November 2000 - cypherpunks-legacy

Microsoft backs XML security spec
by No User 30 Nov '00

30 Nov '00

Microsoft has teamed up with software partners VeriSign and WebMethod to launch a specification aimed at simplifying digital signatures used in ecommerce applications. To ease the integration of public key infrastructure (PKI) and digital certificates, the three companies have created the XKMS spec (XML Key Management Specification) which they say makes it easier for programmers to create online applications with digital signatures. Currently, developers are required to buy and integrate specialised toolkits from a PKI software vendor. These toolkits only interoperate with that vendor's PKI offerings. But developers can use XKMS to integrate authentication, digital signatures and encryption services, such as certificate processing and revocation status checking, into applications. Warwick Ford, chief technology officer at VeriSign, said: "For the next generation of ecommerce applications to truly support high-value transactions, the handling of digital keys for online authentication, digital signatures and data encryption must be simple to integrate, and must interoperate across a broad range of enterprise applications." The specification works with trust functions residing on servers and accessible through programmed XML transactions. XKMS is also compatible with emerging standards for web services description language (WSDL) and simple object access protocol (Soap). The specification will be submitted to the appropriate web standards bodies, and Microsoft said XKMS will be integrated into its .Net architecture. Analysts said that by having a standard such as XKMS it will be possible for companies to accelerate the process of finalising an online contract or completing a transaction by having the capability to accept a legitimate signature electronically. "At the level of XML, you have to have all of the things associated with security processing," said Frank Prince, an analyst at Forrester Research. "Any key management system should be built at that level." H If you would like to comment on this article email us @ newseditor(a)vnunet.com

1 0

!!!Lenders COMPETE for your MORTAGE Loan!!! -nxbvawgq
by hole1001＠pageice.com 30 Nov '00

30 Nov '00

1 0

CDR: CNN.com - U.S. Supreme Court strikes down drug roadblocks - November 28, 2000
by Jim Choate 30 Nov '00

30 Nov '00

http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/11/28/court.roadblocks.sc.reut/index.html -- The Laws of Serendipity: 1. In order to discover anything, you must be looking for something. 2. If you wish to make an improved product, you must first be engaged in making an inferior one. Tivoli Certification Group, OSCT James Choate jchoate(a)tivoli.com Senior Engineer 512-436-1062

6 5

ip: Death List
by David & Linda 30 Nov '00

30 Nov '00

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Fwd: [F/A List] WS>>Death List] Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:24:41 -0500 From: Virginia Raines <rainesco(a)earthlink.net> by Lawrence Henry Monday, September 18, 2000 The other day, Rush Limbaugh took a phone call from a calm, reasonable-sounding man who said that there were some Americans who simply weren't going to stand for being steam- rollered by liberalism any more, that they were prepared - indeed, expected - to have to fight an armed revolution to take their country back. Rush gets calls like that periodically. As he always does, he asked the caller where the battles of this revolu- tion would be fought, and how. This particular caller did not (as such callers usually do not) provide any clear answers, perhaps because he hadn't thought the subject through completely. But the man was right about one thing: There definitely are a number of people in the United States who are armed, ready, and waiting - simply for some tipping point - to start shooting. They just don't call up talk shows and say so. How many of them are there? Somewhere between 50,000 and a million. Enough to cause a whole lot of trouble. Yes, some of them nurture romantic dreams of fighting guer- rilla battles in the mountains. Plenty of others - enough - know that won't work. They know that revolutions are not won by pitched battles. They know that no insurrectionary force could stand up to the firepower of the United States military. No, instead, they have death lists. They plan assassina- tions. They know that some few - perhaps a few thousand - key people direct the legal, regulatory, and cultural move- ments they despise. And they have adopted a simple credo, one by one: "I'll get two of them before they get one of me." This revolutionary cadre, entirely unorganized, simmer- ing like an unfocused viral epidemic, occupies the core of a number of discontented populations. In the broadest sense, they constitute the armed wing of what political activist Grover Norquist called "the leave-us-alone coalition." Make no mistake, the powers that be know this. And they're afraid. That fear lies behind the moves in the liberal establishment to outlaw home schooling, state by state; to oppose school vouchers, battleground by battle- ground (have to preserve that indoctrination); to create military-style law enforcement units in agencies like the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Bureau of Alco- hol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and in Special Weapons and Tactical Squads (SWAT teams) of local police departments; to demoralize and weaken the military (which has a natural and historic affinity for patriotism and "leave us alone" senti- ments); to hype up executive security forces; to confiscate guns; to hamstring free enterprise through lawsuits - these and hundreds of other establishment efforts to consolidate dictatorial power. These potential revolutionaries are resigned to being hated, demonized as nut cases, religious fanatics, gap- toothed idiots, yokels, and benighted, laughable fools. They know that a few deaths can make a big difference (look how badly the Republican party has missed Lee Atwater). They're resigned to forcing a national police action. They're willing, like classic Leninists, to provoke a crack- down simply to rouse revolutionary chaos. As revolutionaries, these assassins-to-be also know that they probably cannot win their fight. High-profile killings will certainly be treated as terrorism by the government and the media, working in lockstep. Some assas- sinations will be covered up outright; the public will never know. The revolutionaries may be counting on sympathy from the military - even the desertion of some military units to the cause. More likely, a demoralized and emasculated military will not get involved in the fight at all. But the revolutionaries don't care. At some key tip- ping point, they reason their lives are forfeit anyway: their country is gone, its principles and traditions raped, its institutions occupied by enemy forces. Change will be impossible by any legal means. Democracy will be dead. That tipping point is very near. http://www.americanpartisan.com/ --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

ip: Death List
by David & Linda 30 Nov '00

30 Nov '00

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Fwd: [F/A List] WS>>Death List] Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:24:41 -0500 From: Virginia Raines <rainesco(a)earthlink.net> by Lawrence Henry Monday, September 18, 2000 The other day, Rush Limbaugh took a phone call from a calm, reasonable-sounding man who said that there were some Americans who simply weren't going to stand for being steam- rollered by liberalism any more, that they were prepared - indeed, expected - to have to fight an armed revolution to take their country back. Rush gets calls like that periodically. As he always does, he asked the caller where the battles of this revolu- tion would be fought, and how. This particular caller did not (as such callers usually do not) provide any clear answers, perhaps because he hadn't thought the subject through completely. But the man was right about one thing: There definitely are a number of people in the United States who are armed, ready, and waiting - simply for some tipping point - to start shooting. They just don't call up talk shows and say so. How many of them are there? Somewhere between 50,000 and a million. Enough to cause a whole lot of trouble. Yes, some of them nurture romantic dreams of fighting guer- rilla battles in the mountains. Plenty of others - enough - know that won't work. They know that revolutions are not won by pitched battles. They know that no insurrectionary force could stand up to the firepower of the United States military. No, instead, they have death lists. They plan assassina- tions. They know that some few - perhaps a few thousand - key people direct the legal, regulatory, and cultural move- ments they despise. And they have adopted a simple credo, one by one: "I'll get two of them before they get one of me." This revolutionary cadre, entirely unorganized, simmer- ing like an unfocused viral epidemic, occupies the core of a number of discontented populations. In the broadest sense, they constitute the armed wing of what political activist Grover Norquist called "the leave-us-alone coalition." Make no mistake, the powers that be know this. And they're afraid. That fear lies behind the moves in the liberal establishment to outlaw home schooling, state by state; to oppose school vouchers, battleground by battle- ground (have to preserve that indoctrination); to create military-style law enforcement units in agencies like the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Bureau of Alco- hol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and in Special Weapons and Tactical Squads (SWAT teams) of local police departments; to demoralize and weaken the military (which has a natural and historic affinity for patriotism and "leave us alone" senti- ments); to hype up executive security forces; to confiscate guns; to hamstring free enterprise through lawsuits - these and hundreds of other establishment efforts to consolidate dictatorial power. These potential revolutionaries are resigned to being hated, demonized as nut cases, religious fanatics, gap- toothed idiots, yokels, and benighted, laughable fools. They know that a few deaths can make a big difference (look how badly the Republican party has missed Lee Atwater). They're resigned to forcing a national police action. They're willing, like classic Leninists, to provoke a crack- down simply to rouse revolutionary chaos. As revolutionaries, these assassins-to-be also know that they probably cannot win their fight. High-profile killings will certainly be treated as terrorism by the government and the media, working in lockstep. Some assas- sinations will be covered up outright; the public will never know. The revolutionaries may be counting on sympathy from the military - even the desertion of some military units to the cause. More likely, a demoralized and emasculated military will not get involved in the fight at all. But the revolutionaries don't care. At some key tip- ping point, they reason their lives are forfeit anyway: their country is gone, its principles and traditions raped, its institutions occupied by enemy forces. Change will be impossible by any legal means. Democracy will be dead. That tipping point is very near. http://www.americanpartisan.com/ --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

