Slashdot Mirror

IMO, Tivo now offers two services: the ability to find and record shows easily, and the ability to stream information stored on a PC to consumer electronics devices. This last bit will probably be quite useful for those with video clips (*cough*) stored on their PC.

Still, it's worth checking out the alternatives, especially PC-centric ones like ATI's All-In-Wonder cards. Competition is good.

First, they learn something about the threat to their own privacy. Second, one can present the dilemma to them: If you're asked to work on it, especially in the current job market, would you do it?

The teacher can also add that this is a concrete, current issue that is reality and not some fake problem. (I know this since I am exactly in this position.)

Maybe we're a little behind schedule and these laser guns are a tad unrealistic, but it's really good to see there's still serious effort to make the ultimate killing machine.

Gotta give it up for Honda here too. The P-series robots are pretty slow today, but I'm shouting out mad props to that R&D effort.

Of all the tech needed in our dev plan for the first terminators, the most vaporous is still the AI, but Doug Lenat's CYC project just landed $9M in Total Information Awareness money, so I guess there's hope there too.

Well, maybe we can just skip the laser guns and go Robocop-style instead. Anything to get these things on the front-lines ASAP! There's simply too many radical war-mongering people in the world to not have a Terminators fighting for our <blink>National Security</blink>.

This sounds like good news. Since there are more gamers than for example software programmers,
and that AMD will first of all deliver hardware for the gamers, means that a magnitude
of the computer users will use AMD.
Now why you might wonder?
The big other hardware vendor is Intel, which in these days have an agreement with Microsoft and the Palledium
platform previously talk about in slashdot here and here.
By my opinion the Palledium plan should never have existed because it WILL ruin
a lot for computer users in general. By aiming towards gamers with this technology it will be easyer to stop it.

some good reading here

If Muhammed Atta drank double-mocha latte's at Starbucks on a daily basis, and I order the same thing, does that make me a terrorist?

Do you shop at a grocery store that has higher prices than most but then gives you "savings" if you use their "rewards card?" That's a great scam. You aren't paying much (if any) less than I am at another store, and you're giving them customer data for free. They track your buying patterns and sell the info. Yes, it's unpopular as hell on /., but you've got to admit it's opt-in as hell.

Of course, not all the data gets sold. A lot of it gets given to Ashcroft. Things that he'd have a damn hard time getting a warrant to sieze are getting handed to him by companies that see your private information as an asset of theirs. Of course, it is- you opted in. Just hope that you don't like (or have company coming that likes) the same food Atta liked. Make sure you don't rent the same movies he saw, either. No, it won't make you a terrorist, but it will make Ashcroft suspect that you are one. We've got people in custody; citizens being held without being charged. Ashcroft hasn't even told us who most of them are. They don't have access to lawyers (I'm still trying to find a downside to that one). If you don't mind all that, then by all means, opt in. If it isn't your idea of what the Constitution says ought to be happening, or even if you're worried that a bad person might smoke the same brand of cigarettes that you do, then try to help.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center has a nice page listing ways the companies get (and how they profit from) your data with tips to protect yourself.

Don't mind me, just seeding more information for the people.

One more source of full text, two more analyses and a bevvy of news links.

Electronic Privacy Information Center Page on Patriot II

The Amy Boyer site is reachable again and seems to be able to handle the load.

I would just like to thank the family for hosting the mirror of the Liam Youens stalker site. It must have taken incredible fortitude for them to do that, but I think it's worth it, because I really believe it's possible to learn something from the site. If I had seen this before the murder, I would have pegged this guy as a pathetic poser (in fact, I'm glad I didn't see it then, because I wouldn't have done one single thing that could have changed anything, and I'd feel like shit now). It's a very upsetting read, but it may be worthwhile to some people here.

At the same time, you don't want everyone assuming their slightly weird friends are all murderers-to-be. Shows how thin the line can be I suppose. But even just talking to someone can defuse almost any situation, if it's done in time.

This at the EPIC site is also good.

The legal story here is about lawyers, as always. The real issue is whether you can change people in society.

