Freeh takes aim on strong encryption
Michael Pierson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I've been watching the Senate terrorism hearings, suffering through the
torrent of specious rhetoric and demagoguery, and waiting for the words
I feared to to hear. I, unfortunately, did not have to wait long.
During the course of Sen. Kennedy's remarks, following his expression of
concern over an internet document titled "The Terrorist Handbook", Freeh
responded with these portentous words:
"Senator, it's clearly a matter of concern. Just as important, and
perhaps more frightening and more destructive is terrorists
communicating over the internet in encrypted conversations for which
we will have no available means to read and understand unless that
encryption problem is dealt with immediately."
Well, here it comes. Considering the brain damaged political stampede
now in progress in Washington D.C. and on the mass media, legislation of
this type could run through Congress like crap through a goose.
Never mind the real world logistic nightmares such rashly conceived
legislation might create in it's implementation; it's the criminalization
of strong encryption that would be the issue and objective.
I am appalled at the tidal wave of authoritarian sentiment sweeping over
this country. I've always believed this could happen. I always knew
that it would take only a handful of serious terrorist events in this
country to bring about a state of de facto martial law, if not a de jure
one, such is the sad state of liberty in this nation. But the aftermath
of the Oklahoma bombing has left me deeply sickened and alarmed
nonetheless. Christ!, they're already talking about "habeas *reform*
legislation." If we were watching this happening overseas, it would be
clear what was coming down. These are the code words and sentiments of
states imposing emergency powers. The use of enemies: real, imagined or
contrived, exaggerated or demonized, internal or external, have been
used to justify the institution of tyranny since the dawn of
civilization. If a single act by a handful of fanatics can bring us to
this sad state of affairs, then we are moving toward troubled times
indeed.
And most certainly:
"NOW is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country."
The despicable act of murder committed in the Oklahoma was, it goes
without saying, a heinous crime. In my opinion a far greater crime
against us all is being committing now by those who are preparing to
eviscerate our liberties in order to "protect" us. No thinking
person can afford to be silent in the face of this shallow
minded hysteria.
- -Michael
Say _NO_ to a Surveillance State!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBL6AL0dGJlWF+GPx9AQFmPQQApQ8rkPlD8g1U8/dmaJ5BYLAIC8/Z0tXk
wrjOIR+2WbeICQx3iLn+NeaC7gC3+sck0jCUgHMcd4DCX1/mp1vknCss/od9AnQL
/aOmlZ8WO0iQLsshcJaI5DBhfne90f2WeiFMSpzF1sTJvTQZ3+9FyWL3/gK3ypBw
+UsFS6fqKMM=
=3C5y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Michael Pierson
wfg...@iquest.com (Michael Pierson) wrote:
> .............................. The use of enemies: real, imagined or
> contrived, exaggerated or demonized, internal or external, have been
> used to justify the institution of tyranny since the dawn of
> civilization.
That should have read:
The threat of enemies; whether real, imagined or contrived, exaggerated
or demonized, internal or external, has been used to justify the imposition
of tyranny since the dawn of civilization.
oops.
-Michael
k...@stubbs.ucop.edu
>
> "Senator, it's clearly a matter of concern. Just as important,
and
> perhaps more frightening and more destructive is terrorists
> communicating over the internet in encrypted conversations for
which
> we will have no available means to read and understand unless
that
> encryption problem is dealt with immediately."
>
This is no idle threat. The administration has been dogged in
its pursuit of encryption controls. The outcry over Clipper and
the success of PGP have convinced some Netizens that the battle
over encryption has been won. The response to the Oklahoma
bombing could well swing things far enough in the other direction
that encryption controls could be legislated quickly in the
near future.
Because the encryption genie is already out of the bottle, as
many like to point out, the most workable solution, from the
law enforcement point of view, would be to require all encryption
keys to be escrowed. Use of un-escrowed encryption would then
be illegal, and sanctions could be harsh enough that most regular
citizens aren't willing to take the risk.
I can imagine that the liberal compromise would be to insist
on including non-governmental agencies as "trusted escrow agents"
for these purposes. But because it will be difficult to fund
such agencies, I'm not sure that we'll have a real choice of
escrow agents.
California is in the midst of considering legislation to allow
digital signatures. The bill was introduced by one of our more
knowledgeable and open-minded legislators, Deborah Bowen. But
the language in the bill limits the certifying agents to:
attorneys, financial institutions, title and escrow agents, and
state offices. For any federal purposes, our escrow agents will
be chosen for their willingness to cooperate fully with law
enforcement.
So follow these developments carefully, and think about how it
will feel to have to hand your private key to a "trusted"
government agency.
Karen Coyle
CPSR/Berkeley chapter
John Kuslich
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
SNIP
> "Senator, it's clearly a matter of concern. Just as important, and
> perhaps more frightening and more destructive is terrorists
> communicating over the internet in encrypted conversations for which
> we will have no available means to read and understand unless that
> encryption problem is dealt with immediately."
SNIP
> Christ!, they're already talking about "habeas *reform*
>legislation."
>
>"NOW is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country."
I fear it is gone. A done deal. The government will become more repressive,
terrorists will respond with more treachery, there will be more
repression...until there is civil war or rebellion.
Democracy was a noble experiment. It is over...
Democracy supposedly won over totalitarian Communism...some victory!!
Suspension of Habeas Corpus, National ID cards, our tax dollars for welfare
payments to Mexicans living in Mexico? Who would believe such talk just ten
years ago. Were we all asleep?
America at war with it's own people? Is this an oxymoron?
God help us all!!
JK
John E. Kuslich WPcrak for Wordperfect
jo...@indirect.com WDcrak for MS Word 6.0
Password Recovery EXcrak for MS Excel 5.0
602 863 9274 QPcrak for Quattro Pro 6.0
http://www.getnet.com/crak or
http://www.indirect.com/www/johnk/
>>>>>>We Recover File Passwords<<<<<<<
James F. Marshall
>
>So follow these developments carefully, and think about how it
>will feel to have to hand your private key to a "trusted"
>government agency.
What is there to stop anyone from giving the government a bogus key (or a good
key, and then stop using it in favor of a different key)? It would appear that
the government could not do anything about it without a warrant authorizing the
government to get the escrowed key and decrypt encrypted email. If it were to
use the escrowed key without a warrant and then complain that the key doesn't
work, that would be a clear indication of violating the Fourth Amendment. The
practical effect is that one could continue using a secret key unknown to the
government until the government produces a warrant demanding the real key.
Of course, the government might rely on a clause criminalizing the escrowing
of a bogus key or using a key that is not escrowed, as if the government
should be allowed to spy on private, encrypted email without a warrant.
This is academic speculation, not legal advice or consultation of any kind.
Best Regards,
James F. Marshall
jfm...@ibm.net
John K. Taber
: In <3nrcv1$3...@agate.berkeley.edu>, k...@stubbs.ucop.edu writes:
: >
: >So follow these developments carefully, and think about how it
: >will feel to have to hand your private key to a "trusted"
: >government agency.
: What is there to stop anyone from giving the government a bogus key (or a good
: key, and then stop using it in favor of a different key)? It would appear that
Of course, instead of sidestepping a law as you propose, you can more simply
disobey it. For some people that may not be a problem, but for a lot of
us, it is.
Most likely, such a law would forbid escrowing fraudulent keys.
I think the point is, not to figure out clever ways to sidestep the law, but
to work hard to prevent passage of such a law in the first place.
--
John K. Taber jkt...@netcom.com
===========================================================================
David L Evens
: In article <3nt4f9$u...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
: James F. Marshall <jfm...@ibm.net> wrote:
: > What is there to stop anyone from giving the government a bogus key (or a good
: > key, and then stop using it in favor of a different key)?
: Random monitoring and decryption. Isn't that what happens in France?
DO pay attention. The scenario assumes a law that doesn't blatantly
contravene the 4th Amendment.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Is his name 'Dick Earth'?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James F. Marshall
>> What is there to stop anyone from giving the government a bogus key (or a good
>> key, and then stop using it in favor of a different key)?
>
>Random monitoring and decryption.
You ignore the rest of my post. Given the Fourth Amendment, the government
must not search and seize the contents of encrypted email without a warrant.
Without a warrant, how could the government know -- or disclose that it knows
-- that email was encrypted with a private key that has not been escrowed?
>Isn't that what happens in France?
Who gives a damn?! I'm talking about the States. We rejected European models
of totalitarian and authoritarian government a long time ago.
James F. Marshall
>
>: What is there to stop anyone from giving the government a bogus key (or a good
>
>Of course, instead of sidestepping a law as you propose, you can more simply
>disobey it. For some people that may not be a problem, but for a lot of
>us, it is.
I did not propose anything of the sort. I merely posed a rhetorical question as
to the effectiveness of a government private-key archive in the absence of a
widespread pattern of warrantless searches and seaizures in violation of the
Fourth Amendment. You need to be more careful in ascribing motives!
Software Developers
>>> What is there to stop anyone from giving the government a bogus key (or a good
>>> key, and then stop using it in favor of a different key)?
>>
>
>You ignore the rest of my post. Given the Fourth Amendment, the government
>must not search and seize the contents of encrypted email without a warrant.
Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment as been gutted by many court decisions
and the assault on the bill of rights known as the "war on drugs". Many
people are, at this very moment, trying to further gut the Fourth Amendment
in the guise of "anti-terrorist" legislation.
>Without a warrant, how could the government know -- or disclose that it knows
>-- that email was encrypted with a private key that has not been escrowed?
Rogue agents (or rogue agencies) don't always let not having a warrant stop
them... :-(
>>Isn't that what happens in France?
>
>Who gives a damn?! I'm talking about the States. We rejected European models
>of totalitarian and authoritarian government a long time ago.
But sadly, many in the U.S. now want to embrace the European models now.
For that matter, there seem to be plenty of people out there advocating
_east European_ models these days...
"I speak only for myself, Lee Heins
not for my employers." sw...@worf.netins.net or le...@cadalyst.com
My Linux box is: Microsoft Free, Intel Free & IBM Free...
Howard Goldstein
: James F. Marshall <jfm...@ibm.net> wrote:
: >In <1995Apr3003...@silverton.berkeley.edu>, d...@silverton.berkeley.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes:
: >>> What is there to stop anyone from giving the government a bogus key (or a good
: >>> key, and then stop using it in favor of a different key)?
: >>
: >>Random monitoring and decryption.
: >
: >You ignore the rest of my post. Given the Fourth Amendment, the government
: >must not search and seize the contents of encrypted email without a warrant.
Precisely. And some seem to forget that the 4th amendment doesn't prohibit
all search and seizures, it only prohibits those that are "unreasonable."
The person to define "unreasonable" wins the prize.
David L Evens
: : In article <3o0rvv$3e...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
Without specific cause (such as randomly) is certainly unreasonable.
D. J. Bernstein
James F. Marshall <jfm...@ibm.net> wrote:
> What is there to stop anyone from giving the government a bogus key (or a good
> key, and then stop using it in favor of a different key)?
Random monitoring and decryption. Isn't that what happens in France?
---Dan
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
>In <1995Apr3003...@silverton.berkeley.edu>, d...@silverton.berkeley.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes:
[snip]
>>Random monitoring and decryption.[snap] Isn't that what happens in France?
>
>Who gives a damn?! I'm talking about the States. We rejected European models
>of totalitarian and authoritarian government a long time ago.
Yeah sure.. Your FBI or mine?
Michael 'Mike' Gormez - Finger for PGP key with ID: E3F04DD9
whatever at: http://www.xs4all.nl/~mikeg/
Bill Stewart +1-510-484-6204
What is there to stop anyone from giving the government a bogus key
Because it's not really escrow, it's just automated key-snitching.
The Clipper form of so-called Key Escrow worked by transmitting an
encrypted version of whatever key you were using at the beginning of
each transmission, and refusing to decrypt a session unless it
received an encrypted key at the beginning with a correct checksum.
Some pleasant work by Matt Blaze showed that, since they had only
used a 16-bit checksum file, it was possible to fake the checksums
(by trial-and-error) in a way that was fast enough for some applications.
The pure-software approach designed by Steven Walker and folks has
fewer technical weaknesses, and being purely software it's easier to
bully people into using it, and Matt's hack doesn't break it.
On the other hand, the political flak they caught when they tried to
push Clipper on us set them back a while; they've mainly been working
on things like the Digital Telephony wiretap bills to get the phone
companies cooperating rather than going for the retail end.
----
[ I won't have much usenet access the next week, but I'll be getting email.]
--
# Bill Stewart AT&T Global Information Solutions (new name for NCR!)
# 6870 Koll Center Pkwy, Pleasanton CA 94566 1-510-484-6204 fax-6399
# Email: bill.s...@pleasantonca.ncr.com 1-800-SKYTALK: pin 3054756
cy...@199.224.66.22
I wish that I could persuade the PGP cult to stop playing
its World War II wargame against the government.
The criminalization of strong encryption might be their
THEIR issue and objective. But, it doesn't follow that
encryption or its defense should be OUR issue or objective.
