From: Date: Sun Feb 11, 2001 7:50am Subject: In Tapping Net, F.B.I. Insists Privacy Is Not a Victim In Tapping Net, F.B.I. Insists Privacy Is Not a Victim February 8, 2001 By JOHN SCHWARTZ QUANTICO, Va. -- AS long as there have been law enforcement agents, they have tried to listen in on what the bad guys are planning. In early times, that meant standing next to a window in the evesdrope, the place where water from the eaves drips, to overhear conversations. As communications went electronic, eavesdropping did, too: Gen. Jeb Stuart hired a tapper to intercept telegraph messages in the Civil War. And by the 1890's, two decades after Alexander Graham Bell's first call to Watson, the first known telephone wiretaps by the police were in place. The Internet, in turn, has provided new frontiers for law enforcement tappers. At first, surveillance of Internet traffic was useful only in hacking cases — after all, only geeks were online. But as the world has gone digital, criminals have as well, and Internet taps are requested in a growing number of cases. According to documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group based in Washington, requests from field offices for help with "data interception operations" rose more than 18-fold between fiscal years 1997 and 1999. In Congressional testimony in July, the assistant director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's laboratory division, Donald M. Kerr, painted a stark portrait of the dangers of the online world. "The use of computers and the Internet is growing rapidly, paralleled by exploitation of computers, networks and databases to commit crimes and to harm the safety, security and privacy of others," he said. All manner of crimes — child pornography, fraud, identity theft, even terrorism — are being perpetrated using the Internet as a tool, he said. But one device developed by the F.B.I. to deal with this new world of crime has drawn it squarely into a debate over the proper limits of government surveillance: an Internet wiretapping system called Carnivore. The Carnivore effort, which came to light last June, met with resistance from groups as diverse as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives. The F.B.I. says it has already used the device in dozens of investigations. But critics are concerned that Carnivore, much more than telephone wiretaps, can cast an investigative net that captures the communications of bystanders along with those of a suspect. The House majority leader, Dick Armey of Texas, has said the technology raises "strong concerns" that the government "is infringing on Americans' basic constitutional protection against unwarranted search and seizure." "Until these concerns are addressed," he said, "Carnivore should be shut down." The name, to be sure, has not helped the F.B.I.'s salesmanship. It was derived from an earlier system, called Omnivore, that captured most of the Internet traffic coursing through a network. "As the tool developed and became more discerning" — able to get at the meat of an investigation — "it was named Carnivore," an official said. ("If they called it Device 374," he explained, "nobody could remember what Device 374 is.") The F.B.I. says the real value of Carnivore, by any name, is that it can do much less than its predecessors. It says agents can fine-tune the system to yield only the sources and recipients of the suspect's e- mail traffic, providing Internet versions of the phone-tapping tools that record the numbers dialed by a suspect and the numbers of those calling in. Those tools, known respectively as pen registers and "trap and trace" devices, are valuable building blocks of any preliminary investigation. "Trap and trace is vital," said Marcus C. Thomas, who heads the bureau's cybertechnology section, "to try to understand criminal organizations, who's communicating with who." Moreover, a full federal wiretap — whether of a suspect's phone or of Internet traffic — requires extensive evidence of criminal activity and approval from high Justice Department officials and a judge. Court approval to monitor the origins and destinations, not the content, requires only a pledge from the investigators that the information would be relevant. Law enforcement officials say the goal of Carnivore is to protect privacy. Under most wiretaps, they reason, investigators have to review all the material that comes in over the wire and discard any material that they are not entitled to review under the terms of the warrant — say, a conversation with the suspect's grandmother. Because the path of online data is harder to isolate than a telephone line, Carnivore may capture communications unrelated to the suspect. But because it then filters out whatever investigators are not entitled to see, officials say, privacy is enhanced. To understand why the F.B.I. hungers for Carnivore, behold its ancestor: a hulking stainless steel box the size of an old Kelvinator in the building in Quantico where the bureau designs what it calls interception systems. The $80,000 behemoth can monitor data traffic on three phone lines simultaneously and translate the squeal of modems into the e-mail and Web pages that a criminal suspect sees. But it can monitor only a standard modem. If a criminal suspect has, like millions of other Americans, decided to trade up to high-speed Internet access through a cable modem or the telephone service known as D.S.L., "it's worthless," Mr. Thomas said. In contrast to that middle-tech dinosaur, Carnivore is a sleek and speedy mammal, a black box of a PC built to work with the vast amounts of high-speed data that course through the Internet. The machine can tap communications for almost all of the ways that people get online. It costs a tenth of what the bureau pays for each of the older machines, and it can do far more: it can sift through all the communications of an Internet service provider, perhaps including tens of thousands of users, and pull out the e-mail and Web travels of the suspect. And although doing so would raise deep constitutional issues, the system can even be programmed to monitor the use of particular words and phrases used in messages by anyone on the network. When law enforcement agents get permission to install Carnivore, they send their own technicians to the office of an Internet service provider. The system itself, once programmed with the details of a search, can easily be installed on the same racks that the company uses for its own network equipment, and is tied in to the flow of data. For all its power, however, Carnivore cannot digest all that it eats: if law enforcement officials intercept a message that has been encrypted, they will get a featureless fuzz of ones and zeroes. The furor over the technology caught the F.B.I. by surprise. "What would you have us do?" Mr. Thomas asked in frustration. "Stop enforcing laws because it's on the Internet?" Paul Bresson, an F.B.I. spokesman, added, "The public should be concerned about the criminals out there abusing this stuff, and not the good guys." The two men discussed the system in Mr. Thomas's office at the bureau's research center at Quantico, home of the F.B.I. training academy. From the outside, the center is so unremarkable that it could be a college classroom building in a witness-protection program. But the array of dishes and antennas along the roofline suggest that something more interesting is going on inside. This is where three F.B.I. engineers took pieces of commercial software and modified them in an effort to allow the kind of selective data retrieval that the law requires, and where they have worked to upgrade the system in response to the criticism of Carnivore. The engineers have added auditing features, for example, that the bureau says will help insure that investigators will not tamper with the system or try to gather more information than authorized. But the F.B.I. is not depending on Carnivore alone for the future of online surveillance. According to budget documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center under a Freedom of Information Act request, the bureau's plans include developing ways to listen in on the growing medium of voice telephone calls conducted over the Internet and to monitor the live online discussion system known as Internet Relay Chat, as well as other network technologies that were identified in the original document but were blacked out in the copies provided to the group. Some alternatives are already in use, including one that reportedly figured in an investigation of Nicodemo S. Scarfo Jr., an accused bookmaker whose imprisoned father is the former head of the Philadelphia crime organization. In 1999, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported recently, agents planted a tap in Mr. Scarfo's computer keyboard that stored everything the suspect typed — including the password for the encryption software used to protect files on his hard drive. Mr. Thomas was unwilling to discuss new techology methods in detail, but said he knew of only two cases in which such devices had been used. A former federal prosecutor, Mark Rasch, says still more methods of Internet wiretap could be on the way. Mr. Rasch, vice president for cyberlaw at Predictive Systems, an Internet