December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: CS First Boston lawsuit
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:03 PM 8/19/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Sun, 18 Aug 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > >> At 3:29 AM 8/19/96, Alan Horowitz wrote: >> >I suspect they are trying to get a judgement against "John Doe", in the >> >hopes of tracking him down later. >> > >> >Actually, if I had a sizeable judgement against such a John Doe, I could >> >probably find a private detective who would find the dude for a >> >contingent fee. Wow, a whole new class of factoring (commerce definition) >> >opens up. Get me a lawyer.... Sure, there are collection people who do this regularly; it's also possible to sell judgements for a fraction of their face value. >> Lawyers out there can and should correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't >> believe either the criminal or civil justice system has the concept of a >> "John Doe" trial! The ability to have the advice of an attorney, to >> confront one's accusers, cross-examine witnesses, and mount a defense, and >> all that constitutional stuff. Rather hard to do if the trial is in the >> past tense. >> >> Can you cite an example of such a "John Doe" trial in the U.S.? > >Not exactly, but judgements against John Doe's or even "$956,334.34" are >common. Typically they are default judgements where a property seizure is >involved. > >"The United States of America v. $534,444.00" and "The United States of >AMerica v. One Red Porsche" is a common theme. It is possible to name unknown defendants in a suit - the tradition is to name them as, literally, "John Doe" or "John Does 1-6, unknown Washington County Sheriff's Deputies". The idea is that at some point prior to trial you'll learn the names of the defendants and then ask the court for permission to amend your complaint to add the newly found names. (e.g., Oregon Rule of Civil Procedure 20(H): "Fictitious Parties. When a party is ignorant of the name of an opposing party and so alleges in a pleading, the opposing party may be designated by any name, and when such party's true name is discovered, the process and all pleadings and proceedings in the action may be amended by substituting the true name.") But naming someone in a suit is not sufficient to give them notice that they've been sued, so that they know to file an answer and otherwise defend themselves. At least in Oregon (state & Fed courts, since Fed courts borrow the state's rules for service of process, Fed Rul Civ Pro 4(e)(1)), service by publication (as mentioned in another message) is only allowed where the plaintiff files an affidavit that they have tried every other appropriate means of service and they have been unsuccessful, or that they have reason to know it will be unsuccessful. ORCP 7(D)(7). Service by publication is relatively rare. So Tim's correct (at least as far as I know, and I sure don't know everything) when he says that John Doe *trials* are essentially unknown - because if defendant(s) don't appear for trial but have been served, the plaintiff can get a default judgement against them - which makes a trial unnecessary, at least for those defendants. It's also possible (sometimes) for a defendant to overturn a default judgement and ask for a real trial, if they can show that there was a good reason why they didn't respond initially. Bad (or unattempted) service of process is usually a good reason. The John Doe lawsuits are more likely to falter at the service-of-process stage; before you get to ask for a default judgment, you've got to prove that the defendant was served. And if you don't even know their name, it's tough to serve them with the summons & complaint. No service, no judgement. The connection between the service-of-process problem and the in rem cases Black Unicorn mentioned (e.g., "United States v. $405,089.23") is that the owner of the property is supposedly put on notice by the seizure or attachment of the property itself. A court can exercise jurisdiction over *stuff* (e.g., property) and enter a judgement against the stuff even if it hasn't gained jurisdiction (via service of process) over the person who owns the stuff. In the most common seizures, the stuff is seized from one or more people; those people are also given notice of the seizure and their right to contest it. (which is not to say that I'm a fan of forfeiture - I'm not - but the cases I've seen/worked on haven't suggested that lack of notice is a problem. Claimants/owners/possessors don't always understand the notice they're given at seizure, and they don't always bother to act within the awfully short deadlines (10-15 days, in some cases) required to file a claim. But people do get (arguably inadequate) notice.) To some extent, in rem jurisdiction is practically necessary - otherwise it'd be possible to have property in a wrong place, or creating unwanted/harmful effects, which could not be legally moved or changed without service of process on the owner - who may be dead or travelling or uninterested or just hard to find. If cryptoanarchy becomes more prevalent, and it becomes more difficult to trace ownership and control of interesting stuff (e.g., physical or intellectual property, and/or "bots" of one flavor or another), look for more in rem actions, not fewer. (I can't think of an example of a John Doe criminal proceeding, except that I believe grand juries can hear testimony and investigate crimes where a target has not yet been identified. But that's a very early stage of criminal proceedings where the defendant doesn't have many rights even if they are identified; so the lack of notice isn't much of an injury.) -- Greg Broiles |"Post-rotational nystagmus was the subject of gbroiles(a)netbox.com |an in-court demonstration by the People http://www.io.com/~gbroiles |wherein Sgt Page was spun around by Sgt |Studdard." People v. Quinn 580 NYS2d 818,825.

