[security-news] Bulletin #6 - September 3,2002

[security-news-admin at resist.ca]

***************************************************************
Security-news <security-news at resist.ca>
A security bulletin for autonomous resistance movements
Produced by the folks who bring you http://security.tao.ca
***************************************************************

September 03, 2002

We've had a few comments this week that not including the *whole*
article in these bulletins means that folks with patchy web access
don't get to read the whole thing.... so from now on we're going to be
inclucing full-text articles in these bulletins where possible. That makes
it a bit longer, but it also means that you don't have to leave the
comfort of your email client to get the full scoop. Hope you enjoy the
reading this week - by far the scariest thing we've come across lately is
the article (included) on changes the Canadian government wants to make to
digital access law. If anything is a legacy of September 11th - it's
regressive legal changes like that (and the PATRIOT Act, and Bill C-36,
and the list goes on and on).


**********************************
Security-news: Issue #6 - Contents
**********************************
* Security tip of the week: Mobile Phones
* News & Analysis: FBI on the Run (EF!J Interview with Darryl Cherney)
* News & Analysis: Will Canada's ISPs become spies?
* How-to: Conduct secure research and investigations

*****
Security Tip of the Week: Mobile Phones
*****

Mobile phone tips adapted from - http://secdocs.net/manual/lp-sec/. Mobile
phones can be used to track movements, and used as listening devices. Tips
for mobile phone use include:
	* If in doubt, turn it off.
	* If travelling to a sensitive location, in an urban area do not
	use your phone within two or three miles of the location, or in
	rural areas do not use it within ten or fifteen miles of the
	location. This will prevent the creation of a trail that
	associates you with that location on that day.
 	* If the location you are going to is nowhere near a route you
	regularly travel, turn off your phone before you start your
	journey there. 

*****
News & Analysis:  FBI on the Run (Earth First Journal Interview with
Darryl Cherney)
June-July Issue Earth First! Journal
*****

The afternoon of June 11 will not soon be forgotten by Darryl Cherney, the
Earth First! legal team nor their ardent supporters. It was on this day
that a federal jury returned a verdict in favor of Earth First! activists
Judi Bari and Cherney in their historic lawsuit against four FBI agents
and three Oakland Police Department (OPD) officers (see EF!J June-July
2002).

The night before they made their final decision, at least one juror prayed
to God to help her do the right thing. Mary Nunn would later recall that
after listening to the testimony, she believed that the FBI and OPD had
clearly lied about their investigation. Im surprised that they seriously
expected anyone would believe them, she said. 

Feeling that the FBI lacked any credibility, the jury awarded nearly
four-and-a-half million dollars in damages to Bari and Cherney for
violations of their First and Fourth Amendment rights. 

Through this verdict, a clear message has been sent to the FBI that it
does not have free reign to trample peoples civil rights, whatever
political views an individual may hold. In this moment, with the tables
turned, the FBI is on the run. 

And with this huge victory in his pocket, I jumped at the opportunity to
talk with Cherney about the trial, its relevance to the movement, how he
endured such an exhausting process and what his future holds. 

EF!J: After anticipating this day for 12 years, word reaches you that the
jury had arrived at a verdict after three weeks of deliberation. It is
said that those minutes when you are called into the courtroomwhen you
know the jury has come to a unanimous decision, and you are merely waiting
for it to be announcedare the longest moments in the entire legal
process. What was your gut feeling that day, prior to the verdict being
read? 

DC: My gut feeling was always that the jury would never rule in favor of
the FBI and OPD. The lies that the OPD and FBI told about Judi Bari and
myself were legion, obvious, and they were just not going to fly in the
face of, really, any reasonable person on any jury. 

All of the signs indicated that we were going to prevail. When the jury
spent that long deliberating, it meant that they were giving very careful
thought to the charges we filed. If the jury had come back with a decision
in two or three days, we would have been worried. But after
three-and-a-half weeks, it was clear that this was an intelligent jury
that wanted to do the right thing. 

My greatest fear was that the jury might come up with a hung verdictthat
the reason they were taking so long was that they were arguing and couldnt
reach a decision. A hung verdict would have been worse than a defeat
because then we would have had to try the whole thing over again. Let me
assure you that spending six weeks in court with the FBI is a profoundly
unpleasant experience. Even though our lawyers got to call the FBI and OPD
officers liars on the stand, and even though great gobs of truth were
revealed on the record, it was still a very dismal experience being in a
federal courthouse, in a windowless room, with a bunch of really hostile,
mean-spirited agents and copswho probably would just as soon take out a
gun and shoot you long before they would ever dream of upholding the US
Constitution. 

EF!J: It is true that many people have been stunned by the magnitude of
the verdict and the jurys courage to deliver such a strong message against
the FBI. What do you believe Judi would have to say in response to the
verdict if she were alive today? 

DC: It is always dangerous terrain asking and answering the question: What
would Judi do? However, on one hand, Judi would be absolutely pleased as
punch that we won and that we brought six out of seven agents to
justice. On the other hand, Judi Bari would say, Get Richard Held. Helds
next. She passed away before Judge Claudia Wilken dismissed Richard Held
from this lawsuit. Ultimately, the judge dismissed six of the FBI agents
we had charged, including all of the top brass. Judi would have been
outraged by that. 

Not speaking for Judi, but speaking for myself, I can tell you that the
victory was bittersweet and melancholy. We received a modicum of justice,
but having to wait 12 years to receive a small bit of justice is too long
in a democracy. During that entire time, the old expression came to
mind: Justice delayed is justice denied. So really, Judi would acknowledge
the inadequacies of the court system, and she would point out that the
court system allowed the real culprit, Richard W. Helda COINTELPRO
architect and possibly the man next in line, at the time, to become the
director of the FBIoff the hook. 

EF!J: With striking implications for the Earth First! and global justice
movements, can you share your thoughts on what the verdict means to the
movements future? 

DC: First of all, it means that the movement can fight back. We dont have
to take this crap from the FBI. 

I can tell you that the FBI probably finds nothing in the world more
distasteful than to pay any activists in the Earth First! movement
four-and-a-half million dollars. That, in and of itself, is very
sweet. Now we havent exactly gotten that money yet, and it might be years
before we see a penny, nevertheless the concept is probably driving the
FBI up the wall. 

Secondly, it shows that Earth First! was targeted by the FBI, and that we
are victims of FBI terrorism, as opposed to being terrorists
ourselves. That the real terrorists are in government. This news is
certified in the record, and the FBI is going to have to live with that no
matter what. 

It also shows that 10 members of the American public can look at Earth
First! and look at the FBI and OPD and make a decision that the Earth
First! activists were trustworthy and that the police officers were not. 

And, may I say, that the issue of monkeywrenching dominated this trial. In
fact, when I was on the stand, I defended the concept and practice. Quotes
from both Judi Bari and myselfeither advocating monkeywrenching, talking
about monkeywrenching workshops or praising the monkeywrenching that other
folks have donewere brought into evidence repeatedly. The jury saw that,
and they still ruled in our favor. 

EF!J: Was there an instant during the trial, with all of its unforgettable
stories, that particularly stands out in your mind? 

DC: If one day stood out beyond all others, it was the day that the jury
got to walk outside, beneath the sunny skies, and look at the bombed
car. I think another highlight was Judi Baris video testimony, which
really brought the jury to tears and also showed how thoughtful and honest
Judi was. 

The jury got to hear over and over again how Judi Baria single mother of
two children and an advocate of nonviolenceallegedly took a pipe bomb,
stuck it underneath her drivers seat and then went cruising through the
streets of Oakland as if it was nothing. 

With eight members of the jury being women, it seemed very clear that they
knew, as mothers and as women, that Judi Bari would never do such a
thing. And to see the car itself and to see how the bomb ripped through
the sheet metal, blew out the windows and blasted out the door in the
front, really made an impression on the kind of violence against Judi Bari
that this bomb perpetrated. 

