Slashdot Mirror
Crypto Restrictions Are Taking Over the World
zeke writes: "An article on SecurityFocus details how forced key escrow and other crypto restrictions have taken root around the world, in countries like France, South Africa, the Netherlands and the UK. Ironically, this leaves the United States -- the birthplace and graveyard of the Clipper Chip -- as one of the few bastions of unregulated encryption."
The U.S. Justice Department has unleashed it's newest anti-terrorism initiative called TIPS. The programs webpage has the quote: "A national system for concerned workers to report suspicious activity." The ACLU today sent out a press release detailing the dangers of the TIPS program. Among which is turning private sector companies into a domestic spy service. Will your ISP report you for visiting the wrong sites? One citizen has already posted his obviously tongue in cheek support for the TIPS program.
The program operates by asking everyday citizens to join Citizen Corp's TIPS program and than report suspicious activities via a form on the webpage.
The Generation
I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
LK@$#H^LKHLKNSLKJS:FDOIWJO$#IT^JO$#@K O(G*&SPD(GJLKJ$TLKJELGKJ@ KHLKSDHFLKGD
W$LTJLW$#JT
LSDJFLK$JLK$^J%@LK^JL#^
decode that message with the decoder ring you got with your SS#, and get the coorinates for osama.
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
Sometimes, it's really useful that the U.S. has so many different conflicting (powerful) interests, and a fairly lengthy legislative process, because it keeps things like this away (or atleast delays them a while.) Sure, the export policy was especially bad for a while, but overall, things weren't (and there will still ways around the export rules).
Besides, we all know the NSA's top top top secret quantum computer can break any encryption quickly...
That's one of the reasons for which Openbsd is developed there.
There are 2 kinds of people in this world: Those who write in decimal and those who don't
If you export crypto from the US you still have to tell your government where you live.
Excuse me, aren't the US crypto regulations cause for Canadian-based OpenBSD, trouble with PGP, 128-bit-SSL, and more?
...? Oh come on..
Did you *actually* call the US 'one of the few bastions of unregulated encryption'
--
You wouldn't let just anyone own a nuclear weapon, why on earth would you let joe sixpack have strong munitions-grade encryption ? That would be inconsistant.
"www.citizencorps.gov is a site that uses encryption to protect transmitted information. However, Netscape does not recognize the authority who signed its Certificate."
Because last time I checked, we STILL can't export the good stuff to them anyway. Or post the source. Or talk about it too loud.
Never confuse volume with power.
The author makes a very good point: whether we have the freedom to use crypto or not, crypto software itself hasn't come very far in the past few years.
So what can we do about it? Could Peek-a-Booty or the Six/Four protocol be used as springboards into more user-friendly crypto applications? Are there any other free/OSS projects to bring crypto to the masses? (Because God knows your average user couldn't figure out PGP or GPG if his life depended on it.)
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't seen too many people argueing the other side of the coin. That is the big argument for restricting crypto is that "the terrorists" (tm) will use it to communicate with each other. Are we arguing that the "the terrorists" (tm) could be hacking into communication networks and gaining vital information from everyday conversation? It seems just as plasable. And governments that are so scared of technology might actually buy it. We could see people in power start to advocate the encryption of all communications!
Probably just wishful thinking but I'd love to see it tried.
The Anti-Blog
This about sums it up for the UK.
We`re all doomed!!! doomed i tells ya!!
It may not be free beer (no EU-style social safety net), but you have all the opportunity that you can make for yourself.
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
For all for GPL'd PGP alike application :
http://www.gnupg.org
For a nice gtk interface :
http://www.gnupg.org/gpa.html
Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again
instead one out of 24 of your friends will be spies for your government.
The main way that most people use encryption is when they order something from a web site, and the traffic is encrypted to protect credit-card numbers. I've been wondering how well the various restrictive governments police this.
Consider that most users aren't even really aware that they are encrypting their internet traffic. It's done by behind-the-scene transactions between their browser and the remote web site. The user never invokes any encryption software, and never sees the keys.
Will we eventually see cases where a poor baffled user is arrested and charged with illegal encryption, when what they really did was order a pair of socks from llbean.com?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
....when you are being detained as part of the "war on terror" without trial and denied legal counsel.
But yeah there are bad encryption laws in other places like here in the UK. Its worrying.
no sig.
When you outlaw encryption, only the outlaws will have encryption...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Good lord, man! Don't you realize you're supposed to bash the US at every opportunity, no matter how false the accusation?
Please remove this man and take him back to the -- "education center".
v nz cresrpgyl svar hfvat ebg13, vg frrzf gb or n irel frpher rapelcgvba.
Abj v pna gnxr bire gur jbeyq, Zjnu Un Un Un
It's all good.
Instead of being redundant, I'll just point you to my previous post.
* Does not apply to Jose Padilla
Does not apply to US citizens who take up arms against the country.
Void if you are not a millionaire's son.
Void if you're a whiner who sits around on his ass complaining that only "millionaire's sons" get opportunity while people succeed every day.
I know the general Slashdot response is going to be how we are being oppressed, and that's my first reaction also. There is another side however. What these supposedly democratic countries are facing is the ugly truth about all such governments: they play by a set of rules while the other side is completely unfettered. With Western Europe's recent history of terrorist groups such as Action Direct and the Red Brigade, I think it's clear that they have serious obstacles to face when dealing with the current technologically adept terrorists. The fact is, since they are hindered by the "rights" that they do let us keep, we have to expect them to try something to protect us. We can be outraged, but do we have another method they can use? Creating a repository of keys is to me a desperate act, not just a simple power grab. The real question is how far behind the curve are these intelligence types when dealing with Internet enabled terrorists? All I'm saying is that I think this sucks, but it isn't necessarily a power grab to create a society based on "1984".
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
Yay for the War on Terrorism and people around the world taking advantage of it!
Well, those countries don't have a history of providing their citizens with the almost absurd levels that the US does. In Britain, you don't have nearly the same rights that you do in the US, and while the Netherlands is a socially permissive country in many respects, it's also very tough on law and order for those things that it deems are social problems (just because in Amsterdam you can buy pot and sex doesn't mean you can kill someone in Utrecht). And South Africa has hardly had any history whatsoever of having solid personal freedoms. So while you can look at the problem pragmatically ("the US looked at the issues and realized that they're unworkable"), you can't just look at it from a US-civil-liberties perspective ("no one should be willing to give a government that much power").
The problem, as the author correctly identifies, is that anything along the lines of key recovery is completely unworkable in practice at all. While it might look nice sitting in a piece of legislation, it's impossible to enforce. Cryptography isn't something like a gun, that's physically manufactured, it's a bunch of mathematical equations (remember the whole RSA on a T-Shirt campaign?). You can't stop the providers of something based on mathematics, and you can't force everybody in teh world to start keeping track of other people's keys, or else they'll just start using "illegal" encryption.
And that's the real kicker: regardless of whether you want your citizens to have the power to encrypt things such that you can't have acccess to them, you can't stop them in any way. All you do by attempting is instantly incriminating a pretty significant portion of your population to access information that you can still get elsewhere (like keystroke loggers that the FBI uses to get passwords, or search warrants for hardware encryption devices, which are both pretty effective IMHO for key recovery purposes). You can't outlaw mathematics (the whole US issue highlighted that), so you really shouldn't try.
Once AC - always AC
Well, as far as I'm concernce you're no better than a terrorist. You spout rhetoric that has no basis in fact. You advocate bombing innocent citizens and you spread hate. Tell me how you are any different from the terrorists that happen to be of the Muslim faith that massacred american citizens.
all of them
If you think there's a lack of opportunities here in the United States, I strongly reccomend you try out one of the "better" countries to verify your position. Isn't it about time we (meaning intelligent americans) put together a liberties and freedoms checklist, comparing the US and other countries, to put an end to this mindless liberal blathering?
You know, I'm kind of glad encryption hasn't made many inroads for regular communications of casual users. I find it really hard to be on the pro-crypto side of almost anything. (And then there's that USA Today Report on using Ebay for posted embedding messages in images...)
Then again, I've always had an underdeveloped sense of privacy. It's really never been a big concern of mine, security through obscurity (or maybe apathy...if someone wants to know enough to bother to ask I'll probably tell them)
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
When cryptography becomes illegal:m k3o93j2p1@
K29j281=123927joiKNl984@
O912-238jpoiU
198412kj;lrf98fpl-301;k@
hehehe
Partnership for an idiot free America!
whoo! Bet ya didn't see this one coming! Ya never know which posts are gonna contain sekrit nigger poison!
In all seriousness, I am really performing a public service here. As long as the faggot mods are busy, they won't be out spreading the AIDS virus like all faggots do. Not that anyone should care if fags die. But I am being nice here.
Well that all depends on your point of view.
The UK has far more employment rights than the US has.
also the right to medical treatment.
the right to life (no death penality).
The right to get arrested without being put in handcufs.
Hell I can even crack a joke with the police if they get stopped, and give them a bit of hastle e.g. Have you got any ID? so long as i don't break any serious law or take the piss to much.
I can buy tin foil, baking soda, spoons, bongs etc.... without feer of being arrested.
I can have a open bottle in the car.
I can cross the road.
When I was younger I had even more rights, maybe the UK is just trying to catch up with the poor human rights policy in the US.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
goatse.cx
To defend against this the state doesn't need to pry their GPG key away from /. readers, it just
needs to make it hard or scary enough that Joe/Jane sixpack
either can't or is afraid to do it.
You have been brainwashed if you think the US is free !
Acording the US justice department, the US has 25% of the entire world's population of prisoners.
And your going to have 1 in 24 amercians spying on your friends.
The US and a lot of other western countries a quasi-dictatorships, do you really think the US government represent the will of the people. ?
In other news, elementary school students in affected countries may no longer learn to add and subtract, for addition and subtraction are essential in the intriguingly secure one-time pad.
I was upset when I could no longer do what I want with my ones and zeroes. Now I can't do what I want with a pen, paper and numbers.
~Ben
Why should I need crypto when I have palladium to ensure the security of my PC anyway?
A musician without the RIAA, is like a fish without a bicycle.
Can anyone recommend some good general use (word docs, text docs, etc.) crypt/decrtyp applications for OSX? For the PC?
"When I was younger I had even more rights, maybe the UK is just trying to catch up with the poor human rights policy in the US."
;^)
Wasn't there some reason why some of you fled the UK to come to the "New World"? Oh yeah, freedom from religious and political persecution.
We're fooling ourselves if we honestly believe that the NSA can't crack any crypto out there. The idea that their technology is antiquated and insufficient is simply ridiculous. By the very nature of what the NSA and similar organizations do we must assume that we have no idea what they can and cannot do. We can assume this for two reasons:
1. They're a secret organization. Why would they tell us anything?
2. They're a covert organization. Why would we believe anything that they tell us?
The relevance of all of this is subtle but important. The US is so unrestricitve on cryptography because they are fairly confident in their ability to crack said cryptography. It's an undertone that you see a great deal in the IT world in the US. US citizens are given a great deal of technological freedom...because the government is confident in their ability to control the technology.
Disclaimer: I'm a paranoid infosec nut, which tends to make me a conspiracy theorist.
"Herbivores eat well cause their food never, ever runs."
It's also not long ago both the government and citizens thought encryption was bad. After all only terrorists need encryption! :p
I encrypt things so that nobody can have access to my ideas without my permission. It is basically the equivalent of having a disk drive put into my brain. The government cannot pry things out of my head, what makes them think that they should have the right to know what I MEAN when I put something down on paper? They have no right to know. The best they can do is convince me to cooperate.
...when you've got the NSA?
For that matter I don't close my window blinds or lock my door because the government might be watching. I don't speak on the nervously hoping my words are be recorded. If GWB and Mr. Homeland Security thought they could magically make encryption be reversiable, I would be all for that.
Simply outlawing it or placing export restriction or whatever token effort, does nothing but heighten the profile of encryption technology and admits your weakness.
In short I would like to see my tax dollars used to fight battles that can be won.
... supports strong encryption for it's fellow citizens and the industry and I count Germany to the developped countries...
I spent most of my life as a hermit and developed full moral values without the aid of brainwashing.
Unfortunately most people have been brainwashed already..
The average American TV program is aimed at an audience with an IQ of 80.
Capitalism != free market communism is closer to a free market model. Please read the communist manifesto and Wealth of the nations.
You cannot have a free market where things are owned.
DMCA, the RIAA and MPAA all pursue capitalist goals, that is stronger enforcement of capital protection (copyright &co)..
