- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Tolerance (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 07:59:05 -0700 (PDT) > From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> > Subject: Re: Tolerance (fwd) > Here I have to respectfully disagree, totally, with Jim. One > does not have to "reserve" one's rights. They are inherent and > my be exercised pretty much at will (I say "pretty much" because > there are situations where "implied contract" applies). Exactly! Stating a list is 'public' is an inherent contract between the list provider and the subscriber with certain expectations on both parties part. The list provider expects no illegal activity to take place such that they are placed in jeopardy and the subscriber expects to recieve access to a public (ie not regulated by a third party other than themselves and the members en toto) list. Claiming the right to throw somebody off for any reason other than illegal activity nullifies the claim of 'public'. > A restaurant or bookstore is a public place in that it is open > to the public. I know of no state in the union where a bookstore, restaurant, mall, etc. is considered public. In Texas such places make it clear that they are private places and that they reserve the right to refuse service and/or ask you to leave the premises. Legaly a public place is someplace which is operated using public monies. > Nevertheless, without first "reserving the right" > to do so, the owners may tell you to leave if they don't like > the way you sound, look or smell. Because they ain't any more public than my house is on Wednesday nites when I have it open to folks. I assure you that if somebody were to show up smelling or filthy they would be asked to leave and if they refused I would call a police officer and press trespass charges. > Criminal activity is not > required legally nor ethically. Your ejection may, in fact, be > totally arbitrary. I don't see a privately maintained, "public" > list as being philosophically any different. The only way a police officer can expell you from a public place other than for criminal behaviour is if the municipality passes ordinances regarding access (ie open from 7-10 for example in the case of city parks here in Austin) which must apply to ALL citizens equaly not just the vagabonds (I have been thrown out of parks on many occassions and I assure I don't look like a street bum even when I was living on the street in the early 80's - for grins I might add). Jim Choate

2 1

Re: [off-topic] roving wiretaps
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:52 8/2/96, David Wagner wrote: >I don't get it. Help me out here-- how can this possibly be constitutional? > >I'm reading the Fourth Amendment to our honored Constitution of the United >States, which proclaims > > [...] > no warrants shall issue, > but upon probable cause, > supported by oath or affirmation, > and *particularly describing the place to be searched*, > and the persons or things to be seized. > >Are we just to strike out that emphasized phrase? What's going on here? >Someone tell me I'm not just having a bad nightmare. The Fourth Amendment has been abolished by the Supreme Court for all intends and purposes. It remains listed in the Constitution for historic reasons only. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

1 0

Re: fbi, crypto, and defc
by pjn＠nworks.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In> They said that every other time their comrades had come to defcon, In> they had tried to come incognito, and got caught every time. This In> time, they wore FBI t-shirts, and the only response was "Hey! Where'd In> ya get the T-Shirt?!?". They said "We hacked 'em from the FBI" and that In> was it, noone suspected... =) I would love to get my hands on "I spotted the Fed" and "I am a Fed" (or whatever they say) T-Shirts... P.J. pjn(a)nworks.com ... A man without a religion is like a fish without a bicycle. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]

1 0

Re: Bombs & bomb threats in LA
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:13 PM 8/2/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >I also got my copy of "The Anarchist Cookbook" back around then. It was in >the news locally when the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's office attempted >to have it removed from the local bookstores....this removed it all right, >as the stacks of copies sold out as quickly as they could be received and >unpacked. > >(As others have noted over the years, much of the advice is probably bogus >and even dangerous. Not being an explosives dabbler, I wouldn't know.) There are a great number of errors in the book. (Details of many can be found at http://www.wam.umd.edu/~ctmunson/aol_cookbook_faq.html .) The one error I found in the book when I was in High School was the recipe for Nitrogen Triodide. (sp?) The Anarchist's Cookbook lists four steps for making it. The first two are correct. The second two (running alchhol and ether, if I remember correctly) dry the mixture out and probibly detonate it in the process. (The ether would make things much worse, as ether is pretty volitile in and of itself.) I found better formulas for simple explosives in "Lee's Priceless Recipes". (Which was published in 1912. Long before the Internet.) Ah, memories of High School chemistry classes... --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "Microsoft -- Nothing but NT promises."

