Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CBDTPA - gov't spyware on your computer?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Frangible Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 06:32 PM
Original message
CBDTPA - gov't spyware on your computer?
http://www.stoppoliceware.org/

"The CBDTPA is a bill (S. 2048) proposed in Congress by Senators Fritz Hollings (D-SC) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), along with Senators Daniel Inouye (D-HI), John Breaux (D-LA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). The acronym stands for "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act". Note that the CBDTPA was originally known as the "SSSCA" while in draft form."

"The law would force all new personal computers and digital home entertainment devices sold in the United States to have government-approved "policeware" built-in.

This policeware would restrict your use of copyrighted material on these devices -- including music files and CD's, video clips, DVD's, e-books, and more. "

"Since alternative operating systems like Linux and FreeBSD would most likely refuse to incorporate government policeware into their code, users of these open-source systems would also be eligible for hard time."

Lovely.

Call your reps and tell them to vote "no" on this crap.

Why on EARTH are so many democrats backing this pro-business anti-freedom bill?

- Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - (202) 224-6121
- Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) - (202) 224-3004
- Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) - (202) 224-3934
- Senator John Breaux (D-LA) - (202) 224-4623
- Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) - (202) 224-5274
- Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) - (202) 224-3841

:mad: :puke: :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
freetobegay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. Because it's against the law?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frangible Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. and that's a reason to put gov't spyware on our computers why exactly?
Snorting cocaine is illegal, but that doesn't mean we should have cameras in our bathrooms making sure we don't snort cocaine there with a 5 year prison sentance if we block / remove them, now does it?

"In soviet russia... TV watches you!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
19. How, exactly, is exercising legitimate and legal fair use rights illegal?
Isn't that the very definition of circular logic? Legal actions should be made illegal because they will then be against the law?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_H Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
54. No--it's because of this:
PolicWare Update to Filter Some Political Programming, Web Sites
Washington Post
Nov 19. 2006

Citing evidence that a number of radio programs and Web sites are eroding national security by broadcasting "hate speech", the Bush administration will require makers of computers and entertainment systems to update PoliceWare (tm) softare to filter dangerous material.

"Cyberspace and the airwaves are the new battlegrounds for protecting the homeland," said Cybersecurity Czar Eugene Scalia. "These new measures will play a major role in keeping our computer networks, and our children, safe from harm."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #54
61. Fucking FatPig Tony's SON is "Cybersecurity" Czar?!?
Edited on Tue Apr-20-04 01:24 PM by tom_paine
:wtf: :wtf:

That Pig would sell all our data to Commie China for $5! Although he won't have top, thanks to his Imperial Masters that he and his Daddy lick the boots of, Commie China is coming to US!

FatPigBopy Gene Scalia...should've known after he got booted out of his old position the Imperial Family would find a spot for him?

Can't they find someplacve UNIMPORTANT for these Bloated Pampered Dukes and Pricelings?

I miss the Old American Republic. I miss being free instead of under these Aristocratic Scum like Fat PigBoy Scalia and their Imperial Daddies!

:grr: :grr: :grr: :mad: :argh: :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mouse7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
2. There will be nullifier patches out within days of release
Edited on Mon Apr-19-04 06:41 PM by mouse7
They can write the software, but it will be made worthless within days of release. There will be patches to gut it. DVDs were SUPPOSED to be copy protected and translatable only by authorized devices. That lasted a week or two before the cracks were posted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frangible Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. yes but...
Cracking it = 5 years in jail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mouse7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. So... let someone in Kazahkstan crack it.
Edited on Mon Apr-19-04 06:55 PM by mouse7
Just download their crack from policewearcrack.kz

There will NEVER be controls on the internet. Will not happen. The US cannot enforce it's law on the wild frontier of the net in Eastern Europe and Asia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Yes they can
They simply block sites like China does at the borders. It is well
within technological feasibility, and, frankly, i expect them to do it.
Do not underestimate how easily this technology can be disempowered.
These traitor assholes who are voting for the corporate bill should
get their comeuppance and never be reelected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhunt70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. I disagree, for those that see the internet as freedom
there will always be a way around it. I think as much big money that goes into doing things like this, there are just as many people willing to subvert it for free.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. You can't subvert what you can't see
I've spent a career programming large mainframe class computers to
control large scale backbone functions in the US and abroad, and i
assure you, that they can stop traffic at the borders... Then what
will you do? Spoof your IP and hack gateways?... and how long before
you're traced. The internet is shortly becoming very very
transparent, and i don't buy your story at all. The hardware
manufacturers can block traffic from IP's abroad, period. There is
no way to hack hardware.. and the gateways will simply stop everything... or the secret Asscrack police will show up at your IP
and take you down.

