- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

FDA approves use of implantable chip in patients to pass medical information to doctors
by R.A. Hettinga 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

<http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/a/2004/10/13/national0948E…> www.sfgate.com FDA approves use of implantable chip in patients to pass medical information to doctors - DIEDTRA HENDERSON, AP Science Writer Wednesday, October 13, 2004 (10-13) 10:05 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday approved an implantable computer chip that can pass a patient's medical details to doctors, speeding care. VeriChips, radio frequency microchips the size of a grain of rice, have already been used to identify wayward pets and livestock. And nearly 200 people working in Mexico's attorney general's office have been implanted with chips to access secure areas containing sensitive documents. Delray Beach, Fla.-based Applied Digital Solutions said it would give away $650 scanners to roughly 200 trauma centers around the nation to help speed its entry into the health care market. A company spokesman would not say how much implanting chips would cost for humans, even though chips have been implanted in some, including Scott R. Silverman, the company's chief executive officer. The company is targeting patients with diabetes, chronic cardiac conditions, Alzheimer's disease and those who undergo complex treatments like chemotherapy, said Dr. Richard Seelig, Applied Digital Solutions' vice president of medical applications. It's the first time the FDA has approved medical use of the device, though in Mexico, more than 1,000 scannable chips have been implanted in patients. The chip's serial number pulls up the patients' blood type and other medical information. With the pinch of a syringe, the microchip is inserted under the skin in a procedure that takes less than 20 minutes and leaves no stitches. Silently and invisibly, the dormant chip stores a code -- similar to the identifying UPC code on products sold in retail stores -- that releases patient-specific information when a scanner passes over the chip. At the doctor's office those codes stamped onto chips, once scanned, would reveal such information as a patient's allergies and prior treatments. The FDA in October 2002 said that the agency would regulate health care applications possible through VeriChip. Meanwhile, the chip has been used for a number of security-related tasks as well as for pure whimsy: Club hoppers in Barcelona, Spain, now use the microchip much like a smartcard to speed drink orders and payment. On the Net: VeriChip: www.4verichip.com/index.htm -- ----------------- 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

