3501
Living Room / Re: good Videos [short films] here :)
« Last post by IainB on October 30, 2013, 03:12 PM »@Deozaan: Out of Sight - my son Brian (age 3) likes this one. Thanks.
Recent Posts
David Cameron Threatens Newspapers Publishing Snowden Leaks
Matthew Feeney|Oct. 28, 2013 3:08 pm
Credit: The Prime Minister's Office / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-NDCredit: The Prime Minister's Office / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-NDBritish Prime Minister David Cameron has made a scary statement about the publication of Edward Snowden’s revelations.
From Reuters:
Oct 28 (Reuters) - British Prime Minister David Cameron said on Monday his government was likely to act to stop newspapers publishing what he called damaging leaks from former U.S. intelligence operative Edward Snowden unless they began to behave more responsibly.
"If they (newspapers) don't demonstrate some social responsibility it will be very difficult for government to stand back and not to act," Cameron told parliament, saying Britain's Guardian newspaper had "gone on" to print damaging material after initially agreeing to destroy other sensitive data.
It is worth remembering that British officials already threatened The Guardian, which has been publishing stories relating to Snowden’s leaked documents, with legal action if servers containing copies of the information Snowden provided were not destroyed. Officials justified the move by claiming that Russia or China could hack into the servers and access the documents. Technicians from the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) oversaw the destruction of the servers last July, despite the fact that Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger had told government officials that copies of the information were stored outside of the U.K.
The news of Cameron’s comments come days after NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander said that “We ought to come up with a way of stopping” reporters from “selling” secrets.
Thankfully, it is unlikely that any government action in the U.K. is going to stop the information leaked by Edward Snowden from being revealed. As Rusbridger told British government officials, copies of the information is stored outside the U.K.
The latest NSA revelations have damaged the Obama administration’s relationship with some Europeans. It has been reported that the NSA monitored tens of millions of Spanish and French phone calls and that German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cell phone was targeted.
The reporting since the latest NSA news reveals that the U.S. government doesn't have its story straight when it comes to the NSA’s activities. After last week’s news relating to Merkel’s cell phone being targeted White House Press Secretary Jay Carney denied that the Obama administration was targeting Merkel’s phone saying, “The president assured the chancellor that the United States is not monitoring and will not monitor the communications of the chancellor.” However, reporting from the German Bild am Sonntag newspaper, based on information provided by U.S. intelligence officials, suggests that Obama did know about surveillance on Merkel’s phone, but that he only found out about the snooping in 2010 after being personally briefed by Gen. Alexander.
...I would like to know why the service had to be killed.I guessed that the reason was probably a financially non-viable business model, or infeasibility, or police/SS pressure that led to this "cryptographically unbreakable" data backup service being closed down. I suppose another reason could be a mixture of all three reasons.-IainB (June 25, 2013, 11:58 PM)
Because the Digital Lifeboat system was redolent of BitTorrent functionality, today I did a search of BitTorrent-related comments in the DC Forum, and then I realised why Digital Lifeboat may have been shut down - viz: it is an application concept that seems to be already being worked on and moved into the public domain.
For example, including:
- The 2013-01-25 post by @Paul Keith: BitTorrent Sync Sign-up Link.
- The 2013-04-23 post by @superboyac: Finally! A private, non-cloud file-sharing service.
I suspect that such a P2P "cryptographically unbreakable" data backup service would be anathema to the police/SS/NSA from a surveillance prospect.
The thing about Cloud storage and Cloud-based services is that (as we now know thanks to the Snowden leaks) the "Big Data" and "Social Network" providers - including Google, Facebook, and Microsoft, for example - have been obliged to act as data suppliers to the NSA, for NSA (and other) surveillance agency purposes. So you categorically cannot expect the common "Big Data" and "Social Network" providers to be not breaching your privacy/security/confidentiality.
