Re: A small editorial about recent events.
Chris Palmer writes: -+-- | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | You know, as a security person, I say all the time that the greatest | threat is internal threat, not external threat. In my day job, I/we | make surveillance tools to prevent data threat from materializing, and | to quench it if it does anyhow. I tell clients all day every day that | when the opponent can attack location independently, and likely | without self identification, your only choice is pre-emption, which | requires intell, which requires surveillance, which requires listening | posts. | | Are you saying we need to carefully surveil our government and pre-empt | it from attacking us, or that our government should carefully surveil us | and pre-empt us from attacking it? | | And I'm just talking about intellectual property in the Fortune 1000, | not the freaking country. | | Let's hope society as a whole never resembles life inside the Fortune | 1000 too closely. | IF ( I believe what I tell my customers ) THEN ( it applies more broadly than them ) That's all. I do believe what I tell them, and I am certain it is a fundamental truth rather than an advertising slogan. As such, I should (and do) snap to attention and salute it when it appears in other guises in other venues. As to whether you should surveil the government or the other way around, David Brin's book, _The Transparent Society_, and the mountains of commentary it has spawned probably answer the question better than I ever will. As to society looking like the Fortune 1000, I (also) agree that I'd rather it did not, but I look at globalized competition, the first-world's populace that beyond all else wants to be protected/taken care of, and a planet where jihadists and sociopaths have an increasing edge, and I ask myself why I shouldn't imagine that the Fortune 1000 are not anomalies but avatars, that they are merely the first to adopt what we will soon demand as a societal entitlement? The more crowded we get the more controls we have to have to keep the jihadists and sociopaths in their place, the populace protected, and so forth. The Internet is a crowded place in that sense; everyone is your next door neighbor. Personally, I am working on my farming skills as fast as I can and do, in truth, intend to drop out of sight / get off the grid. What some may interpret as apologies for the first or second estate are, at least as I mean them, nothing but an attempt at Real Politik. Hope I'm wrong, but I don't bet against my intuition. Probably a rat hole, --dan - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A small editorial about recent events.
You know, as a security person, I say all the time that the greatest threat is internal threat, not external threat. In my day job, I/we make surveillance tools to prevent data threat from materializing, and to quench it if it does anyhow. I tell clients all day every day that when the opponent can attack location independently, and likely without self identification, your only choice is pre-emption, which requires intell, which requires surveillance, which requires listening posts. And I'm just talking about intellectual property in the Fortune 1000, not the freaking country. --dan, who doesn't like reality any more - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A small editorial about recent events.
David G. Koontz wrote: Yet President Bush as publicly stated it requires a court order to wiretap: Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html Bush didn't say it always requires a court order to wiretap. He said, any time you hear . . . a wiretap requires at court order. So, when don't hear the government talking about a wiretap, the wiretap doesn't require a court order. And he used the present tense. So, he didn't mean . . . any time you hear . . . required a court order. And if you think these by the way words weren't carefully chosen, see the care with which Bush clarified the antecedent of it, so his listeners would not be left with the impression that it requires a court order to hear the US Government talk about a wiretap. When you take Bush at his word (every carefully chosen word) its easy to see how little he cares for things like civil liberties and the rule of law. -Dan - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A small editorial about recent events.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You know, as a security person, I say all the time that the greatest threat is internal threat, not external threat. In my day job, I/we make surveillance tools to prevent data threat from materializing, and to quench it if it does anyhow. I tell clients all day every day that when the opponent can attack location independently, and likely without self identification, your only choice is pre-emption, which requires intell, which requires surveillance, which requires listening posts. Are you saying we need to carefully surveil our government and pre-empt it from attacking us, or that our government should carefully surveil us and pre-empt us from attacking it? And I'm just talking about intellectual property in the Fortune 1000, not the freaking country. Let's hope society as a whole never resembles life inside the Fortune 1000 too closely. -- https://www.eff.org/about/staff/#chris_palmer pgpq538D5dQfM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A small editorial about recent events.
Clinton's Asst. A.G. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story? coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed Dick Morris http://www.drudgereport.com/flash7.htm --dan - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A small editorial about recent events.
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 07:55:57PM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: [...] The Court also noted that Congress rejected an amendment which would have authorized such governmental seizures in cases of emergency. Given that the Patriot Act did amend various aspects of the wiretap statute, it's hard to understand how the administration's reading is justified in any way, shape, or form. There's some speculation that FISA could not have provided authorization for the wiretaps, because what they were doing were not actually directed wiretaps, but instead search-and-discard-negatives. Josh Marshall has some analysis: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007286.php http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007290.php and discussion here: http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/19/20530/546 Here's Rockefeller's handwritten letter to Cheney, in which he says As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/rock-cheney1.html -- - Adam ** Expert Technical Project and Business Management System Performance Analysis and Architecture ** [ http://www.everylastounce.com ] [ http://www.aquick.org/blog ] Blog [ http://www.adamfields.com/resume.html ].. Experience [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/fields ] ... Photos [ http://www.aquicki.com/wiki ].Wiki [ http://del.icio.us/fields ] . Links - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A small editorial about recent events.
