soldier-subjects exposed to them." They also emphasized that during the training many students experienced dissociative reactions and hormone level changes comparable to major surgery or actual combat; the post-training assessments were short-term and insufficient to evaluate soldiers for PTSD and related disorders; and the soldiers benefited from knowing that they could end their participation whenever they chose to do so. SERE research like that conducted by Morgan and his colleagues was subsequently misused by the Bush Administration after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to illegitimately authorize the abuse and torture of national security detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Bagram Air Base, and CIA "black sites." The infamous "enhanced interrogation techniques" (EITs) were developed by former SERE psychologists - working for the CIA - who "reverse-engineered" the SERE interrogation tactics. But even more importantly here, a crucial 2002 Office of Legal Counsel "torture memo" asserted that the EITs did not cause lasting psychological harm, and it cited as evidence consultation with interrogation experts and outside psychologists, as well as a review of the "relevant literature" - which plausibly would have included Morgan's own extensive work in the area. In short, this appears to be a striking and tragic instance where operational neuroscience research, undertaken in a different context, was subsequently appropriated and misapplied for unconscionable purposes. It is worth adding that these prisoners were subjected to indefinite detention without trial and they were not free to discontinue their torturous interrogations at will. Their torture sessions were also substantially longer and the techniques were instituted more frequently and with greater intensity than Morgan's research subjects experienced. Morgan's Deception Detection Research Another significant area of operational neuroscience research for Morgan has been deception detection - that is, figuring out when someone isn't being truthful during an interview, or an interrogation. According to his online CV, he has received Department of Defense funding totaling nearly $2 million for this work over the past several years. Research on this same topic reportedly also became an important focus of attention for several intelligence agencies - including the CIA - immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Befitting his expertise and stature in the field, Morgan has been involved in a variety of high-level initiatives designed to bring together university researchers and personnel from the defense and intelligence sectors. For example, Morgan is among the listed attendees at a July 2003 invitation-only workshop on "The Science of Deception: Integration of Theory and Practice." The event was co-hosted by the American Psychological Association (APA) and the RAND Corporation, with generous funding from the CIA. The participants discussed various scenarios, including one focused on law enforcement interrogation and debriefing, and another on intelligence gathering. They also explored specific research questions, such as which pharmacological agents affect truth-telling, and whether it might be possible to overwhelm a person's senses so as to reduce his capacity to engage in deception during an interrogation. Psychologist Jeffrey Kaye has noted that, in a very unusual step, the APA has scrubbed most of the information about this workshop from its website. In June 2004 Morgan was a participant at another invitation-only workshop - co-sponsored by the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the APA - titled "The Nature and Influence of Intuition in Law Enforcement: Integration of Theory and Practice." Among the topics examined were the extent to which police officers, intelligence analysts, interrogators, and others can effectively use "intuition" in their work - for instance, in order to detect deception - and how such capabilities might be applied to counterterrorism efforts. The proceedings from this event identify Morgan as "Senior Research Scientist, Behavioral Science Staff, Central Intelligence Agency" - a professional affiliation that does not appear on his online CV. Morgan is credited with a similar affiliation in the 2006 report "Educing Information," published by the National Defense Intelligence College. As a member of the Government Experts Committee, Morgan is listed as working for the "Intelligence Technology Innovation Center," an administrative unit that falls under the CIA. The foreword to the report describes the volume as "a primer on the 'science and art' of both interrogation and intelligence gathering." Included is a chapter on deception detection by Morgan's close research colleague, psychologist Gary Hazlett. One of Hazlett's recommendations in the report is that "the United States adopt an aggressive, focused plan to support research and development of enhanced capabilities to validate information and the veracity of sources." He also notes that the most troubling limitation of deception research thus far is the lack of "various Asian, Middle Eastern, Central and South American, or African populations" as research participants. Responding to Morgan's reported plans for a new center at Yale, local advocacy group Junta for Progressive Action issued a statement of concern last month. It noted that, "As a city that has worked to establish itself as a welcoming and inclusive city for immigrants, the idea of targeting immigrants specifically for the purpose of identifying the distinction of how they lie is offensive, disrespectful and out of line with the values of New Haven." In a recent newspaper report, Morgan called rumors that the proposed center at Yale would teach new interrogation techniques mere "hype and fantasy," explaining that he instead "suggested to the Army that perhaps some training in people skills - how to talk to and listen to people might be helpful and create better relations." Even assuming that this reassuring account is true, it's certainly not unreasonable to question whether deception detection research and training might have been part of the proposed center's future operational neuroscience