- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

None
by Randall 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

<dewayne(a)warpspeed.com>, JMG <johnmacsgroup(a)yahoogroups.com> Subject: No one on the planet will choose this voluntarily. <http://htdaw.blogsource.com/post.mhtml?post_id=328782> Friday, May 19, 2006 at 12:00 AM EDT Blu-ray makes unexpected, three-way DRM choice for high-def DVD Scott M. Fulton, III August 10, 2005 17:18 Hollywood (CA) - In an announcement last night, the Blu-ray Disc Association, led by Sony, representing one of two competing high-definition DVD formats, stated it will simultaneously embrace digital watermarking, programmable cryptography, and a self-destruct code for Blu-ray disc players. The BDA statement is unprecedented not only because its solution to the nagging problem of digital rights management is to embrace every option on the table, but also because Blu-ray appears to have developed its own approach - in some cases, proprietary - to each of these three technologies. Knowledge of this impending fact may have been what tipped movie studio 20th Century-Fox last week to throw its support behind Blu-ray, in a move that experts believe balanced the scales in Blu-ray's ongoing battle with competing format HD DVD - backed by a forum led by Toshiba - to become the next high-def industry standard. The digital watermarking technique, which will be called ROM Mark, is described in the statement as "a unique and undetectable identifier in pre-recorded BD-ROM media such as movies, music and games." "BD-ROM" is the proposed writable version of the Blu-ray format. Little else is known about ROM Mark at this time, except that the statement describes it as being undetectable to consumers. This is noteworthy in itself, since a previously heralded watermark applied to first-generation DVDs was notoriously defeated by someone writing over it with a permanent marker. One part of the announcement that had been anticipated by experts was Blu-ray's embrace of Advanced Access Content System (AACS), one version of which has also been adopted by the HD DVD Forum. This controversial technology would require that disc players maintain permanent connections to content providers via the Internet, making it possible for discs that fail a security check to trigger a notification process, enabling the provider to send the player a sort of "self-destruct code." This code would come in the form of a flash ROM "update" that would actually render the player useless, perhaps unless and until it is taken to a repair shop for reprogramming. The Blu-ray statement noted that certain elements of AACS have yet to be formally approved by the BDA. The third part of the announcement that is perhaps most surprising, is Blu-ray's adoption of a third DRM technique that appears to embrace some of the ideals of one of the technologies that had been considered, without actually licensing its methodology or its existing tools. The BDA statement introduces what it calls "BD+," described as "a Blu-ray Disc specific programmable renewability enhancement that gives content providers an additional means to respond to organized attacks on the security system by allowing dynamic updates of compromised code." BD+ appears to be Blu-ray's version of a concept previously under consideration called SPDC, which enabled the method for encrypting a disc's contents to be included on the disc, rather than on the EPROMs of the disc player. One of the perceived failures of first-generation DVD was that its encryption mechanism of choice, called Content Scramble System (CSS), was spectacularly defeated, with the result being that the industry was forced to permanently and irreversibly support a now-worthless encryption scheme. With SPDC, new encryption algorithms could be adopted as old ones are cracked, enabling successive generations of high-def DVD to be stronger than earlier ones. Two months ago, the HD DVD Forum considered a coupling of AACS with SPDC. But a scientifically accurate though politically imbalanced white paper released by the creators of SPDC technology, Cryptography Research, Inc. (CRI), soundly rebuked alternative DRM technologies, and thus may have unintentionally played a role in SPDC's falling out of favor with the original supporters of CSS, some of whom were HD DVD Forum members. The Forum rejected "AACS+SPDC" for undisclosed reasons, leading many to speculate that Blu ray would respond by embracing SPDC. However, as SPDC was originally discussed, there would only have been one encryption standard in use throughout the industry at any one time. According to yesterday evening's BDA statement, BD+ would follow SPDC's core principle, but instead allow each content provider to utilize whatever encryption standard it sees fit at the time. "With these enhancements," the statement reads, "content providers have a number of methods to choose from to combat hacks on Blu-ray players. Moreover, BD+ affects only players that have been attacked, as opposed to those that are vulnerable but haven't been attacked and therefore continue to operate properly." This last sentence is important, because one key objection that experts raised to the pairing of AACS with SPDC was the possibility that, once the single SPDC encryption scheme was broken, AACS could trigger a signal to all players using that encryption scheme, rendering all discs that use this scheme unplayable, perhaps prior to a system upgrade. The BDA statement appears to distance itself from the CRI approach to SPDC, perhaps to calm consumer fears that entire libraries of perfectly legitimate content could be rendered useless due to someone else's illicit activities. The CRI white paper, incidentally, distinguished SPDC by contrasting it with other DRM techniques such as watermarking. "Although some progress is being made at improving robustness and efficiency," the white paper states, "we are not optimistic that a practical and secure public watermarking scheme is possible." Such comparisons may have worked against SPDC's eventual adoption by Blu-ray in method as well as in principle. On behalf of the HD DVD Forum this morning, Toshiba's advisor to the Forum, Mark Knox, released a brief statement: "Today's announcement by the BD Group should not confuse anyone," states Knox. "HD DVD's content protection system provides the highest level of advanced copy protection to meet content owner's needs and the rigors of consumer demand." Knox goes on to say that AACS - which now singularly forms the crux of HD DVD's DRM - is the most advanced such scheme yet devised, and that HD DVD's own membership continues to back that approach. "We will continue to promote further penetration of the format," Knox added, "while simultaneously seeking ways to eventually realize a single format that delivers optimized benefits to all concerned industries and, most important, to consumers." Tom's Hardware Guide will present an in-depth analysis of the Blu-ray/HD DVD format combat Thursday morning in its Business Reports section. There, we'll speak with industry experts, including one prominent media pioneer, in examining how the participants in this struggle may actually have always been planning for its eventual resolution, and what form the fruits of that resolution may take. <http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/08/10/blu/index.html> Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com> ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 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

