- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

FW: US doesn't have the right to decide PoW status
by Jei 14 Jan '02

14 Jan '02

-----Original Message----- From: International Justice Watch Discussion List [mailto:JUSTWATCH-L@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU] On Behalf Of Daniel Tomasevich Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 7:19 AM To: JUSTWATCH-L(a)LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Subject: US doesn't have the right to decide PoW status This article adds to the discussion that the Taliban are PoWs. Once in front of a court or tribunal, the Pentagon might argue that the Taliban were not the government of Afghanistan and that their armed forces were not the armed forces of a party to the convention. The problem here is that the convention is widely regarded as an accurate statement of customary international law, unwritten rules binding on all. Even if the Taliban were not formally a party to the convention, both they and the US would still have to comply. Daniel (article not for cross posting) ------------------------------------------------------------- The Guardian Monday January 14, 2002 Comment US doesn't have the right to decide who is or isn't a PoW Ignore the Geneva convention and we put our own citizens in peril Michael Byers Would you want your life to be in the hands of US secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld? Hundreds of captured Taliban and al-Qaida fighters don't have a choice. Chained, manacled, hooded, even sedated, their beards shorn off against their will, they are being flown around the world to Guantanamo Bay, a century-old military outpost seized during the Spanish-American war and subsequently leased from Cuba by the US. There, they are being kept in tiny chain-link outdoor cages, without mosquito repellent, where (their captors assure us) they are likely to be rained upon. Since Guantanamo Bay is technically foreign territory, the detainees have no rights under the US constitution and cannot appeal to US federal courts. Any rights they might have under international law have been firmly denied. According to Rumsfeld, the detainees "will be handled not as prisoners of war, because they are not, but as unlawful combatants". This unilateral determination of the detainees' status is highly convenient, since the 1949 Geneva convention on the treatment of prisoners of war stipulates that PoWs can only be tried by "the same courts according to the same procedure as in the case of members of the armed forces of the detaining power". The Pentagon clearly intends to prosecute at least some of the detainees in special military commissions having looser rules of evidence and a lower burden of proof than regular military or civilian courts. This will help to protect classified information, but also substantially increase the likelihood of convictions. The rules of evidence and procedure for the military commissions will be issued later this month by none other than Donald Rumsfeld. The Geneva convention also makes it clear that it isn't for Rumsfeld to decide whether the detainees are ordinary criminal suspects rather than PoWs. Anyone detained in the course of an armed conflict is presumed to be a PoW until a competent court or tribunal determines otherwise. The record shows that those who negotiated the convention were intent on making it impossible for the determination to be made by any single person. Once in front of a court or tribunal, the Pentagon might argue that the Taliban were not the government of Afghanistan and that their armed forces were not the armed forces of a party to the convention. The problem here is that the convention is widely regarded as an accurate statement of customary international law, unwritten rules binding on all. Even if the Taliban were not formally a party to the convention, both they and the US would still have to comply. The Pentagon might also argue that al-Qaida members were not part of the Taliban's regular armed forces. Traditionally, irregulars could only benefit from PoW status if they wore identifiable insignia, which al-Qaida members seem not to have done. But the removal of the Taliban regime was justified on the basis that al-Qaida and the Taliban were inextricably linked, a justification that weakens the claim that the former are irregulars. Moreover, the convention has to be interpreted in the context of modern international conflicts, which share many of the aspects of civil wars and tend not to involve professional soldiers on both sides. Since the convention is designed to protect persons, not states, the guiding principle has to be the furtherance of that protection. This principle is manifest in the presumption that every detainee is a PoW until a competent court or tribunal determines otherwise. This too is the position of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which plays a supervisory role over the convention. The Red Cross and Amnesty International have both expressed concerns over the treatment of the detainees. The authorities at Guantanamo Bay have prohibited journalists from filming the arrival of the detainees on the basis that the convention stipulates PoWs "must at all times be protected against insults and public curiosity". The hypocrisy undermines the position on PoW status: you can't have your cake and eat it. Even if the detainees were not PoWs, they remain human beings with human rights. Hooding, even temporarily, constitutes a violation of the 1984 convention against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Apart from causing unnecessary mental anguish, it prevents a detainee from identifying anyone causing them harm. Forcefully shaving off their beards constitutes a violation of the right to human dignity under the 1966 international covenant on civil and political rights. Forcefully sedating even one detainee for non-medical reasons violates international law. Although strict security arrangements are important in dealing with potentially dangerous individuals, none of these measures are necessary to achieving that goal. If human rights are worth anything, they have to apply when governments are most tempted to violate them. There are many reasons why these and other violations are unacceptable. The rights of the detainees are our rights as well. Yet international law can be modified as a result of state behaviour. If we stand by while the rights of the detainees are undermined, we, as individuals, could lose. British and American soldiers and aid workers operate around the world in conflict zones dominated by quasi-irregular forces. The violations in Guantanamo Bay will undermine the ability of our governments to ensure adequate treatment the next time our fellow citizens are captured and held. Respecting the presumption of PoW status and upholding the human rights of detainees today will help to protect our people in future. The US has occupied much of the moral high ground since September 11, and benefited enormously from so doing. Widespread sympathy for the US has made it much easier to freeze financial assets and secure the detention of suspects overseas, as well as secure intelligence sharing and military support. The sympathy has also bolstered efforts to win the hearts and minds of ordinary people in the Middle East, south Asia and elsewhere. That might just have prevented further terrorist attacks. Ignoring even some of the rights of those detained in Guantanamo Bay squanders this intangible but invaluable asset, in return for nothing but the fleeting satisfaction of early revenge. The detainees should be accorded full treatment as PoWs and, if not released in due course, tried before regular military or civilian courts - or even better, an ad hoc international tribunal. As the world watches, vengeance is ours. But so, too, are civilised standards of treatment and justice. · Michael Byers teaches international law at Duke University, North Carolina. He is currently a visiting fellow at Keble College, Oxford. byers(a)law.duke.edu Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> FREE COLLEGE MONEY CLICK HERE to search 600,000 scholarships! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vf6MrB/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/TySplB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> =============================================================== SPY NEWS is OSINT newsletter and discussion list associated to Mario's Cyberspace Station http://mprofaca.cro.net/mainmenu.html =============================================================== *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Spy News is making it available without profit to SPY NEWS eGroup 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 ----------------------------------------------- SPY NEWS home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spynews To change your subscription mode to Daily Digest (one message a day) send a blank message: mailto:spynews-digest@yahoogroups.com Please note that replying to THIS e-mail will not remove you from the mailing list. To unsubscribe SPYNEWS send a blank message: mailto:spynews-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Mario Profaca Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

1 0

Hiding Sensitive Data Can Be Tough in a Digital Age (fwd)
by Jim Choate 14 Jan '02

14 Jan '02

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 09:23:10 -0500 From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rahettinga(a)earthlink.net> To: Digital Bearer Settlement List <dbs(a)philodox.com>, dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu, cryptography(a)wasabisystems.com Subject: Hiding Sensitive Data Can Be Tough in a Digital Age http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/14/technology/ebusiness/14DELE.html?pagewant… January 14, 2002 Hiding Sensitive Data Can Be Tough in a Digital Age By JOHN MARKOFF SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 13 - The modern task of successfully destroying electronic documents has become daunting enough to give Oliver North nightmares. Mr. North is the Marine officer who became notorious during the Reagan-era Iran-contra scandal after it was discovered he had tried to delete thousands of e-mail messages, only to discover that they had been retained on backup tapes and made available to Congressional investigators. The issue of the destruction and possible retrieval of electronic data burst into the news last week after Arthur Andersen & Company, the auditors for the Enron Corporation (news/quote), said that the accounting firm had destroyed a "significant but undetermined" number of documents relating to Enron and its finances. The embarrassing acknowledgment set off new demands from Congress that Andersen produce a wide range of documents, including e-mail and other computer files for investigators. Today, Mr. North's efforts would be vastly more complicated because of changing computer technologies and the emergence of the Internet, which has ensured that there will be multiple copies of almost any electronic document. "Today documents aren't just stored. They're sent," said Mark Rasch, a former federal prosecutor who is vice president for cyberlaw at Predictive Systems (news/quote), a network security consulting firm based in Herndon, Va. Even though many companies have general procedural rules that require the periodic deletion of e- mail, he noted, messages can usually be recovered. "The sender and the recipient may have the message on their machine, in addition to the server where it was stored," he said. "Unless there is a tool used to remove it using military-grade technology, it can be recovered." Most computer-literate office workers now realize that simply deleting an e-mail message or moving a document onto the trash icon on their computer's desktop screen does not eliminate the data. That is because modern computers organize information by using file-system directories that point to physical areas on a disk drive where the data resides. "Deleting" the information usually only breaks the link between the directory and the data so that the original storage space can be reused in the future. To eliminate important data, some companies and individuals use software tools that try to "wipe" files from storage disks by writing random strings of 1's and 0's over the space where the files were stored. Others will use programs that "defragment" disks by moving information around on the surface of the disk so that data can be retrieved more efficiently, which can also write over old data. Or they can reformat the drives entirely. What most computer users do not realize, however, is that the world of computer forensics has made huge strides in recent years, and it is now remarkably difficult to hide data from a determined investigator. "Computer forensics is going to play an important role in recovering documents in the Enron case," said John Patzakis, president and general counsel of Guidance software, a company in Pasadena, Calif., that makes hardware and software used by law enforcement authorities as well as the Big Five accounting firms. Every action taken by a computer user leaves a telltale trail, he said, so the act of deleting documents can itself be revealing. "Not only can computer forensic techniques recover documents, but they can inform investigators when and how they were deleted," he said. "It is often possible to determine if a deletion is an innocent act pursuant to a corporate policy or if there is an ulterior motive." Even more remarkable, technical means exist to retrieve data that has been erased. It is possible to take a disk apart and use an electron microscope to read information from the individual magnetic spots on the surface of a disk that may have been intentionally erased, Mr. Patzakis said. Originally a tool of the intelligence world, this technique - which is costly - has been used successfully in big legal cases. -- ----------------- 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' --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)wasabisystems.com