This is not a mad cow thing anymore.... If HP is paid to block all
traffic at US borders that the republicans deem subversive, it can
be done in a heartbeat. Best we protect our freedom with laws, as
hacking has its limits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mouse7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. They can't do it without sealing the net at the US border
Edited on Mon Apr-19-04 08:15 PM by mouse7
The people will never stand for the US internet being cut off from the rest of the world.

What you are ranting WILL NEVER HAPPEN. NEVER.

Never mind the fact that most computer hardware is made overseas. They cannot stop importing computer hardware. That would be a gross violation of the WTO.

Ooops. Free trade. It has it's uses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #23
36. How will you know its sealed?
I can't see the CIA website from the UK. Many american websites are
already blocked from abroad, or spun differently to abroad IP's.
Modern database technology allows content providers to supply
different content to every single user, selectively... like google is
being kicked over with this Gmail stuff.

It is aready happened, and the internet is not global at all, but
rather completely national and restricted at borders. Content is
not blocked, but rather SPUN.... like the US edition of various
news papers that would not dare sell that crap to domestic audiences,
but are happy to dump it in the USA.

I presume they'll be more discrete than simply blocking websites, but
rather put all content publishers (meaning all websites visible
in the US) under PATRIOT-III restrictions to support the WOT, and
then you won't see shit from abroad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mouse7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #36
44. Not masked and bounced off a proxy
You really don't know much about the net that isn't written bold text in a Microsoft manual, do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. naah, i'm just a dummie
And you're trying to take this ad hominem... why? I do not suppose
to "know" all, i merely observe how national content differs at the
borders, much more than appears. Yes you can spoof and such, but
you are a minor tiny exception, and every loophole can be closed
as you're sharing traffic on an undersea cable or satellite in the
end, and these have military surveillance.

You presume that the people who'd like to block or observe are just
patent wankers like the past, but i suggest that a whole new
generation of gateway technologies linked with large scale databases
completely erode that exception. With a FULL traffic log from a
wire, i can trace you no matter what you do. Ultimately, no matter
what wizardry you put in your headers, i can follow packets around
the net from the logs, and by law, I (FBI or homeland) can see every
single step.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mouse7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. With a 1024-bit encrypted file sharing client, who cares
Edited on Mon Apr-19-04 09:20 PM by mouse7
You need to look at MUTE project.

http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/

How File Sharing Reveals Your Identity
Following the death of Napster, all of the file sharing networks that rose to main-stream popularity were decentralized. The most popular networks include Gnutella (which powers Limewire, BearShare, and Morpheus) and FastTrack (which powers KaZaA and Grokster). The decentralization provides legal protection for the companies that distribute the software, since they do not have to run any component of the network themselves: once you get the software, you become part of the network, and the network could survive even if the parent company disappears.

All of these networks operate as a web or mesh of neighboring node connections. Your node connects to a few other nodes in the network, and those nodes connect to a few other nodes, which in turn connect to a few other nodes, and so on. This layout is similar to a real-life social network: you know people, and those people know other people, who in turn know other people, and so on. A portion of one of these networks might look something like this:




When you search for files in the network, you send a search request to your neighbors, they send the request on to their neighbors, and so on. Eventually, your request reaches many nodes in the network. For example, you might send out a search for "metallica mp3". Lots of nodes receive your request, but only a few of them are actually sharing any metallica music. Those that do have matches send their results back to your node. These results look something like this:


My Address:
128.223.12.122 My File:
Metallica__Enter_Sandman.mp3
My Address:
128.223.12.122 My File:
Metallica__Unforgiven.mp3
My Address:
128.223.12.122 My File:
Metallica__Everywhere_I_Roam.mp3