3 4

AZ DMV: Citizenship to Drive? (fwd)
by Brad Dolan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Your papers, please? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 21:04:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob Witanek <bwitanek(a)igc.apc.org> To: Recipients of pol-abuse <pol-abuse(a)igc.apc.org> Subject: AZ DMV: Citizenship to Drive? Posted: gdiazj(a)IMAP1.ASU.EDU Today the Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles began requiring proof of citizenship before issuing a drivers license or a state identification. This policy was established by HB 2154 which passed this last session (this one slipped passed me). I am helping organize people in Arizona to oppose this. Please send your information ASAP, we need you your help. VIVA LA RAZA George Diaz, Jr. gdiazj(a)imap1.asu.edu GDIAZJ(a)aol.com gdiaz(a)ci.phoenix.az.us

1 0

Re: AZ DMV: Citizenship to Drive? (fwd)
by Stephen Cobb 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:37 AM 8/20/96 -0400, you wrote: >Your papers, please? > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 21:04:07 -0700 (PDT) >From: Bob Witanek <bwitanek(a)igc.apc.org> >To: Recipients of pol-abuse <pol-abuse(a)igc.apc.org> >Subject: AZ DMV: Citizenship to Drive? > >Posted: gdiazj(a)IMAP1.ASU.EDU > >Today the Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles began requiring >proof of citizenship before issuing a drivers license or a state >identification. This policy was established by HB 2154 which passed >this last session (this one slipped passed me). > >I am helping organize people in Arizona to oppose this. Please >send your information ASAP, we need you your help. > >VIVA LA RAZA >George Diaz, Jr. >gdiazj(a)imap1.asu.edu >GDIAZJ(a)aol.com >gdiaz(a)ci.phoenix.az.us > Not quite sure what this has to do with crypto, but here goes: As with the recent federal legislation denying soc sec benefits to LEGAL aliens who are required by law to pay into the system and can by law be required to serve in the US armed forces, this appears to my untrained eye to be yet another case of isolationist paranoia...I am sure this one violates international agreements that the US has made concerning reciprocal accodomations as far as driving is concerned. I used to be a tax-paying soc sec paying legal alien, but I got so fed up with head-in-the-dirt hicks who thought you had to be a citizen to breathe the prairie dust that I became a citizen for an easier life (and I mean some of these ignorant fools were sons of immigrants who voted agianst the US fighting Hitler!!!!). Because I still talk with something of a foreign accent I still get uneducated idiots, who couldn't pass the test they make foreigners take, lecturing me on what I cannot do because I am a foreigner. The only thing I can't do is run for President. I despair of backwater state legislators, I really do. What to do about this particular problem? Check out the rules on International drivers licenses. I know can drive on them for a year...If you are not allowed a drivers license because you are an alien, maybe you don't need their stinking licenses. Stephen

2 1

Re: Hackers invade DOJ web site
by Lynne L. Harrison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:08 PM 8/19/96 -0500, Igor Chudov wrote: > >I personally find the web page very well and artistically done, and >extremely funny. The guy who did it had a good taste. I personally found the page to be offensive and disagree highly with the person having "good taste". Following the premise that another posted to this list, there were ways of focusing on opposing the CDA without insulting women and/or minorities. I also agree that this act is going to backfire by giving the DOJ fodder when the case reaches the Supreme Court. IMO, it was patently obvious that it was a kid or kids that did it who gave no substantial thought on the consequences of his/their act. ************************************************************ Lynne L. Harrison, Esq. | "The key to life: Poughkeepsie, New York | - Get up; lharrison(a)mhv.net | - Survive; http://www.dueprocess.com | - Go to bed." ************************************************************ DISCLAIMER: I am not your attorney; you are not my client. Accordingly, the above is *NOT* legal advice.