1 0

DVD hacker Johansen indicted in Norway
by Jei 14 Jan '02

14 Jan '02

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23633.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DVD hacker Johansen indicted in Norway By Ann Harrison Posted: 10/01/2002 at 19:58 GMT Norwegian prosecutors have indicted Jon Johansen for his role in creating the DeCSS program that unlocked a DVD copy protection system and unleashed a series of lawsuits by the motion picture industry. The National Authority for Investigation and Prosecution of Economic and Environmental Crime in Norway (OKOKRIM) indicted Johansen on January 9th for violating Norwegian criminal code section 145(2), which prohibits the opening of a closed document in a way that gains access to its contents, or breaking into a locked repository. The law also prohibits the breaking of a protective device in a way that unlawfully obtains access to the data. If Johansen is found to have committed the felony for the purpose of unlawful gain, he could serve up to two years in prison. "The way we understand it, the data is the content of the DVD, what you are breaking is the encryption and what you are getting access to is the data on the disk," said Halvor Manshaus of the Oslo law firm Schjodt, which is representing Johansen. Manshaus says the law has previously been used to prosecute those who broke into bank or phone company records. But he says this is the first time that the law has been used to prosecute someone who broke an encryption system. The case is expected to go to trial before summer. "There was a Norwegian Supreme Court ruling where this regulation has beenapplied before, but that was a case where he was accessing or breaking into a system that you are not legally entitled to access," said Manshaus. "The distinction here is that he is charged with breaking a code and accessing the data that he is allowed to access. He owned the DVD disk." The indictment comes more than two years after the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) contacted OKOKRIM prosecutors and requested a criminal investigation of Johansen and his father, Per, who owned the PC on which Johansen posted DeCSS. Indictment follows US lawsuits Manshaus says the MPAA also asked OKOKRIM to charge both father and son with contributory copyright infringement. OKOKRIM did not pursue this charge against Jon Johansen, and Per Johansen has not been charged under either complaint. Neither father, nor son is accused of breaking any U.S. laws. Johansen, who just turned 18, was not available for comment. The movie industry fears that the removal of the DVD encryption could spark unauthorized copying of DVD movies. But Johansen has maintained that DeCSS was intended not to make copies, but rather to create DVD playback software for computers running the Linux operating system. Johansen is co-founder of a group called MoRE (Masters of Reverse Engineering). Two members of the group, which Johansen knew only by their screen names, helped him develop DeCSS in 1999. The group found that the Windows-based DVD player XingDVD from Xing Technology Corp. had not hidden its decryption key. MoRE used this decryption key to make DeCSS. Manshaus says Johansen never used the utility to make copies of DVDs. Jan Bing, a Norwegian legal expert who testified for the EFF in a related California civil case, concluded in a legal analysis that, "there is no legal precedent or court decision in Norway to support a claim that reverse engineering is a violation of Norwegian criminal law." He added that 145(2) could, in theory, forbid the "breaking of a protective device," to gain access to information on a disk, but he noted that there is no supporting Norwegian precedent. A spokesmen for the MPAA was not immediately available for comment on the indictment. Robin Gross, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) that has supported Johansen said the motion picture industry has pushed Norwegian prosecutors to indict the young programmer. "I think they just finally succumbed to Hollywood pressure," said Gross. "The Norwegian government finally had to bow to the demands of Hollywood to prosecute Jon." In January, 2000, police entered Johansen's home and seized two personal computers, a mobile phone, and several computer disks. Johansen was taken to a police station and questioned for nearly seven hours and released. Gross says the current action against Johansen stems from two lawsuits filed in the U.S. The first lawsuit, was brought in 1999 by the DVD Copyright Control Association (DVD CCA) in California Superior Court, against Andrew Bunner and others. The suit claimed that Web publishers who posted or linked to DeCSS unlawfully misappropriated trade secrets. The suit demanded that the publishers delete the information. While he was not named in the suit, Jon Johansen decided to remove his link to DeCSS from his web site. On November 1, 2001, the California Court of Appeals reversed the court's preliminary injunction and confirmed that the publication of DeCSS is protected by the First Amendment. Bunner and his legal team have asked the court to recognize that because DeCSS is widely available on the Internet, it cannot be considered a trade secret. The second case involved a federal suit in New York court against 2600 Magazine which posted the DeCSS code on its Web site. The major movie studios sued 2600 Magazine, claiming that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) bans publication of the program. On November 30, 2001, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court decision banning the magazine from publishing DeCSS. The court agreed that computer programs are protected expression. But it found that when DeCSS is published on the Internet, the fact that it could be misused justified a complete ban on the program. Despite the lawsuits, Gross says that Johansen, who now works for a software company, is respected in Norway. She notes that he was awarded Norway's Karoline Prize given each year to a Norwegian student who receives top grades and makes a contribution to society. Gross says the EFF plans to coordinate protests and a letter-writing campaign similar to that which lobbied for the release of Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov. Sklyarov was jailed and later released for distributing software that could be used to circumvent access restrictions on Adobe's e-book format. "We want to get the Norwegian public to come together and put some political pressure on the prosecutors to drop the charges against Johansen," said Gross. © 2001 SecurityFocus.com All rights reserved.

1 0

Web Security Company Takes No Prisoners (fwd)
by Jim Choate 14 Jan '02

14 Jan '02

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 09:26:35 -0500 From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rahettinga(a)earthlink.net> To: Digital Bearer Settlement List <dbs(a)philodox.com>, dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu, cryptography(a)wasabisystems.com Subject: Web Security Company Takes No Prisoners http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/14/technology/ebusiness/14SECU.html?pagewant… January 14, 2002 Web Security Company Takes No Prisoners By CHRISTINE BLANK s a former airborne infantry officer in the Army, Clarence Briggs was trained to protect the country from foreign enemies. Now, he is using those specialized skills to protect his company, Advanced Internet Technologies, from hackers, competitors and disgruntled employees. Surrounding the company's property in Fayetteville, N.C., is coiled razor wire atop a six-foot chain-link fence. The buildings have eight-inch- thick concrete walls and are patrolled by uniformed guards with ready access to firearms. Mr. Briggs explained that he did not want competitors to steal server computers or data - something he said he had seen at other companies that like his, serve as hosts for client's Web sites. Mr. Briggs, who founded the privately held company six years ago along with other former military people, has also installed video cameras, created password access to secured areas, locked sensitive documents in a vault and insisted on extensive employee background checks. He said such measures were necessary to protect the 32,000 Web sites the company operates for companies based in this country and abroad. "Security must absolutely pervade an organization, especially an I.T. organization," Mr. Briggs said, using an abbreviation for information technology. "Most I.T. organizations don't even know how bad they get hurt - until it's too late." He says that the company, which is generally known as A.I.T., deals with several attempted network hacker attacks a day. Fortifications include A.I.T.'s custom-made firewall software, vigilant surveillance by the staff - most of whom are military veterans with extensive technical training. "If I catch you, no expense is too great for me to come after you, and I will make your life miserable," Mr. Briggs, a former major, said. The A.I.T. team tracks down perpetrators, then either phones them or sends representatives from the company or local law enforcement agencies to warn against further attempts. "We employ a lot of little traps to track folks that access our network," Mr. Briggs said. "We use the typical ambush techniques." The company is so confident of its preparedness that it plans to offer a security service for corporations this spring. The program, Mr. Briggs said, will be modeled on A.I.T.'s mix of physical and electronic security, along with a "rapid deployment team" that can be quickly dispatched to deal with security breaches. -- ----------------- 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' --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)wasabisystems.com

1 0

a must have domain name
by Anna Morgan 14 Jan '02

14 Jan '02

1 0

Slashdot | History of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
by Jim Choate 14 Jan '02

14 Jan '02

http://slashdot.org/yro/02/01/14/0020207.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Slashdot | Lawsuits Against Spammers
by Jim Choate 14 Jan '02

14 Jan '02

http://slashdot.org/articles/02/01/13/1734258.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Swarms Of Tiny Robots To Monitor Water Pollution
by Jim Choate 14 Jan '02

14 Jan '02

http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0114026.htm -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Slashdot | Why 'rm -R star' Isn't Enough
by Jim Choate 14 Jan '02

14 Jan '02

http://slashdot.org/yro/02/01/14/1328244.shtml -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Email postage redux
by Roy M. Silvernail 14 Jan '02

14 Jan '02

The email postage meme seems to be spreading a bit. http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2838340,00.html It's a reader's letter suggesting a plan for e-postage. The interesting point is that it doesn't suggest is-a-person credentials are a necessity, and even mentions techniques for anonymous email. -- Roy M. Silvernail Proprietor, scytale.com roy(a)scytale.com

1 0