December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Article V - an analysis
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ARTICLE V. [Constitution: how amended; proviso.] The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions of the three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which shall be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it's equal Suffrage in the Senate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Congress can propose amendments if 2/3 of both houses agree Or when Congress is directed by 2/3 of the state legislatures a convention can be called for *proposing* amendments Irrespective of which of the above two processes causes an amendment to be considered a part of the Constitution when 3/4 of the state legislatures vote for it, or by the constitutional conventions called in 3/4 of the state agree on it. The decision of which method to use may be *proposed* by Congress. It's after 1808 and we're not considering state representation in the Senate so I'll skip the last two phrases. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The only sticky wicket I see is the ...proposed by Congress. Does this mean that Congress can decide which of the two it will recognize? Or does it mean that Congress can merely express its desire? Or does this apply only to the bills that were developed in the Congress? There's no time line for Congress to decide, could this be used to hinder such a process? Note that it's important to recognize that we're talking about 3/4n conventions and not a single convention attended by 3/4n representatives of the states. The tense of the sentence leaves no doubt. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Changing to Moderated Cypherpunks -- How?
by James F. Marshall 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Too much noise in the unedited list. How does one change to the moderated list? - -- James F. Marshall, Esq., Pasadena, California Subject "JFM Public Key" for PGP Public Key - -- OS/2 is to Windows as Stradivarius is to Yamaha -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNNf8UjbjGennrhqZAQETXgP/WFshRowrhi7qMnUZHUIADA7cCV0fEYFA WiAlynovwU9dyvc/gygz9N6aeJO/ghqiQl2/NqCSsKn5H1nTr1MHbK2iYJwt6AXh ZhMSfz5p1QzVWwm9lIFETipPayuJ+WzCkaakMZP3PPZXG8XUT/48NZG5hJgjfIM7 vqzMkCcHr+A= =2N5t -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

6 5

Re: Fwd: Big Brother Sees through walls (from the spyking list)
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: sunder <sunder(a)brainlink.com> > > 1)From: "George Martin" <gmartin(a)kic.or.jp> > Subject: News Release: High-Tech Surveillance > > Here's a sampling of how state and federal agencies are using this > terrifying technology to spy on Americans: > > * In North Carolina, county governments use high-resolution spy satellite > photographs to search for property improvements that might increase > property tax assessments. Was this cost authorized by taxpayers? > * On the Mexican border, police use a "gamma ray scanner" to check > tanker trucks for contraband, scanning right through the vehicle's metal > sides. Good!!! CM excerpt: # Those rumor-level stories about our government encouraging # drugs to reach the inner cities were weird. # # Remember, we've been having a Drug War for four decades now. # # I guess there is a certain logic to it. Obviously the government is into # hysteria on the matter: it is then possible that they would want to continue # having a drug problem so they could continue the hysteria. # # Even the Attorney General was drooling over drug forfeiture dollars, to the # point of shunting aside other cases. # # # Recently... # # : CBS 60 Minutes, Steve Croft reporting. # : # : Remember that story of the hero customs agent snagging a tanker truck full # : of cocaine? There is a strange twist to the story. # : # : The Federal agent's manager repeatedly tried to interfere with him making # : the bust. # : # : The agent's dog had flagged the truck; the agent weighed it and found a # : discrepancy. His manager said it must be in the tires. You can only check # : the tires for drugs he was told. # : # : But the agent persisted, and made the bust. His manager let the driver # : of the truck leave. The driver literally fled on foot back to Mexico. # # What the hell was that about??? # # Was it a single corrupt Federal agent? # # : CBS 60 Minutes, Steve Croft reporting. # : # : Standing at a fence about a hundred feet from the U.S. Customs lanes, # : Steve Croft and an ex-agent with a walkie-talkie tuned to the right # : frequency began videotaping the border crossings. # : # : Truck after truck drove right through the individual Customs lanes, # : not even stopping. "Nafta express lanes" explained the ex-agent. # : # : Truck after truck drove straight into the U.S. unmonitored. # : # : Then a message came through the walkie-talkie: "We got some cameras # : watching, better get out there and cover traffic". # : # : Suddenly several Customs agents came out of the booths and started # : inspecting trucks. # # That makes at least five people at a minimum! # # What the hell is going on??? # # # IF the rumor is true, THIS looks like it would be the smoking gun. # # How did our country get so twisted around that they can invade our # bodies to drug test, yet allow truck after truck after truck to # just wander right in knowing HUGE drug shipment after HUGE drug # shipment is crossing? Gosh, there's no drug problem with Mexican # police, military and even their president. # # * The New York Times, February 19 1997 # * # * Brig. General Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, Mexico's top Military Drug War # * point man, was arrested on charges of receiving payoffs from Jaurez # * cartel kingpin Amado Carrillo Fuentes, Defense Minister Enrique Cervantes # * announced. # * # * U.S. Drug Czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey had weeks earlier called General # * Gutierrez "a guy of absolute unquestioned integrity." # # # And what if some terrorists wanted to sneak in an atom bomb? # # Put a NAFTA sticker on it and drive right on in, y'all. Welcome to the USA. # # If you want to really be certain, hide the A-bomb in a truck full of cocaine. # # If a terrorist nuclear bomb ever goes off in this country, # it drove in from Mexico. # # Meanwhile, Los Alamos National Laboratories developed technology that # allows an officer walking or driving down the street, as shown on MSNBC TV # 6/9/97 www.TheSite.com, to determine whether anyone on the sidewalk is # carrying a gun. # # The priorities are all out of whack. # # Apply Military technology towards securing the border, not by spending # billions and billions and billions each year to secure each and every # one of us. # # We don't put governing-monitors on all car engines to control speeding. # Get an Operations Research clue. # # # Is our government perpetuating the availability of drugs? # # The 60 Minutes report sure makes it look like it is. # # How could letting unchecked Mexican truck after unchecked Mexican truck # through not be? # # ! FBI Director Louis J. Freeh, Senate Judiciary Committee, June 4, 1997 # ! # ! NEW CORRIDORS HAVE OPENED TO CONTINUE THE FLOOD OF DRUGS INTO AMERICA. # # No shit, Sherlock! Ya don't nafta say another word. # # Every single truck can be checked using Military technology. # # But no, massive monitoring of people suspected of no crime is the # appropriate response. # # They were just warming us up for the CALEA telephone monitoring bill. # # ---- # # Here is part of the story on why we let trucks full of cocaine and # heroin just roll right into the United States. # # * "Diminished U.S. Role Below Border Plays Into Traffickers' Hands" # * # * By Molly Moore and John Ward Anderson # * Washington Post Foreign Service # * Sunday, September 8 1996; Page A01 # * The Washington Post # * # * Due to their new 'Mexicanization policy': # * Mexico became the main gateway into the United States for illegal # * narcotics, with the amount of cocaine making the journey climbing to # * an estimated 210 tons last year. # * # * Mexico's drug arrests plunged nearly 65 percent, from 27,369 the year # * before the policy changes to 9,728 last year, according to data that # * the Mexican government supplied to the State Department. # * # * Cocaine seizures in Mexico were cut in half, dropping from more than # * 50 tons in 1993 to slightly more than 24 tons in each of the last two # * years -- the smallest amounts since 1988, Mexican government figures # * show. # * # * The GAO report charges that Mexico's greatest problem is, in # * fact, the "widespread, endemic corruption" throughout its law # * enforcement agencies. Earlier this month, in an indictment of his own # * department, Attorney General Lozano fired 737 members of his federal # * police force -- 17 percent of his entire corps -- saying they did not # * have "the ethical profile" required for the job. In a recent meeting # * with foreign reporters, Lozano said it could take 15 years to clean up # * the force. # * # * In November 1993, President Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive # * No. 14, shifting U.S. anti-drug efforts away from intercepting cocaine as # * it passed through Mexico and the Caribbean, and, instead, attacking the # * drug supply at its sources in Colombia, Bolivia and Peru. # # The President himself ordered them to stop checking!!! This is in the same # leadership vein as Reagan declaring himself a "Contra". # # And why did President Clinton change strategy? [snip] > * The Naval Surface Warfare Center has developed an "ion sniffer," > a metal box that analyzes the chemical makeup of the air -- and can detect, > for example, traces of cocaine through the skin days after drug use. Bad. > * In Georgia, the state's Department of Revenue will start using > NASA satellites to examine the state's 58,910 square miles for illegal > timber cutting. Good. > * In New Jersey, California, and other states, police use thermal > imaging devices to scan houses for unusual heat sources that could indicate > indoor marijuana growing operations. Houses can be scanned while police sit > in their cruisers on the street. Bad. CM excerpt: # Here is a more detailed example of how government expands surveillance # (and thus control) in a seemingly never-ending manner...consider this when # talking about a National ID Card: # # Is it okay for the government to look at your property while walking by and # if the officer spots marijuana plants growing to get a search warrant? # # Of course it is. # # * "The Right To Privacy", ISBN 0-679-74434-7, 1997 # * By Attorneys Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy # * # * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that if the yard was big enough that "An # * individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted # * out of doors in fields," the Court wrote, "except in the area immediately # * surrounding the home." # * # * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that a barn sixty yards from a farmhouse # * was too far away from a house to expect privacy. # * # * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that aerial surveillance did not constitute # * a Fourth Amendment search. # * # * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that a "precision aerial mapping camera" # * that was able to capture objects as small as one-half inch in diameter did # * not constitute a Fourth Amendment search. # # ...then courts ruled that infrared surveillance of homes was permissible. # # # What is this? # # * Subject: Re: Law Enforcement Aviation # * From: aufsj(a)imap2.asu.edu # * Date: 1996/12/27 # * Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military # * # * What interests me is how new technologies will be interpreted. I recently # * inquired at the local Law School about the courts views towards the use # * of impulse radar, and they said "Impulse what the heck?" # * # * Basically it is a radar that "sees through" things (like, say, your # * house). # * # * Their capabilities vary widely, but the feds are already using # * them and I know that Hughes corp. is designing a low-cost set up # * specifically for major police departments. # * # * They are driving towards a unit that can be mounted on a police helicopter. # * # * Will the police need a warrant? Who knows. Since they are allowed # * to do airborne infra-red analysis of your house, why not an take an # * airborne "x-ray" equivalent? # * # * --------------------------------------------------------------------- # * Steven J Forsberg at aufsj(a)imap2.asu.edu Wizard 87-01 > * And in Arizona, the state's Department of Water Resources uses > spy satellite photographs to monitor 750,000 acres of state farmland, and > compares the images to a database to discover which farmers don't have > irrigation permits. Good, I guess. > Even worse: The federal government will spend another $4.5 million > this year to develop even more intrusive surveillance equipment. Bad. > Currently under development by the Justice Department: A "super > x-ray" -- combining traditional x-ray technology, ultra-sound imaging, > and computer-aided metal detectors -- to reveal items hidden under clothes > from up to 60 feet away. Bad. > The courts are currently wrestling with the implications of the new > technology, debating the limits of the government's power to "search" > individuals from a distance with high-tech gadgets. Several contradictory > court decisions have already emerged, for example, about whether > thermal-imaging searches are Constitutional. > > Meanwhile, Republican and Democratic politicians continue to look > for new uses of the technology -- with some government officials already > talking about using satellite surveillance to track items as small as > backyard porches to check for zoning violations and construction permits. Smart cards are transponders. Never forget that. > "In the name of fighting crime, politicians seem eager to obliterate the > protections against unreasonable search, with equipment that Americans used > to only read about in Tom Clancy technothrillers," said Dasbach. "It's time > for the American public to wake up and realize that Big Brother is here > today -- and he's got a gamma ray scanner in his hand." No amount of control over the population is enough for the U.S. Government. ---guy

