December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Anti-scientology rally Melbourne Saturday the 16th of Match
by Julian Assange 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The suburbia.net administrators kindly invite you to attend to the Church of Scientology Demonstration at: The Church of Scientology Corner of Fliners Lane and Russel St, Melbourne City [Australia] SATURDAY March the 16th 1996 11am to 1pm For those completely unfamiliar with the Church of Scientology [CoS]'s attack upon the Internet and RRR radio station and critical speech generally, read my below summary and the the appended transcript of one of our users [David Gerard <fun(a)suburbia.net>] from JJJ radio station. The Church of Scientology was founded by the late L. Ron Hubbard in the United States some 30 years ago. To followers, Hubbard is their profit, and his prolific writings are the sacred word. The Church's hierarchy and financial viability revolve around Hubburd's verbose scriptures. Each new level gained by a church follower brings to them, among other rights and privileges access to a new and previously verboten set of the works of Ron. But to the Church it brings something else. Revenue. A very sizeable revenue. Ron's works are a required element in order for the follower to progress through the many of successive levels the Church has -- and they cost hundreds or thousands of dollars each. In fact, by the time a devote of the Church has realized the highest OT level, the Church has usually had them for over five figures. But revenue isn't the only reason for keeping the works of Ron occulted away. A common technique used by cults to brainwash their followers is gradual immersion in cult mythology and philosophy. To put it bluntly, it is often advisable to keep the more wacko beliefs and practices out of your new recruit's faces until they are sufficiently wacko themselves. Now, the problem for the Church of Scientology is that on the wacko scale the higher level works of Ron hover somewhere near the figure 10. To an outsider it is an immediate farse. But to a follower who has become psychologically dependent on the Church's philosophy & society and invested thousands and thousands of dollars in doing so, it is just another step on the road to mental subservience. What you have then is a Church based on brainwashing yuppies and other people with more money than sense. This may not concern you. If Nicole Kiddman, Kate Cerbrano, John Travolta, Burce Willis, Demi Moor and Tom Cruise want to spend their fortunes on learning that the earth is in reality the destroyed prison colony of aliens from out of space then so be it. However, money brings power and attracts the currupt. Money is something the Church has a lot of. Not all of the Church's beliefs and practices are so out of it as to be completely as irrelevant as the previous example. Some are quite insidious. For instance, L. Ron Hubbard devised a range of methods that could be used against critics and other `enemies of the Church'. Among the list was manipulation of the legal/court system. To the Church the battle isn't won in the court room. It is won at the very moment the legal process starts unfolding, creating fear and expense in those the Church opposes. Their worst critic at the moment is not a person, or an organisation but a medium -- the Internet. The Internet is, by its very nature a censorship free zone. Censorship, concealment and revelation (for a fee) is the Church's raison d'etre. The Church, via its manipulation of the legal system has had computer systems seized, system operators forced to reveal their users personal details, university accounts suspended and radio stations, such as RRR cut their programs. It has sued ex-cult members, newspapers, and many others for copyright infringements, loss of earnings and trade secret violation. Trade secret violation? Yes, the Church of Scientology claims its religious works are trade secrets. The fight against the Church is far more than the Net vs a bunch of wackos with too much money. It is about corporate suppression of the Internet and free speech. It is about intellectual property and the big and rich versus the small and smart. The precedents the Church sets today the weapons of corporate tirany tomorrow. --Julian Assange (please direct replies to fun(a)suburbia.net) DAVID GERARD ON 3-CR (855KHZ AM) MELBOURNE, 8:50AM THU 14 MAR 1996 ANNOUNCER: There's currently a war going on on the Internet, especially in relation to the Church of Scientology. This morning on the line is David Gerard. Good morning, David. DAVID: Good morning. A: First of all, can you tell me what, what the war is that's going on on the Internet? D: Well, OK. There's a newsgroup on the Internet called alt-dot-religion-dot-scientology, ARS. For a few years, this was like one of the thousands of backwater Internet newsgroups. A newsgroup's a sort of area with a given name where anyone can put a message on, read other people's messages, that sort of thing; it's distributed world-wide, there's no central control over it, so ... A: So it's sort of like an electronic noticeboard, where you can put up whatever you feel like. D: Yep. Free access. And, y'know, most of them are utter garbage and there's no way anyone's interested in all thousands of them. And it was like a little backwater religion newsgroup for many years, where you have a few Church people and a few critics sniping at each other, y'know, and no-one else was really interested. But then, there was an ex-Scientologist on there, a guy called Dennis Erlich, who ... Someone put on a message saying, "is this actually part of secret Scientology scripture?" It was a particularly wacky thing about 'find some plants and see If you can communicate with them and see if they receive your communication.' And he verified, 'yes, that's the real thing.' In verifying it, he quoted it. So what the Church of Scientology then did, seeing as they have tended in dealing with critics to have the subtlety of a Mack truck, what they did was, they got a judge to write a copyright violation writ. And they went round and raided his house, and took away his computers, and went through his house, and took anything they felt like. This is a good way to piss of thirty million people in one go. And the Internet sort of rose up as one to strike back at these people. So what happened was, in their attempts to quash all discussion and quash all criticism, they earned themselves a whole lot more critics. I mean, I'm not an ex-Scientologist, I have no interest in them, except that they're trying to use legal thuggery, corporate financing, to try to quash all dissent. Thankfully they're doing it very badly. They're losing cases left, right and centre when they get them into court, and the publicity has been very damaging for them. A: So there's obviously more than one legal case going on. How many people have they prosecuted, or how many people are they in the process of charging? D: Well, there was Dennis Erlich in America; Lawrence Wollersheim and Bob Penny, who are also ex- Scientologists -- they ran a computer bulletin-board called FACTNet, which contains information on all forms of cults and restrictive groups like those, and Arnie Lerma, who was an ex-Scientologist. And after Lerma was raided, someone in Holland put the thing which he had posted, the Fishman Affidavit, which contains quotes from the Scientology scriptures, someone in the