Slashdot Mirror

the mozilla public license 1.1 is just as complicated and bogged down with legalities as the gpl. while i'm sure many developers want to just stick their heads in the code and create software, in an era of patent- trolling- litigiousness, they might as well be sticking their heads in the sand. IANAL, but i would prefer a license that directly addresses legalities arising from patent infringement claims, than a tried-and-true one that neglects mention of it entirely. and any license (gpl, mozilla, etc.) that tries to counter potential legal issues will no longer be plain, easy to comprehend, or concise: such is the nature of the legal Beast.

i am not saying one should use the new gpl. there are obviously other implications that determine a license's suitability to its project. however, adhering to a license, simply because its simpler, is not a safe approach. once upon a time, i'm sure early software developers regarded the new MIT software license as injecting unnecessary legality into their software projects. sadly, these licenses have since become the norm, and their works would've since fallen prey to copyright violations or litigations concerning warrantability, liability, etc.. at the risk of FUD-mongering, i contend that the same may well be true of present licenses that do not handle the patent threat.

We are in the times in which the people have to protect each other. And we all are the people, and the ones that are against the people are the powerful that will not take into consideration peoples rights.

What NSA is doing is an abuse, but the people that communicate through the internet are very vulnerable to abuse, not only by the governments, but also by mafias and groups of a diversity of allied criminals, some of them acting with white gloves.

Internet is today the field for criminal activities. In the last few days I have been receiving an enormous amount of emails which were fake from ebay, pay pal, the Netherlands Lotto etc... trying to get from me my password to this accounts. And some of them looked so good that could be mistaken by the real thing, but users of the internet that engage in criminal activities disguise themselves in anonymity that internet provides.

Our communications throuh the internet are surveiled since time immemorial by NSA, and a wealth of information about us can be collected and may be collected. And this is a great danger to the people, and no law protects us these days.

What about an internet between authenticated and identified users... so that the majority of internet users that don't mind to be identified because they live in a free country and at the same time, not being engaged in fraudulent activity or criminal activity don't mind to inter-communicate with other identified and authenticated members of the net. Why should anyone want to be anonymous if not engaged in criminal activity?

This is my point. We should suport the institutions, companies and private people that support the target to bring privacy and security within identified users when using the internet to communicate This is the case of a company called Amteus.

Now, once in communication with an identified user, which is properly authenticated, then you provide privacy, so... unless you want to make it public, nobody can access your communication because it is properly secured and encrypted. i.e. it travels in a closed envelope and it is unlawful to open it, and it is being between identified and authenticated users that trust each other. Otherwise, not only the governments with their NSAs involved in their own practices will snoop on us, but gangs of gangsters will easily intercept our communications, phishing like the email I have received will only be the beginning. I am starting a website to support this kind of approach.

This requires legislation, but also requires technology. Like the one developed by Amteus. But there are many other.

I hope that the people with vision that have given to the internet a view that will promote freedom and cleanliness, like John Perry Barlow will help this company to succeed in a very honorable project.

It is very distressing these days what is going on with the Internet. Hopefully companies like Amteus Plc that are bringing a technology to overcome this problem of snooping, spam, phishing etc.. will survive attacks from those that hide behind anonimity.

Ramon Leonato

At the bottom of this piece is a link to the EFF cliff notes version, it is more understandable for some perhaps:

http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/broadcasting_treaty/

It's pretty bogus, think **AA wet dream legislation, now add in the "blessed packets" nonsense that the major telcos want. Not only could the middle men skimmers ownzor their stuff, they could ownzor YOUR stuff as soon as they broadcast it! It would kill news blogging, VOIP except for the carriers versions, any sort of home tivo like action, commercial or DIY, "rich" media transfers outside the already established outlets, and make the net a big whopping version of the AOL walled garden concept.

Basically, it's your normal globalist "screw the little guy, only the already exisiting big guys matter, and you gonna pay us big bux forever, suckah" type deal.

I wondered when this would happen, it was only a matter of time before they started civilizing the free, cheap and easy wild wild west anarchy styled web. No big corporations or governments want YOU to have ANY control, not in the past, not now, and not in the future. And politicians go where the anonymous bags of cash are, end of story.

