December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Looks like they may actually pass something... hell.
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I had hoped that normal government incompetence would prevent them from passing something. Well, there's still hope that it'll get clogged up, or that the courts will toss it out - somehow I think they won't like the idea of taps without a court order, for instance (giving up a judicial prerogative). I am also somewhat puzzled by the racketeering law reference - I had thought that federal racketeering laws allowed civil forfeiture sans conviction (shudder)? The "funding" for telephone companies sounds suspiciously like funding Digital Telephony. -Allen > School House > WHITE HOUSE, KEY LAWMAKERS AGREE ON ANTI-TERRORISM PROPOSALS > Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net > Copyright &copy 1996 The Associated Press > WASHINGTON (Aug 1, 1996 09:53 a.m. EDT) -- After wrangling with key > Republican lawmakers, the White House has won agreement on a package > of anti-terrorism measures that would expand wiretapping authority and > tighten airport security. [...] > But omitted from the agreement was a central part of Clinton's > proposals, a study of chemical markers in explosives, called taggants, > which had been heavily criticized by some Republicans. Also rejected > was a provision to allow the FBI to get information on suspected > terrorists from hotels, telephone companies and storage facilities. [...] The agreement also would allow prosecution of suspected terrorists under federal racketeering laws, which would make anyone convicted subject to asset forfeitures and longer sentences. > The negotiators, led by Panetta and Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, said > they hoped to have a package ready for a vote by week's end, before > Congress leaves for its August recess. > But Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., said earlier in the > day that final passage before the recess appeared unlikely. "I don't > see how in the world we can get it done" by then, Lott told reporters. > Lott and other GOP leaders summoned Attorney General Janet Reno, > Panetta and FBI Director Louis Freeh to a meeting today to explain why > some of the FBI's anti-terrorism funds haven't been spent. > "We are increasingly concerned that monies and authorities already > granted to the administration are not being used effectively or at > all," Lott, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and House Majority > Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, wrote in a letter to Clinton. > Justice Department spokesman Myron Marlin said the Republican > assertions were "misleading." > Gingrich and Lott also proposed that a blue-ribbon commission review > the government's anti-terrorism policy -- a move that would delay > congressional action. The new package includes such a commission for > longer-term legislative proposals, Craig said. > He said the lawmakers' aides planned to work through the night to > draft the proposals into a package that could be put to a vote before > week's end. > "I feel very positive at this moment," Craig told reporters Wednesday > night. > Craig said the proposals included multipoint wiretaps, which allow law > enforcement agents to monitor all phone calls made by a suspected > terrorist, rather than just those from a specific telephone, as well > as emergency wiretaps, which are valid for 48 hours without a court > order. [... yeah, right] > Craig stressed that the new wiretap provisions would include "some > privacy language that will protect people." > Other proposals on which accord was reached include the use of special > technology to make it easier to trace telephone numbers called by > suspected terrorists and a trust fund to reimburse phone companies for > expenses they incur in that area. > Craig listed the proposals but gave few details, which had yet to be > worked out. > Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net

1 0

Re: A funny thing happend to my data on the way to the bank
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:45 PM 8/1/96, anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com wrote: >The Prime Minister's Social Security Number >Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's US Social Security Number is >172-42-6111, according to the Boston Consulting Group in Massachusetts, >which employed Netanyahu for about one-year during 1979-80.=20 > >The number indicated by the marketing firm contradicts information contained >in a credit report by the US federally-regulated Transunion Company, pulled >from company files during the first days of July. According to that report, >Netanyahu and an American named John J. Sullivan both used Social Security >number 020-36-4537. > >Questions were raised in the reports as to whether Netanyahu had attempted >to create a false identity or had used a number which was not his. >Publication of the credit report findings, and later reports indicating >that Netanyahu's name had suddenly been deleted from Transunion's files, >raised additional questions about possible computer break-ins into the >company's records. It is not likely to be a "break-in." Rather, the Big Three credit reporting agencies, Transunion, TRW Credit, and Equifax, routinely are complicit in creating false credit histories as part of the "legends" of agents, persons in the Federal Witness Security Program, etc. (Do you not think Equifax would "notice" a new identity which popped into existence in 1995, complete with a 10-year credit history, a high school diploma, a record of past employment, etc.? There is a good reason these companies have close ties with the TLAs in the D.C. area...where, perhaps coincidentally, they have major offices.) My Cyphernomicon has more information about the roles the credit agencies have played in creating false identities and maintaining their cover, and the role of FinCEN and its ties to these nominally-private agencies. What this report about Net-n-Yahoo has confirmed is his almost certain role as an agent of the U.S. intelligence agencies. His role in the Pollard case is likely to come out in the next few months. (Look for legislation from Feinswine and others making it a felony to disclose Social Security numbers....) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Progress on online stock markets
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone know how secure this company's web servers, etcetera are? -Allen > Avis > E-TRADE WANTS TO SELL IPOS OVER THE INTERNET > Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net > Copyright &copy 1996 San Francisco Examiner > SAN FRANCISCO (Aug 1, 1996 00:05 a.m. EDT) -- E-Trade Securities Inc., > the Palo Alto, Calif., company that sells stocks over the Internet, > has asked the National Association of Securities Dealers for > permission to form an investment banking division to sell initial > public offerings over the Internet. > E-Trade executive vice president David Traversi said if the NASD > approves his request, the company would start bringing small firms > public and would also seek to co-underwrite big deals brought by large > investment banks. > Traversi said E-Trade's two-fold objective aimed to create a new way > to bring small companies public and give small investors a chance to > buy new stock issues that usually get bought by institutional > investors. [...] > Traversi said E-Trade would also try to get listed as a co-underwriter > for big IPOs, like last September's Netscape offering. In the past, > small investors have complained that such big deals are sold to > institutional investors, who rake in huge profits before small > investors get a crack at the offering. To offer such deals online, > however, E-Trade would have to get the approval of the lead > underwriter on each offering. > "Right now, without naming names, there are large investment firms > that have indicated an interest in having us as a co-manager" of their > IPOs, Traversi said. > But before E-Trade can do anything more, its pending application to > form an investment bank has to be approved by the NASD, which > regulates small securities dealers. Traversi said he expected NASD > approval this fall.

1 0

Re: Jewell is the Militia Bomber!!!!
by John Brothers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:20 PM 7/31/96 -0800, Jim Bell wrote: >At 07:49 PM 7/31/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >>2. They found a _shotgun_ in his cabin. > >No, no, Tim. The proper way to deliver this to a TV audience is, "They >found an ARSENAL in his COMPOUND!" >(see how much more exciting it is?!? BTW, how many wives does he have?) None! and he lives with his mother! Obviously a complete sicko! :) --- John Brothers Do you have a right not to be offended?

1 0

Re: A Libertine Question
by John Brothers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:23 AM 8/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >John Brothers, > >Which locality do you live in? I've got all this toxic waste that I've >been collecting in return for receiving large sums of money, I'd like to >get rid of it as cheply as possible. I thought I might just burn it in a >good "true" libertarian neighborhood. > >You don't mind, do you? I live in the Alpharetta area of Georgia, a northern suburb of Atlanta. You're welcome to come here and burn whatever you like. Oh, of course, I assume that you'll be properly and safely capturing and disposing the toxic ash. Because, after all, if a single microgram of those toxins were to land on my property, I would be forced to sue you, take all of that money, and set up a legal robot to continue to sue your descendents for the next seven thousand generations. And, I guess if the investigation were to show that you were criminally negligent in the proper disposal of those toxins, you would have to be punished. Speaking for myself as a darwinist libertarian, the only fitting punishment to being criminally negligent on such a grand scale would be to execute you, and sterilize every known trace of your genetic code in the gene pool - i.e. all genetic children, brothers, sisters, parents and so forth. You may have some illegitimate/secret offspring or siblings which may survive, but we can't go around tracking everyone's genetic code.. It would be an affront to privacy, and libertarianism in general. I'm sure that your lawyer could probably argue the case down to the point where the only punishment would be your execution, and I guess that would have to suffice - your family wasn't directly involved in the planning and execution of this most heinous crime. But, I'm sure that you would be a properly responsible citizen, and clean up carefully after yourself. It might smell bad, and be a generally unpleasant place, but as a libertarian, I don't have a right to control what you do with your property, nor to object to bad smells - I can purchase filters and such to avoid that. And if it got unpleasant enough, I would just move away, and leave you and your bad smells alone. Have a nice day, --- John Brothers Do you have a right not to be offended?

