I actually just switched from Apple Mail back to Mutt, because a combination of Mail and an Exchange server ate a huge chunk of my email archive. I'm not sure if I'm really more productive, but I feel a lot more comfortable knowing I have a degree of control of what's going on, and that stuff is being stored in an open format (Mail switched from Maildir to something weirder a while back). Losing a chunk of my email archive was pretty traumatic.
The main thing holding me back was a decent email search feature -- I'd been watching notmuch for a while, and when I heard about muttkz, I compiled it and switched. I use davmail, offlineimap and muttkz. I use notmuch to search around 10 years of email.
I don't think this is a route I'd recommend for many others -- I've used mutt for years before Mail, and only switched over in the last couple of years. But it worked for me, and you did ask.
What form of expression would be acceptable to tell people that you're not working with somebody, and for what reason? Or is it important to keep this information confidential?
Or in other words, he has done pretty much exactly what you have done: expressed an opinion online. Why is what you are saying now not some sort of "hissy fit" about how somebody you don't even know disagrees with what you think? You certainly seem to be using stronger, more strongly opinonated language than Mitch Altman.
A large number of journalists and activists end up communicating with sources and each other using direct messaging on Twitter, so there is private information passing around. There's also the question of using login credentials to take over and fake messages. Also, there's the question of correlating Twitter identities with individuals (though I can think of a few strategies for attackers to do that even with https enabled).
I work with independent journalists in this and other at-risk countries, and consult with those seeking to protect activists. While you are perhaps right that the threat is, at heart, one of human rights, protecting those attempting to change or document that situation is also important. And lack of on-the-wire encryption also presents an almost constant temptation to even other countries supposedly better protected by the rule of law. The pervasive data-mining conducted by AT&T on behalf of the NSA is the obvious (and known) example here. I'm sure there are plenty more.
I don't think it's correct to characterise this as a "scarecrow" when a) we have actual evidence of countries using unencrypted communications to repress critics and protests against the regime, and b) this is a problem that all Internet users potentially face worldwide.
In order to protect and improve free speech and other rights, we need to build systems that are resilient when those rights are under attack.
I worked at the EFF and spoke with Austin several times about Haystack. On the basis of what I learned then, EFF never publicly advocated using Haystack, and told any journalist or fundraiser who queried us that until Austin submitted the code for an independent security audit, we could not recommend its use.
Austin would inaccurately characterized these conversations (most recently at the Q&A here at Gnomedex, here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6b5ND2js_8#t=35m0s ) as being that EFF telling Austin that Haystack should be open source.
To be clear: EFF never made this request, and I made it clear to Austin that there were a number of ways that a technical security audit could take place without making the source publicly available (for instance, we offered to put him in touch with independent security consultants who work with Microsoft and Google under NDA).
EFF works has and will work with both closed source and open source vendors to improve their products' privacy and security.
Okay, that's pretty much what we're thinking -- warn now, release details as soon as we can. Right now I'm talking to people to establish how widespread the message is, and also to get some idea of the actual, non-technical risk of "being a Haystack user". One of the problems is that there may be non-trivial amount of retrospective risk.
The service is actually down; that's what Austin claimed he did on Friday.
Hey, Kangsterizer. I'm sorry if you read my blog post expecting to find substantive technical details; that does seem like a waste of time, and maybe I should have made it clearer at the start that there would not be that level of detail.
My claim, and that of others involved in this (including I believe the coder of the Haystack system, who is posting on this thread also) is that we can't give out more detailed info about the problems because we believe that would put people at risk.
I find this incredibly frustrating, because obviously people in your position are entirely right to be skeptical. I'd like you to not believe it's FUD, but I can't think of a way to convince you short of as I said, a detailed public analysis.
Assuming for the moment what I'm saying isn't an ingenious pack of lies or delusion, what do you think I should do?
They cut off your network access because of a report of infringement? Are you in the US? Do you think you could mail me at danny@eff.org with more info? We're always interested in the details of these incidents.
You're right on both parts, essentially. I think they also were monitoring calls originating in the US that were made to foreign numbers they believed to have ties with terrorism, too, but honestly it's hard to really figure out what the truth is and was with so much fear-mongering and hyperbole going on.
