- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Phil Zimmermann leaves NSI, says PGP source should be published
by Declan McCullagh 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

(The Subject: line was, of course, a typo. NAI!=NSI.)

1 0

I saw your posting
by bking＠point2.com 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

Hello: My name is Brendan King. I am the director of marketing for Point2 Heavy Equipment Systems. I came across your companies posting on a heavy equimpent website. I hope that you already have sold your equipment . If, however, you have not yet sold your equipment or have additional surplus equipment you wish to sell , our website offers a number of FREE services that may help you: 1) FREE Classifieds. This is a way that you can sell equipment that you want to dispose of for FREE! http://www.point2.com/services/contractors/sell-your-equipment.html 2) FREE Directory listing. Allow thousands of users world wide to find your company. http://www.point2.com/industrydirectory/businessdirectory/index.html 3) FREE Want Ads. Need a piece of equipment and don't have time to look or have a specific budget? Place a want ad and sellers will come to you! http://www.point2.com/util/user-registration.html.arg/destination%3Dwant-ad… Or just browse our huge equipment database http://www.point2.com/search/index.html Point2 Heavy Equipments Systems is the largest heavy equipment exchange in the world. We have listed on our site over 50,000 pieces of equipment with a combined value in excess of 4 billion dollars! I hope you can take advantage of our services. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Brendan King 306.955.1855

1 0

Re: privacy regulations suck also (Re: Formal apology)
by Gil Hamilton 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

Someone named Paul writes: > > So here's the problem: these laws will if anything make it less > > visible what information companies and governments have on you because > > they will restrict uses. How the data is handled and used isn't the > > problem, the problem is that the information is collected, and > > available to law enforcement, national intelligence and your average > > dick (private detective). > >The purpose of the laws is to make MORE visible the information that >businesses and government have on you. None of these laws call for >"restricting" the use of information, unless of course you the consumer are >requesting the restriction, in which case the laws mandate that said >organization must comply with the restriction. Somehow, for you, there is no contradiction between "none of these laws call for 'restricting' the use of information" and "must comply with the restriction". Must be some other language you speak. >Like I said before, the information MUST be collected in order to perform >most normal business transactions (especially in health and finance). Health care is clearly an exception since the subject matter of the field is the person himself. For most purposes, finance does not (read: would not in an ideal world) require any personal information. (Sic 'em, Hettinga! He doesn't understand the concept of a bearer bond.) > The >way the information is handled and used has TREMENDOUS implications for >privacy. I'm not sure why you think that the "way" the information is >handled has "nothing" to do w/ privacy.. uhh.. to most people working in >the >privacy field, this has EVERYTHING to do w/ privacy.. Well, Adam, after years of experimenting with, analyzing, implementing, writing about, and discussing crypto and privacy, isn't it great to have some bozo show up on the list and start lecturing to you about what "most people working in the privacy field" think? > > Privacy to me means being able to keep my affairs private from > > governments if I choose. The UK princple allowing you to use any name > > you want (so long as it is not for committing fraud or a crime) is > > agood one. (I'm hoping that using an alias does not affect the legal > > systems evaluation of the severity of the crime -- and that there are > > no "use of an alias in the commission of a crime" types things in > > effect though I don't know the details). > >That is an interesting definition of privacy, but it is really a subset of >the more general definition that is more widely used in the industry, which >is namely the ability to control secondary uses of personal information. Ahh, the classic "Euro" privacy kleptocrat: got to "control" what those evil corporations can do. But pay no attention to that man from the government: he is your Friend (or Do You Have Something To Hide?). >Your example about the UK allowing you to use multiple names seems to me to >be a classic case of what one would call "security through obscurity." Most >professionals would consider this to be EXTREMLEY weak security (or, in >your >case, privacy).. I'm not sure why you think this makes you more secure or >private than a legal/economic/technical regime that allows you property >rights over personal information.. I'm not sure why you think you have any right to tell me (or my company) what I can do with information that resides on my private hard disk or a piece of paper in my desk drawer. > > So the solution appears to be technological countermeasures, and > > repealing laws. Neither of which appear even remotely likely within > > the political system. The political system has a systemic desire to > > create more laws. Every new law introduces more problems. The people > > writing the laws don't know the technology, they are control freaks, > > and pander to media and take bribes and broker favors with special > > interest groups. So at this point I firmly believe in "write code not > > laws", and think that "cypherpunks write code" is important. > >I'm not certain what you mean by "technological countermeasures". If you >mean "anonymization" technology, or "zero-knowledge proofs", you can talk >till you're blue in the face and it still won't happen, although that has >nothing to do w/ the current political system. It already has happened to some extent: see anonymizer.com (or the new safeweb.com) Digital cash will happen eventually; it's just too useful. Other stuff will follow. > It has to do w/ the fact >that >businessmen won't conduct business w/ people they can't trust (ie., people >who are anonymous) and even IF they could, the economic reality is that >NOTHING in the infrastructure (of banks, hospitals, retail, etc) is even >remotely prepared for this, so why bother talking about it? I don't know what planet you live on. I visit a retail store nearly every day, walk up to the counter, plop down my bills and walk out with merchandise. Nobody asks me my name or my social security number or where I live. >Better to guarantee privacy through systems that engender communication of >adequate amounts of personal information for the transaction at hand >(whether financial, medical or retail), but that ensure trusted handling of >the info on the transaction is complete.. "This is _very_very_ complicated, son. Just leave it to us professionals." >PrivacyRight, Inc. - www.privacyright.com >Chief Technology Officer Kinda hard to believe the CTO of a place called privacyright.com hasn't thought a bit more deeply about this stuff. - GH _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

