Slashdot Mirror

... super extra special, or do they insert yellow tracking dots like everyone else's?

The rest of the teknologee has similar problems these days: Firmware even containing entire OSes running with more privileges than the OS you see before you, everything calling home, and so on, and so forth. Me, paranoid? No, we know these things happen. I'm asking if the white house managed to get special treatment on this. Probably not, though. Can't wait to see them getting blind-sided by policies they instituted themselves, as happened with the printers at least.

So this guy is creating videos of actual people having actual or simulated sex, and publishing them on his website. I highly doubt he's secured photocopies of the IDs of everyone involved, so he's almost certainly violating the 18 U.S.C. 2257 reporting requirements, the penalty for which is up to 5 years for the first offense and up to 10 years for each subsequent offense. In other words, this man may very well be committing felonies in his quest to watch other people having sex. Apart from that, if he hasn't secured performance and likeness rights from everyone involved, he's left himself open to a fuckload of lawsuits.

It has already happened. The EFF is currently working with 2 such cases I believe. They actually made it to the 9th circuit appeals court and weresent back down to be reconsidered in terms of the "USA Freedom Act" which made superficial changes to the NSL code.

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

I looks like they would be charged with violating US Code Title 18, 2709 (C)(1)(a). The obvious defense is that the text on that page is not compatible with the first amendment to the constitution, and therefore isn't really the law. So obvious, in fact, that we can assume that someone has ... aha, Here we go. Looks like it .. is ...verr .. ry .. slow .. ly .. going .. through .. the .. sys .. tem.

Any person who reads /. should automatically be opposed to the TPP.

The EFF tells you why, if you even remotely care about stuff for nerds or your rights online, you should work your heart out to get this turd rejected.

You can use that EFF tool, Privacy Badger. Though, I'm finding it tends to be a little aggressive about blocking tracking cookies, and some websites don't work right. But enh, I figure if a website breaks due to it's blocking cookies, nothing of value is lost.

Yes, it's perhaps a shameless plug, but I just really like that tool.

The EFF has covered this extensively, and long ago. Read up: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

In the past AC the US and 5 eye nations got that access under PRISM and a lot of other methods for access.
"Do We Need A Bigger SIGINT Truck?" note the term "phone-a-friends"
https://www.eff.org/document/2...
Handles Encrypted Traffic
https://www.eff.org/document/2...
VPN
https://www.eff.org/document/2...
and ICREACH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... that gave access to but the US still had to cover the origins in open court.
The color of law change is all the once secure, hidden methods and tools will be for sale by contractors down at the federal and very local city/state federal task force level to use in any open court for any reason. Any level of government will have the decryption tools, even just to look and see if they feel they want to later build a case.
Why rent a system of access tools to just a few levels of the mil or federal government when a huge list of cities and states will have new funding on the table too for local courts needing digital support services?
So that US "court system" will now get to decrypt any phone sold in the USA or connected to a US phone network by conscripting the designers/software creators.
A brand will have to design in junk encryption with the US gov getting a masterkey over every generation of product.
The phone can then become the origin of a case or informant in a public court thanks to a gov demanded master key to all US phones. No need to build up a wider case, the phone will tell all and no encryption sold will be allowed to keep data secure for any reason.
The tool sets will collect voice prints, mapping and tracking offer decryption of all data on the phone for any reason.
Walk into an area and your phone tells all. Travel, walk, drive, any phone will be scanned for contacts and any and all data, not just wider telco network details.
The gov masterkeys will then be sold or used by ex and former contractors for any reason with anyone with the cash.
The end result of junk court mandated gov encryption is anyone can do anything they like on the wider telco system down to the now decrypted users data.
Greek wiretapping case 2004–05 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–05
SISMI-Telecom scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

