December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Encryption software
by Pete Loshin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Medea writes: > I was telling a friend that I was going to buy a program similar to PC Anywhere to be able to >communicate between my computer at home and the one at the office. He suggested trying to find a >similar program which includes encryption. > Anyone know of such a program? Norton pcANYWHERE and Stac ReachOut both claim to use encryption though I don't have any details of what that encryption is. However, if you use a direct telephone link to communicate, your need for encryption would mostly be in the event that your telephone lines were being tapped (though these products can also be used over most network protocols including IP and IPX). btw: In general, when I speak with PC software vendors (product managers) they almost always talk about how secure their products are but never have the details (either, "oh, that's proprietary" or else "I'm not sure, I'll have to get back to you on that...") -Pete Loshin pete(a)loshin.com

1 0

Firewall USA to Firewall China
by sophi＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At the meeting on saturday the idea of a Firewall USA was discussed. Here's a quote from Jim Clark CEO of Netscape on the idea of a Firewall China, just for comparison. Q: The Chinese government has declared its intention to filter out what it considers to be objectionable material from the Internet. If you were a consultant for the Chinese government, what technology would you recommend that they use to do that? A: A lot of people think that's not possible. It's difficult to enforce, but it's certainly possible. A corporation has a so-called fire wall -- a single point of entry into the corporate net. You can have a country that has a single point of entry into its "country net." It's doable. All you need, though, is one breach of security, and there's a leak. A fire wall is a filter -- it filters and doesn't let certain people come in. You can only come in if you have the right permission. So you could easily set that up so that it would filter out your objectionable material. this is a temp .sig

2 1

V-chips
by A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill rote: >One thing the V-Chip gives us is the argument: Now that parents have the >ability to control what their children watch, the government should turn >responsibility over to them and butt out. Hmmm, thought - network TV is declining badly (I like AMC & Discovery channel myself). FCC rules are somewhat limiting and 5-year-old mentalities rarely have much disposable income. Cable is taking off because FCC restrictions do not apply. Would the V-chip free the networks to allow *more* S&V^H^H^H"adult content" ? Where is the lobbying/money coming from ? Warmly, Padgett ps still suspect that both the V-chip and CC are simple chip design changes that do not need to add any cost.

1 0

COO_kie
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

2-12-96. FinTim: "This bug in your PC is a smart cookie." Netscape Navigator contains a little-known wrinkle that increases the power of companies to find out who their customers are and what they are up to. It allows companies to track which Web pages an individual looks at, when, for how long, and in what order. The information is stored on the customer's computer as "persistent client-state hypertext transfer protocol cookies". 2-12-96. WSJ: "Consumer Privacy on Internet Goes Public." The advertising industry's response to the volatile issue of consumer privacy is drawing howls of protest from consumer advocates. The battle is over what should marketers be allowed to do with personal information they gather from consumers visiting Web sites. Marketers "want to have dossiers on people with incredible detail so they can pick and choose what they send to you." "Invention Machine's Software Wins Orders for Picking Brains of Inventors." A software program is being snapped up by a growing number of America's biggest companies to provide inventing partners for their engineers. The program codifies the invention principles behind some two million international patents and the inventive techniques of some of the world's greatest inventors. Mr. Tsourikov said the product grew out of his early studies under Genrich Altshuller, who posited that invention isn't a random process but has a certain algorithm which drives it. COO_kie

2 1

Re: Unknown address
by Tim Cook 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >The user this message was addressed to does not exist at this > site. Please > >verify the name and domain in the original message that > follows. > >Message was addressed to: SAMUEL.KAPLIN(a)warehouse.mn.org > > > > Anybody besides me getting these things? > Seems he does exist. I got one too. Another "Logical Conclusion" by: Tim Cook <twcook(a)cts.com> Support THE US Constitution... Vote Alexander in '96 and '00!

1 0

Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:18 PM 2/11/96 -0800, Alan Olsen wrote: ... >You have to remember that most of the people arguing for TV filters are >looking for a way to make the "offensive" stuff go away for good. Absolutely! But the technology that lets individuals make the choice weakens their argument that the government must take a hand. >The v-chip will be less than useful as a real filter tool for those of us >who have a different worldview than the censors. Again, absolutely. Hell, I can't even devise a filter that will let me filter out Jim Bell's rants while letting me see his reasoned arguments on anonymous assassination. (I would love to have him address the Salman Rushdie issue, a man who is still alive despite a considerable announced price for his head. There appear to be limits to who can be subject to assassination for pay.) Bill

1 0

Re: Regulation of citizen-alien communications
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:21 AM 2/12/96 -0500, lmccarth(a)cs.umass.edu wrote: >Padgett writes: >> Gov does have the right (in fact the duty) to regulate communications >> between citizens and non-citizens/sites in other lands >[...and later...] >> "...provide for the common defense" >> "To regulate Commerce with foreign nations..." >> "...or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." >> >> There are the bytes - try reading them in context. > >Familiar phrases indeed. Now, it seems to me that the Commerce Clause and >other Constitutional portions you cited could apply as well to >communications between two U.S. citizens inside the U.S. as they do to the >citizen-alien communications you mentioned. Yet if I read you correctly >earlier, you don't think the USG has the right to regulate those >communications. Why the distinction ? I suspect that Padgett's entire view of reality is built on quicksand.

