December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

EPIC Statement on FBI Wiretap Bill
by Dave Banisar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

*DISTRIBUTE WIDELY* EPIC Statement on Digital Telephony Wiretap Bill The digital telephony bill recently introduced in Congress is the culmination of a process that began more than two years ago, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation first sought legislation to ensure its ability to conduct electronic surveillance through mandated design changes in the nation's information infrastructure. We have monitored that process closely and have scrutinized the FBI's claims that remedial legislation is necessary. We have sponsored conferences at which the need for legislation was debated with the participation of the law enforcement community, the telecommunications industry and privacy advocates. We have sought the disclosure of all relevant information through a series of requests under the Freedom of Information Act. Having thus examined the issue, EPIC remains unconvinced of the necessity or advisability of the pending bill. As a threshold matter, we do not believe that a compelling case has been made that new communications technologies hamper the ability of law enforcement agencies to execute court orders for electronic surveillance. For more than two years, we have sought the public disclosure of any FBI records that might document such a problem. To date, no such documentation has been released. Without public scrutiny of factual information on the nature and extent of the alleged technological impediments to surveillance, the FBI's claims remain anecdotal and speculative. Indeed, the telecommunications industry has consistently maintained that it is unaware of any instances in which a communications carrier has been unable to comply with law enforcement's requirements. Under these circumstances, the nation should not embark upon a costly and potentially dangerous re-design of its telecommunications network solely to protect the viability of fewer than 1000 annual surveillances against wholly speculative impediments. We also believe that the proposed legislation would establish a dangerous precedent for the future. While the FBI claims that the legislation would not enhance its surveillance powers beyond those contained in existing law, the pending bill represents a fundamental change in the law's approach to electronic surveillance and police powers generally. The legislation would, for the first time, mandate that our means of communications must be designed to facilitate government interception. While we as a society have always recognized law enforcement's need to obtain investigative information upon presentation of a judicial warrant, we have never accepted the notion that the success of such a search must be guaranteed. By mandating the success of police searches through the re-design of the telephone network, the proposed legislation breaks troubling new ground. The principle underlying the bill could easily be applied to all emerging information technologies and be incorporated into the design of the National Information Infrastructure. It could also lead to the prohibition of encryption techniques other than government-designed "key escrow" or "Clipper" type systems. In short, EPIC believes that the proposed digital telephony bill raises substantial civil liberties and privacy concerns. The present need for the legislation has not been established and its future implications are frightening. We therefore call upon all concerned individuals and organizations to express their views on the legislation to their Congressional representatives. We also urge you to contact Rep. Jack Brooks, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to share your opinions: Rep. Jack Brooks Chair, House Judiciary Committee 2138 Rayburn House Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-3951 (voice) (202) 225-1958 (fax) The bill number is H.R. 4922 in the House and S. 2375 in the Senate. It can be referred to as the "FBI Wiretap Bill" in correspondence. Electronic Privacy Information Center 666 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E. Suite 301 Washington, DC 20003 (202) 544-9240 (voice) (202) 547-5482 (fax) <info(a)epic.org> EPIC is a project of the Fund for Constitutional Government and Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. =======================================================================

1 0

New StegoInfo Page on WWW
by machado＠newton.apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fellow C'punx, Those of you with WWW access might wish to check out my new StegoInfo Page at: http://www.nitv.net/~mech/Romana/stego.html Enjoy. Romana Machado romana(a)apple.com WWW: page under construction To each, according to his greed; from each, according to his gullibility.

1 0

Re: Mail to all drivers in Oregon?
by Pierre Uszynski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Greg Broiles writes: > > Probably more than any of us want to pony up. [...] > > you're still talking about a $216,000 mailing. Pick a smallish city (but one that's "on the map" for whatever reason, university, companies, whatever), and target everyone in the city. At the same time similarly target a number of journalists in the national media. Send to all of these all the data you can find about themselves. This way you minimize the expense, and you get the national media to amplify this and make sure everybody in the country knows about the event. Jeffrey Rothfeder did it with one such journalist (Dan Rather) if I remember around 1989 (story in Business week, Sept 1989). And reuses all this stuff for the book "Privacy for sale", 1992). But he did it on a small scale, just for a story, and a story that he could put his name on. As opposed to what we are talking about here. Pierre. pierre(a)shell.portal.com

