December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

no subject (file transmission)
by captain.sarcastic 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Wed Dec 4 12:13:32 1996 Received: from RES2.RESNET.UPENN.EDU (root(a)RES2.RESNET.UPENN.EDU [130.91.195.242]) by mail1.panix.com (8.7.5/8.7.1/PanixM1.0+) with ESMTP id MAA19692 for <kkoller(a)panix.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:13:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from poboxer.pobox.com (poboxer.pobox.com [207.8.188.2]) by RES2.RESNET.UPENN.EDU (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA16268 for <kkoller(a)RES2.RESNET.UPENN.EDU>; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:15:08 -0500 Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by poboxer.pobox.com (8.7.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id MAA32202 for <kkoller(a)sarcasm.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:12:55 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id FAA12796 for cypherpunks-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 05:40:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from uu.psi.com (uu.psi.com [136.161.128.3]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA12790 for <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 05:40:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA02842 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 96 08:38:47 -0500 Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Wed, 04 Dec 96 08:32:49 EST for cypherpunks(a)toad.com To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com, freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org Subject: Re: The Rise and Fall of Cypherpunks WAS [Re: the Dennings] From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Comments: All power to the ZOG! Message-Id: <DZyeyD70w165w(a)bwalk.dm.com> Date: Wed, 04 Dec 96 08:22:00 EST In-Reply-To: <32A579A8.718(a)earthlink.net> Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk Stephen Boursy <boursy(a)earthlink.net> writes: > Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > > > C'punks, See punks post. See punks rant. See punks flame. Laugh, laugh, laugh. > > On Tue, 3 Dec 1996, Dave Hayes wrote: > > > >> The very existance of the "profane" keeps the "sacred" in > >> existance as well. If you cannot see that, then John Grubor's > >> lesson is wasted on you. > > > > If this bit of verbal legerdemain makes any sense at all > > (Logos?), then Grubor must be personally responsible for the "Logos" suffers from verbal diarrhea and can only be pitied. Anonymous cowards like him are the worst enemy of crypto-enhanced privacy. > > existance of every saint on the Catholic calendar...not. > > Well saints come on go on the Roman Catholic calander--doesn't > mean a hell of a lot. We have a Greek Orthodox church of St. Dimitri not too far from here. They mistakenly think that I'm Greek and send me the same newsletter they send to everybody else named Dimitri. Some of it is in English, so I learned quite a bit about the life of the original St. Dimitri: He was a foul-mouthed Greek who lived in 3rd century CE and got into trouble for badmouthing the Romans and other Pagans. I suppose he's an RC saint too. I used to work for the Jesuits - very educational. He is not to be confused with the Russian St. Dimitri Donskoy who beat the shit out of the Mongols. That was after the schism, so he's _not RC saint. > Dr. Grubor does an excellent job of bring the vermin out of > the woodwork. Yes - thank you Dr. Grubor for your fine work. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Codebreakers on the shelves!
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Codebreakers by Kahn is available at some stores. (Powell's Technical books in Portland, OR has copies. It is right next to Applied Cryptography.) It has not filtered down to some ordering systems, so some bookstores claim it is out of print. Warning: The book is $65.00 hardbound! (It is also *NOT* a small book. It is large. About 2000 pages by my guess. (Maybe more. I was being pulled out of the bookstore at the time. My wife was trying to save me from the evil mind control rays of Powell's Tech books.) I know what is on my shopping list for Christmas. --- | "Spam is the Devil's toothpaste!" - stuart(a)teleport.com | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com|

