As always, we'll need your support as volunteers.
To volunteer, call 212-209-2800 or after 5209-2801 or send an email to volunteer at wbai.org.
The email should include your full name as it appears on your ID and the date and time
you plan to volunteer.
Volunteers are needed 24-7 during the drive, but especially during the hours from 6 a.m.
to 10 a.m.
We look forward to seeing you.
Si se puede.
It's 7 o'clock, you're listening to WBAI New York.
Time once again for Off The Hook.
So I ripped it off the wall, I cut myself while shaving, now I can't make a cough.
We couldn't get much worse, but if they could, they would.
Bon dilly bon for the best, expect the worst.
I hope that's understood.
Bon dilly bon!
Bon dilly bon!
Good evening, the program is Off The Hook.
Emmanuel Goldstein here with you, joined tonight by Mike, RedHack, DotRet, Rob T. Firefly,
Jim, and Bernie S. down there in Philadelphia.
Greetings from Philadelphia.
Well, we had quite a weekend, most of us were over, in fact everybody in the room except
and on the phone except for RedHack was down at the Maker Faire over the weekend.
Do we all want to tell him what an amazing time he missed?
Yeah.
We all want to rub it in a little bit.
It was awesome, it was so much fun.
First of all, I hadn't been to that part of the world, that part of Queens, the old World's
Stomping Grounds, since I was a little kid, and it was just a really nice place to be,
especially when you crowd it with tens of thousands of people who are all into technology
and experimentation and various things like that.
I don't know, where do we begin?
We were over there with the 2600 van, met a lot of listeners, a lot of people found
out about the Maker Faire through the show, which is great.
A lot of kids walking around, playing with things.
DotRet, what were some of the things that you remember seeing?
I remember seeing a lot.
I was almost overwhelmed by how much I saw.
A lot of what, though?
Well, for instance, there was a very loud noise, right?
So on my way to Skype with this really loud noises, I go past some barber with electrified
scissors who's playing music while cutting people's hair.
I didn't understand that.
Was that a robot or what was going on there?
No, that was a human being, and he had scissors that basically were plugged into,
with electricity plugged into an amp, and it had this ominous sound to it.
Every time he cut a piece of hair, the tone would change, and the person was sitting in
the chair with tape over their eyes and their mouth.
It was supposed to be really creepy.
I was wondering why they had tape over their eyes and their mouths.
That was kind of strange and a little frightening.
Part of the artistic choice.
But they seemed very comfortable.
They looked like, you know, underneath all that.
They were perfectly...
All kinds of weird vehicles and demonstrations.
Rob, what do you remember?
Anything in particular?
Oh, there were some very interesting vehicles.
There was what was basically a carousel, but rocket-powered.
Oh, boy.
That was the thing that made so much noise.
You could hear this.
It sounded like a jet engine.
I guess it was a jet engine.
It was two jet engines.
Each horse had their own.
So how...
Okay, how exactly...
You saw people going around in circles tied to this thing.
It's kind of hard to describe, but they were up in the air going really fast in circles,
but it made the sound of a jet engine, and it was really kind of frightening to see.
What was going on?
What was the principle involved there?
The principle was you would get on what was basically a big metal horse with a jet engine
in the back, and the engines would send the carousel spinning to the point where the centrifugal
force would actually...
These were connected at the top on a hinge, and it would actually draw you basically parallel
to the ground.
And you would look down, I guess, and see the outside world spinning around you.
And it was this great...
And there was a lot of fire involved, apparently.
Well, when it stopped, when it stopped, there was fire involved.
Yes.
But then you'd see flames coming out the back of these things.
You'd see jets of flame.
So this is basically a homemade version of an amusement park ride that...
I mean, I've ridden on something like that, where it spins around very fast, and then,
you know, in the version I went on, it kind of went vertical, and then you would be upside
down, because it would be spinning you.
I'll bet the one you went on didn't say, this ride will kill you.
No, it didn't, because probably it had some sort of safety considerations taken into account.
Well, I'm sure they had safety considerations here, but it was also a bit of fun, too.
They crossed out the word will and put may instead.
So, yeah.
I don't think your average carnival ride is on fire when you're riding it.
No, but fire is so cool.
It is.
It's just, it's great to see people just sort of, I don't know, absorbing all this technology
and experimentation.
That's sort of what the whole maker universe is all about.
And it connects so well with the hacker universe, and it's really a good combination, I think,
when that happens.
Well, talking about carnival-type things, one of the things I had to pass through on
my way over to that, you know, rocket pony thing was the human-sized mousetrap game.
Okay, you know, I never got to see that.
What exactly was involved with the human-sized mousetrap?
Basically, it's an extremely large version of the board game, where you have to go through
these various tasks, and there's these traps and these giant...
It's really hard to describe.
If you've never seen it, I'd say just Google mousetrap and look at the layout of the board.
Okay.
Go ahead, Bernie.
Yeah, as he pointed out, it's a board game using kinetic energy in a sort of Rube Goldberg
kind of way, where a ball bearing goes down all these spirals and tubes and down steps,
and instead of a ball bearing, in this case, it was a bowling ball.
And this was a huge contraption.
This guy spent 15 years building, involved...
He spent 15 years building this?
How did he even know there was going to be a Maker Faire?
Well, I mean, it was a project.
It wasn't designed for Maker Faire, but he brought it to the Maker Faire to demonstrate
this thing.
It was amazing.
And as this bowling ball goes through all these circles and hoops and triggering things
and making things jump up in the air, the final thing is...
In a mousetrap game, a cage drops on a plastic mouse, and then you've won when you caught
the mouse.
In this case, they had like a two- or three-ton safe that was cranked up like 30 feet up in
the air and dropped onto an old New York City taxi cab.
Now, Dan Kaminsky and I were hand-selected to crank this safe using a winch way up in
the air.
And as we're cranking it, there's smoke coming out of the winch because there's some serious
friction going on.
And then we were shooed out of the safety area.
Wow.
And the bowling ball was launched, and it went down through all these circles and arrows
and things.
And then, bang, the safe dropped on the taxi cab, and it was really cool.
Now, I'm a little concerned that it was a checkered cab that they dropped it on, because
I think those should be preserved.