agenda. Classified and Unclassified Research on Campus There are broader questions beyond those focused specifically on the uncertain details and background surrounding the not-to-be Center of Excellence for Operational Neuroscience at Yale. The unusual sequence of events that unfolded in New Haven last month should ideally serve as a springboard for open discussion of the opportunities and pitfalls associated with research partnerships between universities and national security agencies. To its credit, Yale University has a clear policy that explicitly prohibits its faculty from conducting secret or classified research: The University does not conduct or permit its faculty to conduct secret or classified research. This policy arises from concern about the impact of such restrictions on two of the University's essential purposes: to impart knowledge and to enlarge humanity's store of knowledge. Both are clearly inhibited when open publication, free discussion, or access to research are limited. But not all academic institutions have such stringent rules, which are necessary to promote full transparency, informed critiques by other scholars and researchers, and constructive engagement beyond the walls of higher education institutions. At the same time, it should be noted that, even at Yale, voluntary faculty members - Morgan's official status at the university - do not need to disclose research activities that are not being conducted on behalf of Yale. Some of the most challenging ethical issues remain even when classified research is not conducted on university campuses. As psychologist Stephen Soldz has highlighted, in cases of unclassified research funded by national security agencies, the academic researchers are not necessarily informed about the totality of the projects to which they are contributing. He offers the example of findings from seemingly uncontroversial deception detection studies, which may ultimately become the basis for the capture, indefinite detention, and torturous interrogation of prisoners in undisclosed locations - well beyond the university researchers' awareness. Soldz also warns that researchers may never know if their campus work has become "part of a vast secret effort to unlock the mystery of mind control and develop techniques for coercive interrogations, as happened to hundreds of behavioral scientists and others in the decades of the CIA's MKULTRA and other Cold War behavioral science initiatives." These risks are further exacerbated for psychologists, psychiatrists, and other health professionals for whom a "do no harm" ethic intrinsically poses conflicts with research projects aimed at identifying and destroying those who are considered adversaries. Next Steps There are applications of operational neuroscience - such as improved prosthetic limbs for injured veterans and more effective treatments for victims of brain injury - that are compelling in their apparent value and their promotion of human welfare. But other applications raise profound concerns, especially where the defining goals and priorities of a university and its medical researchers and scientists diverge from those of national security and intelligence operatives. Community health sciences professor Michael Siegel - a graduate of Yale's School of Medicine - emphasized this point when he was interviewed on Democracy Now! last month. Siegel noted: "The practice of medicine was designed to improve people's health, and the school of medicine should not be taking part in either training or research that is primarily designed to enhance military objectives." In this context it's worthwhile to recall exactly who Morgan envisioned as the trainees for his proposed "people skills" interview project at the medical school: U.S. Special Forces, the highly skilled soldiers often assigned the military's most difficult and dangerous missions. These forces - over 60,000 strong including military personnel and civilians - are now covertly deployed around the globe. Journalists Dana Priest and William Arkin have described them as "America's secret army." Their counterterrorism operations include intelligence-gathering missions and lethal raids - not only in Afghanistan but also in countries where the United States is not at war. They've been authorized to keep "kill lists" of individuals who can be assassinated rather than captured, and some have conducted brutal interrogations at secret detention sites. The Army refers to its Special Forces as the "most specialized experts in unconventional warfare." At this point, signs clearly indicate that a U.S. SOCOM Center of Excellence for Operational Neuroscience will not be coming to Yale. But it would be a mistake to assume that this research - and the very considerable national security sector funding it attracts - will not find another home. This is why it's important that the current controversy not be dismissed without fuller engagement and discussion among all stakeholders of pressing practical and ethical considerations - before a similar project appears on another campus or resurfaces in a reconfigured form in New Haven. The prospect of all defense-related neuroscience research being conducted clandestinely by government or corporate entities - away from the public and expert oversight that universities can offer - is far from reassuring, so difficult issues like this must be tackled head-on. One valuable next step would be an open forum at Yale. Dr. Morgan could have the opportunity to describe in greater detail the nature of his deception detection work and related projects - including his ongoing research in New Haven about which Yale recently claimed it was unaware. Other distinguished scientists, ethicists, and human rights experts could provide their commentaries. And community members, students, faculty, and administrators could offer their own perspectives and pose questions. Such an event would not likely produce consensus, but the sharing of information, the free expression of differing viewpoints, and informed debate are among the most vital functions of a university. Pending further developments, there are very good reasons to be concerned - and confused - about the recent twists and turns surrounding