December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

[NOISE] Great line from Bernstein case
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This one had me laughing hard: >Defendants [The feds. Ed.]also >conclude summarily that both the definition of cryptographic software >and the exemptions from this definition are clear to a person of >ordinary intelligence. This seems to be a bit of dissimulation, unless >it is a confession, since the ODTC itself mistakenly classified >Bernstein's academic paper as a defense article under Category XIII. Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not those of my employer, DigiCash, Inc. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

1 0

No Subject
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Black Unicorn wrote: >> > > Clever kidnappers make arrangement in advance to deposit this cash with > willing financial institutions who will hold it for several years before > mixing it into their cash withdrawl stream. Kidnappers are paid based > on a subtraction of interest for the period while the cash is undeposited > and earns no interest for the financial institution, plus a fee. > > BCCI was quite notorious for using this method to cool off hot money. > > When the money was only mildly hot, it was simply physically transported > to offshore banks in smaller lots and used for their cash payouts. > (While riskier, this allowed the payment of interest). > > The other option was simply to launder the money through enough > agitations so that two or three banking secrecy entities were between the > return of the currency to free circulation and the kidnappers. > christ. who the hell is this guy?

1 0

5th protect password?
by rschlafly＠attmail.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> From: Hal <hfinney(a)shell.portal.com> >> I have been quite appalled to read the various analyses on the net (URLs >> not handy, but they have been posted here before I think) which conclude >> that compelled disclosure of a cryptographic pass phrase would probably >> be OK despite the Fifth Amendment. This seems to be an area where there >> is widespread agreement based on recent precedent. >> from: --Tim May >> What about the Fifth Amendment? Scholars are addressing this issue of >> compelled disclosure of cryptographic keys. Note, of course, that diaries, >> business records, papers, and, indeed, the entire contents of a putative >> crime scene are accessible to crime investigators and the legal system. >> (Whether giving up a key constitutes "testifying against one's self" or not >> is undecided, so far as I know. My own inclination is that it will be >> decided to be no different than the key to a locked diary--by itself, it is >> not self-incrimination.) Is this really an issue? I am not an expert, but I just read a Supreme Court case: DOE v. United States, 487 U.S. 201; 108 S. Ct. 2341 (1988) It involved someone who was ordered by the court to consent to the Cayman Islands bank to turn over account records. The Supreme Court said yes, because it is "more like 'be[ing] forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents' than it is like 'be[ing] compelled to reveal the combination to [petitioner's] wall safe.'" The quote refers to Stevens' dissent, which said: A defendant can be compelled to produce material evidence that is incriminating. Fingerprints, blood samples, voice exemplars, handwriting specimens, or other items of physical evidence may be extracted from a defendant against his will. But can he be compelled to use his mind to assist the prosecution in convicting him of a crime? I think not. He may in some cases be forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents, but I do not believe he can be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe -- by word or deed. I conclude that in a criminal case, all of the supreme court justices agree that a criminal defendant cannot be forced to reveal the combination to a wall safe, or any other information in his mind, by the Fifth Amendment. An escrow agent can presumably be compelled, unless his is accused of a crime, or has a privilege, or is outside jurisdiction. Interestingly, a footnote in the above case said: The Government of the Cayman Islands maintains that a compelled consent, such as the one at issue in this case, is not sufficient to authorize the release of confidential financial records protected by Cayman law. Sounds like the Cayman Islands might be a good place for your key escrow agents. Roger Schlafly

3 2

Add-in encryption module to Netscape
by runner＠asiapac.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Lurking here for quite some time until now a real problem has come up and I need help here. I'm not in the US of A and the Netscape commerce server that my employer recently purchased has only 48bit key (as told by the salesman). My question is whether it is possible to add-in my own security module (RSA) and secondly, how difficult is it? The salesman cannot answer me. Thanks a lot.

