Phil Zimmermann's New Venture Will Offer Strong Privacy By Subscription

No article link by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 05:42 · Score: 1

Wow slashdot, a new low: Not even providing a link to TFA for people to complain about other people not reading.

Re:No article link by game+kid · 2012-06-17 05:47 · Score: 2

That's happened before, but it's still perplexing after the OP linked The Register in the submission. *shrugs*

--
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Re:No article link by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2012-06-17 05:54 · Score: 1

Well, you can't say the editors never do anything. They clearly do things related to editing submissions.

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Re:No article link by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 06:09 · Score: 0

Timothy is an Excellent Editor and deserves a Pay Raise
Re:No article link by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 06:13 · Score: 2, Funny

Never mind a pay raise, I'd chip in for a redundancy package if I thought he'd take it.
Re:No article link by AliasMarlowe · 2012-06-17 06:16 · Score: 1

Timothy is an Excellent Editor and deserves a Pay Raise
"That's all right - he tried. That's the important thing. I think he should get a nice big raise for trying so hard." - Hazel Bergeron (in the short movie 2081).

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Re:No article link by newcastlejon · 2012-06-17 06:55 · Score: 1

Your sig seems oddly appropriate there.

--
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.

They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 05:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

Canada is decent, but they can still be forced to modify their code to catch people on demand of Interpol there.

Look what happened with Hushmail.

Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by isopropanol · 2012-06-17 06:22 · Score: 5, Informative

Also there's been a bill on the order paper for a few years that would require them to backdoor it, and it looks like the bill is probably going to pass this time.
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by lightknight · 2012-06-17 07:02 · Score: 4, Informative

Indeed. It's like none of them get the idea that paranoid users are paranoid, and keeping out 99.99% of all various intruders, but letting in the 0.01% via a mandated backdoor is the same, mentally speaking, as letting in 100% of all various intruders. Having a backdoor means the solution is inherently insecure, and requires trusting someone which, let's be honest, you don't know. ("Dude, it's totally cool. Your files are totally secure, except that because of a recent law, we have to create a master key that unlocks all the files, at once, and yes, if this key were ever compromised / stolen for any reason, all of our users would have their proverbial asses hanging out the window onto oncoming traffic, but yeah, come on, what are the chances that'd ever happen? Why wouldn't you want to use an almost-secure solution?").
Not everyone using these services is a spy, thief, hacker, cracker, mentally ill, or otherwise questionable person trying to hide something. Sometimes they're just people who like the idea of living quiet lives, and would like a secure / protected e-mail service to actually live up to its name. But there are some eccentric people in positions of power which don't like that idea -> they can't sleep at night until they know for sure that there isn't a bogeyman living under your bed!

--
I am John Hurt.
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 07:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

If I were doing a service like this, I'd split the company into five independent divisions, either owned by a holding company in Antigua, or otherwise protected the same way the telephone scammers keep a step ahead of the authorities.
First company does the billing. Then it sends money to the other three companies, using tokens that change often. This separates users from their online userIDs.
Second company does the client coding and makes packaged, signed executables.
Third company takes the packaged code from company #2 and installs it. The reason for this is to make it harder for backdoors to be inserted at the whims of a local government. Users will easily see the executables have invalid signatures. Because company #2 is a separate firm, it is harder to demand they create a bongoed executable.
Fourth company provides the VPN service, and tosses logs between IPs.
Fifth company does the servers. Since the clients do a layer of encryption, commanding the server holding company to cough up user data is going to not give much, other than perhaps traffic analysis reports.
This isn't perfect, but it means that if the servers get seized, the data isn't compromised. Same if the client making company gets demanded they insert a backdoor, or the network between the servers is seized.
I would like to work on a service like this However, the main reason why I wouldn't run it is because of cynicism -- it would turn into a nice stomping ground for the child pornography crowd, not to mention a haven for people who are interested in turning the a local church or synagogue into rubble.
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by JaredOfEuropa · 2012-06-17 08:36 · Score: 2

If you want no backdoor at all, better roll your own solution; that's still a legal option in many countries.

personally, I am ok with a backdoor, provided that there are some proper controls around it, such as:
- Access only granted to specific law enforcement agencies (listed publicly)
- Access only granted after due process, i.e. a judge issues a wiretap warrant for a specific suspect in a specific case
- Access is rescinded as soon as the warrant runs out
- The government agencies themselves have proper controls in place to ensure the tapped info is accessed on a need to know basis only.

Of course, these are pretty big "ifs". Looking at my own country (NL), I don't think they meet any of these requirements. Especially not the second point; small wonder we're the most widely tapped country in the world (per capita). Hell, the police do not even need a court-issued warrant for physical (house) searches anymore, the mayor can issue them as well for pretty much any reason... and they have, even ordering door-to-door searches.

I give it two more kiddie porn peddlers with encrypted hard drives before the goverment proposes to outlaw personal crypto.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by arisvega · 2012-06-17 08:56 · Score: 2

The company surveyed the state of privacy laws around the world and found that the top three choices were Switzerland, Iceland, and Canada, so they went for the one within driving distance.
Going for the pro-citizen countries, are we? Switzerland has also recently allowed external investigators into its banks (as an example of on-demand privacy violations). I am not judgind it, I am only saying that it happened. So that's why the option that includes the servers sitting on a volcano and being surrounded by the ocean seems like a good choice.

--
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 09:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

If we want freedom we have to accept an increase in terrorism an violated children. This is a very tough call that we should not avoid discussing. Anyone has evidence on how many children, synagogues we have to sacrifice for how much children? Sure would be interesting reading.
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 10:33 · Score: 0

Didn't Zimmerman announce post-9/11 that he was sorry he let the public use encryption, as it may have allowed such attacks like that to happen?
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 10:55 · Score: 0

The intelligence agencies could simply infiltrate all the companies, then eavesdrop at will.
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 11:31 · Score: 0

You forgot a company to outsource the workers so the workers cannot sue each one of those legal entities, in fact they will be working for an "agency" company hired out on a project basis.
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by cheekyjohnson · 2012-06-17 11:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

personally, I am ok with a backdoor, provided that there are some proper controls around it, such as:
- The government is entirely composed of perfect beings that would only use the backdoor against actual criminals.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 12:13 · Score: 0

Yes. Horace Zimmerman, of Ocala Florida. He's a former postal worker and knows what he's talking about.
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by ganjadude · 2012-06-17 15:13 · Score: 1

3 only 3

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by lightknight · 2012-06-17 15:16 · Score: 2

"The government is entirely composed of perfect beings that would only use the backdoor against actual criminals." -> Thank you.
I find it odd that people can interact with government officials day and day out for years, and forget that they're human beings. No human being should be invested with the kinds of powers they're after.

--
I am John Hurt.
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 16:41 · Score: 0

I'm pretty sure the US government meets none of those requirements, except on the surface.
And given that two of the cofounders are ex-SEALS, I'd suspect their loyalties are to the US government before all else, even ideals.
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by jamstar7 · 2012-06-17 17:01 · Score: 2

personally, I am ok with a backdoor, provided that there are some proper controls around it, such as:
- The government is entirely composed of perfect beings that would only use the backdoor against actual criminals.
Except most governments these days consider all their citizens as prospective criminals. Anybody who can think for themselves and wants other than government-mandated media for their news is a potential criminal.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 17:36 · Score: 0

Not everyone using these services is a spy, thief, hacker, cracker, mentally ill, or otherwise questionable person trying to hide something. Sometimes they're just people who like the idea of living quiet lives, and would like a secure / protected e-mail service to actually live up to its name. But there are some eccentric people in positions of power which don't like that idea -> they can't sleep at night until they know for sure that there isn't a bogeyman living under your bed!
Or, they just want and enjoy the power, and use the above excuses as window-dressing. Some are more "responsible" with it than others, but all of them will use it at some point or another to further their own goals or vendettas.
And the other people who wish to simply stay away from and out of the path of these well-meaning people, well... good luck to them.
The rest of us blithely continuing living our lives through Google, Facebook, etc., feeding The Beast.
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by TapeCutter · 2012-06-17 17:45 · Score: 1

The government is entirely composed of perfect beings that would only use the backdoor against actual criminals.
Perfection is the enemy of progress, paranioa moreso.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 18:37 · Score: 0

Keyword: backdoor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_AG#Back-doored_machines
captcha: "omnivore", uncomfortably close to "carnivore".
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by Serpents · 2012-06-17 18:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

They say "Once a Marine, always a Marine". I guess it also applies to SEALs. That's why I'd never use such a service as long as former US (or any other country's, for that matter) military/government employees are involved. I just t believe they be too easily convinced that "the greater good" or "national security" demand that they give the government free access to the system.
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by cheekyjohnson · 2012-06-17 19:46 · Score: 1

That's why we need to recognize basic human nature, take a look at history, and clearly see that giving these powers to people who already have quite a bit of power probably isn't a good idea.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by khallow · 2012-06-17 20:20 · Score: 1

We could always make child rape and synagogue bombing illegal. That might deter such acts too.
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by tehcyder · 2012-06-17 21:25 · Score: 1, Flamebait

If we want freedom we have to accept an increase in terrorism an violated children.
If you want true freedom, you have to accept that I can come round and shoot you in the face if I feel like it, and have more hired thugs with guns than you do.

Liberty without fraternity and equality is just a bucket of evil.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by tehcyder · 2012-06-17 21:26 · Score: 1, Funny

We could always make child rape and synagogue bombing illegal. That might deter such acts too.
That's infringing on the human rights of libertarians who want to rape children and bomb synagogues.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by tehcyder · 2012-06-17 21:37 · Score: 1

Switzerland has also recently allowed external investigators into its banks (as an example of on-demand privacy violations). I am not judgind it, I am only saying that it happened.
I don't see what you are worried about. Do you think banks or any other corporate entity should have some special right to absolute privacy and secrecy?

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 21:38 · Score: 0

So, the same people as the ones running your privacy providing company?
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by rioki · 2012-06-17 23:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

Ok kill me if you like. I really do not endorse CP in any form. But sending JPEG or AVI files around does not do any real harm. Cut the balls off the dude who actually took the pictures; do whatever you want.
But there is a good case for strong encryption within legal bounds. Why do we have to hand over all our civil liberties just because someone says Terrorism and Pedophiles?!
The police should do real police work, like infiltrate the organisations, instead of relying on stupid criminals and technological gizmos. I can still use strong stenography and encryption on my open e-mail connection, if I feel like it.
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-18 00:07 · Score: 0

Canada is decent, but they can still be forced to modify their code to catch people on demand of Interpol there.
Look what happened with Hushmail.
Phil Zimmerman needs to be careful, or our government will cut out the middle man and just declare HIM to be "munitions" and subsequently deny any export permits.
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-18 00:31 · Score: 1

This is a real problem that many people have with doing something good for honest people. I personally reject the argument that such systems should not be implemented because they can also be used by the bad guys. Unfortunately, honest law abiding people need protection from the brutish governments of the world, including the U.S. Justice Department and every one of its brute beast cops and vicious prosecutors. There are however, some ways to protect one's self out there now when it comes to text only emails. It has to do with the use of remailers and sudo-anonymous email accounts. See: https://www.quicksilvermail.net/qslite/ and AAM hSub Interpreter at http://wjlanders.users.sourceforge.net/. The AAM hSub help file has the best explanation on using the system: http://sourceforge.net/projects/hsubinterpreter/files/AAMhSub Help.zip
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by reub2000 · 2012-06-18 02:37 · Score: 1

Or you could just open source it. Given enough eyes, and barring any backdoors in the compiler, it should be secure.
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by DrChandra · 2012-06-18 05:42 · Score: 1

Can we backdoor the bill?

