RE: mil disinfo on cryptome
Faustine wrote: I have a hunch the DoD would like nothing better than to see leakees go totally apeshit on leakers as disinformation spreaders. Do their dirty work, save them the trouble: sounds perfectly in line with Rumsfeld's doctrinal emphasis on deterrence by denial to me. Google this phrase with information warfare and you can find some pretty interesting papers online. It would seem to me that deception would better rest on trusted, precision channels. I doubt JYA would be among my selections. (But, who am I to say, and I don't know how far we have fallen.) Windfalls might even not believed. To plant the story on the enemy might even take a good deal more artifice. And, perhaps what the enemy believes doesn't really make a damn, unless he does something about it. Such uncontrolled channels and rumor-mills might even work contrary to deception principles, assuming the need for prediction and consistency, both in interpretation and any decision-making RESULT that is to be obtained. Finally, I doubt the DOD is confused with regard to the American people and the enemy. Circumstances suggest that we have allowed our CI capabilities to wither, which might preclude any benefit from such an operation, and certainly not one that would outweigh the risks. Furthermore, when it comes to certain forms of deception, Americans don't seem deception-inclined. (Some of the covert action exposes we've had in the last decade had baby blanket cover planning.) In truth, the British still hold the title belt, and have done so for over 50 years. Currently, the sign on the American wall of deception operations is a fairly clear one: _WE SUCK_. Faustine, I do hope you do well in policy analysis, and adhere to your strong political viewpoints and goal-states. If you do, a deception planner will never hurt you. ~Aimee 7(2)-- ...as it's position, owing to being clandestine, is very dangerous, they have had little success, as only about twelve revolutionary members are affiliated, and their activities are very limited and rather ridiculous.' ...most of their time making lists of names.who must be eliminated when their aspirations were achieved. -- Notes from GARBO.
FW: Homeland Deception (was RE: signal to noise proposal)
This was a spoof. A few other suspects in my inbox under names here. ~Aimee -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Aimee Farr Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 10:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Homeland Deception (was RE: signal to noise proposal) Faustine If I was not a lady I would say you are full of shit On 26 Mar 2002 at 23:07, Faustine wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Faustine: Aimee wrote: Well, I doan' kno' nuttin' 'bout no agents. That fact has been established. Careful parsing is the spice of life... :P So sayeth the academic-researcher-grad student pretext... :P IT S A CONSPIRACY -some poor idiot, right now But, you know, after pondering on that a bit...What if the lie was supposedly really secret stuff? You know, ME LUCKY CHARMS! I know the little boys and girls are after me lucky charms. If 3 or more agents happen to run in the door with me lucky charms, Sounds about right. Yep, they would be lucky and charming. Ha! Look, even if you like the idea of PSYOPS in Afghanistan (for instance), you have to admit what s surfaced in the media has been embarrassingly crude and ham-handed. I suppose the best you could hope for is that it s really all part of a play the idiot and look ineffectual strategy while diverting attention from the real business at hand. Risky, at any rate-- since as any good poker player knows, the merest twitch of the eyelid risks being interpreted as weakness, causing your opponent to raise the stakes. Not good. Failing any evidence to the contrary, it s likely just wishful thinking though. I m really not in the all feds are incompetent donutchompers camp, but more and more it s looking suspiciously like the donutchompers have the upper hand. And whatever deceptive advantages might possibly come from the *public perception* of rampant incompetence and donutchompery, the drawbacks are deadly. Strength is good. I think Ashcroft and co. are making a HUGE mistake playing up the Christian goody goody schtick it plays straight into the Arab fundamentalist interpretation of the US; and the realists won t believe it (and wouldn t give a crap anyway. And never did.) Even more worriesome, though, is that some of them actually seem to believe it. America ought to deserve better than to be run by a bunch of simps. Emphasis on ought. By the way, did you catch the video of Ashcroft singing some cheezy maudlin patriotic gospel song at a theological seminary? At a fake press conference podium, yet. Surreal. Absolutely nauseating, made my blood boil. Didn t know whether to laugh or throw up... John Ashcroft SINGS! Let the Eagle Soar http://www.ifilm.com/ifilm/product/film_credits/0,3875,2424640,00.html AAAAAAaaaAAAGH! Ahem. Where were we. As someone once said, I d rather side with someone who burns the flag and wraps themselves in the Constitution than someone who burns the Constitution and wraps themselves in the flag. What shows that the snowers know they've slowly been snowed? Bet it keeps a lot of people awake at night, that one. Tricky, but fascinating. If anyone knows of any good links to counter-deception detection, drop me a line. Not sure how on topic it is, but something everyone here would do well to read about. Either that, or just default to not trusting anyone, ever. Works for me. Empathy skills in personal matters. You mean like gaydar for bullshitters? On a grand scale: 1. counterdeception teams - multidisciplinary, non-cultured, outsiders -- creatives, narratives, hoaxers, jokesters, emplotters, etc. Yeah but where? In the TLAs themselves? Consultants? Here s my card, I m with Flimflam Inc, an In-Q-Tel startup... Where s the oversight? Getting a room full of natural-born bullshitters together sounds dangerous no matter who s footing the bill. And put a con in a room full of squares call it personal bias if you want to, but I know where I d put my money as to who d come out ahead. Hm, unless you consider the case of Hanssen, the genuinely square con. Just goes to show you the limits of pigeonholing and profiling. 2. devil's advocacy in the event stream Yep. Complacently blocking out opinions you disagree with is always a bad idea. 3. competitive analysis 4. MUST HAVE: highest-level precision black channels -- requiring nothing short of a resurrection. Close surveillance. Sneaky submarines are not good enough. Catch 22 re. the Deutch prohibition on working with scummy types. I think it points to the need to re-evaluate exactly what it is we re trying to accomplish. 5. Cultural change -- a bit of British eccentricity; decision-maker sensitization Reminds me of the classic story about the time Herman Kahn was asked about Dr. Strangelove: Dr. Strangelove would not have lasted three weeks at the Pentagon... he was too
Homeland Deception (was RE: signal to noise proposal)
Faustine: Aimee wrote: To wit, no two people can safely tell the same lie to the same person. Bah. I say it depends entirely on what the lie is, who's being lied to, and how confident and artistic the confidence artists are. You're probably right. Choate: Actually they can, only one (or both, if we allow 3 or more agents, only one is required to 'know' the lie) of the people must believe it is the truth. If they were good enough (and their targets comfortable enough), all three could be lying their asses off about anything and nobody would ever be the wiser. Likewise, with three or more targets playing it the other direction. Well, I doan' kno' nuttin' 'bout no agents. That fact has been established. Careful parsing is the spice of life... :P So sayeth the academic-researcher-grad student pretext... :P But, you know, after pondering on that a bit...What if the lie was supposedly really secret stuff? You know, ME LUCKY CHARMS! I know the little boys and girls are after me lucky charms. If 3 or more agents happen to run in the door with me lucky charms, Sounds about right. Yep, they would be lucky and charming. that might smell really fishy to some people since leprechauns are hard to catch. Somewhere over the rainbow. Furthermore, if you ask them about these lucky charms in isolation, they better know the lucky charms like the back of their hand, or further investigation is likely to review not-so-lucky inconsistencies. The knowing part can be rendered irrelevant by context, indeed it is sometimes imperative that everybody KNOW so as to provide...uhm.secondary alternative consistency. But what about when the unlucky charmers find they're actually the victims of a deceivers-deceiving-the-deceivers-deceiving-the-deceivers kind of thing. Recursive is just writing backwards. What shows that the snowers know they've slowly been snowed? Bet it keeps a lot of people awake at night, that one. Tricky, but fascinating. If anyone knows of any good links to counter-deception detection, drop me a line. Not sure how on topic it is, but something everyone here would do well to read about. Either that, or just default to not trusting anyone, ever. Works for me. Empathy skills in personal matters. On a grand scale: 1. counterdeception teams - multidisciplinary, non-cultured, outsiders -- creatives, narratives, hoaxers, jokesters, emplotters, etc. 2. devil's advocacy in the event stream 3. competitive analysis 4. MUST HAVE: highest-level precision black channels -- requiring nothing short of a resurrection. Close surveillance. Sneaky submarines are not good enough. 5. Cultural change -- a bit of British eccentricity; decision-maker sensitization 6. Monitoring of foreign open source media and organizational theme variations (quantitative content and textual analysis; inferential scanning) 7. Monitoring of internal organizational dissenters, noncomformists and the intuitives (instead of quashing them, solicit them) Sounds down your alley of interests, interested in your thoughts. Due to the changing nature of the world, the U.S. could easily find itself hoodwinked, isolated, paralyzed and worse. It used to be Uproar in the East, strike in the West. Today, it's Fool the Sky. (transparent or false-flag cover plan) Our goal-states, perceptions, decision-points, etc. are there for all to see. Most deceptions play upon expectations. Our surveillance capabilities and superior military seem to point to a BARBAROSSA scenario -- a grand deception. Concealed within our strength is our weakness. And, lucky charm lies can take many forms, including physical, which might be subject to verification, additional investigation and other stuff I don't want to happen to me lucky charms, because I might want the enemy to believe they are TRULY lucky, charmed, and mine. I'm sure it depends, but perhaps that wisdom came from just such a situation. Oh really? *blink blink* like what? The Allies are landing at Normandy! ...It's just a trick. What does German intelligence say? ...Just what the British told them. The comment was from a review of FORTITUDE (deception plan) by one of the British designers. We could learn a lot from them --- save hundreds of thousands of lives by using these concepts defensively, domestically, and in new contexts. With each day that passes, we loose more of the window, and waste our resources on low-return countermeasures which do nothing but present 'barriers of certainty' to our adversaries, albeit a thin veil of comfort to our population. (I frequently point out that the Germans practically held hands along railways, and we still blew them all to heck in WW II.) In some places, we are taking actions that play into deception designs. Maybe we should change that, along with a few street signs. Our adversaries know deception is a great strategic advantage, and they don't want the American public to accept it. Churchill
RE: Homeland Deception (was RE: signal to noise proposal)
And I thought you were from Texas. ;) Hold it up to a mirror. (Well... it does make a point.) ~Aimee Recursive is just writing backwards. No it doesn't, it means 'write again'; as in over and over. -- There is less in this than meets the eye. Tellulah Bankhead [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.open-forge.org
RE: signal to noise proposal
Faustine wrote: But what about when the unlucky charmers find they're actually the victims of a deceivers-deceiving-the-deceivers-deceiving-the-deceivers kind of thing. What shows that the snowers know they've slowly been snowed? Bet it keeps a lot of people awake at night, that one. Tricky, but fascinating. If anyone knows of any good links to counter-deception detection, drop me a line. Not sure how on topic it is, but something everyone here would do well to read about. Either that, or just default to not trusting anyone, ever. Works for me. I sent a silly CYPHERPUNKS IQ TEST to the list and received a ton of private replies. Very few selected one of the available answers. They constructed alternative answersbut also alternative contexts, observables and event streams, mostly in narrative. I didn't solicit them to tell me what wasn't there, or to summon what didn't exist. One psychological experiment presented a fault-tree to a group of mechanics. It listed possible reasons that a car wouldn't start. Say reasons 1-10, *out of 50 available.* After seeing the information presented like that, the mechanics were hard pressed to come up with more than a handful of additional alternatives -- when asked. I'm not suggesting that my woman amongst the ferns is the equivalent of that, but it could be suggestive. Some of these guys can call the jinn. ~Aimee
RE: signal to noise proposal
To wit, no two people can safely tell the same lie to the same person. Choate: Actually they can, only one (or both, if we allow 3 or more agents, only one is required to 'know' the lie) of the people must believe it is the truth. Well, I doan' kno' nuttin' 'bout no agents. That fact has been established. But, you know, after pondering on that a bit...What if the lie was supposedly really secret stuff? You know, ME LUCKY CHARMS! I know the little boys and girls are after me lucky charms. If 3 or more agents happen to run in the door with me lucky charms, that might smell really fishy to some people since leprechauns are hard to catch. Furthermore, if you ask them about these lucky charms in isolation, they better know the lucky charms like the back of their hand, or further investigation is likely to review not-so-lucky inconsistencies. The knowing part can be rendered irrelevant by context, indeed it is sometimes imperative that everybody KNOW so as to provide...uhm.secondary and alternative consistency. And, lucky charm lies can take many forms, including physical, which might be subject to verification, additional investigation and other stuff I don't want to happen to me lucky charms, because I might want the enemy to believe they are TRULY lucky, charmed, and mine. I'm sure it depends, but perhaps that wisdom came from just such a situation.
Define signal and noise.
A signal sometimes means 1. Wohlstetter's analogy (signals of Pear Harbor attack -- a generalization, the indicators are themselves messages transmitted by signals) 2. Inference drawn from indicators 3. Indicators, or indicators embedded in messages 4. The means of transmission 5. Messages ...and so on. The real issue seems more properly couched as salience. The blur here causes conceptual errors, and I would appreciate enlightenment, by way of an alternative taxonomy and any refs to recent papers measuring the S/N ratio within a channel. ~Aimee
RE: I'm no agent.
I meant to say a stale. But wait, that's not all Tim wrote: Don't hire a single lawyer. As soon as even a single lawyer is hired, you're lost. Because it means you're thinking in terms of using the legal system, of striking business deals with those whose products you napster, and with working within the system. Not hiring a single lawyer, not even _consulting_ with a lawyer, means you are fully aware of how much you are relying on the laws of mathematics rather than the laws of men. I find your lack of faith disturbing. -- Darth Vader What happens if you break the laws of mathematics? Do fractions with guns chase you? Do you get put in a random number prison? Or, does couching a choice of law between the laws of men, and the laws of mathematics smack of some fallacy? Not hiring a single lawyer, not even _consulting_ (emphasis his) a lawyer, more truly means you are a complete moron and disdain even calculated risk. If you break the law by a significant act in that direction, you set your own hook for co-option, especially in espionage. I don't see a marketplace opportunity in an espionage Black Net. In high-tempo complex event streams with changing decision-makers, shifting goal-setting, interveners, variable resources, etc. -- the advantage to be gained by competitors (of any sort) more truly lies elsewhere. Mere secrets no longer offer the edge, because they offer a short half-life of decision-relevance. Now, 3 days to 3 months, and it grows shorter. Few competitors have decision-utility in terms of capability and readiness to take advantage of secrets. Most of the information you need is open source, or can be gained by acumen with low-risk. Add in the traitor element and the go to jail consideration, and it looks like a no-go to me. (Espionage is more traditionally called treason, BTW. It's even in the Constitution.) But, hey, a man should feel free to make his own decisions, just like Tim tells him to. ~Aimee --- Tim, lay off the maskirovka will ya? I'm tired of the snitch-jacket, and it's an stale narrative. Besides, imaginative bias and perceptual predispositions can be used to lead a person, or a group, to form erroneous conclusions without resorting to dezinformatsia.
Chinese Gestapo experience home.
As you seek to undermine the security and integrity of the U.S. Government, perhaps that is a subject worthy of your attention. Where Japan couldn't, China can. You insult the sacrifices of the greatest of men -- from both our countries. This is not to make light of your forces, which are some of the greatest fighting men the world has ever known, like 2/2 Company. ~Aimee
RE: Chinese Gestapo experience home.
The only thing more wicked than the urge to command is the will to obey. Should you ever rely on another man for your life, and he relies on you for the same, perhaps you will know what the urge to command, and the will to obey is really about. Men that become mountains refuse no ground or stream. ~Aimee
Liars v. Leakers: Round II
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61716-2002Feb24.html ... Gee, think leakers felt their credibility threatened by the Pentagon disinfo cloud, fearing that they could no longer covertly influence the press and the American public? The irony of D.C. ~Aimee
RE: Chinese Gestapo experience home.
