September 2001 - cypherpunks-legacy

ID cards+law history;
by citizenQ 24 Sep '01

24 Sep '01

The scholarly informed citations are useful and interesting. But haven't we been put on notice that "a rebalancing" is going to occur, "it's a new world" and we will "use every measure at our disposal to combat terrorism" ?? - I fear it is naive to imagine that case law and legal precedent can combat the legislative onslaught to come. > >The power to arrest--or otherwise to prolong a seizure until a suspect had >responded to the satisfaction of the police officers--would undoubtedly >elicit cooperation from a high percentage of even those very few >individuals not sufficiently coerced by a show >of authority, brief physicaldetention, >and a frisk. We have never claimed that expansion of the power of police >officers to act on reasonable suspicion alone, or even less, would further >>no law enforcement interests. See, e.g., Brown v. Texas , 443 U.S. 47, 52, >99 S.Ct. 2637, 2641, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979). But the balance struck by the >Fourth Amendment between the public interest in effective law enforcement >and the equally public interest in safeguarding individual freedom and >>privacy from arbitrary governmental interference forbids such expansion. >See Dunaway v. New York, supra; United States v. >Brignoni-Ponce , 422 U.S., at 878, 95 S.Ct., at 2578-2579. >Detention beyond the limits of Terry without >probable cause would improve the effectiveness of legitimate police >investigations by only a small margin, but it would expose individual >members of the public to exponential increases in both the intrusiveness >of the encounter and the risk that police officers would abuse their >discretion for improper ends. Furthermore, regular expansion >of Terry encounters into more intrusive detentions, without >a clear connection to any specific >underlying crimes, is likely to exacerbate ongoing tensions, where they >exist, between the police and the public. See Report of the National >Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders 157-168 (1968). *

3 2

Fuel Developer Program Launch - Half Price NOW!
by Lara＠WirelessDeveloper.com 24 Sep '01

24 Sep '01

To see the html version of this email, go to http://www.pinpoint.com/mailers/wd/index.html For a limited time, Pinpoint, in partnership with WirelessDeveloper.com, is offering discounted memberships for the Pinpoint Fuel Developer Program to qualified developers. Join for 50% off the regular price. This offer is only available to registered WirelessDeveloper.com developers. Distribute your wireless applications through Pinpoint's Mobile Applications Platform, Fuel, on carrier networks like Verizon Wireless, Rogers AT&T, and Terra Lycos (a subsidiary of Telefonica.) Get distribution. Get paid. Fuel your application. Fuel Developer Program Benefits: - Distribution of your apps on the largest wireless carriers' networks - Opportunity for preferred deck placement - Ability to control the pricing of your premium applications - Marketing support and inclusion in Pinpoint's Partner & Applications Catalog presented to existing and potential carrier customers - Comprehensive Fuel Developer Kit and documentation - Dedicated and comprehensive member's-only developer site - Technical support including webboard, FAQ, email, & phone support Right now, it's even more affordable to join. Your membership cost is only $250 (regular price $495). Don�t miss out on this limited time opportunity! This offer is only available until October 5, 2001. So why wait? Join now at http://pinpoint.wirelessdeveloper.com or contact WirelessDeveloper.com at 866-702-8387 for more details. To join, register at http://pinpoint.WirelessDeveloper.com/ For questions, email: pinpoint(a)WirelessDeveloper.com What else is going on at WirelessDeveloper.com? 1. Become a Member of WirelessDeveloper.com and GET SERIOUS! and SAVE MONEY! Learn all about it at http://www.WirelessDeveloper.com 2. 15% Discount on the Bluetooth Solutions Forum, Oct 2-3, Troy, MI 3. 10% Discount on the XML One & Web Services One Conference, Sep 30-Oct 4, San Jose, CA 4. 10% Discount on the SIGS Conference for Java Development, Oct 28-31, San Jose, CA Conference details at http://www.WirelessDeveloper.com/events.htm 5. SAVE $50 on the AT&T Wireless Data Developer Program Membership! 6. SAVE $300 on your Compaq iPAQ Developer Program Membership! 7. SAVE $300 on your Compaq Tru64 Unix Developer Program Membership! 8. Save $150 on your StoneStreet One Bluetooth Developer Kit & Program Membership! 9. Save $200 on your Enfora Wireless Developer Program Membership! 10. Save $500 (1/2 price) on the NetPost Cream Developer Program and BETA SDK! 11. Save $200 on your Arch Wireless Developer Program Membership! and of course... 12. 1/2 price on the Pinpoint Fuel Developer Progam Membership. Can't beat that deal!!! You're one click away from WirelessDeveloper nirvana! http://www.WirelessDeveloper.com/store.htm ============================================= We sent this email to you at cypherpunks(a)toad.com. If you got more than one copy, just forward all copies to us and we'll remove the alias dups. If you're not interested in wireless data, wireless applictaion development, etc. -- what the heck are we bugging YOU for? Just reply with an UNSUBSCRIBE in your subject and we'll take you off our list forever (but we'll miss you!)

