December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: PGP, Inc.
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"shamrock(a)netcom.com" 8-MAY-1996 11:06:21.74 >Since VeriSign is going to issue certs for nyms for free, the only >requirement being uniqueness, using their certs might not prove much of a >problem. I can see some fascinating legal questions with what, exactly, a VeriSign certificate obligates the company for. Digital signature laws should get interesting - any application of this to the Utah one? -Allen

1 0

Re: time services on the Net
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:11 AM 5/7/96 -0400, you wrote: >I'm in need of a time service available over the Internet. >Time-stamping is a plus, but the actual time (GMT, local, ...) >is more important. Does anyone have, or know of where I >can find, a list of these services? Check out http://www.clock.org/clock.org.html and http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ for more information. There are some standard TCP/IP protocols for time. You can check the RFCs for more information on them, and look in whatever your operating system calls the "services" file. There's a simple "daytime" protocol which gives the time in hours:minutes:seconds at 1-second resolution, in ASCII or binary, over TCP or UDP. It's dumb, but it works fine if that's enough resolution for you, and there are programs to set your system clock based on it, such as rdate for Suns and wsntime for Winsock. There's a far fancier protocol called NTP, the Network Time Protocol, which is a multi-tiered time protocol with servers and clients and mutual agreement and adjustment for round-trip delay and such. Depending on the quality of your network connections, it can be accurate to very fine time resolutions. It's good form for ISPs to support NTP, both to keep their clocks synchronized and to feed time to their clients, but not all of them do that. It's also good form for ISPs to keep _all_ their machines in sync, not just most of them, as occasionally happens at (ahem) some large well-known ISPs, especially if they're going to bill for prime/nonprime time... Another motivation is so that tycho.usno.navy.mil and its friends tick and tock.usno.navy.mil only get hit by a few thousand ISPs instead of potentially millions of individuals. Ask your ISP's administrators what they do about clock sync, unless of course you _are_ the administrator, or your ISP takes three weeks to respond to tech support questions like the (ahem) large well-known ISP not named above. I currently use wsntime to sync off cesium.clock.org because my ISP has reconfigured their time service and takes weeks to respond to tech support quetions, but I was using the ISP directly for a while. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 # goodtimes signature virus innoculation

1 0

Re: Remailer in a box
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"loki(a)obscura.com" "Lance Cottrell" 9-MAY-1996 18:58:23.21 On Thu, 9 May 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >> After taking a look at www.cyberpass.net, I can see why you're >> encoraging people to use it - about like Sameer encouraging people to use >> c2.org. >Guilty No problem. Modesty is an overrated virtue. >I am not pushing the anonymous accounts until my laywer finishes the user >agreement for them. It is a bit of a tricky document (Sameer, want a copy >when it is done?). The whole site is days away from a complete redesign, >so I am not putting much effort into the current interface. Thanks for >the suggestions though. I suspect that the legal types on cypherpunks would be interested in seeing it. Quite welcome on the suggestions. >The >= 18 condition is to cover my butt. Since minors can not be parties >to contracts, I have no protection with them as clients. I am only a >provider for adults, and they take full responsibility for any children >allowed to use the connection. Fuck the CDA, but keep an eye on its claws. I see your difficulty. It is an additional one with respect to anonymous accounts. Hmm... you could put the burden on other ISPs by only having anonymous accounts via telnet access - and not accepting such from k12.edu domains. Bit of a limit, though. -Allen

3 2

Crypto Law Survey - updated
by Bert-Jaap Koops 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have just updated my survey of cryptography regulations worldwide. I have included the developments of the past few months and added a number of links to more detailed resources and full texts. http://cwis.kub.nl/~frw/people/koops/lawsurvy.htm Please reset old pointers to this URL. Comments, as always, will be appreciated. Bert-Jaap Koops --------------------------------------------------------------------- Bert-Jaap Koops tel +31 13 466 8101 Center for Law and Informatization facs +31 13 466 8102 Tilburg University e-mail E.J.Koops(a)kub.nl -------------------------------------------------- Postbus 90153 | This world's just mad enough to have been made | 5000 LE Tilburg | by the Being his beings into being prayed. | The Netherlands | (Howard Nemerov) | --------------------------------------------------------------------- http://cwis.kub.nl/~frw/people/koops/bertjaap.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Publicity on PICS
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:25 PM 5/9/96 EDT, you wrote: > The following may give an example of how companies and governments want >PICS to be used, instead of how it should be used (market-based ratings not >for censorship). It is _very_ confusing to follow though. >>CompuServe, Microsoft, Prodigy and Netscape Communications will soon give >>their customers software enabling them to block access to material they >>judge objectionable on the Internet's Worldwide Web. Consider that Compuserve had a deal with SurfWatch, which was incorporated in it "Internet" in a box, with a lot of Spry goodies. Now Surfwatch has been purchased by Spyglass (a competitor or Spry). Also, Compuserve offers RSACi services through CyberPatrols RSACi compliance (got some weird derivitive and cross-liscencing works going on here!) and urges its users and 3rd party people to use RSACi... _______________________ Regards, Men govern nothing with more difficulty than their tongues, and can moderate their desires more than their words. -Spinoza Joseph Reagle http://farnsworth.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