A small editorial from your moderator. I rarely use this list to express a strong political opinion -- you will forgive me in this instance. This mailing list is putatively about cryptography and cryptography politics, though we do tend to stray quite a bit into security issues of all sorts, and sometimes into the activities of the agency with the biggest crypto and sigint budget in the world, the NSA. As you may all be aware, the New York Times has reported, and the administration has admitted, that President of the United States apparently ordered the NSA to conduct surveillance operations against US citizens without prior permission of the secret court known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (the FISC). This is in clear contravention of 50 USC 1801 - 50 USC 1811, a portion of the US code that provides for clear criminal penalties for violations. See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html The President claims he has the prerogative to order such surveillance. The law unambiguously disagrees with him. There are minor exceptions in the law, but they clearly do not apply in this case. They cover only the 15 days after a declaration of war by congress, a period of 72 hours prior to seeking court authorization (which was never sought), and similar exceptions that clearly are not germane. There is no room for doubt or question about whether the President has the prerogative to order surveillance without asking the FISC -- even if the FISC is a toothless organization that never turns down requests, it is a federal crime, punishable by up to five years imprisonment, to conduct electronic surveillance against US citizens without court authorization. The FISC may be worthless at defending civil liberties, but in its arrogant disregard for even the fig leaf of the FISC, the administration has actually crossed the line into a crystal clear felony. The government could have legally conducted such wiretaps at any time, but the President chose not to do it legally. Ours is a government of laws, not of men. That means if the President disagrees with a law or feels that it is insufficient, he still must obey it. Ignoring the law is illegal, even for the President. The President may ask Congress to change the law, but meanwhile he must follow it. Our President has chosen to declare himself above the law, a dangerous precedent that could do great harm to our country. However, without substantial effort on the part of you, and I mean you, every person reading this, nothing much is going to happen. The rule of law will continue to decay in our country. Future Presidents will claim even greater extralegal authority, and our nation will fall into despotism. I mean that sincerely. For the sake of yourself, your children and your children's children, you cannot allow this to stand. Call your Senators and your Congressman. Demand a full investigation, both by Congress and by a special prosecutor, of the actions of the Administration and the NSA. Say that the rule of law is all that stands between us and barbarism. Say that we live in a democracy, not a kingdom, and that our elected officials are not above the law. The President is not a King. Even the President cannot participate in a felony and get away with it. Demand that even the President must obey the law. Tell your friends to do the same. Tell them to tell their friends to do the same. Then, call back next week and the week after and the week after that until something happens. Mark it in your calendar so you don't forget about it. Politicians have short memories, and Congress is about to recess for Christmas, so you must not allow this to be forgotten. Keep at them until something happens. Perry - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A small editorial about recent events.
Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A small editorial from your moderator. I rarely use this list to express a strong political opinion -- you will forgive me in this instance. A couple of people have written to ask if they can forward on this message elsewhere. Yes, I am happy with that, and I should have said it in the first place. Perry - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A small editorial about recent events.
At 10:58 AM 12/18/2005, Perry E. Metzger wrote: The President claims he has the prerogative to order such surveillance. The law unambiguously disagrees with him. There are minor exceptions in the law, but they clearly do not apply in this case. They cover only the 15 days after a declaration of war by congress, a period of 72 hours prior to seeking court authorization (which was never sought), and similar exceptions that clearly are not germane. One of the NYT articles also said that the President's lawyers gave him an opinion saying that the post-9/11 resolutions gave him the authority to do this. If the resolutions actually did that, then that could supersede the previous laws that made it criminal. But this wasn't the only domestic spying story in the news this week. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/ NBC reports that the Defense Department is back to CONINTELPRO-style spying on Americans, specifically anti-war groups and campaigns against military recruiting, especially suspicious groups associating with Quakers. And the EU parliament just voted on massive data collection laws, requiring ISPs, telcos, and mobile phone companies to collect and retain information in ways that would have previously violated EU privacy laws. That's one of the big problems with protections based on laws - they're only good until the politicians change the laws. Constitutional protections are somewhat more durable, but can still be changed either by Amendments or by significant changes in court interpretations, such as the Drugs and Terrorism Exceptions to the Bill of Rights and the expansion of the Commerce Clause to cover almost everything. One of the Bush Administration's innovations has been White House legal opinions telling the President that the courts ought to approve various powers or practices, so there's therefore no need to actually take them to court, whether it's wiretapping or extraordinary rendition or defining torture to exclude anything done by US forces. We'll see if he gets away with it this time - he needs to be stopped. - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A small editorial about recent events.
Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 10:58 AM 12/18/2005, Perry E. Metzger wrote: The President claims he has the prerogative to order such surveillance. The law unambiguously disagrees with him. There are minor exceptions in the law, but they clearly do not apply in this case. They cover only the 15 days after a declaration of war by congress, a period of 72 hours prior to seeking court authorization (which was never sought), and similar exceptions that clearly are not germane. One of the NYT articles also said that the President's lawyers gave him an opinion saying that the post-9/11 resolutions gave him the authority to do this. If the resolutions actually did that, then that could supersede the previous laws that made it criminal. I have been unable to find any evidence in the text of said resolutions that they in any way altered or amended the law on this, even temporarily. Perhaps it is the argument of the President's lawyers that something analogous to a state of war was authorized, but the fact that there is a time limit even when an explicit declaration of war exists leads me to disbelieve such arguments on their face. I fully expect the President's lawyers and media spokespeople to vigorously deny that the President has broken a criminal statute. It would, in fact, be shocking if they did anything else -- an attorney or spokesman who claimed in the press that his client had committed a crime would be a very unusual thing indeed. That should not sway us, the members of the public. Unlike previous eras, it is trivial for anyone who wishes to to examine the US Code, in moments, without having to leave their desk. It is trivial for someone to examine the texts of congressional resolutions, too. It is fairly simple to verify that regardless of any assertions made by the President's legal advocates and staff, a felony has been committed. The White House has not even denied that the activities took place, so the only real question at hand is the law, and anyone can read the law for themselves. But this wasn't the only domestic spying story in the news this week. Yes, but this was the first instance that I know of in which the White House has essentially admitted that the President specifically solicited and authorized the commission of a federal crime. Again, I encourage people to go and read: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html Unlike most federal law, this section of the US Code is exceptionally clear and unambiguous. It declares that surveillance of US citizens is legal only with court approval, creates a (useless) court to authorize surveillance of US citizens, it lists a few exceptions to the law (none of which apply) and then states: A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally[...] engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute[...] [...] An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. [...] There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed. This law was specifically instituted in the 1970s after it was discovered that the NSA was conducting surveillance of US persons. There can be no question as to its intent. Our problem in this instance is not the facts, since the White House has stipulated the facts, and it is not the law, since the law is clear on the fact that the actions taken are criminal. Our problem is with the fact that our system of justice depends on human beings who are often scared of the consequences of prosecuting the powerful. It is up to us as citizens to make it clear to our representatives that we care. The ugliest thing in this incident is the fact it was clearly a pure demonstration of power. The FISC rarely if ever denies requests, and that the law specifically allows surveillance to begin BEFORE the FISC is asked for an order. The administration would have had no difficulty whatsoever routinely spying on US citizens without breaking the law. The administration is clearly so fully convinced that the President is above the law that it did not bother even to pay lip service to such worthless protections as the law provided for. We'll see if he gets away with it this time - he needs to be stopped. He will get away with it if we stand idly by. If this is to be stopped, people like us must make our voices heard. Perry - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A small editorial about recent events.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Perry E. Metzger writes: I have been unable to find any evidence in the text of said resolutions that they in any way altered or amended the law on this, even temporarily. Perhaps it is the argument of the President's lawyers that something analogous to a state of war was authorized, but the fact that there is a time limit even when an explicit declaration of war exists leads me to disbelieve such arguments on their face. The resolution very clearly did not change the text of the law. As you noted, it's easy to verify that. There's ample legal precedent that says that a president can't just ignore a law he doesn't like. One case that comes to mind is the Youngstown steel seizure case. Truman nationalized the steel companies to head off a threatened strike. There was a law on the books that would have let him stop the strike. For political reasons -- the Taft-Hartley Act was passed over his veto -- he didn't want to use it. The Supreme Court didn't buy it, even though the U.S. was at war (Korea) and steel is obviously a vital war material. There's a good summary of the case, including most of the Court's opinion at http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/59.htm -- ironically enough, a State Department web site where their own commentary says From a constitutional standpoint, Youngstown remains one of the great modern cases, in that it helped to redress the balance of power among the three branches of government, a balance that had been severely distorted by ... the subsequent postwar search for global security. The Court reject Truman's contention that he had the power as head of the military: we cannot with faithfulness to our constitutional system hold that the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces has the ultimate power ... This is a job for the Nation's lawmakers, not for its military authorities. The Court also noted that Congress rejected an amendment which would have authorized such governmental seizures in cases of emergency. Given that the Patriot Act did amend various aspects of the wiretap statute, it's hard to understand how the administration's reading is justified in any way, shape, or form. - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
