- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Constitutionality of tracking cell phones.
by jim bell 05 Aug '15

05 Aug '15

http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-does-cellphone-privacy-owner-wande… Constitution Check: Does cellphone privacy follow its owner’s wanderings? Lyle Denniston, the National Constitution Center’s constitutional literacy adviser, examines a case that has just arrived at the Supreme Court about police access to cellphone location data stored on cellphone towers. View photo.THE STATEMENT AT ISSUE: “As technology advances, location information from cellphones (and, of course, smartphones) will undoubtedly become more precise and easier to obtain, and if there is no expectation of privacy here, I have some concerns about the government being able to conduct 24/7 electronic tracking (live or historical) in the years to come without an appropriate judicial order. And I do not think I am alone in this respect.” – Excerpt from an opinion by a federal judge, Adalberto Jordan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, limiting his support for a ruling by that court rejecting a Florida man’s Fourth Amendment challenge to federal investigators’ monitoring of the places where he used a cellphone over a continuous span of more than two months. That individual has now filed an appeal at the Supreme Court. WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND… For nearly a half-century, it has been true that a private individual carries around as a kind of personal constitutional shield a right of privacy. As the Supreme Court put it in a famous decision in 1967, “wherever a man may be, he is entitled to know that he will remain free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” All that is necessary to have that shield available as that individual moves about, the court said then, is that he or she is doing something that they personally regard as private, and that society in general would agree that it should be private. In technical constitutional terms, that decision in Katz v. United States – extending protection to what an individual said while using a public telephone booth – was the origin of the idea that the Fourth Amendment protects “a reasonable expectation of privacy.” That amendment, the court said, “protects people, not places.” In the case of the telephone booth, the caller may have been entirely visible through the glass doors, but was still expecting that the actual messages spoken into the telephone were meant to be heard only by the person on the other end. It is too much to say, however, that the individual never loses that privacy once the activity moves outside the enclave of the home into the larger world. The catch is that part of the test that says society must share the perception that the activity does deserve to remain private. Even in that 1967 ruling, the court was careful to say that “what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.” That, of course, makes the protection of that amendment depend in part on the specific action the individual takes to show that the activity was meant to be private – such as closing the door on the telephone booth. Complicating the constitutional question, however, is the situation when an individual tries to keep something private, but strangers (“third parties,” in the language of law) learn of that activity. That was the scenario that the Supreme Court encountered in 1979, when it allowed law enforcement officers to obtain from a telephone company the numbers that a user had dialed. That, the Justices ruled in the case of Smith v. Maryland, was not even a search under the Fourth Amendment, because the individual gave up the privacy about those numbers merely by dialing; that allowed a record to be made in the files of the company. Besides, the court added, the officers did not learn much from that data; they could not even be sure that any call actually had connected. Lately, though, that part of Fourth Amendment law is being reexamined in the courts, as changes in technology make it far more likely that a person’s activities in public can be tracked much more closely, and thus more intrusively. Three years ago, the Supreme Court for the first time examined what it means to privacy that police can use a tracking device, linked to globe-circling satellites, to trace the movement of a suspect’s car, and thus some of the activities of the car’s driver. The decision in Jones v. United States was limited, based on a theory that installation of the device was a “trespass,” but it has come to stand for two larger principles: first, that officers should get a warrant before they do such monitoring, and, second, that technology can definitely change the Fourth Amendment equation about what is private. Last year, the court went further in this examination, concluding that police should get a warrant before they check out the stored contents of a cellphone that police take away from an individual they have arrested. What is logged on a cellphone, the Justices said, can include a vast amount of intensely personal data, and police access to that should only be allowed if a judge has found a good reason to issue a search warrant to get at it. The next step in this constitutional evolution has just arrived in an appeal to the Supreme Court, in the case of Davis v. United States. It is a test of the privacy – or lack of it – of the information that police may gather by checking stored data on cellphone towers located around a community. The majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided that this did not even implicate the Fourth Amendment, because an individual has no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the location data; that is a record kept by the tower operator, the telephone company, and the individual whose calls were logged gave it up merely by using his cellphone. The data, covering 67 continuous days of use on that cellphone, was technically so refined and detailed that it actually placed the user – Quartavius Davis – at the scene of a series of robberies of local businesses in the Miami, Fla., area. Davis’s lawyers have calculated that the towers yielded more than 11,000 bits of data about where he was when he made or got a call. The data was used to convict him of a series of federal crimes, and his lawyers failed to get that excluded from his case on a theory that it invaded his right of privacy in his movements, so should have been barred unless police had a search warrant. Taking that case on to the Supreme Court, his attorneys argued that the Justices needed to step in now “to ensure that the Fourth Amendment does not become a dead letter as police accelerate their warrantless access to rich troves of sensitive personal location data.” The court is expected to act on the case early in the next term.

