July 2018 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: [funsec] "if you are not doing anything wrong, why should
by coderman 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

you worry about it?" On 2/20/06, Larry Seltzer <larry(a)larryseltzer.com> wrote: > ... > I've never understood what the problem was with cameras in public places, > taking pictures of public places. I don't even know why anyone would be > bothered by them. tell this to DHS. bridge photography is an endagered past time... ---

1 0

[funsec] Things you can't take pictures of in public
by Richard M. Smith 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Here are some more things that will get you in trouble if you try to take pictures of them: - Surveillance cameras - Cops - Your neighbor's windows - Passport checking stations (I learned this one the hard way) - Boston subway trains Bottom line, just because something is public, it doesn't mean that you can take its pictures. Social conventions, regulations, and laws control where cameras can be used in public. --- http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/02/photographing_a.html February 22, 2006 Photographing Airports Patrick Smith, a former pilot, writes about his experiences -- involving the police -- taking pictures in airports: """ He makes sure to remind me, just as his colleague in New Hampshire had done, that next time I'd benefit from advance permission, and that "we live in a different world now." Not to put undue weight on the cheap prose of patriotic convenience, but few things are more repellant than that oft- repeated catchphrase. There's something so pathetically submissive about it -- a sound bite of such defeat and capitulation. It's also untrue; indeed we find ourselves in an altered way of life, though not for the reasons our protectors would have us think. We weren't forced into this by terrorists, we've chosen it. When it comes to flying, we tend to hold the events of Sept. 11 as the be-all and end-all of air crimes, conveniently purging our memories of several decades' worth of bombings and hijackings. The threats and challenges faced by airports aren't terribly different from what they've always been. What's different, or "too bad," to quote the New Hampshire deputy, is our paranoid, overzealous reaction to those threats, and our amped-up obeisance to authority. """ [coderman's note: 'a different world', LOLZ. glad to know freedom and liberty is a quaint and deprecated notion. *grin*] ... In the world of information security, this would be described as security by obscurity - trying to turn the public (publicly visible and viewable areas of an airport) into the private (no, you can't take pictures). To quote Rocky, "that trick never works". You have to design your security process to include the concept that anything not private is completely public. There is no in-between ground, because anything that the public have access to can be recorded by the public, whether you try to prevent photographs or not. Posted by: Alun Jones at February 22, 2006 03:08 PM --- http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/01/18/1137467025843.html "Police directives about what can and can't be photographed are an abuse of power and should be ignored, Liberty Victoria says. The civil liberties body made the statement after a report in today's Age said a member of the Geelong Camera Club received a visit from police after he photographed gas storage cylinders at the city's Shell oil refinery. Police and emergency services minister Tim Holding said it was important to balance national security and civil liberties. "It's always about balance, obviously we do live, whether we like it or not, in a period of heightened security concerns, police have a vital role to play from a law enforcement perspective in making sure that we respond appropriately to those heightened security situations," he said. "Obviously it (the police response) needs to be proportionate and appropriate and we don't want to unreasonably interfere with or reduce the public's access to facilities." ... The police have got no place making such warnings," president Brian Walters SC, said. "Merely to threaten is exceeding police powers and is an abuse of power. "If you were a serious terrorist you wouldn't be openly taking photographs. Taking photos of public objects is a normal and quite understandable part of a modern society." Mr Walters said police had been spooked by politicians and had acquired "an inflated fear of terrorism". "We currently have thousands of cameras set up to watch citizens, but if citizens themselves take photos, the authorities take that as some sort of risk," he said. ---

1 0

Re: [funsec] Court says cops can't yank video: 'Baby cam'
by coderman 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

catches arrest on tape On 2/21/06, Blanchard_Michael(a)emc.com <Blanchard_Michael(a)emc.com> wrote: > interesting that they'd be so concerned over that. It was very civil, and > the arresting officers were nothing but kind and courteous to the perp > during the arrest. > > Is this a case of big brother not wanting to be watched? yes and no. like the airline security measures which are "sensitive security information" the photography of police might disclose "sensitive law enforcement tactics" (whatever they call it in a given $jurismydicktion). and like the hassles/confiscation you get for photographing critical infrastructure this too is now verboten. the fact that this shields authority from public oversight is simply a bonus, in their eyes. (that would _never_ be the reason to ban such public disclosure, of course; tis a mere side effect of keeping you safe :) welcome to the police state.

