Slashdot Mirror


Safeguarding Data From Big Brother Sven?

An anonymous reader writes "Now that the Swedish government (in its infinite wisdom) has passed a law allowing them to monitor email traffic, a question that I think a lot of people are asking (or at least should be asking) is: 'What can I do to improve my privacy?' The answer is not obvious. So, what are the best solutions for seamless email encryption, search privacy, etc? What are your experiences with PGP vs GPG vs ...? In this day and age, why is the use of this type of privacy technologies still so limited? Why isn't there a larger movement promoting the use of privacy tools? Also, what is in your opinion the largest privacy concern? Search tracking? Email transfer? I believe this is an interesting question not only for Swedes, but for everyone. Lots of traffic is passing through Sweden, but more importantly, the Swedish government is not alone in using this type of surveillance." Reader j1976 writes with a related question: "For most users with email addresses within large organizations, implementing their own email encryption scheme is not feasible, partly because of the technological aspects, but also since users in organizations often do not have administrative access to their workstations. What can an organization do, centrally, to lift the burden of encryption from the users? Are there any transparent schemes for email encryption which could be installed for the organization as a whole?"

345 comments

  1. Here is what you do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop using email. There are already 17 reasons for that.

    1. Re:Here is what you do by Hyppy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Am I missing something? What significance does the number 17 hold?

    2. Re:Here is what you do by querist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is an unhappy prime.

    3. Re:Here is what you do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      17 is a cussword in Swedish. Incidentally, so is 1000. It's true, ask anyone from Sweden. In Sweden, 17 is also the most random number. If you need to make up statistics, it's traditional to use 17. Much like if you need a name for a method when discussing programming, you use "foo". I've seen university level math exams where every answer was 17. The professor had a wonderful sense of humor.

    4. Re:Here is what you do by HJED · · Score: 0

      interesting article i didn't know that!

      --
      null
    5. Re:Here is what you do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are those?

    6. Re:Here is what you do by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Name one!

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    7. Re:Here is what you do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call bs. No one, but maybe a really old person or a christian nutcase would use 17 and/or 1000 as a cuss word in Sweden.

      And no one, including the elderly and the nutcases would consider it "bad language".

  2. What about PirateBay/Relakks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I wonder how this affects people using Relakks. If the US intelligence agencies will get access to the data, it wont be long until the MPAA/RIAA get access to it also.

    1. Re:What about PirateBay/Relakks? by winphreak · · Score: 3, Informative

      A very good point, and so I looked it up on the Relakks website.

      "RELAKKS Safe Surf enjoys the strongest legal protection possible under Swedish Law because of the service type (pre-paid flat-rate service). This means that RELAKKS do not have to keep an ordinary customer database (to be able handle transactions etc.). This is of importance if forced to hand over information.

      If Swedish authorities can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they have a case for demanding subscription information from RELAKKS (they have to be of the opinion that if convicted the user will be imprisoned â" fined not enough). .

      RELAKKS then have to hand over the subscription information entered by you (but thatâ(TM)s all). RELAKKS do not store any subscribtion information about you except what you entered yourself when signing up for the RELAKKS Safe Surf service.

      For Swedish authorities to force RELAKKS to hand over âoetraffic dataâ including your RELAKKS IP at a specific point in time, they will have to prove a case with the minimum sentence of two years imprisonment.

      Regarding inquires from other parties than Swedish authorities RELAKKS will never hand over any kind of information."
      Source: https://www.relakks.com/faq/legal/

      Seems they'd need more then just one red flag to get your registration info, but that would be prior to the wiretap law.

      --
      "I'm a well-wisher, in that I don't wish you any specific harm."
    2. Re:What about PirateBay/Relakks? by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Encryption strenght : 128 bits
      FRA 1 point, RELAKKS 0 points

      Although not a bad idea they need stronger encryption to actually matter

      --
      She made the willows dance
  3. Secure tunnels by Gandalf_the_Beardy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Many of the financial service companies I contracted for have only been sending sensitive mail to maybe a half dozen clients. It's reasonably easy if the two IT departments get together to establish secure tunnels at the organisation level for transferring mail between them. Doesn't protect the mail outside these of course but it's a reasonably quick solution and effective if enforced with policies within the workgroup about what is and isn't permissible in an email. Requires no extra software and is easy to set up and manage.

    1. Re:Secure tunnels by networkconsultant · · Score: 1

      Options include:
      S/MIME, PGP, GPG, VPN's are good too, my personal preference is using hardware accelerated encrypted disconnected networks.
      General Dynamics makes a nice product for this:
      Taclane They are not cheap but they secure the world.

    2. Re:Secure tunnels by Kingston · · Score: 1

      It's reasonably easy if the two IT departments get together to establish secure tunnels at the organisation level for transferring mail between them Wow, I really admire your efforts, it sounds like something from "The great escape". Most people are much lazier than you and would just send email through some sort of vpn, good on you though, happy digging !
    3. Re:Secure tunnels by Znork · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be easier to just set up SMTP with TLS? That way you don't need a secure tunnel, and it has the added advantage of actually encrypting to any TLS capable peer.

      I set that up recently... ironically, not because mail security was an issue, but because some customers mailing via the gateway in question came from ISP's with port 25 outgoing blocked...

    4. Re:Secure tunnels by Narpak · · Score: 1
      Time to start using One-Time Pads: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_time_pads#Security

      One-time pads are "information-theoretically secure" in that the encrypted message (i.e., the ciphertext) provides no information about the original message to a cryptanalyst (except the length of the message). This is a very strong notion of security first developed during WWII by Claude Shannon and proved, mathematically, to be true of the one-time pad by Shannon about the same time. His result was published in the Bell Labs Technical Journal in 1949. Properly used one-time pads are secure in this sense even against adversaries with infinite computational power.
      A bit unpractical, but done properly it should be pretty much impossible to break.
    5. Re:Secure tunnels by Jarik_Tentsu · · Score: 1

      Having trouble with 'big brother' Sven ey?

      Well, he's a primarily strength attributed tank character but with no good nukes. Keep your distance, get some int heroes, slow him then nuke him. Easy enough.

      ~Jarik

    6. Re:Secure tunnels by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Bah. Just send anything sensitive through the post office. Nobody will expect that.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    7. Re:Secure tunnels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As a Security Professional, I have to disagree. The situation is always more complex:

      To what server is the opponents mail sent to?
      To an internal or to an external mail server?
      Or maybe a mail server in a DMZ?
      Or probably an own mail server in an own newly created DMZ?
      Is a change window needed in order to set up a new untrusted DMZ?
      Does the VPN tunnel through your IDS/IPS?


      With Site-to-Site VPNs you connect private networks with each. I do know how well I perform in securing my network but I do not know that for my opponents network. Generally speaking, when you connect two networks that are independantly maintained and secured, one of these will have a lower security level than the other, making it kind of a bad thing to interconnect with it. Also, the other network might be connected to more networks with even more security problems.

      So you have to secure yourself. All companies that have VPN tunnels to my organisations had to sign a letter of commitment should any threat originating from their networks do us harm. Then you have to limit the access to systems needed. You speak of SMTP mail, but what if somebody finds out that it would be so convenient to directly connect to Exchange or Lotus systems or such. Then your software developers start to write applications for the opponent assuming as it's through a VPN, it is secure and can be regarded as a LAN application. As the parties need to exchange data that might previously have been sent through email, they think they could just use fileshare instead. When they finally deploy it, they request you to open the firewall for a test.

      See...I am to lazy to finish this comment or even spell check it as I am tired. Therefore I will just post this comment AC and goto sleep.

      Writing this comment felt like work.

  4. SMTP over SSL by Skapare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One of the things we need to add is SMTP over SSL. It won't prevent all snooping, but at least between 2 people that trust each other, no snooping happens on the path between.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:SMTP over SSL by Z00L00K · · Score: 5, Informative
      That part is actually relatively easy - and you have to remember to also implement IMAPS and POP3S - and close the IMAP and POP3 services.

      I have already implemented SMTPS, IMAPS and POP3S a few years ago. And it's actually not really necessary to buy a certificate if you are doing this for a closed group. Just use OpenSSL and generate your own certificate.

      To send emails to others both ends have to buy an email certificate, like from Verisign.

      And then some of those who voted for this law thought that encryption is very easy to crack - so easy that it doesn't matter if an email is encrypted or not. The problem with cracking encryption is that you first have to figure out which one it is - and the history is full of encryption techniques.

      So in the end - this law will be a good promotor for encryption more than anything else and the monitors can continue to search with Google and not get a bit of useful information from the real criminals and terrorists.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:SMTP over SSL by Albanach · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually you don't need a certificate signed by a CA for SMTP over TLS.

      We have used a self signed certificate for years and hundreds of other MTAs connect to us and happily set up a encrypted session to transfer mail.

      Of course this has issues, by making it harder for the other end to be sure we are who we say we are, but given the alternative is simply to failover and send unencrypted that's not really a major concern.

      This is with Postfix. Do any of the other big MTAs actually look to check the certificate is trusted before sending an encrypted message with default TLS settings?

    3. Re:SMTP over SSL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean two org's not people. Not to be nit picky but just because two email systems trusts each other, there still chances of interception. No silver bullet at this point in time. But in the olden days, you trusted the USPS.

    4. Re:SMTP over SSL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SMTP has supported TLS for a long time

      http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2487.txt

      even MS exchange can do TLS

      http://support.microsoft.com/kb/829721

    5. Re:SMTP over SSL by mrcaseyj · · Score: 0, Redundant

      >We have used a self signed certificate for years and hundreds of other MTAs connect to us and happily set up a encrypted session to transfer mail. If the other Mail Transfer Agents are accepting your self signed certificate without verification, then the Swiss can just generate their own certificate and pull a man in the middle attack on any of your traffic that goes through them.

    6. Re:SMTP over SSL by mrcaseyj · · Score: 1

      let me repeat my last post with better formatting.

      >We have used a self signed certificate for years and hundreds of other MTAs connect to us and happily set up a encrypted session to transfer mail.

      If the other Mail Transfer Agents are accepting your self signed certificate without verification, then the Swiss can just generate their own certificate and pull a man in the middle attack on any of your traffic that goes through them.

    7. Re:SMTP over SSL by Platinumrat · · Score: 1

      One of the things we need to add is SMTP over SSL. It won't prevent all snooping, but at least between 2 people that trust each other, no snooping happens on the path between.

      And how would that actually help the average joe. It's not like they have an SMTP server set up on their home network. They have to trust that the ISPs that serves emails won't be in on the legally required snooping. Then there is also the fact that not all mail goes directly between your mailbox and my mailbox, there may be several intermediate mailboxes inbetween for aggregation, forwarding, snooping, etc... End to End encryption is the only safeguard.
    8. Re:SMTP over SSL by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      What do the Swiss have to do with it?

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    9. Re:SMTP over SSL by mrcaseyj · · Score: 1

      >What do the Swiss have to do with it?

      Oops, I guess it's Sweden not Switzerland.

    10. Re:SMTP over SSL by hany · · Score: 1

      If the other Mail Transfer Agents are accepting your self signed certificate without verification, then the Swiss can just generate their own certificate and pull a man in the middle attack on any of your traffic that goes through them.

      And IMHO we all know that.

      But for now it looks like that "wiretapping" is done mostly with something like 'tcpdump'.

      And implementing "man in the middle" attack is harder than just running tcpdump on the router.

      So for now we may - being aware of the shortcommings - just enable TLS for SMTP with self-signed certificates thus making it harder for whoever to wiretap using tcpdump.

      Then, when there will be enough evidence (or eve simply paranoia on out part) that "man in the middle" is deployed quite often, we escalate further by abandoning self signed certificate and deploy some web of trust (either existing ones or maybe some brand new - cheper, more trustworthy, ...).

      --
      hany
    11. Re:SMTP over SSL by Kolargol00 · · Score: 1

      It won't prevent all snooping, but at least between 2 people that trust each other, no snooping happens on the path between.

      Only the SMTP transaction between two machines will be encrypted this way. It does not provide end to end encryption between the two people exchanging emails. Using PGP or S/MIME with x509 certificates can provide end to end encryption.
      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more. Junta
    12. Re:SMTP over SSL by xalorous · · Score: 1

      Search for PKI, GPG and PGP.

      You do NOT have to buy certificates. Many ways you can generate your own.

      Generating the cert pairs can be done with free software, or software you already own. GPG (free version of PGP) comes to mind. If you want to set up a Certificate Authority (certificate issuing server), the capability was built into Win2k server, probably is on Win2k3, and I can't imagine *nix servers not having the capability.

      Storing public keys can be done through any commonly acessible file storage medium. There are public repositories which can be used freely, and even have certificate revocation abilities.

      --
      TANSTAAFL GIGO Acronyms to live by!
    13. Re:SMTP over SSL by Albanach · · Score: 1

      You'll notice I covered this when I said it's harder for the other end to be sure we are who we say we are.

      However, as I also pointed out, in the absence of TLS, SMTP servers just failover and send in plain text. I know which one I'd rather have.

  5. On NPR... by Illbay · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...(Of all places) there was a pretty good segment this morning regarding email encryption, even including a short interview with Phil Zimmerman. What was VERY interesting about it, to me, was the attitudes of the "man / woman in the internet cafe'" interviews they did, and how most people just "didn't care" about privacy issues regarding email. One fellow naively stated "I try to live my life in such a way that no one would have an issue with what I do." In my opinion, though, what YOU or I might consider innocuous might garner unwanted attention from government. As we are headed seemingly toward a more "European" philosophy here in the USA where the government assumes the duties of "personal watchdog" over your "lifestyle," what you eat, what you drink or smoke, what you teach your kids, etc., this would seem to be a foolhardy attitude.

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    1. Re:On NPR... by Paranatural · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...(Of all places) there was a pretty good segment this morning regarding email encryption, even including a short interview with Phil Zimmerman. Why the 'of all places' comment? I've actually heard several good and tech-savvy news pieces on NPR.

    2. Re:On NPR... by InlawBiker · · Score: 1

      If I have something important to encrypt I encrypt it but otherwise it's not worth the trouble to hide everything just because I can.

      Also, on a personal level it evokes an unpleasant "paranoid" feeling that is only slightly more off-putting than feeling like somebody could be reading my email. Maybe I just don't like the thought of Big Brother so I avoid thinking about it, who knows.

      So in other words somebody might be reading my email but so what. Of the billions of emails floating around the 'net mine are just as boring as anybody else's.

      Now, if I thought the Government were monitoring my email on an ongoing basis as a matter of policy I would encrypt everything just to screw with them. FU Sven and GW!

    3. Re:On NPR... by bsDaemon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The rest of his comment implies that he tends to the right of center -- an area of the political spectrum where NPR is not exactly loved and any information which backs up their preconceived notions, no matter what the topic is, is viewed as being "out of place."

      Of course, I used to be one of those people, too. I started out listening to NPR because I liked classical and jazz music... eventually the news wore on me and I realized that I had been sort of a dick prior. Now I really like NPR news.

    4. Re:On NPR... by SputnikPanic · · Score: 1

      I heard this segment as well. The woman they interviewed at the end of the piece was a model of almost willful ignorance. As for the man, he was an example of idealism taken to the nth level of idiocy. I realize that the segment had to do with the possibility of private eavesdropping but you can't talk about privacy very long without entering into the topic of governmental policies and powers -- and it's there where this simple-minded notion of "well I have nothing to hide..." becomes terribly pernicious. What the two who were interviewed don't get is that it's not about them, it's not about what they personally may or may not have to hide. They seemed to have no capacity to think at any level more abstract than their own self, and in that regard, they unfortunately have a lot of company.

    5. Re:On NPR... by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      and how most people just "didn't care" That's why the Clinton administration gave up on it. They realized most people just wouldn't use. Those that would (and are), well, they wouldn't be bothered by any sort of ban. ;) It's like gun control, in a way.
      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    6. Re:On NPR... by k1e0x · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That is absolutely right.

      The 4th Amendment was written in response to the Stamp Act. Under the Stamp Act of 1765, all documents in your possession required the kings stamp on them to be legal. You had to by the stamps so this was in effect a tax.. the really ugly part of this law that people do not seem to know is that under the Stamp Act, British soldiers could come into your house any time they wanted to check your documents with what was known as a "writ of assistance". This is in effect a search warrant that British soldiers could write themselves. (It is akin to the NSA's National Security Letter as well..). Upon rummaging through your home, if you could not also prove that you paid taxes on other items such as your furniture or even your tea and your rum, they could arrest you.

      Privacy is a property right, you are in your right not to show your property to anyone. This becomes all the more dangerous in a society of data mining and government provided "universal health care" because the government may decide you do not work out enough or your diet is not proper.

      Don't think it can't happen.. In Japan the legal wast size is 33.5 inches. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html?_r=1&em&ex=1213588800&en=b5472f5ba2e31e50&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin Anything over that and you may be sent to "re-education". If you deny "re-education" you may even be arrested for being fat.

      --
      Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
    7. Re:On NPR... by Danse · · Score: 1

      Of course, I used to be one of those people, too. I started out listening to NPR because I liked classical and jazz music... eventually the news wore on me and I realized that I had been sort of a dick prior. Now I really like NPR news. That's kind of why I avoid political discussions at family gatherings. Most of them get all their news and opinions from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. They see every issue as black and white and are absolutely convinced that anyone that doesn't agree with them is either stupid or (to be generous) horribly uninformed or mislead. There's no such thing as a discussion with those people. They make it a lecture about how everything wrong with the world is cause by liberals.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    8. Re:On NPR... by mrops · · Score: 1

      In this day and age of Facebook and Twitter, where people voluntarily put their personal lives and communication for all to see, why would email privacy be a concern to them.

      Even though folks on slashdot think this is an issue of concern, the fact is that number of active users on slashdot is no where close to those on Facebook.

    9. Re:On NPR... by bsDaemon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, everything wrong with the world is caused by irrational people. There tend to be a lot of irrational people on both sides. Irrational lefties are more concerned with how you "feel," for instance. They are more concerned with intentions than outcome.

