Bruce Schneier reviews Access Denied [LWN.net]

Bruce Schneier reviews Access Denied

Posted Apr 7, 2008 14:35 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

The thing that most governments hate the most is freedom of speech.

This is one of the major reasons I am a big Free software fan. Linux is a PITA, the software
is lacking in a lot of areas.. I would have a easier time finding a job in my area if I was
all 'rha-rha ya! kick-ass' Microsoft.

But you know what?

When it comes down to it I like Linux and Free software not because it's cheap, but because I
value freedom. And I know that you have to fight to preserve it.. if you do not protect what
you have and go it on your own then your going to loose it. I valued it long before I ever
knew what Linux was.. it just happens that all this stuff coincides with my personal beliefs
so I am a huge fan.

Freedom it's it's own reward and it's something that keeps on giving. That's why 'Open Source'
works.. it's not because of community, everybody gets along in a hippie-ville, anything really
related to 'Web 2.0' or anything like that..

It's because open source software and free software gives people deterministic controls over
their software environment and their information. Controls that are not allowed by proprietary
software. Not allowed by online services that lock away information in behind a black wall or
software that is intentionally crippled by it's makers to keep you coming back for support and
upgrades. It's the access to information, education, and security that is valuable.

People contribute and improve Linux and other software in a community, not because of some
vague 'community' hand-waving.. but because it's in their self interest to do so. It furthers
their own personal goals, whether it's money, self satisfaction, or any other hosts of
reasons.

Increasingly the computer is a mind-assist tool. It's a collection of thoughts and actions
mathmaticly orginized into bit streams. It's a gateway to the world.. a gateway to self
expression, political speech, news, entertainment, information exchange, vast source of
knowledge. All these things translate to power. Knowledge is power. It's a clique, but it's
true.

Because of this most governments (if not all.. How many people here live in countries that
have ZERO controls over internet access?) want to put locks and barriers on that. For one
reason or another they don't want to give the people full control.

Full control is exactly what Free and Open source software can deliver to people over their
'gateways' we call personal computers.

Unfortunately the weak-link in all of this is the last step between the internet and your
computer.. your ISP. Most people are stuck behind NAT firewalls and now we are starting to see
people with internet access stuck behind _multiple_levels_ of NAT firewalls. Then the next
weakness is the networks that link countries.

Something needs to be done to fix that. What it is I don't know. I have high hopes for Mesh
networking, but I am not going to hold my breath because most governments are not going to
allow people radios that transmit more then a few hundred feet under common conditions.

Your internet link

Posted Apr 7, 2008 16:52 UTC (Mon) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]

You can always try tor. And if you feel like helping others overcome this sort of block, perhaps running a tor node is for you, or even volunteering with the project.

P.S. I hope that URL is correct, I can't even check it from work! ;)

Your internet link

Posted Apr 8, 2008 23:13 UTC (Tue) by konrad (subscriber, #46679) [Link]

And there is nothing stopping your truth-fearing government from running tor to "capture" its
citizens either.

# tor
# iptables -A INPUT --src-cc <insert over protectionist society here> --state NEW -j LOG
--log-prefix "All shall love me and despair"

I'm sure there is far more efficient means of monitoring through tor, but you get the idea.

Your internet link

Posted Apr 8, 2008 23:50 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]

Except, of course, for the design of tor.  

Your iptables rules won't do much logging encrypted traffic to a unknown destination via
another tor node.

I assume from you comment that you are not actually familiar with tor's design.  But if I am
mistaken, and you have an attack that you believe is valid against tor, I hope that you would
join the tor mailing list and discuss it there.

Tor exit nodes and chilling effects

Posted May 22, 2008 13:12 UTC (Thu) by hazelsct (subscriber, #3659) [Link]

See for example: http://lwn.net/Articles/249388/

It doesn't capture all tor traffic, but it does capture enough to be a deterrent for speech
which needs protection.  It just takes one or two public examples of whistle-blowers arrested
while sending what they thought were anonymous packets through a monitored exit node to have a
major chilling effect.

Bruce Schneier reviews Access Denied

Posted Apr 7, 2008 18:20 UTC (Mon) by ofeeley (subscriber, #36105) [Link]

People contribute and improve Linux and other software in a community, not because of some vague 'community' hand-waving.. but because it's in their self interest to do so. It furthers their own personal goals, whether it's money, self satisfaction, or any other hosts of reasons.

