October 2000 - cypherpunks-legacy

CDR: Stamp's news from Worldspain Online S,L,
by publicidad＠worldspain.com 21 Oct '00

21 Oct '00

1 0

CDR: KJOC lists anarchy symbol with occult
by anonymous＠openpgp.net 21 Oct '00

21 Oct '00

1 0

CDR: New crypto regs?
by Anonymous 21 Oct '00

21 Oct '00

[http://www.pscu.com/Newsbytes/2000/156920.html] New Encryption Regulations Take Effect On Today October 19, 2000 By Brian Krebs, Newsbytes. WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A., Published By Newsbytes News Network In the final step toward matching the European Union's recent liberalization of rules governing the export of encryption products, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Export Administration has published a final rule allowing the export of encryption products of any strength to 15 EU nations and eight other trading partners. The announcement cements changes proposed in July, when the Clinton administration said it would relax laws governing the export of powerful encryption technologies to allow exports of all information-scrambling products to any end user in the European Union, as well as Australia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland. The move, designed to match recent shifts in encryption export policy for EU nations, also eliminates the 30-day waiting period that had been imposed on companies exporting encryption goods to EU nations and other trading partners. Instead, companies will now be required to submit a "commodity classification request," and will be allowed to ship products without waiting for a review from federal regulators. Previously, companies could export "retail" - or off-the-shelf - encryption products to nearly any country, except those labeled as terrorist or high-risk nations, such as China and Russia. But for exports of non-retail products, US companies had been required to obtain a license before they can export to the governments of any other country. By contrast, the EU allows companies in its member states to export encryption products without a license to a set list of 25 countries, and makes no distinction as to whether the end-user is a government or non-governmental entity. The new encryption regulations to take effect today eliminate the end user, retail and non-retail considerations for encryption exports destined for roughly 23 common trading partners. For more information on the published regulations, visit http://www.bxa.doc.gov/Encryption/Default.htm Reported by Newsbytes, http://www.newsbytes.com 11:57 CST Reposted 13:59 CST (20001019/WIRES ONLINE, PC, LEGAL, BUSINESS/ENCRYP/PHOTO)

1 0

None
by anonymous＠openpgp.net 21 Oct '00

21 Oct '00

Subject: Photograph alteration CPUNK Last week a <NOECHELON>cannabis legalisation activist</NOECHELON> handed a posy of said plant, wrapped as if it had been bought in a florists' shop to Her Majesty the Queen. HRH accepted it as just another bunch of flowers, and the photographs hit the newsstands the next morning. As expected, all the papers had a different spin. However, none of the front page photographs showed a plant with flower. It would make no sense to hand HRH a handful of ugly weeds, and the guy who claimed responsibility referred to it as 'a pretty yellow flower'. This sent my bullshit meter into overdrive. Had the photos been doctored to distort the message of the <NOECHELON>activist?</NOECHELON> or merely "pruned" by the editor for one that doesn't advertise such horticulture to the masses? Is there anyone on the internet who is actively tracking forged/spun photographs, Photopunks if you will? I remember the storm here over *that* Elian pic. Perhaps this is in Declan's sphere of interest? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/

1 0

Re: RC4 - To license or not?
by Vin McLellan 21 Oct '00

21 Oct '00

Stefan Arentz <stefan.arentz(a)soze.com> wrote: > [...] I do not want to buy a complete BSAFE license. > It is too expensive and I only need RC4. This is apparently a common misconception -- at least it keeps popping up among people discussing WAP, SSL, CDPD, and PPTP-compatible products, even IEEE-compatible embedded systems -- so (in the spirit of All Souls Day) I thought to double back and post a correction here. Boo! If your business plan (or your boss, or your investors, or your customers, etc.) requires, or makes it useful and valuable, for your firm to license RSA-branded RC4 implementation code -- as opposed using to one of the many copyleft "ARC4" implementations in wide circulation -- you should ask RSA for a quote on a RC4 license for your intended app. <shriek> RSA licenses RC4 code separately, upon request. Always has, AFAIK. (RC4 is, of course, MIT Professor Ron Rivest's widely trusted, widely adopted, defacto standardized, variable key-length stream cipher. "RC" was initially only Rivest's personal designation for crypto project in development, as in "Ron's Code." The best known Rivest ciphers are RC2, RC4, RC5, and RC6. (RC4 was reverse engineered and anonymously published on the Net in September, 1994. The same thing subsequently happened to RC2. RSA Security, the company Rivest co-founded to market the RSA public key cryptosystem and his other cryptographic wares, later chose to patent RC5 and RC6. Patents for crypto remain controversial, at least on the Net.) The idea of paying to use a cryptosystem -- and particularly Rivest's RC4 -- is scary, heretical, and painful to some... but others reportedly find RSA's BSAFE implementation code stable and dependable, and RSA's prices and T&Cs reasonable and flexible. YMMV, but RSA does a huge business selling "high assurance" code to OEMs and other firms seeking to implement various crypto protocols and both proprietary and public ciphersuites. See: <http://www.rsasecurity.com/standards/protocols/protocols_table.html> Trick or treat? Apparently, even among IT professionals, it is necessary <sigh> to occasionally announce that RSA does NOT require an OEM or an enterprise customer to license all the BSAFE ciphers and protocols -- there are, mind you, eight distinct and specialized BSAFE crypto toolkits from RSA -- when all a poor Developer wants is RC4. Such is the depth of the FUD piled up around RC4 -- like tinder and faggots stacked at the feet of a condemned witch no one hates enough to burn. Goblins, gallows, and gibbets, oh yeah! (All Hallows Eve is celebrated in the US as Halloween, an annual children's festival held after dark on the last day of October. Children who participate are urged to distinguish between horrors that are real and unreal. The participation of adults in the rituals, unfortunately, is frowned upon.) RC4 has become doubly famous as "the cipher none dare name." Clank, rattle, clink in the Crypt. Oh yeah! While many can now copy the robust simplicity of Rivest's RC4 logic -- and ARC4 ("Apparently RC4") code is widely deployed -- RSA still claims and defends its registered "RC4" trademark (and the copyright on its BSAFE implementation code.) Which is, of course, why RSA-branded RC4 code is still so often bought and sold. <shrieks & screams> Personally, I don't think that is demonic or even undeserved -- but then, I'm biased. I've been a consultant to RSA for years. (And I'm a wicca'd man at heart. I think the poor witches got a bad rap from all the jealous priests.) Happy Halloween, _Vin Vin McLellan * The Privacy Guild * Chelsea, MA USA

