>> " Statements such as "Boy, I hope that some Al-Quida, bin Ladin loving, terrorist doesn't bring as bomb to my office in the Empire State Building to blow it up."
Show me one time when that has happened. They're doing a much better job than that. >>
And how do you know that? You don't, because the FBI doesn't tell anyone how their carnivore is doing.
>> "Second, it's not really an invasion of priacy to see someone else's encrypted message. "
I never claimed it was. >>
What's this then? "If he encrypts it, it'll flag him and then a human'll look into it, which is exactly what the invasion to his privacy would be."
>>All that's happening is that a computer is recording the messages.
Until the computer program flags a message, tarnished or not.
>>Virtually nobody's message is going to get read by somebody who could care about it.
There are two problems with that. First, let's say I recorded all your telephone conversations. I probably really wouldn't care what you said, as it doesn't affect me. But would you like that? If your answer is yes, e-mail me your mailing address and I'll come and bug your phones.
Second problem: "Virtually".
>>If you encrypt it, though, what good is that going to do besides make somebody say "Wtf is so important that they are encrypting their message this heavily?"
Unless, as someone else said, everyone encrpyts it.
>>The only good you are doing by encyrpting your messages is making it easier for September 11th part II to come along.
Two problems with this statement too. Are you saying I'll be involved in September 11 Part II? If so, please let me know what evidence you have. If not, then why would encrypting my messages help the approach?
Second problem: the terrorists are doubtless already encrypting their messages. They know of eschalon and carnivore, and are steering clear of them. They adapt to our surveillence abilities; hence bin Ladin stopping use of his cell phone when he learned we were recording all his coversations.
What if we could get some big e-mail provider to encrypt messages sent between accounts on that same service automatically?
If we were lucky, we might even be able to use Microsoft's monopoly to our advantage. Here's my reasoning:
1. ISPs won't like this; extra processing, extra storage, bad PR, etc. Making the storage almost useless would be a good way to get the law repealed after they point out "look at all this we have to do, and look what effect it's having!" 2. By rule 1, MSN won't like it (they are an ISP) 3. Similarily, Hotmail probably won't like it 4. MSN and Hotmail collaborate with the people who write Outlook to integrate automatic encryption 5. Other e-mail clients are coersed into supporting the encryption as well. 6. Voila! Universal encryption.
Problems: 1. Centralized key storage. Microsoft software. 'nuff said. 2. Encryption algorithm - public access or propriatary?
>>I don't undertand why he'd need to do this. It's a computer reading the logs searching for patterns, not a human reading the emails looking for hidden meaning. If he encrypts it, it'll flag him and then a human'll look into it, which is exactly what the invasion to his privacy would be.
Two problems with your statement.
First, it will flag innocent statements to be read by a human (after all; the reason they'd need to be checked by a human is a computer filter would be imperfect). Statements such as "Boy, I hope that some Al-Quida, bin Ladin loving, terrorist doesn't bring as bomb to my office in the Empire State Building to blow it up."
Second, it's not really an invasion of privacy to see someone else's encrypted message. To extend the envelope analogy, do you think the postal clerk delivering your mail is invading your privacy by looking at the envelope? Does the message "sdflknqowielsker39qw48ytlk;fnob63q4htq3o4iy69q34h tnuyre9btq54obp5ypgybow56`2" mean anything to you?
Of course, from the 1940s until 1995(?), Area 51 didn't exist. There was no air force base in the Nevada desert, and all the pictures of one are faked.
The Alien and Sedition acts from the 1790s were also to monitor the undeclared war against France, not to make it illegal for the Jefferson crowd to speak out against the Hamilton crowd. (Don't forget these pieces of legislation, in my mind the most unconstitutional acts to ever pass through the US Congress.)
The US also knew *nothing* about anything relating to the Sept 11 attacks. All that stuff you hear about the Phoenix memo and whatnot; it's all lies.
I'll be d/ling random pages, that's for sure.
Web pages I make will also be server-side scripts, and will obfusticate the actual address you're opening. Pseudo-code algorithm:
person comes to page
script assigns session a unique ID
script spouts out page with obfusticated links (for example, www.mysite.org/loadurl?url=lkjdfgkljsdwk43tvkfsdva sekzfdhgsdkj;id=234572345987439) generated from the ID
user goes to one of the links
script translates URL, loading page (start at step two)
script marks ID as used; further attempts to use that ID will result in errors
Each page will have a fixed URL people could bookmark if they really needed to.
