December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

A SPANIARD IN THE WORKS? (non-crypto)
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Is there anyone on the list who lives in Spain? If so, please reply by private e-mail. Thanks, S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Cookies on Microsoft Explorer?
by Anne Eisenberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone know what the equivalent technology is on Microsoft to Netscape's cookie technology? Does Microsoft have support for cookies or not? All of the discussion on the list to do with cookies is related to Netscape. Does this mean that if one switches to Microsoft Explorer one can avoid the problem? Many thanks. Anne Eisenberg aeisenb(a)duke.poly.edu

2 1

Personal View @2.0 Released
by Frank Schroth 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear ZD Net Member: We're pleased to announce that the all-new ZD Net Personal View, the Web's premier source for personalized computing news, is now available at no charge, exclusively to registered members of ZD Net. With computing news and information -- now from over 650 respected sources -- ZD Net's Personal View allows you to create your own computing information service on the Web, tailored to track only the information that matters most to you. Save time searching and surfing. Use Personal View to get a wide spectrum of coverage on the computing information you need to stay ahead. And remember, it's all available in one place, it's updated 24 hours day and it's FREE for our registered users! We'd like to invite all of our ZD Net members to put the new Personal View to work for you. Click on the Personal View link on ZD Net's home page or go direct to www.pview.com to check out our brand-new look and, more importantly, all of our new features: -- More news from a wider range of sources (over 650!), -- Expanded search capabilities (including 2 months of archived information) -- More flexibility in creating your personal Profile -- Plus links to the very latest ZD Net news and features related to your unique interests. If you've already come to rely on Personal View, we know you'll be impressed with the improvements we've made. And if you haven't had the chance to visit Personal View, now is the perfect time. Just point your browser to www.pview.com, take a minute to set up your Custom profile and you'll have you're own personal information service on the WWW. Thank you for your continued use of ZD Net! We look forward to serving your computing information needs for a long time to come. Sincerely, ZD Net Personal View Team

1 0

Stealth cookies
by Mike McNally 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There's been a thread here about some outfit that, by being referenced from web documents here and there, would insert its cookie in your browser even though you've never directly visited that site. I've nuked any & all messages about that; if anybody recalls any details, I'd be thankful for the information. ______c_____________________________________________________________________ Mike M Nally * Tiv^H^H^H IBM * Austin TX * For the time being, m5(a)tivoli.com * m101(a)io.com * <URL:http://www.io.com/~m101> * three heads and eight arms.

1 0

Re: ****Tacoma, Washington Starts Taxing Internet Access 07/30/96
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:42 AM 8/5/96 -1000, NetSurfer wrote: > >On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. wrote: > >> >> >WASHINGTON, DC, U.S.A., 1996 JUL 30 (NB) -- By Bill Pietrucha. >> >Tacoma, Washington, has just gained the distinction of being the >> >only municipality in the United States to tax Internet Access >> >providers (IAPs) like telephone service providers. >> > > >Hawaii has been taxing this (and everything else incl. collected >taxes, food & medical) for years :-( calling it a "general excise tax" I believe the reason the Tacoma ordinance is getting so much flack is that they are wanting to charge sales tax on all transactions that take place from ISPs in Tacoma. This type of taxation is not new. Various jurisdictions have tried to use the same thing on mail order houses. Having worked for a service bureau that dealt with mail order, I know what a hassle it is to try to keep track of such taxation. There is a company that will sell you the data of all of the sales tax rates throughout the country. This includes every little podunk city, county, and fire district tax. They are divided by zip code, but that is no guarantees that you have the right place. The reality is that trying to "be legal" under such regulations is next to impossible, even with the proper data. I know of few mail order firms that are willing to go to that extreme. (Unless, of course, they have gotten the proper threats from some miffed tax baron.) And they wonder why there is so much disrespect for the law... --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "Microsoft -- Nothing but NT promises."