1 0

Re: Attitudes toward the government...
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:43 PM 2/11/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >Jim Ray wrote: > >>"Americans hate the IRS, and if the only way they can get rid of it >> is to elect somebody who is communicating directly with the Planet >> Xorgon, then so be it." -- Dave Barry [on Steve Forbes]. 2/9/96 > >Not just this, but another data point about the current sentiment about >Washington: In a movie theater today there was a preview of the upcoming >movie "Independence Day," showing a flying saucer hovering over the White >House, then destroying it. The audience cheered and clapped. > >I'm not sure this would've happened in, say, the early 1950s. I have seen similar responses when watching Washington D.C. get partially destroyed in _Earth V.S. the Flying Saucers_. Watching Ray Harryhousen destroy the capitol and the washington monument is the best part of the movie. >(However, like the early 1950s, the producers of this upatriotic drivel may >have to answer to the House Un-American Activities Committee, to explain >their Indecent portrayal.) I expect it to be an "US V.S. Them" movie. Lots of patriotism and the like will be there. (The title says alot about the film.) It will hype the need to be prepared for a "menace". The message will be reinforced with a heavy dosage of special effects and jingoism. Standard hollywood fare. I doubt if we will see anything approching mild subversion form Hollywood anytime soon. >(P.S. "Broken Arrow" was a fun flick. Sort of like "Fail Safe " on "Speed.") Sounds like you spent your day doing the same thing i did... It was quite worthwhile. (But then, John Woo films usually are.) I also found _Hardboiled_ subtitled and letterboxed a few days ago. Another great Woo film. OBCypherpunks noise: I am amazed I have not yet seen a mention of the animated Spy V.S. Spy cartoons running on Mad TV. One of the best parts of the show. (Except for the Triple XXX files from the last episode.) --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "I, Caligula Clinton... In the name of the Senate and the people of Rome!" - Bill Clinton signing the CDA with the First Amendment bent over.

1 0

Put the Protest where your money is.
by Ray Arachelian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here's an idea that come up while I and a good friend were in a well intoxicated and creative mood... Every dollar you spend, be it a 1, 5, 10, 20, 50, or 100 denomination bill, write in a speech bubble to the president dude in the center, which says "I oppose the CDA. Exon sucks. Exon fornicates with male farm animals. CDA Is unconstitutional, I roll in my grave over the CDA, etc." Be creative; use the memo field in any checks you write to do the same. Money is the one element that travels from hand to hand to hand to hand. It is a network as extensitve as the internet itself, and even more so. Let your money speak for you! Put your url on the bill, or the url to the eff (http://mirrors.yahoo.com/eff/speech.html) or the Voter's Telecom Watch (http://www.vtw.org/) Leave your pages black until this damnable blemish on our rights is repealed! ========================================================================== + ^ + | Ray Arachelian |Emptiness is loneliness, and loneliness| _ |> \|/ |sunder(a)dorsai.org|is cleanliness and cleanliness is god-| \ | <--+-->| |liness and god is empty, just like me,| \| /|\ | Just Say |intoxicated with the maddness, I'm in| <|\ + v + | "No" to the NSA!|love with my sadness. (Pumpkins/Zero)| <| n ===================http://www.dorsai.org/~sunder/========================= [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the Communications Decency Act] And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why don't you boys just come on in and do em right here in my house - I'll just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said. "Dad's getting old. I say we should do him." So the two daughters got him drunk and did him all that night. Sure enough, Dad got em pregnant....Onan really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant while his brother got all the credit, so he whacked off first....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular Translation, TCM, 1996]

1 0

Re: "Rights"
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:15 AM 2/10/96 -0600, Ed Carp wrote: >> Remedy exists. If you do not like the rules at one site, choose another. In > >What happens when there *is* no remedy, when there are no other sites to >go to, when there are no employers who would refrain from violating an >employee's privacy? What then? Ed, there are hardly likely to be much of a reduction in ISPs from the current 7K. Hard for an employer to track your use if you switch to a radio modem after booting your machine without the network drivers to cut off eavesdropping. DCF

1 0

Re: China
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:29 AM 2/11/96 -0500, Dr. Dimitri Vulis wrote: >Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> writes: > >> At 01:54 PM 2/10/96 EST, you wrote: >> >It's not difficult to imagine that governments will seek to regulate the >> >possession of modems again. Some may recall that in the U.S. it used to be >> >technically illegal to connect a modem to the phone jack without a permissio >> >from AT&T. >> >> Actually, permission from the local phone companies, who owned the system, >> I assume? (Though I don't actually remember which parts of The Phone Company >> were involved in the Carterphone decision.) > >Nope. I used modems back when the local phone company _was AT&T. :-) Back in the really dark ages, we used acoustic couplers (300 b/s max) which held a telephone handset, so there was no direct connection to the telephone lines. The phone company asserted that they were also illegal, but their argument was kind of weak!