RE: <nettime> Yahoo Ruling: "Don't Roll Your Eyes..."
by marnoldm 30 Nov '00

30 Nov '00

Ben Laurie, one of the experts who testified in the trial before Judge Gomez has recently retracted his opinion regarding the feasibility of preventing French web surfers from accessing Nazi-related items on Yahoo. In the following article (original available at <http://www.apache-ssl.org/apology.html>), Mr. Laurie calls the proposed solution "half-assed and trivially avoidable." --- An Expert's Apology[1] The Yahoo! Nazi Case The background to this is that Yahoo! were ordered by the French court to prevent French people from accessing auction sites selling Nazi memorabilia, which is illegal in France. Yahoo! said that it was impossible to fully comply with this ruling, so the court appointed three experts, one French, one European and one American, to advise it. I was appointed the European expert. The remarkable lack of deep thought on this matter that has been evidenced by the press has prompted me to write up my own views. Enjoy. The Experts' Advice It is important to understand that the experts were asked a very simple question: is it technically possible for Yahoo! to comply with the judgment against them, and, if not, to what extent can compliance be achieved? I took the view that it was my duty to put aside any political agenda I might have and simply answer the question to the best of my ability. My answer was, in essence, this: no, compliance is impossible. But I was not allowed to leave it at that; remember that if it was not possible to comply completely, I was asked to say to what extent compliance is possible. The best that can be achieved is a rather flakey guess at nationality, using IP address or domain name (we estimated this was around 80% accurate for France, with some obvious huge exceptions, like AOL subscribers). Failing that, one can simply ask the websurfer whether she's French, and, if so, plant a cookie to that affect. Of course, both of these can be trivially circumvented. The first by using an anonymizer, for example http://www.anonymizer.com/ (note that I am in no way recommending this particular one, it just happens to be the first I found, after 10 seconds of searching), or by signing up for AOL. The second can be avoided simply by lying. It seems that despite this, the judge has required Yahoo! to implement these measures. So What Does It All Mean? This is where it gets interesting. Firstly, there's the question of jurisdiction. It seems self-evident to me that France has the right to assert jurisdiction over its citizens. Whether I agree with their laws is beside the point; those laws apply to French people. If Yahoo! wants to be beyond France's reach, they can surely achieve that, by withdrawing their operations from France. The fact that they don't means that, presumably, they see economic advantage in continuing to maintain a presence there, despite this problem. If they did this, the French courts would, I suppose, have to pursue ISPs instead. I imagine this would become a major struggle. As for France directly requiring American companies to enforce French laws, that seems to me to be an obvious non-starter. Secondly, people like to say "France has no clue - they're trying to enforce an unworkable technical solution". This is silly. The duty of the experts was to give an unbiased opinion. The duty of the judge is to apply the law of the land to the best of his ability. We cannot comply with those duties without ending up where we are. Think about it: would you want to live in a world where judges routinely do things according to political stances or publicity? I think not. Yes, the solution is half-assed and trivially avoidable. We know that. But it is still the natural outcome of applying the law. Law-abiding citizens are aided in obeying the law, and law-breakers are able to do so, just as they can slash tires, or mug people in the street. Then the economic aspects have to be considered. Yahoo! could reasonably point out that following this course will end up with them having to maintain a huge matrix of pages versus jurisdictions to see who can and can't see what. Given that the technical remedies are inaccurate, ineffective and trivially avoided, this argument holds a great deal of water. Why impose this pointless burden on every single website in the world? I suspect this argument will become stronger with each similar case. Most importantly, there's a philosophical point. Remember that what is supposed to be prevented is not the purchase of Nazi memorabilia, but the mere ability to even see them. Presumably purchase can be controlled at the point where the items enter France, just as if a Frenchman went to a market selling such things overseas, and brought them home. What is being fought over is literally what people think. No-one should be able to control what I know or what I think. Not the government. Not the Thought Police. Not my family. Not my friends. The Internet is pure information. The fact that I cast aside my libertarian leanings in order to answer the question for the court, and yet was still unable to help in any substantive way, I find encouraging. We know we've done the right thing when our own best efforts cannot thwart it. Some people seem to think that this sets some kind of important precedent. If it does, then the precedent is surely that the Internet does not adapt well to the control of subject matter, not that governments will intervene and censor it successfully - people have been trying to do that since it started, and they've never got anywhere. This case is no exception. Ben Laurie, 21st November 2000 [1] From The Chambers Dictionary: apology: a defence, justification, apologia apologia: a written defence or vindication # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo(a)bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime(a)bbs.thing.net --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

