December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: [ADMINISTRATIVIUM] Quadratic residues
by The Spectre 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Mon Jun 09 15:38:35 1997 > On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Anonymous wrote: > > I think Vulis needs each of us to send ten copies of this back to him. > [...] I think I'm sending *you* ten copies of this. -=Start Signature=- Goth.Code 3.1 GoCS5$ TAnFe P! B7/17Bk#1 cBk(Lb)-s6 V6s M3p1wgD ZGoPuoMehFon!! C9oc A20+(24) n5 b54 H185 g6!??94A m@Z4? w6T v1h r7EISP p1Z565Hm D26 h5(R) sM10M SsYw k6B N1286JONEH RzM LusNY3 -=http://www.nac.net/~users/spectre=- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBM5xbwqAC4xvMjGa1AQGGrwf/RFxPyCB1MGB+QLUi2cRxZW52X9MBcVr2 dlZd6BZxvbDy5uo8FCbQly4vLG35N/P08SeeCrtnuXjPc9rb/RF38O/rtwSRqFDy sbgtrrFaTwOyOruOAGbuXllHCStYYC0GHYESAoJOXi8vxdMHk0kxZXuWgnAO2uwh c2ON2Jv1f9YmybGrClZ0CaFybWKOG6r3m31QLOJUZqOWZbErRTYOlDM7//09x/ZZ ZA6XCUgLDPPNfm6PSaJmqBeEkgqQC3I0q6uslYi+43u14mXTCa/ddxUG0crMAUb2 F6MyRlD2FjaalVcH69me9VIfJPybbW/o3MbJ7RkNDVAvCNfCg0wenw== =M57W -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

No Subject
by C.Laffra 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, My records indicate that we exchanged email in the last three years. I sincerely apologize if this email is mis-directed. This is to inform you of my new address: Chris Laffra, Ph.D. Research Staff Member Java Tools Group Computer Science Department Research Division IBM T.J. Watson Research Center P.O. Box 704 Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Tel: (914) 784 7525 Fax: (914) 784 6576 email: laffra(a)watson.ibm.com web: www.research.ibm.com/people/l/laffra (soon to be actived) email: laffra(a)aol.com web: members.aol.com/laffra Chris.

1 0

Law Enforcement Types Summary
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

JUST A RECAP OF HOW OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM WORKS The LAPD, The FBI, and the CIA are all trying to prove that they are the best at apprehending criminals. The President decides to give them a test. He releases a rabbit into a forest and each of them has to catch it. The CIA goes in. They place animal informants throughout the forest. They question all plant and mineral witnesses. After three months of extensive investigations they conclude that rabbits do not exist. The FBI goes in. After two weeks with no leads they burn the forest, killing everything in it, including the rabbit, and make no apologies. The rabbit had it coming. The LAPD goes in. They come out two hours later with a badly beaten bear. The bear is yelling: "Okay! Okay! I'm a rabbit! I'm a rabbit! Case closed.

1 0

WSJ on Money Laundering
by Alan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Check out the latest (June 9th, 1997) Wall Street Journal. On page B1 there is an article on the wave of money laundering convictions for non-drug related crimes. In fact, the article points out that just about any monetary transaction can be declared money laundering. (And get upheld in court!) And the reasons behind this? Long terms and lots of ready cash for the feds. "Property Seizure: It's not just for drug crimes anymore!" alano(a)teleport.com | "Those who are without history are doomed to retype it."

3 2

blue, blue, 'lectric blue
by cypherpunks＠Algebra.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Blue Lister's Nuked! Blue Lister's Nuked! First round's on Ian. Second round we puked! http://nethomes.com/lectric

1 0

Re: FCPUNX:My War
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:13 PM 6/8/97 -0700, se7en wrote: > [about child pornography on the internet] > It is disgustingly real. It is so real it will make you > want to throw up, and I actually, physically did throw up last night. > > Second, in reference to previous conversation over the years on this list, > and in the hacking community in general, I know this type of activity is > not tolerated by us. You are no hacker: You appear to be Rich Graves. Furthermore this activity is tolerated by us. And as usual you are discovering and publicising all sorts of good reasons why the government should supervise us, while piously declaring you are opposed to any such supervision. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1

privacy discussion on today's TOTN
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NPR's Talk of the Nation, today at 14:00 EDT, will discuss privacy issues. +------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Carl M. Ellison cme(a)cybercash.com http://www.clark.net/pub/cme | |CyberCash, Inc. http://www.cybercash.com/ | |207 Grindall Street PGP 2.6.2: 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 | |Baltimore MD 21230-4103 T:(410) 727-4288 F:(410)727-4293 | +------------------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

Doc Offerings
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We offer: A Federal Register notice today of an upcoming Technology Administration "Public Forum on Certificate Authorities and Digital Signatures": http://jya.com/ta060997.txt The recent Denver ruling of $350K damages against the IRS for disclosing confidential tax payer information: http://jya.com/wardvusa.htm (48K) NIST's latest package on the Key Recovery Demonstration Plan of a test run among 10 federal agencies, including a May 29 solicitation: http://jya.com/krdp.htm (37K) And, the quite instructive 1994 Department of Justice "Federal Guidelines for Searching and Seizing Computers": http://jya.com/doj-search.htm (376K)

1 0

MS Access 97 deprotection? (fwd)
by Igor Chudov ＠ home 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----- Forwarded message from Peter Trei ----- >From owner-cypherpunks(a)Algebra.COM Mon Jun 9 18:22:12 1997 Message-Id: <199706091524.LAA01532(a)www.video-collage.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is <trei@popserver> From: "Peter Trei" <trei(a)process.com> Organization: Process Software To: cypherpunks(a)Algebra.COM Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 11:36:50 -6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: MS Access 97 deprotection? Reply-to: trei(a)process.com CC: trei(a)process.com X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42) Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)algebra.com Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com X-List-Admin: ichudov(a)algebra.com X-Loop: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com An acquaintence of mine who runs a small consulting business here in Massachusetts called last night. He seems to be suffering from one of the classic aftereffects of a having 'disgruntled, about-to-be-ex-employee'; one of the database files on which his business relies has been encrypted within Microsoft Access 97, and he needs to recover the data. A quick look around at the obvious sites shows no generic de-protector, as there are for MS Word and many other systems. Anyone have any clue how he might get his data back? (I've already told him to consider the lawyer-based route). Send me mail - I'll pass it on to him. thanks, Peter Trei trei(a)process.com ----- End of forwarded message from Peter Trei -----