Most folks think "encryption" is a military/spy kind of thing
and "surveillance" sounds like proper work for the police
department.
We might want to fight for the 4th amendment by getting some of
our lawyers to write some briefs for the Supreme Court, but
we need not focus too much of that on Congress. They will
either support the right to privacy or they won't.
The simple word we need to work with is MONEY. We should be
talking money on EVERY communications channel.
Freeh gives us a clue:
"...perhaps more frightening and more destructive is terrorists
communicating over the internet..."
Terrorists don't NEED the internet! They can use the phone!
Maybe we shouldn't waste all that money on the internet; maybe
we should BUG EVERY PHONE IN AMERICA! But, what about short wave,
and what about U.S. Mail and what about FEDx?
If you know someone who wants to be an activist, ask him to write
a letter to his favorite editor asking How much will it cost to
bug the internet or ask him to tell them why it won't work.
All Information IS Free!
Cyboy
Howard Goldstein
: Howard Goldstein (hgol...@bbs.mpcs.com) wrote:
: : : In article <3o0rvv$3e...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,d...@silverton.berkeley.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes:
: : : >>> What is there to stop anyone from giving the government a bogus key (or a good
: : : >>> key, and then stop using it in favor of a different key)?
: : : >>
: : : >>Random monitoring and decryption.
: : : >You ignore the rest of my post. Given the Fourth Amendment, the government
: : : >must not search and seize the contents of encrypted email without a warrant.
: : Precisely. And some seem to forget that the 4th amendment doesn't prohibit
: : all search and seizures, it only prohibits those that are "unreasonable."
: : The person to define "unreasonable" wins the prize.
: Without specific cause (such as randomly) is certainly unreasonable.
Isn't it all a matter of semantics? The location of a roadblock or the
particular bus that is to be searched can be determined randomly, but if
everyone in these places is searched the random argument is arguably
dimished.
Apply the analogy to the internet and perhaps the net.cops can stake out a
particular 'random' feed and search everyone on it....
Perry Donham
>>>>> "Howard" == Howard Goldstein <hgol...@bbs.mpcs.com> writes:
Howard> Isn't it all a matter of semantics? The location of a
Howard> roadblock or the particular bus that is to be searched can
Howard> be determined randomly, but if everyone in these places is
Howard> searched the random argument is arguably dimished.
Howard> Apply the analogy to the internet and perhaps the net.cops
Howard> can stake out a particular 'random' feed and search
Howard> everyone on it....
Or a list of all contributors to talk.politics.crypto.
My feeling is that the FBI wants to use this argument:
1. A warrant for covert search and seizure can be issued on
probable cause
2. Cryptography might be used by criminals
3. Use of cryptography constitutes probable cause
Perry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQB1AwUBL6T3wyAvobVzHZlpAQGmIAL/ZkMoG6QGSdePQNJqHFhRE/2KmRSj94eF
iGQTiH7YDxFXSIEEojT3E8jGwEJEH44rNgquIGGYqcoqFh53yaDlC9I+TZbBJcVm
SbYdNek5WRMmy2+lYUi3rNQvTCrofbHM
=/VM6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
----------------------------------------------
Perry Donham
Finger don...@en-garde.com for public PGP key
Visit KidPub! http://www.en-garde.com/kidpub
----------------------------------------------
Christopher J Burian
]>Without a warrant, how could the government know -- or disclose that it knows
]>-- that email was encrypted with a private key that has not been escrowed?
]Rogue agents (or rogue agencies) don't always let not having a warrant stop
]them... :-(
To answer the question more directly, these rogue agents tap phones or
intercept mail illegally. Then the agent now privvy to the information
is an "anonymous informant" whose affidavit is used to secure a warrant.
The problem is that our fucked up Supreme Court has, in repeated decisions,
made it abundantly clear that the Bill of Rights protects ONLY criminal
defendants. Illegally-obtained evidence can be thrown out--and that is
about it. (And now, even this weak protection is being thrown out with
"good faith" BULLSHIT.) There is no protection or recourse whatsoever
for innocent people. Privacy-invading, Constitution-trampling cops can
read your mail and listen in on your phone all they want without punishment.
If you are innoncent--too bad for you--your rights have been maliciously
violated, oh well. We need SEVERE penalties for authorities who violate
people's rights, even "accidentally."
--
=<Christopher Burian>======<Orwell was an optimist.>======<cbu...@uiuc.edu>=
=====<PGP public key on the server, or finger cbu...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu>======
============<WWW homepage URL: http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~cb5222/>=============
===============<Extremism in defense of Liberty is no vice.>=================
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Fifty-two percent of Americans believe that the government "has become *
* so large and powerful it poses a threat to the rights and freedoms of *
* ordinary citizens." -- Time/CNN poll, 4/28/95 *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Christopher J Burian
]Without specific cause (such as randomly) is certainly unreasonable.
Wrong. Random stops of motorists are "reasonable" due to infinitely
twisted logic from our brain-damaged Supreme Court.
Chris Burian
--
Software Developers
Christopher J Burian <cbu...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>sw...@worf.infonet.net (Software Developers) writes:
>
>]>Without a warrant, how could the government know -- or disclose that it knows
>]>-- that email was encrypted with a private key that has not been escrowed?
>
>]Rogue agents (or rogue agencies) don't always let not having a warrant stop
>]them... :-(
>
>To answer the question more directly, these rogue agents tap phones or
>intercept mail illegally. Then the agent now privvy to the information
>is an "anonymous informant" whose affidavit is used to secure a warrant.
>The problem is that our fucked up Supreme Court has, in repeated decisions,
>made it abundantly clear that the Bill of Rights protects ONLY criminal
>defendants. Illegally-obtained evidence can be thrown out--and that is
>about it. (And now, even this weak protection is being thrown out with
>"good faith" BULLSHIT.) There is no protection or recourse whatsoever
>for innocent people. Privacy-invading, Constitution-trampling cops can
>read your mail and listen in on your phone all they want without punishment.
>If you are innoncent--too bad for you--your rights have been maliciously
>violated, oh well. We need SEVERE penalties for authorities who violate
>people's rights, even "accidentally."
I agree. I think that we must start holding law enforcement officials
to a higher standard of conduct. Part of their job should be to set an
example for others to follow. When they cheat, even in "good faith",
they are setting the wrong example for people.
Jasper O'Malley
>I agree. I think that we must start holding law enforcement officials
>to a higher standard of conduct. Part of their job should be to set an
>example for others to follow. When they cheat, even in "good faith",
>they are setting the wrong example for people.
Call me a nut, but I'm guessing that the Fourth Amendment was put there
specifically to protect us from the government's "good faith."
Some protections and freedoms have to be absolute. They won't bend that far
and if you try you're gonna break them, no matter how "well-intentioned" you
think you are.
Cheers,
Mick
D. J. Bernstein
> > > What is there to stop anyone from giving the government a bogus key
> You ignore the rest of my post. Given the Fourth Amendment, the government
> must not search and seize the contents of encrypted email without a warrant.
What makes you so sure that random monitoring and decryption would
violate the Fourth Amendment? Cite some case law.
What if it were done by a machine that threw away the contents if
decryption were successful and alerted the police otherwise?
---Dan
Mark Eckenwiler
>James F. Marshall <jfm...@ibm.net> wrote:
>>
>> You ignore the rest of my post. Given the Fourth Amendment, the government
>> must not search and seize the contents of encrypted email without a warrant.
>
>What makes you so sure that random monitoring and decryption would
>violate the Fourth Amendment? Cite some case law.
Is a Supreme Court case good enough for your purposes? How about Katz
v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)?
L.Detweiler
We would like to go on the record and announce our wholehearted support
for the plan to ban all encryption in the U.S. It has always been
our position that unrestricted communication is just too powerful and
dangerous a tool to leave in the hands of private citizenry without
responsible oversight. The average american has no legitmate
need or interest in cryptography whatsoever in his daily life.
Cryptography is demonstrably the sole province of the State and
police authorities, and of espionage operations, and any
encroachment onto that exclusive domain by private individuals is sure
to meet with disaster in the long run.
=============================================================================
T|~\\ TT //\\ //~~\\ TT /T TT\ TT T|~~" "~||~"
|| // || || || || ~ ||_// || \|| || ||
||~\\ || ||~~|| || _ || \\ || || ||~^ ||
J|_// J|__J JL JL \\__// JL JL JL JL J|__m JL
=============================================================================
Espionage, terrorism, and guerilla warfare coming soon to a site near you!
L.Detweiler
I'm going to put my brain on the line and predict that
Phil Zimmermann *IS* going to be indicted shortly. reasons:
1. apparently grand juries could indict a ham sandwich
if requested to by a prosecutor.
2. apparently the prosecutor is driven by the NSA.
3. the NSA would like a highly publicized case. The
NSA does not yet fully comprehend the concept of
"losing public face" even though they lost a lot with
Clipper.
4. clipper is another example of how the NSA thinks.
"sure it was stupid, it was desperate, but we had to
try it." I think the PRZ case will be exactly the same.
5. it would be stupid of them to try, but the NSA is the most
clueless and out-of-touch-with-reality organization on the
entire planet. all that secrecy is not to protect any
secrets, but to prevent reality from creeping into the
brains of the brainwashed.
6. besides, all hell would *really* break lose if
Phil got indicted. wouldn't you much rather live in
"interesting times", as the chinese like to say? <g>
sorry, phil, but the sharks are circling.... (gurgle)
^`. o
^_ SharkMark \ \ o o
\ \ { \ o
{ \ / `~~~--__"We're gonna need a bigger boat!"
{ \___----~~' `~~-_ ______ _____
\ /// a `~._(_||___)________/___
/ /~~~~-, ,__. , /// __,,,,) o ______/ \
\/ \/ `~~~; ,---~~-_`~= \ \------o-' \
/ / / /
'._.' _/_/
';|\
David Sternlight
Another troll, cum hoax. By now everybody knows about Detweiler.
David
Alan Horowitz
the FBI more repressive powers - though that's scary enough.
The scary thing is that he and his circle imagine that the FBI can
implement actual repression. They aren't as good as the KGB at trying,
and the KGB couldn't succeed.
The hilarious thing is that if unleashed, the FBI is likely, in the
long run, to go for the gusto. The soft underbelly of future
Hillary-the-commodities-fraud-artist,
Bill-who-can't-keep-his-pants-buttoned, types. You think it was an accident
that J Edgar spent more energy keeping track of congressmen's mistresses
than of drug dealers?
Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it....
--
Alan Horowitz
al...@infi.net
eagle
>In article <3oghu3$o...@news-2.csn.net>, L.Detweiler <ldet...@csn.net> wrote:
>>
>>We would like to go on the record and announce our wholehearted support
>>for the plan to ban all encryption in the U.S. It has always been
>
Then why didn't you kill the article unread? Me? I'm an idiot. I couldn't
resist a Detweiler/Sternlight dance card. I thought there might be a couple
of guffaws in perusing it.
--
According to John Perry Barlow: *Join EFF*
"Jeff Davis is a truly gifted trouble-maker." *email <in...@eff.org>*
*** O U T L A W S On The E L E C T R O N I C F R O N T I E R ****
"When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl!" JPB
David Sternlight
>da...@sternlight.com (David Sternlight) wrote:
>>In article <3oghu3$o...@news-2.csn.net>, L.Detweiler <ldet...@csn.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>We would like to go on the record and announce our wholehearted support
>>>for the plan to ban all encryption in the U.S. It has always been
>>
>>Another troll, cum hoax. By now everybody knows about Detweiler.
>
>Then why didn't you kill the article unread? Me? I'm an idiot. I couldn't
>resist a Detweiler/Sternlight dance card. I thought there might be a couple
>of guffaws in perusing it.
Went it comes to Detweiler, my dance card is already full, so all you're
going to get is the routine warning ("it's a hoax"). The only reason I
bother even with that is that his first "Blacknet" post was to
alt.fan.david-sternlight and he was soliciting what appeared to me to be a
criminal conspiracy in the venue of what might be thought by some to be my
salon.
No guffaws in that--sorry.
I should point out that given the deaths of innocent children in Oke City,
Detweiler's "Blacknet" stuff is no longer even funny. I expect he will
receive his comeuppance in due course, and not from me.
David
Andrew C Bulhak
: Further, just *suppose* the US Govt. does restrict cryptography. While
: the US undoubtedly originated Internet, by now that Inter stands for
: International.
: The US govt. may simply end up by enforcing a kind of isolationism, in
: that the rest of the world (or a large chunk of it) continues to use
: crypto as they will, and US users are denied it.
: The argument I have earlier seen here, that most Net traffic passes
: through US facilities, and hence is subject to US regulation, is losing
: force. We in Australia have our own satellites (purchased in the US,
: sure, but paid for and owned by us), as do many other nations.
If the US government does restrict strong cryptography, so will many other
nations; the World's Leading Nation doing something of this sort usually
boosts the advocates of the action elsewhere.