      Irrational Conservatives think that everyone night like them is going to go to hell and think GOP stands for God's Own Party.

      I think that about 80% of people on either side are irrational, and frankly I would rather talk to/be represented by someone I disagree with who at least can map out the thought process that lead to their conclusions rather than some knee-jerk liberal/conservative who thinks that being pro-environment means you also have to want to tax the rich and ban guns, or vice versa.

      Anyway, we're getting dangerously OT now, so I'll shut up.

    10. Re:On NPR... by sYkSh0n3 · · Score: 2, Funny

      who thinks that being pro-environment means you also have to want to tax the rich and ban guns, or vice versa.


      ban the rich and tax guns? I'm not sure how that would help....
    11. Re:On NPR... by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      In Japan the legal wast size is 33.5 inches. What if one's occupation is "sumo wrestler"? It would be difficult to be an effective sumo competitor with a waistline of only 33.5 inches.
    12. Re:On NPR... by Findeton · · Score: 1

      As we are headed seemingly toward a more "European" philosophy here in the USA where the government assumes the duties of "personal watchdog" over your "lifestyle," what you eat, what you drink or smoke, what you teach your kids, etc., this would seem to be a foolhardy attitude.



      I'm european and i must point that it's not an "European" philosophy.
    13. Re:On NPR... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A european philosophy to monitor internet traffic?

      What country was it that refused to handover rights to admin internet root servers? surely for the purpose of greater good.. yeah right.

      http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2005/11/69592

      Its not like you live in land of the free and your rights are taken over by european philosophy mate.

      Try to go online and gamble, are you allowed?

      http://www.itnews.com.au/News/62937,us-faces-us100-billion-fine-for-web-gaming-ban.aspx

      Are you allowed to travel to Cuba?
      Have the NSA spied on millions of US citizens you reckon?

      http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/06/19/1931226.shtml

      etc etc.

      Wake up dude, can you smell ANYTHING?

      Eric

    14. Re:On NPR... by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Maybe we could gun the rich and tax the bans ?

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    15. Re:On NPR... by chthon · · Score: 1

      A sumo wrestler probably holds a license.

    16. Re:On NPR... by k1e0x · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I didn't write the story.. occupational exemption maybe? :)

      --
      Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
    17. Re:On NPR... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      an area of the political spectrum where NPR is not exactly loved and any information which backs up their preconceived notions, no matter what the topic is, is viewed as being "out of place Except you just described both sides of the political spectrum, and by making such a comment you expose yourself to the same criticism. Hypocrite.

    18. Re:On NPR... by GleeBot · · Score: 1

      The rest of his comment implies that he tends to the right of center -- an area of the political spectrum where NPR is not exactly loved and any information which backs up their preconceived notions, no matter what the topic is, is viewed as being "out of place." Actually, I think Newt Gingrinch once mentioned that he liked NPR, or something to that effect. Certainly caught me by surprise.
  6. Re:Someone please remind me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because no matter what country you live in some of your Internet traffic is likely to pass through Sweden. They snoop and tell your government about your stash of __________ (insert your own illegal/grey market goods etc. here). Wala - your government has "proof" you are engaged in illegal activity and busts down your door. Moreover, you apparently haven't been watching the news regarding the change in behavior people exhibit when they know/think they are being watched.

  7. Zimmermann, maybe? by ricebowl · · Score: 1

    In this day and age, why is the use of this type of privacy technologies still so limited? Why isn't there a larger movement promoting the use of privacy tools?

    Only terrorists have anything to fear from this! Are you a terrorist?

    Yeah, it's turning into an old joke now, but, sadly (and in the words of Homer J.) it's funny 'cause it's true. Sort of (the perception, not the reality).

    As for the "why are privacy technologies so limited?" question I think that probably, though not certainly, has something to do with Phil Zimmerman's experiences; I'm not sure, but I suspect that the prospect of criminal investigation puts many people off researching privacy technologies.

    1. Re:Zimmermann, maybe? by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Only terrorists have anything to fear from this! Are you a terrorist?

      Woodie Guthrie's guitar read "This machine kills fascists". So yes, as I own two guitars and a bass, I am in fact a a terrorist.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    2. Re:Zimmermann, maybe? by computational+super · · Score: 1
      I suspect that the prospect of criminal investigation puts many people off

      Yep. Why do so few people (even here in tinfoil-hat-land) support Freenet? Because if everybody could actually really communicate anonymously, then they actually would communicate anonymously. And at the end of the day, it's a small minority of people that really believe we have that right (or even that it would be a Good Thing).

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
  8. Sweden's just being honest about it by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think we're rather naïve if we believe, that Sweden is the only country in the Western world to do this. They're just (one of) the first to be honest about it.

    As the submitter points out, you cannot be sure where your data is being sent on the route between you and your recipient. For all you know your "Dear Mom" email might go through Sweden, the US, the UK, Denmark, Russia and China even though you live within 50 km of eachother.

    And your Skype call? Well, that's likely to do the same thing with its routing feature.

    Your SSL connection isn't any safer from snooping - not sure about MitM attacks, but if you're just listening in, do you really need to be a MitM?

    --
    We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    1. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by Hyppy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your SSL connection isn't any safer from snooping - not sure about MitM attacks, but if you're just listening in, do you really need to be a MitM? Care to explain to me how to reliably intercept SSL communication wholesale without a very sophisticated man in the middle attack?
    2. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by k1e0x · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've done MitM on SSL as a demonstration before. It would be reasonably hard to do in the real world even by an ISP. It involves generating a cert on the fly and passing it to the client.. today's browsers will warn on that.

      I'd be more worried about a super hardware AES cracker that the NSA isn't telling us about.

      --
      Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
    3. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by 11223 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It doesn't need to be an especially sophisticated attack if the government's doing it. Most uses of SSL just check that the other side has a properly signed certificate by a trusted authority. No doubt the government can generate trusted certificates at any time.

    4. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by Hyppy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, I know that in order to verify most U.S. DoD SSL certificates you must install the U.S. DoD root certificates locally. Example.

    5. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      Well, in the end, you're just sending bits back and forth. If you know that one of the ends of the communication is a person/entity of interest, you just have to copy the communication. Since the bits are running past your equipment, I don't see why you couldn't copy it now, decrypt it later.

      Copying it doesn't really require you to be the man in the middle, and it's not like a "please don't copy"-flag would be respected anyway.

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    6. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by pipatron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How would you decrypt it?

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    7. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by pclminion · · Score: 1

      And how do you acquire these certificates in a secure manner? How do you know the cert you've installed is the real DoD cert? Is it delivered to you in person on a USB key by armed guards?

    8. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As always, it only gets easier.

      I remember using that several years ago to as a demonstration. But it wasn't particularly hard to get up and running. I think I spent all of 30 miuntes on it...

    9. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No doubt the government can generate trusted certificates at any time. Now it's a time to stop trusting all certificates, unless PirateBay generates 'em.
    10. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Raid the offices on the recieving end or use your government backdoor in thier proprietary software to yank the private key once you have enough data to be worth decrypting?

    11. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by Hyppy · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with someone listening in on a SSL conversation with a third party?

    12. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by Hyppy · · Score: 1

      So, you have a whole lot of ciphertext. Now what?

    13. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Because the only way you can avoid a MITM attack is to know that the other side's certificate is genuine. The entire point of the certificate is to prevent a MITM attack. How's it work? Simplified, you have the cert of the party you are trying to communicate with, and they in turn have yours. You generate a piece of random data and sign it with your private key, then send this to the other side. They decrypt with your public key and verify that you are who you say you are. Then they re-encrypt the data with THEIR private key and send it back to you, proving that they were capable of decrypting the challenge. You decrypt it with their public key and again, validate that they are who they say they are. (This is not exactly how it happens but you get the point)

      This makes a MITM attack impossible, because if both parties can PROVE that they possess the keys, they can use a key agreement protocol like Diffie Hellman under protection of RSA to exchange keys and even the MITM cannot interpose himself.

      The point is, this process can only be secure if you can TRUST THE CERTIFICATES. This is why Certificate Authorities exist -- they have trusted certs which sign other certs, which sign other certs, etc. The reason you know you can trust the root certificate is because it is installed as part of the operating system off secure media.

      So again, my question. If the DoD has a special cert, how do they get it to you securely? How do you know that you are not, instead, installing the certificate of some evil third party, enabling them to MITM you? The only answer I can think of is that the cert is physically delivered to you by people who you CAN IN TURN validate to be who they say they are. This is how the chain of trust gets established.

      I bet the DoD cert is delivered on a secure medium, in a a locked briefcase, chained to the wrist of a scary looking fellow wearing black shades.

    14. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by zmollusc · · Score: 1

      well, the next stage is to go crazy as you realise all the pr0ns in the cipher stream are beyond your reach.

      --
      They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    15. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1

      PST The NSA can probably get VeriSign to sign anything they want. A MiTM Attack form the NSA would be transparent.

    16. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by Braino420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I bet the DoD cert is delivered on a secure medium, in a a locked briefcase, chained to the wrist of a scary looking fellow wearing black shades.
      You're confused because you think that it is still secrecy that protects the cert. The reason you can trust the CA's root certificate is because the CA's public key is PUBLIC. Anyone can read the cert using the CA's public key, which will decrypt the cert and then you're left with the DoD's public key and their identity (which was supposed to be verified by the CA). You know this hasn't been tampered with en-route because the MITM doesn't have the CA's private key, to re-encrypt the cert after they make any changes (maybe binding another public key with /their/ identity instead). If they did this, you would know immediately because you wouldn't be able to decrypt the cert with the CA's public key.

      Also, you use cert and private key as if they mean the same thing. The CA's don't have "trusted certs", they have private keys with well known public keys that they use to sign your public key and identity.
      --
      They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
    17. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by Hyppy · · Score: 1

      I bet the DoD cert is delivered on a secure medium, in a a locked briefcase, chained to the wrist of a scary looking fellow wearing black shades. No, you go to just about any DoD website and you can download a fun little file that will install the DoD root certificates.
    18. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by Braino420 · · Score: 1

      Also, you use cert and private key as if they mean the same thing. The CA's don't have "trusted certs", they have private keys with well known public keys that they use to sign your public key and identity.
      Sorry, I think there needs to be some clarification of that last point. The CA has a root certificate, which is simply their public key (they can self-sign it, but that would be pointless). It wasn't until I read the wikipedia article on the root certificate that I've ever seen verbiage about the "root cert being used to sign other certs", which I think is unclear because it's actually the CA's private key that does the signing (not their public key, which IS the root cert).
      --
      They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
    19. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Anyone can read the cert using the CA's public key, which will decrypt the cert and then you're left with the DoD's public key and their identity

      Unless my machine has been physically compromised and the CA's key replaced with an evil one. I am blown away that the DoD would not self-sign and ensure physically secure delivery, but instead rely on a CA

      Also, you use cert and private key as if they mean the same thing.

      By "cert" I was intending to refer to a PKCS12 data block which includes both the public and private key. Sloppy terminology, my bad.

    20. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by pclminion · · Score: 1

      I mean, think about it. You go download Firefox. It comes with a set of root certificates. How do you know the Firefox download repository hasn't been hacked, and evil certificates inserted? The only reason you trust those certs is because you believe that the Firefox installation is trustable. But is it?

      All it takes is a single evil cert. This cert (okay, the private key associated with the cert) is used to sign a bogus DoD cert. Now nothing can be trusted.

    21. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by Braino420 · · Score: 1

      Copying it doesn't really require you to be the man in the middle, and it's not like a "please don't copy"-flag would be respected anyway.
      Uh, why not? The information you are sending over the connection only go to routers, it doesn't broadcast your message to every computer on the subnet or something. In order to intercept that communication, you would need to become a router yourself (which is the MITM). Perhaps you are thinking about wireless communication or something?
      --
      They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
    22. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I Googled for "DOD certificate." I took the first hit I got. I get this message:

      "www.jatdi.mil" is a site that uses a security certificate to encrypt data during transmission, but its certificate expired on 06/15/2008 02:50 PM.

      What the hell sort of jokers are these? They can't be bothered to even update their WEB SITE certificate? This is EXACTLY why the DoD should self-sign.

    23. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by Braino420 · · Score: 2, Funny

      How do you know the Firefox download repository hasn't been hacked, and evil certificates inserted?
      I don't, I compile everything from source and build my own compilers in hardware so I know there is no backdoor. I don't get out alot.
      --
      They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
    24. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by pclminion · · Score: 1

      WTF? I just did the same search as you, clicked on the SECOND hit, and get a site claiming to have the certs in ZIP files, but the site isn't even HTTPS. This is a total joke, and this is how we conduct security in our government? Any moron could install those certs, get some bullshit and not know it.

    25. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by mrcaseyj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >The NSA can probably get VeriSign to sign anything they want.

      Maybe they can. Or they could just start their own Certificate Authority and get themselves onto the list of trusted authorities that comes installed with browsers or mail software.

      But either way they might be reluctant to do the MITM like that because the bogus certificate with the genuine signature could be recorded by the targets and released to the public, causing great embarrassment to the certificate authority and much degradation to the trust of the certificate system.

    26. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by bugnuts · · Score: 1

      If you know that one of the ends of the communication is a person/entity of interest, you just have to copy the communication. Since the bits are running past your equipment, I don't see why you couldn't copy it now, decrypt it later. This comes down to:
      1: copy encrypted communication you want to view
      2: ???
      3: profit!

      Seriously, with the encrypted stream, you might eventually be able to decrypt it, depending on your resources. The most likely fastest way would be to break into the sender's house and steal his private key from his hard drive, and hope it was scrambled with a null password. Or you could spend years trying to brute-force the eavesdropped cyphertext, and get nowhere (unless you get astronomically lucky).

      The thing is that cyphertext was designed to make eavesdropping fail. That's why it's encrypted. You're expected to snoop on those bits ... and the encryption was designed to make those bits useless to anyone but the intended recipient.
    27. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Posting anon for obvious reasons)

      I interviewed at a company that shocked the shit out of me. They do have network appliances that do that MITM stuff. The way it works, as was explained to me, is that they DO create a cert on the fly. It looks very very much like the one you are trained to click OK on. It does rely on that fact but how many people scrutinize their certs when they are presented to them?

      This is evil. Very evil. And they are selling this security device to lots of companies.

      I only wish I was making this up. But for now, you must consider SSL to be suspect, due to the 'pseudo-cert' issue I just described.

      Isn't it always the case - a tech solution basically rendered useless by social engineering.

    28. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by Znork · · Score: 1

      Which rather highlights the point that for many purposes there is no reason to trust Verisign or any other standard-installed CA more than JoeBasementGuy's self-signing CA. Better to just install the signing cert on first connection...

      much degradation to the trust of the certificate system.

      Well, the CA's certainly don't need much help with that. The last shred of trust I had in the certificate system was lost when they came out and said we need more money to do what we said we did but didn't.

      They simply have no financial incentive to actually check anything; the highest profit margin would be achieved with a webpage and an automatic signing script.

    29. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      if this is true, can anyone confirm this? anyone have any direct experience in this?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    30. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by k1e0x · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've done this before in a lab environment 5+ years ago so I'm sure it is possible to do on a larger scale. (back then browsers did not warn about this stuff)

      Firefox 2+ and IE 7+ present a warning on Self Signed Certs, (that would be on the fly generated).

      --
      Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
    31. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by bobbozzo · · Score: 1

      Some companies do mitm so they can monitor their employee's SSL traffic.
      However, they have to override the browser warnings on the corp. computers or the employees get warnings.

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
    32. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it could be done in a way similar to Sender Policy Framework?

      As well as listing the MX record in the DNS entries for authorised mail servers, you could also publish the public key of the mail server in DNS.

    33. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by Hyppy · · Score: 1

      Hence, I believe I prove my point about the U.S. government not being able to just forge a certificate signed by a Root CA.

    34. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by Yogiz · · Score: 1

      Funny or not but that's pretty much what I did. I compiled firefox from source and disabled all the pre-installed certificates. All the certificates that I have now have been checked to be secure (via phone or physical delivery). You only have to do this once for each, I keep those trusted certificates around so I can easily install them on all my machines.

      I might have a little paranoia problem but I really don't trust others to decide who I should trust.

    35. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by node159 · · Score: 1

      If they are clever, the just generate their own cert and install it as a root cert on all the PC's, vola, no more warnings, snoop to your hearts content.

      --
      GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
    36. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by pclminion · · Score: 1

      It's ridiculously easy if you are a government. You go to the browser makers. You threaten them with jail time under obscure laws until they agree to discreetly add your Evil Gov Cert to the cert of trusted root certs that come with these browsers. Anybody who doesn't cooperate is shot. You wait a few years for most people to upgrade to the new browsers, then you can begin to forge any certificate you want using your Evil Gov Cert.

    37. Re:Sweden's just being honest about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Verisign (the offices I have consulted for) Don't exactly all follow best security practice Many of the sites had sticky notes with password etc, only the office in Providence had decent security, although many of the offices have nothing to do with CA's, the company has really expanded into much more. I remember when some guy just left his laptop in his car in plain sight(and it got stolen! with all kinds of sensitive info ) .. The Thawte (budget Verisign brand) certs are virtually un-verified. What's he worst is Go daddy no verification other than the domain name matches the cert, even for EV-SSL! Bottom line, no such thing as complete privacy/security on the interwebs...PGP can probably easily be cracked by the NSA and would raise "red flags" If EVERYONE encrypted their e-mail this wouldn't be so much of a sign that something "interesting" might be in those emails.

  9. Re:Someone please remind me... by AltGrendel · · Score: 3, Informative
    Ummm.....

    Linus is from Finland,/a>.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

  10. Why can't it be simple. by k1e0x · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I use s/mime and gpg. I have for years.. but I believe this is too much of a hassle for people who can't even figure out Yahoo Mail or tell the difference between Internet Explorer and Firefox.

    Some time ago I suggested someone write a thunderbird extension that was a "one click" encryption setup. On clicking "encrypt" it would create a gpg key > send the pub key to a key server > and if it does not have someone elses key it can suggest thunderbird and itself to that person.