No, the reason why it's hard to find out the truth is because the government has attempted to cloak the entire process under a "states secrets" privilege. When you decide, as the elected officials of the country, to hide every aspect of your executive plans from your electors, the judicial system, and Congress, you should not be surprised if "hyperbole and fear-mongering" enters the vacuum.
Oh, and the program itself wasn't really new, it's been around forever. Bush & Co. just tweaked the rules around a little bit -- a move that I think was less about invading the privacy of Americans (which they've been able to do for several decades now) and more a matter of removing a bottleneck. The whole secret wiretap deal has to be approved by a secret court, I think there's a 24 or 48 hour window in which they can start a wiretap and then seek approval by this secret court. Well, in the wake of 9/11, they were using this quite a bit, and I'm of the belief that they circumvented the court not because they wanted to be Big Brother but because they knew that most these wiretaps would NOT result in any information but felt that at the time it was best to cast as wide a net as possible, immediately, and later worry about narrowing things down from "possible" to "likely".
This is all supposition on your part. Reassuring supposition, but as absent of proof as the most paranoid theories. If it were the case, there's a very simple procedure the administration could have followed: it could have gone to Congress and asked for the "paperwork", as you call it, to be reformed. That paperwork is there for a reason: it is so we can keep track of who follows the law, and we are nation under the law, not under men.
As it is, we know that there was a new "President's Surveillance Program", that differed substantially enough from previous practice to be described as such. We know, thanks to Mr Klein, that there was an installation in San Francisco whose abilities far exceeded those required for lawful interception. We have a group of telecom companies who seemed so unsure of their own legal position that when asked for the simple, legal authorization documents to clarify the lawfulness of their actions, they lobbied for (and got) blanket retroactive immunity, using the argument that they might owe billions in fines (a possibility that could only have occurred if the numbers of those wiretapped were counted in the hundreds of thousands).
What's a more sensible attitude in the face of apparent law-breaking by the highest levels of government, working in concert with our largest corporations? A genial "well I guess they had their reasons," shrug or a demand that the other branches of government use their power and the responsibility to uncover that illegality?
I firmly believe that what you say is not true -- you don't have to litigate every trivial instance of your trademark being violated. AFAICS, this is an urban myth that developed from the potential (but usually unlikely) threat of genericisation through overuse, and the utility of claiming it to be the case by IP lawyers.
I really don't, for instance, believe the Lego porn is going to lead to people using "lego" to refer to any other kind of brick. This is because I don't believe any of Lego's competitors are going to stand up in court and say "Well, *of course* we should be able to refer to our bricks as legos. Did you not see them fail to go after that pornography site that used such obviously fake Lego bricks?" That's why I ask for evidence that what you're saying is true.
Of course, if you are right, please wait five years, and then start your own lego brick company, citing the lack of any court action against this slashdot post as evidence that the Danish company lost the mark years ago.
>> So why in the hell would you spend money to meddle in foreign politics that don't affect you in any way?
> Because people outside Australia may very well end up being affected by it. Western governments have a habit of citing other governments' policies as a way to make those policies more palatable to their own citizens. The British have CCTV cameras at every street corner, let's also put them on our streets. Software patents are allowed in the U.S., let's harmonize the legislation. Australia thinks of the children and censors the Net, we should do the same!
> For instance, even though I'm not in the U.S., I donate to the EFF. It's a global world. We're running out of places where we can hide from these things.
This is exactly right, and why EFF tries to work internationally too: for instance, last week we wrote about how the interpretation of New Zealand's Section 92A law could affect other countries and smuggle three strikes rules through. New Zealand's language originally came from the US (via Australia), but the interpretations of the law have been very different. If New Zealand took one pro-three strikes stance, it would be quickly used as an argument for doing the same thing in other states.
Other countries can also be an inspiration. I know that the French have been inspired by New Zealand activists successful campaign to fight off Section 92A; the Australian battle against Net censorship will be noted by politicians elsewhere who might otherwise think that blocking sites would be a kneejerk vote-winner.
FYI, Al-Haramain and both the EFF wiretapping cases (the class action against AT&T, and the new suit against the government) are currently before the same court and judge, Judge Vaughn Walker. All the cases are continuing.
