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
kent@tifsie.UUCP (02/03/87)
To those persons who add "Intelligence Agency food" to their postings:
your practice is foolish, even downright reckless; to wit:
1. Any Intelligence Agency worth its salt can _easily_ dedicate
1 (one) person to read _all_ postings going into or out of the
U.S. The fact is, it probably would not require a full-time
effort.
2. _IF_ your practice were to be effective (and I'm not saying it
is), you would (presumably) be over-loading the scanning ability,
or follow-up investigation ability, of the/any Intelligence Agency.
This is not in the best interests of your country (and therefore
yourself), in that _real_ security threats might be over-looked.
3. You are bringing yourself to the attention of the Intelligence
Agency. Believe me, THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. Those
people are _dead serious_, and more often than not, DO NOT
PLAY UNDER THE SAME RULES THAT YOU AND I DO. They have powers
and abilities (albeit infrequently used) that you don't even
want to have nightmares about being used against you. (Ever
thought about what a cramp in your lifestyle it would be if you
just disappeared without a trace? :-)
By far, #3 is the one you probably should worry about most.
--
Russell Kent Phone: +1 214 995 3501
Texas Instruments - MS 3635 Net mail:
P.O. Box 655012 ...!{ihnp4,uiucdcs}!convex!smu!tifsie!kent
Dallas, TX 75265 ...!ut-sally!im4u!ti-csl!tifsie!kent
--
Russell Kent Phone: +1 214 995 3501
Texas Instruments - MS 3635 Net mail:
P.O. Box 655012 ...!{ihnp4,uiucdcs}!convex!smu!tifsie!kent
Dallas, TX 75265 ...!ut-sally!im4u!ti-csl!tifsie!kentjc@cdx39.UUCP (02/05/87)
In article <305@tifsie.UUCP>, kent@tifsie.UUCP (Russell Kent) writes: > To those persons who add "Intelligence Agency food" to their postings: > your practice is foolish, even downright reckless; to wit: > ... > 3. You are bringing yourself to the attention of the Intelligence > Agency. Believe me, THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. Those > people are _dead serious_, and more often than not, DO NOT > PLAY UNDER THE SAME RULES THAT YOU AND I DO. They have powers > and abilities (albeit infrequently used) that you don't even > want to have nightmares about being used against you. (Ever > thought about what a cramp in your lifestyle it would be if you > just disappeared without a trace? :-) > > By far, #3 is the one you probably should worry about most. > True, but probably not too big a worry. Those people aren't total idiots, and they are all probably quite used to filtering out rantings about the security agencies from naive civilians. If they weren't, they'd spend all their time chasing wild geese, and not "defending their country". After all, the US media is chock full of all sorts of stuff (accurate or otherwise) about the security/intelligence agencies. Many publications (the Nation, the Progressive, the Washington Post) are still in business, and even publishing things by the same writers. You are only in danger if they decide to take you seriously, or if you somehow manage to offend one of them personally, or one of them takes a liking to your SO, or... Personally, I kinda like such signatures; they're dumb but cute. And they don't really waste all that much bandwidth. Of course, by now I'd like to see something more original or humerus. [My spelling checker didn't catch that one, did it?] -- John M Chambers Phone: 617/364-2000x7304 Email: ...{adelie,bu-cs,harvax,inmet,mcsbos,mit-eddie,mot[bos]}!cdx39!{jc,news,root,usenet,uucp} Smail: Codex Corporation; Mailstop C1-30; 20 Cabot Blvd; Mansfield MA 02048-1193 Clever-Saying: Uucp me out of here, Scotty; there's no AI on this node!
gnu@hoptoad.UUCP (02/06/87)
In article <305@tifsie.UUCP>, kent@tifsie.UUCP (Russell Kent) writes: > 2. _IF_ your practice were to be effective (and I'm not saying it > is), you would (presumably) be over-loading the scanning ability, > or follow-up investigation ability, of the/any Intelligence Agency. > This is not in the best interests of your country (and therefore > yourself), in that _real_ security threats might be over-looked. This is the idea. Telling our "elected representatives" to stop the government from wiretapping every phone call or telegram that goes in or out of the country doesn't seem to have any effect; perhaps a little grass roots action (all perfectly legal) is called for. I don't believe that, on balance, the civil liberties of free association and privacy that are lost, are worth the increase in "security". I think it's a lot more likely that my liberty will be lost by my own government taking it away, rather than by the actions of foreign powers. > 3. You are bringing yourself to the attention of the Intelligence > Agency. Believe me, THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. Those > people are _dead serious_, and more often than not, DO NOT > PLAY UNDER THE SAME RULES THAT YOU AND I DO. They have powers > and abilities (albeit infrequently used) that you don't even > want to have nightmares about being used against you. (Ever > thought about what a cramp in your lifestyle it would be if you > just disappeared without a trace? :-) I heard a rumor that we have laws and a Constitution around here. If I suddenly disappear due to my net postings I hope that some of you all will raise a big enough stink to make sure it doesn't happen again. I would rather risk myself (in an effort to rid our society of people who think they have these obscene "powers and abilities") than have the whole population held hostage, terrified to complain about what our government is doing. -- John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@ingres.berkeley.edu Love your country but never trust its government. -- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvania (terrorist, cryptography, DES, drugs, cipher, secret, decode, NSA, CIA, NRO.)
