Slashdot Mirror

(WARNING: -1 Flamebait ahead)

If you've never heard of assassination politics, go read the following url:

http://jya.com/ap.htm

But why limit it to politicians? Thugs like this need to be resisted, and no, 100 people from Slashdot refusing to buy their music isn't going to be noticed. Sure, it's a radical and extreme idea, but frankly I'm tired of getting fscked around by the likes of the RIAA.


---

Got a paper by the "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers".
It's 467 pages long and talks about electromagnetic impulses and how you can shield your facilities.

Get it here (pdf, directly from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Homepage) or here (text format).

cheers
mike

Pulled this from here

Bookmarks using hostnames will not work just yet.

There's a brief account of what seems to have caused the outage on the opening page -- from the viewpointof Digital Nation and Verio.

If port 80 was shut off, it was not at our request. Here is the Drudge-munged URL:

http://jya.com/crypto.htmhttp:// jya.com/crypto.htm

Yes, a back to back embedded link under the visible, correct URL. Those who figured out the mistake typed in the correct URL rather than madly pounding the clicker.

The favicon.ico attack did not seem supported by the error logs -- the great bulk of those accrued before the outage. And we never saw them as a bother, but, listen, we have little idea of what goes on in the embedded-code Internet, or the embedded-code world.

We have indeed received much advice, consolation and ridicule over this teapot, and appreciate all of it, the ridicule mostso for its apt match of our rogue state.

I have to say, I've always harbored concerns about the FISA courts (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), which are essentially a shadow judiciary that supposedly oversees, reviews, and approves FED intelligence wiretapping within the US. Congress has been looking into it sporadically since the 1997 wiretap report, but though they find abuses left and right, and issue sternly worded rebukes, they haven't taken any action yet.

The last I heard, the FISA court had never refused a single one of the 15,000 requests for domestic surveillance made of it, and only a tiny handful (under 10, IIRC) had even had to resubmit, and requests have been skyrocketing since 1993 (averaging about 250/yr in the 15 years from 1978-1993, but currently at 1000+/yr per Freedom of Information Act documents) Meanwhile, 'normal court' wiretap warrants have grown only several percent a year. (*)

The NY Times and other newspapers have written about the FISA system, but the Web has made me lazy (and besides, how many of you would look up a dead tree citation) so here are two URLs [Artcle I] [Article II]. You can find much more info with a G oogle Search for [FISA wiretap] (without brackets).

BTW, if you're interested in such things, you should look at the many articles on the huge increase in state wiretaps and the LA County DA's investigation of massive illegal wiretapping by the LAPD

• Claiming the existence of an agency with "twice the manpower and [official] budget of the CIA" prior to Bamford's book would get you labeled as a loon -- even at MIT, where the NSA actively recruited.
• Among those in the US intel community who didn't work with Echelon-type intel, there was a fair degree of skepticism about the scope, value, or even continued existence of UKUSA.

I can second the recommendation of the Cryptome docs. Most of the docs related to this lawsuit are at their section on their DVD-DeCSS section. However, one interesting item is squirreled away here.
After having read many of the transcripts, I've gained quite a bit of respect for Judge Kaplan in the case. Garbus hasn't impressed me. He's mostly come off as evasive and ill-prepared.

Damon

Work as if you don't need the money,
Love as if you've never been hurt, and
Dance as if no one's watching.

http://www.cryptome.org
http://jya.com/crypto-free.htm
Learning About Cryptography
Ritter's Crypto Glossary and
Dictionary of Technical Cryptography
Encryption & Security Tutorial
N.A. Crypto Archives
International PGP site
NSA National Cryptologic Museum
EFF
attrition.org crypto archive
Bruce Schneier's Crypto-Gram

and last, but not least (the archive i developed) ....

PacketStorm Crypto Archives

there are lots and lots of excellent tutorials, docs, glossaries, and links to many of the great crypto sites in the world at all of the URLs above.

for the best info on NSA, ECHELON, misc paranoia, you should first check out Cryptome/JYA. i archived quite a bit of stuff related to your questions at the packetstorm site too - packetstorm.securify.com/crypt/nsa/.

feel free to email me directly if you like too. over the years, i have had some interesting experiences with the NSA, BXA, etc - primarily regarding my hosting of crypto archives, and personal investigations of NSA, ECHELON. if you want to discuss these things, get the pgp key for ken.williams@ey.com from www.keyserver.net, and send your key(s) and crypted msgs to tattooman@genocide2600.com

Read Bruce Schneier's Cryptogram newsletter.
Bruce Schneier's hotlinks.
Look at Cryptome. Lots of information about Echelon, the MPAA/DeCSS issue, laws, export controls...
Mach 5 cryptography archives.
Designing Secure Software.
Simson Garfinkel and Gene Spafford's book Web Security and Commerce is a very good introduction to cryptography and security issues.

Over the past week the Motion Picture Association of America has intensified its efforts to bully and harass individual Internet users by sending out a new series of email threats. Using little more than bluff and bluster they've also managed in recent weeks to shut down countless websites, convince employers to fire employees, and get schools to take disciplinary actions against students for doing little more than taking part in an act of solidarity on their private homepages.

John Young, who maintains the Cryptome, is one of the hundreds of John Doe defendants in the California DVD case. In addition to a copy of DeCSS, Young published a copy of the now-infamous Hoy Declaration, in which the DVD Copy Control Association inadvertently included a copy of the very information they were trying to suppress in public court filings. He was among the first to bear the brunt of a wave of cease and desist letters for posting the source code to DeCSS. The letter reads in part:

The Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California also recently granted a preliminary Injunction against the Internet posting of DeCSS.

If you are bound by an injunction, maintaining the DeCSS utility on your system or network violates the above injunction[s] and risks court sanctions for contempt.

Over the past week, we have received numerous reports of this threatening letter being sent to web site owners worldwide. It appears the MPAA is simply going down the list of mirrored sites and sending a letter to everybody.

Geography and national sovereignty are clearly foreign concepts to this multinational corporation. The effects of globalization seem to have impaired their faculties more than previously thought. They proceeded to send similar letters to people all over the world. Tom Vogt, also named as a defendant in the California case, resides in Germany. The letter the MPAA sent him insisting that he comply with the California injunction, refers to the preliminary draft of an unratified convention. That's right, the best they could do was threaten him with an unsigned treaty.

Earlier this month Grant Bayley received a cease and desist letter for hosting DeCSS on his webpage for the Australian 2600 meeting. Both Bayley and the server are located in Australia. As expressed in the meeting guidelines, 2600 meetings are organized on their own, anyone can start one, and they are pretty much autonomous. According to an Australian journalist who spoke with the chief counsel for the MPAA, 2600 Australia is being singled out simply because of its name. Presumably this is also why they chose to go after A.Sleep, operator of the Connecticut 2600 meeting's webpage in his very own federal lawsuit. One can only imagine what the MPAA must be thinking.

In an age where anyone is capable of exercising free speech to mass audiences via the Internet, there is a disturbing trend that this freedom is limited not by the strength of one's convictions nor one's access to technology. Rather it is dependant on the will and resources of one's Internet Service Provider. It is common for ISPs to cancel accounts or remove content at the first hints of any controversy. It didn't take long for big business to figure this out and they've been exploiting lawsuit-fearing ISPs ever since. One can hardly blame the average ISP for bowing to such impressive cease and desist letters. Often they're barely breaking even as it is, and nuking one $10 a month webpage is a simple business decision when being threatened with a million dollar lawsuit.

What's far more troubling is the ease in which traditional safe havens for free expression, like universities and other academic institutions, are willing to sell out their students. Zach Karpinski stands out as one such victim. A student at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Zach was summarily fired from his job of two and a half years at Student Technology Services, an organization he helped build. The letters he and his school received accusing him of using school servers for illegal activities were enough to trample this student's rights and reputation in favor of some perverse idea of political "damage control." They should be more concerned with controlling the damage done to their student's academic freedom and civil liberties than satisfying the whims of Jack Valenti and the MPAA. Sadly, Zach is not alone. A student from California State University at Fresno wrote in to report that he had to take down his school-hosted DeCSS mirror and that the MPAA requested that he be fired from his school employment. (Fortunately, he wasn't fired).

We first took a stand in the DVD battle back in November, when the first cease and desist letters were being sent out. We joined in the mirroring campaign to lend our support to those who had been subjected to hollow threats and harassment from the DVD industry, but were forced into compliance due to circumstances beyond their control. They knew they were right, they knew they could win, but they lacked the resources to stand up for their convictions. As evidenced above, that fight is ongoing. Our modest mirror list has grown substantially and continues to grow, despite mirrors being removed from time to time. The success of the DeCSS mirroring campaign demonstrates the futility of attempts to suppress free speech on the Internet. It is distributed hosting at its most basic and a proven defense from censorship. Make no mistake, DeCSS is out there, it can never be eradicated. Not only will DeCSS be preserved regardless of whether there are any mirrors, the tyrannical actions of the MPAA have ensured that it will live on forever in history, law books, and all the communities it has effected.

Just as a quick aside, for those who don't already know, the second link in spaceorb's post is from John Young's really excellent "Cryptome" site at jya.com/crypto.htm
The site is primarily devoted to the technological and political aspects of law enforcement and intelligence agencies around the world, and is a great resource for those of you out there interested in things like echelon, TEMPEST, wiretapping, etc. Very cool and highly recommended...

It has nothing to do with "Van Eck" or "Tempest" radiation, because those read the image off of the CRT tube's electron beam.

