December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: The Coming Police State
by geoffw＠nexsys.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A VIRUS program and a WORM are two different kinds of programs. THEY ARE NOT EQUIVILENT. For more clarification may I suggest "Compuyter's under Attack" by Denning.

2 1

Re: MAIL and Coming Police State
by mcb＠remarque.berkeley.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Karl Barrus writes: > I mention this because I have asked and been told repeatedly by an > attorney friend of mine that running a remailer on a system where you > don't have authorization to do so is a violation of the ECPA. (i.e. > access beyond what the system administration intends for you to have). I would be interested in what legal research your attorney friend engaged in in order to come to this conclusion. Possibly it would be a violation if running a remailer was specifically prohibited by the operator (though this sounds more like a contract problem than an ECPA one), but I don't see anything in ECPA that would require affirmative authorization in order to do so. There is plenty of language about unauthorized access to others' communications, but it seems to me that in the case of a remailer you (the remailer operator) are authorized access to the communication BY THE SENDER for the limited purpose of re-sending. Holding this to be a violation is also particularly silly since it would make unlawful the doing of something by instrumentality of software an act which can easily be done (and was done, before the current era of software remailers) by hand. One would solicit for messages to be remailed, receive them normally in your mailbox, manually remove the headers and signature lines, then send them out again to a destination specified by the sender (possibly via out-of-band communication). This has gone on for year on mailing lists and Usenet groups. The example that comes to mind is soc.motss, where several posters offered to repost anonymous or pseudonymous messages for people who were not out of the closet, or would be embarrassed by gay-themed postings from their work or school account. -- Michael C. Berch mcb(a)postmodern.com / mcb(a)net.bio.net / mcb(a)remarque.berkeley.edu

1 0

Re: Seattle Cypherpunks Physical Meeting
by joshua geller 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

anyone else in the la area? josh

1 0

Re: The Agency Whose Name May Not Be Spoken
by freeman＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim may darkly hints: > I have reason to > believe an economic espionage unit has been in existence for many > years, deriving from the Economic Warfare Unit in World War II. I hope he is waiting for someone to ask him to elaborate, because I expect several people will do just that... -- Jay Freeman

1 0

Spy Satellites For Sale
by nobody＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The New York Times Friday, March 11, 1994, p. A1 U.S. TO ALLOW SALE OF THE TECHNOLOGY FOR SPY SATELLITES ------------------------- Profit vs. Security Issue ------------------------- Marketing to Private Customers Assailed by Some Who Fear Use by Hostile Nations ------------------------- by Edmund L. Andrews Washington, March 10 -- The Clinton Administration announced today that it would allow companies to market sophisticated spy satellite technology to commercial customers around the world. The decision marks a big change from the comparatively strict limits now imposed on satellite-imaging systems, and it caps more than a year of intense debate among the Commerce Department, the Pentagon and Government intelligence agencies. The move, which could attract new business worth hundreds of millions of dollars to American industry, also marks one of the clearest examples so far of the Administration's intention to emphasize commercial and economic priorities over more traditional cold war-era concerns about national security. Change Raises Concern Some security experts questioned the decision to allow wider access to a technology that has been described as one of the most powerful tools in America's espionage arsenal. But others said the technology was already becoming available in other countries and that American companies should be allowed to profit from the trend. Under the new policy, American companies will be allowed to build and operate for-profit satellite systems that are powerful enough to take photographs from 22,300 miles above the earth and depict objects on the ground as small as one square yard, smaller than a subcompact car or a hot-dog stand. Several American companies, among them the Lockheed Corporation, are hoping to set up satellite imaging services for customers around the world. As envisioned by Lockheed, customers would be able to transmit instructions directly to the satellite, which would turn its cameras to the desired location and then beam the images back to the ground. Such customers might include oil and mining companies and environmental researchers. 'A New Era' Administration officials said that companies would also have greater freedom to export entire satellite systems to foreign countries, though such sales will still require approval from the State Department. "This is 1994," David J. Barram, Deputy Secretary of Commerce, said in an interview today. "This is a new era. We believe national security and economic security are intertwined. In order to have national security, you have to have vibrant and competitive industries that are allowed to do what they do best." But some experts warned that the decision could severely compromise national security by letting hostile countries use America's own spy technology to obtain detailed images of sensitive military installations in the United States or to plan military activities elsewhere in the world. "The main customers for these systems will be the intelligence agencies of other countries," predicted John Pike, director of space policy at the Federation of American Scientists, a nonprofit group devoted to science and public policy. "They have fairly strong safeguards here. But in practice it is going to be difficult to prevent North Korea or Iraq from using a front company to gain spy satellite photos in the same way they acquired nuclear and chemical missile technology." Numerous companies already market commercial satellite images, which can be used for mapping, geologic surveys and even agricultural purposes, like remote monitoring of cattle herds. But currently, the most sophisticated of these services is offered by Spot Image, a French company, and it cannot produce photographs showing land areas smaller than about 10 yards in diameter. And while the Spot system is being upgraded, it will still be unable to view areas smaller than five yards. Lockheed and other American companies have been arguing for permission to operate systems that could depict objects about a square yard in size, a request that had been resisted by the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency. Growing Market Despite the agencies' concerns, Administration officials said today that they fully intended to approve requests like those of Lockheed, and went on to argue that the higher-resolution images are essential if any significant commercial market is to be formed. The Commerce Department says that remote-sensing services, as they are known, currently make up a $400 million market worldwide; the market is expected to grow to about $2 billion by the year 2000. Besides Lockheed, two other American companies have sought permission to operate high-resolution satellite-imaging services. One is the Orbital Sciences Corporation, a small rocket and satellite company based in Dulles, VA. The other is World View Inc., a start-up company in Livermore, Calif. Administration officials said that while the companies intended to adopt the precise technology that has long been used on Government spy satellites, the new policy included a number of safeguards to prevent the technology from falling into the wrong hands. As happens now, the Commerce Department must still approve each application to operate a commercial satellite surveillance system or to sell such a system within the United States -- or to market the services around the world. Sales of such equipment outside the country, however, will be subject to the export-control procedures already in place for products that have military applications, which means that each sale must be approved by the State Department and that sales to hostile countries will likely be blocked. But under the new policy, the Government would be much more likely to approve spy satellite exports. Right to Decode To prevent the misuse of satellite data sold by the new commercial services, the Government said that the companies would have to maintain a record of every job the satellite had been instructed to carry out. Moreover, the satellites cannot scramble their transmissions with coding technology that the Government cannot decipher. An oil company could protect its business secrets -- for example, by transmitting its exploration photos in scrambled form -- but the Government would have the right to decode them. In addition, the new policy leaves room for the Government to shut down a satellite system during what an Administration statement described as "periods when national security or international obligations and/or foreign policies may be compromised." But industry officials who supported the new policy said they had been assured by Commerce Department officials that the country would need to be in a "Persian Gulf situation" before it began shutting down systems. Executives at companies that have pressed for more liberal rules said the new policy gave them virtually everything they wanted. "We are very pleased that the Administration put together such a forward-thinking policy that allows the application of defense technology for commercial purposes," said Brian Dailey, vice president at the Washington office of Lockheed Corporation. Gilbert Rye, corporate vice president at Orbital Sciences, echoed that view. "It's an outstanding development," he said. Security Agencies Sign On Today's decision was supported, at least in public, by the Defense Department and other agencies concerned with national security issues -- despite earlier resistance. Two Central Intelligence Agency officials were present at a news briefing for reporters today, though they did not make any comments. Some longtime national security experts said the new policy made sense, given the proliferation of satellite imaging technology around the world.

