Slashdot Mirror
Clay Shirky: RIAA Succeeds Where Cypherpunks Fail
scubacuda writes "Clay Shirky has an interesting take on encryption: 'The RIAA is succeeding where the Cypherpunks failed, convincing users to trade a broad but penetrable privacy for unbreakable anonymity under their personal control. In contrast to the Cypherpunks "eat your peas" approach, touting encryption as a first-order service users should work to embrace, encryption is now becoming a background feature of collaborative workspaces. Because encryption is becoming something that must run in the background, there is now an incentive to make its adoption as easy and transparent to the user as possible. It's too early to say how widely casual encryption use will spread, but it isn't too early to see that the shift is both profound and irreversible.'"
...for some reason it's not listed (at least, I couldn't find it) on the front page of shirky.com yet:
m l.
http://www.shirky.com/writings/riaa_encryption.ht
The Army reading list
The Cypherpunks never went around suing people (that is, actually costing them money) who weren't using encryption to mask their illegal activities. The RIAA is.
Real world practicality will always be a much better motivator than abstract idealism.
No wonder no one was taking their advice.
Encryption is good, as long as the people using it are good. When people use encryption to hurt other people, it becomes a serious liability.
I have been pwned because my
The posting is pointing to the cypherpunks website, not to the article. Me no grok.
what does the H stand for?
yeah really.....maybe its just too early, but I read the submission 3 times and still makes little sense. WTF???
Ryan's Law: Make three correct guesses consecutively and you will establish yourself as an expert.
I read the post, and the link goes nowhere...
What the hell is this talking about?
Something about the RIAA and encryption needs to be in the background? Damn it, organize your thoughts BEFORE you speak!
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - some goomer named Clay Shirky is still unknown as of this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will continue to not know who the hell he is - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's total denial of his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American cipher.
Harold.
what eating peas has to do with encyprtion? I'm totally lost.
Shirky means that using encryption is good for you and that's the approach that proponents (Cypherpunks) have used, even though using encryption has historically been difficult and an unpleasant experience for the average user. Hence the "eat your peas" reference, similar to parents who try to get children to eat vegetables which they find distasteful (an unpleasant dining experience).
oooooh.... him card read good.
Before I read the article, I'll just point out that the Cypherpunks' "eat your peas" approach actually gives the users control over how their anonymity and security takes place. Sure it gives you more responsibility -- you have to buy the locks yourself -- but it also gives you control over how it happens. You basically only have to trust the person who made the lock, but you can have the blueprints so that you know it works.
RIAA-style privacy is basically a Housing Company telling you that they'll take care of everything, and that you don't need to worry because you're probably safe. Note, of course, that the RIAA companies are the types whose security has been foiled by such stunning feats of ingenuity as writing on a CD with a magic marker, or an algorithm written by a 16-year-old that can be implemented using as much space as fits on the side of a pencil.
What the RIAA gets people to adopt is the style of "no-brainer" security people are used to when they get their lockers broken into at the gym, as opposed to asking us to take some frickin' responsibility for ourselves as the Cypherpunks would urge.
from the article:
to a first approximation, every PC owner under the age of 35 is now a felon.
This may or may not be an exaggeration, I have no idea, but Shirky makes a good point. When the vast majority of a society is violating a certain law, it is a sign that the law, not the society needs to change.
At this time, it seems that the RIAA is winning, and we are moving inexorably towards a world where large corporations control what people do with there computers. However, because there is so little popular respect at the moment for copyright law, it follows that eventually those laws will change.
Over the next 5-10 years, I predict that many laws will be completely rewritten to better accommodate the changes that the internet has brought upon society. Many of these changes will be for the better, and the end result will almost certainly be a more free and open society. Unfortunately, democracies are slow to act, so there will be years more of legal confusions and abuses of power before things finally straighten out.
Let's make a difference
The RIAA isn't setting out to do this, it's happening as a result of peoples' fear of a RIAA lawsuit.
--
Nice article. Unfortunately, apathy will ultimately reign supreme. People want to turn on their computer to get something. They don't want to be car mechanics in order to be able to drive a car. If the p2p software comes preconfigured to use encryption, then it will get used. If it has to be enabled, then it won't happen very often. It does not really matter if I want to use PGP, if no one else I communicate with is willing or able to install and use it.
It was unintelligible unless you read it three or four times.
Wait for about three days and Slashdot should have a sufficent ammount of dupes to make it much more clear =P
Anybody else thinks that, if encrypted file-sharing becomes a reality, the RIAA will simply implode?
