tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-280349202024-03-05T00:52:46.445-05:00Chazzsongs Internet Censorship"I am opposed to any form of tyranny over the mind of man." ~ Thomas JeffersonChazzsongshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12832406704954147954noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28034920.post-76161049611180791112007-04-01T10:43:00.000-04:002007-04-01T11:12:17.877-04:00Is Google Evil?<h2>Is Google Evil?</h2>
<p><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmMYJ4GHrHe2m0r-xEaPFjZRJLNJ5BE2cgTO4RGGvhHOw4dX2XeJq9QQ9Ro3OiykhlnNPea6vJdZZEQVXgnEmGNJlUnmv5zsfXk03n-XgzRmMHTUNzkJcOFJMLN5JQBBA0_pEr/s400/googlevil.jpg" alt="" class="entryphoto" height="167"
width="250" /></p>
<h3><strong>Internet privacy?</strong></h3>
Google already knows more about you than the National Security Agency ever will.
And don’t assume for a minute it can keep a secret. YouTube fans--and
everybody else--beware.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/11/google.html"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">by Adam L. Penenberg
- October 10, 2006</a>
<p>Google Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the two former Stanford geeks who founded
the company that has become synonymous with Internet searching, and you’ll
find more than a million entries each. But amid the inevitable dump of press
clippings, corporate bios, and conference appearances, there’s very little
about Page’s and Brin’s personal lives; it’s as if the pair had
known all along that Google would change the way we acquire information, and had
carefully insulated their lives—putting their homes under other
people’s names, choosing unlisted numbers, abstaining from posting anything
personal on web pages.<br />
<br />
That obsession with privacy may explain Google’s puzzling reaction last
year, when Elinor Mills, a reporter with the tech news service cnet, ran a search
on Google ceo Eric Schmidt and published the results: Schmidt lived with his wife
in Atherton, California, was worth about $1.5 billion, had dumped about $140
million in Google shares that year, was an amateur pilot, and had been to the
Burning Man festival. Google threw a fit, claimed that the information was a
security threat, and announced it was blacklisting cnet’s reporters for a
year. (The company eventually backed down.) It was a peculiar response,
especially given that the information Mills published was far less intimate than
the details easily found online on every one of us. But then, this is something
of a pattern with Google: When it comes to information, it knows what’s
best.<br />
<br />
From the start, Google’s informal motto has been “Don’t Be
Evil,” and the company earned cred early on by going toe-to-toe with
Microsoft over desktop software and other issues. But make no mistake. Faced with
doing the right thing or doing what is in its best interests, Google has almost
always chosen expediency. In 2002, it removed links to an anti-Scientology site
after the Church of Scientology claimed copyright infringement. Scores of website
operators have complained that Google pulls ads if it discovers words on a page
that it apparently has flagged, although it will not say what those words are. In
September, Google handed over the records of some users of its social-networking
service, Orkut, to the Brazilian government, which was investigating alleged
racist, homophobic, and pornographic content.<br />
<br />
Google’s stated mission may be to provide “unbiased, accurate, and
free access to information,” but that didn’t stop it from censoring
its Chinese search engine to gain access to a lucrative market (prompting Bill
Gates to crack that perhaps the motto should be “Do Less Evil”). Now
that the company is publicly traded, it has a legal responsibility to its
shareholders and bottom line that overrides any higher calling.<br />
<br />
So the question is not whether Google will always do the right thing—it
hasn’t, and it won’t. It’s whether Google, with its insatiable
thirst for your personal data, has become the greatest threat to privacy ever
known, a vast informational honey pot that attracts hackers, crackers, online
thieves, and—perhaps most worrisome of all—a government intent on
finding convenient ways to spy on its own citizenry.<br />
<br />
It doesn’t take a conspiracy theorist to worry about such a threat.
“I always thought it was fertile ground for the government to snoop,”
ceo Schmidt told a search engine conference in San Jose, California, in August.
While Google earned praise from civil libertarians earlier this year when it
resisted a Justice Department subpoena for millions of search queries in
connection with a child pornography case, don’t expect it will stand up to
the government every time: On its website, Google asserts that it “does
comply with valid legal process, such as search warrants, court orders, or
subpoenas seeking personal information.”<br />
<br />
What’s at stake? Over the years, Google has collected a staggering amount
of data, and the company cheerfully admits that in nine years of operation, it
has never knowingly erased a single search query. It’s the biggest data
pack rat west of the nsa, and for good reason: 99 percent of its revenue comes
from selling ads that are specifically targeted to a user’s interests.
“Google’s entire value proposition is to figure out what people
want,” says Eric Goldman, a professor at Silicon Valley’s Santa Clara
School of Law and director of the High Tech Law Institute. “But to read our
minds, they need to know a lot about us.”<br />
<br />
Every search engine gathers information about its users—primarily by
sending us “cookies,” or text files that track our online movements.
Most cookies expire within a few months or years. Google’s, though,
don’t expire until 2038. Until then, when you use the company’s
search engine or visit any of myriad affiliated sites, it will record what you
search for and when, which links you click on, which ads you access.
Google’s cookies can’t identify you by name, but they log your
computer’s IP address; by way of metaphor, Google doesn’t have your
driver’s license number, but it knows the license plate number of the car
you are driving. And search queries are windows into our souls, as 658,000 aol
users learned when their search profiles were mistakenly posted on the Internet:
Would user 1997374 have searched for information on better erections or
cunnilingus if he’d known that aol was recording every keystroke? Would
user 22155378 have keyed in “marijuana detox” over and over knowing
someone could play it all back for the world to see? If you’ve ever been
seized by a morbid curiosity after a night of hard drinking, a search engine
knows—and chances are it’s Google, which owns roughly half of the
entire search market and processes more than 3 billion queries a month.<br />
<br />
And Google knows far more than that. If you are a Gmail user, Google stashes
copies of every email you send and receive. If you use any of its other
products—Google Maps, Froogle, Google Book Search, Google Earth, Google
Scholar, Talk, Images, Video, and News—it will keep track of which
directions you seek, which products you shop for, which phrases you research in a
book, which satellite photos and news stories you view, and on and on. Served up
à la carte, this is probably no big deal. Many websites stow snippets of
your data. The problem is that there’s nothing to prevent Google from
combining all of this information to create detailed dossiers on its customers,
something the company admits is possible in principle. Soon Google may even be
able to keep track of users in the real world: Its latest move is into free wifi,
which will require it to know your whereabouts (i.e., which router you are
closest to).<br />
<br />
Google insists that it uses individual data only to provide targeted
advertising. But history shows that information seldom remains limited to the
purpose for which it was collected. Accordingly, some privacy advocates suggest
that Google and other search companies should stop hoarding user queries
altogether: Internet searches, argues Lillie Coney of the Electronic Privacy
Information Center, are part of your protected personal space just like your
physical home. In February, Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) introduced legislation
to this effect, but Republicans have kept it stalled in committee. Google, which
only recently retained a lobbying firm in Washington, is among the tech companies
fighting the measure.<br />
<br />
When I first contacted Google for this story, a company publicist insisted I
provide a list of detailed questions, in writing; when I said that I had a
problem with a source dictating the terms for an interview, he claimed that
everyone who covers Google—including the <i>New York Times</i> and the
<i>Wall Street Journal</i>—submits advance questions. (A <i>Times</i>
spokeswoman told me the paper sees no ethical problems with such a procedure,
though individual reporters’ decisions may vary; an editor in charge of
editorial standards at the Journal said the same thing.) The Google flack assured
me that this was so he could find the best person for me to talk to—more
information for Google, so that Google could better serve me.<br />
<br />
Eventually he agreed to put me in touch, sans scripted questions, with Nicole
Wong, Google’s associate corporate counsel. I asked her if the company had
ever been subpoenaed for user records, and whether it had complied. She said yes,
but wouldn’t comment on how many times. Google’s website says that as
a matter of policy the company does “not publicly discuss the nature,
number or specifics of law enforcement requests.”<br />
<br />
So can you trust Google only as far as you can trust the Bush administration?
“I don’t know,” Wong replied. “I’ve never been
asked that question before.”</p>
<h2>Spooks at Google… and MySpace, PayPal, YouTube, Ebay, and Yahoo</h2>
<br />
Friday October 27th 2006, 2:36 pm
<p><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCfIYLzFFMzj-r49sYQkwwHXKMUpYqoRqurG4kyaUD_aWw3RjsgfUHN17fk3RVdPk19IN79RtLizw6SBhOxfOn0a13K_d_vb965IXu0f7eN5_cSDqWf50UG_fGLwd7_Y2Nobr-/s400/bigbrother2.jpg" class="entryphoto2"
alt="Big Brother is watching you" /></p>
<p>It comes as no surprise that Google is in bed with the CIA, or rather it is no
surprise the CIA ate Google and has turned it into yet another front company.
“A former clandestine services officer for the CIA who also maintains close
relationships with top Google representatives says that the company is ‘in
bed with’ the intelligence agency and the U.S. government,” writes <a
href="http://prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/271006googlecia.htm"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">Paul Joseph
Watson</a> for Prison Planet.<br />
<br />
Robert David Steele, the top-rated Amazon reviewer who recently admitted <a
href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0930852370"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">Webster G.
Tarpley’s 9/11 Synthetic Terror</a> “is the strongest of the 770+
books” he has reviewed for the online bookseller—and thus he believes
there is enough evidence to have the Bush cabal do the perp walk in snazzy orange
jumpsuits—told Alex Jones he thinks “that Google has made a very
important strategic mistake in dealing with the secret elements of the U.S.
government—that is a huge mistake and I’m hoping they’ll work
their way out of it and basically cut that relationship off…. they were
heavily in bed with the Central Intelligence Agency, the office of research and
development…. If Google is indeed starting to do harm then I think
it’s important that be documented and publicized.”<br />
<br />
Of course, ending a relationship with the CIA is akin to ending a relationship
considered vital to Don Corleone or the Stracci, Barzini, Cuneo, and Tattaglia
crime families. No doubt Eric Schmidt, former chief executive officer of Novell,
and current Google CEO harbors no desire to sleep with the fish.<br />
<br />
I exaggerate, but only a little.<br />
<br />
It is no exaggeration, however, to state that the CIA has fished around for top
drawer search technology for some time. Back in 2002, shortly after
“everything changed,” the CIA went shopping at Inktomi for
“search and retrieval technology,” according to <a
href="http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/3531_1015521"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">Internet News</a>.
Inktomi entered into a business relationship with In-Q-Tel, described as the
“venture capital arm of the American Central Intelligence Agency,”
that is to say a front company set-up to roll investment hungry technology
companies into the spook Borg Hive. According to <a
href="http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/In-Q-Tel.shtml"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">Buzzy “Put
Options” Krongard</a>, a onetime investment banker and former Executive
Director of the CIA, In-Q-Tel presented a “wonderful model… in
accessing the capabilities of the private sector,” that is to say snooping
and sleuthing by way of the private sector.<br />
<br />
“Even while Google presents a public image of vigorously protecting its
users’ privacy, it has quietly provided assistance to several U.S.
intelligence agencies, such as the Central Intelligence Agency and Defense
Intelligence Agency, as the U.S. prosecutes its war on terrorism,” writes
<a
href="http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/02/22/google-in-bed-with-us-intelligence/"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">Michael Hampton</a>
for Homeland Stupidity. “In addition, Google may be providing assistance to
the National Security Agency.”<br />
<br />
According to Hampton and IT professionals, the CIA is not simply interested in
the search capability of Google, but those of us who use that unparalleled
capability. “The intelligence community appears to be interested in data
mining Google’s vast store of information on each user who uses
Google’s services. Google collects data on each user’s search
queries, which web sites users visited after making a query, and through its
Google Analytics service, can also track users on cooperating web sites.
It’s not clear what level of access to or how much of this information has
been made available to intelligence agencies.” Hampton continues:<br />
<br />
</p>
<blockquote>
<div>
The contractor, who spoke on a not-for-attribution basis, said that at least
one US intelligence agency he declined to identify is working to
“leverage Google’s [user] data monitoring” capability as
part of an effort by the IC to glean from this data information of
“national security intelligence interest” in the war on terror. .
. .<br />
<br />
One of the sources did say, however, that the CIA’s Office of Research
and Development “has been giving them additional money and guidance and
requirements.”<br />
<br />
Last November, the CIA—through In-Q-Tel—issued notices to sell
$2.2 million worth of Google stock.<br />
<br />
Robert David Steele, intelligence veteran and CEO of OSS.Net, Inc. which
sponsored last week’s event, told HSToday.us Tuesday evening that
“Google is being actively hypocritical and deceptive in playing up its
refusal to help the Department of Justice when all along it has been taking
money and direction for elements of the US Intelligence Community, including
the Office of Research and Development at the Central Intelligence Agency,
In-Q-Tel, and in all probability, both the National Security Agency (NSA) and
the Army’s Intelligence and Security Command.”<br />
<br />
Steele added, “I have no doubt that Google, in its arrogance, decided
it could make a deal with the devil and not get caught.”
</div>
</blockquote>
Hampton suggests blocking all Google cookies, but even “with cookies
blocked, a limited amount of user tracking is possible, so unless you really are
a terrorist, it probably isn’t worth the trouble.” Of course, as the
CIA is responsible for creating a large share of what passes for terrorism,
tracking terrorists through Google is not really necessary.<br />
<br />
In fact, they are interested in tracking and profiling you and me, not the dead
Osama.<br />
<br />
But if this does not make you paranoid enough, consider a post at <a
href="http://team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?3223.last"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">Internet Portal
Community Watch</a>. Ebay is run by Richard T. Schlosberg III,<br />
former graduate of the United States Air Force Academy. MySpace, of course, is
now owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. According to blogger Josh
Smith, the “social networking” site Facebook is a data-gathering
operation that received initial funding from Peter Thiel, who is connected to
James Breyer, who is the former chairman of In-Q-Tel. Thiel is the co-founder of
PayPal. Yahoo, the IPVW post asserts, is a possible “U.S. Military or psyOP
Pentagon front.” Yahoo director Ed Kozel worked at Boeing, McDonnell
Douglas, and SRI International. Chad Hurley, a former PayPal employee, is CEO and
Co-Founder of YouTube. As we know, Google bought up YouTube, and Google’s
connection to the CIA is less than speculative.<br />
<br />
Finally, if you’re thinking about using Yahoo over Google, think again.
Earlier this year, Michael Callahan, Yahoo’s senior vice president and
general counsel, under “cross-examination during a congressional hearing
… refused … to say whether the company opens its records for
government surveillance [that is, the NSA] without a court order,”
according to <a href="http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595-6040129.html"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">ZDNet</a>. Although
the NSA is supposedly restricted by its charter from “acquiring information
concerning the domestic activities of United States persons,” it has done
so habitually since its establishment on November 4, 1952. The NSA captures
civilian telephone, fax, satellite, and data traffic through ECHELON. It runs
“the largest database ever assembled in the world,” containing call
detail records of all calls (domestic and international) placed through AT&T,
Verizon and BellSouth.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h2>Google Caught In Terror Storm Censorship</h2>
<h3>Viewing totals reset despite runaway popularity of Alex Jones video</h3>
<br />
Every time the ratings for <a
href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4757274759497686216&q=terror+storm&hl=en"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
title="External Link New Window: Alex Jones Terror Storm">"Terror Storm"</a>
place it among the "most watched" videos, Google "accidentally" erases the
ratings.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://prisonplanet.com/"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">Paul Joseph Watson
& Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | September 25 2006</a>
<p>Google is <img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbNdV6Hxin0UdfpShXfqDV_-RV7iV6cT_No5m-HAu06TUHHuW8r6KoQUYWkC93flugHvlUvaz77vh6N33PuRkS9rAJCr87Ai02Yma15OfR12LnIlGAi213IFba8xZbE9IbAFc-/s400/google.jpg" class="entryphoto2" height="165"
width="250"
alt="Person Viewing Google on computer Monitor" /><strong>again</strong>
embroiled in a censorship farce after its Google Video sub-division was caught
altering viewing statistics for Alex Jones' Terror Storm documentary, resetting
runaway growth curbs to prevent the video making the website's top ten and its
online viewership exploding exponentially.<br />
<br />
Following last week's buzz about Terror Storm being available for viewing free
on Google Video, numerous websites linked to our promo page and as a result
viewing figures for all versions of Terror Storm at Google Video began to climb
rapidly.<br />
<br />
However, upon checking the same viewer figures on Sunday, Alex Jones noticed
that many had been reset to zero and had only begun to climb into the hundreds
and early thousands, nowhere near their previous levels of tens and hundreds of
thousands for the previous days. The trends had been artificially reversed and
this prevented Terror Storm from entering the top ten list of Google Video which
would have ensured an explosion of further circulation of the video.<br />
<br />
As you can see from the screenshot a reader e mailed us, Terror Storm was being
highlighted as one of Google Video's most popular selections and was heading for
the top ten, until late Saturday/early Sunday when viewership totals for the
video were inexplicably reset.</p>
<blockquote>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZOQaHD8E7M7lkZFhEFUyiDjLSlv7OeZkNbPDI8Duu_9NRL08E1nJELLDsgb4idbwez9w7d5QJXTDjek_ArJN7GDFIapiBIkhVXOBrcWsBru0m36KtNelA43KnMshw0lOBdqgP/s1600-h/gv_terrorslg.jpg"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"><img
class="entryphoto3" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5I51Ezk6oPwutlZTStO_BCaR3yU14abKXBYzetHIBTPHODueG3iUeJ3spPQPOpwd-uj3TJYpxL8pXWvNSUk6WIM2y5dutNAG_8f5Wmz4SCE6r3mvxvcmzn1rekCnrMWip6IeR/s400/google_terror_250.jpg" height="160"
width="250" alt="Google Video Stats" /><br />
CLICK TO ENLARGE</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Is this another mistake on the part of Google or is it an attempt to minimize
the impact of Terror Storm and prevent it from mirroring the same online presence
as Loose Change?<br />
<br />
This is not the first time we have caught Google engaging in censorship of Alex
Jones and his websites.<br />
<br />
During our Charlie Sheen coverage, <a
href="http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march3006/230306googlecensoring.htm"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">Google intentionally
blocked news stories</a> pertaining to Sheen's comments which were first made on
the Alex Jones Show and turned into a nationwide media spectacle.<br />
<br />
Even after the story had gone supernova, and our original write-up had been
linked all over the web, including the Drudge Report, Google's main search engine
did not list the article.<br />
<br />
After we blew the whistle on this act of censorship, the story was re-listed and
Google even began carrying some of our content in their news section - a practice
that has now also ceased.<br />
<br />
Google's penchant for abandoning their founding principle of "don't be evil" and
kissing up to Communist China for privileged access into the world's biggest
untapped Internet market, was <a
href="http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/240206worldwideban.htm"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">exemplified in
February this when Google completely erased the Space War website</a> from its
search engine. Space War is a large mainstream news website that carries articles
about geopolitics and the defense industry from AFP.<br />
<br />
Space War speculated that it was their reporting on advancements in China's
military technology and missile programs that provoked a censorship order from
the totalitarian Chinese government which Google acted upon. Again, after a mass
e mailing campaign which we fully supported, Google re-indexed the Space War
website.<br />
<br />
We hope that by drawing attention to this matter Google will remedy the
artificial alteration, whether a result of technical gremlins or deliberate
censorship, and enable an accurate and true reflection of the growth and
popularity of Terror Storm.<br />
<br />
<h2>Google Caught Censoring Charlie Sheen 9/11 Story</h2>
<br />
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9jX0leEGZhrFe_hA8ht7sX4POsM8mHn4qqt5ONA4_r-Cv4FDjfzlCDvPTthkArhuAuQZHgrgBD1NP8EzRyhd6P5L2X3ACJ0ean4gaKfGAcY_-VXzdA6dXh5Sf65xAdfsMhGJi/s400/googlebuilding.jpg" width="380" height="259"
alt="Google Building" class="entryphoto3" />
<h3>Quickly re-indexes pages during live radio discussion</h3>
<a
href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march3006/230306googlecensoring.htm"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">Paul Joseph Watson
& Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com</a> | March 23 2006<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<div>
Note: Before you e-mail, please understand that we are aware of the fact that
Google <em>now</em> carries links to Sheen 9/11 articles, that is not our
point as you will read below. The censorship issue began <em>before</em>
Google reversed their policy.