2 1

128-bit IE3.0 adventures
by David.K.Merriman＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com, webmaster(a)microsoft.com Date: Tue Aug 20 09:42:56 1996 I *finally* managed to get through to the 1-800 number that pops up when an attempted download of 128-bit MSIE 3.0 fails. They can only send out 128-bit version *2.0*, it seems. They referred me to the 1-800 Sales number, but of course, the sales droids weren't savvy enough to understand the problem, and tried to hand me off to a 206 area code number. At that point, I called off the drill - I'm not going to pay for a toll call to fix MS's screwup. "original" 800 number: 1-800-455-2959 Alternate 800 number: 1-800-426-9400 (autobot) - select 3, then 4, then 1 to get a Real Person. Anyone else upset about being denied might want to give them a call, too. Who knows, maybe if they get enough calls, they'll send someone to fix it. Dave - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- PGP Email welcome, encouraged, and PREFERRED. Visit my web site at http://www.shellback.com/p/merriman for my PGP key and fingerprint "What is the sound of one hand clapping in a forest with no one there to hear it?" I use Pronto Secure (tm) PGP-fluent Email software for Windows -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMhkYK8VrTvyYOzAZAQE0SgQApRBedkueeR2JTAJknfA7JGER/oNReVUK i8ImmNzjQDeionIkMbV2CuGOE/DwblVQ2yDgnUIBteNAFeiebwzdxaw9ysRKshRY 5AuvmXCyVsFJMNICFlZwNTRH+x4h7EPqA5BPxXJb+3b0sxWxqFcnU8QocJlFq+ap ksb0mwgbVYc= =L3IC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Indonesia detains democracy activist after post to mailing list (fwd)
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:18 PM 8/19/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote: > You know, Amnesty > has some outstanding policies regarding accuracy, objectivity, and > universality. Such as their policy that disappearances in Cuba are only mentioned in a vague and euphemistic way somewhere in the fine print of the middle of their Cuban reports, whereas similar disappearances are shouted from the rooftops when they happen in right wing South American dictatorships? --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

3 3

Re: [NOISE] Naked woman decrapitates man on Internet!!!
by Remo Pini 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Tue Aug 20 16:55:54 1996 > Seven billion (thousand million for you Brits) people in the world. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Actually everybody uses billion as 10^12 (except Americans -> 10^9). ;-) America is getting more and more of an island... ;-) - ------< fate favors the prepared mind >------ Remo Pini rp(a)rpini.com PGP: http://www.rpini.com/crypto/crypto.html - ----< words are what reality is made of >---- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMhnR+xFhy5sz+bTpAQFAvggAwnWNgUTs0vpnwtK34AJjictQlLOZrhYl ANY8xoZ3cLKlcLZmLIo2m+N9QOrO9Bdp4Q1op1KTa9BUUDH0vl5rZak5C/L/+TKw EDp2N143ANWGrz5xd3BgFd/ly8VEPwVGQc85yjW6noRIl+5GUHaYKtNPGzr0V6oU d83igcL3/zU9GGwT6l1r7o/U/+cjy6Poui2IZYlVqy564kE2s71ztlVH687ZAHaF ZTRdkLZqi56AjI1g684zKik0qQ98SdQpHqz1CpzT6BuDS954bk3gip95Znu4PtYu vSEDTsTNf05jNqpjDHTLtPSSELgjNmA07Sb8PLlqJOWLcWVmYQP3Eg== =8mhr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: [NOISE] Naked woman decrapitates man on Internet!!!
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote: >Seven billion (thousand million for you Brits) people in the world. More >than 10,000 deaths every hour, or about 5 deaths per second. >What's so sick about one measly death? Just another crime, like >thousands of others every day. They just got caught. At least he's >immortalized on the Net. Only 24 hours in each day. How do you spend your time? James Spray my name on a subway train Carve my name in a video game Out looking for the camera crew Sell my soul for a second on the six-o'clock news Gonna live 'til the bubble pops Hold my breath when the big one drops Immortality is what I'm buying But I'd rather be immortal by not dying.