the proposed center at Yale. Many of the most critical questions still await answers. Note. A version of this essay first appeared in Counterpunch. Source URL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/119672 Links: [1] http://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/roy-eidelson-phd [2] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dangerous-ideas [3] http://www.psychologytoday.com/taxonomy/term/159861 [4] http://www.psychologytoday.com/taxonomy/term/99084 [5] http://www.psychologytoday.com/taxonomy/term/1058 [6] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/abc-news [7] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/american-psychological-association [8] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/charles-morgan-0 [9] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/cia [10] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/cultural-awareness [11] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/deception-detection [12] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/early-news [13] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/ethics [14] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/guinea-pigs [15] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/human-brain [16] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/immigrant-communities [17] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/intelligence [18] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/interrogation [19] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/interviewees [20] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/interviewing-techniques [21] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/military [22] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/military-center [23] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/national-security-agencies [24] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/neuroscience [25] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/online-petition-0 [26] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/operational-neuroscience [27] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/quiet-death [28] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/sere-0 [29] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/special-forces [30] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/tactical-advantage-0 [31] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/torture [32] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/univision-0 [33] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/warfighters [34] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/yale [35] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/yale-daily-news-0 [36] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/yale-herald [37] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/yale-psychiatrist [38] http://www.psychologytoday.com/tags/yale-university ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/technoprogressive/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/technoprogressive/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: technoprogressive-digest(a)yahoogroups.com technoprogressive-fullfeatured(a)yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: technoprogressive-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ----- 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: [silk] Is What Aaron Did, Right?
by Pranesh Prakash 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Vijay Anand <vijay(a)vijayanand.name> wrote: > So, did someone say that we dont use this forum to have debates on > what goes on in the world anymore? I know there are some authors here > and some folks from the Academic world. > > What is your take on Aaron? It looks like with Julian, and now Aaron > (liberating data is the new form of activism) - and not the long route > of creating an organization and lobbying for years and opening it up, > but bruteforce opening This is a rather naive and uninformed summary. Aaron had been involved with, and has founded, multiple organizations (including the Sunlight Foundation, and running watchdog.net and founding the online advocacy platform Demand Progress) that work on transparency-related lobbying. His posts on the difference between democracy, accountability and transparency are worth[1] reading[2], and [1]: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/transparencybunk [2]: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/usefultransparency Why is using technology to 'liberate' data in any way a lesser route than using laws? This also seems to presume that the tech route and the 'lobbying' route of changing policy are not complementary, and that the tech route involves short cuts if not actual breaking of laws. And what of those cases where the law holds that information *is* public (case law, for instance) but are independent of the law behind a paywall like PACER? What law was broken by that? Further, what law (as opposed to a unilaterally-imposed non-negotiable 'Terms of Service') was broken by downloading those millions of articles from JSTOR? The Open Access movements have a long history, and a history of more than a decade in their modern form. Various organizations around the world are involved in seeking changes in public policy (including the Centre for Internet and Society, the organization I work for) and when it comes to open access to scholarly literature, in the practices of academics and non-governmental research funders as well. Aaron was a part of the open access to law movement (see his work with Carl Malamud), as well as the open access to scholarly literature movement. And further, it is incredibly short-sighted to see Julian Assange as some sort of start of 'data liberation'. > (and facing the brutality of it when it > backfires) is what the masses are backing after. It somehow brings me > mental images of public execution of the old powers during the French > Revolution - a bit hasty and bloody for my taste. I've completely lost you here. What exactly conjures up images of public execution? The anger of people at the wrongful hounding of Aaron Swartz looks like baying for blood? Do you condone such flagrant misuse of laws by state prosecutors?, and would you rather that people not get angered by it? > What are your thoughts? > > PS: No intents to smear the living or the dead. But it looks like that > we are on the crossroads of information, access to it and ethics here. > And this issue is only going to grow, not go away. I'm sorry if I come across as being rude, but Aaron is someone I admired and looked up to for many years, and his suicide is something I feel very strongly about. ----- 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: [p2p-hackers] A globally distributed peer-to-peer data archive
