Slashdot Mirror

The problem I've had in using Freenet is that they are open to any content. What this says to me is, "If you want to share terrorist information or child porn, you are welcome here."

Quit bitching and do something about it. Send $1 every time you post on slashdot to the EFF and other organizations are start patenting EVERYTHING you can think of from breathing to wetting yourself. Innindate (sp) the patent office with millions, perhaps billions of patents a year. Fight fire with fire people, it's not hard. It's so easy, go to your own profile here on /. and each month count up the number of posts you've done. Send it in to the EFF. In the US it's a charitable donation! DO IT! DO IT! I owe the EFF $13 as of this post.

Better yet, Slashdot should hook up with several charities and give "donating posters" a little avatar or something to compliment the subscribers system. So via a paypal system or some system you can pledge a given amount per post to your charity of choice. Get a nice end of year statement. It would be great!

http://www.eff.org/support/

2 related projects, but they're also very different to freenet.

Tor is simply an anonymous p2p proxy:
http://tor.eff.org/

i2p is a fork from freenet. Similar to Tor but you can host your own site off it.

Both are not nearly as freenet. I'm loving i2p though because it's much more practical.

For a lowdown from the i2p people on these and more similar technologies see here:
http://www.i2p.net/how_networkcomparisons

I joined the lawsuit that the eff.org did a couple years back. It was sort of a preemtive lawsuit.
Basically, I can skip all the commercials I want and share my shows forever.

A little from the article:

http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/Newmark_v_Turner/20040 109_end_case_pr.php

Electronic Frontier Foundation Media Advisory

San Francisco - A federal court today ruled to end a case brought by five ReplayTV digital video recorder (DVR) owners after 28 entertainment companies promised not to sue them for copyright infringement for using the "commercial advance" or "send show" features of their DVRs.

"Skipping commercials is not illegal and neither is sending television shows from your home to your office, as one of our clients does," said EFF Staff Attorney Gwen Hinze. "We're pleased that we were able to protect our clients against unjustifiable copyright claims for exercising their fair use rights."

How much does bandwidth cost in bulk? You might be able to find people to donate money to run a fully-open Tor node.

Not necessarily, I'm sure EFF would be willing to have a case for you. They are entirely run by donations and as their slogan says "Fighting for your digital rights"

http://tor.eff.org/

http://tor.eff.org/index.html

Dissidents not only want to remain anonymous themselves, but also wish to not compromise the sites they access.

Any suggestions for products/procedures/systems out there making anonymous access & publishing a reality under repressive regime run Internet access?

All you need to do is tunnel a local port over the ssh connection to a remote proxy.

For example, you could forward local port 8888 to a remote SOCKS server (port 1080 is SOCKS) like so:

ssh -L 8888:some-anon-proxy.com:1080 ssh-user@ssh-host

That forwards port 8888 on your machine to some-anon-proxy.com port 1080 via the ssh tunnel.

Then set your browser to use localhost port 8888 as the SOCKS proxy.

Note that most SOCKS connections still do DNS from your local machine so you need to protect that by some method. To do that you either need to use SOCKS 4a (I think), use a non-SOCKS proxy (like HTTP proxy), or use a local proxy like privoxy that itself fowards to another proxy via the SSH tunnel.

And there is always Tor.

http://tor.eff.org/

"Tor is a toolset for a wide range of organizations and people that want to improve their safety and security on the Internet."

http://tor.eff.org

the EFF has a nice program called TOR that routes traffic from your pc through a network of annon. nodes, similar to freenet but to access regular internet sites. Anything that can use a proxie can pipe the data through the tor network.

http://tor.eff.org/

http://tor.eff.org/

It is free software from the EFF. It is an anonymous socks proxy.

http://tor.eff.org/

Jason.

http://tor.eff.org/

Where's the cutting edge stuff!?! :)

Right here.

And this is just the summary of items scheduled to be repealed automatically. Some of the items that are NOT in the "sunset" clause are equally onerous.

Like the combination of Sections 201 and 805 which creates a net so ridiculously broad that every self-claimed conservative American should be jumping all over it as the gateway to a potential police state.

But no, instead many of these "conservatives" bend over like sheep under the false shiny label of "patriotism".

To which I would remind them all of the following:

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -James Madison

Anyway, how can Real-ID be "controversial"? Nobody but slashdot readers and "bloggers" even know it exists.

The stated application for this system is for disabled hunters, such as Dale Hagberg, a 38-year-old quadriplegic who "worked a computer mouse with his mouth and tongue on Saturday, April 9, to shoot at an antelope on a game reserve near Boeme, Texas, while lying in bed in Ligonier, a town in northeastern Indiana."

