Congress Ixnays FIDNET; Prez Finds Money

Signal 11 writes "Congress has shot down the Fidnet project - to read about more details on Fidnet, go the original story about the project. In related news a national jam echelon day is coming up. Unfamiliar with Echelon? It is best to educate oneself. " Well, the sequence of events for FIDNET goes something like this: Clinton proposes computer security group, liberties groups hate it, Congress shoots it down for funding, Clinton attachs it to another bill. So, we won and lost - for more details, check out our recent YRO Story.

Comments

_National_ Jam Echelon day?

[The Apocalyptic Lawn]

Since project Echelon rises above the USA's (official) territory (by definition), why not make it a World Jam Echelon Day? That would really screw their system over.

As a start, you can prepare yourself by extracting the naughty comment found in the (source of) the National Jam Echelon Day page, and on the day itself, put it up in your webpages, attach a conveniently small subset of it to your signature and anything else you can think of (have your browser/squid report itself as something naughty, and every HTTP request may be tagged). Anything you can think of.

Let's hope I won't forget that day myself. I'm notorious in forgetting long-term stuff :(

- da Lawn

Re:"Jam Echelon Day"

[dattaway]

Subversive? I prefer to call it civil war. Or we can wait until the corruption boils over into World War III.

That's what I get by paying taxes in the good ol USA. I seem to be supporting a bully that wants to tell others how to trade, spy on others, not communicate in confidence, etc...

Re:"View Source" is your friend (nt)

[dattaway]

Lots of good keywords in the comment, but they are all seperated by commas. Anyone at the NSA could write a bogon filter that simply checks for a comma after the keyword to turn the red flag off. Or a simple check to filter out the same hash of words.

I bet a little script to insert random dictionary words and sentences between them would produce something that would be more difficult to screen.

Enemy of my Enemy...

[cpt kangarooski]

According to an article on this subject in Wired (which, btw, I submitted last week to /. pout pout) the guys running Jam Echelon may have identified it as a threat to our freedom, but that doesn't prevent them from also being kind of kooky. Read the linked article.

Re:jam echelon day

[Signal 11]

Correct, but not for the reasons you specified. HNN has the details if you want it, but suffice it to say the NSA likely has technology that sorts on the basis of *context*, so throwing random keywords out is likely a futile act. Now, if OTOH, you started passing around, for example, the info sheet on the nerve-gas VX, or decided to call embassies in the New York area from several payphones and when they answered gave some cryptic 'the pig flies at three', or something equally cryptic to the Russian embassy, the Libian embassy, and maybe throw in China for good measure (we don't seem to like them anymore)... THAT would surely raise a few eyebrows at Spook HQ.

--

[H]ac[k]tivism 101 :) (Re:jam echelon day)

[lazarusL]

These days, any form of activism involves events intended to disseminate your message to as broad a base of listeners as is possible. Whether we like it or not, this generally includes specifically-crafted "media events" targetted toward being picked up by mass-market information disseminators, such as the news media.

Like it or not, at this point in time, the general populus still is either unaware or unconcerned about the steady erosions of their online (and offline) privacies and the increasing trend of Orwellian monitoring of even the most simple interchanges by Three Letter Agencies and others.

A one-day action certainly isn't going to overwhelm the NSA's filesystems, and I am certain no one actually believes that it would. But it does have merit nonetheless. In a sense, it enables "the little guy" to feel a sense of empowerment by making an (admittedly token) gesture, somewhat akin to making obscene gestures at surreptitious surveillance cameras. Obviously this doesn't directly change the underlying problem, except in the small measure that the individual is that much more likely to take a slightly larger "rebellious" action the next time. Don't forget that so-called resistive actions are frequently the precursors to more active (and effective) attempts to effect change of the undesirable situation. (Think, "baby steps.")

More importantly, these events bring the subject to the forefront of conversation. How many water cooler conversations might happen in offices thoughout the land, somewhat like this, the day after a similar event gets national coverage on the ubiquitous evening news?