EF!J: Do you wish anything could have happened differently? 

DC: I would have done a few things different. One, we would have brought
the DNA evidence into trial. The judge limited our time so drastically
that we had to start bailing things out of our ship in order to stay
afloat during our limited time schedule. So we did not present the fact
that we had genetic material that traced a fake Earth First! press release
to Candy Boak of Boak Logging. Shes a subcontractor to Pacific Lumber. We
also matched a police informant letter to a death threat. We could have
shown the jury that solving this crime could have been a lot easier than
the FBI and OPD made it out to be, but we didnt present that
material. Thats a regret. 

On the witness stand, I sang Spike a Tree for Jesus. Some Earth First!ers
may be very proud of that, others may hold their mouths agape in horror. I
was planning on singing Who Bombed Judi Bari?, but the FBI essentially
made a motion that limited the song I sang to one of three songs. 

My lawyer, unfortunately, didnt fight hard enough to try to allow me to
sing Who Bombed Judi Bari?, and so we boxed ourselves into a corner and I
wound up singing Spike a Tree for Jesus. If I had it to do all over again,
I would have sang This Monkeywrench of Mine. 

EF!J: It seems like the trial must have provided subject material for new
songs. Do you have any ideas about what we might expect as a creative
outcome? 

DC: Toward the end of this year, I plan on writing a book about the story
of the campaign to save Headwaters Forest. I plan on recording two more
CDs, one of original music and one of parodies Ive written. 

When I create my next album, I do plan on having some new material. The
trial was laden with humor and with creative inspiration. In fact, Ive
developed a new career as an improvisational stand-up comic. Almost every
week, Id get up on a stage to do a trial update and sort of spontaneously,
I just started doing stand-up comedy lampooning the FBI and OPD. It wasnt
hard. 

Musically, I see the trial as being an incredible song. But as of this
moment, I havent had a single second to myself to rest, relax and compose
my thoughts. So I do plan on taking a year to archive the history of what
weve experienced, both through songs and literature. I also hope to make a
movie. 

EF!J: Lets talk about the stamina needed to endure such a tedious, drawn
out process. The determination of yourself and the legal team certainly
deserves recognition. What kept you going throughout the trial? 

DC: When I first moved to Humboldt County, I made a pledge to myself that
if I was going to start a campaign to take on Charles Hurwitz and to
protect some ancient redwoods, then I would see that campaign through to
the end. 

Of course, I didnt think the Headwaters campaign was going to take at
least 16 years. I didnt think that we would get bombed and have a lawsuit
that would take 12 years. 

When it comes down to the stamina to endure the six weeks of trial and the
three-and-a-half weeks of jury deliberation, I can attribute it to the
incredible support team and network that backed this trial up. 

And of course, we had the inspiration of Judi Bari, who was a very
magnetic personality and charismatic leader. I will use the word
leader. She led a lot of people to do the right thing by example. That is
what leaders do: they lead by example, not by telling other people what to
do. 

I think there was just the moment itselfthat we had to get through
this; that we worked all this time. You know, hardship has been endured
for lifetimes, whether you are a Palestinian refugee living in a decrepit
camp or whether youre a spotted owl looking for a home. Lasting six weeks
through a trial is relatively mild compared to the suffering that people
and creatures go through in this world. Putting it in perspective really
helped me get through this. 

Then, our lawyers were thoroughbreds; they were like racehorses. They were
built for the long haul. Alicia Littletree, who lived with Judi Bari off
and on for seven years, was the Zen paralegal. Nothing would phase her. If
anybody ever saw the movie White Men Cant Jump with Woody Harrelson,
Alicia was in the zone. 

So I think a lot of things kept this lawsuit together for that entire
time. What actually almost broke our spirit was the jury
deliberation. People were going pure nuts with nothing to do. Waiting was
much harder on the psyche than going through the trial. Earth First!ers
arent used to doing nothing. 