>>It's just a way for the govenerdment to make the citizens think that are doing something about security. If they were actually doing something to protect the people, the "Office of Homeland Security" would call the Department of Transport and tell them to enforce seatbelt laws. How many lives a day would that save? How many lives a day will be saved by my mail headers and URLs being monitored?
I must object. Enforcing seatbelt laws would cause more people to use them, so after a brief period of high arrests, the number of people who are arrested would decline. This way, they can make arrests they never would have made. So we would be safer: more people would be in jail.
Of course, with face recognition software, etc. it's possible - and unfortunatly being implemented - to have a network of cameras track someone's movement.
With no microphone plugged into the tape deck, it was accidentally recorded over over five times???
(See the paragraph that reads as follows: "Tape 342, as it's known by archivists, was last tested in 1974 by a panel of audio experts, who concluded that the erasures were done in separate segments. Whoever erased the tape pressed Record, stopped the tape, and hit Record again, between five and nine times")
Distribute the information that NPR wants us to start at the beginning of their website to get what we are looking for. Hence, NPR probably wants us to not tune into their radio broadcasts except at the beginning of the program so we don't miss the title of whatever it is we're listening to. Unless you have written permission of course. Make sense?:)
A better analogy would be (if you don't like the one ethereal provided) "just because someone leaves their blinds open doesn't give you the right to use binoculars to look through their windows and see what's in their house."
But really, the two things are governed by completely different laws, so just because snooping around someone's house is illegal doesn't mean casual intercepting is illegal.
Granted, I suspect that if you actually had to decrypt anything, you'd have a much harder case. But who's to say you weren't just running around with a laptop, a wireless card, and a packet sniffer?
Two theories: the erasure occured before the subpoena was issued (though why he'd erase but not destroy is beyond me), or the subpoenas only applied to the physical tapes and not the data on them. To be honest, I'm really not sure. But I find it amusing that one of the biggest court cases in the second part of the century was called The United States vs. Richard Nixon while Nixon was still the president...
>>If we get rid of the Bill of Rights in order to prevent terrorists (or anyone else) from damaging us, haven't they accomplished what they set out to do?
Actually, I'm pretty sure at least bin Ladin is out to destroy us.
to snoop some names and stuff from the transmissions? You're not bypassing any security features...
I think the way to deal with this is to come up with a big list of what people have bought at these places, print them out, and mail them to the CEO saying "you might want to fix this."
Sheesh... I keep forgetting to choose text from the pull-down menu below, so my paragraphs run together. (Yes, I am pretty new here...)
Here's a re-post formatted correctly:
OK, you've got some facts wrong:
>>it was recorded with white noise
It was recorded with the mic unpluged. Don't know if that would result in white noise or not, but there was no deliberatly created white noise.
>>probabbly 20 times over
A panel of experts (in Nixon's era) put it at 9-11 times. (It was all an accident, of course.)
>>If it really is iteratively recording white noise, i doubt even today's computers will make much of a difference -- sure the computers are *faster* and what not -- but even back then, analog filters are just as good as digital filters these days -- takse a while longer, but if you do it right the quality should be similar.
Unless you need to make multiple passes. Analog recordings deterioriate with each pass. Also, it's not just the filter tech that may make the difference. A Discovery Channel show on Watergate had a segment on the recovery efforts, and the gey they were talking to described how if given the task of restoring the recording, they'll place 150-200 read heads all over the tape for a super-accurate recording. Each pickup will go to a separate channel in the computer.
>>and being a govn't investigation, i would bet they had the best of the best pouring over that tape.
Finally, it *isn't* an government investigation. The National Archives made a challenge to private sector businesses to do it. They made a test tape, using the same kind of equipment and media used originally and gave it to anyone who's interested. The Archives will pick the group most likely to suceed to give the actual tape to. But it's not being done my the government.
OK, you've got some facts wrong:
>>it was recorded with white noise
It was recorded with the mic unpluged. Don't know if that would result in white noise or not, but there was no deliberatly created white noise.
>>probabbly 20 times over
A panel of experts put it at 9-11 times. (It was all an accident, of course.)
>>If it really is iteratively recording white noise, i doubt even today's computers will make much of a difference -- sure the computers are *faster* and what not -- but even back then, analog filters are just as good as digital filters these days -- takse a while longer, but if you do it right the quality should be similar.
Unless you need to make multiple passes. Analog recordings deterioriate with each pass. Also, it's not just the filter tech that may make the difference. A Discovery Channel show on Watergate had a segment on the recovery efforts, and the gey they were talking to described how if given the task of restoring the recording, they'll place 150-200 read heads all over the tape for a super-accurate recording. Each pickup will go to a separate channel in the computer.