2 1

Re:
by Matthew J. Miszewski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>I consider it my business also, when people are denied opportunity because >>of where they live. > >Why not simply disagree with me? You do not believe that people may >lend their very own money, earned honestly, to anybody they please. Actually, I never said that. Anyone may. I may hire only white people (even with the intent not to hire others). I will also pay the consequences. And if someone feels that they need to do this, the teachers of civil disobedience indeed state it is their duty to. Anyone may give their money to whomever they choose. I was simply stating it was morally wrong. >If you are ashamed of that, change your mind. If you are not ashamed, >proclaim it the world and justify it. I have never been ashamed of my opinions. Its just that I never said they couldn't do it. I justify my position as follows: It is costly to everyone in the state to have areas of under and unemployment, poverty and usually high-crime rates. It is unjust and costly to deny opportunity based upon residence. It is just and efficient to allow markets to indeed be free instead of falsely supporting a certain hegemony based upon residence. Free and full competition is the only way to achieve a free market. This can only happen when access to capital is equal with regard to worthless indicators (race, sex, residence and aga's favorite, sexual orientation). I have never suggested that provably bad credit risks should be given money. >>I may also hire whomever I wish, but I would have to pay the >>consequences if I happened to discriminate based on a protected class >>while doing so. That is the society in which I live. If I dont like >>it, I try to change it. Our society is not libertarian. > >Current policy doesn't matter if we are discussing the wisdom or >justice of possible policies. It does if my argument is that this part of the system *is* just. I realize you disagree, but I am sure you are not dismissing my argument out-of-hand. If you disagree, as you say, then disagree. >It isn't clear to me whether you are discussing policy options or >whether one should violate laws one does not like. When an action is >illegal, it is still permissible to discuss its legalization. I agree. I am not arguing that we need to withdraw Title VII. Aparently you are? >>There are times when government should intervene. I believe it >>should be as infrequent as possible, but would not want to live in a >>society where disinfranchised people have no possible recourse. Your >>choice would apparently be different. > >Perhaps. In any event, it is important to understand precisely the >mechanisms through which people are disenfranchised, if that is in >fact what has happened. It is also important to understand the >ramifications of phrases like "no possible recourse". To borrow >money? It is safe to say that most poor people should be saving money >rather than borrowing it. Why are you stepping around your opinion? "...if that is in fact what has happened." Just say it. You do not believe poor people are disenfranchised. I understand the ramifications of "no possible recourse". How should poor people save money? Through some forms of civil disobedience like stealing food and clothes and then putting that money in the bank? Of course, the police will understand. The government will back them. Look, capital begets capital. I favor increasing opportunity. As I will discuss below, there are reasons why capital does not flow to poor areas. >>I have not heard serious doubts for a while that redlining occurs. > >It seems likely that people draw lines around certain areas and decide >not to lend money there. What is less clear is that this is >unreasonable. There may be a few good credit risks in poor >neighborhoods. But, it may just be too much trouble weeding through >the others to make it a paying business. I thought that it didnt matter where people came from as long as the risk was low in reality. Banks weed through the people coming to them from the suburbs. Is it harder for them to see past a red line? More costly? How? It is too much trouble because of the way that bankers think. >It may also be the case that people lending money are behaving >irrationally and drawing lines around neighborhoods for simple racial >reasons and for no others. There is a word for this: opportunity. It also screws up the market. I am glad that you admit that racism is irrational. That is the core as to why the problem doesnt go away. It is an infinite loop. Current interests wont go there. Generally, people who understand the problem are without access to capital. They would like to go there. They cant get capital. When they approach current interests, they wont go there. >Bank of America was built by a man who perceived and exploited one >such opportunity. Italian shop keepers in California could not get >good banking services for, it turned out, irrational reasons. > There are a few examples of people who actually realize this as a problem/opportunity. Oddly enough, this point reinforces mine. Redlining did exist. Bank of America realized it and made a lot of money. But it still exists elsewhere. Why dont business plans around the country spring up on venture capitalists desks with an approved stamp on them? >>I would love to have the financial wherewithal to startup such an >>enterprise. Unfortuantely I reside in one such neighborhood. > >People start businesses without their own capital all the time. If >there really is such a great opportunity, go find some rich people. >Rich people, like other people, are always happy to hear about ways to >make more money. Ahhh. This is the key (which I probably did not make as clear as I should have). They wont. It is a bit irrational, I know. But we just discussed irrationality. Racism doesnt see green. If it did, I agree with you that capital would flow there. It doesnt. >They don't even have to put the money in for a long >time. Once you've set up a package of mortgages, you can sell them >off on the CMO market which is liquid and, I believe, quite >colorblind. The beauty of this scheme is that you can take your >profits right away and let other people take on the long term interest >rate risk, default risk, and management hassles. This will make your >plan easier to sell to investors. I agree with you that it is a financially attractive proposition. At the Center for Public Representation where I worked during Law School we approached investors. The ROI was extremely attractive not to mention the added "goodwill" in a largely liberal community (I went to Law School in Madison, Wisconsin). No one bit. Hmm? >You might also look into the microlending market. The idea is to lend >poor people small amounts of money (less than $10,000) to start >businesses and the like. The default rates are claimed to be >surprisingly low. I have my doubts, but it sounds as if you do not. >Good luck. Actually, I am very glad you brought it up because I was just going to. Microloans are successful not only in this country but in India and around the world as well. The Grammeen Bank initiated its microloan program in India by loaning usually less than $100 to individuals. They fixed up their residences or started extremely small businesses. The default rate was less than 5%. (BTW, the system also encouraged community by a system of cyclical neighborhood lending where neighbors took responsibility for neighbors). Compare this now to people whom banks would generally consider a good risk. College Graduates. Generally, these folks live outside of the red line. Good risks right? What about those nasty student loan default rates? The red lines dont make business sense. >>It is difficult enough to raise money to run a small business (and >>turned out to be much easier to do without any bank lending at all). >>I have talked with people about starting their own banks. > >In principle, there is no reason at all why banks are the only >institutions that can lend money for mortgages. There may be legal >impediments, but then we are back to the actual culprit, the >government. > >You might find that opening a bank was easier if all you had to do was >take deposits and lend money rather than wading through the morass of >legal requirements and paperwork. I favor the elimination of illogical regulation. I favor ridding banks of burdensome personal property taxes. Hopefully the deregulation set for 1997 will help. My desire for regulation in this case is to eliminate redlining. It is far more burdensome to retain this system than it would be to eliminate it. >>When you are working to make sure all the bills are paid it is a bit >>difficult to also build an entirely new socio-economic structure. > >You don't have to build an entirely new socio-economic structure. You >just have to find some good credit risks, some people with money to >lend, and put them together taking a cut for yourself, unless the >government has thrown up some obstacles to this. I wish it were this easy. Economically depressed areas need new structures built. The current structure adds to the cycle of poverty. First, earnings are low. Second, costs are high (Warehouse foodstores dont locate there so corner stores become the means of feeding the family ($$$)). Again, business plans have been presented to no avail. Even private foundation subsidized events were tried. To no avail. >No, actually they do care, they just don't think (correctly) that they >can get it easily. > >I have no idea if your local bank has "anonymous accounts". More >probably, they have accounts for which they do not report transactions >in excess of $10,000, but which are held by people they know fairly >well. This is more common than you might think, and not just for >laundering drug money. Tax evasion is widely practiced. I am aware of this. But drug dealers hold more cash than CEO's. Aparently the laundromat isnt open for everyone. ;-) >But wouldn't the racist banks be hurting their business? Doesn't the >punishment go quite closely with the "crime"? They would not be making as much as they could. Irrational, I know. >If you believe that there is a huge opportunity which the racist banks >(i.e., all of them) will not take advantage of, you had better explain >why there is nobody anywhere with any capital who wouldn't want to >make even more money off poor people. Can it really be the case that >99+% of rich people will run fleeing from such a great opportunity? I once believed much like you. I saw an "opportunity" the existance of which I could not explain. It seemed irrational. And it was. Racism is irrational. As you seem aware (BTW, I applaud you on what seems to be an honest degree of care) some are trying to break through the cycle. The south side of Chicago recently started there own bank. It is working. As you mention, historically, the Bank of America story. Redevelopment efforts "seem" to abound. >Oh, and speaking of racism, where do wealthy African-Americans invest >their money? Huh? What is your point? >>Everyone can now clamor that it just isnt true. Banks have never >>discriminated. Its all a big lie. Whatever. > >Banks have practiced discrimination, and not just against black >people. They have been able to get away with it. How? Because the >government has protected the banking guild from competition. > >If opening a bank were as easy as forming a corporation, you would not >see much discrimination, I assure you. There is no reason why a bank >shouldn't be that easy to open. We agree. But I feel that a legal elimination of redlining would decrease costs to the industry. >Appeals to the very people who are exploiting you are not likely >to meet with success, are they? If they never did we would still have slavery and only white, adult, male, land-owners would vote. While success is rare, it has prevailed when the cause is just. >>The real world I live in is just not as simple as the Libertarian Wet >>Dream(TM). > >Then it should be fairly easy to refute my points instead making >fatuous remarks such as the one above. Come on, one fatuous remark in a whole post? I thought that was good ;-) >Red Rackham > Matt

1 0

Singapore Sling -- A second look, from The Netly News
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:38:28 -0500 (EST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Singapore Sling -- A second look, from The Netly News The Netly News http://netlynews.com December 4, 1996 SINGAPORE SLING By Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) Singapore seems to possess no more resolution than some primitive VR world. There is no dirt whatsoever, no muss, no furred fractal edge to things. Outside, the organic, florid as ever in the tropics, has been gardened into brilliant green, and all-too-perfect examples of itself. At least that's what William Gibson wrote about the country in Wired magazine three years ago. I'm in Singapore now to find out what's happened since then. Marvin Tay stands at the exit to the airport, waving a copy of the December issue of Wired in semaphore, as animated and affable as the corridors of the Changi Airtropolis are chilly and sterile. Marvin works at Information Frontiers Ltd, a local Internet firm. He's also my self-appointed tour guide and critic. "You've developed quite a reputation around here," he tells me on the drive into town. To Marvin, my criticisms of Singapore in previous columns were too harsh. The country is not a police state. Gibson was wrong. Singapore is not "Disneyland with a death penalty." Marvin is one of Singapore's growing number of digerati. Glued to his handphone, he tears around the island in a late-model Alfa Romeo that, thanks to the astronomical auto taxes, cost him more than I make in three years. "The government is basically very paternalistic," he says. "Like your government and J. Edgar Hoover in the 1950s." He doesn't seem to mind. Business is good. We drive on. Indeed, Singapore is like the U.S. of four decades ago. It's like flying into a kind of twisted central-planning father-knows-best time warp. Lining the streets next to such quintessentially American stores as Reebok, Esprit and Timberland are government agencies like the Board of Film Censors and buildings housing the "Social Development Unit" government-run dating service and the "Home Ownership for the People Scheme." Yet Singapore is aggressively marketing itself as an information city of the future. Data will flow through its cyber-byways and as an online hub the nation will prosper as it did as a 19th century trading center. At least that's the plan. Singapore's commitment to free trade is long-standing. Settled by the British in 1819, the 585-square kilometer island quickly became Fortress Singapore, the empire's key southeast Asia trading post. After WWII and independence from the crown came Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, a censor-happy kind of politico whose accomplishments include a ban on jukeboxes. Lee Kuan Yew believes that this tiny island-nation prospers best under a blend of economic freedom and strict social controls. Political liberty is to be shoved aside in favor of strengthening economic muscle. As Ian Buruma writes in a recent issue of TIME Asia, now that Asians are in power themselves, they endorse the essentially colonial idea that Asian people are not yet ready for freedom. The public must become better educated, or wealthier, or more disciplined, or more virtuous. The point is that for an authoritarian government, people are never ready for freedom, not just yet. The traffic light turns yellow. We screech to a stop. Marvin glances at me. "Here we slow down for a yellow light," he explains. All is proper. Order is king. That's why criticizing Singapore is almost too easy. Chaos is verboten. Chewing gum sales are prohibited. Sell drugs, you face the gallows. Canings are routine. Playboy, Penthouse and Cosmo all are banned. (The offending article in Cosmo was the one giving women tips on how to commit adultery and not get caught.) Even a recent episode of "Friends" was censored. This summer, of course, the Singapore Broadcasting Authority (SBA) decided to regulate the Net. Now Internet traffic crossing the border must flow through filters blocking sites that may cause impure thoughts. But still. . . People live here. What do they think of this? In the five days I've spent here so far, at cafes on the Boat-quay, in government offices lining Orchard Road and over Indonesian oxtail soup, I've learned that netizens in Singapore are slightly embarrassed. They don't particularly care for the SBA's regs, yet they defend them with the lackluster effort that Americans might reserve for justifying the wackier actions of the U.S. Congress. "Americans distrust the government," the locals say. "Singaporeans don't. You know they'll do it right. The government has a track record of success." Small surprise; nobody likes to hear outsiders criticizing their culture. What's more, goes the argument, the SBA has only extended existing rules to the Net. "How can we argue for Net freedom without attacking the existing laws?" one lawyer asks me. Marvin suggests an answer: you can't. "Outwardly, Singaporeans may look like any western people. But by culture, by value, they're still Asian," he says. "Do we look repressed here?" a group of soc.culture.singapore denizens asks me. Marvin has driven me to one of the cyber-cafes overlooking the waterfront. I rest my $4 lime juice on one of the Sun Sparcstation 4s tied into a T-1. "No," I say. Perhaps it's that wealth, the economic riches so evident in the glittering glass-and-steel office towers, that permits Singapore cyberians to tolerate broad restrictions on online speech. Or perhaps it's the fact that the nation has no First Amendment tradition -- its constitution includes explicit provisions for government censorship. Besides, the restrictions arguably aren't overly burdensome. Only about 100 overseas sites are blocked by the proxy filters, and circumventing these automated border police is a snap. [...]

1 0

Re: Sorry for the "TWIT" messages
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Don't worry about it. You don't have to send anyone any more messages to confirm your twit-ness. diGriz > >Hi, > >Well seems I had a rather intresting morining. :) After receiving several "Phreak messages >I went to modify my "twit" scripts. Unfortunatly the changes I made caused ~50 "twit" >messages to go out. My appologies to anyone who received these messages. > >Thanks, > >-- >----------------------------------------------------------- >William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii >Geiger Consulting WebExplorer & Java Enhanced!!!

