August 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

Free Cell Phone, Free Shipping & $$ Back
by att＠golfledger.oen0.net 01 Aug '01

01 Aug '01

Dear Subscriber, Get a Free Cell Phone! Free minutes offer!* Free long-distance offer!* Free handsfree headset!* Free charger!* Free shipping! & Money Back depending on carrier & plan* Click now for more information and to sign up! http://www.merchantcentral.com/cgi-bin/merchant/index.cgi?2061 * Free offers determined by carrier and plans available in your area. ______________________________________________________________ The following message was sent to you as an opt-in subscriber to Golfledger. We will continue to bring you valuable offers on the products and services that interest you most. If you wish to unsubscribe please go to the following url: http://66.115.19.39/golfledger.asp ______________________________________________________________

1 0

RE: Laws of mathematics, not of men
by Sandy Sandfort 01 Aug '01

01 Aug '01

Eugene Leitl wrote: > Feds enter houses for whatever > reasons they deem appropriate > to invent... Then my comments won't affect their actions one way or the other. > Pointing out possible targets > makes no damn reason at all... Tim already is a target. My minor comments do nothing to change his status. > ...unless you've got a personal > vendetta, or a crappy personality. Are those the only possible explanations you can come up with? I find most of Tim's insights useful and think he is a valuable member of the list. Pointing out that he has his head up his ass on certain subjects is hardly equivalent to having a "personal vendetta." As to "crappy personality" well, that's why there are horse races; differences of opinion. > Are you really thus clueless, > or are you just a natural? Huh? Maybe I'd know what you were talking about if you'd actually answered my question. > We seem to have very different > understandings of "friendly". > Friendly is if they do have a > search warrant... No warrant is friendly. I've had the FBI stop by my house for a friendly visit (no warrant). Just for the fun of it (and to see what they were after), I let them sit down in my living room. After I asked them a few questions and gotten some answers, they started asking ME some questions. That's when I kicked their sorry asses out. > Yah, whatever. You suck, have > halitosis, and are generically > an idiot. Do you feel better now? MUCH better, but why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel? :'D > What's "statute of limitations" spelt in > German? Begren'zungstatzung? S a n d y

1 0

Findlaw: The New York Times and Napster
by Jim Choate 01 Aug '01

01 Aug '01

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20010730_chander.html James Choate Product Certification - Operating Systems Staff Engineer 512-436-1062 jchoate(a)tivoli.com

3 2

Re: Criminalizing crypto criticism
by mmotyka＠lsil.com 01 Aug '01

01 Aug '01

I keep seeing words like "bona fide" and "legitimate" used as modifiers for "cryptographic researcher." The DMCA states : (3)(B) whether the person is engaged in a legitimate course of study, is employed, or is appropriately trained or experienced, in the field of encryption technology; and Isn't self-taught a legitimate course of study? Abraham Lincoln was largely self-taught. If a teenager, who has clearly not had the opportunity to amass much in the way of official credentials, can break CSS hasn't he "engaged in a legitimate course of study" and isn't he "appropriately experienced in the field of encryption technology?" The modifiers are meaningless as is 3B. Why do we even discuss the damn thing. It's just another rathole to dive into. It's wrong. We know it's wrong. Short of nuclear blackmail Congress will not change it and the courts will not overturn it. I'll let the lawyers and those with deep pockets fight that battle. About the only good I might be able to do is to contribute to enhancing the means for people to exchange and distribute proscribed information with impunity.

2 1

Re: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong.
by Blanc 01 Aug '01

01 Aug '01

James A. Donald wrote: The basic problem with any legal incantation is that at some point you must explain to the authorities: "My actions were legal for this reason and that reason", explaining in inconveniently great detail what you are doing, and their response your complicated and highly informative explanation will almost certainly be to hit a few times, and then lock you up. With cryptography they have a mysterious block of unexplained and useless bits. ---------------------------------- And doesn't providing all these explanations of their behavior, or else excuses for them, put a person in the position of being the equivalent of a puppet on a string? They yank, you respond (or else). It's not much at all like the ideal of being one's own person, with liberty and authority to direct one's own actions, to be reduced to answering for your decisions (crypto or otherwise) - under the guidance of a stranger who is only concerned about following the proper procedure for responding to the pull - to some other stranger put into position of power over you, who may be irate, bored, humorless, eager to be elsewhere, etc. The arguments in these threads deal with cryptography and bits of data and how they are treated by 'the owner' or 'the consumer' or 'the researcher'. And they are discussed within the context of laws which are designed to circumscribe the actions of citizens in regard to each other. But in fact there is a larger context which precedes these contexts, which form the foundation of expectations about being a real person and living a rational life, and which should not be set aside as insignificant. This is what makes me - and some other of us - uncomfortable about the laws, lawyers, and legal systems. It is ideal - as an individual or in a controversy with others - to be able to come to terms about what is Truth and Justice, and Right and Wrong, using intelligent arguments to distinguish between them and make decisions in regard of them. But if that is not possible, then either a person succumbs to what others impose upon them, or they must find methods of self-defense against being reduced to the status of a "criminal" and being treated as such (worthless). Currently it appears that anything which is not first reviewed and approved by official overseers falls under the category of 'crime'. The 'crime' appears to be that of not making oneself satisfactorily, publically, submissive and subordinate to legal oversight and direction. And this tells me that in fact, those who study and apply the law do not really know the difference between good and bad (what is proper or improper) for 'mankind' - when the only solution they can come up with to the problems of living and working together is to reduce everyone ad absurdum to a malleable level, when they should actualy be assistants to to prevention from being reduced to low standards of functioning. [But I guess this is best dicussed on L-Cyberia. Do they keep archives?] .. Blanc

