Word Search

Got an announcement you want the UFie community at large to know about? Shoot me an email and let me know! We're making a section on the Community page for all these announcements, so start spreading the news!

When I attempted to opt-out of DoubleClick's track-the-user system using the link on the User Friendly site today, my Opera browser said it doesn't support some required protocol yet. So I switched to MSIE 5.01, which I figured would support it if any browser does. When I clicked on the DoubleClick "opt out" button I got an "unauthorized access" error (appended). The weird thing is that DoubleClick told me my cookie ID and it was different for each browser - not unexpected, but if it could look that far into my system, I have a quibble about who's doing the unauthorized access.

For those who would like to nip this idiocy in the bud, I suppose you could modify the cookie manually. Search for the ID string reported by the DoubleClick site and - if they're honest, ho ho - change it from "id=[unique UserID string]" to "id=OPT_OUT" in order keep the tracking database at bay. Visit http://www.doubleclick.net/optout/default.asp to find out what label they've pasted on you and repeat the replacement separately for each browser you use.

Since their own opt-out link is rejected by both Opera and MSIE 5, you may want to recheck your ID string from time to time just in case they, er, accidentally plant another one on you, in order, as they claim, to improve your Internet experience by limiting your repeated exposure to particular ads. I certainly believe that's their motive and I plan to buy a bridge from them soon, if they will sell me one.

If the op-out link actually works for anyone, maybe they can tell me why the procedure might have rejected my own machine.

[I'm being as patient as I can with Doubleclick and giving them every chance to fix this gracefully. My margin of tolerance, however, is starting to wear very, very thin. I'll keep everyone posted with regards to what happens. - Illiad]

I think Rainsford's response to your posts on Freedom are a good thing in that they open discussion.

However, he makes a couple of fundamental mistakes:

- the data sent via the proxy does not always go through machines owned by Freedom or Zero Knowledge. In fact, if you look deeper at the website, you'll find that anyone with decent, stable bandwidth can join the network. This is encouraged -- you can even make some money on the deal by running the server. The more servers run by different legal entities in more jurisdictions (states, provinces, countries), the better.

- Since your communications to Freedom are encrypted (possibly multiple times) from the time it leaves the client (your machine) until it reaches the last machine in the Freedom network, intercepted communications (a) don't provide any information on where the packets are going or (b) the contents (at least not without being able to break the encryption -- a question that plagues cyberspace). Likewise for response packets (they are also encrypted).

- Freedom does NOT provide one-stop shopping for Echelon, unless they're providing a massive trojan (their client) that's conning the users from the start (I don't THINK so). This is a good argument for Open Sourcing them, but I'm not going to push hard on that right now.

- Pseudonymity is preserved by adding multiple levels of indirection. What you buy is a serial number. You exchange the serial number for tokens. You exchange the tokens for nyms. The nyms authenticate you on the network. Freedom retains no link between the serial number and the tokens, nor between the tokens and the nyms, so you cannot reconstruct based on, say, credit card numbers, a person's traffic.

While the mini-tirade against Echelon is worthy, it's mis-directed against Freedom.

Please read the white papers. They're up on the Freedom site. Thought-provoking reading.

[I recommend the white papers as well. Neat stuff. And for the record, Athos does not work for Freedom. - Illiad]

(from Rainsford's friend)

"Freedom's goal is certainly an admirable one, but the methods used have some serious flaws in my opinion.

The last time I checked, Freedom requires that you send all information through a single party (their computers) to be encrypted/obfuscated. This may make invasions of privacy by anonymous third parties harder. However, it also creates a single, very lucrative source for someone interested in tracking your online behavior. Some possible weaknesses include... a third party who might be able to intercept your communications *before* it gets to the Freedom network from your ISP... Freedom networks takeover/ buy-out by a larger, media-oriented conglomerate changing their policies without a public furor and ultimately creating a single large database of your information falling into the hands of marketing gurus... or worst of all, a single clearing house is created where a government intelligence organization can easily gain access to your information through legal or extra-legal means.

It might also be pointed out that the Freedom Network is run by a Canadian corporation. Canada does *not* have the U.S. tradition of strict laws prohibiting the intrusion of government into personal lives. Canadian intelligence organizations are notorious with regards to their abilities to invade Canadian citizens' privacy "for the good of the country."

Also, the U.S. NSA has been accused many times over the past two years of *using* the Canadian intelligence network to make an "end run" around U.S. privacy laws, by asking a cooperative foreign intelligence organization to spy on U.S. citizens for it.

The following is excerpted from EPIC Alert 6.20, released on Dec. 6th 1999...