    I know this is not a good way to do this, but I can't see people using pgp/gpg it any other way.

    --
    Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
    1. Re:Why can't it be simple. by mckorr · · Score: 0
      My question has always been what is to stop the government (or anyone else for that matter) from going to the public key server and getting your key to decrypt your email?

      Seems to me, unless I physically hand a copy of my key to the people I email, my public key is unsecure and pgp/gpg is pointless.

    2. Re:Why can't it be simple. by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 1

      agree that current pgp programs way to techie and hard to use. I finally got a program from MIT or someplace to run, but it was a real pain (for /.nerds: one click installation program, and a button that says encrypt email, anything more is to complicated)
      on top of pgp, how about an email track me not - you can program thunderbird or firefox, to work with your friends family etc, to create dozens of fake temporary email accounts and just send out stuff all day long..

    3. Re:Why can't it be simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really don't understand how PGP or GPG works do you?

    4. Re:Why can't it be simple. by zix619 · · Score: 1

      I believe you finger point a fundemantal problem here: there is no one click addition in thunderbird because many people they still don't care about thier privacy. The situation slowly changes, you see more and more people concerned about privacy. BTW, I believe that thunderbird has a secure email add-on: enigmail

    5. Re:Why can't it be simple. by Z34107 · · Score: 1

      My question has always been what is to stop the government (or anyone else for that matter) from going to the public key server and getting your key to decrypt your email?

      Because the public key can only encrypt e-mail.

      I suggest a Google of "private public key encryption" because my knowledge is fuzzy at best. But, reverse-engineering the private key (the one that can decrypt) from the public one requires factoring big numbers. On a typical machine, this takes until the sun burns out. On an atypical machine, this takes longer than the average lifespan of a human.

      OK, just making up numbers. But, only the private key can decrypt, and getting the private key from the public is non-trivial. Especially if you have a few hundred/thousand/million public keys on that server to crack.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    6. Re:Why can't it be simple. by ahugenerd · · Score: 5, Informative

      You have it backwards. Your public key is used to encrypt messages that are being sent TO you, which you can then only decrypt with your master key. The idea is that you (Alice) would send your message encrypted with Bob's public key to Bob. Since only Bob has his own master key (since it doesn't get posted to the server), then only Bob can decrypt it. Bob would then reply to you by encrypting his message with your public key. And so on.

    7. Re:Why can't it be simple. by Godji · · Score: 4, Informative

      The public key server only holds your public key - the one that was meant for anyone to see. Your private key, which is the only one that can be used to decrypt messages addressed to you, stays with you. Nobody other than the parties involved in the communication ever holds one or the other's private keys.

      The "public" in "public key server" means BOTH that the key server is public AND that it is a server for public keys. The most anal-retentive name for it would be a "public public key server".

      See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography for all the details.

    8. Re:Why can't it be simple. by Godji · · Score: 1

      I forgot: While in symmetric cryptography your problem would be "how do I get my key to the other guy securely", with public key cryptography the question becomes "how do I prove to the guy who sends me stuff that my public key is really MY public key as opposed to someone else's, where said someone pretends to be me". This is where the certificate exchange stuff comes in.

    9. Re:Why can't it be simple. by k1e0x · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well.. yeah, you have a point. but at least they can't data mine this way unless they control the key server itself all the time.

      When your dealing with an entity like government .. it's pretty difficult to stop them from doing something. I mean.. they could just make encryption itself illegal if they wanted.

      It is our duty to stop them from doing that.. You have a right to privacy, you have a right to not show someone the inside of your house, the inside of your gym locker, the inside of your bank account, or the inside of your private letters. Governments should respect that right. A good paper came out a while ago called "'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565

      --
      Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
    10. Re:Why can't it be simple. by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      My question has always been what is to stop the government (or anyone else for that matter) from going to the public key server and getting your key to decrypt your email?

      Two reasons:

      1. You can't decrypt anything with any public key. You only use it to encrypt email to the key owner.
      2. Possession of the public key provides absolutely no clue to the private key.
      For a brief explanation of why, read this.
      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    11. Re:Why can't it be simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here's a simple solution : OVERTURN THE STINKIN LAW. Law isn't written in stone. That's the whole point of having a legislature. Get a referendum together and have the thing repealed. It won't stop the eavesdropping - nothing will - but it will make it illegal to use said information.

    12. Re:Why can't it be simple. by k1e0x · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And how many tyrannical laws are overturned?

      I'm still waiting on the Patriot act.. it breaks what the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments to the constitution and its law.

      --
      Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
    13. Re:Why can't it be simple. by Simon+(S2) · · Score: 1

      Your public key is public, and there is no problemwith that. Nobody can decrypt your email with your public key. You encrypt a mail with the public key of the person you send it to, and the receiver decrypts the mail with his private key. So only the private key has to be secret. That's why it's called private and public key pair.
      Ex.:
      Person A has a public key (PubKA), and a private key (PrivKA) and wants to send an email to Person B, who has PubKB and PrivKB. Public keys are public, so person A and person B know eachothers pubkeys. Person A encrypts the email he sends with PubKB, and only the person who has PrivKB will be able to read that email.
      The sender can also encrypt that email with two pubkeys together, say with his own pubkey, so he will be able to decrypt his own email as well.

      --
      I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
    14. Re:Why can't it be simple. by zehaeva · · Score: 1

      errr .. a public key can only be used to encrypt a message, your private key decrypts it. you tend to keep your private key someplace ... private. so sure let the government come and grab my public key and use it to encrypt as much stuff as it wants! since i should be the only person with the private key only i will have the ability to decrypt said material and read it.

      ~z

    15. Re:Why can't it be simple. by Neoncow · · Score: 1

      While I respect the spirit of the post, The first part is not informative. There's a reason key servers are called public key servers. When you upload your key to the server, you only upload the public half of the key. By definition, this part is meant to be distributed and does not compromise the security of your key-pair.

    16. Re:Why can't it be simple. by k1e0x · · Score: 1

      Your right. My mistake. (my excuse is I just didn't use my brain.. more concerned on the government angle and the legal angle than the technical angle.. I know how this stuff works..)

      --
      Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
    17. Re:Why can't it be simple. by ironman_one · · Score: 1

      Because you dont understand the beuty of public key encryption. The system works with key pairs, a public key and a private one. If you encrypt a message with the public key you have to have the correct private key to decrypt it. OK lets take an example. A want to send a message to B. Both A and B have a key pair. We now have four keys to play with. First A encrypts the message with his private key. This is to sign it. Then he encrypts the mesage agin with Bs public key. Now he sends the message to B. B first decrypts the message with his private key. He knows now that nobody else has read the message. He then decrypts the message again with As public key. He now knows that the message comes from A as nobody else has As private key. There is no practical way to derive a private key from a public one or a encypted message. So even if a goverment raided a key server for public keys they were not able to read any messages.

    18. Re:Why can't it be simple. by Zironic · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography

      No need to keep your public key secure it it takes a few milenia to decrypt with it.

    19. Re:Why can't it be simple. by k1e0x · · Score: 1

      Maybe it should be included in Thunderbird Core then. On the creation of a new account in Thunderbird it could prompt the user to create a gpg key, and publish to mozilla's own keyserver.

      --
      Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
    20. Re:Why can't it be simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't decrypt anything with any public key.

      This is not strictly true.

      Public key signature systems are implemented by creating a hash of the message then encrypting that hash with your private key. Then, whoever you send the message to will use the public key to decrypt the encrypted hash and compare it to the hash they compute. If they match, this means it is very unlikely that anyone but you sent the message (and that it was not tampered with), because some part of it was encrypted with a key that only you are supposed to have access to.

    21. Re:Why can't it be simple. by cdrom600 · · Score: 1

      I know several others have commented on this, but here are the basics of this type of encryption (called public-key encryption):
      - You have two keys, a public key and a private key
      - The public key can only be used to encrypt email sent to you
      - The private key is needed to encrypt email
      - It would take tens of years, and probably much longer, to derive the private key given only the public key, therefore you can freely share the private key.

      Think of the public key as an unlocked padlock. You keep the key and give away the padlock. Someone else puts a message in a box and locks it with your padlock, and then only you can unlock the box and read the message.

    22. Re:Why can't it be simple. by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1

      It sort of already exists. I use S/MIME and Outlook. All of my email is signed. You can send me an encrypted email. All I did was go to a CA and ask for a free cert. http://www.comodo.com/products/certificate_services/email_certificate.html Unfortunately the only encryption algorithms available with outlook currently are 3DES and RC2 ...

    23. Re:Why can't it be simple. by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Also, remember that Alice has to re-encrypt the message with her private key, so that Bob can decrypt the message with Alice's public key, so he can be sure that Alice was the one who sent it. This is what is know as signing the message.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    24. Re:Why can't it be simple. by my+$anity++0 · · Score: 1

      Although usually it's just a hash of the message, not the entire message, due to processing constraints. At least that's how it was a while ago. Processors have gotten a LOT better.

    25. Re:Why can't it be simple. by IdeaMan · · Score: 1

      No he's correct, it's you that doesn't have a big enough tin-foil hat on:

      Government hijacks either your (Alice's) or his (Bob's) ISP.
      When the government sees the key request by Bob or the post by Alice, to the website it substitutes its own.
      After that they can MITM with impunity. (Alice encrypts with Private key, gubmint Decrypts with intercepted key, re-encrypts with substituted key, sends on to bob, Bob decrypts with gubmint substituted key.)

      The problem is that we don't have a tin-foil hat approved method that is easy.

      --
      They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
    26. Re:Why can't it be simple. by mckorr · · Score: 1

      Obviously not or I wouldn't have asked.

    27. Re:Why can't it be simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, the most anal-retentive name would be public public-key server.

    28. Re:Why can't it be simple. by Myrddin+Wyllt · · Score: 1

      The problem is that we don't have a tin-foil hat approved method that is easy.

      Checking the public key fingerprint over the telephone works quite well if you know the other party, even slightly.

      Not totally foolproof I know, but now we're into tin-foil underwear territory, not just the standard headgear level of paranoia.

      --
      [ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
    29. Re:Why can't it be simple. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It would be nice if email programs checked public key servers for keys and automatically encrypted the message if one exists for the target email address. The default should be encrypted.

      Then add a simple "Set up secure eMail" wizard thing to make your own public/private key pair and include it as part of the standard account setup routine.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    30. Re:Why can't it be simple. by grumbel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but I believe this is too much of a hassle for people who can't even figure out Yahoo Mail or tell the difference between Internet Explorer and Firefox. Its not only to much hassle, it also doesn't really provide half as much security as one would expect. The header gets send completly unencrypted, so To, From, CC and stuff are easy to read, Subject sometimes to. And for a government it can often be enough to know your peers, the exact content isn't that important and if it is it can be retrieved by more drastic measures (keylocker, etc.). There is of course another issue in that when you sign your emails you lose deniability, so one should better not do that when one wants things to stay secret.

      Overall GPG and friends don't really solve the problem. You simply can't fix a broken government with software, you have to fix the government itself.
    31. Re:Why can't it be simple. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      leetkey - this extension provides AES encryption/decryption of dynamic/static text in FF and TB.

    32. Re:Why can't it be simple. by atrus · · Score: 1

      FireGPG will provide PGP based public key cryptography in Firefox as well.

    33. Re:Why can't it be simple. by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was going to mention that. I think it should be common practice now to re-encrypt the entire message. Computers have gotten fast enough now that it won't make any noticeable difference in processing time, at least for things like email. I'd have to wonder if there's even a reasonable difference for large files. With all the problems lately with people being able to generate identical hashes in a very finite time, I would think that people would want to abandon their use whenever possible.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    34. Re:Why can't it be simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you use it with Gmail, although the extension works well, BEWARE of the Save Draft feature Google has. While you're still typing your to-be-encrypted message in the window, Google will save it to Drafts after a very short amount of time in, obviously, plain-text. At that point they could easily permanently copy/save anything you write if they want to (or are told to, umm, want to).
      Best way is to use a separate editor like GVim and write your message there. Either encrypt right there locally or cut/paste the entire finished message into GMail and immediately encrypt it with FireGPG. With luck it will not be auto-saved during that time (any way to turn that auto-save off?).

  11. Org-wide encryption by gnick · · Score: 1

    Are there any transparent schemes for email encryption which could be installed for the organization as a whole? Entrust works pretty well. I know of a couple of medium sized organizations (~14,000 employees) that use it. One ties it in to Eudora and the other, I believe, ties it into Outlook. Of course, if you want to exchange e-mail with customers, you'll have to make sure they have compatible software and keys (as with any encryption scheme.)
    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    1. Re:Org-wide encryption by khendron · · Score: 1

      Of course, if you want to exchange e-mail with customers, you'll have to make sure they have compatible software and keys (as with any encryption scheme.) Entrust also has a product called Entelligence Messaging Server which can act as an encryption gateway between your company and your customers. It allows your company's employees to communicate securely with people outside the company, without having to deal with key exchanges and all that mess.
      --
      Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
  12. GeoIP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    How about browser and mail client extensions that run a lookup on the A or MX and show the user a warning when sending requests/mail to a box located in Sweden.

    Obviously it doesn't cover routes but it's a start.

  13. Nobody cares. by twatter · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Personal encryption is not widespread because most people don't know anything about security or privacy. They figure the "stuff" going through the "tubes" is safe and only the intended recipients can see it.

    Then again most people only send chan letters, lame jokes and soccer practice announcements, so its not like they needed a lots of privacy to begin with.

    People with a clue know what they need to do and do it. Everyone else can carry on as usual.

    1. Re:Nobody cares. by Drakonik · · Score: 1

      Don't mod this guy down. He's right. The reason people don't use public-private key cryptography is because they don't know what the hell it even is. Unfortunately, explaining why it's a good idea to a non-geek would be just as hard as explaining that even though that popup is flashy and says "Free Awesome Smileys", it's actually a Bad Thing.

    2. Re:Nobody cares. by twatter · · Score: 0

      Thanx. I dont know why someone would be offended by my comment, it is just the reflection of what i see every day at work.

      I live in a big city where people are obsessed with physical security. Locking doors, checking their cars before they get in, etc.

      But they don't think their PCs require much more attention than shutting them down at night. So it wont 'overheat'.

      Most of them probably pay more attantion to their toasters.

  14. Exchange servers can do messaging tunnels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If you pass the SSL keys between two corporate Exchange servers, you can have all communication between them be encrypted.

    However, not everyone runs Exchange, and not everyone is willing to set dedicated send/receive connectors.

    SMTP over SSL/TLS would be a great thing. Its already implemented, but few mail servers take advantage of this.

  15. They'll by fishthegeek · · Score: 0

    hafe to hide der data in der chickens or dey'll be bork bork borked!

    --
    load "$",8,1
    1. Re:They'll by gellern · · Score: 1

      hafta ) bork bork brok!

  16. Extra software? by deadzero · · Score: 0

    Why is it that avoiding "extra software" generally means leaving Windows in place? Windows and the non free software way are the main reasons privacy protecting software is not more widespread.

    --
    Political torture and murder is not funny http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=581079&cid=23757591
    1. Re:Extra software? by Gandalf_the_Beardy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not sure that follows. In all the cases I recall the outgoing mail servers were running Exchange or Sendmail (with one looking at migrating to Exim). There are bolt on packages for all three that do encrpytion serverside if you want to go to the trouble and the expense in money and support time. The reason they didn't move in at least one case was that the servers couldn't easily cope with a large increase in the processing load to encrypt the messages.

    2. Re:Extra software? by rwxrwx · · Score: 3, Informative

      I agree , although for most windows users if you want (free) privacy you have to install X number of programs for gpg e.g. I think for the common user this is to much of not only a hassle but a technical burden gpg for example.

      1.Install gpg4win
      2. Thunderbird (or equivilent free email client)
      3.) Extensions for email ( case Thunderbird)
      4.) make keys
      5.) configure programs, get other users pub key etc etc.

      This is to much for normal Joe by step 3 or 4 the normal Joe has given up.
      If this would be automised or somehow integrated into a email client , I think we would see email encryption more widely used. Although through the automation process problems can arise, security hole here , and their, because all these process's have to be linked automated etc. etc

      Whereas with a nix distro, most users are tech orientated, after adding the correct repos or (with some distros these things are even default installed gpg for e.g.) then the only thing left is to configure, which really is pretty painless to the tech user who knows what hes doing in the first place.

    3. Re:Extra software? by dedazo · · Score: 1
      I don't see what this has to do with Windows or "non-free". The solutions the GP is talking about are server-side, which means that as far as the desktop is concerned, nothing has changed.

      If you want software to do the same in Windows, it is available for free as well.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    4. Re:Extra software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      security hole here , and their, because
      there
      There, spelled like here (ere), indicates location.
      Their, Possessive.
      The're, contraction of they are.

      GET IT RIGHT!
    5. Re:Extra software? by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 3, Informative

      security hole here , and their, because there
      There, spelled like here (ere), indicates location.
      Their, Possessive.
      The're, contraction of they are.

      GET IT RIGHT! They're, contraction of 'they are'.

      The're, not a word.

      GET IT RIGHT!
      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    6. Re:Extra software? by Zencyde · · Score: 1

      security hole here , and their, because
      there
      There, spelled like here (ere), indicates location.
      Their, Possessive.
      They're, contraction of they are. GET IT RIGHT! There. Fixed that for you. : )
      --
      What day is it? Could you please tell me?
    7. Re:Extra software? by HJED · · Score: 0

      I agree , although for most windows users if you want (free) privacy you have to install X number of programs for gpg e.g. I think for the common user this is to much of not only a hassle but a technical burden gpg for example. 1.Install gpg4win 2. Thunderbird (or equivilent free email client) 3.) Extensions for email ( case Thunderbird) 4.) make keys 5.) configure programs, get other users pub key etc etc. This is to much for normal Joe by step 3 or 4 the normal Joe has given up. If this would be automised or somehow integrated into a email client , I think we would see email encryption more widely used. Although through the automation process problems can arise, security hole here , and their, because all these process's have to be linked automated etc. etc Whereas with a nix distro, most users are tech orientated, after adding the correct repos or (with some distros these things are even default installed gpg for e.g.) then the only thing left is to configure, which really is pretty painless to the tech user who knows what hes doing in the first place. the only problem with email encryption is you have to somehow give the key to the recipient and how are you going to encrypt that?
      --
      null
    8. Re:Extra software? by deadzero · · Score: 0

      These things are automated in Kmail and probably Evolution because key generation is done at the OS level. The problem is getting others to go for it because the steps are so painful on Windows, in the way you said.

