- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: IP: Wanna make biological weapons and take out cities? $10. (fwd)
by keyser-soze＠hushmail.com 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

At 12:44 PM 11/22/2001 -0600, gep2(a)terabites.com wrote: On Thu, 22 Nov 2001, Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> wrote: >>There are plenty of books I can think of -- almost all of the Loompanics >>catalog -- that would fret some government official. David Burnham's books >>on the IRS and DOJ abuses of power are another. >There's a huge difference between a book that blows the whistle on government misdoings and abuses versus a book that gives a detailed recipe on how some disgruntled lunatic with $10 in their pocket can kill tens of thousands, maybe even millions, of other people "from your basement, in your spare time". Many of the works in the Loompanics catalogue are practical, how-to, manuals on manufacture and use of weapons, some now classed as illegal. >ESPECIALLY when that book discusses (and presumably encourages) the distribution of anthrax and other home-cultured lethal pathogens by letters in the mail, and in light of recent events bearing a striking similarity to that, I think it's obvious that people who bought this guy's book or CD are certainly at least among the list of prime suspects. (And I'd think that it simply makes sense to investigate, and monitor the activities of the rest of the purchasers to try to uncover if they're just "curious" as an academically interesting subject, or to see if they have a more sinister purpose.) The barriers to law enforcement in obtaining this type of information is part of the balance struck between individual civil liberties and the easy with which law enforcement is able to carry out some of their mandate to identify and capture criminals. It is only in a police state that law enforcement's job is "easy." Despite my concern over the possession of such information by some who have plans to use it to hurt others, I have no interest in seeing this balance tipped toward enforcement. >Obviously we as a nation were largely blindsided by the September 11th disaster, and we've been roundly criticized due to the obvious failure of intelligence to see this coming and head it off somehow. While we can't ALWAYS achieve that, it's clear that we need to do better in that area. Anyone who looked for their inept government security agencies to provide all or most of their security were fools. Any who continue to look for this protection going forward are larger fools. To paraphrase P.T. Barnum, "A fool and their life are soon parted." Your safety is most assured when you take personal responsibility. The reasons for this failure have been much publicized and ignored over the past two decades. The massive funding of these agencies post Sept. 11 are unlikely to have any immediate positive effects as money was never the primary problem. >There's plenty of other things that "ordinary" folk simply don't have much need to buy and own. [very-]Large-denomination currency, perhaps. This seems to be based on the assumption that one does not have a fundamental right to property: the right to possess it or transfer it. That roadblocks need to be erected to prevent us from efficiently exercising this right. The right to privacy, especially financial privacy is a basis of democratic government. By limiting the manner in which one may hold property, especially without the knowledge of government agencies or ones neighbors, we greatly limit our freedom of private property ownership and privacy. >Nuclear weapons. > High explosives and blasting caps. Shoulder-launced antiaircraft missiles. I'm sure you can think of others. I'd put anthrax and other biological or chemical weapons into that category, too. I'd hope that anyone buying (or attempting to buy) such stuff would at least slightly raise an eyebrow on the part of SOMEONE charged with helping to maintain a society that's safe to live in. It's clearly NOT enough to only monitor such things on the part of madmen like Saddam Hussein... clearly, we have crazy people right here in the United States, too. They're no less in need of at least some oversight to make sure that they don't go off the deep end and endanger as much as an entire city (or possibly even worse). >From the Declaration of Independence the right of individuals to overthrow their governments when THEY feel that it has come ignore basic civil liberties has been enshrined. While some might insist that massive civil unrest is the only legitimate means of achieving an overthrow I would remind you that fewer than 10% of the American Colonials took an active part in the Revolution. This was definitely a case of asymmetrical warfare and the British considered these Colonists terrorists (although this term was not used). Without the help of France is most unlikely that our side would have prevailed. Abraham Lincoln : "Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." "First Inaugural Address" (available at http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html) "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,---a most sacred right---a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it." (Speech in the United States House of Representatives, Jan. 12, 1848) You or I certainly couldn't consider overthrowing our government with a pistol, rifle or shotgun. The individual possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction is fundamental to exercise of our rights. The Supreme Court essentially came to this conclusion in the case of Miller vs. U.S, but shortly thereafter it beat a hasty retreat in Case vs. U.S. "In view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,--almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,--is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute. Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench m! ortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result." http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/131f2d916.html So, where we sit now is that we have a fundamental right to overthrow our government by violence but the discussion of this subject or possession of the means is a felony. >>But I hardly think it's >>consistent with the First Amendment to investigate the people who buy them, >>or make the authors pay "protection money" for the privilege of publishing. >It's hardly reasonable for taxpayers as a whole to have to pay the high costs of security that are created by an irresponsible individual who is creating a very dangerous situation just to earn a few fistfulls of dollars (and to quite purposefully create that danger). When someone creates a highly dangerous condition that results in heavy costs to someone else (whether to correct the problem, or even to protect themselves against the possible problem) then courts have traditionally found that the damaged party has a civil claim against the person creating that hazard. But since this expensive security has now been shown to be ineffective don't you think those citizens are entitled to a refund? These expenditures were foolish but should individuals be held responsible for the folly of their fellow citizens? Should I be able to sue our government for reimbursement of the costs of living in a gated and guarded community because I think the police have "created a dangerous condition" by not providing an adequate level of protection to my family? This is a fools game. >Again, the First Amendment has its limits. If some organization were to publish a "you can build it at home in your spare time" cookbook recipe of how to create an innovative sort of nuclear weapon capable of destroying a large city, I'd expect for the government to step in and prevent its publication and sale... purely as a matter of national security. Section 4.0 Engineering and Design of Nuclear Weapons http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Nwfaq/Nfaq4.html >Just as very few Americans (in fact I suspect this is true for most of the world) will shed great tears when ObL is captured or killed, I think that few of them will be very upset when this guy selling "murder millions of your fellow citizens" cookbooks is eliminated. Nor shall I when those of my fellow citizens who with a fundamental lack of constitutional awareness call for such results meet a similar fate. >Now do you see why your post is so at odds with the principles of a free >society? If not, I'm not sure you're educable on this issue. >Clearly we're going to lose some of our freedoms. :-((( I just hope that those losses can be minimized. Meanwhile, it's bastards like this guy selling these terrorism training manuals who are ultimately more part of the problem than they are part of the solution. This no more a far gone conclusion than that some of those who passed these new measures or attempt to enforce them will lose their lives in doing so.

