>From - Sat Mar 02 00:57:26 2024
X-Received: by 10.58.134.15 with SMTP id pg15mr1477389veb.14.1387606630092;
Fri, 20 Dec 2013 22:17:10 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: tscm-l2006_at_googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.182.131.169 with SMTP id on9ls595718obb.68.gmail; Fri, 20 Dec
2013 22:17:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.182.16.199 with SMTP id i7mr5403863obd.42.1387606625346;
Fri, 20 Dec 2013 22:17:05 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <jm..._at_tscm.com>
Received: from smtpauth05.mfg.siteprotect.com (smtpauth05h.mfg.siteprotect.com. [64.26.60.146])
by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id p9si1283329igr.3.2013.12.20.22.17.05
for <tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com>;
Fri, 20 Dec 2013 22:17:05 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 64.26.60.146 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of jm..._at_tscm.com) client-ip=64.26.60.146;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;
spf=neutral (google.com: 64.26.60.146 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of jm..._at_tscm.com) smtp.mail=jm..._at_tscm.com
Received: from Waiting-For-A-Blue-Bird-3.local (unknown [71.174.24.92])
(Authenticated sender: jm..._at_tscm.com)
by smtpauth05.mfg.siteprotect.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7E03610CE9FC9
for <tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com>; Sat, 21 Dec 2013 00:17:03 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <52B5325D.8050807_at_tscm.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 01:17:01 -0500
From: "James M. Atkinson" <jm..._at_tscm.com>
Reply-To: jm..._at_tscm.com
Organization: Granite Island Group
User-Agent: Thunderbird 3.0a1pre (Macintosh/2008022015)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: TSCM-L Mailingin List <tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com>
Subject: Lavabit Document Observation
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020202.52B53261.0006,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0
Through the Lavabit document just recently posted on Cryptome (
http://cryptome.org/2013/12/lavabit-027.pdf) I woudl like to point out
the following.
On page 61 of 148, and at other places on the document posted, the name
of the person of interest is blacked out, however this name can be
derived by character position analysis using the flaws present in the
Court Rules.
In the Courts rules, it provides that the cpations are to be in all
caps, but this requirement actually makes it substantially easier to
determine the censored details, as "ALL CAPS" creates a diffrent pitch
and spacign to "all caps." Thus, the Caption on page 61 of 148 reflects
17 missing characters in the line which ends with "THAT IS" This is also
visible in a number of other captions as ell.
Thusly, the uncensored text of the line would read as "EDWARD J. SNOWDEN
THAT IS" but it coudl also be read as "MR. EDWARD SNOWDEN" as well with
18 characters in the same space.
On page 70 of 148, and name "Edward Snowden" is mentioned in line 2, or
paragraph C.
On page 9 of 148, the signature is illegible, plus there is no name,
jurisdiction (on the signature), or anything else to provide any
legitimacy to this order. The order is likely invalid, and a fictional
documents created by the FBI. They do have a proven hostory of fakign
orders like this in hich they drop the judges/magistrtates nam form a
faked document, but place hat appears to be a legitimate signature, then
the faked documents is fed to the clerk of court and is filed into the
record, with no mention of whom the judge/magistrate actually is.
The motion to compell fails to address the order filed on 10 June 2013,
and does not actually mention that an order (June 10, 2013) was signed,
and is in the record, or maybe I am missing something.
Where is the "Notice of Preservation" and the matching "Order of
Preservation" that would be normally issued in such a case as this?
The magistrate judge who signed the order on page 16 of 148, likley did
not bother to read the order, and had a remarkable lack of
understanding as of hat a "Pen Register" is and what a "trap and trace"
device actually is, or she would not have attached her signature (notice
that her signature is not the same as that found on page 9.
Also, make note that pags 16 and 15 or 148 were authored and signed ith
a "/s/" and not with an actual signature, and that t a later time (after
the authoring of the document) initials were added next to a signature
block, and then some sort of illegible seal added. This magistrtate
judge also lacks the authority to order the decryption of encrypted
digital content by means of a trap and trace order against a company
which does not keep such records, and which does not possess the
capabilities of providing such a service. The magistrate steps wide
outside to bounds of both her jurisdiction, and likely outside the
bounds of her competencies in technical matters (and is being playing
for the fool by the FBI). Also, the data that she is "ordering" to be
produced is not described in a meaningful way, and there are no FBI
affidavits that such information even is known to exist at Lavabit. Or,
the FBI knows tha data exsists but they do nto wish to reveal to the
court that they have been running an illegal mass surveillance operation.
The magistrate also demonstrates her lack of knowledge in the order by
directing it at the service provider (Lavabit) instead of the actual
fiber provider. Thus, the pen/trap is supposed to be on the company
that provided connectivity services to Lavabit, not on Lavabit itself.
If this as a legitimate trap/trace order for information then it oudl be
directed against SPrint. AT&T, MCI or the other carrier ho providd
connctiveity form Lavabit to the outside world... but wait, those taps
ar already in plac, the leakd NSA/Snowden documents prove that it is in
place, so this Magistrate is just diddlying around and trying to
unlawfully "bully around Lavabit" but Lavabit is the utterly wrong place
to direct a pen tap, or trap and trace. She shoudl nto be signing orders
that she does not understand, if in fact that is her initials on the order.
Lavabit as already tapped, the already leakd ECI classified documents
prove that it was. Everything that the FBI was seeking is/was already in
the possession of the government prior to the issuing of this (likely
fake) court order. Lavabit actually had no reson to belive that the
various order were little more then unintelligible jibberish
Again on page 19 of 148 we see a stampd "/s/" that does nto align in the
same manner as we also see on page 16, so docments are not beign
signed/initialed in the same way, and there is no seal on this page
either, like we see on page 16. In fact CAREFULLY look at the signature
blocks on page 16 and 19 and notice the alignment issues and that the
frigging signatures (of the same person) are not even a close match. So,
who exactly is signing these orders? What else did she sign (or the
government claims she signed) on the same day, and has she actually at
work on that day and can the government prove that she as actually in
the building? I mention that because in the past there have been cases
here a magistrates name and signature was present on a document that was
attributed to them, when it as medically impossible for them to have
actaully signed anythign form a bed in the intensive care unit, as they
were in a coma at a time (but oh, heck did they sign a huge volume of
"court orders" while in said coma). Pay carful attention to the
signature blocks, the initials, and then consider the fact that Lavabit
was utterly the wrong level to be directing such an order.
Granted Lavabit MIGHT possess a very limited amount of data, used by the
customr to establish service originally, but theere as no probable cause
to believe or suspect that Lavabit was in possession of 99% of the data
the court was ordering be produced, if in fact anybody in a black
cocktail dress actually read the document before they initially it.
Then read down to page 22 or 148, in were it is mentioned that Lavabit
DID provide what little data it had, but that the the FBI wanted data
that exceeded reality, and was having a temper tantrum. In fact very
carefully look at the timeline that the govrnment lists at this moment
in timee, in that the FBI DID NOT actually have an order in have hen
they ambushed the Lavabit founder at his home, and it took them a hile
of fishign aorund to get a copy (of a document they forgot to bring with
them). It was wise for the Lavabit founder to stop talking to the FBI
and to invoke his right to counsel, as the agents were claiming to have
a court order, which they did not actually have, and given the FBI
history of document fabrication (and that the document provided to
Lavabit was very "hinky and convienent" there as every reason for
Lavabit to suspect the FBI had no such order and as confabulating one
on-site as it were. Back up and actually CLOSELY look at page 22, and
how the agents originally (think FBI agent sitting in a van, a few
hundred feet away, running recording devices, an crating an order and
initials out of a vacuum, the speed suggests a document/order being
forged, so look at the /s/ on one page and initials, and the unmatching
ones on another.). I do not know if the FBI agents fakeked the order,
but there is a proven history of them doing so in the past, and there is
also a grand tradition of judges and magistrates signing orders that
they do not understand.
The signature of Judge Hilton on page 29 or 148 is a "clean signuture"
unlike the "unclean signatures" present on documents (possible fictional
orders) attributed to the magistrate.
The "description of things to be brought" on page 30 or 148 can not be
brought if they do not exist in the possession of Lavabit.
On page 32 or 148, I would hope that his honor consulted the 4th and
5th Amendment to the Consitution of the Unitd States, because there is
no Affidavit attached that overcomes Franks. Indeed the arrant gives a
location of "Attachment B" but at no place in Attachment B is an actual
location given. The Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled
that the place must be specified in the warrant (which it does not), and
this is what is called in the legal profession (a royal fuck up, by a
sitting federal judge, assuming that he actually read the document,
before signed it, and did not merely pencil whip it). As the warrant
describes a item to be seized, but fails to mention the location where
it may be found, it is likely the FBI got this warrant to illegally
burglarize Lavabit and copy thier hard drives and tapes, covertly.
So on the same day that Lavabit was in court the Judge issues a highly
defective search arrant, so the FBI cna illegally search a place that it
not included or references in the warrant, while the founder of Lavabit
as in Alexandria (and the place to be searched presumedly in Dallas).
On page 38 or 148, e can count don the charactrs missing of the censored
verison to be "MR. EDWARD J. SNOWDEN"or roughly 20-21 characters.
On page 38 or 148, were is the application for the search warrant, the
affidavit for the search warrant (if on actually exists), and so on.
Keep in mind, that at the heart of the entire Snowden Affair is federal
judges illegally issuing search warrants, not merely against Snowden,
but rather on everybody in the country (illegally), and that a select
group in Congress who are hell-bent on destroying this nation looked the
other way.
So on page 42 or 148 e se that the "Pen/Trap" function was not already
on the Lavabit system, and that it woudl have to be programmed, and not
merely installed. Insisting that the government pay for the time
required to design a section of code to implement a filter is within a
reasonable requeust and the prices quoted by Lavabit as miniscule when
considering the hundreds of millions of dollars the U.S. Government has
paid for other providers to develop similar code. If the government
refuses to pay for very reasonable time to write the code up front,
then the founder of Lavabits can not be compelled to do the computer
programming for free (after all slavery is no longer legal in most states).
On page 42, $375,000 woudl be a more "reasonable" amount given that any
computer programmign woudl have to be carefully crafted, tested and
doucmnted prior to deployment, and that giving the FBI and fully
unrestricted backdoor into a system is the wet dram of the FBI, but such
access is prohibited by law. Of course it also says that a sitting judge
is supposed to actually read and understand what they sign off on, but
what the hell, the Constitution is widely regarded as a minor
inconvenience by the FBI in such cases.
On page 48 and 49, the Judge is way out of line, as the founder of
Lavabit has a Constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel, and the
court is directly denying (or is appearing to deny) him that right.
On page 50 or 148, line 12-14 the government lies, or is repeating a lie
told to it by the FBI.
Also, notice page 52 or 148, line 15-19, which suggests that the
government was seeking the encryption keys for ALL USERS and not merely
for Snowden.
Page 53 or 148 suggests the judge has ben played for the fool by the FBI.
Then on page 54 of 148 the judge starts to realize the government has
played him for a fool. re: Page 52, line 24-25 and Page 53, line 1, and
then the court on page 54, lines 3-6.
Page 56, line 9... the judge totally does not understand that the
government is up to.
Page 57, I note that at no time has Mr. Levison refused to install, and
then look at page 57, line 23.
Very carefully read the top of page 70 or 148, re: Keene.
On page 74 or 148, read footnote #1
Page 75 or 148, in regards to "General Warrants" these are forbidden by
law, as per the Supreme Court, and then the entirety of page 76.
See page 79, second paragraph.
Page 85 of 148 the government fails to disclose to the court that the
government has long ago broken SSL, TSL, HTTPS, and other "secure
protocols" and that anyting transmittd by use of such "secure mthods"
is not actually secure or private. In fact, the leaked Snowden documents
delive iot spefici programs inside the NSA/FBI to violate these "secure
systems"
On page 92 or 148, there is mention that the government installed the
tap at the service provider of Lavabit, and not on Lavabit itself (see
my comments earlier up), and that th egovrnmnt as suckign up all e-mail
of all users, at all times.
Page 95 of 148, item B(2) the warrant in question does not specify a
place or the person, merely a thing.
Page 111 of 148, Ahem, Mr. Binnall, be sure to mention that the warrant
does not state a "place of person" merley a thing, and then the ECI
matter of SSL alraedy being compromised.
Page 117 of 148, line 22 and 23, "HORSE SHIT"
Page 117 of 148, line 16 and 17, the Judge rally should get a comedy
show, in Vegas, black cocktail dress and all.
Pay careful note of page 119, line 7 to 14
Page 121, line 7 - 17, "BULL SHIT"
Page 132 - 137, if you understand how ciphers are moved and transmitted,
you ill recognize that these keys are legitimate and that the government
(or somebody) copied these pages on a copier, then lightened the copy,
and then made a copy, then a copy of a copy, and then scanned in these
deliberately tampered codes to th court in order to deceive the court.
Indeed the court WAS in fact misled by the governments fiction, and the
court IMHO acted improperly, as Lavabit did as the court ordered, but
not what the government wanted, so they had a little temper tantrum.
Fuck the Pigs.
-jma
--
James M. Atkinson. President and Sr. Engineer
Granite Island Group
http://www.tscm.com/
(978) 381-9111 jm..._at_tscm.com
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=15178662
https://www.facebook.com/james.m.atkinson1
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:26 CST