Send Bristol mailing list submissions to
bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bristol-request@mailman.lug.org.uk
You can reach the person managing the list at
bristol-owner@mailman.lug.org.uk
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Bristol digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. [OT] The use of anonymity technology by criminal groups (Martin)
2. Re: [OT] The use of anonymity technology by criminal groups
(Bob Ham)
3. Re: Meeting this Saturday! (d.hockin)
4. Re: [OT] The use of anonymity technology by criminal groups
(Alex Butcher)
5. Re: [OT] The use of anonymity technology by criminal groups
(Amias Channer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:14:13 +0100
From: Martin <inkubus@interalpha.co.uk>
To: bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
Subject: [bristol] [OT] The use of anonymity technology by criminal
groups
Message-ID: <1406139253.22923.203.camel@raphael>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Hi all,
This is probably a bit OT but I know we have a number of people
here who know and care about cryptographic and privacy protecting tools.
A reasonably common claim in discussions over Internet surveillance laws
is that they are necessary to track down paedophiles / terrorists /
communists / anarchists / spies of the Austro-Hungarian empire / agents
of Napolean / catholics / etc. however we rarely actually see any
evidence of this. The following two articles are on a child pornography
group who made use of Tor, gpg and a number of other technologies:
[NSFW, content warning for those who don't wish to read about this sort
of thing, etc.]
http://grugq.github.io/blog/2013/12/01/yardbirds-effective-usenet-tradecraft/
http://dee.su/uploads/baal.html
I don't think I am going to comment on this other than to say it is
interesting to see the evidence that this sort of thing is an issue.
Cheers,
- Martin
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:55:50 +0000
From: Bob Ham <rah@settrans.net>
To: Bristol and Bath Linux User Group <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] [OT] The use of anonymity technology by
criminal groups
Message-ID: <1406145350.30975.14.camel@myrtle.6gnip.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On Wed, 2014-07-23 at 19:14 +0100, Martin wrote:
> The following two articles are on a child pornography
> group who made use of Tor, gpg and a number of other technologies:
> it is
> interesting to see the evidence that this sort of thing is an issue.
This is not a new issue. Tor has been around since 2002 (12 years),
Freenet has been around since 2000 (14 years) and GPG has been around
since 1999 (15 years). There has been plenty of "evidence" before.
I'll bring your attention to the Freenet FAQ:
"Q. What about child porn, offensive content or terrorism?
A. While most people wish that child pornography and terrorism did not
exist, humanity should not be deprived of their freedom to communicate
just because of how a very small number of people might use that
freedom.
Q. I don't want my node to be used to harbor child porn, offensive
content or terrorism. What can I do?
A. The true test of someone who claims to believe in Freedom of Speech
is whether they tolerate speech which they disagree with, or even find
disgusting. If this is not acceptable to you, you should not run a
Freenet node."
https://freenetproject.org/faq.html#childporn
--
Bob Ham <rah@settrans.net>
for (;;) { ++pancakes; }
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 2916 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/private/bristol/attachments/20140723/b289df42/attachment-0001.pgp>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 00:13:33 +0100
From: "d.hockin" <d.hockin@btinternet.com>
To: "Bristol and Bath Linux User Group" <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] Meeting this Saturday!
Message-ID: <19EFC76F2E3A4F1CAA74E2F6408AB378@DAVE3>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
I can't make it as I'll be on the Portishead Camera Club stand at the
Portishead Flower Show.
Dave (Posset)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris" <cshorler@googlemail.com>
To: "Bristol and Bath Linux User Group" <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: [bristol] Meeting this Saturday!
> On 22 July 2014 19:54:08 BST, Peter Hemmings
> <peter@hemmings.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>For those of you who might have forgotten, it's the fourth Saturday of
>>
>>July at the weekend!
>>
>>
>>I will try to hobble along.
>>
>>
>>All the details are on the site:
>>
>>http://www.bristol.lug.org.uk/
>>
>>(Yes I know it needs updating)
>>
>>
>>Regards
>
> I'll be there about 13.30.