It ate a lot of my youth; the only way you could log on if you weren't an Essex student was through nefarious means, through the UK's pre-Internet packet-switched-system. I spent a lot of Summer nights waiting for an open incoming slot. It was a fantastic environment to explore in the dead of night, by the glow of a 1200/75 modem. What was especially strange was reading lots of tech magazines and science fiction predicting that one day you'd be able to converse using your computer in a mystical, virtual environment -- and then at night, I'd go there.
I'm sorry if you find EFF's expression of what we're doing one-sided, but I respectfully ask you to travel back in the archives to the times you did support us, and note that EFF's public statements were just as enthusiastic for presenting our positions then as we are now.
It sounds a little like you're more concerned not that EFF has lost impartiality (we were never impartial; I don't think you'd want us to be impartial litigants), but that EFF has become politically partisan.
It hasn't. We've enthusiastically defended Michelle Malkin as we do CAIR. I'm sure if we get a democratic administration, we'll be defending civil liberties against its encroachments just as determinedly as we fought the Clinton administration's unconstitutional encryption policies, and we fought the Bush administration's warrantless, unconstitutional wiretapping.
Read up on the topic, and explain the issues to your friends. Get them to talk to their representative (or even better, their prospective representative if you're in a state that's facing a change of incumbent this election). Wiretapping has had an amazing response among politically-active americans (far more than many other tech civil liberties topics), but it needs to be kept in the limelight for any change to take place.
This is true whether you're a republican, independent, or democrat. There will be a large re-alignment of issues after this election: there's no reason why the Republican Party will want to be associated with previous policies of surveillance and co-opting private companies for government intrusion. Make it clear that you think that standing against surveillance is the right thing to do, and supporting the encroachment of civil liberties that has happened in the last eight years is wrong, no matter your party.
(Unlike many groups, the vast majority of EFF's funding comes from individual donations: it's directly due to personal contributions that we can fight these and civil liberty cases.)
(Cut and pasted from the last annual report -- mail info@eff.org if you'd like a copy, or have any questions. Guidestar is a good place to start to make comparisons with other groups)
Profit and Loss Standard - January through December, 2006
Ordinary Income/Expense
Income Corporation Contributions $215,229.72 Event Income 57,630.10 Foundation Grants 466,858.36 Individual Major Contributions 1,423,444.26 Interest Income 18,161.86 Litigation 430,545.00 Matching Gifts 35,426.34 Membership Income 882,710.89 Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) 10,354.40 Minor Donations 9,739.50 Honorarium/Awards 1,300.00 Fiscal Sponsorship 156,225.89 Miscellaneous Income 19.50 Total Income 3,707,645.82
Other Income Unrealized Gain or Loss 108,618.85 Total Other Income 108,618.85 Net Other Income 108,618.85 Net Income $1,041,086.08
2006 was a particularly good fundraising year for us. In early 2007, we transferred $1 million of our 2006 net income into EFF's Endowment Fund for Digital Civil Liberties, to ensure the long term sustainability of the organization. We do not anticipate having a similar surplus of operating funds in 2007.
We operate internationally, including in Canada -- see http://www.eff.org/issues/international . A large number of EFF members live outside the US and our work reflects that (there are three of us who work on these topics full time, plus three interns currently:I'm British, our international legal director is Australian; we work at groups like WIPO and arenas like the European Parliament).
As an aside, if there are any digital rights issues in your country that you think should get wider coverage, or need advice on how to tackle, or technical and logistical support, get in touch with me, danny@eff.org or mail info@eff.org. It really helps us to get feedback and news from our supporters.
I have both, sucker that I am, and I have to say they fill very different roles. On the other hand, I really like that they both run Linux, and so can talk to each other relatively easily. It feels very odd to have everything from a pocket device, to my alarm clock, to my laptop, to my server, essentially running on the same software platform.
Slashdot Mirror
Always sad to see someone go -- I remember chatting with him pretty avidly during a brief period when Slashdot was thinking of buying NTK.