1 0

Re: Steak Knife Decryption (fwd)
by Igor Chudov ＠ home 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----- Forwarded message from Peter Trei ----- >From trei(a)process.com Mon Jun 9 18:21:21 1997 Message-Id: <199706091411.KAA26392(a)www.video-collage.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is <trei@popserver> From: "Peter Trei" <trei(a)process.com> Organization: Process Software To: ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home), cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net, mpd(a)netcom.com Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 10:20:41 -6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Steak Knife Decryption Reply-to: trei(a)process.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42) > Subject: Re: Steak Knife Decryption > To: mpd(a)netcom.com (Mike Duvos) > Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 00:44:15 -0500 (CDT) > Cc: cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net > From: ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) > Organization: Bool Sheet Software > Reply-to: ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) > Mike Duvos wrote: > > > I am not quite clear if rational people can get something out of > torturing other rational people. Maybe, I am confused and wrong > somewhere. > - Igor. Torture is a means of producing an irrational state in people's minds (at least temporarily), thus causing them to do things they would not rationally do (sign a prepared confession, reveal a secret, etc) If torture could not do this, it would not be used; verbal persuasion over tea and crumpets is *so* much more pleasant. Even people who might be able to face a more or less painless death with equanimity (in the pursuit of some greater cause) may break down as the bamboo splints are pushed under their fingernails. 'Rational torture victim' is an oxymoron. Peter Trei trei(a)process.com ----- End of forwarded message from Peter Trei -----

1 0

Thoughtcrime (Re: My War)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here are some of my responses on another list... --Declan ********** Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 17:46:47 -0400 To: "Vangelis" <vangelis(a)qnis.net> From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)pathfinder.com> Subject: How "child porn" laws ban pix of girls in leotards At 11:54 -0700 6/9/97, Vangelis wrote: >None of this out-of-control angry mob shit, alright? THINK. If it's too >hard a task to go after ONLY those genuinely responsible and you'd rather >go after their friends, family, co-workers, customers, or anyone else >you've rationalized as somehow indirectly encouraging the activity w/o >actually participating, then you've got no business playing vigilante - >you've become just another wreckless crusader *blinded* by his own >self-righteous outrage. Christianity, the Nazi Party, and Prohibition, and >McCarthyism (just to name a few) have already given us enough of those. This is well said. Read that paragraph again. The true enemy here is *NOT* the pervs trading child porn. It's the censorhappy wackos who want to censor others. The main reason folks seem to be in a lather about the "threat" of child porn is that it might ruin the Net for everyone. That is, it gives Congress an excuse to censor it and bring it under ever-tightening controls. But isn't it clear that the true enemy is the censor? Stamp out child porn and then Congress will use Nazi sites, or regular porn sites, or sites that collect personal information as an excuse and justification for censorship. That's why you should attack the censors (and the real child molestors), not those trading dirty JPEGs. Also, I see a lot of uninformed rants on this list about "we must uphold child porn laws." Few people seem to realize that the long-standing Federal child porn law outlawed *pictures of dancing girls wearing leotards*. I'm not making this up. No nudity. No breasts. Certainly no genitals. But the Supreme Court upheld the conviction in the Knox case. Now the law is even worse, since it criminalizes morphed images that *look* like kids in leotards, even if the models were 25-year old adults. Be cautious when praising such laws. -Declan ********** Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 17:10:42 -0400 To: Tepes <tepes(a)reincarnate.com> From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)pathfinder.com> Subject: Re: My War At 06:59 -0400 6/9/97, Tepes wrote: >Yeah, a friend of mine accidentally came across kiddie-porn a few months >ago. She e-mailed all the headers, etc. to Customs' Child Porn dept. and >they e-mailed her back saying that they really can't do anything about it. >What the hell do they have a Child Porn task force if they can't do >anything about it! Perhaps because Customs has nothing to do with enforcement of domestic laws? I hope you're not proposing expanding the police powers of the Feds. I mean, your friend is doing the equivalent of asking the National Park Service why she isn't getting her welfare checks on time. >What is also equally sick is rape porn. Excuse me, but what is "rape porn?" What, a picture of two people having sex that's titled "rape?" Not quite. Just like those pictures of a 40 year old guy and a 20 year old girl having "incest sex," it's a fantasy. Free speech. Don't sweat it. Let others enjoy their fantasies. -Declan

2 1

hidden.net temporarily down
by Patrick May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The magic smoke escaped from the machine running remailer(a)hidden.net. It is being moved to a new machine forthwith. Expect a couple days downtime while the IP address change propogates. remailer-admin(a)hidden.net

1 0

Call 4 Participation
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Authentication-Warning: blacklodge.c2.net: majordom set sender to owner-spki(a)c2.org using -f Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:29:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Yahya Al-Salqan <Yahya.Abual-Salqan(a)corp.sun.com> Reply-To: Yahya Al-Salqan <Yahya.Abual-Salqan(a)corp.sun.com> Subject: Call 4 Participation To: ssl-talk(a)netscape.com, spki(a)c2.net Cc: SECURITY-TF(a)ILLILOUETTE.Sun.COM, Yahya.Abual-Salqan(a)corp.sun.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-spki(a)c2.net Precedence: bulk The second IEEE International Workshop on Enterprise Security will take place next week (June 18-21) at the MIT. The workshop will host a Panel discussion on the "Future of the Internet Security at the IETF." The Panelist are: 1) Carl Ellison, CyberCash, SPKI author at the IETF 2) Don Eastlake, CyberCash, Secure DNS author at the IETF 3) Perry Mitzger, Co-chair of SPKI and SecSH at the IETF 4) Tatu Ylonen, author SSH at IETF 5) Steve Lloyd, Entrust 6) Tom Polk, NIST, editor of PKIX at teh IETF You are invited to take advantage of this opportunity to learn about the future of Internet security. Visit http://www.cerc.wvu.edy/SECWK/ for more information on the presentations and discussion groups. I look forward to meeting some of you at the Workshop, Best Regards, --Yahya Al-Salqan, PhD Sun Microsystems Enterprise Security General Chair --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