1 0

Unauthorized Advertising Attempt
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Explanation: The Citizen-Unit known as Timothy C. May is a well-known subversive given to the wide dissemination of disinformation and not expected to comply with Authorities, regulations, or advertising fee schedules. There is no mistaking him: in our exhaustive search through all the phone books on the National Database, there was only one. ~ Data

1 0

Re: Creating privacy crises: Society hacking
by Jeff Gostin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

nelson(a)crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) writes: > I have compiled the following information on your 17-year-old > daughter from open governmental sources, e.g. voting records, birth > records, DMV records, etc. Perhaps the government shouldn't be > keeping these records? More importantly, and in addition: Your dear Kimberly has a 2.3 gpa at Lower Central HS. She is in Aerobic Gum Twiddling until 10:30, at which time she proceeds to Some Math Class 3 until 12:00. At 12:00. . . Definately much scarier. :-) --Jeff -- ====== ====== +----------------jgostin(a)eternal.pha.pa.us----------------+ == == | The new, improved, environmentally safe, bigger, better,| == == -= | faster, hypo-allergenic, AND politically correct .sig. | ==== ====== | Now with a new fresh lemon scent! | PGP Key Available +---------------------------------------------------------+

2 1

Re: In Search of Genuine DigiCash
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:17 AM 8/22/94 -0400, Jason W Solinsky wrote: >A buck is NOT a buck. It keeps on going down in value. We should use the >introduction of digicash to finally create a monetary instrument that never >experiences positive inflation. It's important not to pile on too many features, desires, agendas onto a relatively simple financial instrument. The point of digital cash is to provide liquidity for internet commerce as cheaply as possible. Anonymity is a happy benefit. Engineering it for anyother purpose reduces its efficiency. >Incorporate in a foreign land, invest the >money safely, issue and buy back shares according to a fixed formula that >depends only on the valuation of the company, publish your returns and >register the stock as securities in as many lands as possible. You now >have a perfectly legal basis for digicash. The shares will float in the >range of values specified by the stock issuance formula. They will >gradually go up relative to inflation and will be easily traded in multiple >currencies. And it will be really difficult for most governments to attack >the "payable to bearer" nature of the currency because it would encroach on >the rights of all American corporations. No? Or, you can take money in over the window and turn it into digital cash denominated on a dollar basis, priced at that point with discounts or primia as necessary. Occam's razor. >> In theory, though it probably won't happen, an underwriter could issue a >> greater amount of digital cash than regular cash paid for it ... [snip...] > >This will once again make the value of the digicash dependent on when it was >issued. An alternative formulation of this same scheme would have the value >od digi-cash be invariant with the data of issue, but have periodic >redemption dates on which the value of the digi-cash would jump. I find >neither to be desireable. That's true, but the difference in price reflects the estimated future value of that money in a suspension account plus the operating costs of the underwriter, not by some complex pricing methodology which makes the cash more difficult to use. >Market liquidity is increased by convenience to the holder of the securities, >not the issuer of the securities. I cash out my "digiDollar" today, it's a dollar. I cash out my digiDollar tomorrow, it's a dollar. I cash out my digiDollar the next day, it's a dollar. Looks pretty simple to use to me. (a digiDollar is a dollar is a dollar is a dollar) :-). [Oops. I went and concocted some more buzzy language. Occupational hazard. Don't worry, I'll try not to use it anymore, and maybe it'll die gracefully.] Cheers, Bob ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone Shipwright Development Corporation who eats too little and sees Heaven and 44 Farquhar Street someone who drinks too much and sees Boston, MA 02331 USA snakes." -- Bertrand Russell (617) 323-7923

2 1

Re: Creating privacy crises: Society hacking
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> At the HOPE conference, there was someone selling CD-ROMs of the DMV > records for Oregon for $125. The same folks promise to add more states > soon: next in line is Texas. > Perhaps one could generate a privacy crisis by collecting that information > and conducting a mass mailing to every person in the database: "we have > this information on you. So could anybody with $125. Call your congress > critter and complain." Mailing that information to everybody in Oregon would be expensive. On the other hand, mailing it to everyone in the Oregon legislature, the governor, the DMV honchos, and maybe a few other high honchos could be interesting, and might not cost that much..... Bill

3 2

Re: EPIC Statement on FBI Wiretap Bill
by Lile Elam 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Good show, my man! At least some group is taking a stand other than the short-changed stand that the EFF has taken. How do I join EPIC? Glad I never joined the EFF.... :) -lile