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Google is again embroiled in a censorship scandal after being caught blocking
information about <a
href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march3006/200306charliesheen.htm"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">Charlie Sheen's 9/11
comments</a>, despite the fact that every other major search engine had indexed
the pages.<br />
<br />
For days, major search engines like Yahoo and others contained tens of thousands
of web pages relating to Sheen's comments first broadcast on the Alex Jones Show
on Monday afternoon. Last night <a
href="http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march3006/230306Sheen_CNN.htm"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">CNN aired a piece</a>
on the issue and by early this morning both the <a
href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march3006/230306attackssheen.htm"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">New York Post and the
Boston Herald</a> ran articles.<br />
<br />
We first noticed that there were no search results related to the story on
Google the day after we broke the Sheen story. At first we decided to be fair and
wait another day for Google to index an article which was by now linked on
thousands of other websites and blogs. By Thursday afternoon, and with the story
receiving more traffic, Google still had not indexed any material relating to the
Sheen interview, from Prison Planet.com or any other websites. This despite the
fact that the Drudge Report had <a
href="http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2006/03/21/20060321_002201.htm"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">briefly directly
linked</a> to our article, sending it millions of visitors.<br />
<br />
During a live radio discussion of this issue between Alex Jones and Paul Joseph
Watson on Alex Jones' broadcast Thursday afternoon, Google, as if they had people
listening to the show, immediately re-indexed the pages and a search for 'Charlie
Sheen 9/11' now returns 111,000 results at time of writing.<br />
<br />
Pictured below are screenshots we managed to cache shortly before Google
re-indexed the pages with the search terms 'Charlie Sheen 9/11' and the entire
headline "Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story". As you can see, the
Boston Herald story is linked from Google News (Google do not censor their
affiliates) but the main search engine below returned no results. To stress
again, this is three days after we broke this massive story. The usual index time
for a story of this size is 12-24 hours and at the same time that Google returned
no results whatsoever, tens of thousands were being carried by other major search
engines like Yahoo.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://prisonplanet.com/Pictures/mar06/230306google.jpg"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"><img
alt="Google Saved Webpage" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiugIbGZSlEsnGQHXzRecy89sF-i_w-_awdLOfPsJ_OSYFv-38MBtWnPKA4FOxLn4DZyMSOjqu3_UPRfoMg5_w9cRNNSETTK0zyumwDv6k2GBjQ_xUv_mCobr4Ps_x9ri3dXqX2/s400/google1a.jpg" height="265" width="440"
class="entryphoto3" /></a><br />
<br />
CLICK FOR ENLARGEMENTS<br />
<br />
<a href="http://prisonplanet.com/Pictures/mar06/230306google3.jpg"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"><img
alt="Google Saved Webpage2" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFlTs_w7PLbLR57yPtwo8-fW3fx7nxsCEzGgdQ7DuzONNACE8gp5qJOIYqGF9hwOboLFMDQnkw7OjZkACyBMnewFcAiO5QE6NPGCqIQ0vNYW7SQlyJuuFdIAr5UKYSw0FynWFm/s400/google3a.jpg" height="265" width="440"
class="entryphoto3" /></a><br />
<br />
To make it crystal clear, Google's web spidering process is automated and we
have received high Google rankings in the past for nothing stories that get
little traffic. The Sheen story was linked everywhere and to eliminate it from
Google's search results would have required technicians to physically access the
spidering control panel and exclude an enormous amount of varied search
terms.<br />
<br />
Google has a history of censoring websites it dislikes within the US. Google
Inc. banned and removed a mainstream news website from all its worldwide search
engines, seemingly due to the website's reports on China's geopolitical affairs
and military technology.<br />
<br />
Google has <a
href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/240206worldwideban.htm"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">banned its users
inside the US</a> and the rest of the world from accessing the Space War website
from its search engine. Space War speculated at the time that this was at the
behest of the "boys from Beijing."<br />
<br />
Space War is a reasonably tame mainstream website that focuses on geopolitical
affairs and satellite and military technology advancements. It is based in
Australia and carries articles from AFP and United Press International.<br />
<br />
After a complaints campaign supported by this website, Google agreed to re-index
the website.<br />
<br />
Did our defense of Space War cause Google to impose a blackballing campaign on
our major articles or is this just a response to the sheer magnitude and
influence of the Charlie Sheen story?<br />
<br />
To emphasize, Google is now carrying search results related to Charlie Sheen's
9/11 comments, but only after it was exposed live on nationally syndicated radio
that they had stonewalled this issue for three clear days even as it raged around
the rest of the Internet as a viral story and broke into the mainstream yesterday
and early this morning.<br />
<br />
The floodgates on the Sheen story have opened, with CNN airing a balanced piece
on the controversy. Meanwhile mainstream publications like Human Events, the New
York Post, CBS and the Boston Herald used Sheen's comments to <a
href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march3006/230306attackssheen.htm"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">attack him and
demonize</a> anybody who questions the official line on 9/11. A round-up article
of today's reaction to Charlie Sheen's comments will follow later tonight.</p>
<h2>Google Is The New Surveillance</h2>
<br />
<div style="text-align:center">
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8xyd6fyYELrqiaIP798u_HitN-ksp4e7slgwvPr0nZAlfYHyMda3HLz3K3HvVTEmWQEECmVVVnLC8-YpFhbQVuVXdp5BhVWkzWxyaH8c6JzdQU4WXOwFL2aJ0rv8rmmGFTzeF/s400/googleboard.jpg" width="420" height="286"
alt="Google: The Master Plan" class="entryphoto3" /> <a
href="http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=21470089&size=o"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">Click for Full
View</a>
</div>
<h2>Google in bed with U.S. intelligence</h2>
<br />
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTvFxDf6SBlzdj0va1748ZDP44qPm_AMSvvP15QVilRIstWV98mnFw2MOUNYoa634RTly3q9kINEjpEA51qJ3igRnsZp0g3jnz1QoaRfkPkOOveLYL12ETD96dMUK-YN_XYHDr/s400/googlesubpoena.jpg" width="440" height="208" alt="Tug of War"
class="entryphoto3" /><br />
<br />
by: Michael Hampton<br />
Posted: February 22, 2006 11:31 am<br />
<p>Even while Google presents a public image of vigorously protecting its
users’ privacy, it has quietly provided assistance to several U.S.
intelligence agencies, such as the Central Intelligence Agency and Defense
Intelligence Agency, as the U.S. prosecutes its war on terrorism. In addition,
Google may be providing assistance to the National Security Agency.<br />
<br />
IT contractors and intelligence officials familiar with the arrangement
confirmed to HSToday.us that Google had been providing assistance to the
intelligence community, but would not say under what authority that assistance
had been requested or provided.<br />
<br />
The intelligence community appears to be interested in data mining
Google’s vast store of information on each user who uses Google’s
services. Google collects data on each user’s search queries, which web
sites users visited after making a query, and through its Google Analytics
service, can also track users on cooperating web sites. It’s not clear what
level of access to or how much of this information has been made available to
intelligence agencies.<br />
<br />
</p>
<blockquote>
<div>
The contractor, who spoke on a not-for-attribution basis, said that at least
one US intelligence agency he declined to identify is working to
“leverage Google’s [user] data monitoring” capability as
part of an effort by the IC to glean from this data information of
“national security intelligence interest” in the war on terror. .
. .<br />
<br />
One of the sources did say, however, that the CIA’s Office of Research
and Development “has been giving them additional money and guidance and
requirements.”<br />
<br />
Last November, the CIA - through In-Q-Tel [CIA venture capital company] -
issued notices to sell $2.2 million worth of Google stock.<br />
<br />
Robert David Steele, intelligence veteran and CEO of OSS.Net, Inc. which
sponsored last week’s event, told HSToday.us Tuesday evening that
“Google is being actively hypocritical and deceptive in playing up its
refusal to help the Department of Justice when all along it has been taking
money and direction for elements of the US Intelligence Community, including
the Office of Research and Development at the Central Intelligence Agency,
In-Q-Tel, and in all probability, both the National Security Agency (NSA) and
the Army’s Intelligence and Security Command.”<br />
<br />
Steele added, “I have no doubt that Google, in its arrogance, decided
it could make a deal with the devil and not get caught.” — <a
href="http://www.hstoday.us/Kimery_Report/20060124_While_Fending_Off_DoJ_Subpoena_Google_Continues_Longstanding_Relationship_With_US_Intelligence.cfm"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">HSToday.us</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
If you are extremely concerned about the possibility that your private browsing
information is going to wind up in the hands of U.S. intelligence agencies, you
can throw a spanner in the works by blocking cookies from the following domains:
google.com, googlesyndication.com, google-analytics.com, and your
country-specific Google domain (e.g. google.co.uk). If you actually use Google
services, such as Google Mail, then this obviously will prevent you from using
those services.<br />
<br />
Even with cookies blocked, a limited amount of user tracking is possible, so
unless you really are a terrorist, it probably isn’t worth the trouble. I
still have all of my Google Cookies. Then again, I already know they’re
watching me…<br />
<br />
<h2>Former Intelligence Agent Says Google In Bed With CIA</h2>
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDuE0kPArnt5wTOrbJb839hzW68hb3bs2FWQ0fyvhG6Tl9186SizTfLubO_4P4y4iD-QZwz1OjoeqRAx3QlkXlTHZpFtzax-mvUCH76jGskE-Fqo1zkUyJDAyrZb5OGZ2CTmB0/s400/google2.jpg" height="247" width="380" class="entryphoto3"
alt="Robert David Steele" /><br />
<br />
<strong>Steele also sounds off on 9/11 doubts</strong><br />
<a href="http://prisonplanet.com"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">Paul Joseph
Watson/Prison Planet.com | October 27 2006</a><br />
<br />
<p>A former clandestine services officer for the CIA who also maintains close
relationships with top Google representatives says that the company is "in bed
with" the intelligence agency and the U.S. government. He has also gone public on
his deep suspicions about the official explanation behind 9/11.<br />
<br />
Robert David Steele appeared on the nationally syndicated Alex Jones radio show
and began by voicing his deep doubts about the official 9/11 story.<br />
<br />
While Steele stopped short of saying 9/11 was a complete inside job, he agreed
that the evidence points to the overwhelming complicity of the Bush
administration.<br />
<br />
"The U.S. government did not properly investigate this and there are more rocks
to be turned over," said Steele adding, "I'm absolutely certain that WTC 7 was
brought down by controlled demolition and that as far as I'm concerned means that
this case has not been properly investigated."<br />
<br />
"There's no way that building could have come down without controlled
demolition."<br />
<br />
Steele pointed the finger of suspicion directly at the Vice President saying,
"There's no question in my own mind that Dick Cheney is the tar baby in this
whole thing."<br />
<br />
Steele outlined the bizarre circumstances preceding the attack that would have
greased the skids for bombs to be planted in the buildings.<br />
<br />
"You do have the whole issue of the security cameras being disengaged, the bomb
sniffing dogs being removed, the family ties with Bush - I mean if you smell a
rotten fish there's probably a rotten fish somewhere around."</p>
<br />
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAvVWWVHvJCRHGoj4zflizcaT_O-6hqqr7oA3YPags2uIUbbkXcmjBKOJL1qLl3NnfFYE3nhlnHtVkdUNH8gRbLPEdTKAPGDFO2y5UUj7oYR9dQ5cmJPp8pt-49mmL9Q69XA9P/s400/steele.jpg" height="218" width="310" class="entryphoto3"
alt="Robert David Steele" /><br />
<br />
Steele's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Steele"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">biography</a> is
impressive. He was the second-ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps
Intelligence from 1988-1992. Steele is a former clandestine services case officer
for the Central Intelligence Agency.<br />
<br />
He is the founder and president of Open Source Solutions, Inc., and is an
acknowledged expert on computer and information vulnerabilities. Steele holds
graduate degrees in International Relations and Public Administration from Leigh
University and the University of Oklahoma. He has also earned certificates in
Intelligence Policy from Harvard University and in Defense Studies from the Naval
War College.<br />
<br />
Before the 2004 election Steele advocated the re-election of George W Bush and
he has been cited by numerous Republican luminaries as a credible source. His
testimony is added to the chorus of other credible 9/11 whistleblowers both in
and out of government and academia.<br />
<br />
Steele raised eyebrows when he confirmed from his contacts within the CIA and
Google that Google was working in tandem with "the agency," a claim made
especially volatile by the fact that Google was <a
href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/091006googleadmits.htm"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">recently caught
censoring Alex Jones' Terror Storm</a> and has targeted other websites for
blackout in the past.<br />
<br />
"I think that Google has made a very important strategic mistake in dealing with
the secret elements of the U.S. government - that is a huge mistake and I'm
hoping they'll work their way out of it and basically cut that relationship off,"
said the ex-CIA man.<br />
<br />
"Google was a little hypocritical when they were refusing to honor a Department
of Justice request for information because they were heavily in bed with the
Central Intelligence Agency, the office of research and development," said
Steele.<br />
<br />
Steele called for more scrutiny to be placed on Google if it continues to engage
in nefarious practices, saying, "If Google is indeed starting to do harm then I
think it's important that be documented and publicized."<br />
<br />
<h2>Google Vows to Fight White House Over Porn Probe</h2>
<br />
Jae C. Hong / AP<br />
<a
href="http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060119_google_vows_to_fight_white_house_over_porn_probe/"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">Truthdig.com</a><br />
Posted on Jan. 19, 2006<br />
<br />
<p>The Bush administration, seeking to revive an online pornography law struck
down by the U.S. Supreme Court, has subpoenaed Google Inc. for details on what
its users have been looking for through its popular search engine. Google has
refused to comply with the subpoena, issued last year, for a broad range of
material from its databases, including a request for 1 million random Web
addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period, lawyers
for the U.S. Justice Department said in papers filed Wednesday in federal court
in San Jose.</p>
<h2>Google may have to fight second subpoena</h2>
<br />
By Declan McCullagh, <a href="http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6041223.html"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">CNET
News.com</a><br />
February 17, 2006<br />
<br />
<b>Google may be about to face a second round of subpoenas for search-related
information.</b>
<p>If the U.S. Justice Department is successful in obtaining a week's worth of
search terms from Google, which it demanded as part of an attempt to defend a
1998 Internet pornography law, a second round of subpoenas is shaping up to be
far more intrusive.<br />
<br />
The <a
href="http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aclu.org%2F&siteId=22&oId=2100-9588-6041223&ontId=9588&lop=nl.ex"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">American Civil
Liberties Union</a> warned Friday that if the first subpoena is granted--giving
the government's expert the information to use to evaluate the effectiveness of
porn filters--the ACLU's legal assault on the same antipornography law will
require it to target Google as well.<br />
<br />
"If the government utilizes the information in any manner, we're very likely
going to need to do follow-up discovery," ACLU attorney Aden Fine said.<br />
<br />
A <a
href="http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aclu.org%2Fprivacy%2Finternet%2F24211lgl20060217.html&siteId=22&oId=2100-9588-6041223&ontId=9588&lop=nl.ex"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">legal brief</a> the
ACLU filed with a federal judge in San Jose, Calif., on Friday says its request
would seek to learn how Google's search engines operate, how Google serves up
links in response to queries and whether there is "any way to distinguish between
queries generated by actual individuals and queries generated by artificial
programs or software."<br />
<br />
The civil liberties group, which characterizes itself as a staunch defender of
privacy, says it is not eager to expose details about Google's inner workings and
the habits of its users. The ACLU says it has "no need or desire to obtain any of
this information from Google." But, the group warns, if the government gets the
information, it would have little choice.<br />
<br />
The unexpected news of a second subpoena from the ACLU could complicate the
Justice Department's attempt to convince U.S. District Judge James Ware to grant
its request. Ware has scheduled a hearing for March 13.<br />
<br />
The Justice Department is seeking a random sample of 1 million Web pages from
Google's index, along with copies of a week's worth of search terms to aid in the
defense of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). America Online, Microsoft and
Yahoo voluntarily complied with similar requests.<br />
<br />
A representative for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to
requests for comment Friday.<br />
<br />
For its part, Google has raised the possibility of being enmeshed in the
increasingly complex COPA lawsuit as a reason to oppose the subpoena. That would
place Google "in the witness chair, and exposes Google's intellectual property to
cross-examination in open court by the ACLU, its counsel, experts and
consultants," the company said in its own brief filed Friday.
<!-- STORY TEASE -->
<!-- END STORY TEASE -->
<br />
<br />
AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo each have received two subpoenas from the Justice
Department, one asking for information about filtering technology and the other
asking for search terms. The ACLU has given AOL a subpoena to appear at a
deposition "asking for testimony about their parental control technology,"
according to the ACLU's Fine.<br />
<br />
The Justice Department has disclosed nothing about what it plans to do with the
records from search companies, except to say it has hired <a
href="http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stat.berkeley.edu%2Fusers%2Fstark%2F&siteId=22&oId=2100-9588-6041223&ontId=9588&lop=nl.ex"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">Philip Stark</a>, a
professor of statistics at the University of California at Berkeley, to evaluate
the search logs.</p>
<h2>Google Sued Over Refusal To Comply With US Subpoena</h2>
<br />
<a
href="http://www.playfuls.com/news_0852_Google_Sued_Over_Refusal_To_Comply_With_US_Subpoena.html"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">by Axxel</a><br />
January 21st 2006
<p>You might have never though it possible, but yes, giant search engine Google
is being sued by none other than its own country, the United States. The reason?
