Slashdot Mirror

Of course AT&T had a choice, they could have gone to court. That would have stopped it right there. What could the NSA do, shut them down?

Yes, or worse.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

That's much like the old "webbug" problem, which relied on one pixel sized, transparent images downloaded from the desired upsteam advertiging and usage This sort of behavior was well described by the Electronic Frontier Foundation at https://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Mar.... That problem still exists.

The failure to reject such default optimization on the purely privacy basis is a troubling one. It means that, for example, I can track the location of people who read my email sent through anonymizing services, simply because they hover over the link to my server.

There have multiple cases of warrantless domestic spying by both the NSA and the FBI:

FBI:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articl...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01...

NSA:
https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying...
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

Apple, Google and other tech/communications companies also believe that the USA Federal Government is abusing the FISA warrants for both domestic and international cases:
https://www.google.com/search?...

The USA Government has long used evidence that is gathered without a warrant to direct their case so that they know where to look with a warrant. If they get caught they have to prove that they could have obtained the information a different way. After you know what you are looking for that is a pretty low barrier to overcome.

Not saying this is write or wrong, but it is definitely documented.

First of all there are immortal cookies (infinite cache entries created specifically for your unique PC). Secondly, there's a unique combination of your web browser + OS + fonts + plug ins: https://panopticlick.eff.org/ Thirdly, there are unique patterns in your behaviour (websites that you visit and how frequently you do that) and other wonderful metrics to trace you.

If you want to avoid being traced and tracked there's just one way:

• You buy a single time anonymous SIM card.
• You go to some public place where there no web cameras installed or you're not under their monitoring.
• You browse the web using at least TOR, or even better a combination of VPN + TOR.
• You use the most common computer OS (Windows 7 64), the most common web browser (IE11/Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox) and the least number of browser plugins and extensions.
• You do NOT login using Facebook/Google/Microsoft/Yahoo/etc. services, because these companies trace your presence on unrelated websites using various "Share Me" options.
• You do NOT use Skype/WhatsApp/Vibe other apps.
• You completely destroy your browser profile and this SIM card after you're finished.

This is actually a recipe for browsing the web anonymously however this is the reality of the modern web - not to be traced means to be anonymous as much as possible.

I do need to mention I have the first version. I've never updated it, so my experience with it are of a very old version.

EFF has an ad/tracking blocker https://www.eff.org/privacybad...

Yes it's a repost (correctly this time) I don't wish to discredit EFF, I am speaking of a very old program.

EFF has an ad/tracking blocker https://www.eff.org/privacybad...

I do need to mention I have the first version. I've never updated it, so my experience with it are of a very old version.

EFF has an ad/tracking blocker https://www.eff.org/privacybad...
  it's a brain dead little thing that sits unobtrusively in the menu bar of Firefox. It detects 3 trackers from /. so I block them, but my HOSTS file is what's really blocking what needs to be.

I installed it yet never really used it, noticed it one day (that's how unobtrusive it is) and now use it to block EA.COM while I play my games.

Actually I don't think it's blocking anything just telling me what it can as my HOSTS file is doing all the work, but for a real simple ad/tracking blocker it's ok.

There's already plenty of info that websitse can use to identify you - https://panopticlick.eff.org/

Why would you use proprietary and advertiser-owned Ghostery when you could use the EFF's own Privacy Badger instead?

Perhaps too much to expect people to RTFA, so at least read the spec and FAQ itself:
https://www.eff.org/dnt-policy

It does NOT magically force privacy-hating advertisers to play nice. What it DOES do is give an incentive to websites that IF they host the dnt-policy.txt file, THEN that indicates they are claiming they will follow the behavior specified in that file. The pay-off to them is that PARTICIPATING AD-BLOCKERS will be more lenient to sites that host the file, so doing so means more ad revenue than being blocked. If a site simultaneously hosts the file and breaks its promises to adhere to what the file says, then the clear intent specified in the file (in a legal friendly way) allows this to be grounds for false advertisement or similar legal issues. Unlike most other such cases where such a violation is hard to prove, in this case, it is pretty clear cut.