1 0

CDR: Hey!
by Karen 21 Oct '00

21 Oct '00

Dear Friend, Thanks for your time and interest, this e-mail contains the ENTIRE PLAN of how YOU can earn a whole lot of money in the next 90-120 days by simply sending e-mail! Seem impossible? Just read on and see how easy it really is. . . This really works! Have the faith, don't miss this opportunity, get involved also and it will work for you as it does for us!!! Due to the popularity of this letter on the Internet, a major nightly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of the program described below to see if it really can make people money. The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal. Their findings proved that there are absolutely no laws prohibiting participation in the program. This has helped to show people that this is a simple, harmless and fun way to make some extra money at home on the Internet. The results have been truly remarkable. So many people are participating that those involved are doing much better than ever before. Since everyone makes more as new people try it out, its been very exciting to say the least. You'll understand completely once you try it for yourself! **********THE ENTIRE PLAN IS HERE BELOW********** ----------Print This Now For Future Reference---------- $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ If you would like to earn at least $50,000 in less than 120 days, please read this program. . . THEN READ IT AGAIN!!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ THIS IS A LEGITIMATE, LEGAL, MONEY MAKING OPPORTUNITY!!! E-mail is the sales tool of the future. Take advantage of this virtually free method of advertising NOW!!! The longer you wait, the more people will be doing business ahead of you using e-mail. Get your piece of this action NOW!!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ TESTIMONIAL Hello - My name is Johnathon Rourke, I'm from Rhode Island. The enclosed information is something I almost let slip through my fingers. Fortunately, sometime later I re-read everything and gave some thought and study to it. Two years ago, the corporation I worked for the past twelve years down-sized and my position was eliminated. After unproductive job interviews, I decided to open my own business. Over the past year, I incurred many unforeseen financial problems. I owed my family, friends and creditors over $35,000. The economy was taking a toll on my business and I just couldn't seem to make ends meet. I had to refinance and borrow against my home to support my family and struggling business. AT THAT MOMENT something significant happened in my life. I am writing to share the experience in hopes that this could change your life FOREVER TOO. In mid December, I received this program in my e-mail. Six months prior to receiving this program I had been sending away for information on various business opportunities. All of the programs I received, in my opinion, were not cost effective. They were either too difficult for me to comprehend or the initial investment was too much for me to risk to see if they would work. But as I was saying, in December of 1997 I received this program via e-mail. I didn't send for it, or ask for it, they just got my name off a mailing list of some kind. THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT!!! After reading it several times, to make sure I was reading it correctly. I couldn't believe my eyes! Here was a MONEY MAKING MACHINE I could start immediately without any debt. Like most of you I was still a little skeptical and a little worried about the legal aspects of it all. So I checked it out with the U.S. Post Office - 1 (800) 725-2161, 24-hrs and they confirmed that it is indeed not illegal to participate in the program. After that I decided "WHY NOT!?!?!??." Initially I sent out 10,000 e-mails. It cost me about $15 for my time on-line. The great thing about e-mail is that I don't need any money for printing to send out the program, and because I also send the product (reports) by e-mail, my only expense is my time. In less than one week, I was starting to receive orders for REPORT #1. By January 13, I had received 26 orders for REPORT #1. Your goal is to RECEIVE at least 20 orders for REPORT #1 within 2 weeks. If you don't - SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO. My first step in making $50,000 in 90-120 days was done. By January 30, I had received 196 orders for REPORT #2. Your goal is to RECEIVE at least 100 + orders for REPORT #2 within 2 weeks. If not - SEND OUT MORE PROGRAMS UNTIL YOU DO! Once you have 100 orders, the rest is easy, relax, you will make your $50,000 goal! Well I had 196 orders for REPORT #2, 96 more than I needed. So I sat back and relaxed. By March 1, of my e-mailing of 10,000, I received $58,000 with more coming in every day. I paid off ALL MY DEBTS and bought a much needed new car! Please take the time to read this plan - IT WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE FOREVER$!!! Now remember, it can't work if you don't try it. This program does work, but you must follow it EXACTLY, especially the rules of not trying to place your name in a different place. It won't work and you'll lose out on a lot of money! In order for this program to work, you must meet your goal of 20 + orders for REPORT #1, and 100 + orders for REPORT #2 and you will make $50,000 or more in the first 90-120 days. I AM LIVING PROOF THAT IT WORKS!!! If you choose not to participate in this program, I am sorry for you, it really is a great opportunity with little cost and no risk to you. If you choose to participate, follow the program exactly and you will be on your way to financial security. If your a fellow business owner and are in financial trouble like I was, or you just want to start your own business, consider this a sign. I DID! $$ Sincerely, Johnathon Rourke ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ A PERSONAL NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM: By the time you have read the enclosed program and reports, you should have concluded that such a program, and one that is legal, could not have been created by an amateur. Let me tell you a little about what happened to me. I had a profitable business for 10 years. Then in 1979 my business began falling off. I was doing the same things that were previously successful for me, but it wasn't working. Finally, I figured it out. It wasn't me, it was the economy. Inflation and recession had replaced the stable economy that had been with us since 1945. I don't have to tell you what happened to the unemployment rate... because many of you know from first hand experience. There were more failures and bankruptcies than ever before. The middle class was vanishing. Those who knew what they were doing invested wisely and moved up. Those who did not, including those who never had anything to save or invest, were moving down into the ranks of the poor. As the saying goes, "THE RICH GET RICHER AND THE POOR GET POORER." The traditional methods of making money will never allow you to "move up" or "get rich." Inflation will see to that. You have just received information that can give you financial freedom for the rest of your life, with "NO RISK" and "JUST A LITTLE BIT OF EFFORT." You can make more money in the next few months and following years than you have ever imagined. I should also point out that I will not see a penny of this money, nor anyone else who has provided a testimonial for this program. I have retired from the program after sending thousands and thousands of programs. Follow the program EXACTLY AS INSTRUCTED. Do not change it in any way. It works exceedingly well as it is now. Remember to e-mail a copy of this exciting report to everyone you can think of. One of the people you send this to may send out 50,000... and your name will be on every one of them! Remember though, the more you send out, the more potential customers you will reach. Just follow the instructions, and you will make money. It does NOT require you to come into contact with people or make or take any telephone calls. This simplified e-mail marketing program works perfectly 100% EVERY TIME!!! HERE'S HOW THIS AMAZING PROGRAM WILL MAKE YOU THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS$$$$!!!! I am sure that you could use up to $50,000 or more in the next 90-120 days. Before you say "BULL. . ." Please read this program carefully. This is not a chain letter but a perfectly legal money making business. As with all multilevel businesses, we build our business by recruiting new partners and selling our products. Every state in the USA allows you to recruit new multilevel business partners, and we sell and deliver a product for EVERY dollar received. YOUR ORDERS COME BY MAIL AND ARE FILLED BY E-MAIL, so you are not involved in personal selling. You do it privately in your own home, store or office. This is the EASIEST marketing plan anywhere! It is simply order filling by e-mail! The product is informational and instructional material, keys to the secrets for everyone on how to open the doors to the magic world of E-COMMERCE, the information highway, the wave of the future! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ P L A N S U M M A R Y : (1) You order the 4 reports listed below - $5 (US) each. They come to you by e-mail. (2) Save a copy of this entire letter and put your name after Report #1 and move the other names down. (3) Via the Internet, access Yahoo.com or any of the other major search engines to locate hundreds of bulk e-mail service companies (search for "bulk e-mail") and have them send 25,000 - 50,000 e-mails for you - about ($49+). (4) Orders will come to you by postal mail - simply e-mail them the Report they ordered. Let me ask you - isn't this about as easy as it gets? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ Oh, by the way, there are over 50 MILLION e-mail addresses with millions more joining the Internet each year, so don't worry about "running out" or "saturation." People are used to seeing and hearing the same advertisements every day on the radio and TV. How many times have you received the same pizza flyers on your door step? Then one day you are hungry for pizza and you order one. Same thing with this program. I received this letter many times - then one day I decided it was time I tried it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ YOU CAN START TODAY - JUST DO THESE EASY STEPS: STEP #1. ORDER THE FOUR REPORTS Order the four reports shown on the list below (you can't sell them if you don't order them). For each report, send $5 (US) CASH, the NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS, and YOUR NAME & RETURN ADDRESS (in case of a post office delivery problem) to the person whose name appears on the list below the report. MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE IN CASE OF ANY MAIL PROBLEMS! Within a few days you will receive, via e-mail each of the four reports. Save them on your computer so you can send them to the 1,000's of new prospects who will order them from you. STEP #2 ADD YOUR MAILING ADDRESS TO THIS LETTER a. Look below for the listing of the four reports. b. After you've ordered the four reports, delete the name and address under REPORT #4. This person has made it through the cycle. c. Move the name and address under REPORT #3 down to REPORT #4. d. Move the name and address under REPORT #2 down to REPORT #3. e. Move the name and address under REPORT #1 down to REPORT #2. F. Insert your name and address in the REPORT #1 position. Please make sure you COPY ALL INFORMATION, every name and address, ACCURATELY! STEP #3 SAVE THIS LETTER Take this entire letter, including the modified list of names and save it to your computer. Make NO changes to these instructions. Now you are ready to use this entire e-mail to send via e-mail to new prospects. Report #1 will tell you how to download bulk e-mail software and e-mail addresses so you can send it out to thousands of new prospects while you sleep! Remember that 50,000 + new people are joining the Internet every month. Your cost to participate in this is practically nothing - surely you can afford $20 (US) and initial bulk mailing cost. You obviously already have a computer and an Internet connection and e-mail is FREE! PRIMARY METHODS OF BUILDING YOUR DOWNLINE: METHOD #1 SENDING BULK E-MAIL Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes and we'll presume you and all those involved e-mail out only 2,000 programs each. Let's also presume that the mailing receives a (0.5%) response. The response could be much better. Also, many people will e-mail out hundreds of thousands of programs instead of just 2,000 - why stop at 2,000? But continuing with this example, you send out only 2,000 programs. With a (0.5% ) response, that is only 10 orders for REPORT #1. Those 10 people respond by sending out 2,000 programs each for a total of 20,000. Out of those (0.5%) 100 people respond and order REPORT #2. Those 100 mail out 2,000 programs each for a total of 200,000 total. The (0.5%) response to that is 10,000 orders for REPORT #4. That's 10,000 FIVE DOLLAR BILLS for you. CASH!!! Your total income in this example is $50 + $500 + $5,000 + $50,000 for a total of $55,550. REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING 1,990 OUT OF THE 2,000 PEOPLE YOU E-MAIL TO WILL DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AND TRASH THIS PROGRAM! DARE TO THINK FOR A MOMENT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF EVERYONE, OR HALF SENT OUT 100,000 PROGRAMS INSTEAD OF JUST 2,000. You can believe many people will do just that, and more!!! METHOD #2 PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET Advertising on the Internet is very, very inexpensive, and there are HUNDREDS of FREE places to advertise. Let's say you decide to start small just to see how well it works. Presume your goal is to get ONLY 10 people to participate on your first level. (Placing a lot of FREE ads on the Internet will EASILY get a larger response.) Also, assume that everyone else in YOUR ORGANIZATION gets ONLY 10 downline members. Look how this small number accumulates to achieve the STAGGERING results below: ... 1st level - your first 10 send you $5 $50 ... 2nd level - 10 members from those 10 ($5 X 100) $500 ... 3rd level - 10 members from those 100 ($5 X 1,000) $5,000 ... 4th level - 10 members from those 1000 ($5 X 10,000) 50,000 $$$$$$$$$$ THIS TOTALS -------$55,550 $$$$$$$$$$ AMAZING ISN'T IT? Remember friends, this assumes that the people who participate only recruit 10 new people each. Think for a moment what would happen if they got 20 people to participate! Most people get 100's of participants and many will continue to work this program, sending out programs WITH YOUR NAME ON THEM for years!!! JUST THINK ABOUT IT!!! People are going to get e-mails about this program from you or somebody else and many will work this plan. The question is, don't you want your name to be on the e-mails they will send out? "You can't win the lotto unless you have a ticket." ***DON'T MISS OUT!!! *** JUST TRY IT ONCE!!! *** **SEE WHAT HAPPENS!!! ** YOU'LL BE AMAZED!!!** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ GET STARTED TODAY - PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THE FOUR REPORTS NOW. Notes: ALWAYS SEND $5 CASH (U.S. CURRENCY) FOR EACH REPORT. CHECKS NOT ACCEPTED. Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in two sheets of paper. On one of those sheets of paper write: a) the number & name of the report you are ordering b) your e-mail address, and c) your name & postal address. REPORT #1 "The Insider´s Guide to Advertising for Free on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #1 FROM: Karen Burmeister PO Box 520049 Longwood, FL 32752-0049 REPORT #2 "The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk E-mail on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #2 FROM: Richard A. Endicott W 180 Insels Rd. Shelton, Wa 98584 REPORT# 3 " The secrets of Multilevel Marketing on the Internet" ORDER REPORT #3 FROM: JIM G. BURGESS 14830 OLDE HWY.80 FLINN SPRINGS, CA 92021-2807 REPORT #4 "How to become a Millionaire utilizing the Power of Multilevel Marketing and the Internet" ORDER REPORT #4 FROM: Lars Pedersen Skejbygaardsvej 7, 1, 10 8240 Risskov Denmark **********TIPS FOR SUCCESS ********** TREAT THIS AS YOUR BUSINESS! Be prompt, professional, and follow the directions accurately. Send for the four reports IMMEDIATELY so you will have them when the orders start coming in because, when you receive a $5 order, you MUST send out the requested product/report. It is required for this program to qualify as a legal business, not to mention they need the reports to send out their letters (with your name on them!) ALWAYS PROVIDE SAME-DAY SERVICE ON THE ORDERS YOU RECEIVE. Be patient and persistent with this program - If you follow the instructions exactly - SUCCESSFUL results will follow.. $$$$$ ********** YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES ********** Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: If you don't receive 20 orders for REPORT #1 within two weeks, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Then, a couple of weeks later you should receive at least 100 orders for REPORT #2. If you don't continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do. Once you have received 100 or more orders for REPORT #2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you, and the cash will continue to roll in! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER; Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a DIFFERENT report. You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which reports people are ordering from you. To generate more income simply send another batch of e-mails or continue placing ads and start the whole process again! There is no limit to the income you will generate from this business! ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? Before you make your decision as to whether or not you participate in this program, please answer one question, ARE YOU HAPPY WITH YOUR PRESENT INCOME OR JOB? If the answer is NO, then please look at the following facts about this super simple MLM program: ... 1. NO face to face selling, NO meetings, NO inventory! NO telephone calls, NO big cost to start, NOTHING to learn, NO skills needed! (Surely you know how to send e-mail?) ... 2. No equipment to buy - you already have a computer and Internet connection - so you have everything you need to fill orders! ... 3. You are selling a product which DOES NOT COST ANYTHING TO PRODUCE OR SHIP! (e-mailing copies of the reports is FREE!) ... 4. All of your customers pay you in CA$H! This program will change your LIFE FOREVER!!! Look at the potential for you to be able to quit your job and live a life of luxury you could only dream about! Imagine getting out of debt and buying the car and home of your dreams and being able to work a super high paying leisurely easy business from home! $$$$$ FINALLY MAKE SOME DREAMS COME TRUE! $$$$$ ACT NOW! Take your first step toward achieving financial independence and personal freedom for you & your family. Order the reports and follow the program outlined above - SUCCESS will be your reward. PLEASE NOTE: If you need help with starting a business, registering a business name, learning how income tax is handled, etc., contact your local office of the Small Business Administration (a Federal Agency) at 1 (800) 827-5722 for free help and answers to questions. Also, the Internal Revenue Service offers free help via telephone and free seminars about business tax requirements. Your earnings are highly dependent on your activities and advertising. The information contained in this program constitutes no guarantees stated nor implied. In the event that it is determined that this program constitutes a guarantee of any kind, that guarantee is now void. The earnings amounts listed in this program are estimated only. If you have any questions of the legality of this program, contact the Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection in Washington, DC. ================================================== Under Bill s. 1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th US Congress this letter cannot be considered spam as long as the sender includes contact information and a method of removal. This is a one time e-mail transmission. No request for removal is necessary.