[Dewayne-Net] No one on the planet will choose this voluntarily
by Dewayne Hendricks 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

[Note: This item comes from reader Randall. DLH]

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] Bitcoin donation
by Samuel Rose 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ok, I get it, so there are people out there actually wanting to 'buy' > bitcoins, and I wasn't aware of that, and obviously, this needs to be bought > and expressed by another existing currency, hence the 'value' > Yes, from what I can tell, *now* the best way to get bitcoins is to buy them. However, it seems based on reading online discussions that in the earliest days of bitcoin activity, that it was a bit easier to contribute your personal computer power to the network and "generate" coins. Now, it the calculations are over a year for a typical laptop (ref: http://www.alloscomp.com/bitcoin/calculator.php ) A whole history of trading can be viewed here: https://mtgox.com/trade/history Again, I think there is only one real issue with bitcoin: that it is a homogenous currency. I am looking at the idea of soliciting donations towards extending bitcoin software so that users may either issue new currency (with new rules), or participate in existing currencies all from the same protocol/software. > I 'got' it <g> > > By the way, alt.currency/credit commons expert Thomas Greco is in Chiang > Mai! > > > Michel > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Sepp Hasslberger <sepp(a)lastrega.com> wrote: >> >> Basically Michel, the value of any commodity is determined by whether >> people believe it is of value. >> The fact that you can buy and sell something establishes a base-line value >> for it. The value is a balance between how much of the stuff is available, >> and how much demand there is for it from potential buyers. Economists called >> it the law of supply and demand. >> In the case of bitcoin, we are looking at a commodity (exchangeable >> electronic "coins") that is scarce - there are only so many coins in >> existence, and making more of them is a slow, difficult prcess - and for >> which there is a demand. People are looking around for some kind of means of >> exchange that can de-link them from the official currencies. Potentially, we >> have a great demand for bitcoins ... if the idea of using them as a means of >> payment ever really catches on. Even as it is, there is enough of a demand >> for bitcoins to "feel their scarcity", and thus, to make them valuable. A >> price is being set for bitcoins in exchange services. The price is entirely >> dependent on how badly people want bitcoins, and it seems that the price is >> on the upswing. >> This is really the same mechanism as with any kind of money. As long as >> there are people who want to use it to conduct their business (or to put >> away for future use), and as long as there is a restricted amount of it, >> money can be said to have value. >> The value of any commodity or any kind of money will go up if 1) more >> people want it or 2) some of it is destroyed or withdrawn from circulation, >> making it more scarce. >> Similarly, the value of any commodity or any kind of money will go down if >> 1) less people want it or 2) more of it is put into circulation, making it >> comparatively more abundant. > > >> >> That is the mechanism that determines the value of money - ANY kind of >> money. >> Sepp >> >> >> >> >> "The individual is supreme and finds the way through intuition" >> http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/ >> http://www.laleva.org >> http://blog.hasslberger.com/ >> http://www.facebook.com/hasslberger >> http://twitter.com/healthsupreme >> . >> On Jan 19, 2011, at 2:19 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote: >> >> there are still basic aspects of bitcoin I don't understand >> >> how can a self-invented coin have any value at all, >> >> who determines that value? >> >> what makes people accept that it has the value it says >> >> which bank is willing to give me other types of money in exchange for that >> value? >> >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 5:40 AM, Sepp Hasslberger <sepp(a)lastrega.com> >>> wrote: >>> > Although I have misgivings about the stability of bitcoin, I support >>> > its >>> > use. (It's the only thing out there that is completely de-linked from >>> > official currencies and from things like precious metals, that is >>> > workable >>> > for more than just local exchange). >>> > To explain my perplexity on bitcoin stability, I quote from the site >>> > cyclonite linked: >>> > "How much is a Bitcoin worth? >>> > >>> > More all the time... >>> > >>> > As you can see, over a 4 week period, recently... >>> > >>> > The value of B `8?1.00B BTC (one Bitcoin), went from B US$0.06B B to >>> > B US$0.50B B ...within only about 4 weeks. B Yes... B That was an 833% >>> > increase >>> > in it's value. B Wow." >>> > (http://www.bitcoinme.com/) >>> > For me, a currency that is to be widely used, should be stable. Stable >>> > means >>> > it doesn't go down in value, but it also doesn't go up in value >>> > excessively. >>> > It should be roughly keeping its value. Going up as much as bitcoin >>> > evidently does, is a form of instability that will bring disturbance to >>> > a >>> > marketplace using bitcoin as its means of exchange. >>> >>> bitcoin does seem to have stabilized after that initial jump. I think >>> the initial jump was due to the network effect of how fast the current >>> group of adopters jumped on board and started using bitcoin. >>> >>> Still, this is a of course a valid point. Although, the value increase >>> seems to have been mostly beneficial to the early adopters. But, I >>> could see how if the system stabilized, then a new wave of adopters >>> jumped on board, it could suddenly become very unbalanced for the >>> initial participants if various scenarios unfold. >>> >>> Although, I am not sure *if* the bitcoin system would automatically >>> inflate in an exponential way each time a new wave of participants >>> joins the system. >>> >>> One real potential problem is making sure that "honest nodes" control >>> the majority of CPU power. So far, so good. It won't be easy for >>> anyone to spoof this system. But, if a group of people wants to >>> intentionally attack the system, there could be problems. Bitcoin is a >>> good candidate for complex systems models as a means to put more >>> foresight into stability, health, etc >>> >>> > This instability could and should be remedied by adjusting the target >>> > total >>> > of bitcoin creation with an algorithm that takes into account the >>> > number of >>> > active bitcoin users. As the number of users increases, the total >>> > target >>> > amount of bitcoins to be created (which currently is fixed at >>> > 21,000,000) >>> > should increase, slowly creeping up to accomodate the demand of new >>> > users >>> > for bitcoins, in a way to keep the value of one single coin roughly >>> > stable. >>> > I do not know whether the creators of bitcoin would be willing to do >>> > this. >>> > For me, such an adjustment will be necessary to take bitcoin from >>> > experimental status to widely-used alternative means of payment status. >>> >>> Sepp, this is a great point. >>> >>> One of the nice things about bitcoin is that it is F/LOSS, so it is >>> ultimately fork-able. If bad decisions are made about the growth, the >>> project could be forked, a different governance scheme could be >>> implemented, etc. >>> >>> I don't yet know enough about bitcoin to be 100% sure, but the system >>> at least for the time being does seem to have stabilized (it could >>> simply mean that participation has stabilized). >>> >>> Bit coin claims: >>> >>> "Once a predetermined number of coins have entered >>> circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees >>> and be completely inflation >>> free." >>> >>> And yes Michel, I will post this on the blog and in wiki :) >>> >>> >>> > Kind regards >>> > Sepp >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Jan 17, 2011, at 4:44 AM, Samuel Rose wrote: >>> > >>> > Cyclonite, personally I am ready to work with bitcoin today, although >>> > the rest of p2pf may not be, which I'll respect >>> > >>> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Cyclonite <cyclonite(a)safe-mail.net> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi Guys, >>> > >>> > I think there is some kind of misunderstanding here, you do not need to >>> > manually generate any kind of public/private keys as with OpenPGP. >>> > >>> > You can even sign up in a website as mybitcoin.com and start making or >>> > receiving donations. >>> > >>> > In my opinion the best available info for beginners is >>> > http://bitcoinme.com. >>> > Please take a look and you will get your doubts clear. >>> > >>> > Best regards, >>> > >>> > Cyclonite. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > >>> > Secure Email contact: https://privacybox.de/cyclonite.msg >>> > >>> > Bitcoin donations jar: 16FVZweaaJLvhAy91oDugqaf84kXiDJ9PG >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -------- Original Message -------- >>> > >>> > From: Samuel Rose <samuel.rose(a)gmail.com> >>> > >>> > To: james burke <lifesized(a)gmail.com> >>> > >>> > Cc: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com>, cyclonite(a)safe-mail.net, >>> > p2p-foundation <p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org>, Sepp Hasslberger >>> > <sepp(a)lastrega.com>, Georg Pleger <g.pleger(a)yahoo.de> >>> > >>> > Subject: Re: Bitcoin donation >>> > >>> > Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 09:30:23 -0500 >>> > >>> > On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 5:54 AM, james burke <lifesized(a)gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi Michel, >>> > >>> > Yes, I do have a public key, but yet again, >>> > >>> > another nice idea with terrible interaction design and userbility >>> > >>> > - most people have no clue about public private keys, so this keeps it >>> > a >>> > >>> > geek thing >>> > >>> > I agree, although as far as I can see, the application at least takes >>> > >>> > care of this for the user. Still, your point is valid in that some >>> > >>> > people may not understand what is happening. >>> > >>> > >>> > Most of the users of bitcoin now are early adopters, however. So, if >>> > >>> > p2pf did support donation via bitcoin, it would be joining an ecology >>> > >>> > of early adopters, and would likely only receive donation from those >>> > >>> > early adopters. >>> > >>> > - the actual app upon launch is unclear. Where to click, what to >>> > do,gah! >>> > >>> > I can't really support this even if it is a p2p solution. >>> > >>> > James >>> > >>> > >>> > Seems reasonable. If p2pf changes it's mind, I'm willing to >>> > >>> > participate in any experiments with bitcoin >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Michel Bauwens >>> > <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> >>> > >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > James, >>> > >>> > do you have a public key? >>> > >>> > Michel >>> > >>> > On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose(a)gmail.com> >>> > >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > This is a p2p application, so we would need to post your's or James's >>> > >>> > public key, and people who want to donate bitcoins would need then >>> > >>> > send you the bitcoins by downloading the bitcoin application and >>> > >>> > sending it to you >>> > >>> > quote: >>> > >>> > "Bitcoin utilizes public/private key digital signatures (ECDSA). A >>> > >>> > coin has its owner's public key on it. When a coin is transferred from >>> > >>> > user A to user B, A adds Bbs public key to the coin and signs it with >>> > >>> > his own private key. Now B owns the coin and can transfer it further. >>> > >>> > To prevent A from transferring the already used coin to another user >>> > >>> > C, a public list of all the previous transactions is collectively >>> > >>> > maintained by the network of Bitcoin nodes, and before each >>> > >>> > transaction the coinbs unusedness will be checked." >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Michel Bauwens >>> > >>> > <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Sam, can you help us install it on the wiki and blog? >>> > >>> > On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose(a)gmail.com> >>> > >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > I've downloaded and installed and am game to try with p2pf network >>> > >>> > folks. >>> > >>> > This could actually be really useful for lots of local economy efforts >>> > >>> > too. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Michel Bauwens >>> > >>> > <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> >>> > >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > Dear, >>> > >>> > thanks a lot for this email, >>> > >>> > it seems that it is worthwhile for us to experiment with this, but I >>> > >>> > will >>> > >>> > forward this to James Burke for possible implementation >>> > >>> > James, I think we should do this, what doB you think? >>> > >>> > Michel >>> > >>> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 11:42 PM, <cyclonite(a)safe-mail.net> wrote: >>> > >>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> > >>> > Hash: SHA1 >>> > >>> > Dear friends, >>> > >>> > I have been looking in your site for any reference to Bitcoin for >>> > >>> > making a >>> > >>> > small donation. >>> > >>> > As B you B probably B know, B Bitcoin B (bitcoin.org) B is B a B new kind >>> > >>> > of a >>> > >>> > P2P >>> > >>> > crypto-currency in which the general public can B make donations, >>> > >>> > macro >>> > >>> > B or >>> > >>> > micropayments B in B a B secure B and B anonymous B way B usually >>> > >>> > B without >>> > >>> > B any >>> > >>> > transaction fee involved. >>> > >>> > You can change Bitcoins for real money (eg: https://mtgox.com) or >>> > >>> > purchase >>> > >>> > services or goods in an increasing number of sites. >>> > >>> > In B order to B receive B donations you B only have B to B publish B one >>> > >>> > B of >>> > >>> > your >>> > >>> > accounts B as generated B by the B bitcoin client B or any specialized >>> > >>> > bitcoin >>> > >>> > trader (eg: mybitcoin.com) >>> > >>> > Currently B some B projects B as B www.i2p2.de, >>> > >>> > B www.torrentservers.net >>> > >>> > and >>> > >>> > organizations like the EFF are accepting donations. >>> > >>> > In B my B opinion B this B kind B of decentralized solution without the >>> > >>> > need >>> > >>> > to >>> > >>> > trust B any B middlemen B is much better than B Paypal, Visa or >>> > >>> > Mastercard >>> > >>> > for >>> > >>> > security-minded people as most of your donors are. >>> > >>> > If B you B are B interested in B pushing B Bitcoin forward, B do not >>> > >>> > hesitate >>> > >>> > to >>> > >>> > contact me if you have any doubt. >>> > >>> > Yours, >>> > >>> > Cyclonite >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Sam Rose >>> Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation >>> Tel:+1(517) 639-1552 >>> Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451 >>> skype: samuelrose >>> email: samuel.rose(a)gmail.com >>> http://forwardfound.org >>> http://futureforwardinstitute.org >>> http://hollymeadcapital.com >>> http://p2pfoundation.net >>> http://socialmediaclassroom.com >>> >>> "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human >>> ambition." - Carl Sagan >> >> >> >> -- >> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.netB - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >> >> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: >> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org >> >> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; >> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >> >> Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI >> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.netB - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org > > Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI > > > > > -- -- Sam Rose Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation Tel:+1(517) 639-1552 Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451 skype: samuelrose email: samuel.rose(a)gmail.com http://forwardfound.org http://futureforwardinstitute.org http://hollymeadcapital.com http://p2pfoundation.net http://socialmediaclassroom.com "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition." - Carl Sagan _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation ----- 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: [P2P-F] Bitcoin donation
by Samuel Rose 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ok, I get it, so there are people out there actually wanting to 'buy' > bitcoins, and I wasn't aware of that, and obviously, this needs to be bought > and expressed by another existing currency, hence the 'value' > Yes, from what I can tell, *now* the best way to get bitcoins is to buy them. However, it seems based on reading online discussions that in the earliest days of bitcoin activity, that it was a bit easier to contribute your personal computer power to the network and "generate" coins. Now, it the calculations are over a year for a typical laptop (ref: http://www.alloscomp.com/bitcoin/calculator.php ) A whole history of trading can be viewed here: https://mtgox.com/trade/history Again, I think there is only one real issue with bitcoin: that it is a homogenous currency. I am looking at the idea of soliciting donations towards extending bitcoin software so that users may either issue new currency (with new rules), or participate in existing currencies all from the same protocol/software. > I 'got' it <g> > > By the way, alt.currency/credit commons expert Thomas Greco is in Chiang > Mai! > > > Michel > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Sepp Hasslberger <sepp(a)lastrega.com> wrote: >> >> Basically Michel, the value of any commodity is determined by whether >> people believe it is of value. >> The fact that you can buy and sell something establishes a base-line value >> for it. The value is a balance between how much of the stuff is available, >> and how much demand there is for it from potential buyers. Economists called >> it the law of supply and demand. >> In the case of bitcoin, we are looking at a commodity (exchangeable >> electronic "coins") that is scarce - there are only so many coins in >> existence, and making more of them is a slow, difficult prcess - and for >> which there is a demand. People are looking around for some kind of means of >> exchange that can de-link them from the official currencies. Potentially, we >> have a great demand for bitcoins ... if the idea of using them as a means of >> payment ever really catches on. Even as it is, there is enough of a demand >> for bitcoins to "feel their scarcity", and thus, to make them valuable. A >> price is being set for bitcoins in exchange services. The price is entirely >> dependent on how badly people want bitcoins, and it seems that the price is >> on the upswing. >> This is really the same mechanism as with any kind of money. As long as >> there are people who want to use it to conduct their business (or to put >> away for future use), and as long as there is a restricted amount of it, >> money can be said to have value. >> The value of any commodity or any kind of money will go up if 1) more >> people want it or 2) some of it is destroyed or withdrawn from circulation, >> making it more scarce. >> Similarly, the value of any commodity or any kind of money will go down if >> 1) less people want it or 2) more of it is put into circulation, making it >> comparatively more abundant. > > >> >> That is the mechanism that determines the value of money - ANY kind of >> money. >> Sepp >> >> >> >> >> "The individual is supreme and finds the way through intuition" >> http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/ >> http://www.laleva.org >> http://blog.hasslberger.com/ >> http://www.facebook.com/hasslberger >> http://twitter.com/healthsupreme >> . >> On Jan 19, 2011, at 2:19 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote: >> >> there are still basic aspects of bitcoin I don't understand >> >> how can a self-invented coin have any value at all, >> >> who determines that value? >> >> what makes people accept that