November 2013 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

[IP] NSA report
by Eugen Leitl 23 Nov '13

23 Nov '13

----- Forwarded message from Dave Farber <dave(a)farber.net> ----- Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 14:56:20 -0500 From: Dave Farber <dave(a)farber.net> To: ip <ip(a)listbox.com> Subject: [IP] NSA report Message-ID: <CAKx4trhUOu7dOpsXqKO=JFWg6L9sCwKv1fqL-Dx1wwqmNMHBVQ(a)mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: dave(a)farber.net [image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/> ------------------------------ November 22, 2013 N.S.A. Report Outlined Goals for More PowerBy JAMES RISEN<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/james_risen/in…> and LAURA POITRAS WASHINGTON — Officials at the National Security Agency<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/nationa…>, intent on maintaining its dominance in intelligence collection, pledged last year to push to expand its surveillance powers, according to a top-secret strategy document. In a February 2012 paper<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/23/us/politics/23nsa-sigint-stra…> laying out the four-year strategy for the N.S.A.’s signals intelligence operations, which include the agency’s eavesdropping and communications data collection around the world, agency officials set an objective to “aggressively pursue legal authorities and a policy framework mapped more fully to the information age.” Written as an agency mission statement with broad goals, the five-page document said that existing American laws were not adequate to meet the needs of the N.S.A. to conduct broad surveillance in what it cited as “the golden age of Sigint,” or signals intelligence. “The interpretation and guidelines for applying our authorities, and in some cases the authorities themselves, have not kept pace with the complexity of the technology and target environments, or the operational expectations levied on N.S.A.’s mission,” the document concluded. Using sweeping language, the paper also outlined some of the agency’s other ambitions. They included defeating the cybersecurity practices of adversaries in order to acquire the data the agency needs from “anyone, anytime, anywhere.” The agency also said it would try to decrypt or bypass codes that keep communications secret by influencing “the global commercial encryption market through commercial relationships,” human spies and intelligence partners in other countries. It also talked of the need to “revolutionize” analysis of its vast collections of data to “radically increase operational impact.” The strategy document, provided by the former N.S.A. contractor Edward J. Snowden, was written at a time when the agency was at the peak of its powers and the scope of its surveillance operations was still secret. Since then, Mr. Snowden’s revelations have changed the political landscape. Prompted by a public outcry over the N.S.A.’s domestic operations, the agency’s critics in Congress have been pushing to limit, rather than expand, its ability to routinely collect the phone and email records of millions of Americans, while foreign leaders have protested reports of virtually unlimited N.S.A. surveillance overseas, even in allied nations. Several inquiries are underway in Washington; Gen. Keith B. Alexander, the N.S.A.’s longest-serving director, has announced plans to retire<http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/16/us-usa-nsa-transition-idUSBRE99F1…>; and the White House has offered proposals to disclose more information about the agency’s domestic surveillance activities. The N.S.A. document, titled “Sigint Strategy 2012-2016,” does not make clear what legal or policy changes the agency might seek. The N.S.A.’s powers are determined variously by Congress, executive orders and the nation’s secret intelligence court, and its operations are governed by layers of regulations. While asserting that the agency’s “culture of compliance” would not be compromised, N.S.A. officials argued that they needed more flexibility, according to the paper. Senior intelligence officials, responding to questions about the document, said that the N.S.A. believed that legal impediments limited its ability to conduct surveillance of terrorism suspects inside the United States. Despite an overhaul of national security law in 2008, the officials said, if a terrorism suspect who is under surveillance overseas enters the United States, the agency has to stop monitoring him until it obtains a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. “N.S.A.’s Sigint strategy is designed to guide investments in future capabilities and close gaps in current capabilities,” the agency said in a statement. “In an ever-changing technology and telecommunications environment, N.S.A. tries to get in front of issues to better fulfill the foreign-intelligence requirements of the U.S. government.” Critics, including some congressional leaders, say that the role of N.S.A. surveillance in thwarting terrorist attacks — often cited by the agency to justify expanded powers — has been exaggerated. In response to the controversy about its activities after Mr. Snowden’s disclosures, agency officials claimed that the N.S.A.’s sweeping domestic surveillance programs had helped in 54 “terrorist-related activities.” But under growing scrutiny, congressional staff members and other critics say that the use of such figures by defenders of the agency has drastically overstated the value of the domestic surveillance programs in counterterrorism. Agency leaders believe that the N.S.A. has never enjoyed such a target-rich environment as it does now because of the global explosion of digital information — and they want to make certain that they can dominate “the Sigint battle space” in the future, the document said. To be “optimally effective,” the paper said, “legal, policy and process authorities must be as adaptive and dynamic as the technological and operational advances we seek to exploit.” Intent on unlocking the secrets of adversaries, the paper underscores the agency’s long-term goal of being able to collect virtually everything available in the digital world. To achieve that objective, the paper suggests that the N.S.A. plans to gain greater access, in a variety of ways, to the infrastructure of the world’s telecommunications networks. Reports based on other documents previously leaked by Mr. Snowden showed that the N.S.A. has infiltrated the cable links<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/technology/nsa-is-mining-google-and-yahoo…> to Google and Yahoo data centers around the world, leading to protests from company executives and a growing backlash against the N.S.A. in Silicon Valley. Yet the paper also shows how the agency believes it can influence and shape trends in high-tech industries in other ways to suit its needs. One of the agency’s goals is to “continue to invest in the industrial base and drive the state of the art for high performance computing to maintain pre-eminent cryptanalytic capability for the nation.” The paper added that the N.S.A. must seek to “identify new access, collection and exploitation methods by leveraging global business trends in data and communications services.” And it wants to find ways to combine all of its technical tools to enhance its surveillance powers. The N.S.A. will seek to integrate its “capabilities to reach previously inaccessible targets in support of exploitation, cyberdefense and cyberoperations,” the paper stated. The agency also intends to improve its access to encrypted communications used by individuals, businesses and foreign governments, the strategy document said. The N.S.A. has already had some success in defeating encryption, The New York Times has reported<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsa-foils-much-internet-encryption.html>, but the document makes it clear that countering “ubiquitous, strong, commercial network encryption” is a top priority. The agency plans to fight back against the rise of encryption through relationships with companies that develop encryption tools and through espionage operations. In other countries, the document said, the N.S.A. must also “counter indigenous cryptographic programs by targeting their industrial bases with all available Sigint and Humint” — human intelligence, meaning spies. The document also mentioned a goal of integrating the agency’s eavesdropping and data collection systems into a national network of sensors that interactively “sense, respond and alert one another at machine speed.” Senior intelligence officials said that the system of sensors is designed to protect the computer networks of the Defense Department, and that the N.S.A. does not use data collected from Americans for the system. One of the agency’s other four-year goals was to “share bulk data” more broadly to allow for better analysis. While the paper does not explain in detail how widely it would disseminate bulk data within the intelligence community, the proposal raises questions about what safeguards the N.S.A. plans to place on its domestic phone and email data collection programs to protect Americans’ privacy. N.S.A. officials have insisted that they have placed tight controls on those programs. In an interview, the senior intelligence officials said that the strategy paper was referring to the agency’s desire to share foreign data more broadly, not phone logs of Americans collected under the Patriot Act<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/usa_patriot_…> . Above all, the strategy paper suggests the N.S.A.’s vast view of its mission: nothing less than to “dramatically increase mastery of the global network.” Other N.S.A. documents offer hints of how the agency is trying to do just that. One program, code-named Treasure Map, provides what a secret N.S.A. PowerPoint presentation describes as “a near real-time, interactive map of the global Internet.” According to the undated PowerPoint presentation, disclosed by Mr. Snowden, Treasure Map gives the N.S.A. “a 300,000 foot view of the Internet.” Relying on Internet routing data, commercial and Sigint information, Treasure Map is a sophisticated tool, one that the PowerPoint presentation describes as a “massive Internet mapping, analysis and exploration engine.” It collects Wi-Fi network and geolocation data, and between 30 million and 50 million unique Internet provider addresses — code that can reveal the location and owner of a computer, mobile device or router — are represented each day on Treasure Map, according to the document. It boasts that the program can map “any device, anywhere, all the time.” The documents include addresses labeled as based in the “U.S.,” and because so much Internet traffic flows through the United States, it would be difficult to map much of the world without capturing such addresses. But the intelligence officials said that Treasure Map maps only foreign and Defense Department networks, and is limited by the amount of data available to the agency. There are several billion I.P. addresses on the Internet, the officials said, and Treasure Map cannot map them all. The program is not used for surveillance, they said, but to understand computer networks. The program takes advantage of the capabilities of other secret N.S.A. programs. To support Treasure Map, for example, the document states that another program, called Packaged Goods, tracks the “traceroutes” through which data flows around the Internet. Through Packaged Goods, the N.S.A. has gained access to “13 covered servers in unwitting data centers around the globe,” according to the PowerPoint. The document identifies a list of countries where the data centers are located, including Germany, Poland, Denmark, South Africa and Taiwan as well as Russia, China and Singapore. Despite the document’s reference to “unwitting data centers,” government officials said that the agency does not hack into those centers. Instead, the officials said, the intelligence community secretly uses front companies to lease space on the servers. Despite the N.S.A.’s broad surveillance powers, the strategy paper shows that N.S.A. officials still worry about the agency’s ability to fend off bureaucratic inertia while keeping pace with change. “To sustain current mission relevance,” the document said, Signals Intelligence Directorate, the N.S.A.’s signals intelligence arm, “must undertake a profound and revolutionary shift from the mission approach which has served us so well in the decades preceding the onset of the information age.” James Risen reported from Washington, and Laura Poitras from Berlin. ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/25094221-ddf8422b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

whoah
by Eugen Leitl 23 Nov '13

23 Nov '13

https://blockchain.info/tx/1c12443203a48f42cdf7b1acee5b4b1c1fedc144cb909a3b… http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1r87p5/omfg_what_is_going_on/

2 1

NSA Global SIGINT Power to Generate Profits and Pay
by John Young 23 Nov '13

23 Nov '13

The NSA SIGINT Strategy 2012-2016 pretty well covers all the comsec and crypto initiatives to covertly exploit people, cryptographers, anonymizers, informants, planted spies, security firms, networks, governments, nations, friends, lovers and citizens. Not sure leaks, lawsuits and protests will deter this bounty of profits for the comsec industry, unless the public is aroused to demand the 3 branches grasp the nettle, and all those making money from this deception operation decide to give up their profits, perks and prestige. I mean those on the comsec and crypto lists, those participating in standards committees, those enjoying contracts and grants in think tanks and universities, those in law firms and public interest orgs, those in the media and academia, those in non-spy gov agencies, pretending to be in opposition as they scramble to rejigger their products and sales pitches, to exploit what is being fabricated to diminish Snowden's revelations with new forms of secrecy, technology, law, regulations, bribery, lobbying, grants, contracts, list lurking, online and offline spying, break-ins, the usual kaboodle, to assure the NSA goals are fulfilled. http://cryptome.org/2013/11/nsa-sigint-strategy-2012-2016.pdf [Excerpt] SIGINT Goals for 2012-2016 1. (U//FOUO) Revolutionize analysis fundamentally shift our analytic approach from a production to a discovery bias, enriched by innovative customer/partner engagement, radically increasing operational impact across all mission domains. 1.1. (U//FOUO) Through advanced tradecraft and automation, dramatically increase mastery of the global network 1.2. (U//FOUO) Conduct original analysis in a collaborative information space that mirrors how people interact in the information age 1.3. (U//FOUO) Disseminate data at its first point of relevance, share bulk data, and enable customers to address niche requirements 1.4. (U//FOUO) Drive an agile technology base mapped to the cognitive processes that underpin large scale analysis, discovery, compliance and collaboration 2. (U//FOUO) Fully leverage internal and external NSA partnerships to collaboratively discover targets, find their vulnerabilities, and overcome their network/communication defenses. 2.1. (U//FOUO) Bolster our arsenal of capabilities against the most critical cryptanalytic challenges 2.1.1. (S//SI//REL) Employ multidisciplinary approaches to cryptanalytic problems, leveraging and integrating mid-point and end-point capabilities to enable cryptanalysis 2.1.2. (S//REL) Counter the challenge of ubiquitous, strong, commercial network encryption 2.1.3. (TS//SI//REL) Counter indigenous cryptographic programs by targeting their industrial bases with all available SIGINT and HUMINT capabilities 2.1.4. (TS//SI//REL) Influence the global commercial encryption market through commercial relationships, HUMINT, and second and third party partners 2.1.5. (S//SI//REL) Continue to invest in the industrial base and drive the state of the art for High Performance Computing to maintain pre-eminent cryptanalytic capability for the nation 2.2. (TS//SI//REL) Defeat adversary cybersecurity practices in order to acquire the SIGINT data we need from anyone, anytime, anywhere 2.3. (S//SI) Enable discovery capabilities and advanced tradecraft in the collection architecture to enable the discovery of mission-critical persona, networks, accesses, signals and technologies 2.4. (S//SI) Integrate capabilities into the mission architecture, deepen workforce skill base in advanced network and signals analysis, and optimize processes and policies for the benefit of discovery 3. (S//SI//REL) Dynamically integrate endpoint, midpoint, industrial-enabled, and cryptanalytic capabilities to reach previously inaccessible targets in support of exploitation, cyber defense, and cyber operations 3.1. (C//REL) Drive the SIGINT mission architecture to underpin synchronized, integrated, multi-capability operations, extending it to mission partners 3.2. (TS//SI//REL) Integrate the SIGINT system into a national network of sensors which interactively sense, respond, and alert one another at machine speed 3.3. (U//FOUO) Continuously rebalance our portfolio of accesses and access capabilities based on current and projected contributions to key SIGINT missions 3.4. (S//SI//REL) Identify new access, collection, and exploitation methods by leveraging global business trends in data and communications services [End excerpt]

1 0

Tor for the masses
by dan＠geer.org 23 Nov '13

23 Nov '13

http://venturebeat.com/2013/11/21/pogoplug-packages-tor-for-the-mass-market… leading to https://pogoplug.com/safeplug --dan

1 0

hidden parameters (urls)
by brian carroll 22 Nov '13

22 Nov '13

--- perceptual thresholds --- IR vision lets researchers see through—and into—multiple layers of graphene http://phys.org/news/2013-11-infrared-vision-throughand-intomultiple-layers… --- on natural fluorescence --- // intro to blacklight with rocks starts around 5:47 min... [video] Bill's Fluorescent Rock and Mineral Collection http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVtWOcrat4o [video] Science Friday: 3:36 min tour http://www.sciencefriday.com/video/05/05/2011/rock-stars.html "In 1968, the New Jersey Senate decreed the town of Franklin a geological wonder: "The Fluorescent Mineral Capital of the World." Over 350 different minerals have been found in the area, ninety of which glow brilliantly under ultraviolet light. There are two mineral museums devoted to fluorescing rocks, the region's unusual geology and its zinc mining history." [search] images of fluorescent minerals in rocks... https://www.google.com/search?q=fluorescent+rocks&client=firefox-a&hs=ZEF&s… What Materials Glow Under a Black or Ultraviolet Light? http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/f/blblacklight.htm [images] Hall of Fame Specimens - fluorescent minerals in rocks http://www.tigerowner.com/crf_photos.htm // fingerprinting phosphorescence patterns, real vs. fake diamonds UV Rays Shed New Light on the Hope Diamond’s Mysterious Red Glow http://mineralsciences.si.edu/research/gems/hope_diamond/blue_diamond_resea… [quote] The 45.52-carat blue diamond puzzles scientists because of the fiery red glow it gives off for several minutes after being exposed to ultra-violet light. Scientists refer to this phenomenon as phosphorescence. “It looks like a glowing orange coal in your barbeque grill,” explains Post. “It has been described as one of the unique properties of this unique diamond, something special to the Hope Diamond.” [quote] // note: electronic lollipop, the new healthy cigarette? Electrode recreates all four tastes on your tongue http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029444.500-electrode-recreates-all-… NEW: CF = collider function (juxtapose A & B) interstructure. e.g: a. High tech toilets receive big prizes from Bill Gates http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/15/bill_gates_toilet_fair/ b. Kanye West blasts Zappos for 'shit product,' Zappos responds with toilet picture http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/20/5127502/kanye-west-blasts-zappos-for-shi… // International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam 2009 [video] People vs. Power (1/2) Walking and Talking with Peter Wintonick... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0L1BCN9Ze4 // about bicycle cultures today, componentry bureaucratized, // efficiencies/innovation lost to varying incongruent approaches. // missing information, parts do not match, line-up, made esoteric. // guess that is everything to do with beliefs and mindset translated // into general manufacturing approach, as with computer devices. // shared model vs 'reinventing' & duplication ideologically forced. [video] People vs. Power (2/2) Walking and Talking with Peter Wintonick... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJZ-wiuaJeo [video] The Kids in This Billboard Point at Actual Planes Flying Overhead http://gizmodo.com/the-kids-in-this-billboard-point-at-actual-planes-flyin-… // interactive advert reminded me of this... [video] First Official Clip from The Zero Theorem http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyY5InLYJPQ [video] The Zero Theorem official trailer - film by Terry Gilliam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLYkXhgFIAk --- crypto gift ideas --- :L [note: wondered if computer crypto approach has become detached from questioning basics of cryptography outside of a computer context. also, for those like myself with interest yet little knowledge, how to approach the subject, beyond just reading. various authors and thinkers have mentioned reading childrens books rather than academic texts for a basic and introductory overview of a subject. thus, what about those interested in crypto, is a childrens crypto kit beyond the domain of issues involved in crypto, or perhaps may some fundamental skills, questions, issues remain overlooked or already decided upon in a given framework. therefore, for child or adult with crypto interest...] Codes, Ciphers and Secret Writing (Dover Children's Activity Books) http://www.amazon.com/Ciphers-Secret-Writing-Childrens-Activity/dp/04862476… Kidz Labs - Spy Science Secret Message Kit - Ages 5+ http://www.amazon.com/Kidz-Labs-Science-Secret-Message/dp/B000JM0JCS POOF-Slinky 2023 Slinky Science Secret Messages Mini Lab http://www.amazon.com/POOF-Slinky-2023-Slinky-Science-Messages/dp/B000BL1C96 Circuit Stickers // electronic principles, circuits https://www.crowdsupply.com/chibitronics/circuit-stickers note: microcontroller programmable, paper, etc. --- on rings --- recently mentioned data exchange between electromagnetic ring and symbolic device... once visited the Intel Museum which had a gift shop that sold jewelry made from unusable pentium chips; cufflinks, necklaces, earrings, and presumably rings (though do not remember seeing them). Intel CPU Chip Jewelry & Pins http://www.chipsetc.com/intel-jewelry--pins.html so any such key-exchange or other interaction between ring and device, in a data mood ring or other informational approach, is going to have circuitry built into it, issues of energy and power, and involve transistors, capacitors, resisters, protocols, etc. so in some sense there is a depth to the circuitry, it is not just an image of a ring but a complexity hidden beyond the boudary of what is immediately visable- whereas the Intel jewelry was itself this circuitry on display, as if a future data ring would involve these aesthetic dimensions, inherently. note also the issue of toxins in manufacturing if a diy approach with repurposed circuitboards and components, highly toxic to skin, eyes, etc. including chemical offgasing, related to toxic waste sites of discarded electronics, this leaking into groundwater, poisoning populations. the concept of a data ring that is an IC or computer that then interacts with the environment, say in a crypto context, that it carries passwords, synced as a paired identity device validating ID or providing authentication or whatever. and so this functionality is just not an issue of taking an IC or processor, memory, and storage and having 'data' on the ring. it would need to be secured, have its own perimeter security, ways of allowing and preventing access, etc. the following rings visualize this greater involvement in the aesthetics beyond just what the device would look like, and into its multilayered in-depth construction, in dimensions that may also be internal and unseen. thus a parallel between the chip as structure and building as structure, and similarity of issues of detailing and design, issues of foundation, & so on... [image search] architecture rings https://www.google.com/search?q=bague&client=firefox-a&hs=7GZ&rls=org.mozil… the larger context for this is the parallel between the circuitboard and the city (plug-in city, Archigram) and again issues of relations of building types and electronic components that have interrelated structures, functioning, and programming of circuitry at the larger scale. in this way, modularity into a larger entity, say 'crypto' and 'comms' (NFC) and 'processor' and 'memory' and 'storage'; likewise- stadium, highways, bank, tv station, school, dwellings. [image] cityscape ring http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ip12zh9vdvI/StTg6_V0qkI/AAAAAAAAAWM/5NaTtzcq__4/s… Philippe Tourraine - Les bagues Architecture http://www.philippetournaire.com/collections/70-architecture what would the foundation be, what would the walls be, roof, how many buildings, how are they arranged, what is the interior and exterior relation and dynamic, what is the perimeter, what is the functionality and purpose, what can it do and why. rings and sensors, modules, ecosystem relations, programmability, display or opaque, indicating feedback, etc. what is potential for, sans LCD, micro- or nano-leds as ultra-low power matrix. beyond conventions. how many different typological relations in larger ecological context: ring-computer, ring-phone, ring-signage, ring-symbolic.device (orb), ring-POS.device, ring-ATM machine, etc. // and a potential approach for managing crypto keys... ex. Intel Chip Keychain http://www.chipsetc.com/uploads/1/2/4/4/1244189/4120271_orig.jpg?196 Intel Chip Keychains http://www.chipsetc.com/intel-keychains-page-5.html {educational fair-use of copyright, 2013} א ט ם ך

1 0

Users ID'ed through typing, mouse movements
by Eugen Leitl 22 Nov '13

22 Nov '13

http://www.scmagazine.com.au/News/365221,users-ided-through-typing-mouse-mo… Users ID'ed through typing, mouse movements By Darren Pauli on Nov 22, 2013 2:16 PM Continuous authentication app created from DARPA research. Researchers have built a continuous authentication platform that can accurately identify users based on their typing patterns. A series of 90 minute typing tests carried out on 2000 people at Iowa State University found users could be identified with a half percent margin of error based on the way they hit keys. The work has been spun into an application that could continuously authenticate users and lock accounts if another person jumped on the computer resulting in irregularities being detected. (pdf) Uniquely syncopated mouse and keyboard patterns made it possible to identify users, Iowa State University associate professor Morris Chang said. “These pauses between words, searches for unusual characters and spellings of unfamiliar words, all have to do with our past experiences, our learning experiences,” Chang said. “And so we call them cognitive fingerprints which manifest themselves in typing rhythms.” “The system can see if the same person or an imposter is coming in to hijack the computer." The year-long research run together with electrical engineering students Terry Fang, Kuan-Hsing Ho and Danny Shih received a half a million dollar grant from the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency which sought to discover if continuous authentication was possible. It was now being extended to capture mouse movements and touch inputs from mobile devices with an additional $1.76 million dollars from the agency over two years. Copyright © SC Magazine, Australia

3 2

Exclusive: Inside America's Plan to Kill Online Privacy Rights Everywhere
by Eugen Leitl 21 Nov '13

21 Nov '13

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/11/20/exclusive_inside_america… Exclusive: Inside America's Plan to Kill Online Privacy Rights Everywhere Posted By Colum Lynch Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 6:10 PM Share The United States and its key intelligence allies are quietly working behind the scenes to kneecap a mounting movement in the United Nations to promote a universal human right to online privacy, according to diplomatic sources and an internal American government document obtained by The Cable. The diplomatic battle is playing out in an obscure U.N. General Assembly committee that is considering a proposal by Brazil and Germany to place constraints on unchecked internet surveillance by the National Security Agency and other foreign intelligence services. American representatives have made it clear that they won't tolerate such checks on their global surveillance network. The stakes are high, particularly in Washington -- which is seeking to contain an international backlash against NSA spying -- and in Brasilia, where Brazilian President Dilma Roussef is personally involved in monitoring the U.N. negotiations. The Brazilian and German initiative seeks to apply the right to privacy, which is enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to online communications. Their proposal, first revealed by The Cable, affirms a "right to privacy that is not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy, family, home, or correspondence." It notes that while public safety may "justify the gathering and protection of certain sensitive information," nations "must ensure full compliance" with international human rights laws. A final version the text is scheduled to be presented to U.N. members on Wednesday evening and the resolution is expected to be adopted next week. A draft of the resolution, which was obtained by The Cable, calls on states to "to respect and protect the right to privacy," asserting that the "same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, including the right to privacy." It also requests the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, present the U.N. General Assembly next year with a report on the protection and promotion of the right to privacy, a provision that will ensure the issue remains on the front burner. Publicly, U.S. representatives say they're open to an affirmation of privacy rights. "The United States takes very seriously our international legal obligations, including those under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," Kurtis Cooper, a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, said in an email. "We have been actively and constructively negotiating to ensure that the resolution promotes human rights and is consistent with those obligations." But privately, American diplomats are pushing hard to kill a provision of the Brazilian and German draft which states that "extraterritorial surveillance" and mass interception of communications, personal information, and metadata may constitute a violation of human rights. The United States and its allies, according to diplomats, outside observers, and documents, contend that the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not apply to foreign espionage. In recent days, the United States circulated to its allies a confidential paper highlighting American objectives in the negotiations, "Right to Privacy in the Digital Age -- U.S. Redlines." It calls for changing the Brazilian and German text so "that references to privacy rights are referring explicitly to States' obligations under ICCPR and remove suggestion that such obligations apply extraterritorially." In other words: America wants to make sure it preserves the right to spy overseas. The U.S. paper also calls on governments to promote amendments that would weaken Brazil's and Germany's contention that some "highly intrusive" acts of online espionage may constitute a violation of freedom of expression. Instead, the United States wants to limit the focus to illegal surveillance -- which the American government claims it never, ever does. Collecting information on tens of millions of people around the world is perfectly acceptable, the Obama administration has repeatedly said. It's authorized by U.S. statute, overseen by Congress, and approved by American courts. "Recall that the USG's [U.S. government's] collection activities that have been disclosed are lawful collections done in a manner protective of privacy rights," the paper states. "So a paragraph expressing concern about illegal surveillance is one with which we would agree." The privacy resolution, like most General Assembly decisions, is neither legally binding nor enforceable by any international court. But international lawyers say it is important because it creates the basis for an international consensus -- referred to as "soft law" -- that over time will make it harder and harder for the United States to argue that its mass collection of foreigners' data is lawful and in conformity with human rights norms. "They want to be able to say ‘we haven't broken the law, we're not breaking the law, and we won't break the law,'" said Dinah PoKempner, the general counsel for Human Rights Watch, who has been tracking the negotiations. The United States, she added, wants to be able to maintain that "we have the freedom to scoop up anything we want through the massive surveillance of foreigners because we have no legal obligations." The United States negotiators have been pressing their case behind the scenes, raising concerns that the assertion of extraterritorial human rights could constrain America's effort to go after international terrorists. But Washington has remained relatively muted about their concerns in the U.N. negotiating sessions. According to one diplomat, "the United States has been very much in the backseat," leaving it to its allies, Australia, Britain, and Canada, to take the lead. There is no extraterritorial obligation on states "to comply with human rights," explained one diplomat who supports the U.S. position. "The obligation is on states to uphold the human rights of citizens within their territory and areas of their jurisdictions." The position, according to Jamil Dakwar, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Human Rights Program, has little international backing. The International Court of Justice, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, and the European Court have all asserted that states do have an obligation to comply with human rights laws beyond their own borders, he noted. "Governments do have obligation beyond their territories," said Dakwar, particularly in situations, like the Guantanamo Bay detention center, where the United States exercises "effective control" over the lives of the detainees. Both PoKempner and Dakwar suggested that courts may also judge that the U.S. dominance of the Internet places special legal obligations on it to ensure the protection of users' human rights. "It's clear that when the United States is conducting surveillance, these decisions and operations start in the United States, the servers are at NSA headquarters, and the capabilities are mainly in the United States," he said. "To argue that they have no human rights obligations overseas is dangerous because it sends a message that there is void in terms of human rights protection outside countries territory. It's going back to the idea that you can create a legal black hole where there is no applicable law." There were signs emerging on Wednesday that America may have been making ground in pressing the Brazilians and Germans to back on one of its toughest provisions. In an effort to address the concerns of the U.S. and its allies, Brazil and Germany agreed to soften the language suggesting that mass surveillance may constitute a violation of human rights. Instead, it simply deep "concern at the negative impact" that extraterritorial surveillance "may have on the exercise of and enjoyment of human rights." The U.S., however, has not yet indicated it would support the revised proposal. The concession "is regrettable. But it’s not the end of the battle by any means," said Human Rights Watch’s PoKempner. She added that there will soon be another opportunity to corral America's spies: a U.N. discussion on possible human rights violations as a result of extraterritorial surveillance will soon be taken up by the U.N. High commissioner. Follow me on Twitter: @columlynch.

2 1

light-signals (urls)
by brian carroll 21 Nov '13

21 Nov '13

[viewed the last 20 minutes of this program, very interesting. about the Schumann resonance and lighting, and 'the global electrical circuit'...] NOVA: At the Edge of Space (PBS science program) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/edge-of-space.html // transient luminous events (TLEs) - sprites, blue jets, elves [video] Earth's Global Electric Circuit - Atmospheric Electricity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7-0YRiln7E Global electric circuit and lightning http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/lis/lis_4/ Earle R. Williams -- Research Overview (see Fig. 1a) http://web.mit.edu/earlerw/www/Research.html Global electric circuit model to help scientists understand electricity in the air http://www.rdmag.com/news/2013/10/global-electric-circuit-model-help-scient… [quote] “The next step is to incorporate the distribution of thunderstorms,” Lucas said. “Currents generally travel upwards above thunderstorms distributed around the equator and return down over the poles, away from the thunderstorms. Part of the future work is going to be determining what influence those thunderstorms have on the global system.” [unquote] --- crypto platforms --- unknown if others relate to it this way, though i think DMX lighting systems (somewhat like MIDI for lights, fog machines, electronic billboards) has potential as a communications system beyond strobes and laser projections, LED light patterns and various colors and special effects (disco-ball to various atmospherics: water-like filters, shapes, etc. DMX512 standard for lighting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMX512 what is quite interesting about the existing technology besides the potential for lasers, is fully automatic controlled lighting systems, robotic or remotely servo-driven, that can be coordinated and synced with other events. so, for instance, you could have 8 different LED lights around a perimeter that on cue could together reorient themselves and shine different colors on a central object, though that involves a lot of cable, infrastructure, and enough know-how to figure it out. and still, that could just involve entertainment versus using the same functionality to, say, change the way something appears via these potential influences. instead of examining lighting as just a utility or as decoration, it also could open up or unlock other meaning or hidden structures or qualities or characteristics latent yet unexpressed or unhighlighted. the lighting of the 2oth century World's Fairs were notable for the art of light via electrical infrastructure which brought about a different awareness. and then this related to the Great White Way of electrification, electrical lights and electrical signage that changed the landscape and the way people relate to the city, home, nighttime, movement, etc. three books offer insight into these dynamics in differing ways: Electrifying America Social Meanings of a New Technology, 1880-1940 http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/electrifying-america American Genesis A Century of Invention and Technological Enthusiasm, 1870-1970 http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo3627102.html and at the infrastructural level... Networks of Power Electrification in Western Society, 1880-1930 Thomas Parker Hughes http://books.google.com/books?id=g07Q9M4agp4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=networ… [reviews] http://www.amazon.com/Networks-Power-Electrification-1880-1930-Softshell/pr… context: History of electric power transmission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_electric_power_transmission now what does this have to do with lighting gear usually related to DJ rigs and night clubs and entertainment venues... beyond that lighting technology, perhaps techniques have advanced over decades and now are a major form of expression - including of information - via active 'light signs' and even computerized, animated lighting technologies tied with LED diodes, in terms including: longevity, size, energy-efficiency, color-spectrum, economy, and inexpensive -in many scenarios-, mass manufacturing. so the illuminated sign outside the store and the billboard have been transformed via LED lighting arrays that exist somewhere on the edge of beings screens, where the pixels are usually mapped to a visible array of lights, versus the microscopic pixels of higher resolution computer display screens. and yet these electronic signs and billboards as "communication" appear as a mundane functionality, versus a potential realm of exploration (i.e. Jenny Holzer) and thus this same boundary condition of use, the ordinary or standard approach versus other possibilities also could be extended into lighting innovations beyond the realm fo signage, that also could function as a communications medium, for signal conveyance, yet not used this way in default configurations of cycling colors or lighting synchronized to music and thus providing sound-&-light atmosphere, as if lighting flashes within thunderstorm clouds, versus other kinds of signals beaming out of the fog, outside of the nightclub scene. in other words, lighting systems as signage, communications platform, potentially signal systems for cryptographic content in the realm of the semaphore, symbolic comms, etc. here are a few introductions to the technology available... // notice array ~35 sec. (sectional control allows pixel mapping) [video] COLORbar™ SMD by CHAUVET® DJ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lLkFZGalCE info: COLORbar™ SMD http://www.chauvetlighting.com/colorbar-smd.html (basically, in a combined array using DMX and software, patterns could potentially be programmed onto the device as a display or communications medium, including abstract signs or other language variations, within an aesthetic context or as signage/semaphore) [video] CHAUVET COLORbar SMD Overview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7i-TAa4mUU (note: light patterns could be video captured by mobile phone, decrypted) this is perhaps the most promising, most applicable to 7- and 16-segment display issues though in the dot-matrix approach, scaled to signage versus circuitboard component... again a massive array would be needed though definitely, if programmable, an 3|E animation and other calculations could occur, the larger the grid, more space for symbols and words, though that would be room and wall-sized and a huge investment to start, versus smaller scale... Core™ 3x3 // units interconnect into grid array. pixel-mapping. http://www.chauvetlighting.com/core-3x3.html [video] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh28pV5uRls {reference : pro-series Nexus™ 4x4 & LED video wall panels http://www.chauvetlighting.com/nexus-4x4.html http://www.chauvetlighting.com/mvp-ta8-curve.html http://www.chauvetlighting.com/mvp-12.html then there are 'lines' known as colortubes, by different manufacturers which could be used to create segmented alphanumeric characters or blocks, or vertical or horizontal arrays. in addition, this technology is potentially particularly well-suited to /\|\/ type dynamics... [video] American DJ LED Color Tube // non-DMX, with remote http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUqkH4AGabA [info] http://www.americandj.com/ProductDetails.aspx?ItemNumber=1837&MainId=2&Cate… . [videos] CHAUVET COLORTUBE 3.0 EQ LED // DMX controllable http://www.chauvetlighting.com/colortube-30-eq.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq8IHSzkPE4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJUNMX_7Ahc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDzRwOH3_SM [info] http://www.chauvetlighting.com/colortube-30-eq.html // this appears the easiest approach if building a large pixel screen... (really quite amazing, if it can be programmed at the pixel level) [video] American DJ Flash Panel 16 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g33dMySW6Jc note: many DMX-LED lights have controllable brightness levels -- other possibilities -- [video] American DJ Matrix Beam LED // all metaphysics here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5UhRlCCRvg [info] Matrix Beam LED http://www.americandj.com/ProductDetails.aspx?ItemNumber=2144&MainId=2&Cate… . // if it could be hacked, programmed for custom patterns... MotionDrape™ LED by CHAUVET® http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0w2q8dIJHg Chauvet Motion Drape LED Review/Demo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3238kKNPOhY= // this is much more basic though of a symbolic dimension... // like a stationary LED juggling ball, less functions and purpose. // decorative. ambiance, yet what if designed as programmable, // or raspberry-pi placed in similar scenario, open dev platform... LED Color Ball http://www.americandj.com/ProductDetails.aspx?ItemNumber=1836&MainId=2&Cate… . [note: in Minneapolis there used to be a giant ball on a building downtown known as the 'weatherball' that changed color to indicate the weather forecast and could be seen for miles. thus when snow was imminent it would change color and people would know it would soon be snowing, etc. in this way a simple mundane orb could function as a signaling device via what color it is on, and what this may relate with. perhaps more could be done with this, such as adding an info-dimension or that it is a sensor system or a marker for geolocation or geocaching even, data point, whatever. what if it synced with a ring or keychain, etc. or went into mood ring territory based on proximity electrostatic charge, else like gunshot sensors, if sharp noise or yelling detected turns red. what is the potential... is it inert or does it tend towards interaction, is it a mirage as a crystal ball or may it involve key exchange, etc.] Mr. Weatherball http://forgottenminnesota.com/2012/03/170/ Weather beacon // see history: empire state bldg & coca-cola decoder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_beacon "A weather beacon is a beacon that indicates the local weather forecast in a code of colored or flashing lights. Often, a short poem or jingle accompanies the code to make it easier to remember." -- further outward -- [video] ADJ Laser Preview // projection vs. aerial lasers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnLsG0Oa7yw [video] American DJ Comscan LED // what if open patterns... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix8W-voBqPE http://www.americandj.com/ProductDetails.aspx?ItemNumber=1929&MainId=2&Cate…<http://www.americandj.com/ProductDetails.aspx?ItemNumber=1929&MainId=2&Cate…> [video] full motion LED spot, remote controlled http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtHDres38r0 [video] American DJ - X Move LED 25R http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0i7Hwkj7lg (example of potential use: modify for site-specific use, perhaps with UV or IR lighting, invisible to normal sight. someone goes into a space, instructed to take photo, and light illuminates dust pattern on wall that later shows up on photograph. else, takes photo in area of others, pattern lights up on clothing via matched wavelength thread, etc. perhaps unique sensor in camera and light to bound other observations. thus: secret communications, reading/writing. thus, what equipment can do this... leading to consideration of existing DJ technology as an innovative medium that could be explored for its potential as signage and for signaling in various abstraction, beyond only color, into patterns, icons, movement, animation, etc. quite a large canvas of possibilities to explore, beyond networked PCs) --- high abstraction pattern-match --- e.g. what if this sketched a pattern in fog that was recognizable via pattern-analysis of video // likely would require lasers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IZ1va8azFM e.g. say binary pattern or sequence via on/off, hi-lo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IZ1va8azFM sweeper beam // lighting system language... #X/V| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E_bomUKOW8 American DJ Tri Gem LED // gears, rotational syncing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMWqNcIiQKE the value would be in programmability, shaping output to particular pattern-based if transformative parameters, in terms of randomness or calculation or AI-behaviors... Eclipse™ RGB // merges lasers & leds http://www.chauvetlighting.com/eclipse-rgb.html (haunted-house crypto, moving towards MIDI-animatronics. defensive tactic... if they cannot locate the computer, then) [videos] DMX fog machines http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CXKpC8Rl8Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIeLwT3ppCM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tSQHHQvxyk Fog Bandit Presentation By Legal Entry Locksmiths 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2qApXHN4y8 (might as well go all the way.... Geyser™ RGB - color LED & fog http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQXFyo28Ndc stage effect for symbolic encrypt/decrypt of binary crypto in revue of security theater. soundtrack perfect.) // and last but not least... DMX bubble machine as the ultimate short-term RNG!!! [video] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAxhXivVaTY (what, you don't like soap? think of it, floating bubbles, light, movement, captured on video, using pattern match engine to search reflections and colors on bubbles surface, as if hundreds of crystal balls a second, changing each moment to the next via lighting and wind and inter-bubble relations) --- artifact --- CRYPTO bobblehead, "Destroy All Humans! Path of the Furon" http://www.amazon.com/Destroy-Humans-Furon-Wobbler-Bobble-head/dp/B0038T0VJK related: PS3/X-box 360 console game, c.2008-9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroy_All_Humans!_Path_of_the_Furon {educational fair-use of copyright, 2013} arugula, shallot, leek