1 0

Response to "My War"
by se7en 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have been away for most of the day, and came home to see I hit a sensitive spot in one way or another with many people. I tried to respond to many people who sent me private messages, but for some strange ass reason all of my mail is bouncing as "host unknown." I am quite sure aol.com exists. So I am going to try and respond to much of it here. In my long rant, I realized the message was getting too long, and paraphrased some of my larger thoughts. I figured everyone would know what I was trying to get at, but I was wrong. To clarify a few points, before I get to the debate: I was not advocating the destruction of servers that are used by large numbers of people. I was thinking of the terminology used by the people trading...fserv/ftp servers, many of which are virtual to their desktops which can be shut on and off at will by them as desired. My reference to destruction of servers fit this definition. I don't want to affect large numbers of innocent users to get the few scumbags out there. That is not acceptable. Precision strikes yes, not mass strikes for the "greater good." That is asinine. Nor was I attempting, as some did point out, to be some sort of "ring leader" in this crusade. I do not plan to organize some large anti-kiddie porn team. I plan on spending a few hours a week, on my own, identifying active participants in this activity. I plan on gathering logs of various types of activity to justify my actions. I plan on taking action which will affect only these individuals. I will make public postings on my own accord to various places on the Internet (dc-stuff WILL NOT be one of these places). These are things I am doing on my own. If others would like to join the effort, I would ask they do the same thing. Spend a few hours a week in their world to identify the traders and do what you do best to either wreck them or make things a serious hassle for them to continue. I do not want a personal strike team to organize and manage. As far as freedom of speech goes, sorry guys, it does not cover activities which violate the rights of others. Someone does not have the right to fuck a four-year-old girl in the ass, take pictures of it, and then scan it and upload it to the Internet. No one has the right to force a six year old girl to suck his dick until cum is running down her face, take pictures of the whole thing, and, once again, upload it to the Internet. This is not covered. Go back to school if you think it is. Anyone who thinks this doesn't affect the young children, you are wrong. I doubt these children consented to the sexual activity. I doubt they consented to being photographed. I doubt they consented to the pictures being distributed to others. I am sure this affects the emotional/psychological state of the child victim in many ways beyond what most of us can understand. I think we can all agree that is creates a less-than-optimal psychological state in the children. I know my actions are themselves illegal. I am not going to try to morally justify it with comments such as "It's for the greater good," or "What they are doing is more illegal than hacking." I know my actions against these people are illegal, and many for good reason. It is destruction of property. I am honest enough to admit I will be breaking laws. At least I don't try to rationalize it behind some strange, twisted sense of logic. I am not here to force my morals on anyone. If you agree with me, fine. If you have the ability to do something about it, fine. If you disagree, fine. I have had some disagreements against my email/plan/whatever. I have read evry single one of them. I do not hate those who disagree with me. I see the logic in their arguments. I actually encourage it, as it helps me to define what I plan to do better. Everyone has the right to say what they want, whether they agree or not. That includes me, that includes you. This, of course, as long as it doesn't violate the more fundamental rights of others. Agree with me? Yes. Disagree with me? Yes. Distribute child porn. No! On an interesting note, in instances where I have talked one-on-one with law enforcement agencies in the past, I have thrown several hypothetical cases their way to judge their reaction: (A small glimpse of my Defcon speech) ME: "If I entered a system without authorization and poked around a left, would you arrest me?" THEM: "No. We don't have the time or resources for that. We aren't interested in the people who look around without causing damage despite what everyone thinks." ME: "If I entered a system without authorization and destroyed it, would you arrest me." THEM: "Most definitely." ME: "If I was at Defcon and entered a system without authorization that was dedicated to the distribution of child pornography and destroyed it, and you were looking over my shoulder the whole time and saw what I did, would you arrest me?" THEM" "I would turn around and walk away." se7en

3 2

Re: Thoughtcrime (Re: My War)
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I really don't think that se7en just wants to censor the kiddie porn sites; I think he is on a personal vendetta (like McVeigh). He didn't call for anyone to support legislation and propose new, tough laws, but called for hackers to go after this particular target. On the net anyone is prey, remember; kiddie porn dealers not exempted. It's moot to discuss whether eliminating a few thousand digital images will make any difference on the availability/market desireability of these pictures (I expect these are all backed up somewhere, anyway, so destroying them probably wouldn't actually make much difference, but just anger the owners.) How many photos of real children arranged into sexual poses or imposed upon to perform sexual acts does it take to satisfy an addict? How many photos which are not duplicates do these people actually possess, and how many more do they seek to obtain? Is it the number of them, or the thrill of the "new"? That a certain number of these photos are in circulation may not be so important as the fact that they are "new" (to the person looking to get them). This means that having free circulation of large numbers of images may be beside the point (I am speculating and calculating based on almost total ignorance of the psychology of this type of individual). If these pedophiles just want to fantasize, I would offer they could get a package of Macromedia Freehand or Director and Photoshop and create their own. But that probably wouldn't be satisfactory to them. I expect there is something in the qualities and character of real children which draw them. But I digress. The subject was hacking at your own chosen target. Some people hack children's innocence; some people hack the hackers. Que sera' sera'. .. Blanc

1 0

Re: FCPUNX:Response to 'My War'
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

James A Donald writes: > fAt 10:07 PM 6/9/97 -0700, se7en wrote: > > Anyone who thinks this doesn't affect the young children, you are wrong. > > I doubt these children consented to the sexual activity. I doubt they > > consented to being photographed. I doubt they consented to the pictures > > being distributed to others. > > Most of these children are adults now. A great many of them are > grandmothers. Yet I see no prosecutions for the distribution of > images by the supposed victims. [...] > Produce a victim and you will find it a lot easier to prosecute. See http://www.net.be/connerotte/english-text.html for the timeline of last year's child sex & porn scandal in Belgium. Some of the victims there will never bring suit: they are dead. Peter Trei trei(a)process.com

2 1

A Design for Life
by Shift Control 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This week the award-winning Shift Control presents... The Design Issue David Carson, former surfing pro turned international advertising consultant, is one of the most influential and instantly recognisable graphic designers of his generation. Edo van Duyn talks to him in a Shift Control exclusive. The Royal College of Art's Industrial Design Engineering course has over the years moulded some of Britain's greatest creative talents - including the inventor of the Dual Cyclone vacuum, James Dyson. Shift Control talks to some of this year's graduates to discover the gadgets and gizmos of tomorrow. And Andrew Byrom presents a guide to contemporary typography - the ubiquitous, ephemeral and disposable art form that's defining design in the Nineties. Also this week, Shift Control launches the Design Gallery - a brand new section featuring the some of the best examples of British art and design. Plus: Shift Control announces the creation of the world's first bionic bee, and you have another chance to win £200 in our short story competition. All this plus the usual selection of rants, reckoners, reviews and revelations, waiting for you NOW at www.shiftcontrol.com _____________________________________________ Shift Control is produced by the Guardian's New Media Lab with help from Boddingtons and Stella Artois Dry To unsubscribe from this mailing list send e-mail to shiftcontrol-request(a)nml.guardian.co.uk with the following text in the body of the mail message: unsubscribe

1 0

Re: Thoughtcrime (Re: My War)
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh wrote: > Subject: How "child porn" laws ban pix of girls in leotards > > At 11:54 -0700 6/9/97, Vangelis wrote: > >None of this out-of-control angry mob shit, alright? THINK. If it's too > >hard a task to go after ONLY those genuinely responsible and you'd rather > >go after their friends, family, co-workers, customers, or anyone else > >you've rationalized as somehow indirectly encouraging the activity w/o > >actually participating, then you've got no business playing vigilante - > >you've become just another wreckless crusader *blinded* by his own > >self-righteous outrage. Christianity, the Nazi Party, and Prohibition, and > >McCarthyism (just to name a few) have already given us enough of those. It seems logical to deduce that a child pornographer would want to cover up their activity by loud protestations about child porno on the internet. The obvious solution to child pornography on the internet is to attack those who most loudly protest against it. > The main reason folks seem to be in a lather about the "threat" of child > porn is that it might ruin the Net for everyone. That is, it gives Congress > an excuse to censor it and bring it under ever-tightening controls. Perhaps the answer, as with alcohol and gambling, is to put child pornography under government regulatory control. Find a way to tax it. Then only those who were not decent, law-abiding child pornographers would have to fear imprisonment. > Also, I see a lot of uninformed rants on this list about "we must uphold > child porn laws." Few people seem to realize that the long-standing Federal > child porn law outlawed *pictures of dancing girls wearing leotards*. I'm > not making this up. No nudity. No breasts. Certainly no genitals. But the > Supreme Court upheld the conviction in the Knox case. Now the law is even > worse, since it criminalizes morphed images that *look* like kids in > leotards, even if the models were 25-year old adults. And William Geiger could be criminalized by the fact that his bad speling and the gramma make his posts *look* like crypto. TruthMonger