Aimee wrote: Should you ever rely on another man for your life, and he relies on you for the same, perhaps you will know what the urge to command, and the will to obey is really about. If you had ever been in a situation in which another man had your life in his hands--and consciously and deliberately made the decision to let you hang in the wind and die, you might understand why the truly prudent want nothing to do with it. Umkay. Well, if we were in this situation, I would be glad that you felt this way. It would give me a better chance at getting in this guy's outfit. ~Aimee
RE:
I knowI know *laughter* -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Aimee Farr Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 11:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: unsubscribe
[no subject]
unsubscribe
RE: Pentagon Readies Efforts to Sway Sentiment Abroad (fwd)
[offlist comment redacted] Do you suppose the Pentagon foresaw the inevitable backlash? *gasp!* Which gave them an opportunity to state their no-deception policy, instituting trust in their message? *gasp!* Razzle-dazzle. Your chip is to provide more correct and timely outside information than what the local populace can get. That's why they will they listen to you. People don't listen if you lie. (See Russian polls on trust in their media and recent Russian media restrictions on press -- including a threat directed at license revocation for American radio coverage of Chechnya.) http://www.mbcnet.org/archives/etv/S/htmlS/sellingofth/sellingofth.htm The Selling of the Pentagon Controversy (1970-71) and media distortion. ~Aimee
RE: WSJ Encrypted Laptop
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/ this_just_in/documents/02093041.htm The Boston Phoenix, January 3-10, 2002 How the Journal got Al Qaeda's computers By Dan Kennedy This past Monday's Wall Street Journal led with an astounding story about a personal computer that had apparently been used by Al Qaeda terrorists to plot the September assassination of Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud. The computer's hard drive also reportedly contained bioterrorism information and a 23-minute video clip of Osama bin Laden denouncing the United States and enthusing over the September 11 attacks. How the computer came to be acquired by the Journal is a pretty amazing story in itself. The article by staff reporters Alan Cullison and Andrew Higgins offers a few details. A Journal reporter purchased the IBM desktop computer, as well as a Compaq laptop, in Kabul for a total of $1100 after being told that they had been looted from an Al Qaeda office following a US bombing raid. The article goes on to say that US officials confirmed the authenticity of the files, and say they provide a trove of information about the inner workings of the secretive organization. Intrigued, I sent e-mails to both reporters. Cullison, the paper's Moscow correspondent, temporarily ensconced in Washington, wrote back within a few hours. I was in need of a computer, because the one that the Wall Street Journal issued me was smashed when the car I was taking over the Hindu Kush Mountains lost its brakes and rolled, Cullison said. I was looking for one, and was much more interested in this laptop and the hard drive [from the IBM] when I heard it was used by al Qaeda. Moscow correspondent. Computer destroyed. Shopping. Offer/Acceptance. At some point, this is not a trail of evidence this is a propaganda diversion campaign conducted through evidence. You think they were preparing for a damn documentary instead of a terrorist attack. They keep leaving evidence that suits political agendas. Sometimes chance and happenstance play an incredible part in an incredible story, Bussey says. Bullshit. ~Aimee
RE: WSJ Encrypted Laptop
Sometimes chance and happenstance play an incredible part in an incredible story, Bussey says. Bullshit. ~Aimee Al-Q must have taken a relationship-selling course. (The Psychology of Relationship Selling : Developing Repeat and Referral Business; Relationship Selling: The Key to Getting and Keeping Customers. Available on Amazon.) I seriously fear these people are playing to the ego, mutual interest and performance pressure. There has never been a successful strategic terrorist (by my definition of terrorism). Illusion of movement/momentum for recruitment? Diversion? This is all very stinky. In past wars, you could predict axes by examining flare ups in resistance/guerrilla movements, since agitation was a diplomatic card. (The underground wars preceded the real ones.) Our counterterrorism deployments are interesting, as is where we are exerting coercive diplomacy. We've got insurgency, conflict and protests in some damn interesting spots. I question how well we correlate strike, protest, subversive activity/agitation/propaganda, and sabotage/IW inferences these days -- especially at home, due to domestic constraints. I would think that would keep a war room quite busy with inference scanning. With today's coordination, it's possible to see shadows of influence, instead of just our imagination. That's essential defense, and with the aftermath of Church Pike, I wouldn't be surprised if we don't have much. The shift of power has changed since Vietnam, and when it comes to domestic security, I don't think it works in our favor. (As if Vietnam was good for us, and they wanted us to leave.) If our domestic restrictions (guidelines and jurisdiction) are tying hands, I think the American public will support changing them. What do you think the reaction will be? Are some of you just going to go direct action if that happens? Serious questions. ~Aimee
RE: Toward a new American revolution.
http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=138963group=webcast ...approximately three percent of Americans now feel that armed struggle against the state would be justified. That may not sound like a lot when viewed on its own but a look at the historical evidence provides some interesting insights. When the American colonists declared independence in 1776 ( the actual war of revolution had begun a year earlier) only five percent of the two and a half million colonists actually favored secession from the British Empire. By the time independence had been won seven years later, nearly a third of the people had come to favor independence with another third remaining loyal to the crown and yet another third being neutral. Only sixty thousand persons, about two and a half percent of the population of the colonies, actually participated in the revolutionary effort itselfEnd Extract. And I made the comment that the kettle was boiling. *slap* but I stand by it. Hm. Looks like Constintern propaganda, -- again, the American Revolution. One of the marks of Revolutionary activity today is a return to a mystic past, it has no practical significance. Our revolutionary past is romantic, but it's somewhat tactically stale. People's War -- just *some* characteristics: 1. rarely successful 2. not against native government 3. strong nationalism 4. political unification 5. intensive preparation and perception management (Perception War) 6. world-class intelligence 7. shadow government 8. extreme mobility 9. organized education 10. sanctuary, logistics support In modern People's War, it's kind of like the quote, the jungle is neutral, but the jungle is the people. Another quote, but I can't remember the source: there are no non-combatants in jungle warfare. Effectives will be terrorists -- based on capability, and they will never evolve to a stage of contention. Even our structure of our government insulates us from a coup. The most important message a revolutionary has: we can win. Somebody needs to show them: you will LOOSE, and here's the realities, and here's the alternatives for peaceful change. And, ideally, here's something -else- for you to do and identify with, but no pressure. I would bet on some foreign connection this time. Our adversaries seek to reduce our will and capability to make war. Most agents-of-influence are unwitting, and a tour of the files, might cause them to look behind the curtain before making a decision that could set a hook in their mouth. We need a...something that's not counterterrorism or criminal-based, but something based on research, open monitoring (not surveillance), creative outreach, deterrence a soft approach that NEVER offers the opportunity to escalate the conflict but seeks engagement (dangle-dangle), does not de-legitimize patriotic sentiments, or seek to quash dissent (it's a safety valve). If that won't sell Congress, they need another job. Revolutions require counterintelligence. That forces us to protect sources and methods -- I can argue that threat is a societal trend. It also involves military targets and sabotage, not just terrorism. And, again, I bet on a foreign connection, if only because of our communication means. That's some big dog jurisdiction, revolutionary boys and girls, by people that have actually done revolution. BTW, during the Red Scare, 51 percent of Americans supported jailing Communists outright. ~Aimee For there has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited. ~Sun Tzu
RE: Pentagon OSI.
Discussing the challenges of perception management by antagonists: http://call.army.mil/fmso/fmsopubs/issues/manipult.htm International Conflict Controllers: Manipulators or Manipulated? Mr. Timothy L. Thomas Foreign Military Studies Office, Fort Leavenworth, KS. Great bloodshedding that never happened -- due to diplomacy and deception. War is the means, not the ends. Americans seem to confuse the two -- a Code Duello Culture. The objective is to get the enemy to do our will. The enemy is just an antagonistic interest, not a country, as we have been conditioned to think. That embodies a range of choices, but perception management, even if it involves deception, should be preferred to battle. It need not be justified by the actions of an adversary, it can be a virtuous decision by itself. Other countries have known resistance to occupation. Concepts deemed treacherous (secrecy, deceit) became a cultural virtue. Our transition to a resistance culture is nothing less than the key to our long-term survival. (In WW II, our enemy held hands along railroads and we still blew them all to heck.) If the mind is the target, too many of us are occupied. ~Aimee
RE: Pentagon Readies Efforts to Sway Sentiment Abroad (fwd)
Ken Brown: Also US forces (in the guise of military advisors to the Chinese, Flying Tigers and so on) had been involved on a small scale in the war against Japan for some years. Yes, but they couldn't get them to fight. Kai-shek was just interested in fighting Mao, rather than cleaning house. Mao wasn't interested in fighting the Japanese, either. Both figured the U.S. was going to win and prepared for a post-war showdown. Kai-shek manipulated us through diplomatic extortion. General Stilwell couldn't get anybody to listen to him. Chiang knew how to manipulate both the service (dependent on translators) and the diplomatic environment to play for time -- *his influence in the U.S. was good*. Mao knew his bargaining position was getting better all the time, fueled by the abuses of Kai-shek's regime, the terror that was his army, and some suspiciously easy raids on Soviet-guarded ammunition dumps. Stilwell (correspondence to Marshall): ...Kai-shek has no intention of making further efforts to prosecute the warbelieves he can go on milking the United StatesHe has no intention of instituting any real democratic regimeI believe he will only continue his policy and delay, while grabbing for loans and postwar aid, for the purpose of maintaining his present position, based on one-party government, and reactionary policy, on the suppression of democratic ideas with the active aid of his Gestapo. Stilwell was replaced for having the courage to stand up to diplomatic winds, in part fueled by what some think were powerful U.S. Chinese interests. While the factors were certainly more complicated, I think it stands for the proposition that people that promote foreign agendas, wittingly or unwittingly, deserve closer scrutiny. I've heard allegations that that recommendations for action have been de-railed by powerful interest groups -- especially in the Middle East. If true, I can't imagine the privately-voiced disillusionment of some public servants that find themselves vetoed by Inc. What does it say when many of our intelligence resources have something in common with interests deemed to be subversive (anti-corporate) in the United States? I believe that the U.S. has an interest, and a duty, to prevent and monitor subversion via corporate active measures. What is the difference between the CPUSA and XYZ, Inc. if they are both doing the same damn thing? The alienation index is stable, but polls suggest that Americans don't feel disaffected, they feel displaced -- that's a class struggle, different from the 60s and 70s. I look at the indicators of past revolutionary change, and we have them, although it's different than much of the world experience -- but so are we. In the main, we see it as the sickness of criminality, rather than a symptom of general unrest exposed at the fringe. While revolutions often take generations, I fear our kettle is starting to boil. In my reading, I always notice one thing common among dead nations and ousted occupiers: the failure to validate and legitimize conflict, because it's deemed unpatriotic. (They are never revolutionaries, they are always bandits -- with minimal public sympathy, and soon to be quashed. It's repeated so often, it's comical.) Moreover, there's always somebody that has the virtue and courage to stand up and point to the problem representing a failure of perception, in the bound interests of the nation and the regime. Their fate: embarrassment, replacement, banishment, mutilation, incarceration, torture, death -- many combinations. What is the word for that poor SOB? I don't think whistleblower does these people justice, because other people have already blown the whistle, and everybody heard it, but refused to acknowledge it. Some kind of canary, maybe? Many would have saved nations, and averted the most historic of tragedies. Surely, there is a special word for these people, yes? What? ~Aimee It is not without any basis, not without good reason, that the Greeks had in the past a natural tendency towards freedom, or now towards servitude. There then existed something, an element in the spirit of the people, which today there is no more, but which in those days overcame the wealth of Persia and led Greece to freedom, which was never defeated in battle... but whose loss now has brought everything to ruin Yet warships and men and supplies of money and materials, and everything which would be judged to contribute to the power of cities, are present in greater numbers and abundance now than then. But it is all rendered useless, ineffective and without value by venality. ~Demosthenes, on why Athens fell to a tyrant
RE: A critique of RE: Pentagon Readies Efforts to Sway SentimentAbroad
Gil Hamilton wrote: Hmm. They presumably refers to Japan despite the disagreement in number. Still, I don't recall Japan having walked over France, so I can't be sure - maybe you mean the Axis powers?. She could be referring to the Japanese takeover of French Indochina. Marc de Piolenc Yes, I was referring to Indochina. The night of Pearl Harbor, Japanese troops pretty much issued an ultimatum by surrounding French garrisons. The Vichy government accepted Japan as a defensive partner, Roosevelt was negotiating the Indochina issue, (but shortly thereafter froze Japanese assets in the U.S.). The French presence drew off troops, so they probably deserve more credit than they got. However, they should have fought and taken to the jungle. As the allies should have fought in 1940, instead of negotiating. They surprised us too, of course. ~Aimee
RE: Pentagon Readies Efforts to Sway Sentiment Abroad (fwd)
Choate: In my opinion it is possible to spend too much time reading others works and not enough time thinking about them and ones own views. The reality is that if a single one of these papers had any real application to the real world problems they'd stand out light a nova in a eclipse. Unfortunately they don't, and probably won't since the sorts of research and dialog (and I use that term loosely) is limited. One would do better, for themselves and society, if they were to read to the point they think they understand the problem and then quit reading and start modelling. The solution(s) will not only be unexpected but they will come from unexpected sources. Oh, be a little more tolerant. Faustine isn't coy, she's humble. She gives her opinion, and some helpful refs to allow you to come to your own conclusion. A sign of integrity: respect for other people's opinions, and an acknowledgement of other people's work. ~Aimee
RE: Pentagon Readies Efforts to Sway Sentiment Abroad (fwd)
Choate: Faustine isn't coy, she's humble. And you're easily fooled. Yes, but I can't help but be impressed by even the facade of intellectual honesty in public discourse, especially one involving a professional cadre which has diverted their professional energies into political means to the extent this community has. The alternative is to become an unwitting agential-of-influence. ~Aimee
RE: Slashdot | Americans And Chinese Internet Censorship
Faustine: Aimee wrote: Then came Kai-shek v. Mao and a war with Japan. A century of bloodshed caused by outside influence. Bah. I don't think it's going out on a limb to lay responsibility for a vastly enormous amount of bloodshed squarely at the feet of Mao and Madame Mao personally-- there's no blaming the West for what happens when ruthless people with a vengeful streak seize power. There is no history--only biography. - --Ralph Waldo Emerson. I agree with you. Just a timeline of turmoil. ~A
RE: Pentagon Readies Efforts to Sway Sentiment Abroad (fwd)
Lucky wrote: What I fail to understand is where the news are in this article. Yes, the US government, as all governments, is engaging in disinformation, deception, and lies. It is called PSYOPS. And yes, PSYOPS has been conducted and will continue to be conducted against both friendly and hostile foreign nations in addition to the country's own citizens. So where is the news? Is it that the government is admitting to this well-known fact? Wondering, --Lucky Perception management. Japan's Asia for the Asiatics propaganda was a sign of military expansion, and was totally ignored by allied powers -- to our great loss -- and surprise. In most countries, they just walked in (hell, they walked over France). In the 40s and 50s, we also had Comintern agents agitating Asian populations against the West. Warning signals were all over the place, and we flat-out failed to see the significance, due to American notions of conflict. Several far-sighted military commentators of the 40s-50s, which had embraced guerrilla-political tactics, pointed to Asian attitudes (and even the India-Pakistan conflict) as holding the key to the Middle East for the U.S.S.R., and stressed that we needed to undertake a perceptual offensive to combat anti-Western agitprop. I have a axis map of 1950 here, hypothesizing conflict and guerrilla bases in Asia as auxiliary forces to augment the technical inferiority of the U.S.S.R. -- it is rather spooky, as it mirrors today's map, with China as a new player. Certainly, the author did not foresee the possibility of today's terrorism, with world-wide range, or it's possible use as an auxiliary (or even decisive force in being), but it fits nicely with the that line of thinking. So, something like the Office Of Strategic Influence, has been called for, in strength, for 50 years. These calls for change were ignored and not supported by the military, who rarely considered populations as incipient forces in being. We made the same mistake in WW II, by failing to cultivate a climate receptive to resistance. Indeed, to a large extent, we relied on communists (like Tito) to fight -- a deal with the Devil in many countries, because Britain was fighting for survival. Had we seeded ideas beforehand and understood the political climate, we would have fought from a position of strength, and minimized the rise of post-war communist influence and civil wars. One of the great strengths of Comintern - HUMINT. They got there first. In WW II, the British Royal Air Force did not want to dirty itself with the SOE, even if it cost them their country. The idea of dropping in civvies-dressed saboteurs, was just not gentlemanly for Sandhurst men. It was deceptive and unethical. Had the SOE received more support, and seeded stay-behind resistance, the SOE and the OSS would have likely deterred invasions -- saving millions of lives. There was even resistance to coastwatcher programs, which ended up playing a major role in the war. (Todays coasts : American corporations.) If Wingate's long range penetration (ala terrorism) is a new game, along with Anti-Western agitation, this is an important defensive measure. We are looking at a situation not unlike the 1940s, which Japan took advantage of via a series of greased invasions. Other countries could do the same thing in the future. Colonial arrogance refused to see the power in the peasant, or in small power-brokers. IMO, OSI is more about recognition, than deception. Our gentlemanly notions of conflict and fair-play, together with Western arrogance -- nearly lost us Europe, laid the foundations for Vietnam, and terms like mutually assured destruction. We ignored the people -- seeing only traditional military force -- a orientation that continued throughout the Cold War. So, I'd say the Pentagon just got a major clue. One that is at least 50 years overdue, and places us about a century behind some of our adversaries. ~Aimee
RE: Slashdot | Americans And Chinese Internet Censorship
Choate: Continuing the.no wonder they hate us so much thread. http://slashdot.org/yro/02/02/19/0122238.shtml?tid=153 This is mostly off the top of my head, so I invite others to add insight/correct mistakes: Riding the opium and human trade, missionaries and Western influence gave China a culture shock, which caused the Taiping Rebellion of 1850 -- 40 million dead. Guerrilla activity lasting through 1864. A man named Hung Hsiu-ch'uan(?) had a religious vision where he was the son of God and the younger brother of Jesus Christ. They called themselves God Worshippers and raised a substantial army. It bled China so bad they had to go to the West for money, because they were fighting Moslem rebels in the North. (As they are today.) Colonial powers used the weakness and leverage to grab Burma (U.K.), Vietnam (French), Manchuria (Russia), etc. and so on, looting the rest of the country. From 1865 on, China was divided up among Western powers and exploited as a trinket-state. The cultural shock created multiple rebellions, anti-foreigner attitudes and internal unrest. In 1900, the Boxer Rebellion slaughtered missionaries. With the 1919 Peking University riots, China had rejected the West. Then came Kai-shek v. Mao and a war with Japan. A century of bloodshed caused by outside influence. I'm not 'making excuses' for China. ~Aimee
RE: Say a goodnight prayer for joshua.
Choate: On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Trei, Peter wrote: Carl von Clausewitz was a Prussian militarist and intellectual around 1800. He is mainly remembered for his book 'On War' which was the first Western theoretical treatise on war and warfare. Re: Jomini Jomini? Who is talking about Jomini? Choate? (!) He actually saw the enemy and fought him, whereas Clausewitz has questionable credentials. For irregular warfare, Jomini is better than Clausewitz, but Jomini was very pragmatic, which limits the extrapolations, I guess. Caesar (not Ceasar) Choate is correct. My spellchecker error. :) ~Aimee
RE: Say a goodnight prayer for joshua.
Leitl: I wrote: War is an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will. Where a man's family is concerned, words count. WTF is this supposed to mean? See Clausewitz. I'm fairly certain you just crossed the Rubicon. You make even less sense than proffr. See 49 BC Julius Ceasar. ~Aimee
RE: RFC for TBP 1.0 (teddy bear protocol)
So Ms. Farr will be glad to know, that in order to protect us, her government will consider you a potential terrorist if someone you exchanged (encrypted) mail with bought the pellets in the same week in which you bought teddy bears. Don't tell me how I think or feel, what a cheap shot. Ms. Farr thinks the best thing we can do is valiantly protect your liberties, and avoid being provoked into a repressive orientation by fear, and into division by uncertainty. When you see these things, you are probably offended and perceive a bad future. I see visions of the death of a nation. (Romans sacrificed too much of their liberty for safety, it's one of the reasons they lost it, and fought two centuries of guerrilla warfare in Spain.) I would rather fight on my feet, than live on my knees. But war always means sacrifice, and sometimes you do have to duck. At any rate, I really don't think that your problem is with the likes of me. ...I well know the character of that senseless monster the people, unable either to support the present or foresee the future, always desirous of attempting the impossible, and of rushing headlong to its ruin. Yet your unthinking folly shall not induce me to permit your own destruction, nor to betray the trust committed to me by my sovereign and yours. Success in war depends less on intrepidity than on prudence to await, to distinguish, and to seize the decisive moment of fortune. You appear to regard the present contest as a game of hazard, which you might determine by a single throw of the dice; but I, at least, have learnt from experience to prefer security to speed. But it seems that you offer to reinforce my troops and to march with them against the enemy. Where then have you acquired your knowledge of war? And what true soldier is not aware that the result of a battle must chiefly rest on the skill and discipline of combatants? Ours is a real enemy in the field; we march to a battle and not to a review. --Belisarius, 537 ~Aimee
RE: Say a goodnight prayer for joshua.
There are MILLIONS of people that stand between that boy and evil of any sort, and support his Daddy. He might read this someday, and he'll probably come to the conclusion that his father was a tolerant man, despite perceptions to the contrary. Jim Bell was arrested for stalking protected persons. Not even our military is exposed to the sort of personalized fear and exposure that public servants and their families experience today. War is an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will. Where a man's family is concerned, words count. I'm fairly certain you just crossed the Rubicon. ~Aimee -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of proffr11 Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 3:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Say a goodnight prayer for joshua. Vancouver Wa. (AP) -Josh Gordons new face looks a lot like his old one, before a flesh-eating fungus ate away his eyes, nose, cheeks and the roof of his mouth. Like a mask, the newly created prosthetic face he received earlier this month fits neatly over the hole. Silicone skin blends with Joshua's skin tone, eyebrows are made from his own hair and the glass eyes, from which he'll never see, match the brown hue of the originals. The first thing we did after I got my new face was go to a public restaurant and have a steak dinner, said Josh who had avoided going out because of his disfiguration. I felt wonderful; I felt pretty. Josh wears rose-tinted shades to take attention away from the mask's unblinking eyes,Id like to thank the doctors and my father who works nights as a carny to pay themhe stammers out through great choking sobs. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine
RE: Cruel and unusual punishment
I think between Thomas Schelling's Strategy of Conflict and Herman Kahn's On Thermonuclear War you can find pretty much everything you need to know. I'll bet both of you would find a lot to enjoy in them. They seemed so very cautious and correct, these deadly words. Soft, quiet voices purring courteous, grave, exactly measured phrases in large peaceful rooms... Powerful stuff. Yeah, I flipped out. Thanks for the book ref. I'll stick with Asprey. Many revolutionary theorists reach back to the American revolution. It's a romantic idea, but today's guerrilla leaders are usually not like them, nor is the conflict of that character. The tree of liberty must be watered periodically with the blood of tyrants. It's sad, but I have come to hate that quote, because contemporary history paints a much different picture: it is no tree of liberty, and it damn sure isn't the blood of tyrants. I think these people should be given a good look behind the insurgency curtain. Other appeals don't work. The job of an insurgency strategist is to trick people. To trick people into dying for him, and to trick the government into killing them. When you take that into IW concepts, it gets easier to trick people. At least it would allow people to make more informed decisions. No propaganda stuff, just straight answers: Revolution is a bitch, and then you die. Some of our notions of counterterrorism are dangerously at odds with holistic counterinsurgency strategy. I am of the opinion that somebody could exploit that to great effect. They have in the past. ~Aimee
RE: Cruel and unusual punishment
Mr. Soze: This is not a people's war. If anything its a war against democracy and an attempt to discipline elected officials into obeying their sworn oaths. You know, the ones they rarely obey and are almost never called to account. It would be a people's war, and it would have the opposite effect of what you envision, and endear leaders to the populace. The reprisal is the same. If you can't bring the actors to account, you will punish those that harbor or aid. If not that, hostages. The same theme plays out today in new ways. Russia just passed legislation holding 'knowing' family members responsible. Paine wrote on this extensively. Paine? Thomas Paine You are the one that seeks to solve a political issue at the point of the sword. That's war, not a Lincoln-Douglas debate. I believe my Gen. Paine is more qualified to speak to the issue. Assassination: the choice of an incompetent generation. AP is not without historic precedent. A big one. It was a waste of bucks, bodies and bullets. Assassination has the effect of empowering that which you oppose, solidifying their position, hardening your target, undermining your moral position, identifying something, and rendering something vulnerable to spirals of reprisal that you cannot withstand. Only in rare circumstances would you want to kill the leader of anything. The leader you know is better than one you don't. New enemies mean new plans. You should never let anybody kill your enemies, after you work so hard to make people hate them. The people will follow somebody they love, and you don't kill the enemy leader until that's you. Your choice of tactics mirrors your capability. Assassination is somebody flashing before they flesh. If you were an insurgent, in some far-off country, petitioning for my support against a mutual evil -- and I had to support somebody -- you just got crossed off my list of contenders. That's ESPECIALLY if my objective was destabilization and general havoc. Aside from being sickassassination is stupid on the tactical merits alone. Works in a narrow set of circumstances, and you don't have it. But it is dumb for the most ancient of reasons: Deny your enemy power in the afterlife. There are a thousand ways to beat a live enemy, but zero ways to beat a dead one. In our human past, Tribe A would go kill a member of Tribe B. Tribe B when then attack and fight for a dead man, sometimes calling his name for generations. To our ancestors, that was puzzling. IMO, they concluded there was a enemy afterlife. From then on, many mutilated the bodies of their enemies. The most powerful enemies -- DEAD MEN. Men will fight in their names for centuries. They usually died in battle. For some cultures, immortality remains associated with death in battle, and we still want to die whole in body and soul. Our ancestors were buried with weapons. IMO, it wasn't a sentimental gesture. A warrior fought for his tribe -- even in death. There are still ancestor insults in many cultures. War was a contest between living wills, but also dead ones. In our exchange, you called on the spirit of Thomas Paine. I had to go get another dead guy to meet your dead guy. Somebody even pointed out that my General Paine dead guy was spiritually polluted, and inferred that your dead guy was better than my dead guy. Things really haven't changed much. Part of the reason assassination is frowned upon, has it's roots here. You must meet the enemy in battle and beat him there. To kill him is not enough. You fight more than an enemy body, you fight the demon that is the soul of the man. (We let Stalin die whole. We will fight him again. He's not dead.) Old soldiers never die. Some men fight forever. Men that died whole, perhaps even killed, but not beaten. Your ancestors knew this, so do you. In our current conflict, we should forget what we've learned, and do what we know. If I got to pick warriors, I would go to battle and throw men at a line. The ones that want to run away -- the ones that hang towards the back -- my guys. America is a dueling culture in a savage land. ~Aimee
Crypto-Anarchist Activities Control Act (CAACA)
Somebody wrote: I, in particular (and many other Cpunk Movement members) do not consider People That Control Armed Men to be us and will not identify their snitching capabilities with my well-being. So Cypherpunks is a political movement, then? You are cohesive, and, as frequently pointed out, have a written doctrine. (i.e., read the archives, twit seems to echo in my mind). You have meatspace meetings, and members which identify with you as a movement. *ponder* AN ACT To protect the United States against certain un-American and subversive activities by requiring registration of Crypto-Anarchist Networks, and for other purposes. TITLE I - CRYPTO-ANARCHIST ACTIVITIES CONTROL Section 1. (a) This title may be citied as the Crypto-anarchist Subversive Activities Control Act of 2002. NECESSITY FOR LEGISLATION Sec. 2. As a result of evidence adduced before various committees of the Senate and House of Representatives, the Congress hereby finds that -- (1) There exists a world Anarchist movement which, in its origins, its development, and its present practice, is a world-wide revolutionary movement whose purpose it is, by treachery, deceit, infiltration into other groups (governmental and otherwise), espionage, sabotage, terrorism, and any other means deemed necessary, to establish an Anarchist World Disorder through the medium of world-wide anarchist disorganization. (2) The direction and control of the world Crypto-anarchist movement is vested in and exercised by world-wide criminal networks aided by foreign intelligence agencies hostile to the interests of the United States. (3) These networks establish, or causes the establishment of, and utilizes, in various countries, action organizations which are not free and independent organizations, but are sections of a world-wide Anarchist-Criminal Conspiracy, and are controlled, directed, and subject to the discipline of shadow networks who have as their aim the subversion of United States intelligence gathering capabilities. (4) Of these groups, crypto-anarchist organizations endeavor to carry out the objectives of these unholy alliances by bringing about the overthrow of existing governments by any available means, including force if necessary, and setting up Criminal dictatorships. Although such organizations usually designate themselves as political parties, non profit organizations and loose affiliations of individuals, they are in fact constituent elements of the world-wide Criminal-Anarchist movement and promote the objects of such movement by conspiratorial and coercive tactics, instead of through the democratic process of a free elective system or through the freedom-preserving means employed by a political party which operates as an agency by which people govern themselves. (5) In carrying on the activities referred to above, these organizations in various countries are organized on a secret, conspiratorial basis and operate to a substantial extent though organizations, commonly known as nonprofit organizations, mailing lists and intellectual societies, which in most circumstances are created and maintained, or used, in such a manner as to conceal the facts as to their true character and purposes, and their membership, and to serve as a recruitment vehicle. (6) The agents of Crypto-Anarchy have devised clever and ruthless espionage, sabotage and subversive tactics which are carried out in many instances in form or manner successfully evasive of existing law. (7) The Crypto-Anarchist network in the United States is inspired and controlled in a large part by foreign agents, who communicate with them in a sneaky manner. (8) Crypto-Anarchists represent a clear and present danger to the national security of these United States, and make it necessary, that Congress, in order to provide for the common defense, to preserve the sovereignty of the United States as an independent nation, and to guarantee unto each state a republican form of government, enact appropriate legislation in recognition of this conspiracy, and to prevent it from accomplishing its purpose in the United States. DEFINITIONS Sec. 3. For the purposes of this title-- ... (2) The term organization...includes a group of persons, whether or not incorporated, permanently or temporarily associated together for joint action on any subject or subjects. (3) The term crypto-anarchist infiltrated organization means PROHIBITED ACTS (It gets nasty here, you don't want to know.) ~Aimee
RE: More clueless news forwardings
Tim May wrote: Recently arrived here from Choate Prime, Jei the Finn sends us 12 (that I counted) forwarded news items on Saturday. I guess he thinks we need Yet Another News Forwarding Service. The Finn is a foreign principal propagandist. If it continues in disseminating propaganda, we might need to register as agents, as we will be seen as enagaging in political activities intending to influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party, and so on. ~Aimee
RE: Crypto-Anarchist Activities Control Act (CAACA)
It was a joke, James. CAACA? C'mon ~Aimee When the US introduced legislation against the communist movement, that movement was for the most part centrally directed from Moscow, and had as its objective the destruction of the USA and its conquest and occupation by the Soviet army. Similar legislation against cypherpunks is unlikely to appeal to legislators, however much it appeals to you. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG YG8pRN2XWUFtPmOyhOvFuf7mvdGxAJmkDpPm+dTR 45jULQbZKef/x+h89pKChBxm8cz6ZHrC8pjBJsHai
RRA model
Seems to me, with full respect for your offline credentials, that not much of what you offer here is applicable. OkayOK! Some of you have probably heard of the acronym RMA, for Revolution in Military Affairs. The other side of the coin is a rapid succession of RRAs - Revolutions in Revolutionary Affairs. Certain forms of warfare require sanctuary. Today, the dimensions go beyond terrain. In my eyes you are extremely unique, but it has little to do with your political viewpoints. It has to do with my Reuleaux triangle of sanctuary -- and where I plot you in it, attributing aims/capabilities to you which you do not have. (Envision a Venn Diagram of representing domains of sanctuary. In the Reuleaux triangle is a safe zone of sorts. Overlay that with a serious of concentric circles - zones of threat. On the outside of the circle are specific evolutionary pressures (threats) exerting influence. I could go on, it's more complicated, but nobody's interested -- it's neither 'applicable,' nor earth-shattering.) Defenses force political change agendas closer to, or inside of, the Reuleaux triangle. At the very center, your opponent is rendered blind, defenseless and irrelevant. It's been done. Some of our traditional foes have experience with this type of strategy, and People's War concepts in general. In some hostile countries, because of advances in political defenses, we will have to identify, and operate in the Reuleaux triangle. Western societies don't do well with that -- we rarely understand their cultural sphere. I didn't want to unnerve any of you, by placing a improper spin on discussion forum talking about the effects of crypto on society. (More importantly, I didn't want to add to Tim's lines of thinking -- or credit his ego. It's big enough.) My interest in you wasn't related to law at all, but 4GW. As far as my being some sort of a snitch, I suggested that. I was interested in seeing any subformal warning network, and I was playing with my lines of vulnerability. There. I'll leave you alone, if you leave me alone. I'm sorry that I made you angry. Tim made me mad. ~Aimee
RE: More clueless news forwardings
Tim May wrote: Recently arrived here from Choate Prime, Jei the Finn sends us 12 (that I counted) forwarded news items on Saturday. I guess he thinks we need Yet Another News Forwarding Service. The Finn is a foreign principal propagandist. If it continues in disseminating propaganda, we might need to register as agents, as we will be seen as enagaging in political activities intending to influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party, and so on. ~Aimee Utter nonsense. Your understanding of the law is primitive. Meant in jest, Tim. Maybe you could be less of a sniper. ~Aimee
RE: Disease vectors.
