Re: [IP] One Internet provider's view of FBI's CALEA wiretap push

On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 11:53:07AM -0700, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > I wonder how quickly one could incinerate a memory card in the field > with high success rate? Destroy the data and the passphrases don't > help. Smallish lithium battery has enough oomph to heat a NiCr filament (or charge a

Re: [IP] One Internet provider's view of FBI's CALEA wiretap push

At 4:00 PM -0400 4/22/04, Pete Capelli wrote: >But the goal isn't to ban it; just marginalize it enough to be able to tar >it as a terrorist action. > >True, there is no worldwide ban on finance. But there is the delightful >'know your customer' law. That's just a monster in the closet. Fact is,

Re: [IP] One Internet provider's view of FBI's CALEA wiretap push

On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 14:53, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > I wonder how quickly one could incinerate a memory card in the field > with high success rate? Destroy the data and the passphrases don't > help. The first thing that popped into my mind is a USB key with a small cake of potassium perman

Re: [IP] One Internet provider's view of FBI's CALEA wiretap push

"As for finance itself, there's a reason that I say that financial cryptography is the only cryptography that matters. Since the time of Mesopotamian bullae and grain banks, cryptography has been essential to finance. You can't do one without the other. The more cryptography you do, the more financ

Re: [IP] One Internet provider's view of FBI's CALEA wiretap push

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > >However, it's not entirely reliable. At some point, the suspect tells > >you what you want to hear, whether or not it is the truth, just so you > >leave him alone. It can even happen that the suspect convinces himself > >that what he really did w

Re: [IP] One Internet provider's view of FBI's CALEA wiretap push

> At 12:09 PM +0200 4/22/04, Eugen Leitl wrote: > >Are you truly expecting a worldwide ban on encryption? > > Amen. > > It's like expecting a worldwide ban on finance. Been tried. Doesn't work. But the goal isn't to ban it; just marginalize it enough to be able to tar it as a terrorist action. Tr

United States Patent: 6,721,423

( 1 of 1 ) United States Patent 6,721,423 Anderson , et al. April 13, 2004 Lost cost countermeasures against compromising elec

Re: [IP] One Internet provider's view of FBI's CALEA wiretap push

At 05:56 PM 4/22/04 +0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote: >On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > >> At 12:09 PM 4/22/04 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> > >> >Are you truly expecting a worldwide ban on encryption? How do you prove >> >somebody is using encryption on a steganographic channel? >> >>

Re: [IP] One Internet provider's view of FBI's CALEA wiretap push

At 4:32 PM +0100 4/22/04, Dave Howe wrote: >There isn't a worldwide ban on breaking CSS - doesn't stop the film >industry trying to enforce it in the US courts. Carl Ellison tells the story about how, with the advent of the longbow, all these peasants had to get absolution from their local priests

Re: [IP] One Internet provider's view of FBI's CALEA wiretap push

R. A. Hettinga wrote: > At 12:09 PM +0200 4/22/04, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> Are you truly expecting a worldwide ban on encryption? > It's like expecting a worldwide ban on finance. Been tried. Doesn't > work. There isn't a worldwide ban on breaking CSS - doesn't stop the film industry trying to enforc

Re: [IP] One Internet provider's view of FBI's CALEA wiretap push

Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 01:13:48AM +0100, Dave Howe wrote: >> No, it is a terrible situation. >> It establishes a legal requirement that communications *not* be >> private from the feds. from there, it is just a small step to >> defining encryption as a deliberate attempt to ci

Re: [IP] One Internet provider's view of FBI's CALEA wiretap push

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > At 12:09 PM 4/22/04 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > >Are you truly expecting a worldwide ban on encryption? How do you prove > >somebody is using encryption on a steganographic channel? > > Torture, of the sender, receiver, or their families, has

Re: [IP] One Internet provider's view of FBI's CALEA wiretap push

At 12:09 PM 4/22/04 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: > >Are you truly expecting a worldwide ban on encryption? How do you prove >somebody is using encryption on a steganographic channel? Torture, of the sender, receiver, or their families, has worked pretty well. If you're good you don't even leave mark

Re: [IP] One Internet provider's view of FBI's CALEA wiretap push

At 12:09 PM +0200 4/22/04, Eugen Leitl wrote: >Are you truly expecting a worldwide ban on encryption? Amen. It's like expecting a worldwide ban on finance. Been tried. Doesn't work. :-) Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation

Re: Real-world quantum cryptography

At 10:31 PM -0400 4/21/04, Steve Furlong wrote: >OK, Bob, you got me this time. To paraphrase a surgeon in the cartoons this morning, your awe is thanks enough... ;-) Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 44 Farquh

RE: Sniper rifle implants tracking chip

Although I am sure it could be built, this is actually a piece of art/social commentary that was featured on The Next Big Thing on NPR http://www.nextbigthing.org/archive/episode.html?04092004 The artist's website is at http://www.jakobboeskov.com/ . Several countries were very interested in it

Re: [IP] One Internet provider's view of FBI's CALEA wiretap push

> The extreme ease of use of internet wiretapping and lack of accountability > is not a good situation to create. False. It is the best possible situation cpunk-wise I can imagine. It effectively deals away with bs artists (those who *argue* against this or that) and empowers mathematics. If one

Re: [IP] One Internet provider's view of FBI's CALEA wiretap push

Morlock Elloi wrote: >> The extreme ease of use of internet wiretapping and lack of >> accountability is not a good situation to create. > False. > It is the best possible situation cpunk-wise I can imagine. No, it is a terrible situation. It establishes a legal requirement that communications *not

Re: [IP] One Internet provider's view of FBI's CALEA wiretap push

On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 01:13:48AM +0100, Dave Howe wrote: > No, it is a terrible situation. > It establishes a legal requirement that communications *not* be private from > the feds. from there, it is just a small step to defining encryption as a > deliberate attempt to circumvent that law, and s

Re: Real-world quantum cryptography

On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 21:49, Steve Furlong wrote: > http://www.quantenkryptographie.at/ Gah. That's what I get for trying to do a Hettinga -- he beats me to it. OK, Bob, you got me this time.