December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Sympatico Petition
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

john smith wrote: > > Please tell me everything Sympatico has done to make you think they > moniter your email. Everything please and i can make something of it. When I first saw your email re: Sympatico petition, I assumed that Sympatico would be monitoring activity surrounding the petition. I visted your web site on Oct 28 and surfed around. When I got to the petition-signing page, I decided not to sign, in order to see if those merely visiting the page were being monitored. I pretty much forgot about it until I got an email from Sympatico Admin which dealt with what appeared to be bogus concerns, and containing vague threats of loss of access. I checked out the headers on my past incoming and outgoing email and found changes in the way it was routed and dealt with--changes which started shortly after I visited your website. I confirmed the results of my traffic analysis on my own account by checking them against those of another Sympatico account whose records I have access to, and which is used as a 'control' because it is used only for very normal and boring communications by a very regular jane/joe. (The changes started late on Oct 28th, and I got the threat from Sympatico on Nov. 4th.) As well, my follow up communications with Sympatico Admin resulted in replies which contained further evidence that the claims they were making in regard for the reasons for their actions were askew. Sympatico is little more than a company that acts as a front for the Canadian Telecos, so that they can continue to operate what are basically monopolies, without appearing to do so. SaskTel charged outrageous connect charges of ~$5.00 an hour out in the boonies, as long as they could. When it became apparent that they couldn't get away with it for much longer, Sympatico appeared on the scene, as SaskTel's 'competition'. The two entered into a sweetheart deal which effectively allows Sympatico and SaskTel to operate a dual monopoly, by making it difficult for small operators in the boonies to get a cut of the action. You may have noticed that 'Sympatico Admin' is pretty much synonymous with the SaskNet Admin. Their bum-buddy relationship is covered by only a thin veil of pretension. SaskTel still manages to maintain a semi-monopoly in the big cities, but their real power comes in the boondocks, where the Sympatico deal allowing no toll-charges effectively cuts out the smaller providers who can only offer services to a handful of in-area customers. The bottom line is that there are advantages to the basic infrastrucure of the system being developed by a single entity, such as SaskTel, but if that entity is allowed to pick and choose who receives preferred treatment, then they tend to do so in their own interests, and not in the interests of the end users. SaskTel charged $5.00/hr connect time in the boonies until there were enough complaints that they made a deal with Sympatico to control the market at slightly less monopolistic rates. People tend not to figure out that the change from $5.00/hr to around $1.50/hr, practically overnight, merely reflects that SaskTel charged over twice what was reasonable, for as long as they could get away with it. I checked the numbers, in regard to bandwidth costs, etc., to hook up and provide an InterNet service, and found that the types of rates you quote on your website are not out of line, but are not possible if one cannot get the type of deal Sympatico gets. e.g. - I charge you $20/month for total access, but you pay $6.00/hr to SaskTel for long-distance charges, to connect. SaskTel/Sympatico will continue to maintain a monopoly whose prices will reflect how much they can charge before complaints force them to move toward more truly competitive rates. I applaud your efforts to make some noise in this regard, and hope that they have the effect of forcing SaskTel/Sympatico to maintain their monopoly at more reasonable rates than at present. I am somewhat notorious in certain areas of the underground computer movement, having been involved in the dissemination of a number of subversive on-line manuscripts, so I often get hackers and phreaks sending me confidential information from my ISP's. I found it rather humorous that the original email from the Sympatico Admin: > Please note: this note is being sent to our security dept. as we > deem this type of activity to be mis-use of the mail system and > as such you could loose your access privileges. ...contained an 'additional' note from a hacker named the Evil-1, who added: > [And I'll make sure you get a copy! (;>} ~~ Evil-1] Toto ~~~~ "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix "WebWorld & the Mythical Circle of Eunuchs" http://bureau42.base.org/public/webworld "InfoWar" http://bureau42.base.org/public/infowar3 "The Final Frontier" http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/carljohn

