proxytunnel (and cntlm if you need NTLM authentication to your local proxy) will get through just about any stateful filter/proxy that only allows ports 80 and 443 outgoing and tries to block proxies with packet inspection. Listen on yourhost:443 with an SSL proxy (e.g. encrypted HTTPS proxy server) and allow CONNECT 127.0.0.1:22 via that proxy. Use proxytunnel with the option to connect through the local proxy using cntlm if necessary, then through your own encrypted proxy and finally connect to 127.0.0.1:22 for the SSH connection. In your ssh config set up the host you will use with the ProxyCommand to invoke proxytunnel with the required options. It works because the deep inspection firewall only sees a plain vanilla SSL connection to yourhost, with no evidence of HTTP proxying or SSH being tunneled through it. Tunnel through SSH as necessary.
If you're using Apache as your SSL proxy, you will have to patch proxytunnel to turn off SSL once the proxy connection to sshd is established because for one reason or another Apache thinks it's a good idea to hand the raw socket over to the proxied connection instead of keeping it running through SSL. That might let an exceptionally paranoid firewall see the SSH exchange and block it, but it's still secure if you tunnel everything else through the SSH session.
Unless you use client cert, all communication the server sends you are unencrypted.
False. SSL sets up an encrypted bidirectional stream. Two peers can mutually require the other to possess an identity certificate for mutual authentication, but only a single certificate is necessary to establish confidentiality for traffic from both peers using encryption.
It's just weird to have to even explain that a 3 year Bachelor's is a decent degree (in the UK anyway) and when I got it, very few people bothered with a Masters because it wasn't seen as having extra value. A PhD wasn't seen as having any extra employment value at all, back then.
I think the problem is that some people approach college or university as a way to "get a good job." Other people approach it as the best way to learn the most about a subject they love. I imagine Google is just as upset as you are about a glut of MSs and PhDs; they want to find the people who loved CS enough to get a PhD twenty years ago, not people who are just looking for a high paying career. There's very little that current excellent applicants could do to set themselves apart except by, say, creating and managing a successful open source project or similar. Generally, the folks who love CS have spent quite a bit more of their personal time learning about and practicing it than the graduates who are just looking for a job.
Actually, formal languages are the foundation of both. Define a set of symbols and production rules for the languages of predicate logic and propositional calculus, then use them to define a formal set theory with which to derive all of mathematics. Thanks to Godel's numbering scheme as soon as you have your logic, set theory, and arithmetic with the natural numbers you can start all over again by defining the production rules as functions over the natural numbers and formally define the logic for the entire system within itself.
I could probably sue an employer for sexual harassment if they tried to dictate the kind of underwear I wore. Similarly, are they going to turn away burn victims for jobs if their scars could be mistaken for a tattoo? Oh well, I'm sure technology will eventually provide the win with e-ink tattoos that you can just turn off when you're in the presence of idiots and morons.
Sort of like forcing telecom companies to share their land lines with competitors directly led to Echelon and Carnivore. Right. Correlation, causation, etc. Don't forget it was the corporations who started the mess by blocking and degrading legitimate traffic and who have monopolies in many large service areas.
On your other points, I basically agree except I'd go so far as to say that government and big business are exactly as evil as each other, since they're practically the same thing at this point. The only redeeming quality left in government is a few good judges that can smack down foolish laws, and they are a disappearing breed.
The existence of privacy is a matter of choice. And it's a damn good choice.
At best it's the choice of society to respect any given individual's privacy. I suppose there are two ways to get what you want; convince everyone else that they should respect the level of privacy that you want, or use technological solutions to preserve your privacy. I have no problem with either approach; I'll simply argue against a legislated level of privacy that I think is silly.
Either you get that privacy is being increasingly encroached upon and that encroachment is a problem, or you don't.
Privacy exists only as a deficiency in the sensory ability of human beings. As science improves the senses, privacy necessarily disappears or changes. I think that reducing privacy will actually benefit society. How long have people suffered in secret? Feared the hidden agenda of those in power? Hidden their true self from others for fear of disapproval? Obviously society isn't ready to make the jump from privacy to complete and frank openness overnight, but we should at least be aware of its inevitability and prepare for it. The key is to make everything transparent; not just the lives of everyday people but of the rich and powerful as well. Leave no stone unturned, and the result is a completely informed, aware group of citizens who know what the real problems are and what resources are available to fix them. It will be nothing less than the second enlightenment.
Sort of like how Google happens to crawl web pages full of passwords or private documents that people didn't necessarily mean to put there? Yeah. Good luck fighting the inevitable future of everything that is publicly visible/audible being easily searcheable and available worldwide.
