- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Nightclub you'll want to skip - RFID microchipping the guests [BBC article]
by Bill Stewart 02 Oct '04

02 Oct '04

Here's a nightclub you'll want to skip, unless you feel like hacking RFIDs... ("Nothing up my sleeve but this Rivest RFID Blocker!") ** Barcelona clubbers get chipped ** Some clubbers in Barcelona have opted to have a microchip implanted which lets them pay for drinks. < http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/technology/3697940.stm > BBC Science producer Simon Morton goes clubbing in Barcelona with a microchip implanted in his arm to pay for drinks. Imagine having a glass capsule measuring 1.3mm by 1mm, about the size of a large grain of rice injected under your skin. Implanting microchips that emit a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) into animals has been common practice in many countries around the world, with some looking to make it a legal requirement for domestic pet owners. The idea of having my very own microchip implanted in my body appealed. I have always been an early adopter, so why not. Last week I headed for the bright lights of the Catalan city of Barcelona to enter the exclusive VIP Baja Beach Club. The night club offers its VIP clients the opportunity to have a syringe-injected microchip implanted in their upper arms that not only gives them special access to VIP lounges, but also acts as a debit account from which they can pay for drinks. This sort of thing is handy for a beach club where bikinis and board shorts are the uniform and carrying a wallet or purse is really not practical. Thumping heart I met the owner of the club, Conrad Chase, who had come up with the idea when trying to develop the ultimate in membership cards and was the first person implanted with the capsule, made by VeriChip Corporation. With a waiver in his hand Conrad asked me to sign my life away, confirming that if I wanted the chip removed it was my responsibility. Four aspiring VIP members sat quietly sipping their beverages as the nurse Laia began preparing the surgical materials. Like a scene from a sci-fi movie, latex gloves and syringes were laid out on the table as the DJ played loud dance tunes that made my heart thump, or was it just fear? Questions were going through my mind. Would it hurt? What are the risks? What if I want to get it out? I ordered another drink. Comfortably numb Laia started by disinfecting my upper arm and then administered a local anaesthetic to numb the area where the chip would be implanted. With the large needle in her hand, she tested the zone which made me flinch and led to another dose of the anaesthetic. With a numb arm, Laia held up the rather large needle containing the microchip and inserted it beneath the layer of skin and fat on my arm. She pressed the injector and it was in - my very own 10 digit number safely located in my body. The chip is made of glass and is inert so there is no risk of it reacting with my body. It sits dormant under the skin sending out a very low range radio frequency so it will not set off airport security systems. The chip responds to a signal when a scanner is held near it and supplies its own unique ID number. The number can then be linked to a database that is linked to other data, at the Baja beach club it make charges to a customers account. If I want to leave the club then I can have it surgically removed - a pretty simple procedure similar to having it put in. Now, the question of did it hurt. Having the chip inserted was a breeze, no real pain to report of. The real pain was the sore head the following day after a night on an open bar tab. You can hear more about Simon's experiences on the BBC World Service programme Go Digital Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/3697940.stm Published: 2004/09/29 08:17:45 GMT ) BBC MMIV

1 0

RE: QC Hype Watch: Quantum cryptography gets practical
by Tyler Durden 02 Oct '04

02 Oct '04

What's a "quantum repeater" in this context? As for "Hype Watch", I tend to agree, but I also believe that Gelfond (who I spoke to last year) actually does have a 'viable' system. Commerically viable is another thing entirely, however. -TD >From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> >To: cryptography(a)metzdowd.com, cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net >Subject: QC Hype Watch: Quantum cryptography gets practical >Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 17:39:24 -0400 > ><http://www.computerworld.com/printthis/2004/0,4814,96111,00.html> > > - Computerworld > > > Quantum cryptography gets practical > > Opinion by Bob Gelfond, MagiQ Technologies Inc. > > > > > > SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 (COMPUTERWORLD) - In theory and in labs, quantum >cryptography -- cryptography based on the laws of physics rather than >traditional, computational difficulty -- has been around for years. >Advancements in science and in the world's telecommunications >infrastructure, however, have led to the commercialization of this >technology and its practical application in industries where high-value >assets must be secure. > > Protecting information today usually involves the use of a cryptographic >protocol where sensitive information is encrypted into a form that would be >unreadable by anyone without a "key." For this system to work effectively, >the key must be absolutely random and kept secret from everyone except the >communicating parties. It must also be refreshed regularly to keep the >communications channel safe. The challenge resides in the techniques used >for the encryption and distribution of this key to its intended parties to >avoid any interception of the key or any eavesdropping by a third party. > > Many organizations are advancing quantum technology and bringing it >outside academia. Research labs, private companies, international alliances >such as the European Union and agencies such as the Defense Advanced >Research Projects Agency are investing tens of millions of dollars in >quantum research, with projects specifically focused on the challenge of >key distribution. > > The trouble with key distribution > >Huge investment in the late 1990s through 2001 created a vast >telecommunications infrastructure resulting in millions of miles of optical >fiber laid across the country and throughout buildings to enable high-speed >communications. This revolution combined a heavy reliance on fiber-optic >infrastructure with the use of open network protocols such as Ethernet and >IP to help systems communicate. > > Although this investment delivers increased productivity, dependence on >optical fiber compounds key distribution challenges because of the relative >ease with which optical taps can be used. With thousands of photons >representing each bit of data traveling over fiber, nonintrusive, low-cost >optical taps placed anywhere along the fiber can siphon off enough data >without degrading the signal to cause a security breach. The threat profile >is particularly high where clusters of telecommunications gear are found in >closets, the basements of parking garages or central offices. Data can be >tapped through monitoring jacks on this equipment with inexpensive handheld >devices. This enables data to be compromised without eavesdroppers >disclosing themselves to the communicating parties. > > Another important aspect of this problem is the refresh rate of the keys. >Taking large systems off-line to refresh keys can cause considerable >headaches, such as halting business operations and creating other security >threats. Therefore, many traditional key-distribution systems refresh keys >less than once per year. Infrequent key refreshing is detrimental to the >security of a system because it makes brute-force attacks much easier and >can thereby provide an eavesdropper with full access to encrypted >information until the compromised key is refreshed. > > Adding quantum physics to the key distribution equation > >Companies are now in a position to use advancements in quantum >cryptography, such as quantum key distribution (QKD) systems, to secure >their most valued information. Two factors have made this possible: the >vast stretches of optical fiber (lit and dark) laid in metropolitan areas, >and the decreasing cost in recent years of components necessary for >producing QKD systems as a result of the over-investment in >telecommunications during the early 2000s. > > Based on the laws of quantum mechanics, the keys generated and >disseminated using QKD systems have proved to be absolutely random and >secure. Keys are encoded on a photon-by-photon basis, and quantum mechanics >guarantees that the act of an eavesdropper intercepting a photon will >irretrievably change the information encoded on that photon. Therefore, the >eavesdropper can't copy or read the photon -- or the information encoded on >it -- without modifying it, which makes it possible to detect the security >breach. In addition to mitigating the threat of optical taps, QKD systems >are able to refresh keys at a rate of up to 10 times per second, further >increasing the level of security of the encrypted data. > > Not for everyone > >Quantum key distribution systems aren't intended for everyday use: You >won't find a QKD system in the home office anytime soon. One reason is that >a QKD system requires a dedicated fiber-optic line. Also, because the loss >of photons over longer distances, these systems have current distance >limitations of approximately 120 kilometers (nearly 75 miles) which is >common with optical infrastructure equipment. Quantum repeaters are under >development to extend that range much farther. Finally, the end points of >these QKD systems must reside in secure locations. However, since they are >tamper-proof, if attempts are made to compromise them, they will stop >running or fire off an alarm, thus ensuring ultimate information >protection. > > The practical development of QKD systems has made them applicable for a >number of industries such as financial services, biotech and >telecommunications along with government sectors such as intelligence and >the military. They don't require a physicist or an engineer to administer >them. These appliances fit in standard racks, plug into existing networks, >and are reliable around the clock. QKD systems interoperate with security >standards such as IPsec-based VPNs providing an added layer of security to >networks. > > Ask the right questions > >As you look for better ways to protect your company's most important >information, QKD may be an option. However, be sure you understand the >strengths and drawbacks of quantum key distribution by asking the right >questions: > > 1. What does your organization's security policy say about the >threat profile for high-value assets? > > 2. How frequently are your encryption keys changed and by what method? > > 3. What is the total cost of ownership for QKD products? Are there >additional costs in support and training? > > 4. Are your competitors implementing QKD systems? > > 5. What infrastructure requirements must be met? > > 6. What personnel/staffing levels are required? > > 7. How does this QKD system work with existing cryptography systems? > > 8. What are the distance limitations of this system? > >QKD isn't an everyday desktop tool, but the technology makes sense for >those organizations that have the resources and the capacity to use it >effectively. > > Bob Gelfond is founder and CEO of MagiQ Technologies Inc., a vendor of >quantum information processing services and products in New York. > > > > > > > > > >Additional Content > > White Papers > > > Read up on the latest ideas and technologies from companies that sell >hardware, software and services. > > >View all whitepapers >Research Report > > This IDC white paper demonstrates growth in value of distributed >applications accessed over the Web, especially for eCommerce applications, >and analyses the requirements needed for performance management of >distributed applications in today's complex heterogeneous environments. > Distributed Applications Performance Management: The VERITAS i3 Approach > > >Featured Webcast > > >Network Computing Web Event > See the latest innovations, including Sun servers and workstations based >on AMD Opteron[tm], new Sun StorEdge[tm] solutions, and breakthrough >technologies in Solaris[tm] 10. > > > > > >Sponsored Links > >A smart plan for assuring application quality: New webcast from >Compuware >Distributed Applications Performance Management: The VERITAS i3 Approach > Download this free white paper from IDC > > > >Enterprise Solutions for Federal Government An IT infrastructure starts >with robust technology. > > > > >The IP migration A wake-up call > > > >Enterprise Grid Alliance Helping make grid computing work for you > >About Us Contacts Editorial Calendar Help Desk Advertise Privacy Policy > > > > > > > > Copyright ) 2004 Computerworld Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in >whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission >of Computerworld Inc. is prohibited. Computerworld and Computerworld.com >and the respective logos are trademarks of International Data Group Inc. > > > > >-- >----------------- >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' _________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

2 1

Effort to Create Terror Watch List Is Falling Behind, Report Finds
by R. A. Hettinga 01 Oct '04

