🚀 go-pugleaf

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

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

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])

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. ]

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

>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 ********************

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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."

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

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