Anonymous wrote: Agent Farr wrote: I'm sure you think that's really funny. This place has turned into a disease vector for anti-intelligence propaganda. Some of you are carriers. Governments opposed to the re-invigoration of our intelligence capabilities and American spheres of influence are planting some of this crap. The Russians made some direct threats of relative measures after the Pasko protests (aimed at the FSB), citing the involvement of U.S. diplomats. Do you have any evidence to support this wild claim? I bet I can get her to fish that up *rolls eyes* [1] http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2002/01/15/014.html [2] 2002-01-14 15:20 MSK - NOTE OF PROTEST SENT TO US EMBASSY MOSCOW - The Foreign Ministry of the Russian Federation sent a diplomatic note of protest to the US Embassy in Moscow and expressed its discontent with activities of the US consulate in Vladivostok, diplomatic sources in Moscow reported to RosBusinessConsulting today. The reason for sending the note was the participation of the US Consul General and the US Consul for political and economic affairs in a demonstration near the department of the Federal Security Service in the Primorye region and the court of the Pacific Fleet and the Military Prosecutor's Office. The demonstration was arranged by the public committee in the support of military journalist Grigory Pasko on January 10. The Foreign Ministry of Russia declared the participation of the US officials in this event a serous violation of international rules, which may cause relative measures in response from Russia. - RBC Observations: Post 9/11, the policy actions in Russia resemble maneuver warfare, not deliberative politics. Not just changes in regard to foreign policy, but internal structural changes. Putin has been very busy in speaking to other countries, and the press has been busy signaling diplomatic and economic alliances: France, Poland, China, Germany, India, Vietnam, Brazil, Japan (He looks like that super-hero guy in the red outfit with the lighting rods on his ears. The fast guy. Every day, he's had a visit or a phone conversation with another country.) A few weeks back, we had Russian generals going ballistic. (actual English words, in case you might miss the undertone) This week, big headline: our missile endeavors are going to ensure U.S. technological hegemony FOREVER! In just a few months, Russia repositioned itself. They have OODA-loop politics. (That sort of policy speed is probably on par with what military might used to be.) They are restricting foreigners, going through spy/treason mania, gagging the press, they even have a new law against desecrating the national anthem. Their new senate consists of powerful people nominated to represent small regions from which they have no connection whatsoever. (None of this has made the Washington Post, or I haven't seen it.) 75% of their politicians take bribes, and the old KGB runs the country. I don't mean to mirror-image, but it's disturbing -- it's like they *COPIED* our anti-dissent statutes c. 1917, and right before we entered the Cold War. (Espionage Sedition Acts, Smith Act, etc) Russia is talking about re-nationalizing Soviet intellectual property and making lists, with punitive measures, forcing intensive RD (Russian word for espionage), especially in the military and oil sectors. (No more silly embassy games for them, they will task their criminal networks.) Japan stole entire industry sectors inside of 10 years. While terrorism is mostly put forth as a dirty tool of policy, it strikes at the heart of the social contract. Our response: When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Terrorism makes us hit our own people and focus on perimeter defenses, which gives subnational groups cohesion and loads our defensive orientation. It would seem to offer a situation that other countries can take advantage of in numerous ways. I hope our War on Terrorism isn't masking the advent of another kind of warfare. They want to undermine public opinion of our intelligence agencies, because they are after our throat. ~Aimee
RE: Disease vectors.
[1] http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2002/01/15/014.html The Moscow Times? Now that is funny, since the claim was about this list being a vector for anti-intelligence propaganda and Russian threats. http://www.russianstory.com Extortion is the polite term, it was just an easy source to Google up.
RE: Disease Vectors
Tim: But I must say that we are a pale imitation of our role in 1993-95, when we published the RC-R cipher, blew the whistle on the NSA's proposal to have Jim Bidzos run over in his parking lot, provided the Stealth fighter blueprints, published the home address of notorious killer and FBI agent Lon Horiuchi, and generally sought ways to undermine the NSA, DIA, CIA, and other intelligence agencies operating in support of America's New World Order. I recognize that in the eyes of some, that might be a public service. Agent Farr, it is possible you will survive the upcoming trials and executions. If you do, reflect on your sins. I'll go reflect now. ~Aimee Do not let your opponent see your spirit. -- Miyamoto Musashi
Disease vectors.
This place has turned into a disease vector for anti-intelligence propaganda. Some of you are carriers. Governments opposed to the re-invigoration of our intelligence capabilities and American spheres of influence are planting some of this crap. The Russians made some direct threats of relative measures after the Pasko protests (aimed at the FSB), citing the involvement of U.S. diplomats. ~Aimee
RE: Aimee,mattd,Faustine Sandwich.
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of mattd I'm being followed so close my laptop was stolen. That's not close enough. ~Aimee
Responsibility.
When you paint targets on people, other individuals may cause them harm, seeking some measure of your acceptance. Some here might have actual followers, not fans or confederates-in-cause. Some individuals here, and you even as a group don't have to ask for somebody to be hurt, just imply that it is consistent with your wishes. When somebody expresses targeted violent sentiments, and you don't correct them, they perceive that as a ratification. (While mattd is a self-identifier, others might not be. You might not even know about them.) Such suggestions are a time-tested method of obtaining plausible deniability for violent political action. I would think SOMEBODY can at least make the effort to say something when violent sentiments are expressed. Guess not. ~Aimee
RE: Responsibility.
And your insinuation that we are using mattd, for example, as a cat's paw for violent political action (?) while obtaining plausible deniabilty is pernicious. It wasn't an insinuation, just saying that it happens. I would not like to see this forum further mischaracterized as being associated with certain activities in the press. It's not fair that people will perceive you in this way. But, people aren't fair, or 'right-headed.' Moral judgments usually aren't based on rationality. ~Aimee
RE: Monkeywrenching
I am no longer on the list. My Policeman Inside broke out. He won't let me be associated with silly salad talk, mission orientation, and Levi-Smithing. ~Aimee -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 1:02 PM To: Declan McCullagh; Aimee Farr Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Monkeywrenching -- On 16 Nov 2001, at 16:50, Aimee Farr wrote: I meant it in the sense that it sounds like they are talking about criminal defense lawyers. (i.e., make numerous references to the US Constitution, defenders, etc-etc.) Criminal defense has already been criminalized in hard to enforce laws such as the drug laws, with a various lawyers being busted on charges of providing competent and relevant defense for the accused. Government propaganda is already appearing to justify such punishment. While channel surfing I saw a fictional show about a bunch of lawyers who are in danger of being disbarred for taking drug traffickers as clients, and they are suffering orgasms of liberal guilt about how much they deserve punishment for accepting such terrible clients. Presumably it is still OK for the moment to defend rapists and murderers. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG bHgDORB62aC6HjcAremd3dhdRe6M9c83vYRND2Zh 45QXPQhYmXU9sf6mOHbk16N+w5/9n5dTxqbgu8Ml3
RE: Monkeywrenching
[up-posted conversation] You are working too hard today. I meant it in the sense that it sounds like they are talking about criminal defense lawyers. (i.e., make numerous references to the US Constitution, defenders, etc-etc.) :P ~Aimee I called the FBI yesterday; this is a real flyer. I'll send something Politechwards later on today about it. -Declan On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 12:00:50PM -0600, Aimee Farr wrote: A good example of monkeywrenching can be found at the article posted earlier, http://www.keepandbeararms.com/angel/articles/consterrorist.htm. This shows an apparently legitimate flyer from the Phoenix FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force telling people whom they should watch out for. It includes people who make numerous references to the US constitution, people who are 'defenders' of the US constitution against federal government and the UN, people who attempt to police the police and so on. Think the criminal defense bar is concerned? ~Aimee
You missed it by much.
94th Cong. 1st Sess. H.R. 1603 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 17, 1975 Mr. Drinan introduced the following bill; which was referred the Committee on the Judiciary. A BILL To amend certain sections (authorizing wiretapping and electronic surveillance) of title 18 of the United States Code. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress finds and declares that-- (1) Widespread wiretapping and electronic surveillance, both by private persons and Government agents, both under color of law, and without pretense of legal excuse or justification, has seriously undermined personal security and often violated fundamental constitutional rights, including the rights to free speech, press, and association, the rights to due process and equal protection, and the right to privacy. (2) Complexities and defects in current Federal law have aided those who engage in wiretapping and electronic surveillance, and current Federal law has not provided adequate safeguards against corrupt abuses of communications technology. (3) No person, in any branch of the Federal Government, in however high an office, or in any other governmental or private position should be authorized either explicitly or implicitly to violate the constitutional rights of persons by eavesdropping on private conversations through wiretapping and electronic surveillance. (4) The end of prosecuting those who violate the law does not justify wrongdoing on the part of the Government. (5) The peculiar susceptibility of wiretapping and electronic surveillance to misuse in the furtherance of partisan political goals renders wiretapping and electronic surveillance a particularly dangerous temptation to Government officials, and the chance of its misuse outweighs any potential benefits which might otherwise be found in it. (6) SEC. 2. Title 18 of the United States Code is amended (1) by striking out section 2511(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who and inserting in lieu thereof Whoever (2) by inserting immediately after subparagraph (d) of section 2511(1), but before shall be fined the following new subparagraph: (e) willfully intercepts or records any wire or oral communication without the consent of all the parties to such communication; (3) by striking out or at the end of section 2511(1)(d), and by inserting or at the end of section 2511(1)(d); (4) by striking out sections 2511(2)(a)(ii), (b), (c), and (d); (5) by striking out section 2511 (3); (6) by striking out section 2512(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any person who willfully and inserting in lieu thereof Whoever (7) by striking out section 2512(2); and (8) by striking out sections 2516, 2517, 2518, 2519, 2510 (9). - Freedom From Surveillance Act of 1975, Kastenmeier The gist: (a) Except as provided in subjections (b) of this section or otherwise required by statute, whoever being a civil officer of the United States willfully conducts investigations into, maintains surveillance over, or maintains records regarding the beliefs, associations, political activities, or private affairs of any citizen of the United States, or regarding the beliefs, membership, or political activities of any group or organization of such citizens, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. (b) Nothing contained in the provisions of this section shall be deemed either to limit or to enlarge such legal authority of the United States as may exist to: (1) collect, receive, or maintain information relevant to an individual who has committed or is suspected on reasonable grounds to have committed a felony; [...] --- Bill Of Rights Procedures Act of 1975 -- asking for a court order based upon probable cause for interception of communications, entry of dwellings, opening of mail, the inspection of and procuring of the records of telephone, bank, credit, medical and other business or private transactions of any individual. from a 'vintage' 2 vol. copy of the 94th Cong. surveillance hearings, with a Center For Investigative Reporting stamp. ~Aimee
RE: America the Beautiful
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] I suggest if you find expression of such logical sentiment objectionable that you leave the list. I wrote: Can't we just object? I object. Said objection is now a part of the record. In the heyday of the Red Squad, law enforcers from J. Edgar Hoover's FBI on down to the local level in Chicago focused to an unhealthy degree on political dissidents, whose primary activity was advocacy though it sometimes spilled over into violence. Today the concern, prudent and not paranoid, is with ideologically motivated terrorism. The City does not want to resurrect the Red Squad. It wants to be able to keep tabs on incipient terrorist groups. New groups of political extremists, believers in and advocates of violence, form daily around the world. If one forms in or migrates to Chicago, the decree renders the police helpless to do anything to protect the public against the day when the group decides to commit a terrorist act. Until the group goes beyond the advocacy of violence and begins preparatory actions that might create reasonable suspicion of imminent criminal activity, the hands of the police are tied. And if the police have been forbidden to investigate until then, if the investigation cannot begin until the group is well on its way toward the commission of terrorist acts, the investigation may come too late to prevent the acts or to identify the perpetrators. If police get wind that a group of people have begun meeting and discussing the desirability of committing acts of violence in pursuit of an ideological agenda, a due regard for the public safety counsels allowing the police department to monitor the statements of the group's members, to build a file, perhaps to plant an undercover agent. -- Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 237 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. Ill. 2001). --- May I have a ruling? This list is flypaper, so it makes for interesting research and insights. However, at some point, somebody turned on the bug zapper. *pszzzt*..*pszzt*...*pzt* ~Aimee
RE: Sedition
Faustine wrote: I bet a person could really learn a lot by spending some quality time with Google, taking careful notes on the differences between posts you ignore, ones you're content to dismiss with frosty condescension, what really seems to bother the hell out of you, ones that should bother the hell out of you but you choose to ignore, etc. etc. It's a wonder someone hasn't pulled a number on you already. Sometimes I wonder about Agent Farr though. I do, too. But, clearly, I'm not an agent. A field agent would look away from the moving bright spot, take in the whole room, and see the wolf with the flashlight sitting in the corner. (That's a ancient Texas proverb, BTW, House cats do not eat wolves. Wolves eat house cats. Never made sense to me, aside from the obvious. If anybody here knows the true meaning/origin of that, I would be interested to hear it.) ~Aimee
RE: Sedition
More like corruption...the intimidation and suppression of moderate viewpoints through public ridicule, an ideological culling based on fears of association, and then a real or perceived compromise from which there is no return? Some would profess American Constitutional ideals, but use methods that strike me as distinctively un-American in character. ~Aimee In troubled waters, there's good fishing.
RE: America the Beautiful
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] I suggest if you find expression of such logical sentiment objectionable that you leave the list. Can't we just object? I object. Said objection is now a part of the record.
Extraterritorial surveillance.
George: On 24 Sep 2001, at 17:49, Robert wrote: It is not a crime for an agency of another country to eavesdrop on you as long as they are physically located outside the U.S. Similarly, it is not illegal for a US agency to intercept messages in another country, as long as they do it from outside the that country. You're on crack. The anti-eavsdropping laws don't have exemptions for agents of foreign governments, the suggestion is absurd. Electronic surveillance occurring outside the territorial U.S. is not regulated by Title III or state surveillance statutes. The Fourth Amendment is implicated if American officers are the instigators. If there is U.S. involvement, the Fourth will be violated if the surveillance violated the law of the foreign jurisdiction. [1] The catch, as always, is the suppression remedy. (Note that Congress did not give a suppression remedy for electronic communications.) With regard to foreign surveillance, the justification has been that suppression does not serve a deterrent to foreign actors. (What they fail to consider, is that this cooperation is prone to abuse, especially in regard to economic espionage. Foreign intelligence agencies service their own agendas, and these agendas are increasingly tied to private interests. It's a legitimacy blanket for blackmail, source recruitment, infiltration and so on) If the U.S. liaisons acted in good faith reliance as to the foreign operation, they are entitled to the good faith exception. If it's a silver plate service, without involvement, you can use in it prosecution. [2] The general rule is that it has to shock the judicial conscience to be excluded, or Taunt Happy-Fun Court in cypherpunk lingo. For domestic group surveillance related to national security interests, see United Sates v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972), http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/name.htm [construing 2511(3)in 1972; pre-FISA] (Title III did not reach national security surveillance, and the President could not conduct warrantless surveillance against exclusively domestic organizations). The same arguments are being made today. Surveillance law in the United States is the study of the backbone of the judiciary, bent by the ignorance of congress, due to the machinations of the executive branch. ~Aimee [1] See United States v. Barona, 56 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Peterson, 812 F.2d 486, 491 (9th Cir. 1987); United States v. Phillips, 1979 WL 1505 *16 (M.D.Fla.). But see United States v. Andreas, 1998 WL 42261, *3, (N.D. Ill.), aff'd, 216 F.3d 645, 660-661 (7th Cir. 2000). *Administration* analysis @ http://www.cdt.org/security/010919terror.pdf on the proposed Section 105 Use of Wiretap Information From Foreign Governments: Under current case law, federal prosecutors appear to have the ability to use electronic surveillance conducted by foreign governments in criminal proceedings. As criminal law enforcement becomes more of a global effort, such information will come to play a larger role in federal prosecutions. To ensure uniformity of federal practice, this section codifies the principle that United States prosecutors may use against American citizens information collected by a foreign government even if the collection would have violated the Fourth Amendment. Under the proposal, such information may not be used if it was obtained with the knowing participation or at the direction of American law enforcement personnel, if gathered in violation of constitutional protections. [2] See United States v. Mature, 982 F.2d. 57, 61 (2nd Cir. 1992). See also, (short cites)... Mitro, 880 F.2d 1480; DeLaplane, 778 F.2d 570; Maher, 645 F.2d 780; Derewal, 703 F. Supp. 372 (supplying tip does not rise to the level of involvement).
Selected quotes from Keyser-Soze
Indeed it may have to be fought through the crosshairs... Time to show Ellison who the real threats to his personal safety are... Its time to water the tree... Only cowards worry about possible punishment. If this be terrorism, make the most of it! It seems quite a few have been making payments lately...eh? Will someone publish the home address of the prosecuting attorney and judge issuing the warrant? (Plus, numerous political identifying rants.) --- I've completed my psychological profile, and I'm left wanting. Maybe if I resort to astrology Keyser, what sign were you born under? ~Aimee
RE: Selected quotes from Keyser-Soze
Mr. Keyser-Soze of the hushmail jacket: Although I'm not into anthropomorphics I'd guess my sign would be either mongoose (fast and perisistent and loves to kill snakes) or weasel (agile, sly, cunning and sneaky and loves to kill rats) Want to catch some REALLY big fish? Dangle your ego. :-) ~Aimee
RE: Expectation of privacy in public?