5 4

Re:
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:57 PM 4/19/96 -0700, anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com wrote: >Black Unicorn wrote: > >>> >> >> Clever kidnappers make arrangement in advance to deposit this cash with >> willing financial institutions who will hold it for several years before >> mixing it into their cash withdrawl stream. Kidnappers are paid based >> on a subtraction of interest for the period while the cash is undeposited >> and earns no interest for the financial institution, plus a fee. >> >> BCCI was quite notorious for using this method to cool off hot money. >> >> When the money was only mildly hot, it was simply physically transported >> to offshore banks in smaller lots and used for their cash payouts. >> (While riskier, this allowed the payment of interest). >> >> The other option was simply to launder the money through enough >> agitations so that two or three banking secrecy entities were between the >> return of the currency to free circulation and the kidnappers. >> > >christ. > >who the hell is this guy? He's a person whose entire income stream (or most of it, probably) is derived from the misbehavior of government. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

[NOISE] sign-off instructions
by Dave Del Torto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[author unknown, fwds elided] Uni, take note... Might make an amusing periodic auto-post to the clueless list. ;) dave ................................. cut here ................................. "HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE" This is what you need to do. Please read these instructions carefully before beginning. tools needed: one Hammer one scredriver one pair of pliers one heavy-duty pair of wire cutters one bucket of saline water a box of sani-wipes Step #1: Stop payment on any checks that you may have sent to your Internet Service Provider (GOD). Step #2: If GOD is unresponsive and you are still receiving mail from this list, you will need to find the "mailhost". This is a machine usually located in a locked office. Every day around noon, the mailman will deliver a box of diskettes with that day's mail messages, including yours from this list, to this machine. Typically, only a handful of people have keys to the "mailhost". The reason why this machine is locked up is because this is typically the best, fastest, most powerful computer at your facility and the people with keys don't want to share it. If you must, break or pry the door down with one (1) hammer (you did get all the tools needed?). Step #3: Find the ON/OFF switch for this machine. Using the pliers, set the switch to the OFF position by tugging downwards until the disposable plastic switch breaks away from the computer casing. Discard the disposable plastic switch in an environmental-friendly manner. This will alert the mailman to not deliver the diskettes with the messages to the "mailhost" not unlike the little red flag found on mailboxes. This should resolve your mail problem immediately. Step #4: You may experience a recurrence of mail within 72 hours. If this should happen, you will need to disable the "mailhost" once again with more forceful measures. Repeat Step #2. Don't be suprised if there is a sturdier door in place than the one you destroyed previously. This is due to the fact that the "Have Key" clique found out that someone has seen their private stash of computer equipment. Step #5: After you have once again regained entry into the "mailhost" room, open up the back of the "mailhost". There may be a large tv-like device on top of the "mailhost" You will need to remove this first. Take your wire cutters, and cut any cables binding the tv-like device to the "mailhost". Set the tv-like device to the side. With your screwdriver, remove each and every screw that you can find on the "mailhost". Once this is done, the "mailhost" should break away into two or more pieces. Step #5: Find a large box with a fan attached to it. It will be clearly marked with the following labels: "Danger" "High Voltage" "Do not open - no user-servicable parts". Don't worry, these labels are merely in place to satisfy OSHA requirements and you are not in any danger at all. Take the bucket of saline water and pour it into any vents or ports that the large box may have. Any extra water should be poured directly into the computer chassis, be sure to properly soak each and every component. Step #6: In the event of fire (OSHA has been known to be right on occassion), douse any flames with the sani-wipes. This solution is provided without warranty. It is not bio-degradable or fat-free. In the event of sudden death, contact a physician immediately.