======================================================================= [1] EPIC Files Suit for NSA Memos on Surveillance Authority =======================================================================

The Electronic Privacy Information Center asked a federal court on December 3 to order the release of controversial documents concerning potential government surveillance of American citizens. EPIC's lawsuit seeks the public disclosure of internal National Security Agency (NSA) documents discussing the legality of the agency's intelligence activities.

NSA refused to provide the documents to the House Intelligence Committee earlier this year, resulting in an unusual public reprimand of the secretive spy agency. Rep. Porter J. Goss, chairman of the oversight panel, wrote in a committee report in May that NSA's rationale for withholding the legal memoranda was "unpersuasive and dubious." He noted that if NSA lawyers "construed the Agency's authorities too permissively, then the privacy interests of the citizens of the United States could be at risk." Soon after the release of the Intelligence Committee report, EPIC submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to NSA for the documents. Despite the FOIA's time limit of 20 working days, the agency has not responded to EPIC's request.

The surveillance activities of the NSA have recently come under increased scrutiny, with published reports indicating that the agency is coordinating a massive global interception initiative known as ECHELON. The current issue of the New Yorker magazine reports that it took NSA only 11 months to fill three years' worth of planned storage capacity for intercepted Internet traffic.

The legal basis for NSA's interception activities is a critical issue that EPIC plans to evaluate in a comprehensive study to be released early next year. That study will be conducted by Duncan Campbell, a Scottish investigative journalist and TV producer. Earlier this year, Campbell was appointed a consultant to the European Parliament and prepared a technology assessment report on ECHELON and communications intelligence which contained the first public documentary evidence of the global surveillance system. Campbell will be working with EPIC as a Senior Research Fellow for several months to produce a report for presentation at anticipated congressional hearings on the topic of signals intelligence agencies, the Fourth Amendment and human rights.

More information on ECHELON is available at the EchelonWatch website, which is administered by the American Civil Liberties Union:

http://www.echelonwatch.org

Duncan Campbell's report for the European Parliament is available at:

http://www.gn.apc.org/duncan/stoa.htm

Photo [1], Photo [2], Photo [3]

Here is a petition against the treatment of Jon Johanson (DeCSS author): http://linuxguiden.linpro.no/protesteng.php

More details can be found at the above site. Thanks Mark!

I'm categorically unimpressed by Doubleclick's choice to use negative-option marketing, but at least it's a way out.

For more info, contact our local UFie Sun Run organizer mapleleaf and advise her of your intentions. Thanks!

Taken from http://www.vg.no (Norwegian newspaper):

After the indictment from the american movie companies, the National Authority for Investigation and Prosecution of Economic and Environmental Crime in Norway moved in on the computer celeb Jon Johansen (16) from Steinsholt in Vestfold.

Johansen is one of the main people behind DeCSS. He and his father were brought in for questioning concerning the indictment. The questioning lasted somewhere between 6 to 8 hours and Johansen got home at about 2 am this morning (CET). His computers and his cellphone have all been seized. Naturally, he's fairly pissed off about the whole thing. He posted a message on Slashdot this morning.

The lawyer firm behing the whole indictment, Simonsen Musæus, claimed "it is illegal to break into these systems and films". Although not a legal expert (Norwegian law isn't simple when it comes to these kind of cases), I'm pretty sure that's a load of crap.

[I can't believe a government like Norway's would take part in this. Admittedly I don't have all of the facts at the moment, but what I'm seeing is chilling my blood. - Illiad]

I've stumbled across a pretty cool tool for anyone concerned with anonymity on the net. It's by Zero Knowledge Systems, the folks who came up with the PIII serial # hack. A Canadian Company by the way based in Montreal. The tool is called Freedom and it allows you create pseudonyms they call nyms. A nym is essentially an imaginary identity that allows you to do things on the net(surf,chat,email) without it being tied to your real identity.

The system is designed as a double blind so that not even Zero Knowledge Systems can connect your nym with your real identity.(very cool)

This means not even your ISP knows where you're surfing.(all Australians take note) All your ISP knows is that you're connecting to a Freedom Server. Unfortunately such a tool has it's evil uses as well so to control spammers Freedom limits the number of people to whom an email can be sent and a maximum of 250 emails per day. [Sounds almost too generous to me - Illiad]

Zero Knowledge knows that their tool isn't perfect, but they're working on improving it and right now it's hard to beat. The trial version gives you 3 nyms good for 30 days. For $49.95(US) you get the ability to create 5 nyms good for a year each. I think I'll be checking this out!

Cool Note: Freedom Servers currently only run on RedHat 5.2 and are FREE
UnCool Note: The client is currently only available in a Windows 95 & 98 version.