1 0

Re: Brain Tennis with Dorthy
by David K. Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 11:59 AM 08/1/96 -0400, Duncan Frissell <frissell(a)panix.com> wrote: >I'm following the Brain Tennis Match between Dorothy Denning and John >Gilmore on encryption and the right to absolute privacy on Hot Wired >(http://www.hotwired.com/braintennis/96/31/index0a.html) > >Were I a participant in this exercise, I would lob the following to Dorothy: > ... <good questions excised> ... One might wonder how Dorothy's opinions about privacy et al would change were it *her* communications/privacy/person at risk (be it through torture, GAK, etc.). Were a government - duly elected - to come into power similar to that in 30's Germany or 70's Viet Nam, so that intellectuals or the educated became the targets of oppression, would she be as adamant about the perceived "rights" of Government to intrude in her private life, monitor her communications, and so on? Inquiring minds want to know.... :-) Dave Merriman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMgBe+MVrTvyYOzAZAQHoygP/ZeEn00d+uAuJXp29igeMTPe0U8muD3uy tIZItV2e05D9VLaCNdzZKiK9pqGsjA6VzB1sUd8uRUtPu0GKVGrylgjuA/QoK/m6 xOMGLNcvPZVhVbqGMCkFXwR6U5KifMd1mAb14Au25MR7hpfzpCwMBQZ5y495AhRx utMueAGDmIo= =OARQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Internal Passports
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike McNally wrote: >That reminds me: I thumbed through BiBi's terrorism book (the one D.S. >certified as prerequisite reading for particpation in intelligent >discussions about something-or-other) at B&N the other day. It's a >pretty thin book. Most of it seems to be about the rise of the Moslem >Menace and how the Sultan's hordes will soon be upon us all. The last >chapter outlines all the "necessary measures" governments must take >to stamp out the wildfire of terrorism. Same old same old, mostly, >like allowing suspects to be held without charges, allowing warrantless >searches (I think), thorough weapon registration, and so on. The last >one (or next-to-last; I think the last one is "brainwash the populace >into thinking this is all a good idea") is about establishing a >periodic "civil liberties review panel". > >Yeah right. OK. But I sure would like to have an automatic weapon for self/home/"national" defense w/o going through a tremendous amount of B.S. (as Israelis are excused from). I believe that you Texans and we Arizonans have the privilege; in "urban" states, where the need truly is, good luck. Also, I don't know what your experience in the Middle East is. Me, I worked in Iran and exited just before the Jan. '79 "revolution". Menace & murder. You *really* have no idea. Hint: I'm alive. If you still (I don't know your age) think that humans are all the same, but we juss gots diffrunt colors 'n' cultures, I *strongly* recommend an extended period of travel to the third world. In all sincerity, Dave

1 0

ALERT: Congress rushing to pass surveillance plan! Call now! (8/1/96)
by Voters Telecommunications Watch 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

