Re: NSA knows who you've called.
At 08:05 AM 5/11/2006, Perry E. Metzger wrote: Let me again remind people that if you do not inform your elected representatives of your displeasure with this sort of thing, eventually you will not be in a position to inform them of your displeasure with this sort of thing. I think begging elected representatives to acknowledge your rights is generally a waste of time, especially when there is powerful or ingrained opposition. The Civil Rights movement got nowhere until there was massive civil disobedience. Widespread deployment of generic and otherwise acceptable technologies that can be re-targeted for end-user controlled privacy (not what governments would like to see, which is privacy mediated by corporations, licensed professionals or other regulated entities they can easily pressure) and/or insistence of powerful and wealthy individuals that they have the privacy they deserve and get it in such a way as its easily unavailable to the average citizen. Steve - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NSA knows who you've called.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > You and I are in agreement, but how do we get > the seemingly (to us) plain truth across to > others? I've been trying for a good while now, > reaching a point where I'd almost wish for a > crisis of some sort as persuasiveness is not > working. > > We are probably well off-topic for this list. First they came for the terrorists, and I said nothing because I wasn't a terrorist. Then they came for my phone calls, and I said nothing because I had nothing to hide. Then they came for the cryptographers, and I said nothing because I coulldn't even spel the word. Now I can't hide anything. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com | Microsoft as wall, Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | OSI are the sappers. 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 | Walls fall stone by stone Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog | - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NSA knows who you've called.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You and I are in agreement, but how do we get the seemingly (to us) plain truth across to others? I've been trying for a good while now, reaching a point where I'd almost wish for a crisis of some sort as persuasiveness is not working. for other drift ... the stuff about call record analysis with regard to social networking has been topic in datamining conferences for at least a couple years ... both academia and industry. the cellphone companies appear to be especially interested in it, for various kinds of capacity planning and marketing purposes (I think some academia even have contracts with cell phone companies researching this area). several months ago my wife had extensive communication with an editor doing some background stuff on datamining. some of it showed up in an article somewhat spun for the current situation Info Mining & Sharing are Controversial Co-Dependents, part 1: http://www.publicsectorinstitute.net/ELetters/EGovernment/v4n7/May13Articles.lsp#DataMining my wife's quotes liberally lace part 2: Data Mining "Disrupts & Enables" http://www.publicsectorinstitute.net/ELetters/EGovernment/v4n7/May13Articles.lsp#DataMining2 - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NSA knows who you've called.
See also Title 18 section 2703(c)(2): "(2) A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose to a governmental entity the - (A) name; (B) address; (C) local and long distance telephone connection records, or records of session times and durations; (D) length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized; (E) telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address; and (F) means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number), of a subscriber to or customer of such service when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena or any means available under paragraph (1). " (at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/121/sections/section_2703.html ) This paragraph specifically gives the requirements for disclosure of local and long distance telephone connection records, which were plainly not met. -Dan William Allen Simpson wrote: Perry E. Metzger wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm Legal analysis from Center for Democracy and Technology at: http://www.cdt.org/publications/policyposts/2006/8 - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NSA knows who you've called.
alan writes: -+-- | | I guess the big question is one of trust. I cannot see why people | trust the Bush administration. Any time they have been given power | they have abused it or used it to destroy their rivals. | I don't think this has anything to do with any particular administration. As Gilmore would say now (hi, John), don't give any government a power you would not want a despot to have. --dan = What's on my car https://www.protestwarrior.com/store/files/master/democrat_president.gif - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NSA knows who you've called.
Alan, You and I are in agreement, but how do we get the seemingly (to us) plain truth across to others? I've been trying for a good while now, reaching a point where I'd almost wish for a crisis of some sort as persuasiveness is not working. We are probably well off-topic for this list. --dan - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NSA knows who you've called.
On Fri, 12 May 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "Perry E. Metzger" writes: -+ | | And a personal note to you all: | | Let me again remind people that if you do not inform your elected | representatives of your displeasure with this sort of thing, | eventually you will not be in a position to inform them of your | displeasure with this sort of thing. | Perry, While I agree with you, the public does not, so far as I can tell, find itself willing to risk insecurity for the benefit of preserving privacy, as this article in today's Boston Globe would tend to confirm. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/05/12/most_put_security_ahead_of_privacy/ Most put security ahead of privacy (By Bruce Mohl, Globe Staff) Mark Jellison, a Verizon customer in Quincy, isn't fazed that his phone company may have turned over his calling records and those of millions of others to the National Security Agency as part of an effort to thwart terrorism. Probably because most Americans believe they are being spied on anyways. (And have for a very long time.) I find it interesting that the question is always about "fighting terrorism". I am willing to bet you would get different answers if the question was phrased as "Should a president be allowed to carry out massive wiretaps to spy on his political enemies?" I have seen NO proof that this spying was limited, or even directed towards, "terrorists". (Unless Democrats, peace activists, eco-freaks, hackers, and the like are now considered "Terrorists".) Since there is no oversight allowed, we must assume that this effort has more to do with rooting out and destroying threats to the President than it does to actual threats to the security of the country. -- "Waiter! This lambchop tastes like an old sock!" - Sheri Lewis - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NSA knows who you've called.