      --
      Political torture and murder is not funny http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=581079&cid=23757591
    9. Re:Extra software? by Gandalf_the_Beardy · · Score: 1

      Well with half a dozen only, it's easy to drive over and deliver it by hand... that was one of the main attractions for the places I worked at - manual key exchange was feasible and secure.

    10. Re:Extra software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please stop trolling

    11. Re:Extra software? by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 1

      As long as the key can be downloaded in a non standard way you are safe, at least from FRA and NSA like analysis. Your key can basically be as long as you'd like if you use symetric encryption.

      As long as a machine travling through your messages can not tell where to also download the key and that they would need to use a human analyst to get the key it will cost too much to decrypt your messages.

      This is similar in practice to how Slashdot handle s AC's. You need to look at an image that is very easy for humans, but very hard and costly for machines.

      --
      She made the willows dance
    12. Re:Extra software? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Sendmail can be trivially configured to prefer TLS for server-to-server communications. I think it can also be configured to not use non-TLS connections (and those with TLS but with an invalid certificate), although I've not tried. If your mail server and your customers' have valid certificates, and you use TLS when submitting mail and receiving it then no one who doesn't have access to the mail servers can intercept it.

      This doesn't give you as much security as PGP, but it basically prevents interception of mail sent between people with well-configured mail servers. Another option is simply to set up a mail server for your friends to use which uses SMTPS and IMAPS for sending and receiving, and doesn't do external relaying. Most mail programs (including Lookout and Thunderbird) support TLS for sending and receiving, which is secure unless the server-to-server connection is not, which it usually isn't).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:Extra software? by xalorous · · Score: 1

      PKI
      public key infrastructure

      --
      TANSTAAFL GIGO Acronyms to live by!
  17. Terrorists use encryption! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This whole thing is ridiculous because any real bad guy is already using encryption and data hiding techniques. However....this kind of snooping is great for political purposes. You know, snooping in on the personal affairs of your political enemies and then using that info to embarrass them out of office.

    1. Re:Terrorists use encryption! by JSBiff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You make a fundamental assumption that there are no stupid criminals or stupid terrorists. Yes, *some* terrorists and criminals are smart enough to encrypt their emails. But I'm sure there really are people out there stupid enough to talk about their criminal plans/exploits in plaintext email, or plaintext IMs, because they are just stupid. The Swedish government, will, no doubt catch some of those stupid criminals through such spying on email, then point to those cases whenever they talk to the media/public about why this is a 'good thing'.

            As with any invasive authoritarian law, the government can always present anecdotal examples of it 'working', and so 'justify' the law, despite the fact that it's fundamentally a bad law, and probably not necessary.

    2. Re:Terrorists use encryption! by BlueParrot · · Score: 1

      Of course, the other way to look at it is that catching stupid criminals IS a good argument in favor of a law like this. Don't get me wrong, there needs to be checks and balances on how wiretaps are used and not, and one of the main objections I have to this law is that it is very vague about what the data can and cannot be used for, who can and cannot see it, etc... , but I don't object to some degree of surveillance in principle. Yes, it can be used to attack whistle blowers and political dissidents, but it may also help prevent people intimidating political opponents through the use of violence and threats.

      The real question when it comes to laws like this is not as much "what will this system be able to do" but rather "how do you ensure this system will not be abused". With technological advances I really do think it is somewhat inevitable for these things to become commonplace, it can be delayed at best. Therefore what we should really be campaigning for is not an end to wiretaps, CCTV cameras etc... but for checks and balances that prevent the techs from being used for nefarious purposes. If we could indeed know that these systems would only be used to deal with threats from terrorism, solve murder cases and robberies, etc... then I doubt many people would oppose it. The problem is that many of these things are being implemented without convincing plans or ways for preventing corrupt officials or government agencies from abusing them.

      What i would really want to see is not an end to the FRA or a law banning internet traffic analysis by the police or the military. What I would like to see is the implementation of a REAL institution to "watch the watchers", and I don't mean the kind of stooge committee that is vaguely mentioned in this law proposal, and other ones like it. I'm talking about an actual branch of government with the sole purpose of dealing with corruption amongst police and military. It is obvious to everybody in Sweden that SKI , the organization inspecting our nuclear power plants, is to be independent of the operators of said plants, yet our police force is supposed to be self-regulating even tho it time and time again fails at it.

    3. Re:Terrorists use encryption! by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 1

      "how do you ensure this system will not be abused"

      Don't you get it? You can't and sooner or later it will be (if you have such a system).

      ---

      I wonder why FRA can not just do what they used to - keeping track of russian military movements? When did the swedish public become as frightening to our government as the Soviet Union was in the 1980:s?

      --
      She made the willows dance
  18. Privacy Ruling today in U.S. by crazytisay · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    EFF running story on 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that email and text messages should be considered private, subscribers cannot get the ISPs to release without user consent or a warrant. At least in the U.S. email at work, as long as its 3rd party, cannot be released to your boss. Not entirely on point, but as far as privacy is concerned, this is at least a step in the right direction. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/new-ninth-circuit-case-protects-text-message-priva

    1. Re:Privacy Ruling today in U.S. by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      I would agree that it's a step in the right direction, but doesn't this all assume the government will abide by the laws in the first place? I don't know about you, but I don't trust them to follow any law or judgement, and if they got caught they'll just invoke the State Secrets loophole.

      Nope, I am very wise. I only conduct my illegal activities in person and never put them in email. . . . DAMN! Gotta go, someone's pounding on my door and demanding I open it immediately!

  19. Re:Someone please remind me... by SBacks · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm an uncultured idiot, you insensitive clod!

  20. Existing SMTP encryption, but on the server side? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've mostly dealt with SMTP encryption on the client-to-server end, i.e. in the context of preventing the client from sending the server a password for something like SMTP AUTH. I usually act with the assumption that client-to-server communication for SMTP AUTH is the only purpose for encrypting SMTP, and understand that server-to-server communication will go over the wire unecrypted.

    But maybe someone can answer this. Do MTAs also attempt to use things like STARTTLS for server-to-server communication when available? Again, I've always assumed that these were only used to protect passwords, and that SMTP as used today by servers is inherently insecure. Am I wrong on this?

    (Of course, whether or not some MTAs do is irrelevant, as inevitably lots won't. A lot of them don't even support STARTTLS or AUTH and nothing requires them to.)

  21. Too complex by croftj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's too complex for most. If it were as simple as me putting code on my machine and sending encrypted emails to my family and friends I would do it. Sadly, I have to step them ALL though putting GPG or PGP onto their machines, creating a pair of keys then sending my and all of their friends their public key. Want to place bets how many of them would send their private key themselves?

          If MS would simplify it and make all of this just happen. I bet that there would be a big gaping hole for the gov't to make use of. Not to mention the security holes that would go along with it as well.

    --
    -- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
    1. Re:Too complex by mpapet · · Score: 1

      It's too complex for most.
      No. They don't have an urgent need. They'd do it if there was an urgent reason for it.

      sending my and all of their friends their public key
      That's what a key server is for. http://packages.debian.org/etch/onak

      If MS would simplify it...
      Show me the business case for a company the size of MS to get involved in this. There isn't one. RSA was as big as they got and they weren't strong enough to stay out on their own.

      Nevermind the fact that it is simple!!! Compared to all of the time and effort it took to learn how to use a computer, it's ridiculously simple. People just don't want to pay for it or even feel the need to get it.

      --
      http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
    2. Re:Too complex by leoval · · Score: 1

      Well it can't get more simple than using a digital certificate for this. They are supported by almost every email client out there and the user only needs to click the encrypt button. The only problem is finding cheap certificates, I have a few from VeriSign that are $19.99 a year (still a bit expensibe for my taste).

    3. Re:Too complex by croftj · · Score: 1

      Well it can't get more simple than using a digital certificate for this. They are supported by almost every email client out there and the user only needs to click the encrypt button. Yeah right! I have friends who can't even figure out how to attach a damned photo to an email. They can send a photo using "Windows Live" but that only works if you have a Windows Live account and Windows.

      Sadly, at least half the US population don't have a clue as to how to do anything with their computer except the bare minimum. If it doesn't do it for them without effort or thought, it won't get done.

      --
      -- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
    4. Re:Too complex by init100 · · Score: 1

      People just don't want to pay for it

      Email certificates can be had for free these days, thanks to e.g. Thawte, and those work in all modern email clients. So it doesn't have to cost anything.

    5. Re:Too complex by init100 · · Score: 1

      What? You pay for your S/MINE certificate? I got mine for free yesterday from Thawte.

    6. Re:Too complex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If somebody like Google would integrate that into their mail and also act as the public key server, it would catch on like wildfire.

      You could store your private key locally, the encrypt/decrypt/keygen functions could execute through a java applet.

      Then if someone used a different provider, you could just say "well, you need to either get gmail or use a gmail-compatible email service".

      I use Google as an example just because of their strength and market position.

      The last people I want to be involved is MS, there'd be more holes in their setup than a sieve, and don't get me started on compatibility and cross-platform awareness.

      A simple html/java setup would be most likely to catch on in the end.

    7. Re:Too complex by leoval · · Score: 1

      I used to have free certificates too, but saddly they were not thrusted by pretty much any email client at the time, and adding them to the thrust list was a non trivial task for my intended audience. I have not tried any free one since them, perhaps when the ones from VeriSign expire I will give them another try.

    8. Re:Too complex by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      Except time and hassle. I just got a new Thawte certificate. It's NOT a one-click process. Log in, add email addy, ping email addy, respond to ping, wait for cert to be generated, convert cert, import cert... BLARGH. Anyone expecting Joe Ordinary to do this needs their head examined!

    9. Re:Too complex by init100 · · Score: 1

      Thawte has been on the list of trusted CAs for ages. I remember I used them in 1999 to sign the certificate for the online travel agency I worked for that summer.

    10. Re:Too complex by init100 · · Score: 1

      See my reply to myself. I made a mistake when posting my reply. Sorry. :)

    11. Re:Too complex by init100 · · Score: 1

      Okay, this wasn't my mistake. It's a problem with Slashdot.

    12. Re:Too complex by LihTox · · Score: 1

      I was thinking that Gmail could easily make email encryption popular: it could be as simple as a little checkbox at the top of your mail saying "Encrypt this message". ...but would it be secure against the government? If I understand the system correctly, Google would have to have your private key to encrypt the email, and if the government approaches Google and asks for your private key, would Google say no? For that matter, if the other person is using Gmail, they don't even have to intercept the email on the way there, they can just read the stored copy off the server. Hmm. Gmail-based encryption would make things a little more difficult for the spies, and that would be a good thing.

      However, even if it weren't totally secure, Gmail could introduce the concept of encrypted email to the masses, and once people come to expect it, they may be interested in other versions of encryption.

    13. Re:Too complex by muckracer · · Score: 1

      > Sadly, at least half the US population don't have a clue
      > as to how to do anything with their computer except the bare minimum.

      That's not an issue of "half the US population" but the implemented technology. A car or a microwave are quite complex too on the inside, yet certainly even your mentioned "half" of the population is quite apt at using them.

    14. Re:Too complex by croftj · · Score: 1

      Well stated. I think you just stated what I said. It's too complex. I have yet to see a simple implimentation of this that I can give to my family and friends so that it just works without them having to think about it.

      Even more importantly, I thinkit comes down to, the folks aren't stupid, it's just not worth their time to be stretched figuring out how to do it and then doing it.

      --
      -- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
  22. Why not make the government's job easier by bigtrike · · Score: 4, Funny

    And CC all of your email to the everyone in charge of this agency. Any good patriot should do this, just be sure the nation is secure even if the email monitoring system goes down.

    1. Re:Why not make the government's job easier by Bairradino · · Score: 1

      And BCC yourself just in case... Aarh.

    2. Re:Why not make the government's job easier by arikol · · Score: 1

      Seriously, I second that. We need a way (database) to give out random swedish government e-mails. So I could just cc to sweden@database.com and have that mail forwarded to 20 swedish officials. Or at least have a DB of government addresses and have each person select a few "extra special government friends" at random and send copies of their mail to those "friends"

  23. Seamless, no. Pretty darn close, yes. by querist · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is no "seamless" encryption method that will give you enough protection. Sorry.

    However, there are plenty of options if you're willing to do just a little work.

    Install GPG or PGP. I use GPG because I can give it away legally to my friends who are less technically saavy and it works on Linux, OS X, and Windows.

    Enigmail will integrate nicely into Mozilla's emailer and automate nearly everything once you have the person's public key. It will even notice who your recipient is and automatically pick the correct key.

    There is something similar for the OS X Mail application (and I have it installed) but I don't remember the name of the application. It's not as bright as Enigmail and won't figure out who the recepient is automatically and pick the correct key.

    FireGPG is a plug-in for FireFox (and it works for "Mozilla" because the web browser _is_ FireFox) that will allow you to use GPG with GMail.

    I have an email account in which _all_ of the traffic is encrypted because I use these tools. I never send anything unencrypted on that account.

    It's not seamless, but it's not that hard and it is not very intrusive.

    I do not know if I should pity you because of your government reading your emails or if I should at least feel happy for you that they are honest enough to admit it (supposedly) before starting. Either way, I doubt things are any better here in the USA.

    I find it amusing that the CAPTCHA is "incided", as in this new law inciting a riot.

    1. Re:Seamless, no. Pretty darn close, yes. by JohnWhitney · · Score: 1

      OS X's Mail.app already has full support for email signing and encryption (and has since at least 10.4, when I started using the feature). Public keys can be exchanged by exchanging signed emails. Signing and encrypting are as simple as clicking the appropriate button on the "new message" window (the encryption button is only available when you are sending email to an address you have a public key for).

    2. Re:Seamless, no. Pretty darn close, yes. by TheBig1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, although this is only for S/MIME IIRC - GPG is not supported.
      Cheers

    3. Re:Seamless, no. Pretty darn close, yes. by init100 · · Score: 1

      So? S/MIME certificates are available from well-known CAs for free.

    4. Re:Seamless, no. Pretty darn close, yes. by TheBig1 · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. I misread the earlier thread as talking specifically about GPG.
      Cheers

    5. Re:Seamless, no. Pretty darn close, yes. by redscare2k4 · · Score: 1

      Now that was really a +5 informative post.

      I've installed GPG and the firefox plugin, generated the keys, and it's just 1-click to cypher, 1-click to decypher mails using GMail.

    6. Re:Seamless, no. Pretty darn close, yes. by molo · · Score: 2, Informative

      About FireGPG, you should be careful when using it with gmail. Unless you are using the HTML-only version, when using their javascript-enabled message composition window a draft of the message gets saved to the gmail server. So now you have your plaintext being sent to gmail. It is only after you write your plaintext that the message is then encrypted for transmission.

      -molo

      --
      Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
  24. Well as Phil Z. has said.. by X86BSD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The reason PGP, and GPG as well, fail is because PKI is just too difficult to setup and maintain. I'm sure some nerd who lives in his mom's basement is going to contest this but the fact remains it's too difficult to do in most corporations let alone end users. Making a key, remembering the password, managing keys, revoking keys, it's all just a total pain in the ass. If you truly want secure email for the masses it has to be transparent. This is just a given. People are not going to do PKI. This is the main reason we don't have mass adoption of PGP encrypted email.

    The second reason and it's to a lesser extent but still a strong motivator IMO for the lack of secure options for communication are that corporations and governments don't WANT secure applications being adopted. How else can the government spy on you or corporations steal secrets from each other if things are encrypted. This isn't paranoid fantasy land I live in. I don't think any intelligent person today doesn't know especially over the last 8 years that the governments are doing everything they can to spy on you, record you, monitor you and track you. Wether its the TSA, DHS, warrant-less wiretapping whatever we are living in a 1984'esqe society. Seamless and mass adoption of strong encryption and anonymity by the masses would *seriously* curtail their ability to spy on you and find dissidents and evil doers who read catcher in the rye. So IMO these are the two strongest compelling reasons we don't have encryption for the masses yet. Phil's ZFone project is a good step in the right direction though.

    1. Re:Well as Phil Z. has said.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't use email then.

      Most of my communications are over Instant Messaging, these can be setup to use SSL easily and TRANSPARENTLY since we have to sign on anyway.

    2. Re:Well as Phil Z. has said.. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      The reason PGP, and GPG as well, fail is because PKI is just too difficult to setup and maintain. That's why no one uses SSL.

      it's too difficult to do in most corporations Most corporations aren't smart enough to use S/MIME.

      If you truly want secure email for the masses it has to be transparent. If it was transparent, it wouldn't be truly secure.

      Still, I'd argue that we should go for PGP/GPG. It's a lot simpler than a lot of other things people do on a daily basis -- driving a car, for instance. Certainly much simpler than a lot of things which are taught in school.

      corporations and governments don't WANT secure applications being adopted. Hope that tinfoil hat is comfortable... (And you accuse me of living in my mom's basement?)

      How else can the government spy on you or corporations steal secrets from each other if things are encrypted. The government, I can see, but it's not as though they can reasonably outlaw it. There's not really much the government can do, other than use the same encryption themselves when appropriate.

      But corporations? Seems to me that if this ever was the case, all it would take is one smart corporation to realize that if they implement crypto and their competitors don't, they can spy on competitors, but not vice versa. Of course, this would lead to an arms race resulting in no one being able to spy on anyone, which would be better for all involved.

      we are living in a 1984'esqe society. There are hints of that, but have you actually read 1984? I don't see thought police or memory holes.
      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    3. Re:Well as Phil Z. has said.. by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      SSL/X.509 is just a degenerate form of the same scheme PGP uses. If people can handle SSL, they can handle PGP. A PGP-based scheme can be made to look the same to the users.