You tell me it wasn't one of the real genuine ones.
No, I would have been upset by that, too.
It was just a regular, you know, more late-model sedan type with the checkers on it.
It was a checker company, but it wasn't the checker motor company, you know, just checker
cab company.
It would have been cooler to have like an old police car or something, but whatever.
Or even a new police car.
No, no, no.
Although, no.
Yeah, it was definitely a lot of fun to be had.
Mike, you were there, too.
What did you think?
Yes.
There was a lot of stuff there.
You think you'd explore the whole thing, and then you'd go around a corner or into a building,
and there would be a whole floor of people with projects that they'd made.
Did you go inside?
I did go inside.
Yeah.
I went inside.
I waited until Sunday to go inside, and I found the Architect people.
These are the people that make music with Tesla coils.
I think, Rob, you can probably explain the principle behind that better than I can.
It's really cool sounding.
We played it last week.
It is very cool.
Architect, they have these two big homemade – well, more than two.
I think they had four at this show.
Four, yeah.
Two large ones and two smaller ones.
And Tesla coils basically generate these bolts of plasma that shoot around to wherever you direct them.
And Architect, as I think we explained a bit last week, their Tesla coils actually vibrate the air and resonate
and make different notes and sounds, and it's connected to their synthesizers.
So they actually play music with these.
And while you're listening to the music that this raw plasma shooting through the air is making,
you're watching these bolts shoot around these performers who are making it happen
and sometimes around other hapless victims that they happen to yank in.
Well, okay.
That's interesting because we almost had Joe DiPrima, one of the people that is behind this,
from Austin, Texas on the show last week.
We missed connections, but I tracked him down on Sunday, and he had three people with him,
and I gave them each a Tesla bill because we have Tesla bills from Serbia.
It all ties together so beautifully, doesn't it?
Nikola Tesla is, of course, on the 100 DNR note in Serbia today,
and it's incredibly popular with hackers and makers and technology people.
So they were thrilled to get this, and they said,
come back for the show at 4.30, and we'll have a surprise for you of some sort.
When I walked in, I knew something was up when he, from stage, said,
that guy just walked in right now.
You come up to the stage.
So I got put inside the Faraday cage, and honestly, I've seen these things in the past,
but I never actually knew what would be happening if somebody was actually inside that,
if I was the person who was actually inside it.
And I was a little bit, I don't know, kind of uneasy about what might happen.
I didn't know what I was supposed to do, what I wasn't supposed to do.
And as they're closing the door to the cage, they say,
now, naturally, don't put your finger here.
I really, you know, I wasn't about to stick my hand out the cage,
but still, I'd like to know where should I not put my finger exactly,
and what's the worst thing that could possibly happen to me if I do?
Who would like to describe what it was that I was subjected to right there on stage
while all of this was happening?
Well, it was the Peter Gunn theme, that much I remember.
Okay, I could do that.
Yeah, and there were basically these bolts of plasma shooting all around this cage
that you were haplessly locked inside.
Now, when you say bolts of plasma, that sounds rather not dangerous.
When you say bolts of electricity, though, lightning strikes,
that sounds a little bit more...
Yeah, it's lightning, basically.
And yeah, it was very close to you.
Yeah, it's all the same thing.
Lightning, you know, that's what it was shooting at him.
But what makes lightning visible and glow is plasma,
the electricity is heating up the air.
So were these bolts of lightning hitting the cage,
or were they just flying around you?
I think they were hitting the cage.
You guys tell me.
You were watching.
The cage, I think, was wired to actually ground out the lightning.
Okay, that's the purpose of the Faraday cage.
That's the purpose of the Faraday cage.
So the lightning was already attracted to the cage,
and you happened to be locked inside it.
If I had stuck my hand through the cage, what could have happened to me?
I do not know.
Okay, this is for all the kids out there playing with Faraday cages right now.
I'd just like to tell people what they shouldn't do.
Well, at the very least, your hand would burn.
I think the risk is not playing with Faraday cages,
but perhaps playing with Tesla coils and Faraday cages.
Yeah, yeah.
Probably you would have been shocked, I would assume.
And then you would have grounded out the lightning,
which would have not been good,
because if it goes across your heart, then your heart stops and you die.
Uh-huh.
Yeah, okay, I was trying to avoid that.
That would have been really rock and roll, though.
Yeah.
Would have made the papers.
So ArcAttack, you can find out more information about them.
It's...
A-R-C?
A-R-C-A-T-T-A-C-K-ArcAttack.com or...
Is it .com?
I think it's .com.
They're also...
Go ahead.
They're also on YouTube,
and if you don't have the chance to see them live,
check out their YouTube,
because it's cool stuff, awesome stuff to see.
Yeah, and awesome people to hang out with as well.
Where are they from?
They're from Austin, Texas.
At least a couple of them are from Austin, Texas.
So yeah, that was just another one of the really cool things.
I think basically what...
The best part about this
was just seeing so many people from the area.
So many kids.
You know you've got something good
when a lot of kids show up and are enthusiastic about it.
That's the future.
That's when you know that you're on the right track
when there's that kind of enthusiasm,
because they're the ones that are going to build
more cool things in the future
and just keep the enthusiasm level there.
That's what the hacker world has,
and these guys certainly have it at the Maker Faires.
Even though I wasn't there,
it sounds like there was just a lot of creativity there
and probably it was nice to see that
kind of all concentrated in one place
and to know that it's not just a few people
that you see doing these things in various places,
but there is really a big community.
I mean, that's what it sounds like anyway.
Yeah, definitely.
Yeah, there were families there.
It was a real family event, really interactive.
There were kids learning to solder,
crochet, and knit.
A friend of mine was teaching his grandmother
how to pick handcuffs, which was neat.
Wait, what? Really?
Well, you know, should the need arise.
Yes, should the need arise.
Wow, we haven't even pulled that off at Hope.
I mean, we've shown people how to get out of handcuffs,
but not people's grandmothers.
I don't think.
She seemed enthusiastic. It was neat.
I've seen so many cross-generational sharing
of enthusiasm with different levels of technology
and just building craft-like things.
And like you said, soldering.
Our own Not Kevin was actually the acting Mitch Altman
who was showing kids how to solder
and not burn themselves and things like that.
That was awfully good to see the torch passed on in that way.
Now, Bernie, you came all the way up to this
from Philadelphia, so you really must have
recognized the value of it.
Oh, yeah.
Well, it wasn't that far a trip,
but it was definitely worth the trip,
and I would recommend...
I don't know, are they going to do this again next year?
Because I'm in if they do.
Well, it does say the first annual,
and it implies that they will.
And when you say it wasn't much trouble,
well, your car did break down on the BQE
and had to be towed, so even with all that,
you still think it was worth it?
It was still worth it.
I mean, it turns out that where I broke down
was when I was towed, I was towed to a service station
that was literally right across the expressway
from the World's Fair grounds.
So it was perfect.
I still went and visited friends and then came back,
but it was very convenient.
It was literally less than a mile away
from where I wanted to go.
So how about that?
That's pretty good.
And a bunch of us actually on Saturday night
explored the real World's Fair grounds,
which are on the other side of the Grand Central Parkway.
And basically, I hadn't been there in many, many years.
There's a huge park there.
The globe, the little globe with the spiral things around it,
that's still lit up.
But the towers, I forget what they call the towers,
they've fallen into disrepair,
and it's really a shame if they would only rebuild those,
make them look nice,
it would be such an attractive space.
So much cool land,
a lot of people just hanging out at night,
and very, very festive atmosphere.
I'm glad I was a part of it.
I think the towers don't look too bad themselves,
but it's like that plaza thing at the base of them,
like there's like a movie theater sort of,
you know, structure in front of them.
But if you walk around back...
If they only painted them or put lights up
or something like that, it could look so nice.
What I suggested while we were walking around,
let's make this Paris for a week and bring French people in.
They will make it look beautiful,
and then we kick them out,
and we'll have a nice park that will just last forever.
I think that would be really kind of cool.
Well, yeah, it would be really nice
to see something actually happen with that,
because, you know, you have this really nice space,
and it's all covered with vines,
and the paint's all chipped.
It's like really sad.
Yeah, it is.
Now, we had a great time.
We had the 2600 van there,
and all kinds of people came up and visited.
Jim was there and meeting all kinds of people,
and it was just really a good weekend
to do this kind of thing, and local too.
We didn't have to go all the way to Dayton this time.
It was right in our own backyard.
So, yeah, I hope it happens next year.
You can find out if there's going to be a Maker Faire,
I guess, in your area,
makerfaire.com, M-A-K-E-R-F-A-I-R-E dot C-O-M.
Yeah, they have a list
of all the official Maker Faires that are going on there,
and they even have this little calendar
somewhere on the main page
where you'll actually see basically scheduled
other little mini Maker Faires
that they've been informed about,
and so you can actually, yeah.
What do you see as the relationship
between hackers and makers?
Me personally?
I think it's, to a large extent,
are different words for the same thing.
You have people that are, you know,
exploring ways to do things and creating things,
but the term hacker is usually,
historically has been associated
with more with technology,
but the biggest difference is just the,
you know, there's a slight bit of a gap in culture,
but they are so connected.
You know, even at this conference,
we had hackerspaces.
Uh-huh.
Well, Steve Levy actually gave a talk,
who was our keynote at the Last Hope in 2008.
He gave a talk at the Maker Faire in Queens.
I mean, you also have the case where,
I mean, the two cultures are,
like DotRed said, basically overlapping,
and you have the case in hackerspaces
where it's not like if you go to a hackerspace,
people are only going to be doing electronics,
or only going to be doing software.
I mean, at NYC Resistor, for example,
there are people who do, you know,
knitted projects and things like that,
so it's not, there's not really any boundary
or definition, really.
I mean, it's just all kind of,
you could lump it all together.
Yeah.
I think the communities mesh together really well,
and it's rare to see that.
It's rare to see acceptance,
and I think, you know, not every maker is a hacker.
Not every hacker is a maker, per se,
but I think the best ones are combinations of each,
and people with some technical skill
that like to experiment
and ask a lot of questions
and step outside the boundaries a little bit,
but at the same time, respecting the technology,
respecting the people around you.
I think these are all values that we tend to share,
and we can go very far.
Emmanuel?
Rob first, and then Bernie.
Yeah, and speaking of stepping outside,
it was also nice to see these people
that I've been seeing at hacker events
for the past 10, 15 years,
except outside and in the daylight.
Outside, yeah, getting some sun.
Getting a little sun.
And, you know, it was great weather, too, so...
It was, it was lovely.
Everyone lucked out there.
Go ahead, Bernie.
I just wanted to say
there were a lot of kindred spirit.
I mean, everybody there was kind of a kindred spirit.
And as Rob pointed out,
it was great seeing a lot of old friends,
people we've been seeing for years and years
at hacker cons, but out in the sunshine.
And I just loved all the cross-pollination
that was going on.
It was great symbiosis
between makers like creative people
who are making art
and visually interesting stuff,
and hackers who are more maybe technical in nature,
and seeing both of them being exposed
to each other's worlds
and being influenced and inspired by it.
It's really a great scene.
And so many BAI listeners, too,
which was awesome
to see that cross-pollination as well.
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
Well, that was what we were up to this weekend,
and it was a bit of fun.
Now, today, today we have even more fun
because, well, I don't know if you remember.
I think people do have memories
of more than a week.
Last week, we were talking about a little project
that a couple of us were working on
for, called the Google Blacklist,
where we were basically listing
a bunch of words on a website
that Google Instant kind of doesn't respond to.
Words that somebody somewhere
or some machine somewhere
flagged as potentially objectionable.
Who's got the list?
Who's got the...
I've got it.
You've got it, Rob?
Do you want to read a couple of ones
that we can say on the radio?
Because there are certain words
we can say on the radio,
but a lot of words there
we can say on the radio.
There are some interesting things
we can say on the radio without a problem,
but apparently you can't say on Google Instant.
You can say it.
You just won't get those instant responses.
Yeah, like sultry women is apparently banned.
Sultry women?
Yeah, although, interestingly,
sultry men is not.
Now, the way that list is laid out,
it tells you what letter it blanks out at.
So for sultry women,
at what point does it blank out?
It blanks out at the O in women.
Okay.
So sultry W, you're okay,
but you type an O and you're out of there.
The full list can be found at
www.2600.com slash Google Blacklist.
Some other highlights?
Some other?
Smells like teen spirit, apparently.
Okay, that actually,
that deserves an asterisk
because it's actually the word teen
that Google objects to for some reason,
and so teen spirit gets included with that.
But you know what?
One we just found out about recently,
bare naked ladies,
you can't type that,
and that's the name of a band,
and they really,
they should have known better
than to name their band
something filthy like that.
So there are a whole bunch,
and people, here's what happened.
Today, the story hit the front page of CNN,
and what that means is
that we've had something
like 300,000 hits today,
and the updates are just flying in
way faster than we can update them.
So we ask people,
please be patient.
If your objectionable word
does not show up on the list,
it will at some point,
and thank you for submitting them,
and every school kid in America now
apparently is looking at this page
to get more ammunition
for words they can use
to offend people.
Rapping women is apparently offensive.
Now, rapping, that's with a W or with a?
With an R.
With an R.
As in doing rap music,
rapping women.
And rapping men.
Yeah, well.
I don't know about rapping men.
Okay, well,
let's have the list in front of us
before we start spouting off
what's on there.
But anyway,
the story appeared on CNN.
I just want to read
a couple of highlights from it.
Again, some folks
at the Hacker Publication 2600
decided to compile a list of words
that are restricted by Google Instant.
Except in extreme and special cases,
Google is known for anything but censorship.
But as we've said before,
there are some terms
the web giant's new Instant Search feature
won't work with.
This actually comes from a blogger's site
and mashable.com, I believe.
And again,
we talked about this last week.
It's not really censorship.
I don't think that's the right word for it.
It's basically just a form of filtering.
And of course,
you can get around it
simply by hitting return.
But it is kind of interesting
to see how these things work.
For example, bisexual, lesbian,
those are restricted words.
You type them into Google,
the Instant Search
will immediately stop
delivering your results.
You have to hit enter to confirm.
And it's just kind of fun
to compile these words
and see just how it all works.
I just found an interesting one.
Wet dream.
Really? That's not in there.
Yeah.
It blanks out right at M in dream.
Wow.
So wait.
What could be okay?
Wet D-R-E-A.
What else could there possibly...
Wet dread, I suppose.
If you have dreadlocks
and you want to wash your hair.
Wet dreadlocks.
Okay.
So that's allowed.
Apparently, vibrator also...
Really?
Yeah.
Okay.
Well, there's all manner.
Again, the website
www.2670.com
slash Google Blacklist.
That's the fund we've been up to
which has sort of spiraled
out of control
and no doubt
will take over our lives
for the next few weeks.
Speaking of which,
next few weeks,
we're not going to be here.
We're preempted next week
and the week after that.
Oh, no.
Yeah.
Well, we'll be back in three weeks.
And when we're back in three weeks,
we will be in fundraising mode.
We'll be in the middle
of fundraising mode.
So get yourselves ready
for that, folks.
So start earning money now.
Yeah.
Start earning the money now.
Relish the fact
that you'll have two weeks
of a break from us.
But in three weeks,
three weeks from today,
we will be asking
for your support
to help keep the station going.
And those of you
who have pledged before,
you should be getting
your premiums very, very soon,
especially those of you
for the spring.
I know there's been delays
with some people.
Everybody will get their premiums.
That is certainly a fact.
If you have not gotten
your premiums for any time
before the spring fundraiser,
let us know
because that's definitely wrong.
Everybody else,
it's just a sad fact
it takes time sometimes
to gather it all together.
There are so many people
to thank
by sending out
the premiums you pledged for.
So don't let that
dissuade you
from being a part
of things in the future.
Okay.
We have some interesting stories
that have hit
in the last week or so.
This, I guess,
is probably the most disturbing.
I'm just going to read
the beginning of it
and then we can launch
into what this actually means.
From the New York Times,
federal law enforcement
and national security officials
are preparing to seek
sweeping new regulations
for the internet,
arguing that their ability
to wiretap criminal
and terrorism suspects
is going dark
as people increasingly
communicate online
instead of by telephone.
Essentially,
officials want Congress
to require all services
that enable communications,
including encrypted
email transmitters
like BlackBerry,
social networking websites
like Facebook,
and software
that allows direct
peer-to-peer messaging
like Skype
to be technically capable
of complying
if served
with a wiretap order.
The mandate would include
being able to intercept
and unscramble
encrypted messages.
The bill,
which the Obama administration
plans to submit
to lawmakers next year,
raises fresh questions
about how to balance
security needs
with protecting privacy
and fostering innovation.
And because security services
around the world
face the same problem,
it could set an example
for how to be copied globally.
Haven't we been here before?
This sounds so familiar to me.
It sounds like the days
of the Clipper chip
all over again.
Well, it just sounds
very kind of silly.
I don't think that
by doing this
they're going to actually
solve any of their problems.
I think they're only
going to create problems
for everybody else.
I mean, basically
what you're saying
is that, okay,
if you're a security provider
or I suppose
a service provider,
you have to provide us
with back doors
so that we can get in
and get what we need.
To some degree,
they already have
that capability, right?
If there was some private
bit of information
on Facebook
or one of these services
or maybe on some ISP
that they wanted
to get the email for,
they could, you know,
have a warrant
or whatever the request
that the government
makes to get information.
Is it a warrant
or is it not a subpoena?
Bernie, help us out here.
A warrant.
They would get a warrant.
It's a search warrant,
basically.
It's an electronic search warrant.
And so,
you know,
to get those kinds
of communications,
it's already possible
for them.
But if they're talking
about putting kind of
back doors
and encryption software,
the real problem
I see with that
is that,
say this is a software
that you use
on your computer.
I don't know,
let's say it's PGP
or something
and there's a back door
built into it.
Because it's software
that's out there in public,
even if it's not,
even if the source code
is not public,
it's not going
to be very difficult
for someone
to find this back door.
Because there's a back door
and anyone can access it
once they find out
how to do it.
That's what bothers me.
Even if it's an algorithmic
back door,
even if they release
some kind of,
you know,
it's kind of sneaky.
It hides the data
somehow in the message
so that there's a way
to open the message.