From the article:
to a first approximation, every PC owner under the age of 35 is now a felon.
Now remember what the Cypherpunks said a few years ago?
If crypto is outlawed,
only outlaws will have encryption
There you have it: goodbye RIAA. We hardly knew ya. You made us all felons, and by doing so, you opened the floodgate that were going to drown you.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
I do not like hiden encryption. I like to know everything is working and not get to confortable. Don't want to be cought ignoring that lock icon on your browser these days.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_033.html
However it's a rather tenuous link to say that the RIAA succeeded where Cypherpunks failed. Advocates are one thing, but really the rise of P2P applications and the growing Internet user base are what have caused P2P to become a real PITA for the RIAA. Therefore they make high profile legal cases to grab media attention. However, they could not realistically target piracy any more than the police raids on weekend markets in London will stop home-burned DVDs from being sold on a stall.
So, some people will use encryption just like Del Boy and Rodney (UK reference to Only Fools and Horses) used a suitcase for their wares and ran whenever the Police came close by. But massive public adoption of cryptography will only be because it will be built in for a reason (rather than optional) and because processors are fast enough to encrypt/decrypt on the fly with long keys... and still, it's a prediction. It's not mainstream yet - and the main thing this guy is forgetting is that the RIAA will bait and trap users with or without encryption on the wires.
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
I'll even risk my Karma on it. The Slashdot communioty needs to be able to point out ways for the /. editors to improve. Making sure that there is a link in the blurb to the story mentioned in the blurb is sorta important. Don't ya think? Perhaps mr Coward, was a bit terse in his language, but honestly there are quite a few posts already that ask for the real link. So if it takes a few sarcastic, but on topic, barbs to motivate them, so be it. There is no better motivation than sarcasam. Except perhaps for a well written piece on the need for sarcasam. ;)
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Harold.
Read your Bible, when Jesus is nailed up he looks down and says to his followers "Cry not for me, lest you forsake my middle name 'Harold'!" At which point he got a spear in the side, his loincloth fell off and his small weiner made the crowd laugh.
The RIAA has blunders at least twice. First it shutdown Napster 'way late (because it wasn't easy), now it is harassing KaZaa users with even less success. The next incarnation will be even tougher. They ought to be putting their energies into a paradigm shift like iPod. Or maybe even running their business competantly, with decent A&R budgets and better terms for musicians and customers since their distribution monopoly has faded.
The reference to RIAA is not about their use of encryption in the form of DRM. It's about how conflict with the RIAA has resulted in many mainstream non-nerd people using privacy-enhancing tools (and more broadly: gaining a pro-privacy mentality).
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Abstract idealism often tells the future. The Cypherpunks can once again send up a resounding "told ya so!"
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
Not really. There's been several explosions of various file/disk encryption products. Your handheld device isn't a Somebody(Something?) until it's got at least a dozen "encrypted" personal information storage widgets for it.
The problem is that encryption is 90% snake oil. Usually it's written by someone who thinks they know encrpytion- and encryption isn't, to coin the phrase, like a hand grenade; close doesn't count. Zimmerman is famous for his saying that "anyone who claims to have unbreakable encryption doesn't"(apologies for paraphrasing).
Encryption also does little when physical security can't be controlled; Dallas Semi had the right idea with their iButtons, which brought reasonably secure key storage to the masses(if opened, for example, it erased itself) but it's gone pretty much nowhere; you just don't see them in widespread use(unlike, say, a proximity card or magswipe). I suspect even USB keys now vastly outnumber iButton devices.
All the encryption in the world won't do you any good if you can't store the keys securely...and these days, all it takes is a janitor with a CDROM with linux that 'phones home' and sends back choice tidbits...or an ipod.....or a USB hard drive..or a USB memory key...or a blank CDR, since so many machines come with CD burners now...
Please help metamoderate.
...and Hitler actually unified many diverse nations inadvertently by forcing them to work together.
I guess it makes sense, but I'm not going to be putting the RIAA into my prayers at night because of it.
...he passes to moses who shoots...and SCORES!
Haploid.
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
I heard Warsaw sucks. I also heard Prague is wonderful unless you happen to be Russian. So why would I want to live in Switzerland or the French Riviera?