Actually it could. While the protection against video cable signal leakage may not be the intended effect, it is relevant. Van Eck phreaking can be used on any leaky signal. See this article by Peter Smulders about Tempest and RS232.

Creating a more "secure" internet. The "Flexible Deployment Assistance Guide" basically points out that telecommunications companies should hand over "certain" information to the FBI apon request. Looks like they have an impressive list of supporters. Great.

A lot of the Europeans in the audience are shaking their heads and rolling eyes at the Americans now and their funny way of exaggerating things and congratulating themselves how things are better in Europe.

Unfortunately, the US situation will reflect on us Europeans. Remember the Wassenaar agreement? Two months before it became public, many governments in Europe (Finland for example) were proudly touting their open-cryptography policy. Then, a few short months later, they grinned sheepishly and signed the agreement, probably due to US or international pressure, declaring cryptographic products as armaments to be controlled.

The MPAA has so much leverage via the different giants in the entertainment industry, that whatever happens in the US will leak over to Europe as well. I'm almost certain that very soon something like the DMCA will be attempted to pass in the EU parliament, "in order to comply with international convention."

Copyright and IP rights are an important matter, but we should still keep the fair use-policy that allows individuals to do as they please with their own, legally purchased property. Video did not kill the movie industry - vice versa. Nor did DVD. And neither will DeCSS or MP3. After all, deliberate piracy hasn't killed the computer games industry - and they use no copy protection whatsoever!

28 January 2000. Thanks to PK and 2600 .
Source: Fax of 10-page hardcopy

See related New York and Connecticut complaints: http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-v-4.htm
New York court filings: http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-v-3.htm
New York preliminary injunction: http://cryptome.org/dvd-mpaa-3-pi.htm

Compare request for relief here with excerpt of the preliminary injunction.

[Ten pages] [Fax header:]
JANUARY 26 2000 12:25 FR PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 11212 969 2926 TO *3939*53185005*7 P.02/11 - 11/11

Leon P. Gold (LG-1434)
William M. Hart (WH-1604)
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
1585 Broadway
New York, New York 10036
(212) 969-3000 Telephone
(212) 969-2900 Facsimile

Jon A. Baumgarten (pro hac vice admission to be applied for)
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
1233 20th Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036-2396
(202) 416-6800 Telephone
(202) 416-6899 Facsimile

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC.;
PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION;
METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC.;
TRISTAR PICTURES, INC.; COLUMBIA
PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC.; TIME WARNER
ENTERTAINMENT CO., L.P.; DISNEY
ENTERPRISES, INC.; AND TWENTIETH
CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v.

SHAWN C. REIMERDES; ERIC CORLEY A/K/A
"EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN"; AND ROMAN
KAZAN, Defendants. ___________________________________________ )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 00 Civ. 0277 (LAK)(RLE)



AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS
GOVERNING CIRCUMVENTION
OF COPYRIGHT PROTECTION
SYSTEMS, 17 U.S.C. 1201, et seq.

Plaintiffs Universal City Studios, Inc.; Paramount Pictures Corporation; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc.; Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.; Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P.; Disney Enterprises, Inc.; and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation [illegible] attorneys Proskauer Rose LLP, as and for their amended complaint, allege as follows: Nature of Claims

1. This is an Amended Complaint for injunctive relief and related relief against Shawn C. Reimerdes ("Reimerdes"), Eric Corley a/k/a "Emmanuel Goldstein" ("Corley") and Roman Kazan ("Kazan") (collectively, the "Defendants"), individuals responsible for proliferating a digital device that unlawfully defeats the DVD copy protection and access control system -- the Content Scramble System ("CSS") -- so that individuals can make, distribute, and/or otherwise illegally transmit or perform unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs' copyrighted motion pictures and/or audiovisual works. The acts of the Defendants, which are described more fully below, violate the provisions of the United States Copyright Act governing circumvention of copyright protection systems, 17 U.S.C. 1201, et seq. The Parties

2. Plaintiff Universal Studios, Inc., is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

3. Plaintiff Paramount Pictures Corporation is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

4. Plaintiff Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

5. Plaintiff TriStar Pictures, Inc., is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

6. Plaintiff Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

7. Plaintiff time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P., is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.

8. Plaintiff Disney Enterprises, Inc., is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

9. Plaintiff Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

10. Plaintiffs are the major motion picture studios in the United States. Each plaintiff is engaged in the business of producing, manufacturing, and/or distribution of copyrightable and copyrighted material, including, specifically, motion pictures. Plaintiffs, either directly or through their affiliates, distribute motion pictures theatrically, via television broadcast, and on portable media such as videocassette tapes and digital versatile discs ("DVDs") for distribution to the home video market. In the course of its business, each plaintiff or its predecessor in rights obtained ownership of the United States copyrights, the exclusive reproduction, production, and/or distribution rights under United States copyrights, and/or state statutory and common law rights, in various motion pictures in DVD format in the United States, including such recent blockbusters as "Titanic" and "The Matrix," and approximately 4,000 titles which have been released in the United States on DVD to date. Current industry estimates place DVD sales at over 1,000,000 units per week.