1 0

Cypherpunks Web
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cypherpunks International (CYPHERPUNKS5-DOM) 23 Net St. Ste 31337 New York, NY 10001 Domain Name: CYPHERPUNKS.ORG Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Burnham, Daniel E. A (DEB48) deab(a)FRESH.FLY.NET 212-840-2600 Billing Contact: Burnham, Daniel E. A (DEB48) deab(a)FRESH.FLY.NET 212-840-2600 Record last updated on 20-Sep-97. Record created on 04-Jul-97. Database last updated on 5-Nov-97 05:56:01 EDT. Domain servers in listed order: NS.OTEC.COM 206.64.4.67 NS1.EARTHWEB.COM 206.152.10.2 ----------------------------------------- Cypherpunks (CYPHERPUNKS4-DOM) 9705 Standford Road Ft. Meade, MD 20755 US Domain Name: CYPHERPUNKS.NET Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Shostack, Adam (AS409) adam(a)HOMEPORT.ORG (617) 354-4827 Billing Contact: Shostack, Adam (AS409) adam(a)HOMEPORT.ORG (617) 354-4827 Record last updated on 11-Apr-97. Record created on 11-Apr-97. Database last updated on 5-Nov-97 05:56:01 EDT. Domain servers in listed order: NS.HOMEPORT.ORG 205.136.65.205 SATISFIED.APOCALYPSE.ORG 192.48.232.24 ----------------------------------------- cypherpunks (REMAILER-DOM) 1819 Woolsey St. Berkeley, CA 94703 Domain Name: REMAILER.NET Administrative Contact: Hughes, Eric (EH9) eric(a)SAC.NET (415) 392-0526 Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Levy, Elias M. (EML2) aleph1(a)DFW.NET 619-794-8383 (FAX) (619) 794-8373 Billing Contact: Hughes, Eric (EH9) eric(a)SAC.NET (415) 392-0526 Record last updated on 16-Apr-97. Record created on 09-Nov-94. Database last updated on 5-Nov-97 05:56:01 EDT. Domain servers in listed order: FLYING.FISH.COM 140.174.97.13 NS1.SAC.NET 208.146.161.2

2 1

[news] TV station sets cybersex sting
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

*** TV station sets cybersex sting With cyperporn and cybersex ranking as sensational news items on local TV stations, Fox's Los Angeles outlet has taken the trend a step further by ensnaring adult sexual predators. KTTV's Fox 11 News at 10 worked with a 21-year-old woman posing as a 14-year-old to conduct cybersting operations that led to the arrests of five men. KTTV used the unnamed woman as bait, having her enter online chat rooms where she was immediately targeted. The station filmed the online seductions as well as the arrests of the men, who included an attorney, a doctor, a retired Army officer and an investigator for the Dept. of Labor. See story at http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=5777644-464

1 0

Taxing Churches for their views? Bad idea. (fwd)
by Brandon Crosby 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > >More telling, she doesn't seem to have a problem using a religious (and > >therefore tax-exempt) organization to push a political agenda. Apparently > >that whole 'separation of church and state' thing only applies when it's > >convenient. > > > >If religions want to play politics, the least we can do is get them to pay > >for the privilege. I'd feel a certain guilty pleasure seeing some of those > >bottom-feeders taxed into penury. > > Nonsense. And a dangerous course. Yes. > One can decide to "tax churches" or to "not tax churches." I have no > particularly strong opinion on either option. > > But one must definitely _not_ base the decision to tax or not to tax on the > opinions expressed by a church! Agian, yes. > One cannot decide to tax the Catholic Church "into penury" because its > anti-abortion views have become politically incorrect in the last 30 years. > Nor can one decide to tax the tempes and synagogues of Judaism "into > penury" because they are centers of support for the Zionist Entity. 'Political Agenda' and free speech are two seperate things. Nowadays, free speech is constantly being challanged by racism, bias and such. People sue each other because they say something that makes someone feel bad. Churches lie at the center of free speech, being awarded for their views by tax exemption. Should 3M have tax exemptions because it gives people jobs? While I do not want a debate over tax exemptions in churches, 'Free Speech' may very well involve supporting canidates for positions in a democracy. This is the very basis for elections. However, one begins to question this reasoning when a church leader attempts to get into the government, using the church's tax exemptions, for either support of the church, support of self, or some illegal (or, at least, unethical) mix. Should churches be tax exempt? Without their long history of helping people, I doubt they would have any benifits. However, even if their privillige was removed, they would simply be able to donate less money to community causes. Uncle Sam (and his son, IRS) really shouldn't be applied to this subject: What is free speech? Is tax exemption justifiable to all types of [free] speech? -Brandon Crosby [Can you see the ghosts making snowmen?]

