goldberg@su-russell.ARPA (Jeffrey Goldberg) (01/12/87)
In article <339@watcgl.UUCP> ksbooth@watcgl.UUCP (Kelly Booth) writes: >A recent posting contained a list of keywords to trigger some NSA filter. >People who do this should realize that if NSA is actually running such a >filter, they are also probably keeping a list of the articles and all of >the responses to it. Thus people who reply to such articles may end up >on a list that could be used against them. The list of junk keywords is >cute, but when it jeopardizes people's professional or personal lives (as >such things inevitably do) or the continued existence of open networks >people should think carefully before engaging in this sort of baiting. >Attitudes at NSA may well need changing, but this is not the appropriate >way to do it. First: I have redirected follow-up to misc.misc. I don't know how this ended up in graphics. Second: You should be able to edit the text of any article you are following up. The offensive part of my .signature is a paragraph to itself and can be deleted very easily. Third: If the NSA really is running this filter, they are looking for articles to have a human read. Otherwise, the thing is quite pointless. I might make it on a list of net trouble makers (but I really doubt that they care that much). Certainly any message simply including someone elses text wouldn't get you put on a list. Fourth: What you are suggesting might happen to someone for accidently including these words in a file has got to be illegal. Unless you are considering a security clearance application. I might be jeopardizing my own chances at getting a clearance by being a "trouble maker", but someone responding to one of my messages could only be put on that list if the NSA are idiots. Nonetheless, people who do not wish to participate in annoying the NSA they way I and several other have been trying to do should be careful to delete that last paragraph of my signature in any message they wish to follow-up. Jeff Goldberg ARPA: goldberg@russell.stanford.edu, goldberg@csli.stanford.edu UUCP: ...!hplabs!russell.stanford.edu!goldberg cryptography, terrorist, DES, drugs, cipher, secret, decode, NSA, CIA, NRO. The above is food for the NSA line eater. Add it to your .signature and you too can help overflow the NSA's ability to scan all traffic going in or out of the USA looking for "significant" words. (I am told that this is no joke.)
dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (01/24/87)
>In article <339@watcgl.UUCP> ksbooth@watcgl.UUCP (Kelly Booth) writes: >>A recent posting contained a list of keywords to trigger some NSA filter. >> ... Thus people who reply to such articles may end up >>on a list that could be used against them. The list of junk keywords is >>cute, but when it jeopardizes people's professional or personal lives >>or the continued existence of open networks people should think carefully ... In article <237@su-russell.ARPA> goldberg@su-russell.UUCP (Jeffrey Goldberg): >ARPA: goldberg@russell.stanford.edu, goldberg@csli.stanford.edu > ... > The above is food for the NSA line eater. Add it to your > .signature and you too can help overflow the NSA's ability to > scan all traffic going in or out of the USA looking for > "significant" words. (I am told that this is no joke.) I have always thought goldberg's signature slightly amusing, and it does remind us all that there may be readers who are not in the 10,000 (or so) sites in the 'official' list, but it is also a bit silly. Many of us manage to read all the (to us) interesting news groups in our spare time. If the NSA (and for that matter our GCHQ) think there's anything interesting in our news net, they can easily afford to assign someone to read it as his/her full time job. It wouldn't need much computing power to help - just what WE have to read it ourselves. I'm sure they could get a private news feed without having to tap public data links - which they may do as well, for all I know. If such traffic is scanned, I doubt Goldberg's signature wastes very much of NSA's computer or human time. Goldberg appears to assume that he is very clever and the NSA (etc.) rather dumb. If so, that says more about him than it does about the NSA. P.S. NSA and GCHQ SHOULD be reading at least sci.crypt anyway: in the unlikely event of someone posting to the world a way to break some important cypher or code, I hope our governments know that the method is known! Disclaimer: these opinions are my own and do not represent any other person or organisation. I know nothing of the workings of any government security organisation: if I did I would certainly not post on this subject. -- Regards, David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, U.K. dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...seismo!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW
edhall@randvax.UUCP (01/28/87)
In article <474@u410a.stl.stc.co.uk> dww@stl.UUCP (David Wright) writes: >P.S. NSA and GCHQ SHOULD be reading at least sci.crypt anyway: in the unlikely >event of someone posting to the world a way to break some important cypher or >code, I hope our governments know that the method is known! > I agree, especially since other organizations (for instance, the KGB) might also be listening in. I don't see why any of us should be too upset when some government agency does what many teenagers with home terminals do--read netnews. As I said in an earlier posting, someone in the NSA who reads netnews probably does so for the same reasons many of us do: to see what other people have to say in this, a *public* forum. >Regards, > David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, U.K. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall