- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

CDR: The Passive-Aggressive (Negativistic) Personality Disorder
by None 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

(PAPD) Case Study: Jim Choate From: aluger(a)hushmail.com Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:55:47 -0800 (PST) Cc: cypherpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com, cypherpunks(a)lne.com Old-Subject: The Passive-Aggressive (Negativistic) Personality Disorder (PAPD) Case Study: Jim Choate Reply-To: cypherpunks(a)ssz.com Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)ssz.com >On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Sunder wrote (referring to Jim Choate): > >> I'd wish that: >> >> 1. he'd stick to on-topic articles and not give us any random shit >he likes Choate replies: >Every post I send is 'on topic' to crypto, civil liberties, or economics. Sunder continues, along with Choate's replies: >> 2. he'd post a one or two paragraph quote from the article describing >> it under the urls. > >Keep wanting. > >> 3. put all the news stories from one site (slashdot for example) in >> one email as if it were a digest. > >Keep wanting. > >> The way he "helps" us is annoying at best and only one or two notches >> removed from spam. > >What makes you think I'm wanting to 'help' you or whatever 'us' you're >refering to. > >> What pisses me off is that I actually do read slashdot regularly, >>and don't > >You just want to be pissed off, and if you can make me the target so >much the better. Discussion: Essential Feature- The passive-aggressive (negativistic) personality disorder is located in Appendix B: "Criteria Sets and Axes Provided for Further Study" of the DSM- IV. Millon (1996, p. 198) proposes a comprehensive concept of a negativistic personality. He asserts that the negativistic personality reflects both this general contrariness and disinclination to do as others wish but also presents with a capricious impulsiveness, an irritable moodiness, and an unaccommodating, fault-finding pessimism. The DSM-IV (1994, p. 733) describes the PAPD essential feature as a pervasive pattern of negativistic attitudes and passive resistance to demands for adequate performance in social and occupational settings. The subject, Choate, demonstrates these traits clearly, particularly in the context of responses to otherwise reasonable requests from the electronic social group "cypherpunks" from which the above samples are taken. The general criteria of a personality disorder coupled with at least five of the following is sufficient to warrant a diagnosis of Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder: procrastination and delay in completing essential tasks -- particularly those that others seek to have completed; unjustified protests that others make unreasonable demands; sulkiness, irritability or argumentativeness when asked to do something that the individual does not want to do; unreasonable criticism or scorn for authority figures; deliberately slow or poor work on unwanted tasks; obstruction of the efforts of others even as these individuals fail to do their share of the work; and avoidance of obligations by claiming to have forgotten them. Examining the small sample above it is clear that Choate meets at least four of these subset criteria. (This author has little doubt that a fifth will quickly emerge with further study). Procrastination and delay in completing any of the tasks requested of him (the addition of more substantive summaries which accompany his rote contributions to the mailing list), unjustified protests that others make unreasonable demands (in the case of Sunder above, Choate's responses to Sunder's request for a more digest format illustrates this), irritability or argumentativeness when asked to do something that the individual does not want to do (while Choate could easily have ignored the request, he chose instead to reply in an increasingly inflammatory and argumentative tone), unreasonable criticism or scorn for authority figures (as evidenced by material in his signature - "Legislators and Judges are the pimps of modern American society.") The passive-aggressive personality disorder was first introduced in a U.S. War Department technical bulletin in 1945. The term was coined by wartime psychiatrists who found themselves dealing with reluctant and uncooperative soldiers who followed orders with chronic, veiled hostility and smoldering resentment. Their style was a mixture of passive resistance and grumbling compliance (Stone, 1993, p. 361). Choate's response seems to mirror this type of response quite closely and further study under the reference of Stone's work should be pursued. The current criteria for the passive-aggressive personality disorder as proposed by the Personality Disorders Work Group for the DSM-IV includes: 1. passive resistance to fulfilling social and occupational tasks through procrastination and inefficiency; 2. complaints of being misunderstood, unappreciated, and victimized by others; 3. sullenness, irritability, and argumentativeness in response to expectations; 4. angry and pessimistic attitudes toward a variety of events; 5. unreasonable criticism and scorn toward those in authority; 6. envy and resentment toward those who are more fortunate; 7. self-definition as luckless in life and an inclination to whine and grumble about being jinxed; 8. alternating behavior between hostile assertion of personal autonomy and dependent contrition (Millon & Radovanov, Livesley, ed., 1995, p. 321). Millon suggests that the most essential features of PAPD are irritable affect; behavioral contrariness, obstructiveness, and sulking; discontented self- image, e.g. feels unappreciated and misunderstood; deficient regulatory control, i.e. poorly modulated emotional expression; and interpersonal ambivalence. They are noted for their interpersonal conflict, verbal aggressiveness, and manipulative behavior. Suicidal gestures and a lack of attention to everyday responsibilities are common (Millon, 1996, p. 198). Little study is needed to recognize the diagnosis as a strong one for the subject Choate. PAPD resistance to external demands is manifested in oppositional and obstructive behaviors. These individuals resent having to conform to the standards set by others. On the other hand, they fear direct confrontation. The combination of resentment and fear leads to passive, provocative behavior (as in the case of the subject Choate and Sunder exchange- wherein subject Choate incites Sunder and seeks to create a situation in which Sunder will escalate the rhetoric). Individuals with PAPD view themselves as self-sufficient but feel vulnerable to control and interference from others (Pretzer & Beck, Clarkin & Lenzenweger, eds., 1996, p. 60). They believe that they are misunderstood and unappreciated, a view that is exacerbated by the negative responses they receive from others for their consistent defeatist stance. They expect the worst in everything, even situations that are going well, and are inclined toward anger and irritability (Beck & Freeman, 1990, p. 339) (DSM-IV, 1994, p. 734). Subject Choate demonstrates this classically, particularly in the context of his often sardonically defeatist and pessimistic inclusions in the titles of his contributions). Individuals with PAPD are often disgruntled and declare that they are not treated as they should be. On the other hand, they are just as likely to express feeling unworthy of good fortune. They have a basic conflict concerning their self-worth; they oscillate between self-loathing and entitlement or moral superiority. Either side of this oscillation can be projected onto the environment. The chaotic nature of this experience of self and others often leads to people beginning to avoid or minimize contact with people with PAPD out of self-protection (Richards, 1993, p. 259). Individuals with PAPD see others as intrusive, demanding, interfering, controlling, and dominating. They believe that other people interfere with their freedom. They experience control by others as intolerable; they have to do things their own way (Pretzer & Beck, Clarkin & Lenzenweger, eds., 1996, p. 60). These individuals are determined that they will not be subject to the rules of others (Beck & Freeman, 1990, p. 227). They resent, oppose, and resist demands to meet expectations from others in a behavioral pattern seen in both work and social settings (DSM-IV, 1994, p. 733). Their main coping strategies are passive resistance, surface submissiveness, evasion, and circumventing of rules (Pretzer & Beck, Clarkin & Lenzenweger, eds., 1996, p. 60). Individuals with passive-aggressive (negativistic) personality disorder are ambivalent within their relationships and conflicted between their dependency needs and their desire for self-assertion. They waver between expressing hostile defiance toward people they see as causing their problems and attempting to mollify these people by asking forgiveness or promising to do better in the future (DSM-IV, 1994, p. 734). These individuals are noted for the stormy nature of their interpersonal relationships. They engage in a combination of quarrelsomeness and submissiveness. Their affect is sullen and they engage in deliberate rudeness. They are resentfully quarrelsome and irritable. They often feel like a victim. Central to the disorder is a pervasive pattern of argumentativeness and oppositional behavior with defeatist and negative attitudes (Millon & Radovanov, Livesley, ed., 1995, p. 317). Richards (1993, p. 260) believes that PAPD may be the most miserable personality disorder. These individuals inflict a great deal of discomfort on others through the use of their anxiety and emotional symptoms. They can become so destructive in their attitudes and so unable to provide rewards to others that they become socially isolated. For individuals with PAPD, authority figures can become the focus of their discontentment. They often criticize and voice hostility toward authority figures with minimal provocation. Their resistance toward authority is expressed by procrastination, forgetfulness, stubbornness, and intentional inefficiency. These individuals are also envious of and resentful toward peers who succeed or are viewed positively by authority figures (DSM-IV, 1994, pp. 733-734). Authority figures are seen by individuals with passive-aggressive (negativistic) personality disorder as arbitrary and unfair. When they are faced with the consequences of not adequately meeting obligations, these individuals will become angry at those in authority rather than seeing how their own behavior has contributed to the situation (Beck & Freeman, 1990, p. 339). Authority figures are defined as intrusive, demanding, interfering, controlling, and dominating. On the other hand, individuals with PAPD also see authority figures as capable of being approving, accepting, and caring. A key issue for individuals with PAPD is the desire to get benefits from authority figures while exerting their freedom and autonomy (Beck & Freeman, 1990, p. 45). The conflict is intense. Individuals with PAPD have a tendency to see any form of power as inconsiderate and neglectful. They are also likely to believe that authorities or caregivers are incompetent, unfair, and cruel. Nevertheless, these individuals are not inclined to rebel directly. They will agree to comply with demands or suggestions but will often fail to perform (or they will perform while experiencing increasing resentment). Then, when there is trouble, these individuals will complain of unfair treatment. They envy and resent others who manage authority situations and who are able to relate to authorities with less difficulty. These individuals believe that their suffering indicts the negligent caregiver or authority figure. They fear control in any form but long for nurturing restitution from those they perceive as having power (Benjamin, 1993, p. 272). Origins of PAPD in the Subject Choate- Stone (1993, p. 361) suggests that the contrary, sulking, and verbal nitpicking behaviors of PAPD appear to have their origin in unending power struggles with parents. The comparative helplessness of youth made it impossible to win in these struggles so the face-saving technique of passive resistance was employed. Parental overcontrol, neglect, or favoring of a sibling can all contribute to the development of the silent protest and grudging obedience associated with PAPD (Stone, 1993, p. 361). It is reasonable to assume that Subject Choate experienced some level of paternal angst and the description of unending power struggles seems apt in this context. Treatment- There are two major ways for individuals with PAPD to enter treatment. The first, and most common, is externally leveraged treatment for those individuals who do not see themselves as having a problem. Someone forced them into treatment, e.g., family, employers, or the legal system. These clients with PAPD have minimal insight; they fail to admit that they are a major factor in the problems they have. The second method for individuals with PAPD to enter treatment is via self-referral for vague complaints, e.g. "I'm just not getting anywhere" (Turkat, 1990, pp. 87-88). All of the personality disorders are composed mostly of abrasive traits that are negative in nature. Maladaptive traits are usually favored over adaptive traits (though there are adaptive traits within all personality disorders) (Kantor, 1992, p. 10). PAPD is a particularly abrasive personality and interpersonal problems are readily identifiable. However, individuals with PAPD do not frequently seek treatment for relationship issues as they consistently blame others for the problems they have. Even if they do come in for treatment for a marital or parent and child problem, they will uniformly demand that the treatment providers "fix" the other person or persons who are at fault for the problems within the relationship. Treatment for individuals with PAPD involves openly exploring the ways they indirectly and unassertively express aggression and neediness toward others by being contrary. Understanding this aggression can allow discovery of the depressive and invalidating experiences underneath -- which lead to a fear of loss of autonomy when others want to be close and a fear of loss of connectedness when others want to be alone (Kubacki & Smith, Retzlaff, ed., 1995, p. 175). This author believes that Subject Choate is unlikely to seek treatment individually and should be compelled to seek treatment in whatever fashion is most likely to produce results. Study continues... At Mon, 12 Mar 2001 17:56:49 -0600 (CST), Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote: >Cool, we've got two wanna be head-shrinkers. This is gonna be fun. A common countertransference issue with these clients is outrage or punitive anger. They are manipulative individuals who are consistently stubborn, demanding, help-rejecting, critical, and inclined to ridicule both the treatment process and the service providers. Subject Choate has predictably responded in exactly this fashion to the onset of treatment. Identify all avoidance and anxiety-arousing situations. Address these issues with anxiety-management behavioral intervention techniques (Turkat, 1990, pp. 88-89). Cognitive therapy can help these individuals understand that they expect the worst from others and then proceed to behave in such a way that brings out the worst from these same people (Stone, 1993, p. 363). Group therapy provides individuals with PAPD with an opportunity to learn how to manage their hostility. When their hostility emerges, group leaders can comment on hostile behavior and encourage other group members to respond. The group leader can assist these individuals to process what it is they want or need at that moment and to rehearse appropriate behavior within the group context (Ries, TIP #9, 1994, p. 72).