You could pass a law saying that stealing bikes with or without locks is illegal, or you could pass a law saying that if you want to keep your bike, you should lock it, and if you don't lock it, you have no expectation of keeping your bike. Which of these two laws do you honestly think makes the most sense?
What response do you think you'll get from law enforcement if you tell them you left your bike unlocked outside Walmart all afternoon? Laws have to be just foremost, and practical a close second. Similarly, you can definitely be found liable for damages caused by your vehicle if you leave the keys in it unlocked. You have a personal responsibility to protect and manage your own property and information, and no law in the world can protect you if you're willfully careless.
I'd be interested in infrared cameras that can sense accurately through curtains and walls. Microphones are covered under existing wiretap laws because legally sound is often treated differently than EM. Countries and states vary in their definitions of public and private sound and visibility, but personally I think if someone can detect your EM emissions, it should be legal. Yes, that includes tempest and baby monitors and keyboards. Would you rather have actual privacy because your products are engineered not to leak EM, or would you just like to have a bunch of selectively enforced laws written in the name of protecting privacy? I know which scenario I'd prefer.
I assumed that the best way to implement the service on a mobile device would be to enable promiscuous mode on the wireless interface and collect every MAC address that was visible on the interface to send to Google for matching against the database, along with visible SSIDs. MAC:SSID pairs offer quite a bit more redundancy when accounting for changes made to wireless networks, as well as allowing for location detection based on APs with hidden SSIDs. I'd expect that Google is looking to maximize the useful life of its mapping project, and collecting all traffic would allow things like traffic analysis to determine which devices in an encrypted network without a broadcasted SSID were APs and also the ability to account for future changes to those wireless networks. I would not be surprised if they have plans to continually update the database with information from mobile queries (especially mobiles with both GPS and wireless data available),.
Whether or not it's possible to enable promiscuous capture on most mobile devices to make full use of the data collected is something that I don't know. It's very likely something that could be enabled in Android, at any rate.
Google aims to provide a useful (and most likely free) service for geolocation to millions of people. That is good in my mind. Google is basically acting as a cartographer in this case and mapping the RF environment of the areas they surveyed. It is akin to recording rivers, streams, mountains, roads, bridges, houses, etc. and publishing them in an atlas. People are only upset because we can't personally sense RF and have no idea of just how much public information is currently broadcast on public airwaves.
Other than radio, it is an addressed broadcast. See, every packet has a destination written on it. That makes the argument a little more interesting. It is more like a postcard - yes, you can read it (no encryption), but it has an address. The law considers postcards to be covered by the telecommunications privacy regulations.
At best it's more like a public bulletin board in your neighborhood. You write the name of the intended recipient on the postcard, and pin it to the board. There are no magic RF fairies that deliver your 802.11 packets only to the intended recipients.
Setting the power so the signal doesn't escape the house - while still reaching all areas of the house - is not practical.
The world's tiniest open source violin weeps for your inability to alter the fundamental laws of physics. If I may offer a much more apt analogy; what Google did is akin to saying "If you want to get to the library, go down Main Street and take a left at the red house with a blue door and an apple tree in the yard" where it's your red house with a blue door and apple tree in question. Everything is publicly viewable to someone walking down Main Street, and Google is merely using public information to offer navigation assistance. The practical benefit of such a service vastly outweighs your privacy concern. If you want to keep your absolute privacy, live underground and stop emitting RF.
Except they don't, really. What they do is allow law enforcement to pursue and prosecute a handful of people who send spam or steal credit cards or identities.
The law certainly doesn't prevent it, and it doesn't protect me from threats that I prevent with cryptography and common sense. I suppose someone should look out for the naive and technically unskilled, but I would prefer if official protections were legitimately useful (enforcing strong passwords, secure operating systems, encrypted data transmission) instead of just criminal penalties for activities that are dead easy and nearly untraceable.
I think you're right. At some point, computers and/or software will simply have real consciousness. At least as real as the consciousness that our brain produces.
Slashdot Mirror
proxytunnel (and cntlm if you need NTLM authentication to your local proxy) will get through just about any stateful filter/proxy that only allows ports 80 and 443 outgoing and tries to block proxies with packet inspection. Listen on yourhost:443 with an SSL proxy (e.g. encrypted HTTPS proxy server) and allow CONNECT 127.0.0.1:22 via that proxy. Use proxytunnel with the option to connect through the local proxy using cntlm if necessary, then through your own encrypted proxy and finally connect to 127.0.0.1:22 for the SSH connection. In your ssh config set up the host you will use with the ProxyCommand to invoke proxytunnel with the required options. It works because the deep inspection firewall only sees a plain vanilla SSL connection to yourhost, with no evidence of HTTP proxying or SSH being tunneled through it. Tunnel through SSH as necessary.