consulting company, noted that hacker groups had developed malicious computer programs with names like Back Orifice 2000 that when planted in a target computer give full remote access of the target machine to the hacker. Mr. Rasch suggested that such remote-control programs could reduce the risk of break-ins for the agency and might already be in use. "I would be shocked," he said, if such software were not being used in intelligence investigations, which provide government agents with more leeway than in criminal investigations of American citizens. But Marc J. Zwillinger, a former Justice Department lawyer, said law enforcement agents were unlikely to take such a risky course, because "it would be difficult to control, and if it did get out of control, there would be a backlash against the agency." In the meantime, as the Congressional debate over Carnivore continues, the future of the system is uncertain. [The new attorney general, John Ashcroft, has not addressed Carnivore directly, but he has taken a tough stand in the past against what he sees as high-tech government intrusions into privacy.] Members of Congress and civil libertarians argue that the analogies to telephone taps are flawed and that the Carnivore technology violates constitutional protections against unreasonable searches. "The whole controversy is over intercepting thousands of conversations simultaneously," regardless of the filtering then applied, said Richard Diamond, a spokesman for Mr. Armey, the House majority leader. Some critics have suggested imposing the same strict authorization rules on Carnivore that prevail for full-scale telephone wiretaps, with stiff penalties for any abuse of the system. Still, many of those who oppose Carnivore have concluded that it is here to stay. "You can't outlaw this technology," said James X. Dempsey, deputy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a high-tech policy group in Washington. "All you can do is set strict legal standards." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/08/technology/08CARN.html?ex=982836325&ei=1&en= 5f0395420440e48e /-----------------------------------------------------------------\ Visit NYTimes.com for complete access to the most authoritative news coverage on the Web, updated throughout the day. Become a member today! It's free! http://www.nytimes.com?eta 2463 From: Date: Mon Feb 12, 2001 9:25am Subject: PRO-2006 for sale I have a PRO-2006 that is un blocked for sale for $400. "Dick Seward "THE BUG HUNTER" 23 yrs. debugging. FCC & CCW licensed. CALI Affiliated. Great prices & lots of experience. (949-770-8384)" ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. 2464 From: none none Date: Mon Feb 12, 2001 10:45am Subject: Greetings Greetings, I would like to reiterate my appreciation to Jim and all the listmembers for maintaining and contributing to this list. I find it informative and amusing. 'Short and Sweet.' Erik. == Those that travel long distances in isolation will defend themselves with strange arts. Shin shin, shin gan. _____________________________________________________________ Yourname@i...
When you want them to remember!
http://burn.inhell.com 2465 From: mike f Date: Mon Feb 12, 2001 6:19pm Subject: anac disconnected Toll Free ANAC 'Automatic Number Announcement Circuit' It happenned sometime last week wednesday or thursday. The ANAC 1-800-346-0153 has been disconnected. "ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST" later4,mike f. Michael T. Fiorentino Syracuse,NY 13206 "CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING" This electronic message contains information which may be privileged and/or confidential. The information is intended for use only by the individual(s) or entity named/indicated above. If you are not the identified/intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message/information is prohibited. If you are not the indicated recipient or have received this message in error contact our offices immediately for instructions." 2466 From: Charles P Date: Mon Feb 12, 2001 7:26pm Subject: Re: anac disconnected yes, I was using 800 346 0152, it's gone too. too bad ----- Original Message ----- From: "mike f" To: ; "TSCM-L" Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 7:19 PM Subject: [TSCM-L] anac disconnected | Toll Free ANAC 'Automatic Number Announcement Circuit' | It happenned sometime last week wednesday or thursday. | The ANAC 1-800-346-0153 has been disconnected. | "ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST" | | later4,mike f. | | | | | | Michael T. Fiorentino | Syracuse,NY 13206 | "CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING" | This electronic message contains information which may be privileged and/or | confidential. The information is intended for use only by the | individual(s) | or entity named/indicated above. If you are not the identified/intended | recipient, be aware that | any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this | message/information is prohibited. If you are not the indicated recipient | or | have | received this message in error contact our offices immediately for | instructions." | | | | ======================================================== | TSCM-L Technical Security Mailing List | "In a multitude of counselors there is strength" | | To subscribe to the TSCM-L mailing list visit: | http://www.onelist.com/community/TSCM-L | | or email your subscription request to: | subTSCM-L@t... | =================================================== TSKS | | | 2467 From: Robert Dyk Date: Tue Feb 13, 2001 0:06pm Subject: ANAC With the disappearance of most local ANACs in my area, I have started using 888 837-8274. This is a combination ANAC + ringback/loopback. If it works in your area, beware, after ringback, your line will be dead for about 30 seconds. Hope this helps. Robert Dyk Worldwide Security Ltd. Mississauga, Ontario, Canada (888) 4-COVERT 2468 From: Mike Date: Tue Feb 13, 2001 0:34pm Subject: Pinhole Just got a few Military Surplus covert pinhole lenses. These cost the gov over $800. Will sell for $200 each. Email me for pics/info. bootleg@p... Mike [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 2469 From: Index Date: Tue Feb 13, 2001 4:27pm Subject: Questions? Greetings Everyone: I have a client who used her cellular telephone(analogue) to phone her daughter. The client was approximately 8 km. from her home. her daughter who does not live with her, was 12 km. from clients house. The conversation lasted approximately 45 seconds. When the client returned home, she noticed recorded on her Bell Telephone, Call Answer(voicemail), the 45 sec. conversation that took place on her cellular telephone that day. She also noticed heavy breathing on the call answer recording, which was not heard during the conversation on her cellular telephone. She advises that she has never call forwarded the cell to the residence, nor the residence to the cellular telephone. She did note that the conversation stopped being recorded when her passenger got out, and closed the car door. Her concern is whether this is some type of possible wiretapping scenario, that developed into a temporary glitch? She would like some type of hypothesis, before allowing us to conduct a sweep of her house, and/or motor vehicle. I can't think of any way that this can possibly happen. Thank you for your help in advance. Regards, Bob Panczenko President/CEO, License #000394 Index Investigation & Security Service Inc.(Ontario, Canada) P.O. Box 214 Station D Toronto, Ontario Canada M9A 4X2 Voice: (416) 604-4690 Fax: (416) 604-8993 E-Mail: index@s... http://www.indexinvestigation.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 2470 From: Charles P Date: Tue Feb 13, 2001 8:32pm Subject: Re: Questions? A fairly common occurance these days, is when someone hits the "talk" or "send" button by accident, basically re-dialing the last number called (often their own office voicemail). The cell phone then records the local conversations onto the voicemail or answering machine called. In this scenario, what could have happened, is that the passenger in the car with the client had their own cellphone, they could have accidentally dialed the clients home by bumping their cell phone button. When they got out of the car, the phone was no longer picking up any noise and the answering machine may have stopped, or the phone could have been turned off. The same thing could have been done intentionally by the passenger, but there is no sane reason why someone would do that. This happens far more frequently than people would like to admit, and then they can start imagining a diabolical harassment conspiracy. charles Charles Patterson charles@t... Global Communications Tarrytown, NY www.telephonesecurity.com www.avtele.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Index" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 5:27 PM Subject: [TSCM-L] Questions? | Greetings Everyone: | | I have a client who used her cellular telephone(analogue) to phone her daughter. The client was approximately 8 km. from her home. her daughter who does not live with her, was 12 km. from clients house. The conversation lasted approximately 45 seconds. | | When the client returned home, she noticed recorded on her Bell Telephone, Call Answer(voicemail), the 45 sec. conversation that took place on her cellular telephone that day. She also noticed heavy breathing on the call answer recording, which was not heard during the conversation on her cellular telephone. She advises that she has never call forwarded the cell to the residence, nor the residence to the cellular telephone. She did note that the conversation stopped being recorded when her passenger got out, and closed the car door. | | Her concern is whether this is some type of possible wiretapping scenario, that developed into a temporary glitch? She would like some type of hypothesis, before allowing us to conduct a sweep of her house, and/or motor vehicle. | | I can't think of any way that this can possibly happen. | | Thank you for your help in advance. | | Regards, | | Bob Panczenko | President/CEO, License #000394 | Index Investigation & Security Service Inc.(Ontario, Canada) | P.O. Box 214 Station D | Toronto, Ontario | Canada | M9A 4X2 | Voice: (416) 604-4690 | Fax: (416) 604-8993 | E-Mail: index@s... | http://www.indexinvestigation.com | | | | [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] | | | | | ======================================================== | TSCM-L Technical Security Mailing List | "In a multitude of counselors there is strength" | | To subscribe to the TSCM-L mailing list visit: | http://www.onelist.com/community/TSCM-L | | or email your subscription request to: | subTSCM-L@t... | =================================================== TSKS | | | 2471 From: Craig Snedden Date: Wed Feb 14, 2001 6:42am Subject: Re: Questions? Hi, I'm afraid I don't have the answer, but a similar scenario happened about 5 or 6 years ago to a colleague of mine in the UK, using an analogue BT CELLNET phone: The colleague switched off (power down) the mobile phone when he went into a meeting and verified that it was off. When he came out of the meeting he switched the phone back on (power up). The battery remained connected to the phone whilst in the meeting. A short time later his daughter telephoned the mobile to ask if he had just called her by accident and proceeded to relate the content of the meeting he had just attended. Apparently her landline telephone had rung and she had been able to hear the meeting being picked up by the mobile phone mic. He reported the matter to CELLNET who advised that this scenario had happened to a number of persons using the same type of phone, I beleive a NOKIA 1510 or similar vintage. They advised him to dump the phone. He was supplied with a new phone and has never experienced the same again. We took the phone apart, and had it checked over, but couldn't find anything by way of physical tampering, or tampering with the firmware which may have caused this to happen. CELLNET clearly were aware of this happening, but could not or would not provide a suggested answer as to what had caused it. I've made enquiries and only ever heard of this happening on BT CELLNET analogue. Regards, Craig Snedden ----- Original Message ----- From: "Index" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 10:27 PM Subject: [TSCM-L] Questions? > Greetings Everyone: > > I have a client who used her cellular telephone(analogue) to phone her daughter. The client was approximately 8 km. from her home. her daughter who does not live with her, was 12 km. from clients house. The conversation lasted approximately 45 seconds. > > When the client returned home, she noticed recorded on her Bell Telephone, Call Answer(voicemail), the 45 sec. conversation that took place on her cellular telephone that day. She also noticed heavy breathing on the call answer recording, which was not heard during the conversation on her cellular telephone. She advises that she has never call forwarded the cell to the residence, nor the residence to the cellular telephone. She did note that the conversation stopped being recorded when her passenger got out, and closed the car door. > > Her concern is whether this is some type of possible wiretapping scenario, that developed into a temporary glitch? She would like some type of hypothesis, before allowing us to conduct a sweep of her house, and/or motor vehicle. > > I can't think of any way that this can possibly happen. > > Thank you for your help in advance. > > Regards, > > Bob Panczenko > President/CEO, License #000394 > Index Investigation & Security Service Inc.(Ontario, Canada) > P.O. Box 214 Station D > Toronto, Ontario > Canada > M9A 4X2 > Voice: (416) 604-4690 > Fax: (416) 604-8993 > E-Mail: index@s... > http://www.indexinvestigation.com > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > ======================================================== > TSCM-L Technical Security Mailing List > "In a multitude of counselors there is strength" > > To subscribe to the TSCM-L mailing list visit: > http://www.onelist.com/community/TSCM-L > > or email your subscription request to: > subTSCM-L@t... > =================================================== TSKS 2472 From: Greg H. Walker, Attorney At Law Date: Wed Feb 14, 2001 2:45pm Subject: Questions --- Cell Phones Craig Snedden wrote: > I'm afraid I don't have the answer, but a similar scenario happened about 5 or 6 years ago to a colleague of mine in the UK, using an analogue BT CELLNET phone: Greg Replies: I normally don't post on this list because, to be honest, you all are way above my electronic skills and I don't do TSCM, I refer it to folks like you who are true professionals, but this is finally something I can comment on. I have had this happen on several occasions with my NOKIA 6160 either recording to my cellular voice mailbox or to my office voice mailbox. It has occured when my last call had been to one or the other. I believe that I either hit my send button or a speed dial button -- none of the calls have ever recorded anything important, but normally just picks up my car radio, or on really bad days me singing in the car :) I notice that this does not happen if the phone is not clipped to my belt holder and only happens if I am in the sitting position, that's why I believe it is caused by either clothing or something else accidently pushing a button. Thanks for all of the great info you all put on this list, it is very educational. GREG -- Greg H. Walker Attorney At Law President RisKontroL -- Risk Management, Security Consulting & Investigations Houston, Texas (713) 850-0061 2473 From: James M. Atkinson, Comm-Eng Date: Wed Feb 14, 2001 4:08pm Subject: Good old Big Brother - All over the place Good old Big Brother - All over the place http://www.dawn.com/2001/02/13/op.htm#4 By Omar Kureishi THE story is apocryphal but it's instructive in a humorous sort of way. Emperor Bokassa sent off Pierre Cardin and wanted a uniform designed. He wanted purple trousers, a red shirt, plush yellow jacket and a hat with ostrich feathers. "Is it for you, your Majesty?" the French designer asked. "No" said the Emperor, "it's for my secret service." Before Ayub shifted the capital from Karachi to Rawalpindi, the embassies were the focal point of social activities and there was a dress-code for the receptions which was usually black tie. These functions provided an ideal listening post for sleuths of various intelligence agencies who would eaves-drop on the conversations as well as observe who was talking with whom. In the meanwhile lesser functionaries were duly noting car number plates particularly if the reception was hosted by the embassy of a country not deemed friendly. The problem was that those of them attending the function were a dead give away because they were not observing the dress-code and, in this context, wearing 'civvies' The DIB chief happened to be a friend of mine and I mentioned this to him. He got the point. He had them kitted in white, shark-skin sherwanis. This made them even more conspicuous for they were the only ones wearing white, shark-skin sherwanis. The secret service, by definition, is meant to be secret and officially one is not supposed to acknowledge that it exists but if it is meant to be secret, it must be the worst kept secret in the world. The CIA and KGB are brand names as well known and familiar as McDonald's and Pepsi-Cola and one imagines that they probably have their own public relations divisions. Many years ago, I read a book called The Invisible Government. The book purported to blow the lid off the CIA but, in fact, catalogued the achievements of the CIA, about the covert operations, of how a particular government was destabilised. It showed the CIA, about the covert operations, of how a particular government was destabilized. It showed the CIA as being all-powerful. Many held the view that the book had been written at the behest of the CIA and had been sponsored by it, yet another example of a covert operation. I am sure that the KGB had its own version of such book, they too like to flex their muscles and are disinclined to do good deeds and dump them in the river. The British who had operated with characteristic secretiveness decided to go for broke with James Bond, Special Agent 007. Not only did the secret service cease to be secret, it achieved the celebrity of a pop star. Their mystique was gone. This brings me to our own efforts, better known for monitoring ourselves than outsiders on the theory that charity begins at home and Big Brother, therefore, keeps a watchful eye (and ear) on his own family. The latest example of which is The Sunday Times disclosure of taped conversations between a judge and high government functionaries, the masala having been provided by a Deputy-Director of the Intelligence Bureau. I don't know whether the audio-tapes are genuine or not or whether they have been edited. Not surprisingly, there have been denials and repudiations but these have lacked conviction and so far, we have been spared the boast that legal action is being considered against The Sunday Times. In the past, such legal action has not materialised. And the general opinion is that a newspaper of the calibre of The Sunday Times which is a respectable broadsheet as opposed to a sensation-mongering tabloid would have done its homework and would not have gone half-cock. The contents of the taped conversations have an importance of their own but not the same importance as the fact that the telephone of a judge of a higher court was being taped. The question that arises is who is the ultimate authority that decides whose telephones should be tapped? Is there a procedure for it or is it a catch-as-catch can? What happens to the privacy of individuals? And how widespread is telephone tapping? In other countries, at least in some of them, the United States and Britain for example, a court order is necessary to keep a telephone under surveillance and some justification has to be provided for doing so. Not that this precaution is necessarily observed. Herbert Hoover of the FBI was a law unto himself and would routinely (and illegally) have telephones taped of people like Martin Luther King and rumour has it, of John F. Kennedy when he was the president of the United States. The most celebrated case is, of course, of Richard Nixon who bugged his own office and was, metaphorically speaking, strangulated by his own tapes. Electronic surveillance has now become so sophisticated that the old-fashioned telephone tapping is the equivalent of the bullock-cart in this age of supersonic aircraft. One would have imagined that some other system would be used for listening to telephone calls if some sort of incriminating evidence was being sought. Yet for some reason (an exaggerated sense of self-importance) many believe that their telephones are bugged and those who live in five-star hotels, especially in Islamabad, are certain that all the telephones are bugged. It is not unusual to find a guest switching on the television set at a high volume while talking on the telephone. There is no doubt that there is this eerie feeling of being watched. My own guess would be that master spies, being master, would not be so stupid as to carry out their cloak-and-dagger activities in broad daylight. But the tapes involving a judge, a federal minister and the chairman of the Ehtesab Bureau would seem to suggest that the higher the position one holds, the more one becomes vulnerable, a sort of reverse of the perks of the job, the downside. In normal circumstances, it would be scandalous. But we have got used to Big Brother watching over us. -- ======================================================================= Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - George Orwell ======================================================================= James M. Atkinson Phone: (978) 546-3803 Granite Island Group Fax: (978) 546-9467 127 Eastern Avenue #291 http://www.tscm.com/ Gloucester, MA 01931-8008 jmatk@t... ======================================================================= The First, The Largest, The Most Popular, and The Most Complete TSCM, Technical Security, and Counterintelligence Site on the Internet. ======================================================================= 2474 From: James M. Atkinson, Comm-Eng Date: Wed Feb 14, 2001 5:32pm Subject: Re: Good old Big Brother - All over the place At 5:08 PM -0500 2/14/01, James M. Atkinson, Comm-Eng wrote: >Good old Big Brother - All over the place > >http://www.dawn.com/2001/02/13/op.htm#4 > >By Omar Kureishi [snip} >Yet for some reason (an exaggerated sense of self-importance) many believe >that their telephones are bugged and those who live in five-star hotels, >especially in Islamabad, are certain that all the telephones are bugged. > >It is not unusual to find a guest switching on the television set at a high >volume while talking on the telephone. There is no doubt that there is this >eerie feeling of being watched. > [snip] The "exaggerated sense of self-importance" results in a lot of people who have ego problems or suffering from mental illness inventing antagonists and fabricating harassment just to get attention. This in turn becomes them reaching out to a TSCM person and requesting a bug sweep... not because they have a credible threat, but because they want to be made to feel important. -jma -- ======================================================================= Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - George Orwell ======================================================================= James M. Atkinson Phone: (978) 546-3803 Granite Island Group Fax: (978) 546-9467 127 Eastern Avenue #291 http://www.tscm.com/ Gloucester, MA 01931-8008 jmatk@t... ======================================================================= The First, The Largest, The Most Popular, and The Most Complete TSCM, Technical Security, and Counterintelligence Site on the Internet. ======================================================================= 2475 From: James M. Atkinson, Comm-Eng Date: Wed Feb 14, 2001 8:16pm Subject: Canadian Humor CANADIAN JOKE #1 A Canadian is walking down the street with a case of beer under his arm. is friend Doug stops him and asks, "Hey Bob! Whacha get the case of beer for?" "I got it for my wife, eh." answers Bob. "Oh!" exclaims Doug, "Good trade." =============================== CANADIAN JOKE #2 An Ontarian wanted to become a Newfie (ie. a Newfoundlander). He went to the neurosurgeon and asked "Is there anything you can do to me that would make me into a Newfie?" "Sure it's easy." replied the neurosurgeon. "All I have to do is cut out 1/3 of your brain, and you'll be a Newfie." The Ontarian was very pleased, and immediately underwent the operation. However, the neurosurgeon's knife slipped, and instead of cutting 1/3 of the patient's brain, the surgeon accidentally cut out 2/3 of the patient's brain. He was terribly remorseful, and waited impatiently beside the patient's bed as the patient recovered from the anesthetic. As soon as the patient was conscious, the neurosurgeon said to him "I'm terribly sorry, but there was a ghastly accident. Instead of cutting out 1/3 of your brain, I accidentally cut out 2/3 of your brain." The patient replied "Qu'est-ce que vous avez dit, monsieur?" =============================== CANADIAN JOKE #3 Did you hear about the war between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia? The Newfies were lobbing hand grenades; the Nova Scotians were pulling the pins and throwing them back. =============================== CANADIAN JOKE #4 In Canada we have two seasons......six months of winter and six months of poor snowmobiling. =============================== CANADIAN JOKE #5 One day an Englishman, an American, and a Canadian walked into a pub together. They proceeded to each buy a pint of beer. Just as they were about to enjoy their beverages, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away from himself in disgust. The American fished the offending fly out of his beer and continued drinking it as if nothing happened. The Canadian picked the fly out of his drink and started shaking it over the pint, yelling, "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!!!" =============================== CANADIAN JOKE #6 A Quebecer, staying in a hotel in Edmonton phoned room service for some pepper. "Black pepper, or white pepper?" asked the concierge. "Toilette pepper!" yelled the Quebecer. =============================== CANADIAN JOKE #7 An American, a Scot and a Canadian were in a terrible car accident. They were all brought to the same emergency room, but all three of them died before they arrived. Just as they were about to put the toe tag on the American, he stirred and opened his eyes. Astonished, the doctors and nurses present asked him what happened. "Well," said the American, "I remember the crash, and then there was a beautiful light, and then the Canadian and the Scot and I were standing at the gates of heaven. St. Peter approached us and said that we were all too young to die, and said that for a donation of $50,we could return to earth. So of course pulled out my wallet and gave him the $50, and the next thing I knew I was back here." "That's amazing!" said the one of the doctors, "But what happened to the other two?" "Last I saw them," replied the American, "the Scot was haggling over the price and the Canadian was waiting for the government to pay his". -jma -- ======================================================================= Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - George Orwell ======================================================================= James M. Atkinson Phone: (978) 546-3803 