"What is the irony of encryption being allowed in the US? After all, the US is a free country."
The rest of the world should acklowledge that the US is a superior race^H^H^H^H country, the US shouldnt have to comply with the primate UN or international laws, we should be free to perform gross human rights violations and be exempt from prosecutuion !
Am I the only one who really read this, or did I not read it right.
I saw places where it said "..and the police can order you to hand over your keys" or '..such and such a company has to register with the officials', but nowhere did it say '...you can't use encryption'. (I do agree that the key escrow stuff is very bad though.)
Just like a gun, ecnryption can be used for good things (hiding my p0rn from my girlfriend), or bad (emailing terrorism plots to agents.) In this country (USA), if the police have enough evidence, they can go to a judge and get a very specific search warrant. So, if they accuse me of having illegal p0rn (instead of just the good stuff), they can search my computer till the cows come home. But if they find a terrorism plot, they can't use that information.
To follow that point, what is wrong with issuing a search warrant and demanding that I decrypt the data?? I may not like it, especially if I'm guilty or don't want to share my p0rn, but I don't see where that is any different than letting the police go through a drug dealers house looking for drugs. Ok...there is that fifth amendment thing, so maybe a law like that couldn't even be enacted in the US.
And so what if company X has to register with the government. They probably had to get a business permit anyway, and if they do anything novel they probably have patents. Not too many companies survive by being secret about their existance.
So...tell me what is all the hub, bub.....
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Then open the trunk, or give me the keys.
No, I have rights...you can't look in my trunk! NO!
____________________
Excuse me Mr. User.
Yes, Mr. NSA man.
Are there terrorist messages in your email inbox.
Ah...no Mr. NSA man.
Then un-encrypt your inbox, or give me the private key.
No, I have rights...you can't look in my inbox! NO!
________________
I'm confused. What is the difference between these two scenerios? Sheesh...they check your trunk when you cross state/country borders. Just don't do terrorist/pedo/cracker shit, and you should have nothing to fear. uh, right?
Well at least the UK Prime Minister was elected with a majority of the population, not installed by a judiciary in the pocket of big business and an election process controlled by the current presidents brother in law.
The bikini - security through obscurity since 1943
That`d be funnier if the UK Prime Minister wasnt just following orders from Bush.
Its going to be amusing when the US tries to get EU support for a land invasion of Iraq.
"Hey guys, I`ve got an idea - we want to invade Iraq, so we`ll fly the planes at 30,000 feet, dropping bombs, and your ground forces can act as diversionary cannon fodder...our computer simulations show you`ll lose 20,000 troops tops`.
We all talk about how Osama bin Laden uses 128-bit encyrption, but in actuality, the laptops captured in Afganistan were using the default Windows encryption - lousy 40-bit encryption. Another terrorist used the default encryption on his palmtop, which was quickly enough cracked by the French government. It seem that most terrorists don't know enough to use serious encryption. Now, nothing is going to take serious encyrption out of the hands of geeks, but the default encryption is what matters for most people, and that's what needs to be cracked most the time. Silently turning on strong encryption does not help law and order.
- Voter turnout in Britain keeps sinking;
- The UK also has a First Past the Post system for individual constituencies;
- There isn't universal enfranchisement for choosing party leaders (witness the farce that resulted in IDS' selection as Conservative Party leader)
You end up with a situation where it's entirely possible for a prime minister to be chosen by what is actually a quite small number of people, because each point above increases the chance that a non-majority will choose the Prime Minister.If you mean to say that the selection of the Prime Minister in the last UK General Election happened as a result of the outcome of the last UK General Election with no judicial intervention (which would have made little sense anyway since there is no independant judiciary in the UK), then I suppose I'll agree with you. :-)
Fortunatly Bush doesn't know where Iraq is and Americans are piss poor aims, Iraq's a bit to close to china watch out!
...and while the Netherlands is a socially permissive country in many respects, it's also very tough on law and order for those things that it deems are social problems (just because in Amsterdam you can buy pot and sex doesn't mean you can kill someone in Utrecht).
:-)
Yes, marihuana is tolerated (not legal), and prostitution is legal. And no, you aren't allowed to kill someone, not in Utrecht nor anywhere else.
But what you're saying here is: 'The Netherlands is a socially permissive country in many respects, but not as much as the US, because in the Netherlands you're not allowed to commit murder'.
If this is the best argument you can come up with, I guess I'm lucky I live here
Whats the six/four protocol, google doesnt know about it, have a uri ?
O Canada! Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide, O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
BTW.
As opposed to our neighbour we have human rights in our constitution...
I still miss anon.penet.fi ..
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
...and the french might just do their revolution thingy once again. There must be at least a few rusty guillotines lying around in their basements. Those responsible for the oppressive crypto policies are perhaps not as visible as their nobles where then, but the Bastille does seem to be a fine place to keep keys in escrow...
Limiting the use of crypto is all very good and well (from the single view that it helps stop terrorism -- devils advocate here!!) but what about situations that the government doesnt have any control over.
Take for instance September 11th in the US, they blamed the poliferation of free email accounts and internet access for the planning of this atrocity, untill it was admitted that 95% of the planning was done face to face by the perps.
In the UK, where the new RIP bill has legislated about crypto keys, we have terrorism in the form of the IRA, and other paramilitary groups. All of their planning takes place face to face, and this is know because our MI5 has managed to cover some with surveilance. These groups already know conventional technological means of contact are not safe, and these new laws wont hurt them.
With this in mind, the current course of action would be to either ban private conversations, or be required to record them. Or allow someone into your home/hotel/place of work to insert surveilance equipment.
The sad thing is, the vast majority out there dont care, because they feel it doesnt affect them. This will continue to be the case untill its way to late to fight the laws, and we get jailed for even thinking they are bad.
Live in fear, i do!
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! I mean, if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would put me away!
(Sorry, somehow the "not installed by a judiciary" triggered this in my brain)
Does anyone see a quandary with Palladium, encryption and government in general?
If Palladium is implemented, as everyone expects it will, and encryption becomes standard to the operating system does this not mean that the data on the hard drive is therefore protected from intrusion by outside sources? Would this not be a boon for those looking protect their nefarious purposes from prying eyes? This creates a problem for Microsoft and computer manufacturers in general; How to provide "trustworthy computing" to the general public while resassuring the government that data can be retrieved from hard drives when needed.