Some nations (perhaps Finland, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, etc.)
won't ban cryptography, but others will. After all, most people don't care if
they're not allowed to do certain things to files that they never do
anyway, and it's easy to persuade them that those who need _strong_
cryptography have something to hide from law-enforcement agencies.
--
Because of heavy processing requirements, we are currently using some of
your unused brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore any
hallucinations, voices or unusual dreams you may experience. Please avoid
concentration-intensive tasks until further notice. Thank you.
David Brooks
>L.Detweiler (ldet...@csn.net) wrote:
>: I'm going to put my brain on the line and predict that
>: Phil Zimmermann *IS* going to be indicted shortly. reasons:
>So -- if he doesn't get indicted then we get to put your brain in
>a Faraday cage?
>Even in the small chance he *does* get indicted, do you think
>the net will be channelled into the federally desired compliance
>and fear, and development and distribution of, say, PGP will be
>quashed?
>
>--
>Grady Ward +1 707 826 7715 (voice / 24hr FAX) gr...@netcom.com
Further, just *suppose* the US Govt. does restrict cryptography. While
the US undoubtedly originated Internet, by now that Inter stands for
International.
The US govt. may simply end up by enforcing a kind of isolationism, in
that the rest of the world (or a large chunk of it) continues to use
crypto as they will, and US users are denied it.
The argument I have earlier seen here, that most Net traffic passes
through US facilities, and hence is subject to US regulation, is losing
force. We in Australia have our own satellites (purchased in the US,
sure, but paid for and owned by us), as do many other nations.
--
David R. Brooks <da...@perth.DIALix.oz.au> Tel/fax. +61 9 434 4280
"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force.
Like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - G. Washington
D. J. Bernstein
> Is a Supreme Court case good enough for your purposes? How about Katz
> v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)?
I don't think a court will find it so obvious that _Katz_ applies to
automated random decryption, especially if successful decryptions are
immediately thrown away.
Anyway, even if random monitoring and decryption are illegal, in
practice they would be perfectly adequate enforcement mechanisms. The
mere possibility of being caught---even if being caught almost certainly
means a Fourth Amendment violation!---would be enough to scare most
people away from using strong crypto.
Fighting against a crypto ban, on constitutional grounds and on the
grounds that it would increase crime, seems much more productive than
assuming that a toothless Fourth Amendment will somehow stop that ban
from being enforced.
---Dan
Eric S. Johansson
: James F. Marshall <jfm...@ibm.net> wrote:
: > > > What is there to stop anyone from giving the government a bogus key
: > > Random monitoring and decryption.
: > You ignore the rest of my post. Given the Fourth Amendment, the government
: > must not search and seize the contents of encrypted email without a warrant.
: What makes you so sure that random monitoring and decryption would
: violate the Fourth Amendment? Cite some case law.
: What if it were done by a machine that threw away the contents if
: decryption were successful and alerted the police otherwise?
According to my copy of the Fourth Amendment, random searches are not
allowed. It says something about "no warrants shall issue but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized."
Seems pretty clear to me that automatic decryption and text
recognition would violate the fourth Amendment unless there was a
warrant to carry out said surveillance. Granted, current law does
permit warrantless random searches in limited circumstances such as
drunk driving checkpoints, random piss tests and other fishing
expeditions. Machine monitoring makes it too easy to scan every
message.
--- eric
--
Eric S. Johansson ka1eec e...@harvee.billerica.ma.us
This message was composed almost entirely by DragonDictate.
Mark Eckenwiler
>D. J. Bernstein (d...@silverton.berkeley.edu) wrote:
>
>: What makes you so sure that random monitoring and decryption would
>: violate the Fourth Amendment? Cite some case law.
>
>: What if it were done by a machine that threw away the contents if
>: decryption were successful and alerted the police otherwise?
>
>According to my copy of the Fourth Amendment, random searches are not
>allowed. It says something about "no warrants shall issue but upon
>probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
>describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
>seized."
>
>Seems pretty clear to me that automatic decryption and text
>recognition would violate the fourth Amendment unless there was a
>warrant to carry out said surveillance.
It is abundantly clear.
> Granted, current law does
>permit warrantless random searches in limited circumstances such as
>drunk driving checkpoints, random piss tests and other fishing
>expeditions.
Very limited circumstances. The piss tests upheld in the Supreme
Court were for train engineers involved in accidents (Skinner, 109 S
Ct 1402) and for Customs Service employees seeking promotion to
positions involving narcotics interdiction (Von Raab, 109 S Ct 1384).
These aren't random tests, and won't support an argument favoring any
sort of random, intrusive searches of the public.
Derek Bell
ldet...@csn.net (L.Detweiler) writes:
>The average american has no legitmate need or interest in cryptography
>whatsoever in his daily life.
Gee, that's awfully interesting, Lance. I assume you've looked at every
possible case. Like having a secret that is a potential source of blackmail.
For instance, someone may be a recovering alcoholic and they want to sent a
message to a close friend saying how they are. Last time I checked, it wasn't
a crime to be a recovering alcoholic, yet it could be a source of blackmail.
>Cryptography is demonstrably the sole province of the State and
>police authorities, and of espionage operations, and any
>encroachment onto that exclusive domain by private individuals is sure
>to meet with disaster in the long run.
OK, don't just assert it, demonstrate it with a few examples. Why do
you trust authorities more than random individuals. (Lest it be thought I am
paranoid, there are some individuals I would trust less than a random
government, but I think most people are trustworthy.)
--
Derek Bell db...@maths.tcd.ie WWW: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/index.html
Death confronts us not unlike the historical battle scene that hangs on the
wall of the classroom. It is our task to obscure or quite obliterate the
picture by our deeds while we are still in this world. - Kafka
Mark Eckenwiler
>In article <3obn0d$m...@panix.com>, Mark Eckenwiler <e...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Is a Supreme Court case good enough for your purposes? How about Katz
>> v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)?
>
>I don't think a court will find it so obvious that _Katz_ applies to
>automated random decryption, especially if successful decryptions are
>immediately thrown away.
Throwing them away makes no difference. Acquiring the messages is a
seizure, and investigating their content is a search; with those
elements, the constitutional offense is perfected regardless of what
the government does thereafter.
I'd be most curious to see some caselaw supporting the position that
throwing away illegally seized materials allows the government to void
a fourth amendment violation. Do you happen to have any?
>Fighting against a crypto ban, on constitutional grounds and on the
>grounds that it would increase crime, seems much more productive than
>assuming that a toothless Fourth Amendment will somehow stop that ban
>from being enforced.
While I don't agree with your characteriztion of the 4th, it's clearly
more sensible to strangle the crypto ban in the cradle, as it were.
D. J. Bernstein
> Throwing them away makes no difference. Acquiring the messages is a
> seizure, and investigating their content is a search;
I too would like to see the language used that way; but I don't see why
you're so sure that a court will agree.
> I'd be most curious to see some caselaw supporting the position that
> throwing away illegally seized materials allows the government to void
> a fourth amendment violation. Do you happen to have any?
Fruit-of-the-forbidden-tree is irrelevant here. Remember, the machine
would throw away successful decryptions, and sound an alert on
unsuccessful decryptions. In neither case does the government possess
the contents of the communication.
---Dan
Mark Eckenwiler
>In article <3olkbo$9...@panix.com>, Mark Eckenwiler <e...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd be most curious to see some caselaw supporting the position that
>> throwing away illegally seized materials allows the government to void
>> a fourth amendment violation. Do you happen to have any?
>
>Fruit-of-the-forbidden-tree is irrelevant here.
Good, because I didn't raise it (and it's "fruit of the poison[ous]
tree," FYI). I repeat the question: what case law do you have
supporting your position, regardless of the legal label you apply?
Are you going to duck the issue again?
>Remember, the machine
>would throw away successful decryptions, and sound an alert on
>unsuccessful decryptions. In neither case does the government possess
>the contents of the communication.
With all respect, that is a specious claim. If the government
successfully decrypts a message, then they have the contents; what
they do after that is utterly beside the point for Fourth Amendment
purposes.
Indeed, even if the government fails to decrypt a message, they've
effected a seizure. If the police enter my house without
authorization and take my morning mail without opening it, they have
violated the Fourth Amendment; likewise, if they open it and discover
themselves unable to read it because my pen pals and I always write in
Cretan Linear A, they have still violated the Fourth Amendment.
Your point about whether or not the "contents" have been acquired
might fly under a strained reading of Title III/ECPA (although I'd
reject it if the case came before me), but that's something else
entirely.
--
They told me you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.
Mark Eckenwiler e...@panix.com
Mike McNally
>I'm going to put my brain on the line ...
Uh oh...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Nobody's going to listen to you if you just | Mike McNally (m...@tivoli.com) |
| stand there and flap your arms like a fish. | Tivoli Systems, Austin TX |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike McNally
>... more sensible to strangle ... in the cradle ...
INFANT SNUFF STORIES RAMPANT ON INTERNET
FILM AT 11
L.Detweiler
: Me and the other tentacles on the other hand will simply move our encrypted
: thoughts into the noise floor.
a ban on crypto by the U.S. government could ironically become the
strongest impetus for its widespread deployment, ever, to the point
of paling all previous development by comparison.
``Death is the ultimate form of censorship.'' (author unknown)
Jim Riverman
Software Engineer
j...@netcom.com
408-688-5409 [work]
Art Walker
: The average american has no legitmate
: need or interest in cryptography whatsoever in his daily life.
Including authentication methods?
--
Art Walker, Somewhere In Iowa | Art.W...@mnscorp.com
alt.sex/alt.binaries.pictures.erotica/alt.sex.bestiality, etc.
At best, the regulars of these groups are failed phone sex customers...
- SPY, Jul/Aug 94, Page 85
L.Detweiler
: So -- if he doesn't get indicted then we get to put your brain in
: a Faraday cage?
my brain is *already* stored in a faraday cage to protect
it from the harmful mind-altering transmissions broadcast
by the New World Order Government to drive the sheeple into
docile submission. that's why you think I am insane, when
in fact I am the only sane conscious entity left on the
planet.
: Even in the small chance he *does* get indicted, do you think
: the net will be channelled into the federally desired compliance
: and fear, and development and distribution of, say, PGP will be
: quashed?
action, quagmires, and predicaments are the ultimate tests
of philosophy and thought. I think
we are rapidly approaching the event horizen when we will
see who has the testicles and the windbags who cannot put
their actions where their life is.
| /\ |\| /~ L~
L_ /~~\ | | \_ L_
L.Detweiler
: Another troll, cum hoax. By now everybody knows about Detweiler.
: David
uhm, I don't understand this post. could someone tell me what
is being referred to? I apologize for being new to the internet
and all that but I don't know what a "troll cum hoax" is.
does it have anything to do with cryptozoological
artificial insemination?
\++================================| =
\ / /==+++==\
"""\ \""" |======================================/
\ \ / .. . /--===+ +===--""
L.S.Clew \ \ /. .. / `+'
CLE...@CYBERSPACE.COM \ \ / / \ /
-\ \-'---==+ | ---==O=-
--+" . . . "== Beam me up, / \
/ |. . .. -------- | \ Scotty--
"===, . . -------- | / there's no
""\ . .. ==" intelligent
""""--=--"" life here...
L.Detweiler
: Went it comes to Detweiler, my dance card is already full,
my darling, we have barely danced at all together, how can you
say that?? how I yearn to sip champagne with you, to be
giddy with delight, to frolic and sway close to your bulging
body under the moonlight on a balcony to the sounds of Mozart..
.. or perhaps Led Zeppelin?
oh, what joyful ecstasy you bring into my light. do you know
how I quiver with your every word?? every delightful and delicious
twist of vocabulary you emit invariably elicits deep shudders to my
spine.
Love,
Linda Lollipop
/\_/\ /\/\ /\_/\ /\/\ /\_/\ /\/\
( o.o ) \ / ( o.e ) \ / ( -.- ) \ /
> ~ < \/ > ^ < \/ > " < \/
L.Detweiler
: Went it comes to Detweiler, my dance card is already full, so all you're
: going to get is the routine warning ("it's a hoax"). The only reason I
: bother even with that is that his first "Blacknet" post was to
: alt.fan.david-sternlight and he was soliciting what appeared to me to be a
: criminal conspiracy in the venue of what might be thought by some to be my
: salon.
you flatter yourself, flatulence-breath. if you had a saloon in cyberspace,
you would be the ugly, lewd prostitute. what's the going rate nowadays,
anyway? the competition his fierce, I hear.
that reminds me of a W.C. field's joke. a woman said to him,
"you are an obnoxious drunk". and he said, "you are an ugly
wench. ... however in the morning I will be sober."
here's drinking to you, darling david...
| /\ |\| /~ L~
L_ /~~\ | | \_ L_
L.Detweiler
: Went it comes to Detweiler, my dance card is already full, so all you're
: going to get is the routine warning ("it's a hoax"). The only reason I
: bother even with that is that his first "Blacknet" post was to
: alt.fan.david-sternlight and he was soliciting what appeared to me to be a
: criminal conspiracy in the venue of what might be thought by some to be my
: salon.
ah, what better place to solicit a criminal conspiracy? surely one
who has transgressed against the English language and rationality
for so long would be the first to appreciate any overture.