1 0

Re: Thoughtcrime (Re: My War)
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Comrade Declan: Thank you for labeling se7en's thoughtcrime as such and blocking his subversive and enturbulating assertions from the fight-censorship mailing list. The counterrevolutionary sedition that there is such a thing as kiddie porn on the Holy Internet shall be suppressed forthwith. Verily, traitor to the Holy Cause se7en is naught but an NSA Shill, who belongs in the Pit of Despair with the other thought criminals. Operation Free Speech II is proceeding according to the Five-Year Plan. - -rich http://www.stanford.edu/~llurch/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEPAwUBM50l2kFGBFr0lf2RAQGRsgfLB6Fqg6Cefsr5u0zI9DIE2JD1I3fB6q0l c+JEgnbpqpVWH9kqzY/tQxP78dh/pUUOIGzNuohIoad8f70BSp6PJUoQbaVrV5+p K3SsTDxTIwZ77ubJSkPtean1RJRY8Nerv42CGrkSWo/HsdHBE6GH0pmDzBDgCAoS BIXJvg4FM44wGAX+uWfiKd9JK/F3m9a/6m4sUOhmZEBIXF8GYa1TQQBlDOuuNqsM dfYNQnu74TyhQM4qHEC9fqr+t4yC2bnemcVWVk8ddkM/vNMqrGfbyimLV7vsl30s 31aDJ5VoWVrcxV2qLCDxAJPTlxHeGtFRWCfmswRZ/U1eMw== =M9iS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Thoughtcrime [Lisa Bonet Ramsey]
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > > Precisely. The laws are designed to go after the thoughts. Synthetic > images, images of little girls in leotards. images of teenagers of legal > age *in the countries of origin*...none of these involve acts of sexual > congress with a child in violation of the laws of the U.S. The only crime > is thoughtcrime. I couldn't help but notice from the TV reports that Lisa Bonet Ramsey was a pretty hot little number. Has Peter Jennings been arrested yet for his part in the national media helping to spread child pornography? Kookie Roberts? What if I send the FBI a picture of myself pulling my pud while watching young Lisa strutting her stuff on the ten o'clock news? Will the newscasters be imprisoned for conspiracy in my thought crime? > As for whether it is "sick" to be sexually attracted to an "underage" > person, I sure do recall being attracted to a lot of the girls in high > school, and they were certainly nearly all "underaged." Mother Nature was undoubtably a co-conspirator in your criminal thoughts. If you had been charged you probably could have eased your sentence by ratting her out. A. Perv

1 0

~ ~ SAVE YOUR LIFE - PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY !!!
by crime＠tarsey.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~ ~ SAVE YOUR LIFE - PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY !!! *** 15 ANTI-CRIME REPORTS - You Should Know About ! Special Offer - Order All 15 Reports and you will also receive REPRINT RIGHTS... Yes - Reprint Rights $$$ !!! Dear Friend, Crime affects you, me, everyone - Young or Old - Rich or Poor. Crime is a problem for the entire community, not problems for the police alone. The police are charged to prevent and suppress crime and to solve crime once it occurs to the utmost of their ability. However, they are realistically aware that they can neither prevent all crime from occurring nor solve every crime that does occur. To attain the greatest possible degree of safety you, me and every other law abiding citizen needs to become aware of how the criminals traditionally do their "Dastardly" deeds and how you can "Minimize The Risk" of crime affecting you. Knowledge is power and the 15 reports below will give you the POWER YOU NEED to minimize crime that could someday affect YOU or a LOVED ONE! Please seriously consider purchasing the below reports. The price is so low that you really cannot afford not to be armed with the knowledge you will receive by reading and re-reading these reports! Report #1 - How To Protect Your Home From Intruders. Report #2 - How To Protect Yourself On City Streets. Report #3 - How To Protect Your Valuables From Theft. Report #4 - How To Protect Yourself When Traveling. Report #5 - How To Guard Against Purse Snatchers. Report #6 - How To Protect Yourself From Armed Robbery. Report #7 - How To Protect Your From Pickpockets. Report #8 - How To Safeguard Against Rape. Report #9 - How Shoplifting Affects You and Your Family. Report #10 - How To Protect Your Cars, Bicycles and Motorcycles. Report #11 - How To Protect Your Home While Away. Report #12 - How To Burglar-Proof Your Doors. Report #13 - How To Burglar-Proof Your Windows. Report #14 - How To Select a Burglar Alarm. Report #15 - How To Reduce Crime In Your Neighborhood. SPECIAL OFFER - Order All 15 Reports and you will also receive Reprint Rights. Reprint Rights, gives you the right (granted by us) to reproduce any and all of these reports. With Reprint Rights, you can photo copy and distribute these reports to your family, friends, co-workers, teachers, etc. When distributing these reports you may give them away for FREE or you may charge for them. Collect any amount of money you wish. It's your money and yours to keep! We will never ask for any of it !!! Two Ways You May Order The Above Reports: 1. You may order ALL 15 REPORTS with Unlimited Reproduction Rights for a total cost of only $12.00. 2. You may purchase reports individually for $4.00 each. Now IS THE TIME for you to "Minimize The Risk" of crime affecting YOU or a LOVED ONE! Money Back Guarantee: If unsatisfied for any reason, you get your money back, period! Upon receiving your order, the Anti-Crime reports will promptly be emailed to you. TO ORDER: Follow the instructions below: You may pay by Check, Money Order, Cash, Visa or Mastercard. FAX the form below to 1-405-330-5379 or MAIL this form to: Douglas C. Parcells 3126 S. Boulevard Suite 147 Edmond, OK 73013 USA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O R D E R F O R M -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PLEASE PRINT ALL INFORMATION LEGIBLY TO SPEED UP YOUR ORDER (1.) [ ] Visa [ ] Mastercard [ ] Check [ ] Money Order [ ] Cash (2.) Credit Card Number: (put one number on each line) CC# __ __ __ __ - __ __ __ __ - __ __ __ __ - __ __ __ __ (3.) Expiration Date: [ __ __ / __ __ ] Month/Year (anti-crime) Email Address:__________________ Name:_____________________________ Address:_____________________________ City__________ ST_____ Zip_______ Ph.# w/ areacode:__________________ Signature (Required)_____________ *** You may purchase ALL 15 REPORTS with unlimited reproduction rights for a total cost of only $12.00. *** You may purchase reports individually for $4.00 each. [ ] Check here if ordering ALL 15 reports for the $12.00 Special. [ ] Check here if ordering reports individually and list by # below. #__________ #__________ #_________ #_________ #_________ FAX the above form to 1-405-330-5379 or MAIL this form to: Douglas C. Parcells 3126 S. Boulevard Suite 147 Edmond, OK 73013 USA *** Pay all orders in U.S. FUNDS or outside the U.S. send the currency equivalent. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Be sure to INCLUDE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS so we may fill your order A.S.A.P. !!! Best of Luck... we'll visit again. Kindest Personal Regards, Douglas C. Parcells Report Fulfillment Coordinator P.S. Now IS THE TIME for you to "Minimize The Risk" of crime affecting YOU or a LOVED ONE! The best way to minimize the risk of crime affecting you is by taking sensible precautions 02