1 0

MBNA
by mmotyka＠lsil.com 01 Aug '01

01 Aug '01

Seems like a regular herd of senior FBI guys wind up at MBNA when they're ready to amass some capitol for retirement. What are the origins of the company? http://www.cptryon.org/compassion/spr99/fbi.html http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RuMills/message/367 http://www.lineofduty.com/blotter/mar00/mar00/mar11-21/32000-33.htm http://fyi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/09/kallstrom/

1 0

RE: Laws of mathematics, not of men
by Sandy Sandfort 01 Aug '01

01 Aug '01

Eugene Leitl wrote: > There's no point in giving idle > feds extra angles to enter > people's homes, preventably so. Eugene, do you think feds enter people's home because the people in question may have carried a knife illegally years ago? What federal law? What basis for a search warrant? What the hell are you talking about? > Even if they just pay a friendly > visit, I think there are much more > interesting ways to spend one's > afternoon than having to deal with > nosy feds. Then tell them to get the hell off your property if they don't have a warrant. That takes 5 seconds of your afternoon. > There's always a certain amount > of testosterone flowing, and > some posturing on cpunx. These > are males' natural weaknesses, > and exploiting them just because > you can is usually considered bad > personal style. You know, using the passive voice in this context is "bad personal style." Don't speak for anyone but yourself. If you think it's bad, just say so. Don't hide behind "is usually considered." Any whether you like it or not--whether anyone likes it or not, like Tim says, "I'll do what I want." > > I "narced out" your behavior > > of several years ago. If you > > are stupid > > How is that relevant? Statute of limitations for starters. I'll leave the rest as an exercise for the student. > > enough to still be carrying a > > knife illegally (when there are > > plenty of legal options), then > > there is no helping you. On > > your head be it. > > Oh yeah, I ratted on you, and > you're solely to blame for that. > Makes sense. Then versus now. Think about it. > Nothing goes over a little bit of > comic relief. Haw! Haw! Haw! What I said was funny, but the underlying reality is serious--deadly serious. Tim's playing to the galleries increases his risk whether he or wish to acknowledge it or not. > I think you should keep these > names and stories to yourself, > even if they do contribute to > the local colorit. And I think you should stuff a sock in your cake hole. So we both have opinions and we disagree. I can live with that. S a n d y

2 1

RE: Official Reporters have more copyright rights
by Trei, Peter 01 Aug '01

01 Aug '01

> Riad S. Wahby[SMTP:rsw@mit.edu] wrote: > > > Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> wrote: > > protect against ROT-13 and Pig Latin being DMCA-protected. Utterly > > Isn't ROT-13 what Adobe used in the eBook? Isn't that what Dmitry > Skylarov was arrested for circumventing? > > I'd say it doesn't matter how strong the cryptography is. What > matters is whose pocketbook is larger. > > Riad Wahby > rsw(a)mit.edu > No, Adobe did not use ROT13. They were quite a bit better than that (though still breakable, obviously). One other company mentioned in Sklyarov's paper did, but the content of their site suggests they are an investment advice firm, using it to protect their own reports which they sold to customers (this is not clear from the paper - I think Dmitri was grandstanding a bit here.) The only victim of their incompetence is themselves. Last time I checked, the paper was on http://www.treachery.net/~jdyson/ebooks/ Peter Trei

1 0

Congress hard at work: Cereal box regulation
by Declan McCullagh 01 Aug '01

01 Aug '01

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Packaging Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition Subcommittee hearing on "S.1233, the Product Package Protection Act: Keeping Offensive Material Out of our Cereal Boxes." Location: 226 Dirksen Senate Office Building. 2 p.m. Contact: 202-224-7703 http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary

3 2

Re: Criminalizing crypto criticism
by Steven M. Bellovin 01 Aug '01

01 Aug '01

In message <20010727015656.A22910(a)cluebot.com>, Declan McCullagh writes: > >One of those -- and you can thank groups like ACM for this, if my >legislative memory is correct -- explicitly permits encryption >research. You can argue fairly persuasively that it's not broad >enough, and certainly 2600 found in the DeCSS case that the judge >wasn't convinced by their arguments, but at least it's a shield of >sorts. See below. It's certainly not broad enough -- it protects "encryption" research, and the definition of "encryption" in the law is meant to cover just that, not "cryptography". And the good-faith effort to get permission is really an invitation to harrassment, since you don't have to actually get permission, merely seek it. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

6 8