1 0

[EVENT] cheap date w/Bob Dole
by Dave Del Torto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Calling All Cypherpunks: An interesting "special event" just showed up on the radar. Sorry for the noise if you've heard about it already. dave ................................ cut here ................................. "Public Policy Issues Forum on Information Security" (aka "Celebration of 20 years of Public Key Cryptography" 1976-1996) Co-Hosts: Cylink Corporation The Churchill Club Date & Place: Monday, April 29 (6-10 PM) Marriott Hotel, Burlingame (spittin' distance from SF Airport) Dinner: $20 for club members $35 for non-members Menu includes [mad cow] steak dinner and wine Cash bar Speakers include: - James Freeman FBI Special Agent in Charge of the San Francisco Region; on the $100 billion annual loss to U.S. business from industrial espionage. - David Morris Vice President of Cylink; on advanced security systems needed today beyond firewalls which are only partial solutions; five requirements a truly secure information protection system must have. - Senator(s) Larry Pressler (and Bob Dole?*) on new legislation (The Encryption Communications Privacy Act of 1996) to loosen restrictions on strong crypto in the U.S.; need to allow U.S. firms to export long-key-length crypto. [yes, Virginia, _that_ Senator Pressler, the one who made the Bottom Ten list] - Senator Conrad Burns (R/Montana) on his proposed bill (Promotion of Commerce On-Line in the Digital Era) which could include preventing government from becoming an escrow registry bureau. [of CFP96 cowboy-hat voicelink fame] - Congressman Robert Goodlatte on his "Security and Freedom Through Encryption Act" (SAFE) legislation. - Paul Raines Project Manager with the U.S. Postal Service; previewing the USPS Electronic Postmarking System (1st nationwide use of PKC in a consumer-based public service, includes a certificate authority registry). - Whitfield Diffie - Martin Hellman - Ralph Merkle the three inventors/original patent-holders in the field of Public Key Cryptography on a panel discussing the future of cryptography, 3DES and "other issues." __________ If you're planning on being hungry on 29 April, get more info or RSVP and reserve a seat by calling: The Churchill Club 2323 South Bascom Ave Campbell CA 95008 408.371.4460 voice - ask for Lisa (try pressing #0 at the menu) 408-371-4180 fax There's a suggestion that you _could_ pay by sending your credit card info over the net (ironically, I see no public key being provided, but that's AOL for you...). For the foolhardy, the address is: <chrchllclb(a)aol.com> Alternatively, you can send it to <kmitnick(a)ax.netcom.com> or <donations(a)lsd.com> ;) __________ Notes: * Sen. Dole hasn't confirmed yet, but he's co-sponsor of the Encryption Communications Privacy Act, so if there are no high-visibility Senate votes or major campaign babies to kiss on-camera, chances are he'll paint a target on his back and kick it with us. The speakers alledgely include representatives from all three Congressional legislation groups. Expect the Press to attend. Other confirmations are still coming in from additional participants. For the price of a Van Halen ticket, this should be worth a giggle or two.

1 0

Dictionary searching code
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone have some code that will search a dictionary, and tell me *quickly* if an arbitrary chunk of text is in the dictionary? Pre-indexing steps are fine, as is using big chunks of disk for hash tables. The point of course, is to check arbitrary possible plaintext that a test decryption produces. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

4 3

Re: Baby-Food Bombing and highly selective quoting
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:45 PM 4/19/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote: >On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, some anonymous FUDder sent us this: > > http://thomas.loc.gov/r104/r104s17ap6.html > >I think the following is a permanent URL, but I'm sure you can't make hard >links any deeper: > > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r104:S17AP6-332: > >Also note that this speech concerns an amendment to S735 that FAILED. >I.e., the language for which the esteemed [snort] Mr. Biden is arguing IS >NOT IN THE BILL AS PASSED BY THE SENATE. > >>[...] >> As some people tell >> it, you would think the FBI and BATF and the local and State police >> are tapping our phones left and right, that they are riding down the >> streets in vans with electronic devices eavesdropping into our >> windows and houses--which they have the capacity to do, by the way. > >Mr. Biden's next sentence, which either Mr. Thompson or the anonymous >forwarder conveniently left out, is "But that is just not the way it >works." Here's a question, however: What, exactly, stands between the way it is supposedly done, today, and wiretapping with none of these "protections." I see nothing in the Constitution which mandates them, at least explicitly, which suggests that the thugs might simply decide, tomorrow, that they are not really necessary after all. Is it possible that the only reason these protections are in place is to provide a window-dressing of caution, to ensure that the disgust of the public doesn't get too great? And another question I've never seen a satisfactory answer for: Why is there not an automatic policy to inform the person tapped, at least after the tap is removed, analogous to the level of information the victim of a search warrant normally gets? Jim Bell jimbell(a)Pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Dictionary searching code
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