Netherlands put it on a Web page -- on a World Wide Web page, the thing you get through Netscape and so on. And in magazines where you see the Internet, they usually have a screen shot from Netscape -- and what happened was, they tried raiding the Internet provider in Holland, and the Dutch people were outraged with this and promptly there were a hundred different copies of it all over Holland. And then they tried mounting a case against them, and it just came in, word came in a few days ago that they lost. A: So is the Church of Scientology actually using the Internet to display information, or to put out information about the positive sides of the Church, or the sort of information that they would use to draw people in? D: Yeah, they finally got their own Web server up, but the point is ... And that's fine. The more information the better. The critics have their information up, and the Church is trying to stop that, but they're having a lot of trouble, because basically, once information's out there, you can't put the genie back in the bottle, you can't squeeze the toothpaste back into the tube. They feel that if people find out about their secret scriptures, they might think that they're very silly and laugh at them and not want to be Scientologists. And also when things like the prices of these things come out, like when you discover you've paid a hundred and sixty thousand US dollars to learn that Xenu the galactic dictator took people to Earth seventy-five million years ago, strapped them to volcanoes and blew them up, and that you've paid this much money for that and you're supposed to believe it. A: Well, you'd want to believe it after paying all that money. D: Well, actually, that's exactly it. The further people get in, the more fanatical they seem to be. Experts on cults say that the Church of Scientology is one of the hardest cults to get people back to the real world from. And you have that cognitive dissonance between 'this is a load of rubbish' and 'I've paid hundreds of thousands of dollars and worked for years for this.' A: Probably fits into the same philosophy that once you've paid a lot of money for a car, it's the best car there is. [laughs] D: Something like that. Yeah. And the issue goes beyond the Church of Scientology. I mean, they're weird and vicious, and this is well-documented, and if they care to object to me making that statement I'll back it up in court if they like ... A: Is this a fairly typical scenario on the Internet? Are there other groups who are behaving in this manner, or is it a fairly limited ... D: Well, at first only the Scientologists tried this, but, um, the Unification Church, Reverend Moon's lot, have recently been trying this, there's another small cult called Eckankar which is descended from a church which is descended from Scientology, have recently been trying this as well. It's quite amazing. It's not an issue of Scientology, it's not an issue of Scientology teachings, it's an issue of the corporate behaviour in the world where they attempt to silence critics by using legal bigfooting, money ... Can small people criticise big corporations or big financial interests? A: I guess in some ways it's very similar to the McDonalds case in Britain, where they're suing two unemployed people as this huge corporation. D: And the same thing is happening: it's backfiring on them. A: Yeah. D: 'Cos the thing about the Internet is, you can't stop the information going out, because if you make something restricted, suddenly everybody wants it. They've tried suing one person in Holland, a hundred more sprung up. They've tried getting their critics pulled off the Internet altogether -- my University Internet account was locked for two months because of the Church of Scientology, so I then went out and got a private provider. Their behaviour is ... it's intolerable in a multicultural society, where the implicit rule is we all have to get along. A: I understand that a similar thing has happened to the 'Liars' Club', a show put together by the Skeptics on 3-RRR. D: Yep. The Church spent about ... a few years trying to shut down the 'Liars' Club', 'cos they dared to mention, criticise Scientology. And they finally got it taken to the Australian Broadcasting Authority, who ruled that a particular show, where they had an ex-Scientologist called Cyril Vosper ... that he went on and he talked about the Church and what he didn't like about it and what was bad about it. And he knows his stuff, he's been there, he actually knew L. Ron Hubbard, that sort of thing. A: Is this L. Ron Hubbard the science fiction author? D: Yes, the guru of Scientology, the source of everything in Scientology. Every word he wrote is taken by them as scripture. A: [laugh] I've read his books and thought they were novels! [laughs] D: Ha, well, yeah, pretty well ... But anyway, Vosper went on, and the Tribunal ruled that no word or sentence that Vosper said was religious vilification, no word or sentence that Adam Joseph, presenter, said was vilification, no word or sentence that Vanda Hamilton, the other presenter, said was vilification, but, because the presenters agreed with the guest, it was therefore vilification. Now, they didn't ask RRR to pull the show, but RRR pulled the show. They also didn't give them any due process in pulling the show; if a show's in danger of being pulled, y'know, you give them the chance to speak. Stephen Walker just killed it. A: Actually, you're holding a demonstration, that's right. D: It's a small thing, where we politely state our case and hand out leaflets, it's outside the Church, corner Russell Street and Flinders Lane, on Saturday morning at 11am. A: So you'll be providing people who turn up with leaflets to hand out? D: Yep. We'll have hundreds of leaflets, we'll have a few signs ... We expect it to be a very polite demonstration. We had one in September last year, we politely stated our case, the Church people had a leaflet of their own, that sort of thing. It was ... A: [laughs] That's all very nice! D: It's all about ... It's not to do with the local people, I mean, the individual people are fine. We're talking about management actions in America. It's a multinational organisation. A: Anyway, we've got to go. Thanks very much for your time, David. D: Thank you very much. A: See you later. That was Dave Gerard talking about the war on the Internet and the way that the Church of Scientology is ... taking action against people who publish information which is negative about the Church. You've been listening to Thursday Breakfast, it's now two minutes past nine, we've gone over time, and we'll catch you again next week. It's time for 'Scheherazade'. -- "I mean, after all; you have to consider we're only made out of dust. That's admittedly not much to go on and we shouldn't forget that. But even considering, I mean it's sort of a bad beginning, we're not doing too bad. So I personally have faith that even in this lousy situation we're faced with we can make it. You get me?" - Leo Bulero/PKD +---------------------+--------------------+----------------------------------+ |Julian Assange RSO | PO Box 2031 BARKER | Secret Analytic Guy Union | |proff(a)suburbia.net | VIC 3122 AUSTRALIA | finger for PGP key hash ID = | |proff(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu | FAX +61-3-98199066 | 0619737CCC143F6DEA73E27378933690 | +---------------------+--------------------+----------------------------------+

