July 2018 - cypherpunks-legacy

[Politech] Missing email messages, and Karl Rove's personal computer, roil Washington
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/12/AR200704120… A lawyer for the Republican National Committee told congressional staff members yesterday that the RNC is missing at least four years' worth of e-mail from White House senior adviser Karl Rove that is being sought as part of investigations into the Bush administration, according to the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1244 The briefing received by the Committee raises serious concerns about the White House compliance with the Presidential Records Act, which requires that the President b take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of his constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented and that such records are maintained as Presidential records.b http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/washington/13emails.html The White House said Thursday that missing e-mail messages sent on Republican Party accounts may include some relating to the firing of eight United States attorneys. -------------------------------- April 12, 2007 Fred Fielding, Esq. Counsel to the President The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Mr. Fielding: We are troubled to learn through the press that the White House cannot account for the e-mails of almost two dozen people at the White House, including some the Senate Judiciary has asked to question in connection with our ongoing investigation. Apparently these officials utilized e-mail accounts, addresses and equipment provided by the Republican National Committee and political campaigns to communicate about the plan to replace a number of United States Attorneys. As you know, by letter dated March 28, 2007, the Chairmen of both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees wrote to you asking that you collect and produce e-mails and documents sent from all e-mail accounts, addresses and domains relevant to these investigations, and made specific reference to the use of such political e-mail addresses. The comments of two White House officials, which were cited in todaybs edition of the Washington Post, raise questions about whether the White House will be able to comply with the March 28 letter. White House spokesman Scott Stanzel reportedly stated, b [t]he White House has not at this point done a good enough job at overseeing the practices of staff with political e-mail accounts," and confirmed that "[s]ome officials' e-mails have potentially been lost and that is a mistake that the White House is aggressively working to fix." The second official who was cited, a White House lawyer who spoke on condition of anonymity, told the press at a briefing that White House staff is now being advised that if they question whether an e-mail is political or official, the staff should use their private accounts, but also preserve a copy to be sent to White House lawyers for a determination of whether the e-mail needs to be saved under the Presidential Records Act. In light of these comments by White House officials, we would like to know what is being done to investigate and remedy this situation. For example, we would like to know if the process described above by the anonymous White House lawyer is intended to apply prospectively only or if staff is also being advised that they should forward past e-mails from their private accounts to White House lawyers for review. Additionally, in reference to the statement that the White House b has not . . . done a good enough job at overseeing practicesb regarding e-mail accounts, we would like to know what was done in the past and whether any private e-mail retention policies were in place. We would also like to know how and when the White House first learned of the problem with private e-mail account usage and when it first came to light that e-mails may have been lost. We recognize that the White House must and should investigate this matter in a timely fashion. We also recognize that the congressional committees of jurisdiction have a separate obligation to investigate. To accommodate our separate obligations without slowing down or otherwise complicating the othersb efforts, we suggest that the White House consult with us and the other congressional committees engaged in affected investigations and that we jointly agree upon a fair and objective process for investigating this matter, including the use of a mutually trusted computer forensic expert. Such a process would help to restore public confidence in the White Housebs desire to comply with the Presidential Records Act. Moreover, it would ensure your office and the Congress that this matter is being taken seriously and that an objective process is employed to investigate, retrieve and reconstruct the information that is reportedly missing due to deleted or otherwise unretained e-mails. Sincerely, PATRICK LEAHY ARLEN SPECTER Chairman Ranking Member _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/) ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Google search and seizure, etc. vs. technologists
by Lauren Weinstein 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