2 2

Re: Internal Passports
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 4 Aug 1996, Bill Stewart wrote: >> You can still travel in a car if someone else is driving, >> and you can still get on a train without identification, >> but without papers you can't fly or drive, and you can't >> ride a horse on the freeway except in the back of a horse trailer. >> Driver's licenses were the beginning of a long downhill trend. Don't forget the bus. Of course you can still drive a car without a DL. Just don't get stopped. Additionally, driving without a license is a pretty minor offense. Stick with cheap cars so confiscation isn't a problem. Most also forget that the Driver's License can be issued by any nation on earth. Some countries have easier standards for license issuance. Strange facts about cars and drivers in the US: 1) It is legal for an unlicensed driver to own or drive an unregistered car as long as he stays off the public streets and roads (what for expansion of the definition of public streets and roads). 2) It is legal for a licensed driver to drive a car owned by some other person or legal entity. Ownership and control can be two different things. 3) A car can be registered in other states or in other countries and still be driven anywhere in the US. 4) A licensed driver is one with a license from any jurisdiction on earth (try to stick to ones most cops have heard of). 5) A US court cannot suspend a foreign license (but they can bust you for other stuff if you get caught in the same local jurisdiction twice.) >> I wonder if they'll still accept an American passport; the country >> has obviously been taken over by Pod People while we weren't looking.... > At 12:52 PM 8/5/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >I often have trouble with foreign passports and one of my associates often >has extensive problems trying to use an american passport for anything in >the United States. > >Comments uttered in my presence on the subject have included: > >"We don't accept THOSE." > >"Sorry, we need to see OFFICIAL identification." > >"Don't you have something state issued?" > >"Uh, we need a driver's license number." At least the Passport doesn't have your address or much useful information on it. And if you've done things properly, it's not connected to your SS number. Should work for flight ID at the airport these days, however. DCF

1 0

Re: Stop the presses -- Anti-terrorism bill not that bad
by Sean Sutherland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hallam-Baker Wrote -- > Date: Sun, 04 Aug 1996 20:20:20 -0400 > I personally think that tagants is an insuffieicent approach to > the problem. Given the number of gun related homicides in the > US it is not unreasonable to require each individual cartridge > to be stamped with a serial number and for gun dealers to be > required to record each individual purchase. That at least > was my advice to the UK govt after Dunblane. There's four major problems with this. First off, a large number of guns used in homicides are revolvers or derringers (anyone got the numbers?). These guns don't spit out the shells. So, it would be utterly useless to do so. The second problem is the number of shells expelled in the US every day. I doubt there's enough room on the butt end of a shell to print that number (it couldn't be printed on the sides, as this would screw up the fit of the shell, and possibly weaken it). And, it'd be almost impossible getting gun manufacturers to pay for the equiptment that it would take to emprint serial numbers. The third number is that cartridges are recycled. Aside from reloading your own, there's a large number of people that sweep up brass from gun ranges to reload themselves. The idea that someone swept up the brass could get almost anyone off. The final problem is the paperwork. Cops today can barly keep up with the paperwork involved with the Brady Bill. Could you imagine if they had to keep track of AMMO purchases? > If people go arround claiming that ownership of guns is necessary > so that people can commit acts of treason against the US govt > then it is inevitable that there will be pressure for greater The provision to give people the means to commit treason against the government are in the Constitution. That's why the second amendment is there -- to empower the people to protect themselves against the government. Then there's the first amendment, which is there partially so that the people can keep the government in check with speech and the press. > regulation. The NRA has been playing a bad hand stupidly. By > raising the militia argument they have played into the hands > of abolitionists. It would be entirely foolish for the crypto The NRA, I'm sorry to say, has screwed up royally. It's about time that they regroup, or else they fall. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMgUWzVZoKRrkPmSJAQGNPQf/TMJdVIPG+znJdWK3DlxmANXyLpz7qs8Z ESHxWo5unmVuDMSGhLGNT15GabdlMozgmatM11iFXmtpzXSBDMwUQOGS29ScgF6l PW3PBJ0AMscr16GFJu7EcaJStXXAKPCb3mIQmd/JEs51uwpPVgz65fMyRhq3LALF 2fSnNybWGpX60QefZfvtxd6ePx5FyO05v5BJD916N9rh5sRcyspO9Bn5gdvqZaEF MjcYiDuV1qMl1oO7FAF41HDpw1x8hVp1BsUyN812aBl2YbYYxTaQwjE+BaEmExM7 wLgwUBLZ809fqBWeXpGw8CBmy4FmM7KwiI4fxGxdbcgnFBvRavTrdQ== =SY5x -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Sean Sutherland | mailto:maverick@interconnect.net PGP Key ID - e43e6489 | http://www2.interconnect.net/maverick -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- GCS/C d- s+:+ a--- C+++ V--- P L E- W++ N++ K w o O-(++) M-- V PS+ PE++ Y PGP++ t--- 5+++ X++ R b++ DI+ D+ G e- h! !r y -----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

4 3

Public report of the EU crack.
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hallam-Baker wrote: >I consider the political dimension of this affair to >be more significant that the technical. This brings the >US and the French into the same category of anti-crypto >government with a habit of poking its nose into other >people business and getting caught. > > Phill Say what? John Young I can understand; this blather? Att: "Doc" Baker/Mr. Hyde, err, Hallam: any rudimentary text on diction/grammer/syntax might be helpful to you. Sheesh! At least Sternlight seemed to be acquainted with the English language.