In case you still don't get it, the USA is a very big place. Some parts of the country are very nice, don't have massive crime or massive unemployment, and are good places to live. Other parts of the country are ugly, polluted, and may be extremely dangerous to live in just based on your ethnicity. It's not all one place, and can't be characterized in one meme, any more than you can sum up all of Europe that way.
like my raincoat!
i could live a little longer in this prison
This is not the problem!!!!
The problem is not people intercepting your mp3s - the problem is sharing an mp3 with a guy working for the RIAA or in my case the CRIA and they get your IP and then they go to your ISP in an attempt to get you booted off the net, exactly as happened to me.
For instance - on Sourceforge there is a sooperencypted IRC project for safe sharing.
Useless.
All the RIAA spies have to do is go on the net, get that software, join the queue for mp3s then rat you out exactly as specified above.
What we NEED is a way to share files in such a manner as the receiver has no idea what your IP is.
This is not going to be easy. (And please don't mention Freenet ok?)
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
you obviousally havent been here...
USA women are hard to get to suck...
it's that stuck up attitude we got from the french...
While the RIAA is trying to make people believe P2P means "piracy 2 pornography" and if you let kids use a computer they'll be targeted by a pedophile (sp?), it's their own actions that will cause the development of secure P2P applications that will actually let pedophiles trade pix/vids safely.
I wish the major news media could be made aware of this irony... but the money says otherwise.
I read the article and can find nothing there suggesting how I can trade anything for unbreakable anonymity, or even how unbreakable anonymity could even be implemented.
Encrypt the packets? Fine. You can still trace their origin.
Let's say that you do RSA key pairs, and build them into some sort of P2P. When two people connect, they swap public keys and encrypt the stream.
There is nothing that says that the person who is leeching a file from you isn't Hillary Rosen. Traceroute, and you're still nailed.
The only way to be truly anonymous in a P2P application would be to have the application auto proxy a neighbor. Here's how that would work.
User WantMusic jumps on the new P2P net and broadcasts a desire to download "myfavoritesong.mp3", and their RSA public key along with the request. Some other user, MusicBank, has the song. Rather than having the client pull the data directly from MusicBank, have MusicBank push the data to the client. Each outbound packet from MusicBank would at random select someone else on the net and say "Take this packet of data and pass it along to user WantMusic at this IP address."
If the someone else happened to be Hillary Rosen, all she would get is a packet of unreadable data - she doesn't have the private key. She could know who it was from, and where it was going but have no idea what it was. Might be music, might be the Linux kernel.
If Hillary jumps on the net and tries to download myfavoritesong.mp3, all she could do is traceroute a bunch of packets to 2nd party proxies. By the definition of the protocol, they don't have the file. They're innocent. She still doesn't know MusicBank has the file.
The disadvantage to this protocol is that it'd be slow. Each packet would have to hit a proxy. Instead of server->client, it'd be server->proxy->client. You could expect downloads to be at least 1/3 slower.
If I had the time, I'd write this sucker.
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
If you don't want to, then don't.
We arn't asking people to move here you know...
That's exactly what FreeNet does. It hides the sender and the reciever by rooting data through random other peers.
The major problem is that it's slow.
because we're too lazy to leave, and most people are too stupid to realized they've been brainwashed by the media/religion.
So much for a secular democracy. I'd say at this point we've shat upon the constitution and formed a protestant oligarchy.
VOTE FOR DEAN YOU RETARDS.
I fear the the gov't may very well outlaw encryption for the masses outright. I mean, what with terrorists and all, it wouldn't be terribly difficult for them to shove that down our throats.
Shirky: "In any system where a user's identity is in the hands of a third party, that third party cannot be trusted." The classic Mafia version of this is: "Two people can keep a secret as long as one of them is dead." Most people don't think that way, and even if they did they are unlikely to trust any technological system that promises absolute anonymity. The cypherpunks' fantasies are no more ready for prime time now than ever. Main problem is that anonymous communication is a chimeral fantasy, and any scheme to even experiment with their implementation is complex and onerous to all but people who like to read Schneier for fun, and play secret agent. Above all, cypherpunks chase anonymity like it's a virtue, when most of the worst aspects of the net are caused by anonymity and unaccountability.
I think the fastest way to get encryption turned on by default is to have these major email providers (like Yahoo and Hotmail) to turn on encryption by default. If they did so, then there will be enough momentum for the other providers to do so too, and anyone using encryption would not stand out as a potential trouble-maker ....
The reason why it is importatnt to have a critical mass of communications in encryption is becuase otherwise the people encrypting sorely stand out. If I decide (which I would love to) start encrypting today, many people would wonder what sort of shady business I have gotten into. Not to mention Ashcroft would be after me, with a claim that I am some Lone-Wolf terrorist ...
My point is that there should be there has to be enough people encrypting for it to become feasible. If I am one of the people encrypting while others are not then I am the proverbial needle in a haystack. Any magnet can easily pull me out by my jugular ... If I am one of the many other people encrypting then I am just another hay in the hystack ... much harder then to grab me by my b**** ....
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
Suppose all file sharing apps had encryption- if an individual can get on the network, then so can the individuals and robots working for the RIAA.
To defeat the RIAA all that is needed is a challenge that requires a HUMAN response. Right now they use robots- but they can't compete if they have to examine an image and type what it is (takes a real person).
A better approach than that, but harder and less efficient is something like Freenet-
but it really needs to use ed2k type links and incorporate a search for keys. And of course be written in C, so I don't have to install a bloated Java environment.
Perhaps Freenet might die if the RIAA decides to inject massive amounts of crap and download it (making their chunks popular and erasing existing files on the network.
So, freenet + human required = good, almost unbreakable.
Well said, but the RIAA is (IMO) way too fat in middle management to ever be able to give musicians the better terms we all instinctively know that they deserve. The answer (and yes, I'm both biased and financially self-interested -- but no, I don't speak for e-gold or anyone else but Jim Ray) is for musicians to "take-back the guitar-case" (the money is where the REAL control lies) and set up their own internet tipjars. It's been possible and easy for a few years, and finally they're going to learn to think in new ways about how to get paid by a planet-wide audience. They have had the technology for a while (since 1996 in some form or other).
Imagine a 'one-hit wonder' like Normal Greenbaum's "Spirit in the Sky," garnering 7 million or so direct tips for a quarter worth of gold (most tips would probably be more, if you actually liked the song enough to bother tipping the artist, and Norman's old "Spirit in the Sky" tune kinda rocks IMNSHO). I'm talking about more than a million dollars -- AFTER taxes. I have no idea what Norman's made from the song, but I doubt he did that well...
JMR
Speaking ONLY for Jim Ray.
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
The ablity to be anonymous and the speed of the network is directly related..
Cant have both, unless someone runs a central 'randomizer' service.. but then you have a single point of failure and insecurity.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
he didn't want to be slashdotted yet? :-)
That's why I'm hoping that private, encrypted p2p systems like WASTE or Foldershare take off! I don't think either of those systems are quite ready for mass acceptance, but they certainly point in the right direction -- private, encrypted file sharing networks that anybody can use.
Saying that using encryption is good doesn't change the fact that regular people see no use for encrypting everything.
People will send their CC numbers through regular email! How can we get people to use encryption? Transparency, transparency, transparency.
If I send, "agoij(*UOLHa^&&%alhkAHI3%&%&jdha8tFHD98ht4Fls 8" to Mom she'll delete it. If I send it, and she reads, "Buy me an iPod for Christmas", she'll still delete it, but at least she got the message with no labor on her side.
Until encryption is enabled by default, and is transparent to the user, clueless users will rule the way you communicate. Sadly, this puts much of the onus on Microsoft, which won't do anything until there is a huge! public backlash - then come out with a easily broken implementation of it. :(
Encryption use isn't about privacy, it's about necessity. When the great unwashed (wait, that's Linux users ;) - when the masses are FORCED to use it, that's when it will get used.
Apple could do what MS can't - have an 'Encrypt for OS X users' checkbox on their mail app. Then with some 'return receipt' automagically encrypt messages to other OS X users. (I'm not a programmer, can you tell?).
To sum up, users want to be safe, secure, and anonymous, but they don't want to do anything to make it happen. 'Eat what you get, and use what you have" is the pervasive attitude.
(Checks to-do list for today, hmm, semi-plausably accuse a *AA organization of being terrorists... check...)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The Cypherpunks never went around suing people (that is, actually costing them money) who weren't using encryption to mask their illegal activities. The RIAA is.
Am I the only one here who thinks that it is really sad that we are changing for the better not because of how we grow personally, but rather because we half to - to avoid having our freedoms being taken away? It just seems so wrong - I really feel sorry for those who won't be able to keep up.
My first thought was adding a password to a zip file, but that would require WinZip or similar file utility. Adding a password to the directory is easy enough but then your web host would have access to the originals. And, yes, I'm thinking about files I could leave on a web server as opposed to Email.
