November 2004 - cypherpunks-legacy

[ISN] Japanese Government Bans Security Researcher's Speech
by R.A. Hettinga 15 Nov '04

15 Nov '04

--- begin forwarded text

1 0

[ISN] How a guy's gizmo spread fear at Fed
by R.A. Hettinga 15 Nov '04

15 Nov '04

--- begin forwarded text

1 0

[Osint] DHS Now Has Non-Disclosure Agreement For *Un*classified Info
by R.A. Hettinga 15 Nov '04

15 Nov '04

--- begin forwarded text To: "Bruce Tefft" <btefft(a)community-research.com> Thread-Index: AcTLBDc4vJyL80TwSZuIiwn1AOddIQACB0Zg From: "Bruce Tefft" <btefft(a)community-research.com> Mailing-List: list osint(a)yahoogroups.com; contact osint-owner(a)yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list osint(a)yahoogroups.com Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:13:19 -0500 Subject: [osint] A NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT FOR UNCLASSIFIED INFO] Reply-To: osint(a)yahoogroups.com A NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT FOR UNCLASSIFIED INFO In a momentous expansion of the apparatus of government secrecy, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is requiring employees and others to sign legally binding non-disclosure agreements as a condition of access to certain categories of unclassified information. Up to now, non-disclosure agreements have only been used by government agencies to regulate access to classified information. In fact, they are one of the defining features of the national security classification system, along with security clearances and the "need to know" principle. As far as Secrecy News could determine, such classification-like controls have never before been systematically imposed on access to unclassified information. But now at DHS a non-disclosure agreement must be executed in order to gain access to any one of a panoply of new and existing categories of unclassified information, including: "For Official Use Only (FOUO); Official Use Only (OUO); Sensitive Homeland Security Information (SHSI); Limited Official Use (LOU); Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES); Safeguarding Information (SGI); Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information (UCNI); and any other identifier used by other government agencies to categorize information as sensitive but unclassified." The proliferation of controls on unclassified information signifies a massive increase in government secrecy, particularly since the number of officials who are authorized to designate information in one of these categories dwarfs the number of officials who can create classified information. And while the classification system operates according to certain well-defined rules and limitations, including procedures for review and challenge of classification decisions, the same is not true of the "sensitive but unclassified" domain. Furthermore, there is nothing like the Information Security Oversight Office to monitor and oversee the restriction of unclassified information. (Some types of sensitive but unclassified information are not specifically protected by statute and can still be successfully requested under the Freedom of Information Act. But with Justice Department encouragement, agencies take an expansive view of the scope of the Act's exemptions and access is increasingly uncertain.) The DHS non-disclosure agreement is apparently the first such document crafted in the Bush Administration. It represents a new high water mark in the rising tide of official secrecy. A copy of DHS Form 11000-6, Non-Disclosure Agreement for Sensitive But Unclassified Information, dated August 2004, was obtained by Secrecy News and is posted here: http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dhs-nda.pdf ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar. Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/TySplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, discuss-osint(a)yahoogroups.com. -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor bisoldi(a)intellnet.org http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint(a)yahoogroups.com Subscribe: osint-subscribe(a)yahoogroups.com Unsubscribe: osint-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: osint-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Tiny Antennas to Keep Tabs on U.S. Drugs
by R.A. Hettinga 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/15/health/15drug.html?ei=5006&en=574f3fc72a3…> The New York Times November 15, 2004 Tiny Antennas to Keep Tabs on U.S. Drugs By GARDINER HARRIS he Food and Drug Administration and several major drug makers are expected to announce an agreement today to put tiny radio antennas on the labels of millions of medicine bottles to combat counterfeiting and fraud. Among the medicines that will soon be tagged are Viagra, one of the most counterfeited drugs in the world, and OxyContin, a pain-control narcotic that has become one of the most abused medicines in the United States. The tagged bottles - for now, only the large ones from which druggists get the pills to fill prescriptions - will start going to distributors this week, officials said. Experts do not expect the technology to stop there. The adoption by the drug industry, they said in interviews, could be the leading edge of a change that will rid grocery stores of checkout lines, find lost luggage in airports, streamline warehousing and add a weapon in the battle against cargo theft. "It's basically a bar code that barks," said one expert, Robin Koh, director of applications research at the Auto-ID Labs of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "This technology is opening a whole series of opportunities to make supply chains more efficient and more secure." Wal-Mart and the Department of Defense have already mandated that their top 100 suppliers put the antennas on delivery pallets beginning in January. Radio tags on vehicles and passports could become a central tool in government efforts to create a database to track visitors to the United States. And companies are rushing to supply scanners, computer chips and other elements of the technology. The labels are called radio-frequency identification. As in automated highway toll collection systems, they consist of computer chips embedded into stickers that emit numbers when prompted by a nearby radio signal. In a supermarket, they might enable a scanner to read every item in a shopping cart at once and spit out a bill in seconds, though the technology to do that is still some distance off. For drug makers, radio labels hold the promise of cleaning up the wholesale distribution system, where most counterfeit drugs enter the supply chain - often through unscrupulous employees at the small wholesale companies that have proliferated in some states. Initially, the expense of the system will be considerable. Each label costs 20 to 50 cents. The readers and scanners cost thousands of dollars. But because the medicines tend to be very expensive and the need to ensure their authenticity is great, officials said, the expense is justified. Costs are still far too high for individual consumer goods, like the amber bottles that pharmacies use to dispense pills to individuals. But prices are expected to plunge once radio labels become popular, so drug makers represent an important set of early adopters. Privacy-rights advocates have expressed reservations about radio labels, worrying that employers and others will be able to learn what medications people are carrying in their pockets. Civil-liberties groups have voiced similar concerns about ubiquitous use of the technology in the marketplace. But under the current agreement, the technology would not be used at the retail level. The food and drug agency's involvement is crucial because drug manufacturers cannot change a label without the agency's approval. In its announcement, the agency is expected to say that it is setting up a working group to resolve any problems that arise from the use of radio antennas on drug labels. Counterfeit drugs are still comparatively rare in the United States, but federal officials say the problem is growing. Throughout the 1990's, the F.D.A. pursued about five cases of counterfeit drugs every year. In each of the last several years, the number of cases has averaged about 20, but law-enforcement officials say that figure does not reflect the extent of the problem. Last year, more than 200,000 bottles of counterfeit Lipitor made their way onto the market. In 2001, a Sunnyvale, Calif., pharmacist discovered that bottles of Neupogen, an expensive growth hormone prescribed for AIDS and cancer patients, were filled only with saltwater. "We've seen organized crime start to get involved," said William Hubbard, an associate food and drug commissioner. With some drugs costing thousands of dollars per vial, the profit potential is huge, he said. The weak point, Mr. Hubbard said, is the wholesaler system, which ships more than half of the 14,000 approved prescription drugs in the United States. While three large companies - McKesson, Cardinal and AmerisourceBergen - account for more than 90 percent of drugs that are sent through wholesalers, there are thousands of smaller companies throughout the country, many little more than a room with a refrigerator. State pharmacy boards are responsible for regulating drug wholesalers, but most boards do almost nothing to police them. In many states, only a small fee and a registration form are needed to set up shop. A 2003 report by a Florida grand jury found that the state had 1,399 approved wholesalers - one for every three pharmacies in Florida. Radio labels fight counterfeiting by providing a unique identifier that is almost impossible to copy. When pharmacists receive delivery, they should be able to pass a wand over the bottles and, through an online database, check the history of each. Any bottles that have been reported missing or previously sold, have an unusual delivery history or are not recognized by the system will be flagged as suspicious. Makers of prescription narcotics say radio labels could help cut down on the booming trade in stolen pills. "We get calls once a week from state troopers saying they got a guy with one of our bottles," said Aaron Graham, chief security officer for Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin. With radio labels, Purdue will be able to trace those bottles to individual pharmacies. "If that pharmacy was robbed, we'll know for certain that that guy is in possession of stolen property," Mr. Graham said. Radio labels could conceivably help ensure that imported drugs are safe, Mr. Hubbard said. But drug manufacturers are unlikely to put radio labels on drugs sold in other parts of the world for many years, he said. The F.D.A. has been a fierce opponent of legalizing drug imports. "This is about securing the domestic supply," said Tom McGinnis, the F.D.A.'s chief pharmacist. So far, the agency is relying on a nonprofit industry group, EPCglobal, based in Lawrenceville, N.J., to set standards for radio labels. The labels will remain voluntary until 2007. After that, the agency may require the labels and specify which types must be used, Mr. Hubbard said. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

THE ARRIVAL OF SECRET LAW FAS Secrecy News -- 11/14/04
by R.A. Hettinga 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

--- begin forwarded text

1 0

Re: Iraq II, Come to think of it (was...China's wealthy)
by Tyler Durden 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

James Donald wrote... >Bullshit. Everyone knew that which the regime decided they >must know. And if true, which I very much doubt, you are not >only arguing that Qin's legalism was a different thing than >communism/nazism, This is where the "Simplistic Grid" comes in. The momentum of Chinese culture will oalways outlive any short-term despotism, and the Chinese on many levels know this. When it comes to China, even some of the Han-dominated areas are incredibly difficult to get to, and when you start talking about Southern parts of Yunnan, most parts of Tibet, and places like Qinhai and Xinjiang, the idea of a lightening-fast and efficient despotism starts to sound dubious. Indeed, these areas are only barely under Beijing control today. It's also a main reason why Burma and the Golden triangle find it very easy to ship heroin overland through China to Hong Kong rather than go at it via a more direct route. >When, during the great leap forward, Peking commanded >unreasonable grain requisitions from the provinces, *all* >provinces contributed, and *all* provinces suffered starvation. Anhui and central China suffered far more than other parts of China. I'd guess that 70% of the deaths due to starvation during 58 to about 64 occurred in that part of Central China. The obvious reasons were: 1) Proximity and easy communicatuion with Beijing, and 2) Large tracts of previously arable land (ie, you don't bother exerting despotism over an area that can't do much anyway). >you are also arguing that Mao's communism was >a different thing than Stalin's communism. No, I am arguing that Chinese communism was a different thing from Soviet commusim, for the precise reason that the weight of Chinese history would be fairly quick to erase Chinese commusim. Any China hand could have predicted exactly that, and indeed that's precisely what happened. Our decision to back the far-more corrupt Chiang regime all the way to 1973 or whenever, was a major blunder, if for no other reason then to accelerate the isolation of the Soviets. Mao would have been very hip to the manuever, and I bet would have welcomed it (The Soviets were never very useful to the Chinese communists). In other words, even a smart rabid anti-communist should have recognized that backing Mao's "Bandits" was at some point obvious, but most were far too blinded by their ideology to see that. The same thing's happening with Iraq and Iran. Iran's making overtures that we consistently ignore because were too darned dumb and power-oriented to see the opportunity. -TD > >Both used ruthless terror to establish extraordinary control >over a far flung empire that had formerly been ruled by >relatively light hand, and then used that extraordinary control >to extort extraordinary resources from the peasantry. The >difference between Stalin's frequent references to the poor >peasants (who were supposedly carrying out the liquidation of >the kulaks in revolutionary zeal) and Mao's similar references >is merely that Mao was more thorough in creating the simulation >of a mass movement. > > --digsig > James A. Donald > 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG > xGYJrVMJ5Hx9Dgyly/Lt7Vk6TKJAugVqAcp3+7mq > 4rvMXJ51mdk2UqHkU40M50T9s5aAMzX99JW0hQGT/

2 1

Re: Iraq II, Come to think of it (was...China's wealthy)
by Tyler Durden 14 Nov '04

14 Nov '04

>That seems improbable: Qin had a cult of personality, in >which every single person subject to his control had to >participate. A subject of Qin, like a subject of Mao, was >more aware of Qin, than he was of his mother and father. You are apparently simply unaware of the real size and terrain of China. There were villages in remote parts of China that were unaware of Mao's death into the early 1980s. Travel around in China for a while and you'll get the picture. Just to give you an idea, short of renting out a helicopter, there are plenty of parts of China that are more than a week away from even me, living here in NYC. >The proposition that the chinese emperors ruled with a light >hand is historical revisionism. Some of them ruled with a >moderately heavy hand, some of them with an extremely heavy >hand, and Qin was as heavy as it gets No, as usual you seem to think that because I disagree with the simplicity of your "grid" that I must believe the opposite. Let's put it this way: The Qin was absolutely despotic in areas that could be guessed at ("Burn Books Kill Scholars"), as well as quite despotic in areas that would seem pointless now (like bell volumes, because bells were also measurements for grain). They also completely didn't care about other things that you would think a despot would really care about. A thing to think about was that Qin Shr Huang seemed to truly believe that everything he did was necessary for the unification of China (which he accomplished). YOU (not me) might argue that by unifying a large portion of central China he actually prevented a lot more deaths due to "Barbarian" incursion by "Unfree and uncivilized" Muslims...OOPS--Did I say that? I mean "Unfree and backward people that should be killed". -TD >I did not pack them in to one simplistic grid - I said that >legalism was much the same thing as communism/nazism, whereas >Confucianism is a mixture of that, and also of rule by social >conservatives. The rule of Qin was very similar to commie nazi >rule. The rule of Qianlong was substantially different. Both >were despots, but Qianlong was no totalitarian. > > --digsig > James A. Donald > 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG > k6s+2bFmGHKlU9v6wCbmGCo+6m4eAEfjtEfJ3b3W > 4EcgDCvx/77or2uD2Vhx/20HURcJ8XVeRylOk8puI

2 1

Re: Cell Phone Jammer?
by Major Variola (ret) 13 Nov '04

13 Nov '04

At 04:19 PM 11/11/04 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: >Anyone know from first-hand experience about cellphone jammers? > >I need... > >1) A nice little portable, and >2) A higher-powered one that can black out cell phone calls within, say, 50 >to 100 feet of a moving vehicle. Cell Jammers do a DoS on the frequency used by the base station to contact the handset, preventing a ring-in. Or a ring-out; the handset reports no service. After a ring-in the base tells the handset to jump to another freq, so you can't drop an ongoing conversation with a typical jammer. The < $200 jammers will stop folks in the next car, or in your office, but not too much farther; depends on the strength of the local base station. To jam the entire cell freq *bands* would take more power and more complex circuits. A jacob's ladder and/or tesla coil might work but would be indiscrete at least.

2 1

Re: Cell Phone Jammer?
by Major Variola (ret) 13 Nov '04

13 Nov '04

At 02:12 PM 11/13/04 -0600, Riad S. Wahby wrote: >"Major Variola (ret)" <mv(a)cdc.gov> wrote: >> To jam the entire cell freq *bands* would take more power and >> more complex circuits. A jacob's ladder and/or tesla coil might >> work but would be indiscrete at least. > >A plasma speaker > http://images.jfet.org/20031027/imgp1255.jpg >would also work, assuming that you've got the tube to drive those >frequencies and an appropriately-constructed coil. Mine runs at ~25 MHz >and broadcasts like a bitch (prolly 100+ Watts). > >Discrete? What does that mean? You know, bug-soldered components :-) Is that a jacobs ladder in your pocket or are you just glad to see me? You disturb my aether, I decode your signal, fuck the 900 MHz (or whatever, analog cell) prohibition, eh? Have we state-licenced SPICE, or compilers yet?

1 0

Iraq II, Come to think of it (was...China's wealthy)
by Tyler Durden 13 Nov '04

13 Nov '04

>My delusion is evidently widely shared: I did a google search >for legalism. http://tinyurl.com/56n2m The first link, and >many of the subsequent links, equated legalism with >totalitarianism, or concluded that legalism resulted in >totalitarianism. Wow! A GOOGLE search did you say? Well I'm convinced. >When a provincial commander marched fresh conscripts from place >A to place B, he would do it in the time alloted, and be there >on the date specified, or the Ch'in emperor would cut his head >off. Well kind of. But even Qin Shr Huang Di knew that you couldn't force-march soldiers from Xian to Suzhou in 4 days. And the remotest parts of China at that time (the borders are far larger now, of course) weren't any closer than a month or two, no matter what the orders. (Qin Shr Huang probably was no idiot...if it was physically impossible then he could not gain power.) >It is the cut-his-head off bit, and the minute and overly >detailed instructions concocted by a far away bureaucracy, that >made it a modern totalitarianism. You seem to be thinking that I am arguing that Qin Shr Huang was not a despot. However, comparisons to modern totalitarian states are filled with >Pol Pot's Cambodia was, like Ch'in dynasty china, decentralized >in that they had twenty thousand separate killing fields, but >was, like Ch'in dynasty china, highly centralized in that the >man digging a ditch dug it along a line drawn by a man far away >who had never seen the ground that was being dug. Well, this was difficult given that there were probably a good number of Qin Shr Huang's 'subjects' that didn't even know they were subjects until well after Qin Shr Huang died. Camodia is just a TEENSY bit smaller than China. Now the reason this excersize is not completely futile is that it's pretty clear that the notion of a "Despot" is very different from place to place. If push comes to shove, I of course will probabluy agree that most of the leaders you claim were despots probably were (though I'd bet my list is MUCH larger than yours). However, the nature, reasons, and byproducts of any particular instance of despotism very hugely...trying to pack them all into one simplistic grid is a formula for...Iraq II, come to think of it. Without understanding the details on their own terms, you're liable to get the locals a little upset with you if you try to force-fix their problems. -TD

2 1