      Unfortunately, if it's really transparent (whether we're talking about X.509 or PGP), then it probably has at least a slight weakness (i.e. it never really gets authenticated).

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    4. Re:Well as Phil Z. has said.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's interesting to note that the, er, 'offshore' industry (i.e. the people who help you set up untraceable corporations, private bank accounts in Belize, Panama and similar locations, Private Interest Foundations (anonymous trusts) for tax evasion, money laundering and no doubt one or two legitimate practices are *very* well equipped with PGP/GPG.

      Having looked into it for (cough) entirely legitimate purposes myself, I was fairly impressed by their and their customers' ability to use PGP without much difficulty.

      It's interesting to note that S/MIME has no visibility in this murky corner of the world.

      Posting as AC for obvious reasons.

    5. Re:Well as Phil Z. has said.. by FrangoAssado · · Score: 1

      Using SSL without checking your peer's certificate is useless, as it enables MITM attacks (see this Wikipedia article). This brings us back to the problem of managing keys (or certificates, or whatever).

    6. Re:Well as Phil Z. has said.. by huge · · Score: 1

      The reason PGP, and GPG as well, fail is because PKI is just too difficult to setup and maintain
      <snip>
      IMO for the lack of secure options for communication are that corporations and governments don't WANT secure applications being adopted. Take Estonia, for example, where government has set up and is maintaining certificate based PKI infrastructure. When you receive a government issued ID card you can enroll for certificate free of charge. That certificate is then valid, among other things, for signing and encrypting email.

      So in this case the infrastructure would be there but there aren't that many users that would sign or encrypt their emails. I wouldn't say that the problem in this case is the government but the users. It's all there, free of charge, but people don't see any reason to start using it.

      More details are available, in English, from the www.sk.ee and www.id.ee.

      --
      -- Reality checks don't bounce.
    7. Re:Well as Phil Z. has said.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting as AC for understandable reasons.

      The reason PGP, and GPG as well, fail is because PKI is just too difficult to setup and maintain. I'm sure some nerd who lives in his mom's basement is going to contest this but the fact remains it's too difficult to do in most corporations let alone end users. Making a key, remembering the password, managing keys, revoking keys, it's all just a total pain in the ass. If you truly want secure email for the masses it has to be transparent. This is just a given. People are not going to do PKI. This is the main reason we don't have mass adoption of PGP encrypted email. Whole ministry of foreign affairs of Finland and soon other ministries too use PKI. It's pretty easy to start using even in such large organizations with thousands of people, hundreds of which are at different countries at any given time and who is where changing often. The most difficult task was delivering the private keys (chip cards and PINs) to people in different countries, which was made by old fashioned, sealed letters and diplomatic mail.

      This much I can safely tell without breaking the contract of keeping my mouth shut as it is public issue and actually the law here requires that all confidential stuff and any ministries' mails that contain stuff like personal information (names, social identification numbers, etc.) must be encrypted like that.

      About price of the project I can't propably give much info but I can tell that even on such massive, international organizations it wasn't unaffordable, even if not cheap.

    8. Re:Well as Phil Z. has said.. by GleeBot · · Score: 1

      People don't seem to have any trouble managing their house key, car key, etc. What if you had some sort of USB key that could be plugged into any computer, and encrypt/decrypt data presented to it? Then people wouldn't have to bother with passphrases and what-not (although I suppose they could, for extra security). It wouldn't be totally secure, but it's be good enough for most people.

    9. Re:Well as Phil Z. has said.. by Eil · · Score: 1

      The reason PGP, and GPG as well, fail is because PKI is just too difficult to setup and maintain. I'm sure some nerd who lives in his mom's basement is going to contest this but the fact remains it's too difficult to do in most corporations let alone end users. Making a key, remembering the password, managing keys, revoking keys, it's all just a total pain in the ass.

      The thing is, it doesn't have to be. While PKI is rather complex underneath, well-designed software can cover it all up for the end user. While it might help in certain cases, they don't even necessarily need to know the difference between a public and private key (even though a 4-year-old can understand this just fine). The user just clicks a button somewhere in their program that says, "encrypt this message.". There's no reason why public key distribution can't be made almost or entirely automatic. If encryption ever becomes popular enough (one can dream), the software can automatically encrypt everything from mail to IM to files stored on a flash drive without requiring anything extra of the user (except maybe a password to unlock the private key for use).

      What I'd like to see is some kind of WORM (write once, read many) USB keyfob for storing a single keypair on. You plug it into your computer whenever you're creating or working on encrypted data or into someone else's computer if you want to give them your public key.

  25. PGP/GPG by wilsoniya · · Score: 3, Insightful

    More people need to use these. Operating without a centralized Certificate Authority, GPG really depends on there being sufficient users to establish a web of trust.

    I think people (in the US at least) either don't understand the simplicity of sniffing cleartext, or don't think they care. The aggravating part is that GPG can be really easy to use. Apps like Seahorse make key and keyring management trivial. There's a great Thunderbird plugin that makes signing and/or encrypting your mail no harder than it was before. (Yes, I know not everyone uses Linux and Thunderbird, but I trust GPG tools exist for other OSs/email clients)

    Given a safe and ubiquitous encryption scheme, I can't think any reasons for sending text/data in the clear. Now all we need is a ubiquitous encryption scheme.

    --
    I can't remember the last time I forgot anything.
    1. Re:PGP/GPG by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      I think people (in the US at least) either don't understand the simplicity of sniffing cleartext, or don't think they care. Hmm. I propose we start sniffing emails everywhere we can, and put the results up on Wikileaks for the world to see. Then we'll know who really cares.
      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    2. Re:PGP/GPG by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Can someone write an open source facebook and myspace GPG key creator/signer/[loader of pubkey onto keyserver]? This is the only way I can foresee getting the masses to participate in the web of trust, by using a web of trust that they already use. Add it onto several OMG Ponies apps.

      Of course, the myspace generation uses myspace/facebook messages for their email, so it's a pointless venture.

    3. Re:PGP/GPG by supervillainsf · · Score: 1

      I think you might have something there, however, I don't think that really all that many people who sit in starbucks really read wikileaks, so my solution would be to just forward a nice long log of the persons emails back to that person (from a throwaway account obviously) explaining the what, where and why and detailing the fix.

    4. Re:PGP/GPG by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      That won't work at all. Send it to their friends.

      Point of Wikileaks was to (hopefully) get it indexed by Google, so that it will sneak up on them as a nasty surprise when someone googles their name.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    5. Re:PGP/GPG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PGP is really simple on both windows, and Linux. your key is uploaded to a server so someone can easily find the key attached to your email address, when combined with fireGPG (Firefox extension) it's just a case of clicking send, sign, and encrypt. the more people use it the better it will become.

  26. Why is use limited? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Because most average people don't understand what is going on and still have that 'i'm not doing anything wrong' mentality.

    And the few that do, dont understand how to mitigate it.

    That 2nd is a problem for us techies too, as one way encryption is pretty worthless for communication.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Why is use limited? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Because most average people don't understand what is going on and still have that 'i'm
      > not doing anything wrong' mentality.

      I don't approve of government snooping (I don't approve of government at all) but the fact is, they are right. The fact is that for most people (including most of us) there is nothing in any of their email such that having it read by any agency of any government would affect their lives in any way.

      A real danger, though, is that the governments will get sucked in to some sort of automated "suspicious activity" monitoring and then base pre-emptive action on it.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Why is use limited? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Even if they are 100% innocent, ( actually, especially if they are ) the government has no business reading their mail.

      Its none of their business.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:Why is use limited? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Even if they are 100% innocent, ( actually, especially if they are ) the government has
      > no business reading their mail.

      I didn't say it did (actually, I said it didn't). I just said that if it did so anyway nothing bad would befall most of us. We simply are not involved in anything the government cares about.

      On the other hand if, instead of just reading it and being bored to tears, they use their buggy software to scan it for "suspicious patterns" we could be awakened at 2AM by machinegun-toting SWAT teams demanding that we tell them where the plutonium is.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  27. My largest privacy concern? by multisync · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The fact that the majority of people will happily give up all manner of private information in exchange for a few pennies off the price of a carton of milk. If the threat of identity theft doesn't make people more conscious of their privacy, I doubt the threat of their government reading their email will.

    --
    I don't care why you're posting AC
    1. Re:My largest privacy concern? by TheBig1 · · Score: 1

      Who says they give the correct information when filling in that stuff...

  28. SSL Proxy by markybob · · Score: 2, Informative

    You need to use a proxy that encrypts all traffic to and from you and it. Try dipconsultants.com ...I use it and it's very fast.

  29. Tumbleweed by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 1

    What can an organization do, centrally, to lift the burden of encryption from the users? Are there any transparent schemes for email encryption which could be installed for the organization as a whole? I work for a large healthcare organization and we use a product called Tumbleweed. It's not especially magical. If an outgoing e-mail is marked as encrypted (or keywords appear in the e-mail), the recipient gets a link to a secure web portal where they can log in and get that e-mail. It works fairly well, satisfying HIPPA requirements that otherwise prevented us from sending confidential e-mails to outside physician groups.
  30. Re:Someone please remind me... by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 3, Informative

    Linus is from Finland,/a>.

    True, but from the Swedish speaking minority of Finns.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  31. Re:Someone please remind me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...why sweden matters other than that torvalts character? My bum is on the Sweedish!
  32. Not Alone? by OldFish · · Score: 1

    Lots of traffic is passing through Sweden, but more importantly, the Swedish government is not alone in using this type of surveillance." If anything the Swedes are latecomers to this sort of monitoring. It's tough for a politician to resist that sort of power since it requires great strength of character. Our politicians in the USA are the weakest.

  33. Secure browser by markybob · · Score: 1

    This is a perfect use for something like DIP Secure Browser (dipconsultants.com). It encrypt everything on disk, such as your history logs and bookmarks, there's nothing for Big Brother to see. Also, if you use it with their proxy service, all your internet traffic is also encrypted. Take a look

  34. Mod parent up. You are SO right. by querist · · Score: 1

    You are quite correct. It's scary, but you're right. The thing that is frightening is not the fact that there are stupid criminals, like my favourite example of the night-time purse snatcher with the light-up trainers, but that these stupid criminals who are not bright enough to use encryption will be used as "proof" that this new invasive law "works".

    I am quite confident that this _will_ be abused. There is an established history of laws like this being abused, such as that anti-terrorist law that was used against that family in the UK with regard to someone thinking they were registering their kid in the wrong school or some such non-terrorist activity. I'm saddened to see this happening to Sweden, or to any other country. I'm fairly confident it's already happening here in the USA to a much wider degree than most would suspect.

  35. Re:17 Reasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently the AC forgot that some non-San Franciscans read /. Check "17 Reasons Because" for the backstory.

  36. Re:Someone please remind me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you. You just made me laugh.

    The bum is all alone.

  37. these kinds of stories are philosphically naive by circletimessquare · · Score: 1, Interesting

    it is not that you don't deserve privacy, it is that privacy is philosophically impossible on a wide open network. such that giving up on the notion of privacy on the internet isn't cynical and defeatist, it is merely being realistic. in fact, fighting for privacy on the internet is not heroic and idealistic, it is simply gullible and naive and ignorant of the subject matter

    if you take a large, open, sprawling network, there is no law or safeguard that can protect you from eavesdropping. forget the government for a moment, what about companies? what about technically astute oddballs? what about aspects of any country's government that does whatever the hell they want to regardless of what the goody two shoes in the legislature say? what about governments of other countries the network passes through? etc., etc.

    let us say sweden instead passed a massive ANTI-eavesdropping law instead of the law it did pass. ok, are you going to celebrate? why? are there people out there who actually believe this would protect them from eavesdropping? who are you and what about the concept of a "vast open network" do you not understand?

    the news of what the swedish government did is treated as if it were a ton of bricks here. folks: absolutely nothing has changed, and no law will ever protect you. ever. its called a sprawling, open network. its not a bank vault. your info, once it goes on the wire, is open season for snooping, is subject to thousands of different vectors for attack. by all sorts of entities

    and there is no technological or legal to fix to that that does not also break what you like about the network in the first place: its openness. thats the downside to being open, call it a twist on the concept of the tragedy of the commons. its free for you to do anything you want... but that means it is also free for more nefarious interests to do whatever they want to to. there is no way to act against such nefarious interests that does not also somehow inconvenience what you like about the network at the same time

    the solution? STOP ASSUMING PRIVACY ON AN OPEN NETOWRK IS POSSIBLE OR EVEN A VALID CONCEPT FOR YOU TO CONSIDER

    seriously, get over it. privacy on the internet is a philosophical impossibility

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:these kinds of stories are philosphically naive by OldFish · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nonsense. Eavesdropping on an encrypted conversation where the encryption is managed by the two endpoints gives you nothing but the identities of the communicators, and if they have taken steps to conceal their identities an eavesdropper doesn't even get that information. This secure communication exists peacefully alongside your "vast open network". You clearly invested a fair bit of time writing your post. Why? What part of communication security technology do you not understand?

    2. Re:these kinds of stories are philosphically naive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ARE aware that this law does NOT just refer to teh Internets, right? It also gives the FRA the right to snoop on your SMS messages, phone conversations, and pretty much anything else that passes through the cables at one point or other.

  38. get involved by GIS.thrills · · Score: 1

    A tech answer to this question may leave you wanting. The best way to protect your privacy is to make it illegal again for the government to infringe on it. Sweden is a parliamentary democracy that has to answer to the people. Organize and get involved in your government. Just don't do it over email for now.

  39. Okay by Auckerman · · Score: 1

    The solution is to migrate TCP/IP to a public key system. The entire protocol.

    --

    Burn Hollywood Burn
    1. Re:Okay by IdeaMan · · Score: 1

      That's a step in the right direction.

      We need to salt the traffic too though to defeat traffic analysis like what broke VOIP a little bit back.
      Send some random traffic to random IP:ports. Route traffic somewhat randomly (anyone can bounce a packet coming in on one port to some other ip on a different port). Example: Say you're Alice surfing a website from Bob and you're sending an email to Charlie. Send the email to Bob with a request to route it to Charlie and send some of the website request traffic to Charlie with a request to route it to Bob.

      --
      They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
  40. encryption is irrelevant by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'll go out on a limb and predict that in 5 yrs or less time, encryption will be a 'self admission of guilt' to ALL governments.

    I really hope I'm wrong. but the trend is there if you just look.

    we already have people saying 'if you are not a terrorist, you should have nothing to hide'. this is just a half step away from saying 'if you DO use encryption, you MUST be hiding something that we should see'.

    mark my words.

    you may think that you are out-smarting the governments but they have the money, the guns and all the power. and they're NOT about to give this bit of power (over the people) up.

    if you encrypt a laptop and pass thru customs, you are FORCED to reveal your password or at the least, 'open' the disk for them to view the contents of. so tell me, how did encryption help here?

    don't give me that crap about truecrypt, either. how long will it take before their border people know how to detect this? ....so depressing ;(

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    1. Re:encryption is irrelevant by OldFish · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. This is precisely my most pressing concern about privacy. It is a political, not technical issue. Too bad we could resurrect Jefferson - he'd call for hangings for the traitors who have NO respect for the Constitution. PS: the recent rulings regarding compelled production of passphrases within the borders are mildly encouraging.

    2. Re:encryption is irrelevant by Skal+Tura · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As for passing customs, add in the hidden volume provided by truecrypt. I bet most would eat answer "there is none" ;)

      on the "public" portion, have semi-private personal pics, ie. your gf about naked, some sex stories from web and change them like they would be your experiences, love letters same thing, and other personalish data like that.

      That "GF" doesn't be even YOUR gf, just grab some package of amateur pics of some website X)

      Social engineering!

      2nd solution: Public torrent based encrypted "backup" service, goes through the borders easily. Could be somekind of torrent & truecrypt mashup.

      Could work if say you want to "backup" 5 gigs, you got to host atleast 10gigs. Gigantic waste of HDD space, Gigantic waste of bandwidth, no live usage, but have good key, and you are golden :)

      In theory could work, anyone attempting something like this?

    3. Re:encryption is irrelevant by uffe_nordholm · · Score: 2

      There is an effective, although controversial, way to combat the "if you are not a terrorist then you have nothing to hide" idea. Ask whoever proposes it if they would mind you mounting a webcam in their bedroom. The idea is that unless they are sexual perverts (or paedophiles) they have nothing to hide, and will then,by their own logic, have nothing to hide. If they have nothing to hide, why should they then object to having a webcam in their bedroom?

      I realise this is a very crude way of combating something you dislike, but it does show, very effectively, that even if we 'have nothing to hide' we might object to being spied on.

      I live in Sweden, where we have recently been graced with this law allowing FRA to listen in on all traffic crossing the border. As I understand it, this applies to telephone and internet traffic, and any other ways of transporting information electronically that might be in use. While I realise that snooping on certain targets (ie foreign embassies, people suspected of serious crime etc.) is of value to the authorities I think the law (as it has been presented in media) is far too permissive. I think that FRA should be given the possibility to apply for permission to eavesdrop on certain specific targets, and the permissions given should be valid a certain (reasonable) time, and then FRA would have to reapply for permission if they find a target to be of value.

      Who they should apply to might be a difficult question, since the fact that they want to eavesdrop on any particular target must be kept a secret (or the information gained will be of little or no value).

    4. Re:encryption is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, in TrueCrypt you can employ plausible deniability: you embed a hidden partition within an encrypted volume, so that the hidden data becomes undetectable, because it'll look just like random garbage. Unless, of course, you know it is there and can ask TrueCrypt to open it.

      So here is how to do it: create an encrypted partition and fill it with some embarrassing material (e.g., some sort of sick, but legal, porn). Then create the hidden partition inside it with the actual secret data. If asked, you'll be able to say that you encrypted the volume because you are embarrassed by the porn. It is a good excuse and no one will be able to detect the hidden material.