Shortly? You're a bit late. Its already started "Automakers Say You Don't Really Own Your Car" https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

Don't worry, the TPP will get rid of that antiquated mostly-US notion that the first person to create something should own it and harmonise away that fuction of the Copyright Office. https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

This is just some PR flack's attempt to pretend there is grassroots support for the letting the TPP gut what few copyright protections the U.S. still has left that favor the independent inventor over corporate behemoths.

It's called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Extends the copyright term to 120 years, eliminates fair use as a copyright infringement defense, and institutes extrajudicial legal proceedings that allow copyright holders to seize your property if it is being used to "infringe."

Why is this an "ask slashdot"? You are asking the wrong people.

https://www.eff.org/pages/lega...

mailto:info@eff.org

Why is this an "ask slashdot"? You are asking the wrong people.

https://www.eff.org/pages/lega...

mailto:info@eff.org

Only because the law was expanded in 2005: https://www.eff.org/issues/cal...

The law still makes a distinction between ISPs (information services) and telecom: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

There's lots of gray areas in the CFAA and some court rulings have expanded the original meaning of the CFAA. For example, you're authorized to access a system but you then republish copyrighted material. You're not only violating copyright but the content owners right to publication. That means you've not only violated the law criminally but are potentially subject to civil prosecution for damages.

The EFF has quite a bit of information on the CFAA, I suggest reading it here.

Well there is this:

Detekt - https://resistsurveillance.org...

Scroll to the bottom and you'll see:

"Detekt is released in partnership with Amnesty International"

So maybe, just maybe, this tool could have something to do with it.. I mean, if you really read about it's goals. What a shame it's been neglected since version 1.9.

"Detekt is a free tool that scans your Windows computer for traces of FinFisher and Hacking Team RCS, commercial surveillance spyware that has been identified to be also used to target and monitor human rights defenders and journalists around the world. Read more about our Intentions & Methods[1]."

[1] https://resistsurveillance.org...

"In recent years we have witnessed a huge growth in the adoption and trade in communication surveillance technologies. Such spyware provides the ability to read personal emails, listen-in skype conversations or even remotely turn on a computers camera and microphone without its owner knowing about it.

Some of this software is widely available on the Internet, while some more sophisticated alternatives are made and sold by private companies based in industrialized countries to state law enforcement and intelligence agencies in countries across the world.

There is little to no regulation currently in place to safeguard against these technologies being sold or used by repressive governments or others who are likely to use them for serious human rights violations and abuses.

You can find many reports on the use of spyware against civil society here. You can learn more about the trade in unlawful surveillance equipment by visiting the Coalition Against Unlawful Surveillance Exports website.[2]"

[2] http://www.globalcause.net/

"It has been well documented that governments are using surveillance technology to target human rights defenders, journalists, NGOs, political opponents, religious or ethnic minorities and to conduct countrywide surveillance.

If you suspect you are at risk of surveillance, learn how to use Detekt here[3].

If you are technical, learn more about how Detekt works and how to contribute here[4]."

[3] https://resistsurveillance.org...
[4] https://github.com/botherder/d...

"Please beware that Detekt is a best effort tool. While it may have been effective in previous investigations, it does not provide a conclusive guarantee that your computer is not compromised by the spyware it aims to detect. The tool is provided as is, without warranties or guarantees of any kind."

"IS DETEKT FOR ME?

If you suspect that your work or activities put you at risk of targeted surveillance you may wish to use Detekt to scan your computer for traces of known spyware."

"It is important to underline that if Detekt does not find trace of spyware on a computer, it does not necessarily mean that none is present. Some spyware will likely be updated in response to the release of Detekt in order to avoid detection. In addition, there may be existing versions of spyware, from these or other providers, which are not detected by this tool.

To learn more we recommend you visit EFF's Surveillance Self-Defense[5]."

[5] https://ssd.eff.org/en/module/...

"If you suspect you are at risk of targeted surveillance you should always seek and follow security advice to ensure you protect yourself and others in your digital communications."

"About the organizations behind Detekt

Detekt is released in partnership with Amnesty International, Digitale Gesellschaft, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Privacy International.

This tool has been released publicly in order to provide researchers, human righ

Since it's Slashdot:

Free Software Foundation http://fsf.org/

Electronic Freedom Foundation http://eff.org/

American Civil Liberties Union http://aclu.org/

Make sure they are registered as a 501(c)(3) so your donations are tax-deducible.

I'd skip sending money to ISIS or the Taliban. It's probably not tax-deductible and may result in unpleasant imprisonment.

My logic does not say that. You cited an example of criminal prosecution for expressing an opinion. That is not free speech.

Funny, that logic is why SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that anonymous speech must be protected, and various civil liberties groups push to protect it.

I'll agree that slander and libel shouldn't be protected, but suggest that unsealing the identities of the anonymous person(s) should only be possible after proving the case--the court may only order that what might be necessary to have to identify the person be preserved and a good faith effort made to offer them the opportunity to come forward to defend themselves. (And, in a case like this, possibly answer the question of why, if their claims are true, they chose to make them known this way instead of, for example, an anonymous tip to the local anonymous tipline?)

The easiest way to maximize political donations is find a group with lots of money who only really care about one issue, and be their guy. In extreme cases the "group" can be one guy. Just ask Newt Gingrich about Sheldon Adelson.

By opening up to Cuba Obama pretty much guarantees that Cubans of a certain generation (ie: the one most likely to have $2,500 to donate to a campaign) hate him, and doesn't court anyone else.

I'm lost, if he makes them hate him, how does that prevent them from donating to anyone else? Or do you mean by doing what they don't want, they will not be able to undo it so their interest in politics will dwindle?

You opened with "It is as if he just decided to reward some rich donors by opening trade to exploit a new poor country."
If he wanted to do that he wouldn't be opening trade with Cuba at all. You get more donors (and much more consistant donors) by threatening to bomb Havana back into the stone age.

If I understand what you are trying to say here, wouldn't it be the same as saying opening relations with Cuba and removing the embargo was done just to damage republicans?

Dude, this is the second half of his last term.

He's focusing on things he can do without GOP help that will make him look like a smart, important leader in the history books. The President who ended the dispute with Cuba looks good in the history books.

The political considerations would have been that a) his voters thought the embargo was dumb decades ago, and b) younger Cubans want to see grandma more often.

We're talking about while they're finalizing the details. They can;'t even give us the broad strokes of the eventual agreement yet because they don;t know exactly what will work for both sides at the negotiating table. That's the equivalent of judging a software program by how it looks halfway through Alpha when nobody is even sure what the final featureset will be.

Very few people even bother writing software without a spec that lists goals and concepts. People do no sit down and start writing code in hopes that it turns into something useful. There is a spec they aspire to, a goal in mind and it is generally clearly articulate-able before any coding starts. Government policy should be no different. It's bad form to just enter into something hoping it turns out good. But after seeing his leading from behind strategy that brought us ISIS and Ukraine, I understand why you think so. I just don't think you should be so optimistic about the outcomes. Nothing he has approached like this has turned out well for anyone involved so far.

There's a spec, but it's subject to change depending on what works. If it turns out you can't get feature A working without busting the memory budget you change the spec.

With something like this the 'spec' is going to have to be highly changeable, because it's a bilateral relationship. That means they get to change their minds.

Which is a lot easier to do with fast-track authority then without.

But it wouldn't be a free trade deal then..lol.

Most business today is information, and information is what's protected by copyright. So you need both copyright and patents in the deal.

Yes and strict jail time and so on too I guess. Some things are just wrong.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

I'll tell you the same thing I told all those idiotic Aanti-NSA Activists trying to fix the problem through the Courts:
You need Congress to pass a statute. I love the Electronic Frontier Foundation in theory, but the only thing they actually seem to be good at is convincing people to give them money and then wasting it on things that ar

The easiest way to maximize political donations is find a group with lots of money who only really care about one issue, and be their guy. In extreme cases the "group" can be one guy. Just ask Newt Gingrich about Sheldon Adelson.

By opening up to Cuba Obama pretty much guarantees that Cubans of a certain generation (ie: the one most likely to have $2,500 to donate to a campaign) hate him, and doesn't court anyone else.

I'm lost, if he makes them hate him, how does that prevent them from donating to anyone else? Or do you mean by doing what they don't want, they will not be able to undo it so their interest in politics will dwindle?

If I understand what you are trying to say here, wouldn't it be the same as saying opening relations with Cuba and removing the embargo was done just to damage republicans?

