Filed under: Big Brother, globalchange, society | Tags: legal, legalize, marjiuanna, weed
Eine Europäische Bürgerinitiative ist keine Petition an ein Parlament, sondern fordert beim Erreichen des Quorums von einer Million Stimmen in zwölft Monaten die Europäische Kommission unmittelbar auf, entsprechende Rechtsakte vorzuschlagen.
Prof. Dr. Lorenz Böllinger: Es ist global ein Mentalitätswandel zu erkennen. Immer mehr amerikanische Bundesstaaten lassen Marihuana für den medizinischen Gebrauch zu, in zweien ist es inzwischen auch als reines Genussmittel legal erhältlich. Für Deutschland gehen konservative Schätzungen von etwa vier Millionen Cannabiskonsumenten aus. Das sind fast fünf Prozent der Bevölkerung, deren Verhalten vom Staat kriminalisiert wird – entgegen jeder Vernunft oder Empirie. Es ist längst bekannt, dass der Mythos von der Einstiegsdroge frei erfunden ist und die Risiken eher geringer als bei anderen, legalen Drogen sind. Der Blick in Länder wie Holland liefert den praktischen Beweis dafür, dass die Schreckensszenarien, die von den Prohibitionisten für den Fall einer Legalisierung heraufbeschworen werden, schlicht nicht eintreten. Im Angesicht dessen schwindet auch in der Bevölkerung die Akzeptanz für ein Verbot immer weiter.
Bei dieser Resolution an die Abgeordneten des Deutschen Bundestages handelt es sich nicht um eine Petition. So schrieb Prof. Dr. Lorenz Böllinger, Sprecher der Resolution, an den Autoren dieses Artikels am 2. Januar 2014 im Wortlaut: „Durch Herrn Wenzel, einen ehemaligen (ca. 2001) wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeiter, wurde die vom Schildower Kreis initiierte Resolution deutscher Strafrechtsprofessoren eigenmächtig und ohne Autorisierung als Petition an den Bundestag eingereicht. Dies beschädigt die eigentliche Zwecksetzung der Resolution. Es geht nämlich um die Überzeugung von Bundestag-Abgeordneten, aus dem Parlament heraus eine Enquête-Kommission zu beantragen. Wenn – bisher – 25% der Abgeordneten dies beantragen (kein Fraktionszwang!), muss eine solche Kommission eingerichtet werden, welche dann gründliche Anhörungen von Experten durchführen muss, und zwar zur gesamten Drogenpolitik.
Hier der Resolutionstext der deutscher Strafrechtsprofessoren.
Der Staat darf die Bürger durch die Drogenpolitik nicht schädigen. Es ist deshalb notwendig, Schaden und Nutzen der Drogenpolitik unvoreingenommen wissenschaftlich zu überprüfen. Als Kriminalwissenschaftler fühlen wir uns in besonderem Maße verantwortlich für die Einhaltung strafrechtstheoretischer Prinzipien und für die Zurückhaltung des Staates in der Anwendung der ultima ratio gesellschaftlicher Steuerung. Deshalb appellieren wir an die Abgeordneten des Deutschen Bundestages, nicht nur dem Fraktionszwang zu folgen, sondern auch ihrer individuellen Verantwortung.
This is a work in progress
CJD’s Networking Suite — Everyone Still Thinks It’s A Nameserver
I started it a year ago when DNS–P2P was going on, it was going to be a name server. After writing the base libraries for the project, I realized that nobody will install alternative DNS because anything that is on the Internet needs a
.com for the rest of the world to read it. A website is not going to be inaccessible to almost everyone, if it were they might as well stop paying hosting bill. If you have a
.com, why should you bother with a cjdns address, you’re already accessible. It’s a chicken and egg problem. Namecoin solved part of the problem but the only original invention in Namecoin was special transactions for Bitcoin. Namecoin did not bring about a secure and fast method of looking up address information and the developers don’t seem to have much interest in developing one. So I switched from DNS to fixing the low level protocols because that provides something for everyone and the chicken- and-egg problem is not so great.
The Internet is a wonderful system but deep down in it’s aging protocols there are some flaws. We all know that we would like cryptographic integrity and confidentiality guarantees with each of our packets, something that the government has been working on through IPSEC and DNSSEC, but there are a few other design problems with the Internet which have manifested themselves as social problems.
