Brown reveals global moral vision (BBC News, Saturday, 17 May 2008)
Way to go, Gordon! If you don't have any, then at least talk about them. Morals, I mean.
Saturday, 17 May 2008
Friday, 16 May 2008
travel advice
Taking your laptop into the US? Be sure to hide all your data first (Guardian, Thursday May 15 2008)
In fact, why only do this when travelling?
Many search warrants in the UK are granted by magistrates. As a rule, magistrates are incompetent twats, who receive an impressive six days of training before being allowed to throw people in jail and order the violation of the sanctity of someone's home. Consequently, any turd in a suit, for example a TV licence inspector, can convince a magistrate to issue a search warrant, on the basis of the fuzzy concept 'reasonable grounds'. During the search, computer equipment may be confiscated and subjected to computer forensics.
(By the way, Britain is really the odd one out in Europe. For example, no search warrant would ever be issued in Germany for the trifling matter of TV licences.)
For a minority of us, our PCs and laptops contain some data that might be incriminating in a legal sense. Very often, this data is present without us realising it. Examples are browsing histories and cached data, which may reveal we have a predilection for a certain type of images. For a minute portion of computer users, there may be an actual intent to break the law by storing certain data. For most of us however, it is simply a huge embarrassment to find our most private data, such as diaries and nude images of lovers, in the hands of a spotty lab technician, even if this data is not unlawful.
There are a few things however that computer users can do to arm themselves against this form of oppression. First, never use any Microsoft crap. Use of Vista and related inferior products will in the end make you lose your sanity. More important in this context is that they offer the user little control over what happens behind the scenes, and it is difficult to ascertain that data one thinks has been deleted is really gone irretrievably.
Secondly, one should make an inventory of log files and 'tmp' directories where data is silently being collected while one views and manipulates other files. Notorious culprits are multimedia players, which create logs of viewed files, and file browsers, which keep 'deleted' files until the relevant 'trash cans' are explicitly emptied. All such log files and temporary directories should be erased regularly. Computer savvy users may want to write scripts to do that automatically upon logout. This will of course only be effective if one logs out regularly, which is recommended in any case.
It may also be advisable to run tools that temporarily swallow up all unused memory and erase any residual information contained therein.
Lastly, one should keep confidential data separate from other data, on an encrypted hard disk, with an outer and hidden volume, accessible with two different passwords. From here, Bruce Schneier's instructions in above-mentioned article should be followed.
Addendum (2008-06-08):
It seems many computer users in the past have been screwed thanks to their browsers. Apart from aforementioned browsing history, there is the cache, which stores copies of visited web pages, including images therein. Furthermore, many sites leave cookies, which represent evidence of browsing habits. Some browsers (e.g. Firefox) can be configured to clear some or all private data upon closing. Make use of this!
Lastly, beware of compromised software or hardware. After someone who cannot be trusted has had access to one's computer equipment, it is no longer safe to enter a password, as spyware might have been installed that monitors the keyboard.
Addendum (2008-06-17):
As we already knew, Microsoft sucks:
Vista encryption 'no threat' to computer forensics (The Register, Friday 2nd February 2007)
In contrast, full disk encryption is entirely secure, given a few precautions. In particular, the machine must be switched off well before the adversary gets hold of it. And of course, a strong password is essential.
Cf. The impact of full disk encryption on digital forensics
In fact, why only do this when travelling?
Many search warrants in the UK are granted by magistrates. As a rule, magistrates are incompetent twats, who receive an impressive six days of training before being allowed to throw people in jail and order the violation of the sanctity of someone's home. Consequently, any turd in a suit, for example a TV licence inspector, can convince a magistrate to issue a search warrant, on the basis of the fuzzy concept 'reasonable grounds'. During the search, computer equipment may be confiscated and subjected to computer forensics.
(By the way, Britain is really the odd one out in Europe. For example, no search warrant would ever be issued in Germany for the trifling matter of TV licences.)
For a minority of us, our PCs and laptops contain some data that might be incriminating in a legal sense. Very often, this data is present without us realising it. Examples are browsing histories and cached data, which may reveal we have a predilection for a certain type of images. For a minute portion of computer users, there may be an actual intent to break the law by storing certain data. For most of us however, it is simply a huge embarrassment to find our most private data, such as diaries and nude images of lovers, in the hands of a spotty lab technician, even if this data is not unlawful.
There are a few things however that computer users can do to arm themselves against this form of oppression. First, never use any Microsoft crap. Use of Vista and related inferior products will in the end make you lose your sanity. More important in this context is that they offer the user little control over what happens behind the scenes, and it is difficult to ascertain that data one thinks has been deleted is really gone irretrievably.
Secondly, one should make an inventory of log files and 'tmp' directories where data is silently being collected while one views and manipulates other files. Notorious culprits are multimedia players, which create logs of viewed files, and file browsers, which keep 'deleted' files until the relevant 'trash cans' are explicitly emptied. All such log files and temporary directories should be erased regularly. Computer savvy users may want to write scripts to do that automatically upon logout. This will of course only be effective if one logs out regularly, which is recommended in any case.
It may also be advisable to run tools that temporarily swallow up all unused memory and erase any residual information contained therein.
Lastly, one should keep confidential data separate from other data, on an encrypted hard disk, with an outer and hidden volume, accessible with two different passwords. From here, Bruce Schneier's instructions in above-mentioned article should be followed.