Under the California statute, a conversation in which the parties have no expectation that the discussion would not be disclosed to others is not confidential. Cal. Penal Code. Sect.632(a). Confidentiality has been construed in California to mean a reasonable expectation that the content of the communication has been entrusted privately to the listener. Deteresa v. American Braodcasting Co. 121 F.3d 460, 464 (9th Cir. 1997, cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1840 (1998). Oral Communication under Title I (of Title III or the ECPA) incorporates the Katz test. The Katz test is two-pronged: (1) the person challenging must exhibit an expectation of privacy [subjective] and (2) that person must also be justified in that expectation [objective]. If both prongs are not met, the conversation is not protected under the constitution against warrantless surveillance. Senate Report 1097: neither the speakers intention to talk in confidence nor the location of where the conversation happened controls the determination of whether or not he reasonably expected he could not or would not be overheard. The factors that might be considered in regard to the first prong are: precautions taken, content, purpose, etc. Therefore, words a person knowingly puts to the public, possibly even in your home, can be outside of the Fourth Amendment and Title III. However, it's a very contextual determination. Often, the courts use the rationale that because you have no reason to believe your conversation is not being overheard, you have no reason to believe you are not being recorded. See In re Johen Doe Trader No. One, 894 F.2d 240, 243 (7th Cir. 1990)(recording on floor of commodities exchange). They could also make the analogy to a visitor of a bugged house, such as United States v. Flemmi, 225 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2000). However, the mere fact that the conversation is on government premises does not affect an expectation of privacy. United States v. Jackson, 588 F.2d 1046, 1052 (5th Cir. 1979)and a bunch more after that. Blah, blah, more than you wanted to know. ~Aimee -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Trei, Peter Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 12:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Expectation of privacy in public? Anonymous[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] For the lawyers and lawyer larvae out there... In an article in the San Francisco Bay Guardian this week, there is an article about MUNI's policy of making audio recordings of passengers. quote Nathan Ballard of the City Attorney's Office told the Bay Guardian that they were well aware of the policy and approved it. There are no expectations of privacy in public, he said. Ballard asserted that the policy was constitutional and did not fall under any wiretapping laws. When asked if all of the vehicles that employ this surveillance policy post signs to inform passengers that their conversations are being recorded, he said, This policy does not require signs. /quote Frankly, if I'm sitting in the back of an empty bus, talking to the person next to me, it's my opinion that there certainly is a reasonable expection of privacy. Does anyone more qualified than I care to tell me why I'm right or wrong? Legal or not, I'm also curious to see what the EFF has to say about this wonderful incarnation of Big Brother. http://www.sfbg.com/SFLife/35/51/cult.html MUNI is breaking the law. http://www.rcfp.org/taping/ Peter Trei ---
RE: Redux: mass hate
On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, Aimee Farr wrote: And this, from Choate http://groups.yahoo.com/group/psychohistory/message/2810 shrug What ARE you smoking? I did't write that, you did. I just forwarded it (w/o commentary other than for folks not to take up issue with me since I didn't write it). I know you just FWDd it. I didn't know what psychohistory was. The term sort of lends itself to misconstruction. I've been pissed at you for months over that. ~Aimee
Redux: mass hate
My introductory post (below) was based on a WMD domestic terrorism scenario, to predict surveillance end-states. Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:40:22 -0600 From: Aimee Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Crypto McCarthyism ...thoughts, gentlemen? snip o What do you think about [1-2]? o Contemporary parallels? (use of crypto as an aggravating factor in punishment, etc.) o Finally, how could [3] come about in the context of crypto (and other digital freedoms)? snip === Electronic Journal of Sociology (1996) ISSN: 1176 7323 Cyber McCarthyism: Witch Hunts in the Living Room http://www.sociology.org/content/vol002.001/ling.html snippage [1] This paper examines the potential for electronic communication to spark mass hate such as that seen in colonial Salem and during the McCarthy period. [2] The elements which go into the development of mass hate include the following: 1) strains on the community through the recognition of a moral boundary crisis and identification of villains, 2) crystallizing of patterned labeling through a degradation ceremony, 3) appropriation of the social apparatus and suppression of critique mechanisms, 4) restoration of a normal situation. [3] Finally, the fervour came under control. In both of these cases this occurred when the mass hate became a serious threat to the established power structure, members of the government in the case of colonial Salem and the Army in the case of McCarthyism. end snippage Tim's comments for historical reference. On the Internet, no one knows you're a bitch. And, from Declan... Since the paper is so flawed, I'm not sure it's worth discussing at length. But, briefly, is crypto as threatening as witches were? Far from it. It -- and its derivative technologies, such as anonymity -- seems to be perceived more as a way to reclaim lost privacy rather than a new and unusual threat. In that sense, it is a conservative technology. (This could change, and certainly the intelligence community is hand-waving about terrorists again, but I doubt it'll have much luck.) -Declan And this, from Choate http://groups.yahoo.com/group/psychohistory/message/2810 ~Aimee
RE: Cooksey: Expect racial profiling
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Choate Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 12:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cooksey: Expect racial profiling Somebody should impeach this asshole... http://www.theadvocate.com/news/story.asp?StoryID=24605 Press Release: ADC Shocked By Congressman Cooksey's Remarks Washington, DC, Sept. 19--The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is outraged by the comments made on Monday by Representative John Cooksey (R-LA) on Louisiana radio stations stating that someone who comes in thats got a diaper on his head and a fan belt wrapped around that diaper on his head, that guy needs to be pulled over. Representative Cookseys racist remarks are particularly shocking in light of the ongoing national backlash against Arab Americans as a result of last weeks terrorist attack in New York and the Washington, D.C. area. ADC President Dr. Ziad Asali said, It is totally unacceptable in the midst of this national crisis that an elected official of the United States Congress would utter such hateful and irresponsible words. It is a disgrace to Congress and to the medical profession. Dr. Cooksey owes Arab Americans and indeed the nation an apology. As a member of Congress he should realize that honoring constitutionally protected civil rights is not simply trying to be politically correct as he stated. ADC officials have requested a meeting with Representative Cooksey upon his return to Washington, D.C. this evening.
Roving surveillance misc.
Citizen Q posted a news clip, which included: Part of Ashcroft's terrorism package includes a request to allow the FBI to seek wiretapping orders for a suspect instead of a telephone. That would mean law enforcement agents would be able to tap any phone a suspect uses, instead of having to ask for a new wiretapping order whenever the suspect changes telephones. With the introduction of cellular phones, it has become harder for law officers to track conversations of suspects because of the ease of getting new telephone numbers or new telephones, officials said. ``That's a key piece of legislation that would be helpful to us,'' FBI Director Robert Mueller said Monday. A requirement under Title I of the ECPA is that the site of the targeted phone be identified. This is the statutory embodiment of the forth amendment particularization requirement. In the case of an oral conversation, [within the meaning of the ECPA] Section 2518(11) eliminates the requirement when there is a finding by a judge reviewing the application that the site identification requirement is impracticable. In contrast, for a wire or electronic communication, there must be a finding that the purpose of the person who is the subject of surveillance is to thwart interception by changing facilities. [1] Although somewhat dated, see Michael Goldsmith, Eavesdropping Reform: The Legality of Roving Surveillance, 1987 U.Ill. L. Rev. 401 (1987). [2] The MINIMIZATION REQUIREMENT is found in 2518(5) of the ECPA (Title III) requires interception be conducted in such a way as to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception, in order to prevent a fourth amendment prohibited general search. For the search of a conversation to be reasonable, minimization must take place so that the government does not seize conversations unrelated to criminal activity. But see, SCOTT V. UNITED STATES, 436 U.S. 128 (1978) (court rejected the view that 2518(5) required officers to engage in good faith efforts to minimize the surveillance of non-pertinent conversations). Scott factors as delineated in later decisions, have been the subject of considerable criticism. Some states have rejected it entirely, requiring good faith at the outset under state statutes. (Biometric and technological minimization might provide a partial answer to Scott's latitude. If plausible, the Scott doctrine should be tightened in the statute to require sincere good faith minimization in light of any new technological aids to minimization.) [3] TESTIMONY OF JAMES P. FLEISSNER ON THE COMPREHENSIVE ANTITERRORISM ACT OF 1995... @ http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1995_hr/h950612-3f.htm (discussing roving surveillance and supporting the harmonization of the two roving surveillance provisions, and discussing the crimes already in the statute with ties to terrorism). [4] NOTICE. The notice and inventory provisions of the ECPA need to be amended to provide notice to non-targets. 2518(8)(d) entitles only those persons who were named in the court order (suspected of criminal activity) to receive notice and inventory. The statutory provisions, which were supposed to provide oversight, have been rendered meaningless by the courts. There is a discretionary provision allowing a judge to notify a non-target individual if, in his/her opinion, circumstances call for it. [5] THE NATURE OF JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT. In regard to the Pen Register and Trap and Trace Device provisions, the complaint is the lack of judicial oversight. [Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(1) of this title, the court *shall* enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device if the court finds that the attorney for the Government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.] Communication data, or communication attributes, have already been the subject of considerable controversy. Some argue that in contrast to judicial and legislative interpretation, communication attributes are deserving of GREATER constitutional protection -- not less, pointing to the fact that communication data is more precise and revealing. [6] See also, _Terrorism The Constitution-Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security_ by James X. Dempsey David Cole -- available on Amazon. ~Aimee But when, under conditions of modern warfare, our shores are threatened by hostile forces, the power to protect must be commensurate with the threatened danger. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 220 (1944) (this rationale was used to uphold internment camps for American citizens). A reminder, I think.
Re: Senate votes to permit warrantless Net-wiretaps, Carn ivoreus e (fwd)
From: Baker, Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Declan McCullagh' [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Albertazzie, Sally [EMAIL PROTECTED], Baker, Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] Declan, I ignored the first two points because I don't think they're that important. These warrantless searches are emergency orders that have to be followed by a court order in 48 hours. Sometimes courts are closed and the cops need data right away. Tuesday evening would be a good example. This is not some out-of-control police authority. The people who can ask for emergency orders have to be designated by one of several officials at Main Justice. That's to make sure someone responsible ends up with the authority to declare an emergency. So an assistant US attorney could be designated by Main Justice in each district right now. What's the big deal with letting the US Attorney for the district do the designating instead of Main Justice? Seems to me that the US Attorney probably knows more about staff changeovers than Main Justice, so it makes sense for the US Attorney to do the designating locally. Stewart See the following portion of a recent TX bill, proposed in June. Offered for comparative purposes against the new and improved 3125. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/billsrch/subject/77r/S1087.HTM Sec. 8A. EMERGENCY INSTALLATION AND USE OF INTERCEPTING 4-6 DEVICE. (a) The prosecutor in a county in which an electronic, 4-7 mechanical, or other device is to be installed or used to intercept 4-8 wire, oral, or electronic communications shall designate in writing 4-9 each peace officer in the county, other than a commissioned officer 4-10 of the Department of Public Safety, who: 4-11 (1) is a member of a law enforcement unit specially 4-12 trained to respond to and deal with life-threatening situations; 4-13 and 4-14 (2) is authorized to possess such a device and 4-15 responsible for the installation, operation, and monitoring of the 4-16 device in an immediate life-threatening situation. 4-17 (b) A peace officer designated under Subsection (a) or 4-18 under Section 5(b) may possess, install, operate, or monitor an 4-19 electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept wire, oral, or 4-20 electronic communications if the officer: 4-21 (1) reasonably believes an immediate life-threatening 4-22 situation exists that: 4-23 (A) is within the territorial jurisdiction of 4-24 the officer or another officer the officer is assisting; and 4-25 (B) requires interception of communications 4-26 before an order authorizing the interception can, with due 5-1 diligence, be obtained under this section; 5-2 (2) reasonably believes there are sufficient grounds 5-3 under this section on which to obtain an order authorizing the 5-4 interception; and 5-5 (3) obtains from a magistrate oral or written consent 5-6 to the interception before beginning the interception. 5-7 (c) A magistrate may give oral or written consent to the 5-8 interception of communications under this section. 5-9 (d) If an officer installs or uses a device under Subsection 5-10 (b), the officer shall: 5-11 (1) promptly report the installation or use to the 5-12 prosecutor in the county in which the device is installed or used; 5-13 and 5-14 (2) within 48 hours after the installation is complete 5-15 or the interception begins, whichever occurs first, obtain a 5-16 written order from a judge of competent jurisdiction authorizing 5-17 the interception. 5-18 (e) A judge may issue an order authorizing interception of 5-19 communications under this section during the 48-hour period 5-20 prescribed by Subsection (d)(2). If an order is denied or is not 5-21 issued within the 48-hour period, the officer shall terminate use 5-22 of and remove the device promptly on the earlier of the denial or 5-23 the expiration of 48 hours. 5-24 (f) The state may not use as evidence in a criminal 5-25 proceeding any information gained through the use of a device 5-26 installed under this section if authorization for the device is not 6-1 sought or is sought but not obtained. ~Aimee
RE: SYMBOL no....ICON
Pst, C'mere Let's build a BIIIG terrorist icon on the eve of a possibly long engagement, and put lots of little people in it. Don't present targets when civilian lives go in them. And, you can't fight fires in those things. ~Aimee
A Brevital Moment (was..Ignore Aimee Farr)
Mr. Ziplip wrote: Tim - Behavioral psychologists will tell you that the best way to extinguish an undesirable behavior is to IGNORE it. If Farr's posturings and baitings are truly to be made ineffective, the best course of action amongst the cpunks who care is to killfile the postings and refuse to engage on ANY level. My post was not bait. The reason we have anything left of the amendments so frequently talked about in here is due to the independence of the judiciary. While you can question aforesaid independence, threatening the judiciary is beyond the pale. There are some posts in here that give me 'pause for psycholinguistic analysis.' As such, I worry that they could be misconstrued (Type 5...Type 6, compulsive or possible syndicate bombers even...) by some hypersensitive, uneducated people not intimately familiar with the history and quirks of this list -- in what has become a hypersensitive environment. Bell's Assassination Politics put cypherpunks on some protective intelligence agendas. It would not be implausible to assume you were being monitored to see if you run with the seeded assassination memes, if only for analytical purposes. These matters are taken seriously by those charged with the care of protected persons. (Contrary to what some here would have you believe, subtlety can get you a much higher threat-rating than overtly threatening correspondence.) Rising to the bait, debating whether such-and-such a purpose is behind Farr's postings, speculating on Farr's true intent, all this does is spur on the postings, the baiting, the provocation. Just say no to responding to ANY of Farr's postings, and I would almost put money that the behavior will extinguish within a week. Baiting? Provocation? No, a caveat. Do not tolerate behavior of that nature. It subjects you all to scrutiny and mischaracterization. What about Mr. K-S that hides behind his hushmail jacket and asks for names and addresses.why doesn't somebody cuss him out? ~Aimee
RE: No Subject
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of citizenQ Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 5:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: No Subject Reading the discussion I see that the amendment calls for inclusion of 'terrorist activies' into Title III which allows wiretapping under Court order, not anything about warrantless wiretapping. I did not perform all the text substitutions of the amemdment itself though. However in the language of the amendment all references that I read are to activities under court order. Please indicate the wider circumstances, particularly the warrantless circumstances, that this amendment allows cybertapping under, for those of us without your time or acumen in editing the existing Title III language. (c) EMERGENCY INSTALLATION.-- (1) AUTHORITY FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS.--Section 3125(a) of that title is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1)-- (A) by striking ``or any Deputy Assistant Attorney General,'' and inserting ``any Deputy Assistant Attorney General, or any United States Attorney,''. (2) EXPANSION OF EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES.--Section 3125(a)(1) of that title is amended-- (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end; (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the comma at the end and inserting a semicolon; and (C) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraphs: ``(C) immediate threat to the national security interests of the United States; ``(D) immediate threat to public health or safety; or ``(E) an attack on the integrity or availability of a protected computer which attack would be an offense punishable under section 1030(c)(2)(C) of this title,''. You also did not quote this: One of the most effective investigative tools at the disposal of law enforcement agencies is the ability to go to a Federal judge and get wiretapping authority. It is critical in matters such as this. That is the ability to intercept oral or electronic conversations involving the subject of a criminal investigation. The legislative scheme that provides this authority, and at the same time protects the individual liberties of American citizens to be secure against unwarranted government surveillance, is referred to in the criminal code as Title III. Among the many protections inherent in Title III is that only the investigations of certain criminal offenses, those judged to be sufficiently serious to warrant the use of this potent crime-fighting weapon, are eligible for wiretapping orders. The law lays out a number of crimes deemed by Congress to be serious enough to warrant allowing the FBI to intercept electronic and oral communications. Title III currently allows interception of communications in connection with the investigation of such crimes as mail fraud, wire fraud, and the interstate transportation of stolen property. Inexplicably, however, the Federal terrorism statutes are not currently included in Title III. I have been complaining about this for a long time and this is the time to correct it. This is somewhat of a mistatement considering the breadth of 2516.