01 Oct '04

<http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB109658864511433243,00.html> The Wall Street Journal October 1, 2004 PAGE ONE Effort to Create Terror Watch List Is Falling Behind, Report Finds By ROBERT BLOCK and GARY FIELDS Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL October 1, 2004; Page A1 A government report concludes that efforts to protect U.S. borders and better identify terrorist suspects by compiling a single consolidated watch list -- from more than a dozen currently in use by federal agencies -- have badly foundered. The inspector general of the Homeland Security Department, in the sometimes scathing report, cites poor cooperation among many agencies and says his own agency failed "to play a lead role" in oversight. The report has been delivered to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and congressional leaders. Compiling a viable, unified list of terrorist suspects was mandated by Congress and ordered by President Bush after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Such a list is considered by law-enforcement agents as the most basic tool in their arsenal and vital for protecting the country. But now dozens of agencies, from the Federal Aviation Administration to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, continue to use different lists that sometimes contain outdated or incorrect information and even contradict each other. That can hamper the sharing of vital data and identifying of suspects -- and make it easier for terrorists to slip through cracks in the system, officials say. "The watch list is the poster child for information sharing for all our intelligence and government agencies," said Daniel B. Prieto, research director for the Homeland Security Partnership Initiative at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. "It has been the one project that is the most straightforward; the most defined, the most politically accepted idea, supported by every investigative commission since 9/11. If they can't get this one right, then shame on them." Mr. Prieto is a former Democratic congressional staffer who monitored the watch-list issue. An edited version of the inspector general's report is to be publicly released on Sunday. A copy was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The findings come amid an intense debate about improving intelligence in the wake of the 9/11 Commission's damning findings about government failures before and after the Sept. 11 attacks. Congress is wrestling over the creation of a new intelligence czar to better coordinate government counterterrorism efforts. Intelligence changes also have become a campaign issue, with the Bush administration asserting it has dramatically improved information-sharing among law-enforcement agencies. In the first presidential debate last night, Sen. John Kerry said the president had failed to support police, firefighters and other programs, saying, "This president thought it was more important to give the wealthiest people in America a tax cut rather than invest in homeland security. Those aren't my values. I believe in protecting America first." REPORT EXCERPTS Below is an excerpt of the draft report to be issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General on challenges in consolidating terrorist watch list information. Results in Brief DHS is not playing a lead role in consolidating terrorist watch list information. Instead, these consolidation activities are generally administered by the entities that were responsible for collecting and disseminating terrorist information prior to DHS's formation. DHS officials said that the new department lacked the resources and infrastructure to assume leadership for the consolidation. While this contention has merit, DHS can still play a more robust role than at present by overseeing and coordinating watch list consolidation activities across agency lines. Such oversight would help DHS fulfill the role required by the Homeland Security Act and better ensure that the past ad hoc approach to managing watch list consolidation is not continued. Stronger DHS leadership and oversight would also help improve current watch list consolidation efforts. Although some progress toward streamlined processes and enhanced interagency information sharing has been made, the consolidation is hampered by a number of issues that have not been coordinated effectively among interagency participants. Specifically, in the absence of central leadership and oversight for the watch list consolidation, planning, budgeting, staffing, and requirements definition continue to be dealt with on an ad hoc basis, posing a risk to successful accomplishment of the goal. A number of additional challenges, such as identifying links between violent criminals and terrorism, privacy, and duplicative federal activities related to watch list programs, could be pursued in the context of a centrally coordinated approach to watch list management. In response, the president said his administration had tripled spending on homeland security to $30 billion, worked with Congress to create the Homeland Security Department and added protection and guards to the nation's borders. "We're doing our duty to provide the funding," he said. In reference to American military action overseas, he added, "But the best way to protect this homeland is to stay on the offense." (See a related article3.) The inspector general's report notes that arguments over who is in charge of consolidating a terrorist database have dogged the creation of the watch list almost from the start. "While the requirement to consolidate the multiple watch lists was clear," it says, "the approach to accomplish it has not been so. Responsibility for consolidating multiple databases of watch lists has shifted among various federal organizations..." It further notes, "The manner through which the watch list consolidation has unfolded has not helped the nation break from its pattern of ad hoc approaches to counterterrorism." Inspector General Clark Kent Ervin says the law creating Homeland Security in 2002 gave the agency prime authority in the matter, and that subsequent presidential decrees, including one creating a Terrorist Screening Center under the FBI's purview, supplement, rather than supplant, the agency's authority. But a department spokesman rejects that conclusion, saying that the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation have the primary responsibility for creating the watch list, not Homeland Security. "It's the FBI that is charged with the lead role, not us," said Homeland Security spokesman Brian Roherkasse. The FBI declined to comment. The report also states that a number of organizations involved in the watch-list consolidation were "conducting a number of data mining activities without central oversight" to make sure they were not violating any policies or laws governing personal privacy. Data mining, or the analysis of large amounts of commercial and other data to extract new kinds of information useful to law enforcement, is very controversial and opposed by groups like the American Civil Liberties Union. Mr. Ervin, a Texas Republican who is known for his unfailing politeness, came to Homeland Security from the State Department, where he served the same role after following President Bush to Washington in 2001. Mr. Ervin also worked in the White House from 1989 to 1991 under President George H.W. Bush. Mr. Ervin has issued several reports criticizing various efforts at Homeland Security. Last week, he released one on Transportation Security Administration screeners that found they did a poor job finding guns, knives and potential bombs smuggled through security checkpoints by covert testing from July to November 2003. A White House spokesman said the president appointed Mr. Ervin and appreciates his service. Law-enforcement agencies have long considered the creation of automated information or "watch lists" of potential or known terrorists and criminals as a vital tool to help protect the country. Names on the list are checked against the names of foreign nationals attempting to enter or already present in the U.S. The government's need for a unified, accurate and meaningful terrorist list first surfaced after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Investigators learned that two of the bombers, Sheik Rahman and Ali Mohammed, were on an FBI watch list but still got visas because the State Department and the old Immigration and Naturalization Service didn't have access to FBI data. After Sept. 11, a single watch list was considered vital to keeping terrorists from gaining access to the U.S. as well as to coordinate the fight against al Qaeda. But in April 2003, the investigative arm of Congress, the General Accounting Office, now known as the General Accountability Office, found that efforts to create such a list were going nowhere and said that the lack of a single master list was constraining efforts to protect and control U.S. borders. Part of the problem has been confusion over whose job it is to take the lead. In his 2003 State of the Union speech, President Bush called for the creation of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center. The effort was meant to unite the heads of the FBI, Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense in developing a single entity for merging, analyzing and disseminating terrorist-threat information. The Threat Center, which answers to the director of the CIA, opened on May 1, 2003, two months after the Department of Homeland Security opened its doors. Less than five months later, on Sept. 16, 2003, Mr. Bush signed a directive calling for the creation of another body, the TSC, to take the work of the Threat Center and other government departments with terrorist information and produce a unified database that could be accessed and shared by all law-enforcement officials in the nation, from border guards in Arizona to detectives in New York City. Mr. Ridge, Secretary of State Colin Powell, then-CIA director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft signed a memorandum of understanding that the TSC would be run by the FBI and use the State Department's terrorist watch list as the backbone of a new database that would integrate all other existing data. TSC operatives would supposedly weed out duplications and obsolete data and remove people who in the past had been wrongly identified as terrorists or who had shared the same name as suspects. The TSC also was to work with new technologies to include identifying features such as fingerprints, distinguishing scars and birthmarks, as well as credit-card accounts and other data, to distinguish real suspects from others. The inspector general's report states that there has been some progress in the effort, noting that as of March 12, 2004, the database contains more than 100,000 names. It also says that the TSC has brought together representatives from the FBI, State Department, Homeland Security, Secret Service, Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection to help in consolidating the information into a form useful to share with law enforcement. However, the report finds there also have been problems in creating a technological system that meets the competing requirements of the different agencies contributing information. The head of the terrorist screening center, Donna Bucella, reported to Congress earlier this year that she was having problems getting some agencies, particularly at the Department of Defense, to provide the screening center with its terrorist information. The reason, in part, was that they were not satisfied with the security of the screening center's computer system. An FBI official familiar with the continuing problems over the Terrorist Screening Center and the consolidation of a terror watch list said there continues to be compatibility problems with the various databases the FBI is trying bring together. Some issues revolve around various computer systems being unable to communicate electronically. Other problems arise because of different criteria for placing someone on the list in the first place. The report comes on the heels of several high-profile snafus caused by proliferating watch lists. British singer Yusuf Islam, formerly known as Cat Stevens, recently was stopped from traveling in the U.S. because his name was on one list -- but not the Transport Security Administration's official "No-Fly List." Similarly, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, Mass.) and Rep. Don Young (R., Alaska) have said they at times have been mistaken for terrorists at airline counters because of namesakes on the watch list. -- ----------------- 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 small towns are reversing a century of corporate personhood
by R. A. Hettinga 01 Oct '04

