If you're interested in alternatives to crypto, you should also check out chaffing and winnowing -- it's a bit complex (and I don't claim to understand it completely) but basically it involves mixing real information with garbage in such a way that the receiving system will automatically be able to tell the difference but an eavesdropper won't. No keys required, ergo, no government-mandated "key recovery" schemes.
You still have keys, they're just used for authentication rather than encryption. The relevance of chaffing and winnowing to U.S. government export regulations is that encryption is regulated more strictly than authentication.
I really doubt there's a technological method to render key escrow impossible. Clearly, the recipient of a message, which can be intercepted without fear of the original messagee being recovered, must have some private information. If they didn't, either they couldn't recover the original message, or everyone else could too. Whatever guise this private information might take, the government can demand access to it.
It doesn't really matter anyway, because the whole point of key escrow is that the government forces you to transmit information in such a way that they can recover it. Traditionally, it means forcing everyone to use a method of encryption to which they have some sort of backdoor key. There are already plenty of methods not vulnerable to central key recovery. Under key escrow laws, you wouldn't be allowed to use these methods.
I'm extremely curious about how it got taken down though. I'm assuming a vhost? What happens if you run your own server (like I do)? Do guys in trenchcoats who talk to their watches show up at your door? (good luck at MY door:P)
If you read the article, you'd know that the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office contacted his host and intimidated them into taking it down.
In your case, they'd probably just intimidate whoever's upstream from you (seems to be Comstar), and get them to deactivate your connection.
What makes you think that Allah is a word that the NSA would need to listen for? He's the God we believe in. Almost every Muslim mentions his name numerous times throughout the day, and good luck to NSA if they are actually monitoring for any phrase containing his holy name. They will need boatloads of signal processing power.
Get over this, guys. Smart people do not have racial stereotypes and prejudices. Slashdot is all about smart people and free exchange of opinions. The word "Allah" has no more relation to terrorism or anything illegal than, say, "Jesus", or "Jehovah".
I doubt that the poster meant to imply that Muslims are terrorists, just that the NSA might think they are. Such religious stereotyping would not be at all unprecedented for our government. In the 1950s, for example, atheism was strongly associated with communism. Of course, as you correctly point out, filtering conversations for "Allah" would be useless because it would flag most conversations by Muslims.
Finally, he could make phone calls with Dialpad, order groceries for same-day delivery at WebVan, etc.
In case you didn't notice, the article was in the Toronto Star. Toronto is in Canada. WebVan doesn't deliver to Canada. In fact, I'm sure that there are significantly fewer Canadian Internet companies doing deliveries.
Conclusion: Before you decide to do something like this, DO A LITTLE RESEARCH!
Another communist aspect of linux is the *complete* lack of property involved. Nobody has ownership of any aspect of the OS, including any intellectual aspects.
That's not actually the case. Somebody has to hold copyright on GNU GPLed code, or it would be public domain, not GNU GPL. This is because the GNU GPL restricts distribution in a very important way: it prevents code licensed under it from being incorporated into commercial products. If the code were not owned by anyone, no one could enforce this restriction.
For example, the FSF is copyright holder on all the code in the various GNU projects. True, they cannot "unrelease" the code: a license to distribute under the GNU GPL has been granted, and their are no provisions in the GNU GPL for termination of the license. However, there's nothing legally preventing them from licensing the code for companies to use in proprietary products. Of course, that would be obviously be a very, very improbable thing for RMS to do:)
As for the GNU/Linux OS, the Linux kernel is copyrighted by "[Linus] and others who actually wrote it," a large portion in copyrighted by the FSF, and various distributions undoubtedly contain code copyrighted by the distributors.
How's that for objective reporting?:) No ballot stuffing there...
It's probably not actual ballot stuffing, but rather an indication of a difference between the opinions of people who read CNN and the opninions of people who read MSNBC.
This means you can't claim the treaty doesn't apply to you because you aren't affiliated with a national government. Anything you do in space falls under the jurisdiciton of some country.
Huh? What country would that be, exactly? If a company in a non-signatory nation built a base on the moon and claimed property rights by homesteading to the area where the base was, what exactly would the State Parties to the Treaty do?
What gave the signatories of the treaty the right to decide what can or can't be done on the moon by those not subject to their sovreignty?
Of course, the "deeds" being sold by the Lunar Embassy are completely bunk, as they themselves say, but that is not because ownership of lunar property is inherently unlawful.
I am a musician, and I want to hear my computer making music just as much as all you programmers want computers to write your code for you, and be better than you at it.:-)
When you think about it, there's quite a difference between the two for our respective economic futures. I think there would be many, many people who would continue to listen to human-written music, even if people in double-blinded tests were unable to tell the difference. People might even claim to tell the difference, and look on an ability to tell the difference as indicative of cultural refinement or something. However, I doubt anyone would care whether the program they use is coded by humans or a not.