Notice the "My Address" portion of these responses. The address listed is the Internet address of the computer that has the file. If you are unfamiliar with Internet addresses (commonly called IP addresses), they are like a "phone number" for a computer on the Internet. Computers use these addresses to make connections to each other over the Internet, and your node can use this address to make a connection to the node that is sharing the three Metallica files shown above. Also like phone numbers, Internet addresses can be traced to find out who owns them---we will cover this point in more detail in the next section. Suppose that the blue node is the node at 128.223.12.122 that returned the three Metallica results:




To download a file from the blue node, your node makes a direct connection to it using the address 128.223.12.122. After your node connects to the blue node, the blue node knows your computer's Internet address as well, say 113.18.92.15 (going back to the phone analogy, this is like the blue node using caller ID). The blue node sends the Metallica file to you over this connection, and then you close the connection. This connection, which is separate from the other neighbor connections in the network, would look like this:




Just by performing a search, you got the Internet address of someone who is sharing Metallica. When you downloaded a file from that person, they got your Internet address as well. Well, it is only an Internet address, right?
How the RIAA Finds People to Sue
Your Internet Service Provider, or ISP, provides you with your Internet address, much in the same way that your phone company provides you with your phone number. And, like a phone company, an ISP knows who is using each Internet address that it gives out. In general, your ISP will keep your identity private. So, though the person sharing Metallica might contact your ISP and ask, "Who is using 113.18.92.15?", your ISP will likely keep its lips sealed. Your ISP will keep its lips sealed unless it is scared, an nothing scares an ISP more than the RIAA (except maybe the FBI and NSA, but so far, these organizations have yet to jump on the anti-file-sharing bandwagon).

Suppose that you are sharing a large collection of your favorite music, and assume that your collection contains more than 1000 songs. Also, suppose that most of the songs in this collection are "owned" by record labels that are represented by the RIAA. When someone searches for "mp3" in your file sharing network, your node returns a lot of results. Now suppose that one of the nodes in the network happens to be owned by the RIAA:




The RIAA performs a search in the network for songs that it cares about. Since RIAA record labels "own" the vast majority of music that is published in throughout the world, we can simplify things by assuming that the RIAA cares about most songs. Thus, the RIAA performs a search for "mp3", and your node returns over 1000 results, which look something like this:


My Address:
113.18.92.15 My File:
Madonna__Holiday.mp3
My Address:
113.18.92.15 My File:
Fleetwood_Mac__Dreams.mp3
My Address:
113.18.92.15 My File:
Journey__Faithfully.mp3
.
.
.
My Address:
113.18.92.15 My File:
Bonnie_Raitt__Something_To_Talk_About.mp3
My Address:
113.18.92.15 My File:
Poison__Unskinny_Bop.mp3


Though an average file sharing user would usually initiate a download in response to this gold mine of search results, the RIAA has all the information that it needs, so it stops right here. With the list of 1000+ infringing songs in hand, it files a subpoena against your ISP ("Who is using 113.18.92.15?") and demands that your ISP hand over your personal information. You can look at an example subpoena, courtesy of the Electronic Frontier Foundation's online subpoena database.

Once the RIAA has your personal information, it is ready to file a lawsuit against you for copyright infringement.
The Key Privacy Weakness
With standard file sharing networks, the key weakness is that Internet addresses for everyone who is sharing files are readily available. By sharing copyrighted files without permission, you may be breaking the law as it stands (though the legality of copyrighted file sharing is still up for debate). Returning to the phone analogy, using standard file sharing networks is much like making prank phone calls to someone who has caller ID---it is risky and stupid. With the wide use of caller ID, anyone who makes prank phone calls these days knows to dial "*67" before each call to hide his or her identity from the party being called (a feature commonly called "caller ID blocking").

The reason Internet addresses are available in standard file sharing networks is because they have to be: there is no way to make a direct connection to a node for a download without knowing that node's Internet address. Likewise, there is no way for a node to accept your download connection without also being able to determine your Internet address. Data transmission on the Internet simply works this way, and there is nothing like "caller ID blocking" built into the Internet. The only way to protect identities is to build something on top of the Internet to avoid direct connections between downloaders and uploaders, and thus avoid the necessity of sharing Internet addresses.
How MUTE Protects Your Privacy
The main way that MUTE protects your privacy is by avoiding direct connections between downloaders and uploaders. Earlier, we described how search requests are sent around standard networks: you send a search to your neighbors, and they send it to their neighbors, who in turn send it to their neighbors, and so on. By using the network to route search requests, these networks deliver a particular request to many nodes without making direct connections to any of them. Of course, when it comes time to transfer a file, these networks use direct connections.