1 0

Scanner Banners
by j.hastings6＠genie.geis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - From ham operator N8TQJ @ W8BI.#DAY.OH.USA.NA: I gained access to a memo from Tandy Inc. headquarters in Fort Worth Texas that stated that because of an "engineering defect" the Realistic Pro 23 and the Pro 46 handheld scanners were to be immediately pulled from the shelves and NOT allowed for sale. This "defect" causes these 2 radios to fail the "compliance" specs of this "law". All district supervisors for Radio Shack are to monitor sales records of all stores within their jurisdiction on a DAILY basis, and ANY sales of the Pro 23 & 46 by ANY employee will result in "...immediate termination of employment". This is because these 2 radios do "...not conform" to the FCC ban of any scanner that can be "...easily modified" to receive 800 MHz cellular phone frequencies. This "ban" went into effect April 24, 1994, yet allows the sale of scanners already in this country, none may be imported, designed or built after this date. The memo went on to say that there will be no further warehousing and store restock of the Pro 51 handheld and the Pro 2026 moblie (similar to the BEARCAT 560 & 760) scanners and that all supplies of these 2 scanners will be sold out and not replenished. However, there are stores within the Dayton- Cincinnati-Columbus triangle that have the 2026 and the 51 and are allowed to sell them. This situation defies all logic and makes no sense at all whatsoever, Let's look at some facts: 1) ALL these scanners are cell-phone modifiable, and "easily". 2) The 23(banned from sale)and the 51(not banned)are both contemporous in design and date of model introduction. Both of these radios modify by a keyboard keystroke manipulation(1994 model introduction). 3) The 46(banned from sale)and the 2026(not banned)are both contem- porous in design and date of model introduction, and are electrically similar in design. These radios are "hardware" modified, a wire cut in the 2026 and 2 chip jumpers removed and one relocated in the 46. Why this jumbled shuffling? I think that this is another boot-licking snafu by Tandy, as the incident where Tandy pulled ALL scanners from the shelves in The People's Republic Of New Jersey when this State proposed a ban of ALL scanners. I would love to know what the Feds are up to, as cellular phones will be digitally encrypted shortly. Is this cell phone "ban" a legal prec- ident to ban further frequencies from citizen's monitoring access? Are we on the road to Soviet-like Goverbment controls: * Firearms confiscation * Internal passports * Limits on communications outside of local areas Noah's flood began with one raindrop. 73 To All - From The UnHappy Club Corny N8TQJ@W8BI - ---------------- The message above taken from the ham packet network. Thought it might be of interest here. Kent - j.hastings6(a)genie.geis.com Ham packet AX.25: WA6ZFY @ WB6YMH.#SOCA.CA.USA.NA -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLljVFTQYUX1dU7vxAQG4sAQA3HCTZ/SxZmbFOVRy1mIjeUorFeFWLuAN C26A4JM87O7iMvQa3sa0ZiUZd7syVBZy4+mINiert+7Uu/RRLjb4wIThyD0HAQZp 83B45XDHu2QI13dvtxwd4xC/Vqbgknraduma385gWjUSMexFW9nPtd+gcKGyO82P /4tehiEeX1s= =atNQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Multiple Solutions
by blancw＠pylon.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Questions for Cryptids: Considering that: Everyone wants to have access, but no one wants 'their' info to be available indiscriminately. Everyone wants ease-of-use, but no one wants to have their system made vulnerable by it. Everyone wants wide markets, but no one wants to have easily duplicatable products. Everyone wants to corner the market for their product, but no one wants a monopoly of one - or a reduction in choices. .. Would you say that ideally all electronic information should be encrypted as a matter of course; is it the best circumstance to have absolutely everything encrypted, with systems or processes for access available only to select or paying members of the chosen cabal, no exceptions? Given that personal information is shared almost automatically between & among all sorts of businesses & gov. agencies, and that in order to prevent that, laws & regulations would be called on to put the label of illegality & the force of the law behind them: .. How could (would, should?) the procurement of services, where one is requested to give out personal financial or other information in order to receive them, be accomplished in an anarcho-capitalist system of operations whereby interactions/transactions might be 'illegal' yet supremely functional & directly beneficial, while not also being intrusive & offensive? How could all of this data be 'contained' so that it would not be irreverently distributed by irresponsible parties? .. What, in such a system, would be a method for redress of violations of contract - personal vendettas? I'm imagining these elements within a context wherein all things are electronically possible, though only some are desireable, but all are individually manageable & controllable. Blanc

1 0