That would be really handy to have, especially if it was OS independent. Would make encrypting files a lot easier. It doesn't have to be bullet-proof, just stout enough to make decrypting it withouth the key a major pain in the behind.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
It's been some time since my last Chem class, but that's water, right? Two Hydrogen molecules bound to one oxygen molecule, making the classic H(2)O?
This is not going to be easy. (And please don't mention Freenet ok?)
Because it's got kiddie porn? Well, sorry, but you can't pick and choose anonymity. If there are logs the police can use to tell who shared that, the RIAA can subpoena the same logs to that show you shared mp3s. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Another thing is that Freenet is dead slow, in a CPU and memory-hungry Java-implementation, and in general not that great. But it's likely to improve...
The only other alternative I see that is pseudoanonymous is having a set of trusted friends, routing not only requests but also the data over it. That way, no part of the chain knows more than where it's coming from and where it's going Bob simply routed a connection between John and Bill. John doesn't know about Bill, Bill doesn't know about John. Bob doesn't know if the chain starts with John or ends with Bill or anything. Of course, this would also be a lot slower than direct P2P as is the norm today.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The RIAA isn't responsible for making encryption commonly deployed; sending credit card numbers to websites is. The pattern is essentially the same, however. The cryptographers work on stuff, the security people say you really need to use encryption, but people generally don't actually do anything about it until something of value to them is stolen, at which point encryption becomes widely used and transparent. A few years go by, and everybody forgets that what they're using is encryption.
Now people talk about how they expect encryption to get outlawed. I think Amazon's $19B market cap which depends directly on encryption and eBay's $38B which essentially requires it (not to mention all of the companies which do some of their business online) will prevent this. Then there are VPNs, telecommuting, overseas content outsourcing, and so forth. Encryption is, at this point, something the US economy depends significantly on, and it's not going to get outlawed any time soon.
- Declare victory.
Ta da! You've won a war! What? Didn't know there was a war going on? We like, didn't want to scare you? So we fought it? In secret? And we won? So now you should do thing our way? And pay us? Money we don't deserve?(P.S. Step 3 ???, Step 4 profit.)
This is not my sandwich.
You might find this article interesting.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santanya
This strikes me very much familiar along with the "war" on drugs. A previous post touched on this lightly as well. Be it encryption, invite only LAN MP3 share parties, USENET, or any of the other countless work arounds out there...By brandishing their lawyers they are in fact creating an underground which society has demonstrated they want to exist, and it will. Instead of trying to make use of this phenomenon, they want to bully people and focus their creative energies on how they can sue. Sounds eerily familiar to the ban of alcohol which founded organized crime in the US and gave a beautiful model for drug running today. In an effort to slay a beast, a new monster was created and the beast was welcomed with open arms in the long run and taxed accordingly to make it profitable and put into a mostly controlled environment. Of course it's not possible to put music into a controlled environment, but iTunes was able to make downloading music a business. Guess they should have focussed on hedging that new market instead of helping to create an underground they will never be able to control or profit from. (Go to concerts if you want the artists to get your money, and boycott RIAA backed media)
-1 Overrated (Too many big words for me to comprehend)
Encryption is now considered a weapon by the State Department.
I wonder how long it will be before the State Department and the content cartel go head to head over the issue: the content cartel arguing that they need unbreakable encryption to protect their content, and the State Department arguing that they need to limit encryption strength to catch "terrorists". The results will be interesting.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
are a 802.11b card, a 1W amplifier, and a nice 16dBi vagi antenna:
http://peertech.org/coder/vagi-amp-laptop.jpg
And voting for Dean means you haven't been brainwashed by media? Isn't he the guy who claims to have the approval of the guy who claimed to have invented the Internet? Take a cue from Douglas Adams. The person least interested in having the power is more than likely the person most capable of handling it.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
RIAA and MPAA, being comprised of entertainment executives and their lawyers which are known to be the lowest form of life on earth, would instinctively ... attempt to "join" these networks, posing as users looking for Britney's latest, and entrapping systems that serve up the bits? Will they put out bogus trojaned clients on the services? "Dude, download LockTella 1.9, it's l33t!!" only to find that it hoovers up passwords and music lists, and forwards them on to DUDE@RIAA.COM ....
Hopefully, however, the law and the constitution would step in since these tactics are just a tiny bit unethical, immoral and illegal. RIAA agents posing as file sharers and enticing others to load and run trojans that compromise their PCs and privacy in order to look for and obtain incriminating evidence is blatant entrapment and such evidence would/should be inadmissable in a court case.