Slashdot Mirror
So how are they sublicensing it? Refusing to distribute it to everyone isn't a sublicense.
If you're interested in alternatives to crypto, you should also check out chaffing and winnowing -- it's a bit complex (and I don't claim to understand it completely) but basically it involves mixing real information with garbage in such a way that the receiving system will automatically be able to tell the difference but an eavesdropper won't. No keys required, ergo, no government-mandated "key recovery" schemes.
You still have keys, they're just used for authentication rather than encryption. The relevance of chaffing and winnowing to U.S. government export regulations is that encryption is regulated more strictly than authentication.
I really doubt there's a technological method to render key escrow impossible. Clearly, the recipient of a message, which can be intercepted without fear of the original messagee being recovered, must have some private information. If they didn't, either they couldn't recover the original message, or everyone else could too. Whatever guise this private information might take, the government can demand access to it.
It doesn't really matter anyway, because the whole point of key escrow is that the government forces you to transmit information in such a way that they can recover it. Traditionally, it means forcing everyone to use a method of encryption to which they have some sort of backdoor key. There are already plenty of methods not vulnerable to central key recovery. Under key escrow laws, you wouldn't be allowed to use these methods.
I'm extremely curious about how it got taken down though. I'm assuming a vhost? What happens if you run your own server (like I do)? Do guys in trenchcoats who talk to their watches show up at your door? (good luck at MY door :P)
If you read the article, you'd know that the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office contacted his host and intimidated them into taking it down.
In your case, they'd probably just intimidate whoever's upstream from you (seems to be Comstar), and get them to deactivate your connection.
What makes you think that Allah is a word that the NSA would need to listen for? He's the God we believe in. Almost every Muslim mentions his name numerous times throughout the day, and good luck to NSA if they are actually monitoring for any phrase containing his holy name. They will need boatloads of signal processing power.
Get over this, guys. Smart people do not have racial stereotypes and prejudices. Slashdot is all about smart people and free exchange of opinions. The word "Allah" has no more relation to terrorism or anything illegal than, say, "Jesus", or "Jehovah".
I doubt that the poster meant to imply that Muslims are terrorists, just that the NSA might think they are. Such religious stereotyping would not be at all unprecedented for our government. In the 1950s, for example, atheism was strongly associated with communism. Of course, as you correctly point out, filtering conversations for "Allah" would be useless because it would flag most conversations by Muslims.
Finally, he could make phone calls with Dialpad, order groceries for same-day delivery at WebVan, etc.
In case you didn't notice, the article was in the Toronto Star. Toronto is in Canada. WebVan doesn't deliver to Canada. In fact, I'm sure that there are significantly fewer Canadian Internet companies doing deliveries.
Conclusion: Before you decide to do something like this, DO A LITTLE RESEARCH!
Another communist aspect of linux is the *complete* lack of property involved. Nobody has ownership of any aspect of the OS, including any intellectual aspects.
That's not actually the case. Somebody has to hold copyright on GNU GPLed code, or it would be public domain, not GNU GPL. This is because the GNU GPL restricts distribution in a very important way: it prevents code licensed under it from being incorporated into commercial products. If the code were not owned by anyone, no one could enforce this restriction.
For example, the FSF is copyright holder on all the code in the various GNU projects. True, they cannot "unrelease" the code: a license to distribute under the GNU GPL has been granted, and their are no provisions in the GNU GPL for termination of the license. However, there's nothing legally preventing them from licensing the code for companies to use in proprietary products. Of course, that would be obviously be a very, very improbable thing for RMS to do :)
As for the GNU/Linux OS, the Linux kernel is copyrighted by "[Linus] and others who actually wrote it," a large portion in copyrighted by the FSF, and various distributions undoubtedly contain code copyrighted by the distributors.
How's that for objective reporting? :) No ballot stuffing there...
It's probably not actual ballot stuffing, but rather an indication of a difference between the opinions of people who read CNN and the opninions of people who read MSNBC.
Huh? What country would that be, exactly? If a company in a non-signatory nation built a base on the moon and claimed property rights by homesteading to the area where the base was, what exactly would the State Parties to the Treaty do?
What gave the signatories of the treaty the right to decide what can or can't be done on the moon by those not subject to their sovreignty?
Of course, the "deeds" being sold by the Lunar Embassy are completely bunk, as they themselves say, but that is not because ownership of lunar property is inherently unlawful.
When you think about it, there's quite a difference between the two for our respective economic futures. I think there would be many, many people who would continue to listen to human-written music, even if people in double-blinded tests were unable to tell the difference. People might even claim to tell the difference, and look on an ability to tell the difference as indicative of cultural refinement or something. However, I doubt anyone would care whether the program they use is coded by humans or a not.