Since Them are bigger than Us, I suspect that it may be only a matter of time before operating such P2P "cryptographically unbreakable" data backup services in what could effectively be a virtual "Dark Net" could become illegal, or at least "showing a suspicious intent".
Note: This might be handy as a BitTorrent summary: 4 Things You Didn’t Know About BitTorrent-IainB (July 15, 2013, 02:40 AM)
...Hm, I'm not sure what you're getting at with comparing the two. If you don't like the BBC, at least you can switch it off... I'm not sure the same can be said about the NSA...-dr_andus (October 28, 2013, 07:14 PM)
I'm looking forward to the prospect of decentralization, people using a "buddy system" (or whatever) to send backup copies of their files to friends' drives... rather than DEPENDING on the free (or freemium or commercial) offerings of commercial entities.
Storage capacity is cheaper-than-ever, yet people have allowed themselves to be steered into using phone or tablet form factor computing devices having minimal storage, with no choice (no SATA or USB port on the device) but to "upload it and store it in the (their) cloud". Post raspberryPi, I believe we're only a device generation (or 2) away from personal ARM -based wearable computers. In that scenario, I do expect the "personal cloud" paradigm to shift toward wearable and /or home-based "personal server(s)".
In the meantime, OwnCloud seems to be gaining traction. But (I say) if ya gotta authenticate through THEIR server... what's the sense in that?
__________________________________-saralynn (October 24, 2013, 06:04 PM)
Doing some research to see if there was a really secure Cloud-based backup solution, I googled the subject, and one of the things I came up with was a rather novel (to me) service called Digital Lifeboat. The service was apparently launched sometime in early 2011, however, for unexplained reasons it is to be shut down on 2013-06-28.
If you go to their website: http://www.digitallifeboat.com/
you get shunted to: http://www.digitalli...om/ShuttingDown.aspx
- where you get this message: (see attachment in previous post)
The email sent to users apparently said (this from a utorrent forum post): (see attachment in previous post)
What is Digital Lifeboat?
- The operational principle of the service seems to be automated data backup via distributed encrypted file fragments (using steganographic techniques) across a P2P network, offering a highly secure and sort of virtual RAID storage with "repairable" data. It looks amazingly secure and potentially useful for any PC user wishing to have a high level of security, privacy and anonymity of backup.
- The concept is explained:
- in a YouTube video here: Free Online Cloud Backup Security from Digital Lifeboat
- in some quite good blog posts covering some relevant issues, here.
- in "About Us" on their website, where it says:
Whereas I would always evaluate such a service after trialling it and before using/buying it, my initial impression of this untried service is that it would seem to meet all the requirements for a high level of security, privacy and anonymity of backup, with the major potential costs being:
- (a) the direct costs of service and
- (b) the indirect costs of bandwidth utilisation.
Like most other Cloud-based solutions, one major risk this service has/had would relate to its potential for persistent reliability (QED, it has just been unilaterally and summarily discontinued). I would like to know why the service had to be killed.-IainB (June 25, 2013, 11:58 PM)
Yes, an audit could help to "prove" things, but then you'd need to audit the other crypto-g schemes (MS, Norton/Symantec, etc.), as a basis of comparison, to establish a level playing field.Why? ...-IainB (October 10, 2013, 06:20 PM)-Vurbal (October 25, 2013, 05:42 AM)
The NSA has grown into a huge data-mining bureaucracy driven by its own organisational imperatives.
It pursues ever greater coverage, storage of data, staff and budget.
________________________
The BBC has grown into a huge bureaucracy driven by its own organisational and political imperatives.
It pursues ever greater coverage, monopoly of propaganda, staff and budget.
...
3. It’s underway. The British phone hacking trial of Rebekah Brooks and Rupert Murdoch’s media lieutenants began at London’s storied Old Bailey courthouse. Chris Boffey sets the scene — and “waiting in the wings are 60 other journalists facing possible offences that came out of the hacking investigations.”