1 0

Re: [funsec] Court says cops can't yank video: 'Baby cam'
by Blue Boar 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

catches arrest on tape Richard M. Smith wrote: > Under state law, Jean could be jailed for up to two years if tried and > convicted of taking the tape public, provided she knew it was intentionally > recorded without the permission of state police. Video on front page here: http://conte2006.com/ If you're curious, like me. Now... why would I need the police's permission to film myself being arrested in my house? Everyone was extraordinarily reasonable during the whole arrest, as shown in the video. Why should the police have a problem? So much for private cams and police cams having equal protection. ---

1 0

quantum cryptography broken?
by travis+ml-cryptography＠subspacefield.org 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

http://www.kurzweilai.net/news/frame.html?main=/news/news_single.html? id%3D8471 Quantum cryptography broken KurzweilAI.net, April 20, 2008 Two Swedish scientsts, Jorgen Cederlof, now of Google, and Jan-Ake Larsson of Link In a paper published in IEEE Trans. Inf Theory, 54: 1735-1741 (2008), they point out that an eavesdropper could gain partial knowledge on the key in quantum cryptography that may have an effect on the security of the authentication in the later round. By accessing the quantum channel used in quantum cryptography, the attacker can change the message to be authenticated (since the message is influenced by attacker-initiated events on the quantum channel). This, combined with partial knowledge of the key (transmitted on the quantum channel), creates a potential security gap, they suggest. Their proposed solution: simply transmit an extra exchange of a small amount of random bits on the classical (Internet) channel. FAQ: http://www.mai.liu.se/~jalar/qkg/faq.html -- Crypto ergo sum. https://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/ My password is easy to remember; it's the digits of Pi. All of them. If you are a spammer, please email john(a)subspacefield.org to get blacklisted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)metzdowd.com

1 0

[liberationtech] SOPA and DNS-level Censorship Circumvention
by Griffin Boyce 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Hey all, With the SOPA vote on the horizon, now seems to be a good time to talk about censorship at the DNS level. Computers use Domain Name Servers to make the connection to websites. These large servers act as online address books for websites, telling computers where the site they want to visit is located. So the flow is typically *Website Address -> DNS Server -> Website's Host*. If SOPA passes, sites alleged to be infringing copyright will be blocked from visitors in the US: *Website Address -> US DNS Server -> Block Page*. You can customize which servers your computer uses to fetch addresses, and bypass these types of blocks entirely. A good tutorial on how to do that is here: http://code.google.com/speed/public-dns/docs/using.html Though keep in mind that the server addresses mentioned on that tutorial are located in the United States. So anyone looking to bypass *American*censorship will need to use servers in an uncensored country like Iceland or Belgium. Another good option is using a browser plugin. For FireFox, there are two currently: Soapy and DeSopa. DeSopa automatically fetches server details for websites, but relies on a website that is likely to be blocked once SOPA goes into effect. However, it does work until blocked. I made Soapy with all of the rules it needs to function built into it. With Soapy, every site that is enabled must have redirection rules created for it, but it's also quite light (<50kb, each site is ~200bytes) and easily updated with new sites. DeSopa: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/desopa/ Soapy: http://griftastic.com/soapy.html These browser plugins are really quick hacks designed to get into people's hands quickly. (And there aren't any for Chrome, Opera, Safari, or IE yet). There has to be a more elegant and robust solution that we can create for people affected by this type of censorship -- not just in the US, but around the world. It's completely possible to run censorship-resistant DNS servers in uncensored countries, but the critical missing element is a highly usable piece of software that will adjust the user's network settings without a major hassle. DnsJumper might work, but isn't open-source and users have to find unblocked servers to use. What do you all think about this? All the best, Griffin Boyce -- "I believe that usability is a security concern; systems that do not pay close attention to the human interaction factors involved risk failing to provide security by failing to attract users." ~Len Sassaman _______________________________________________ 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. 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

[liberationtech] Call for hardware researchers/hackers
by Cyrus Farivar 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Ladies and Gentlemen of LibTech, I've been tasked with writing an article for ArsTechnica on the theme of "Technologies of freedom and repression" -- obviously some of the New America stuff (Internet-in-a-suitcase), DPI and Tor come to mind, but I'm wondering if there are others that I should know about for networking and for mobile phones and related infrastructure. This would be both from the good guy side and what's used to detect it/block it, et cetera. I'm more interested in the kit, the hardware, than software. Any suggestions? Best, -C -- Cyrus Farivar "suh-ROOS FAR-ih-var" Freelance technology journalist and radio producer Author, "The Internet of Elsewhere" http://www.internetofelsewhere.com DE: +49 163 763 3108 (m) US: +1 510 394 5485 (m) Twitter/Skype: cfarivar "Being a good writer is 3% talent, 97% not being distracted by the Internet." http://cyrusfarivar.com cfarivar(a)cfarivar.org _______________________________________________ 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. 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