** Reply to note from Adam Shostack <adam(a)lighthouse.homeport.org> 04/19/96 8:02pm -0500 = = = Does anyone have some code that will search a dictionary, and = tell me *quickly* if an arbitrary chunk of text is in the dictionary? = Pre-indexing steps are fine, as is using big chunks of disk for hash = tables. The point of course, is to check arbitrary possible plaintext = that a test decryption produces. = for this purpose, the OLD unix code starting with V6 20 years ago has a speller with a fairly comprehensive dictionary. The code is small. about 15 years ago I broke it out and rewrote it as linkable libraries to handle multiple dictionaries. I know I have the code somewhere --probably on MIPS 2000 tape or Sun 3 tape... the code also contains excellent prefix/suffix codes, etc. I do not remember spending a great deal of time doing the conversion, and it was straighforward to convert it to a callable library (or even a .dll). attila -- Obscenity is a crutch for inarticulate motherfuckers. Fuck the CDA! cc: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>

1 0

Re: Dictionary searching code
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:02 PM 4/19/96 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: > Does anyone have some code that will search a dictionary, and >tell me *quickly* if an arbitrary chunk of text is in the dictionary? >Pre-indexing steps are fine, as is using big chunks of disk for hash >tables. The point of course, is to check arbitrary possible plaintext >that a test decryption produces. This application sounds perfect for Bloom filters. The basic idea of a Bloom filter is to build a database by taking each word in the dictionary and hashing with N different hashes. The hashes do not need to by cryptographically secure, but they do need to be good hashes, XOR doesn't make it. You use those hashes as bit offsets in a giant bit map, which is the database. When building the database you turn on the bits at each of these N locations. When accessing the database, you hash the chunk of text with the same hashes, and then test the bits in the database at those offsets. If any of the bits are zero, then the chunk of text is not in the dictionary. The failure mode is to say something is in the dictionary when it isn't. If half the bits in the database are on, then the probability of failure is 2**(-N), so if N==10, then the failure rate is 1 in 1024. If empirically, you get a higher failure rate, check the quality of your hashes. For cryptanalysis, I might pick a higher N and eyeball check for failures. Say you want 1 in a million failure rate, and have an 80,000 word dictionary. You need a 20 * 80,000 * 2 bit database, which is 400,000 bytes. Regards - Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Welcome to clueless
by Majordomo＠c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- Welcome to the clueless mailing list! If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, you can send mail to "Majordomo(a)c2.org" with the following command in the body of your email message: unsubscribe clueless cypherpunks(a)toad.com Here's the general information for the list you've subscribed to, in case you don't already have it: #### No info available for clueless.

1 0

Puffer?
by rwaldrip＠vdospk.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone use Puffer? Tell me about your experience with it. I just got it installed.

1 0

Re: Bernstein ruling meets the virus law
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:05 PM 4/20/96, Bruce Marshall wrote: >On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > >> It should be interesting to see what happens when the Bernstein ruling >> (assuming it is further upheld as the court case and appeals proceed) meets >> the proposed law making the writing of virus code a crime. >> >> If crypto software is essentially speech, albeit in a non-traditional >> human language, then virus software is no different. > > I think the determination of whether virus software will be >considered free speech (and thus legal) or speech needing limits >(illegal) will be based entirely on whether that code is active in system >memory or just sitting on a hard drive. I of course was being careful to specifically say "the proposed law making the writing of virus code a crime." I think most of us will agree that destroying someone else's data via viruses may well be a crime, depending on circumstances. However, the talk of trying to felonize the _writing_ of virus code, irrespective of whether it is ever used criminally, is what I think the Bernstein decision bears on. --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