1 0

Rightwing conspiracy (was: Re: Is a Thermal Imaging search needful of a warrant? )
by auto105391＠hushmail.com 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

># ># And, no. I'm no 'leftie'. > >Hard to believe, considering your main concern was frequencies >and not privacy. You even admit the information is NOT visible >by human eyes without the hardware. Hey, He's not one of us. Your adroit comments are terribly gauche, and might even have a sinister intent. While Choate may not be dexterous, he is doubtless a Dexter. Thank You, The Lefties

1 0

Re: Re: Is a Thermal Imaging search needful of a warrant?
by mmotyka＠lsil.com 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

> >On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Jim Choate wrote: > >> >>Is a visible light search needful of a warrant? If so then why is the >>frequency of the radiation an issue? >> > >The capacity of most humans to see in visible light wavelengths is >well-documented, and this capacity forms part of our expectation of >what is and is not private. > >People erect privacy fences *BECAUSE* those fences cannot be seen >through in the visible-light spectrum. In so doing, they express >an intent for the stuff behind those fences to be private. > >*sigh.* I suppose it would freak their cookies, and might even >prompt a search-warrant, if someone installed steel plates in >his walls so that the impulse-radar was baffled. > > Bear > > Are you shielding from FMJ rounds or radar? Foil-faced insulation should do just fine. Time to check my walls. And I doubt if having a radar-proof house or a Faraday room is probable cause for a warrant. And while we're on the subject, anyone know where to get Levis and t-shirts with some aluminized fibers, the mofo's are starting to deploy this shit at airports aren't they? Mike

1 0

The CIA for Kids?
by Matthew Gaylor 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

The CIA for Kids? The Central Intelligence Agency now has a web site for children. And I'm not kidding. http://www.cia.gov/cia/ciakids/index.html At their site you can "Fly High On Intelligence, NOT Drugs". Kids get to learn why the CIA is involved in thwarting nacrotraffic and finding money launders while playing such games as "Break the Code" or the "Geography Trivia Quiz". Or budding junior spies can bone up with the "Intelligence Book List" or take a virtual tour of the CIA. Most of the alphabet soup agencies have rushed head long into providing content for children both overtly as evidenced by sites such as the CIA's and much more ominously, covertly. You may have heard that the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/ pays popular Hollywood TV programs to insert anti-drug messages into the story lines of the shows. After some protests among civil libertarians, the ONDCP in conjunction with the TV producers agreed to mention in the credits that the program was supported by ONDCP. This is the same agency that was forced last June to stop tracking computer users who viewed their anti drug advertisements on the Internet. Their use violated federal privacy guidelines. See: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/06/biztech/articles/22net.html What is less widely known and is not in my opinion publicized due to political reasons, is the US Justice Department's practice of inserting anti-gun propaganda in various TV programming. Much of the anti-gun messages are cloaked in anti-violence material. In 1999 MTV, the popular music television station owned by Viacom International, released a CD Rom titled "Fight For Your Rights: take a stand against violence". The CD included works by Lauryn Hill, The Dave Matthews Band, Everclear, The Backstreet Boys, Alanis Morrissette, Tori Amos and included sound bites from other popular artists. Adam Yauch of the Bestie Boys on track 13, the last track of the CD, mentioned that the only way to stop violence was to ban guns. I received my free copy of the CD-Rom directly from the US Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice. And nary a ripple surfaced last year by the mainstream media when it was revealed that the US Army's Psychological Operations Units do Internships at CNN and other news outlets. In March of 2000 I posted some information to my worldwide mailing list, Freematt's Alerts, on the subject of Psychological Operations On The Internet. I had posted some information on UKUSA's Echelon, the global spy network. I posted some info from John Young's <jya(a)pipeline.com> excellent site: http://cryptome.org/ In particular I posted this quote from http://cryptome.org/madsen hmhd.htm "They constantly broadcast disinformation to television and radio audiences in Haiti, Serbia, Colombia, Mexico and elsewhere." Lo and behold, I got contacted by a member of the US Army Reserve's 246th Psychological Operations Company from Columbus, Ohio who took exception with that comment. His title is All-Source Intelligence Analyst and Psychological Operations Specialist. He claims to have contacted me as a private citizen and he mentioned that he didn't tell me anything that wasn't open information. I engaged with him over several emails then I switched into an IRC channel for a couple of hours and I quizzed him on several issues that some of you may find noteworthy. I'll refer to him as Agent X out respect for his privacy. Agent X wrote: I find it interesting how people with very little information about what information the U.S. Actually does put out are so quick to judge. The USIA/USIS and Army Psyop do try to earn people's support for U.S. policy. This "disinformation" that is put out is Mine awareness so that children don't end up dead or maimed, they try to get civilians to clear military convoy routes so that relief aid can be transported to the needy, like the orphanage in Haiti that had run out of food because a tropical storm had knocked out the bridge on the only road to them. The U.S. did not engage in the use of the Internet as an information tool in Bosnia as the legality of the issue was still under debate. Under U.S. law and Army Policy no Psyop may be conducted on U.S. citizens. The internet being an open medium would have allowed U.S. citizens to be subjected to the information. As such the internet was not used. An article written about my Psychological Operations Unit in Haiti: http://www.dtic.mil/soldiers/may95/p40.html Matthew Gaylor's response: I opinioned that sending troops down to Haiti to perform community service seems like a total waste of money as the service could have been done by a well equipped Boy Scout troop. Agent X continued: The goal of psyop is to win the hearts and minds...the nuns were greatful...do you think they supported our mission there after that? My units mission is tactical meaning we coordinate radio broadcasts, distribute fliers and do loudspeaker broadcasts. I know the internet was not used for psyop in bosnia for a fact. The army was still developing its policy on that medium. There is a terrific after action report online that discusses the failure of the US to seize this