1 0

~ ~ SAVE YOUR LIFE - PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY !!!
by crime＠tarsey.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~ ~ SAVE YOUR LIFE - PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY !!! *** 15 ANTI-CRIME REPORTS - You Should Know About ! Special Offer - Order All 15 Reports and you will also receive REPRINT RIGHTS... Yes - Reprint Rights $$$ !!! Dear Friend, Crime affects you, me, everyone - Young or Old - Rich or Poor. Crime is a problem for the entire community, not problems for the police alone. The police are charged to prevent and suppress crime and to solve crime once it occurs to the utmost of their ability. However, they are realistically aware that they can neither prevent all crime from occurring nor solve every crime that does occur. To attain the greatest possible degree of safety you, me and every other law abiding citizen needs to become aware of how the criminals traditionally do their "Dastardly" deeds and how you can "Minimize The Risk" of crime affecting you. Knowledge is power and the 15 reports below will give you the POWER YOU NEED to minimize crime that could someday affect YOU or a LOVED ONE! Please seriously consider purchasing the below reports. The price is so low that you really cannot afford not to be armed with the knowledge you will receive by reading and re-reading these reports! Report #1 - How To Protect Your Home From Intruders. Report #2 - How To Protect Yourself On City Streets. Report #3 - How To Protect Your Valuables From Theft. Report #4 - How To Protect Yourself When Traveling. Report #5 - How To Guard Against Purse Snatchers. Report #6 - How To Protect Yourself From Armed Robbery. Report #7 - How To Protect Your From Pickpockets. Report #8 - How To Safeguard Against Rape. Report #9 - How Shoplifting Affects You and Your Family. Report #10 - How To Protect Your Cars, Bicycles and Motorcycles. Report #11 - How To Protect Your Home While Away. Report #12 - How To Burglar-Proof Your Doors. Report #13 - How To Burglar-Proof Your Windows. Report #14 - How To Select a Burglar Alarm. Report #15 - How To Reduce Crime In Your Neighborhood. SPECIAL OFFER - Order All 15 Reports and you will also receive Reprint Rights. Reprint Rights, gives you the right (granted by us) to reproduce any and all of these reports. With Reprint Rights, you can photo copy and distribute these reports to your family, friends, co-workers, teachers, etc. When distributing these reports you may give them away for FREE or you may charge for them. Collect any amount of money you wish. It's your money and yours to keep! We will never ask for any of it !!! Two Ways You May Order The Above Reports: 1. You may order ALL 15 REPORTS with Unlimited Reproduction Rights for a total cost of only $12.00. 2. You may purchase reports individually for $4.00 each. Now IS THE TIME for you to "Minimize The Risk" of crime affecting YOU or a LOVED ONE! Money Back Guarantee: If unsatisfied for any reason, you get your money back, period! Upon receiving your order, the Anti-Crime reports will promptly be emailed to you. TO ORDER: Follow the instructions below: You may pay by Check, Money Order, Cash, Visa or Mastercard. FAX the form below to 1-405-330-5379 or MAIL this form to: Douglas C. Parcells 3126 S. Boulevard Suite 147 Edmond, OK 73013 USA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O R D E R F O R M -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PLEASE PRINT ALL INFORMATION LEGIBLY TO SPEED UP YOUR ORDER (1.) [ ] Visa [ ] Mastercard [ ] Check [ ] Money Order [ ] Cash (2.) Credit Card Number: (put one number on each line) CC# __ __ __ __ - __ __ __ __ - __ __ __ __ - __ __ __ __ (3.) Expiration Date: [ __ __ / __ __ ] Month/Year (anti-crime) Email Address:__________________ Name:_____________________________ Address:_____________________________ City__________ ST_____ Zip_______ Ph.# w/ areacode:__________________ Signature (Required)_____________ *** You may purchase ALL 15 REPORTS with unlimited reproduction rights for a total cost of only $12.00. *** You may purchase reports individually for $4.00 each. [ ] Check here if ordering ALL 15 reports for the $12.00 Special. [ ] Check here if ordering reports individually and list by # below. #__________ #__________ #_________ #_________ #_________ FAX the above form to 1-405-330-5379 or MAIL this form to: Douglas C. Parcells 3126 S. Boulevard Suite 147 Edmond, OK 73013 USA *** Pay all orders in U.S. FUNDS or outside the U.S. send the currency equivalent. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Be sure to INCLUDE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS so we may fill your order A.S.A.P. !!! Best of Luck... we'll visit again. Kindest Personal Regards, Douglas C. Parcells Report Fulfillment Coordinator P.S. Now IS THE TIME for you to "Minimize The Risk" of crime affecting YOU or a LOVED ONE! The best way to minimize the risk of crime affecting you is by taking sensible precautions 02