Everyone keeps heaping scorn and ridicule on "lazy hunters who can't drag their ass of the sofa to go hunting in the woods." But what about paralyzed people who couldn't drag their asses anywhere if they tried? As both this Washington Post article and the referenced L.A. Times article note, the hunt on April 9th did have the traditional elements of a "normal" hunt--Hagberg had to wait for the antelope to come into the clear, just as an "abled" hunter would do in a blind. He came away "empty-handed" as his computer wasn't fast enough to maneuver the rifle in time to get a good shot off (damn lag!)

"Lockwood, the site's creator, points to the failure of Hagberg's hunt as proof that it is truly a 'hunt,' complete with hours of idle waiting for prey and ample opportunity for it to escape. 'It's not about killing something,' he said. 'It's about experiencing the thrill of the hunt, the boredom, everything that goes with it.'"

Restricted to disabled hunters, I see nothing wrong with this website that is not also a problem with "traditional" hunting (PETA concerns, etc.) But to be solvent, I'm sure they would have to throw open the doors to Joe Lazy-Ass as well, which is less compelling.

But I would argue that, just like in Sony Betamax vs. Universal, the problem is not with the technology, but with the way the consumer utilizes it. Hagberg shows a "legitimate use" of this technology, and to ban it outright through special legistation reeks of misunderstanding and shortsightedness. I mean, Joe Lazy-Ass is also out in the woods flushing game with dynamite and using AK-47s to mow down yearlings, and we don't ban all hunting to stop him there. We should allow the proper hunting technology to the proper people, and not throw out baby with bathwater.

You can try this site instead (not /.'d)...
http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=119
And people should donate too!

Whether the DMCA was 'intended' for the big perpetrators or not, the EFF proves it is being used to harass people on a large scale, or at least to make them look guilty before so proven.

Secondly, boycotting a DRMed product when the industry aims at forbidding the sales of any non-compliant products doesn't sound very practical.

Furthermore, silently trespassing a law because you're convinced they're not after you doesn't seem a wise thing to do- the day may come they are after you, e.g. when media sales are slightly lower then RIAA had expected or desired, or when your neighbour denounces you because he doesn't like the colour of your nose.

For example, we can't buy songs from the Apple USA store.

Have you tried using a proxy server located in the US? Tor might fit the bill, as I'm sure many of their end-of-the-line proxies are located in the US.

There is some useful discussion of this topic at EFF and Schneier.

http://www.eff.org/

Counter-terrorists win!

Of course they would, because they "have" to. Let's not get in the mindset that this makes Google evil, just the FBI. ;)

But, let's not forget that they can tap your ISP directly if they want to. Use Google or not, if you live in the US, the FBI owns you... unless you use tools like Tor (http://tor.eff.org/ or Freenet (http://freenet.sourceforge.net/). In as far as unencrypted information, Google really gives the FBI no more advantage than if you used nothing.

What does have to be watched is how Google uses that information, and that is where the difference lies. But, just use https or turn if off if you both a) want to use it and b) don't want it to see "everything".

Google Desktop already reads your browser cache anyways... what, like you thought they couldn't already know what you were looking at if they really wanted to. ;)

True in almost everything but freenet and some obscure ass tool promoted by the EFF.

Frost on Freenet wasn't too bad when I used it once, but it's gotten slower (somehow...).

Tor doesn't allow, nor does it facilitate, P2P traffic through it. You'll not only get banned, but I'm not sure if it's even possible to share files through it (the illegal part).

I2P is the only one that lets you host anonymous servers (for sharing), and has a BT client for it, but it is slow as well. So yeah, BT is pretty much the only solution as of now.

Considering how Tor (note the domain) is officially supported by the EFF, that does seem likely. However like I pointed out above, last I heard the Tor guys really don't want P2P on their network, saying that the network isn't able to sustain the bandwidth requirements - but I suppose that they want to avoid being connected with the filesharing scene in general.

Which is one reason you might want to use the onion routing program Tor, available from http://tor.eff.org/ :P

EFF has a good writeup of the problems with the TCG spec, which is primarily in the implementation of the remote authentication feature.

http://www.eff.org/Infrastructure/trusted_computin g/20031001_tc.php
http://www.eff.org/Infrastructure/trusted_computin g/

EFF has a good writeup of the problems with the TCG spec, which is primarily in the implementation of the remote authentication feature.

http://www.eff.org/Infrastructure/trusted_computin g/20031001_tc.php
http://www.eff.org/Infrastructure/trusted_computin g/

Your post is just factually wrong. The RIAA has indeed sued people as shown on the EFF's webpage here. The fact that the defendants have capitulated and settled does NOT mean that the RIAA did not file a complaint against them -- all that is required to constitute a "lawsuit." Perhaps you are confusing "being sued" with "litigating."

