Archive for the 'Geek' Category

New openPGP key

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA1

I have set up a new PGP key, and will be transitioning away from my old one which will expire soon.
At the time I had created the old one I chose properties which are no longer recommended for good security.

Due to nature of web of trust, I would appreciate signatures on my new key, provided that your signing policy
permits to do so without reauthenticating me.

The old key is:
pub 1024D/FA33C4FE 2009-04-22 [expires: 2014-07-31]
Key fingerprint = 2208 BB97 8E11 BA20 4989 2152 B83F 4F6A FA33 C4FE

The new key is:

To fetch the new key from a public key server:
gpg –keyserver pgp.mit.edu –recv-key 43004D09665FD573

To validate that the new key is signed with my old key:
gpg –check-sigs 665FD573

Upload the signatures to a public keyserver directly:
gpg –sign-key 665FD573
gpg –keyserver pgp.mit.edu –send-key 665FD573

Alternatively, you can also download key, sign it, export to ASCII and send it to me.
gpg –import-key 665FD573.asc
gpg –sign-key 665FD573
gpg –armor –export 665FD573 > 665FD573-signed.asc
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlLIeQAACgkQuD9PavozxP7R0ACfVoz7SicYjLMqQ0edExi4Sr6a
zKgAn06kANIKfhLqX3dMhqu1VtEYOev1
=CuYT
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

HOWTO: Transfer OTR private keys from Kopete to Pidgin (or Pidgin to Kopete)

Kopete and Pidgin store their OTR private keys in a very similar format, the only difference that I encountered was the protocol name which is “Jabber” for Kopete and “prpl-jabber” for Pidgin

Here’s the locations of the two private key files.

Pigin
~/.purple/otr.private_key

Kopete
~/.kde4/share/apps/kopete_otr/privkeys

Open both files in a text editor and copy the relevant account/key sections from one to the other making sure you modify the protocol name (I’ve highlighted it in bold below) as appropriate.

(privkeys
(account
(name "example@example.com")
(protocol prpl-jabber)
(private-key
dsa
(p #008BB7770F0CC0E70E61F1190534B5496F21281F9DD4C88EFA0BBD44E2798B2392CDE31466299C7CCF94489ED7B7640C022BB15E566AEE85B453173496854BF60A23F3138F0673D58F70F9FE1FACDF712B34F0A2C58089BED58E56131BF4018B226CC95196BA0227435E25E34282A9FE4DB429B223FC26E6A9EC307B712FC650BB#)
(q #009C14D60398C1EBB3AE3DEE2CAFABCBEAEB331E5F#)
(g #5411C13B82E1E987B825330BBEEAE2A9EA4EBC21966EB749EA3A8F692D42C78E7D8D049DA6CB0E1874160D8D896D968D901FD4B8595786EABB8884373C10701957C3144878D1E0D1176E7AA82559A9EF6BB6780B0FD9DC96D8E906F75E2060985DC06F5FEA7704DC696D2CA5D5142E88C5C793B952ECD7BD5B230607335E6CE6#)
(y #7F05F8659DA598A07EF87543652B0FC4E93EE43517C40916AFE42208E8FF5008DBE1855A3A2295293C4E0FE3A0017E4BADCD19BADDA03AB01B43DF4E9E89C3560D36729167B39F6D1C687B447506C129C45F69794B7890094962043083876A9349092B094CBBDEF8A60D935A8039E47917415A1802C5FB9D7B428A2472A760E0#)
(x #510C3EC4630C54546FF8835FAE828F5348BAF8E5#)
)
)
)

30 years of GNU

[ Celebrate 30 years of GNU! ]

Quote of the day: 2013-02-14

“What this really is, is a war for control over the internet. The internet is a new world and you want to make sure – the US government wants to make sure – they have control of this most powerful market place of the future,”

“The internet belongs to nobody – no man, no corporation, no government – and that’s what these people need to understand. The internet is there for everybody, for society to evolve faster, to share knowledge and to accelerate our development as a race.”

– Kim Dotcom. [source]

Photo Sites T&C’s in 2012

Back in 2009 I did a crude review of the terms and conditions of some popular online photo hosting services. Now it’s 2012 and what has changed?

Google Picasa

Google now have a combined set of terms that apply to many (all?) of their services, not just Picasa. (Emphasis mine)

“[…]you retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.

When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps). Some Services may offer you ways to access and remove content that has been provided to that Service. Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services.”

The wording has changed quite a bit since 2009, not being a lawyer I’m probably going to miss most of the subtleties that have bigger implications but it seems to me that the biggest change is those people/organisations that Google works with now have the rights over your content that Google do. In 2009 it seemed that Google only had the right to make your content available to those third parties, not to confer rights to them. But maybe they did. Whether this has changed substantially or not, it’s not giving you any meaningful control over your own content.

Facebook

[…]you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

Well the wording here has changed to make it appear that you have the ability to revoke their rights to your content when you delete it from Facebook. This has the caveat “unless your content has been shared with others”, since the main purpose of Facebook is sharing content with us, that’s pretty meaningless, especially relating to photos.

Flickr

Those parts of the Terms and Conditions I reviewed in 2009 remain essentially unchanged.

Windows Live Spaces

[…]You have initial control over who may access your content. If you share content in public areas of the services or in shared areas available to others you’ve chosen, you expressly agree that anyone you have shared content with may, for free, use, reproduce, distribute, display, transmit, save and communicate the content solely in connection with the services and other Microsoft, or its licensees’, products and services. If you don’t want others to have that ability, don’t use the services to share your content.

This seems to be slightly more restricted than in 2009 in that it has the bit that says “solely in connection with the services and other Microsoft, or its licensees’, products and services” which I don’t think existed in 2009. But still, you’re just giving your content away here, there are no restrictions that give you any control at all.

In Summary

It looks to my untrained eye that most of these companies have changed their terms and conditions over the past few years to mainly make them sound more appealing, perhaps in response to user backlash over privacy concerns or perhaps because net users are getting smarter about this kind of thing. And even though the terms have changed, sometimes significantly, your control over your own content hasn’t really got any better. Except for Flickr, the content you create and upload to these services seems to be essentially out of your control.

There are now some useful sites to help you track changes to these terms, like TOSBack