EF!J: In hindsight, now that this hurdle has been crossed, how do you
believe this has changed you, either for better or worse? 

DC: In so many ways, Id rather be known as the person who helped protect a
portion of Headwaters Forest than the person who got bombed and almost
framed by the FBI. Im getting a lot of recognition now for being part of a
team that defeated the FBI. Id rather be known as a preserver of
wilderness. 

Nevertheless, the learning experience has been profound. For starters, we
learned that environmentalism and civil rights overlap because the civil
rights of environmentalists are being violated. And so, in a sense, we
have become civil rights activists in part whether we want to be or
not. Im a biocentrist, a deep ecologist and an Earth First!er, but gosh
darn it, all of the sudden Ive had to wage a civil rights battle in order
to defend our movement. 

The other learning experience has involved just seeing the inner workings
of the FBI and understanding the kinds of infiltration that actually take
place, as opposed to the kinds we imagine in our paranoid states. Seeing
how incompetent they are, how corrupt and criminal they are from a front
row seatit has been an incredible education. 

One more thing is that even though we won, this trial kicked my ass. It
really humbled me tremendously. It broke me on many days, on many
levels. I did manage to maintain my composure for the four-and-a-half to
five hours we were in court every day. But I had many distressing moments
during the remaining parts of the day. 

I learned my own breaking points, my own vulnerabilities. And I learned
that as much as I would like to lead by example, that I am terribly human
and very imperfect even in the middle of the World Series of lawsuits. I
made errors. I struck out. I got into a brawl on the mound. 

I dont feel particularly bad ass or on top of the world having won this
case. I feel very humbled and incredibly grateful to our lawyers, our
paralegal team, all of our supporters and to the jury. 

EF!J: While our movement continues to put this into perspective and
figures out what comes next, I am wondering if you have any last words
that youd like to share with Journal readers? 

DC: So many people have walked up to me and expressed the deepest kind of
gratitude. And I have to say that took me back a little bit. I knew people
would be happy and celebratory, but when we said we were waging this
lawsuit for all the people who had ever been attacked by the FBI, I didnt
fully understand how personally people really took that to heartthat
people really did feel that we were fighting this for them. 

I also want to say that if anything highlighted the trial in the bigger
sense, it was the degree to which the FBI lied along with the OPD. The
degree to which they really thought these lies were going to be
believed. The fact that they just werent used to being held
accountable. The absolute shock that they felt when they lost told me how
out of touch they are. 

But at the same time, I realized how much it is really the FBI thats a
threat to our national security. In this case, I saw how Earth First! has
really become the defenders of our national security. What is our national
security but the land we live on, the air that we breathe, the water we
drink, the forests that modify our climate and all the wonderful things
that the Earth provides us? 

Something Ive said many times, and Ill say it again to the Earth
First! Journal readers: Earth First! was blockading the FBI from
clearcutting the constitution. I think that we can all rest a little bit
easier knowing that when given an opportunity to look at the FBI up close,
the jury of our peers, of average Americans, chose to believe Earth
First! over the FBI. 

The lawsuit saga continues on November 1, when the next court hearing is
set to rule on the post-trial motions. The FBI has indicated that it is
going to appeal. Cherney and the Earth First! team have also mentioned
that they plan to appeal a number of issues, including the dismissal of
the FBIs top brass and Richard Held. Whether or not the FBI will want to
have its horns locked with Earth First! for several years to come is a
question the FBI needs to be asking itself and remains to be seen. 


*****
News & Analysis: Will Canada's ISPs become spies?
By Declan McCullagh 
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-955595.html
*****

WASHINGTON--The Canadian government is considering a proposal that would
force Internet providers to rewire their networks for easy surveillance by
police and spy agencies. 

A discussion draft released Sunday also contemplates creating a national
database of every Canadian with an Internet account, a plan that could
sharply curtail the right to be anonymous online. 

The Canadian government, including the Department of Justice and Industry
Canada, wrote the 21-page blueprint as a near-final step in a process that
seeks to give law enforcement agents more authority to conduct electronic
surveillance. A proposed law based on the discussion draft is expected to
be introduced in Parliament late this year or in early 2003. 


Arguing that more and more communications take place in electronic form,
Canadian officials say such laws are necessary to fight terrorism and
combat even run-of-the-mill crimes. They also claim that by enacting these
proposals, Canada will be following its obligations under the Council of
Europe's cybercrime treaty, which the country is in the process of
considering. 

If the discussion draft were to become law, it would outlaw the possession
of computer viruses, authorize police to order Internet providers to
retain logs of all Web browsing for up to six months, and permit police to
obtain a search warrant allowing them to find "hidden electronic and
digital devices" that a suspect might be concealing. In most
circumstances, a court order would be required for government agents to
conduct Internet monitoring. 

Canada and the United States are nonvoting members of the Council of
Europe, and representatives from both countries' police agencies have
endorsed the controversial cybercrime treaty, which has drawn protests
from human rights activists and civil liberties groups. Of nearly 50
participating nations, only Albania has formally adopted, or ratified, the
treaty. 

Michael Geist, a professor at the University of Ottawa who specializes in
e-commerce law, says that the justification for adopting such sweeping
changes to Canadian law seems weak. 

"It seems to me that the main justification they've given for all the
changes is that we want to ratify the cybercrime treaty and we need to
make changes," Geist said. "To me that's not a particularly convincing
argument. If there are new powers needed for law enforcement authority,
make that case." 

Geist added that "there's nothing in the document that indicates (new
powers) are needed. I don't know that there have been a significant number
of cases where police have run into problems." 

Probably the most sweeping change the legal blueprint contemplates is
compelling Internet providers and telephone companies to reconfigure their
networks to facilitate government eavesdropping and data-retention
orders. The United States has a similar requirement, called the
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, but it applies only to
pre-Internet telecommunications companies. 

"It is proposed that all service providers (wireless, wireline and
Internet) be required to ensure that their systems have the technical
capability to provide lawful access to law enforcement and national
security agencies," according to the proposal. Companies would be
responsible for paying the costs of buying new equipment. 

Sarah Andrews, an analyst at the Electronic Privacy Information Center
(EPIC) who specializes in international law, says the proposal goes beyond
what the cybercrime treaty specifies. "Their proposal for intercept
capability talks about all service providers, not just Internet
providers," Andrews said. "The cybercrime treaty deals only with computer
data." EPIC opposes the cybercrime treaty, saying it grants too much power
to police and does not adequately respect privacy rights. 

Another section of the proposal says the Canadian Association of Chiefs of
Police recommends "the establishment of a national database" with personal
information about all Canadian Internet users. "The implementation of such
a database would presuppose that service providers are compelled to
provide accurate and current information," the draft says. 

Gus Hosein, a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics and an
activist with Privacy International, calls the database "a dumb idea." 

"Immediately you have to wonder if you're allowed to use anonymous mobile
phones or whether you're allowed to connect to the Internet
anonymously," Hosein said. 

A representative for George Radwanski, Canada's privacy commissioner, said
the office is reviewing the blueprint and does not "have any comments on
the paper as it stands." 

Comments on the proposal can be sent to la-al at justice.gc.ca no later than
Nov. 15. 

Security-news note: The full text of this proposal and instructions on how
to participate in the consultations are available online at
http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/en/cons/la_al/ - read it and comment
before the November 15th deadline.

*****
How To: Conduct Secure Research and Investigations
kendra at resist.ca
*****

No matter what type of action you are planning, there is a good chance
you don't want a corporate or government official to identify you as the
person doing the research. On more than one occasion, research records
have been used to track people back to specific events, largely because
the individuals have not been aware of how their digital & physical trails
lead to them. Over the past few years, with the digitization of all forms
of data, this danger has increased - not only because so much research is
being conducted online, but because library & other database driven
requests databases are now linked and easily accessible by law
enforcement. 

The following tips are important to keep in mind if you have a vested
interest in keeping your connection to some research or a later action
private. For more information on general research, and security -
http://security.tao.ca/personal/saferesearch.shtml. 

The key thing is not to leave a document trail (digital or physical), and
the following tips are designed not to give an exhaustive run-through, but
to highlight some of the issues you should be thinking about when
conducting secure research. 

1) Who bought those books and materials? Don't use your credit or debit
cards to make purchases related to your research. These can be used later
by law enforcement to construct patterns of reading and also timing 
between research and actions.

2) Watch those library records. During the Gulf War (1991) Canadian law
enforcement pressured libraries to turn over records of what Canadians of
Arabic background were reading. We're pretty sure that in these heightened
days of "national security" these practices continue. Read the book in the
library and make sure you are not on CCTV while you are doing it.

3) Securely surf the internet. If you must conduct your research from home
(which is up to your discretion), make sure you are doing it  
securely. ALWAYS use a proxy when doing web research, make sure your
history files and caches are purged, and wipe your that your hard
drive regularly. If you go out to an Internet Cafe or other location to do
research, don't use places that ask for ID or sport CCTV cameras, and
make sure the screens are well-shielded from prying eyes. Please check out
http://security.tao.ca for more information on each of these topics.

4) FOI/ATIP (and other government) Requests. These are traceable because
they require your full legal name and address. It is possible to do these
using a false name and PO box, though it can depend from agency to
agency (some require ID to pick up data from them). If you are able to do
this using a PO box, make sure that box is not linked to you. 

5) Telephone when possible, written requests provide clues. Phoning from a
*payphone* is better than writing a letter requesting  
information.  Letters provide a document trail and tools for later
analysis, telephone calls do not always - it is still unusual for phone
calls to most government agencies and corporations to be automatically
recorded. Make sure your timeline is appropriate if placing
information-related phone calls.

6) Physical Research. Need to do recon on a building or location? That's a
whole other how-to (that we'll be doing in the future). Suffice to say
that you want to do this with utmost caution, practice active
counter-surveillance and steer as clear as possible from 
cameras. Appearance altering is obviously a good course of action in these
instances.

7) Secure Storage. Don't leave your collected data lying around where
anyone can read it. A locked filing cabinet in your home is *not* secure
storage (you know how easy it is to pick those?). You may opt for off-site
storage if the data is particularly sensitive - which is a judgement
call. Electronic data should be stored securely on a palm pilot or laptop
if possible (something that rarely leaves your personal posssession), and
encrypted using PGPdisk or other disk encryption tools. Never leave data
on an unecrypted hard drive or within a network if you don't want anyone
to access it.

8) Timeline. It's a good idea to leave some time between the research and
the action itself. This counts especially if you have been on the phone or
doing reconnaissance on physical locations, and someone could remember
you. Again, it's your call, but distance of a few months can assist in
helping people forget that they talked to or saw you.

9) Destroy Destroy Destroy. Normally when conducting research the
principle is to document every little thing - but in the case of secure
research you want to follow a principle of destroying any data or
research linked to an action. Secure destruction includes burning paper
documents in a safe area, wiping hard drives clean, and purging any cached
information. In addition, destroying floppy disks, cds, or other portable
media used to carry information is extremely important. Don't just write
over them - destroy them as completely as possible and throw the pieces
out separately so that disks and data can't be reconstructed.

As always the degree to which you take security should be proportional
to the value and sensitivity of the data you are collecting. Doing
research for a public demonstration usually requires a different
security level than doing research with the intention of carrying out more
covert activities. If you have any tips on secure research to share,
please email secure at resist.ca so they can be included in further updates
and on our websites.  

***************************************************************
Security-news <security-news at resist.ca>
Good computer security is no substitute for good sense!
To sub or unsub - http://resist.ca/mailman/listinfo/security-news
***************************************************************