In the past AC the US and 5 eye nations got that access under PRISM and a lot of other methods for access.
"Do We Need A Bigger SIGINT Truck?" note the term "phone-a-friends"
https://www.eff.org/document/2...
Handles Encrypted Traffic
https://www.eff.org/document/2...
VPN
https://www.eff.org/document/2...
and ICREACH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... that gave access to but the US still had to cover the origins in open court.
The color of law change is all the once secure, hidden methods and tools will be for sale by contractors down at the federal and very local city/state federal task force level to use in any open court for any reason. Any level of government will have the decryption tools, even just to look and see if they feel they want to later build a case.
Why rent a system of access tools to just a few levels of the mil or federal government when a huge list of cities and states will have new funding on the table too for local courts needing digital support services?
So that US "court system" will now get to decrypt any phone sold in the USA or connected to a US phone network by conscripting the designers/software creators.
A brand will have to design in junk encryption with the US gov getting a masterkey over every generation of product.
The phone can then become the origin of a case or informant in a public court thanks to a gov demanded master key to all US phones. No need to build up a wider case, the phone will tell all and no encryption sold will be allowed to keep data secure for any reason.
The tool sets will collect voice prints, mapping and tracking offer decryption of all data on the phone for any reason.
Walk into an area and your phone tells all. Travel, walk, drive, any phone will be scanned for contacts and any and all data, not just wider telco network details.
The gov masterkeys will then be sold or used by ex and former contractors for any reason with anyone with the cash.
The end result of junk court mandated gov encryption is anyone can do anything they like on the wider telco system down to the now decrypted users data.
Greek wiretapping case 2004–05 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–05
SISMI-Telecom scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

In the past AC the US and 5 eye nations got that access under PRISM and a lot of other methods for access.
"Do We Need A Bigger SIGINT Truck?" note the term "phone-a-friends"
https://www.eff.org/document/2...
Handles Encrypted Traffic
https://www.eff.org/document/2...
VPN
https://www.eff.org/document/2...
and ICREACH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... that gave access to but the US still had to cover the origins in open court.
The color of law change is all the once secure, hidden methods and tools will be for sale by contractors down at the federal and very local city/state federal task force level to use in any open court for any reason. Any level of government will have the decryption tools, even just to look and see if they feel they want to later build a case.
Why rent a system of access tools to just a few levels of the mil or federal government when a huge list of cities and states will have new funding on the table too for local courts needing digital support services?
So that US "court system" will now get to decrypt any phone sold in the USA or connected to a US phone network by conscripting the designers/software creators.
A brand will have to design in junk encryption with the US gov getting a masterkey over every generation of product.
The phone can then become the origin of a case or informant in a public court thanks to a gov demanded master key to all US phones. No need to build up a wider case, the phone will tell all and no encryption sold will be allowed to keep data secure for any reason.
The tool sets will collect voice prints, mapping and tracking offer decryption of all data on the phone for any reason.
Walk into an area and your phone tells all. Travel, walk, drive, any phone will be scanned for contacts and any and all data, not just wider telco network details.
The gov masterkeys will then be sold or used by ex and former contractors for any reason with anyone with the cash.
The end result of junk court mandated gov encryption is anyone can do anything they like on the wider telco system down to the now decrypted users data.
Greek wiretapping case 2004–05 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–05
SISMI-Telecom scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Most people don't want to end up on lists and hence avoid saying anything radical and contrary to mainstream beliefs. We already know that things as mundane as belonging to or associating oneself with a political group or movement get you interest from the FBI. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. What was done in the past to silence inconvenient voices is most likely being done today, too, and probably using even more sophisticated methods.

As specifications are not covered by copyright law (the law explicitly says so)

The law doesn't say that (at least in the US). Here is what the law says:

“[i]n no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle or discovery, regardless of the form in which it isembodied in such work.”

In applying it to source code, the courts first divide the code into 'creative' and 'functional' parts. If there is more than one way to do something, it's basically creative. (see the altai case)
Then the court throws away the 'functional' parts, and uses the remaining parts to compare with the infringing program.

Even Google admits that there is some creativity involved in making an API. For example, the creators could put a max() function into java.lang.math, or it could have put it into java.math.integers. There is creativity in naming the libraries. There is even creativity in the decisions of what is included in the library, and what is excluded.

The circuit court made a very readable and well-reasoned decision, I think you would enjoy reading it. Frankly though, if the merest scribble on a piece of paper can be copyrighted, then it makes sense that an API can be copyrighted.

Incidentally, the "clean room" issue doesn't apply in this case because Google didn't do a clean room copy. That shouldn't matter to the ultimate decision, though.

Only this and nothing more: Abort, Retry, Ignore...

See here. No one should be using this anyway.

This might help.

Bay Area Rapid Transit had no problem shutting down cell phone service to interfere with just a planned protest and nobody was sanctioned. The FCC tacitly approved of this.

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

Who can remember - questions about such under - the DMCA ? https://www.eff.org/is-it-ille...

I like telegram ( https://telegram.org/ ) . It gets a 7 on EFF ( https://www.eff.org/node/83766 ) and has clients on android/ios/windows/mac/linux and even on winblows phone that nobody uses

Wire appears to compete with Signal. And there are others, some of which the EFF has reviewed: https://www.eff.org/secure-mes...

> The ease with which cell phone jammers can be caught illustrates their base stupidity, as any signal that overwhelms local cell phones is also making it to the cell towers, so you are nicely tracked and logged.

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

I'm a bit surprised that you don't kow how cell phones work.

Here's a decent primer by the EFF

https://ssd.eff.org/en/module/...

If you are using something on thoes frequencies, you are located and if you are traveling while jamming, they can form a likely path, then give hte path individual attention.

And while the jammer isn't broadcasting any actual data or voice, he's hitting the cell phone towers. The rest I'll leave up to you, AC

Here is an article from the EFF about it:

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

Second, Canonical is not “required” to enforce its mark in every instance or risk losing it. The circumstances under which a company could actually lose a trademark—such as abandonment and genericide—are quite limited. Genericide occurs when a trademark becomes the standard term for a type of good (‘zipper’ and ‘escalator’ being two famous examples). This is very rare and would not be a problem for Canonical unless people start saying “Ubuntu” simply to mean “operating system.” Courts also set a very high bar to show abandonment (usually years of total non-use). Importantly, failure to enforce a mark against every potential infringer does not show abandonment. As one court explained:

The owner of a mark is not required to constantly monitor every nook and cranny of the entire nation and to fire both barrels of his shotgun instantly upon spotting a possible infringer.

Quite simply, the view that a trademark holder must trawl the internet and respond to every unauthorized use (or even every infringing use) is a myth

You are just flat-out wrong here.

Konami is not "required" to shut down the Shadow Moses fan project or somehow risk losing their MSG trademark. That's just ridiculous.

In fact, I don't even see how Shadow Moses was using the Metal Gear Solid TRADEMARK in the first place. A trademark is a very specific thing (the stylized MGS logo in this case), not "anything related to the IP".

https://www.eff.org/issues/cod... This really seems that it could lead to a good outcome. Why shouldn't an interface be subject to copyright. Some interfaces are really ingenious. If its copyright, then there's no risk to somebody who comes up with a similar solution to the same problem. And if exceptions for interoperability are allowed it solves most of the ugliness. It doesn't help Google vs Sun since the goal wasn't interoperabilty. But it may resolve this case.

Quit sniveling, coward. Seriously. I can't possibly respect you enough to give you any further consideration. There is nothing you can do to earn anything more than disdain at this point. I've seen old ladies with more courage than you. "I want to take your rights 'cause I'm scared!"

If you don't have a counterpoint, you don't need to resort to a personal attack. I'm not seeking your respect, and am quite willing to accept your disdain.

The ability to travel free, and without monitoring, is a rather essential liberty.

Why do you think you have the ability to travel free and without monitoring? Nearly every one of us carries a tracking device (i.e. cell phone), Sprint alone has received over 8 million requests over a 13 month period for tracking data. And even if you turn off your cell phone, electronic toll tags can silently track you, and license plate reading cameras are becoming more and more ubiquitous both in fixed locations and on police cars and even transit vehicles and other government vehicles.

Whatever privacy you think you're maintaining by turning your own steering wheel is illusory.

AVs will, no doubt, require monitoring and will limit where you can go. No, no I'm not okay with that being forced on people because you're unable to control your bladder. You get off the road and leave everyone else's rights alone.

AV's don't *require* monitoring, if society feels that every citizen has the right to travel anonymously, AV's could easily be programmed to scrub identifying information from any data it sends back to the company. But don't think that just because the car isn't telling people where you are that you're not already being tracked.

You're dismissed.

Is this that freedom of speech works in your "free world"? You don't like my opinion so I'm "dismissed"?

And yes I think you can reverse engineer software if you did not specifically agree not to.

And that is wrong, thankfully the EFF has put together a guide here about it.

That's only true if you can't wrap your head around the idea of choosing to limit your own choices.

Wrong! I perfectly understand that I am free to visit a museum while not being free to smash the place up, why can you not understand this?

A person could choose to go to a place that has debtors prisons and choose to rack up a huge debt, and be forced into a slave labor camp.

Yes and a person could choose to murder somebody and be forced into a prison, we are all bound by the consequences of our choices. But of course in terms of software you can just delete it and its provisions no longer affect you.

I don't see what this has to do with anything I've said. The fact that you bring up this seemingly irrelevant example, makes me feel liek you aen;t understanding what I am saying.

Then perhaps you need ot review what you wrote. A person has the right to choose to limit their own freedoms in certain circumstances, you can't take that away.

Denying a person the freedom to shoot themselves in the foot may help to preserve other freedoms that person may have (e.g. freedom to walk), but it is nonetheless a restriction on that persons freedom.

Right, that's my point. It sounds like we agree then!

Do you make a big deal about what kind of printer people use to print papers?

I depends if it is one of the printers that adds yellow dots

list of websites i access and my http data?

Which by the way, if using HTTPS (either because explicitly type it, or because you use a plug-in like HTTPS everywhere) is quite limited. From the outside you only see connection to *IP* address (to the front load-balancing/reverse proxy server, or to the apache server hosting all the virtual domains if that one is straight facing internet). The actual URL (server's full name, and document) is only asked once the encryption is established. (That's why you need stuff like SSL's SNI extension, so the server can hand out the correct certificate corresponding to the peculiar virtual server you want to visit).

so what could they have possibly gained by this devious man in the middle circus?

Indeed, intercepting data isn't probably the main goal. Even back since FireSheep, the security of internet websites has been getting better. Not that the end users care much (I think I remember an article on /. back then that lots of "victims" were amused but didn't really grasp the implication), but the companies have reacted a made HTTPS at least an option if not the main access point.

The risk might comes from the network it self: a public network is an ideal place for an hostile to perform network scan, looking for vulnerable services or even vulnerable network stack component to exploit.
A public Wifi network might not be handing out public IPs/might be NATed/might not be accessibly routed from the internet - thus the various device connected to it might not be scannable from the internet at large.
But from within the network it would be possible to perform a scan (brute force the SSH port of unix-running laptops*), including looking for services which aren't normally routed (like SMB network shares, Zeroconf)

Note that, regarding such a risk, the notoriety of the Wifi sport doesn't play such a big role.
- You might be at risk if you connect to some shady Wifi network operated by hostile.
- But you might as well be at risk if you connect to some well known "clean" public Wifi, but on which there's a rogue device connected scanning its neighborhood for vulnerabilities.

------

*: If you're fed-up with constant hammering on your SSH server - which still pollutes your logs EVEN AFTER you've switched to key-based-only logins or 2-factors, Fail2ban is your friend.

I don't think the FBI is picking this fight because they need information about the San Bernardino shooter. They're making a scene because they want backdoors to all encryption.

Right. Seems like they picked this case because they don't anticipate either the judicial branch or the public siding with Apple against a terr'ist. Once they have precedent that Apple can be compelled to provide this service, they'll start using it to unlock phones of suspected marijuana dealers, etc. Same as the USA PATRIOT act, it was pushed through under the guise of fighting terrorism but is mostly used for drug cases instead.

There's at least one candidate - Clinton - whose views on encryption have already be backed by action, namely her and Bill's friend Al "Clipper Chip" Gore and support for the Clipper Chip itself.

Notable that the FBI is trying to make a government mandated backdoor happen again...