1 0

CDR: The Passive-Aggressive (Negativistic) Personality Disorder
by None 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

(PAPD) Case Study: Jim Choate From: aluger(a)hushmail.com Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:55:47 -0800 (PST) Cc: cypherpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com, cypherpunks(a)lne.com Old-Subject: The Passive-Aggressive (Negativistic) Personality Disorder (PAPD) Case Study: Jim Choate Reply-To: cypherpunks(a)ssz.com Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)ssz.com >On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Sunder wrote (referring to Jim Choate): > >> I'd wish that: >> >> 1. he'd stick to on-topic articles and not give us any random shit >he likes Choate replies: >Every post I send is 'on topic' to crypto, civil liberties, or economics. Sunder continues, along with Choate's replies: >> 2. he'd post a one or two paragraph quote from the article describing >> it under the urls. > >Keep wanting. > >> 3. put all the news stories from one site (slashdot for example) in >> one email as if it were a digest. > >Keep wanting. > >> The way he "helps" us is annoying at best and only one or two notches >> removed from spam. > >What makes you think I'm wanting to 'help' you or whatever 'us' you're >refering to. > >> What pisses me off is that I actually do read slashdot regularly, >>and don't > >You just want to be pissed off, and if you can make me the target so >much the better. Discussion: Essential Feature- The passive-aggressive (negativistic) personality disorder is located in Appendix B: "Criteria Sets and Axes Provided for Further Study" of the DSM- IV. Millon (1996, p. 198) proposes a comprehensive concept of a negativistic personality. He asserts that the negativistic personality reflects both this general contrariness and disinclination to do as others wish but also presents with a capricious impulsiveness, an irritable moodiness, and an unaccommodating, fault-finding pessimism. The DSM-IV (1994, p. 733) describes the PAPD essential feature as a pervasive pattern of negativistic attitudes and passive resistance to demands for adequate performance in social and occupational settings. The subject, Choate, demonstrates these traits clearly, particularly in the context of responses to otherwise reasonable requests from the electronic social group "cypherpunks" from which the above samples are taken. The general criteria of a personality disorder coupled with at least five of the following is sufficient to warrant a diagnosis of Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder: procrastination and delay in completing essential tasks -- particularly those that others seek to have completed; unjustified protests that others make unreasonable demands; sulkiness, irritability or argumentativeness when asked to do something that the individual does not want to do; unreasonable criticism or scorn for authority figures; deliberately slow or poor work on unwanted tasks; obstruction of the efforts of others even as these individuals fail to do their share of the work; and avoidance of obligations by claiming to have forgotten them. Examining the small sample above it is clear that Choate meets at least four of these subset criteria. (This author has little doubt that a fifth will quickly emerge with further study). Procrastination and delay in completing any of the tasks requested of him (the addition of more substantive summaries which accompany his rote contributions to the mailing list), unjustified protests that others make unreasonable demands (in the case of Sunder above, Choate's responses to Sunder's request for a more digest format illustrates this), irritability or argumentativeness when asked to do something that the individual does not want to do (while Choate could easily have ignored the request, he chose instead to reply in an increasingly inflammatory and argumentative tone), unreasonable criticism or scorn for authority figures (as evidenced by material in his signature - "Legislators and Judges are the pimps of modern American society.") The passive-aggressive personality disorder was first introduced in a U.S. War Department technical bulletin in 1945. The term was coined by wartime psychiatrists who found themselves dealing with reluctant and uncooperative soldiers who followed orders with chronic, veiled hostility and smoldering resentment. Their style was a mixture of passive resistance and grumbling compliance (Stone, 1993, p. 361). Choate's response seems to mirror this type of response quite closely and further study under the reference of Stone's work should be pursued. The current criteria for the passive-aggressive personality disorder as proposed by the Personality Disorders Work Group for the DSM-IV includes: 1. passive resistance to fulfilling social and occupational tasks through procrastination and inefficiency; 2. complaints of being misunderstood, unappreciated, and victimized by others; 3. sullenness, irritability, and argumentativeness in response to expectations; 4. angry and pessimistic attitudes toward a variety of events; 5. unreasonable criticism and scorn toward those in authority; 6. envy and resentment toward those who are more fortunate; 7. self-definition as luckless in life and an inclination to whine and grumble about being jinxed; 8. alternating behavior between hostile assertion of personal autonomy and dependent contrition (Millon & Radovanov, Livesley, ed., 1995, p. 321). Millon suggests that the most essential features of PAPD are irritable affect; behavioral contrariness, obstructiveness, and sulking; discontented self- image, e.g. feels unappreciated and misunderstood; deficient regulatory control, i.e. poorly modulated emotional expression; and interpersonal ambivalence. They are noted for their interpersonal conflict, verbal aggressiveness, and manipulative behavior. Suicidal gestures and a lack of attention to everyday responsibilities are common (Millon, 1996, p. 198). Little study is needed to recognize the diagnosis as a strong one for the subject Choate. PAPD resistance to external demands is manifested in oppositional and obstructive behaviors. These individuals resent having to conform to the standards set by others. On the other hand, they fear direct confrontation. The combination of resentment and fear leads to passive, provocative behavior (as in the case of the subject Choate and Sunder exchange- wherein subject Choate incites Sunder and seeks to create a situation in which Sunder will escalate the rhetoric). Individuals with PAPD view themselves as self-sufficient but feel vulnerable to control and interference from others (Pretzer & Beck, Clarkin & Lenzenweger, eds., 1996, p. 60). They believe that they are misunderstood and unappreciated, a view that is exacerbated by the negative responses they receive from others for their consistent defeatist stance. They expect the worst in everything, even situations that are going well, and are inclined toward anger and irritability (Beck & Freeman, 1990, p. 339) (DSM-IV, 1994, p. 734). Subject Choate demonstrates this classically, particularly in the context of his often sardonically defeatist and pessimistic inclusions in the titles of his contributions). Individuals with PAPD are often disgruntled and declare that they are not treated as they should be. On the other hand, they are just as likely to express feeling unworthy of good fortune. They have a basic conflict concerning their self-worth; they oscillate between self-loathing and entitlement or moral superiority. Either side of this oscillation can be projected onto the environment. The chaotic nature of this experience of self and others often leads to people beginning to avoid or minimize contact with people with PAPD out of self-protection (Richards, 1993, p. 259). Individuals with PAPD see others as intrusive, demanding, interfering, controlling, and dominating. They believe that other people interfere with their freedom. They experience control by others as intolerable; they have to do things their own way (Pretzer & Beck, Clarkin & Lenzenweger, eds., 1996, p. 60). These individuals are determined that they will not be subject to the rules of others (Beck & Freeman, 1990, p. 227). They resent, oppose, and resist demands to meet expectations from others in a behavioral pattern seen in both work and social settings (DSM-IV, 1994, p. 733). Their main coping strategies are passive resistance, surface submissiveness, evasion, and circumventing of rules (Pretzer & Beck, Clarkin & Lenzenweger, eds., 1996, p. 60). Individuals with passive-aggressive (negativistic) personality disorder are ambivalent within their relationships and conflicted between their dependency needs and their desire for self-assertion. They waver between expressing hostile defiance toward people they see as causing their problems and attempting to mollify these people by asking forgiveness or promising to do better in the future (DSM-IV, 1994, p. 734). These individuals are noted for the stormy nature of their interpersonal relationships. They engage in a combination of quarrelsomeness and submissiveness. Their affect is sullen and they engage in deliberate rudeness. They are resentfully quarrelsome and irritable. They often feel like a victim. Central to the disorder is a pervasive pattern of argumentativeness and oppositional behavior with defeatist and negative attitudes (Millon & Radovanov, Livesley, ed., 1995, p. 317). Richards (1993, p. 260) believes that PAPD may be the most miserable personality disorder. These individuals inflict a great deal of discomfort on others through the use of their anxiety and emotional symptoms. They can become so destructive in their attitudes and so unable to provide rewards to others that they become socially isolated. For individuals with PAPD, authority figures can become the focus of their discontentment. They often criticize and voice hostility toward authority figures with minimal provocation. Their resistance toward authority is expressed by procrastination, forgetfulness, stubbornness, and intentional inefficiency. These individuals are also envious of and resentful toward peers who succeed or are viewed positively by authority figures (DSM-IV, 1994, pp. 733-734). Authority figures are seen by individuals with passive-aggressive (negativistic) personality disorder as arbitrary and unfair. When they are faced with the consequences of not adequately meeting obligations, these individuals will become angry at those in authority rather than seeing how their own behavior has contributed to the situation (Beck & Freeman, 1990, p. 339). Authority figures are defined as intrusive, demanding, interfering, controlling, and dominating. On the other hand, individuals with PAPD also see authority figures as capable of being approving, accepting, and caring. A key issue for individuals with PAPD is the desire to get benefits from authority figures while exerting their freedom and autonomy (Beck & Freeman, 1990, p. 45). The conflict is intense. Individuals with PAPD have a tendency to see any form of power as inconsiderate and neglectful. They are also likely to believe that authorities or caregivers are incompetent, unfair, and cruel. Nevertheless, these individuals are not inclined to rebel directly. They will agree to comply with demands or suggestions but will often fail to perform (or they will perform while experiencing increasing resentment). Then, when there is trouble, these individuals will complain of unfair treatment. They envy and resent others who manage authority situations and who are able to relate to authorities with less difficulty. These individuals believe that their suffering indicts the negligent caregiver or authority figure. They fear control in any form but long for nurturing restitution from those they perceive as having power (Benjamin, 1993, p. 272). Origins of PAPD in the Subject Choate- Stone (1993, p. 361) suggests that the contrary, sulking, and verbal nitpicking behaviors of PAPD appear to have their origin in unending power struggles with parents. The comparative helplessness of youth made it impossible to win in these struggles so the face-saving technique of passive resistance was employed. Parental overcontrol, neglect, or favoring of a sibling can all contribute to the development of the silent protest and grudging obedience associated with PAPD (Stone, 1993, p. 361). It is reasonable to assume that Subject Choate experienced some level of paternal angst and the description of unending power struggles seems apt in this context. Treatment- There are two major ways for individuals with PAPD to enter treatment. The first, and most common, is externally leveraged treatment for those individuals who do not see themselves as having a problem. Someone forced them into treatment, e.g., family, employers, or the legal system. These clients with PAPD have minimal insight; they fail to admit that they are a major factor in the problems they have. The second method for individuals with PAPD to enter treatment is via self-referral for vague complaints, e.g. "I'm just not getting anywhere" (Turkat, 1990, pp. 87-88). All of the personality disorders are composed mostly of abrasive traits that are negative in nature. Maladaptive traits are usually favored over adaptive traits (though there are adaptive traits within all personality disorders) (Kantor, 1992, p. 10). PAPD is a particularly abrasive personality and interpersonal problems are readily identifiable. However, individuals with PAPD do not frequently seek treatment for relationship issues as they consistently blame others for the problems they have. Even if they do come in for treatment for a marital or parent and child problem, they will uniformly demand that the treatment providers "fix" the other person or persons who are at fault for the problems within the relationship. Treatment for individuals with PAPD involves openly exploring the ways they indirectly and unassertively express aggression and neediness toward others by being contrary. Understanding this aggression can allow discovery of the depressive and invalidating experiences underneath -- which lead to a fear of loss of autonomy when others want to be close and a fear of loss of connectedness when others want to be alone (Kubacki & Smith, Retzlaff, ed., 1995, p. 175). This author believes that Subject Choate is unlikely to seek treatment individually and should be compelled to seek treatment in whatever fashion is most likely to produce results. Study continues... At Mon, 12 Mar 2001 17:56:49 -0600 (CST), Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote: >Cool, we've got two wanna be head-shrinkers. This is gonna be fun. A common countertransference issue with these clients is outrage or punitive anger. They are manipulative individuals who are consistently stubborn, demanding, help-rejecting, critical, and inclined to ridicule both the treatment process and the service providers. Subject Choate has predictably responded in exactly this fashion to the onset of treatment. Identify all avoidance and anxiety-arousing situations. Address these issues with anxiety-management behavioral intervention techniques (Turkat, 1990, pp. 88-89). Cognitive therapy can help these individuals understand that they expect the worst from others and then proceed to behave in such a way that brings out the worst from these same people (Stone, 1993, p. 363). Group therapy provides individuals with PAPD with an opportunity to learn how to manage their hostility. When their hostility emerges, group leaders can comment on hostile behavior and encourage other group members to respond. The group leader can assist these individuals to process what it is they want or need at that moment and to rehearse appropriate behavior within the group context (Ries, TIP #9, 1994, p. 72).

