brown@nsavax.UUCP (04/01/87)
Some of you folks think that you can bog down our traffic monitoring equipment by adding 'keywords' to your messages. Why don't you save your finger tips and stop? If you were really loading down our machines, we would simply buy and install more of them. C. Edward Brown -- If we went away and they took over, then you would really be sorry!
gavrilov@kgbvax.UUCP (04/01/87)
In article <870401-9823@nsavax.uucp>, brown@nsavax.uucp (C. Edward Brown) says: >If we went away and they took over, then you would really be sorry! If you take over world, then everywhere will be sorry. A. I. Gavrilov
ken@rochester.UUCP (04/01/87)
Well, if you guys share a news feed, then we really are worried. For people who don't know what is going on, I suggest you read a previous issue of Software Engineering Notes about the KGB Vax hoax several years ago, to the day. Ken
eugene@pioneer.UUCP (04/01/87)
This was almost good: >C. Edward Brown >Organization: National Security Administration ^^^^ It's an Agency. I know they read this group. Their real net address is (oops! club! [crashing noises])
krs@amdahl.UUCP (04/02/87)
In article <870401-9823@nsavax.uucp> brown@nsavax.uucp (C. Edward Brown) writes: >Some of you folks think that you can bog down our traffic monitoring equipment >by adding 'keywords' to your messages. Why don't you save your finger tips >and stop? If you were really loading down our machines, we would simply buy >and install more of them. > >C. Edward Brown >-- > If we went away and they took over, then you would really be sorry! Tell me this is an April Fools joke. ...Kris -- Kristopher Stephens, | (408-746-6047) | {whatever}!amdahl!krs Amdahl Corporation | | -or- krs@amdahl.amdahl.com [The opinions expressed above are mine, solely, and do not ] [necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of Amdahl Corp. ]
kludge@gitpyr.UUCP (04/02/87)
In article <1141@ames.UUCP> eugene@pioneer.UUCP (Eugene Miya N.) writes: >This was almost good: >>C. Edward Brown >>Organization: National Security Administration > ^^^^ It's an Agency. NSA: Network Surveillance Administration CIA: Casey's Investigation Agency -- Scott Dorsey Kaptain_Kludge ICS Programming Lab (Where old terminals go to die), Rich 110, Georgia Institute of Technology, Box 36681, Atlanta, Georgia 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!kludge
bs@linus.UUCP (04/02/87)
>In article <1141@ames.UUCP> eugene@pioneer.UUCP (Eugene Miya N.) writes: >>This was almost good: >>>C. Edward Brown >>>Organization: National Security Administration >> ^^^^ It's an Agency. Huh??? There is No Such Agency. By the way, I anticipate trying to do a 90 digit factorization by this summer. Bob Silverman ************ Pnews filler outer ********************
rab@well.UUCP (04/05/87)
In a previous article C. Edward Brown writes: >Some of you folks think that you can bog down our traffic monitoring equipment >by adding 'keywords' to your messages. Why don't you save your finger tips >and stop? If you were really loading down our machines, we would simply buy >and install more of them. >C. Edward Brown Assuming for the moment that this..... uh, person.. is for real, he apparently doesn't know much about the net. For one thing, since most of us put those 'keywords' in our .signature file(s), there are no fingertips to be saved.... It's all automatic. For another thing, while there may be a few people who hope to bog down the NSA's machines, for most of us this is simply a way of protesting Yet Another Stupid Invasion Of Privacy by our 'government'. The above article's .signature line looked like this: > If we went away and they took over, then you would really be sorry! Besides being a little silly, this is also just a bit arrogant: if the NSA went away, we would almost certainly not collapse as a society as a result of that. In fact, I am more frightened of us collapsing as a society because we allow monstrosities like the NSA to continue to exist and to gain power over our lives. If 'they' take over, it will be by grasping the pre-existing chains that we have placed on ourselves. -- Robert Bickford {hplabs, ucbvax, lll-lcc, ptsfa}!well!rab terrorist cryptography DES drugs cipher secret decode NSA CIA NRO IRS coke crack pot LSD russian missile atom nuclear assassinate libyan RSA
greg@endor.UUCP (04/05/87)
In article <2868@well.UUCP> rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford) writes: >For one thing, since >most of us put those 'keywords' in our .signature file(s), there are no >fingertips to be saved.... It's all automatic. For another thing, while >there may be a few people who hope to bog down the NSA's machines, for >most of us this is simply a way of protesting Yet Another Stupid Invasion >Of Privacy by our 'government'. I fail to see how reading the net may be construed as an invasion of privacy. If you feel that your postings are private, aren't you worried about the fact that thousands of people are reading them? ---- Greg
wesommer@bacchus.UUCP (04/05/87)
In article <2868@well.UUCP> rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford) writes: >there may be a few people who hope to bog down the NSA's machines, for >most of us this is simply a way of protesting Yet Another Stupid Invasion >Of Privacy by our 'government'. Since when is the government's reading of publicly posted messages an invasion of privacy? - Bill
newton2@topaz.berkeley.edu.UUCP (04/05/87)