1 0

Securing Internet mail at the MTA level
by C Matthew Curtin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Recently, I've been looking into securing email at the MTA level, and would like to get your thoughts on implementation possibilities and related issues. The problems that I'm trying to solve are: 1. Host authentication 2. Data privacy In order for the widespread encryption to work, several things need to occur: 1. Phase-in of the new stuff 2. Backward compatibility (ability to continue to work in the clear) for a period of years 3. A single worldwide mechanism, defined by an RFC, and freely available, except, perhaps, in the case of commercial MTAs. (i.e., the use of RSA seems appropriate for host and session key management, and is free via RSAREF in the US, free outside of the US, but not free for commercial use. This seems acceptable to me.) Two types of approaches are possible: 1. Adding to the SMTP protocol itself, allowing for MTAs to identify crypto-capable peers, and then performing authentication and session encryption where possible. 2. Waiting for a cryptographic transport layer network protocol (such as what is being proposed in draft-ietf-tls-ssh-00), allowing SMTP to remain untouched, and only requiring MTAs to add support for the new network protocol. I like the second approach better, because it allows more problems to be solved with one move, and it would be easier to add crypto functionality to our common network utilities by simply making them aware of the new transport layer protocol. The first approach would require redefinitions of RFCs for each of the services, and lots of redundant work. I mentioned my interest in an SSH-capable MTA to Tatu Ylonen <ylo(a)ssh.fi>, and he as also expressed interest. The word from him on the status of the SSH Internet Draft is that a reference implementation should be available early next month. I'm considering using that reference implementation to add SSH capability to an MTA, perhaps sendmail. My questions are: 1. Which of the two approaches seems to make the most sense to you? 2. Is there another approach that could work better? 3. Is there interest in adding SSH functionality to sendmail in the near future (either by the draft spec, or once the RFC has been published)? Please feel free to pass this around, if you deem appropriate. I'm interested in lots of feedback before deciding if and how to go ahead with the project. Thanks. -- C Matthew Curtin MEGASOFT, LLC Director, Security Architecture I speak only for myself. Don't whine to anyone but me about anything I say. Hacker Security Firewall Crypto PGP Privacy Unix Perl Java Internet Intranet cmcurtin(a)research.megasoft.com http://research.megasoft.com/people/cmcurtin/

4 3

Re: BlackNet: Commercial Posts?
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Or About 19 Aug 96, 18:40, Timothy C. May wrote: > At 1:05 PM 8/19/96, Ross Wright wrote: > > > >My question to the list: > > > >Who benefits from all this publicity and brew-ha-ha? Who makes all > >the BlackNet money? Who really cares if it is a Data Haven or just > >a remailer? I'm just asking. > > Well, obviously I do. I receive $1.42 for every posting which > mentions BlackNet, 7% of gross sales for all commercial > transactions, and 12.5% plus a sliding finder's fee for all military > and intelligence secrets sold via BlackNet. > > But all true paranoiacs knew this. > > --Aldrich Ames > Hey, It's not funny. So this is freeware? I thought someone offered 3 mil for the program. Tim, you wrote this thing? So who owns it now? Can it be owned? Maybe I misunderstand. Ross =========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0

[NOISE] other distributed searches
by morgan＠keilin.helsinki.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Two distributed searches on the net are described in Science (9 August 1996 p. 743). One is a search for "Mersenne" prime numbers: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/justforfun/prime.htm The other is called SETI@home and apparently going to use idle time on people's computers (a screen saver) to search for patterns in data from Arecibo. The report says the project will be set up by Woody Sullivan of University of Washington, Seattle and will operate out of a server in Berkeley. (I wasn't able to locate any information about this on the web.) -- ===================================================================== Joel.Morgan(a)Helsinki.FI http://blues.helsinki.fi/~morgan "Over the mountains there are mountains." -- Chang-rae Lee =====================================================================

