Re: Just the facts, ma'am.

[composer@Beyond.Dreams.ORG (Jeff Kellem)]

On the cypherpunks mailing list, Paul Ferguson wrote...
 > The point is this, Marc: Those of us who subscribe to UUNet through
 > third party services have no idea that our communications may be
 > recorded or archived for intelligence purposes (I know, but that's
 > beside the point). If UUNet _is_ doing this without a broad policy
 > statement, then I think a change is in order.

I think you're jumping to (incorrect, IMO) conclusions here.  All that
was said was that an organization (the FBI, in this case) bought a USENET
feed.  Yes, distribution on tapes is still a feed of sorts (albeit a slow
one with a bursty latency ;-).  There is nothing wrong with that, as it
is one of the services which UUNET Technologies provides.

There is NO REASON to believe or even assume that UUNET Technologies is
archiving other non-publically available communications, such as e-mail,
etc.

 > Also, (and I do not implicitly imply that UUNet is responsible), I've
 > had some very interesting problems passing encrypted traffic. For some
 > strange reason, it just disappears. Fancy that. Should I question
 > that? You bet. And I shall. I, and my comm provider, pays in good
 > faith for our Internet services. We are protected under Law, and as
 > far I know, UUNet does not expressly forbid encrypted _private_
 > communications. But, it happens. They just disappear sometimes. Go
 > figure.

Sure, question it.  But, also look into the problem from a real technical
standpoint first, instead of just jumping to conclusions.  Talk to the
people you're attempting to communicate with -- maybe it's a problem on
their end.  Talk to your communications provider.. or maybe it's a
problem somewhere along the path you're communicating through.  Always
check potential technical problems before jumping to (probably unfounded
and paranoid) conclusions.  [I'm not saying you shouldn't keep them in
mind, as you should always consider all scenarios when trying to track
down a problem.  But, they should be in the background, not the
foreground, at first.]

I've just watched too many people jump to the conclusion that whatever
problem was occurring was being done purposely to them.. NOT that it
could just be a technical glitch... when, is WAS just a technical
problem.  Usually, it's just a technical problem that needs to be
resolved.

 >  Marc Horowitz wrote...
 >  > However, the obvious next point is, so what?  It's a public system.
 >  > Any idiot can pay $20/month and get a public access account.  If you
 >  > say something in a news post which you wouldn't want the FBI or NSA or
 >  > whoever to see, you're the person who has done something stupid.
 >  
 > I beg your pardon. Since when does stupidity become a prerequisite for
 > privacy rights violations? I'm not talking about Usenet or List posts,
 > Marc, but private e-mail.

But, the discussion previously WAS referring to USENET.  When you speak
publically, you don't assume that it's private.  So, in that context,
you're not speaking of privacy rights violations.

 > Thank you for your insights. I will ask UUNet, but I'm beginning to
 > wonder if other local comm providers practice the same deceptions.

I haven't seen any indication of deceptions.  Unless, of course, you're
referring to mentioning that the FBI is/was a customer.  But, then, I
(and anyone else) can find out most UUNET customers who have USENET
newsfeeds very easily just by looking through the USENET maps.  So, I
don't see that as much of a problem, as long as they're not providing
other customer details.  I trust UUNET's staff on maintaining that
privacy, knowing some of them personally.

 > If so, it would aid in our attempts to bring these unknown anomalies
 > to light. I don't like spending money to have my private e-mail
 > compromised.

Which is understandable, though I don't believe your e-mail has been
compromised from what I've seen posted on cypherpunks.

Just some thoughts on the matter...

			-jeff

Jeff Kellem
Internet: composer@Beyond.Dreams.ORG