: I should point out that given the deaths of innocent children in Oke City,
: Detweiler's "Blacknet" stuff is no longer even funny.
what makes you think it is supposed to be funny? sometimes
you're the bug, and sometimes you're the windshield. sometimes
you're both the butt and the joke.
I expect he will
: receive his comeuppance in due course, and not from me.
I have already candidly announced to the world I have been
investigated by FBI agents in regard to Blacknet.
they found me quite charming, so I would
be greatly chagrined if they were to pull a Zimmermann on me
and indict me for nothing but harmless (but legendary)
pranks in cyberspace.
I would take them off my christmas card list, *at least*.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING: Some parts of the previous message may depict scenes of gratuitous
violence, use words your mother wouldn't approve of, cause cancer, refer to
you or persons you know in a derogatory manner, use bad grammar or plead for
you to send your Pentax K1000 to: Simon Travaglia, Information & Technology,
University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand. It happens.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth of philosophy
bringeth a man's mind about to religion.
L.Detweiler
: I should point out that given the deaths of innocent children in Oke City,
: Detweiler's "Blacknet" stuff is no longer even funny.
given my total freedom to post in cyberspace, your petulant whinings are
no longer even relevant.
I expect he will
: receive his comeuppance in due course, and not from me.
ooooh, sounds grisly! could you let me know when it happens,
so I am sure not to miss it?
which reminds me---
now for my impression david sternlight's girlfriend,
after he has spent himself in exhaustion:
"when are you going to start?"
hehehehehe---
wheeeeeeee!!! cyberspace is so much fun!!
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
.adAMMMb. .dAMMMAbn. ,_ ,_ , , ,. ,__
.adAWWWWWWWWWAuAWWWWWWWWWWAbn. |_) L_ /_\ | / | \
.adWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWbn. |_) L_ | | |/ | \_)
..adMMMMMP^~".--"~^YWWWWWWWWWWHHMMMMMMMMbn.. , , Beavis
"~^Y" / ..dMWMP".ammmmdMMMUP^~" |\| N.
| Y dMAbammdAMMMMMMP^~" a | |. Butthead
| | MMMMMMMMMMMMU^" tale of ,_ , , ___ ___ , , ,_ _ ,_
l : Y^YUWWWWUP^" sound and fury |_) | | | | |_| L_ /_\ | \
\ j told by an idiot |_) \_/ | | | | L_ | | |_/
"-..,.^ signifying nothing
L.Detweiler
: Gee, that's awfully interesting, Lance. I assume you've looked at every
: possible case. Like having a secret that is a potential source of blackmail.
: For instance, someone may be a recovering alcoholic and they want to sent a
: message to a close friend saying how they are. Last time I checked, it wasn't
: a crime to be a recovering alcoholic, yet it could be a source of blackmail.
blackmail? did someone say blackmail?
a word to the wise: leave it to the professionals.
..........................................................................
Julius Rosenberg | Crypto Anarchy: deception, secret conspiracies,
blac...@netcom.com | underground networks, treachery, infiltration,
408-688-5409 | double agents, camouflage, espionage, sabotage,
S.L.I.M.E: Sewer | traitorous betrayal, Death to the Enemy State.
Higher Power: Satan | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Cyberspatial nationality will be torched by the Agents of Cryptoanarchy.
L.Detweiler
: Went it comes to Detweiler, my dance card is already full, so all you're
: going to get is the routine warning ("it's a hoax"). The only reason I
: bother even with that is that his first "Blacknet" post was to
: alt.fan.david-sternlight and he was soliciting what appeared to me to be a
: criminal conspiracy in the venue of what might be thought by some to be my
: salon.
I don't follow you here.
why is a solicitation for the purchase and sale
of information a criminal conspiracy?
could you tell me what information in particular should
be made illegal to transfer?
apparently anything that is "encoded" is being considered
to be within this category.
I'm a bit perplexed, because I always thought that
all writing is, in essence, encoded thought.
so it appears to me that the government is actually
interested in surveilling thoughts, and outlawing particularly
dangerous ones. judging by the legislation, those which
they cannot decipher are the most dangerous by their
standards.
since you have such illustrious background in intelligence
work, perhaps you could illumine us as to the motivations
of our government in floating this new "trial balloon".
I would expect you would be singularly capable of expounding
on its signficance within the realm of cyberspace, where
rabid mouth-frouthing libertarians are more plentiful
and cheap than extinguished bits in a bucket.
.........................................................................
Gengis Kahn | Crypto Anarchy: manipulation, demagoguery,
tc...@netcom.com | insurgency, guerilla warefare, megalomania,
408-688-5409 | leader idolatry, sabotaging government,
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | eviscerating enemies, revolutionary revolt.
Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
The Enemy will be encased in the cement of our Information SuperHighways.
L.Detweiler
: I should point out that given the deaths of innocent children in Oke City,
: Detweiler's "Blacknet" stuff is no longer even funny.
yes, it now seems to have taken on an eerie, surreal, bonechilling
aspect. reminds me of how comedians in Ireland joke about IRA bombs.
perhaps humor is a measure of the health-- or sickness-- of a society.
I expect he will
: receive his comeuppance in due course, and not from me.
he has already had is cyberspatial jugular vein slashed
many times, what more could you ask for? I share your
bitter distaste at his irreverently foul antics and his
lack of respect for his superiors and proper humility. I assure
you I am always open to suggestions if you have any ideas
on what to do with him.
~~~%$%&&%$~~~~~%$%&&%%~~~~~$%&&%$~~~~~%$%&&%~~~~~~%$%&&%%~~~~%$%&&%$~~~
%$% %$% %$% %$% %$% %$% %$% %$% %$% %$%
%$% %$% %$% %$% %$% %$% %$% %$% %$% %$%
%$%&&% %$%&& %$%&&%$% %$%&&% %$%&& %$%&&%
%$% %$ %$% %$% %$% %$% %$% %$% %$
___%$%__%$%____%$%&&%%____%$%__%$%____%$%_________%$%&&%%____%$%__%$%__
D. J. Bernstein
> I repeat the question: what case law do you have
> supporting your position, regardless of the legal label you apply?
> Are you going to duck the issue again?
What I'm saying is that the case law _isn't sufficiently clear_ to
justify your confidence that the Fourth Amendment will prevent random
enforcement of a ban on strong crypto. Your question about ``void[ing] a
fourth amendment violation'' is ill-founded if there isn't a violation
in the first place.
Do you disagree? Fine. Go ahead and explain why you're so sure that the
courts will do the right thing.
---Dan
KORAC
> In article <3olkbo$9...@panix.com>, Mark Eckenwiler <e...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Throwing them away makes no difference. Acquiring the messages is a
> > seizure, and investigating their content is a search;
>
> I too would like to see the language used that way; but I don't see why
> you're so sure that a court will agree.
>
> > I'd be most curious to see some caselaw supporting the position that
> > throwing away illegally seized materials allows the government to void
> > a fourth amendment violation. Do you happen to have any?
>
> Fruit-of-the-forbidden-tree is irrelevant here. Remember, the machine
> would throw away successful decryptions, and sound an alert on
> unsuccessful decryptions. In neither case does the government possess
> the contents of the communication.
>
> ---Dan
In both cases the government DOES possess the contents, via their
devices, for some measureable time. This does not change just because
the agent (program, computer, whatever) does not print the contents to
paper or other permanent storage for use as evidence. The same argument
goes for an FBI guy walking into a big apartment complex, finding the
phone connection panel and randomly listening to everyone's phone for a
few seconds to establish that it isn't the person they want to bug. You
can't legally do it (undoubtably it happens anyway, they just don't tell
anyone or make a case out of it, though now with the "relaxation" of the
4th amendment and digital telephony, they could now probably use such
"accidental" data as evidence under exclusionary rules).
There is no acceptable limitation on privacy, anymore than there
is an acceptable sized flame near a hydrogen balloon. In both cases
there is danger of total loss. Why make such intrusions any easier
than they are already? Once they are cheap and fast, more will occur.
Make it hard work, so they have to actually plant a bug, bounce a laser
off a
window, peek on your video terminal emissions, or even plant a live
person into an investigation. Sure its a pain in the ass, and maybe even
dangerous to the investigators. It should be, because the last thing we
want is government (or private corporate agencies) invading the average
innocent person's privacy with the ease and thought one would give to
flipping through a yellow pages or tuning a cable box. Give them their
"tools" they scream so much for (Freeh really "needs" those
conversations), and you'll soon realize the people on the other ends of
those tools will be you, me and everyone else minding their own
business. Goodbye innocent until proven guilty, goodbye Bill of Rights,
hello technocratic-oligarchy/police state. Unless you believe we're all
just 'perps that have yet to be busted, like a lot of Reno's ilk. In
that case the next few years should leave you with the warm fuzzies and a
hankering to visit little paradises of order like Singapore. Leave the
gum home and smile at all the corner cameras!
*******************************************************
"Politicians, like produce, should be rotated often
to keep rot from setting in."
"If you're going to shoot a mime, do you have to use
a silencer?"
*******************************************************
Mark Eckenwiler
>In article <3omfa3$6...@panix.com>, Mark Eckenwiler <e...@panix.com> wrote:
>> I repeat the question: what case law do you have
>> supporting your position, regardless of the legal label you apply?
>> Are you going to duck the issue again?
>
>What I'm saying is that the case law _isn't sufficiently clear_ to
>justify your confidence that the Fourth Amendment will prevent random
>enforcement of a ban on strong crypto. Your question about ``void[ing] a
>fourth amendment violation'' is ill-founded if there isn't a violation
>in the first place.
That's just a dodge, and a lame one. _Katz_ says it's a violation in
the first place.
>Do you disagree? Fine. Go ahead and explain why you're so sure that the
>courts will do the right thing.
I already did. Since you evidently missed it, the _Katz_ decision
holds that the government cannot intercept private communications
unless it complies with the Fourth Amendment.
I note with profound amusement that, once again, you've attempted to
slide by my question -- which invited you to name specific cases
supporting your claim that the Fourth Amendment isn't violated if the
government discards the fruits of a search/seziure -- with this
pathetically vague allusion "the case law." One can only conclude
that you haven't the foggiest idea what the case law holds, and that
further discourse with you is a waste of effort.
Note followups.
D. J. Bernstein
> I note with profound amusement that, once again, you've attempted to
> slide by my question
Cut the bullshit, Mark.
I say that there doesn't exist case law that clearly applies to random
enforcement of a crypto ban. You say that _Katz_ clearly applies. I say
you're wrong.
To move the discussion forward, you can explain which holding from
_Katz_ you think applies to a strong crypto ban. (And I will point out
the error in your explanation.) Or you can point to another case that
you think would clearly apply.
> -- which invited you to name specific cases
> supporting your claim that the Fourth Amendment isn't violated if
[ etc. ]
I am not making any such claim. I say that the issue is UNCLEAR; there
IS NO CASE LAW that resolves it one way or the other. It's rather
idiotic to ask me for proof; do you expect me to run through every case
ever decided and tell you why it doesn't apply?
---Dan
Andrew C Bulhak
: that reminds me of a W.C. field's joke. a woman said to him,
: "you are an obnoxious drunk". and he said, "you are an ugly
: wench. ... however in the morning I will be sober."
Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said this?
--
Because of heavy processing requirements, we are currently using some of
your unused brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore any
hallucinations, voices or unusual dreams you may experience. Please avoid
concentration-intensive tasks until further notice. Thank you.
Richard Tobin
>I should point out that given the deaths of innocent children in Oke City,
>receive his comeuppance in due course, and not from me.
I think you're being unfair to Detweiler here. It always seemed to me
that his aim was to draw attention to the uses to which the
"cypherpunks" wish to put cryptography, such as tax evasion. His
"tentacle" diatribes have served to draw many people's attention to
the impossibility of knowing who is who on the net.
Of course, the other possibility is that Detweiler and Tim May are one
and the same, and the aim is merely to sow confusion.
-- Richard
--
I've got a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel.
Richard Tobin
>: that reminds me of a W.C. field's joke.
>Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said this?
What do you think the "W.C." stands for?
Mathew D. Hendry
: L.Detweiler (ldet...@csn.net) wrote:
: : that reminds me of a W.C. field's joke. a woman said to him,
: : "you are an obnoxious drunk". and he said, "you are an ugly
: : wench. ... however in the morning I will be sober."
: Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said this?
Usually.
However, most quotes by Englishmen usually end up being attributed to
George Bernard Shaw.
--Mat.
Larry Wall
D. J. Bernstein <d...@silverton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
: Fruit-of-the-forbidden-tree is irrelevant here. Remember, the machine
: would throw away successful decryptions, and sound an alert on
: unsuccessful decryptions. In neither case does the government possess
: the contents of the communication.
I believe we have the technology to successfully carry off massive
civil disobedience here. We could all just start sending random
messages occasionally to random places. How can it possibly be
illegal to ship random bits if they were never encrypted?