Censorship via Denial of Service and Frivolous Litigation
Content can be censored by sending a flood of unwanted packets to a host from a large number of infected “zombie” machines. This, known as DDoS, is a problem which worsens every year as the upload speed of all infected nodes on the Internet grows in proportion to the download speed of any given link. Being infected with a virus and participating in DDoS, though not a picnic, is not an emergency for the owner of the infected machine. Nor is it an emergency for their ISP. DDoS is always “their problem”… Until it strikes in your network. Sadly, a common response from a datacenter is to stop carrying the controversial content, making DDoS an effective censorship tool and encouraging the practice.
Another form of censorship which is even more insidious is frivolous and malicious court action. While every litigant would swear up and down that he has been injured and has only the most noble goals at heart, it is not hard to recognize the power of the court system and it stands to reason that those with malicious intent would do so as well. Whereas DDoS is a low risk activity because of the level of anonymity afforded to the savvy and unscrupulous, malicious litigation is a low risk activity because “I believed I was doing the right thing” is a near unchallengeable defense. Furthermore, the cost of bringing litigation as compared to the cost of confronting the embarrassing truth is very low, while the cost of defending against malicious litigation as compared to the self gratification from telling the truth is extremely high. Finally, people are unable to think about litigation risk in the same way as we think about other risks because there is an assumption that “if you’re not doing anything wrong you won’t have any trouble” which history shows us over and over, couldn’t be further from the truth.
A more technical issue with the Internet, and one of which many people are unaware, is address space deaggregation. Every machine connected to the Internet needs an address, you may have heard the IPv6 lobby talking about “address space exhaustion” which, while a concern, is not nearly as dire as they make it out to be. Only about 20% of the allocated address space is announced to the routing table (giving those addresses access to the Internet) and there is a significant amount of space which the numbers authorities have decided not to allocate at all. However, at every stop along it’s path through the Internet, a packet has it’s address field examined by a router so it can decide which wire that packet should be sent down. Routers have an easier time if addresses are in big blocks so that a router can look quickly at the first numbers in the address and know, for example, that it is destined for China. People naturally want as many addresses as they can possibly get and they want them in the smallest blocks possible, this is so they can then control (or buy and sell) these small blocks independently. The smaller the blocks of addresses which are announced, the larger the routing tables become and the more work the Internet’s core routers must do in order to send a packet in the right direction. There have been attempts to aggregate addresses back in to groups but nonetheless, the number of small announcements in the global routing table has grown every year.
Each of these problems is a tragedy of the commons problem. The users of virus infected computers are incentivized to save money rather than purchasing a product or service to rid their computer of the infection. While there are solutions such as egress filtering which decrease the problem, ISPs are incentivized to implement as little security as possible because they are not directly affected. Frivolous and malicious litigation benefits the plaintiff who is able to hide the truth and the lawyers, judges, and other court officers whose services are demanded. The defendant who all too often publishes information for no other reason than satisfaction of telling the truth, is the only party harmed by this type of attack, and he is the least able to prevent it. Address space deaggregation benefits the edge ISPs who gain more flexibility in how their network is organized at the cost of the core ISPs whose only defense is the “we will not route that” nuclear option which would no doubt bring about a revolt from the edge ISPs. Each of these problems hurts everyone, DDoS forces ISPs to over prevision their lines, frivolous legal action increases the cost of running a community website or ISP since each accusation must be reviewed and it’s validity assessed, and address deaggregation means everyone must pay more to have their packets routed through increasingly high power routers.
Steps have been taken to address each of these problems but these steps have been largely patches against the existing flawed system. The most popular anti-DDoS measure is bandwidth overprovisioning, it is not unusual for large companies to spend 75% more on extra bandwidth to handle unexpected traffic including DDoS.1 Mixnets such as TOR, I2P, Freenet, and Phantom attempt to solve the problem of frivolous litigation (and other invalid suppression of speech) and as a side effect, provide DDoS resistance.
