***************************************************************
Security-news <security-news@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@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@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@resist.ca so they can be included in further
updates and on our websites.

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