Subject: [Raven] FBI secret police

From: William Allen Simpson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 13:37:46 -0500

As I prefer to give specific examples from life, rather than speculation, 
here's a long post that might give a hint as to why we do not trust our 
government agencies.

Jacob Palme wrote:
> This is also, perhaps, a difference of the view on
> law enforcement agencies. In the U.S. you seem to be
> much more afraid of misuse by law enforcement agencies,
> you do not seem to trust your police as much as we do
> in some other countries.
> 

William Allen Simpson wrote:
> And just to top it off, I've been unable to get my own personal
> FBI records in 6 years.  The law states they have 20 days.  Their
> most recent excuse says they have to search over a million records.
> 
Wonder of wonders, I just received a portion of my FBI Freedom of 
Information records yesterday.  Apparently, their very existance was 
classified "SECRET", by "G-3", and was supposed to be "declassified on: 
OADR".  Any idea what that means?

However, most of the contents were still classified secret again by 
60267NLS/BCE/JMS for reason 1.5(C), on May 25, 1999, to be declassified 
on "X.1".  So, virtually the entire documents are blacked out, labeled 
"b1".  The included handy reference guide lists "(b)(1)" as: 

  "(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an 
  Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense 
  or foreign policy  and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant 
  to such Executive order"

These records are from 1991, 1992, and 1993.  The "predication for this 
investigation" is secret.  The "Basis of the Investigation" is secret. 
The "Objectives of the Investigation" are secret.  The "Status of the 
Investigation" is secret.

Other smaller sections are blacked out with labels (b)(2):

  "related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of 
  the agency"

and (b)(7)(D):

  "could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a 
  confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agent or 
  authority or any private institution which furnished information on 
  a confidential basis, and, in the case of records or information 
  compiled by a criminal law enforcement agency in the course of a 
  criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national 
  security intelligence investigation, information furnished by 
  confidential source"

It is particularly amusing that the latter is used to black out 
records of contact with my own parents (who refused to talk with them), 
copies of email that I sent, and my vehicle title (where I have the 
original copy).  Somebody had a very heavy hand in the censorship.

(Also amusing, the FBI was still using all cap teletype in '92 :-)

What is less amusing is that the FBI spent over a year going to each 
place that I had email access and tried to convince them to revoke 
my access.  They were successful in (at least) two places.

They interviewed at least 11 people out of their Albuquerque, Boston, 
Detroit, Minneapolis and San Francisco offices.

Apparently, they investigated my IETF activities at Santa Fe, San Diego,
Boston and Washington DC.  They quote the Santa Fe and San Diego 
proceedings.  They direct agents to IETF meetings, "to ascertain if 
subject came to any notice at the PPPWG meetings."  They make specific 
reference to CHAP and DES. 

Various clear sentence fragments indicate a concern that the PPPWG 
meeting was taking place sponsored by Los Alamos, and that "these 
meetings attract interested persons worldwide."  Another fragment 
indicates a concern that my PPP software was distributed by servers 
at White Sands Missile Base and mirrored at various universities.

The most legible interview, still mostly blacked out, gives a hint as 
to the questions that were being raised:

  <black>

  "<black> stated that he believes the PPP is legal technology.  However,
  if the government is attempting to restrict the dissemination of 
  authentication protocols, he believes it is too late.  It is like 
  locking the barn after the horse has escaped (per <black>).

  <black>

  "In summary, <black> does not believe Simpson has engaged in breaking 
  United States export laws regarding the export of cryptographic
  devices or is interested in violating such laws at the behest of a 
  foreign power."

The name blacked out appears to occupy 3 letters.  My thanks to Karl Fox 
or Craig Fox!  

The instigator of the investigation appears to have a surname of 4 or 
maybe 5 letters.  Thus, it is probably not "Atkinson".  Perhaps it's 
the former IAB member that required the removal of the PPP LCP 
encryption option, refused to publish CHAP, and refused to grant the 
IPSec charter....  When the NomCom replaced the IAB, he was first 
against the wall.

  "Sources whose identities are concealed herein have furnished 
  reliable information in the past except when otherwise noted."

Gentlefolk, we have a stool pigeon in the roost, whose interests are 
contrary to the interests of the IETF and the Internet as a whole.  It 
is a male.  And he is regularly reporting IETF member activities for 
secret investigation.  Beware.

[email-masked]
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32

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

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 08:21:49 -0500

Bill,

The IETF operate in public, under public scrutiny. There is no way we can
hide our debates from nayone, let alone the FBI.
-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Matthew Saroff <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 08:31:48 -0600

On Nov 19,  8:21am, Christian Huitema wrote:
> Subject: Re: [Raven] FBI secret police
> Bill,
>
Hi,
	I believe that the issue about this that is concerning is that the FBI
has in the past said to people involved in security and networking standards on
the internet that supporting privacy and strond encryption are "anti-social".
	This is a not so veiled threat that supporting privacy will mean that
the FBI will conduct surveillance, which seems to be accurate in Bill's case.

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

---

From: "chefren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 02:02:17 +0100

> secret investigation.  Beware.

Police here in The Netherlands don't trust themselves: If 
they are in a group of about 20 they only communicate non-
important things because the conclude the group is so big 
that there is always a spy between them.

  Just as a principle: 20 people is definitely too much for
  any security. Secure is if people only know what they
  need to know to function.

However, our community needs minimal verfication 
posibilities to keep things "enough" in check... If 
government information would indeed only be where it's 
needed verfication would be made very difficult if the 
people have made mistakes themselves. They will always try 
to hide them...

+++chefren

= =
ii.nl ontwerpt, bouwt én onderhoudt websites
100 Euro aanbrengpremie: http://www.ii.nl/premie