TOR is a relatively popular anonymity system which functions by randomly routing encrypted traffic through nodes, the nodes don’t know what they are routing and no one node knows both source of the traffic and it’s destination. TOR’s abuse policy is “it’s all just zeros and ones”, this has made it popular for sharing child abuse content and it has been known to host at least one drive-by-download malware attack. Furthermore, TOR nodes have an option of proxying back to the external Internet, those who enable this are called “exit nodes”. These, like other proxies, are popular for evading ip address bans such that most large IRC networks choose to block all TOR nodes from access unless the user authenticates. Google is also known to prevent TOR exit nodes from running searches unless the users periodically complete captchas. TOR’s nonexistant abuse policy not only enables criminals but it drives away people who believe in freedom of speech but not to the extent that it is coordinating criminal activity. Since the users of TOR get their bandwidth from that donated by the operators of transit nodes and as an inherently anonymous protocol, there are no fairness metrics. Users are incentivized to use as much bandwidth as possible which is generally a matter of opening vast numbers of concurrent connections. One user reported downloading 10 megabits per second of BitTorrent traffic through TOR. The fact that TOR nodes are associated with abuse taking place on the public Internet and TOR’s centralized directory server system mean that getting a list of TOR nodes is relatively easy to do so authoritarian governments, the entities which TOR advocates claim it thwarts, need only filter access to the nodes on the list (or round up those who connect to them). TOR is written in C and requires little for resources except for TCP connections which it uses to communicate with other nodes. TOR’s interface with the user is a reasonably easy to use socks proxy which allows for TCP functions such as web browsing but is not a full replacement for the Internet.
I2P is a less popular protocol similar to TOR, I2P has no means to access the outside Internet anonymously and therefor has not created as much publicity. I2P’s abuse policy is, like TOR’s, nonexistant. It has however remained mostly clean of criminality, probably due to it’s lower popularity. Like TOR, I2P routes packets randomly around the Internet which not only requires the Internet layer below it but also leads to excessive latency and inefficient routing. Unlike TOR, I2P contains fairness metrics which prevent blatant bandwidth abuse. I2P is written in Java and uses enough resources that it is unsuitable for use in any small device or low end server. I2P’s user interface is like TOR’s, a simple socks proxy which allows for web browsing and other basic web functions. I2P contains a library which allows applications to communicate over I2P if modifications are made to the application’s code.
Freenet is a rather interesting protocol, like TOR, it runs over the existing Internet and anyone can join. Like I2P, it does not proxy out to the outside Internet. Unlike TOR and I2P it is a distributed store so people who insert content into the network can then turn their computers off and the content remains available. As a data store it has been known to host child abuse material and in addition, would be node operators are faced with the fact that they are storing random Freenet content on their harddrive which while likely not a crime, is morally difficult to reconcile. Also since data is stored on nodes, Freenet is vulnerable attacks by inserting large amounts of garbage data or spam which would displace legitimate data. As a content addressable Internet it is very interesting, it contains static content (stored by hash) and mutable content (stored by key). It also has a “darknet” mode which allows nodes to peer privately without allowing other nodes to connect to them so it can contain highly secretive nodes. Freenet’s content distribution is far more DDoS resistant than I2P or TOR and it has the added benefit that a denationalizing attack involving DDoSing each node while polling a hidden site to see when it becomes unavailable is not effective. Freenet employs small world routing and routes randomly when a node cannot be found in order to maximize anonymity. Like TOR and I2P, Freenet uses a socks proxy to interface with the user. Unlike TOR and I2P, Freenet is highly restrictive of the type of website which it can host. New kinds of content placed in the Freenet network requires a new way of using the static/mutable store and a new permissions system. Running a webapp is simply impossible.
Phantom is also an interesting protocol. Like TOR it is written in C, like I2P it does not proxy back to the Internet and unlike any of the other protocols described, it interfaces with the user as a TUN device (a virtual network card). This allows for all types of Internet traffic to be sent through Phantom, not just simple web browsing. Phantom shows a lot of promise as a faster anonymity protocol but it is still very new so very little is known about how it behaves in the real world.
Mixnets In General
All of these protocols are meant to run over the existing Internet, all of them connect peers automatically using a discovery system and all of them use suboptimal routing paths to bolster anonymity at the cost of performance. To address the growing routing tables, Cisco has proposed a new protocol called Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol or LISP. The idea of LISP is to separate the addresses which people use from the addresses which routers use, like a lower level version of DNS. LISP allows the edge ISPs to see the Internet as they want it, disaggregated into small pieces for political reasons, and the routers to see the Internet as they want it, centralized hierarchical pyramid of addresses emanating from some arbitrary center point. This design works well in existing routers since they are designed to get packets with a universally unique address and look that address up in a table. This is advertised as a design feature but LISP is limited in it’s vision, if one must look up the “real location” of a server before forwarding a packet, why not simply look up the fastest path?
