Slashdot Mirror

I don't like iOS development -- I passionately hate XCode, ObjC and Apples mixed bag of APIs. Android somehow manages to provide an even shittier development environment.

As a user, I don't care to create an account with Samsung or whoever to download OS updates. I'd sooner root the phone and install a vanilla distro. The moment I see a privacy warning, I opt out or cancel and would probably remove the app. There is no way on Earth I'd use any of the Android devices I own (for testing) as my main phone.

In short, must be some good schmidt that Eric is smoking.

If only there was something we could do.

http://panopticlick.eff.org/ - Why do browsers reveal so much about themselves?

I should have actually checked the video link: It does NOT say "terms of use violation", it says "Copyright claim by UMG". According to the EFF, if they HAD filed a counter-claim (which they do indeed say they did), youtube would have restored the video 10 days later unless UMG had filed a lawsuit. Account cancelation (as is being claimed by torrentfreak) only occurs after 3 strikes, with a strike being a DMCA claim that was not countered.

That is, only by NOT filing a counter-claim would the account have been suspended. Im calling bull, unless some evidence of a counterclaim is pulled up. All of this information, btw, is from the EFF-- you can hardly call them "sympathetic to the labels".

Something, after all. SOPA was shot down, wasn't it?

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/11/explosion-opposition-internet-blacklist-bill

*shrug* It's a nearly trivial amount of additional work to grab the title along with the URL, which gives you the same information. This way the links themselves are informative. If you don't want a sniffer to know what you are reading, use HTTPS (if the site offers it; HTTPS Everywhere will use it automatically if it does) or Tor.

Hey, has Defcon put out its call for 2012 speakers yet?

It sounds like you're looking for someone who at least feels an ethical responsibility to help. Call the EFF; it's not their bailiwick, but they may be able to find the right tree to shake for you. Link to their webpage

Plus they're lawyers, it's always nice to have lawyers on your side.

Last I heard, Chrome doesn't support HTTPS Everywhere because it doesn't have the plugin hooks to do it. That's the main reason I stuck with Firefox. https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere

Is Convergence foundering due to a lack of buy-in from trustworthy allies?

In your BlackHat 2011 talk you announced Convergence as a new way to establish trust on the internet to replace the SSL/Certificate Authority approach that has been shown to be so broken with the recent compromises of CAs like Comodo and Diginotar. Yet potential allies, some of whom admit that SSL has failed to meet its purpose and needs fixing, have not bought in to Convergence. Notably these include Google's Chrome security people and apparently the EFF (who has proposed a different solution instead).

While the list of Convergence notaries is still growing, there is so far a lack of support from the kind of allies like the EFF who could lend credibility and tip momentum toward widescale adoption of Convergence as a solution to the SSL/CA problem. Is Converence wilting on the vine?

The apology came from the CEO. They just didn't sign the press release, because you don't sign press releases.

The EFF is a great organisation

Where would we be without them

Donate https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/11/double-your-impact-take-eff-mission-challenge with dollar for dollar matching by the Brin Wojcicki Foundation until december 31st

I've sent mine in

Note that the "Brin" in Brin Wojcicki is none other than Sergey Brin from Google. I think that speaks volumes, the cofounder of Google is giving half a million dollars of his personal fortune to the EFF. What other corporate entity would side with the EFF on any matter?

http://eff.org/donate [eff.org]

And for the remainder of 2011, they seem to have some sort of drive for someone to match the donation, doubling it.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/11/double-your-impact-take-eff-mission-challenge

Now seems like a good time to donate. I would, if I had any money of my own.

The EFF is a great organisation

Where would we be without them

Donate https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/11/double-your-impact-take-eff-mission-challenge with dollar for dollar matching by the Brin Wojcicki Foundation until december 31st

I've sent mine in

No, really.

This is why the EFF is so important -- because they have the resources and know-how to stand up for the Hackers, the Security Researchers, the Makers, the Professors, and even the lowly Undergraduates.

The EFF didn't just get results here, they effectively Pimp-slapped the company....with knowledge.

So before you go out on Black Friday to blow a few hundred on electronic toys..err...valuable tools for your job, go give the EFF $20 dollars. Heck, give them something like $65 and they'll even send you a sweet T-Shirt.

What are you waiting for? Think about it: You're a geek and don't get to pimp-slap anyone. Live vicariously through the EFF -- strike a blow against Censorship.

http://eff.org/donate

What do you think of the EFF Sovereign Keys proposal ?:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/11/sovereign-keys-proposal-make-https-and-email-more-secure

Yeah, I'm thinking a civilian court would have a better shot at justice. You know, with a lawyer of his choosing and his best interests at heart. One who knows what he did and thinks it was the right and legal thing to do. Someone well funded and well respected. You know... someone.