2 1

Re: Destroying client/server model, anonymous broadcasting.
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:42 AM 8/5/96 -0400, you wrote: >Getting back to the Dining Crypto Problem, is it possible to complete a >round by passing information around the circle of participants (each >individual communicates and maintains a connection with the person on the >left and right) rather than sending the round results to everyone via a >central server that everyone is connected to? In effect no one would be a >server, or everyone would be a server depending on the way you look at it. >A circular linked list would be maintained and kept in sync by every >client so that error recovery could come into play if someone mysteriously >disconnects. Could it work? How would the protocol differ. There's an obvious simple way to do this which appears to be slightly wrong. Somebody (assume it's Alice) announces a round "This is round N, size S bytes, value vvvv....", everybody who receives it does their calculations, XORs them in with the data, and passes it on. Once it gets all the way around (and Alice xors in her real number xor the nonce she started with), it goes around again so everybody can see the message. The catch is that two players can collude to monitor the player between them. Since Eve knows what data she passed (Dr.) Fred, and their random numbers, and Gorby knows what Fred passed him, and their random numbers, they can tell whether Fred added any data of his own. With a server-based system, on the other hand, collusion that Eve and Gorby also find out Fred's output, either by eavesdropping or colluding with the server. (Hmmm - I suppose this also happens with Chaum's NSA dinner? The example essentially used broadcast to exchange all the users' contributions.) Also, to set up a DCnet, you almost need a server of some sort to coordinate who talks to whom. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Defuse Authority!

1 0

Re: Stop the presses -- Anti-terrorism bill not that bad
by hallam＠Etna.ai.mit.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> First off, a large number of >guns used in homicides are revolvers or derringers (anyone got the >numbers?). These guns don't spit out the shells. So, it would be >utterly useless to do so. The shells are removed sometime or other. Nothing is a 100% solution but anything that gives the criminal an extra thing to worry about improves the chances that a mistake is made. Many people go to jail because of fingerprints on shell cases. >The second problem is the number of shells >expelled in the US every day. I doubt there's enough room on the >butt end of a shell to print that number (it couldn't be printed on >the sides, as this would screw up the fit of the shell, and possibly >weaken it). I doubt that more than 32 bits of info will be required. Thats not that difficult to imprint. >And, it'd be almost impossible getting gun manufacturers to >pay for the equiptment that it would take to emprint serial numbers. Not a problem, that type of machinery is a standard type of industrial machine. Might be expensive to adapt the lines but I doubt it. >The third number is that cartridges >are recycled. Aside from reloading your own, there's a large number >of people that sweep up brass from gun ranges to reload themselves. >The idea that someone swept up the brass could get almost anyone off. Not an issue. A person may have an excuse that explains why the blood is in his car or his fingerprints are on the knife but a conviction depends on more than one piece of evidence. If there is information that gives the police a lead it is usefull. At present the police are investigating the purchase of white powder - checking each purchaser out who fits the Olympic bomber profile. That is a lot of work for a much weaker lead. If a person says that they fired at a range then you have narrowed the search scope to the guys at the range. >The final problem is the paperwork. Cops today can barly keep up >with the paperwork involved with the Brady Bill. Could you imagine >if they had to keep track of AMMO purchases? Not a problem, thats an opportunity. I build very large, very high reliability computer systems. I can build machines that deal with several million transactions a day for less than a million and run them for less than a quarter million a year. That is cheap when one considers the cost of investigation saved. >The provision to give people the means to commit treason against the >government are in the Constitution. That's why the second amendment >is there -- to empower the people to protect themselves against the >government. Making that argument defeats your case. Irespective of the framers of the constitution nobody in Congress or the Administration believes that you have a right to take up arms against the government. In fact they are scared of the militia movement and the NRA. Every time you make that argument you make it harder for people to accept your case. Its like hearing a Marxist spout stuff from Capital to support a civil liberties. Regardless of wether the content makes sense the form of the argument is a complete turn off. I used to side with HCI before I started talking to the talk.politics.guns people. That convinced me that they were a threat to the security of the country - even before McVeigh sent me a mail defending his 2nd ammendment rights that looked very much like yours. Regardless of whether he is guilty or not I still regard him and those that hold his views to be as serious a threat to the USA as the Red Army Faction were in Germany, or the Red Brigades in Italy or the IRA in the UK. If people carelessly justify terrorism they are fueling that fire. Up until now the US has not had a serious terrorist problem. If terrorism becomes widespread then don't imagine the constitution will be a protection. Thomas and Reinquist are not going to stop measures to "protect the nation" even if like the WWII internement of Japaneese nationals they are in gross violation of the constitution. If you think the wiretap bill is bad think on this, all guns of all types banned except where held by special license. Checkpoints at major road intersections. Stop and search patrols in city centers and the army on the street. Its not at all far fetched, the UKgovt took less than a year to introduce such measures in Northern Ireland. Constitution or not, don't expect that the US Congress won't make a similar response. Phill

