Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
On Sunday, August 31, 2003, at 06:16 PM, Steve Furlong wrote: On Sunday 31 August 2003 19:20, James A. Donald wrote: Talk is cheap. ... Indeed, the one may be connected to the other -- the absence of stoolies may well be connected to the presence of hot talk. Dunno. I'm not sure that mere talk of killing a librarian would dissuade the potential stoolies. As you say, talk is cheap. Actions, reported widely in the mass media, will grab people's attention. You're being way too unimaginative, or literal, or something. This is at the discussion stage, and probably will be followed-through by others (if at all). The too literal part comes from thinking that discussions here mean someone here is going to kill some librarians. The too unimaginative part comes from thinking that publicity about the idea will not itself have an effect. The Mob doesn't actually have to kill too many stoolies for it to be widely known that ratting can be a very dangerous business. Maybe Big Brother will create a Witness Relocation Program especially for librarians who turn state's evidence. (But we will still find their families...bawaaahaaahaaa!) --Tim May
Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
On Sunday, August 31, 2003, at 04:20 PM, James A. Donald wrote: -- Tim May is the perfect example why vigilante justice is generally considered to be a bad thing -- stupid assholes like Tim May spout off take action based on paranoia instead of facts principles of anarchy instead of justice and innocent parties get hurt. Talk is cheap. Actions are done more carefully. Tim implied he would kill stoolies that shopped him to the police, not that stoolies had shopped him to the police. Indeed, the one may be connected to the other -- the absence of stoolies may well be connected to the presence of hot talk. And there is nothing immoral in discussing the fact that actions may have consequences. Take the work camps described in Solzhenitsyn's One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch. (Or, of course, the Nazi extermination camps. Or the U.S. concentration camps in Gitmo.) The camp management clearly sought a docile, policeman inside, stoolie-oriented system where informers and capos (those who cooperate and act as de facto guards) see no reason NOT to be stoolies and capos. But merely the threat that stoolies and capos will be found with their throats slit is often enough to deter such behaviors. My point is that if librarians even think there is some small chance that someone they narc out to Big Brother will kill them or their families, such stoolie behavior may drop precipitously. --Tim May A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. --Robert A. Heinlein
Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
Tim May: If cops ask local neighborhood members to report any suspicious activity, the folks know that any benefits they gain from acting as informants tend to be a lot smaller than the danger of being beat up or even killed by the Mafia. When the cost of acting as an informant is zero, no risk, more people act as informants. I think restoring some risk to being a rat is a good thing. Unbelievable. The man who invented Blacknet, who has called for and supported the idea of offshore data havens, now tries to control the flow of information! What the hell do you call people who rat you out about your bad debts, if not informants? The whole point of the cypherpunk movement is to make it easier and less risky to spread information even when there are those who want to suppress it. This is just another example of May's hypocrisy and lack of critical thinking abilities. He's all for crypto anarchy until he realizes his own ass is vulnerable. Then he starts trying to think of ways to keep people from exchanging information he doesn't like. Here's a clue. If and when crypto anarchy ever becomes a reality, Tim May is going to be one of the first ones killed. He's pissed off too many people. Once they can get retribution anonymously, his days are numbered.
Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
On Sunday 31 August 2003 19:20, James A. Donald wrote: Talk is cheap. ... Indeed, the one may be connected to the other -- the absence of stoolies may well be connected to the presence of hot talk. Dunno. I'm not sure that mere talk of killing a librarian would dissuade the potential stoolies. As you say, talk is cheap. Actions, reported widely in the mass media, will grab people's attention. On a related note, does anyone have a recommendation for a nice chianti? -- Steve FurlongComputer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all! -- Rep. Henry Waxman
Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
I wasn't even going to answer the absurd hypothetical, but since it's now in play... On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Sunder wrote: In that case, I would suspect the ISP itself would have incoming/outgoing feeds from other ISP's. Obviously, every ISP does. If that single moral objector ISP refuses to allow carnivores, the other, not quite as moral ISP's might be persuaded to allow it, in which case the fedZ get what they want, just one traceroute hop further up the chain. Perhaps not all of them, but perhaps enough of them... Duh! Maybe I should have been clearer: the feds didn't show us at any of the small guys (AFAIK), such as the regional or small nationals - they showed up at the large multinationals (of which the one I work at was likely the smallest, with a mere 48 countries of footprint). They clearly understood that sniffing my peering/transit pipes wasn't technically *possible* (yet) - what they were interested in was sniffing my regional POPs, with [relatively] low speed OC3/OC12 pipes. To rephrase it: they were interested in *my* customers, not the traffic from other companies (they had other field officers at the other NSPs). That's the thing about the internet - your packets must travel through other ISP's (unless you're communicating with other nodes hosted by that single ISP which is unlikely). It's a lot more likely than you seem to realize. The internet is a collection of aggregation points (ISPs): get the individual aggregations, and the rest is as visible as a reconstructed RAID5 stripe. From the fedZ point of view, you need not tap each and every single ISP. You can tap upstream, and still get the data without tipping off the target, or his moral objector friends at her ISP. This type of thing certainly goes on, but not in the vaccum cleaner world of large pipes. This is only technically feasible for targetted investigations. At some point every ISP goes through MCI, Sprint, and ATT, and don't forget the local (phone company) loops. The loops are too far out on the edge to be useful for anyone but the loop owner themselves, and there are *way* too many [ever changing] paths out of any individual ASN - the aggregation point is where this kind of action *must* happen. Assuming that such a moral objector ISP would exist, As I noted: much to my amazement, many do exist. it would be foolish to assume that it would provide much of a measure of protection against tapping cleartext transmissions. Hence, encryption is important. Want privacy and security? It's up to you to provide it: encrypt. Agrred. Encryption, properly implemented and executed, is the only real path to privacy. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Every living thing dies alone. Donnie Darko
Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
What Tim is (correctly) observing here is that a working challenge to the force monopoly is a very effective way to modify behaviour. Where Tim is wrong, though, is that he may have anything resembling a working challenge. = end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: CDR: Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
An Metet (2003-09-01 05:54Z) wrote: Here's a clue. If and when crypto anarchy ever becomes a reality, Tim May is going to be one of the first ones killed. He's pissed off too many people. Once they can get retribution anonymously, his days are numbered. Are we talking about the tendency of the general population to kill anyone who pisses them off, or yours? -- No man is clever enough to Times are bad. Children no longer know all the evil he does. obey their parents, and everyone -Francois de la Rochefoucauld is writing a book. -Cicero
Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
In that case, I would suspect the ISP itself would have incoming/outgoing feeds from other ISP's. If that single moral objector ISP refuses to allow carnivores, the other, not quite as moral ISP's might be persuaded to allow it, in which case the fedZ get what they want, just one traceroute hop further up the chain. Perhaps not all of them, but perhaps enough of them... Duh! That's the thing about the internet - your packets must travel through other ISP's (unless you're communicating with other nodes hosted by that single ISP which is unlikely). From the fedZ point of view, you need not tap each and every single ISP. You can tap upstream, and still get the data without tipping off the target, or his moral objector friends at her ISP. At some point every ISP goes through MCI, Sprint, and ATT, and don't forget the local (phone company) loops. Assuming that such a moral objector ISP would exist, it would be foolish to assume that it would provide much of a measure of protection against tapping cleartext transmissions. Hence, encryption is important. Want privacy and security? It's up to you to provide it: encrypt. --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :25Kliters anthrax, 38K liters botulinum toxin, 500 tons of /|\ \|/ :sarin, mustard and VX gas, mobile bio-weapons labs, nukular /\|/\ --*--:weapons.. Reasons for war on Iraq - GWB 2003-01-28 speech. \/|\/ /|\ :Found to date: 0. Cost of war: $800,000,000,000 USD.\|/ + v + : The look on Sadam's face - priceless! [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Steve Schear wrote: Well maybe. What if a US ISP is incorporated with all foreign residents and no local employees (only trusted local contractors). No one to serve legal notice upon. ISP is housed in a standalone building which is owned outright (no landlord to serve). Site is monitored 24/7 via Internet and satellite links with remote controlled self-destruct devices (which to be effective must be capable of destroying the entire building).
Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
At 12:02 PM 8/31/03 -0700, Tim May wrote: He said: An ISP is free to say anyone requesting a tap is required to pay a fee, just as any ISP is free to say that it will handle installation of special Carnivore equipment for a certain fee. A customer of the ISP is certainly _not_ the one requesting a tap. And he is certainly not the one installing Carnivore equipment. If you rent your house, and the renters cause you to get billed for something they do, you can certainly pass on the cost to the renter. If you get a ticket in a rented car, you (not the car owner) reimburse the owner. If your ISP gets a lot of complaints about your usage, they *could* pass on the cost to you. An ISP could regard its court-ordered hassles (or other hassles, eg attacks launched from your node) as your fault.
Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
At 01:54 AM 9/1/03 -0400, An Metet wrote: Here's a clue. If and when crypto anarchy ever becomes a reality, Tim May is going to be one of the first ones killed. He's pissed off too many people. Once they can get retribution anonymously, his days are numbered. What, exactly, has Tim done that wrongs others? Publishing bits doesn't matter. Change the channel. Coercion (under threat of violence) matters. Sticks and stones.
Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
At 08:06 PM 8/31/03 -0700, Tim May wrote: The Mob doesn't actually have to kill too many stoolies for it to be widely known that ratting can be a very dangerous business. Ask David Kelly. Or his associates. Reputation is a tool.
Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
Indeed. Despite all of Tim's rage, we're still just rats in a cage, and despite Tim's urging of necklacing ISP owners, or other foam at the mouth arm-chair solutions, Occam's razor still supplies the better, and cleaner solutions: If your MTA has it, turn on the START TLS option. If it doesn't, either compile it in, or get a new MTA for your server. Also add GPG/PGP, and hard drive encryption, to both your client and the server. (Since the discussion is about ISP's, we can assume that you own the server either hosted by or fed by your ISP - if you don't - i.e. you're on a dial-up PPP, you're at the ISP's mercy anyway, and the ISP can read/forge your mail unless you PGP every piece of email.) Don't have secure IMAP/POP capabilities? Use ssh as a secure tunnel to transport IMAP/POP/SMTP from the client into the server. Even when your client lives on the same network segment as the server. If you don't realize why this is useful, get clued in as quickly as you can. Of course, as usual, this discussion will next focus on physical security (hint for the above paragraph for those in need of a clue), then detecting black bag operations, with the usual Read the Fucking Archives coming from the usual source(s). And you know what? This indeed has already been dealt with, so yes, by all means, Read the fucking archives does apply. So go and read the fucking archives - all of you. That's your homework. Do it! There will be a quiz tomorrow! Be sure to bring your #2 pencils! :) --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :25Kliters anthrax, 38K liters botulinum toxin, 500 tons of /|\ \|/ :sarin, mustard and VX gas, mobile bio-weapons labs, nukular /\|/\ --*--:weapons.. Reasons for war on Iraq - GWB 2003-01-28 speech. \/|\/ /|\ :Found to date: 0. Cost of war: $800,000,000,000 USD.\|/ + v + : The look on Sadam's face - priceless! [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Eric Murray wrote: This is a problem that's better solved with crypto.
Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
Tim May is the perfect example why vigilante justice is generally considered to be a bad thing -- stupid assholes like Tim May spout off take action based on paranoia instead of facts principles of anarchy instead of justice and innocent parties get hurt. Well, on one hand taking justice into one's own hands opens the doors to pretty much anything anybody can think of that ticks them off. On the other hand, there are clearly times and societies where such an approach is warranted. The usual exmples have already been given. These examples seem to have at their intersection a time where the government (and the powers that be) are themselves immune from legal consequence and above the law, while 'enforcing' laws that are innately evil. Such a society has pretty much boiled down to might makes right, and such a government is a government in name only. The question then becomes, when do we know when we've entered such a time? More specifically, have we in the US entered such a time? And if we have not, does it not at least appear that we might, soon? If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then Tim May's suggestion is not a matter of if, but when. If the Koran becomes outlawed but a librarian rats on a Muslim trying to access the Koran online, then is this not much different from the Nazi days? Of course, we believe that the librarian is trying to do the right thing. But do you really think that enthusiastic Hitler followers believed they were evil? No, Tim May's statement is not scary because he's suggesting anarchy. It's scary because sometime in the near future it may actually be a reasonable response. (Well, I dont agree with the 'killing the kids' thing.) If Mike Hawash can be grabbed off the streets without any acknowledgement by the Feds and then go to prison for NOT fighting against the US (but clearly thinking about it), then we are in deep trouble. -TD From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:01:52 -0700 On Sunday, August 31, 2003, at 04:20 PM, James A. Donald wrote: -- Tim May is the perfect example why vigilante justice is generally considered to be a bad thing -- stupid assholes like Tim May spout off take action based on paranoia instead of facts principles of anarchy instead of justice and innocent parties get hurt. Talk is cheap. Actions are done more carefully. Tim implied he would kill stoolies that shopped him to the police, not that stoolies had shopped him to the police. Indeed, the one may be connected to the other -- the absence of stoolies may well be connected to the presence of hot talk. And there is nothing immoral in discussing the fact that actions may have consequences. Take the work camps described in Solzhenitsyn's One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch. (Or, of course, the Nazi extermination camps. Or the U.S. concentration camps in Gitmo.) The camp management clearly sought a docile, policeman inside, stoolie-oriented system where informers and capos (those who cooperate and act as de facto guards) see no reason NOT to be stoolies and capos. But merely the threat that stoolies and capos will be found with their throats slit is often enough to deter such behaviors. My point is that if librarians even think there is some small chance that someone they narc out to Big Brother will kill them or their families, such stoolie behavior may drop precipitously. --Tim May A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. --Robert A. Heinlein _ Help protect your PC: Get a free online virus scan at McAfee.com. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
At 11:00 PM -0500 8/29/03, J.A. Terranson wrote: And the sheer expense may in and of itself be a controlling factor in such orders. Bingo. You can't make a hierarchical network out of a geodesic one again. To mangle Gilmore's words a bit, a geodesic network sees centralization as damage and routes around it. One node cannot switch all traffic, and, at it's heart, that's what they're trying to do with this stuff. They may not care, but I doubt, even these days when unpriced common resources are being wasted to such a degree by viruses and spam, that the market's going to let them kill off the internet just so they can watch everybody. Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
On Saturday, August 30, 2003, at 06:10 AM, Eric Murray wrote: On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 06:54:03PM -0700, Tim May wrote: But when Big Brother commands that his Carnivore boxes be added, ISPs are afraid to shoot his agents who trespass. I think my solution may be best: take a few ISPs who have bent over for Big Brother and kill their owners and staff. A few ISP owners found necklaced and smoking may send a message to others. The message it sends is to accept the cops offer of on-site protection when the ISP is faced with allowing the tap or being put in jail. By upping the stakes you force the business owner to accept the cops as the lesser of two evils. The mafia's actions tended to make business owners clamor for more police and more intrusive police protection. Not less. This is a problem that's better solved with crypto. If cops ask local neighborhood members to report any suspicious activity, the folks know that any benefits they gain from acting as informants tend to be a lot smaller than the danger of being beat up or even killed by the Mafia. When the cost of acting as an informant is zero, no risk, more people act as informants. I think restoring some risk to being a rat is a good thing. --Tim May
Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
At 06:54 PM 8/29/03 -0700, Tim May wrote: On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 03:28 PM, Steve Schear wrote: All covered in my previous postings. This approach should be particularly applicable to ISPs as they generally have billing arrangement and can add this on as an extra service fee for each inquiry. Instead of court orders being a cost they become a revenue source. This has been proposed for, but it fails for the usual reasons. An ISP is free to say anyone requesting a tap is required to pay a fee, just as any ISP is free to say that it will handle installation of special Carnivore equipment for a certain fee. My (perhaps flawed) reading of Steve's post was different from Tims: the ISP bills the *tapped* person for misc unplanned network work, not the *tappers*. The ISP puts it into their contract: if tapped by court order, we'll bill you for our effort. If your CPA has his time spent on govt things, can he bill you for it? If your ISP is hassled by RIAA, can they bill you? Certainly, if its in your contract. --- Got Mink?
Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
J.A. Terranson wrote: On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Tim May wrote: But when Big Brother commands that his Carnivore boxes be added, ISPs are afraid to shoot his agents who trespass. Just for the record, as someone who is in a position to have first-hand personal knowledge of this... When the various plastic-id carrying critters came around asking to let ISPs install Carnivores just after 9/11, they were almost all turned away. The notable exceptions were from companies that are (not surprisingly) based outside of the US. I was *stunned* at how many ISPs told them to fuck off (including, I am happy to say, the one I work at).. So in other words, Tim May doesn't know what the hell he's talking about (again)! I think my solution may be best: take a few ISPs who have bent over for Big Brother and kill their owners and staff. A few ISP owners found necklaced and smoking may send a message to others. It works for the Mob in a way none of the more civilized approaches can possibly work. You narc us out, we douse your children with gasoline and light them off. Your choice. Sometimes freedom demands harshness. Tim May is the perfect example why vigilante justice is generally considered to be a bad thing -- stupid assholes like Tim May spout off take action based on paranoia instead of facts principles of anarchy instead of justice and innocent parties get hurt. --Tim May
Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
On Saturday, August 30, 2003, at 01:02 AM, Tim wrote: J.A. Terranson wrote: On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Tim May wrote: But when Big Brother commands that his Carnivore boxes be added, ISPs are afraid to shoot his agents who trespass. Just for the record, as someone who is in a position to have first-hand personal knowledge of this... When the various plastic-id carrying critters came around asking to let ISPs install Carnivores just after 9/11, they were almost all turned away. The notable exceptions were from companies that are (not surprisingly) based outside of the US. I was *stunned* at how many ISPs told them to fuck off (including, I am happy to say, the one I work at).. So in other words, Tim May doesn't know what the hell he's talking about (again)! A silly bit of logic on your part. The ISPs which have NOT narced out their customers, who may be in the majority, have nothing to fear. It's the ISPs which HAVE we are talking about. You confuse existence with magnitude. Logic eludes you. --Tim May
Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
At 11:00 PM 8/29/2003 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote: I was *stunned* at how many ISPs told them to fuck off (including, I am happy to say, the one I work at).. When a court order is present - that is a whole new ball game: nobody will refuse that. Well maybe. What if a US ISP is incorporated with all foreign residents and no local employees (only trusted local contractors). No one to serve legal notice upon. ISP is housed in a standalone building which is owned outright (no landlord to serve). Site is monitored 24/7 via Internet and satellite links with remote controlled self-destruct devices (which to be effective must be capable of destroying the entire building). steve A foolish Constitutional inconsistency is the hobgoblin of freedom, adored by judges and demagogue statesmen. - Steve Schear
Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote: This has been proposed for, but it fails for the usual reasons. An ISP is free to say anyone requesting a tap is required to pay a fee, just as any ISP is free to say that it will handle installation of special Carnivore equipment for a certain fee. My (perhaps flawed) reading of Steve's post was different from Tims: the ISP bills the *tapped* person for misc unplanned network work, not the *tappers*. The ISP puts it into their contract: if tapped by court order, we'll bill you for our effort. In the UK ISPs certainly can bill the police for any taps installed at their standard rates, just as the telcos have always billed the police for the cost of wire taps. There was a lot of opposition from ISPs to taps 2-3 years ago; it largely disappeared when it became clear that they would be paid. The FBI made a presentation on Carnivore a couple of years ago at a NANOG conference in Washington. In a side remark, the guy giving the presentation made it clear that the practice in the US is the same: ISPs are paid by the police for any taps, paid at their normal rates. If your CPA has his time spent on govt things, can he bill you for it? If your ISP is hassled by RIAA, can they bill you? Certainly, if its in your contract. I ran an ISP for seven years and was involved in a number of industry associations. Never heard of anyone anywhere billing a customer for the cost of taps, or of anyone putting such a provision in their contracts (I reviewed quite a few such contracts very carefully). It would amount to a form of tax without any basis in legislation and would, I believe, arouse very strong opposition. But perhaps I miss the point of the thread ;-) -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881
Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
On Saturday, August 30, 2003, at 10:46 AM, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 06:54 PM 8/29/03 -0700, Tim May wrote: On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 03:28 PM, Steve Schear wrote: All covered in my previous postings. This approach should be particularly applicable to ISPs as they generally have billing arrangement and can add this on as an extra service fee for each inquiry. Instead of court orders being a cost they become a revenue source. This has been proposed for, but it fails for the usual reasons. An ISP is free to say anyone requesting a tap is required to pay a fee, just as any ISP is free to say that it will handle installation of special Carnivore equipment for a certain fee. My (perhaps flawed) reading of Steve's post was different from Tims: the ISP bills the *tapped* person for misc unplanned network work, not the *tappers*. The ISP puts it into their contract: if tapped by court order, we'll bill you for our effort. I don't see any way to read what Steve wrote this way. He said: An ISP is free to say anyone requesting a tap is required to pay a fee, just as any ISP is free to say that it will handle installation of special Carnivore equipment for a certain fee. A customer of the ISP is certainly _not_ the one requesting a tap. And he is certainly not the one installing Carnivore equipment. Q.E.D. --Tim May According to the FBI, there's a new wrinkle in prostitution: suburban teenage girls are now selling their white asses at the mall to make money to spend at the mall. .. Now, you see, the joke here, of course, is on White America, which always felt superior to blacks, and showed that with their feet, moving out of urban areas. White flight, they called it. Whites feared blacks. They feared if they raised their kids around blacks, the blacks would turn their daughters and prostitutes. And now, through the miracle of MTV, damned if it didn't work out that way! --Bill Maher, Real Time with Bill Maher, HBO, 15 August 2003
Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
Tim May wrote... If cops ask local neighborhood members to report any suspicious activity, the folks know that any benefits they gain from acting as informants tend to be a lot smaller than the danger of being beat up or even killed by the Mafia. When the cost of acting as an informant is zero, no risk, more people act as informants. I think restoring some risk to being a rat is a good thing. There is of course the old argument about states such as Nazi Germany: what percentage of the population would have participated had they known that in wearing the Nazi uniform (even just on the streets of Berlin), there'd be a nonzero chance of them coming home alive? The problem in the present situation of course is underlined by the fact that the mafia is a fairly coherent set of relational organizations, acting in conjunction with centrally identified aims, but actintg on those aims across a wide swath of territory/etc. A restoration of risk would require some form of large-scale activities along these lines. A lone nut or unabomber that does something like this can be ignored as insane. And indeed, his actions will probably end up being counter-productive. If it were commonly understood that lots of people (who may live next door) take offence at being narced, then (and only then) would things be a little different. How do you get there from here? Dunno, but the obvious paradigm these days is P2P. -TD PS: One possible thing missing from the response list. Anyway to make a virus that will install fake/random name lists? From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:10:48 -0700 On Saturday, August 30, 2003, at 06:10 AM, Eric Murray wrote: On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 06:54:03PM -0700, Tim May wrote: But when Big Brother commands that his Carnivore boxes be added, ISPs are afraid to shoot his agents who trespass. I think my solution may be best: take a few ISPs who have bent over for Big Brother and kill their owners and staff. A few ISP owners found necklaced and smoking may send a message to others. The message it sends is to accept the cops offer of on-site protection when the ISP is faced with allowing the tap or being put in jail. By upping the stakes you force the business owner to accept the cops as the lesser of two evils. The mafia's actions tended to make business owners clamor for more police and more intrusive police protection. Not less. This is a problem that's better solved with crypto. If cops ask local neighborhood members to report any suspicious activity, the folks know that any benefits they gain from acting as informants tend to be a lot smaller than the danger of being beat up or even killed by the Mafia. When the cost of acting as an informant is zero, no risk, more people act as informants. I think restoring some risk to being a rat is a good thing. --Tim May _ Get MSN 8 and help protect your children with advanced parental controls. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/parental
Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
At 01:54 PM 8/29/2003 -0700, you wrote: Stopping your notification that the service is not monitored can be forbidden by a strict enough secrecy order. It may be the least legally risky of the options. The fact that you will stop notification should be included in your terms of service. All covered in my previous postings. This approach should be particularly applicable to ISPs as they generally have billing arrangement and can add this on as an extra service fee for each inquiry. Instead of court orders being a cost they become a revenue source. steve The fetters imposed on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons provided for defence against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad. --President James Madison (1751-1836)
Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Tim May wrote: But when Big Brother commands that his Carnivore boxes be added, ISPs are afraid to shoot his agents who trespass. Just for the record, as someone who is in a position to have first-hand personal knowledge of this... When the various plastic-id carrying critters came around asking to let ISPs install Carnivores just after 9/11, they were almost all turned away. The notable exceptions were from companies that are (not surprisingly) based outside of the US. I was *stunned* at how many ISPs told them to fuck off (including, I am happy to say, the one I work at).. When a court order is present - that is a whole new ball game: nobody will refuse that. And so the work is done for free. And so, too, will the fees you talk about be waived. Free under the duress of a court order is AFAIK virgin territory here. There is no question that installing a DCS1000 is no small task when you're dealing with modern high speed circuits (OC12s and up), and will require significant planning and engineering support to accomplish without devastating interruptions in service - this is a significant expense to the business being ordered to comply. I would be surprised if this went on without compensation, even if at a reduced rate. And the sheer expense may in and of itself be a controlling factor in such orders. I know that they are rare enough to cause ripples of whispers in the NSP/ISP community. I think my solution may be best: take a few ISPs who have bent over for Big Brother and kill their owners and staff. A few ISP owners found necklaced and smoking may send a message to others. It works for the Mob in a way none of the more civilized approaches can possibly work. You narc us out, we douse your children with gasoline and light them off. Your choice. Sometimes freedom demands harshness. Make them move to Texas. Force them to listen to recordings of Shrub all day, while sitting in the hot Texas sun. --Tim May -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Every living thing dies alone. Donnie Darko
Re: Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 03:28 PM, Steve Schear wrote: At 01:54 PM 8/29/2003 -0700, you wrote: Stopping your notification that the service is not monitored can be forbidden by a strict enough secrecy order. It may be the least legally risky of the options. The fact that you will stop notification should be included in your terms of service. All covered in my previous postings. This approach should be particularly applicable to ISPs as they generally have billing arrangement and can add this on as an extra service fee for each inquiry. Instead of court orders being a cost they become a revenue source. This has been proposed for, but it fails for the usual reasons. An ISP is free to say anyone requesting a tap is required to pay a fee, just as any ISP is free to say that it will handle installation of special Carnivore equipment for a certain fee. But when Big Brother commands that his Carnivore boxes be added, ISPs are afraid to shoot his agents who trespass. And so the work is done for free. And so, too, will the fees you talk about be waived. I think my solution may be best: take a few ISPs who have bent over for Big Brother and kill their owners and staff. A few ISP owners found necklaced and smoking may send a message to others. It works for the Mob in a way none of the more civilized approaches can possibly work. You narc us out, we douse your children with gasoline and light them off. Your choice. Sometimes freedom demands harshness. --Tim May