1 0

CDR: IP: Zero-Knowledge Conference on Privacy Compliance & Business
by R. A. Hettinga 21 Oct '00

21 Oct '00

--- begin forwarded text

1 0

CDR: Are your bills too high?...we can help!!!
by theboyz24＠zeststore.com 21 Oct '00

21 Oct '00

1 0

CDR: anonymous e-money
by McMeikan, Andrew 21 Oct '00

21 Oct '00

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I posted a story on K5 http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2000/10/19/55737/381 and seemed to ignor some legal points (like money laundering). If anyone has any comments I would like to hear them. cya, Andrew... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBOfD7HkAhpS53eUNhEQLjrACfTdYwZ7rjnxOBSVz5qRss2FNhcq0AoIn/ cg8D60j1zbGZZOUKJLSlxiKF =XCRn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information transmitted is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, copying or other use of, or taking any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your system. Utility Services Corporation (USC) is not responsible for any changes made to the material other than those made by USC or for the effect of the changes on the meaning of the material.

1 0

CDR: Congressmen spar over police administrative subpoena-snooping bill
by Declan McCullagh 21 Oct '00

21 Oct '00

[Also Rep. Bill McCollum, hardly a friend of privacy, has been defending it in the House. --Declan] http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/20/2341243&mode=nested Congressmen Duel Over Police Snooping Bill posted by cicero on Friday October 20, @11:31PM from the with-friends-like-these dept. Privacy defenders and privacy invaders spent this week sparring over a bill called the Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000. Already approved by the Senate, it's set to be voted on by the House shortly. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the wiretap-happy senator who likes to pose as an occasional friend of civil liberties, is a sponsor, as is Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican who's been trying to buff his image among geeks. Rep. Bob Barr (R-Georgia) may be on a campaign to ban abortion and indict Democrats, but at least he's usually a reliable ally when limiting government surveillance; he opposes the measure. The bill would allow police to obtain records on you from third parties (think ISP, telephone company) without a search warrant. It's designed to be used against violent criminals, but it sets a dangerous precedent. See letters below. Letters from Barr opposing and McCollum supporting: http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/20/2341243&mode=nested