Sounds like a definition of community to me. A group of people that co-operate together to some extent in order to individually achieve personal goals. As far as Free Software being a pain in the ass that's true but it's also true that proprietary software is a PITA and there's less you can do about fixing it.

Bruce Schneier reviews Access Denied

Posted Apr 7, 2008 16:27 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

It's so stupid. 

You _don't_ want those sites blocked. You want those sort of sites open so that it's easy to
find and prosecute people that are engaged in illegal behavior. Openness is a double bladed
sword there.  If you drive that stuff underground then it becomes that much harder to stop and
banning websites isn't going to even remotely slow down that sort of stuff.


It's like how in Germany it's very illegal to display any sort of nazi or rascist images or
whatnot. In the USA this sort of thing is considered protect speech, no matter how foul. 

When fools like the KKK or other racist groups go on a parade it's very funny. You have about
20 or so fat and inbred rednecks in pointy hats stomping around like idiots surrounded by
about 4000+ people of every race, creed, or religion howling their displeasure at them for
being such jackasses. Putting a lot of effort into trying to stop that sort of thing just
gives them a air of legitimacy and may even make them more attractive to disenchanted youth.

Bruce Schneier reviews Access Denied

Posted Apr 7, 2008 16:46 UTC (Mon) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link]

When fools like the KKK or other racist groups go on a parade it's very funny. You have about 20 or so fat and inbred rednecks in pointy hats stomping around like idiots surrounded by about 4000+ people of every race, creed, or religion howling their displeasure at them for being such jackasses.

Your mileage may vary, but in Hungary hundreds of these marching fools beat up the onlookers...

Bye,NAR

Bruce Schneier reviews Access Denied

Posted Apr 8, 2008 0:15 UTC (Tue) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link]

(a) If they're beating up people, that's a felony (or the Hungarian equivalent), and you can
march them off to jail for something that only complete idiots could claim was political.

(b) If they're at the point that they can beat people up in public, then it's better to have
them in the open than hiding, because there's enough of them to do some serious damage.

Bruce Schneier reviews Access Denied

Posted Apr 8, 2008 12:23 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

It's happened in the USA in the past also were the racist a-holes turned around and attacked
their audience. 

But that time is mostly gone. They are still violent, to be sure, but they can no longer have
the power they once had, except in very isolated and backward areas.

My point is, though, that making that sort of thing illegal (aka hate speech) isn't going to
make those people be nice. It'll make it worse if anything.

Bruce Schneier reviews Access Denied

Posted Apr 7, 2008 18:17 UTC (Mon) by leoc (subscriber, #39773) [Link]

It's like how in Germany it's very illegal to display any sort of nazi or rascist images or whatnot. In the USA this sort of thing is considered protect speech, no matter how foul.

While speech may be an ostensibly "protected" in the USA, it has been repeatedly undermined by both overt and covert government action against those who are politically unpopular on either the right or left end of the political spectrum. For example COINTELPRO and the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act", and the more recent trend of "free speech zones" specifically designed to dissuade criticism of the president at public appearances.

Bruce Schneier reviews Access Denied

Posted Apr 8, 2008 13:35 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

Free speech is totally disappearing, I agree. It's very sick and people don't even understand
what is going on.

But you have to realise also that the reason that protesting a f-ing _funeral_ is about the
most asshole and completely inconsiderate thing that a person can possibly do. I can't express
it strong enough words here. I mean you have to be a really _dumb_ motherf-er to even think
you can get away with something like that. Not to mention also that it's dangerous. I am
suprised that there hasn't been a case yet of a distraught family member driving their truck
at high speed into a mass of protesters.

So as much as I love free speech the the people that protested funerals did it to themselves
by being huge pricks. They should be arrested as far as I am concerned. Seriously. That stuff
is just wrong. Society has a responsibility to protect people against emotional carnage being
inflicted on them like that.

Also I don't have a problem with the FBI monitoring groups either. That's partially what I was
talking about was that having all political speech open makes it easy to identify who the
crazies are and keep them in check if they decide to get together and break laws. Just as long
as the FBI is open about what it's doing also.

Free Speech Zones are complete horse shit though. It's just politicians making sure that their
photo op. won't get spoiled.

Political speech is much more on the rocks then anything you mentioned.