This is a MAJOR assumption, and one that's shown to be wrong on many occasions.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to give up *porn/indecent* material on public resources... but the reality is that a) there is a "moving line in the sand" of what people consider porn, and b) censorware repeatedly oversteps its bounds and blocks non-porn sites that have protected speech.

Ultimately, I'd be happy with a censorware solution that was a) open sourced b) open-access (you can see the sites that are blocked as well as the reasons they were blocked, and could contest censoring openly).
Sadly, I doubt that this will ever happpen.

How do you make up a catchy slogan -- any slogan -- containing the inconceivably awkward phrase "next-generation secure computing base"?!

This is absolutely the point. As anyone who follows the abortion issue knows (ex-- is it "Pro-Life" or "Anti-Choice?"), much of controlling a public debate is about winning the "terminology" war. How better to obfuscate a debate by blurring the way the topic is labeled and discussed? Is anyone in the general public really going to read an article which refers to Microsoft's dull-sounding "next-generation secure computing base"? Who wants to be "anti-security" anyway?

Notice that "NGSCB" is unpronouncable and hard to wrap your head around. Where as people can rally around a fight against something called "Palladium" there is no easy "brain-handle" in NGSCB to grab onto. They've chosen a bland nothing-name.

The Federal government had a similar problem with "Carnivore" which just sounds ominous. So what did they do? They changed the name to something bland-- DCS1000...something that sounds boring and innocuous, like the model of a breadmaker.

I'm sure the Department of Justice's Total Information Awareness will be renamed shortly to some anagram with no vowels like the "next-generation secure nation base 2003LJFBF". When you see they've changed the name, remember you saw it here first.

Incidentally, Time has a good article about how the White House is trying the same kind of thing by reterming thinning of trees as "management-caused changes in vegetation". While they can't do an all-out assault on the environment...

"They are rejecting the full-frontal-assault approach that gets a lot of media attention in favor of death by a thousand strokes of the pen," contends Stoermer. The Republicans are also learning how to spin environmental issues in their direction. In a confidential document distributed to G.O.P. Governors and members of Congress just before last November's elections, Republican pollster Frank Luntz advised party members to refer to themselves as "conservationists." The document said, "The first (and most important) step to neutralizing the [Republican environmental] problem and eventually bringing people around to your point of view on environmental issues is to convince them of your 'sincerity' and 'concern.'"

It's all about baby-steps and controlling the debate through language. As far as I'm concerned, whatever Microsoft now calls PALLADIUM, we and the press should not let them get away with it.

W

...located in the beautiful city of Thornton, Colorado, is a whole other story. ... The IKONOS satellite lifted in 1999...Its powerful lens is capable of producing some of the most advanced images ever put in the public eye. Since then, that public has had an opportunity to see some of the most amazing images every produced...And it's the IKONOS satellite, which was contracted, built, and launched by Lockheed, giving us this closer eyeful of the world. "

Movies' exaggerated plots and glitzy special effects have had a major influence on popular culture, even to the point of making the public feel as if the government is really spying on it. The pandering to conspiracy theories and super-agent spy equipment imagery sells tickets...

C'mon. If you're going to post ad copy from Space Imaging or disinfo from TIA, that's fine, but at least have the decency to tell us it's such.

Technology and media companies, such as Microsoft, Sony, Philips and Real Networks, are looking to build a business out of securing copyright protections across the Internet and other digital media.
Micrososft has discussed plans for an upcoming operating system, code-named "Palladium," that will seek to put user controls on all bits of information they store on a computer document, from medical records to billing information.

Interesting, while M$ is still denying any connection of DRM and Palladium, their own joint venture MSNBC is making the connection lightheartedly... Maybe they bypassed their marketing drones and read the truth on the net...

"Jerry Falwell talks about his first time." The cartoon was intended to resemble a Campari alcohol ad. Hustler's ad suggested that Falwell's first sexual experience was a drunken, incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse. It also suggested that he is a hypocrite who preaches exclusively while drunk. A small print disclaimer at the bottom of the page said, "Ad parody, not to be taken seriously."

I think -- and I'm replying to be thorough, not annoying -- that the "property rights" idea doesn't enter into the equation here. Privacy rights do, the "right to be let alone" esp. at home.

Here (section 1B) is a fuller treatment of the First Amendment question with respect to the currently proposed regulations; said discussion is limited to commercial speech. As you can see from the Central Hudson analysis, the courts will look very carefully at a prior restraint like this. If political speech were at issue, or all speech, then I think the DNC regulation would fail at least the "narrowly tailored" prong, and probably the "compelling interest." In the past the courts have been very very antagonistic to prior restraints and content-based regulation.

Anyway, it will be a minor miracle if effective DNC regs for commercial calls goes through. Restriction of political calls is speculative at this point. Part of my point was that there are reasons not to do it besides the self-interest of politicians -- which I'm sure plays a part as well; although I would think a DNC list would tend to favor incumbents and big-party candidates.

Hmm. DNC = Democratic National Committee. Subliminal advertising? :)

I do wonder what difference it would make it people were charged for incoming calls as they are on cellphones after the first minute (is that one-minute deal universal?). I'm sure the telephone company could contrive some way of having the caller pick up the tab.

EPIC has a good site with information on DRM here.

Personally, I feel that "Hollywood" should be allowed to create and release whatever they want with DRM, but they should be required to call all such media something other than the common name for the medium. For example, they can release a DRM protected CD, but would not be permitted to call it a CD. Nor should they be allowed to use 'CD' in the name, as that would imply some sort of compatibility with existing CD players. This would probably dissuade the average person from adopting the technology without at least understanding the implications.

Further, they ("Hollywood") should be required to support legacy devices such as DVDs and CDs. When I purchased a DVD player last year, it was with the understanding that current and future media would be released in this format. When the industry adopts a standard and implements it, they should be required to support it for 'x' number of years. Otherwise the consumer pays the cost of their R&D for newer technologies.

-SignalFreq

The fourth amendment has been repealed.

Hmm... Sounds a lot like Total Information Awareness at work

Where does it all end? Do I get accused of being a terrorist because I believe that George W. Bush and his administration are a bunch of fascist criminals who are wiping their ass with the Bill of Rights -- and dare to publish said information? Am I "encouraging terrorism" and thus a "person of interest" for saying such?!

What, Carnivore isn't good enough?

And the constituion (a fine read, really) allows enough power to the citizens to defend the country and safeguard its citizens from the government.

Now that I have your attention...

Free speech cheerleaders that Americans are, I'm pretty sure this bare argument would get skewered in court, at least on public indecency grounds. Certainly you have the right to give a cop the finger, though I really really recommend you don't.

There was a classic SC case ( Cohen ) during the Vietnam War a man was observed in a couthouse corridor wearing a jacket emblazoned "Fuck the draft" on the back. He went into a courtroom, first taking the jacket off, and was arrested.

His conviction was overturned because the Court felt he had not crossed the line between his right of expression and the court's need for decorum (you couldn't break into song during a trial, for example, unless maybe you were a defendant pleading insanity :).

So there is a time, manner, place for different kinds of expression, even uncivil ones. I'm just not picturing the place for expressive mooning ... besides a nude beach. I remember a football coach at my high school getting canned for mooning a female math teacher, but that was private school -- no First Amendment.

Europe has a much higher sense of privacy for records and such. It has even caused problems for some U.S. businesses and exports. So f*ck you. ;-) (Actually, you'd be a model for our reforms if only...)

In the US there are some specific guarantees of record rights. Usually it takes some bad happening for Congress to act. Back in 1988 video rental records were protected after conservatives irate at the leaking of Supreme Court nominee's video rentals. (We really should have gotten to see Justice Thomas's.) The Patriot Act may punch a hole in this. Read this.

Serious protection for medical records has taken many years more. Weird priorities, huh?