If you're using Apache as your SSL proxy, you will have to patch proxytunnel to turn off SSL once the proxy connection to sshd is established because for one reason or another Apache thinks it's a good idea to hand the raw socket over to the proxied connection instead of keeping it running through SSL. That might let an exceptionally paranoid firewall see the SSH exchange and block it, but it's still secure if you tunnel everything else through the SSH session.
Unless you use client cert, all communication the server sends you are unencrypted.
False. SSL sets up an encrypted bidirectional stream. Two peers can mutually require the other to possess an identity certificate for mutual authentication, but only a single certificate is necessary to establish confidentiality for traffic from both peers using encryption.
It's just weird to have to even explain that a 3 year Bachelor's is a decent degree (in the UK anyway) and when I got it, very few people bothered with a Masters because it wasn't seen as having extra value. A PhD wasn't seen as having any extra employment value at all, back then.
I think the problem is that some people approach college or university as a way to "get a good job." Other people approach it as the best way to learn the most about a subject they love. I imagine Google is just as upset as you are about a glut of MSs and PhDs; they want to find the people who loved CS enough to get a PhD twenty years ago, not people who are just looking for a high paying career. There's very little that current excellent applicants could do to set themselves apart except by, say, creating and managing a successful open source project or similar. Generally, the folks who love CS have spent quite a bit more of their personal time learning about and practicing it than the graduates who are just looking for a job.
Even CTS has stopped trolling k5. That's saying something.
Actually, formal languages are the foundation of both. Define a set of symbols and production rules for the languages of predicate logic and propositional calculus, then use them to define a formal set theory with which to derive all of mathematics. Thanks to Godel's numbering scheme as soon as you have your logic, set theory, and arithmetic with the natural numbers you can start all over again by defining the production rules as functions over the natural numbers and formally define the logic for the entire system within itself.
It may have been a literal translation into Chinese of "don't get a tattoo when you're drunk." I can only hope.
I could probably sue an employer for sexual harassment if they tried to dictate the kind of underwear I wore. Similarly, are they going to turn away burn victims for jobs if their scars could be mistaken for a tattoo? Oh well, I'm sure technology will eventually provide the win with e-ink tattoos that you can just turn off when you're in the presence of idiots and morons.
All told, I think they guy is a slimy sack of shit, even if he did one good thing.
The telling thing is that the other slimy sacks of shit are still running their telecommunication companies.
if we have some sort of warhol worm, everyone ranting against the kill switch will be begging for the president to cut off the internet
You don't need a law if you include the people operating the ISPs in your definition of "everyone."
Sort of like forcing telecom companies to share their land lines with competitors directly led to Echelon and Carnivore. Right. Correlation, causation, etc. Don't forget it was the corporations who started the mess by blocking and degrading legitimate traffic and who have monopolies in many large service areas.
On your other points, I basically agree except I'd go so far as to say that government and big business are exactly as evil as each other, since they're practically the same thing at this point. The only redeeming quality left in government is a few good judges that can smack down foolish laws, and they are a disappearing breed.
The existence of privacy is a matter of choice. And it's a damn good choice.
At best it's the choice of society to respect any given individual's privacy. I suppose there are two ways to get what you want; convince everyone else that they should respect the level of privacy that you want, or use technological solutions to preserve your privacy. I have no problem with either approach; I'll simply argue against a legislated level of privacy that I think is silly.
Either you get that privacy is being increasingly encroached upon and that encroachment is a problem, or you don't.
Privacy exists only as a deficiency in the sensory ability of human beings. As science improves the senses, privacy necessarily disappears or changes. I think that reducing privacy will actually benefit society. How long have people suffered in secret? Feared the hidden agenda of those in power? Hidden their true self from others for fear of disapproval? Obviously society isn't ready to make the jump from privacy to complete and frank openness overnight, but we should at least be aware of its inevitability and prepare for it. The key is to make everything transparent; not just the lives of everyday people but of the rich and powerful as well. Leave no stone unturned, and the result is a completely informed, aware group of citizens who know what the real problems are and what resources are available to fix them. It will be nothing less than the second enlightenment.
Sort of like how Google happens to crawl web pages full of passwords or private documents that people didn't necessarily mean to put there? Yeah. Good luck fighting the inevitable future of everything that is publicly visible/audible being easily searcheable and available worldwide.