1 0

Re: PGP, Inc.
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 19:37 5/9/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >From: IN%"shamrock(a)netcom.com" 8-MAY-1996 11:06:21.74 > >>Since VeriSign is going to issue certs for nyms for free, the only >>requirement being uniqueness, using their certs might not prove much of a >>problem. > > I can see some fascinating legal questions with what, exactly, a >VeriSign certificate obligates the company for. Digital signature laws should >get interesting - any application of this to the Utah one? VeriSign is going to offer four levels of certs. The first requires only uniqueness. For the other three levels, VeriSign will require more and better assurances of the correctness of True Name stated on the cert. I don't know what form these assurances are supposed to take. Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not those of my employer. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

1 0

Re: PGP, Inc.
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"shamrock(a)netcom.com" 9-MAY-1996 23:02:01.67 >At 19:37 5/9/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >> I can see some fascinating legal questions with what, exactly, a >>VeriSign certificate obligates the company for. Digital signature laws should >>get interesting - any application of this to the Utah one? >VeriSign is going to offer four levels of certs. The first requires only >uniqueness. For the other three levels, VeriSign will require more and >better assurances of the correctness of True Name stated on the cert. I >don't know what form these assurances are supposed to take. The first level, in other words, is less of a certification than a PGP key with self-signature and signature from one other person. It doesn't have _any_ effort to verify that the email address stated on it is the actual email address of that nym. Or am I misinterpreting you? -Allen

3 2

Re: PGP, Inc.
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 23:10 5/9/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > The first level, in other words, is less of a certification than a PGP >key with self-signature and signature from one other person. It doesn't have >_any_ effort to verify that the email address stated on it is the actual email >address of that nym. Or am I misinterpreting you? I was on a panel with a representative from VeriSign at Interop in Las Vegas. He said that uniqueness was the only requirement for the first level of cert. I don't have any information beyond that. Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not those of my employer. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

2 1

True Names
by Jonathan Corbet 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was wandering around in Amazon Books, http://www.amazon.com/, when I stumbled across an interesting entry for Vernor Vinge: "True Names: And the Opening of the Cyberspace Frontier". It's due out in August. It would appear that True Names is finally being reissued? Since I've never been able to get my hands on a copy of True Names to read, I would be pleased by this. Anybody know any more? jon Jonathan Corbet National Center for Atmospheric Research, Atmospheric Technology Division corbet(a)stout.atd.ucar.edu http://www.atd.ucar.edu/rdp/jmc.html

1 0

Dear friends,
by MOHAMED HABIB MOHAMED EUSOFF 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear friends, I am searching for NETWORK SECURITY white paper, documents and hacking uitlities. Maybe you guys/gals can shed some light on this. TQ. See You.

1 0

Re: Mandatory Voluntary Self-Ratings
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:40 PM 5/9/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 8-MAY-1996 16:30:16.71 > >>Then we'll see what happens. (This is an old debate, here and on the >>Cyberia-l list, to wit, what happens when people/perverts/libertarians >>choose to subvert the voluntary ratings by deliberately mis-rating their >>stuff? Or what if they genuinely believe, a la NAMBLA, that youngsters >>should be exposed to certain things?) > > I don't agree with NAMBLA, BTW, in case anyone is wondering. No need for people to point this out, as my point was an hypothetical, to show that there simply _is no objective standard_ in such matters. For every proposed "ratings" system that involves value judgments about who should see something, I can think of examples where a quite opposite view is held. I still think we are being led down a dangerous path in trying to architect ratings systems. As I said, we don't rate written words (at least I don't), we don't rate newspapers, etc. If a system gets built into the WWW, as with proposals for PICS, it _will_ be used by those who want to control content. We should think twice before helping in any way. (No, I'm not _against_ private ratings services...but this has little to do with _me_, and I won't participate. More importantly, I won't have my content have any kind of tag attached! Thus, the PICS thing looks intrusive to me, and not at all what I think of as a "private ratings service." I'll elaborate if my point is unclear.) --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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: Remailer in a box
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"loki(a)obscura.com" "Lance Cottrell" 9-MAY-1996 20:11:17.14 >I don't know about posting the agreement. My lawyer may not want to see all >his hard work in the public domain. I will ask. Thanks. Incidentally, one thing that I noticed in your listing of services was email to fax. In some circumstances (such as anonymous accounts), the other way around would be useful. Even for a non-anonymous account, there have been times when I've wished I could give someone a FAX number and have it emailed. Admittedly, there is the problem of optical character recognition et al; perhaps this could be handled via temporary web pages with a password emailed to an account on the same system? Sameer may also want to look into this. I've seen some information about such systems on the net; one in New York appears to include voicemail to email services, although I don't know how as yet. -Allen

1 0

Re: Mandatory Voluntary Self-Ratings
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"reagle(a)mit.edu" "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." 9-MAY-1996 20:02:59.66 > I would agree the questions seem too video game orientated, and I >don't like some of the questions either. However, it is a fair effort, and I I will also give them credit for a fair effort. However, it's one that can stand a _lot_ of improvement... like all the rest. > I'm sure this is something that could go on for a very long time in >some cypherpunk thread (something I'm not interested in argueing about), but >there is no such thing as a perfectly objective or unbiased system. For I will be interested in seeing a response from the admin address I cc'd it to. >instance, I don't like the distinctions other systems make for >homosexuality, but I also understand some parents may wish to screen on it... I understand why parents may wish to screen on it; I still disapprove of giving them the ability to do so. Am I in favor of governmental or other coercive suppression of systems that do so? No, not at all. But I still will do my best to discourage them - such as by not rating or mis-rating pages. -Allen

1 0

Re: Nazis on the Net
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tallpaul(a)pipeline.com" 1-MAY-1996 13:19:10.69 >I stand behind my original post and the analysis in it. >I am amused at the tremendous attempts by people with certain political >affinities to bail out Weaver by a series of arguments based either on Actually, the political affinities seem rather to be on the other foot. Every organization I know of that calls Weaver a racist, as opposed to a separatist, also tries to deny exactly how wrongful the government's actions were at Ruby Ridge. The biggest example of this is the US government, but organizations such as the American Jewish Committee are also guilty of this apologia. If you don't believe me on this (Rich, for instance, had doubted that anyone was defending the actions at Ruby Ridge), I suggest reading "A Force Upon the Plain", which is by the AJC's person on hate groups. In it, he calls the actions of the USG at Ruby Ridge as, at worst, a mistake - and a more justifiable mistake in his view than Weaver's not showing up for his court hearing. In almost all cases in the chapter on Ruby Ridge, he states the government's side of the story as fact, and uses quotes - prominently labelled as from "white supremacists" - to describe the Weavers' side of the story. >profound ignorance of political realities or with their own private >dictionaries. If you believe that my definition of racism is out of my "own private dictionary," I invite you to see Webster's Second College Edition New World Dictionary of the English Language: Racism. 1. Same as racialism (sense 1). 2. Any program or practice of racial discrimination, segregation, persecution, and domination, based on racialism. Racialism. 1. A doctrine or teaching, without scientific support, that claims to find racial differences in character, intelligence, etcetera, that asserts the superiority of one race over another or others, and that seeks to maintain the supposed purity of a race or the races. 2. same as racism (sense 2). The second definition of racism is actually _more_ restrictive than my definition. I call someone practicing "racial discrimination, segregation, persecution, _and_ domination" a racist, whether or not they believe in some superiority of some race. I do appreciate the inclusion in Webster's of "without scientific support," since I am a scientist. >The whole argument of racism vs. white separatism vs. white suppremicist >seems more to come from people who argue whether someone is a Baptist or a >Christian or a Southern Baptist or a Protestant. (In mathematical set >theory one would trace the fallacy in thinking to the false idea that any >given element of a set cannot be the element of more than one set. Thus, if >(X is a member of Y) it cannot also be a member of Z.) I regard racism and racial supremacism as two sides of the same thing. Racial separatism overlaps with racism, but someone who practices one is not necessarily in favor of the other. I do not dispute that someone who is a racial separatist can also be a racist, and indeed often is. I simply am not willing to condem someone as a racist when the only organizations calling him such have clear motives to call what happened at Ruby Ridge something other than premeditated murder. >I understand that James D. is not accusing me of being a "child molester" >but merely using it as a reductio ad adsurdem argument. >Let me continue in this vein. >The issue of child molestation was dragged in and had no relevance on the >immediate political isues of Weaver et al. >But imagine people are arguing about the deep fundamental differnces >between someone who is a "child molester" vs. a "pedophile" vs. a "boy >lover." The analogy works quite well, in some ways. A pedophile who carries out his (usually his) desires is a child molester. A boy lover may be a pedophile, and may if a pedophile be a child molester. But I have known someone who had sexual attractions to underage boys but controlled them - he regarded carrying out such urges as wrong (I agree with him, if anyone is wondering). I would not call him a child molester. -Allen

1 0

Re: Mandatory Voluntary Self-Ratings
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"vznuri(a)netcom.com" "Vladimir Z. Nuri" 9-MAY-1996 21:07:58.36 >From: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle(a)MIT.EDU> >> I've figured out where my differences between myself and others >>lay. The _only_ system and service that I am aware of that is distributing >>PICS labels is RSAC. (http://www.rsac.org) They are what one could call an >>objective and non-arbitrary content rating system rather than an >>"appropriateness" system. Actually, SafeSurf (of CyberAngels association - an indicator of problems right then and there) is doing so also. >now, it seems that the author might as well put the tags in his material >himself instead of going through this submission process. furthermore I think they want the ability to track who's putting their ratings into their web pages. They don't check very well, though; when I wanted to see what the questionarre was like, I simply put in a fake email address (which could have been a nym's address), a fake web page, and a pseudonym. Their user agreement asks you to achnowledge a license giving them the right to examine any web page to which you attach a rating; however, I don't see anything preventing someone from simply duplicating it without going through the system. >also, JR, you say the system does not determine "appropriateness". >but in my view it does indirectly. an author can "falsify" his submission >to say that his page has no sex or violence. (who is to say he is >wrong? the internet ratings police?) this will implicitly determine >the "appropriateness" of his page for people who screen their >browswers based on the keywords that were affected. As I've stated above, they claim that they will check to see. The SafeSurf page, as well as recruiting the CyberAngels to check, also claims that A. The "Internet community" will punish someone for fake ratings B. Anyone putting a too-low rating on a page with sexual content will be prosecuted (apparantly for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" or some such nonsense) >if there is a market-driven RSAC rating thing going on not described >in the above article, I'd like to see it. but the above excerpt does >not describe a market-driven system. No, it isn't. For a market-driven system to emerge, we're going to have to have one or both of two things: A. Raters being paid by the people who post web pages. Not likely. B. Raters being paid by the people who get the ratings. More likely. Neither the RSAC or SafeSurf systems does either of these. -Allen

2 1

RE: self-ratings vs. market ratings
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Not an extremely important point, but I just re-read my earlier message and realized that my sentence below didn't exactly state what I meant: "I myself don't pay much attention to ratings, as my own measures of things & people tend to be quite different from most, and therefore not very useful for my purposes." I meant that the the *ratings* would not be very useful for my purposes (at least, not the ratings as I've heard proposed so far.) I probably wouldn't have the same values or concerns of those who feel the need to apply them; I wouldn't judge the material by the same standards (raters are looking principally to create a means to censor material, and I myself am not concerned about passive text&graphics. When Java applets begin to coerce cybersurfers into complicity, I'll start worrying about it.) One more word about automating ratings: The more automated that filtering becomes, so that the viewer (be it an adult or a child) requires less and less personal involvement in evaluating what is appropriate (or even interesting) for themselves, the more weak & piddly (ignorant & psychologically dependent) those people could become, falling into the habit of having others - or an automatic robocop - do their content-filtering for them. Not a good system to introduce into a dynamic world-order. Like all automatic things, it can encourage intellectual lassitude. Like all tools, this one can also be misemployed. But, of course, surfers can make a cultural decision: sex&violence? or namby-pamby? :>) .. Blanc One voice among many.

2 1

Re: remailer@utopia.hacktic.nl down
by Jim Byrd 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:15 PM 5/9/96 -0700, qut(a)netcom.com (Dave Harman) wrote: > >Oh, in what way was Elrom racist? (he's not anti-asian or anti-semitic, >for instance) > One famous comment of L. Ron Hubbard was that blacks were too stupid to move the needle on the e-meter. Another comment was that the problem with China is that there are too many "chinks" in it. All this, and much more, is documented in "A Piece of Blue Sky" by John Atack (and in other places).

2 1

PTO_lop
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

5-10-96. WaPo: "Copyright Comes to the Internet. IBM's 'Cryptolope' Technology Collects the Fees." Describes IBM's InfoMarket system for secure electronic payments and copyright protection through use of keys to gain access to documents. PTO_lop ----- Note: Pipeline is suffering "technological" growing pains at PSI's VA switches, so they say (or maybe plummeting stock and insider dumps): incoming and outgoing mail oft delayed up to 24+.

1 0

Re: Remailer in a box
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:25 PM 5/9/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > Thanks. > Incidentally, one thing that I noticed in your listing of services >was email to fax. In some circumstances (such as anonymous accounts), the other >way around would be useful. Even for a non-anonymous account, there have been >times when I've wished I could give someone a FAX number and have it emailed. Already online in NYC, London, etc. See http://www.jfax.co.uk/. Faxes are forwarded via Mime. Cheap. Also someone else offering fax and voicemail over the web in Atlanta but I lost that URL. Others should follow. DCF

1 0

The National Research Council Study of National...
by CRYPTO 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: The National Research Council Study of National Cryptography Policy Please post this message widely I am writing to let interested parties know about the imminent release of the NRC's study of national cryptography policy. If all goes well, we hope to release it on May 30, 1996. However, prior to that time, we won't be able to comment on its contents. For current information on release, visit the web site http://www2.nas.edu/cstbweb/220a.html When you visit that site, you'll have the opportunity to be put onto a mailing list so that we can inform you by e-mail when the report is available in print and/or electronically, as well as any public events associated with the report (e.g., public briefings). Herb Lin Cryptography Policy Study Director Computer Science and Telecommunications Board National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council 202-334-2605

1 0

REF_orm
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

5-10-96. WaPo: "House Panel Approves Intelligence Reforms." Reports on the House intelligence committee's differences with the Senate and White House reforms. Also, it reports on Freeh's testimony yesterday at a hearing about the need for new federal laws to protect against economic espionage. He cites spying by 23 foreign governments and methods used. REF_orm ----- Note: Pipeline is suffering "technological" growing pains at PSI's VA switches, so they say (or maybe plummeting stock and insider dumps): incoming and outgoing mail oft delayed up to 24+.

1 0

Are remailers designed to be knocked down?
by abostick＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The Scientology wars are spilling over into alt.usenet.kooks again, and Keith Henson had this odd thing to say. I thought Cypherpunk discussion of Keith's thesis would be interesting. hkhenson(a)netcom.com (Keith Henson) wrote: > henry (henri(a)netcom.com) wrote: > : if the remailers are merely toys, capable of being knocked > : down like dominoes by some fringe-cult of psychopathic dimwits, > : it's better to find that out now than wait for a situation > : where someone's life or death could be determined by the > : security of remailer-chaining and encryption against a > : determined opponent. > > Ah, but the remailers are *designed* to be knocked down. The > are not expected to last if they are being used for serious > causes. But the package for doing another one and getting it > hooked into the network is easy to install--even in a user > act. Knocking out a remailer will usually halt the effort to > get back at the person/persons who were spilling the beans. > Social factors involved here. If any of you would like to > help, offer to run a remailer for a while. Consider it a > temporary civic duty. Keith Henson > > Alan Bostick | "The thing is, I've got rhythm but I don't have mailto:abostick@netcom.com | music, so I guess I could ask for a few more news:alt.grelb | things." (overheard) http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMZNwT+VevBgtmhnpAQGY2gMAsH/PpktUfimgjZ6zz/48hhAp0wra6BKb FhwYMB5NAsmeMwz2dqv+ZCvO7LID1tM7ez1rjHOVvC7aSQPSe1mF8ShaxYdSVtcP ZqHhC145IiAZ715FZzHzjoCjfD0yHK/s =aa0n -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: PGP, Inc.
by timd＠consensus.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:10 PM 5/9/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >From: IN%"shamrock(a)netcom.com" 9-MAY-1996 23:02:01.67 > >>At 19:37 5/9/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >>> I can see some fascinating legal questions with what, exactly, a >>>VeriSign certificate obligates the company for. Digital signature laws should >>>get interesting - any application of this to the Utah one? > >>VeriSign is going to offer four levels of certs. The first requires only >>uniqueness. For the other three levels, VeriSign will require more and >>better assurances of the correctness of True Name stated on the cert. I >>don't know what form these assurances are supposed to take. > > The first level, in other words, is less of a certification than a PGP >key with self-signature and signature from one other person. It doesn't have >_any_ effort to verify that the email address stated on it is the actual email >address of that nym. Or am I misinterpreting you? The only effort they make is that when using the email-based CA, it mails the certificate to the address within, so it's not trivial to get a cert for an address that you don't have access to. (I'm not saying it's impossible, or even hard, just that it requires some skill and effort). - Tim Tim Dierks -- timd(a)consensus.com -- www.consensus.com Head of Thing-u-ma-jig Engineering, Consensus Development

3 2

Edited Edupage, 9 May 1996
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"educom(a)elanor.oit.unc.edu" 9-MAY-1996 22:01:14.77 >REGIONAL BELLS WANT RATE HIKES FOR WIRING SCHOOLS >The United States Telephone Association would like to raise the average U.S. >monthly phone bill by about $10 over the next five years to pay for wiring >schools and libraries with new lines for phones and computers, and to >subsidize poor and rural customers. The proposal assumes an $11 billion >cost for wiring schools and libraries, with local phone companies paying >about a third to a half of that. The rest would come from a surcharge on >other services, such as cellular. "No single industry should be held >responsible for fulfilling this major goal," says USTA's president. "Each >has a role and should make a significant contribution to the national >education technology mandate." (Investor's Business Daily 8 May 96 A7) The "subsidize poor and rural customers" line makes me glad I don't have a phone line. >ALLIANCE SEEKS ELECTRONIC SECURITY >An alliance of software companies has established the Electronic Licensing >and Security Initiative to develop a system that uses electronic tokens >linked to a software package to securely track software rentals, licenses >and purchases. The group also plans to develop an electronic clearinghouse >to provide and track licenses. Several major software producers, including >Microsoft, IBM and AT&T have said they will support the Initiative's >technology. (Wall Street Journal 6 May 96 B6) Anyone know how this is supposed to work? It sounds like a non-anonymous digital cash system, in essence. >IBM'S INFOMARKET TOLL BOOTH >IBM has persuaded some 30 companies, including Eastman Kodak, Xerox, >Reuters, America Online and Yahoo!, to use its new infoMarket >electronic-content clearinghouse for displaying and distributing their >wares. The infoMarket concept requires customers to pay for only what they >use, with the content providers controlling the information and setting >their own prices. "Charging only for what you want is a very attractive >scheme," says one electronic database provider. The system is based on >"Cryptolopes" -- secure electronic packaging that, when opened, bind the >user to a contractual agreement regarding the use of the content. If the >content is distributed beyond that agreement, the technology can track its >usage and bill the original purchaser for subsequent viewings. "It's a >complete break from all other ways information has been published on the Net >to date," says an industry consultant. "It turns pass-along from a business >threat to a business opportunity." (Business Week 13 May 96 p114) Again, it's not clear how this is supposed to work. It does remind me of that information-network thing that was promoted on the Extropian lists, except that didn't have any provisions on reuse. -Allen >*************************************************************** >Edupage ... is what you've just finished reading. To subscribe to Edupage: >send mail to: listproc(a)educom.unc.edu with the message: subscribe edupage >Alfred North Whitehead (if your name is Alfred North Whitehead; otherwise, >substitute your own name). ... To cancel, send a message to: >listproc(a)educom.unc.edu with the message: unsubscribe edupage. (If you >have subscription problems, send mail to educom(a)educom.unc.edu.)

1 0

Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:32 PM 5/9/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >> >> By the way, are there any PGP encrypted mailing lists for >> >> discussing serious tax fraud? >> >> > If such a list existed, would we tell an anonymous poster/fed? >> >> Well, if such a list does exist, I would like to know about it. >> >> -Robin >> > >Again, in the absence of any credentials or recommendation, I can't see >how the moderators/originators/managers of such a list would disclose the >details of its publication. Such a list could be published openly in any case since discussing techniques of tax fraud is legal. Even advocay would be legal in almost all cases. (Since tax fraud is a non-violent crime, you don't have any of these 'agitating an angry mob' scenarios.) As long as you avoided conspiring with anyone, you can discuss techniques all you like. Some *participants* might like to subscribe anonymously however. DCF

1 0