1 0

Re: US Taxes on X-Pats (getting off topic)
by Stephen Cobb 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:32 PM 8/19/96 -0400, you wrote: >It sounds unfair, for sure. However, the whole thing is a fraud based >upon a myth. FICA witholding is NOT credited to an individual's account, >or even to Social Security benefits in general. By statutory law, all >such receipts go into the Treasury's general fund. > >So, they are NOT "social security contributions". Period. > Very true...what I am saying is that, as far as my reading goes, LEGAL aliens are going to be required to pay social security "taxes" while not having any "entitlement" in return. They pay income taxes and get certain things, like law and order, in return. They will be paying soc sec money to the government without getting anything in return. This sounds not only unfair but wrong, part of an isolationist, "we killed the natives so this land is our land and the rest of you f@*k-off" revival that includes the recent posting about requiring proof of citizenship before issuing drivers licenses. Stephen

4 4

ok ok ok i know
by Ryan M. Leach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

sorry to bother the list with this but i lost the message describing the "unsubscribing" methods for this list (it's way to big for me) can some one mail me instr. on unsubscribing? TIA

1 0

Re: Taxes on Internet access prediction
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:07 AM 8/20/96, Mike McNally wrote: >States and municipalities are taxing internet access. Who wants to >make a prediction about if/when the IRS will start to count net access >as a taxable fringe benefit of employment? > >(At a small company where I once worked, a tax accountant visiting >one day noticed that we had a weight bench set up in a back corner of >the big "back room". He advised us to be careful, because the IRS >could count that as a taxable employee benefit.) I think the test of whether something is a "perq" (or is it "perk"?), and thus possibly taxable to the employee, is whether it is outside the normal bounds of work. Thus, one's office cubicle, computer, office supplies, etc., are not taxable fringe benefits. Membership in a country club is, though. Net access, if primarily used for work-related things, would not be. Just as company phone calls are not treated as a fringe benefit for the employees making the phone calls. Or business trips. And so on. At least one community has tried to treat _parking places_ (and I don't mean special, tree-shaded, reserved, V.I.P. parking places) as taxable benefits. This is to try to get more people to car-pool, or telecommute, or somesuch. Howls of protest pretty much drove this idea back into the hole from whence it came. Many of my Intel friends have Net accounts, obviously, and yet the number of posts on the Usenet or elsewhere from "*.intel.com" are relatively low. I asked a couple of friends of mine about this, and they confirmed that Intel management has discouraged public postings and comments from *.intel.com domain accounts. Understandable, for reasons I have discussed many times. Many employees of companies find it easier to purchase their own account from Netcom, Earthlink, Best, etc., and so have a Net name unaffiliated with their employer. --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:phoneco vs X-phone
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim bell writes: >What do you mean, "doesn't really fit the facts"?!? What part of >it was incorrect? Fiber-optic _is_ commonly used in inter-office >trunks, right? It doesn't wear out, right? Higher usage doesn't >entail greater costs, right? The capacity, while not strictly >infinite, is high enough so expanded usage doesn't strain most >links, right? Finally, modern phone switches have sufficient >connect capacity so that they can handle usage which would have >been considered "unusual" by yesteryear's standards. All >of this points to an obvious conclusion: Telephone companies do >not, in general, have increased costs as a consequence of >increased telephone usage. Fiber does not wear out per se, but it does need replacing, partly from the inevitable contractor accidents (landscapers) and occasional entropic events. Mux cards and repeaters do go bad on a regular basis, there is a correlation between usage and increased maintenance, and of course increased usage means increased electricity usage. One point that seems to be missed here is the very high cost of compliance with government regulations. If the internet phone people have to comply with the same regulations it will drive up their costs dramatically, and if the regulations are lifted for all, the RBOC's think they can out compete them. Thank you for your interesting post. Brian "Zazen? Well it beats sitting around on your ass all day doing nothing."

1 0

Re: Billy boy's satellites [Was - Floating DataHaven]
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:26 PM 8/20/96, Brian Davis wrote: >On Mon, 19 Aug 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: >> There's some obvious crypto/GAK/New World Order issues: many countries may >> not care for a communications system which allows citizen-units or enemy >> agents to make phone calls from the middle of the Kalahari desert or from >> within the jungles of Burma. >> > >Or the streets of New York or Washington. Not too long ago, in my former >life as a federal prosecutor, I attended a Computer Crimes conference at >Quantico (the FBI part, not the Marine part). One of the speakers >discussed LEO satellites and satellite cellular phones. The "difficulty" >in wiretapping those phones was of grave concern to most of those present.... I am sure this is a very real concern and a very real motivation for some of the work being done on international key escrow (GAK--Global Access to Keys?). The various governments may be trying to get the several LEO satellite projects to incorporate GAK circuitry now, before it's too late. Once the satellites are up, and the handheld units sold in Fry's and CompUSA, it's too late. I'd hate to see the U.S. on the same side of the issue of free and open communications (which means encrypted, if people so choose) as Burma, Libya, Singapore, and France. --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