RE: Congress mulls crypto restrictions in response to attacks
Amateur radio was the first casualty after Pearl Harbor. Some criticize the action now, of course. ~Aimee -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Declan McCullagh Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 3:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Congress mulls crypto restrictions in response to attacks http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46816,00.html Congress Mulls Stiff Crypto Laws By Declan McCullagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 1:45 p.m. Sep. 13, 2001 PDT WASHINGTON -- The encryption wars have begun. For nearly a decade, privacy mavens have been worrying that a terrorist attack could prompt Congress to ban communications-scrambling products that frustrate both police wiretaps and U.S. intelligence agencies. Tuesday's catastrophe, which shed more blood on American soil than any event since the Civil War, appears to have started that process. Some politicians and defense hawks are warning that extremists such as Osama bin Laden, who U.S. officials say is a crypto-aficionado and the top suspect in Tuesday's attacks, enjoy unfettered access to privacy-protecting software and hardware that render their communications unintelligible to eavesdroppers. In a floor speech on Thursday, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) called for a global prohibition on encryption products without backdoors for government surveillance. This is something that we need international cooperation on and we need to have movement on in order to get the information that allows us to anticipate and prevent what occurred in New York and in Washington, Gregg said, according to a copy of his remarks that an aide provided. President Clinton appointed an ambassador-rank official, David Aaron, to try this approach, but eventually the administration abandoned the project. Gregg said encryption makers have as much at risk as we have at risk as a nation, and they should understand that as a matter of citizenship, they have an obligation to include decryption methods for government agents. Gregg, who previously headed the appropriations committee overseeing the Justice Department, said that such access would only take place with court oversight. [...] Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, a hawkish think tank that has won accolades from all recent Republican presidents, says that this week's terrorist attacks demonstrate the government must be able to penetrate communications it intercepts. I'm certainly of the view that we need to let the U.S. government have access to encrypted material under appropriate circumstances and regulations, says Gaffney, an assistant secretary of defense under President Reagan. [...] - POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -
RE: Cypherpunk Threat Analysis (scramble near Crawford)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tim May Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 1:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cypherpunk Threat Analysis On Thursday, September 13, 2001, at 08:39 AM, Aimee Farr wrote: For the sick people in here that like to call for TNA's (target name and address) for judicial officials etc. -- NLECTC Law Enforcement Corrections Technology News Summary Thursday, September 13, 2001 -- Technological Advances in Assessing Threats to Judicial Officials Sheriff (08/01) Vol. 53, No. 4, P. 34; Calhoun, Frederick S. The majority of sheriff offices throughout the country assign personnel to handle threats made to judges according to which situations pose the greatest risks. Los Angeles I wonder why Agent Farr warns about our list tolerating bomb discussions, and then posts her own provocateur bomb discussions. Did not. I wonder why Agent Farr refers to the sick people in here who cite names of LEAs and then makes a point to cite LEA persons by _name_. *rolls eyes* Agent Farr arrived from _nowhere_ just after the election last year, with no previous detectable online interests, on half a dozen of the most controversial mailing lists and discussion groups. She began baiting and provoking, and when that failed, starting her own Bomb Law Reporter and attempting to entrap discussion group participants in what she has claimed are dangerous activities. No. She has recently claimed that our failure to support Big Brother-friendly networks makes us equivalent to the WTC actors. Did not. The witch hunt began a long time ago, but it has taken on new dimensions recently. Expect to see the real Agent Farr, who is very probably not named Aimee in real life, testifying before Congress on his undercover operations to shut down the Cypherpunks, PGP, and Extropians lists. --Tim May Oh yes, Cypherpunks, PGP and Extropiansthe heart of darknessWhoo...big fish in here. I don't work for Uncle. BTW, big event skyward over my house this a.m. -- rumor is a private aircraft near Bush Ranch. Got a scramble. Flyboys tore up the sky for a good hour this morning. Shrwooom!!! Shrwwm ~Aimee
Cypherpunk Threat Analysis
For the sick people in here that like to call for TNA's (target name and address) for judicial officials etc. -- NLECTC Law Enforcement Corrections Technology News Summary Thursday, September 13, 2001 -- Technological Advances in Assessing Threats to Judicial Officials Sheriff (08/01) Vol. 53, No. 4, P. 34; Calhoun, Frederick S. The majority of sheriff offices throughout the country assign personnel to handle threats made to judges according to which situations pose the greatest risks. Los Angeles security consulting firm Gavin de Becker has developed an advanced threat-management system that incorporates computers. Assessing which threat poses the most risk to court officials or jurors is difficult. According to the U.S. Marshals Service's case files, people making threats rarely carry them through. Gavin de Becker's MOSAIC program provides a series of questions designed to assess the potential risk posed by different situations and people. The Supreme Court Police use the program for ensuring the safety of the chief justices. (www.sheriffs.org) ~Aimee
Anonymizer Op Safe Investigation / Official Anonymity
Anonymizer.com Launches 'Operation Safe Investigation' to Help Law Enforcement and Journalism Professionals Maintain Anonymity and Safety Online PRNewswire (09/06/01) NLECTC Law Enforcement Corrections Technology News Summary Thursday, September 13, 2001 ... Anonymizer.com just debuted its Operation Safe Investigation program to protect the identities of law enforcement agents and journalists conducting investigations via the Internet. Under the program, the company will allocate as many as 25 user licenses for its Anonymous Surfing service. Accounts remain active for a period of three months, but participants will receive an option to continue using the licenses at a reduced cost in the future. Law enforcement officials require anonymity to conduct investigations about the activities of Web surfers suspected of criminal activities and for accessing certain Web sites that show different Web pages based on a user's identity. In addition to allowing investigators to effectively conceal their identities, the service provides protection from various security and privacy threats found on the Web. (www.prnewswire.com) ~Aimee Anonymity would be a greater aid to LEA to grease _incoming_ information flows. I've got flyboys scratching the sky here all a.m. - Shrwwoom Shrwwom!!! Serious play up there.
RE: Terrorists attack World Trade Center and Pentagon
[ I wonder if these attacks are over, and what kind of legislation we're likely to see in response... --Declan] Perspective: How ironic, that this is all happening under the shadow of the Statue of Liberty. Some of us may not have been born to see Pearl Harbor in 1941, but I can assure you that none of us will ever forget the attack of the WTC in New York City, September 11, 2001, a date that may become of more historical significance than we can currently imagine. Semper Fi, ...a New Jersey volunteer bringing a pick, shovel...and a hard stomach. -- Perhaps borders and transportation will widely field biometric and biochemical surveillance countermeasures. The surreptitious collection of suspected terrorist biometrics for border security, along with surreptitious polygraphing might have provided additional security, especially in coordination with intelligence agents in the field. (If part of an organized terrorist attack, our intelligence agencies *should have* their mugs.) That could have been an aerosol cloud full of blister, blood, choking agents Still, while we are all flying the flag, I just hope we don't forget what it stands for in the policy aftermath. To say we had forewarning is an understatement, and name-calling, retaliation, and yadda-yadda does nothing to address our intelligence and security failures. GAO reports critical of airport security: http://www.federaltimes.com/issues/crackdown.html http://www.janes.com/transport/news/jar/jar000616_1_n.shtml (It seems like there was something very recent, but I can't find it. I can't pull up GAO.gov.) I hope this will be seen as a mandate to engage in the aggressive acquisition of foreign intelligence sources, and a coordinated counterintelligence strategy. Human Intelligence might make a much-needed comeback. All we needed here was one placed HUMAN asset. One guy. ~Aimee
RE: Moral Crypto isn't wuss-ninnie.
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eric Cordian Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 6:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Moral Crypto isn't wuss-ninnie. Aimee writes: I realize Tim's position, and I respect his right to express his political opinions and ideas, even though I don't agree with them, and think he is a self-identifying flamboyant jackass. I understand that many of you have the same opinions, and likewise Guess not all Lying Feminist Cunts troll Sex Abuse exclusively. yawn -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law I am not a Feminist. ~Aimee
RE: Official Anonymizing
Are you talking about Gatti? ~Aimee -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve Schear Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 1:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Official Anonymizing At 01:42 PM 9/4/2001 -0700, John Young wrote: On ZKS selling anonymizing products that are publicly available to governmental officials does raise an issue of whether officials should, or should be able to, conceal their official identities when working cyberspace in an official capacity. I think not, though it might be as impossible to get officials to comply as with terrorists so long as the technology is there. I recall reading last week that an Oregon Supreme Court decision makes mandatory that state LE operate only in the clear (no pseudo-anon identities). Prosecutors are wringing their hands. steve
RE: Moral Crypto isn't wuss-ninnie.
A potential balance between national security and science may lie in an agreement to include in the peer review process (prior to the start of research and prior to the publication) the question of potential harm to the nation I believe it is necessary before significant harm does occur which could well prompt the federal government to overreact. -- Inman, '82. --- It is not wuss-ninnie to spark debate, or to examine characterizations and motives. Many say, technology is neutral. It's not. Technology is CONTEXTUAL. Somebody is going to use it for something, and that's usually somebody and something in particular. Most of you would agree that surveillance researchers failed to consider and address the moral and societal implications of surveillance technologies. That, too many said, was somebody else's problem. Now, it's *our* problem. Had they looked into motivations and societal factors, we would have had more lead time to deal with improper surveillance and secondary use issues. We are in this position today because they were wuss-ninnies. If the benefits outweigh the costs, then fine -- but show me that you thought about it, and considered what other people might have to say, even if you might not agree with them (or me). I'm glad you have political ideas and theories of how it's going to all work outbut it often doesn't work out the way you think, or want it to. In my opinion, to characterize a technology as having aims detrimental to national security interests is both irresponsible and foolish. Words and events shape public policy -- why shape it against you? I realize Tim's position, and I respect his right to express his political opinions and ideas, even though I don't agree with them, and think he is a self-identifying flamboyant jackass. I understand that many of you have the same opinions, and likewise ~Aimee
RE: Federal Agent Aimee Farr
Aimee now thinks that I, Tim, have committed suicide. Nope. Sen gene sarho`s musun?! = Are you drunk again? A strange question from one who rambles incoherently and talks about going out to talk to the snails. Doing more searches, I find you also asking leading (and ignorant, as fits the prosecutorial model) questions on the Freehaven list. Again, in 2001. Why your sudden involvement in early 2001 in all the lists being tarred by the government as havens of anarchist and terrorist thought? Where was your interest in Netly things prior to the Bell arrest in late 2000? There seem to be no entries for you prior to late 2000. Are you in contact with SS members in Waco and Crawford? Are you feeding them tidbits from our list? Or are they just the prime rib you joked about getting now that Bushies are in town? (Assuming you were already in town when they arrived. Did you arrive _with_ them? I could talk about what searches I'm doing of Aimee E. Farr, but I understand how the Feds consider this kind of research to be interstate stalking, so I won't. Suffice it to see that I find surprisingly little history of you. Less history, in fact, that the prosecuting attorney in the Brian West case just turned up. If you have a history prior to late 2000, it's essentially nonexistent in readily-available sources. Time to hit the DMV and hospital files, I guess.) --Tim May My, you're playful tonight. You already know there is nothing there. And, if I was anything like that, you would handle it a little differently. I get your message, Tim. ~Aimee
RE: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
Tim: On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 05:52 PM, Aimee Farr wrote: Didn't you already sign on? Surely through your careful study of the archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is Tim's Crypto Anarchist Manifesto. It's practically the charter. See, for example, http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto_misc/cryptoanarchist.manifesto - GH No. There wasn't even a clickwrap. Works for me. And, besides, it's available at a dozen other sites just by entering the phrase into a search engine. You've been told about these sources. You've been told about the Ludlow books, the Cyphernomicon, the Levy book. And you would have encountered these ideas with the most cursory of examinations of the archives. Yet you profess ignorance. Well, no surprise, as you _are_ ignorant. --Tim May Sen gene sarho`s musun?! ~Aimee
RE: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
Bear wrote: On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote: It wasn't serious, Mike! Yes. It is serious. It is, in fact, dead serious. Starting with the Sweet spot discussion, and well into the pissing contest that you and Tim seem to have started over it, we've been seeing nothing but absolutely dead serious opportunities to get roped in on some thought- crime charge or other, a couple of months or a couple of years or a decade from now. Yep. I've composed a dozen responses, considered the subpeona and the trial that could result from posting each, and wiped them. There's your chilling effect on political discussion if you're interested. This one, I'm going to post, so I'm being very careful what I say. For most of the list participants, a simple, direct word: The focus of the US intel community is shifting, at the current time, to domestic terrorism. That makes political speech of the kind which has in past years been entirely normal on this list orders of magnitude more dangerous to the participants than it was at that time. Taking part in this discussion in a style traditional for this list could be very dangerous. Remember, one out of every fifty Americans is in jail, and if you think you're in the most radical two percent of the population, there are implications, aren't there? For Tim: Why are you attempting to provoke public discussion about things that could get people jailed or worse for discussing them? It's interesting to see you post your sweet spot message and then call someone *else* an agent provocateur. For Aimee, a message couched in her own style of bafflegab: :) I both read, and Read, your more oblique communications. Nice work, and fun, but not useful on this list. You are playing a game where the white chips count for houses, and the red chips count for lifetimes. Don't ask directly about the blue chips, because you run the risk that someone will answer you just as directly. And *especially* don't ask about the markers; you don't have time. The only way to win this game is to be the dealer. Oh, you may go a ways as the dealer's moll, but I'm talking about winning, not just amusing yourself. Look out for confusing mirrors; some of the players may have looked into your hand and seen their own. Be careful not to make the same mistake. You have good eyes, Bear. I'll be a good girl from now on. I just watched Hannibal: the brain scene. Quid pro quo, Clarice...quid pro quo. *shiver* reminds me of somebody in here. Now, I shan't be participating in the rest of this thread, I don't think. Instead, I shall spend my time writing code. Code which I do not intend to release in a form traceable back to me. I encourage those who can, to do the same. Bear I support strong crypto. Again, I find Steele's arguments persuasive and legitimate. ~Aimee
RE: Federal Agent Aimee Farr
Aimee now thinks that I, Tim, have committed suicide. Nope. Sen gene sarho`s musun?! = Are you drunk again? ~Aimee
RE: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
GH wrote: Nomen Nescio wrote: [snip] The answers it gives depends on the questions you ask. If your questions are simple enough (untraceability good?) then your chart will answer them. If your questions are more interesting (what technologies can be practically implemented and make a positive difference in the world) then you need a better chart. You (and Aimee) make the mistake of assuming that all of us believe that we are living in the best of all possible worlds. *sigh* Many people however believe that we [read: our government(s)] are in a downward spiral that is converging on police-and-welfare-state. In the US for example, we long ago abandoned our constitution. We still give it much lip service and we still have one of the more free societies but things are trending in the wrong direction. Each year more oppressive laws are passed, more things are made illegal to say or write or - if some have their way - think. (And of course it goes without saying that these things that are prohibited to us are available to authorized users: those in intelligence, law enforcement, etc. - the usual more equal individuals.) I might understand this better than you think. At the same time, more twits like you and Aimee spring up, always ready to say no, you mustn't say such things - you don't really mean that, do you? How could anyone even think such things? Twit: my pet name in here. As Tim has pointed out over and over, you need to read up on cypherpunks themes, goals and history. His signature has included this inscription for years (though he seems not to be using it lately): Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero knowledge, reputations, information markets, black markets, collapse of governments. Did you think he didn't really mean it? I'm not sticking my head in that noose. As a start on getting up to speed on alternatives to our current system of government (and excellent entertainment besides), I recommend you read these works: Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson The Ungoverned by Vernor Vinge There are many others that could be added to this list but just reading these will give you a taste of some alternative societies that might be in many ways preferable to the current kleptocracy. - GH (who admits he's been heavily influenced by Mr. May) So, now, it's... BlackNet; Case History of a Practically Untraceable System for Buying and Selling Corporate and National Secrets to foreign adversaries, and to spur the collapse of governments. Just out of curiosity, how many of you would sign on to a project like that? Would you please post a statement of interest, and detail how you would contribute to such a project? ~Aimee
RE: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
Didn't you already sign on? Surely through your careful study of the archives you know that one of the founding documents for this list is Tim's Crypto Anarchist Manifesto. It's practically the charter. See, for example, http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Crypto_misc/cryptoanarchist.manifesto - GH No. There wasn't even a clickwrap. ~Aimee
Agents kick crypto ass....was The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
Despite frequently urging newcomers to read the archives--or at least use some search engines!, nitwits like Aimee are only just now figuring out what was crystal clear in 1992-3. The EEA wasn't passed until 96. I failed to mention Title 18 United States Code, Section(s) 794(c). Agents kick crypto ass. http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/regan_complaint.html His training in the Air Force included cryptanalysis...In the Fall of 2000, reliable source information indicatedAlso in the Fall of 2000, reliable source information The encrypted messages, which were decrypted by the U.S. government, On June 21, 2001, Regan sent an email from an account registered in his own name to an email account in the name of his wife. The email attached one page of alphanumeric encryption key that appears to be similar to the encryption technique described in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12, aboveRegan was confronted by FBI special agents at the airport at approximately 5:35 p.m. In response to a question from this affiant, Regan denied knowledge of cryptology, coding and decoding. However, when shown photographs of the alphanumeric tables, which appear to be related to cryptology, which tables had been in his carry-on bag, he stated This is my stuff. Regan was arrested shortly thereafterAlso in Regan's carry-on bag when he was stopped by the FBI at Dulles Airport on August 23, 2001, was a hand-held global positioning system (GPS). Based on my training and experience in intelligence matters, I know that a GPS unit can be used to locate a specific site for drop or signal sites. That wouldn't be what has your little mice running in their wheels, would it? No wonder she's doing scut work for the SS outpost in Waco, near Bush's Crawford ranch. --Tim May Ah, Tim makes a funny. ~Aimee
RE: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
Tim May: So I guess my candidate submission for the P.E.T. workshop might not be well-received: BlackNet; Case History of a Practically Untraceable System for Buying and Selling Corporate and National Secrets. No, you want E.E.T. -- Espionage-enhancing Technologies. Some of you need a lawyer on your shoulder. Like a little parrot. *squawk!* ECPA Section 2516(1)(p); FISA, if that includes being controlled by aliens from outer-space; USC Title 18 1831. Think about where the markets are for tools for privacy and untraceability. Believe me, I am. Section 1831 Economic espionage (a) In General - Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly - (1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains a trade secret; (2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys a trade secret, (3) receives, buys, or possesses a trade secret, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization, (4) attempts to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1) through (3), or (5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both. Section 1837 Applicability to conduct outside the United States This chapter also applies to conduct occurring outside the United States if (1) the offender is a natural person who is a citizen or permanent resident alien of the United States, or an organization organized under the laws of the United States or a State or political subdivision thereof-, or (2) an act in furtherance of the offense was committed in the United States. Your idea does seem to offer promise as a vehicle for treason, espionage, trade secrets, malicious mischief, piracy, bribery of public officials, concealment of assets, transmission of wagering information, murder for hire, threatening or retaliating against Federal officials, a transactional environment for nuclear and biologic weapons, narcotic and arms traffickingsweet spots. *shakes head* This is not legal advice. It's an obituary. :) think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are forbidden to. I talked about this before, as an OSINT channel for the U.S. Government. o BlackNet has legitimate intelligence applications. o For it to work in a secrets market, you would need to tap the ground channels and have the analytics. Intelligence isn't a Chia pet...just add BlackNet and watch it grow! Surely, untraceability does not equivocate to instant source cultivation. o You can get what you need by listening to the right person. Once you've spotted and recruited the right person, THEN you need a transactional channel, but only if you want to pursue a source relationship -- and you usually do. You need analysis, not information. The problem isn't the lack of a fence -- but the difficulty in defining your collection goals, spotting the right person, knowing what to elicit, and having the analytics to refine an intelligence product. Self-offerings are viewed with suspicion. Can a third-party spot talent for you? Talent: businessmen, academics and informants. That's a very HUMAN high-touch problem. o A holistic solution would cut down the costs of stealth, transfer risk, and possibly would assist in spotting, but I don't know that zero-contact is all it is represented to be. Is the equivalent of an anon e-bay going to answer your strategic issues? You have to define and meet your collection goals. o Anonymity can be a problem. You need authentication. You would like blinded biometrics. o I would think the ROI would be where you can shoehorn into existing intelligence channels and groundwork. That's either a sovereign, an intermediary wrapped in the skirts of a sovereign, a defense contractor, or an untouchable intermediary. If not bona-fide intelligence, you're left with the criminal element, IRA and so forth. Most move product and still have distribution channels. Yeah, the IRA would like digital cash, they are buying arms with offshore debit cards. o It seems like _damn bad timing_ for a discussion in this context. This should be couched in terms of a beneficial application, rather than something subversive. It's like the fall of Knights Templar in here. What happened to the pilgrims' safe passage? ~Aimee L'Empireur doit jtre considiri comme le messie des idies nouvelles.