1 0

RE: new mailing list & ITAR
by Mullen Patrick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

==========> _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Michael C Taylor (CSD) on Wed, Dec 4, 1996 13:54 On Tue, 3 Dec 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > Meta-question: if someone posts strong crypto source code to the > moderated mailing list, can the moderator(s) be prosecuted under ITAR? The moderator would not prosecuted if the moderator & host machine wasn't located in USA and not a USA citizen and if the post was not from USA. The poster may be a target if located inside USA or a USA citizen. The moderator might be prosecuted if the post originated inside USA or went through USA to be exported outside USA & Canada. Welcome to the rest of the world. ---- Michael C. Taylor <mctaylor(a)mta.ca> Programmer, Mount Allison University <========== Wouldn't this be the case only if it was a *moderated* list? If it's moderated, the list operator becomes a _publisher_ and is responsible for it's content. If it's *unmoderated*, the list operator is a _distributor_ and therefore not responsible for the content his medium provides. Just like how a bookstore isn't responsible for the contents of the books; the publishers/authors are. (Well, public opinion may drive a store out of town, just like public opinion may kill a listserv...) My apologies if I'm behind in the times and this decision no longer stands. PM #include <standard_disclaimer> Spyjure(a)comports.com http://www.netforward.com/comports/?Spyjure Crypto-Anarchy-Security esp. WRT Linux <It's getting there, anyway... Work's been taking up too much time to update the site as often as I wish>

1 0

RE: The Good dr. Dobbs
by pclow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry Dr Boz, but all I saw on the page was this : "404 Not Found The requested URL /whitepaper.htm was not found on this server. " I would like to point out that our white paper with technical details can be found on our Web-site: www.dsnt.com/whitepaper.htm -- Dr. Eva Bozoki Chief Scientist DSN Technology, Inc. (516)467-0400

3 2

Mounties charge dealer over sales of U.S. Dishes
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

By Robert Brehl - Toronto Star Business Reporter Canada's satellite wars have heated up with the first dealers of the U.S. DirecTV dishes being arrested and charged under the federal Radiocommunication Act. ``Iraq doesn't allow its citizens to have satellite dishes either,'' said Stan LeBlanc, a dealer in Yarmouth, N.S., who was charged. ``Never thought I'd see the day when 12 or 15 Mounties would storm into my building because I'm selling things the public wants.'' LeBlanc was charged this week after Royal Canadian Mounted Police raided his electronics store Nov. 13 and seized 83 access cards for DirecTV set-top boxes, some computers, cash and two satellite dishes. The Mounties have raided dozens of satellite dealers from coast-to-coast, except in Ontario, since June. Now formally charged are LeBlanc; his father, Ray Sr.; and David Lloyd Williams. LeBlanc said the access cards were not the so-called pirate cards that allow viewers to watch DirecTV programming for free. The cards seized require customers to have U.S. addresses for DirecTV bills, he said. The dealers have been charged with possessing and selling equipment that decodes encrypted satellite signals. LeBlanc said he has seven competitors in Yarmouth that also sell U.S. satellite dishes, and none was charged. ``When they raided me, they even parked in one of my competitor's parking lots under a sign advertising the 18-inch dishes,'' LeBlanc said. Last month, Industry Minister John Manley issued a warning to satellite dealers and TV viewers that selling or using U.S. dishes could be illegal. Canada is estimated to have more than 200,000 U.S. dishes. Three Canadian firms have been licensed to offer direct-to-home satellite service, but none has yet launched. RCMP officials in Nova Scotia could not be reached last night.

1 0

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:26 AM 12/4/1996, Matthew J. Miszewski wrote: >>>I consider it my business also, when people are denied opportunity because >>>of where they live. >> >>Why not simply disagree with me? You do not believe that people may >>lend their very own money, earned honestly, to anybody they please. > >Actually, I never said that. You say it below. >Anyone may. I may hire only white people (even with the intent not >to hire others). I will also pay the consequences. And if someone >feels that they need to do this, the teachers of civil disobedience >indeed state it is their duty to. > >Anyone may give their money to whomever they choose. I was simply stating >it was morally wrong. > >>If you are ashamed of that, change your mind. If you are not ashamed, >>proclaim it the world and justify it. > >I have never been ashamed of my opinions. Its just that I never said they >couldn't do it. I justify my position as follows: > >It is costly to everyone in the state to have areas of under and >unemployment, poverty and usually high-crime rates. > >It is unjust and costly to deny opportunity based upon residence. > >It is just and efficient to allow markets to indeed be free instead of >falsely supporting a certain hegemony based upon residence. > >Free and full competition is the only way to achieve a free market. This >can only happen when access to capital is equal with regard to worthless >indicators (race, sex, residence and aga's favorite, sexual orientation). See, right above there. If I earned my very own money honestly and I choose to lend it only to Albanians, you believe that this would be inefficient and, therefore, forbidden. In other words, you do not believe that I should be able to lend money to anybody I please. You can call it "equal access to capital" or "denial of opportunity", but the clearest and simplest description is that you believe I should not be able to lend my money to whomever I please. Instead of pretending otherwise, just say "I believe you should not be able to lend your own money which you earned honestly to anybody you please. I believe you should be allowed only to lend money in these circumstances..." Of course, non-discrimination is a vague term. Let's say I lend money only to people I know. I only know Albanians. Am I therefore a racist in my lending practices? That is unclear. Am I racist in my choice of friends? Perhaps we should make that illegal. >I have never suggested that provably bad credit risks should be given money. What is irksome is that you are talking about Other People's Money and not your own. The perspective tends to change when it's your own savings on the line. >>>I may also hire whomever I wish, but I would have to pay the >>>consequences if I happened to discriminate based on a protected class >>>while doing so. That is the society in which I live. If I dont like >>>it, I try to change it. Our society is not libertarian. >> >>Current policy doesn't matter if we are discussing the wisdom or >>justice of possible policies. > >It does if my argument is that this part of the system *is* just. I >realize you disagree, but I am sure you are not dismissing my argument >out-of-hand. If you disagree, as you say, then disagree. Actually, I have trouble following your argument. Please forgive me for my limited intelligence. If you are arguing that the current policy is just, that question is not related to whether it is the current policy. But, I suppose you were just sort of observing on the side something like "oh, and by the way, this is current policy." >>It isn't clear to me whether you are discussing policy options or >>whether one should violate laws one does not like. When an action is >>illegal, it is still permissible to discuss its legalization. > >I agree. I am not arguing that we need to withdraw Title VII. Aparently >you are? I do not know what is in Title VII. Perhaps it would be better to ask me about particular policies. >>>There are times when government should intervene. I believe it >>>should be as infrequent as possible, but would not want to live in a >>>society where disinfranchised people have no possible recourse. Your >>>choice would apparently be different. >> >>Perhaps. In any event, it is important to understand precisely the >>mechanisms through which people are disenfranchised, if that is in >>fact what has happened. It is also important to understand the >>ramifications of phrases like "no possible recourse". To borrow >>money? It is safe to say that most poor people should be saving money >>rather than borrowing it. > >Why are you stepping around your opinion? "...if that is in fact what has >happened." Just say it. You do not believe poor people are >disenfranchised. In fact, I am open to the possibility that poor people really are disenfranchised. But, if I am to believe that I must hear an explanation that makes sense to me. If poor people are poor because absolutely nobody will do business with them for completely irrational reasons, that seems extremely unlikely. Even if most rich people are able to control their greed just to punish poor people of the wrong race, which is already hard to believe, you actually have to claim that they are all this way. >I understand the ramifications of "no possible recourse". How should >poor people save money? Just like anybody else does. You watch every penny. You don't eat meat. When you buy food, you buy inexpensive healthy food like lentils instead of expensive unhealthy food like Coca-Cola and potato chips. You do not go to McDonald's. You walk when you can instead of taking the bus or you ride a (used) bicycle. You don't smoke cigarettes. You do not buy alcohol. You do not buy other recreational drugs. You buy your clothing used. You economize on your living arrangements, perhaps by having a large number of roomates. (Note that this is illegal in most cities. That is a form of disenfranchisment.) You do not make long distance calls. If you can, you share a phone with other people. etc. etc. etc. If you know poor people, you will know that few of them do these things. Also, you work hard to increase your earnings. You show up at work on time every time. You develop a good work ethic. You wear clean professional clothing at work. You treat your employer and coworkers with respect. etc. etc. etc. Read "Your Money or Your Life" by Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin. It outlines a workable program that all poor people - and quite a few others - will be able to use to their benefit. >>>I have not heard serious doubts for a while that redlining occurs. >> >>It seems likely that people draw lines around certain areas and decide >>not to lend money there. What is less clear is that this is >>unreasonable. There may be a few good credit risks in poor >>neighborhoods. But, it may just be too much trouble weeding through >>the others to make it a paying business. > >I thought that it didnt matter where people came from as long as the risk >was low in reality. Banks weed through the people coming to them from the >suburbs. Is it harder for them to see past a red line? More costly? How? If you are going through prospective leads and the number of qualified people is, say, 10 in 1000, you will make a lot more money than going through a pool of leads that only has 1 qualified person per 1000. >>It may also be the case that people lending money are behaving >>irrationally and drawing lines around neighborhoods for simple racial >>reasons and for no others. There is a word for this: opportunity. > >It also screws up the market. But why isn't that good news? If it's really market inefficiency, why not exploit it? >I am glad that you admit that racism is irrational. A lot of human activity is irrational. In the case of racism, it is difficult to even define what it is for the purpose of writing a law under which people are to be prosecuted. This undermines the rule of law in the United States and opens the way to abuse and political corruption. Probably that was the idea. But, even if it were possible to define precisely what racism is, I would still believe it should be legal. There is no accounting for taste and it is wrong to dictate it to other people when they are causing no harm to others. >That is the core as to why the problem doesnt go away. It is an >infinite loop. Current interests wont go there. Not