He is still free to do this. Like I said, in a court martial the defendant can bring in outside, civilian counsel. There is nothing prohibiting him from going out and getting whatever attorney he can retain/offers services to him. They would work alongside and in tandem with his military counsel.

And he is probably lucky that he is being tried at court martial. Besides being supplied legal counsel that is an officer (and therefore bound by oath to the law, oath as an officer, and by honor to do the best job they can)

The same sort of oath to protect the USA against all enemies, foreign and domestic?
Yeah, I'm thinking a civilian court would have a better shot at justice. You know, with a lawyer of his choosing and his best interests at heart. One who knows what he did and thinks it was the right and legal thing to do. Someone well funded and well respected. You know... someone.

Except both Bush and Obama enacted laws to give those telecoms retroactive immunity. What now?

EFF is your friend.

Stop whining and go for it.

He's a lawyer. Donating money to a lawyer is like donating blood to a vampire. It makes them stronger and then they hurt more innocent people.

Try donating your money to someone who deserves it, like these people

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like title (of both the original article and the slashdot post) is misleading as the article uses very precise wording.

The Senate measure, which mirrors the House resolution, says Congress “disapproves” of the FCC’s net neutrality rules, which “shall have no force or effect.”

Congress, and the EFF as well, disapprove of the FCC having this sort of power over content restrictions on the internet. This power to determine what can and can't go through internet pipes (and what can't be restricted) should be restricted to the legislative branch of the government, not an agency headed by appointed members.

This legislation is not anti-net neutrality; it is keeping the FCC's power in check, which I am all for.

Besides the fact that the FCC doesn't have to listen to voters as much as Congress does, the net neutrality rules that the FCC wants to put into place are far from perfect, and (at some point at least; I am not up to date on the detail) it even included an exception to net neutrality rules in order to aid compliance with copyright enforcement.

Sources:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/net-neutrality-fcc-perils-and-promise (Oct 2009) - regarding FCC's drafting net neutrality rules
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/net-neutrality-fcc-trojan-horse-redux (May 2010) - issue revisited
https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/01/14 (Jan 2010) - EFF comments on net neutrality loophole regarding blocking copyright infringement.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like title (of both the original article and the slashdot post) is misleading as the article uses very precise wording.

The Senate measure, which mirrors the House resolution, says Congress “disapproves” of the FCC’s net neutrality rules, which “shall have no force or effect.”

Congress, and the EFF as well, disapprove of the FCC having this sort of power over content restrictions on the internet. This power to determine what can and can't go through internet pipes (and what can't be restricted) should be restricted to the legislative branch of the government, not an agency headed by appointed members.

This legislation is not anti-net neutrality; it is keeping the FCC's power in check, which I am all for.

Besides the fact that the FCC doesn't have to listen to voters as much as Congress does, the net neutrality rules that the FCC wants to put into place are far from perfect, and (at some point at least; I am not up to date on the detail) it even included an exception to net neutrality rules in order to aid compliance with copyright enforcement.

Sources:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/net-neutrality-fcc-perils-and-promise (Oct 2009) - regarding FCC's drafting net neutrality rules
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/net-neutrality-fcc-trojan-horse-redux (May 2010) - issue revisited
https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/01/14 (Jan 2010) - EFF comments on net neutrality loophole regarding blocking copyright infringement.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like title (of both the original article and the slashdot post) is misleading as the article uses very precise wording.

The Senate measure, which mirrors the House resolution, says Congress “disapproves” of the FCC’s net neutrality rules, which “shall have no force or effect.”

Congress, and the EFF as well, disapprove of the FCC having this sort of power over content restrictions on the internet. This power to determine what can and can't go through internet pipes (and what can't be restricted) should be restricted to the legislative branch of the government, not an agency headed by appointed members.

This legislation is not anti-net neutrality; it is keeping the FCC's power in check, which I am all for.

Besides the fact that the FCC doesn't have to listen to voters as much as Congress does, the net neutrality rules that the FCC wants to put into place are far from perfect, and (at some point at least; I am not up to date on the detail) it even included an exception to net neutrality rules in order to aid compliance with copyright enforcement.

Sources:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/net-neutrality-fcc-perils-and-promise (Oct 2009) - regarding FCC's drafting net neutrality rules
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/net-neutrality-fcc-trojan-horse-redux (May 2010) - issue revisited
https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/01/14 (Jan 2010) - EFF comments on net neutrality loophole regarding blocking copyright infringement.