The royal baby watch mercifully ended after only a few days; this trial’s expected to last three months. Some headlines already refer to this as the trial of the century but the the self-serving hype really puffs up big media’s self-importance and newspaper sales. As far as phone hacking goes, the NSA is Murdoch on steroids.
...Lying is part of everyday diplomacy of negotiating conflicting demands; we all do this in our daily realities, so it's unrealistic to expect that somehow politicians should never ever lie. ...Hahaha. Very droll. I rather like that. A rather revealing and self-defining statement about one's personal standards and integrity. Were you overdue for confessional, or something? The question would presumably have to be: Is it a true statement or a false one?
_________________________-dr_andus (October 28, 2013, 07:58 AM)
Leaked memos reveal GCHQ efforts to keep mass surveillance secret
Exclusive: Edward Snowden papers show UK spy agency fears legal challenge if scale of surveillance is made public
James Ball
The Guardian, Friday 25 October 2013 18.45 BST
GCHQ fears a legal challenge under the Human Rights Act if evidence of its surveillance methods becomes admissable in court. Photograph: Barry Batchelor/PA
The UK intelligence agency GCHQ has repeatedly warned it fears a "damaging public debate" on the scale of its activities because it could lead to legal challenges against its mass-surveillance programmes, classified internal documents reveal.
Memos contained in the cache disclosed by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden detail the agency's long fight against making intercept evidence admissible as evidence in criminal trials – a policy supported by all three major political parties, but ultimately defeated by the UK's intelligence community.
Foremost among the reasons was a desire to minimise the potential for challenges against the agency's large-scale interception programmes, rather than any intrinsic threat to security, the documents show.
The papers also reveal that:
• GCHQ lobbied furiously to keep secret the fact that telecoms firms had gone "well beyond" what they were legally required to do to help intelligence agencies' mass interception of communications, both in the UK and overseas.
• GCHQ feared a legal challenge under the right to privacy in the Human Rights Act if evidence of its surveillance methods became admissible in court.
• GCHQ assisted the Home Office in lining up sympathetic people to help with "press handling", including the Liberal Democrat peer and former intelligence services commissioner Lord Carlile, who this week criticised the Guardian for its coverage of mass surveillance by GCHQ and America's National Security Agency.
The most recent attempt to make intelligence gathered from intercepts admissible in court, proposed by the last Labour government, was finally stymied by GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 in 2009.
A briefing memo prepared for the board of GCHQ shortly before the decision was made public revealed that one reason the agency was keen to quash the proposals was the fear that even passing references to its wide-reaching surveillance powers could start a "damaging" public debate.
Referring to the decision to publish the report on intercept as evidence without classification, it noted: "Our main concern is that references to agency practices (ie the scale of interception and deletion) could lead to damaging public debate which might lead to legal challenges against the current regime." A later update, from May 2012, set out further perceived "risks" of making intercepts admissible, including "the damage to partner relationships if sensitive information were accidentally released in open court". It also noted that the "scale of interception and retention required would be fairly likely to be challenged on Article 8 (Right to Privacy) grounds".
The GCHQ briefings showed the agency provided the Home Office with support in winning the PR battle on the proposed reforms by lining up people to talk to the media – including Lord Carlile, who on Wednesday gave a public lecture condemning the Guardian's decision to publish stories based on the leaked material from Snowden.
Referring to the public debate on intercept evidence, the document notes: "Sir Ken McDonald [sic] (former DPP [director of public prosecutions]), Lord Goldsmith (former AG [attorney general]) and David Davis (former Shadow HSec [home secretary) [have been] reiterating their previous calls for IaE [intercept as evidence].
"We are working closely with HO [Home Office] on their plans for press handling when the final report is published, e.g. lining up talking heads (such as Lord Carlisle [sic], Lord Stevens, Sir Stephen Lander, Sir Swinton Thomas)."
Carlile was the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation in 2001-11, and was awarded a CBE in 2012 for his services to national security.
