RE: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony

[David Honig]

At 11:47 PM 7/26/00 -0400, Kevin Elliott wrote:
>At 00:48 -0400 7/26/00, Tim May wrote:
>>At 12:06 AM -0400 7/26/00, Ernest Hua wrote:
>>>I thought recent presidents have been declaring a state of emergency
>>>for who knows how long.
>>
>>But that's not what is being talked about. You are not reading 
>>carefully. The Third refers to war, and this is what we are talking 
>>about.
>
>Indeed.  The constitution is very clear that only congress has the 
>right/power to declare war so if they don't say it, we ain't in it.

No matter how many americans are flying planes over foreign states,
sometimes dropping explosives etc.

We have always been at war with Oceania.








  

RE: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony

[David Honig]

At 12:48 AM 7/26/00 -0400, Tim May wrote:
>At 12:06 AM -0400 7/26/00, Ernest Hua wrote:
>>I thought recent presidents have been declaring a state of emergency
>>for who knows how long. 
>
>But that's not what is being talked about. You are not reading 
>carefully. The Third refers to war, and this is what we are talking 
>about.
>
>
>--Tim May

Last time we were bombing the Serbs, the not-war lasted longer than
the 30 days that a president can play with his guns legally.  No
one complained.  

The meaning of war changes.  War on drugs; war on domestic terrorism;
a judge farts, and you're under martial law.  

The problem is that the constitution is bent to whim these days.



We have always been at war with Oceania.











  

Re: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony

[David Honig]

At 11:05 PM 7/25/00 -0400, Riad Wahby wrote:
>
>These two statements are totally incorrect.  First of all, a computer
>_does_ contribute to heat in a significant way.  Consider this: the
>average computer-grade power supply is 70% efficient, and, on average,

A computer turns 100% of its load into heat.  Much simpler math.










  

Re: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony

[Reese]

At 12:29 PM 25/07/00 -0400, Agent Bronson wrote:
 >At 12:14 PM 25/07/00 -0400, James A. Donald wrote:

 >> The US got along fine without ANY equivalent of the FBI through most of
 >> its
 >> history.
 >
 >That's very true. But we have future Oklahoma Cities to contend with now.
 >Remember the y2k Seattle thing? Where foreigners were trying to sneak bomb
 >shit across the canadian border so they could kill the new-year's crowd
 >there? The FBI may have prevented uncounted deaths there and in other
 >places as well, where they are on the lookout for people like the
 >Al-Queda.
 >
 >I don't know about your local cops, but mine are definately not capable of
 >protecting me from this kind of stuff.

That's because they eat too many donuts and rely on 3-letter types to keep 
their ass out of a sling.  The friggin border cops should have caught 
that.  Actually, the canadian border cops did catch much of it, but let it 
on through, forcing us to deal with it.  I guess it isn't illegal to export 
improvised explosives from canuck land.

Note - you munged the quotes - I fixed them.  Idiot.

Reese

RE: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony

[Tim May]

At 12:06 AM -0400 7/26/00, Ernest Hua wrote:
>  > > > are you saying that the 3rd amendment grants congress the power
>>  > > to make law for hte quartering of troops in private homes outside
>>  > > of war?
>>  >
>>  > My read is that they can make allow allowing quartering but only in
>>  > times of war.
>>
>>  And since the U.S. has not been in a state of war since 1945, being
>>  unwilling to admit to being in a state of war, this is unlikely to
>>  ever arise again.
>
>I thought recent presidents have been declaring a state of emergency
>for who knows how long. 

But that's not what is being talked about. You are not reading 
carefully. The Third refers to war, and this is what we are talking 
about.


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

Re: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony

[Bill O'Hanlon]

John Bronson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> First, I hope it's understood that I'm undecided whether I'm for carnivore
> or against it. The more I read on this list, though, the more I agree with
> you guys. Some of arguments against it are unfounded though, like this 3rd
> amendment thing.
> 
> I didn't mean to quip went I asked about the electricity. I was responding
> to Sunder, who likened the carnivore box to a hungry British infantryman.
> At the risk of sounding ignorant, in my understanding a computer causes a
> negligible burden in air-conditioning. And it doesn't use the UPS
> batteries unless the power goes out. And since carnivore is a passive
> system, it doesn't add to your network's traffic burden. Besides, you know
> that it's not the rack space and heat that upsets ISP owners about the
> box.

As Riad Wahby states well in another message, you're way way off
base with your electrical assumptions.  The AC burden is not
negligible.  And when an ISP is small enough to not own generators,
what the UPS buys is time when the power cuts out.  The more machines
sitting on those batteries, the less time you have to run in at 2
am and bring things to a smooth halt.

What's worse, your network assumption is also erroneous.  My network
fabric is switched.  In order to accomodate a Carnivore, I've got
to make the port leading to the Carnivore "unswitched", or else it
won't see the traffic that they want to see.  That puts a load on
the switch, and completely defeats having the switch there in the
first place.  (In other words, I've spent several thousand dollars
making sure that all traffic ISN'T visible to all devices on the
local net, and this damn thing would not only undo it, but it would
make the box responsible for the switching work twice as hard!)




> 
> As an ISP owner, you have the responsibility that comes with providing
> communication and information to people. It's the same responsibility that
> the telcos have. So if it's in the interest of the people to stop a creep
> that's using your service to commit crimes, it's your duty to help the law
> enforcement guys out (for a moment, let's put away the omnipresent
> assumption law enforcement is inherently evil, and assume that it is
> actually interested in capturing bad guys).

I don't agree with anything you've just said there.  Either you're
really on the wrong list, or I'm feeding a troll.  Do you honestly
believe that part about responsibility?  I don't work for "the
interest of the people", and I don't agree that I have ANY duty to
help out law enforcement, except in the case of a legal and SPECIFIC
court order.

When you casually propose to "put away the omnipresent assumption
that law enforcement is inherently evil", you are pretty much
ignoring one of the underlying purposes of the email list you are
posting to.  Are you SURE you're in the right place?  Most of the
assumptions that you take as givens are hugely in opposition to
the people you're posting to.  There's a big disconnect here.


> 
> administrated. It would be interesting if an ISP somehow detected and
> reported activity coming from one of the things. As for back doors in the
> commercial part of the software, I hadn't thought of that, and that's
> definately a real concern.
> 
> Does anyone know if Carnivore is remotely administrated, and therefore
> subject to hacking?


It doesn't have to be remotely administered to be subject to hacking.
Windows 9X is not remotely administer-able, and it is hacked all the
time.


To put things in a proper cypherpunks perspective, John, consider:
As an ISP owner, what would my "responsibility to the interest of
the people" be if all email (and other) traffic across my system
was encrypted?


-Bill


--
Bill O'Hanlon   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Professional Network Services, Inc. 612-379-3958

Re: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony

[Kevin Elliott]

At 13:12 -0400 7/25/00, Me wrote:
>are you saying that the 3rd amendment grants congress the power
>to make law for hte quartering of troops in private homes outside
>of war?

My read is that they can make allow allowing quartering but only in 
times of war.
-- 

Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott 
 ICQ#23758827
___
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both 
instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly 
unchanged.  And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware 
of change in the air--however slight--lest we become unwitting 
victims of the darkness."
-- Justice William O. Douglas

Re: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony

[John Bronson]

> > > Yes, the 3rd ammendment isn't really about the soldiers spying on
> you,
> > > it's about them eating up your resources.  But a box at an ISP
> sniffing
> > > traffic IS eating up the ISP's resources.  In the least it's eating
> up
> > > electricity and bandwith to report back and be controlled.
> > 
> > The 1st amendment explicitly grants freedom of press. Are you upset
> that
> > the Carnivore box is using _electricity_?? The third amendment was
> about
> > having some Infantryman sleeping in your bed, eating your food, and
> > messing around with your daughter/wife/livestock. The Carnivore box is
> no
> > more intrusive or expensive to the ISP than a wiretap is to a telco.
> 
> I think all of the reasons that others have posted relating why
> Carnivore
> is a bad thing are more important than what follows, but I thought I'd
> jump in here.
> 
> As an ISP owner, I'd be very uncomfortable with a Carnivore-style box on
> 
> my premises.  Here's why:
> 
>   Not only does it use electricity, but any such box adds to the load
>   on my air condtioning and my UPS batteries.
> 
>   There's no way to be sure that it's not cataloging other email, as
>   others have mentioned.
> 
>   There's no way to be sure that it's not storing clear text passwords
>   of things I do on my network for maintenance.  This would allow the 
>   feds to trivially hack their way back in at any time in the future,
>   if I'm foolish enough not to have my entire staff change all of their
>   passwords on all routers and servers after the Carnivore box is gone.
> 
>   There's no way to determine that the Carnivore box is safe from being
>   hacked.  So, once it has gatherered all the passwords, there's nothing
>   to prevent a clever-enough script kid from hacking their black box
>   and scooping the good stuff. 
>   
>   These last two remind me a lot of the Clipper debate  Matt Blaze
>   was able to show that the NSA folks could blow it on security.  Does
>   anyone think that the FBI will do better on their black box?
> 
> 
> As I said, all of these are less important than the real reasons for
> disliking Carnivore, but they're also valid.  The Agent's quip about
> "using _electricitry_" irks me.