I strongly support the right to individual privacy and I disagree that our society wouldn't be grievously harmed if the NSA and its functions disappeared. The world is bristling with infernal devices; we need timely warning and wideranging intelligence. I have come to the position that it is practically speaking impossible to wall off legitimately private goings-on from the scrutiny of official agencies (and from unsanctioned private agents as well). The proper approach to safeguarding and extending our right to privacy (and the other civil liberties which are largely contingent upon this one) is a legal and procedural one, basically an extention of the now- threatened "exclusionary rule" that (once) absolutely exculpated a defendant against whom evidence had been adduced by unconstitutional means forbidden by the fourth and fifth amendments. We can't, and for our safety shouldn't, restrict intelligence gathering by NSA and ilk, foreign or domestic, but we can enact extremely heavy penalties for the use of information gathered "inadvertently" from domestic sources, i.e., no sumptuary laws should be enforced using such product, massive damages should be awarded against anyone dislosing the product of wiretaps etc. Public pillory for anyone caught violating a citizen's right to privacy; secret commendations, and silent mass gratitude, for NSAniks who keep the peace and the international temperature at a tolerable-for-human-life dull red or lower. Doug Maisel
franka@mmintl.UUCP (04/07/87)
In article <870401-9823@nsavax.uucp> brown@nsavax.UUCP writes: >Some of you folks think that you can bog down our traffic monitoring equipment >by adding 'keywords' to your messages. Why don't you save your finger tips >and stop? If you were really loading down our machines, we would simply buy >and install more of them. Hmmmm. But some of those folks are in the business of making and selling computers. Maybe there really is a conspiracy here. Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Ashton-Tate 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
gerryg@laidbak.UUCP (04/07/87)
In article <1580@husc6.UUCP> greg@endor.UUCP (Greg) writes: >I fail to see how reading the net may be construed as an invasion of privacy. >If you feel that your postings are private, aren't you worried about the fact >that thousands of people are reading them? I don't worry that many ordinary humans read my words, but I am a bit concerned that a government agency, whose activities are secret to me and practically everyone else is possibly reading my mail and doing who knows what with it. Wether it's an invasion of privacy or not is another question. If all of the machines are privately owned and operated, then I would say it definitly is. I'm sure that there are almost as many opinions on that as there are people on the net. gerry gleason
f@alliant.UUCP (04/07/87)
In article <918@laidbak.UUCP> gerryg@laidbak.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) writes: >....... whose activities are secret to me >and practically everyone else is possibly reading my mail and doing who >knows what with it. My activities are a secret to you and probably everyone else, and I'm reading your mail (postings), and doing who knows what with it. You want me to stop, or what? -- ...!{decvax!linus,mit-eddie}!alliant!f Bill Freeman alliant!f@mit-eddie.edu KE1G @ WB1DSW
glr@m-net.UUCP (Glen L. Roberts) (04/12/87)
In article <425@bacchus.MIT.EDU> wesommer@athena.mit.edu (William Sommerfeld) writes: >In article <2868@well.UUCP> rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford) writes: >Since when is the government's reading of publicly posted messages >an invasion of privacy? > Since the Privacy Act of 1974 prohibited the federal government from maintaining information on how any individual (citizen) exercises his 1st Amendment rights. Also, the 1st Amendment case law has a similiar, however, less well defined prohibition. Of course the NSA will claim that their so-called intelligence gathering is more important than anyones privacy or statutatory or constitutional prohibitions on invasion of privacy. So, the answer to your question is, if the publically posted messages apply to ones exercise of 1st amendment rights, see the Privacy Act of 1974, and the 1st Amendment. Otherwise, its only prohibited by the Privacy Act if it is not necessary and relevant to the legitimate purposes of the NSA. By the way, the watch lists they use, are generally supplied by other agencies and intercepted messages containing the watch words are referred to that agency for review, etc... -- Glen L. Roberts, Ann Arbor, Michigan {!ihnp4!itivax!m-net!glr} ``No government door can be closed against the 1st Amendment and no government action is immune from its force.'' -Bursey v. US (466 F.2d 1059)
gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (04/13/87)
In article <1580@husc6.UUCP> greg@endor.UUCP (Greg) writes: >I fail to see how reading the net may be construed as an invasion of privacy. >If you feel that your postings are private, aren't you worried about the fact >that thousands of people are reading them? The problem is not that the NSA has machines on the net and reads the netnews on them. The problem is that NSA monitors long-distance phone calls (this is not to exclude local calls!) over which netnews is transmitted. For example, hoptoad's calls to utzoo in Canada are certainly monitored as they cross the border. Of course, the monitoring doesn't shut itself off when it's determined that email or voice or a terminal session is happening, rather than "publicly available" netnews messages. Indeed, NSA doesn't care to read the netnews many times over -- they can read it all in Ft. Meade. (All right guys -- whoever gave the NSA a news link, speak up!) What they want to read is the private, personal mail. I can see a bunch of spies registering at US universities and getting student accounts so they can report back overseas via Arpanet and Usenet. Sure the NSA wouldn't think of that. Sure the NSA wouldn't read your and my traffic in the process of thinking of that. By the way, AT&T is particularly culpable in this monitoring; when NSA comes by and asks for access, they get the open door from AT&T. When there was a Bell System, local wiretaps got the same treatment. One good reason to use the alternative phone companies is that some of them, at least, require a court-issued warrant before they'll tap a customer's lines or turn over subscriber records. This slowed down the catching of some kids who broke into Stanford's computers a few years ago, but I can deal with kids breaking in a lot better than I can deal with governments and phone companies conspiring to pry into my life in secret. The FBI was actually amazed that Sprint demanded to see their warrant -- it took 'em a few days to get one, they were so rattled. My favorite moment in the history of the NSA is when it was shut down early this century by a bureaucrat who said "Gentlemen don't read other peoples' mail". If you are upset about our dishonest President, why be complacent about the dishonest characters like the non-gentle-men who read our mail? -- Copyright 1987 John Gilmore; you can redistribute only if your recipients can. (This is an effort to bend Stargate to work with Usenet, not against it.) {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4,ucbvax}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@ingres.berkeley.edu
leonard@percival.UUCP (04/15/87)
In article <1982@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >My favorite moment in the history of the NSA is when it was shut down >early this century by a bureaucrat who said "Gentlemen don't read other >peoples' mail". If you are upset about our dishonest President, why >be complacent about the dishonest characters like the non-gentle-men >who read our mail? Sorry, John, but that wasn't the NSA. The NSA was created after WWII. And the 'bureacrat' was Henry Stimson, the then Secretary of State. Also note that he *did* approve of such 10 years later when he was Secretary of War. The comment was "gentlemen don't read each others mail". The group was a joint Army Intelligence/State Department effort. They were using cryptanalysis on diplomatic traffic. -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!leonard CIS: [70465,203] ...!tektronix!reed!percival!!bucket!leonard "I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'. You know... I'd rather be a hacker."
stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) (04/15/87)
In article <1982@hoptoad.uucp>, John Gilmore (gnu@hoptoad.uucp) writes: > The problem is not that the NSA has machines on the net and reads the > netnews on them. The problem is that NSA monitors long-distance phone > calls (this is not to exclude local calls!) over which netnews is > transmitted. For example, hoptoad's calls to utzoo in Canada are certainly > monitored as they cross the border. Under U.S. law, communications into and out of the United States are not afforded the same confidentiality as communications inside the U.S. While the law requires a court order before mail may be opened or telephones tapped within the U.S., anything crossing the border may be opened/tapped without a court order. This falls under the heading of national security. The precedents go back a long ways. Steve Rice ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright 1987 by Steven E. Rice, P.E. All Rights Reserved. This material may be redistributed only where such redistribution is without charge and without restrictions on further redistribution. Incorporation of this material in a compilation or other collective work constitutes permission from the intermediary to all recipients to freely redistribute the entire collection. All other uses are prohibited. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver | cae780}!tektronix!videovax!stever
ram@nucsrl.UUCP (Renu Raman) (04/15/87)
How about this: >From: brown@nsavax.uucp (C. Edward Brown) >Message-ID: <870401-9823@nsavax.uucp> >Organization: National Security Administration >Path:lll-lcc!rutgers!sri-unix!ctnews!pyramid!amdahl!e-!walldrug!nsavax!brown ^^^^^^^---------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Distribution: world >C. Edward Brown and the came .... >>From: gavrilov@kgbvax.uucp (A. I. Gavrilov) >>Message-ID: <870401-1930@kgbvax.uucp> >>Organization: KGB >>Path:ll-lcc!rutgers!sri-unix!ctnews!pyramid!amdahl!e-!walldrug!kgbvax!gavrilov ^^^^^^^---------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>Distribution: world ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ +------------Does the NSA allow World-wide distribiution of this newsgroup? That's interesting. Well Mr Gavrilov & Brown or is it Jeckyl & Hyde. Speak-up. This raises another issue. With so many PCs and SUNs on the net, anybody can change hostname and userid. The implications of such "forgery" is tremendous. Renu Raman