With bank data, the bank does have to worry, and worry a lot, about liability for mishaps resulting from misuse of your information. Unlike abstract emotional damages of releasing personal damage, laying a customer open to fraud or other exploitations would get the dollar signs ringing up in a hurry. I know, we'd most all prefer for them to stay hands off in the first place. But there are a lot of other holes in the dike as it is.

On the other hand, Europeans tend to have less protection than Americans in things like free speech. So we get to complain more vocally about the things we don't like. :)

There's also EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center). You're right however, most of these types of organizations are mostly US-centric. Of course, the reason is that our dear government has taken a decidely Orwellian stance lately, plus large corporate interests seem to have the ear of our lawmakers at the expense of privacy and choice. You might want to consider this: Do you think it is possible that these types of laws and policies might spread to other parts of the globe just like McDonald's?

Fuck if I'll support an organization anymore that's gonna try to get more regulation and bureaucracy introduced in the name of "helping consumers."

The record companies can label their shit any way they want and make it playable in any device they want..or don't want. Nobody holds a gun to our heads to listen to their crappy music.

I say let the marketplace decide. I'll be giving my business to labels that press regular ole CDs, and from now on I'll be giving my shinies to EPIC insted.

The right to free speech online is important. The right to electronic privacy is important. But EFF has gone off on this wildly statist, quixotic consumerist rant lately that boils down to lobbine government to tell private property owners how they can use their private property.

Fuck that statist bullshit.

In the report, the Vice President of Sales at iVillage complains that because of P3P; Internet Explorer incorrectly mislabeled the privacy policy of iVillage as inadequate. (Page 5, first paragraph in the PDF report.)

Well, their privacy policy *is* inadequate. Their policy is too freeeeaaakking long. It's nine pages long and contains three thousand seven hundred words. I am not going to read that every time I discover a new web site.

In the report, the Vice President of Sales at iVillage complains that because of P3P; Internet Explorer incorrectly mislabeled the privacy policy of iVillage as inadequate. (Page 5, first paragraph in the PDF report.)

Well, their privacy policy *is* inadequate. Their policy is too freeeeaaakking long. It's nine pages long and contains three thousand seven hundred words. I am not going to read that every time I discover a new web site.

The slippery slope will lead to profiling agencies, much like credit reporting agencies, who sell your profile to employers, landlords, lawyers, law enforcement, and anyone else who wants to make a decision about you.

they just don't care. I'm a geek who understands the tracking that goes on (I've written Web tracking software in the past) and for the most part, I don't care.

This is one reason the Electronic Privacy Information Center argues that P3P is not a privacy enhancing technology. Websites will eventually demand that you reveal everything, or they won't let you access the site. If people don't care, they will comply. The end result will be like cookies (only with your name, age, address, and other personal data attached). Handing your full identity over to every site you visit will simply become the de facto standard.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center has published a report on Why P3P is not a PET (Privacy Enhancing Technology) (PDF file). It's worth a read as it challenges a lot of the justifications and goals of P3P.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center has published a report on Why P3P is not a PET (Privacy Enhancing Technology) (PDF file). It's worth a read as it challenges a lot of the justifications and goals of P3P.

But seriously, does anyone thing they have an absolute Constitional Right to anonymity when they use the internet or check out books in the library?

The general case is that you have a right to anonymously publish or read. Without this right, our right to free speech is shallow and nearly meaningless. The right to anonymously read ensures that if you're curious about the principles of Communism, you won't be dragged in front of the House Unamerican Activities Comission or any similar modern witch hunt. It ensures that your teenage fling with Anarchism isn't going to taint your job record twenty years later. Without anonymity, you put yourself at risk of future loss for what you read today, or you limit what you read to official sanctioned materials.

The right to anonymously publish ensures that you can get your work out even if powerful forces attempt to silence you. Sure, in the long run the First Amendment should protect you, but in the short run your life can be destroyed. Our founding fathers (assert(reader.nationality==AMERICAN)) used anonymous publications to raise public support against the British and for the new Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of anonymous speech (repeatedly).

Given that anonymous speech and reading is essential to free speech, it's only natural that the same rules would apply to the internet and libraries. The internet is simply a new way to express yourself. Allowing anonymous pamphlettering, publishing, and speech, but prohibiting anonymous speech on the internet is silly. Similarly, public libraries exist in part to support an educated citizenry. If citizens are afraid to check out "dangerous" books to educate themselves, we're stifling the democratic process which requires free access to information.

Also in 740.13, to, in part, take into account the "open source" approach to software development, unrestricted encryption source code not subject to an express agreement for the payment of a licensing fee or royalty for commercial production or sale of any product developed using the source code can, without review, be released from "EI" controls and exported and reexported under License Exception TSU.

Jon.

Two questions. Will the FCC approve DRM? Or will the FCC approve DRM?

Gosh, how soon we forget:

Today's announcements on encryption represent important steps in the implementation of the Administration's policy on this critical issue. Our policy is designed to provide better encryption to individuals and businesses while ensuring that the needs of law enforcement and national security are met.

Encryption is a law and order issue since it can be used by criminals to thwart wiretaps and avoid detection and prosecution. It also has huge strategic value. Encryption technology and cryptoanalysis turned the tide in the Pacific and elsewhere during World War II.

--Official statement from Vice President Gore, supporting the "Clipper Chip" in 1994.

"Squishy" sounds almost cute and harmless, more like "spikey" or "prickley".

I like this bit though (emphasis added):

But it's impossible to put an accurate dollar figure on how much -- or even if -- it's costing the entertainment business.

And for good measure a link to the privacy implications of DRM for the benifit of searchbots, cant have pro DRM propoganda getting listed first in search engines now can we?.

Who really cares if they've made chips a thousand times smaller than current chips, with a thousand times the capicty? With palladium coming its not like you're going to be free to do anything worthwhile with them.

By pushing for smarter networks, the telecoms open themselves up to the type of pressure the RIAA is applying.

1. The Washington Times is not a real newspaper. It is a publication of the Rev. Sun Moon's Unification Church that was founded in the 1980s to advance church interests by influencing people who would mistake the publication for the Washington equivalent of The New York Times.

   You should see the stories they ran during the Clinton administration... one front page I remember staring out of the newsbox at me as I walked up the Metro steps one day featured a giant photo of kids dancing around a bonfire at a rave. The headline on that story criticized Clinton for not supporting an "anti-drug" bill, but the article said nothing about the fact that he was opposed to the non-drug-related things that were tacked onto the bill.

   The publication survives for two reasons:

   1. Church funding
   2. A decent sports section (not news)
   
   
2. The Washington Times did not obtain these documents from the government; EPIC did.

   The organization [the Electronic Privacy Information Center] obtained documents July 31, the product of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Transportation Security Administration, and offered the documents to this newspaper.

   The EPIC story plays down the brain-reading aspect by devoting only one sentence to it:

   NASA has even suggested developing "non-invasive neuro-electric sensors" or brain scans at the security gate to see if people are having suspicious thoughts.

3. Neither organization which claims to have these documents provides them or quotes more than one out-of-context sentence fragment from them. Normally when an organization obtains government documents through FOIA, it provides the focuments themselves as proof. Anything obtained through FOIA is public record. If EPIC took the trouble to show us its FOIA request in PDF format, why isn't it showing us the documents it claims were obtained?

1. Washington Times readers are by nature a paranoid, ultra-conservative group that likes to feel informed of the stories the real media "conveniently ignores." (Aside from the people who pick up the paper and throw out everything but the sports sections... and I've seen people do this on the Metro)
2. Any Washington Times story should be carefully scrutinized before treated as news.

1. The Washington Times is not a real newspaper. It is a publication of the Rev. Sun Moon's Unification Church that was founded in the 1980s to advance church interests by influencing people who would mistake the publication for the Washington equivalent of The New York Times.

   You should see the stories they ran during the Clinton administration... one front page I remember staring out of the newsbox at me as I walked up the Metro steps one day featured a giant photo of kids dancing around a bonfire at a rave. The headline on that story criticized Clinton for not supporting an "anti-drug" bill, but the article said nothing about the fact that he was opposed to the non-drug-related things that were tacked onto the bill.