It also looks like illegal search and seizure--and an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and misuse of private property. People have been convicted of criminal offences for deploying trojans and viruses and hacking into peoples machines (and rightly so). The rules should be no different for those acting on RIAA or MPAA's behalf regardless of their motives.
An internal server error occurred. Please try again later.
Slashdot slashdotted. Damn...
Unadvertedly of course, but if he had not tried to exterminate them or start a useless war, there would be no Israel, there had never been a cold war and many things more.
One thing is negative, though: the nazis didn't burn Bill Gates parents or grandparents.
without reading I see one issue, sure encryption IN the background is proceeding, especially that which you have no control over, and while it serves the surface function it leaves the user FURTHER under the control of a 'gatekeeper'.
The time for user implemented crypto came and went, PGP had potential to put the public good ahead of corporate and government interests.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
And voting for Dean means you haven't been brainwashed by media? Isn't he the guy who claims to have the approval of the guy who claimed to have invented the Internet?
Speaking of being brainwashed by the media, AL GORE NEVER SAID THAT. Sheesh, you'd think that with all the times this has been debunked, you people would eventually get it through your heads.
Swordfish
What gets me is that it gets modded up as informative. Do people lose their brain when they get moderator acces?
...because P2P is about exchange, and people need to know whom to send information to. What you CAN do however, is to make it very difficult to prove that the data in question ORIGINATED FROM YOUR IP. This can be done by massively modifying a standard P2P network, so that each client randomly serves as a relay for sending data or parts of data to another client. It's like tossing a ball around between friends and not letting RIAA catch it. I need piece #32 of Terminator4.avi, and so I send a request. Client #398 responds, saying that it can provide piece #32, while actually it receives it from client #UNKNOWN (ip you're not aware of) and sends it to you. The fact is that client #398 is most likely not a part of downloading of Terminator4.avi at all, and you will not find it on it's hard drive. It just participates in a scheme of global file distribution, serving as a temporary proxy, a shield for the client that actually does have it. There's no way you can accuse client #398 of transferring warez, because it only transferred a small chunk of encrypted data. Even if decrypted, its matching to a certain pattern inside Terminator4.avi can be a pure coincidence. Or it can even be a sum of several blocks inside the file, in which case it will not match any "whole" piece of the file at all. At this point, of course, an RIAA member can set up a computer, join this network, and try to catch the cases where HIS client is used as the relay, in which case his client becomes aware of a certain person's IP address, and that person sends the file chunk to the RIAA computer so that it can transfer it to the recipient. This can be made difficult, by requiring each new member of the network to have sufficient amount of "illegal" files (and not just the same file many times over!) actually shared with others for free, before it becomes fully a part of the network. This would require RIAA computer to have actual "illegal" files on it, and quite a few of them. If they fill it with fakes, they will either be unpopular and never become a part of the network, or, if some people actually acquire the entire file, they'll get a sufficient amount of "blacklisting" from the network to never be allowed to join it. So, RIAA will be forced to use warez in order to find warez sharers. Still, the problem of them acquiring IP's that way remains. Perhaps it can be solved by allowing recursive relays, where a chunk, instead of being proxied by one client, can travel through an indetermined amount of clients, say, up to 10, before it actually reaches its destination. However certain measures will have to be taken to prevent an "empty loop", where clients keep requesting the file from one another, and neither has it...
that if products like WASTE are widely adopted, then the RIAA wins. It's not a revolution, but a step backwards.
There has always been the illegal distribution of music between "trusted groups of users"... ever burn a compilation CD for a friend? What the RIAA is fighting is the free and widespread distribution of music between unknown parties.
The problem is, once the group becomes open, it then becomes easy to infiltrate and monitor.
This is evolution of a very basic kind. There are new predators stalking about, so to survive the animals in question need to develop camouflage or some other defense. The ones that do will be able to head to the watering hole without much worry, the ones that don't will either have to find a new watering hole farther away or will get eaten up I'm afraid.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Anonymity/anon_juris.ar ticle
putting the genie back in the bottle.
it's expression alone indicates the likelyhood of success.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Isn't that exactly how Freenet works?
I live in the USA and I agree with you. It is a lousy place and you wouldn't want to live here.
I wish I could leave.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Abstract Idealism often predicts nothing. It tells the future, but it tells a future that never happens. What about my flying car? Vacations to the moon and mars? The 5 hour work-week?
