- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Request for illegal electronic surveillance examples and cases
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

So I'm putting together a special report featuring examples of illegal wiretapping by governments -- to show why we shouldn't trust them with mandatory domestic key escrow. Also illegal electronic surveillance, generally speaking. Especially more recent ones. Maybe non-U.S. examples too. Any suggestions? I'm thinking things like: MLKjr, Mrs. Roosevelt, _Irvine_, _Socialist Workers Party_, Dewey-FBI alliance, mail opening, Emma Goldman, Brownell's blanket microphone surveillance, _Katz_, _Alderman_, CISPES. -Declan ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

4 6

Re: Remailers and ecash
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Anonymous wrote: > Bill Stewart wrote: > >Latency is essential to security, though high volume reduces the > >latency that's needed to get a given level of security. > > Latency may be a means to get security in the current remailer design, > but it is a means to the end and not the end itself. This doesn't > mean we shouldn't use latency to get security, but it is undesirable, > like using cinderblocks for construction. The reason I point this out > is that it is important to separate design choices to achieve a goal > from the goal itself. > > If we had a remailer network in which each customer had a constant > bandwidth connection to one or more remailers, you could have zero > latency mail. (Actually, this would be nice to use with those Comsec > phones.) Or use something like anonymous broadcast. Send (fixed sized, constant rate) packets continuously around a fixed set of remailers. Messages may or may not be inserted into these packets, and with encryption it is impossible to tell which node inserted a message (and only until the packet completed the circuit could you tell - inside the machine originating the broadcast). Messages would be resent through the set of remailers, and could be PK encrypted to one of the other nodes. With the broadcast being anonymous, the reciever within the set cannot know who it came from (and theoretically because it is encrypted, no one could know who it is to except the sender, and you can do something to create anonymous target packets). You would still need some mixing for low usage times (or wait for N messages and circulate a control "forward now" message, so that 10 messages come in sequentially and are held, and then at an even interval, 10 messages go out from random nodes.

1 0

http:--www.cnn.com-US-9710-01-shooting.update-
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CNN logo Navigation Infoseek/Big Yellow Pathfinder/Warner Bros Main banner Visit Regal at Buick.com rule TEEN KILLS 2 AT SCHOOL; MOTHER FOUND DEAD AT HOME Woodham October 1, 1997 Web posted at: 3:38 p.m. EDT (1938 GMT) PEARL, Mississippi (CNN) -- A Mississippi teen-ager slashed his mother's throat Wednesday morning before going on a shooting rampage at his high school that left two students dead and at least six wounded, authorities said. The high school junior, Luke Woodham, was arrested and charged with three counts of murder shortly after the shooting at Pearl High School, about three miles east of the state capital, Jackson. Police Chief Bill Slade choked back tears as he told reporters, "This was a disgruntled girlfriend-boyfriend thing... We talked to the youth. He gave us a statement and his manifesto was that he felt he had been wronged." _______________________________________________________________ A L S O : Message Board: Violence in U.S. Schools _______________________________________________________________ Pearl Mayor Jimmy Foster describes what happened icon 308K/27 sec. AIFF or WAV sound Pearl Police Chief Bill Slade explains what measures will be taken to help traumatized students icon 219K/20 sec. AIFF or WAV sound One student's mother is shocked icon 255KB/19 sec. AIFF or WAV sound A former girlfriend of the suspect was one of two students killed at the school. Slade also said police suspect that the student had killed his mother, Mary T. Woodham, 50, at home earlier Wednesday by slashing her throat. The shooting happened about 8:10 a.m. as buses were arriving at the school. David Williams, a sophomore, said the gunman walked into the commons area inside the front of the school, pulled a rifle from his jacket and opened fire. "He was shooting anybody he could find. He shot at me and hit the staircase," said Mark Wilkerson, a freshman. "I saw fragments going everywhere." Medic offering help One student described the accused youth as reserved. "He was a very quiet person," said Alan Burrow. Four wounded students, ranging in age from 14 to 18, were taken to Rankin Medical Center in Brandon, Mississippi, where one student had already been treated and released. Grieving students gathered in hospital waiting rooms. "The injuries are non-critical gunshot wounds," hospital spokesman Mark Lee said. "In layman's terms they are flesh wounds." Officials shut down the school almost immediately after the shooting and sent all students home. Rhonda Marks, a spokeswoman at River Oaks Hospital, said two students had been brought into the hospital for treatment. Marks did not know if the hospital would receive any more wounded. _________________________________________________________________ Infoseek search ____________________ ____ ____ _________________________________________________________________ rule Message Boards Sound off on our message boards You said it... [INLINE] Visit Regal at Buick.com rule To the top © 1997 Cable News Network, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you.

1 0

Re: "Show me an example of terrorists using the Internet or crypto"
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/1/97 4:20 PM, Cynthia Brown (cynthb(a)sonetis.com) passed this wisdom: >I agree wholeheartedly. Uncontrolled guns do not solve problems, >they create them. If most households have at least one firearm, it >makes it that much easier for a criminal to obtain one by stealing >yours while you are at work. > >Canada may be regulated to death according to most libertarians, >but I for one like it that way. I can walk alone and unarmed at >night in Ottawa, Toronto, etc. without fearing for my life. Can a >female resident of Washington or New York say the same? Our schools >do not have metal detectorsat the entrances because they are not >needed. I live in the state of Vermont, where we have more guns per household than most of the states in the US. We are one of the only (if not *the* only) states in the Union that permits concealed carry without requiring a permit (with the not surprising exceptions of USG buildings and schools). Our record high murder year was a few years ago, twenty three murders (that high because we had a woman go crazy at the Eveready plant in Bennington and killed five people in one sitting) in more recent years the figure generally stays under ten per year ...three years ago the figure was five and only one of them was with a gun ... a shotgun, not a handgun. We go where we please with little fear as well; It has to do with a frame of mind, a set of values, not with a lack of availability or opportunity. There is something to be said for living in a place where a man can come right down off the hills during deer season and walk into a liquor store with a shotgun to buy a bottle of hooch without drawing a SWAT team! Try that in NYC or Toronto! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNDMWG8dZgC62U/gIEQLX+gCfZ+GzaNlvSx+xQPszw8cD/1VrDxkAoJ7Y aESM15SJSCwdbYKjDRG2zCIi =69FK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "Give a man a fish and you have fed him for a day, but give him a case of dynamite and soon the village will be showered with mud and seaweed and unidentifiable chunks of fish." -Joe Chew

1 0

Re: Forwarded mail...
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/1/97 9:03 PM, Jim Choate (ravage(a)ssz.com) passed this wisdom: >Why is the situation more stable if both parties are armed? If I >were confronted by a armed burglar and we were facing off I would >pull the trigger as soon as I got a lock. If their gun wasn't in a >ready position Iwould warn them and if they so much as flinched I'd >drop them. If they wereunarmed I might beat them senseless with the >gun but I would not shoot themunless they made a motion to rush me, >then I would go for a non-lethal shotunless the distance was less >than a dozen feet (rushing distance) or so >in ... nothing personal, but why is it people keep deluding themselves with the idea that they can shoot to wound. You cannot know what a shot will do ... if you shoot someone the odds are pretty high that you will kill him or seriously injure. You cannot count on 'non-lethally' wounding anyone. Leg shots have a very high incidence of hitting bone and deflecting up into the torso and really raising havoc. A shot to the thigh could easily hit the femoral artery and a total bleedout .... if you are going to shoot assume your are going to kill, if the guys lives, then you get to sleep a little easier that night and later. I hear so much talk about killing like its something really easy to do ... it isn't ... unfortunately it gets easier each time, and the sleeping gets tougher ... the only consolation to the bad dreams is that it means you haven't lost your humanity, yet! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNDMc3sdZgC62U/gIEQKPVACgnbr0UQGw0Lx8j7tJhOii6bVWB/MAnjM6 euuGEBAmFLhxWsULQLNTOFSs =LFzV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "...Those of you who turned your swords into plowshares will soon find yourselves under the yokes of those of us who kept our swords..." -- author unknown

