Re: FBI Requests File Removal

[David Marshall]

Steven Furlong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> What do you call it when the _functionaries_ of the government must
> hide from the people?

1) A police state.
2) Pretty damned sad.

RE: ZKS economic analysis

[Tom Vogt]

Ken Brown wrote:
> every time I see you walking down the street I collect personally
> identifying information about you. I store it in the little database in
> my mind. You can't stop me. I may not do much with it, or write it down
> anywhere, but it's there.  Distasteful perhaps, you might not like me
> having thoughts and memories about you yourself, but that's life. 

there's a difference between this and a database system. almost all laws
on privacy (where such exist) realize that.

Spam bill

[Marcel Popescu]

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,37665,00.html

[Ron Paul] said he opposed Wilson's anti-spam bill because it would cost
taxpayers $60 million in computers and Federal Trade Commission labor to
implement, and it would stomp on laws already on the books in 16 states.

He is also confident the high-tech industry can handle the problems
associated with unsolicited junk email on its own.

"This bill preempts state law," Paul said. "Why do we need $60 million to
regulate the Internet? I don't know."

---
All inventions or works of authorship original to me,
herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public
domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose,
without permission, attribution, or notification.

RE: Data in your mind vs. encrypted

[Trei, Peter]

> > Could I therefore be legally forced to provide
> > a translation of what I write in Lojban?
> 
> 
IANAL, and all that, but.

It's my understanding that there's a precedent in which
a government audit of a merchant was halted, or at 
least seriously delayed, when it was discovered that all
of his business records where in Hebrew. The court 
ruled that (1) He had no obligation to keep records in
English, and (2) He had no obligation to provide a
translation.

While the courts have ruled that government agents
can seize or copy any physical object they have a
warrant for, or subpoena or use discovery to force
turning over of records, the government, at least in a
criminal case, cannot require you to provide them with
an *interpretation* of what they have obtained, just as
they cannot force a defendant or suspect to answer 
questions without a grant of immunity.

While venal judges, prosecutors and LEAs might
try to argue otherwise, I suspect that you'd have a
strong case that you do *not* have to translate 
information for them. 

(maybe I should brush up on my Estonian :-)

Again, IANAL.

Peter Trei

Re: FBI Requests File Removal

[R. A. Hettinga]

At 3:40 AM -0400 on 7/21/00, David Marshall wrote:


> Steven Furlong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> What do you call it when the _functionaries_ of the government must
>> hide from the people?
>
> 1) A police state.
> 2) Pretty damned sad.

"Tyrrany" has a nice ring to it...

:-).

Cheers,
RAH
-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Christianity vs. the 2nd ammendment

[Marcel Popescu]

[For the brain-impaired, I agree with the guy.]

http://www.guntruths.com/Puckett/christianity_versus_the_second_a.htm

Christianity vs. the 2nd ammendment
By Brian Puckett

I get angry when I consider the utter garbage that some "Christian leaders"
nowadays dump on their followers regarding self-defense and the right to
keep and bear arms.

Many of today's so-called Christians are anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment,
and/or (professedly) "anti-violence". When I say "many Christians" I
mean--for example--all those local churches who endorsed the recent proposal
to restrict ammunition sales in Pasadena, California, and who endorse every
other gun-control scheme that comes down the pike. And I mean the leadership
of the U.S. Presbyterian and Methodist churches, who instruct their members
to submit to criminal acts committed against their persons, including rape,
because fighting back might harm the criminals, whom the church views as
brothers and sisters.

These people wouldn't have the luxury of sitting on their butts opposing
"violence" if violence had not been done by our forebears in the recent and
distant past to give them a wealthy, relatively peaceful country to live in.
They wouldn't have that same luxury if policemen and soldiers didn't stand
ready daily to do violence for them, thus keeping their soft, weak hands
free of blood.

Perhaps the problem originates with contradictions inherent in the
foundations of Judeo-Christian doctrine. One, for example, is the
commandment "Thou shalt not kill." Some scholars contend that the original
commandment was "Thou shalt not murder", or to be more precise, the Hebrew
version of that statement. If this is correct then church doctrine
subordinate to or predicated upon that commandment might be radically
altered.

In the realm of specifically Christian doctrine, there is Jesus' reported
admonition to those struck on one cheek to "turn the other cheek". Many
Christians would say that this means we should be passive and not fight our
assailants. But another interpretation is that Jesus meant we should turn
the other cheek in order to (1) shock and shame one's antagonist, thus
providing him a moment to reflect on what he has done, perhaps to reconsider
and to apologize (2) force us to hold our temper, rather than immediately
striking out and worsening the situation, perhaps beyond repair.

