There is not such thing as absolute security/secrecy.
If you use an one-time-pad (ie, XOR-ing the bits ofa message with the bits of a random key, which is as long as the message itself) there is, given that you're able to keep the pad itself secret.
However, one-time-pads can only be used if there is a secure way to transfer the pads, so there is absolutely no way to use it with Skype.
I don't like the idea of somebody setting up a high-bandwidth machine and routing enough packets to get the entire phone call I'm making and then in their spare time decrypting my phone call.
Well, I can't read the paper, because I don't have a pdf reader available, but I think they've done the crypto-stuff good enough, so that it's almost impossible to decrypt. What is the point of decrypting something if it takes >100.000 years?
I think it's scary that you can get 15 years in prison for doing something that is generally accepted by the society!
If you would do a vote whether it should be legal to download copyrighted material or not, I'm quite sure that people would like it to, at least here in Sweden. The state exists to represent its people, not to disallow them doing things which they themselves think are fair!
Actually, you do not, when in client-mode, recieve any requests from any IPs. In default-mode you're _only_ a client. In the article above they are even asking for people to act as servers! And btw (note: IANAL), at least here in Germany it's legal to route information to other computers, and you do not have to keep any logs at all. The police can only ask you for the logs you have, and you're not forced to keep any logs at all, apart from those that you need to run a ceratin service, but you'll have them either way. JAP (http://anon.inf.tu-dresden.de/) is another anonymizer service, but from Germany. Once they were forced to build in a feature to track abusers of the service by the police. But they won in court, and were able to remove the "feature", at least as far as i know. (I think that they are still tracking some abusers, though)
"He who would trade freedom for security deserves to lose both" (I'm paraphrasing from memory...and I have unfortunately forgotten who said it)
I think this is trading freedom for security, which USA has been doing all since 9/11. And nobody objects in any way, which I find scary. I mean, eg the USAPATRIOT ACT won't make your country any safer, it'll just give the government more power. As will this. They are all only small changes, but in the end you will have given up too much freedom, and it will become too easy for the government to abuse its power.
If the potential users didn't even _know_ how good open source software is, they would see no need to change to it. And how are they to know how it is if they don't get the chance to use it on their own platform? Moreover, if they are already familiar with open source software, then they are more likely to stick with Linux once they've installed it, because they are already familiar with parts of it. Else they are more likely to want to switch back, as they do not get anything done on their new OS because it's too confusing.
Another point is that if we port open source software to windows, and people use it, we lessen the control which the cooperations have over the format, etc... So, even if we did not get any users to use Linux, the closed source market would be more competive, thus making software better for e.g. Windows users.
But I don't think we lose potential users by porting it to windows. It's more like showing them how good open source software is, and if they want more, then they'll move over to linux.
Besides, I think Windows security holes are reason enough to switch to Linux. There is one thing you cannot port to another OS, and that's the OS itself.
Re:How long before someone ports linux to them?
on
Lego Logic Gates
·
· Score: 0
No, it's In Korea, electronic computers are only for old people
This is offtopic, but I just came to think of, that if you add a feature to anonymize bittorrent through proxying to the bittorrent programs, the RIIA, or whoever wants to sue you, would not know who downloaded as it is going through proxies.
Now, this is well-known, and it is also well-known that it would do no good, because it will slow down the whole process _alot_.
But it would be enough to add the _FEATURE_ (as an option in the preferences) to the program, because then RIIA wouldn't know IF the client they are seeing is a proxy or not, because it MIGHT be that the downloader uses a proxy. It's enough for the feature to present, not used, and it will become harder for the RIAA to sue people for using bitorrent.
Now this post has nothing to do with the original story (if we do not apply the very same idea to webservers), and I'm sure alot of people have already had this idea, and that they have already found at least 10E99 technical and/or legal problems with it.
Assuming you have to store 7 bytes for the hash and 7 bytes for the plain text, that's 14 bytes per record and 68^7 records, or 86PiB. At today's density that's a bit over 200 hard drives, not "a single hard drive."
As far as I'ver understood it, every possible 7byte hash exists somewhere. Therefore you could sort the plaintext which belongs to the hash after the hash's number. Don't know if I'm unclear, but here is a example using single-digit-decimal numbers up to 4 (two digit binary):
[hash] / [password] 1 / 2 4 / 3 2 / 1 3 / 4
this, to save half of the space could be written as: 2 1 4 3
whereas the row number/place in the file is the hash belonging to it . So you would just have to jump to the row with the same number of the hash you are looking for. Something would be needed to separate the passwords from eachother though, because the differ in length.
Therfore it would be slightly larger than the half size..
Wouldn't it be possible to handle EULAs with a bayesian filter? Just like they handle spam? One would have to read through quite many EULAs for it to effective, but if one created an online database, which collected information from people (in the best case lawyers) who have actually read and agreed upon the EULAs.Then one lets them do a survey about which kinds of EULAs they do agree with. Then the user could also do such a survey(in the form of: Do you agree with that they do collect information about which internet pages you vist? ([ ] Yes [x] No and so on...), and the program would get the data from the database corresponding to the kinds of EULAs the user is ready to agree upon. Then the user then could give a EULA to the program, and it would tell him with which probability he's likely to agree upon the EULA.
The database would have to have quite many entries though, but I'm sure it would work some way or another.
Slashdot Mirror
There is not such thing as absolute security/secrecy.
If you use an one-time-pad (ie, XOR-ing the bits ofa message with the bits of a random key, which is as long as the message itself) there is, given that you're able to keep the pad itself secret.