Re: Securing Internet mail at the MTA level
by Stephen Cobb 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:29 AM 8/20/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Hi, > >Recently, I've been looking into securing email at the MTA level, and >would like to get your thoughts on implementation possibilities and >related issues. > >The problems that I'm trying to solve are: > 1. Host authentication > 2. Data privacy > Hmmm, have you thought about how this might fit/mesh/work with the security mechanisms in IPv6? Just a thought...Stephen

1 0

Re: Securing Internet mail at the MTA level
by Erik E. Fair 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

SSH, while a quite useful tool, is not the right long-term solution for transport layer security - IP security is. It's also clear to me that for E-mail, you don't want transport level security for the system; you want "object" security, that is, digital signature and encryption of the mail message. That way, no matter how many MTAs the message passes through (and pretty much regardless of how trustworthy they are) you have end-to-end authentication, integrity and privacy. Erik Fair <fair(a)clock.org>

3 3

Re: Taxes on Internet access prediction
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:54 PM 8/20/96, Mike McNally wrote: >Sure, but clearly that's not exclusively the case. (Amazingly enough >to some might be the fact that my for-work e-mail volume far exceeds >my not-for-work volume.) Hopefully I haven't brought too much shame >to my employer. > >In any case, with the IRS it's often less a matter of common sense >than what they happen to decide is The Law. Witness the changes in >laws about what constitutes a "home office". Currently, if you're >(let's say) a freelance plumber who maintains a legitimate office ... Caveat: I'm not a defender of income taxes, of course. Nor am I a defender of the IRS. However, on the "home office" situation, most of the examples I encounter, in talking to friends, are clearly scams to save a thousand bucks (or less) on their tax returns. Most of my friends who try to deduct a room in their house because they've put their computer there are clearly not using "20%" or "25%" or whatever of their house as a business. For those who really do actually use a room in their home for building things, for meeting with clients, for operating a home business of some sort, then I think the IRS will have no problems allowing it. (If the subject even comes up, in an audit. There are some reports that attempting to declare a home office increases ones chances of being audited....) As the saying goes, consult a competent expert. A few books detail the expected amount of work that must be done in a "home office," and whether one is likely to qualify. As one data point, I have derived nearly all of my income over the past 10 years from investments. And yet the "work" needed to be done on my computer is such a tiny fraction of my overall use of it that I don't even try to write off my various computers as "investment expenses." Your mileage may vary. And I certainly have not tried to write off a room in my house as a home office. (As it happens, I need few of the "office" resources, so I have my PowerMac and 17" monitor sitting beside my recliner in the family room of my house, where I can lie back, log in, and bliss out in cyberspace.) --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: [RANT] Death of Usenet: Film at 11
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:21 PM 8/19/96 -0700, Roger Healy OBC wrote: >ON >> >> At 1:34 PM 8/19/96 -0700, Mike Duvos wrote: >> >Permit me to go off in an orthogonal direction here and say that >> >I think that we should do away with the concept of a pre-ordained >> >newsgroups in Usenet entirely, in favor of an IRC-like dynamic >> >creation of message pools. >> >> Moderated newsgroups gain reputation from their moderation policies and >> probably should not be included in this scheme. > >Moderated newsgroups have very few posts because hardly anyone reads >them. I second the above propsed IRC-like scheme if it only would apply >to moderated groups, because of IRC's bad reputation of moderation. Don't confuse quantity with quality. When I want a FAQ for some area I don't normally follow, I go to news.answers. I know I won't be buried in social good times the way someone who wants to know about cryptography is buried when they go to cyperpunks. I have no such assurance if I were to go to the news group which created the FAQ. The reason there are so many different models on the net is they each serve a purpose. Don't make the mistake of trying to jam everything into one mold. Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Cave ab homine unius lebri | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | [Beware the man of one | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | book] - Anonymous Latin | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: phoneco vs x-phones
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own, I do not speak for Ameritech or it's alliance partners. I wrote: >>One point that seems to be missed here is the very high cost of >>compliance with government regulations. If the internet phone >>people have to comply with the same regulations it will drive up >>their costs dramatically, and if the regulations are lifted for >>all, the RBOC's think they can out compete them. Jim Bell replies: >If that is the main difference in costs, then we should abandon >those regs. Another big cost is billing, which could be eliminated >if usage were unmetered. In any case, I tend to agree: Make >these changes, eliminate the LD/local subsidy, and the LD >companies would have no problem (at least domestically) competing >against Internet phone. (International may be a different story, >because foreign telcos tend to be owned by countries.) Yes compliance costs are a sore subject. Billing costs are actually very cheap,(the mainframes are on the floor above me) the difference between sending a metered bill or a flat rate bill is tiny. Really tiny (NDA). The local/long distance subsidy was eliminated at breakup, but long distance companies do have to pay to use local networks, but as competition heats up these rates are dropping and new players (competitors) join the table, Or they can build their own. ;) One of the fun turns of events might be that the threat of x-phones might lead the RBOC's to actually turn into an ISP's! We could pull this off at amazing speed. (if you can't beat them, join them!) We are after all one of the four major nodes of the Internet...... Heh heh heh....... Brian "Zazen? Well it beats sitting around on your ass all day doing nothing."