1) Any practical attempt to "swamp" Google's database in such a manner is unlikely to succeed, given the sheer volume of legit queries that they receive. I suspect they'd be smart enough to detect abuse patterns fairly easily. That kind of analysis is their bread and butter. 2) Attempts to purposely "abuse" Google in such a manner (faked requests) may well violate their Terms of Service, and if they don't now you can be sure that they will in some future version of the ToS. The likely result will at a minimum be bans and ISP actions, and at the max lawsuits. Pull out your wallet. 3) Routing queries through anon proxies will provide some protection for the technological elite who understand such things. They will not protect the average user, who most likely doesn't understand the risks and issues, and will never use such proxies, even assuming that they were trivial to use. It is fashionable for some technologists to unwisely promote ad hoc, short-term technological "fixes" in a sort of cold war escalation mode, without dealing with the fundamental problems. This is especially unproductive when it comes to helping to protect average users who take the default settings for almost everything, but are just as much at risk of abuse, if not more so. In this case, it seems reasonable to ask that Google (and other search engines) show at least as much genuine interest in protecting people's privacy and rights as does the local library. And that library isn't making billions from people's activities -- Google is. Finally, the statement that: >Even if Google were to say that they no longer keep >personally-identifiable search queries, there would be no way to >verify it. is of course not really correct. There are ways (not fullproof, but some are damned good) to audit such activities, assuming that appropriate laws are in place requiring such verification. A simple claim of compliance from the party in question is obviously not sufficient, even in the case of Google, whom I have no reason to believe is lying about what they are doing at this time. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein lauren(a)pfir.org or lauren(a)vortex.com or lauren(a)eepi.org Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 http://www.pfir.org/lauren Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, EEPI - Electronic Entertainment Policy Initiative - http://www.eepi.org Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com - - - >From: Phil Karn <karn(a)ka9q.net> >Date: December 3, 2005 3:24:11 PM EST > >1. Write and disseminate a little daemon that makes randomize queries >to Google from your computer. Every few minutes to an hour (i.e., at >random times) it would send a Google query with search terms randomly >chosen from a large dictionary. This would pollute Google's logs and >create reasonable doubt if you are later accused of entering queries >for, say, the words "neck" and "snap". > >2. Write and disseminate a web proxy filter that would route all >Google queries through the TOR (The Onion Router) network and strip >off all tracking mechanisms from the results. This may be a more >palatable alternative to routing all your web surfing through TOR, >which can be quite slow. > >I consider it unproductive to scream at Google, as has become so >popular of late. It is also misguided to call for laws to limit what >they can do with our search queries. Even if Google were to say that >they no longer keep personally-identifiable search queries, there >would be no way to verify it. And any new privacy law for search >engines would surely be riddled with enormous loopholes for >government abuse. > >As with confidentiality, the *only* solution here is technological. >So let's get coding. > > ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen(a)leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

[IP] Google search and seizure, etc. vs. technologists
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Begin forwarded message:

1 0

[Politech] Missing email messages, and Karl Rove's personal computer, roil Washington
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/12/AR200704120… A lawyer for the Republican National Committee told congressional staff members yesterday that the RNC is missing at least four years' worth of e-mail from White House senior adviser Karl Rove that is being sought as part of investigations into the Bush administration, according to the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1244 The briefing received by the Committee raises serious concerns about the White House compliance with the Presidential Records Act, which requires that the President b take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of his constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented and that such records are maintained as Presidential records.b http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/washington/13emails.html The White House said Thursday that missing e-mail messages sent on Republican Party accounts may include some relating to the firing of eight United States attorneys. -------------------------------- April 12, 2007 Fred Fielding, Esq. Counsel to the President The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Mr. Fielding: We are troubled to learn through the press that the White House cannot account for the e-mails of almost two dozen people at the White House, including some the Senate Judiciary has asked to question in connection with our ongoing investigation. Apparently these officials utilized e-mail accounts, addresses and equipment provided by the Republican National Committee and political campaigns to communicate about the plan to replace a number of United States Attorneys. As you know, by letter dated March 28, 2007, the Chairmen of both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees wrote to you asking that you collect and produce e-mails and documents sent from all e-mail accounts, addresses and domains relevant to these investigations, and made specific reference to the use of such political e-mail addresses. The comments of two White House officials, which were cited in todaybs edition of the Washington Post, raise questions about whether the White House will be able to comply with the March 28 letter. White House spokesman Scott Stanzel reportedly stated, b [t]he White House has not at this point done a good enough job at overseeing the practices of staff with political e-mail accounts," and confirmed that "[s]ome officials' e-mails have potentially been lost and that is a mistake that the White House is aggressively working to fix." The second official who was cited, a White House lawyer who spoke on condition of anonymity, told the press at a briefing that White House staff is now being advised that if they question whether an e-mail is political or official, the staff should use their private accounts, but also preserve a copy to be sent to White House lawyers for a determination of whether the e-mail needs to be saved under the Presidential Records Act. In light of these comments by White House officials, we would like to know what is being done to investigate and remedy this situation. For example, we would like to know if the process described above by the anonymous White House lawyer is intended to apply prospectively only or if staff is also being advised that they should forward past e-mails from their private accounts to White House lawyers for review. Additionally, in reference to the statement that the White House b has not . . . done a good enough job at overseeing practicesb regarding e-mail accounts, we would like to know what was done in the past and whether any private e-mail retention policies were in place. We would also like to know how and when the White House first learned of the problem with private e-mail account usage and when it first came to light that e-mails may have been lost. We recognize that the White House must and should investigate this matter in a timely fashion. We also recognize that the congressional committees of jurisdiction have a separate obligation to investigate. To accommodate our separate obligations without slowing down or otherwise complicating the othersb efforts, we suggest that the White House consult with us and the other congressional committees engaged in affected investigations and that we jointly agree upon a fair and objective process for investigating this matter, including the use of a mutually trusted computer forensic expert. Such a process would help to restore public confidence in the White Housebs desire to comply with the Presidential Records Act. Moreover, it would ensure your office and the Congress that this matter is being taken seriously and that an objective process is employed to investigate, retrieve and reconstruct the information that is reportedly missing due to deleted or otherwise unretained e-mails. Sincerely, PATRICK LEAHY ARLEN SPECTER Chairman Ranking Member _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/) ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[IP] Re: Automatic License Plate Recognition in BC
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