Protecting its users privacy and refusing to comply with a subpoena from the
Department of Justice.<br />
As you might have read during these past few days (including the two articles
above on the subject), the world’s most popular search engine, used by 90
million people every month, has been asked to hand over an entire week of search
requests made at Google.com.<br />
The US Department of Justice wants the information to help it to establish how
much child pornography is available on the internet.<br />
And since Google refused to comply with the subpoena, it has now been taken to
court in California by Alberto Gonzales, the US Attorney-General. The lawsuit
describes any privacy concerns as illusory, arguing that it does not want to see
“any additional information that would identify the person who entered the
search”.<br />
Other search engines, such as Yahoo! and AOL — which use Google technology
— have complied with the request, although it is not clear what they handed
over. Google was originally asked to hand over every search made between June 1
and July 31 last year.<br />
The site’s lawyer said: “Google’s acceding to the request
would suggest that it is willing to reveal information about those who use its
services. This is not a perception that Google can accept.” However,
despite this statement, it seems that the company objected to the breadth of the
government's request but did not consider it to be a privacy issue since the
search terms would not include personally identifiable details.<br />
But others were not reassured. According to the Reuters agency, Massachusetts
Rep. Edward Markey, the ranking Democrat on the telecommunications subcommittee
of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he would introduce a bill to
strengthen consumers' Internet privacy by prohibiting the storage of personally
identifiable information Internet searches beyond a reasonable time.<br />
"Internet search engines provide an extraordinary service, but the preservation
of that service does not rely on a bottomless, timeless database that can do
great damage despite good intentions," Markey said.<br />
Chris Jay Hoofnagle of the Electronic Privacy Information Center worried that
the government could follow up its initial request with a demand for more
information.<br />
"If Google hands over the search logs and the Justice Department finds search
strings like 'child porn' or 'naked children,' could they not then go back and
ask Google for the user's Internet address?" he said.<br />
Ari Schwartz of the Center for Democracy and Technology said he was glad Google
was fighting the case but the company needed to make privacy a more fundamental
part of its products. He said the case was a wake-up call to all Internet users
that information was being collected on them all the time and was stored
indefinitely.<br />
Danny Sullivan, an Internet consultant who created Search Engine Watch, said in
a posting on his site: "Such a move absolutely should breed some paranoia. They
didn't ask for data this time, but next time, they might."<br />
This is a very serious situation, and especially for the Bush administration,
which is already under fire from a number of rights groups over security measures
it has taken since the September 11, 2001 attacks on America, including pursuing
checks on library records and eavesdropping on some telephone calls.<br />
It remains to be seen what the judges will decide in this case. But, no matter
what verdict will be reached, it will represent a very important precedent for
the future of online privacy.</p>
<br />
<h2>Google Imposes Worldwide Ban On China Critical Website</h2>
<br />
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbNdV6Hxin0UdfpShXfqDV_-RV7iV6cT_No5m-HAu06TUHHuW8r6KoQUYWkC93flugHvlUvaz77vh6N33PuRkS9rAJCr87Ai02Yma15OfR12LnIlGAi213IFba8xZbE9IbAFc-/s400/google.jpg" width="380" height="253" alt="Google's Home Base"
class="entryphoto3" /><br />
<br />
Paul Joseph Watson | <a
href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/240206worldwideban.htm"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">Prison Planet.com</a>
| February 24 2006<br />
<h3>Space War accuses company of selling out to<br />
the "boys from Beijing"</h3>
<p>For the first time in what some fear will signal a growing trend, Google Inc.
has banned and removed a mainstream news website from all its worldwide search
engines, seemingly due to the website's reports on China's geopolitical affairs
and military technology.<br />
<br />
Google came under fire last month for agreeing to install government search
filters on its Chinese based search engine. The company that was founded on the
motto "don't be evil," claimed that some censorship was acceptable because in the
long term the Internet would be opened up to a wider audience and freedom of
speech would expand.<br />
<br />
That excuse can today be put to bed because Google has banned its users
<em>inside the US</em> and the rest of the world from accessing the <a
href="http://www.spacewar.com/Google_Bans_Australian_Based_Military_Space_News_Website.html"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">Space War</a> website
from its search engine.<br />
<br />
Space War is a reasonably tame mainstream website that focuses on geopolitical
affairs and satellite and military technology advancements. It is based in
Australia and carries articles from AFP and United Press International.<br />
<br />
In a <a
href="http://www.spacewar.com/Google_Bans_Australian_Based_Military_Space_News_Website.html"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">statement posted on
its website</a> today, the President and Publisher of Space.TV Corporation Simon
Mansfield released the following comments,<br />
<br />
"Google Inc. has banned SPACEWAR.COM, a news site covering military space.
Reasons for the ban by Google are unclear. The company did not communicate with
Space.TV Corp., the owner of SPACEWAR.COM, prior to its action, and Google
representatives did not respond to requests for comment."<br />
<br />
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDuE0kPArnt5wTOrbJb839hzW68hb3bs2FWQ0fyvhG6Tl9186SizTfLubO_4P4y4iD-QZwz1OjoeqRAx3QlkXlTHZpFtzax-mvUCH76jGskE-Fqo1zkUyJDAyrZb5OGZ2CTmB0/s400/google2.jpg" height="277" width="380"
alt="Citizen Protest Google" class="entryphoto3" /><br />
<br />
"Google Inc.'s preferred method of banning a site is to delist its primary
domain URL - www.spacewar.com - from the Google search index. Google also can
reduce a site's page rank, or eliminate it entirely, as it has done to
SpaceWar.com."<br />
<br />
"Google Inc in the wake of pressure from the Chinese government has begun
blocking access to various websites deemed unfriendly to the "Boys From Beijing"
(TM)."<br />
<br />
"At this stage we have no evidence to suggest this is the reason why Google has
banned SPACEWAR.COM. The lack of any forewarning that SPACEWAR.COM was operating
in violation of Google's increasingly strict search engine compliance
requirements, however, leads us to suspect the ban is politically
motivated."<br />
<br />
"Google Inc.'s corporate mantra is "Do No Evil." Obviously, this is not true
given Google's willingness to submit to the censorship requirements of the
Chinese government."<br />
<br />
It is important to stress that Space War is not even outright hostile to the
Chinese government, it simply reports on publicly available information about its
military progression and relations with other countries.<br />
<br />
This sets the precedent for Google to ban any website that is even mildly
critical of the Communist dictatorship in China. Much to our surprise, the
website you are reading now is still accessible in most areas of China but we
don't expect it to remain that way for very much longer.<br />
<br />
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxr-5HFT5zwAMGgL_JcYRvWPeqHwHIq2OrXP8kG9qUXUN1vSDrNneSbCR19mNRrsYPgMBocf4msS8zAEnq7Rs6Z3IdWbIDBApQDkL10xUeUwp4u-KbwRv78sp2TwIB_byT1lrE/s400/tsquare.jpg" height="194" width="300"
alt="Tiananmen Square on June 4th 1989" class="entryphoto2" />The Chinese
government is held aloft by the UN and others as the model of the New World
Order. The country is no less totalitarian than it was when the PLA massacred as
many as 2600 protesters and injured 10,000 more at Tiananmen Square on June 4th
1989.<br />
<br />
Political dissidents and peaceful practitioners of the Falun Gong religion and
even the <a
href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060224.CHINA24/TPStory/TPInternational/"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">lawyers who defend
them</a> are subject to <a
href="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/12/1047431092598.html?oneclick=true"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">mobile execution
vans</a> or if they're lucky, hauled off to permanent detention camps.<br />
<br />
US companies like Microsoft and Yahoo have been complicit in helping the Chinese
government <a
href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/10/yahoo_china_cyber-dissident_flak/"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">locate and arrest
Chinese bloggers</a> who post even mild criticism of the government.<br />
<br />
Space War is inviting its readers to complain to their political representative.
We urge you to support them by <a
href="http://www.spacewar.com/Google_Bans_Australian_Based_Military_Space_News_Website.html"
onclick="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;"
onkeypress="window.open(this.href,'newwin'); return false;">following this
link</a> and ensuring that the practice of worldwide censorship of websites
critical of the ChiComs ends now.</p>Chazzsongshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12832406704954147954noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28034920.post-82006378965140094392007-03-03T12:13:00.001-05:002007-03-03T12:23:55.164-05:00Is Digg Rigged?...Is Digg Dumb...Or Just Busted?<h2>Is Digg Rigged?</h2>
<p><strong>Are "bury brigades" helping to censor Prisonplanet & Infowars
reports?</strong></p>
<p>by <a href="http://www.infowars.net/articles/march2007/020307Digg.htm"
target="_blank">Steve Watson</a> - Friday, March 2, 2007</p>
<p><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0PmtMIwqfh2LT3hvv2hJqPWJaWSyNROD4lttCQ8PiNVt20mKXmpFqjtW2DRRGasOXmDyTfqEaR67TnOVdfGkhK5gXngejGvYOdoQlkNVHIjnRaPDptym1r8e9iN3yySjsxTJX/s400/digg.jpg" width="320" height="181" alt="Digg Website news" class="entryphoto3" /></p>
<p>Reports this week have suggested that the online news community digg may be
suffering abuse at the hands of a group of users that are burying Digg stories they
find ideologically unappealing.</p>
<p>Rumors are flying around the Internet that these so called "bury brigades" could
be more than just a group of geeky self appointed censors and that it may actually be
Digg themselves, or even agencies of the government, that are censoring stories and
preventing the information from going viral on the net.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,72835-0.html" target="_blank">Wired
news</a> reports:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>On Tuesday, a bug in the social news site's Digg Spy tool gave one smart
Digger the ability to peer into the inner workings of the community. Namely, David
LeMieux <a href="http://www.lemieuxster.com/digg/expose/" target="_blank">found a
way</a> to highlight which users were burying stories on Digg, and why.</em></p>
<p><em>Muhammad Saleem followed up LeMieux's data with a post titled, "<a
href="http://www.pronetadvertising.com/articles/the-bury-brigade-exists-and-heres-my-proof.html"
target="_blank">The Bury Brigade Exists, and Here's My Proof.</a>"</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The suggestion is that a select group of users are doing a great deal more burying
than anyone else. Obviously this cannot be proven definitively for the moment, but it
is interesting to note the subject matter of what is being buried.</p>
<p>The same Wired report mentioned above was submitted to digg and was immediately
buried. Wired then reported that all similar reports linking to the same issue had
also been buried very quickly, commenting:</p>
<blockquote>
<em>Is this a legitimate act of the community, or is it censorship? Digg does have
silent moderators, and there have always been rumors that they delete or bury
submissions which overtly threaten Digg's reputation. My opinion: Information wants
to be free, and if this is censorship, then shame on Digg. If the buries came from
the community, I'm curious as to why all discussions related to the bury problem
are themselves buried. Does the community not want to confront these problems?</em>
</blockquote>
<p>It is highly suspicious as to why anyone would continually go to the trouble of
burying these stories.</p>
<p>What is not so hard to believe, however, is the fact that every major report we
have put out on the 9/11 revelations this week have been instantly buried, sometimes
only a matter of minutes after they have been submitted.</p>
<p>A cursory search through <a href="http://www.lemieuxster.com/digg/expose/"
target="_blank">David LeMieux' hacked list</a> of buries reveals that many stories
relating to 9/11 have been buried by the same group.</p>
<p>As soon as a story is submitted, it instantly goes into the "Upcoming Stories"
section on the digg page. Once it receives enough diggs, usually around 70, Then It
moves up the ranking of the upcoming stories section and can quickly hit the home
page, unless users choose to digg it down or bury it.</p>
<p>Digg has never revealed exactly how the bury system works, but they tell us that
the number of reports required to bury is based on a sliding scale that takes several
factors into consideration (such as number of diggs, reports, time of day, topic
submitted to, etc.).</p>
<p>However, this system is clearly flawed as many of our reports have gone on to
receive thousands of diggs and hundreds of comments AFTER they have been buried. All
this has been of little use because once a story is buried it cannot be brought back
and thus cannot hit the front page of digg.com and be seen by millions of readers who
do not normally visit Prisonplanet and Infowars.</p>
<p>Digg's bury system has been accused of being totally undemocratic because it
allows a few users to prevent the many from reading articles and making their own
mind up on the material.</p>
<p>For a story to be buried after just a few minutes defeats the whole point of the
community and has thus prompted many users to complain to digg, who have responded by
promising to "look into it".</p>
<p>It seems that the "bury brigades" are working together and are closely monitoring
every story that is submitted, hitting bury and then "digging down" all the comments,
as soon as they come in, which is rumored to bury a story more quickly.</p>
<p>In order to do this, you have to keep refreshing the page every 2 seconds or so.
It is difficult to believe that someone or some group would dedicate themselves to
doing this without having a purpose behind it, and the evidence so far suggests that
a select few are the ones doing the burying.</p>
<p>We encourage all of our regular readers to digg down the negative comments, and
digg up 9/11 truther comments, when submitting to digg. We wait with baited breath to
discover whether this article will also be instantly buried by the unidentified
censors.</p>
<p>For more information on how digg works, <a
href="http://infowars.net/articles/february2007/200207Digg.htm" target="_blank">click
here</a>.</p>
<h2>Is Digg dumb...Or Just Busted?</h2>
<p>by Douglas Herman - 3-2-7</p>
<p>I don't dig Digg. Maybe I'm too dumb to get it. What seems like a simple website
warehouse for stories "Digged" to the top of newsworthiness (stories I wouldn't waste
my time reading) seems, at first glance, like a great idea.</p>
<p>But I took a closer look at the archive. This isn't Rense with a smattering
of well-written essays, nor the Liberty Forum with their "Flags" for intelligent
commentary. Rather a sort of Junk Brothers for stories that somehow rose to the top
of the Digg ratings for God-only-knows-what-reason.</p>
<p>I mean, check the top entries for February 27 in their Popular Archive. Very
esoteric, right? Some signs of intelligent life, right? Sort of geeky, gizmo,
computer-oriented, right? I mean, "Geek Squad Charges $415 Dollars To Replace A HArd
Drive" (2,777 diggs) is pretty relevant to millions of computer owners. Right?
But what do you make of all those people recommending, or "Digging," a story about
how "Coca Cola Redesigns cans" (1,873 diggs)? Trivial beyond all comprehension,
right?</p>
<p>But Digg got busted the other night, caught being just another gatekeeper, like
the BBC. In fact they got busted because of that story about the BBC. According
to the Digg honchos, readers vote on the relevancy of a story (a lie) and can bury an
irrelevant story and laud a newsworthy story.</p>
<p>So WHAT was the top Digg-of-The-Day, on February 27? Another cartoon called, "I
will not throw paper airplanes in class" (4,577 diggs). Is it just me, or do all
these Digged stories indicate a myopic world? Especially while three US aircraft
carriers lurk offshore Iran, awaiting the word to start a nuclear war. Is Digg dumb,
or are the people who dig it dumber?</p>
<p>Next I clicked on "Science vs Faith, A simple picture says it all." (3,868 diggs).
I wanted to see what sort of picture transcended religion and science. The image of
the Shroud of Turin perhaps in the smoke of a shuttle launch? Now I confess, my
interests are weird science, religious hypocrisy, archeology, history,
fossil-hunting, conspiracy theories and how to detect conspiracy theories, government
plots and plotters, political shysters and how to spot them, military blunders and
the confessions of simple soldiers used by callous wartime leaders, political
whistleblowers, collapsing skyscrapers (since 9/11) and lost-and-found treasures and
where to find them. Looking at some geeky design (hardly a picture) left a lot to be
desired. Some poster even called it a cartoon. And this got 3,868 diggs? Wonder what
Galileo would make of it.</p>
<p>How many stories in their Popular Archive catch YOUR interest?
Admittedly, many of the computer-related links exceed my knowledge and understanding.
Many more appear adolescent and superficial. And these were the TOP Digged stories.
How many would interest the average person? To the average over-sexed computer geek,
ALL of them of course. Digg aficionados, it appears, are way smarter than the rest of
us but way dumber than the rest of us--in a trivial, post-pubescent sort of way.</p>
<p>Love it or hate it, Digg stories reflect their founder, a UNLV dropout/wunderkind named Kevin Rose. Not surprisingly and to their credit, the most popular links on Digg hardly represent a cross section of the average Ana Nicole-addled, Superbowl addicted, NASCAR- distracted, poor white trash American. Diggers, at first glance,
appear to be of above intelligence, a cross between a computer tech prodigy and
Beavis and Butthead.</p>
<p>But then a conspiracy theorist a 911Blogger.com caught Digg dumping top
stories for their, yup, conspiracy theory angles. We had all read that
accusation before. Until now we had always ignored them. Nobody
knew if the accusations were true or not but, being a conspiracy-theorist, I
could dig it.</p>
<p>According to one critic who wrote to Digg tech support, a fellow called J. A.
Simon, who referred to himself as SuperNova: "It appears Digg is not interested in
media democracy. In your 'How Digg Works' section your website Digg states the
following: "Digg is a digital media democracy. As a user, you participate in
determining all site content by discovering, selecting, sharing, and discussing the
news, videos, and podcasts that appeal to you." This is appears to be deceptive. Your
company is purposely suppressing a story."</p>
<p>Digg techies responded to SuperNova: "That story was reported as lame and
subsequently removed by the digg community. Please review our FAQ (digg.com/faq) for
more information on the promotion/burial of stories. This is just how the system
works. This is crowd-generated media. There was a high number of diggs with very low
karma and a high number of buries from users with very high karma. There is no
conspiracy (emphasis mine), there is no abuse, the buries happened from veteran users
on digg with proven track records."</p>
<p>Oh what tangled webs we weave. High karma? Veteran users? Proven track record?
Things that make you go Hmmmm. Can you dig it?</p>
<p>OK. So a story gets "voted" on by high karma veteran geeks at Digg? Weird but the
same thing happens every day down at your local newspaper by a couple of editors
without any karma at all. But Digg was supposed to be different, right? Not like the
power wielded by corrupt Catholic church officials of the Inquisition who voted on
whom to torture. Digg would have let readers vote on Galileo---an early planetary
conspiracy theorist--and not censor his views by a secret group of veteran users,
with high karma and a proven track record. Right?</p>
<p>But Simon, SuperNova, wouldn't let Digg placate him with obvious contradictions
and obfuscations. He responded:</p>
<p>"RE: Suppressed Story On Digg - BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes
Before It Fell. At the time I am sending this email (Feb 27) it currently has 1,364
Digg's (and) it is not listed under ANY of your top story lists.When I check under the
top stories of the last 24 hours, I see that it is absent. According to the stories
that I see in these sections and the number of 'Digg's' attached to them, it clearly
should be listed in the top ten of all three of these categories. This information
clearly exposes your company as being deceptive and a practitioner of censorship. I
would appreciate a prompt response clarifying your reason for doing this. Sincerely,
J. A. Simon"</p>
<p>As you can see from the list of TOP stories of February 27, in the Popular
Archive, 1,364 Diggs would clearly put that story among the top links. Certainly more
worthy, and more highly-rated, than paper airplanes, sex toys and a Borat DVD.</p>
<p>But that was before Digg got Busted.</p>
<p>David Cohn, at Wired, wrote, after the revelation: "Amid all the claims that Digg
has a biased Bury Brigade, it's actually reassuring to know that a network of Digg
users has risen up to try and get to the bottom of this."</p>
<p>Only because they got caught, Dave. How long would it have taken them to fix their
fraud if some intrepid soul hadn't busted them? Just like the BBC---ironically
because of the BBC fraud---Digg got caught fukking with their files.</p>
<p>Maybe I'm too dumb to dig Digg. Or maybe Digg just doesn't get it. Maybe Digg--now
that they've been blatantly caught censoring information---doesn't get the intrinsic
nature of the Internet. The freedom of ALL information. Sure some information
scares the hell out of all of us. This is an Orwellian world. And you are either
part of the problem---Digg and the BBC for example--or part of the solution. Because
freedom of information is far more important than how to rig a computer or make it
run faster. Or to paraphrase Henry David Thoreau: "What's the use of a fine house if
you haven't got a tolerable planet to put it on?" So what is the point of a perfect
computer if you haven't got an uncensored planet to put it on?</p>
<p>Wacky naturalist and amateur fossil hunter, Douglas Herman writes for Rense.com occasionally. Don't bother digging this story; the Fukks there will just Buryy itt.<br />
</p>Chazzsongshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12832406704954147954noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28034920.post-1168696052094504002007-01-13T08:44:00.000-05:002007-01-13T08:47:32.116-05:00NSA, Microsoft Worked Together on Windows Vista Security<h2>NSA, Microsoft Worked Together on Windows Vista Security</h2>
<br />
<img src="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/6437/2732/400/95928/windows_vista.jpg" width="420" height="315" alt=""
class="entryphoto3" /><br />
JAN 10, 2007<br />
<br />
<strong>The U.S. agency best known for eavesdropping on telephone calls had a
hand in the development of Microsoft’s Vista operating system, Microsoft
confirmed Tuesday.</strong>
<p>The National Security Agency (NSA) stepped in to help Microsoft develop a
configuration of its next-generation operating system that would meet U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD) requirements, said NSA spokesman Ken White.<br />
<br />
This is not the first time the secretive agency has been brought in to consult
private industry on operating system security, White said, but it is the first
time the NSA has worked with a vendor prior to the release of an operating
system.<br />
<br />
By getting involved early in the process, the NSA helped Microsoft ensure that
it was delivering a product that was both secure and compatible with existing
government software, he said.<br />
<br />
"This allows us to ensure that the off-the-shelf security configuration that the
DoD customer receives is at a level that meets our standards," White said. "It
just makes a lot more sense to be involved up front than it does to have the tail
wag the dog."<br />
<br />
The NSA’s involvement in Vista was first <a
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010801352.html"
target="_blank">reported Tuesday by The Washington Post</a>.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/885409" target="_blank">NSA has
provided guidance</a> on how best to secure Microsoft’s Windows XP and
Windows 2000 operating systems in the past. The agency is also credited with
reviewing the <a
href="http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/security/guide.mspx"
target="_blank">Vista Security Guide published on Microsoft’s
website</a>.<br />
<br />
Microsoft declined to allow its executives to be interviewed for this story. But
in a statement, the company said it asked a number of entities and government
agencies to review Vista, including the NSA, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST).<br />
<br />
Still, the NSA’s involvement in Vista raises red flags for some. "There
could be some good reason for concern," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director
of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). "Some bells are going to go
off when the government’s spy agency is working with the private
sector’s top developer of operating systems."<br />
<br />
Part of this concern may stem from the NSA’s reported historical interest
in gaining "backdoor" access to encrypted data produced by products from U.S.