2 1

Edupage Extract - Employees & Email
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Somehow, I can understand how sending it to a _supervisor_ would break privacy protections... Crypto relevance? Anonymous remailers can be used for complaints & whistle-blowing. The latter may be unfortunate, depending on the law being enforced. -Allen From: IN%"educom(a)elanor.oit.unc.edu" 11-FEB-1996 21:53:17.72 Subj: Edupage, 11 February 1996 ***************************************************************** Edupage, 11 February 1996. Edupage, a summary of news items on information technology, is provided three times each week as a service by Educom, a Washington, D.C.-based consortium of leading colleges and universities seeking to transform education through the use of information technology. ***************************************************************** JUDGE RULES AGAINST EMPLOYEE IN E-MAIL SNOOPING CASE A federal judge in Philadelphia has ruled against a former employee of the Pillsbury Co. who filed a suit claiming invasion of privacy after his e-mail messages threatening to "kill the backstabbing bastards" and referring to an upcoming party as the "Jim Jones Koolaid affair" were deemed to be inappropriate, unprofessional and offensive, leading to his firing in October 1994. The company had repeatedly assured its employees that all e-mail communications would be kept confidential, but the court found that, "Once plaintiff communicated the alleged unprofessional comments to a second person (his supervisor) over an e-mail system which was apparently utilized by the entire company, any reasonable expectation of privacy was lost." (BNA Daily Labor Report 6 Feb 96 AA1)

1 0

Flying Sorcerers
by A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Not just this, but another data point about the current sentiment about >Washington: In a movie theater today there was a preview of the upcoming >movie "Independence Day," showing a flying saucer hovering over the White >House, then destroying it. The audience cheered and clapped. "To serve man" no doubt. P.fla

1 0

Re: A Cyberspace Independence Refutation
by lunaslide＠loop.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<rm> } A lot of people forget the basic truth that the net is based }almost entirely on physical communications facilities owned for the most }part by huge corperations that have deeply incestuous relationships with }the political power structure and very little interest in preserving the }self important dreams of a few members of a self selected net "elite". }If ordered to pull the plug they will, and cyberspace as we know it will }evaporate overnight. Why should businesses cooperate with and help protect a govt that it's needs would be better met without their existance? Eve in the near future during which busniesses will play by _most_ of the rules, those businesses that own most of the net will not shut it down because it conflicts with their business interests in a _major_ way. Shutting down the internet for even a day would loose these people so much money and time that if the govt were to ask them to shut it down, they would seriously believe that they are joking. They would laugh, and the govt wouldn't be able to do shit about it. The net is something that has grown like ivy in an ivy-league school; it can never be eradicated. Too many people rely on it, it is too big an income for big business and none of those businessed could shut it down completely. Routing errors, misplaced domains, sure, but the net would survive and it would heal it's own wounds. <rm> } } A defeated pessimist, } die(a)die.com I believe that most of us on this group are here because we have principles that compel us to fight for our freedom and privacy. For me, those principles are strong enough that if to die fighting for them is my fate, than that is how I will give my life. To lay down my arms, to give up before I'm dead or the war is over is to bring shame and dishonor upon myself that I could not bear to live with. I would never be able to look my unborn children in the eyes again because I would know that I did not do my part in the fight; I did not stand my ground. BTW, I just turned 22 years old in January and if I hear anyone , especially anyone on this list, call my generation a bunch of slackers again, I will seek you out, tie you to a chair and force you to watch every episode of Guiligan's Island and The Brady Bunch five times each. lunaslide "Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." - -- Abraham Lincoln On the meridian of time there is no injustice, only the poetry of motion creating the illusion of truth and drama. Henry Miller ________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCPAzEX3QEAAAEEAOGQjhnqGH29pO1WDaXs5GFOVPhCBWyYEk9XEwRmscjveWzH AhA6DeOA480zWNqQURyqE2yPmR8WzT+OXYqmeiQiycKyFA41Vs/Ruf+gXXxe7uXS L5BK3K8oKbfoH0D5/TAkMT4r6BprXFQz4pFc3gY2SSaSPElpMjKHaKBsRsyRABEB AAG0HUplZmYgQ29ubiA8bHVuYXNsaWRlQGxvb3AuY29tiQCVAwUQMRffHzKHaKBs RsyRAQGNhwP9E9xEZ9/LCKnhgtnrqgD7pDoXG2pCy8FoyfFjoImGkG+jF1wELXmB Z0mf8F8CgYkys0mif1XeGDMelr1gzlZAm6LgQt4kcvztMW/aRLn18QP+iwltVT/L p8D37mitOjvuk46sWgAChIaPPPIeg/EaYQjQkmlpWKsEYIoTRy+E8mU= =4Gku -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Re: A Cyberspace Independence Refutation
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:36 AM 2/12/96 -0500, lmccarth(a)cs.umass.edu wrote: > I'm afraid I'm not willing to take [vulnerability of the state] on faith. You delete my arguments, and then say: "I am not willing to take this on faith", implying that I made no arguments. > Strata made some good > observations about the tangible vulnerability of the net-as-we-know-it to > government intervention. During the American revolution, the British troops could go where they pleased, and destroy whatever they wished, but they could not obtain political control by so doing. Yes, we are vulnerable, and so are they. If they used the measures proposed by Strata, the measures proposed by Jim Bell would gather wide support. Ob Crypto: They cannot obtain political control by mere acts of destruction, because they cannot be sufficiently selective in who they silence. For destruction to be effective, you must not only harm those who oppose you, you must refrain from harming those who do not oppose you. The destructive acts proposed by Strata conspicuously fail to do this. Under the extreme conditions that Strata envisages, the measures proposed by Jim Bell would be effective in obtaining politically desired consequences, because they are selective and targeted, and the measures that Strata fears would be ineffective in obtaining the politically desired consequences, because they are unselective and untargeted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1