ApacheSSL
by Sean A. Walberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An ISP that I have ties with is looking to set up a secure server. Currently, they are running Apache. I told them that for ~$500 they can put on Apache SSL and be all ready. However, they want to buy Netscape (for the name, I've already given them the 40bit gospel), put it on a separate, firewalled machine, allow no access to it, etc, etc. Is all this paranoia necessary? Sean =================] Will work for RAM [================== | Sean A. Walberg | PGP key | C programmers | | Computer Engineering ][ | on | do it in | | umwalber(a)cc.umanitoba.ca | servers | libraries! | =============] http://www.escape.ca/~sean [=============

2 1

Re: Wiretapping v warrants
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:42 AM 4/20/96 -0500, Bruce Marshall wrote: >On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote: > >> Here's a question, however: What, exactly, stands between the way it is >> supposedly done, today, and wiretapping with none of these "protections." > > First and foremost Congress, But were these "protections" the product of a law passed by Congress? > then the Judicial system I'm feeling much better....NOT! >and finally the people themselves. It's called "Right to Keep and Bear Arms." >> And another question I've never seen a satisfactory answer for: Why is >> there not an automatic policy to inform the person tapped, at least after >> the tap is removed, analogous to the level of information the victim of a >> search warrant normally gets? > > Since I'm not exactly sure whether the targets of a wiretap are ever >informed that their conversations were monitored if they aren't later >prosecuted using the info gained through the wiretap, I couldn't really >comment on why if that is the case. The reason you don't know is simply that there is no _Constitutional_ reason. There is merely a practical one: The act of wiretapping does not automatically inform those tapped, in the same way that service of a search warrant does, so the government CONVEEEENIENTLY forgets to tell them. Most government suck-ups don't even want to address this issue; they have no explanation. Unlike them, you acknowledged that you weren't away of the reason why. > Personally, I think a better example could be used. When a person is >placed under visual surveilance they also are uninformed that their >actions are being scrutinized. Their conversations can be picked up >using high powered microphones and they can be plainly seen with >binoculars or even night vision goggles. I would assume that they >probably aren't informed after the fact either unless the surveilance is >used against them in court. I seem to recall a news item from Washington state within the last couple of years in which a conviction was thrown out because evidence was obtained with thermal-IR imagers. You know, look for the hot house and it's being used to grow pot. Problem is, that kind of viewing is not normally publicly apparent, so a citizen has a reasonable belief that it can't be used against him. In another case, in Oregon, the use of night-vision goggles to observe people (at least in collecting evidence) was thrown out, for the same reason: Even if, arguably, people were out "in public," they had a reasonable expectation that they would not be observed if they were careful to remain in the dark. One more thing: Until about 1968, the private use of tiny recording microphones, in public, was essentially unlimited. About that year, in many states, it was restricted. (In some states it's illegal to record conversations by surreptitious means, EVEN IF you're a party to that conversation. How bizarre!) My theory is that politicians recognized, correctly, that they would be the ones most subject to such recording, and since they engaged in incriminating (bribery) conversations fairly regularly, they didn't want lobbyists to be able to collect a series of recorded conversations that could later be used against the politician if they later fell out of favor. > Regardless, I think that if people aren't informed that they were the >subject of an investigation after they are cleared, they should be. >Bruce Marshall The reason I consider "the system" to be so crooked is that it tries to get away with things like this whenever it can. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: 5th protect password?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:33 PM 4/19/96 -0800, Roger Schlafly wrote: >Is this really an issue? I am not an expert, but I just read a >Supreme Court case: > > DOE v. United States, 487 U.S. 201; 108 S. Ct. 2341 (1988) > >It involved someone who was ordered by the court to consent to the >Cayman Islands bank to turn over account records. The Supreme >Court said yes, because it is "more like 'be[ing] forced to >surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents' >than it is like 'be[ing] compelled to reveal the combination to >[petitioner's] wall safe.'" > >The quote refers to Stevens' dissent, which said: > > A defendant can be compelled to produce material evidence that > is incriminating. Fingerprints, blood samples, voice > exemplars, handwriting specimens, or other items of physical > evidence may be extracted from a defendant against his will. As you might expect, I see a problem (and a pattern!) with even these examples. Notice that with the possible exception of "handwriting specimens", the examples above all represent pieces of evidence whose utility was only made technologically possible by developments done more than a century after the writing of the Constitution. Fingerprints have only come into use in this century, voiceprints only in the last 30 or so years, blood samples were only uniquely identifiable within the last 10-15 or so, etc. I think even graphology (handwriting analysis) for legal purposes is likewise comparatively recent, although there is no obvious technological reason which this should have been so. The last category, "other items of physical evidence" is too unspecific to interpret. The problem? Well, with the exception of the polygraph (whose reliability is severely (!) in doubt), I can't think of another technology which has been denied to cops by refusing their insistence on being given evidence. The implication, unfortunately, is that whereever a new technology pops up, the courts regularly ignore the fifth amendment, finding some excuse to insist that a defendant provide evidence. This really isn't surprising: Remember, the Constitution was written by _revolutionaries_, while the infringements on that Constitution are done by _bureaucrats_. Any bureaucratic interpretation of the Constitution is inherently flawed; the proper, "revolutionary" interpretation of the 5th amendment is that a defendant should in no way be required to cooperate with the prosecution if the results of that cooperation could conceivably be used to convict him. Anyone who denies this should be required to make a list of the kinds of evidence which was regularly demanded of a 1783-era defendant. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Re: EFF/Bernstein Press Release
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:46 4/19/96, Alan Olsen wrote: >I have been seening a surprising amount of rant from the forces of >Government about keeping information out of "the hands of terrorists". I am >wondering how this is going to be brought about. The books are there. They >can be ordered from a number of mail order firms. They can also be found in >used book stores across the country. The information is alos on the net, on >cd-roms and other mediums of storage. How are they going to stuff the >tentacles back into the can? Trivial. Publish a book -> Ten years. Sell a book -> Ten years. Sell CDROM -> Ten years. Publish on the net (at this time US only, but identical campaigns are underway in just about any country with a decent net connection) -> Ten years. Won't stop the hard core terrorist, but will keep the general population from taking action once they finally realize what is going on. Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not those of my employer, DigiCash, Inc. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