computer companies like Microsoft.<br />
<br />
In 1999, U.S. Congressman Curt Weldon said that "high-level deal-making on
access to encrypted data had taken place between the NSA and IBM and Microsoft,"
according to EPIC’s website.<br />
<br />
With Vista expected to eventually power the majority of the world’s
personal computers, it would be tempting for the government agency to push for a
way to gain access to data on these systems, privacy advocates say.<br />
<br />
The NSA provided guidance on Vista’s security configuration, but it did
not open any back doors to Windows, White said. "This is not the development of
code here. This is the assisting in the development of a security configuration,"
he said.<br />
<br />
While the NSA is best known for its surveillance activities, the work with
Microsoft is being done in accordance with the NSA’s second mandate: to
protect the nation’s information system, White said. "This is the other
half of the NSA mission that you never hear much about," he said. "All you ever
hear about is foreign signal intelligence. The other half is information
assurance."<br />
<br />
<em>-Robert McMillan, IDG News Service (San Francisco Bureau)</em></p>
<h1>FLASHBACK: How NSA access was built into Windows</h1>
Duncan Campbell 04.09.1999
<h2>Careless mistake reveals subversion of Windows by NSA.</h2>
<p>A CARELESS mistake by Microsoft programmers has revealed that special access
codes prepared by the US National Security Agency have been secretly built into
Windows. The NSA access system is built into every version of the Windows
operating system now in use, except early releases of Windows 95 (and its
predecessors). The discovery comes close on the heels of the revelations earlier
this year that another US software giant, Lotus, had built an NSA "help
information" into its Notes system, and that security functions on other software
systems had been deliberately crippled.<br />
<br />
The first discovery of the new NSA access system was made two years ago by
British researcher Dr Nicko van Someren. But it was only a few weeks ago when a
second researcher rediscovered the access system. With it, he found the evidence
linking it to NSA.<br />
<br />
Computer security specialists have been aware for two years that unusual
features are contained inside a standard Windows software "driver" used for
security and encryption functions. The driver, called ADVAPI.DLL, enables and
controls a range of security functions. If you use Windows, you will find it in
the C:\Windows\system directory of your computer.<br />
<br />
ADVAPI.DLL works closely with Microsoft Internet Explorer, but will only run
crypographic functions that the US governments allows Microsoft to export. That
information is bad enough news, from a European point of view. Now, it turns out
that ADVAPI will run special programmes inserted and controlled by NSA. As yet,
no-one knows what these programmes are, or what they do.<br />
<br />
Dr Nicko van Someren reported at last year's Crypto 98 conference that he had
disassembled the ADVADPI driver. He found it contained two different keys. One
was used by Microsoft to control the cryptographic functions enabled in Windows,
in compliance with US export regulations. But the reason for building in a second
key, or who owned it, remained a mystery.<br />
<br />
A second key Two weeks ago, a US security company came up with conclusive
evidence that the second key belongs to NSA. Like Dr van Someren, Andrew
Fernandez, chief scientist with Cryptonym of Morrisville, North Carolina, had
been probing the presence and significance of the two keys. Then he checked the
latest Service Pack release for Windows NT4, Service Pack 5. He found that
Microsoft's developers had failed to remove or "strip" the debugging symbols used
to test this software before they released it. Inside the code were the labels
for the two keys. One was called "KEY". The other was called "NSAKEY".<br />
<br />
Fernandes reported his re-discovery of the two CAPI keys, and their secret
meaning, to "Advances in Cryptology, Crypto'99" conference held in Santa Barbara.
According to those present at the conference, Windows developers attending the
conference did not deny that the "NSA" key was built into their software. But
they refused to talk about what the key did, or why it had been put there without
users' knowledge.<br />
<br />
A third key?! But according to two witnesses attending the conference, even
Microsoft's top crypto programmers were astonished to learn that the version of
ADVAPI.DLL shipping with Windows 2000 contains not two, but three keys. Brian
LaMachia, head of CAPI development at Microsoft was "stunned" to learn of these
discoveries, by outsiders. The latest discovery by Dr van Someren is based on
advanced search methods which test and report on the "entropy" of programming
code.<br />
<br />
Within the Microsoft organisation, access to Windows source code is said to be
highly compartmentalized, making it easy for modifications to be inserted without
the knowledge of even the respective product managers.<br />
<br />
Researchers are divided about whether the NSA key could be intended to let US
government users of Windows run classified cryptosystems on their machines or
whether it is intended to open up anyone's and everyone's Windows computer to
intelligence gathering techniques deployed by NSA's burgeoning corps of
"information warriors".<br />
<br />
According to Fernandez of Cryptonym, the result of having the secret key inside
your Windows operating system "is that it is tremendously easier for the NSA to
load unauthorized security services on all copies of Microsoft Windows, and once
these security services are loaded, they can effectively compromise your entire
operating system". The NSA key is contained inside all versions of Windows from
Windows 95 OSR2 onwards.<br />
<br />
"For non-American IT managers relying on Windows NT to operate highly secure
data centres, this find is worrying", he added. "The US government is currently
making it as difficult as possible for "strong" crypto to be used outside of the
US. That they have also installed a cryptographic back-door in the world's most
abundant operating system should send a strong message to foreign IT
managers".<br />
<br />
"How is an IT manager to feel when they learn that in every copy of Windows
sold, Microsoft has a 'back door' for NSA - making it orders of magnitude easier
for the US government to access your computer?" he asked.<br />
<br />
Can the loophole be turned round against the snoopers?<br />
<br />
Dr van Someren feels that the primary purpose of the NSA key inside Windows may
be for legitimate US government use. But he says that there cannot be a
legitimate explanation for the third key in Windows 2000 CAPI. "It looks more
fishy", he said.<br />
<br />
Fernandez believes that NSA's built-in loophole can be turned round against the
snoopers. The NSA key inside CAPI can be replaced by your own key, and used to
sign cryptographic security modules from overseas or unauthorised third parties,
unapproved by Microsoft or the NSA. This is exactly what the US government has
been trying to prevent. A demonstration "how to do it" program that replaces the
NSA key can be found on Cryptonym's.<br />
<br />
According to one leading US cryptographer, the IT world should be thankful that
the subversion of Windows by NSA has come to light before the arrival of CPUs
that handles encrypted instruction sets. These would make the type of discoveries
made this month impossible. "Had the next-generation CPU's with encrypted
instruction sets already been deployed, we would have never found out about
NSAKEY."</p>Chazzsongshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12832406704954147954noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28034920.post-1149209173247168222006-06-01T20:45:00.000-04:002007-01-13T00:13:17.430-05:00Wikipedia - Unbiased Encyclopedia or a Jewish Tool<p><img src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6437/2732/320/Wikipedia-logo.jpg"
alt="Wikipedia-logo" /></p>
<p>by <a target="_blank"
href="http://judicial-inc.biz/1_master_supreme.htm">judicial-inc.biz</a></p>
<h2>James Wales Is The Founder</h2>
<center>
<img alt="James Wales Founder of Wikipedia"
src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6437/2732/320/wikipe2.jpg"
class="entryphoto3" />
<h2>The 'Wikipedians' or Moderators</h2>
<img alt="Wikipedians or Moderators"
src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6437/2732/320/wikipe3.jpg" />
<h2>What Is Wikipedia?</h2>
</center>
Wikipedia is an internet encyclopedia, that anyone can edit and add information.
Wikipedia claims it's articles are based on a totally neutral point of view. It's
size is formidable, at 2.5 billion views a month. Once you get below the surface, you
find <a target="_blank"
href="http://studentorgs.uncc.edu/images/2003%20excellence/Hillel.JPG">moderators</a>
that follow an agenda, which clearly takes a Pro-Jewish point of view.
<h2>History Of Wikipedia</h2>
<img src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6437/2732/320/wales_sanger.jpg"
alt="Larry Sanger" class="entryphoto" /> <a target="_blank"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger">Larry Sanger</a>, and Jim Wales,
founded Wikipedia in Jan. of 2001. It was an offshoot of <a target="_blank"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia">Nupedia</a>, an more formal encyclopedia.
Wales is presently in charge. <a target="_blank"
href="http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/My_resignation--Larry_Sanger">Sanger left in
2002</a>, and is a professor/lecturer at Ohio State. Names like Jeremy Rosenfeld,
Benjamin Kovitz, Seth Cohen, dot the landscape of technical staff. Moderators openly
admit to a pro-Jewish bias.
<h2>James Wales History</h2>
<img alt="James Wales"
src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6437/2732/320/wikipe5.jpg"
class="entryphoto" /><a target="_blank"
href="http://www.randolphschool.net/">Randolph</a> prep school, and onto the
University of Alabama. Wales graduates, and becomes a <a target="_blank"
href="http://judicial-inc.biz/wikipedia_supplement.htm#Chicago%20Futures%20traders%20are%2095%%20Jewish">
Futures Trader</a> in Chicago. Next <a target="_blank"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Shell">he</a> opens <a target="_blank"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomis">Bomis</a>, an 'Adult Content' website,
which is followed by Nupedia, which morphs into Wikipedia. Wales is the darling of
the Jewish crowd at Harvard, being a fellow at the <a target="_blank"
href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/people">Berkman Center</a> for Internet and
Society, at the Harvard Law School.
<h2>Who Is Bomis.Com?</h2>
<img alt="adult erotica"
src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6437/2732/320/wikipe18.jpg"
class="entryphoto" border="0" height="225" width="189" />Basically 'Bomis' is an <a
target="_blank"
href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sylvia_Saint_001.jpg">adult site</a>,
started by Wales, but Wikipedia calls it erotica. A <a target="_blank"
href="http://www.clubsilviasaint.net/">typical site</a> (caution - extremely
pornographic)
<h2>Wikipedia System Of Control</h2>
<img src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6437/2732/320/wikilogo2.jpg"
alt="Wikipedia WebPage Logo" class="entryphoto" /><a target="_blank"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiPedians">Wikipedians</a> (Jewish volunteers)
will concentrate on a certain subject, and actively moderate any new replies. Once an
individual edits an article, his ISP number is recorded, and he is assigned a <a
target="_blank" href="http://judicial-inc.biz/pyschos/Sayanim.htm">sayanim</a> that
will monitor all his future writings. Individual contributors are assigned a <a
target="_blank"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=202.6.138.34">
tracking page</a>, and an open record of all writings. Through out the cycle the
contributor this will be monitored by Hillel, ADL, SPLC, type control agents.
<h2>Examples Of Censorship</h2>
<img alt="USS Liberty"
src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6437/2732/320/wikipe6.jpg"
class="entryphoto2" />In 1967, with <a target="_blank"
href="http://judicial-inc.biz/War_Israel_1967.htm">Lyndon Johnson's blessing</a>,
Israel attacked Egypt in a surprise assault. In an attempt to create a 'False Flag'
pointing at Egypt, the Zionists attacked the <a target="_blank"
href="http://judicial-inc.biz/uss_liberty.htm">USS Liberty</a>, killing 44 and
wounding 177. The attack failed when three attacking torpedo boats were on their
final run, they collided, and their shots missed the ship. The Liberty got an SOS off
to the USS Saratoga, and Israel was forced to abort the attack.
<h2>Wikipedia's Stance</h2>
Their <a target="_blank"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident">interpretation</a> is the
attack was an innocent mistake, the torpedo boats were actually rescue vehicles,
which the USS fired on, and innocent Israelis had to defend themselves.
<h2>Dr. Fredrick Toben</h2>
<img alt="Dr. Fredrick Toben"
src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6437/2732/320/wikipe7.jpg"
class="entryphoto2" />Dr. Toben is German historian and scholar, that grew up in
Australia, and runs the <a target="_blank"
href="http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/index0.htm">Adelaide Institue</a>. He is noted
for his investigation of the 'Jewish Holocaust'. Wikipedia contributors wrote a
slanderous page on him, and when he went to <a target="_blank"
href="http://judicial-inc.biz/wikipedia_supplement.htm#Fredrick%20Tobens%20comments%20that%20were%20deleted">
refute it</a>, the sayanims deleted all his comments.
<h2>Wikipedia's Stance</h2>
Toben is a monster, who associates with criminals, and himself was a convict
<h2>Theresienstadt</h2>
<img alt="Theresienstadt"
src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6437/2732/320/wikipe8.jpg"
class="entryphoto2" /> In 1941, Germany gave Jewish artists their own experimental
town as prototype refuge, to <a target="_blank"
href="http://www.judicial-inc.biz/Theirstein_Camp.htm">protect Jews</a>. Subsequently
the Jews have altered history, and refer to it as a death camp. When a <a
target="_blank" href="http://home.att.net/%7Ewhitesox/Theresienstadt3.wmv">1943
documentary film</a> was edited into <a target="_blank"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/Theresienstadt_Ghetto">Wikipedia's
<em>Theresienstadt</em> page</a>, the <a target="_blank"
href="http://www.hillel.org/">Hillel</a> Wikipedians immediately deleted, saying it
was propaganda and holocaust denial
<h2>Wikipedia's Stance</h2>
Theresienstadt was Nazi hellhole, where Jews were starved to death, and then sent on
to <a target="_blank" href="http://judicial-inc.biz/Auschwitz.htm">Auschwitz</a>.
<h2>New Recent Examples Of Censorship</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.rense.com/general73/wiki.htm">Wikipedia Zionists Attack Honest
Historian James Bacque</a></p>
<p><a title="Wikipedia Goes Orwell"
href="http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=138749"
target="_blank">Wikipedia Goes Orwell</a></p>
<p><a title="Wikipedia and bin Laden - A 'Conspiracy Theory' Too Far?"
href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wikipedia_binladen.html"
target="_blank">Wikipedia and bin Laden - A 'Conspiracy Theory' Too Far?</a></p>
<h2>Where Does Wikipedia Get It's Funds?</h2>
<img alt="database photo"
src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6437/2732/320/wikipe9.jpg" /> According to
it's founder, James Wales, it lives on <a target="_blank"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wikipedia">grants and small individual
contributions</a>.
<h2>What's The Real Story?</h2>
From all the available information, it appears Wikipedia was started by a two Jewish
kids, one a programmer, and the other an 'Adult Site' operator. It's dynamic success
(800,000 pages) stems from 10,000 + individual contributors, which are monitored by
core <a target="_blank"
href="http://judicial-inc.biz/pyschos/Sayanim.htm">sayanims</a>. Wikipedia's claim: ~
<i>'We are an internet encyclopedia with a neutral stance' ~</i> is absurd. This
project is an attempt to control student research on the Internet. Any subject
Googled will show Wikipedia as one of the first entries. Type in the word <a
target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsheviks">Bolshevik</a>, and the
first entry is Wikipedia. Explore their version, and you won't be the slightest
mention that the movement was a Jewish instigated bloodbath, that was responsible for
20,000,000 deaths.
<p align="center"><img class="line"
src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6437/2732/320/linei.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Freemasonry link to Kofi Annan's father disappears from Wikipedia</h2>
by Judi McLeod <b>Tuesday, February 7, 2006</b>
<p><img src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6437/2732/320/kofi.jpg"
alt="Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary General" class="entryphoto2" />Underneath a
reminder that, "Your continued donations help Wikipedia grow and improve!" is the
biography of that world acclaimed diplomat, Kofi Annan. Information about
Kofi’s father in the biography held that dad was "a high ranking freemason".
For reasons unknown, lately that information has been removed. Readers can browse
Wikipedia under Kofi Annan’s Biography, Early years and family: "Annan was born
to Henry Reginald and Victoria Annan in the Kofandros section of Kumasi, Ghana" and
"As with most Akan names, his name indicates the day of the week he was born and
place in his family: Kofi indicates a boy born on a Friday, and Annan denotes that he
was the fourth child of his family. Annan was a twin, an occurrence that is regarded
as special in Ghanaian culture; his twin sister Efua Atta died in 1991." Still up on
the first page of Google is a William Shawcross article on Annan from Saga Magazine,
dated November 2002: "Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary General was born in Ghana
in 1938. His mother was from the Fante tribe on the Cape Coast of Ghana and his
father was half Fante, half Ashanti. Annan could have become a chief of either tribe.
In the last days of the British Empire, his father was in business, a manager in
Lever Brothers subsidiary and a leading Freemason." Even though it has more than 6
million members worldwide, Freemasonry and what it stands for is something not
readily understood by the chattering classes. One needs the time and patience to go
back through history to ever begin to understand the intrigues of this all-boy
organization. According to Freemasons, Illuminati and Associates, "Freemasonry is the
largest international secret society in the world. "The highest degree of the
Scottish rite of Freemasonry, the Meritorious Degree, the Degree of the Illuminati,
whose motto is "Ordo Ab Chao", or "Out of Chaos comes order"–which literally
means if they break down the existing structure and cause the population to cry out
for order, they will emerge as rulers and have the world that they seek." How many
politicians create havoc only to jump in and save us right around election time?
Interesting to note that many of the estimated six million Free Masons occupy
leadership positions around the world. Almost as interesting to note that some
conspiracy types swear that the main agenda of the United Nations is for One World
Order. Was Kofi Annan’s father a "leading Freemason"? If the father of the
seventh and current Secretary General of the United Nations was a Freemason, what
affect did this have on the little boy who grew up to run the world’s largest
bureaucracy? Meanwhile, why did the information about Kofi Annan’s father being
a high-ranking Freemason flat out disappear from Wikipedia? For sure, the answer
would make for an intriguing story.</p>
<blockquote>
Canada Free Press founding editor Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with
30 years experience in the media. A former Toronto Sun and Kingston Whig Standard
columnist, she has also appeared on Newsmax.com, the Drudge Report, Foxnews.com,
and World Net Daily.