1 0

CDR: Word.
by George＠Orwellian.Org 21 Oct '00

21 Oct '00

Of course all of us knew this. The article is good for explaining to non-technical friends. http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB972002214791170991.htm October 20, 2000 Electronic Form of 'Invisible Ink' Inside Files May Reveal Secrets By MICHAEL J. MCCARTHY Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ST. PAUL, Minn. -- For weeks this summer, Mike Ciresi's campaign staff was baffled by a strange series of e-mail messages slamming the U.S. Senate candidate. Sent to Minnesota Democratic Party officials, the messages were signed by a Katie Stevens. But after a failed attempt to track her down, Mr. Ciresi's staff began to suspect foul play. The first e-mail, which arrived in May, impugned the candidate's ethics and those of his Minneapolis law firm. It was accompanied by six pages of court cases, citations and footnotes. The attachments convinced Mr. Ciresi's staff that the e-mail was part of a well-funded "opposition research" effort. But two months and three negative e-mails later, his staff still had nothing to go on. Then in July, one tenacious Ciresi aide, playing a hunch, made a few mouse clicks and uncovered an intriguing clue: hidden text that seemed to link the e-mail to the campaign of the Republican incumbent. Tracking the Metadata It turns out there's more than meets the eye in the average word-processing document. A typical Microsoft Word file, for example, can include the author's name, the name of his or her company, the names of each person who has worked on the document and, depending on the options selected, deleted text and other revisions, all hidden from view, as if written in invisible ink. That's because Word, the dominant word-processing software, contains a lot of what Microsoft Corp. calls "metadata," information that doesn't appear on a user's screen simply because commands in the file tell computer monitors and printers to ignore it. But a savvy reader can peek at much of this behind-the-scenes fiddling by using widely available text-reader programs, such as Notepad, or by simply selecting the right word-processing options. Sometimes, depending on a computer's settings, Word revisions that weren't at all visible to the writer are obvious to the recipient. And when those documents get zapped through cyberspace as e-mail attachments, the inside information they contain can set the sender up for embarrassment or worse. 'Highlight Changes' One such e-mail snafu in Seattle sent both parties scrambling for fixes. In late 1998, Payne Consulting Group received an e-mail that included an attached contract prepared for it by its law firm, Davis Wright Tremaine. By clicking on the "highlight changes" option, Payne and the law firm say, Payne could clearly see revisions that revealed the contract had originally been drafted for another Davis Wright client. The law firm quickly devised security procedures for removing hidden text from its files. Payne, meanwhile, developed a free program called Metadata Assistant to purge any unseen, unwanted information from documents. The program can be downloaded from the firm's Web site, www.payneconsulting (www.payneconsulting.com) One reason Payne doesn't charge for it: "We can't guarantee everything is stripped out," says Robert Affleck, vice president of development. "The big concern is that people are sending around things they don't know they're sending around," says Steve McDonald, associate legal counsel at Ohio State University, who teaches a class in cyberspace law. Microsoft has "gotten few customer complaints" about the problem, says Lisa Gurry, a product manager for Microsoft Office. But she adds that those will be addressed in late spring in the next version of Microsoft Office, which will include a "privacy option" to allow a Word document's author to "remove all personal information with the click of one button and be warned if you're saving tracked changes and comments." For now, Microsoft offers a nine-page article through its Web site on "How to Minimize Metadata in Microsoft Word Documents." It was this kind of data that gave Ciresi campaign aides the first break in their investigation of the e-mails plaguing their candidate. The first in the series, titled "Who Is Michael Ciresi?", arrived May 19. It described the clients of law firm Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi as "a rogues' gallery of polluters, price fixers, tortfeasors, predators, civil-rights violators and frauds." A second searing e-mail arrived just before Minnesota Democrats convened in early June to endorse a candidate in the state's senatorial race. A third followed. Then, a fourth. "I was getting so frustrated trying to figure out where these came from," recalls Mark Hinds, the campaign's deputy field director. But as he sat thinking at his desk in the Democratic Party's offices here in early July, a light bulb clicked on. Mr. Hinds suddenly recalled how at a previous job he used to sort Word documents by using keywords and names in the program's "properties" box. With that in mind, he clicked on the Word attachment to the fourth and latest e-mail, OIL SPILL LOBBYISTS.doc. The properties box, which he found by using Word's file menu, instantly showed that the document was created July 8 and was "Last Saved by: Chris Gunhus." His thoughts immediately turned to Christine Gunhus, the political director and former chief of staff for Sen. Rod Grams, the Republican Mr. Ciresi had been hoping to unseat. "Come here, you gotta see this," Mr. Hinds says he called out to fellow campaign workers, who gathered around his computer. They started searching through the previous e-mails. The first one said "Last Saved by: Kinko's Customer" and listed "gunhus" as the author. They found other names and more dates and times that the documents had been created and stored. The Ciresi campaign alerted local authorities to its discoveries, which were first reported by the Minneapolis Star Tribune. The campaign alleged that the masquerade wasn't just a political dirty trick but a possible misdemeanor. A Minnesota law, which was designed to discourage anonymous attacks on politicians, requires those involved in election campaigns to disclose that fact in any political literature they prepare or distribute. The law exempts individuals who spend less than $300 on their activities and observe certain other limits. By late August, the Anoka County attorney's office had amassed enough evidence to persuade a judge to let it seize two computers and nine computer disks from Ms. Gunhus's Ham Lake, Minn., home. Asked if Ms. Gunhus was involved in writing or editing any of the e-mails under investigation, Doug Kelley, her attorney, wouldn't comment. "In the long run," he says, "she will be found not to have violated any laws." Ms. Gunhus declined to be interviewed. Sen. Grams's campaign denies that it produced or authorized the e-mails. But after discovering the names tucked deep inside the e-mail messages, Bob Decheine, the Ciresi campaign manager, believes otherwise. "We think we have found a smoking gun," he says. County investigators, however, proceeded carefully, after learning that anyone could easily have framed Ms. Gunhus by entering her name in the properties box. "I could put in that 'William Shakespeare' is the author," says Bryan Lindberg, the assistant attorney leading the inquiry. But then, Mr. Lindberg says, his team uncovered a more substantive link. Subpoenaed phone and Internet-access records linked the "Katie Stevens" Hotmail account used to send the attack e-mails to a Kinko's document-processing center and a phone line listed as belonging to Ms. Gunhus's home, according to an affidavit filed by the county attorney's office as part of its search-warrant request. "The telephone number back to the Gunhus residence in Ham Lake gave us the probable cause to look at her computers," Mr. Lindberg says. Mr. Ciresi lost his state's Democratic primary last month. The investigation into the e-mail messages continues.

3 2

CDR: Save on your TAXES!
by sdoggg＠msn.com 20 Oct '00

20 Oct '00

I have saved thousands on my taxes with this enterprise, and now you can too! For more information call 415-273-6123 Call TODAY! the longer you wait the more you lose.

1 0

CDR: It's all property, folks (was Re: Insurance (was: why
by David Honig 20 Oct '00

20 Oct '00

At 07:51 AM 10/20/00 -0400, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: >On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, R. A. Hettinga wrote: > >>My lungs are property. If some one injures them, I have a tort. I don'tt >>even need legislation. > >Well, you are apparently the one doing the damage - who the fuck told you to >breathe in the first place? You *are* paying your Kyoto II Individual Carbon Dioxide Emission Tax to the UN, aren't you?

2 1

Re: Non-Repudiation in the Digital Environment (was Re: First Monday August 2000)
by Bob Jueneman 20 Oct '00

20 Oct '00

Let's put this problem in perspective, and try to avoid the "chicken little, the sky is falling" syndrome. It's quite unlikely that someone would come up with "Eureka!" type of solution to factoring large numbers that would end up completely breaking RSA, or that some way would be found to completely break the integrity of SHA-1. Instead, we would be much more likely to see a nibbling around the edges, and a gradually decreasing confidence in existing algorithms, with more than enough time to replace them. In fact, we have already seen that. MD2 is now deprecated, and MD5 is being pretty widely supplanted by SHA-1. Likewise, DES has been broken and people are recommending that triple-DES be used, and soon AES. And OAEP is recommended to get around some hypothetical million-question attacks. But the sky hasn't fallen, and the sun still comes up in the morning. Even if some catastrophic weakness were somehow revealed that any high school kid could take advantage of with a single PC, there are still checks and balances. The kid still has to have money in the bank to pay for the item, and all of the usual velocity checks, etc. that are used to combat fraud would still be in place and would work. And good old-fashioned detective investigations and forensics would still be applicable. Any good security system has defenses in depth, and is not subject to the balloon-popping problem. that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to make systems be as perfect as possible. But if they aren't (and they never are), that shouldn't be the end of the world as we know it. Let's not invent a hypothetical Y2K problem. Bob Robert R. Jueneman Security Architect Novell, Inc. -- the leading provider of Net services software. >>> Tony Bartoletti <azb(a)llnl.gov> 10/19/00 04:09PM >>> At 04:58 PM 10/19/00 -0400, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote: >>Yes, that is why Tony's remark was somewhat tongue-in-cheek and used >>"solid mathematical foundations" within quotes. > >Eye twinkle doesn't come across in e-mail, I'm afraid. My apologies to >Tony. This is obviously one of my hot buttons. No problem. I often employ a quoted "x" to convey "so-called x", a shortcut that can lead to misunderstandings. >>>It is all hypothesis and empirical argument. A lone >>>mathematician working in his attic could come up with an algorithm >>>that would blow some or all of the existing systems out of the water. >>>Who get to cover that financial risk? >> >>The buyer. CAs (read Verisign's CPS or any CA's CPS, or bank contracts >>and -- above all -- see the US UCC) are not responsible for producing correct >>results but just for using correct methods. Where "correct methods" are >>what others consider correct -- even if they are proved wrong later on >>by a one mathematician working in his attic. > >I'm not sure those contracts would stand up in court if there were massive >public losses due to a collapse of the PKI. (Anyway CA CPS's stretch to >notion of a "mutual agreement" pretty far. I purchase a $10 cert and am >bound by over 100 pages of gobbldygook that only a handful of people on >the planet can be expected to fully understand?) > >But I am less concerned with CA legal liability then with who is left >holding the bag when a massive subversion of the banking system is >perpetrated, and how big that could be. I'll wager the taxpayer/consumer will foot the bill, one way or another. Derivative to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is easier to destroy wealth than it is to create it. So, on average, work/energy is required to create or recreate wealth. The collapse of a future global PKI, or of the integrity of banking transactions, would represent a huge shift from order into chaos, a decoherence of identities and orderliness amounting to a huge destruction of wealth. Recovery thus will require the recreation of wealth, in one form or another. This will require a correspondingly huge input of work. So, who does most of the work, in general? You know the answer ;) ___tony___ Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 <azb(a)llnl.gov> Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore, CA 94551-9900