• They stop people from "pirating" Windows, Office, etc.
• They're pushing the media industry to use their Windows Media DRM, which would get them free money (royalties) for the next 100 years or so
• They keep people locked-in to Windows, simply by not supporting any other platforms

• Treacherous Computing automatically kills Free Software, instantly removing their biggest and most dangerous competition

You gotta turn it into a contest for the smallest, or most distant, or largest.
And the computer-based program should encompass both fame and fortune.

Incorporate it into a screensaver, that a coworker will inevitably hack to be like the 1999
subliminal web page that suddenly pops up an alien after staring intently at a static screen.

You should be. Put your money where your mouth is and go join the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), as they're doing some good work regarding patents.

You should be. Put your money where your mouth is and go join the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), as they're doing some good work regarding patents.

And besides, maybe if they did force everyone to use DRM, it would stop the whole "buy 10,000 email addresses for $10" kind of privacy violations we see rampantly all over the US.

No, it would make such privacy violations worse. DRM is all about _other people_ controlling your computer, and your data. This is compatible with neither privacy, nor security. EFF is a good place to read about this. Cory Doctorow has discussed this in depth as well (an EFF fellow).

Considering the amount posted on this in the last month or so, it's kind of astounding that there exists a slashdot reader who doesn't know this.

Anyway, google ->

This is not a complete list and Sony-BMG continues to refuse to make such a list available to consumers. Consumers can spot CDs with XCP by inspecting a CD closely, checking the left transparent spine on the front of the case for a label that says "CONTENT PROTECTED." The back of these CDs also mention XCP in fine print. You can find pictures of these and other telltale labeling at http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/Sony-BMG/.

Considering the amount posted on this in the last month or so, it's kind of astounding that there exists a slashdot reader who doesn't know this.

Anyway, google ->

This is not a complete list and Sony-BMG continues to refuse to make such a list available to consumers. Consumers can spot CDs with XCP by inspecting a CD closely, checking the left transparent spine on the front of the case for a label that says "CONTENT PROTECTED." The back of these CDs also mention XCP in fine print. You can find pictures of these and other telltale labeling at http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/Sony-BMG/.

Not only that, members of a class action can choose to "opt out" and sue Sony directly if they desire. Though it probably would not be easy to do for an average individual. http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/Sony-BMG/settlement_faq. php#10 I don't like this settlement. How do I opt out? If you don't want to participate in the settlement and get the settlement benefits, and you want to keep the right to sue Sony BMG on your own about any of the claims that this settlement resolves, then you must take steps to opt out. If you want to exclude yourself from the settlement, you must send a letter by mail clearly indicating your name, address and telephone number and stating that you "request to be excluded from the Settlement Class in the Sony BMG CD Technologies Litigation," and you must sign the letter. You also must state the title of the XCP CD or MediaMax CD that you bought, received or used. More information about opting out will be included in the settlement notices that will go out by February 15, 2006. Important Note: You must opt-out by MAY 1, 2006.

I think my CD drive was seriously damaged by the XCP or MediaMax software. Do I have to give up my claims against Sony BMG for this injury?

        No. The settlement does not release claims for:

                * damage to a computer or network resulting from interactions between the XCP Software or the MediaMax Software and your computer (e.g., damage to your hard drive);
                * damage related to your reasonable efforts to remove the XCP Software or the MediaMax Software; or
                * copyright, trademark or other claims arising from the development of the MediaMax Software or the XCP Software, or any uninstallers or updates thereto.

        You may still sue Sony BMG for any such claims, whether or not you choose to take advantage of the settlement benefits. As part of the settlement process, Sony BMG agreed to waive its unconscionable New York forum selection clause and $5 limit on damages, so you can take them to your local small claims court for your damages. EFF will be developing a web page explaining how to use the small claims process to bring a lawsuit against Sony BMG.

That's why I'm a member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

They only can work if people donate.

Thanks.

Largely because the events are from the dawn of the WWW... although the EFF has some of the more important documents. It was a pretty depressing case from a 1st amendment standpoint. You'll find more if you do a Google Groups search (Usenet was full of it at the time; of course, folk say Usenet has always been full of it....), and if you spell "Amateur" correctly.

And, no, I don't really think it's that good of a comparison.

You call it scaring people, I call it educating people. It's about time people began to understand how the Internet works, how to use proxies, etc. The more people who are aware of this, the more audience there is for those who say "hey, want to know how a proxy works?" It's these sort of scare tactics that increase interest in things like .

What crap. I like cookies - but those asshole cookie manufacturers have the distribution mechanism locked up so I have to buy an entire pack at once! I only want one! Bastards! Now I just use my extra-large pockets in the supermarket to make sure I never pay for another cookie ever again. Screw them!

That said, your example is just about as ridiculous as the parent poster's. We consume cookies and music differently. A bag of cookies contains $NUMBER of identical things; a CD does not. Also, unless you are a cow and chew your cud, or otherwise regurgitate what you've eaten, you cannot get arbitrarily repeated enjoyment out of a specific cookie the way you can with a track of music (or a movie, or a photograph, or a painting).

For the hundredth damn time, copyright infringement is not the same as theft of tangible goods. One of the earliest and clearest expressions of this, which you've no doubt heard, is this quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson. More to the point, go read the court decision in US v. Lamacchia, specifically Justice Blackmun's comments on the Dowling decision cited near the top. The copyright owner... holds no ordinary chattel.

I'm curious. Would Tor and Privoxy help in this situation? Locating and downloading the software might be difficult, but installing the pre-configured package for Windows takes less then 5 minutes.

I'm curious. Would Tor and Privoxy help in this situation? Locating and downloading the software might be difficult, but installing the pre-configured package for Windows takes less then 5 minutes.

Please consider how Internet censorship is being implemented in the "free world" when reading this story.

Example: Starting January 1st 2006, it is illegal to have organized debate on how to by-pass copyright restrictions in Finland. It is also illegal to distribute software, also free software, that can be used to by-pass copyright restrictions. This is a violation of free speech in the Internet in The Free World(tm).

Another example: In many countries now it is illegal to inform that the World War II holocaust where claimed six million jews supposedly died is a hoax. You don't even need to be accused of lying, which you are not by informing about this issue, in many countries you will simply be put in prison on the vague charge of "denial".

And there are many, way too many, examples on how free speech is being violated and limited in the western world.

The first amendment seems to be the only one left in the USA now and it is under constant attack. Eye-ball the story and ignore place in the world (China), this is something every citizen should protest against, regardless of where in the world it happens - And it is, sadly, a trend that I see too clearly all over the world these days.

Btw. You might aswell start using http://tor.eff.org/ right away - Sadly, tools that allow anonymous communication have now become necessary and essential.

I'm curious if they are blocking Slashdot? If no, then they will do it after this article :D

Two programs that can help:

*****Tor*****

"Tor: An anonymous Internet communication system
Tor is a toolset for a wide range of organizations and people that want to improve their safety and security on the Internet. Using Tor can help you anonymize web browsing and publishing, instant messaging, IRC, SSH, and other applications that use the TCP protocol. Tor also provides a platform on which software developers can build new applications with built-in anonymity, safety, and privacy features."

http://tor.eff.org/

*****TrueCrypt*****

"Free open-source disk encryption software for Windows XP/2000/2003 and Linux
Main Features:

* Creates a virtual encrypted disk within a file and mounts it as a real disk.
* Encrypts an entire hard disk partition or a device, such as USB flash drive.
* Encryption is automatic, real-time (on-the-fly) and transparent.
* Provides two levels of plausible deniability, in case an adversary forces you to reveal the password:
1) Hidden volume (steganography - more information may be found here).
2) No TrueCrypt volume can be identified (volumes cannot be distinguished from random data).
* Encryption algorithms: AES-256, Blowfish (448-bit key), CAST5, Serpent, Triple DES, and Twofish.
*Mode of operation: LRW (CBC supported as legacy).
* Based on Encryption for the Masses (E4M) 2.02a, conceived in 1997."

http://www.truecrypt.org/

The law which enables the President to "spy" has been on the books since 1978. The scope of the law was expanded in 1994 and 1998. The EFF has a great writeup about the law which can be found here There are certain requirements that must be met before a "warrant" is issued by a judge. In reality it is really not a warrant because the person investigated is unaware of the pseudo-warrant. Please read the EFF writeup so you have a better understanding of your rights. Blaming this law on the current administration is unproductive and misguided. The law was passed under a democrat administration (Carter) and expaned under another democrat administration (Clinton) We can bitch and moan about the current administration and their use of the law. This doesn't change the fact that the it is on the books. I have already contacted my representatives regarding this law. I am glad the NYTs shed light on this because I would not have known about it otherwise. Disclaimer: I don't support the Democrats or the Republicans. I am a Libertarian. You don't have to vote for a giant douche or turd sandwich you know.

Just because you have accepted (did you actually? did you have a choice?) the EULA, does not mean that everything what is written in the EULA becomes a valid and legal contract. It is highly controversial whether EULAs are actually enforceable.

Check out EFF's critical summary about EULAs:
http://www.eff.org/wp/eula.php

He is the master who has power over things which others wish to have or to avoid, the power to take these things away or bestow them: the power to inflict or to withhold. Whoever then wishes to be free, let him neither wish to have anything nor wish to avoid anything which depends on others. Who does not observe this rule, he must be a slave.--Epictetus

Quite to the contrary, I've always found slashdot and anyone with an IQ over 120 to be usually liberal-leaning and usually left-wing. Oh yeah, Tor: An anonymous Internet communication system http://tor.eff.org/

Ah, 'harmonization'. The word striking the most fear into independent and unamerican countries across the world.
The fact is that in EVERYWHERE in the world where you are likely to be reading this IP laws have been harmonized to the point where the basics are the same. - and the reason why? Pressure from one of the most powerful economies in the world. Can you honestly suggest that countries have spontaneously passed US type copyright legislation? Bullshit.
The original poster's point, that one of the RIAA's precepts is that 'The US's laws apply to everyone in the world, and are superior to every other law' is accurate. As long as the RIAA is able to buy law in the US, it will exert all possible pressure to ensure that the US's laws are exported to the rest of the world.

I don't know what your profession is, but I'm going to use an example I think a lot of readers here will understand. You don't hire a lawyer to write code. Conversely, you wouldn't hire a coder (or anyone else without legal training) to try a case.

People have different talents. If you have a software problem, you hire a coder; if you have a building problem, you hire an architect; if you have a power problem, you hire an electrician; if you have a legal problem, you hire a lawyer. I don't particularly believe any of those people are 'bottom scrapers', or are otherwise unhelpful. You yourself indicated that you would immediately hire a lawyer if you got into legal trouble again, which seems to me that you understand how useful lawyers are. If you think the system sucks, change it. Go to law school. Write your Congressmen. Give money to the EFF.

I'm sorry you lost your case. I'm not particularly surprised, but at least it didn't cost you too much. On the other hand, I don't think it's sufficient justification for your comment.

I've come up with a few ways to stop dynamic ip abuses. Set cookies and sessions to check for previous maliciousness is one method which I'm sure they are likely already using. The other is to store a user's IP in a session-based array and require registration if the array has more than one record. I've tried this while using Tor and it's 99% effective for quelling IP abuse.

Does anyone know a secure IM? I've heard you can interface Gaim with tor, but does it work with Gaim descendents like Adium for OS X? And can you have real time IM with these secure proxy stuff.

Also, I'd recommend Tor and Privoxy for normal browsing if you want security.

remember downhillbattle and EFF. They are fighting for your rights.

Actually, the MPAA is trying to make the cards not capable of recording copyrighted material by "flagging" copyrighted shows. The dreaded "broadcast flag" would make the card not able to record any "flagged" material. Or something like that... You can read all about it at the EFF website.

http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag/

It's unconstitutional, exactly what we have come to expect from the current regime.

As an example, in scenario 2 we see what all devices must do if only the VEIL signal is found.

(Step 1) CGMS-A State Detected -- Not present
(Step 2) RCI State Detected -- Not present
(redistribution control bit to be detected with CGMS-A)
(Step 3) VEIL Detected -- YES
Rights Assertion Description -- INCONSISTENT STATE: Rights are being asserted so the CGMS-A was probably tampered and/or the RCI was probably stripped
Technical Content Protection Response -- VIEW ONLY - Protect as Copy Protected Content

The last encoding technique, VEIL (Video Encoded Invisible Light) is particularly interesting as it was originally developed as a way to transmit information to a series of Batman toys. Now it is supposed to be a DRM watermark technology. Hmmm.... The EFF has weighed in on this too.

It is already illegal to do the things that this technology supposedly is designed to prevent. Does the MPAA really need to be protected by the government, at our expense, like this?

MPAA - the unfreedom fighters.

yo.

...all Juniper has to do is prove that these people actually made these comments. Then the burden of proof is on the posters to prove that their statements are true. So remember kids, if you are going to defame someone, do it anonymously with Tor.

