On Wed, 11 Jan 1995, Samuel Kaplin wrote (about FBI interest in BlackNet)

...

I hope they took you someplace nice for lunch...You might want to file a FOI request on yourself, just to see how much they censor. ;) They might think you're the ringleader, after all the FBI doesn't buy peons lunch. ;)

For the benifit of myself and the list, how would you go about doing that?

Also would be useful to know the equivalent procedures for Canada, UK, etc. Filing such a request would probably get a file opened on you, too, but so what? The more these files fill up with innocent people the more useless they get. Perhaps everyone ought to sign up their granny to receive the Loompanics catalog or 2600, as a way to generate noise. Regarding BlackNet, I am not sure that they are not *run* by the FBI, or NSA, or CIA, MI6, Interpol, or some more mysterious quasi-governmental entity. Such agencies must realize that traffic in secrets is possible, inevitable, and would probably love to put themselves first in line to buy. Think of the value: embarrass rival agencies, identify leaks (if not sources), raise funds for clandestine operations through resale or blackmail, etc. Security agencies have often engaged in smuggling as a form of entrapment, and/or fundraising; Consider Iran-Contra as a recent high-level example. The mandate to trap offenders in a 'sting' also provides a handy alibi to excuse such operations if they are ever exposed. Citizens have no such protections. Even a record of successful dealings with BlackNet would mean little. If it were run by, say, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Commission, then presumably it would purchase non-nuclear secrets at high prices to build up credibility. When a nuclear secret was offered for sale it would spare no expense to find the source. In fact the 'highest bidder' for a secret would often be the embarrassed/enraged agency responsible for preventing its leak. At the very least such agencies could be expected to deal secretly with the BlackNets... why search out a secret yourself if you can buy it on the 'open' market? Craig Hubley Business that runs on knowledge Craig Hubley & Associates needs software that runs on the Web craig@passport.ca 416-778-6136 416-778-1965 FAX

On Tue, 17 Jan 1995, Craig Hubley (I) wrote:

...

Regarding BlackNet, I am not sure that they are not *run* by the FBI, or NSA, or CIA, MI6, Interpol, or some more mysterious quasi-governmental entity.

The more I think about it the more this theory makes sense. I know how they _could_ have traced me but this doesn't explain all their other "leads" they are following up on and he seemed to imply there were many.

...

...

...

Not to mention entrapment is their MO. <<<

What do you say we put the word out?

Mixed feelings. On the one hand, I am starting to believe in this theory more and more. On the other hand, I think that having a BlackNet run by security agencies is actually a stabilizing thing to some degree: those who are foolish enough to deal with unknown parties with unknown interests in arbitrary secrets with petty motives will generally become neutralized. For instance, those who sell 2000 credit card numbers or 500 broken Digital Cash Card readouts (is this possible) can be paid or prosecuted at leisure. In either case, such folks will find more and more security holes plugged as they clearly identify where they are for the security agencies... this would prevent a general crackdown on cryptography etc., effectively the security agencies would have learned to work 'within the new realities'. I suspect targets might be less likely to be chosen by police discretion, and more likely to be chosen for their threat value, if they required less (discretionary) effort to investigate in the first place. Note that some laws, like small scale marijuana growing, often go unenforced unless there is a specific complaint or hard evidence is directly presented to police. In the 'BlackNet sting', such a flow of evidence would be constantly on its way in to the police, probably forcing them into more of a reactive mode, and definitely focusing their attention on those actively peddling secrets as opposed to those just trying to keep them. Not too bad for privacy. Furthermore, the flow of truly scary secrets flowing their way might make them ration their effort to plug leaks of high priority: nuclear weapon design, biological warfare blueprints, formulae for putting necrotizing fascitis into the common cold protein coat, 'gray goo' nanotechnology... and other things that constitute serious threats to life on this planet. This might probably divert effort away from prosecuting 'victimless crime', enhancing civil liberties. For once such agencies might be 'doing their job'. If indeed they have any legitimate job, which is always up for debate. Of course they will also engage in petty prosecution of those who they perceive are acting against their narrow interests, but all organisms act to preserve and advance themselves... this comes and goes with their leaders (J. Edgar Hoover, William Casey come to mind as good/bad examples) who hopefully turn over with the tide of politics, minimizing the abuses in the long run. Of course this is little consolation to those they target. Systematic abuses might be more easily revealed by 'whistleblowers' if there were a clear record kept 'inside' of which leads were followed and which not. Blow the whistle? Sure, we could. But what difference does it make? If no one trusts BlackNets, then the security agencies just take a different route to building up credibility for a 'sting', using more private means, or many such more private means, and again we increase their discretionary powers as they decide where to devote effort to building up a reputation (hmm do we target Columbian druglords? biohackers? breakaway republics? cryptographers?) and thereby where to concentrate enforcement. Perhaps by blowing a whistle on a 'BlackNet sting' we simply force them to evolve to more devious methods, that require more planning, and costs more (thus maybe reducing their overall activity - although history says otherwise) but in the long run is even more directed by the interest/prejudice of leaders. It may be that the simpler and more reactive the methods they apply, the better. It is largely premeditated human scheming that starts wars, isn't it? Not simple knee jerks. Perhaps others believe otherwise, but not really an issue for debate in cypherpunks. Perhaps it is better to co-opt agencies by giving them a reason to adopt the cryptographer's agenda. It's got to be cheaper and easier for them to sit and buy secrets than it is to go out and dig them up themselves... and cryptography generally advances that capability as folks feel safe using it to transmit secrets electronically. Of course the idea that black nets must be a sting is speculation, but it would hardly be the first time that security agencies and those that they officially target had developed a symbiotic relationship. Here in Canada it was recently revealed that CSIS (the 'Canadian CIA') had been actively involved in the founding of the Heritage Front, a neo-Nazi group. In fact one of their leaders was an agent! Interestingly, this appears to be a more effective/cheaper way to control a large group of otherwise dangerous people - if they want to follow a leader, let them! Just make sure the leader is someone you control and you can prevent things from getting too far out of hand. Which is the only time that CSIS or the CIA should be stepping in anyway. It is sort of a pre-emptive strike and not at all 'politically correct' in a liberal democracy, but they do it anyway. That's life. And maybe it's easier to keep an eye on simple forms of life. Craig Hubley Business that runs on knowledge Craig Hubley & Associates needs software that runs on the Web craig@passport.ca 416-778-6136 416-778-1965 FAX

On Jan 12, 11:05pm, Samuel Kaplin wrote:

Fill out this form letter, get it notarized and send it to the address in the letterhead. Be prepared to wait and get jerked around. I have heard that some FOI requests have taken as long as two years to get back.

Although the FBI only have juristiction within the US, it is quite possible that they would have files containing information about non-US nationals if they were involved (perhaps even peripherally) in domestic FBI investigations. I wonder what would happen if a non-US citizen logged an FOI request? Has anyone ever tried? Ian.