1 0

Netscape Registration Wizard is dead
by Andrew D Meredith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi Folks, We've just done a quick test on 2.01 and it would seem that the "Netscape Registration Wizard" is no more. Cheers Andy M -- ___________________________________________________________________ Andrew Meredith Senior Systems Engineer Tel: (direct) +44(0) 1793 545377 Network Engineering Tools Group Tel: (main) +44(0) 1793 541541 Motorola, GSM Products Division Fax: +44(0) 1793 512618 16, Euroway, Blagrove SMTP: meredith(a)ecid.cig.mot.com Swindon, SN5 8YQ, UK X400: Andrew_Meredith-QSWI016(a)email.mot.com ___________________________________________________________________

1 0

Re: maling list
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:50 PM 3/14/96, David K. Merriman wrote: > We can take you off the maling list, or we can take you off the mailing >list. Which would you prefer? Ah. And all this time I thought that cypherpunks was a mauling list. Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Reality is not optional." --Thomas Sowell The e$ Home Page: http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/

1 0

Venona NSA web page
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Forwarded Message Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 06:59:32 -0500 (EST) From: merkaba(a)styx.ios.com Subject: VENONA PROJECT (fwd) - - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 22:07:24 -0500 From: Ronald Pearce <ronald(a)cybercomm.net> To: merkaba(a)styx.ios.com Subject: VENONA PROJECT http://www.nsa.gov:8080/docs/venona/venona.html The VENONA Project In July 1995 the Intelligence Community ended a 50-year silence regarding one of cryptology's most splendid successes - the VENONA Project. VENONA was the codename used for the U.S. Signals Intelligence effort to collect and decrypt the text of Soviet KGB and GRU messages from the 1940's. These messages provided extraordinary insight into Soviet attempts to infiltrate the highest levels of the United States Goverment. Today, we are proud to offer these exceptional documents on the NSA home page and we invite you to study and interpret them in the context of history. NSA will declassify over 2200 messages related to VENONA. We believe they will not only provide a window into Soviet espionage during the 1940's, but will also give you a glimpse of the important contributions signals intelligence and cryptographic expertise make to our nation's security. - - -Ron ==================================================== "We're all pawns, my dear... your move?" No. 66, - - --The Prisoner "Arrival" ====================================================

1 0

Re: recent ( 3 months ) software developements?
by Kent Briggs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- gjeffers(a)ns.htc.net (Gary Lee Jeffers) wrote: >Dear Cypherpunks, > > Due to really lousey circumstances, I have been unable to monitor my >mail for the last 3 months. Also, last 3 months mail currently unavailble >to me. I am interested in finding out if there have been any new soft- >ware offerings or software upgrades in that time. My particular interest >is Dos/Windows. Also, locations where software can be downloaded. Note >that a brief description of recent software developements maybe helpful >to other Cypherpunks with little time to monitor Cypherpunks list. > > Beat State, > Gary Jeffers > I released version 2.0 of Puffer, my symmetric encryption program for Windows last month. The exportable shareware version (40-bit RC4, uh, I mean PC1) is available from my web site (http://execpc.com/~kbriggs) The registered version uses 160-bit Blowfish. Both versions have a secure wipe feature and a built-in editor for on-the-fly e-mail encryption. Kent - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMUh4QioZzwIn1bdtAQGUDQF+OlQQTGvyfuzAJahBAXIc09V82QDc4IGj 3TUEyrU8Y9n0GAEWwZw+mDRaSSEXbqlc =7HdD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: e$ and markets and meta-markets. quote with little comment
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:42 3/14/96, bryce(a)digicash.com wrote: >I just thought I would re-print this extract from the recent >press release regarding the EUNet/Merita ecash roll-out. > > >Favorite phrase: "interesting new possibilities." > > >Follow-ups directed toward e$. If you post to cpunks without >Cc'ing me I probably won't see it. > > > >Bryce > > >******* begin quote from the "companies that accept ecash" section > >SOM -- SOM, the Finnish Securities and Derivatives Exchange >and Clearing House, established in 1987, serves as a >neutral integrated securities and derivatives exchange and >clearing house. SOM offers real-time financial market >information on stocks, options and futures via the >Internet, with invoices payable in ecash. Somtel for >Windows -the application that offers real-time feed, as >well as simulation and position-analysis functions-, is >already available via leased line. > "The use of money makes stock trading less complicated, >with money acting as a practical intermediary between the >transactions." states Asko Schrey, President of SOM. >"However, since stock trades, as well as the shares >themselves, are electronic nowadays, this conventional >transmission of money has actually become a bottleneck and >a threat to the development of the financial world. >Therefore, SOM actively participates in projects to promote >and improve the efficiency of payment traffic. We believe >that electronic money will offer interesting new >possibilities." As mentioned before, one Ecash "currency" per ticker symbol would be a Very Interesting Possibility. No, I am not aware of any plans by DigiCash to implement this. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

1 0

[NOISE] The all.net controversy continues
by Mark Aldrich 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here's some info from all.net and a host of players IRT the "telnet" fiasco and assorted activities related to it. Crypto relevance is oblique, but some people on this list have implied "knob twidling" intentions. It would appear any number of sites are trying more than twidling. One interesting notion that surfaces in this is what's a "normal" automated inquiry for information versus an "attack." Do I commit computer trespass when I finger someone? Or do I have to try to telnet? Is attempting a telnet into a "guest" account OK if I just want to see if the machine's policy is to welcome visitors? Do they have to post "do not trespass" signs? If all.net's policy is really "nobody's allowed to telnet in," they why don't they just shutdown the damn telnetd, and be done with it? Or, if they want only "authorized" personnel, why not add sufficient crypto to secure the channel? Anyway, it makes for an interesting read.... **BEGIN FORWARDED MATERIAL** --------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 21:25:03 -0500 (EST) >From: Sick Puppy <sikpuppy(a)maestro.com> Subject: Re: IW Mailing List iw/960313 > [Moderator's Note: I believe that the federal computer abuse statutes > don't require a warning banner. If they did, than any denial of service > attack that ignored responses would be legal.] In our discussions with the FBI about how we could meet the legal requirements for a successful prosecution that would not be thrown out on technicalities, the need for a warning statement or warning banner was stressed by the FBI. I don't remember the specifics but the need to have a warning banner is related to the freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution and its Amendments. The FBI mentioned a couple of prosecutions by the Secret Service where part of the case was thrown out and the whole case was significantly weakened, because there was no warning banner. I believe that CERT also covers this point in its annual conference/seminar for incident response teams. They usually get a FBI agent with experience in the rules of evidence to speak during the lunch breaks. Maybe there is someone on the list whose recollection on this point is more precise than mine. --------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 18:46:52 -0600 >From: Walt Auch <waltauch(a)hiwaay.net> Subject: Re: IW Mailing List iw/960313 Quote: [Moderator's Note: I believe that the federal computer abuse statutes don't require a warning banner. If they did, than any denial of service attack that ignored responses would be legal.] Unquote Banners are not REQUIRED, but DOJ has indicated in many conversations that they are "looked upon favorably" by the Court. You do NOT have to prove that they were read - much like you don't have to prove a speed limit sign was read in order to prove speeding - you should just be able to show it was posted. (Scott Charney is the DOJ person - not sure that should be posted.) --------------------------------------------- >From: fc (Fred Cohen) Subject: More progress Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 23:59:56 -0500 (EST) So far, we have traced down: A breakin at a community college in Pennsylnavia where the attacker rigged the University computer to automatically telnet to our site every 5 minutes. A port scan followed by a series of scores of attempts to telnet into our site for over an hour from a University site in Arizona. The attacker has been caught. Several IP spoofing attempts that we are tracing down to the specific dial-in accounts used to launch the attack. An intentional insider corruption of a Web page designed to turn innocent browsers into launchpads for their attack. This one was tracked down yesterday and has been stopped after recurrences by contacting this ISPs ISP and the FBI. A web site which is misleading people into telnetting into our site under the auspices of getting a letter from a self-proclaimed computer security expert. What appeared to be a systems administrator at a prominant university who did a port scan followed by numerous telnets. It now looks like this person may not have been authorized by the university to do any of this and it has been raised to another level in the University. Several other individuals have been tracked down as well. 19:52 > From: "Matthew G. Devost" <mdevost(a)chelsea.ios.com> ... > I am concerned over the all.net statement that it will pursue criminal > conspiracy charges against all those that telnet to their site. I asked > what sort of warning banner was in place and hadn't gotten a reply yet > so I checked to see. Well, there is NO warning banner. You simply get > a connection refused by foreign host (and I imagine, a email to root at > my ISP saying I am an evil hacker!). The message changed as incidents occured. Contrary to what previous postings indicated, we haven't historically claimed these events as attacks. We simply state that (current form): A user at your site has just attempted to telnet into our site. No users from your site are authorized to telnet into this site. We thought you would like to know so you could investigate further. If more telnets come from your site, this may indicate a more substantial attempted entry originating from your site, and should be followed up in more depth and more quickly. > Here is my point. It is obvious that someone (an individual) has a > gripe with you or just wants to target your machine, but I would not > call the other attempts a conspiracy. I could post the following > message to a cancer survivor newsgroup or list: At this point in time [see above] several different individuals have been identified as having intentionally attacked this site during the incident. About 5 individuals are responsible for over 90% of all of the attempted entries. > "Hello all! Just wanted you to know that I have set up a Cancer > Survivors network on my host machine. It requires telnet access > for now, but we are hoping to find an easier way to access the > computer in the near future. Please give it a try by telneting > to all.net." Excellent example. This would not be a criminal conspiracy unless some of the participants became accomplices after the fact by lying about the source of the message and actively creating their own similar messages. Then they would become co-conspirators. That's what appears to have happened here. ... > My point, and I realize I am taking a long time getting there, is that > at the very least you should provide a warning banner when folks telnet > to you site telling them that an unauthorized telnet attempt will be > considered an intrusion. We express this in our finger daemon: No users are allowed on this system In the case of telnet, we don't want people getting that far into our system because we believe that such mechanisms may be breakable by high volume attacks. We prefer to stop things at the earliest possible phase and to have layered defenses after that. --------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: IW Mailing List iw/960313 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 10:02:56 -0500 >From: "Michael G. Reed" <reed(a)itd.nrl.navy.mil> |> Well congrats for sparking the list back to life! I think it is |> definitely an IW attack at the Class I level, but I would agree with |> most of the comments from the list that perhaps [all.net is] overreacting. Over reacting, no, inflaming the situation, yes. It is well within the rights of all.net to treat attempted telnets to their machine as attempted