1 0

National ID is now a cinch :-).
by R. A. Hettinga 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

http://www.tray.com/ > UPDATE: Mon Nov 19, 2001 > > Security In Lobbying > Majority Leader Daschleís wife, Linda, registers to lobby for >Intelli-Check Inc of Woodbury, NY, a company that produces identification >systems. Baker, Donelson, Bearman & Caldwell will provide assistance in >familiarizing agencies with companyís ID systems. The form states Linda >Daschle voluntarily does not lobby the U.S. Senate. -- ----------------- 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

Re: IP: Wanna make biological weapons and take out cities? $10. (fwd)
by Major Variola (ret) 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

At 12:44 PM 11/22/01 -0600, gep2(a)terabites.com wrote: >Again, the First Amendment has its limits. Nope. How unAmerican. Are you British? If some organization were to publish >a "you can build it at home in your spare time" cookbook recipe of how to create >an innovative sort of nuclear weapon capable of destroying a large city, I'd >expect for the government to step in and prevent its publication and sale... Speaking of which do you find chocolate agar to be a better culture medium than uncooked blood agar? And when oxygenating the culture can you just bubble air or do you see better results from pure O2? >The idea that this nitwit is "only just" publishing this kind of material and >not HIMSELF committing the resulting crimes (and it could WELL be that the >anthrax attacks already seen here are the work of one or more of his customers) >and that he therefore should be allowed to continue these sales unimpeded and >unmonitored is rather like saying that Osama bin Laden is only running terrorism >training camps, producing snazzy recruitment videos, publishing terrorism >handbooks and providing other logistical support but that nothing he's done has >actually CAUSED anybody to go out and commit these horrible atrocities. > >Again, sorry, I don't agree. Presumably there is a lot of causal evidence that can't be shown. Making videos is never a crime. (Vs. coercing actors, or using the state to censor) >>>How many sets of these "terrorism cookbooks" do you let fall >>>into the hands of psychotics? The most dangerous psychotics are the elected ones. BTW Gordon you use "we" far too much, as if you are speaking for others than your lil' ole self. We find this annoying.