eugene@pioneer.UUCP (02/06/87)
Article 217 of sci.crypt: Path: ames!lll-lcc!ptsfa!hoptoad!gnu From: gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) Newsgroups: sci.crypt Subject: Re: Keywords Message-ID: <1749@hoptoad.uucp> Date: 6 Feb 87 02:28:15 GMT References: <804@randvax.UUCP> <305@tifsie.UUCP> Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco Lines: 38 In article <305@tifsie.UUCP>, kent@tifsie.UUCP (Russell Kent) writes: > 2. _IF_ your practice were to be effective (and I'm not saying it > is), you would (presumably) be over-loading the scanning ability, > or follow-up investigation ability, of the/any Intelligence Agency. > This is not in the best interests of your country (and therefore > yourself), in that _real_ security threats might be over-looked. This is the idea. Telling our "elected representatives" to stop the government from wiretapping every phone call or telegram that goes in or out of the country doesn't seem to have any effect; perhaps a little grass roots action (all perfectly legal) is called for. I don't believe that, on balance, the civil liberties of free association and privacy that are lost, are worth the increase in "security". I think it's a lot more likely that my liberty will be lost by my own government taking it away, rather than by the actions of foreign powers. > 3. You are bringing yourself to the attention of the Intelligence > Agency. Believe me, THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. Those > people are _dead serious_, and more often than not, DO NOT > PLAY UNDER THE SAME RULES THAT YOU AND I DO. They have powers > and abilities (albeit infrequently used) that you don't even > want to have nightmares about being used against you. (Ever > thought about what a cramp in your lifestyle it would be if you > just disappeared without a trace? :-) I heard a rumor that we have laws and a Constitution around here. If I suddenly disappear due to my net postings I hope that some of you all will raise a big enough stink to make sure it doesn't happen again. I would rather risk myself (in an effort to rid our society of people who think they have these obscene "powers and abilities") than have the whole population held hostage, terrified to complain about what our government is doing. -- John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@ingres.berkeley.edu Love your country but never trust its government. -- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvania (terrorist, cryptography, DES, drugs, cipher, secret, decode, NSA, CIA, NRO.)
yerazuws@rpics.UUCP (02/07/87)
In article <305@tifsie.UUCP>, kent@tifsie.UUCP (Russell Kent) writes: > To those persons who add "Intelligence Agency food" to their postings: > your practice is foolish, even downright reckless; to wit: >.... > 3. You are bringing yourself to the attention of the Intelligence > Agency. Believe me, THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. Those > people are _dead serious_, and more often than not, DO NOT > PLAY UNDER THE SAME RULES THAT YOU AND I DO. They have powers > and abilities (albeit infrequently used) that you don't even > want to have nightmares about being used against you. (Ever > thought about what a cramp in your lifestyle it would be if you > just disappeared without a trace? :-) > > By far, #3 is the one you probably should worry about most. > Let's consider that in detail. Someone (or more likely, more than one) person in Langley is sitting there and being REQUIRED to read all of the stuff that goes by in various newsgroups, perhaps even having to read by hand net.sources, etc. Now, this person is most likely bored silly by that drivel. Quite likely, they just *love* it when some really interesting thing comes by, such as Craig Werner's medical puzzles, or RISKS digest. Or even flames in sci.astrology. Clearly, it's in our best interest as US citizens that he NOT be bored, that he be motivated and alert. (Sorry if you're female, NSA rep- but see net.lang for a further discussion (and flaming) about pronouns and English). Seriously, if I were in their position, I'd read everything that went in or out on every net I could tap. And the poor underlings who have to read it ought to have something worth reading. Besides, maybe we can raise the conciousness of these people. I don't mind if they read usenet, etc. as long as they've thought about it and have come to the rational conclusion that it's the right thing to do. At least they're sincere. I just don't want someone who doesn't care whether the job is done right or not doing the job; they'll screw up eventually and then there *will* be a problem. Exposure to USEnet might make them think- that's fine with me. As an instructor of engineering at the college level, sometimes a student will come to me and ask for guidance concerning whether or not they should take a job at a defense-related company. The only guidance I can give them is that "You have to ask yourself that. War is horrible, but surrender can be worse. Ask any Manchurian, any Hungarian, any European Jew." . I play devil's advocate for both sides for a few minutes, then send them away to think. After a couple of days, they usually come back with an answer. The answer varies- but the students seem happy to have an answer. I want those NSA people (PEOPLE! not spooks, creeps, etc.) to think and decide that they are doing the right thing. If they agree that they are, fine, they can read USENET. And if they think they're doing something wrong, then they can stop. "avoid calling attention..." ?? How many engineering/CS/physics grads come out of US universities every year? A hundred thousand, maybe. Well, there's several government agencies whose business is to track what graduates go where (Dept. of Labor, for instance) and that data is nowhere near as securely held as the stuff held by the NSA. If you're out there, they have heard of you. Lastly, I know some people who work down in Langley and this is a good way to keep in vague touch ( Hi John! :-) ) -Bill Yerazunis "Lineater food? Why bother?"