The following may or may not be treasonous:
16bce01f90a84008c0310127af43121208031a8060945cc06e38997e013c3a0d
000c807a0c3c20350468716a043b19ca524e08421670652c7002b901b0e29459
0b81eb0602139ded8197af0c0c618c0014d07e0920c0f16c2e5099aece7e318a
c140806c93e1c108712e08366b910838b91f9090c00890d16903cc01d4618003
a923000b4988000808307701d6e10c11808015faf60733fccd078b1003168f05
051760105864ac40be10504505c00002609462b430204405d2f070a9481c0c50
b038c609a10222743ce2130783c8
What percent of the network's bandwidth are we willing to sacrifice
for this?
Larry Wall
lw...@netlabs.com
David Sternlight
> I believe we have the technology to successfully carry off massive
> civil disobedience here. We could all just start sending random
> messages occasionally to random places. How can it possibly be
> illegal to ship random bits if they were never encrypted?
>
> The following may or may not be treasonous:
>
> 16bce01f90a84008c0310127af43121208031a8060945cc06e38997e013c3a0d
> 000c807a0c3c20350468716a043b19ca524e08421670652c7002b901b0e29459
> 0b81eb0602139ded8197af0c0c618c0014d07e0920c0f16c2e5099aece7e318a
> c140806c93e1c108712e08366b910838b91f9090c00890d16903cc01d4618003
> a923000b4988000808307701d6e10c11808015faf60733fccd078b1003168f05
> 051760105864ac40be10504505c00002609462b430204405d2f070a9481c0c50
> b038c609a10222743ce2130783c8
>
> What percent of the network's bandwidth are we willing to sacrifice
> for this?
What percentage of your work days and earnings are you willing to give up
for answering questions "downtown" about stuff that won't decrypt? This
kind of deliberate sand in the gears can often lead to out-of-pocket costs
that make it simply not worthwhile, particularly when there are better,
legal means to stop something like mandatory key escrow in its tracks.
If the government wanted to "get" you for this kind of thing under a
mandatory escrow law, they could also argue obstruction of law
enforcement. You might or might not win, but it wouldn't be cost free.
I've omitted the name of the original poster because this isn't personal.
It's just an ill-thought-through idea, on a par with people who add
inflammatory words and phrases to their .sig hoping to give the NSA a hard
time. What they forget is that since they are to date U.S. domestic, and
the NSA doesn't intercept domestic traffic, they are simply wasting
bandwidth and making themselves look foolish.
If you think you won't be subjected to some time-consuming investigation
if you post "civil disobedience", just consider the case of Detweiler,
whose Blacknet posts have already subject him both to a visit from the FBI
(he says), and likely an entry in a data base somewhere which could come
back to haunt him if he ever applies for a position of trust.
If you oppose mandatory key escrow, give some money to CPSR. I'd have
suggested EFF but their participation in drafting a modified wiretap law
instead of continuing to oppose one has shaken my confidence in them. I
can just see them "helping out" with a mandatory key escrow law by
suggesting the Supreme Court Clerk's Association being the escrow holders,
or some such, instead of opposing mandatory key escrow tooth and nail.
David Sternlight
Andrew C Bulhak <a...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>L.Detweiler (ldet...@csn.net) wrote:
>
>: that reminds me of a W.C. field's joke. a woman said to him,
>: "you are an obnoxious drunk". and he said, "you are an ugly
>: wench. ... however in the morning I will be sober."
>
>Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said this?
>
David
Barbara Hamel
: In article <3opf35$4...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au> a...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au (Andrew C Bulhak) writes:
: >: that reminds me of a W.C. field's joke.
: >Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said this?
: What do you think the "W.C." stands for?
Water closet. Ask a hard one next time.
Barbara "I've a royal flush -- beat that" Hamel
--
Barbara Hamel | If I had to speculate on the origins of the
bha...@fas.harvard.edu | practice, I would guess vodka was involved.
| - Cindy Kandolf
Tal Kubo
>> I note with profound amusement that, once again, you've attempted to
>> slide by my question
>
>Cut the bullshit, Mark.
>
>I say that there doesn't exist case law that clearly applies to random
>enforcement of a crypto ban. You say that _Katz_ clearly applies. I say
>you're wrong.
Point of difference: Eckenwiler didn't merely assert, he explained in
detail the reasoning linking the 4th amendment a la _Katz_ to random
decrypt-and-discard enforcement. All we've seen from Bernstein so far
is bluster about "the case law" and "what a court might say", but no
substantive rebuttal.
If Bernstein thinks that the randomness and/or the discarding of the
decrypts somehow severs the connection to the 4th Amendment, he should
explain why.
>
>To move the discussion forward, you can explain which holding from
>_Katz_ you think applies to a strong crypto ban.
This has already happened.
> (And I will point out
>the error in your explanation.)
This has not yet happened.
> Or you can point to another case that
>you think would clearly apply.
Try any of the recent cases where random suspicionless drug testing was
held to violate the 4th amendment. Or consult Carr's treatise on The Law
Of Electronic Surveillance. Feel free to actually visit a library and look
something up.
>
>> -- which invited you to name specific cases
>> supporting your claim that the Fourth Amendment isn't violated if
> [ etc. ]
>
>I am not making any such claim. I say that the issue is UNCLEAR; there
>IS NO CASE LAW that resolves it one way or the other. It's rather
>idiotic to ask me for proof; do you expect me to run through every case
>ever decided and tell you why it doesn't apply?
Case law was cited that appears to apply prima facie.
If you think it doesn't apply, feel free to explain why not.
Jason R. Heimbaugh
>Barbara "I've a royal flush -- beat that" Hamel
So you've got Princess Di's douche bag, big deal. I know *I'd* be
bragging about having a man who's sole aspiration is the preservation
of British English whilst becoming a tampon.
--
Jason R. Heimbaugh - j...@cathouse.org
"Out of all the ones you said you'd use on me, that's the only one?"
--Jennifer Nelson, j-ne...@uiuc.edu
Tal Kubo
>> D. J. Bernstein <d...@silverton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> > To move the discussion forward, you can explain which holding from
>> > _Katz_ you think applies to a strong crypto ban.
>> This has already happened.
>
In. This. Newsgroup.
> Give an exact quote.
Hypocrisy alert. Deceptive contextfrei quoting is standard Bernstein
procedure. To cite just one example: there was a long thread a few months
ago in sci.math, devoted to Bernstein's use of selective, tendentious
"quotes" to misrepresent the contents of an earlier discussion. Shall I
regale the readership here with some amusing *exact quotes*?
> Where did anyone state a holding from
>_Katz_,
"Since you evidently missed it, the _Katz_ decision holds that the
government cannot intercept private communications unless it complies
with the Fourth Amendment. "
> let alone explain how that holding would apply?
"Throwing them away makes no difference. Acquiring the messages is a
seizure, and investigating their content is a search; with those
elements, the constitutional offense is perfected regardless of what
the government does thereafter."
"If the government successfully decrypts a message, then they have the
contents; what they do after that is utterly beside the point for Fourth
Amendment purposes."
"Indeed, even if the government fails to decrypt a message, they've
effected a seizure. If the police enter my house without authorization and
take my morning mail without opening it, they have violated the Fourth
Amendment; likewise, if they open it and discover themselves unable to
read it because my pen pals and I always write in Cretan Linear A, they
have still violated the Fourth Amendment. "
>
>(Note to t.p.crypto readers not familiar with Tal's tactics: Tal is even
>less accurate than Sternlight in summarizing previous discussion. When
>he makes claims about what someone has said, he's usually lying. Never
>believe his paraphrases.
Awwww. Danno is still stewing over the aforementioned sci.math discussion,
from which he emerged charred with his credibility in tatters. At least
three (3) participants in that discussion identified Bernstein as a liar.
> Always ask him for exact quotes and precise
>references.)
Another amazingly hypocritical remark. In the very discussion Bernstein
is alluding to, he was repeatedly asked to provide a precise reference for
material he had quoted; he failed to do so.
Moss-Jusefowytsch OEG
> It's just an ill-thought-through idea, on a par with people who add
> inflammatory words and phrases to their .sig hoping to give the NSA a hard
> time. What they forget is that since they are to date U.S. domestic, and
> the NSA doesn't intercept domestic traffic, they are simply wasting
> bandwidth and making themselves look foolish.
I'll return the favor :-)! To clarify one point: the NSA *does* intercept
phone calls that originate in USA but go to foreign countries. A usenet
post that originates in USA will end up in foreign countries. Therefore,
I'm sure the NSA has no legal problems examining UseNet posts.
## CrossPoint v3.0 ##
Gerben Wierda
>Some nations (perhaps Finland, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, etc.)
>won't ban cryptography, but others will. After all, most people don't care if
In The Netherlands, the justice department still plans on ``regulating
cryptography''. The previous attempt misfired, but as far as I know, they still plan
to `ban' ``strong cryptography'', or to be more precise, use a license scheme
where you can get a license under the conditions that you are not a convicted
criminal and that you promise to give them the unencrypted information of they
want to. They haven't figured out how to enforce the regulation yet, though.
--Gerben
Kurt Guntheroth
> There is no acceptable limitation on privacy, anymore than there
>is an acceptable sized flame near a hydrogen balloon. In both cases
>there is danger of total loss.
Privacy is limited by the constitution. A warrant issues for just cause
permitting search and seizure.
Cyber-rights folks appear to argue that they should have *more* privacy in
cyberspace than they have in the world. In the world, the police can open
any lock with authorization of a warrant. We've lived with this law for
200 years (in the US). And we are not a police state. We are mostly quite
happy with the situation. In cyberspace, if cyber-rights folks win the day,
there will be invulnerable locks, with the occasional crook hiding behind.
To John Q Public, we have something to prove. We have to say *why* we
should be more free in cyberspace. We have to make a case why his worldly
posessions may be searched, but our intellectual property may not.
Personally I think this is a good idea. It is easier to justify the
greater privacy in a world consisting only of thought. In cyberspace,
there may be theft, but no robbery; harrassment, but no battery, rape,
or murder; pornography, but no pedarasty.
But we must learn how to make this argument to John Q. And I don't know how
to do this.
Any thoughts?
David Sternlight
(Moss-Jusefowytsch OEG) wrote:
> > I've omitted the name of the original poster because this isn't personal.
> > It's just an ill-thought-through idea, on a par with people who add
> > inflammatory words and phrases to their .sig hoping to give the NSA a hard
> > time. What they forget is that since they are to date U.S. domestic, and
> > the NSA doesn't intercept domestic traffic, they are simply wasting
> > bandwidth and making themselves look foolish.
>
> I'll return the favor :-)! To clarify one point: the NSA *does* intercept
> phone calls that originate in USA but go to foreign countries.
Evidence? I thought the rule was that if the call had its origin in the
U.S. and one of the parties was a U.S. Cit they couldn't.
But when it comes to usenet posts, there's no "interception" involved
since they're public and there's no law preventing any government agency
from having an Internet acccount. Of course they would probably get yelled
at by wasting time reading usenet on government time when they should be
working. Usenet posts are probably number 374 on the NSA's list of
concerns, just below making sure not to be attacked by Pterodactyls while
walking to the cafeteria.
David
Mark Eckenwiler
>In article <1995May1208...@silverton.berkeley.edu>,
>d...@silverton.berkeley.edu (D. J. Bernstein) wrote:
>
>> (Note to t.p.crypto readers not familiar with Tal's tactics: Tal is even
>> less accurate than Sternlight in summarizing previous discussion. When
>> he makes claims about what someone has said, he's usually lying. Never
>> references.)
>
>By dealing in the gratuitous smear you have now lost all credibility
>except with juvenile jerks. Shame!
Speaking of credibility, David, are you planning to offer the
requested support for your recent claim that RICO conspiracy law
shifts the burden of proof onto the defendants?
I eagerly await your response.
Mark Eckenwiler
>But when it comes to usenet posts, there's no "interception" involved
>since they're public
Close. It's an "interception," but it's lawful. See 18 USC
2511(g)(i).
David Sternlight
Details, please. I don't understand how it's any different than buying a
newspaper or going to a movie if you're a government employee. Usenet
newsgroups are on public offer and are in no sense private. Mailing lists
maybe; e-mail certainly. But newsgroups?
David
Mark Eckenwiler
>In article <3p0ghi$7...@panix.com>, e...@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) wrote:
>
>> In <strnlght-120...@192.0.2.1>, strn...@netcom.com sez:
>>
>> >But when it comes to usenet posts, there's no "interception" involved
>> >since they're public
>>
>> Close. It's an "interception," but it's lawful. See 18 USC
>> 2511(g)(i).
>
>Details, please. I don't understand how it's any different than buying a
>newspaper or going to a movie if you're a government employee. Usenet
>newsgroups are on public offer and are in no sense private. Mailing lists
>maybe; e-mail certainly. But newsgroups?
It's perfectly obvious that you don't understand even when details are
put in front of you.
1) It's an "interception" within the meaning of Title III and ECPA,
contrary to your claim.
2) It's legal under the exception for communications readily available
to the public.
