Re: Newbie Asks...

From: Kryptic (Kryptic_at_sparta.war)
Date: 07/21/03 

Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:32:16 GMT

Your point regarding privacy is well taken. I did not intend to imply that
a reasonable concern for privacy is not unwarranted. I myself take
"precautions" regarding my internet privacy.

My comment was meant to convey that there are legal barriers which prevent
an individuals actions from being monitored "at will" by a law enforcement
entity. These agencies are prohibited by law from simply picking an
individual an "following" him/her through cyberspace.

There are allowances which provide for the authorization to monitor
activities within certain arenas. i.e. A newsgroup which promotes terrorism
can be monitored by an agency. Offensive tactics (data tapping, phone
tapping, e-mail monitoring...) cannot be initiated until the monitoring
agency obtains sufficient evidence that an individual has "intent" to engage
in terrorist activities. Also authorization to conduct these activities
must be given by a competent authority such as the Attorney General.

As a note, I am not a lawyer. I am however involved in law enforcement and
this message is simply designed to provide a baseline. I think it goes
without saying how convoluted the law is.

"Joseph Whalen" <jwhalen@ourbasement.net> wrote in message
news:OVVSa.32$A%6.31436@news.uswest.net...
>
> "Kryptic" <Kryptic@sparta.war> wrote in message
> news:f8b12eeb4ed75b4eb776af222032010f@news.meganetnews.com...
> > So what then is the answer, or the question for that matter.
>
> I think the question has become so convoluted in this thread that it's
> probably been answered at a level far beyond what the original offer was
> interested in.
>
> > The only question I can see is "What is Newbie doing that he wants to
keep
> > hidden, and from whom?"
>
> This is a very interesting question. Ironically enough, the answer to the
> question would ultimately make the answer to the original question
> irrelevent.
>
> > And btw, a person would only be in fear of having e-mail, newsgroup
> > postings, etc... monitored or read if he/she were under suspicion of
doing
> > something illegal in the first place.
>
> That's not neccessarily true. Fear itself is not always a rational
emotion.
> To attach a rational reasoning to its existence is inaccurate. I am
> suspicious of my internet activites being monitored not because I'm doing
> something illegal but because it's none of the governments, my ISPs, my
> employers, or anyonese elses business what I do on the internet. That
would
> be like saying you put curtains on your windows at home because you want
to
> hide your illegal activities from prying eyes. No you do it because you
are
> entitled to your privacy, much the same reason people encrypt email and go
> through measures to ensure their internet traffic is not monitored,
because
> you are entitled to privacy. Regardless of what you may choose to do with
> that privacy.
>
> As soon as we start accepting the forfeiture of even the most simple of
> liberties we set a dangerous precident in motion. So don't be quick to
> assume that I'm doing something wrong if I don't want my neighbor knowing
> what I'm doing on the internet...it's none of his damn business in the
first
> place.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > "Anonymous Sender" <anonymous@remailer.metacolo.com> wrote in message
> > news:b9063c350897adee9ecaed2f37df8067@remailer.metacolo.com...
> > > In article <MPG.197f9193a075dc83989b0f@news-server.columbus.rr.com>
> > > Leythos <void@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <4ffb6207abcf5809005a0704ede78c30@rebleep>,
> rebleep@hush.com
> > > > says...
> > > > [snip[
> > > > > To say that there is NO way to be secure is to be overly pedantic.
> > > >
> > > > I don't feel that it was overly anything. I could have used a better
> way
> > > > of saying it, but I'm willing to guess that for all practical
purposes
> > > > nothing that the poster does will be completely untraceable.
> > >
> > > Sorry, but that's incorrect.
> > >
> > > > > To say simply, "I'm in the business and know it all" is
ridiculous.
> > > > > Anyone who has dealt with the Help or technical departments of
ISPs
> > > > > knows how full of crap they can be.
> > > >
> > > > I never said anything close to "I know it all" and I don't work for
> any
> > > > ISP.
> > >
> > > I didn't say you did. Take a course in COMPREHENSION of what you are
> > > reading.
> > >
> > > > Anon mail that does not hit usenet id not decrypted at ones machine
> > > > unless it's a uuencoded document that was posted as an encrypted
> message
> > > > - much the same as binary items are posted in usenet.
> > >
> > > You really are dumb. Anon email encrypted with PGP IS decrypted AT the
> > > recipient's machine.
> > >
> > > Who the hell is talking about UUE? There's a hell of a difference
> > > between commonplace UUE and Mixmaster encyrption, PGP - or many other
> > > alogrithms.
> > >
> > > > If the users posts to usenet and we can read it, then something
> > > > somewhere was able to decode it, knows where it came from, and has
> some
> > > > administrator that can put the two together if the feds want to
know.
> > >
> > > You CANNOT read a usenet post that was posted by the method I
> > > described. Unless you or someone you know has broken the Mixmaster
> > > encryption, PGP, Blowfish, Cast and sundry other algorithms.
> > > If you have, run - do not walk to the FBI, NSA or CIA. They will pay
> > > you a million bucks a year for your expertise - because right now 128
> > > bit encryption, or higher values for some algorithms CANNOT be broken
> > > in millions of years - IF - one uses a proper passphrase.
> > >
> > > > No big government spy's here - it's just simple - if you can read a
> > > > usenet post that was sent as an encrypted message from the source
> > > > machine then someone somewhere can put it's source address and
> > > > decryption key together.
> > >
> > > That is IMPOSSIBLE with the remailer system.
> > >
> > > > It's always safer to assume that nothing is secure unless you own
all
> > > > the ends.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > spamfree999@rrohio.com
> > > > (Remove 999 to reply to me)
> > >
> > > It is as I said at the beginning of these posts, you don't know a damn
> > > thing about encryption or remailers.
> > >
> > > This conversation is over, because you are too damn ignorant to argue
> > > with.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Quantcast