Someone will figure it out.
You know,
people aren't stupid.
And so, I think
that's a real big problem.
On the flip side,
you have,
you know,
there will be open source
and free systems
that are written.
And so,
can the government mandate
to include back doors?
And if there is
a back door,
everyone will see it
because it's open source.
And here's what happens
with these situations
like this with the back doors.
Somehow,
hackers get drawn into it
and blame for things
that have not even happened.
From the story,
several privacy
and technology advocates
argued that requiring
and deception capabilities
would create holes
that would inevitably
be exploited by hackers.
Hackers are the evil people again.
Stephen Belevin,
a Columbia University
computer science professor,
pointed to an episode
in Greece in 2005.
It was discovered
that hackers
had taken advantage
of a legally mandated
wiretap function
to spy on top officials' phones,
including the prime ministers.
He says,
I think it's a disaster
waiting to happen.
If they start building in
all these back doors,
they will be exploited.
I totally agree
they will be exploited.
But to point the fingers
just at hackers,
you know,
who's going to exploit this
are law enforcement people,
people who know
about the holes,
people who work
for the companies,
all kinds of people.
I mean,
the fact of the matter
is that fairly strong
encryption algorithms
are out there.
So these things,
as they stand,
don't have back doors.
So it's possible
for somebody
who looks at
these academic papers
to write a version
that doesn't have
a back door.
So if you're really,
really dedicated
to getting your message
across the internet
without anyone
being able to read it,
you're going to be able
to do it.
So really,
this is just kind of,
I guess,
opening a door
for the case
where you have
a stupid criminal
who doesn't really know
what they're doing,
who hasn't done any research,
and then maybe
you're going to be able
to do this.
But for the most part,
I think it's actually
just going to hurt
your regular individual
who hasn't done anything.
And the thing
that I'm really worried about
is, okay,
first they're going to focus
on, as they do now,
the large service providers.
You know,
the big telephone companies
already have
their government back doors.
You know,
the large providers
that they're looking at now
are Facebook and Twitter
and all these networks
that everyone uses.
But how many hops
is it from that
to people like me
who prefer to roll their own
and who are maybe hosting
their own email servers
and who are going to maybe
jump in on Diaspora,
the decentralized social network
and things like that?
When are they going
to start telling me
that I have to open up
back doors on my own
machinery for them?
Oh boy.
You know, yeah,
these are some seriously
interesting questions
and something that Ruddhack
said kind of, you know,
popped, stuck in my head,
which is, you know,
the big thing
that all of us technical people
are thinking is,
okay, even if they tried
mandating this,
this stuff is still
already open sourced,
you know,
there's no way
they'd be able to, you know,
stop people from using
un-back doored security.
And I think to myself,
does that mean that then
privacy in itself online
will become a crime?
Privacy is dead.
Get over it.
I think it's interesting
that they're not focusing
on Facebook
because Facebook already,
like the government
already has someone
at Facebook's phone number
who they can call up
and they'll just like
give them whatever they want.
This is targeted directly
at the smaller sites
and it's making a mandate.
One of the issues
they talk about
in the Times article
is that sometimes
someone that the government
wishes to follow
for whatever reason
will be using
some small website
and the small website
doesn't have
a surveillance function
so the engineers
at this small website
who would much rather
be doing almost
anything else I'm sure
have to waste their time
building a surveillance
site for the government
and now it's going
to be required
if these bills pass
that these surveillance
functions have to be
built in from the get-go
and anyone who's ever
built a website
can tell you like
that's a lot of work
to make these extra features
that you don't need.
Bernie, what do you think
about all this?
I think it's another
good example
of a security theater.
Really serious terrorists
will find easy ways
to circumvent
these surveillance measures
and this is going to be used
to invade the privacy
of anyone else
the U.S. government
wants to snoop on
without any accountability
just like with CALEA
that went into effect
I guess that was
the early 90s
actually no the late 80s.
Tell the listeners
what CALEA is?
CALEA is
the Communications
Act for Law Enforcement
Assistance
I'm sorry
the Communications
Assistance Law Enforcement
Act. One or the other.
In any case
that was a federal
law that
mandated
built-in
surveillance
at all
telephone
switches
all the telephone companies
the central office
switches would have to
have built-in surveillance
that would allow the FBI
and other law enforcement
agencies to remotely
access
phone lines and
phone calls
and data
and that kind of thing
without having to
physically take a warrant
from a practical
standpoint
not have to physically
take a warrant
to the phone company
and have them
hook up the wiretap
and that scared
the bejeebers out
of a lot of us
and this is another
example of yet another
stretch
our surveillance
industrial complex
wants to have
another system where
there's no real
accountability
how will we ever know
if the watchers
are actually following
constitutional protections
and upholding the law
and not invading people's
privacy
and doing other kinds
of nasty things
I think this is a really
scary step
and it makes me think
less of the Obama
administration
that they're behind this
but I think every
administration is behind
this kind of thing
well this is a point
we've raised many times
there is no government
on earth that does not
want to spy on its citizens
so you're fooling yourself
if you think anybody
is going to
simply say yeah
you guys have your privacy
we're the government
it doesn't work that way
Rob
and speaking of
administrations
one thing that I think
a lot of the officials
in our government
seem to conveniently forget
is that
not everyone on the
internet is American
or under their
jurisdiction
really?
yes
there are even
service providers
in other countries
that one might use
other countries
you say
I learned something today
I just wanted to
point out for our
listeners
anyone who's kind of
curious about privacy
and encryption
just quickly that
if you're using
something online
and it's not encrypted
so say you're using
an HTTP
based service
as opposed to HTTPS
anybody between you
and that service
and on
who has access
to your packets
has access to
your information
so just because
you think you're
connecting directly
to that website
there are a number
of hops in between
so that data
goes through that
same thing with email
when you send an email
it can go through
a number of servers
before it gets
to the destination server
if you're using
there's no security
between you
and that provider
so your
information is only
encrypted between
your computer
and say
the mail provider
or something
and then
from then on
it may not be
encrypted
and so again
you have the same problem
so really if you're
absolutely concerned
about your privacy
or if you really have
to tell somebody
something to somebody else
and it has to be
get there securely
you really want to use
end-to-end encryption
you want to use
some sort of
encryption software
like GPG
or anything like that
to encrypt your message
to get it
between you
and the other person
and make sure
you know
people have
GPG keys
and things like that
you have to make sure
that you know
that it's the other
person's actual key
and not just
something that's
been falsified
but don't lazy people
deserve privacy too?
no I'm not saying
that this is a good thing
I'm just saying
that information
on the internet
is inherently
not secure
and so if you're
really concerned
about your security
you really have
to use an end-to-end
encryption software
even without
an evil government
out there
trying to learn
all your secrets
and read all
your communications
it's not secure
people do need
to see examples
and that's sort of
what hackers do
they show you
how things aren't secure
except they get
put in prison
for doing that
here the government
wants to do it
it's just this kind
of impression
of security
that oh well
you know
it's just my computer
some months ago
there was a story
where Google
got its computers
snuck into
by the Chinese government
and that's why
they're no longer
doing business
or not doing
as much business
in China
the system that
the Chinese government
snuck into
was the system
that Google
had developed
to allow other
non-Chinese governments
to get in
and spy on things
if they hadn't
built this spying system
in the first place
there'd be less
spying going on
so to require
every company
to build these
spying systems
there's going to be
all kinds of spying
going on
not all of it
the FBI kind even
here's what worries me
and this speaks
to something that
Rob was saying
a little bit earlier
let's say I use
GPG
or equivalent
just to communicate
with people
now from
what's said
in this article
the mandate would include
being able to intercept
and unscramble
encrypted messages
that's at the carrier end
that's at the ISP end
what about the individual end
what if I decide
I want to encrypt
my messages
with my own
personal key
am I required
under this
to turn over
that information
to the government
upon demand
is that something
I think that's something
I mean don't they put
people in jail
for not giving up
encryption keys
have they actually
done that yet
well it's
I mean if you are
in possession
of some document
you can be subpoenaed
for it
and if you can't say
oh I have the key
but I'm not going to
tell it to you
because then you're
not complying
and what they want to do
is they want to wiretap
your communications
without telling you
without going through you
you know it's the same
with a telephone wiretap
like they could just
ask you hey
what did you say
to your drug dealer
and you could tell them
but what they want
to be able to do
is get it directly
without asking you
so now that's
what I'm wondering
do I have to give them
the ability
to crack my encryption code
without my knowing
if you're subpoenaed
you already do
if you're subpoenaed
and you have a lawyer
you don't have a lawyer
your lawyer can't
successfully fight it
whatever
if the subpoena
is actually taking place
then you're required
to comply with it
it just seems to me
that this is a problem
that can be solved
with some technology
with some ingenuity
no the thing is
that basically
if you're using
some sort of
personal encryption solution
this is not
this is not what
they're targeting
is what I'm saying
right but it becomes
a good point
if everybody is using this
in the first place
if everybody is using it
but the fact of the matter
is that not everybody
is using it
and what they're saying
is that if it's available
on the internet
we want to be able
to just arbitrarily
listen in on random users
if you are actually
a person of interest
I'm sure they will
go to a judge
and go through
all of the difficulty
to get a subpoena
to get your data
but they just want
to be able to do it
if they're maybe
curious about it
I mean I don't
I'm not sure how
I guess wiretapping
you need a warrant
also Bernie
yes
but you can get it
without the person
knowing that there's a warrant
right
right
yes
I just want to point out
what Mike said
is true
they can
you can be subpoenaed
even for a brand jury
to force you
to compel you
to divulge your
your passphrase
or encryption key
and you might think
well
it should not be covered
by the fifth amendment
the right to
again
to unite this
self-incrimination
self-incrimination
right
well guess what
the Justice Department
the United States
Department of Justice
has been using
this novel argument
that's saying
your passphrase
your passphrase
or your encryption
encryption key
in and of itself
does not contain
incriminating information
therefore
you have no
fifth amendment
right to
to hold onto it
by that logic
my
the key to my house
doesn't include any
incriminating information
so I'd be compelled
to give them a copy of that
that's the argument
they're using
you're compelled
to let them in
in your door
if they show up with a warrant
yeah but this is without a warrant
isn't it
no this is with a warrant
no I'm saying
do you need a warrant
to demand
a passphrase
well in the case
that Mike was bringing up
where they could issue
a subpoena
or bring it before a grand jury
and you could say
well I'm not going to
I'm not going to
divulge my passphrase
or key
because
that would be
self-incrimination
and I reserve
I'm going to
I'm going to exercise
my fifth amendment right
to not incriminate myself
you would be found in
you could be
imprisoned
for a significant amount
of time
for
contempt of court
okay that's
that's with a warrant
obviously what about
at border crossings
coming into this country
where people are being
compelled to give up
their passphrases
how about situations
like that
that's a good question
that has been
tested before
and people
it's one of these
gray areas
where the black
the law is not
black and white
but smart people
have just not
come across the border
with information
that could be
could be looked at
at the border
they'll ship their
hard drive ahead of time
to themselves
from their
back and forth
across the border
until I'm challenged
just so I could
I could be the
the test case here
because I feel
really strongly
about that
that nobody should
have to give up
all their personal
information to some
some border guard
that wants to look
through your computers
let's say you're
compelled by that
argument to give
your passphrase
and you give in
and don't want
to sit in jail
if that information
that then is unlocked
is incriminating
wouldn't that then be
I mean could it be
thrown out
no
it's in clear sight
it's in clear sight
on your computer
but if you're actually
look if you're actually
aware of an investigation
going on
against you personally
you should get a lawyer
and not take advice
off the radio
don't leave your house
don't send emails
don't communicate with people
that's really the best
advice we can offer
but you know
really the best advice
and I think this is
something that
people in both the hacker
and maker worlds
can can help to
instill in people
is learn how to protect
your your communications
at the source
have encryption
at your particular
point where you start
typing things
so that way at least
you know when they're
trying to find out
things about you
it's not something
done surreptitiously
and they have to come
to you and demand
or request that
that information
at least you know that
well I think
I think one of the
difficulties that we face
is the fact that you know
in order to use
like end-to-end encryption
you have to have
you essentially have to
the other person
has to support it as well
so it's not just you
right
and so for that reason
you know it's not
it's some other things
and so at least
