- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Zimmermann's Senate testimony
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:39 AM 6/25/96 -0700, Philip Zimmermann wrote: >Testimony of Philip R. Zimmermann to >the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space >of the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and >Transportation 26 June 1996 >The government has a track record that does not inspire confidence >that they will never abuse our civil liberties. The FBI's >COINTELPRO program targeted groups that opposed government >policies. They spied on the anti-war movement and the civil >rights movement. They wiretapped Martin Luther King's phone. >Nixon had his enemies list. And then there was the Watergate >mess. The War on Drugs has given America the world's largest per- >capita incarceration rate in the world, a distinction formerly >held by South Africa, before we surpassed them during the eighties >even when apartheid was in full swing. Recently, we've seen the >images and sounds of the Rodney King beatings, Detective Mark >Fuhrman's tapes boasting of police abuses, and the disturbing >events of the Ruby Ridge case. And now Congress and the Clinton >administration seem intent on passing laws curtailing our civil >liberties on the Internet. At no time in the past century has >public distrust of the government been so broadly distributed >across the political spectrum, as it is today. > >The Clinton Administration seems to be attempting to deploy and >entrench a communications infrastructure that would deny the >citizenry the ability to protect its privacy. This is unsettling >because in a democracy, it is possible for bad people to >occasionally get elected-- sometimes very bad people. Normally, a >well-functioning democracy has ways to remove these people from >power. But the wrong technology infrastructure could allow such a >future government to watch every move anyone makes to oppose it. >It could very well be the last government we ever elect. Yes, the situation is bad, very bad. And yes, I agree that a political system has to have ways to remove bad people. The odd thing is, some of the people who say that are the same ones who get squeamish when a solution is suggested. <sigh> Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: AT&T bans anonymous messages
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How on earth can a service try to stop anonymous dealings. Well.. i can see HOW... because they say their just going to do it. Now.. I know theres such things as the internet task force....etc... Isnt there any groups out there whose _SOLE_ purpose is trying to protect rights in the online community?

1 0

Re: AT&T bans anonymous messages
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> (ii) Members may not post or transmit any message >> which is libelous, defamatory or which discloses >> private or personal matters concerning any person. >> Members may not post or transmit any message, >> data, image or program which is indecent, obscene >> or pornographic. political figures..yep....out. the most recent Oj or whoever joke...out ANY ethnic joke...out. IE yo mam's so black she went to nightschool and they marked her absent..... OUT This cr*p is so unlimited as to what rights of ours it overruns on. Imagine this: a message posted appeals to 34,000 people that read it. 1 person is offended..complains.. Same thing happens again. The person's user access is cancelled. BS? You decide. My opinion is evident =-}

1 0

Re: Leahy vs. Landers
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 25 Jun 96 at 17:58, John Young quoted Ann Landers: > ... The > Internet is tailor-made for con men, the lonely and the > bored. The word from here is beware. More on this subject > tomorrow. Gee? Is that why the DoD created ARPANet? To help con men (well, there's the $200 hammers, er "multivariable handheld impact devices") and all of those lonely gronks based on ships and bases in B.F.E... Seriously though...

1 0

Re: AT&T bans anonymous messages
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:02 AM 6/26/96, Intense wrote: >On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, Rich Graves wrote: > >> given username. If you send a message traceable to AT&T, they are held >> accountable. I think it's reasonable for them to demand that you make >> messages traceable to yourself so that you are held accountable. > >Under the common carrier law, i do not think that would apply I agree that ISPs are unlikely to be held liable for messages passing through their systems, but not because they have been determined to be "common carriers." So far as I know, no ISP has been so classified. (I'm not even sure what is involved in being classified as a common carrier. Perhaps someone out there knows about these matters.) However, it seems to me that the "Electronic Communications Privacy Act," the ECPA, gives an ISP a good defense. The ECPA forbids the interception of electronic mail (usual caveats about special exceptions), and so an ISP ostensibly is not supposed to be reading e-mail messages. Thus, an ISP would seem to have a pretty good defense in court, claiming that the ECPA explicitly precluded it from seeing what users were saying in e-mail. (But I am not a lawyer, and it would not surprise me at all if an ISP is someday held liable, despite the ECPA. "You can't read the mail, but you're still responsible. You should have known. Or at least we can go after you and shut you down.") --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