________________________________________ From: Thomas Roach [kodakfilm(a)gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:06 AM To: David Farber Cc: Thomas Roach; ip Subject: Re: [IP] Automatic License Plate Recognition in BC I work as a volunteer policeman in Lincoln, CA. The word is we will soon purchase a license plate reading system. The police in the adjoining town already have two cars with devices on the roof of their cars equipped to read license plates on cars moving in both directions. Determining if the plate is not registered [usually means the owner hasn't paid the license fee] or if it is listed as stolen, is done by computer and is almost instantaneous. The system certainly could be used in finding people suspected of crimes or for whom a warrant has been sworn for their arrest. Whether thIs this an invasion of privacy or an "illegal search" is beyond my scope. That won't stop it from happening. I think what I most dislike is not that the government is routinely doing this and a LOT more at the federal level, but the fact that our government [Congress to be exact] doesn't have the balls to declare war. Of course we have a lot of people who think you can't declare war on a "religion". We are effectively declaring war on an evil belief system that honestly believes you have the right to kill hundreds of people based on their not accepting your belief system. That is sort of what war is all about and why it shouldn't be declared solely by the executive branch without the consent, make that a legal declaration, by Congress as I believe is required by the Constitution. I'd have a hard time these days taking the oath of enlistment I swore through my 20 years of service in the USAF, since we swore to protect the Constitution, not the executive branch. Anyway, if a war is won, the belief is that your rights under the Constitution are restored. I think that too is a thing of the past. I'm almost 70 and have more or less, mostly more, given up on the belief that the country of my youth, exists in any meaningful sense anymore. The sexual mores have certainly changed in ways I was so sure was good when I was young and horny. When I hear of the lyrics of the songs sung by hip-hop jive ass scum or read of the escapades of the likes of some of the current "stars", I am fairly sure we would be better of with some restrictions on "free" speech, except in the political arena. As for current societal behavior, there doesn't seem to be any sense that the "stars" are acting improperly, just prurient interest by the public in their unseemly behavior. The public seems to have no sense that "rights" require responsibility. Technology has changed a lot and from my point of view more access to information is always a plus. That assumes the information is used to help you make an informed decision. The current administration has made a joke of the FOIA and almost any "right" to federal documents or decisions. Thanks to the acts of terrorists, most people correctly think it is the job of the government to protect us from terrorists. I think they are right but think from a Constitutional point of view this means we need to declare war. It sure isn't like WW2 or Korea when the enemy was clearly defined and the average American was totally willing to make the sacrifices required to defeat the enemy. Well, maybe we better leave out Korea and certainly every other "war" we have been involved in since then. I guess in the end people will pay a price for giving up their liberties short of having declared a war at which point you basically have almost no rights. In the meanwhile because of the not unjustified fear of terrorists, we have made mince meat of almost all our "rights" and that is probably the sole reason we haven't had another attack within the continental USA. Re our rights under the Constitution, I wouldn't expect them back anytime soon, regardless of what we elect. Thomas Roach thomasbroach(a)mac.com http://gallery.mac.com/thomasbroach On Jan 16, 2008, at 11:15 AM, David Farber wrote: > > ________________________________________ > From: Kurt Albershardt [kurt(a)nv.net] > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 2:04 PM > To: David Farber > Subject: Automatic License Plate Recognition in BC > > Mobile multicamera system looks impressive on the promotional video > but the implications are a bit unsettling <http://www.freesociety.ca/articles/alpr > > > ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.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

