From alec.muffett at gmail.com Wed Mar 7 08:34:20 2012 From: alec.muffett at gmail.com (Alec Muffett) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 08:34:20 +0000 Subject: Break-Open One-Shot Password Stores In-Reply-To: References: <62E4045D-9F52-4D90-8F83-7EC6DD9DDCB1@batten.eu.org> Message-ID: On 29 Feb 2012, at 10:59, Michael Simpson wrote: > If you don't need to seal too many items and it is for your personal use then how about using Victorian sealing wax. You could design your own seal and there are mailable waxes now. You can also use methods to adhere the seal to plastic or metal for more tamper proof envelopes. It comes down to the envelope, then. I used to read my school report cards sealed in their envelopes by dosing the envelope with butane from my fathers lighter-refill; would render the envelope paper transparent for about 10 seconds, and vanish completely without warping the paper. -a From bdm at fenrir.org.uk Fri Mar 16 17:31:28 2012 From: bdm at fenrir.org.uk (Brian Morrison) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:31:28 +0000 Subject: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities Message-ID: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> Have a look here: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1 I wonder if the claims made about it's capabilities are accurate? -- Brian Morrison From brian at thejohnsons.co.uk Thu Mar 22 17:24:09 2012 From: brian at thejohnsons.co.uk (Brian L Johnson) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:24:09 -0000 Subject: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities In-Reply-To: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> References: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> Message-ID: Brian Morrison ,: > Have a look here: > > http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1 > > I wonder if the claims made about it's capabilities are accurate? Oh, they're completely inaccurate. Totally false. The NSA says so. See? http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/nsa-denies-wired/ -- brianlj From tony.naggs at googlemail.com Fri Mar 23 00:14:38 2012 From: tony.naggs at googlemail.com (Tony Naggs) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:14:38 +0000 Subject: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities In-Reply-To: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> References: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> Message-ID: On 16 March 2012 17:31, Brian Morrison wrote: > Have a look here: > > http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1 > > I wonder if the claims made about it's capabilities are accurate? > I think there is only one writer with the contacts and reputation for reporting reasonably accurately on the NSA, its capabilities & intentions: http://www.amazon.com/James-Bamford/e/B000APPIUM/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1 And according to the NY Times: U.S. Moves to Ease Limits on Data Use in Terror Analysis http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/politics/us-moves-to-relax-some-restrictions-for-counterterrorism-analysis.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all?src=tp Which seems to support Bamford's hypothesis ... or perhaps it is all a great disinformation campaign? tttfn, Tony -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chl at clerew.man.ac.uk Mon Mar 26 17:42:45 2012 From: chl at clerew.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:42:45 +0100 Subject: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities In-Reply-To: References: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:24:09 -0000, Brian L Johnson wrote: > Brian Morrison ,: > >> Have a look here: >> >> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1 >> >> I wonder if the claims made about it's capabilities are accurate? > > Oh, they're completely inaccurate. Totally false. The NSA says so. > > See? http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/nsa-denies-wired/ Well today's ACM Technews quotes that artilce as if they believed it. -- Charles?H.?Lindsey?---------At?Home,?doing?my?own?thing------------------------ Tel:?+44?161?436?6131? ???Web:?http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email:?chl at clerew.man.ac.uk??????Snail:?5?Clerewood?Ave,?CHEADLE,?SK8?3JU,?U.K. PGP:?2C15F1A9??????Fingerprint:?73?6D?C2?51?93?A0?01?E7?65?E8?64?7E?14?A4?AB?A5 From zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk Tue Mar 27 00:46:15 2012 From: zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk (Peter Fairbrother) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:46:15 +0100 Subject: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities In-Reply-To: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> References: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> Message-ID: <4F70FFC7.8060403@zen.co.uk> Brian Morrison wrote: > Have a look here: > > http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1 > > I wonder if the claims made about it's capabilities are accurate? > "According to another top official also involved with the program, the NSA made an enormous breakthrough several years ago in its ability to cryptanalyze, or break, unfathomably complex encryption systems employed by not only governments around the world but also many average computer users " Hmmm - a breakthrough in factorisation? quantum computing? something new? disinformation? -- Peter Fairbrother From zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk Tue Mar 27 00:47:23 2012 From: zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk (Peter Fairbrother) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:47:23 +0100 Subject: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities In-Reply-To: References: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> Message-ID: <4F71000B.6080305@zen.co.uk> Brian L Johnson wrote: > Brian Morrison ,: > >> Have a look here: >> >> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1 >> >> I wonder if the claims made about it's capabilities are accurate? > > Oh, they're completely inaccurate. Totally false. The NSA says so. > > See? http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/nsa-denies-wired/ > Should have asked Larry Page or the head of a backbone internet company instead, if they wanted a true answer. -- Peter Fairbrother From bdm at fenrir.org.uk Tue Mar 27 10:36:30 2012 From: bdm at fenrir.org.uk (Brian Morrison) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:36:30 +0100 Subject: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities In-Reply-To: <4F70FFC7.8060403@zen.co.uk> References: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> <4F70FFC7.8060403@zen.co.uk> Message-ID: <20120327103630.00004833@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:46:15 +0100 Peter Fairbrother wrote: > Brian Morrison wrote: > > Have a look here: > > > > http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1 > > > > I wonder if the claims made about it's capabilities are accurate? > > > > "According to another top official also involved with the program, > the NSA made an enormous breakthrough several years ago in its > ability to cryptanalyze, or break, unfathomably complex encryption > systems employed by not only governments around the world but also > many average computer users " Well they're not going to shout it from the rooftops if this is true. > > Hmmm - a breakthrough in factorisation? quantum computing? something > new? disinformation? I wondered if this might be an attempt to discourage the use of encryption for email in particular, after all they're not going to be able to discourage it for online commerce. -- Brian Morrison From lists at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Mar 27 11:16:49 2012 From: lists at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:16:49 +0100 Subject: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities In-Reply-To: <20120327103630.00004833@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> References: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> <4F70FFC7.8060403@zen.co.uk> <20120327103630.00004833@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> Message-ID: In article <20120327103630.00004833 at surtees.