"convey with their appearance"
Some agency got a form of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roving_wiretap
http://w2.eff.org/patriot/sunset/206.php
So any contact with the press would be of interest, noted and acted on in some way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO showed a historic interest in the press.

And it was done without court orders.

• Imperial presidency: judge jury and executioner.
• Unconstitutional detention.
• Unconstitutional wiretapping.
• Unconstitutionally waging war and not even bothering with the War Powers Act.
• Taking credit for Iraq ending when it was Iraq that kicked us out on Bush II's timetable and Obama was trying to stay longer. Assange has a much bigger claim for the removal of troops from Iraq.
• Cut deal with insurance industry while touting the public option. In the end, we get the No Insurance Company Left Behind Act. Lobbyists got their money's worth.
• Recent financial reform legislation so weak it would not have even slowed the meltdown had it already been in place. Lobbyists got their money's worth.
• Forgiving torturers Excusing them makes him complicit.
• Not even a show-attempt to prosecute fraud in the meltdown. Instead its bailouts and bonuses.
• Made deepwater horizon more likely.
• And the famous "hire the lobbyists for the industry you bow to" tactic. Good for what I don't know.
• Whistleblowers who expose wrongdoing should not be treated as Manning has been, and we don't even know if manning was responsible. He'll probably just get indefinite detention because the president says so. Welcome to Napoleonic America.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/apple-says-jailbreaking-illegal

Oh, that jailbreak. Yes, Apple is adamant you purchase from them all your wants and needs. They like to hog all their customers.

That video generates more questions in my brain than it answers.

What questions?

"ACTA is bad, nnkay?" it says, which is not enough.

It's enought for the video. Nobody would watch a 30 minutes boring video quoting obfuscated texts refering to more obfuscated texts already signed by countries dozens of years before that.

The point of this video is to try to get the interest of a lot of people. The one who didn't heard of ACTA before. Once these people are interested, they can seek informations by themselves. The link provided in the video, that's a good start. Or see the wikipedia page, seek on the search engine, or seek on their favorite online newspaper.

The extremely one-side view on ACTA the video provides sickens me.

Well, what do you suggest? A more positive approach? Like "Think of the future, nobody will be able to share knowledge, wouldn't that be great?".
What if everything is bad in ACTA?

It doesn't even tell me who "The Negotiators" are.

That's the point. "The Negotiators" are not known. ACTA has been negotiated in secret during the past few years. Withoout the control of the democratically elected parliaments or other institutions. Now the treaty is finalized and signed by some Countries. The other Countries now have a gun pressed against their head "sign it or you're out".

I can't say "No" to ACTA based on this video alone.

Of course you can't.
But maybe you can say no to ACTA based on this video + my comment + few other comments on this news, + on https://www.eff.org/issues/acta + https://www.laquadrature.net/en/acta + http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_tags&task=view&tag=acta&Itemid=408 + http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/acta/why-acta-declaration + http://www.ffii.org/ + your own sources of information.

And if someday you want to say no, here is how: http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/How_to_act_against_ACTA :)

Without the video link. https://www.eff.org/issues/acta

• Stop unconstitutional execution of the American citizenry.
• Stop unconstitutional detention.
• Stop unconstitutional wiretapping and prosectue AT&T's complicity (and that of any other carrier).
• Stop unconstitutionally waging war. From Korea onward, all our wars have been illegal, but Obama doesn't even feel constrained by the weak tea requirements of the war powers act. Our founding fathers never intended for the president to be a Napoleon.
• End the wars we are in. And please don't cite Iraq. The ONLY reason we are pulling out troops is because Iraq would not succumb to Obama's lobbying for a longer stay with immunity from war crimes. Thanks to wikipedia for that.
• Quit sucking insurance industry cock, i.e., real nice move touting the public option while secretly cutting a deal for the No Insurance Company Left Behind Act. I guess they got their money's worth.
• Quit sucking Wall Street cock, and don't pretend that the financial reform legislation would have even been a mild hindrance to the meltdown had it already been in place.
• Prosecute torturers rather than let them off the hook. Excusing them makes him complicit.
• At least make a show of investigating fraud on Street. The S&L crisis was 1/40th the size and 1000 bankers went to jail. This meltdown isn't even being investigated, instead, their handing out bonuses. A big "Fuck You Very Much Mr. Obama" for that.
• Thanks for helping to enable Deepwater horizon, it was exactly the gift I wanted!
• Quit hiring Keystone Pipeline lobbyists for your campaign.
• Bradley Manning. We know you have a hardon for anyone that might stand in the way of relentless war, but Christ, grow a soul and a sense of morality.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/apple-says-jailbreaking-illegal

Illegal according to the San Mateo DA's office. It would seem that the EFF and the DA's office are in agreement on that one.

