Re: Re: Why a Three Letter Agency must be involved
"A TLA (three letter agency) has managed to gain COMPLETE control of the project and its signing keys."
Then why has the TrueCrypt team not stated this?
You are looking at this the wrong way when spies are not good spies being so public. The US Administration runs on ultra secrecy mode when they won't send in the hackers but the ultra secret court orders.
I think Lavabit 2.0 is quite possible. Had this Truecrypt developer received a National Security Letter (NSL) then the only option that remains is to discredit his own product.
New page layout hastily created, bullshit reason, an open source developer recommending a closed source product, "Microsoft", newly generated encryption key, pointing out 'compromised' despite a clean audit, then lastly migration to avoid a possible NSA compromised product.
If that does not scream out NSL then I don't know what does when naturally anyone who receives an NSL is forbidden from saying that they have.
Now that final word of "un-American" is the core issue here.
The United States should be worried less about foreign Governments than those "un-American" people corrupting the very core of the Administration by endangering the very meaning of what it is to be a US Citizen.
Long ago the USA used be to the place where foreign refugees fled to in order to escape the persecution of their own country where the USA represented freedom & safety. Only recently has that table turned when now US Passport holders flee to others countries to escape clear US persecution.
Then how many times have we sat here reading about the US Administration or Congress running off on some mega-lo-manic plan with little regards to the law of the land. They only moan that following the law is too hard for them and they should not have to follow the US Constitution and Bill of Rights... the very core documents on what the American way of life was founded!
Then their arrogance is so high and the Administration so rusted that they protect their mega-lo-manic authority through running the Administration as one giant secret outside of public oversight and accountability. Secrets upon secrets upon secrets where they really do persecute anyone who exposes their filth.
Then most sad of all is that the average US citizen accepts failure in their leadership. Sure they feel helpless and only see it as natural for sewage to float to the top of the tank.
What is most needed is an empowered office filled with people with no political aspirations beyond simply wanting to make the United States a better place. Their only job is to hunt down such un-Americans in order to fire them from ever working in Government departments, or to punish them under the law. I don't mean people making the odd mistake, or those a bit dumb at their job, but those supreme arrogant people who only care about punishing the unworthy along with a history of avoiding law accountability.
Only once heads start rolling, and people fear that their job is at stake, will they have reason to clean up their act.
So what crime would he have committed? From the details I have read here that would be none.
There naturally is the crime of breaking in and entry which includes criminal damage but to open the door and to walk in is not a crime.
You can also ponder trespass but without notices on the borders revoking the public right of access you don't have that.
The longest possible shot seems to be a general public nuisance law but beyond him being creepy I can't see this event as much of a nuisance.
So the point here is not that someone can enter your home but what their intentions are doing there. You also can't outlaw all of human nature like entering the wrong house by mistake, trying to find people or pets, to issue a local warning, or simple being lonely and wanting someone to talk to.
In this case since nothing was stolen, including her beloved cell phone, then it could be a case of someone passing and seeing she left the door open and so proceeded inside to warn her to be more careful. However only a few steps inside he changed his mind and oddly left the intended caution on the phone instead.
So best get used to the idea that if you don't want strange people wondering through your home then that is what locks and bolts are for when faith alone won't help you. Strange people naturally have to leave your home and land if you ask them to when it is your property.
I remember the days when hacking used to be unlawful where Government officials used to run around putting them in prison.
Well setting up a honey-pot trap to collect people's personal details is certainly questionable but I will skip over that for now when accessing other people's social accounts is without question unlawful. The only people allowed to do that would be police officers investigating a crime but only when approved by a Court order.
I can say years ago I used to work as a hacker where I accessed hundreds or even thousands of computer system when that is what hackers do when they explore. I had no doubt though that it was unlawful but I set out to cause no damage which is true beyond some paranoid users reformatting.
I even once saw a complete set of company accounts which were detailed enough to ruin that company in the hands of a hostile rival. I could have made money sure but this was never done when any good hacker would never cause harm.
During those few years I can say I only ever change details in a personal's social account once. That was only because they used that account to try to make money but their main information was wrote in really bad English. So like some hacker wish fairy I rewrote their information into good English so their income would improve. I heard no complaint when all connected were quite happy.
Well GCHQ have just made the CCC very unhappy when no hacker should ever break into people's accounts to discredit them or to ruin their company. Beyond the unlawful access it happens to be much more unlawful to cause damage.
It is always interesting to see criminals on both sides of the fence waving at each other. It is just that one side acts more ethical and honest than the other side causing large damage and pretending it is all lawful. If the CCC had GCHQ member details there would be some pain due.
I find this situation totally insane when sure these Anonymous & LulzSec people were punished for their political activism in terms of DDoS attacks.
I have no problems with that when they knew the law and they knew the risks. This was a political expression when the US Administration used Visa, Mastercard, PayPal and more to attack WikiLeaks. I should also add that this attack on WikiLeaks was later concluded to be unlawful by the EU.
So there is a whole lot of understanding there of people protesting against unlawful acts by these companies.
To now find out that GCHQ were doing DDoS attacks also is the most insane thing I have ever heard. Criminals on both sides of the fence but naturally one side gets punished under the law while the other side does not.
This also comes as no surprise to me when I well know that the US Administration has at their command a level of DDoS attack that dwarfs all others. The US Administration at the command of the MAFIAA have used this against file sharing sites and more. So while that area has yet to be proved via leaked documents we now see the British sleeps in the same bed as the Americans. Obviously GCHQ would have had other targets beyond these two groups and they would follow American plans.
Well I am certainly buying Frontier: First Encounters once available when I already own every Elite game made.
My only choice is if to pirate it first or not when as a value shopper I never like the RRP and would prefer to wait for the price to fall. I would buy the game in the end so such a long piracy trial should not be a social problem.
A recent compatible game was Kerbal Space Program when while this was a much wanted game I had no desire to buy or to pirate this game all the time it was stuck in a buggy Beta version. So only after I played the KSP demo which worked well enough did I pay out for the full version. Due to my value shopping nature I of course searched around for the best price.
So to me when it comes to computer games then piracy is only a temporary stop-off on the way to a full purchase.
The difference between them wanting blood, DNA and fingerprints compared to a password is that the former can be forced from you simply by holding you down while the latter cannot without applying some torture or punishment.
So all they are doing here is saying like "tell us where you buried the body or we jail you for 4 months for non-cooperation". This is keeping in mind they don't even know there is actually a "body" for you to identify.
Still in this case he later revealed the password proving he did lie saying he forgot it. So this is certainly not the best case for a ECHR challenge.
I can understand why NetFlix is pushing for this DRM which should be correctly called a Content Control System. This is because NetFlix is denied key PPV events all the time their streams can be easily ripped and distributed.
So I can sympathise with them in what should be a natural expansion of their business but at the same time while I consider NetFlix use "fair" I can also recognize the danger in that priority use events can soon become general use inflicting all media.
The article is correct that this would turn HTML into a huge broadcast system which in the longer term would restrict the free flow of information.
I would believe NetFlix would win this one when general user communication is not being blocked making this a new layer. My only doubt if the HTML specification is the right place for DRM when they should really be doing this themselves in their player or plug-in.