01 Oct '04

Mopping off the leftist drivel from the facts below, :-), the idea of abolishing the personhood of corporations, as a step towards freeing enterprise from the claws of the state, is a very attractive idea. A limited partnership can get the same results, without the "artifical person" nonsense. Financial cryptography actually has solutions in this regard, of course, with bearer equity, anonymous voting, m-of-n key sharing, etc. By way of a Google cache. Sue me. Cheers, RAH ------- <http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:vfcFKfyJ3qYJ:www.sevendaysvt.com/-this…> This is G o o g l e's cache of http://www.sevendaysvt.com/-thisweek/feat/03.html as retrieved on Sep 24, 2004 15:51:22 GMT. G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web. The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting. This cached page may reference images which are no longer available. Click here for the cached text only. To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:vfcFKfyJ3qYJ:www.sevendaysvt.com/-this… Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content. These search terms have been highlighted: seven days newspaper bad company b v Bad Company? How small towns are teversing a century of corporate personhood STORY: KEN PICARD Tom Linzey speaks at Vermont Law School, South Royalton, Thursday, September 30 at 12:45 & 7 p.m. Image: Tim Newcomb Porter Township in northwestern Pennsyl-vania was an unlikely hotbed for an anti-corporate uprising. The tiny rural community about an hour north of Pittsburgh has a population of only 1500 people, many of whom are staunch Republicans with deeply-held conservative values. But after the Alcosan Corporation, a Pennsylvania sewage-sludge hauler, threatened to sue Porter Township in 2002 for passing a local ordinance regulating the dumping of sludge in their community, town officials decided that their citizens had taken enough crap from corporations. Literally. So on December 9, 2002, Porter became the first municipality in the United States to pass a law denying corporations their rights as "persons" under the law. Weeks later, Licking Township, another rural Pennsylvania community facing a similar lawsuit, passed a more expansive ordinance revoking all constitutional rights of corporations within their jurisdiction. Since then, dozens of other municipalities across Pennsylvania, some with as few as 1000 residents, have followed suit, reversing nearly 120 years of corporate encroachment on the rights guaranteed to all citizens under the U.S. Constitution. Prompted by the failure of state and federal regulatory agencies to protect citizens' health, safety and quality of life from large-scale corporate activities, these municipalities took matters into their own hands and reclaimed their right of self-rule. Though the laws fly in the face of more than a century's worth of legal precedents that say corporations are "persons" protected by the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment, thus far these ordinances seem to be working. Now some Vermonters are looking to follow Pennsylvania's example and draft similar ordinances here to address environmental and public-health problems stemming from large corporate activities: the influx of big-box stores, the spreading of toxic sludge, even the proposed power increase at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. Proponents of this strategy suggest that these laws may even be used one day to challenge undemocratic principles that were written into the World Trade Organization charter and the North American Free Trade Agreement. Championing this fight is Tom Linzey, a 35-year-old Alabama-born attorney who is the executive director and co-founder of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund. Founded in 1995, the Pennsylvania-based CELDF was initially set up to provide free legal services to small community groups that were fighting big environmental battles: toxic-waste incinerators, landfills, municipal sludge fields and corporate factory farms. Since then, however, the nonprofit law firm has expanded its mission to help municipalities around the country roll back corporate rights through local ordinances. CELDF conducts "democracy schools" - intensive, weekend-long seminars that trace the history of corporate rights and help citizens reframe local issues according to a new paradigm. Once such democracy school was held two weeks ago in Putney for 20 Vermonters from the Brattleboro area. Linzey, who speaks on September 30 at Vermont Law School, explained in a recent interview how this movement began. In the mid- to late-1990s, large out-of-state agribusinesses began applying for permits to build large-scale hog farms in rural Pennsylvania. Local residents, who overwhelmingly opposed these farming operations, sought the help of state and federal regulatory agencies like the EPA. However, these communities soon realized that waging their battle on the regulatory front wouldn't stop undesirable businesses from moving into town - it would merely lessen the harm those activities caused. The proposed factory farms were huge operations - 5000- to 6000-head hog farms - that would dwarf neighboring family farms. Before long, CELDF was inundated with phone calls from local officials across Pennsyl-vania - some 400 townships in all - seeking their help at fending off these corporate farms. So CELDF began researching how this issue had been handled in other states, particularly in the Midwest, where 300,000- to 400,000-head hog farms are common. This was when Linzey made a startling discovery: Nine Midwestern states have laws banning large corporations from owning or controlling farms. In fact, Nebraska and South Dakota went so far as to incorporate that ban into their state constitutions. So CELDF copied the South Dakota constitutional amendment and used it as a model for local ordinances. Ten townships and five counties in Pennsylvania have adopted the anti-corporate farming ordinance. To date, only one has been overturned by the courts. During this same period in the 1990s, CELDF also began receiving calls from community groups and local officials who were trying to stop the permitting of sludge fields. Sludge, the solid-waste byproduct of wastewater treatment plants, is not considered a "hazardous waste" by the federal government. Although it can contain as many as 600,000 different toxic contaminants, the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency requires testing for only 11 of those contaminants. Spreading sludge on farmland, a practice known as "biosolid land application," was