break-ins if the proper notification has been given; but personally, I think their handling of the situation is quite silly. One does not get up on a soap box and scream and shout to the world like this -- it just invites (no, begs) more attacks. Instead, you deal with it in the professional manner that system administrators have used for years -- contact other admins and deal with the problem directly. The big problem is *ARE YOU SURE* you have the right people? IP spoofing is trivial these days (a problem that won't be solved until IPv6, if even then) and it would be very easy to mount a concerted attack that *NO ONE* would be able to track down unless you start looking at backbone router logs (which I seriously doubt are being generated or kept) or placing sniffers all over the Internet. [Moderator's Note: Apparently all.net has this well covered because of their previous efforts in automated vulnerability testing.] ... Actually, there are both CERT and DoD bulletins on appropriate warning banners. These banners should (ideally) be displayed *PRIOR* to login (ie, before the login prompt), but most OS's today don't allow for this and as such the banners are normally displayed in the motd. For us (DoD/USN), the message is as follows (at least this is what is showing up on all of our machines): * * * WARNING! * * * This is a U.S. Government/Department of the Navy Automated Information System. This system may be used only for unclassified official business. Unauthorized use of this system is prohibited by Title 18, Section 1030, United States Code. Department of the Navy Automated Information Systems and related equipment are intended for the communication, processing and storage of U.S. Government information, and are subject to monitoring to ensure proper functioning, to protect against improper or unauthorized use or access, to verify the presence or performance of applicable security features or procedures, and for other like purposes. Such monitoring may result in the acquisition, recording, and analysis of all data being communicated, transmitted, processed or stored in this system by a user. If monitoring reveals evidence of possible criminal activity, such evidence may be provided to law enforcement personnel. * * * USE OF THIS SYSTEM CONSTITUTES CONSENT TO SUCH MONITORING. * * * Send questions and/or problem reports to root(a)foobar.mil |> Let me first start by saying that a telnet attempt is the first and most |> obvious step in any electronic intrusion. ... |> Telnet's only purpose is to establish access. I think this is stretching the law a bit. Let me give you an analogy: Suppose I walk up to a military installation. At the gate they will ask me for my pass, but I don't have one on me. Now, as long as I do not attempt to enter, and leave the grounds at that point, have I done anything wrong? Is my attempt to "break in" illegal? I would contend no. Now, if I had been trying to scale the fence at the time I was detected, that is a COMPLETELY different story, but by following normal protocol I am within my rights. This doesn't preclude handling denial-of-service attacks either. If I continually walk up to the military installation and ask for entry without the proper pass, then I am *POSSIBLY* breaking the law (disturbing the peace or harassment at the minimum) or if there are big signs (which I ignore) stating that unauthorized attempts to enter will result in prosecution, then I *AM* breaking the law. |> As for alerting an administrator, it is extremely likely that a person |> trying to get into one system also tries to get into dozens of others. ... Yes, this is what all system administrators should do. I am not saying that systems should hide the fact that they are (or have been) attacked, but that they should handle it professionally and not throw a tantrum (I'm sorry, but that's what all.net's message looks like to me -- a tantrum -- my personal take on reading it). Security on the Internet is a *MAJOR* problem today, the problem is that few people realize this (or to what extent it is a problem). The one good thing coming out of all of all.net's attention to this "attack" is the quality discussions about security, the handling of threats, and what should be done in the future. [Moderator's Note: The all.net banner is shown above.] --------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 10:24:03 -0800 (PST) >From: watson(a)tds.com Subject: Re: hackers and the law >[Moderator's Note: I believe that the federal computer abuse statutes >don't require a warning banner. If they did, than any denial of service >attack that ignored responses would be legal.] There was a CERT or CIAC about late 1992, and a sidebar in Cheswick and Bellovin that summarizes the fuzzy state of this assertion. Apparently, the attackee has some risk of prosecution under wiretap laws if actions are taken against an attacker without proper notice. The warning banner is considered necessary defense against the attacker's lawyers when he claims he was "just knocking on the door." I haven't heard of a clear precedent on this. Probably varies by jurisdiction, phase of the moon, etc. I would encourage those who post on this topic to state their legal credentials. [Moderator's Note: I'll bite - what are your legal credentials?] --------------------------------------------- **END FORWARDED MATERIAL** ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Liberty is truly dead |Mark Aldrich | | when the slaves are willing |GRCI INFOSEC Engineering | | to forge their own chains. |maldrich(a)grci.com | | STOP THE CDA NOW! |MAldrich(a)dockmaster.ncsc.mil | |_______________________________________________________________________| |The author is PGP Empowered. Public key at: finger maldrich(a)grci.com | | The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author | | and my employer gets no credit for them whatsoever. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: FCC-type Regulation of Cyberspace
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May wrote: >>Mr. Frantz, unless you can prove your claims here, forthwith, I must inform >>you that they are in violation of the Truth in Speech Act of 1996. Please >>retract them, now. Bill Frantz wrote: >Political speech, not commercial speech. The act doesn't apply or is >unconstitutional. I see: The bill of rights reads: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of *political* speech". Never knew that until now. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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: Why escrow? (was Re: How would Leahy bill affect crypto
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 14 Mar 96 at 19:41, jim bell wrote: > >Of course that depends how you give your key to an escrow agent. If > >it's already escrowed when you buy a phone, for instance... > > That's the real danger with any such legislation. Individuals can generally > only get things that are manufactured for sale. (You can't buy a car with a > 7-cylinder engine, for instance...) If manufacturers are dissuaded from > building a good crypto telephone, then key-escrow can be as "voluntary" as > you want and you still won't be able to exercise your rights. You might sill be able to buy an unescrowed crypto-phone. If forgeign companies start selling them, then the gov't will have a hard time preventing domestic companies from manufacturing them and exporting them (in theory...) under the legislation. Rob. --- Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" (not in quotes) to <WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com> for a copy of my PGP key.

