Re: Compromised Remailers
Quoting Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]: At 06:49 PM 12/13/2003 +0100, some provocateur claiming to be Anonymous wrote: A question for the moment might well be how many if any of the remailers are operated by TLAs? Remailers are secure if at least one remailer in a chain is _not_ compromised... A case-in-point on this is the admin of the Frog remailer in 2001. He 'outted' a user who chained a message through both of Frog admin's remailers. The admin didn't like what was said and used his logs to match the sender with the decrypted outgoing message. With sendmail and verbose Mixmaster logs, this is trivial to do. It's also not unheard of for remops to log and cooperate to 'out' a spammer. If I were remailing a message that would get me sent to prison, I would definately use a Wi-Fi hotspot and use 3-4 chained remailers with random delays. By the time the message is delivered, it will be many hours/days since the message was sent. -- Keith Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12
Re: Logging of Web Usage
Quoting Ben Laurie [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It seems to me if you want to make serious inroads into privacy w.r.t. logging of traffic, then what you want to put your energy into is onion routing. There is _still_ no deployable free software to do it, and that is ridiculous[1]. It seems to me that this is the single biggest win we can have against all sorts of privacy invasions. This sounds like an interesting project to work on. It's hard to belive that only the DoD has played with this technology. Onion routing would seem to have a much larger impact on personal privacy on the Internet than projects like Freenet ever could. After browsing through some of the descriptions of the system, it appears to be a real-time remailer-type system for IP traffic. A client proxy will take the IP traffic, break it up into identically sized packets, and then layer encrypt them starting with the last onion router to the first. Each router along the path would decrypt its layer and then forward the packet to the next router. The part that I am worried about is the liability of running an exit router. I ran a mixmaster remailer for over six months and found out first hand the reaction of people to receiving anonymous death-threats, racial slurs, and spam. The saving grace was the opt-out list for people to refuse to receive future anonymous messages. However, with a real-time system that could encapsulate all IP traffic, this could be used for anonymous hacking. Even if you limit the exit remailer's traffic to just port 80 and actual HTTP requests, there are plenty of exploits and probes that require nothing more. Thanks to the PATRIOT act, those of us in the US can look forward to federal prosecution with possible life sentences if the wrong system is hacked through a router. When the FBI comes knocking, I doubt they will be satisifed with anonymous free speech arguments. DoD's Onion Routing research project http://www.onion-router.net/ -- Keith Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12
Re: What shall we do with a bad government...
Quoting Thomas Shaddack [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Interesting point of observation: According to our laws, approving of a crime is a crime (with some more accurate specifications but I am not a stinkin' lawyer). According to international law, the recent Shrubya's desert adventure is quite likely a crime. So our Wise Government, in its act of approval of a hostile aggression, according to their own rules, probably became a bunch of criminals. UK Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security: 1. In Resolution 678 the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and restore peace and security. 2. In Resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under Resolution 678. 3. A material breach of Resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under Resolution 678. 4. In Resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of Resolution 687. 5. The Security Council in Resolution 1441 gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations and warned Iraq of the serious consequences. 6. The Security Council also decided in Resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and co-operate fully in the implementation of Resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach. 7. It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of Resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach. 8. Thus, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today. 9. All that 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraqs failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force. -- Keith Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12
Re: What shall we do with a bad government...
Quoting Harmon Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]: What bullshit. You just suck right up to those war criminals don't you? Do you work for them too? No, I just refuse to allow lies to go unchallenged by a bunch of bloodthirsty peaceniks who want to see US troops gassed, shot, blown-up, or nuked. The use of force in Iraq is legal. I believe that France, Russia, and Germany are not against this war on principle but due to their ill treatment by Bush's diplomatic style (or lack thereof). Their fear is not Iraqi regime change or civilian casualties but American hegemony. Immediately after September 11th, the world's leaders came together behind the US: I want to express to you my deep condolences and my unlimited solidarity to you and the American people. -- Schroeder In these terrible circumstances, all French people stand by the American people. We express our friendship and solidarity in this tragedy. -- Chirac The entire international community should unite in the struggle against terrorism... this is a blatant challenge to humanity. -- Putin Many of Europe's leading countries backed up their words by invoking the NATO Article V mutual defense clause. Schroeder felt so strongly about the need to aid Germany's friend and ally, he was willing to face a no confidence vote to send German troops to Afghanistan. As thanks for his support, Bush initially refused to accept NATO's help and then refused to share in any decision-making. In less than two months, Bush managed to make a diplomatic enemy out of an ally. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists -- Bush Ever since September 11th, Bush has gone out of his way to tell the world that the US is going to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants. At the same time that the US rejects European initiatives like the ICC, it expects Europe to blindly sign any resolution it brings to the UN. Even if a member of the Council were to agree with the US, how could it justify support to its people when the US constantly threatens and marginalizes it? Bush is a cowboy and its high time he was thrown from the horse. -- Keith Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12
Re: I for one am glad that...