A New vision
Imagine an Internet where every packet is cryptographically protected from source to destination against espionage and forgery, getting an IP address is as simple as generating a cryptographic key, core routers move data without a single memory look up, and DDoS is a term read about in history books. The cost of frivolous legal action is higher and the cost of operating a service is lower because identifying users requires cooperation from network operators but these same network operators work together to enforce a community defined acceptable use policy. Finally, becoming an ISP is no longer confined to the mighty telecoms, anyone can do it by running some wires or turning on a wireless device.
This is the vision of cjdns.
cjdns is designed to be a “principle of least authority” protocol, on the Internet, information is authority so therefore it is a “need to know” protocol. Those who don’t need to know a piece of information don’t know. Data is encrypted twice using the fast
poly1305 algorithms. Data is encrypted from source to destination making it difficult to forge a random packet with valid checksums and unfeasible to forge a packet with arbitrary data. For users who need greater assurance,
poly1305 and replay protection can be enabled for an extra 16 bytes of overhead per packet. Each router along the path encrypts the packet once again to protect the IP header from the array of switches between them and the next router. Finally, the switches, depending on their connection medium, may apply yet a third layer of cryptography in order to protect switch headers and prevent forging or replaying of high priority packets.
Each cjdns “node” is a router and a switch. Switches are the cjdns engine’s analog of the OSI level 2. They are very dumb and only know how to read a label, parse the lowest bits in that label and forward the packet down the interface given by those bits. The lack of any memory look ups makes switches very fast as well. Switches use an internal numeric compression scheme to compress the interface index into a few bits of the 64-bit label. How they compress the number is an implementation detail as long as they can read a label number and know how many of the low bits belong to them. After determining the correct destination interface, the switch will bit shift the label and add bits to the now empty high side of the label such that if the label were reversed, the switch would send the packet back to the interface where it came from. In the event of an error, the switch does a bitwise reversal of the label and sends the packet to the source interface. By doing a full bitwise reversal, the switches need not care how other switches encode the numbers or be able to reverse the order since they can reverse the order of the entire label.
1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 0 | | - Switch Label - 4 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 8 | Type | Frag | Priority | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Switch headers are designed to be small and efficient. The fields include the
label of which some unknown number of bits, henceforth known as a discriminator, belong to each switch along the forwarding path, the
Type field indicating the type of packet. Reserved packet types are
0 for opaque data, and
1 for switch control messages (eg errors). The
Frag field which tells the recipient what number fragment is being carried under this switch header if fragmentation is supported. The
Frag field are only of concern to the sender and recipient. The
Priority field contains a number which represents how important the delivery of a packet is. When a link becomes saturated, the switch sending packets over that link SHOULD drop packets of least priority and MAY decrease the priority of all packets passing through it. When packets are dropped, switches SHOULD emit an error packet with the inverse label to be sent to the sender. Switches SHOULD make adjustments based on error packets which are sent in response to packets which they forwarded, forwarding error packets is OPTIONAL, in flood situations it may not be wise.
If Alice wants to send a packet to Fred via Bob, Charlie, Dave and Elinor, she will send a message to Bob’s switch which has a label that causes the packet to be routed to Charlie then on to Dave.
NOTE: Spaces between bits are for illustration only, switches do not know how many bits of a label are used by any other switch than themselves.
Alice’s original label:
0000000000000000000000000000000000000 0101011 011010 100101101 10111 ^^^^^^^^^-- unused space --^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^-- Bob's discriminator for routing to Charlie.
Bob shifts off his discriminator and applies to the top of the label the bit- reversed discriminator for the Bob->Alice interface.
11001 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 0101011 011010 100101101 ^^^^^-- Bob's discriminator for Alice, bit-reversed. ^^^^^^^^^-- Charlie's discriminator for Dave.
Charlie removes his discriminator and applies the reversed discriminator for sending to Bob then forwards to Dave.