--
Words, words, words ... Buz, buz! - Hamlet, Act II, Scene II
Re:They better not do the mistake of Hushmail... by RockDoctor · 2012-06-19 01:16 · Score: 1

I just t believe they be too easily convinced that "the greater good" or "national security" demand that they give the government free access to the system.
So ... what you're saying is that if they've sold their souls once, then they're likely to do it again.
(Sounds a bit odd, since souls don't exist ; "moral integrity" might be a better phrase, but "soul" is shorter.)
That also implies a pretty dodgy concept : that when someone leaves military service, then they actually get their soul back. Even if they're more likely to sell it again later. That sounds pretty dodgy to me.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"

TFA by 6031769 · 2012-06-17 05:43 · Score: 3, Informative

Link is http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/14/pgp_seal_encrypted_communications/ since it wasn't in the summary.

--
Burns: We're building a casino!
McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.

Re:TFA by SgtChaireBourne · 2012-06-17 06:04 · Score: 3, Informative

Here is another article on the topic: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57451057-83/phil-zimmermanns-post-pgp-project-privacy-for-a-price/ Is so little editorial work going on that posts can get through without even a single link to a story?

--
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.

Help me out here... by icebike · 2012-06-17 05:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

encrypted email, text messages, phone calls, and videoconferencing

With the proper encryption software on the endpoints, and properly encrypted storage, why does the server location even matter?

If nothing was actually stored on the server (or if everything stored there was encrypted with keys unknown to the operators) there would be no point in any government agency grabbing the server other than to shut it down. And nothing prevents that better than multiple sites.

It would seem to me the best solution would be for that server to have zero knowledge about the content of any data, and serve as a store and forward repository for content where one or the other party is off line (file transfer or email). For Video conferencing and text messages the servers might serve only as a routing agent for firewall piercing (where each participant is behind a firewall). But in no case should it contain un-encrypted data, and all logging should be to /dev/null.

Almost all of this is available today using a variety of off the shelf software with PGP keys, etc.

Wouldn't concentrating this traffic in a single place make it easier to monitor? If nothing else, a monitoring agency can gain the equivalent of pen register data simply by doing packet analysis at the upstream of such a service provider.

Wouldn't merely subscribing to such a service (and leaving a money trail) become a red flag?

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.

Re:Help me out here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 05:51 · Score: 0

Maybe "they" are hoping most people won't realize this...
"Super secure everything! Just $20 a month (to make it seem legitimate - everyone knows those "free" solutions are scams!")!
All you need to do is route all your secret communications to our server.
Re:Help me out here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 05:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

why does the server location even matter?
I'd go one step further and wonder why it needs dedicated servers at all.
If email is end to end encrypted (a thing that's very easy to do already) it does not need any NEW infrastructure. The existing email infrastructure works just fine, the only difference being that the messages are encrypted, and anyway the encryption keys better be known only to the endpoints, or it defeats the entire purpose.
Same for IM and other things - all that's needed is client support. The very fact that there is some custom server involved would make me REALLY nervous about whether this is trustworthy.
Re:Help me out here... by SwashbucklingCowboy · 2012-06-17 06:00 · Score: 1

Think about the business model: They're probably providing the authentication (i.e. you're really talking to whoever you think you're talking to). If they provided a way around that then you wouldn't need their subscription, would you?
Re:Help me out here... by Joce640k · 2012-06-17 06:02 · Score: 2

It should be decentralized, P2P (with redundancy).

--
No sig today...
Re:Help me out here... by girlintraining · 2012-06-17 06:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

With the proper encryption software on the endpoints, and properly encrypted storage, why does the server location even matter?
You're new here. Okay, from the top ... If the server gets disappeared in some government raid, then the services offered by said server are no longer available. Sorta obvious there. The internet requires some types of centralization to function; As to any services that run on top of it. DNS, e-mail, Facebook, BGP, etc. -- everything on a packet-based network which lacks broadcast/multicast ability needs to have a static point of entry into whatever superstructure you build on top of it.
In this case, the server acts as a mediator of identities: Person A wants to talk to Person B, so Person A subs Person B's public key, and the server returns Person B's IP address, drop box, or whatever, thus allowing the transaction to complete.

It would seem to me the best solution would be for that server to have zero knowledge about the content of any data
The server would regard the data as a binary blob with a source and destination. You know, just like a router does. Except the data is encrypted, so the only useful data that can be recovered is where it's going, and where it's coming from.

But in no case should it contain un-encrypted data, and all logging should be to /dev/null.
But what if someone unlinked /dev/null? Server should immediately self-destruct, Mission Impossible style? :P

Almost all of this is available today using a variety of off the shelf software with PGP keys, etc.
One word: Convenience. And another word: Cheaper.

Wouldn't concentrating this traffic in a single place make it easier to monitor?
Dude, the NSA is building a massive data center under a mountain in Arizona to monitor every packet sent or received on the internet domestically as you read this. The "single place" is now the entire network. Europe is doing the same thing, but requiring ISPs to store all the data instead. If you want something hard to monitor, go back to sneakernet and drop boxes.

Wouldn't merely subscribing to such a service (and leaving a money trail) become a red flag?
I see that you're paying with cash, instead of credit card. You filthy terrorist. Well, actually, everything these days is a red flag. Carrying a bottle of water in your car? You must be using drugs. Breast implants? Possible weapons of mass distraction. Driving a car at the speed limit -- you're paying too close of attention, you must be up to no good. Ah, the rationalizations are endless. Look, there's no technology on this planet that's going to save you from a government that decides (for whatever reason) to make you disappear. All these laws, the constitution, your rights, it's all for show and it always has been. The powerful do whatever they want, and then give it post-facto legitimacy after the fact.
All that said, I do all my browsing on Tor. Which mostly includes posting to slashdot and reading the Skyrim wiki. If you encrypt everything, and everyone else does the same, then you have made stateful packet inspection a waste of time. Nobody should be sending packets in the clear these days anyway -- most of you are reading this from a processor with an AES encryption/decryption module built into the CPU that can run at gigabit speeds with very little overhead. -_-

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:Help me out here... by icebike · 2012-06-17 06:10 · Score: 1

Well, if they were providing the authentication, then that would suggest that they would have way too much knowledge if you ask me.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:Help me out here... by fustakrakich · 2012-06-17 06:14 · Score: 1

...if everything stored there was encrypted...and all logging should be to /dev/null.
The modern bureaucrat will see that as damage and route around it through regulation of permitted protocols and 'proper' logging of all communications

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Help me out here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 06:21 · Score: 1

Yes, you are correct. Most tracking is done through the financial system.
Re:Help me out here... by chill · 2012-06-17 06:28 · Score: 1

For ZRTP proxy and automated SAS would be my guess. Also for an IM presence server and you have to put e-mail servers SOMEWHERE. E-mail isn't p2p.
http://zfone.com/docs/asterisk/man/html/u_guide.html

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Re:Help me out here... by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2012-06-17 06:29 · Score: 1

It's called "traffic analysis", and it's a wonderful source of intelligence even in its simplest forms.
Of those nations, Canada seems the most likely to assist with a US official "request". Iceland would love to resist but has little power.
Re:Help me out here... by icebike · 2012-06-17 06:33 · Score: 1

Also for an IM presence server and you have to put e-mail servers SOMEWHERE. E-mail isn't p2p.

With proper encryption, it doesn't matter where that is, and concentrating it in one place isn't going to help.
Ask Blackberry.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:Help me out here... by EdIII · 2012-06-17 06:33 · Score: 4, Funny

also you are always at war with your own penis
Are we not all at war with our own penises?
You would have to be. My Penis tells me to do some incredibly dumb, stupid, and impulsive shit all the time that is quite counterproductive to my continued standard of living. If I listened to him, I would probably be penniless on the side of the road with two nuts for company.
Re:Help me out here... by chill · 2012-06-17 06:37 · Score: 1

Yes, but...
E-mail will not work without a server. Since you need one, you might as well put it somewhere that has the tightest restrictions on privacy. A place that has the most hoops a gov't has to jump thru to force you to cough up data.
By data I mean the non-encrypted stuff like customer name, billing info, how often e-mail is sent/received, the source and destinations, etc.
Encryption doesn't hide any of that.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Re:Help me out here... by Nofsck+Ingcloo · 2012-06-17 06:45 · Score: 2

"and then give it post-facto legitimacy after the fact." Yeh, that's the best kind of post-facto legitimacy. :)
Re:Help me out here... by JoeMerchant · 2012-06-17 06:50 · Score: 1

Almost all of this is available today using a variety of off the shelf software with PGP keys, etc.
Yes, and a lot of good security software is available free and open source, but it's not very easy to use and/or effectively marketed.

Wouldn't concentrating this traffic in a single place make it easier to monitor? If nothing else, a monitoring agency can gain the equivalent of pen register data simply by doing packet analysis at the upstream of such a service provider.
Wouldn't merely subscribing to such a service (and leaving a money trail) become a red flag?
Absolutely, anyone can use free HushMail, but in so doing, you are marking yourself as a less than 1% minority that cares enough about privacy of your communications to actually do something about it - and as such, I'd assume you'll be first against the wall in any witch hunt investigation since you are rare and "they" can't really be sure what all you have effectively hidden.
I think, for the paranoid, security at the endpoints is the only way to go... secure transit layers, servers, services, etc. may help, but at the point it leaves you and the receiving party's control, you never really know who's listening / watching / sifting / archiving.
I wrote a little screed about "appropriate security" for ordinary people, short version is: if you make it expensive to read your mail, nobody is likely to bother.
Right now, most "private" e-mail, and even voice, communication costs a fraction of a penny for an interceptor to interpret, index, catalog, archive for decades, and later search when hunting for whatever historical chatter they may be interested in. While I "don't have anything to hide," I really do think it's worth some effort to make diving my digital dumpster harder to do.
Re:Help me out here... by ATMAvatar · 2012-06-17 07:30 · Score: 1

You can do that using digital signatures already without having to resort to some central authority.

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Re:Help me out here... by girlintraining · 2012-06-17 07:38 · Score: 1

"and then give it post-facto legitimacy after the fact." Yeh, that's the best kind of post-facto legitimacy. :)
Well, not everyone knows what post-facto means! I just wanted to be extra clear. :( Slashdot isn't what it used to be.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:Help me out here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 08:49 · Score: 0

I was pulled over in the 95 for going the speed limit because I was "paying to close attention with out of state plates".
Nothings changed.
I would argue however that the tools to do point to point encryption without a service ran by ex government employees have been around for ages, if every one just got off their asses and forced everyone to use them we wouldn't need or care about this!
Re:Help me out here... by pnutjam · 2012-06-17 09:55 · Score: 1

I've been doing some research on this,it is essential for medical providers who want to adhere to Hippa.

Hushmail was a bit of a pain, 4securemail seemed to work well (no affiliation and no link, google it up yourself).

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:Help me out here... by JoeMerchant · 2012-06-17 12:03 · Score: 1

Sorry to let my cynic show, but all medical providers who want to adhere to HIPPA have to do is subscribe to a service that claims to provide HIPPA compliance to their operations, pass the cost along to the insurance companies (and those who pay insurance premiums), and wait for somebody to scream "Bloody hell NO that's not what HIPPA means and I'm going to sue!!!" - settle, probably involving a small modification to the HIPPA compliance service procedures, rinse, lather, and repeat.
My favorite outcome of HIPPA is anytime you ask a reasonable question of a shady service provider they refuse to answer you because "it would be a violation of HIPPA," forcing you into the choice of "Bloody hell NO that's not what HIPPA means and I'm going to sue!!!" or simply walking away and hoping the next service provider is less of a charlatan.
Actual privacy, confidentiality of personal medical information, employer non-discrimination for non-work related medical conditions, yeah, good luck with that.
Re:Help me out here... by NotSanguine · 2012-06-17 13:04 · Score: 1

It should be decentralized, P2P (with redundancy).
You mean like so?
1. endpoints encrypt email/files/whatever with PGP/GNUPG, etc ,etc.>br> 2. Shares public key with receiver via OOB mechanism
3. Endpoints/send receive data via P2P mechanism (SMTP anyone?)
4. Profit!
Brilliant. No one else could ever have thought of that.

