May 1993 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: OUTDIAL SERVICE
by uni＠acs.bu.edu 02 May '93

02 May '93

I don't know if this is consistant with what everyone here is talking about in regards to "outdialing serivce," but some time ago I heard about a 900 number that a person could call, that would redirect their call so as to avoid being traced, etc. Oddly enough, I think they advertised that all the calls are logged and kept in some vault in another state. I may be confusing something here though. (As if this is the case, they've probably gone out of buisness.) ---- ghoast(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu ---- Yeah, I've heard of the system too. They claim they wont let their info out without a court order. I feel that there are a good deal of legal problems with this. It wont take much to get a court order and the ONLY reason worth the 2 bucks or whatever they want to add to what would otherwise be a local call (for caller ID evasion anyhow) would be to avoid legal action of one type or another. I suspect that the calls that go through this system are monitored occasionally too.

1 0

my last post
by 00MYRICHARDS＠leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu 01 May '93

01 May '93

Sorry if I'm just wasting bandwidth here. I just asked if I'd gotten through because I couldn't find any reference to this list on the system and I figured the people at Mondo 2000 probably just made it up. I guess not. Cool. I got a message telling me how to subscribe, so I guess I'll talk to y'all later. -SMR

1 0

Re: OUTDIAL SERVICE
by ghoast＠gnu.ai.mit.edu 01 May '93

01 May '93

I don't know if this is consistant with what everyone here is talking about in regards to "outdialing serivce," but some time ago I heard about a 900 number that a person could call, that would redirect their call so as to avoid being traced, etc. Oddly enough, I think they advertised that all the calls are logged and kept in some vault in another state. I may be confusing something here though. (As if this is the case, they've probably gone out of buisness.) ---- ghoast(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu ----

1 0

Patent fallacies
by wuthel!noisy＠drums.reasoning.com 01 May '93

01 May '93

There seems to be some misunderstanding of how patent protection works. Page numbers in square brackets are references to _Patent_It_Yourself_ by David Pressman (Nolo Press) 2nd edition. Page numbers in angle brackets are to ``Intellectual Property'' by Miller & Davis (West) 2nd edition. CONTRIBUTOR INFRINGEMENT ``If your claims don't read on the infringnid device, but the infringing device is a specially made compenent tha't nly useful in a machine covered by your patent, the ingringer may be liable under the doctrine of `Contributroy infringment' '' [page 15-9] ``If a person actively encourages another to make, user or sell the inventino without permission, the psers so inducing is liable for INDIRECT infringment. CONTRIBUTORY infringment can be commmitted by know selling or supplying a non-stape item for which the only or predominant use is in connecitno with a patented invention.'' <130> ``Contributory infringement can occur only in connection with a SALE . . . Thus, a contributory infringer can be liable for infringment even though what he has sold is completey i the public domain and has no patent protection itself.'' <131> HOME INFRINGEMENT ``While 'home infrignement' may be difficult to detect, nevertheless it is a form in infringment which is legally actionable and can subject the infringer to paying damages and/or an injunction prohibiting futher infringement '' [page 15-12] ''A patenet ahs the EXCLUSIVE right to MAKE, USE or SELL the invention. 35 SUCA Par 154 <128> .... The owner of a patent ... has the right to exclude all others from using ... it. SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT IS OK ``. . . a patent owner is not prejudiced by the fact that antoher infringer has prodcuded the item without notice of the paten even though a later second infrigner could legitimately claim that he copies an unmarked product.'' <129> /w

1 0

Crytography
by x62727g2＠usma8.USMA.EDU 01 May '93

01 May '93

I thought this list was supposed to have a lot of technical stuff--something on the order of disseminating new ideas on the cutting edge of crypto-technology. Most everything I see these days seems purely political. If there are problems with RSA v. PGP or the Wiretap Chip (and there definitely are!!!) then we should concentrate on designing our own. We can do things like redesign and code the engine in PGP which is normally handled by the RSA proprietary code and we can work to come up with voice encryption alternatives to the Wiretap chip. In other words, let's start using resources other than talk. Talk is cheap but actions are the catalysts of change. I am interested in working with people (perhaps you) on projects involving crypto, computers, and telecommunications. If any of you are serious enough to do more than talk, perhaps we can organize a team to vigorously pursue these projects. Anthony J. Gatlin |-------------------------------------| Cadet Private, Co. G-2 |PGP Public Key available on request. | United States Military Academy |-------------------------------------|

2 1

hello
by 00MYRICHARDS＠leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu 01 May '93

01 May '93

Have I managed to reach you? (If so, please reply.)

1 0

clipper poll
by phr＠america.Telebit.COM 01 May '93

01 May '93

Date: Sat, 1 May 93 08:28:04 PDT From: wuthel!brand(a)drums.reasoning.com (Russell Brand) To: brand(a)drums.reasoning.com Subject: CLIPPER POLL please propigate this to like minded people I am one of the many concerned computer scientists opposing the `Clipper Chip Initiative' that would waste the better part of eight billion dollars, interfere with individual privacy, promote harassment of individuals, threaten US competiveness and in fact simplify many types of criminal activity. It is important to take this opportunity to show the level of public opposition to this extension of domestic spying and abuse of government funds. Given the congressional vote to allow even more telephone taps WITHOUT warrents earlier this month, this is even a more pressing issue than it would otherwise be. Of course you should show your opposition in other ways as well, but this is a FREE and EZ first step. If you aren't sufficiently familiar with the issues, please feel free to send me email on the topic /Russell Communications Week magazine has a weekly telephone response poll. This week's question is: Do you agree with the Clinton administration's Public Encryption Management directive for communications equipment? Yes: 800-242-CWKY No: 800-242-CWKN Excerpted from `Boston Globe' of April 11, 1993, page 16. New England Votes in Congress Roll Call Report Syndicate WASHINGTON - This is how New England members of Congress were recorded on major roll-call votes last week. ... TO EXPAND FBI PHONE ACCESS: By a vote of 367-6, the House sent the Senate a bill expanding the FBI's power to obtain, without court warrants, telephone records and conversations in investigations of international terrorism and espionage. The bill grants the FBI access in such investigations to information on unlisted numbers that phone companies cannot now divulge. It also enables FBI counterintelligence agents to obtain a broader range of telephone conversations involving suspected terrorists and spies. A yes vote was to pass the bill. ..

1 0

clipper and public key
by Eric Hughes 01 May '93

01 May '93

Tim mentions that the Clipper chip requires public key in order to be useful. This is not quite right. The clipper chip is only a symmetric-keyed block cipher with a peculiar (and condemnable) key setup feature. the chip _per se_ does not involved public key. The problem is that you have to get the same key on both end of the link without transmitting it. There is a "public key" way of doing this: Diffie-Hellman key exchange. That would require licensing from RSADSI. This is not, however, the only way to do this. If you have a symmetric cipher and a secret system key not known to the participants, i.e. embedded in hardware, then you can also transmit a session key simply by encrypting it. Of course if you know the system key then you can read the traffic, LEEF's aside. Such a system master key could fairly easily be discovered, unless it's burned into the chip by the manufacturer and the secret ends there. (Yeah, right) Hence in order for a reasonably (?) secure implementation of a telephone which uses the clipper chip, D-H seems to be necessary. In fact, the AT&T 3600 phone does use D-H for key exchange. Some have asked how come AT&T doesn't get sued by RSADSI. Easy: they're a licensee. In summary: Does clipper require public key? In itself, no. In implementation, likely. Eruc

1 0

Re: Tough Choices: PGP vs. RSA Data Security
by Sy Verpunc 01 May '93

01 May '93

A better course of action might be to remove the RSA engine from PGP and distribute the source code, and a binary for free, but require users to pay $30-50 to RSA to get the source code and binary for the RSA engine. Thats what people have *always wanted* to do. RSA won't let them. That's why any talk of a newer friendlier Bizdos is bullshit. G

5 4

Re: validity of the RSA patent
by markh＠wimsey.bc.ca 01 May '93

01 May '93

> > Consider use of another public key encryption scheme, say LUC encryption. > > Which, of course, is patent-pending. It appears that we can no more > make progress in cryptography in the face of algorithm patents than > we could advance mathematics under the burden of theorem licensing. > We can't afford to wait until 2001. On the other hand, perhaps the patent holder of LUC would be willing to licence LUC for use in a PGP-like tool (or PGP 3.0) on the same basis IDEA is now licenced to PGP users. (i.e. non-commerical use is OK. Even certain commercial use is OK.) This might solve a lot of our problems. Has anybody asked? I can't be the first person to have considered asking. Mark -- Mark Henderson markh(a)wimsey.bc.ca RIPEM key available by key server/finger/E-mail MD5OfPublicKey: F1F5F0C3984CBEAF3889ADAFA2437433

1 0