100101101 11001 00000000000000000000000000000000000000 101011 011010 ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^-- Bob's discriminator for Alice (reversed). ^^^^^^-- Dave's discriminator for Elinor. ^-- Charlie discriminator for Bob (reversed).
Supposing Dave cannot forward the packet and needs to send an error, he does not know where Charlie’s discriminator ends and Bob’s begins so he can’t re order them but because they are bit reversed, he can reverse the order by bit reversing the entire label.
010110 110101 00000000000000000000000000000000000000 10011 101101001 ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^-- Charlie'sdiscriminator for Bob. ^-- Bob's discriminator for Alice.
Dave can then send the packet back to Charlie who need not know what it is in order to forward it correctly on to Bob and then to Alice.
When Alice’s router asks Bob’s for the route to Charlie’s router, Bob MUST give a route (
routeBC) which, when shifted left by one less than the position of the most significant set bit in the route from Alice to Bob (
routeAB) and XORd against
routeAB, will yield a route which leads from Alice to Charlie via Bob.
routeAB = 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001011101110101011001 routeBC = 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000110101010101 SHIFT routeBC 0000000000000000000000000000000000110101010101000000000000000000 XOR routeAB 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001011101110101011001 equals routeAC 0000000000000000000000000000000000110101010100011101110101011001 ^-- Overlap bit
cjdns nodes SHOULD use a
01 to reference themselves, therefor Bob’s switch parses
01 and sends the message to his own router. Then crafting a valid answer to Alice’s request for
routeBC is a simple matter of taking Bob’s route to Charlie and flipping the least significant bit (the “overlap bit”). When Alice gets the request, shifts and XORs, she will have a valid route.
Switches MUST NOT apply return path discriminators which are a different length than destination discriminator. In order to add interfaces on the fly without breaking existing routes, they may have discriminators of different lengths but when handling a long destination discriminator from a short source discriminator, the source discriminator MUST be represented using the same number of bits. When sending responses to requests for routes, all responses MUST be at least as long as the discriminator for the node who requested them.
Since label space is most efficiently used when a switch’s largest discriminator is closest to the same size as it’s smallest discriminator, renumbering interfaces is encouraged, especially right after start up when all interfaces have just been registered. However, switches SHOULD NOT re-number more than necessary as it breaks existing routes which run through them.
Packet priority part of an anti-flooding scheme which is based on the observation that innocent traffic is generally balanced while attack traffic is largely biased in one direction. Each switch SHOULD keep a running tab of the total priority which has passed through each interface, increasing it when packets come in and decreasing it when packets go out. If the total priority exceeds a configured amount, switches SHOULD close the offending interface as the other party is likely participating in a DDoS attack. Design and tuning of this function is left up to the implementer, it is imaginable that the priority fields could be used to promote fairness in peering among ISPs or for other purposes but this is clearly a complex function and as such is being left open to experimentation and discovery.
Instead of “find_node” queries, nodes send “fr” queries (short for “find router”) “fr” responses are sent as a string called “rf” rather than “nodes”. “rf” strings are, as with nodes, concatenated ids and network addresses except that the ids are 32 byte public keys and the network addresses are 8 byte switch labels. The 32 byte key which is sent is not the DHT id, the key is hashed using
sha512, the output of which is
sha512 hashed again and the first 15 bytes of this become the node’s id, these 15 bytes with a 0xFC byte prepended also make up the node’s ipv6 address. “get_peers” queries are not used and the “id” value is never sent, node id is calculated as the double sha512 of the node’s public key.
…………….more to come
——————- Some material to fit into the paper somewhere… ——————
RouterModule sends search,
SerializationModule bencodes the structures for the wire,
Ducttape.c takes the packet and gets the public key of the node which it is sending to and gets a CryptoAuth session associated with that key from it’s pool, or creates one if there is none. Packet is cryptoauthed which adds a 4 byte nonce header for all traffic packets or a 120 byte handshake header for the first 2 packets.
Ducttape takes the encrypted packet and applies the ipv6 header to it (if it was a data packet, the ipv6 header would have been copied out of the way before adding the cryptoauth header), the length of the ipv6 header is increased to take into account the cryptoauth header, (this is so the packet could theoretically be handled by commodity routing equipment).
SwitchConnectorModule gets a CryptoAuth session for the router it’s sending to from it’s pool, if there isn’t any, it creates one. The packet is cryptoauthed, protecting the ipv6 header and adding another crypto header (again, 120 bytes unless the handshake is complete in which case it is 4).
