July 2018 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: whitehouse.gov/robots.txt
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> This robots.txt issue was exaggerated by leftist crtitics of the > administration. (This is not a general defense of the White House, > just a statement of fact.) The Bush WH.gov server has a special Iraq > section where press releases, speeches, etc. are reposted in a > different HTML template. The WH only wants the "master" copy indexed > and not the duplicate copy in the second template. Hence the apparent > weirdness in robots.txt. > > I have not found any skullduggery going on, though I suppose it > wouldn't hurt to keep a copy of the Iraq section for "diff" purposes > just in case. > > -Declan > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 02:59:07PM +0200, Anatoly Vorobey wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 12:56:24PM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > Can somebody with a webspider crawl these documents, and put it up > > > on the web? > > > > > > http://www.whitehouse.gov/robots.txt > > > > All or nearly all of them are duplicates of same documents > > elsewhere in the directory tree; "X/text/" and "X/iraq/" are > > supposed to be copies of "X/", with images removed in the first > > case. I suspect that downloading them all would just confirm that. > > > > -- > > avva

1 0

Re: whitehouse.gov/robots.txt
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> This robots.txt issue was exaggerated by leftist crtitics of the > administration. (This is not a general defense of the White House, > just a statement of fact.) The Bush WH.gov server has a special Iraq > section where press releases, speeches, etc. are reposted in a > different HTML template. The WH only wants the "master" copy indexed > and not the duplicate copy in the second template. Hence the apparent > weirdness in robots.txt. > > I have not found any skullduggery going on, though I suppose it > wouldn't hurt to keep a copy of the Iraq section for "diff" purposes > just in case. > > -Declan > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 02:59:07PM +0200, Anatoly Vorobey wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 12:56:24PM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > Can somebody with a webspider crawl these documents, and put it up > > > on the web? > > > > > > http://www.whitehouse.gov/robots.txt > > > > All or nearly all of them are duplicates of same documents > > elsewhere in the directory tree; "X/text/" and "X/iraq/" are > > supposed to be copies of "X/", with images removed in the first > > case. I suspect that downloading them all would just confirm that. > > > > -- > > avva

1 0

Re: whitehouse.gov/robots.txt
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> This robots.txt issue was exaggerated by leftist crtitics of the > administration. (This is not a general defense of the White House, > just a statement of fact.) The Bush WH.gov server has a special Iraq > section where press releases, speeches, etc. are reposted in a > different HTML template. The WH only wants the "master" copy indexed > and not the duplicate copy in the second template. Hence the apparent > weirdness in robots.txt. > > I have not found any skullduggery going on, though I suppose it > wouldn't hurt to keep a copy of the Iraq section for "diff" purposes > just in case. > > -Declan > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 02:59:07PM +0200, Anatoly Vorobey wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 12:56:24PM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > Can somebody with a webspider crawl these documents, and put it up > > > on the web? > > > > > > http://www.whitehouse.gov/robots.txt > > > > All or nearly all of them are duplicates of same documents > > elsewhere in the directory tree; "X/text/" and "X/iraq/" are > > supposed to be copies of "X/", with images removed in the first > > case. I suspect that downloading them all would just confirm that. > > > > -- > > avva

1 0

Re: whitehouse.gov/robots.txt
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> This robots.txt issue was exaggerated by leftist crtitics of the > administration. (This is not a general defense of the White House, > just a statement of fact.) The Bush WH.gov server has a special Iraq > section where press releases, speeches, etc. are reposted in a > different HTML template. The WH only wants the "master" copy indexed > and not the duplicate copy in the second template. Hence the apparent > weirdness in robots.txt. > > I have not found any skullduggery going on, though I suppose it > wouldn't hurt to keep a copy of the Iraq section for "diff" purposes > just in case. > > -Declan > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 02:59:07PM +0200, Anatoly Vorobey wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 12:56:24PM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > Can somebody with a webspider crawl these documents, and put it up > > > on the web? > > > > > > http://www.whitehouse.gov/robots.txt > > > > All or nearly all of them are duplicates of same documents > > elsewhere in the directory tree; "X/text/" and "X/iraq/" are > > supposed to be copies of "X/", with images removed in the first > > case. I suspect that downloading them all would just confirm that. > > > > -- > > avva

