Subject: RE: [Raven] Re: What IS acceptable

From: "Adam Rabblerouser" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 15:14:56 EST

>Adam Rabblerouser argues that because telephone tapping
>and mail reading are institutionalized so should Internet tapping.
>
>Not at all, it seems to me. Reducing the practice of telephone
>tapping and mail reading would be more socially beneficial
>action than increasing institutionalized invasion of privacy. In
>order to offset the rise in other forms of technological intrusion
>which are not well known or legislated.
Sez who?

Where is any objective evidence that law enforcement has used
"other forms of technological intrusion" to invade our privacy?

Where is any objective evidence that reducing telephone tapping
and mail reading is socially beneficial?  I reckun it's
the other way around - it's probably fairly easy to
document reduction of crime due to tapping, and probably near
impossible to document any adverse effects that society is being
harmed by those pesky other forms.

>Law enforcement appears to have become overly dependent
>on tapping and mail reading, and failed to develop more effective
>ways to meet its obligations to combat truly damaging exploitation
>of technological guilelessness.
There they go agin.  Where is the evidence that law enforcement
has become overly dependent on tapping?  Just who do you think
catches most of the bad guys, and how do you think they do it?

Taps aren't at all common.  I know about the LAPD stuff, it's still
true, taps are rare.  I'm sure they are more common at the federal
level than the state or local level, but it's not like it ranks
up there with informers, physical evidence, etc.

As long as we demean law enforcement, the ability of the agencies
to attract the kind of talent that could "combat truly damaging exploitation 
of technological guilelessness" is pretty damn
limited if you ask me.  Better to bring back the good cop image,
who protects kids and always gets his man.  Probably not possible,
but we get what we pay for.  Checked out the requirements and
pay scales for your local police force lately?

You guys are right out there with the wagging fingers on the left
hand saying "not with my Internet you don't" and on the right
saying "why can't you catch a few real criminals for a change?".
I say, give them the tools, make the rules clear, enforce them
consistantly as you can, and let'em go do their job.

>That may be due to LE's limited grasp of technology, like most of us,
>or being  shut out of the technological loop dominated by the intelligence 
>agencies, especially the NSA -- though a change in the latter may be in the 
>offing to cloak the agencies' deeper methods of gathering and
>distributing intelligence.
Conspiracy theories do tend to come out in discussions like this.

Facts tend to be scarcer then pool sharks in a church.

>Chefren's mantra of an auditable tap is sad to hear, that that is
>all he knows to proffer as a technological fix for gumshoes not
>knowing anymore than the rest of us about what is transpiring
>on in the electromagnetic spectrum. Crying about the boogies
>threatening law and order, hoot, hoot. Exactly who do you think
>is a genuine threat to the techno-ignoramouses in charge of proper
>behavior.

>Adam, why is that so few tap requests are turned down.
Why maybe it's because over a very long time LE has learned
what is permissible and what is not.

Very few arrest warrants are turned down

Very few search warrants are turned down

Doesn't mean squat.

>And why is there so much illegal tapping going on in and outside of
>law enforcement.
Who sez?  Not something I've seen any study showing.  You are
waving sensational stories and broadbrush painting all law
enforcement with it.  My local force has NEVER been acused of
illegal tapping, as far as I know.  Maybe them big city boys do it.

>Is it not because the technology, as ever, is far
>ahead of the law, and has become a diverting icon to far more
>threatening technology.
Oh pleeze.  The FBI has some very competant people.  So do the
FCC.  The NSA has a ton of them.  Sure, the law lags technology.
Always has, always will.  Look to the politicians rather than
law enforcement for that.

>Tapping really does not work anymore except
>as sensational newsmongering by both prosecutors and civil
>libertarians, keeps them barefoot and happy.
Who sez?  Lots of taps result in convictions.  Lots result in
no prosecution.  Most cops I know don't use them very often,
because they are expensive, and time consuming.  They work when
you have a lead and don't have another way to run it down.

>Electronic interception needs nothing as crude as access to wire, paper and 
>the Internet, much less the IETF innocents.
Well, if the IETF did it, it would be a damn site more
effective and less likely to be abused than if we let your
"LE's limited grasp of technology" handle the problem.

Johnboy we just aren't all innocent here at Camp IETF.
At least a few of us have been around the block a few times.

Adam

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

_______________________________________________
raven mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven

---

From: Matthew Saroff <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 17:20:11 -0600

> "other forms of technological intrusion" to invade our privacy?
	Use of infrared cameras to look for grow lights in people's basements.
 Use of parabolic microphones.
> harmed by those pesky other forms.
	That would explain why there is no crime in Los Angeles, the DA and the
PD have been tapping everyone.