4 4

Re: Corporate e-mail policy
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:34 PM 8/5/96, James C. Sewell wrote: > Personally I think I would approach it as the privacy we have with the >eontents of our car's trunk. If an officer has probable cause to search >the trunk then he can, otherwise he can't. It's not a perfect system but >it does work better than other alternatives I can think of. This comparison breaks down completely. The police are not involved, so the language of "probable cause" is inappropriate. We may differ in our opinions on whether employers can search mail and car trunks, but the language of "probable cause" suggests a legal/constitutional issue that is probably not there. Imagine Alice operates a courier service and owns and operates several delievery vehicles . Bob, her employee, drives one of her cars. Is he to imagine that the trunk may not be opened by Alice unless she has "probable cause"? Nonsense. It it _her_ car, bought and paid for. To imagine otherwise is to wander into a fever swamp in which owners of property may not even use their own propery. (If anyone suggests that landlords cannot barge into tenant's apartments, this is a different situation. For one thing, there are usually terms and conditions spelled out in a contract about when and under what circumstances a landlord may enter the premises.) Is corporate e-mail more like the courier service example or more like the landlord-tenant example? I suggest the former, as the e-mail is used in the everyday furtherance of business, and illegality/abuse may harm the owner, as with drugs in the trunk of a courier car. (The owner of a property who leases it out is generally not held liable for the misdeeds and crimes of his tenants, except in some special circumstances. Hotel owners are not guilty of the crimes of the residents, which are of course common.) The original question asker, who asked how to help write his corporate e-mail policy, is free to lobby for a different interpretation; this is, after all, a matter of agreed-upon policy, not a matter for the state to stick its nose into. --Tim May P.S. > Just remember, as was said, once you make a policy it becomes precedence >and will stick with you forever... longer if it's a bad one. > Alice the Courier Service is of course perfectly free to announce new policies, so your point is incorrect. --Tim 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."

1 0

PGP public key servers are useful! [noise?]
by David E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Mon Aug 05 16:43:42 1996 Over the last couple of weeks, I've noticed a lot of subscribers who PGP clearsign their messages, but who haven't uploaded their keys to any of the public keyservers. Those keys are most useful when they're available to people who might want to use them, so I'm asking those of you who haven't sent them to a keyserver to do so. (The quick version: paste your key in cleartext into a letter, sent to pgp-public-keys(a)pgp.mit.edu with the subject: ADD. If you don't have it in cleartext, do pgp -kxa and follow the prompts.) TIA, dave - ---- David E. Smith POB 324 Cape Girardeau MO USA 63702 dsmith(a)prairienet.org http://www.prairienet.org/~dsmith send mail of 'send pgp-key' subject for my PGP public key "Heard a lot of talk about this Jesus, a man of love, a man of strength; but what a man was two thousand years ago means nothing at all to me today ... " -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Automagically signed with Pronto Secure for Windows. iQEVAwUBMgZrGzVTwUKWHSsJAQGRtwf/TPjleUXsqf2GcEsutZNnyYD82bYM2ZT/ NQm0BeUTcNdU+jA/2z5aiy+FRozcL6EeIDPULtCGeMvDYu95vBOjnimIxMjng9J6 mIpFIQzXUN4ZDdE7m1khbn8Vdk/V0kehQL318LzB484SQILWNYvTNrj/cDq6CdKW RMyyOH3+5VH1xRZJjFYvTsKnCszmtZIIvrjOt9+nX/j02bWnZRV7IGbOFjSrCL6p r1TZG/TnU60YGz/TaUhp5OCj0bFlkFQlg+NmcwR9j4rlIza9ujBSuGIcflMRWTG3 ighrCC9cpL1v/qJkHXKy67xdvIZWlq7UiyqTRUEBg7rwjSBca0YgZQ== =rDtm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 3

Re: fbi, crypto, and defcon
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:40 AM 8/5/96 -0700, Martin Minow wrote: >Arun Mehta <amehta(a)giasdl01.vsnl.net.in> writes: >>True, though even better would be simply to charge you a flat >>rate. If billing is that expensive, why bother? >Tragedy of the Commons. > >Flat rate works only if no single user can use more than >a tiny fraction of the total bandwidth. Using a "Tragedy of the Commons" analysis on telecommunications systems isn't very appropriate. Modern telephone systems have a fairly well-defined instantaneous capacity, do not wear out based on usage, unused capacity doesn't 'store up' for later use, nor do sporadic attempts at excessive use have anything more than a very transitory effect. (fast busy signals.) And in addition, a person doesn't profit in an unlimited fashion by attempting to over-use the telephone: Nobody I know would spend 24 hours per day on the phone if it were free, for example. So there's little motivation to over-use the resource. The Internet is even more "friendly" along these lines than telephone systems: The Internet doesn't "fail hard," denying access when usage is high, it merely slows all access to match the need. There are enough differences that I think Internet deserves an entirely new analysis. Don't worry, it will be also be interesting, from a game-theory perspective, but it will be very distinct from a classic "tragedy of the commons" situation. The current question is how to motivate individuals and companies to invest in improvements to the Internet that will benefit everyone. However, I don't think that will be the limiting factor that it may currently appear to be. Due to the nature of the Internet, there is nothing to prevent a company (such as AOL, Compuserve, or other) from building a shadow version of the Internet, through which all of its customer's traffic will pass until it emerges local to its destination. Customers who appreciate this kind of prompter service will be motivated to pay slightly more and will buy Internet access through that company. So the "commons" won't be quite so "common," and product differentiation will allow choice. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Credit Cards over the internet
by Vinnie Moscaritolo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just read a forwarded message from a merchant who indicated that: <quote> Mastercard in no way authorises the transmission of credit card details via the internet/email due to the possibility of fraud. Supposedly if Mastercard finds that any merchant receives such details via internet/email, they will cancel the merchants agreement/rights immediately. While a lot of work is being done regarding the transmission of secure data it has not been perfected yet. Merchants must have special permission to accept details by phone or fax. </quote> We have no first hand knowledge of this change in the merchant account rules. As a merchant who accepts credit cards via the internet/email, I know that our credit card fraud rate is around 1 in 1403 transactions. In all cases, the card we were given was stolen by conventional means and the charge was authorized before that knowledge filtered through the credit card system. Seems to me that this is a small percentage. I have heard of no one who has had their card stolen while passing it across the internet. Local restaurants and shops and Unix file servers, yes, but via packet sniffing, no. If the above internet/email restriction is true and if we assume that the people at the credit card companies do know what they are doing, then it sounds like someone might be attempting to kill the SSL method of accepting credit card information in favor of some other standard such as SET. I'd be willing to bet that SET will be proclaimed as the perfected method that is suitable for use where other methods such as SSL or PGP would not be allowed. I'd also be willing to bet that even with SET, the fraud rate that I experience will remain the same. Does anyone have real facts on this? <name withheld> Vinnie Moscaritolo "Law - Samoan Style" http://www.vmeng.com/vinnie/ Fingerprint: 4FA3298150E404F2782501876EA2146A

3 2

Re: Public report of the EU crack.
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:20 PM 8/5/96 -0700, David M. Rose wrote: >Hallam-Baker wrote: > >>I consider the political dimension of this affair to >>be more significant that the technical. This brings the >>US and the French into the same category of anti-crypto >>government with a habit of poking its nose into other >>people business and getting caught. >> >> Phill > >Say what? John Young I can understand; this blather? > >Att: "Doc" Baker/Mr. Hyde, err, Hallam: any rudimentary text on >diction/grammer/syntax might be helpful to you. Have a little toleration. I've heard he's a FOREIGNER! Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Off topic: Re: viruss'
by Erle Greer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:38 AM 8/5/96 -0700, you wrote: >Does anyone know where thre is good virus page???? >I know that there is one out there, but dont have the add. >Zero Cool Let your mouse do the walking. http://www.yahoo.com Type "virus", without the quotes. viola! Good luck! Vagab0nd<br> <a href="http://ww2.sd.cybernex.net/~vagab0nd/index.html">Visit web page for public key.</a>

1 0

NYtimes OPed pro-wiretapping 8/2
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