RE: Agents kick crypto ass....was The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
Your role as an agent provocateur here is noted. Your role as a son-uv-a-bitch to me is noted. Trying to keep people out of trouble is a provocateur? Gee, sorry to dampen your conspiracy. I posted Regan because it was directly relevant to this discussion, and it makes a couple of points -- some of which run in your favor. Considering the incredibly bad timing of this discussion in light of world events, I don't see how you could call ME a provocateur. My jibe was good-natured. You keep posting the equivalent of classified ads. I know who wants this shit now, and it's not little bad men. Not so bright, though. And you've outed yourself by not-so-subtle hints about the SS prime rib. I have not tried to sex the SS. This is not to say I don't pay attention to detail. People like you deserve what you get. --Tim May My AP# is on file with your organization. ~Aimee
RE: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
Reese wrote: This is not legal advice. It's an obituary. :) Owning a vehicle that will exceed the speed limit is not a crime. Driving a vehicle that will exceed the speed limit is not a crime. Exceeding the speed limit is a crime and is a ticketable offense, at the least. Mechanisms to maintain privacy and anonymity are no different, use of Damn it, Reese, I didn't say that. Can anybody here read between the lines? Hell? *echo-echo-echo* those same mechanisms to commit crime is not a death knell for those mechanisms just as manufacturers do not stop producing and selling vehicles that are capable of exceeding the speed limit, even though some people do speed and are ticketed or given warnings, at least. You are entirely too smug and happy, at the thought of these various mechanisms useful for preserving privacy and anonymity going the way of the dodo. That is not my attitude at all, Reese. I obviously like Tim's Blacknet. However, I don't like it being characterized as a subversive tool, and damn sure not in terms that might indicate a criminal conspiracy for shopping out secrets to Libya. Tim may be correct, in his assessment on your deserving what you receive. Oh, Noo! think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are forbidden to. I talked about this before, as an OSINT channel for the U.S. Government. o BlackNet has legitimate intelligence applications. It also has legitimate applicability for Joe Sixpack and Suzy Winecooler, who don't want a zillion ads and cookies clogging their bandwidth and cache, who don't want targetted ads or their surfing habits tracked and monitored, who certainly don't want their health insurance premiums to go up after they do research on some rare, incurable disease they are mildly curious about or after researching a more common ailment when a friend happens to be diagnosed - to lean on those old standbys. No shit. o Anonymity can be a problem. You need authentication. You would like blinded biometrics. The maintenance of privacy can be a problem, from a marketers POV, other things can be viewed as problems too, when the end consumer has proper control of self-identifying information. If the money is good, that level of authentication can be conducted in meatspace if it is truly needed - most times, it is not. Again, I was speaking within the confines of a very limited application where authentication can be rather critical. o I would think the ROI would be where you can shoehorn into existing intelligence channels and groundwork. That's either a sovereign, an intermediary wrapped in the skirts of a sovereign, a defense contractor, or an untouchable intermediary. If not bona-fide intelligence, you're left with the criminal element, IRA and so forth. You leave many possible things out, you present a false summation of all the possible uses of Blacknet and maintenance of anonymity. As I stated, I was examining it in the context of an _intelligence application_. I wonder if that's a good contract, but obviously notwhy do I even bother? *sigh* Most move product and still have distribution channels. Yeah, the IRA would like digital cash, they are buying arms with offshore debit cards. This event by people acting criminally in another country (according to the rules imposed by past-rulers of that other country, heh) should be used to shape and mold US domestic policy and legislation for the care and feeding of US citizen-units how, exactly? I was merely pointing out that people that crypto does not beam product. Solve the ship-submarine ditching problem if you want to help that scum. o It seems like _damn bad timing_ for a discussion in this context. Bad timing? Who is disadvantaged by the timing of this discussion? Your handler said to slow the conversation down while they run some numbers and gets some surveillance in place, or something? They've caught on to our slow-the-conversation tactic!! Oh, whatever shall we do now? *slap to side of face* Run some numbers? What? I flag posts in here that might qualify for Title I interceptions. This month is looking to be a record-breaker. Excuse me, my handlers are calling.Sorry, I'm not allowed to talk about this. This should be couched in terms of a beneficial application, rather than something subversive. Principle is like that. You don't like what others have to say? You should remove your own right to freedom of speech, before you attempt to censor others. (Good luck, once you've effectively removed your own right to free speech, on censoring anyone else). Damnit, I'm not censoring anybody. I believe in the First Amendment. It's such a good source of intelligence and so often leads to probable cause. *kidding* As a lawyer, you know or should know that most (if not all) of the most significant constitutional rights cases to be heard by the courts have involved criminals
RE: Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison
I don't always monitor folders, for me a CC is a courtesy. ~Aimee 1. Email sent individually to someone reaches them faster than when replying to the list. I've often had half-day lag times in the past with cypherpunks. 2. Email sent individually to someone will reach them when the list is offline. This happened to me earlier this month when my cpunx node was offline for three or so days. 3. In my case, I subscribe under a different (but obvious) address than my well.com one. If copied on a reply, I'll see it sooner than than if I open the cypherpunks folder on my *nix machine. Naturally some folks (John, Tim) have expressed a preference not to be copied on messages. -Declan
RE: Raid 'em, raid 'em now.
On Tuesday, August 21, 2001, at 10:45 PM, Aimee Farr wrote: On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote: spotlighted a tree around here, you would think it was Secret Squirrel mating season. (If you know anything about raccoons and Crawford, Texas.) ~Aimee I know raccoons like my garbage and are creative about getting to it. Does that tell me something about Crawford, Texas? MacN Uhm, no. The SS is very pro. And that is THE DETAIL. (As for me, I figure somebody can read my communication attributes. On second thought... *ponder* I think a keystroke logger would be a good thing for me.) Realize the cultural differences. A bunch of highly-educated, clean-cut professional agents breaking into a female's house around here... it could be that some women around here don't want to issue warrants -- they want to issue invitations. I have an interest in VIP privacy problems, so I'm appalled by the circus and fanfare. I imagine they wanted some solitude -- what little they can steal. I had a cabin in CLOSE proximity, and I didn't gawk once. All I know: I now have take-out prime rib down the road. I can't make sense of _any_ of this. Do you _ever_ write clearly? --Tim May It went through some redaction. It gives rise to a form of elliptical conversation. ~Aimee
Raid 'em, raid 'em now.
At 06:02 PM 8/20/01 -0700, John Young wrote: Come to think of it Aimee's reminds of Jeff, and the timing is pretty good for another raid. Hark, wipe your disks. Mors et vita in manibus lingue. This terroristic defamation isn't funny, considering where I reside. If you spotlighted a tree around here, you would think it was Secret Squirrel mating season. (If you know anything about raccoons and Crawford, Texas.) ~Aimee
RE: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition
An Metet: It's also rather interesting that Aimee is objecting to people cowering behind remailers. On the cypherpunk list? On the contrary, we should all be using remailers. Someone seriously does need to start a node which only accepts posts from remailers. I'm beginning to strongly suspect Aimee as as troll. Suspect? Gee, what gave me away? The A team. UNMASKED! Faustine is likely another one. Interesting isn't it that she knows so much of what sort of software and capabilites the NSA and FBI have. A lot of this lately has the smell of classic FUD -- Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, the essence of government disinformation. The B team. Slides in behind the A team Think they sent us to come put a stop to all the subversive code being written in here? Yes, it's true, we waited until 2001 to infiltrate your email list with Jezebel Women and compromise your leaders. Our mission? To secure positions of power and influence to prepare for the coming of crypto-anarchy. Ah, but we didn't count on the highly-developed counterintelligence skillset of cypherpunk list members, much less the CPUNKOPSEC team led by An Metat. That blew us up. You win. We give up. If you let us go, we'll give you back your biometrics (we've got them all, including keystroke dynamics - no, we don't need a keylogger), language identifiers and friendship trees. We'll also release our hostages, and give you the antidotes to our love potions -- but only in exchange for Choate. We want to express our appreciation for the intelligence, and the ideas, that you have provided the U.S. Government with over the years. This list has been one of our most successful ops. However, we discovered the list is no longer an asset. You stopped writing code and turned into a bitch-tank full of bomb-talk and bimbo-bashing. (We're da guvmint, we know how to make bombs, bitch and bimbo better than you do.) You're not giving us good ideas. It's all well-trod ground, you see? Everything we need is in the archives. So, sadly, we must part ways, pending certain administrative paperwork. ~Aimee PS: Listen to the remailer guy. He's here to help.