1 0

Re: IP: Wanna make biological weapons and take out cities? $10. (fwd)
by Tim May 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

On Wednesday, November 21, 2001, at 12:09 PM, Eugene Leitl wrote: > >> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:58:28 -0600 >> From: gep2(a)terabites.com >> Subject: Wanna make biological weapons and take out cities? $10. >> To: dallasdemocrats(a)egroups.com, dave(a)farber.net >> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 >> >> Here's a disturbing story from today's New York Times: >> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/21/national/21BOOK.html?todaysheadlines >> >> I sure hope that the government is investigating and following each >> and every >> person who buys a copy of this book... I wonder if there's a way to >> force >> Tobiason to foot the bill for that security? >> This "gep2" character is typical of people who don't understand that the First Amendment does not give any power to government to ban such books...or to "follow each and every person," or to get their identities. Government agents who infringe the Constitution have earned killing. The part of the article where the government official says such books "should be illegal" is especially telling. I hope they try to illegalize such books. It will radicalize more people, and maybe hasten the day when festering holes like Washington, D.C. are annihilated. --Tim May "Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice."--Barry Goldwater

5 6

powergrab 2001: Must the law "tell the truth and for everybody to follow the law"
by Major Variola (ret) 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011124/us/attacks_posse_comitatus_1.html Saturday November 24 5:00 AM ET 1878 Military Law Gets New Attention By T.A. BADGER, Associated Press Writer SAN ANTONIO (AP) - America's military is largely prohibited from acting as a domestic police force, but with the increased fears of terrorism, some experts say it's time to rethink those restrictions. ``Our way of life has forever changed,'' wrote Sen. John Warner (news - bio - voting record), R-Va., in a letter last month to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. ``Should this law now be changed to enable our active-duty military to more fully join other domestic assets in this war against terrorism?'' The law, known as the Posse Comitatus Act, was championed by Southern lawmakers in 1878 who were angry about the widespread use of the Army in post-Civil War law enforcement. It currently bans the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines from participating in arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other police-type activity on U.S. soil. The Coast Guard and National Guard troops under the control of state governors are excluded from the act. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying in October before the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites), agreed that it might be desirable to give federal troops more of a role in domestic policing to prevent terrorism. ``In certain cases we can do more than anyone else in the country because of the special capabilities that we have,'' he said. Those roles could be varied, such as helping local law enforcement in the event of a terrorist attack, patrolling the nation's borders or serving as armed sky marshals aboard flights over the United States. But the issue of expanding the military's domestic reach sharply divides lawyers who have spent years studying Posse Comitatus, Latin for ``power of the county.'' Dennis Corrigan, a retired colonel who taught the law at the Army's Judge Advocate General's school, says legislators should resist the urge to change it. The military isn't trained to be a police force, he says, so it should stick to the skills for which it is trained: surveillance, information gathering, logistical support. All of these activities are allowable under Posse Comitatus. ``There should be a partnership between the military and civilian sectors - the civilian doing the confrontation and the military providing support,'' said Corrigan, now a businessman living in Gilford, N.H. ``I'm not sure, even with what's going on today, that Congress wants the military arresting people.'' Jeffrey Addicott, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army JAG Corps, wrote that the law handcuffs the nation when it comes to responding to terrorist attacks. ``We've got a homeland defense office, but if there's not reforms, the Posse Comitatus Act will cut them off at the knees,'' Addicott, now a law professor at St. Mary's University in San Antonio, said in a recent interview. ``This is a new kind of war,'' Addicott said. ``We have to make a compromise now to prevent these guys from committing an act of terror on a larger scale.'' Army Secretary Thomas White said late last month that the Pentagon (news - web sites)'s review of Posse Comitatus would not likely lead to recommendations that Congress overhaul the act. ``But we are looking at the details of the law to see if revisions are appropriate in the way it's executed or the exceptions that can be taken,'' White said. Exceptions over the years have seen armed federal troops used for drug interdiction and patrol of the U.S.-Mexico border to enforce immigration laws with mixed results. In 1997, a Marine corporal on a drug surveillance patrol shot and killed an 18-year-old goat herder in the Texas desert about 200 miles southeast of El Paso. A Marine inquiry determined its personnel were not adequately trained for the mission. Soon afterward, such patrols ended. Michael Spak, a former Army JAG colonel now teaching at Chicago-Kent College of Law, says the exceptions made in the name of national security in recent decades have left Posse Comitatus a hollow shell. He says the law should be scrapped entirely. Any amendment to loosen Posse Comitatus would be strictly pro forma, he says, because as it's now construed, the statute has enough wiggle room for the government to use the military for domestic action as it sees fit. ``It's good for the law to tell the truth and for everybody to follow the law,'' he said. ``But is it necessary? No.''