-- 
Matthew Saroff
Do not reply directly to this message.  Reply to
[email-masked]

---

From: Sampo A Syreeni <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 01:56:45 +0200 (EET)

>"other forms of technological intrusion" to invade our privacy?

See the debate on closed circuit surveillance and satellite monitoring. We
aren't as far from the Enemy of the State as we would like to think. How
about the ACLU site on unique ID's, medical information databases and
personal information databases in general? Or web profiling (there's no one
to say the government wouldn't do the same)? Or genetical
testing/profiling/databasing (there are plans for the latter going on as we
speak)?

>harmed by those pesky other forms.

Well, people do not seem to put a whole lot of faith in the US
government. If that isn't easy to qualify adverse impact, then what is?

>catches most of the bad guys, and how do you think they do it?

Taps granted go up and the number of valid reasons for obtaining one do
too. Constantly. At the same time the number of taps denied does not
decrease. This development hasn't stopped even when crime has gone down.

>consistantly as you can, and let'em go do their job.

But where are the guarantees trouble will not arise? And this isn't a US
internal matter, either: one of the key ingredients of Internet security is,
the US legistlation does not forbid spying on foreign citizens, even while
some major Europe to Europe traffic (e.g.) goes through the States.

>Conspiracy theories do tend to come out in discussions like this.

Many of the NSA related conspiracy theories have been proven true beyond
doubt. See aclu's echelon site, http://www.echelonwatch.org/.

>what is permissible and what is not.

Then why does the number of taps granted go up, regardless of estimated
total crime?

>"LE's limited grasp of technology" handle the problem.

Well, if somebody wanted to abuse it, they would resot to non-IETF methods,
like carrying transmitters into people's houses. There's been some
interesting development in that direction - was it Britain, anyone?

Sampo Syreeni <[email-masked]>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university

---

From: Ed Stone <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 19:45:20 -0500

> >"other forms of technological intrusion" to invade our privacy?

For starters, let's go to the government's efforts to defeat civil rights 
and non-violent protest. How about audio bugs planted in Martin Luther 
King's bedroom, and the resultant tapes being sent to him with the 
suggestion that he commit suicide?

Want another? How about the forwarding of Western Union telegrams as a 
matter of course, without warrants nor any statement of probable cause, to 
law enforcement?

Another? How about multi-year long warrantless "mail covers" in which first 
class mail was intercepted, opened, read by law enforcement, and then 
resealed and forwarded on.

Another? The IRS investigations of political dissidents in the United 
States is very interesting.

Talk about a softball...

I recommend to your reading, in which you will find the objective evidence 
you asked for of all of the above:

Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans
Book II
Final Report of the Select Committee to study Governmental Operations
with Respect to Intelligence Activities
United States Senate
Report No. 94-755

But our presidents would help root out that evil, of course...

"I want to be sure that he is a ruthless son of a bitch, that he will do 
what he is told, that every income tax return I want to see, I see. That he 
will go after our enemies and not go after our friends.

Now it's as simple as that. If he isn't, he doesn't get the job."

The thirty-seventh President of the United States, in an Oval Office 
conversation with the White House Chief of Staff and the Chief Domestic 
Policy Advisor, on May 13, 1971, describing the kind of person he wanted as 
commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.  (Audio tape available in the 
US Archives.)

Gives you a warm and cozy feeling, huh?

--
--------------------------
Ed Stone
[email-masked]
--------------------------

---

From: "chefren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 02:59:59 +0100

>  Use of parabolic microphones.

I have always understood they don't work very well.

+++chefren

---

From: Sampo A Syreeni <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 13:44:09 +0200 (EET)

>I have always understood they don't work very well.

That is precisely why you point a laser into a window and go on from there,
nowadays. The point being, surveillance technology has developed enormously
since the days of J Edgar. If the current technology gets into the wrong
hands and there are no safeguards, something hits the fan.

---

From: "C. Wegrzyn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 12:15:34 -0500

While all these discussions are interesting, they don't seem to be leading
anywhere. There are those that think the IETF shouldn't spend any cycles
(for whatever reason) and there are those that do. In working on the Winsock
and SNMP committees it was always pointed out to people that the "standards"
set by the IETF are minimums: they set the interopability of the products
that work on the network. I would suggest that rather than fight these never
ending religious battles that those individuals and companies that think
there is a market for traceability, should go off and build them. Those
individuals and companies that don't believe in the cause (for whatever
reason) shouldn't change their course. Let the "courts" of marketplace
decided. Perhaps there is a NEW Cisco on the horizon that will build such a
product, offer it to the market and build a whole new empire.

For what it is worth...one person's opinion.
Chuck Wegrzyn

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Adam Rabblerouser
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 3:15 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Raven] Re: What IS acceptable

Sez who?

Doesn't mean squat.

Adam