--
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Re:Help me out here... by Phrogman · 2012-06-17 13:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

Our current Canadian government (Harper's Regime) would quite likely be willing to hand over all Canadian internet traffic to the US free of charge, even before they request it. Harper seems to worship the Republican party sadly :(

--
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Re:Help me out here... by Entropius · 2012-06-17 13:40 · Score: 1

also you are always at war with your own penis*
*(or vagina)
Re:Help me out here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 13:43 · Score: 0

You would have to be. My Penis tells me to do some incredibly dumb, stupid, and impulsive shit all the time that is quite counterproductive to my continued standard of living.
Real men make peace with their demons. Real women understand that there's no such thing as a real man.
Re:Help me out here... by PCM2 · 2012-06-17 15:27 · Score: 1

Except that if you read the summary, this is about more than just secure email. They also want to do it for text messaging, phone calls, and videoconferencing. I think it would be pretty hard to use SMTP for all of that.

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re:Help me out here... by pnutjam · 2012-06-17 16:10 · Score: 1

I'm an ethical consultant who deals with small offices who want to do it right. I am working on a paper outlining the best IT practices for small medical offices. Email me if you would like to provide input.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:Help me out here... by retchdog · 2012-06-17 16:29 · Score: 2

it's been around forever and it won't go away because of this. geeks know about it, no one else does. i think zimmerman would mostly be happy that you keep doing what you're doing.
normal people (who deserve privacy too) just might care when they can say to their neighbors "this company is taking care of it; they have Secure Servers!", secure in the fact that ex-military folks and a Huge Fucking Bundle of Money (the only thing normal people care about as far as technology goes) are involved. that's how people are.

--
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Re:Help me out here... by NotSanguine · 2012-06-17 17:47 · Score: 1

Except that if you read the summary, this is about more than just secure email. They also want to do it for text messaging, phone calls, and videoconferencing. I think it would be pretty hard to use SMTP for all of that.
I stand..err...sit corrected. In that case I completely agree with OP. P2P is definitely the way to go.
In order to secure such a p2p environment, you'd need to create an environment of trust for DNS and key exchange. That argues for centralized resources -- assuming they can be secured.

--
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Re:Help me out here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 17:47 · Score: 0

would it not be better to write a program (virus?) that spams the internet not to annoy people on the receiving end but to poison the intelligence-gathering systems by choking them with their keywords?
Re:Help me out here... by CodeBuster · 2012-06-17 19:33 · Score: 1

With the proper encryption software on the endpoints, and properly encrypted storage, why does the server location even matter?
Certain foreign governments, namely the United Arab Emirates but also India, are in the habit of demanding access to servers located within their borders so that they can monitor the cleartext of all encrypted communications which pass through. Of course, all countries make some attempt to monitor communications transiting their borders, it's called SIGINT, but clearly some of them are more aggressive and more public about their monitoring or requests to cough up the keys than others. For example, both India and the UAE have demanded that RIM allow access to private encrypted communications made from blackberry devices or face expulsion.
Re:Help me out here... by rioki · 2012-06-17 23:51 · Score: 1

Oh, riiight. It is feel safe security. Let me show you this product I have here. This snake oil can be applied to any computing device. It makes the device totally safe from any intrusion. And for 19.99$ a month I will send you a bottle of this scientifically proven miracle product every month.
Re:Help me out here... by retchdog · 2012-06-18 02:40 · Score: 1

are you really saying that the intersection of "legitimate security" and "profitable enterprise" is empty? i mean, come on, it's phil zimmermann.

--
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Re:Help me out here... by JoeMerchant · 2012-06-18 03:52 · Score: 1

Start with "know your people, know what they're doing" - case in point: occupational therapist office, small chain, 5 or 6 locations in Florida, basically independent therapists operating out of the offices - as you might imagine, we had a bad experience with one licensed therapist "running" the local office doing all kinds of stuff she shouldn't have, and when we called the parent organization (in whom we placed our trust when starting dealings with the local office) their answer was "what? we don't know anything about that."
Bad actors are everywhere, and they will take on the mantle of the biggest most legitimate organization they can.
Re:Help me out here... by JesseMcDonald · 2012-06-18 04:22 · Score: 1

The server would regard the data as a binary blob with a source and destination. You know, just like a router does. Except the data is encrypted, so the only useful data that can be recovered is where it's going, and where it's coming from.
You don't even need to give up that much information. If the messages are encrypted, then the server can just send all of them to every client, and only the intended recipients will know which ones correspond to their private keys. As for the sender, that can be disguised with public proxies or onion routing (Tor or I2P).

--
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Re:Help me out here... by pnutjam · 2012-06-19 01:44 · Score: 1

My paper is going to stick to IT practices, but I will try to touch on this. Unfortunately it seems like a management issue, not a tech issue. Too bad, I see this kind of crap everywhere and the head office usually circles the wagons and makes no improvement.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:Help me out here... by JoeMerchant · 2012-06-19 09:00 · Score: 1

In this instance, the head office circled the wagons, then discharged the clowns 3 months after it all blew over... small consolation.
IT wise, nothing to see here, but management wise, shouldn't let HIPPA be used as a BS blanket.

Maybe I'm just a retard..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 05:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

But if it's made up of a bunch of ex-navy seals, can you really trust that it's going to be secure against american intelligence access? And if it *IS*, what does that say about these EX-SEAL personnel? The old 'loyalty to your job' versus 'loyalty to your country' :D

Re:Maybe I'm just a retard..... by CRCulver · 2012-06-17 05:56 · Score: 4, Informative

But if it's made up of a bunch of ex-navy seals, can you really trust that it's going to be secure against american intelligence access?

No, you can't completely trust that it's going to be secure. On the other hand, there's a remarkable amount of ex-SEALs who have become embittered about the government they once served, and Mike Janke is a privacy advocate. So, the involvement of SEALs isn't a guarantee that this company is in bed with the US government.
Re:Maybe I'm just a retard..... by betterunixthanunix · 2012-06-17 06:03 · Score: 2

But if it's made up of a bunch of ex-navy seals, can you really trust that it's going to be secure against american intelligence access?
I was going to reply with a list of the algorithms and constructions used here, and then point out that they are all standard and widely studied. Then I noticed that the website does not actually have that information, so unless someone would like to post a link (I could have just missed something obvious), no, I do not think you can really assume anything. Phil Zimmerman did good work with PGP, but that does not mean that he will do similarly good work here.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Maybe I'm just a retard..... by lightknight · 2012-06-17 07:04 · Score: 1

Indeed. That was the first red flag that caught my eye -> "ex-Navy Seal would be nice if I were expecting the offices to be physically attacked, but I don't know how well they'd hold up against various intelligence people questioning their 'loyalty' to their own..."

--
I am John Hurt.
Re:Maybe I'm just a retard..... by Sparticus789 · 2012-06-17 12:56 · Score: 1

But if it's made up of a bunch of ex-navy seals, can you really trust that it's going to be secure against american intelligence access? And if it *IS*, what does that say about these EX-SEAL personnel? The old 'loyalty to your job' versus 'loyalty to your country' :D
Jesse Ventura was also a Navy Seal and he hates the United States Government. He's as Libertarian as they come. The oath he swore was to support and defend the Constitution, as the U.S. keeps straying away from that, they will loose cooperation from people who take that oath seriously.

--
sudo make me a sandwich
Re:Maybe I'm just a retard..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 18:55 · Score: 0

The ex-SEALs will guard the servers, don't you see?

Canada is a questionable choice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 05:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

Are they aware of the Canadian Conservative party's utter contempt for online privacy and willingness to grant broad snooping powers with no oversight to completely unqualified authorities? All without a warrant? Bill C-11 is currently in the process of being rammed through along with plenty of other unpopular legislation. Need I even mention the unabashed kowtowing to the whims of U.S. media conglomerates?

"You can either stand with us or with the child pornographers" - Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety.

Re:Canada is a questionable choice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 06:14 · Score: 0

I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps he hasn't been paying attention to Canadian politics, lately? I've been thinking about creating a numbered company, just so I can become a private Canadian police force, too.
Re:Canada is a questionable choice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 06:25 · Score: 1, Informative

Are they aware that Canada's intelligence agencies are lately working under less oversight and with more direct partisan political control?
Are they aware that while Canada has some nice privacy laws on paper, the federal & provincial privacy commissioners don't have any actual enforcement powers when the police simply choose not to cooperate?
Re:Canada is a questionable choice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 06:38 · Score: 0

Are you aware that they are proposing a new police force, likely funded by the people promoting the bill(s)?
Re:Canada is a questionable choice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 17:55 · Score: 0

Are they aware of the Canadian Conservative party's utter contempt for online privacy and willingness to grant broad snooping powers with no oversight to completely unqualified authorities? All without a warrant? Bill C-11 is currently in the process of being rammed through along with plenty of other unpopular legislation. Need I even mention the unabashed kowtowing to the whims of U.S. media conglomerates?
"You can either stand with us or with the child pornographers" - Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety.
You're thinking of Bill C-30, Bill C-11 is Copyright Act.
Also - I've emphasized the highly relevant part of your post, and to repeat it here: "grant broad snooping powers to completely unqualified authorities".
Bingo. It's to prepare for the next election, when they'll take their electoral fraud tactics to whole new levels. Watch out opposition MPs, Pierre Poutine is watching you!
Posting anon to preserve +1 I gave you,
Maow

Move to England by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 05:49 · Score: 0

Move to England, you'll do great business there. Didn't you hear? Their government took Orwell's warning and turned it into a plan!

Canada by WarSpiteX · 2012-06-17 05:51 · Score: 2

As a Canadian resident, I wouldn't count on our privacy laws remaining strong, or - above all - being strongly enforced - with the Conservative party in power. They should have gone with Sweden or Switzerland.

--

I'm a little segfault, short and stout.

Re:Canada by Mashiki · 2012-06-17 06:07 · Score: 1

Warrants are required in Canada, even under exigent circumstances now. The SCC recently struck down even prior existing laws(telephone) on that. The only exception is home entry in case of emergency, where you can see/hear/know a person in an obvious case of distress.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:Canada by BlueParrot · 2012-06-17 06:47 · Score: 4, Informative

Sweden has few effective laws for private citizens. It's explicitly codified into law that the authorities are allowed to snoop on your communications. It's a bit better than England ( where you can be jailed for not giving police your encryption keys ) , but there's really no good way to defend against a hostile government. If you truly want to avoid government meddling with your communication your best bet is probably hiding in plain sight. I.e, make sure you and your communication appear dull enough that your government can't be bothered to look at it.
Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 09:02 · Score: 0

If you truly want to avoid government meddling with your communication your best bet is probably hiding in plain sight. I.e, make sure you and your communication appear dull enough that your government can't be bothered to look at it.
You're assuming that the snooping is going to be done by humans, and in a selective manner. We live in an age where computers can mine everyone's communications automatically. Computers don't care how 'dull' your communications are. If you mention a hot keyword it will be noted.
Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 09:03 · Score: 1

Not to mention the fact that we club Seals to death and eat them in Canada.
Re:Canada by Phrogman · 2012-06-17 13:36 · Score: 1

I do not believe that the Conservative party has any interest in maintaining the privacy of Canadians. In fact I think they are actively working to weaken/eliminate privacy here, in the same way they are actively working to destroy the environmentalist movement and scientific research into GCC. Steven Harper has only the interests of Steven Harper in mind, no one else. His focus is to stay in power long enough to change Canada in the way he wants to. Whatever gets in the way will be swept aside (latest victim: our national archives and libraries).

--
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Re:Canada by CodeBuster · 2012-06-17 20:04 · Score: 1

make sure you and your communication appear dull enough that your government can't be bothered to look at it.
This is good advice. As any CIA trainee will tell you, attempting to ditch surveillance is the surest way to ensure that it remains stuck on you like crazyglue. Even if you succeed in ditching them temporarily you will find that there are more of them next time and that the surveillance has been intensified. The bottom line is don't make yourself an interesting target. The best response, once you realize that you're under surveillance, is to behave in as normal and boring a fashion as possible. Your goal is to convince whomever is following you that you're no different than any other ordinary person and that they're wasting their time by following you. Only after your certain that they've given up should you even attempt to do whatever it was that you were doing before they began the surveillance.
Re:Canada by yahwotqa · 2012-06-17 20:47 · Score: 1

I see. I will only ever post lolcats. To any forum. Gotcha.