You could pass a law saying that stealing bikes with or without locks is illegal, or you could pass a law saying that if you want to keep your bike, you should lock it, and if you don't lock it, you have no expectation of keeping your bike. Which of these two laws do you honestly think makes the most sense?
What response do you think you'll get from law enforcement if you tell them you left your bike unlocked outside Walmart all afternoon? Laws have to be just foremost, and practical a close second. Similarly, you can definitely be found liable for damages caused by your vehicle if you leave the keys in it unlocked. You have a personal responsibility to protect and manage your own property and information, and no law in the world can protect you if you're willfully careless.
In the US, The Radio Act of 1927 made a clear distinction between public broadcast and private networks and services.
Guess which portion of the spectrum 802.11 uses.
I'm perfectly happy with people who want "private" unencrypted wireless paying for a slice of the spectrum.
I'd be interested in infrared cameras that can sense accurately through curtains and walls. Microphones are covered under existing wiretap laws because legally sound is often treated differently than EM. Countries and states vary in their definitions of public and private sound and visibility, but personally I think if someone can detect your EM emissions, it should be legal. Yes, that includes tempest and baby monitors and keyboards. Would you rather have actual privacy because your products are engineered not to leak EM, or would you just like to have a bunch of selectively enforced laws written in the name of protecting privacy? I know which scenario I'd prefer.
I assumed that the best way to implement the service on a mobile device would be to enable promiscuous mode on the wireless interface and collect every MAC address that was visible on the interface to send to Google for matching against the database, along with visible SSIDs. MAC:SSID pairs offer quite a bit more redundancy when accounting for changes made to wireless networks, as well as allowing for location detection based on APs with hidden SSIDs. I'd expect that Google is looking to maximize the useful life of its mapping project, and collecting all traffic would allow things like traffic analysis to determine which devices in an encrypted network without a broadcasted SSID were APs and also the ability to account for future changes to those wireless networks. I would not be surprised if they have plans to continually update the database with information from mobile queries (especially mobiles with both GPS and wireless data available), .
Whether or not it's possible to enable promiscuous capture on most mobile devices to make full use of the data collected is something that I don't know. It's very likely something that could be enabled in Android, at any rate.
Google aims to provide a useful (and most likely free) service for geolocation to millions of people. That is good in my mind. Google is basically acting as a cartographer in this case and mapping the RF environment of the areas they surveyed. It is akin to recording rivers, streams, mountains, roads, bridges, houses, etc. and publishing them in an atlas. People are only upset because we can't personally sense RF and have no idea of just how much public information is currently broadcast on public airwaves.
Other than radio, it is an addressed broadcast. See, every packet has a destination written on it. That makes the argument a little more interesting. It is more like a postcard - yes, you can read it (no encryption), but it has an address. The law considers postcards to be covered by the telecommunications privacy regulations.
At best it's more like a public bulletin board in your neighborhood. You write the name of the intended recipient on the postcard, and pin it to the board. There are no magic RF fairies that deliver your 802.11 packets only to the intended recipients.
Because Google went to equally "great lengths" to receive the data, and store it.
Before the age of digital tuners in stereos, I can recall carefully adjusting the tuner knob so that the tape I was recording would have less static.
Shame on me.
Setting the power so the signal doesn't escape the house - while still reaching all areas of the house - is not practical.
The world's tiniest open source violin weeps for your inability to alter the fundamental laws of physics. If I may offer a much more apt analogy; what Google did is akin to saying "If you want to get to the library, go down Main Street and take a left at the red house with a blue door and an apple tree in the yard" where it's your red house with a blue door and apple tree in question. Everything is publicly viewable to someone walking down Main Street, and Google is merely using public information to offer navigation assistance. The practical benefit of such a service vastly outweighs your privacy concern. If you want to keep your absolute privacy, live underground and stop emitting RF.
Just don't expect lawmakers or lawyers to have any.
Except they don't, really. What they do is allow law enforcement to pursue and prosecute a handful of people who send spam or steal credit cards or identities.
The law certainly doesn't prevent it, and it doesn't protect me from threats that I prevent with cryptography and common sense. I suppose someone should look out for the naive and technically unskilled, but I would prefer if official protections were legitimately useful (enforcing strong passwords, secure operating systems, encrypted data transmission) instead of just criminal penalties for activities that are dead easy and nearly untraceable.
My real name is an infinite non-repeating sequence of symbols taken from an uncountably infinite alphabet, you insensitive clod!
I think you're right. At some point, computers and/or software will simply have real consciousness. At least as real as the consciousness that our brain produces.