On Fri, 12 May 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: alan writes: -+-- | | Probably because most Americans believe they are being spied on | anyways. (And have for a very long time.) | Au contraire', it is precisely what, for example, my spouse would say: "I live a decent life and have nothing to hide." I ask people who say they have nothing to hide for their credit card numbers. Everyone has something to hide. The point is that you do not have to have done *anything* to be worried. How do you know that your name is not a known alias of some evil nasty terrorist who buggers FBI agents in his spare time? As this and all security-related lists are composed of people who are off-center when it comes to risk, it is us what be the outliers in the distribution and in no way are our various paranoias widely shared. The question is "should they be?". -- "Waiter! This lambchop tastes like an old sock!" - Sheri Lewis - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NSA knows who you've called.
Nick Owen writes: -+--- | ... | Or to teach pollsters to ask the correct questions. | ... All, Mr. Owen is dead-on. Speaking as someone who has had a formal education in statistics including the design of survey instruments, I will say that of all the ways in which it is possible for the dishonest to skew the results of quantitative analysis, survey design is hands down the most vulnerable. You want the numbers to come out your way? Sure, you can manipulate any data set of numbers to lean the direction you want them to lean, but if you control the survey instrument used to collect the raw data in the first place you 0wn the analysis in ways that re-analysis by others cannot erase. Case in point: Allowing those who care about Issue XYZ to self-select whether to take your survey guarantees overweighting the tails of your distribution and in ways that you may not be able to see (such as organized survey takers who talk to each other). Sort of like an Internet-mailing-list, no? --dan - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NSA knows who you've called.
Perry E. Metzger wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> While I agree with you, the public does not, >> so far as I can tell, find itself willing to >> risk insecurity for the benefit of preserving >> privacy, as this article in today's Boston >> Globe would tend to confirm. > > I'm sure. On the other hand, I think it is our place, as security > professionals, to explain why the tradeoff is a false one. Respect for > individual rights is not something we do in good times because it is a > luxury we can afford when there is stability. It is something we need > most in bad times, because it is what keeps us safe and maintains > stability itself. Or to teach pollsters to ask the correct questions. Take this survey: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_nsa_051206.htm What it this question from the poll: It's been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. It then analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations. Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat? Was instead: The NSA has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans possibly in violation of the law. Would you consider it acceptable for the government to break the law to investigate terrorism? Nick -- Nick Owen WiKID Systems, Inc. 404.962.8983 http://www.wikidsystems.com Commercial/Open Source Two-Factor Authentication https://www.linkedin.com/in/nickowen - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NSA knows who you've called.
alan writes: -+-- | | Probably because most Americans believe they are being spied on | anyways. (And have for a very long time.) | Au contraire', it is precisely what, for example, my spouse would say: "I live a decent life and have nothing to hide." As this and all security-related lists are composed of people who are off-center when it comes to risk, it is us what be the outliers in the distribution and in no way are our various paranoias widely shared. Not trying to debate the hive mind, etc., --dan - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NSA knows who you've called.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > While I agree with you, the public does not, > so far as I can tell, find itself willing to > risk insecurity for the benefit of preserving > privacy, as this article in today's Boston > Globe would tend to confirm. I'm sure. On the other hand, I think it is our place, as security professionals, to explain why the tradeoff is a false one. Respect for individual rights is not something we do in good times because it is a luxury we can afford when there is stability. It is something we need most in bad times, because it is what keeps us safe and maintains stability itself. Perry - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NSA knows who you've called.
"Perry E. Metzger" writes: -+ | | And a personal note to you all: | | Let me again remind people that if you do not inform your elected | representatives of your displeasure with this sort of thing, | eventually you will not be in a position to inform them of your | displeasure with this sort of thing. | Perry, While I agree with you, the public does not, so far as I can tell, find itself willing to risk insecurity for the benefit of preserving privacy, as this article in today's Boston Globe would tend to confirm. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/05/12/most_put_security_ahead_of_privacy/ Most put security ahead of privacy (By Bruce Mohl, Globe Staff) Mark Jellison, a Verizon customer in Quincy, isn't fazed that his phone company may have turned over his calling records and those of millions of others to the National Security Agency as part of an effort to thwart terrorism. --dan - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NSA knows who you've called.
Perry E. Metzger wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm Legal analysis from Center for Democracy and Technology at: http://www.cdt.org/publications/policyposts/2006/8 -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]