If Microsoft or the Palladium hardware manufacturers build in a "backdoor" for just this purpose, then the idea of trustworthy computing is lost. Who would trust their sensitive data to a compromised system? Hence the quandary.
hey, get your facts stright buddy!
its was our glorious leader's brother that controlled the election process in Florida.
not to mention the ruling from a court with people appointed by Bush senior.
hooray for democracy. bleh
Sipping on Jolt and Dew. Laid back. With my mind of my cubicle and my cubicle on my mind.
I see this repeatedly, this difficulty in understanding this point. Here it is, in a nutshell for you: In the UK, you buy something. If there's something wrong with it, you can return it. The seller is not obliged to give you a refund, if he/she can provide a replacement. There endeth your rights. In the US, if you buy something and decide, even a year later, and without the receipt, you can return it and get a refund. This doesn't apply to all stores, just those that want your business. Which is most big stores. What a concept! Ha ha! Now, get back to earning your wage, which must be at least the miniumum now that the UK got sued by the EU over that one .... heh heh heh.
second our bomb are guided by 'lasers'
third our soldiers perform their actions from the comfort of a miltary aircraft at 30,000ft sipping a cold beverage, much more civilized.
overall you can see there are alot of differences between US and the terrorists.
leaving aside your obvious anti-Bush sentiments...
...
just having elections isn't enough. you need to have separation of powers. The United States does that extremely well, (although I'm sure they could improve). The UK does not. Power is becoming increasingly concentrated in the office of the Prime Minister. If this continues, Britain will essentially have an elected dictator one day. (Elected yes, but still a dictator). Canada has the same problem, but it's worse up here. Inadequate separation of powers, and voter apathy (that's the worst of the two), has resulted in a terrible state of affairs for our politics: A corupt "centre" party without any real policies beyond the maintenance of power. A left wing that has thrown reality out the window and embraces electoral oblivion and a right wing that is irrevocably divided and fights internally like a couple going through the messiest divorce in history.
Since there are "no crypto restrictions in the US" my MCS professor can teach cryptography again? Last i checked such was not the case.
Even if you make transmitting encrypted communication illegal, it's not going to stop criminals. Hiding cyphertext is just too easy. For example, take a 16-bit wave file and use the least significant bit of each sample for your cyphertext. Assuming your cyphertext doesn't have any header data, it will be virtually undetectable. The only thing someone might notice is some very low level white noise in the background that could be attributed to anything.
Similar things can be done with jpegs, mpegs, and a host of other file formats. If government officials had a better understanding of the technology, they wouldn't waste our time with laws that only hurt law abiding citizens and do nothing to curtail crime.
Nope, what I'm saying here is in fact to agree with you. What I'm trying to say is that although there are some respects in which the Dutch are quite socially permissive, that doesn't mean that it's some complete do-whatever-you-want Libertarian-utopia, which is the common US perception of the Netherlands. So I'm actually agreeing with you because most Americans don't understand that while the Dutch permit some things, y'all actually have a very tough stance on "real" crime.
Incidently, neither the UK or the US is a particularly 'free' place, by neutral standards.
If you live near Albuquerque NM USA, please visit my journal.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The ECommerce Act
in Ireland approaches it as follows: Not perfect, but I have seen worse. There are also expressions that people are entitled to use the strongest available forms of encryption, and should be encouraged to do so
The stupidity of 'intellectuals' [mainly guvverments] really does astound me sometimes. Time for a world tour with the Clue-By-Four.
Ph33r m3!!!
If you check American Colonial history really carefully, you'll find that the Pilgrims didn't come to the New World(C) for religious tolerance; they had that in the Netherlands. What they came for was to set up their OWN religious tyranny (example: the excommunication of some religious nonconformists from the Mass Bay colonies). Religious freeedom was only on the Puritan mind insofar as it meant freedom to practice THEIR religious orthodoxy as THEY dictated it.
Fortunately, things have loosened up a bit since, but the ideological descendents of the Puritans (insert name of your favorite religious fundamentalist here) are ever with us...
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
Can you say "Encryption Treaties"?
Alastair Campbell wants to read your mind, errr, email I mean.
(one of PM Blair's spin doctors)
I hope this doesn't descend into a US freedoms versus someone elses freedoms because there is no universal set of freedoms humans need (other than things like food, shelter, air, etc).
Most everyone understands that there are limitations to freedom. Hell, even a perfect omniscient judiciary couldn't make a totally free society exist (e.g. how to choose between two parties' gripes when both are contradictory? Someone is going to have to lose).
So governments chose which freedoms are best limited and those that need to be preserved. In the end I think it is all arbitrary. You just have to have some system that allows for a decision to be made. Firearms are legal or they aren't. Nazi Memorabilia is legal or it isn't. The same with encryption.
Basically you can limit anything people can do without forever. But that goes against what freedom stands for. In the end countries have to make choices. And I doubt that any one (say France's versus the US versus Japan) are better than any other.
In the end I think it comes down to economic interest. What jobs/corporations/industries does a company need to have strategic overlay in order to survive. Saudi Arabia is concerned about its oil interest and the people who own and work for it, not the nature of the shoe industry in Malasyia. From that point outward the society's policy is formed.
What is music when you despise all sound?
Oh, now which of the recounts said Gore won again?
First I've heard of this ?
So computer Crypto restrictions are being taken seriously in a country with a major Aids Problem ?
Get a grip please !
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
Unfortunately, this just means that a quantum computer quickly determines if you won or lost. It doesn't help you play any better nor worse, merely to calculate your ranking faster.
Of course, you have to use the mod which lets you carry around sealed boxes which you open whenever you meet an opponent. You can play faster with Smell-O-Vision, as you can tell faster if a cat is dead or not.
And when, oh enlightened one, did it change? What exactly is this mystical support for the unemployed? That they are garaunteed to *be* unemployed? Ha ha! Say, how long is the waiting period for a hip operation these days? Or does the NHS just let you die first?