3 2

In Burma, the Internet is access to democracy, from Newsday
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A very nice piece in Newsday. My writeup of my visit to Burma a year ago is at: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,475,00.html Because of roadblocks, I had to hike across fields and through villages to get to the site of the sole Burmese Net-connection at a local university. It was set to become operational in spring 1997. I also heard of unconfirmed reports that the military had a Net-connection through a friendly nearby country, probably Singapore. (Perhaps to monitor soc.culture.burma or somesuch.) BTW, the best mailing list on Burma news I've found is burmanews-l(a)igc.apc.org. I also hid my interview notes in the bottom of my bag. I made an extra copy of the crucial ones and put the paper in my wallet, just in case. -Declan ************* Newsday (New York, NY) November 12, 1997 LIFE IN CYBERSPACE / FOR MANY, THE INTERNET IS ACCESS TO DEMOCRACY By Matthew McAllester RANGOON, Burma THE MAN LEANED across the table and spoke so quietly that no one but the two of us could hear. His eyes moved from side to side, scanning the restaurant and the street outside for possible informers or military intelligence agents. That's the way people communicate in Burma when they're talking with a foreigner about something that could land them in prison for several years. "You know what?" the man said. "I got e-mail." "You can't have," I said. For several reasons I knew he had to be telling me a tall story. For a start, it's illegal to access the Internet in Burma. It's illegal to own an unlicensed fax machine or modem. A few years ago a supporter of the largest pro-democracy party in Burma died in prison, where he'd been sent because he did not have a license for his fax machine. Besides, no one has e-mail or Internet access in Burma except for a select few business owners who are friendly with the military regime that rules the country. Diplomats at a few foreign embassies also acknowledge that they have Net access and e-mail despite the Burmese government's restrictions. Even then, they say their e-mail is intercepted and read by the Burmese authorities. This is a country where reporters have to visit in the guise of tourists, which is how I traveled in September and October. In Burma, all international calls are listened to by the operator and, the Burmese people assume, by military intelligence. When I wanted to make a call to the United States, the receptionist at my hotel told me it would cost $35 for five minutes if I wanted to dial direct. I opted for the storefront down the road, where I sat for 30 minutes waiting for a connection. When I got through to my friend, I was less than chatty about what I'd been up to. So how could the man I was talking to across the table possibly have navigated these political and technological barriers to get e-mail? "No, I do. I got it," he said. The man smiled. He's a fixer. A small business owner. People come to him for help. He's thinking of offering people access to his Net account - for a price. Most of all, he looks out for himself, keeping on the right side of the military authorities but not showing them the fear they are so used to seeing in the faces of Burmese people. "I dial out anywhere I can," he said. "My account is in Australia, but I'll use a server from anywhere. Anywhere." For the sake of communicating with the outside world, the man was prepared to risk prison. I've written before about how a good number of governments around the world restrict or ban Internet access to their citizens. Free-speech advocates told me how some governments fear the spread of anti-government information and opinions that dissent from the official line. The advocates told me how democratizing the Internet is by its nature. But being told and seeing with one's own eyes is a very different experience. After a couple of weeks viewing how the military government's system of informers and control of information contributed to its firm grip on power, I could understand why it has banned the Net. The Net's speed and resistance to control would be an unstoppable force in organizing opposition to the military regime. "What would happen if you had Net access?" I asked another Burmese man, who spoke in a whisper even when he was alone at home. "The government, it would be over," he said. "We could share information." Information and open communication in an oppressive state like Burma are invaluable tools in fighting the status quo. I spent some time one evening in Rangoon with U Tin Oo, a former general in the Burmese army and now a senior leader of the National League for Democracy, the largest pro-democracy party. All told, he's spent nine years in prison for his political activities. As we spoke, the phone often rang. Delegates to the party conference that weekend were en route to Rangoon, and they called Tin Oo to discuss the event. The conversations were superficial. "They tap my phone always," Tin Oo explained. When I left I had to take two taxis and walk among crowds in downtown Rangoon to shake the military intelligence officials that a pro-democracy contact had said would follow me. I worried about my own information, my notes. I longed to be able to turn them into ones and zeroes and e-mail them home. Instead, I hid them at the bottom of my backpack. A couple of weeks later I was in Thailand, interviewing Burmese dissidents and refugees who have fled the Burmese government. Working with them in the north of Thailand are several westerners who work as human-rights campaigners, doctors and advocates for the refugees. E-mail is an important tool in their work, as it helps them coordinate with people outside Thailand. One woman collects every story she can find about Burma into the BurmaNet News e-mail newsletter. BurmaNet News is delivered to the e-mail boxes of hundreds of journalists, activists and government officials around the world. It's precisely the kind of democratizing spread of information that the Burmese people are denied. But even in Thailand there are problems. The human-rights advocates and health workers use encryption when communicating online. "They read all our e-mail," said an Australian doctor, referring to the Thai authorities. The Thai government maintains diplomatic relations with the Burmese government, a pariah regime to many other democracies. "The other day I tried to get my e-mail and my password had been changed."