Addendum (2008-06-08):
It seems many computer users in the past have been screwed thanks to their browsers. Apart from aforementioned browsing history, there is the cache, which stores copies of visited web pages, including images therein. Furthermore, many sites leave cookies, which represent evidence of browsing habits. Some browsers (e.g. Firefox) can be configured to clear some or all private data upon closing. Make use of this!
Lastly, beware of compromised software or hardware. After someone who cannot be trusted has had access to one's computer equipment, it is no longer safe to enter a password, as spyware might have been installed that monitors the keyboard.
Addendum (2008-06-17):
As we already knew, Microsoft sucks:
Vista encryption 'no threat' to computer forensics (The Register, Friday 2nd February 2007)
In contrast, full disk encryption is entirely secure, given a few precautions. In particular, the machine must be switched off well before the adversary gets hold of it. And of course, a strong password is essential.
Cf. The impact of full disk encryption on digital forensics
Cartoonist Arrested for Discrimination
Furore over Cartoonist Arrested for Discrimination (NIS News Bulletin 17/05/08)
In some countries, police protect cartoonists against Islamist scum trying to harm them. In other countries, the police are the scum.
If it is any comfort to the Dutch people: The police here in Britain are even worse, but our cartoonists are simply too docile to get themselves into any kind of trouble over sensitive issues.
Then there is a Canadian cartoon controversy (GagWatch, Tuesday 13 May 2008).
In some countries, police protect cartoonists against Islamist scum trying to harm them. In other countries, the police are the scum.
If it is any comfort to the Dutch people: The police here in Britain are even worse, but our cartoonists are simply too docile to get themselves into any kind of trouble over sensitive issues.
Then there is a Canadian cartoon controversy (GagWatch, Tuesday 13 May 2008).
Thursday, 15 May 2008
kill the messenger
Police apologise over mosque show (BBC News, Thursday, 15 May 2008)
Political correctness in the UK...
Political correctness in the UK...
Sunday, 11 May 2008
Cannabis laws to be strengthened
Cannabis laws to be strengthened (BBC News, Wednesday, 7 May 2008)
Reclassifying cannabis as class B drug will not change the penalties for dealing, only for possession, i.e. for using. Users are not normally caught, except for a few unlucky sods, for example, whose 'friends' send videotapes to the police. After being branded as criminals, their lives will subsequently be ruined, whereas before they might have been decent people with an occasional craving for a high.
What would be supported by the public is if Gordon Brown and his ilk would sod off, as confirmed by the recent local elections.
protect the publicRight, spending up to 5 years in jail is much healtier than smoking a few joints.
Reclassifying cannabis as class B drug will not change the penalties for dealing, only for possession, i.e. for using. Users are not normally caught, except for a few unlucky sods, for example, whose 'friends' send videotapes to the police. After being branded as criminals, their lives will subsequently be ruined, whereas before they might have been decent people with an occasional craving for a high.
And Gordon Brown said at prime minister's questions that he believed making cannabis a class B drug was supported by the public and the police.The war on Iraq was not supported by the public.
What would be supported by the public is if Gordon Brown and his ilk would sod off, as confirmed by the recent local elections.
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
CCTV boom 'failing to cut crime'
CCTV boom 'failing to cut crime' (BBC News, Tuesday, 6 May 2008)
From the data, sensible people would conclude the loss of privacy due to surveillance cameras cannot be justified by the insignificant portion of crimes that they help prevent or solve. But no, the solution is a "new database", and no doubt more cameras in the near future.
From the data, sensible people would conclude the loss of privacy due to surveillance cameras cannot be justified by the insignificant portion of crimes that they help prevent or solve. But no, the solution is a "new database", and no doubt more cameras in the near future.
There are more than 4.2 million cameras in the UKThat is roughly one camera per 15 Britons, but it's still not enough to reduce crime to a measurable degree. Perhaps we should go for one camera per person, implanted into our foreheads after birth, so no crime need ever go unsolved.
Monday, 5 May 2008
Passenger 'moons' at speed camera
Passenger 'moons' at speed camera (BBC News, Thursday, 1 May 2008)
The story is without merit in itself, except as cheap entertainment for the typical braindead BBC audience. The way it is presented however deserves some thought. We witness here that voyeurism takes precedence over any critical attitude towards Big Brother.
In this country, it does not suffice that we tolerate being observed by CCTV cameras all the time, we are actually supposed to give them friendly smiles. Give one the finger, and we are personally rebuked by a copper who has nothing better to do.
The story is without merit in itself, except as cheap entertainment for the typical braindead BBC audience. The way it is presented however deserves some thought. We witness here that voyeurism takes precedence over any critical attitude towards Big Brother.
Officers have the registration of the car, which was not breaking the speed limit, and intend to contact its owner. [...] no driving offence was being committed.The passenger was obviously not wearing his seat belt, but that does not seem to be the main concern to the police. Now I wonder, if the car was not breaking the speed limit and no other driving offence was being committed, why was any policeman looking at these pictures in the first place? There is mention of a speed camera, but under the circumstances, it seems more appropriate to talk of a surveillance camera, as if we didn't have enough of those in Britain.
"Not only is it disrespectful, but distasteful and offensive, particularly to children who may have been exposed to this nonsense.Was it disrespectful to the policeman who is wasting taxpayers' money checking whether all car passengers are properly dressed? He deserves all our heartfelt disrespect. And are we Americans, who think that the sight of an inch of bare skin will unavoidably turn children into sex criminals?
In this country, it does not suffice that we tolerate being observed by CCTV cameras all the time, we are actually supposed to give them friendly smiles. Give one the finger, and we are personally rebuked by a copper who has nothing better to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
