[KLUG Advocacy] Re: Advocacy digest, Vol 1 #103 - 4 msgs

[Taz]

advocacy-request@kalamazoolinux.org wrote:

> Send Advocacy mailing list submissions to
>         advocacy@kalamazoolinux.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         advocacy-request@kalamazoolinux.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         advocacy-admin@kalamazoolinux.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Advocacy digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: [KLUG Members] White House to Propose System for Wide Monitoring of Internet (Robert G. Brown)
>    2. Re: Re: [KLUG Members] White House to Propose System
>        for Wide Monitoring of Internet (Adam Williams)
>    3. Re: Re: [KLUG Members] White House to Propose System for Wide Monitoring of Internet (Robert G. Brown)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> To: advocacy@kalamazoolinux.org
> From: "Robert G. Brown" <bob@acm.org>
> Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 20:23:46 -0500
> Subject: [KLUG Advocacy] Re: [KLUG Members] White House to Propose System for Wide Monitoring of Internet
> Reply-To: advocacy@kalamazoolinux.org
>
> >>The subject line is the title of the article at:
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/20/technology/20MONI.html
> >
> >It will succeed - in making lots of beaurocrats, wall steeters, IT companies
> >and consultants quite wealthy.
> I have my doubts. IMO the folks at 1600 Pennsy are going to get visited by
> the boys from Ft. Meade. They're going to givethe Texans a talkin' to..
> a DC talkin' to. These lectures feature words like "intractable", and
> "minimal probability", and let's not forget "constitutionally questionable".
> PPerhaps the Bushites would feel OK about riding roughshod over one of those
> conditions, but rarely all three.
>
> >Which, lets be honest, is really the whole point anyway.  "National security"
> >is a diversion for adjusting economic policy.
> Um, they don't need it, therefor I challenge this notion. "National Security"
> is self-justification; I fear what it may be used to justify. I know we have
> spent billions to prevent what happend on 9/11/2001, and at the same time I
> doubt we'll see a repitition of that. In Vietnam, we destroyed villages in
> oder to save them. Part of this war is being "fought" right here, and  the
> villages aren't overseas....
>
> >Beyond that.... it's call "encryption" people.  Capture my data streams, go
> >ahead, and have fun doing it.
> Oh, they'll outlaw this, if they're serious about persuing any policy that
> purports to "police" the net in the US. I think of encryption policy as a
> kind of canary...when it falls over we'll know the jongoists and the
> simple-answer people have made a succesful grab for the policy controls.
>
> >"We don't have anybody that is able to look at the entire picture,"
> They're only starting to learn about this. Let us hop they learn weel
> before they atart making policy.
>
> >a) It is one MIGHTY BIG picture.
> Rhus will come the lecture, as above, when the guys out at Meade come downtown
> and heave Dubya's boys into the 1990's, this is going to be one of the very
> first points they malke.
>
> >b) It isn't a "picture", it is a high-action IMAX movie.  The "picture"
> >   changed while I was typing this sentance.  Good luck.
> True enough, but as such, not a bariier. Lots of things are very dynamic
> and can be secured. I take a dim view of anyone trying to do this from the
> top down, and it's not really going to stop the folks they want to stop from
> doinfg what they want to do.
>
>                                                         Regards,
>                                                         ---> RGB <---
>
> Who would sure like to see the connection between Vessey & West St.,
> this announcement, and what we're going to do in about a month....
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 00:02:20 -0500 (EST)
> From: Adam Williams <awilliam@whitemice.org>
> To: advocacy@kalamazoolinux.org
> Subject: Re: [KLUG Advocacy] Re: [KLUG Members] White House to Propose System
>  for Wide Monitoring of Internet
> Reply-To: advocacy@kalamazoolinux.org
>
> >>>The subject line is the title of the article at:
> >>>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/20/technology/20MONI.html
> >>It will succeed - in making lots of beaurocrats, wall steeters, IT companies
> >>and consultants quite wealthy.
> >I have my doubts. IMO the folks at 1600 Pennsy are going to get visited by
> >the boys from Ft. Meade. They're going to givethe Texans a talkin' to..
> >a DC talkin' to. These lectures feature words like "intractable", and
> >"minimal probability", and let's not forget "constitutionally questionable".
> >PPerhaps the Bushites would feel OK about riding roughshod over one of those
> >conditions, but rarely all three.
>
> They (the Executive branch) pulled off Carnivore,  I don't particularly
> see the difference here, except it scale.  But the technical details of
> how it would work and what it would monitor were thin, to say the least.
>
> >>Beyond that.... it's call "encryption" people.  Capture my data streams, go
> >>ahead, and have fun doing it.
> >Oh, they'll outlaw this, if they're serious about persuing any policy that
> >purports to "police" the net in the US. I think of encryption policy as a
> >kind of canary...when it falls over we'll know the jongoists and the
> >simple-answer people have made a succesful grab for the policy controls.
>
> This is the one I doubt they could pull off.  The corporations would be
> very unhappy.
>
> >>"We don't have anybody that is able to look at the entire picture,"
> >They're only starting to learn about this. Let us hop they learn weel
> >before they atart making policy.
> >>a) It is one MIGHTY BIG picture.
> >Rhus will come the lecture, as above, when the guys out at Meade come downtown
> >and heave Dubya's boys into the 1990's, this is going to be one of the very
> >first points they malke.
>
> Thus, we must spend MIGHTY BIG dollars....
>
> >>b) It isn't a "picture", it is a high-action IMAX movie.  The "picture"
> >>   changed while I was typing this sentance.  Good luck.
> >True enough, but as such, not a bariier. Lots of things are very dynamic
> >and can be secured. I take a dim view of anyone trying to do this from the
> >top down, and it's not really going to stop the folks they want to stop from
> >doing what they want to do.
>
> I assume that most people want to operate secure services at their network
> edges, and that wiit time this problem will in large part heal itself from
> the bottom up.  A national exchange for free SSL certificates would be a
> big step forward, to promote encrypted DNS trafffic.  And encouraging top
> level domains to promote the use of SRV for service location would make
> both a more secure and easier to use (quasi-transparent) network.
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> To: advocacy@kalamazoolinux.org
> Subject: Re: [KLUG Advocacy] Re: [KLUG Members] White House to Propose System for Wide Monitoring of Internet
> From: "Robert G. Brown" <bob@acm.org>
> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 00:22:36 -0500
> Reply-To: advocacy@kalamazoolinux.org
>
> >>>>The subject line is the title of the article at:
> >>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/20/technology/20MONI.html
> >>>It will succeed - in making lots of beaurocrats, wall steeters, IT companies
> >>>and consultants quite wealthy.
> >>I have my doubts. IMO the folks at 1600 Pennsy are going to get visited by
> >>the boys from Ft. Meade. They're going to givethe Texans a talkin' to..
> >>a DC talkin' to. These lectures feature words like "intractable", and
> >>"minimal probability", and let's not forget "constitutionally questionable".
> >>PPerhaps the Bushites would feel OK about riding roughshod over one of those
> >>conditions, but rarely all three.
> >
> >They (the Executive branch) pulled off Carnivore,  I don't particularly
> >see the difference here, except it scale.  But the technical details of
> >how it would work and what it would monitor were thin, to say the least.
> Scale is a lot of the reason why it won't work. Scale tr not linear; it
> translares into stepply non-linear costs. The boys at 1.6e3 Pennsy will put
> their bix elsewhere, probably spread more broadly, maybe more effectively.
>
> >>>Beyond that.... it's call "encryption" people.  Capture my data streams, go
> >>>ahead, and have fun doing it.
> >>Oh, they'll outlaw this, if they're serious about persuing any policy that
> >>purports to "police" the net in the US. I think of encryption policy as a
> >>kind of canary...when it falls over we'll know the jongoists and the
> >>simple-answer people have made a succesful grab for the policy controls.
> >This is the one I doubt they could pull off.
> I never claimed they'de pull it off. Watch for it nonetheless. There are
> many contexts in which this could come up. Ask me about it when it crops up.
>
> >The corporations would be  very unhappy.
> They'll do their part, and fall into line. The real motivations are starting
> to become clear.
>
> >>>"We don't have anybody that is able to look at the entire picture,"
> >>They're only starting to learn about this. Let us hop they learn weel
> >>before they atart making policy.
> >>>a) It is one MIGHTY BIG picture.
> >>Rhus will come the lecture, as above, when the guys out at Meade come downtown
> >>and heave Dubya's boys into the 1990's, this is going to be one of the very
> >>first points they malke.
> >Thus, we must spend MIGHTY BIG dollars....
> No, I don't agree. The focus out at Meade is to increase quality now, not
> quantity. THey  no longer beleive quantity is the issue.
>
> >>>b) It isn't a "picture", it is a high-action IMAX movie.  The "picture"
> >>>   changed while I was typing this sentance.  Good luck.
> >>True enough, but as such, not a bariier. Lots of things are very dynamic
> >>and can be secured. I take a dim view of anyone trying to do this from the
> >>top down, and it's not really going to stop the folks they want to stop from
> >>doing what they want to do.
> >I assume that most people want to operate secure services at their network
> >edges, and that wiit time this problem will in large part heal itself from
> >the bottom up.  A national exchange for free SSL certificates would be a
> >big step forward, to promote encrypted DNS trafffic.  And encouraging top
> >level domains to promote the use of SRV for service location would make
> >both a more secure and easier to use (quasi-transparent) network.
> All well and good perhaps, but it doesn't really address the issue of
> national security, or being addressed by the folks up top. Carnivore and co.
> go further than mere security, they want to snoop. THis is what's not Linear,
> and they'll find it ineffecive in disrupting the other guys' operations.
>
>                                                         Regards,
>                                                         ---> RGB <---
>
> --__--__--
>

Don't forget what is in store for all of this: ...one world government. It all boils down to this...The European
guys want to take over the USA. Disagree with me if you want, but it is coming to this.

Bruce

>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocacy mailing list
> Advocacy@kalamazoolinux.org
> 
>
> End of Advocacy Digest