2 1

patriotic trash
by Major Variola (ret) 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

Some significant fraction of the cars in the States have (generally Chinese-made) flags fluttering on them. And since, well, stuff happens, some of these have broken and now you see flags on the ground by the side of the road. This is twisted because the flag is never supposed to touch the ground, etc., but we'll see lots of that as the cheap plastic flags disintegrate. [That wasn't a metaphor but it could be....] In fact you're supposed to burn weathered flags ---and of course, folks' reaction to burning the flag *prematurely* is how you distinguish freedom (eg of expression) lovers from poseurs. .... Curiouser and curiouser Down the rabbit hole Rabbits don't carry anthrax, do they?

1 0

Passive three dimensional track of non-cooperative targets through opportunistic use of global positioning system (GPS) and GLONASS signals
by mean-green＠hushmail.com 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

US Pat. 6,232,922 Passive three dimensional track of non-cooperative targets through opportunistic use of global positioning system (GPS) and GLONASS signals Abstract A method and apparatus for utilization of GPS, GLONASS or other existing RF signals is disclosed. These existing RF signals are scattered by targets, with a receiver of these scattered signals providing processing to extract three dimensional track of these objects. Angle-of-Arrival (AOA) information of a received signal may be used, but is not required. Modifications of standard GPS signal processing allows observables such as range-sum, range-difference, and bistatic Doppler frequency to be observed. These observables, when coupled with standard bistatic/multistatic location equations, provide unambiguous and even redundant information on target coordinates. The method/device employs a modified code (range)/carrier(Doppler) search routine for initial target search/acquisition, wherein a direct path signal is used as a reference from which chip delay and Doppler shift excursions are examined. In this manner, the range and Doppler components observed will correspond to [rang! e-sum-direct path] range, and true bistatic target Doppler irrespective of the satellite or receiver induced Doppler shifts.

3 2

McAfee to introduce FBI back door into their antivirus tools
by Major Variola (ret) 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

"At least one antivirus software company, McAfee Corp., contacted the FBI on Wednesday to ensure its software wouldn't inadvertently detect the bureau's snooping software and alert a criminal suspect." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1436-2001Nov22.html ---- Wonder how long it will take a virus writer to spoof the golden signature? I especially like the plot where a good rev engr gets a sample of the FBI's trojan and modifies/deploys it for his own purposes...