In honor of Broadcast flag becoming law on July 1st, EFF hosts a Broadcast flag awareness and PVR building page with many resources on how to build you own. A good starting place to see many solutions and find many links

Once again I remind us of

http://tor.eff.org/
http://www.i2p.net/
http://freenet.sourceforge.net/

and also
http://www.cryptophone.de/
GSM can now be decrypted in almost realtime, and the recieving hardware is only a few thousand dollars. Though personally I'd prefer a freeware OSS push to talk GPRS program because not many can make data calls

I agree, in theory.

Using Tor just doesn't seem very feasable for the amount of bandwith that would be used.

If anyone doesn't know what Tor is, http://tor.eff.org/

Right, the DMCA is not what makes this parody site a violation of copyright (if it is). That is a standard provision of other copyright law.

The relevant part of the DMCA, in fact, is just the opposite. Sec 512, "Limitations on liability relating to material online" provides a means to ESCAPE liability for copyright violation. Specifically, it allows an ISP not to be held liable as long as it follows a certain procedure. The ISP has to publish an address for complaints; upon receiving a complaint from a copyright holder, it has to take down the material and notify the client who posted it; and then the client has the option to contest the takedown order, in which case the ISP has to put the material back up, absent a court order.

This part of the DMCA is actually end-user- and ISP-friendly. Without it we would see much less support for possibly copyrighted materials appearing online.

Right, the DMCA is not what makes this parody site a violation of copyright (if it is). That is a standard provision of other copyright law.

The relevant part of the DMCA, in fact, is just the opposite. Sec 512, "Limitations on liability relating to material online" provides a means to ESCAPE liability for copyright violation. Specifically, it allows an ISP not to be held liable as long as it follows a certain procedure. The ISP has to publish an address for complaints; upon receiving a complaint from a copyright holder, it has to take down the material and notify the client who posted it; and then the client has the option to contest the takedown order, in which case the ISP has to put the material back up, absent a court order.

This part of the DMCA is actually end-user- and ISP-friendly. Without it we would see much less support for possibly copyrighted materials appearing online.

April 22, 2005

As many have reported, the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 (S.167/H.R. 357), recently passed the House, which also issued a committee report about the bill. Since the identical language had already passed the Senate in February, the measure now goes to President Bush for signature.

There has been some alarmist reporting about the bill. While it's decidedly a mixed bag, I think the bill should be marked as more victory than a defeat for the public interest side in the copyfight.

The real silver lining here emerges when you consider where the entertainment industry started back in 2003, and where they've ended up in 2005. After two years of heavy investments in lobbying Congress for a host of outrageous changes to copyright laws (like the Induce Act), the entertainment moguls managed to enact only a tiny sliver of their agenda, and only by granting concessions to ClearPlay.

Pretty well documented, too.

I repalced Astaro with m0n0wall, and have most of the features I used - minus some of the application proxies.
I have a tor installation on the box - easy to set-up with privoxy, after i added Perl to the m0n0 mix (big as the rest of the distribution!)

There are some add-ons, too.

After July 2005, it will be illegal to manufacture or import over-the-air DTV tuners that can ignore the "broadcast flag."

IANAL, but how does that jibe with the Chamberlain vs Skylink ruling? Skylink, a third party, manufactures and sells remote controllers which circumvent the "rolling code" access control on Chamberlain garage door openers. The Federal Court ruling specifically stated:

Again, this implication contradicts 1201(c)(1) directly. Copyright law itself authorizes the public to make certain uses of copyrighted materials. Consumers who purchase a product containing a copy of embedded software have the inherent legal right to use that copy of the software. What the law authorizes, Chamberlain cannot revoke.

Which doesn't mean that they wouldn't try, or even suceed.

See Blizzard v. bNetd. The currently standing ruling is that bNetd is in violation of the DMCA; an appeal to the 8th Circuit Court is pending.

Support EFF and Downhill Battle. They are fighting for our rights every day.

First, Adobe has a guy arrested, and then tried under the DMCA, for having the gall to crack the PDF format, which Adobe voilated the DMCA by embedding other font vendors' information into.

Now, even though someone has broken an ineffective encryption method, they can't use the files due to the DMCA. Maybe they'll just keep buying companies until they have all the IP they need? :)

EULAs haven't even been proven to be enforcable in court.

Fire up a 2nd-generation onion-router, called TOR.

Nothing will stop this baby.

If you got Gentoo, simply do "emerge tor"

Enjoy all your P2P, bittorrent, and everything with perfect forward-secrecy.

What interest would Comcast have in giving away personal customer info to a debt collector? It's bad publicity and what could Comcast possibly gain?

Verizon, for example, fought the RIAA even when they had court subpoenas, RIAA v Verizon. So I have trouble believing that Comcast is going to violate a user's privacy and perhaps drive customers to Verizon, a competitor. Something is not right here. Perhaps Comcast gave away this user's info by mistake?