1 0

OS/2 encryption utilities
by mirele＠xmission.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Due to the fact that I have been threatened by the Church of Scientology with legal action if I do not cease and desist posting encheferated parodies of their secret scripture (per a letter I received from Cult attorneys via Federal Express today) I am in search of OS/2 disk encryption programs. If you can help, please respond asap with suggestions. Thank you, Deana M. Holmes mirele(a)xmission.com -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GAT d- s++ a C++ U P L E- W++ N++ o-- K++ w--- O++ PS++ PE-- Y+ PGP+ t 5 X-- R- tv-- b++ DI++ D++ G e++++ h+ r* x++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

3 3

Re: Bernstein ruling meets the virus law
by Computer Virus Help Desk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:08 PM 4/19/96 -0700, Tim May wrote: > >It should be interesting to see what happens when the Bernstein ruling >(assuming it is further upheld as the court case and appeals proceed) meets >the proposed law making the writing of virus code a crime. > >If crypto software is essentially speech, albeit in a non-traditional >human language, then virus software is no different. To the best of our knowledge simply writing Virus Code including it's "distribution" is not a crime in the United States. However, the deliberate, malicious upload or infection of another's computer or system is a crime in many states. The writing and or distribution of Computer Viruses is a crime in some European countries. We don't see the "Bernstein" ruling as having an effect in the U.S. one way or the other. Virus Code seems to be treated just like "speech" right now. Use "it" to yell "fire" in a crowded theater and see what happens. Deliberately and maliciously infect another's computer or system with a computer virus and see what happens. What proposed law making writing virus code a crime were you referring to ?