What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by guanxi · 2012-06-17 05:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

What do SEALs have to do with it? Are they going to infiltrate the datacenters of privacy violators and blow them up? Secure this company's underwater cables? Now some NSA or CIA signals intelligence veterans might be helpful.

Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by houghi · 2012-06-17 06:07 · Score: 2

What do SEALs have to do with it?
Perhaps they wanted to be close to Heidi Klum.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by Dahamma · 2012-06-17 06:07 · Score: 2

No, duh. They are launching a subscription service in the US. The SEALs are there for the TV commercials.
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 06:24 · Score: 0

What do SEALs have to do with it? Are they going to infiltrate the datacenters of privacy violators and blow them up? Secure this company's underwater cables? Now some NSA or CIA signals intelligence veterans might be helpful.
Physical control has no role in security? Doesn't Slashdot always say the first step in securing a computer is physical control of the hardware? If you'd RTFA you'd know that both the SEALs have security companies, and one is a privacy advocate and author.
Slashdot is in poor shape...
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by Phat_Tony · 2012-06-17 06:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

They may have any amount of legitimate expertise to contribute. Even if it's just on the business/managerial side of things and not the software/encryption side, not that that's necessarily the case.

But you know one big thing they contribute just by being there? This company will be accused of being anti-American, of "helping the terrorists win." There's nothing that will help inoculate them against that as much as having a couple of combat veterans as founders.

And to those who will say the presence of veterans means you can't trust this organization because they will provide a backdoor for the feds, the people in our armed forces hold a range of political opinions, they are not all clones. And there are a lot of them who agree with a libertarian or traditional conservative view of highly restricted government power and lots of freedom. A lot of people in the military are there to fight for our freedom, and that includes opposing the Orwellian encroachments of our own government.

--
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by swillden · 2012-06-17 06:30 · Score: 1

No, duh. They are launching a subscription service in the US. The SEALs are there for the TV commercials.
Because Act of Valor showed the world that SEALs are incredibly talented actors?

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by chill · 2012-06-17 06:31 · Score: 1

The SEALs mentioned both operate physical security companies. Their expertise will probably come in handy in securing the datacenters.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by equex · 2012-06-17 06:35 · Score: 2

Friend of a guy who worked in intelligence here, all your encryption is worthless, they will just park outside your lawn and point a device towards your keyboard. The electrical charge generated by each key can somehow be translated into clear text.

--
Can I light a sig ?
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 06:39 · Score: 1

For the interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystroke_logging#Electromagnetic_emissions
Can't find the link but similar has been done for monitors as well.
My encryption is to keep that annoying friend from messing with my computer.
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by Midnight_Falcon · 2012-06-17 06:51 · Score: 1

The similar thing done for monitors is known as a TEMPEST attack. It's only feasible against CRTs, though.
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by turbidostato · 2012-06-17 07:38 · Score: 1

"all your encryption is worthless, they will just park outside your lawn and point a device towards your keyboard. The electrical charge generated by each key can somehow be translated into clear text."
Failing that, they will just park outside of your lawn and point a device towards your head. The adrenaline generated by you knowing the "device" is a 7.65 long barrel can somehow be translated into clear text too.
Obliged reference: http://xkcd.com/538/
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by jgrahn · 2012-06-17 08:12 · Score: 1

Friend of a guy who worked in intelligence here, all your encryption is worthless, they will just park outside your lawn and point a device towards your keyboard. The electrical charge generated by each key can somehow be translated into clear text.
Not everyone who wants my data has a black van full of electronics, readily available for dispatching, in my area.
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 08:15 · Score: 0

Not everyone who wants my data has a black van full of electronics, readily available for dispatching, in my area.
Where do you live?
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by jon3k · 2012-06-17 08:20 · Score: 1

Then maybe they should mention that instead of the credentials that have pretty much no application to the topic at hand.
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 08:32 · Score: 0

The problem is right there too: "semi-anechoic chamber" meaning it was tested inside a reasonably sterile EMI resistant, resonance dampening room. So assuming there is no interference from any monitors, cpus, speakers, fluorescent bulbs, microwaves, bluetooth devices, cellphones, gps, vehicle engines, power lines, and so on then this could be technically possible with some tuning equipment.
Moreover nothing is stated in the second citation link about effectiveness against USB keyboards, and claims "...fully recovered 95% of the keystrokes of a PS/2 keyboard at a distance up to 20 meters, even through walls.." Given that, why are they not stinking rich from selling wifi devices that have 95% signal strength that does not degrade through walls. I would buy one. Old brick is the bane of wireless.
Nevermind the first of two citations which links to an article:
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security-management/2000/10/26/a-year-ago-cypherpunks-publish-proof-of-tempest-2082190/
that links to the Cypherpunks group claiming a FOIA request actually worked for the NSA hosted via
http://cryptome.org/nt1-92-1-5.htm
More tinfoil hats than fallacy free.
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 09:20 · Score: 1

The similar thing done for monitors is known as a TEMPEST attack. It's only feasible against CRTs, though.
Actually, TEMPEST is a group of standards to prevent these kinds of attacks.
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by Dahamma · 2012-06-17 09:25 · Score: 1

No, because it showed they don't have to be...
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 09:51 · Score: 0

Not everyone who wants my data has a black van full of electronics, readily available for dispatching, in my area.
Where do you live?
Why are you interested in where I live?
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by equex · 2012-06-17 10:31 · Score: 1

Knew it was that xkcd before I clicked :D

--
Can I light a sig ?
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by equex · 2012-06-17 10:34 · Score: 1

No, but the people who really, really need encryption probably has a van not too far away. I use encryption mostly just to be a dick and generate the noise that the others who rely on it needs.

--
Can I light a sig ?
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 11:02 · Score: 0

yep. assuming that someone who serves in the military is so brainwashed as to support anti-constitutional actions is the ultimate slap in the face to the ones who do take their oath seriously. Are they more brainwashed than the masses watching all the taxpayer funded propaganda on tv of their own free will? What kind of stupid %^&*& sits there watching CSI, cold case, criminal minds, and all the other obvious "programming"!
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by swillden · 2012-06-17 14:26 · Score: 1

No, because it showed they don't have to be...
That's debatable. The movie was enjoyable, but some of the dialog-heavy segments were stilted enough to make it difficult to maintain suspension of disbelief.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 14:54 · Score: 0

I copy and paste all my text.
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 14:57 · Score: 0

Three of my friends who are uber Unix, security geek consultants are a Marine, a former Seal, and a former Army Ranger. All whose particular computer expertise were used in theaters of war.
You can be a physical bad ass and a geek.
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by Dahamma · 2012-06-17 16:18 · Score: 1

Eh, I wasn't talking about what it did for the movie, I was talking about about the reputation Navy SEALs have with middle America after the whole bin Laden thing (and the movie, etc).
If you are a 65 year old retiree in Kansas, who's security software are you going to use, something called "McAfee" with commercials featuring boring guys in suits talking about IT infrastructure, or one called "Silent Circle" with a fucking Navy SEAL guarding your computer! ;)
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 17:19 · Score: 0

I was talking about about the reputation Navy SEALs have with middle America after the whole bin Laden thing
Botching an extraction and rendition job?
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by Dahamma · 2012-06-17 17:42 · Score: 1

Yeah, keep telling yourself that was the actual goal... taking bin Laden alive would have been hugely "inconvenient" for the US government, and they had no interest in creating a political martyr. The outcome was exactly as hoped/planned, I'm sure...
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by CodeBuster · 2012-06-17 20:08 · Score: 1

all your encryption is worthless, they will just park outside your lawn and point a device towards your keyboard.
They have to find you first. That's what TOR and unsecured public WiFi is for.
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by metaforest · 2012-06-18 13:36 · Score: 1

Lets just call it 'Method 538' and be done with it.
All cyphers fail against this method because the sender and/or recipient are known, or easily discoverable. Until we solve that problem it doesn't matter how good the cypher is.
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by swillden · 2012-06-18 16:23 · Score: 1

Yeah, keep telling yourself that was the actual goal... taking bin Laden alive would have been hugely "inconvenient" for the US government, and they had no interest in creating a political martyr. The outcome was exactly as hoped/planned, I'm sure...
I don't see that it would have been inconvenient. It would have been very similar Saddam Hussein. The government would have obtained a couple of years of footage of bin Laden as an old, broken man (it's not even necessary that he be old or broken -- you just have to film a lot and select the released footage carefully), and would then try him and execute him. It's not like there wasn't a wealth of evidence, most of it his own words.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:What do SEALs have to do with privacy? by Dahamma · 2012-06-19 11:10 · Score: 1

Hussein wasn't a martyr because everyone hated him, including most terrorist groups and the people in his own country (who were the ones to execute him).
Bin Laden would have been tried in the US, where it takes a decade of (automatic) appeals before anyone is executed; and even if he ever lived that long (unlikely) it would be the US performing the execution. All that time he'd be a visible symbol to Al Queda's cause. Not like I'm going out on a limb here, this take on it was practically a consensus of all of the political commentators and pundits as well...

Yes, you are just a retard..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 05:52 · Score: 1

The old 'loyalty to your job' versus 'loyalty to your country'

"Country" means more than just "the guys holding political office right now." Perhaps they see the sad state of privacy laws in the US, remember the 4th Amendment, and realize that they would be doing their country the best service they can by offering this sort of solution.

Canada? by SuperCharlie · 2012-06-17 05:53 · Score: 1

I'm sure they did their due diligence, but from what Ive seen the last couple years Canada seems to be heavily influenced by US politicians, lobbyist, etc.. And I would not be surprised to hear of a joint task force as in" go ahead eh" taking down the servers for from the US privacy destruction machine. Just my tinfoil hat 2 cents.

Re:Canada? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 06:11 · Score: 1

My thoughts exactly. I've been reading (mostly on /.) too often of the Canadians caving in to adopt US-style legislation. A day or two ago, there even was a /. headline about Canada's new Copyright law resembling the DMCA closely...
My thoughts: Iceland.
Their economy tanked, and to resolve this, they came up with the idea to be the safe harbour for internet services.
I'll say that again: one of their paths out of the country going (sort of/almost) bankrupt was to offer a safe place for internet services.
That's a mighty incentive to stay nice, for the time being.

Canadian privacy... by Dahamma · 2012-06-17 06:03 · Score: 3, Funny

They just nee to make sure they don't discuss any details of the service at the airport...

why not put a server center in each? by Dan667 · 2012-06-17 06:07 · Score: 1

that way have better world coverage and can shift if the local politics go to crap on privacy.

Another fracking Hushmail.. no real privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 06:28 · Score: 0

As the Hushmail cases have proven.. bullshit and server /client cryptography DONT work against government subpoena(s).. especially in canada...

and another strike!!!

how about peer to peer voip crypto...

lesson learned by PopeRatzo · 2012-06-17 06:29 · Score: 0

The company surveyed the state of privacy laws around the world and found that the top three choices were Switzerland, Iceland, and Canada

Also, three countries with universal single-payer health care, free education, high standards of living and a thriving middle class.

Also countries that have succeeded despite not adopting the disastrous "austerity measures" that have caused widespread recessions in other countries, and threaten to send the U.S. into a double-dip recession if adopted here.

Having successful developed societies is not really so hard when you have nice clear examples like these three. Yet still if you were to watch any of the news talk programs on television this morning, you would hear our political elite talking about how desperately we need to adopt the austerity measures that are sinking so many countries in the Eurozone. Hell, we have one political party here that is wholly dedicated to adopting precisely those failed policies. And bigger tax cuts for the Rent Seekers!

