- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

<nettime> Copy & Paste in Brussels
by Felix Stalder 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

It's interesting how ideas and experiences shift shapes over time. For the few years now there has been a particularly German obsession with plagiarism in academic dissertations. Initially, this has been employed to embarrass political figures and promote a self-righteous discourse of academic pedantry, but it has also led to a distributed infrastructure/community for checking unacknowledged sources in texts. And now, this infrastructure is used for quite different purposes: matching lobbying text to legal documents that are being drafted by the EU. While nobody can be surprised by the fact that lobbyists do shape legislation, it's still revealing to this this nicely visualized and connected to the names of the MPs who did the actual copy & pasting. -> www.lobbyplag.eu Felix Tory MEPs 'copy and paste Amazon and Google lobbyist text' Senior Conservative MEPs have been accused of cutting and pasting text from lobbyists from Amazon, Google and other major online enterprises directly into legal amendments to European Union legislation on consumer data protection http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/9865977/Tory-MEPs-copy-and-paste-Amaz… The European Parliament is debating a new EU "general data protection regulation" with important implications for how internet search engines and online retailers handle users' personal information, including sensitive health, background and credit details. The legislation, proposed by the European Commission a year ago, is going through the EU assembly, which has the power to amend the law, triggering a huge lobbying campaign by the internet industry to change the regulations. Campaigners for tighter privacy laws covering social media and online retailers have published research at www.lobbyplag.eu showing close links between the wording of industry proposals and amendments tabled in the European Parliament's committees. The campaigners have charted what they claim are "striking similarities between proposed amendments and lobby papers written by representatives of Amazon, eBay, the American Chamber of Commerce and the European Banking Federation". "Dozens of amendments are being copied word-for-word from corporate lobby papers," they said. Privacy campaigners are concerned that industry amendments tabled by MEPs will dilute legal requirements allowing companies to water down tough new rules on the processing of sensitive, personal information and loosening a requirement for mandatory data protection supervisors within businesses. Malcolm Harbour, Conservative MEP for the West Midlands and chairman of the parliament's committee on the internal market and consumer protection, which is overseeing the legislation, has been accused of copying over 25 per cent of his amendments from industry. Research found that 14 out of 55 amendments tabled by Mr Harbour were "copied directly from lobby papers", with the senior Tory also taking a coordinating role in getting other MEPs, to table similar changes in other committees. Sajjad Karim, Conservative MEP for the North West of England and a member of the parliament's committee on legal affairs, proposed amendments "with over 23 per cent copy-pasted content". Another Tory, Giles Chichester, MEP for South West England and Gibraltar and a member of the committee on industry, research and energy, followed with "over 22 per cent copy-pasted content". While there is no suggestion of wrongdoing or breaches of the parliament's rules, privacy campaigners fear that MEPs are listening to industry and not consumers. "We would hope that MEPs are taking all sides of the argument into account when making law, not just the richest and most powerful corporate interests," said Anna Fielder, a trustee of Privacy International. Mr Harbour insisted that listening to industry, and privacy campaigners, was part of the democratic process and "disputed" the 25 per cent figure found. "Many of our points were aimed at making the regulation fit for small enterprises, many of whom feel that their businesses would be threatened by the costs generated from certain provisions in the original proposal. That was why we modified a number of the detailed requirements," he said. "I do not believe we should immediately discount proposed amendments when they come from businesses that make use of and are responsible for protecting personal data. I will continue to consider all amendments on the basis of their merits in making the proposal more workable." Mr Karim and Mr Chichester declined to comment, but Conservative sources said that they had followed Mr Harbour's lead in tabling amendments. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime(a)kein.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

<nettime> bitcoin anyone?