1 0

Re: [FoRK] ECC and the web
by Robert Harley 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

>Came across this today and thought it would be of interest to some of you... > >*Integrating elliptic curve cryptography into the web's security infrastructure * >Vipul Gupta, Douglas Stebila, Sheueling Chang Shantz >[...] Sheueling contacted me a couple of times a couple of years ago about the same stuff... described her research at Sun... enquired about working together but decided it wasn't a go-er since I was in Paris and her in the Bay area... >RSA is the most popular public-key cryptosystem on the Web today but long-term trends >such as [...] increasing security needs will make continued reliance on RSA more >challenging over time. [...] I've long doubted the security of RSA and have more concrete reasons for doubting these days... won't say more than that... ;) R _______________________________________________ FoRK mailing list http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork ----- 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

CDR: The Passive-Aggressive (Negativistic) Personality Disorder
by None 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

(PAPD) Case Study: Jim Choate From: aluger(a)hushmail.com Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:55:47 -0800 (PST) Cc: cypherpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com, cypherpunks(a)lne.com Old-Subject: The Passive-Aggressive (Negativistic) Personality Disorder (PAPD) Case Study: Jim Choate Reply-To: cypherpunks(a)ssz.com Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)ssz.com >On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Sunder wrote (referring to Jim Choate): > >> I'd wish that: >> >> 1. he'd stick to on-topic articles and not give us any random shit >he likes Choate replies: >Every post I send is 'on topic' to crypto, civil liberties, or economics. Sunder continues, along with Choate's replies: >> 2. he'd post a one or two paragraph quote from the article describing >> it under the urls. > >Keep wanting. > >> 3. put all the news stories from one site (slashdot for example) in >> one email as if it were a digest. > >Keep wanting. > >> The way he "helps" us is annoying at best and only one or two notches >> removed from spam. > >What makes you think I'm wanting to 'help' you or whatever 'us' you're >refering to. > >> What pisses me off is that I actually do read slashdot regularly, >>and don't > >You just want to be pissed off, and if you can make me the target so >much the better. Discussion: Essential Feature- The passive-aggressive (negativistic) personality disorder is located in Appendix B: "Criteria Sets and Axes Provided for Further Study" of the DSM- IV. Millon (1996, p. 198) proposes a comprehensive concept of a negativistic personality. He asserts that the negativistic personality reflects both this general contrariness and disinclination to do as others wish but also presents with a capricious impulsiveness, an irritable moodiness, and an unaccommodating, fault-finding pessimism. The DSM-IV (1994, p. 733) describes the PAPD essential feature as a pervasive pattern of negativistic attitudes and passive resistance to demands for adequate performance in social and occupational settings. The subject, Choate, demonstrates these traits clearly, particularly in the context of responses to otherwise reasonable requests from the electronic social group "cypherpunks" from which the above samples are taken. The general criteria of a personality disorder coupled with at least five of the following is sufficient to warrant a diagnosis of Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder: procrastination and delay in completing essential tasks -- particularly those that others seek to have completed; unjustified protests that others make unreasonable demands; sulkiness, irritability or argumentativeness when asked to do something that the individual does not want to do; unreasonable criticism or scorn for authority figures; deliberately slow or poor work on unwanted tasks; obstruction of the efforts of others even as these individuals fail to do their share of the work; and avoidance of obligations by claiming to have forgotten them. Examining the small sample above it is clear that Choate meets at least four of these subset criteria. (This author has little doubt that a fifth will quickly emerge with further study). Procrastination and delay in completing any of the tasks requested of him (the addition of more substantive summaries which accompany his rote contributions to the mailing list), unjustified protests that others make unreasonable demands (in the case of Sunder above, Choate's responses to Sunder's request for a more digest format illustrates this), irritability or argumentativeness when asked to do something that the individual does not want to do (while Choate could easily have ignored the request, he chose instead to reply in an increasingly inflammatory and argumentative tone), unreasonable criticism or scorn for authority figures (as evidenced by material in his signature - "Legislators and Judges are the pimps of modern American society.") The passive-aggressive personality disorder was first introduced in a U.S. War Department technical bulletin in 1945. The term was coined by wartime psychiatrists who found themselves dealing with reluctant and uncooperative soldiers who followed orders with chronic, veiled hostility and smoldering resentment. Their style was a mixture of passive resistance and grumbling compliance (Stone, 1993, p. 361). Choate's response seems to mirror this type of response quite closely and further study under the reference of Stone's work should be pursued. The current criteria for the passive-aggressive personality disorder as proposed by the Personality Disorders Work Group for the DSM-IV includes: 1. passive resistance to fulfilling social and occupational tasks through procrastination and inefficiency; 2. complaints of being misunderstood, unappreciated, and victimized by others; 3. sullenness, irritability, and argumentativeness in response to expectations; 4. angry and pessimistic attitudes toward a variety of events; 5. unreasonable criticism and scorn toward those in authority; 6. envy and resentment toward those who are more fortunate; 7. self-definition as luckless in life and an inclination to whine and grumble about being jinxed; 8. alternating behavior between hostile assertion of personal autonomy and dependent contrition (Millon & Radovanov, Livesley, ed., 1995, p. 321). Millon suggests that the most essential features of PAPD are irritable affect; behavioral contrariness, obstructiveness, and sulking; discontented self- image, e.g. feels unappreciated and misunderstood; deficient regulatory control, i.e. poorly modulated emotional expression; and interpersonal ambivalence. They are noted for their interpersonal conflict, verbal aggressiveness, and manipulative behavior. Suicidal gestures and a lack of attention to everyday responsibilities are common (Millon, 1996, p. 198). Little study is needed to recognize the diagnosis as a strong one for the subject Choate. PAPD resistance to external demands is manifested in oppositional and obstructive behaviors. These individuals resent having to conform to the standards set by others. On the other hand, they fear direct confrontation. The combination of resentment and fear leads to passive, provocative behavior (as in the case of the subject Choate and Sunder exchange- wherein subject Choate incites Sunder and seeks to create a situation in which Sunder will escalate the rhetoric). Individuals with PAPD view themselves as self-sufficient but feel vulnerable to control and interference from others (Pretzer & Beck, Clarkin & Lenzenweger, eds., 1996, p. 60). They believe that they are misunderstood and unappreciated, a view that is exacerbated by the negative responses they receive from others for their consistent defeatist stance. They expect the worst in everything, even situations that are going well, and are inclined toward anger and irritability (Beck & Freeman, 1990, p. 339) (DSM-IV, 1994, p. 734). Subject Choate demonstrates this classically, particularly in the context of his often sardonically defeatist and pessimistic inclusions in the titles of his contributions). Individuals with PAPD are often disgruntled and declare that they are not treated as they should be. On the other hand, they are just as likely to express feeling unworthy of good fortune. They have a basic conflict concerning their self-worth; they oscillate between self-loathing and entitlement or moral superiority. Either side of this oscillation can be projected onto the environment. The chaotic nature of this experience of self and others often leads to people beginning to avoid or minimize contact with people with PAPD out of self-protection (Richards, 1993, p. 259). Individuals with PAPD see others as intrusive, demanding, interfering, controlling, and dominating. They believe that other people interfere with their freedom. They experience control by others as intolerable; they have to do things their own way (Pretzer & Beck, Clarkin & Lenzenweger, eds., 1996, p. 60). These individuals are determined that they will not be subject to the rules of others (Beck & Freeman, 1990, p. 227). They resent, oppose, and resist demands to meet expectations from others in a behavioral pattern seen in both work and social settings (DSM-IV, 1994, p. 733). Their main coping strategies are passive resistance, surface submissiveness, evasion, and circumventing of rules (Pretzer & Beck, Clarkin & Lenzenweger, eds., 1996, p. 60). Individuals with passive-aggressive (negativistic) personality disorder are ambivalent within their relationships and conflicted between their dependency needs and their desire for self-assertion. They waver between expressing hostile defiance toward people they see as causing their problems and attempting to mollify these people by asking forgiveness or promising to do better in the future (DSM-IV, 1994, p. 734). These individuals are noted for the stormy nature of their interpersonal relationships. They engage in a combination of quarrelsomeness and submissiveness. Their affect is sullen and they engage in deliberate rudeness. They are resentfully quarrelsome and irritable. They often feel like a victim. Central to the disorder is a pervasive pattern of argumentativeness and oppositional behavior with defeatist and negative attitudes (Millon & Radovanov, Livesley, ed., 1995, p. 317). Richards (1993, p. 260) believes that PAPD may be the most miserable personality disorder. These individuals inflict a great deal of discomfort on others through the use of their anxiety and emotional symptoms. They can become so destructive in their attitudes and so unable to provide rewards to others that they become socially isolated. For individuals with PAPD, authority figures can become the focus of their discontentment. They often criticize and voice hostility toward authority figures with minimal provocation. Their resistance toward authority is expressed by procrastination, forgetfulness, stubbornness, and intentional inefficiency. These individuals are also envious of and resentful toward peers who succeed or are viewed positively by authority figures (DSM-IV, 1994, pp. 733-734). Authority figures are seen by individuals with passive-aggressive (negativistic) personality disorder as arbitrary and unfair. When they are faced with the consequences of not adequately meeting obligations, these individuals will become angry at those in authority rather than seeing how their own behavior has contributed to the situation (Beck & Freeman, 1990, p. 339). Authority figures are defined as intrusive, demanding, interfering, controlling, and dominating. On the other hand, individuals with PAPD also see authority figures as capable of being approving, accepting, and caring. A key issue for individuals with PAPD is the desire to get benefits from authority figures while exerting their freedom and autonomy (Beck & Freeman, 1990, p. 45). The conflict is intense. Individuals with PAPD have a tendency to see any form of power as inconsiderate and neglectful. They are also likely to believe that authorities or caregivers are incompetent, unfair, and cruel. Nevertheless, these individuals are not inclined to rebel directly. They will agree to comply with demands or suggestions but will often fail to perform (or they will perform while experiencing increasing resentment). Then, when there is trouble, these individuals will complain of unfair treatment. They envy and resent others who manage authority situations and who are able to relate to authorities with less difficulty. These individuals believe that their suffering indicts the negligent caregiver or authority figure. They fear control in any form but long for nurturing restitution from those they perceive as having power (Benjamin, 1993, p. 272). Origins of PAPD in the Subject Choate- Stone (1993, p. 361) suggests that the contrary, sulking, and verbal nitpicking behaviors of PAPD appear to have their origin in unending power struggles with parents. The comparative helplessness of youth made it impossible to win in these struggles so the face-saving technique of passive resistance was employed. Parental overcontrol, neglect, or favoring of a sibling can all contribute to the development of the silent protest and grudging obedience associated with PAPD (Stone, 1993, p. 361). It is reasonable to assume that Subject Choate experienced some level of paternal angst and the description of unending power struggles seems apt in this context. Treatment- There are two major ways for individuals with PAPD to enter treatment. The first, and most common, is externally leveraged treatment for those individuals who do not see themselves as having a problem. Someone forced them into treatment, e.g., family, employers, or the legal system. These clients with PAPD have minimal insight; they fail to admit that they are a major factor in the problems they have. The second method for individuals with PAPD to enter treatment is via self-referral for vague complaints, e.g. "I'm just not getting anywhere" (Turkat, 1990, pp. 87-88). All of the personality disorders are composed mostly of abrasive traits that are negative in nature. Maladaptive traits are usually favored over adaptive traits (though there are adaptive traits within all personality disorders) (Kantor, 1992, p. 10). PAPD is a particularly abrasive personality and interpersonal problems are readily identifiable. However, individuals with PAPD do not frequently seek treatment for relationship issues as they consistently blame others for the problems they have. Even if they do come in for treatment for a marital or parent and child problem, they will uniformly demand that the treatment providers "fix" the other person or persons who are at fault for the problems within the relationship. Treatment for individuals with PAPD involves openly exploring the ways they indirectly and unassertively express aggression and neediness toward others by being contrary. Understanding this aggression can allow discovery of the depressive and invalidating experiences underneath -- which lead to a fear of loss of autonomy when others want to be close and a fear of loss of connectedness when others want to be alone (Kubacki & Smith, Retzlaff, ed., 1995, p. 175). This author believes that Subject Choate is unlikely to seek treatment individually and should be compelled to seek treatment in whatever fashion is most likely to produce results. Study continues... At Mon, 12 Mar 2001 17:56:49 -0600 (CST), Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote: >Cool, we've got two wanna be head-shrinkers. This is gonna be fun. A common countertransference issue with these clients is outrage or punitive anger. They are manipulative individuals who are consistently stubborn, demanding, help-rejecting, critical, and inclined to ridicule both the treatment process and the service providers. Subject Choate has predictably responded in exactly this fashion to the onset of treatment. Identify all avoidance and anxiety-arousing situations. Address these issues with anxiety-management behavioral intervention techniques (Turkat, 1990, pp. 88-89). Cognitive therapy can help these individuals understand that they expect the worst from others and then proceed to behave in such a way that brings out the worst from these same people (Stone, 1993, p. 363). Group therapy provides individuals with PAPD with an opportunity to learn how to manage their hostility. When their hostility emerges, group leaders can comment on hostile behavior and encourage other group members to respond. The group leader can assist these individuals to process what it is they want or need at that moment and to rehearse appropriate behavior within the group context (Ries, TIP #9, 1994, p. 72).

1 0

Re: [FoRK] ECC and the web
by Robert Harley 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

>Came across this today and thought it would be of interest to some of you... > >*Integrating elliptic curve cryptography into the web's security infrastructure * >Vipul Gupta, Douglas Stebila, Sheueling Chang Shantz >[...] Sheueling contacted me a couple of times a couple of years ago about the same stuff... described her research at Sun... enquired about working together but decided it wasn't a go-er since I was in Paris and her in the Bay area... >RSA is the most popular public-key cryptosystem on the Web today but long-term trends >such as [...] increasing security needs will make continued reliance on RSA more >challenging over time. [...] I've long doubted the security of RSA and have more concrete reasons for doubting these days... won't say more than that... ;) R _______________________________________________ FoRK mailing list http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork ----- 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

EDRI-gram newsletter - Number 4.12, 21 June 2006
by EDRI-gram newsletter 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