11. On information and belief, defendant Reimerdes either resides or has his principal place of business at xxxxxx, NY xxxxx and/or xxxxxx, NY xxxxx. Defendant Reimerdes operates an Internet web site addressed as www.dvd-copy.com. [Addresses omitted by Cryptome.]

12. On information and belief, defendant Corley, who, on information and belief, uses nom de net "Emmanuel Goldstein, either resides or has his principal place of business at xxxxxx, New York. Corley a/k/a Emmanuel Goldstein operates an Internet web site at www.2600.com/news/1999/112-files/.

13. On information and belief, defendant Kazan either resides or has his principal place of business at xxxxxx, New York xxxxx. Defendant Kazan operates an Internet web site at www.krackdown.com/decss/. Jurisdiction and Venue

14. The Court has jurisdiction of this action under 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., 28 U.S.C. [illegible] (federal question) and 1338(a) (copyright).

15. This court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants in that each Defendant resides or has his principal place of business in the State of New York.

16. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and 28 U.S.C. [illegible](a) as (a) this is a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred, and/or (b) all of the defendants reside in the State of New York and this is a federal district in which some of the defendants reside, and/or (c) this is a judicial district in which some of the defendants may be found, and there is no judicial district in which the action may otherwise be brought. Background Facts

DVD Technology

17. With the advent of the VCR and videocassette tapes, home viewing of motion pictures became a convenient, inexpensive way to enjoy motion pictures. DVDs are 5-inch-wide discs that hold full-length motion pictures, are the most current technological advancement for private home viewing of motion pictures. This technology significantly improves the clarity and the overall quality of the motion picture when played on a television screen or computer monitor.

18. DVDs incorporating full-length motion pictures, together with additional and ancillary features such as interviews and alternative sound tracks, can be played back for viewing in the home by dedicated, free standing "DVD players" and by personal computers configured with a DVD "drive" and additional hardware or software modules, sometimes referred to as "media players."

19. DVDs contain digital information. When motion pictures in form are digital copied or transmitted, the clarity and overall quality of the motion pictures do not suffer (as they do when a copy is made from an analog source, such as a video cassette). Moreover, the fact that the motion pictures contained on DVDs are in digital format allows any unauthorized copies of those motion pictures from DVDs to be transmitted over the Internet, stored in computer [illegible], and duplicated for unlawful sale, transfer and exchange. Once these copies are in the hands of another user, the unlawful process can begin once again because the copies have the clarity and quality of the original DVDs containing the motion picture.

Contents Scramble Systems ("CSS")

20. Because motion pictures in unprotected digital format on DVDs would be subject to ready unlimited copying and create a threat to the market viability of DVD technology, the plaintiffs were reluctant to release valuable film libraries and new film releases without the implementation of a copy protection and access control system. Plaintiffs therefore ultimately accepted a copy protection and access control system developed by Matshusita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. and Toshiba Corporation -- the Contents Scramble System ("CSS") -- in order to provide security to the copyrighted contents of DVDs and thereby provide protection for the copyrighted content against unauthorized copying. CSS includes elements of encryption and other security and authentication measures that require DVD playback devices, including appropriately configured personal computers, to operate with certain keys in order to descramble and intelligibly play back copies of motion pictures from DVDs. All members of the DVD industry, including software and hardware manufacturers of DVD players, DVD replicators and the content providers -- the motion picture studios -- adopted CSS as direct licensees or by [illegible] through CSS licensees.

21. Each of the plaintiffs relied upon the security provided by CSS in manufacturing, protecting and distributing to the public copyrighted motion pictures in DVD format. Those motion pictures, may of which involved investments of tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars, were distributed on CSS-protected DVDs.

Descrambling of CSS and the Creation and Proliferation of the "DeCSS" Utility

22. On information and belief, hackers in Europe were able to descramble the encryption on DVDs and create -- and post on the World Wide Web -- an unauthorized utility commonly referred to as "DeCSS," which allows motion pictures in DVD format to be decrypted and illegally copied.

23. Subsequently, defendant Reimerdes posted DeCSS on his Internet Web site, www.dvd-copy, along with the statement "Yes, you can trade DVD movie files over the Internet. You can break the encryption on any DVD and allow users to copy the contents of a DVD into the a [sic] hard drive or alternative media! Notice: The DVD Copy Control Association are cocksuckers!" Reimerdes also told Internet users,under a section titled "How To Find/Trade FREE DVD Movies Online," that "people gather online in impromptu communities to trade these digital copies through one-to-one file transfers and group chatting."