</blockquote>
<h2>Wikipedia: What it Doesn't Say</h2>
<div>
</div>
<div style="float:right;padding-left:5px">
<div
style="width:216px;height:216px;padding-left:5px;padding-right:5px;padding-bottom:80px;padding-top:5px;background:white;border:1px solid black;text-align:center;">
<img src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6437/2732/320/wiki8.jpg"
height="193" width="179" class="entryphoto2" alt="James H. Fetzer" /><br />
<strong>James H. Fetzer<br />
Founder and Co-Chair<br />
Scholars for 9/11 Truth</strong>
</div>
</div>
<p>I have just spent several frustrating hours trying to revise and improve the entry
on "Scholars for 9/11 Truth", only to discover that my rewrites were being
over-ridden by someone at Wikipedia. I find that offensive. The present entry
has a warning label stating, "The neutrality of this article is disputed." From what
I can discern from reviewing the "Talk Page", persons with scant or biased
knowledge of the society appear to be determining the contents. So I agree with
the warning but not for the reasons that may have motivated it. Here is what
I tried to post in its place. <br />
<a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1683057245164550824&q=fetzer"
target="_blank">One minute Video Clip</a></p>
<p><strong>Related:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><a target="_blank" href="http://www.rense.com/general73/togeth.htm">Muslims,
Jews, Christians Join To Condemn Zionism</a></li>
<li><a target="_blank" href="http://www.rense.com/Datapages/zionismdata.htm">Jeff
Rense Zionism Datapage</a></li>
<li><a target="_blank"
href="http://www.thailandesl.soundbankers.org/nwo_jewish_global.htm">The Challenge
of Jewish-Zionist Power in an Era of Global Struggle</a></li>
<li><a target="_blank"
href="http://thailandesl.psykadelic.com/threat_israel_spying.htm">The Israeli Spy
Ring Scandel</a></li>
<li><a target="_blank"
href="http://thailandesl.psykadelic.com/inews_israel_lobby_exposed.htm">Israeli
Lobby Exposed - The Report</a></li>
<li><a target="_blank"
href="http://thailandesl.psykadelic.com/inews_israel.htm">U.N. votes 150-6 against
West Bank barrier</a></li>
</ul>
<h2>How Israel Controls America</h2>
<p>ESSENTIAL VIDEOS</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSp-oIOhq00&mode=related&search="
target="_blank">If Americans Only Knew How Israel Controls Us</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rD_rWcDRZQ&mode=related&search="
target="_blank">Nader Explains How Jewish Lobby Robs Americans</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNQv5YSg_YA&mode=related&search="
target="_blank">The Israel Lobby And US Foreign Policy</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST9s9_n9Org&mode=related&search="
target="_blank">The US-Israel Empire</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CavjNvkgqew&mode=related&search="
target="_blank">Mearsheimer - Israel Lobby Has Warped US Policy - Part 1</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugbDXv9fdOU&mode=related&search="
target="_blank">Mearsheimer- Israel Lobby Has Warped US Policy - Part 2</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSAqNuf55k0&mode=related&search="
target="_blank">Prof John Mearsheimer On The Isreal Lobby</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIPv298fdRY&mode=related&search="
target="_blank">Measheimer And Walt On The Israel Lobby</a></p>Chazzsongshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12832406704954147954noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28034920.post-1147524592232145742006-05-13T08:49:00.000-04:002007-01-13T00:26:13.096-05:00Internet Censorship - Total Information Awareness<p>by Wayne Madsen - 12-9-5</p>
<p><img src="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/6437/2732/400/436078/darpa.jpg" alt="Total Information Awareness" class="entryphoto2" />Internet censorship. It did not happen overnight but slowly came to America's
shores from testing grounds in China and the Middle East.<br />
<br />
Progressive and investigative journalist web site administrators are beginning
to talk to each other about it, e-mail users are beginning to understand why
their e-mail is being disrupted by it, major search engines appear to be
complying with it, and the low to equal signal-to-noise ratio of legitimate
e-mail and spam appears to be perpetuated by it.<br />
<br />
In this case, "it," is what privacy and computer experts have long warned about:
massive censorship of the web on a nationwide and global scale. For many years,
the web has been heavily censored in countries around the world. That censorship
continues at this very moment. Now it is happening right here in America.<br />
<br />
The agreement by the Congress to extend an enhanced Patriot Act for another four
years will permit the political enforcers of the Bush administration, who use law
enforcement as their proxies, to further clamp censorship controls on the
web.<br />
<br />
Internet Censorship: The Warning Signs Were Not Hidden<br />
<br />
The warning signs for the crackdown on the web have been with us for over a
decade. The Clipper chip controversy of the 90s, John Poindexter's Total
Information Awareness (TIA) system pushed in the aftermath of 9-11, backroom
deals between the Federal government and the Internet service industry, and the
Patriot Act have ushered in a new era of Internet censorship, something just half
a decade ago computer programmers averred was impossible given the nature of the
web. They were wrong, dead wrong.<br />
<br />
Take for example of what recently occurred when two journalists were taking on
the phone about a story that appeared on Google News. The story was about a
Christian fundamentalist move in Congress to use U.S. military force in Sudan to
end genocide in Darfur. The story appeared on the English Google News site in
Qatar. But the very same Google News site when accessed simultaneously in
Washington, DC failed to show the article. This censorship is accomplished by
geolocation filtering: the restriction or modifying of web content based on the
geographical region of the user. In addition to countries, such filtering can now
be implemented for states, cities, and even individual IP addresses.<br />
<br />
With reports in the Swedish newspaper Svensa Dagbladet today that the United
States has transmitted a Homeland Security Department "no fly" list of 80,000
suspected terrorists to airport authorities around the world, it is not
unreasonable that a "no [or restricted] surfing/emailing" list has been
transmitted to Internet Service Providers around the world. The systematic
disruptions of web sites and email strongly suggests that such a list
exists.<br />
<br />
News reports on CIA prisoner flights and secret prisons are disappearing from
Google and other search engines like Alltheweb as fast as they appear. Here now,
gone tomorrow is the name of the game.<br />
<br />
Google is systematically failing to list and link to articles that contain
explosive information about the Bush administration, the war in Iraq, Al Qaeda,
and U.S. political scandals. But Google is not alone in working closely to stifle
Internet discourse. America On Line, Microsoft, Yahoo and others are slowly
turning the Internet into an information superhighway dominated by barricades,
toll booths, off-ramps that lead to dead ends, choke points, and security
checks.<br />
<br />
America On Line is the most egregious is stifling Internet freedom. A former AOL
employee noted how AOL and other Internet Service Providers cooperate with the
Bush administration in censoring email. The Patriot Act gave federal agencies the
power to review information to the packet level and AOL was directed by agencies
like the FBI to do more than sniff the subject line. The AOL term of service
(TOS) has gradually been expanded to grant AOL virtually universal power
regarding information. Many AOL users are likely unaware of the elastic clause,
which says they will be bound by the current TOS and any TOS revisions which AOL
may elect at any time in the future. Essentially, AOL users once agreed to allow
the censorship and non-delivery of their email.<br />
<br />
<strong>Microsoft has similar requirements for Hotmail as do Yahoo and Google
for their respective e-mail services.</strong><br />
<br />
There are also many cases of Google's search engine failing to list and link to
certain information. According to a number of web site administrators who carry
anti-Bush political content, this situation has become more pronounced in the
last month. In addition, many web site administrators are reporting a dramatic
drop-off in hits to their sites, according to their web statistic analyzers.
Adding to their woes is the frequency at which spam viruses are being spoofed as
coming from their web site addresses.<br />
<br />
Government disruption of the political side of the web can easily be hidden amid
hyped mainstream news media reports of the latest "boutique" viruses and worms,
reports that have more to do with the sales of anti-virus software and services
than actual long-term disruption of banks, utilities, or airlines.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/6437/2732/400/776658/computercensor.gif" height="154" width="204"
alt="Computer Website Blocked" class="entryphoto3" /><br />
<br />
<strong>Internet Censorship in the US: No Longer a Prediction.</strong><br />
<br />
Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Cisco Systems have honed their skills at Internet
censorship for years in places like China, Jordan, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, the
United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, and other countries. They have learned well. They
will be the last to admit they have imported their censorship skills into the
United States at the behest of the Bush regime. Last year, the Bush-Cheney
campaign blocked international access to its web site -- www.georgewbush.com --
for unspecified "security reasons."<br />
<br />
Only those in the Federal bureaucracy and the companies involved are in a
position to know what deals have been made and how extensive Internet censorship
has become. They owe full disclosure to their customers and their fellow
citizens.<br />
<br />
http://waynemadsenreport.com/
</p>
<h2>The internet nanny is cute ...</h2>
<p>
by <a target="_blank"
href="http://www.shanghaiist.com/archives/2006/01/16/the_internet_na.php">Shanghailist.com</a><br />
<br />
<img alt="Internet Police in China.jpg"
src="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/6437/2732/400/183902/chachashenzheninternetpoliceChina.jpg" height="283"
width="283" class="entryphoto" />
<p>... until she confiscates your computer and hauls you away and locks you up for a
couple of years on trumped up charges relating to <strike>national
security</strike> leaking national secrets . and then you realize she.s a hard
ass. Inspired by the hideous and tacky mascots of the <a
href="http://en.beijing2008.com/37/03/column211990337.shtml">Beijing
Olympics</a>, the Shenzhen police devised a way of making their new <a
href="http://city.sz.net.cn/city/2005-12/31/content_178710.htm">internet police
force</a> (which started work on January 1 of this year) seem more cute and
acceptable to the masses . using cartoon mascots of their own. One is named Jing
Jing (the male), and the other Cha Cha (the female). .Jing. and .cha. are the
characters that comprise the word for .police. in Chinese. Shanghaiist is sure
that some of you readers are no doubt Westerners that just don.t get China and
Chinese values, which is why the po-lice have to <a
href="http://www.e-gov.org.cn/Article/news003/2005-12-31/15141.html">spell it
out</a> for you:</p>
<p>????????? ????????“????”,??????????????,???????????</p>
<p>This basically states that websites, including BBSs, discussion groups (and
most definitely blogs) are <em>public places</em>, and so internet denizens must
likewise watch what they say and do. Thus the two cartoon figures will appear on
various Shenzhen sites from now on. Apparently, you can click on either one and
then be brought to a page (<a target="_blank"
href="http://66110.qzone.qq.com">here</a> or <a target="_blank"
href="http://777110.qzone.qq.com">here</a>) where you can talk live with real
cops. One of the interesting things about these cartoon cops is that people have
expressed the feeling that Jing Jing and Cha Cha look just too darn cute, and
that no internet bad boys are going to be thinking about what they gonna do when
these cartoon cops come for you. To learn more, read an English report <a
target="_blank"
href="http://www.china.org.cn/english/government/154200.htm">here</a>. There is
something we don.t get, though: Why is it that Cha Cha has those marks under her
doe eyes that indicate she.s a <em>she</em>, while neither she nor Jing Jing even
has a f*cking nose? Anyway, we.d definitely pay more attention to her if she
looked like, say, <a target="_blank"
href="http://www.electricferret.com/callisto/cal_jes3.jpg">Jessica Rabbit</a> .
but we digress. You won.t find these two at your local donut shop . they.re hard
at work on many sites, like on the right side of this <a target="_blank"
href="http://www.sz.net.cn/">webpage</a>. Click on the icon and it.ll take you to
yet another page where you can then go to the links we gave above where you can
talk with real coppers. We.ve been unsuccessful at actually getting someone thus
far. It could be that there are just too many people out there dying to talk to
an internet cop about T1betan independence, official corruption, human rights
violations, heroin and gay sex.</p>
<p align="center"><img src="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/6437/2732/400/743271/cybercop.jpg" width="289" height="350"
alt="China Cybercop" /></p>
<strong>Related:</strong><br />
<a target="_blank"
href="http://management.silicon.com/government/0,39024677,39155583,00.htm">China:
Web censorship gives US pause for thought</a> (silicon.com)<br />
<a target="_blank"
href="http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2006/nf20060113_6735_db053.htm">
How China Controls the Internet</a> (<em>Business Week</em>)<br />
<br />
<h2>Anonymizer's new anti-filter service for China netizens</h2>
<p>Anonymizer launched a new project called "Operation Anti-Censorship" last week -- free privacy software to help Chinese citizens circumvent government-issue Web filters. Snip from product launch announcement:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><img src="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/6437/2732/400/747451/anonsurf_screenshott.gif" alt="Anonymizer Operation Anti-Censorship" class="entryphoto" />In addition, the new solution protects users from detection, persecution, and retribution by shielding their personal identities and related information that the Chinese government is currently able to monitor. The site that currently hosts the software download is <a target="_blank" href="http://www.xifuchun.com">www.xifuchun.com</a>, however please note that this URL will be changed on a regular basis to avoid blocking by the Chinese government. Anonymizer relies on early adopters to share the regularly changing URLs with their friends and family members so the number of people able to safely access the Internet continues to grow.
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Also:</strong> <a target="_blank" href="http://www.2bangkok.com/blocked.shtml">Website
censorship in Thailand</a></p>
<h2>US plans to 'fight the net' revealed</h2>
<p>by Adam Brookes - <a target="_blank"
href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm">BBC</a> Pentagon
correspondent<br />
27 January 2006</p>
<p><a
href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/27_01_06_psyops.pdf">Information
Operations Roadmap</a> <strong>The document says information is "critical to
military success"</strong><br />
<br />
<img src="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/6437/2732/400/636561/internetshop.jpg" width="300" height="195" border="0" alt=""
class="entryphoto2" /> <strong>Bloggers beware</strong>.
<p>As the world turns networked, the Pentagon is calculating the military
opportunities that computer networks, wireless technologies and the modern media
offer.<br />
<br />
From influencing public opinion through new media to designing "computer network
attack" weapons, the US military is learning to fight an electronic war.<br />
<br />
The declassified document is called "Information Operations Roadmap". It was
obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University using
the Freedom of Information Act.<br />
<br />
Officials in the Pentagon wrote it in 2003. The Secretary of Defense, Donald
Rumsfeld, signed it.<br />
<br />
The "roadmap" calls for a far-reaching overhaul of the military's ability to
conduct information operations and electronic warfare. And, in some detail, it
makes recommendations for how the US armed forces should think about this new,
virtual warfare.<br />
<br />
The document says that information is "critical to military success". Computer
and telecommunications networks are of vital operational importance.</p>
<h2>Propaganda</h2>
<p>
The operations described in the document include a surprising range of military
activities: public affairs officers who brief journalists, psychological
operations troops who try to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of an enemy,
computer network attack specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks.</p>
<p><strong>All these are engaged in information operations.</strong></p>
<blockquote>
Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that
information put out as part of the military's psychological operations, or
Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary
Americans.
</blockquote>
<p>"Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and
Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience," it reads.<br />
<br />
"Psyops messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger
audiences, including the American public," it goes on.<br />
<br />
The document's authors acknowledge that American news media should not
unwittingly broadcast military propaganda. "Specific boundaries should be
established," they write. But they don't seem to explain how.<br />
<br />
"In this day and age it is impossible to prevent stories that are fed abroad as
part of psychological operations propaganda from blowing back into the United
States - even though they were directed abroad," says Kristin Adair of the
National Security Archive.
<h2>Credibility problem</h2>
<p>
Public awareness of the US military's information operations is low, but it's
growing - thanks to some operational clumsiness.<br />
<br />
When it describes plans for electronic warfare, or EW, the document takes on an
extraordinary tone. It seems to see the internet as being equivalent to an enemy
weapons system<br />
<br />
Late last year, it emerged that the Pentagon had paid a private company, the
Lincoln Group, to plant hundreds of stories in Iraqi newspapers. The stories -
all supportive of US policy - were written by military personnel and then placed
in Iraqi publications.<br />
<br />
And websites that appeared to be information sites on the politics of Africa and
the Balkans were found to be run by the Pentagon.<br />
<br />
But the true extent of the Pentagon's information operations, how they work, who
they're aimed at, and at what point they turn from informing the public to
influencing populations, is far from clear.<br />
<br />
The roadmap, however, gives a flavour of what the US military is up to - and the
grand scale on which it's thinking.<br />
<br />
It reveals that Psyops personnel "support" the American government's
international broadcasting. It singles out TV Marti - a station which broadcasts
to Cuba - as receiving such support.<br />
<br />
It recommends that a global website be established that supports America's
strategic objectives. But no American diplomats here, thank you. The website
would use content from "third parties with greater credibility to foreign
audiences than US officials".<br />
<br />
It also recommends that Psyops personnel should consider a range of technologies
to disseminate propaganda in enemy territory: unmanned aerial vehicles,
"miniaturized, scatterable public address systems", wireless devices, cellular
phones and the internet.</p>
<h2>'Fight the net'</h2>
<p>
When it describes plans for electronic warfare, or EW, the document takes on an
extraordinary tone.<br />
<br />
It seems to see the internet as being equivalent to an enemy weapons
system.<br />
<br />
"Strategy should be based on the premise that the Department [of Defense] will
'fight the net' as it would an enemy weapons system," it reads.<br />
<br />
The slogan "fight the net" appears several times throughout the roadmap.<br />
<br />
The authors warn that US networks are very vulnerable to attack by hackers,
enemies seeking to disable them, or spies looking for intelligence.<br />
<br />
"Networks are growing faster than we can defend them... Attack sophistication is
increasing... Number of events is increasing."</p>
<h2>US digital ambition</h2>
<p>
And, in a grand finale, the document recommends that the United States should
seek the ability to "provide maximum control of the entire electromagnetic
spectrum".<br />
<br />
US forces should be able to "disrupt or destroy the full spectrum of globally
emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems dependent on the
electromagnetic spectrum"</p>
<h2>Consider that for a moment.</h2>
<p>The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone, every
networked computer, every radar system on the planet.<br />
<br />
Are these plans the pipe dreams of self-aggrandising bureaucrats? Or are they
real?<br />
<br />
The fact that the "Information Operations Roadmap" is approved by the Secretary
of Defense suggests that these plans are taken very seriously indeed in the
Pentagon.<br />
<br />
And that the scale and grandeur of the digital revolution is matched only by the
US military's ambitions for it.
</p>
<h2>Quotes:</h2>
<p>The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen.<br />
~ Tommy Smothers</p>
<p>The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is
robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who
dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is
right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if
wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and
livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.<br />
~ John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859</p>
<br />
<br />Chazzsongshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12832406704954147954noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28034920.post-1148117273938552062006-05-12T05:25:00.000-04:002007-01-13T00:28:54.950-05:00Patriot Act e-mail spying approved<p><img src="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/6437/2732/400/344764/emailspy.jpg" alt="Tug of War" /></p>
<p>
by Declan McCullagh, Staff Writer, <a target="_blank"
href="http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6037598.html">CNET News.com</a><br />
Published: February 9, 2006<p>
<p>
<b>What:</b> The Justice Department asks a judge to approve Patriot Act e-mail
monitoring without any evidence of criminal behavior.<br />
<br />
<b>When:</b> Decided Feb. 2, 2006 by U.S. District Judge <a target="_blank"
href="http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/hogan-bio.html">Thomas Hogan</a> in Washington,
D.C.<br />
<br />
<b>Outcome:</b> E-mail surveillance approved.<br />
<br />
<b>What happened:</b> As part of a grand jury investigation that's still secret,
the Justice Department asked a federal magistrate judge to approve monitoring of
an unnamed person's e-mail correspondents.
<p>The request had a twist: Instead of asking to eavesdrop on the <i>contents</i>
of the e-mail messages, which would require some evidence of wrongdoing,
prosecutors instead requested the identities of the correspondents. Also included
in the request was header information like date and time and Internet
address--but not subject lines.<br />
<br />
The federal magistrate judge balked and asked the Justice Department to submit
an additional brief to demonstrate that such a request would be legal.<br />
<br />
Instead, prosecutors asked Judge Hogan to step in. He reviewed the <a
target="_blank"
href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00003122----000-.html">
portion of federal law</a> dealing with "pen register" and "trap and trace"
devices--terms originating in the world of telephone wiretapping--and concluded
it "unambiguously" authorizes the e-mail surveillance request.<br />
<br />
Though the language may be clumsy, Hogan said, the Patriot Act's amendments
authorize that type of easily obtainable surveillance of e-mail. All that's
required, he said, is that prosecutors claim the surveillance could conceivably
be "relevant" to an investigation.<br />
<br />
<b>Excerpt from the court's opinion:</b><br />
"In 2001, Congress enacted the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the
"USA Patriot Act"), Section 216 of which explicitly amended the authorities
relating to pen registers and trap and trace devices...by expanding the
definitions of these devices to include "processes" to obtain information about
"electronic communication."<br />
<br />
"Commenting on the very language that was finally enacted in Section 216 of the
USA Patriot Act, several members of Congress highlighted the fact that the
amendments would bring the state of the law in line with current technology by
making pen registers and trap and trace devices applicable to the Internet
and--more to the point--e-mail.<br />
<br />
"For example, a section-by-section analysis of the bill that Representative John
Conyers included in the record before the final House vote, which contains the
same language that was finally enacted by Congress, states that Section 216
"extends the pen/trap provisions so they apply not just to telephone
communications but also to Internet traffic."<br />
<br />
"In addition, Senator Jon Kyl, who is currently Chairman of the United States
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology & Homeland Security,
noted that the same language in the Senate version of the bill "would codify
current case law that holds that pen/trap orders apply to modern communication
technologies such as e-mail and the Internet, in addition to traditional phone
lines."<br />
<br />
"The Congressional Research Service also published a legal analysis of the USA
Patriot Act that states that the Act "permits pen register and trap and trace
orders for electronic communications (e.g., e-mail)."<br />
<br />
"The plain language of the statute makes clear that pen registers and trap and
trace devices may be processes used to obtain information about e-mail
communications. The statute's history confirms this interpretation and there is
no support for a contrary result."</p>Chazzsongshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12832406704954147954noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28034920.post-1148117524552046682006-05-11T05:28:00.000-04:002007-01-13T00:30:51.883-05:00Is anyone else reading your email ?<p>Is your boss or even some coworker secretly reading your email ? Are the Federal
agencies snooping your email messages ? Following are two simple techniques that can
help you confirm your suspicion - it detects snoopers and can track the address of
the computer that is watching your email.<br />
<br />
Remember that for steps 3 & 4, you can create a free account on geocities.com,
create a dummy HTML file that contains Statcounter or Google Analytics tracking
script.<br />
<br />
1. Set up a Hotmail account in US and and a second email account with a non-U.S.
provider. (eg. Rediff.com or IndiaTimes.com)<br />
2. Send messages between the two email accounts which might be interesting to the
email snooper or NSA who may be monitoring your email.<br />
3. In each message, include a unique URL to a Web server (link to the dummy file on
geocities.com containing the tracking code) that you have access to its server logs.
This URL should only be known by you and not linked to from any other Web page. The
text of the message should encourage an NSA monitor or email snooper to visit the
URL.<br />
4. If the server log file ever shows this URL being accessed, then you know that you
are being snooped on. The IP address of the access can also provide clues about who
is doing the snooping.<br />
<br />
The other technique uses Google Analytics for tracking the email impressions.<br />
<br />
1. Create an email email message such that Urchin with the following HTML code to
embed the __utm.gif image anywhere in your email message.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://www.google-analytics.com/__utm.gif?<br />
utmt=imp&utmac=C&utmcsr=news1&utmcmd=email&utmctr=em&uctr=k"><br />
<br />
The email impressions would be credited to the source "news1" and the medium "email".
As soon as someone ones your email, the impression will be registered on Google
Analytics server as the gif file is downloaded on the spying computer.<br />
<br />
2. If the email recipient has disabled automatic downloading of internet images, you
can create a campaign link to track the email referrals. Tag these links using the
utm_ campaign variables.<br />
<br />
Continuing with the example above of an email message which you track using the
source "news1" and the medium "email," your tagged link might look like this:<br />
<br />
< a href="www.mywebsite.com/?utm_source=news1&utm_medium=email" <click
here</a><br />
<br />
Update: According to <a
href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051224/pl_nm/security_eavesdropping_dc"
target="_blank">NYT</a>, the volume of information gathered from telephone and
Internet communications by the National Security Agency without court-approved
warrants was much larger than the White House has acknowledged.<br />
<br />
Americans come to the program's attention only if they have received a call or e-mail
message from a person overseas who is already suspected to be a member of certain
terrorist groups or linked somehow to a member of such groups. And the agency still
gets a warrant to intercept their calls or e-mail messages to other people in the
United States.<br />
<br />
Source: <a
href="http://www.google.com/support/analytics/bin/answer.py?answer=27249&topic=7189"
target="_blank">How do I track email campaigns?</a> | <a
href="http://www.computerbytesman.com/privacy/emailsnooping.htm" target="_blank">Who
is snooping on my email?</a> - confirm if one's email messages are being read by
someone else.</p>Chazzsongshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12832406704954147954noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28034920.post-1148117982233641412006-05-10T05:38:00.000-04:002007-01-13T00:35:42.923-05:00M$ Windows XP Professional Bugging Device ?<p class="center"><img
src="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/6437/2732/400/381363/spygame.jpg" alt=""
class="entryphoto3" /></p>
<h2>A hypothesis that Microsoft's Windows XP is a complex variation of a bugging
device.</h2>
<p>by Mark McCarron</p>
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>Context, context, context. I was sick hearing that phrase from Egyptologists in
regards to my research on the Great Pyramid. They never could grasp that context is
irrelevant to the scientific process or methodology, science examines facts, not
interpretation. In saying that, they taught me a lot, it is funny how the entire
aspect of a thing or situation can change, just by applying a different context to
it.<br />
<br />
In this article, I intend to do just that, with Microsoft's Windows Operating
System.<br />
<br />
If you have ever wondered, if;</p>
<ol>
<li>Microsoft, was secretly spying on end-user machines?<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Big Brother deployment scenarios were real?<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>M$ Windows was a type of bugging device?</li>
</ol>
<br />
<br />
Then this, is for you my friend, the 'Top-47 Windows bugging functions', and then
some. There is also an appendix on forensic methodology and Magnetic Force Microscopy
(MFM).<br />
<br />
All sing...'There may be trouble ahead...' :)<br />
<br />
<h2>If You Could See, What I Can See, Reinstalling Windows...</h2>
<p>In general, to people in the western hemisphere; bugging devices, parabolic
microphones, signal tracing, satellite tracking and secret government agencies,
performing highly illegal activities, on a covert basis, are the source of
inspiration for novels, movies and theater, rather than any real event.<br />
<br />
These devices and activities have been part-and-parcel of my life (and almost anyone
else in Northern Ireland), from the moment of birth and conspiracy theories are
simply facts of daily life that, could put, any of my friends, or myself, into an
early grave. Therefore, it is only natural for me to see things in a military context
and this provides a very interesting picture of odd behavior, at Redmond and various
other big names, throughout the US.<br />
<br />
Microsoft is of the 'opinion' that its software is an operating system with a wide
range of 'features'. As I am about to demonstrate, that is simply a matter of 'how
you see things' and the context in which they are highlighted in. This is a very
subjective experience and different people tend to see different things, simply
because their own personal context is automatically applied, a 'bias', if you
will.<br />
<br />
The point to hold, in the front of your mind, throughout reading this article, is
the fact that the 'features' and their descriptions, presented here, are accurate
representations of Window functions, in their own right, however, any suggestion as
to motivation would be speculation.<br />
<br />
More clearly, Microsoft has presented it own 'opinion' on the various features
within Windows, other 'opinions' do exist and this article presents one of them, in a
hypothetical scenario. For this analysis to hold, the hypothetical scenario must be
demonstrated to be consistent throughout the design of the OS, not just its
usage.<br />
<br />
The style and tone throughout, is based upon the working hypothesis, that Microsoft
has altered the Windows OS, to reflect US military requirements and that its primary
role is that of a modern variation of a 'bugging device'. It is simply taken as a
given fact throughout.<br />
<br />
This clarification allows for a more direct style of writing and legal protection
for publishers. In addition to this, the views expressed in this report are the
authors and have nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else.<br />
<br />
There are no accusations being made, this is presented only as a 'working
hypothesis', at all times, to allow for the fullest exploration of this particular
train of thought. If the hypothesis holds, then we will expand it a little, to place
it in proper context and draw the conclusion from the entire investigation.</p>
<h2>Report On Analysis of Microsoft Windows XP</h2>
<ol>
<li>Start -> Search :)<br />
<br />
Each and every time a search is conducted using the search option under the start
button on Windows XP, the system automatically checks if your online and transmits
information directly to Microsoft.<br />
<br />
This is done, without informing the end-user in any fashion, nor providing a clear
method to disable. It has been hidden by design. In technical terms, a form of
Trojan.<br />
<br />
A good application level, stateful firewall, will catch this communication
attempt.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Help System, F1<br />
<br />
When accessing Microsoft Help systems, through the F1 key. A communication attempt
to Microsoft's ActiveX site is made.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Microsoft Backup<br />
<br />
Designed to bypass all security, even ownership rights of a drive. Try it.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Process Viewer (Task Manager)<br />
<br />
No mapping to executable file, nor will it show all running processes. Designed to
hide important information required for determining system infections and sources
of network data transmission.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Dr Watson<br />
<br />
This used to loadup with information on dlls that had been hooked. Hooked DLLs are
used to intercept keystroke, etc. Microsoft removed end-users capability to see
this. It now generates a simple messagebox.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>The Windows Registry<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Now, on the face of it, this may seem like a good idea, however, as any developer
will tell you, they only use it because the commands are quick, simple and, when it
comes down to it, security is mainly the end-users responsibility.<br />
<br />
It would be much faster, simpler and provide greater system security to use an ini
file. Linux uses this approach with config files. An entire database must be
examined each time request is made. This is why Windows slows down after you begin
installing applications. The registry grows and more cycles must be dedicated to
completing each query.<br />
<br />
When you multiply this, by the wide range of systems accessing the registry, it is
clear to see, that as a design architecture, it is completely moronic.<br />
<br />
That is, until it is examined from another perspective, try the following
perspectives as examples:<br />
<br />
a. HKEY_CURRENT_USER - psychological profile of logged on user, real-time usage
focus.<br />
<br />
b. HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE - Detailed reporting of hardware and a wide range of
traceable unique identifiers<br />
<br />
c. HKEY_USERS - psychological profiling of all users, post-forensic usage
focus.<br />
<br />
d. HKEY_CURRENT_CONFIG - Advanced psychological profiling based on a ranking
system of 'psychologically-based options' embedded throughout the system. This
could include things like favorite colour, pictures, sounds, etc.<br />
<br />
Throughout the registry are an extensive amount of MRUs. These areas store your
recently accessed documents each application and other information. Now instead of
having a single area were these are stored, for both rapid access and cleaning
purposes, Windows was designed to fragment these throughout the registry
database.<br />
<br />
Firstly, this makes cleaning the registry a specialized job, as a mistake can
corrupt Windows. Secondly, and most importantly, this is what we call
'fragmentation'.<br />
<br />
Now 'fragmentation' is a well known source of problems when accessing information.
Many will point out, that the registry is a hierarchy and that that this eliminates
fragmentation. I must point out that I am referring to the 'entire structure of
recorded information' and not the technical definition of fragments of data.<br />
<br />
By fragmenting the various forms of 'recorded information' throughout the
registry, it can take upwards of a week to list every key that should be cleaned.
The entire process must be repeated each time a new application is installed, to
determine what exactly was placed into the registry. Windows also uses an extensive
amount of MRUs that have been altered to an 'unreadable' format. This would leave
95% of users completely unaware of Microsoft was recording.<br />
<br />
There is no need or requirement for a registry, other than to provide central
access to 'private information'. As a programming architecture model, the design
borders on the moronic and is directly opposing every known, best practice, in
programming.<br />
<br />
The true motivations behind the registry design are quite clear and highly
specific.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Temporary Files<br />
<br />
Temporary files are retained under 'Document and Settings' for a prolonged period
of time and in most case require manual clearance.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Recycle Bin<br />
<br />
Even when told to not use deleted item to the recycle bin, it is used anyway, only
with out the prompt. This generates a ghost copy on your hard disk of any deleted
files.<br />
<br />
Two copies are better than one for recovery purposes, especially were Magnetic
Force Microscopy is concerned. The two copies can be referenced with each other for
rapid recovery procedures, its an attempt to eliminate bit errors in overwritten
files.<br />
<br />
The more ghosts images, the better the chances are for fast and complete recovery
of during post-forensic examination.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Recent Files<br />
<br />
Only a small portion/subset of the recent files accessed is displayed in
'Documents' section under the start button. The folder that contains the shortcuts
has a far longer list hidden from general view.<br />
<br />
For example, 11 files are listed under the Start buttons 'My Documents', however,
'My Recent Files' contains 17 entries. The other 6 came from my last list of files
which I deleted using the 'Clear' button.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>NotePad<br />
<br />
Windows XP versions cannot word wrap properly and have been redesigned to make
their usage as frustrating as possible. For example, when saving text only file,
the screen resets the position of the text to the line where the cursor is
at.<br />
<br />
This takes specific coding and not something that happens by accident. The idea is
to push people towards Microsoft Office, were all security can be breached and
copies written, at will, across your drive.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Swap Space/Virtual Memory/Page File<br />
<br />
Regardless of how much memory is in your system the page file can not be disabled.
Its main function is too swap memory to disk and allow memory to be freed for
running applications. With a large amount of RAM, this function becomes redundant,
except under exceptional circumstances.<br />
<br />
What is the useful purpose of a 2MB page file? Other than writing data, across the
drive, in 2MB chunks, none.<br />
<br />
Its designed to flush encryption keys and sensitive information to disk. This also
generates ghost images which can be retrieved.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Firewall<br />
<br />
Incoming firewall only. This allows spyware to transmit information without any
problems or detection. 90% of spyware information is transmitted to and shared
throughout the US.<br />
<br />
Done by design.</li>
<li>Memory Usage<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Designed to use large amounts of memory to drive the hardware industry sales of
components. For Windows XP to function correctly, it requires at least 1GB RAM and
at two physical drives on separate IDE channels or SCSI interface I/O.<br />
<br />
Even then, it hogs everything and leaves random fragments in memory. These
fragments or 'memory leaks' are then flushed to disk, in an effort to capture some
information from running applications, encrypted viewers, etc.<br />
<br />
The ever expanding registry is designed to keep up, with ever expanding hardware
and slow the system. End users think programs have gotten more powerful and they
must upgrade. Its simply that more and more cycles are dedicated to various
expanding databases, each and every boot.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Automatic Updates<br />
<br />
Can allow remote installation of any form of software at Microsoft's whim.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>
Raw Sockets<br />
<br />
Microsoft prevents new protocols being developed on Windows to prevent usage of
nonstandard protocols. This allows for easy access to information. It also
prevents the disabling of Microsoft's TCP/IP stack, which for all we know, could
have 30,000 extra 'ports' coded into it.<br />
<br />
Windows 2000 was actually programmed to reject any driver, that would allow
custom protocols to be developed, without Microsoft certification. Microsoft
claimed this was a 'mistake'.<br />
<br />
Now lets all try to picture the conversation at Microsoft on this one, shall
we?<br />
<br />
{In an office at Redmond...}
<blockquote>
Executive 1: '...my hand slipped and wrote 10 pages of code..., no
wait...,<br />
Executive 2: the dog coded it, ah nuts..., erm...,<br />
Executive 1: Can we blame Bin Laden?'
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Raw socket access also bypasses every known firewall, from Sygate to Zone Alarm.
The reason being that these applications, rely on the Windows message/event
handling and Microsoft designed Raw Sockets not to report to this layer.<br />
<br />
Komodia produce a TCP/IP Packet Crafter, install that and Sygate's Personal
Firewall on WinXP service pack one. Craft a few packets to see this in action.
Nice trojan tool M$.<br />
<br />
Reverse psychology was employed, although not a very good example of it, in
Microsoft's deployment decision to support raw sockets. It was to get people to
focus on a 'hoax' alert, rather than the high level of security such a system
would provide.<br />
<br />
The truth is, raw sockets is not required, however, it just makes life simpler.
For real time software, the overhead presented by TCP, is too great and the
effects can be seen on excessive lag during online gaming, or media playback. A
streamlined custom stack, allows for faster processing of the IP packet and over
a 1000% improvement to connectivity management than TCP encapsulation.<br />
<br />
Many developers do not realize that TCP is not required and that custom packets
can be encapsulated within IP alone. IP routes the packet, from A to B, and TCP
provides a data path encapsulated with the IP packet. This allows Internet
routing to change, without effecting application support. Custom stack creation
is a 'walk in the park', all it involves is parsing a binary stream and executing
functions based on flags or value, it also, automatically, supports the OSI/DoD
model.<br />
<br />
By breaking support for raw sockets on Windows 2000, Microsoft manipulated the
entire global market, as no developer could be assured their applications would
function after 12-24 months. It also provided a way for Microsoft to eliminate
tools such as 'Ethereal' that could inspect the communications of a Windows
system.<br />
<br />
An active attempt at blocking end-users knowing what information a Windows
system was transmitting, as Microsoft is aware, that over 80% of end users only
have a single PC.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Remote Access Bugs<br />
<br />
This is a good example of 'context and highlighting' (perspective). I want you to
consider this statement:<br />
<br />
Is a remote access bug, not the same thing as a backdoor access code?<br />
<br />
Write a detailed essay on your conclusion, no less than 30,000 words. You should
consider statements such as 'buffer overflow executes code', 'invalid datagram
shuts down PC', etc. :)<br />
<br />
OpenBSD has no such remote exploits and no money.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Music Tasks<br />
<br />
A nice big link to 'Shop for Music Online'. This is a direction to US based
enterprises and also a violation of the Microsoft EULA, as it mentions nothing
whatsoever in regards to Microsoft Windows being an advertising supported
platform.<br />
<br />
No matter how small the feature, that is still what it represents. If Microsoft is
in breach of its EULA, does that invalidate it?<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Windows Media Player<br />
<br />
No way to disable automatic check for updates. This allows any form code Microsoft
chooses to be used as an upgrade. Defaults to uniquely identifying an end user and
stored media.<br />
<br />
Certain websites warn their visitors that using Windows Media Player version 7 on
their websites will reveal your 'personal information' to Microsoft.<br />
<br />
Have you ever wondered how p2p information on end users is gathered? Think about
it the next time you connect to a commercial Internet radio, video or media
service.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Alternate Data Streams<br />
<br />
This 'feature' of Microsoft Windows relates to how information is stored on your
harddrive. Under NTFS, not only is there the file, but there is a second, hidden
aspect to each file. This hidden aspect is stored separately on your hard drive and
not as part of the file.<br />
<br />
I suppose the term, 'Alternate Data Streams' make better business sense, than
'hidden information gathering process combined with standard file functions'.
:)<br />
<br />
All additional information to a file, such as date/time stamps, file name, size,
etc. is stored in this layer. Not only this, but so is the thumbnail cache of all
images viewed by the system. This 'feature' is hidden by design and requires either
a 1 month long 'disk nuke' (for average 80GB HD) or physical destruction of the
disk platters to remove.<br />
<br />
Physical destruction is recommended, as it requires specific manufacturers codes
to access bad blocks, internal scratch areas and internal swap/cache areas of the
drive. Even with the codes, certain problems can arise from unreadable sectors
which may contain copies of sensitive information.<br />
<br />
Nothing beats an nice afternoon with a screwdriver and grinder. :)<br />
<br />
The caching can be disabled, however, Microsoft has made this as 'obscure' as
possible. Microsoft Windows also does not explain the function of 'Do not cache
Thumbnails'.<br />
<br />
It is aware 90% of end-users have the technical aptitude of 'a banana with a with
a drink problem' and would never grasp the implications, let alone,
understand.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Stability<br />
<br />
Microsoft Windows is designed to collapse upon extensive number crunching, of
large arrays, of floating point calculations. This would prevent; nuclear
modelling, physics modelling, and genetic modeling. These three aspects can produce
Nuclear, alternative and biological weapons.<br />
<br />
I don't know about you, but this 'feature', I can live with, or couldn't live
without, for very long. :)<br />
<br />
Done by design.</li>
<li>Internet Explorer 'Features'<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
MSN Search<br />
<br />
When Internet Explorer fails to locate a web address it initiates a search through
Microsoft. Therefore, every failed access attempt is sent to Microsoft, with all
your system information in the X header structure. to Microsoft, cleverly disguised
as 'assistance'.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Temporary Internet Files<br />
<br />
Without extensive reconfiguration of Windows end users will not see the real
files. Instead they see a database generated representation drawn from a file
called index.dat.<br />
<br />
Even the controls to access the drive are hidden with an obscure setting called
'Simple File Sharing (Recommended)'. Windows XP does not always delete the actual
files from your hard disk. Even the emulated DOS reports the database, unless
windows is substantially reconfigured.<br />
<br />
Windows goes to great lengths to prevent this reconfiguration. Also, many do not
know there is no need for this cache, other than to go back to pages. Its main role
is to maintain a record of users activities and generate ghost images throughout
the drive.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Index.dat<br />
<br />
A database file of the contents of an area of the drive, including deleted files.
