from fas: ASSASSINATION POLITICS In a new bill introduced in the House of Representatives on January 3, Rep. Bob Barr proposed to eliminate the longstanding official prohibition against assassination. Executive Order 12333, issued by President Reagan and currently in effect, dictates that "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." This restates similar prohibitions issued by the Ford and Carter Administrations. According to Rep. Barr, however, "These Executive orders limit the swift, sure, and precise action needed by the United States to protect our national security." Rep. Barr did not indicate exactly who he wants the Government to assassinate. His bill does say, encouragingly, that assassination "is a remedy which should be used sparingly." Moral considerations aside, the consensus of opinion among mainstream politicians of both parties has always been that the United States has more to lose than to gain by legitimizing assassination. The text of the new bill, dubbed "The Terrorist Elimination Act of 2001," was posted by John Young on his outstanding site cryptome.org here: http://cryptome.org/hr19.txt ******************************
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
from fas:
ASSASSINATION POLITICS
In a new bill introduced in the House of Representatives on January 3, Rep. Bob Barr proposed to eliminate the longstanding official prohibition against assassination.
Maybe this article is closer to fact than we realize: http://www.theonion.com/onion3701/bush_nightmare.html alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply Alan Olsen | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys. "In the future, everything will have its 15 minutes of blame."
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
from fas:
ASSASSINATION POLITICS
In a new bill introduced in the House of Representatives on January 3, Rep. Bob Barr proposed to eliminate the longstanding official prohibition against assassination.
Ew, ick. This seems to be devolving to the level of "Fear and Loathing". Don't these clowns realize where political assassination goes once it gets started? Do they just not read history books? I guess the thing is, there's not only the traditional pitfalls... In a world with widespread anonymous communication, there are scads of new pitfalls, too. None of which makes assassination look like a good idea. Bear
on 1/18/01 1:59 PM, Ray Dillinger at bear@sonic.net wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
from fas:
ASSASSINATION POLITICS
In a new bill introduced in the House of Representatives on January 3, Rep. Bob Barr proposed to eliminate the longstanding official prohibition against assassination.
Ew, ick.
This seems to be devolving to the level of "Fear and Loathing".
Don't these clowns realize where political assassination goes once it gets started? Do they just not read history books?
I guess the thing is, there's not only the traditional pitfalls... In a world with widespread anonymous communication, there are scads of new pitfalls, too. None of which makes assassination look like a good idea.
Bear
Obviously, they are wanting to take care of the Iraq issue........
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
from fas:
ASSASSINATION POLITICS
In a new bill introduced in the House of Representatives on January 3, Rep. Bob Barr proposed to eliminate the longstanding official prohibition against assassination.
Ew, ick.
This seems to be devolving to the level of "Fear and Loathing".
Don't these clowns realize where political assassination goes once it gets started? Do they just not read history books?
I don't know, maybe it will thin the herd a little bit. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** "As someone who has worked both in private industry and in academia, whenever I hear about academics wanting to teach ethics to people in business, I want to puke."--Thomas Sowell.