1 0

Re: Anonymizing Scam
by Lance M. Cottrell 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

Given how widely know my email address is, I am saddened that people would post this kind of unsubstantiated rumor without any attempt to check on the validity. Anonymizer has always offered its services to all comers. This has always included law enforcement. They have used our services to keep an eye on certain websites for many years, without tipping them off to the focus of their interests. Seeing "fbi.gov" in the log files is a bit of a giveaway. They have no special access to our systems, and no ability to monitor our users. Describing our policy of open access as "sucking up to the TLAs" is absurd. I would have thought my history in this field would have earned me some consideration before jumping to that kind of conclusion. Does government and industry have no rights to, or needs for, privacy? It seems a hypocritical position for Cypherpunks to take. -Lance Cottrell At 5:34 PM -0500 11/23/01, R. A. Hettinga wrote: >--- begin forwarded text > > >Status: U >Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 16:02:10 -0800 >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >From: John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> >Subject: Anonymizing Scam >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)lne.com > >Below are strange statements coming from Lance Cottrell. >Is there no anonymizer that is not sucking up to the TLAs? >Worse, has there ever been? > >----- > > >http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/11/20/privacy.reut/index.html > >One company that is still making money off privacy is >Anonymizer.com, a San Diego-based company that offers >anonymous Web surfing for $50 a year, or $5 a month. The >company has 20,000 active subscribers, said President Lance >Cottrell. > >"We're still seeing very strong growth," Cottrell said. "Most >people are looking to prevent their boss, insurance company, >spouse, ISP (Internet Service Provider) from knowing where >they're going." > >Even so, Anonymizer.com began a push six months ago to >market its service to corporations, including law and investigation >firms, and the U.S. government, he said. > >"Intelligence agencies have been using us for years, especially >since September 11," Cottrell said. "They use us to keep an eye >on bad guy sites" with covert monitoring. > >----- > >The pattern: initial big deal about helping the public protect its >privacy, then boom, a later revelation it was impossible to >continue ... well, the reasons vary, but the cover story is always >the need for money, the Judas rationale. > >Meanwhile, the fabulous surfing data archive allegedly inviolate, or >never retained, or no way to ever know who was using the >service, that is the data all free-gift marketers aim to collect. > >Were any anonymizing archives ever trashed or truly protected >against concurrent snarfing? Is Safeweb laughing like ZKS, >like Lance? First, the US, then EU, then CN, all the way to >MD. > >What does this say about commercial anonymizing services, >and remailers? And crypto, especially free PGP, and the honeypot >AES? > >--- 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' -- Lance M. Cottrell lcottrell(a)anonymizer.com Anonymizer, Inc. President Voice: (619) 725-3180 X304 Fax: (619) 725-3188 www.Anonymizer.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)wasabisystems.com

1 0

IP: What are your reac tions to this? (fwd)
by Eugene Leitl 24 Nov '01

24 Nov '01

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 19:09:10 -0500 From: David Farber <dave(a)farber.net> Reply-To: farber(a)cis.upenn.edu To: ip-sub-1(a)majordomo.pobox.com Subject: IP: What are your reac tions to this? > >Young Ben Shapiro discusses the sophomoric thinking of some professors at >UCLA. >http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/db/articles.asp?ID=17431 > >Effects of campus liberalism far-reaching >LIBERALS: Professors give support to murders of law enforcement, terrorist >acts >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >---- >Ben Shapiro > >Universities have a serious problem. The type of liberalism so heavily >favored by the intellectual elite has crossed the line. Professors >throughout the educational world are supporting murderers and terrorists; >they are justifying despicable actions because of the political philosophies >of the actors. Murder, slaughter, and terrorism are OK, they say, as long as >they are directed at law-enforcement officials or civilian Westerners. It's >fine as long as the murderer is anti-capitalist, anti-establishment or >anti-conservative. > >This frightening ideology has not only blurred the line between liberalism >and radicalism it has destroyed it. This ideology cannot truly be called >liberalism it can only be called evil. And this evil must be eradicated >before it spreads and engulfs the aspiring youth of our nation in its dark >and shadowy tentacles. ><snip> For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

2 1