• "Hey, you're into computers; did you see that thing on the news last night about how we can prevent the government from spying on us by jamming their computers?"
• "Well, actually, it's more like this...."

At this point, an accurate explanation (in nontechnical terms if needed) can be made of the various issues, such as how to actually effect change via contacting representative government.

This also provides the opportunity to educate those with recently-awakened awareness of the issues to the importance of routine use of strong cryptography, since it is one of the most effective means of ensuring privacy against such Orwellian systems. Providing a link to GNU Privacy Guard (or even its less-free predecessor you mentioned) as well as an offer of assistance in setting it up, or acting as a mentor, will go a long way toward acheiving the goal of widespread use of cryptography being the norm, rather than the exception.

Oddly enough, your post here on Slashdot is indication that the "Jam Echelon Day" event succeeded, at least from my perspective. The story is covered here, and will generate discussion, hence awareness of the underlying issues is being increased, with opportunity for followup discussion. Obviously, being picked up both other major information dissemination channels will increase the effectiveness.

Emacsen's Mx-spook and its ilk may not directly affect the NSA, but indirect effects via increased public awareness are likely. An idealist would say that Echelon can be ended through the process of representative government. A realist may doubt that, and feel Echelon can be ended only by making it no longer cost-effective, due to the routine use of strong cryptography. Either way, the first step is to bring the issue to the eyes of the populus, as often as possible.

Re:[H]ac[k]tivism 101 :) (Re:jam echelon day)

[lazarusL]

"the two approches aren't mutually exclusive"

Agreed. When I first followed the link in question, it was rather content-free, with the majority of the content being in the HTML comment. Now however, I revisited the site and find a good deal of (IMO) inaccurate information, which I find disconcerting.

"the tremendous work others have put into understanding how surveillance systems really work."

Again, agreed. Without the research of others, most educators in any field would have no material to teach their students. You obviously had greater exposure to this particular group than I however, since I was unaware of the (IMO) inaccuracies in their presentation.

"The conversation about surveillance regimes should be smarted up, not dumbed down."

But here I am torn.

This is certainly true in a topic where awareness is already at least marginally present in the majority of affected people. I feel that is, sadly, not the case here yet. What is worse, many otherwise-intelligent people dismiss the topic as "another of those computer techie things" and similar. Until we reach the point where the majority care about the issue, I believe there is a need to "hook" them, with discussion that won't be dismissed as "too technical" (or "irrelevant" by those not willing to admit they find it "too technical." I suspect many of the cries of "More Consipracy Theorists Again" come from people who find the material too intimidating for serious examination.)

Until the majority have learned to care, I think there is a valid place for both tactics.

In my years of activism, I have learned to speak in sound bites when interviewed at rallies and similar. John Q. Sixpack will not listen once bored, and needs to become invested in the subject matter in the first few seconds or can be considered "lost."

At the same time, I have learned that informative and credible content is important when talking with U.S. Senators on live television, since John Q. Cocktail (?) recognizes accurate and articulate presentation, and recognizes the subsequent backpedalling on the part of an otherwise-articulate politician. (BTW, the latter was quite enjoyable from my perspective, indeed! ;-))

One could even say my last two paragraphs are something akin to my saying "See, I know what I'm talking about, believe me." And I suppose, in a sense, that would be accurate. :-) But the intent is to provide illustrations of the two principles each having their place in an overall campaign of public education, i.e., "consciousness raising."

(Broadcast) conversation with Senators draws a more intellectual audience and warrants a more intellectual coverage of the subject matter. Speaking to a news camera for the evening news warrants a more simplistic vocalization of the issues, since the target audience is comprised of a less-intellectual ilk, for the most part.

Each situation is intended to publicize the subject matter, but each has a different method, since each has a different intended target, with different characteristics. At present, with regard to the issue of government surveillance, I feel the overall American public to be on the level of John Q. Sixpack rather than John Q. Cocktail (in the examples above.) (Other countries will differ of course.) The one-day event strikes me as being on the order of a rally, a media-crafted event, intended for coverage on the evening news (even though the web site regrettably claims it is to actually overwhelm the Echelon project, which I feel is a ludicrous expectation.) As such, I feel a certain degree of "dumbing down" is warranted.