one? Absolutely no one? That's pretty hard to believe. >Generally, people who understand the problem are without access to >capital. They would like to go there. They cant get capital. When >they approach current interests, they wont go there. Maybe there's something funny about the deal. >>Bank of America was built by a man who perceived and exploited one >>such opportunity. Italian shop keepers in California could not get >>good banking services for, it turned out, irrational reasons. >There are a few examples of people who actually realize this as a >problem/opportunity. Oddly enough, this point reinforces mine. >Redlining did exist. Bank of America realized it and made a lot of >money. But it still exists elsewhere. Why dont business plans >around the country spring up on venture capitalists desks with an >approved stamp on them? More to the point, why isn't Matthew J. Miszewski drooling in anticipation of all the money he is going to make by recognizing this glorious opportunity? Giannini made a tremendous amount of money. Even if you don't care about money, which is unlikely, think of all the good you could do once you made that fortune! >>They don't even have to put the money in for a long >>time. Once you've set up a package of mortgages, you can sell them >>off on the CMO market which is liquid and, I believe, quite >>colorblind. The beauty of this scheme is that you can take your >>profits right away and let other people take on the long term interest >>rate risk, default risk, and management hassles. This will make your >>plan easier to sell to investors. > >I agree with you that it is a financially attractive proposition. At the >Center for Public Representation where I worked during Law School we >approached investors. The ROI was extremely attractive not to mention the >added "goodwill" in a largely liberal community (I went to Law School in >Madison, Wisconsin). No one bit. Hmm? Hmmm? Maybe it was lousy investment in spite of a good ROI number. Nobody? Not one person was willing to buy in? Hardly an endorsement. >>You might also look into the microlending market. The idea is to lend >>poor people small amounts of money (less than $10,000) to start >>businesses and the like. The default rates are claimed to be >>surprisingly low. I have my doubts, but it sounds as if you do not. >>Good luck. > >Actually, I am very glad you brought it up because I was just going to. >Microloans are successful not only in this country but in India and around >the world as well. The Grammeen Bank initiated its microloan program in >India by loaning usually less than $100 to individuals. They fixed up >their residences or started extremely small businesses. The default rate >was less than 5%. (BTW, the system also encouraged community by a system >of cyclical neighborhood lending where neighbors took responsibility for >neighbors). > >Compare this now to people whom banks would generally consider a good risk. >College Graduates. Generally, these folks live outside of the red line. >Good risks right? What about those nasty student loan default rates? The >red lines dont make business sense. I'm hearing that cash register ringing. Go for it! >>>When you are working to make sure all the bills are paid it is a bit >>>difficult to also build an entirely new socio-economic structure. >> >>You don't have to build an entirely new socio-economic structure. You >>just have to find some good credit risks, some people with money to >>lend, and put them together taking a cut for yourself, unless the >>government has thrown up some obstacles to this. > >I wish it were this easy. Economically depressed areas need new structures >built. The current structure adds to the cycle of poverty. First, >earnings are low. Guess rents must be low too, otherwise why live there? Rents are a dominant expense for poor people. >Second, costs are high (Warehouse foodstores dont locate there so >corner stores become the means of feeding the family ($$$)). That's easy. Once a month get ten families together to go to the nearest warehouse store in the suburbs and stock up on provisions. Or, one poor family could buy a bunch of stuff every month and sell it out of their house and save everybody the trip. Discussions regarding "the cycle of poverty" are usually little more than litanies of excuses. >Again, business plans have been presented to no avail. Even private >foundation subsidized events were tried. To no avail. Gee, you would almost think there was something wrong with the investment. I challenge you to put your own money into this venture. You don't even have to quit your job to get into the microlending business until you've built it up to the point where it can support you. >>If you believe that there is a huge opportunity which the racist banks >>(i.e., all of them) will not take advantage of, you had better explain >>why there is nobody anywhere with any capital who wouldn't want to >>make even more money off poor people. Can it really be the case that >>99+% of rich people will run fleeing from such a great opportunity? > >I once believed much like you. I saw an "opportunity" the existance of >which I could not explain. It seemed irrational. And it was. What I don't understand is why you are not excited by this opportunity. You claim there is this gaping hole in the banking business. If that is true, whoever exploits it is going to be unbelievably rich in addition to being a great human being. My point is not that there is a great opportunity so "somebody somewhere" will solve the racism problem. My point is that you yourself do not believe there is a great opportunity if it involves money you really care about, i.e. your own. >Racism is irrational. As you seem aware (BTW, I applaud you on what >seems to be an honest degree of care)... Don't get your hopes up. I've been poor and I've known many poor people. The unpleasant truth is that there are usually reasons why people are poor. >>Oh, and speaking of racism, where do wealthy African-Americans invest >>their money? > >Huh? What is your point? You are claiming that there are ZERO investors who will invest in this great opportunity because they are racists. Contrary to popular belief, most African-Americans are not poor or even gang members. There are large numbers of middle class African-Americans and a smaller number of quite successful African-American businesspeople. If everybody rich is a racist, go to these people and propose that they can make money pursuing a business opportunity which they are uniquely qualified to identify and exploit. If you are claiming that even African-American investors are irrationally racist about lending to poor people, you should be forewarned that I and many other people are going to find that a little hard to believe. >>>Everyone can now clamor that it just isnt true. Banks have never >>>discriminated. Its all a big lie. Whatever. >> >>Banks have practiced discrimination, and not just against black >>people. They have been able to get away with it. How? Because the >>government has protected the banking guild from competition. >> >>If opening a bank were as easy as forming a corporation, you would not >>see much discrimination, I assure you. There is no reason why a bank >>shouldn't be that easy to open. > >We agree. But I feel that a legal elimination of redlining would decrease >costs to the industry. Wrong. Redlining is devilishly difficult to define. That hurts a small bank more than any other because they have to figure out how to comply with the law and defend themselves against the regulators instead of just borrowing and lending money. It raises the costs of banking. That means it is harder for people to borrow and lend money. And that, if you care about efficiency, is inefficient. >>Appeals to the very people who are exploiting you are not likely >>to meet with success, are they? > >If they never did we would still have slavery and only white, adult, male, >land-owners would vote. While success is rare, it has prevailed when the >cause is just. I hate to admit it, but you do have a point here. However, the way privacy will be permanently eroded is through laws called "The Privacy Protection Act" which have clauses allowing the government to do whatever it wants. It is disconcerting to have the government dictating what information you may or may not keep on your computer or who you may give it to. Red Rackham