We're talking about while they're finalizing the details. They can;'t even give us the broad strokes of the eventual agreement yet because they don;t know exactly what will work for both sides at the negotiating table. That's the equivalent of judging a software program by how it looks halfway through Alpha when nobody is even sure what the final featureset will be.

Very few people even bother writing software without a spec that lists goals and concepts. People do no sit down and start writing code in hopes that it turns into something useful. There is a spec they aspire to, a goal in mind and it is generally clearly articulate-able before any coding starts. Government policy should be no different. It's bad form to just enter into something hoping it turns out good. But after seeing his leading from behind strategy that brought us ISIS and Ukraine, I understand why you think so. I just don't think you should be so optimistic about the outcomes. Nothing he has approached like this has turned out well for anyone involved so far.

Which is a lot easier to do with fast-track authority then without.

But it wouldn't be a free trade deal then..lol.

Most business today is information, and information is what's protected by copyright. So you need both copyright and patents in the deal.

Yes and strict jail time and so on too I guess. Some things are just wrong.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

Everything you just wrote is false. It does matter if the usage is "good or bad", and IMAX isn't at risk of having its trademark diluted by not censoring its occurrence cases such as this. Read this.

> there will likely be a new free trade agreement to replace it, anchored on China, rather than America.

There is already one under negotiations and it is going to happen regardless of the fate of the TPP.

> When the history book of America's decline is written, this will likely be listed as one of the milestones.

Eh, maybe, maybe not. If Obama really wants this deal he can make concessions to the democrats and restart. All this secrecy was a tactical mistake.

"How?"

Realize that the Internet is not the web. Install an ad/tracking blocker. Avoid, or delete your accounts on Facebook/Google/Apple/"social media". Pay for a domain(s), and use different email addresses for different accounts. Use a VPN. Regularly clear cookies in your browser. Vote for politicians who "get it," and truly understand the Internet, surveillance and privacy.

  Donate to the the EFF.

  There's more, which is left as an exercise for the reader.

Add 'HTTPS Everywhere' extension to the list also.

A list of tracker blockers:
    Disconnect
    Blur
    Ghostery

A 'public' VPN like privateinternetaccess.com will give you more anonymity than a VPN you run yourself.

Fingerprinting is an issue that I don't believe any of the above extensions address. Techies like us can have pretty unique browser fingerprints due to Linux and unusual plugins. These two extensions mask the unique information about browser software:
    Blender
    'Disable Plugin & Mimetype Enumeration' (Firefox)

Finally, if you *really* want privacy you have to have a secure computer. Compartmentalizing your casual browsing to untrusted domains in a high-security OS like Qubes is your best bet against having your private data stolen.

Just let the EFF compute the entropy in your browser fingerprint for ya.

"How?"

Realize that the Internet is not the web. Install an ad/tracking blocker. Avoid, or delete your accounts on Facebook/Google/Apple/"social media". Pay for a domain(s), and use different email addresses for different accounts. Use a VPN. Regularly clear cookies in your browser. Vote for politicians who "get it," and truly understand the Internet, surveillance and privacy.

Donate to the the EFF.

There's more, which is left as an exercise for the reader.

Is this agreement really something bad?

It's an innocuous chess move. It doesn't look dangerous but the conspiracy theorists and those that are predilected towards paranoia are probably right.

the US Trade Rep is negotiating TPP as if fast track authority is in place, acting as if it has the unilateral authority to further a one-sided agenda.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
A small part of this goes back to an almost secret international agreement in the 80s to control and command the development of nations by trade. That's why 3rd world is still 3rd world: Command and Control.
You can't really blame the politicians of the signatory countries because this C&C operates under various trade agreements that on the surface seem to have nothing to do with world encompassing conspiracy, but there is enough circumstantial evidence for world wide social justice to pay attention to it.
So this pawn move doesn't directly implicate this agreement, it just makes it a little bit easier to manage.

Does anyone really think they, the NSA, is not going to spy, with or without approval? We have no way to control them, they hold all the cards!

The have always spied and that part will never cease. But it's time to shake them up a little.

