-Caveat Lector- Someone said: >>> h) It is a good thing to make surveillance cheap and simple. This person should prove hir point by mounting cheap & simple surveillance devices in all rooms of hir home, and connecting these devices to the 'net... this would at least prove coherent internal ethics, if an oddly Orwellian viewpoint... the obvious extension to this. We are all somewhat aware that cheap and simple surveillance techniques by individual citizens upon law enforcement officers engaged in illegal abrogation of individual civil rights is often summarily and violently dealt with by theft or destruction of video cameras, intimidation &/or violence against persons? Worlds away from "1984"- I see many opinions that I consider to be WELL informed, expressed here by persons who seem to have ETHICS and INTEGRITY intact. Several key points sum up: Secure information delivery is DEFINITIVELY at odds with ease-of-interceptibility. Rights are God given, and in the U.S. we consider privacy to be high on the list of those God given rights which our Govenment is EXPESSLY FORBIDDEN to infringe upon. As ethical persons, we would wish to extend these rights to all persons, leaving it up to THEIR governments to abridge these rights WITHOUT our assistance. Government has reached some critical mass of ineptitude and greed- greed for even such "intelligence" as what may be contained in our private personal communications... there is no forseeable end to such a collapse of government- such a perversion from a tool to facilitate certain minimal infrastructure and international relations to a tool of fascist suppression of "the people" at the whim of Elite managers of the massive capital wealth which controls and shapes public opinion via monopoly-owned broadcast & print media, and thereby interferes with any balanced and true functionality of "representative" government. Thank you Ed Stone, William H. Geiger III, Aaron Armitage, Rick Braddam, (and those with opposing viewpoints ;) Resources of possible interest: http://www.cadrg.com/A/Center_for_the_Study_of_Intelligence.html http://www.eff.org/hot/19981206_wiretap_alert.html [ http://www.gpo.ucop.edu/cgi-bin/gpogate?waisdoc=1&doctype=TEXT&docid=::::0 +65825+/diskb/wais/data/105_cong_bills/h3694enr.txt&server=105_cong_bills/wa is.access.gpo.gov ] http://www.nswc.navy.mil/ISSEC/Docs/alt_2600.txt Prohibition= government monopoly protection http://www.dcia.com/narco.html http://www.madcowprod.com http://www.copvcia.com http://www.druggingamerica.com/ http://www.ciadrugs.com/ http://www.dcia.com Dave Hartley http://www.Asheville-Computer.com http://www.ioa.com/~davehart --__--__-- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:46:23 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Ed Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Raven] Another Perspective <snip> Having an international technical standards body attempt to navigate the often conflicting laws and law enforcement powers of various jurisdictions would seem impractical. <snip> I think that the chief function of IETF is operate a process that generates standards that provide for the secure, efficient and reliable delivery of packets/information, rather than to enter international political consensus building exercises. "Secure", I submit, is not a term that argues for the facilitation in any way of delivery of packets to recipients other than those desired by the sender, nor to facilitating the disclosure of the identity and related information of the sender or recipient without their fully voluntary informed consent. After all, a sender can use the current protocol quite successfully to send a copy to whomever he may wish, and may provide digital signatures to establish identity, should he so choose. The issue at hand is about bludgeoning IETF into forcing upon the Internet community that which the community may accomplish voluntarily now, if it so chooses. It doesn't so choose. One government may decide to impose capital punishment on those possessing modems, another may argue to revise the first, fourth, fifth and tenth amendments. IETF will find it quite a challenge to satisfy both of them in the political realm. -- -------------------------- Ed Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Message: 2 From: "William H. Geiger III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 13:57:16 -0500 To: Christian Huitema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "chefren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Richard Payne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: re: [Raven] Some Considerations In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 10/20/99 at 11:24 AM, Christian Huitema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >It seems that the initial debate has diverged quite a bit. We were merely >asking whether a desire to minimally comply with the law resulted in a >need to alter protocols, for example altering Internet Telephony call set >up so that it could on demand set up a branch to the wiretap office. The >rough consensus answer, so far, is no -- whoever wants to perform wiretap >should use existing tools such as RMON. I'll take this one step farther; the IETF members should actively design their protocols to make this task as difficult as possible. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.openpgp.net Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 5.0 at: http://www.openpgp.net/pgp.html Talk About PGP on IRC EFNet Channel: #pgp Nick: whgiii --------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 8 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 17:58:07 -0400 To: "Carter Bullard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Paul Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [Raven] Another perspective Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] aynetworks.com> At 10:05 AM 10/20/1999 -0700, Carter Bullard wrote: >You seem to have missed the point. By actively supporting >privacy laws you are actively helping in the cause of ensuring >privacy. Duh. Is there a hidden meaning here? I fully intend to support digital privacy with every breath I take. > If the IETF, as an organization, thinks that privacy is >important, then it should actively seek out opportunities to >support the enforcement of existing privacy law. This is how >the world basically works. Failure to do so will, by definition, >undermine global voice privacy. No, now you are missing the point. The IETF does not involve itself in political discussions. We do technology. Failure to recognize this discussion of wiretap-ability does nothing more than indicate that, in the grand scheme of engineering things (see Dilbert comics for more info), it really matters not. The market always decides, and that's what scares the LEA's. >But beyond that, if the IETF's answer to your above question is >"No" for whatever reason, WHOA, talk about an Internet stock down >turn. "IETF refuses to support global voice privacy enforcement >laws. News at 11." Wrong again, compadre. The popular press is at least educated enough to know (at least by now) that we don't make these types of decisions without thorough discussion and thought. We won't get painted in that light. >What type of message would the IETF be sending to the planet >if it basically stated that the collective global communications >law is flawed and the IETF after careful consideration refuses >to recognize and support it? Who do you think will eventually >win? The easy answer is IETF --- NOT. You are certainly short-sighted, and naive. And obviously do not harbor the basic principles of engineering -- "First, do no harm." "Second, do no harm." >Communications standards organizations can deal with these >issues with out any problem at all. The ability for the IETF >to come to a responsible position on this topic may help in >understanding whether the IETF will be a communications standards >organization or not. Please: The market _will_ decide. Let governments make their laws. Provide intellectual input to them as needed. If they do something stupid, then the populace will force them to change their silly laws. Speaking only for myself, - paul -- Jam Echelon Day, 21 October 1999 http://www.echelon.wiretapped.net/ _________________________________________________________________ CHEROKEE HILLARY BILL CLINTON GORE GEORGE BUSH WACKENHUT TERRORIST FBI CIA NSA IRS ATF BATF DOD WACO RUBY RIDGE OKC OKLAHOMA CITY SOG SOF DELTA FORCE CONSTITUTION BILL OF RIGHTS WHITEWATER POM HORIUCHI KORESH DAVIDIAN KAHL POSSE COMITATUS RANDY WEAVER VICKIE WEAVER SPECIAL FORCES LINDA THOMPSON SPECIAL OPERATIONS GROUP PROMIS MOSSAD NASA MI5 ONI CID AK47 M16 C4 MALCOLM X REVOLUTION TASK FORCE 160 SPECIAL OPS 12TH GROUP 5TH GROUP SF PARK ON METER ARKANSIDE IRAN CONTRAS OLIVER NORTH VINCE FOSTER MILITIA GUN HANDGUN MILGOV ASSAULT RIFLE TERRORISM BOMB DRUGS --__--__-- Message: 9 From: "Rick Braddam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Aaron Armitage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Raven] Some Considerations Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 17:06:27 -0500 charset="iso-8859-1" There are and will be places where organized crime can hide with or without strong crypto. Unrestricted strong crypto is already available to anyone, including those in organized crime, who wants it and is willing to download the needed libraries or programs. Believe it or not, some in organized crime have IQs higher than 30 and some have even graduated from college. It is entirely possible that some may know how to implement and use strong cryptography. Governments do not give rights, they can only limit them or take them away as long as people permit it. The American government has crossed the line many times and will continue to do so. Eventually, the American people will get fed up with it and begin an active restructuring of the government. I hope that when it happens it will be with political and legal means, but I am aware that the second amendment was added just in case political and legal means were insufficient. > > > > If governments really wanted to see it go away, the > > > quickest solution would be to end their silly "war on > > > drugs" which has only gone and put billions of dollars > > > in the pockets of these "criminals". > > > >Another sidestep... > > > >Well I have no problem to agree that laws on cannabis and > >probably even cocaine are downright stupid, alcohol gives > >for example far more problems to societies. > > > >However... I do think good governments prohibit the use of > >heroine and maybe even tabacco. Science has proven use of > >these goods is addictive, takes over controll of free will, > >and very bad for ones health. > > Good government leave people the hell alone unless they have a much better > reason than smoking. I'd go one step farther and say that good governments leave people alone unless they have committed or are committing a crime. > > > Restricting *my* rights & freedoms so you can have warm fuzzies at night > > > in your police state is not acceptable. > > > >hihi... If you want to live in one world TOGETHER with > >other people without too much fighting you have to give in > >some and you will get some. I have to do so too of course... I live with and around other people without any fighting at all and the only thing I give up is interfering in the