David Sternlight
(Jurgen Botz) wrote:
> In article <strnlght-100...@192.0.2.1>,
> David Sternlight <strn...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >What percentage of your work days and earnings are you willing to give up
> >for answering questions "downtown" about stuff that won't decrypt?
>
> Can you expect to fight any fight without any costs to yourself?
>
> >This kind of deliberate sand in the gears can often lead to
> >out-of-pocket costs that make it simply not worthwhile,
>
> Hmmm... I wonder where society would be if everyone had that attitude.
> Can you imagine Dr. Martin Luther King or Mohandas Ghandi saying:
> "The personal costs of civil disobedience are simply too high to be
> worthwhile"?
Ghandi and King both rejected many proposed forms of civil disobedience as
"not worthwhile" and very carefully picked strategies that would be
effective and create wide sympathy. Your posting random strings is whining
in the closet.
Posting random strings which might or might not be unescrowed crypto isn't
going to bother anyone. You are a gnat on the body politic--it's spies,
drug lords, and terrorists they're looking for, and they first have reason
for suspicion, then they watch. The government not only can't cast a net
on the entire citizenry for strong legal reasons (and any attempt would
show), but even if they wanted to they have neither the money or the
resources so to do.
The notion that you can somehow discomfit the government by such tactics
ranks with the flea floating down the river on a leaf shouthing "Raise the
drawbridge--I've got an erection."
What's more, if you WERE in the class of possible suspects, you'd draw
attention to yourself by this behavior--the last thing you want if you're
really up to something.
Thus there's no upside for you in such tactics--it's all downside. To
compound your folly by attempting to associate your proposed tactic, or
your topic with King or Ghandi suggests that you have a severe defect in
your sense of reality.
>
> >particularly when there are better,
> >legal means to stop something like mandatory key escrow in its tracks.
>
> We've been fighting and we haven't stopped it in its tracks yet...
Baloney. Mandatory key escrow has never been officially proposed by the
government.
>
> And btw., your attempt at dismissing civil disobedience as a valid
> and powerful political tool exposes you for what you are (not that
> we don't all know already.)
Since you're stooping to ad hominem, let me return the favor. Your attempt
to associate posting random text to annoy the government with Ghandi,
King, and their issues marks you as uh, er, um, ill-informed.
David Sternlight
d...@silverton.berkeley.edu (D. J. Bernstein) wrote:
> Tal Kubo <ku...@abel.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > D. J. Bernstein <d...@silverton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > > To move the discussion forward, you can explain which holding from
> > > _Katz_ you think applies to a strong crypto ban.
> > This has already happened.
>
> Where? Give an exact quote. Where did anyone state a holding from
> _Katz_, let alone explain how that holding would apply?
>
> (Note to t.p.crypto readers not familiar with Tal's tactics: Tal is even
> less accurate than Sternlight in summarizing previous discussion. When
> he makes claims about what someone has said, he's usually lying. Never
> believe his paraphrases. Always ask him for exact quotes and precise
> references.)
By dealing in the gratuitous smear you have now lost all credibility
except with juvenile jerks. Shame!
David
David L Evens
David Sternlight (strn...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <5lkMP...@site33.ping.at>, rse...@site33.ping.at
: (Moss-Jusefowytsch OEG) wrote:
: > > I've omitted the name of the original poster because this isn't personal.
: > > It's just an ill-thought-through idea, on a par with people who add
: > > inflammatory words and phrases to their .sig hoping to give the NSA a hard
: > > time. What they forget is that since they are to date U.S. domestic, and
: > > the NSA doesn't intercept domestic traffic, they are simply wasting
: > > bandwidth and making themselves look foolish.
: >
: > I'll return the favor :-)! To clarify one point: the NSA *does* intercept
: > phone calls that originate in USA but go to foreign countries.
: Evidence? I thought the rule was that if the call had its origin in the
: U.S. and one of the parties was a U.S. Cit they couldn't.
They have no way to determine that. In any event, the NSA is above the law.
: But when it comes to usenet posts, there's no "interception" involved
: since they're public and there's no law preventing any government agency
: from having an Internet acccount. Of course they would probably get yelled
: at by wasting time reading usenet on government time when they should be
: working. Usenet posts are probably number 374 on the NSA's list of
: concerns, just below making sure not to be attacked by Pterodactyls while
: walking to the cafeteria.
Email, however, can indeed be intercepted. Moreover, any email crossing
US borders, as well as any email of foreign nationals inside the US, and
any email of US citizens outside the US, is subject the their examination.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Is his name 'Dick Earth'?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rick hoselton
>
>In article <Pine.ULT.3.91.950509...@curie.unh.edu> KORAC <korac
>...
>Privacy is limited by the constitution. A warrant issues for just cause
>permitting search and seizure.....
Yes, it's written that way in my copy too....
>Cyber-rights folks appear to argue that they should have *more* privacy in
>cyberspace than they have in the world. In the world, the police can open
>any lock with authorization of a warrant.
I could write my diary on rice paper, that disolves in water, and place it
in a safe that will dump water on it if the safe is moved, forced, or opened
with a "duress" combination. There is no law against such a safe.
>We've lived with this law for 200 years (in the US). And we are not a police
>state.
A police state is not a true/false quality. Americans have many rights, and
the government is fairly good aboout recognizing and protecting them. For MOST
people. MOST of the time.
>We are mostly quite happy with the situation.
Then WE are probably white, adult, heterosexual, employed, etc. Or maybe not, but
the point I'm trying to make is that people in all societies have always been
"free" to behave in ways that pleased the governemt. Who do you think gets more
traffic tickets, the guy with an ACLU bumper sticker, or a "The Badge means you
Care" bumper sticker. It shouldn't make any difference. I believe it does.
>In cyberspace, if cyber-rights folks win the day,
>there will be invulnerable locks, with the occasional crook hiding behind.
Criminals often hide behind warious constitutional rights. Anybody who
thinks this will not happen is an idiot. Our founding fathers were not idiots.
They clearly understood what society is like with and without these freedoms.
They also understood the difference was worth fighting and if necessary, worth
dying for.
>To John Q Public, we have something to prove. We have to say *why* we
>should be more free in cyberspace. We have to make a case why his worldly
>posessions may be searched, but our intellectual property may not.
I suppose so, but it irritates me to have to ask politely for what I believe
is mine by right. Or to have my rights denied to me by people I hire to protect
them.
>Personally I think this is a good idea. It is easier to justify the
>greater privacy in a world consisting only of thought. In cyberspace,
>there may be theft, but no robbery; harrassment, but no battery, rape,
>or murder; pornography, but no pedarasty.
Very well put, I think. In spite of what I wrote above, somehow we all HAVE to
reach enough of a consensus to live together. If all of us blew up buildings
whenever we got frustrated by injustice things would be even more crazy than they
are. But if a government cannot trust its citizens with privacy then perhaps
voting and free speech are next. This issue is more important than just
cryptography. Do people institute governments to protect inalienable rights, or
do governments rule by might, and grant or deny rights at their discretion?
_____________________________________
Rick Hoselton h...@univel.telescan.com
_______________________________________
David L Evens
: In article <Pine.ULT.3.91.950509...@curie.unh.edu> KORAC <ko...@somewhere.in.space-time> writes:
: > There is no acceptable limitation on privacy, anymore than there
: >is an acceptable sized flame near a hydrogen balloon. In both cases
: >there is danger of total loss.
: Privacy is limited by the constitution. A warrant issues for just cause
: permitting search and seizure.
This doesn't require the person or persons who's premices are being
searched to actively assist the police in that search.
: Cyber-rights folks appear to argue that they should have *more* privacy in
: cyberspace than they have in the world. In the world, the police can open
: any lock with authorization of a warrant. We've lived with this law for
: 200 years (in the US). And we are not a police state. We are mostly quite
: happy with the situation. In cyberspace, if cyber-rights folks win the day,
: there will be invulnerable locks, with the occasional crook hiding behind.
Of course, this is a red herring, since there have been physical locks
that have been practically unbreakable as well.
: To John Q Public, we have something to prove. We have to say *why* we
: should be more free in cyberspace. We have to make a case why his worldly
: posessions may be searched, but our intellectual property may not.
This, of course, isn't related to anything being discussed.
: Personally I think this is a good idea. It is easier to justify the
: greater privacy in a world consisting only of thought. In cyberspace,
: there may be theft, but no robbery; harrassment, but no battery, rape,
: or murder; pornography, but no pedarasty.
: But we must learn how to make this argument to John Q. And I don't know how
: to do this.
: Any thoughts?
--
Mark Eckenwiler
>
[re reading Usenet articles]
>> 1) It's an "interception" within the meaning of Title III and ECPA,
>> contrary to your claim.
>>
>> 2) It's legal under the exception for communications readily available
>> to the public.
>
>reputation. How is reading a newsgroup to which anyone is invited an
>"interception"? You still haven't answered the question.
It's an "interception" as that term is defined in the relevant
statute, as I've already explained (with citation) above. I see no
reason for your inability to grasp this straightforward response.
>By the way, I made no claim, ego-breath--I said "I don't understand how".
By the way, you're wrong. Here's your claim, David:
>> >> In <strnlght-120...@192.0.2.1>, strn...@netcom.com sez:
>> >>
Andrew C Bulhak
: Posting random strings which might or might not be unescrowed crypto isn't
: going to bother anyone. You are a gnat on the body politic--it's spies,
: drug lords, and terrorists they're looking for, and they first have reason
: for suspicion, then they watch. The government not only can't cast a net
You forgot "paedophiles".
Also, don't forget COINTELPRO; the agencies of law enforcement often target
political targets (the civil rights movement, left/right-wing groups).
In the 1960s, the FBI harassed the civil rights movement, the anti-war
movement and the communists; these days, the targets would be drug
legalisation groups, anti-censorship groups, anarcholibertarians, etc.
You may be under suspicion if you ever posted to talk.politics.drugs, or
even if you associate with known subversives.
Andrew C Bulhak
: In article <3p0ghi$7...@panix.com>, e...@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) wrote:
: > In <strnlght-120...@192.0.2.1>, strn...@netcom.com sez:
: >
: > >But when it comes to usenet posts, there's no "interception" involved
: > >since they're public
: >
: > Close. It's an "interception," but it's lawful. See 18 USC
: > 2511(g)(i).
: Details, please. I don't understand how it's any different than buying a
: newspaper or going to a movie if you're a government employee. Usenet
: newsgroups are on public offer and are in no sense private. Mailing lists
: maybe; e-mail certainly. But newsgroups?
What is the distinction between mailing list traffic and "e-mail"?
Is one legally less protected than the other?
D. J. Bernstein
> D. J. Bernstein <d...@silverton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > let alone explain how that holding would apply?
> seizure, and investigating their content is a search;
Clue in, Tal. I already responded to that, saying: ``I too would like to
see the language used that way; but I don't see why you're so sure that
a court will agree.''
Again, I fervently hope that, if the government tries to enforce a ban
on strong crypto, a court _will_ agree that the enforcement mechanisms
are unconstitutional. But I'm not going to pin my hopes on the Fourth
Amendment. Instead, let's work to keep the ban from being passed in the
first place. Strong crypto is a powerful crime-fighting tool. A ban on
strong crypto would abridge everyone's freedom of speech.
I'm playing devil's advocate not for fun, but because I don't want to
see people focusing on secondary issues at the expense of primary
issues.
> > Always ask him for exact quotes and precise
> > references.)
> Another amazingly hypocritical remark. In the very discussion Bernstein
> is alluding to, he was repeatedly asked to provide a precise reference for
> material he had quoted; he failed to do so.
Tal's trying to make it sound here as if I had engaged in his despicable
practice of falsely attributing material to someone. In fact, exactly
the opposite is true. I didn't attribute the material to anyone. (I did
put it in quotes, because it wasn't original.)
By singling out this example of Tal's dishonesty I don't mean to lend
any credence to anything else he says. Remember, folks, Tal is even less
accurate than Sternlight. Always ask him for exact quotes and precise
references. Even better, ignore him.
---Dan
David Sternlight
> In <strnlght-120...@192.0.2.1>, strn...@netcom.com sez:
> >In article <3p0ghi$7...@panix.com>, e...@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) wrote:
> >
> >> In <strnlght-120...@192.0.2.1>, strn...@netcom.com sez:
> >>
> >> >But when it comes to usenet posts, there's no "interception" involved
> >> >since they're public
> >>
> >> Close. It's an "interception," but it's lawful. See 18 USC
> >> 2511(g)(i).
> >
> >Details, please. I don't understand how it's any different than buying a
> >newspaper or going to a movie if you're a government employee. Usenet
> >newsgroups are on public offer and are in no sense private. Mailing lists
> >maybe; e-mail certainly. But newsgroups?
>
> It's perfectly obvious that you don't understand even when details are
> put in front of you.
>
> 1) It's an "interception" within the meaning of Title III and ECPA,
> contrary to your claim.
>
> 2) It's legal under the exception for communications readily available
> to the public.