============================================================ EDRI-gram biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe Number 4.12, 21 June 2006 ============================================================ Contents ============================================================ 1. The European Commission dribbles the Parliament again in the PNR deal 2. German Parliament rejects motion against data retention 3. Swedish torrent website Pirate Bay returns back home 4. Betting websites are blocked in Italy 5. EU proposes accessibility standards in public procurement 6. Court rules Dutch mp3 search engine unlawful 7. EC supports its online broadcasting proposal 8. Former German ruling on liability of forum operators reviewed 9. UK DNA database shared with other countries 10. iTunes service considered illegal in Norway 11. Open letter for supporting the private copy in Italy 12. Recommended action 13. Agenda 15. About ============================================================ 1. The European Commission dribbles the Parliament again in the PNR deal ============================================================ The European Commission is moving ahead in its efforts to comply with the annulment by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) of the agreement between the European Community and the US Government on the transfer of passenger name records (PNR). The Commission adopted on 19 June 2006 two initiatives in order to comply with the ECJ decision. The first initiative is to recommend to the Council to terminate the Agreement with the US by the end of this month, since under the international law, the agreement remains in force for a period of 90 days after it is denounced by either party. The second initiative is to ask the Council to give an authorisation to open negotiations for a new Agreement with the Unites States on the basis of Article 38, Title VI of the Treaty on European Union. The Commission considers that Title VI (3rd Pillar) is the correct legal basis for an International Agreement for matters dealing with public security and criminal law matters. It also emphasises that "the content of the current Agreement has not been criticised by the Court and should therefore continue to offer the same level of safeguards regarding the legal certainty for air carriers, the respect of human rights and the purposes for which PNR data may be used." In practice, this will mean a defeat of the European Parliament, which challenged before the ECJ the substance of the agreement as well. According to a Commission spokesman regarding the new proposed agreement: "There is no formal role for the Parliament to play." Supporting the Parliament's position, Peter Hustinx, the European Data Protection Supervisor considered that "the judgment seems to have created a loophole in the protection of European citizens whereby their data are used for law enforcement purposes." The Commission hopes the member states will accept a new deal to be set up by the beginning of July and that they will not conclude in separate deals with the United States. The Commission adopts two initiatives to comply with the Ruling of the European Court of Justice on the transfer of PNR to the United States of America (19.06.2006) http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/800&forma… HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en MEPs to be sidelined in revived airline data deal (19.06.2006) http://euobserver.com/9/21904 PNR: EDPS first reaction to the Court of Justice judgment (30.05.2006) http://www.edps.eu.int/Press/EDPS-2006-8-EN_PNR.pdf EDRI-gram : EU-US agreement on passenger data transfer annulled (7.06.2006) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.11/pnr Letters sent by President Borrell of the European Parliament on the consequences of the Court case of 30 May on passenger name records (09.06.2006) http://www.statewatch.org/news/2006/jun/eu-usa-pnr-borrell-letter2.pdf ============================================================ 2. German Parliament rejects motion against data retention ============================================================ On 20 June the German Parliament rejected a resolution that would have requested the federal government to join the action for annulment of the EU telecommunications data retention directive at the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The text had been introduced by the opposition parties Greens, Liberals and Left Party and was supported by 133 parliamentarians. But the grand coalition of the governing parties voted against it, with one abstention from the Conservatives. The authors of the resolution argued that the data retention decision should have been made in the "Third Pillar" of the European Union structure in the form of a framework directive, which would have required an unanimous vote in the Council of Ministers. The governments of Ireland and Slovakia who voted against the Directive during the final decision in February have already started a case at the ECJ. Their chances are good, as the court's recent decision on the transfer of passenger data to the United States was taken on the same grounds. The German opposition also asked to postpone the transposition of the Directive into the federal law until this case is decided, because even if the Directive is annulled, national laws would still be valid. The EU Directive mandates the retention of all telecommunications traffic data within the EU for 6 to 24 months for law enforcement and national security purposes. Parliamentarian Jerzy Montag from the Greens, who had drafted the resolution, reminded his colleagues that the German Parliament and Government had always asked for a framework decision, last time in a February 2006 resolution. Therefore he criticized : "Commission and Council have changed the horses during the action, while the cart stayed the same". Minister of Justice Brigitte Zypries claimed that the government had "enforcedly accepted" the change of the legal grounds for data retention in order not to endanger the substantial outcome. The majority of the parliamentarians was unimpressed by several last-minute attempts from non-governmental organizations to support the opposition's motion. On 17 June, around 250 citizens followed the call by a broad coalition of 15 civil liberties and other groups for a demonstration "Freedom instead of Security Delusion" in Berlin. It was mainly organized by the Working Party on Data Retention, an informal network set up in December 2005 with the help of German EDRi members Netzwerk Neue Medien (NNM) , FoeBuD, and Forum InformatikerInnen f|r Frieden und gesellschaftliche Verantwortung (FIfF). The demonstration was the first attempt in years to bring anti-surveillance protest to the streets and, considering the short preparation time of less than three weeks, it was seen by the organisers as a success to build on. The Forum Human Rights, a coalition of 45 German human rights organizations, also published a position paper on data retention on 16 June and formally submitted it to the Parliament before the vote. The paper criticizes data retention as "totally disproportionate and an attack on the foundation of a free and democratic society". The Forum Human Rights joined others in their analysis that any law on mandatory data retention would be in violation of both the European Convention on Human Rights and the German Constitution. If the Directive is transposed into German law, several civil liberties groups are already preparing to challenge it at the Constitutional Court. These legal and political activities, seen together with the demonstration that sparked a number of creative activities, are an indication that anti-surveillance activities are getting more momentum in Germany. German Parliament rejected the Resolution "Reviewing the Directive on Data Retention by the European Court of Justice" (in German only, 20.06.2006) http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/16/016/1601622.pdf Working Party on Data Retention (in German only) http://initiative.stoppt-die-vorratsdatenspeicherung.de Protest march "Freedom rather than obsession with security" (17.06.2006) In English http://web125.nice-host.de/VDS/html/VDS/index.php/Announcement In German, with after-action information http://web125.nice-host.de/VDS/html/VDS/index.php/Aufruf Pictures from the demonstration (17.06.2006) http://su2.info/d/ak-vorrat/photos/stephan/ http://www.apkk.de/doku/Demo_Datenwahn/ Forum Human Rights Position Paper "Data retention violates fundamental rights and undermines a free society" (in German only, 16.06.2006) http://www.forum-menschenrechte.de/docs/FMR-2006-06-20_lang.pdf (Contribution by Ralf Bendrath, German EDRi member Netzwerk Neue Medien) ============================================================ 3. Swedish torrent website Pirate Bay returns back home ============================================================ At the end of May, the Swedish Police raided the location where the PirateBay.org website was located and shut down the site seizing several servers. However, after less than 1 month, the site, which is considered the world's biggest BitTorrent tracker being visited by 10 million to 15 million daily users, resumes its activity from Sweden. The Motion Picture Association of America quickly reacted after the Police raid considering that: "The actions today taken in Sweden serve as a reminder to pirates all over the world that there are no safe harbours for Internet copyright thieves." After just a couple of days from the raid, PirateBay.org was back online, hosted somewhere in Netherlands. The operators of the website fought back considering that their actions were not illegal as The Pirate Bay only provided links and not the actual downloads. A recently formed party called the Pirate Party that is supporting more open and consumer friendly copyright laws has been very active in criticizing the police actions. The Pirate Party that will run in the 2006 elections has supported public meetings in Stockholm and Goteborg where some hundreds of protestors with pirate flags asked for the return of the servers to the Pirate Bay owners and the closing of the investigation. It is estimated that in Sweden there are one million file-sharers out of the nine million inhabitants. There have been rumours that the action has been required by the United States. According to Washington Post, in April 2006, officials from the US Government met with the officials from the Swedish Ministry of Justice and said that the Pirate Bay was one of the world's largest sources of pirated films and music. At the end of May, the police acted against PirateBay, even though, according to some sources, the Swedish prosecutors considered they didn't have a strong case against it. The Police has also other problems since ten Swedish companies are now asking for damages for disruption of their businesses. During the raid on the PirateBay website the Police confiscated 200 servers, some of them owned by companies not affiliated with that website. The companies now request damages from 1 000 EUR up to 20 000 EUR. At the middle of June, the website was back home with an increased popularity in Sweden but also worldwide. However, its operators considers splitting the operations between several countries in order to avoid closing it down. Swedish police scupper Piratebay (31.05.2006) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/31/piratebay_raid/ File-sharing crackdown and backlash in Sweden (4.06.2006) http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/04/business/pirate.php Pirate Bay resurfaces, while protesters walk the street (5.06.2006) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/05/pirate_bay_reemerges/ Swedish IT companies demand damages after file-sharing crackdown (15.06.2006) http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/editorial/14826812.htm Piratebay sails back to Sweden (15.06.2006) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/piratebay_back_sweden/ US government pressured Sweden over Pirate Bay (19.06.2006) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/19/us_pushes_sweden/ ============================================================ 4. Betting websites are blocked in Italy ============================================================ Following a fierce battle between an authority of the Italian State and private european online betting companies over their activity in Italy, a big number of betting websites are officialy blocked for Italian Internet users. Everything began with the 2006 financial law (Law 266/2005) voted by the Parliament under the outgoing Berlusconi government. The law included four provisions - namely paragraph 535-58 of art.1 - which gave the Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato (AAMS or Autonomous Administration of State Monopolies, a part of the Ministry of Economy and Finances) the power to bring to the attention of: (a) providers of Internet services, or (b) providers of other data or telecommunication networks, or (c) entities that offer networks or telecommunication services in relationship to (a) or (b), all those instances in which someone offers games or bets where money can be lost or won without having the proper authorization that is usually granted by AAMS itself. Upon receiving such communication from the AAMS, the subjects from (a) to (c) have the legal obligation to inhibit usage of the networks that they manage or for which they provide betting and gaming services "by adopting appropriate technical measures to this end". The AAMS proceeded on 13 February 2006 to compile and publish a first list of websites that should not be accessed from Italian networks. Compliant ISPs generally implemented the restriction by "hijacking" DNS communication and redirecting it to the DNS server of the AAMS. The end result is that users trying to access such websites are instead getting a notice saying that "pursuant to the decree of the AAMS of 7 February 2006 the requested website is not accessible because it does not have the necessary authorizations for collecting bets in Italy". Of course, reactions flocked in by all sides. Several betting companies, including UK-based William Hill (which is included on the list of blocked websites) announced they would recur to the European Court of Justice for what they claim is blatant violation of the basic principles of the European internal market. The Remote Gambling Association immediately started to negotiate a compromise with the Italian government, but until now no agreement seems to have been reached. Moreover, several Italian commentators noticed how poor the employed system is from a technical point of view. It is in fact sufficient in most cases to remove the leading "www" prefix to access the blocked websites. Other strategies, including the usage of web proxies, are also possible. The Italian chapter of ISOC (Internet Society) took a firm technical position, considering that the proposed measures were ineffective and in any case were far away from the "best practices" in the sector - while at the same time noticing that the outcries of "censorship" seemed misplaced because of the subject matter under discussion. While ISOC explicitly chose to avoid the "censorship" argument, other commentators argued that by blocking entire websites the proposed solution ment in fact severely limiting the right of all Italian citizens to access information, as granted by the Italian Constitution and several international instruments. If the goal was to impede the act of gambling then any measure should have been proportionate to this specific goal. Impeding Italian citizens to access a website and the information contained therein arguably is not. One company, Malta-based Astrabet Bookmaker Ltd., went further and requested the Second Section of the Civil Tribunal of Rome to declare the measure illegitimate, insofar as it cut off Astrabet's website from the Italian network. On 10 April 2006 Judge Lorenzo Pontecorvo issued a writ by which it ordered AAMS to immediately remove Astrabet from the "blacklist". In his reasoning, Judge Pontecorvo touched on a number of interesting and potential far-reaching issues, including how AAMS' right to grant licenses only applies to the Italian territory, while Astrabet is established in and operates from Malta and that the contract between users and Astrabet, according to the facts and the law, is performed in Malta. He also pointed out that according to the European jurisprudence, blocking or limiting the activities of Astrabet constitutes a violation of the "freedom to provide services" principle as enshrined in the EU Treaty and that the claims by AAMS and others, according to which Astrabet was guilty of "unfair competition" by "diverting customers" to its website, is completely unfounded, since Astrabet is simply providing services through the Net, "a reality which cannot be ignored anymore". AAMS counter-attacked by appealing the decision and refusing - for technical reasons - to remove Astrabet from the blacklist. In an official press release of 12 May 2006, AAMS wrote that the Astrabet issue is "an isolated case" and that the Maltese company had "engaged in non-ritual activities with the sole goal to obtain undeserved privileges and behaviours which would be discriminatory towards other subjects that are legally operating in Italy". Although technically avoidable, the blacklist is apparently still applied by Italian ISPs. Italian Financial Law 266/2005 (in Italian only, 23.12.2005) http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/guri/attocompleto?dataGazzetta=2005-12-29&r… azione=005G0293&service=0&ConNote=2 AAMS list of websites to be blocked from 13 February 2006 (7.02.2006) http://www.aams.it/site.php?page=20060213093814964&op=download ISOC Italia position regarding the filtering of websites that offer online gambling (in Italian only, 15.03.2006) http://www.isoc.it/documenti/20060315_com_gambling.pdf Civil Tribunal of Rome, Second Section, Ordinance (in Italian only, 10.04.2006) http://www.ictlex.net/wp-content/TrRM060410.zip Clarifications of AAMS on the AstraBet case (in Italian only, 12.05.2006) http://www.aams.it/site.php?page=20060512175347713&op=download (Contribution by Andrea Glorioso, consultant on digital policies - Italy) ============================================================ 5. EU proposes accessibility standards in public procurement ============================================================ In a ministerial meeting that took place in Riga on 12 June 2006, ministers from European countries have signed a declaration to diminish the gap in Internet usage for groups at risk of exclusion, but also to increase broadband coverage. The Riga Ministerial Declaration was signed by ministers of 34 European countries from EU Member States, accession and candidate countries, and EFTA/EEA countries. The declaration shows the commitment of the countries to an "Internet for all" action plan that should allow the disadvantaged groups to access the Internet. One of the conclusions of the meeting was the necessity to assess the need for legislative measures in the field of e-Accessibility, and to take into account accessibility requirements in the review of the electronic communications regulatory framework beginning in June 2006. Another suggestion was to make recommendations, by 2007, on accessibility standards and common approaches, which could become mandatory in public procurement by 2010. Data from the European Commission have shown that only about 3% of public web sites fully comply with minimum web accessibility standards - a real problem for the 15% of the EU population with disabilities. According to a recent research by Disability Rights Commission (DRC), 81% of web sites in the UK are inaccessible to disabled people. Ministers in Riga also supported the European Commission's intention to prepare for the European e-inclusion initiative announced for 2008 in the "i2010" strategy, the digital economy component of the EU's renewed "Lisbon" agenda for jobs and growth. Internet for all: EU ministers commit to an inclusive and barrier-free information society (12.06.2006) http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/769&forma… HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en EU may make accessibility a legal requirement (15.06.2006) http://uk.builder.com/webdevelopment/design/0,39026630,39317017,00.htm ============================================================ 6. Court rules Dutch mp3 search engine unlawful ============================================================ The Dutch Court of Appeals in Amsterdam has ruled that search engine zoekmp3.nl is unlawful. This search engine provided links to mp3-files on the World Wide Web. The court chose not to answer the question whether linking itself to unauthorised mp3-files is an infringement of copyright law. The lower court had found that this was not the case. The Court of Appeals based the unlawfulness on Dutch tort law, and the specific circumstances of the case. The Court stated that in principal search engines are free to make money from providing search results to mp3-files, even if these files are known to be unauthorised. Only in particular circumstances will the search engine be liable for damage to copyright holders. The specific circumstances the court found relevant to conclude the unlawfulness were that the search engine was specifically aimed at providing links to unauthorised files (charts). The court also found that the search engine knew that most of its visitors were looking primarily for unauthorised copies. Therefore, according to the Dutch court a warning on this matter to its visitors could not be an excuse. Further more, it found relevant that the search engine had advertisement and information that was linked to the unauthorised content, such as ring-tones of the popular songs. In general, the court came to the conclusion that the search engine was making its money by structurally exploiting the availability of unauthorised mp3-files on the World Wide Web, evidently without taking into account the interests of copyright holders. Acting as such, the search engine breached its general duty of care towards them. Dutch copyright organisation Brein had appealed the verdict of the lower court of 12 May 2004, that had concluded there was no liability for the search engine, but a duty to react if it was notified of links to unauthorised copies. Most importantly, the lower court had ruled that a link to unauthorised mp3-files was not in breach of Dutch copyright law, because a link couldn't be considered as an act of making public a copyrighted work. In spite of this positive verdict, the owner of the search engine, Techno Design, decided to stop the search engine's activity. It also decided not to defend itself at the Court of Appeals. This had considerable effect on the verdict since some facts stated by Brein were proven mainly because of the absence of a defence. On 23 June 2006, the trial starts against four suspects in the case of download sites Releases4u.com and Shareconnector.com. The prosecution is charging them with professional infringement of Dutch copyright law, in the context of a criminal organisation. The download sites provided a selection of links to illegal software, films, music and games on p2p-program eDonkey. As the first criminal prosecution for this practice, the trial is a test case for Dutch law. One of the defence lawyers already stated that the linking itself is not a criminal offence, nor a copyright infringement, and therefore his client should not be convicted. Civil law action against the sites by Brein was unsuccesful. Dutch site linking to MP3 files loses court case (19.06.2006) http://uk.news.yahoo.com/19062006/80-91/dutch-site-linking-mp3-files-loses-… urt-case.html (Contribution by Joris van Hoboken - EDRI-member Bits of Freedom - Netherlands) ============================================================ 7. EC supports its online broadcasting proposal ============================================================ In an Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA) event held in Brussels on 14 June, Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media, expressed again her position to support the EC proposal to revise the Television Without Frontiers (TVWF) Directive. "There will be no regulation of the Internet," Mrs. Reding told ZDNet UK stating that the extension of the Directive is supposed to provide basic rules to protect minors online, and to prevent incitement to hatred and over-repeated advertising. The Commissioner also said that the proposed provisions are only basic tier rules and self-regulation can be supported better by a legal framework. The Government would intervene only when self-regulation does not work. While the Commissioner considers the Directive will be beneficial to the Internet business, the industry and the Internet community expressed concern that the Directive would lead to the regulation of the content on the Internet. The Confederation of British Industry thinks that the Directive will "stifle economic growth, inhibit job creation and hamper the development of digital content and services across the EU". Other representatives of the Industry such as Microsoft, Google or Verizon expressed concerns regarding the scope of the legislation and the problem of jurisdiction and enforcement. They believe the already existing legislation is enough and efficient in protecting children and consumers and that self-regulation is the right solution. Professor Michael Rotert, president of the European Internet Service Providers Association (EuroISPA), considers the Directive as a regulation of the Internet "through the backdoor" and thinks: "Regulated self-regulation will be misused immediately, when it comes into practice". Europe defends online broadcasting plans (15.06.2006) http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39275180,00.htm FAQ: EC Proposes to Modernise 'Television Without Frontiers' Directive (22.05.2006) http://uk.ihs.com/news-06Q2/eu-en-modern-tv.jsp EDRI-gram Draft Audiovisual Media Services Directive under criticism (24.05.2006) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.10/audiovisual ============================================================ 8. Former German ruling on liability of forum operators reviewed ============================================================ A previous ruling of the Hamburg court that made moderators of internet forums liable for content posted on their sites is now contradicted by the Intermediate Court of Appeals in Dusseldorf which has ruled that forum operators are obligated to delete illegal comments made by their users only in case they know about them. The ruling of the German Supreme Court of 2004 obliged the forum operators to prevent illegal content posted by their users but did not bind them to review all comments before being placed online. However, in the Heise Zeitschriften Verlag case, the Hamburg court ruled against Heise, asking from the publisher to monitor the content before it appeared online. The Hamburg court had required the operator to "either increase its funding or limit [...] its operations" in order to review all postings before publishing them online. In the case of a person having been repeatedly insulted on a forum who filed a temporary restraining order, the appeal court of Dusseldorf overruled the decision of the first-instance court to issue the order, considered that monitoring all postings would have required unreasonable efforts from the forum operator from the financial as well as human resources point of view. It is not expected from the operators to actively look for breaches of the law or to monitor all postings. However, they have the obligation to delete or block comments about which complaints have been made. Also the Dusseldorf judges believed that the technical filtering solutions were not effective in blocking illegal contents."While a search for certain key words might be simple from the technical point of view and would even help combat violations of trademark, in light of the almost infinite number of ways that people can formulate insults such filters would not be very practical in the prosecution of violations of personal rights." First-instance district court of Hamburg says forum operators are liable for comments (18.04.2006) http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/72085 German court rules moderators liable for forum comments (21.04.2006) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/21/moderator_liable_for_comments/ Court rules that prior review of forum comments is unreasonable (15.06.2006) http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/74320 EDRi-gram : Hamburg court rules against forum providers (26.04.2006) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.8/forum ============================================================ 9. UK DNA database shared with other countries ============================================================ The UK Home Office has admitted that DNA stored in the UK National DNA Database has been shared with other countries. UK has today one of the largest law enforcement DNA database with profiles from 3.5 million people, including 500 000 children under 16 years old. The database was established in 1995. Privacy concerns regarding the database have been expressed, especially when the database was revealed to contained more than 50 000 DNA profiles of children who have never been charged with any offence. Recently, the UK Home Office Minister Joan Ryan has answered a question from the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokeswoman Lynne Featherstone regarding the access of foreign law enforcement authorities to the database content. Ryan said that there have been 519 requests for details from the database since 2004, but no records are available before that year. Featherstone considered that "There are no real safeguards in place to control this huge database which leaves it open for misuse - and now we find out it's not only being misused in our country but also internationally." She also supported the idea of an independent watchdog to monitor the access of foreign law enforcement authorities to the UK DNA Database. On the other hand, the representative of the Home Office declared that: " The increasing ease of travel and communication between EU member-states has also resulted in a higher risk of criminal activity crossing the borders of EU member-states." He also added that the data were provided only when serious crimes were investigated. DNA database is shared overseas (7.06.2006) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5056450.stm UK Home Office defends sharing DNA database (8.06.2006) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/08/ndnad_sharing/ News and updates on the UK DNA Database http://www.openrightsgroup.org/orgwiki/index.php/DNA_database ============================================================ 10. iTunes service considered illegal in Norway ============================================================ Following a complaint made by the Norwegian Consumer Council in January this year, Bjorn Erik Thon, the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman has ruled that the Apple iTunes service breaks section 9a of the Norwegian Marketing Control Act. The Consumer Ombudsman considers as unreasonable that the agreement the consumer must accept is regulated by the foreign law and that iTunes disclaims any liability for a possible damage the software may cause. He also thinks that just like Apple requires an iPod for songs via iTunes, other companies producing music, book or film could restrict their products to specific players as well and believes that this could be an infringement of rights. "You will have a difficult situation for the consumer ... the consumer has to have four or five gadgets to have the availability of the content that he wants," stated Thon considering a consumer should have the right to use a product on any device he chooses. Senior advisor Torgeir Waterhouse of the Consumer Council stated that contract terms, technical blocks or other types of legal protection show a tendency to restrict the consumer rights as well as their access to cultural material. "The digital rights of consumers have been dictated by the industry for a long time. This decision marks the start of a struggle to recover them," said Waterhouse. The decision of the Ombudsman brings Norway closer to the position of other countries in this matter such as France and the UK. It seems Denmark and Sweden will follow this position in requiring iTunes to be modified in order to do business in their countries. Apple representatives expressed their hope that they would not have to pull out of Norway and their wish to find a solution to this issue. According to the experts, this will not be an easy matter as Apple, in case it did not create its DRM system only to force the use of a certain device, may be bound by license agreements with the music industry and thus is not in the position to just cancel its DRM policies and open its content. iTunes must change the terms and conditions of their agreements in order to comply with the Norwegian law by 1 August, an extension from 21 June, or face fines. iTunes guilty of breaking Norwegian law (7.06.2006) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/07/norway_rules_itunes_unfair/ The Consumer Council of Norway is on track to win case against iTunes (6.06.2006) http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2006/1149587055.44 Norwegian ombudsman says Apple's iTunes DRM is illegal (7.06.2006) http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/07/norwegian_ombudsman_.html Can Europe Force Apple To Rework iTunes? (16.06.2006) http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=2085110 European officials cautious on iTunes antitrust (16.06.2006) http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6084688.html ============================================================ 11. Open letter for supporting the private copy in Italy ============================================================ A new public campaign has been launched in Italy: its goal is to change Italy's copyright law to ensure that end-users have a full-fledged right to create a private copy of works they legally acquired. The campaign, promoted by Scarichiamoli!, an Italian informal group of activists whose main goal is permitting the free circulation of knowledge, is aimed at revising Italian Legislative Decree 68/2003, that implements the European Directive 2001/29/CE on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. In particular, the suggested revision would change art.9 of the Decree by making sure that a private copy of a legally acquired work can always be made, even bypassing technical protection measures (TPMs), irrespective of whether such a copy is digital or analogue. Currently, it is possible for a user to bypass TPMs in order to make a private copy of a legally acquired work. Or rather, it is compulsory for a copyright owner to make sure that the user can perform such an act. However, the law states the copyright owners' obligation only extends to analogue copies of a work. There is currently no obligation for them to allow users to make a digital private copy of a legally acquired work. Secondly, the suggested modifications aim at making sure that the possibility to create a private copy cannot be contractually negotiated. Scarichiamoli! published on 9 June an open letter to Italian MP Titti De Simone (PRC) who had shown a special interest in this subject back during the discussions on the Italian implementation of the EUCD. The letter has already been signed by many Internet users, webmasters or other experts. On 14 June 2006, Titti de Simone replied by confirming her interest in the subject and inviting the proponents of the campaign to an informal hearing at the Culture Commission of the Italian Parliament. An argument to the Italian campaign could be the position taken these days in UK by the British Phonographic Industry stating that consumers would be pursued only if they make copies for other people and not for their personal use - although the Italian campaign aims at making sure that such an activity is a legally-stipulated right and not a gentle concession by a private party. Private copy, the Italian campaign has begun (only in Italian, 9.06.2006) http://punto-informatico.it/p.aspx?id=1517037&r=PI Open Letter to Titti De Simone (only in Italian, 9.06.2006) http://www.scarichiamoli.org/main.php?page=lettere/de_simone UK fans can copy music for private use (7.06.2006) http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2157746/uk-fans-copy-music Report on the Italian implementation of the EUCD http://www.fipr.org/copyright/guide/italy.htm ============================================================ 12. Recommended Action ============================================================ Hearing on future EU patent policy The European Commission will hold a public hearing on future EU patent policy on 12 July 2006. This is the second step of the public consultation launched in January 2006 with the aim of collecting stakeholders' views on the patent system in Europe and seeking views on what measures could be taken in the near future to improve this system. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/796&type=HTML… ged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en Commission consultation on copyright levies The questionnaire on "Copyright levies in a converging world" is submitted for public consultation to ensure that later Commission proposals are technically viable, practically workable and based on a bottom-up approach. Stakeholders and Member States already provided valuable input in the process and this additional follow-up consultation serves the dual purpose to help to further improve the quality of the policy outcome and at the same time enhancing the involvement of interested parties and the public at large. This additional follow-up consultation period will run from 6 June through 14 July 2006. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/levy_reform/index_en.htm#0606… ============================================================ 13. Agenda ============================================================ 21 June 2006, Luxembourg Safer Internet Forum 2006 Focus on two topics: "Children's use of new media" and "Blocking access to illegal content: child sexual abuse images" http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/sip/si_forum/forum_june… 006/index_en.htm 22-23 June 2006, Barcelona, Spain The 3rd International GPLv3 Conference http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/europe-gplv3-conference 23 June 2006, Copenhagen, Denmark Book Launch - Human Rights in the Global Information Society. Keynote on Privacy, terrorism and the new security agenda. Organized by The Danish Human Rights Institute and The Danish WSIS network Information about the book. http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10872 Program and invitation: http://www.humanrights.dk / http://www.una.dk/wsis 26-27 June 2006, Berlin, Germany The Rising Power of Search-Engines on the Internet: Impacts on Users, Media Policy, and Media Business http://www.uni-leipzig.de/journalistik/suma/home_e.html 26-30 June 2006 Geneva, Switzerland Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to a WIPO Development Agenda (PCDA/2) http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=9766 26-28 June 2006, Cambridge, UK Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS 2006) http://weis2006.econinfosec.org/ 28-30 June 2006, Cambridge, UK Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies http://petworkshop.org/2006/ 3-5 July, Cambridge, UK Privacy Laws & Business, 19th Annual International Conference "Privacy Crisis Ahead? Investing enough in data protection to strengthen and defend your reputation" http://www.privacylaws.com/conferences.annual.html 7 July 2006, Zurich, Switzerland Free cultures - a Free Internet. Internet Governance and Switzerland Who is supposed to govern the internet? A symposium on the "Internet Governance Forum" will be looking for the answers. http://www.igf-06.ch 16 - 28 July 2006, Oxford, UK Annenberg/Oxford Summer Institute: Global Media Policy: Technology and New Themes in Media Regulation http://www.pgcs.asc.upenn.edu/events/ox06/index.php 2-4 August 2006, Bregenz, Austria 2nd International Workshop on Electronic Voting 2006 Students may apply for funds to attend the workshop until 30 June 2006. http://www.e-voting.cc/stories/1246056/ 3 August 2006 , Prague, Czech Republic Travelers privacy and EU One day seminar organized by Iuridicum Remedium, providing a space for privacy experts to meet Czech officials to discuss passports, biometrics, RFID, PNR deal and other issues related to privacy risks possibly encountered by travellers in the EU. http://www.bigbrotherawards.cz/en/index.html 14-16 September 2006, Berlin, Germany Wizards of OS 4 Information Freedom Rules http://wizards-of-os.org/ =========================================================== 15. About =========================================================== EDRI-gram is a biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe. Currently EDRI has 21 members from 14 European countries and 5 observers from 5 more countries (Italy, Ireland, Poland, Portugal and Slovenia). European Digital Rights takes an active interest in developments in the EU accession countries and wants to share knowledge and awareness through the EDRI-grams. All contributions, suggestions for content, corrections or agenda-tips are most welcome. Errors are corrected as soon as possible and visibly on the EDRI website. Except where otherwise noted, this newsletter is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License. See the full text at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ Newsletter editor: Bogdan Manolea <edrigram(a)edri.org> Information about EDRI and its members: http://www.edri.org/ - EDRI-gram subscription information subscribe by e-mail To: edri-news-request(a)edri.org Subject: subscribe You will receive an automated e-mail asking to confirm your request. unsubscribe by e-mail To: edri-news-request(a)edri.org Subject: unsubscribe - EDRI-gram in Macedonian EDRI-gram is also available partly in Macedonian, with delay. Translations are provided by Metamorphosis http://www.metamorphosis.org.mk/edrigram-mk.php - Newsletter archive Back issues are available at: http://www.edri.org/edrigram - Help Please ask <edrigram(a)edri.org> if you have any problems with subscribing or unsubscribing. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 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