http://www.spammimic.com/encode.cgi supposedly encodes your short messages as imitation spam, postings designed to fail content filtering & so (the author claims) bypass Echelon. Hmmm. Whoever put the site up doesn't seem to have a clear distinction between cryptography, stenography & obfuscation. Does everyone have to reinvent the wheel every time? Are we going to go through it all *again* with mobile phone text messages? It seems to be a version of Peter Wayner's bumf generator from way back when: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/11.71.html#subj2 (Which has a very funny bit in the style of a Neil Kinnock speech - maybe you have to be in the Labour Party to get it...) I don't think it is going to cause NSA any headaches. What chance do they have of knowing about a method which has only been described in Byte and on Risks? Presumably if you identify a posting as having been through Mimic & you can get enough text to recover the model you can retrieve plaintext reasonably easily - so the secure use should be based on ciphertext, not plaintext & perhaps would avoid using models freely available on the web. (there was some discussion on similar stuff on coderpunks & cypherpunks a few years back) http://privacy.nb.ca/cryptography/archives/coderpunks/new/1998-03/0214.html But it generates mildly amusing parodies of spam. Not as good as the Neil Kinnock though. Ken Brown "You will shortly be in communication with Otis" translates to: Dear E-Commerce professional , Your email address has been submitted to us indicating your interest in our briefing . If you are not interested in our publications and wish to be removed from our lists, simply do NOT respond and ignore this mail . This mail is being sent in compliance with Senate bill 2516 , Title 1 , Section 303 . This is not multi-level marketing ! Why work for somebody else when you can become rich within 16 DAYS ! Have you ever noticed people love convenience and nearly every commercial on television has a .com on in it . Well, now is your chance to capitalize on this ! We will help you deliver goods right to the customer's doorstep & deliver goods right to the customer's doorstep ! You can begin at absolutely no cost to you ! But don't believe us ! Ms Ames of Alabama tried us and says "I was skeptical but it worked for me" ! We are a BBB member in good standing ! We BESEECH you - act now ! Sign up a friend and you get half off ! Thank-you for your serious consideration of our offer ! Dear Decision maker , This letter was specially selected to be sent to you . We will comply with all removal requests . This mail is being sent in compliance with Senate bill 1621 , Title 1 , Section 306 ! THIS IS NOT MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING . Why work for somebody else when you can become rich in 80 weeks ! Have you ever noticed people will do almost anything to avoid mailing their bills & society seems to be moving faster and faster . Well, now is your chance to capitalize on this ! We will help you turn your business into an E-BUSINESS plus turn your business into an E-BUSINESS . You can begin at absolutely no cost to you ! But don't believe us . Mr Simpson of New Mexico tried us and says "I was skeptical but it worked for me" ! We are a BBB member in good standing ! If not for you then for your loved ones - act now ! Sign up a friend and you get half off ! Thanks ! Dear Friend , Especially for you - this red-hot announcement ! We will comply with all removal requests . This mail is being sent in compliance with Senate bill 1816 ; Title 4 ; Section 309 ! THIS IS NOT A GET RICH SCHEME ! Why work for somebody else when you can become rich within 61 MONTHS ! Have you ever noticed people love convenience and nearly every commercial on television has a .com on in it . Well, now is your chance to capitalize on this ! We will help you turn your business into an E-BUSINESS & SELL MORE . You are guaranteed to succeed because we take all the risk . But don't believe us ! Ms Anderson who resides in Utah tried us and says "My only problem now is where to park all my cars" ! This offer is 100% legal ! Because the Internet operates on "Internet time" you must hurry . Sign up a friend and you get half off . Thanks ! Dear Friend ; You made the right decision when you signed up for our directory . If you no longer wish to receive our publications simply reply with a Subject: of "REMOVE" and you will immediately be removed from our directory ! This mail is being sent in compliance with Senate bill 1624 , Title 1 , Section 307 ! THIS IS NOT A GET RICH SCHEME . Why work for somebody else when you can become rich in 48 MONTHS ! Have you ever noticed how long the line-ups are at bank machines and nearly every commercial on television has a .com on in it ! Well, now is your chance to capitalize on this ! WE will help YOU turn your business into an E-BUSINESS plus use credit cards on your website . You can begin at absolutely no cost to you . But don't believe us ! Mr Ames who resides in Nebraska tried us and says "Now I'm rich, Rich, RICH" . We are licensed to operate in all states ! For the sake of your family order now ! Sign up a friend and you get half off . Thank-you for your serious consideration of our offer !
At 11:47 AM 1/19/01 +0000, Ken Brown wrote:
http://www.spammimic.com/encode.cgi supposedly encodes your short messages as imitation spam, postings designed to fail content filtering & so (the author claims) bypass Echelon. Hmmm. Whoever put the site up doesn't seem to have a clear distinction between cryptography, stenography & obfuscation. Does everyone have to reinvent the wheel every time? Are we going to go through it all *again* with mobile phone text messages?