CIA Fears UmpTeen InfoNukes
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The New York Times, June 26, 1996, p. B7. Head of C.I.A. Plans Center To Protect Federal Computers By Tim Weiner Washington, June 25 -- Alarmed at the growing threat that computer hackers pose to national security, the Director of Central Intelligence today announced plans to create a "cyberwar" center to protect the bits and bytes that weave the nation together. The United States cannot be brought to its knees by a madman with a modem. But the Director, John M. Deutch, said the nation's intelligence agencies were alert to the threat of "very, very large" attacks on the computers that run Defense Department war rooms, power plants, telephone systems, air traffic control centers and international financial transfers. "The electron," Mr. Deutch warned, "is the ultimate precision-guided weapon." Mr. Deutch said he was seeking to create a cyberwar center at the National Security Agency, the giant electronic eavesdropping branch of American intelligence. He said the center could focus the Government's previously scattershot efforts to understand and combat the threats posed by governments, terrorist groups and mischievous teen-agers. Mr. Deutch's first public statement about information warfare came in testimony before Senator Sam Nunn, the Georgia Democrat who called a hearing of a Senate Governmental Affairs subcommittee to discuss the little-understood, highly classified problem. "There are some who believe we are going to have to have an electronic Pearl Harbor, so to speak, before we really make this the kind of priority that many of us believe it deserves to be made," Mr. Nunn said. "Do you think we're going to need that kind of real awakening, or are we fully alerted to this danger now?" Mr. Deutch replied: "I think that we are fully alerted to it now. I don't know whether we will face an electronic Pearl Harbor, but we will have, I'm sure, some very unpleasant circumstances." He added, "I'm certainly prepared to predict some very, very large and uncomfortable incidents." Mr. Deutch said cyberwar could become a 21st-century national security threat second only to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Potential attackers may already possess the sophisticated techniques they would need to bring off a cataclysmic crash, many experts believe, but they still lack the deep knowledge of their targets and direct access to the computer systems they would seek to disable. Military and civilian organizations are increasingly dependent on evermore complicated and interlinked systems. They run the risk of understanding the threat less and less as it becomes more and more complex Mr. Nunn and Mr. Deutch suggested. Senator Nunn also said intelligence agencies have communications problems with banks, telecommunications companies and other business ventures vulnerable to cyber attacks. "There's a great reluctance by the private sector to discuss the threat that they've faced or even the attacks that have already occurred," he said, "because they fear that the word would go out they're vulnerable, and therefore could destroy or damage consumer confidence and thereby cost them business." "At some point," the Senator added, "there's got to be communication here." [End]

4 3

TWP on CIA Info Gears
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The latter part of this article elaborates the NYT report today. The Washington Post, June 26, 1996, p. A19. CIA Gears Up to Thwart 'Information Attacks' Deutch Lists Computer Break-Ins, Terrorism as High-Priority Potential Threats to National Security By R. Jeffrey Smith CIA director John M. Deutch warned yesterday that the country is likely to experience some a very large and uncomfortable" disruptions of vital computer systems at the hands of foreign terrorists or hostile nations in coming years, but pledged a major new U.S. effort to detect and combat the threat of computer break-ins. "We have evidence that a number of countries around the world are developing the doctrine, strategies, and tools to conduct information attacks" on military-related computers, Deutch told a hearing of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, while declining to name these nations. Deutch added that he is convinced that foreigners are becoming increasingly aware "that advanced societies, especially the United States, are increasingly dependent on open and potentially vulnerable" computers to control electric power, airplane traffic, telecommunications and financial operations -- posing an attractive target for virtually "any nation or foreign terrorist organization." Emphasizing that the Clinton administration has just begun to grasp the dangers involved and begin working on the problem, Deutch said "we are not well-organized as a government to address these issues" and cautioned that making vital computers much less vulnerable to attack may take decades. "The electron is the ultimate precision-guided weapon," Deutch said, but "it is not [a problem about] which it's absolutely apparent ... the best way to proceed." Deutch said he nonetheless had already drawn up plans to create an office at the National Security Agency to be called the Information Warfare Technology Center, which will focus on analyzing the risks that foreign hackers pose to U.S. computers and help create new methods of investigating and defending the U.S. against electronic break-ins. Deutch also said that he supports creating a "real-time response center" for any major domestic or foreign attacks against civilian computers under the supervision of the Justice Department, as well as a separate, Defense Department center for responding to attacks on military-related computers. Deutch disclosed that the intelligence community conducted an extensive survey last year of the risks of an attack on computers controlling U.S. telephones, the electric power grid, oil refineries and other utilities. He said the results are classified, but added that a new, broader estimate of the threat is to be completed by December. He also said the intelligence community has begun to hunt more diligently for evidence of any foreign intent to attack U.S. computers, any sign of foreign sponsorship for U.S.-based computer hacking activities, and for any indication that foreign organized crime figures are becoming involved in attacks on computers at U.S. financial institutions. The Defense Intelligence Agency, moreover, is trying to develop a way to predict a major "information warfare attack" against the United States, Deutch said. One obstacle is that banks and other private institutions have been reluctant to divulge any evidence of computer intrusions for fear that it will leak and erode the confidence of their customers. Deutch said "the situation is improving" but that more cooperation was needed from major corporations, and said the CIA remains willing to share information with such firms about the risks they might face. Although he declined to cite any specific examples of computer warfare, Deutch said he would list it as the second most worrisome threat to U.S. national security -- just below the threat posed by foreign chemical, nuclear, and biological arms. In answer to a question from Senator Sam Nunn (D Ga.) about whether the government was aware of the danger, Deutch said, "I don't know whether we will face an electronic Pearl Harbor, but we will have, I'm sure, some very unpleasant circumstances in this area or our allies will.... I'm certainly prepared to predict some very, very large and uncomfortable incidents in this area." [End] Final notice: Wash Post on the Web at: http://www.washingtonpost.com

