June 2016 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

How to download the full ruling of USA Supreme Court cases?
by Zenaan Harkness 02 Jun '16

02 Jun '16

Can this be done? For example, this quote and "case" reference, should have some context: "Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." [Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250] How do I find the document containing that quote? That quote and reference can be found by google on many sites in many documents, but only as the quote - the full source document/ ruling would provide the context, which would be more useful. Some examples of URLs with the above quote (besides many others): http://freedom-school.com/lewis-mohr/bowden-petition-and-challenge-to-juris… http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/how-beat-any-court-case http://thegetjusticecoalition.blogspot.com/2007/05/cp-6.html

4 4

Re: [tor-talk] Tor (and other nets) probably screwed by Traffic Analysis by now
by grarpamp 02 Jun '16

02 Jun '16

On 6/2/16, juanjo <juanjo(a)avanix.es> wrote: > Something like this is what I feared when days ago I sent a message to > this list... If you allow Tor Browser to have all hops from the same > country, or the Tor network relies only on a few countries to host their > nodes (Germany, US, France) then Tor will be useless soon... > > https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2016-May/040991.html True regarding physical or network compromise of nodes, however that is single purpose and not very efficient attack. Instead, this is traffic analysis by GPA's and cooperating GPA's. They have their illegal, unethical, multipurpose mass surveillance network taps all over the planet. Even if your path was from Canada in (to Venezuela to China to Russia out) to Mexico, they don't have to have taps in any of those countries, only on transit that has visability of the IP's / points of interest, typically just the endpoints. There's nothing you can do about it but - start researching and using networks that use fill traffic - shut down those GPA's and their activities against you It is those out of control self aware self preserving entities with their secret games interpretations etc, that will lessen, chill, and tax at your overall life, not random criminals running about. Background on public tech... http://betanews.com/2016/05/26/microsoft-facebook-underwater-transatlantic-… http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/05/how-the-internet-work…

1 0

A promising method to thwart global surveillence
by Ryan Carboni 01 Jun '16

01 Jun '16

The Russian Illegals spy ring in New York used steganography. The Caliphate cell in Brussels used truecrypt files uploaded to cyberlockers in Turkey. But the grugq notes that truecrypt files would probably have a fixed size (and even with a random length, it would still round to kilobyte sizes), so it wouldn't be so simple. Obviously if state-level actors use these methods against the NSA, steganography does have a good role to play. Problem is that machine learning has advanced substantially. In a worst case scenario, it will be obvious that you have steganographic files, that is if photodna hashes are similar for many files, but fuzzy hashes aren't as similar. The best that could be done would be to make automated scans more probabilistic and less reliable (I have tens of thousands of files on my computer), by embedding encrypted data steganographically in images in the PDF file. The text and images of the PDF file could be procedurally generated. But I'm not an expert. I'm just pointing out what makes sense to me.

5 6

All your disk image are (forever) belong to us, says appeals court
by Александр 01 Jun '16