>>and being a govn't investigation, i would bet they had the best of the best pouring over that tape.
Finally, it *isn't* an government investigation. The National Archives made a challenge to private sector businesses to do it. They made a test tape, using the same kind of equipment and media used originally and gave it to anyone who's interested. The Archives will pick the group most likely to suceed to give the actual tape to. But it's not being done my the government.
There's also a very good reason PGP's wipe feature can record over the same area a few dozen times. They say 12 times is good enough for most things though. But military people may want to do it 20.
At least in the US... (I tried to figure out if it's still Monday somewhere but forget how the international dateline works. If I'm right, it's actually Wednesday in Australia, so nowhere is it Monday.)
In fact, they made the same comments about the Audigy even earlier. Twice. (Once in the Audigy review, once in a review of the DMXFire or something like that_
>>The only copy protection I've ever seen that actually worked was the CD-Key method for online games. If your game didn't have a valid CD-Key, then you were denied access to multiplayer, it was checked against the server so the checking routine was unassailable. Even a key generator didn't work because the producers of the game knew which keys they had released, and which ones they hadn't.
And unless Blizzard gets their way (bnetd), even *that* won't work
On the other hand, my (public) HS had enough monry to build a vertical rock wall that out instructor says is better than the one at Penn State; get twenty-some fencing foils, helmets, coats, and new gloves every semester (fencing gloves, for those who don't know, are the only thing that I know of that you need to *replace* more often than your computer; they wear out like nobody's business); a couple dozen each of recurved and compound archery bows; etc., and that's only from the gym front. We also have enough to maintain 6 PC and 6 Mac computer labs, along with a computer in every classroom and another couple dozen computers in the libraries (there are two; one in each building of our school). The labs are upgraded at the rate of three or four labs a year. We have a Photoshop, Premiere, 3D Studio Max, and AutoCAD site licesnse that covers two of the PC labs. We're also embarking on a $100 million expansion that will close one elementary school, build another, and rennovate the high school buildings, among other things.
So a few DDR machines wouldn't be out of the question.
Slashdot Mirror
>>
" Statements such as "Boy, I hope that some Al-Quida, bin Ladin loving, terrorist doesn't bring as bomb to my office in the Empire State Building to blow it up."
Show me one time when that has happened. They're doing a much better job than that.
>>
And how do you know that? You don't, because the FBI doesn't tell anyone how their carnivore is doing.
>>
"Second, it's not really an invasion of priacy to see someone else's encrypted message. "
I never claimed it was.
>>
What's this then? "If he encrypts it, it'll flag him and then a human'll look into it, which is exactly what the invasion to his privacy would be."
>>All that's happening is that a computer is recording the messages.
Until the computer program flags a message, tarnished or not.
>>Virtually nobody's message is going to get read by somebody who could care about it.
There are two problems with that. First, let's say I recorded all your telephone conversations. I probably really wouldn't care what you said, as it doesn't affect me. But would you like that? If your answer is yes, e-mail me your mailing address and I'll come and bug your phones.
Second problem: "Virtually".
>>If you encrypt it, though, what good is that going to do besides make somebody say "Wtf is so important that they are encrypting their message this heavily?"
Unless, as someone else said, everyone encrpyts it.
>>The only good you are doing by encyrpting your messages is making it easier for September 11th part II to come along.
Two problems with this statement too. Are you saying I'll be involved in September 11 Part II? If so, please let me know what evidence you have. If not, then why would encrypting my messages help the approach?
Second problem: the terrorists are doubtless already encrypting their messages. They know of eschalon and carnivore, and are steering clear of them. They adapt to our surveillence abilities; hence bin Ladin stopping use of his cell phone when he learned we were recording all his coversations.
What if we could get some big e-mail provider to encrypt messages sent between accounts on that same service automatically?
If we were lucky, we might even be able to use Microsoft's monopoly to our advantage. Here's my reasoning:
1. ISPs won't like this; extra processing, extra storage, bad PR, etc. Making the storage almost useless would be a good way to get the law repealed after they point out "look at all this we have to do, and look what effect it's having!"
2. By rule 1, MSN won't like it (they are an ISP)
3. Similarily, Hotmail probably won't like it
4. MSN and Hotmail collaborate with the people who write Outlook to integrate automatic encryption
5. Other e-mail clients are coersed into supporting the encryption as well.
6. Voila! Universal encryption.
Problems:
1. Centralized key storage. Microsoft software. 'nuff said.
2. Encryption algorithm - public access or propriatary?
>>I don't undertand why he'd need to do this. It's a computer reading the logs searching for patterns, not a human reading the emails looking for hidden meaning. If he encrypts it, it'll flag him and then a human'll look into it, which is exactly what the invasion to his privacy would be.
h tnuyre9btq54obp5ypgybow56`2" mean anything to you?
Two problems with your statement.
First, it will flag innocent statements to be read by a human (after all; the reason they'd need to be checked by a human is a computer filter would be imperfect). Statements such as "Boy, I hope that some Al-Quida, bin Ladin loving, terrorist doesn't bring as bomb to my office in the Empire State Building to blow it up."
Second, it's not really an invasion of privacy to see someone else's encrypted message. To extend the envelope analogy, do you think the postal clerk delivering your mail is invading your privacy by looking at the envelope? Does the message "sdflknqowielsker39qw48ytlk;fnob63q4htq3o4iy69q34
Of course, from the 1940s until 1995(?), Area 51 didn't exist. There was no air force base in the Nevada desert, and all the pictures of one are faked.
The Alien and Sedition acts from the 1790s were also to monitor the undeclared war against France, not to make it illegal for the Jefferson crowd to speak out against the Hamilton crowd. (Don't forget these pieces of legislation, in my mind the most unconstitutional acts to ever pass through the US Congress.)
The US also knew *nothing* about anything relating to the Sept 11 attacks. All that stuff you hear about the Phoenix memo and whatnot; it's all lies.
Each page will have a fixed URL people could bookmark if they really needed to.
>>It's just a way for the govenerdment to make the citizens think that are doing something about security. If they were actually doing something to protect the people, the "Office of Homeland Security" would call the Department of Transport and tell them to enforce seatbelt laws. How many lives a day would that save? How many lives a day will be saved by my mail headers and URLs being monitored?
I must object. Enforcing seatbelt laws would cause more people to use them, so after a brief period of high arrests, the number of people who are arrested would decline. This way, they can make arrests they never would have made. So we would be safer: more people would be in jail.
Of course, with face recognition software, etc. it's possible - and unfortunatly being implemented - to have a network of cameras track someone's movement.
With no microphone plugged into the tape deck, it was accidentally recorded over over five times???
(See the paragraph that reads as follows: "Tape 342, as it's known by archivists, was last tested in 1974 by a panel of audio experts, who concluded that the erasures were done in separate segments. Whoever erased the tape pressed Record, stopped the tape, and hit Record again, between five and nine times")
Here's what we should do:
:)
Distribute the information that NPR wants us to start at the beginning of their website to get what we are looking for. Hence, NPR probably wants us to not tune into their radio broadcasts except at the beginning of the program so we don't miss the title of whatever it is we're listening to. Unless you have written permission of course. Make sense?
A better analogy would be (if you don't like the one ethereal provided) "just because someone leaves their blinds open doesn't give you the right to use binoculars to look through their windows and see what's in their house."
But really, the two things are governed by completely different laws, so just because snooping around someone's house is illegal doesn't mean casual intercepting is illegal.
Granted, I suspect that if you actually had to decrypt anything, you'd have a much harder case. But who's to say you weren't just running around with a laptop, a wireless card, and a packet sniffer?
Two theories: the erasure occured before the subpoena was issued (though why he'd erase but not destroy is beyond me), or the subpoenas only applied to the physical tapes and not the data on them. To be honest, I'm really not sure. But I find it amusing that one of the biggest court cases in the second part of the century was called The United States vs. Richard Nixon while Nixon was still the president...
Or perhaps the gap was added before the subpoena was issued?
Either explanation seems reasonable... (the subpoena was for the tapes, not the data on them...)
>>If we get rid of the Bill of Rights in order to prevent terrorists (or anyone else) from damaging us, haven't they accomplished what they set out to do?
Actually, I'm pretty sure at least bin Ladin is out to destroy us.
to snoop some names and stuff from the transmissions? You're not bypassing any security features...
I think the way to deal with this is to come up with a big list of what people have bought at these places, print them out, and mail them to the CEO saying "you might want to fix this."
Of course, the Nixon tapes were subpoenaed, so destroying them would have brought more (criminal) charges of destroying evidence.
Sheesh... I keep forgetting to choose text from the pull-down menu below, so my paragraphs run together. (Yes, I am pretty new here...)
Here's a re-post formatted correctly:
OK, you've got some facts wrong:
>>it was recorded with white noise
It was recorded with the mic unpluged. Don't know if that would result in white noise or not, but there was no deliberatly created white noise.
>>probabbly 20 times over
A panel of experts (in Nixon's era) put it at 9-11 times. (It was all an accident, of course.)