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian Morrison writes >I wondered if this might be an attempt to discourage the use of >encryption for email in particular, after all they're not going to be >able to discourage it for online commerce. Does anyone encrypt email, SMTP email that is, rather than picking up from https://mail.google.com I'm very much in the "it shows you have something to hide" camp on that. -- Roland Perry From igb at batten.eu.org Tue Mar 27 11:21:08 2012 From: igb at batten.eu.org (Ian Batten) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:21:08 +0100 Subject: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities In-Reply-To: <20120327103630.00004833@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> References: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> <4F70FFC7.8060403@zen.co.uk> <20120327103630.00004833@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> Message-ID: On 27 Mar 2012, at 10:36, Brian Morrison wrote: > > I wondered if this might be an attempt to discourage the use of > encryption for email in particular, after all they're not going to be > able to discourage it for online commerce. Given http://goo.gl/Yeuvx it seems that encouraging people to believe AES is broken might have some benefits. My own view is that you can trust AES for as long as it's accredited for IL5 and above information. So long AES is in NSA Suite B, and NSA Suite B is accredited for TOP SECRET, it would be extraordinary were it to turn out that the NSA had an effective attack on AES. That would imply the deliberate use of known-broken algorithms in the hope that the opponents don't know those weaknesses and won't find them until the data ciphered with that broken algorithm is no longer sensitive. The life-span of TS could be decades, and a gamble on "the state of Chinese/Russian/etc cryptanalysis between now and 2060" seems one few bookmakers would quote odds on. The public policy benefit (you might be able to decrypt some data from bad guys without "practical" side-channel attacks, which almost certainly exist unless the bad guys have a sophisticated IA capability) seems pretty weak compared to the public policy disbenefit (the bad guys might be able to decrypt all TS traffic, with no way for you to know it's happening). ian From bdm at fenrir.org.uk Tue Mar 27 12:05:46 2012 From: bdm at fenrir.org.uk (Brian Morrison) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:05:46 +0100 Subject: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities In-Reply-To: References: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> <4F70FFC7.8060403@zen.co.uk> <20120327103630.00004833@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> Message-ID: <20120327120546.000022b2@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:16:49 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: > In article <20120327103630.00004833 at surtees.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian > Morrison writes > >I wondered if this might be an attempt to discourage the use of > >encryption for email in particular, after all they're not going to be > >able to discourage it for online commerce. > > Does anyone encrypt email, SMTP email that is, rather than picking up > from https://mail.google.com Some of us don't use gmail for anything important. I'd be very happy to use encryption as a matter of course if I could get my correspondents to do the same, but it's not easy to arrange that. > > I'm very much in the "it shows you have something to hide" camp on > that. All my SMTP mail is encrypted in transit (as is a fair proportion of email travelling between MTAs), that doesn't seem to indicate anything other than good sense. -- Brian Morrison From bdm at fenrir.org.uk Tue Mar 27 12:07:12 2012 From: bdm at fenrir.org.uk (Brian Morrison) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:07:12 +0100 Subject: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities In-Reply-To: References: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> <4F70FFC7.8060403@zen.co.uk> <20120327103630.00004833@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> Message-ID: <20120327120712.00007a01@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:21:08 +0100 Ian Batten wrote: > My own view is that you can trust AES for as long as it's accredited > for IL5 and above information... A good point, I had not had time to think through the consequences of a possible break into AES but your argument makes sense to me. -- Brian Morrison From david at jellybaby.net Tue Mar 27 11:30:31 2012 From: david at jellybaby.net (David Walters) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:30:31 +0100 Subject: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities In-Reply-To: References: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> <4F70FFC7.8060403@zen.co.uk> <20120327103630.00004833@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > Does anyone encrypt email, SMTP email that is, rather than picking up from > https://mail.google.com Yes. As an example the email you sent was encrypted between chiark.greenend.org.uk and mx.google.com with TLS. Unless you mean something like PGP encryption of the payload? From zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk Tue Mar 27 13:22:46 2012 From: zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk (Peter Fairbrother) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:22:46 +0100 Subject: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities In-Reply-To: References: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> <4F70FFC7.8060403@zen.co.uk> <20120327103630.00004833@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> Message-ID: <4F71B116.2010803@zen.co.uk> Ian Batten wrote: > On 27 Mar 2012, at 10:36, Brian Morrison wrote: > >> I wondered if this might be an attempt to discourage the use of >> encryption for email in particular, after all they're not going to >> be able to discourage it for online commerce. > > Given http://goo.gl/Yeuvx it seems that encouraging people to believe > AES is broken might have some benefits. > > My own view is that you can trust AES for as long as it's accredited > for IL5 and above information. So long AES is in NSA Suite B, and > NSA Suite B is accredited for TOP SECRET, it would be extraordinary > were it to turn out that the NSA had an effective attack on AES. I kinda agree it's likely, though I don't think it's by any means a stone certainty that NSA wouldn't do that. For example: If only CGHQ and the russians/chinese could break it on equipment cost grounds, and with a history of "never say anything", then NSA might well be able to get away with it, or think they could. Or, if they fed TS+ disinformation to the russians/chinese in AES, authorised at a very high level, then the game might be worth the candle. Or they might think it was. There is Suite A, after all, for the really sensitive stuff ... why have that, if AES is unbreakable? However AES is very seldom used by itself. In non-TS circles key exchange is most often done with RSA (which isn't in suite B), and if they have eg a factorisation breakthrough or quantum computing then they don't have to break AES, they just break the key exchange and out pops the AES key. -- Peter Fairbrother > That would imply the deliberate use of known-broken algorithms in the > hope that the opponents don't know those weaknesses and won't find > them until the data ciphered with that broken algorithm is no longer > sensitive. The life-span of TS could be decades, and a gamble on > "the state of Chinese/Russian/etc cryptanalysis between now and 2060" > seems one few bookmakers would quote odds on. > > The public policy benefit (you might be able to decrypt some data > from bad guys without "practical" side-channel attacks, which almost > certainly exist unless the bad guys have a sophisticated IA > capability) seems pretty weak compared to the public policy > disbenefit (the bad guys might be able to decrypt all TS traffic, > with no way for you to know it's happening). > > ian > > > From lists at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Mar 27 14:04:08 2012 From: lists at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:04:08 +0100 Subject: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities In-Reply-To: References: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> <4F70FFC7.8060403@zen.co.uk> <20120327103630.00004833@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>