How key Microsoft legal emails 'autodestruct'
by R.A. Hettinga 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/11/ms_legal_mail_autodestruct/print.ht…> The Register Biting the hand that feeds IT The Register ; Software ; Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/11/ms_legal_mail_autodestruct/ How key Microsoft legal emails 'autodestruct' By John Lettice (john.lettice at theregister.co.uk) Published Monday 11th October 2004 07:23 GMT The latest court documents to be unsealed by Judge Frederick Motz in Burst.com's suit against Microsoft paint a picture of Microsoft document handling procedures which destroyed the very emails that were likely to be most relevant to several antitrust actions, Burst's included. According to Burst's lawyers Microsoft's status as "a defendant in major antitrust cases since at least 1995" means that it has a duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence. But "Microsoft adopted policies that, to put it mildly, encouraged document destruction from 1995 forward." Microsoft is still resisting Burst's attempts to have it hand over documents defining its retention policies, but a Burst brief of 27th September puts forward a forensic examination of the net effect of whatever these policies might be, accompanied by a certain amount of rolling of eyes. We, and the technology press in general, are indebted to PBS columnist Robert X Cringely for his dogged and single-handed pursuit of Burst v Microsoft. You can read his take on the latest developments here, (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20041007.html) and links to the court documents here. (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/links/links20041007.html) As Microsoft's retention policies remain for the moment a closely-guarded secret it would be absolutely wrong of us to draw any inference as to what they might be solely from what happens. What happens, though, is pretty damn peculiar. The system as a whole defaults to swift destruction of employees' emails, while there is clear evidence that Microsoft takes a very narrow view of whose documents may be relevant to a particular case. In some cases its choice of 'relevant' employees to be subject to retention seems perverse and misleading. So in the normal course of events documents would be destroyed swiftly, documents would be saved only by a document retention notice, and if document retention notices were not sent to the right people (the Burst brief argues that they were not), then by the time those people were properly identified the documents would almost certainly have been destroyed. Microsoft exec Jim Allchin, who seems to be shaping up as a star exhibit, instructed Windows division employees in January 2000 to delete emails from their hard drives after 30 days. "Do not be foolish," he said, "do not archive your e-mail." In response to emails about this instruction Allchin sends another which confirms the existence of an "official policy" on document retention sent company-wide in the summer of 1996, and says that this is the only written policy. Allchin however reiterates his 30 day instruction, adding an exception only for those who "have received specific instructions from Legal to retain certain documents or email that may be related to pending litigation. These instructions override the general policy." Microsoft has not yet yielded the 1996 policy, but Allchin's reference to it plus his insistence on 30 days suggests that the general policy was 30 days, from 1996 onwards. The retention of legally-relevant documents is therefore clearly dependent on Legal sending retention notices to the right people at the right time. Burst's brief at this point notes that Microsoft has confirmed it did not produce any of the Allchin email string in 12 prior cases, including DoJ v Microsoft, on the basis that, it claims, nobody asked for them. But in Sun v Microsoft, Microsoft undertook to "produce documents concerning Microsoft business policies, procedures or guidelines for document retention, to the extent such documents exist, for the period January 1, 1998 to November 30, 2002." This period covers the Allchin string, but the string was not produced, so when Microsoft confirmed that it had completed the production of documents, it was not telling the truth. The general policy, if it is the policy, of 30 days covers local storage. Email could also be saved on the Exchange servers. Microsoft however enforces rigorous limits on employee storage on these servers, and on average there appears to be space for about a month's emails per employee. No storage allocation left, no email until you delete some. In addition, emails could be saved on servers maintained by the Operations Technology Group. But as made clear previously in this case (reported here (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/24/allchin_destroy_email_claim/)) company policy is that emails should not be archived on these servers. This policy was strengthened by the addition of the words "Due to legal reasons..." in 1997, but weirdly, Microsoft claims that this bit was made up by information technology employee Candy Stark, purely to add weight to her campaign to save on storage costs. In fairness, therefore, we should consider the possibility that many other apparently incriminating things in surviving emails have been made up too. Is there a company policy on when to believe what an exec is telling you? And if there is, has it been made up? Frightening, isn't it? But the Burst brief declines to believe Stark made it up, and suggests the "legal reasons" may track back to the elusive 1996 policy, which again is cited by Stark. Archive location number four at Microsoft is provided by the servers maintained by the IT person for each individual business group. The servers most relevant to the Burst case were maintained by a Mr Ochs, who did not receive a retention notice, and who testified to routinely destroying documents on the servers. These are the very servers Microsoft has previously said it cannot reasonably search for documents, because it does not know who uses which servers. The brief puts forward several examples of cases where Microsoft failed to identify relevant employees and send them retention notices. In response to a DoJ request in 1997 it failed to identify Chris Phillips and his boss Eric Engstrom, although Phillips had led negotiations with RealNetworks and the ensuing deal was sometimes referred to internally as "the Chris Phillips deal." Microsoft did identify the in-house lawyer brought in to draft the contracts, but not Phillips or Engstrom, so both destroyed their emails. Neatly, as a Microsoft attorney the lawyer's emails were protected by attorney-client privilege, so Microsoft doesn't have to release them. Similarly Engstrom emails relevant to Intel's decision to drop development of its JMF Java Media Player have been destroyed. The Burst brief only asks for Microsoft's retention policies to be produced in camera, so even if Redmond does cough up there's no certainty we'll ever know if they explain the apparent weirdness of Microsoft document and archiving policies. But if Microsoft does have a policy to diligently retain relevant documents, well, it clearly needs to write a new policy that works instead. We at The Register have a humble suggestion. Seeing Rick Rashid of MS Labs is in the habit of touring the world telling people that storage is now pretty well cheap enough for you to just record your whole life in a lifeblog, couldn't everybody at Microsoft just... Related links Allchin named, as proof of MS email destruction policy is sought (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/24/allchin_destroy_email_claim/) Cringely PBS column (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20041007.html) Links to court documents (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/links/links20041007.html) -- ----------------- 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'

2 1

Re: Financial identity is *dangerous*? (was re: Fake companies, real money)
by John Kelsey 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

