Re: FBI moves to route internet through central servers: Another dagger in the Heart of Freedom in America
On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 00:09:19 -0700, someone wrote:
[hi folks, step by step we are losing our liberty, speak now or forever hold your peace.]
The feds have been working for years on higher speed, government access only, Internet alternative. Once they have this in place, or even before with this new approach, they could close the Internet down of filter our undesirable traffic as they see fit. Forcing the U.S. Internet though one location would destablize the entire network. A few of the alternatives are: - to support the smaller ISPs doing local peering and who cannot afford to use the major peering points - re-awaken FidoNet - Purchase and offer 802.11 public access points - write letters and emails to the major ISP CEOs warning of the dire technical and personal consequences should their networks surcome to this fed pressure
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 27 October 2001 11:06 am, keyser-soze@hushmail.com wrote: <snip>
A few of the alternatives are: - to support the smaller ISPs doing local peering and who cannot afford to use the major peering points
They still have to purchase their bandwidth from the major players, especially if the government subsidizes or otherwise rewards those ISPs who use the public peering points
- re-awaken FidoNet
FidoNet died because it's slow, cumbersome, and technically inferior - and most traffic still flows through the Internet, anyway, particularly for things like email.
- Purchase and offer 802.11 public access points
Which does absolutely nothing to help the situation. Traffic from access point to access point is still through landlines, still controlled by ISPs, and still subject to monitoring. The source might be obfuscated, but that's not security or privacy - that's just making LEA's work a little harder and spend a little more money which they'll take from us, anyway.
- write letters and emails to the major ISP CEOs warning of the dire technical and personal consequences should their networks surcome to this fed pressure
Um, what consequences? If they don't cooperate, they get shut down. If they do cooperate, they probably get subsidies ("reimbursement"), preference for government contracts, etc. The majority of the people on the internet are, sadly, no longer mainly geeks; they're sheeple who do as they're told as long as they can still watch "Friends" and "Survivor". If you want to fix the problem, spread the word on encryption. Hushmail won't do it, Mr. Soze; it's a central location and a profit-making business, and if you think they won't cooperate with court orders you're dreaming. How would you know if it was secure or not? You don't, you have to rely on what they tell you. Use PGP or, better yet, GPG. Teach other people how to do the same. Get enough people doing it that it becomes an inconvenience to NOT use encryption, then let inertia take over. Join a militia, work to keep the militia from being marginalized or turned into a "fringe" group. Work the militia in your community by forming legal neighborhood watches, taking on the responsibilities of volunteer fire departments in rural areas, form search and rescue teams for emergencies. Be the first on the scene for every sandbagging effort in flood areas. You're doing your job right if the national guard is never needed in your area - replace them, co-opt their members if you can. March in parades with clean uniforms, happy smiles and big American flags. Do everything you can to keep recruitment up and complaints low. Find the local, state, and federal politicians you like the most or hate the least and work to help them campaign in your area - it never hurts to have official friends. Keep educating the people, bless their dear little hearts, on what it means to be free - and use local examples. Don't just say "the government might take away your right to send encrypted email" - they don't care. Say "you know, the government wants to take us away from you. They want to label us the same as they labelled those idiots in Waco and Montana. Who would protect you then?" It's all about PR. - -- Matt Beland matt@rearviewmirror.org http://www.rearviewmirror.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE72wRFBxcVTa6Gy5wRAhPyAJ9X9lIELnwdMyIPZF/5VAcGQmMogwCcD8n9 imsNpaDBsM9iiM3mHEt2XnQ= =I93W -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sat, 27 Oct 2001, Matt Beland wrote:
- Purchase and offer 802.11 public access points
Which does absolutely nothing to help the situation. Traffic from access point to access point is still through landlines, still controlled by ISPs, and still subject to monitoring. The source might be obfuscated, but that's not security or privacy - that's just making LEA's work a little harder and spend a little more money which they'll take from us, anyway.
That's not entirely correct. In fact there are examples of dedicated lines being used for wireless interconnectivity to bypass the traditional network. The 802.11b are worthless for anything but playing around with, but the 802.11a that just came out has sufficient bandwidth and range to become a real contender with respect to spontaneous urban network layers. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 27 October 2001 11:06 am, keyser-soze@hushmail.com wrote: <snip>
A few of the alternatives are: - to support the smaller ISPs doing local peering and who cannot afford to use the major peering points
They still have to purchase their bandwidth from the major players, especially if the government subsidizes or otherwise rewards those ISPs who use the public peering points
- re-awaken FidoNet
FidoNet died because it's slow, cumbersome, and technically inferior - and most traffic still flows through the Internet, anyway, particularly for things like email.
