December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

What it's like to get a subpoena (re Toto)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Just thought I'd pass along the latest news in the Toto/Carl Johnson/aka situation. I was visited by two nicely mannerd IRS agents this morning. We talked for about an hour or so about Cypherpunks, CJ, Austin, majordomo, etc. In the process I was served with a subpoena from the Western District of Washington to appear on Nov. 18, 1998 at 1:15pm in room 311 of the United States Courthouse (5th & Madison, Seattle, 98104). I explained how majordomo works, how to manipulate majordomo to get lists of subscribers (I used the SSZ subscriber list as an example), and described the time in July (I believe) when CJ/Toto/aka visited the local meeting. We also discussed the potential for altering email traffic through a remailer. I've made it clear I have no problems answering their questions but have no desire to go to Seattle in Nov. or any other time. They are looking into whether a deposition given here would be sufficient for their needs. Until then I'm getting ready for a 2-3 day trip to Seattle in Nov..... I'm currently trying to decide whether to scan and post the subpoena on the SSZ webpage. It's interesting that they requested archives of the list. I explained that I didn't archive the Cypherpunks or any of my other lists and that other than minimal configuration issues I don't even archive the OS that runs einstein (as it takes about 2 hours to rebuild from scratch from CD). Please don't call or send private email requesting further details. They didn't ask me to keep any of our discussion confidential but until I better understand what is going on I'm taking the conservative course (I had a big fight with myself about whether to even post this). ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

The Value of Anonymous Remailers vs. Abuse Complaints and Abusive Comp
by Pallas Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

fa161f121ec06c2dd5b366ff7460fb12(a)anonymous.poster> >The most frequent request we have been receiving >so far is, in fact, about the idendity of the >originator of the anonymous messages. Some >people are being polite, others are not. >Basically, all the ones who write to abuse(a)*.* >want to know the email address of the one who >has offended/harassed/spammed/blackmailed them. The idea to get across is that that information is not available. The snail mail services in various countries allow anonymous mail, after all, so why should e-mail be any different? People can deposit mail in public mailboxes with no return address on the envelope. People can call from payphones and not have the call traceable back to them. People should also be educated that a From: address, even when attached, cannot be relied upon for accuracy. At least anonymous e-mail lets the recipient know, in advance, that the sender wishes to conceal his/her true identity. >That is, it is true that a very significant % of >all messages which pass thru the mixmaster >network is just trash. > >Comments, anyone? Even "trash" is valuable as cover traffic to thwart traffic analysis, especially in the Mixmaster world where packets are intended to be virtually indistinguishable. Once remailer-operators get involved in value judgements as to which anonymous e-mail transactions have redeeming social value, we have sown the seeds of censorship. We empower the Gary Burnores of the world to censor by intimidation when content neutrality is not maintained. For example, if a certain signal to noise ratio were to be used as a criteria for the validity of the remailer net, then a self-destruct device has just been built into it. An attacker need only inject enough noise to exceed the threshold and bring the network down. Consider the episode last year with Gary Burnore and DataBasix vs. Jeff Burchell and his Mailmasher and Huge Cajones machines. Made-to-order abuse appeared right on cue to reinforce the claims that Burnore and his girlfriend Belinda Bryan had made. And now we've learned the real truth behind the whole episode. While Gary Burnore was living with another girlfriend in Santa Clara, CA, he was also molesting her teenaged daughter. An anonymous whistleblower attempted to warn the girl's mother as well as her school officials by anonymous e-mail. Burnore went ballistic and falsely claimed "harassment". But the whistleblower was ultimately vindicated when Burnore pled guilty to the molestation charge, was placed on probation, and was required to register as a sex offender. Unable to silence the whistleblower, Burnore began a campaign of harassment against the operators of the remailers that were being used to expose him. IOW, if you can't refute the message, shoot the messenger. And if you can't shoot the messenger, attempt to disable his means of communication (the remailers net). I recounted this case history, which can be researched in various usenet archives by anyone interested, just to demonstrate that one man's "harassment" can well be another man's investigative journalism, even if the journalist or whistleblower is not in a position to expose him/herself to retaliation by the wrongdoer, which has been (coincidentally?) reported by virtually anyone who has dared to challenge Gary Burnore publicly.