1 0

UK anti-terrorism proposals & other news from Statewatch
by John Armitage 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

[Declan, no military tribunals in the UK -- yet. But, we are getting there... John] =================================================== Statewatch News Online, 14 November 2001 See: <http://www.statewatch.org/news> UK ANTI-TERRORISM BILL PUBLISHED The UK government has published its "Anti-terrorism, crime and security Bill". For research and information purposes Statewatch has broken the Bill down below into Sections (with smaller "pdf" sizes): 1. Immigration and asylum and race and religion (Part 4, Sections 21-42) 2. Police powers, Northern Ireland, MOD and transport police (Part 10, Sections 88-100) 3. Retention of telecommunications data (Part 11, Sections 101- 105) 4. EU Third pillar, Terrorism Act 2000 (Part 13, Sections 109-119) 5. Schedules: these contain additional changes which may be relevant to above Analysis of this lengthy Bill will follow. DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS MUST NOT BECOME THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM A group of lawyers have drawn up an "Appeal" to the European Parliament to reject the proposal by the European Commission which seeks to introduce a binding Framework Decision introducing a definition of "terrorism" which would seriously threaten democratic rights and the "freedom of association, the right to strike and freedom of expression". The "appeal" has already been signed by 82 lawyers from six countries and is open to lawyers, organisations and others to sign up to - by sending an e-mail to: jan.fermon(a)skynet.be The text of the "appeal" is available in most EU languages. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

FC: U.K. may order firms to record Net-traffic, ban anon remaiers?
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

It's a little unclear from Statewatch's website what the status of this bill is, but I gather it's been introduced in Parliament as recently as this week. You can find the text here: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2001/nov/08terrorbill.htm Here's the section on data retention: >The Secretary of State shall issue, and may from time to time revise, a >code of practice relating to the retention by communications providers of >communications data obtained by or held by them... It shall be the duty of >a communications provider to comply with any direction... the Secretary of >State may give such directions as he considers appropriate about the >retention of communications data (a) to communications providers >generally; (b) to communications providers of a description specified in >the direction; or (c) to any particular communications providers or provider. If I may, permit me to pose a question to the U.K. lawyers on this list: Does this give the Secretary of State the power to ban anonymous remailers operating inside the U.K.? (Or, more precisely, limit their utility by requiring record-keeping, identity escrow.) I'm not saying, of course, that the secretary would choose to exercise that authority -- at least not right away. The question is whether that authority would exist. Seems to me that "communications providers" may be defined broadly enough for that to be the case. See also: "Europe set to nix Bush request, not require ISP data retention" http://www.politechbot.com/p-02789.html -Declan ---

1 0

Good to see the FBI follows procedures
by Eric Rescorla 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Ryan Singel reports that despite the rather lax standards required for wiretaps, some FBI agents seem to have decided that they could skip procedure: The revelation is the second this year showing that FBI employees bypassed court order requirements for phone records. In July, the FBI and the Justice Department Inspector General revealed the existence of a joint investigation into an FBI counter-terrorism office, after an audit found that the Communications Analysis Unit sent more than 700 fake emergency letters to phone companies seeking call records. An Inspector General spokeswoman declined to provide the status of that investigation, citing agency policy. The June 2006 e-mail (.pdf) was buried in more than 600-pages of FBI documents obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The message was sent to an employee in the FBI's Operational Technology Division by a technical surveillance specialist at the FBI's Minneapolis field office -- both names were redacted from the documents. The e-mail describes widespread attempts to bypass court order requirements for cellphone data in the Minneapolis office. Remarkably, when the technical agent began refusing to cooperate, other agents began calling telephone carriers directly, posing as the technical agent to get customer cellphone records. Federal law prohibits phone companies from revealing customer information unless given a court order, or in the case of an emergency involving physical danger. Singel's report is at: http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/12/fbi_cell You can read the actual document: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/minneapolisemail.pdf It's worth noting that a lot of what's going on here is device and call tracking, not content capture, so even if you have end-to-end crypto in your handset, it's only of modest value. -Ekr --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)metzdowd.com ----- 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: [cryptography] World-class protracted social engineering [was: Re: Key escrow 2012]
by Peter Gutmann 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