1 0

Internet Security Worskhop Call for Papers
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Forwarded Message From: papers(a)rpcp.mit.edu (Richard J. Solomon) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 12:17:23 -0500 To: {Recipient List Suppressed} Cc: reagle(a)rpcp.mit.edu, execdir(a)fnc.gov Reply-To: papers(a)rpcp.mit.edu Subject: Internet Security Call for Papers CALL FOR PAPERS INTERNET PRIVACY AND SECURITY WORKSHOP Haystack Observatory, MA May 20-21, 1996 Privacy and Security Working Group Federal Networking Council Research Program on Communications Policy Center for Technology, Policy, and Industrial Development Massachusetts Institute of Technology INVITATION The Privacy and Security Working Group (PSWG) of the Federal Networking Council (FNC) and the Research Program on Communications Policy of the Center for Technology, Policy, and Industrial Development at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology will hold an invitational workshop at the Haystack Observatory outside of Boston, MA, on May 20-21, 1996. This workshop is intended to bring Federal, academic and private sector participants together in collaboration to develop strategies and potential solutions related to Internet privacy and security. Though a principal focus of the workshop will be on the Federal portion of the Internet, the FNC recognizes that the Federal Internet is tightly coupled with the Global Internet, whose security policies, practices, and goals are complementary to those of the Federal Government. To define those practices, procedures and goals, the PSWG has undertaken two major initiatives: - The Federal Internet Security Plan (FISP), which was developed as a scalable, continual improvement process, based on common principles and mechanisms compatible with Internet community values and needs; and - The Collaborations in Internet Security (CIS) project, an effort aimed at testing the strength of agency approaches to security and moving these technologies beyond individual agency networking environments and into both inter-agency and agency-commercial sector communications. The CIS will result in the development of a new and sustainable process for developing, integrating, and deploying security technologies that are interoperable at all levels of the Federal government and within the commercial and academic sectors. These initiatives are intended to highlight the critical interface between Federal and commercial users and developers of Internet services and technologies. OBJECTIVES This workshop will bring together principal players in the Federal and overall Internet community to discuss the problems and challenges of privacy and security on the Internet, and will: - Identify critical issues, requirements, and recommendations related to future Internet privacy and security research and development efforts; - Describe "best practice" approaches to Internet privacy and security; - Develop specific strategies for implementing Internet Security programs involving all sectors of the Internet community; - Extend the Federal Internet Security Plan (FISP) by defining specific implementations; and finally, - Develop specific strategies for the migration of technologies from the individual RFC unit test stage to the integration of a complete functional managed system in the CIS test/demonstration/pilot projects. SUBMISSIONS Abstracts or complete paper drafts related to the topics listed above are welcome. Accepted papers will be a part of the published record of the workshop. All points of view on Federal policies affecting Internet privacy and security are welcome. Please make all electronic submissions in ASCII format. For further information or to submit an abstract or paper contact: Internet Security and Privacy Workshop c/o Joseph Reagle Research Program on Communications Policy Massachusetts Institute of Technology One Amherst St. (E40-218) Cambridge, MA 02139 Voice: (617) 253-4138. Fax: (617) 253-7326 papers(a)rpcp.mit.edu SCHEDULE and DEADLINES Call for papers - March 14, 1996 Abstracts Due - April 14, 1996 Invitations to Participants - April 20, 1996 Revised/Completed papers due - May 19, 1996 Workshop - May 20-21, 1996 PARTICIPANTS Participation in the workshop is by invitation, based primarily on submitted papers and abstracts. Additional individuals may be invited to ensure that participation reflects a broad cross-section of the Internet community. PROGRAM COMMITTEE Dennis Branstad - Trusted Information Systems (TIS) Rich Pethia - Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) Jeffrey Schiller - Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Richard Solomon - Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Rick Stevens - Department of Energy /Argonne National Labs (DOE) STEERING COMMITTEE Stephen Squires, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (FNC/PSWG Co-Chair) Dennis Steinauer, National Institute of Standards and Technology (FNC/PSWG Co-Chair) Tice DeYoung, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Phillip Dykstra, Army Research Laboratory (ARL) Mike Green, National Security Agency (NSA) George Seweryniak, Department of Energy (DOE) Walter Wiebe, Federal Networking Council (FNC) ********************* BACKGROUND Federal Internet Security Plan: In September 1995, the PSWG published the draft Federal Internet Security Plan (FISP). The FISP is oriented toward a scalable, continual improvement process, based on common principles and mechanisms compatible with Internet community values and needs. See <http://www.fnc.gov/SWG.html>. The plan addresses Internet security requirements, including interoperability, from the perspective of the goals and objectives outlined in the National Performance Review (NPR), http://www.npr.gov/. The Federal Networking Council developed this framework in conjunction with its Advisory Committee which represents industry, academia, and non-profit sectors. Action Items, from the FISP, to be addressed during the Workshop: Internet Security Policy and Policy Support Activities * Establish overall Internet security policies * Address security in all Federally supported NII pilots * Coordinate Internet community involvement * Establish an ongoing Internet threat database and assessment capability * Identify legal and law enforcement issues Internet Security and Technology Development * Develop an Internet security maturity model * Develop Internet security architecture * Enhance Internet security services and protocols * Develop a "Secure-Out-of-the-Box" endorsement * Enhance application security Internet Security Infrastructure * Establish a set of Internet security interoperability testbeds * Support privacy, authentication, certificate, and security services pilots * Establish Internet security testing and evaluation capabilities * Improve security incident handling capabilities * Develop security self-assessment capabilities * Establish effective secure software and document distribution mechanisms Education and Awareness * Compile Internet user and site profiles * Encourage use of available security technologies * Establish an Internet security information server * Establish an Internet security symposium/workshop series * Establish an Internet security fellowship program Collaborations in Internet Security: With the Federal government's ever-increasing dependency on computers and distributed systems, there is great urgency for it to develop and employ enhanced information system security technologies and practices. At the same time, these Federal technologies must interoperate with those of the broader Internet community (encompassing the private and academic sectors, along with the Federal sector). In recognition of these needs, the Federal Networking Council's Privacy & Security Working Group (FNC/PSWG) has been awarded a National Performance Review (NPR) Innovation Fund grant to compare and validate agency approaches to security. This Collaborations in Internet Security (CIS) project aims to test the strength of these technologies beyond individual agency networking environments, emphasizing the inter-agency and agency-commercial sector communications. The CIS will result in the development of a new and sustainable process for developing, integrating, and deploying security technology that is interoperable at all levels of the Federal Government and within the commercial and academic sectors. The governing principles behind the Security Testbeds include: employment of an open process (with the activities and results open to participation and comment by both public and private sector participants); a focus on multivendor technologies; an emphasis on testing and experimentally deploying security technologies emerging from research and private sectors as well as security technologies currently in use in the commercial environment; and an underlying objective to ensure interoperability among the broad Internet community (federal, private, and academic). Initial tests will include demonstrations of Kerberos v.5, testing of single-use passwords, and digital signatures. For more information, please see (http://www.fnc.gov/cis_page.html)

1 0

RE: Tim's friend's mildly retarded son
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Asgaard > >The reason FDA has not approved this drug is most probably because >it does not make mildly retarded boys less retarded. But of course, >it's not up to the state to protect people from wasting their money >on snake oil. It becomes more difficult to uphold a pure market >philosophy when it comes to poisonous snake oil or, as is often the >case with potent drugs, effective oil but which will kill you from >side effects after a delay. [. . . . . ] >................................................. > >In reference to the "pure" market: > >The point is not simply that the State should protect people from >snake-oil salesmen. > >There are many "private" agencies whom one can pay to do the work of >research on the actual benefits of a drug; companies which which can, >if one does not have the time or the expert knowledge, perform tests >and such to establish whether there is any danger involved in taking >it. This would be the same kind of work that anyone would need to do >in any case (information that they would need to have), whether as an >individual or a private group or a government agency. > >They, too, can do all the work of checking on the safety of the >product, ensuring that it is good, guaranteeing the reality of any >positive effects, then handing it over to the their client and saying, >"there - now, we are satisfied in our judgement that it is not >dangerous to use it." > >The point is that it is not right to prevent, stifle, suffocate, the >liberty to use one's own resources, to act at one's own discretion and >make one's own choices in regard of one's own particular circumstance, >to make independently the judgements necessary to determine the truth >or falsehood of a statement, or the efficacy of a drug - i.e., it is >not right to have to "give it up" to the State, allowing no one else to >engage in the mental exercise and follow-through. > > .. >Blanc >I hope I'm not the only one here who thinks so. > > > > >

1 0

Re: Interesting Egghead freebee
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Alan Olsen <alano(a)teleport.com> > Subject: Interesting Egghead freebee > While at Egghead today, I found out that they are giving away copies of Spry > Mosaic in a Box. (You have to buy something, but that was why I was there > anyways...) So far, it seems to be worth about what you pay for it. It is > designed to connect you to Compu$lave. > What has this to do with this list you ask? The product actually claims to > support S-HTTP! (No export warnings on the package and no real info as to > how it is implemented... I suspect brand-name snake oil here.) For those > of you who do web development and are interested in a client that actually > supports S-Http (I do not believe the d/lable version does), take a look. > (It does install alot of crap, like a new Winsock, so be warned.) Spry Mosaic really does support SHTTP - you can use it to connect to the SHTTP test pages at Terisa and Commercenet without difficulty, once you've doped out how to generate and get signed a low-assurance RSA persona certificate. I just performed an altavista search for references to "shttp://" (the SHTTP prefix) and "https://" (the SSL prefix). The results were 1,000 SHTTP hits, and 20,000 SSL hits. SHTTP may be technicly superior to SSL level 2.0, but as a commercial software developer, I know on which side my bread is buttered. Peter Trei Senior Software Engineer Purveyor Development Team Process Software Corporation http://www.process.com trei(a)process.com

