http://cryptolaw.org/

http://cryptolaw.org/

Please update your links to the new URL: http://www.cryptolaw.org

Which is why OpenBSD is hosted in Canada. and we warn against using mirrors in the USA

>>2
$ geoiplookup www.cryptolaw.org
GeoIP Country Edition: NL, Netherlands

>>3
Another command in Debian Base I have not heard about.
http://dev.maxmind.com/geoip/geoip2/geolite2/
http://dev.maxmind.com/geoip/legacy/downloadable/

Just pointing out obvious things. Not saying that cryptolaw.org uses OpenBSD, or that cryptolaw.org is hosted in Canada.

But this tidbit is hilarious now that you pointed that out:
http://www.cryptolaw.org/cls2.htm#nl

Stop abusing the spoiler function.

>>5

If encrypted information is found in a computer during a house search, the police can order anyone who can reasonably be supposed to know the means of encryption to decrypt the information (article 125k section 2 Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure (DCCP)). {{{The command cannot be given to a suspect, and persons with a right to non-disclosure can refrain from complying (article 125k para. 3 DCCP).}}} (Through an oversight of the legislator, the former provision covering these privileges, art. 125m-old DCCP, was abolished on 1 January 2006 (in the Data Delivery Act, see below) without being replaced, temporarily - and unintentionally - abolishing the privilege against self-incrimination in case of decryption orders for 8 months, until it was repaired by the Computer Crime II Act (Staatsblad 2006, 300), in effect as of 1 September 2006, introducing art. 125k para. 3.)

See the part in {{{accolades}}}.

There were some worrying developments because of the anonymous communist atheist liberal ultraconservative pedophile taliban terrorists that are roaming our playgrounds everywhere:

In 2011, however, a discussion on ordering suspects to decrypt resurfaced in Parliament. The Minister of Security and Justice promised to look at the UK legislation and to look into the compatibility with the privilege against self-incrimination (see Letter of 10 June 2011, TK 32500-VI nr. 106, in Dutch). A report commissioned by the Ministry, published in November 2012 (available in Dutch, summary in English), concluded that a decryption order to suspects is not incompatible with the privilege against self-incrimination, provided that the law and practice contain sufficient legal safeguards; the report identified various options in which a decryption order to suspects could be shaped, with varying forms and degrees of sanctioning non-cooperation. It recommended that the decryption order could better be shaped according to the rules for hearing suspects than according to the rules of seizure of objects (as it is currently shaped in the law), but left it open for political decision-making whether or not non-compliance should be sanctioned and if so, what type and degree of sanction should be applied. The Minister has subsequently announced, in a letter of 27 November 2012 (TK 33400-VI, nr. 68, in Dutch) an intention to propose a Bill to introduce a decryption order for suspects in cases of child pornography or terrorist crimes, which can be given only in written form, with authorisation from an investigating judge. Non-cooperation would be sanctioned with a punishment that is "substantially higher than the punishment for not following a lawfully given official order" (which carries up to three months' imprisonment) - the choice for this sanctioning would be motived in the Bill to follow.

>>6
spoiler

>>6
Actually I use it to mention things not related to digress or comment on something. So that if posters are not interest, you can just skip. Unless you want me to use the proper English notations for embedded annotations (like it matters anyways, your choice)

>>7
No need to quote, I read it. Bert-Jaap should have just hosted in Iran, or any laissez faire country listed. But whatever, it shows the author only cares to post his opinion in law, if he is barred (never reviewed Bert-Jaap Koops. I guess he is fully accredited and researched on the topic:
tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/?uid=e.j.koops )

>>9
Just don't let it turn into a new form of eggwing /g/reentext.

>>10

eggwing

I give up, where does this term come from?

>>11
It's a little thing called EASTER.
Worship Jesus ya retoid.

https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/text

http://mashable.com/2013/07/01/digital-bill-of-rights/

As Snowden told The Guardian back in June:

"I, sitting at my desk," said Snowden, could "wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal email".

>>11
I am going to give it a try deciphering:
egg-win
pun of egging and win:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/egg--2?q=egging

>>15
Why we use fake email address with non-identifying information. hushmail still makes those 25MB email accounts.

>>16
I use my real name and I also use GPG.

>>17
Unless your name is John Smith, I see all kinds of fingerprints with just you name and email headers and SMTP output.

>>18
You may find the metadata but you'll never know the contents of the email.

>>19
Metadata can often be more revealing than actual content.

>>20
Metadata goes both ways as metadata can possibly be more misleading than actual content. Without explicit evidence, the amount of speculative interpretations increases when metadata is the strongest form of evidence you have. I will concede that a red flag system for metadata can put your person on higher surveillance.

>>21
IFF you are using anonymous remailers. Else, you are screwed. I know I linked in the crypto thread the pdf that shows how weak tor is, and older nymph servers. Back track if you want, I want to sleep.

BTW, I update that thread regularly when I find something.