recordsquest

I find inline GnuPG (GPG) keys to be totally distracting and an additional step that discourages new users from adopting email encryption. Buried deep within the settings of Thunderbird lies a way to attach your public GnuPG key, rather than sending it as plain text in the email.

The trick I could never figure out until now was that the setting is actually in the options when you are writing an email, not when you are in the main window of Thunderbird. You should actually disable signing of the message, as you will now be sending an unsigned email to the recipient, who should then import your public key. Here are the steps to attach your public key:

On a Mac, or Ubuntu Linux machine the steps are the same:

1. Compose a new email
2. Click the OpenPGP menu
3. Select default composition options
4. Select Signing/Encryption options
5. Go to "Advanced"
6. Click the radio button for attach my public key to messages (check!)

Like other lost souls, I find myself looking this up on Wikipedia a few times a year for the past few years, getting frustrated then getting distracted by something more interesting.

The difference is so subtle and totally irrelevant in many contexts that it is easy to overlook. The difference between a URL (say "elll") and a URI (eye, matey) is location. URL is a more specific, but often informally misused category. It describes a location on the network, whereas URI could describe a location, name, type, or other attribute. The short of it is that you can start calling URLs URIs and it will make you sound smarter at your next tech conference or geek party, if you go to either of those. For a more cerebral explanation, check the W3.

Section 13 in the findings of the new Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 contains an unsettling sentence. We are cruising along with all of the standard Network Neutrality provisions, then this hits:

"A network neutrality policy can also permit Internet service providers to take action to protect network reliability, prevent unwanted electronic mail, and thwart illegal uses in the same way that telecommunications network operators have historically done consistent with the overarching principle 11 of non-discrimination."

Carefully worded, a hat tip to industry. Yes, this can help you "take action" against spam. Sounds good to me. But if we dig a little deeper in the bill , "ILLEGAL CONDUCT. —Nothing in this Act shall be construed or interpreted to affect any law or regulation addressing prohibited or unlawful activity, including any laws or regulations prohibiting theft of content."

Probably a standard lawyerspeak disclaimer, but not exactly encouraging for those of us who are looking to protect protocols such as BitTorrent -- the industry scapegoat any time questions arise about legitimate use of the Internet.

This is the precursor to a giant loophole, lets hope they close it before the bill moves forward. If Telcos, Cablecos and other service providers are emboldened to traffic shape based on "illegal conduct," lots of conduct will soon become illegal. Traffic shaping is alive and well, many ISPs have been busted, but if they get a shiny new bill to hide behind, they will claim to be the defenders of Net Neutrality. That is not what we need.

In response to this July 31st Slashdot article...

Sources:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/06/raw-video-cop-tasers-72-year-old...

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/09/new-video-shows-officer-shove-the...