For example take 'Campaign Finance Reform'.

Ostensively it sounds all cool and dandy. 'Get money out of politics' and try to prevent
corruption and all that stuff. Sounds good doesn't it?

Of course what the politicians and their media buddies say the laws do and what they actually
do are two entirely different things...

There is a big difference between the sort of 'theatrics' that some people call 'political
speech' like blocking traffic or getting half naked and covering themselves up with fake blood
(and completely and utterly undermining their own message at the same time) (and I agree this
sort of thing is protected speech even though the people engaged in it are morons) and having
speech that has real political power... the ability to get messages out to large amounts of
people and actually affect people.

Legislation like the BCRA.

They say (the politicians behind it) that it's designed to get rid of 'soft money' and such
things. Of course what they say is a out and out lie.

What it has done is things like requiring you to register with the government prior to a
election in order to publish any sort of media related to a election.

This is 'suppose' to get rid of 'soft money'. But in effect what it means is that large groups
that can afford to spend money _years_ before a election cycle can saturate the airwaves with
all sorts of nonsense about their favorite politicians.

Smaller groups without that much funding can only afford to spend money on advertisement at
the most critical time: days and weeks before a election.

However the BCRA forbids that sort of behavior. So instead of getting rid of money in politics
what is has done was protect the groups currently in power from having to deal with third
parties or other types of minority political groups from having any significant influence over
a election.

Also this has given total control over any sort of media broadcast to the big media companies.

You see while people can't pay for advertisements anymore, unless they get permission from the
government first. The media companies can broadcast all they want. Their speech is not
regulated. Only yours is.

They have given the ability for the US Government to fine people, and outright censor them,
for producing media that attempts to sway people one way or another.

A few examples of this are:
Fining the 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' $300,000 dollars for failing to register with the
government prior to running their ads.

Of course they are the only ones to get fined...
'League of Conservative Voters' were fined $180,000
'Move-on.org' got it for $150,000
'Progress for Voters America Fund' for $750,000

In March 28, 2008 "Christian Civic League of Maine, Inc" wanted to air a ad that mentioned
some of the people running in the up coming election. Because this was within 30 days of a
election they were forbidden to express themselves by court order.

In 2004 Micheal Moore's movies were attacked for advertising themselves on TV. So the movie
studios promised that they made no mention about the election and that was 'ok' then. They
self-censored so the government didn't really have to do anything then, I guess.

It goes on and on.

It's effectively made it impossible for smaller parties to successfully run a campaign within
a month of a election and it has put the people that own the media companies as the total
gatekeepers on all political speech.. they can interview and report on the news and the people
they want, everybody else has to go through the courts.

The goals of the BCRA seem like good ones. To bad the actual legislation has very very little
to do with those goals...

Of course the Internet is not immune for it. Only by accident has it avoided most
restrictions. It's only a matter of time before BCRA or other legislation like it are going to
go into regulating 'Political Action' Blogs and websites.

Bruce Schneier reviews Access Denied

Posted Apr 10, 2008 20:20 UTC (Thu) by leoc (subscriber, #39773) [Link]

Society has a responsibility to protect people against emotional carnage being inflicted on them like that. The same thing could be said about "hate" speech. Personally, I find it sadly ironic that free speech is now specifically restricted at the funerals of soldiers who supposedly died to keep it free.

Also I don't have a problem with the FBI monitoring groups either.

Except that spying on citizens without a warrant is^H^H used to be illegal. Besides, monitoring is not what COINTELPRO is about. It's about attacking political minority groups to undermine their credibility or to just shut them down. Cynicism such as yours to "theatrics" is exactly the kind of response that makes it so effective.

Bruce Schneier reviews Access Denied

Posted Apr 11, 2008 16:26 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

This law ... was created usually with this kind of speech : "We need to be able to block illegal sites, like, for example, sites with images of child pornography or sites where pedophiles group together".

That speech would probably work against passage of a law in the US, where this kind of freedom of speech is quite respected. The country was founded by revolution, where a bunch of outlaws communicated, against the wishes of the government, to discuss beliefs inconsistent with the existing system of law. That discussion, of course, went so far as to include planning illegal activities.

(Actually, this comment applies only to the pedophiles grouping together. Blocking child pornography isn't about freedom of speech, it's about freedom of opinion, which is not nearly so protected).