1 0

Re: Pipe bombs
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:26 PM 8/2/96, Lucky Green wrote: >At 21:02 8/1/96, Timothy C. May wrote: > >>Buy a section of metal water pipe 1/2 by 6 inches long, threaded on both ... >I do believe you forgot the fuse... Electrical ignition elements, such as >the ones used to launch model rockets should work just fine. Actually, all I did was copy the first couple of paragraphs from the very first set of instructions I found, found by using Alta Vista to search the Web on the string "pipe bomb". That's what turned up. (I guess I should've put quote marks around it and given a URL, but I was in a rush to generate my felonious alternate .sig. I'll correct it now.) --Tim HOW TO MAKE A PIPE BOMB: "Buy a section of metal water pipe 1/2 by 6 inches long, threaded on both ends. Buy two metal caps to fit. These are standard items in hardware stores. Drill a 1/16th hole in the center of the pipe. This is easy with a good drill bit. Hanson is a good brand to use. Screw a metal cap tightly on one end. Fill the pipe to within 1/2 inch of the top with black powder. Do not pack the powder. Don't even tap the bottom of the pipe to make it settle. You want the powder loose. For maximum explosive effect, you need dry, fine powder sitting loose in a very rigid container." (more information at http://sdcc13.ucsd.edu/~m1lopez/pipe.html, or by using search engines)

1 0

Re: [off-topic] roving wiretaps
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:58 AM 8/2/96 +0000, you wrote: >>P.S. Do police really need a search warrant to wiretap cellular phones? > >It is my understanding that police need a warrant to tap *cellular* >phones, but not *wireless* phones. > >One should understand that monitoring cellular traffic is *much* more >difficult than tapping a conventional phone, because as the user >moves around in the service area the phone switches to different >repeaters, often several times during a conversation. I'd have to disagree on that point. Monitoring cellular traffic requires nothing more than a cellular phone, and some software which enables you to follow calls through the cells, for a total cost of about $500. This is exceptionally trivial with an Oki 900 and a ctek cable (which interfaces the fone with the computer). With this software you can monitor individual cells, choosing to "lock on" to a call made from a specific number, or to a specific number. You can follow calls, and record any dtmf digits. Also the caller will never be made aware that he/she is being listened to. A sophisticated land line wiretap that will not be detectable by the average citizen will cost well over $500, plus you have to install it without the target knowing, etc. //cerridwyn//

3 2

Re: [off-topic] roving wiretaps (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 16:41:17 -0700 > From: Cerridwyn Llewyellyn <ceridwyn(a)wolfenet.com> > Subject: Re: [off-topic] roving wiretaps > A sophisticated land line wiretap that will not be detectable by the > average citizen will cost well over $500, plus you have to install it > without the target knowing, etc. It costs nothing, it is already built into the switch at part of the standard diagnostics. I spent 5 years at the University of Texas at Austin working in security and part of my job was support of the NT switch. You go to the switch put a butt-set or recorder on the diag port and route the call data over to that port. Jim Choate

1 0

Latest info on the "counter-terrorism" bill
by jseiger＠cdt.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The House passed a revised counter-terrorism bill this afternoon by a substantial majority. The bill is expected to be considered by the Senate on Saturday 8/3, and is likely to pass. The House-passed bill DOES NOT contain ANY of the privacy threatening provisions. Provisions dealing with funding for the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (Digital Telephony) were REMOVED from the bill just before the vote after civil liberties groups AND the FBI objected to the language. Provisions dealing with emergency wiretap authority and "roving wiretaps" were also not included in the House-passed bill. In addition, the bill does not contain any encryption provisions. Earlier in the week, the Administration had circulated an outline of their anti-terrorism proposal which included new, unspecified restrictions on encryption. Senators Burns (R-MT), Leahy (D-VT), Pressler (R-SD), Lott (R-MS), and others worked hard to prevent any encryption provisions from being included in early versions of the bill, and deserve a lot of credit for fighting for the Net. It's nice to finally have a number of powerful allies joining the usual defenders of net.freedom on Capitol Hill. The bill passed today contains provisions increasing airport security, studies on ways to improve US anti terrorism policy and other terrorism issues, and a controvertial provisions expanding federal racketeering laws to cover terrorist activity. The bill also contains a small but not insigificant privacy victory. The bill doubles the punishment from 5 to 10 years for unlawful disclosure of information obtained from a warrant and increases certain penalties for violation of the Privacy Act. This is not over yet -- many of these issues, particularly encryption and Digital Telephony funding, are likely to be back before the Congress in September, so stay tunned... Thanks to everyone who called Congress today to object to the new sweeping surveillance provisions that were dropped from the bill! It looks like we mave had really made a difference in this debate. More as it comes... Jonah -- Jonah Seiger, Policy Analyst Center for Democracy and Technology <jseiger(a)cdt.org> (v) +1.202.637.9800 http://www.cdt.org/

1 0

Stop the presses -- Anti-terrorism bill not that bad
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Stop the presses -- the other shoe didn't drop. Despite a flurry of last-minute hyperbole, the House passed an anti-terrorism bill this afternoon without the ominous encryption or wiretap provisions. Now the bill lies in the lap of the Senate, which probably will approve it later today or tomorrow before they leave town for the August recess. In the wake of the dual bombings, Congress wanted to be seen as taking *some* action before they adjourned, and last weekend Clinton and the Dems started lobbying hard for the heinous measures they wanted in an anti-terrorism bill. Vastly expanded state-snooping capabilities: multipoint wiretaps, warrantless short-term wiretaps, dialed-phone number recorders, and black and smokeless powder taggants. Even possible of anti-crypto language that Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney general, has been shopping around for months. The Net owes its thanks to the House Republicans for stopping these fool Dems in a fine backroom political maneuver late last night. They did it through the House Rules Committee, which in the wee hours of the morning reported a rule allowing the GOP leadership to introduce the terrorism bill on the floor today -- without letting Democrats see it, amend it, or even send it back to committee. It was a good plan -- coordinated by Rep. Chris Cox -- keeping the legislation away from the hands of the Big Brother Dems. The Democrats waxed pissy. Rep. David Bonior, the party's whip, called the majority's maneuvering "extrordinary." John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, blasted Gingrich and the Republican leadership for "bringing a meaningless bill to the House floor." Conyers said to reporters at 1 pm: "It's a hoax on the American people. It is all bark and no bite... This bill is missing the important wiretapping provisions that would allow law enforcement to find and stop terrorists before they kill. The House Republicans and the NRA say we should not have emergency authority for surveillance even if we know terrorists are about to blow a plane out of the sky. They also say that we should not have wiretap authority for terrorists who use more than one telephone to make their deadly plans." Of course, this is political grandstanding at its finest -- or worst. Conyers conveniently neglected to add that law enforcement officers already have the right to use roving wiretaps with court approval. Also, there was a mixup over Digital Telephony funding, compounded by the text of the legislation's being kept secret until the last minute. Summaries distributed to reporters early this afternoon said: "The bill authorizes the FBI to use enhanced telephone technology to investigate suspected terrorist activity. Funding for equipment purchase was provided in the 1996 omnibus appropriations measure enacted earlier this year." But the DT provisions weren't in the final draft of the bill. Silly Congressperns. The House had *already* approved the DT slushfund on July 24 as part of the 1997 Commerce, Justice, State departments appropriations bill. Now the 1997 CJS appropriations bill goes to the Senate, which will decide how much cash to give Digital Telephony when they return in early September. What's going to happen? Well, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), a former prosecutor and longtime proponent of Digital Telephony, said yesterday at the Intelligence Committee hearing on terrorism: "I was proud to have worked with the FBI director to ensure passage of the Communications Assisatance for Law Enforcement Act, sometimes called the digital telephony law." With Republicans like the ones in the House, who needs so-called "civil libertarian" Democrats? -Declan

1 0

ITAR
by koontz＠netapp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How about exporting programs, that when executed generate source code for encryption algorithms? (xmas.c comes to mind, an obscurity winning c program that writes out the twelve days of Christmas.)

1 0