1. If it can and will be abused, refrain from building it in the first place.
2. If it has been built, see that it is laid bare to the greatest extent possible and dismantled.
3. For egregious offenses, the offending Agency must be completely disbanded, its assets liquidated, and formed anew.
4. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. (only joking!)

The United States is presently under attack, by itself, in a way even Stalin was unable to achieve given the limited technology of his time. Due to a lack of transparency and believability, a technological renaissance with (apparently) no moral compass steered by Charter, the NSA has likely deployed assets and capabilities for domestic surveillance. The following attack vectors cannot be ruled out:

There is an unknown, possibly massive tapping of the backbone network occurring. Utah Data Center's central location is a clue. Thomas Drake, Bill Binney and Mark Klein have all come forward alleging domestic surveillance far exceeding 'telephone records'. Klein is of especial note, for it is he who revealed the existence of Room 641A in the lawsuit Heptig vs AT&T that EFF took almost to the Supreme Court, who declined to hear the case on the basis that the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 protected AT&T from liability for involvement with any illegal activities. A law passed after the lawsuit was filed. In response to it, even.

That should make you a bit angry. We're not talking about telephone records here. We're talking about fiber splitting with drop-in access to the whole slurp. To any future despot this means that the United States may be prepared to deliver real-time private communications and databases of activity for its citizens, cradle to grave. Why the fuck would anyone want to build this thing, unless they were insane? James Bamford hinted at the possibility that NSA was 'going domestic' in his 1982 book Puzzle Palace as he suggests its interest in developing technology for bulk microwave gathering. That is to be expected as this technology was deployed worldwide. But the way they wished to go about it was a bit... peculiar:

Another indication of NSA's "broadband sweeping of multi-circuited domestic telecommunications trunk lines," David L. Watters told the Senate Intelligence Committee [in 1978!] lies in the Agency's request for an amendment to the wiretap law that would permit NSA to engage in warrantless wiretapping "for the sole purpose of determining the capability of equipment" when such "test period shall be limited... to... ninety days." Continuing, he warned: "Let there be no misunderstanding here. There is only one category of wiretapping equipment or system which requires up to ninety days for test and adjustment, and that system is broadband electronic eavesdropping equipment, the vacuum-cleaner approach to intelligence gathering, the general search of microwave trunk lines. I make this assertion on the strength of actual experience in the electronic intelligence trade and on the strength of over twenty-five years' experience in the telecommunications profession. An ordinary, single-line wire tap requires only five minutes to adjust and test."

NSA should not have wanted th

Don't forget EFF's Privacy Badger.

The idea of this type of trade agreement is to introduce rules that big business wants, but are currently difficult to push through in your country. If the trade agreement is ratified, the government will then say "We need to set these rules, because they are part of the trade agreement", and you are fucked. In other words, TPP will be used to diminish your rights. You might want to continue reading here.

Moving Dropbox data to the Republic of Ireland makes it more legal for the NSA to access the data - they're definitely not accessing US citizen's data - not that I imagine it makes much of a difference.

The difference it does make is that it's harder for the TLAs to get warrants to access the data - they now have to go via a foreign government's legal system, rather than the US rubber stamp system. The Irish government *appears* to have been less than accommodating - as show in the Microsoft email case:

The US government has claimed a US warrant is sufficient to get emails even when stored in another country, while Microsoft has resisted, arguing the US warrant power does not reach that far. The case has made business rivals into temporary allies and forced Ireland's Minister for Foreign Affairs and Data Protection to ask the European Commission to formally support Microsoft.

The Faulty Logic at the Heart of Microsoft Ireland Email Dispute

That, and the fact that Dropbox probably have to pay a shitload less tax now.

Indeed. Since the U.S. Court of Appeals already found NSA mass phone data collection to be illegal why would they need a new law to end it?

Sounds fishy.

https://w2.eff.org/IP/DMCA/Fel...

This story reminds me that it's time to go throw the EFF another $20.

https://www.eff.org/

And the HP and Lexmark toner cartridge cases which were just about embedded serialization

Yeah, no. This was specifically mentioned in the Lexmark v Static Control Components case. That was already dealt with in the 6th circuit and supported 9-0 by the SCOTUS. Copy of the decision.