by Roelof Roscam Abbing 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Hello Nettimers, ?We have elected to put our money and faith in a mathematical framework that is free of politics and human error,? Tyler Winklevoss said.[1] Bitcoin has been framed by proponents, like the one quoted above, as the ultimate decentralized and politically neutral currency. However, to me, the recent bubble and it's (partial) burst serve to underline the fallacy the techno-utopian mindset behind projects like this one. The believe that setting the right technical parameters will 'free us of human error' and that systems grounded in mathematics are free of politics. I have made two observations about Bitcoin I would like to share with the list that I believe support my opinion. Centralized exchange markets By design the creation (mining), storage and transfer of Bitcoins happens in a decentralized fashion. The recent bubble however has shown that in order for people to liquidify their Bitcoin assets they are extremely dependent on just a handful of centralized exchange markets. One of the biggest of these online exchange markets, Mt. Gox, claims it controls 80% [1] of the market. As the bitbubble burst it became painfully clear how dependent on Mt.Gox Bitcoiners exactly are. Also, it showed the extent of Mt. Gox's influence on the value of the currency. The crash that devaluated Bitcoins from $260 to around 100$ dollars was caused by the failure of Mt. Gox's online trade infrastructure. The exact cause of the crash is speculation but it is believed to have been caused either through an orchestrated ddos, technical failure or the sheer amount of server requests caused by a bank run of panicked investors.[2] The catalyst role of Mt.Gox in the burst and it's subsequent suspension of trade for 'market cool down' illustrate the extent of influence that centralized structures have within this supposedly decentralized network. Mining Guilds. I would also like to point out the emergence of so-called mining guilds or mining pools. In these pools individual Bitcoin miners join a centralized organization to share equally in the proceeds of mining, guaranteeing a somewhat stable income for it's participants. One could argue that these centralized guilds have also been 'designed' into the Bitcoin system. Bitcoin miners are rewarded according to a first to come first to serve model. The miner that discovers the next viable batch of Bitcoins gets to have them all. In the early days of bitcoin this could be easily done by individuals. However the mining of Bitcoins becomes more difficult due to the finite amount of Bitcoin. Mining requires increasing amounts computing power, superseding the capabilities of decentralized individuals. For mining to remain profitable in these circumstances miners cluster into pools to share both in computing power and mining proceeds. As a result, the roughly 30 mining guilds have become the biggest producers of Bitcoins [4][5] In the face of even more difficult mining in the future it is not unlikely that we will end up with a handful of guilds in control of all the production. However, the 30 guilds involved in the production of Bitcoin have already acquired the ability of injecting large amounts of new currency into the market and thus influence it's course. This makes mining guilds de-facto capable of operating as the central banks that Bitcoin believers so strongly oppose to. To come back to the Tyler Winklevoss quote at the beginning of this text. We can see how the design of Bitcoin as a mathematical framework does not make it free of politics. For in it's design it also contains certain (unconscious) political ideas about society that are grounded in anarcho-capitalism. The mathematical framework has thus for not shown to be capable of preventing the extremely quick formation of potentially disruptive monopolies in a system that was designed to be neutral and decentralized. The idea that setting the right technical parameters will remove the necessity for supervision and accountability is thus incorrect. For we are witnessing the appearance of cartels and monopolies that could have never been formed in a properly regulated market. Bitcoin as such will not work to empower the individual and free him from centralized power, instead Bitcoin serves to create new centralized power structures that are unregulated, opaque and unaccountable. Although Bitcoin as a system does not free us from human error and on the contrary even facilitates it, donations are welcome on 1u2VMeVbDpWKUQx8cLSMtLUCTSAUfoz7q ;) Roel [1] http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/as-big-investors-emerge-Bitcoin-gets… [2] https://mtgox.com/press_release_20130404.html [3] https://twitter.com/MtGox/status/322355614414147588 [4] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Comparison_of_mining_pools [5] http://blockorigin.pfoe.be/chart.php -- => => => roelroscamabbing.nl <http://www.roelroscamabbing.nl> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime(a)kein.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

Re: [tahoe-dev] Resurrecting Mojo Nation