First, I hope it's understood that I'm undecided whether I'm for carnivore
or against it. The more I read on this list, though, the more I agree with
you guys. Some of arguments against it are unfounded though, like this 3rd
amendment thing.

I didn't mean to quip went I asked about the electricity. I was responding
to Sunder, who likened the carnivore box to a hungry British infantryman.
At the risk of sounding ignorant, in my understanding a computer causes a
negligible burden in air-conditioning. And it doesn't use the UPS
batteries unless the power goes out. And since carnivore is a passive
system, it doesn't add to your network's traffic burden. Besides, you know
that it's not the rack space and heat that upsets ISP owners about the
box.

As an ISP owner, you have the responsibility that comes with providing
communication and information to people. It's the same responsibility that
the telcos have. So if it's in the interest of the people to stop a creep
that's using your service to commit crimes, it's your duty to help the law
enforcement guys out (for a moment, let's put away the omnipresent
assumption law enforcement is inherently evil, and assume that it is
actually interested in capturing bad guys).

administrated. It would be interesting if an ISP somehow detected and
reported activity coming from one of the things. As for back doors in the
commercial part of the software, I hadn't thought of that, and that's
definately a real concern.

Does anyone know if Carnivore is remotely administrated, and therefore
subject to hacking?

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

Re: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony

[Bill O'Hanlon]

> >
> > Yes, the 3rd ammendment isn't really about the soldiers spying on you,
> > it's about them eating up your resources.  But a box at an ISP sniffing
> > traffic IS eating up the ISP's resources.  In the least it's eating up
> > electricity and bandwith to report back and be controlled.
> 
> The 1st amendment explicitly grants freedom of press. Are you upset that
> the Carnivore box is using _electricity_?? The third amendment was about
> having some Infantryman sleeping in your bed, eating your food, and
> messing around with your daughter/wife/livestock. The Carnivore box is no
> more intrusive or expensive to the ISP than a wiretap is to a telco.

I think all of the reasons that others have posted relating why Carnivore
is a bad thing are more important than what follows, but I thought I'd
jump in here.

As an ISP owner, I'd be very uncomfortable with a Carnivore-style box on 
my premises.  Here's why:

Not only does it use electricity, but any such box adds to the load
on my air condtioning and my UPS batteries.

There's no way to be sure that it's not cataloging other email, as
others have mentioned.

There's no way to be sure that it's not storing clear text passwords
of things I do on my network for maintenance.  This would allow the 
feds to trivially hack their way back in at any time in the future,
if I'm foolish enough not to have my entire staff change all of their
passwords on all routers and servers after the Carnivore box is gone.

There's no way to determine that the Carnivore box is safe from being
hacked.  So, once it has gatherered all the passwords, there's nothing
to prevent a clever-enough script kid from hacking their black box
and scooping the good stuff. 

These last two remind me a lot of the Clipper debate  Matt Blaze
was able to show that the NSA folks could blow it on security.  Does
anyone think that the FBI will do better on their black box?


As I said, all of these are less important than the real reasons for
disliking Carnivore, but they're also valid.  The Agent's quip about
"using _electricitry_" irks me.


-Bill


--
Bill O'Hanlon   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Professional Network Services, Inc. 612-379-3958

Re: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony

[David Honig]

At 03:11 PM 7/25/00 -0400, Agent Bronson wrote:
>I still say it's a moral failure to allow terrorism to be accepted as
>warfare and foolishness not to protect our land from it.

Those land mines along the .mx border really have the latino votes
pissed off...


A freedom fighter is just a terrorist whose got James Carville working
for him.  

Evolution of nations and weapon$ leads to distributed violence.  As
inevitably as gunpowder bankrupted chain mail.

What's Osama to do?  Bitch to the UN?  Yeah, right.  

What's the US to do?  Stop colonizing?  Yeah right --check out
Kuwait's begging to be a parasite^H^H^H^H satellite like, they say, Taiwan
or Israel.  

Go Orwell?  Seems to be the plan, but it won't stop the devoted.

Have a nice day.








  

RE: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony

[Trei, Peter]

> --
> From: Agent Bronson[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > 
> > Yes, but that doesn't make it legal.  Hey, they've done black bag jobs
> > too, and got caught.  See Watergate.
>  
> These are abuses that got exposed. But the threat of abuse is a poor
> reason to leave the FBI helpless in the face of modern threats to the USA.
> This is akin to the argument that the death penalty should be banned
> because of the failings in the judicial system. Sure, every mote of power
> you give to a public servant is subject to misuse, but a cop needs his gun
> and a surveyor needs his tripod. The FBI needs to be able to do its thing
> so buildings don't start blowing up. 
> 
The US would not have a problem with foreign based terrorism if the US
government did not meddle in the affairs of other countries. Does
Switzerland
have a problem with foreign based terrorism? Does Sweden? In the words of
Malcom X: "I think it's a case of the chickens coming home to roost."

As for domestic terrorism - let's not forget that the McVeigh and his
cronies don't appear to have used the Internet at any point in their
activities.

Past abuse, and the threat of future abuse are definitely factors to
consider 
when the people decide whether or not they wish to grant a power to 
government. As the Founders said: '...a long chain of abuses and usupations
 
[grants the people the right and duty] ...to throw off such government" 

The FBI has repeatedly demonstrated that it will abuse its powers, and there
is
no convincing evidence that it actually cares to clean up it's act - if it
did, a 
lot of FBI agents would be finishing their careers in jail. The FBI has a
persistant, 
institutionalized and recidivist tendency to abuse, and abuse again, 
all the while in denial "It's just a few bad apples - we promise it'll never
happen
again (until next time)". Such a history of illegality, along  with a
constant 
denial of responsibility, would land a *person* in jail, or force the
disbanding of a 
corporation. The FBI, on the other hand, seems to be above the law. The
conclusion of many people is that the FBI is, in toto, untrustworthy, out of
control, and dangerous to our liberties.

[It's off-topic, but I and many others DO hold that the death penalty should
be
abolished - as it has been in nearly all the civilized nations of the world]

Your arguments fall perilously close to "the end justifies the means".

> I know it's laughable when an FBI spokesman says "Hey just trust us,
> guys!" But even if we don't trust the FBI, we have to trust the watchdog
> groups and government that guarantees balances. Remember, the FBI's
> primary purpose is to protect the masses - not to read your letters to
> grandma.
> 
That may be the stated purpose for which it was chartered, but it's
behaviour
for most of it's history makes it clear that the operational goals include
the
acquisition, expansion, and retention of power for the agency, regardless of

law, morality, or ethics.

Peter Trei
Disclaimer: The above represents my personal opinion only.

Re: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony

[Agent Bronson]

> > The 3rd amendment argument is a losing argument. The purpose of that
> > amendment is to prevent repeating something that happened during the
> > Revolutionary War. It pertains to soldiers shacking up in civilian's
> > houses, not to a civilian law-enforcement organization hooking a
> computer
> > up to your ISP's network.
> 
> I don't think so. The analogy is very clear.  There isn't any extra 
> ammendment or law that guarantees any extra rights to the Press.  The
> 1st
> is good enough.
>
> Yes, the 3rd ammendment isn't really about the soldiers spying on you,
> it's about them eating up your resources.  But a box at an ISP sniffing
> traffic IS eating up the ISP's resources.  In the least it's eating up
> electricity and bandwith to report back and be controlled.

The 1st amendment explicitly grants freedom of press. Are you upset that
the Carnivore box is using _electricity_?? The third amendment was about
having some Infantryman sleeping in your bed, eating your food, and
messing around with your daughter/wife/livestock. The Carnivore box is no
more intrusive or expensive to the ISP than a wiretap is to a telco.
 
> > I don't know the specific laws, but this is something the spooks have
> > always done anyway. Like Donald Kerr said (if FBI spooks like him and
> me
> > can be trusted), the FBI routinely orders ISPs to do this surveillance
> > themselves anyway, when the ISP has the resources to do it.
> 
> Yes, but that doesn't make it legal.  Hey, they've done black bag jobs
> too, and got caught.  See Watergate.
 
These are abuses that got exposed. But the threat of abuse is a poor
reason to leave the FBI helpless in the face of modern threats to the USA.
This is akin to the argument that the death penalty should be banned
because of the failings in the judicial system. Sure, every mote of power
you give to a public servant is subject to misuse, but a cop needs his gun
and a surveyor needs his tripod. The FBI needs to be able to do its thing
so buildings don't start blowing up. 

I know it's laughable when an FBI spokesman says "Hey just trust us,
guys!" But even if we don't trust the FBI, we have to trust the watchdog
groups and government that guarantees balances. Remember, the FBI's
primary purpose is to protect the masses - not to read your letters to
grandma.

> Not at all.  A kid fucker leaves solid physical evidence.  A kid that's
> been fucked.
--snip other examples--

You've convinced me on this point. If the FBI suspects someone of doing
illegal shit with his computer, why don't they just get a warrant and
search the computer?
 
> > If the FBI has court-approved
> > probable couse, which means they've already turned up good evidence,
> then
> > it's fine with me - especially in the case of a suspected terrorist -
> if
> > they monitor said suspected terrorist's emails.
> 
> Yeah, like there were never any illegal wire taps before.

See above, death penalty, etc.

> > Hey - maybe the whole carnivore thing is just a red herring to
> distract us
> > while some real heinous snooping is going on at the ISP level.
> 
> By what? The NSA?

Hey, why not?

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

Re: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony

[Agent Bronson]

> >I don't know about your local cops, but mine are definately not capable
> of
> >protecting me from this kind of stuff. Someone recently posted that
> >"Terrorism is the future of warfare." That's _very_ spooky, especially
> if
> >we are morally ambiguous enough to condone terrorism as a form of
> >"warfare". If terrorism is the future of warfare, the FBI, or some
> other
> >counter-terrorist group, is going to be our only real defense.
> 
> That wasn't "someone," that was _me_.

Okay...

> And if you don't understand the point, this is unsurprising. 
> Education ain't what it used to be.

WTF...Anyone can say "sigh - you just don't understand." Whatever weighty
truth I 'missed', perhaps you could clarify or at least repeat it before
you resort to insults?

I still say it's a moral failure to allow terrorism to be accepted as
warfare and foolishness not to protect our land from it.

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

Re: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony

[Tim May]

At 12:29 PM -0400 7/25/00, Agent Bronson wrote:
>
>I don't know about your local cops, but mine are definately not capable of
>protecting me from this kind of stuff. Someone recently posted that
>"Terrorism is the future of warfare." That's _very_ spooky, especially if
>we are morally ambiguous enough to condone terrorism as a form of
>"warfare". If terrorism is the future of warfare, the FBI, or some other
>counter-terrorist group, is going to be our only real defense.

That wasn't "someone," that was _me_.

And if you don't understand the point, this is unsurprising. 
Education ain't what it used to be.


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

Re: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony

[Me]

> Amendment III
> No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
without the
> consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed
> by law.
>
> Carnivore is not a soldier. Carnivore is a computer. It just
doesn't
> apply. Besides, even if the 3rd amendment did apply to
Carnivore, it could
> be legally employed anyway, "in a manner prescribed by law."

are you saying that the 3rd amendment grants congress the power
to make law for hte quartering of troops in private homes outside
of war?

Re: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony

[Agent Bronson]

>  > I don't know the specific laws, but this is something the spooks
>  > have always done anyway. Like Donald Kerr said (if FBI spooks like
>  > him and me can be trusted), the FBI routinely orders ISPs to do this
>  > surveillance themselves anyway, when the ISP has the resources to do
>  > it.
 

 
> They have the legal authority and the power to tap lines.  They do not
> have 
> the authority or the power to make me tap lines for them.

According to Kerr, that's why Carnivore exists - The FBI takes up the
"technical and financial burden" so the ISP doesn't have to tap the lines
for the FBI.

Besides, doing a line-tap requires the cooperation of the phone company in
much the same way. Carnivore is the computer equivilant to a reel-to-reel
recorder in a van.