Automobile manufacturers, for example, could control the entire market of replacement parts for their vehicles by including lock-out chips. Congress did not intend to allow the DMCA to be used offensively in this manner, but rather only sought to reach those who circumvented protective measures “for the purpose” of pirating works protected by the copyright statute. Unless a plaintiff can show that a defendant circumvented protective measures for such a purpose, its claim should not be allowed to go forward. If Lexmark wishes to utilize DMCA protections for (allegedly) copyrightable works, it should not use such works to prevent competing cartridges from working with its printer.

... By contrast, Lexmark would have us read this statute in such a way that any time a manufacturer intentionally circumvents any technological measure and accesses a protected work it necessarily violates the statute regardless of its “purpose.” Such a reading would ignore the precise language – “for the purpose of” – as well as the main point of the DMCA – to prohibit the pirating of copyright-protected works such as movies, music, and computer programs. If we were to adopt Lexmark’s reading of the statute, manufacturers could potentially create monopolies for replacement parts simply by using similar, but more creative, lock-out codes. Automobile manufacturers, for example, could control the entire market of replacement parts for their vehicles by including lock-out chips. Congress did not intend to allow the DMCA to be used offensively in this manner, but rather only sought to reach those who circumvented protective measures “for the purpose” of pirating works protected by the copyright statute. Unless a plaintiff can show that a defendant circumvented protective measures for such a purpose, its claim should not be allowed to go forward.

Yes it is a short line, but it seems rather bright-line to cite in this case.

Ahem.. https://www.eff.org/HTTPS-EVER...

The HTTPS Everywhere is a great idea, but how great when so many use self signed certs. This just gives the illusion of security. One of the biggest problems here is that browsers don't recognize legit free third party cert authorities like CAcert.

I disagree that Everywhere is a great idea. Seriously, does it really matter if an NYT article or /. is delivered securely, or 99.9% of search queries?

Ahem.. https://www.eff.org/HTTPS-EVER...

The HTTPS Everywhere is a great idea, but how great when so many use self signed certs. This just gives the illusion of security. One of the biggest problems here is that browsers don't recognize legit free third party cert authorities like CAcert.

> where anyone accused of a crime can challenge the evidence and the providence of that evidence against them

In the US, this has not been true for some time. You are asserting the very problems we're talking about. Secret Courts. Secret Evidence. Secret Process.

> In a similar case the Patriot Act has been used twice in court

The PA is a series of provisions (controversially, Section 215 - see John Oliver + Edward Snowden). Your statement makes no sense, without additional detail or citation.

> People continue to bitch and moan about the NSA "secret" data collection programs without ever realizing if they were "actually secret" how the fuck would we be arguing it?

Leaks and of course, limited exposure by the NSA (where they disclose that it exists, but no additional details under the cover of National Security). Primarily a number of service providers (from contractors to employees to ex-employees) that started with sources at Google and Yahoo almost a decade ago, then later, smaller providers. Snowden was another leaker. There have been many such projects (wikipedia: Carnivore via the FBI, Echelon - Multinational Effort, PRISM - NSA).

> The attempts to capture internet data was not a secret when the defining mass indiscriminate collection of data programs were shit canned because of the costs involved and the lack of usefulness.

I'm not sure where you get that information. It's unsubstantiated. Different bureaus seem to create them, routinely and with varying degrees of coverage.

> Even Snowden and his pet journalists have not released one piece if information that was not already easily discovered by anyone with an IQ over 50.

I don't think you are aware of the content of what has been released. Many of the documents are operational notes, which do not contain information you can deduce. Take a look @ https://snowdenarchive.cjfe.or... - link under the magnifying glass, click the search button. Go learn something.

You have a shockingly naiive narrative from my viewpoint. Some of it is not necessarily misguided. Perhaps you distrust a larger number of sources than the average skeptic. As I am someone who has had access to the FBI and Secret Service in the 90's, when dealing with software hackers and hardware monitoring, I find this all rather pedestrian knowledge.

> It's hard to claim someone is hiding something when it is front page news.

You're really not understanding the breadth of the problem. It's institutionally enforced, despite the fact that these abuses are known (ostensibly because they are not viewed as important or even abuses). The US Govt doesn't have to say much to sell it. You know, terrorists. https://www.eff.org/issues/nat... - At the very least, try to do some research regarding the stories you are referencing.