Another top GCHQ priority in resisting the admission of intercepts as evidence was keeping secret the extent of the agency's co-operative relationships with telephone companies – including being granted access to communications networks overseas.
In June, the Guardian disclosed the existence of GCHQ's Tempora internet surveillance programme. It uses intercepts on the fibre-optic cables that make up the backbone of the internet to gain access to vast swaths of internet users' personal data. The intercepts are placed in the UK and overseas, with the knowledge of companies owning either the cables or landing stations.
The revelations of voluntary co-operation with some telecoms companies appear to contrast markedly with statements made by large telecoms firms in the wake of the first Tempora stories. They stressed that they were simply complying with the law of the countries in which they operated.
In reality, numerous telecoms companies were doing much more than that, as disclosed in a secret document prepared in 2009 by a joint working group of GCHQ, MI5 and MI6.
Their report contended that allowing intercepts as evidence could damage relationships with "Communications Service Providers" (CSPs).
In an extended excerpt of "the classified version" of a review prepared for the Privy Council, a formal body of advisers made up of current and former cabinet ministers, the document sets out the real nature of the relationship between telecoms firms and the UK government.
"Under RIPA [the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000], CSPs in the UK may be required to provide, at public expense, an adequate interception capability on their networks," it states. "In practice all significant providers do provide such a capability. But in many cases their assistance – while in conformity with the law – goes well beyond what it requires."
GCHQ's internet surveillance programme is the subject of a challenge in the European court of human rights, mounted by three privacy advocacy groups. The Open Rights Group, English PEN and Big Brother Watch argue the "unchecked surveillance" of Tempora is a challenge to the right to privacy, as set out in the European convention on human rights.
That the Tempora programme appears to rely at least in part on voluntary co-operation of telecoms firms could become a major factor in that ongoing case. The revelation could also reignite the long-running debate over allowing intercept evidence in court.
GCHQ's submission goes on to set out why its relationships with telecoms companies go further than what can be legally compelled under current law. It says that in the internet era, companies wishing to avoid being legally mandated to assist UK intelligence agencies would often be able to do so "at little cost or risk to their operations" by moving "some or all" of their communications services overseas.
As a result, "it has been necessary to enter into agreements with both UK-based and offshore providers for them to afford the UK agencies access, with appropriate legal authorisation, to the communications they carry outside the UK".
The submission to ministers does not set out which overseas firms have entered into voluntary relationships with the UK, or even in which countries they operate, though documents detailing the Tempora programme made it clear the UK's interception capabilities relied on taps located both on UK soil and overseas.
There is no indication as to whether the governments of the countries in which deals with companies have been struck would be aware of the GCHQ cable taps.
Evidence that telecoms firms and GCHQ are engaging in mass interception overseas could stoke an ongoing diplomatic row over surveillance ignited this week after the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, accused the NSA of monitoring her phone calls, and the subsequent revelation that the agency monitored communications of at least 35 other world leaders.
On Friday, Merkel and the French president, François Hollande, agreed to spearhead efforts to make the NSA sign a new code of conduct on how it carried out intelligence operations within the European Union, after EU leaders warned that the international fight against terrorism was being jeopardised by the perception that mass US surveillance was out of control.
Fear of diplomatic repercussions were one of the prime reasons given for GCHQ's insistence that its relationships with telecoms firms must be kept private .
Telecoms companies "feared damage to their brands internationally, if the extent of their co-operation with HMG [Her Majesty's government] became apparent", the GCHQ document warned. It added that if intercepts became admissible as evidence in UK courts "many CSPs asserted that they would withdraw their voluntary support".
The report stressed that while companies are going beyond what they are required to do under UK law, they are not being asked to violate it.
Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty and Anthony Romero Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union issued a joint statement stating:
"The Guardian's publication of information from Edward Snowden has uncovered a breach of trust by the US and UK Governments on the grandest scale. The newspaper's principled and selective revelations demonstrate our rulers' contempt for personal rights, freedoms and the rule of law.
