December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re:LACC: PC Phones Home?
by mccoy＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dennis Hilliard writes: > >"Software to the rescue: >If somoeone steals your PC, you may be able to get it back because of >software that acts as a kind of tracking device. Home Office Computing >magazine reports that the software CompuTrace TRS will automatically dial >the office of its creator, Absolute Software, if a thief hooks up a stolen >PC's modem to a phone line. The software reveals the location of the PC and >Absolute Software will call the police" - Providence Journal-Bulletin - >March 12, 1996. > >Any Comments? A few questions: 1- How does the PC know where it is? 2- How does the PC know it has been stolen? Since this is a software product I am assuming that the answer to #1 is the use of CallerID on the line when the software calls, which is defeated by the use of line blocking by the thief. The obvious answer to #2 seems to me to have the system call the CompuTrace office at odd intervals to see if it has been reported stolen yet... Obvious solution for potential thieves: wipe the disks and reinstall an OS once you steal a PC. This should be done anyway to remove any bits of data which might identify the original owner. Conclusion: Yet another useless piece of software riding the computer security bandwagon. jim

2 1

Re: Remailer passphrases
by JonWienke＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-03-14 01:52:14 EST, you write: >It is probably possible. Put a clip across the CPU chip, and take over >from it by raising it's chip disable will work with some microprocessors. >However, the proper application of various kinds of rubber hose to the >operator should make that kind of attack unnecessary. In general, this is an excellent way to make smoke and big sparks, which (since shorts tend to overtax the power supply and drop voltage levels) is a good way to clear system RAM, thus defeating the purpose of the exercise. Software hacks can do the job just as well, and don't require special breathing apparatus. Jonathan Wienke

1 0

e$ and markets and meta-markets. quote with little comment
by bryce＠digicash.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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."

1 0

New paper on crypto regulation and the right to privacy available
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A paper exploring various aspects of cryptography and cryptography regulation has just been published in the Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS). J.UCS is a Springer-Verlag electronic publication available at <A HREF="http://hyperg.iicm.tu-graz.ac.at/0x811b9908_0x0008eaac;sk=74BEC6EF"> J.UCS</A>. It's coming off a non-HTTP server so I can't give a direct URL, you need to follow the links to Volume 2, No.3 to find: Government, Cryptography, and the Right to Privacy J.Shearer, P.Gutmann The notion of a right to privacy of citizens in their communications is discussed in the context of an international movement by governments towards regulation of cryptography, and consideration of key forfeiture systems in national cryptography use. The authors argue that the right to privacy in communications networks is an issue of major importance, assuring freedom of the individual in national and global communications. Regulation and control of cryptography use on the Internet by national governments may lead to an imbalance in the citizen/government power relationship, with sequelae including unprecedented surveillance of citizens, disruption of international commerce due to lack of powerful cryptography (and lack of standardisation), human rights abuses by less democratic or non-democratic governments, and limiting of the political potential of an Internet global political system. Peter.

1 0

Re: unsubscrive
by Kim Johansson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:18 09.04.96 +0000, Brad Shantz wrote: >Time May Wrote: > >>Maybe these dweebs are posting from an alternate universe? A universe in >>which not even messages explaining that "unsubscrive," "unsuscribe," >>"undescribe," "unscribe," and "unimbibe" are not valid alternate spellings >>of "unsubscribe." >> >>I've copied my short explanation of how to subscribe and unsubcribe too >>many times to do it again; and it is clear that these folks are either >>doing this out of spite, are not reading any of the messages we send them, >>or think it funny. > >I agree with you to a point, Tim. They probably haven't read the >messages about how to properly unsubscrive. Not because they are >dweebs or because they think it's funny. they probably haven't read >the messages because they have 2 or 3 thousand messages in their >inbox and they're all from cpunks. Unfortunately, this time, I have >to give them the benefit of the doubt for being ignorant. I don't >think they're being vindictive. > >How many of them have posted Unsub messages after being told the >proper way to unsub? > >Brad > I want off. Please help me.

2 1

Tips on Tapping Taps
by Dave Del Torto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vernor, What's your thinking on some privacy protection measures for these types of "embedded systems?" Shouldn't these kinds of "instruments" (one ringy-dingy) have some user-defeats or -definable permissions settings built in from Day One? Do we risk e$ accounts being billed automatically by water/gas/electric meters on a daily basis without the possibility of users disputing the readings in a timely way? Is anyone proposing permissions on such boxes? What're the proposals, if any, for how the automated calls they make get billed, get scheduled and show up on customer phone bills? I wonder if the bills decrease, since this all saves the companies lots of money? I'm all for "smart houses" but I'd prefer they learn the tricks _I_ teach 'em. dave ................................. cut here ................................. >Date: 10 Apr 96 19:03:05 EDT >From: Dan Druck <73543.2304(a)CompuServe.COM> >Subject: H2O Phone Taps > >WATER METER PHONE TAPS > >Recently, I received notice from our local water department (Algonquin, >Illinois) that new water meters are to be installed in every residence. >The twist is that the new meter taps into our telephone line and >periodically and automatically reports the meter reading to the water >department. > >Perhaps this is innocent enough but, being ever vigilant about my privacy, >I've contacted the water department to get more info which they've >promised to send. Interestingly, they told me I didn't have to accept this >phone-tap meter, however they asked to install a different meter with a >similar type of reporting device which is triggered via a device that also >receives the meter reading (from just outside my house). I can only assume >this transmission is made via a radio transmitter on the meter (which >isn't really much of a consolation for me). This seems a bit oxymoronical >since there already exists an external meter gauge on the exterior of my >house. What is the advantage to standing outside my home with a >transmitter/receiver over visually reading the external meter gauge??? > >Obviously, how can one tell what the little micro-chip within the gizmo is >*really* programmed to do? As you might imagine, I'm not at all >comfortable with this thing wired into my phone line. I know..... if Big >Brother wants to, he can listen in to my phone conversations or even into >my house without such hard-wire tap. But I don't feel compelled to >willingly submit to a potential invasion of my privacy, none-the-less! > >I can only assume resisting the installation of this Orwellian device will >result in putting my name on every Barney Fife "what's he got to hide" >list - who knows. > >I urge everyone who reads this to be vigilant about such things. If you >receive such a notice from a public utility, you might be well advised to >question them as I am doing. Sadly, most of my neighbors are probably >submitting to this without a thought as I've not seen any letters of >protest to the editor of the local newspaper ....a sign of the times, I >guess. > >Dan Druck, Council on Domestic Relations >Congressional Candidate / 8th District, Illinois > >Permission to repost/reprint (in whole or in part) >is granted so long as such is accurate and proper >credit is given. 96MML12 > >Council on Domestic Relations web page: > http://www.logoplex.com/shops/cdr/cdr.html > (last update 1/5/96) >Druck for Congress web page: > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ddruck > (last update 2/1/96) >"CDR Info Hour" Radio Program / every Saturday @ 6:00p.m. CST > Shortwave 9.400 MHz > Satellite - Galaxy 6, Trnspndr 23, 6.1 Wide Band

2 1

Re: Is crypt(1) a prohibited export?
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:31 AM 4/10/96 -0700, Chris McAuliffe wrote: >The man page is a bit dated: > crypt implements a one-rotor machine designed along the lines of the > German Enigma, but with a 256-element rotor. Methods of attack on > such machines are known, but not widely; moreover the amount of work > required is likely to be large. > >Clearly written before CBW became popular. What they are not telling you is the "large amount of work" is to get CBW to *compile*, not to break crypt(1). (Crypt Breakers Workbench uses some obsolete calls. I do not know of an existing updated version, but that does not mean one does not exist...) --- | Remember: Life is not always champagne. Sometimes it is REAL pain. | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0

Crypto, Right to privacy, International standards
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: pgut001(a)cs.auckland.ac.nz > Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:57:07 +1200 (NZST) > Subject: New paper on crypto regulation and the right to privacy available > > The notion of a right to privacy of citizens in their communications is > discussed in the context of an international movement by governments towards > regulation of cryptography, and consideration of key forfeiture systems in > national cryptography use. The authors argue that the right to privacy in > communications networks is an issue of major importance, assuring freedom of > the individual in national and global communications. Regulation and control > of cryptography use on the Internet by national governments may lead to an > imbalance in the citizen/government power relationship, with sequelae > including unprecedented surveillance of citizens, disruption of international > commerce due to lack of powerful cryptography (and lack of standardisation), > human rights abuses by less democratic or non-democratic governments, and > limiting of the political potential of an Internet global political system. > Doesn't the United Nations (UN) have some sort of statement about this? I have a vague recollection that it says something about individuals having a right to communicate with others including those outside their own countries. Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

JBell filter (was Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?)
by David K. Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 05:22 PM 04/13/96 EDT, dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr. Dimitri Vulis) wrote: >"Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com> writes: >> Just a small meta-request. I already filter everything Jim writes -- >> its all junk -- but when people reply to a message of his and send the >> mail only to Cypherpunks, it is hard for me to filter the reply. > >It's a pity most mailers don't preserve 'References:'. >Can you filter out everything that says 'in-reply-to .* pacifier.com>'? > I initially tried filtering out anything _from_ JB; still got overloaded by people trying to talk some sense into him (at the time, it was Black Unicorn arguing law with him). Finally had to simply tell Eudora that anything from him, or including his name (contains:) goes straight to the trash. That finally did the trick. Interestingly, he's the only one I trash, sight unseen..... Dave Merriman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMW96ocVrTvyYOzAZAQH+JgP9G9pAJEFsI0xV263ftQFVdZO1yKM50aKG 5CAqtyWp8fZPtocofo3kC2Z6qdGEbEd2hTM10uxdKh0tggRlWg61Ie44OVjgYfie 5ysPooKQdilinUh2m34lmYpuvMuc4RO+FKn3Y/yrJeUXpvvQX6C8OiWrAVlEAC+c DaTpcPYVkOc= =De5u -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------- "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." P. J. O'Rourke (b. 1947), U.S. journalist. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> http://www.shellback.com/personal/merriman/index.htm

2 1

US crypto laws? Need help!
by Jean.Chouanard＠grenoble.rxrc.xerox.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi! I was wondering if a foreigner like, with a valid work visa but not a permanet green card, is allowed to use crypto in the state. If yes, is there any restriction? Depending on crypto methods? Thank a lot, Jean --- let's all be different, just like me. --- Jean Chouanard | Jean.Chouanard(a)Grenoble.RXRC.Xerox.com Networks & Systems Eng. | Rank Xerox Research Centre Fax: (33) 76 61 51 99 | 6, Ch de maupertuis Ph: (33) 76 61 50 90 | 38240 Meylan FRANCE

5 4

Re: Enforcing the CDA improperly may pervert Internet architecture
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

One issue with the "We could require that everybody label their packets" proposal is that a large part of the world isn't under FCC or even US control; why should some foreigner label their packets based on the tastes of US censors? Another problem is that adequate labelling requires public-key cryptography, and the US bans export of crypto; this means you can't use the best technical standards for domestic use and export, and means you can't mass-market exportable rating software. We EEEVILLL Net Users would certainly be _happy_ if the FCC or Congress talked the Administration into legalizing the use of decent authentication technology. (They could argue that the ITAR permits authentication-only technology, but there are clear technical advantages to RSA vs. DSS, and DSS has the subliminal-key options that mean you can use it for non-authentication encryption as well as signatures anyway. There's also the problem that both are patented, though the patents behind DSS are weak and run out in a year or two.) Another problem is that this proposal would require multiple authentication headers per IP packet - not only is it wasteful, but is it even supported? I suppose there's some tunneling approach possible, but it'd be really awkward and non-portable. ObExon: Does the Administration propose to label any on-line copies of the Federal Register? There's often material in there, such as the recent Congressional debates on partial-birth abortion, that are clearly in violation of the CDA if posted to the nets, so they would have to be labeled. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215

1 0

Re: Enforcing the CDA improperly may pervert Internet architecture
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"alano(a)teleport.com" "Alan Olsen" 10-APR-1996 02:41:54.68 >Forget the porno... What are the parents who believe in Creationism going >to do when little Johnny runs into a good skeptical site debunking all that >crap? What are they going to do when the little liberal kids are exposed to >the works of conservitives? Or Biblical Inerentists kidlets are exposed to >the debunkings of that faith? Or Dorthy Denning's kids (if she has any) get >exposed to the writings of the subversive known as Tim May? Quite. It's interesting in that regard that, as well as differentiating between homosexual and heterosexual content, the W3C PICS scheme includes a filtration scheme for attacks on religions. One wonders if they considered that Scientology is currently (probably unjustifiedly) considered a religion? -Allen

1 0

Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:25 PM 4/9/96 -0700, Bill Frantz wrote: >At 6:27 PM 4/9/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>At 07:08 PM 4/9/96 -0700, Bill Frantz wrote: >>>At 3:21 PM 4/9/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>>>And the rest of us are tired of seeing those non-responses! >>> >>>I wish to state that Jim Bell does not speak for me. >> >>Tell me, what is the most exciting, interesting, and imaginative usage of >>"Yadda Yadda Yadda" that _you_ remember, Bill? > >This will be my last post on this subject. Since Jim Bell ALWAYS has to >have the last word on any given subject, he will continue to try to read >something into my statement that is not there. I can not get much clearer >than: > >I have not authorized Jim Bell to speak for me. > I seem to recall seeing this message about 4 days ago, when it was originally posted. Somehow it is not me who seems to need to "have the last word." Apparently, not only do you need to have the last word, you need to have it TWICE.

1 0

Re: Enforcing the CDA improperly may pervert Internet architecture
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:08 PM 4/9/96 -0400, Duncan Frissell <frissell(a)panix.com> wrote: >Of course that doesn't overcome the "technical problem" of getting the IETF >to adopt that change in the protocols and getting a significant number of >sites to adopt the new protocol. Even if you impose a substitutte on the >IETF, it doesn't stop them from wandering off and creating their independent >protocols and seeing whether the "official" or the "unofficial" get adopted. What, you mean requiring that Americans on an international standards body bully the whole anarchy into accepting a technically inferior kluge because some American politicians want it? This ain't the UN... or even ISO. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215

1 0

PRE_dat
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

4-13-96. Ted's Publisher: "Internet Surprise." An editorial on Internet telephony. "Reconnaissance of Bosnia Goes On-Line. CIA Displays Computer System Using Images From Drone Vehicles." The system draws on material from drone vehicles known as Predators and provides computerized video, data and audio transmissions, using commercial technologies. Separate channels carry information at different levels of security for NATO members, peacekeepers, Russians and US troops. PRE_dat

1 0

Mixmaster through conventional anonymous remailer
by Laszlo Vecsey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is there a way to send an anonymous E-Mail message to anon.penet.fi and then have it pass through mixmaster from there, instead of invoking the mixmaster command locally?

1 0

Is crypt(1) a prohibited export?
by cmca＠alpha.c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com] [Subject: Is crypt(1) a prohibited export?] Is crypt(1) a prohibited export from the US? I thought it was. The reason I ask is that it has come to my attention that HP ships that overseas too, with HP-UX versions 9 and 10... The man page is a bit dated: crypt implements a one-rotor machine designed along the lines of the German Enigma, but with a 256-element rotor. Methods of attack on such machines are known, but not widely; moreover the amount of work required is likely to be large. Clearly written before CBW became popular. Chris McAuliffe <cmca(a)alpha.c2.org> (No, not that one.) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAwUBMWtg6IHskC9sh/+lAQF8gQP/XtCrYHjewBvt5EK0BVSRL99lbUqf4Cv7 xRDwlqMyBBPQ1BYOFQk4f3q+x/268EgLXcyu41zkCArdLVBImOmDNlqI8t/0PRLj JFkItIDUBrxd8buEs2LC8oNCJ4W+VyjqVsbHsKnCjmhW0MuclxZqbsaA2oFDOucV S6rkmWxb7XE= =A5mT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 7

Re: Mixmaster through conventional anonymous remailer
by loki＠obscura.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Since Mixmaster requires a special message format, you must have the client. You can send a completed mixmaster message throught other kinds of remailers before sending it to the first Mixmaster in the chain (although there is not much point). -Lance At 4:59 PM 4/13/96, Laszlo Vecsey wrote: >Is there a way to send an anonymous E-Mail message to anon.penet.fi and >then have it pass through mixmaster from there, instead of invoking the >mixmaster command locally? ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki(a)obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. Mixmaster, the next generation remailer, is now available! http://www.obscura.com/~loki/Welcome.html or FTP to obscura.com "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ----------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: (Fwd) British Study Claims That Photo Credit Cards Don't
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"adam(a)lighthouse.homeport.org" "Adam Shostack" 8-APR-1996 22:47:00.53 > Most merchant agreements prohibit asking for more ID beyond >the card. Umm... how many places have you seen with a minimum amount chargable? That isn't allowed by _any_ of the merchant agreements that I know of, and I've seen a lot of places do it anyway. How's the card company going to notice? Most people use cash for small stuff anyway. >cpunk relevance? Most security that relies on people being awake is >broken. Security that relies on people with no financial interest in >a transactions security is broken. Studying how security breaks today >is a good idea. Quite. -Allen

1 0

Re: Scientologists may subpoena anonymous remailer records
by Jim Byrd 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The complete deposition may be found in RealAudio format at http://www.northcoast.com/~grady/depo At 07:02 PM 4/9/96 -0700, John Gilmore wrote: >I thought that most or all of the cypherpunk anonymous remailers don't >keep records. Not even on backup tapes. The whole idea is that there >aren't logs. But maybe they have found some remailers that are >non-cypherpunk. And I haven't verified the truth of what's in the msg >below. If anyone hears anything, please let me (or eff(a)eff.org) know. > > John Gilmore > >Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 18:27:02 -0700 >To: fight-censorship+(a)andrew.cmu.edu, eric(a)remailer.net, > farber(a)cis.upenn.edu (Dave Farber) >From: jwarren(a)well.com (Jim Warren) >Subject: (fwd fyi - NOT verified!!) very urgent news > >Seems like it's just a tad overbroad, if true. Another example of, "all >the 'justice' that one can buy"? > >--jim > >>Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 15:44:52 -0700 (PDT) >>From: shelley thomson <sthomson(a)netcom.com> >>Subject: very urgent news >>To: jwarren(a)well.com >> >>Hello, Jim Warren: >> >> The church of scientology plans to subpoena the records of every >>anonymous remailer in the USA. >> >> I publish a news/black humor magazine on the net called **Biased >>Journalism**. As a journalist I have covered the collision between the >>church of scientology and the net. My last three issues have focused on >>legal action by the church against Grady Ward and Keith Henson. >> >> Today I had a note from Grady Ward, whose deposition was finished >>today. He said that they asked him a lot of questions about me, and >>warned me that they may issue a subpoena for me and a demand for my >>email. >> >> The church presumably intends to claim that I am not a real >>journalist because I only publish on the net. I need to prepare a legal >>defense, and needless to say, can't afford a lawyer. If you can direct >>me to any resources, I would appreciate it very much. >> >> On the basis of events today, Ward believes the church will >>issue subpoenas for the records of every anonymous remailer in the USA. >> >> If these records are delivered to the church, our First Amendment >>rights go with them. >> >> Shelley Thomson >> >> publisher, **Biased Journalism** >> 800-731-0717 voice message > >

1 0

Re: Contempt charges
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:32 AM 4/10/96 -0400, Moltar Ramone wrote: >>No doubt, a judge might whimsically keep Bob in jail for a while, trying >>to assure that he has revealed all of the pass phrases, but the judge >>can never be certain, even when Bob has disclosed everything. This >>situation creates doubt that Bob is in contempt, even when he is, and >>makes a prison term relatively pointless, unless for revenge. Despite your silly inferences below, I did not write this note that you are responding to. However, I'd be happy to enter into a $1000 wager with you on this. I'll give permission to any anonymous remailer through which this message might have passed (assuming it keeps reverse addresses, many do not) to release the original message IF I sent it. If I did not, you pay me $1000. If I did, I pay you $1000. Deal? Somehow I don't think you'll take me up on it. >But that's what a contempt charge is _for_: "You're not treating me with >respect, so I'm going to punish you." It might be described as being for >a particular reason (ie supressing evidence), but each of those reasons >ultimately boils down to lack of respect. Question: How can a judge tell he's being treated with "respect" under the conditions described? Simple answer: He can't. What, exactly, would the difference between "respect" and "no respect" be? >In addition, were I handing down (or prosecuting) the contempt charges, I'd >claim that the statement (even if it was made in public) that the individual >didn't know all the keys in the first place was a lie, and that, by repeating >the lie, they were purjuring themself. Proof would be a bit difficult under the circumstances. However, I am sure that you consider minor issues such as proof to be of no consequence.

1 0

Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> >To which Jim Bell wrote: >> And the rest of us are tired of seeing those non-responses! >Exactly for whom is Bell speaking? Jimbo, please let us know >who has given you a limited powers of attorney to be their >mouthpiece. It's sad when someone (correctly) deems their >opinions too weak to stand without (dare I say it?) pseudo- >spoofing by reference. I got rather tired of the Jim Bell - Black Unicorn debates a while back... and I was getting tired of _both_ sides. Neither came off very well. One reason was that they kept talking past one another, as someone else pointed out a bit back and neither bothered to notice. -Allen

1 0

Re: Tense visions of future imperfect
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com" "Bill Stewart" 11-APR-1996 00:21:15.87 >Personally, I find the idea that the government could hope to track the >economy so closely as to notice a $10M/year addition to the money supply to >be disturbing (though it was done in a science fiction story about >20 years ago :-) With digital cash, it's also unrealistic - we >finally have a technology for moving money around _without_ >them being able to track it all, if we want to deploy it. One related question is if the government would notice an underground fully anonymous digital cash setup - transactions disappearing from their "radar screen." -Allen