1 0

RFC1984 on Cryptographic Technology
by Loren James Rittle 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FYI, To: IETF-Announce:;@ietf.org Subject: RFC1984 on Cryptographic Technology Cc: rfc-ed(a)isi.edu Date: Tue, 20 Aug 96 08:40:43 PDT Sender: ietf-announce-request(a)ietf.org From: RFC Editor <rfc-ed(a)isi.edu> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 1984: Title: IAB and IESG Statement on Cryptographic Technology and the Internet Author: IAB & IESG Date: August 1996 Mailbox: brian(a)dxcoms.cern.ch, fred(a)cisco.com Pages: 5 Characters: 10,738 Updates/Obsoletes: none URL: ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1984.txt The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), the bodies which oversee architecture and standards for the Internet, are concerned by the need for increased protection of international commercial transactions on the Internet, and by the need to offer all Internet users an adequate degree of privacy. Security mechanisms being developed in the Internet Engineering Task Force to meet these needs require and depend on the international use of adequate cryptographic technology. Ready access to such technology is therefore a key factor in the future growth of the Internet as a motor for international commerce and communication. [...]

1 0

Key Length Correlation
by Jeff Davis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've read Blaze and diffie's paper on Semetric Key Length. I'm currious how semetric key length correlates to public key cryptography length. Does public key length have to be much longer, (assuming the algorithms are strong), to provide the same level of security as a shorter semetric key? TIA -- According to John Perry Barlow: *What is EFF?* "Jeff Davis is a truly gifted trouble-maker." *email <info(a)eff.org>* *** O U T L A W S On The E L E C T R O N I C F R O N T I E R **** US Out Of Cyberspace!!! Join EFF Today! *email <membership(a)eff.org>*

2 1

lambda 2.10 (fwd) -- (ie -- French Consitution censors net)
by <pstira＠escape.com> 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just passing this on in case it strikes anyone's interest :) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 20:10:02 +0100 From: Jerome Thorel <jt(a)freenix.fr> To: thorel(a)netpress.fr Subject: lambda 2.10 netizen's --> Lambda Bulletin 2.10 <-- contents flash bulletin + French Constitution censors Internet control + Singapore and the Censorship Proxy Server + G7 and the EC take strong steps for Key Escrow Encryption * * * * * French Constitution censors Internet control As we speculated in our last bulletin (2.09), the French Conseil Constitutionnel, watchdog of the 1958 Constitution, censored 2 articles in a new telecom act which were intended to establish a kind of administrative control over Internet speech and online services. The nine "Sages" said that the creation of the Conseil Superieur de la Telematique, which would have make guidelines on Internet content, breaches article 34 of the Constitution which states that the Parliament can act alone to dictate rules concerning "civic rights and fundamentals garanties given to citizens for a fair exercice of public liberties". The CST could have undermine these principles, because the law didn't specify clearly how it would have taken its decisions. So the Conseil recognized the particular state of the Internet, which is not a basic medium. Only one section remains in the censored law : it obliges ISPs to give their clients "technical means" to forbid or select access to online services, software that allows a so-called "parental control". * * * * * Singapore and the Censorship Proxy Server A communique from SingNet, Singapore's main Internet Service Provider, states that "ALL SingNet customers will be required to connect to SingNet's proxy server by the deadline September 14th 1996, failing which you would not be able to access the web without the proxy. This applies to all dial-up, ISDN, and leased line customers (STIX customers are exempted). " The proxy server will ease the ISP to "Deny access to blacklisted sites supplied by SBA". SingNet said that "Access to sites banned by the SBA will prompt the message : The site you requested is not accessible For more information on Singapore's Internet regulation, please check http://www.gov.sg/sba/netreg/regrel.htm". On July 11 the Singapore government passed the Singapore Broadcasting Authority Act (Chapter 297) in which it announced a "Class Licence Scheme" aimed "to encourage responsible use of the Internet while facilitating its healthy development in Singapore. It encourages minimum standards in cyberspace and seeks to protect Net users, particularly the young, against the broadcast of unlawful or objectionable materials. ... SBA will focus on content which may undermine public morals, political stability and religious harmony of Singapore. However, SBA recognises that it is impossible to regulate the Internet fully. ... Singaporeans can help SBA in the identification of objectionable sites in order to keep cyberspace clean. SBA welcomes public feedback on objectionable content found on the Internet. Members of the public can write to SBA, call its toll-free hotline ... or post their views on the SBA homepage at http://www.gov.sg/sba. " China, which has created its own Internet regulations aimed at controlic data traffic and urged netizens to declare themselves to the authorities, approved the Singapore Act and an official was quoted as saying, "China has a lot to learn from Singapore's experience" (source : Fight-censorship mailing list). * * * * * G7 and the EC take strong steps for Key Escrow Encryption The European Commission's DG-13 division on information security (Infosec) opened on July 30th a "call for tenders" for "preparatory works" towards regulating encryption procedures. The plan is aimed to test the introduction of the Europe-wide network of Trusted Third Party Services (ETS). Observers saw in this move the so-called "guidelines" the EC was to propose last year, when press reports (Nature, Sept. 28, 1995) argued the Commission and the Council of Europe in Strasbourg were willing to regulate encryption use through the creation of TTPs. The Infosec call for tenders, which will end by September 30, is to "identify, define and verify ... operationnal, technical, regulatory and legal aspects ... to assess the effectiveness, economics and acceptability of Trusted Third Party Services." Other voices in European talks, however, said these "preparatory works" are to push for EU countries to adopt TTPs and the principles of key-escrow encryption. Nordic countries such as Finland, Denmark and Sweden, are said to be opposed to change encryption legislation, as France and Britain took steps in June and July to enforce the creation of TTPs in their own country. On July 30 G7 countries agreed policies that would "accelerate consultations on encryption that allows, when necessary, lawful government access to data and communications in order to prevent or investigate acts of terrorism, while protecting the privacy of legitimate communications". The EPIC, in Washington, DC, said "stronger measures sought by the US to restrict information on the Internet and limit the availabilioty of encryption were apparently not adopted by the G7 countries". Among other industrialised nations, Japan and Australia are said, like Nordic countries in Europe, to oppose key escrow as a mean to regulate the free flow of information. Remember the OECD talks in June, were the US tried to impose key-escrow legislation to the 27-countries' club of the industrial world (see lambda 2.09) ***** Soon archived on www.freenix.fr/netizen ----- Jerome Thorel =-= Journaliste/Free-lance Reporter =-= Paris, France =+= the lambda bulletin --> http://www.freenix.fr/netizen =+=

1 0

How To Subscribe?
by kdf＠gigo.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Would someone please netmail me the current subscription procedure? Thanks. JE -- : Fidonet: John Erland 1:203/7707.12 .. speaking for only myself. : Internet: kdf(a)gigo.com

1 0