EFF is interpreting the law incorrectly, I'm pretty sure having a press pass doesn't mean I get to steal your stuff and laugh at the police when they come looking for it.

Citation needed! Where do you see that anybody with a press pass stole anything at all from Apple? We know that Chen bought the phone from someone that said he found it in a bar and then contacted Apple to return it to them.

No where does it say the search was illegal, all it says is the search warrant was withdrawn and the items returned. "withdrawn" does not mean "illegal", and the only reason it was withdrawn is because Chen agreed to cooperate with investigators

If some guy showed up at my house with a prototype 2014 Mustang test mule and said "I'll sell it to you for $$$$$$" I can't buy it and tell the police to shove off just because I have a press pass, it's still stolen property.

eff.org are trolls, you need to pick your sources better

Other problem(for you) is that, unless you go off the grid entirely, you tend to stick out like a sore thumb among the happy-clicking opt-in consumers...

If you play with a tool like panopticlick you can observe that browsers are surprisingly identifiable by default and, worse, a lot of the tools used to make them less so are quite uncommonly used, which actually makes you stand further out of the crowd.

It isn't clear whether there is money in tracking and attempting to sell to, the vehement refuseniks of the world; but only the sharpest and most dedicated would escape if there were...

https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere

The summary for this Slashdot article was so ignorant and biased that I actually registered just to comment on it.

cute.

"After the police broke in to a Gizmodo editor's home [...]" They didn't "break in" -- they had a search warrant.

The search warrant was illegal. It had been procured under false pretenses and so it was no search warrant. The act was a "break in" even if the individual officers may not be able to be found culpable for it

"[...] the San Mateo District Attorney's office petitioned the court to withdraw the search warrant [...]" The San Mateo District Attorney's Office didn't petition the court to withdraw the search warrant. The San Mateo District Attorney's Office petitioned the court to issue the search warrant.

Just because one thing is true does not mean that another is not true. In this case the DA suddenly realised that he had broken the law (or less charitably, realised he had been caught breaking the law) and, correctly, attempted to minimise the damage this would do by also petitioning to withdraw the search warrant. This is clearly visible in the page on the EFF website which covers this request

"[...] because it violated a law intended to protect journalists [...]" The search warrant didn't violate any laws. Journalistic shield laws exist to protect the sources of journalists. The identities of Gizmodo's "sources" (or "sellers") were already known to police. They were in custody and cooperating with police. Journalistic shield laws do not exist so that journalists can purchase stolen goods.

The DA's petition to withdraw the warrant, which it appears you were ignorant of, is a pretty clear admission that some law had a pretty good chance of shielding Gizmodo. Various posturing in the press about what they have or hadn't done is not something which can be compared to a court document.

It isn't a crime to execute a search warrant. It is a crime to purchase a stolen iPhone prototype, damage, and dissect it in order to publish trade secrets before the product has hit shelves, or even been announced to the public. It is damaging not only to Apple, but to their employees and shareholders. "[...] Nevertheless, the DA, rather than apologize [...]" Why should the DA apologize for doing his job? The DA deserves an apology from whoever authored this article stub.

And now whoever authored the stub deserves an apology from you... But don't feel too bad about it, around here we rarely bother apologising for merely being wrong. Your post is certainly on the point and above average here though to really get modded up you need to do better. Welcome to Slashdot. BTW; you will find that <quote> is better than <i> and more standard Slashdot style.

In the order withdrawing the search warrant the judge stipulated that the documents should be kept under seal. That is a completely acceptable limitation on free speech which is not an absolute 100% right when it conflicts with other rights (in this case the right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers"). It seems to me that in breaking that stipulation the DA should be charged with contempt of court.

Illegal according to the San Mateo DA's office. It would seem that the EFF and the DA's office are in agreement on that one.

EFF is interpreting the law incorrectly, I'm pretty sure having a press pass doesn't mean I get to steal your stuff and laugh at the police when they come looking for it.

Citation needed! Where do you see that anybody with a press pass stole anything at all from Apple? We know that Chen bought the phone from someone that said he found it in a bar and then contacted Apple to return it to them.

And then, the chutzpah of the DA's to call out the Gizmodo editors (who may or may not have deserved it) after conducting an illegal search...

Illegal according to who? The guy that wrote the article? Jason Chen had stolen property and the police are perfectly within their rights to search for that property, the reason some people are calling it "illegal" is because they believe journalist are above the law: "it violated California Penal Code section 1524(g)'s prohibition against the issuance of warrants for "unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.""