24. Defendant Eric Corley a/k/a Emmanuel goldstein also posted DeCSS on his Internet web site www.2600.com/news/1112-files. In addition, Corley has designed and and in that site "hot links" to the DeCSS file. Corley's site states that DeCSS is a "free DVD decoder" that allows "people to copy DVDs." Corley's site also exhorts others ("as many of you as possible all throughout the world") to "take and mirror [the DeCSS] files. . . ."

25. Defendant Roman Kazan also posted DeCSS on his Internet web site, www.krackdown.com/decss/. Claim for Relief
(Violation of Provisions Governing Circumvention
of Copyright Protection Systems,
17 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.)

26. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25, inclusive.

27. The Copyright Act, Title 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2), provides that:

[n]o person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that:

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

28. Each defendant offers to the public, provides, or otherwise traffics in, DeCSS through his Internet website.

29. CSS is a technological measure that (a) effectively controls access to works protected by the Copyright Act, and (b) effectively protects rights of copyright owners to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyright works or portions thereof.

30. DeCSS (a) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing the protection afforded by CSS, (b) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent CSS or the protection afforded by CSS, and/or (c) is marketed by Defendants and/or others acting in concert with them with the knowledge of its use in circumventing CSS or the protection afforded by CSS.

31. By offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in DeCSS, Defendants have violated the provisions governing Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems set forth in the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

32. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants' violations will continue. Plaintiffs' remedy at law is not adequate. Protection of Plaintiffs' rights must include an injunction. Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, jointly and severally, as follows:

1. For agrant of preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, and all other persons in active concert or privity or in participation with them, enjoining them from:

(a) posting on any Internet website, linking to , or in any other way manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in DeCSS, and [emphasis by Cryptome]

(b) posting on any Internet website, linking to , or in any other way manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that: [emphasis by Cryptome]

(i) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing, or circumventing the protection afforded by, CSS, or any other technological measure adopted by Plaintiffs that effectively controls access to Plaintiffs' copyrighted works or effectively protects the Plaintiffs' rights to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyrighted works or portions thereof,

(ii) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent, or to circumvent the protection afforded by, CSS, or any other technological measure adopted by the Plaintiffs' that effectively controls access to Plaintiffs' copyrighted works or effectively protects the Plaintiffs' rights to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyrighted works or portions thereof, or

(iii) is marketed by Defendants and/or others acting in concert with them with the knowledge of its use in circumventing, or circumventing the protection afforded by, CSS, or any other technological measure adopted by Plaintiffs that effectively controls access to Plaintiffs' copyrighted works or effectively protects the Plaintiffs' rights to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyrighted works or portions thereof, and

For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

January 26, 2000

PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

By: ______________________

Leon P. Gold (LG-1434)
William M. Hart (WH-1604)
1585 Broadway
New York, New York 10036
(212) 969-3000 Telephone
(212) 969-2900 Facsimile - and -

Jon A. Baumgarten (pro hac vice admission
to be applied for)
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
1233 20th Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036-2396
(202) 416-6800 Telephone
(202) 416-6899 Facsimile

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

[Excerpt from preliminary injunction of January 20, 2000 provided for comparison:]

ORDERED, as follows:

1. Plaintiffs' motion is granted.

2. Defendants Shawn C. Reimerdes, Eric Corley a/k/a "Emmanuel Goldstein" and Roman Kazan, their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order by personal service or otherwise be and they hereby are enjoined and restrained, pending the hearing and final determination of this action from:

(a) posting on any Internet web site, or in any other way manufacturing, importing or offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in DeCSS, and

(b) posting on any Internet web site, or in any other way manufacturing, importing or offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that:

(i) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing, or circumvention the protection afforded by, CSS, or any other technological measure adopted by plaintiffs that effectively controls access to plaintiffs' copyrighted works or effectively protects the plaintiffs' rights to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyrighted works or portions thereof;

(ii) has only limited commercially significant purposes or use other than to circumvent, or to circumvent the protection afforded by, CSS, or any other technological measure adopted by plaintiffs that effectively controls access to plaintiffs' copyrighted works or effectively protects the plaintiffs' rights to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyrighted works or portions thereof; or

(iii) is marketed by defendants and/or others acting in concert with them with the knowledge of its use in circumventing, or in circumventing the protection afforded by, CSS, or any other technological measure adopted by plaintiffs that effectively controls access to the plaintiffs' copyrighted works or effectively protects the plaintiffs' rights to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyrighted works or portions thereof.

Transcription and HTML by Cryptome.

Cryptome has something new everyday (transcripts, updates, etc.) Worth checking out if you're really into this case.

"I don't think there's the slightest question that plaintiffs have a very good chance of success," Judge Kaplan said in issuing his decision.

"Now really, Ms. Gross, I think it's a mistake for you to assume you're talking to a moron," said the judge, who pronounced Linux with a long "i" (the correct pronunciation is LIH-nix), and required a short briefing on the concept of linking.

The judge scoffed at these arguments and others, frequently interrupting Gross and Levy and chiding them for a lack of preparation. On Tuesday, Judge Kaplan had denied a request by the EFF legal team for a postponement.

Judge Kaplan offered a speedy trial for the suit, "as early as next Tuesday if you want it," he said to MPAA counsel. "I would like this tried as soon as possible. I offer you a runaway train if that's what you want. My schedule is clear for this." Defendants' counsel requested a delay and the judge agreed to accept an application for an alternate date. [SNIP] The order and Judge Kaplan's decision should provide First Amendment advocates with a lot of tough meat to chew on. He seems to have to decided to try to put an end to overuse and abuse of the First Amendment for inappropriate defense of the indefensible, as he put it. He specifically ordered that links to sites which offered DeCSS be prohibited, even though Proskauer tried to get that changed in his order to prohibit only links to download DeCSS itself.

nsa102452.htm The National Security Agency Established 1952

Those curious about the packetstorm situation may wish to look at: http://www.jya.com/kw070199.htm which is the original mail sent by the person who ran packetstorm.

--

"Key findings concerning the state of the art in Comint include :

• Comprehensive systems exist to access, intercept and process every important modern form of communications, with few exceptions (section 2, technical annexe);
• Contrary to reports in the press, effective "word spotting" search systems automatically to select telephone calls of intelligence interest are not yet available, despite 30 years of research. However, speaker recognition systems - in effect, "voiceprints" - have been developed and are deployed to recognise the speech of targeted individuals making international telephone calls;
• Recent diplomatic initiatives by the United States government seeking European agreement to the "key escrow" system of cryptography masked intelligence collection requirements, and formed part of a long-term program which has undermined and continues to undermine the communications privacy of non-US nationals, including European governments, companies and citizens;
• There is wide-ranging evidence indicating that major governments are routinely utilising communications intelligence to provide commercial advantage to companies and trade."

These are just the major findings condensed, all the details and the evidence have been published in that report. In an earlier report, An Appraisal of the Technologies of Political Control, we get the very welcome conclusion:

"If even half of these allegations are true then the European Parliament must act to ensure that such powerful surveillance systems operate to a more democratic consensus now that the Cold War has ended. Clearly, the Overseas policies of European Union Member States are not always congruent with those of the USA and in commercial terms, espionage is espionage. No proper Authority in the USA would allow a similar EU spy network to operate from American soil without strict limitations, if at all. Following full discussion on the implications of the operations of these networks, the European Parliament is advised to set up appropriate independent audit and oversight procedures and that any effort to outlaw encryption by EU citizens should be denied until and unless such democratic and accountable systems are in place, if at all."

It's pretty much certain that ECHELON exists, (the 1999 report contains interesting technical details and speculation, for those interested) and it's doing more than just monitoring those seeking the downfall of global capitalism.

Given that they have these capabilities, and that they are well known for paranoia, they'll more than likely be using these things to "ensure national security isn't breached". So, if you send round mail containing made up stuff about, say, TEMPEST, bacterial cultures, etc etc, they'll probably have filters to detect those signatures; too many keywords will strain the system AND its operators who have to check its output. So go ahead and jam up the bugger :-)

While state-of-the-art improvements such as the number field sieve obscure the details, the basic quadratic sieve is not hard to understand. One way to factor n = s * t is to find two numbers x and y whose squares are equal. x*x == y*y (mod n) implies that x == +/- y (mod s) and x == +/-y (mod t). Half the time, the individual +/- choices are the same, so x == +/- y (mod n), which is not very informative. But the other half, x == +y (mod s) and x == -y (mod t), so x+y is a multiple of s but not a multiple of t, so t = GCD(x+y, n) is easily computed.

To find those numbers x and y, the quadratic sieve steps through possible x values, and tries to factor x*x (mod n). If you're lucky, its factors are all small primes less than some bound B, and the factorization produces one row in that giant matrix to be solved, called a relation.

Choosing the correct bound B is very tricky. The higher it is, the faster you will find relations, but it also determines the number of columns in your matrix, and you need as many rows (relations) as you have columns.

To do the search efficiently, you set up a sieve (does anybody remember the sieve of Eratosthenes?) with slots for a great many possible values x, then, for each prime p less than B, it turns out that there is a simple repeating pattern (two numbers out of every p values) of which values of x*x mod n are divisible by p. So you multiply the slot by the prime p for every applicable slot, and when you're done with all the primes p, look for slots whose values are high enough to be a relation.