RE: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition
Reese: (incited) Are court records public documents, or not? Why wasn't that info sealed if there was a problem with releasing it? There probably wasn't...agents go on the record. === Why then, the subterfuge regarding the identities and case citation? Why not be straightforward about it to begin with? === I was brought up not to gossip. *batty eyelashes* I was also taught not to turn over rocks. Agents don't get to use remailers and cower behind them. Cypherpunks don't get the power and sovereign immunity of the reigning governmental infrastructure to cower behind. Good point, I was just gigging you, Reese. Lighten up. :) Show me a proof that no Agent has ever used a remailer, that no Agent shall ever use a remailer. Show me proof that you don't have a brain, and that you shall never use it. That might keep you out of trouble. Do you think you need probable cause for investigation? I think that probable cause is needed for a valid investigation and where evidence is collected, for that evidence to properly be called valid in a court of law. In court, it is immensely helpful if the defense attorney has at least a half-a-clue and is on the ball, volumes could be said about judges who are interested in strict construction of all the applicable rules and regulations. See the ongoing tribulations and trials of Jim Bell and CJ Parker for some infuriating examples of defense attorneys and judges who do not meet these ideals in the most exemplary fashion. I wouldn't know about that. I think that in more than a sufficient number of cases, people will do what they want, regardless of the letter of the law. I think that some people are in better positions to get away with this than others. I wouldn't know about that. I think that those who make their living in law enforcement and/or jurisprudence are people, but I may be wrong - some or all of them may be sub-human. Such as that isn't mine to decide, nor is it mine to announce and/or act on - but I can watch and remember. ;) Why then, the subterfuge regarding the identities? Why not be straightforward about it to begin with? ~Aimee *reptilian slithering sounds*
RE: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition
[BLR has recently been the subject of media attacks and poison pen letters.] Bombmonger wrote: Amusing, Aimee -- or is it Amusing Aimee? But the real discussion was about protected speech, was it not? You previously posted a piece on 842 as if that were an actual statute forbidding the teaching of info on explosives and bombs. Where is that law, actually? See United States Code, Title 18, Ch. 40, Section 842. Also see Section 844. Lookee here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/842.html United States v. Progressive, 467 F.Supp. 990 (W.D. Wis. 1979), was a long time ago. I recognize that successful prosecution is probably a long-shot. This case is about someone selling pipe bombs, something totally different in the first place -- but protected activity under the 2nd, nonetheless. And yes, we are aware that undercover LEO's often act as agent provocateur. So what's your point? We also know, from the Judy Barri case that LEO's (FBI in this case) even teach bomb making them selves, and, quite possibly, even plant bombs in the cars of citizens they have under surveillance, even try to kill them. So what's your point? bombmonger My point is that I'm sitting here talking to somebody named bombmonger. Go back to playing with sparklers and blowing things up in the microwave. If you have any real bombs, I bet the ATF has a toll-free help-line, offering friendly and immediate assistance to assist you through the bomb registration process. quite possibly ...FBI Black Ops Blow-Em-Up teams? Uh-uhm. If had to guess, I would bet that explosives take a lot of paperwork. Bombs are not efficient investigative tools for law enforcement. They blow up the evidence and the criminal. It's hard to run surveillance on a blown-up target. That would be LEA disintermediation. They also make a lot of noise. [Some cpunk] wrote: US v. DUMB BOMB GUY, No (...in this country, recently.) [*FN1] snip entertaining, probably fictional account (1) These clubs describe themselves as outlaw motorcycle clubs because they live outside the law. You are familiar with the terms FUD and Propaganda aren't you, Aimee? Is there a real case that can be cited properly? Accusing me of trickery on the tribunal? Himf. See US v. EATON, No 00-1276 (10th Cir. August 14, 2001). How is discussing bomb recipes the same as discussing bomb deployment with stated intention to deploy? Never said it was. However, talking about bombs and arms trafficking along with crypto is like turning on a UC bugzapper. You're talking about the courtroom. Agents make the facts. AGENT: Oh, he's just talking about bomb recipes. If ONLY he would just state his 'intention to deploy' so I could investigate and [...] to see just what the heck he's doing over there. AGENT: Oh, they are talking about bombs, again. Oh, I would I could just make them stop! Damn this free speech stuff! Bzzt. I am aware of the long-standing, oft-debated, legal analogy between crypto and bombs related to the First Amendment. (Heck, it's even in court pleadings.) AN ANALOGY. For some reason, I think crypto + bomb talk = bad things, and it's a mischaracterization of this forum. ~Aimee
RE: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition
Reese: [Some cpunk] wrote: You are familiar with the terms FUD and Propaganda aren't you, Aimee? Is there a real case that can be cited properly? Accusing me of trickery on the tribunal? Himf. See US v. EATON, No 00-1276 (10th Cir. August 14, 2001). Skimmed it. So the account was more real than not? Verbatim. You are obviously willing and able to provide the real citation, so what purpose was served by changing all the names and obscuring the real cite, if trickery was not a factor? No, Reese, I didn't want to expose an agent to Googling. Talking about yelling Fire in a crowded theater is not the same as doing it, no matter how is is defined, talking about bombs and making them is no different. Who was it? Said I disagree with what you say but support your right to say it or words to that effect? A modern version: I disagree with bomb recipes, but support your right to provide bomb recipes, as long as I am not standing next to you, or associated with you in any way. Things work differently now, see? I take it you have no interest in dealing with this topic seriously, it's evident you are having too much fun clowning around. :) ~Aimee
RE: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition
Reese: You are obviously willing and able to provide the real citation, so what purpose was served by changing all the names and obscuring the real cite, if trickery was not a factor? No, Reese, I didn't want to expose an agent to Googling. Are court records public documents, or not? Why wasn't that info sealed if there was a problem with releasing it? There probably wasn't...agents go on the record. Agents don't get to use remailers and cower behind them. Talking about yelling Fire in a crowded theater is not the same as doing it, no matter how is is defined, talking about bombs and making them is no different. Who was it? Said I disagree with what you say but support your right to say it or words to that effect? A modern version: I disagree with bomb recipes, but support your right to provide bomb recipes, as long as I am not standing next to you, or associated with you in any way. Things work differently now, see? No, I don't *see*. There is no reason why they should work differently, the relevant passages of the Constitution have not changed - the activism in the courtrooms is telling though. I was being sarcastic. Do you think you need probable cause for investigation? ~Aimee
RE: Bomb Law Reporter - special edition
Anon Aimee: quite possibly ...FBI Black Ops Blow-Em-Up teams? Uh-uhm. If had to guess, I would bet that explosives take a lot of paperwork. Bombs are not efficient investigative tools for law enforcement. They blow up the evidence and the criminal. It's hard to run surveillance on a blown-up target. That would be LEA disintermediation. They also make a lot of noise. You would find it illuminating I hope not, considering the context. to acquaint yourself with the Judy Barri case. The FBI was conducting actual pipe-bomb making classes for the local police, including setting them off in a nearby quarry. This was just prior to the bombing of Judy's car. Interesting too that they were on the scene within minutes of the explosion, to arrest Judy and Darryl for bombing themselves. There's a current suit in fed court about it -- look it up. The guy who was head of COINTELPRO was involved in this. ok ~Aimee
Bomb Law Reporter Vol. 1 No. 1
[Since some remailer-idiots want to talk about bombs in here and grossly mischaracterize an entire forum.] In this issue US v. DUMB BOMB GUY, No (...in this country, recently.) [*FN1] -- He became friendly with a member of a different motorcycle club who he knew as Bo, an undercover identity assumed by Special Agent X. Special Agent X had infiltrated a motorcycle club in an attempt to uncover evidence of illegal firearm and narcotics trafficking in the outlaw motorcycle club community.(1) Both Eaton and Special Agent X served as the enforcers for their respective motorcycle clubs. Shortly thereafter, Special Agent X went to Eaton's house to pick up the pipe bombs. Eaton gave X three constructed pipe bombs and four plastic bags filled with smokeless powder to put in the pipes. Special Agent X asked Eaton to explain the most effective way to blow up a car. Eaton responded by telling him to place the bombs near the gas tank. During the course of their meeting, Special Agent X indicated that the bombs would be used on someone who deserved it. Eaton acknowledged that X's planned actions were felonious. Eaton was subsequently indicted for unlawfully possessing three unregistered explosive devices in violation of 26 U.S.C. 5861(d). ...[I]t shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.). There is no similar statute criminalizing the possession of a destructive device such as a pipe bomb. Without such a statute, it was not legally impossible for Eaton to register the pipe bomb He could have imprinted a serial number on the pipe bomb and attempted to register it with the ATF. Whether the ATF would have accepted the pipe bomb for registration does not bear on the issue of legal impossibility. See id. Thus, Eaton was not deprived of due process. (1) These clubs describe themselves as outlaw motorcycle clubs because they live outside the law. - BLR's Analysis: - -Bombs are bad. -Judges are not amused by bombs. -Special Agent X doesn't like bombs. -Make sure your bombs conform to any applicable ATF registration requirements. *laughter* ~Aimee
RE: Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions
Somebody asked: 1) Are the secret warrants always revealed eventually, regardless of whether a court case happens or the evidence is introduced? Is it possible that there are N never-revealed secret warrants for every warrant discussed in open testimony? Greg (I think) wrote: Yes. There is a time limit for when they should be disclosed if they don't lead to a prosecution - that time limit can be extended by a judge, if the agents think they need more time to develop a case. I don't believe the (federal) law allows for taps to go undisclosed forever, but I believe it happens anyway. Since the undisclosed taps aren't likely to be the focus of litigation, there's no effective check on that practice. The general identification and notice requirements of Title I are in Section 2518. 2518 delineates the procedures for applying for a court approved interception of wire or oral communications, the content of applications, the order(s) and the notice that must be sent after the fact to those persons whose conversations were intercepted. Additionally, 2518(10)(a) gives a right to suppress evidence under specified circumstances. The inventory and notice requirement of 2518(8)(d) entitles only those persons who were named in the court order to receive notice and inventory of the wire tap as a matter of right. Notice to all other persons, even though their conversations were overheard and they were identifiable is left to judicial discretion. The prosecutor has the duty to classify all those whose conversations have been intercepted and transmit this to the judge. If the judge wants more information, the judge can ask for it so as to fulfill his discretionary notice role. In United States v. Kahn, 415 U.S. 143 (1974), 2518(1)(b)(iv) was interpreted to mean that the only persons that must be named in a Title I application are those the government has probable cause to believe are involved in a criminal activity and will be using the target phone. So now they don't really have to investigate other parties known to be using the phone to see if they have probable cause for them or not. (This is the dragnet effect.) Say you have a violation of the notice and inventory provisionthe case law tells you that the courts have made distinctions between violations that are central and substantive - and those that are not (for the purpose of a motion to suppress). In United States v. Donovan, 429 U.S. 413 (1977), the court stated in dictum that the international failure to name individuals for the purpose of hiding a lack of probable cause would be substantial. Yet Donovan's footnotes have led lower courts to require the violation of the notice and identification provisions be INTENTIONAL AND PREJUDICIAL to the defendant to render it subject to a motion to suppress. It seems if the defendant has ANY notice of whatever form - there is no prejudice. Indeed, no effective check. ~Aimee
RE: FBI must reveal computer snooping technique
Harmon wrote: Interesting -- where did I get the idea that warrants for surreptitious entry were only allowd for cases of national security. I thought Reno was trying to get Congress to pass legalizing this, but was turned down. SURREPTITIOUS ENTRY WARRANTS. Surreptitious entry warrants for silent video surveillance (outside of Title I's oral, wire or electronic communication) were approved in United States v. Torres, 751 F.2d 875 (7th Cir. 1984). Defendants argued that secret video surveillance was a 1984 Orwellian telescreen - and unconstitutional pursuant to the fourth amendment. They lost. Defendants argued the warrant authorizing the search did not satisfy the particularization requirements of the fourth amendment. They lost. The Judge Posner held the warrant satisfied Title III's 2518, and since those requirements related to the constitutional requirements, the fourth amendment was satisfied. Courts have adopted Torres. The bottom line on video surveillance is that the government is required to show that normal investigative techniques...reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried. Most courts still view video surveillance as outside of the ECPA. Judge Posner said, There is no right to be let alone while assembling bombs in safe houses. (Later courts extended this to all Title I offenses.) The requirements that emerge from the Torres line are: (1) probable cause in respect to the person and criminal offense; (2) particular description in the court order of the place and things that are to be viewed; (3) minimization of the recording activities not related to the crime under investigation; (4) that normal investigative techniques have failed in the sense that they are unlikely to be successful or appear too dangerous; (5) that the period of the surveillance be limited to that time necessary to achieve the objective of the search or no longer than 30 days. I find Torres analogous, and it is an example of how courts have considered novel technologies and devices under Title I of the ECPA or Title III. [FN1] GENERAL SEARCH/MINIMIZATION? The minimization requirements of 2518(5) and the fourth amendments prohibition on a general search were gutted in Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128 (1978), which rejected the view that monitors had to use good faith efforts to minimize the surveillance of non-pertinent conversational content. Scott factors: (1) the nature of the offense; (2) the type and location of the device; (3) the nature of the non-pertinent conversations. 2510 INTERCEPTION? Under Title I analysis the question is if there is an intercept. See Steve Jackson Games (email wasn't in flight.) The government basically contends they didn't get anything in flight, as part of the *contemporaneous* requirement. (And, what if they did? There is no suppression remedy for electronic communications.) SJG is mentioned in Scarfo discussions, and SJG is heavily criticized for it's circumventional nature since the ECPA was meant to extend protection to electronic communications. However, the possibility of the physical seizure of equipment was likely considered by congress in 1986. (Were keystroke loggers?) Furthermore, all the cases cited for the government's proposition in email, voicemail, etc. are basically SJG - things that congress had knowledge of when they wrote the law. Mostly before/after cases. A keystroke logger is a technical circumvention. If upheld, that is a floodgate to eviscerate the protections afforded us under the ECPA and congressional intent by outpacing what the law has had the opportunity to consider. INTERSTATE NEXUS? They also changed Title III with the ECPA to address private carriers and in-house private systems because THEY AFFECT INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE (added clause under ECPA). (Previously, in house systems were exempt from wire communications, by common carrier language, and analyzed under the oral provisions.) Today, in a like manner, electronic communication includes any transfer transmitted by a SYSTEM...that _affects interstate or foreign commerce_. See 2510(12). This was within one computer, is that an electronic communications system 2510(14)? If so, the government says there is no interstate commerce connection between your keyboard and your computer. The addition of 'interstate commerce' clause is often cited for the proposition that Congress meant to *extend* protection to private systems. (And a whole slew of cases exempting private systems under Title I now have no precedential value.) However, the government cited a passage in the congressional record to the contrary in regard to wire communications, but I'm uncertain of the context of the specific testimony. I don't think the same considerations apply to electronic communications. A STAND-ALONE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT. The Government argues that based on congressional testimony related to wire communications (think telephone and aural), the definition of electronic
RE: Spoliation cites
George, quoting me: Bingo. Remember what Uni said about not amused judges? We should have just left it at that. Maybe. Just so I'll know for sure, are you agreeing with me or ridiculing me? I don't remember what was said at this point. :) My comments were good-natured, George. They always are. I went looking for the hottest chick I can find who is legally qualified to practice law in this district, in hopes that you'll drool over her and find in my favor. I'm not stupid enough to SAY it, but I just might be stupid enough to TRY it, if I felt that that was my best chance of reaching a favorable verdict. So, when you go to battle in the round, you want a good-looking gladiator to distract the lions. Maybe they won't eat her because she's pretty? Maybe they figure she's just more tasty, and they will play with her a little...and bat her around before they pounce on her and gobble her up for being a stupid twit. When lawyers go into chambers, it's not for a damn lap dance. If I could, I would file my teeth into sharp little pygmy points and graft Doberman pincher ears to my head. As for unamused judges, if I were to tell a judge that a judge is just a law student who gets to grade his own papers, do you think he'd say that's 1) not funny at all 2) maybe funny the first time, but this is like the 200th or 3) a real knee slapper? Oh, their papers get graded... ~Aimee
RE: Spoliation cites
George: Look, we are just trying to envision what opponents are likely to try. The outcome will depend on the facts. Are you sure it isn't more likely to depend on things that should be completely irrelevant, say, what you look like? There was a hot chick I used to work with who would tell me about all the times she got pulled over and usually let off with a warning. She really was a menace to the road, great body though. As I said, I'm on nobody's side, I'm not recommending any particular course of action, but the idea that you can help keep out of trouble with a reasonable retention policy requires you to anticipate what policy a judge considers to be reasonable, which in turn Bingo. Remember what Uni said about not amused judges? We should have just left it at that. ~Aimee
RE: Spoliation cites
James wrote: -- On 5 Aug 2001, at 5:07, Aimee Farr wrote: If you read any of those cites and shep'd them, you will see there are circumstances where defendants didn't know the documents were relevant to a specific lawsuit. That summary of those cases seems misleading to me. Obviously. James, you are like a snappin' turtle. You just won't let go. I could move you with a stick. You yourself have acknowledged that standard best practice legal advice is to routinely purge all internal email after a few weeks. Yes. Unless it is of special relevance. For example: Dear company: I just wanted to write you and tell you that the microwave that I bought from you exploded. Thought you should know. Nobody was hurt, thank goodness! Maybe something is wrong with it? Thanks, Mrs. Smith The above wouldn't just be any old email now would it? That does not sound not compatible with your summary above of those citations, and it is incompatible with the positions taken by Sandy and Black Unicorn. No. Most of the postings issued by you three, particularly those issued by Black Unicorn, sound to me as if they were issued in ignorance of the standard and legally recommended practice, that you were unaware of standard best practice on the topic on which you were posting. No. To repeat: If it is legal to routinely purge all internal email, it is legal to publish thoughtcrimes on freenet, legal for remailer operators to keep no logs. If A is L, than B and C are L? If it ever becomes illegal, the lawyers will go looking for records of deep pockets first, and go after the remailer operators later. We do not have to worry about mandatory remailer logs, until after the lawyers have successfully enforced mandatory recording of all indications of deep pockets. Somebody give me a stick! James, truly, I see the point you are trying to make and the logic you are trying to apply. We will see what the courts do. ~Aimee
RE: Spoliation cites
Sandy, I so appreciate your attempts to span the gap, here, but I feel like I am watching you hurt yourself. Repeatedly. To no end. ~Aimee -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Sandy Sandfort Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 12:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Spoliation cites James A. Donald wrote: He has presented no such punishment, therefore no such case exists. Therefore remailer operators and the rest of us can in perfect comfort fail to keep logs, we can circulate thought crimes into irrecoverable systems, and so on and so forth. Apparently, James did not understand the thrust of Aimee's post at all. The important thing to understand about legal precedents is that they may show a TREND in the law. The common law evolves over time. To say that no precedent DIRECTLY ON POINT exists means that you can operate in perfect comfort is asinine. The question is, what will a court say NEXT? S a n d y
RE: About lawyers and spoliation
Declan wrote: On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 01:03:59AM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote, quoting Tim. YOU are calling ME an Internet rant generator? Hahahahahaha. That's the damn truth, isn't it? mention the anonymous authorship of the Federalist Papers. Not to mention many related issues. This is a more plausible attack on U.S.-based remailers than is something based on IP addresses. Left as an exercise for you.) Indeed, what I was trying to get at might have been somewhat related. I agree with you in sentiment, but direct your attention to the CMRA (commercial mail drop) requirements for domestic mail agency in the United States in the USPS Domestic Mail Manual. I know you are aware of it. I'm not sure if much can be gained by comparing anonymous remailers to commercial mail drops. USPS is a strange and weird beast, and guards its territory ferociously. Activities that happen in its sphere are logically and legally distinct from those happening online. -Declan Yeah, I know. I'm was just sitting here fuming over the proposed amendments to the commercial office suites. This is just silly. USPS is a giant bitch in need of a leash. (...We are speaking of the private mail agency rules requiring PMB or # address designation, IDs, record-keeping, reporting, etc.) ~Aimee
RE: About lawyers and spoliation
You may be right, JamesI fear. This just in from the criminal spoliation sector (realize the important distinctions - here, the government is destroying evidence...) United States v. Wright, No 00-5010 (6th Cir. August 03, 2001) http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01a0255p.06 ~Aimee -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 11:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Aimee Farr Subject: RE: About lawyers and spoliation -- On 4 Aug 2001, at 1:03, Aimee Farr wrote: I wasn't speaking of security through obscurity, I was speaking of security through First Amendment law suit. Nobody could argue objective chill in here, that's a legal conceptbut clearly, you aren't interested. With the DCMA and campaign finance reform the first amendment has gone the way of the second. Non political speech is not protected because it is non political. Political speech is not protected because it might pressure politicians. We have no precedents that routine destruction of precedents counts as spoilage, but we have ample precedent that any speech can be silenced. In the nature of things, it is far easier to enforce a law against free spech that a law against spoilage undertaken long before any charges, thus as we move towards totalitarianism, free speech will go first, is going right now, and broad interpretations of spoilage will come last. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG vFwRyVw26bcmnTVAmHWVa4hpohmWpeoEFQGcSvra 4KXMRn8toy5+YK/de6MG3wrAYnSnWzP5hSNtQYTzS
RE: Spoliation cites
James wrote:-- Black Unicorn's argument seemed to be Everything is forbidden, therefore you need to hire a lawyer who will issue the magic incantations to make it legal. Sadly, that is A DAMN FACT. This is nonsense on two counts: 1. Not everything is forbidden. While everything is not forbidden, there is always a way to work the forbidden into what is not forbidden, and clients usually find it. 2. If everything is forbidden, then lawyers have no magic incantations. That is a DAMN LIE. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and all our other sources are nothing more than state-endorsed books of shadows. Furthermore, we have magic wands. It doesn't work unless you believe, you know ~Aimee