EFF is interpreting the law incorrectly, I'm pretty sure having a press pass doesn't mean I get to steal your stuff and laugh at the police when they come looking for it.

And then, the chutzpah of the DA's to call out the Gizmodo editors (who may or may not have deserved it) after conducting an illegal search...

Illegal according to who? The guy that wrote the article? Jason Chen had stolen property and the police are perfectly within their rights to search for that property, the reason some people are calling it "illegal" is because they believe journalist are above the law: "it violated California Penal Code section 1524(g)'s prohibition against the issuance of warrants for "unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.""

EFF is interpreting the law incorrectly, I'm pretty sure having a press pass doesn't mean I get to steal your stuff and laugh at the police when they come looking for it.

When you see people debating law using terms "IIRC" or "As far as I know" then you can safely ignore them.
I see a lot of that here.
Go read your rights here: https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights

Encryption keys: Plead the 5th, if it applies you don't have to turn keys over, so if he had encrypted his email....

Don't use public mail, control your data, ESPECIALLY if you work somewhere like "wikileaks" (FFS that this has to be pointed out is really kinda dumb)

But the best protection of all, the absolute best fool proof protection... don't get involved and stay off the internet.

You need to take a look at the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). A violation of this act is a criminal matter. There have been a number of criminal cases brought by the government for TOS violations. Take a look at this article. http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/6189-can-terms-of-service-turn-you-into-a-criminal. How about this article http://www.onthemedia.org/blogs/on-the-media/2011/sep/28/senate-advocates-terms-of-use-reform-computer-fraud/. Note this quote
"Late last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved an amendment to the law that specifically decriminalizes terms of service violations." How do you "decriminalize" something that in not currently criminal? Here is the EFF article about the amendment. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/09/senate-committee-agrees-violating-terms-service-shouldnt. Here is the amendment. http://judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/upload/JEN11A19-Grassley-Franken.pdf

Your second point is moot because the ruling clearly states that the tabular data was not copyrightable and focused on the descriptions and pictures which are.

You are confusing the two aspects of the case; breach of contract and copyright infringement. The scraping was a breach of contract as it contravened the web site TOS which the court ruled is a binding contract. The display of copyrightable descriptions and pictures was ruled copyright infringement. These are separate issues in the case.

https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere

Oh, so your boys get the privacy protections that you've spent the last 10 years undermining for all the rest of us plebs, huh? I tell you what, I'll be cool with your special phones if, in exchange, the President and NSA Director will issue a public directive to all NSA employees reaffirming the pre-911 NSA policy of not to spying on the phone calls or emails of any American citizen without a court order. You know that policy, right? It's the one we put into law in 1978--the law that you ignored just because the President said so.

I'll hold my breath.

Cookies are not the only way to track people. Please check out http://panopticlick.eff.org/

So forget about cookies. And like others mentioned elsewhere, even if you do not have a fb account, you can still be tracked.

The only way to do it properly, so to block facebook.com at the DNS level (and even then, facebook might be using different domain names, but this would be a good start).

Me too, FWIW. I've found it to be a very workable solution. Even before I read this article I just assumed that Facebook (and Google for that matter) follow me everywhere I go on the internet. I use IE for Facebook, Chrome for Gmail and other Google sevices, and Firefox (with all the usual privacy addons) for general browsing when I don't need to be logged in to anywhere. I realise this can only help so much, but it's better than nothing.

While not a domain confiscation, there have been instances of mistaken DMCA takedown notices from the *AA companies. It's not really being paranoid to worry that mistakes like that would result in mistaken domain seizures now that copyright holders have that recourse.

Not one comment about the EFF Open Wireless Movement. that was covered on /. back in April.

It's a cause I believe in and I try to do my part. Around my house an open network called EFF Open Wireless is available from 9am - 6pm. You're welcome to use it if you ever see it :-)

Well, your printer does embed invisible tracking codes into the printed page which links it back to you...

http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/printers/docucolor/

Firefox recognizes many dozens of CAs.

Firefox and IE directly recognise around six hundred and fifty CAs and they in turn have an unknown number of unknown sub-CAs. In other words the browsers happily accept certs signed quite literally by almost anyone and anything.

See EFF's https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/07/politics-surveillance-erosion-privacy-latin-america - The Politics of Surveillance: The Erosion of Privacy in Latin America. Reminds me of Microsoft Coffee (http://cryptome.org/0001/ms-cofee.htm), and makes me wonder what effects the Pentagon's sockpuppet programs are having as well: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks *New Microsoft eugenics program leaked: Controversial "Just Click [HERE] to Send Drones" has many concerned* - maybe