Re: [tor-talk] Tor and HTTPS graphic
by grarpamp 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> The nodes must reside in commercial data centers Subject only to Tor's defenses, such as CIDR block restrictions, a node is a node. Going with the USA idea: what if the FBI, in the normal course of business, calls up all their local cable/dsl/fiber/cell providers and has a few lines run to each office and outhouse nationwide. Not enough nodes? Maybe they offer their workers free internet access and give them a secure little 'router'. Or use routing and vpn tricks to buy/borrow enough CIDR safe node IP's from whoever and route them all back to a node farm for easier management. > the resulting possibility of discovering the interception framework > employed Only the node list needs to be classified against FOIA to prevent blockage. Once the tech is figured out to the point that product is producible, the remaining thing is what can be legally done with it all. Warrantless and dragnet tap projects are holding up pretty well so far, right? Certainly targeted actions are no problem. > run untrusted software (including necessarily modified Tor clients), > all of which exposes them to hacking risks No news of Tor daemons being cracked to date, right? Isn't Tor full of nodes running all sorts of untrusted software under less than perfect admin skills? It's pretty unlikely that 'chat room' busts use Common Criteria systems either. > But one could try correlating Tor relays and Tor clients growth > graphs since, say, 2000 - if at some point there was a sharp > growth in USA-located relays without a corresponding growth in > total clients, and if those relays have similar bandwidth / data > center quality capabilities, then that could be "The Man". There is this thread for starters: http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Jun-2009/msg00253.html I would also look to make sure the timing to a node makes sense with its presumed geolocation. It should never be shorter than possible, nor really much longer either. Perhaps the threat is unlikely, but not impossible. _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk(a)lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk ----- 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] verification of subset of file == proof of retrievability
by Brian Warner 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On 6/12/12 10:57 PM, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn wrote: > Folks: > > Over on the Bitcoin discussion forums (warning: wretched hive of scum > and villainy), someone was asserting that they wanted a "proof of > retrievability" protocol and saying that, while they hadn't looked, > they were pretty sure Tahoe-LAFS didn't do it right: > > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2236.msg847771#msg847771 > > I was mildly annoyed by this, because actually we have some extremely > strong features along those lines. Well, we've never implemented a POR because we've never really wanted one. "Proof-of-retrievability" is achieved by just retrieving the data. What the cryptography literature calls proof-of-retention (or -retrievability, -data-posession, or -ownership) gives you is a way to *cheaply* (i.e. using less storage and bandwidth than the whole file) assert that some remote server still has the data they claimed to have, and haven't found some clever (i.e. cheaper) way to just pass the test without really holding the whole file. There's a number of protocols already out there. In general the verifier can assert that either the server is holding the full original file, or a collection of calculated verification data that is at least as large as the original file (so if they want to pass the test, they might as well be honest). http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=3357 is one example. The simplest way to do this, however, is for the verifier to hold the whole file too. When we've discussed this in the Tahoe "one grid to rule them all" context, we've talked about "share buddies": two non-collaborating servers, each purportedly holding a copy of the same share. They check up on each other by asking for keyed hashes of random sections of the share (or the whole thing, if they're willing to spend the disk IO on it). The idea was part of a larger server-driven-repair thing we were thinking of: servers check up on the files they're helping to store, and if they notice problems, they can trigger repair all by themselves. Distributed reputation measurements are involved too: servers can boost their reputation by delivering POR proofs on a timely basis, and share-buddies can vouch for each other. Anyways, it's sort of a neat idea, but we probably need some more extensive accounting / server-reputation frameworks in place before it'll be super useful in the Tahoe context. cheers, -Brian _______________________________________________ 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

EDRI-gram newsletter - Number 4.12, 21 June 2006
by EDRI-gram newsletter 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

============================================================ EDRI-gram biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe Number 4.12, 21 June 2006 ============================================================ Contents ============================================================ 1. The European Commission dribbles the Parliament again in the PNR deal 2. German Parliament rejects motion against data retention 3. Swedish torrent website Pirate Bay returns back home 4. Betting websites are blocked in Italy 5. EU proposes accessibility standards in public procurement 6. Court rules Dutch mp3 search engine unlawful 7. EC supports its online broadcasting proposal 8. Former German ruling on liability of forum operators reviewed 9. UK DNA database shared with other countries 10. iTunes service considered illegal in Norway 11. Open letter for supporting the private copy in Italy 12. Recommended action 13. Agenda 15. About ============================================================ 1. The European Commission dribbles the Parliament again in the PNR deal ============================================================ The European Commission is moving ahead in its efforts to comply with the annulment by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) of the agreement between the European Community and the US Government on the transfer of passenger name records (PNR). The Commission adopted on 19 June 2006 two initiatives in order to comply with the ECJ decision. The first initiative is to recommend to the Council to terminate the Agreement with the US by the end of this month, since under the international law, the agreement remains in force for a period of 90 days after it is denounced by either party. The second initiative is to ask the Council to give an authorisation to open negotiations for a new Agreement with the Unites States on the basis of Article 38, Title VI of the Treaty on European Union. The Commission considers that Title VI (3rd Pillar) is the correct legal basis for an International Agreement for matters dealing with public security and criminal law matters. It also emphasises that "the content of the current Agreement has not been criticised by the Court and should therefore continue to offer the same level of safeguards regarding the legal certainty for air carriers, the respect of human rights and the purposes for which PNR data may be used." In practice, this will mean a defeat of the European Parliament, which challenged before the ECJ the substance of the agreement as well. According to a Commission spokesman regarding the new proposed agreement: "There is no formal role for the Parliament to play." Supporting the Parliament's position, Peter Hustinx, the European Data Protection Supervisor considered that "the judgment seems to have created a loophole in the protection of European citizens whereby their data are used for law enforcement purposes." The Commission hopes the member states will accept a new deal to be set up by the beginning of July and that they will not conclude in separate deals with the United States. The Commission adopts two initiatives to comply with the Ruling of the European Court of Justice on the transfer of PNR to the United States of America (19.06.2006) http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/800&forma… HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en MEPs to be sidelined in revived airline data deal (19.06.2006) http://euobserver.com/9/21904 PNR: EDPS first reaction to the Court of Justice judgment (30.05.2006) http://www.edps.eu.int/Press/EDPS-2006-8-EN_PNR.pdf EDRI-gram : EU-US agreement on passenger data transfer annulled (7.06.2006) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.11/pnr Letters sent by President Borrell of the European Parliament on the consequences of the Court case of 30 May on passenger name records (09.06.2006) http://www.statewatch.org/news/2006/jun/eu-usa-pnr-borrell-letter2.pdf ============================================================ 2. German Parliament rejects motion against data retention ============================================================ On 20 June the German Parliament rejected a resolution that would have requested the federal government to join the action for annulment of the EU telecommunications data retention directive at the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The text had been introduced by the opposition parties Greens, Liberals and Left Party and was supported by 133 parliamentarians. But the grand coalition of the governing parties voted against it, with one abstention from the Conservatives. The authors of the resolution argued that the data retention decision should have been made in the "Third Pillar" of the European Union structure in the form of a framework directive, which would have required an unanimous vote in the Council of Ministers. The governments of Ireland and Slovakia who voted against the Directive during the final decision in February have already started a case at the ECJ. Their chances are good, as the court's recent decision on the transfer of passenger data to the United States was taken on the same grounds. The German opposition also asked to postpone the transposition of the Directive into the federal law until this case is decided, because even if the Directive is annulled, national laws would still be valid. The EU Directive mandates the retention of all telecommunications traffic data within the EU for 6 to 24 months for law enforcement and national security purposes. Parliamentarian Jerzy Montag from the Greens, who had drafted the resolution, reminded his colleagues that the German Parliament and Government had always asked for a framework decision, last time in a February 2006 resolution. Therefore he criticized : "Commission and Council have changed the horses during the action, while the cart stayed the same". Minister of Justice Brigitte Zypries claimed that the government had "enforcedly accepted" the change of the legal grounds for data retention in order not to endanger the substantial outcome. The majority of the parliamentarians was unimpressed by several last-minute attempts from non-governmental organizations to support the opposition's motion. On 17 June, around 250 citizens followed the call by a broad coalition of 15 civil liberties and other groups for a demonstration "Freedom instead of Security Delusion" in Berlin. It was mainly organized by the Working Party on Data Retention, an informal network set up in December 2005 with the help of German EDRi members Netzwerk Neue Medien (NNM) , FoeBuD, and Forum InformatikerInnen f|r Frieden und gesellschaftliche Verantwortung (FIfF). The demonstration was the first attempt in years to bring anti-surveillance protest to the streets and, considering the short preparation time of less than three weeks, it was seen by the organisers as a success to build on. The Forum Human Rights, a coalition of 45 German human rights organizations, also published a position paper on data retention on 16 June and formally submitted it to the Parliament before the vote. The paper criticizes data retention as "totally disproportionate and an attack on the foundation of a free and democratic society". The Forum Human Rights joined others in their analysis that any law on mandatory data retention would be in violation of both the European Convention on Human Rights and the German Constitution. If the Directive is transposed into German law, several civil liberties groups are already preparing to challenge it at the Constitutional Court. These legal and political activities, seen together with the demonstration that sparked a number of creative activities, are an indication that anti-surveillance activities are getting more momentum in Germany. German Parliament rejected the Resolution "Reviewing the Directive on Data Retention by the European Court of Justice" (in German only, 20.06.2006) http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/16/016/1601622.pdf Working Party on Data Retention (in German only) http://initiative.stoppt-die-vorratsdatenspeicherung.de Protest march "Freedom rather than obsession with security" (17.06.2006) In English http://web125.nice-host.de/VDS/html/VDS/index.php/Announcement In German, with after-action information http://web125.nice-host.de/VDS/html/VDS/index.php/Aufruf Pictures from the demonstration (17.06.2006) http://su2.info/d/ak-vorrat/photos/stephan/ http://www.apkk.de/doku/Demo_Datenwahn/ Forum Human Rights Position Paper "Data retention violates fundamental rights and undermines a free society" (in German only, 16.06.2006) http://www.forum-menschenrechte.de/docs/FMR-2006-06-20_lang.pdf (Contribution by Ralf Bendrath, German EDRi member Netzwerk Neue Medien) ============================================================ 3. Swedish torrent website Pirate Bay returns back home ============================================================ At the end of May, the Swedish Police raided the location where the PirateBay.org website was located and shut down the site seizing several servers. However, after less than 1 month, the site, which is considered the world's biggest BitTorrent tracker being visited by 10 million to 15 million daily users, resumes its activity from Sweden. The Motion Picture Association of America quickly reacted after the Police raid considering that: "The actions today taken in Sweden serve as a reminder to pirates all over the world that there are no safe harbours for Internet copyright thieves." After just a couple of days from the raid, PirateBay.org was back online, hosted somewhere in Netherlands. The operators of the website fought back considering that their actions were not illegal as The Pirate Bay only provided links and not the actual downloads. A recently formed party called the Pirate Party that is supporting more open and consumer friendly copyright laws has been very active in criticizing the police actions. The Pirate Party that will run in the 2006 elections has supported public meetings in Stockholm and Goteborg where some hundreds of protestors with pirate flags asked for the return of the servers to the Pirate Bay owners and the closing of the investigation. It is estimated that in Sweden there are one million file-sharers out of the nine million inhabitants. There have been rumours that the action has been required by the United States. According to Washington Post, in April 2006, officials from the US Government met with the officials from the Swedish Ministry of Justice and said that the Pirate Bay was one of the world's largest sources of pirated films and music. At the end of May, the police acted against PirateBay, even though, according to some sources, the Swedish prosecutors considered they didn't have a strong case against it. The Police has also other problems since ten Swedish companies are now asking for damages for disruption of their businesses. During the raid on the PirateBay website the Police confiscated 200 servers, some of them owned by companies not affiliated with that website. The companies now request damages from 1 000 EUR up to 20 000 EUR. At the middle of June, the website was back home with an increased popularity in Sweden but also worldwide. However, its operators considers splitting the operations between several countries in order to avoid closing it down. Swedish police scupper Piratebay (31.05.2006) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/31/piratebay_raid/ File-sharing crackdown and backlash in Sweden (4.06.2006) http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/04/business/pirate.php Pirate Bay resurfaces, while protesters walk the street (5.06.2006) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/05/pirate_bay_reemerges/ Swedish IT companies demand damages after file-sharing crackdown (15.06.2006) http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/editorial/14826812.htm Piratebay sails back to Sweden (15.06.2006) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/piratebay_back_sweden/ US government pressured Sweden over Pirate Bay (19.06.2006) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/19/us_pushes_sweden/ ============================================================ 4. Betting websites are blocked in Italy ============================================================ Following a fierce battle between an authority of the Italian State and private european online betting companies over their activity in Italy, a big number of betting websites are officialy blocked for Italian Internet users. Everything began with the 2006 financial law (Law 266/2005) voted by the Parliament under the outgoing Berlusconi government. The law included four provisions - namely paragraph 535-58 of art.1 - which gave the Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato (AAMS or Autonomous Administration of State Monopolies, a part of the Ministry of Economy and Finances) the power to bring to the attention of: (a) providers of Internet services, or (b) providers of other data or telecommunication networks, or (c) entities that offer networks or telecommunication services in relationship to (a) or (b), all those instances in which someone offers games or bets where money can be lost or won without having the proper authorization that is usually granted by AAMS itself. Upon receiving such communication from the AAMS, the subjects from (a) to (c) have the legal obligation to inhibit usage of the networks that they manage or for which they provide betting and gaming services "by adopting appropriate technical measures to this end". The AAMS proceeded on 13 February 2006 to compile and publish a first list of websites that should not be accessed from Italian networks. Compliant ISPs generally implemented the restriction by "hijacking" DNS communication and redirecting it to the DNS server of the AAMS. The end result is that users trying to access such websites are instead getting a notice saying that "pursuant to the decree of the AAMS of 7 February 2006 the requested website is not accessible because it does not have the necessary authorizations for collecting bets in Italy". Of course, reactions flocked in by all sides. Several betting companies, including UK-based William Hill (which is included on the list of blocked websites) announced they would recur to the European Court of Justice for what they claim is blatant violation of the basic principles of the European internal market. The Remote Gambling Association immediately started to negotiate a compromise with the Italian government, but until now no agreement seems to have been reached. Moreover, several Italian commentators noticed how poor the employed system is from a technical point of view. It is in fact sufficient in most cases to remove the leading "www" prefix to access the blocked websites. Other strategies, including the usage of web proxies, are also possible. The Italian chapter of ISOC (Internet Society) took a firm technical position, considering that the proposed measures were ineffective and in any case were far away from the "best practices" in the sector - while at the same time noticing that the outcries of "censorship" seemed misplaced because of the subject matter under discussion. While ISOC explicitly chose to avoid the "censorship" argument, other commentators argued that by blocking entire websites the proposed solution ment in fact severely limiting the right of all Italian citizens to access information, as granted by the Italian Constitution and several international instruments. If the goal was to impede the act of gambling then any measure should have been proportionate to this specific goal. Impeding Italian citizens to access a website and the information contained therein arguably is not. One company, Malta-based Astrabet Bookmaker Ltd., went further and requested the Second Section of the Civil Tribunal of Rome to declare the measure illegitimate, insofar as it cut off Astrabet's website from the Italian network. On 10 April 2006 Judge Lorenzo Pontecorvo issued a writ by which it ordered AAMS to immediately remove Astrabet from the "blacklist". In his reasoning, Judge Pontecorvo touched on a number of interesting and potential far-reaching issues, including how AAMS' right to grant licenses only applies to the Italian territory, while Astrabet is established in and operates from Malta and that the contract between users and Astrabet, according to the facts and the law, is performed in Malta. He also pointed out that according to the European jurisprudence, blocking or limiting the activities of Astrabet constitutes a violation of the "freedom to provide services" principle as enshrined in the EU Treaty and that the claims by AAMS and others, according to which Astrabet was guilty of "unfair competition" by "diverting customers" to its website, is completely unfounded, since Astrabet is simply providing services through the Net, "a reality which cannot be ignored anymore". AAMS counter-attacked by appealing the decision and refusing - for technical reasons - to remove Astrabet from the blacklist. In an official press release of 12 May 2006, AAMS wrote that the Astrabet issue is "an isolated case" and that the Maltese company had "engaged in non-ritual activities with the sole goal to obtain undeserved privileges and behaviours which would be discriminatory towards other subjects that are legally operating in Italy". Although technically avoidable, the blacklist is apparently still applied by Italian ISPs. Italian Financial Law 266/2005 (in Italian only, 23.12.2005) http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/guri/attocompleto?dataGazzetta=2005-12-29&r… azione=005G0293&service=0&ConNote=2 AAMS list of websites to be blocked from 13 February 2006 (7.02.2006) http://www.aams.it/site.php?page=20060213093814964&op=download ISOC Italia position regarding the filtering of websites that offer online gambling (in Italian only, 15.03.2006) http://www.isoc.it/documenti/20060315_com_gambling.pdf Civil Tribunal of Rome, Second Section, Ordinance (in Italian only, 10.04.2006) http://www.ictlex.net/wp-content/TrRM060410.zip Clarifications of AAMS on the AstraBet case (in Italian only, 12.05.2006) http://www.aams.it/site.php?page=20060512175347713&op=download (Contribution by Andrea Glorioso, consultant on digital policies - Italy) ============================================================ 5. EU proposes accessibility standards in public procurement ============================================================ In a ministerial meeting that took place in Riga on 12 June 2006, ministers from European countries have signed a declaration to diminish the gap in Internet usage for groups at risk of exclusion, but also to increase broadband coverage. The Riga Ministerial Declaration was signed by ministers of 34 European countries from EU Member States, accession and candidate countries, and EFTA/EEA countries. The declaration shows the commitment of the countries to an "Internet for all" action plan that should allow the disadvantaged groups to access the Internet. One of the conclusions of the meeting was the necessity to assess the need for legislative measures in the field of e-Accessibility, and to take into account accessibility requirements in the review of the electronic communications regulatory framework beginning in June 2006. Another suggestion was to make recommendations, by 2007, on accessibility standards and common approaches, which could become mandatory in public procurement by 2010. Data from the European Commission have shown that only about 3% of public web sites fully comply with minimum web accessibility standards - a real problem for the 15% of the EU population with disabilities. According to a recent research by Disability Rights Commission (DRC), 81% of web sites in the UK are inaccessible to disabled people. Ministers in Riga also supported the European Commission's intention to prepare for the European e-inclusion initiative announced for 2008 in the "i2010" strategy, the digital economy component of the EU's renewed "Lisbon" agenda for jobs and growth. Internet for all: EU ministers commit to an inclusive and barrier-free information society (12.06.2006) http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/769&forma… HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en EU may make accessibility a legal requirement (15.06.2006) http://uk.builder.com/webdevelopment/design/0,39026630,39317017,00.htm ============================================================ 6. Court rules Dutch mp3 search engine unlawful ============================================================ The Dutch Court of Appeals in Amsterdam has ruled that search engine zoekmp3.nl is unlawful. This search engine provided links to mp3-files on the World Wide Web. The court chose not to answer the question whether linking itself to unauthorised mp3-files is an infringement of copyright law. The lower court had found that this was not the case. The Court of Appeals based the unlawfulness on Dutch tort law, and the specific circumstances of the case. The Court stated that in principal search engines are free to make money from providing search results to mp3-files, even if these files are known to be unauthorised. Only in particular circumstances will the search engine be liable for damage to copyright holders. The specific circumstances the court found