Re: A Cyberspace Independence Refutation
by lunaslide＠loop.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<rm> }Your other arguments casually dismiss the very real power that large numbers }of able people with good communications can exercise, have just exercised }very recently. } }Nation states are a new creation. In the past many different }kings ruled many different bits of one nation, and one king often }ruled parts of more than one nation. } }Today nation states are almost universal, and people can no longer }imagine what a nation is, other than a nation state. But the net }is a nation, and is not a state, and nationalism is a force that }governments usually cannot withstand. <rm> I'll just come out admit right now that I read Wired. Yeah, sue me. But my point is that there was an article in 4.01 (January) on page 86 titled "Is Government Obsolete? Is the free market all we need to build a robust and democratic political economy for the 21st century?" I think the govt sees the beginning of the end. They will not be completely done away with, but they will lose the vast amount of power that they now have and be reduced in size till they are functioning as a mediator of disputes between this country and others, a regulator of some laws involving ecology, labor laws, and so on. But they will have lost control over the direction of the nation. Will the nation be able to be cohesive without them? I don't even think our concept of what a nation is will be the same when that time eventually does come. One think does stand to reason though, when govt gets in the way of business, govt eventually gets run over. Regulating the net in content brings them one step closer to obsolescence. The govt is not yet in it's death throwes, but it has seen it's own fate. The net regulation is one more feeble attempt at avoiding destiny. King Laius will not avoid his fate by sending his son away this time, just like he didn't the first time. "...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.---That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ---That whenever any Form of government becomes destructive to those ends, it os the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying it's foundation on such priciples and organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accostomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." >From the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776. lunaslide "Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." - -- Abraham Lincoln On the meridian of time there is no injustice, only the poetry of motion creating the illusion of truth and drama. Henry Miller ________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCPAzEX3QEAAAEEAOGQjhnqGH29pO1WDaXs5GFOVPhCBWyYEk9XEwRmscjveWzH AhA6DeOA480zWNqQURyqE2yPmR8WzT+OXYqmeiQiycKyFA41Vs/Ruf+gXXxe7uXS L5BK3K8oKbfoH0D5/TAkMT4r6BprXFQz4pFc3gY2SSaSPElpMjKHaKBsRsyRABEB AAG0HUplZmYgQ29ubiA8bHVuYXNsaWRlQGxvb3AuY29tiQCVAwUQMRffHzKHaKBs RsyRAQGNhwP9E9xEZ9/LCKnhgtnrqgD7pDoXG2pCy8FoyfFjoImGkG+jF1wELXmB Z0mf8F8CgYkys0mif1XeGDMelr1gzlZAm6LgQt4kcvztMW/aRLn18QP+iwltVT/L p8D37mitOjvuk46sWgAChIaPPPIeg/EaYQjQkmlpWKsEYIoTRy+E8mU= =4Gku -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