1 0

MEDIA RELEASE: Family of alleged Silk Road operator Ross Ulbricht launches legal defense fund
by Mike Gogulski 21 Nov '13

21 Nov '13

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Defense Fund Launched for Ross Ulbricht, Accused Silk Road Marketplace Operator New York, NY, November 20, 2013 – The family of the man accused by the US government of operating the Silk Road online marketplace has launched a fund for donations to their son's legal defense. Ross Ulbricht, 29, was arrested on October 1st and charged with creating and operating the web marketplace Silk Road, under the pseudonym “Dread Pirate Roberts”. The allegations include a variety of conspiracies, including narcotics trafficking, computer hacking and money laundering, as well as planned acts of violence. Ulbricht denied all charges in federal court in San Francisco in October. He will appear at a bail hearing at the United States District Court, Southern District of New York at 11:00 am EST on Thursday, November 21. On their website, the Ulbricht family states: “Our goal is to provide Ross with what every American citizen is promised: a fair trial. In the USA we are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We firmly believe in Ross’s innocence and are working hard with the best legal team to prove it.” The family has retained New York-based attorney Joshua L. Dratel to defend their son in court. Mr. Dratel stated: “It is crucial that we have a level playing field for defending Ross, and that requires resources from the communities that support him.” The Ross Ulbricht Legal Defense Fund LLC is a Wyoming-based corporation established by the Ulbricht family. All donations are used solely to pay attorney fees, fund accounting fees and ancillary legal expenses. ### SOURCE: Ross Ulbricht Legal Defense Fund LLC, www.freeross.org CONTACTS: Joshua L. Dratel Joshua L. Dratel, P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 1412 New York, New York 10006 United States of America jdratel(a)joshuadratel.com Office: +1 212 732 0707 Fax: +1 212 571 3792 www.nycriminallawfirm.com Ross Ulbricht Legal Defense Fund LLC www.freeross.org freerossulbricht(a)gmail.com