>From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> >Sent: Oct 8, 2004 7:14 PM >To: cryptography(a)metzdowd.com, cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net >Subject: Financial identity is *dangerous*? (was re: Fake companies, real money) >Okay. So I'm coming to the conclusion that book-entry settlement, with its >absolute requirement for both "identity" and float between transactions, is >becoming more and more *un*-safe to use as internet ubiquity increases. Hmmm. I guess I don't see why this story supports that argument all that well. Clearly, book entry systems where I can do transactions in your name and you are held liable for them are bad, but that's like looking at Windows 98's security flaws and deciding that x86 processors can't support good OS security. The aspect of this that's generally spooky is not the existence of book entry payment systems, it's the ease with which someone can get credit (in one form or another) in your name, based on information they got from public records and maybe a bit of dumpster diving, some spyware installed on your machine, or a phishing expedition. How the payment systems are cleared isn't going to change that, right? (I know you've thought about this stuff a lot more than I have, so maybe I'm missing something....) >Anyone want to pick up the other side of this and tell me why not? >No bugbears or horsemen need apply... >Cheers, >RAH --John Kelsey

3 2

Re: Poor privacy protection in the states
by Tyler Durden 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

JAT wrote... >Basically, we're a bunch of closet fascists. and >Um, I'm sorry - maybe you hadn't heard yet: that old piece of paper was >superceded on 11 Sep 01, when "everything changed". I think that's the day we came out of the closet. Read, "Radio Free Albemuth" by P.K. Dick and you'll get the picture of where we're headed. -TD _________________________________________________________________ Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx

1 0

Poor privacy protection in the states
by Nomen Nescio 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

Why don't Americans honour security and privacy higher? Look at this page http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/depts/police/prostitution_photos_current.ht ml Which is from a police department! http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/depts/police/ If we look at the spirit of this quote I don't see how it is ok to behave in this abusive manner by the authorities. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." (from the fourth amendment, US constitution) It is one thing if we're talking about very dangerous individuals who are being sought after by the police and who the public needs to be aware of but here we have a completely different situation. Why is the integrity and security of the simple man on the street not honoured in the US society today? It's a big difference between the protection of personal privacy in Europe and in the US and all Americans should really ask themselves why this has to be.

2 1

(un)intended anonymity feature of gmail
by Morlock Elloi 13 Oct '04

13 Oct '04

Unless I'm missing something obvious, it seems impossible to divine the origination IP address from gmail-sourced e-mail headers. The first IP (the last header) has 10.*.*.* form and is of course internal to google. This is not the case with any other e-mail service I know of (mixmaster excluded), the real originating IP is always included. So the recipient of gmail message has no way of determining what the sender's real IP is. ===== end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com