Now, multiplying 512-bit numbers are slow, so actually, you use logarithms. For each slot, you add log(p) and see if the result exceeds log(x*x mod n). Furthermore, you use a rough approximation (like 32 bits long) and double-check any accumulators that get close enough.

An important thing to note is that it is fairly easy to double-check results, so an approximation is adequate, as long as the number of false hits doesn't get too high. Also, missing a few relations is fine, if it helps the search rate enough to increase the number of relations that you do find.

TWINKLE basically automates this process using optics. The design uses a whole gallium arsenide wafer studded with LEDs (one per prime p), each with a filter that adjusts its intensity to be proportional to log(p). The trick to making it work is to not worry about making the filter perfect, but to measure the intensity of the LEDs and then assign them to primes accordingly. Each one is programmed to blink on at the appropriate times in a pattern of length p.

Anyway, you aim all the LEDs at a photosensor, clock the whole thing at 10 GHz and record whenever the intensity exceeds log(x*x). The receiver circuitry is tricky, but 10 Gbps fiber-optic receivers exist.

The paper is available as a postscript file in http://jya.com/twinkle.zip. Bob Silverman wrote up an overview at http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/html/twinkl e.html .

Details at http://jya.com/cejfiles.htm

According to several sources, the UK government is already actively employing this sort of technology. They certainly had reason to develop it, with all their counter-terrorism worries.

In the book The Irish War, Tony Geraghty says, "Surveillance cameras around sensitive areas such as the City of London, linked to computers which will automatically identify suspect vehicles within four seconds,
evolved into computerized, digital maps of human faces." He claims they used this to identify and capture an IRA bomber.
Of course, some of these claims about British Intelligence are rather fanciful, but these seem to have the ring of truth to them.

The fact is, the government and corporations have LONG been stepping and crushing people, but it's always been the poor. No one cares about the poor! Now they're invading your space. The middle and upper middle class. Crushing your rights and freedoms. Recently large numbers of people have been protesting things like the G8, and in November, the WTO in Seattle. University students protesting against sweatshop labor. Thousands and thousands of people. And they're all involved in these things DESPITE the fact the corporate media never mentions them at all. Somehow, people are fed up and have discovered ways on their own, to try to fight back. Right now the largest community run microradio station, KPFA, is protesting against Pacifica because Pacifica wants to sell KPFA because of it's large audience! People have been outraged and massive protests have been going on there.

Our government hasn't just now decided to become corrupt, it has long been so. it is just now invading the "freedoms" of the middle/upper class of the country, where as before it was only hurting the voiceless poor and people of other countries (and still is I might add).

From killing off native americans in the past and now, to using slave labor in the country, and now using slave labor in third world countries, raping the earth's resources for profits and to feed our addictive consumption rates, suppressing the rights of women, and long promoting right-wing Christian fundamentalism...how can it not be clear the US isn't perfect like they lie and make you believe? The US is f-cking evil...and if you don't believe me now, you will soon enough...when they limit your freedom, or put you away.

http://www.savepacifica.net
http://www.infoshop.org
http://www.protest.net
http://www.commondreams.org
http://www.zmag.org
http://www.fair.org
http://www.foodnotbombs.org/
http://jya.com/crypto.htm
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointel.htm
http://www.urban75.com
http://www.oneworld.org
http://www.mediafilter.org


There you go. Arm yourself with information. Don't believe the world is perfectly all right. Now apparently the short-sighted people are beginning to see they were wrong. Don't think you're alone for thinking something is wrong, there are millions out there who know it already. From those educated on the subjects, to those experiencing the abuses caused by this horrible corporate owned world, and their servant governments.

People are missing the entire point here (which is what Dyson wanted you to do, but...). In a nutshell, Esther Dyson and ICANN are doing a number of things to set major policies for the entire internet so that they will favor mega-corporations and totally exclude individuals from any participation in governing the internet. They're levying taxes, setting trademark policies, etc., while operating behind closed doors without individual input. The issue is rather complicated, too complicated for the amount of time and space I have here - do some research, as many, many people have protested ICANN's actions.

The letter which prompted Dyson's response was an accusation from two consumer advocates about ICANN's current policies. (See jya.com for Dyson's response, the original letter, and a parody response to Dyson.) Dyson's response, instead of making any real consideration of the issues, was to blow a lot of smoke and essentially blame NSI for all the bad things that have ever occurred in the history of the world.

Now, NSI is attempting to stake a claim on the .com DNS system, no doubt about it. And they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. But most of the things which Dyson blamed on NSI are actually ICANN's - Dyson's - fault. ICANN is responsible for not opening up the .com registry to competition, not NSI. ICANN is responsible for approving trademark rules which will allow any company to unilaterally take away domain names from individuals without even having to notify them in advance that the name is being challenged. Etc., etc.

