DeCSS and imminent harm ...
Title: DeCSS and imminent harm ... Can someone point me to the argument where either Judge Kaplan or some motion picture industry person claims publication of DeCSS code results in imminent or irreparable harm? It seems to me that if you (whether "you" refers to a lowly individual or a massive industry) were warned that doing something was futile, but you did it anyway, that it would be YOUR fault that you were dumb enough to ignore the expert advice, DCMA not withstanding. It appears that DCMA is the only way to "save" their asses right now because the technology and the fundamental architecture (of priviledged players) is just broken from the start, and they knew it. I personally know that the expert advice was given, and I think numerous public "notice" was given, including ones by Bruce Schneier and others. So I just don't get why (other than perhaps Kaplan was too personally close to the film industry) Kaplan can rule against DeCSS. I would think that there are similar laws protecting whistle blowers from be harassed with massive "damage" civil suits. Ern
Re: No liberalization for source code, API's
> If you had one question you would > want asked, what would it be? Sorry ... 2 questions ... Why does the executive branch keep trying to foreclose judicial review of encryption export policy? Why did you try to censor your fax to the California State Legislature that begged them not to make a cheap political statement on encryption? These all seem to point to someone trying to hide activities from scrutiny. Ern
Re: Ho hum... State of Emergency Continues....
Can anyone please put up a reference to this International Emergency Economic Powers act? Thanks! Ern - Original Message - From: Robert Hettinga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 4:40 PM Subject: IP: Ho hum... State of Emergency Continues > Source: White House Press Briefings > http://library.whitehouse.gov/ThisWeek.cgi?type=p&date=1&briefing=0 > > August 11, 1999 > > NOTICE > > THE WHITE HOUSE > > Office of the Press Secretary > _ > For Immediate Release August 11, 1999 > > > NOTICE > > - - - - - - - > > CONTINUATION OF EMERGENCY > REGARDING EXPORT CONTROL REGULATIONS >
FBI PR specialist on KQED Forum San Francisco at 9:00am
I think his name was agent Grotz, but I'm not sure. Definitely Mr. PR. When certain callers complained heavily, and he couldn't defend himself, he backtracked to the usual "we have a program for that" or "just call my office and we'll talk" or "look at our new core values". Very bureaucratic of him. Barbara at the end at least made the important point about how the FBI's (and the NSA's) stupid encryption policy has crippled our infrastructure. Way to go, Barbara! Otherwise, far too many right wing nuts calling in. One item which I have complained about in this group and in Cypherpunks is that, as strongly as some of you might feel about Waco and Ruby Ridge and the like, it simply does not help the cause of encryption freedom to whip out the jack-booted language any chance you get. In the public's mind, such inflamatory statements really cloud the substance behind the encryption issue, which is already confusing enough by itself. Luckily, the FBI is having trouble educating the public on this topic as well, precisely because it is so confusing. Ern
Your article on Encryption and the FBI/DEA
27;ed documents prove that law enforcement has nothing to do with this. They are just used as the PR front because the NSA needs lots of legitimate bogeymen now that the Cold War is over. What is clear from all of this is that the NSA is trying desperately to not only protect but EXPAND its technical intercept capabilities. In addition, they are looking to legalize a massive invasion of privacy which no democratic country would openly embrace. Despite the fact that simple encryption is quickly and easily turning their multi-billion dollar Echelon network into a useless junk heap, the NSA is still trying to make this decades-old concept work for them. Many administration officials have admitted as much that this is the ultimate desperate attempt to salvage a technology which the NSA has sunk way too much resources into, and that their business of raw communications intercepts will pretty much be over by the end of the next decade. Instead, what Mr. Novak appears to be advocating is that we deliberately weaken the information infrastructure of tomorrow to save yesterday's spy technology. If he really buys what the FBI and the NSA is spoon-feeding him, how about something even more important and closer to home ... What would Mr. Novak say if the FBI were to ask everyone here and in Europe to plant cameras in every neighborhood street corner? How about, in every room in their houses? Oh, and, of course, these would ONLY be used with legally authorized court orders. You certainly wouldn't want your lil' Suzy and Johnny be molested by anyone? Would you? What was that statistic? That over 60% of all child abuse occurs within the homes of the victims, committed by people the victims trusted? THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN AT RISK!!! WE MUST SAVE OUR CHILDREN!!! So what do you say, Mr. Novak? Ernest Hua, TeraLogic Inc, Mountain View, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED], (650) 526-6064