already a controversial issue in rural Pennsylvania because of its impact on human and animal health. In 1995, two youths died after coming into contact with a newly applied sludge field. In an effort to prevent more sludge from being dumped in their communities, 68 Pennsylvania townships passed anti-sludge ordinances. The corporate waste haulers didn't take these ordinances lying down. They challenged the laws in court, arguing that townships were denying them their constitutional rights and didn't have the legal authority to pass these laws. The corporations also tried to hold town officials personally liable for passing these laws. They based their argument on a federal civil rights law that was passed in the aftermath of the Civil War in orders to protect African-Ameri-cans from state-sanctioned discrimination. Since these corporate sludge haulers had deep pockets, it wasn't even necessary that they win in court. All they had to do was deplete a town's financial resources by waging a long and costly legal battle. How did CELDF respond? As Linzey explains, CELDF helped Porter and Licking townships draft a "Corporate Rights Elimination Ordinance," which effectively stripped the corporation of its right to sue. Though these laws were an unprecedented challenge to corporate empowerment, they remain in effect today and have yet to be challenged in court. "Corporate rights sometimes get talked about as some academic or abstract concept like something that's taught in a college political science class," Linzey says. "Here, what folks have said is that our vision for our community does not include land-applied sludge. It does not include factory farms. And that's the community we want." Critics were quick to label the movement the work of liberal, anti-business activists. But as Linzey points out, about 80 percent of the communities he works with are overwhelmingly conservative and Republican. "Keep in mind, these are rural township officials with the shit-kicker boots and the John Deere hats. These are the guys who clear and salt the roads in the wintertime," he says. "These are not activists. They are folks who saw a problem and tried to do something about it." How effective have the ordinances been? Very, says Linzey. "In the 68 townships that have passed sludge ordinances, not one new teaspoon of sludge has been land-applied," he says. The same holds true for the ban on corporate hog farms. In the 10 townships that passed anti-corporate farm ordinances, Linzey says, not one new corporate hog farm has been established, even though those areas were targeted for more factory farms. Vermont is no stranger to the legal perversion of corporate "personhood." In April 1994, the Vermont Legislature passed the nation's first law requiring the labeling of dairy products containing the genetically altered growth hormone, rBGH. In response, agribusiness giant Monsanto and a coalition of dairy-industry groups sued the state, asserting that the law was unconstitutional. A federal judge agreed, ruling that the new law violated Monsanto's First Amendment right "not to speak." Several weeks ago, 20 people from southern Vermont spent a weekend at Landmark College in Putney, attending one of CELDF's democracy schools. Among them was Larry Bloch, a small-business owner from Brat-tleboro who is with Vermonters Restoring Democracy. It's an umbrella organization of groups that deal with issues ranging from genetically modified organisms to nuclear power to social and economic justice. Though its members come from a variety of political backgrounds, what unites them, Bloch explains, is a desire to combat corporate dominance over local decision-making. "When a predatory corporation comes in and says, 'We're moving in no matter what and we don't care if we push out your independently owned local businesses,' that doesn't affect only progressives or only conservatives," Bloch says. "To hear the stories from Pennsylvania was inspiring because these were people who had never been activists and weren't blessed with a lot of free time or money or the inclination to shake things up." Representative Sarah Edwards (P-Brattleboro) agrees. Edwards, who also attended the democracy school, says the seminar helped reframe the debate in her mind, especially on the issue of nuclear power. "It's helping me to know who my adversary is," Edwards says. "I'm not talking about individuals. I'm talking about the corporations. "I have friends who work at [Vermont] Yankee. I know management who work at Yankee," she adds. "This is not about them. This is about the system, the machine of the corporation squeezing out the diversity of voices that is necessary to have a good and healthy democracy. Democracy schools already have been held in six states. By next year, there will be five permanent "Daniel Pennock Democracy Schools" - named for one of the two boys who died after coming into contact with the toxic sludge. In the past, these schools have largely addressed environmental issues. But that's charging, Linzey notes. Activists in Roxbury, Massa-chusetts, for example, hope the Pennsylvania model can be used to challenge the pharmaceutical industry on its policies pertaining to AIDS drugs. Others see the approach as a way to counter international agreements like NAFTA. John Berkowitz is executive director of Southern Vermonters for a Fair Economy and Environmental Protection. He points to a law passed in Massachusetts 10 years ago that prohibited municipalities from signing contracts with companies that do business with Burma - a country with an abysmal human rights record. After Japan and the European Union filed a complaint about the law with the WTO, in 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Massachusetts laws as unconstitutional. "Wait a minute. Who's deciding what's best for a community?" Berkowitz asks. "Is it absentee corporations and people working for trade organizations like the WTO? We're finding that people's local decision-making abilities are being trumped by trade agreements that basically say, 'You can't decide that at the local level.'" But as Linzey reminds people who attend CELDF's democracy schools, local communities can reclaim the power of self-rule. Like hurricanes that feed off warmer waters, the anti-corporate movement draws strength through legal provocation. Says Linzey, "This is about shifting the paradigm to let people understand that the courts do step in to defend community rights over corporate rights." ) Seven Days Newspaper, 2004 www.sevendaysvt.com web queries? d -- ----------------- 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 1

