From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 03:13:28 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: SNI_ffs
Message-ID: <199603311557.KAA09394@pipe1.nyc.pipeline.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Responding to msg by declan+@CMU.EDU ("Declan B. McCullagh") on 
Sun, 31 Mar 10:42 AM


>One gave me the impression the DoJ had to develop 
>custom hardware and  software for this "Internet 
>wiretap" done without Harvard's direct  cooperation.


DoJ is probably cutting spying-sensitive Harvard some slack, or 
slyly crowing about setting up the Crimson butts with a promise 
for deniability. Is it possible that the CFP chit-chat revved 
that Janus-spin, practicing for more pervasive cyber-sleuth 
slathering of wannabe L&O insiders?


----------

   The New York Times, March 31, 1996, p. 20.


   First Internet Wiretap Leads to a Suspect

   [Excerpts of story not in the TWP]

   Stephen P. Heymann, a Federal prosecutor in Boston, said
   investigators had worked with Harvard to determine a method
   of tracking the suspect that would protect the privacy of
   legitimate users.

   He said that the Harvard system had 16,500 accounts and
   13,000 users and that about 60,000 E-mail messages each day
   moved in and out of the area where investigators were
   looking for the intruder.

   Mr. Heymann said investigators had used a high-speed
   computer to check for 10 to 15 key words that matched the
   intruder's profile. If they were not sure if an electronic
   communication containing a key word was Mr. Ardita's, the
   investigators looked at 80 characters on either side of the
   key word to make that determination. Mr. Heymann said
   investigators believed that only twice had they read a
   complete message that was not Mr. Ardita's.

   [End excerpt]