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

Re: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony

[Agent Bronson]

> >The 3rd amendment argument is a losing argument. The purpose of that
> >amendment is to prevent repeating something that happened during the
> >Revolutionary War. It pertains to soldiers shacking up in civilian's
> >houses, not to a civilian law-enforcement organization hooking a
> computer
> >up to your ISP's network.
> 
> Wrong.  The 3rd amendment was about stopping the Government from
> shifting
> the cost of the Army from the Government to individual families.  It was
> about not taking people's resources without representation and due
> process.
> It certainly applies in this case.  Now whether some brain-dead Supreme
> Court agrees is a separate unrelated matter.

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the
consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed
by law. 

Carnivore is not a soldier. Carnivore is a computer. It just doesn't
apply. Besides, even if the 3rd amendment did apply to Carnivore, it could
be legally employed anyway, "in a manner prescribed by law."

I'm not saying that I like Carnivore or even that it's legal. But the 3rd
amendment doesn't have anything to do with it whatsoever.

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

Re: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony

[James A. Donald]

 --
At 11:58 AM 7/25/2000 -0400, Agent Bronson wrote
 > The 3rd amendment argument is a losing argument. The purpose of that
 > amendment is to prevent repeating something that happened during the
 > Revolutionary War. It pertains to soldiers shacking up in civilian's
 > houses, not to a civilian law-enforcement organization hooking a
 > computer up to your ISP's network.

This reminds me of the argument that the first amendment, freedom of the 
press, only covers actual presses, not modern electronic communications 
that allow anyone to spread dangerous information at the speed of light.

The general implication of the third is that the government goons cannot 
command the use of private property for government purposes, except in time 
of war.

 > I don't know the specific laws, but this is something the spooks
 > have always done anyway. Like Donald Kerr said (if FBI spooks like
 > him and me can be trusted), the FBI routinely orders ISPs to do this
 > surveillance themselves anyway, when the ISP has the resources to do
 > it.

If I received such an order, I would tell them such an order was illegal, 
and ask them to take it to court.  I think it most unlikely they would take 
it to court.  Instead they would threaten me with personal harm.

They have the legal authority and the power to tap lines.  They do not have 
the authority or the power to make me tap lines for them.

 --digsig
  James A. Donald
  6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
  FUob6oZW62F1Isle/7SwOXseY9/M9jKhDPG3zWR8
  4LJQ2CucdXebczqC8Iyb1g7sfAgvjsUEslltvYotJ

Re: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony

[Matt Elliott]

>The 3rd amendment argument is a losing argument. The purpose of that
>amendment is to prevent repeating something that happened during the
>Revolutionary War. It pertains to soldiers shacking up in civilian's
>houses, not to a civilian law-enforcement organization hooking a computer
>up to your ISP's network.

Wrong.  The 3rd amendment was about stopping the Government from shifting
the cost of the Army from the Government to individual families.  It was
about not taking people's resources without representation and due process.
It certainly applies in this case.  Now whether some brain-dead Supreme
Court agrees is a separate unrelated matter.

Re: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony

[Agent Bronson]

> t 01:58 AM 7/25/2000 -0400, John Bronson wrote:
>  > Just watched this hearing. I just subscribed to this list, so while
>  > I don't want to piss anyone off, I question what seems to be a
>  > knee-jerk reaction against Carnivore. In theory, I positively agree
>  > with the need for such a tool. I want the FBI to be able to check
>  > out the pedophile next door who's preying on my daughter or the
>  > terrorist that wants to blow up the office building I work at -
>  > that's what the FBI is there for.
> 
> That is not what the FBI is there for.
> 
> That is what your local cop is there for.
> 
> The FBI is there to maintain the power of the state and spy on whichever
> 
> factions are politically incorrect this time around.
> 
> The US got along fine without ANY equivalent of the FBI through most of
> its 
> history.

That's very true. But we have future Oklahoma Cities to contend with now.
Remember the y2k Seattle thing? Where foreigners were trying to sneak bomb
shit across the canadian border so they could kill the new-year's crowd
there? The FBI may have prevented uncounted deaths there and in other
places as well, where they are on the lookout for people like the
Al-Queda.

I don't know about your local cops, but mine are definately not capable of
protecting me from this kind of stuff. Someone recently posted that
"Terrorism is the future of warfare." That's _very_ spooky, especially if
we are morally ambiguous enough to condone terrorism as a form of
"warfare". If terrorism is the future of warfare, the FBI, or some other
counter-terrorist group, is going to be our only real defense.

