- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Application approval #LVEJLOL0324377823998
by Bettye Molina 19 May '06

19 May '06

1 0

All products for your health!
by Kieth Mosley 19 May '06

19 May '06

http://rqnbmd.seescum.biz/?99053092 Suffering from pain, depression or heartburn? We'll help you! All verified dr@gs collected at one LICENSED online store! Great choice of wonderful meds to give you long-awaited relief! Operative support, fast shipping, secure p@yment processing and complete confidentiality! The store is VERIFIED BY BBB and APPROVED BY VISA! http://rqnbmd.seescum.biz/?99053092

1 0

Bad Credit? Our Lenders Want To Hear From You
by Darwin Donaldson 19 May '06

19 May '06

1 0

Notice: Loww mortagee ratee approved
by Timmy Cash 19 May '06

19 May '06

1 0

mchugh residual burgundy chrysolite babyhood avocation doodle circumvention thorium goddard agnostic dehydrate complainant areawide
by Eloy French 19 May '06

19 May '06

1 0

[dave@farber.net: [IP] DC speaking event: Bruce Schneier on "The Future of Privacy"]
by Eugen Leitl 19 May '06

19 May '06

----- Forwarded message from David Farber <dave(a)farber.net> -----

1 0

Pre-approvedd rate #jaildvzq
by Bond 19 May '06

19 May '06

1 0

Legal loophole emerges in NSA spy program
by coderman 18 May '06

18 May '06

this administration is particularly skilled at legal exploit. pehaps all that practice bending tax law over a barrel was merely warm up. ;) remember that Ashcroft was indeed signing approvals (in fact, they pestered him at the hospital while he was still recovering from surgery) and the deputy attorney general was also involved (i don't remember if he provided authorization when Ashcroft was incapacitated/reluctant or not...) http://news.com.com/Legal+loophole+emerges+in+NSA+spy+program/2100-1028_3-6… ---begin-cut--- By Declan McCullagh Story last modified Wed May 17 20:08:38 PDT 2006 SAN FRANCISCO--An AT&T attorney indicated in federal court on Wednesday that the Bush administration may have provided legal authorization for the telecommunications company to open its network to the National Security Agency. Federal law may "authorize and in some cases require telecommunications companies to furnish information" to the executive branch, said Bradford Berenson, who was associate White House counsel when President Bush authorized the NSA surveillance program in late 2001 and is now a partner at the Sidley Austin law firm in Washington, D.C. Bradford Berenson Bradford Berenson Far from being complicit in an illegal spying scheme, Berenson said, "AT&T is essentially an innocent bystander." AT&T may be referring to an obscure section of federal law, 18 U.S.C. 2511, which permits a telecommunications company to provide "information" and "facilities" to the federal government as long as the attorney general authorizes it. The authorization must come in the form of "certification in writing by...the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law." Information that is not yet public "would be exculpatory and would show AT&T's conduct in the best possible light," Berenson said. But he did not acknowledge any details about the company's alleged participation in the NSA's surveillance program, which has ignited an ongoing debate on Capitol Hill and led to this class-action lawsuit being filed in January by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Some legal experts say that AT&T may be off the hook if former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was in office at the time the NSA program began, provided a letter of certification. (Other officials, including the deputy attorney general and state attorneys general, also are authorized to write these letters.) "If the certification exists, AT&T is in pretty good shape," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center and co-author of a book on information privacy law. EFF's lawsuit alleges that the telecommunications company let the NSA engage in wholesale monitoring of Americans' communications in violation of privacy laws. Confidential documents that EFF unearthed during the course of the suit--kept under seal and still not public--allege that AT&T gave the government full access to its networks in a way that let millions of e-mail messages, Web browsing sessions and phone calls be intercepted. AT&T's ace in the hole? If a letter of certification exists, AT&T could have an ace in the hole. A second section of federal law says that a "good faith" reliance on a letter of certification "is a complete defense to any civil or criminal" lawsuit. During the hearing Wednesday before U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Carl Nichols also hinted that such a letter exists. Nichols said that there are undisclosed "facts that AT&T might want to present in its defense." """ <inset> AT&T's legal defense? An obscure section of federal law says that AT&T may have legally participated in the NSA surveillance program -- if, that is, it received a "certification" from the attorney general. That section says: "Notwithstanding any other law, providers of wire or electronic communication service... are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications... if such provider... has been provided with... a certification in writing by... the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required, setting forth the period of time during which the provision... is authorized... No provider of wire or electronic communication... shall disclose the existence of any interception or surveillance or the device used to accomplish the interception or surveillance..." </inset>""" But, Nichols added, those facts relate to classified information that are "state secrets" and would jeopardize national security if they were disclosed. A hearing on the Bush administration's request to dismiss the case on national security grounds has been scheduled for June 23. For its part, AT&T has remained silent about the extent of its alleged participation in the NSA surveillance scheme, which initially was thought to apply only to international calls but now may encompass records of domestic phone calls and more. Verizon and BellSouth, for instance, took steps to distance themselves from a USA Today report that said their call databases were opened to the NSA. But AT&T wouldn't comment. Marc Bien, a spokesman for AT&T, told CNET News.com on Wednesday: "Without commenting on or confirming the existence of the program, we can say that when the government asks for our help in protecting national security, and the request is within the law, we will provide that assistance." The next tussle in this lawsuit is likely to center on how far the "state secrets" concept can extend. Is AT&T able to divulge the text of any certification letter, without saying exactly what information it turned over as a result? Must the mere existence of a certification letter remain secret? Injecting additional complexity is 18 U.S.C. 2511's prohibition on disclosure. It says that telecommunication companies may not "disclose the existence of any interception or surveillance or the device used to accomplish the interception or surveillance"--except if required by law. Unlawful disclosures are subject to fines. EFF claims that the existence of a letter of certification should not be classified. Cindy Cohn, an EFF attorney, told the judge on Wednesday that it is "not a state secret because the statute has a whole process" governing it. "If you have a certification, let's see it," EFF attorney Lee Tien said in an interview after the hearing. For his part, Berenson, the former attorney for President Bush who's now representing AT&T, complained about allegations that his client is violating the law. It's unfortunate that EFF "chose to use words like 'criminal tendency' and 'crimes,'" Berenson said. AT&T "is one of the great companies of the United States. To attach those kinds of labels is reckless at best." Berenson's biography says he worked for Bush on the "war on terrorism" and the USA Patriot Act. Since leaving the White House, Berenson has written letters to Congress (click here for PDF) calling for renewal of the Patriot Act and has co-founded a group called Citizens for the Common Defence that advocates a "robust" view of presidential authority. It filed, for instance, an amicus brief (click here for PDF) before the Supreme Court in the Hamdi case arguing that a U.S. citizen could be detained indefinitely without trial because of the war on terror. ---end-cut---