RE: <nettime> Yahoo Ruling: "Don't Roll Your Eyes..."
by marnoldm 30 Nov '00

30 Nov '00

Ben Laurie, one of the experts who testified in the trial before Judge Gomez has recently retracted his opinion regarding the feasibility of preventing French web surfers from accessing Nazi-related items on Yahoo. In the following article (original available at <http://www.apache-ssl.org/apology.html>), Mr. Laurie calls the proposed solution "half-assed and trivially avoidable." --- An Expert's Apology[1] The Yahoo! Nazi Case The background to this is that Yahoo! were ordered by the French court to prevent French people from accessing auction sites selling Nazi memorabilia, which is illegal in France. Yahoo! said that it was impossible to fully comply with this ruling, so the court appointed three experts, one French, one European and one American, to advise it. I was appointed the European expert. The remarkable lack of deep thought on this matter that has been evidenced by the press has prompted me to write up my own views. Enjoy. The Experts' Advice It is important to understand that the experts were asked a very simple question: is it technically possible for Yahoo! to comply with the judgment against them, and, if not, to what extent can compliance be achieved? I took the view that it was my duty to put aside any political agenda I might have and simply answer the question to the best of my ability. My answer was, in essence, this: no, compliance is impossible. But I was not allowed to leave it at that; remember that if it was not possible to comply completely, I was asked to say to what extent compliance is possible. The best that can be achieved is a rather flakey guess at nationality, using IP address or domain name (we estimated this was around 80% accurate for France, with some obvious huge exceptions, like AOL subscribers). Failing that, one can simply ask the websurfer whether she's French, and, if so, plant a cookie to that affect. Of course, both of these can be trivially circumvented. The first by using an anonymizer, for example http://www.anonymizer.com/ (note that I am in no way recommending this particular one, it just happens to be the first I found, after 10 seconds of searching), or by signing up for AOL. The second can be avoided simply by lying. It seems that despite this, the judge has required Yahoo! to implement these measures. So What Does It All Mean? This is where it gets interesting. Firstly, there's the question of jurisdiction. It seems self-evident to me that France has the right to assert jurisdiction over its citizens. Whether I agree with their laws is beside the point; those laws apply to French people. If Yahoo! wants to be beyond France's reach, they can surely achieve that, by withdrawing their operations from France. The fact that they don't means that, presumably, they see economic advantage in continuing to maintain a presence there, despite this problem. If they did this, the French courts would, I suppose, have to pursue ISPs instead. I imagine this would become a major struggle. As for France directly requiring American companies to enforce French laws, that seems to me to be an obvious non-starter. Secondly, people like to say "France has no clue - they're trying to enforce an unworkable technical solution". This is silly. The duty of the experts was to give an unbiased opinion. The duty of the judge is to apply the law of the land to the best of his ability. We cannot comply with those duties without ending up where we are. Think about it: would you want to live in a world where judges routinely do things according to political stances or publicity? I think not. Yes, the solution is half-assed and trivially avoidable. We know that. But it is still the natural outcome of applying the law. Law-abiding citizens are aided in obeying the law, and law-breakers are able to do so, just as they can slash tires, or mug people in the street. Then the economic aspects have to be considered. Yahoo! could reasonably point out that following this course will end up with them having to maintain a huge matrix of pages versus jurisdictions to see who can and can't see what. Given that the technical remedies are inaccurate, ineffective and trivially avoided, this argument holds a great deal of water. Why impose this pointless burden on every single website in the world? I suspect this argument will become stronger with each similar case. Most importantly, there's a philosophical point. Remember that what is supposed to be prevented is not the purchase of Nazi memorabilia, but the mere ability to even see them. Presumably purchase can be controlled at the point where the items enter France, just as if a Frenchman went to a market selling such things overseas, and brought them home. What is being fought over is literally what people think. No-one should be able to control what I know or what I think. Not the government. Not the Thought Police. Not my family. Not my friends. The Internet is pure information. The fact that I cast aside my libertarian leanings in order to answer the question for the court, and yet was still unable to help in any substantive way, I find encouraging. We know we've done the right thing when our own best efforts cannot thwart it. Some people seem to think that this sets some kind of important precedent. If it does, then the precedent is surely that the Internet does not adapt well to the control of subject matter, not that governments will intervene and censor it successfully - people have been trying to do that since it started, and they've never got anywhere. This case is no exception. Ben Laurie, 21st November 2000 [1] From The Chambers Dictionary: apology: a defence, justification, apologia apologia: a written defence or vindication # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo(a)bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime(a)bbs.thing.net --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

What it's all about...
by Jim Choate 30 Nov '00

30 Nov '00

1. Who get's to make the choice? 2. What are the permissible choices out of the total range of choices? The outcome effects 1. ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

xinruanxin
by xinruanxin＠kali.com.cn 30 Nov '00

30 Nov '00

Please visit my homepage http://www.nease.net/~edward http://xrx.yeah.net There is many game,photo,mp3,book in there ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sohusoft - Search Emailaddress and do mass mailing Marketing for you http://www.flashsendmail.com

1 0

diving tank?
by bob bob2 30 Nov '00

30 Nov '00

stainless steel and designed for high pressure? I can think of a bunch of things besides diving that could be used for. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

3 2