I believe the parent poster was trying to point out that the US emphasizes prosecution of what are considered social 'crimes', like marijuana possession, prostitution, etc; as well as politically fruitful crimes like computer hacking (life sentence, baby!) and hate crimes; and that these are often frequently prioritized over violent crimes. Whereas the Netherlands allows the social 'crimes' and cracks down on the violent crimes with vigor. In the US, this is largely a result of federal mandatory sentencing on politically hot issues, which is basically Congressmen playing judge for the votes, but for whatever reason, the results are striking: drug possession offenders serve time in prison roughly equal to murderers, longer than rapists, and substantially longer than robbery inmates. Our policies have had some interesting effects: amongst Western democracies, we have the highest violent crime rate, the largest percentage of population living in poverty, and the largest percent of population in prison (actually, we have the overall world record on this one). I cannot speak for the Netherlands sentencing length numbers, but I do know that they have 1/10 the rate of violent crime per population as is present in the US; and their prison population is equally low. Given the lack of distracting things their prosecutors have to deal with, I think we can draw a causal connection.
This article is just plain wrong. True, a few years ago, France was one of the few country in the world where encryption was illegal, along with Iran, Irak and North Corea. I think that even today you're legally limited to 128-bit encryption, but nobody gives a shit. I think that most legislators never heard about such a thing as encryption, let alone key escrow. Basically no legislator gives a shit about computer security because there are other more important problems, like getting reelected through FUD. France's policy on computer security is simply one long string of oddities, mainly composed of long forgotten fags nobody cares about anymore. It's quite nice actually! No DMCA, multizones DVD players everywhere...
Nobox: Only simple products.
The export to non-US citizens has been regulated but you've been able to legally use any crypto you want in the US, and you've been legally able to ship it to foreign offices of your US company.
I don't expect that to change.
Is there a full moon today? The crackpots, cranks and communists are out in droves!
a research *fellow* and *deputy*-director... Come on guys, you could tell his article is crap by just looking at this guy's picture; he is actually Osama with a different haircut and a moustache glued on!
Well. Digital Crypto , is for the most part 90% a waste of time for particularly sensitive data.
Its like the old MasterLock commercials, "Sure you can shoot it with a 308 in the middle and itll hold" but take a $5 pair of bolt cutters to it and its dust. Crypto is the same way, the client computers are the weak link, and as goverments spend more time and effort on Electronic Cypto, assuming it is the preffered route.
Well quite frankly it makes it EASIER to disseminate information in the plain REAL world, How hard is it to get a warrant to sniff email, In the US you dont even NEED one !!!!.
BUT let the FEDS TRY to get a warrant to open your snail mail, its damm near impossible.
Paper and Pen , these are going to be the Crypto tools of the next century.
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
A media war will eventually ensue that will make al else before it look tame by comparison.
The average priveleged person, having got used to getting media for free, yet still remaining anonymous, will rebel against the marketing establishment.
Declining sales will force many to forgo thier luxuries, however, marketing force will prevail, leading priviledged mankind into a self-serving environment so selfish as to surpass all that has gone before.
This will eventually lead to a war against those that have and those that have not.
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
This is yet another point demonstrating the superiority of OSS & FS.
Closed-sourced-software (CSS) can easily be regulated, because it often has immobile targets of regulation. Companies can't afford to dick around with defying government regulation.
However, try to regulate OSS / FS. Its not possible. Few things go into OSS / FS that users don't want, and if things go in there that users really don't want, they will eventually be purged (either by a fork, or by users individually who simply delete the offending lines of source code).
Part of the reason OSS / FS is not regulable is because you can't control what users do with it once they get it. A user gets OSS / FS software, and it can include all the DRM and spyware in the world -- doesn't matter if the user doesn't want it; the user can simply delete the offending lines of code, do a little bit of work, and recompile, or (s)he can hire someone else do to do that. It only takes one person to do this and then offer the modifications to the public -- possibly anonymously -- for the offending code to be removed from nearly every install. [it should be noted that this has even occured for CSS (refer to Kazaa, which includes virus', spyware, and adware, all of which were removed in KazaaLite)].
The other reason why OSS / FS can't be regulated is because of its very nature. How do you regulate something for which no one makes any profits, no one need reveal their identity to contribute to, and which is free as in freedom (and usually free as in beer)? You can't. Not effectively anyways. Sure, the government can drag its heels, but there is no effective way to regulate OSS / FS -- not even for an authoritarian state like China. Every move that is made attempting to regulate OSS / FS can easily be countered and alluded by OSS / FS devlopers.
Demand that no one release crytpo software w/o a gov't backdoor, the penalty being multi-million dollar fines and long jail time? Works great on all CSS and businesses. They'll be scared shitless; their execs and programmers too. Doesn't work at all on OSS / FS developers. They simply start developing and posting anonymously, possibly post from a server in another country, possibly move to another country, or publish the code from a public terminal.
This is not to say the government can't be an inconvenience. Taking special steps to post anonymously or posting from a public terminal is a nuisance, as would be (obviously) hosting software on a server outside one's own nation or moving to another nation. Obviously, we should work to make OSS / FS as unregulatable as possible. The CBGTA should not be allowed to in any way touch OSS / FS.
Obviously, one major key to making sure government regulations don't hinder OSS / FS is anonymosity. The government cannot regulate what it can't see. Regulation relies on having a target to be regulated -- i.e., the poster of the code. If one can't see that target, one can't effectively regulate. Another key is distribution. Even if the government can't regulate the developers themselves, it can target the servers they use to post their code to the world, taking it down. The way to deal with this is obviously mirrors, as well as working on distribution through P2P.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
As seen on cryptome.org, on the 24th of this month there will be a public meeting of the Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC). One of the topics on the agenda is "changes to the mass-market encryption regulation". Anyone have any insight into this?
Devon
I never compared the US to terrorists. Try reading it again.
The ones that included the votes of law-abiding non-felons who were "accidentally" excluded as felons by Jeb's "clean up the vote" team.
If the cops get a search warrant for, say, pot plants in your house, they'll be able to tell pretty easily whether you're growing or not. Step 1: find all the plants; step 2: see if they're pot plants.
... 3 years, 4 appeals, and 1 bankruptcy later.
But say they want to look for incriminating digital evidence that you're growing or dealing pot. You can't just decrypt the stuff you want them to see and say, "This is not the encrypted data you're looking for. I can go on my way."
No, they're going to decrypt everything. This means that while they might not find evidence of pot, they might find something else. And sure, it may not stand up in a court of law
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But then again, what about the open source projects? Who's providing the crypto? Where are they? Does downloading a program hosted on a server in the US from a computer in South Africa make the server provider a company which had to register? What happens if they haven't? What if I'm just distributing source code? You see, even if you say "okay, well, we'll just screw over RSA but we'll all be fine in our Stallman Warm Fuzzy Blankets," you're ignoring the issues involved in registration laws.