You're missing the point - it's intended as a steganography system, and like most such, it won't stop somebody who has the same system from destegoing it, but it will stop or substantially reduce the likelihood of Echelon or similar keyword systems from snarfing it. (You could also do a terrorist-mimic version* if you want to _increase_ the chances of Echelon picking it up.) Of course if you need security, you need to stego cyphertext only. The web site probably should emphasize this, but you can always paste in PGP output. (Obviously you'd really want to run the code on your own machine and those of your unindicted co-conspirators, and use custom grammars.) I have a friend who could have really used a program like this a few years ago - he was working in Ethiopia, and he had enough trouble keeping the local kleptocrats from stealing his computers "they don't run without the passwords, so you can't resell them" and the phone company yelled at him for making phone calls in Dutch, which their eavesdroppers couldn't understand; French or Italian or English would have been ok if he wasn't using a local language. We got him a copy of PGP, but he didn't feel safe using it.
It seems to be a version of Peter Wayner's bumf generator from way back when: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/11.71.html#subj2
I think it _was_ Peter Wayner who posted it - this is an implementation of his "mimic functions" paper from some years ago.
(Which has a very funny bit in the style of a Neil Kinnock speech - maybe you have to be in the Labour Party to get it...)
My former Senator, Joe Biden, got caught for plagiarizing Kinnock once - it doesn't take a computer to generate bad speeches :-) Does anybody have a copy of the Dilbert cartoon where Dilbert's written a "Pointy-Haired-Boss-Speak" version of this? ~~~~~~~ Semtex Escobar Cocaine Radio Echelon TEMPEST Pablo Assassinate Semtex Semtex W Osama's Radio Directionfinding ~~~~~~ Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
Ken Brown wrote:
& so (the author claims) bypass Echelon. Hmmm. Whoever put the site up doesn't seem to have a clear distinction between cryptography, stenography & obfuscation. Does everyone have to reinvent the wheel every time? Are we going to go through it all *again* with mobile phone text messages?
unlikely. 160 chars doesn't leave much room for a stego message.
I don't think it is going to cause NSA any headaches. What chance do they have of knowing about a method which has only been described in Byte and on Risks? Presumably if you identify a posting as having been through Mimic & you can get enough text to recover the model you can retrieve plaintext reasonably easily -
it would probably be much cheaper and reliable to either infiltrate or black job the company.
At 12:19 PM 1/18/01 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
According to Rep. Barr, however, "These Executive orders limit the swift, sure, and precise action needed by the United States to protect our national security."
Rep. Barr did not indicate exactly who he wants the Government to assassinate. His bill does say, encouragingly, that assassination "is a remedy which should be used sparingly."
It's obviously to prevent another Clinton administration, just as it was used to prevent various Kennedy administrations :-) Also takes care of any lingering Gore recount problems. Constitutionally, before you assassinate someone, you have to propery indict the target and hold a trial in which he or she is present, has a lawyer available, and is allowed to question the witnesses and appeal whether any sentence of death is cruel or unusual punishment. _Then_ you can sneak up on them and kill them, or poison their cigars, or give them an Israeli cellphone or a Ford Pinto. "You can't arrest him, he's a Sovereign" "So declare war on him" "That's a dumb move against someone with nuclear weapons" Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com> wrote:
Constitutionally, before you assassinate someone, you have to propery indict the target and hold a trial in which he or she is present, has a lawyer available, and is allowed to question the witnesses and appeal whether any sentence of death is cruel or unusual punishment. _Then_ you can sneak up on them and kill them, or poison their cigars, or give them an Israeli cellphone or a Ford Pinto.
Isn't it easier to just give Israel some more military supplies to help them defend themselves from Palestinians throwing rocks and, oh, by the way, could you have the Mossad take care of so-and-so? :-) -- Riad Wahby rsw@mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 5105
Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com> wrote:
Constitutionally, before you assassinate someone, you have to propery indict the target and hold a trial in which he or she is present, has a lawyer available, and is allowed to question the witnesses and appeal whether any sentence of death is cruel or unusual punishment. _Then_ you can sneak up on them and kill them, or poison their cigars, or give them an Israeli cellphone or a Ford Pinto.
Isn't it easier to just give Israel some more military supplies to help them defend themselves from Palestinians throwing rocks and, oh, by the way, could you have the Mossad take care of so-and-so? :-) -- Riad Wahby rsw@mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 5105
participants (10)
-
Alan Olsen -
Bill Stewart -
Bryan Green -
Declan McCullagh -
Ken Brown -
petro -
Ray Dillinger -
Riad S. Wahby -
Riad S. Wahby
-
Tom