found this today as well. One negative reply letter was also posted. reference: <http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/early/02heym.html> "August 2, 1996 Listening in on Terrorism By PHILIP HEYMANN CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- President Clinton's major proposals for new powers to fight terrorism are useful and pose no threat to Americans' civil liberties. " ( oooookkaaay...) " Many of these measures are intended only to give government as much power to thwart terrorism as it already has to combat other criminal acts." (do go on...I'm fascinated now) " The part of the plan that has drawn the most criticism from across the political spectrum involves proposals to increase the Government's investigative powers, particularly through wiretapping and other methods of monitoring phone calls. " [..snip..] (assertion follows that current laws are inadequate for electronic surveillance against terrorism.) " In criminal cases the courts have never considered the use of devices that record the numbers of incoming or outgoing calls on a telephone to be significant invasions of privacy." (Never mind what the "people" might say) " But there is no similar provision for investigations of suspected foreign terrorists. Under the President's proposal, agents would be allowed to use the devices if they can show that it is relevant to a terrorism investigation." (not exactly sure how a terrorist investigation differs from a criminal investigation...but this is the distinction Heyman is drawing. In his view, current law is not sufficient against domestic terrorist investigation.) " Under current law, officials must get a separate warrant for each phone the suspect uses unless they can prove the suspect is changing phones purposely to thwart investigation. This is a stricter standard than is applied even to requests to plant a microphone to overhear a suspect." [..snip..] " Government agents would still be required to show probable cause that the suspect is committing one of the offenses on the Federal list and that the calls being monitored will concern that crime. " (Gosh! Who knew the government and the FBI were so powerless?) " Philip Heymann, a former Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration, is a professor at Harvard Law School and the Kennedy School of Government. Copyright 1996 The New York Times Company " (big shock, eh?) ... To say that Mr. Heymann is being misleading is an understatement. He ignores that the government wishes to be able to wiretap for 48 hours without prior court approval. He attempts to imply that the roving wiretap is focused on an individual rather than a location or locations. And he seems to believe that all of these enormous powers will not be abused. I wonder if he would feel differently if his personal FBI file was among those gathered by the Clinton administration. me -------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <omega(a)bigeasy.com> PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 send a message with the text "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key. --------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