I actually just switched from Apple Mail back to Mutt, because a combination of Mail and an Exchange server ate a huge chunk of my email archive. I'm not sure if I'm really more productive, but I feel a lot more comfortable knowing I have a degree of control of what's going on, and that stuff is being stored in an open format (Mail switched from Maildir to something weirder a while back). Losing a chunk of my email archive was pretty traumatic.
The main thing holding me back was a decent email search feature -- I'd been watching notmuch for a while, and when I heard about muttkz, I compiled it and switched. I use davmail, offlineimap and muttkz. I use notmuch to search around 10 years of email.
I don't think this is a route I'd recommend for many others -- I've used mutt for years before Mail, and only switched over in the last couple of years. But it worked for me, and you did ask.
d.
What form of expression would be acceptable to tell people that you're not working with somebody, and for what reason? Or is it important to keep this information confidential?
Or in other words, he has done pretty much exactly what you have done: expressed an opinion online. Why is what you are saying now not some sort of "hissy fit" about how somebody you don't even know disagrees with what you think? You certainly seem to be using stronger, more strongly opinonated language than Mitch Altman.
A large number of journalists and activists end up communicating with sources and each other using direct messaging on Twitter, so there is private information passing around. There's also the question of using login credentials to take over and fake messages. Also, there's the question of correlating Twitter identities with individuals (though I can think of a few strategies for attackers to do that even with https enabled).
I work with independent journalists in this and other at-risk countries, and consult with those seeking to protect activists. While you are perhaps right that the threat is, at heart, one of human rights, protecting those attempting to change or document that situation is also important. And lack of on-the-wire encryption also presents an almost constant temptation to even other countries supposedly better protected by the rule of law. The pervasive data-mining conducted by AT&T on behalf of the NSA is the obvious (and known) example here. I'm sure there are plenty more.
I don't think it's correct to characterise this as a "scarecrow" when a) we have actual evidence of countries using unencrypted communications to repress critics and protests against the regime, and b) this is a problem that all Internet users potentially face worldwide.
In order to protect and improve free speech and other rights, we need to build systems that are resilient when those rights are under attack.
Tunisia was blocking https connections to www.facebook.com.
I worked at the EFF and spoke with Austin several times about Haystack. On the basis of what I learned then, EFF never publicly advocated using Haystack, and told any journalist or fundraiser who queried us that until Austin submitted the code for an independent security audit, we could not recommend its use.
Austin would inaccurately characterized these conversations (most recently at the Q&A here at Gnomedex, here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6b5ND2js_8#t=35m0s ) as being that EFF telling Austin that Haystack should be open source.
To be clear: EFF never made this request, and I made it clear to Austin that there were a number of ways that a technical security audit could take place without making the source publicly available (for instance, we offered to put him in touch with independent security consultants who work with Microsoft and Google under NDA).
EFF works has and will work with both closed source and open source vendors to improve their products' privacy and security.
Okay, that's pretty much what we're thinking -- warn now, release details as soon as we can. Right now I'm talking to people to establish how widespread the message is, and also to get some idea of the actual, non-technical risk of "being a Haystack user". One of the problems is that there may be non-trivial amount of retrospective risk.
The service is actually down; that's what Austin claimed he did on Friday.
Hey, Kangsterizer. I'm sorry if you read my blog post expecting to find substantive technical details; that does seem like a waste of time, and maybe I should have made it clearer at the start that there would not be that level of detail.
My claim, and that of others involved in this (including I believe the coder of the Haystack system, who is posting on this thread also) is that we can't give out more detailed info about the problems because we believe that would put people at risk.
I find this incredibly frustrating, because obviously people in your position are entirely right to be skeptical. I'd like you to not believe it's FUD, but I can't think of a way to convince you short of as I said, a detailed public analysis.
Assuming for the moment what I'm saying isn't an ingenious pack of lies or delusion, what do you think I should do?
Not questioning your point, but are those UK gallons or US gallons for the mpg figures you quoted?
They cut off your network access because of a report of infringement? Are you in the US? Do you think you could mail me at danny@eff.org with more info? We're always interested in the details of these incidents.
Actually, the journalist who wrote this article about Northpaw was the same person who tried that out, too.