PECSENC report accuses FBI/NSA of stalling and manipulation
> In the United States, > both the FBI and NSA have at times cast votes > intended to roll back existing policies, and they > have at a minimum managed to stall licenses that > seemed to fit existing policy. This passage seems particularly disturbing. It seems that, even when some policy has changed, the FBI and the NSA refused to play along. Ern From: http://www.seas.gwu.edu/seas/institutes/cpi/library/docs/cpi-1999-02.pdf GROWING DEVELOPMENT OF FOREIGN ENCRYPTION PRODUCTS IN THE FACE OF U. S. EXPORT REGULATIONS [SNIP] This is no longer the case. The Commerce Department has staffed up heavily in the encryption field, but its processes now include parallel reviews by the FBI and NSA under a 30-day deadline that can be extended further with a simple "no" vote by either agency. For whatever reason, these agencies are now taking the full 30 days -- and often 90 days. Against a backdrop of continued export liberalization over the past four years, this degradation in export control performance strikes a jarring note. The Commerce Department's performance in this area is not necessarily out of line with the performance of other countries. The German government often takes two to three months to approve a license for a new product and six weeks to approve a license for routine shipments. The difference is that German companies know with certainty that a license will be issued at the end of the process; and the German government imposes no key recovery requirement on exporters. Therefore, they can make commitments to deliver products that require a license even before they get the license. In the United States, both the FBI and NSA have at times cast votes intended to roll back existing policies, and they have at a minimum managed to stall licenses that seemed to fit existing policy. A key recovery policy, for example, has been applied sporadically to U.S. multinationals and with some inconsistency to other exports. For this reason, it is not prudent for exporters to assume that a license will be issued or to make commitments on the assumption that the license will be issued - even when existing policy makes it seem likely that a license will eventually be granted. Because an RFP by a foreign company may provide only 30 days for responsive proposals, and the proposals often must include an assurance that an export license will be obtained, some U.S. companies lose bidding opportunities simply because the U.S. government does not process licenses quickly enough. [SNIP]
Conspiracy site
http://www.nytimes.com/techweb/TW_Newsgroups_Beat_U_K_Spy_List_Gagging_Order .html You are now officially considered a conspiracy site, quite equivalent [sic] to that of Lyndon Larouche. What do you have to say for yourself? Ern
NY Times article on EU acceptance of Enfopol
http://www.nytimes.com/techweb/TW_Europe_Votes_For_ISP_Spying_Infrastructure .html Ern
Just what is the "offense" of encryption?
> From: http://www.sjmercury.com/breaking/docs/081732.htm>> SENATE PANEL OKS MONEY FOR HIGH-TECH> CRIME FIGHTERS>> [SNIP]>> The bill deals with several> technology-related offenses such as> encryption, use and possession of> devices that can intercept cable TV> signals, phone slamming and spreading> computer viruses. Would the author, anyone at theS.J. Mercury or at the Department ofJustice care to explain just whatexactly is the the "offense" ofencryption? May I remind you, and anyone elsewilling to blindly accept governmentpress releases and "leaks", thatencryption is not only completely legal,but absolutely vital to the health andstability of the information age. It is only scare mongering agencies likethe National Security Agency and theF.B.I. that are trying to preventeveryone from protecting their privacybecause they would lose their God-likeomniscient powers if they cannotrandomly wire tap anyone they wish. If it weren't for these organizations'subversive behavior, our criticalinfrastructure would be well protected,and we would not be spending billions ofdollars and several major governmentagencies and committees trying to fixour vulnerabilities. Let's face it, it never pays to listento a spy agency on how to protect ourelectronic infrastructure. Ernest Hua, TeraLogic Inc, Mountain View, CA[EMAIL PROTECTED], (650) 526-6064
Finally! A Newsweek article!
Anyone knows if TIME has any corresponding piece? http://www.newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/st/ty0320_1.htm Ern
Re: Judges in Bernstein case
As someone who pointed this out to me last week, the Supreme Court still has loads of Reagan appointees, so there is still likely to be an up hill fight against deference to national security [sic] interests. Ern -Original Message- From: Jim Gillogly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, May 10, 1999 11:07 AM Subject: Judges in Bernstein case >Fred Baube wrote: >> And, just out of curiosity, who appointed Judges Fletcher and >> Bright ? I would like to see this in news reports, but I sup- >> pose this would require some genuiine research work on the part >> of reporters, and anyways it might remind people that certain >> recent Presidents, and one in particular, spoke libertarianism >> while implementing statism. > >Judge Betty Fletcher, who wrote the opinion, was appointed by >President Carter in 1979. Judge Thomas Nelson, who wrote the >dissent, was appointed by President Bush in 1990. Judge Myron >Bright, who concurred with the opinion, is on loan from the >Eighth Circuit Court; I don't know who appointed him. >-- > Jim Gillogly > Highday, 19 Thrimidge S.R. 1999, 17:35 > 12.19.6.3.4, 7 Kan 12 Uo, First Lord of Night >
Re: Bernstein Opinion Up
>Judge Nelson unfortunately bought the government's bogus claim that >crypto source code was more like a machine than speech, claiming that >"Only a few people can actually understand what a line of source code >would direct a computer to do." But even Nelson did not say he'd >definitely uphold the regulations as constitutional; he just thought >Bernstein should have used a different legal theory to argue his case. I think the worst of Nelson's argument is precisely the "only a few people" stretch, which, if turned on its face, would argue that Navajo or obscure music can subject to restrictions without violation of 1st Amendment simply because it is difficult to find that many people who understand it. This "only a few people" argument should really be attacked directly to prevent missteps at the Supreme Court level. Did the Appelate briefs have anything to say about this argument? Ern
Interesting Post article with lots of mention of NSA
Seems like this is stuff the NSA should not want to divulge as it could easily point out intercept vulnerability and perhaps even "sources" and "methods". http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-04/03/078l-040399-idx.html Perhaps this is why the French changed its minds about encryption? Ern
Re:
At one time, I actually was trying to get a group order, but several people bailed out on me. So I have 4 extra copies at home sitting around. I don't even remember the price any more so if you want a copy, I am willing to send you one for the price of shipping. Just let me know. Ern -Original Message- From: Bluefish [@ home] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sunday, March 14, 1999 11:50 AM >I'm looking for books (such as Secret Power by Nicky Hager) covering the >subjects of international/national espinonage and automatic codebreaking, >sold to a resonable price. Any hints where I should look? Had trouble >finding related on www.bookpool.com and www.amazon.com. > >I'm most interrested by the following subjects: > * ECHELON > * EU initied spy projects suchs Efnopol, and librarisation of the >goverment/police scanning and bugging of public phonesystems & >internet.
Re: Encryption key would lock up criminals
>But an NCIS spokesman, who declined to be identified, told the hearing that >just as criminals used telephones at every level for their activities, so some >would use the TTPs. So the phones are being bugged right, eh? To what extent? >Although Mr Castell admitted that the present generation of criminals were not >computer wizards, he predicted that the next generation would be sophisticated >users of information technology. Duh. >Mr Cope said there had been a lack of dialogue between business and law >enforcement agencies and he suggested a possible compromise. Agencies would >bear the additional costs of being able to extract information from TTPs and >would only exercise their powers when there was a threat to national security. Really? And what is being done right now that does NOT pertain to national security? > "Criminals are lazy, greedy and they make mistakes," John Abbott, NCIS > Director General told the Trade and Industry Select Committee, which is > hearing witnesses on electronic commerce issues. And which "stupid" criminals are threatening national security? Sure ... they can build suit-case A bombs and handle toxic bio-weapons, but they don't know how to get PGP or type in their own encryption algorithms ... Yeah ... That's right! >"We estimate that 60% of our drug seizures are related to the interceptions of >communications." I still have trouble understand the precise relationship between drugs and national security. Are we being invaded? Are towns and cities being overrun? Are key resources being denied to us? The contradictions keep coming ... Ern
What happened to this NY Times article on STOA and Echelon?
Does anyone have any idea what happened to this article on STOA and Echelon? http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/nytimes.htm I cannot seem to find it in the NY Times archives. Is it really from 1998? Could it be from 1997? Anyone been in contact with the author? Ern
Re: Eurospook plan for Web and wireless bugs
I don't understand something ... Why doesn't The Register have anything on Echelon and the EU discussion which got squashed (undoubtedly by UK or USA lobbying)? It would appear that both in the USA and in the UK, there is very little news about Echelon and global surveillance. Ern
The utility of 1st amendment recognition of source code and human rights ruling
Interesting passage below. In particular, notice the reference to the European Court of Human Rights ruling. Can this help with the crypto cause? After all, if software is published elsewhere, it would be a violation of freedom of speech to prevent its publication in any way. Ern > From: http://www.heureka.clara.net/sunrise/spooks2.htm > > Much of what Richard Tomlinson or David > Shayler have to say is being censored > from the British Press ... When Shayler > alleged a botched MI6 attempt to > assassinate Colonel Gadafy, all the > press was able to report was vague plots > concerning Colonel Gadafy without > revealing what these were. It took a > report in the New York Times, ironically > filed from London, to blow the whole > thing wide open ... The following day, > The Guardian decided to go it alone and > publish what was being reported in the > New York Times. They used a ruling by > the European Court of Human Rights in > the Spycatcher case which ruled that the > prevention of publication of material > that had appeared elsewhere was a breach > of the right to freedom of expression.
Re: Eurospook plan for Web and wireless bugs
Ok ... here are some references to get started: 1. Yahoo and Wired and other news articles which mentions EU's attempt to discuss Echelon, and an attempt to get Congress to hold a hearing on the matter: http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/despatches/newsid_4/40671.stm http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/15295.html http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/15429.html http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/wr/story.html?s=v/nm/19981203/wr/privac y_1.html http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/15864.html http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19981112_xex_push_hearing.shtml Surprisingly, neither the New York Times nor the technology-literate San Jose Mercury have said anything about any of this. 2. Here is something from Duncan Campbell via Mok-Kong Shen: The following article came from Duncan Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> through a mailing list: __ 21/9/98 The debate about ECHELON - last week in the European Parliament - has again highlighted the role of the NSA station at Menwith Hill, Yorkshire. The report prepared earlier this year for the STOA (Scientific and Technical Options Assessment) of the European Parliament resulted in widespread coverage in Europe and the US. We have recently made a new batch of copies of the 1993 Dispatches documentary on Menwith Hill - "The Hill" - based on revelations based on NSA documents obtained by women peace protesters at the Hill. It also covers ECHELON and other NSA activities in the UK. Tapes (45 mins) can be ordered from: Ian Hide IPTV Ltd 1 Meadowbank Edinburgh EH8 8JE At £10.95 including postage. I will e-mail trancripts of the programme free of charge to anyone requesting it. Duncan Campbell 3. Here is a quote from UK's Ross Anderson via Peter Gutmann of NZ: This is probably the best one-sentence summary of export controls I've seen. It predates the recent Wassenaar announcement by about half a day, but is even more appropriate in the aftermath: "The real aim of current policy is to ensure the continued effectiveness of US information warfare assets against individuals, businesses and governments in Europe and elsewhere" -- Ross Anderson, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This probably underscores the real relationship between Echelon and the feverish attempt by the US and UK to restrict crypto anywhere (including domestically). My guess is that the current behavior by the FBI is either just a copy-cat wanna-be by Louis Freeh (probably drooling after the capabilities the NSA has), or he is actually being manipulated by There may be others with better references: 1. John Young has lots of caches and pointers: http://www.jya.com Including: http://jya.com/ep091498-1.htm 2. Other people on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list and [EMAIL PROTECTED] list might have info. Cypherpunks tend to be very noisy; "cryptography" has better signal to noise ratio. I kind of wonder if you would be harassed due to UK's Official Secrets Act? In any case, I'm copying the "cryptography" list to see if anyone has any constructive (non-emotional) information to help you study the matter. Good luck! Please let us know what you conclude out of all of this! Thanks! Ern -Original Message- From: John Lettice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 9:24 AM Subject: RE: Eurospook plan for Web and wireless bugs >I think the answer is because we're largely oblivious to it. But we're >willing to learn, if you'd care to point us in the right direction. > >John Lettice > >> -Original Message- >> From: Mike magee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: 08 December 1998 11:40 >> To: 'Ernest Hua' >> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >> Subject: RE: Eurospook plan for Web and wireless bugs >> >> >> Oh -- I'll pass that one on to John, who wrote the story >> >> Pray tell him more :) >> >> Mike Magee >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Ernest Hua [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 2:57 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: Eurospook plan for Web and wireless bugs >> >> I don't understand something ... >> >> Why doesn't The Register have anything >> on Echelon and the EU discussion which >> got squashed (undoubtedly by UK or USA >> lobbying)? It would appear that both >> in the USA and in the UK, there is >> very little news about Echelon and >> global surveillance. >> >> Ern
Reality check on Wassenaar details ...
Does anyone know if other limits have changed for the better (or worse)? One specific item I noted was that the version as kept by JYA contains the following: d. Operating systems specially designed for "real time processing" equipment which guarantees a "global interrupt latency time" of less than 20 µs. With cache line locking and >700MHz processors, it would seem that 20us (that's micro, not nano) is an unreasonable restriction. Ern