it has the value it says >> >> which bank is willing to give me other types of money in exchange for that >> value? >> >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 5:40 AM, Sepp Hasslberger <sepp(a)lastrega.com> >>> wrote: >>> > Although I have misgivings about the stability of bitcoin, I support >>> > its >>> > use. (It's the only thing out there that is completely de-linked from >>> > official currencies and from things like precious metals, that is >>> > workable >>> > for more than just local exchange). >>> > To explain my perplexity on bitcoin stability, I quote from the site >>> > cyclonite linked: >>> > "How much is a Bitcoin worth? >>> > >>> > More all the time... >>> > >>> > As you can see, over a 4 week period, recently... >>> > >>> > The value of B `8?1.00B BTC (one Bitcoin), went from B US$0.06B B to >>> > B US$0.50B B ...within only about 4 weeks. B Yes... B That was an 833% >>> > increase >>> > in it's value. B Wow." >>> > (http://www.bitcoinme.com/) >>> > For me, a currency that is to be widely used, should be stable. Stable >>> > means >>> > it doesn't go down in value, but it also doesn't go up in value >>> > excessively. >>> > It should be roughly keeping its value. Going up as much as bitcoin >>> > evidently does, is a form of instability that will bring disturbance to >>> > a >>> > marketplace using bitcoin as its means of exchange. >>> >>> bitcoin does seem to have stabilized after that initial jump. I think >>> the initial jump was due to the network effect of how fast the current >>> group of adopters jumped on board and started using bitcoin. >>> >>> Still, this is a of course a valid point. Although, the value increase >>> seems to have been mostly beneficial to the early adopters. But, I >>> could see how if the system stabilized, then a new wave of adopters >>> jumped on board, it could suddenly become very unbalanced for the >>> initial participants if various scenarios unfold. >>> >>> Although, I am not sure *if* the bitcoin system would automatically >>> inflate in an exponential way each time a new wave of participants >>> joins the system. >>> >>> One real potential problem is making sure that "honest nodes" control >>> the majority of CPU power. So far, so good. It won't be easy for >>> anyone to spoof this system. But, if a group of people wants to >>> intentionally attack the system, there could be problems. Bitcoin is a >>> good candidate for complex systems models as a means to put more >>> foresight into stability, health, etc >>> >>> > This instability could and should be remedied by adjusting the target >>> > total >>> > of bitcoin creation with an algorithm that takes into account the >>> > number of >>> > active bitcoin users. As the number of users increases, the total >>> > target >>> > amount of bitcoins to be created (which currently is fixed at >>> > 21,000,000) >>> > should increase, slowly creeping up to accomodate the demand of new >>> > users >>> > for bitcoins, in a way to keep the value of one single coin roughly >>> > stable. >>> > I do not know whether the creators of bitcoin would be willing to do >>> > this. >>> > For me, such an adjustment will be necessary to take bitcoin from >>> > experimental status to widely-used alternative means of payment status. >>> >>> Sepp, this is a great point. >>> >>> One of the nice things about bitcoin is that it is F/LOSS, so it is >>> ultimately fork-able. If bad decisions are made about the growth, the >>> project could be forked, a different governance scheme could be >>> implemented, etc. >>> >>> I don't yet know enough about bitcoin to be 100% sure, but the system >>> at least for the time being does seem to have stabilized (it could >>> simply mean that participation has stabilized). >>> >>> Bit coin claims: >>> >>> "Once a predetermined number of coins have entered >>> circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees >>> and be completely inflation >>> free." >>> >>> And yes Michel, I will post this on the blog and in wiki :) >>> >>> >>> > Kind regards >>> > Sepp >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Jan 17, 2011, at 4:44 AM, Samuel Rose wrote: >>> > >>> > Cyclonite, personally I am ready to work with bitcoin today, although >>> > the rest of p2pf may not be, which I'll respect >>> > >>> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Cyclonite <cyclonite(a)safe-mail.net> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi Guys, >>> > >>> > I think there is some kind of misunderstanding here, you do not need to >>> > manually generate any kind of public/private keys as with OpenPGP. >>> > >>> > You can even sign up in a website as mybitcoin.com and start making or >>> > receiving donations. >>> > >>> > In my opinion the best available info for beginners is >>> > http://bitcoinme.com. >>> > Please take a look and you will get your doubts clear. >>> > >>> > Best regards, >>> > >>> > Cyclonite. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > >>> > Secure Email contact: https://privacybox.de/cyclonite.msg >>> > >>> > Bitcoin donations jar: 16FVZweaaJLvhAy91oDugqaf84kXiDJ9PG >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -------- Original Message -------- >>> > >>> > From: Samuel Rose <samuel.rose(a)gmail.com> >>> > >>> > To: james burke <lifesized(a)gmail.com> >>> > >>> > Cc: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com>, cyclonite(a)safe-mail.net, >>> > p2p-foundation <p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org>, Sepp Hasslberger >>> > <sepp(a)lastrega.com>, Georg Pleger <g.pleger(a)yahoo.de> >>> > >>> > Subject: Re: Bitcoin donation >>> > >>> > Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 09:30:23 -0500 >>> > >>> > On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 5:54 AM, james burke <lifesized(a)gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi Michel, >>> > >>> > Yes, I do have a public key, but yet again, >>> > >>> > another nice idea with terrible interaction design and userbility >>> > >>> > - most people have no clue about public private keys, so this keeps it >>> > a >>> > >>> > geek thing >>> > >>> > I agree, although as far as I can see, the application at least takes >>> > >>> > care of this for the user. Still, your point is valid in that some >>> > >>> > people may not understand what is happening. >>> > >>> > >>> > Most of the users of bitcoin now are early adopters, however. So, if >>> > >>> > p2pf did support donation via bitcoin, it would be joining an ecology >>> > >>> > of early adopters, and would likely only receive donation from those >>> > >>> > early adopters. >>> > >>> > - the actual app upon launch is unclear. Where to click, what to >>> > do,gah! >>> > >>> > I can't really support this even if it is a p2p solution. >>> > >>> > James >>> > >>> > >>> > Seems reasonable. If p2pf changes it's mind, I'm willing to >>> > >>> > participate in any experiments with bitcoin >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Michel Bauwens >>> > <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> >>> > >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > James, >>> > >>> > do you have a public key? >>> > >>> > Michel >>> > >>> > On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose(a)gmail.com> >>> > >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > This is a p2p application, so we would need to post your's or James's >>> > >>> > public key, and people who want to donate bitcoins would need then >>> > >>> > send you the bitcoins by downloading the bitcoin application and >>> > >>> > sending it to you >>> > >>> > quote: >>> > >>> > "Bitcoin utilizes public/private key digital signatures (ECDSA). A >>> > >>> > coin has its owner's public key on it. When a coin is transferred from >>> > >>> > user A to user B, A adds Bbs public key to the coin and signs it with >>> > >>> > his own private key. Now B owns the coin and can transfer it further. >>> > >>> > To prevent A from transferring the already used coin to another user >>> > >>> > C, a public list of all the previous transactions is collectively >>> > >>> > maintained by the network of Bitcoin nodes, and before each >>> > >>> > transaction the coinbs unusedness will be checked." >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Michel Bauwens >>> > >>> > <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Sam, can you help us install it on the wiki and blog? >>> > >>> > On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose(a)gmail.com> >>> > >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > I've downloaded and installed and am game to try with p2pf network >>> > >>> > folks. >>> > >>> > This could actually be really useful for lots of local economy efforts >>> > >>> > too. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Michel Bauwens >>> > >>> > <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> >>> > >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > Dear, >>> > >>> > thanks a lot for this email, >>> > >>> > it seems that it is worthwhile for us to experiment with this, but I >>> > >>> > will >>> > >>> > forward this to James Burke for possible implementation >>> > >>> > James, I think we should do this, what doB you think? >>> > >>> > Michel >>> > >>> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 11:42 PM, <cyclonite(a)safe-mail.net> wrote: >>> > >>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> > >>> > Hash: SHA1 >>> > >>> > Dear friends, >>> > >>> > I have been looking in your site for any reference to Bitcoin for >>> > >>> > making a >>> > >>> > small donation. >>> > >>> > As B you B probably B know, B Bitcoin B (bitcoin.org) B is B a B new kind >>> > >>> > of a >>> > >>> > P2P >>> > >>> > crypto-currency in which the general public can B make donations, >>> > >>> > macro >>> > >>> > B or >>> > >>> > micropayments B in B a B secure B and B anonymous B way B usually >>> > >>> > B without >>> > >>> > B any >>> > >>> > transaction fee involved. >>> > >>> > You can change Bitcoins for real money (eg: https://mtgox.com) or >>> > >>> > purchase >>> > >>> > services or goods in an increasing number of sites. >>> > >>> > In B order to B receive B donations you B only have B to B publish B one >>> > >>> > B of >>> > >>> > your >>> > >>> > accounts B as generated B by the B bitcoin client B or any specialized >>> > >>> > bitcoin >>> > >>> > trader (eg: mybitcoin.com) >>> > >>> > Currently B some B projects B as B www.i2p2.de, >>> > >>> > B www.torrentservers.net >>> > >>> > and >>> > >>> > organizations like the EFF are accepting donations. >>> > >>> > In B my B opinion B this B kind B of decentralized solution without the >>> > >>> > need >>> > >>> > to >>> > >>> > trust B any B middlemen B is much better than B Paypal, Visa or >>> > >>> > Mastercard >>> > >>> > for >>> > >>> > security-minded people as most of your donors are. >>> > >>> > If B you B are B interested in B pushing B Bitcoin forward, B do not >>> > >>> > hesitate >>> > >>> > to >>> > >>> > contact me if you have any doubt. >>> > >>> > Yours, >>> > >>> > Cyclonite >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Sam Rose >>> Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation >>> Tel:+1(517) 639-1552 >>> Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451 >>> skype: samuelrose >>> email: samuel.rose(a)gmail.com >>> http://forwardfound.org >>> http://futureforwardinstitute.org >>> http://hollymeadcapital.com >>> http://p2pfoundation.net >>> http://socialmediaclassroom.com >>> >>> "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human >>> ambition." - Carl Sagan >> >> >> >> -- >> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.netB - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net >> >> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: >> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org >> >> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; >> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens >> >> Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI >> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.netB - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org > > Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI > > > > > -- -- Sam Rose Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation Tel:+1(517) 639-1552 Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451 skype: samuelrose email: samuel.rose(a)gmail.com http://forwardfound.org http://futureforwardinstitute.org http://hollymeadcapital.com http://p2pfoundation.net http://socialmediaclassroom.com "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition." - Carl Sagan _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation ----- 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: [tor-talk] Dutch CA issues fake *.torproject.org cert (among many others)
by Marsh Ray 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On 09/07/2011 04:48 PM, Julian Yon wrote: > > There's no need to be patronising. I have plenty of security > experience. Sorry, wasn't trying to be patronizing. Just trying to give my opinion plainly. This is where, IMHO, computer security people can maybe take a step back. Sure we should all remind each other that it's easy to get engrossed in the computer screen that we forget what's going on around us and who may be watching. But everyone in the world has experience managing their own personal space and physical security. Computing devices are ordinary physical objects now. Computer security people may not be any better qualified to advise on personal physical security (and maybe we come across as a little patronizing too). > Shared environments are not a thing of the past, certainly not in > the UK, and a physically present adversary is a real threat for many > people. Right. I'm just not particularly qualified to advise about that kind of threat. > Not everyone can be told to look away (unless you like time in > hospital), and if you can use a drop-down with your screen covered > then I applaud you. And online-banking isn't aimed at experts, it's > used by "normal" people. It's so easy to mitigate this specific > threat in software that it is negligent not to do so. Realistically today the bank may have thousands of customers with malicious keyloggers for every one who is protected by an obscured display. This was not the case just a few years ago, the threat has changed. The keylogger threat might be somewhat mitigated with the UI changes, but the UI is largely incapable of restoring a user's physical security. - Marsh _______________________________________________ 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: [cryptography] [info] The NSA Is Building the Countrybs Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say)