Granite Island Group Fax: (978) 546-9467 127 Eastern Avenue #291 http://www.tscm.com/ Gloucester, MA 01931-8008 jmatk@t... ======================================================================= The First, The Largest, The Most Popular, and The Most Complete TSCM, Technical Security, and Counterintelligence Site on the Internet. ======================================================================= 2476 From: James M. Atkinson, Comm-Eng Date: Wed Feb 14, 2001 9:01pm Subject: Question for the list A list member who wishes to remain anonymous asked me to post this to the list for discussion: -jma > Question: > > "As a client, which would you prefer? A TSCM person with good knowledge, > experience and older equipment, or a person with just enough knowledge and > training to turn buttons/knobs on the latest and greates available equipment?" > > END OF MESSAGE -- ======================================================================= Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - George Orwell ======================================================================= James M. Atkinson Phone: (978) 546-3803 Granite Island Group Fax: (978) 546-9467 127 Eastern Avenue #291 http://www.tscm.com/ Gloucester, MA 01931-8008 jmatk@t... ======================================================================= The First, The Largest, The Most Popular, and The Most Complete TSCM, Technical Security, and Counterintelligence Site on the Internet. ======================================================================= 2477 From: William Knowles Date: Thu Feb 15, 2001 1:37am Subject: Re: Question for the list On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, James M. Atkinson, Comm-Eng wrote: > A list member who wishes to remain anonymous asked me to post this > to the list for discussion: > > > Question: > > > > "As a client, which would you prefer? A TSCM person with > > good knowledge, experience and older equipment, or a person > > with just enough knowledge and training to turn buttons/knobs > > on the latest and greates available equipment?" > > > > END OF MESSAGE Lately I have been consulting groups that having a sysadmin with security experience is not the same thing as having a full-time security admin. That it basically follows the old Bell helmets advertisement of "Putting a $10 helmet on a $10 head" I would prefer a TCSM person with good knowledge and older equipment over the person with just enough knowledge to sqeak through. The TCSM professional would know their equipment, and know how to take it to 11. :) If TCSM was easy, Sally Struthers would probably be selling classes on TV for it along with gun repair and vetrinary assistant. William Knowles wk@c... *==============================================================* "Communications without intelligence is noise; Intelligence without communications is irrelevant." Gen Alfred. M. Gray, USMC ================================================================ C4I.org - Computer Security, & Intelligence - http://www.c4i.org *==============================================================* 2478 From: Robert G. Ferrell Date: Thu Feb 15, 2001 7:31am Subject: Re: Question for the list >> "As a client, which would you prefer? A TSCM person with good knowledge, >> experience and older equipment, or a person with just enough knowledge and >> training to turn buttons/knobs on the latest and greates available >equipment?" The answer to this question is really the same for all fields where human senses are enhanced by technological innovations. The equipment merely serves as an extension to the sensory capabilities of the person operating it. Without a seasoned, reasoning human mind to interpret the data it generates, the most sophisticated piece of technology is little better than a paperweight. Choose veteran, battle-hardened personnel over blinking lights every time. Cheers, RGF Robert G. Ferrell, CISSP Information Systems Security Officer National Business Center U. S. Dept. of the Interior Robert_G_Ferrell@n... ======================================== Who goeth without humor goeth unarmed. ======================================== 2479 From: Mike Date: Thu Feb 15, 2001 5:30am Subject: Re: Question for the list Who would you bet your bippy on? A point man with 2 full combat tours and a 12 gauge in the bush or a fresh Marine with night vision goggles and a full auto Car15? A pretty hooker that's been working 10 years or a youngster with a stopwatch? An old loyal junkyard dog or a "Newly Trained young shepard with electronic collar"? A guide that lived his territory all his life or a new one with GPS? A trusted handshake and a mans word or a 40 page legal contract with fine print? Finally- an old and experienced friend or a NEW aquaintance with all the toys? Just WHO would YOU bet your bippy on? Need I say more? Nuff Said- Bootleg ----- Original Message ----- From: James M. Atkinson, Comm-Eng To: TSCM-L Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 7:01 PM Subject: [TSCM-L] Question for the list > A list member who wishes to remain anonymous asked me to post this to > the list for discussion: > > -jma > > > > Question: > > > > "As a client, which would you prefer? A TSCM person with good knowledge, > > experience and older equipment, or a person with just enough knowledge and > > training to turn buttons/knobs on the latest and greates available > equipment?" > > > > END OF MESSAGE > > > > -- > > ======================================================================= > Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? > "In a time of universal deceit, telling the > truth is a revolutionary act" - George Orwell > ======================================================================= > James M. Atkinson Phone: (978) 546-3803 > Granite Island Group Fax: (978) 546-9467 > 127 Eastern Avenue #291 http://www.tscm.com/ > Gloucester, MA 01931-8008 jmatk@t... > ======================================================================= > The First, The Largest, The Most Popular, and The Most Complete TSCM, > Technical Security, and Counterintelligence Site on the Internet. > ======================================================================= > > > > ======================================================== > TSCM-L Technical Security Mailing List > "In a multitude of counselors there is strength" > > To subscribe to the TSCM-L mailing list visit: > http://www.onelist.com/community/TSCM-L > > or email your subscription request to: > subTSCM-L@t... > =================================================== TSKS > > 2480 From: Rob Muessel Date: Thu Feb 15, 2001 8:36am Subject: Re: Question for the list I hate to say it, but clients, for the most part, aren't qualified to make the determination as to the ability of the service provider and the technical capability of the equipment used during the sweep. If it were different, we would not have any significant competition from guys with DARs, CPMs, Great Southern Security gizmos, and all the other spy shop junk. Experience has shown me that clients are impressed with bells and whistles, even if the bells and whistles don't add much to the effectiveness of the sweep. I use a computer controlled spectrum analyzer now. I used to use a manual spectrum analyzer. I remember the first time I set up the notebook PC to run the analyzer on a job. Usually during the sweep, the client watched the RF portion for about 5 minutes before finding something more important to do. It's not very exciting to watch someone turn knobs and push switches. But, with the PC doing the work and with an interesting user interface, the RF sweep drew a crowd. Go figure. The results were not any different, but the equipment was more interesting. For my dollar the guy with the experience will always do a better job than the new guy with the latest equipment. I'd trust an old A-3C in the hands of a well trained technician to give me more accurate results than any of the new stuff that has been designed to do it all for you. It may be more time consuming and not as nicely packaged, but the job will be properly done. There is a lot of subtlety, nuance, and insight to a sweep. It can't be recreated in hardware. -- Rob Muessel, Director email: rmuessel@t... TSCM Technical Services Phone: 203-354-9040 11 Bayberry Lane Fax: 203-354-9041 Norwalk, CT 06851 USA 2481 From: James M. Atkinson, Comm-Eng Date: Thu Feb 15, 2001 9:35am Subject: Re: Question for the list At 10:01 PM -0500 2/14/01, James M. Atkinson, Comm-Eng wrote: >A list member who wishes to remain anonymous asked me to post this to >the list for discussion: > >-jma > > >> Question: >> >> "As a client, which would you prefer? A TSCM person with good knowledge, >> experience and older equipment, or a person with just enough knowledge and >> training to turn buttons/knobs on the latest and greates available >equipment?" >> > > END OF MESSAGE My opinion is that customers want a mix of both. Compare it to a group of people who go to see a concert at symphony hall performed by seasoned professionals with top grade musical instruments, verses a group of parents who visit a local grade school to hear their children in a school band mangling every pieces of music. On the one hand we have seasoned and well trained professionals with strictly the finest