2 1

getting firmware vulnerability info into hardware reviews
by Blibbet 03 Aug '15

03 Aug '15

Hi, I'm trying to get computer reviews to include more useful information, mainly about checking about known firmware vulnerabilities using Intel CHIPSEC (or MITRE/LegbaCore Copernicus for Windows). http://firmwaresecurity.com/2015/08/03/new-hardware-reviewers-please-post-c… If you know of anyone that does reviews for a living, please forward it to them. I need help with that, I don't have any contacts at review sites. If you've recently bought a new Intel-based system , and it fails CHIPSEC, please let others know about it, so other consumers can avoid that broken hardware. If you work at a company where your purchases have more influence to OEMs than a single citizen, please help by demanding CHIPSEC results before purchase, to help make OEMs deliver better systems. Thanks very much! Lee RSS: http://firmwaresecurity.com/feed

2 2

FOIA/PA
by coderman 01 Aug '15

01 Aug '15

hey Jim, you know what'd be fun? a FOIA/PA request to FBI for your documents. :) if you're so inclined, see https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/privacyactdirect-1… for example wording of interest. best regards, codermange

4 3

Obama heads level "material support" at crypto purveyors
by grarpamp 01 Aug '15

01 Aug '15

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/30/obama-administration-war-appl… The Obama administration’s central strategy against strong encryption seems to be waging war on the companies that are providing and popularizing it: most notably Apple and Google. The intimidation campaign got a boost Thursday when a blog that frequently promotes the interests of the national security establishment raised the prospect of Apple being found liable for providing material support to a terrorist.

2 1

[nickeconopouly@gmail.com: Re: slur: you're going to hate it]
by Nick Econopouly 31 Jul '15

31 Jul '15

----- Forwarded message from Nick Econopouly <nickeconopouly(a)gmail.com> ----- > Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 13:55:25 -0400 > From: Nick Econopouly <nickeconopouly(a)gmail.com> > To: "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn(a)rushpost.com> > Subject: Re: slur: you're going to hate it > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23+89 (0255b37be491) (2014-03-12) > > On 07/30, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-07-30 at 21:15 -0400, Nick Econopouly wrote: > > > Paste for those who don't want to load the webpage: > > > > > > > > > http://slur.io/ > > > Slur: You're going to hate it. > > > > > > "Slur is an open source, decentralized and anonymous marketplace for the > > > selling of secret information in exchange for bitcoin. Slur is written > > > in C and operates over the Tor network with bitcoin transactions through > > > libbitcoin. Both buyers and sellers are fully anonymous and there are no > > > restrictions on the data that is auctioned. There is no charge to buy or > > > sell on the Slur marketplace except in the case of a dispute, where a > > > token sum is paid to volunteers. - See more at: > > > http://slur.io/#sthash.OsHtOC5o.dpuf" > > [...] > > > > This is either going to be very good or very bad. Only time will tell > > which way this goes. > I tend to agree. It has potential to incentize the release of more > information, or create incentive to hoard information and release it > based on the market instead of what is right or wrong. > > In general though I think the project won't be moving forward, for > several reasons > > The service offered by "slur" could easily exist on many DNMs right now > anyway-- I know there are sites where you can buy credit cards, etc. > Does agora sell digital goods? > > The website makes some fantastic claims as well. For instance the claim > that information can not be sold twice on the slur marketplace, or that > someone could really "prevent other parties from acquiring a copy" by > buying it themselves-- Slur is making the mistake of treating IP like > actual tangible property that can't be copied. > > Also, the functionality of Slur would rely on Arbitrators judging > disputes fairly instead of in some other interest > > But there really should be a better leaking platform than just sending > it to an institution (guardian,wikileaks) or hosting it somewhere on the > darknet and hoping people find it > > -nick > ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