MUTE routes all messages, including search requests, search results, and file transfers, through the network of neighbor connections. Thus, though you know the Internet addresses of your neighbors, you do not know the Internet address of the node you are downloading from.

A map of a MUTE network looks identical to the maps of standard networks shown earlier. If you perform a search for "metallica mp3", you still might receive back three results, but these results look a little different:


My Address:
7213D...2DCA5 My File:
Metallica__Enter_Sandman.mp3
My Address:
7213D...2DCA5 My File:
Metallica__Unforgiven.mp3
My Address:
7213D...2DCA5 My File:
Metallica__Everywhere_I_Roam.mp3


Notice that the "My Address" portion of these responses no longer contains an Internet address. The address shown, which is abbreviated with "..." to fit in the table, is 7213D29781593840CF00CDD1E9A7A425AE16DCA5. This is a MUTE "virtual" address. Each node in the MUTE network has a virtual address that it generates randomly each time it starts up. Your neighbors in the network (those nodes that actually do know your Internet address) do not know what your virtual address is, so no one in the network can connect your virtual address to your Internet address, and thus no one can obtain your real-world identity.

MUTE uses virtual addresses to route messages through the network using an ant-inspired technique. Thus, to download a metallica file, your node would send a download request through the network to 7213D...2DCA5, and your node would mark that request with your own virtual address, say D1E9A59380CD425AE16D40CF0CA57A7213D29781. The node sharing metallica would send the requested file back to you using your virtual address. The entire transfer is routed through the network, which would look something like this:




Though the transfer is routed through a node owned by the RIAA, all the node sees are the virtual addresses of you and your file sharing partner. The RIAA can send out a search for "mp3", and it will still get back 1000 results from you, but these results would look like this:


My Address:
D1E9A...29781 My File:
Madonna__Holiday.mp3
My Address:
D1E9A...29781 My File:
Fleetwood_Mac__Dreams.mp3
My Address:
D1E9A...29781 My File:
Journey__Faithfully.mp3
.
.
.
My Address:
D1E9A...29781 My File:
Bonnie_Raitt__Something_To_Talk_About.mp3
My Address:
D1E9A...29781 My File:
Poison__Unskinny_Bop.mp3


The RIAA can subpoena your ISP using your virtual address, but your ISP does not know who is using this address. Thus, the RIAA's standard tactic is useless in the MUTE network.
Another Possible Spy Tactic
Given that the standard search-and-subpoena tactic does not work in a MUTE network, the RIAA might try to target individual nodes with more intense monitoring. For example, the RIAA might set up a computer on your local network that would listen to all of your Internet traffic (this is similar to the FBI tapping your phone line). If the RIAA listened to all of your traffic, they would see everything that you sent to each of your neighbors in the MUTE network, which would look something like this:




Notice that the RIAA now has you cornered: it can see that there are download requests coming out of your node, but no corresponding requests coming into your node. In other words, you must be generating the requests and not simply passing on requests that you have received from your neighbors. Using this tactic, the RIAA could determine the Internet address associated with your virtual address and then file a subpoena. How does MUTE block this tactic?

MUTE protects the contents of each neighbor connection in the network using military-grade encryption. Though the RIAA might tap your network and see all of your Internet traffic, all MUTE messages would be unreadable. Thus, the RIAA would not be able to corner you in the network or obtain an Internet address in connection with your virtual address.

Of course, your neighbors are able to decrypt the messages you send through them. Thus, if the RIAA was able to hijack every single one of your neighbor nodes, it could again corner you and link your Internet address to your virtual address. However, it is unlikely that the RIAA would be able to take over a large number of nodes in the network, and since you discover your neighbors in a somewhat randomized way, it is unlikely that every single one of your neighbors would be an RIAA node.

http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/howPrivacy.shtml

(open sourced material... can be copied)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. American law is still behind
The british police are forcing every ISP to keep a FULL log of
every single packet passing through every backbone node and to
keep it for !! 5 years !!