instruments, and on the other hand we have rank amateurs who are just trying to do their best. When it really comes down to the wire customers want go with the seasoned veteran with older (but not obsolete) equipment. The "older (but not obsolete)" part is really important. Customers will not be amused by an experienced TSCM specialist if all of their equipment is of 50's, 60's, and 70's vintage and still uses vacuum tubes. Nor, will they be amused with the enthusiastic newbie who shows up with cardboard boxes brimming with hobbyist toys. -jma -- ======================================================================= Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - George Orwell ======================================================================= James M. Atkinson Phone: (978) 546-3803 Granite Island Group Fax: (978) 546-9467 127 Eastern Avenue #291 http://www.tscm.com/ Gloucester, MA 01931-8008 jmatk@t... ======================================================================= The First, The Largest, The Most Popular, and The Most Complete TSCM, Technical Security, and Counterintelligence Site on the Internet. ======================================================================= 2482 From: James M. Atkinson, Comm-Eng Date: Thu Feb 15, 2001 0:08pm Subject: The Top 25 Alabama Country Songs of All Time The Top 25 Alabama Country Songs of All Time..... 25. Get Your Tongue Outta My Mouth 'Cause I'm Kissing You Goodbye 24. Her Teeth Was Stained, But Her Heart Was Pure 23. How Can I Miss You If You Won't Go Away? 22. I Don't Know Whether To Kill Myself Or Go Bowling 21. I Bought A Car From A Guy Who Stole My Girl, But It Don't Run, So We're Even 20. I Keep Forgettin' I Forgot About You 19. I Liked You Better Before I Knew You So Well 18. I Still Miss You, Baby, But My Aim's Getting Better 17. I Wouldn't Take Her To A Dog Fight, Cause I'm Afraid She'd Win 16. I'll Marry You Tomorrow But Lets Honeymoon Tonight 15. I'm So Miserable Without You, It's Like Having You Here 14. I've Got Tears In My Ears From Lyin' On My Back and Cryin' Over You 13. If I Can't Be Number One In Your Life, Then Number Two On You 12. I Haven't Gone To Bed With Any Ugly Women, But I've Sure Woken Up With a Few 11. Mama Get A Hammer (There's A Fly On Papa's Head) 10. My Head Hurts, My Feet Stink, And I Don't Love You 9. My Wife Ran Off With My Best Friend, And I Sure Do Miss Him. 8. Please Bypass This Heart 7. She Got The Ring And I Got The Finger 6. You Done Tore Out My Heart And Stomped That Sucker Flat 5. You're The Reason Our Kids Are So Ugly 4. If The Phone Don't Ring, You'll Know It's Me 3. She's Actin' Single and I'm Drinkin' Double 2. She's Looking Better After Every Beer And the number 1 Alabama Country song of all time is 1. If I Had Shot You When I Wanted To, I'd Be Out By Now -- ======================================================================= Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - George Orwell ======================================================================= James M. Atkinson Phone: (978) 546-3803 Granite Island Group Fax: (978) 546-9467 127 Eastern Avenue #291 http://www.tscm.com/ Gloucester, MA 01931-8008 jmatk@t... ======================================================================= The First, The Largest, The Most Popular, and The Most Complete TSCM, Technical Security, and Counterintelligence Site on the Internet. ======================================================================= 2483 From: James M. Atkinson, Comm-Eng Date: Fri Feb 16, 2001 7:29am Subject: Is Phone Interference Phony? Is Phone Interference Phony? http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,41273,00.html by Elisa Batista 2:00 a.m. Feb. 15, 2001 PST If a passenger were to ask anyone in the aviation industry why mobile phone use is not permitted in flight, the likely response would be that cell phones "may interfere with the communication and navigation systems of the plane." In fact, most airlines issue such warnings before takeoff. However, what the industry doesn't tell passengers is that there is no scientific proof to support these claims. What also isn't widely known is that pilots have blamed portable voice recorders, heart pacemakers, electric shavers and hearing aids for interfering with their cockpit controls, yet there are no restrictions on their use during flights. The industry's evidence of cell phone-caused interference is purely anecdotal -- instances engineers have tried but failed to duplicate under "controlled conditions." "We've never been able to replicate it, so we can't verify that (portable electronic devices) do interfere," Boeing spokeswoman Mary Jean Olsen said. "We go along with the RTCA recommendation that portable electronic devices should be restricted in critical aspects of the flight, which is takeoff and landing." In three studies -- none more recent than 1996 -- aeronautic adviser RTCA concluded portable electronic devices have the potential to interfere with critical aircraft instruments such as the altimeter. The study also said the likelihood of interference is low. RTCA engineers could not replicate on the ground or in the air any alleged interference. "We would get a fairly detailed and credible report of an interference event," said John Sheehan, who headed the RTCA's last study and now owns his own aviation consulting firm. "We would try to replicate that in the same aircraft and same airplane seat and couldn't do it." "Interference" is not only the garbling of communication. It can include false warnings of unsafe conditions or noise in the flight crew's headphones. In a recent incident, a Slovenian airplane en route to Sarajevo made an emergency landing after a cell phone accidentally left on in the luggage compartment triggered an erroneous fire warning aboard the aircraft. Boeing once purchased a passenger's laptop after claims that the computer caused interference during a flight from London to Paris; the pilot said turning the laptop on and off triggered autopilot error. Boeing then flew that same laptop on the same route in the same seat and was unable to duplicate the interference. But it doesn't mean the interference never occurred, Sheehan said. Engineers say replicating interference is tricky because they can't duplicate the exact environment of the plane, which at the time of the interference could have been bombarded with other microwave emitters like radio towers and satellite transmissions. "Whether the airplane receives interference or not is dependent on the electromagnetic environment, like the airport," Sheehan said. "The air is saturated with microwaves –- the 'electromagnetic soup' around the airport. It's the environment that airplanes would operate under which would promote or retard (the source of interference). That is difficult to replicate." Although there is no clear evidence that PEDs interfere with onboard instruments, the RTCA recommends against the use of PEDs during the "critical phases of flight" -- taking off and landing -- when the plane is most likely to be bombarded by signals from other sources, like industrial heaters, cable TV networks and FM broadcast stations. "I guess we should all feel a little nervous during takeoff and landing," Sheehan said. Interestingly, laptop computers, and not cell phones, are the leading cause of in-flight interference. Still, laptop use is only restricted during takeoff and landing, while cell phones are prohibited as soon as the plane's doors are shut. The International Air Transport Association found laptops responsible for 16 of the 40 reported incidents (40 percent) of interference through last summer. Also, the FAA specifically excludes portable voice recorders, heart pacemakers, electric shavers and hearing aids from its rules, although pilots have blamed at least one of these devices for interference. A pilot reported to NASA that during an October 1998 flight from Seattle to Cincinnati, his aircraft experienced a loss of all three of its autopilot systems because a man was wearing a headset that was part of a hearing aid. The passenger was allowed to use the device, but was moved forward several seats, at which point the plane regained full operational capabilities. The RTCA, which concluded in three studies that PEDs could interfere with onboard instruments, said its latest study in 1996 did not include electric shavers, heart pacemakers, portable voice recorders and hearing aids. An RTCA spokesman would not verify whether these devices were included in earlier studies, conducted in 1963 and 1988. The RTCA never studied "intentional transmitting devices" like cell phones and two-way pagers. But it recommended the prohibition of the use of these devices in all aspects of flight until "exhaustive testing" deemed them safe. The airlines themselves have never conducted tests. The Civil Aviation Authority, the British equivalent of the FAA, studied the effect of cell phones on aircraft and reinforced the RTCA's recommendations a year ago. The CAA measured the strength of simulated cell phone transmissions in various parts of the fuselage of two different Boeing aircraft at London's Gatwick Airport last year. The agency found that cell-phone emissions could theoretically exceed the susceptibility levels of aircraft equipment, so