1 0

The guitar video everybodies talking about
by steelin＠hotmail.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

___________________________________________________________ Howdy! Just wanted to drop you a note to let you about my Video "Steelin' from the Steel",. If your anything like me, your always looking for something new that will help you spice up your playing and phrasing without too much effort, make you a better player...This is the video for you!!!! This video easily fills up your" bag of licks" with phrases that will make you a much more creative musician, than by learning a bunch of penatonic blues scales which have been taught into the ground. This video is by far the most interesting guitar instruction available. I sat down in the studio with one of the greatest L.A. tele players around. I'm on pedal steel and I proceeded to play all the interesting sounds on the steel guitar and Mike on tele plays them EXACT and explains how to play them. The sounds coming off his guitar and the new ideas that can come from these chord bends will open up some serious musical doors for you. We go through bends, fills, intros and licks galore... For the beginer to advanced player, very easy concepts to pick up and use in any style of music. It's nice to know you can easily become a much more creative musician with just a little effort and "Steelin' from the Steel." If your interested just click the link below and it will take you to my page offering the Video...I appreciate your time and till we meet out on the road....Gotta keep pickin'....Kevin http://www.clublickit.com/video3.htm

1 0

Re: What it's like to get a subpoena (re Toto)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I haven't. >I don't see why they're bothering you, I wonder if the other majordomo >operators have received, or shortly will receive similar visits.

1 0

IRS wants cypherpunks archives
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jeff, and fellow agents seem to be interested in cypherpunks archives (as evidenced by asking Jim Choate who operates one of the mailing list nodes, but who does _not_ offer archived list traffic). Jeff is Cc'd on this post to be helpful (who says cypherpunks aren't helpful -- you only have to ask). This archive seems to be operational: http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/ And looks to cover the last year or so at least. The one at minder.net says 0 items available: http://www.minder.net/cgi-bin/lwgate.cgi/CYPHERPUNKS/archives/ so something appears wrong with that one (Brian?) and Ryan's sof.mit.edu archive is down still since the disk crash. Are there any others? I do have a reasonable set of archives going back to May '96 in RMAIL format, but am not too keen on mailing them due to bandwidth -- would take a few hours at 28.8k baud. (Also there seem to be some older archives on Remo Pini's crypto CD, but I think they are too old to be of interest to IRS). Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

1 0

IP: Tracking: F.B.I.'s new national DNA database
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Tracking: F.B.I.'s new national DNA database Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 02:05:53 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: WorldNetDaily http://www.WorldNetDaily.com/exclusiv/981012_fbis_new_national_d.html F.B.I.'s new national DNA database Secret computer set to open for business The FBI is set open a new national DNA data base tomorrow, The New York Times reports. The data base, with a new generation of forensic DNA techniques, is designed to catch repeat offenders, but civil libertarians fear it will be expanded from people convicted of crimes to include almost everyone, giving the government inordinate investigative powers over citizens. The national DNA data base, housed in a secret location, actually consists of 50 data bases run by the states but unified by common test procedures and software designed by the FBI. As of tomorrow, the Times reports, it will be possible to compare a DNA sample from a suspect or crime scene in one state with all others in the system. © 1998 Western Journalism Center ----------------------- 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 **********************************************

1 0

RE: DNA
by Michael Motyka 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> If we had a DNA sample of all world citizens, then the pesky problem > of the whole "it was either O.J. that was the killer or there's a one > in five billion chance it was someone else" would simply disappear. I'm not a biochemist but I don't think that this is accurate right now. I think modern DNA analysis yields data that bear more resemblance to a spectrum than anything else. In this case there is always a good possibility for error. Remember how large a project the Human Genome thing is? That is an actual sequencing project. ***** Rather than use this technology for law enforcement why not really try to make a Tyrannosaurus? That would seem to be a higher use. ***** When this new FBI project gets established just watch how wide a net they cast when defining who will be compelled to submit a sample! Then we'll have some crooked fuck selling info to the insurance companies. Or it will be legislated by the other crooked fucks. And pattern analysis will identify the guilty before they even think about committing an offense. Hell, they'll probably be able to ID the bad ones from samples coerced/stolen at birth and then all future opportunity and resource allocation will be effectively decided by the government, inc. Compromise? If this thing is not implemented with strict controls defining the type of offenses included then it is as offensive a totalitarian tool as anything else discussed on this list Mike Is there perhaps a good point to getting everybody in the country on this DNA database? Could it be that a single sample of DNA can be used to produce a large supply of that DNA which could then be used to fabricate evidence? You might say that the existence of the fabrication technology and the availability of seed material invalidates the evidence.