Quoting Jamie Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 01:39:59PM -0600, Keith Ray wrote: The UN authorized force in resolution 678 to uphold current and future resolutions. The UN voted unanimously to declare Iraq in violation of previous UN resolutions in 1441. The UN weapons inspector's reports detailed many omissions in Iraq's weapons declaration and failures to fully cooperate with inspectors. Perhaps you should actually read the documents you reference. The legal arguments the Bush Regime are floating this week are contradicted by statements they've floated in getting the resolution passed. Of course this is to be expected, and they'll have a new batch of fatuous bullshit next week. They fact that you're buying the flavor of the month is amusing, though. Which resolution took away any Member State's authority to all necessary means to uphold resolution 690? Which resolution requires a Member State to seek Security Council approval for future military action? France was advocating that a first resolution at the United Nations Security Council, demanding that Iraq promptly disclose its weapons and disarm, must be followed by a second resolution authorizing war if Iraq refused. 'Be sure about one thing,' Mr. Powell told Dominique de Villepin, the French foreign minister. 'Don't vote for the first, unless you are prepared to vote for the second.' Whether the US chose to pursue a second resolution is immaterial to the fact that it already had the authority under resolution 678. If the UN Security Council wanted to ensure that no military action was taken without a second resolution, they should have put it in 1441 instead of a promise of serious consequences. So, I assume you're basing you're views on the New, Improved Powell, not that silly, confused one that spoke pushed the resolution last time around, right? What will you agree with next week? I am basing my views of the actual text of the resolutions. This is no excuse for use of unconventional warfare against the US nor does it delegitimize the US's use of force to defend themselves. As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people are behind him. (1) Please explain how a preemptive war against a country under more scrutiny than any other which has utterly failed to make any meaningful threat in the last 10 years is defensive? As others have pointed out, N. Korea is entirely justified in bombing DC under the Bush Doctrine. Please, compare and contrast. Force against Iraq is not pre-emptive since it is authorized by the UN Security Council resolutions 678 and 1441. North Korea does not have the authority under any UN Security Council resolution to take military action against any country. (2) Please explain exactly what moral system (which you apparently subscribe to) which states that if 7 out of ten say something, it is a morally correct action? No one, including me, has stated that popular support equals moral justification. I was merely pointing out that Bush was not dragging us into war since there was popular support for war. (3) I'm not going to bother with excuses for use of unconventional warfare. The lack of objective difference between freedom fighter and terrorist, the long history of US meddling, and the obvious reasons for this war (Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, personal vandetta) are obviously no match for your inciteful jingoism and moral mandate to inflict peace and freedom on others at gunpoint. In this particular case, we were discussing terrorists, not Iraq. I have never said that instituting democracy, peace, or any other way-of-life is justification for war. Analysis / The U.S. is almost alone in its war on Iraq We are alone with Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan (post conflict), Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, Britain, and Uzbekistan. -- Keith Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12
Re: I for one am glad that...
Quoting Thomas Shaddack [EMAIL PROTECTED]: They forgot to make corrections for the option when there is no agreement of the Security Council, maybe under the mistaken belief Bush won't play unfair. Sidestepping the new resolution in order to exploit a loophole in the previous one is an unclear move. That's a bold-faced lie! The Bush administration made it clear BEFORE resolution 1441 that it already had the authority to use force against Iraq. http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/iraq.resolution/ CNN - Friday, November 8, 2002 The Bush administration reiterated its position that although it would consult with the Security Council, it is not required to get U.N. approval for U.S.-led military action if Iraq fails to comply. The entire Council voted for that resolution with no abstentions. If France and Russia wanted to preclude force without further UN authorization, they should have demanded it be put in 1441. Instead, they unanimously voted to declare Iraq in continuing breach of UN resolutions and bolstered the US's authority for use of force. -- Keith Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12
Re: I for one am glad that...