it recommended the continuation of the cell-phone ban on commercial airlines. It even recommended an onboard detector for cell phone use. But the CAA, like the RTCA, was unable to duplicate the interference, even under controlled conditions. Cell phones operate on different frequencies from onboard instruments, which may be why there are so few reported incidents of interference. However, if multiple devices were operating simultaneously, even FAA-approved airplane-installed phones could theoretically cause interference, said Tim Brown, an engineering professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder. "It is conceivable if you had a plane full of devices working, they could interfere with the most sensitive instruments," Brown said. "Just because they are in separate bands doesn't mean some energy isn't spilling over into these other bands." Even though it's not certain that cell phones have ever caused interference, the FAA defends the ban, arguing that safety comes first. "Those (interference anecdotes) are fact-based and apparently cannot be attributed to something else," FAA spokesman Jerry Snyder said. "The FAA believes (any reported interference) is not an acceptable number of incidents affecting aircraft." Yet, despite its safety-conscious tone, the FAA has not followed the CAA's recommendation to implement a detector. Due to "budgetary restraints," the FAA a year ago declined to fund a device by Megawave that could detect illegal PED use. The implementation of the device would have made it possible for passengers to use any PED as long as it didn't interfere with the plane's systems. The device is also capable of detecting would-be terrorists trying to jam the airplane's instruments with global positioning system devices, according to Megawave's chairman, Marshall Cross. At the very least, Cross said the device could determine whether or not PEDs actually cause interference. "There is an ultimate problem here," Cross said. "We have no (clinical) information now (on causes of interference) from in flight. It's all anecdotal, so no one knows whether it's a problem or not." Still, even if the FAA eased its cell-phone use restriction, passengers would have a difficult time convincing the FCC to lift its cell phone ban. The FCC has never conducted tests to prove cell phones could interfere with signals on the ground, because it considers it "common sense" that cell towers are for terrestrial use. "I don't know how you could do that," said Dale Hatfield, a former FCC engineer who is now a professor of telecommunications at the University of Colorado. "It doesn't make sense to an engineer like me to use ordinary cell phones at 30,000 feet." When told of instances in which passengers have used their cell phones on private jets against FCC regulations and not caused interference, Hatfield responded, "How do they know? They could affect people (on the ground) and not know it." Because the FCC and FAA don't have much evidence to support their ban, their reasons for the prohibition remain clouded. In fact, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) called the FAA's studies in a July congressional hearing "dispositive" because they haven't been replicated. He called the airplane-installed phone service -- a passenger's only option to communicate with someone on the ground -- "a crummy service at an extraordinary price." "(Rep. DeFazio) wouldn't want to contribute to any unsafe circumstances or issues, if there is definite evidence that using cell phones and laptops cause problems on airplanes," DeFazio spokeswoman Kristie Greco said. "The main focus would be to improve and reduce the cost of air phone service if that's our only option." -- ======================================================================= Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - George Orwell ======================================================================= James M. Atkinson Phone: (978) 546-3803 Granite Island Group Fax: (978) 546-9467 127 Eastern Avenue #291 http://www.tscm.com/ Gloucester, MA 01931-8008 jmatk@t... ======================================================================= The First, The Largest, The Most Popular, and The Most Complete TSCM, Technical Security, and Counterintelligence Site on the Internet. ======================================================================= 2484 From: Robert G. Ferrell Date: Fri Feb 16, 2001 10:12am Subject: Re: Is Phone Interference Phony? >However, what the industry doesn't tell passengers is that there is no >scientific proof to support these claims. If there were even a 0.0001% chance that it would make my airplane trip safer, I would stand on my head and hum the Star Spangled Banner while gargling with balsamic vinegar. People use their #$#@! cell phones waaaay too much as it is. If you can't go a few hours without being wired directly to the home office or the spouse, don't leave home. And stop using your stupid phone while you're driving. Not a day goes by that I don't observe some moron swerving all over the friggin' road while gabbing into one of those infernal contraptions. I'm all for making use of a cell phone while driving a public whipping offense. Not that I have a strong opinion or anything. ;-) Cheers, RGF Robert G. Ferrell, CISSP Information Systems Security Officer National Business Center U. S. Dept. of the Interior Robert_G_Ferrell@n... ======================================== Who goeth without humor goeth unarmed. ======================================== 2485 From: Robert G. Ferrell Date: Fri Feb 16, 2001 10:18am Subject: RE: Fw: ARROGRANCE >No -it's not. Every version of this story changes.. > >By the way, Lincoln has never sailed off of Newfoundland. I became fascinated by this urban legend a few years ago and spent too much time researching it. The first version I've been able to find intact dates to the World War II era, but there are rumors that it can be traced to as far back as the 19th century, except of course that the communications were by flag or lantern, not voice... It seems that sailors, or perhaps harried journalists in search of a piece of good filler, update the story every so often with modern ship names and contemporary political references. Quite an interesting phenomenon. Cheers, RGF Robert G. Ferrell, CISSP Information Systems Security Officer National Business Center U. S. Dept. of the Interior Robert_G_Ferrell@n... ======================================== Who goeth without humor goeth unarmed. ======================================== 2486 From: James M. Atkinson, Comm-Eng Date: Fri Feb 16, 2001 0:52pm Subject: Re: Is Phone Interference Phony? Curious... I have found that the older I get the less I use my cell phone, and it is rare for me to use it for more then 20-30 minutes a month with most calls lasting less then 3 minutes. Of course I always carry a phone, but it is rare for me to even turn it on except to make a call, and turn it back off. About he only thing I use my cell phone for is calling for directions, letting someone know I am running late for a meeting, calling 911 at an accident scene, or calling for a cab when I travel,. I always turn off cell phone when I go out to perform any kind of sweep work (inside five miles of the target), but keep a phone nearby in case of emergency (with the local PD on speed dial). There is virtually nothing you can do to make a cellular phone secure, so why would a TSCM'er use one any more then absolutely necessary. -jma At 10:12 AM -0600 2/16/01, Robert G. Ferrell wrote: > >However, what the industry doesn't tell passengers is that there is no >>scientific proof to support these claims. > >If there were even a 0.0001% chance that it would make my airplane trip >safer, I would stand on my head and hum the Star Spangled Banner >while gargling with balsamic vinegar. People use their #$#@! cell >phones waaaay too much as it is. If you can't go a few hours without >being wired directly to the home office or the spouse, don't leave home. >And stop using your stupid phone while you're driving. Not a day goes >by that I don't observe some moron swerving all over the friggin' road >while gabbing into one of those infernal contraptions. I'm all for >making use of a cell phone while driving a public whipping offense. > >Not that I have a strong opinion or anything. > >;-) > >Cheers, > >RGF > >Robert G. Ferrell, CISSP >Information Systems Security Officer >National Business Center >U. S. Dept. of the Interior >Robert_G_Ferrell@n... -- ======================================================================= Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - George Orwell ======================================================================= James M. Atkinson Phone: (978) 546-3803 Granite Island Group Fax: (978) 546-9467 127 Eastern Avenue #291 http://www.tscm.com/ Gloucester, MA 01931-8008 jmatk@t... ======================================================================= The First, The Largest, The Most Popular, and The Most Complete TSCM, Technical Security, and Counterintelligence Site on the Internet. ======================================================================= 2487 From: Dick Dillman Date: Fri Feb 16, 2001 0:53pm Subject: Re: Is Phone Interference Phony? On 16 Feb 01, at 10:12, Robert