OSINT distributed haven (Intellagora)
From Aftergood's Secrecy News INTELLIGENCE AND THE OPEN SOURCE CHALLENGE The U.S. intelligence community is belatedly recognizing that it has failed to fully exploit the availability of open source intelligence and that remedial steps to correct this problem should be a top priority for investment. snip ~Aimee
Re: layered deception
At 12:34 AM 5/2/2001 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote: Greg Broiles wrote: Hmm. Can you identify any problems with log files as evidence which aren't also present in, say, eyewitness testimony, audiotape recordings, video recordings, fingerprints, photographs, tool die marks, paper records, and all of the other evidence which courts admit on a daily basis? Not so with log files. I could totally delete and manufacture anew a log file anyway I wished, and nobody could prove it. You are making unreasonable assumptions about (a) evidentiary law and practice and (b) current capabilities regarding computer/electronic forensics, and those unreasonable assumptions are apparently limiting your ability to reason further. You might see if you can find a copy of _Evidentiary Foundations_ by Edward Imwinkelried at a local law school's library, for part (a); and newspaper articles concerning the investigations and prosecutions of Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, or CJ Parker for part (b). Or take a look at the materials collected regarding the investigation and prosecution (and conviction, and losing appeal) of Randal Schwartz (yeah, the Perl guy), the canonical I'm a smart computer guy, you stupid cops don't know nothin' case, at http://www.lightlink.com/spacenka/fors/. This is not an area of the law where reasonable people differ. This is easy black-letter stuff that's only mysterious or controversial to people who aren't familiar with the field. If you are trying to make the argument that a few hundred years' worth of evidence law ought to be discarded, your argument will probably be more favorably received if you can show that you at least understand that which you're trying to replace. The mere possibility of tampering or fabrication is nowhere near sufficient to render evidence inadmissible - in fact, it's not even a start. Most trials feature conflicting evidence, all of which was admitted under oath, which cannot all simultaneously be accurate. Life goes on, and the jury or judge (as appropriate) pick out the bits of truth they choose to rely upon, discarding the rest. You're arguing about admissibility when you ought to be arguing about credibility - but even if you make that shift, what you're not seeing is that the you can't trust evidence which might conceivably be false argument is a big loser, practically speaking. Sure, you can make it - just like CJ did, as did Jim Bell, twice. That argument is 0-for-3, in recent cypherpunk experience. Maybe Keith Henson tried it too, I don't know - but it's a dead end, especially without a plausible explanation for the fabrication/modification. (Not only is it unconvincing, it shifts the defense away from a was a crime actually committed? argument onto a a crime was committed, but the defendant isn't the guy who did it argument, which is frequently harder to make .. especially if the defendant looks and acts like the sort of person who would do the sort of thing they're accused of. The rest of the defense's case has got to fit that theory, too - you can't mix no crime occurred and it wasn't me and it was an accident in front of a jury ..) I don't care - believe what you want. But the mutability of electronic evidence argument is not going to keep anyone's butt out of jail, no matter how many sysadmins you put on the witness stand. If you can show actual tampering with evidence in a specific case - sure, that's interesting. If not, look for a better issue to fight over. -- Greg Broiles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organized crime is the price we pay for organization. -- Raymond Chandler
cypherpunks in Desert Island gaming scenario
Heres a gaming scenario from Susan Stranges States and Markets (1988) called Desert Island, which I modified to be more relevant and interesting to the list by throwing a group of cypherpunks into the mix. I think it's a useful way to think about issues related to international political economy, which Strange defines as concerning the social, political, and economic arrangements affecting the global systems of production, exchange, and distribution and the mix of values [they reflect]. Those arrangements are not divinely ordained, nor are they the fortuitous outcome of blind chance. Rather they are the result of human decisions taken in the context of man-made institutions and sets of self- set rules and customs. I dont know if anyone here is interested but I thought it was a lot of fun... So on to the game: After a shipwreck, four lifeboats make it to a deserted island. Each boat takes a different approach to survival: The first lifeboat is composed mainly of the ships crew, under the command of an officer named Martin. A young couple and a mother and child find themselves on this boat as well. Once they land on the island, Martin organizes the group and orders divides up the responsibility of building shelters and finding water and food. In the name of greater security, Martin sets up foot patrols around the base camp. Before long, he reports that human footprints may have been sighted, and argues for the need to build a stockade, make spears and provide for the public defense. The lovers dont want to work on this and the main thing the mother cares about is getting food for her child. The other crewmembers obey Martin without question. (command model) The second boat is a group of students and workmen led by Jerry, who is a little older than the others. There are no crewmembers on board. After they land, they sit down and discuss what they are going to do. Jerry proposes that they start a commune from each according to his ability, to each according to needs. Everyone agrees (or at least, no one disagrees). They gather food and find water together, and initially, everything works well. But when two lovers start to wander away from their assigned jobs the others bitterly accuse them of slacking. Who works on what? One worker thinks that because he brought the tools from the ship he provides a unique service, and therefore deserves more. Since nobody bothered to dig latrines, things become problematic. (communal model) The third boat is comprised of crewmembers and tourists, including a lot of old people and children. There are some cooks and a purser. At first no one takes charge and everyone does their own thing. After awhile they come together: the mothers cant fish while looking after the kids and the old people have a hard time building their own shelters. The purser feels that they should use a bag of nails as a unit of exchange for services and food. Some of the seniors get together and decide that everyone should contribute two nails to provide for security, and one nail for schooling the children. There is division of labor. Initially, everything works well- but fishing is so productive that everyone wants to fish, and market forces cause people to slosh from one job to another. (liberal model) The fourth boat contains a group of enterpreneurs, scientists, students and the occasional con artist: initially, there was a crewmember on board, but when he started trying to give orders, a couple of the more hot-tempered threw him over the side. A few in the group had a serious problem with this, but mostly nobody minded. There is no leader, but the loudest and most insistent tend to have more influence anyway. Everyone brings his or her own odd assortment of tools (and are quick-witted enough to make the most of what they could salvage from the ship as they boarded the lifeboat). People are content to mostly do things for themselves and hardly feel like part of a group at all. But some of the weaker and less skilled in the group dont do nearly as well, and everyone has a hard time finding a reason to trust each other. *** SO...What happens when the groups encounter each another? Which group is likely to discover the other groups? Can they all exist on the same island, or does something have to give? Which group members are likely to desert their own group and join another? Which group will ultimately prevail? Will entirely new groups emerge? And what about the people who strike out on their own? Any takers? :) ~Faustine. 'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
RE: OSINT distributed haven (Intellagora)
Zakas: This reminds me of a story i heard (from one of the planners) about the us invasion of grenada in 1983. intelligence agencies didn't have a recent map of the island and satellite images aren't very good for identifying street names, etc. the only maps available of the island were really really old (1890's i think, but can't remember the exact year). and so when they landed, one of the first tasks was to go to a gas station and buy maps of the city. open source intelligence can be a good thing. That should be funny, but it's not. We threw too much money at fancy whizmos. Intelligence is human. ~Aimee
biochemwomdterror in dc
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 1, 2001 For More Information Contact: Andrea Andrews (202) 224-6518 WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Senator Richard C. Shelby (R-AL), Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, will hold a press conference Wednesday, May 2 to discuss domestic terrorism and to announce hearings to investigate domestic terrorism. Senator Shelby will be joined by Senator Judd Gregg (Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice State and the Judiciary) and Senator Pat Roberts (Chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities). The press conference will highlight the Senate's series of hearings to examine the efforts of more than forty different federal agencies with responsibility for combating domestic terrorism. Armed Services Chairman, Senator John Warner, and Senator Ted Stevens, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, will also hold hearings. DOMESTIC TERRORISM PRESS CONFERENCE With Senators Shelby, Gregg and Roberts 2pm - Wednesday Senate Radio TV Gallery
RE: cypherpunks in Desert Island gaming scenario
At 6:05 PM -0400 5/2/01, Faustine wrote: Quoting Sandy Sandfort [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Count me out. The trouble with games theory is that the outcome is pretty much dictated by the rules established by the game designer. It's intuitively obvious that the given scenarios are artificial and unrealistic. Since I can't imagine any of them as being all that likely, I am, perforce, unable to imagine how they would evolve/interact/etc. As Johnny Carson used to say, Buy the premise, buy the bit. Unfortunately, I can't buy this premise. Yep, good points. But still, fake framework and all, it can be useful if it gets you to clarify and articulate your own assumptions. Certain types of libertarians are indeed fascinated by such simplistic scenarios, the better to articulate their assumptions. A classic, the stuff of several articles in Liberty (and probably toned-down versions in Reason), is the old chestnut about lifeboat ethics. Lifeboat ethics, as with desert island survival, is so far removed from issues of interest here, with noncoerced transactions made so easy, that it is difficult to imagine anything to be learned from such exercises. I doubt strongly that the libertarian nerds who earnest debated the issue of whether it is moral to land on another person's balcony after falling from a high place, yadda yadda yadda, ever learned anything useful But, as you are a youngster, a grad student, perhaps such debates interest you. I suggest you get a subscription to Liberty and then give some rump session talks at the Young Libertarians conferences. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED]Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
Re: Undermining government power and authority
-- At 03:00 PM 5/1/2001 -0700, David Honig wrote: The sheeple can be shown arguments they understand, like: if you were evil entity, wouldn't you be motivated to insert privacy affront here. This can alert them. Then they would promptly vote for a government commissar of privacy, to check everyone's logs to make sure that everything that might violate privacy was logged by trustworthy authorities. Since the average vote will make almost no difference, no one will bother to think these things through merely for the sake of casting a sensible vote. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 6GrEYw52OmIbdLwBJff1R0LmRHfDngaSkYrW9P9v 4ALGonVlFKGNHIyHYqfUAI0Ge3qbh9NXyVJMY8Fc7 - We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
Re: Undermining government power and authority
-- 1. That's for saying I come across like a full-bore paranoid. At 07:22 PM 4/30/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote: I wasn't speaking about you in particular AT ALL. So all of us are full bore paranoids? Your catty insults, incessant put downs, and your patronizing flattery are equally worthless, for they are applied too indiscriminantly. In your ignorance of existing reputations, you insult the wrong people. Your insults reflect upon yourself, rather than those you would patronize. It is common on the internet to grant people with seemingly female names and a feminine writing style some extra slack, and the regulars on this list have displayed remarkable tolerance to your persistent nastiness. I too give extra slack to people who plausibly present as female, perhaps more than most males, but you have exhausted your supply of slack with me, and if you continue in this style you will rapidly exhaust it with everyone. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG nWFl54gJqOxeoykvur0DVhSWfZVa+aLraVLIildq 4dg3Lw5OtKcr1qYVeJYNwVO71VAgj3mvkND86r4DT - We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
RE: layered deception
Eric Murray wrote: ...I most definitely agree with Tim and Bill that the best way to deal with this is [keeping logs] thru technology. Careful, you're beginning to sound like a Cypherpunk. :-D S a n d y