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:lesson learned by lgw · 2012-06-17 06:49 · Score: 2

No one is adopting "austerity measures" for fun, and those measures are not disastrous, nor have those measures cause any sort of recession etc. The underlying economies of countries adopting "austerity measures" are disasters! These "austerity measures" are a last-gasp attempt to prevent total collapse of economies, not some 1%-er imposed hardship!
Countries that wildy overspent beyond their means (e.g., Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain) are finding that no one now believe that ending them even more money is a smart idea. Countries that made some reasonable attempt to live within their means (e.g., Switzerland, Germany) are still fine, if they don't let the others drag them down. Ireland actually embrace their austerity measures, and by all measures seems to be on the path to recovery without collapse.
And clearly your definition of "Rent Seekers" is "people I don't like", unless there's some "tax cut for the MAFIAA" bill I haven't seen (which, admittedly, wouldn't surprise me).

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:lesson learned by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 07:23 · Score: 1

No one is adopting "austerity measures" for fun, and those measures are not disastrous, nor have those measures cause any sort of recession etc. The underlying economies of countries adopting "austerity measures" are disasters! These "austerity measures" are a last-gasp attempt to prevent total collapse of economies, not some 1%-er imposed hardship!
Remind us again who enabled the problems austerity measures are supposed to fix, who benefited from the faud^w 'boom' and who is now being forced to pay the price?
Re:lesson learned by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-06-17 07:39 · Score: 1

Post secondary education in Canada is not free.
Iceland went through a economic collapse and currency devaluation in 2008, savaging the savings of it's citizens. It's stock market fell 90%. At one time it's external debt was nearly 8x GDP. For weeks external currency transactions were frozen making critical imports difficult.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aVFtDRGwcc50&refer=europe
It was the largest economic collapse by any country in history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932012_Icelandic_financial_crisis
Re:lesson learned by PopeRatzo · 2012-06-17 07:46 · Score: 2

It was the largest economic collapse by any country in history.
It was a banking collapse. Iceland's economy is now growing, lives improving, and most importantly, the economic disparity, which is the source of so many social problems, is lessening.
If you are a middle class 23 year old in Iceland, your financial future is brighter than a middle class 23 year old in South Carolina.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:lesson learned by PopeRatzo · 2012-06-17 07:51 · Score: 4, Informative

And clearly your definition of "Rent Seekers"

My definition of "rent seekers" is people who accumulate wealth while contributing nothing to society.

"tax cut for the MAFIAA"

It's called the Paul Ryan budget.

Countries that made some reasonable attempt to live within their means (e.g., Switzerland, Germany) are still fine
Greek workers put in as many hours as German workers. They retire no earlier than German workers. When you talk about "living within their means" you aren't talking about the working and middle classes. The ones that didn't "live within their means" were entirely the financial sector and the "1%".
Yes. the "rent seekers" whose income is entirely in capital gains.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:lesson learned by lgw · 2012-06-17 09:53 · Score: 1

Well, fine, mean whatever you want to mean when you say "rent seekers", but what most people mean is "those who seek income from the government", via monopoly or other corruption. For example, if you pay a tax on a blank CD that goes directly to some company, that's a perfect example.
Maybe you're talking about bank bailouts? While bank bailouts are generally messed up, in the European countries currently in trouble, it's mostly holders-of-public-debt who are getting bailed out (which do include banks!). If you think somoene is an "evil rent-seeking 1%-er" because they buy government bonds and wish to be repaid, well, so do many who oppose austerity. But how can you expect the whole system of governments spending more than they collect to work, if you make it clear that loans won't be repaid? Really?
Not that I'd object to a pernanent end to deficit spending, mind you, but those who oppose these austerity measures seem to just want unlimited, consequence-free money from the government, possible only with ever-increasing deficit spending. Sorry, I canna change the laws of physicis captain! When there is no money, there will be no checks.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:lesson learned by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-06-17 10:45 · Score: 1

Major collapses are normally followed by economic improvement. Sometimes they collapse again, sometimes they continue to improve for a long time.
The fact is the the purchasing power of a family in Iceland is now 30% less than it was prior to the collapse. The currency devaluation effectively cut wages 50%. These as disasters.
The loss of economic disparity = loss of capital and flight of capital from Iceland dooming the country to slow future growth. The only industries they have that are healthy now are fishing and tourism.
Iceland is still under pressure from Britain and the Netherlands to make good on deposits lost to their citizens when Iceland's banks collapsed.
Trying to compare a 23 year old in South Carolina vs one in Iceland is stupid. Both have real challenges to face. Who can tell what the outcome will be 40 years from now?
One thing this does show though is how wrongheaded the Euro is. You cannot have a currency union without an economic union.
Re:lesson learned by PopeRatzo · 2012-06-17 10:54 · Score: 2

but what most people mean is "those who seek income from the government", via monopoly or other corruption
You bet: the energy industry, telecommunications industry, banking industry, pharmaceutical industry, private capital industry, insurance industry, all of Wall Street, hell, the entire financial sector. Start at the top of the Fortune 500 and work your way down. Rent seeking with exceptions you can count on one hand.
Yes, I think that covers it, but I'm sure I can think of a few more if I think about it a while.

Sorry, I canna change the laws of physicis captain! When there is no money, there will be no checks.
You believe economies follow the laws of physics? Why? Money is completely virtual. It can be both created and destroyed. It does not respect any natural law. Since 2000, 40% of the net worth of Americans has disappeared, almost entirely from the middle and working classes while the net worth of the top 1% more than doubled. Do you believe most of the world suddenly became worth less? That work suddenly became worth less? Did humanity suddenly become worth less? Did rich guys suddenly become twice as valuable to the world? Does any of that sound like behavior according to the "laws of physics"?

But how can you expect the whole system of governments spending more than they collect to work, if you make it clear that loans won't be repaid? Really?
Yes, really. I would recommend two books by Joseph Stiglitz, both written in 2010:
Time for a Visible Hand: Lessons from the 2008 World Financial Crisis, Jones, S.G., Ocampo, J.A. & Stiglitz, J.E. (Ed.), Oxford University Press.
and..
Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn't Add Up, Fitoussi, J-P., Sen, A. & Stiglitz, J.E., The New Press.
Given what I take to be your view of our current political/economic situation, I would highly recommend Stiglitz' most recent,
The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future, Stiglitz, J.E., W.W. Norton & Company.
Honestly lgw. Take a look at these books and read them with an open mind. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and send you a copy of one of them if you promise to read it through.
Oh, Stiglitz has won a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science, a Clark Medal, and was Chief Economist of the World Bank until he realized the whole thing was a huge scam and resigned. His book-length analysis of the 2008 world economic crisis was exceptional in its criticism of globalization and the IMF. He's probably the top living economist and rather unique in that discipline in that he has a both a first-rate mind and a fully-human heart. Most important, he really knows what he's talking about, in real-world, practical terms.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:lesson learned by dskoll · 2012-06-17 10:55 · Score: 1

Post-secondary education in Canada is not free.
And the reason we don't need austerity measures like some other countries is that we have a well-regulated banking system that couldn't give dubious loans to greedy consumers with an inflated sense of entitlement.
Canada went through some austerity measures back in the 1990s and our economy is much stronger as a result. The US cannot take the necessary painful steps to fix its economy because the political system in the US is fundamentally broken. Polarizing partisanship coupled with an unworkable political framework ensure that no actual decisions can ever be taken. The US will simply careen from emergency to emergency with no clear plan.
Re:lesson learned by PopeRatzo · 2012-06-17 11:47 · Score: 1

And the reason we don't need austerity measures like some other countries is that we have a well-regulated banking system that couldn't give dubious loans to greedy consumers with an inflated sense of entitlement.

You believe the banking crisis in 2008 was because of "greedy consumers with an inflated sense of entitlement"?
If so, you don't know enough to participate in this discussion.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:lesson learned by lgw · 2012-06-17 12:29 · Score: 1

Well, I won't argue with your definition of your pet phrase, since it's basically irrelevent.
As you seem to agree, printing more money doesn't change the actual amount of goods and services available - so what would you actually change? Give control of the means of production to a Central Planning Committee? You'd have to be completely blind to history to think that was a good idea. Leave wealth in current hands, but take away any rewatd for making wise investment decisions? Might as well just bail out every failing company if that's your goal, since we seem to be heading that direction anyway.
Greece and Spain and the rest in trouble consume more than they give back to society, and have for many years, and now the debt has come due. What would you fix? Would you decouple what someone contributes to society from what society owes them? (Aside from a very small % who need charity due to injury or disaster, which we can and should carry.) From each according to his ability, to each according to his need? Never was there a system more vulnerable to corruption than that! Reward the skill of appearing needy, and punich hard work, and, well, again history shows where that leads.
Or do you simply deny that "making wise decisions" is more valuable than "manual labor"? On Slashdot? I think most of us are here because we value the work of the mind.
Sure, keep defining "smart people" as "those who agree with me" and let me know how that works out for you.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:lesson learned by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 13:18 · Score: 0

I thought this might help you:
Economic Rent:
http://www.economist.com/economics-a-to-z/r#node-21529784
Rent Seeking:
http://www.economist.com/economics-a-to-z/r#node-21529810
Re:lesson learned by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 13:23 · Score: 0

Some definitions:
Economic Rent:
http://www.economist.com/economics-a-to-z/r#node-21529784
Rent Seeking:
http://www.economist.com/economics-a-to-z/r#node-21529810
Re:lesson learned by PopeRatzo · 2012-06-17 17:02 · Score: 1

Greece and Spain and the rest in trouble consume more than they give back to society, and have for many years, and now the debt has come due.

That simply is not true. Repeating it does not make it more true.
Seriously, friend, get one of the Stiglitz books. Any one.

r do you simply deny that "making wise decisions" is more valuable than "manual labor"?
Then why are the real wages for high-tech workers going down in such dramatic fashion? Do you believe that such work has become less valuable in the past decade? And if "making good decisions" was tied in any way to compensation, why are very very highly paid investment bankers getting bailed out time after time, all over the world? And still getting bonuses?
Please, the Stiglitz. Read him. If the books are too forbidding, start reading Krugman at the Times daily for a few weeks. Just a few weeks is all I ask. If that's too much, and you dislike anything with the word "liberal" in it, then read Yves Smith's blog. Just look at it, is all I ask.
The people who have been "making good decisions" economically worldwide have been doing a very shit job, yet their pay goes up and up and up. The economic elite have broken the social contract so badly that we face a downward spiral from which there is no path back to prosperity and full employment. We have tax policies that favor them, and still nobody's growing, and the countries with the austerity measures are doing particularly badly. Profits are going up and workers wages are going down. Income disparity is causing social breakdown. The countries that are spending money to address the issue of income inequality, like Brazil, are doing best comparatively. They are moving in the right direction, growing, prospering. The countries that are "tightening their belts and addressing deficits" are doing poorly in direct proportion to their "belt tightening". I don't know how many more ways there are to say it. Just look.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that a national economy is anything like a household budget. The rules of physics do not apply. But one rule does apply: Growing economic inequality leads to very bad social outcomes. Every single time.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:lesson learned by TooMuchToDo · 2012-06-17 17:15 · Score: 1

Iceland is doing fantastic actually, and instead of propping their banks up, they told them to go fuck themselves.
http://www.moneymorning.com.au/20120227/the-lesson-from-icelands-economic-recovery-let-banks-go-bust.html
Re:lesson learned by lgw · 2012-06-17 17:17 · Score: 1

Then why are the real wages for high-tech workers going down in such dramatic fashion?

I don't see that at all. Worldwide, they seem to be skyrocketing upwards -developer wages in Bangalore are closing in on rural US. Sure, US wages are going down a bit, but we're a tiny part of the world, after all, and we've sucked at educating engineers for the past couple of decades, while India and others have made a national effort to train high-tech workers.

the countries with the austerity measures are doing particularly badly.
Of course, the countries who are doing the worst need the austerity measures, because they have no other choice! What else can Greece possibly do? Your complaints about income inequality - do they apply somehow to the most socialist of European nations?