2 1

AT&T Cable Modem Traceroutes Re: NS&AT&T
by Bill Stewart 18 May '06

18 May '06

At 10:20 AM 5/18/2006, Chris Olesch wrote: >Maybe its just me, but my brother-in-law and I used to wonder why most of >AT&T's cable traffic routed thru the east coast before going out west (or >asia). This would have been well within the range they decided to setup >camp. early 2002 thru 2003 (maybe 2004). On the MOT backbone traffic was >routed normally, yet at-home it took extra routes. Your traceroutes went to the east coast because that's the closest peering point to most of the destination networks you were going to, and BGP mainly works with hop counts unless you do a lot of tweaking. AT&T never really ran the cable TV IP networks themselves when they bought the cable companies - it was still the different cable company operating folks that did most of it, and really they knew a lot more about Pay-Per-View than Internet data, as you might guess from the Don't-Even-Think-About-Running-Servers rules. The level of lack of integration was such that even though most of the cable companies had huge infrastructures of dark fiber along their cable rights-of-way, we weren't able to use that to sell access services to customers until the last few months before Wall Street made us sell the cablecos and give the money back. AT&T did provide them a bunch of wholesale backbone service - I don't know most of the details, and probably couldn't tell you if I did because of the usual customer-confidentiality rules. But you've got to remember that 2002 is a long time ago compared to the current Internet peering relationships. Public Peering back then still mostly happened at the MAEs and NAPs, and still mattered back then, though most of the bigger ISPs did private peering for the bulk of their traffic.. I don't remember if everything had moved to Equinix yet. I don't know who @Home peered with other than AT&T - we peered with them in 9 or 10 cities, and typically peered with the really big ISPs in half a dozen cities each and the other big ISPs in 3-4 cities each, but I don't know how many of them @Home peered with. (AT&T peered with @Home in Chicago, but that doesn't mean that @Home peered with, say, UUnet there even if they could have.) AT&T had some OC192 backbone trunks in 2002, but mostly OC48 on big routes and there was still a fair amount of OC12, and most of the peering was at OC12 or OC3, which was still big back then. (We were the first carrier to run OC192 trunks, having scooped Sprint by a day or two, but for the first few months it was really a demo link from NYC-Boston that they only ran in the daytime for PR because the Cisco cards didn't really work yet...) >Tracert after tracert from within att's net, would mention long routes. It >would bounce 3 or 4 times go out the chicago trunk then end up on some cia, >or other federal line, then go back (but this time around chicago) and end >in cali. If our destination was Japan, or Siberia, the chat latency was >unbearable. > >I was glad when comcast took over, but then again maybe all this humdrum was >removed from the line (tracesrt's). Bouncing around Chicago 3-4 times was entirely no surprise - until carriers got really big hub switches in, you'd typically see at least three hops at any POP, one to an inbound router, one to a hub, and one to an outbound router, and the reason you don't see that today is that a lot of it's happening as Layer 2 Ethernet switching or Layer 2.5 MPLS switching depending on the carrier, so Traceroute doesn't know about it. And if you're going from carrier to carrier, you'll see more. And then there's annoying weirdness like connections from Carrier A in Denver going to Carrier B in Denver via Seattle and San Francisco because they don't peer directly there, but carrier B peers with Carrier C who's got an OC48 to Carrier A in Seattle and only an OC12 in SF so they hand it off there, and Carrier A connects Denver to SF and CHicago but not Seattle :-)