Suit complicates First Data's move to cut porn tie
by R. A. Hettinga 01 Oct '04

01 Oct '04

<http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~33~2438413,00.html> DenverPost.com - BUSINESS Friday, October 1, 2004 Denver, CO Article Published: Friday, October 01, 2004 Suit complicates First Data's move to cut porn tie By Aldo Svaldi Denver Post Staff Writer First Data Corp. says it has sworn off porn, but a lawsuit could complicate the Greenwood Village company's efforts to cut its ties to the lucrative industry. First Data stopped payment processing for Internet Billing Co. after its contract with First Data expired Sept. 15. Internet Billing is a Florida company that Forbes.com describes as one of the country's largest middlemen between Internet porn sites and banks. "First Data regularly evaluates its lines of business to ensure they are a good fit for the company," the company said in a statement. "We have determined that processing payments of the adult entertainment marketplace is inconsistent with our core values." Internet Billing, also known as iBill, filed a lawsuit two days later against the company and asked a New York state court to force First Data to work with it until it could switch to a new processor in November. The court denied iBill's request. Internet Billing did not respond to an interview request. Penthouse International purchased the company in March for $23.5 million. First Data, which in the past has kept its involvement with the adult entertainment industry quiet, said it had given iBill plenty of notice the contract was ending. "First Data provided iBill with multiple notices that its contract would not be extended after expiration," the company said. First Data has been terminating all of its contracts with adult entertainment providers as they expire, a spokeswoman 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'

2 1

'Frustrated' U.S. Cybersecurity Chief Abruptly Resigns
by R. A. Hettinga 01 Oct '04