"Across the globe, these disclosures continue to raise fundamental questions about the lack of effective legal protection against the interception of all our communications.
"Yet in Britain, that conversation is in danger of being lost beneath self-serving spin and scaremongering, with journalists who dare to question the secret state accused of aiding the enemy.
"A balance must of course be struck between security and transparency, but that cannot be achieved whilst the intelligence services and their political masters seek to avoid any scrutiny of, or debate about, their actions.
"The Guardian's decision to expose the extent to which our privacy is being violated should be applauded and not condemned."
US denies Obama knew of Merkel spying
...Bild am Sonntag newspaper quoted US intelligence sources as saying that America's National Security Agency chief General Keith Alexander had briefed Obama on the operation against Merkel in 2010. ...
NSA TV Clip Library
Posted on October 21, 2013 by Roger MacdonaldWhen the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they are going to be stunned and they are going to be angry. Senator Ron Wyden May 26, 2011(Video clip of Senator Ron Wyden saying this)
_________________
Recent revelations of the extent of National Security Agency surveillance and weakening of our digital infrastructure give substance to the warnings of Senator Wyden and others. To assist journalists and other concerned citizens in reflecting on these issues, the Internet Archive has created a curated library of short television news clips presenting key statements and other representations.
NSA-issues TV News Quote Library
The experimental, Chrome and Safari only, library launches today with more than 700 chronologically ordered television citations drawn from the Archive’s television news research service. The TV quotes can be browsed by rolling over clip thumbnails, queried via transcripts and sorted for specific speakers. Citation links, context, links to source broadcasters and options to borrow can be explored by following the More/Borrow links on each thumbnail.
The Project
The Microsoft Research Project Colletta helps you manage your tasks, activities and related resources. It allows you to tag documents, images, emails, web pages and other items that are useful for performing a given task or activity. You can create tags that refer to activities, people, places, events, or anything that is helpful to you. You can even attach multiple tags to your documents. Project Colletta is integrated with your applications, so you can start tagging documents even if you haven't yet saved them. You can access all your activities and tagged resources either via the Project Colletta DeskBar application or via several application toolbars.
Take the Tour
Watch the video to get an overview of how Colletta can help you manage your files and activities.
(embedded Silverlight video)
Project Colletta
One or more issues caused the setup to fail. Please fix the issues and then retry setup.
For more information see the log file.
0x80070490 - Element not found.
Failed to cache payload: vstor_redist.exe from working path: C:\Temp\{d6074b06-1636-45dd-bf35-baf3e6d131d2}\vstor_redist.exe, error: 0x80070490.But I watched the temp directory used during install, and the vstor_redist.exe is created and deleted by the installer, so it might be a bug(?).
TitleQ
a FireFox extension for faster browsing
TitleQ is a browser enhancement that lets you jump between headlines on a page. You do this by pressing Ctrl + Arrow Up/Down. This can speed up reading blog frontpages and similar, where you quickly want to skim through the article headlines.
Download from Mozilla AddOns:
Download TitleQ
Note: If you have GreaseMonkey (or equivalent) installed, you can download this extension as a user script instead: TitleQ.user.js
I wonder if anyone knows an AddOn or setting that would allow the web site's images,backgrounds and colors to come through, but also allow text and link colors to be overridden? The built in FF settings allow me to choose text, non-visited, and visited link colors. But they won't be used if "Allow sites to use their own colors" is checked.Not sure if this is what you want, but you could try NoSquint:
What I'm running into is nice themes on forums but the text is hard to read. If I could only override the text colors I'd be golden.-MilesAhead (October 23, 2013, 01:56 PM)
CryptoSeal VPN shuts down rather than risk NSA demands for crypto keys
Complying with US law while protecting user privacy a tough task, company says.
by Jon Brodkin - Oct 21, 2013 7:05 pm UTC
A consumer VPN service called CryptoSeal Privacy has shut down rather than risk government intrusions that could cost the company money in legal fees and threaten user privacy.
CryptoSeal will continue offering its business-focused VPN, but the consumer service is done, the company announced:
With immediate effect as of this notice, CryptoSeal Privacy, our consumer VPN service, is terminated. All cryptographic keys used in the operation of the service have been zerofilled, and while no logs were produced (by design) during operation of the service, all records created incidental to the operation of the service have been deleted to the best of our ability.
Essentially, the service was created and operated under a certain understanding of current US law, and that understanding may not currently be valid. As we are a US company and comply fully with US law, but wish to protect the privacy of our users, it is impossible for us to continue offering the CryptoSeal Privacy consumer VPN product.
VPN services let consumers gain extra privacy and security while using the Internet. A user establishes an encrypted connection with a VPN service, routing all Internet traffic to the VPN before sending it on to the rest of the Internet.
Some VPN services promise only protection from common hackers, which is useful for people seeking extra security while surfing the Web on public Wi-Fi networks. To hide one's traffic from Internet service providers or governments, people look to VPNs that promise not to keep any logs that might reveal what they use the Internet for.
CryptoSeal's description of its business VPN service says it's not designed to hide information from the government. "CryptoSeal Connect is not designed as a BitTorrent or other file-sharing VPN and is not designed to give you anonymity against the legal system," the company said. "We fully comply with all warrants and subpoenas and are located in the United States. We suggest using systems such as the Tor Project for anonymity requirements."
The possibility of handing cryptographic keys over to the government is a troubling one, though. "For anyone operating a VPN, mail, or other communications provider in the US, we believe it would be prudent to evaluate whether a pen register order could be used to compel you to divulge SSL keys protecting message contents, and if so, to take appropriate action," CryptoSeal wrote.
Lavabit case raises troubling legal possibilities
The company referred to the case of Lavabit, an e-mail service that shut down rather than comply with government orders to monitor user communications. A legal filing in that case raises a possibility that is troubling for CryptoSeal. Specifically, it describes "a Government theory that if a pen register order is made on a provider, and the provider's systems do not readily facilitate full monitoring of pen register information and delivery to the Government in realtime, the Government can compel production of cryptographic keys via a warrant to support a government-provided pen trap device," CryptoSeal wrote.
"Our system does not support recording any of the information commonly requested in a pen register order, and it would be technically infeasible for us to add this in a prompt manner," CryptoSeal continued. "The consequence, being forced to turn over cryptographic keys to our entire system on the strength of a pen register order, is unreasonable in our opinion and likely unconstitutional. But until this matter is settled, we are unable to proceed with our service."
CryptoSeal is investigating "alternative technical ways" to comply with US law without sacrificing user privacy, but in the meantime it is offering customers refunds as well as "one year subscriptions to a non-US VPN service of mutual selection" and "free service for one year if/when we relaunch a consumer privacy VPN service." CryptoSeal also encouraged people to donate to a Lavabit legal fund.
We've contacted CryptoSeal to ask why it's able to keep its business service open but haven't heard back yet. Selling to enterprises is more lucrative than selling to consumers, of course, providing one possible reason CryptoSeal chose this route. Another factor is that businesses seeking a VPN service may be more concerned about security from hackers than about hiding Internet activity from governments and Internet service providers.
A comment on Hacker News apparently posted by CryptoSeal founder and CEO Ryan Lackey points to the cost of legal services being one of the main factors.
"The financial issue was the potentially huge liability due to a legal action or battle, not the (small) costs of operating the service," Hacker News user "RDL" wrote. The service "was covering operating costs and some profit," but the risk of defending against a government order would have wiped that out.
"If we were the legally best VPN option, I would probably have pushed to keep it going anyway and just shut down when/if that happened, but as it is, non-US providers run by non-US people (there are several good ones) are an objectively better option, so in good conscience there's no reason to continue running a US privacy VPN service without technical controls to prevent being compelled to screw over a user," RDL wrote.
____________________________________