medium. http://www.dodccrp.org/bosend.htm This is the end notes that discusses the internet failure. I warn you its quite dry and the psyop bit is towards the end. At the base of the page is URLs to the rest of the site for the full article. Matthew Gaylor responded: I can fully believe that the Internet wasn't used in Haiti, after all it isn't used in Cuba either, because hardly anybody has a decent supply of toilet paper let alone Internet access. Agent X responds: As to the internet and haiti... the comment had to do more with our supposed "disinformation" then on the use of the internet but you're right in Haiti that would be a poor medium. The US is just now bringing its Psyop units up for capability to use the internet. All information distributed must be approved by the National Command during peace time. SO everything we get is drawn up by others. That way the entire campaign is coordinated effectively and no messages that would offend are put out. What I'm saying is that up to 1997 the US had not been involved in psyacts on the internet. That was Bosnia...now as to Kosovo in 1999 the situation hasn't changed much...but we will use any means to cripple an enemies communication systems...such as denial of service and such in serbia. ### The following interchanges occurred between myself (Wagthedogy) and Agent X using an instant message service. Some of the comments started out specific to Ohio, but then branched out. Wagthedogy: What does Sen. Mike Dewine (R) Ohio have? Agent X: Influence in Washington Wagthedogy I mean, what issues? Agent X He's pretty standard party line republican Wagthedogy: You mean gun control, larger government etc.? Agent X: well theoretically...republicans want smaller government Wagthedogy: Don't listen to what they say watch what they do. In psyopps you should know that. Agent X: yes but I'm not a total libertarian either Agent X: is why I pick and choose Wagthedogy: It doesn't matter how libertarian you are. What matters is if you believe in freedom and the constitution. Agent X: I believe in strong national defense Wagthedogy: Me too Wagthedogy: But we have troops in Columbia fighting the drug war as an example. Agent X: we provide MI support Agent X: and occasionally we send units to train with the columbians Wagthedogy: Delta is on the ground in Columbia running missions Agent X: Yes and usarso has done it too and one of my good friends was there. Wagthedogy: What major issue to you differ with the Libertarians? Agent X: yes but I don't think we should have no government either Wagthedogy: Me either Agent X: I believe in some foreign aid and intervention Wagthedogy: How much and to who? Agent X: To any ally strategically of interest to us. Georgia is a huge one at the moment. It is important we keep russia from redominating half the world Wagthedogy: Like Chile? Kissinger once remarked it was a giant dagger pointed towards antarctica <grin> Wagthedogy: 3 billion to Israel? Agent X: Georgia is at the center of a sphere of influence that surrounds the majority of the worlds oil. Wagthedogy: Here's a question for you. What is your world view? What do you believe? Agent X: world view? meaning? Wagthedogy: Ideology, culture, religion, you're relationship to others, etc. Agent X: As an american I was brought up in one of the most ethnocentric cultures in the world as to religion I'm atheist as to a christian god...agnostic as to a God. I was raised lower income protestant Am now middle income. Is that what you wanted to know or? Wagthedogy: What about your political ideology. What thinkers/writers have influenced you? Agent X: well not really political but I like Nietzsche...as to politics I haven't read much I've read Machevellis "The Prince", Thomas More's "Utopia", I've read Brave New World, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Animal Farm...all those sorts of things. Wagthedogy: That's a good start. Wagthedogy: Do you plan to enter the Army full time? Agent X: no...having dual job specialties in the army...with psyop and mi always short handed I can be on active duty as much as I want Agent X: SWIC is the Special Warfare Instruction Center...well the John Fitzgerald Kenenedy SWIC...its at Ft. Bragg anyway their website will probably tell you more Wagthedogy: What schools in the Army have you been to? Agent X: basic training ft leonard wood, ait ft huachuca - all source intel analyst course,basic airborne ft benning,jrtc ft polk, ft knox psychological operations specialist. Wagthedogy: I sure hope you didn't help set up the loudspeakers at WACO Agent X: No Wagthedogy: That's an example of psyopps. Agent X: if any psyop was there at all it was the 321s or 5th I forget out of dallas. But I'm pretty sure that was FBI stuff not Army. National guard was there but they have no psyop assets. For psyop to have been there they would have had to be called up by presidential order. Wagthedogy: FBI with Delta advisors. [End note from Matthew Gaylor: I edited the above text for clarity and I sniped some irrelevant commentary.] Regards, Matt- ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt(a)coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************