The central police simply collect all the logs in to a massive
datawarehouse, and watch the networks of messaging. Of couse they
don't waste this police power on music file copying, so it appears
that they get away with it.

Were serious terrorism or something involved, they'd be on top of a
user in an instant. Current large scale database technology is
larger than the problem... not vice versa... and with datamining
software, which i have written in past times, i could fully reverse
engineer traffic from the ISP logs.

It does not matter the header. The content shows a message leaving
one server and arriving at another. There is a time on it, and we
know that a finite set of computers are connected. On looking at
all connecting logs, we see that it is a local dialin and reduce
at worst to a few thousand modem lines. Then the logs for the
lines are observed and you're picked out just like a needle in a
haystack.

The long message you posted only works for low-security concerns.
With high security monitoring, there is no way to get around the
big datawarehouse in fort meade. The only hope of getting away
with the scheme you post, is if these logs are not being kept and
turned over the secret police. I would not take that bet, and i'm
suprised you will. Geez, i wish i was wrong, and that it was still
an open wild west, but i think your optimism is more 90's and not
very post 9/11 PATRIOT-II.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mouse7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. Then why is Kazaa still up?
Kazaa has been in their cross-hairs for years, and they can't block the site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #22
32. because bush has not been re-selected
You presume that they've made thier move. I think they are more
machieavellian. Here is all of liberal america, typing away on the
internet, content with online-free speech, whilst we are actually
pouring our souls in to an empty bin.

Air America is a serious opponent, as it confronts the ideology in
"real" media, but internet opposition is the best way for your
opponent to piss away their zeal and be left depleted.

Already, many websites have special content for the USA, just like
major publications abroad have different USA editions, event time
magazine and such. Blocking content at the border is already
voluntary... and there is no reason for the machieavellian prince
of the white house to take further steps. We disable ourselves by
presuming the internet relevant. Hell, i'd be in prison if i stood
on capital hill steps and spoke aloud some of my more extreme writing
on varous internet sites.

No, the way the public is disabled is by spamming you with so much
information that it all becomes white noise and irrelevant. The
internet is already a weapon, and it has subdued us effectively.
Unless we take it offline, it is lost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mouse7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. Refuse cookies and mask your address
There. That takes care of that problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. But your ISP is traceable
and they know your dialin line. There are footprints, if you know
how to look. Your cookie work might work in civilian work, but
in the world of global policing of the internet, a bunch of child
porn people doing exacly what you say, are busted by the logs of
their ISP providers... who, like your bank, are under no obligation
to tell you they've released all your traffic to the homeland nazis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #41
46. Good, i'm glad you're not visible
Edited on Mon Apr-19-04 09:00 PM by sweetheart
Presume that every ISP has a permanent copy of every packet of
data from every IP in the network... and that every single ISP is
under police surveillance. Block whatever you want, i would simply
load the while gamut in to a massive data warehouse, like i'm sure
the homeland nazi's have already done... and trace messages as they
bounce around the net. You may be invisible once, but every time
you leave the house you run a risk.

I'll guarantee you, that if you were to post an intense death threat
to the POTUS using your masking and proxies, that the FBI would be
at your door. They are using this total information awareness
thing, and with the logs of the ISP's pretty much have a full
spectrum dominance. I presume you've visited your ISP and made
sure that no logs are kept and that all traces are wiped... You
may be invisible to an amateur, but to the homeland database, all
of us are known.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mouse7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. That's what happens to open e-mail. Now GnuPG that e-mail.
Not even the NSA can brute force GnuPGed e-mail... never mind an internet full of data.

http://www.gnupg.org/

Now, use MUTE for 1024-bit encrypted file sharing.

Now... forget any problems with doing whatever one needs to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. encryption is all broken by the NSA
who keep a massive bank of supercomputers specifically for this
purpose, heck with today's pentium server farms, a super computer is
hardly necessary.

You and I fundamentally agree that relative privacy can still be
achieved, but to presume that the NSA does not know is unwise. They
were focused on breaking that stuff in the early 90's, as of my
last exposure, and have been greatly enhanced by new computing
power.

