On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 04:38:57AM -0700, Kyle Williams wrote: > I just read two articles that moved me to bring this to the attention > of others. Kaspersky Labs thinks anonymity is the problem with the > Internet. > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/16/kaspersky_rebukes_net_anonymity/ > " > In Kaspersky's world, services such as Psiphon and The Onion Router > (Tor) - which are legitimately used by Chinese dissidents and Google > users alike to shield personally identifiable information - would no > longer be legal. Or at least they'd have to be redesigned from the > ground up to give police the ability to surveil them. That's not the > kind of world many law-abiding citizens would feel comfortable > inhabiting. > " > > He's talking about supporting a police state, where the "law" can > watch everything you do. > > http://www.zdnetasia.com/insight/security/0,39044829,62058697,00.htm > " > [Q:] Are you saying that people often don't understand the > complexities of the work security researchers are involved in? > Consumers, businesses and even governments? > [A:] Governments do understand because they are more and more in touch > with these problems. Enterprises, big enterprises, some of them have > dedicated teams of security experts and they really understand what's > going on. Consumers generally have no clue, but they don't need to > understand. > " > > The only thing that works better than his A/V software is a well > informed and educated user. > My mom didn't know shit about what to do and not to do on the Internet > and downloaded everything that was free, and that's why I would have > to "fix" his computer every few months even though she uses AVG and > SpyBot. Finally I sat her down, explained to her why this was > happening, and told her not to do that anymore if she wanted her > computer to work right. She listened, and hasn't had any serious > problems for a few years now. > > From the same article... > " > [Q:] If you had the power to change up to three things in the world > today that are related to IT security, what would they be? > [A:] Internet design--that's enough. > > [Q:] That's it? What's wrong with the design of the Internet? > [A:] There's anonymity. Everyone should and must have an > identification, or Internet passport. The Internet was designed not > for public use, but for American scientists and the U.S. military. > That was just a limited group of people--hundreds, or maybe thousands. > Then it was introduced to the public and it was wrong…to introduce it > in the same way. > I'd like to change the design of the Internet by introducing > regulation--Internet passports, Internet police and international > agreement--about following Internet standards. And if some countries > don't agree with or don't pay attention to the agreement, just cut > them off. > " > > This is scary talk from a man who owns the largest anti-virus company > in the eastern hemisphere. Read these articles, and you'll see this > guy talks about a global "Internet police" or "Internet Interpol". > That's serious globalization talk from someone who millions trust to > protect their computers. All they need to do is label some code as > malicious, and it'll be removed from your PC after the next A/V > update....even if you use it to regain lost civil liberties. How long > until Kaspersky labels Tor a trojan or virus? If that happens, then > what? > > People who seek to control society fear society having anonymity, for > it's with anonymity that society can stand up against corruption of > the state when it occurs. The latest Iran election and the actions > that followed are a great example of this, and it's was technology > such as Tor that helped them get the truth out about what was being > done. When was the last time a trojan horse or virus helped a country > regain liberty or help bypass censorship? To treat Tor as such > malware is down right insulting to people's rights everywhere. > > Normally I would never think about the following, but as a developer, > I'm weighing the idea of detecting, disabling, and/or deleting > Kaspersky before installing any of the projects I work on. Such > action should be brought to the users attention, and the action to do > something about it should be evoked by the user. However, if > Kaspersky does go too far and labels Tor as malware, you can be damn > sure JanusVM, *maybe* Tor VM, and Chromium Browser VM will take > automated action to prevent itself from being attacked by Kaspersky > products, and will do so in a very harsh way. > > Something worth noting, today's A/V solutions do not scan inside > virtual machines and would not be able to detect Tor easily. Use > encryption with the VM and it'll be impossible for any A/V product to > scan the data inside. If you use an external anonymity device like > januspa or a linux router + Tor, then you would not feel the affects > of bad A/V software against your anonymity. > > Personally, I will be encouraging everyone I know to stay as far away > from this company and their products simply out of principle at this > point. I had no problem with Kaspersky until I read this. If > Kaspersky is going to treat non malicious software as malware, then we > might as well treat their software with the same regard. > > Spread the word, Kaspersky Labs is not a friend of Tor. > > Best regards, > Kyle > > "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do > nothing." - Edmund Burke > *********************************************************************** > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx with > unsubscribe or-talk in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/ Thanks for the link. While I don't see this as a threat in the US, some East Asian countires wouldn't surprise me if they did similar to this. -- Jake Todd // If it isn't broke, tweak it!
Attachment:
pgpB3lQt3Bkgb.pgp
Description: PGP signature