1 0

Re: CDR Anonymizer <cpunks_anon@einstein.ssz.com> ?
by Eric Murray 24 Sep '01

24 Sep '01

On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 08:32:46PM -0700, CDR Anonymizer wrote: > The cypherpunks list received yet another copy of the > "Nigerian Corrupt Official's Bank Account" scam spam. > No surprise, though lne.com's filters usually block them. > The interesting thing was that this claims to be sent by the > CDR Anonymizer <cpunks_anon(a)einstein.ssz.com> > > This is the first time I've seen spam using an anonymizer - > any guesses whether the spammer understands how to use it, > or whether they just harvested the address from one of Choate's web pages? > I'm assuming it's probably the latter. I think so. There were a couple spams to the regular cpunks list at the same time containing the same content. It's not the first spam I've seen to cpunks_anon(a)einstein.ssz.com. Hey Jim, could you at least not make it a mailto: so it's not quite so easy to harvest? (note, I'm assuming that it's a mailto, I can't get to ssz.com to check). Eric

1 0

branding war:pentagon changing operation's codename
by pseudolicious 24 Sep '01

24 Sep '01

winston churchill once said: <"Operations in which large numbers of men may lose their lives ought not to be described by code words which imply a boastful or overconfident sentiment."> -------- GOVERNMENT TRIPPING OVER RELIGIOUS RHETORIC=BY SARAH LUBMAN SJMercury News For the second time in less than a week, the U.S. government had damage control to do because of its religion-infused rhetoric. The Pentagon on Thursday backed away from the code name for its anti-terrorist offensive, ``Operation Infinite Justice,'' for fear of offending Muslims. /.../ Objections to ``Infinite Justice'' came up at a Pentagon briefing on Thursday. A reporter told Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that several Islamic scholars took issue with the term, saying that infinite justice resides only with God, or Allah. /.../ The American military, following German practice, began naming its military operations during World War II. In 1942, the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved an index of code words that are randomly assigned for each operation. The first word refers to the operation's region -- e.g., ``desert'' for the Middle East -- and the second often connotes some kind of resolve. Winston Churchill was fascinated with code names and had his own thoughts on the matter, according to a 1995 article on the history of naming operations in Parameters, a U.S. Army War College quarterly. Churchill instructed that operation names shouldn't be silly: They should not ``enable some widow or mother to say that her son was killed in an operation called `Bunnyhug' or `Ballyhoo.' '' /.../ http://www0.mercurycenter.com/partners/docs/003925.htm Posted at 11:03 p.m. PDT Thursday, Sept. 20, 2001

1 0

TIM MAY FOR PREZ!
by f this 24 Sep '01

24 Sep '01

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tim May, All the way?.......4 prez that is Tim has good views and points to various events and i think he deserves some credit and should run for prez. TIM MAY for president in 2k4 nah....how about you just overthrow bush right now. Aimee - How good are the hours you work at Taco Bell? Are they flexible with your times, because Im thinking about working there. Not being a janitor/cashier like you, but where do you think I should start? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

1 0

RE: Expectation of privacy in public?
by Trei, Peter 24 Sep '01

24 Sep '01

> Anonymous[SMTP:nobody@remailer.privacy.at] > > > For the lawyers and lawyer larvae out there... > > In an article in the San Francisco Bay Guardian this week, there is an > article about MUNI's policy of making audio recordings of passengers. > > <quote> > Nathan Ballard of the City Attorney's Office told the Bay Guardian that > they were well aware of the policy and approved it. "There are no > expectations of privacy in public," he said. Ballard asserted that the > policy was constitutional and did not fall under any wiretapping laws. > When asked if all of the vehicles that employ this surveillance policy > post signs to inform passengers that their conversations are being > recorded, he said, "This policy does not require signs." > </quote> > > Frankly, if I'm sitting in the back of an empty bus, talking to the person > next to me, it's my opinion that there certainly is a reasonable expection > of privacy. Does anyone more qualified than I care to tell me why I'm > right or wrong? > > Legal or not, I'm also curious to see what the EFF has to say about this > wonderful incarnation of Big Brother. > > http://www.sfbg.com/SFLife/35/51/cult.html > MUNI is breaking the law. http://www.rcfp.org/taping/ Peter Trei --------------------------- Cal. Penal Code ' 631, 632 (Deering 1999): It is a crime in California to intercept or eavesdrop upon any confidential communication, including a telephone call or wire communication, without the consent of all parties. It is also a crime to disclose information obtained from such an interception. A first offense is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500 and imprisonment for no more than one year. Subsequent offenses carry a maximum fine of $10,000 and jail sentence of up to one year. Eavesdropping upon or recording a conversation, whether by telephone (including cordless or cellular telephone) or in person, that a person would reasonably expect to be confined to the parties present, carries the same penalty as intercepting telephone or wire communications. Conversations occurring at any public gathering that one should expect to be overheard, including any legislative, judicial or executive proceeding open to the public, are not covered by the law. Anyone injured by a violation of the wiretapping laws can recover civil damages of $5,000 or three times actual damages, whichever is greater. Cal. Penal Code ' 637.2(a) (Deering 1999). An appellate court has ruled that using a hidden video camera violates the statute. California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (1989). ------------------------------