What concerns me in your posts, is that you are selling the illusion
that privacy is not at risk and that "go back to sleep." use PGP and
uber-long keys. I suggest that the people who are paid to break your
privacy have access to the latest hardware and software technology.
Given that, there is little to stop a total meltdown of internet
security. I don't write anything on the internet i don't expect to
be faced with one day, as i pretty much expect the secret police to
have a full record... expecially on political dissidents writing
on an anti-bush site, when the "nation" is at war and dissent is
deemed treasonous.

PGP will protect your privacy from corporates, marketers and such,
but not from the government. My worries are with the billions of
dollars budgets for the NSA and such that have more computing power
to monitor internet traffic than there are servers on the
backbone. Heck, i bet they receive, and decrypt every single packet
from outside the USA for embedded terrorism chatter TODAY. Unless
you start corresponding with OBL, you'll never know... but
surely your music file downloads will stay private for a long time
to come, cuz nobody in national security gives a toss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #51
60. What if I don't care, dear?
I don't encrypt anything.

When did Americans become cowards?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gandalf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-04 04:39 AM
Response to Reply #48
70. Did you try anonymous mail servers?
Theoretically a good idea. In reality the reliability of remailer chains is so bad that some think NSA & Co are disrupting the system.

So: If a system is able to effectively hinder NSA from tracking communication, it could be (subtly) "attacked".

Encryption could be a mass phenomenon if Microsoft built in a plug-in into Outlook. For some reason, they decided not to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
26. remember the Sony debacle?
Several months, maybe over a year ago, Sony invented a new copy-protection scheme. They were able to con some companies into using it on some music CDs.

Imagine their chagrin when they discovered, thanks to an enterprising consumer, that it could be rendered useless.... by a 59-cent black felt-tip marker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. What the FUCK???
God DAMMIT!!!!!!

INOUYE and FEINSTEIN????


FUCK the Democrats. I am SICK of this SHIT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
62. Oh you can't be surprised by Feinstein, can you?
I detest that woman and all the other centrists helping the nazis to march us all towards fascism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JaySherman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
6. kick
Edited on Mon Apr-19-04 06:53 PM by JaySherman
Signed the petition. Contacting my reps tonight when I get home from work.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dfong63 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
8. it's worse than i thought
quote from one of the linked articles.

content spat split on party lines
``...
"We might need to legislate," said Sen. John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), though he emphasized that he would prefer the private sector reach an agreement on how to protect copyrighted electronic content.

"Unfortunately, one issue seems close to an impasse -- how do we keep files from being illegally shared and distributed over the Internet?" complained Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California).

Republicans appeared much more skeptical of the SSSCA -- which is, after all, championed by a Democratic committee chairman -- and argued legislation would be too interventionist.
...''
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 07:07 PM
Original message
<sigh> Yes, that is worse.
I'm just speechless. :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w13rd0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Well, on this legislation...
...I'm with the Republicans. F*k the RIAA/MPAA whores.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #8
25. Grrrr...
Definitely an issue I disagree with Kerry on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blasphemer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #8
56. WTF? I'm forced to agree with the GOP?
Disgusting. As a solution to copyright infringement, this is laughable. If something like this passes with the blessing of the Democratic party, Nader here I come!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galadrium Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
9. Well, it looks like 1984 was only 20 years late
I dont want a telescreen!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ysabel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
11. signed petition...
kick...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PROGRESSIVE1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
12. Why is Inouye supporting this?????
:wtf:

He's a liberal!!! :argh:

Feinstein I understand, but Inouye???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhunt70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
14. there will always be people smarter than the government on PC issues.
I have no fear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
16. This doesn't make any sense
Why would the Democratic legislators promote this and the Republican legislators not?

In this world of neo-con intrusion we live in today, it doesn't make sense to me. Is there more about or behind this that we are not privvy to? Are we being manipulated? Do the Republicans have something else in mind, yet to be revealed, that is far worse?

Either way, not in my computer. No way, no how!

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #16
63. Got your tinfoil hat on?
Here's my take:

Remember Patriot Act II? Remember the hue and cry in the public about it? It didn't just go away, they're sneaking it in piecemeal, in amendments to various - mostly unrelated - other bills.