Dude, people are still running Windows 98; I severely doubt that there will be any mass migrations to "new and improved" DRM'd hardware. My parents still use VHS instead of a PVR, and I'd have to say that they're more technologically aware than Joe Beerbelly. The only thing to fear for now (other than the public's ignorance) is the **AA lobbying to get DRM a mandated part of hardware, also outlawing analog devices (despite how futile that idea is).

In other news, /.ers need to write to their state's congresscritters (if applicable). I'm sure the EFF has some pre-written letters you can send.

From the EFF link: (Prize money comes from a special donation provided by an individual EFF supporter, earmarked specifically for this project. Prize money does NOT come from EFF membership dues, corporate or foundation grants, or other general EFF funds.)

One might think if you were so hot and bothered by this, you'd have clicked on the link to find out more.

You can join the effort!

BTW? How do we start lobbing OUR people in congress to get this blocked. If this goes through (from what I understand) it could have the potential to destroy the internet. I like it the way it is now. Charging me extra for "extra services" that are standard on a regular connection.

COME ON PEOPLE! If you dont like this idea we need to get together to stop this. Get the EFF on this. Do something.

of these "big name" artists and I have no interest in them or the music. But this article reminded me that I intended to make a year-end donation to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org/ and I have just done so. Who will join me? (Or are you all hot air and no action?)

3. Oh wait, you mean this application/service/person might actually be doing something legal/useful/beneficial to us??? oh ok we're sorry

From what I understand it's more like:

3. The EFF has noticed us in an open letter about certain facts like "that any legal threats by Warner/Chappell against U.S. software developers in connection with software similar to pearLyrics could expose Warner/Chappell to legal action in U.S. federal courts."

Also, the software isn't available again; they didn't sue (this time?) but they still don't approve the software or say anything about their viewpoint regarding the legality of such a (basically search engine) software.

From what I read here it sounds more like that they will buy the software or hire the developer to develop a "legal" (and probably not free) version.

I can only assume it's because FISA requires that there be probable cause that the subject of the intercept be a foreign power or agent thereof.

Suppose the government captures a terrorist's cell phone addressbook. They then decide they'd like to eavesdrop on everyone in that list, in case some of them are also involved in terrorism. The administration may not be able to convince a FISA judge that simply being in someone's phone list is "probable cause" that the person is themselves a foreign agent or terrorist.

Details on FISA

[ Amendment IV ]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Want to read my stuff? Go ahead and crack it - no warrant necessary.

Get the rabbit installed on a machine behind your firewall
==> http://freenet.sourceforge.net/
Faster than freenet
==> http://www.i2p.net/
Encrypt Jabber
==> http://www.vanemery.com/Linux/Jabber/jabberd.html
Onion Routing
==> http://tor.eff.org/
Emerging Network To Reduce Orwellian Potency Yield
==> http://entropy.stop1984.com/
Free Internet telephony
==> http://skype.com/
GNU-ified P2p
==> http://www.gnu.org/software/gnunet/


DO NOT DENY yourself about 2 hours @ InfoAnarchy.org
OMG! ==> http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Pag e
LearnLearnLearnLearn ==> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography

=================EMAIL ENCRYPTION===============
GPG (Free PGP)
==> http://gnupg.org/
Integrated with Thunderbird
==> http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
Mutt can't be beat as a mailreader and integrates GPG wonderfully.
==> http://mutt.blackfish.org.uk/
==> http://www.mutt.org/links.html
==> http://wiki.mutt.org/index.cgi?UserPages

!!! Please do not immediately send newly created keys to the keyservers (as many HOWTOs instruct new users to). They are already overflowing with "test keys" and other people's experiments from over the years THAT HAVE NO EXPIRATION and will never be deleted. These keys are "orphans" and most will never be used. As keyservers sync together, and most keys are never deleted once submitted - GET YOUR KEY SETUP CORRECTLY AND HAVE PRACTICE WITH IT BEFORE SENDING IT OFF TO THE KEYSERVERS!!! Otherwise storage requirements will continue to grow and using these in the future will become more difficult FOR ALL. Please, if you are just starting out with PGP or GPG or GnuPG or anything similar (the last two are in fact the same thing) use manual key distribution to begin (ascii armor your public key with


$ gpg --export --armor my@email.address.org

and copy and paste it into an email body or attach it to an email


$ gpg --export --armor my@email.address.org > myPubKey.txt

to gain practice with GPG before uploading your key. This way if you need to create another you won't have uploaded your mistakes. Many choices need to be made and it's worth getting things right before "going public" with your new digital ID. Experiment with yourself and a few different email accounts or with some friends first.)