[i2p] 0.4.1.2 is available
by jrandom 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi everyone, We've got a new 0.4.1.2 release out and about with a bunch of bugfixes, tools to help monitor the health of your node, reduce memory churn, and help cut down on the per-hop message processing time. I don't expect any sort of revolutionary performance improvements with this, but I do hope it'll make the latency a bit smoother. Upgrading is highly recommended. The full list of whats been added since 0.4.1.1 is up and available at http://dev.i2p.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/i2p/history.txt?rev=HEAD Its all backwards compatible, and duck has been helping me test out these updates as they've been made (as well as gather truckloads of stats to help identify the bottlenecks on his fairly active router). As always, the goods are up @ http://www.i2p.net/download =jr SHA1(i2p.tar.bz2)= 455b936f0b49ee58ab50739e7b00a482678b9291 SHA1(i2p_0_4_1_2.tar.bz2)= 124ce2e680f8a194d573edc9e688c6ab1f085d05 SHA1(i2pupdate.zip)= e6f140f9a4ccdb59e3784510c9bff5d336dafca4 SHA1(install.jar)= 5a92ffdac4edce942faa2f8fa3b9c468f646a6db -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQWlNgBpxS9rYd+OGEQJcBQCghZVED/5eHT3L8mEwIiRM34jS9hwAoJ8O hdm6AaL62BKroSQHNfFuXzNH =oKAI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ i2p mailing list i2p(a)i2p.net http://i2p.dnsalias.net/mailman/listinfo/i2p ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

1 0

[IP] more on The Shadow Internet
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

------ Forwarded Message From: Marc <marcaniballi(a)hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:27:05 -0500 To: <dave(a)farber.net> Subject: RE: [IP] The Shadow Internet Dear Dave; I find the entire piece to be rather amusing and I wonder if the source isn't a card carrying neo-conservative. The concept of these "dark nets" terrorizing anyone is ridiculous. Terrorism is the act of instilling extreme and usually generalized fear, and consequent action (or inaction) in an enemy/oppressor through excessive and/or seemingly random acts of violence usually involving significant loss of "innocent" life. What is the motivation of these "pirates?" It certainly isn't "booty;" They won't be getting rich by ripping and broadcasting media! It seems to me (having absolutely no direct personal experience of this corner of the net), that these folks do it to simply prove it can be done, and to prove they can do it better and faster. It strikes me that this makes it very difficult to eliminate this type of network. The usual methodology for crime syndicate elimination involves finding the money flow and stopping it and following it upstream - here however, there is no money flow! And since the community is very closed, highly distributed and has the best tech a "crime" syndicate could ask for, it becomes somewhat more problematic, especially introducing jurisdiction issues that can in some cases render the activity innocuous to local law! Cutting off the head of these broadcast networks is impossible - they are hydralike, and when you take out one head, the others instantly become immune to the previous style of attack. I have long subscribed to the concept that "soft piracy" shows the world an inefficiency that is impeding progress/evolution. In the 80s it was software piracy; the message? Too expensive and not useful enough! In western society this problem is being addressed fairly well, and piracy of software such as Windows (ignoring counterfeiters who resell, etc.) is more of a recreational sport than a serious impact on Microsoft. In the emerging economies piracy is still rampant, and will be until the average person can easily afford/justify the expense. Now, in the media world with CDs and DVDs, we have a similar situation. A VHS tape of a new release movie was $20 and a vinyl LP was $12 20 years ago. The technology has improved (one can hope!!) and volume is high enough to allow for scale economy to kick in - why are DVDs still $30+ and CDs $20+ ?!! Same game, different industry - possibly a more insidious game this time, because with software one can plainly see increasing capability with decreasing/static prices as a general trend - not so with media. (Recent developments such as iTunes aside). In my opinion, modern soft piracy is a necessary component to technological, commercial and social evolution - so long as it is the type of piracy that is founded on fun, not profit. Regards, Marc Aniballi -----Original Message----- From: owner-ip(a)v2.listbox.com [mailto:owner-ip@v2.listbox.com] On Behalf Of David Farber Sent: December 30, 2004 1:14 PM To: Ip Subject: [IP] more on The Shadow Internet I strongly agree but don't think it is just poor use of words, It has a very specific use and aim which is NOT nice. Dave ------ Forwarded Message From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk(a)gsp.org> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:33:25 -0500 To: David Farber <dave(a)farber.net> Cc: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne(a)warpspeed.com> Subject: Re: [IP] The Shadow Internet On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 10:41:33AM -0500, David Farber quoted: > Inside the pirate networks that are terrorizing the entertainment business. Please. I would like to suggest that anyone who uses the words stemming from "terror" in any context which does _not_ involve death, injury, torture, rape, etc. be repeatedly pummeled upside the head with a copy of the closest available unabridged dictionary -- preferably wielded by someone who has been an actual victim of actual terror and thus has a clue what it means. ---Rsk ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as marcaniballi(a)hotmail.com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen(a)leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