In the 'Temporary Internet Files' it records date, time, Internet location and file
name information of downloaded graphics/images and sites accessed, with user IDs in
a nice big list.<br />
<br />
There are various 'index.dat' files throughout Windows, a dat file is generally a
database. A users activities can be recorded for several weeks and user names (etc)
recovered. The index.dat file retains information about recently deleted files and
Microsoft has failed to provide any reasonable explanation.<br />
<br />
You cannot provide, what does not exist, there is no genuine reason to retain
deleted files information other than deliberately recording an end users activities
for forensic analysis.<br />
<br />
This is used for rapid identification, file recovery and time-plotting of a users
activities. A small application produces a timetable of a user's usage, referenced
against the recorded information for each second of activity.<br />
<br />
On large networks, this can be used to verify each member of staff location and
movement across an entire infrastructure, this type of output in normally rendered
in a full 3D layout of the target building.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Cookies<br />
<br />
The official explanation for cookies is to offload information from the server, to
the client. This can be authentication, preferences, etc. As you can see, its just
a cheap solution, designed to cut costs.<br />
<br />
When costs are cut, so are corners and in this case a corner that presents a major
threat to information security. Cookies retain a lot of information such as logon
IDs. In fact, the first cookie I look for, is generally, passport.com. This cookie
will have the last recorded hotmail address stored within it. Combined with
index.dat information, I can tell the following;<br />
<br />
1. Windows logon ID of the person involved<br />
2. The hotmail email address<br />
3. The Date and time the account was accessed<br />
4. External graphics viewed and the sources of those graphics<br />
5. The machine from which it was accessed.<br />
6. The duration of viewing.<br />
7. And generally, the individuals sexual, political, social, personal and
religious preferences based upon the information accessed.<br />
<br />
That's with only two file sections.<br />
<br />
Cookies can also be accessed remotely and are used to track the movements of end
users as they move from site to site. Passport, Microsoft's common logon system,
relates itself against the Windows account by default.<br />
<br />
There is no need for this, it is these 'subtle functional intrusions' that
Microsoft prefers. I honestly do not know what is going on in these people's heads,
to think for one second, that the world would spot this a million miles off. It
really does show the level of intelligence these people have; my dog demonstrates
more social engineering skills when looking for food.<br />
<br />
Done by design (very poorly executed).</li>
<li>Auto-Complete<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Designed to record search terms, web addresses, and anything else it can get its
grubby little digital hands on, for rapid post-forensic retrieval.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>MSN Messenger<br />
<br />
Microsoft has been retaining each persons deleted contacts from messenger. M$ has
been monitored in this area and is known to retain everyone's deleted contacts for
3 years, at least.<br />
<br />
This could be seen using a console-based version of MSN Messenger under Linux.
Microsoft has since changed the protocols, so I am unaware if you can still see
some of the information, M$ retains, on over 150 million people.<br />
<br />
Messenger is also activated on accessing Hotmail. Microsoft claims to be using the
'features' provided by Messenger and will not allow it to be disabled. Now, as
millions access M$ Hotmail without messenger, I must seriously question this
behavior.<br />
<br />
The 'features' provided by MSN Messenger are the transmission and reception of
typed text and files. So, Microsoft has stated that it is, 'transmitting typed text
and files', to and from, end users machines, when hotmail is being accessed.<br />
<br />
Just cleverly worded.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Web-Cams and Microphones<br />
<br />
These devices can be remotely activated providing visual and audio feedback from
the target subject. There is also no way of telling if your devices have been
remotely activated. These features are demonstrated in 'proof of concept'
applications such as NetBus, etc.<br />
<br />
With raw sockets (or driver) this information can bypass your firewall without any
problems.<br />
<br />
Microsoft Windows XP Services<br />
<br />
1. Application Layer Gateway Service<br />
<br />
Microsoft's Description:<br />
Provides support for 3rd party protocol plug-ins for Internet Connection Sharing
and the Internet Connection Firewall,,Manual,Local Service<br />
<br />
Alternative Description:<br />
This thing just loves making remote connections and accepting them. Set this up in
your firewall to ask each time using ADSL or higher.<br />
<br />
Have fun. :)<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Automatic Updates<br />
<br />
Microsoft's Description:<br />
Enables the download and installation of critical Windows updates. If the service
is disabled, the operating system can be manually updated at the Windows Update Web
site.,,Disabled,Local System<br />
<br />
Alternative Description:<br />
Enabled by default. Enables Microsoft to distribute and incorporate any 'feature',
at will. Not the greatest thing in the Universe to be allowing.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>
Computer Browser<br />
<br />
Microsoft's Description:<br />
<blockquote>
Maintains an updated list of computers on the network and supplies this list to
computers designated as browsers. If this service is stopped, this list will
not be updated or maintained. If this service is disabled, any services that
explicitly depend on it will fail to start.,Started,Automatic,Local System
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Alternative Description:<br />
<blockquote>
This stupid design will breach security. The only computer a client needs to
know, is the server and it should coordinate everything.
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Why does Microsoft Windows identify and map every computer on the network?<br />
<br />
The design principal is based upon 'remote orientation' requirements, using
insecure clients as targets. Servers would be difficult to compromise and arouse
to much suspicion.<br />
<br />
The flow of information on any network is about 'the need to know'. Clients do
not need to know any other computer, other than the server. The server acts as a
'proxy' to the entire network, data transfers may, optionally, be proxied
too.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>
Fast User Switching Compatibility<br />
<br />
Microsoft's Description:<br />
<blockquote>
Provides management for applications that require assistance in a multiple user
environment.,,Disabled,Local System
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Alternative Description:<br />
<blockquote>
Switches to every account, but the Administrator account. In fact, unless you
know exactly what your doing, an end user cannot access the administrator
account.
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Post-Forensics can, that includes your Windows Encrypting Filesystem. Cheers
M$.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>
IMAPI CD-Burning COM Service<br />
<br />
Microsoft's Description:<br />
<blockquote>
Manages CD recording using Image Mastering Applications Programming Interface
(IMAPI). If this service is stopped, this computer will be unable to record
CDs. If this service is disabled, any services that explicitly depend on it
will fail to start.,,Manual,Local System
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Alternative Description:<br />
<blockquote>
Part of CD Burning and this thing is a nightmare. Any CD you make, it first
makes a copy to the system drive, then only to use a scratch drive after that.
Why?
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
That action is a waste of time. This is designed to generate 'ghost images' that
can be recovered by Magnetic Force Microscopy. It is unlikely that the target
subject will destroy their boot drive. Also, pointing the scratch to another
drive, just makes more ghost copies.<br />
<br />
Not only that, but I have caught Windows XP, pointing me to the CD burning
directory when viewing CDs. That would suggest a cached image of some form.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>
Indexing Service<br />
<br />
Microsoft's Description:<br />
<blockquote>
Indexes contents and properties of files on local and remote computers;
provides rapid access to files through flexible querying language.
,,Manual,Local System
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Alternative Description:<br />
<blockquote>
A search using the DOS emulator will run like a bullet. Windows search,
however, will take its time unless the indexing service is activated. This
provides quick post-forensic and real-time access to files remote files.
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
This behavior is by design. :)<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>
Internet Connection Firewall(ICF)/Internet Connection Sharing(ICS)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Microsoft's Description:<br />
<blockquote>
Provides network address translation, addressing, name resolution and/or
intrusion prevention services for a home or small office network.,,Manual,Local
System
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Alternative Description:<br />
<blockquote>
First off information is sent to both Microsoft and to a range identified as
belonging to ARIN whenever a PC connects to the Internet. Random connection
attempts are made by Explorer, NT Kernel, Internet Explorer, Windows Help,
svchost.exe, csrss.exe and numerous others. I have even caught calc.exe (The
calculator) attempting to initiate a remote connection, now and again. Without
reverse engineering, I was unable to tell if it really was the applications, or
a subsystem calling the applications. Very odd.
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Microsoft Windows defaults to sharing your files using SAMBA across the
Internet. This even bypasses most domestic firewalls or security setups, unless
specific options are set in the firewall. This allows for remote access to files,
documents, etc. without breaching any known legal regulations.<br />
<br />
Try entering random IP addresses into your 'My Network Places' window when
online, preceded by the '\\' network identifier.<br />
<br />
i.e. '\\91.111.2.80', or '\\222.54.88.100'<br />
<br />
Within about 30 attempts (of a good netblock), you should get a remote machine
to share files with you, in the same manner as a LAN setup. Expect your machine
to freeze when performing any remote operations for up to 4 minutes at a time
(i.e. such as right-clicking a file).<br />
<br />
The reason for behavior is that native SAMBA is designed for 10Mbit networks (at
least) and is therefore a very bulky protocol. Also, the remote host may be using
their Internet connection, have a low bandwidth connection or performing
processor intensive tasks.<br />
<br />
A quick examination of Sygate's instruction on how to use their firewall with
ICS, reveal that your kernel cannot be blocked, nor can several other systems.
These systems are not required on a LAN, so Microsoft has designed these systems
to breach security.<br />
<br />
There is no difference between TCP/IP over a LAN and the Internet, other than
settings. As a programmer I know Network Address Translation is simply a case of
storage and substitution of IP addresses, with a few whistles and bells. There is
no excuse for these systems to be exposed to the network.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>
Messenger<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Microsoft's Description:<br />
<blockquote>
Transmits net send and Alerter service messages between clients and servers.
This service is not related to Windows Messenger. If this service is stopped,
Alerter messages will not be transmitted. If this service is disabled, any
services that explicitly depend on it will fail to start.,,Disabled,Local
System
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Alternative Description:<br />
<blockquote>
Messages should only be broadcast, by and to, the main server. Having this on
every machine provides a method of transmitting real-time keystroke intercept
across the Internet. This service is also enabled by default, even with the
known Internet abuse of the function. This only indicates design manipulation.
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>
Network Connections<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Microsoft's Description:<br />
<blockquote>
Manages objects in the Network and Dial-Up Connections folder, in which you can
view both local area network and remote connections.,Started,Manual,Local
System
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Alternative Description:<br />
<blockquote>
Only weakens security by providing a central reporting mechanisms. These
aspects have been combined by design, with no logical requirement for the
function. Again, a single-point of failure is introduced into the system.
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>
Protected Storage<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Microsoft's Description:<br />
<blockquote>
Provides protected storage for sensitive data, such as private keys, to prevent
access by unauthorized services, processes, or users.,Started,Automatic,Local
System
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Alternative Description:<br />
Also provides quick access to this information. Swift breaking of security.
Sweet. :)<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>
Remote Procedure Call (RPC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Microsoft's Description:<br />
<blockquote>
Provides the endpoint mapper and other miscellaneous RPC
services.,Started,Automatic,Local System
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Alternative Description:<br />
<blockquote>
May the saints preserve us from RPC. RPC provides remote computers with the
ability to operate your PC and listens for these connections on the
network/Internet.
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
What sort of idiotic decision making was behind an RPC service that cannot be
disabled? Why not just come into my livingroom M$? You're practically there
anyway!<br />
<br />
(I'm just losing my head now! This is disgraceful.)<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>
Remote Registry<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Microsoft's Description:<br />
<blockquote>
Enables remote users to modify registry settings on this computer. If this
service is stopped, the registry can be modified only by users on this
computer. If this service is disabled, any services that explicitly depend on
it will fail to start.,,Disabled,Local Service
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Alternative Description:<br />
<blockquote>
This nifty service is enabled by default. It provides remote access to the
windows registry, allowing run-time modifications to be made to your PC.
Hmmm....what an excellent idea! Just what I always needed, a way to 'tweak' my
running spy applications remotely.
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
I knew M$ was thinking about me, I'm touched, or at least they're close enough
to reach out and touch me. :)<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>
Server<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Microsoft's Description:<br />
<blockquote>
Supports file, print, and named-pipe sharing over the network for this
computer. If this service is stopped, these functions will be unavailable. If
this service is disabled, any services that explicitly depend on it will fail
to start.,Started,Automatic,Local System
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Alternative Description:<br />
<blockquote>
This is not required, it provides a central management for open files and
printing operations. It also provides a method of remotely monitoring a users
activities.
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
This 'service' (ha!) provides a single-point of failure for an entire network.
It is linked to the authentication, so if the server collapses, so does the
entire network, as this is managed by the server. Again, security and
functionality have been manipulated to focus on information retrieval and
access.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>
SSDP Discovery Service<br />
<br />
Microsoft's Description:<br />
<blockquote>
Enables discovery of UPnP devices on your home network.,,Disabled,Local Service
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Alternative Description:<br />
<blockquote>
What in Gods name for? This is part of the 'remote orientation' facilities
encoded into Windows, allowing remote hackers the ability to explore the
network swiftly, reducing chances of alarm and excessive activity through
exploration.
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>
System Event Notification<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Microsoft's Description:<br />
<blockquote>
Tracks system events such as Windows logon, network, and power events. Notifies
COM+ Event System subscribers of these events.,Started,Automatic,Local System
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Alternative Description:<br />
<blockquote>
No way of knowing, without full reverse engineering, how many undocumentented
events exist throughout Windows. Windows could have an entire additional level
of event reporting.
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Event and thread management in Windows is very suspicious due to its sluggish
and sometimes unpredictable behavior. Compensation for this is normally done by
'peeking' into the message cue, however, sometimes it simply refuses to work.
This would tend to suggest the interaction of an unknown component (or several
component) with the event system producing conflicts.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>
System Restore Service<br />
<br />
Microsoft's Description:<br />
<blockquote>
Performs system restore functions. To stop service, turn off System Restore
from the System Restore tab in My Computer->Properties,,Automatic,Local
System
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Alternative Description:<br />
<blockquote>
Keeps ghost copies of various forms of cached information in a nice quick
accessible format. We can't let our hard earned information go down the pan
now. :)
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>
Terminal Services<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Microsoft's Description:<br />
<blockquote>
Allows multiple users to be connected interactively to a machine as well as the
display of desktops and applications to remote computers. The underpinning of
Remote Desktop (including RD for Administrators), Fast User Switching, Remote
Assistance, and Terminal Server.,, Disabled,Local System
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Alternative Description:<br />
<blockquote>
I just bet its interactive and highly 'functional' too. This is enabled by
default, providing a remote desktop for any hacker. Wow, what a service M$.
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
I'll agree with you on this one, that is a 'service and a half'!<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>
Windows Time<br />
<br />
Microsoft's Description:<br />
<blockquote>
Maintains date and time synchronization on all clients and servers in the
network. If this service is stopped, date and time synchronization will be
unavailable. If this service is disabled, any services that explicitly depend
on it will fail to start.<br />
,,Disabled,Local System
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Alternative Description:<br />
<blockquote>
Sends information to Microsoft and keeps your date and time stamps nice and
fresh for post-forensic analysis. At least they're tidy when they invade your
privacy. :)
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>
Wireless Zero Configuration<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Microsoft's Description:<br />
<blockquote>
Provides automatic configuration for the 802.11 adapters,,Disabled,Local System
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Alternative Description:<br />
<blockquote>
Zero configuration means zero security and that's exactly what you get. The
entire network is exposed to anyone within reception range. Therefore, if you
are using this in your home environment, that can mean remote monitoring from
up to 3Km using proper equipment, or someone else using your Internet
connection from a range of around 50-80m radius.
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Even with security, the IEEE specification for WEP was clearly manipulated and
weakened by interested parties. There is no other acceptable excuse for that
level of incompetence.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Microsoft Works<br />
<br />
Breach of trade descriptions act? Microsoft 'probably' Works. :)<br />
<br />
Really, it is an 'implied' suggestion based on the play of words. It can be
described as 'psychologically misleading', human psychology is extremely complex,
even if most humans are not.<br />
<br />
This implied statement is registered at a deeper level of the brain and assigned
its true meaning. Otherwise, you would have never considered the relationship in
the first place.<br />
<br />
One way of describing this is, 'marketing', the accurate description is
'subliminal programming', it does not matter how slight the incident.<br />
<br />
This is very, similar in style, to the 'French Fries' and 'Freedom Fries' incident
in the US, used to blind the US citizens from war opposition, through manipulation
of patriotic beliefs.<br />
<br />
Shameful.<br />
<br />
Done by design.<br />
<br />
</li>
</ol>
<h2>Windows Security, Not What You Think</h2>
<p>Since all security products that operate on the Microsoft Platform are both
designed from, and encapsulated by the OS, then it is ultimately Microsoft Windows
that is providing your security and not your firewall, etc.<br />
<br />
So, any product that claims to provide security FOR windows, is simply reflecting
the limited understanding the company has of what it is doing.<br />
<br />
I bet that will inspire confidence in computer security. :)<br />
<br />
The accurate description is that M$ Windows, secures itself, through execution of a
3rd party application, which M$ Windows must inform, to provide security. As we seen
in 'Raw Sockets', this does not always happen. Linux does not have this problem, as
the systems is a mosaic rather than a full encapsulation, or sandbox
environment.<br />
<br />
Therefore, even with all the security, in the known Universe, installed on a
Microsoft Windows Platform, it is still the responsibility of Windows to inform the
security products of each event happening. If Microsoft Windows fails to report, or
hides certain messages/events, then your security software becomes 100% completely
redundant.<br />
<br />
This is a source of great concern with Microsoft's plans to encrypt the system area
of new versions of Microsoft Windows. Somehow, I don't think this system, nor any
variation of it, will ever see the light of day.<br />
<br />
If this was to happen (the encrypted system), instead of an EULA, I think Microsoft
Windows should be required to read end-users their rights. Microsoft is not the Law,
nor is it above it, in any way.<br />
<br />
You have the right to be bugged, click OK to continue! :)<br />
<br />
Bugs Of The Third Kind<br />
<br />
How long as Microsoft been programming Windows for?<br />
<br />
Ten, maybe fifteen years, and we are seriously asked to believe that a company with
the financial resources of Microsoft cannot a create a bug-free Operating
System?<br />
<br />
Companies with lesser resources than Microsoft provide such systems for Air-Traffic
control and medical purposes (Heart Monitors, etc). A perfect example here is
OpenBSD. OpenBSD is a free Operating System and with very little funding (nowhere
near what Microsoft has, in a million years) the only remote exploits you will find,
anywhere in the world, will be at least 12 months old.<br />
<br />
Most of Microsoft's problems are at least that old before anyone decides to analyze
them, let alone, fix them.<br />
<br />
This is a very clear example, honestly, there is no acceptable excuse here. If
Microsoft claims 'compatibility', then I simply refer them to the current deployment
of service packs that destroy 'compatibility'.<br />
<br />
Also, the important thing to business is their data and data cannot have
'compatibility' issues. Its simply a binary stream that can be used on any known
operating system.<br />
<br />
Wild Speculation On Codenaming Strategy<br />
<br />
Microsoft has had a consistent naming policy for its operating systems, in the form
of city names. Code names for various releases have included; Chicago, Memphis,
etc.<br />
<br />
Now all this changed with the arrival of Windows XP. Its codename was 'whistler' and
the next version of Windows is codenamed 'LongHorn'. I was interested in the
reasoning behind the switch. I was thinking that these codenames could be based on
one, or more, of the following points:<br />
<br />
1. A play on the term 'whistleblower'?<br />
2. A play on a reference to 'pinocheo'? (tells stories, reference to Long (Nose) and
Horn (Whistle Blower) )<br />
3. Horn, as in a form of 'early warning system' and Long because of its distributed
nature?<br />
<br />
Can Windows Be Secured?<br />
<br />
Yes, with FDisk. (Recommended) :) Otherwise, due to its encapsulated nature, the
answer is a pointblank, no.</p>
<h2>Additional Observations</h2>
<p>All we need now is Intel's 'processing and storage' layer to the Internet and we
have a, full-scale, 100% genuine, deployment of a Big Brother scenario. Thanks Intel,
but, we'll pass on that one, nice to see you are thinking of everybody for a change.
:)<br />
<br />
If anyone is wondering what on Earth is going on, well Congress went a little nuts
passing resolutions, without its normal due caution. Looking down the barrel of a gun
24/7, does not provide the ideal circumstances for making these decisions, nor the
environment for full, open debate, for security reasons. As such, mistakes can only
be expected, congress is still only human, despite the rumors.<br />
<br />
I am just worried that this is the entire intention, due to Microsoft's
modifications, its software predates 9/11, so it could not use 9/11 as an excuse. I
wouldn't like to consider the implications of that statement 'being
inaccurate'.<br />
<br />
I know many readers would be enjoy this analysis taken further, however, it is well
beyond the scope of this report. It is also an area I feel is best left to the
authorities.<br />
<br />
Alterations to M$ Windows also coincides with antitrust cases and the reversal of
the ruling to split Microsoft into two companies. This leads to three important
questions:<br />
<br />
1. Was Microsoft hijacked by the US government, CIA or NSA?<br />
2. Is this why M$ Windows was altered?<br />
3. What would the suggested reason be for military adaptations to M$ Windows prior
to 9/11?<br />
4. Why 3 Operating Systems (ME, 2000 and XP) between 1999-2001?<br />
<br />
I only mention this to be fair, rather than shoot first, ask questions later. I'm a
Zen Buddhist and politics, ain't my bag baby. :)<br />
<br />
Google's ranking methods have come under question recently and in the context of
this report, I think the follow will speak volumes for itself:<br />
<br />
Search for the term 'Book'. Conducted September 15th, 2005.<br />
<br />
Top 10 results from Google.com</p>
<ol>
<li>US<br />
Barnes & Noble.com, 6000 Freeport Ave - Suite 101, Memphis, TN 38141.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>US<br />
onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu, University of Pennsylvania<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>US<br />
www.cia.gov, CIA - Factbook.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>US<br />
BookFinder.com - Berkley California<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>US<br />
www.kbb.com - Orange County<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>US<br />
www.worldbookonline.com - Country Wide, with world-wide divisions<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>US<br />
www.superpages.com - 651 Canyon Drive. Coppell, TX 75019.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>US<br />
www.amazon.com<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>US<br />
<br />
www.abebooks.com - Victoria B.C.with offices in Canada and Germany.<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>US<br />
www.bookwire.com - 630 Central Ave. New Providence. New Jersey.</li>
</ol>
<br />
<br />
May I remind everyone that Google is behind nearly every major search engine in the
World. Is this what they describe as 'free enterprise' in action?<br />
<br />
I wouldn't like to see systematic manipulation of the global economy, if that's the
case. :)<br />
<br />
A Small Bit of Advice<br />
<br />
Linux...Open Source...Free...No worries. <a href="http://linux.thai.net/"
target="_blank">Try Linux</a><br />
<br />
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>Is America awake? Remember a small concept called Liberty? (Its French, by the
way.) I wonder how M$ is going to explain this one?<br />
<br />
This one, I really must hear. :)<br />
<br />
'...let's face the music and dance.'</p>
<h2>Appendix Contents</h2>
<ol>
<li>Appendix 1. Symbiotic Duality<br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Appendix 2. Magnetic Force Microscopy (MFM)</li>
</ol>
<h2>Appendix 1. Symbiotic Duality</h2>
<p>The first thing you must accept is that a product does not have to be limited to a
single purpose. The second thing to be accepted is that you may not be aware of any
other purpose, even to the extent of being unaware of its primary purpose. Purpose
comes from design, not usage.<br />
<br />
Therefore, a product, such as Microsoft Windows can give the impression of being an
Operating System, whilst having been designed for an entirely different purposes.
This is the concept of 'Symbiotic Duality', it is the basis of all manifestations of
depth.<br />
<br />
We'll look at a few quick examples:<br />
<br />
a. When you fight with someone you love, you can hate them, yet still love
them.<br />
<br />
This form 'Symbiotic Duality' is experienced as a 'depth' of emotion, it stems from
the observed contrast, or gulf, between opposing emotions. The greater the gulf
between the conflicting emotions, the more intense the experience.<br />
<br />
It is from this understanding that the, very accurate phrase, 'Fighting is a sign of
love', is drawn from. One cannot exist without the other and 'Symbiotic Duality' is a
fundamental step in every emotional response.<br />
<br />
'Love thy Enemy'. Its not like I much choice in the matter :)<br />
<br />
b. To produce the effect of Depth in a scene.<br />
<br />
An image contrasting near and far (large and small) produces the illusion of depth.
This is another form of 'Symbiotic Duality', the contrast between near and far (large
and small) produces an optical illusion, both aspects function as one, from opposing
sides.<br />
<br />
c. A depth of character can be expressed in apparently conflicting viewpoints. You
may both agree and disagree with a situation, for various reasons. For example, you
may not agree with war, but you recognize a time comes when it must occur, or, you
may not agree with a situation, but since it is happening, you may as well make the
best of it.<br />
<br />
The greater the depth of character, the greater the gulf will be between these
conflicting thoughts there will be. A person who repeats the same 'statements or
rhetoric' time and time again, has very little intelligence and certainly lacks any
depth of character, as they lack the opposing viewpoint.<br />
<br />
d. The gulf between the people and government leads to increased anxiety, fear,
paranoia and rejection.<br />
<br />
The more 'stark' a contrast between government and the people, the greater the
'perceived gulf' will become. This concept is explored in George Orwell's book
'Animal Farm', it examines the 'US and Them' principle, and unknowingly, touches on
the 'Symbiotic Duality' of the scenario.<br />
<br />
That is, the common source of conflict between the two groups, the 'perceived gulf'
that exist between them. By bridging that gulf, the situation may have been
avoided.<br />
<br />
Why is 'Symbiotic Duality' important to understand?<br />
<br />
'Symbiotic Duality', as you notice from each of the examples, ends up, in one form
or another, relating to the human biological make-up. The simple reason for this is
that, 'depth', is a perception. If a 'Symbotic Duality' appears in an investigation,
a human was involved in planning.<br />
<br />
'Symbiotic Duality' can prove useful in forensics. By clearly identifying the
contrasting behaviors of any system, the design choices made by humans and those
dictated to by system requirements, can be distinguished with repeatable
methodology.<br />
<br />
This separation allows for both reliable, rapid identification of human design
choices that fall outside compliance with system specifications, or other known base
references (i.e. another OS design) and for complete focus to be given to only 'odd'
human generated code.<br />
<br />
Scientific investigators must operate by rigid procedures and methods, the concept
of 'Symbiotic Duality' provides such a structure, this allows for repetition of the
investigative procedure, rather than solely relying on expert testimony and Police
accounts.<br />
<br />
This can be vital in cases were an officer/jury needs to follow the scientific
investigator at a technical level, collaborate on an investigation in a distributed
environment, or work through vast amounts of information.<br />
<br />
It provides a roadmap for the investigation, with one point naturally flowing to
another, or any amount of other points.<br />
<br />
Let's say for example we were investigating an email application. Firstly, we remove
from the equation the basic technical functions of the application. This leave us
with what can be described as a 'human-defined design'. That is, all the fluff added
to an application to make it 'user friendly' and operational.<br />
<br />
From here, we list each of the 'features' and a description of their functions.
Next, we begin the 'Symbiotic Duality' analysis, by contrasting the basic technical
requirement to implement a 'feature' against the actual implementation.<br />
<br />
There are various sub-aspects to this procedure, such as contrasts from different
'perspectives'. This would include examining ease of information retrieval,
information storage, information movement, information processing, network
communication attempts, etc.<br />
<br />
By contrasting what would be 'expected', under reasonable circumstances, against
what is actually there, the 'gulf' (form of perceived depth) between the two states
is revealed (Symbiotic Duality).<br />
<br />
The procedure uses the 'Russian Doll' and Henry Ford Conveyor Belt principles, to
break down the application into smaller and smaller units in a systematic exploration
of the target system.<br />
<br />
The method is highly flexible, in that, it does not require a linear approach to
investigation, but rather, a completely random approach is recommended. This can
match budgets and resources of investigative departments.<br />
<br />
The results are composited in a cross-referenced mosaic that can be expanded upon
from any point, providing the investigator a model of his/her complete investigation.
This gels beautifully with the 'chain of custody' model.<br />
<br />
What we are left with, is a combination of fluff and 'Interest Motivated' sections
of the application. Its simply a matter of contrasting the expected characteristics
of fluff against the remaining sections of code.<br />
<br />
So, staring you in the face, in glorious black & white, will be a very clear
list and description of each identified 'odd' behavior. As many investigators will
have realized by now, adaptations of this can be applied to any form of of
investigative procedure.<br />
<br />
If you are interested in 'Symbiotic Duality', I'm afraid you will not find it in any
texts, it was something I developed as part of my work to assist me. An in-depth
understanding human psychology is a basic requirement in this field, as you must
always think, what would this person do? 'Symbiotic Duality', let's you understand
more clearly, what they were thinking as it exclusively relates to human
perceptions.<br />
<br />
I don't claim that this is any form of great new method, I just use it to assist my
own work and it also has no form of recognition as an accepted method. Its simply
another tool, in a long list, of analytical procedures and, in my line of work, every
assistance is a bonus.<br />
<br />
I like to think of this procedure as a:<br />
<br />
'Random access investigative procedure, which uses the horizontal nature of
emotional and perceptive responses, to clearly identify the various ranges of
possible motivations behind an incident.<br />
<br />
Cross-referencing and statistical analysis, provide a mechanism of ranking
motivations, across an entire case framework, allowing for 'Computer Assisted Real
Motive Analysis' (CARMA).'<br />
<br />
That'll mess with your noodle for a while. Sorry. :)<br />
<br />
The best visual representations would most likely be in the form of a 'tree'
structure, expressed in 3D. Each 'Symbiotic Duality' identified can be provided a
'score' (ranking), and numerous sub-scores (sub-rankings) if required. The ranking
system, has an unlimited user-defined scale. This allows for statistical analysis and
cross-referencing, with stark contrasts. The scale can also be categorized.<br />
<br />
I only mention it here, as it was employed in this analysis, however, I am still
developing the theory behind this. The report does not rely on this theoretical work,
but rather, standard procedures in high level analysis.<br />
<br />
Well, that's enough 'Psychology and Forensic Analysis 101' for today.<br />
<br />
Have you not got a life or something? :)</p>
<h2>Appendix 2. Magnetic Force Microscopy (MFM)</h2>
<p>I had the chance to see this process first hand, a good friend of mine
demonstrated the following technique using an Open-Mosix cluster. The process was
mainly based on the statistical recomposition of data sectors. The usage of highly
discreet array-based statistical recomposition can uncover data.<br />
<br />
Its based on the fact that a harddisk has certain known read/write characteristics
that effect the position of molecules on a disk platter. Its important to note, we
are not trying to uncover previous data directly, but rather explore variations in
memory.<br />
<br />
An MFM series of images of the disk platter is produced and converted to 3D. Then
each sector's dimensional values are offset against the values provided by the known
characteristics of the read/write heads. Each binary bit is treated
independently.<br />
<br />
As most can see, this method bypasses encryption by focusing on physical position.
After this, it is simply a matter of computing variations and attempting to match
patterns. Not one bit of cipher breaking, makes you wonder about the advice security
companies provide and who exactly qualified them in 'IT Security'?<br />
<br />
Most people do not realize they are self-appointed and even wrote the texts for
'security classes'.<br />
<br />
The technique came from the "The Catch 22 Guide To Business" and a chapter entitled
"Recursive Algorithms& Global Expansion", with cross-references to the Ferengi
'Rules of Acquisition'. :)</p>
<h2>Can you trust your computer?</h2>
<br />
<br />
by Richard Stallman
<p>Who should your computer take its orders from? Most people think their computers
should obey them, not obey someone else. With a plan they call "trusted computing",
large media corporations (including the movie companies and record companies),
together with computer companies such as Microsoft and Intel, are planning to make
your computer obey them instead of you. (Microsoft's version of this scheme is called
"Palladium".) Proprietary programs have included malicious features before, but this
plan would make it universal.<br />
<br />
Proprietary software means, fundamentally, that you don't control what it does; you
can't study the source code, or change it. It's not surprising that clever
businessmen find ways to use their control to put you at a disadvantage. Microsoft
has done this several times: one version of Windows was designed to report to
Microsoft all the software on your hard disk; a recent "security" upgrade in Windows
Media Player required users to agree to new restrictions. But Microsoft is not alone:
the KaZaa music-sharing software is designed so that KaZaa's business partner can
rent out the use of your computer to their clients. These malicious features are
often secret, but even once you know about them it is hard to remove them, since you
don't have the source code.<br />
<br />
In the past, these were isolated incidents. "Trusted computing" would make it
pervasive. "Treacherous computing" is a more appropriate name, because the plan is
designed to make sure your computer will systematically disobey you. In fact, it is
designed to stop your computer from functioning as a general-purpose computer. Every
operation may require explicit permission.<br />
<br />
The technical idea underlying treacherous computing is that the computer includes a
digital encryption and signature device, and the keys are kept secret from you.
Proprietary programs will use this device to control which other programs you can
run, which documents or data you can access, and what programs you can pass them to.
These programs will continually download new authorization rules through the
Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work. If you don't allow your
computer to obtain the new rules periodically from the Internet, some capabilities
will automatically cease to function.<br />
<br />
Of course, Hollywood and the record companies plan to use treacherous computing for
"DRM" (Digital Restrictions Management), so that downloaded videos and music can be
played only on one specified computer. Sharing will be entirely impossible, at least
using the authorized files that you would get from those companies. You, the public,
ought to have both the freedom and the ability to share these things. (I expect that
someone will find a way to produce unencrypted versions, and to upload and share
them, so DRM will not entirely succeed, but that is no excuse for the system.)<br />
<br />
Making sharing impossible is bad enough, but it gets worse. There are plans to use
the same facility for email and documents--resulting in email that disappears in two
weeks, or documents that can only be read on the computers in one company.<br />
<br />
Imagine if you get an email from your boss telling you to do something that you
think is risky; a month later, when it backfires, you can't use the email to show
that the decision was not yours. "Getting it in writing" doesn't protect you when the
order is written in disappearing ink.<br />
<br />
Imagine if you get an email from your boss stating a policy that is illegal or
morally outrageous, such as to shred your company's audit documents, or to allow a
dangerous threat to your country to move forward unchecked. Today you can send this
to a reporter and expose the activity. With treacherous computing, the reporter won't
be able to read the document; her computer will refuse to obey her. Treacherous
computing becomes a paradise for corruption.<br />
<br />
Word processors such as Microsoft Word could use treacherous computing when they
save your documents, to make sure no competing word processors can read them. Today
we must figure out the secrets of Word format by laborious experiments in order to
make free word processors read Word documents. If Word encrypts documents using
treacherous computing when saving them, the free software community won't have a
chance of developing software to read them--and if we could, such programs might even
be forbidden by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.<br />
<br />
Programs that use treacherous computing will continually download new authorization
rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work. If
Microsoft, or the US government, does not like what you said in a document you wrote,
they could post new instructions telling all computers to refuse to let anyone read
that document. Each computer would obey when it downloads the new instructions. Your
writing would be subject to 1984-style retroactive erasure. You might be unable to
read it yourself.<br />
<br />
You might think you can find out what nasty things a treacherous computing
application does, study how painful they are, and decide whether to accept them. It
would be short-sighted and foolish to accept, but the point is that the deal you
think you are making won't stand still. Once you come depend on using the program,
you are hooked and they know it; then they can change the deal. Some applications
will automatically download upgrades that will do something different--and they won't
give you a choice about whether to upgrade.<br />
<br />
Today you can avoid being restricted by proprietary software by not using it. If you
run GNU/Linux or another free operating system, and if you avoid installing
proprietary applications on it, then you are in charge of what your computer does. If
a free program has a malicious feature, other developers in the community will take
it out, and you can use the corrected version. You can also run free application
programs and tools on non-free operating systems; this falls short of fully giving
you freedom, but many users do it.<br />
<br />
Treacherous computing puts the existence of free operating systems and free
applications at risk, because you may not be able to run them at all. Some versions
of treacherous computing would require the operating system to be specifically
authorized by a particular company. Free operating systems could not be installed.
Some versions of treacherous computing would require every program to be specifically
authorized by the operating system developer. You could not run free applications on
such a system. If you did figure out how, and told someone, that could be a
crime.<br />
<br />
There are proposals already for US laws that would require all computers to support
treacherous computing, and to prohibit connecting old computers to the Internet. The
CBDTPA (we call it the Consume But Don't Try Programming Act) is one of them. But
even if they don't legally force you to switch to treacherous computing, the pressure
to accept it may be enormous. Today people often use Word format for communication,
although this causes several sorts of problems. If only a treacherous computing
machine can read the latest Word documents, many people will switch to it, if they
view the situation only in terms of individual action (take it or leave it). To
oppose treacherous computing, we must join together and confront the situation as a
collective choice.<br />
<br />
For further information about treacherous computing, see <a target="_blank"
href="http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tcpa-faq.html"><http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tcpa-faq.html></a>.<br />
<br />
To block treacherous computing will require large numbers of citizens to organize.
We need your help! The <a target="_blank" href="http://www.eff.org">Electronic
Frontier Foundation</a> and <a target="_blank"
href="http://www.publicknowledge.org">Public Knowledge</a> are campaigning against
treacherous computing, and so is the FSF-sponsored <a target="_blank"
href="http://www.digitalspeech.org">Digital Speech Project</a>. Please visit these
Web sites so you can sign up to support their work.<br />
<br />
You can also help by writing to the public affairs offices of Intel, IBM, HP/Compaq,
or anyone you have bought a computer from, explaining that you don't want to be
pressured to buy "trusted" computing systems so you don't want them to produce any.
This can bring consumer power to bear. If you do this on your own, please send copies
of your letters to the organizations above.</p>
<h2>Postscripts</h2>
<blockquote>
The GNU Project distributes the GNU Privacy Guard, a program that implements
public-key encryption and digital signatures, which you can use to send secure and
private email. It is useful to explore how GPG differs from treacherous computing,
and see what makes one helpful and the other so dangerous.<br />
<br />
When someone uses GPG to send you an encrypted document, and you use GPG to decode
it, the result is an unencrypted document that you can read, forward, copy, and
even re-encrypt to send it securely to someone else. A treacherous computing
application would let you read the words on the screen, but would not let you
produce an unencrypted document that you could use in other ways. GPG, a free
software package, makes security features available to the users; they use it.
Treacherous computing is designed to impose restrictions on the users; it uses
them. Microsoft presents palladium as a security measure, and claims that it will
protect against viruses, but this claim is evidently false. A presentation by
Microsoft Research in October 2002 stated that one of the specifications of
palladium is that existing operating systems and applications will continue to run;
therefore, viruses will continue to be able to do all the things that they can do
today.<br />
<br />
When Microsoft speaks of "security" in connection with palladium, they do not mean
what we normally mean by that word: protecting your machine from things you do not
want. They mean protecting your copies of data on your machine from access by you
in ways others do not want. A slide in the presentation listed several types of
secrets palladium could be used to keep, including "third party secrets" and "user
secrets"--but it put "user secrets" in quotation marks, recognizing that this
somewhat of an absurdity in the context of palladium.<br />
<br />
The presentation made frequent use of other terms that we frequently associate
with the context of security, such as "attack", "malicious code", "spoofing", as
well as "trusted". None of them means what it normally means. "Attack" doesn't mean
someone trying to hurt you, it means you trying to copy music. "Malicious code"
means code installed by you to do what someone else doesn't want your machine to
do. "Spoofing" doesn't mean someone fooling you, it means you fooling palladium.
And so on. A previous statement by the palladium developers stated the basic
premise that whoever developed or collected information should have total control
of how you use it. This would represent a revolutionary overturn of past ideas of
ethics and of the legal system, and create an unprecedented system of control. The
specific problems of these systems are no accident; they result from the basic
goal. It is the goal we must reject.
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />Chazzsongshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12832406704954147954noreply@blogger.com0