1 0

SPECIAL ISSUE Surveillance List Forum Vol 2 Issue#133 June 10,1997 (fwd)
by Ray Arachelian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vewy vewy intwestwing stuff.... (forwarded from the security list.) Note the "major threat to LEA's" in particular... =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian | "Boy meets beer. Boy drinks Beer, |./|\. ..\|/..|sunder(a)sundernet.com| Boy gets another beer!" |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ | |\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, | For with those which eternal lie, with |.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| strange aeons, even death may die. |..... ======================== http://www.sundernet.com ========================= ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 10:16:51 -0400 From: SpyKing <SpyKing(a)thecodex.com> Subject: SPECIAL ISSUE Surveillance List Forum Vol 2 Issue#133 June 10,1997 ****************************************************************************** Vol.Two Issue #133 The Surveillance List June 10,1997 Over 2100+ Members Worldwide Representing 46 different countries List Chat at: http://www.thecodex.com/chat.html ***SPECIAL ISSUE*** ****************************************************************************** IN THIS ISSUE... ****************************************************************************** 01) Important Issue Concerning ALL in the Surveillance Business... ****************************************************************************** DON'T BE A LURKER.... GET INVOLVED... YOU ARE A MEMBER... MAKE THE MOST OF IT ****************************************************************************** 1)From: SpyKing(a)thecodex.com Subject: Important Issue Concerning ALL in the Surveillance Business... I received this post from Gilbert Walz and thought it of immense importance to the list. He's asked me to post and I am complying... Read this carefully as it could affect all... If you agree that something needs to be done I urge you to contact you congressman and let them know about this situation... >>>> From: GilbertWa(a)aol.com Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 01:56:48 -0400 (EDT) To: SpyKing(a)thecodex.com Subject: US CUSTOMS BUST Greetings, My partner Jude Daggett was recently arrested by US Customs in a sting set up by Bill Fischer of E.C.I. Calgary Canada,for allegedly selling a chip that enabled a panasonic cell phone to receive 800-900 mhz.Mr. Fischer was apparently set up as well by Cellular Tecnology , a company that sell's the CT-1000 a Hand Held cell test piece. There is much more to the story,including an upcoming trial in San Jose Ca, for violations of section 2512, I am the defendant in this case. If you are interested in more detail please page me@ 415-979-7353. Regards, Gilbert Walz <<<< From: GilbertWa(a)aol.com Subject: Section 2512 FYI MAJOR THREAT TO STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITIES State and local law enforcement bodies have begun to find it difficult to procure the latest in Title III equipment, i.e. equipment "...primarily useful for the surreptitious interception of ... communication". Unless action is taken at the highest levels of the federal government, there is no question that serious harm will be done to the abilities of state and local law enforcement to properly perform technical surveillance. This is an extremely serious matter, and I urge you to take the time to study this information. Law enforcement's ability to properly perform its duties faces a serious and a real threat, and correcting the situation will not be easy, but it is something that MUST be done. We're in this sorry state for two real reasons and one possible reason, viz: Real Reason #1. The federal law that deals with monitoring that which has been transmitted by radio is irrational, poorly written, unthinkably stupid, incomplete, technically impossible to enforce, vague where it should be specific, specific where it covers unenforceable prohibitions, and primarily of value to vendors of cordless and cellular telephones (because they can lie to their potential customers telling them: "nobody can listen to you; it's against the law). Real Reason #2. Some federal government entities have chosen to reinterpret elements of a law enacted almost thirty years ago (and amended many times since then). Possible Reason. There is great suspicion that some privileged companies are steering some of the federal government's minions toward small companies in order to remove possible competition from the marketplace -- in other words it is possible that the law is being selectively enforced for the benefit of some firms. Professionals who know their way around in this arena are aware of some targeting that had been orchestrated by entities that, although they deal in a big way with Title III equipment, have remained unaffected by the federal government elements that have suddenly developed real zeal to punish those who they say sell Title III equipment. Background. During the past TWENTY-NINE YEARS (since passage of Public Law 90-351, "The Safe Streets Act of 1968"), law enforcement at all levels in this country has benefited because of a reasonable interpretation of the elements of that law. That has now all changed. To allow you to understand the situation we must first cover the specifics of the law, and the way it has been interpreted over the years. First, the prohibitions. The law proscribes the use, possession and even advertising of equipment "knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the surreptitious interception of ... communication". Obviously there are categories of people who are exempted from these prohibitions - such as the very law enforcement people who would use it in investigations. However, one of those exemptions is now being reinterpreted. I refer specifically to the interpretation of the exception relating to "...an officer, agent, or employee of, or a person under contract with, the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof..." For almost thirty years that phrase has been interpreted that honest businessmen (manufacturers or dealers) who sold Title III equipment only to law enforcement agencies were "agents under contract to...". Small business entrepreneurs and their dealers have, since passage of the PL 90-351, operated under the belief that, if their customers were federal, state or local law enforcement organizations, they were operating legally when they designed, built and sold such equipment (or marketed it as agents of the builder). Never having had any notice by any government body that a specific item could be considered "Title III", sellers felt no compunction to refrain from advertising and no concern about selling to non-law enforcement (except for obvious Title III items such as body wires). This dogma has been reinforced and solidified by almost thirty years of practice. Before covering the 1996/7 reinterpretation of this law, let's review some recent events. Enforcement History. In 1991 or 1992 several businesses received a certified letter from the FCC that began "It has come to our attention that you are marketing..." and went on to accuse all of us of various felonies. My written request to be told the specific product and the specific accuser is to this day still unanswered. However, one man, whose letter was ignored and whose FOIA inquiry was ignored, finally inquired through his congressman. He was then informed that his FOIA action was sent to the wrong address (!), and that the FCC accusations were based on "anonymous telephone tips". Yeah, Right. (Those of us who are knowledgeable of the players have a good idea of how those "anonymous" tips were received; we remember seeing the guy who was siccing his FCC toady on various exhibitors at more than one trade show. Ah well.) Then about two years ago a bunch of stores with "spy" in their names were raided by the Customs Department for importing and selling forbidden radio transmitting equipment. (Personal comment: Good riddance; they were mostly rip-off artists preying on people who wanted to spy on others.) However, the serious reinterpretation that is tying up resources started last year. In 1996 and 1997 there has been a lot of activity based on 1) lawyers pretending to be all-knowing technical experts and 2) a reinterpretation of the exception clause quoted above. Current Status. To the best of my knowledge, the first activity in this "reinterpreting" arena was the indictment of Gilbert Walz and Jude Daggett by US Attorney Michael J. Yamaguchi in the US District Court of Northern California. The indictment accuses them of selling devices "whose [sic] design renders them primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral and electronic communications". (The paper I have in front of me is called "SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT" and is dated May 2, 1996.) There is no reference in this indictment - or in any of the other government papers I have - to the expert on whose opinion these indictments are based. Therefore, I have the terrible suspicion that Michael J. Yamaguchi took it upon himself to make the kind of determination that can only be made by a technical expert with education and experience in the field. Both Walz and Daggett have been "out on bail" until the very recent past. Then, within the past few months, it appears that various players in this arena have been pressured to "set up" those gentlemen. Walz took a telephone order for a piece of equipment, ordered it shipped from Canada, and was arrested when it arrived in the hands of the man who ordered it. He never saw it, never touched it, never got paid one cent, but was arrested and jailed for about one month before bail was set at one hundred thousand dollars. (By the way the man who ordered the equipment and who received it, is still free as a bird.) Daggett also was arrested (after also apparently being set up) and jailed, but released after a week or two on personal recognizance. I think it is important to note that these men have been selling these items for years, and had asked one government official after another if there was any question as to their legality. The only answers they received were non-committal. Deleterious Results from These Actions. These (and possibly other) actions by various entities at the federal level have caused the "unarrested" members of this community to pull in their horns. They will no longer even admit to possessing equipment that might be capriciously classified as Title III. The net result, unless some sensible order is created from this miasmic mess, will be a set back for state and local LE bodies of five to ten years in procurement of Title III equipment. I say that because some of the federal people involved have stated that "only people under contract to the federal government" are covered by the exception noted above. Even if that is softened to the state and local governments as specified in the law, any law enforcement agency that needs Title III equipment will have to totally technically specify its needs in a request for proposal, distribute the RFP to a list (Where does it come from?) of competent firms, take proposals, evaluate proposals, award contracts, evaluate products delivered; and finally, years after the need was recognized, receive the product. MY PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT Last month, while Jude Daggett was locked up in jail, his partner Gilbert Walz called and asked for my help in getting him out. Jude called also, and I agreed to do what I could. The letter I sent to Jude's lawyer follows. Dear *******, I am writing this on behalf of Jude Daggett, an honest man and a good friend of more than ten years. However, the opinions I express are not generated by that friendship; they are based on my education and experience and are totally consistent with my stated positions, writings and testimony over the years. Let me introduce myself and briefly list my qualifications to comment on this case and the law under which it was brought. I am an electrical engineer with almost fifty years of professional experience in communications and electronics. (A short resume follows.) I have been called as an expert witness in federal and state courts in civil and criminal cases relating to electronic communication, eavesdropping, etc. The Office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress contracted with me to study and report on the vulnerability of our telephone system to secret monitoring. I believe I am the only engineer ever to provide an expert opinion in federal court on the meaning of "...knowing or having reason to know the design of which renders it primarily useful for the surreptitious interception of ... communications" as it relates to a specific item of electronic equipment. The law that applies originated as the Safe Streets Act of 1968, PL 90-351. The specifics relating to "primarily useful for" were printed under the heading "Title III" in that law, and that equipment has come to be known as Title III equipment by those in this field. 