currently these services
attempt to provide
some security for their users
whether through
different policies
or through at least
protecting it between
the user and
and the end point
but the fact of the matter
is that at some point
the information is
is going to be
unencrypted and
you know unless
the service says otherwise
but I mean there are
other things too
for instance if you
connect to a web page
if you if you use
secure connection
HTTP S
instead of HTTP
then there are
many points where
your data can't
be looked at
until you get to the
to the destination
it's between you
so between you
and that provider
it's encrypted
once it gets there
obviously it has to be
decrypted because
otherwise they won't
know what to do
exactly but
but you've eliminated
so many possible sources
you've eliminated the
hops between you
and the provider
right
little things like that
do make a big difference
dot red
so like yeah
we're like you know
dancing around all these
various things
but to me it seems like
we need to be able
to look at everything
you do
so what we
ultimately what we're
going to have to deal
with is
do we want privacy
or do we want to let
the government
look at everything
we're doing
okay well actually
that leads into
an interesting point
because let's
let's just take a step
over and be devil's
advocates for a moment
and you have to be
devil's advocates
to take the government
side here
but let's listen to
what they have to say
they say we're
talking about lawfully
authorized intercepts
we're not talking about
in order to protect
the public safety
and national security
what they're saying is
that we've evolved
from the days
of using wire
landlines
wired phones
where you could just
stick a wiretap
on that
now we're using
all kinds of other ways
we're using Skype
we're using all sorts
of internet capabilities
that apparently
are not as easy
to wiretap
so how do
how do we respond to that
well I just think that
you know it's kind of
a moot point
at this point
because they're
we're beyond the point
where there are
major corporations
and major companies
in charge of how
we communicate
it just doesn't
exist anymore
I mean what you have now
well no
but what I'm
what I'm saying is that
they're hand gestures
so please vocalize
there are
there are more ways
to communicate
than there were before
and the fact that
the matter is
it's impossible
to kind of
get control over
all of them
and so for that reason
I think that you know
they can try
and they might be
successful at this
but they're
ultimately they're not
going to be able to
communicate securely
you can join this
this conversation
212-209-2900
we're talking about
the new
proposal by
the Obama administration
to make
make it a lot easier
to wiretap
the internet
I mean
on the flip side
they may have cracked
some of these
encryption algorithms
or have the ability to
that we don't know about
because you know
the NSA doesn't tell people
when they do that
they don't do that
but hopefully
that's not the case
because the scientific
community hasn't at least
figured it out yet
so I have
two responses
the quote you read
is from the
general counsel
for the FBI
the first response
is first of all
that I don't really care
to preserve
their existing authority
to surveil me
so I'm happy
to do anything
that makes it harder
for them
and the second
is that it's
complete nonsense
for them to claim
that a new law
that requires
new work
to be done
in every
internet company
on the planet
is not expanding
their authority
that's not true
and when you mention
on the planet
that brings
that brings
a point up
that this is global
this is something
that you can easily
route messages
or phone calls
through different countries
unlike in the past
how does their authority
enter into
into different
different parts of the world
so it's a bit difficult
to know the details
of a bill
that hasn't been
proposed finally yet
but one of the things
they want to do
is that any foreign company
that does business
in the United States at all
so if they have
a business in the United States
then they have
to have
also as part
of that sales office
an office
that is capable
of complying
with this law
so if you
if you have a company
that is only
overseas
and does not
like
take your money
does not do anything
in the United States
then they wouldn't
be subject to this law
but the law
is obviously written
to be as broad
as possible
and so similarly
a foreign government
is you know
this is bad enough
with just the
US governments
are going to
see this law
and say well
if the US does it
we are going
to do it too
so soon
your communications
will be
surveillable
by any government
anywhere in the world
and that's even
scarier than just
the US government
right and as
this New York Times
article says
this is something
that's going to be
copied globally
if it works
quote unquote here
and as we've said
any government
in the world
is going to be
interested in this
so what they're going
to be doing then
is saying
I mean you know
if this law
goes forward
as we're seeing
it right now
that companies
from these countries
where it's illegal
to divulge certain
private information
could then basically
not be allowed
to do business
in the US
because it's
against their law
to divulge
and if they come
to the US
they must
and then so
does that mean
that then
any company
from a country
that has real
security like the US
what country is that
there are countries
with better privacy laws
than we have in the US
there's Sweden
Iceland
I think those
are the examples
there are countries
with better privacy laws
but there are
very few countries
or I would say
no countries
with laws that are
really that good
and I think
strong arm pressure
from the US
would make those
laws disappear
pretty quickly
I mean there's
an interesting case
there's a guy
who's a travel writer
Edward Hausbrook
who he's American
but in Europe
there are certain
data privacy laws
that apply to his
flight records
held by KLM
for instance
which is the European carrier
so he said
did you give my records
to the US government
you are required
by Dutch law
to tell me
and they don't know
the answer
they won't give it to him
they can't give it to him
so this is going to be
the same thing
even when you don't fly
alright let's take
some phone calls
interesting conversation
interesting times
we live in
212-209-2900
let's see who's out there
good evening
yeah let me
turn my radio down
please do that
got a couple
of questions for you
you've been speaking
across a broad
spectrum of stuff
I wonder if you guys
have heard of
the Swiss company
Quantique
Quantique is a
lot of heads
shaking here
it's a
quantum
encryption
technology
based on
electronic
light
meaning photon
conversion
ok
and your messages
are sent in photons
yeah
this has been
experimented with
in Switzerland
for now
probably
3-4 years
they came up
with this technology
and became the
subject
of great perusal
NSA
looked at them
very very closely
because they were
basically developing
an unbreakable
encryption technology
point to point
quantum
yeah so
quantum encryption
basically
I wouldn't
well
so it works
on the principle that
you're actually
able to tell
when somebody
is eavesdropping
so it's not necessarily
that
so if someone
was trying to eavesdrop
you could know
that it's not secure
so I wouldn't say
that it's
I guess it's unbreakable
in the fact that
somebody
you would know
if someone was trying
to listen and thus
would just avoid
that kind of
interaction
right I mean
you guys have been
talking about
sort of the
oblique permission
which is the
constant
want to
just tap
which is
you know
not having
specific
information
that would lead
you to a number
but you would
want to rove
and tap a number
of numbers
right so I mean
the thing is
quantum encryption
is great
and it does provide
end to end security
and it's great
that it actually
works and
experimentally
can be shown
but you're still
only connecting
between two points
so say you have
a quantum
encrypted connection
between you
to comply with
government regulations
that give
you know
that reveal your
information then
the encryption
doesn't matter
well there's also
some other serious
issues with
quantum encryption
I mean what they're
really what they're
calling encryption
anyway is that
you know in
what we're describing
right now we're
talking about
polarized light
and you know
if you're using
you know photons
and the biggest
problem is you
can't use a repeater
because as soon
as you have
the information
you lose information
so we have a
problem where we
can't have
the signal travel
any further than
however quickly
it degrades
and the internet
works by having
repeaters everywhere
otherwise the
electricity would
degrade and we
can't do that with
this quantum encrypted
thing
let's bring up
a couple of things
a number of years
ago a guy called
Nachio
N-A-C-C-I-C-O
I believe
he was the head
of Quest
he was the CEO
of Quest Corporation
and he was
prosecuted for
insider trading
but reality
says that he was
prosecuted because
he gave away
certain information
that regarded an
NSA
system that was
going to use
dark fiber
that was going to
light up all this dark
fiber that had been
put in the ground
and was unused for
a totally separate
POTS system
in the United States
that could be used
by intelligence
and other business
intelligence
and he was
prosecuted
for essentially
beefing up
stock because
he knew that these
black programs
would boost
the value of
Quest Corporation
and there's a huge
legal case around this
I'd like to point out
that Quest also
refused to comply
with the secret
NSA
order several years
ago and that was
prior to this guy being
prosecuted so there's
another angle to this
as well
well that's correct
their lawyer in fact
was asked
the NSA to
draft a
release letter and
they refused to do that
so he refused to
comply
that
case should be
examined very very
thoroughly I know you
guys talk about this
stuff a lot but
that is a very
very important case
because
that fiber
is owned by
Anschutz and
he took all the
rights of ways for
his railway
purchases and
he used those railway
rights of way to
lay cable and
that fiber is
still in the ground
and plenty of it
alright listen thanks
for bringing up these
issues they're very
important I'm sure our
listeners will
investigate it further
let's see who else is
out there with
questions or points
to bring up
good evening you're
on off the hook
speak up
okay hi
sorry on the radio
okay I got a more
that legal stuff
is very interesting
but it goes way
beyond me
what I'm curious about
is the mathematical
end of this stuff
like I don't know
the name of the
encryption method
it deals with like
you know
very large
uniquely
factorable
number
and
I don't remember the
name of it
but it's like
it's I think it's
believed to be
unbreakable
it's no it's well
so what it is is
it's called RSA
and it
it's a way of
so public it's public
key encryption it's it's
a way of key exchange
so you have
one half the public
key that you publish
is the
the multiplication of
factors and then
it
when you encrypt stuff
with it
it uses modulus
and one-way functions
so that
given the public key
you can't decrypt it
but
knowing the two
factors of the public
key
you can unlock it
yeah
but it's very hard
it's very hard
with current
technology
but it's actually
not proven
that it is
impossible
for
for the factoring
to
to be
so just nobody's
discovered an algorithm
that is able to
do the factoring quickly
but it may exist
it hasn't been proven
that it doesn't exist
so if that
is
determined
to be possible
then the whole thing
would fall apart
because you'd be able to
factor these
these large numbers
so the situation is
as it has been
for
for at least
a few years now
where
it is believed to be
unbreakable
but
effectively unbreakable
but it
cannot be proven to be so
right
I mean this is
fascinating and I don't
but it's also
in a sense
completely irrelevant
because if I
securely transmit
my data
with something
that is in fact
unbreakable
to Facebook
and then the government
calls up Facebook
and says hey
what did Mike tell you
then the
wonder
wondrous nature
of the encryption
used between me
and Facebook
is totally irrelevant
How in the world
are you putting it
on Facebook for Mike
if it's something
private
you don't want to
put it there
I might
okay I'm off
the other thing
quickly I'd just like
to point out about
public key encryption
is that
that part of
what you described
is only used
for exchanging a key
at which point
then you use
a faster
shared key algorithm
so you're using
then you're not even
using that anymore
let's try and take
one more phone call
we can go on for hours
about this
that's certainly true
good evening
you're on off the hook
speak up please
hello
yes
what's on your mind
hi
so you mentioned
these end to end
software based
encryption tools
like PGP
to the best of your
understanding
under this proposed law
would that be illegal
also
uh
no
would it be illegal
to use PGP
no
not according to this
times article
uh
but
again that's
pretty
not everyone is doing that
well I mean
should we believe
the people that are saying
Obama administration
is trying to make
encryption illegal
is that a bit of a stretch
they want to be able
to have all the
passwords
the latter
okay well that's almost
almost as bad
as far as I'm concerned
well I think
even if it's not
what we're dealing with
is a whole slippery
slope thing
if they say that
all providers must
give us back doors
and then everyone uses
end to end communication
that's only a matter
of time before the
end to end starts
becoming illegal
Rob last word
they're not trying
to make PGP illegal
but they're trying
to make it irrelevant
and um
with any encryption
whether it's PGP
or whatever
it's not a matter
of time
alright 2600 meetings
this Friday
remember we're not
on for the next
two weeks
we'll be back
in three weeks
and you know what
tonight's kind of
an historical night
for 52 weeks
we've been playing
songs about computers
tonight is the last
song and after this
we can play
whatever we feel like
it doesn't have to be
about phones or computers
so take a listen
to our very last
computer song
we'll see you
in three weeks
Educating children today
is different from yesterday
we must teach them
computer skills
the different components
of a computer
like the mouse
and the keyboard
teach them computing
show them how to
use their brain
teach
computer
children
love
computer
teach
Show them the hard drive, their brains will stay alive
Teach, teach, teach, teach, teach
Computer
Children learn, learn, learn, learn, learn
Computer
Teach them computer
Show them the window
Show them what they need
O'Clock