   The publication survives for two reasons:

   1. Church funding
   2. A decent sports section (not news)
   
   
2. The Washington Times did not obtain these documents from the government; EPIC did.

   The organization [the Electronic Privacy Information Center] obtained documents July 31, the product of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Transportation Security Administration, and offered the documents to this newspaper.

   The EPIC story plays down the brain-reading aspect by devoting only one sentence to it:

   NASA has even suggested developing "non-invasive neuro-electric sensors" or brain scans at the security gate to see if people are having suspicious thoughts.

3. Neither organization which claims to have these documents provides them or quotes more than one out-of-context sentence fragment from them. Normally when an organization obtains government documents through FOIA, it provides the focuments themselves as proof. Anything obtained through FOIA is public record. If EPIC took the trouble to show us its FOIA request in PDF format, why isn't it showing us the documents it claims were obtained?

1. Washington Times readers are by nature a paranoid, ultra-conservative group that likes to feel informed of the stories the real media "conveniently ignores." (Aside from the people who pick up the paper and throw out everything but the sports sections... and I've seen people do this on the Metro)
2. Any Washington Times story should be carefully scrutinized before treated as news.

Heres a good link with a summary of news and links from around the world. Heres the Japan link.

I already have a "gaijin" (foreigner) registration card that I'm legally required to carry with me for random police checks, so what's one more.

The current laws do not protect security or privacy...

Well, there is a flaw in the laws regarding IP networks.

...nor do they allow law enforcement access for wiretaps

Again, I'd say this is a flaw in the law.

The article points out that older analog telephone lines are covered by laws that prevent people from tapping the lines unless it is someone with the authority and authorization to do so. The article makes it look like the laws regarding VoIP are less advanced, and desperately need updated.

Legal things aside, I would have thought that by now, in this day and age, people would consider security when providing a new service that runs over a computer network. I'm dissapointed in the comapnies who have disregarded security here.

Is there no easy way to make it all tunnel through SSH?

US West contends the CPNI Order "violates the First Amendment by requiring that carriers secure prior affirmative consents from customers before using individually-identifiable customer information to speak with their customers on an individualized basis about services beyond the 'categories' of telecommunications services to which they currently subscribe." US West's Opening Brief at 22. In other words, US West suggests the CPNI Order unduly limits its ability to engage in commercial speech with its existing customers regarding new products and services it may offer.

US West also claims the CPNI Order "restricts the ability of carriers to share and use CPNI internally to have different divisions, affiliates, and personnel within the same carrier communicate information to each other (i.e., to speak to each other), absent a prior affirmative consent from the customer."

For example, petitioner could use CPNI obtained through the provision of local service to market other local service products, but not cellular services. Moreover, if the customer subscribes to both local and long-distance services, petitioner could use the CPNI to market either service and could exchange the CPNI between affiliates that provide such services, but petitioner could still not use the CPNI to market cellular services.

We vacate the FCC's CPNI Order, concluding that the FCC failed to adequately consider the constitutional ramifications of the regulations interpreting 222 and that the regulations violate the First Amendment.

EPIC's page ( http://www.epic.org/privacy/cpni/) has some info. For Verizon, call (866) 483-9600 and wade through a tedious phone tree (about four minutes, but have your bill handy).

WASHINGTON -- In a vote with potential national implications, North Dakota residents overwhelmingly agreed yesterday to bar the sale of personal data collected by banks, credit unions and other financial services firms to third parties.

This is the first time that voters in a state have had the chance to toughen privacy protections set in the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley financial modernization law, which allows financial services firms to freely share information without consumer consent.

Of the approximately 115,000 votes cast in yesterday's referendum, nearly 74% voted to require consumer consent before data is shared. The state elections board offered vote results online.

"This is the beginning of a consumer backlash against the sharing of information," said Avivah Litan, an analyst at Gartner Inc. in Stamford, Conn.