The futility of trying to "tag" ammunition
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:38 AM 8/5/96, Sean Sutherland wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Hallam-Baker Wrote -- >> Date: Sun, 04 Aug 1996 20:20:20 -0400 > >> I personally think that tagants is an insuffieicent approach to >> the problem. Given the number of gun related homicides in the >> US it is not unreasonable to require each individual cartridge >> to be stamped with a serial number and for gun dealers to be >> required to record each individual purchase. That at least >> was my advice to the UK govt after Dunblane. > >There's four major problems with this. First off, a large number of Actually, there are so many problems with this that I dismissed Phill's "plan" out of hand. But since others are weighing in on it, I might as well, too. It has little CP relevance, except that it parallels other seemingly well though-out proposals which crumble when some common sense analysis is used. The key point is this: A billion rounds of ammunition already out in the U.S. + Perps typically fire fewer than 5 rounds in committing their crimes + Incredible logistical problems in tagging and tracking shells = An idea shot down. >guns used in homicides are revolvers or derringers (anyone got the >numbers?). These guns don't spit out the shells. So, it would be Most older guns in the hands of street punks are revolvers, though this is not necessarily where handgun homicides mostly come from. Those are "home shootings"--a man kills his wife, a woman kills her husband, a brother shoots a brother, etc. Most of these are done with guns that are handy and that have been in the family/house for a long time....most are, thus, revolvers. (The 1911 .45 is moderately common, but not nearly so much so as old .38s and even .22s.) In any case, Phill's proposal would collapse for this situation. First, the guns are very old and the ammo would not be the new "tagged cases." (In most cases, a old "box of shells." Most home owners of guns never fire practice rounds and tend to have a few boxes at most of shells, which they keep for many, many years.) And in most home killings, it becomes clear real fast who did the shooting. And, as Sean notes, these revolvers will not eject the shells. It is marginally possible that spent shells could be identified when fired from semi-automatics, of course. Other factors to consider, though: 1. The vast amount of ammo already out there. Given that perps typically fire only a handful in their criminal career, not hard to just use older ammo. (The Sternlight-favored argument might be invoked here: "Ah, but criminals are too stupid to do this, and so it will help." I disagree. Most street punks would understand the principal. Just as they seek out "clean" guns, they surely would not load their carry guns with 9mm ammo bought and "registered" under their own names. 2. Target shooters consume the vast majority of rounds. (This is why foolish proposals by Moynihan to "force" ammo to be sold for, say, $5 a round, is ineffectual for the intended purpose: the perp loading his .357 or 9mm will hardly be deterred by a $30 price, even assuming he would buy in a store at these prices.) (Think of the black market supply: my several thousand rounds of 9mm, .45, .223, etc., would be worth $15,000 or more at "Moynihan prices. The Feds could try to outlaw all ammo transfers between individuals...left as an exercise as to how effective this could ever be, and whether juries would send people off to the pen for the crime of selling some .45 shells.) 3. Reloaders. As others have noted, there is an essentially inexhaustible supply of reloaded shells. 4. The vast amound of ammo already out there. Crates and crates and crates of surplus ammo in all sorts of calibers, entire container ships of ammo coming to the U.S. (e.g, I just got my UPS delivery of 850 rounds of a Czech brand, Sellior and Bellot, and my 1000 rounds of Italian Fiocchi are due any day...multiply this by 100,000. 5. Stockpiling. Don't forget the "law of unintended consequences." The biggest gun boom in history came when the Feds cracked down on gun purchases. California gun stores were crowded for months. (Ditto for high-capacity magazines: in the months of "warning" that people had, factories cranked up production, customers stockpiled, and there was a sudden surge of interest in getting that previously-obscure 3-round mag for one's Glocks! :-}) >utterly useless to do so. The second problem is the number of shells >expelled in the US every day. I doubt there's enough room on the >butt end of a shell to print that number (it couldn't be printed on >the sides, as this would screw up the fit of the shell, and possibly >weaken it). And, it'd be almost impossible getting gun manufacturers to 6. There isn't enough room. The shell I have in my hand barely has enough room to print "FEDERAL 45 AUTO". A unique numbering of the total ammo sales, even by boxes and not individual cases, would need a 9-12 characters (and would likely run out in a few year--12-14 characters would be needed). Actually, this is the "most solvable" of the problems...the others are the real killers. >pay for the equiptment that it would take to emprint serial numbers. >The third number is that cartridges >are recycled. Aside from reloading your own, there's a large number >of people that sweep up brass from gun ranges to reload themselves. >The idea that someone swept up the brass could get almost anyone off. 7. There's this...and there's the possibility that one could implicate _others_. For example, pick up a few empty shells at the range. I imagine there might be some souvenir value in buying a "This shell was fired by Dianne Feinstein." (For the uniniated, at the same time DiFi was railing against the public's ownership of guns, she was carrying one in her purse.) This gets back to the "chain of evidence" point we so often mention. >The final problem is the paperwork. Cops today can barly keep up >with the paperwork involved with the Brady Bill. Could you imagine >if they had to keep track of AMMO purchases? 8. Indeed, it would inflate ammo prices too much. (Given that people like me have thousands of rounds, the ability to reload, and would be happy to undercut the local K-Mart's price.) >The NRA, I'm sorry to say, has screwed up royally. It's about time >that they regroup, or else they fall. > Indeed, I refused to renew my membership because of their wishy-washyness on basic issues. In my opinion, spending the "Life Member" fees on a Dillon reloading press is a better investment. --Tim May HOW TO MAKE A PIPE BOMB: "Buy a section of metal water pipe 1/2 by 6 inches long, threaded on both ends. Buy two metal caps to fit. These are standard items in hardware stores. Drill a 1/16th hole in the center of the pipe. This is easy with a good drill bit. Hanson is a good brand to use. Screw a metal cap tightly on one end. Fill the pipe to within 1/2 inch of the top with black powder. Do not pack the powder. Don't even tap the bottom of the pipe to make it settle. You want the powder loose. For maximum explosive effect, you need dry, fine powder sitting loose in a very rigid container." (more information at http://sdcc13.ucsd.edu/~m1lopez/pipe.html, or by using search engines)

2 1

Re: SSNs (was Re: Internal Passports)
by jfricker＠vertexgroup.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:59 PM 8/5/96 -0700, you wrote: >Black Unicorn wrote: >> >[ ...random losers asking for your SSN... ] >> > I was horrified and gave a random number. >> >> You should always be horrified, and always give a random number. > >Well, it would be nice if it was that easy. You (legally) need to give >the correct one to anyone who has to make a report about you to the IRS, >right? Such as your employer. But it's not always clear who else needs >it. Originally the 1939 ('37?) Social Security Act explicitly stated that the SSN could not be used for anything except SSA matters. Times apparently have changed or perhaps it's just de facto legislation by complicity.

1 0

United States as Northern Ireland
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:16 PM 8/5/96, hallam(a)Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote: >If you think the wiretap bill is bad think on this, all guns >of all types banned except where held by special license. >Checkpoints at major road intersections. Stop and search >patrols in city centers and the army on the street. Its not >at all far fetched, the UKgovt took less than a year to >introduce such measures in Northern Ireland. Constitution or >not, don't expect that the US Congress won't make a similar >response. Yes, I agree. Welcome to our side, Phill! --Tim May HOW TO MAKE A PIPE BOMB: "Buy a section of metal water pipe 1/2 by 6 inches long, threaded on both ends. Buy two metal caps to fit. These are standard items in hardware stores. Drill a 1/16th hole in the center of the pipe. This is easy with a good drill bit. Hanson is a good brand to use. Screw a metal cap tightly on one end. Fill the pipe to within 1/2 inch of the top with black powder. Do not pack the powder. Don't even tap the bottom of the pipe to make it settle. You want the powder loose. For maximum explosive effect, you need dry, fine powder sitting loose in a very rigid container." (more information at http://sdcc13.ucsd.edu/~m1lopez/pipe.html, or by using search engines)

2 1

"lite" version of cpunks available?
by Steve Reid 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Are there any filtered versions of the Cypherpunks mailing list available? I'm currently subscribed to cypherpunks-d(a)gateway.com, but that machine is down and I haven't received anything in the past few days.