Seems like this bill is just another example. If this doesn't work, I'll wager we'll see republicans float a similar bill somewhere down the line. After all, all this erosion of freedoms started under Clinton after the OK bombing. The slow but steady march towards fascism and corporate rule is a bi-partisan goal, it seems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
17. Supporting this bill is against the fundamentals of the Democratic Party
Edited on Mon Apr-19-04 07:44 PM by kiahzero
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
strategery blunder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
20. Called Sens. Talent and Bond
Their offices were closed; hopefully they'll call back soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ysabel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
21. kicking again...n/t...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rdfi-defi Donating Member (395 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
24. of course,
Edited on Mon Apr-19-04 08:12 PM by rdfi-defi
the coup of 2000 was a green light, US citizens are asleep at the wheel and fascists are tired of sharing "freedom" and "democracy" with us peons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snoggera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
27. This is plain, flat-out, no question about it
totally unbelievable insane fucked up crazy ignorant sit in you own shit horseshit cowshit and a mcdonalds burger all wrapped up in a nice little congressional package piece of psychotic shit.

I could go on.

What the hell is the matter with Feinstein?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:17 PM
Response to Original message
28. Oh, it's Fritzie playing Uncle Fascist again? This is unbridled FASCISM!!
Edited on Mon Apr-19-04 08:20 PM by HypnoToad
Look at all the DINOs...

Bunch of fucking fascist repukes...

Wasn't government supposed to stay the fuck out of peoples' lives?

This is unbridled FASCISM! They are unamerican. They are doing what they scared us as kids about commie Russia may or may not have done.

Linux is superior to Winbloat in so many ways... how DARE they?

--

"Promotion"? What sort of promotion is it? Promoted fascism, that's what.

Holling's own "Fritz" Chip is awful enough and is already being put into new computers.

This has got to stop. No way should a person go to jail for using open source.

America the Hypocracy (just in case, that's an amalgamation of "Hypocrisy" and "democracy".) Freedom my farking ass. x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mouse7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Can't happen
Linux is written to work on the same hardware that PCs run. Any steps to load this crap into a linux box will be invalidated. Any attempts to keep linux off PC boxes will be written around.

Besides... IBM and Novell have staked their corporate futures on Linux. You think they won't hit the bricks to buy congress to ensure this doesn't happen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #29
38. IBM and Novell will merely
write in code that enables the technologies.

Of course they're not going to want to trash their investment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mouse7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. They might. There will be patches that overwrite it up in hours
Red Hat left all software that could be used with mp3s off their distros before. Everything left off was available for download elsewhere formatted for Red Hat distros literally within hours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
strategery blunder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. What's a Fritz Chip?
And when did they start putting them in computers? Is there any way to disable it? Are computers produced in Oct 2003 without it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. They haven't made them yet
This law would mandate them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
strategery blunder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. What a relief
I'll have to squeeze every possible day of use off this computer, I guess
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #31
37. Hmmm, IBM just put a new chip in theit T41 computer that's TCPA compliant
I didn't read the specs (only glossed).

But it's good to know that the fritz chip hasn't gone all the way yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. Must have missed that one.... damn
That sucks. Of course, the software isn't there yet, but I didn't realize they had gotten that far in the development process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mouse7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. So don't buy those IBM chips.
Seems pretty simple to me.

If worse comes to worse, don't by new chips, buy old ones and run a parallel network w/ Beowulf linux.

http://www.beowulf.org/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. Never have bought IBM chips, don't plan to start.
AMD all the way, baby!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LifeDuringWartime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #43
52. would the G5 have this nastiness?
i feel like i won't be using computers anymore in a year
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. What are you talking about?
DRM hasn't been put into any computers that I'm aware of. Granted, I haven't been going to Slashdot recently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
53. You'd be suprised how many "Democrats" side with the right.
Besides Zell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #53
64. Not all of us are blindly partisan
This doesn't surprise me one tiny bit.

It does make me a bit sad that so many seem to be shocked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 12:38 AM
Response to Original message
55. Kick and CALL tomorrow DUers***
This is stalking pure and simple.

I want to know what kickbacks these so-called Democrats are getting?