2 1

Remailers and ecash
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Given: We want more (reliable) remailers But someone has to pay for them Conjecture: New remailers can be financed by charging the users a fee per message to use the remailers. If a remailer charges a fee, the number of users will be reduced to those who are willing to pay the fee. When the number of users is reduced, the potential for traffic analysis is increased, which reduces the value of the remailer. If the value of the remailer is reduced, it will not be worth the cost to many users, and those users will seek a less expensive, higher traffic remailer. Thus, the commercial remailer is forced to lower its prices until it is unprofitable. Conclusion: Pay-per-message commecial remailers are not economically viable. Hence we need a new economic model to finance remailers. Several have been proposed: - Advertiser supported - Pay a flat fee per month for remailer access - Everyone a remailer. Remailers only accept messages from other remailers. To use remailers you must run a remailer. - Get companies to run remailers on their firewalls to reduce traffic analysis by competitors/spies - Pay for access to an anonymous message pool - Sell a spam filtering service to fund remailers - Sell a spamming service to fund remailers - Sell cpu cycles in exchange for remailer access - Charge people for extra services, such as low-latency - Pay for a nym account, nymserver subsidizes remailers - Have the money launderers subsidize the remailers - Somehow get all those Mac users to pay - Offer $50 to the first person to set up a remailer, as Monty Cantsin did - Fund social programs for universal remailer access and universal health care like Cynthia wants

