[Dailydave] Clarifying the record from EFF
darkpassenger at inbox.ru
Tue Aug 28 12:57:28 EDT 2012
there is very clear intend observable , even with unarmed civilian eyes , in U.S strategic policies that need real offensive approaches toward information circulation , data processing and digital content medium . one can learn a lot about these policies by reading publicly available documents in U.S federal websites under "Open Government Initiative" title . when the goal and "intentions" of decision makers of a , rather hostile , government like U.S is to eliminate real adversaries to the values or benefits of a rather small group of people ( something around 250 companies who participate in 2 or 3 U.S foreign affair think tanks who "run" the waves at D.C ) there is going to be a clear need for development of offensive technologies , which eventually , gets wider by different entities and gets more wider among community - resulting in indirect injection of finance , opportunities , relations and "motives" to get armed and go after offense by anyone who appreciate his own values or benefits more than "others" .
while i do not seek any pleasure from getting sucked into these "leaks" games but i am able to pastebin huge data from , lets say for example , Chatham House a none-U.S "element of power" based out of London showing how "the intentions" of powerful and wealthy yet "shadowy" figures plays role in building strategies for a government , a nation-state , to result hunger in offensive technologies . obviously , Cyber Space is not the only affected domain . there was a world before digital content experienced and the intention of the ones who own or pwned a resourceful situation always made the difference on how instructive or distractive is that portion of that piece of time/place .
basically , i am asserting that talking nice and being politically correct is not changing the fact that offensive intentions , result of selfishness - shortsightedness - corruptions , of the ones who have the power or chance to make the policies is "the" deterministic factor . i am not denying there are other factors obviously .
"so" ( i am posting on dd so there must be "so" in beginning or at the punch line , right? ) it might be healthier for , say , American activists to take a look at their own/pwned government's public strategy documents first and then ask the basic question . is it really possible to have bills that realistically change the fast growing offensive technologies in "information business" when there are fundamental goals , determined people and huge mostly-dark beneficiaries of offense in their society's leaders?
hats off to exploit sellers and missile engineers - anywhere
dirty shoes fly to corrupt fat blood suckers - everywhere
On سهشنبه, مرداد ۳۱, ۱۳۹۱ at ۲۰:۱۵, trevor wrote:
> Hey folks,
> Below is EFF's response to the Daily Dave thread entitled "Neal Stephenson, the EFF, and Exploit Sales."
> In March, in the midst of a heated public about cybersecurity, EFF published an article entitled "Zero-Day Exploit Sales Should be a Key Point in the Cybersecurity Debate." Unfortunately, it has been mischaracterized and distorted on this list and other public forums, so we want to take the opportunity to clarify what we said, and importantly, what we didn't say.
> The confusion seems to stem from this paragraph:
> > If the U.S. government is serious about securing the Internet, any bill, directive, or policy related to cybersecurity should work toward ensuring that vulnerabilities are fixed, and explicitly disallow any clandestine operations within the government that do not further this goal. Unfortunately, if these exploits are being bought by governments for offensive purposes, then there is pressure to selectively harden sensitive targets while keeping the attack secret from everyone else, leaving technology—and its users—vulnerable to attack.
> Based on this, we’ve been accused of calling for regulation of coders’ free speech rights. But that is not what this paragraph (or the rest of the blog post) says. This paragraph is about what the U.S. government should do, and not about coders at all.
> Indeed, EFF established that code is speech in the 1990s in a case called Bernstein v. Department of Justice, winning the right to export cryptography (https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/04/21-29). We continue to defend these rights to this day. Any legislation or other government action that would restrict coders from writing code (and offering it to the government) should be presumptively unconstitutional, and rightly so.
> The blog post was written while the House of Representatives was debating CISPA, a dangerous bill that would carve a huge hole in existing privacy law while not actually making the Internet any safer:
> The basic point we were trying to make is that Congress should look at the government's own actions and consider what it could do to improve security before passing sweeping new legislation to scale back everyone else's rights. That includes the government’s own decisions to keep information from companies and the public that could help secure networks, systems, and critical data -- as part of a hidden offensive strategy or otherwise.
> The main cybersecurity bills are no longer moving forward, but the debate about policies to address information security will doubtless continue. In these discussions, EFF will continue to fight for the users, for the researchers, for robust privacy and security technology, and against governmental restrictions on the freedom to code. While you may not agree with everything we do, we thank you for the opportunity to participate in the discussions on this forum.
> -- Trevor Timm Activist Electronic Frontier Foundation trevor at eff.org (mailto:trevor at eff.org) 415.436.9333 ext. 104 www.eff.org (http://www.eff.org) 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Defending your civil liberties in the digital world.
> Dailydave mailing list
> Dailydave at lists.immunityinc.com (mailto:Dailydave at lists.immunityinc.com)
More information about the Dailydave