1 0

Georgia Legislation - Remailer Effect???
by Lou Zirko 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable T have included copy of text from c/net about a bill passed in the Georgia legislature. It would definately impact remailer service. Location of the remailers might fall in with the Arkansas (or was it Tennessee) BBS/Porno case. The URL is at: http://www.cnet.com/Content/News/Files/0,16,1144,00.html Article follows - --------------------------------- Georgia OKs "Net Police" law By Rose Aguilar April 19, 1996, 5 p.m. PST A bill signed into law this week by Georgia Governor Zell Miller has sparked yet another firestorm over what role the government should take in curbing the Internet and whether legislators are sufficiently techno-savvy to make considered judgments. House Bill 1630 was introduced on February 8 by Georgia House of Representatives member Don Parsons (R-Marietta). The bill makes it illegal to falsely identify yourself or place a registered trademark or logo on your home page. The bill also makes it illegal for email users to have addresses that don't include their own names. For example, an individual who sets up a site that gives the appearance of representing a government agency by using a state seal could be sued by the state. Also, "vanity" email addresses like jackpot(a)luckynumber.com purchased from a new service called VanityMail.com are now illegal in the state of Georgia. If someone is sued under the new law, the court will decide the penalties. Parsons says he drafted the bill to solve the problem of online impersonation. "Back in the winter I started hearing about home pages through the news that offer remedies and health related services. To the untrained eye the pages make it appear that the information provided is valid and could be some kind of remedy," Parsons said. "After some thought and research I decided to present the bill." The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a civil liberties organization devoted to technology-related issues, says the bill could undermine one of the essential benefits of the Net: the ability to link information posted to one site with related information posted to another. "The way the bill is written states that you can't put a button on your homepage that says, 'Click here to go to Wired magazine.'" If Wired is copyrighted I would be under violation if I didn't have their permission. Instead, I would have to say, 'Click here to go to this cool magazine,'" said Shari Steel, a staff attorney with the EFF. Parsons retorts back that the foundation is misinterpreting the bill. "The EFF is reading something into the bill which just isn't there. The bill has nothing to do with links. The bill is about using a name or a trademark to represent your page as being someone else's," he said. The problem is that the wording of the law leaves it open to multiple interpretations, according to the EFF. "He created a very vague law that could very well make everyone on the Internet a criminal," said Steel. Furthermore, the EFF is accusing Parsons of introducing the bill to help his employer, Bell South, win a lawsuit. Bell South announced this week that it has filed a suit against startup company "realpages.com" in a battle over domain names on the Internet. Realpages.com designs and maintains Web pages for other businesses. Bell South, however, has a trademark on the term The Real Yellow Pages for its printed directories and claims that this extends to a trademark on the "realpages.com" domain name for the Net. The Baby Bell wants to use "realpages.com" because "Realyellowpages.com" is too long. "This [bill] has been masterminded by Bell South. It's obvious, considering that the legislator who wrote the bill is a Bell South employee," said Stanton McCandlish, an online activist with the EFF. "This bill would give Bell South the victory that they want, but probably aren't going to get in court. Bell South is going to lose that case and lose big," he said. Parsons confirms that he works for Bell South but denies the charge. "The Bell South Corporation has no interest in this bill. I don't even think the cases are the same," Parsons said. "I put this bill together long before that case and they are totally separate," he said. Whatever Parsons' motivations, even some other Georgia representatives agree that he managed to get a bill passed with potential negative repercussions for the use of the Internet. "Many legislators are afraid of technology and they fear the power of information and the Internet, especially the Internet in the power of the voters and that's a nationwide problem," said Representative Mitchell Kaye (R-Marietta). Kaye is the Web master of a site called the Conservative Policy Caucus (CPC), which posts information about House activities from the viewpoint of the conservative legislative caucus. During debate over his bill, Parsons referred to the CPC site as an example of one that passes itself off as an official government site. Kaye says that Parsons is wrong about the CPC site and that it will be unaffected by the bill. But he's still concerned about the potential dampening affect that it will have on the use of the Internet in Georgia. "I'm concerned about the bigger page of the Internet," said Kaye. "The bottom line is that this is an unconstitutional infringement upon free speech and literally puts Georgia in the same category as communist China." Ridiculous, says Parsons. "I would never want to restrict anybody's freedom of speech, but I believe that end users have some right to know who is behind what they are looking at," he said. The passage of the law has since sparked conversation on Steve Outing's online-news mailing list. Copyright =A9 1996 c|net inc. all rights reserved - ---------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMXlW3hKvccEAmlQ9AQFTSAf+PuyHzI8sOFcye0hCpMrY0I8lWD9CLJcW KsD+2hfFAfjjRsA5YzB2LWhfZ2JfGrzwFibHrX4nc+qlDpZmECOipAdmDLf5/EmA 149YGLbLmn/E44BcsJK2MCFluASonON9HADZGrvr8IYDumRde7ycIshx3+YZ7KwL Ix4g+PsIP1mzRGTi0kkBgJL7/m6g7xY/QH0XPSZZEbiFSBXIFusYQ/YZCCH5JLUa VaGgWURRNnwz3eDHgfW0Ck+ES4HNV2yXDR5IQ/IL3fufZOjt2NCczomr29ebWJ9I IvXYQVZv8I+Wsus/YisgOA0Hz1VoNPdiUQgUPf4gO0MAEgo/9Ai1yw== =INB6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Re: TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT was: EFF/Bernstein Press Release
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:59 PM 4/19/96 -0700, Bill Frantz wrote: >Real terrorists receive instruction at terrorism schools run by >organizations like the Iranians, the PLO, and even the US government (CIA, >Special Forces etc.) The rate of technology transfer is much greater with >hands-on teaching than it is with literature in e.g. libraries or the net. That's because most people are not autodidactic. You have to teach them in person and pound their heads in. Some like Ted K. do OK at self teaching, however. In addition, "teachers" can use the net for research and pick up lots of interesting info. They always could pick it up, though. DCF