01 Oct '04

<http://www.local6.com/print/3776699/detail.html?use=print> local6.com 'Frustrated' U.S. Cybersecurity Chief Abruptly Resigns POSTED: 11:32 AM EDT October 1, 2004 WASHINGTON -- The government's cybersecurity chief has abruptly resigned after one year with the Department of Homeland Security, confiding to industry colleagues his frustration over what he considers a lack of attention paid to computer security issues within the agency. Amit Yoran, a former software executive from Symantec Corp., informed the White House about his plans to quit as director of the National Cyber Security Division and made his resignation effective at the end of Thursday, effectively giving a single's day notice of his intentions to leave. Yoran said Friday he "felt the timing was right to pursue other opportunities." It was unclear immediately who might succeed him even temporarily. Yoran's deputy is Donald "Andy" Purdy, a former senior adviser to the White House on cybersecurity issues. Yoran has privately described frustrations in recent months to colleagues in the technology industry, according to lobbyists who recounted these conversations on condition they not be identified because the talks were personal. As cybersecurity chief, Yoran and his division - with an $80 million budget and 60 employees - were responsible for carrying out dozens of recommendations in the Bush administration's "National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace," a set of proposals to better protect computer networks. Yoran's position as a director -- at least three steps beneath Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge -- has irritated the technology industry and even some lawmakers. They have pressed unsuccessfully in recent months to elevate Yoran's role to that of an assistant secretary, which could mean broader authority and more money for cybersecurity issues. "Amit's decision to step down is unfortunate and certainly will set back efforts until more leadership is demonstrated by the Department of Homeland Security to solve this problem," said Paul Kurtz, a former cybersecurity official on the White House National Security Council and now head of the Washington-based Cyber Security Industry Alliance, a trade group. Under Yoran, Homeland Security established an ambitious new cyber alert system, which sends urgent e-mails to subscribers about major virus outbreaks and other Internet attacks as they occur, along with detailed instructions to help computer users protect themselves. It also mapped the government's universe of connected electronic devices, the first step toward scanning them systematically for weaknesses that could be exploited by hackers or foreign governments. And it began routinely identifying U.S. computers and networks that were victims of break-ins. Yoran effectively replaced a position once held by Richard Clarke, a special adviser to President Bush, and Howard Schmidt, who succeeded Clarke but left government during the formation of the Department of Homeland Security to work as chief security officer at eBay Inc. Yoran cofounded Riptech Inc. of Alexandria, Va., in March 1998, which monitored government and corporate computers around the world with an elaborate sensor network to protect against attacks. He sold the firm in July 2002 to Symantec for $145 million and stayed on as vice president for managed security services. -- ----------------- 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: Federal program to monitor everyone on the road
by hal＠finney.org 01 Oct '04

01 Oct '04

There was a brief mention of this technology at the Crypto conference. I provided some pointers in a comment to an Ed Felten blog entry at http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000677.html#comments (scroll down to the 3rd comment). Dan Boneh et al presented a proposal for a group signature scheme so that the data collected would not be personally identifiable. The problem is that the data needs to be authenticated, otherwise rogue transmitters could send false data and perhaps cause traffic flow problems or even serious accidents. So they want to use some cryptographic method. Putting a common key in the whole system would make it too easy for rogues to get access to, would be unrevocable, and we are back to the rogue transmitter problem. Using individual certified keys is the default solution but has privacy problems: everyone would be constantly transmitting a cryptographically verifiable record of their driving patterns, speed, lane changing and who knows what else. With the group signature, everybody has a unique key but their transmissions are not bound to that key. And if a key gets scraped out and goes rogue, it can be revoked. This is supposed to provide flexibility, authentication, and privacy. In practice I am skeptical that society will choose to protect privacy at the expense of security. One optional feature of group signatures is a trusted party who can penetrate the anonymity and learn the identity of the author of a particular message. I suspect that any vehicle based embedded communications system will retain that capability, a sort of "license plate" in the virtual realm. The ability to track the paths of bank robbers and terrorists would be too inviting for society to give up, especially if the data is only available to government agents. Hal

1 0

Federal program to monitor everyone on the road
by Sunder 01 Oct '04

01 Oct '04

http://www.boingboing.net/2004/10/01/federal_program_to_m.html Federal program to monitor everyone on the road Interesting article about the Fed's plans to develop an all-knowing intelligent highway system. Most people have probably never heard of the agency, called the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office. And they haven't heard of its plans to add another dimension to our national road system, one that uses tracking and sensor technology to erase the lines between cars, the road and the government transportation management centers from which every aspect of transportation will be observed and managed. For 13 years, a powerful group of car manufacturers, technology companies and government interests has fought to bring this system to life. They envision a future in which massive databases will track the comings and goings of everyone who travels by car or mass transit. The only way for people to evade the national transportation tracking system they're creating will be to travel on foot. Drive your car, and your every movement could be recorded and archived. The federal government will know the exact route you drove to work, how many times you braked along the way, the precise moment you arrived -- and that every other Tuesday you opt to ride the bus. Link to actual story: http://charlotte.creativeloafing.com/news_cover.html ----------------------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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