by Jeffrey I. Schiller 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Let's think this through a bit. Assuming no stupendous breakthrough, breaking encrypted messages will always take a significant amount of time (and depending on the amount of "stuff" you have to deal with, 1 or 2 seconds might be significant!). So I see really only two purposes for such a massive data center, and I suspect both are addressed. 1) Use best available (to the NSA) techniques for breaking selected encrypted messages. Presumably these would be those from foreign governments and from suspected terrorists etc. But this will always be a limited number of messages. 2) Traffic analysis, including plain text analysis of unencrypted communications. Sure, there is a lot of encrypted stuff out there. But there is also a ton of unencrypted stuff, or stuff where you can easily get access to the unencrypted version (aka financial transactions etc.). And even of the encrypted traffic, a lot can be discarded as boring (aka say all of the https traffic to amazon.com) I bet everyone on this list can send encrypted messages to each other and they will never be broken... because they probably already know who we all are and (at least I hope) have put us all in the "mostly harmless" bucket. -Jeff _______________________________________________________________________ Jeffrey I. Schiller MIT Technologist, Consultant, and Cavy Breeder Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 617.910.0259 - Voice jis(a)qyv.net http://jis.qyv.name _______________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFPbKJA8CBzV/QUlSsRAqJtAJwI505prm8QIPa857/zSIcQhuV5KQCg/nJP CIXRIirq9MlcZrjEDaTkRgE= =2C2m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography(a)randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

None
by Randall 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

<dewayne(a)warpspeed.com>, JMG <johnmacsgroup(a)yahoogroups.com> Subject: No one on the planet will choose this voluntarily. <http://htdaw.blogsource.com/post.mhtml?post_id=328782> Friday, May 19, 2006 at 12:00 AM EDT Blu-ray makes unexpected, three-way DRM choice for high-def DVD Scott M. Fulton, III August 10, 2005 17:18 Hollywood (CA) - In an announcement last night, the Blu-ray Disc Association, led by Sony, representing one of two competing high-definition DVD formats, stated it will simultaneously embrace digital watermarking, programmable cryptography, and a self-destruct code for Blu-ray disc players. The BDA statement is unprecedented not only because its solution to the nagging problem of digital rights management is to embrace every option on the table, but also because Blu-ray appears to have developed its own approach - in some cases, proprietary - to each of these three technologies. Knowledge of this impending fact may have been what tipped movie studio 20th Century-Fox last week to throw its support behind Blu-ray, in a move that experts believe balanced the scales in Blu-ray's ongoing battle with competing format HD DVD - backed by a forum led by Toshiba - to become the next high-def industry standard. The digital watermarking technique, which will be called ROM Mark, is described in the statement as "a unique and undetectable identifier in pre-recorded BD-ROM media such as movies, music and games." "BD-ROM" is the proposed writable version of the Blu-ray format. Little else is known about ROM Mark at this time, except that the statement describes it as being undetectable to consumers. This is noteworthy in itself, since a previously heralded watermark applied to first-generation DVDs was notoriously defeated by someone writing over it with a permanent marker. One part of the announcement that had been anticipated by experts was Blu-ray's embrace of Advanced Access Content System (AACS), one version of which has also been adopted by the HD DVD Forum. This controversial technology would require that disc players maintain permanent connections to content providers via the Internet, making it possible for discs that fail a security check to trigger a notification process, enabling the provider to send the player a sort of "self-destruct code." This code would come in the form of a flash ROM "update" that would actually render the player useless, perhaps unless and until it is taken to a repair shop for reprogramming. The Blu-ray statement noted that certain elements of AACS have yet to be formally approved by the BDA. The third part of the announcement that is perhaps most surprising, is Blu-ray's adoption of a third DRM technique that appears to embrace some of the ideals of one of the technologies that had been considered, without actually licensing its methodology or its existing tools. The BDA statement introduces what it calls "BD+," described as "a Blu-ray Disc specific programmable renewability enhancement that gives content providers an additional means to respond to organized attacks on the security system by allowing dynamic updates of compromised code." BD+ appears to be Blu-ray's version of a concept previously under consideration called SPDC, which enabled the method for encrypting a disc's contents to be included on the disc, rather than on the EPROMs of the disc player. One of the perceived failures of first-generation DVD was that its encryption mechanism of choice, called Content Scramble System (CSS), was spectacularly defeated, with the result being that the industry was forced to permanently and irreversibly support a now-worthless encryption scheme. With SPDC, new encryption algorithms could be adopted as old ones are cracked, enabling successive generations of high-def DVD to be stronger than earlier ones. Two months ago, the HD DVD Forum considered a coupling of AACS with SPDC. But a scientifically accurate though politically imbalanced white paper released by the creators of SPDC technology, Cryptography Research, Inc. (CRI), soundly rebuked alternative DRM technologies, and thus may have unintentionally played a role in SPDC's falling out of favor with the original supporters of CSS, some of whom were HD DVD Forum members. The Forum rejected "AACS+SPDC" for undisclosed reasons, leading many to speculate that Blu ray would respond by embracing SPDC. However, as SPDC was originally discussed, there would only have been one encryption