- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Corporate e-mail policy
by Rick Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

George Kuzmowycz wrote: : The company I work for has set up a committee to draft a security : policy involving, among other things, e-mail. Since I'm responsible : for our networking and e-mail, I'm part of this group. Unfortunately, : I'm outnumbered by legal, auditing and HR types who, basically, want : to have access to everything. First, figure out what *your* objective is. You can't achieve e-mail privacy by implementing some idealized policy that says "Our company won't snoop into e-mail." It is the obligation of corporate functionaries to act in the corporation's best interest, and if that includes violating the privacy policy (as opposed to civil or criminal statutes) then it's going to happen. If you write it into one policy, they'll just find a different one that they can apply to override it. As you pointed out, the courts agree with this interpretation. Let us focus on what we *can* fix. You can make things better if you write the policy to reduce the risk of abuse. Nip this nonsense about "access to everything" in the bud. For example, the policy could provide oversight by requiring approvals from affected people (the victim's manager if not the actual victim). Then, access is granted to the victim's files and not to all the files. Even if auditors want to do "random audit" of e-mail, they don't really need "access to everything" to achieve it. They can randomly select messages somehow and only get readable copies after the messages are selected. You'd probably find lots of support for a more measured policy like this. For example, mail from the CEO or the head of the Audit department shouldn't be an open book just because Joe Blow from Audit is "auditing e-mail today." Also, your policymakers might think about the issues raised by the recent skit, "FBI Files on Republicans Stored in the Democratic White House." If they demand unlimited access to e-mail files, they might be held responsible for making use of information contained therein simply because they *could* have read them. Rick. smith(a)sctc.com secure computing corporation

1 0

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: [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

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: FAA to require transponders on all aircraft passengers
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:21 PM 8/3/96, David Lesher wrote: >They are going to hang one of these on EVERY bag? > >At what per-unit cost? > >It's all the airlines can do to get barcode labels on each piece >that geos by, much less even a credit-card-sized gadget. And how >many will they lose??? > >THEN think of the RFI problems..... It turns out that I'm one of the early investors in a start-up company developing a very similar product, albeit (we hope) with some technological advantages. Lucky Green, for one, has met the principals in this company and can confirm what I'm saying. (I began working with them, and investing, several years ago. It was partly the long-term implications of their ideas which triggered my proposal a few years back: the "position escrow system." Under position escrow, citizen-units would voluntarily escrow their positions for access by authorized law enforcement officers, dietary compliance agents, social workers, and other interested officials. The system is voluntary, as key escrow is voluntary, in that it only applies when people leave their houses and use the public streets; they are of course free not to leave their houses, and hence not to voluntarily escrow their movements.) I heard about the Micron-FAA deal on CNN, and went to the Micron Web site for details. It's a spread-spectrum system, so it may well work in a luggage environment (though perhaps not as well as the units planned by the company I'm an investor in). The "every bag" point is feasible, though I would assume conventional luggage tags would work adequately. "Per-unit" costs could be low enough....these units will be reused many times, after all. The RFI problems are actually the least of the concerns, given the "code space" technology which is possible. (That is, tens of thousands of transponders can share the same RF spectrum in a local environment by allocation of frequencies or, even better, by using code space allocation...there are some close parallels with cryptography, of course, as there are in communications technology and spread-spectrum technology in general.) Personally, I'm not convinced that the Micron-FAA deal with accomplish much, but the authorities are rushing to "do something," so struggling Micron may get some of the largesse. (Besides, "bag escrow" will allow other agencies--such as DEA--to sniff bags for traces of cocaine residue and then automatically issue arrest orders for the citizen-unit associated with the bag. The surveillance state needs technology like this.) --Tim May 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: More to be paranoid about...
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:14 PM 8/3/96 -0700, you wrote: >Take a look at: > http://www.spiritone.com/cgi-bin/plates >Feed it an Oregon licence plate number and it will feed you back all sorts >of info about the person/victim. It's interesting to know that Senator Hatfield's wife's birthday is 1/17/29, and that the title to the car is held with a security interest by the US SENATE EMPLOYEES FEDERAL CREDIT, and that (at least) Social Security Numbers weren't listed for the plates I checked. Also that, unlike many states, the Governor doesn't have License Plate #1. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Defuse Authority!

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

BOO_mer
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

8-2-96. WaJo: "More Bombs Are Exploding Across the U.S." What also worries law-enforcement officials are the comparatively unspectacular bombs exploding at a rising rate in neighborhoods across the country. Indeed, with homicides declining, bombings may have become the fastest-growing category of violent crime. "In the old days, kids would break windows," says John O'Brien, an agent in Washington with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. "Now, they're making pipe bombs." Police say one of the most popular bombs among youths -- one combining acid and other ingredients in a bottle -- is called the "McGyver" because many learned about it from the television show. David Estenson, head of a bomb-crisis management firm and former head of the Minneapolis police bomb squad, observes that many of the pipe bombs in Israel contain only match heads. "U.S. Studies Use of Chemical Tracers To Track Explosives in Terrorist Blasts." The Treasury Department is studying a family of trace chemicals -- first developed by U.S. weapons scientists to track the fallout of nuclear weapons -- as a way to give terrorist explosives an identifiable trail. The trace chemicals are newer and much smaller than plastic "taggants," which have provoked resistance from the explosives industry and gun lobbies. Desmonde Cowdery, vice president of Isotag L.L.C., a small Houston company that has obtained commercial rights to the process, claims the chemical tracers are so small they can be blended with all types of explosives, including fertilizers and gunpowders, without interfering with chemical reactions. "Can America Stomach a War on Terror?" The lessons from the world's battlefields of terror are sobering. Not only have few countries been able to make much of a dent in a determined terrorist campaign, but their efforts also often incur a heavy price. Due-process rights have been suspended, freedoms of speech curtailed, police powers beefed up. Tommy Sands, a Belfast folk singer, praises America's caution. He says that in Northern Ireland and other hot spots, authorities have often overreacted to the initial threat. "It's like driving a car and seeing a red light come on that means you're short on oil. If you take a hammer to it, the red light will go out, but you're still short on oil," Mr. Sands says. "Sometimes there are answers other than the big hammer." ----- http://jya.com/boomer.txt (19 kb for 3) Lynx: http://pwp.usa.pipeline.com/~jya/boomer.txt BOO_mer

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 15:23:23 -0700 > From: shamrock(a)netcom.com (Lucky Green) > Subject: Re: [off-topic] roving wiretaps > > 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. ARTICLE IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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. I must agree with the above sentiment by Lucky. When Steve Jackson got busted (I was peripheraly involved through Mentor and Bloodaxe) and the warrant was not only sealed (ie Mentor and Bloodaxe didn't get to see it) but it was unsigned as well when it was executed. Jim Choate

1 0