1 0

RE: Intercepts foretold of 'big attack' -- The Washington Times
by Trei, Peter 24 Sep '01

24 Sep '01

The Choate wrote: > Subject: Intercepts foretold of 'big attack' -- The Washington Times > > http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-200192213012.htm > Now, isn't the washtimes the paper which is owned by the Moonies? This doesn't neccesarily mean it can't be a good paper, but it gives me pause. Maybe my info is out of date Peter Trei

1 0

crypto in Pakistan punishable by execution
by mmotyka＠lsil.com 24 Sep '01

24 Sep '01

baptista(a)pccf.net wrote: >Just picked this up on CNN interview. > >Any use of encryption technology in Pakistan is now punishable by >execution. > That's a relief! You know my hearing isn't everything it used to be - I thought they said Hackensack. >Can someone look into this who may have access to this sort of information >to confirm or deny the report. > >regards >joe baptista > Mike

2 1

Re: anonymous digital cash and other (now) iffy stuff
by Ryan Lackey 24 Sep '01

24 Sep '01

[Moderator's note: This is quite long, and much of it is interesting primarily to those following the Sealand saga. Since many of us _have_, in fact, been following the Sealand saga, I'm forwarding it for that reason. --Perry] Quoting Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu>: > I never thought much of the idea at the time. In todays climate I > suspect that E-Gold, ZeroKnowledge and Sealand might as well > start packing up their servers before they get busted. (it's "HavenCo" not "Sealand", just as ZKS is ZKS and not "Canada") I agree the current climate is substantially worse, in terms of respect for the rule of law, individual liberty, and the prospects for freedom of speech, than it was before the WTC bombing. However, none of this was unanticipated; this incident just accelerates our descent into a future dystopia of universal monitoring, global statism, and individual subjugation, but does not at all affect where we're going. We've been on this path for at least the past 50 years, and if this attack and the aftermath pushes us forward another 20 years in a single day, that's certainly important, but no one should be surprised when they look around themselves and don't like what they see. (I assume you mean legislative/legal/political climate; while the nay-sayers said we'd be out of business before the end of 2000 due to lack of demand, HavenCo at least is profitable, and I think E-Gold is as well.) This trend is far more damaging to firms whose core business is not the provision of anonymity and privacy to clients, but which require privacy and anonymity provided by others to make their services useful. If it becomes more difficult to provide privacy/anonymity/security, the demand for such services will increase even faster than the costs of providing them. Some firms with relatively weak technical or other basis may be unable to scale up to provide more secure solutions, but the ensuing vacuum will encourage others to step up to the plate. The greatest enemy of secure electronic mail, for instance, being widely deployed is the LACK of widespread monitoring. If every internet connection in the US were monitored actively, and the contents were routinely used in civil and criminal legal actions, technologies like ZKS Freedom, PGP, SSL would be in far wider use than they are now. Certainly an argument can be made that it is more complex to offer such services with active government prosecution in one or more jurisdictions around the world. However, certain fundamental technical conditions do not cease to be true simply due to terrorist action, political will, or legislative fiat. Blowing up the WTC is unlikely to have made factoring RSA any easier than it was on 10 September, it is unlikely to have found a backdoor in widely deployed symmetric ciphers, and it has not affected the laws of thermodynamics to lessen the difficulty of defeating steganography. Sure, identifiable persons, physical assets, etc. can now be more easily attacked through legal means, at least in most of the world, and there is public support in many countries for international military action against others, provided at least a tenuous link to the "global terrorist conspiracy". However, the fundamental game is not changed. All that is required for "cypherpunk" reality is: [*] at least one computer with secure local execution environment (processor, some internal secure memory for interim results) [*] some means of permanently storing data (which can be unreliable, monitored, etc.) [*] some means of communication (even highly monitored, maliciously modified, or other) to the humans involved [*] plus, for anything reasonable, multiple such setups and some means of communication among them in a large network, even monitored or modified, with traffic analysis possibly limited to "a member of the overall network" where "network" can be massively more broad than "conspirators"). [*] Code[1]. I think it highly unlikely even a new "War on Terrorism", even if 100 times more forceful than the "War on Drugs", will be able to eliminate every last pre-2001 laptop computer, PDA, etc. from the earth, or the ability for people to send email (even if monitored, and outright encrypted email is a capital crime) and connect to a global network. On top of that infrastructure, viable electronic cash systems protected from traffic analysis and resistant to censorship, anonymous publication systems, etc. can be built. Indeed, most of the technical challenges have been solved since the 1980s; the only difficulty has been general lack of demand from the public, standard software engineering complexity issues, excessive concern for legality and intellectual property concerns, and the distraction of the dotcom boom. If, as you seem to imply, open warfare on personal liberty shall be declared, most of those concerns go away; if it's a felony to deploy ecash, you'll want to be anonymous anyway, and then violating someone's patent just doesn't seem like a big deal in comparison. > [...] > Sealand will probably still keep maintaining its idiotic claim to be an > independent state, but if the UK government wants to search they can > easily get a warrant. If sealand were outside UK territorial waters (it > ain't anymore) the navy can board at any time of their choice any structure > or vessel that is not registered with the shipping registry of a recognised > state that is in international waters. Sealand's claim to statehood rests on the following argument: 1) An artificial island, Roughs Tower, was constructed in 1942 by the British Government in then international waters, for the purpose of defense. This island was not constructed for the purposes of extending the UK's territory, but only to defend the UK's mainland from air or sea attack. 2) Subsequent to cessation of hostilities, WWII, 1945, the UK removed personnel and some equipment from the island, abandoning it. The UK did not return to the island at any subsequent point. 3) In 1966, Roy Bates, a UK citizen, along with others, landed on Sealand and occupied it. It was at this point abandoned for over 20 years by the UK government. Roy, his wife Joan, and son Michael established permanent primary residence on the island, renaming it Sealand. 4) Through repeated legal challenges, including firing on ships of the royal navy, mounting armed counter-invasion, resolving the issue of taxation of UK citizens resident on Sealand as if they were resident in any other foreign country, etc., Sealand's sovereignty has been repeatedly reaffirmed. We have a large body of supporting documentation from the past 59 years; I'll try to put more of it up on our website in the future. 5) Despite the UK extending territorial waters in 1987 to 12nm, Sealand was by that point established for more than 20 years, and extended its own territorial waters to 18nm the day before. Similarly, treaties and amendments to the laws of the sea in the 1980s prohibiting the construction of platforms in international waters by sovereign governments in order to extend territorial waters did not apply to the UK in 1942, nor did they apply to Sealand when founded in 1966. Such treaties also support the long legal tradition of artificial and reclaimed land being treated as land for the purposes of international and national law. None of this has been in the least affected by an apparent new willingness on the part of the US and other nations to invade arbitrary other nations. Sealand has nothing to do with any of the recent terrorist events; if Osama bin Ladin were, for instance, living on Sealand, I would fully expect Sealand would be asked to turn him over[1] or face invasion. Sealand's legal status is NOT the issue; international realpolitik of larger states vs. smaller ones is much more the issue. In fact, given such a situation, it seems more likely they would treat Sealand as a state, and ask us to comply with a demand placed in such language. Independently of that, HavenCo operates. If HavenCo/Sealand is shut down by invasion by the nation of -------, HavenCo can continue to operate from other locations; indeed, eliminating Sealand would simply establish more need for our services and ensure our next facility has more customers and capital equipment than Sealand. [1] There *was* a time where cypherpunks wrote code, rather than worrying about influencing legislation; they assumed the government was malicious and all powerful anddesigned technical systems to defeat them still; I don't think that time is over. Indeed, an upcoming conference, CodeCon, exists to advance the state of the art in and promote discussion of such systems; CFP to be sent shortly.) [2] Which would be done, but in multiple boxes/bags/jars, just as our ultimate response to someone presenting a clear military threat unless we hand over a given customer machine is to destroy it completely and then refund the customer's unused balance. -- Ryan Lackey [RL7618 RL5931-RIPE] ryan(a)havenco.com CTO and Co-founder, HavenCo Ltd. +44 7970 633 277 the free world just milliseconds away http://www.havenco.com/ OpenPGP 4096: B8B8 3D95 F940 9760 C64B DE90 07AD BE07 D2E0 301F --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)wasabisystems.com

6 5

Larry Ellison's taste for little boys
by Subcommander Bob 24 Sep '01

24 Sep '01

At 02:48 AM 9/24/01 -0500, Bill Scannell wrote: >Registration of the domain name boycottoracle.com is >complete! As requested, your domain will be registered for 1 year(s). How about some of those Andre-the-giant OBEY posters with Ellison's ugly visage postering SF? Or just near Oracle campusses and eateries. ....... "Terrorists are the only true avant-garde artists because they're the only ones who are still capable of really surprising people." ---Laurie Anderson

1 0