2 1

Censorship and Snooping at Winthrop University
by Declan B. McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Following are portions of a message I sent to Winthrop University administrators. They're considering a heinous new policy that says: "No information should be exchanged through E-mail that is not official University business. No personal or confidential information should be exchanged and all communications are subject to periodic and/or random audit by the Office of Information Technology to ensure compliance with this policy." -Declan ---------- Forwarded message begins here ---------- From: Declan McCullagh To: feldern(a)winthrop.edu, broachg(a)winthrop.edu, rosenj(a)winthrop.edu, moressiw(a)winthrop.edu, jonesr(a)winthrop.edu, cormierp(a)winthrop.edu cc: wellsj(a)winthrop.edu, harrisoc(a)lurch.winthrop.edu, browne(a)winthrop.edu, duboisp(a)winthrop.edu, margare946(a)aol.com, fight-censorship+(a)andrew.cmu.edu Subject: Censorship at Winthrop University February 12, 1996 Dear Winthrop University Administrators: I was disturbed to read a recent Associated Press article reporting that Winthrop University has censored the web pages of two of your students and suspended the students from classes after one of them placed nude photographs online. I was even more dimayed to read that your school's proposed computing policy allows university officials to snoop through your students' electronic mailboxes at will. For shame! The American Library Association's draft policy recommendation on electronic services and networks says, on student computer accounts: No user should be restricted or denied access for expressing or receiving constitutionally protected speech. No user's access should be changed without due process, including, but not limited to, notice and a means of appeal. The American Association of University Professors endorsed this statement on academic freedom, published in the July-August 1992 _Academe_, which says in part: On a campus that is free and open, no idea can be banned or forbidden... Free speech is not simply an aspect of the educational enterprise to be weighed against other desirable ends. It is the very precondition of the academic enterprise itself. Regarding your plans to look at student email, more information is available at ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/faq/email.privacy, which says: According to Mike Godwin, legal services counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the U.S.'s Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) could be reasonably construed to protect university email. This is also the reported opinion of the U. of Michigan's lawyers. Also, the U.S.'s Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act gives students at all public and most private schools some privacy rights. According to the AAUP statement and according to the fundamental principles of academic freedom, universities must protect controversial speech on their campuses. If Winthrop University does not, it is violating its historic commitments to free speech and turning its pledges to uphold academic freedom and freedom of expression into broken promises. I've copied this message to the fight-censorship mailing list, which has among its subscribers roughly 50 journalists interested in online censorship issues, including writers from TIME, Newsweek, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Internet World, WIRED, and many others. I invite you to clarify your university's position and respond directly to the mailing list. Cyberspace is developing quickly, and I feel confident that Winthrop University would not want to be known as an online leader in repression, censorship, and Orwellian thought-policing. I trust that a school such as Winthrop University, with such a distinguished College of Education, will not neglect the fundamental principles upon which your university was founded. I hope that you understand that voiceless speech and inkless press must receive the same protections as voiced speech and inked press. I urge you to reconsider your policies. I look forward to your reply. Very truly yours, Declan McCullagh PS: I'm attaching a file from Carl Kadie's Computers and Academic Freedom archive, at http://www.eff.org/CAF/. More information is also available at the Justice on Campus project, at http://joc.mit.edu/. --------------------------------------------------------------------- February 11, 1996 ROCK HILL, S.C. (AP) -- Winthrop students Brian Walker and Josh Campbell have had their university Internet accounts pulled after officials said they violated school policy. Walker created a web page soliciting money and Campbell created one including a nude woman. While the two admitted they crossed the line, the Feb. 2 suspension has risen free speech debates and computer policy review through the school. Both students deleted their web pages, and their two-week suspension was reduced to one. Nathaniel Felder, Winthrop's associate vice president for information technology, said work on amending the computer policy has been ongoing. School officials planned to submit the proposals Friday to Winthrop's board of trustees. But Internet users, particularly professors and students, thought the new policy included language that infringed on their rights and violated their freedom of speech. So, the policy will be forwarded to a computer committee for further review. Professors and students opposed language in the policy that said e-mail be used only for official university business. The policy also allows officials to randomly audit e-mail for compliance. ``It could be a violation of the principles of the free change of ideas at the university,'' political science professor Glen Broach said. But Bob Thompson, Winthrop's board chairman, said Internet policy is to protect the users and Winthrop from liability. =============== ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/faq/computer-porn =============== q: Should universities create a rule banning "porn" on university computers? a: In my opinion, no. Such a rule would be unnecessary and too broad. [Disclaimers: I'm not a lawyer. This answer is based on the situation in the U.S.] A computer porn ban is too broad because "pornography" is not a well-defined term. For many people, "pornography" means any nude or sexually suggestive material. While you may intend only to stop computer-science students from looking at _Playboy_ centerfolds in your computer labs, your rule may also stop liberal-arts students from viewing the growing number of fine art collections on the Net. For example, 2,800 images are on-line at the Australian National University ANU. Among these images is a print of Manet's "Olympia" Olympia. When this now famous nude was unveiled in 1863, it caused an outrage because of its blatant sexuality. Hundreds of images are also available at the WebMuseum The WebMuseum. Among these images is Salvador Dali's shocking "Young Virgin Autosodomised by her own Chastity" <a href="http://www.emf.net/wm/paint/auth/dali/works/dali.virgin.jpg">Virgin </a>. Either of these images could be used to sexually harass someone, but so could many noncomputer images on your campus such as art on the University's walls and the _Playboy_ centerfolds that are likely in your university library. A rule banning computer porn is unnecessary because university computer facilities can (and should) be treated as ny other university facility. That means banning the act of harassment, not the materials that can be used to harass but that can also be used without harassing anyone. Similar reasoning was used by a federal district judge in June 1994. In the widely reported case, he said that "quiet reading" of a _Playboy_ magazine by a firefighter does not create a sexually harassing atmosphere. At least in the U.S., virtually every university has a sexual harassment policy that not only covers harassment via computers but that also dictates the exact procedure for handling sexual harassment complaints. (Having a procedure is important because the line between constitutionally protected expression and unprotected expression is dim and uncertain.) Computer sites should publicize the university's sexual harassment rules; they should not try to preempt them. See the referenced U. of Illinois report on the Status of Women for concrete suggestions on publicizing your existing sexual harassment rules. So what about material that may be illegal in your jurisdiction, for example libel, threats, obscenity-in-the-legal-sense, copyright violations, etc.? Many university computer policies include the "Law Law", that is, the rule that says that it is forbidden to violate the law. This is not quite as redundant as it may seem because it authorizes the University to handle infractions itself via its established due process procedure. - Carl Kadie ANNOTATED REFERENCES (All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.) =================<a href="http://www.eff.org/CAF/faq/censorship-and-harassment.html"> faq/censorship-and-harassment =================</a> * Censorship And Harassment q: Must/should universities ban material that some find offensive (from Netnews facilities, email, libraries, and student publications, etc) in order to comply with antiharassment laws? a: No. U.S. federal courts have said that harassing speech is ... =================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/quiet-reading"> law/quiet-reading =================</a> * Expression -- Harassment -- Quiet Reading of _Playboy_ Excerpts from a newspaper report that a federal district judge has said that "quiet reading" of a _Playboy_ magazine by a firefighter does not create a sexually harassing atmosphere. [Editorial comment: I think this supports the idea that rather banning "porn" from a general academic computer, it is more appropriate to ban harassment.] =================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/academic/women-in-eng.uiuc.txt"> academic/women-in-eng.uiuc.txt =================</a> ASCII (plain text version) of "Final Report of the Committee on the Status of Women Graduate Students and Faculty in the College of Engineering" at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (Also available in TeX and Postscript form.) =================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/academic/artistic.freedom.aaup"> academic/artistic.freedom.aaup =================</a> * Artistic Freedom (AAUP) Academic Freedom and Artistic Expression - An official statement of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) It says in part: "In our judgment academic freedom in the creation and presentation of works in the visual and performing arts, by ensuring greater opportunity for imaginative exploration and expression, best serves the public and the academy." =================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/library/challenged-materials.ala"> library/challenged-materials.ala =================</a> * Challenged Materials (ALA) An interpretation by the American Library Association of the "Library Bill of Rights". It says in part "The Constitution requires a procedure designed to focus searchingly on challenged expression before it can be suppressed. An adversary hearing is a part of this procedure." =================<a href="ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/miller"> law/miller =================</a> * Expression -- Obscenity -- Law -- Miller The Supreme Court's definition of obscenity (the so-called _Miller_ test) ================= ================= If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command gopher gopher.eff.org These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp to ftp.eff.org, and then: cd /pub/CAF/faq get censorship-and-harassment cd /pub/CAF/law get quiet-reading cd /pub/CAF/academic get women-in-eng.uiuc.txt cd /pub/CAF/academic get artistic.freedom.aaup cd /pub/CAF/library get challenged-materials.ala cd /pub/CAF/law get miller To get the file(s) by email, send email to ftpmail(a)decwrl.dec.com Include the line(s): connect ftp.eff.org cd /pub/CAF/faq get censorship-and-harassment cd /pub/CAF/law get quiet-reading cd /pub/CAF/academic get women-in-eng.uiuc.txt cd /pub/CAF/academic get artistic.freedom.aaup cd /pub/CAF/library get challenged-materials.ala cd /pub/CAF/law get miller