The people who have been "making good decisions" economically worldwide have been doing a very shit job, yet their pay goes up and up and up.

Wall Street has had vast, vast layoffs - with no bubbles to inflate, there aren't any jobs any more. Just becuase the market doesn't correct at internet speed, doesn't mean it doesn't get there eventually (though the fucking bailouts did their best to avoid the consequences for hte bad ecision makers, but that's sadly as old a problem as banking).

Please, the Stiglitz. Read him. If the books are too forbidding, start reading Krugman at the Times daily for a few weeks
Right - if I disaree with you is can only be because I don't understand your ideas. Sory, reality doesn't agree. Also, Krugman is a fool whose ideas are proven false daily - look around for goodnees sake, the more Keynesian the nation, the worse the nation is doing right now! And yet the worse it gets, the more they blame it on not being Keynesian enough! Well, reality will intrude, followed by economic collapse.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that a national economy is anything like a household budget.

The fundamentals are indeed the same, at least as a small business budget. Spending what you don't have to live beyond your means is just a mistake, no matter how pleasant it might be to rationalize it away. Transfering spending to the public sector, where it's less effective, just extends recessions. With FDR's follies the depression was extended indefinitely, saved only by the full employment caused by the war. A high price to pay indeed.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:lesson learned by TooMuchToDo · 2012-06-17 17:17 · Score: 1

Iceland will recovery faster than any EU country, precisely because they told their banks (as well as Britain and the Netherlands) to go fuck off:
http://www.moneymorning.com.au/20120227/the-lesson-from-icelands-economic-recovery-let-banks-go-bust.html
Re:lesson learned by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 18:02 · Score: 0

Japan is still here, still economically vital to the rest of the world. Yet what were the 80's and 90's like for them on a national fiscal level? Hmm... So people not-in-Japan couldn't get rich by investing in Japan or its national debt instruments. But we all kept buying Sony and Matushita consumer electronics, Honda, Subaru and Toyota cars, Kubota and Komatsu tractors and construction equipment, etc etc etc., and we continue to do so today.
Geez.
I wish all the dogma bullshit (trickle-down rich-people talk) would just stop. I'm really tired of getting pissed on my back and having the world try to tell me it's just warm tropical rain.
Re:lesson learned by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 18:30 · Score: 0

"You believe the banking crisis in 2008 was because of "greedy consumers with an inflated sense of entitlement"?"
No, not entirely. But the people buying huge houses way beyond their means are not completely blameless.
Most of the blame lies with greedy mortgage providers and lack of government oversight, but those problems were aided and abetted by consumer greed and lack of personal responsibility.
Re:lesson learned by CodeBuster · 2012-06-17 20:21 · Score: 1

Start at the top of the Fortune 500 and work your way down. Rent seeking with exceptions you can count on one hand.
And who made that possible? Why would corporations choose to spend resources on corruption and accumulating undue influence? Do you not see that it's the pervasive power of governments to grant and enforce these monopoly powers and privileges which creates and perpetuates the problem? The only answer that works is to avoid centralization and concentration of power in the first place, which means limited government. Ironically, it's the Left that encourages the sort of large, powerful and centralized governments that make all of this possible while at the same time mocking those who offer up the cure: limited and decentralized government.
Re:lesson learned by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-18 00:04 · Score: 0

Iceland will recovery faster than any EU country, precisely because they told their banks (as well as Britain and the Netherlands) to go fuck off:
http://www.moneymorning.com.au/20120227/the-lesson-from-icelands-economic-recovery-let-banks-go-bust.html
Any particular reason why the UK shouldn't use our considerably stronger military presence (including nuikes) to force Iceland to cough up?
Re:lesson learned by PopeRatzo · 2012-06-18 00:51 · Score: 1

Why would corporations choose to spend resources on corruption and accumulating undue influence?
Because it makes them more profitable in the short run.

Do you not see that it's the pervasive power of governments to grant and enforce these monopoly powers and privileges which creates and perpetuates the problem?

Do you believe that removing the power of government would mean that monopolies would happen less often?
There is no "free market" mechanism for preventing monopoly, or limiting the power of corporations. Not in a global economy.

limited and decentralized government.
You are fighting last century's war. The only way to get "limited and decentralized government" is to limit the scope and power of corporations.
There has never been a political milieu in which corporations had more power than they do today. Not the "Gilded Age" and not by a mile. Big Government is not a creature of one political ideology or another, it is a creature of corporate power.

it's the Left that encourages the sort of large, powerful and centralized governments
Did you just fall of the turnip truck since 2008? Where have you been since 1980? Government grew faster under the Right, but the only difference was that it grew in order to benefit a very very few.
If you want small government, it's corporate power that belongs in your crosshairs.
There really is not any "free market" solution.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:lesson learned by PopeRatzo · 2012-06-18 00:58 · Score: 1

What else can Greece possibly do?
Default. Leave the Euro. Negotiate.
They work every bit as hard as Germans, don't retire any earlier. The banks are looking to transfer their bad debts to the backs of regular Greek people, just as they have in the UK, in Ireland, the US and elsewhere.
And no, the "fundamentals" of national economies and household budgets are not the same. Not even close.
And it's easy enough to spend a few minutes with Stiglitz or Yves Smith to get an understanding of why you're wrong. I've read Wealth of Nations, why won't you read even a few articles by Joseph Stiglitz or Yves Smith?

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:lesson learned by PopeRatzo · 2012-06-18 01:00 · Score: 1

Some definitions:
Thanks, that's helpful.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:lesson learned by PopeRatzo · 2012-06-18 01:04 · Score: 1

Really excellent point. I don't know where you live, but there was so much hysteria about Japan and the "Lost Decade" and how oh my god if there wasn't sufficient supply-side policy and cuts to the social safety net there was just going to be absolute disaster and what's wrong with Japan.
Also notice how little they tend to muck about militarily in other countries' beeswax.
So much of our political discourse is all about maintaining a military/industrial wealth-sucking machine that we hardly notice that it's possible to succeed without it.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:lesson learned by PopeRatzo · 2012-06-18 01:08 · Score: 1

No, not entirely.
No, not at all.
We could have paid off all those huge McMansions that those greedy firemen and teachers bought AND paid off every single sub-prime mortgage in the US for a little over $100billion.
So why was the full TARP bailout almost $1 trillion? Because fuck you, pay me, that's why.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:lesson learned by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-18 02:19 · Score: 0

The Greeks borrowed money on an eye-watering scale. They spent that money on fripperies and on investments which made no global sense. For example, suppose town A borrows money to build a large art gallery. That could work, maybe more tourists will come to A because of the gallery, and they pay admission, maybe they get a hotel room nearby, they go to a restaurant... Town A do the maths and with generous guesses for number of extra tourists it could pay for itself eventually. But in Greece neighbouring towns B, C, D, E all saw the gallery plan and said "Oh, we need a better gallery, or everyone will go to A". So suddenly there are five towns borrowing to buy an art gallery, all trying to bring in the same tourists. This is not good.
But today that 1% loan on €100M for the gallery is a 3% loan, and instead of tourism increasing from 50 000 visitors to 800 000 visitors as in the proposal, it has declined to 35 000 visitors. The money for upkeep on the gallery isn't available, so the gallery closes and begins to fall into disrepair, but that 3% loan must still be paid or else you're in default.
In the UK there's a lot more central planning than most people recognise. Town A wants a gallery? They can't afford it, but there's a central government fund. They apply, and get some money. Hooray. But why is there a central fund? To keep neighbouring towns B, C, D, E from buying a redundant gallery and to control the overall spending. Tourists in Britain who look very carefully at a map may discover that picturesque destination X isn't actually very different from Y or Z nearby. Why did they come to X, with all the other tourists? Why does only X have a souvenir shop, and a bunch of nearby posh hotels and self-catering homes? Well, that's central planning. The government picked X at random, and denied support to Y and Z so that the tourists don't wreck them. In a hundred years Y and Z will still actually have whatever it was that made X originally a tourist destination, precisely because they weren't overrun by tourists. It's called "Honey Pot" tourism funding and it works, unlike the silliness that was happenig in Greece a decade ago.
Re:lesson learned by dskoll · 2012-06-18 02:47 · Score: 1

You believe the banking crisis in 2008 was because of "greedy consumers with an inflated sense of entitlement"?
Not completely. It was mostly due to government negligence and criminally greedy mortgage providers and brokers. But when a skanky mortgage broker advises someone to lie about his/her income in order to buy an unaffordable house, the person buying the house has to take some personal responsibility too.
Re:lesson learned by lgw · 2012-06-18 05:31 · Score: 1

Ireland != Iceland. :) But,yeah, I figure refusing to bail ou the banks is the very reason Iceland is doing so well!

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:lesson learned by lgw · 2012-06-18 05:42 · Score: 1

So you just refuse to admit that the debt that Greece is saddled with is the public debt, not the banks? That decades of the government spending more on government salaries, pensions, and social plans, than thye were taking in in taxes was just fine, but somewhere the Greek government bailed out Greek banks (when did that happen, other than partial payments on public bonds?) and that's the problem?
You're blinded by your ideology - this same behavior will be the downfall of the US. Even if we never bail out anything again, and set the defense budget, and all other government-doing-things budgets to 0 beyond "mailing checks to people", we still can't balance the budget!

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:lesson learned by PopeRatzo · 2012-06-18 07:00 · Score: 1

So you just refuse to admit that the debt that Greece is saddled with is the public debt, not the banks?
"Public debt not the banks" doesn't really have any meaning without understanding how this happened.

You're blinded by your ideology - this same behavior will be the downfall of the US. Even if we never bail out anything again, and set the defense budget, and all other government-doing-things budgets to 0 beyond "mailing checks to people", we still can't balance the budget!
You accuse me of being "blinded by ideology" but you just parrot Fox News talking points, and show zero willingness to see what people with actual expertise are saying.

"mailing checks to people"
By far, the biggest recipient of "checks" that are being written against tax revenues are going to people in the top few percent, and not to middle or working class people. Didn't know that, did you? Those social security checks are being paid almost entirely from social security premiums, not tax revenue. The part that's coming from tax revenue is the part that we knew was going to have to come from revenue because of the baby boom generation. And by the way, the baby boom generation can only get smaller, and after they work their way through the system in 30 years, Social Security is in absolutely great shape.
Even if nothing is done today, Social Security will be able to pay 100% of benefits through about 2030 and 80% of benefits for 10 years after that (and then it will actually start to show a surplus...again).
When you are willing to at least take a look at an opinion besides the Fox News orthodoxy, this discussion can be worthwhile. Your certainty flies in the face of what's actually happening in the world: What countries are doing well? Do those countries have universal health care, public pensions, etc? Of course they do. In fact, the handful of countries that are doing best right now have the most progressive economic socialization. It's not even a close call. No matter which direction you want to come at the problem, including the level of public debt, the countries that are doing best have hit a reasonable balance between private sector growth and public sector robustness.
Just watch: You're going to see all sorts of new "austerity measures" and entitlement "reform" and privatization of services and lowering of public sector payrolls and deregulation, and in 2018 there will still not be less than 8% unemployed. People in the high tech industries are making about 25% less than they were in 1997. When you figure in all the people who would have had fixed-benefit pensions thirty-five years ago, that number is more alike 35% less.
The sector that you work in is going to be hit the hardest. The US tech workers of today will be the working poor of 2020. Already, the average tech worker who was shifted to a 401k scam in order to funnel that wealth to the top 1% is going to retire with approximately enough money to live for 2-3 years. That's it. After that, it's catfood city for them. We are going to have the poorest elderly in the developed world. Because our economic overlords have looked at all the money that's currently in the hands of middle-class retirees and it makes them crazy. "Why should a 75 year old have such a great life without having to go to work?" they say. And you can read the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal from 1980-1990 and see exactly that sentiment.
When it lands on your doorstep, lgw, don't say you weren't warned. And don't say nobody tried to reach out to you and help you get the information you need to have a more realistic view of the situation.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:lesson learned by TooMuchToDo · 2012-06-18 07:03 · Score: 1

I agree that Iceland and Ireland are fairly different, but at the same time, you shouldn't cripple your economy by backstopping phantom debt.
Re:lesson learned by lgw · 2012-06-18 12:25 · Score: 1

Sure, but I don't htink bank failouts are really a significant issue to any nation with a debt crisis right now. I just find in highly objectionable on principle, but in practical terms the US just did the biggest bailout in history, and that's maybe 10% of the debt we have to somehow pay off. We have deeper structural issues to deal with, and pretending it's all about the bailouts is a flimsy distraction to keep the government checks coming for just a few more weks until the whole thing collapses, instead of facing reality.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:lesson learned by TooMuchToDo · 2012-06-18 13:01 · Score: 1

+1 Agreed.
Re:lesson learned by CodeBuster · 2012-06-18 16:04 · Score: 1

Because it makes them more profitable in the short run.
Of course it does. The corporations wouldn't do it if that weren't true. However, that profit opportunity exists ONLY because of government interference in the market. In a market free of government interference the corporations would be forced to spend their capital on productive uses, like R&D or improving the efficiency of their business, instead of unproductive ones like lobbying their governments to pass laws which benefit them unfairly and hobble their competitors. The government interference distorts the natural market outcome which would have otherwise occurred, had the government not interfered.