Being arrogant instead of answering the question only kills your own
reputation. How is reading a newsgroup to which anyone is invited an
"interception"? You still haven't answered the question.
By the way, I made no claim, ego-breath--I said "I don't understand how".
David
D. J. Bernstein
> Dan's notion that he is here to "lead" us
> toward political action is as touching as it is presumptuous.
Typical wife-beating comment a la Tal.
I don't hold any such notion. I consider most political action a huge
waste of my time, imposed on me by nosy control freaks who can't just
live and let live.
By the way, Tal, where did I use the word ``lead''?
> > saying: ``I too would like to
> > see the language used that way; but I don't see why you're so sure that
> > a court will agree.''
> In other words, you are gainsaying in the absence of an actual argument.
Baloney. I was _asking_ why Mark was so sure that a court will consider
random attempted decryption of supposedly legally encrypted data, where
successfully decrypted data is always thrown away, to be a ``seizure''
under the Fourth Amendment. This is easily distinguishable from the
situation in _Katz_.
Let's say the decryption device is built into the phones---you can't buy
a phone without such a device. In fact, let's say the decryption device
is the Clipper chip. You are probably aware that Clipper chips turn off
the encryption when they notice that the LEAF has been modified. That
isn't a ``seizure.''
Suppose the Clipper chips go further, and broadcast an alert to the
authorities if they notice LEAF tampering. Is that a ``seizure''?
Suppose the Clipper chips go even further, and look at not just the LEAF
but at the contents of the communication. If your communication doesn't
sound like (low-entropy) voice data, the Clipper chip broadcasts an
alert. Is that a ``seizure''?
Have you ever heard of pen registers, Tal?
Repeated allusions to _Katz_ do nothing to answer these questions.
> (not to mention your insinuation
> that my dead-on accuracy on that point was a lie)?
Insinuation? You make it sound so subtle. I was simply following the
advice that I gave everyone else about trusting your paraphrases.
> And there were several other arguments, amplifying the
> reasoning quoted above, which you simply ignored and did not answer.
Where? What were the arguments? There were certainly a number of
arguments along fruit-of-the-poisoned-tree lines, but my question is why
it's so clear that the tree was poisoned in the first place.
> Misdirection alert. Bernstein is trying to shift the focus from his
> dubious assertions about Fourth Amendment case law, which he is unable or
> unwilling to defend,
The aim here is not to ``defend,'' Tal, but to find the truth. It's a
shame if your goal is different.
---Dan
David Sternlight
a...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au (Andrew C Bulhak) wrote:
> What is the distinction between mailing list traffic and "e-mail"?
> Is one legally less protected than the other?
Yes. To the extent that anyone may subscribe to a mailing list, usually
automatically, there's nothing that makes a government employee's
subscription "interception". But if the e-mail isn't addressed to him, it
is.
The nut cases here, who see the government as the devil, forget that when
one goes to work for the government he doesn't give up his civil rights or
his citizenship.
That one is a government employee doesn't disqualify one from reading
usenet newsgroups, or subcribing to Internet mailing lists.
David
Tal Kubo
>Tal Kubo <ku...@abel.harvard.edu> wrote:
>> D. J. Bernstein <d...@silverton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> > let alone explain how that holding would apply?
>> "Throwing them away makes no difference. Acquiring the messages is a
>> seizure, and investigating their content is a search;
>
>Clue in, Tal.
Sorry to burst your bubble, O Clueless One, but it was you who
couldn't remember the contents of articles you'd replied to a couple
of iterations ago. I take it that you recant the suggestion that no
holdings from _Katz_ had been stated here (not to mention your insinuation
that my dead-on accuracy on that point was a lie)?
> I already responded to that,
No, you didn't. Ignorant speculation is hardly a "response" to an
argument, is it? And there were several other arguments, amplifying the
reasoning quoted above, which you simply ignored and did not answer.
As it stands, you have yet to provide a shred of support for your claims
that 4th amendment applicability is unclear.
> saying: ``I too would like to
>see the language used that way; but I don't see why you're so sure that
>a court will agree.''
In other words, you are gainsaying in the absence of an actual argument.
You made very specific claims: (a) the "case law" is unclear; (b) automated
random decrypt-and-discard has special features that might exempt it from
Fourth Amendment scrutiny. Do you have actual arguments to support this?
>
>Again, I fervently hope that, if the government tries to enforce a ban
>on strong crypto, a court _will_ agree that the enforcement mechanisms
>are unconstitutional. But I'm not going to pin my hopes on the Fourth
>Amendment. Instead, let's work to keep the ban from being passed in the
>first place. Strong crypto is a powerful crime-fighting tool. A ban on
>strong crypto would abridge everyone's freedom of speech.
Misdirection alert. Bernstein is trying to shift the focus from his
dubious assertions about Fourth Amendment case law, which he is unable or
unwilling to defend, by resorting to motherhood-and-apple-pie exhortations
about fighting a crypto ban. Dan's notion that he is here to "lead" us
toward political action is as touching as it is presumptuous.
>I'm playing devil's advocate not for fun, but because I don't want to
>see people focusing on secondary issues at the expense of primary
>issues.
SNAP OUT OF IT. The focus of discussion here is just fine without
Your Majesty's intervention. This includes dwelling on amusing
"secondary issues", such as debunking I Are A Lawyer bogosity from the
likes of Bernstein.
Anyway, the relationship between Fourth Amendment interpretation and crypto
regulation is a vital *primary issue* in this newsgroup and has been from
day one.
>> > Always ask him for exact quotes and precise
>> > references.)
>> Another amazingly hypocritical remark. In the very discussion Bernstein
>> is alluding to, he was repeatedly asked to provide a precise reference for
>> material he had quoted; he failed to do so.
>
>Tal's trying to make it sound here as if I had engaged in his despicable
>practice of falsely attributing material to someone.
Bernstein's paranoid deduction speaks volumes about his state of mind.
I was simply commenting on the discrepancy between his demands for
"exact quotes" and his refusal to provide references when asked.
But now that Dan brings it up: yes, he does misrepresent his sources.
Quite often, in fact.
> In fact, exactly
>the opposite is true. I didn't attribute the material to anyone. (I did
>put it in quotes, because it wasn't original.)
Attribution was requested, repeatedly, and Bernstein refused to provide
it. How well does this square with Dan's demands for exact quotes?
>
>By singling out this example of Tal's dishonesty I don't mean to lend
>any credence to anything else he says.
SNAP OUT OF IT! Seek professional help if necessary.
The notion that the readership assesses credibility based
on statements in Bernstein's postings, let alone possible secondary
inferences from such statements, is deranged raving egomania.
> Remember, folks, Tal is even less
>accurate than Sternlight.
The swipes at Sternlight are rather hypocritical.
In this thread alone we've seen Bernstein make strident, ignorant
pronouncements about "the case law"; refuse to back these up when
challenged; dodge all attempts to argue specific points; excuse his
shoddiness with references to "playing devil's advocate" and steering the
discussion toward more important matters; and trash his interlocutors as an
excuse for ignoring them.
Quiz: which regular poster on crypto-issues has drawn flack for using
these very rhetorical strategies?
>Always ask him for exact quotes and precise
>references. Even better, ignore him.
Translation: Dan feels another round of public humiliation coming on, and
wishes to "save face" by pre-emptively weaseling out of the discussion.
Larry Wall
David Sternlight <strn...@netcom.com> wrote:
: Ghandi and King both rejected many proposed forms of civil disobedience as
: "not worthwhile" and very carefully picked strategies that would be
: effective and create wide sympathy.
Okay, say my random data happens to be a picture of my kids. I get put
away for 40 years for sending a compressed picture of my kids to my
wife. This creates no "wide sympathy"?
: Your posting random strings is whining in the closet.
So you think of the Internet as a closet, do you?
: Posting random strings which might or might not be unescrowed crypto isn't
: going to bother anyone.
You just got through arguing that it *would* bother people. Much as I love
to argue both sides of a question, it's a debatable debate tactic.
: You are a gnat on the body politic--it's spies,
: drug lords, and terrorists they're looking for, and they first have reason
: for suspicion, then they watch. The government not only can't cast a net
: on the entire citizenry for strong legal reasons (and any attempt would
: show), but even if they wanted to they have neither the money or the
: resources so to do.
Let's hope you're right. I hope to remain a gnat on the body politic.
But if the body politic starts swatting gnats, I hope the gnats get
upset. You seem to think I'm advocating individual action. I'm not.
I'm advocating collective action by individuals. The body politic will
not ignore a million angry gnats, if it ever comes down to it. And I
hope it doesn't.
That aside, you seem to believe that I have little understanding of the
inefficiency of .sig fodder. Believe me, I know exactly how easy .sig
fodder is to deal with. I have to. I also know what it would take to
defeat my .sig fodder filters. The only reason the .sig fodder is
ineffective is because most people aren't all that passionate about
defeating my kibozer. Most people are nice to me.
You also seem to believe that I have little understanding of how tails
can wag dogs. That's okay, if you'll allow me believe the same of you.
I'll work on my track record, and you work on yours.
: The notion that you can somehow discomfit the government by such tactics
: ranks with the flea floating down the river on a leaf shouthing "Raise the
: drawbridge--I've got an erection."
I wasn't asking for the drawbridge to be raised. I was merely
performing a thought experiment on how a billion fleas might react on
being told they had to drop their drawers to pass the drawbridge.
Let's state it mathematically. For any sized flea, there exists some
number N, for which N or more fleas will make one's life miserable.
And the number N can be made to vary exponentially, given sufficiently
warm weather and a suitable carpet.
You think you're speaking to me singular, but I think I'm speaking to
us plural. Ultimately, the whole world is listening. And there's
nothing as powerful as a self-evident idea.
You'd think this would be self-evident.
: What's more, if you WERE in the class of possible suspects, you'd draw
: attention to yourself by this behavior--the last thing you want if you're
: really up to something.
Okay, you're still arguing the point that massive civil disobedience
may never become necessary. I fervently hope to agree with your
scenario. But it appears that many people in high places don't agree.
I'm a little more worried about them than you.
: Thus there's no upside for you in such tactics--it's all downside.
Upside for me?!?!
Let me get this straight. We're deciding the ultimate ownership of
information for our children and their children forever and ever, and
you're worried about whether there's an upside to martyrdom?
You're not supposed to enjoy being a martyr.
: To compound your folly by attempting to associate your proposed tactic, or
: your topic with King or Ghandi suggests that you have a severe defect in
: your sense of reality.
King and Ghandi were once gnats on the body politic too. I hope my sense
of reality is as severely defective as theirs.
Just say no to naysayers.
Larry Wall
lw...@netlabs.com
D. J. Bernstein
> Dan's fraudulent use of legal jargon
> ("distinguishable", "consequent", etc)
Apparently Tal thinks it's fraudulent for a non-lawyer to use legal
jargon. What idiocy. (What's most pathetic is that the examples he chose
of ``jargon'' are words whose legal meanings and English meanings are
essentially the same.)
[ trying to defend the following amusing fantasy: ]
> > > Dan's notion that he is here to "lead" us toward political action
> > Okay, Tal: Why did you use the quote marks, if you weren't trying to
> > imply that this was a quote?
> Strike a blow for the illiteracy theory.
It's a simple question, Tal. Why did you use the quote marks?
Sure, there are lots of meanings of quote marks, but the most obvious
meaning here is that you were giving a quote. Even if that's not what
you meant, it's what lots of readers assumed you meant (yes, I checked),
and you should apologize for giving a false impression.
> Of course, when confronted with the fact of his having lied through his
> teeth in this very thread, Dan failed to make any explanation or apology.
Another wife-beating comment a la Tal. This ``fact'' is a fantasy.
The real story shows how events explode in Tal's mind. First Tal stated
that something had been said. I asked him where.
Tal interpreted my question as an ``insinuation'' that he was lying. I
explained: ``I was simply following the advice that I gave everyone else
about trusting your paraphrases.''
Next Tal moved up to accusing me of lying through my teeth. He wasn't
referring to anything new---he was still talking about the original
_question_. I didn't bother responding to this accusation.
Now Tal has reached the next level, where he treats his ``lied through
his teeth'' fantasy as an accepted fact, and then complains about how I
didn't apologize.
> What is your expert opinion, O Accurate One, concerning the despicable
> Big-Deal-ness of your flub about "fruit of the forbidden tree"?
It was an error, and it was corrected. What's ``despicable'' about that?
Do you see me running around, Tal-style, denying the error, or trying to
downplay it by claiming that errors made in public aren't a big deal?
> Or your
> outright lies?
Typical Tal style: refer to his own delusions as if they were facts.
> Or your fraudulent use of legal terminology?
Here we go again. How do you think ``use of legal terminology'' can be
``fraudulent,'' Tal, and where do you think I engaged in such
``fraudulent use''?
---Dan
D. J. Bernstein
> Overwhelming assumption alert: the crypto enforcement scenario discussed
> here is small potatoes compared to imposing this as a *legislated*
> requirement.