This interpretation, by the standards of any religion, is sound advice. And
it is an interpretation acceptable to those who reject the idea that Jesus
advocated passivity and total submission in the face of either criminals or
tyrants. It is hard to accept that notion when one reads the words of Jesus
reported in Luke 22:36-- "...Let him who has no sword  sell his robe and buy
one". And it is hard to accept passivity in the face of evil when Jesus
himself didn't behave that way, as when he drove the money changers from the
temple  with a whip.

Perhaps the doctrinal problem lies in confusing Jesus' acceptance of his
divine role on earth with an implied endorsement of passivity in the face of
any assault or insult to one's person. In other words, because Jesus did not
resist events that were preordained or that were necessary in order to
complete the grand design of his life, we should be similarly passive and
fatalistic in our own everyday lives. However, the implication of this
position is that mortal men and women are on Christ's level, which I believe
is an error. Or perhaps the problem is not one of doctrine at all. It could
be argued that for centuries the elements of Christian leadership interested
in power and control have taught Christians to be meek and submissive in all
things in order to achieve the blind obedience of their followers.

In light of the above it is interesting and instructive to note the thoughts
of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzche in his work Beyond Good and
Evil:

"There is a point in the history of society when it becomes so
pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with
those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly.
Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining
'punishment' and 'being supposed to punish' hurts it, arouses fear in it.
'Is it not enough to render him undangerous? Why still punish? Punishing
itself is terrible.' With this question, herd morality, the morality of
timidity, draws its ultimate consequence."

This is all the more interesting--or depressing, depending on one's point of
view--considering that it was written in the year 1886. Worth noting are
Nietzche's words a few paragraphs later in the same work:

"Indeed, with the help of a religion which indulged and flattered the most
sublime herd-animal desires, we have reached the point where we find even in
political and social institutions an ever more visible expression of this
morality: the democratic movement is the heir of the Christian movement."

By "democratic" Nietzche meant true democracy, d

sleeping with the emperor

[Anonymous]

21 July 2000. Add message and names. 

20 July 2000 



To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Loop: openpgp.net
From: John Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 20 July 2000
Subject: PSIA Request

July 20, 2000

Federal Bureau of Investigation
NCCS, New York
C37

Dear FBI,

This confirms my telephone remarks today that I decline
your request to remove the list of members of Japan's 
Public Security Investigation Agency posted on Cryptome:

  http://cryptome.org/psia-lists.htm

The file shall not be removed except in response to a US 
court order.

You have informed me that your telephone request to remove
the list was made at the request of the Japanese Ministry of
Justice and that no US criminal investigation is underway in this 
matter.

You said that you will convey to the Ministry of Justice that I
have declined to remove the list and that I should expect
to be contacted directly by the Ministry of Justice as a result
of declining to remove the list.

You said that you will speak to the US Attorney and call me
again.

I have agreed with your request not to identify the two FBI Special 
Agents to whom I spoke today.

I told you that I would be publishing an account of this on Cryptome.

Regards,

John Young
Cryptome



Note: Yes, it is contradictory that Cryptome will publish the PSIA names but not those 
of the FBI
Special Agents. The senior Special Agent said at the end of the conversation that if 
his and the other
agent's names were published "you are going to be in real trouble." Until that time 
both agents had been
very polite. He then said he was going to take the matter up with the US Attorney and 
call again. 

So we're brooding on that threat, pondering the FBI names on this notepad, comparing 
this situation
with that of the MI6 names and the MI5 names and the Iranian names and the PSIA names 
and the CIA
names Cryptome has published. In none of the other instances was Cryptome threatened. 
And are
wondering why the FBI carnivores deserve privacy we don't get from them and the 
world's surveillance
agencies. 

More later. 

Meanwhile, if curious send an inquiry to the FBI address on our e-mail. Or telephone: 
212-384-3155. 



Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:34:27 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Loop: openpgp.net
From: John Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: PSIA Request

July 21, 2000

Federal Bureau of Investigation
NCCS, New York
C37

Dear FBI,

This supplements my message yesterday on declining to
remove a list of names of members of Japan's Public Security
Investigation Agency from the Internet site Cryptome.org.

In that message I wrote that I agreed with your request to not 
identify the two Special Agents who spoke to me on this matter.

After reflecttion on this I have decided that publishing the names
of the Special Agents would be consistent with publishing the
names of the PSIA members, and in both cases the purpose
of publishing is to contribute to public awareness of how
government functions and to identify who performs those 
functions. I believe this is why the two Special Agents readily
identified themselves to me and that it would be appropriate
for me to share that information with readers of Cryptome.

Therefore I shall publish the names of the two Special Agents 
who spoke with me at:

   http://cryptome.org/fbi-psia.htm

Sincerely,

John Young
Cryptome




The FBI Special Agent who initially telephoned was James Castano. Mr. Castano 
explained the Ministry
of Justice request to remove the PSIA material and answered all my questions about it. 
I explained my
intention to publish an account of the FBI's request on Cryptome because there had 
been interest in
how such requests are processed between governments. I asked if I could provide his 
name in the
account. He asked with emphasis that I not do so. I agreed. 