Message-ID: In article , David Walters writes >> Does anyone encrypt email, SMTP email that is, rather than picking up from >> https://mail.google.com > >Yes. As an example the email you sent was encrypted between >chiark.greenend.org.uk and mx.google.com with TLS. That would be another mode, which I overlooked. >Unless you mean something like PGP encryption of the payload? That was the main target of my comments. Of course, some people *do* have things to hide, legitimately, like sending items protectively marked or containing personal data which they are supposed to keep secure. However, it shouldn't be too difficult to filter those out. The remainder are a bit like people driving round in cars with heavily tinted windows - makes you wonder what they are trying to hide. -- Roland Perry From bdm at fenrir.org.uk Tue Mar 27 14:36:53 2012 From: bdm at fenrir.org.uk (Brian Morrison) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:36:53 +0100 Subject: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities In-Reply-To: References: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> <4F70FFC7.8060403@zen.co.uk> <20120327103630.00004833@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>

Message-ID: <20120327143653.00000c18@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:04:08 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: > The remainder are a bit like people driving round in > cars with heavily tinted windows - makes you wonder what they are > trying to hide. I now have a car fitted with these as standard by the manufacturer, one reason for their increasing popularity is that they reduce the heat load into the car in bright sunshine and make the rear set passengers a lot more comfortable. It's rarely anything to do with hiding anything, except for hiding goods in the back of an estate car from prying eyes. -- Brian Morrison From tony.naggs at googlemail.com Tue Mar 27 14:54:07 2012 From: tony.naggs at googlemail.com (Tony Naggs) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:54:07 +0100 Subject: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities In-Reply-To: References: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> <4F70FFC7.8060403@zen.co.uk> <20120327103630.00004833@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> Message-ID: On 27 March 2012 11:16, Roland Perry wrote: > In article <20120327103630.00004833@**surtees.fenrir.org.uk<20120327103630.00004833 at surtees.fenrir.org.uk>>, > Brian Morrison writes > > I wondered if this might be an attempt to discourage the use of >> encryption for email in particular, after all they're not going to be >> able to discourage it for online commerce. >> > > Does anyone encrypt email, SMTP email that is, rather than picking up from > https://mail.google.com > > I'm very much in the "it shows you have something to hide" camp on that. > I've worked for several companies that have encrypted email links (VPNs I presume) to their major partners, with instructions to use PGP for all confidential correspondence if/when the encrypted link fails. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lists at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Mar 27 15:13:58 2012 From: lists at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:13:58 +0100 Subject: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities In-Reply-To: <20120327143653.00000c18@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> References: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> <4F70FFC7.8060403@zen.co.uk> <20120327103630.00004833@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>

<20120327143653.00000c18@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> Message-ID: In article <20120327143653.00000c18 at surtees.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian Morrison writes >> The remainder are a bit like people driving round in >> cars with heavily tinted windows - makes you wonder what they are >> trying to hide. > >I now have a car fitted with these as standard by the manufacturer, one >reason for their increasing popularity is that they reduce the heat >load into the car in bright sunshine and make the rear set passengers a >lot more comfortable. It's rarely anything to do with hiding anything, >except for hiding goods in the back of an estate car from prying eyes. I hide the things in the back of my estate car with a tonneau cover. The suspicion (which would need to be confirmed by investigation) is that the invisible driver of a car with heavily tinted windows is doing things like illegally using their mobile phone. And in the rare circumstances you were looking for a particular perpetrator, you'd need to get them to stop; whereas lone grannies with clear windows would obviously not be the car full of teenage thieves you were looking for. -- Roland Perry From paul at blacksun.org.uk Tue Mar 27 12:01:15 2012 From: paul at blacksun.org.uk (Paul Walker) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:01:15 +0100 Subject: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities In-Reply-To: References: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> <4F70FFC7.8060403@zen.co.uk> <20120327103630.00004833@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> Message-ID: <20120327110115.GA26558@blacksun.vm.bytemark.co.uk> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:16:49AM +0100, Roland Perry wrote: > Does anyone encrypt email, SMTP email that is, rather than picking up from > https://mail.google.com >From rummaging through Exim logs, most of my TLS sessions are with Google servers or the SMTP servers of the company I work for. However, Google seem to be providing SMTP service for quite a lot of other companies now, so even then it's still cover. (I have Exim set to encrypt where possible - if nothing else increasing the amount of encrypted traffic can't be a bad thing.) -- Paul Tradition is a guide and not a jailer. -- W. Somerset Maugham From bdm at fenrir.org.uk Tue Mar 27 15:36:43 2012 From: bdm at fenrir.org.uk (Brian Morrison) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:36:43 +0100 Subject: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities In-Reply-To: References: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> <4F70FFC7.8060403@zen.co.uk> <20120327103630.00004833@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>

<20120327143653.00000c18@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> Message-ID: <20120327153643.00007734@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:13:58 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: > In article <20120327143653.00000c18 at surtees.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian > Morrison writes > >> The remainder are a bit like people driving round in > >> cars with heavily tinted windows - makes you wonder what they are > >> trying to hide. > > > >I now have a car fitted with these as standard by the manufacturer, > >one reason for their increasing popularity is that they reduce the > >heat load into the car in bright sunshine and make the rear set > >passengers a lot more comfortable. It's rarely anything to do with > >hiding anything, except for hiding goods in the back of an estate > >car from prying eyes. > > I hide the things in the back of my estate car with a tonneau cover. I have one of those too, but it only covers things that are quite small, to make use of the full capacity of the car it needs to be removed. > > The suspicion (which would need to be confirmed by investigation) is > that the invisible driver of a car with heavily tinted windows is > doing things like illegally using their mobile phone. In which case they can be prosecuted for having glass in the windscreen and driver/passenger windows that stops more than 30% of the light passing through. I've seen this being checked at the roadside on a couple of occasions recently. > > And in the rare circumstances you were looking for a particular > perpetrator, you'd need to get them to stop; whereas lone grannies > with clear windows would obviously not be the car full of teenage > thieves you were looking for. Perhaps they're being driven about by someone who looks entirely respectable and would not attract attention. My rear seat teenage passengers are now effectively invisible from more than a few feet away from the car, but I'm a respectable looking middle-aged bloke who isn't likely to be stopped. -- Brian Morrison From lists at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Mar 27 16:09:35 2012 From: lists at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:09:35 +0100 Subject: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities In-Reply-To: <20120327153643.00007734@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> References: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> <4F70FFC7.8060403@zen.co.uk> <20120327103630.00004833@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>