by James A. Donald 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On 2012-06-14 6:00 AM, Brian Warner wrote: > On 6/9/12 9:07 PM, Jack Byer wrote: > Users were > accidentally encouraged to hoard Mojo (the client displayed your > balance like a game score, users sought to maximize that number more This was an incorrect diagnosis of the problem. The Mojo Nation team were thinking like Keynesians. If markets are failing to clear, prices should fall. Even if users are hoarding mojo, at some sufficiently low price point, supply and demand will match. Hoarding money can never be a problem, for that is what money is for. You are *supposed* to hoard money, otherwise it would not be worth anything. Gold is not good for much, other than hoarding, and government paper is good for even less. Failure of price discovery is frequently a very large problem. Price discovery is always arduous, laborious, costly, slow, and not very accurate, something Keynesians blissfully ignore. > For Tahoe, we reduced the scope, threw out the economic games, and > narrowed the use-case to commercial grids and friendnets (where uptime > is more predictable). Bittorrent did the same, reducing the scope to > short-term transfers instead of long-term storage. Both have achieved > their own smaller goals. Bittorrent, by focusing on short term exchange of like data for like data, has, as was expected, a permanent and massive seeding problem. It is not apparent to me that Tahoe has achieved the goal of reliable storage on friendnets. Too large a friendnet, anti social behavior makes the net unreliable, too small a friendnet, k of n storage runs into the problem that k and n are small making the net unreliable. The problems that Mojo Nation sought to solve are still there, unsolved, and pissing people off. > * overambition is still a big problem. Xanadu disease. > * measuring/predicting reliability of storage nodes is still an unsolved > (and possibly unsolveable) problem. You need servers to stick around > for a long period of time, otherwise repair costs will swamp your > bandwidth and leave you no room for real traffic. Needing long-term > servers interacts badly with adoption (you want to encourage > experimentation, folks who want to install it just to play around with > it should be able to do that quickly, but you can't afford to use them > as servers, since many of them will get bored and delete it or let it > break the next day, so they don't really get the full experience, so > they may not really be motivated to stick around). As a client you > need to distinguish between good servers and transient ones, so you > really want everyone to monitor and publish uptime data on each other, > but they could be lying, which gets you back into the reputation graph > thing. There's been a lot of work on reputation graphs (starting with > Raph Levien's Advogato, and motivated by EBay and Amazon), but I don't > know how much of it is buried in proprietary/closed codebases (since > it's easier to game a system when you have the source) vs being > available as an off-the-shelf library. Any reputation system will have good inputs, evil inputs, insane inputs, and evil insane inputs. The evil or insane inputs will be rated as good by fellow members or sibyls of each evil or insane faction, so we will get graphs that are by some measure, in some sense, disjoint. If one starts at a good node in the good faction, reflecting a well known good guy, everyone well linked will be good, thus connection analysis of the reputation graph generates faction subgraphs. Faction subgraphs will typically have important highly connected nodes. Mencius refers to such nodes as Kings. You give your allegiance to a good King, and your problem is solved. You give your allegiance to a bad King, you are hosed. The graph analysis system may help you find a good King, but cannot reliably find one for you, because whatever criteria it uses will be gamed by the evil. A simple solution is to bake a single king node into the client software - otherwise known as a central point of failure. A default king node will, however, work, or at least fail less disastrously than a baked in king node. > * do people really want remote storage? Why? One reason is to get access > from their data from elsewhere (sharing with friends, using it from > someone else's computer, People don't really want remote storage. They want file sharing, in some cases highly controlled sharing - sharing with only with themselves at different logins, only with other instances of themselves, being a special case of controlled sharing. Thus, it is a communication and publication system, not a hard drive. _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list tahoe-dev(a)tahoe-lafs.org https://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev ----- 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: [tahoe-dev] Resurrecting Mojo Nation
by James A. Donald 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On 2012-06-14 6:00 AM, Brian Warner wrote: > On 6/9/12 9:07 PM, Jack Byer wrote: > Users were > accidentally encouraged to hoard Mojo (the client displayed your > balance like a game score, users sought to maximize that number more This was an incorrect diagnosis of the problem. The Mojo Nation team were thinking like Keynesians. If markets are failing to clear, prices should fall. Even if users are hoarding mojo, at some sufficiently low price point, supply and demand will match. Hoarding money can never be a problem, for that is what money is for. You are *supposed* to hoard money, otherwise it would not be worth anything. Gold is not good for much, other than hoarding, and government paper is good for even less. Failure of price discovery is frequently a very large problem. Price discovery is always arduous, laborious, costly, slow, and not very accurate, something Keynesians blissfully ignore. > For Tahoe, we reduced the scope, threw out the economic games, and > narrowed the use-case to commercial grids and friendnets (where uptime > is more predictable). Bittorrent did the same, reducing the scope to > short-term transfers instead of long-term storage. Both have achieved > their own smaller goals. Bittorrent, by focusing on short term exchange of like data for like data, has, as was expected, a permanent and massive seeding problem. It is not apparent to me that Tahoe has achieved the goal of reliable storage on friendnets. Too large a friendnet, anti social behavior makes the net unreliable, too small a friendnet, k of n storage runs into the problem that k and n are small making the net unreliable. The problems that Mojo Nation sought to solve are still there, unsolved, and pissing people off. > * overambition is still a big problem. Xanadu disease. > * measuring/predicting reliability of storage nodes is still an unsolved > (and possibly unsolveable) problem. You need servers to stick around > for a long period of time, otherwise repair costs will swamp your > bandwidth and leave you no room for real traffic. Needing long-term > servers interacts badly with adoption (you want to encourage > experimentation, folks who want to install it just to play around with > it should be able to do that quickly, but you can't afford to use them > as servers, since many of them will get bored and delete it or let it > break the next day, so they don't really get the full experience, so > they may not really be motivated to stick around). As a client you > need to distinguish between good servers and transient ones, so you > really want everyone to monitor and publish uptime data on each other, > but they could be lying, which gets you back into the reputation graph > thing. There's been a lot of work on reputation graphs (starting with > Raph Levien's Advogato, and motivated by EBay and Amazon), but I don't > know how much of it is buried in proprietary/closed codebases (since > it's easier to game a system when you have the source) vs being > available as an off-the-shelf library. Any reputation system will have good inputs, evil inputs, insane inputs, and evil insane inputs. The evil or insane inputs will be rated as good by fellow members or sibyls of each evil or insane faction, so we will get graphs that are by some measure, in some sense, disjoint. If one starts at a good node in the good faction, reflecting a well known good guy, everyone well linked will be good, thus connection analysis of the reputation graph generates faction subgraphs. Faction subgraphs will typically have important highly connected nodes. Mencius refers to such nodes as Kings. You give your allegiance to a good King, and your problem is solved. You give your allegiance to a bad King, you are hosed. The graph analysis system may help you find a good King, but cannot reliably find one for you, because whatever criteria it uses will be gamed by the evil. A simple solution is to bake a single king node into the client software - otherwise known as a central point of failure. A default king node will, however, work, or at least fail less disastrously than a baked in king node. > * do people really want remote storage? Why? One reason is to get access > from their data from elsewhere (sharing with friends, using it from > someone else's computer, People don't really want remote storage. They want file sharing, in some cases highly controlled sharing - sharing with only with themselves at different logins, only with other instances of themselves, being a special case of controlled sharing. Thus, it is a communication and publication system, not a hard drive. _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list tahoe-dev(a)tahoe-lafs.org https://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev ----- 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: [liberationtech] Bitcoin and The Public Function of Money
by Maxim Kammerer 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Yosem Companys <companys(a)stanford.edu> wrote: > While I (and probably others) find the discussion on this thread > interesting, it appears to lack the necessary technology component to be > deemed liberationtech. I am not sure the situation is that simple. I believe (this is a long thread) that the underlying question discussed here is whether Bitcoin has a potential as a viable alternative unregulated currency. In order to answer that, one has to first answer the question of what Bitcoin is backed by. There are lots of demagogical claims on Bitcoin-related discussion venues, but ultimately gold is backed by its scarcity, longevity, and subcortex appeal of shiny things; fiat currency is backed by state-protected ability to pay debt; MMORPG currencies are exchangeable for game items; and Bitcoin, if one discards the time period when it was worthless, is backed by its capacity to be exchanged for illicit drugs on international black markets, due to lack of better alternatives. *If* black markets are Bitcoin's claim to fame, then it has absolutely no chance of becoming anything but a small-scale under-the-radar drug trade currency, the reason being that a thriving black market is an early sign of stagnating economy, chaos, anarchy, and civil war, in which case people will revert to more tangible currency alternatives like jewelry and food. There is a widespread opinion that one of the major *economic* reasons for the fall of Soviet Union was producers of goods (i.e., factories, collective farms, etc.) establishing a massive black market between them, avoiding the inflexible system of planned economy. And this is where economic ideology and religious faith become relevant, because according to libertarian views (which are at the core of faith in Bitcoin) post-USSR republics, with their well-educated population that was highly receptive to capitalistic ideals, abundance of resources (natural and factories), extremely weak governments, huge territory, etc. etc., should have somehow formed a libertarian utopia with people-supported militias, thriving free markets, and whatnot. What happened, however, was theft of all available resources, rise of oligarchs who took control of factories, dismantled them and sold the components abroad, organized banditism, pervasive racketeering, demographical catastrophe, several civil wars and population transfers, shortened life expectancy, and all other complete opposites of an utopia. Contradiction? Only if one doesn't use religious faith to reason about economic reality. -- Maxim Kammerer Liberti Linux: http://dee.su/liberte -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/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: [ZS] Two criticisms of ZS, and solutions...