relevant to conclude the unlawfulness were that the search engine was specifically aimed at providing links to unauthorised files (charts). The court also found that the search engine knew that most of its visitors were looking primarily for unauthorised copies. Therefore, according to the Dutch court a warning on this matter to its visitors could not be an excuse. Further more, it found relevant that the search engine had advertisement and information that was linked to the unauthorised content, such as ring-tones of the popular songs. In general, the court came to the conclusion that the search engine was making its money by structurally exploiting the availability of unauthorised mp3-files on the World Wide Web, evidently without taking into account the interests of copyright holders. Acting as such, the search engine breached its general duty of care towards them. Dutch copyright organisation Brein had appealed the verdict of the lower court of 12 May 2004, that had concluded there was no liability for the search engine, but a duty to react if it was notified of links to unauthorised copies. Most importantly, the lower court had ruled that a link to unauthorised mp3-files was not in breach of Dutch copyright law, because a link couldn't be considered as an act of making public a copyrighted work. In spite of this positive verdict, the owner of the search engine, Techno Design, decided to stop the search engine's activity. It also decided not to defend itself at the Court of Appeals. This had considerable effect on the verdict since some facts stated by Brein were proven mainly because of the absence of a defence. On 23 June 2006, the trial starts against four suspects in the case of download sites Releases4u.com and Shareconnector.com. The prosecution is charging them with professional infringement of Dutch copyright law, in the context of a criminal organisation. The download sites provided a selection of links to illegal software, films, music and games on p2p-program eDonkey. As the first criminal prosecution for this practice, the trial is a test case for Dutch law. One of the defence lawyers already stated that the linking itself is not a criminal offence, nor a copyright infringement, and therefore his client should not be convicted. Civil law action against the sites by Brein was unsuccesful. Dutch site linking to MP3 files loses court case (19.06.2006) http://uk.news.yahoo.com/19062006/80-91/dutch-site-linking-mp3-files-loses-… urt-case.html (Contribution by Joris van Hoboken - EDRI-member Bits of Freedom - Netherlands) ============================================================ 7. EC supports its online broadcasting proposal ============================================================ In an Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA) event held in Brussels on 14 June, Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media, expressed again her position to support the EC proposal to revise the Television Without Frontiers (TVWF) Directive. "There will be no regulation of the Internet," Mrs. Reding told ZDNet UK stating that the extension of the Directive is supposed to provide basic rules to protect minors online, and to prevent incitement to hatred and over-repeated advertising. The Commissioner also said that the proposed provisions are only basic tier rules and self-regulation can be supported better by a legal framework. The Government would intervene only when self-regulation does not work. While the Commissioner considers the Directive will be beneficial to the Internet business, the industry and the Internet community expressed concern that the Directive would lead to the regulation of the content on the Internet. The Confederation of British Industry thinks that the Directive will "stifle economic growth, inhibit job creation and hamper the development of digital content and services across the EU". Other representatives of the Industry such as Microsoft, Google or Verizon expressed concerns regarding the scope of the legislation and the problem of jurisdiction and enforcement. They believe the already existing legislation is enough and efficient in protecting children and consumers and that self-regulation is the right solution. Professor Michael Rotert, president of the European Internet Service Providers Association (EuroISPA), considers the Directive as a regulation of the Internet "through the backdoor" and thinks: "Regulated self-regulation will be misused immediately, when it comes into practice". Europe defends online broadcasting plans (15.06.2006) http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39275180,00.htm FAQ: EC Proposes to Modernise 'Television Without Frontiers' Directive (22.05.2006) http://uk.ihs.com/news-06Q2/eu-en-modern-tv.jsp EDRI-gram Draft Audiovisual Media Services Directive under criticism (24.05.2006) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.10/audiovisual ============================================================ 8. Former German ruling on liability of forum operators reviewed ============================================================ A previous ruling of the Hamburg court that made moderators of internet forums liable for content posted on their sites is now contradicted by the Intermediate Court of Appeals in Dusseldorf which has ruled that forum operators are obligated to delete illegal comments made by their users only in case they know about them. The ruling of the German Supreme Court of 2004 obliged the forum operators to prevent illegal content posted by their users but did not bind them to review all comments before being placed online. However, in the Heise Zeitschriften Verlag case, the Hamburg court ruled against Heise, asking from the publisher to monitor the content before it appeared online. The Hamburg court had required the operator to "either increase its funding or limit [...] its operations" in order to review all postings before publishing them online. In the case of a person having been repeatedly insulted on a forum who filed a temporary restraining order, the appeal court of Dusseldorf overruled the decision of the first-instance court to issue the order, considered that monitoring all postings would have required unreasonable efforts from the forum operator from the financial as well as human resources point of view. It is not expected from the operators to actively look for breaches of the law or to monitor all postings. However, they have the obligation to delete or block comments about which complaints have been made. Also the Dusseldorf judges believed that the technical filtering solutions were not effective in blocking illegal contents."While a search for certain key words might be simple from the technical point of view and would even help combat violations of trademark, in light of the almost infinite number of ways that people can formulate insults such filters would not be very practical in the prosecution of violations of personal rights." First-instance district court of Hamburg says forum operators are liable for comments (18.04.2006) http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/72085 German court rules moderators liable for forum comments (21.04.2006) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/21/moderator_liable_for_comments/ Court rules that prior review of forum comments is unreasonable (15.06.2006) http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/74320 EDRi-gram : Hamburg court rules against forum providers (26.04.2006) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.8/forum ============================================================ 9. UK DNA database shared with other countries ============================================================ The UK Home Office has admitted that DNA stored in the UK National DNA Database has been shared with other countries. UK has today one of the largest law enforcement DNA database with profiles from 3.5 million people, including 500 000 children under 16 years old. The database was established in 1995. Privacy concerns regarding the database have been expressed, especially when the database was revealed to contained more than 50 000 DNA profiles of children who have never been charged with any offence. Recently, the UK Home Office Minister Joan Ryan has answered a question from the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokeswoman Lynne Featherstone regarding the access of foreign law enforcement authorities to the database content. Ryan said that there have been 519 requests for details from the database since 2004, but no records are available before that year. Featherstone considered that "There are no real safeguards in place to control this huge database which leaves it open for misuse - and now we find out it's not only being misused in our country but also internationally." She also supported the idea of an independent watchdog to monitor the access of foreign law enforcement authorities to the UK DNA Database. On the other hand, the representative of the Home Office declared that: " The increasing ease of travel and communication between EU member-states has also resulted in a higher risk of criminal activity crossing the borders of EU member-states." He also added that the data were provided only when serious crimes were investigated. DNA database is shared overseas (7.06.2006) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5056450.stm UK Home Office defends sharing DNA database (8.06.2006) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/08/ndnad_sharing/ News and updates on the UK DNA Database http://www.openrightsgroup.org/orgwiki/index.php/DNA_database ============================================================ 10. iTunes service considered illegal in Norway ============================================================ Following a complaint made by the Norwegian Consumer Council in January this year, Bjorn Erik Thon, the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman has ruled that the Apple iTunes service breaks section 9a of the Norwegian Marketing Control Act. The Consumer Ombudsman considers as unreasonable that the agreement the consumer must accept is regulated by the foreign law and that iTunes disclaims any liability for a possible damage the software may cause. He also thinks that just like Apple requires an iPod for songs via iTunes, other companies producing music, book or film could restrict their products to specific players as well and believes that this could be an infringement of rights. "You will have a difficult situation for the consumer ... the consumer has to have four or five gadgets to have the availability of the content that he wants," stated Thon considering a consumer should have the right to use a product on any device he chooses. Senior advisor Torgeir Waterhouse of the Consumer Council stated that contract terms, technical blocks or other types of legal protection show a tendency to restrict the consumer rights as well as their access to cultural material. "The digital rights of consumers have been dictated by the industry for a long time. This decision marks the start of a struggle to recover them," said Waterhouse. The decision of the Ombudsman brings Norway closer to the position of other countries in this matter such as France and the UK. It seems Denmark and Sweden will follow this position in requiring iTunes to be modified in order to do business in their countries. Apple representatives expressed their hope that they would not have to pull out of Norway and their wish to find a solution to this issue. According to the experts, this will not be an easy matter as Apple, in case it did not create its DRM system only to force the use of a certain device, may be bound by license agreements with the music industry and thus is not in the position to just cancel its DRM policies and open its content. iTunes must change the terms and conditions of their agreements in order to comply with the Norwegian law by 1 August, an extension from 21 June, or face fines. iTunes guilty of breaking Norwegian law (7.06.2006) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/07/norway_rules_itunes_unfair/ The Consumer Council of Norway is on track to win case against iTunes (6.06.2006) http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2006/1149587055.44 Norwegian ombudsman says Apple's iTunes DRM is illegal (7.06.2006) http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/07/norwegian_ombudsman_.html Can Europe Force Apple To Rework iTunes? (16.06.2006) http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=2085110 European officials cautious on iTunes antitrust (16.06.2006) http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6084688.html ============================================================ 11. Open letter for supporting the private copy in Italy ============================================================ A new public campaign has been launched in Italy: its goal is to change Italy's copyright law to ensure that end-users have a full-fledged right to create a private copy of works they legally acquired. The campaign, promoted by Scarichiamoli!, an Italian informal group of activists whose main goal is permitting the free circulation of knowledge, is aimed at revising Italian Legislative Decree 68/2003, that implements the European Directive 2001/29/CE on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. In particular, the suggested revision would change art.9 of the Decree by making sure that a private copy of a legally acquired work can always be made, even bypassing technical protection measures (TPMs), irrespective of whether such a copy is digital or analogue. Currently, it is possible for a user to bypass TPMs in order to make a private copy of a legally acquired work. Or rather, it is compulsory for a copyright owner to make sure that the user can perform such an act. However, the law states the copyright owners' obligation only extends to analogue copies of a work. There is currently no obligation for them to allow users to make a digital private copy of a legally acquired work. Secondly, the suggested modifications aim at making sure that the possibility to create a private copy cannot be contractually negotiated. Scarichiamoli! published on 9 June an open letter to Italian MP Titti De Simone (PRC) who had shown a special interest in this subject back during the discussions on the Italian implementation of the EUCD. The letter has already been signed by many Internet users, webmasters or other experts. On 14 June 2006, Titti de Simone replied by confirming her interest in the subject and inviting the proponents of the campaign to an informal hearing at the Culture Commission of the Italian Parliament. An argument to the Italian campaign could be the position taken these days in UK by the British Phonographic Industry stating that consumers would be pursued only if they make copies for other people and not for their personal use - although the Italian campaign aims at making sure that such an activity is a legally-stipulated right and not a gentle concession by a private party. Private copy, the Italian campaign has begun (only in Italian, 9.06.2006) http://punto-informatico.it/p.aspx?id=1517037&r=PI Open Letter to Titti De Simone (only in Italian, 9.06.2006) http://www.scarichiamoli.org/main.php?page=lettere/de_simone UK fans can copy music for private use (7.06.2006) http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2157746/uk-fans-copy-music Report on the Italian implementation of the EUCD http://www.fipr.org/copyright/guide/italy.htm ============================================================ 12. Recommended Action ============================================================ Hearing on future EU patent policy The European Commission will hold a public hearing on future EU patent policy on 12 July 2006. This is the second step of the public consultation launched in January 2006 with the aim of collecting stakeholders' views on the patent system in Europe and seeking views on what measures could be taken in the near future to improve this system. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/796&type=HTML… ged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en Commission consultation on copyright levies The questionnaire on "Copyright levies in a converging world" is submitted for public consultation to ensure that later Commission proposals are technically viable, practically workable and based on a bottom-up approach. Stakeholders and Member States already provided valuable input in the process and this additional follow-up consultation serves the dual purpose to help to further improve the quality of the policy outcome and at the same time enhancing the involvement of interested parties and the public at large. This additional follow-up consultation period will run from 6 June through 14 July 2006. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/levy_reform/index_en.htm#0606… ============================================================ 13. Agenda ============================================================ 21 June 2006, Luxembourg Safer Internet Forum 2006 Focus on two topics: "Children's use of new media" and "Blocking access to illegal content: child sexual abuse images" http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/sip/si_forum/forum_june… 006/index_en.htm 22-23 June 2006, Barcelona, Spain The 3rd International GPLv3 Conference http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/europe-gplv3-conference 23 June 2006, Copenhagen, Denmark Book Launch - Human Rights in the Global Information Society. Keynote on Privacy, terrorism and the new security agenda. Organized by The Danish Human Rights Institute and The Danish WSIS network Information about the book. http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10872 Program and invitation: http://www.humanrights.dk / http://www.una.dk/wsis 26-27 June 2006, Berlin, Germany The Rising Power of Search-Engines on the Internet: Impacts on Users, Media Policy, and Media Business http://www.uni-leipzig.de/journalistik/suma/home_e.html 26-30 June 2006 Geneva, Switzerland Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to a WIPO Development Agenda (PCDA/2) http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=9766 26-28 June 2006, Cambridge, UK Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS 2006) http://weis2006.econinfosec.org/ 28-30 June 2006, Cambridge, UK Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies http://petworkshop.org/2006/ 3-5 July, Cambridge, UK Privacy Laws & Business, 19th Annual International Conference "Privacy Crisis Ahead? Investing enough in data protection to strengthen and defend your reputation" http://www.privacylaws.com/conferences.annual.html 7 July 2006, Zurich, Switzerland Free cultures - a Free Internet. Internet Governance and Switzerland Who is supposed to govern the internet? A symposium on the "Internet Governance Forum" will be looking for the answers. http://www.igf-06.ch 16 - 28 July 2006, Oxford, UK Annenberg/Oxford Summer Institute: Global Media Policy: Technology and New Themes in Media Regulation http://www.pgcs.asc.upenn.edu/events/ox06/index.php 2-4 August 2006, Bregenz, Austria 2nd International Workshop on Electronic Voting 2006 Students may apply for funds to attend the workshop until 30 June 2006. http://www.e-voting.cc/stories/1246056/ 3 August 2006 , Prague, Czech Republic Travelers privacy and EU One day seminar organized by Iuridicum Remedium, providing a space for privacy experts to meet Czech officials to discuss passports, biometrics, RFID, PNR deal and other issues related to privacy risks possibly encountered by travellers in the EU. http://www.bigbrotherawards.cz/en/index.html 14-16 September 2006, Berlin, Germany Wizards of OS 4 Information Freedom Rules http://wizards-of-os.org/ =========================================================== 15. About =========================================================== EDRI-gram is a biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe. Currently EDRI has 21 members from 14 European countries and 5 observers from 5 more countries (Italy, Ireland, Poland, Portugal and Slovenia). European Digital Rights takes an active interest in developments in the EU accession countries and wants to share knowledge and awareness through the EDRI-grams. All contributions, suggestions for content, corrections or agenda-tips are most welcome. Errors are corrected as soon as possible and visibly on the EDRI website. Except where otherwise noted, this newsletter is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License. See the full text at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ Newsletter editor: Bogdan Manolea <edrigram(a)edri.org> Information about EDRI and its members: http://www.edri.org/ - EDRI-gram subscription information subscribe by e-mail To: edri-news-request(a)edri.org Subject: subscribe You will receive an automated e-mail asking to confirm your request. unsubscribe by e-mail To: edri-news-request(a)edri.org Subject: unsubscribe - EDRI-gram in Macedonian EDRI-gram is also available partly in Macedonian, with delay. Translations are provided by Metamorphosis http://www.metamorphosis.org.mk/edrigram-mk.php - Newsletter archive Back issues are available at: http://www.edri.org/edrigram - Help Please ask <edrigram(a)edri.org> if you have any problems with subscribing or unsubscribing. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 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