<20120327143653.00000c18@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> <20120327153643.00007734@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> Message-ID: In article <20120327153643.00007734 at surtees.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian Morrison writes >Perhaps they're being driven about by someone who looks entirely >respectable and would not attract attention. And the <30% attenuation? That doesn't sound very tinted to me. -- Roland Perry From bdm at fenrir.org.uk Tue Mar 27 16:40:05 2012 From: bdm at fenrir.org.uk (Brian Morrison) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:40:05 +0100 Subject: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities In-Reply-To: References: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> <4F70FFC7.8060403@zen.co.uk> <20120327103630.00004833@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>

<20120327143653.00000c18@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> <20120327153643.00007734@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> Message-ID: <20120327164005.00006b21@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:09:35 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: > In article <20120327153643.00007734 at surtees.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian > Morrison writes > >Perhaps they're being driven about by someone who looks entirely > >respectable and would not attract attention. > > And the <30% attenuation? That doesn't sound very tinted to me. That only applies to the front windows and windscreen for visibility reasons, the rear windows can be much more tinted. In the case of my car it is possible to see out much better than it is possible to see in. -- Brian Morrison From lists at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Mar 27 16:56:33 2012 From: lists at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:56:33 +0100 Subject: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities In-Reply-To: <20120327164005.00006b21@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> References: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> <4F70FFC7.8060403@zen.co.uk> <20120327103630.00004833@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>

<20120327143653.00000c18@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> <20120327153643.00007734@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> <20120327164005.00006b21@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> Message-ID: In article <20120327164005.00006b21 at surtees.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian Morrison writes >In the case of my >car it is possible to see out much better than it is possible to see in. Is one-way glass allowed (<30% attenuation one way, 100% the other)? -- Roland Perry From bdm at fenrir.org.uk Tue Mar 27 17:27:36 2012 From: bdm at fenrir.org.uk (Brian Morrison) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:27:36 +0100 Subject: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities In-Reply-To: References: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> <4F70FFC7.8060403@zen.co.uk> <20120327103630.00004833@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>

<20120327143653.00000c18@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> <20120327153643.00007734@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> <20120327164005.00006b21@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> Message-ID: <20120327172736.000066c6@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:56:33 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: > In article <20120327164005.00006b21 at surtees.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian > Morrison writes > >In the case of my > >car it is possible to see out much better than it is possible to see > >in. > > Is one-way glass allowed (<30% attenuation one way, 100% the other)? I can't see why not, but I suspect there is some prohibition on using it. Construction and Use regulations probably... -- Brian Morrison From ben at liddicott.com Tue Mar 27 21:10:38 2012 From: ben at liddicott.com (Ben Liddicott) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:10:38 +0100 Subject: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities In-Reply-To: References: <20120316173128.000054ef@surtees.fenrir.org.uk><4F70FFC7.8060403@zen.co.uk><20120327103630.00004833@surtees.fenrir.org.uk>

<20120327143653.00000c18@surtees.fenrir.org.uk><20120327153643.00007734@surtees.fenrir.org.uk><20120327164005.00006b21@surtees.fenrir.org.uk> Message-ID: <13EDE2AA1C5A464B997F348A8F75E31F@ROCKET> Sadly that is yet to be invented. One-way mirrors work because the "observed" mirror side is light and the "observer" side is dark, so the reflected light is much greater than the transmitted light in both directions - but both sides can only see the "observed" side as it is much greater in magnitude. (Only one side has to be reflective - light can be absorbed in one direction and reflected in the other, but the transmission will be pretty much the same in both directions, modulo a small amount of cleverness with internal reflection.) Actually, having written that, I suppose a good question would be is a partially mirrored glass permitted if the transmissivity is 70% or greater? Certainly it will be much darker in the car than outside so it would still work. Just had a look at the construction and use regulations and this is not mentioned, only the transmission of light. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/part/II/chapter/E/made So , yes. Cheers, Ben -----Original Message----- From: Roland Perry Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 4:56 PM Is one-way glass allowed (<30% attenuation one way, 100% the other)? From brian at thejohnsons.co.uk Wed Mar 28 12:06:53 2012 From: brian at thejohnsons.co.uk (Brian L Johnson) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:06:53 +0100 Subject: help Message-ID: Hi, My posts to UKCrypto are occasionally being bounced. The apparently offending IP address is 46.183.10.85 but that's not showing up on, for eg, http://www.mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=blacklist%3a46.183.10.85 so I guess it's on a personal blocklist? The exact message I'm getting back is: > *----------8<-----cut here-----8<-----------* > This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. >A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its > recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: > ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk > SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT > TO:: > host mx-relay.chiark.greenend.org.uk [212.13.197.229]: > 550 Blacklisted site `[46.183.10.85]' [Irritated] >------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ >Return-path: > Received: from lvs3.34sp.com ([80.82.124.221]:38122 > helo=smtpauth1.array1.smtp.34sp.com) > by 3.array1.smtp.34sp.