Re: [funsec] "if you are not doing anything wrong, why should
by coderman 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

you worry about it?" On 2/20/06, Larry Seltzer <larry(a)larryseltzer.com> wrote: > ... > I've never understood what the problem was with cameras in public places, > taking pictures of public places. I don't even know why anyone would be > bothered by them. tell this to DHS. bridge photography is an endagered past time... ---

1 0

[funsec] Things you can't take pictures of in public
by Richard M. Smith 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Here are some more things that will get you in trouble if you try to take pictures of them: - Surveillance cameras - Cops - Your neighbor's windows - Passport checking stations (I learned this one the hard way) - Boston subway trains Bottom line, just because something is public, it doesn't mean that you can take its pictures. Social conventions, regulations, and laws control where cameras can be used in public. --- http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/02/photographing_a.html February 22, 2006 Photographing Airports Patrick Smith, a former pilot, writes about his experiences -- involving the police -- taking pictures in airports: """ He makes sure to remind me, just as his colleague in New Hampshire had done, that next time I'd benefit from advance permission, and that "we live in a different world now." Not to put undue weight on the cheap prose of patriotic convenience, but few things are more repellant than that oft- repeated catchphrase. There's something so pathetically submissive about it -- a sound bite of such defeat and capitulation. It's also untrue; indeed we find ourselves in an altered way of life, though not for the reasons our protectors would have us think. We weren't forced into this by terrorists, we've chosen it. When it comes to flying, we tend to hold the events of Sept. 11 as the be-all and end-all of air crimes, conveniently purging our memories of several decades' worth of bombings and hijackings. The threats and challenges faced by airports aren't terribly different from what they've always been. What's different, or "too bad," to quote the New Hampshire deputy, is our paranoid, overzealous reaction to those threats, and our amped-up obeisance to authority. """ [coderman's note: 'a different world', LOLZ. glad to know freedom and liberty is a quaint and deprecated notion. *grin*] ... In the world of information security, this would be described as security by obscurity - trying to turn the public (publicly visible and viewable areas of an airport) into the private (no, you can't take pictures). To quote Rocky, "that trick never works". You have to design your security process to include the concept that anything not private is completely public. There is no in-between ground, because anything that the public have access to can be recorded by the public, whether you try to prevent photographs or not. Posted by: Alun Jones at February 22, 2006 03:08 PM --- http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/01/18/1137467025843.html "Police directives about what can and can't be photographed are an abuse of power and should be ignored, Liberty Victoria says. The civil liberties body made the statement after a report in today's Age said a member of the Geelong Camera Club received a visit from police after he photographed gas storage cylinders at the city's Shell oil refinery. Police and emergency services minister Tim Holding said it was important to balance national security and civil liberties. "It's always about balance, obviously we do live, whether we like it or not, in a period of heightened security concerns, police have a vital role to play from a law enforcement perspective in making sure that we respond appropriately to those heightened security situations," he said. "Obviously it (the police response) needs to be proportionate and appropriate and we don't want to unreasonably interfere with or reduce the public's access to facilities." ... The police have got no place making such warnings," president Brian Walters SC, said. "Merely to threaten is exceeding police powers and is an abuse of power. "If you were a serious terrorist you wouldn't be openly taking photographs. Taking photos of public objects is a normal and quite understandable part of a modern society." Mr Walters said police had been spooked by politicians and had acquired "an inflated fear of terrorism". "We currently have thousands of cameras set up to watch citizens, but if citizens themselves take photos, the authorities take that as some sort of risk," he said. ---

1 0

Re: [funsec] Court says cops can't yank video: 'Baby cam'
by coderman 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

catches arrest on tape On 2/21/06, Blanchard_Michael(a)emc.com <Blanchard_Michael(a)emc.com> wrote: > interesting that they'd be so concerned over that. It was very civil, and > the arresting officers were nothing but kind and courteous to the perp > during the arrest. > > Is this a case of big brother not wanting to be watched? yes and no. like the airline security measures which are "sensitive security information" the photography of police might disclose "sensitive law enforcement tactics" (whatever they call it in a given $jurismydicktion). and like the hassles/confiscation you get for photographing critical infrastructure this too is now verboten. the fact that this shields authority from public oversight is simply a bonus, in their eyes. (that would _never_ be the reason to ban such public disclosure, of course; tis a mere side effect of keeping you safe :) welcome to the police state.

1 0