Perhaps they are pro-electronic voting as well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BradCKY Donating Member (325 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 12:42 AM
Response to Original message
57. This is a hoax
Edited on Tue Apr-20-04 12:51 AM by BradCKY
I looked up the bill

http://thomas.loc.gov/

(type in S 2048)

S 2048 IS


108th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2048
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the deduction for qualified tuition and related expenses and to repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect to such deduction.


IN THE SENATE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frangible Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. No, you searched the wrong year
It's a bill from the 107th congress, not the 108th.




Bill Summary & Status for the 107th Congress Item 1 of 1
PREVIOUS:ALL | NEXT:ALL
NEW SEARCH | HOME | HELP S.2048
Title: A bill to regulate interstate commerce in certain devices by providing for private sector development of technological protection measures to be implemented and enforced by Federal regulations to protect digital content and promote broadband as well as the transition to digital television, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Hollings, Ernest F. (introduced 3/21/2002) Cosponsors: 5
Latest Major Action: 3/21/2002 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Jump to: Titles, Status, Committees, Related Bill Details, Amendments, Cosponsors, Summary
TITLE(S): (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)

* POPULAR TITLE(S):
CBDTPA bill (Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act) (identified by CRS)
Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA) (identified by CRS)

* SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED:
Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act

* OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED:
A bill to regulate interstate commerce in certain devices by providing for private sector development of technological protection measures to be implemented and enforced by Federal regulations to protect digital content and promote broadband as well as the transition to digital television, and for other purposes.

STATUS: (color indicates Senate actions)

3/21/2002:
Introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2269-2271)
3/21/2002:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2271-2272)

COMMITTEE(S):

Committee/Subcommittee: Activity:
Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Referral, In Committee

RELATED BILL DETAILS:

***NONE***

AMENDMENT(S):

***NONE***
COSPONSORS(5), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)


Sen Breaux, John B. - 3/21/2002
Sen Feinstein, Dianne - 3/21/2002
Sen Inouye, Daniel K. - 3/21/2002
Sen Nelson, Bill - 3/21/2002
Sen Stevens, Ted - 3/21/2002

SUMMARY AS OF:
3/21/2002--Introduced.

Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act - Requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to make a determination as to whether: (1) representatives of digital media device manufacturers, consumer groups, and copyright owners (representatives) have reached agreement on security system standards for use in digital media devices and encoding rules; and (2) such standards and rules conform with security system standards and encoding rules required under this Act. Provides for the adoption of conforming standards and rules based on whether such determination is affirmative or negative. Outlines appropriate security system standards and encoding rules. Authorizes: (1) the FCC to revise implemented standards and rules through rulemaking; or (2) representatives to modify implemented standards in response to a compromise or upgrade of technology.

Requires an interactive computer service to store and transmit with integrity any technology security measure used in connection with copyrighted material that such service transmits or stores.

Prohibits: (1) the sale or shipment in interstate commerce of nonconforming digital media devices; (2) the removal or alteration of security technology in a digital media device; or (3) application to a copyrighted work of a security measure that uses a standard security technology in violation of encoding rules.

Provides for enforcement of violations of this Act.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gandalf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
59. As I support sweethearts position
without having time to post now, and as I think many people should have a look at this, forgive me that I only :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlaGranny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
65. You know (ducking now)
Edited on Tue Apr-20-04 02:03 PM by FlaGranny
it never ceases to amaze me that so many people get all bent out of shape because someone wants to prevent them from stealing something.

That said, I don't want any kind of spying on my computer and think this is not a good thing, overall.

But what is it with the "we are entitled to steal" mentality? No one is entitled to anything just because it is there and you can figure out how to swipe it. If that attitude weren't so widespread maybe there would be no need for such a bill.

Reminds me of the post I made in the lounge a while back about kids stealing oranges, with their mother telling me that it was okay for the kids to take the oranges just because they were there. She felt they were "entitled" to them in some way.

P.S. I did sign the petition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. You really think people don't like this bill because they want to steal
music files?

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlaGranny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. No, not everyone, but some sure sound like it.
I'm also remembering other threads more to the point of downloading illegal music.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-04 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. Yeah I'm sure you have a point
But this gets into a whole other area.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gandalf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-21-04 04:28 AM
Response to Reply #65
69. It's all about keeping some privacy
in the internet and the possibility to view content without someone watching what I read. Not about downloading copyrighted mp3s. That's just the pretense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC