Jurists and journalists: impressions and judgements

The process of finding evidence of what truthfully happened in a conflictive situation interests jurists and journalists but in different ways. When the work of journalists and judges are concerned the paradox is at stake. Both categories must tell a story about a conflict must listen to all involved, must inform what happened to the general public. Although both categories must use the freedom must use the freedom of speech their point of view about something with objectivity, their timing is different as well as the process and the effect of fulfilling their task. That question that should be made is what happen to law when it becomes the subject matter to the news in the world of full information? In what measurement journalists also pass judgements and how this affects the formal processes of law? The effort to answer these questions and the ones related to them is important to understand some of the problems that must be approached in order to establish the ways of law and of the mass media technological society

Subliminal Projection: History and Analysis

This article examines subliminal projection, the process whereby information is transmitted to one\u27s subconscious without one\u27s knowledge, as it applies to audio-visual media. The author outlines the psychological basis for the process, then describes the various techniques that have been devised for exploiting the process. A detailed history of experimental and nonexperimental applications is followed by a discussion of the responses by lawmaking, regulatory and programming bodies to those applications and the process in general. The author argues that, lacking statutory bases for prevention of the use of subliminal projection, the most appropriate tort theory on which to base an action is invasion of privacy. The article concludes by noting that it remains the responsibility of the viewer/listener to detect and remedy such abuses, a responsibility that is by its very nature a contradiction

The Eavesdropper\u27s Dilemma

This paper examines the problem of surreptitious Internet interception from the eavesdropper\u27s point of view. We introduce the notion of fidelity in digital eavesdropping. In particular, we formalize several kinds of network noise that might degrade fidelity, most notably confusion, and show that reliable network interception may not be as simple as previously thought or even always possible. Finally, we suggest requirements for high fidelity network interception, and show how systems that do not meet these requirements can be vulnerable to countermeasures, which in some cases can be performed entirely by a third party without the cooperation or even knowledge of the communicating parties

On the Reliability of Current Generation Network Eavesdropping Tools

This paper analyzes the problem of interception of Internet traffic from the eavesdropper\u27s point of view. We examine the reliability and accuracy of transcripts, and show that obtaining high fidelity transcripts is harder than previously assumed. Even in highly favorable situations, such as capturing unencrypted traffic using standard protocols, simple -- and entirely unilateral -- countermeasures are shown to be sufficient to prevent accurate traffic analysis in many Internet interception configurations. In particular, these countermeasures were successful against every available eavesdropping system we tested. Central to our approach is a new class of techniques that we call confusion, which, unlike cryptography or steganography, does not require cooperation by the communicating parties and, in some case, can be employed entirely by a third party not involved in the communication at all

The Carbon (October 11, 1985)

https://mushare.marian.edu/crbn/1237/thumbnail.jp