August 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

INTERCEPT THIS.
by Aimee Farr 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

Somebody offlist flipped my "internet rant generator." I will not stoop to respond to this snoopy, low-life, lapdog, cog-in-the-wheel directly, (and the high-and-mighty &^%$#!@ denied me the opportunity). So, please excuse me.... ---- "The issue in this case is clouded and concealed by the very discussion of it in legalistic terms. What the ancients knew as 'eavesdropping,' we now call 'electronic surveillance'; but to equate the two is to treat man's first gunpowder on the same level as the nuclear bomb. Electronic surveillance is the greatest leveler of human privacy ever known. How most forms of it can be held 'reasonable' within the Fourth Amendment is a mystery." --- Justice Douglas, dissenting, United States v. White, 401 US. 745 (1971). ---- A keystroke is not a mere physical action - it is a contemporaneous reflection of what is going on in your head. It is the contemporaneous interception of mental processes. I am not just "typing," I am thinking. A keystroke logger is akin to another recording device that is restricted for these very reasons: the polygraph. The ability to compose one's thoughts through writing, in private, should be an inviolable sanctuary. The law enforcement interest in garnering a passphrase to decrypt for the most heinous of criminal purposes pales in comparison to the importance of forever precluding the government from intruding on the genesis of human achievement at the sacred moment of its inception: taking your thoughts to the written word. As always, if they want it, they can come seize it, or intercept it. Interception and seizure always was about giving the government an opportunity to "get it." You took a risk by creating and having a document in your possession for a meaningful length of time - at least SOME length of time, or by "speaking your mind." Today, we press "SEND." You subjected your thoughts or words to a meaningful exposure. Now, because of a "passphrase," the government would have the act of merely putting a pen to paper to construct your thoughts require a similar act of courage. Yes, what you write is subject to seizure. Still, there is an important distinction. Surely, some drafts of constitutional provisions ended up in the embers of a fire, and we will never know the thoughts of the author that were penned and destroyed in private. To James Madison, a keystroke logger would look like a "tattletale quill." Had there been "tattletale quills" back then, I wouldn't be ranting about Scarfo, because we would have ever been afforded the protections the Constitution. The thoughts leading to the Fourth Amendment would have never seen parchment. Nor would have The Federalist Papers seen ink. The Crown would have interloped between the men and their manuscripts. Do you not realize the nature of this invasion! The government just turned a man's writing utensil into a wired government informant! How can a fair construction of the Fourth Amendment subject every American to question the trustworthiness of their pen? To have your pen as a contemporaneous witness against yourself? We must preserve as inviolate what little remains of that same sanctity between pen and paper that the Founders had when they framed their thoughts. The sanctity I speak of is that "sense of security" in knowing that you have the opportunity, no matter how brief or illusory, to consider your words before rendering them available to the senses of others. That is the wellspring of thought. Furthermore, are you not entitled to the same forgiving fire James Madison had, should you be able to fairly avail yourself of it? Think of the great thought that would never have been -- but for handy fires, and that _moment_ of sanctum when a man's pen hits his paper. At that moment, the historic* meanings of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments don't "run almost into each other," as in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), they collide. "Ways may some day be developed by which the Government, without removing papers from secret drawers can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a jury the most intimate conveyances of the home. Advances in the psychic and related sciences may bring means of exploring unexpressed beliefs, thoughts and emotions.... -- Justice Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928). ~Aimee *Emphasis on historic.