2 3

Fw: Your errors about me in your book.
by Jim Bell 20 Nov '13

20 Nov '13

To: Andy Greenberg of Forbes Magazine, author of "This Machine Kills Secrets". Keep in mind that most of what I describe here will be in my 2003 lawsuit, 02-1052. <http:///> cryptome.org/jdb-v-usa-106.htm <http:///> I should point out that you don't seem to be commenting about my now-numerous emails to you about these attorneys. What's the problem? Are you AFRAID to comment? I think it's unfair for you to wait until I have disclosed all this material, before you comment. I really think I have a right to learn WHY you claimed that I had tried to fire 'every' attorney I'd had. Where did you hear this? You certainly never tried to verify this claim with me! I would have told you the truth; I would have directed you to lawsuit 02-1052, which already contained the truth. Robert Leen: (You might initially be pleased to hear that Leen was the first attorney I'd actually TRIED to 'fire'. But don't get your hopes up! I was entirely unsuccessful at that attempt.!) My next attorney was assigned about November 21, 2000. I knew 'the fix was in' because I had done NOTHING illegal. I didn't know about the forged, fake, fraudulent appeal case (99-30210), at least the portion of which was prior to May 2000 But I had very publicly announced that I had major, major suspicions about government government corruption, especially Ryan Thomas Lund's November 25, 1997 assault on me (ordered by government employees). And, I knew that the government had placed a tracking device on my parents' car (probably both of them) in April-June 1998. Also, I knew that the Feds had illegally searched my house on my arrest in June 1998. (I had been removed from my house; the house was empty of 'cops'. They had no authority to continue to search that house, yet they did so. Robert Leen refused to try to obtain any 'discovery' shortly after my arrest about November 20, 2000. Recognizing that Leen was trying to sabotage my legal case, I wrote a letter to the Judge (Tanner) in about December 8, 2000, complaining that Leen was trying to sabotage my case. I was astonished (at least in part) that the Judge refused to have Leen fired. I kept asking for Leen to be fired throughout January, February, March, and beyond in 2001. No (good) answer by the Judge. I began learning the law in mid-December 2000. Starting about late February 2001, I began to write various legal motions, in order to document my complete unwillingness to accept Leen's 'representation'. (If you just look at the docket entries for case 00-5731, you may not be able to easily identify which motions were written by me, and which w To show your lawyer how corrupt the Judge (Tanner) and Leen, and the prosecutor (Robb London) were (case 00-5731), during the last week of March 2001, I filed a 'notice of interlocutory appeal'. Your lawyer presumably understands that if a 'notice of appeal' arrives at court, of an appealable issue, that divests the jurisdiction of that court to proceed with any trial. Wanna know what happened? The judge PROCEEDED with a 'trial' as if nothing had happened. I filed a SECOND notice of interlocutory appeal a few weeks before the 'sentencing', and again that filing was completely ignored. Robert Leen was NEVER 'fired'. In fact, in May 2010 (after being arrested for an ostensible probation violation.) Leen actually continued to (pretend to) 'represent me'. Even until today, I presume, he is ostensibly still 'representing' me. At least, on the paperwork he will be listed as 'representing' me. I should point out, also, that it was about this time (early in Leen's malicious 'representation' of me) that I first heard the wacky comment (by the prosecutor Robb London) of his resistance to having Leen replaced. London said something LIKE "Bell fires all his attorneys". By now, Mr. Greenberg, you are well aware that this isn't true. You really need to find Robb London, and ask him if he ever said something like "Bell fires all his attorneys". Perhaps London would defend himself by claiming that he looked into the court record, noticed that at various times the name of my lawyer had changed, and he decided this 'must have' meant that I succeeded (and, therefore, certainly tried) in replacing these attorneys. Annemarie Levins I guess I'm getting tired of re-hashing what you could, and SHOULD, have read in my lawsuit, 02-1052, filed July 14, 2003. Levins was assigned shortly after my ostensible 'conviction' in September 2001. (The reason, as I vaguely recall, was that Robert Leen had stated, "I don't do appeals". I responded by saying to Leen, in what was only about 25% intended as a joke, "You don't do appeals. You merely make them necessary.") Over the next 4-5 months I wrote Levins numerous letters, containing easily 100 pages of single-spaced text, listing HUNDREDS of very arguable appeal issues. Levins, to my recollection, NEVER responded to even a single one of my letters! An increasing sense of dread resulted. I felt it was quite obvious that Levins was planning to further victimize me, in precisely the same way Avenia, Mandel, and Leen had done. (Remember, I did not then yet know how Solovy had victimized me, by concealing the pre-May-2000 existence of appeal 99-30210.) As I vaguely recall (not referring to any record) my appeal had to be filed on a Monday, perhaps it was in January or February 2002. At virtually the last minute, perhaps on a Thursday before, I finally received a copy of "the appeal". By that time, I had learned plenty of federal criminal and appeal law. I saw the appeal that Levins had written, the one that she had CONCEALED from me for 4 months, and it was obvious that it was intended to sabotage my case. Which, in fact, it did. There were at least 100 incredibly valid appeal issues which, if they had been argued properly, would have easily freed me, but Levins argued NONE of them. Perhaps the day later, maybe it was Friday, the weekday before the appeal had to be filed, I obtained a telephone call to Levins. In that call, I accused Levins of deliberately sabotaging my case, saying that her failure to even respond to my 100+ pages of letters proved that she was a crook. She didn't deny it! When it was clear that Levins wasn't going to apologize, I ORDERED her to NOT file that appeal. I told her, "You're fired! You must not file that appeal! And if you're already filed it, I order you to withdraw it!!!". Strong words, but quite appropriate under the circumstances. The result? She DIDN'T resign. She filed the appeal. She DIDN'T have it withdrawn. The appeal lost, as I knew it would. --- Mr. Greenberg, you should be utterly and completely ashamed for what you have done. You have thoroughly and completely misrepresented virtually every fact, implication, and nuance relating to me and my legal cases, and virtually everything I said/wrote to you. You LIED by claiming of your lawyer, "She read Bell's letter, then checked his legal file, which showed that he had fired practically every court-appointed lawyer ever assigned to him---little wonder that he had botched his appeals. It also showed he had filed fifty-one lawsuits against the government while in prison---nearly all dismissed immediately. She wanted nothing to do with it." Mr. Greenberg, your lawyer is totally incompetent to have said ANY of these things. I have made perfectly clear in my recent set of emails to you: 1. You never verified any of these supposed 'facts', when in fact you had access to my 02-1052 lawsuit which would have told you the truth. 2. I never was SUCCESSFUL at firing ANY attorney assigned to my case. 3. I never ATTEMPTED to fire Avenia, Mandel, Floit, Bukey, and Solovy. 4. When, finally, I did begin to ATTEMPT to fire an attorney, Leen, I was entirely unsuccessful, indeed for a period of 9 years. 5. When I did ATTEMPT to fire Annemarie Levins, and ordered her to NOT file that appeal, I was completely unsuccessful in that attempt. 6. I did not file "Fifty-one lawsuits against the government". As I have already explained to you, I DID file well over 100 "habeas corpus" actions, which your lawyer was apparently unable to distinguish from 'lawsuits'. But since your lawyer probably didn't even bother to do anymore than read the dockets for some of these cases, it is perfectly obvious that she had no genuine idea why these habeas corpus actions were "dismissed immediately". In other words, she (presumably) didn't know whether those dismissals were 'genuine', or whether the dismissals were entirely frivolous. I can assure you that these dismissals were entirely frivolous. But, you didn't check my side of the story, because YOU DIDN'T ASK ME! That's called "bias". 7. _I_ never "botched any appeals". The appeals, to the extent they were 'botched', were 'botched' by the attorneys who were assigned to me, and (I claim) were actually assigned for the PURPOSE of 'botching' those appeals. Mr. Greenberg, at this point you have an obligation, not merely to APOLOGIZE, but in fact to set the record straight. And I mean, not only in future editions of your book, but also to investigate the reality of the facts of the case. After all of the victimization I faced at the hands of the government and its thugs, you come along and make the situation worse! You try to make me look like a nut, when the reality is precisely as I have long claimed: I am the victim of the Federal government and its employees and agents. At no time did I lie or misrepresent the truth. At EVERY time the Federal government and its agents misrepresent the truth. Mr. Greenberg, I have decided to publish the contents of this email in the Cypherpunks mailing list, to show that I have put you on notice as to your complicity in this matter. You can fix part of the problem by changing your book, and by writing a long article for Forbes telling (at least) how you claim to have been hoodwinked by the Federal Government. Morally, that will help a bit, but it won't change the fact that you were utterly unwilling to pursue the truth when it mattered most. Jim Bell ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Jim Bell <jamesdbell8(a)yahoo.com> To: Andrew Greenberg <agreenberg(a)forbes.com> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 1:26 PM Subject: Fw: Your errors about me in your book. Mr Greenberg, I will continue about the history of 'my' attorneys, who were 'my' attorneys in name only: They were actually the attorneys of "The United States of America", and of their colluding employees. While I would like to say that my 'next' attorney was Jonathan Solovy, given the paperwork I should first deal with a couple of 'asterisks', named Catherine Floit and David Bukey. At some point after I wrote that letter to the Ninth Circuit Court, I received a letter (about June 2000?) from an attorney named Catherine Floit. I called her by telephone, and I explained a bit about the history of prior attorneys Peter Avenia and Judith Mandel. I further explained that I had very, very serious suspicions about government corruption by these attorneys, and the government in general. I said that I would be suing those attorneys, and any other people who assisted the government corruption I then suspected. (Note: Remember, at that point, I did not know about the pre-April existence of phony, forged Ninth Circuit Court appeal 99-30210.) I was surprised when that phone call to Catherine Floit didn't last very long after that! (A minute?) 'What happened?', I thought! It turns out that Floit later contacted the people who had appointed her (the Public Defenders' Office in Seattle Washington, I think.) and asked to be de-assigned to my case. I later heard that she CLAIMED (quite falsely) that I had 'threatened' her! But I hadn't threatened her at all! I had no reason to do so, particularly at that early stage in her representation. But at this point I knew very little about the law. Eventually (a few years later, after I first saw the docket for the forged appeal case 99-30210, in late June 2003; see Jonathan Solovy's 'representation', which I will shortly write about) I realized that Floit must have been informed about the fact that the case she had been assigned to handle, 99-30210, was ALREADY a fraud, and in my phone call with her she learned that I was rather well-informed about the corruption of those two prior attorneys, Avenia and Mandel, AND that I intended to sue them, etc. In other words, she understood that if she took that case, and if she did what the government wanted her to do, she herself was almost certainly going to get sued, and for exactly the kinds of things that Avenia and Mandel were already 'in the crosshairs' for having done in the past. When an attorney is ASSIGNED a case (by a judge or a court) it's fairly hard to 'get out of it'. Such an attorney has to have a rather 'good' (but not necessarily, 'valid') reason to be relieved of that responsibility. Floit (I realized, years later) could not have simply said, "Jim Bell is on to them/us!!! He's going to sue us!". Floit could not have said, "The government is engaging in corruption against Bell, and I don't want to be part of it!". So, what was she going to do? It turns out that the easiest way for her to get out of the assignment was to (falsely) claim, "Jim Bell threatened me!!!". Which she, apparently, did. But I DIDN'T threaten her. But that didn't matter: Floit's mere allegation amounted to a "Get out of representation free" card, analogous to Monopoly's "Get out of jail free" card. She was not obligated to actually prove I'd done anything: No proof was required, or even requested. The allegation itself was quite enough. As she, no doubt, knew quite well. A few weeks later, another attorney (David Bukey) was assigned, but I didn't hear of that. I was not given any notification that Bukey had been assigned: Apparently Bukey heard of his assignment, refused it, and he never contacted me. Nor did anyone else contact me, either, on any subject, including that of Bukey or his (brief) assignment to my case. During this time, I wrote yet another letter to the Ninth Circuit Court basically asking, "Where's my representation?". Notice, now, that the count is up to FOUR: Avenia, Mandel, Floit, and Bukey: None of these attorneys did I ever attempt to 'fire'. (And I didn't even learn that Bukey was supposed to be representing me, until after he had been relieved of that.) The closest to even 'attempting to fire' I had done was when I tried to prevent Avenia from being relieved, because I didn't want his successor (who turned out to be Mandel: I didn't want anybody assigned, because I had already gotten promises from Avenia to do investigation, which eventually he never effectively did) to be assigned. But at that, I was unsuccessful at both, of course. Jonathan Solovy: Eventually, Solovy was assigned to case 99-30210, as I vaguely recall in about August 2000. Keep in mind that I STILL didn't know about the pre-May-2000 existence of case 99-30210 as of then: I would only learn of that pre-May-2000 existence when I wrote for, and received, the docket for 99-30210 in late June 2003. Solovy didn't do anything OBVIOUSLY wrong. At least, I didn't recognize that in 2000. He wrote the appeal, 99-30210, filed it, and it lost. I think he may also have written a Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court, which also obviously failed. (I don't recall what they contained; I didn't learn the law until beginning December 2000). But I can say this much: At no time during Solovy's representation did he EVER say to me anything that would have alerted me to the pre-May-2000 existence of case 99-30210. I may not have known much (or even 'anything') about Federal law in September, 2000, but if he had said something like "Jim, I see you've been assigned pro-se to this appeal since July 1999: What are your theories as to appealing this case?" I would have been alerted, with a distinct start, and I would have instantly asked him, "What do you mean? I thought I began this case in April 2000, when I wrote a letter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? What's this about July 1999?!?". By the time I first saw a copy of the docket for case 99-30210, on about June 20, 2003, I knew FAR more Federal law. I'd spent since about December 2000 in a jail/prison law library. In fact, two of the REASONS I wrote to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in early June 2003, asking for the docket for 99-30210, were: 1. Clearing up loose ends for my Portland Federal Court lawsuit, 02-1052, I remembered that I had (thought!) initiated that appeal (99-30210) by means of mailing a letter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, asking for an appeal. (In case 97-5270, as I recall). As of June 2003, I understood that the rules required that to appeal, somebody needs to file a 'Notice of Appeal' within about two weeks of the date of the order-entry. My letter of April 2000 was, I then realized, nearly ten (10) months too late to initiate an appeal in that case. "So why," I thought, "wasn't that letter immediately rejected?!?" and "Why did they give me that appeal?" 2. At some point, I recognized that the case-number of that appeal (99-30210) started with the number, "99", which stands for "1999", the date that appeal was initiated. In other words, I eventually realized (June 2003) that that appeal had been begun in 1999, NOT in 2000. Evidently, my letter of April 2000 DIDN'T 'start the ball rolling' on that appeal. Therefore, and being quite suspicious, I wrote a bland, routine note in early June 2003 to the Ninth Circuit, asking for the copy of the docket for case 99-30210, which I had never seen before. I received an envelope about June 20, 2003, containing a copy of that docket. The most obvious thing that struck me about that docket was that case 99-30210 DIDN'T start in April 2000, as I had previously assumed. It was quite clear, instead that it had begun in July 1999. (Although, the 'Notice of Appeal' had actually been filed about June 20, 1999). Something VERY VERY suspicious had been going on! Secondly, I looked through the various docket entries, and I could see that this case had appeared to have been active: Ostensibly, I had actually been 'pro se' (representing myself) which I knew that I hadn't been doing! (because, of course, I hadn't even known about the existence of that case, prior to May 2000, thinking I initiated it with a letter to the Ninth Circuit in late April 2000). In fact, I could see that there were two filings, about November 10, 1999, and March 2, 2000, which purported to have been filed by me! (And, obviously, I knew that I hadn't filed them!) Most importantly, I realized that I had not received ANY of these many mailings while I was at Seatac FDC (until Sept 3, 1999) nor any while I was at Phoenix FCI (From Sept 10, 1999 though April 13, 2000, when I was released; I was at the Oklahoma City Federal Transfer Center for a week from Sept 3 to Sept 10, 1999.) Note: I received NONE of the mailings from the Ninth Circuit Court during July 1999 through April 2000, because the Bureau of Prisons staff at both those locations hid them from me. (Did not deliver them to me). If I had received EVEN ONE of those mailings, I would have been alerted that an appeal existed. I didn't receive even a single one. Of course, I wasn't EXPECTING a single one, either, because I was not then aware that appeal 99-30210 existed. But there was more. I looked at the docket item numbers at the middle of the docket pages (between the dates on the left, and the descriptions of the entries on the right) and I noticed that they were not all there. Some were out of order (I later understood that merely being out of order is not abnormal) but 29 of the first 79 docket entry numbers simply were not present! Since I already knew there had to be a dramatic amount of corruption associated with this case, I considered that a very significant clue. Later, weeks and months later, I showed this docket to numerous 'jailhouse lawyers', and to a person, they said they had never seen even a single 'missing' docket entry number on any dockets they had ever seen. Over the subsequent years, I also looked at any docket I could get my hands on, and never once was I able to identify even a single 'missing' docket entry number on any docket. An explanation is in order. I believe that in about May 2000, some of the staff of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals engaged in a 'forgery party' of the docket for case 99-30210. I think that they realized that they could not deny me an appeal in that probation-revocation case, BECAUSE THEY HAD ALREADY GIVEN ME THAT APPEAL! But, they also realized that they couldn't simply continue on with that forgery, because they knew that I DIDN'T KNOW of the existence of appeal 99-30210 during the time of June 1999 through April 2000. They knew that they couldn't simply initiate a new appeal, because a record of appeal 99-30210 already existed. They also knew that they couldn't allow me to see a copy of the docket for 99-30210, because that would have alerted me (just as it eventually alerted me in June 2003) that the appeal had existed, yet had been concealed from me during the period June 1999 through April 2000. What they had to do, I think, was to RE-forge that docket, which they did in May 2000, and then assign a colluding attorney (First Floit, then Bukey, then Solovy) who would help conceal the history of this case from me, and then write a serviceable 'appeal', so that it could lose: Their hope, apparently, was that I would be satisfied with that. And until June 2003, I was indeed 'satisfied'. Perhaps a couple months after I first saw that copy of the docket for case 99-30210, I wrote a letter to Jonathan Solovy. (He had never been 'de-assigned' to my case). I don't recall, precisely, what I said (It's been 10 years!), but I asked him to look into into the problem. His response? Well, suddenly he had developed 'carpal tunnel syndrome' (I was well aware of that condition) and he couldn't handle my case anymore! I insisted; He wrote to the judge, asking that he be allowed to withdraw. Actually, I think he wrote to the WRONG judge! I think he wrote to Judge Burgess, of the District Court case, 97-5270, NOT the Ninth Circuit appeals court (99-30210). But it didn't matter: he was allowed to withdraw. Please note: Jonathan Solovy was my FIFTH attorney, if you are counting Avenia, Mandel, Floit, and Bukey before him. And note that I didn't try to get Solovy, either, 'fired'. Indeed, yet again I wanted to see Solovy to continue to handle that case (99-30210) in large part