1 0

Niacin warning (was Surveillance cameras)
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: rarachel(a)prism.poly.edu (Arsen Ray Arachelian) > you can also just pop a 400mg Niacin capsule... Niacin will > quickly dialate all your capilaries bringing lots of blood > to your face and making you look like a lobster. > > That should mess up any scan... so if you're a wanted > crook in an airport that uses ir-face biometrics, just > pop niacins like them were pop-corn. :-) I just want to warn anyone who is thinking of trying this that 400 mg is not the place to start with niacin. The flushing will be extremely intense at that level and you will probably either think you are dying or wish you were. Try 50 or 100 mg to start with. You do build up a tolerance to this effect of niacin pretty fast so experienced users will need higher doses to get the flushing. But for a non-user lower doses are adequate. Hal

2 1

Re: Spy Satellites For Sale
by joshua geller 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

so (to ask the obvious question) what is to prevent a foreign concern from using cryptography that US intelligence cannot decipher? these people are stupid. josh

1 0

RE: The Agency Whose Name May Not Be Spoken
by Pat Farrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message Fri, 11 Mar 1994 11:10:15 -0800 (PST), tcmay(a)netcom.com (Timothy C. May) writes: > Makes you wonder what TLAs are still largely unknown to the public. There are probably a fair number of obscure ones. Two that I know aren't often talked about are: DCA - Defense Communications Agency - responsible for DoD communication, MilNet, STU-III encrypted phones, and assorted odds and ends. DIA - Defense Intellegence Agency - DoD's own personal CIA. Pat Pat Farrell Grad Student pfarrell(a)gmu.edu Department of Computer Science George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Public key availble via finger #include <standard.disclaimer>

3 2

RE: 2nd CJ update
by Pat Farrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In message Fri, 11 Mar 1994 10:17:52 -0800, Phil Karn <karn(a)unix.ka9q.ampr.org> writes: > PS. Does anybody consider it odd that someone from the NSA would actually > identify themselves as such? Not anymore. Both CIA and NSA have recently (past few years) had "open" employees and contractors who can admit where they work. Some can even admit general information about what they do, such as "I'm a SyBase DBA in the administrative organization." In the olden days, the same minor "spooks" would simply tell you they worked "for the government" or "for DoD" So the old "If I tell you I have to kill you" line is left to Maxwell Smart. Pat Pat Farrell Grad Student pfarrell(a)gmu.edu Department of Computer Science George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Public key availble via finger #include <standard.disclaimer>

1 0

Ride to either Cypherpunks meeting or to Kindness
by crunch＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is anyone living in Marin or SF planning to go down to the Cypherpunks meeting this afternoon. If so, I would like a ride. Please Email me or phone me at 415-381-5847. If not, then is anyone planning to go to "Kindness" this evening. I would at least like to go to that... John D.

2 1