Integer factorization, etc.
in [Math]
|
From: Risto Lankinen on 18 Apr 2008 22:52 there in 1978, I entered through a strip mall and then through a door in the back of a restaurant; the second time, via a dry cleaners. These dinky businesses in a fake shopping center were all owned, operated, and staffed by US espionage agencies. From the street, the installation's high-tech capacity, its antennae and satellite receptors, were camouflaged and it is unlikely that neighbors suspected anything out of the ordinary. But the inside was anything but ordinary. There were scores of rooms crammed with administrative functions, equipment, wires, jury-rigged gizmos, a currency bank, and computers. Every electronic intercept capability NSA denied having was right there. In a small black box, not much bigger than a briefcase, was "Oratory." This portable key-word selection computer could be taken almost anywhere and set to pick out pre-selected words and automatically monitor and record fax, voice, or teletype messages that contained them. Developed by NSA, "Oratory" was "tempest-proof" (i.e. shielded to prevent emmisions that could lead to detection), small, virtually indestructible, and easy to repair: all you had to do was open the lid and replace the self-diagnosed defective component. [snip] In pursuit of plausible deniability, CSE, GCHQ, and NSA have used each others' personnel and resources to evade laws against domestic spying. [ an example given in which the NSA wanted to spy on someone within the US, even though they had no authorization for such an operation ] ...So, two Canadians were sent to conduct a counter-espionage operation on US soil at US taxpayer expense so that NSA could maintain deniability. In every way that counts, NSA broke US law and spied on its own citizens. [ A UK operation by CSE described next. Margaret Thatcher (then Prime Minister) thinks two of the ministers in her cabinet are not 'on side' ...
From: bitsplit on 18 Apr 2008 22:40 's black, dressed casually and wore expensive cowboy boots, # he soon was surrounded by strangers---police who suspected him of being # a drug courier. # # Mr. Kelly had gone to the airport only TO PICK UP A FRIEND. # # He felt numb, agreed to be searched because he didn't want to get beaten. # # Kelly tried an experiment. He had a white friend WEAR THE SAME OUTFIT he # had worn that day and retrace his steps at the airport. # # Police gave the friend not even a glance. # # His lawyer filed a class-action suit in a Texas state court. # # "The Supreme Court has hobbled the Fourth Amendment so much that I # never even thought about filing in Federal court." A major foobar in Zero Tolerance mania occurred when the government seized a ship over a couple joints. The government had seized the ship from itself. The Drug War. The Drug War. The Drug War. The Drug War. The Drug War. Hear it enough times and you believe it is a national security problem. Rather than an entirely domestic consumer problem. Yes, the drugs - a HUGE amount of drugs - cross our national borders. But it is being PULLED in, a completely different situation than Military defense of our borders against a FOREIGN enemy. I wonder how it all gets into the country. It's as if it has its own special unmonitored border crossing, where it can drive truck after truck through. And what happens when you bang the drum of hysteria long enough? Bizarre distortions in our social fabric: widespread fear, loa
From: JSH on 18 Apr 2008 21:32 way connected with drugs or * drug-dealing, for the simple reason that he wasn't doing any such thing. * * In this case, under the astonishing provisions of our nation's asset * forfeiture laws, the mere administrative finding that Alvarez had * "structured" his transactions was enough to justify the seizure. [ We have Federal laws against terminating someone's benefits based solely (automatically by computer) on "computer matching" hits of possible ineligibility. But NOTHING to protect us from this nearly IDENTICAL use of computer data to terminate "benefits". ] * To the government, the question of whether the money had been legally * earned or was the product of a nefarious drug sale was of no concern. * * Maybe worse than the nebulous structuring provision is a feature of the * same group of laws that places the burden of proof on the victim. In * other words, rather than the government having to prove that Alvarez * had violated the statute before it seized his money, Alvarez had to * prove that he was innocent of any wrongdoing before he could get it * back. Further adding to the profound unfairness of the seizure process * is an incredible provision that anyone who wants to challenge an action, * who wants his day in court, must file a bond with the government of * either $5000 or 10 percent of the value of the seized property. Alvarez * had to borrow the money from his credit cards. * * The Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathon R. Howden, flooded by financial *
From: S.C.Sprong on 18 Apr 2008 23:09 Reckless disregard for human life, leading to a disaster. The following descriptions are entirely from Janet Reno's own testimony, along with other Federal agents and neutral expert testimony. The approximate date was 6/27/95, on C-SPAN, "Justice Department Oversight, Senate Judiciary Committee". Senator Arlene Spector presiding. Ms. Reno testified that the turning point in her decision to forcibly move against the Waco compound came after she had "discussions" with senior government people she would NOT NAME. It is a "Challenger" type disaster, where public pressure caused them to screw up. The same irony: they didn't want to look bad. Janet Reno was asked to take off her "safety hat" and put on her "management hat". She did. She's a good ol' boy. My apolitical reasons for saying Janet Reno's decision to move against Waco the way they did was reckless endangerment of life, entirely from C-SPAN testimony: o pumped in CS tear gas, which the US has signed a chemical weapons treaty not to use against countries we go to war against. They were aware of the indoor lethal capabilities of C.S. gas, because these were spelled out in the manual. o pumped in an extra heavy amount of it due to OUTSIDE winds. o Reno had NO reliable data from her FBI-referred military expert on the affects of the gas on children or the elderly, yet proceeded. o turned off the electricity, and knew they were using candles as a result. The F.B.I. and the A.T.F. were fully aware that the Davidians were using kerosene lanterns inside the compound both day and night. They knew this because they had infrared surveillance equi
From: JSH on 18 Apr 2008 23:08
of the US to be : able to decrypt anything, anywhere at any time versus the European : focus: we want to have the choice - with an open end - to maintain : own surveillance. The US demand would have caused an immediate : ability to tap into what the European intelligence community believes to : be its sole and exclusive territory. In fact the Europeans were not at all : pleased with the US view points of controlling ALL crypto. Germany and : France vigorously refused to work with the US on this issue. : : The Clipper initiative (at the time not readily developed) was completely : banned, except for the Australian and UK views that felt some obligation : from the 1947 UKUSA treaty (dealing with interchange of intelligence). : : With a vast majority the US was cornered completely, and had to accept : the international views. And actually adopted those as well. EFF, EPIC and : other US organizations were delighted to see the formal US views barred, : but expressed their concern on the development of alternate political : pressure that would cause the same effects. : : As time went by that was indeed what the US did, and up to now with minor : succ |