The DMCA was written to make it extremely easy to have a take down order, and very burdensome to overturn such an order.

No, the DMCA was written to make it clear how to object to content that might be in violation of copyright laws. It also provided a legal procedure that the content hosts (aka YouTube) must follow to put that content back up, and they are supposed to do so in a "timely manner" (meaning no more than a few days up to a month.... yeah I know that sucks but it still happens).

Content providers can submit a counter-claim, but doing so puts the legal burden on the person submitting that counter-claim where you are personally vulnerable to a copyright lawsuit for making that counter-claim. You also must provide legal contact information (aka an address where a court summons can be served) to make such a counter-claim... which means that maintaining anonymity is not an option if you insist upon content being restored. That is the "very burdensome task" you are arguing about. In other words, you need to have the balls to stand up to somebody like Sony and be willing to stake your personal worth on the line that the content is in fact legal.

Neither individual nor corporations can be punished for having a false claim, so the issue of corporate personhoood is irrelevant in this case.

This is not true either. Individuals and corporations can indeed be punished for a false claim.

Note first: The restoration process does take some work on your part. You need to be active in your efforts to get the content restored instead of simply ranting about it like some victim of bullying that does nothing afterward. Most of the time, the content gets restored, you get the "black marks" removed from your YouTube account (which YouTube is legally obligated to do BTW), and life goes on. You might have missed some subscribers, but life sucks.

On the other hand, if the copyright claimant continues to press the issue and it actually goes to a courtroom before a judge, they start to enter the realm of barratry. In other words, if they are making false claims the lawyers could end up in prison themselves. Grey areas like fair use won't end up with such problems, but at that point you have a real legal case that might even establish legal precedence. Most of the time, these companies just don't want to be bothered with such a thing as it cost them a whole lot of money and time.

Where the complaint legitimately ought to be focused though is toward YouTube with their automation system and false positive reports. Those legitimately ought to be punished in some way when clear false positives happen, just like accounts which post copyright infringements ought to get a huge slap down for posting stuff they really didn't do. That has nothing to do with court orders or the DMCA, just shitty company policies that Google could change at any time.

Another thing that YouTube could be a little more decent about is to point to the information that the EFF posted that I put in the above link. You aren't helpless, but you do need to take specific legal steps if you want the content restored.

You realize that this is one issue where nearly all the Republican and Democrat politicians agree?

I get worried when that happens, because we wind up with shit like the USA PATRIOT act. You know, the legislation granting the government sweeping new powers that would only be used against terrorists, but which in practice are used for narcotics cases 90% of the time. When something has broad support from both sides of the aisle, that's usually a bad sign.

Privacy Badger helps.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/08/privacy-badger-10-here-stop-online-tracking

You are assuming they are only tracking people based on Cookies. That's a rather naive view, I'm afraid. You'd be better to assume that they are using everything they can get their mitts on to try and track and identify people; IP address, which browser, which headers the browser supplies, any OS details they can get... Just installing extensions to protect your privacy can in itself make you more readily identifiable for tracking purposes. Have a play with the EFF's Panopticlick tool and although you need to enable scripting to make it work the results from the fingerprinting should be an eye opener if you've not seen them before.

I like this great tool from EFF. https://www.eff.org/privacybadger Lets you selectively block cookies of all kinds of tracking that occurs during casual browsing.

Here's my old comment verbatim:

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 with Internet.
• 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.

All other ways are only half measures. Or, like people have suggested, you may stop using the Internet completely. It should have long been renamed to a "Trackingnetwork".

Nope. T-Mobile is not modifying content, they're throttling a specific class of content and relying on your platform to provide a stream that fits into the 1.5Mbps allotment. Every legitimate document and article discussing the offering makes this very clear. That is to say, my sources include T-Mobile itself (though I can't find the link at the moment), the EFF, the report we're actually discussing here (see page 18 and the table on page 19, HTTPS is allowed, but requires further intervention by T-Mobile for participation), and a whole slew of other legitimate internet commentary.

More to the point, the worst thing that can possibly happen to a non-participating provider who uses HTTPS or a protocol that makes it impossible for T-Mobile to determine that the data is a video stream is... nothing. T-Mobile can't determine that the data is a video stream and, so, does not throttle it. Simple as pie. (as an aside, this explains why I'm able to stream 1080p from YouTube with Binge-On enabled, so I'm glad I actually read the full report and learned something new and interesting; you should, perhaps, try it)

If you have a source for your information, identify and link to it; otherwise, kindly stop spreading FUD, your UID is low enough that you should know better.

In addition, video services NOT INCLUDED IN BINGE-ON are also being throttled

This is at the users request (the user enables binge on and the throttling setting).

To quote an EFF article:

T-Mobile's Binge On service could have been great. Giving customers a choice about how to use their data so that they can stream more video without hitting their data cap is a wonderful idea. Unfortunately, T-Mobile botched the roll out. Without asking, they made it the default for all of their customers.

I also found a The Verge article that confirms that throttling goes away once Binge On is disabled:

T-Mobile was throttling all video traffic over its network, including video downloads, for all customers who had not disabled the Binge On feature that the company automatically enabled for everyone in November.

All in all, I think this is a mountain out of a molehill. The biggest problem was how T-Mobile rolled it out. If they would have made it opt-in at roll out instead of opt-out, the issue would be much more clear, and I don't think it would have become a net neutrality matter.

I'm not sure if it's a bugbear that non-Binge On videos get throttled when Binge On is active. I could go either way on that one. (Or better yet, T-Mobile should have made it an option.)

Actually, what I really want to know is why T-Mobile doesn't just apologize and disable it for everybody. Problem solved imho.

----before you Reply/criticize, please read at least one of the links I posted below - thank you ---

Change in ICANN has been impossible to come by. The only "representative of the people", Karl Aurbach
tried for years to get some accountability, some rationality, some responsibility. Instead all he got was
stonewalled. It makes for interesting but not hopeful reading that ICANN is ready to manage a global
network with ANY sort of eye to "the stakeholders."

It's like letting the MAFIAA manage the Internet. Their goals are to please THEIR stakeholders, which
do not include those of us who enjoy Pandora, Spotify, Hulu, Bittorrent, etc.

Here's that "interesting reading" I promised. It's a small but representative subset.
http://www.circleid.com/posts/...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
http://archive.icann.org/en/co...
https://w2.eff.org/Infrastruct...

Ehud

Fuck them all

Well, except for Signal, Cyph, and maybe a few others from the EFF's list.

Just won't work.

Mostly due to java creep in browsers - https://panopticlick.eff.org/

If you want to get unwarranted attention - randomly flip your MACs - makes you look like a spook.

What we really need is a browser that looks very common via finger-print - the page is not shown - only an OCR document created from the page with links that have tracking information removed. Once the OCR doc is created the instance of the browser is removed.

I really miss web sites that don't use java..

If you're going to suggest an app, Signal is the one. For one, it's open source. Second, it's backed by the EFF and a number of luminaries not the least of whom is Edward Snowden.

https://ssd.eff.org/en/module/...

Which is excellent but what if you want to communicate with someone who doesn't have an iphone?

If you're going to suggest an app, Signal is the one. For one, it's open source. Second, it's backed by the EFF and a number of luminaries not the least of whom is Edward Snowden.

https://ssd.eff.org/en/module/...

No. https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v...

"The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found a Florida man’s constitutional rights were violated when he was imprisoned for refusing to decrypt data on several devices. This was the first time an appellate court has ruled the 5th Amendment protects forced decryption"

By all means, provide your source that supports your ridiculous claims.

If I had made any ridiculous claims, I would be glad to supply sources. But since everything I brought to your attention is in the public record, maybe you should shun those moronic sites you have been reading and try reality for a while.

FBI's "Suicide Letter" to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Dangers of Unchecked Surveillance

Pete Seeger

Woody Guthrie

John Lennon

Even more black people were lynched in the U.S. than previously thought, study finds

The Murder of Emmett Till

There's the short list detailing everything you've worked so hard to ignore. So, how about if you do a little reading and see if you can find out how many people went to jail for those thousands of lynchings history has recorded. And while you're at it, how about if you show me where in the FBI's charter authorizes surveillance on lawful folk singers, non-violent rock stars as well as religious men who preached peaceful assembly to redress what they believed to be illegal grievances.