jmm@thoth16.UUCP (02/09/87)
I don't understand the problem. This is a public newsgroup, going out to the whole world. Why shouldn't people at NSA be reading postings? And what's wrong with them using keywords to find articles that might be of interest to them? In fact, having this ability would be nice in standard rn. James
elric@csustan.UUCP (02/11/87)
In article <2476@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> jmm@thoth16.BERKELEY.EDU () writes: >I don't understand the problem. This is a public newsgroup, going out to the whole world. Why shouldn't people at NSA >be reading postings? And what's wrong with them using keywords to find articles that might be of interest to them? In fact, >having this ability would be nice in standard rn. > >James The problem was not really that anyone was upset that the NSA is reading the Net, is was mainly that some people did not like us putting keywords at the ends of our .signatures because: 1) We where (are) wasting resources (it cost money to transmit those extra 1-3 lines) 2) We are wasting tax-payers money by making the NSA sort thru more junk 3) We are endangering the security of this country 4) We might attract the baleful attention of a 'security agency' and disappear. All of the above where mentioned either in this group or in misc.misc before it moved here. Of course I don't like the idea of someone reading my email, but even some sysadmins do that... Brad -- elric Lunatic Labs @ Csustan {lll-crg,lll-lcc}!csustan!elric One Pill makes you Bigger, | The info on cracking DES will be in Another Pill makes you Small, | my next transmission... The Ones that Mother gives You, do nothing at All.
harryb@slovax.UUCP (02/12/87)
in article <1749@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) says: > > In article <305@tifsie.UUCP>, kent@tifsie.UUCP (Russell Kent) writes: >> 3. You are bringing yourself to the attention of the Intelligence >> Agency. Believe me, THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. Those >> people are _dead serious_, and more often than not, DO NOT >> PLAY UNDER THE SAME RULES THAT YOU AND I DO. They have powers >> and abilities (albeit infrequently used) that you don't even >> want to have nightmares about being used against you. (Ever >> thought about what a cramp in your lifestyle it would be if you >> just disappeared without a trace? :-) > My first impulse on reading '3.' above was to post a followup saying: "LISTEN TO THE GUY!" > I heard a rumor that we have laws and a Constitution around here. You know, I heard about that, too. And it turns out that, yeah, we do have laws against drunk driving. And you know what? People are killed by drunk drivers every day and they are just as dead as if there weren't any laws against it. Isn't that amazing? And the Constitution sure protected all those Nisei during WWII that had their property confiscated and were shipped off to internment camps. All they had to do was wave that piece of parchment at the marshals who whisked them away and all the barbed wire disappeared and they got their property back. Right? > If I suddenly disappear due to my net postings I hope that some of you all > will raise a big enough stink to make sure it doesn't happen again. Why should we notice? I'm not being flippant. People come and go on the net all the time, and most of us don't keep track of more than a few of the thousands of netters. Probably the only persons who would notice are your close family and your intimate associates. Unless they are successful at mobilizing publicity by adding some element of sensationalism to your disappearance, the world will little note your passing. And even then, the world would manifest curiousity only as long as the subject provided gossipy entertainment value. Note that they must be successful in the face of highly trained personnel whose job it is to stifle and discredit such publicity. What do you think they're going to do? Post news that says, "John Gilmore's postings offended us, so we switched him off"? > I would rather risk myself (in an effort to rid our society of people who > think they have these obscene "powers and abilities") than have the whole > population held hostage, terrified to complain about what our government is > doing. > -- > John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@ingres.berkeley.edu > Love your country but never trust its government. > -- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvania I'm sympathetic to your cause, but I think there are better ways of turning a bull into a steer than by strutting up to it in the middle of its pasture, dropping your pants, and betting you don't get a horn up your ass. -- ________________________________________________________________________ Harry E. Barnett {hplsla,uw-beaver}!tikal!slovax!harryb Brittanius (shocked): Caesar, this is not proper. Theodotus (outraged): How? Caesar (recovering his self possession): Pardon him, Theodotus: He is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and islands are the laws of nature. --Caesar and Cleopatra, Act II, George Bernard Shaw