1 0

Evolution is a mother.
by Ray Dillinger 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Eugene Leitl wrote: >On Thu, 9 Aug 2001 mmotyka(a)lsil.com wrote: > >> RSW gives excellent advice. Bear in mind : the larger the batch the >> easier it will be to keep it hot... > >I recommend organic peroxides. Preferably, large quantities thereof, >suddenly heated in closed vessels made from specific metals. Excellently >suitable for beginner pyrotechnicians. > Hmmm. Sooner or later, some idjit is going to try some of this stuff. Evolution is going to happen, which may be a good thing, but people who gave specific tips on how to speed it up, may be blamed for it. If someone was looking for an excuse to arrest someone or make a life inconvenient, a little evolution happening offstage might provide such an excuse. Bear

1 0

Re: Traceable Infrastructure is as vulnerable as traceable messages.
by jamesd＠echeque.com 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

-- Faustine: > I think it's dangerous and entirely to your disadvantage to > dismiss everyone doing government work in computer security as > a donut- chomping incompetent Barney-Fife-clone imbecile. > > Anyone can laugh at the department heads on C-SPAN, but did you > ever stop to think about who's really doing the hardcore > research for the NSA at Ft. Meade--and elsewhere? To judge by their most recent crypto ballsup, some donut chomping incompetents. > And did you ever think that they may have decided it's in their > best interest to let otherwise informed and intelligent people > like you laugh them off as third-rate and underfunded? I would never imagine a government department to be underfunded. James A. Donald: > > Similarly consider the CIA, whose assessments of the Soviet > > Union were consistently less accurate than my own. > Not everyone who wrote assessments for CIA got them past the > politicized review of deputy director Gates. As you may know, > the whole culture in the 80s was characterized by a deep rift > between two warring factions who literally referred to each > other as "knuckledraggers" and "commie symps." If the symps had > the upper hand instead of the knuckledraggers under Casey, > there's not a doubt in my mind you would have seen an entirely > different kind of intelligence product. The commie symps favored the "alliance for progress", which shows they were even further out of contact with reality than the knuckledraggers. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG pwsZCPD6q7113H400Rs9K5JCzrrsWPOl6bI7Tvnp 4E235p2QsARNd3MJytLRqPWA6e1tPeFgkVTDyQmUW

2 1

RE: Mind rape [was: Re: INTERCEPT THIS]
by Aimee Farr 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

Trei wrote: > Aimee, who is somewhat of a newcomer to our list, is groping towards > an idea which seems to hold the minds of many contributors; that the > contents of our private data are as personal, and should be as inviolate, > as the contents of our heads. > To those of us to whom the use of computers is as natural as breathing, > our data are as much a part of us as our memories, and we instinctively > feel they should be just as intimately held. > > We now use computers as extensions of our minds - a vast store of > knowledge, ideas, and abilities. This ability simply did not exist at the > time the Constitution was written, and as computers grew out of > accounting equipment, their data came to be treated as 'papers' > rather than 'memories'. > > This disjuncture between how we feel about our private data, and > how the powers that be treat it, is one basis for a major thread of > discussion on cypherpunks and other lists - how one can store one's > own personal data in a way which makes it accessible to oneself, > and only to oneself. > > Being forced to turn over one's most intimate thoughts knownlege, > and plans, simply because they are outside of one' skull, is a rape > of the mind, and a violation of the intent of the Fifth Amendment. As to your first point, not exactly, I was trying to distinguish something THIS SNAKE said, and the entire basis of his law-oriented argument: "no difference/same data/no intercept" -- I think the moment is important because of the sense of security we have at THAT moment is an extreme interest. Is the interception requirement just a result the technology from our telephone wire past? It would seem the moment of genesis is even more sacred, not less. You went farther into the 5th/mental processes, and I don't know that anybody has put it so well. I replied to your points individually, but felt like I was being inconsiderate of your thoughts in breaking them up. Certainly words this most-high individual should hear. Cypherpunks should reply to Scarfo EN BLOC. I know it's "old news" to you old dogs, but it isn't to everybody else. Your words do travel. You are 10 ahead of the public agenda. Or, you used to be. "The agenda" appears to be catching up with you. ~Aimee

1 0

cypherpunks-unedited your a winner new site
by star＠hotmail.com 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

1 0

Membership data
by T_crow133＠hotmail.com 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

1 0

Re: Indict Saddam
by Secret Squirrel 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

Steve Schear quoting Michael Rubin writes: > Tuesday's U.S.-British air strikes against Iraq once again raise the > question of why much of the international community continues to > treat Saddam Hussein with kid gloves.... > > While working as a visiting professor at the University of Sulaymani > in Western-defended northern Iraq this past year, I had occasion to > witness the growing involvement of Western executives in > Iraq. Mohammed Douri, Iraq's U.N. ambassador, recently told a > reporter, "Politics is about interests. Politics is not about > morals. If the French and others will take a positive position in > the Security Council, certainly they will get a benefit." It's hard to take seriously any American calling for a trial of Saddam Hussein who does not first call for a trial of Henry Kissinger. Kissinger is guilty of a wide variety of serious crimes. Many are suitable for an international tribunal, others are clear cut violations of U.S. law. Kissinger is available, prosecutable, and guilty.

1 0

Mind rape [was: Re: INTERCEPT THIS]
by Trei, Peter 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

> Aimee Farr[SMTP:aimee.farr@pobox.com] writes [lots of good rant deleted] > The ability to compose one's thoughts through writing, in private, should > be > an inviolable sanctuary. The law enforcement interest in garnering a > passphrase to decrypt for the most heinous of criminal purposes pales in > comparison to the importance of forever precluding the government from > intruding on the genesis of human achievement at the sacred moment of its > inception: taking your thoughts to the written word. [even more good rant deleted] Aimee, who is somewhat of a newcomer to our list, is groping towards an idea which seems to hold the minds of many contributors; that the contents of our private data are as personal, and should be as inviolate, as the contents of our heads. To those of us to whom the use of computers is as natural as breathing, our data are as much a part of us as our memories, and we instinctively feel they should be just as intimately held. We now use computers as extensions of our minds - a vast store of knowledge, ideas, and abilities. This ability simply did not exist at the time the Constitution was written, and as computers grew out of accounting equipment, their data came to be treated as 'papers' rather than 'memories'. This disjuncture between how we feel about our private data, and how the powers that be treat it, is one basis for a major thread of discussion on cypherpunks and other lists - how one can store one's own personal data in a way which makes it accessible to oneself, and only to oneself. Being forced to turn over one's most intimate thoughts knownlege, and plans, simply because they are outside of one' skull, is a rape of the mind, and a violation of the intent of the Fifth Amendment. Peter Trei

1 0

Remailer Phases and Joseph Ashwood's criminal behavior
by Subcommander Bob 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

At 03:16 PM 8/8/01 -0500, Joseph Ashwood wrote: >> Who of the current remops do you trust? Why? > >I don't trust any of them. I don't personally use remailers, I don't tend to >do things that are illegal, but if I did there are other methods that I'd >use. > Joe Joe, only a dipshit thinks anonymity (or confidentiality) is for criminals[1]. You don't always give your personal info out every time you speak in public, right? You use envelopes, not postcards, right? [1] stick with payphones and letters for your ransom notes and death threats, Joe, you'll find computers too complicated.

2 1

RE: Linux On Steroids: DIY supercomputer software from Sandia
by Trei, Peter 09 Aug '01

09 Aug '01

> Harmon Seaver[SMTP:hseaver@ameritech.net] wrote: > Also it's highly recommended to use dual cpu motherboards for > building clusters, which doubles your processing power w/o adding much > at all to the electric bill. But you probably are over estimating the > power needs -- you don't need the drives or video or soundcards, so you > dump those. When I build mine, I'm going to also get rid of the > individual PS as well, use DC/DC converters and a central PS running it > all off a 12v battery bank hopefully solar powered. > Sure, for a university or business, clustering the already > available desktop boxes would be the way to go (at least if you had a > linux lab), but having even 4 dual 1ghz motherboards would be a fun toy. > > Harmon Seaver, MLIS > Also check out http://www.sciam.com/2001/0801issue/0801hargrove.html for a good article on Linux clusters. Peter Trei

1 0