[ ... ]

Privacy advocates say the vote reaffirms opinion polls showing that customers want stronger privacy protections. "It's no longer speculation -- people want opt-in," said Chris Hoofnagle, legislative counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

The vote comes at the same time Congress is considering legislation by U.S. Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D-S.C.) that would preempt the ability of states to do what North Dakotan voters did yesterday.

"It's becoming clearer that preemption of state law is an attempt to prevent strong privacy protections," said Hoofnagle.

the carnivore stuff runs linux

Boy you got some free karma, because it doesn't. It runs on Win2k. If you don't mind having an FBI file, you should really spend time at this site to learn more about Carnivore.

The closest thing that I recall is (once H.R. 3162) the USA PATRIOT Act, which expands intercept authority and relaxes assorted safeguards.

Bill text

EFF Analysis

I hear a favorite clock for this are Casio wristwatches.

And it's not PATRIOT Act, it's the USA PATRIOT Act. :-)

You need to ensure that the attempt to promote false patriotism with a piece of legislation that has very little to do with patriotism was made.

Anonymous due to the USA PATRIOT Act. You don't want your friendly local anarchist slashdotter getting in some trouble now do you?

I stay away from amazon. Ever hear of www.epic.org? They are a privacy watchdog, and I have stayed away from amazon ever since they said

Recently Amazon announced that it could no longer guarantee that it would not disclose customer information to third parties.

You can read the whole press release here

Now, this is a case that happened in the US instead of Austrailia, so it may not be able to be cited in this particular law suit, but it shows that courts do not feel that spammer have a God-given right to send their mail to anyone and everyone they want to.

- Sam

Hahaha what a funny comment... rotflmao, and then you realize it is no fiction at all and that even systems that are used by people that are involved with carnivore collected data run outbreak. This data may not even be filtered as the court order specifies, does the court really understand whats going on when presented with basicly a tcpdump filter expresion, do they have an *objective* technical review of the filtering applied? This very story is about a carnivore box which captured to much data.

It would be entirely posible that a judge would create a court order that is not specific on the technical details of the filter (how does a device connected to an isp border router know what of ip`s it should drop packets from, Would it have acces to the radius authentication data when connected to a border router??? unlikely) so the tech adapting the carnivore box for this particular isp asumes a little freedom, he would not want to miss any packets and the boss agrees that monitoring UBL@aol.com is really importand..... Then some outbreak/exchange using investigator cant figure out what to make of the data he is presented with. Sure it goes to forensic experts first wich reasamble the packets into plain text e-mails (the ones the judge wanted) but they also had a really complicated looking story about this new "jabber" thingy.

So the investigator who is no scully whatsoever asks some techs what it is all about, they agree that if the not-so-scully fbi agent mails the collected data they will run their l33t perl script to reasambe the jabber sesion packets in a plain text. They have been testing this quick perl hack for in office testing, their hobby is arp cache poisoning the office to monitor browsing habbits across the switch (they made their hobby their job, who wouldn`t want to do that) They figured it would be cool to see each others jabber sesion....

Tech does de-jabber.pl tcpdumped.log|mail not-so-scully@exchange.somelittlebranchwithnomoney . bi.gov The not-so-scully investigator is disapointed, all the decoded jabber sesionS talk about is the newest britaney and eminem cd`s, so after saving the mail to c:\my documents the not-so-scully investigator goes to read his next mail which seams a lot more promising... it reads "I send you the file to have your advice"

And now it turns out, mike the 18 year old kid who is really happy about his ubl@aol.com addres (cool, his friends always have a laugh about that) has been hanging around the mosque with his muslim friend becouse they trade the newest eminem en britany cd`s there, not 747 fligh manuals....

Now this is scary *fiction* ofcourse, just like the whole sircam picking up fbi files and carnivore capturing the wrong mails things looked like a joke once to.

I found it a bit odd that the scanned memo someone pointed to here is a print from an Outlook email client. Maybe the "missing" emails will be randomly sent to 50 contacts from their Lookout! address book by one of the email viruses floating around. I didn't figure the FBI would be running such an unsecure messaging platform. Maybe their systems really are "outdated."