Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government The Courts News

Defending Against Surveillance? 157

Posted by Cliff
from the big-brother-lives dept.
Extrudedaluminiu asks: "With the recent news about domestic spying by the NSA, American citizens are put in a very difficult situation. Citizens in other countries, around the globe, also find themselves in situations where their lives can be examined by government agencies or other groups of questionable ethics. What can people in this kind of world do to defend themselves? Are there any approaches to thwarting or mitigating surveillance that will work on a mass scale? What technologies can people use to hold on to their freedoms, in a difficult world?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Defending Against Surveillance?

Comments Filter:
  • by nuintari (47926)
    I can assure, anything you saw in enemy of the state is pure bullshit. sweeping the room with an AM radio,while switching channels.... hello? other frequency ranges? Sticking strange decies in your spent potatoe chips bags won't do squat either, Mylar is just sooo reflective.

    Coat Hangers in the ceiling does nothing, nor does the tinfoil/aluminum foil hat.

    Anyone else know any good ones that are just utter bunk?
    • by Anonymous Coward
      What will work is mass disobedience. Surveillance systems work only if they have clues that they can look out for that stand out in some way. The simplest way to, say, make it impossible for a request for the original translation of the little red book to be flagged, is for loads of people to request it.

      So if you can convince large numbers of people, if possible a majority, to continually perform acts which might flag systems like Echelon, eg. by continually generating and sending emails containing keywor
    • by technos (73414) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @02:53PM (#14286217) Homepage Journal
      weeping the room with an AM radio,while switching channels.... hello? other frequency ranges?

      Actually, this used to work with early miniature transmitters. In an effort to keep them small, very little attention was paid to what undesirable RF was being thrown off by the device.
    • by Black Parrot (19622) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @02:53PM (#14286219)
      > Coat Hangers in the ceiling does nothing, nor does the tinfoil/aluminum foil hat.

      Sure they do. After spending a few hours watching you putting up the hangers and making the hat, they'll write you off as a kook and spend their time spying on someone else.
  • by Pyromage (19360) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @12:56PM (#14285508) Homepage
    For Gods sake people, what's wrong with you?! Write your Senators & Reps, and if they don't do anything, then vote these assholes out of office when the elections come! Donate money to the ACLU.

    Seriously people, technologies won't help you hold on to your freedoms. There's no silver bullet. You have to do it for yourselves!
    • by rkcallaghan (858110) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @02:19PM (#14286002)
      For Gods sake people, what's wrong with you?! Write your Senators & Reps, and if they don't do anything, then vote these assholes out of office when the elections come! Donate money to the ACLU.

      Seriously people, technologies won't help you hold on to your freedoms. There's no silver bullet. You have to do it for yourselves!


      What do you suggest if:
      * - Our Senators & Representatives are bought off / unreachable.
      * - Our voting machines are rigged and we're unable to vote them out of office.
      * - While being monitored, we have no means of collaboration and organization to form a revolution.
      * - Were a revolution organized, we have no weapons of any signifigance to mount an effective revolution.

      You can disagree with me whether the first two are true or not; that's okay. This is a theoretical discussion which ultimately lands square on the third one. The fourth is provided for clarity.

      ~Rebecca
      • * - Our Senators & Representatives are bought off / unreachable.

        Run against them, or support someone to run against them.

        * - Our voting machines are rigged and we're unable to vote them out of office.

        File suit in federal district court. Election fraud causing more than the margin of error of a difference is provable in court, and worst comes to worst there's always the option of a recall election.

        * - While being monitored, we have no means of collaboration and organization to form a revolution.

        Your rev
      • What do you suggest if:
        * - Our Senators & Representatives are bought off / unreachable.
        * - Our voting machines are rigged and we're unable to vote them out of office.
        * - While being monitored, we have no means of collaboration and organization to form a revolution.
        * - Were a revolution organized, we have no weapons of any signifigance to mount an effective revolution.


        Commit murder-suicide on your family because there's no hope?
      • * - Were a revolution organized, we have no weapons of any signifigance to mount an effective revolution.

        I suggest you do what Mahatma Gandhi [wikipedia.org] did in India.

      • What do you suggest if:* - Our Senators & Representatives are bought off / unreachable.

        Picket them. Force your way towards them.

        * - Our voting machines are rigged and we're unable to vote them out of office.

        Smash them.

        * - While being monitored, we have no means of collaboration and organization to form a revolution.

        Overwhelm the surveillance with bogus data.

        * - Were a revolution organized, we have no weapons of any signifigance to mount an effective revolution.

        Just do nothing at all. Brin

      • Were a revolution organized, we have no weapons of any signifigance to mount an effective revolution.

        In 1979, largely unarmed civilians overthrew the government of Iran, which boasted the world's sixth largest armed forces and was led by Shah Reza Pahlevi, whose brutality toward dissidents was legend---he was torturing children to make their parents talk long before Saddam Hussein was.

        The current regime in Iran is almost as bloodthirsty and evil as the Shah's but my point is not to defend them, just to p

        • Such revolutions always have a few tyrants manipulating the populace so thay they are a cohesive group with direction. Without them, it doesn't work. With them, what comes after the revolution is worse than what came before.

          There hasn't been a revolution worthy of the word since France, I think. And even that one might be a little bloodthirsty to some.
          • A few examples of successful revolutions after France, which produced neither reigns of terror nor Napoleons in their wake:

            Gandhi's revolution in India, Solidarity's revolution in Poland, the real Irish Revolution (the one that liberated Southern Ireland, not the terrorism in the North masquerading as a republican war of independence), Chile's revolution against colonialism in 1810-2.

            One could also point to the Mexican revolution, but that was much more complicated and bloody although I would still argu

            • I stand corrected. At the very least, Gandhi should have been obvious to me.

              Chile might not count, we're talking right around the time I contended that the good ones ended, just to nitpick.

              But India and Poland are both really recent, one even within my own lifetime.
      • You missed one, the first and most important one.

        *- How do you convince a large enough percentage of the populace that freedom is worth dying for, and especially more than that new Celine Dion CD, and their SUV?

    • And what shall I do while I'm spending all of my free time trying to educate a population who is rather uninterested with invasions of privacy? How can I protect myself until enough elections pass to get a critical mass of responsible Congressmen elected?

      What's wrong with me? What's wrong is that I realize that when push comes to shove, I have to be able to defend myself, no matter what idiot gets elected (unfortunately, I do not control the entire electorate... yet).

      You can't just dismiss the questi

      • Tell me, how much time to you devote to getting freedom-protecting people elected? How much do you donate to the ACLU?

        He could devote every waking second to getting them elected. He could donate his last red cent to the ACLU. Wouldn't do a bit of good. Not one.

        I don't expect him to sacrifice his own life to that, either. It's too much to ask, knowing the outcome beforehand. Legal means might have worked up until recent history, but they no longer do. There's a point that if corruption creeps past it, all th
    • Seriously people, technologies won't help you hold on to your freedoms.

      YMMV, but in my book guns and strong crypto count as "technologies", also quite suitable for defending one's personal freedon in the short run. In longer run, all other "technologies" which tend to make people more productive and richer/more self-sufficient generally work towards for protecting their freedoms as well.

      There's no silver bullet.

      I guess there are, but lead tend to be cheaper... ;-)

      I am not sure myself if the original questio
  • A Tinfoil Hat is the Answer!
  • by A beautiful mind (821714) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @12:57PM (#14285520)
    I can't say that, no, that'd be blatantly obvious...

    Tinfoil hats!

    I couldn't resist...
  • by metalcup (897029)
    Pehaphs by being more proactive as citizens, and demanding and electing the right set of people to legislate. This, IMO, whould be a permanent solution - we could keep developing ways of evading 'surveillance', but the the agencies would just develop something better - wouldn't they ? FP, btw :D
  • by keesh (202812) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @12:58PM (#14285525) Homepage
    Move to Canada. I hear they still have a few remaining civil liberties here.
    • I hear they still have a few remaining civil liberties here.

      Like the recommendation [bbc.co.uk] by the former Ontario Attorney General that sharia be allowed as the law in family courts?

      Thank Atheism your post was modded funny!
      • That was to be voluntary, only for Muslims, and in any case was NOT implemented. In fact, the Ontario government not only decided against this proposal, it now plans to abolish all use of religious law in the legal system [www.cbc.ca], including the Jewish courts, which have not been a problem.

        • That was to be voluntary, only for Muslims, and in any case was NOT implemented.

          And I did indicate that it was a recommendation.

          Let's talk, then, about Canadian freedom from politically incorrect speech.
          http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bernstein200 312020910.asp [nationalreview.com]
          http://www.zerointelligence.net/archives/000565.ph p [zerointelligence.net]
          http://www.canadianfreespeech.com/battles/vancouve r/doug_collins.html [canadianfreespeech.com]
          • Yes, you mentioned that it was a recommendation, but not that it would have been voluntary and restricted to Muslims or it had already been definitively rejected.

            On the subject of laws against hate speech, I agree that they are wrong, but that's another topic. Overall civil liberties in Canada are in good shape, better than the great majority of other countries, but it is true that there are areas, such as the hate speech laws, that could use improvement.

            • Yes, you mentioned that it was a recommendation, but not that it would have been voluntary and restricted to Muslims or it had already been definitively rejected.

              Yes, but that was spelled out in the article.

              Doh! (Slaps head) Forgot this is Slashdot...
              • It's one thing to expect people to read the main article. It's another thing to expect people to read an article linked from a comment. The point is, anybody reading your comment and taking it at face value is likely to think that Ontario is seriously considering imposing Sharia law on everybody. The fact that the person who reads the linked article will discover that that isn't true doesn't change the fact that making the statement without the necessary qualifications is misleading.

    • Move to Canada. I hear they still have a few remaining civil liberties here.
      For goodness sake, they don't even have a Constitution!

      Huge actual holes in the civil liberties also exist -- one of the provinces, for example, mandates the use of a certain language in public life.

      • Re:Move to Canada. (Score:3, Informative)

        by Clover_Kicker (20761)
        > For goodness sake, they don't even have a Constitution!

        http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/ [justice.gc.ca]
  • Be boring (Score:5, Funny)

    by Weasel Boy (13855) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @12:58PM (#14285529) Journal
    I'm sorry, but if they want you, they pretty much have you. Your only hope is to be so utterly dull that nobody wants you. You pretty much have to have no life whatsoever. Since you're asking for advice on Slashdot, I'd say you're safe.
  • If you have some information that you think is worth keeping, DON'T use electronics to store it. It seems that governments are focusing more on computers than on stuff printed or written on paper and hidden well. If you don't give them 1's and 0's to look at, they might not see anything at all. Just my $.02.
  • Vote (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Karma Farmer (595141) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @01:02PM (#14285554)
    There's a super secret high-tech black box invented by the ancient g(r)eeks that is designed to protect your freedoms. It's regular, educated use will prevent survellience. I suggest everyone learn to use one.

    It's called a "ballot box."
    • Re:Vote (Score:3, Interesting)

      by OzPeter (195038)
      Yeah .. I have heard of these .. along with this company called Diebold ... I hear that they are very supportive of the electoral process.

      I think I can generalise that a lot of people don't trust the electoral process anymore. And even if the contest is honest, the main political parties seem to act in very similiar ways (probably due to the amount of special interest money floating around).

      I am not sure how to reverse this trend of feeling that the government is screwing the electoral process and the peop
      • If you live somewhere that uses a voting method that is not auditable, protest by sending in absentee ballots.

        They are paper. They can be audited and they will more than offset the "cost savings" of having the electronic balloting.
      • Amen!! I get the feeling we're being governed by the kind of corporate middle managers (Bush, Blair...) who might make VP, but never CEO or Chairman. The interesting question is, who really /does/ hold all the power now? Ignoring all the idiot conspiracies about giant green lizards -- there seems to be a huge accumulation of wealth and power going up the chain, but where does it actually end up?
        • General conspiracy theory crap would tell you that its old european families like the Rothschilds.

          Not sure that it's them, or any of the other names bandied around. But, I think they got it basically right, and its one or even a few families that have made an art of not really being noticed publically.
      • Redistricting is one of many ways that the American electorate is recieving a good hard dicking by their elected representative(s).

        To sum it up, if you redraw the congressional districts so that there is always a majority for whichever party, then there really is no inter-party competition for that seat.

        Like the Parent, I am not pinning this on republicans or democrats. Both sides have done this, it just happens that recently some republican got caught for blatantly abusing the process.

        Possibly the only thi
        • I've never understood how that works. If you move the borders around so that you have, say, more Democrats in one district, then you're by definition moving Republicans into another district, throwing the balance off there, so you end up with a majority where there may not have been one before. I guess if you group all of the Republicans into a couple of districts, then you can get more Democrat districts, but it seems like the effect would be minimal as long as places are weighed on population. Maybe i
    • Ballot boxes only work when you (i.e., the population in general) actually have a chance to *choose* between different policies. If it's choosing between two evils that, for 95% of all cases, will screw you over in the same way, then you don't actually have a choice, and the ballot box is just a pseudodemocratic legitimation device for a corrupt system where laws go to the highest bidder.
  • by mister_llah (891540) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @01:08PM (#14285592) Homepage Journal
    With 1984 and McCarthy era paranoia "in" this year, my advice to everyone is to turn in as many people who act suspiciously as possible... to draw attention away from yourself!
  • by Black Parrot (19622) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @02:47PM (#14286184)
    Get fat and walk around naked.
  • Don't make it easy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by linuxwrangler (582055) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @02:51PM (#14286199)
    Encrypt everything. Don't make it obvious what is important and what isn't and force "them" to waste lots of processor cycles to get Aunt Betty's cobbler recipe. I'm planning to convert all my web sites to HTTPS.

    Also, help throw up smoke screens. Spare bandwidth can be used to send random garbage - some of it should be truly random so no amount of work will allow someone to conclude that they have successfully decrypted usless data but rather that they still have work to do.

    Educate yourself so you know how to protect your rights in the event that you become an unjust target.

    Donate to the EFF, ACLU or other rights-defender of your choice.

    Write your legislators, support those who will defend your freedoms, fight those who don't, and vote.

    And remember to separate the people, the goals and the techniques. There really are "bad guys" out there and we have many smart and dedicated people defending us against them. Help them where you can. But remember that they are all sworn to defend the Constitution (here in the U.S.) and it's up to us to make sure they remember and abide by that pledge. The ends do not always justify the means.
    • Spare bandwidth can be used to send random garbage - some of it should be truly random so no amount of work will allow someone to conclude that they have successfully decrypted usless data but rather that they still have work to do.

      That only works if you make sure that the actual, real traffic also looks like truly random data.

  • by DynaSoar (714234) * on Sunday December 18, 2005 @02:52PM (#14286213) Journal
    "Are there any approaches to thwarting or mitigating surveillance that will work on a mass scale?"

    Poison their databases.

    Plan and publicize, but don't hold, activities which fall under their "threat" category but aren't actually threatening, ie. protests at military related sites.

    Call a flash mob that happens to be at such a place, but don't let that fact on when calling it.

    Make sure to be at grandma's for Sunday dinner when such things do or do not occur.

    Put up a web site for a bogus anti-something organization and encrypt the hell out of the pages, those being fair use snippets out of "Cryptonomicon" or some such.

    There's far more potential spookees than spooks.
  • Approaches (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18, 2005 @03:13PM (#14286335)
    Encryption isn't a sure-fire solution for all privacy problems. Its an easy word to throw around, but the question that is more important is what to encrypt and how to handle the infrastructure around that.

    For example, I could encrypt all my email, ever. But then who would be able to read it? A lot less people than now. I could encrypt or hide all traffic to/from my computer (Tor, stunnel, etc.), but those won't solve everything.

    Also, what about getting data from organizations? Like asking universities, bookstore, online data vendors, phone companies, and more? Dropping off the "grid" entirely is a difficult option. But those services could hold enough data about you to drive massive holes through any comprehensive privacy policy.
    • Dropping off the grid is amazingly simple, which is what makes it so difficult.

      You essentially have to give up many of the convienences you're accustomed to. Taking home library books, having any bills to pay, a bank account, cable tv, credit cards, pharmacies, lengthy hosptial stays... the list goes on.

      It requires true dedication to give up decades of social progress.
  • As far as I can tell the incident under question was interception of international communications. The real puzzlement in this case is why the NSA didn't just go to the FISA court which routinely issues authorization for these sorts of intercepts. It is pretty unlikely that there would have been any issues with getting the authorization.

    It seems to me to be more of a political foot-shot than anything.

    • I can only assume it's because FISA requires that there be probable cause that the subject of the intercept be a foreign power or agent thereof.

      Suppose the government captures a terrorist's cell phone addressbook. They then decide they'd like to eavesdrop on everyone in that list, in case some of them are also involved in terrorism. The administration may not be able to convince a FISA judge that simply being in someone's phone list is "probable cause" that the person is themselves a foreign agent or terro
      • by MarkusQ (450076)

        The problem with that theory is, there's no credible indication that we've captured any terrorists to get address books from in the first place. Instead (from related reports) it seems more likely that they're going after administration critics, anti-war protesters, and others who they would be hard pressed to come up with probably cause for.

        --MarkusQ

        P.S. Another hole in the theory ("The administration may not be able to convince a FISA judge that simply being in someone's phone list is "probable cause

        • It now seems that Congress was advised that these investigations were going on before the press picked up on it. If so both the legislature and executive have let us down.

        • Do you have any evidence for making this claim? Or are you saying that anti-war protesters are in the habit of calling bin-Laden?

          Because if you actually RTFNYTA (Read the fucking New York Times Article) the claim was that the NSA was monitoring calls to and from terrorists overseas.

          • It's been in the news [msn.com] that the DOD has been spying on anti-war protesters, civil rights leaders [washingtonpost.com] and so forth. While I don't have first hand evidence that the two programs overlap, to refuse to connect the dots and at least suspect the possibility you would have to be stunningly obtuse or shamelessly disingenuous.

            --MarkusQ

            • This may come as a shock to you, but the NSA is not the FBI and the two agencies do not cooperate and do not have any shared jurisdiction. The NSA investigates foreign, military threats. The FBI is a police department. As a bonus, no one has claimed that the FBI did anything illegal while investigating domestic groups.


              • And this may come as news to you, but the DOD is not the FBI or the NSA; the FBI is also, in this context, a red herring. My orginal point (which I stand by) is that given what we know about the actions of other executive branch agencies (the DOD, speifically, though the FBI could be used as well), and the history of similar claims (from "we are doing it to protect you from dirty bomber [washingtonpost.com]" to "we have had many successful prosecutions [reclaimdemocracy.org]") and even in the current argument [washingtonpost.com] that have turned out to be false, we ha

          • Because if you actually RTFNYTA (Read the fucking New York Times Article) the claim was that the NSA was monitoring calls to and from terrorists overseas.

            And if you read today's news [msn.com] you'd see that the spying was much more extensive than originally revealed.

            President Bush and his aides have said his executive order allowing eavesdropping without warrants was limited to monitoring international phone and e-mail communications linked to people with connections to al-Qaida. What has not been acknowledged,

      • It's conceivable that there are cases in which there is a legitimate reason for surveilance but in which the courts would not under current law issue a warrant. However, I think that it is important to note that NO SUCH ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MADE by the Bush Administration. They haven't outlined any such situations much less described any actual cases in which this problem has arisen. There is not a shred of evidence that the requirement for a warrant has been, or would have been had Bush not authorized warran

    • The real puzzlement in this case is why the NSA didn't just go to the FISA court which routinely issues authorization for these sorts of intercepts. It is pretty unlikely that there would have been any issues with getting the authorization.

      Probably because, when it comes out who the Administration has been eavesdropping on, it's going to be embarassing. Like Watergate.

    • the law does not require a warrant. In addition, the law apparently permits the AG to authorize wiretaps in some other cases, without a warrant.

      As near as I can tell, you only need a warrant if one of the persons in the call is a U.S. citizen or holds a U.S. "green card" (i.e., they have permanent residency).

      Which is what the NYT is claiming, but for which they provide no proof whatsoever - they printed anonymous claims that US citizens and residents were tapped without a warrant but they don't say who was
  • What I'm suggesting is changing some flags/options in the ip or tcp/udp headers so that data is automatically encrypted. So just add this to the open source protocol stacks and most connection you make will be encrypted to some degree automatically... you wouldn't know that you were talking to the proper site, but you would at least know that your connections would be much more difficult to be intercepted automatically.

    There would be some configuration that say you want lots of throughput (xtea) versus lot
  • Try again (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Eil (82413) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @04:19PM (#14286718) Homepage Journal
    Are there any approaches to thwarting or mitigating surveillance that will work on a mass scale?

    No. Because if there were, or were actually used on a mass scale, they would be illegal very quickly.
  • Information overload (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pig Hogger (10379) <pig.hogger@NoSpAM.gmail.com> on Sunday December 18, 2005 @04:38PM (#14286819) Journal
    "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, you can always baffle them with bullshit".

    Keep talking. All the time. Say nothing but gibberish. Overwhelm them with data to the point that they can't cope anymore.

    If 20% of a given ISP user's would, everyday, post random gibberish on 10 different USENET groups, this would be a good start. Let those fuckers wonder what the hell we're talking about.

    Let them outlaw encryption. Let them sue everybody.

    "The best way to force a redesign is to throw a monkey wrench in the works".

    Don't cooperate with the police. Never talk to them. Let them wonder. Let them find out by themselves that you're up to nothing bad. Bog them down. Let them think that EVERY civilian is suspect.

    • by _Splat (22170) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @06:04PM (#14287236)
      If 20% of a given ISP user's would, everyday, post random gibberish on 10 different USENET groups, this would be a good start. Let those fuckers wonder what the hell we're talking about.

      Fill USENET with garbage? I was pretty sure that was already happening...

    • Gibberish is subject to statistical analysis, as is the output of encryption algorithms.

      While you may not be able to break the encryption, I'm pretty sure statistical analysis can tell the difference between garbage and encrypted garbage (if there's enough data to analyse)
  • Scramble the cameras (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Pig Hogger (10379) <pig.hogger@NoSpAM.gmail.com> on Sunday December 18, 2005 @04:46PM (#14286866) Journal
    Make yourself a cap visor and shoulder pads festooned with infrared LEDs. Cameras are sensitive to infrared radiation, and this will cause a bright halo around your face so you won't be identified by the cameras, yet people will not see the obstuctive light.
  • by QuietRiot (16908) <cyrus@@@80d...org> on Sunday December 18, 2005 @05:09PM (#14286968) Homepage Journal
    US Bill of Rights [archives.gov]

    [ Amendment IV ]
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Want to read my stuff? Go ahead and crack it - no warrant necessary.

    Get the rabbit installed on a machine behind your firewall
    ==> http://freenet.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
    Faster than freenet
    ==> http://www.i2p.net/ [i2p.net]
    Encrypt Jabber
    ==> http://www.vanemery.com/Linux/Jabber/jabberd.html [vanemery.com]
    Onion Routing
    ==> http://tor.eff.org/ [eff.org]
    Emerging Network To Reduce Orwellian Potency Yield
    ==> http://entropy.stop1984.com/ [stop1984.com]
    Free Internet telephony
    ==> http://skype.com/ [skype.com]
    GNU-ified P2p
    ==> http://www.gnu.org/software/gnunet/ [gnu.org]


    DO NOT DENY yourself about 2 hours @ InfoAnarchy.org [infoanarchy.org]
    OMG! ==> http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Pag e [infoanarchy.org]

    LearnLearnLearnLearn ==> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography [wikipedia.org]

    =================EMAIL ENCRYPTION===============
    GPG (Free PGP)
    ==> http://gnupg.org/ [gnupg.org]
    Integrated with Thunderbird
    ==> http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ [mozdev.org]
    Mutt can't be beat as a mailreader and integrates GPG wonderfully.
    ==> http://mutt.blackfish.org.uk/ [blackfish.org.uk]
    ==> http://www.mutt.org/links.html [mutt.org]
    ==> http://wiki.mutt.org/index.cgi?UserPages [mutt.org]

    !!! Please do not immediately send newly created keys to the keyservers (as many HOWTOs instruct new users to). They are already overflowing with "test keys" and other people's experiments from over the years THAT HAVE NO EXPIRATION and will never be deleted. These keys are "orphans" and most will never be used. As keyservers sync together, and most keys are never deleted once submitted - GET YOUR KEY SETUP CORRECTLY AND HAVE PRACTICE WITH IT BEFORE SENDING IT OFF TO THE KEYSERVERS!!! Otherwise storage requirements will continue to grow and using these in the future will become more difficult FOR ALL. Please, if you are just starting out with PGP or GPG or GnuPG or anything similar (the last two are in fact the same thing) use manual key distribution to begin (ascii armor your public key with


    $ gpg --export --armor my@email.address.org

    and copy and paste it into an email body or attach it to an email


    $ gpg --export --armor my@email.address.org > myPubKey.txt

    to gain practice with GPG before uploading your key. This way if you need to create another you won't have uploaded your mistakes. Many choices need to be made and it's worth getting things right before "going public" with your new digital ID. Experiment with yourself and a few different email accounts or with some friends first.)

    SET AN EXPIRATION OF 2-5 YEARS OR SO AND MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR PREFERENCES THE WAY YOU LIKE THEM BEFORE SENDING TO A KEYSERVER! Better yet is to HOST YOUR

  • by spoonyfork (23307) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [krofynoops]> on Sunday December 18, 2005 @05:10PM (#14286977) Journal
    Recommended order: soap, ballot, jury, ammo.
  • by cortana (588495) <sam@robo[ ]org.uk ['ts.' in gap]> on Sunday December 18, 2005 @06:41PM (#14287385) Homepage
    -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

    hQEOAwrqJsAYQX3cEAP+KR6M0Ty7ETedwnNyg+B6eNpsOKEnmt 531lur0bgnzZzD
    VsTSZlC+XHGkmdnIRGl8Ux1Spk4yC5+SnExYDdZpfFSnUYSuUa O9ZjULk4fiexn/
    F3Df3qrN8rdW14ok9zEbX4BzflMs70D75rM5yqic2rIUeMoRuc 61gIFWIcKFYQYD /0tPqWl5gbUELf/p3fpNE+4KmwjjSg1a6ogM5haEOFWzPj2d8t X9RqWMXYPKXHtW
    auC73kpn+BixXt5W+mScIV390XZBBxidj2UqkTvcxcqafi9udk Pcgy/O2vd+mI1u
    BwwWvLwlrN2nxFWV0ijBDK/vjCyjPrLX6z/UTSh2Fwsl0n8BK/ mYaw0ZpvZjfLcu
    PLKP5Hy2JwlRAH8Ci4SvpOdDjy+0wa5HIBbSLheLD0AK4Olntq 681JnQjr907Wj8
    d5VuiAjjirRjcDqiVsFARKve7kzSNBSRfXQozDdUC4y95lfc2k xUiiWB+yKSR3Y+
    X4xV/MX0g3e3JI6X/2/DquON
    =wGEZ
    -----END PGP MESSAGE-----
  • That seems to me to be the best way of dealing with Bush's unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens.

Murphy's Law, that brash proletarian restatement of Godel's Theorem. -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"

Working...