- cypherpunks@lists.ogf.org

DEA bulk spying, FBI Spy Planes, IMEI Catchers, NIST cryptography standards, and ALPR amendments to HR 2578
by Jah Love 04 Jun '15

04 Jun '15

There's some amazing stuff going into the US House of Representative's HR2578. Here's some links to some of it: You can read the discussion on the amendment to ban the DEA from bulk surveillance here at page 83: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2015-06-02/pdf/CREC-2015-06-02.pdf It passed! I got the link to that PDF at the Recent Sessions On-Demand tab at this link which also has archived videos of the proceedings: http://houselive.gov/ These other amendments also just passed a few hours ago: 3:16:54 P.M. H.R. 2578 An amendment, offered by Mr. Massie, to prohibit the use of funds by the National Institute of Standards and Technology to consult with the National Security Agency or the CIA to alter cryptographic or computer standards, except to improve information security. 3:16:56 P.M. H.R. 2578 DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 287, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Third Massie amendment. 3:26:26 P.M. H.R. 2578 POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Third Massie amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Massie demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced. 3:35:34 P.M. H.R. 2578 An amendment, offered by Mr. Issa, to prohibit the use of funds to operate or disseminate a cell-site simulator or IMSI catcher in the United States except pursuant to a court order that identifies an individual, account, address, or personal device. 3:37:29 P.M. H.R. 2578 DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 287, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Issa Amendment. 4:06:04 P.M. H.R. 2578 An amendment, offered by Mr. Lamborn, to prohibit the use of funds to collect information about individuals attending gun shows, by means of an automatic license plate reader, or to retain any information so collected. 4:06:06 P.M. H.R. 2578 DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 287, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Lamborn amendment, pending a reservation of a point of order. 4:12:43 P.M. H.R. 2578 Mr. Farr raised a point of order against the Lamborn amendment. Mr. Farr stated that the amendment seeks to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill. The Chair sustained the point of order.

3 2

Taking Odds on the Content Bomb, and other Election Cycle Wonders
by grarpamp 04 Jun '15

04 Jun '15

Assholes like this love to stand up and lie to you... https://i.ytimg.com/vi/S61eL_06RZ4/hqdefault.jpg One of their lies that many observers consider to be a true component of programs is that content is in fact being bulk collected, picked, sifted, sorted, stored and used against national and other laws. What are the odds that we'll see leak of documented proof of somesuch major lie being exposed in the run up to the US 2016 election? What major new categories of as yet untold wonders are standing by in the Snowden and other caches? Who's running the prediction market on these things?

1 0

Re: NSA/FBI monitoring
by yotm 04 Jun '15

04 Jun '15

_The NSA provides data to the FBI and DEA, among others. Although it was known previously, this is part of what Snowden released with corroborating documentation. That it hasn't gotten more attention, by Greenwald, Snowden, et al, is one of the major credible complaints since the releases began in June 2013. _ Thanks M373, this was what I couldn't put my finger on, it's all been NSA, NSA so far... if the FBI has its own capacity to monitor phone, email, chats, etc., in addition to whatever NSA shares with them, that's a whole other data-sucking structure that needs attention. Nigel

3 2

Re: cypherpunks Digest, Vol 24, Issue 6
by Softy 04 Jun '15

04 Jun '15

Oh, no denying the over-generalizing of my usage of "Society", but the point is plain, and valid. We have a method of laws (aka Society - not only regarding it's application of Power) which we live under. If raising a Child means empowering/guiding that person to have a healthy understanding of Themselves, Others, Institutions, etc, one must provide an example - as Guide. RE: Native Peoples, yes, they did the same thing. My child [5] can safely walk to the park and back in the over-urbanized environment we live because we've provided him the space to learn how to do so; neighbourhood walks, back-woods treks, etc. Would I trust him to be okay going to the city-core? Neither would a Native People have let their child go on a similarly arduous trek. The scale/surroundings are different, the means and ends are the same: Teach Independence while providing a reasonably sheltered environment to learn that Independence. By providing Supervision on his learning, he did so. The State/Parents do not need to squash all his attempts, nor can Parents/State be divorced from his efforts. Do we laws dictating "Child shall be no more than x feet from home unattended" ... clearly not, perhaps cases such as the Free Range Parenting will spur the creation of those laws from the pro-Nanny crowd. That is my usage of "Society" - more narrow than the put-upon extrapolations of the gallery; which were perhaps teased out by my over generalized usage earlier ... but, hey, what's Intertube proselytizing with out some trolling. > If an individual fails to adhere to guidelines of their Society, > > they are punished. That is what Society is for. > > This was not irony. Yes? > > <SNIP> >