- Purchase and offer 802.11 public access points
Which does absolutely nothing to help the situation. Traffic from access point to access point is still through landlines, still controlled by ISPs, and still subject to monitoring. The source might be obfuscated, but that's not security or privacy - that's just making LEA's work a little harder and spend a little more money which they'll take from us, anyway.
- write letters and emails to the major ISP CEOs warning of the dire technical and personal consequences should their networks surcome to this fed pressure
Um, what consequences? If they don't cooperate, they get shut down. If they do cooperate, they probably get subsidies ("reimbursement"), preference for government contracts, etc. The majority of the people on the internet are, sadly, no longer mainly geeks; they're sheeple who do as they're told as long as they can still watch "Friends" and "Survivor". If you want to fix the problem, spread the word on encryption. Hushmail won't do it, Mr. Soze; it's a central location and a profit-making business, and if you think they won't cooperate with court orders you're dreaming. How would you know if it was secure or not? You don't, you have to rely on what they tell you. Use PGP or, better yet, GPG. Teach other people how to do the same. Get enough people doing it that it becomes an inconvenience to NOT use encryption, then let inertia take over. Join a militia, work to keep the militia from being marginalized or turned into a "fringe" group. Work the militia in your community by forming legal neighborhood watches, taking on the responsibilities of volunteer fire departments in rural areas, form search and rescue teams for emergencies. Be the first on the scene for every sandbagging effort in flood areas. You're doing your job right if the national guard is never needed in your area - replace them, co-opt their members if you can. March in parades with clean uniforms, happy smiles and big American flags. Do everything you can to keep recruitment up and complaints low. Find the local, state, and federal politicians you like the most or hate the least and work to help them campaign in your area - it never hurts to have official friends. Keep educating the people, bless their dear little hearts, on what it means to be free - and use local examples. Don't just say "the government might take away your right to send encrypted email" - they don't care. Say "you know, the government wants to take us away from you. They want to label us the same as they labelled those idiots in Waco and Montana. Who would protect you then?" It's all about PR. - -- Matt Beland matt@rearviewmirror.org http://www.rearviewmirror.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE72wRFBxcVTa6Gy5wRAhPyAJ9X9lIELnwdMyIPZF/5VAcGQmMogwCcD8n9 imsNpaDBsM9iiM3mHEt2XnQ= =I93W -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 11:06:51AM -0700, keyser-soze@hushmail.com wrote:
- re-awaken FidoNet
FidoNet, ugh. Would the software even work under most current operating systems? uucp still lives in pretty much every UNIX and UNIX-like operating system and it moves email well. It would be a simple matter to get uucp going for a mail link with some sort of over the wire encryption. It has been about ten years since I've dealt with this, but as I recall each email message went via a uux of rmail (uux was remote command execution - sort of like rsh over a modem). There is no particular reason why one couldn't encrypt before sending and decrypt upon receipt. Mostly just a modification to sendmail.cf and a modification to rmail. Of course this really just solves the problem for a single hop uucp link. People did a lot of multi-hop uucp. I remember trying to work out the right "bang path" to get mail across the country to people I was corresponding with quickly. Of course, you end up with the same problems. Traffic can be monitored. multi-hop uucp means there are lots of very easy interception points. This doesn't really get around the whole problem, uucp is just something different to monitor, still subject to traffic analysis, and you'd need real end to end encryption of email messages via something like pgp/gpg anyway. The only thing a large multi-hop uucp network would give us is that it would allow us to do is decentralise and control our own mail paths, so monitoring would be harder, in that sense. In a large enough network, one could even use a different path for each message. I wonder if my old Telebit modem still works. It is in a box somewhere... --- Mark Henderson, mch@squirrel.com, mch@informationanarchy.org "Heilir fsir. Heilar asynjur. Heil sja in fjvln}ta fold." - Sigrdrmfumal OpenPGP/GnuPG keys available at http://www.squirrel.com/pgpkeys.asc
On 27 Oct 2001, at 13:24, Mark Henderson wrote:
uucp still lives in pretty much every UNIX and UNIX-like operating system and it moves email well.
It would be a simple matter to get uucp going for a mail link with some sort of over the wire encryption. It has been about ten years since I've dealt with this, but as I recall each email message went via a uux of rmail (uux was remote command execution - sort of like rsh over a modem). There is no particular reason why one couldn't encrypt before sending and decrypt upon receipt. Mostly just a modification to sendmail.cf and a modification to rmail. Of course this really just solves the problem for a single hop uucp link.
Believe it or not, I still have one mail route that travels over UUCP for the last link. For the past 4 or 5 years, I've done UUCP over TCP/IP. I'd think that one could tunnel that through SSL, though I've never tried to do it.