====================================================================== ____ _____ ____ ___ _ _____ ____ _____ | _ \| ____| _ \ / _ \| | | ____| _ \_ _| CONGRESS RUSHING TO | |_) | _| | | | | | |_| | | | _| | |_) || | ENACT SURVEILLANCE | _ <| |___| |_| | | _ | |___| |___| _ < | | LEGISLATION. CALL |_| \_\_____|____/ |_| |_|_____|_____|_| \_\|_| CONGRESS NOW! 8/1/96 REPOST THIS ALERT WHERE APPROPRIATE DO NOT REDISTRIBUTE AFTER AUGUST 7, 1996 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Table of contents Introduction What you can do now Background Participating organizations ---------------------------------------------------------------------- INTRODUCTION Late Wednesday, Congress and the Clinton Administration reached a preliminary agreement on a sweeping new surveillance initiative. The President and several Congressional leaders are pushing for a vote on the measure BEFORE CONGRESS RECESSES ON AUGUST 2. If enacted, parts of the proposal would dramatically impact privacy and security on the Internet and other advanced communications technologies. Of particular concern are provisions which: 1. Allows law enforcement to wiretap "suspected terrorists" for up to 48 hours BEFORE obtaining a court order 2. Provide funding for the Digital Telephony Proposal without any public accountability over how the FBI spends the funds Other provisions are also circulating that would: 3. Threaten to impose new restrictions on encryption technologies 4. Seek to criminalize the distribution of 'bomb-making' information on the Internet that is legal in print. Congress needs to hear from you. Congress will rush through the passage of massive new surveillance plans with privacy risks unless you show them there is support for slow, deliberate, reasoned thought on the issue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW CALL KEY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IMMEDIATELY! NO LATER THAN FRIDAY (8/2/96) Please contact as many elected officials on the list below as you can. Urge them to "go slow" and carefully consider the impact these surveillance proposals will have on the privacy and security of all Internet users. Tell them while you appreciate their concern about combating terrorism, the measures being proposed have many potential side effects which must be carefully considered. 1. Call the key members of Congress below and ask them to "go slow" and examine the issues before rushing into changing the delicate balance of law enforcement surveillance and the public. 2. If you are at a loss for words, use the following sample communique: SAMPLE COMMUNIQUE Dear _________, Please do not rush the passage of counter terrorism legislation; I'm concerned that Congress is rushing without carefully considering the implications of privacy. I'm from <city, state>. Thanks, <click> You should call the following members of Congress because they are steering this legislation and need to hear there is support for slow, deliberate, thoughtful consideration of this issue. Some of thee members *have publicly expressed reservations* about this legislation, and we should support them in their efforts. Senate members: P ST Name and Address Phone Fax = == ======================== ============== ============== R MS Lott, Trent 1-202-224-6253 1-202-224-2262 D DE Biden Jr., Joseph R. 1-202-224-5042 1-202-224-0139 D SD Daschle, Thomas A. 1-202-224-2321 1-202-224-2047 R UT Hatch, Orrin G. 1-202-224-5251 1-202-224-6331 R PA Specter, Arlen 1-202-224-4254 1-717-782-4920 D VT Leahy, Patrick J. 1-202-224-4242 1-202-224-3595 House members: Dist ST Name, Address, and Party Phone Fax ==== == ======================== ============== ============== 6 GA Gingrich, Newt (R) 1-202-225-4501 1-202-225-4656 3 MO Gephardt, Richard A. (D) 1-202-225-2671 1-202-225-7452 6 IL Hyde, Henry J. (R) 1-202-225-4561 1-202-226-1240 14 MI Conyers Jr., John (D) 1-202-225-5126 1-202-225-0072 President William Clinton: White House Comment Line: 1-202-456-1414 3. If you get a response, take a moment and send mail to vtw(a)vtw.org with "feedback" in the subject line. $ Mail vtw(a)vtw.org Subject: my feedback from calling Congress They said they're not going to pass most of Clinton's package, because it upsets the delicate balance between law enforcement and the public. ^D Mail sent! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BACKGROUND Among other things, the law enforcement proposals circulating on Capitol Hill include provisions which: o WIRETAPPING WITHOUT COURT ORDER ALLOWED FOR 48 HOURS Congress and the President have already agreed to provisions which would dramatically expand law enforcement surveillance authority. Both of these provisions were proposed by the President as part of the 1995 counter-terrorism legislation, but were dropped from the final bill after Republicans and civil liberties advocates objected. The current proposal would expand law enforcement surveillance authority in two ways: - Emergency 48 Hour Wiretap Authority: Current law requires law enforcement officials to get the affirmative consent of a judge before installing a wiretap. The current proposal would expand law enforcement authority to wiretap "suspected terrorists" for up to 48 hours before obtaining a court order, limiting a critical 4th amendment safeguard. - Multi-Point "Roving" Wiretaps: Current law allows law enforcement to tap only specific LOCATIONS (i.e., a telephone number). In certain very limited circumstances, law enforcement can tap a specific INDIVIDUAL if it can be shown to a judge that the suspect is moving from place to place with the specific intent of thwarting law enforcement. The current proposal would expand this so-called "roving" wiretap authority by making it much easier for law enforcement to tap specific INDIVIDUALS as opposed to specific physical locations. This change would dramatically effect the balance between 4th Amendment privacy rights and public safety which has existed for nearly 30 years, and should not be enacted without careful consideration of the implications. o FUNDING FOR DIGITAL TELEPHONY WITHOUT PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY The Administration and Congress are seeking funding to implement the Digital Telephony Law in a way which eliminates any opportunity for public oversight of law enforcement surveillance ability. The controversial law, known officially as the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), granted the FBI new authority to influence the design of telecommunications networks. At the same time, the law provided substantial public oversight over the FBI's surveillance ability by requiring the FBI to state, on the public record, what its surveillance needs are. The FBI has faced stiff resistance from civil liberties groups and some members of Congress and has not yet been able to obtain funding to implement the requirements of the law. As part of the current proposal, the FBI is seeking a mechanism which will provide funding for CALEA in a way which skirts the public oversight provisions of the law. This is an extremely troubling move by law enforcement which, if enacted, would allow law enforcement essentially unlimited authority to influence the design of telecommunications networks without any accountability. Other provisions which could show up in legislation in the next 72 hours are: o BOMB MAKING MATERIAL ON THE INTERNET In the wake of the recent public concern about terrorism, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joseph Biden (D-DE) have renewed their efforts to pass legislation to restrict the availability of 'bomb- making' information on the Internet. The Feinstein/Biden amendment was added to the Senate Defense Appropriations bill (S. 1762) in early July, and is not currently part of the new law enforcement initiative. However, the amendment poses a serious threat to chill the the free flow of information on the Internet. o THREATEN TO IMPOSE NEW RESTRICTIONS ON ENCRYPTION TECHNOLOGIES: While no specific legislation has been proposed, the Clinton Administration has circulated an outline to Congress which states: "We will seek legislation to strengthen our ability to prevent terrorists from coming into the possession of the technology to encrypt their communications and data so that they are beyond the reach of law enforcement." This statement marks the first time that the Administration has suggested legislation to restrict encryption. This is especially troubling because it comes at a time of growing Congressional support for legislation to promote privacy and security tools for the Net. Of even more concern, the Administration is clearly attempting to use the recent suspected terrorist incidents to push for a new and more restrictive encryption policy. If the Administration succeeds in passing new restrictions on encryption as part of the new surveillance legislation, the future of the Internet as a secure and trusted platform for commerce and private communication will be threatened. Some or all of these provisions may be included in a package voted on by both houses by August 3rd. It is not clear what a final bill will look like, and some of these provisions may not be considered by Congress until later this summer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS The following organizations all urge you to take this action to combat the surveillance initiatives. Check their pages for more background information on these issues. American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org) American Communication Association Center for Democracy and Technology (http://www.cdt.org) Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org) EF-Austin (http://www.efa.org) Electronic Privacy Information Center (http://www.epic.org) Feminists for Free Expression National Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org) National Writers Union (http://www.nwu.org/nwu/) People For the American Way (http://www.pfaw.org) Voters Telecommunications Watch (http://www.vtw.org) Wired Ventures Ltd. (http://www.hotwired.com) ======================================================================