standard in use throughout the industry at any one time. According to yesterday evening's BDA statement, BD+ would follow SPDC's core principle, but instead allow each content provider to utilize whatever encryption standard it sees fit at the time. "With these enhancements," the statement reads, "content providers have a number of methods to choose from to combat hacks on Blu-ray players. Moreover, BD+ affects only players that have been attacked, as opposed to those that are vulnerable but haven't been attacked and therefore continue to operate properly." This last sentence is important, because one key objection that experts raised to the pairing of AACS with SPDC was the possibility that, once the single SPDC encryption scheme was broken, AACS could trigger a signal to all players using that encryption scheme, rendering all discs that use this scheme unplayable, perhaps prior to a system upgrade. The BDA statement appears to distance itself from the CRI approach to SPDC, perhaps to calm consumer fears that entire libraries of perfectly legitimate content could be rendered useless due to someone else's illicit activities. The CRI white paper, incidentally, distinguished SPDC by contrasting it with other DRM techniques such as watermarking. "Although some progress is being made at improving robustness and efficiency," the white paper states, "we are not optimistic that a practical and secure public watermarking scheme is possible." Such comparisons may have worked against SPDC's eventual adoption by Blu-ray in method as well as in principle. On behalf of the HD DVD Forum this morning, Toshiba's advisor to the Forum, Mark Knox, released a brief statement: "Today's announcement by the BD Group should not confuse anyone," states Knox. "HD DVD's content protection system provides the highest level of advanced copy protection to meet content owner's needs and the rigors of consumer demand." Knox goes on to say that AACS - which now singularly forms the crux of HD DVD's DRM - is the most advanced such scheme yet devised, and that HD DVD's own membership continues to back that approach. "We will continue to promote further penetration of the format," Knox added, "while simultaneously seeking ways to eventually realize a single format that delivers optimized benefits to all concerned industries and, most important, to consumers." Tom's Hardware Guide will present an in-depth analysis of the Blu-ray/HD DVD format combat Thursday morning in its Business Reports section. There, we'll speak with industry experts, including one prominent media pioneer, in examining how the participants in this struggle may actually have always been planning for its eventual resolution, and what form the fruits of that resolution may take. <http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/08/10/blu/index.html> Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com> ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 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

[Dewayne-Net] No one on the planet will choose this voluntarily
by Dewayne Hendricks 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

[Note: This item comes from reader Randall. DLH]

1 0

Re: [tor-talk] Dutch CA issues fake *.torproject.org cert (among many others)
by Marsh Ray 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On 09/07/2011 04:48 PM, Julian Yon wrote: > > There's no need to be patronising. I have plenty of security > experience. Sorry, wasn't trying to be patronizing. Just trying to give my opinion plainly. This is where, IMHO, computer security people can maybe take a step back. Sure we should all remind each other that it's easy to get engrossed in the computer screen that we forget what's going on around us and who may be watching. But everyone in the world has experience managing their own personal space and physical security. Computing devices are ordinary physical objects now. Computer security people may not be any better qualified to advise on personal physical security (and maybe we come across as a little patronizing too). > Shared environments are not a thing of the past, certainly not in > the UK, and a physically present adversary is a real threat for many > people. Right. I'm just not particularly qualified to advise about that kind of threat. > Not everyone can be told to look away (unless you like time in > hospital), and if you can use a drop-down with your screen covered > then I applaud you. And online-banking isn't aimed at experts, it's > used by "normal" people. It's so easy to mitigate this specific > threat in software that it is negligent not to do so. Realistically today the bank may have thousands of customers with malicious keyloggers for every one who is protected by an obscured display. This was not the case just a few years ago, the threat has changed. The keylogger threat might be somewhat mitigated with the UI changes, but the UI is largely incapable of restoring a user's physical security. - Marsh _______________________________________________ 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: [cryptography] [info] The NSA Is Building the Countrybs Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say)
by Jeffrey I. Schiller 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Let's think this through a bit. Assuming no stupendous breakthrough, breaking encrypted messages will always take a significant amount of time (and depending on the amount of "stuff" you have to deal with, 1 or 2 seconds might be significant!). So I see really only two purposes for such a massive data center, and I suspect both are addressed. 1) Use best available (to the NSA) techniques for breaking selected encrypted messages. Presumably these would be those from foreign governments and from suspected terrorists etc. But this will always be a limited number of messages. 2) Traffic analysis, including plain text analysis of unencrypted communications. Sure, there is a lot of encrypted stuff out there. But there is also a ton of unencrypted stuff, or stuff where you can easily get access to the unencrypted version (aka financial transactions etc.). And even of the encrypted traffic, a lot can be discarded as boring (aka say all of the https traffic to amazon.com) I bet everyone on this list can send encrypted messages to each other and they will never be broken... because they probably already know who we all are and (at least I hope) have put us all in the "mostly harmless" bucket. -Jeff _______________________________________________________________________ Jeffrey I. Schiller MIT Technologist, Consultant, and Cavy Breeder Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 617.910.0259 - Voice jis(a)qyv.net http://jis.qyv.name _______________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFPbKJA8CBzV/QUlSsRAqJtAJwI505prm8QIPa857/zSIcQhuV5KQCg/nJP CIXRIirq9MlcZrjEDaTkRgE= =2C2m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography(a)randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0