Re: [tor-talk] Tor and HTTPS graphic
by grarpamp 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> The nodes must reside in commercial data centers Subject only to Tor's defenses, such as CIDR block restrictions, a node is a node. Going with the USA idea: what if the FBI, in the normal course of business, calls up all their local cable/dsl/fiber/cell providers and has a few lines run to each office and outhouse nationwide. Not enough nodes? Maybe they offer their workers free internet access and give them a secure little 'router'. Or use routing and vpn tricks to buy/borrow enough CIDR safe node IP's from whoever and route them all back to a node farm for easier management. > the resulting possibility of discovering the interception framework > employed Only the node list needs to be classified against FOIA to prevent blockage. Once the tech is figured out to the point that product is producible, the remaining thing is what can be legally done with it all. Warrantless and dragnet tap projects are holding up pretty well so far, right? Certainly targeted actions are no problem. > run untrusted software (including necessarily modified Tor clients), > all of which exposes them to hacking risks No news of Tor daemons being cracked to date, right? Isn't Tor full of nodes running all sorts of untrusted software under less than perfect admin skills? It's pretty unlikely that 'chat room' busts use Common Criteria systems either. > But one could try correlating Tor relays and Tor clients growth > graphs since, say, 2000 - if at some point there was a sharp > growth in USA-located relays without a corresponding growth in > total clients, and if those relays have similar bandwidth / data > center quality capabilities, then that could be "The Man". There is this thread for starters: http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Jun-2009/msg00253.html I would also look to make sure the timing to a node makes sense with its presumed geolocation. It should never be shorter than possible, nor really much longer either. Perhaps the threat is unlikely, but not impossible. _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk(a)lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk ----- 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