![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=1){kind=small}
iceaxe at Пидорас, уходи 
These past few days have been very intense and when neighbors, friends, family or just acquaintances, I have asked my opinion on Biden-Sinde law in all cases I have said the same thing "I think it's an issue of unconstitutionality." Unfortunately, I also ran a chill down your back, when I realized that most of my partners looking at me with the same skepticism and surprise with which those primitives monolith watching the movie Cula "Space Odyssey 2001" ...
with anesthesia may be caused by the growing social Telebasurato the TDT (TV Dummies) and incomprehensible virulent reactions sterile and useless tantrum, of which should be called intellectuals in the dictionary of the RAE , reaching some cases, qualify the poor surfer from "Taliban", "pimp", "pirate", "fascist" and a thief ", people expect something else from undersigned, but all I see is that the greatest victim of this whole issue of law-Sinde Biden, is none other than our Constitucióndand 1978 and thus, our democratic system.
I may be a freak, but had a critical age when certain things happened very important in this Paisy of lived with all the intensity, emotion, ilusióny hope that may feel idealistic teenager on the verge of adulthood. It was a turning point in civil liberties. That feeling is what some have called the "spirit of the democratic transition" and of course, if someone has not experienced it may not be able to understand ever. Let us not forget that many espa & amp; about girls; oles left blood, sweat and tears to ensure that Spain is a democracy and at times, as the present one, I feel as if this enormous effort and sacrifice is not adequately appreciated by those who should ensure the quality of our democracy.
These circumstances experienced in my youth, I have been deeply and I can not keep my hair stand on end when I hear the song "Freedom without Wrath" Jarcha (not put the link so you can pass), a song that reminds me of the moments and feelings of that exciting time of my life. All these personal circumstances have made me a Democratasset values as they are really worth these rights, warranties and obligations contained in the English Constitution.
For a few days I could not vote on the constitution, but that did not stop me seriously worry for his elaboracióny content, which succeeded despite the significant limitations of the mass media n the time, they were so interactive, as it could be television, radio, or newspaper. But these constraints did not prevent communication with intensity and enthusiasm saw the new rights and freedoms that the Constitution gave allEnglish. Rights and freedoms, as they are very important for democratic life, adorn the Title I of our Constitution. As in all self-respecting constitutions, the most important legal body always gets to the top of it. I still have at home and love, this little book handed to the English know their new constitution.
These rights under Title I, there are three that have special protection in our Constitution, and require a judicial decision, with all that that implies, to be restricted in some way. These are the right to privacy, con the inviolability of the home (Art. 18.2) and the necessary secrecy of communications (Art. 18.3), free expression (Article 20.5) and the right of association (Article 22.4). It is evident that the English parliament who participated in the drafting of the Constitution, were very clear about rights abuses in the past and that to live fully in democracy, it was necessary Intervenció n of a judge who was to enter into the merits in a criminal proceeding, in order to restrict them. Ie restrict these rights implied a "judicial decision", not a "judicial authority", which evencan be considered a kind of resolution, not what it says Constitucióny restricts the options available. If we accept "judicial authority" common synonym for judicial resolution, it's like a constitution recognizing the right to drink and then pass a law that only allows drinking water. Clearly, in this case, it would restrict rights in the Constitution, because if I have the right to drink, no one should be able to say I can only drink water to comply with that law. While it is true that drinking water is also drinking, as I said, it is not enough freedom.
The Constitution, as currently drafted, guarantees very important for a modern democracy. If a person has not committed any crime, or there are some clear indications that he will commit, you can have full legal guarantee that nobody, not even a judge, you can search his house, speak their communications, limiting their freedom of expression, or prevent freely associate.
The need for a judge to have to go into the merits before it can restrict constitutional rights, has much to do with the proper functioning of justice in a democratic system. In the course of criminal proceedings, Although initially the confidentiality of judicial decrees, must intervene the prosecution, which is the legal guarantees and safeguards the rights of citizens, as provided in Article 124.1 of our Constitution. Secrecy is lifted, interested parties can know the contents of the proceedings and, if necessary, can be challenged, either by defects in motivation, or other legal services, the measures taken by the judge. Something they can do about the same magistrate, the District Court, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court or even before the International Court in Strasbourg.
A simple "judicial authority" of a special magistrate, Which does not enter the merits, immersed in an administrative proceeding in the Central Court of Administrative Litigation (right outside the National Court of terrorists and drug traffickers) and without the intervention of the Attorney General, such as currently envisaged in the law-Sinde Biden, I think there are sufficient guarantees when it comes to basic rights to live in democracy and freedom.
therefore believe that only a court would be admissible, and never a "judicial authority", if in the course of criminal proceedings and with clear evidence of a crime, the judge considers by a resolution & amp; oacute n motivated, it is necessary to limit certain fundamental rights of a person. Be essential that motivation, to publicize the reasons, to convince stakeholders of the justice of the measures, facilitate the use of stakeholders and ensure control decision by higher-level courts in case resource.
already commented at the time the possible unconstitutionality of a law that has not been written to defend the interests of English authors and not emanating from their sovereignty. But a little more abounding in the possible unconstitutionality of the law-Sinde Bidenand in view of what I said earlier, I believe that it is not consistent with the spirit of democracy and rights-to which our Constitution was drafted. I further believe that at least enough common sense to think that if the Constitution says that a court is necessary to limit certain rights, it does not serve anything but is a judicial decision.
While the information pamphlet [pdf] has distributed the Government to defend the law-Sinde Biden will say things how are you:
a) The government will not be able &; Aacute; close Webs without prior judicial authorization. (Something that is not enough and certainly not one who closes the Government, a Commission through an administrative procedure).
b) The Commission may require to remove that content with prior judicial authorization, as required by law . (Actually, the Act provides that laws must be a judicial decision, which involves a criminal prosecution with all the guarantees, the intervention of the prosecution and the judge enters the merits, also is unknown final composition of the Second Section of the Commission).
The areaity is that these claims are incorrect and not justified at all possible trampling of constitutional rights that can make the current wording of the law-Sinde Biden. Unfortunately, it is the first time something similar happens in Spain. Gone were other attempts as unconstitutional and undemocratic, highlighting the famous "law Corcurera" or "law of the kick in the door, the one with the flimsy excuse of protecting security citizen, allowing a breathtaking ease violate the sacred constitutional guarantee of the inviolability of the home. Though still in force, the Constitutional Court had m &; Aacute; s no choice but to declare the second paragraph of Article 21 by the ruling 341/1993 of 18 November, to everyone's relief that the English were shocked by that measure.
Given these facts and convictions, I see very disturbing news as restlessness preocupacióny how are you:
Said and given the above, I think I need not explain anything, I know the mistakes of the content, which they currently use and although we say the law-Sinde Biden not against the Internet directly, I have very clearly going against what the Constitution says and what is worse, goes against the spirit with which it was drafted to ensure our democratic freedom. Someone also said that the Biden-Sinde law has nothing to do with freedom of expression, but the fact is that says the following:
"The execution of these actss, since this can affect the rights and freedoms guaranteed in Article 20 of the Constitution, require prior judicial authorization. "
words, something will have to do with these important rights and freedoms of Article 20, when the same law-Sinde Biden picks up on its content. However, it is surprising that the law does not provide what the Constitution says regarding the need for a court to limit those rights. Clearly, after the scandalous fortunes is taking this law, that the government is unwilling to "distort" the urgency of the procesor legal (I do not see any judicial process anywhere, I see an administrative process with a simple authorization of a judge who does not enter into the merits of the case). But if that's the urgency on the precautionary measures they are concerned, informing them that is something that is already covered by current copyright law in Article 138:
"Article 138 . Urgent actions and precautionary measures.
The owner of the rights recognized in this Law, without prejudice to other actions that apply to you, may demand the cessation of the infringer's unlawful activity and demand compensation for damages mMaterials and moral damages caused, under the terms provided for in Articles 139 and 140. You can also encourage the publication distribution, in whole or in part, the judicial or arbitral media infringer's expense. "
also think that the total judicializació n the process would not be effective, it could be true, but it is equally true that the total criminalization is necessary to preserve certain guarantees and rights of citizenship, as required by the Constitution English. Therefore, I think the only "l & iacute; red line "not to transfer in this case, is what makes the Constitution, demand what they demand some stakeholders, which in some cases, even far from the authors, are the companies that hold exploitation rights n of them and in no case they can recognize the same rights as authors.
As I said before and is shared by others who know more than me about this issue, the best solution would be to find a suitable partner, if possible, have little to do with unfortunate episodes of insults and outbursts that have lived these days and everyone representingsectors affected you, feel to write a bill of Intellectual Property, modern and efficient, in line with what UN says [pdf] on intellectual property, satisfies all stakeholders.
So I think at this moment not much to "negotiate" or "makeup" on which law should consider late-Sinde Biden. I also think he should have been enough scandal "sindegate" , the social rejection raised and no vote in Congress to seek a new alternative for consensus, unlike the current proposal, rubbishy , is made to defend the rights of authors in the ma ; s sense of the word, As the UN says, anyone is entitled to benefit from the protection of moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which E He or she is the author, so it is a much broader problem to be solved with the Biden-Sinde law, aimed at music downloads, books, films and the protection & amp; oacute n American audiovisual industry, rather than the protection of English authors, which is what we should really worry about our society.
Regarding civil society, all we can do in this case, is to demand their governments, with all legal means available to them, respect their fundamental rights and constitutional law and if not ;, exercise their constitutional sovereignty by voting.