1 0

RE: Airline ID requirement faces legal challenge
by Tyler Durden 12 Oct '04

12 Oct '04

Actually, this story is quite the media bellweather. This one treats the case purely as "Gilmore wants to fly anonymously", while even some other mainline media are reporting it as, "Gilmore is questioning the legality of hidden laws". I guess USA Today still feels it has an audience worth pandering to. -TD >From: "R.A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net, cryptography(a)metzdowd.com >Subject: Airline ID requirement faces legal challenge >Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:15:53 -0400 > ><http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2004-10-10-privacy_x.htm> > >USA Today > > > >Airline ID requirement faces legal challenge >By Richard Willing, USA TODAY >At a time when Americans have come to expect tight security for air travel, >it might seem to be an odd question: Does requiring airline passengers to >show identification before they board domestic flights amount to an >"unreasonable search" under the Constitution? > >John Gilmore is challenging the federal domestic airline ID requirement, >saying it violates his right to travel in the USA anonymously. >File photo > >Yes, says John Gilmore, a computer whiz who made a fortune as an early >employee of Sun Microsystems. His challenge of the federal ID requirement, >which soon could get a hearing before a U.S. appeals court in San >Francisco, is one of the latest court battles to test the balance between >security concerns and civil liberties. > > At issue is Gilmore's claim that checking the IDs of passengers on >domestic flights violates his right to travel throughout the USA >anonymously, without the government monitoring him. > > Lawyers involved in the case say it apparently is the first such >challenge >to the federal rules that require airline passengers to provide >identification. In a similar case, two peace activists are suing the U.S. >government to determine how their names came to be placed on a federal >"no-fly list." Rebecca Gordon and Janet Adams were not allowed to board a >San Francisco to Boston flight in August 2002 after they were told that >their names were on a "secret FBI" list of potential security threats, >their court filing says. > >"I believe I have a right to travel in my own country without presenting >what amounts to an internal passport," Gilmore, 49, said in an interview. >"I have a right to be anonymous, (to not) be tracked by my government for >no good reason." > >Gilmore said he has no problem with security checks that focus on >passengers' luggage. He says he also does not object to having to present a >passport to board flights to other countries. > > Some privacy groups say Gilmore has a point. But others who support the >ID >requirement have cast the San Francisco resident as being out of touch with >the realities of air travel since the Sept. 11 attacks. > >Kent Scheidegger, counsel for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a >conservative group in Sacramento, says the ID requirement is good policy >and "eminently constitutional." > >"The Fourth Amendment forbids not searches that you don't like, it forbids >unreasonable searches," he says. "Nothing could be more reasonable at this >time than to know who you're flying with." > > The Justice Department is fighting Gilmore's claim. Acting on the >department's motion, a U.S. district court judge in San Francisco dismissed >the suit last March. Gilmore has appealed; a hearing before the 9th Circuit >Court of Appeals is likely to be scheduled after briefs are filed next >month. > >In court papers, the Justice Department has not defended the ID policy, or >even acknowledged it exists. It has said national security law requires >that this aspect of the case be argued in a courtroom closed to the public, >including Gilmore. The appeals court denied the government's secrecy >request Sept. 20, and the government has asked the court to reconsider. > > Rules on the Transportation Security Administration's Web site say >passengers 18 and older need one form of government-issued photo >identification or two forms of non-photo identification to board domestic >flights. > > Airlines adopted such a policy on their own after terrorists bombed an >international flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, in December 1988. The bomb >that killed all 270 passengers on the jet was said to have been placed in a >passenger's luggage by a terrorist who got into a restricted area. The >airlines say checking IDs against luggage and passenger information is a >way to deny terrorists access to flights. > >The TSA, formed two years ago in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, checks >IDs to verify passenger identities and to check them against "watch lists" >of known or suspected terrorists. > >Gilmore's suit says the requirement amounts to an unreasonable search, a >"burden" on the right to travel and a form of self-incrimination because it >singles out "anonymous travelers" for searching. > >Gilmore said the ID requirement does little to ensure security. "Ordinary >citizens may show correct identification, but do we really think that >someone who is willing to commit a terrorist act won't also be willing to >present false identification?" > >Gilmore's suit was filed in 2002, after he was denied seats on two flights >at the airport in Oakland. It was his first domestic flight since the 9/11 >attacks. Before then, Gilmore said, he was permitted to board flights after >presenting a Federal Aviation Administration document that said showing IDs >was optional. > >In 1982, Gilmore, a computer programmer, was the first person hired by the >founders of what became Sun Microsystems. He retired eight years ago with >what his publicist, Bill Scannell, calls "multiples" of millions of >dollars. > >Since then, Gilmore said, he has worked to promote "individual rights," in >part by sponsoring a foundation that is critical of travel restrictions and >what he considers violations of speech and privacy rights. > >Last year, before taking off on a British Airways flight from San Francisco >to London, Gilmore angered fellow travelers by refusing to remove a blue >button on his lapel that had the words "suspected terrorist" imposed over >the picture of an airliner. After a delay, the pilot went back to the gate >and ordered Gilmore off the jet. > >While his case moves through court, Gilmore has remained grounded when it >comes to domestic travel. > >He hired friends to drive him to San Diego and across the country to attend >board meetings of corporate and non-profit groups. He took a driving >vacation to Oregon. Invited to a family reunion in Massachusetts, he >thought of chartering a private plane but balked at the $33,000 price. > >"Yes, it can be inconvenient at times," Gilmore said of his fight against >the ID requirement. "But I believe I'm right." > > >-- >----------------- >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' _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

1 0

cryptome.org down?
by Sunder 12 Oct '04

12 Oct '04

DNS seems to resolve, but never get to the web server. ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. /|\ \|/ :They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country /\|/\ <--*-->:and our people, and neither do we." -G. W. Bush, 2004.08.05 \/|\/ /|\ : \|/ + v + : War is Peace, freedom is slavery, Bush is President. -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Congress Close to Establishing Rules for Driver's Licenses
by R.A. Hettinga 12 Oct '04