1 0

NOISE: Remailers
by Michael E. Carboy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anon.penet.fi recently died??? Seems to have not been responding for the past week or so... Michael E. Carboy carboy(a)hooked.net

1 0

sector cleaning utility anywhere?
by jf_avon＠citenet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi. I am using secdrive and also PCTools win 2.0 In the disk defragmenter of PCTools, I can choose DOD wipe to clear up free sectors. But I wondered if it wipes the trailing bits and sectors(?) at the end of a file in the end cluster? Is there a standalone utility that would do this end-of-sector cleanup like secure drive does, but that could do it on it's own without the need of any deletion? JFA Public Key at http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon Jean-Francois Avon <jf_avon(a)citenet.net> 2048 bits key ID:C58ADD0D 1996/03/01 fingerprint=52 96 45 E8 20 5A 8A 5E F8 7C C8 6F AE FE F8 91

1 0

Re[2]: Cypherpunks reference in Netscape book
by Martin Diehl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sameer and Cory, Consider setting up some persistent html pages on cryptology, privacy, cyphernomicon, cypherpunks list, and cypherpunks archives. Include these URL's as bookmarks with the delivered Netscape browser. The page on the cypherpunks list could have a subscribe (mail-to) button, as well as some list nequitte, a product warning about list volume, and an unsubscribe (mail-to) button. Martin G. Diehl ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Cypherpunks reference in Netscape book Author: sameer(a)atropos.c2.org at INTERNET-USA Date: 3/15/96 12:59 PM Make sure you list majordomo(a)toad.com and cypherpunks-request(a)toad.com. Don't list cypherpunks(a)toad.com. > I'm writing the "Encryption and SSL" chapter for the Netscape products, and > I'm finishing it up with a "Further reading" section that lists > crypto-related books, web sites, and newsgroups. I was thinking of including > a reference to this mailing list. > [snip] > Corey Bridges > Netscape Security Documentation > http://home.netscape.com/people/corey > 415-528-2978 > -- Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-601-9777x3 Community ConneXion, Inc. FAX: 510-601-9734 The Internet Privacy Provider Dialin: 510-658-6376 http://www.c2.org/ (or login as "guest") sameer(a)c2.org

1 0

Re: Interesting Egghead freebee
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:37 AM 3/15/96 -6, Peter Trei wrote: >Spry Mosaic really does support SHTTP - you can use it to connect to the >SHTTP test pages at Terisa and Commercenet without difficulty, once you've >doped out how to generate and get signed a low-assurance RSA persona >certificate. After I posted about it, I did a little more digging and checked out the S-HTTP portion of the code. Seems to work pretty well. (I was a bit surprised to see that the Personna cert generation saved the information off in a text file, instead of using the bundled e-mail client. The docs on this process were pretty sketchy as well...) >I just performed an altavista search for references to "shttp://" (the SHTTP >prefix) and "https://" (the SSL prefix). The results were 1,000 SHTTP >hits, and 20,000 SSL hits. > >SHTTP may be technicly superior to SSL level 2.0, but as a commercial >software developer, I know on which side my bread is buttered. My reasons for installing it had little to do with S-HTTP (but it was a nice bonus) and more to do with the lack of table support. (I needed something to check out how pages would look on non-table supporting browsers.) My concerns with S-HTTP are with the lack of server (and browser) software support for it, as well as the difficulty of maintaining a site that uses it. (Having to change every single page on a site can become a bit of a chore, as well as introduce unintended security holes due to in improperly updated page.) --- 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

1 0

The Diamond Age (was Re: E$: Neal...)
by s1018954＠aix2.uottawa.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

*Mild spoiler warning* Asgaard wrote: >No. From this excerpt, I draw two conclusions: >1) The author is keeping up with some well known (at least >to longtime readers of the cp list) concepts of future >consequencies of information technology. He is. Stephenson's an occasional programmer and mentions a few cpunks from Communities.com at the end of Snow Crash. He also throws in tasteful renditions of old hat stuff like Turing machines (hardly the pinacle of high tech processing power), and does a great job with an example of parallel processing stolen from A Fire Upon the Deep (but *so* much spicier!). Who would have thought sex orgies would be a model for computation? Or ritual drumming as IPC...? I can just imagine a unix kernel for such a machine...(or beast?) >2) Around these, he weaves a boring, artless plot. Actually the plot is rather well done and does not focus nearly as much on tech Snow Crash did. It's more of a story-telling novel with some very cute literary devices. It's got to be the only children's book I'd recommend to anyone, especially people you'd like to interest in basic CS concepts or crypto-anonymity issues and who wouldn't be caught dead reading sci-fi, much less cyberpunk. I don't consider it to be a thriller (though it has more sex and violence than your average kid's book.). It was even a bit sentimental. Those of you who enjoy conclusive story resolution, will not like Stephenson's open-ended finale (though *I* think he got it right this time, unlike in Snow Crash). It has me wondering was what a real "Young Lady's Primer" complete with gentle cartoonesque intros to CS, crypto (recreational crypto maybe?) and chaumian concepts would invlolve. I do remember Phil Z. mentioning on the list that his original exposure to crypto was as a child by just such a book (he announced this the day the author died). I have heard of the occasional video game that teaches assembler or typing, it might be interesting to create and release such a thing on the net for the topics discussed among us (for all age groups). Anyone for a crypto-anarchy game .wad?

