December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

So I fly home Friday from San Jose. Probably because I was in a hurry, after walking through the magnetometer and x-raying my stuff, a security dude grabbed my laptop and said he wanted to 'analyze' it. Yeah sure whatever, I decided not to protest I was late for my flight. This analysis, it turned out, was wiping a coffee filter over the strap of its bag, and sticking the coffee filter into a slot on a machine. No solvent even. The machine had columns labelled TNT RDX NITRO PETN HMX. I recognized the first four as high explosives. Later, I wondered if people with angina (who take nitro orally) ever set this off. Most of them, of course, are not bearded eastern-european/semetic guys in their 30's who look worried and in a hurry. Anyway, that was it, and I made my flight. Didn't even open the laptop's case. The machine name was ION-something; I wonder whether it sucked vapors from the fiber disk or whether it was a neutron-spectrometer (?) device. (Had this been a UK Customs 'inspection' of the contents of the disk, I might have had to explain the half-gig of "noise" I have on the disk. Only, it really is noise. Really.) Anyway, the moral of the story: Don't store your laptop with your explosives :-)

6 6

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is anybody on this list form one of these nations just out of curiosity? Iran, Iraq,Libya, Syria,Sudan, North Korea and Cuba. I would find it funny considering the exemption made for them in the new crypto policy :)

2 1

Oh my God...
by Jim Thompson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forgive me if this has been covered on cypherpunks. I hang out on coderpunks, and this is far too political for that list. Please keep me Cc'd on any discussion on this topic. If true, RSA is dirty, SDI is dirty, Robertson Stevens is dirty, and Ron Brown, Jim Bizdos, Al Gore, John Huang and Sanford Robertson are going to jail. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/smith/980915.comcs.html Jim Thompson / Smallworks, Inc. / jim(a)smallworks.com 512 338 0619 phone / 512 338 0625 fax C++ is like jamming a helicopter inside a Miata and expecting some sort of improvement. -- Drew Olbrich

2 1

It's Nobody's Business!
by Whtsametau＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I see things haven't changed much around here. [BIG GRIN!] Stan, bass/vocals Nobody's Business members.aol.com/StanSqncrs/nobiz.html

1 0

RE: Cyberpunks Signal-to-Noise Ratio
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Isn't it in bad form to filter the Cypherpunk anonymous remailers on the cypherpunk list? ---Matthew James Gering <mgering(a)ecosystems.net> wrote: > > What! I can't hear you! > > You could always filter *aol*, *anon* and *sixdegrees*. > > Or shout louder (i.e. contribute signal). > > Matt

1 0

Ground Floor Pre-IPO Opportunity
by best25＠worldonline.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Most Wall Street investors cannot participate on the upside of an IPO since the investment firms reserve the stock for themselves. Get the scoop and learn how to target these companies before they trade on the NASDAQ Small Cap and Bulletin Board. REMEMBER, THE MONEY IS ALWAYS MADE GOING INTO THE DEAL. WANT MORE? Go To: Click Here

1 0

CHALLENGE? Toto/signature attack w. unpublished public key
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This post discusses the possibility of generating a RSA public key n, and e given a signature s on a message m creating using an unknown (unpublished) n and e. A message and signature whose validity has some bearing on a current IRS investigation is given as a target for an attack if such an attack is feasible. Toto published one signed message [1] but not a public key for the signature. It seems to me that there should be other public keys which one could generate which could have signed the same message. I would like comments on the feasibility of the signature attack proposed below, and suggestions for more efficient methods. (For those not following the Toto saga, he was the author of a series of anti-government rants and future fiction stories on cypherpunks. The posting of [1] to the list seems to have been deemed a handy excuse for the IRS to arrange Carl Johnson's incarceration See: http://jya.com/cejfiles.htm. They claim that the presence of a public key on Carl Johnson's hard disk proves that he authored the post in question [1].) What we have is: Unknowns: e, n, d Knowns: m, s Where m = padding || md5( message ) A signature is computed as: s = m ^ d mod n and verified by checking that: s ^ e mod n = m ( where RSA says: n = p.q, d.e = 1 mod (p-1).(q-1) ) We are trying to find an n and an e which satisfy s ^ e mod n = m, with the additional constraints that log2( n ) = 1024 and n > s (because we have the signature s, and it is 1024 bits in length). For bonus points it would be nice for n mod 2^64 = 0xCE56A4072541C535, which is the key-id in the signature. (I say bonus points because the key-id in the signature is not authenticated, or included in the message digest, so could have been for example edited after the signature was made, or filled with random numbers for whatever reason). Tinkering with PGP I can extract the values for the knowns: s = 0x08F4D5CBC10063725B206F787EB7370BBD0C5B4854CE79A9007D1801AEAEE6E6 D2C68D7EDF877FECE1FA539D08BEC54BD152BA05113951E8A84CDECAD2CB8E7A C28BE916570BA7BB9C00C64DF57113C4AE81613BD351541523CD3A028FBF220E F7469BD4175302DCB5B6E886974877F28A2D301433AFFFE26081008BFF687B37 m = 0x0001FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF003020 300C06082A864886F70D0205050004105A82A30F832DC6839C20DD6DB2EF783B (the 00 01 FF .. FF 00 are the PKCS#7 required padding, then the 3020300c06082a864886f70d020505000410 is the ASN padding indicating various PKCS #7 cruft, and 5A82A30F832DC6839C20DD6DB2EF783B is the digest of the message (which includes some of the info in the signature block: timestamp, signature type, etc)) So next we would like to solve: s ^ e mod n = m or in other words find e, k and n st: s ^ e - m = k * n I have been trying to factor f3 = s ^ e - m for e = 3, and can get factors: f = 2 2 5 11 17 26496937 and 251048771208077840279253039518619486761149393656018551881762776705901\ 323868599665917317036581098944533770815064901485649759588104677561495\ 719846643046535204246014520276297740544890135011586884286882393788265\ 716989378535974685125268132766806309723740928058713253950594405611241\ 121342427851929130344133177905256374336176401503386547907484013668011\ 870701681839150463738400849274433891413410494500220449307074230633487\ 686485522732190007426023068542565670710414256907678005650439818373128\ 045462081252984434043133357326332595300178784873354995536385391488171\ 082297914170316457453668703759313538562865586078736676571820284813613\ 435988240345557012477625002576044754861439307189875911957770722297269\ 127365840009630893296289725097984631185778357339553526670628683341222\ 179800672224971064029655723085468566526546006022122686584662976524189\ 679277675211381453870834486124773894995875790430641434242560016378644\ 4039359130261 (I call the f resulting from choosing e = 3, f3, other e values can be denoted f5, f7, etc). It seems to me that if we can get get a factor out (or construct a composite from factors) which is greater than s, and is 1024 bits long, then this "key" could have signed the message in question. If the number has 2 or more factors, which we know because we constructed it by multiplying them, then we could even "sign" another message with this key, by generating a d based on the p, q (and possibly other multiples) and have both messages appear to be signed by the same key. If we can get some larger factors, we stand a chance because we have the flexibility of being able to adjust a potentional n's size by multiplying by combinations of factors found so far 5 11 17 26496937. This means we can adjust n's size by adding bits by multiplying by combinations as follows combination bits added 5 2 - 3 11 3 - 4 17 4 5 11 5 - 6 5 17 6 - 7 11 17 7 - 8 26496937 24 - 25 So the challenge is to find other factors of: f = 251048771208077840279253039518619486761149393656018551881762776705901\ 323868599665917317036581098944533770815064901485649759588104677561495\ 719846643046535204246014520276297740544890135011586884286882393788265\ 716989378535974685125268132766806309723740928058713253950594405611241\ 121342427851929130344133177905256374336176401503386547907484013668011\ 870701681839150463738400849274433891413410494500220449307074230633487\ 686485522732190007426023068542565670710414256907678005650439818373128\ 045462081252984434043133357326332595300178784873354995536385391488171\ 082297914170316457453668703759313538562865586078736676571820284813613\ 435988240345557012477625002576044754861439307189875911957770722297269\ 127365840009630893296289725097984631185778357339553526670628683341222\ 179800672224971064029655723085468566526546006022122686584662976524189\ 679277675211381453870834486124773894995875790430641434242560016378644\ 4039359130261 One could also try other values for e, although they result in larger f. What is the best factoring code available to have a go at factoring the above? (I have been usign the demo pollard-rho factoring code which comes with ssh-1.2.26 in the gmp-2.0.2-ssh-2/demos directory). Anyone interested to give this a go, who has say got a few (hundred?) workstations already setup for another factoring challenge which they could divert to attack the above f3 (or f5, f7, etc). Course, if Toto is still at large, and Carl Johnson is not the only one with the key (and some messages on cypherpunks recently lend credence to this), he might trash this challenge by posting another signed message, or weaken it's value by posting a public key which proved could be shown to have been derived by this method. (Interestingly, I think merely posting a public key claiming to be the `real key' which we couldn't factor nor show to be a factor of f wouldn't prove that that key was any more legitimate than a key generated by a success on this challenge, all it would tend to show would be that the person who posted it had more compute power available than us!) Adam [1] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "Contrary to one famous philosopher, you're saying the medium is not the message," Judge Thomas Nelson said, alluding to the media theorist Marshall McLuhan. http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/120997encrypt-bernstein.html Bullshit! The bits and bytes of email encryption are a clear message that I wish to exercise my right to speak freely, without those who wish to do me harm invading my privacy. The death of strong encryption on the InterNet will be the global death of free speech on the InterNet. Accordingly, I feel it is necessary to make a stand and declare that I stand ready and willing to fight to the death against anyone who takes it upon themselves to try to imprison me behind an ElectroMagnetic Curtain. This includes the Ninth Distric Court judges, if they come to the conclusion that the government that they represent needs to electronically imprison their citizens 'for their own safety.' The problem: Criminals with a simple encryption program can scramble their data beyond even the government's ability to read it. http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/content/zdnn/1208/261695.html Fuck the lame LEA pricks who whine about not being able to stop someone bringing in a planeload of drugs without being able to invade the privacy of every person on the face of the earth. Am I supposed to believe that I have knowledge of when and where major drug shipments are taking place, simply by virtue of hanging out as a musician, yet the LEA's are incapable of finding out the same information by being competent in their profession? Barf City... [I will shortly provide information for any LEA which wishes to prosecute me for my coming 'physical' death threat, on how to hunt me down like the filthy dog that I am.] "Why are you saying that the fact that [encryption] is functional takes it out of the First Amendment context?" Myron Bright, one of the judges, asked the Justice Department attorney, who was still in mid-sentence. He answered that the regulations were not aimed at suppressing speech, but only at the physical capacity of encryption to thwart government intelligence gathering. The Spanish language has the same "physical capacity." So does (:>), (;[), and {;-|). Likewise, BTW, FWIW, FYI, and my own personal favorite, YMMV (You Make Me Vomit? --or-- Your Mileage May Vary?). <-- Ambidextrous encryption. An-cay e-way pect-exay ig-pay atin-lay usts-bay of ildren-chay? Whispering also has the "physical capacity" to "thwart government intelligence gathering." When does the bullshit stop? When do we stop making the use of the Spanish language over the InterNet illegal? When do we stop making whispering, pig-latin, anagrams and acronyms illegal? When do we stop saying that our government is such a piece of crap that it is a danger to let its citizens communicate freely, in private, and share their private thoughts with one another? At one point Fletcher called the government's case "puzzling." http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,17114,00.html Only because her mom taught her that it was unladylike to say "Bullshit!" In arguments Monday, a Justice Department lawyer, Scott McIntosh, said the government's intent was to preserve the ability of intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on foreign governments and citizens. http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/120997encrypt-bernstein.html Let's see if I have this right... The U.S. government needs to destroy the right to free speech and right to privacy of its own citizens in order to infringe upon the human rights of the governments and citizens of other countries? Countries which already have strong encryption? Countries like Red China, which is currently engaged in encryption research with an American company who got permission to export