12 Oct '04

<http://nytimes.com/2004/10/11/politics/11identity.html?pagewanted=print&pos…> The New York Times October 11, 2004 Congress Close to Establishing Rules for Driver's Licenses By MATTHEW L. WALD ASHINGTON, Oct. 10 - Following a recommendation of the Sept. 11 commission, the House and Senate are moving toward setting rules for the states that would standardize the documentation required to obtain a driver's license, and the data the license would have to contain. Critics say the plan would create a national identification card. But advocates say it would make it harder for terrorists to operate, as well as reduce the highway death toll by helping states identify applicants whose licenses had been revoked in other states. The Senate version of the intelligence bill includes an amendment, passed by unanimous consent on Oct. 1, that would let the secretary of homeland security decide what documents a state would have to require before issuing a driver's license, and would also specify the data that the license would have to include for it to meet federal standards. The secretary could require the license to include fingerprints or eye prints. The provision would allow the Homeland Security Department to require use of the license, or an equivalent card issued by motor vehicle bureaus to nondrivers for identification purposes, for access to planes, trains and other modes of transportation. The bill does not give the department the authority to force the states to meet the federal standards, but it would create enormous pressure on them to do so. After a transition period, the department could decide to accept only licenses issued under the rules as identification at airports. The House's version of the intelligence bill, passed Friday, would require the states to keep all driver's license information in a linked database, for quick access. It also calls for "an integrated network of screening points that includes the nation's border security system, transportation system and critical infrastructure facilities that the secretary determines need to be protected against terrorist attack." The two versions will go to a House-Senate conference committee. Some civil liberties advocates say they are horrified by the proposal. "I think it means we're going to end up with a police state, essentially, by allowing the secretary of homeland security to designate the sensitive areas and allowing this integrating screening system," said Marv Johnson, the legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. If the requirement to show the identification card can be applied to any mode of transportation, he said, that could eventually include subways or highways, and the result would be "to require you to have some national ID card, essentially, in order to go from point A to point B." James C. Plummer Jr., a policy analyst at Consumer Alert, a nonprofit organization based here, said, "You're looking at a system of internal passports, basically." But a Senate aide who was involved in drafting the bipartisan language of the amendment said that in choosing where to establish a checkpoint, the provision "does not give the secretary of homeland security any new authority." The aide, who asked not to be identified because of his involvement in drafting the measure, said it would not create a national identification card but would standardize a form of identification routinely issued by states. Representative Candice S. Miller, the Michigan Republican who drafted the license section of the House measure, said, "I don't think this is anything that should cause anyone concern." Of the 50 states, 48 are members of interstate compacts that exchange information on moving violations, so that a driver from, say, Maryland, who picks up a speeding ticket in Florida will accumulate points in his home state. But Michigan and Wisconsin are not members of a compact. Ms. Miller said one purpose of the provision she wrote was to fix that problem. A spokesman for the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrations, which represents the state officials who issue driver's licenses, said linking the databases and strengthening control over who could get a license was long overdue. "The American public should be outraged to know that departments of motor vehicles nationwide lack the capability to do the jobs we've asked them to do," said the spokesman, Jason King. In both houses, the legislation is geared to respond to numerous recommendations made by the Sept. 11 commission. For years before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, law enforcement officials, especially those concerned with identity theft, argued that the states should have more rigorous standards for issuing driver's licenses. But the commission pointed out that "fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft." -- ----------------- 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'

6 7

[osint] Al-Qa'ida 'Survival Kit' Instructs Workers on Individual Conduct
by R.A. Hettinga 12 Oct '04