There's nothing abstract about a flying car. It's imaginary, but it's not abstract. Ditto the short work week et. al.
The message of the cypherpunks, on the other hand, was indeed abstract. "Use encryption or else... bad stuff will happen! Some, uh, bad people, they could, uh, take advantage of you... in ways we can only begin to imagine!" That's within spitting distance of Abstracicus Maximus, if you ask me.
our economy is looking forward to the next wave of educated individuals once the "mess-o-potamia" results in the draft down there - we did pretty good out of the bungle in the jungle that way, last time around
As well as apathy, there is ignorance. If a user doesn't know they're even using encryption (which most users of DRM probably don't), then their key can be stolen without them even knowing it was stolen. Say hello to identity theft!
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Isn't that how lots of tech analysts make their money? Rob Enderle comes out and says something like, "Linux will continue to grow in niche markets, but will never displace Microsoft in the enterprise." Then five years later we're still struggling for Linux on the desktop and Rob goes, "Told ya so! If you want my further advice for your organization, my rates are as follows..."
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
I'm a big fan of Clay, and I'm on his NEC mailing list (I read his article when it came in today), but I think this piece has some unusually (for him) shaky arguments in it.
What I'd like to see is his site as a blog that we could then discuss his essays on. He wouldn't have to take any notice of what we said, but seeing as he's big into online communities and communication networks, you think he might be into the idea.
I know, I'll mail him. Where's his public key?
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
I had to read the /. write-up about three times to workout what it was going on about. Couldn't have just said "RIAA ativities over the last year or so may have finally brought encryption and privacy concerns to the attention of the masses. Interesting article here"? I think that's what it's trying to say.
Where do you live that unemployment is lower?
The "massive crime rate" in the US is grotesquely overstated.
Getting the toothpaste back into the tube.
... probably isn't a cypherpunk.
Freedom: "I won't!"
RIAA isn't protecting the artists. They are protecting the profit making engines of corporate America, such as Sony and MGM. Artists usually owe money to the record company after a record deal. The artists make their money touring. Its a conspiracy if you ask me.
/for my two cents
Check out http://www.negativland.com/albini.html to give you an idea of who is actually benefiting from RIAA.
All I know is that since RIAA issued a subpoena to a 12 year old girl for having 2 illeagal MP3s, I will never again pay for music, EVER!!
You are right in your assumption that most people don't care about encryption for day to day email and whatnot. But that is not the issue. The issue is for spreading information that might get you in trouble. If I wrote an email to my mom to get an iPod i would not care if someone intercepted it and saw it. Encryption would never find a use in this instance.
Now say I want to send my friend some email giving him insider information that we will both (illegally) make money off of. That email I WOULD want encrypted. The best argument against such encryption (that I have seen modded high in this thread) is to say that the best use for hidden information is for actions that are immoral in nature. To that I argue that the internet is formed (or not formed really) from the social codes of the world. Its immoral to you but not someone across the world in a different culture. The Chinese Government would laugh at the RIAA if it asked it to stop music downloads.
And therein lies the issue. Main stream encryption won't come from Microsoft just like mainsteam P2P didn't. Because its more likely (in a big company like MS's eyes) to be used to steal the new office software that secure a home office. Main stream encryption will spread the same way napster was. Just as geeks then told nongeeks "Hey try this napster thing, you install it and it will let you get free music," encryption will be spread by an added sentence to the geek-nongeek conversation. "Hey try this kazaa (or what ever is the next big P2P app) thing, you install it and it will let you get free music. Also install (insert encryption program here)so that you can get away with it."
Encryption prevents the powers that be from bring down the hammer for not following order. That has nothing to do with something you mom probably wants to be involved with. Yet for some reason I like it cause I hate the man (even though I do like his stuff).
Open Source Sushi
"If you intentionally install a program that transfers files through your computer to others, then I doubt ignorance would be an acceptable defense if you're caught uploading copyrighted material. At least not in the US."
Not at all. First of all, one can use a program even when ppl use that for illegal purposes, as long as there is considerable other uses (such as free speech, which Freenet was created for). The court has already ruled about that.
Secondly, since a Freenet node can not make out if and what it requests on behalf of itself or of others, it has the same defence that ISPs have: they are not responsible for the content they have or pass through, unless they have been told where/what the offending item is and if they are in the possibility to remove it. With a freenetnode/network, neither can be done, so in principle they have that extra protection.