1 0

Re: [EVENT] cheap date w/Bob Dole
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>"Public Policy Issues Forum on Information Security" >(aka "Celebration of 20 years of Public Key Cryptography" 1976-1996) > >Co-Hosts: > Cylink Corporation > The Churchill Club [stuff deleted] > - Senator(s) Larry Pressler (and Bob Dole?*) >on new legislation (The Encryption Communications Privacy Act of 1996) to >loosen restrictions on strong crypto in the U.S. What, exactly, are the "restrictions on strong crypto in the U.S.? > - Senator Conrad Burns (R/Montana) >on his proposed bill (Promotion of Commerce On-Line in the Digital Era) >which could include preventing government from becoming an escrow registry >bureau. I'm _still_ waiting to see the text of this bill. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Wiretapping v warrants
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:01 4/20/96, jim bell wrote: >I seem to recall a news item from Washington state within the last couple of >years in which a conviction was thrown out because evidence was obtained >with thermal-IR imagers. You know, look for the hot house and it's being >used to grow pot. You know, it is cases like this that I consider evolution in action. What was the fool doing growing pot in a house, anyway? Any smart pot grower knows that you grow pot in grow rooms underground. With a large septic tank above it. Through the septic tank, you bubble both the exhaust of the diesel generator used to power the high pressure sodium lights, as well as the exhaust of the grow room cooling fan. That neutralizes the exhaust smell and provides an obvious explanation to the IR scanners overhead, since septic tanks are naturally hot due to the bacterial activity taking place within. Amateurs. Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not those of my employer, DigiCash, Inc. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

1 0

Re: OS/2 encryption utilities
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 20-APR-1996 19:57:53.83 >>From: mirele(a)xmission.com >> Due to the fact that I have been threatened by the Church of Scientology >> with legal action if I do not cease and desist posting encheferated >> parodies of their secret scripture (per a letter I received from Cult >> attorneys via Federal Express today) I am in search of OS/2 disk >> encryption programs. >Were I a Co$ attorney, I would use this to bring discovery violations >if I took you to court. How would this work, since they _haven't_ served her with a subpoena? >I'm not saying they would pass muster, but they sure would be annoying. This is the Co$; they'll be annoying (or worse) no matter what. Admittedly, letting them get more annoying unnecessarily isn't a good idea. Now, I wouldn't disagree that she should have posted through a nym. -Allen

2 1