1 0

Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:20 AM 2/12/96 +0000, Deranged Mutant wrote: >> Parents had that ability before. Cable boxes have a "perental control key" >> on the side that enables them to lock out "offensive" channels. It works >> quite well and is fairly hard for the kidlets to defeat. (I used it to >> lockout the religious stations and home shopping channels.) > >When I was a kid some friends down the street knew how to unlock the >Channel 100 XXX movies with a paper clip. A V-chip would hopefully >be more sophisticated, but then again, so are today's kids... Sshhh! You are not supposed to tell them that! >> The "V-Chip" debate is a mirror of the one that occured when the cable >> channels were starting to become popular. There was a big hue and cry about >> kids getting to the "naughty" channels without parent concent. Seems most >> people do not even learn how the lockouts work. (And are too lazy to learn.) > >You should check out your nearest H/P BBS or ftp-site... Yeah, I know it can be hacked. I also know that if they are that interested in sex, NOTHING I do is going to stop them. (Which is as it should be. If they have no exposure to any sexual material as a youth, some rather nasty problems tend to crop up as adults. (Take a look at the studies of sexual predators.) But that is a point avoided by the moralists...) >> You have to remember that most of the people arguing for TV filters are >> looking for a way to make the "offensive" stuff go away for good. (Either >[..] > >A very good point. One that makes me wary of V-Chips... It makes me very wary of them. What gets me are all the people here who talk about them as if they will have useful features. They will be about as useful as the ratings on video games. ("Hey, theres a cool one! This one has flying mangled bodies! Its OK though. No sex!") --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "I, Caligula Clinton... In the name of the Senate and the people of Rome!" - Bill Clinton signing the CDA with the First Amendment bent over.

1 0

Re: The Emotional Killer (or out of the frying pan and into the electric chair?)
by Bruce Baugh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is off-topic; anyone wanting to follow up on it, e-mail me on the side. At 11:59 PM 2/11/96 -0500, tallpaul(a)pipeline.com (tallpaul) wrote: >This and other posts by J. Bell and other lib'bers Jim Bell is pretty much exactly as relevant to libertarian thought as Lyndon LaRouche is to Democratic thought - that is, he's a crank, whom we prefer to ignore where possible. I, for one, filter his messages straight to Eudora's Trash mailbox. If you want to sample a different variety of libertarianism, check out the URL in my sig file and look at the Christlib list. Or, for that matter, simply leaf through REASON and LIBERTY magazine, and note the variety of folks actually _doing_ things that promote "human freedom for everyone" as well as talking about it. It's not as much fun as ad hominem, I admit, but in the long run I think it's more useful. Bruce Baugh bruce(a)aracnet.com http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce

1 0

Online Zakat Payment: Religious tithe.
by Steven C. Perkins 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cyber-Anarchists aren't the only ones who can use the Net. >--- Forwarded message follows --- >From: zakat(a)dircon.co.uk (Sohail Mohammed) >Subject: Online Zakat Payment >Date: 1 Feb 1996 11:15:34 GMT > >Welcome to the Zakat homepage at http://www.ummah.org.uk/zakat/ >which has been setup by the Bait al-Mal al-Islami (BMI). > >Bait al-Mal is the public treasury of the Islamic political system (state >or nonstate). BMI acts as the finance department function of an Islamic >political authority (IPA). This BMI in the UK operates under the >authority of the Muslim Parliament (the IPA in this case). > >An IPA may or may not be directly responsible for the management of >Mosque(s). The IPA may or may not be directly responsible for relief >work. These activities may be carried out indirectly by other agencies >operating under the authority of the IPA or supported by it. >BMI does welfare work in UK and externally. > >Zakat collection and distribution is the responsibility of the IPA (which >may be a Khalifate or in its absence a regional entity in your part of >the world). > >Zakat collection and distribution is not a free-enterprise do-it-yourself >project. Khalifa AbuBakr (RA) went to war against those people who did >not want to pay Zakat to the central authority and who instead wanted to >do it 'their-way'. > >Any one can setup a registered charitable organization; anyone can't >setup a religion or Deen and do it 'their-way'. > >The Zakat page is at http://www.ummah.org.uk/zakat/ > >The online Zakat payment facility is at: >http://www.ummah.org.uk/zakat/pay.htm > >The long term strategy is that we Muslims need a major presence in >cyberspace. This would include intelligent agents (robots, sheriffs,) >roaming cyberspace collecting Zakat funds and Jihad funds and doing other >things we can't yet imagaine. Islamic Gateway http://www.ummah.org.uk >(and affiliated net entities) is only a primitive foundation for future >workers to take further. If you want to help realise the dream or want >free webspace for public service projects contact info(a)zakat.org.uk > >If you are running a BMI function in your part of the world and you wish >to co-operate or obtain further information on the UK BMI then contact: > >Dr Muhammad Ghayasuddin MMP (*), >Secretary/Trustee, >Bait al-Mal al-Islami, >109 Fulham Palace Road, >London W6 8JA, UK >Tel +44 181 563 1995 or 1994 (fax 1993) > >WHY is BMI/MP doing this: policy questions to Mohtashim Shaikh MMP, BMI >trustee responsible for the online Zakat service at: >mohtash(a)ummah.org.uk > >Technical questions to the IG chief designer, Brother Ibrahim at: >query(a)eurolink.co.uk > >(*) MMP = Member of Muslim Parliament > >Flames to Mohtashim before Feb 9, afterwards to info(a)zakat.org.uk > >MP as an IPA raises both Zakat funds (using BMI's charitable status in >the UK) and also Jihad Funds (NOT using BMI - Jihad is NOT covered as a >charitable activity in western law!). Only an IPA can do BOTH Zakat and >Jihad fund raising. Let any 'Charity' org try and do that. > >Just as a personal aside: a major UK Muslim charity is a part of the >Saudi lobby (accountability to Mr Fahd?) whilst another Islamic charity >is about to get U.N. affiliation (accountability to Boutrous Boutrous >Ghali?). BMI on the other hand is accountable to the Muslim Community and >its leadership. > > > > ***************************************************************************** Steven C. Perkins sperkins(a)andromeda.rutgers.edu User Services Coordinator, Rutgers School of Law at Newark 15 Washington Street Newark, NJ 07102 VOX: 201-648-5965 FAX: 201-648-1356 http://www.rutgers.edu/RUSLN/rulnindx.html http://www.rutgers.edu/lawschool.html "Raise your voices to the Sky. It is a Good Day to die." Chief Crazy Horse *****************************************************************************

1 0

Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09:55 AM 2/13/96 -0800, Bill Frantz wrote: >>You mention the issue of Rushdie, as if it is some sort of refutation of my >>idea. Quite the contrary; I think it actually supports me. >> >>How so?, you ask? Well, let's consider any potential assassin who might be >>interested in this "contract." Aside from the obvious moral issues involved >>here (Rushdie has, presumably, done nothing to warrant his death), the truth >>is that such a potential assassin would see a number of problems that would >>strongly dissuade him from attempting to kill Rushdie. >> >>1. There is no way he could be assured that he could collect the award >>anonymously. His name would certainly "get out," and then he would be >>subject not merely to "the law," but also anybody who wanted revenge for >>Rushdie's death. >> >>2. There is no way he could be assured that he would actually receive the >>award. (How would he prove HE did it?) >> >>3. That's because there is no way he would enforce this "contract" should >>the offerer refuse to pay. > >These points would not affect a devout Iranian Muslem. To him the death >warent has already been issued by legitimate authority. It is not even >clear that money would be his princple motivator. Which simply proves my point; money is not the limiting factor, here. >I must respectifully disagree with Jim in this case. I believe that >Rushdie has not been hit because the protection he enjoys is sufficent to >repel the potential assassins. Note that he has an advantage over the US >president (who probably has as many potential assassins) in that he does >not need to make public appearences. But remember, Rushdie is merely ONE PERSON. And keeping him safe has consumed a lot of resources. You don't think the government could protect each of their most publically hated employees to a similar level if a reward of, say, $20,000 were put on each of their heads. How much could we collect to "get" Lon Horiuchi, for example? Or the hundred or so agents immediately participating in the initial Waco incident, or the dozen or so decision makers immediately above them? Etc. The Rushdie incident is simply so far removed from "Assassination Politics" that it can't possibly be used to refute it; I still believe it actually demonstrates how much effort somebody has to go to, to protect a targeted person. One targeted person is easy to protect. 10,000 would be FAR harder. And the moment a few of those guys got "whacked," the rest would want to resign their jobs and hope they would be allowed to retire in peace. >Adding money to the pot will attract rational (and amoral) people who will >then make a determination based on (1) profit, and (2) risk, which includes >getting caught or killed. It seems to me that Secret Service levels of >protection can protect a public figure against even Assassination Politics. In a sense, qualitatively you absolutely correct, but (quantitatively) you're wrong. I think the problem is that when most people hear the term "Assassination", they think of only the highest-level targets. Quite the contrary; I think this system will get the medium and even the lower-level people FIRST, de-populating the government primarily by hurried resignations of worried people. The remaining people would be terrified to actually make anybody angry, and they wouldn't have a paycheck because they couldn't collect any taxes. The whole system would collapse in a heap. Jim Bell Klaatu Burada Nikto Something is going to happen. Something...Wonderful! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMSDmO/qHVDBboB2dAQFeOgP/bpXFbTfw1R/iTRsWOrEZJI22N4nFPWX3 XBN2dx106jTdx/eoYz1rhjiaeZt/FzB83DABj34HuVPkws1OPEQ2e6Dneva5RjHK QJFN4Po9SN03fb+7l3yp5Axr/1P4j4eiao4t0oAF+NPNk2FzU2LvHEMpbIawme0B AC6Uv4nR8hc= =9lr1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Response to Perrygram
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:33 PM 2/13/96, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >Tim, you don't work for a living. Some of us do. You might try to >think back and remember what it was like in the days when you still >did something every once in a while and had a limited amount of time ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >available in which to do it. > Perry once again resorts to insults. Constantly belittling the efforts of others suggests deepseated psychological doubts about his own contributions. Shows you the reaction I get for even responding to him. My mistake. Perry should learn how to use mail filters, then he can simply filter out all the stuff he doesn't want to see. Or, simply hitting the 'delete" key in whatever reader he is using...surely typing "D" 20 or 30 times a day takes far less time than writing one of his perrygrams? --Tim May Boycott espionage-enabled software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2