      Unless they torture you until you reveal it to them, of course.

    5. Re:encryption is irrelevant by kellyb9 · · Score: 1

      I usually don't care to be argumentative... but thats dumbest thing I've ever heard. Encrypting a message isn't an admission of guilt at all. it just means you don't want anyone to read it. Key word: anyone. It's the same reason you use SSH to connect to a server instead of telnet - plain text messages with password information, credit card statements, etc are not secure without some level of encryption. I apologize for my rude introduction to this post, but I'm just getting so sick of people getting modded up just on the premise that they are overly paranoid with their 5 year outlooks.

    6. Re:encryption is irrelevant by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I follow you. explain again how putting nude or semi-nude photos on a public volume accomplishes anything.

      if anything, I'd put BORING text docs on my public volume. certainly NOTHING to trigger the urge to want to look further! staying below the radar is the way to go, I think.

      but my point is that even if right NOW, customs doesn't know about TC, they soon will. they're dumb but their bosses aren't ;(

      now, suppose they get smart and detect (again, later on via some toolkit that they simply run) you have a TC volume. guess what - you just missed your plane and are having bubba reach up where you didn't want him to.

      scary, huh?

      "when encryption is suspect, only suspects will be using it"

      yeah, I rephrased that old famous quote. it still holds, though.

      don't count on techie things to get around the gov anti-privacy issue. its an arms race, but their arms are always bigger than yours (or mine).

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    7. Re:encryption is irrelevant by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1

      "There is none" is a bad idea. "Hidden volume?" is much better

    8. Re:encryption is irrelevant by Skal+Tura · · Score: 1

      no no, the "public" portion of the encrypted volume, the one you let the customs officers see ;)
      Now see what i mean?

      That kinda stuff usually is quite personal, and some people would definitely want to keep other people's hands off of them.

      and no matter do they see your truecrypt volume, the beauty is that you WANT them to see if they want to snoop around.

      Furthermore, if you are clever, you can trick HDD SMART to hide an partition for you ;) SMART works by having some extra sectors on the HDD which are being taken into use as some sectors go bad. Trick a bit with it, and you can hide data there.

      See, there's ways to hide the stuff if you really have to have it on laptop hdd when you pass customs. Never mind how small an flash drive can be, hidden in ie. battery compartment.

      The easiest way however is to have an server, you can access after you are past the customs.

      Grab the encrypted volume through net, grab truecrypt, open :)

      Tho ... Then customs might be suspicious if they DO NOT find any priviledged information (personal, business or otherwise) on your laptop.

      Better to have baits than squeeky clean, and those seminude pics would be quite good baits ;) Depending upon how you look, naturally that wouldn't work if you look like a rockstar, but for a joe average it should do the trick.

      There's plenty of ways around, and they never can catch you if you just stay on top of your game. TOR, Freenet, Strong encrypted volumes, PGP/GPG, secure VPN, tools are plenty, it's just matter of harnessing them.

      Goverment might have lengthy hands, but they can't be bruteforcing every single encrypted volume they stumble upon.

      Now as i've made these comments, i better not travel to the US or UK anytime soon X) (Like they would care about /. comments)

    9. Re:encryption is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll go out on a limb and predict that in 5 yrs or less time, encryption will be a 'self admission of guilt' to ALL governments.

      So what the hell is going to happen to secure online banking? Secure ANYTHING really?

    10. Re:encryption is irrelevant by Gnavpot · · Score: 1

      I'll go out on a limb and predict that in 5 yrs or less time, encryption will be a 'self admission of guilt' to ALL governments.

      So what the hell is going to happen to secure online banking? Secure ANYTHING really?

      Government authorization.

      And government access to keys.
    11. Re:encryption is irrelevant by Mashiara · · Score: 1

      OTOH Rubberhose has interesting approach to the hidden volumes.

      Short version: you cannot ever prove that you have provided passwords to *all* volumes, and of course they can never prove that you haven't. Which means that after giving up a few "throwaway" volume keys you can start screaming "there is no more" while they beat you with the proverbial rubber hose.

    12. Re:encryption is irrelevant by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 1

      I'll see your prediction and raise with the prediction of paper money disapearing ASAP. They are so hard to track, and lets face it, if you've got nothing to hide, you might as well pay using plastic.

      --
      She made the willows dance
    13. Re:encryption is irrelevant by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I will call your bet; I agree that paper money will be outlawed (not literally but in practical purposes, it will be).

      our gov - correction, ALL govs want the richness of tracking our every move. green money just lets citizens exercise total free will over their spending. we can't have that - not in our new 'controlled' society.

      somehow, I see more social change (for the bad) in the next 5 yrs than we've had in the last 50. and that saddens me, since its not PROGRESS but its just 'change'.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  41. Not Obvious? by mh1997 · · Score: 1

    'What can I do to improve my privacy?' The answer is not obvious.
    The obvious answer is to overthrow the government. Since that is not a practical or a desireable solution then the next obvious answer is do not send anything private via email.

    Sadly, not enough people care about the loss of privacy rights to change this. Look at all the people that say "I don't care, I have nothing to hide."

  42. Re:Someone please remind me... by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They snoop and tell your government about your stash of _blackjack-playing, postmoking hookers_ (I'm in the US). Wala - your government has "proof" you are engaged in illegal activity and busts down your door.

    Although I agree with your comment, just putting in an email, slashdot comment, or even one of my journals can't get the FBI and DEA and whatever anti-prostitution agency to break down my door. Otherwise it seems they already would have, as although I'm no gambler, my slashdot journals often feature potsmoking and hookers. Maybe I should add some blackjack.

    However, adultery is NOT against the law. Do you want your wife to find the email you sent to your girlfriend because Sweden seems to be as anti-freedom as America?

    (OT but related; why is it legal for me to fuck my congressman's wife, but illegal for me to pay her for it?)

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  43. The fact is the Facebook generation doesn't care by wolfdvh · · Score: 1
    Users of MySpace/Facebook etc. have clearly demonstrated by their actions that they don't care at all about their privacy. They routinely post loads of information about themselves that advertisers, marketers, and other intelligence agencies could not get easily, and probably could not get at all.

    Some even think it a virtue to live an 'open life' and not do anything they would not mind seeing in public.

    Since they are the future, it is no wonder that software vendors have little incentive to invest money in a product/feature that has no future market going forward.

  44. Re:Someone please remind me... by sm62704 · · Score: 1

    Wala? It's "voila" you uncultured idiot

    It is? Wow, learn something new every day. Am I cultured now, or do I need more yeast?

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  45. Re:17 Reasons... by Theoboley · · Score: 0

    How to Speak San Franciscan - *Tears down pants* VAJOINA!!!

    --
    Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
  46. Sue the buggers! by ayjay29 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Pirate Bay seems to have the right idea. Take the governemt to court, start legal procedings.

    If this is anything like the other PirateBay cases i can't wait to see the legal corrispondance.

    --
    Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
    1. Re:Sue the buggers! by RPoet · · Score: 1

      You seem to have misread the article. It says Pirate Party, not The Pirate Bay. It has some overlap in membership, but they are not the same.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
  47. extreme swedes by Gearoid_Murphy · · Score: 0

    the swedes also took to eugenics in a big way, sterilising 62,000 people between 1934 and 1975. The link between Eugenics and Sweden's new monitoring laws is the willingness of the Swedes to trust in the communal wisdom. Big brother knows best, and to be fair, Sweden seems to have got it right, they enjoy some of the highest living standards in the world in one of the most inhospitable climates of the world (during the winter anyway). However, what's good for the Swedes is not necessarily good for other countries, especially where the morality of the political elite is in question.

    --
    prepare the survey weasels.
    1. Re:extreme swedes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The swedish climate is _not_ one of the most inhospitable in the world. Not even close. In the far north, it gets really cold in the winter but in most parts, especially the densely populated parts, the climate is quite mild because of the gulf stream.

      And, no, we don't have polar bears, cuckoo clocks or women in braids named "Inga" either.

      Don't even get me started on the lederhosen... :-/

      Otherwise you are completely right. Us swedes have always had a tendency to let Big Brother run our lives. Nonetheless, I never thought a law like this could be passed. Not by liberals!

  48. Re:The fact is the Facebook generation doesn't car by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Users of MySpace/Facebook etc. have clearly demonstrated by their actions that they don't care at all about their privacy.

          Patients have clearly demonstrated by their actions that they don't care at all about their privacy. After all they keep getting sick all the time, and visiting hospitals containing busy emergency rooms full of all kinds of undesirables - and that's just the staff!....

          I think the key word, as always, is CHOICE. Do you really propose that society accept your views on privacy with an argument based on what some teenagers are willing to do on "myspace"?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  49. Off the record messaging by Neoncow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-the-Record_Messaging

    There are plug-ins available for it. OTR has some nice properties including the fact that messages are encrypted, but still deniable. What this means is an eavesdropper cannot read what you write, but at some later time an attacker with an unencrypted copy of the conversation cannot prove that you wrote it.

    The goal of the project is to provide a level of security similar to meeting in a private place an d talking. Privacy without a paper trail.

    http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/

    1. Re:Off the record messaging by stooops · · Score: 1

      Two great features of OTR:

      Perfect forward secrecy:
      Messages are only encrypted with temporary per-message AES keys, negotiated using the Diffie-Hellman key exchange protocol. The compromise of any long-lived cryptographic keys does not compromise any previous conversations, even if an attacker is in possession of ciphertexts.

      Deniable authentication:
      Messages in a conversation do not have digital signatures, and after a conversation is complete, anyone is able to forge a message to appear to have come from one of the participants in the conversation, assuring that it is impossible to prove that a specific message came from a specific person.

    2. Re:Off the record messaging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Provided you don't sign a PGP encrypted email, all anyone can prove is that someone who had access to the recipient's public key sent the message, so it is still deniable.

    3. Re:Off the record messaging by Neoncow · · Score: 1

      If you don't sign the message, you lose authentication. OTR provides authenticated deniable encryption.

  50. Webmail by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In this day and age, why is the use of this type of privacy technologies still so limited?

    Aside from the usual reason of apathy, we have a (relatively) new, technical problem with securing email: a lot of people are using webmail.

    That development was a technological step backwards: moving from specialized client software (mail reader) that understands what it is working on, to a generic tool (web browser). It's hard for a web browser to be able to understand that this piece of an web page is a PGP block, and this part is just UI, and that's assuming that it even has the whole message to work with (i.e. the web server actually sends all the PGP/MIME attachments, instead of presenting a nice webby interface that presents the message parts separately).

    I have heard of a Firefox extension (damn, I can't remember the name) that can encrypt and decrypt pieces of web pages or textareas, but that sort of thing is always going to be hacky and cumbersome compared to a real mailreader, so I think that puts us at a disadvantage, compared to the situation ten years ago.

    Discourage webmail. Webmail is creating a network effect that is a barrier to securing email.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Webmail by the_one(2) · · Score: 1

      leetkey can encrypt and decrypt textareas with AES and DES (and rot13!) and a bunch of other features that are more or less useful like encoding/decoding binary numbers to ASCII

      01101001 00100000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01101100 01101100 01111001 00100000 01101100 01101001 01101011 01100101 00100000 01101100 01100101 01100101 01110100 01101011 01100101 01111001

    2. Re:Webmail by muckracer · · Score: 1

      > Discourage webmail.

      Used to think like that too. Still do to some extent. But webmail has one great feature which you describe as a drawback. It IS accessible from a browser. Any browser. Even from your Mom's office computer where you are visiting or the hotel lounge overseas. That is its killer-feature...all other points you made non-withstanding. A plugin-on-the-fly would be nice...like FireGPG + your keys on a USB stick which you could activate without having to install anything.

      Personally I believe discouraging webmail is pointless. IMHO it's anyway just an intermediate step from physical location-bound solutions, like your dedicated MUA on your home computer, and the next development of Blackberry-style e-mail on your cell phone (with SMS being the forerunner of that). Focus instead on developing a secure messaging/e-mail app for use on cell phones and other such devices. People want their communication instantly delivered to the recipient, not have to wait until they get home from their 3-weeks Australia trip to "check their e-mail".

    3. Re:Webmail by Eil · · Score: 1

      You're thinking of FireGPG.

      Webmail alone isn't a bad thing for encryption. It's just that no major webmail providers offer any way at all to use encryption with their service.

      If anything, webmail could make encrypted mail easier to use if the provider builds the PKI bits right into the webmail application. Granted, you might have to paste your public key into a text field every time you send a message (so that javascript or some client-side thing can encrypt the contents before sending). Another option would be to simply trust the email provider to store your key securely and not give it out to any governments which might ask. If you're a company and you run your own webmail server with HTTPS, you probably trust yourself just fine and can have the webmail app automatically encrypt messages for intra-company email and merely sign messages to external addresses.

      None of this is all that difficult, the only hard part is just doing the work to get everything automated for the end user.

    4. Re:Webmail by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      It IS accessible from a browser. Any browser. Even from your Mom's office computer where you are visiting or the hotel lounge overseas. That is its killer-feature...

      Wouldn't your IMAP server also be accessible from your mom's office computer or a hotel overseas? Yeah, I know that in practice web browsers, for some reason, tend to be more widely deployed than mail readers. But there's no reason that should be the case -- and fixing that oversight would be part of the "discourage webmail" agenda.

      Focus instead on developing a secure messaging/e-mail app for use on cell phones and other such devices.
      I'm all for that, and think it's a laudable goal, except for the word "instead." :-) Email can be replaced by something lighter in many cases, but not all. email is not going away.
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    5. Re:Webmail by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      If anything, webmail could make encrypted mail easier to use if the provider builds the PKI bits right into the webmail application.

      This can't really be done well. If the crypto runs on the server, then you're giving your keys to someone else. And even in cases like hushmail where they try to do it "right" and run a Java app on the client, trusting an email provider to also be a software provider leads to risks that they send you bad software.

      Another option would be to simply trust the email provider to store your key securely and not give it out to any governments which might ask.
      That's better than nothing, but .. ugh .. not really a good way to do things, especially when it's so easy to do things more safely.

      If you're a company and you run your own webmail server with HTTPS, you probably trust yourself just fine and can have the webmail app automatically encrypt messages for intra-company email and merely sign messages to external addresses.
      Yes, that's ok and would be a vast improvement for organizations. But it's not a good solution for personal communications.
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  51. Part 1 easy by Skal+Tura · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Live in sweden: secure VPN out of sweden first :)

    Easy thing to do, really no companies however offer this service

    1. Re:Part 1 easy by chrisarn · · Score: 1

      There are a couple of companies doing this, but their services is mainly directed to customers in dictatorships. Now there is several companies planning on countermeasures, including mine. But the Swedish government isn't stopping here! Things are getting worse! Now they are investigating a national DNA register! I have written a little bit more about it here: http://www.arnold.se/chris/2008/06/a-new-integrity-hostile-swedish-law-on-its-way/

  52. say a govt identifies someone of interest by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    all they need to do is map his circle of friends, like you said, without even knowing what was said, just by finding the identity of two people in a conversation. thats good enough for them in most espionage work, because then they just focus on other communication channels to find something unencrypted and damaging

    in other words, even if your communication was immune from being cracked by the world's finest supercomputers, you essentially have no protection from their eyes on an open network. you simply have no protection. its a myth. no law will protect you. stop clinging to an impossible notion

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:say a govt identifies someone of interest by OldFish · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess I should give up on privacy just because you say so. Imagine if you will, a large pool of internet traffic entering and leaving a network node that is secure from government meddling(it is possible). You encrypt your traffic and send it into the pool. Your query or other communication is made by this node (or collection of nodes) and the results are sucked back into the pool, encrypted and transmitted back to you. The larger the pool the more difficult it becomes to associate any one user with a particular outgoing request. You need to stop being so sure of yourself. It just looks worse when you're wrong. Better to say "I don't think it is possible, does anyone know otherwise?"

  53. Does encryption really help? by ryanisflyboy · · Score: 1

    When the state wants to read your e-mail, you have these choices: 'oops, it was accidentally deleted, our bad', let them read it, go to jail. If you try to 'cheat' the system by encrypting your mail, then they can simply pass a law that enforces you handing over the password. If you resist, you get X years in jail automatically even if you are innocent of the original offence. Clearly, only the guilty have secrets to hide. Or so will be the slogan the politicians will use to pacify any large resistance.

    When the state no longer protects your privacy or freedom you are left to protect it yourself. Usually it takes a revolution of some kind to develop a meaningful force to fight such a powerful state. Frankly, I'm not ready to die to stop the DHS from reading my e-mail. When enough people would rather be killed than submit a password to the authority, then we can hit the gigantic reset button and start over.

    In the mean time, have fun with your various political processes. Some of them just won't quit even if you kill -9 them. You gotta reboot eventually. 200 years is a pretty good uptime, really.

  54. Do you know the recipient personally ? by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    Instead of emailing them a message, why not put the message on your secure server and email them a link.

    When they follow the link they can be prompted for a password that you have pre-arranged over the phone. From there they could securely download and read the email, or go further and download and install certificates and keys that you had created that could be used for future communication.

    It seems unlikely to me that the Swedish government would bug phone calls as well as the internet - especially if neither the sender or the recipient lived in Sweden. Even if they are, how likely is it that they would connect the dots. They are probably only doing this because it is easy, low-hanging intelligence. But if you are paranoid, I'm sure you could find a way to do the initial key exchange sub rosa.

    Or are you spamming ?

    --
    Nullius in verba
  55. This Stuff Has Been Around For Years by mpapet · · Score: 1

    and it takes some legislation that some people don't like to raise awareness?

    I've used PGP encrypted attachments for years. Works great.

    SMTP over TLS is a good start. TLS is supposed to replace ssl, but who knows when that will happen. If you want to get mad-tricky, there's stunnel.

    VOIP over TLS is another good start. It's not widely implemented, but widely available.

    Chat can also be handled over TLS. Either through a VOIP softphone which is widely available or possibly XMPP.