2 1

CDR: Re: why should it be trusted?
by Gil Hamilton 20 Oct '00

20 Oct '00

Nathan Saper gropes: >On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 01:02:44AM -0400, Steve Furlong wrote: > > Nathan Saper wrote: > > > <<Nathan seems to be arguing that insurance companies should be forced > > to cover people at a rate to be set by someone other than the insurance > > company. Tim May objects to this plan.>> > >Close. I am arguing that insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to >deny coverage based upon factors that the insuree does not have >control over. For example, I smoke, so I really can't blame an >insurance company for charging me extra, because that's a factor I >have control over. So, by extension, people who are 98 years old should be able to purchase life or health insurance at the same rates as those who are 22 years old. After all, they have no control over their age. Your position is internally inconsistent as well as dishonest and unfair. If you believe that people are entitled to medical care simply because they exist, then at least admit that to yourself and advocate that government should provide it through tax collections. The "Big Rich Insurance Company Who Can Afford It" is simply passing the costs on to the rest of us anyway. But why should this burden be placed on the managers and stock holders of the insurance company? It isn't *their* fault that the prospective insured has a genetic predisposition to heart disease (or whatever). > > > Most insurance companies are worth millions, if not billions, of > > > dollars, and they make huge profits. Insuring all of the people that > > > they now deny based on genetic abnormalities would still allow them to > > > make decent profits. The poor old widow whose mutual fund owns the insurance company stock is being deprived of income thanks to your mandate. How is that fair? > > > And many people are denied coverage outright, therefore removing the > > > possibility of simply paying for their coverage. > > Of course you said "coverage", not "care", but the alleged problem is > > that people can't get medical _care_. Who cares if they have _coverage_, > > so long as their medical needs are taken care of? > >Coverage is most often less expensive than care. Therefore, one may >be able to afford the coverage, but not afford the care, if it ends up >being required. Again, this is being dishonest. Coverage is less expensive than care only because *someone else is paying for it*. It is the care that is needed, not "coverage". Mandated "coverage" is simply care that someone else is being required to provide. Any insurance company obviously prefers to minimize "coverage" that *it knows* is going to require care to be paid for. > > As I wrote before (like, a couple of hours ago), most of the people who > > insist on a right to "affordable" medical insurance seem to expect to > > get a lot more out of the insurance company than they put into it. They > > should just be honest and go on welfare if they're looking for a > > handout, rather than attempt to claim the moral high ground. > > > >Isn't this the whole idea of insurance? You pay them x dollars, and >if you end up getting sick, they most likely have to pay more than x >dollars to treat you. The insurers are banking on the fact that the >majority of the people who have insurance don't get sick. > >So, yes, the whole idea of insurance is to get out more than you put in. No. The idea of insurance is to *insure* yourself (and family, etc.) against unexpected catastrophic losses by pooling risk. This is why the current American system where virtually everyone's insurance pays for virtually every visit to the doctor is such a bad idea. People should be paying for their ordinary, year-in year-out health care. Insurance should only enter the picture if "large" unexpected expenses are incurred. This type of insurance would have a huge positive effect on health care prices in this country. Prices keep spiraling upward because the individual doesn't have any incentive to control costs. The individual's only motivation is, as you stated, "get out more than you put in". Since the individual is not motivated to control costs, neither is the doctor (excluding HMOs which are an effect of this whole issue). Given an unknown condition, the doctor is inclined to order any test or administer any treatment that *might* be beneficial, no matter how unlikely. After all, this covers his ass: the more tests or treatments tried, the less likely the doctor is to be sued for "negligently" failing to consider an option. - GH _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.

3 2

CDR: Re: why should it be trusted?
by brflgnk＠cotse.com 20 Oct '00

20 Oct '00

It was said: -- begin quote -- >As to care, as I've said a lot before, care is most often more >expensive than coverage. Clearly this can't be true or every health insurance company would be going out of business. Coverage has to be more expensive than care of they wouldn't be in the business of providing coverage. -- end quote -- You've missed the essential gamble of insurance: care given to an individual insured party is usually more expensive than the premiums paid by that individual. The gamble is that the aggregate premium collected from all the insured in the pool will exceed the aggregate cost of care for those in the pool that collect benefits. That the insurance business is profitable proves the gamble usually pays off.

1 0

CDR: NYT Account Request
by forgot＠lga2.nytimes.com 20 Oct '00

20 Oct '00

You have requested your ID and password for The New York Times on the Web. Please follow the instructions below. If you have any questions or problems, write to forgot(a)nytimes.com. Please DO NOT REPLY to this message. 1. Please make a note of your subscriber ID: sciferpunk 2. Next, to change the password for this account, using your Web browser go to this unique URL: http://verify.nytimes.com/guests/forgot/forgot?key=40177689_16329707 This page will allow you to choose a new password. Make sure you have copied the address EXACTLY as it appears here. (If you're getting an "Error" page, the address was probably entered incorrectly. See "Help With Copying and Pasting" at the bottom of this e-mail.) 3. Follow the instructions on the screen to choose a new password. After you have entered a password you will automatically enter our Web site. The New York Times on the Web Customer Service forgot(a)nytimes.com ******************** Help With Copying and Pasting 1. Using the mouse, highlight the entire Web address, (e.g. http://verify.nytimes.com/guests/forgot/forgot?key=40177689_16329707) shown above in step 2. It's essential to highlight the entire address, even if it extends over two lines. 2. Under the Edit menu at the top of your screen, select "Copy". 3. Go into your Web browser (open it if it's not already opened). 4. Click in the "Netsite" or "Address" bar -- the place in your Web browser where it says what Web address you're currently looking at -- and delete the address that's currently there. 5. In the blank "Netsite" or "Address" bar, paste the address by selecting the "Edit" menu at the top of your screen and choosing "Paste". 6. Press Enter. 7. Follow the instructions to choose a new password. ******************** If you did not request your ID and password for your NYT Web registration, someone has mistakenly entered your e-mail address when requesting their password. Please simply ignore this message, or, if you wish, you may go to the address above to select a new password for your account.

