Hej igen,
Jag kämpar fortfarande med att få grepp om nätneutralitet. En
programmerare som jag pratat med säger att internet skulle gå sönder
utan DPI. Gordon Lennox säger att alla maskiner som skeppas nuförtiden
kommer med en eller annan form a DPI (påslagen eller ej):
http://mailman.edri.org/pipermail/nncoalition/2013-September/000094.html
Och så säljs det såna här (monster?-)maskiner:
"The Cisco® Service Control Engine 8000 (SCE 8000) is a
high-capacity, carrier-grade network element specifically designed
to perform stateful application and session-based classification and
to manage application-level IP traffic per subscriber."
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/ps7045/ps6129/ps6133/ps9591/ps96…
Sen som en superkaka på det kommer det som står på hemsidan:
"ExitPolicy beskriver vilka portar som är öppna för trafik om du kör
en exit-nod. Det innebär att du kan begränsa vilka typer av trafik
du vill släppa ut från din nod."
https://www.dfri.se/projekt/tor/
Verkar inte finnas nån enkel entydig teknisk frontlinje man kan stå på?
Får ungefär samma känsla av att läsa perpass-listan:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/perpass/current/msg00807.html
Om det är så att både NN och "the metadata problem" är "more political
and social than technical", vad ska man skissa på för politisk lösning
på problemet då?
Är det att se till att små ISPar som DFRI får fortsätta experimentera
med Tor?
Vilsen i pannkakan.
//Erik
Diskussionen verkar avspeglad här:
https://wiki.debian.org/DebianPrivacy
//Erik
Erik Josefsson
BE GSM: +32484082063
SE GSM: +46707696567
----- Reply message -----
Från: "Andreas Jonsson" <andreas(a)romab.com>
Till: <listan(a)lists.dfri.se>
Rubrik: [DFRI-listan] Intressant tråd på debian-security som berör SSL och Tor
Datum: tis, okt 29, 2013 19:25
On 2013-10-29 18:40, Linus Nordberg wrote:
>
> Andreas Jonsson <andreas(a)romab.com> wrote
> Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:50:27 +0100:
>
> | Jag kan ha fel dock! rätta mig gärna! vi kanske ska tillhandahålla över
> | HS ändå?
>
> HS-adresser (.onion) är "självautenticerande" eftersom dom består av (en
> del av) HS:ens publika nyckel.
>
> Den som har en HS-adress som den vet tillhandahålls av DFRI kan vara
> säker på att den får det som DFRI tror är bra och behöver inte bry sig
> om komprometterade SSL-cert eller annat SSL/TLS-relaterat.
>
> Frågan om hur DFRI verifierar sitt repo kvarstår.
>
sure. värt att notera är att debian-trådstartaren _inte_ pratade om repo:t.
sedan har vi det där med att hur nu någon ska få reda på dfri:s
hs-address... kanske via vår web som authenticeras genom.... tls? ;>
/andreas
--
DFRI-listan är öppen för alla.
Listan arkiveras och publiceras öppet på internet.
http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.dfri
Jag hoppas de fixade stavfelen...
Mats
Linus Nordberg <linus(a)nordberg.se> wrote:
>Hej listan!
>
>Det här har vi missat att berätta om på listan. En del grejer hamnar
>bara på Twitter [1], andra bara på IRC (#dfri_se på OFTC.net).
>
>DFRI har skrivit under ett brev [2] som ställer några frågor till de
>stora tillverkarna av antivirusprogramvara [3]:
>
>--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>Experts call upon the vendors of antivirus software for transparency
>
>An international coalition of more than 25 civil rights organizations
>and security experts is concerned about the level of security provided
>by antivirus software companies. “The users of this software should be
>ably to rely on the security of their systems. We fear this might be a
>false feeling of security.” says Ton Siedsma of the Dutch digital rights
>organization Bits of Freedom.
>
>According to the coalition, these companies have a vital position in
>providing security and maintaining the trust of internet users engaging
>in sensitive activities such as electronic banking. There should be no
>doubt that your antivirus software provides the security needed to
>maintain this trust.
>
>In the letter, the coalition asks the antivirus companies for
>transparency on whether there have been any requests by governments to
>not detect the presence of governmental malware and if so, if they have
>granted such a request. They furthermore ask how the companies would
>respond to such a request in the future.
>
>“It has become very clear that governments will do anything to gain
>acces to as much information as possible” says Siedsma. “Requests like
>these, coming from law enforcement agencies or secret services, lower
>the general level of protection of all users of antivirus software. The
>software isn’t just used by suspects, but by all of us. This is
>something to be very concerned about, so we have asked the antivirus
>software vendors for transparancy on this matter.”
>
>The letter has been sent to the following companies: Agnitum, Ahnlab,
>Avira operations, AVG, AVAST, Bullguard, Bitdefender, F-secure, F-Prot,
>Kaspersky, McAfee, Microsoft, Nod32, Norton, Panda, Symantec and Trend
>Micro.
>--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
>[1] https://twitter.com/dfri_se/status/394006370887802880
>[2] https://www.bof.nl/live/wp-content/uploads/Letter-to-antivirus-companies-.p…
>[3] https://www.bof.nl/2013/10/25/experts-call-upon-the-vendors-of-antivirus-so…
>
>--
>DFRI-listan är öppen för alla.
>Listan arkiveras och publiceras öppet på internet.
>http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.dfri
>
TH�+-jz��߭�eh����ڮH�z����i��bq�ڲ�^������z�m���v*���ޢ�?�f�z��ǫ��.��_�
Hej listan!