1 0

Re: [Clips] UK Government to force handover of encryption keys
by Chris Olesch 18 May '06

18 May '06

I'm going to just lay-down and wait for the spaceship.....NOT!!! :0 On 18/05/06, R.A. Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> wrote: > > --- begin forwarded text > > > Delivered-To: rah(a)shipwright.com > Delivered-To: clips(a)philodox.com > Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 14:10:20 -0400 > To: Philodox Clips List <clips(a)philodox.com> > From: "R.A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> > Subject: [Clips] UK Government to force handover of encryption keys > Reply-To: rah(a)philodox.com > Sender: clips-bounces(a)philodox.com > > < > http://www.zdnet.co.uk/print/?TYPE=story&AT=39269746-39020330t-10000025c> > > > > > Government to force handover of encryption keys > > Tom Espiner > > ZDNet UK > > May 18, 2006, 12:10 BST > > The UK Government is preparing to give the police the authority to force > organisations and individuals to disclose encryption keys, a move which > has > outraged some security and civil rights experts. > > The powers are contained within Part 3 of the Regulation of > Investigatory > Powers Act (RIPA). RIPA was introduced in 2000, but the government has > held > back from bringing Part 3 into effect. Now, more than five years after > the > original act was passed, the Home Office is seeking to exercise the > powers > within Part Three of RIPA. > > Some security experts are concerned that the plan could criminalise > innocent people and drive businesses out of the UK. But the Home Office, > which has just launched a consultation process, says the powers > contained > in Part 3 are needed to combat an increased use of encryption by > criminals, > paedophiles, and terrorists. > > "The use of encryption is... proliferating," Liam Byrne, Home Office > minister of state told Parliament last week. "Encryption products are > more > widely available and are integrated as security features in standard > operating systems, so the Government has concluded that it is now right > to > implement the provisions of Part 3 of RIPA... which is not presently in > force." > > Part 3 of RIPA gives the police powers to order the disclosure of > encryption keys, or force suspects to decrypt encrypted data. > > Anyone who refuses to hand over a key to the police would face up to two > years' imprisonment. Under current anti-terrorism legislation, terrorist > suspects now face up to five years for withholding keys. > > If Part 3 is passed, financial institutions could be compelled to give > up > the encryption keys they use for banking transactions, experts have > warned. > > > > "The controversy here [lies in] seizing keys, not in forcing people to > decrypt. The power to seize encryption keys is spooking big business," > Cambridge University security expert Richard Clayton told ZDNet UK on > Wednesday. > > "The notion that international bankers would be wary of bringing master > keys into UK if they could be seized as part of legitimate police > operations, or by a corrupt chief constable, has quite a lot of > traction," > Clayton added. "With the appropriate paperwork, keys can be seized. If > you're an international banker you'll plonk your headquarters in > Zurich." > > Opponents of the RIP Act have argued that the police could struggle to > enforce Part 3, as people can argue that they don't possess the key to > unlock encrypted data in their possession. > > "It is, as ever, almost impossible to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' > that some random-looking data is in fact ciphertext, and then prove that > the accused actually has the key for it, and that he has refused a > proper > order to divulge it," pointed out encryption expert Peter Fairbrother on > ukcrypto, a public email discussion list. > > Clayton backed up this point. "The police can say 'We think he's a > terrorist' or 'We think he's trading in kiddie porn', and the suspect > can > say, 'No, they're love letters, sorry, I've lost the key'. How much > evidence do you need [to convict]? If you can't decrypt [the data], then > by > definition you don't know what it is," said Clayton. > > The Home Office on Wednesday told ZDNet UK that it would not reach a > decision about whether Part 3 will be amended until the consultation > process has been completed. > > "We are in consultation, and [are] looking into proposals on amendments > to > RIPA," said a Home Office spokeswoman. "The Home Office is waiting for > the > results of the consultation" before making any decisions, she said. > > The Home Office said last week that the focus on key disclosure and > forced > decryption was necessary due to "the threat to public safety posed by > terrorist use of encryption technology". > > Clayton, on the other hand, argues that terrorist cells do not use > master > keys in the same way as governments and businesses. > > "Terrorist cells use master keys on a one-to-one basis, rather than > using > them to generate pass keys for a series of communications. With a > one-to-one key, you may as well just force the terrorist suspect to > decrypt > that communication, or use other methods of decryption," said Clayton. > > "My suggestion is to turn on all of Part 3, except the part about trying > to > seize keys. That won't create such a furore in financial circles," he > said. > > -- > ----------------- > 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' > _______________________________________________ > Clips mailing list > Clips(a)philodox.com > http://www.philodox.com/mailman/listinfo/clips > > --- 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' > -- -G "The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." "He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it." "He inched his way up the corridor as if he would rather be yarding his way down it..." "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" "I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." Famous Quotes written by Douglas Adams, (British comic writer, 1952-2001) http://hitchhikers.movies.go.com/

1 0