Yeah, the laws have softened in the U.S. yet no Linux distribution (other than ones originating from outside the country) will ship with an IPsec implementation pre-installed.
There is still alot of fear that this softening of restictions will eventually rebound.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
----------------------
Here is a list of some distributions that do include IPsec and their country of origin:
SuSE Linux (Germany)
Conectiva (Brazil)
Mandrake (France)
Best Linux (Finland)
Polish(ed) Linux Distribution (Poland)
come on fhqwhgads
Controls on the use of encryption software or hardware
- Accordingto the Federal Law on Telecommunications ( Loi fédérale du 21 juin 1991 sur les télécommunications , RS 784.10) and its implementing ordinances:
- The production of cryptographic software and hardware is not subject to any limitation.
- The use of cryptographicsoftware is not subject to any limitation.
- Cryptographic products as well as other telecommunications equipment that can be connected with a public telecommunications network must be approved by the Federal Office of Communications (FOC).
- Radiocommunications must normally occur in plaintext, a license permitting encryption may, nevertheless, be obtained from the FOC. For other forms of telecommunications, encryption is permitted without a license.
Controls on the import of encryption- The ordinance concerning the export of transit of products does not stipulate any licensing obligation for the import of products, including cryptographic hardware and software.
- The only rules applicable in this context are those relating to the Import Certificate (IC). The IC is one of the documents that may be necessary for the supplier to obtain an export license from the authorities in the country of origin, It is, therefore, up to the authorities of the country of origin to determine whether or not an IC is to be required from the country of destination in order to get a license.
- For imports of cryptographic equipment, Switzerland issues an IC only if there is a formal request from the country of origin.
- As for exports of cryptographic equipment, Switzerland normally requires the presentation of an IC from all the countries of destination, the authorities of which issue such a document. Member countries of all the four international export control regimes are exempted from this requirement: The Australia Group (AG), the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Nuclear Supplier's Group (NSG), and The Wassenaar Arrangement (WA).
Export controls on encryptionThe export and re-export of cryptographic hardware, software, and technology listed in the aforementioned ordinance requires an individual validated license. However, deliveries to end-users in the countries that are members of all the four international export control regimes (i.e., AG, MTCR, NSG, and WA) are exempted from the license obligation.
The Swiss Federal Office of Foreign Economic Affairs (FOFEA) is the licensing agency. The specific criteria considered in determining whether to grant a license are those of the WA, namely "to prevent the acquisition of armaments and sensitive dual-use items for military end-uses, if the situation in a region or the behavior of a state is, or becomes, a serious concern for the participating states."
The transit is subject to a limited prohibition. If the country of origin restricts the export of the products listed in the annex (e.g., cryptographic products), their transit is forbidden if it cannot be proven (e.g., with a license) that the transfer to the new country of destination is in accordance with the legislation of the country of origin.
Export controls are overseen by the Swiss Federal Office of Foreign Economic Affairs (FOFEA). Restrictions on the domestic use of cryptography on public telecommunications networks are the responsibility of the Federal Office of Communications (FOC).
The Commerce/NSA report concurs that there are no import or domestic use restrictions in Switzerland.
On July 8, 1997 Franz Blankart of the Swiss FOFEA, endorsed the communiqué of the European Ministerial Conference on Global Information Networks in Bonn, Germany. The communiqué stated the participating ministers "will work to achieve international availability and free choice of cryptography products and interoperable services, subject to applicable law." The ministers also declared that "if countries take measures in order to protect legitimate needs of lawful access, they should be proportionate and effective and respect applicable provisions relating to privacy." The ministers also took note of the recently agreed OECD Guidelines on Cryptography policy as a basis for national policies and international co-operation. The ministers also emphasized "the need for a legal and technical framework at European and international levels which ensures compatibility and creates confidence in digital signatures."
Ref: Embassy of Switzerland letter dated June 31, 1997.
A Study of the International Market for Computer Software with Encryption , U.S. Department of Commerce and the National Security Agency, July 1995.
As an Englishman having grown up in the Netherlands (and gone through the schooling system) I think I have a good perspective on your thoughts about the Netherlands.
:) )2 0011113-27.html); you can now legally 'dissapear' in the USA, and I haven't heard all that much about this one.
First off, an on-topic bit, then a reply:
On-topic: What an allarmist headline. I kind of freaked out, before I remembered that the Counsil of Europes laws still have to be ratified per country. And in the Netherlands, the parties involved in setting up the new coalition for government (we just had elections) don't have anything of the like in the works. And it doesn't look as if it'll even be discussed in the next four years. Appart from that, the current parties ideologies (whatever else you might think of one of the parties) don't support such a course of action.
Anyway, here's my reply to something else:
You haven't ever been here, have you? I haven't really seen dutch law be tough on anything much. Sure, there's trial and punishment, but I know that this freedom you speak of IS present in the Netherlands, and not even remotely in USA.
An example:
-DMCA, non existant here (no comparable law either...remember Kazaa?)
-the right to use recreational drugs: nonexistent in the US (btw, the Netherlands still has one of the lowestaddict rates in the world
-the right to walk up to the minister-president and call him an idiot to his face (which I wouldn't do with the current one, because he has half a brain): I'd be intercepted before I came within a hundred meters in the US, here he'd scowl and walk on.
-Being able to do whatever I want with the dutch flag...god, I remember the lawsuits you guys have over a piece of textile.
-For diety-of-youyr-choice's sake: Patriot-act (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/
-combine the previous with Bush's plans for an informant network a million strong comprised of utility workers (like electric meter checkers) to spy on you...wow, the US might get it's own Stasi in a months time. Check the www.washingtonpost.com on this one.
-you MUST declare you're allegiance to the flag! That is a hold over from the McCarthy era, for crying out loud! And I'm an atheist, so had I had to go to school there, I'd have to lie every single day.
And there's loads more (drinking age, topless sunbathing, police brutality and racial profiling [both do not exist here in any significant way]).
The thing is, in the US people have this big hangup on freedom, but it's a myth. It is something they think they have, but because you don't know any better, you accept things like a senator Disney (come on! You know that's plain bribery!).
Here, we've got Westerbork. Go there, or any internment camp (hey, try X-camp, why dontcha...they spat on the Geneva conference there, too) and you'll get it.
Every so often, I still see someone with numbers tattoo'd on the inside of their arm. That's a real reminder, a reference point to remind us that 'that must never happen again'. And by and large, it doesn't.
But this TRUE freedom comes at a cost: politicians can get assasinated easier. But you know what? Every single politician still makes him/herself available, walks/bikes across the public square of the government buildings, because otherwise that idiot with a gun will have won.
"Terrorism is something you fight an ongoing battle with, not something you can beat in terms of office."
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
I think anarchists are far too utopian if they think this system will work...
The key word in your statement is "should".
If a group of people does not pool decision making and enforcement (which is what a government is) then the majority of honest people will lose out to cheats or thieves. This situation is unstable.
If there are no rules enforced very rapidly people need a strongman to resolve disputes and one arises (e.g. the new "Emir" of Herat/western afghanistan). He then seeks legitimacy as a king, and it becomes heriditary (because humans like their own kids, unlike in the world of Logan's Run).
Eventually we get a democracy or representative democracy, or perhaps there is a better style of leadership as yet unknown. But I think it better to aim at current "democratic" values (representation, individual rights, transparency) rather than start from scratch.
Now, some of the people who commit murder get caught, and that's useful, so we haven't tossed out our laws against murder yet .. and I don't think we're going to.
Similarly, look at the US' "war on drugs" that we've been fighting since the Nixon administration in the 1970's .. that should make two things clear about the utility of unpopular and difficult-to-enforce laws:
The observation that crypto bans are unlikely to be obeyed perfectly is not going to mean much to legislators - they pass lots of other laws they fully expect to be broken. That's what criminal laws are for. In the US, law enforcement and intelligence agencies would prefer that nobody use crypto, ever - but they've had to settle for significantly hindering its adoption with complicated export laws and periodic domestic regulatory proposals. While you say that the US is an example of "crypto freedom", it's also an example of the ways that, while crypto might not be effectively forbidden, its use and distribution can be limited such that surveillance and eavesdropping are still productive activities.
first there are a lot of people in the US who wear towels around their heads. you ever seen a woman keep her hair in place straight out of the shower?
second how come so many miss, if being guided by 'lasers' is so good?
third your soldiers may sit at 30,000ft sipping cold bevvies, but they sure as hell don't drop bombs from that height. Or at least if they do, that could be a reason why they miss!
To go back to the much-derided gun analogy, look at the situation in Chicago with handgun registration. In 1968 Chicago imposed mandatory firearm registration, with no effect on homicide rates. In 1982 Chicago closed handgun registration, forbidding any new firearms from being registered.
Since 1983, the number of legally registered handguns has dropped from 750,000 to 164,030 in 2001. Permits must be renewed every year, and as residents age, move out of town, or forget to renew, the number of grandfathered owners drops. Meanwhile, Chicago continues to set homicide rate records
Each year in Chicago's "gun court", hundreds of people are convicted for a 'catch-22' crime, not doing something (registering a handgun) that they are not allowed to do (closed rolls since 1983).
I wasn't too upset with the initial "Clipper Chip" proposal, as a work-around to the funky "munitions" export restrictions the US had imposed. But any legislation that promotes "key escrow" is inherently frightening.I'm not so much concerned about "the government" intercepting my communications as I am with the real-life abuses that will come out of the infrastructure involved, including the sharing of intercept data with corporations and other interested parties.
I have nothing to hide from any three letter agency, but I cannot trust that such information will stay there. When priviledged communication is made available to my competition, to megacorporations, to "patriotic" extremist religious groups with their own agenda, I have a problem.
The issues that OpenBSD works around by being based in Canada are solely related to the restrictions (since relaxed) the USA had on the export of encryption. The PGP issue was related to US patents on certain algorithms.
In the USA, us Americans are unrestricted in our use of crypto, except that we run afoul of munitions export laws if we share our crypto routines with foreigners, including foreign nationals in the US.So yes, we are 'a bastion of unregulated encryption', but like any nation, we don't like our citizens providing weapons to enemies of the state. No contradiction there.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
"Ironically, this leaves the United States -- the birthplace and graveyard of the Clipper Chip -- as one of the few bastions of unregulated encryption."
Think about it: Wouldn't DOD/whatever traffic be easier to intercept and decrypt if it were the only encrypted traffic in the US? The more Joe Shmoe uses encryption, the tougher it is for enemies to pin down flows that have any stratiegic value.
other crypto restrictions have taken root around the world
Oh no! I just got home and found out my box got rooted by Crypt0 r35tr1c710n5 too! How are we going to stop this hacker?
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
Because there are only six countries in the world after all.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
- DMCA has nothing to do with freedom of speech -- it's just a buzz word surrounding copyright stuff that is trying to protect honest ppls work from being ripped off. I can buy a game and clone it for "backup" purposes, i guess but that has nothign to do with freedom if i can or can't. So you're saying the netherland does not enforce anyones copyrights, etc.? That sucks for artists, programmers, and writers. ;-). Alcohol is legal here, that's also recreational. Extasy is dangerous, so is acid, etc. Really pots is the only recreational drug not legal. :) :)
- i agree about recreational drugs. i heard some studies that cigarettes are more addictive that heroine but they are legal and pot is proabbly not as addictive but probably just as bad for you
- You can put up a website of the president getting ass-fscked by a rhino and all the racist gibberish you want: freedom of speech. but running up to the president of any country will get you a bullet in the head...
- You have the freedom to take a shit on the flag over here if you want. However, ppl also have the right to call you an asshole on the street for doing it.
- your patriot act link in broken but we have freedom in worship besides those stupid inconsistent tidbits in our pledge or printed on our currency...
- ? utility worker spies...i'll have to get back to you on that one
- you DONT HAVE TO DECLARE THE PLEDGE OF allegiance in school...i still think the "under god" violates seperation of church and state, but any discussion gets thwamped with cries of "we have bigger things to worry about these days" reaction. hahaha...ridiculous.
- drinking age, nude sunbathing are against the law but they aren't as effectively enforced just as your pot "epidemic". Racial profiling and police beating is not endorsed by the US govt. Don't know where you heard otherwise.