12 Oct '04

--- begin forwarded text To: "Bruce Tefft" <btefft(a)community-research.com> Thread-Index: AcSwgCBCG86YBOQdR3ixx7GwrZekMQAC8ROg From: "Bruce Tefft" <btefft(a)community-research.com> Mailing-List: list osint(a)yahoogroups.com; contact osint-owner(a)yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list osint(a)yahoogroups.com Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:47:48 -0400 Subject: [osint] Al-Qa'ida 'Survival Kit' Instructs Workers on Individual Conduct Reply-To: osint(a)yahoogroups.com Al-Qa'ida 'Survival Kit' Instructs Workers on Individual Conduct An Al Qaeda survival kit, available to the media in the United States and obtained also by Dawn, reveals how Osama bin Laden's network and its supporters among the Taliban and other similar groups are preparing to survive the US-led "war against terrorism". The kit has been printed in several languages and is being distributed secretly among Al Qaeda followers in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The instructions aim to prepare the Taliban and Al Qaeda workers and their sympathizers to survive on their own and also on how to communicate with their central leaders without exposing them. The contents show the groups are well aware of the changes brought about by the "war on terrorism" and realise they can no longer work openly. That's why they seem to be preparing for a long, clandestine war with the United States and its allies. Decentralization and secrecy are the two key elements of their new strategy, which they hope to prolong also by exploiting religious sentiments of the people they live with. The point the survival kit emphasizes repeatedly is the need for the Taliban and Al Qaeda workers to "merge with the masses" and thus "become indistinguishable" from the rest of the people. The copy obtained by Dawn comes complete with the pictures of 18 Al Qaeda leaders who are on the FBI's most-wanted list. The first picture is that of the network's leader Osama bin Laden, followed by his deputy Aiman al Zawahiri and other top operatives. A caption above the pictures declares: "These are Mujahideen, not dangerous religious terrorists". "Every member will take all necessary precautions in his personal and social life to protect the group and its leadership ... in his personal life, each member shall merge completely with the society he lives in so that he is indistinguishable from other members of the society." Some of the instructions in the kit for Al Qaeda and Taliban units are: "If you live in an area where people wear Western dresses, you also dress like them ... if the majority in that area has a secular mindset, do not express your religious sentiments." "Look closely at the ethnic complexion of your neighbourhood ... if the area has a large number of people from ethnic groups that support the government, stay away from them because they often spy for intelligence agencies." "Don't visit the local mosque regularly. Instead say your prayers at your residence, even the weekly Friday prayer ... while looking for a residence, have a credible, cover story that you will tell the landlord. Always stick to that story." "Don't roam around with beard and Islamic dress in fashionable neighbourhoods. Always take out the chip of the mobile [phone] while sleeping to avoid being caught. Use mobile [phone] from a crowded place so police don't locate the position. Don't write the original numbers of Mujahideen in a notebook; try to memorize the last three digits. "If you live in an area where people do not have cars, avoid using vehicles ... if you have to stay inside your residence when other people go to work, be quiet. Do not draw attention." The kit also contains tips on the use of a cellphone: "Use a cellphone only when you must and an alternative means of communication is not available ... it is better not to use cell phones at all ... if you must use a cell phone, use the one obtained under fake name and address ... never use a phone provided by your 'nazm' [management] for calling a friend or a relative ... if you ask your friends to call you, give them a specific time and keep your phone open only when you are expecting a call." "Do not receive a phone at your residence, do so at a bazaar or at an open space and shut off the phone and disconnect the battery as soon as you finish the conversation." How Al Qaeda members must use the Internet: "For using the Internet, you must go to an internet cafe ... never visit a site that can reveal your identity, such as those belonging to FBI, Al Qaeda or the Mujahideen ... when opening an e-mail account, go to an internet cafe, never do it at home ... never use the same internet cafe again and again ... before leaving the cafe, remove all evidence, never leave any trace ... while sending an e-mail, never use the language that could reveal your ideological commitment." "Write your message in a word processor, compose, cut, paste and send. And then disconnect. Never let your e-mail open to write a message." police interrogation: How to deal with police interrogation: "If unfortunately, a friend is arrested, he should remember two things: do not assume that the police know everything because they do not and always try to protect your friends and colleagues." "The police may try to make you believe that they already know everything and that if you lie or try to hide information from them, you will unnecessarily expose yourself to torture." "The place you are arrested from is important. If you are arrested from home, you will face a different set of questions than those arrested from a place of operation or from a Mujahideen hideout." "While being interrogated, try to guess if the interrogator suspects that you are a Mujahid or he knows you are one and vary your responses accordingly ... the investigators are humans like you, so do not let them bully you or enjoy unnecessary influence over you." "The key point is: you are not guilty unless proven, so do not let your answers (be used) as evidence against you. Do not let your answers lead the interrogators to other friends." [Description of Source: Karachi Dawn in English -- Internet version of most widely read English-language daily] FBIS Source-Date: 10/12/2004 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar. Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/TySplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, discuss-osint(a)yahoogroups.com. -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor bisoldi(a)intellnet.org http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint(a)yahoogroups.com Subscribe: osint-subscribe(a)yahoogroups.com Unsubscribe: osint-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups 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 Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: osint-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0