    If I offered TLS services for chat, VOIP and email, for a $5/month, exactly how many takers would there be? Not enough to be worth my trouble and the crypto-overhead when you get into lots of users. Which is why it isn't widely available.

    As for Reader j1976, getting free advice on ./ is not a good start. Let me give you a tip. Your politically most powerful users in your organization will probably kill the project as soon as they understand it will change the way they work. Nevermind that it would be a minor change. That's not the point. The point is they don't want to be on the receiving end of this change. Which, will **irreparably** harm your career prospects.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  56. Proxied search by xrayspx · · Score: 1

    There are search proxies to google which would guard your search traffic. Unfortunately that means you have to trust Scroogle on top of everything else, and of course, if you click on any of the results, you'll go to the target page in the clear.

    Why does Google not want to provide an SSL search page? It could only be a benefit to their users.

    I also have no idea why more people don't use GPG/PGP. Ease of use has come a long way, at least in Thunderbird. I find the Outlook and Mail.app plugins that are currently available lacking in the area of non-annoyance.

  57. Bottom Line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I try to live my life by the following mantra:

    "Never write anything down that you wouldn't want to hear read-aloud in court."

    That's more difficult for some than it is for me, but I still think it's a pretty good rule of thumb. And it obviously goes for e-mail, IM, SMS, paper, etc.

  58. Farcical game of hide and seek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The border checks are pathetic, I can embed content in select system executables, in images even in otherwise innocuous text files by using nothing more complex than white space.

    The only people using obvious crypto are those who oppose having assholes rummage through their private stuff. Governments are becoming glorified panty-sniffers; anybody competent can hide stuff in such a way that only expert forensic examiners would have a chance of finding it and such an examination would take weeks.

  59. plausible deniability and the decoy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not saying TrueCrypt is the answer, but the idea of plausible deniability is quite powerful. If you claim there's nothing there, and they have no reason to suspect otherwise, then you don't stand out any more than the next person.

    Where it's not possible to completely hide the fact that you have encrypted data, you can always use a decoy, something that TrueCrypt's hidden volumes do very well. You want me to decrypt it? Sure. Oh noes, you can see my tax returns! Little do they know, the juicy stuff is hidden elsewhere.

    Anybody with enough time and desire can find and decrypt data. The real trick is in not giving them the desire. This means looking and acting inconspicuous. Hidden and decoy volumes help this.

  60. Re:Someone please remind me... by computational+super · · Score: 1

    Only on slashdot would a positive reference to Linus Torvalds be moderated tr- um, no, wait a minute... um, wait, where am I?

    --
    Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
  61. right by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    anything that passes onto an open network

    which is my whole point

    (rolls eyes)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  62. Who is actually reading anything? by Kidro · · Score: 1

    Think about the sheer volume of email sent every hour of every day. Who is actually reading it? Likely, governments have automatic searches for certain key words or phrases (perhaps with some sort of algorithm for finding things close to those words or phrases as well), then messages containing those particular things will be flagged and sent into another filter process, then sent to someone to actually read. And email isn't all they'd be monitoring, either. Add to that volume phone calls, internet posts and any other forms of eavesdroppable communication, and you have a completely unmanageable amount of information without some serious filtering going on. All of which means that a small fraction of a percent of communications could ever truly be thoroughly monitored.

    Realistically, unless you write anything that you probably shouldn't be writing about in the first place or live in a country that's totalitarian in nature (in which case you're probably not on /.), no government will ever read your emails.

    Of course, there's always hackers looking for personal information, business secrets, et cetera. Though if you send anything of that sort in an email, you deserve what you get.

  63. get a free certificate and worry less... by johnjones · · Score: 1

    oh come on get a S/MIME cert from one of the big providers and worry less S/MIME is in outlook and apple mail... etc NO PLUGIN needed !

    please simply use a standard !

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S/MIME

    regards

    John Jones

    http://www.johnjones.me.uk

  64. USD $5/month For Secured Comm? by mpapet · · Score: 1

    I could, actually, really really, provide "encrypted" email, VOIP and chat over TLS. Easily since I already do it for myself and some family members.

    If I charged $5/month for 5 addresses I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get enough takers to make it worth my time.

    I'd like to hear otherwise.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  65. Because... by jwiegley · · Score: 3, Informative

    why is the use of this type of privacy technologies still so limited?

    Several reasons:

    Education. Most people that use email don't know what RSA, GPG or PGP is. Let alone the dozens of possible other ciphers available. These people also blissfully wandering around thinking their government is an effective, benevolent provider that keeps them safe so they don't even need encryption or privacy laws. (see: Nanny State). (Instead of the wasteful, corrupt, abusive, ignorant farce that it is.) Polls show that less than 1/4 of Americans know that there is no right to privacy (constitutionaly. The fourth amendment does not provide a right TO privacy; it only provides a right FROM search and seizure under certain conditions.) The rest of them think they have some such right and the government is upholding it, they don't need to encrypt their stuff. Besides [encryption is only for people breaking the law; if you aren't then you have nothing to hide.] lemma: People will not use something if they don't know they have a need for it or if it exists.

    Ease of use. Have you ever tried to figured out how to be your own SSL Certificate Authority? or what that even means? I mean Christ, the openssl tool couldn't be any more complicated. Very few people can figure out and feel comfortable with creating, signing and maintaining keys and certificates correctly. Lemma: People will not use something that is confusing.

    Guidance. Ever have a certificate/key fail to authenticate? Was the error/info helpful to somebody who doesn't understand the implementation details? No. When your VPN fails to connect or your message fails to decrypt is when I've seen some of the worst feedback presented to a user ever. We need to start practicing an intelligent feedback, one that diagnosis the problem and tells the user specifically what must be changed to solve the problem, not what the problem was. Tell people solutions, they already know a problem exists. Lemma: People will not use something that they cannot correct malfunctions with.

    Standardization. PGP is not GPG. Not all mail agents support the same set of encryption capabilities. When sending a message you cannot be sure the recipient can read it no matter what you choose. As the receiver you are going to receive items that are incompatible with you. The result is pressure on ALL users not to use any encryption so that everybody is known to be using the same standard. Lemma: People will not use something [that interacts with all others] unless everybody else is using it.

    Transparency. Install this, configure that, click this button, enter your password... People do not want to put this much effort into reading a piece of mail. I'm a security nut and I still hate typing my passwords the fifty times a day that I do. We need to make systems that are as transparent as possible. The user either has to never know they're using it, or they have to be expected to configure it only once and then never have to worry about it. Lemma: People will not use something that annoys them, especially repeatedly.

    Too many choices. Which cipher do you want? Do you know why? Would you like RSA or DSA? How many bits? Would you like that in binary or ASCII armor? This detracts from a user's ability to be comfortable with a choice and as such they won't make one. Lemma: People will not use something if they aren't comfortable picking it.

    Distribution. For PGP/GPG you need to distribute keys effectively (and transparently). This has not been solved adequately. Lemma: People will not use something that isn't available.

    Economy. People do not want to pay for keys and certificates. While Verisign and others provide trusted stores where keys could be distributed the finance changes they enact are prohibitive for normal people. Yes, I know there exists free ones. But they aren't included in the root certificate databases of applications. You can add them but as I said earlier: you just crossed the line of ease of use that a user isn't going to cross

    --
    I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
    1. Re:Because... by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 1

      GPG keyservers are widely used. And with a few signing parties your web of trust will be quite big.

      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    2. Re:Because... by muckracer · · Score: 1

      > I still hate typing my passwords the fifty times a day that I do.

      Excellent point. Passwords, though they can be quite secure, suck. Without writing them down somewhere you almost can't get by these days. Why is there a separate passphrase required for every freaking app anyway? My login password should be enough to unlock all applications behind it...SSH, GPG etc..!

  66. Because it isn't worth the trouble by westlake · · Score: 1
    Why isn't there a larger movement promoting the use of privacy tools?

    For casual messaging, the penny postcard was simple, reliable, and cheap, but no more private than a party line phone call or a ten word telegram.

    680 million postcards were mailed in 1908 - when the US population was 89 million. The History of Postcards

    Secure channels of communication do not remain secure when they are used for trivial reasons. Secure channels are bypassed when they introduce unwanted and unneeded layers of complexity.

    To make this work and keep it simple you have to persuade all your correspondents to use and maintain the same system.

    That isn't going to happen outside the institutional or corporate environment.

  67. Re:Someone please remind me... by VeNoM0619 · · Score: 1

    (OT but related; why is it legal for me to fuck my congressman's wife, but illegal for me to pay her for it?) I believe you may already know but, because if you pay for it: then pimps step in and abuse girls to do it. Same thought process of "thinkofthechildren", only difference is that it took a different route where no one pays the child regardless. Porn isn't illegal yet because no one is abusing the actors apparently. Seems like if you do 1 bad thing, then they outlaw anything near the subject eventually.

    But on the other hand, things like factory labor in foreign countries/blood diamonds/etc, they won't outlaw those goods even though there are cases of much worse abuse when making them. Guess it all depends on who defines the word abuse and where the profits go?
    --
    Disclaimer: I am not god.
    We may not be created equal
    But we can be treated equal.
  68. GPG? PGP? Heh. What is a *real* solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Revolt while you still can?

  69. From a Terrorist perspective. by Anachragnome · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The "cat is out of the bag" as far as government electronic snooping is concerned.

    Look at how "low-tech" the 9/11 attack was. Fake IDs and boxcutters.

    Does anyone really believe that Terrorists are still using email and cellphones(other then bomb triggers)?

    My guess is they have gone back to face-to-face MeatMeetings and good old SnailMail(with re-posting networks) in conjunction with simple codewords.

    That being said, I seriously doubt all this Security "Theater" is aimed at Terrorists, if, indeed, it is more then theater. My guess is that it is all to head off the "revolution" by average citizens when they snap out of complacency.

  70. Route around it by HJED · · Score: 0

    get your computers/routers implementation of the RIP protocol so it routes around Sweden you will probably have to get it to do a whois lookup at every stage to confirm the IP address is not Swedish and this might slow your connection down

    --
    null
  71. Moot point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I don't agree with this type of spying, the facts are simple.

    Email is inherently insecure, so you shouldn't be sending anything over email that isn't already encrypted, or that you don't mind any random person reading.

  72. Re:Someone please remind me... by Mr2001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I believe you may already know but, because if you pay for it: then pimps step in and abuse girls to do it. That's a result of prostitution being illegal, not a cause. When an industry is legal, workers can freely move from one employer to another, and disputes can be resolved with words in open court instead of a gold-tipped cane in a dark alley.
    --
    Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
  73. Re:Someone please remind me... by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

    Wait wait.. I got it... so lets see... the Swedish are bad when they spy on you and behave like good little socialists, but they're GOOD when they "tax the rich" like the good little socialists they are... (which includes pretty much anyone that has any means of production, their own or someone else's).

    I fail to understand the hypocritical nature of socialists... its good when they fuck your neighbor, cause his car is nicer, but its bad when they spy on you so they can fuck you if they find out you've got a nice car too.

    Oh well, the stupidity of the masses. Some day people might even wake up. I'm not holding my breath.

    --
    " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
  74. So ... by wildem · · Score: 1

    The folks there are going to get Swedened ;)

  75. sleep? sleep is good. by Magdalene · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I know I have been awake WAY too long when:

    An anonymous reader writes "Now that the Swedish government (in its infinite wisdom) has passed a law allowing them to monitor email traffic, a question that I think a lot of people are asking (or at least should be asking) is: 'What can I do to improve my privacy?' The answer is not obvious. So, what are the best solutions for seamless email encryption, search privacy, etc? What are your experiences with PGP vs GPG vs ...? In this day and age, why is the use of this type of privacy technologies still so limited? Why isn't there a larger movement promoting the use of privacy tools? Also, what is in your opinion the largest privacy concern? Search tracking? Email transfer? I believe this is an interesting question not only for Swedes, but for everyone. Lots of traffic is passing through Sweden, but more importantly, the Swedish government is not alone in using this type of surveillance."


    In the *insanely surreal* topic I have been reading about, where even I have been having trouble believing those whacky, *fun-loving* Swedes admiting to _this_ level of 'open society'. It still takes me until the first ad break to realise that I have been reading Privacy with a dislexic "RI" and without the "V".
    --
    -Magdalene --"there are 10 types of people in the world, those who read binary, and those who don't"
  76. Trivial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TOR and webmail...
    Yawn

  77. Security for people that can't remember passwords by meist3r · · Score: 1

    The problem with encryption and GPG\PGP is that most people are already totally overwhelmed by the flood of passwords they have to remember and in order for encryption you need long passphrases. Mine are 20+ characters and not even hi-security but I can't expect any user to remember such awkward combinations. I guess there will be no real encryption in email or IM until all computer users feel a personal urge to secure their privacy and make the sacrifice of remembering secure passkeys. Maybe Google should make encryption of emails and key management an integral part of their email service. But wait, it's an American company ... will never happen.

  78. summary of conversation: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    me: "OPEN. NETWORK. UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS?"

    you: "well, make believe we could have an open network that miraculously acted like a closed network using miraculous so far nonexistent technology we will miraculously graft into the heart of the internet 30 years after the fact...

    zzz

    dude, it's very simple. it's not a technological issue, its a philosophical issue. when you have an OPEN network, you have all of these benefits that have made the internet the roaring success it is. into this situation you cannot introduce concepts of a CLOSED network that DOES NOT ALSO DESTROY THAT WHICH MAKES THE INTERNET ATTRACTIVE

    get a stiff drink, think about that fact, then say something. do not try to talk about technological "solutions" that boil down to nothing more than a closed network, that thereby nullify any of the benefits of the internet. yes: you can cure the wart on your hand by cutting off your arm. but one would tend to want to keep the arm. that's what making the network closed does. get it?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:summary of conversation: by OldFish · · Score: 1

      It is not imaginary technology: it exists. Think about this: communication channels have by and large been open and subject to eavesdropping or even MITM attacks throughout history. That has not changed. Security, real security, exists in spite of the open nature of channels. The internet ain't special or new in that regard. Avoid discussions about technology, you're not qualified, stick with making your movie.

  79. Zix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.zixcorp.com/ ?

    It's a pretty neat concept. Check it out.

  80. Re:Secure tunnels SVEN of MINE? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Well, if that government is Swedish Borg and looks like the femme fatale Annika Seven of Nine, then they can tunnel me and my data all the time...

    (Seven: Ensign Kim, would you like to have sex?

    Kim: (Flustered) Bwa, bwa, why do you ask THAT?

    Seven: Your perspiration has increased, your pupils are dilated, your temperature has elevated, and you are emitting pheromones. Those are common indicators in your species...)

    Oh, and if you want to read FANFICTION about 7 of 9...

    http://www.geocities.com/voyagerbluealert/VOYORGY.html

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  81. Re:Someone please remind me... by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

    However, adultery is NOT against the law. No but just as with so many other things in our lives, sometimes we want to keep things on the DL... (thats on the 'down low')

    Exploring ones sexuality, researching substances the government deems illegal for responsible adults or expressing dissent. Those all come to mind as activities best undertaken without someone looking over your shoulder.
    --
    On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
  82. Once again... by dr_d_19 · · Score: 1

    As I have said before, encryption is not the answer. What the Swedish authorities wanted was the ability to monitor all communications as opposed to just airborne traffic.

    Encryption or not, you are still exposing your entire network of contact through your text, email, phone and IM traffic.

    That's what's interesting and that's what the swedish law is all about. The rest is just the shroud to get it through.

    If you can build sociograms of every citizen, you have the information and power required to do almost anything.

    "So, how would you like it if we told your wife to contacted last night?"

    "I know contacted you. Either we put you at gitmo or you stay quiet"

    This is as disaster actually.

    1. Re:Once again... by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 1

      Why not use mixminion? The issue is integrating with the email system could be smoother

      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
  83. Re:Someone please remind me... by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

    Taking care of ones citizenry via programs funded by the entire population for the 'greater good' seems to me to have little to do with spying on ones citizens to such a dramatic extent.

    But then again you were simply looking to bash ideas you are disagree with.

    --
    On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
  84. My company has a simple solution to this... by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 1

    In each computer desktop, laptop, and smartphone, we installed hardware encryption and a C4 charge with remote 2 tier authentication for detonation. The two tier authentication was introduced after an unfortunate mishap involving our CFO getting his arm blown off while out golfing; it turns out the detonation frequency was a maritime frequency as well.

    The C4 will also detonate if a password is entered incorrectly twice. We encourage employees who are "out of it" or even slightly ill to take the day off, and require them to call IT should they ever type their password in wrong once.

    We also use an operating system completely built in house with a semi AI running security diagnostics at all times, and we have live people watching the network traffic to the few systems that are actively connected to the internet. Any systems that manage to get infected (to date, none) would also receive the C4 treatment. A bit draconian, but it gets the job done. Our datacenters also have thermite-amatol ceilings designed to completely melt down/destroy the facility if it comes under attack (three armed guards 24/7 are at the red button, just in case some new tech decides to think about hitting the button.)

    These recent legal developments are troublesome, and so we are modifying our policies to stay current with the times. We now use hidden encrypted volumes as standard, with encrypted data set to degenerate into false data should a kill password be entered.

    Protecting the world has taught us to take our own security seriously. Hopefully, you can learn from these measures and take the proper safeguards for your own facilities and equipment (remember, the answer is always hardware encryption and C4. Red Herrings can come and play too.)

    Thank you,
    Ortega Starfire
    CTO, Hoffman Institute
    For The Advancement of Humanity

    (And you thought D20 Modern+Dark Matter wasn't fun! Just try breaking into my datacenter! I've killed the last 4 parties that tried! Bwahahahahahaha! Oh, and MGS gave me some more epic ideas to turn a datacenter into a modern dungeon deathtrap of epic proportions. Fear my microwave beam hallways with camera guns, halon filled halls, electrified floors, and laser tripwires!)

    --
    ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
  85. Just pick up... by falken0905 · · Score: 0

    Just pick up the phone and call. Oh, what a minute...
    Hmmm, just write a letter and... ARGH!
    OK, drive to the recipient and talk with them in person.
    Ack, damned cameras. Nevermind, it wasn't all that important.

  86. The law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who of you have read through the law? Quoting the "tabloids" is pretty stupid. Although there seems to be a lot of unnecessary flaws that even the Swedish Security Police has criticized, the intention is not to go through all private mail.

    Paragraph 1 limits the SIGINT to military needs only:

    "Signal intelligence be carried out in support of Swedish foreign policy, security and defense policy and external threats to the country. Activities will include the participation of Swedish participation in international security cooperation. Military intelligence may relate only to foreign conditions."

    Paragraph 5.1:4

    "The Signal Intelligence may not relate to data that is within the framework of police and other agencies' law enforcement and crime prevention."

    So if you are a big bad criminal you need not to worry. But if you are in the nice business of espionage, industrial espionage, terrorism you should worry.

    N.B
    Most of "Rodinas" network traffic to eastern europe goes through Sweden... wounder how much some organistions will pay for the harwested info...

  87. they WANT you to use crypto - something to hide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are most interested in encrypted traffic -- the only defense against this is to throw the signal to noise ratio off the charts -- ENCRYPT EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING!
    Use HTTPS whenever you can.

    EMAIL YOUR MOTHER using PGP.
    Reply to SPAM with PGP.

    Send random data (encrypted) to your friends, enemies. Give it interesting names like ("Master Plan", or "do not let fall into enemy hands").

    Have them waste so many resources trying to decode this stuff (and they can try -- the Swedish have one of the largest supercomputers designed to crank over crypto).

    They will eventually give up and go home.

    FREEDOM!

  88. Re:Someone please remind me... by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 1

    I really don't understand capitalists. At one second they are ranting about socialism when the government keeps people from starving in the streets, but when a bank has a bit of trouble they expect the government to come in and save it. They defend the right to own property, but say that a vast segment of the world's population having no property is not a violation of their rights.

    --
    Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
  89. Jack up the noise floor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sometimes I think the best bet would be if everyone would just add a footer containing a random selection of OMG terrorsistics think-of-the-children type words and phrases. Basically raise the noise floor to the point where wiretapping, snooping et al become exercises in futility.

  90. Re:Someone please remind me... by ceifeira · · Score: 2, Informative

    Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the public.

    Authoritarianism means a form of social control characterized by strict obedience to the authority of a state. Hence, the term has similar meaning with totalitarianism, with the latter being an extreme case of the former.

  91. unbreakable encryption by suck_burners_rice · · Score: 1

    Very simple solution to all of this:

    Step one: Produce a shared-secret key that is a gigabyte in size and get it to the other party via a secure medium.

    Step two: XOR your secret message with this shared-secret key, beginning at some random address within the shared-secret.

    Step three: Encrypt the XORed message with the usual mechanisms.

    Step four: Email the thus-encrypted message.

    Step five: Call the other party and tell them the beginning address within the shared secret key, speaking in some kind of predetermined code language.

    Now, when some idiot government agency tries to decrypt the damn thing, they'll fry all their computers trying to brute-force the PGP or GPG or whatever encryption, only to end up with garbage no matter what they do. And there is NO way that they can brute force the shared secret since it will always be the same length as the message.

    --
    McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
    1. Re:unbreakable encryption by Bongo+Bill · · Score: 1

      Ah, you mean a one-time pad. Totally unbreakable encryption, but it aptly named, as it loses that quality if you encrypt more than one message with it.

      --
      ...but is it art?
  92. Re:Someone please remind me... by MaliciousSmurf · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry to interject, but... HE'S BEING FUNNY. Say "WALLAH!" in a really loud, comic accent, and you'll see what I mean. What was the policy... Assume good faith?

  93. You are right ... by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

    He's supporting Big Brother ...
    I actually hate this kind of people.

    They ASK for RIGHTS, but they won't FIGHT to conserve their POWERS. ( And when I say "fight" I actually mean even get your ass out of the chair )

    They are supporting the biggest cancer technology has, and then complains about it and asks for improvements from the Free Software People, while he's not supporting us?

    He installs Windows, and then "fixes it" by adding ClamAV, Firefox, Gaim, Thunderbird, Open Office, etc, etc, etc.

    Get your head out of your ass. If you want the benefits from Free Software actually USE IT and support it, give back what you can to the comunity, publicity, money, code, what you can.

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  94. Simple - use a foreign email address and HTTPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simple.

    1. Create an email account on a foreign server, located in a country that respects privacy.

    2. Always use https to connect.

  95. MOD parent up! by a302b · · Score: 1

    Can someone write an open source facebook and myspace GPG key creator/signer/[loader of pubkey onto keyserver]? This is the only way I can foresee getting the masses to participate in the web of trust, by using a web of trust that they already use. Add it onto several OMG Ponies apps. Of course, the myspace generation uses myspace/facebook messages for their email, so it's a pointless venture. Mod parent up! The comment might sound trivial or humorous, but if someone really did create a GPG app for facebook, then I am sure a LOT of people would start to use it. Ease of use opens many doors...
    --
    Unity in Diversity
  96. Re:Someone please remind me... by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 1

    Wala? It's "voila" you uncultured idiot
    Yes, listen to this AC and wala - your appearance is that of the cultured.
    --
    She made the willows dance
  97. Why, oh why? by jandersen · · Score: 1

    Why isn't there a larger movement promoting the use of privacy tools? Well, at least the question gets asked now, which is sort of a step forward. Could the answer be that people simply don't feel there is a big enough problem? Even, that they have thought about it and concluded that, "well, that is life, let's get on with it"?

    Questions like freedom and privacy take up rather a lot of space on /. - I suppose it is because a large proportion of the readers are young, and young people are still struggling with the big questions in life, where older people will have moved on to the practicalities of everyday life. The fact of the matter is that there is only so much one can do about these things anyway, and that not everything is either black or white. It is not a matter of total freedom or no freedom, total privacy or no privacy; 99.9% of us simply want enough to get by plus a little extra.

  98. Reason for underestimated threat to privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is IMHO among others: Most people totally underestimate the power of mathematics and CS.

  99. Re:Someone please remind me... by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 1

    Yes, swedish socialists untie :-)

    You have just made an excellent example without knowing it. Imagine someone who reads your post and is just a little bit unsure if sweden really is that socialistic singularity of evil (well it cant be an axis if we are alone).

    They can either take your word for it and just assume that Sweden is a completly authoritarian socialist society with the police sending wealthy people to prison, neighbours being chased down the street for turning up in a Lexus

    or... they can look up information... but would you really like to look up information regarding socialists (or where they communists?)... I dont think so, you would not like anyone at NSA thinking you are a socialist would you? Stay away from certain things, dont think and you'll be safe.

    It is obvious you dont now anything about Sweden so why comment? We had laws in this country protecting the individual before your continent was even discovered (Alsnö stadga - 1280AD). One of the reasons this terrible law even made it into the international news was that we where shocked, it was completly against our traditions as a free market democracy with a bit of what you call socialism: healthcare is free for anyone. School is free even at college/university level.

    I suppose this is bad, but as a conservative voter myself, I actually think that the people who are poor... they should also be able to send their kids to good schools. You should not be forced into poverty just because your parents where poor or alcoholics or whatever. (I understand that not everyone calls this socialism, but for some reason, I assume you will)

    --
    She made the willows dance
  100. Re:Someone please remind me... by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

    Incorrect, you mistake "the public" with "the government"... while one may pretend to serve the other or BE the other, and the public may have delusions of grandeur that it can, or will EVER control the government, make no mistake about it, those who intend to rule, will rule, and those who intend to be ruled fairly or otherwise, will be RULED... period.

    I'm glad you can define terms, but in order to take from people and give to others, you require a form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism, because few would give 50% of what they make when their 40+ hours a week job is barely enough to pay the bare minimum BEFORE they are leeched off to pay for government "aid" programs. If people actually did the math of HOW MUCH they actually pay, for how much they actually get back... they'd stop paying taxes tomorrow.

    --
    " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
  101. Re:Someone please remind me... by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

    I must have missed the part where I was defending the rights of the banks or corporate entities... I didn't know a piece of paper HAD any rights... Same with people who are unwilling to fight for their rights. Having the "RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY" is not the same thing as "HAVING SOMEONE ELSE BE FORCED TO GIVE YOU THEIR PROPERTY"... And I'm not a capitalist... I'm just me, and I happen to have a wee bit of faith in that a free market works. I've lived under communism in childhood and this iron fist in the velvet glove bullshit you call "capitalism" (but is in reality a thinly veiled love child of fascism and socialism), and the ONLY thing that provides people with what they want today, and the only thing that provided the people with what they wanted back then was the FREE MARKET... note, that corporations do not operate on a free market... they operate on a dominated and centrally planned economic system... which has not a damn thing in common with an actual free market.

    I don't expect you or the so called "capitalists" to understand this. The only "free markets" I've ever seen were black markets and backwater "bazaar" type markets in my native lands. Hard to explain. Personally though, I haven't forgotten how nicely "planned economies" work... I've had to wake up at 5 in the morning and stand in line for stuff before school. Came home afterwards to find out that mom and dad didn't get goods that day because the shipment ran out. Planned economies my ass.

    --
    " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
  102. Re:Someone please remind me... by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I see no failure of logic... if you give them the right to take from you what they desire, namely the fruits of your labor, you've already granted them control over your life and the products of that life (labor, time, resources, etc) and thus you are their slave. Why should a master not be allowed to "observe" his property? (Namely, you and the others who clamor for government handouts/controls/wealth redistribution, etc.)

    I for one would not want my livestock getting out of hand, and I'm sure your beloved nanny state thugs feel the same... and guess what... you suckers are THEIR property... by consent, no less (you voted, regardless of "for whom" you voted, remember that.)

    --
    " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
  103. Re:Someone please remind me... by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

    Ironically, shortly after 2001, realizing what was coming in the USA, I wanted to move... and I looked at several countries. Sweden was a candidate... as was Canada. Three of my friends moved from Sweden to Japan, England and Germany, citing "less government intrusion in their lives" among the reasons. I've already visited Canada and Germany, so I wasn't exactly "impressed". (Their security people at airports are just as humorless and almost as stupid as the average TSA marshmallows I've met so far.)

    Back to Sweden. Last I recall, you people have one of those lovely countries where it is GREAT to be lower income, or no income, but shit to be upper anything... great place to hunt reindeer from what my friends tell me, but you'll pardon me if I stick to Holland. :) Not that I don't like Swedish people, but it seems Holland is a bit less heavy handed on all issues.

    PS - if your teachers/professors are well paid and your facilities are state of the art, either you're getting free tax money from the USA or the UN (again, USA, mostly) or someone there is getting heavily taxed to pay for those quality educations. And as for your questions, when I put myself through college, I worked, and I wrote essays and applied to a LOT of scholarships, all of them private. My government grants (yes I was one of those "gifted and talented" kids) was barely 1/4th of my expenses for my first year alone... the rest was out of pocket and scholarships. If I could do it, even though my parents came here with not a dime to their names and kids in tow, I'd say you can do it. Education didn't help them, it wasn't recognized. They did, however put their minds to use and built a business in an emerging market, a business, may I add, that was completely unrelated to their fields of studies in their communist homeland. Failures didn't stop them... and if they could raise funds mowing lawns and washing dishes in restaurants despite having Masters degrees, what's to stop you people from stepping on your prides and getting something done? Oh wait, must be Tee Vee watching, or gods only know what... I can't say for sure.

    Now excuse me, I have coffee awaiting me... good luck to you.

    --
    " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
  104. Automatic GPG by mail transfer agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There used to be some semi-proprietary mail transfer agent for linux, possibly a proprietary fork of sendmail, that looked checked a list of public key servers against the destination addresses of any unencrypted email messages that it had to deliver, and do the encryption automatically before transfer the message to the downstream mail server. That way, you never had to think about encrypting outgoing email.

    I think the program was called "Aardvark", but I didn't find it from a web search.

  105. Re:Someone please remind me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wallah, arabic for "I swear to God" (litteraly: "By God"). And the french is Voil`a you uncultured idiot.

  106. Real IDs! by molo · · Score: 1

    They had real IDs! All 19 of them were in this country _legally_ and had no problem getting _real IDs_. Read the 9/11 report!

    All this BS about producing better IDs doesn't help us, it just helps the government put us in their databases.

    -molo

    --
    Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    1. Re:Real IDs! by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      it just helps the government put us in their databases. and helps companies earn millions by 'helping' secure the country.
      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  107. My name is Sven by svunt · · Score: 1

    Stop using me as a cliche, dammit

  108. Re:Someone please remind me... by sm62704 · · Score: 1

    I believe you may already know but, because if you pay for it: then pimps step in and abuse girls to do it.

    None of the hookers I know have pimps. They don't need them - they have enough regular customers that they don't even have to walk the streets. And if the practice were legal, there would be no need for pimps. In fact, like marijuana, if the practice were legal all the problemas associated with it would go away. Since they ended alcohol prohibition, although people still overdose and have accidents while under the influence, nobody dies from poisoned whiskey and there aren't gang wars over it.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  109. Re:Someone please remind me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neither pot nor hookers are enough of a motivation for any agency to do anything. Even if you're a dealer, you only run the risk of being caught up in one of their dog-and-pony show netting operations they use to show the public they're actually doing stuff and not sitting around eating donuts all day. They're certainly not going to monitor internet traffic for such commonplace things.

    Now, if you started adding words like "Bomb," "President," "9/11," "Jihad," "Allah," etc. randomly to your journals and posts, then we'll see how quickly a three-letter agency kicks down your front door.

  110. Re:Someone please remind me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was pointing out that socialism is not to be confused with authoritarianism, in reply to DaedalusHKX's assertion that loss of civil liberties is somehow intrinsically related to socialism.

    And just so we're clear: communism is not socialism; communism was a particular totalitarian form of socialism.

  111. Encryption for the rest of us by whatisevil · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is a small startup called Poosty which aims to bring encryption to the less tech-savvy masses. You sign up with your existing email address and mobile number, and they claim to provide easy-to-use 1024 bit encryption for a free account, 2048 bit encryption for "Pro" subscribers. The company is, interestingly enough, based in Stockholm, Sweden. https://secure.poosty.com/

  112. I already did by bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I removed my email from spray.se (lycos is the owner) to ymail.com.

    I even decided to PAY yahoo for their premium service. Its peanuts at the current USD rates anyway.

    yes I know they read the communications anyway but since they LEGALISED it, fuck the nazi swedes. I know exactly what they are like: I lived there for a decade.

  113. Re:Someone please remind me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -1 Moron.

    You apparently have no clue whatsoever.

    Yes. I live in Sweden. We currently have a right-wing government. Even though our conservatives don't go much further right than U.S. Democrats, they are definitely not socialist.

  114. Re:Someone please remind me... by Flodis · · Score: 1

    Just FYI: Your friends have been pulling your leg. You don't hunt reindeer. At least not in Sweden. They are herded like cattle.

  115. Why not. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just write it in a code, like the Navajo?

    1. Re:Why not. . . by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 1

      I can write it, I just cant read it.

      --
      She made the willows dance
    2. Re:Why not. . . by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 1

      Why do the Navajo write it in code?

      --
      She made the willows dance
  116. You must be very easy to persuade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, I used to be one of those people, too. I started out listening to NPR because I liked classical and jazz music... eventually the news wore on me and I realized that I had been sort of a dick prior. Now I really like NPR news. If listening to NPR news was all it took to convince you that holding 'right of center' views equated with being a dick, then you must not have been very well informed or have had very well developed views to begin with.
  117. Re:Someone please remind me... by Virtual_Raider · · Score: 1

    In fact, the french is "Voi lá" which literally means "see there" or in more common english, "there it is".

    --
    +Raider of the lost BBS
  118. Re:Someone please remind me... by jmo_jon · · Score: 1

    I fail to understand the hypocritical nature of socialists... its good when they fuck your neighbor, cause his car is nicer, but its bad when they spy on you so they can fuck you if they find out you've got a nice car too. I think what you really fail to see is that this law was voted through by a coalition of liberals, christian right wingers and social-conservative people.

    These are also the people leading Sweden currently, where are all these scary socialists?

  119. Re:Someone please remind me... by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 1

    Interesting... so lets see... socialists basically live by the principle that "society" is more important than any single individual. If society prospers by basically owning and dictating to all, and occasionally slaughtering the "undesirables", society as a whole gains.

    Interestingly, the same worship of the group rather than respect for the individual is part of Christian Right Wingers (who LOVE to use government power to dictate to others what to think, how to think, how to live, where and why and even IF to live)... "social conservatives" are merely religious fanatics of other bents, who are usually the types that desire to use government power to oppress their neighbors...

    And "liberals"... sorry, did I miss something? As has been par for the course, most of the old communists and socialists have "evolved" to be "social democrats" or "liberals" or "progressives". Perhaps you ought to do your homework. Sweden is famous for being one of the most heavily socialistic nations on the face of the planet. Even Japan and most especially England, barely come in second... mostly due to the taxes and heavy social controls exhibited in Sweden.

    As a trio of my Swedish acquaintances told me when I sought to move there, years ago "you would be crazy to do so, even we're moving out, and we approve of the politics!"

    --
    " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
  120. Server-level encryption by Mattygfunk1 · · Score: 1

    I'm starting to think that more server-level encryption will be the way of the future. With running a site comparing Australian web hosting plans, perhaps adding more detailed encryption categories will promote their use.

  121. Bin Laden wants to read your emails. by elucido · · Score: 1


    And he finds what you say, think and do very interesting.

    Seriously, you think the United States does not have any enemies? This naive thinking is why the USA has been losing the #1 spot.

    And then you wonder why your job is being shipped overseas.

  122. Why do you think they have it? by elucido · · Score: 1


    The only reason they have money guns and power is because they have privacy. If the US gives up privacy, the US will lose the war on terror, why?

    Because you cannot win a war without security and you cannot have privacy without security. In an environment where nobody can communicate, not even the governments, what do you expect to happen?