by Tony Arcieri 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Taral <taralx(a)gmail.com> wrote: > That's a brilliant idea. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mnet_(peer-to-peer_network)#MojoNation > Yeah, I'm familiar with the history of MojoNation and have talked to Zooko in person about it. I think MojoNation's model is somewhat overcomplicated and introducing a virtual currency into the system is probably not the best way to enforce you-get-what-you-give. I don't think things need to be measured as precisely as a "Mojo" unit of network participation. Apologies if my comparisons to Bitcoin made you feel I was implying a virtual currency as a solution. I'm thinking something more along the lines of a web-of-trust. The block chain concept from BitCoin is interesting. Perhaps trust can be established through client-specific signature chain files (as opposed to a global distributed block chain), with the peer's pubkey as the header, and each time that peer successfully sends another peer a file, the recipient adds some metadata about the transfer (e.g. timestamp, transfer rate) to the end of the file then signs the entire file with their private key. A single peer's signature chain alone wouldn't tell you much, but if you apply a collaborative filtering algorithm (e.g. Slope One, Singular Value Decomposition) to large numbers of these signature chain files, I think it would be possible to data mine them in order to discover the best peers to collaborate with. Perhaps "you get what you give" is the wrong description for what I'm thinking of. How about "pay it forward?" When one peer asks for some data from another, or asks to store part of a file, the sender can examine the recipient's signature chain, possibly comparing it to others, and based on that decide if it's willing to donate bandwidth or storage in order to help it out. -- Tony Arcieri _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers(a)lists.zooko.com http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers ----- 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: [ZS] BitCoin FBI report
by Bryce Lynch 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen(a)leitl.org> wrote: > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/59869575/92797476-FBI-Bitcoin-Report-April-2012.pdf Ruh-roh.. I find it interesting that they consider their intel regarding donations to illicit groups using Bitcoin of low confidence, seeing as how LulzSec practically pioneered doing so. Sabu was so owned by the FBI a lot of people in the whitehat court of infosec consider them a false flag. Botnets are already being used to mine bitcoins. Not commonly due to how detectible it is, but it's being done. This hasn't caught on yet: http://www.bitcoinplus.com/generate If the FBI consider it easier to track people converting Bitcoins into fiat currencies (their words), the solution is simple: don't convert them. Blackhats are already using Bitcoins to pay for services, including periods of DDoS attack against arbitrary targets and selling weaponized exploits. Judging from the reputation tracking on the Silk Road for such services, somebody's got to be getting their money's worth... We had best tread carefully. Or start working on developing an disseminating a memetic counterattack. -- The Doctor [412/724/301/703] https://drwho.virtadpt.net/ "I am everywhere." -- Zero State mailing list: http://groups.google.com/group/DoctrineZero ----- 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: [p2p-hackers] A globally distributed peer-to-peer data archive
by Tony Arcieri 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Taral <taralx(a)gmail.com> wrote: > That's a brilliant idea. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mnet_(peer-to-peer_network)#MojoNation > Yeah, I'm familiar with the history of MojoNation and have talked to Zooko in person about it. I think MojoNation's model is somewhat overcomplicated and introducing a virtual currency into the system is probably not the best way to enforce you-get-what-you-give. I don't think things need to be measured as precisely as a "Mojo" unit of network participation. Apologies if my comparisons to Bitcoin made you feel I was implying a virtual currency as a solution. I'm thinking something more along the lines of a web-of-trust. The block chain concept from BitCoin is interesting. Perhaps trust can be established through client-specific signature chain files (as opposed to a global distributed block chain), with the peer's pubkey as the header, and each time that peer successfully sends another peer a file, the recipient adds some metadata about the transfer (e.g. timestamp, transfer rate) to the end of the file then signs the entire file with their private key. A single peer's signature chain alone wouldn't tell you much, but if you apply a collaborative filtering algorithm (e.g. Slope One, Singular Value Decomposition) to large numbers of these signature chain files, I think it would be possible to data mine them in order to discover the best peers to collaborate with. Perhaps "you get what you give" is the wrong description for what I'm thinking of. How about "pay it forward?" When one peer asks for some data from another, or asks to store part of a file, the sender can examine the recipient's signature chain, possibly comparing it to others, and based on that decide if it's willing to donate bandwidth or storage in order to help it out. -- Tony Arcieri _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers(a)lists.zooko.com http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers ----- 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