lives of the others. That's also the only thing they give up. The quickest way to start a fight would be to start telling them what they can and can't do, or what they have to do. If you spend much time with Americans I think you'll find that to be a common characteristic. > In other words, essential liberty must be lost so we can live "TOGETHER". > No, they don't. It is perfectly possible to live at peace and in freedom at > the same time. > > > > >> e) No-one can ever construct, under any circumstances, an illicit > >version of > > > >> the "tapping room" that you describe; > > > > > > >I don't say so at all, by constructing a good IETF tapping > > > >interface WE can do our best to prevent those illicit > > > >tapping rooms. I don't believe anyone can design a tapping interface good enough to prevent it being used *illegally* by government agencies or anyone else who wants to use it. > > > The tapping of my communication is a violation of my basic human right > > > >Where is that "right" described. I think rights are written > >down in laws and laws should be made by democratic > >structures. The same democratic structures should be able > >to limit your communication rights. As they do. There is no > >country in this world that hasn't any laws that limit > >communication rights. To give just a stupid example: Nobody > >may construct and use a 10 million Watt radio transmitter > >that transmits your voice without all kind of permissions > >required by laws. There ARE all kind of restrictions, even > >in the US. Rights are given by God, not by governments or laws. Laws are agreements we make to limit the exercise of our rights for the common good. Unfortunately, many laws are made without the agreement of all involved, then you have civil disobediance. <snip> I care, and so do a lot of others. As we educate more about the consequences of limiting or suppressing crypto, more will care. Regulation often causes problems instead of limiting them. <snip> > > > As far as the second, well > > > you will have to look to other sources for that. Once again I find > > > government intervention into areas where they don't belong to be the > > > greater evil here. Agreed. > >The will of the people states where government should > >intervene and where not. Your personal opinion isn't that > >interesting. You may try to convert other people and thus > >get more votes for your opinion in the democratic proces. <snip> "They" aren't interested in proving I am not guilty. Sometimes they want to prove me guilty even if I'm not. That's a lot less embarassing than admitting they got the wrong house. > ***IT SHOULD NOT BE NESSESSARY TO PROVE SOMEONE NOT GUILTY*** > ***THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHOULD ALWAYS BE ON THE ACCUSER*** > > > > > >> h) It is a good thing to make surveillance cheap and simple. > > > > > > >As long as misuse is kept in check by regulation, yes. They don't always obey the laws we have now that are designed to keep misuse in check. What makes you think they will obey additional laws? > > > Governed by those who would be misusing it? Surely you are not the > >naive? > > > >I believe in democracy. I think it's not very good but I > >have no trouble to admit I don't know a better way and I > >certainly don't want to say "I know best just leave me, I > >will arrange everything for you. Yes you can believe me I'm > >just crypting to protect my privacy, I'm not organising > >cocaine transports with my friends via encrypted messages > >hidden in pictures we post to Usenet". I would appear to me that most of the people who "believe in democracy" agree with the majority, since democracy is rule by majority. Democracy might be harder to believe in if it shifts its focus to something you do or believe in which it disapproves of. > A person who wants a little privacy is not saying "I know best just leave > me, I > will arrange everything for you." He is saying "I know best in my own life. > I will arrange everything for myself, and you arrange everything for > yourself." > > As I said before, if someone thinks your pictures on the usenet are > organizing coke sales, they should have to prove it. > > > > >It seems you have real problems with accepting the > > > >mechanisms that makes our societies work and the mechanisms that > > > >obstruct the functioning as wished by democratic majorities. > > > > > > Well I don't know how things work across the pond, but here we believe > >in > > > the principle that the rights of the individual supercede the desires of > > > the majority. > > > >What makes you state "we believe"? Is it you, you and your > >friends or the American people? And if you are right, why > >do you have jails? > > He means the American people. I hope he's right. I'm pretty sure he's right. We have jails for those who violate the rights of others. > I find very reveiling that you equate not violating rights with murder, > robbery, ect. Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have > for dinner. It sucks. Give me a republic, and give me freedom. > > > > My right to privacy outweighs any desire for law & order > > > you are your "majority" may have. > > > >That's your wish or is that right clearly defined by law in > >your country? I strongly doubt the latter... Lucky for us that our Supreme Court doesn't doubt it. > By your definition, Jews had no rights to violate during the holocaust > because their rights weren't "clearly defined by law" > >+++chefren > > > > Aaron Armitage > Rick Braddam _____________________________________________ raven mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven End of raven Digest DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