No, the reason why it's hard to find out the truth is because the government has attempted to cloak the entire process under a "states secrets" privilege. When you decide, as the elected officials of the country, to hide every aspect of your executive plans from your electors, the judicial system, and Congress, you should not be surprised if "hyperbole and fear-mongering" enters the vacuum.
This is all supposition on your part. Reassuring supposition, but as absent of proof as the most paranoid theories. If it were the case, there's a very simple procedure the administration could have followed: it could have gone to Congress and asked for the "paperwork", as you call it, to be reformed. That paperwork is there for a reason: it is so we can keep track of who follows the law, and we are nation under the law, not under men.
As it is, we know that there was a new "President's Surveillance Program", that differed substantially enough from previous practice to be described as such. We know, thanks to Mr Klein, that there was an installation in San Francisco whose abilities far exceeded those required for lawful interception. We have a group of telecom companies who seemed so unsure of their own legal position that when asked for the simple, legal authorization documents to clarify the lawfulness of their actions, they lobbied for (and got) blanket retroactive immunity, using the argument that they might owe billions in fines (a possibility that could only have occurred if the numbers of those wiretapped were counted in the hundreds of thousands).
What's a more sensible attitude in the face of apparent law-breaking by the highest levels of government, working in concert with our largest corporations? A genial "well I guess they had their reasons," shrug or a demand that the other branches of government use their power and the responsibility to uncover that illegality?
I firmly believe that what you say is not true -- you don't have to litigate every trivial instance of your trademark being violated. AFAICS, this is an urban myth that developed from the potential (but usually unlikely) threat of genericisation through overuse, and the utility of claiming it to be the case by IP lawyers.
I really don't, for instance, believe the Lego porn is going to lead to people using "lego" to refer to any other kind of brick. This is because I don't believe any of Lego's competitors are going to stand up in court and say "Well, *of course* we should be able to refer to our bricks as legos. Did you not see them fail to go after that pornography site that used such obviously fake Lego bricks?" That's why I ask for evidence that what you're saying is true.
Of course, if you are right, please wait five years, and then start your own lego brick company, citing the lack of any court action against this slashdot post as evidence that the Danish company lost the mark years ago.
Fair use in trademarks most certainly does exist. See Nominative fair use.
Also, please cite the law that says a company must defend the trademark in all cases.
>> So why in the hell would you spend money to meddle in foreign politics that don't affect you in any way?
> Because people outside Australia may very well end up being affected by it. Western governments have a habit of citing other governments' policies as a way to make those policies more palatable to their own citizens. The British have CCTV cameras at every street corner, let's also put them on our streets. Software patents are allowed in the U.S., let's harmonize the legislation. Australia thinks of the children and censors the Net, we should do the same!
> For instance, even though I'm not in the U.S., I donate to the EFF. It's a global world. We're running out of places where we can hide from these things.
This is exactly right, and why EFF tries to work internationally too: for instance, last week we wrote about how the interpretation of New Zealand's Section 92A law could affect other countries and smuggle three strikes rules through. New Zealand's language originally came from the US (via Australia), but the interpretations of the law have been very different. If New Zealand took one pro-three strikes stance, it would be quickly used as an argument for doing the same thing in other states.
Other countries can also be an inspiration. I know that the French have been inspired by New Zealand activists successful campaign to fight off Section 92A; the Australian battle against Net censorship will be noted by politicians elsewhere who might otherwise think that blocking sites would be a kneejerk vote-winner.
The EFF has an action alert that help you get started, although calling your representative directly is good too.
FYI, Al-Haramain and both the EFF wiretapping cases (the class action against AT&T, and the new suit against the government) are currently before the same court and judge, Judge Vaughn Walker. All the cases are continuing.
It ate a lot of my youth; the only way you could log on if you weren't an Essex student was through nefarious means, through the UK's pre-Internet packet-switched-system. I spent a lot of Summer nights waiting for an open incoming slot. It was a fantastic environment to explore in the dead of night, by the glow of a 1200/75 modem. What was especially strange was reading lots of tech magazines and science fiction predicting that one day you'd be able to converse using your computer in a mystical, virtual environment -- and then at night, I'd go there.
It's "Dmitry Sklyarov."