You are fighting last century's war. The only way to get "limited and decentralized government" is to limit the scope and power of corporations.
No. Wrong. Absolutely wrong. Who has the guns? Who prints the money? Who can kill and destroy at will and with impunity? It's not the corporations, but the government which has these powers. The corporations merely manipulate the government into doing their dirty work, but without the concentrated might of governments, the corporations would not be nearly as powerful. Failure to recognize the source of your problem will always blind you to the real solution.

There has never been a political milieu in which corporations had more power than they do today. Not the "Gilded Age" and not by a mile.
Notice that when government was smaller and less powerful the corporations were similarly limited and less powerful. You make my point perfectly. As government has grown in size, scope and power so have the corporations grown in lock step. Do you not see the connection?

Big Government is not a creature of one political ideology or another, it is a creature of corporate power.
The corporations and those who control them, recognizing that government backing in the form of monopoly and other privileges was more advantageous than trying to compete fairly, cultivated and encouraged the growth of government power and influence in order to secure and fortify their entrenched positions and vested interests. Corporations, like people, are lazy. They much prefer rent seeking, monopoly and subsidy to the discipline of the free marketplace.

Did you just fall of the turnip truck since 2008? Where have you been since 1980? Government grew faster under the Right
Lies, damn lies and statistics. Cherry pick all you like, but it proves nothing.

but the only difference was that it grew in order to benefit a very very few.
Powerful and centralized government invariably destroys individual freedoms. For example, the Soviet Union had the "nomenkaltura" of party bosses and other elites. Even in an "equal" society, some are more equal than others it seems.

If you want small government, it's corporate power that belongs in your crosshairs.
Again, you confuse the symptom with the illness.

There really is not any "free market" solution.
Wrong. False. The free market is what exists in the absence of government interference. It's almost never allowed to actually operate because most people, for one reason or another, don't like it but it's the only real way to achieve even a modicum of fairness in this world. The path of ever greater government leads only to an equal share of misery.

A password is enough? by mounthood · 2012-06-17 06:33 · Score: 1

You get the apps at the iPhone/Android store, so does it just use a password? Where's the 2/3 factor authentication, or a security quiz from the system before you can start using it? Can you set an 'alarm' password that tells everyone you're under duress, or an innocuous password that only shows fake data?

Trying to make it easy to use is commendable, but trading ease for security would be better.

--
tomorrow who's gonna fuss

They should have gone with Switzerland or Iceland by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 06:36 · Score: 1

They should have gone with one of the other two. My government doesn't have the balls to stand up to US pressure (eg copyright and digital locks legislation--bill C-11--going through the house right now that will make it illegal to even make a backup of media we buy). I have more faith in both Switzerland and Iceland to show more independence.

PGP Broken by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 06:37 · Score: 0

This has no one worried. PGP was broken in 1991 and is the only Phil Zimmerman is not in jail.

That's why we use one-time pads. :)

Re:PGP Broken by heypete · 2012-06-17 07:00 · Score: 1

[citation needed]
Re:PGP Broken by macs4all · 2012-06-17 08:22 · Score: 1

This has no one worried. PGP was broken in 1991 and is the only Phil Zimmerman is not in jail.
That's why we use one-time pads. :)
It wasn't so much "broken" as it was that PZ was pressured into compromising it himself after having the IRS sicced on him. I remember those days very clearly. It was around the time I stopped using PGP...
Re:PGP Broken by macs4all · 2012-06-17 08:30 · Score: 2

I hate to respond to my own post; but in the interest of fairness, here's what PZ has to say about backdoors, et al.

I also note that he says the source to PGP is still Open.

No thanks by SilverJets · 2012-06-17 06:42 · Score: 2

They teamed up with Navy SEALs to develop this. That means a branch of the US Government is involved.

No thanks.

Or you could join an existing network (Tor, I2P) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 06:51 · Score: 0

For $20 a month you could also rent a virtual server somewhere and run the software for an existing, free anonymization network such as Tor, I2P, or Freenet. And that would even benefit all other users of these networks, who might not be able to afford a commercial service that doesn't seem to provide real benefits...

(And yes, I *have* put my money where my mouth is, and I am doing exactly what I wrote.)

Encryption System by hackus · 2012-06-17 06:58 · Score: 1

Sounds good.

I believe them when they say it is a good privacy protection package, and $20 sounds reasonable.

It better be open, and available for public comment, for every single line of code that goes into it otheriwse, then no, I don't believe it is safe to use.

I want to see it and make my own determination.

-Hack

--
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.

Re:Encryption System by macs4all · 2012-06-17 08:20 · Score: 1

I don't believe that PZ has made his versions of PGP Open Source since around PGP 2.8, and maybe before.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong; because I'm not exactly sure about that.
Re:Encryption System by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 13:27 · Score: 0

You're wrong. PGP was never Open Source (in the sense of free to modify) when it was commercial, however all the code was available for anyone to download and test, at least until Symantec bought it a couple years ago. PRZ had next to nothing to do with the product after NetAss bought it and nothing other than advisory when it was in it's second corporate incarnation.
Re:Encryption System by macs4all · 2012-06-17 15:23 · Score: 1

You're wrong. PGP was never Open Source (in the sense of free to modify) when it was commercial, however all the code was available for anyone to download and test, at least until Symantec bought it a couple years ago. PRZ had next to nothing to do with the product after NetAss bought it and nothing other than advisory when it was in it's second corporate incarnation.
I stand corrected. You're right; it wasn't Open Source. It's source was available for inspection and testing.

But I still don't trust the commercial versions, at the very least. On that, we most certainly agree.

Crypto without stego by phreakngeek · 2012-06-17 07:44 · Score: 1

This looks like the same architecture the NSA is advocating for a secure Android communication platform using encrypted VoIP. The problem with their (NSA) proposal is that it requires 3G+ data network coverage to work and this isn't available everywhere. What data speeds are required by Zimmerman's project? Also, won't using this tool immediately flag the user as suspicious? As a hostile government/network provider could I not just block/flag traffic routing towards the Canadian server? What is to keep someone using this in someplace like Ethiopia from being immediately picked up by the authorities and jailed indefinitely or tortured into revealing the data the cryptography was meant to protect?

Re:Crypto without stego by macs4all · 2012-06-17 08:18 · Score: 1

Also, won't using this tool immediately flag the user as suspicious?
Not to the NSA. They'll just use their backdoor, and have a look. They MUCH rather you'd use this service (Ex-Navy SEALs, fercrissakes. If THAT isn't a "red flag", I don't know what is...) than some one that was independently developed WIHOUT the NSAs involvement.
Re:Crypto without stego by AHuxley · 2012-06-17 20:30 · Score: 1

Its an old game.
The NSA can shape crypto that has mass usage i.e. it was on your computer for free, or you downloaded the most popular/easy to use gui software.
They can create their own front company.
They can be in on the creation of a company with a good brand ...
As people have noted, use a one time pad or a set of face to face terms that can be seen around the world in a passive way.
Its their telco system, the world wide wiretap - why anything has changed or any software is now 'safe' is not really the right question.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:Crypto without stego by macs4all · 2012-06-18 00:23 · Score: 1

Its an old game. The NSA can shape crypto that has mass usage i.e. it was on your computer for free, or you downloaded the most popular/easy to use gui software. They can create their own front company. They can be in on the creation of a company with a good brand ... As people have noted, use a one time pad or a set of face to face terms that can be seen around the world in a passive way. Its their telco system, the world wide wiretap - why anything has changed or any software is now 'safe' is not really the right question.
You are absolutely correct. One-time pads are really the only secure crypto. Pretty much always will be.

AES 128 (not 192 or 256!!!) is a pretty close second, if all you need is encryption that only matters for a short period of time. For example, Battlefield radios could be encrypted with AES 128, because it really doesn't matter if you can decrypt the messages in a few weeks, or even in a few hours. Messages are secure for the timespan they are needed.

I "like" the term "World Wide Wiretap". Very apropos, Aldous...
Re:Crypto without stego by AHuxley · 2012-06-18 02:59 · Score: 1

Thanks, I am not sure who wrote the first paper/used the term first re "World Wide Wiretap"? Google could be good in finding it or not.
http://www.efc.ca/pages/media/fraser-forum.01may98.html ?

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"

There's already amazing solutions for this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 07:44 · Score: 0

including a proxy, mail, webmail, even hosting.

http://www.cotse.net/ is what i use.

Privacy as a service. What's wrong here? by Animats · 2012-06-17 07:56 · Score: 1

The concept of "privacy" as a paid, centralized service leaves something to be desired.

Re:Privacy as a service. What's wrong here? by SeaFox · 2012-06-17 16:48 · Score: 1

Sound familiar, kinda like extortion.
Remember when the Mob approached local politicians and promised not to let out any of their secrets, for something in return?

Why should the NSA be worried? by macs4all · 2012-06-17 08:01 · Score: 1

Phil Zimmerman has been compromised ever since PGP 2.6 (IIRC), which was curiously released RIGHT AFTER he was hassled by the IRS. Curiously, 2.6 is incompatible with 2.3a, which was the version just BEFORE PZ was "re-educated" by the Feds.

Now it's time for me to put some copper foil on my hat; because the tinfoil doesn't block enough of the mind-control waves...

Backdoor ? pfffff by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 08:39 · Score: 0

They already have one. It's called Windows :| How many bugs and exploits are found almost monthly ? How many zero day exploits are out there but unpublished ? Even Flame was using unpublished zero day stuff, so don't think for a moment they din't exist.

To be fair, not just Windows, but all flavors of OS that require patches on a monthly basis as new exploits are found.

They don't need to backdoor it. A simple keylogger will give them anything they need should the need arise.

Hell, if you really want to get fun, install the keylogger hardware in a chip INSIDE the keyboard. See you find that one. Especially if it came from the manufacturer that way :|

Never trust americans by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 08:47 · Score: 0

sorry utter fail him partnering up with the us military no really????
FAIL

Driving distance from where? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 09:28 · Score: 0

The company surveyed the state of privacy laws around the world and found that the top three choices were Switzerland, Iceland, and Canada, so they went for the one within driving distance.

So.... that'll be Switzerland, then? Right?

Re:Backdoor ? pfffff by isopropanol · 2012-06-17 09:45 · Score: 1

The "Lawful Access" provisions don't require access to the end-user terminals.

Canada? by dskoll · 2012-06-17 10:50 · Score: 1

Canada might not be a good choice. Our privacy laws right now might be decent, but the Harper government is selling rights to write our laws to the US and to US lobbyists. Don't count on Canada having sane privacy laws nor "Intellectual Property" laws for much longer.