1 0

Re: Selling a Persistent Identity
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Amad3us wrote: >Try this Monty: > >The new owner of the Monty persona is defined to be the first public >key which is signed by Monty's private key and posted to this forum. > >So the buyer sends Monty a public key, and Monty signs it and posts >it to the list. (Optionally via a trusted third party to ensure fair >play. There is a race condition in the making there but it's not too >bad, we could fix it if we were bothered.) > >So Monty can cheat and post one he signed earlier selling to a >different key, but we will ignore those because we base it on first >posted. > >Buyers will no longer be interested in buying Monty's persona after >they have seen it sold, because they know it is no longer his. > >The person who buys Monty's persona could resell it. Using the same >protocol. This arrangement has analogs in the real world. When a doctor sells his practice, the patients are all notified. But, I think there are some True Name issues. The doctor tends to assure the patients that he has carefully selected the new doctor. People know the doctor and as a consequence tend to believe him. This isn't really true of an anonymous persistent identity. Let's say it was doing a significant amount of business. If you knew that its ownership had changed, you might hesitate before doing a deal which had a lot of fraud exposure. On the other hand, the purchaser of the identity has an investment which he may not want to endanger. If the identity cost $1 million and the outstanding deals only amounted to $100,000, fraud would be a bad deal for the owner. One reason why trading anonymous identities is a good idea is that it baffles pursuit. Every time you use one, information is revealed. Even if you are doing things like transmitting 100K to the remailers every hour, from time to time your net connection will go down, or whatever, and increase the odds that The Enemy will have a more accurate picture of your True Name. (This works best if the transaction is handled privately.) But, if the persistent identity starts operating from someplace else, it makes those attacks quite a bit more difficult, especially if there is no public announcement regarding the change of ownership. The transaction makes sense even if two identities of equal value are traded. (BTW, "Monty Cantsin" a.k.a. 0x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is not for sale. After using one persistent identity for awhile, you become emotionally attached to it!) Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNGn0xJaWtjSmRH/5AQH3tAf/TYxrCZxJj4aUMsiKISjMzNByhwDRjfxN xkbuU4JHTklEbOmwwoz1x8goK8vmibVV35Z7Q8p4mP6fPMACJE8k/sLkMJ+EAW0r pnT8khQM4Vh2wNwpk/6FGxABjt+pIJEDdWmVaz7N5exUS3wfT/kvPelnbvHQrRUW PSjJNWQTCW+GbmVF8/e1In4oPKF+gQtAvdlH6OIjkZCJHyEpT7Bk/xKlRJlYsMC+ /UixmqhE1VsuZp3u5UjGI1zJMh96u8gzzJmYWpeYEV7mx+S5tcYlwzWjdn6EXif2 K9/90eqs+12jGNP0gtpKlL34OYQIINIzezptqodlG+5PcY6PN3NrmQ== =L4es -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Secure Hashing for Entropy
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jon Leonard wrote: >Monty Cantsin wrote: >> Often we have a source of entropy whose output we use as the input to >> a secure hash function. >> >> Does it matter if the hashing function is secure? I don't think so. >> All that really matters is that the function hashes evenly so that any >> input string is about as likely as any other input string to result in >> a particular hash. Even if the hash function is weak and collisions >> can be found, if it is even the same level of entropy is still >> available. >> >> Have I got this right? > >In the case where: >1) Your entropy source is as good as you think it is >2) Your opponent knows nothing about the data from your entropy source >and >3) Your entropy mixes the way you expect it to. > >this is indeed the case. > >If