[nickeconopouly@gmail.com: Re: slur: you're going to hate it]
by Nick Econopouly 31 Jul '15

31 Jul '15

----- Forwarded message from Nick Econopouly <nickeconopouly(a)gmail.com> ----- > Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:04:51 -0400 > From: Nick Econopouly <nickeconopouly(a)gmail.com> > To: Razer <Rayzer(a)riseup.net> > Subject: Re: slur: you're going to hate it > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23+89 (0255b37be491) (2014-03-12) > > On 07/31, Razer wrote: > > > > > > On 07/30/2015 11:23 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > > I have serious problems with this - leak by economic purchasing power? > > > Where's the principle in that? What could possibly go wrong? > > > > > > This allows the mega wealthy to pay for the protection of their data. > > > If such a market actually gets going, if nothing else it's a turbo > > > charged economic greasing of economic information blackmail. > > > > > > Please people, think before you support such a things. > > > > > > Obviously the oligarchies around the planet will love such a thing > > > (they print the money anyway, so a few dollars is pocket change - a > > > pittance to them anyway). > > > > > > I guess we had to see such reactions to Snowden and his ilk. > > > > > > Juan, your voice is needed so much more now than ever! > > > > > > Where this goes will be interesting to say the least. > > > > > > > > > > The 'donate' hash said something about 'counterbalancing the class war' > > and I immediately thought, 'in whose favor?'. But I'm one who doesn't > > believe mythical currencies like cash and bitcoins EVER 'stops pigs' or > > 'serves people'. > Weird, right? > "Using the enemy's tool against him" works much better when the enemy > isn't the #1 owner, printer, miner of the tool > > Although I have to admit, copyleft is an example of that concept applied > correctly. > > -nick ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

[nickeconopouly@gmail.com: Re: slur: you're going to hate it]
by Nick Econopouly 31 Jul '15

31 Jul '15

----- Forwarded message from Nick Econopouly <nickeconopouly(a)gmail.com> ----- > Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:21:44 -0400 > From: Nick Econopouly <nickeconopouly(a)gmail.com> > To: Zenaan Harkness <zen(a)freedbms.net> > Subject: Re: slur: you're going to hate it > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23+89 (0255b37be491) (2014-03-12) > > On 07/31, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > I have serious problems with this - leak by economic purchasing power? > > Where's the principle in that? What could possibly go wrong? > exactly. More like what could go right > > > > This allows the mega wealthy to pay for the protection of their data. > > If such a market actually gets going, if nothing else it's a turbo > > charged economic greasing of economic information blackmail. > Well, this assumes that the leakers don't royally rip off the wealthy > before releasing the data anyway. > > > > Please people, think before you support such a things. > > > > Obviously the oligarchies around the planet will love such a thing > > (they print the money anyway, so a few dollars is pocket change - a > > pittance to them anyway). > > I would be really surprised if Slur followed through and the oligarchies > loved it. What if people release info for free? or accept donations? > Sure, it's based on the pseudo-science of economics, it's home turf, > but somehow I doubt that the USA would take a liking to a new leaking platform. > > What would be interesting to see is governments(perhaps anonymously) > spending huge amounts to shame each other > > regards, > nick ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