1 0

Re: domain name zapping threat by Internic
by Herr Wendigo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- An entity claiming to be Bill Stewart wrote: : : Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point. Because the root nameservers : provide name service for the top level domains, if you want to find : schmoe.org, you need to ask a nameserver for .org where it is, and to find : www.schmoe.org, you need to ask a nameserver for .org where to find a : primary or secondary nameserver for schmoe.org - so if the .org folks : decide to drop you, you become hard to reach, even if you've got : the primary and secondary name servers working just fine. The org. folks ARE the InterNIC. The machines on ROOT-SERVERS.NET are all fed by the NIC. My problem with the original statement was the implication that using your own nameserver as having zone authority was a bad idea. Not only is it a good idea, it is standard operating procedure. You're absolutely right about being "hard to reach" (a bit understated) if the NIC drops your record. Any recursive lookups will fail. : Now, you can improve your odds a bit by getting popular systems, such as : aol.com and compuserve.com to act as secondary nameservers for you - : you may lose connectivity to Europe, but you're in the cache for half : the Net that way... Well, if you decide to use AOL as your secondary, you will only be accessible (by name) outside of aol.com for about 48 hours after the NIC drops your records. After that, only users who use one of aol.com's name servers will be able to access your domain. Then, when someone else registers your domain, AOL will probably drop you like a bad habit (if they don't when the NIC drops you). I'm sure that AOL (or Compuserve, etc.) are not too keen on being the odd man out when the NIC and the rest of the world say XYZ.COM is owned by your competitor and AOL says it is owned by you. mark - -- Mark Rogaski | Why read when you can just sit and | Member GTI System Admin | stare at things? | Programmers Local wendigo(a)gti.net | Any expressed opinions are my own | # 0xfffe wendigo(a)pobox.com | unless they can get me in trouble. | APL-CPIO -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMdFpaQ0HmAyu61cJAQEn+AP/Ttiw04EyeEQ4/6K19ZqXAbOui+zZ+fmu t/RJJGL834E/8yWB3xmbAmltDR+/V5T679iBUtw8Q+0CQEZOWwXeguRriILyabMn XRFdCP8+Cw5zvrz12BtIKYHCm4o9MG7or3BBbP3iHSF1ia6n2eMPwjRiaKrlqBYm Gqv9lThaoqU= =LD// -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: RFD: Developing Nations and crypto (based on excertp from Edupag
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:57 AM 6/26/96, Deranged Mutant wrote: >An interesting possibility: information tech expands and 'centers' in >third-world/developing countries, since (1) they need to skip >industrial techs to catch up to N.America, Europe, etc. (2) they >aren't bogged down in older ways of doing business, communicating, >etc. (3) 'emerging democracies' might embrace crypto tech as a >safeguard against Orwellian practices, to use digital authentication >to protect from fraud, etc. (4) cheaper costs for rent, wages, etc. >[though in many cases exploitavily cheap] may outweigh building an >infrastructure from scratch, (5) building an infrastructure from >scratch has advantages of building in flexibility towards uses that >were not built into older structures in N.Am, Eur., etc. (6) desire >for investment (7) desire for skills or tech to drive education etc. >in region Sadly, most developing countries (Third World, LDCs, whatever) have repressive governments of various stripes...few are libertarian. Several have embraced computer technology, but primarily as an instrument of social control. Singapore is an example of a country that jumped from former colonial status, surrounded by relatively poor (GNP) countries, to the "Information Age." And what is the result? What our own Sandy Sandfort dubbed "Disneyland with a Death Penalty." No spitting, no cursing, no long hair, no "Wall Street Journal," no pornography, no Internet free access, no dissension. And smartcards track the movements of all Citizen-Units. Not an encouraging example. As for the comment that "they aren't bogged down in older ways of doing business, communicating, etc." Well, some of these "older ways" include: - concepts about the ownership of property and transfers of title - contracts, and the ability to make and enforce them - understanding of the Uniform Commercial Code (the descendent of the "Law Merchant" which Western societies have embraced for centuries) - a stable middle class, solid educational facilities, and a tradition of business and technical achievement (These are all things which are missing in many Third World countries, for whatever reasons. Even in many Second World countries, such as the former U.S.S.R., and these lacks are making the development of modern economic systems problematic.) Certainly some small nations--perhaps island nations--can essentially jump directly to an "information based economy." The Cayman Islands and several other examples come to mind. I find it harder to believe that a _large_ nation is likely to make such a transition. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: CIA Fears UmpTeen InfoNukes
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike sez: [..] : By the way, there was a thing in the Yahoo/Reuters feed about "attacks" : on DoD computers; apparently British police arrested a "hacker" the : other day. Anyway, the article included a claim that there have been : 250,000 attempted break-ins on DoD computers over the past year. : Does anybody know how they count that? 'telnet nsa.gov 25' and you will be added to the count .... -- -AJ-

2 1