That's just my own personal experience. You don't have to look very far to see the many, many other unbelievably stupid litigations that have made the news (hint: they all seem to resolve around the courts in a certain East Texas district). And the one failure I pointed out happened to cost my company a lot of money to resolve. Why should we keep putting businesses through the wringer for the sake of lawyers and patent trolls?

So, yeah, I wouldn't mind tossing the concept of software patents altogether. By any reasonable standard, it's been a disaster for the software development industry over the past few decades. How many more years of failure would you like to see before you're convinced it's a bad idea? Maybe another few decades of patchwork fixes and band-aids?

The idea of patenting software is and always has been a dubious notion at best. Just because it's the law of the land now doesn't make it a good idea in the slightest. We should follow New Zealand's example and simply assert that software is not an invention and therefore shouldn't be patentable.

And remember, the EFF is a non-profit. Donate if you can, show your appreciation. They're fighting the good fight.

Let's Encrypt launched last November - the article is simply wrong. The new announcement is that the Linux Foundation is hosting it. Helps to actually read the press releases you base your articles on, eh? :-)

Think of it this way - conservatives are opposed to social change, liberals want social change.

Surveillence cements the status quo as embodied by laws so things like marijuana legalization which depend on people breaking the law to discover for themselves that the law is bogus are harder to accomplish. See also the way the FBI tried to blackmail MLK jr with their surveillence. Nobody ever gets blackmailed by the state for supporting the status quo.

This raises three questions.

First, how would you "encrypt all websites" as long as Windows XP maintains a loyal following despite its end of support? Because Internet Explorer for Windows XP doesn't support Server Name Indication, it can see only the first certificate on port 443 of a given IP address. This breaks name-based virtual hosting, requiring to lease an increasingly scarce IPv4 address.

Second, your "Marking HTTP As Non-Secure" page mentions example.com. I most often use that hostname to log into public Wi-Fi hotspots because a lot of the websites I use daily use HTTPS, which doesn't allow the MITM that a captive portal requires. Even if I key in http: into the address bar, HSTS or the HTTPS Everywhere extension will transparently redirect my request to HTTPS. If web browsers discourage users from visiting cleartext HTTP sites, how are they supposed to log into hotspots?

Third, and most relevantly for this article, even if you "encrypt all websites", you still have to give the website (or a third-party script operating in the website's context) a copy of your private key in order for it to encrypt and decrypt your mail.

Everyone really should click through and read page 5 of the original document: https://www.eff.org/files/2015...

The EFF redacted this entire page in response the USPTO request. Why did the USPTO not like it?... Because they got their ass summarily handed to them. The redaction compares two claims (one approved, one invalidated) that differ by LITERALLY ONLY A FEW WORDS. The USPTO is right to be embarrassed!

I explicitly disabled automatic synchronisation, or so I thought.

It's scary when a Slashdot reader -- most likely more technical than the average Joe -- has difficult maintaining their privacy on an Android phone. And yet this is the case.

The reason? Google's maniacal obsession with scooping-up every ounce of users' private data, with the goal of adding another billion to their (tax-haven based) profit margin. They take deliberate steps to confuse, obfuscate or even remove privacy options for users. On the other hand, they make it darn easy to (even accidentally) agree to surrender your private data into their data centres.

Don't be evil, my arse!
Bastards, more like it.

I wouldn't want my car to have the initials of its makers written all over the car body. And I doubt anybody buying software products wants it to have unnecessary security risks.

In the same vein - every page you print has your name on it, and I bet you've never noticed it.

Actually a code that can be traced to your printer, and a real good reason not to register a printer after you've purchased it with cash.

A link I've had a long time now, but it's been edited in 2015 (so updated ?).
https://www.eff.org/pages/list... list-printers-which-do-or-do-not-display-tracking-dots

Uhhhh sure you can check it, quite easily too. Just clear your cache, slap Privacy Badger on the Chromium or Gecko based browser or your choice (I like Chromodo and Pale Moon but YMMV) and immediately go to the site and see if Privacy Badger shows they are tracking you despite having DNT on in your browser. If they are you know they are full of shit, easy peasy.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

to support the EFF and all they do. donate now: https://supporters.eff.org/don...