Don't fall for Dyson's misleading letter. Corporations see the internet as a tremendous source of income, if only they can establish sufficient control over it (which means keeping governments and individuals from having any input). ICANN is giving away the store to them instead of setting up democratic means of governance. NSI is attacking .com/.org/.net. ICANN's actions will affect the entire internet, DNS, IP allocation, everything. Which one is the greater threat?

here's van Eck's
original paper from Computers & Security, 1985 Vol. 4.

You will find a lot more information under "Tempest radiation" from the TEMPEST standards for EMF emmission reductions.

I found an article from the December 98 Scientific American which mentions a Microsoft connection. It was featured on Slashdot but only has one remaining comment attached to it (bit rot or conspiracy?)

Finally there is The Complete, Unofficial TEMPEST Information Page


--

here's van Eck's
original paper from Computers & Security, 1985 Vol. 4.

You will find a lot more information under "Tempest radiation" named for the TEMPEST standards for EMF emmission reductions.

I found an article from the December 98 Scientific American which mentions a Microsoft connection. It was featured on Slashdot but only has one remaining comment attached to it (bit rot or conspiracy?)

Finally there is The Complete, Unofficial TEMPEST Information Page which has all you (can|should|need to) know.


--

You mention Van Eck eavesdropping: can you point to any online or print sources of information about this?

Check out:

"Electromagnetic Radiation from Video Display Units: An Eavesdropping Risk?" by Wim van Eck, Computers & Security, 1985 Vol. 4.

If you can find it. The NSA made efforts to try to eradicate every copy of this publication, but thankfully were unsuccessful.

Take a look here:

http://jya.com/bits.htm

The little that I do know about it is, frankly, unnerving.

As well it should.

I saw a TEMPEST ELINT FAQ somewhere out there, years ago. Searching...

One overview

And a bit about legality

Mmmmmmm, ELINT.

The Ninth Circuit's decision in the Bernstein case is a major victory for the First Amendment in the computer age. It confirms that just because you use specialized tools to speak, like a computer, or a specialized language to communicate, like a programming language, you do not therefore put yourself outside the scope of the First Amendment. These propositions are fundamental to free speech, and to freedom of association, in the computer age. And while it is wonderful that the Court of Appeals ruled as it did, it is a pity that the Justice Department's stonewalling on this issue made such a ruling necessary in the first place.

Today the Ninth Circuit-the court of appeals with jurisdiction over Silicon Valley-holds that cryptographic source code is protected speech. The court held, correctly, that the US Government's unconstitutionally prevents the export of cryptographic source code with a system of speech licenses. The court held that preventing cryptographers such as Daniel Bernstein from using the Internet to share their work with colleagues around the world is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech, one hedged with completely inadequate procedural safeguards.

This decision is especially important because U.S. government representatives openly admit that they have been using the export control laws to retard the domestic use of cryptographic software. This decision, which I hope will be upheld by the Supreme Court, will be the first step towards greatly increased use of cryptography in domestic products, and enhanced personal privacy for all Americans.

Perhaps the most important aspect of this decision is that the appeals court recognizes the critical connection between the regulation of cryptography and our modern lives:

"we note that the government's efforts to regulate and control the spread of knowledge relating to encryption may implicate more than the First Amendment rights of cryptographers. In this increasingly electronic age, we are all required in our everyday lives to rely on modern technology to communicate with one another. This reliance on electronic communication, however, has brought with it a dramatic diminution in our ability to communicate privately."

The court was thus right on target when it noted that the regulation of cryptography "touches on the public interest broadly defined.".

A second important aspect of this decision is that the court recognized the effect of technical change on the first amendment, and rejected suggestions that just because speech has side effects it somehow loses its protected status:

"the government's argument, distilled to its essence, suggests that even one drop of "direct functionality" overwhelms any constitutional protections that expression might otherwise enjoy. This cannot be so. The distinction urged on us by the government would prove too much in this era of rapidly evolving computer capabilities. The fact that computers will soon be able to respond directly to spoken commands, for example, should not confer on the government the unfettered power to impose prior restraints on speech in an effort to control its "functional" aspects. The first Amendment is concerned with expression, and we reject the notion that the admixture of functionality necessarily puts expression beyond the protections of the Constitution."

If the government appeals, the issue is very likely to go to the Supreme Court for resolution given the government's claim that national security might be affected. It is likely that the government will request and receive a stay order if it chooses to appeal. (An appeal to an en banc panel of the 9th Circuit is also possible.)

Congratulations to Cindy Cohn and the rest of the Bernstein legal team!

More information on Cryptography and the Constitution

More information on government regulation of cryptogragpy

More information on the link between cryptography, e-cash, and privacy
A. Michael Froomkin
U. Miami School of Law,POB 248087
Coral Gables, FL 33124,USA

more on E-Bombs

sometimes this suff makes me think someone will try and make a y2k bug... just think about it...