90-351 and its later versions were attempts to codify questions relating to monitoring the communications of others, but all are flawed in many, many ways - primarily due to the influence of lobbyists for the cellular telephone industry and cordless telephone manufacturers. They wanted to be able to tell their customers "No one can listen; it's against the law." In truth, despite any laws that can be written, that which has been transmitted by radio, can and will, be listened to. That is as immutable as water running down hill. Common, ordinary and essential electronic parts and systems, useful for many other purposes, can be used to monitor radio transmissions; and no series of laws or regulations can change that verity. There will always be people who will listen, regardless of any laws on the books or lies told to potential customers. People who choose to broadcast their thoughts by radio should not be lied to; they should be cautioned that every word can be heard by others. In fact, the United States Supreme Court, in an eminently fair and reasonable ruling, said that the man who had been imprisoned based on material his neighbors heard him say over his cordless phone had "no reasonable expectation of privacy". The court ruled that no one invaded his privacy, but, rather, that the signal received by his neighbors' cordless phone had been transmitted by his deliberate act, and the content of his messages was in no way privileged. Radio transmissions are radio transmissions, and although cellular transmissions are on different frequencies and handled differently than cordless, they are still transmissions that can be received by anyone. I'll opine that, when the law regarding cellular is tested at the supreme court level, the ruling on the validity of the law will be the same as it was in the cordless phone case. So, I present the idea above as something that could be called a "global defense" of Mr. Daggett and anyone else caught in the net that has recently been cast. However, let's consider the specifics of Mr. Daggett's case. With regard to the specific case at hand I believe the most important consideration is the legislative history of the federal law in question. Although I do not have a copy in front of me as I write this, the essence of the legislative history that applies is: "...Because this is such a specialized field, it's obvious that the services of an expert will be required in considering whether the design of a device renders it primarily useful for surreptitious interception of communication." I have read the documentation on this case, and I am appalled at the fact that technical laymen with no education or experience in this specialized field have bluntly stated as a fact that the devices under consideration are primarily useful for surreptitious interception of communication. In my opinion such statements are a travesty. As a man with an education and a lifetime of experience in the field, if I were asked that question, my answer would be that I would have to: have possession of each device for some time so I could operate it and compare it with other, technical equipment with similar capabilities, evaluate the cost vs. benefit of each possible equipment for the many possible uses, (to explain, let's consider the monitoring equipment that could be used on fax transmissions: There is a two-channel fax monitoring system from Denmark that costs $60,000 and has the capability of recognizing the formats used by all fax manufacturers. Also, it is possible to use a $30 tape recorder and $150 fax machine to reproduce faxes transmitted by a machine of the same make. With no other information to influence my opinion, I would conclude that the person trying to collect information illegally on someone else would opt for the inexpensive approach; and that the company that needs to monitor communication between the headquarters and divisions located in countries all over the world would use the expensive system so as to be sure it can decipher all messages from all machines.) discuss uses with others who have had experience with the equipment for various functions; and finally, spend time to allow my brain to reach a logical conclusion. >From my point of view it is unconscionable to have a man jailed based on the unsupported technical conclusions of laymen - laymen with no education or experience in even basic design of electronic communication equipment much less the kind of specialized electronic communication equipment referred to in this case. Based on what I have learned about this case, I believe this was a setup, designed to result in the arrest of Mr. Daggett. There was absolutely no intent or effort on his part to violate any law; in fact, material I have in hand indicates that he and his partner had frequently asked law enforcement people and even a US Attorney to tell them if any of their equipment fell into the Title III category (primarily useful for...), and were always answered ambiguously. Mr. Daggett was the target, and men who were being pressured to do so by law enforcement authorities arranged to meet him in a place that had been prewired so as to videotape the whole activity while they pressured him into assembling the equipment and turning it on - while not a word was spoken about any illegal use of the equipment. Perfectly legal equipment can be used illegally. An ordinary hammer can be used to kill someone, but that doesn't mean it is primarily useful for killing a person. The bayonet I was issued in WWII, on the other hand, is designed for just that purpose and no other. In this case, serious consideration should be given to the "primarily useful for" clause. Is someone interested in illegally eavesdropping on cellular conversations going to buy a $100 scanner or an instrument designed to fight cellular toll fraud that costs thousands of dollars? I have no idea whether the following thoughts are material, but I present them because, as a legal layman, I regularly wonder about the uneven application of some criminal laws. For instance, while Jude Daggett is in jail for possibly having sold a Title III piece of equipment: the Martins (who said they had monitored and recorded Newt's conference call that Rep Boehner was on with his cellular) were fined $500 each for the deliberate illegal recording and distribution of a cellular phone conversation. Where's the justice? Westinghouse (and a raft of other companies) advertise Title III equipment regularly and continuously. In that such advertising is also proscribed by 18 USC 2512, I wonder how they get away with it. Does our federal law enforcement shy away from the bigger companies because they have bigger budgets to defend themselves with? Where's the justice? Finally, let me go back to my original comments about this law. It is so ambiguous as to be farcical. Examples: It uses the word "intercept" incorrectly so it has to contain a special definition of it. It refers to "audio subcarrier" a complete nonsensical combination of words - audio is sound, a longitudinal wave and subcarrier must be RF, a transverse wave. It could even be interpreted in some circumstances to mean it is a federal crime to "intentionally" listen to Muzak while on an elevator or on hold on the telephone. POST SCRIPT Additional Considerations. Since writing the letter above, I have continued thinking about that silly law. Sure, the legislators will tell you they passed it to protect our privacy. That's hogwash. If they were honest, they would have listened to Bob Grove when he was invited to testify. Instead they pilloried him, accusing him of all kinds of nasty things. Had they listened to him, or to anyone with education and experience in this field, they would have heard that the law is unenforceable. That which has been broadcast by radio will be monitored by parties other than the intended receiver. Unless encryption or some modern modulation techniques are used, every broadcast can be monitored - despite the lies of the sellers. Two more possible lines for the defendants to take: #1. I am an expert and allowed, therefor, to offer an opinion in court testimony. However, when I have offered an opinion, I have buttressed it with arguments and even demonstrations. I doubt the lawyers who have expressed opinions as facts have done, or even can do, the same. There is nothing in their writings other than unsupported conclusions. 2. I think a careful evaluation of the words in the law and the legislative history might lead to the conclusion that the " communication" referred to by the law writers is solely communication between humans. If that's so, the operation of the specific item should be carefully examined. For instance, the cellular monitoring systems print out tons of communication between the CMTs and the MTSOs (cellular mobile telephones and mobile telephone switching offices). Line after line on the printout specifies the status of all active CMTs in its area, and the details of what number called what number, etc. etc. If these things primarily monitor machine communications, can they be called "primarily useful for surreptitious interception of {human} communications? TWO POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS #1. The congress could pass a new law - one based on inputs from people who know what they're talking about and have the interests of our citizens in mind. (The elements of this law that cover monitoring [the law calls it "intercepting"] of radio broadcasts is not necessary. 47 USC 705 has served us well for many years, and makes sense.) #2. As long as the stupid law stays on the books, the federal government should establish a qualified, non-government body of experts to rule on what is and what is not a Title III device or system. This would allow manufacturers and dealers to know who they can sell to. James A. Ross +++Moderator's Note+++ I agree with Ross. The law IS unclear and can result in select prosecution of anyone who manufactures Title III equipment OR ANY TYPE of communication equipment that could POSSIBLY be used for interception... Several years ago I asked a personal friend who was the BOSS of a "three Letter agency" (Federal) in New York City for clarification of TITLE III because I had developed a new surveillance device and wanted to manufacture and sell... My friend told me (after checking with Justice Department Legal Counsel) that there was "no license" which would "hold harmless" a "surveillance device" manufacturer or distributor. That they operated at the discretion of the government and could be indicted at any time... He advised me (as a friend) against developing the new device since I could be indicted for simply offering it for sale to "bona fide" law enforcement agencies... The fact of the matter is "certain" companies that are on the "in" thrive while circulating "false" data about competition and "dropping dimes" to the feds to cause competitors "problems"... Ma Bell should also be indicted as well as MANY other companies for "manufacturing" devices which allow the "interception" of communications... See how stupid this gets?... This type of case affects us ALL... I hope the list will support Daggett and Walz and let there Congressman know about this farce... ************************************************************************** [Security List info deleted. ] *************************************************************************** The Codex Surveillance & Privacy News - http://www.thecodex.com Moderator of "The Surveillance List"... http://www.thecodex.com/list.html The Nets FIRST & ONLY list dedicated to Surveillance Technology... "We don't spy on you... but we DO keep an eye on those that do..." ***************************************************************************