Ducttape does not lookup the switch label to forward to because the router module already knows it so Ducttape uses what the router module proscribed.
The Switch sees an incoming packet and, not caring which interface it came from, sends it on to the interface which the bits dictate, shifting and applying the source interface as it is sent. When the packet exits through a UDP based interface, the UDPInterface chooses a CryptoAuth session which corrisponds to the destination IP address, this time the packet is encrypted and authenticated, adding either 20 bytes for traffic or 136 bytes for a handshake packet.
There are 5 types of CryptoAuth header:
- “connect to me”
All cryptoAuth headers are 120 bytes long except for the data header which is 4 bytes and the authenticatedData header which is 20 bytes. The first 4 bytes of a CryptoAuth header is used to determine it’s type, if they are zero, it is a “connect to me” header, if they are equal to the obfuscated value of zero or one, it is a handshake1 packet and if they are the obfuscated value of two or three, it is a handshake2 packet. if it is the obfuscated value of a number exceeding three, it is a data or authenticated data packet.
1) “connect to me” packets:
When a node receives a connect to me packet from a node which it does not know, it should establish a session and send back a handshake1 packet, if it already has a session, it should drop the packet silently. The connect to me packet has no useful information except for it’s system state and “Permanent Public Key” field, the rest of the packet should be filled with random.
A handshake1 packet contains an authentication field, a random nonce, the node’s perminent public key, a poly1305 authenticator field, and the temporary public key followed by the content, all encrypted and authenticated using the perminent public keys of the two nodes and the random nonce contained in the packet. The content and temporary key is encrypted using crypto_box_curve25519poly1305xsalsa20() function.
A handshake2 packet likewise contains an authentication field, a random nonce, a perminent public key field (which is not used but still must be present) a poly1305 authenticator, and an encrypted temporary key and content. this time the temporary key and content is encrypted using the perminent key of the sending node and the temporary public key of the other party (which was sent in the handshake1 packet).
4) Data packets
5) Authentication field:
This field allows a node to connect using a password or other shared secret, the authtype subfield specifies how the password should be hashed, the auth- derivations field specifies how many times the shared secret hash function must be run and the authentication hash code is the 5 bytes of the sha256 of the result from the hash function. Auth type of 0 indicates that the node is not offering authentication credentials in the handshake, auth type 1 is a trivial sha256 of the password to create the hash (TODO: improve this). When a client presents authentication credencials, the result of doing the number of derivations given on the password is then appended to the key generated by point multiplication of the public and private keys and sha256’d to generate the shared secret.
This authentication scheme is designed to be resistant to MiTM attacks as well as attacks on the underlying asymmetric cryptography which protects the connection. Basicly it is using a password as what it is, a shared secret. If the auth type field is set to 0, the key generated by scalar multiplication will not be fed to sha256, it will instead be hashed using hsalsa20 as normally used in crypto_box_curve25519xsalsa20. If the A bit (at 14 byte offset) is set, the connection will use poly1305 to authenticate all packets, regardless of whether auth-type is 0.
Barrie Trower is a former Royal Navy Microwave Weapons Expert and former cold-war captured spy debriefer for the UK Intelligence Services. Mr Trower is a conscionable whistle-blower who lectures around the world on hidden dangers from microwave weapons and every-day microwave technologies such as mobile-phones and Wi-Fi. Mr Trower has also repeatedly assisted the UK Police Federation in their struggle to protect police officers from Tetra/Air-Band radio-communications systems that are harmful to health.
He trained at the Governments Microwave Warfare establishment in 60’s and worked with the underwater bomb disposal unit, which used microwaves.
In the 70’s I helped de-brief spies trained in microwave warfare.
Author of the Tetra Report for the Police Federation. I predicted the illnesses, which the officers now complain of. I predicted the illness’s the residents now complain of.
These are illness’s that occurred before my report was published and cannot be psychosomatic.
At a conference in Birmingham I said: “This Government, Industry and Government Scientists will be responsible for more deaths (of civilians) in peace time than all the terrorist organizations ever.” The evidence I have is showing this is correct. I put my money where my mouth is and stand my ground.
It is easy to prove TETRA is not safe. Source
Follow on Facebook