Had the intent of the event been to trigger discussion here on Slashdot, less dumbing down would certainly have been in order, and significantly greater accuracy would be imperative. (I happen to believe accuracy to be needed at any level, even when looking for the brief news clip, but that's me. heh)

While I am also guilty of dumbing down my usual discourse here on Slashdot, it is certainly a more intelligent forum than many which John Q. Sixpack would frequent. (I am trying to walk a tightrope between honesty and sounding elitist here.) Intellectual capacity here is greater than in front of most televisions, especially if the subject matter is technical. The simplistic comments necessary to "hook" John Q. Sixpack are likely to be flamed here, quite frankly. (Hence my view that this forum require a bit of dumbing down to reach, at least on non-technical matters.) I suspect there is a spectrum of appropriate content levels needed in covering this subject, since there are so many different venues the discussion should reach, if we are to saturate the apporpriate information channels.

After all, there are so many people affected. :-)

Once more people have learned to care about the issue, and have bothered to absorb the basic concepts, much of the dumbing down will no longer be necessary. It is sad that we are not there yet.

-=-=-=-=-=-

I hope I managed to convey both sides of an issue upon which I am genuinely torn. (Normally, I am opposed to the "dumbing down" I see in mass media.) In the process, I realize I gave "them" the ability to say "Yep, rallies, senators, he's the same guy we thought he was!" heheheh

Re:[H]ac[k]tivism 101 :) (Re:jam echelon day)

[lance_link]

In outline, your argument is made by lots of people--it used to be called "consciousness raising." And in many ways it's right: lowering the technical barrier to entry to activism (e.g., by downplaying the details) definitely encourages broader awareness and participation. But the two approches aren't mutually exclusive: the "hacktivists" *could* provide pointers to accurate info. But the main people who've associated themselves with these efforts *don't* do that - and have *repeatedly* ignored very articulate discussions of the flaws in their methods.

As for your argument that this discussion proves that their methods are successful, one could just as easily - and more correctly, imo - argue that "hacktivism" is a vindication of the tremendous work others have put into understanding how surveillance systems really work. It's a chicken-and-egg question. But the main point is that effective opposition to Echelon hasn't come from bouncing half-baked emails around - it's coming from the diligent work of people like Nicky Hager, whose research has brought about intense opposition to Echelon from, for example, the EU and Duncan Campbell's report. These results have played a big part in European liberalizations of (or active governmental support for) crypto. Now that there's much more accurate info about how these systems work available, promoting misunderstandings of these systems is just perverse.

The conversation about surveillance regimes should be smarted up, not dumbed down. If these "hacktivists" would smart it up, I'd support their efforts wholeheartedly, but that's not what they're doing.

Re:...

[el_chicano]

Was it Abaham Lincoln or a contemporary of his who stated that the US must have a civil war in every generation to keep the country a true democracy.

The tree of liberty must be watered periodically with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike. It is its natural manure. -- Thomas Jefferson

--

Why is once not enough?

[Hobbex]

If I were paying tax money to the American government, I would be rather upset about the whole doubling of efforts here. I mean: On the one hand they have echelon, which they deny is going on, but which all know beyond reasonable doubt is there, and is monitoring our communications networks (private and state) already.

But, just to so they can keep denying Echelon, they have to invest another 39 million in a monitoring network they admit exists. I bet that money is actually going for corruption, while FIDnet will just be a public front for the already in place Echelon.

Anyways, as far as I am concerned they can go ahead and monitor all they want. The Internet is a public network, sending packets over it IS like sending postcards. However, I do want to it to be a fair playing field. That is:

Yes, mr Sam, you may go ahead and evesdrop on me as much as you want, but don't think for a fucking second that you can try to keep me from using language you can't understand when I don't want you to know what I'm saying.