ShmooCon. 2005. No moose. We swear.
by R. A. Hettinga 01 Oct '04

01 Oct '04

<http://www.shmoocon.org/about.html> ShmooCon. 2005. No moose. We swear. ShmooCon will be an all-new, annual East coast hacker convention hell-bent on offering an interesting and new atmosphere for demonstrating technology exploitation, inventive software & hardware solutions, as well as open discussion of critical information security issues. The first annual ShmooCon will be held February 4-6 2005, at the Wardman Park Marriott Hotel, in Washington, D.C., just minutes from your choice of overly-curious 3-letter agencies. So register early to keep the feds from taking up all the space. ShmooCon will be a different breed of security convention. In a nutshell, over three days, there are three tracks: "Break It!" - a track dedicated to the demonstration of techniques, software, and devices devised with only one purpose in mind--technology exploitation. You will bear witness to some of the most devious minds, source code, and gadgets on the planet that focus their energies on breaking the technology we mindless sheep keep on buying. Baaaaa. "Build It!" - a track that showcases inventive software & hardware solutions--from distributed computing or stealth p2p networks to miniature form-factor community wireless network node hardware or robotics even. Let loose your inner geek, and feel free to gawk. With all the neat stuff, it's important to take notes--that way we all have evidence to shoot down some sleazeball patents 5 years from now. "BoF It!" - a track that promotes the open discussion of critical information security issues in a "birds of a feather" format. From lightning open source code audits or wireless insecurity discussion panels to DRM rants or anonymity & privacy strategies--it's down and dirty, with plenty of controversy for folks who like hashing it out with fellow hackers. Feel free to throw your Shmooball here, but no fisticuffs, please. Settle your differences at Hack-or-Halo in the evening, instead. ShmooCon will be thought provoking. Naturally, with one entire track dedicated to getting similar minds in one room to openly discuss interesting topics, and with each topic discussion being chaired by one or more intensely involved experts in that particular field, people who attend ShmooCon are bound to give the muscle between their ears a good workout. You see, that's a key goal of this conference--to get people thinking. Whether it's thinking about the future, thinking outside the box, thinking about where some of your freedom has run off to, or perhaps rethinking that uber-secure .gov architecture you just paid 5 million dollars to deploy that actually blows some serious swiss-cheese chunks--it's high time you contributed some CPU cycles to your own cause and future existence. And once you start thinking, or hell, maybe even before you start thinking, you can open your mouth and start gabbing with people that have the same concerns and interests as you. Get your two cents in, and pick up a lifetime's worth of experience and knowledge in return from the people around you. ShmooCon will be entertaining. We might not have DefCon debauchery, but we heavily stress the might part of that. Damn near anything could happen when nearly a thousand hackers descend upon the nation's capital. While the Winter chill is sure to keep most folks clothing on, the bar-crawls, club dancing, Hack-or-Halo tournament, WLAN Bash 4 Cash, Shmooball violence, and unsanctioned attempts at penetrating the 100+ .gov or Beltway Bandit wireless networks within 5 miles should make for quite an interesting time. We've even convinced the NFL to have the big game that weekend, so you and your buds can immediately follow up the convention watching terribly expensive and mind-numbing commercials while you try compiling all the cool code that was presented earlier in the day. ShmooCon will be affordable. As you can see, we're certainly not spending money on a web developer, but don't be fooled by our l33t html Fu, ShmooCon is about high-quality without the high price. If you wait to register until the last minute, oh yeah, you're going to pay out the ass--$250, in fact. However, if you're not a fed that has to wait until next fiscal year to get permission from your mommy, daddy, and Uncle Sam, and you positively know that you are going to ShmooCon, then we're down with that, as it were. And so is the cost--ShmooCon is $99 for anyone who registers before September 30, 2004! Aww, just shy of the new fiscal year, see? No, we're not sorry for the feds. They can afford full price--have you seen your paycheck lately? Uncle Sam and cousin FICA could pay for ALL of us to go to ShmooCon, but nooooooo. Regardless, space IS limited, so register before the feds do. Can't afford $99? Check out the call for papers! Selected speakers AND alternates get free admission to ShmooCon! ShmooCon will be accessible. Well, except for our West coast friends. Doh. ShmooCon will be at the Wardman Park Marriott Hotel in Washington, D.C., just a few steps from a Metro stop. That means you can catch a train from New York, Boston, or Philadelphia to Union Station, hop on the D.C. Metro, and voila, you're there. Or, if you intend to fly, you can land at Reagan National, wave to the good guys in uniform manning the mobile rocket launchers, grab a cab OR hop on the D.C. Metro, and you'll be at ShmooCon before you know it. Can't afford to fly? Submit your own ! The overall winner gets free admission AND airfare from anywhere in the continental U.S. to ShmooCon 2005! So check out the site, keep visiting for news and schedule updates, and tell your friends to register their asses for ShmooCon ASAP. It's going to be a blast, and we can't wait to see you there! news about registration cfp program schedule location sponsors links contact us . privacy policy )2004, The Shmoo Group -- ----------------- 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

Patriot Act Misinformation
by R. A. Hettinga 01 Oct '04

01 Oct '04

<http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB109659214177033379,00.html> The Wall Street Journal October 1, 2004 REVIEW & OUTLOOK Patriot Act Misinformation October 1, 2004; Page A14 The American Civil Liberties Union has been spinning its victory in a federal court in New York this week as a blow against the USA Patriot Act. One typical headline: "Federal Judge Calls Patriot Act Secret Searches Unconstitutional." An ACLU press release hails the decision as "a landmark victory against the Ashcroft Justice Department." Well, no. If reporters had bothered to read Judge Victor Marrero's decision, they would have learned that the law he actually struck down was a provision of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. Section 2709 authorizes the FBI to issue "National Security Letters" to obtain information from wire communications companies about their subscribers. NSLs are issued secretly and the recipient is prohibited from notifying anyone about the request. As Judge Marrero noted in his ruling, "Section 2790 has been available to the FBI since 1986." He concludes that there must have been "hundreds" of NSLs issued since that time. The Patriot Act did amend Section 2790, but that amendment has nothing to do with the part that Judge Marrero says is unconstitutional. One more thing: The Electronics Communications Act was not the invention of John Ashcroft. It was sponsored by that famous and menacing right-winger, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, who said at the time that Section 2790 "provides a clear procedure for access to telephone toll records in counterintelligence investigations." -- ----------------- 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