3 2

Internet Economics
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:22 PM 8/5/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >The current question is how to motivate individuals and companies to invest >in improvements to the Internet that will benefit everyone. However, I don't >think that will be the limiting factor that it may currently appear to be. >Due to the nature of the Internet, there is nothing to prevent a company >(such as AOL, Compuserve, or other) from building a shadow version of the >Internet, through which all of its customer's traffic will pass until it >emerges local to its destination. Note that this is the business model for @HOME which will be handling the heavy lifting for various Internet Over Cable systems around the country. DCF

1 0

Re: SSNs (was Re: Internal Passports)
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:59 PM 8/5/96 -0700, Jamie Zawinski wrote: >Well, it would be nice if it was that easy. You (legally) need to give >the correct one to anyone who has to make a report about you to the IRS, >right? Such as your employer. Virtually no one in the history of the world has done any time for giving a false SS#. Considering the fact that millions of Americans daily drive drunk, exceed the lawful speed limit, drift through stop signs without coming to a complete halt pick each other up in bars and do a host of other things that are much more likely to get them in trouble than making up an SS#, I am constantly *amazed* that people always advise you not to do so. If it's good enough for the President of Israel, it's good enough for anyone. >Is it >needed to get a driver's license? (The fine print on the DMV forms says >"yes".) But most DMVs don't check and the SS is still resisting verification services (at least until the Immigration Bill passes). >Is it necessary to make use of employer-sponsored medical >insurance? (I suspect that the answer to this one is "no", except for >the fact that when my employer set up my medical insurance they let the >insurance company use my SSN as my insurance-related-ID-number. But in >any event, my dentist told me, "if you don't give it to us, they won't >pay.") Just make sure you give the insurance company and the doctor the same number. >If you already have a SSN, can you get a *new* one in any legal way? >(Sort of the same idea as changing your phone number to avoid >telemarketing scum...) The SS resists issuing new numbers in spite of widespread duplication and theft. Soon people will find themselves denied the right to work in this country unless the SS reverses this reluctance. If your SS# is stolen and used "too many times" in a future worker verification program, you're screwed. And there won't even be any welfare for you. Use Alta Vista to find the SS Number FAQ. There's more stuff. DCF

3 2

Re: SSNs (was Re: Internal Passports)
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 16:13 8/5/96, Mike Duvos wrote: >Jamie Zawinski wrote: > >> If you already have a SSN, can you get a *new* one in any legal way? >> (Sort of the same idea as changing your phone number to avoid >> telemarketing scum...) To prevent the blacklisting of labor leaders by SSN, the Social Security Act has a provision that allows you to request a new SSN. You have a right to get a new SSN issued. Don't expect your SS office to know anything about it. [disclaimer: I am not an attorney] -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

1 0

Re: Public report of the EU crack.
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:12 AM 8/6/96, John C. Randolph wrote: >Well, well, well! > >So we gain a several allies in our battle against key-escrow, and >lo and behold, it's all the *other* governments who don't want >Uncle Sam to read their mail. > >I hope that any c'punks in foreign countries can make some politcal >hay with this: "Don't let the yankee imperialists tell us a goddamn thing >about crypto policy! They'll only use it to pull weasel moves in the >trade talks!" > >Actually, it might be a good thing for Her Majesty's government to >issue an advisory, saying not to buy US routers and encryption software, >because it can't be trusted, under present US ITAR rules. Agreed. The report was only surpising to me in that it appeared in print...anyone who read Bamford in '82 knew this sort of economic espionage was a major mission of the NSA and various private contractors. On the subject of routers and sniffers, excuse me if I'm misremembering things, but wasn't a certain anti-Mitnick hacker writing in one of his books about his role in developing certain "packet sniffers" that had properties desirable to the U.S. intelligence community? Perhaps the Brits are just being "monitored" by the Colonials? (If I sound paranoid, I just came from a showing of "Chain Reaction." Some flaws, but also some good reminders about the dangers of the "black budget," large listening posts in Virgina (and England and elsewhere), and a U.S. government that now sits astride the world.) --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."

1 0