Crypto IS a human right.

-
/. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.

I am probably going out on a limb here...

[Snard]

... but there's one opinion here that's not being represented, that I would like to see some discussion on. So here goes (donning asbestos underwear).

Okay. I understand, and believe in, the concept of a "right to privacy", and agree that the government has more important things to worry about than monitoring everyone's communications in the hopes of thwarting some terrorist attack or stopping drug deals or whatever. However... I believe that there ARE legitimate reasons for someone to be "policing the 'net" so to speak. And although I'm sure that there are some people or groups who are doing some amount of behind-the-scenes work in this regard, I don't think it's having much effect. I hear some of you saying "what the heck is this guy talking about?" Okay, some examples are probably in order. People who spend time cracking web sites & servers, and subsequently posting graffiti, just to prove it can be done. Sites that illegally host commercial software, or registration codes or cracks. "Script kiddies" who spend their time trying to crash IRC servers, flood ISP's, or do other stupid and offensive things. All of the other forms of what I would call "cyberterrorism", which in a nutshell is any activity that makes me wary of my time online.

I'm glad that some folks are at least taking the time to help educate people who are considering DSL or cable modems, to explain why it's a good idea to set up a firewall to protect themselves from the nosey and/or dangerous folks out there, but I think it's kind of sad that when confronted with a "crime is on the rise" scenario, most people think in terms of a bigger/better deadbolt & security system, rather than attempting a neighborhood watch or working with law enforcement authorities to put the crooks behind bars. There's probably a place for both types of crime prevention, but I'm getting off topic here.

The point I was trying to make is, almost all of the preceding messages I've seen on this thread are "government intrusion is bad, stop it stop it stop it stop it", but no one seems to want to consider that perhaps some policing of the 'net could reduce the amount of annoying activity out there which we all seem to accept as part of the price we pay for a 'free network'.

Okay, my rant is over now. We'll see if it gets moderated down to 'flame bait', but I hope not, I have faith that there are at least a few Slashdot readers out there who feel the same as I do about "network freedom".

Thanks,

Veracity of Keyword Sources?

[quonsar]

Has it not occurred to anybody that the best way for NSA to insure against deliberate signal/noise manipulations is to leak erroneous keywords? We don't pay them to be stupid...

======
"Cyberspace scared me so bad I downloaded in my pants." --- Buddy Jellison

Re:...

[cdlu]

"That's a good question, a fair question, and a question that deserves an answer. Next question?" -John Major

Re:...

[Stonehand]

Well, the Congress still needs to approve this particular appropriation, since apparently Bill does not feel like funding through executive order.

A Prez, however, a) probably is asked by Congress to submit a proposed budget covering its own executive offices, and b) can "introduce" any legislation it wants if it can find a single friendly sponsor in each house. b) is almost always possible; short of, say, requesting authority to personally interview (alone) and choose all Congressional secretaries, I doubt there's much that Bill can't find at least one guy to support.

There's also absolutely no restriction that states a bill has to be coherent, AFAIK, so the funding for FIDNET could be attached to a subsidy for studying the mating habits of tortoises, or whatever. The original bill sponsors also don't get any "extra" say, hence such things like riders onto popular bills and "poison-pill" amendments. And so forth.

{shrug}

jam echelon day

[lance_link]

These "hacktivists" seem to think that peppering their email with naughty words is a new idea. It isn't: "spook fodder" is at least ten years old (take a look at Tim May's 1992 Cypherno micon). The idea that they can "jam" Echelon is incredibly naive; if they're really concerned, they'd do better to encourage people to understand these surveillance systems and to use PGP - spreading misinformation about surveillance and encouraging one-day actions is counterproductive. Some of the hacktivist organizers have been told again and again (for example, by the foounders of Hack-Tic/xs4all) that their methods are misguided and useless, but they never listen. Hacking is about, among other things, understanding technical systems: if you promote misunderstanding, you've got no business calling yourself a "hack"-anything.