Furthermore, it's impossible to see if you are uploading copyrighted material, since it is encrypted. and it's not possible to see if you upload it yourself, since it can as well be somebody else. And even better; since the data caches itself randomnly when asked for, the fact that the RIAA would retrieve a song of someone and could prove it was on his node/HD, could actually mean THEY placed it there, meaning you have the defence of entrapment.
All by all, you have very good legal defences.
now, if only the speed was a bit better...
"Flying cars" on the other hand is a brain-damaged idea from the start. Except as off-road vehicles, the private motorized transporter was a brain-damaged idea from the start. Imagine the chaos of your usual rush-hour traffic jam. And multiply that by N levels of virtual roadways.
Morever, on a high-G world, flying is a terribly energy inefficient means of transport. Ever wonder why nature didn't invent flying elephants?
If you're caught in a jam, you can at least turn off the engine of your car to save fuel. If you turn off the motor of your flying car, you fall. Well, maybe a private airship wouldn't be a bad idea.
The next advancement in personal transport won't be a flying car or a flying Segway but teleportation. Fax me up, Scotty.
For email, why don't we just use digital signatures. This way, you can veriy the sender. The signature need not be attached to an ip address, which means you preserve your anonymity.
Songwriters make money off of royalties.
Songwriters of popular songs make insane amounts of money off of royalties.
Somebody one asked Kris Kristoffeson (or whatever) how he felt about having written "Help me Make it Through the Night." He said he felt like about $100,000 per year. (Still -- this was only a couple of years ago.)
My step kids are breakers. They were in a couple of commercials this year. I think they made about a $250,000 this year. (Off of royalties.)
There are a whole bunch of people who live in really lavish houses around here in Los Angeles. They have so many new high end cars and beautiful homes. I no longer wonder where they get their money from. (Hint: they get it from royalties.)
These people will kill to keep the royalty system running. It is the source of their bless'ed lives.
But they don't increase - at least not in a statistically significant way across multiple regions and time periods.
Having 55 MPH limits were actually more dangerous as it was the difference in velocity between vehicles that could contribute to an accident. Remember that limited access highways were designed for 70 -5 MPH.
Of course, once an accident happens, higher speeds mean greater severity (more energy to dissipate) - but again, these roads were designed to not have hard things you could decelerate suddenly against.
I'm some few years out of date with this - got actual studies, please post URLs and I'm prepared to be persuaded I'm wrong. If you're just making a point about "tragedy of the commons" - please stick to cows and grass.
It's fine to say "all technology is amoral" in the sense that morality is a human ability which cannot be ascribed to some mere mechanism or technique. But it's really weak to argue based on this semantic technicality for the dissemination of a technology (like biological or chemical weapons) that can have no net benefit to the world.
If the only "good" that you can point to in a technology is that it might be studied to find ways to prevent the evil it is capable of then on the balance that technology cannot possibly do more good than evil.
A world in which weaponized anthrax exists is in no way better than a world in which weaponized anthrax does not exist.
Back on topic, the analogous arguments with cryptography and anthrax are:
1. The Evil:
Anthrax enables bad people to do horible things (namely mass murder).
Cryptography enables bad people to plan horible things in secrecy.
2. The Good in preventing The Evil
Anthrax can be studied to develop an antidote, offsetting evil uses of anthrax (but only if we're lucky, have the antidote on hand, etc.)
Cryptography can be studied to find exploitable flaws, preventing evil meaning people from succesfuly planning horrible acts in secrecy (but only if we're lucky, can tap their communication channels and respond in a timely manner, etc.)
3. The Good in itself
Anthrax has no inate benefits.
Cryptography enables privacy. Go ask a cypherpunk, libertarian, or Canadian federal government official (we have a privacy commision, it's flawed, but a start) why privacy is a Good Thing.
So, while in a technical semantic sense all technology is amoral much like dirt is amoral, there is a practical scale of potential-for-good on which e.g. anthrax ranks much lower than encryption.
on M$FT the dvd-rom is plug and play. i sit and press play on DVD. it does not work. i install another driver. it does not work. i install Windows Update. it does not work. i install yet another driver. it does not work. I sit and gnaw my fists, and cry. then my friend comes and cheers me up. we must fight! we will win! we sit and hack. and hack, and nibble, and hacks. it does not work. i debug. it does not work. i delete the old source. and start again. i recompile. it does not work. i ask friends and they hack too. they debug. it does not work. we turn to guru. he gives 3 lines of code and says "you know the rest". we code. it works.