>
> People who haven't been before should note most people won't arrive until
> after 13.30
>
> Chris
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bristol mailing list
> Bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 11:07:16 +0100 (BST)
From: Alex Butcher <lug@assursys.co.uk>
To: Bristol and Bath Linux User Group <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] [OT] The use of anonymity technology by
criminal groups
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.03.1407241059380.7047@nffheflf.pb.hx>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Bob Ham wrote:
> I'll bring your attention to the Freenet FAQ:
[snip[
> Q. I don't want my node to be used to harbor child porn, offensive
> content or terrorism. What can I do?
> A. The true test of someone who claims to believe in Freedom of Speech
> is whether they tolerate speech which they disagree with, or even find
> disgusting. If this is not acceptable to you, you should not run a
> Freenet node."
>
> https://freenetproject.org/faq.html#childporn
And this is why I don't run a Freenet node.
I firmly support Freedom of Speech, but I equally firmly believe that images
of child abuse are not speech that warrants protection (in the same way that
shouting 'Fire' in a crowded theatre doesn't either).
"Terrorism" is rather more vague; radical, even violent, views would fall
within my conception of speech that warrants protection, but terror
/operation planning/ would not.
So whilst I have both a philosophical and legal risk objection to running a
Freenet node that ends up hosting images of child abuse, I don't necessarily
have a similar philosophical objection to running a Freenet node that ends
up hosting radical/violent literature. In practice, the issue is moot as UK
law is sufficient (i.e. mere possession being an offence) to dissuade me
from risking my own liberty to run a node.
Best Regards,
Alex
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:08:08 +0100
From: Amias Channer <me@amias.net>
To: Bristol and Bath Linux User Group <bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bristol] [OT] The use of anonymity technology by
criminal groups
Message-ID:
<CAMgU7XVHYuWJd7sWbHvDNC8vAn4PWSzw1R1d7nekHw46=B9ygQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hello BBlug,
These are social problems , technology cannot and should not attempt to fix
them.
We need to build a society where people care about each other and don't let
abused people continue to abuse others , that is the solution.
i worked for a tech company where one of the sysadmins (who was
frighteningly clever) got done for child porn , nobody could have stopped
him technically.
Censorship of any kind buries the problem and so is only to be applied by
the individual apon themselves.
Cheers
Amias
On 24 July 2014 11:07, Alex Butcher <lug@assursys.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Bob Ham wrote:
>
> I'll bring your attention to the Freenet FAQ:
>>
>
> [snip[
>
>
> Q. I don't want my node to be used to harbor child porn, offensive
>> content or terrorism. What can I do?
>> A. The true test of someone who claims to believe in Freedom of Speech
>> is whether they tolerate speech which they disagree with, or even find
>> disgusting. If this is not acceptable to you, you should not run a
>> Freenet node."
>>
>> https://freenetproject.org/faq.html#childporn
>>
>
> And this is why I don't run a Freenet node.
>
> I firmly support Freedom of Speech, but I equally firmly believe that
> images
> of child abuse are not speech that warrants protection (in the same way
> that
> shouting 'Fire' in a crowded theatre doesn't either).
>
> "Terrorism" is rather more vague; radical, even violent, views would fall
> within my conception of speech that warrants protection, but terror
> /operation planning/ would not.
>
> So whilst I have both a philosophical and legal risk objection to running a
> Freenet node that ends up hosting images of child abuse, I don't
> necessarily
> have a similar philosophical objection to running a Freenet node that ends
> up hosting radical/violent literature. In practice, the issue is moot as
> UK
> law is sufficient (i.e. mere possession being an offence) to dissuade me
> from risking my own liberty to run a node.
>
> Best Regards,
> Alex
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bristol mailing list
> Bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/private/bristol/attachments/20140724/e9619bd4/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bristol mailing list
Bristol@mailman.lug.org.uk
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bristol
End of Bristol Digest, Vol 560, Issue 3
***************************************
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar