March 2004 - cypherpunks-legacy

[osint] Martha's lesson - don't talk to the FBI
by R. A. Hettinga 23 Mar '04

23 Mar '04

--- begin forwarded text

2 1

Supreme Court to Decide Mandatory Identification Case
by R. A. Hettinga 23 Mar '04

23 Mar '04

<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/22/politics/22CND-SCOT.html?amp;ei=5062&en=d…> The New York Times March 22, 2004 Supreme Court to Decide Mandatory Identification Case By LINDA GREENHOUSE ASHINGTON, March 22 - A Nevada rancher's refusal four years ago to tell a deputy sheriff his name led to a Supreme Court argument today on a question that, surprisingly, the justices have never resolved: whether people can be required to identify themselves to the police when the police have some basis for suspicion but lack the probable cause necessary for an actual arrest. The answer, in a case that has drawn intense interest from those who fear increased government intrusion on personal privacy, appeared elusive. "A name itself is a neutral fact" that is neither incriminating nor an undue invasion of privacy, Conrad Hafen, Nevada's senior deputy attorney general, told the court in defense of a state statute that requires people to identify themselves to the police if stopped "under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime." Justice David H. Souter told Mr. Hafen, "It's a neutral fact that I'm wearing a pinstripe suit." But, he added, if someone who had just robbed a bank was reported to be wearing a pinstripe suit, that fact, if reported to the police, might no longer be so neutral. The Bush administration joined the state in defending the statute. Lawyers for Larry D. Hiibel , who was appealing his conviction for violating the Nevada law, raised two constitutional challenges to the identification requirement: that it amounts to an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment, and that it compels self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Nevada Supreme Court upheld Mr. Hiibel's conviction, a misdemeanor, and rejected his constitutional challenge to the state law. Standing by the side of his pick-up truck on a rural road, he had been approached by a sheriff's deputy who was investigating a passing motorist's report that a man in the truck had been hitting a woman. The woman in the passenger compartment was Mr. Hiibel's adult daughter. The deputy sheriff, Lee Dove, asked Mr. Hiibel 11 times for identification. Mr. Hiibel, saying he had done nothing wrong, refused to give his name and challenged Mr. Dove to arrest him. Eventually, the deputy complied. A videotape of the incident, captured by a camera in the squad car, is on Mr. Hiibel's Web side, www.hiibel.com. Mr. Hiibel was never charged with any criminal offense beyond his refusal to identify himself. A landmark Supreme Court ruling in 1968, Terry v. Ohio, gave the police the authority to briefly detain, question and conduct a pat-down search of someone whose activities - casing a Cleveland storefront, in that case - gave rise to "reasonable suspicion," short of probable cause for a formal arrest. There is no dispute that the encounter between Mr. Hiibel and Deputy Dove was a "Terry stop" within the meaning of that decision. The dispute in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, No. 03-5554, is over Mr. Hiibel's response, or lack of response. Nevada's deputy state public defender, Robert E. Dolan, told the justices that while the deputy "certainly had the right to ask" Mr. Hiibel for his name, "equally so, Mr. Hiibel had the right not to respond." Justice Antonin Scalia was openly skeptical. "What is the meaning of Terry?" he asked. Did Mr. Dolan mean that the police were "allowed to ask questions but shouldn't expect answers?" Yes, the public defender replied; the state should not be permitted to criminalize silence or to "extract data from a person." Justice Stephen G. Breyer appeared to agree, suggesting a rule under which the police can ask but the citizen does not have to answer. "Everyone can understand that," Justice Breyer said, adding, "Why complicate this thing?" Several Supreme Court decisions over the years have suggested such a rule, but there has never been a formal opinion to that effect. One of the Fourth Amendment questions in the case is whether a person's refusal to answer a seemingly benign identity question can convert a police officer's "reasonable suspicion" into probable cause to make an arrest. Only Justice Scalia appeared to endorse that prospect. "I would think any reasonable citizen would answer," he observed. One of the many wrinkles in the case is that once a person is actually arrested, the right to remain silent is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. To that extent, a person who falls under a lesser degree of suspicion may be seen as having less constitutional protection. Another wrinkle is that there is no claim that the police cannot run a check on a license tag or - if the suspect is driving - ask to see the driver's license. In this case, Mr. Hiibel's daughter was behind the wheel, Mr. Hiibel was outside the truck, and the case was not treated as a traffic investigation. As a matter of Fifth Amendment analysis, one question is whether giving one's name is sufficiently "testimonial" to invoke the constitutional protection against self-incrimination. "The question, it seems to me, is whether a name itself has intrinsic testimonial consequences," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy told Mr. Dolan, the public defender. If it did not, Mr. Dolan replied, "the government could require nametags." In briefs filed with the court, civil liberties groups warned that a rejection of Mr. Hiibel's claim to privacy in this case could open the door to such measures as national identification cards. One group, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said that government databases are now of such "extraordinary scope" that "systems of mass public surveillance" could result from a ruling that authorized "coerced disclosure of identity." But the justices appeared eager to avoid a broad ruling and to confine their eventual decision to the specific context of a suspected crime. "We're all concerned about national ID cards and all that kind of stuff," Justice John Paul Stevens said at one point. -- ----------------- 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

FreeS/WAN Continues As Openswan (fwd from brian-slashdotnews@hyperreal.org)
by Eugen Leitl 23 Mar '04

23 Mar '04

Don't forget http://strongswan.org as well. ----- Forwarded message from brian-slashdotnews(a)hyperreal.org -----

1 0

Re: MannWorld vs. BrinWorld
by Major Variola (ret) 23 Mar '04

23 Mar '04

At 09:30 PM 3/22/04 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: >On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:12:34PM -0500, An Metet wrote: >> >> Robert Hettinga forwards: >> > By concentrating sensing and data storage on the body, a wearable >> > computer allows its user to ``control his own butt.'' The user >> >> What the hell does this have to do with cypherpunks? > > What the fuck rock did you crawl out from under? > Seconded, Harmon. CP has long included privacy (ie control, aka personal infosec) as a topic. And the use and abuse of wireless tracker^H^H^H^H cellphones (and what they will morph into) is a legit socio-tech topic which can draw heavily on crypto. And the other thread, s*veillance (ie reverse-panopticon) is completely on target. Again, the core idea being privacy. Something for which crypto was invented. Keep 'em coming Bob.

1 0

Re: MannWorld vs. BrinWorld
by Harmon Seaver 22 Mar '04

22 Mar '04

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:12:34PM -0500, An Metet wrote: > > Robert Hettinga forwards: > > By concentrating sensing and data storage on the body, a wearable > > computer allows its user to ``control his own butt.'' The user > > determines when and where his gas is released and how much to trust > > the noses around him. For example, when a wearable user > > enters work in the morning, he may instruct his butt to inform his > > office of his arrival so that his office locks his door or starts an > > air freshener. However, the user would probably tell his wearable not > > to share his odors with billboards he walks past to avoid the sort > > of targeted advertising portrayed in the film ``Minority Report.'' Of > > course, some bargain hunters may choose to share their gas with > > advertisers to obtain better deals, much like clearing out customers > > from today's grocery stores. > > What the hell does this have to do with cypherpunks? What the fuck rock did you crawl out from under?

1 0

Re: MannWorld vs. BrinWorld
by An Metet 22 Mar '04

22 Mar '04

Robert Hettinga forwards: > By concentrating sensing and data storage on the body, a wearable > computer allows its user to ``control his own butt.'' The user > determines when and where his gas is released and how much to trust > the noses around him. For example, when a wearable user > enters work in the morning, he may instruct his butt to inform his > office of his arrival so that his office locks his door or starts an > air freshener. However, the user would probably tell his wearable not > to share his odors with billboards he walks past to avoid the sort > of targeted advertising portrayed in the film ``Minority Report.'' Of > course, some bargain hunters may choose to share their gas with > advertisers to obtain better deals, much like clearing out customers > from today's grocery stores. What the hell does this have to do with cypherpunks?

2 1

Porn's New King
by R. A. Hettinga 22 Mar '04

22 Mar '04

<http://www.forbes.com/2004/03/22/cz_sl_0322galanis_print.html> Forbes E-Commerce Porn's New King Seth Lubove, 03.22.04, 7:04 PM ET The son of notorious white-collar scamster John Peter Galanis has quietly resurfaced as the buyer of the nation's largest processor of payments for Internet porn. Credit card processor Intercept's (nasdaq: ICPT - news - people ) 2002 acquisition of Internet Billing, or iBill, may go down in history as one of the most boneheaded acquisitions ever by a public company. Now, it's finding it just as embarrassing to get rid of iBill. IBill is the largest processor of credit card payments for the purchase of dirty digital pictures (see "Visa's Porn Crackdown"). It is literally the engine of paid Internet porn. The company had successfully operated anonymously behind the scenes until 2002, when Intercept paid $104 million to acquire iBill from its founders. After first telling investors that porn comprised just a minor amount of iBill's business, $259 million (2003 revenue), Intercept finally confessed that porn was actually responsible for 85% of iBill's annual credit card transactions, which once amounted to as much as $720 million. Having agreed last month to a settlement of $5.3 million for the various class-action lawsuits that resulted from the company's understatement of iBill's dependence on porn, Intercept also announced a deal to relieve itself of the business and sell the division that includes iBill for a lowball $37 million to a group that included management and outside investors (after dropping plans from October to take all of Intercept private). Then, on March 15, the company reversed course yet again and said it would sell iBill separately to yet another buyer, whom the company never disclosed. "None of those names have been made public," said an Intercept spokeswoman. "I can't respond." For good reason. It turns out the identity of what Intercept only characterizes as "another entity" has become an open secret among folks close to the deal, and not for reasons that will enhance Intercept's shaky reputation. In addition to iBill's former chief executive, Garrett Bender, the other person leading the buyers is none other than Jason Galanis, son of John Peter Galanis, the notorious white-collar crook who bilked investors of $400 million before he was thrown in prison, where he still resides. As Forbes reported in 2000 (see "The Long Reach Of John Peter Galanis"), the disgraced father has had heavy if not controlling influence on Jason's businesses, which have been involved in the spectacular blowup of a Colorado bank and millions in losses for commodity giant Cargill. Unlike his father, Jason Galanis has never been convicted of a crime. He has, however, had at least one scrape with the law. While serving as chief executive in 2001 of something called EGX Funds Transfer (formerly known as Incubator Capital), a once-publicly traded financial processing outfit, Galanis and his brother and sometimes-business partner Derek were arrested as part of a big Drug Enforcement Agency bust of a San Diego ecstasy manufacturing and distribution ring. Although all the charges were dropped against Jason, Derek was convicted and sentenced to 11 years in jail. Derek's attorney, Janice Deaton of San Diego, says she will soon file an appeal of Derek's conviction, citing "prosecutorial misconduct" and asking for a "huge reduction in sentence based on his actual role." She describes Derek as a "very minimal player," and adds, "he didn't participate in this for any financial gain, and didn't contribute any money." Deaton says both of the Galanis brothers knew one of the principals of the drug ring, Dennis Alba, from prior business dealings, which is how they got caught up in the bust. But Deaton contends just the brothers' name alone was enough to arouse suspicion. "Their dad is what got Derek in trouble," she says. "There were other people more involved than Derek who got their cases dismissed. It's the Galanis name. It's really a shame." Although Deaton didn't represent Jason in the matter, she said she's spoken with him frequently, and says she's "impressed with him as a businessperson." In an e-mail exchange, Jason Galanis acknowledges the heavy burden of his father's name in the DEA bust. "Unfortunately, I was again maligned by indirect inferences about my relatives, which are, admittedly colorful people. One cannot choose their relatives," he says. "This has haunted me for my entire career. My father left our family when I was 16, when he was indicted and arrested. He has been incarcerated almost my entire adult life...Since my brother's incident, I have wanted nothing further to do with my father or his poor life choices." At the same time, Galanis also contends he is only acting as an intermediary for a "handsome fee" in the iBill deal, not as a principal, on behalf of a "Dr. Molina." Molina is apparently Luis Enrique Fernando Molina, a Galinas business associate and Mexican hotel developer whose family controlled Pepsi-Gemex, the largest independent Pepsi bottler outside the United States. But others familiar with the deal say Galanis is more deeply involved than he lets on. "My role has been a central on in making the transaction come together," says Galanis. "It is possible that peripheral parties could form the wrong impression." Galanis similarly described himself as a "part of the investment banking team" that took Robert Guccione's Penthouse magazine public in 2002, then helped Molina in a deal in November to put another $107 million into Penthouse in a real estate/equity swap. But according to Securities and Exchange Commission filings, Galanis was identified as recently as last fall as the only person associated with Penthouse Financial, a separate company from Guccione's teetering empire that controls Penthouse's racy website. Galanis now says it was more of a licensing deal, and that the contract has since been terminated. Galanis' Penthouse experience provides a nice bit of synergy with iBill, perhaps, but iBill's role in the Internet economy--at least the part where people pay for stuff--can't be understated. The company acts as the critical aggregator and gatekeeper between thousands of websites, porn or otherwise, and the bank that ultimately processes the bulk of iBill's credit card transactions and doesn't want the aggravation of dealing with all those pipsqueak businesses. The bank in this case happens to be First Financial Bank, a subsidiary of $8.5 billion (2003 sales) blue chip financial processor First Data (nyse: FDC - news - people ). The fact that First Data would have to sign off on any deal that hands over a treasure trove of sensitive credit card data to Galanis, or whomever he purports to represent, probably doesn't sit well with the conservative Greenwood Village, Colo., company, which also owns Western Union, TeleCheck and now Concord EFS. First Data is already said to also be looking to exit from the porn payments business. The company has been shopping around its more than $1 billion porn and high-risk merchant portfolio, made up mostly of iBill and a handful of other big porn payment intermediaries like it. Considering the business only contributes $10 million to First Data's $1.4 billion in profits, the risk to First Data's hard-earned reputation seems hardly worth the hassle. Like intercept, First Data is also keeping quiet about the possible deal. "First Data does not selectively comment on its business plans," said a First Data spokesperson in a statement. "It is not our practice to make public the details of our specific contractual arrangements or our business relationships with out clients." But if you were clearing credit cards for the likes of hotlegsandfeet.com., enema-sex.com and my hotwife.com, you'd probably keep quiet about it too. -- ----------------- 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

before CALEA
by Major Variola (ret.) 22 Mar '04

22 Mar '04

"Once, our national office in Washington called the phone company to say they couldn't pay the bill," said Bill Crandell, a writer who lives in Silver Spring, Md. "They were told, 'Don't worry, it's being paid.' It was Nixon's spooks paying the phone bill for Kerry's antiwar group. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-kerryfbi22mar22,1,5152259.story?… ------ Meanwhile he realizes that the only reason he was over there in the first place was so we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies use the little skirmish to scare up oil prices. It's a cute little ancillary benefit for them, but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. Good Will Hunting

1 0

Re: MR
by Steve Schear 22 Mar '04

22 Mar '04

At 12:46 AM 3/22/2004, javve wrote: >Mr. > > >Are the are anny spy device can look trough the wall too see you? >If the are with one? IR systems capable of locating warm objects within structures have been available for a long time. They are routinely used for search and rescue in collapsed building. Resolution is low. they could not be used to see anything much beyond a warm blob through rubble. There are purported to be devices using ultra wideband RF and microwave frequencies and millimeter wave active or passive devices to do this. Resolution of the microwave devices should be even lower than the IR and perhaps suitable only for determining occupant location, for example prior to breaking down the door during a SWAT raid. Millimeter waves are emitted by warm bodies, such as own own, and can be used to passively see thorough clothing. Not sure if passive devices would work through walls due to attenuation, but active devices probably could. steve --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com) Version: 6.0.605 / Virus Database: 385 - Release Date: 3/1/2004

2 1

MannWorld vs. BrinWorld
by R. A. Hettinga 22 Mar '04

22 Mar '04

A little touchy-feeley and "communitarian" for J. Random Anarcho-capitalist Cypherpunk :-), but Steve's got a point about geodesic *supervision* of one's property and person in the defense of same, and not centralized *surveillance* by citizens by the state for the oppression thereof... Cheers, RAH --- begin forwarded text

1 0