I wonder if my old Telebit modem still works. It is in a box somewhere...
Heh... 19,200 was blazingly fast in those days, and the Telebit was set up for UUCP spoofing (the local modem faked the ACK packets to save turnaround time) to get better throughput. Still, I think a 56K modem could outpull a Telebit. -- Roy M. Silvernail [ ] roy@scytale.com DNRC Minister Plenipotentiary of All Things Confusing, Software Division PGP Key 0x1AF39331 : 71D5 2EA2 4C27 D569 D96B BD40 D926 C05E Key available from pubkey@scytale.com I charge to process unsolicited commercial email
rsh over a modem). There is no particular reason why one couldn't encrypt before sending and decrypt upon receipt. Mostly just a modification to sendmail.cf and a modification to rmail. Of course this really just solves the problem for a single hop uucp link.
There is a package that encrypts e-mail, it is called something like Pretty Good Privacy. Use the fucking PGP for e-mail at the end-user point. No need to trust anyone. Crypto concentration points are bad as any other concentration points.
Believe it or not, I still have one mail route that travels over UUCP for the last link. For the past 4 or 5 years, I've done UUCP over TCP/IP. I'd think that one could tunnel that through SSL, though I've never tried to do it.
Or use 802.11b with a small dish ... does wonders to 20 miles and it's rather hard to intercept *every* path.
Heh... 19,200 was blazingly fast in those days, and the Telebit was set up for UUCP spoofing (the local modem faked the ACK packets to save turnaround time) to get better throughput. Still, I think a 56K modem could outpull a Telebit.
You mean the $2500 9600 baud telebit is inferior today ? :-) ===== end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com
Mark Henderson <mch@informationanarchy.org> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 11:06:51AM -0700, keyser-soze@hushmail.com wrote:
- re-awaken FidoNet FidoNet, ugh. Would the software even work under most current operating systems?
Yes it would. At least some of the software, that is. Anyone interested in bbs-software with all Fidonet-components built in, capability to act as an SMTP-MTA, ftpd, httpd (I think), handles usenet also, can be used with http also... It does work at least on Linux/Intel, Linux/Sparc, Linux/Alpha, FreeBSD/Intel, Amiga, Windows NT, PC-DOS, OS/2... And no, it is not Open Source. More information at <http://www.bbbs.net>, if memory serves. Suonpää...
And more yet: http://sourceforge.net/softwaremap/trove_list.php?form_cat=21&discrim=175 Samuli Suonpaa wrote:
Mark Henderson <mch@informationanarchy.org> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 11:06:51AM -0700, keyser-soze@hushmail.com wrote:
- re-awaken FidoNet FidoNet, ugh. Would the software even work under most current operating systems?
Yes it would. At least some of the software, that is. Anyone interested in bbs-software with all Fidonet-components built in, capability to act as an SMTP-MTA, ftpd, httpd (I think), handles usenet also, can be used with http also...
It does work at least on Linux/Intel, Linux/Sparc, Linux/Alpha, FreeBSD/Intel, Amiga, Windows NT, PC-DOS, OS/2...
And no, it is not Open Source. More information at <http://www.bbbs.net>, if memory serves.
Suonpdd...
-- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@cybershamanix.com http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
Here's somemore: http://www.mysteria.com/bbsinfo/ Samuli Suonpaa wrote:
Mark Henderson <mch@informationanarchy.org> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 11:06:51AM -0700, keyser-soze@hushmail.com wrote:
- re-awaken FidoNet FidoNet, ugh. Would the software even work under most current operating systems?
Yes it would. At least some of the software, that is. Anyone interested in bbs-software with all Fidonet-components built in, capability to act as an SMTP-MTA, ftpd, httpd (I think), handles usenet also, can be used with http also...
It does work at least on Linux/Intel, Linux/Sparc, Linux/Alpha, FreeBSD/Intel, Amiga, Windows NT, PC-DOS, OS/2...
And no, it is not Open Source. More information at <http://www.bbbs.net>, if memory serves.
Suonpdd...
-- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@cybershamanix.com http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 01:24:40PM -0700, Mark Henderson wrote:
- re-awaken FidoNet FidoNet, ugh. Would the software even work under most current operating systems?
There's software to work under most of them, sure; Win*, DOS, *nix, RiscOS, AmigaOS, etc. It can be slow, but does have the advantage that you can send direct to the recipient. -- Paul
participants (9)
-
Harmon Seaver
-
Jim Choate
-
keyser-soze@hushmail.com
-
Mark Henderson
-
Matt Beland
-
Morlock Elloi
-
Paul Walker
-
Roy M. Silvernail
-
Samuli Suonpaa