Ignorance can be unlearned while willful ignorance is an inexcusable state of mind.

This is done in the US with all printers, copiers, and just about anything else that can produce digital output. They are all watermarked with the printer info, time and date, plus likely other stuff encoded in (usually) yellow dots all over the page. The EFF had a decryption project for it, not sure how it ended up but the landing page is here:

https://www.eff.org/issues/pri...

https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v... This case was me. I incremented a number at the end of a public URL and did 15 months in prison, and am only out now because of a successful federal criminal appeal. The government has been harassing me for 15 years.

On the Internet:
Use Qubes with its Whonix/Tor VM template for browsing.
Use apps like Signal, I2Pbote, RetroShare and OStel for voice and messaging.

Unless I have missed something about the way that GNU/Linux package management works, there is a very significant difference in capability between Microsoft monitoring Windows users and whatever might be done by Linux distributions:- When a Microsoft OS starts to download and deploy updates, it does so from a unique instance of that OS, made unique by the presence of an activation key. Further, in most use case scenarios, connections for software updates are "direct", i.e. internet-connected Windows PC links to the Windows Update service to download patches. The exceptions would be large corporations that have their own, internally-hosted update servers [so that they can manage the roll-out of patches] and those companies that have employed caching proxy connectivity [i.e. such as the functionality provided by the IPFire Linux-based firewall/proxy server] that allow caching of OS updates. it's the fact that Linux distributions *don't* have unique license keys embedded within them that help eliminate the potential for eavesdropping on specific targets. Having said, these, please don't forget that there are scores of ways that a computer can be identified as unique. Those interested in learning more should check out "Panopticlick" [an EFF-provided free tool that will show you exactly how "anonymous" you are on the web...]. Take a look at http://panopticlick.eff.org/

Trump is a purveyor of vile and ignorant ideas, but the more he speaks, the dumber he looks, and the more people are turned off by him. Yes, some Americans are sucked in by this. But will a majority elect him? I doubt it, but if they do, American voters will learn the hard way not to cut off their nose to spite their face.

I don't condone the hacking but in a perverse way its leveling the playing field. Trump is filthy rich and gives him a much louder voice than any of us. This is what SCOTUS' regretable citizens united decision overlooked. That said despite the hacking his voice remains very loud. Countering his views with intelligent debate and giving voters a genuine alternative at the elections is a better approach.

As for Anonymous, anonymity it is essential in a Democracy: "The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment" because it is the only way for the weak to criticize the powerful without being bludgeoned by them. https://www.eff.org/issues/ano...

I seriously doubt a warrant canary would hold up in courts in the USA either. There is no settled case law on this matter that I know of so no one knows for sure.

At least, the EFF thinks they are. Here are some of the quotes from that article:

"Is it legal to publish a warrant canary?

There is no law that prohibits a service provider from reporting all the legal processes that it has not received. The gag order only attaches after the ISP has been served with the gagged legal process."

"Have courts upheld compelled false speech?

No, and the cases on compelled speech have tended to rely on truth as a minimum requirement. "

On what basis are trademarks more acceptable than design patents?

If you look at the full complaint, it's not just about the slider, it's a comprehensive look-and-feel lawsuit where it's clearly been copied: https://www.eff.org/files/2015...

What's more, the lawsuit appears to be in retaliation for a much more dangerous utility patent telling Microsoft they can't include a live preview in their office products:
http://www.fosspatents.com/201...

I would not include software design patents in a blog covering software utility patents. There's just no comparison. By *definition*, a design patent covers things that don't objectively matter, and therefore they just aren't the same sort of problem. You can get stupid shit like suing over rounded edges of a cellphone in Samsung v. Apple, but it's ridiculous with software when it's a matter of moments to change all future copies, and patch any existing copies (that are receiving updates), to slightly alter the design to not infringe without in any way adjusting the functionality or the backing code.