slur: you're going to hate it
by Nick Econopouly 31 Jul '15

31 Jul '15

Paste for those who don't want to load the webpage: http://slur.io/ Slur: You're going to hate it. "Slur is an open source, decentralized and anonymous marketplace for the selling of secret information in exchange for bitcoin. Slur is written in C and operates over the Tor network with bitcoin transactions through libbitcoin. Both buyers and sellers are fully anonymous and there are no restrictions on the data that is auctioned. There is no charge to buy or sell on the Slur marketplace except in the case of a dispute, where a token sum is paid to volunteers. - See more at: http://slur.io/#sthash.OsHtOC5o.dpuf" "How does it work ? Sellers encrypt, upload and then list their data on the digital market with the ease a user might list an item on eBay. They do so with full anonymity and there are no restrictions on the content of the data. Exclusive bidders attempt to purchase the data for their own use and / or prevent other parties from acquiring a copy. Should an exclusive bidder win the auction they alone will receive the decryption keys. The same data cannot be auctioned a second time on the Slur marketplace. Crowd bidders pool their funds into a single bid. Should they win the auction the network will release the decryption keys to all users on the Slur marketplace and the information will therefore become public. Arbitrators are randomly selected users who agree to weigh in on a dispute should the winner of an auction claim that the decrypted contents do not match the sellers description. Public key cryptography ensures the data being sold can only be decrypted by the winner of the auction. - See more at: http://slur.io/#sthash.OsHtOC5o.dpuf" "Implications: If correctly implemented this platform will have a profound and lasting effect on our society. An unregulated free market for information would redefine the net worth of every person as their material assets would in the future be weighed against the market value of their secrets. As damaging as Slur can be to individuals it is considerably more so for groups It's estimated that 5% of the general population are psychopaths. Introducing financial incentive in an anonymous framework will produce a greater yield of leaked information than from say the ideology that drove patriots like Edward Snowden. For every idealist willing to selflessly sacrifice their freedom, assets and even risk their lives for a greater good, there are 1000 psychopaths willing to anonymously sell out their peers for material gain. Organizations of every type; governments, corporations and the military are in the unfortunate predicament of having both a great deal of liquid assets and a large number of secrets to protect - accessible by numerous disgruntled or psychopathic personnel. When Slur becomes ubiquitous it will bleed organizations secrets and funds. The Slur marketplace will sharply increase demand for bitcoin from those parties attempting to purchase previously inaccessible secret information and organizations scrambling to suppress damaging leaks from inside their own ranks or security breaches. The Slur market is WikiLeaks 2.0. An incalculable resource for public knowledge and unfiltered access to the truth. Except that in the future journalists will need to compensate whistle blowers for the extreme risks they take. The types of information we expect to see on the Slur marketplace ; Trade secrets. Designs for every type of consumer product. The source code for proprietary operating systems and high end CAD software. Zero day exploits. For the market defined value rather than a price determined by the corporations under the guise of a bounty with the veiled threat of legal action should the researcher choose to sell elsewhere. The details of backdoors covertly installed inside industrial and consumer hardware and software. Stolen databases. Corporations will no longer be able to get away with an apology when they fail to secure their customers confidential data. They will have to pay the market value to suppress it. Proof of tax evasion from disgruntled or underpaid employees. Both the IRS and the public have an interest in that information and the corporations will have to bid to suppress it - a very quantifiable and predictable payoff for the seller. Military intelligence relevant to real-time conflicts. Aerospace and defense designs. Evidence relevant to ongoing trials. Unflattering celebrity photos and videos. The complete databases of social media sites like facebook. Proof of government corruption. Close to an election. - See more at: http://slur.io/#sthash.OsHtOC5o.dpuf" The site appeals for donations and has a crossed out sentence saying production versions will be available in july 2015. Thoughts? -nick

4 3

Kim Dotcom on Politics, TPP, Law, Crypto, Copyright, Endgame, Perseverance
by grarpamp 31 Jul '15

31 Jul '15

Kim Dotcom was the founder of Megaupload, its successor Mega, and New Zealand's Internet Party. A while ago you had a chance to ask him about those things as well as the U.S. government charging him with criminal copyright violation and racketeering. Below you'll find his answers to your questions... http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/07/27/200204/interviews-kim-dotcom-answers…

1 0

William Friedman's 1955 Crypto AG visit reports draft and final redactions
by John Young 30 Jul '15

30 Jul '15

William Friedman's 1955 draft Crypto AG visit report shows text redacted in final version and vice versa. Two versions compared: <https://t.co/YYfkpltTYc>https://cryptome.org/2015/07/nsa-crypto-ag-compared.pdf (20MB)

2 1