Det här har vi missat att berätta om på listan. En del grejer hamnar
bara på Twitter [1], andra bara på IRC (#dfri_se på OFTC.net).
DFRI har skrivit under ett brev [2] som ställer några frågor till de
stora tillverkarna av antivirusprogramvara [3]:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
Experts call upon the vendors of antivirus software for transparency
An international coalition of more than 25 civil rights organizations
and security experts is concerned about the level of security provided
by antivirus software companies. “The users of this software should be
ably to rely on the security of their systems. We fear this might be a
false feeling of security.” says Ton Siedsma of the Dutch digital rights
organization Bits of Freedom.
According to the coalition, these companies have a vital position in
providing security and maintaining the trust of internet users engaging
in sensitive activities such as electronic banking. There should be no
doubt that your antivirus software provides the security needed to
maintain this trust.
In the letter, the coalition asks the antivirus companies for
transparency on whether there have been any requests by governments to
not detect the presence of governmental malware and if so, if they have
granted such a request. They furthermore ask how the companies would
respond to such a request in the future.
“It has become very clear that governments will do anything to gain
acces to as much information as possible” says Siedsma. “Requests like
these, coming from law enforcement agencies or secret services, lower
the general level of protection of all users of antivirus software. The
software isn’t just used by suspects, but by all of us. This is
something to be very concerned about, so we have asked the antivirus
software vendors for transparancy on this matter.”
The letter has been sent to the following companies: Agnitum, Ahnlab,
Avira operations, AVG, AVAST, Bullguard, Bitdefender, F-secure, F-Prot,
Kaspersky, McAfee, Microsoft, Nod32, Norton, Panda, Symantec and Trend
Micro.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
[1] https://twitter.com/dfri_se/status/394006370887802880
[2] https://www.bof.nl/live/wp-content/uploads/Letter-to-antivirus-companies-.p…
[3] https://www.bof.nl/2013/10/25/experts-call-upon-the-vendors-of-antivirus-so…
--
DFRI-listan är öppen för alla.
Listan arkiveras och publiceras öppet på internet.
http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.dfri
Världen är mycket komplicerad men målet är fortfarande enkelt.
"Den offentliga makten ska utövas med respekt för alla människors lika
värde och för den enskilda människans frihet och värdighet."
1 Kap, 2 §, Svensk författningssamling 1974:152
"alla människor" är rätt tydligt tycker jag och så vitt jag vet finns
det ganska precis 50% av kvinnligt kön och 50% av manligt kön. "för alla
människors lika värde" det kan vara en start?
Det går inte att bygga in hur mycket diskrepanser som helst i ett
system. 50% är och kommer alltid att vara 50%. När systemet inte
fungerar då blir man tvungen att gå tillbaka tills det att man hittar felet.
Jag kan inte se att det är annorlunda nu?
/19x20
--
DFRI-listan är öppen för alla.
Listan arkiveras och publiceras öppet på internet.
http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.dfri
Apropå att dra slipsten, det här är enligt mig det viktigaste caset det här seklet.
Om ombudsmannen fipplar bort detta så fipplas hela meningen med EU bort.
Erik Josefsson
BE GSM: +32484082063
SE GSM: +46707696567
----- Forwarded message -----
Från: "Ante Wessels" <ante(a)ffii.org>
Till: "iindep info exchange hub" <hub(a)iindep.org>
Rubrik: [iindep-hub] Will the Ombudsman rise to the occassion?
Datum: ons, okt 23, 2013 18:59
Will the Ombudsman rise to the occassion?
http://acta.ffii.org/?p=1956
with links
October 23, 2013
By Ante
A few weeks ago I filed a complaint with the Ombudsman against
the European Parliament over the secrecy of legal advice
regarding ACTA. The Ombudsman replied that she didn’t want to
investigate the complaint as I already got access to the
documents (unofficially released versions). In a letter I ask
her to reconsider the decision, as the decision seems not in
line with an earlier Ombudsman decision, and, more importantly,
an investigation could be of major importance.
Key paragraphs:
"The secrecy surrounding international negotiations is very
problematic. For instance, the secrecy surrounding ACTA
(Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) led to various European
Parliament resolutions, two Ombudsman complaints and a Court
case.
All these cases failed, as the "protection of the public
interest as regards international relations" exception to
openness has an "absolute" character. Once successfully invoked,
the Institution does not have to balance it with the public
interest in disclosure.
The Parliament even raised this international relations
exception, that has such a devastating effect on openness, for
legal advice it produced itself after the negotiations. This
extends the brute force of the international relations exception
beyond reasonable scope. The Parliament uses the international
relations exception to negate landmark EU Court of Justice Turco
case law on legal advice. In my complaint I challenge this
over-extension by arguing that the Parliament erred in law.
Challenging this over-extension and defending the landmark Turco
case law on legal advice is of major importance.
Furthermore, I challenge the "absolute" character of the
international relations exception by pointing out it is not
compatible with human rights. If this reasoning finds
acceptance, it may break the absolute character of the
exception. It could lead to more open negotiations of
international agreements. This would be of major importance
too."
The letter (pdf)
___________________________________________________________________________
iindep info hub - hub(a)iindep.org - https://listes.globenet.org/listinfo/hub
policy: * do NOT forward mails or non-public information from this list
* new subscribers must be approved by a list member
* messages from non-members addresses are bounced back
list admin is Nil (mailto:hub-owner@iindep.org, he rarely reads the list)