SET AN EXPIRATION OF 2-5 YEARS OR SO AND MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR PREFERENCES THE WAY YOU LIKE THEM BEFORE SENDING TO A KEYSERVER! Better yet is to HOST YOUR

The site's dead, so I can't tell if this was on the list, but defintely everyone should consider donating to the eff. They have done so much good work protecting our digital rights and hopefully they'll be able to continue in the future.

Better keep your colour printouts well hidden. The machine identification code will tell them when it was printed and on what printer. See http://www.eff.org/Privacy/printers/

that doesn't mean the trojan was written in china.. a rogue wireless AP combined with a laptop running tor could make me pretty damn anonymous too. its the bragging that will probably get the author nabbed. remember, only the stupid criminals get caught.

Oh, okay... I didn't realize that the "TPC Chip" that they were referring to was basically the whole "Trusted Computing" shebang. The article made it sound like the chip was just an ID thing, and only at the end does the author get into the rest of what Trusted Computing does.

This makes things a lot more complicated, as the EFF is quick to point out. Yeesh.

...they are working constantly to get sued so that they can help set precedent.

Not Me. I use Tor.
Tor anonymous proxy

Freenet: Version 0.7 of Freenet aims to create a scalable darknet, where users only connect directly to other users they know and (at least marginally) trust. The core innovation in Freenet 0.7 will be to allow a globally scalable darknet, capable of supporting millions of users. (DEFCON 13 presentation by Ian Clarke and Oskar Sandberg)

Tor: Tor is a network of virtual tunnels that allows people and groups to improve their privacy and security on the Internet. It also enables software developers to create new communication tools with built-in privacy features. Tor provides the foundation for a range of applications that allow organizations and individuals to share information over public networks without compromising their privacy.

I'm the "Anonymous Reader" who submitted this "article". I'm from Germany, so my command of the English language is limited at its best (it's impressive how many comments bitch about that billion/million typo ... my apologies to the /. editors).

My request was a serious one, answers as The Moon http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171228&cid =14261341/ are funny to some extend, but not very helpful. Bugmaster asked http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171228&cid =14262445/ which solutions there are. Moving out is one, keeping a low profile another, also encryption keeps bubbling up. Encryption is not much of a help if the connection data, who spoke to whom, is stored (but I use it anyway). On the other hand, I know about tools/services like the Freenet Project http://www.freenetproject.org/, TOR http://tor.eff.org/, JAP http://anon.inf.tu-dresden.de/index_en.html/ and GnuPG http://www.gnupg.org/ -- but most of my peers do not. If asked, their answer is similar to this one http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171228&cid =14262263/, which, in my eyes, IS crazy. In addition, if more and more people start to use these services, any estimate much time it will take to outlaw encryption technologies as such?
So, keeping a low profile is sort of an option, but not calling grandma for her 90th anniversary is HARD to explain, don't you think?
Last solution, move along. As said, my request was serious, not intended as anti-european flamewar http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171228&cid =14261813/, nor as troll http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171228&cid =14261813/.

Somalia was mentioned http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171228&cid =14261597/ ... to be honest, I prefer not to be shot. Then, New Zealand http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171228&cid =14261456/ which seems to be sort of an option ... unfortunately this seems to be the one and only serious answer =(

One comment (sorry, no link) stated, that as long as one can purchase SIM cards without ID ... hey guy, here you can not! At least, neither in Germany nor in Switzerland ahref=http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/35261 /rel=url2html-19262http://www.heise.de/newsticker/ meldung/35261/> (sorry, German only). Admitted, Switzerland is not a member of the EU and I don't know about all other members, but I assume that it is not possible to purchase a prepaid card anonymously anywhere on the continent -- and no, in my eyes, privacy is NOT a luxury http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171228&cid =14261289/

Btw, I heavily agree with bmh129 ... how is this possible? http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171228&cid =14262340/.

Regards

Old News. TPM has been around for a few years.
The site is https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/home
For a discussion of some concerns check out EFF at http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003804.php

I had an opportunity recently to ask questions of a Microsoft officer who works on strategy and works in Europe. When I described many of the unpleasant aspects of TPM and the like, he said that European privacy laws would prevent the adoption of such policies. I found that to be an interesting viewpoint.