1 0

[IP] Re: Automatic License Plate Recognition in BC
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

________________________________________ From: Thomas Roach [kodakfilm(a)gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:06 AM To: David Farber Cc: Thomas Roach; ip Subject: Re: [IP] Automatic License Plate Recognition in BC I work as a volunteer policeman in Lincoln, CA. The word is we will soon purchase a license plate reading system. The police in the adjoining town already have two cars with devices on the roof of their cars equipped to read license plates on cars moving in both directions. Determining if the plate is not registered [usually means the owner hasn't paid the license fee] or if it is listed as stolen, is done by computer and is almost instantaneous. The system certainly could be used in finding people suspected of crimes or for whom a warrant has been sworn for their arrest. Whether thIs this an invasion of privacy or an "illegal search" is beyond my scope. That won't stop it from happening. I think what I most dislike is not that the government is routinely doing this and a LOT more at the federal level, but the fact that our government [Congress to be exact] doesn't have the balls to declare war. Of course we have a lot of people who think you can't declare war on a "religion". We are effectively declaring war on an evil belief system that honestly believes you have the right to kill hundreds of people based on their not accepting your belief system. That is sort of what war is all about and why it shouldn't be declared solely by the executive branch without the consent, make that a legal declaration, by Congress as I believe is required by the Constitution. I'd have a hard time these days taking the oath of enlistment I swore through my 20 years of service in the USAF, since we swore to protect the Constitution, not the executive branch. Anyway, if a war is won, the belief is that your rights under the Constitution are restored. I think that too is a thing of the past. I'm almost 70 and have more or less, mostly more, given up on the belief that the country of my youth, exists in any meaningful sense anymore. The sexual mores have certainly changed in ways I was so sure was good when I was young and horny. When I hear of the lyrics of the songs sung by hip-hop jive ass scum or read of the escapades of the likes of some of the current "stars", I am fairly sure we would be better of with some restrictions on "free" speech, except in the political arena. As for current societal behavior, there doesn't seem to be any sense that the "stars" are acting improperly, just prurient interest by the public in their unseemly behavior. The public seems to have no sense that "rights" require responsibility. Technology has changed a lot and from my point of view more access to information is always a plus. That assumes the information is used to help you make an informed decision. The current administration has made a joke of the FOIA and almost any "right" to federal documents or decisions. Thanks to the acts of terrorists, most people correctly think it is the job of the government to protect us from terrorists. I think they are right but think from a Constitutional point of view this means we need to declare war. It sure isn't like WW2 or Korea when the enemy was clearly defined and the average American was totally willing to make the sacrifices required to defeat the enemy. Well, maybe we better leave out Korea and certainly every other "war" we have been involved in since then. I guess in the end people will pay a price for giving up their liberties short of having declared a war at which point you basically have almost no rights. In the meanwhile because of the not unjustified fear of terrorists, we have made mince meat of almost all our "rights" and that is probably the sole reason we haven't had another attack within the continental USA. Re our rights under the Constitution, I wouldn't expect them back anytime soon, regardless of what we elect. Thomas Roach thomasbroach(a)mac.com http://gallery.mac.com/thomasbroach On Jan 16, 2008, at 11:15 AM, David Farber wrote: > > ________________________________________ > From: Kurt Albershardt [kurt(a)nv.net] > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 2:04 PM > To: David Farber > Subject: Automatic License Plate Recognition in BC > > Mobile multicamera system looks impressive on the promotional video > but the implications are a bit unsettling <http://www.freesociety.ca/articles/alpr > > > ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.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