"James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> writes: >You attribute too much competence to our enemies. The problem is that our >tools are unsatisfactory, no one wants to use them. They need improvement. Yup. >One tool that works and is widely used is the vpn. And Skype. And SSL (as anon-DH opportunistic crypto). And STARTTLS. The defining characteristics of those two groups are that #1 is something that business requirements dictate you have to use Or Else and that (typically) some other poor guy sets up for you (or at least does the majority of the hard work), and that #2 is completely transparent to the user. Unfortuately the latter group is anathema to crypto purists because none of the technologies use [insert long list of security pixie dust here], which coincidentally is also all of the stuff that makes the security tools too hard to use. Peter. _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography(a)randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography ----- 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: whitehouse.gov/robots.txt
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> This robots.txt issue was exaggerated by leftist crtitics of the > administration. (This is not a general defense of the White House, > just a statement of fact.) The Bush WH.gov server has a special Iraq > section where press releases, speeches, etc. are reposted in a > different HTML template. The WH only wants the "master" copy indexed > and not the duplicate copy in the second template. Hence the apparent > weirdness in robots.txt. > > I have not found any skullduggery going on, though I suppose it > wouldn't hurt to keep a copy of the Iraq section for "diff" purposes > just in case. > > -Declan > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 02:59:07PM +0200, Anatoly Vorobey wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 12:56:24PM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > Can somebody with a webspider crawl these documents, and put it up > > > on the web? > > > > > > http://www.whitehouse.gov/robots.txt > > > > All or nearly all of them are duplicates of same documents > > elsewhere in the directory tree; "X/text/" and "X/iraq/" are > > supposed to be copies of "X/", with images removed in the first > > case. I suspect that downloading them all would just confirm that. > > > > -- > > avva

1 0

UK anti-terrorism proposals & other news from Statewatch
by John Armitage 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

[Declan, no military tribunals in the UK -- yet. But, we are getting there... John] =================================================== Statewatch News Online, 14 November 2001 See: <http://www.statewatch.org/news> UK ANTI-TERRORISM BILL PUBLISHED The UK government has published its "Anti-terrorism, crime and security Bill". For research and information purposes Statewatch has broken the Bill down below into Sections (with smaller "pdf" sizes): 1. Immigration and asylum and race and religion (Part 4, Sections 21-42) 2. Police powers, Northern Ireland, MOD and transport police (Part 10, Sections 88-100) 3. Retention of telecommunications data (Part 11, Sections 101- 105) 4. EU Third pillar, Terrorism Act 2000 (Part 13, Sections 109-119) 5. Schedules: these contain additional changes which may be relevant to above Analysis of this lengthy Bill will follow. DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS MUST NOT BECOME THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM A group of lawyers have drawn up an "Appeal" to the European Parliament to reject the proposal by the European Commission which seeks to introduce a binding Framework Decision introducing a definition of "terrorism" which would seriously threaten democratic rights and the "freedom of association, the right to strike and freedom of expression". The "appeal" has already been signed by 82 lawyers from six countries and is open to lawyers, organisations and others to sign up to - by sending an e-mail to: jan.fermon(a)skynet.be The text of the "appeal" is available in most EU languages. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0