In the course of discussing my sending an e-mail to Mr. Castano, his supervisor, 
Special Agent Dave
Marzigliano (I believe he spelled it), came on the phone and repeated the information 
Mr. Castano
provided about the Ministry of Justice request. 

Both agents were very courteous during most of the conversations. Except toward the 
end of the
conversation with Mr. Marzigliano, when I mentioned my intention to publish an account 
without
revealing his and Mr. Castano's names, he warned me there would be "serious trouble" 
if their names
were published, and that he would be speaking with the US Attorney about the matter 
and call me
again. 

Mr. Marzigliano did not explain why their two names should be concealed, why there 
would be
"serious trouble" if revealed, what "serious trouble" meant, the legal basis for such 
trouble, nor what it
was in my comments that alarmed him. 

Re: FBI Requests File Removal

[Jim Burnes]

On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Tim May wrote:

> At 8:17 PM -0400 7/20/00, Steven Furlong wrote:
> >John Young wrote:
> >>  I have agreed with your request not to identify the two FBI Special
> >>  Agents to whom I spoke today.
> >
> >Why did they request that, and why did you agree? It's not like they're
> >undercover cops infiltrating a drug ring. More like secret police, in
> >this ignorant layman's opinion.
> >
> 
> I agree with Steve. Why, John, would you cater to FBI wishes to not 
> publicize the names of agents who have attempted to browbeat you into 
> withdrawing material which is certainly not a matter of U.S. law?
> 

You could still post them. ;-)

jb

Re: FBI Requests File Removal

[R. A. Hettinga]

At 11:17 AM -0400 on 7/21/00, R. A. Hettinga wrote:


> "Tyrrany"

Open mouth, insert spell-check. Tyranny, of course.

Cheers,
RAH
-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Carnivore can be used for more than just snooping (was Re: FBI Requests File Removal)

[sunder]

"T. Bankson Roach" wrote:
> 
> Let's think about this for a moment. Assume Carnivore is the deadliest
> threat to American freedom since the Clintons arrived in Washington.
> 
> First, we know about Carnivore, or think we do. 

Indeed.  I'll not get into the moral questions of outing that pair of Feebs,
nor will I get into the implied threats that JY got.  Instead
I'll point something out that I've been thinking that these boxes COULD do:

Beyond the mass scale of sniffage of emails and what not, they could also
be used to INSERT traffic into the networks by forging MAC addresses they
have learned.  This can be used to PLANT evidence, or be used for attacking
enemies.  They can also be used to run denyal of service attacks, or even
sever connections by forging FIN, RST, and other TCP packets.

How's that for extreme censorship?

-- 
--Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos---
 + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\
  \|/  :aren't security.  A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\
<--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you   \/|\/
  /|\  :masked killer, but  |don't email them, or put them on a web  \|/
 + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net 

Re: FBI Requests File Removal

[Tim May]

At 12:01 PM -0400 7/21/00, Jim Burnes wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Tim May wrote:
>
>>  At 8:17 PM -0400 7/20/00, Steven Furlong wrote:
>>  >John Young wrote:
>>  >>  I have agreed with your request not to identify the two FBI Special
>>  >>  Agents to whom I spoke today.
>>  >
>>  >Why did they request that, and why did you agree? It's not like they're
>>  >undercover cops infiltrating a drug ring. More like secret police, in
>>  >this ignorant layman's opinion.
>>  >
>>
>>  I agree with Steve. Why, John, would you cater to FBI wishes to not
>>  publicize the names of agents who have attempted to browbeat you into
>>  withdrawing material which is certainly not a matter of U.S. law?
>  >
>
>You could still post them. ;-)
>

Indeed, and I may. The text-only file is 120K, which is large for Usenet.

I did forward the material to a friend of mine who has spent 9 years 
in Japan dealing with technology exports. He's never sure if the 
people he is dealing with who say they are with Toshiba, for example, 
don't also have other masters. This list may help him to figure out 
who some of the spies are/were.

As for the material getting to the Aum cult, the source was a group 
within Japan. Odds are this material has already been widely 
circulated, Samizdat-style.


--Tim May
-- 
-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
Timothy C. May  | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.

Re: FBI Requests File Removal

[Steven Furlong]

Tim May wrote:
> 
> Well put. (This is the second fine essay from Gil Hamilton this
> morning...I hope this signals more signal in the S/N ratio is coming.)
> 
> Recall the case around October or November of last year when the FBI
> applied pressure to an ISP to get a "Y2K training tape" yanked off
> the site. The training tape, which was available for download as an
> MPEG or somesuch, purported to show how on New Year's Eve the army
> would move in to either suppress or foment disorder. An entertaining
> little video, but pretty clearly a work of performance art.
> 
> (I don't have URLs handy for the swirl of stories written about it at
> the time. I think Declan did a piece on it.)
> 
> The FBI did not seek a court order, which is the legal way to
> (sometimes) quash speech. Rather, it applied extra-legal pressures.
> 
> And the ISP caved in.
> 
> IIRC, the ACLU was talking at one point about a lawsuit against the
> Feds for applying this kind of extra-legal pressure. Haven't heard
> any follow-up. Perhaps lost in the Y2K fizzle.
> 
> Sadly, this kind of extra-legal threatening is not punished.

One of the first mentions was in the Village Voice:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/9947/boal.shtml


Wired covered it:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,32772,00.html
Slashdot covered it:
Original article: http://slashdot.org/yro/99/11/24/013232_F.shtml
Follow-up: http://slashdot.org/articles/99/11/30/1258205.shtml

-- 
Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel
   518-374-4720 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: FBI Requests File Removal

[Steven Furlong]

<>


Tim May wrote:
> Well put. (This is the second fine essay from Gil Hamilton this
> morning...I hope this signals more signal in the S/N ratio is coming.)

I've noticed that, too. Hardly any spam in the last day. Woo-hoo.


> Recall the case around October or November of last year when the FBI
> applied pressure to an ISP to get a "Y2K training tape" yanked off
> the site. The training tape, which was available for download as an
> MPEG or somesuch, purported to show how on New Year's Eve the army
> would move in to either suppress or foment disorder. An entertaining
> little video, but pretty clearly a work of performance art.
> 
> (I don't have URLs handy for the swirl of stories written about it at
> the time. I think Declan did a piece on it.)
> 
> The FBI did not seek a court order, which is the legal way to
> (sometimes) quash speech. Rather, it applied extra-legal pressures.
> 
> And the ISP caved in.
> 
> IIRC, the ACLU was talking at one point about a lawsuit against the
> Feds for applying this kind of extra-legal pressure. Haven't heard
> any follow-up. Perhaps lost in the Y2K fizzle.

The FBI first contacted Mike Z. He didn't pull his site, so the
FBI then contacted his ISP. The ISP, a one-man shop, caved
immediately. Like Tim, I haven't seen anything about this since last
year.


One of the first mentions was in the Village Voice:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/9947/boal.shtml

Wired covered it:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,32772,00.html

Slashdot covered it:
Original article: http://slashdot.org/yro/99/11/24/013232_F.shtml
Follow-up: http://slashdot.org/articles/99/11/30/1258205.shtml

(The Village Voice and Wired articles are both linked from the
Slashdot pages. The Slashdot pages are quite large---over 300KB---
because of all the comments.)


-- 
Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel
   518-374-4720 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: John Young, Freedom Fighter Extraordinaire

[Adam Langley]

On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 12:25:42PM -0400, Trei, Peter wrote:
> [Normally, I detest 'me too' posts, but John needs to know that a lot of
> people
> back him up on this decision.]

Same here (hating "me toos"), it's so nice not to see people rolling over for
the govt. Thank you John. It's generally a good day today as the UK courts have
just decided that the Security Services cannot force a couple of papers to hand
over information about a rouge agent.

AGL

-- 
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it doesn't work

 PGP signature

Re: FBI Requests File Removal

[Adam Langley]

On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 03:03:19PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Wildly extrapolating from cpunk subscriber numbers we can say that there
> >are probably no more than 100 000 individuals worldwide that have sufficient
> >understanding of the internet technology to adequatly protect themselves.
> >You do not counter armed berserk by telling him that he must not use the
> >gun - and that is exactly what is happening with Carnivore. Sad.)
> 
> Oh, come now, our numbers are greater than this.  No less than 75% of
> the people with whom I associate have sufficient understanding of said
> technology.  I refuse to believe that I am simply fortunate enough to
> know so many clueful people.
> 

Well, I personally know 1 person (and he's a govt employee) who is clued up
on crypto.

AGL

-- 
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it doesn't work

 PGP signature

Re: FBI listening in on Emails

[Marcel Popescu]

X-Loop: openpgp.net
From: "madmullah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> A patriot would fucking say what he dislikes about his country and what
> needs improvement because a patriot would care for the long term best
> interest of his country, no ?

I like this guy.

Mark

customs searches of disks?

[David Honig]

This came up on [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

At 12:29 AM 7/21/00 -0700,  wrote:
>The interesting question (for this list) is, if some border officials
>search your hard drive and they encounter encrypted files, what will
>they do?  My guess would be that they will demand the key and threaten
>to deny you entry if you don't give it to them.  It does not appear
>that there are any international laws or standards that say they can't
>do that.

But could they do that to an American returning to America?  Sure,
a brit returning to post-RIP britain is fresh meat.  Or a furriner
coming to America (who isn't yet on US soil).