"Steel Copyleft 2010 Fernando Martí-n. Verbatim copying, translation and distribution of this article is permitted in Entire Any digital medium, Provided this notice is preserved. " Quotation is allowed. "
For those who do not know, and was drafted Article 264 of our Penal Code as of December 23, 2010 and put it by copying and pasting, because the misunderstanding of Law relieve it of its most exact compliance:
" 1. Who by any means, without autorizacióny seriously and erased, would damage, deterioration, alteration, deletion, or did inaccessible data, software or electronic documents outsideWhen the result produced is serious, shall be punished with imprisonment from six months to two years.
2. He who by any means, without the authorization and seriously obstruct or interrupt the operation of a foreign computer system, inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering, suppressing or rendering inaccessible computer data when the result produced is serious, shall be punished with imprisonment from six months to three years. "
Here we see that the keys to discusNo words would be "so serious ", " obstruct or interrupt the operation of a computer system alien" and " rendering inaccessible computer data." Surely that said, no reviews for all tastes. But I do not doubt, that this article of the Penal Code, consideration was also to punish severely DoS / DDoS attacks, such as those suffered in his time Digg or Genbeta .
from my pointor view the current wording of the Criminal Code is at the discretion of the judge to decide if it hinders, or if service is interrupted, so serious, something that can be very vague and dangerous, especially when a situation of public alarm, or a great effect on the media. In this way, I do not see many problems for the "seriousness of the attack" can be assessed based on actual results of the same (crash, while the system is down, the losses produced economic, etc), or based on the effectiveness of the means used for the attack (number of requestssecond from a certain IP, holding time of calls from a particular IP, exert remote control of a "botnet", to use a specific program for DOS / DDOS, etc), adding more uncertainty to the matter.
is evident that if 3 million English people "decide" at the same time accessing certain web page is very likely that this fall and although the effect may be the same as a DOS / DDOS little can be done from a legal standpoint, but may try to blame the "mastermind" of that "agreement can simultaneously access a website, ifis identified clearly, but I doubt that prosper in a trial. At the end of the day, although the previous action is pursued to a system crash, we can always say that those hits were "legitimate" and individually, one by one, they can not crash the system. Maso least we can say we are in the case of Fuenteovejuna and how we differentiate the mutineers of trying to access the page, or those who simply wanted to "prove" that was fell , given by morbid curiosity?.
However, if a certain number of users is using a tool inFormat as LOIC (Low Orbit Ionic Cannon) , depending on the characteristics of the system and the bandwidth of the connection, you can launch "x" requests per second against a server, and keep them for a while "and" is very likely that if the end result is total collapse of the system during certain period of time, the Court decides to take some action against users who are n IP behind these, at least, to determine his guilt and involvement in the events.
However, since the current wording of Code Penal no distinction, or additional condition for a DOS / DDOS is considered a crime, I worry that the fraud, criminal law, whether it was the intention in the work of the subject (the deliberate use of a specific program to carry out a DOS / DDOS), as in the failure to act with diligence, when there is a legal obligation to act. For example, when your computer is part of a "botnet", and a judge determines that we are guilty of not putting all the technical means at our disposal to prevent your computer being used maliciously by third parties as a result of Therefore, any company, individual, institution or p & amp, desktop search, Republic has suffered serious injury.
David Bravo's lawyer has said that the attacks DOS / DDOS, such as that suffered by the SGAE by Anonymous in recent times from December 23 could be qualified crime, rather than a civil offense prosecutable by hand and is punishable with a simple fine, there is no doubt that change is important.
However, although in the end the judge, with his superior discretion, determines that we are not guilty of anything because they are mere inadvertent victims of a "botnet", it seems likely that ifuncia Microsoft in a recent report,
Spain is a world leader infected systems to become part of "botnets", with an estimate of nearly 382,000 computers affected. Computers, which can be used to perform a wide variety of crimes and telematics since 23 December, part of the Penal Code. not have to be a lynx, to think what this may mean, from a legal standpoint, for some careless users. So if we're not sure of the actual security of our system at this moment, we can ask: Are we one of the users affected by malware? My computer is part of a botnet? Why flash the lights of my ADSL when I should not do it so quickly?.
Unfortunately, as Hispasec denounced in 2007, security was not a priority for users, but in late 2010, with a much more sophisticated malware and difficult to detect by antivirus, it seems that security remains be a priority for English users confident. Of course now, with the Penal Code in hand, these same users can before happy and carefree, with agood reasons to learn a little more computer security and to be more cautious with the software that runs on a noticed or unnoticed in their computer systems. Do not you think?
"Copyleft 2010
"
The editors office of Novaya Gazeta has sat twelve questions from ITS staff and readers of the newspaper to Putin's call-in show, But Never Received His replies. Were the questions about Corruption, INADEQUATE and school medical services, disregard for the opinion of Environmentalists, growth of crime and ultra-right sentiments, stagnation of Political Life, etc.
Редакция "Новой" отправила их на "прямую линию" премьера, но так и не получила ответов.
1. Почему столь стремительно выросли расходы на Олимпиаду в Сочи, несмотря на то, что в условиях кризиса произоштысячам обеспокоенных граждан? Http://www.putinavotstavku.ru/material.php?id=4D0C8BB38D08B
As Theo says DeRaadt OpenBSD in the list, someone has warned of the possibility that the IPSEC stack code of this operating system has rear doors for courtesy of the U.S. Government. I have to say that Theo DeRaadt is a person who has my confidence and when he says things so serious, must have strong grounds for it, especially if we consider the high involvement Theo in the OpenBSD project ...
Everything has begun with a disturbing email you received from Gregory Perry, a personperson who was involved in the development of OpenBSD and had long had no contact with Theo. Perry claims that it has expired the confidentiality agreement he had signed with the FBI, has warned that some developers of OpenBSD and the company he worked at the time, accepted money from the Government USA, between 2000 and 2001, to put backdoors in the IPSEC stack of OpenBSD, which incidentally, is a code that until now enjoyed a good reputation worldwide. The intent of these back doors was to be able to spy on virtual private networks (VPN) setieran with OpenBSD. in particular, were intended to "monitor" the encryption system used by the VPN EOUSA (Executive Office for United States Attorneys) " , which I must say is an official agency of the Department of Justice, which does not make much sense.
Keep in mind that from the moment it was available the first free version of the OpenBSD IPsec stack, much of this code has been used in many other projects and products and what Worse, over the years, the original code has also undergone amany changes and adaptations, so it is very difficult to estimate the extent and impact on the security that could have had this disturbing fact, if it ultimately turns out to be true.
Once Theo has documented this possibility, has taken the decision not to join a possible conspiracióny instead of arguing with Perry to get this ugly business by e-mail, has decided to go public in the development mailing list OpenBSD with the intention that:
(a) Those who use the code can be audited to find backdoors in it,
(b) that those who est & amp; eacute; n angered by this story, to take other actions,
(c) and that if not true, those who are unjustly accused, can be defended publicly.
Theo acknowledges that he does not like being forwarded by others their private emails, but feels that this is a much more ethical than a government paid by businesses and free software (which are a group of friends), to insert back doors with the intention of spying on people.
Now tell me, how come nobody has noticed this in 10 a & amp; about girls, and over, when it comes to free software?. Well, the truth is I have no answer to this interesting question, but now that it has opened a can of worms, to be free, no issues to audit carefully all of this code, which could not be done if proprietary software. Of course we can also say, if it is confirmed that back doors that open source is not audited and no real safety is a painted bench, but we must not forget that have noticed some attempts maliciously modify free and proprietary applications, but even free software can be easier to modify, alsoN is easier to audit and amend if necessary.
Since said Hugo Scolnik and Andrew Fernandez denounced , the existence of backdoors into proprietary software, was more than a mere suspicion. Some governments, aware of the enormous risk that could assume the existence of backdoors in the systems containing sensitive information, decided to take urgent action without waiting for further confirmation and sterile debates. But what made a good decision which opted for OpenBSD at that time?
One of the first countries decided to eliminate proprietary products of systems with sensitive information was Germany. This country, wisely and in record time, chose GNU / Linux alternative to systems related to national security. Other countries, around 2005, also expressed concern about the possibility that it could access the information contained in their governmental systems and some, like China, also took preventive measures.
But the most significant and surprising about thisstory is that even the U.S., aware of potential security problems of proprietary software, also decided to use open source systems in some of its sensitive systems and in particular those related to national defense.
Now, this interesting debate between proprietary security software and free returns to the spotlight nearly five years later, with new and interesting arguments for defending each of these opposing positions. UPDATED
24DIC10
Apparently, after looking at the code, say FUD or Fake, I'm glad a lot.
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.tech/22727
" Copyleft 2010 Fernando Acero Martín. Verbatim copying, translation and distribution of this article is permitted in Entire Any digital medium, Provided this notice is preserved. Quotation is allowed. "
In this Embassy cable are all keys to this issue and I think these passages are particularly revealing of the same:
5. (SBU) The debate in Congress on the draft law government is going to be complicated, and this is where the Minister said that the Ambassador can help . The government believes that progress is being made withMembers of the English Socialist Party (PSOE), is concerned by the opposition Popular Party (PP). The Ambassador said he had raised the issue at its first meeting with the PP leader Mariano Rajoy and told him how important this issue to the United States Government and private industry. Gonzalez-Sinde noted that if the government does not solve the problem now, this could become a key issue next election campaign. In the case of the PP to return to power would have to face this problem because SituacióN quo is not sustainable for long. (Comment: as reported Septel, the Director General Econoff Corral told recently that the government faces opposition from some ruling party members, and asked us to make known our views to Members of regional blocs Convergencia i Unio (Catalonia) and the Basque Nationalist Party (Basque Country)).
6. (SBU) The Ambassador said the U.S. government wants to see the progress of legislation in Congress and not weakened in the process of amendment . He noted that the music industry in particularcular not believe the government's proposal will solve the problem, to which the Minister replied that the government has pledged to try this approach first, and if this fails, try volverána with additional perhaps more rigid. The music industry is important for Spain, he said, because it helps promote the English language in Latin America and in the United States.
As noted in paragraph 6 of the message, and asked the U.S. Ambassador, the Law of Sustainable Economy, with its Second Final Provision included, are going to tramita following the procedure called " full legislative powers," which is used to pass legislation in the Congress of Deputies in a simplified manner.
In this procedure, the Bill is voted on by the committee concerned (Interior, Defense, Foreign Affairs, Culture, etc..) And, once approved, passed directly to the Senate without debate at the plenary of the Chamber gang, who would be the normal processing. In theory, this procedure applies to bills of little importance, with the intention of relieving the full work, which is fully devoted to major projects. Per
or it is evident that the LES, with his second final provision is not an economic measure Masy touches on fundamental freedoms should not be handled this extremely dubious and less, with protests citizenship that has accumulated this project.
should be noted, that is not the first time using this procedure in this term economic issues to consider "urgent" or trivial, but brave Politeness does not:
http://reformalaboral2010.es/oficial/aprobacion_por_la_comision.pdf
E According to the Constitution saysHispaniola:
Article 75.
1. The Houses in plenary and committees.
2. The Houses may delegate to Standing Legislative Committees approval of projects or proposals of law The House may, however, seek at any time the debate and vote on any project or proposal Law has been the subject of this delegation.
3. Excluded from the provisions of the foregoing paragraph are constitutional reform, intellectual issuesrnational, the organic and basic laws and the State Budget.
The idea would as some media reported, to approve the Bill on 21 December, just before going on vacation and one day before the Lottery National.
Steel Copyleft 2010 Fernando Martí-n. Verbatim copying, translation and distribution of this article is permitted in Entire Any digital medium, this notice is preserved Provided. " Quotation is allowed.
tsarkov_peter в Свободу Ходорковскому и Лебедеву! 
Заканчивается акция по отправке через Интернет открыток с требованием к президенту РФ освободить Ходорковского и Лебедева. C 06 декабря 2010 г. было отправлено более 1800 открыток! Все полученные открытки сейчас распечатываются и будут доставлены в Администрацию президента 13 декабря 2010 г. в 16:00.
Прочитать все отправленные открытки
У нас осталось лишь несколько часов, чтобы сказать президенту РФ все, что мы думаем.
Заполнить и отправить интернет-открытку с обращением к президенту РФ на www.free-khodorkovsky.ru
I see with great concern that some media are talking about Cyberwar and Ciberguerrilla , regarding the actions being undertaken some against entities that are pushing for some way to Wikileaks, or its visible head, Julian Assange . Between these entities "attacked" are financial giants such as Visa , Mastercard d or PayPal. However, I consider dangerous and very sensational, characterization of the facts of Cyberwar, when only can be characterized as Cyberactivism , or "cyberprotest." At best, one could say that this is an uncivil Cyberactivism if we ask it is logical to fight against freedom of speech pulling websites around the world?, But little else. No doubt there will be answers for everyone this question among the respectable, but perhaps most clear at this time, the motives that tienen some people to support Wikileaks.
From my point of view, it can be very questionable, I can only speak of Cyberwar when a conflict between two countries is moving from physical world to the virtual world. Thus, cyberspace would be formed by the electromagnetic spectrum and channels of wired and wireless communication as a field of battle and information technology, weapons against the opponent. In this scenario, try to alter the systems informacióny enemy while you try to protect informaciónylI own systems.
That said, I do not see it anywhere Cyberwar in the case of Wikileaks. Moreover, if we consider the notice of U.S. Justice, saying that he was studying cyberattacks made by followers of Wikileaks, that then runs arresting a boy of 16 years in Holland , responsible for the attacks, it is clear that we can not talk, at least for the moment, a Cyberwar or Ciberguerrilla. However, I think most of the stories that are appearing in the mass communication securcute, n, as suggested and report some with a certain grace and charm are sensational and unfortunately, I also believe they are diverting attention from other more serious attack and affects all Internet users in one way or another.
As the Internet Society warned , attacks against Wikileaks and its members really attacking and threatening not to Wikileaks, surviving better than expected , which attack and threatening really, are the fundamental principles of the Internet. We must remember thatuntil the day of the date, nobody has declared illegal and Julian Assange Wikileaks, its visible head, is charged with something very different from their activities on Wikileaks, or at least that we all believe. Therefore, it is somewhat logical, that the attacks "preemptive" strikes Wiklieaks tempers flare and cause the actions of some people, but that is not Cyberwar, or anything like it.
When I see these messages in the tabloid media, I can not help that comes to mind me Noam Chomsky and 10 strategies for handling measurement ∓ aacute; policy and especially the number 2 which says:
" 2. Create problems and then offer solutions. This method is also called "problem-reaction- solution." It creates a problem, a "situation" provided to cause a reaction in the audience, so this is the complainant of the action you want to accept. For example: Allow Cyberwar being classified or Ciberguerrilla, which clearly is not, then say that given the exceptional circumstances that are occurring in the world, Tenemos to accept as necessary and inevitable evil, a reversal of the rights and freedoms on the Web "
An example of this is this disturbing news on the possible removal of anonymity on the Web, which understandably, comes from the UN / ITU. Although not surprising that China is behind this great idea of total control, for a start and the subject of Wikileaks, as is being handled by the media, can help a lot to get it.
That said, disservice to the freedoms and rights on the Internet are making the news sensationallyas that dominate headlines and front pages in half the world, while moving with an unstoppable viral effect of social networks. I think Wkikileaks attacks are suffering right now, but that many would consider normal and legitimate in the circumstances and the countries affected by the leaks, not at all normal, or legitimate much less legal.
While Wikileaks has not been declared illegal by a court, I think these attacks against Wikileaks should be prosecuted ex officio. Wilileaks these unwarranted attacks, are a clear and serious attack on freedom p &desktop search, lic, violated the presumption of innocence and seriously undermine the basic principles of the Internet, which ultimately create a serious precedent that can affect all Internet users.
But what is the reason that they are not persecuted for justice action against Wilileaks?. I have no idea, but I think if were taken appropriate legal measures against those who try to stifle Wikileaks irregularly and by all means, it would calm things down and would end the "cyberprotest" current.
Therefore, I believe that actions to defend Wikileaksat the moment and if things change, can not be considered merely a "cyberprotest" by many people all over the world, at best, could be described as antisocial, but never Cyberwar or an act of cyberterrorism, as they are calling some media dangerously. I also believe that it is possible that these people are "protesting" by a state law they consider unjust and unbalanced, which is also causing, for the same reasons as in the virtual world other reactions protest in the real world.
" Copyleft 2010 Fernando Acero Martín. Verbatim copying, translation and distribution of this article is permitted in Entire Any digital medium, Provided this notice is preserved. Quotation is allowed. "
some time, I'm getting emails from people asking me about the possibility to decode the file INSURANCE Wikileaks, which presumably (the name it gets) is encoded using the algorithm AES256. Apart from the moral arguments, and ethical practices, derived from the wild decode a file that allegedly used to save someone's life, we can focus on studying the technical side of this issue of AES decoding, which I must say, is a matter that interests me more.
Anyway, & iquest; anyone imagine what would happen if I were to say at this point: "Gentlemen, during a sleepless night and my battery using NVIDIA cards, I managed to decode the file Wikileaks INSURANCE?. Perhaps in the door of my house found so many secret agents to monitor my movements and so many people attacking my computer systems, as journalists at the World Cup final and I do not feel like it at all do you?.
the AES algorithm
algorithm AES (Advanced Encryption satandard) , also knownor as Rijndael, is a symmetric block cipher, designed to replace the obsolete DES and optimized for the secure transmission of messages through telecommunications networks. AES is fast in both software implementations, as in the hardware and also be relatively easy to implement, requires little memory to perform the calculations. As a new encryption standard, is being used on a large scale throughout the world, which seems very interesting to the friends of conspiracy cases. The AES / Rijdael, was developed by two Belgian cryptologists called Daemen and Rijmen,when they were students at the Catholic University of Leuven.
The main difference between AES and DES it replaces, is that the AES uses a substitution-permutation network (number of substitutions and permutations, which succeed each other on an array), instead of a Feistel network . The AES uses a fixed size block of 128 bits (originally could use blocks of various sizes) and the keys can be 128, 192 and 256 bits. Like DES, the coding procedure is based on a basic operation called & ldquo; round ", which is repeated a fixed number of times depending on the size of the key. So with 128-bit keys are used 10 rounds, 12 rounds with 192-bit and 14 rounds for 256-bit keys. AES works on a structure known as the "state AES, which is simply a rearrangement of the basic block, using an array of 4 × 4 and therefore is a system that has a mathematical description policy quite simple, but for most ordinary mortals, it is easier to see it as byte operations in a data matrix.
The building blocks of AES are
SubBytes - A substitution nonlinear AES state.
ShiftRows - Make a move on the ranks of the AES state.
MixColumn - Mix AES State column, with each cell a combination of other cells.
AddRoundKey - Mix AES key state.
A AES encryption is conducting the following simple steps:
1. Initial Round:
AddRoundKey
2. R-1 Rounds:
SubBytes
ShiftRows
MixColumns
AddRoundKey
3. Final Round
SubBytes
ShiftRows
AddRoundKey
The decoding process however, is more complicated than with DES, which simply had to go back to "encrypt" a message as "encrypted" using course the same key. In the case of AES, it is necessary to define the inverse operations to ShiftRows, SubBytes and MixColumns. It should be noted that the operation AddRoundKey reverse is not required, since it is sufficient to apply again with the same key, to obtain its inverse.
REAL SECURITY AES
is said that a cryptographic system is broken whenor there is an attack faster than exhaustive search (brute force), but this attack is only theoretical, and not feasible for the amount of data, time or memory required. Some people have said that the AES is broken by the results obtained with a 64-bit key, which was conducted by distributed.net , but the reality is that only was a brute force attack a key 64-bit small, so that we can not be considered as breaking the AES.
In fact, AES, despite being a public algorithm and public use, is considerado as the NSA (National Security Agency in the U.S.) since 2003 as a secure algorithm to protect information classified SECRET using 128-bit keys and TOP SECRET, if you use 192 or 256 keys bits. Not surprising, considering the love / hate the United States Government with the ciphers that the public can have access to an encryption system deemed suitable by the NSA to protect sensitive information the highest level, which continues to raise many suspicions.
POSSIBLE ATTACKS
The most affordable way to see if it is possiblear an attack on a block encoder is to try to attack it by reducing the number of rounds used in coding. If you recall, the AES uses 10 rounds for 128-bit keys, 12 rounds for 192-bit key and 14 rounds for 256-bit keys. Until 2005, the best known attacks on reduced versions were successful with 7 rounds for 128-bit keys, 8 rounds for 192-bit keys, and 9 rounds for 256-bit keys.
However, it is also true that these attacks are evidence of a slight difference between the actual rounds and the best known attacks, so a small improvement in atappets, it might be possible to break an encryption that uses all the rounds. Clearly, the best vaccine for the problem, would increase the number of rounds without changing the algorithm. However, this solution would also have an impact on the efficiency of the algorithm and especially in the updating of hardware-based systems. It should be noted that some known successful attacks on specific implementations of AES, based in the auxiliary channel, but these attacks do not attack the algorithm itself, but a specific implementation thereof, therefore do not apply to the file decodifcaciónWikeleaks.
In this research, in 2009, Alex Biryukov and Dmitry Khovratovich, University of Luxembourg, published this interesting article, with two attacks AES encryption algorithm, which dramatically improves previous results. Khovratovich Biryukov and announced an attack on AES 256-complete, ie, with 14 rounds. The attack has a computational complexity of only 2 ^ 96 operations, ie, breaking the security of a AES256/14 would be as difficult as trying 2 ^ 96 keys. No doubt that is out of reach for most & amp; iacute; to mortals, but see a 256-bit algorithm with a strength equivalent to that of one of only 96 bits, it says a lot about the algorithm. But peace, that this statement is cheating, only works with certain key "may," ie, with a key every 34,000 million. Will Wikileaks used one of those key may voluntarily or involuntarily?. It is certainly a good question, we do not know exactly what it purports Wikileaks with this file, if you do not open one, or open only the ones who are "portrayed" in it, to give them fear.
However, another attack Biryukov and Khovratovich, although it is less "effective" as the old, works with any key and other data showing concern about the AES. AES-128/10 The attack would have a mathematical complexity of 2 ^ 123 data (keys), 2 ^ 176 in time and 2 ^ 152 in memory, so even curious, this is nothing concern at the moment. However, the attack on AES-256/14 is much more effective, since it only takes 2 ^ 119 data and time and 2 ^ 77 in memory. In other words, the AES-256 has the same strength that a theoretical AES-119/14, AES-123/10 below that obtained with the attack on a AES-128/10 and this regardless of the key being used. It is clear thatthis is still beyond the reach of computation of most mortals, but what is the scope of a superpower?, especially if we consider also that the authors say they can improve AES-256/14 the attack on a complexity of only 2 ^ 110.5?. Having said that, although the NSA said that safe for AES-128/10 SECRETS and AES-192/12 and AES-256/14 for top secret, the truth is that given the above, the AES-128 / 10 is more secure than AES-256/14 equal.
But if the above does not worry us too much, there another interesting article, dated August 19, 2009 , and signed by a reputable Alex Biryukov, Orr Dunkelman, Nathan Keller, Dmitry Khovratovich, and Adi Shamir. In this article we discuss something much more worrying on the AES-256, as attacks succeeded AES-256 / 9 with a mathematical complexity of only 2 ^ 39 operations, against a complex AES-256/10 only 2 ^ 45 and consider the AES-246/11, could have a complexity of only 2 ^ 70, all values well below those achieved by Biryukov Khovratovich.
is clear, there is talk of AES-256/14, but it is clear that there is a serious problem with the AES-256, but have only reached the 10 rounds and speculated a bit on11 rounds. Again I ask myself is this outside the scope of the NSA with all its technical and its thousands of mathematicians on staff?.