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) > (Exim 4.76) > (envelope-from ) > id 1SCDJz-0003cy-Co > for ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:03:07 +0100 > Received: from cpc3-cmbg8-0-0-cust532.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com > ([82.6.102.21]:23792 helo=thedell) > by smtpauth1.array1.smtp.34sp.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) > (envelope-from ) > id 1SCDJy-0000CQ-Di > for ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:03:06 +0100 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes > To: "UK Cryptography Policy Discussion Group" > > Subject: Re: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities > References: <20120316173128.000054ef at surtees.fenrir.org.uk> > > Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:02:56 +0100 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > From: "Brian L Johnson" > Message-ID: > In-Reply-To: > User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.00 (Win32) > X-Authenticated-As: thejohnsons.co.uk > X-OriginalSMTPIP: 82.6.102.21 > Smarthost: 80.82.124.206 > *----------8<-----cut here-----8<-----------* -- brianlj From ukcrypto at originalthinktank.org.uk Wed Mar 28 13:16:41 2012 From: ukcrypto at originalthinktank.org.uk (Chris Salter) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:16:41 +0100 Subject: help In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F730129.8060800@originalthinktank.org.uk> On 28/03/2012 12:06, Brian L Johnson wrote: > Hi, > > My posts to UKCrypto are occasionally being bounced. The apparently > offending IP address is 46.183.10.85 but that's not showing up on, for > eg, > http://www.mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=blacklist%3a46.183.10.85 > so I guess it's on a personal blocklist? Your previous successful list post (at least I received it) included the following headers: > X-SAUCE-Notice: (chiark.greenend.org.uk) Irritated 22055ms (delays likely) > with 2.array1.smtp.34sp.com [46.183.10.81] > Received: from 2.array1.smtp.34sp.com ([46.183.10.81]) > by chiark.greenend.org.uk (SAUCE v0.9.0) > with esmtp id sauce-8473-1332440-1; 22 Mar 2012 18:13:58 +0000 (GMT) > Received: from lvs3.34sp.com ([80.82.124.221]:47492 > helo=smtpauth2.smtp1.array.34sp.com) > by 2.array1.smtp.34sp.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) > (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) > id 1SAljW-0001Kh-G8 > for ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk; Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:23:30 +0000 In fact your current 'help'post includes headers of smtp servers at 34sp.com and SAUCE appears to be running on those servers. > Registrant: > 34SP.com Ltd. > Portland Tower > Portland Stree > Manchester, Greater Manchester M1 3LF > GB > > Domain name: 34SP.COM > > > Administrative Contact: > Hostmaster, 34SP.com **********@34SP.com > 37 Turner Street > Manchester, Greater Manchester M4 1DW > GB > +44.1612001855 > Technical Contact: > Hostmaster, 34SP.com **********@34SP.com > 37 Turner Street > Manchester, Greater Manchester M4 1DW > GB > +44.1612001855 SAUCE is a 'anti-spam SMTP mail filter'. http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/sauce I'm not an expert in analysing headers but my initial assumption would be that it 'belongs' to the recipients network service rather than yours i.e. Virgin. I started to research greenend.org.uk but hit Tucows so decided to call it a day! :-) Hope this helps. Regards, Chris > The exact message I'm getting back is: > >> *----------8<-----cut here-----8<-----------* >> This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. >> A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its >> recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: >> ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk >> SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT >> TO:: >> host mx-relay.chiark.greenend.org.uk [212.13.197.229]: >> 550 Blacklisted site `[46.183.10.85]' [Irritated] >> ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ >> Return-path: >> Received: from lvs3.34sp.com ([80.82.124.221]:38122 >> helo=smtpauth1.array1.smtp.34sp.com) >> by 3.array1.smtp.34sp.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) >> (Exim 4.76) >> (envelope-from ) >> id 1SCDJz-0003cy-Co >> for ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:03:07 +0100 >> Received: from cpc3-cmbg8-0-0-cust532.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com >> ([82.6.102.21]:23792 helo=thedell) >> by smtpauth1.array1.smtp.34sp.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) >> (envelope-from ) >> id 1SCDJy-0000CQ-Di >> for ukcrypto at chiark.greenend.org.uk; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:03:06 +0100 >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes >> To: "UK Cryptography Policy Discussion Group" >> >> Subject: Re: Interesting article about NSA facility and capabilities >> References: <20120316173128.000054ef at surtees.fenrir.org.uk> >> >> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:02:56 +0100 >> MIME-Version: 1.0 >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >> From: "Brian L Johnson" >> Message-ID: >> In-Reply-To: >> User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.00 (Win32) >> X-Authenticated-As: thejohnsons.co.uk >> X-OriginalSMTPIP: 82.6.102.21 >> Smarthost: 80.82.124.206 >> *----------8<-----cut here-----8<-----------* > -- Chris Salter http://www.originalthinktank.org.uk/ http://www.post-polio.org.uk/ From jon+ukcrypto at unequivocal.co.uk Wed Mar 28 14:52:08 2012 From: jon+ukcrypto at unequivocal.co.uk (Jon Ribbens) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:52:08 +0100 Subject: help In-Reply-To: <4F730129.8060800@originalthinktank.org.uk> References: <4F730129.8060800@originalthinktank.org.uk> Message-ID: <20120328135208.GA11176@snowy.squish.net> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 01:16:41PM +0100, Chris Salter wrote: > SAUCE is a 'anti-spam SMTP mail filter'. > http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/sauce > > I'm not an expert in analysing headers but my initial assumption would > be that it 'belongs' to the recipients network service rather than yours > i.e. Virgin. I started to research greenend.org.uk but hit Tucows so > decided to call it a day! :-) chiark.greenend.org.uk is the server that hosts this mailing list. SAUCE is the custom anti-spam system that is running on chiark. From ukcrypto at originalthinktank.org.uk Thu Mar 29 03:21:17 2012 From: ukcrypto at originalthinktank.org.uk (Chris Salter) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:21:17 +0100 Subject: help In-Reply-To: <4F739622.1020809@originalthinktank.org.uk> References: <4F739622.1020809@originalthinktank.org.uk> Message-ID: <4F73C71D.7040602@originalthinktank.org.uk> On 28/03/2012 14:52, Jon Ribbens wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 01:16:41PM +0100, Chris Salter wrote: >> SAUCE is a 'anti-spam SMTP mail filter'. >> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/sauce >> >> I'm not an expert in analysing headers but my initial assumption would >> be that it 'belongs' to the recipients network service rather than yours >> i.e. Virgin. I started to research greenend.org.uk but hit Tucows so >> decided to call it a day! :-) > > chiark.greenend.org.uk is the server that hosts this mailing list. I think that was a given! :-) > SAUCE is the custom anti-spam system that is running on chiark. Thanks for the confirmation. That was the conclusion I was moving towards. I always feel it's points for the spammers when 'anti-spam' processes bounce legitimate mail. -- Chris Salter http://www.originalthinktank.org.uk/ http://www.post-polio.org.uk/ From steve at greenend.org.uk Thu Mar 29 19:45:56 2012 From: steve at greenend.org.uk (Stephen Early) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:45:56 +0100 Subject: help In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In article you write: >My posts to UKCrypto are occasionally being bounced. The apparently >offending IP address is 46.183.10.85 but that's not showing up on, for eg, >http://www.mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=blacklist%3a46.183.10.85 so >I guess it's on a personal blocklist? That particular mail server was on chiark's blacklist because it sent mail to a bait address, most recently on 20th March. I have removed it. Stephen Early UKcrypto mailing list administrator From amidgley at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 21:22:49 2012 From: amidgley at gmail.com (Adrian Midgley) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:22:49 +0100 Subject: RIPA still not good law, perhaps? Message-ID: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/29/call-phone-tap-evidence-duggan Coroners can't be shown phone intercepts. -- Adrian Midgley?? http://www.defoam.net/ From pwt at iosis.co.uk Fri Mar 30 07:55:05 2012 From: pwt at iosis.co.uk (Peter Tomlinson) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 07:55:05 +0100 Subject: help In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F7558C9.1070707@iosis.co.uk> From Out-Law this morning an article about the flaws in using IP addresses to identify miscreants, in the legal cae reported it was about copyright infringers. http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2012/march/o2-disclosure-ruling-could-impact-on-workings-of-imminent-new-anti-piracy-code-campaigners-say/ "A High Court judge has laid out flaws in using internet protocol (IP) addresses to identify alleged copyright infringers which should have "ramifications" for how imminent new anti-piracy rules operate, a campaign group has said." Peter On 29/03/2012 19:45, Stephen Early wrote: > In article you write: >> My posts to UKCrypto are occasionally being bounced. The apparently >> offending IP address is 46.183.10.85 but that's not showing up on, for eg, >> http://www.mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=blacklist%3a46.183.10.85 so >> I guess it's on a personal blocklist? > That particular mail server was on chiark's blacklist because it sent > mail to a bait address, most recently on 20th March. I have removed > it. > > Stephen Early > UKcrypto mailing list administrator > > > From fjmd1a at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 08:45:23 2012 From: fjmd1a at gmail.com (Francis Davey) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:45:23 +0100 Subject: help In-Reply-To: <4F7558C9.1070707@iosis.co.uk> References: <4F7558C9.1070707@iosis.co.uk> Message-ID: 2012/3/30 Peter Tomlinson : > From Out-Law this morning an article about the flaws in using IP addresses > to identify miscreants, in the legal cae reported it was about copyright > infringers. > > http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2012/march/o2-disclosure-ruling-could-impact-on-workings-of-imminent-new-anti-piracy-code-campaigners-say/ > > "A High Court judge has laid out flaws in using internet protocol (IP) > addresses to identify alleged copyright infringers which should have > "ramifications" for how imminent new anti-piracy rules operate, a campaign > group has said." > Well, it was Richard Clayton who laid out the flaws :-). Does anyone know if Xtrack (the software there used) attempts to download from the IP addresses it picks up? In Media CAT v Adams and Golden Eye v Maricar, the evidence looked to me like they just took a list of peer IP addresses, so there was a possibility that no file was actually being made available at that address. Golden Eye seems not to have been interested in actually pursuing its claim in the Maricar case, very much like Media CAT (in both cases, as soon as the claimants were aware there were lawyers on the other side, they began to back away). I am of course sceptical that this will be at all different, for all their protestations. I'm just itching to get to challenge all this evidence in a proper trial. -- Francis Davey From zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk Fri Mar 30 10:01:59 2012 From: zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk (Peter Fairbrother) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:01:59 +0100 Subject: help In-Reply-To: References: <4F7558C9.1070707@iosis.co.uk> Message-ID: <4F757687.2030301@zen.co.uk> Francis Davey wrote: > 2012/3/30 Peter Tomlinson : >> From Out-Law this morning an article about the flaws in using IP addresses >> to identify miscreants, in the legal cae reported it was about copyright >> infringers. >> >> http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2012/march/o2-disclosure-ruling-could-impact-on-workings-of-imminent-new-anti-piracy-code-campaigners-say/ >> >> "A High Court judge has laid out flaws in using internet protocol (IP) >> addresses to identify alleged copyright infringers which should have >> "ramifications" for how imminent new anti-piracy rules operate, a campaign >> group has said." >> > > Well, it was Richard Clayton who laid out the flaws :-). > > Does anyone know if Xtrack (the software there used) attempts to > download from the IP addresses it picks up? In Media CAT v Adams and > Golden Eye v Maricar, the evidence looked to me like they just took a > list of peer IP addresses, so there was a possibility that no file was > actually being made available at that address. > > Golden Eye seems not to have been interested in actually pursuing its > claim in the Maricar case, very much like Media CAT (in both cases, as > soon as the claimants were aware there were lawyers on the other side, > they began to back away). I am of course sceptical that this will be > at all different, for all their protestations. > > I'm just itching to get to challenge all this evidence in a proper trial. > "In the High Court ruling, Mr Justice Arnold had determined that Golden Eye, on behalf of Ben Dover Productions, was entitled to the names and addresses held by O2 under the terms of a 'Norwich Pharmacal Order' so as to pursue claims for compensation against individuals who are alleged to have illegally downloaded copyrighted material." Isn't it the people who _upload_ copyright material who do more damage? On a slightly different point, I don't know that I have ever downloaded copyright material when I should not have done so. It is often not at all obvious to the downloader both that material which is apparently freely available on the internet is in copyright and that the copyright holder objects to it being downloaded. How am I supposed to know? And if you think I'm going to wade through the small print, think again. -- Peter Fairbrother From brian at thejohnsons.co.uk Fri Mar 30 09:56:21 2012 From: brian at thejohnsons.co.uk (Brian L Johnson) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:56:21 +0100 Subject: help In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Stephen Early ,: > In article you write: >> My posts to UKCrypto are occasionally being bounced. The apparently >> offending IP address is 46.183.10.85 but that's not showing up on, for >> eg, >> http://www.mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=blacklist%3a46.183.10.85 >> so I guess it's on a personal blocklist? > > That particular mail server was on chiark's blacklist because it sent > mail to a bait address, most recently on 20th March. I have removed > it. Thanks for removing the IP address listing. I'll now take this to email so as not to clutter the list. -- brianlj From peter at pmsommer.com Fri Mar 30 09:18:14 2012 From: peter at pmsommer.com (Peter Sommer) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:18:14 +0100 Subject: help In-Reply-To: References: <4F7558C9.1070707@iosis.co.uk> Message-ID: <4F756C46.3030708@pmsommer.com> The issue of the reliability of IP address evidence in relation to piracy cases came up in this hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/Content/documents/No.