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

Re: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony

[James A. Donald]

 --
t 01:58 AM 7/25/2000 -0400, John Bronson wrote:
 > Just watched this hearing. I just subscribed to this list, so while
 > I don't want to piss anyone off, I question what seems to be a
 > knee-jerk reaction against Carnivore. In theory, I positively agree
 > with the need for such a tool. I want the FBI to be able to check
 > out the pedophile next door who's preying on my daughter or the
 > terrorist that wants to blow up the office building I work at -
 > that's what the FBI is there for.

That is not what the FBI is there for.

That is what your local cop is there for.

The FBI is there to maintain the power of the state and spy on whichever 
factions are politically incorrect this time around.

The US got along fine without ANY equivalent of the FBI through most of its 
history.
 --digsig
  James A. Donald
  6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
  IQ8AEsttxzK9yKNQqoobxb5OARTZfmi6dAN6dzQ3
  4qThHvK0m/+VZdFtxx5nNTwI93bpiAlud22rQ4TcZ

Re: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony

[Agent Bronson]

> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Get Yahoo! Mail ^V Free email you can access from anywhere!
> > http://mail.yahoo.com/
>
> Fucking government troll!  Does anyone else think it's odd that Agent
> Bronson here is coming from rocketmail.com, yet it seems yahoo
> automatically put a signature for yahoo mail on the end?
> 
> And notice the ^V in the signature?

You're onto me. My mission is to turn this entire list into a bunch of
government-friendly drones merely by posting persuasive emails! (Actually,
Rocketmail was bought out by Yahoo some years back, and I still have the
old addy. The ^V is a carriage-return that your email software messed up.)
 
> To address your points Herr Bronson:
> 
> 1. It is illegal based on the 3rd ammendment to quarter troops of any
> kind
> by force into someone's home.  By extension, place of work.

The 3rd amendment argument is a losing argument. The purpose of that
amendment is to prevent repeating something that happened during the
Revolutionary War. It pertains to soldiers shacking up in civilian's
houses, not to a civilian law-enforcement organization hooking a computer
up to your ISP's network.

> 2. The mass interception of email, or any internet traffic by a network
> of
> carnivore (or anything) is an invasion of privacy.

I don't know the specific laws, but this is something the spooks have
always done anyway. Like Donald Kerr said (if FBI spooks like him and me
can be trusted), the FBI routinely orders ISPs to do this surveillance
themselves anyway, when the ISP has the resources to do it.
 
> 3. Criminals such as kid fuckers, drug dealers and the like do not
> commit
> their crimes by using bits.  Ultimately, they must do their deeds in the
> real world - in a bed with a minor, or face to face for a drug deal.

That's true, but you're conviniently ignoring that 'kid fuckers,' drug
dealing rings, etc have to communicate to commit their crimes. This goes
double for child pornographers, online stalkers, credit fraud, etc. who
use the internet itself to commit the crime. If the FBI has court-approved
probable couse, which means they've already turned up good evidence, then
it's fine with me - especially in the case of a suspected terrorist - if
they monitor said suspected terrorist's emails.

The probable cause thing is where I agree, after watching the C-Span
rerun, that carnivore _is_ being used to invade privacy. The rep with the
big face that got there late (sorry, forgot his name) said it best. The
FBI is using Carnivore WITHOUT probable cause, and getting email addresses
just because a suspect sent or recieved emails from non-suspects. And
afterward, they don't notify the non-suspects that their privacy has been
violated.
 
> 4. Nothing stops criminals from doing business WITHOUT using email, and
> so
> this isn't a silver bullet.  That leaves the criminals that are outright
> stupid.  So is this why the Feds are doing this?  To catch the stupid?
--snip--
> *BUT* all are in danger from the
> smart ones, or the ones that don't use email?

Carnivore is a pretty weak tool. This is the best that the FBI can do, and
it's already getting into trouble trying to impliment the thing. That's a
scary thought. Apparently, the FBI is not invading our privacy; it's too
inept to do so.

Hey - maybe the whole carnivore thing is just a red herring to distract us
while some real heinous snooping is going on at the ISP level.

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

Re: Carnivore - Matt Blaze testimony

[Marcel Popescu]

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

> Fucking government troll!  Does anyone else think it's odd that Agent
> Bronson here is coming from rocketmail.com, yet it seems yahoo
> automatically put a signature for yahoo mail on the end?

Yahoo bought rocketmail some time ago. I know, I have a rocketmail address,
too. Yahoo also bought geocities, btw.

Mark




__
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com