BECAUSE I knew that he had committed fraud against me and, kinda-sorta, against the court as well. But, Solovy's fraud was in league with the U.S. Attorneys (Seattle), the Federal Bureau of Prisons staff at FDC Seatac, and at FCI Phoenix, and the staff of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and possibly others. So, where did you come up with that claim that I fired "all" of my attorneys, HMMMMMMMM????????? Sorry if I display a little schadenfreude, but I think I've earned the right to complain. And I still haven't yet mentioned attorney Robert Leen, and Annemarie Levins, either!!! I'll talk about them next. Jim Bell ----- Forwarded Message ----- On 11/14/13 7:15 PM, "Jim Bell" <jamesdbell8(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Mr. Greenberg, This is further commentary about your claim that I fired 'every' attorney I was assigned. That, as I previously stated, was and is laughably incorrect. Please see Claims 130 through 145, in my July 2003 Lawsuit, "James Dalton Bell et al v. District Courts of Tacoma and Seattle, et al", case number 02-1052, as amended on about July 14, 2003, for what I mentioned in my previous message, copied below. It's available on the Web, at: <http:///> cryptome.org/jdb-v-usa-106.htm <http:///> See, further, Claims 146-161, describing how attorney Judith Mandel was forced onto me. Strictly speaking, I didn't try to 'fire' Mandel: More accurately, I tried to prevent Mandel from being inflicted onto me, although I was unsuccessful. Mandel actually REQUESTED to withdraw, on about June 2, 1999 (See my Claim 158 in Lawsuit 02-1052). You will notice very few references to forged, fraudulent 9th Circuit Court of Appeal case 99-30210 in my lawsuit. The reason is that I was having another person edit this lawsuit, in the Portland Oregon area, and I only discovered the pre-April-2000 existence of case 99-30210 in about June 20, 2003. That lawsuit had been originally filed in about July 2002, and there was a 1-year limitation period on my amending that lawsuit, in order to obtain the benefit of the earlier (2002) filing date. Thus, I had very little time in which to do those edits: I had to write a very few such edits, mail them to the person doing the edits in the Portland area, where he made those edits, and then have copies of the amendment printed up and filed at Portland Oregon Federal Court. It was, I believe, Judith Mandel who filed the one-page "Notice of Appeal" (About June 20, 1999) for my probation-revocation case in Tacoma Federal Court. (And she resigned about June 21, 1999). But she never sent me a copy of that notice. Of course, I didn't know that at the time. (And she never mailed to me a copy of her file on my case, which she should have done if she had been going to 'allow' me to defend myself in any subsequent appeal.) Even that wouldn't have been a problem, EXCEPT that all of the mailings subsequently done by the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals (or should have been done?) were never delivered to me: First, at my address at Seatac Federal Detention Center (FDC), until about Sept 3, 1999, and subsequently (beginning about Sept 10, 1999) at Phoenix FCI. The only plausible explanation for this combination is that there was careful collusion between Mandel, the Tacoma Federal Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the staff of Seatac FDC and (later) Phoexnix FCI. If even ONE of the mailings that I should have gotten from the Ninth Circuit Court had actually arrived and had been delivered to me, I would have been aware of the existence of that appeal, case 99-30210. My recollection is that in April 2000, I wrote a letter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, still unaware of the existence of case 99-30210. I demanded an appeal on my probation-revocation case. (I had been told, by a jailhouse-lawyer, in early 2000 that I had a right to an appeal.) What I didn't know (because I didn't know the law at that point) that in order to obtain an appeal, I would have had to have filed a "Notice of Appeal" within two weeks after the entry of the order: About June 1999. So, if I had know the rules, I would not have written that letter, because I would have realized that I was about 10 months too late. But, the reality is that the appeal ALREADY EXISTED, though I didn't know that at the time. In fact, I only learned in June 2003 that case 99-30210 had existed as early as July 1999. So, you can see that I DIDN'T even attempt to fire attorney Judith Mandel. So, why did you say I fired her? Why did you say I fired her predecessor, Peter Avenia? I think by now you're getting a sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach, but it's going to get worse, much worse! I will continue to show that I did not SUCCEED in firing ANY attorney, and that in all cases those attorneys continued to victimize me until the damage they could do was done. Then, on their own initiative (and with the approval of a colluding judge), they left. Jim Bell ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Jim Bell <jamesdbell8(a)yahoo.com> To: Andrew Greenberg <agreenberg(a)forbes.com> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 12:21 AM Subject: Your errors about me in your book. From Page 132 of "This Machine Kills Secrets". You commented about my "truly phenomenal discovery". I have sent you a copy of the as-published PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty), for my isotopically-modified optical fiber invention. Corning says that 300 billion meters of optical fiber are made each year; If I get 10% market penetration, that's 30 billion meters. At $0.25 per meter of fiber royalty, that's $7.5 billion per year, or $150 billion over the patent's 20-year lifetime. However, this is only one of a few dozen inventions I have thought of involving isotopically-modified materials, although it is the most readily doable and is like the most profitable. In principle, however, my fiber optic inventions number far more than this: The main problem is that isotope separation is rather expensive, and any such invention isn't worth doing unless the benefit from the material or device exceeds the cost of that separation. The main reason my optical fiber is practical is that the isotopically-modified core of the 125-micron fiber is only about 30 microns in diameter, so that it uses very little isotopically-modified material. My estimate of 5000 patents is still reasonable, based on what I know now, but it will require the development of ever-cheaper ways of separating isotopes. Next: The article says (page 133) that "he had fired practically every court-appointed lawyer ever assigned to him". Actually, that is absolutely NOT true, although the truth requires some explanation that you didn't bother to ask me. I could say, accurately, that I "Never" fired ANY attorney, but again that requires some explanation. (More precisely, I never SUCCEEDED in firing ANY lawyer: In every circumstance where I tried to fire an attorney, that attorney was continued to be forced upon me, for weeks, months, or in one case years, and if and when that attorney finally withdrew, it wasn't because _I_ wanted him to leave, it was because he (or she) had finally achieved the damage to me that he (or she) was trying to do, and he (or she) obtained the permission of the judge to withdraw. You have a major responsibility here! To my recollection, you NEVER asked me about me 'firing' any attorney, yet you put this material in your book as if it were true. You have based your commentary on these false 'facts', and you didn't check with me to see if I had a correction or other explanation. Peter Avenia was my first attorney (1997-1999). I never even tried to fire him. And, in fact, I tried to get the judge (Burgess) in about April 1999 to REFUSE Avenia's request to withdraw. Why? In 1998, I consented to an unnecessary 'mental evaluation' (in Springfield Missouri) based on Avenia's promise that he would investigate my allegations that the government had been spying on me. In fact, the only basis for the government's request for a 'mental evaluation' was my claim that the government was spying on me! Please note that the government didn't deny that it had been spying; the prosecutor didn't comment on that. Can you see why this is a problem? It turns out that the government was, indeed, spying on me, including during the period of April 1998 and June 1998, after which they arrested me for a 'supervised violation'. In fact, they had placed a tracking device in at least one of my parents' cars (A Lincoln). "What's wrong with that", you might ask? Well, in 2012 the US Supreme Court ruled (U.S. v. Jones) that such a placement was a "search" under the 4th Amendment. Indeed, in a 1999 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case (U.S. v. McIver) , that court ruled that it was legal (under certain circumstances inapplicable to me) for 'cops' (term used generically) to place a tracking device on a subject's car. Problem was, in the McIver there was actually a CRIME being investigated (Marijuana growing) and the subject was directly linked to that crime. In stark contrast, I was neither suspected or known to have been involved in any crime, then-past, then-present, or then-future. In other words, these Feds actually just placed the tracking on the car without any legitimate law-enforcement reason. They did not want, however, to have the fact of their arguably-illegal placement of the tracking devices(s) openly mentioned in any court hearing. I, quite the opposite, DEMANDED to my attorney, Avenia, that he verify the tracking device(s) placement, and argue the matter in court. He promised to do that, in mid 1998, but he later (April 1999) broke his promise by resigning, and his replacement also refused. In other words, I was denied an actual defense due to the collusion of two of 'my' attorneys as well as the government. One of the major things I wanted to do was to prove that the Feds were employing what should be illegal tactics (such as the GPS tracking device) not for any legitimate reason, but simply because they considered me to be their 'enemy', not because they thought I was going to commit any crime. I wanted to be able to show that they were "offending" against me, because of (among other things) my allegation that they had employed a jailhouse snitch ("Ryan Thomas Lund") to attack me, which he did on November 25, 1997. (See version 1.06 of my Portland Oregon Federal Court lawsuit, 02-1052, version filed in July of 2003. Avenia agreed to have an investigator do that. I went to that (useless) evaluation, but when I returned I continued to insist on the investigation that Avenia had promised. Indeed, he eventually did send an investigator ("Sharon Callas") to do an investigation, in Vancouver Washington. Mysteriously, she resigned very shortly after doing that investigation, and I was never given the results. Avenia was allowed (by the Judge, Burgess, now dead) to resign in about April 1999. I objected at a court hearing, because I had gotten Avenia to PROMISE to do an investigation, and I was afraid (correctly, as it turns out) that any replacement of him would fail or refuse to bring out the issues concerning the government's crimes and misdeeds against me. More tomorrow. Jim Bell

12 22