1 0

PCC_war
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

7-29-96. EBNews: "Encryption ICs Enable Ironclad Net Security." New encryption ICs on PCMCIA cards will be unveiled imminently to allow PC users to make transactions over the Internet with ironclad security. "This will open up electronic commerce pervasively and launch a new market for PCs," said TIS's Bill Sweet. Both National Semiconductor and VLSI Technology plan to unveil affordable chips shortly for PCMCIA encryption cards. National's thumb-scan project, which aims to provide an additional security factor, is a joint effort with Identix. In this system, a holographic laser chip on the card would image a portion of the holder's thumbprint. That image will be compared with the holder's digital thumbprint pattern stored on a memory chip in the card. 7-31-96. Jane's: "Future Warfare | Rise of the robots." A US Defense Science Board (DSB) task force is putting the final touches to a study that members promise will be one of the most controversial ever produced by the panel. The next century adversary will aggressively use offensive information warfare, rely on underground and covert urban facilities and have some ability to attack low earth orbiting satellites. It will require a "revolution in military affairs" achieved through enhanced surveillance capabilities, weapons of mass destruction, thousands of inexpensive missiles, a few very low observable cruise missiles, mines and diesel submarines. The only aspect of tactics and technology that everyone in the DoD seems to agree on is that the most important developments for warfighting over the next 10 to 20 years will be related to information systems. ----- http://jya.com/pccwar.txt (19 kb for 2) PCC_war

1 0

Internal Passports
by drose＠azstarnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 1 Aug 1996 (Timothy C. May) wrote: >I'm with Duncan and Lucky on this one. Nations with a "Privacy Ombudsman" >are almost always nations with extensive files on individuals, their >habits, and their political activities. > >Having a "Privacy Ombudsman" is a bone thrown to the proles. I suspect a >police state like Singapore has such a person. My understanding is that the acceptable term is "ombud", or possibly "ombuds". Cf.: "chair", "anchor", "milk", "post", "g-", "colored", "fire", "police", "China", "French", etc.

1 0