%2010619-2010%20-%20Miller%20&%20Gore%20Judgment.pdf This is the case that involved solicitors at Davenport Lyons. There were two experts, one of whom was me; in the end we produced both our own reports and a summary of agreements. Both the Solicitors Regulatory Authority and the solicitor/defendants were represented by QCs. Peter Sommer From fjmd1a at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 11:32:28 2012 From: fjmd1a at gmail.com (Francis Davey) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:32:28 +0100 Subject: help In-Reply-To: <4F757687.2030301@zen.co.uk> References: <4F7558C9.1070707@iosis.co.uk> <4F757687.2030301@zen.co.uk> Message-ID: 2012/3/30 Peter Fairbrother : > > "In the High Court ruling, Mr Justice Arnold had determined that Golden Eye, > on behalf of Ben Dover Productions, was entitled to the names and addresses > held by O2 under the terms of a 'Norwich Pharmacal Order' so as to pursue > claims for compensation against individuals who are alleged to have > illegally downloaded copyrighted material." > > > Isn't it the people who _upload_ copyright material who do more damage? > > Its just sloppy. What is meant is those offering works via the P2P network. In other words people who are making the works available to the public, rather than simply copying them - in practice if you don't configure your client you may end up doing that by default, but the law cares rather less about that. > > > On a slightly different point, I don't know that I have ever downloaded > copyright material when I should not have done so. I suspect the probability you have approaches 1 if by "should not" means "doing so would have infringed copyright". > > It is often not at all obvious to the downloader both that material which is > apparently freely available on the internet is in copyright and that the > copyright holder objects to it being downloaded. How am I supposed to know? That - as far as the law is concerned - is your problem, just as if you buy something you don't know that the seller has title (and therefore can sell). If the seller doesn't, you commit a trespass to goods and possibly a conversion on purchase. You don't commit a crime and damages would be very limited. Just so for copyright. Innocent infringement by copying is common. There is nothing you can do about it, but damages are likely to be so minimal as to make it not worth anyone's while suing you. > > And if you think I'm going to wade through the small print, think again. > I don't think any such thing. As I said: you can't possibly know can you? Eg, if you had bought a CD of Men At Work's "Down Under" you would have been buying an infringing article (because the song was later found to infringe on an earlier work). How could you know? You might have presumed they'd have cleared the licence. The music company selling it to you would have been liable to a contribution to your damages if you were sued. -- Francis Davey From otcbn at callnetuk.com Fri Mar 30 11:45:26 2012 From: otcbn at callnetuk.com (Peter Mitchell) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:45:26 +0100 Subject: help In-Reply-To: References: <4F7558C9.1070707@iosis.co.uk> <4F757687.2030301@zen.co.uk> Message-ID: <4F758EC6.7070404@callnetuk.com> Francis Davey wrote: > 2012/3/30 Peter Fairbrother : >> "In the High Court ruling, Mr Justice Arnold had determined that Golden Eye, >> on behalf of Ben Dover Productions, was entitled to the names and addresses >> held by O2 under the terms of a 'Norwich Pharmacal Order' so as to pursue >> claims for compensation against individuals who are alleged to have >> illegally downloaded copyrighted material." >> >> >> Isn't it the people who _upload_ copyright material who do more damage? >> > Its just sloppy. It is a sloppiness deliberately encouraged by the rights holders, who hope to convince the public not only that downloading is actionable but also a criminal offence. Frequently they are aided and abetted in this project by the authorities. > What is meant is those offering works via the P2P > network. In other words people who are making the works available to > the public, rather than simply copying them - in practice if you don't > configure your client you may end up doing that by default, but the > law cares rather less about that. > >> >> On a slightly different point, I don't know that I have ever downloaded >> copyright material when I should not have done so. > > I suspect the probability you have approaches 1 if by "should not" > means "doing so would have infringed copyright". > >> It is often not at all obvious to the downloader both that material which is >> apparently freely available on the internet is in copyright and that the >> copyright holder objects to it being downloaded. How am I supposed to know? > > That - as far as the law is concerned - is your problem, just as if > you buy something you don't know that the seller has title (and > therefore can sell). If the seller doesn't, you commit a trespass to > goods and possibly a conversion on purchase. You don't commit a crime > and damages would be very limited. > > Just so for copyright. Innocent infringement by copying is common. > There is nothing you can do about it, but damages are likely to be so > minimal as to make it not worth anyone's while suing you. Perhaps even less than minimal. CDA1988 s.97 (1) "Where in an action for infringement of copyright it is shown that at the time of the infringement the defendant did not know, and had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to which the action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages against him, but without prejudice to any other remedy." -- Peter Mitchell From clive at davros.org Fri Mar 30 13:33:15 2012 From: clive at davros.org (Clive D.W. Feather) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:33:15 +0100 Subject: help In-Reply-To: <4F758EC6.7070404@callnetuk.com> References: <4F7558C9.1070707@iosis.co.uk> <4F757687.2030301@zen.co.uk> <4F758EC6.7070404@callnetuk.com> Message-ID: <20120330123315.GC90939@davros.org> Peter Mitchell said: >>> It is often not at all obvious to the downloader both that material which >>> is >>> apparently freely available on the internet is in copyright and that the >>> copyright holder objects to it being downloaded. How am I supposed to >>> know? > CDA1988 s.97 (1) "Where in an action for infringement of copyright it is > shown that at the time of the infringement the defendant did not know, and > had no reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to which the > action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages against him, but > without prejudice to any other remedy." I'm not sure that's relevant. If the work was old enough that you can expect copyright to have expired, this would apply. But with nearly all downloads the question is whether you have an implicit licence to make the copy, not whether there's copyright at all - copyright is automatic in nearly all written works. -- Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler, Email: clive at davros.org | it will get its revenge. Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer Mobile: +44 7973 377646 From matthew at pemble.net Fri Mar 30 15:20:12 2012 From: matthew at pemble.net (Matthew Pemble) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:20:12 +0100 Subject: help In-Reply-To: <4F757687.2030301@zen.co.uk> References: <4F7558C9.1070707@iosis.co.uk> <4F757687.2030301@zen.co.uk> Message-ID: On 30 March 2012 10:01, Peter Fairbrother wrote: > > Isn't it the people who _upload_ copyright material who do more damage? > > Yes. Which is why that may be contravening under s20(2)b of the CD&P Act 88, which is a criminal offence under s107(1)(e) or (2A). Whereas downloading for your own personal use, without appropriate licence, may contravene s17(20 CD&P and be civilly actionable under s96. Hence the Norwich Pharmacal order rather than a police demand under DPA s29 or court order. M. -- Matthew Pemble -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fjmd1a at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 15:46:02 2012 From: fjmd1a at gmail.com (Francis Davey) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:46:02 +0100 Subject: help In-Reply-To: <20120330123315.GC90939@davros.org> References: <4F7558C9.1070707@iosis.co.uk> <4F757687.2030301@zen.co.uk> <4F758EC6.7070404@callnetuk.com> <20120330123315.GC90939@davros.org> Message-ID: 2012/3/30 Clive D.W. Feather : > > I'm not sure that's relevant. If the work was old enough that you can > expect copyright to have expired, this would apply. But with nearly all > downloads the question is whether you have an implicit licence to make the > copy, not