RE: LI Newsday OpEd: Criminal Justice System
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Perry E. Metzger > >Tim, you don't work for a living. Some of us do. You might try to >think back and remember what it was like in the days when you still >did something every once in a while and had a limited amount of time >available in which to do it. ....................................................................... That's right: crytpo-anarchy is a time-consuming business, and there isn't much time in which to prepare for the New Cyberspatial Millenium. Everybody get Back To WORK !! :>) .. >Blanc >

1 0

To find the clock speed of a sun workstation
by Ashfaq Rasheed 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi Is there anyway of finding the clock speed of the CPU on a Sun workstation? As far as i know it can be found only by rebooting the machine and using module-info? And I believe that the module-info does a no-op loop for a a known number of times and calculates the time taken. I would like to know if there is anyother way to finding it. Thanks! Ashfaq

3 2

No Subject
by A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Yet if I read you correctly earlier, you don't think the USG has the right >to regulate those communications. Why the distinction ? Okay, obviously I need to drop down a gear & explain *my* feelings: Part of the definition of a "sovereign nation" is to define and carry out both high and low justice over it's domain - the absolute right of a sovereign. Is not mentioned in the US constitution because it was a given. Further, the purpose of the US Constitution is to: a) define what the sovereign was (three branches - rock, scissors, & paper) b) set forth certain limitations on that sovereign ("Congress shall make no law...") c) define certain duties of the sovereign (regulation of foreign commerce...) (am simplifying so please bear with me) There are some things which for which the rationale is not apparent since the times have changed ("corruption of blood" is a "Congress shall not" that related back to English law of the time). What "Attainder" was is not mentioned since it was well understood. No this gets us back to the question: to me, "regulation of foreign commerce" has two elements - one is to prevent illegal commerce or traffic in goods that are contrary to "the public good". The other is to promote American trade and intrests overseas. The two go together and is the point I made at the NIST gathering in December. Quid pro quo. "Free speech" means that a citizen is free to speak (communicate) anthing, anytime, anywhere. This is the right guarenteed by the first amendment. This does not relieve the individual from being liable for the consequences of the exercise of "free speech". However, the government is under no obligation (though in the silly seventies it seemed that we were going that way) to aid or abet in the exercise of free speech. If it were properly and legally decided that communications with anon.penet.fi is against "national interest" then the sovereign has not only the "right" but the *duty* to block/monitor such communications. Now as to the second part of the question, I have never said that the conditions mentioned above could not legally exist (though I have my doubts about legality internally and between citizens - is part of the reasons American Corporations have never had a problem getting a license for use with foreign offices). What I said was that any such regulation would be impossible to enforce for two reasons: 1) While current crypto advertises its presence, crypto exists which is indestinguishable from random noise and would be impossible to prove was used. Further it would be necessary to specify what was not crypto (and the law frowns on negatives). Navaho, Basque, PKZIP, and EBCDIC are examples that fall readily to mind. 2) The second objection is more obscure but should be considered in places that lack our constitutional protections: given a message, any message, I can demonstrate a OTP or algorithm that will turn that into any message desired. Therefore just the existance of a message and a decrypt would be insufficient to prove the "chain" that one led from/to the other. Thus in the one case, I referring to the obligations/limitations that our constitution places on the US government (is what it is really about). In the other I was referring to what it is *possible* for the government to do without considering legality (if they can't, does not matter if legal). Does this clear up the confusion ? Warmly, Padgett ps just to add some more wood "any law that can not be demonstrated to be universally enforceable with the resources allocated should be repealed".

3 2