Subject: [Raven] Re: What IS acceptable

From: John Young <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 14:29:42 -0500

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.

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.

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.

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.
And why is there so much illegal tapping going on in and outside of
law enforcement. 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. Tapping really does not work anymore except
as sensational newsmongering by both prosecutors and civil
libertarians, keeps them barefoot and happy.

Electronic interception needs nothing as crude as access to 
wire, paper and the Internet, much less the IETF innocents.

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

---

From: "chefren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 02:34:07 +0100

> of technological guilelessness.

Is there anything strange here?

Because of very efficient electronic means work and crime 
are splitted in informational and "real" tasks.

So there is more crime in information and thus more taps 
needed.

And as said: Police will always be behind in technology. 
That's OK, they are not the army and the difference between 
it is more or less called privacy.

A soldier leaves no chance to the ennemy. A policeman often 
doesn't even start an investigation without some obvious 
proof of a problem.

+++chefren

=Signature follows=

I think we need a simple architecture for a point
to point tap interface that has strong provisions
against misuse.

On one side the communication provider who only
starts tapping a specific customer or IP number
with proper warrants.

On the other side the approved tapping room.

Everything should be organized by a central
"tapping office". This office should provide
keys for strong encryption to both communication
provider and tapping room.

Law and technology should both provide as
much checks and balances as we can come up
with. Law can provide good procedures,
technology can provide technical means to
check them or force them.

=Large signature ended. If you want to
help to setup a standard for the above
design, please contact me.=

---

From: John Young <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 21:20:30 -0500

>So there is more crime in information and thus more taps 

But taps are no more effective than guns for preventing or
solving crimes, though many police parade those totems for
incomprehensible reasons lost in the distant mists. True,
taps are ritualisticly performed, as 9MM are packed, both
displayed as emblems of privilege and power. Even as
those with superior privilege and power disdain such
crudities. No general, no president, no head of agency, 
no drug kingpin, no CEO needs these, having access 
to more effective implements to exhort, extort, bribe, and 
induce willing or unwilling compliance and obedience.

You're smart as hell, Chefren, peddling religious indulgences
to guilty sinners. Auditable taps, cute moniker for having it 
both ways to heaven and hell. Forgiveness preordained,
if a judge approves it must be right, by god.

Can those in thrall of auditable taps eat them when
the truth dawns that being a law enforcement officer is
not as clear-cut as what was preached in the academy 
about black and white, on who is the criminal and who 
excells in pretending not to be.

Certainty of right and wrong doesn't survive close
introspection. Tap thyself. Post a report on what you 
find. No tampering with the evidence.

Then tap a compromising emanation, with audit.
Photograph an angel riding a pale horse.

---

From: "chefren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 19:09:05 +0100

On 24 Nov 99, at 21:20, John Young wrote:

> solving crimes,

We strongly disagree about this. Taps are often the only 
way to dissect criminal organizations.

If you don't want to believe that further discussion isn't 
very serious.

+++chefren

p.s. Although I'm against the National Rifle Association, I 
have no problems with agreeing with NRA people that guns 
prevent crimes in some circumstances.

p.p.s. I don't think I'm so smart, I just think lot's of 
arguments I bring in are simply right and most of you 
haven't thought about them earlier.

---

From: John Young <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 14:04:17 -0500

>way to dissect criminal organizations.

Sorry to have to tell you that only very dumb prosecutors and 
cops say this and believe it, and their very smart superiors
who know better but like the usefulness of the myth to cloak 
worse extra-legal if not illegal operations. 

Upgrade to a more sophisticated technology, son, or
you're out of a business except as a legacy whatnot
gimcracker. Taps are as much a joke as bugs to experts
in the snooping industry. Ploys to mislead what's actually
deployed.

They are a easy to see cover story for much more subtle 
intrusions, those that are not at all auditable, or not by legacy 
audits, so the operators new age faith preach. 

Even FISA judges are allegedly years behind what their 
orders are allowing to conceal.  DC sages so filled with their 
sense of privilege they are compelled to look the other way, 
rather than admit they don't grasp the technological
capabilities, to overlook what the the DoJ vetters of wiretap 
requests are adept at finessing, rerouging until wiretapping 
approval is foregone. David Burnham has fully described this 
complicity of deception by way of willful ignorance of the
details of surveillance technology -- much of which is not
cover by current law.

The chief judge of the FISA court bragged in public not long
ago that he had the most prestigous job in the world. That
what they FISA judges were privy to was the most critical
information of the age. Nothing else comes close to the
secret pleasure of information above top secrecy he crowed. 
This was said to the national security committee of the 
American Bar Association, broadcast on CNN as though
it was not pornographic.

The LA wiretapping scandal is not the exception, it too is a
cloak on worse. Soon we'll learn what that is as the low-level
technicians who performed the criminal acts are squeezed.

Recall that this is how in the Church hearings of the '70s the 
truth was revealed what the NSA and CIA had been doing for 
decades. The technicians running the operations testified 
contrary to what their superiors were lying about.

Beware being hoodwinked Chefren, the hoods are not
who you think. At least not in the US. Your neighborhood
peacekeepers may not yet have access to the good parts
of the EM spectrum. Could be they do and buy your
taps for cosmetics, like the story of wiretaps as being
essential crimefighting tools.

---

From: "chefren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:49:25 +0100

> worse extra-legal if not illegal operations. 

Who are you to tell me? I know taps work because I see they 
work. I also know that auditable taps are better because I 
can reason why nobody can tamper with them easilly.

You may tell I'm dumb but I think it tells more about 
yourself than about me.

+++chefren