The MPAA, RIAA, and NSA count more to Harper than citizens.

Re:They should have gone with Switzerland or Icela by J+Story · 2012-06-17 12:26 · Score: 1

bill C-11--going through the house right now that will make it illegal to even make a backup of media we buy

If you do, I doubt that penalties for individual infractions will be worth anyone persuing. The Supreme Court of Canada has used the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to slash excessive restrictions on individual freedoms, and so would probably not tolerate the heavy-handedness that exists in the US.

Only published source can be secure. by anwyn · 2012-06-17 12:51 · Score: 1

Governments and other criminal organizations can place esentially unlimited coersion on any organization or individual that publishes encryption or other security software. If the source code is not published there is no way to know that there is no back door.

Therefore the only way such software can be known to be secure is if the source is published.

Use free software for security.

Zero Knowledge.... by mlauzon · 2012-06-17 13:11 · Score: 1

Does anyone remember Zero Knowledge, they had a product in the late '90s to early 2000s called Freedom, that basically did what Silent Circle is going to be doing, however, it was only for PCs.

--
Michael
http://s1.sfgame.us/index.php?rec=58163

My Country May be a Mistake in the Long Run by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 13:50 · Score: 0

After seeing all of the dumb shit that Stephen Harper and his Conservative Cronies are doing, it may be a mistake in the long run for them to choose Canada as a base of operations for their service.

Laws by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 15:07 · Score: 0

It's stupid to base a huge project like this on current laws. They can a. change overnight and/or b. be subverted/ignored any time.

Zimmerman in jail by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 15:17 · Score: 0

I just hope he doesn't shoot anybody else!

Reminds of of the German Hacker, Tron by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 15:54 · Score: 0

Privacy By Subscription? lol, right... that means, if you are doing nothing illegal, use it.. because it isnt really private.. but then really, why use it? Anyway, if they keep this business idea going, memories of the german hacker Tron come to mind.

Bad actor by Catbeller · 2012-06-17 16:03 · Score: 1

Zimmerman and PGP opened a back door to their encryption on orders of the US spooks years ago - hence GPG, an open-source alternative that the spooks don't backdoor.

Why o why would I let them have my encrypted voice communications when I know full well they'll hand the keys to the spooks?

Why Not Open Source? by utkonos · 2012-06-17 16:04 · Score: 1

This is quite interesting because if you make a project open source there is much much less that the government can do to stop your project. The thing that makes this even more interesting is this is being started by exactly the same person who PUBLISHED the source code for PGP IN A BOOK just to protect it from the government!

Re:Or you could join an existing network (Tor, I2P by Catbeller · 2012-06-17 16:06 · Score: 1

Tor will be illegal/compromised shortly. Or the ISPs will make the use of Tor an offense under their terms of service, and shut the nodes down. The new worldwide police state ain't gonna let you operate an encrypted network for long.

Maybe not the best choice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 16:45 · Score: 0

Switzerland and Iceland likely have similar privacy laws to Canada's current laws, but the current Canadian Government is in a race to become like the GOP in the US. Yes, its that bad! Some of their brainless decisions are even similar to the US Tea party! IT.IS.THAT.BAD! Canadian laws are changing to a draconian state. I would do a re-analysis of the Canadian legal system after they changed about 60 laws in one go this past week. Its almost like Hitler burned the Reichstag all over again.

bitcoin? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-17 17:21 · Score: 0

Do they accept payment in bitcoin? or will they?

Re:bitcoin? by tehcyder · 2012-06-17 23:33 · Score: 1

Do they accept payment in bitcoin? or will they?
They probably like being able to do things like pay their staff and creditors in actual money, so no.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

"within driving distance". by Joce640k · 2012-06-17 21:01 · Score: 1

Within driving distance of the FBI?

They won't think twice about grabbing it. Look what they did to Megaupload and that was in Hong Kong/New Zealand and only affected the RIAA, not "national security".

Let's hope they put it in a huge bunker with lots of heavy timelocked doors - buy enough time for it to become a massive scandal before the MiB can get through to the servers.

--
No sig today...

Well, I for one... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-18 00:11 · Score: 0

Well, I for one welcome our new NSA overlords. Actually, this article is bullshit. Why would anyone think that having former Navy Seals will somehow lend credibility to a project not involving sneaking into some place by water and silently slitting people's throats? It'd be a bit like having phony "Professional" Wrestlers as consultants on a system that allows visualizations of protein folding. What the fuck would they know about THAT?!?

Anyway, it's not going to worry the NSA, even if they pretend it is, because they have industrial strength/government/military grade decryption capabilities, and even if someone somehow figured out how to encrypt shit in such a way that the NSA couldn't read it, they'd use other means to violate your privacy without your knowledge, such as use TEMPEST to read the contents of your display screen or electromagnetic energy emanating from your keyboard every time you hit a key, which can be read from far away from your equipment. Even if you have end to end encryption, whatever message you're reading or porn you're watching will get displayed somewhere, and they can just read it off that. There are probably other approaches as well, such as sections of your computer's CPU, GPU, or NIC that are quietly ready, on command, to send information on what you're doing, or what you've done, to whichever government agency wants the info. You can think I'm crazy if you like, but in case you hadn't noticed, our government will stop at nothing and stoop to whatever arbitrary level of scumminess to do whatever it takes to meet whatever objective they decide to tackle.

It's just like locking-up an expensive car. No matter how hard you might make it to steal your car, someone can always wait in the bushes near where you parked, and put a gun to your head and blow your brains out, then steal your car because they can take the keys out of your pocket. Similarly, the government can threaten to jail you if you don't decrypt whatever they want you to decrypt, and given that the NDAA allows the President (and his jackbooted thugs) to arrest and incarcerate without charges, without rights, etc., anyone suspected of being “a terrorist”, although since you'll have no rights, you have no way to challenge you're being labeled a terrorist, which means they can accuse pretty much anyone of anything with impunity, and we can't do shit about it.

Mathematically, the only encryption strategy that assures you of a message being truly private, is a truly random one-time pad cipher. You manually encrypt the message using the one-time pad. You
destroy that day's crypto-page, and the scratch pad you used to do any of the enciphering and decyphering, and the message is already encrypted before the first time any of the text of the message of messages actually touches ANY of your computer hardware.

Distribution of keys is a source of problems, as is protecting the keys, and spending the time and effort it takes to use OTPC. So it's already a trade-off...

But if you want truly bullet-proof security, that no one but the intended recipient of the message will be able to read, you have to use a one-time pad, otherwise you're just basically jacking off, fantasizing that you have good security and privacy protection..

Even if you have this service or that, or some program to encrypt your message(s), how can you know it doesn't have one or more backdoors built into it? Even if you have the source code, and built it yourself, did you also build the compiler, the linker, etc.? Do you know what the practical upshot of every single line of code of any of those programs is? Of course not. Who does?

So, at the risk of sounding repetitious, end-to-end crypto using a one-time scratch pad where the unencrypted version of the communique is NEVER on the computer, you're probably safe... but only PROBABLY, depends on how bad someone who works for our government, wants that info.

why wouldnt the gov require encryption? by peawormsworth · 2012-06-18 13:58 · Score: 1

It seems rediculous to me that our governments are not drafting laws to require email services and voip telephone service to be encrypted in this way already. I cant understand why the government allows our data to be so insecurely handled and stored. It leads me to believe that they want us to remain open and suseptible to eavesdropping from all parties... only to allow them to have an easier time doing their job. The government meant to protect us is the same one trying to keep us weak. We the people should stand up and do something about this. Requiring laws to keep us weak in order to make their job easier is a serious threat to the protection of the public. Why is there no politician saying anything about this. If the public was aware of the danger they are putting the country in, then those who support laws which make encryption illegal or require back doors would be seen as the traitors they are and there actions would be considered treasonous.

Addressable peers by DrYak · 2012-06-19 02:58 · Score: 1

Peer-2-Peer requires peers which are addressable.
Sadly, most of the cell network are NATed with private IP ranges (10.x.y.z) and thus aren't directly addressable.
You mostly cannot do P2P on a network exclusively consisting of smartphones.

So you need at least some external server with publicly reachable IPs which should help setting up the connection (think Skype's supernodes, STUN, TURN, and the likes) and help a little bit with the key management.

But these servers suddenly become a single point of failure, so better host them in a country which isn't going to shut them down on a whim, just because said server help a secure non-wiretappable communication and said country like to wave the "evil pedo-terrorist" flag as pretext to snoop in every possible communication channel.

Also said servers can't be located into a country with wire tapping laws mandating backdoors in every communication channel, because the whole system is encrypted and thus cannot be wiretapped. It needs to be in a country where the server will be left alone. Unless there's a proper investigation (with all procedure properly followed) coming to ask legally for collaboration and where the server maintainer can legally say "we agree to help as much as we could, but as everything is encrypted peer-2-peer, and there's only minimal anonymous content on our server, there's not much that we can actually do" (without getting thrown in jail for "obstructing justice" or for not properly following wiretapping laws and building in the law-mandated back doors).

And that's probably why this new venture needs servers located in Canada.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]

Your memory on the subject is a little off by joeflies · 2012-06-22 10:11 · Score: 1

Zimmermann originally developed his own symmetric algorithm called Bass-o-Matic, which was originally used in the first versions of PGP circa 1991. Bass-o-Matic was indeed flawed, and he was shown that it was breakable. Zimmermann replaced Bass-O-Matic with a different algorithm (which I don't remember), and that was the version that subsequently became much stronger and started to draw the attention of the investigation circa 1994. In other words, the part that was broken in 1991 was fixed by the time the investigation started.

heypete = BALLS NEEDED by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-24 02:11 · Score: 0

Running away from a challenge, little mere STUDENT boy? http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2933305&cid=40421131

?

* Absolutely, and I take IMMENSE PLEASURE watching little wannabe computer guru NOOBS like yourself, a mere STUDENT, running away from a challenge that I put to you there in the link above, where I challenge you to disprove points of mine that show custom hosts files get end users of them the following items:

---

1.) Better "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth"
2.) Better online speed/bandwidth while websurfing
3.) Better "anonymity" to an extent vs. DNS request logs
4.) The ability to circumvent DNSBL's (DNS Block Lists) IF the user finds them inconvenient or unjust

---

(Now, I could care less for your pussy-like "std. evasion replies" here, but instead? Well - let's see you disprove my 21++ points in favor of custom hosts files in the link above, where you're running away like the scared little rabbitt NOOB you are!)

A few years ago, I "knocked-the-chocolate" out of a post doc student named StarKruzr (Jarrett DeAngelis) whom I also caught LYING as well, right here on these forums & also @ Windows IT Pro (where I also knocked the daylights out of Dr. Mark Russinovich of Microsoft as well on memory mgt. (MS too, I was correct that "dedicate all free memory to caches" would FAIL on Windows, because *NIX variants manage memory @ a GLOBAL LEVEL, rather than by process/atomic threads as well as showing his ideas incorrect by examples from MS themselves, then lastly correcting his work for "hardcoded" (blew me away a PhD would make errors like THAT) mistakes in pagedefrag.exe as well... which he ended up THANKING ME FOR no less in email also @ least!)).

I am going to laugh @ you since you have evaded a challenge put to you, and everyone else reading's seeing you do the same too... shame, shame, shame, lol!

"citation needed"?

YOU NEED A SET OF BALLS YOU LITTLE WEASEL... & you're going to require more than your puny overpriced education to "get the better of" me... & you KNOW it (hence why you RAN in the link above).

APK

P.S.=> What's the matter pussy? Your grad school masters/doctoral training (good luck paying off your debts) not enough to face up to a challenge & face the music in the link above?? Obviously... you're WEAK, a punk, and you make me laugh! apk

Slashdot Mirror

Phil Zimmermann's New Venture Will Offer Strong Privacy By Subscription

219 comments