3 2

I was auto-outed by an IMG tag in HTML spam
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just had my on-line pseudonym outed to my company's VP of marketing, with potentially serious internecine political consequences. It didn't even take an AOL customer service rep to do the dirty deed. Here's how it happened. I have an account unconnected with work, for personal mail, on a machine run by a friend in my wife's department at the local college. From this account, I speak my mind about my political views, my employer's spamming of their rather loosely defined lists of "customers", etc. I don't do that from my work account because I don't want any confusion about whether I am speaking for the company or not. Evidently my mention of my displeasure with my company's spamming hit a nerve with marketing. They sent a message to my off-site address (along with those of other critics about whom they wanted to know more). It was an HTML message with an embedded IMG tag. Last night about midnight, I downloaded my off-site mail with Netscape. (I was still at work because our team is debugging some killer database problems.) When Netscape saw that IMG tag, it happily connected to marketing's "customer" tracking server, and downloaded the keyed graphic. My boss just let me see the log he got from the marketing VP, showing clearly that my workstation read the message. The log was attached to a strident call for my head from the VP. Luckily, my boss agrees with my attitude, as do all of my co-workers on the engineering side of the house, and thinks I was in the right to use an off-site account. But the political fallout could be interesting. Beware "live" message content. If you don't, you may end up having to get your company's entire marketing force fired to protect yourself. Use mail readers that don't automatically process HTML and connect to image servers, accept cookies, or run javascripts. You are being watched by tricky defective, er, detective types. es.