[p2p-hackers] announcing Tahoe-LAFS v1.8.3, fixing a security issue
by Zooko O'Whielacronx 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Folks: We found a security vulnerability in Tahoe-LAFS (all versions from v1.3.0 to v1.8.2 inclusive) that might allow an attacker to delete files. This vulnerability does not enable anyone to read file contents without authorization (confidentiality), nor to change the contents of a file (integrity). How exploitable this vulnerability is depends upon some details of how you use Tahoe-LAFS. If you upgrade your Tahoe-LAFS storage server to v1.8.3, this fixes the vulnerability. We've written detailed docs about the issue and how to manage it in the "Known Issues" document: http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/browser/trunk/docs/known_issues.rst I am sorry that we introduced this bug into Tahoe-LAFS and allowed it to go undetected until now. We aim for a high standard of security and reliability in Tahoe-LAFS, and we're not satisfied until our users are safe from threats to their data. We've been working with the packagers who maintain packages of Tahoe-LAFS in various operating systems, so if you get your Tahoe-LAFS through your operating system there may already be a fixed version available: http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/wiki/OSPackages Please contact us through the tahoe-dev mailing list if you have further questions. Regards, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn ANNOUNCING Tahoe, the Least-Authority File System, v1.8.3 The Tahoe-LAFS team announces the immediate availability of version 1.8.3 of Tahoe-LAFS, an extremely reliable distributed storage system. Get it here: http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/browser/trunk/docs/quickstart.rst Tahoe-LAFS is the first distributed storage system to offer "provider-independent security" b meaning that not even the operators of your storage servers can read or alter your data without your consent. Here is the one-page explanation of its unique security and fault-tolerance properties: http://tahoe-lafs.org/source/tahoe/trunk/docs/about.html The previous stable release of Tahoe-LAFS was v1.8.2, which was released January 30, 2011 [1]. v1.8.3 is a stable bugfix release which fixes a security issue. See the file [2] and known_issues.rst [3] file for details. WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? With Tahoe-LAFS, you distribute your filesystem across multiple servers, and even if some of the servers fail or are taken over by an attacker, the entire filesystem continues to work correctly, and continues to preserve your privacy and security. You can easily share specific files and directories with other people. In addition to the core storage system itself, volunteers have built other projects on top of Tahoe-LAFS and have integrated Tahoe-LAFS with existing systems, including Windows, JavaScript, iPhone, Android, Hadoop, Flume, Django, Puppet, bzr, mercurial, perforce, duplicity, TiddlyWiki, and more. See the Related Projects page on the wiki [4]. We believe that strong cryptography, Free and Open Source Software, erasure coding, and principled engineering practices make Tahoe-LAFS safer than RAID, removable drive, tape, on-line backup or cloud storage. This software is developed under test-driven development, and there are no known bugs or security flaws which would compromise confidentiality or data integrity under recommended use. (For all important issues that we are currently aware of please see the known_issues.rst file [3].) COMPATIBILITY This release is compatible with the version 1 series of Tahoe-LAFS. Clients from this release can write files and directories in the format used by clients of all versions back to v1.0 (which was released March 25, 2008). Clients from this release can read files and directories produced by clients of all versions since v1.0. Servers from this release can serve clients of all versions back to v1.0 and clients from this release can use servers of all versions back to v1.0. This is the fourteenth release in the version 1 series. This series of Tahoe-LAFS will be actively supported and maintained for the forseeable future, and future versions of Tahoe-LAFS will retain the ability to read and write files compatible with this series. LICENCE You may use this package under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or, at your option, any later version. See the file "COPYING.GPL" [5] for the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2. You may use this package under the Transitive Grace Period Public Licence, version 1 or, at your option, any later version. (The Transitive Grace Period Public Licence has requirements similar to the GPL except that it allows you to delay for up to twelve months after you redistribute a derived work before releasing the source code of your derived work.) See the file "COPYING.TGPPL.html" [6] for the terms of the Transitive Grace Period Public Licence, version 1. (You may choose to use this package under the terms of either licence, at your option.) INSTALLATION Tahoe-LAFS works on Linux, Mac OS X, Windows, Cygwin, Solaris, *BSD, and probably most other systems. Start with "docs/quickstart.html" [7]. HACKING AND COMMUNITY Please join us on the mailing list [8]. Patches are gratefully accepted -- the RoadMap page [9] shows the next improvements that we plan to make and CREDITS [10] lists the names of people who've contributed to the project. The Dev page [11] contains resources for hackers. SPONSORSHIP Atlas Networks has contributed several hosted servers for performance testing. Thank you to Atlas Networks for their generous and public-spirited support. HACK TAHOE-LAFS! If you can find a security flaw in Tahoe-LAFS which is serious enough that we feel compelled to warn our users and issue a fix, then we will award you with a customized t-shirts with your exploit printed on it and add you to the "Hack Tahoe-LAFS Hall Of Fame" [12]. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This is the eighth release of Tahoe-LAFS to be created solely as a labor of love by volunteers. Thank you very much to the team of "hackers in the public interest" who make Tahoe-LAFS possible. Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn on behalf of the Tahoe-LAFS team September 13, 2011 Boulder, Colorado, USA [1] http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe/browser/relnotes.txt?rev=5164 [2] http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/browser/1.8.3/NEWS?rev=5014 [3] http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe/browser/docs/known_issues.rst [4] http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe/wiki/RelatedProjects [5] http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe/browser/COPYING.GPL [6] http://tahoe-lafs.org/source/tahoe/trunk/COPYING.TGPPL.html [7] http://tahoe-lafs.org/source/tahoe/trunk/docs/quickstart.html [8] http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev [9] http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe/roadmap [10] http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/browser/1.8.3/CREDITS?rev=5003 [11] http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe/wiki/Dev [12] http://tahoe-lafs.org/hacktahoelafs/ _______________________________________________ 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

[i2p] 0.4.1.2 is available
by jrandom 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi everyone, We've got a new 0.4.1.2 release out and about with a bunch of bugfixes, tools to help monitor the health of your node, reduce memory churn, and help cut down on the per-hop message processing time. I don't expect any sort of revolutionary performance improvements with this, but I do hope it'll make the latency a bit smoother. Upgrading is highly recommended. The full list of whats been added since 0.4.1.1 is up and available at http://dev.i2p.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/i2p/history.txt?rev=HEAD Its all backwards compatible, and duck has been helping me test out these updates as they've been made (as well as gather truckloads of stats to help identify the bottlenecks on his fairly active router). As always, the goods are up @ http://www.i2p.net/download =jr SHA1(i2p.tar.bz2)= 455b936f0b49ee58ab50739e7b00a482678b9291 SHA1(i2p_0_4_1_2.tar.bz2)= 124ce2e680f8a194d573edc9e688c6ab1f085d05 SHA1(i2pupdate.zip)= e6f140f9a4ccdb59e3784510c9bff5d336dafca4 SHA1(install.jar)= 5a92ffdac4edce942faa2f8fa3b9c468f646a6db -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQWlNgBpxS9rYd+OGEQJcBQCghZVED/5eHT3L8mEwIiRM34jS9hwAoJ8O hdm6AaL62BKroSQHNfFuXzNH =oKAI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ i2p mailing list i2p(a)i2p.net http://i2p.dnsalias.net/mailman/listinfo/i2p ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

1 0