I do agree the lobbying and campaign finance reform are important issues that should be addressed to cut down on corruption and more extremem form of copyright and digital media control.
You have the myth that Americans are stupid and ignorant, and dopely watch TV instead of our officials and politicians while much the opposite is indeed true! Funny how everyone else always thinks they are the only ones who "see the truth".
Don't substitution one generalization for another.
But this TRUE freedom comes at a cost: politicians can get assasinated easier
Yikes, what does this have to do with freedom unless you are a gun-nut who equales freedom with getting a firearm without a background check or being able to carry it on them where ever they go.
We can easily even email our congressman/woman here (with PGP of course
Kind regards
why run from Vincenzo?
Interesting... In a country that is supposed to value privacy and individualism above all else, tools to protect privacy are considered to be "weapons."
I suppose by that reasoning trial by jury could be considered a "conspiracy."
If you do not think that is a contradiction, you should really consider returning to university for a logic course.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
Yes, your honor, my plaintext was AIRDHG)($%QWJKSADLFKM I encrypted a few bytes off of /dev/srandom, as a traffic analysis countermeasure. If you'd like, here is the key I used.
(Generate a random key first, then decrypt the cyphertext with it. I wonder if that would hold up in court.)
What makes a terrorist give his private (PGP) key to the government ? People sending illegal data won't be that stupid to send their own keys.
...
Is this a way so every transaction can be seen by the government ?
What if a PKI get's hacked, thousands of keys would be lying there on the street
It bothers me that "everything is for the sake against terrorism" though a lot of these laws do not apply to terrorists because they are lawless...
The only people that will be affected will be the citizens.
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
But they provide a second check,
It isn't the Job of a Judge to arrest and find people guilty, but it is the Job of the police and they may have targets to meet.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Just having elections isn't enough. you need to have separation of powers. The United States does that extremely well, (although I'm sure they could improve).
On paper this appears to be the case. But the complete domination of US politics by two political parties makes rather a nonsense of this...
Forcing me to feed my kids isn't a "right" is a violation of my "right" to let the kids die..
In general a right is something that prevents discrimination or persecution of a group, a right is given to someone.
on the other side there's obligations,
An obligation might be something like you are obliged to feed you kids.
You have the right to be treated fairly by an employer, this is done by giving that employer some obligations.
Your kids have the right to be feed by you, this is done by giving you some obligations.
If someone fails in there obligations and deprives you of your rights then there rights are removed from them... E.g. the right to have/look after children, the right to own or run a company and employ people.
In the UK when someone fails in there obligations your rights are still upheld, the kid still gets fed, you get support until you find a job etc....
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
If you can show that a company is biased in that way then you can take them to tribunal and they will be forced to give you a Job and fined etc....
The UN list includes basic freedoms of life, liberty, freedom of movement, legal recourse and equality before the law. They also include a number of freedoms that justify cryptography and the right to not be forced to reveal your keys:
This doesn't specifically include crypto, but it can be argued that privacy and freedom of thought and conscience include freedom to not be compelled to expose private data. There's a huge difference between the concept of'unlimited freedom, without restriction' and the concept of 'governments can do whatever they like to their subjects'.More pragmatically, allowing people near-unlimited personal freedom to try and fail clearly is a successful model. If my actions do no material harm to others, why restrict my freedom?
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
You've said endowded by your creator,
Lets say my creator was Satan and he gave me the right to eat little kids, or my creator was natural law and I can do anything I want.
You would then say that somone has the right to lock me up, but that I have the right to kill them for tring to infact i have the right to drop a nice big nuke on America.
A right is somthing that is decided otherwise it just is.
Why can you scratch you head, well just because i can
Why can you expect your employer to comply with the terms he laid out in the contract, well because it's my right to be treated that way.
Lets say my employer was a land owner. Lets say he's a roman land owner say a thousand or so years ago, lets say I'm a white saxon, lets say I a white saxon slave well thats my right is it!.
There not Christian.... Have you not read the bible?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
You've just changed your stance.
Well done, read through all the comments you have made and make sure there consistant.
you've argued everything from god given rights and natural law (three wolves and a sheep!) to morality
What you've just said is that thease things don't tie up in the way you think they do, but you havn't realised that yet.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
You've just created a paradox, this is why we have 'rights'
I cannot force you to obey my will
and you cannot forge me to obey your will.
But what happens where there's a conflict.
I want to build a house on this bit of land,
you also want to build a house on the same bit of land (after all i want it so it must be good!)
Extend the argument to lots of things and there are huge networks of conflicting interests, someone has to decide who's going to win and who's going to loose (there by forcing there will upon you!).
I cannot live through subsistance because it conflicts with others who want land. So I don't have the right to be subsistant (i.e. I need a Job) and inturn land owners &co have a responsibility to employ me.
This is the sheep and wolf problem.
The sheep want to eat grass, and the wolfs want to eat sheep, the comprimise is for the wolfs to manage the sheep population which inturn manages there population. (we do this through farming)
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Who Owns the land?
No-one it's the begining of time. infact who decides who owns the land, who has that right?
The whole basis of the philisophical argument is taken from the begining of time and then extrapolated, this produces a logical argument with no moral conflicts. Starting the argument as the current time implies all current moralities on that argument.
"You have a responsibility to learn a useful skill"
Well who is going to teach me, goto begining of paradox loop.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Ok lets pick out the rights you mentioned in the past couple of comments that impose someone elses morals on another.
"claims the land" , again who decides that you've claimes it....
"US National Forest" has more rights than normal land, this has imposed the moral of not destroying the forest on say logging companies
You mentioned that is my responsiblity to learn so I can't just go to a place of work and start working there, it is my responsibility to learn, read previous desussion on responsibilities and rights, this point was made very early on.
the skills, you failed to extrapolate the argument and take into account why skills are required.
Remeber I don't want you to believe the things I believe, I just want to make sure you realy know what YOU believe and try to express an argument using terminology that you understand and pointing out where I don't understand your terminology. If your arguments contain paradoxes and conflictions then you mind isn't clear in your beliefs
And what the hell do you have agains Gay Wales that makes you want to nuke them?
BTW, I got kicked out of collage and am more or less wholly self taught. My main work is breaking down systems into components and performing abstract dataflow analysis, I have been doing this for 15years and am respected by both my peers and colleagues, conflict resolution and Systems analysis is what I do and what people praise me for doing.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.