4 3

Is a Thermal Imaging search needful of a warrant?
by George＠Orwellian.Org 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

The U.S. Supreme Court will be deciding soon. Previously: ---- Is it okay for the government to look at your property while walking by and if the officer spots marijuana plants growing to get a search warrant? Of course it is. * "The Right To Privacy", ISBN 0-679-74434-7, 1997 * By Attorneys Ellen Alderman and [The] Caroline Kennedy * * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that if the yard was big enough that "An * individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted * out of doors in fields," the Court wrote, "except in the area immediately * surrounding the home." * * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that a barn sixty yards from a farmhouse * was too far away from a house to expect privacy. * * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that aerial surveillance did not constitute * a Fourth Amendment search. * * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that a "precision aerial mapping camera" * that was able to capture objects as small as one-half inch in diameter did * not constitute a Fourth Amendment search. ...then courts ruled that infrared surveillance of homes was permissible. What is this? * Subject: Re: Law Enforcement Aviation * From: aufsj(a)imap2.asu.edu * Date: 1996/12/27 * Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military * * What interests me is how new technologies will be interpreted. I recently * inquired at the local Law School about the courts views towards the use * of impulse radar, and they said "Impulse what the heck?" * * Basically it is a radar that "sees through" things (like, say, your * house). * * Their capabilities vary widely, but the feds are already using * them and I know that Hughes corp. is designing a low-cost set up * specifically for major police departments. * * They are driving towards a unit that can be mounted on a police helicopter. * * Will the police need a warrant? Who knows. Since they are allowed * to do airborne infra-red analysis of your house, why not an take an * airborne "x-ray" equivalent? * * --------------------------------------------------------------------- * Steven J Forsberg at aufsj(a)imap2.asu.edu Wizard 87-01 MSNBC showed a police car mounted device that scans through our clothes [for gun metal] as they drive around. ---- Here's the URL to the current story, which made it onto Rather Evening News this evening. http://cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,272897-412,00.shtml

5 4

100-Year Life Expectancy? Chances Called Slim To Nil
by Jim Choate 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

What's interesting is the caveat to the general conclusion... http://unisci.com/stories/20011/0220015.htm -- The Laws of Serendipity: 1. In order to discover anything, you must be looking for something. 2. If you wish to make an improved product, you must first be engaged in making an inferior one. Tivoli Certification Group, OSCT James Choate jchoate(a)tivoli.com Senior Engineer 512-436-1062

1 0

Re: Is a Thermal Imaging search needful of a warrant?
by George＠Orwellian.Org 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

Chaos Universe wrote: # If it was only a thermal imaging device involved it might fly (like a bird # can cross your property line with impunity). However, all the thermal # image device does is frequency shift the radiation to a range that IS # VISIBLE BY HUMAN EYES. It's still a human being looking at the image and # making evaluations of it. # # Further, I'd like to see the definition of 'search' that is # dependent upon the mechanism, there is no such definition. # 'Search' is about intent, not method. 'Mechanism' is certainly # NEVER mentioned in the 4th. Where did this extra stricture come # from? Where is it's justification? # # "Why" and "How" are irrelevent in respect to a search. That one # WANTS is sufficient. It used to be one had to go into a house to search it. That takes a search warrant. Now, technology means you can view things from outside the home that you previously needed a warrant for. Thus, this too should need a warrant. What is the relationship between 'search' and mechanism? Reread the "Then the Supreme Court ruled" part of my previous post. ---- # # And, no. I'm no 'leftie'. Hard to believe, considering your main concern was frequencies and not privacy. You even admit the information is NOT visible by human eyes without the hardware. As far as I'm concerned you've outed yourself as an alien species, just visiting this planet. NANU-NANU.

1 0

Scientific American: Reviews: Who Owns Your Body?: March 2001
by Jim Choate 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

http://www.sciam.com/2001/0301issue/0301reviews1.html -- The Laws of Serendipity: 1. In order to discover anything, you must be looking for something. 2. If you wish to make an improved product, you must first be engaged in making an inferior one. Tivoli Certification Group, OSCT James Choate jchoate(a)tivoli.com Senior Engineer 512-436-1062

1 0