However, one-time-pads can only be used if there is a secure way to transfer the pads, so there is absolutely no way to use it with Skype.
I don't like the idea of somebody setting up a high-bandwidth machine and routing enough packets to get the entire phone call I'm making and then in their spare time decrypting my phone call.
Well, I can't read the paper, because I don't have a pdf reader available, but I think they've done the crypto-stuff good enough, so that it's almost impossible to decrypt.
What is the point of decrypting something if it takes >100.000 years?
I think it's scary that you can get 15 years in prison for doing something that is generally accepted by the society!
If you would do a vote whether it should be legal to download copyrighted material or not, I'm quite sure that people would like it to, at least here in Sweden.
The state exists to represent its people, not to disallow them doing things which they themselves think are fair!
Actually, you do not, when in client-mode, recieve any requests from any IPs.
In default-mode you're _only_ a client. In the article above they are even asking for people to act as servers!
And btw (note: IANAL), at least here in Germany it's legal to route information to other computers, and you do not have to keep any logs at all.
The police can only ask you for the logs you have, and you're not forced to keep any logs at all, apart from those that you need to run a ceratin service, but you'll have them either way.
JAP (http://anon.inf.tu-dresden.de/) is another anonymizer service, but from Germany. Once they were forced to build in a feature to track abusers of the service by the police. But they won in court, and were able to remove the "feature", at least as far as i know. (I think that they are still tracking some abusers, though)
Note that this is NOT legal advice.
"He who would trade freedom for security deserves to lose both" (I'm paraphrasing from memory...and I have unfortunately forgotten who said it)
I think this is trading freedom for security, which USA has been doing all since 9/11. And nobody objects in any way, which I find scary. I mean, eg the USAPATRIOT ACT won't make your country any safer, it'll just give the government more power. As will this. They are all only small changes, but in the end you will have given up too much freedom, and it will become too easy for the government to abuse its power.
If the potential users didn't even _know_ how good open source software is, they would see no need to change to it.
And how are they to know how it is if they don't get the chance to use it on their own platform? Moreover, if they are already familiar with open source software, then they are more likely to stick with Linux once they've installed it, because they are already familiar with parts of it. Else they are more likely to want to switch back, as they do not get anything done on their new OS because it's too confusing.
Another point is that if we port open source software to windows, and people use it, we lessen the control which the cooperations have over the format, etc...
So, even if we did not get any users to use Linux, the closed source market would be more competive, thus making software better for e.g. Windows users.
But I don't think we lose potential users by porting it to windows. It's more like showing them how good open source software is, and if they want more, then they'll move over to linux.
Besides, I think Windows security holes are reason enough to switch to Linux. There is one thing you cannot port to another OS, and that's the OS itself.
No, it's
In Korea, electronic computers are only for old people
Project Entropia's unique selling point is the ability to convert real money into ingame cash and vice versa.
... :/
...
Doesn't this sound as digital money?
It's like its own currency now!
I don't know how they've implemented it, but might it be "real" digital currency?
I've been waiting for years for a digital currency, but people don't seem to want a new currency
I've never thought that the digital money would come from a MMORPG!
This is probably nonsense, and maybe I should have RTFA
This is offtopic, but I just came to think of, that if you add a feature to anonymize bittorrent through proxying to the bittorrent programs, the RIIA, or whoever wants to sue you, would not know who downloaded as it is going through proxies.
.
Now, this is well-known, and it is also well-known that it would do no good, because it will slow down the whole process _alot_
But it would be enough to add the _FEATURE_ (as an option in the preferences) to the program, because then RIIA wouldn't know IF the client they are seeing is a proxy or not, because it MIGHT be that the downloader uses a proxy.
It's enough for the feature to present, not used, and it will become harder for the RIAA to sue people for using bitorrent.
Now this post has nothing to do with the original story (if we do not apply the very same idea to webservers), and I'm sure alot of people have already had this idea, and that they have already found at least 10E99 technical and/or legal problems with it.
Assuming you have to store 7 bytes for the hash and 7 bytes for the plain text, that's 14 bytes per record and 68^7 records, or 86PiB. At today's density that's a bit over 200 hard drives, not "a single hard drive."
..
As far as I'ver understood it, every possible 7byte hash exists somewhere.
Therefore you could sort the plaintext which belongs to the hash after the hash's number.
Don't know if I'm unclear, but here is a example using single-digit-decimal numbers up to 4 (two digit binary):
[hash] / [password]
1 / 2
4 / 3
2 / 1
3 / 4
this, to save half of the space could be written as:
2
1
4
3
whereas the row number/place in the file is the hash belonging to it
.
So you would just have to jump to the row with the same number of the hash you are looking for.
Something would be needed to separate the passwords from eachother though, because the differ in length.
Therfore it would be slightly larger than the half size
Wouldn't it be possible to handle EULAs with a bayesian filter? Just like they handle spam?
One would have to read through quite many EULAs for it to effective, but if one created an online database, which collected information from people (in the best case lawyers) who have actually read and agreed upon the EULAs.Then one lets them do a survey about which kinds of EULAs they do agree with.
Then the user could also do such a survey(in the form of: Do you agree with that they do collect information about which internet pages you vist? ([ ] Yes [x] No and so on...), and the program would get the data from the database corresponding to the kinds of EULAs the user is ready to agree upon.
Then the user then could give a EULA to the program, and it would tell him with which probability he's likely to agree upon the EULA.
The database would have to have quite many entries though, but I'm sure it would work some way or another.