Wake up, Tal: the question is what will happen _if_ strong crypto is
banned. What I've been saying all along is that we should stop that ban
from being passed in the first place. If it _does_ pass, though, it's
not clear to me that the Fourth Amendment will prevent its enforcement.
Anyway, if you think it matters at some point in the argument whether
non-Clipper phones are legal, feel free to say so at that point.
> Even if the government acquires some sort of zero-knowledge proof about
> some characteristic (such as non-decryptability) of the message, it is a
> seizure if obtained by examining that message.
The law is not information theory, Tal. Just because it's illegal to
eavesdrop on a message doesn't mean it's illegal to obtain a few bits of
information about the message---who was talking, whether the message was
encrypted, etc.
I would _like_ the law to say that the police can't do traffic analysis
without a warrant, but that's not what it says.
Simimlarly, I would _like_ the law to say that the police can't find out
without a warrant whether your Clipper-encrypted message was
super-encrypted, but THIS HAS NOT YET BEEN SETTLED IN THE COURTS.
> > > > You are probably aware that Clipper chips turn off
> > > > the encryption when they notice that the LEAF has been modified. That
> > > > isn't a ``seizure.''
> > > > Suppose the Clipper chips go further, and broadcast an alert to the
> > > > authorities if they notice LEAF tampering. Is that a ``seizure''?
Tal has finally answered this: he says he's willing to assume for this
discussion that the answer is no.
In other words, the mere fact of the Clipper chip alerting the police
doesn't clearly constitute a ``seizure.'' Good enough.
(By the way, Tal, why are you being so wishy-washy about it, if _Katz_
makes everything so clear? Correct answer: _Katz_ does not, in fact,
address these issues. It deals with a different situation.)
> > > > Suppose the Clipper chips go even further, and look at not just the LEAF
> > > > but at the contents of the communication. If your communication doesn't
> > > > sound like (low-entropy) voice data, the Clipper chip broadcasts an
> > > > alert. Is that a ``seizure''?
> > > Clearly, it is.
> > That's it? That's your entire argument? ``Clearly, it is''?
> It is abundantly clear. Have you consulted the literature?
Yes, I have, and it is _not_ abundantly clear. You will have to do
better than proof by repeated assertion.
> > Where's the seizure? When did the government acquire the contents of
> > your communication?
> When examining the contents to determine if they sound kosher.
Wrong. THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT DO THAT. The Clipper chip in your phone
did that. What the government ends up seeing is (at most) one bit of
information about the contents of your communication.
> When they receive the alert, containing information derived from
> the contents.
Again: The law is not information theory.
[ detecting whether a phone line is live ]
> This is an even weaker
> warrantless intrusion than what you are proposing.
Silly argument. Just because you consider one intrusion much ``weaker''
than another doesn't mean that the law agrees.
> Incidentally, the decision that established pen registers as permissible
> without a warrant, contains a discussion of *precisely* your idea of
> installing monitoring devices in telephones by order of the government.
> Have you read it?
You obviously don't understand the concept of dicta, Tal.
Anyway, I'm not talking about monitoring devices. I'm talking about
Clipper chips. You claim that it's clear from _Katz_ that broadcasting
one bit of information about a message constitutes ``monitoring'' the
message. I see nothing in _Katz_ that deals with this issue.
---Dan
D. J. Bernstein
Dan's notion that he is here to "lead" us toward political action
which is complete fantasy. I never expressed any such notion. By putting
``lead'' in quotes Tal was trying to lend a false air of accuracy to his
comment.
When challenged, Tal didn't apologize for the misquote. Instead he said
``Surely there are better ways to demonstrate illiteracy than to profess
naivete in the use of quotation marks.''
Okay, Tal: Why did you use the quote marks, if you weren't trying to
imply that this was a quote? Do you think ``lead'' is some sort of
unfamiliar word? Are you really so blazingly unaware of the meaning
conveyed by what you write?
This isn't an important example, but it does illustrate Tal's style.
Not that Tal cares---he doesn't see errors ``as a big deal.'' What a
despicable attitude.
---Dan
D. J. Bernstein
phone without the Clipper chip---all other phones are illegal.
Tal Kubo <ku...@abel.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Feel free to prove me wrong by explaining specifically
> what "the situation in _Katz_" is and why it's "easily distinguishable".
[ ... ]
> In particular, any acquisition of the contents of
> private communication qualifies as a seizure.
You've answered your own question. In the situation I've outlined, where
are the contents of your communication acquired by the government?
Answer: nowhere.
> Clue: _Katz_ holds that privacy is protected by the Fourth Amendment
> when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
[ etc., etc., etc. ]
Yes, but that's completely irrelevant if there wasn't an illegal search
or seizure in the first place. Stop focusing on consequent issues.
> > You are probably aware that Clipper chips turn off
> > the encryption when they notice that the LEAF has been modified. That
> > isn't a ``seizure.''
> > Suppose the Clipper chips go further, and broadcast an alert to the
> > authorities if they notice LEAF tampering. Is that a ``seizure''?
> Such a scheme might work for enforcing adherence to some fixed set of
[ blah, blah, blah ]
Stop dodging, Tal, and answer the question. Is that a ``seizure''?
If you think all these issues are so clear, surely you can answer this
simple question!
> > Suppose the Clipper chips go even further, and look at not just the LEAF
> > but at the contents of the communication. If your communication doesn't
> > sound like (low-entropy) voice data, the Clipper chip broadcasts an
> > alert. Is that a ``seizure''?
> Clearly, it is.
That's it? That's your entire argument? ``Clearly, it is''?
Where's the seizure? When did the government acquire the contents of
your communication?
> > Have you ever heard of pen registers, Tal?
> Can you say, "illegal when used to intercept conversation"?
Why do you think the conversation has been intercepted, Tal?
---Dan
Tal Kubo
>
> Dan's notion that he is here to "lead" us toward political action
>
>which is complete fantasy. I never expressed any such notion. By putting
>``lead'' in quotes Tal was trying to lend a false air of accuracy to his
>comment.
Would that be in any way similar to Dan's fraudulent use of legal jargon
("distinguishable", "consequent", etc) to lend a false air of authority to
his commentary on a case he's unfamiliar with?
>
>When challenged, Tal didn't apologize for the misquote.
Of course, when confronted with the fact of his having lied through his
teeth in this very thread, Dan failed to make any explanation or apology.
As such, his standing to demand apologies for anything, let alone
what he misconstrues as a misquote, is zilch.
> Instead he said
>``Surely there are better ways to demonstrate illiteracy than to profess
>naivete in the use of quotation marks.''
It was good advice, which Dan failed to heed. Lincoln's advice
about silence comes to mind as well.
>
>Okay, Tal: Why did you use the quote marks, if you weren't trying to
>imply that this was a quote?
Strike a blow for the illiteracy theory.
Does Dan seriously believe that quotation marks can be used
only to encompass text copied from elsewhere?
> Do you think ``lead'' is some sort of
>unfamiliar word?
No.
> Are you really so blazingly unaware of the meaning
>conveyed by what you write?
Apparently you are, since you manage to successfully convey the
impression of being a twisted, raving egomaniac through your writings
in this newsgroup.
>
>This isn't an important example, but it does illustrate Tal's style.
>Not that Tal cares---he doesn't see errors ``as a big deal.'' What a
>despicable attitude.
What is your expert opinion, O Accurate One, concerning the despicable
Big-Deal-ness of your flub about "fruit of the forbidden tree"? Or your
outright lies? Or your strident claims about "the case law", made from a
position of utter ignorance? Or your fraudulent use of legal terminology?
Do tell.
John Kuslich
>The nut cases here, who see the government as the devil, forget that when
>one goes to work for the government he doesn't give up his civil rights or
>his citizenship.
>That one is a government employee doesn't disqualify one from reading
>usenet newsgroups, or subcribing to Internet mailing lists.
>David
David,
Thank you for stating the obvious.
To use such overbroad terms as "the government" or to attach motives or
general qualities to such a diverse group as "government employees" is of
course nonsense.
The point is: as American citizens, overburdened as we are with the excessive
regulation brought on by "the best Congress money can buy" you should hear one
message loud and clear..."We are mad as hell, and we are not going to take it
any more."
That was the message of the last election, and the next one, if it occurs,
will deliver that message with even greater volume!
JK
John E. Kuslich WPcrak for Wordperfect
jo...@indirect.com WDcrak for MS Word 6.0
Password Recovery EXcrak for MS Excel 5.0
602 863 9274 QPcrak for Quattro Pro 6.0
http://www.getnet.com/crak or
http://www.indirect.com/www/johnk/
>>>>>>We Recover File Passwords<<<<<<<
L.Detweiler
: I think you're being unfair to Detweiler here. It always seemed to me
: that his aim was to draw attention to the uses to which the
: "cypherpunks" wish to put cryptography, such as tax evasion. His
: "tentacle" diatribes have served to draw many people's attention to
: the impossibility of knowing who is who on the net.
perhaps so, but he does it in the most reprehensible vitriolic
manner possible. if the Exon amendment passed, surely he would
be the first to be arrested for indecent exposure in cyberspace,
or perhaps vulgar obscenities, something his letters never are not!!
: Of course, the other possibility is that Detweiler and Tim May are one
: and the same, and the aim is merely to sow confusion.
actually, I think there is a conspiracy to create a hologram
in cyberspace that is so convincing in its vastness that the
government quakes in its shoes about trying to control cyberspace.
L.D. being the illustrious founder of course.
do you really believe the general population is as militantly
and mouth-frothingly libertarian as the endless erupting
diatribes in the various newsgroups?
``Death is the ultimate form of censorship.'' (author unknown)
Jim Riverman
Software Engineer
j...@netcom.com
408-688-5409 [work]
L.Detweiler
: If you think you won't be subjected to some time-consuming investigation
: if you post "civil disobedience", just consider the case of Detweiler,
: whose Blacknet posts have already subject him both to a visit from the FBI
: (he says), and likely an entry in a data base somewhere which could come
: back to haunt him if he ever applies for a position of trust.
oh, yes, it was SO inconvenient to drop by downtown. I would have
felt really cheated, unless I hadn't had the awesome entertainment
of talking to two absolutely clueless agents, who by the way weren't
merely clueless about cyberspace. gosh, what was that the Unibomber
said in his little diatribe??? "the fbi is a joke".. hee, hee.
so much so you wonder if it is an intentional sham made weak
by those with *real* power, to create the illusion that our
government is legitimate....
BTW, the FBI has visited many other people besides me in regard to Blacknet.
(it was *many* months ago now they hit me. last summer or so)
1. T.C.May
2. Syed Yusef
etcetera----
its just that I'm the only one with enough balls to talk about it.
feel free to ask them about it!!
T.C. May and the rest of the cypherpunks are really the most dainty pansies
when it comes down to the line... their philosophy is that not of the
lion (I am lion!! hear me roar!!), but that of the lemming (where
the @#%^&* is the exit out of here, anyway???).
further evidence is their sheer quaking fear and terror
of debating me in public. they know I will put their posts through
a blender more powerful than a fertilizer bomb, turning them into
a bloody, oozing pulp.
voila !! Hemorragic Cypherpunks.
| /\ |\| /~ L~
L_ /~~\ | | \_ L_
http://www.csn.net/~ldetweil
L.Detweiler
: If you think you won't be subjected to some time-consuming investigation
: if you post "civil disobedience", just consider the case of Detweiler,
: whose Blacknet posts have already subject him both to a visit from the FBI
: (he says), and likely an entry in a data base somewhere which could come
: back to haunt him if he ever applies for a position of trust.
oh, just like you consider a job in the NSA "a position of trust".
hee, hee. gosh, what was I just reading from you? that you consider
yourself "betrayed" by the NSA, FBI, et. al.???
gosh, wasn't it earlier in your post where you said that government
agencies, NSA in particular, had no authority to keep files on
domestic citizens??? what am I, a Pleiadian?? hehehehe
I assure you however that you are correct. I am a penniless bum.
everytime I go in for an interview, they say, "are you lancelot
rottweiler?? are *you* the man behind all that trash in cyberspace?"
I sheepishly say, "well, there are a lot of imitators...." but
they tend to call security by this point after they see the
"gargoyle grin" (hehehe)
truly I would cry a river of tears being passed up on the
NSA hiring line. it haunts my nightmares to think that I was
passed up for some cushy "foreigner paranoia specialist G2"
or whatever in the NSA. gad, what a pity. what an utter waste
my life has been. I could have joined the few, the scurillous,
the BASTARD SPOOKS!!! but instead I am a groveler on the 16th
street mall, getting stoned on crack and hacking into stolen
computer accounts.
actually I came very close to being investigated
by the NSA once for a position in their illustrious den-of-spooks haven.
but when they asked if I had any criminal record, such as having
ever been convicted of being a voyeur they were utterly disappointed with
answer.
I said, NO!!!
hehehehee. badddaaaboooom!!
(oh, I kinda miss the joys of spamming. that blacknet thing was
really classic. thank you so much for remembering me, sweet David!!
I wonder if it will ever be outdone. it would
take someone exceedingly brilliant, mischievous, and deranged, all at the
same time.)