1 0

Re: Watch your language, Shabbir.
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:07 PM 4/13/96 -0400, s1113645(a)tesla.cc.uottawa.ca wrote: > >On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote: > >> Look, very carefully, at the last paragraph quoted above. Mr. Safdar says, >> "No reasonable person is objecting to the FBI's right to conduct a wiretap." > >That's right. Because no reasonable person thinks they can convince Congress >or the Supremes otherwise. It isn't impossible, but energies are best spent >elsewhere, like getting the Burns bill passed. But that's not entirely the issue. Mr. Safdar's wording is critical, because it concedes FAR too much about what the government is assumedly entitled to do. Below, you've admitted that everybody here believes in what Mr. Safdar claims "no reasonable person" believes. Is Mr. Safdar saying we're ALL not reasonable?!? Are you? Further, I've read of multiple polls (Unfortunately, I can't quote a specific one) that show that a substantial _majority_ of the population objects to wiretaps under most any circumstance. (The figure I seem to recall was somewhere between 60% and 70%) If this recollection is true, and if the poll was accurate, there is no reason to believe that even your adjustments to Mr. Safdar's position is a accurate limit on reasonableness. I claim: 1. The vast majority of the population does not believe that the ability to wiretap is a government "right." 2. A majority of the population does not believe that the government should wiretap, even if it is assumed to have this authority. >Now none of us think wiretaps are a right and I presume Shabbir isn't >much of a fan either or he wouldn't take the trouble of supporting >something that makes wiretapping pointless (crypto). However, why did he make the claim the way he did? Is it just sloppy spokesmanship? Worse, why did no one else catch this gaffe? Is everybody else asleep? I saw no other commentary indicating that anybody noticed his statements. Are they ignoring Mr. Safdar's postings? Are they not reading them at all? Do these people not recognize that his comments practically grant the entire enchilada to the government? Why did he do this? And why hasn't he corrected what is apparently a huge mistake? > But we and he are >not Washington and there lies all the difference. Let's assume that my recollection is correct and most people don't want wiretapping at all. Why, exactly, should you believe that we're fated to get it anyway? (If you recall, I quoted part of a Brittanica article which said that from 1934 to 1968, a number of attempts to write wiretapping into law FAILED. Clearly, wiretapping wasn't inevitable then, and it doesn't have to be inevitable now.) Consider a hypthetical discussion with some Senator or Representative, where we point out that the public, as a whole, does not want wiretaps at all. "Why," we should ask, "should wiretaps occur when the public doesn't want them? Doesn't the majority get its way, at least in situations such as this? (It violates nobody's rights to NOT have wiretaps.)" The bigshot could come back and say, "But law-enforcement WANTS wiretaps!" Our next question should be, "Okay, but why does a tiny fraction of the population get more say in what happens than 70% of the public? Even if, arguably, wiretaps are beneficial, if the majority says they want to forgo this benefit, why don't they have this privilege?" At this point, the government sleazeball might not admit to the problem, but I doubt he'd have much of a response. >Do remember, Jim, that just 'cause most of this list is libertarian >doesn't mean that the rest of the world is. If, say, 70% or even 60% or 50% of the public doesn't want wiretaps at all, calling oneself libertarian is not required to share the opinion that government doesn't have the "right" to do them. Thus, I didn't couch my argument in terms that would require a libertarian to agree with them. This was intentional: I wasn't attempting to claim that the politicians are somehow obligated to follow libertarian opinions, but they damn well listen to MAJORITY opinions, at least when they limit what government should do! > I'm thankful that they can >occasionally agree with us horsepeople, despite the hysteria. Be polite. Hey, I _was_ adequately polite. However, unlike many of the people who are asleep at the switch around here, I am observant and I don't accept bullshit just because it is couched in terms that sound friendly. This incident, and particularly the failure of nearly all of the regular posters to see the problem with Shabbir's comments, has convinced me that a substantial fraction of the people who regularly post on CP aren't carefully considering issues such as rights of the population when they read this kind of material. You, at least, acknowledged that wiretapping isn't a "right." Where is everyone else's objection to Shabbir's statement? BTW, I'm not suggesting that I think that the majority of the population must necessarily have the "right" to do wiretaps if they want them: I'm saying that they have a right to NOT do wiretaps. There is a distinct difference between these two positions. The constitution may prohibit wiretaps even if the majority wants them; logic and history shows that the constitution does not MANDATE wiretaps even if the majority doesn't want them. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Lucifer & DES
by Jerry Whiting 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perry My apologies for any misunderstanding in my original post. I was merely trying to point out IBM's historical compliance with govt suggestions for the design of the S-boxes. Please excuse me if my facts are adrift. My point was that this may shed light on IBM/Lotus' acceptance of the 40+24 work force reduction scheme. IBM may be receptive to working with the government yet again. Jerry Whiting jwhiting(a)azalea.com

1 0