1 0

IP: ISPI Clips 5.32: FBI & Privacy Advocates Battling Over Wiretapping
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "ama-gi ISPI" <offshore(a)email.msn.com> Subject: IP: ISPI Clips 5.32: FBI & Privacy Advocates Battling Over Wiretapping Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 00:10:29 -0700 To: <Undisclosed.Recipients(a)majordomo.pobox.com> ISPI Clips 5.32: FBI & Privacy Advocates Battling Over Wiretapping News & Info from the Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI) Monday October 12, 1998 ISPI4Privacy(a)ama-gi.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This From: ABCNews.com, October 8, 1998 http://www.abcnews.com Privacy on the Line http://www.abcnews.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/wiretap981006.html Law enforcement and privacy advocates are battling over wiretapping boundaries in the digital age. By Michael Martinez ABCNEWS.com The FBI wants to be able to tap your cell phone. And it wants your phone company to pay for the privilege of allowing the FBI to tap your cell phone. That, at least, is the contention of privacy advocates and of the telephone industry, which is under federal mandate to open all new telecommunications technologies to wiretap access. Under the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act, telecommunications companies are required provide wiretap capabilities for all of their new systems. Passed by Congress in 1994, CALEA mandated that telecommunications companies comply with access requirements by Oct. 25 of this year. That deadline, however, has been pushed back until June 2000 by the Federal Communications Commission as it tries to sort out just what the FBI is entitled to, and how much reimbursement telecom companies should get. Originally, CALEA set aside $500 million to pay for infrastructure upgrades on systems installed prior to Jan. 1, 1995. The United States Telephone Association and other industry groups want that cutoff point extended until 2000 as well, so that current systems are covered. Voice Mail for Dope Dealers? The telecommunications industry has introduced a wide range of popular and profitable services in recent years, everything from prepaid calling cards to Internet telephony to three-way calling. Cellular phones have become nearly ubiquitous, and newer models are almost entirely digital. Many customers have turned to third party voice-mail systems for message services. When most of these systems were designed and implemented, no thought was given to allowing federal or local law enforcement agencies access. The FBI says its entitled to access these services under current wiretap laws. Privacy advocates disagree. The FBI has been trying to use CALEA to greatly expand its surveillance capabilities in ways never anticipated by Congress when it passed the law, contends Barry Steinhardt, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The telephone companies also disagree, at least in principle. More important, if forced by the government to comply, they want the federal government to pay for the technology necessary to make it happen. The FBI claims that a compromise proposal by the USTA, which represents local telephone companies, was too narrow, and excluded many of the technological advances that have made law enforcements job more difficult. There have been situations in which weve obtained permission to wiretap, and weve been frustrated by the technology, says Stephen Colgate, assistant U.S. attorney general for administration. And the criminals know it. Things like voice mail and prepaid calling cards, these are the things used by the dope dealer or the bomb maker. The Communications Haystack The USTA, however, says the FBI is overreaching by including services not covered by the original law. The rules the FBI put forth in CALEA dont follow the intent of Congress, says Michelle Tober, communications manager for the USTA. If the FBI wants this capability, it has to be granted to them by the FCC or under a new law by Congress. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, along with the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, have petitioned the FCC to limit law enforcements ability to gain access to new telecommunications services. The problem with a wiretap is that its a general search, Steinhardt says. Only one in six conversations that are recorded are criminal in nature. Increasing law enforcements powers will mean more conversations recorded that have no bearing on investigations. Were giving them the power to find a needle in a haystack. The FBI defends its proposed rules, saying that they still fall under the original law allowing wiretaps, and that privacy will still be protected by the judiciary system. We still have to go before the judge. We still have to justify the invasion of privacy in the courts, Colgate says. Were not lowering the bar by any means. This industry has been investing significant amounts of capital into the infrastructure, and weve been losing (wiretap) capability steadily. Copyright (c)1998 ABCNEWS and Starwave Corporation. --------------------------------NOTICE:------------------------------ ISPI Clips are news & opinion articles on privacy issues from all points of view; they are clipped from local, national and international newspapers, journals and magazines, etc. Inclusion as an ISPI Clip does not necessarily reflect an endorsement of the content or opinion by ISPI. In compliance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed free without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ISPI Clips is a FREE e-mail service from the "Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues" (ISPI). To receive "ISPI Clips" on a regular bases (up to 3 - 8 clips per day) send the following message "Please enter [Your Name] into the ISPI Clips list: [Your e-mail address]" to: ISPIClips(a)ama-gi.com . The Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI) is a small contributor-funded organization based in Victoria, British Columbia (Canada). ISPI operates on a not-for-profit basis, accepts no government funding and takes a global perspective. ISPI's mandate is to conduct & promote interdisciplinary research into electronic, personal and financial privacy with a view toward helping ordinary people understand the degree of privacy they have with respect to government, industry and each other and to likewise inform them about techniques to enhance their privacy. But, none of this can be accomplished without your kind and generous financial support. If you value in the ISPI Clips service or if you are concerned about the erosion of your privacy in general, won't you please help us continue this important work by becoming an "ISPI Clips Supporter" or by taking out an institute Membership? We gratefully accept all contributions: Less than $60 ISPI Clips Supporter $60 - $99 Primary ISPI Membership (1 year) $100 - $300 Senior ISPI Membership (2 years) More than $300 Executive Council Membership (life) Your ISPI "membership" contribution entitles you to receive "The ISPI Privacy Reporter" (our bi-monthly 12 page hard-copy newsletter in multi-contributor format) for the duration of your membership. For a contribution form with postal instructions please send the following message "ISPI Contribution Form" to ISPI4Privacy(a)ama-gi.com . We maintain a strict privacy policy. Any information you divulge to ISPI is kept in strict confidence. It will not be sold, lent or given away to any third party. ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **********************************************

1 0

IP: Tracking: NYT on FBI's Nat'l DNA Database
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Tracking: NYT on FBI's Nat'l DNA Database Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 03:10:00 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/national/dna-data-base.html October 12, 1998 F.B.I. Set to Begin Using National DNA Database By NICHOLAS WADE In a computer at a secret location, the FBI will open a national DNA database on Tuesday that advocates say could significantly reduce rape and other crimes by helping to catch repeat offenders earlier. The data base, with a new generation of forensic DNA techniques, promises to be so efficient that some civil libertarians fear it will be expanded from people convicted of crimes to include almost everyone, giving the government inordinate investigative powers over citizens. The national DNA data base consists of 50 data bases run by the states but unified by common test procedures and software designed by the FBI. As of Tuesday, it will be possible to compare a DNA sample from a suspect or crime scene in one state with all others in the system. The national data base has been nearly a decade in the making. The final pieces fell into place in June when Rhode Island became the last state to set up a DNA data base. But the system still faces many unresolved issues, which are likely to play out according to the reaction from the public and the courts. One such issue is what types of offenders should be included. Another is whether the mass screening of suspects' DNA will prove constitutional. DNA, the chemical that embodies a person's genetic programming, can be found almost everywhere. People shed a constant torrent of dead skin cells. Criminals leave blood when breaking and entering; they shed hair and skin cells in fights, deposit saliva on glasses and leave sweat stains in head bands. From only a few cells in such sources, enough DNA can be extracted to identify the owner. A DNA database of sufficient size could presumably help solve many crimes. The crime-fighting potential of DNA data bases is becoming evident from the experiences of Britain, which started earlier and has had fewer administrative and constitutional hurdles to overcome. The data base there initially focused on sex offenses but has spread to include burglaries and car theft because of the high number of DNA matches that police forces were obtaining. Moreover, there was considerable crossover at least in Britain, among different kinds of offenses. "People who commit serious crime very often have convictions for petty crime in their history, so if you could get them on the data base early you may prevent serious crime," said David Werrett, manager of the DNA data base for England and Wales. The English DNA data base includes entries from crime scenes and from everyone convicted of a crime, as well as from suspects in unresolved cases. Since the system's debut in 1995, it has matched 28,000 people to crime scenes and has made 6,000 links between crime scenes. The data base now holds 360,000 entries and Werrett said he expected it would eventually include one third of all English men between 16 and 30, the principal ages for committing crimes. Werrett said that the data base has grown because police forces in England, which pay $55 for a DNA analysis, are finding it cost effective. Recently the Police Superintendents Association called for the entire population to be DNA tested. Forensic use of DNA in the United States is unlikely to go as fast or as far as in Britain. "Their system makes a tremendous amount of sense the way they approach it, but in the United States we have a different perspective on privacy and on the extent to which we would be willing to depend on a data base," said Christopher Asplen, executive director of the national Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence. One major privacy safeguard in the FBI's system is that only a minute fraction of a person's genetic endowment becomes part of the data base. Under a new DNA profiling system known as STR's, for short tandem repeats, a person's DNA is tested at 13 specific sites at which a short length of DNA is repeated in a kind of stutter. The number of repeats is highly variable from one person to another, so that measuring the number of repeats at the 13 designated sites gives a way of identifying each individual with a probability of one in several billion. The blood or other samples donated by individuals are retained by the states in collections known as DNA banks. All that goes into the computerized DNA data bases is the set of 13 numbers from the STR measurements. Only identifying information, and nothing about a person's health or appearance, can be divined from the STR's. Access to the DNA data base is permitted only for law enforcement purposes, with a $100,000 fine for unauthorized disclosures. No known breaches of the system have occurred. One major unresolved issue is that of the types of offenders from whom DNA profiles should be taken. All states require people convicted of serious sexual offenses to donate blood samples, but differ on requiring samples from other groups such as people convicted of violent felonies, juvenile offenders and parolees. Four states -- Virginia, Wyoming, New Mexico and Alabama -- require all people convicted of a felony to provide samples for DNA profiling. Louisiana allows DNA to be taken from people merely arrested in a crime, a practice that has not been tested in the courts. State laws establishing DNA data bases have been challenged in 13 jurisdictions and have been upheld in all but one, in Massachusetts. Some states have revised their original legislation to add offenses. "I think the trend is that 10 years from now all felonies will be covered," said M. Dawn Herkenham, chief of the FBI's Forensic Science Systems Unit in Washington. "We recommend that all violent felonies, burglaries, juveniles and retroactivity for people on parole be included." >From his office in Birmingham, England, last week, Werrett said, "Today we have issued matches on three murders, five rapes, nine serious robberies, two abductions and two violent burglaries." No state DNA data base has acquired the critical mass to furnish such a hit rate. Many state laboratories are understaffed and have large backlogs of DNA samples to analyze. The backlogs are particularly worrisome in the case of rapes where specimens may lie unanalyzed while the rapist assaults more victims. "People may be appalled to know how many rape suspect kits are out there untouched," Ms. Herkenham of the FBI said. "The hit ratio depends on whether we can go back and examine all the evidence that comes in the door," said Dr. Barry Duceman, director of biological science in the New York State Police Forensic Investigation Center in Albany. "We are trying to address a crushing case backlog and to get the technology on line -- you'd be hard pressed to say we are overstaffed." The case backlog problem is compounded because state laboratories are switching to the STR method of DNA profiling from an older method of analysis called RFLP (for restriction fragment length polymorphism). All the samples analyzed by RFLP must be redone by STR if they are to be searchable in the new data base. When these teething problems are overcome, many experts believe that the state and national DNA data base systems may have a significant effect, particularly in reducing crimes like rape that often involve repeat offenders. By scoring a "cold hit" between crime scene data and a person, DNA data bases can be particularly effective in solving cases with no suspects. "Once we get that infrastructure in place and start getting those hits, the benefits will lead to higher utilization," Asplen said. But like other experts involved with DNA testing, he expressed concern that DNA profiling be developed in a publicly acceptable way. "The public does need to have a trust level with this and be assured that law enforcement is not going to abuse this powerful tool," he said. One practice likely to raise eyebrows, if not hackles, is mass screening, which is widely used in the United Kingdom but not yet commonplace here. In high profile crime cases, police in Britain often ask, and can require, all members of a town or building to give DNA samples so as to prove themselves guiltless and help narrow the search for the culprit. The National Commission on the Future of DNA Testing is examining under what circumstances the donation of samples can be considered voluntary. In an office, where employees who declined to donate a sample might be fired, a police request for DNA might be coercive. A future use of DNA testing is that of phenotypic analysis. It will soon be technically possible to infer from the genes in a person's DNA many probable aspects of their appearance, such as hair, skin and eye color. Werrett said the main problem with such predictions would lie in training police to understand their probabilistic nature: told there is a 90 percent chance that the suspect has red hair, investigators should not ignore the 10 percent chance that he does not. DNA reveals so much about a person that behavioral geneticists might wish to search through state data banks for genetic variants linked to criminal behavior. Most states say their DNA data banks can be accessed only for law enforcement purposes, like the data bases. But Alabama authorizes the use of its samples for "educational research or medical research or development," an apparent invitation to genetic inquiry. An impending issue is whether states should retain their DNA samples once the information has been entered into the DNA data base. Forensic managers like to retain samples as a hedge against changing technology. Others say the DNA sample banks create an opportunity for abuse, and that if there is another change in technology the government should just rebuild its data base from scratch. Because DNA can be found at so many crime scenes, DNA data bases promise to be powerful aids in catching criminals. But what thrills forensic experts tends to chill civil libertarians. "The DNA data base started out with pariahs -- the sex offenders -- but has already been enlarged to include other felons and will probably be extended to include everyone, giving elites the power to control 'unruly' citizens," said Philip Bereano a professor of technology and public policy at the University of Washington in Seattle. Dr. Eric Juengst, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland and a member of the FBI's DNA Advisory Board, said the original policy in setting up the DNA data base was that it was "suitable only for our most serious category of criminals," and that it would be a breach of that policy to expand its scope. The risks raised by Bereano are worth watching, Juengst said, "but as a society we have to learn how to control powerful tools of all kinds, like nuclear power. I don't see it as an endless slippery slope." Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company ----------------------- 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 **********************************************