5 6

What's up in SASEBO, or Don't Tug The Beard
by David Honig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: "George Martin" <gmartin(a)usonet.ne.jp> >To: "honig(a)otc.net" <honig(a)otc.net> >Date: Sat, 04 Apr 98 22:25:07 +0900 >Reply-To: "George D. Martin" <gmartin(a)usonet.ne.jp> >Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: PMMail 1.95a For OS/2 >Subject: > >>4)From: David Honig <honig(a)otc.net> >>Subject: Illegal export of pgp.zip by .mil > >>http://braggbbs.bragg.army.mil/libs/utils.htm >>has a link to ftp://bbs.bragg.army.mil/library/utils/pgp262.zip > >>Someone (from Europe, ideally) should clue these people >>in. Maybe cc the media. > >Maybe you should've checked out the url to see if it was >valid before you shot your mouth off in public... The file >was removed quite a few months ago and was never download >by anyone outside of the .mil domain. Take your >troublemaking somewhere else. I of course informed him that he was mininformed or uninformed. honig(a)alum.mit.edu ------------------ "Are we going after their tax returns? I can only hope that we are, frankly, doing a little persecuting" ---Nixon to Erlichman, on tax audits of wealthy Jewish contributors to the Democrats. -LA Times 1.4.98

2 1

Finally... a One-Time-Pad implementation that works!!!
by Geoffrey C. Grabow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- TriStrata has announced that is has a product that provides OTP without the pad distribution problem. The product also has a unique key-recovery system. Check out: http://www.tristrata.com for details. **************************************************************************** ************* PGP 5.5.3 Fingerprint: 15B3 DDC1 93BB 4BDF 4DFD 1B27 12A1 E0C4 **************************************************************************** ************* -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com> iQEVAwUBNZVo5dc2wHb8nZI1AQFqngf/bCJVbMQX/5sYb181CLONmqWjPzhQ66Ef HoyPqxRzEyq4FSWnIuQODH/YTeyyQROUqCZGhC19v8PCiZpI1ynSvn4i+Zcjv9I0 OZBThzKayNoMne7TkNr49Ah9BwDK6XuwS9bns1xM65zfKLpvKP2gboWkADD52K4w eUuJx/cTaR7PgdO/q6nrVRNq1jlaJsFBKGt2q5E1S12ZK1nA+mpKAS95XMgr2IMx 5/wJ+jsOIUTn2gWR64nhluOgmcACeIVsiRlsGqfUdL8gJHAl0gaQ7E1+HSOBx60K Ur5x5MzQKBKlWcoDaEXB1AsICW2enwdGVOxPBklq1CbcQxFXdBj1DQ== =vZmi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3

Re: FBI calls for mandatory key escrow; Denning on export ctrls
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The on-line NYT's claim today that everyone except the administration is opposed to its crypto policy is daring hyperbole. What's your take on that? http://jya.com/crypto-tops.htm

6 5

New GAK Bill
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

5 September 1997, MSNBC: FBI Director Louis Freeh floats a new proposal at a congressional hearing to outlaw non-breakable crypto products. A radical shift in crypto debate Proposed bill outlaws non-crackable crypto products, restrict imports By Brock N. Meeks, MSNBC WASHINGTON -- The White House would likely be very sympathetic to a controversial new bill that would outlaw all encryption software that doesn't allow law enforcement agencies to immediately decode scrambled messages, an administration official told MSNBC. The new bill, still in draft form, is quietly circulating among members of the House and Senate. Although the administration hasn't formally endorsed any provisions of the bill, MSNBC has learned that the White House has been providing what is called technical drafting assistance to members of Congress writing the bill. William Reinsch, the Commerce Department undersecretary for export administration, confirmed the White House involvement for MSNBC on Thursday night. The draft bill was already in the hands of some members of the Senate's Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Regulation when FBI Director Louis Freeh outlined its basic provisions while testifying before the panel Wednesday. Freeh said "we would recommend" that legislation be written requiring all encryption software or services made in or imported to the United States to have a feature "which would allow for the immediate, lawful decryption" of any scrambled messages used for illegal purposes or in a national security matter. NATION AT RISK? The White House, FBI and intelligence agencies claim that the proliferation of unbreakable encryption products puts the nation at risk. Criminals and terrorists are increasingly using unbreakable encryption products, Freeh testified Wednesday. U.S. makers of encryption software claim that any government-mandated decoding features would make their products unacceptable to clients in the global marketplace. The new proposals outlined by Freeh also drew the ire of civil liberties groups, which fear that any government controls on encryption products raise serious First Amendment and privacy concerns. Placing such government-mandated controls on the domestic use and manufacture of encryption software, as well as on the import of encryption products, stands in marked contrast to current White House crypto policies. Currently, the United States places strict regulations on the export of any encryption products that do make decoding keys available to law enforcement agencies. However, the administration has steadfastly maintained throughout the often contentious public debate over encryption policies that it would not place any restrictions on the domestic use of encryption software, nor would it restrict the import of encryption products. Despite Freeh's testimony and the draft legislation written with White House assistance, Reinsch said the administration's policy on encryption hasn't changed. "I want to emphasize that [in providing drafting assistance] we are responding to committee requests," he said. "And those requests have been fairly directive, such as: 'Give us some examples of how we can better accommodate law enforcement needs.' " Currently, the White House is backing an encryption bill in the Senate called the Secure Public Networks Act, also known as S. 909. This bill would encourage the use of and set up guidelines for encryption software products with decoding keys. Under this plan, all coded messages would spin off a decoding key that would be stored with a government-approved third party. Law enforcement agencies, foreign or domestic, would be allowed access to those keys if they obtained a court-ordered warrant. The bill would not restrict or require any encryption software used in the United States, or restrict the import of any foreign crypto products. However, MSNBC has learned that the draft bill now circulating among members of the House and Senate specifically outlaws the "manufacture, distribution or import" of any encryption software product or communication device that does not "allow the immediate decryption" of all scrambled messages or communications "if used for illegal purposes." The bill also targets "network services," such as Internet Service Providers, that provide encryption capabilities to their clients. BAN WOULD GO INTO EFFECT IN 1999 Under this proposed bill, if such encryption services are offered by a company like ISP, the service provider must build in a provision to allow for immediate decryption of any scrambled messages, according to several sources that have seen the draft language. The software ban would go into effect in January 1999. Reinsch told MSNBC he wasn't sure that Freeh's testimony "accurately reflected" the language the White House offered in its technica drafting for congressional committees. However, he indicated the administration was interested in Freeh's proposal. "I'll be blunt about it," Reinsch said. If such a bill were approved by a congressional committee, the administration "would look very seriously at it and I imagine we would be very sympathetic to it," he said. Opponents of proposals to require key for all encryption software blanched at Freeh's statements. "This proposal crosses a line that hasn't been crossed before in the area of domestic controls on crypto," said Alan Davidson, policy analyst for the Center for Democracy and Technology. Davidson said a government mandate to provide immediate decryption capabilities would be like "forcing everyone to live in a glass house." It also "trashes the Fourth Amendment," which guarantees a right to be protected from unlawful search and seizure, Davidson said. Freeh told the Senate panel Wednesday that he isn't looking to expand law enforcement's investigative powers. Rather, he said, he is only looking for a "Fourth Amendment that works in the Information Age." ------

4 5

Re: House National Security committee guts SAFE, worse than no b
by Lizard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:00 PM 9/9/97 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Michael, you once again fail to note the important political issues here. >Sometimes civil liberties, freedom, and constitutional rights must be >ignored in favor of pragmatism. It is important at all costs to remain a >player in the game. > No, it isn't. You end up being more concerned with being in the game than with achieving your goals. Sometimes, you have to kick the board over. I think it is more important to make the laws unenforceable (and make such workarounds useful to the average netizen), than it is to try to keep the government from passing laws. The work of people like Jim Ray and Phillip Baker is crucial here. The government is unlikely to pass laws to limit its own authority, on any issue -- even those who might not want to use a particular power would still want to keep it around 'just in case'. We cannot count on government to protect our freedoms. Therefore, we must make it irrelevant to the exercise of those freedoms. >Instead of opposing bad crypto legislation, we should instead work inside >the process, to gain a seat at the table. That is why it is highly >significant that both Commerce and FBI want to rid us of our freedom but >would do it in subtly different ways. Not really, know. It's unlikely that a "Let's you and him fight" strategy would prove effective, since this isn't just an interdepartmental turf squabble. They will strip our freedoms first, and argue over who gets the thumbscrews second.

2 1

Please Remove
by contest 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please remove setzer(a)wl.net from this mailing list

2 1