Re: USAF wants to violate federal criminal law

["Wilfred L. Guerin" <wilfredguerin@xxxxxxxxx>]

"some secret deal..."

This is what DMCA was designed to contradict. It is illegal to have an
awareness of deadly threats against you, no less exploits embedded in
disinformation systems.

Simply knowing about interference between signals, ripples interacting
in a pool of water, or patterns in the sand gets you on the terrorist
watch list.

God forbid you realize you can manually audit your chip or device with
a hammer and microscope by eye.

Even worse, you read FCC Part 15 rules and ask "why would I WANT it to
ACCEPT INTERFERENCE??"

And beyond, that "Stealth" on missiles a funny shaped airplanes has
nothing to do with insulative coatings on common materials and more to
do with very large observation and jamming systems eminating from
nowhere near the vehicle or the targeted "fcc compliant" sensor
devices.

Welcome to the modern era, children.

This httpS message sends the wire negotiated encryption key over the
wire WITH the "encrypted" data. Do you frequently write the lock
combination on the safe or tape the key to the lock when it is left in
hostile environments?

DieBold!


On 5/18/08, Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>      On Sun, 18 May 2008 16:25:58 +0200 Andrew <tor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>Scott Bennett wrote:
>>>      For those who are interested in seeing how little difference in
>>> principle
>>> there is between the U.S. government of today and that of Stalin's
>>> U.S.S.R. of
>>> yesterday, check out the article at
>>>
>>> 	http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/05/air-force-mater.html
>>>
>>> which discusses the Air Force's desire to be able to take over any and
>>> every
>>> computer on the net, regardless of where those computers may be.  They
>>> want
>>> not only to be able to take control of those computers, but also to be
>>> able
>>> to install undetectable spyware.
>>>
>>Sure, I want to take over every computer on the net too...
>>And by the way, so does the German Federal Police (BKA). Doesn't mean
>>they can.
>>Luckily there's always an antivirus-company outside of these countries'
>>jurisdiction so any "Federal Spyware" would still be detected as exactly
>>that: Spyware. No German, or U.S., law will stop Kaspersky from treating
>>that thing as what it is. On the contrary, it's a good sales argument
>>for Kaspersky ;)
>
>      Yes, yes, of course.  Although there does seem to be a fairly steady
> flow of things that go undetected by all the major security packages for
> Windows for quite some time before they get noticed and dealt with.  It's
> worth noting that the BSD users and even LINUX users don't have Windows
> users' problem of always having to watch where they step to avoid falling
> through security holes.  In fact, pretty much any other operating system
> seems to be orders of magnitude safer than Windows, so that isn't what
> worries me.
>>
>>I don't really think this is a threat to the average user or even
>>criminal. If they were really going to use a Federal Virus of some sort,
>>it would have to be custom-developed for each and every target so it
>>won't be detected easily. And no government can afford to employ
>>something that expensive on a larger scale.
>>At least I hope so.
>>
>      Do we know for certain that the feds haven't worked some deal with
> the chip manufacturers?  (I think it's only reasonable to operate on the
> assumption that Microslop may well have made a deal with them.  What I
> want to know is whether uglier approaches will be used to violate federal
> statute that might affect better operating systems.)  What can they have
> built into things like keyboards, motherboard chip sets, even DIMMs and
> other memory cards, that might escape notice indefinitely?  Are there
> other potential methods?
>
>
>                                   Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
> **********************************************************************
> * Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
> *--------------------------------------------------------------------*
> * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
> * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
> * -- a standing army."                                               *
> *    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *
> **********************************************************************
>