1 0

IP: "The Billion Dollar Terror Rumor"
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: "The Billion Dollar Terror Rumor" Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 06:31:30 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Salon Magazine http://www.salonmagazine.com/news/1998/10/08newsa.html The billion-dollar rumor How unsubstantiated reports that the World Trade bombers may have included nerve gas in their arsenal led to some pretty pricey public policy. BY JEFF STEIN It began as rumor, then became fact. Fact became alarm. And alarm led to a rallying cry for a multimillion-dollar federal program that has now itself ricocheted out of control. Kenneth Starr's investigation of President Clinton? No, it's the federal budget for countering a doomsday attack by terrorists armed with chemical and biological weapons. The rumor in this case was that terrorists had put deadly sodium cyanide into the monstrous February 1993 World Trade Center bomb that killed six people, injured more than 1,000, blasted a seven-story hole underneath the twin towers and created panic in the streets of lower Manhattan. The blast should have turned any sodium cyanide present into hydrogen cyanide, unleashing a poisonous cloud that could have instantly killed hundreds or thousands more people. That is, had any sodium cyanide been there. According to a thorough, as yet unpublished study of the incident by an arms-control think tank at the Monterey Institute for International Studies, there is no evidence to support the long-swirling assertion, which first surfaced in the solemn pronouncement of a respected federal judge in 1994. The rumor then made its way into scores of newspaper articles and was cited by leading U.S. senators to support anti-terrorist initiatives that have amounted to billions of dollars, many of them unaccounted for, according to a recent investigation by congressional auditors. John Parachini, a senior associate at the Monterey Institute, made a draft of the study available after being contacted by Salon. Word of his findings has been circulating in the community of Washington terrorism experts. "I'm not against spending money for defending against chemical and biological weapons," Parachini said in an interview, "but we ought to know why we're spending for it, and to get the facts straight." In his study, Parachini noted that the World Trade Center bombers considered using chemical weapons, but did not -- an important fact for government terrorism specialists to ponder. "Examining the motivations and behaviors of terrorists who would have used a chemical weapon if it was available, but did not, may offer important lessons about how to thwart such attacks in the future," he writes. Parachini traced the origins of the cyanide gas story to the first trial of World Trade Center bombers in 1994, when federal prosecutors raised the specter of a chemical bomb, no doubt to darken the jury's view of the defendants. The theme was picked up by presiding federal Judge Kevin Duffy in his sentencing statement to the stone-faced defendants. "You had sodium cyanide around, and I'm sure it was in the bomb," the judge intoned. "Thank God the sodium cyanide burned instead of vaporizing. If the sodium cyanide had vaporized, it is clear what would have happened is the cyanide gas would have been sucked into the north tower and everybody in the north tower would have been killed. That to my mind is exactly what was intended." The judge may have been "sure it was in the bomb," but the defendants were never even charged under anti-terrorism statutes that make mere possession of potential chemical and biological weapons a federal crime, Parachini noted. The rumor's origins date back to an earlier raid by the FBI of a New Jersey storage shed rented by the suspects. The agents found one sealed bottle of sodium cyanide in aqueous form. Aqueous sodium cyanide is used for photographic purposes and can cost less than $3 per pound, Parachini noted in his study, after consulting chemical experts. But it is sodium cyanide in solid form, usually briquettes costing many hundreds of dollars more, that can be effective as a chemical weapon when it's converted to hydrogen cyanide gas by a blast. Nevertheless, the federal prosecutor in the initial World Trade Center trial raised the idea of a chemical bomb when questioning a senior FBI official, Steven Burmeister, about the consequences of mixing sodium cyanide with other chemicals present in the bomb. Burmeister testified that "if you breathe that gas I'm afraid you've breathed your last breath." Despite this "chilling testimony," however, "Burmeister never suggested during the trial that his investigation had led him to believe that the bomb actually contained sodium cyanide," Parachini writes -- and the trial transcript proves. In addition, an FBI chemist who participated in the case told Parachini flatly, "There is no forensic evidence indicating the presence of sodium cyanide at the bomb site." Judge Duffy's statement to the contrary, however, gave legs to the notion that the defendants had made -- or tried to make -- a chemical bomb. No less an authority than Maj. Gen. George Friel, the former head of the U.S. Army's Chemical and Biological Defense Command, told Gannett News Service that the World Trade Center bombers may have attempted to mix a toxic agent -- most likely arsenic -- with the bomb they planted in the garage of the building. That was a new one to federal investigators. Neither FBI agents nor prosecutors mentioned arsenic as a bomb ingredient in the trial. Despite the nonexistent evidence, however, Judge Duffy's charge was taken up by two influential senators, Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Sam Nunn, D-Ga., who called it "a warning bell." "The trial judge at the sentencing of those responsible for the World Trade Center bombing pointed out that the killers in that case had access to chemicals to make lethal cyanide gas ... and probably put those chemicals into that bomb that exploded," Nunn said during a 1996 floor debate on a multibillion-dollar bill aimed at bolstering U.S. defenses against weapons of mass destruction. Lugar also cited Judge Duffy's statement as evidence of "how close we have come to witnessing acts of terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction directed toward the United States." He urged his Senate colleagues to "listen to Judge Duffy," and compared the World Trade Center bomb to both the 1995 sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway by Japanese cultists and the placement of a radioactive package in a Moscow park. The media were next to pick up Duffy's theme. One typical story, in the Los Angeles Times in July 1996, stated, "The World Trade Center bombers had sodium cyanide, which if used ... would have released poison gas, vastly increasing the fatalities in New York, intelligence officials said." Syndicated columnist Trudy Rubin cited Judge Duffy in the course of applauding "some farsighted lawmakers trying to confront the unthinkable." The Nunn-Lugar bill, which included $235 million for training local "first responders" to a chemical or biological attack, passed 100-0. But that was merely the gateway to a mushrooming federal anti-terrorism crusade that now costs upwards of $1 billion a year -- and perhaps twice that, according to some experts -- and that last week led to the creation of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which will "spend hundreds of millions of dollars in research for better sensors and technology to detect biological and chemical weapons," according to the Associated Press. Counter-terrorism may be the magic word for funding programs in Washington today, but a withering audit by the General Accounting Office has raised questions about where the money is going: "More money is being spent to combat terrorism without any assurance of whether it is focused in the right programs or in the right amounts,'' said Richard Davis, a GAO auditor specializing in weapons of mass destruction. "Billions of dollars are being spent by numerous agencies with roles or potential roles in combating terrorism, but because no federal entity has been tasked to collect such information across the government, the specific amount is unknown,'' the GAO said in its most recent report on terrorism. "Further, no government-wide spending priorities for the various aspects of combating terrorism have been set.'' Meanwhile, past studies have cautioned that while chemical or biological weapons may be cheaper and easier to make than nuclear bombs, terrorists have shied away from using them. Despite past allegations, neither the Red Army Faction, the Beider-Meinhof Gang nor the Weather Underground ever used them, Parachini concluded. Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, the convicted mastermind of the World Trade Center blast, made the point himself while flying back in custody from Pakistan, where he was captured in 1996, the Monterey Institute study notes. "Yousef ... revealed to U.S. Secret Service agent Brian Parr that the WTC bomb did not contain sodium cyanide or any other poison, but that he had planned to use 'hydrogen cyanide in some other form of a bomb, not as large a bomb, but a different type of bomb to disperse that [poison] in the Trade Center,'" the study says. "Yousef told Parr that he had decided not to take this approach because 'it was going to be too expensive to implement.'" The judge may have been "sure it was in the bomb," but the defendants were never even charged under anti-terrorism statutes that make mere possession of potential chemical and biological weapons a federal crime, Parachini noted. The rumor's origins date back to an earlier raid by the FBI of a New Jersey storage shed rented by the suspects. The agents found one sealed bottle of sodium cyanide in aqueous form. Aqueous sodium cyanide is used for photographic purposes and can cost less than $3 per pound, Parachini noted in his study, after consulting chemical experts. But it is sodium cyanide in solid form, usually briquettes costing many hundreds of dollars more, that can be effective as a chemical weapon when it's converted to hydrogen cyanide gas by a blast. Nevertheless, the federal prosecutor in the initial World Trade Center trial raised the idea of a chemical bomb when questioning a senior FBI official, Steven Burmeister, about the consequences of mixing sodium cyanide