whether there's copyright at all - copyright is automatic in > nearly all written works. Exactly so. There's no "ignorance" defence to the tort of copyright infringement *except* for this one which only applies to works you had no idea were in copyright at all. Since almost everything except really old, long-published works, is subject to copyright, it is much less useful than it appears at first sight. The internet is a big copyright infringement machine. -- Francis Davey From zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk Fri Mar 30 16:00:10 2012 From: zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk (Peter Fairbrother) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:00:10 +0100 Subject: help In-Reply-To: References: <4F7558C9.1070707@iosis.co.uk> <4F757687.2030301@zen.co.uk> Message-ID: <4F75CA7A.30600@zen.co.uk> Matthew Pemble wrote: > On 30 March 2012 10:01, Peter Fairbrother > wrote: > > > Isn't it the people who _upload_ copyright material who do more damage? > > > Yes. Which is why that may be contravening under s20(2)b of the CD&P Act > 88, which is a criminal offence under s107(1)(e) or (2A). Whereas > downloading for your own personal use, without appropriate licence, may > contravene s17(20 CD&P and be civilly actionable under s96. Hence the > Norwich Pharmacal order rather than a police demand under DPA s29 or > court order. Hmmm. Suppose I download a copy of a film. The film is available for ?10. Would I be liable for ?10? If so, why are golden showers asking ?700? -- Peter F From mozolevsky at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 17:50:43 2012 From: mozolevsky at gmail.com (Igor Mozolevsky) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:50:43 +0100 Subject: help In-Reply-To: <4F75CA7A.30600@zen.co.uk> References: <4F7558C9.1070707@iosis.co.uk> <4F757687.2030301@zen.co.uk> <4F75CA7A.30600@zen.co.uk> Message-ID: On 30 March 2012 16:00, Peter Fairbrother wrote: > If so, why are golden showers asking ?700? Because that's how much it would (generally) cost you to defend the claim if you instructed a solicitor. Obviously if you lose, you'd have to pay the damages plus court costs on top of that, and if you win, you don't get back the money you paid to the solicitor to defend the claim as the claim would most likely be allocated to the small claims track. So you end up having to gamble: pay them or take your chances in front of a judge (and pay essentially the same amount)... At least that's my speculation. Cheers, -- Igor M. :-) From matthew at pemble.net Fri Mar 30 18:11:34 2012 From: matthew at pemble.net (Matthew Pemble) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:11:34 +0100 Subject: help In-Reply-To: <4F75CA7A.30600@zen.co.uk> References: <4F7558C9.1070707@iosis.co.uk> <4F757687.2030301@zen.co.uk> <4F75CA7A.30600@zen.co.uk> Message-ID: Peter, > If so, why are golden showers asking ?700? You definitely read s97(1), because you quoted it in your defence. S97(2) is the official answer. I suspect that "because they can" is closer to "the truth" and that Igor's cynicism is right on the mark for the somewhat dubious value they put on the infringement. M --- Matthew Pemble Tel: +44 7595 652175 Chained to the desk by iPhone(TM)! From fjmd1a at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 23:25:32 2012 From: fjmd1a at gmail.com (Francis Davey) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 23:25:32 +0100 Subject: help In-Reply-To: References: <4F7558C9.1070707@iosis.co.uk> <4F757687.2030301@zen.co.uk> <4F75CA7A.30600@zen.co.uk> Message-ID: 2012/3/30 Igor Mozolevsky : > > Because that's how much it would (generally) cost you to defend the > claim if you instructed a solicitor. Obviously if you lose, you'd have > to pay the damages plus court costs on top of that, and if you win, So, the correct way to approach that is to make a Part 36 offer of (say) ?15 at the outset. When ?10 is awarded, they pay your costs etc. You should not be able to make money out of a threat of litigation if the parties know what they are doing - otherwise this would be SOP in commercial disputes and it very much is not. If they (sensibly) make a pre-action claim for ?10 you just pay it. > you don't get back the money you paid to the solicitor to defend the > claim as the claim would most likely be allocated to the small claims > track. So you end up having to gamble: pay them or take your chances > in front of a judge (and pay essentially the same amount)... As a copyright claim its very likely to be sent to the PCC (at least nowadays) and if you wish you can push it that way (see above). The PCC has no small claims track, so ... -- Francis Davey From mozolevsky at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 23:59:50 2012 From: mozolevsky at gmail.com (Igor Mozolevsky) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 23:59:50 +0100 Subject: help In-Reply-To: References: <4F7558C9.1070707@iosis.co.uk> <4F757687.2030301@zen.co.uk> <4F75CA7A.30600@zen.co.uk>

Message-ID: On 30 March 2012 23:25, Francis Davey wrote: > 2012/3/30 Igor Mozolevsky : >> >> Because that's how much it would (generally) cost you to defend the >> claim if you instructed a solicitor. Obviously if you lose, you'd have >> to pay the damages plus court costs on top of that, and if you win, > > So, the correct way to approach that is to make a Part 36 offer of > (say) ?15 at the outset. When ?10 is awarded, they pay your costs etc. > You should not be able to make money out of a threat of litigation if > the parties know what they are doing - otherwise this would be SOP in > commercial disputes and it very much is not. > > If they (sensibly) make a pre-action claim for ?10 you just pay it. You can absolutely out-strategy them, but I think the letter demanding ?700 is their letter before claim ;-) >> you don't get back the money you paid to the solicitor to defend the >> claim as the claim would most likely be allocated to the small claims >> track. So you end up having to gamble: pay them or take your chances >> in front of a judge (and pay essentially the same amount)... > > As a copyright claim its very likely to be sent to the PCC (at least > nowadays) and if you wish you can push it that way (see above). The > PCC has no small claims track, so ... I don't think that's necessarily proportionate for defendants for such a low value claim especially for those who are out-of-London, and if ?15 Pt 36 offer is on file... -- Igor M. :-) From nbohm at ernest.net Sat Mar 31 12:24:20 2012 From: nbohm at ernest.net (Nicholas Bohm) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:24:20 +0100 Subject: help In-Reply-To: References: <4F7558C9.1070707@iosis.co.uk> <4F757687.2030301@zen.co.uk> <4F75CA7A.30600@zen.co.uk> Message-ID: <4F76E964.8000701@ernest.net> On 30/03/2012 17:50, Igor Mozolevsky wrote: > On 30 March 2012 16:00, Peter Fairbrother wrote: > >> If so, why are golden showers asking ?700? > Because that's how much it would (generally) cost you to defend the > claim if you instructed a solicitor. Obviously if you lose, you'd have > to pay the damages plus court costs on top of that, and if you win, > you don't get back the money you paid to the solicitor to defend the > claim as the claim would most likely be allocated to the small claims > track. So you end up having to gamble: pay them or take your chances > in front of a judge (and pay essentially the same amount)... > > At least that's my speculation. > I don't think it was so closely calculated (partly because ?700 wouldn't be enough to pay for the defence of such a claim). In the findings of the Tribunal against Davenport Lyons partners (linked here recently) there are references to the sum being described by Davenport Lyons to its clients as equivalent to "a big parking ticket" - enough to raise a decent amount of revenue from payers, and likely to raise it because it was too small to be worth fighting. In practice they were wrong, and the scheme was uneconomic to pursue (as well as leading to the suspension from practice for three months of two partners, fines of ?20,000 each and a claim for costs of the prosecution of over ?400,000). Nicholas -- Contact and PGP key here