01 Jun '16

*All your disk image are belong to us, says appeals courtCourt says your files are ripe for seizure—Fourth Amendment doesn't apply.* *by David Kravets - May 31, 2016* http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/feds-can-keep-your-hard-drives-i… The government can prosecute and imprison people for crimes based on evidence obtained from their computers—even evidence retained for years that was outside the scope of an original probable-cause search warrant, a US federal appeals court has said in a 100-page opinion paired with a blistering dissent. The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled <http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d1aa55fc-fb04-4abd-a9c6-f19…> that there was no constitutional violation because the authorities acted in good faith when they initially obtained a search warrant, held on to the files for years, and built a case unrelated to the original search. The case posed a vexing question—how long may the authorities keep somebody's computer files that were obtained during a search but were not germane to that search? The convicted accountant said that only the computer files pertaining to his client—who was being investigated as part of an Army overbilling scandal—should have been retained by the government during a 2003 search. All of his personal files, which eventually led to his own tax-evasion conviction, should have been purged, he argued. But the appeals court said the authorities' behavior was acceptable and didn't reach the constitutional question of whether the Fourth Amendment rights were breached for accountant Stavros Ganias, who was sentenced to two years in prison. That's because three years after the original search of the accountant's files in connection to the Army scandal, Connecticut authorities got another search warrant for Ganias' own tax files that were already in the government's possession, the appeals court ruled in a 12-1 decision Friday written by Judges Debra Ann Livingston and Gerard Lynch. Ganias had subsequently deleted those files from his hard drives after the government had imaged them, according to court records: Defendant-Appellant Stavros Ganias appeals from a judgment of the United > States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Thompson, J.) > convicting him, after a jury trial, of two counts of tax evasion in > violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201. He challenges his conviction on the ground > that the Government violated his Fourth Amendment rights when, after > lawfully copying three of his hard drives for off-site review pursuant to a > 2003 search warrant, it retained these full forensic copies (or “mirrors”), > which included data both responsive and non-responsive to the 2003 warrant, > while its investigation continued, and ultimately searched the > non-responsive data pursuant to a second warrant in 2006. Ganias contends > that the Government had successfully sorted the data on the mirrors > responsive to the 2003 warrant from the non-responsive data by January > 2005, and that the retention of the mirrors thereafter (and, by extension, > the 2006 search, which would not have been possible but for that retention) > violated the Fourth Amendment. He argues that evidence obtained in > executing the 2006 search warrant should therefore have been suppressed. > > We conclude that the Government relied in good faith on the 2006 warrant, > and that this reliance was objectively reasonable. Accordingly, we need not > decide whether retention of the forensic mirrors violated the Fourth > Amendment, and we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. > *The case is clearly nuanced, but it has huge ramifications for the public because many people keep all of their papers and effects co-mingled on their hard drives.* In his 40-page dissent, Judge Denny Chin blasted the majority opinion and said the authorities wrongly seized files from Ganias that were unrelated to the Army overbilling investigation. "The government did precisely what the Fourth Amendment forbids: it entered Ganias' premises with a warrant to seize certain papers and indiscriminately seized—and retained—all papers instead," Chin wrote. This is not the first time the appeals court entertained the case. Last year, the court sided <http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-ca2-12-00240/pdf/USCOURTS-ca2-12-0024…> (PDF) with Ganias in a 2-1 ruling. But the government asked for the full appeals court to rehear the case en banc, and the court agreed to do so with all 13 judges. The court's original ruling for Ganias said investigators had a right to image Ganias' three hard drives at the center of the Army overbilling dispute. But the majority concluded that the law did not allow "officials executing a warrant for the seizure of particular data on a computer to seize and indefinitely retain every file on a computer for use in future criminal proceedings." Ganias' lawyer, Stanley Twardy, urged the government to set aside his client's conviction. *"The seizure and two-and-a-half year retention of every file on Ganias' computers violated the Fourth Amendment,"* Twardy wrote <http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/twardy.pdf>. (PDF) He told the New York-based appeals court that "at a minimum the Fourth Amendment requires prompt completion of an off-site review and return of files outside the warrant's scope." The government countered, "Consistent with the Fourth Amendment, the government may obtain a search warrant for nearly any person, place, or thing if the government establishes probable cause for the search and did not engage in an illegal seizure of the item to be searched," Assistant US Attorney Sandra Glover wrote in the government's filing <http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/fedsganiasbrief.pdf>

3 2

Your money in the bank ... they don't have it.
by grarpamp 01 Jun '16

01 Jun '16

Dis ma main nigga... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYgD4vO1wnY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXgli0xQ108 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAhUbnVv6Zc Like, comment, share, changetip... bruhs. bitcoin:1QKBY5Cb8mt6V3JJ9owYUxqcJ8iKa7Q3gM

1 0

All your ... are (forever) belong to us, says (your Gov / Corp)
by grarpamp 01 Jun '16

01 Jun '16

On 5/31/16, Anthony Papillion <anthony(a)cajuntechie.org> wrote: > What will it take for us to finally wake up and fight back? A total > suspension of the Constitution and a revocation of our rights? Americans gave all their rights up moments after they successfully revolted against the Brits... by giving them, and all the rest of their interests, to their new Government, Oligarchs, System, etc for supposed benevolent care. And they just got done proving minutes before that idea never works in the end. Fools. Now shit is once again raping them from all three branches of their government and business combined. Oopsie. Yet more news from the stupid-comes-full-circle dept... https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/05/31/213259/us-court-says-no-warrant-nee… http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-mobilephones-idUSKCN0YM2CZ Police do not need a warrant to obtain a person's cellphone location data held by wireless carriers, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Tuesday, dealing a setback to privacy advocates. The full 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, voted 12-3 that the government can get the information under a decades-old legal theory that it had already been disclosed to a third party, in this case a telephone company. The ruling overturns a divided 2015 opinion from the court's three-judge panel and reduces the likelihood that the Supreme Court would consider the issue. The decision arose from several armed robberies in Baltimore and Baltimore County, Maryland, in early 2011, leading to the convictions of Aaron Graham and Eric Jordan. The convictions were based in part on 221 days of cellphone data investigators obtained from wireless provider Sprint, which included about 29,000 location records for the defendants, according to the appeals court opinion.

1 0