3 2

Electioneering, Freedom Act
by grarpamp 04 Jun '15

04 Jun '15

http://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom/ http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/06/02/2147216/senate-passes-usa-freedom-act

1 0

Fwd: has there ever been a FOIA request leading to initiation of criminal prosecution against the requestor?
by coderman 04 Jun '15

04 Jun '15

On 5/29/15, coderman <coderman(a)gmail.com> wrote: > i would like to know if anyone is aware of past incidents where a FOIA > request results in a law enforcement agency initiating (accelerating?) > criminal action against the requesting individual... thanks to everyone for the responses. someone else pointed out FBI "disruption strategies"[0] which may appear to be investigation oriented but in fact are merely denial of service attacks. i created a new FOIA for this category of operation[1] and will see what turns up... best regards, 0. "UNLEASHED AND UNACCOUNTABLE - The FBI’s Unchecked Abuse of Authority" - https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/unleashed-and-unaccountable… see page 18, chapter 3, 'Innocent Victims of Aggressive Investigation and Surveillance' 1. "FederalDisruption" - https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/federaldisruption-…

1 0

NSA/FBI monitoring
by yotm 03 Jun '15

03 Jun '15

Hey folks, With the NSA Patriot Act/FBI planes in the news, I recalled an IRL example from 2004 of Minneapolis FBI anti-terrorism division/department monitoring my cell, email and MSN Messenger communications. https://storify.com/flyingmonkeyair/in-which-the-fbi-surveilled-me-while-bu… I mention this because so far all the metadata collection info ruckus has focused on the NSA. There's been so much data released as a result of Snowden that I've lost track. Does anyone recall anything showing the FBI have access to the NSA's data, or does the FBI have it's own interception going on? Thanks for any light shed on this. Cheers, Nigel Parry nigelparry.com nigelparry.net

4 5

Re: Threat Model: Parents
by Softy 03 Jun '15

03 Jun '15

Yes, Yes I am. Let's be more specific. Child: a minor under custodianship of another. Supervision: providing meaningful oversight. No child would rightfully be raised without supervision - you don't let toddlers walk across the street, you don't let 6 year olds watch porn, and you don't let teens go to the local pub (okay, last one is location dependent). Are you committing child-porn when you oversee your 2 year old dressing? Are you censoring their ability to dress themselves by helping them choose (weather, etc) appropriate clothes? Many things in life, while we are growing and becoming mature (a process lasting well into our mid-20s), require oversight. Both for safely and utility. We can pretend otherwise at our and the child's own peril. Go ahead and let your child smoke cigs, watch porn and read reddit; it's your child - do as you feel best - I suspect my child will find yours to be .... socially repugnant. The point is blanket statements like you made are corrosive to the understanding of the discussion. Unfettered support of "the child" in all situations is counterproductive. Don't get going on "Parents don't always know best" ... true, they don't - but as long as Society allows any person in any circumstance to _have_ a child without any sort of parenting training, oversight, counselling, then Society must allow that person the ability to _raise_ their child. For better or ill. > Claiming a child merits access - with or without supervision - can only be > > made by the primary custodians of the child. > > > > Um, I'm sure this is me just having trouble understanding, but are you > saying that a parent has a perfectly legitimate right to spy on and censor > a child's communication? >

5 4

Re: Threat Model: Parents
by Zenaan Harkness 03 Jun '15

03 Jun '15

On 6/3/15, Juan <juan.g71(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jun 2015 14:41:27 -0700 > Softy <softservant(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> If an >> individual fails to adhere to guidelines of their Society, they are >> punished. That is what Society is for. > > This is...too much. In a "too much self irony" kind of way. I had a similar thought, but figured someone would pipe up :D Made my day, Juan. Made my day :)

2 1

Re: Threat Model: Parents
by Softy 02 Jun '15

02 Jun '15

Several responses have stated, and questioned, the children's rights accessing the Internet. Yes, with supervision. What all the responses have missed is the lack of distinction between communication and email. Claiming a child has a right to private extra-familial communications is as divided as the general access to the Internet. With supervision, without any more or less privacy than the child has in non-virtual communications. And, what hasn't been connected to deciding on the level of supervision, the developmental state of the child is highly relevant. Claiming a child merits access - with or without supervision - can only be made by the primary custodians of the child. We wish to ignore this subtlety because we wish to ignore Society's overbearing on all of us. The result in this specific scenario is, regardless of the child, the custodians require and merit a higher degree of technical faculty. To presume it is less than the childs is a mistake. Along with this ability comes the burden of communication: to provide an appropriate example. As with many non-virtual counterparts: many failure. such sad. Why should this medium of bits be different?

6 10