panaroma

Energize said:
Read the link I posted, you clearly do not understand the concept of hidden volumes. You provide a key to the police which decrypts the data, but not to the plaintext you are hiding.
Click to expand...

I did, I don't think you can successfully hide volumes of data though. What tests have been done?
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Technology will always adapt faster than legislation. This really is all pointless. Like I said, more carrot.


Ta :)

Panorama is useful to bring this to the uneducated masses though.
Click to expand...

agreed with the first comment, however if its over hyped is it the "wrong type of information"

Burnsy2023 said:
That depends. I have a static IP, and those on a dynamic IP will have records of their use at the ISP.
Click to expand...

if you have wireless it can be hacked, thanks to sky and their default wep key policy....

Burnsy2023 said:
Indeed. Most of the comments from the recording industry were laughable. More carrot, less stick IMO.

If I could pay say 50p-£1 to view the episode of House which is currently being shown in the US just once, then I'd pay that. There is so much content I'd love to pay for but I can't.
Click to expand...

agreed if only there was a way to watch tv in which we "pay for" to watch what we want, we already do this for the bbc why cant we do this for premium or al la carte tv for a reasonable price
 
Energize said:
It's also a defence to have forgotten the key, which would happen when you create many decoy files and don't record the password for them.
Click to expand...

Depending on who is after you, forgetting encryption keys is certainly not a legal defence in the UK. Failing to hand over keys can result in 5 years.
 
Cybermyk said:
You can change your posts as many times as you want. If an investigating officer asks to see encrypted data then you have to be able to give them access to it. Otherwise you're very probably going to go to jail.
Click to expand...

True crypt has a hidden bit in it.

You have a big encrypted volume then a second encrypted bit inside.

You can give the password to get into the main part with a bunch of low security files i nit but they can't prove that there actually is a second encrypted par within as it's all just random data :p


So you give them the password just not the second password to the data that may or may not be there :).
 
tntcoder said:
I don't really believe in plausible deniability, if someone does enough surveillance on you coupled with modern forensics, the level of deniability seriously decreases.
Click to expand...

That goes without saying. MI5 could install a camera in your room to watch everything you do on the pc, however in the real world that is not going to happen for downloading music.

Cybermyk said:
I did, I don't think you can successfully hide volumes of data though. What tests have been done?
Click to expand...

I'll see if I can find some journal articles, people like Bruce Schneier are trying to break systems like truecrypt all the time and have published papers on it in the past. Papers that just affirm the safety of something aren't very popular though. :p
 
Last edited:
Tefal said:
True crypt has a hidden bit in it.

You have a big encrypted volume then a second encrypted bit inside.

You can give the password to get into the main part with a bunch of low security files i nit but they can't prove that there actually is a second encrypted par within as it's all just random data :p


So you give them the password just not the second password to the data that may or may not be there :).
Click to expand...

I do understand, really. Thanks anyway :)
 
Energize said:
I'll see if I can find some journal articles, people like Bruce Schneier are trying to break systems like truecrypt all the time and have published papers on it in the past. Papers that just affirm the safety of something aren't very popular though. :p
Click to expand...

That would be worth reading. Also, I'd like to see test data on the program Rob Zirnstein posted in the blog Dolph linked earlier. I'm sure that isn't too popular either :p
 
I have movies on DVD downstairs that I've downloaded... no annoying adverts or menus or anti piracy warnings :)

As for music, if I had the money to blow on music or movies, I would... but I don't, they're not losing anything by me listening to their songs, because otherwise I would have gone without.
 
The companies complaining of people downloading music they should be paying for are money grabbing idiots. They want to pursue people for getting music for nothing, yet they sell compilation CD's without the artists consent, they avoid paying them royalties. Some of them owe god knows how many millions in royalties to artists, but they continue to make money and don't seem to be bothered about paying money that the artists are due. They appeal to the people who download music illegally, saying the poor artists cannot make a living because said people are not buying the music. Well they are not bloody getting money anyway, whether people buy the CD's or not. Seems some bands or artists have to take these companies to court to stop them selling their music without their consent.

This is not about the poor artists not being able to make ends meet because of the illegal files sharers, it's about the big rich company bosses not making as much money as they would like. In fact they are worse than files sharers. Someone might download quite a few albums for their own personal use, but make no money from doing so, whereas the music industry has no problem making extra money selling compilations, and not paying money to those they should.

It might be illegal to download media without paying for it, but there is one law for them, and one law for everyone else it seems.
 
Last edited:
I bet Mandelson's a right slippery bugger ;)

I watched it, wasn't impressed, didn't actually address the issues surrounding it. Just a loudspeaker for "ISN'T MANDELSON GREAT? HE'S DOING IT FOR THE ARTISTS!" before lubing up for round 12.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom