July 2018 - cypherpunks-legacy

US Attorney General demands ISPs snoop on customers to stop
by Brett Glass 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

"terrorism" Dave: For IP, if you'd like. As an ISP, I can tell you that what the USDOJ is demanding in the article below is not only an unprecedented, vast, unwarranted intrusion that should have every citizen up in arms but would be extremely costly and in many cases simply impossible. For example, the article mentions that the DOJ wants ISPs to retain lists of the IP addresses used by every user. But we, as an ISP, do not give each user a unique IP address; we use network address translation, or NAT. To abandon the use of NAT would not only compromise users' safety (by making them more susceptible to Internet worms and other attacks); it would also require us to spend thousands of dollars to obtain more addresses from ARIN and to re-architect our network. What's more, the imposition of such a requirement upon all ISPs would instantly exhaust the remaining pool of IPV4 addresses at a time when most equipment is not ready for IPV6. The requirement that all VOIP calls be monitored is likewise absurd. We don't provide VOIP ourselves; we merely provide the pipes. We don't even know when a VOIP call is taking place on our network. We would have no way to monitor and track every one on behalf of the government, even if we were willing to (which we are not; we owe it to our users never to participate in such blatantly unconstitutional activity). Note that the government first attempted to use kiddie porn as an excuse to destroy our liberty, but seems to have decided that terrorism is a more effective excuse -- despite the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. The belief that everything and everyone must be monitored in the hope of preventing possible criminal activity is a hallmark of a police state. Is this what the US is coming to? If so, the 9/11 terrorists have won. By killing fewer people than died in the recent earthquake, they have given an irresponsible government an excuse to destroy our freedom, and have successfully cowed the populace into allowing it to happen. --Brett Glass ------------------ Terrorism invoked in ISP snooping proposal By Declan McCullagh http://news.com.com/Terrorism+invoked+in+ISP+snooping+proposal/ 2100-1028_3-6078229.html Story last modified Wed May 31 06:12:45 PDT 2006 In a radical departure from earlier statements, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has said that requiring Internet service providers to save records of their customers' online activities is necessary in the fight against terrorism, CNET News.com has learned. Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller privately met with representatives of AOL, Comcast, Google, Microsoft and Verizon last week and said that Internet providers--and perhaps search engines-- must retain data for two years to aid in anti-terrorism prosecutions, according to multiple sources familiar with the discussion who spoke on condition of anonymity on Tuesday. "We want this for terrorism," Gonzales said, according to one person familiar with the discussion. Gonzales' earlier position had only emphasized how mandatory data retention would help thwart child exploitation. In a speech last month at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Gonzales said that Internet providers must retain records to aid investigations of criminals "abusing kids and sending images of the abuse around the world through the Internet." If data retention becomes viewed primarily as an anti-terrorism measure, recent legal and political spats could complicate the Justice Department's efforts to make it standard practice. Especially after recent reports that AT&T has opened its databases to the National Security Agency, Internet and telecommunications executives have become skittish about appearing to be cooperating too closely with the federal government's surveillance efforts. In addition, the positive publicity that Google received during its legal dispute with the Justice Department over search terms has demonstrated to Internet companies the benefits of objecting to government requests on privacy grounds. "A monumental data trove is a crazy thing from a privacy perspective," said one person familiar with Friday's discussions. "It's crazy that the U.S. government is going to retain more data than the Chinese government does." Comcast said in a statement that "we fully share the attorney general's concern with the need to combat illegal use of the Internet for child pornography, terrorism and other illegal activities. We applaud the attorney general's initiative in convening an internal task force on this issue and look forward to continuing to cooperate with him and the FBI." "The reasons for skepticism are growing," said Jim Harper, an analyst at the free-market Cato Institute and member of the Department of Homeland Security's Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee. He predicted the reaction among Internet and telecom companies will be "mildly unfavorable but people are not yet to the point where they'll say the emperor has no clothes." More at http://news.com.com/2102-1028_3-6078229.html?tag=st.util.print Sidebar: ISP snooping time line In events first reported by CNET News.com, Bush administration officials have said Internet providers must keep track of what Americans are doing online. Here's the time line: June 2005: Justice Department officials quietly propose data retention rules. December 2005: European Parliament votes for data retention of up to two years. April 14, 2006: Data retention proposals surface in Colorado and the U.S. Congress. April 20, 2006: Attorney General Gonzales says data retention "must be addressed." April 28, 2006: Rep. DeGette proposes data retention amendment. May 16, 2006: Rep. Sensenbrenner drafts data retention legislation, but backs away from it two days later. May 26, 2006: Gonzales and FBI Director Mueller meet with Internet and telecommunications companies. Details of the Justice Department's proposal remain murky. One possibility is requiring Internet providers to record the Internet addresses that their customers are temporarily assigned. A more extensive mandate would require them to keep track of the identities of Americans' e-mail and instant messaging correspondents and save the logs of Internet phone calls. ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen(a)leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

[IP] US Attorney General demands ISPs snoop on customers to stop
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

"terrorism" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.750) Reply-To: dave(a)farber.net Begin forwarded message:

1 0

[liberationtech] Fear of Repression Spurs Scholars and Activists to Build Alternate Internets
by Yosem Companys 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

September 18, 2011 Fear of Repression Spurs Scholars and Activists to Build Alternate Internets [image: College 2.0: Fear of Repression Spurs Scholars and Activists to Build Alternate Internets 1] Yana Paskova for The Chronicle Eben Moglen, a law professor at Columbia U., is developing the Freedom Box, a personal server that makes data harder to intercept. "The Net we have is increasingly monitored, measured, and surveilled everywhere by everybody all the time," he says. "Our Net has been turned against us." Enlarge Image<http://chronicle.com/article/Fear-of-Repression-Spurs/129049/?sid=wc&utm_so…> By Jeffrey R. Young Washington Computer networks proved their organizing power during the recent uprisings in the Middle East, in which Facebook pages amplified street protests that toppled dictators. But those same networks showed their weaknesses as well, such as when the Egyptian government walled off most of its citizens from the Internet in an attempt to silence protesters. That has led scholars and activists increasingly to consider the Internet's wiring as a disputed political frontier. For example, one weekend each month, a small group of computer programmers gathers at a residence here to build a homemade Internetbnamed Project Byzantiumbthat could go online if parts of the current global Internet becomes blocked by a repressive government. Using an approach called a "mesh network," the system would set up an informal wireless network connecting users with other nearby computers, which in turn would pass along the signals. The mesh network could tie back into the Internet if one of the users found a way to plug into an unblocked route. The developers recently tested an early version of their software at George Washington University (though without the official involvement of campus officials). The leader of the effort, who goes by the alias TheDoctor but who would not give his name, out of concern that his employer would object to the project, says he fears that some day repressive measures could be put into place in the United States. Enlarge Image<http://chronicle.com/article/Fear-of-Repression-Spurs/129049/?sid=wc&utm_so…>[image: College 2.0: Fear of Repression Spurs Scholars and Activists to Build Alternate Internets 2] He is not the only one with such apprehensions. Next month TheB-Doctor will join hundreds of like-minded high-tech activists and entrepreneurs in New York at an unusual conference called the Contact Summit<http://contactcon.com/>. One of the participants is Eben Moglen, a professor at Columbia Law School who has built an encryption device and worries about a recent attempt by Wisconsin politicians to search a professor's e-mail. The summit's goal is not just to talk about the projects, but also to connect with potential financial backers, recruit programmers, and brainstorm approaches to building parallel Internets and social networks. The meeting is a sign of the growing momentum of what is called the "free-network movement," whose leaders are pushing to rewire online networks to make it harder for a government or corporation to exert what some worry is undue control or surveillance. Another key concern is that the Internet has not lived up to its social potential to connect people, and instead has become overrun by marketing and promotion efforts by large corporations. At the heart of the movement is the idea that seemingly mundane technical specifications of Internet routers and social-networking software platforms have powerful political implications. In virtual realms, programmers essentially set the laws of physics, or at least the rules of interaction, for their cyberspaces. If it sometimes seems that media pundits treat Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg or Apple's Steve Jobs as gods, that's because in a sense they arebsitting on Mount Olympus with the power to hurl digital thunderbolts with a worldwide impact on people. Instead of just complaining, many of those heading to New York next month believe they can build alternatives that reduce the power of those virtual deities and give more control to mere mortals. I was surprised by the number of homegrown Internet projects described on the Contact Summit's Web sitebthough most of them are not yet operational, and some may never be. Among the approaches: an alternative to Facebook that promises better privacy control; a device that automatically scrambles e-mail and Web traffic so that only people authorized by the user can read them; and various mesh-network efforts that can essentially create an "Internet in a suitcase" to set up wherever unfettered Internet access is needed. Whether you see these techies as visionaries or paranoids, they highlight the extent to which networks now shape nations. "Anyone who cares about human rights anywhere should dedicate themselves to building these systems," is how Yochai Benkler, co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, put it when I asked him about the trend. Bazaar 2.0 One organizer of the Contact Summit, Douglas Rushkoff, compares the disruptive power of the Internet to the impact of bazaars in the Middle Ages. In his latest book, *Program or Be Programmed* (OR Books), he argues that the earliest bazaars helped transform feudal society by allowing vigorous information sharingba low-tech peer-to-peer network. "Everyone was speaking with everybody else, and about all sorts of things and ideas," he writes. "All this information exchange allowed people to improve on themselves and their situations," allowing craftsmen to form guilds and share techniques. "As the former peasants rose to become a middle class of merchants and craftsB-people, they were no longer dependent on feudal lords for food and protection." The Internet has created a bazaar 2.0, says Mr. Rushkoff, accelerating information exchange and giving people the power to organize in new ways. At least so far. Mr. Rushkoff argues that companies and governments are gaining too much power, in ways that could limit communication in the future. Facebook, for instance, is a centralized system that forces users to run communications through its serversband, he observes, its main goal is to make money by analyzing data about users and sharing that information with advertisers. "The Internet that we know and love is not up to the task of being both a fully commercial network and a people's infrastructure," Mr. Rushkoff told me. "The Net is not a marketing opportunitybit's something much bigger than that." One idea: Create two parallel Internets, one run and optimized for banks and entertainment giants (like Netflix, whose streaming movies take up more and more of total bandwidth), and the other for academic research, civic discourse, and independent artists. He points to Internet2, a high-speed research network run by universities, as a step in the right direction. But that network is available only on select campuses. Perhaps other approaches will emerge that are designed to encourage the kind of peer-to-peer trading of information that Mr. Rushkoff prefers. To encourage that, the Contact Summit will organize a bazaar of its own, where participants can seek supporters for their projects. The organizers plan to award start-up grants to a few projects on the basis of a competition. "This is a conference of doers and people looking for counsel and collaborators," Mr. Rushkoff explains. He acknowledges that the crowd he is gathering can be hard to herd, though: "There are people who are afraid to come to Contact because they think they're going to be hacked or tracked or injected with something. There are a lot of loonies out there." Protecting Privacy One developer who is eager to go the summit is Mr. Moglen, the law professor. He's leading the development of a device called the Freedom Box, and though it doesn't look like muchba gadget the size of a paperback bookbhe believes that it would be able to help Internet users preserve their privacy. The concept: It's a personal server, which automatically scrambles digital data to make them harder for unauthorized people to intercept. The idea is to create a personal "cloud," or online storage space, for data before the information is sent to standard e-mail or Web services. Mr. Moglen and a team of programmers are developing the software under the auspices of the FreedomBox Foundation, a nonprofit organization, and plan to release it under an open license that lets anyone use and modify it. The initial Freedom Box code is expected to hit the Web in the next week or two, although it is more of a framework for developers at this point and lacks most of the planned features. For Mr. Moglen the work is part of a longtime mission. *The Chronicle* profiled him <http://chronicle.com/article/The-dotCommunist/18635/> several years ago, soon after he founded the Software Freedom Law Center and published what he called *The dotCommunist Manifesto.* In the manifesto, he argues that all software should be developed by groups under free licenses rather than by companies out to make profit. Critics have called his approach extreme and unworkable, but in some areas open-source software has gained ground in recent years. "The Net we have is increasingly monitored, measured, and surveilled everywhere by everybody all the time, or at least by somebody who's doing it for somebody else and would answer a subpoena if they got one," he argued at a conference this year. "Our Net has been turned against us." In an interview, Mr. Moglen emphasizes that professors in particular should send their communications through his device. The reason? "Two words: William Cronon." Mr. Cronon, a history professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, was recently the subject of an unusual public-records request by a political group. The Republican Party of Wisconsin asked the university to turn over a batch of e-mail messages by the professor containing certain keywords, as *The Chronicle* reported,<http://chronicle.com/article/Wisconsin-GOP-Seeks-E-Mails-of/126911/> after he wrote a blog post examining how conservative groups had helped craft controversial legislation, including the 2011 measure to strip Wisconsin public employees of collective-bargaining rights. Mr. Cronon believes that Republican officials were hunting for evidence that he had violated state law by using his state-university account for political speech, which he denies doing. He says other professors might be discouraged from speaking publicly on controversial issues, for fear their e-mail messages, too, might be sought by critics. Some free-Internet projects have been under development for some time, and many professors and business leaders have long encrypted their e-mail messages. But there is a new emphasis on making such systems easier to use and bringing them to a wider audience, says Sascha Meinrath, director of the Open Technology Initiative at the New America Foundation. "We're trying to move them out of the geekosphere and get them into mainstream use," he told me. And there's evidence of that happening. This summer the foundation received a $2-million grant from the State Department to build its own mesh network, which could be set up by dissidents abroad to avoid censors. That's the system being called an "Internet in a suitcase." Proponents of mesh projects like Byzantium say they can provide a different kind of Internet freedomba connection that comes at no cost. Potentially, mesh networks could be set up and shared as free community networks. For activists like TheDoctor, that kind of freedom can give low-income users a chance to access information that could help improve their lives. "If a single Byzantium node gave a single person access to MIT's open courseware," he says, "the whole project would be a success." College 2.0 covers how new technologies are changing colleges. Please send ideas tojeff.young(a)chronicle.com or @jryoung on Twitter. _______________________________________________ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech(a)lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Re: <nettime> What do you think about .art?
by Morlock Elloi 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

DNS and ICANN and such are on their way out. Private namespaces are back. The assumption - that, for example, xyz.com *must* resolve to the same IP number wherever the query is done - went curiously unchallenged for a long time. Now, seriously, why is it so important that google.com means the same in New Zealand and Czech Republic? Where is this notion that the planet needs the globally unique name space coming from? What makes it "good" (hint - you can't use Google, Inc. profits as an argument) ? Historically, only the state insisted on unique identifiers, for its own needs. The unique namespace is a terrible idea. It's a shit amplifier. It skips and disables local roadsigns and greatly reduces the number of roadsign posters. It's no wonder that ICANN attracts slimy thugs - a prospect that few can decide on global naming has attractiveness of a dung pile for flies miles away. There are very good reasons for having things harder to find. A complex discovery process itself is a great moron filter. During the search you may find things and people you didn't look for. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime(a)kein.org ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Re: [cryptography] Client TLS Certificates - why not?
by Joe St Sauver 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Hi, strife asked: #Can anyone enlighten me why client TLS certificates are used so rarely? It #used to be a hassle in the past, but now at least the major browsers offer #quite decent client cert support, Not quite seeing eye-to-eye with you on the "quite decent client cert support" point, I'm afraid. Client cert user interaction still deserves poor marks for complexity and user opacity, I think. I did a preconference seminar for Educause Security Professionals 2012 on client certificates, and it's actually sort of surprising how deeply buried many bits of the current browser client cert implementation are. See http://pages.uoregon.edu/joe/secprof2012/sec-prof-2012-client-certs.pdf Or consider the level of native OS support for USB format PKI hard tokens or smart cards on some operating systems, just to mention another example of how client certificate support is still not really ready for prime time at this point. [In fact, if anyone's looking for a nice paper topic, I think a terrific topic might be "Why Johnny Can't Ecrypt Using Client Certs, Either" modeled on http://static.usenix.org/events/sec99/whitten.html ] #and seeing how most people struggle with passwords, I don't see why #client certs could not be beneficial even to "ordinary users". Client certs *could* be hugely beneficial to even ordinary users -- imagine their use for EAP-TLS authentication, for example. The devil, as always, is in the details. Assume the average person has multiple devices these days -- maybe a desktop at work, a laptop for travel, a tablet at home, a smartphone, etc. If I want to use client certs for encryption/decryption, I need the *same* cert on all of those devices, or on a portable device (such as a USB-format PKI hard token, or a smart card) so I can take my credentials with me. Sync'ing certs from one device to another isn't totally impossible, but backing up, manually transfering and reinstalling certs on multiple devices really isn't simple enough for most mere mortals. [Attempts to deploy a unique client cert to each device have issues of their own that we'll skip for the purposes of this note] Smart cards or USB-format PKI hard tokens are a nice alternative, but somewhat expensive, and you can't just run down to your favorite local office supply store or neighborhood compute supply store and buy one. Then there's the fact that not all devices easily accomodate USB-format PKI hard tokens or smart cards, but if you *are* able to use a USB format PKI hard token or smart card, at least the credentials stored on those devices can be stored in a non-exportable format, which is good given the uptick in malware's that has reportedly been scraping client certs of late. Smart cards or hard tokens are also required if you're shooting for the highest NIST LOAs, but there's so much more that's required to get there that in many ways the use of smart cards or hard tokens is a minor matter relative to identity proofing requirements and all the rest of what's require -- and it's hard to find anyone who actually needs LOA-4, at least in higher ed. Speaking of identity proofing, many times client certs only map to email addresses, not to "real names," and not to guaranteed-unique and never-to-be-reused arbitrary identifiers (like the EPPN). Some may find that choice less than full satisfactory. Or let's talk about key servers/directory models. Let me wave my magic wand and magically create an Internet-wide directory for client certs, perhaps modeled on PGP public key servers. Unfortunately, I don't see much interest in fielding an animal of that sort, and w/o it, you're either reduced to enterprise-level directories, or the painful process of requesting a signed message to bootstrap key exchange for encryption purposes (yuck) And the list goes on... Bottom line, I think that there's still a lot of work ahead if you want to do client certs at scale... Regards, Joe Disclaimer: all opinions strictly my own. _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography(a)randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[ZS] Somehow appropriate. And important. And mythic.
by Bryce Lynch 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Or, "You're on the Global Frequency." Project Byzantium has been tapped to provide communications assistance in Redhook, New York this weekend. We're gearing up and leaving for New York ASAP. If anyone in the Zero State is within spitting distance of Redhook, we can really use some help. Ping me offlist for contact info. -- The Doctor [412/724/301/703] [ZS (MED)] https://drwho.virtadpt.net/ "I am everywhere." -- -- Zero State mailing list: http://groups.google.com/group/DoctrineZero ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Congress on verge of approving warrantless secret searches [Free Republic]
by Virginia Raines 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

["Pretended legislation" -- courtesy of Orrin Hatch.] "all should recognize that this is an act of "pretended legislation", void and without force from the day Xlinton signs it. For now, the only thing we can do is add it to the list of crimes that will appear in the Second Declaration of Independence (the phrase, "acts of pretended legislation" comes from the First Declaration and means laws passed without authority to do so). "15 Posted on 10/07/2000 05:50:04 PDT by Jim Noble" "The bill in question comes from Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). It is S. 2516, "The Fugitive Apprehension Act." The bill allows the government to obtain any kind of document it wants, without first getting a search warrant or a subpoena from a court." "Should S. 2516 become law, it would set a precedent for warrantless, secret searches on other subjects-including firearms laws. This is one reason why Barr, one of the staunchest Second Amendment defenders in Congress, is opposing the bill. "There is also a possibility that S. 2516 may be snuck through as an amendment to HR 3048, "The Presidential Protection Act of 2000." Of course S. 2516 has nothing to do with Presidential Protection. Instead, the bill is about constitutional destruction." http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39dede1511bd.htm --- 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

Congress on verge of approving warrantless secret searches [Free Republic]
by Virginia Raines 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

["Pretended legislation" -- courtesy of Orrin Hatch.] "all should recognize that this is an act of "pretended legislation", void and without force from the day Xlinton signs it. For now, the only thing we can do is add it to the list of crimes that will appear in the Second Declaration of Independence (the phrase, "acts of pretended legislation" comes from the First Declaration and means laws passed without authority to do so). "15 Posted on 10/07/2000 05:50:04 PDT by Jim Noble" "The bill in question comes from Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). It is S. 2516, "The Fugitive Apprehension Act." The bill allows the government to obtain any kind of document it wants, without first getting a search warrant or a subpoena from a court." "Should S. 2516 become law, it would set a precedent for warrantless, secret searches on other subjects-including firearms laws. This is one reason why Barr, one of the staunchest Second Amendment defenders in Congress, is opposing the bill. "There is also a possibility that S. 2516 may be snuck through as an amendment to HR 3048, "The Presidential Protection Act of 2000." Of course S. 2516 has nothing to do with Presidential Protection. Instead, the bill is about constitutional destruction." http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39dede1511bd.htm --- 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

Congress on verge of approving warrantless secret searches [Free Republic]
by Virginia Raines 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

["Pretended legislation" -- courtesy of Orrin Hatch.] "all should recognize that this is an act of "pretended legislation", void and without force from the day Xlinton signs it. For now, the only thing we can do is add it to the list of crimes that will appear in the Second Declaration of Independence (the phrase, "acts of pretended legislation" comes from the First Declaration and means laws passed without authority to do so). "15 Posted on 10/07/2000 05:50:04 PDT by Jim Noble" "The bill in question comes from Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). It is S. 2516, "The Fugitive Apprehension Act." The bill allows the government to obtain any kind of document it wants, without first getting a search warrant or a subpoena from a court." "Should S. 2516 become law, it would set a precedent for warrantless, secret searches on other subjects-including firearms laws. This is one reason why Barr, one of the staunchest Second Amendment defenders in Congress, is opposing the bill. "There is also a possibility that S. 2516 may be snuck through as an amendment to HR 3048, "The Presidential Protection Act of 2000." Of course S. 2516 has nothing to do with Presidential Protection. Instead, the bill is about constitutional destruction." http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39dede1511bd.htm --- 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

Congress on verge of approving warrantless secret searches [Free Republic]
by Virginia Raines 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

["Pretended legislation" -- courtesy of Orrin Hatch.] "all should recognize that this is an act of "pretended legislation", void and without force from the day Xlinton signs it. For now, the only thing we can do is add it to the list of crimes that will appear in the Second Declaration of Independence (the phrase, "acts of pretended legislation" comes from the First Declaration and means laws passed without authority to do so). "15 Posted on 10/07/2000 05:50:04 PDT by Jim Noble" "The bill in question comes from Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). It is S. 2516, "The Fugitive Apprehension Act." The bill allows the government to obtain any kind of document it wants, without first getting a search warrant or a subpoena from a court." "Should S. 2516 become law, it would set a precedent for warrantless, secret searches on other subjects-including firearms laws. This is one reason why Barr, one of the staunchest Second Amendment defenders in Congress, is opposing the bill. "There is also a possibility that S. 2516 may be snuck through as an amendment to HR 3048, "The Presidential Protection Act of 2000." Of course S. 2516 has nothing to do with Presidential Protection. Instead, the bill is about constitutional destruction." http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39dede1511bd.htm --- 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