G. Ferrell wrote: > If there were even a 0.0001% chance that it would make my airplane trip > safer, I would stand on my head and hum the Star Spangled Banner > while gargling with balsamic vinegar. We have that to look forward to, RGF. However aside from the issue of interference to flight instruments there is another problem associated with using cellular phones from aircraft. A cellular phone transmitting from high altitudes and especially the altitudes used by transport aircraft will be received by many cellular receiving sites on the ground. This in turn causes interference to cellular phone service over a large region. That's one reason why the telephone equipment certified for use in aircraft operates through dedicated ground stations designed for this purpose. And of course these systems have been proven to not cause interference to aircraft navigation or communications systems. But on the issue of passenger use of cellular phones on aircraft I recently had an interesting experience on American Airlines. The cabin attendant announced that the captain had a cockpit indication that someone on board was using a cellular phone and requested that it be turned off. This was before the aircraft left the gate. Is it possible that the airlines have really installed sensors to detect on- board cellular transmissions? Regards, Dick ============================= Dick Dillman [Special Services] Greenpeace San Francisco Direct Phone: +1 415-512-7137 Fax: +1 415-512-8699 ICQ: 4785730 ============================= 2488 From: Gerard P. Keenan Date: Fri Feb 16, 2001 10:53am Subject: Re: Is Phone Interference Phony? Just FYI, I live in Suffolk County, NY, and as of 01JAN01 talking on your cell phone while is a moving violation -- points and $150.00 fine throughout the County. Really upset a lot of folks out here. We have the largest population of celebrities in the country, outside of Hollywood. Some of my 'neighbors' include Billy Joel, Steven Spielberg, all the Baldwins (well, we all have our crosses to bear!), Maria Carey, Eric and Julia Roberts, and a whole list of others. Imagine their chargrin at this law when it went through the County legislature like doo-doo through a goose with very few dissenting votes!! Jerry Keenan GPKeenan Co., Int'l Security Services West Islip, NY 11795-2503 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert G. Ferrell" To: Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [TSCM-L] Is Phone Interference Phony? > >However, what the industry doesn't tell passengers is that there is no > >scientific proof to support these claims. > > If there were even a 0.0001% chance that it would make my airplane trip > safer, I would stand on my head and hum the Star Spangled Banner > while gargling with balsamic vinegar. People use their #$#@! cell > phones waaaay too much as it is. If you can't go a few hours without > being wired directly to the home office or the spouse, don't leave home. > And stop using your stupid phone while you're driving. Not a day goes > by that I don't observe some moron swerving all over the friggin' road > while gabbing into one of those infernal contraptions. I'm all for > making use of a cell phone while driving a public whipping offense. > > Not that I have a strong opinion or anything. > > ;-) > > Cheers, > > RGF > > Robert G. Ferrell, CISSP > Information Systems Security Officer > National Business Center > U. S. Dept. of the Interior > Robert_G_Ferrell@n... > ======================================== > Who goeth without humor goeth unarmed. > ======================================== > > > > ======================================================== > TSCM-L Technical Security Mailing List > "In a multitude of counselors there is strength" > > To subscribe to the TSCM-L mailing list visit: > http://www.onelist.com/community/TSCM-L > > or email your subscription request to: > subTSCM-L@t... > =================================================== TSKS > 2489 From: James M. Atkinson, Comm-Eng Date: Fri Feb 16, 2001 3:39pm Subject: Skirt train spy 'watched live on his laptop' Skirt train spy 'watched live on his laptop' http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_210832.html?menu= A US man has been arrested for using a spy camera to film up a woman's skirt and watch live on his laptop. He was detained by detectives as he was allegedly caught filming on a rush-hour commuter train, in Boston. The 47-year-old computer company worker has been charged with lewd and lascivious behaviour. He is scheduled to appear before a Boston court. Police allege he concealed the camera between his knees, reports the Boston Herald. Joe Pesaturo, a spokesman for Massachussetts Bay Transportation Authority, said: "Police will seek a search warrant to examine the computer's files to see if more charges are warranted." The victim, who was seated opposite, was "startled" by the discovery, said Mr Pesaturo. He added: "It was a rush-hour train. It was not short of passengers." Last updated: 19:36 Friday 16th February 2001 -- ======================================================================= Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - George Orwell ======================================================================= James M. Atkinson Phone: (978) 546-3803 Granite Island Group Fax: (978) 546-9467 127 Eastern Avenue #291 http://www.tscm.com/ Gloucester, MA 01931-8008 jmatk@t... ======================================================================= The First, The Largest, The Most Popular, and The Most Complete TSCM, Technical Security, and Counterintelligence Site on the Internet. ======================================================================= 2490 From: Miguel Puchol Date: Fri Feb 16, 2001 8:15pm Subject: RE: Is Phone Interference Phony? Dick, Some airlines have indeed installed detectors. They are based on two receiving antennas, which can give a good estimate on the location of the offending phone along the aircraft. All you are looking for is RF in the uplink (sorry if I use sat terms) frequency band, above a certain level, and you consider that to be an emanation from within the aircraft. I believe BA has some of these already installed. All the best, Mike > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Dick Dillman [mailto:ddillman@s...] > Enviado el: viernes, 16 de febrero de 2001 19:54 > Para: TSCM-L@yahoogroups.com > Asunto: Re: [TSCM-L] Is Phone Interference Phony? > > > On 16 Feb 01, at 10:12, Robert G. Ferrell wrote: > > > If there were even a 0.0001% chance that it would make my airplane trip > > safer, I would stand on my head and hum the Star Spangled Banner > > while gargling with balsamic vinegar. > > We have that to look forward to, RGF. However aside from the > issue of interference to flight instruments there is another problem > associated with using cellular phones from aircraft. A cellular phone > transmitting from high altitudes and especially the altitudes used by > transport aircraft will be received by many cellular receiving sites on > the ground. This in turn causes interference to cellular phone > service over a large region. That's one reason why the telephone > equipment certified for use in aircraft operates through dedicated > ground stations designed for this purpose. And of course these > systems have been proven to not cause interference to aircraft > navigation or communications systems. > > But on the issue of passenger use of cellular phones on aircraft I > recently had an interesting experience on American Airlines. The > cabin attendant announced that the captain had a cockpit indication > that someone on board was using a cellular phone and requested > that it be turned off. This was before the aircraft left the > gate. Is it > possible that the airlines have really installed sensors to detect on- > board cellular transmissions? > > Regards, > > Dick > > ============================= > Dick Dillman > [Special Services] > Greenpeace San Francisco > Direct Phone: +1 415-512-7137 > Fax: +1 415-512-8699 > ICQ: 4785730 > ============================= > > > > ======================================================== > TSCM-L Technical Security Mailing List > "In a multitude of counselors there is strength" > > To subscribe to the TSCM-L mailing list visit: > http://www.onelist.com/community/TSCM-L > > or email your subscription request to: > subTSCM-L@t... > =================================================== TSKS > > 2491 From: none none Date: Fri Feb 16, 2001 4:01pm Subject: I thought the responce fron Mr. Ferrel was beautifully eloquent. >The answer to this question is really the same for all fields >where human senses are enhanced by technological innovations. >The equipment merely serves as an extension to the sensory >capabilities of the person operating it. Without a seasoned, >reasoning human mind to interpret the data it generates, the most >sophisticated piece of technology is little better than >a paperweight. > >Choose veteran, battle-hardened personnel over blinking lights every time. > Erik. == Those that travel long distances in isolation will defend themselves with strange arts. Shin shin, shin gan. _____________________________________________________________ Yourname@i...
When you want them to remember!
http://burn.inhell.com