you're not completely sure about the above, using a cryptographic >hash requires your hypothetical opponent to be able to reverse the hash >to exploit what they know, rather than simpler computations. > >Since it seems that paranoia pays off in the design of cryptographic >software, I'd recommend always using a strong hash. Let's say you are using the entropy to create a session key for a symmetric cipher. If The Enemy can guess the session key, you have already lost the game. It doesn't matter if the original entropy-containing string can be guessed because the hash was weak. If your entropy source is weak and the original string can be guessed, then you've lost the game even if the hash function is strong. The Enemy knows how to compute hashes as well as you do. But, I think I now see a way a secure hash can sort of help you. Let's say you have an entropy source which gives you a base 3 number of arbitrary length. There is no even way to map base 3 numbers into base 2 numbers. Use of a hash function obscures the mapping. For example, we want a random 8 bit number. We can get this by generating a 6 digit base 3 number, P, and computing P mod 2^8. This has the unappealing property that it overlaps unevenly. 3^6 = 729 = 2 * 256 + 217. There is an 89.3% chance that the resulting number will be between 0 and 216, inclusive. The probability should be 84.7%. This gives The Enemy an edge if there are a number of messages to be broken. The cost to guarantee a break on a particular message is still the same. The use of a secure hash means that we can hope that the nature of the overlap cannot be determined. The downside is that there are no secure hash functions whose properties are completely understood. All we know for sure is that not much is really known to the public. So, the secure hash function in your crypto system could be reducing your effective entropy substantially if your entropic strings just happen to hash down to a smaller subset of possible hashes than expected. The use of the secure hash function may obscure what is happening from The Enemy. All we know for sure is that it obscures it from ourselves. Ideally, we want to match our sources of entropy with the base of the random number desired and eliminate the question. In the field, the most widely available and reliable entropy generator is a six sided die. If we are using a cipher which takes a base 2 key, this is inconvenient. You can only get one really good bit out of each throw. How hard would to be to construct a secure symmetric cipher which accepted a base 6 key? Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNGoiSJaWtjSmRH/5AQFzaAf+Jm1wlPlC9obQQLoRoss2qpLv5z900X9Z 2u3NO5eG/W9QQRUWTeqzeXOK3Ps8DYKhYXhgYy35AJy6uRrd5820MUUGULAhr0zH JqfVFU6FUGEgEpZsxxLTAVvU/OPx5g3LqeQJfsp92pOsIoeObhiBh6+1zxNLWHU5 fxSrDJAe9eANeUJ5nXlLBGtGwg9ZfvVw4+OWsLpO3ZsQXp+mke+dvz423WukqaQi VJ1VM+XTRBetRCZIuIcqKoCdkYrB2h/S0KIprp/7lHFOpIZWfo++p87BZm0LQuF5 Suo+NGSMtooCZwLYpPQrlQLtB51An8TjdVfr7k2YkUXpxPLcEp6CEg== =om47 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: FREE PSYCHOANLYSIS NIGHT ON THE CYPHERPUNKS LIST!!!
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: >There seems to be an unhealthy desire by some to "armchair >psychoanalyze" the motivations and inner motivations of others. In >recent days, me. (And in the past, too. This recent episode of >moaning about "What makes Tim say the things he does? is not >new...we've seen this script before.) It's not too hard to figure out what is going on here. I don't think there is much question that Tim is the backbone of the list. The collective output of his critics has yet to reach even 10% of his contribution. Of course, writing interesting articles is hard work. It's easier to rain on the parade. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNGotXZaWtjSmRH/5AQEQnwf8Dd7JKKKw5ub0ou2nRLgsZs4JKP0J7uHZ 0gZNYq8NBcvflcjak8tCIICFnasksXL8lXkHUN6DYb54LsqxJ8W++hm2r0kLzybt i3JhwfZe8/TURRi+G886OwqvFl0+/ideVXivr72a6Vbt/Uufhf1xEENZncoaFgd+ Plc3u4Huk9nsSQJ9WtjAWclYDuLdLGbJQ9gVYTLo8lszhUYhiSCvBi4EQgQWAipO RDDs8X29Q9R7lw9Q/4ABCKM+uKD8lVpTXFVkV7eTgltFt77fJkzHAecT1BQYWQi/ yYxsnDVKItrfnCgNOn+IssisgQN04k16cRiKdCcdkkkP+6MzDBGA8Q== =Apu7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: Bell vs. Woodward--ju
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- -=> Quoting In:tcmay@got.net to Harka <=- In> As for Australia, your countrymen acted like sheep in giving In> up their guns. If they try that kind of shit here in this In> country, a *lot* of cops are going to get killed. Hmm, I somewhat doubt that. After all, restricting guns more and more has also been happening in the US for quite a while now and overall resistance has been rather minimal. While there may be a few, who'd actually take up guns "in the defense of liberty" the gross majority of Americans seems just as "sheepish" as people anywhere else. Too many hours of watching (the good) "Cops" has left an imprint in many minds... Granted, America does have a constitution establishing civil rights for it's citizens, but America is also the country (among others) of "But I have nothing to hide" and "If it just saves one child"... In> (Not necessarily by me, though I'll defend my property and my In> constitutional rights as best I can. But the militia and In> patriot and anti-New World Order movements are preparing for In> war.) "Defending my property" is probably one of the more clear situations, where it is fairly easy to make a judgement call, and I support having the choice over necessary actions to take, if your property gets forcefully invaded by whomever and your personal freedom is being threatened. But on a more general basis things tend to become more complicated, IMHO. What if it's somebody else's liberty being taken? How many people would then take up arms (see Waco, Ruby Ridge, Roby/Ill. etc.)? It is much harder then to decide, if it's time for action or not. Especially because of pre-filtered information, that make it hard to base such a decision on "available" facts. When Reuters reported about the Shirley Allen Siege, in the first line they mentioned her to be "mentally disturbed" (implying for many, that the police-action was justified and correct in order "to save her"). People not immediately within the vicinity will have a hard time to decide, if the media-information is correct and subsequently, if "the war has now begun". (In Shirley Allens case, her fellow neighbors _did_ protest the police-action because they _knew better_, but people further away had other information and thus no incentive to defend her in any way.) The same happened in Waco, Ruby Ridge etc.etc., even with Jim Bell to a degree. Thus the .gov is able to pick us off one by one and I doubt, that a lot of "cops are going to get killed" because of it. It'd be rather interesting to devise a "Cypherpunks-911" system, that immediately provides others all over the country/world with necessary information, if something happens, and more importantly, _what_ happens (before the media faithfully recites the police-stories of "what happened") Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* E-mail: harka(at)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail pref'd) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ ... "Use a Cipher - Be Free!" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBNGiG/zltEBIEF0MBAQGlIQf9HfcmkDmcx2uSq1s97lGpWsqGycUYgZN6 qbUTG1NhxRiKTvnGgB+5L7ki2kVF3BR89V7I02pDKZYo3cAHakO5hKmp1bVsWcIU FQhnRINsdLERVTQOdOVvcxUg5iHnPuEl1FQtRPP93051AWZeals+CDW4UrIAOycD /RS7TRc/tn4TaFR2ZSIj9sDd2Q/51hUYuoFKMPhX121lCCYr8SjDYVb9fGRY92pb 9wUqO+gWtxqMl/lPPf2SFrfR3QOXFRe9dQ5IPsyC9SOQQMLxdUuBWwx9fKyK7JlQ BdIoFqHhxMDH3l9sDRqQVlyrAZ38dYe31i3+RwTJcyissbT+tGrdBQ== =3NTr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

1 0

SWAT: A Growth Industry
by Dan Veeneman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

US News & World Report 11/17/97 Everyone gets into the terrorism game Too many SWAT teams spells confusion BY DAVID E. KAPLAN In 1995, Bill Clinton signed a presidential directive stating that the nation has "no higher priority" than stopping terrorists who have weapons of mass destruction. Congress responded with new laws and allocated more than a billion dollars in support. The result has been an extraordinary proliferation of counterterrorism programs, making this one of the few areas of rapid growth in the federal budget. But in the rush to respond, say critics, government agencies have failed to coordinate their efforts, and no one is even tracking how much taxpayer money is being spent. According to a September report by the General Accounting Office, more than 40 federal agencies have roles in combating terrorism. All of them appear eager to gobble up the new funding. Among the big winners is the Pentagon, which is getting $52 million to train local officials to cope with chemical, nuclear, and biological attacks. Other agencies have set up units inspired by NEST, the U.S. Department of Energy's Nuclear Emergency Search Team, begun in the 1970s to thwart nuclear extortionists. The FBI has added DEST, its new Domestic Emergency Support Team, and the State Department now runs FEST, the Foreign Emergency Support Team. The Public Health Service is busily planning MMSTs, or Metropolitan Medical Strike Teams, for 100 cities. And on Energy Department drawing boards are plans for BEST, a Biological Emergency Search Team, and CEST, its chemical counterpart. (Critics contend that the Energy Department lacks both expertise and a mandate to deal with biological and chemical weapons, but that has not stopped it from seeking funds.) And if an emergency is big enough, one can always call in the Marines, who have formed their own $10 million Chemical Biological Incident Response Force. Among the biggest beneficiaries is the FBI, which has seen its counterterrorism budget nearly triple to $243 million since 1994. Bureau officials vow to "double the shoe leather" of agents working on chemical and biological terrorism and are outfitting their elite Hostage Rescue Team with $3.3 million worth of gas masks and protection suits. The bureau also wants to build a multimillion-dollar Level 3 biolab, a tightly sealed facility that would permit work with many of the world's deadliest pathogens. Some experts note that the Army and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention already have more than a dozen Level 3 labs; the bureau says it can best conduct forensic investigations in its own facility. The private sector is cashing in as well. Contractors are arranging much of the Pentagon's $52 million local training program, while millions more are available for research and development. "It's the latest gravy train for consultants," says Larry Johnson, a terrorism consultant. Even the toughest critics acknowledge that many of the new programs are needed. For example, they agree that the training of local emergency workers to deal with a chemical or biological attack is long overdue. The problem, they say, is that the various programs have grown so quickly that coordination and oversight have yet to catch up. A classified study this year for the CIA and Energy Department calls for a national response program to deal with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, directed by the White House. "The system is not well organized at all," says former CIA head James Woolsey, one of the study group's co-chairs. One sign of the lack of oversight can be seen at the Office of Management and Budget, the White House agency charged with managing the federal budget. An OMB guide lists over 600 areas of specialization by the agency's staff, including entries for Micronesia and marine mammals. Yet nowhere is there an analyst tracking the budget for counterterrorism, a national security priority. "It's not something we have a hard number for," says an OMB analyst. The rapid expansion of programs--likely to cost billions of dollars overall--has left some observers dismayed. "It was not our intent to create this thing," says John Sopko, who as deputy chief counsel to Sen. Sam Nunn played a key role in drafting legislation to respond to the new terrorism. "We did not want a massive entitlement program for counterterrorism." -- cypherp(a)decode.com (Dan Veeneman) Cryptography, Security, Privacy BBS +1 410 730 6734 Data/FAX

1 0