>>If it really is iteratively recording white noise, i doubt even today's computers will make much of a difference -- sure the computers are *faster* and what not -- but even back then, analog filters are just as good as digital filters these days -- takse a while longer, but if you do it right the quality should be similar.
Unless you need to make multiple passes. Analog recordings deterioriate with each pass. Also, it's not just the filter tech that may make the difference. A Discovery Channel show on Watergate had a segment on the recovery efforts, and the gey they were talking to described how if given the task of restoring the recording, they'll place 150-200 read heads all over the tape for a super-accurate recording. Each pickup will go to a separate channel in the computer.
>>and being a govn't investigation, i would bet they had the best of the best pouring over that tape.
Finally, it *isn't* an government investigation. The National Archives made a challenge to private sector businesses to do it. They made a test tape, using the same kind of equipment and media used originally and gave it to anyone who's interested. The Archives will pick the group most likely to suceed to give the actual tape to. But it's not being done my the government.
OK, you've got some facts wrong: >>it was recorded with white noise It was recorded with the mic unpluged. Don't know if that would result in white noise or not, but there was no deliberatly created white noise. >>probabbly 20 times over A panel of experts put it at 9-11 times. (It was all an accident, of course.) >>If it really is iteratively recording white noise, i doubt even today's computers will make much of a difference -- sure the computers are *faster* and what not -- but even back then, analog filters are just as good as digital filters these days -- takse a while longer, but if you do it right the quality should be similar. Unless you need to make multiple passes. Analog recordings deterioriate with each pass. Also, it's not just the filter tech that may make the difference. A Discovery Channel show on Watergate had a segment on the recovery efforts, and the gey they were talking to described how if given the task of restoring the recording, they'll place 150-200 read heads all over the tape for a super-accurate recording. Each pickup will go to a separate channel in the computer. >>and being a govn't investigation, i would bet they had the best of the best pouring over that tape. Finally, it *isn't* an government investigation. The National Archives made a challenge to private sector businesses to do it. They made a test tape, using the same kind of equipment and media used originally and gave it to anyone who's interested. The Archives will pick the group most likely to suceed to give the actual tape to. But it's not being done my the government.
(Taking the parent post much too seriously)
But then you have charges of destroying evidence to contend with. The tapes were subpoenaed, making destroying them illegal.
There's also a very good reason PGP's wipe feature can record over the same area a few dozen times. They say 12 times is good enough for most things though. But military people may want to do it 20.
Except it's Tuesday. But I still vote evil.
At least in the US... (I tried to figure out if it's still Monday somewhere but forget how the international dateline works. If I'm right, it's actually Wednesday in Australia, so nowhere is it Monday.)
In fact, they made the same comments about the Audigy even earlier. Twice. (Once in the Audigy review, once in a review of the DMXFire or something like that_
>>The exportation of strong encryption is illegal (in the United States).
Are you sure about this? I thought it was made legal in the late 90's...
OK, here's some support (I don't have proof of everyhting, but here's the some):
l m l
The Mac labs: http://www.scasd.k12.pa.us/hslabs/
Support for the 3D Studio, autocad, etc: http://www.scasd.k12.pa.us/TechEdHS/Room150cg.htm
http://www.scasd.k12.pa.us/TechEdHS/Room146r.ht
I thought I had a source for the expansion stuff, but the local newspaper's free online section only goes back a week.
>>The only copy protection I've ever seen that actually worked was the CD-Key method for online games. If your game didn't have a valid CD-Key, then you were denied access to multiplayer, it was checked against the server so the checking routine was unassailable. Even a key generator didn't work because the producers of the game knew which keys they had released, and which ones they hadn't. And unless Blizzard gets their way (bnetd), even *that* won't work
On the other hand, my (public) HS had enough monry to build a vertical rock wall that out instructor says is better than the one at Penn State; get twenty-some fencing foils, helmets, coats, and new gloves every semester (fencing gloves, for those who don't know, are the only thing that I know of that you need to *replace* more often than your computer; they wear out like nobody's business); a couple dozen each of recurved and compound archery bows; etc., and that's only from the gym front. We also have enough to maintain 6 PC and 6 Mac computer labs, along with a computer in every classroom and another couple dozen computers in the libraries (there are two; one in each building of our school). The labs are upgraded at the rate of three or four labs a year. We have a Photoshop, Premiere, 3D Studio Max, and AutoCAD site licesnse that covers two of the PC labs. We're also embarking on a $100 million expansion that will close one elementary school, build another, and rennovate the high school buildings, among other things.
So a few DDR machines wouldn't be out of the question.