Well, to be fair, there is another trap in the plantemiento Shamir and his friends, these attacks are not practical Wikileaks file, but only from our side, because the message has clear (but do not know exactly what they are). That is, the U.S. Government, it is complicated, but not as much as us, that we have nothing to start working. The earlier attacks are called "keys related", ie it is assumed that the cryptanalyst has access to a rangeclear text, which are encoded by several different keys, which have a specific relationship between them.
seems demonstrated in the case of AES, the higher the key size, the lower the difficulty to break. Something that can mean not elected a number of rounds for the size of each key, perhaps by a compromise between safety and speed, but in the end, has been compromised versions of AES 192/12 and 256/14. The two "paper" we have reviewed above say the same thing in different words, at this point, it is safe to AES-128/10 the AES-256/14 and t & eacute; Terms strict we can consider broken, since the first results of Biryukov and Khovratovich, as its strength in certain conditions is lower than a brute force attack.
Since Bruce Shnei already recommended in his blog on July 30, 2009 , that product is used instead of AES-256/14 AES-128/10, it is curious and no less disturbing, that those responsible for Wikileaks, so concerned about security as they are, have decided to protect your file lifesaver with a broken AES-256.
If you had asked me, if seeking absolute assurance that the file would not opento within a reasonable time and my life depended on it, I had not opted for AES-256/14 nowhere near that speaking out at this point, what we consider safe, but less secure than they intended to replace DES.
" Copyleft 2010 Fernando Acero Martín. Verbatim copying, translation and distribution of this article is permitted in Entire Any digital medium, Provided this notice is preserved. Quotation is allowed. "
all knew it was a secret so loudly, that in the last edition of (D) evolution Summit 2010, there were people searching for a friend American. Now Wikileaks has given reason to suspect that the U.S. audiovisual industry was behind the wording of the Second Final Provision of Law Sustainable Economy also n known as the "Sinde." Thus, we find messages from the U.S. embassy as e ste, with clear allusions to the Minister Sebastian , which was sent on the occasion of FICOD 2009 (International Digital Content Forum) . But the U.S. Embassy hit every club possible, including the Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society, D. Francisco Ros, who at that time, he fights as can the ugly issue of "piracy" in Spain.
Although most of the English Ministers downplay or credibility Wikileaks leaksI think that effort is now in vain. The reality is palpable and leaks show to be true, all suspected to be had about the origin and destination of the "Law Sinde" and the famous and infamous 301 List. The fact is that there are still many messages to analyze the U.S. Embassy in relation to intellectual property in Spain, we'll see what comes out.
In fact, international headlines and spell it, " No surprise: Wikileaks shows that the entertainment industry in the U.S. wrote the new English law oncopyright " , and cables Wikileaks reveal that the U.S. wrote the bill on the Copyrigh " .
But when it hurts all of this, is that while foreign powers lobbies and write our laws to their advantage, against the sovereignty of the English people and to the detriment of their fundamental rights, our Fathers of the Fatherland have a nasty habit of reacting negatively when attempting to engage citizens in public affairs, although it is certainly, that such participation is a constitutional right referred to in Article 23 of our Constitution .
But I think the biggest blunder in this sense, occurred during the vote on net neutrality, when our Senators described as "unacceptable external interference that degrades the image and work of the Senate " , citizen participation in that vote.
Indeed, during the infamous meeting of the Senate for more preocupacióny enfado of citizenship, more than one senator proved that he had no idea what he was talking about. In fact, this is a good example the average level of debate, in which ignorance or interest, mixed apples with oranges.
As stated Enrique Dans, professor at IE Business School and blogger specializing in new technologies, which is unacceptable, is that " lobbying and influence can do what want "and citizens are considered" unacceptable external factors that degrade the imagents and work Senate. "
At this point, the only consistent to respect the sovereignty of the English people, that is, to respect at least the Constitution says in Article 1.2, would to immediately withdraw Second Final Provision of Law Sustainable Economy .
And as we have said before , instead of denying the undeniable, our legislators should start working on a new copyright law that arises from the soberaníay the consenso of the English, and not interested pressures of lobbies and foreign powers. Let's face it, if "Sinde Act" has not been the result of the sovereignty of the English people, is not, nor will ever be, a constitutional law.
12/09/2010 20:39 HOURS UPDATE:
recommend read this excellent article by David Maeztu:
"Copyleft 2010 Fernando Acero Martín. Verbatim copying, translation and distEntire ribution of this article is permitted in Any digital medium, Provided this notice is preserved. Quotation is allowed. "
asotnik 