1 0

CDR: Re: Non-Repudiation in the Digital Environment (was Re: FirstMonday August 2000)
by Ed Gerck 20 Oct '00

20 Oct '00

Bob Jueneman wrote: > Let's put this problem in perspective, and try to avoid the "chicken little, the sky is falling" syndrome. > > It's quite unlikely that someone would come up with "Eureka!" type of solution to factoring large numbers that would end up completely breaking RSA, or that some way would be found to completely break the integrity of SHA-1. Well said. SHA-1 works as a many-to-one function and this alone makes it impossible to break if well applied. Simply, no global inverse function exists for a many-to-one function (even though a local inverse may exist, but in this case SHA-1 would not have been well applied). This is a mathematical fact. Matters with RSA are still unproven, though, but it is not probable that it will be broken any time soon in a wide scale. However, this is not what concerns me at all. PKI is the problem. It does not work and it will not work on a global scale. E-commerce itself has moved away from PKI for no other reason. The problem then is the E-sign Act and state legislation following on its heels, which not only blurs IMO what a digital signature is but also does not deal adequately with the liability issues for the different parties involved. In this scenario, what if we see a blind push for a global PKI and also include non-repudiation as an "absolute authentication" based on some mythical "trusted machines" -- as has been suggested recently in the good name of e-commerce? Cheers, Ed Gerck

1 0

CDR: ADL lists anarchy symbol as racist
by anonymous＠openpgp.net 20 Oct '00

20 Oct '00

http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/racist_anarchy_symbol.html

8 9

CDR: Re: Non-Repudiation in the Digital Environment (was Re: First Monday August 2000)
by Bob Jueneman 20 Oct '00

20 Oct '00

Let's put this problem in perspective, and try to avoid the "chicken little, the sky is falling" syndrome. It's quite unlikely that someone would come up with "Eureka!" type of solution to factoring large numbers that would end up completely breaking RSA, or that some way would be found to completely break the integrity of SHA-1. Instead, we would be much more likely to see a nibbling around the edges, and a gradually decreasing confidence in existing algorithms, with more than enough time to replace them. In fact, we have already seen that. MD2 is now deprecated, and MD5 is being pretty widely supplanted by SHA-1. Likewise, DES has been broken and people are recommending that triple-DES be used, and soon AES. And OAEP is recommended to get around some hypothetical million-question attacks. But the sky hasn't fallen, and the sun still comes up in the morning. Even if some catastrophic weakness were somehow revealed that any high school kid could take advantage of with a single PC, there are still checks and balances. The kid still has to have money in the bank to pay for the item, and all of the usual velocity checks, etc. that are used to combat fraud would still be in place and would work. And good old-fashioned detective investigations and forensics would still be applicable. Any good security system has defenses in depth, and is not subject to the balloon-popping problem. that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to make systems be as perfect as possible. But if they aren't (and they never are), that shouldn't be the end of the world as we know it. Let's not invent a hypothetical Y2K problem. Bob Robert R. Jueneman Security Architect Novell, Inc. -- the leading provider of Net services software. >>> Tony Bartoletti <azb(a)llnl.gov> 10/19/00 04:09PM >>> At 04:58 PM 10/19/00 -0400, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote: >>Yes, that is why Tony's remark was somewhat tongue-in-cheek and used >>"solid mathematical foundations" within quotes. > >Eye twinkle doesn't come across in e-mail, I'm afraid. My apologies to >Tony. This is obviously one of my hot buttons. No problem. I often employ a quoted "x" to convey "so-called x", a shortcut that can lead to misunderstandings. >>>It is all hypothesis and empirical argument. A lone >>>mathematician working in his attic could come up with an algorithm >>>that would blow some or all of the existing systems out of the water. >>>Who get to cover that financial risk? >> >>The buyer. CAs (read Verisign's CPS or any CA's CPS, or bank contracts >>and -- above all -- see the US UCC) are not responsible for producing correct >>results but just for using correct methods. Where "correct methods" are >>what others consider correct -- even if they are proved wrong later on >>by a one mathematician working in his attic. > >I'm not sure those contracts would stand up in court if there were massive >public losses due to a collapse of the PKI. (Anyway CA CPS's stretch to >notion of a "mutual agreement" pretty far. I purchase a $10 cert and am >bound by over 100 pages of gobbldygook that only a handful of people on >the planet can be expected to fully understand?) > >But I am less concerned with CA legal liability then with who is left >holding the bag when a massive subversion of the banking system is >perpetrated, and how big that could be. I'll wager the taxpayer/consumer will foot the bill, one way or another. Derivative to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is easier to destroy wealth than it is to create it. So, on average, work/energy is required to create or recreate wealth. The collapse of a future global PKI, or of the integrity of banking transactions, would represent a huge shift from order into chaos, a decoherence of identities and orderliness amounting to a huge destruction of wealth. Recovery thus will require the recreation of wealth, in one form or another. This will require a correspondingly huge input of work. So, who does most of the work, in general? You know the answer ;) ___tony___ Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 <azb(a)llnl.gov> Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livermore, CA 94551-9900

1 0

CDR: Encryption export rules finalized
by George＠Orwellian.Org 20 Oct '00

20 Oct '00

See: http://www.pscu.com/Newsbytes/2000/156920.html http://www.nandotimes.com/technology/story/body/0,1634,500270563-500421503-…

1 0

CDR: I created the "Al Gore created the Internet" story
by Declan McCullagh 20 Oct '00