5 5

Re: Remailers and ecash (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: Remailers and ecash (fwd) > Date: Wed, 1 Oct 97 23:56:19 -0400 > From: "Brian B. Riley" <brianbr(a)together.net> > >And why does this by any security when it's the header info and > >contents that Mallet looks at, not the frequency. The only thing > >such approaches do is impliment security by obscurity, and that > >ain't security. > > What header info?, its all messages to the remailer with nondescript > info .. from that point the latency and mix takes over. The meaningful > message looks no different from the 'cover' traffic. Mallet will be following the cover traffic, since it is cover there will be no correllation uncovered between input and output traffic because the output traffic header info will either be a small class of destinations used over and over or else it will be chosen randomly using something like a spider on webpages or a usenet newsgroup crawler. Just send the bogus packets to random addresses, talk about spam with a bite... <hint: the LEA's would then instigate an investigation of the randomly selected target, depleting their resources, this might buy you 2-3 days if you got two halves of a clue to rub together> <speculation: anything short of several thousand entries in the bogus destinations will be trivial to track> <obvious: once a bogus address is used and known by the LEA's it will be worthless to send any further packets there> <obvious: all this traffic analysis will be done by computers with very nice databases so it might take one or two agents to review the full traffic set for just about any time frame under review> <speculation: given a determined and well equiped Mallet it should take no more than a week to 10 days to resolve the analysis if the destination party is a small set, say <= dozen, using todays remailers and traffic levels. Previously it was mentioned that one remailer handled about 4300 pieces a day, something Oracle or Sybase wouldn't have a problem with> <speculation: currently remailers are not seriously bothered by the BIG Big Brother's because it is not worth validating the paranoids out there that they are being watched> For the sender to chain from remailer to remailer to destination the destination has to be in the header info somewhere. Now in the most secure system each packet header will only contain the address of the next hop. When the next site gets it the packet contents are de-crypted (otherwise reading the chaining info is trivial) and the contents are uncovered to reveal another packet with the next hop header and another encrypted block. And on and on we go. <Question: Are there any remailer sets that impliment the encrypted nested packet system?> <speculation: an encrypted chain could be made stronger if the next hop header depended on which key was used to decode it. In other words, remailer A's key will produce one next hop address while remailer B's key will send it elsewhere. This is a subset of the different plaintext - same cyphertext problem - a hard problem as I understand it. Find two distinct texts that encrypt with different keys to the same cyphertext> Now if I were tasked with traffic analysis of this sort I would look at each incoming header and each outgoing header. I would look for some sort of correlation (ie some percentage of the time when I see this source address I see this destination address within some period) over time between the steps in the chain. Realisticaly it would take at least a dozen or so transmissions using the same remailer chain before a clear pattern would emerge. In general there are two types of classes in traffic analysis. The first is monitoring of a specific entity involved in the transfer, usualy source or destination. The second is passive traffic monitoring where I simply go from remailer to remailer and find statistical correlation between the various packets in the hope that somewhere somewhen I would come across something of use. <observation: without latency being added simply shuffling the messages will not significantly hamper the analysis. To be most effective the latencies should be randomly chosen. This implies that for best security the content of the traffic should not be greatly time sensitive. It furher implies that such traffic should be over a significant range, at least an order of magnitude say> <suggestion: I learned of the basics of traffic analysis from following the study of dinosaur teeth and trying to determine which type they were. Different dinosaurs leave distinctive but different types of scratches on their teeth. By applying statistics to the measurements it becomes possible to assign them to specific types> The first type is the most commen currently but with the various requests by the FBI and other LEA's it is becoming clear they want to get into the second class of traffic analysis in a big way. Guess they are finding it harder and harder to get the big-wigs like the drug cartels because they use a higher degree of technology than the LEA's do, they're simply out-classed. With the second class they could catch a email (for example) from some end user buying a couple of quarters of pot and then chase that chain in reverse. Without the passive second class monitoring they would have never gotten that lead in the first place. Now consider the LEA's think nothing of monitoring a suspect for years if required. I know of one case where the DEA spent 2 years tracking a 'kingpin' for 45 tons of herb. They even brought in specialist from the NSA and military to do covert monitoring for the over-seas participants, including traffic analysis of their communications. <observation: Blackhawks have a pretty nifty electronics system, watching downtown Bagdad via a sat link while flying along playing with Internet email and using your FLIR to not hit the cables between the poles> If they ain't LEA's then a whole new set of options become available. Also consider, if they aren't LEA's then they are probably doing a class one traffic analysis which is only a matter of time to resolve. Considering the current number of anonymous remailers it would not surprise me if the CIA/NSA/Massad/MI5/etc. are not currently monitoring them all. It is a given that countries like Iraq, Singapore, China, etc. are currently doing about all they can to monitor the remailers because they are known to be used by 'terrorist' organizations. It seems to me that many people have an inherent (and unrecognized) assumption that Mallet will have access only to a single remailer and won't bother actualy tracing the traffic. A bad assumption. It is also worth remembering, the government as a whole is quite slow but there are some quite capable individuals. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Remailers and ecash (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 06:35:55 +0200 (MET DST) > Subject: Re: Remailers and ecash (fwd) > From: nobody(a)REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) > The question is will people pay money for this. Nobody gives a damn if you > think it's useful or not. Shure they do because one of the things I would love to do is run a commercial anon remailer. If I as a businessman motivated to get into it can't justify it how in the world can somebody with less technical experience justify it? How would you justify it to your bank for a $10k loan? I suspect that if I can find a way to overcome my anal retentive penny pinching then it will sell others as well. > The customer is always right, and all that. You obviously have never done business with me. I've turned more than one customer away because they were either stupid or wanted something that was completely out of line. I provide my customers a specific set of services at specific fees with specific results, period. If they don't like the way their baby looks that is their problem, I just deliver 'em. I do this out of love, not a need to feed. <trivia: Bill G. once said that the computer industry was the only industry that ate its children> > Obviously, some people had a reason to take the time to write those thousands > of posts, the question is will they pay the remailers to post them. Depends on their motivation...a question we all seem to be grappling with. If it's possible I am shure that one of the thousands of posts that we generate on this issue will be the trigger. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Re: Forwarded mail... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: Forwarded mail... > Date: Thu, 2 Oct 97 00:09:24 -0400 > From: "Brian B. Riley" <brianbr(a)together.net> > ... nothing personal, but why is it people keep deluding themselves > with the idea that they can shoot to wound. You cannot know what a > shot will do Remember: A gun is like a finger, just point it at what you want to hit. I have met hundreds of great shots in my life, there are many people for whom this sort of behaviour would not be delusional. My grandfather (who you'll hear more about in a minute) used to delight us as small kids by lighting matches stuck in wood fence posts with a .22 pistol from about 50 yds. My cousin from Louisiana likes to shoot squirrels (if you can call it that) by passing the bullet just in front of their nose, causes lung hemorraghes and they just fall off the limb. Me, I always miss or blow their teeny little head off, it's apparently a game of 1/4 inches. I work with an ex-gomer (ie USMC) pilot who is quite phenomenal with his .357 Desert Eagle, his groupings are just about an inch at 25 yds. I have 20/10 eyesight (in one eye now, the L. is blind) and I've been shooting guns since I was 6 years old. By the time I was 12 I was killing Nutria in Louisiana's swamps every summer for bounty with a single shot of .22 from 100+ yds. I once got a nice heart shot on a deer at 400 yds. over iron sites with a .308. I hit what I aim at with a pistol or rifle assuming I have fired it a few times (which if I own the gun is a given). The first thing I do is range a weapon when I buy it. It's also why I practice shooting in groups of 3. Better chance of hitting, and hitting something important. Being shot at doesn't bother me, been there done that several times now, so I don't think that will be much of a factor. I agree a snap shot is inaccurate but if I have time to get the gun and get to my bedroom door nobody is going to get a chance for a snap shot. Hell, if I had a reasonable idea where they were I'd shoot their wormy ass through the wall. I seriously doubt anyone can get to my bedroom without me being warned (my burglar alarm isn't electronic). <hint: if your walls are white and you're faced with a burglar cover yourself with a white sheet (assuming the lights are off and only ambient is available) and stay below waist level moving no more than about 1 ft. at a time and shooting upward. Keep both elbows tucked in and hold the gun in a 2-hand grip, use you ears not your eyes> >... if you shoot someone the odds are pretty high that > you will kill him or seriously injure. If you break into my house at 1AM this is a given. I'll either shoot you or beat you to death with a skillet. If you don't want to die don't break into my house. It's the Golden Rule. There is absolute NOTHING that justifies breaking into my house at any time let alone in the middle of the night. It's called 'cause and effect' unfortunately most folks now a-days just don't seem to have caught the clue. There is a saying that my grandfather tought me (he was a medic in WWI because he was a contientous (sp?) objecter): If you pull a gun on somebody shoot, and shoot to kill. If you can't bring yourself to kill then don't use a gun. > You cannot count on > 'non-lethally' wounding anyone. Who the hell wants to non-lethaly wound a burglar, I'm betting on them flinching when I start yelling at them... > Leg shots have a very high incidence > of hitting bone and deflecting up into the torso and really raising > havoc. A shot to the thigh could easily hit the femoral artery and a > total bleedout Absolutely great reasons to shoot the asshole there. Look, when a person breaks into your house, robs you, rapes you, or whatever they are basicly saying "I am going it on my own, I apply no rules or recognition of civilization. Your life means nothing to me because I am willing to trade it for a few measly bucks". It is silly to try to deal with such people reasonably, if they were reasonable they wouldn't be there in the first place (they'd be home protecting their own possessions). They are a clear and present danger with long-term intent. Save your life and their next victim or your tax dollars to put them in jail and train them to be better criminals, do everyone a favor kill them now. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Request for illegal electronic surveillance examples and cases
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan wrote: >So I'm putting together a special report featuring examples of illegal >wiretapping by governments -- to show why we shouldn't trust them with >mandatory domestic key escrow. Also illegal electronic surveillance, >generally speaking. Especially more recent ones. Maybe non-U.S. examples >too. There are a number of US cases in the just published "Secrets: The CIA's War at Home," by Angus Mackenzie. What is worth exploring to supplement the perhaps too facile gov-bash is the burgeoning private industry of illegal electronic surveillance, staffed with mostly ex-gov folks (and those not deft enough to get a global Cold War sinecure) who are not always as scrupulous as the government. These operations are growing worldwide as governments down-size, up-size and sneaky-rig their NatSec and LE programs, often most slyly by privatizing them behind false fronts. Indeed, the bigger story may be the ways illegal electronic snooping is being hidden behind "legal" operations by both government and industry, often working in concert to camouflage the bastardly deeds by pointing fingers at each other to justify higher budgets and higher fees and more restrictions on free expression. Get Stewart Baker looped and talkative. Then John Deutch, William Perry, and on and on. The media and DC public interest groups are not outside this long-running covert loop of mutual back-scratchers. Read "Secrets." Trace for example where the heads and legal counsels of military, spy and law enforcement agencies go in private industry, and the affiliations they form in commerce and non-profit orgs, beginning with SAIC, say, and the Council on Foreign Relations, the lobby-law firms and schools, but do not stop with the obvious, easy to find. Get Stewart Baker looped and talkative. Then John Deutch, William Perry, ex-legislators, and on and on. Be prepared to have your not-so-secure comm systems hacked by the New Terrorists as dirty secrets are threatened. Read "Secrets:" some of the characters in the crypto debate are mentioned in earlier disguises and, in a few case, where they show now.

1 0