much more diverse encryption material (after making a huge campaign donation to the Whitehouse) than Professor Bernstein will ever likely share with others? Apologies to Judge Fletcher, but that's not "puzzling." That's the same-old-same-old Bullshit! OFFICIAL 'PHYSICAL' DEATH THREAT!!! The pen is mightier than the sword. Thus, I prefer to wage my 'war to the death' against those who would stomp on my basic human rights *"in the interests of National Security"* with my electronic pen, on the InterNet, using encryption when I have reason to fear persecution by Facist, Nazi motherfuckers. [* ~~ TruthMonger Vernacular Translation ~~ "so that the government can maintain its authority over the citizens by use of force and violation of human rights, rather than going to all of the trouble of acting in a manner that will garner the citizens' respect."] I will continue to express my thoughts through the words I send electronically over the InterNet, both publically and privately. I will fight to the bandwidth death against anyone who wants to deny me my right to express my opinions and access the opinions of those who also wish to express their own opinions and share their true thoughts with their fellow humans. If the ElectronicMagnetic Curtain slams down around me, then I will have no choice but to continue my current fight in MeatSpace. And I am not alone... I will share the same 'DEATH THREAT!!!' with Judges Fletcher, Nelson and Bright that I have shared with the President and a host of Congressional and Senatorial representatives: "You can fuck some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you are going to end up in a body bag or a pine box before you manage to fuck all of the people all of the time." Am *I* going to whack you out? Maybe... I would prefer just dumping some tea in Boston Harbor, if that will get my message across in MeatSpace, but if it won't, then I guess I will have to take stronger action. There are undoubtedly a plethora of LEA's ready and willing to prosecute and imprison me for agreeing with Patrick Henry, who said, "Give me liberty, or give me death." The irony, of course, is that I do not pose a great danger to anyone but myself as long as I continue to have my human rights and my liberty unthreatened. The chances of me actually getting off of my fat butt and going out into the real world to whack out the enemies of freedom are probably pretty small (unless I run out of cigarettes and beer, and wouldn't have to make an extra trip). I fully understand that this does not lessen the potential of any LEA who gets a wild hair up their butt to throw a mountain of taxpayer resources into prosecuting me and imprisoning me for their own professional/political gain. However, if you are performing actions so outrageously against basic human rights and freedoms as to get me off of my lazy ass, then I am the least of your problems, because there undoubtedly are millions of people more functional than myself (who get out of the house and go further than the liquor store) who are less willing than myself to put up with increasingly heavy chains placed around their hands and feet 'in the interests of national security.' Feel free to have the Federales break down my door and imprison me for pointing out the obvious. After all, I fit the profile of a domestic terrorist--I quote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and I speak out against increasingly big government. But remember...it's the quiet ones you've got to watch... If you force everyone to 'be quiet', then you've got a world of trouble on your hands. Sincerly, John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ p.s. NOTICE TO LEA AGENTS IN NEED OF A CAREER BOOST! Yes, I'm just a troublemaking asshole, trying to get John <spit> Gilmore <fart> in trouble. However, if you want to go to the trouble of tracking me down, I will give you some hints, since it seems likely that anyone who has trouble finding a ton of cocaine at an airport might not be competent in CyberSpace, either. You might want to check with the Webmasters at the sites quoted above to see who has accessed their web sites this morning. The anonymous remailer I will be using is an open secret to CypherPunks around the world as a really bad attempt at disguising my true MeatSpace identity. This alone ought to be enough for some aggressive young LEA and/or federal prosecutor to earn themself some brownie-points, since I am a sorry enough son-of-a-bitch that they would not have much trouble convicting me in front of a jury of 'their' peers, assuming that they can make certain that I am not tried by a jury of my own peers. Bonus Points: I can also be tied into Jim Bell's Worldwide Conspiracy to assassinate government authorities, through my implementation of an Assassination Bot. (I am willing to 'rat out' Jim for two bottles of Scotch. If he is willing to rat _me_ out for less, then I guess it's just my hard luck, eh? <--that's another hint!) p.p.s. You can also charge me with use of 'conventional' encryption in the commission of a crime. Must be your lucky fucking day, eh? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNI24Hs5WpAclQcU1AQFaggP8CPTVy8EAY3JbIG94frc3C70MW0hUznmp fRgBrq7m5tLGjX7fh3/s4fpTnQi+xUvRUroFETlR6KhM3srSy456wovpFlcLp7uc xk31cRPEroFhO9NRVBUjzToCj78iDvdGm9QXUwLctbbohpdId/KKLTAUM6//4mCB i/9oezfegWc= =4/6E -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 1

atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: pjm(a)spe.com > Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 11:24:32 +0200 > Subject: atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) > Not all philosophies are religions. If we are talking philosophies of the range to include 'natural philosophy' (ie physics) then you are correct. Fortunately, this attempt at shifting the topic of discussion away from personal or individual philosophies relating to the relationship between individuals, God, and the cosmos won't work. This is called a straw-man. Pick an argument that you want to (dis)prove but don't know how. Then pick a similar but non-identical (or fail to prove the identity) which one knowns how to (dis)prove. Finaly claim that the second easier (since it is (dis)provable) problem is identical to the first. > Asserting so is an attempt > to make one or both of the terms meaningless. And trying to change the subject of discourse is as well. A philosophy is a set of beliefs, period. In this particular case we are discussing personal or individual philosophies and from definition and practice they are identical. Religion after all is nothing more than a set of beliefs and therefore falls under 'personal philosophy'. Just remember this, it's your ugly baby. > There are two forms of atheism (visit alt.atheism.moderated for > an unending discussion). "Strong" atheists state that they "believe > that god does not exist." "Weak" atheists state that they "do not > believe that god exists." Changing the side on which the 'do not' resides doesn't change the meaning. These two sentences are identical in content and meaning. I belive god does not exist I do not believe god exists or, ^(A) = (^A) > Do you believe in leprechauns, because there is no proof that > they don't exist? Do you believe in the Hindu pantheon? Whether I believe in them makes no difference to their existance (you really really need to quit taking drugs). This is the same sort of crap reasoning the UFO nut-cases partake in. They run around asking "Do you believe in aliens?" when the question that needs asking is "How do we prove aliens have been here?", and in many cases they take the two to be equivalent. Hindu pantheon is a different form of Pantheism that I practice. I don't agree with many of the points that Hindu, Aztec, Buddhist, New Age, etc. pantheist practice, it's too anthropocentric for my taste and in the case of New Age Pantheism (gag) they've simply given transcendance a new form. And I further believe that the Hindu practice of sweeping ants out of ones way and wearing a veil to inhibit bug inhalation is taking it too far the other way (though I respect and practice the spirit of their actions). Respect does not mean subserviance. > Without reason and logic, how do you propose to prove these > assertions? I'm not trying to prove anything, you are. I'm just blowing holes in your reasoning. > Reason and logic don't "constrain", they provide a > framework for discovery. This framework is unavailable to, and indeed > actively rejected by, believers in the supernatural. Any meaningful > definition of the word "inquiry" presupposes the use of logic. Ohhhh, supernatural is by definition in this discussion equivalent to transcendental. I'll say it again, there are two types of religion - those who believe transcendentalism exists (ie traditional religions) and those that don't (eg Pantheism). It is not reasonable nor logical to expect the natural rules of experience to be recognized by the supernatural. Now I can inquire into many things without using a particular type of logic (you keep writing as if there is only one form of logic - perhaps this is the root shortcoming in your reasoning). So trying to say that inquiry is equivalent to using logic is a misunderstanding of both inquiry and logic. The question that you are skirting around is: If God exists and created the universe, does this imply that it is constrained by that creation? You can answer that question with three answers: Yes Pantheism and some other forms of pagan religions No Traditional religions ? Agnostic (if you'd like to know, Nihilism (if you believe the question is irrelevant), etc. > All faith-based assertions are by definition irrational. Mystics > frequently speak of transcendence as if the word denotes a concept > with a particular meaning, but never provide a coherent definition. > Perhaps you'll surprise me? Transcendence is the belief that there is something more than the earthly veil. In other words, if you practice a transcendantal religion then by definition you believe in a ghost-in-the-machine of one form or another. If you like you can think of it as one set of religions believes there is purpose and reason in existance whereas others believe that it is all random dice (and yes that is a broad brush I'm painting with). ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: CHALLENGE? Toto/signature attack w. unpublished pub
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What remailer is the alleged toto speaking of? > You might want to check with the Webmasters at the sites > quoted above to see who has accessed their web sites this > morning. The anonymous remailer I will be using is an open > secret to CypherPunks around the world as a really bad > attempt at disguising my true MeatSpace identity. This alone == "The same thing we do every night Pinkey, try to take over the WORLD!" - The brain _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

IP: Tougher laws are sought to seize cash
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com X-Sender: believer(a)telepath.com Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 08:45:24 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Tougher laws are sought to seize cash Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Bergen (New Jersey) Record http://www.bergen.com/news/njmone199809154.htm Tougher laws are sought to seize cash Tuesday, September 15, 1998 By ADAM PIORE Washington Correspondent WASHINGTON -- Federal law enforcement officials on Monday unveiled a plan they say will help stop the flow of billions of dollars in drug money across the nation's borders every year. Hailed as a "major step forward" in the fight against money laundering, the Justice Department proposal would broaden the government's ability to seize the profits of such illicit activity as drug dealing. It now is illegal to try to leave the country with more than $10,000 in currency without reporting it to U.S. Customs officials. Violations are punishable by up to five years in prison and seizure of the money. But in June, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a serious blow to efforts to seize the unreported cash, ruling in a precedent-setting case that such seizures often violate constitutional protections against "excessive fines." The new proposal is aimed at correcting the loopholes opened up in the June court decision. It would for the first time allow law enforcement officials to arrest people concealing currency before they even reach the border. It would allow the seizure of $10,000 or more at the nation's ports and highways -- hundreds of miles from any crossing -- if agents can prove that there is intent to smuggle the concealed money out of the country. But it goes beyond that, giving agencies tools they have not had in the fight to stop the flow of illegal drug profits out of the country, said Stefan D. Cassella, the assistant chief of the money-laundering and forfeiture section of the U.S. Department of Justice. "This is a major step forward to address a new problem," Cassella said. "We know that the covert movement of currency across borders is indicative and inherently related to criminal activity." Civil libertarians condemned the proposed law, which the Justice Department sent to Congress on Monday, because they said it would expand the ability of law enforcement agencies to seize currency and keep it. A series published in The Record this year revealed how New Jersey, with its sprawling seaport, international airport, lax laws, and proximity to New York and Philadelphia, had emerged as a hub for money laundering and currency smuggling over the past 15 years. Cassella said the decision to push for the more stringent laws was inspired in part by The Record's stories. In its letter to Congress, the Justice Department cited the series as evidence of the growing problem in currency smuggling. The proposed law would give officials the ability to go after a wider range of smuggling that has been difficult for them to stop. Every year, for instance, billions of dollars in illegal drug profits is smuggled across the border unchecked, crammed into washing machines, refrigerators, or hidden under false bottoms in suitcases and trucks bound for the border. Over the past nine months, customs inspectors have seized more than $11 million at the border that stretches from Texas to California. And at Port Newark, Customs agents seized $5.5 million in fiscal year 1997, the fourth-highest amount seized among all U.S. ports. Cassella said the Justice Department hopes its proposal will be offered as an amendment to money-laundering legislation being considered by the House. But several congressional staffers were skeptical that the proposal would be considered by this Congress, because of the controversy over civil forfeiture. Congress is slated to adjourn is less than a month. In addition, the new regulations, if passed, would likely face immediate legal challenges. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the seizure of $357,144 from a Hollywood, Calif., gas station owner. Federal officials seized Hosep Krikor Bajakajian's money after the Syrian immigrant tried to carry it out of the country without reporting it -- even though he was told of the federal reporting requirements by customs agents. A divided court ruled the fine was excessive because the only impact of Bajakajian's crime was to deprive the government of "information on a piece of paper." By creating a category of crime called "bulk cash smuggling," law enforcement officials hope to convince the Supreme Court that efforts to evade detection could have a direct impact on the "security and integrity" of the nation's borders, Cassella said. The crime would be punishable by up to five years in prison and forfeiture of the money involved. "Bulk cash smuggling is an inherently more serious offense than simply failing to file a customs report," Justice Department officials wrote in an explanation of the bill provided to Congress. "Because the constitutionality of forfeiture is dependent on the 'gravity of the offense' . . . it is anticipated that the full forfeiture of smuggled money will withstand constitutional scrutiny in most cases." Local prosecutors hailed the proposed change. "Clearly, it's an effort to convince the Supreme Court that Congress did view this as more than a mere reporting violation and that forfeiture of the smuggled money is appropriate," said Marion Percell, an assistant U.S. Attorney in Newark who specializes in money-laundering cases. Critics attacked the bill, calling it just another effort by overzealous law enforcement officials to expand seizure powers that deprive citizens of due process. Roger Pilon, director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, warned that civil asset forfeiture is subject to abuse by law enforcement authorities. "This is unbelievable," he said. "Everything that Justice does in this area is characterized as a 'major step.' But that's no justification. Since when is it a crime to take money out of the country? After all, whose money is it?" Rachel King, legislative counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, agreed. "The problem is they have too much power to seize property," she said. "The laws need to go the other way. What they can do already is scary." Staff Writers Julie Fields and Thomas Zambito contributed to this article. Copyright © 1998 Bergen Record Corp. ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ********************************************** --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 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'

2 1