with other chemicals present in the bomb. Burmeister testified that "if you breathe that gas I'm afraid you've breathed your last breath." Despite this "chilling testimony," however, "Burmeister never suggested during the trial that his investigation had led him to believe that the bomb actually contained sodium cyanide," Parachini writes -- and the trial transcript proves. In addition, an FBI chemist who participated in the case told Parachini flatly, "There is no forensic evidence indicating the presence of sodium cyanide at the bomb site." Judge Duffy's statement to the contrary, however, gave legs to the notion that the defendants had made -- or tried to make -- a chemical bomb. No less an authority than Maj. Gen. George Friel, the former head of the U.S. Army's Chemical and Biological Defense Command, told Gannett News Service that the World Trade Center bombers may have attempted to mix a toxic agent -- most likely arsenic -- with the bomb they planted in the garage of the building. That was a new one to federal investigators. Neither FBI agents nor prosecutors mentioned arsenic as a bomb ingredient in the trial. Despite the nonexistent evidence, however, Judge Duffy's charge was taken up by two influential senators, Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Sam Nunn, D-Ga., who called it "a warning bell." "The trial judge at the sentencing of those responsible for the World Trade Center bombing pointed out that the killers in that case had access to chemicals to make lethal cyanide gas ... and probably put those chemicals into that bomb that exploded," Nunn said during a 1996 floor debate on a multibillion-dollar bill aimed at bolstering U.S. defenses against weapons of mass destruction. Lugar also cited Judge Duffy's statement as evidence of "how close we have come to witnessing acts of terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction directed toward the United States." He urged his Senate colleagues to "listen to Judge Duffy," and compared the World Trade Center bomb to both the 1995 sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway by Japanese cultists and the placement of a radioactive package in a Moscow park. The media were next to pick up Duffy's theme. One typical story, in the Los Angeles Times in July 1996, stated, "The World Trade Center bombers had sodium cyanide, which if used ... would have released poison gas, vastly increasing the fatalities in New York, intelligence officials said." Syndicated columnist Trudy Rubin cited Judge Duffy in the course of applauding "some farsighted lawmakers trying to confront the unthinkable." The Nunn-Lugar bill, which included $235 million for training local "first responders" to a chemical or biological attack, passed 100-0. But that was merely the gateway to a mushrooming federal anti-terrorism crusade that now costs upwards of $1 billion a year -- and perhaps twice that, according to some experts -- and that last week led to the creation of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which will "spend hundreds of millions of dollars in research for better sensors and technology to detect biological and chemical weapons," according to the Associated Press. Counter-terrorism may be the magic word for funding programs in Washington today, but a withering audit by the General Accounting Office has raised questions about where the money is going: "More money is being spent to combat terrorism without any assurance of whether it is focused in the right programs or in the right amounts,'' said Richard Davis, a GAO auditor specializing in weapons of mass destruction. "Billions of dollars are being spent by numerous agencies with roles or potential roles in combating terrorism, but because no federal entity has been tasked to collect such information across the government, the specific amount is unknown,'' the GAO said in its most recent report on terrorism. "Further, no government-wide spending priorities for the various aspects of combating terrorism have been set.'' Meanwhile, past studies have cautioned that while chemical or biological weapons may be cheaper and easier to make than nuclear bombs, terrorists have shied away from using them. Despite past allegations, neither the Red Army Faction, the Beider-Meinhof Gang nor the Weather Underground ever used them, Parachini concluded. Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, the convicted mastermind of the World Trade Center blast, made the point himself while flying back in custody from Pakistan, where he was captured in 1996, the Monterey Institute study notes. "Yousef ... revealed to U.S. Secret Service agent Brian Parr that the WTC bomb did not contain sodium cyanide or any other poison, but that he had planned to use 'hydrogen cyanide in some other form of a bomb, not as large a bomb, but a different type of bomb to disperse that [poison] in the Trade Center,'" the study says. "Yousef told Parr that he had decided not to take this approach because 'it was going to be too expensive to implement.'" SALON | Oct. 8, 1998 Jeff Stein covers national security issues for Salon. ----------------------- 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 **********************************************

1 0