1 0

Source of Cryptanalysis Materials
by Mark Aldrich 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Some folks (this was awhile back) were looking for texts on cryptanalysis and related cryptographic topics. Today, I ran across some stuff published by an outfit called "Aegean Park Press." With such titles as "Manual for the Solution of Military Ciphers," "Elementary Military Cryptography," and "Cryptanalysis of Shift-Register Generated Stream Cipher Systems," they sound like a source of potentially interesting material. A lot of what they are publishing are now-declassified military manuscripts, and they specialize in military-related historical stuff and crypto-related mathematics, etc. A Web resource for them is at http://www.halcyon.com/books/ Otherwise, contact them at: Aegean Park Press P. O. Box 2837 Laguna Hills, CA 92654 VOX 714.586.8811 TF 800.736.3587 (US & Canada only) FAX 714.586.8269 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Liberty is truly dead |Mark Aldrich | | when the slaves are willing |GRCI INFOSEC Engineering | | to forge their own chains. |maldrich(a)grci.com | | STOP THE CDA NOW! |MAldrich(a)dockmaster.ncsc.mil | |_______________________________________________________________________| |The author is PGP Empowered. Public key at: finger maldrich(a)grci.com | | The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author | | and my employer gets no credit for them whatsoever. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: Tim's friend's mildly retarded son
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: tcmay(a)got.net (In response to my sig statement): >>>I hope I'm not the only one here who thinks so. > >How could you be? Since I was the one who cited the example, I clearly >am >opposed to the current monopoly on judgment the FDA enjoys. .................................................................... Yes. I know. I am on the infamous Anarcho-Capitalist Cypherpunk List. But I am sending mail from my place of work, and I intended it as a sort of "disclaimer". Ha-ha. I wasn't clear about that. BTW, vis-a-vis the Tijuana Free Market qua government involvement with addicting substances, I think your precision statitics below are apropos, Q.E.D. :>) * > .... Tobacco, which kills an estimated 400,000 a year is the > winner. (The statistics I saw a few years ago were easily memorizable: > tobacco: 400,000, alchohol: 40,000, drugs: 4,000.) .. Blanc * you would have had to read my "How to Win an Argument" post to appreciate this one. >

1 0

PolicyMaker paper available
by Matt Blaze 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A number of people have been asking me about some work I've been doing (with Joan Feigenbaum and Jack Lacy) on alternatives to traditional (X.509, PGP, etc.) identity-based certificates. We've just finished up our paper on the concept, "Decentralized Trust Management", to appear at the Oakland Security Conference in May. A PostScript pre-print is available in ftp://research.att.com/dist/mab/policymaker.ps -matt [NB: I no longer read the cypherpunks list with any regularity, so please cc me directly on any comments or discussion. Thanks.]

1 0

RE: Tim's friend's mildly retarded son
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:16 AM 3/16/96, Timothy C. May wrote: >(I'll spare the usual stuff about how the Founders smoke a pipe of cannabis >now and then, how "canvas" comes from the Dutch word for this herb, how >special interests got hemp and "reefer" outlawed, and how the effects fell >mainly on the poor and inner-city folks.) I meant "and how the effects of criminalization fell mainly on the poor and inner-city folks." Just thought I should make this clear, because many who advocate drug laws do so out of some notion that by illegalizing some drug they are _helping_ the poor folks. In fact, they are helping to destroy inner cities by making illegal drugs a profitable thing to trade. And since people living in cities are more likely to come in contact with police than are folks living in suburban areas, the implications of illegality are even more strongly felt. Far removed from crypto, except the the sort of thinking that says the FDA and DEA know best what people ought to be allowed to buy and ingest is very similar to the thinking that government agencies know best what codes and ciphers people ought to be allowed to use. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" 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."

1 0

Re: Kid Gloves or Megaphones
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:11 PM 3/14/96 -0800, Eric wrote: > The debate which must be taken to the public >is whether we want payee anonymity or not. I am confident that people >want their privacy and are willing to let others have theirs as well. My initial impression of Chaum's work, from his 1985 CACM paper, was that the technology gave you strong anonymity; I was surprised when I first saw references to payees _not_ being anonymous (subject to the usual limitations of getting the digicash to them anonymously and getting the service you want from them anonymously.) We've had discussions on this list about topics like kidnap ransom, which need payee anonymity to make sense at all; we later had discussions about how to provide it given that it wasn't a standard feature. So first we need to tell people that the technology _won't_ provide payee anonymity unless used carefully, and then we need to tell them that it _can_ provide anonymity if you want it.... Depending on the details of Ian's method, I don't think the debate needs to be taken to the public, or even done - it may simply be a done deal once the technology's out there. If Mark Twain Bank or Merita Bank or the Federal <Exonive-Deleted> Reserve wants to offer Digicash(tm) with Payee-Non-Anonymity, they can always make it a contractual requirement that their payees not use anonymity techniques in return for being paid. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 pager 408-787-1281 # "At year's end, however, new government limits on Internet access threatened # to halt the growth of Internet use. [...] Government control of news media # generally continues to depend on self-censorship to regulate political and # social content, but the authorities also consistently penalize those who # exceed the permissable." - US government statement on China...

1 0

Free News access
by Alexey Boldyrev 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone know, how to get free online (not through FTP) Usenet News access?

1 0

Re: Jump Start ecash With IPhone
by eggplant＠inlink.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Jim McCoy wrote: >| Two problems: >| >| 1- Chaum did not have the clue to pick up on this when two >| cypherpunks (who shall remain nameless...) pitched this >| and several other ideas to involve ISPs in jump-starting >| ecash almost two years ago, so why would he figure it out >| now? > > But now we don't need no stinkin' license. We just use Mark >Twain ecash. > > The big problem with this is that net phones can be subject to >delay & drop out, and I don't want to deal with that when I'm talking >on the phone. > >Adam > >-- >"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." > -Hume One thing to remember, this is still a developing program. With the increasing of bandwith and the development of new and better compression algorithyms, this will slowly fade. This is only the begining. In a couple years, the transmision and reception could be as good, if not better than the normal telephone, you never know. -- "... In Germany they first came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me-and by that time no one was left to speak up..." Pastor Martin Niemoller ++++++++++++ ************************************** * Matthew Murphy ------------ eggplant(a)inlink.com * ---------- * http://www.inlink.com/~eggplant * The Web page is under construciton at this time though.. * Please don't mind the mess.... * ************************************** ++++++++++++ finger eggplant(a)inlink.com for my PGP key.

1 0

Re: FCC-type Regulation of Cyberspace
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:18 AM 3/15/96 -0800, you wrote: >Timothy C. May wrote: >>>Mr. Frantz, unless you can prove your claims here, forthwith, I must inform >>>you that they are in violation of the Truth in Speech Act of 1996. Please >>>retract them, now. > >Bill Frantz wrote: >>Political speech, not commercial speech. The act doesn't apply or is >>unconstitutional. > >I see: The bill of rights reads: >"Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of *political* >speech". >Never knew that until now. Non-election-related political speech only, of course. And excepting support for Communism or opposition to Prohibition or to approved wars, or to anything the military does to get them approved. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 pager 408-787-1281 # "At year's end, however, new government limits on Internet access threatened # to halt the growth of Internet use. [...] Government control of news media # generally continues to depend on self-censorship to regulate political and # social content, but the authorities also consistently penalize those who # exceed the permissable." - US government statement on China...

1 0