1 0

LPWA
by Michael Stutz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/story/4375.html Covering Your Tracks via a Helping Hand by Michael Stutz 6:02pm 10.Jun.97.PDT Ironically, when it comes to privacy on the Net, you often have to turn to middlemen for help. In the latest in a long string of software and services that act as intermediaries for two parties when at least one of the parties wants anonymity, a technology demonstration was announced by Lucent Technologies on Tuesday. The Lucent Personalized Web Assistant enables users to maintain Web anonymity even on sites that require email registration. The LPWA acts as an anonymous proxy server, handling HTTP requests between a user and a Web site so that the user remains anonymous, said Alain Mayer, one of LPWA's developers. LPWA also filters the HTTP protocol so that no unwanted information goes out from the user, he said. Unlike the Anonymizer, a popular anonymous Web browsing service, it cannot perform temporary, nonproxy, anonymous Web sessions, but it does allow for anonymous accounts on Web sites that require it. "It computes on your behalf all kinds of username and passwords you'll need at different Web sites, in such a way that they will appear completely unrelated. On top of that, it will assign you a different email address" for each site that is visited. The problem, Mayer says, is that many commercial Web sites require online registration before you can access their information. Besides the fact that many people do not like this - and choose not to visit those sites - this poses a number of logistical problems. "One problem is that you have to remember all the username and passwords that you give out the next time you come back," said Mayer. "And if you always use the same set of username and passwords, these sites can potentially can get together and see wherever you're going and trace you down." The goal in designing LPWA was to address "where convenience and privacy can go hand-in-hand," Mayer said. "If you design privacy in software, it entails that you have to give on the convenience side. Our main goal was to combine these two possibly antagonistic goals." Currently, Lucent stores no information about LPWA users, since the anonymous usernames and passwords are generated by a cryptographic function. When a user connects to a site that requires a login, "\U" is entered for a username and "\P" for a password; LPWA then interprets this and supplies the cryptographically generated username and password to the site. Unlike some anonymous remailers, which store translations of users on hard disks, nothing would be retrieved from an LPWA should it be compromised by a government or other entity. But could commercial sites ban LPWA access by their own means? Mayer doesn't think so. "Potentially, a Web site can always refuse email from certain domains," he said, "but we can always find different domains, not just lpwa.com. What we hope is that commercial Web sites don't see us as an enemy but as a friend, because if users feel more secure in having certain things protected that they feel strongly about, then they also hopefully will feel better about giving certain other demographic information that the Web site can use. If this system gets popular, both sides will gain." While LPWA is now online, it should just be considered a demo; future versions may evolve into a commercial product that corporations could use with their firewalls, or ISPs could provide as an added benefit. LPWA is built on top of the popular Apache server software and runs on Unix - so it is plausible that in the future, individuals will run it on their own machines. "It's technically feasible to have this run on your laptop," said Mayer, "and if you're willing to live with the performance degradation you can even have it connect to another one and another one, so you don't have to trust anybody." Justin Boyan, author of the Anonymizer, imagines that schemes like chains of proxies are conceivable, but you'll always have to trust the community you are connected with. "It is a matter of trust. It's an issue of, 'Do you trust the people or the organization behind the middleman?' [LPWA] does require you to trust Lucent if you use it, and it requires you to trust anonymizer.com if you want to use us." But why trust Lucent? Mayer thinks that's a very good question. "You shouldn't," he said. "This is only a demonstration, and hopefully will generate enough interest that this will be put in places that are not in our hands. We don't even want to have this responsibility - it's not our business. Do you trust your ISP? That's a question you have to ask yourself anyway." Copyright © 1993-97 Wired Ventures, Inc. and affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

1 0

Re: Access to Storage and Communication Keys
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:06 PM 6/9/97 -0400, Marc Horowitz wrote: >To me, mail encryption is not communications encryption. The mail >message is encrypted, just like a file might be. Then those encrypted >bits are sent over the net. It is precisely because I have access to >the ciphertext as a separate entity that this is not communications >encryption. An interesting perspective, but I don't know that it works. For this to make sense, either the business needs to have access to the stored received email if the user gets run over by a police car, or else the business needs to know that it doesn't _need_ access - either because the mail isn't business related, or because the business-related parts have been transferred to other systems using a convenient user interface. On the other hand, if receiving email with encrypted attachments is _in_convenient to store in a mail system, maybe it will help encourage people not to use that mail system for storing messages, or to junk the mail system entirely :-) (I'm thinking here of systems like IBM PROFS and Microsoft Mail, which both encourage storage in their monolithic mailboxes. >The *only* reason to escrow communications keys is to spy on people; >there is never an opportunity for data loss here. Yeah! (Actually, the other reason to escrow them is because you're using the same keys for communication and storage, and you have potentially decent business reasons for backup of storage keys, but that's only the case if you're not using a sufficiently flexible cryptosystem and are using key backup instead of data backup, which is really the preferred approach anyway.) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

8 10