20 Oct '00

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39301,00.html The Mother of Gore's Invention by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)wired.com) 3:00 a.m. Oct. 17, 2000 PDT WASHINGTON -- If it's true that Al Gore created the Internet, then I created the "Al Gore created the Internet" story. I was the first reporter to question the vice president's improvident boast, way back when he made it in early 1999. Since then, the story's become far more than just a staple of late-night Letterman jokes: It's now as much a part of the American political firmament as the incident involving that other vice president, a schoolchild, and a very unfortunate spelling of potato. Poor Al. For a presidential wannabe who prides himself on a sober command of the brow-furrowing nuances of technology policy, being the butt of all these jokes has proven something of a setback. I mean, who can hear the veep talk up the future of the Internet nowadays without feeling an urge to stifle some disrespectful giggles? It would be like listening to Dan Quayle doing a please-take-me-seriously stump speech at an Idaho potato farm. Case in point: Mars Inc. lampoons the vice president in a hilarious new commercial for Snickers. In it, a cartoon Al brags that he, variously, invented the Internet, trousers, and when he wasn't busy elsewhere, "lots of other stuff too." When you're getting mocked by a candy company, you know your statesmanship rating has plummeted to a terrifying new low. No wonder one recent poll shows Gore to be solidly ahead of his Republican rival in only 11 states. It's simple: He's got no respect. Which brings us to an important question: Are the countless jibes at Al's expense truly justified? Did he really play a key part in the development of the Net? The short answer is that while even his supporters admit the vice president has an unfortunate tendency to exaggerate, the truth is that Gore never did claim to have "invented" the Internet. During a March 1999 CNN interview, while trying to differentiate himself from rival Bill Bradley, Gore boasted: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." That statement was enough to convince me, with the encouragement of my then-editor James Glave, to write a brief article that questioned the vice president's claim. Republicans on Capitol Hill noticed the Wired News writeup and started faxing around tongue-in-cheek press releases -- inveterate neatnik Trent Lott claimed to have invented the paper clip -- and other journalists picked up the story too. My article never used the word "invented," but it didn't take long for Gore's claim to morph into something he never intended. The terrible irony in this exchange is that while Gore certainly didn't create the Internet, he was one of the first politicians to realize that those bearded, bespectacled researchers were busy crafting something that could, just maybe, become pretty important. In January 1994, Gore gave a landmark speech at UCLA about the "information superhighway." Many portions -- discussions of universal service, wiring classrooms to the Net, and antitrust actions -- are surprisingly relevant even today. (That's an impressive enough feat that we might even forgive Gore his tortured metaphors such as "road kill on the information superhighway" and "parked at the curb" on the information superhighway.) Gore's speech reverberated around Democratic political circles in Washington. Other Clinton administration officials began citing it in their own remarks, and the combined effort helped to grab the media's attention. Their timing was impeccable: In July 1993, according to Network Wizards' survey, there were 1.8 million computers connected to the Internet. By July 1994, the figure had nearly doubled to 3.2 million, a trend that continued through January 2000, when about 72 million computers had permanent network addresses. Small wonder, then, that as the election nears, Gore's defenders have been rallying to defend him. In a recent op-ed piece in the San Jose Mercury News, John Doerr and Bill Joy claim "nobody in Washington understands" the new economy as well as Gore does. Net-pioneers Robert Kahn and Vint Cerf, a Democratic party donor, have written an essay saying "no other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time" than the veep. Scott Rosenberg, in a recent Salon article, joined the fray: "The 'Gore claims he invented the Net' trope is so full of holes that it makes you wish there were product recalls for bad information." It's also true that, as a senator, Gore in the 1980s supported universities' efforts to increase funding for NSFNet, a measure that became law in the High Performance Computing Act of 1991. Gore's guest columns in Byte magazine at the time showed an appreciation of technology that was far from usual on Capitol Hill. But it's also difficult to argue with a straight face that the Internet we know today would not exist if Gore had decided to practice the piano instead of politics. By the time Gore took notice of the Net around 1987, the basics were already in place. The key protocol, TCP/IP, was written and the culture of the Net had blossomed through Usenet and mailing lists, as chronicled in Eric Raymond's Jargon File. At best, Gore's involvement merely hastened its development. Instead of the orderly interstate highway system that Gore had repeatedly used as metaphor, the spread of the Net has resembled something closer to a self-organizing, almost anarchic sprawl. Instead of a government/corporate-controlled system that might have looked like France's wretched Minitel system -- or, more charitably, a 500-channel interactive TV network -- the Net's popularity grew because of far more mundane applications like email and downloading porn. And it's fair to say that other Gore pet projects, like the Clinton administration's abandoned Clipper chip, are hardly ways to protect privacy and security online and promote the development of this technology. Then again, it's also true the Clipper chip was first concocted under a George Bush Sr. administration, and another Bush occupying the Oval Office might well have similar inclinations. We know that George W. Bush may not be any tech-savvier than Gore -- as anyone who caught the governor's the-Net-made-them-do-it comments about the Columbine High School killers can attest. But he seems to have successfully neutralized Gore's advantage on tech issues. In the first debate, Bush jabbed at Gore during a figure-rich discussion of HMO coverage. The delivery was wooden, but it was no joke: "Not only did (Gore) invent the Internet, but he invented the calculator," Bush said. The big surprise was not that Bush used the quip. It has, after all, also shown up in his stump speeches and Republican jibes. No, the surprise was that Gore remained silent. When he had a chance to respond, Gore only talked about prescription drugs: "You can go to the (Bush) website and look. If you make more than $25,000 a year, you don't get a penny of help under the Bush prescription drug proposal." At least he mentioned a website. ###

12 25

CDR: Tim May's anti-semitic rants
by auto9950013＠hushmail.com 20 Oct '00

20 Oct '00

This list is no stranger to Tim May's sarcasm and anti-semitic rants. >You just used a German word. I'm reporting you to the Zionist League. >"Remember, children of Israel, "Eretz Israel" is not the same thing >as "lebensraum," and the suppression of the ragheads in Eretz Israel >is merely pest eradication, not the "Final Solution." War is peace, >freedom is slavery, and Zionists are libertarians." --Tim May

4 3

CDR: Re: Insurance (was: why should it be trusted?)
by James A.. Donald 20 Oct '00

20 Oct '00

-- At 01:42 PM 10/20/2000 +0300, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: > Details, details. People use the term 'anarchy' a bit too casually > here, nothing else. Mostly what they mean is 'libertarian'. The > latter in no way excludes other hierarchical relationships, as we > all know hardcore anarchy does. Tim's favorite characterization of > this side of anarchy is something like socialist simp-wimp mumbo > jumbo. Anarcho socialism has been dead since 1938. (It had the misfortune of being actually tried in 1936, whereupon it instantly became apparent that socialism requires a vastly powerful state in order to apply ruthless terror.) Today's "anarcho" socialists, such as Chomsky, believe that the best way to arrange for the state to wither away is to first make it vastly powerful and all encompassing. Where have we heard that theory before? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG tD7Rz9+AcnJbU8ma1SUnADe5oj9i+3cuYAlz3GAo 46+a0dJNvfetkNC2myPgoVrhbdqK0GQ+hdsCVmGm/

1 0

CDR: Re: It's all property, folks
by No User 20 Oct '00

20 Oct '00

Neil asked: > Same deal. I'd rather it not be polluted in the first place. > And how do I sue some one if there is no judicial system or government to > enforce the > decision. "Joe's International House of Justice" ? Most EarthFirst! folks have figured out that you just have to forget about the government acting properly to protect Mother Earth. It takes direct, individual (or group) action to do it. Thus came about ELF - Earth Liberation Front -- and ALF, Animal Liberation Front. You probably recall some of their work -- Vail, for instance. My problem with them is that they try to not hurt humans, which is stupid. No, you don't sue -- you get a gun and/or a car bomb and kill some of the assholes. Kill the CEO of the polluting company. Park a car bomb outside the factory and detonate it in the midst of shift change. They'll get the message. And here's where crypto comes in -- read up on Jim Bell's Assassination Politics. People who don't like pollution can act anonymously and pay off the hit men. Sweet, savage, but sweet! Your neighbor pollutes your lungs or your land and you don't know what to do about it? Shit man, get real -- $5 bucks worth of gasoline and a midnight stroll takes care of his house, him, and his family.

3 2