Quoting Eric Cordian [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The US is one of many nations. Since the inception of the United Nations, and International Law, a nation may go to war only if it is attacked or in iminent danger of being attacked by another nation. The US is a signatory of the UN charter, and is consequently bound by it as if it were law. Military actions taken because of a perceived future threat to world peace can only be authorized by the UN Security Council. The UN authorized force in resolution 678 to uphold current and future resolutions. The UN voted unanimously to declare Iraq in violation of previous UN resolutions in 1441. The UN weapons inspector's reports detailed many omissions in Iraq's weapons declaration and failures to fully cooperate with inspectors. United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) 2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002) 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; So-called terrorists hate not our freedom, but our meddling. This is no excuse for use of unconventional warfare against the US nor does it delegitimize the US's use of force to defend themselves. That is why our leader, George W. Bush, understands that in order to protect our freedoms, special precautions are necessary. George W. Bush is a raving lunatic, barking at the moon, lying through his teeth, and dragging the nation into another Bush family war. Ad hominem attacks against the President are irrelevant to the current discussion. As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people are behind him. Of course, in order to secure our freedom, all citizens must actively support our government's efforts to secure this freedom. Anyone who does not obviously support American freedom is clearly opposed to it and must be stopped, or he will help our enemies take away our freedom. More Freedom = Less Government. I support maximal freedom. By that reasoning, maximum freedom equals no government. Let's disband the police and military and see how long the US lasts. Let us as responsible citizens of this free and peaceful nation pledge ourselves in the fight against evil. May God help us in our fight. The US is the foremost international bully in the world today, pursuing an agenda of globalization on its own terms, during a brief period in which it enjoys complete and total military superiority. The US is also the world's foremost provider of economic aid. Whether the US is a bully or a peacekeeper really depends on your perspective. World government may be inevitable at some time in the future, but it would be idiotic to permit that world government to grow from the coalition of Bible Spewing Jesus Christers, and their Neo-Conservative handlers that currently have their greedy paws on America's military machine. Damn those free elections! Why can't we just agree to let you pick the world's leaders? Justice in the Middle East would be Sharon, Netanyahu, and two generations of the Bush family hanging in downtown Baghdad. After a fair trial and due process at the hands of the International Community, of course. This kind of statement works a lot better for Tim than it does for you. -- Keith Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12
Re: Blacknet Delta CAPPS II Boycott?
Quoting Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Would there be an easy blacknet way to offer those t-shirts that would be un-shutdownable? Also, as an added (perhaps necessary) benefit, the ability to protect (through anonymity) those that ran the site? There are three requirements for anonymous merchandise sales: advertisement of services, payment, and shipping of goods to the customer. Advertising can work through Freenet or remailed postings to usenet or mailing lists. Anonymous payment can be through DMT/ALTA. As long as the shirts are less than the USPS weight limits, they can be mailed in any drop box. APAS Anonymous Remailer Use FAQ http://www.eskimo.com/~turing/remailer/FAQ/ Freenet http://freenet.sourceforge.net/ DMT/ALTA https://196.40.46.24/ -- Keith Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12
Re: Psuedo-Private Key (eJazeera)
Quoting Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED]: WOULDN'T IT BE NICE...If the original encrypted message actually had TWO messages inside it, both very similar. In this example, one of the messages is the incriminating pictures of the demonstration, the other is pictures of Pam Anderson or whatever. Does this exist? Would it be difficult? Rubberhose by Julian Assange, Ralf P. Weinmann and Suelette Dreyfus http://www.rubberhose.org/ Rubberhose transparently and deniably encrypts disk data, minimising the effectiveness of warrants, coersive interrogations and other compulsive mechanims, such as U.K RIP legislation. Rubberhose differs from conventional disk encryption systems in that it has an advanced modular architecture, self-test suite, is more secure, portable, utilises information hiding (steganography / deniable cryptography), works with any file system and has source freely available. Currently supported ciphers are DES, 3DES, IDEA, RC5, RC6, Blowfish, Twofish and CAST. -- Keith Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12
Re: Secret Court Says U.S. Has Broad Wiretap Powers
Quoting Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Third, there are good reasons why two of our list members have been sentenced to long jail terms by Big Brother, why some have fled the country, and why the Treasury Department's Criminal Investigation Unit published my SS number and declared in documents that I am a suspected criminal of some sort (yet to be determined in their secret court proceedings). For the lazy: http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.1999.03.29-1999.04.04/msg6.html and for background on that see: http://www.antioffline.com/apol.html -- Keith Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12
Assassination Politics: Coming soon?
It's been a number of years since Jim Bell wrote his infamous Assassination Politics essay. If someone were to try to implement the system today and not share Jim Bell's fate, they would need absolute anonymity and security. The technical requirements for implementing the system are: 1. Anonymous and secure communication between the organization and the contributors and guessors. 2. Anonymous payment system. 3. Anonymous public presense of the organization to solicit contributions and display bounties to potential assassins. At the time AP was written, only the first requirement could have been met using the mixmaster remailer network. The last two requirements were not yet available. However, two new systems, DMT and Freenet, could be used to meet the anonymous payment and anonymous public presense requirements. If someone did want to implement AP, would DMT/Yodel, Freenet, and Mixmaster be good enough to keep the TLA's from shutting the system down? -- Keith Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12