I'm sorry if you find EFF's expression of what we're doing one-sided, but I respectfully ask you to travel back in the archives to the times you did support us, and note that EFF's public statements were just as enthusiastic for presenting our positions then as we are now.
It sounds a little like you're more concerned not that EFF has lost impartiality (we were never impartial; I don't think you'd want us to be impartial litigants), but that EFF has become politically partisan.
It hasn't. We've enthusiastically defended Michelle Malkin as we do CAIR. I'm sure if we get a democratic administration, we'll be defending civil liberties against its encroachments just as determinedly as we fought the Clinton administration's unconstitutional encryption policies, and we fought the Bush administration's warrantless, unconstitutional wiretapping.
Read up on the topic, and explain the issues to your friends. Get them to talk to their representative (or even better, their prospective representative if you're in a state that's facing a change of incumbent this election). Wiretapping has had an amazing response among politically-active americans (far more than many other tech civil liberties topics), but it needs to be kept in the limelight for any change to take place.
This is true whether you're a republican, independent, or democrat. There will be a large re-alignment of issues after this election: there's no reason why the Republican Party will want to be associated with previous policies of surveillance and co-opting private companies for government intrusion. Make it clear that you think that standing against surveillance is the right thing to do, and supporting the encroachment of civil liberties that has happened in the last eight years is wrong, no matter your party.
Help us continue this fight: http://secure.eff.org/wiretapping
We've just opened a new page for student rates: http://www.eff.org/students
Third-party details on how EFF compares to other non-profit groups: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7576
(Unlike many groups, the vast majority of EFF's funding comes from individual donations: it's directly due to personal contributions that we can fight these and civil liberty cases.)
(Cut and pasted from the last annual report -- mail info@eff.org if you'd like a copy, or have any questions. Guidestar is a good place to start to make comparisons with other groups)
Profit and Loss Standard - January through December, 2006
Ordinary Income/Expense
Income
Corporation Contributions $215,229.72
Event Income 57,630.10
Foundation Grants 466,858.36
Individual Major Contributions 1,423,444.26
Interest Income 18,161.86
Litigation 430,545.00
Matching Gifts 35,426.34
Membership Income 882,710.89
Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) 10,354.40
Minor Donations 9,739.50
Honorarium/Awards 1,300.00
Fiscal Sponsorship 156,225.89
Miscellaneous Income 19.50
Total Income 3,707,645.82
Expense
Salaries & Benefits 1,865,393.06
Building Expenses 192,684.57
Corporate Insurance 35,645.71
Office Expenses 153,142.46
Membership Expenses 48,258.50
Court Filing and Fees 20,557.99
Bank & Merchant Fees 31,236.87
Consultants 82,622.52
Staff & Board Enrichment 24,150.06
Travel & Entertainment 66,092.38
EFF Events 23,216.94
Grassroots Campaigning 41,868.30
Taxes 410.00
Fiscal Sponsorship Expense 189,899.23
Total Expense 2,775,178.59
Net Ordinary Income $932,467.23
Other Income/Expense
Other Income
Unrealized Gain or Loss 108,618.85
Total Other Income 108,618.85
Net Other Income 108,618.85
Net Income $1,041,086.08
2006 was a particularly good fundraising year for us. In early 2007, we
transferred $1 million of our 2006 net income into EFF's Endowment Fund
for Digital Civil Liberties, to ensure the long term sustainability of
the organization. We do not anticipate having a similar surplus of
operating funds in 2007.
We operate internationally, including in Canada -- see http://www.eff.org/issues/international . A large number of EFF members live outside the US and our work reflects that (there are three of us who work on these topics full time, plus three interns currently:I'm British, our international legal director is Australian; we work at groups like WIPO and arenas like the European Parliament).
As an aside, if there are any digital rights issues in your country that you think should get wider coverage, or need advice on how to tackle, or technical and logistical support, get in touch with me, danny@eff.org or mail info@eff.org. It really helps us to get feedback and news from our supporters.
I have both, sucker that I am, and I have to say they fill very different roles. On the other hand, I really like that they both run Linux, and so can talk to each other relatively easily. It feels very odd to have everything from a pocket device, to my alarm clock, to my laptop, to my server, essentially running on the same software platform.