by Gary Mulder 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On 17 December 2012 14:53, Tyler <tjgillies(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Also BTC is a monetary system. Basing worth on wealth might not be the > best way to form ZS. > I think a distributed Web Of trust model would work well and not be > beholden to any central authority However, a BTC address can be used as a unique, distributed, verifiable, but still semi-anonymous identity. I just read the following interesting blog post which also looks at trust and reputation online: http://associatesmind.com/2012/12/07/the-hyperlink-a-microtransaction-of-tr… Regards, Gary -- -- 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: Outlaw Biology Symposium and Faire, UCLA, Jan 29-30, Call for Ideas
by JonathanCline 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Oct 21, 5:46 pm, Simon Quellen Field <sfi...(a)scitoys.com> wrote: > > If you're worried about the government tracking you for associating with > this > list, you are reading too many thrillers. Some of us are definitely on some government watch list for being on this group. (With that said, it's not such a big deal to be tracked by the government. Many researchers are.) Search the archives for "Monitor 360." The results were presented to a government agency with three letter acronym. I saw the "film canister" project on your web site -- I used to build those too, in grade school -- nowadays those kinds of projects really do get kids in trouble. The stimulus bill of 2009 also included $100 million or more for funding of specific government agencies for homeland security, including biosecurity. The previous homeland security measures allocated resources similarly. The government has the money, the time, and the tumor-like growth to cause pain (in addition to doing good as well) to private citizens exercising free rights. It's better to be transparent though, I'd say (meaning private citizens with any concern should advertise what they're doing, in the most boring techno-speak possible, so much so, that no one, including government, cares at all). Just say "no" to sensationalism. Unless it's positive-spin sensationalism. (By that guideline, "outlaw" does not jive.) Technological innovation has been hampered -- truly hampered -- due to government protectionist policies, as well as "public perception". So to exacerbate this, by adding even 1% towards negative sensationalism, is foolish. ## Jonathan Cline ## jcline(a)ieee.org ## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223 ######################## --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group. To post to this group, send email to diybio(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- ----- 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: Outlaw Biology Symposium and Faire, UCLA, Jan 29-30, Call for Ideas
by JonathanCline 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Oct 21, 5:46 pm, Simon Quellen Field <sfi...(a)scitoys.com> wrote: > > If you're worried about the government tracking you for associating with > this > list, you are reading too many thrillers. Some of us are definitely on some government watch list for being on this group. (With that said, it's not such a big deal to be tracked by the government. Many researchers are.) Search the archives for "Monitor 360." The results were presented to a government agency with three letter acronym. I saw the "film canister" project on your web site -- I used to build those too, in grade school -- nowadays those kinds of projects really do get kids in trouble. The stimulus bill of 2009 also included $100 million or more for funding of specific government agencies for homeland security, including biosecurity. The previous homeland security measures allocated resources similarly. The government has the money, the time, and the tumor-like growth to cause pain (in addition to doing good as well) to private citizens exercising free rights. It's better to be transparent though, I'd say (meaning private citizens with any concern should advertise what they're doing, in the most boring techno-speak possible, so much so, that no one, including government, cares at all). Just say "no" to sensationalism. Unless it's positive-spin sensationalism. (By that guideline, "outlaw" does not jive.) Technological innovation has been hampered -- truly hampered -- due to government protectionist policies, as well as "public perception". So to exacerbate this, by adding even 1% towards negative sensationalism, is foolish. ## Jonathan Cline ## jcline(a)ieee.org ## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223 ######################## --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group. To post to this group, send email to diybio(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- ----- 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: [liberationtech] in anticipation of Stockholm Internet Forum...
by Andre Rebentisch 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Am 14.04.2012 00:00, schrieb Stefan Geens: > This could be useful for those of you going to the Stockholm > Internet Forum next week b I wrote a short primer on Internet > freedom _in_ Sweden. Does Sweden practice what it preaches, now > that one of its foreign policy goals is to defend the rights of > Internet users beyond its borders? To quote from the text: "In 2008, Swedenbs parliament narrowly passed a law that lets its signals intelligence agency (FRA) monitor the content of all cross-border cable-based internet traffic to combat b external threatsb such as terrorism and organized crime b but only after obtaining court permission, and upon the explicit request of government or defense agencies." In other words, Sweden does monitor all traffic. Best, AndrC) _______________________________________________ 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

Re: [liberationtech] in anticipation of Stockholm Internet Forum...
by Andre Rebentisch 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Am 14.04.2012 00:00, schrieb Stefan Geens: > This could be useful for those of you going to the Stockholm > Internet Forum next week b I wrote a short primer on Internet > freedom _in_ Sweden. Does Sweden practice what it preaches, now > that one of its foreign policy goals is to defend the rights of > Internet users beyond its borders? To quote from the text: "In 2008, Swedenbs parliament narrowly passed a law that lets its signals intelligence agency (FRA) monitor the content of all cross-border cable-based internet traffic to combat b external threatsb such as terrorism and organized crime b but only after obtaining court permission, and upon the explicit request of government or defense agencies." In other words, Sweden does monitor all traffic. Best, AndrC) _______________________________________________ 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