1 0

Re: Anyone considered adding crypto into Microsoft Outlook?
by Lee Fisher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

| The main problem so far seems to be the impenetrability of the | MAPI documentation. Does anyone know of a usable reference or | which of the gazillion Microsoft Developer network CDs one can | find more information? MAPI is in part of the Win32 SDK, whichi is available on MSDN level 2, in the \mstools\mapi subdirectory. http://www.microsoft.com/win32dev/mapi/ is the MAPI home page. http://www.microsoft.com/win32dev/mapi/internet.htm has some good MAPI/Exchange resource pointers. http://www.microsoft.com/msdn/sdk/ is a new site for downloading parts of the SDK online, but it is just getting started (i.e., i'm not sure that the MAPI part is ready yet). as for the other question about Outlook -vs- Exchange, see http://www.microsoft.com/outlook/documents/emailfs/default.htm for a comparison. Lee

1 0

Re: The Rise and Fall of Cypherpunks WAS [Re: the Dennings]
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

SANDY SANDFORT wrote: > On Tue, 3 Dec 1996, Dave Hayes wrote: > > The very existance of the "profane" keeps the "sacred" in > > existance as well. If you cannot see that, then John Grubor's > > lesson is wasted on you. > If this bit of verbal legerdemain makes any sense at all > (Logos?), then Grubor must be personally responsible for the > existance of every saint on the Catholic calendar...not. Now there's an example of properly used logic...not. Why didn't you be honest and just say "I don't understand this, please explain"? This could be because you *want* to be hostile, and you *want* to produce meaningless flames. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet "A terrorist is someone who has a bomb and doesn't have an air force." --some letter-writer in the Manchester Guardian, some years ago

2 1

Re: AOL
by Mark Rosen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> yes.... they did knock off that $3.00 an hour thing. now.. $20.00 unlimited.. > I'd hate to do an AOL spam to the list.. but someone asked.. and for all you > that say 'get a real internet provider'. Well.. I get ALL the same access > most of you do. No shell account...But I can telnet from AOL to one. So > there. Nah nah nah =} Hehe. Then you'll like this: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/6660

1 0

RE: Silence is not assent (re the Vulis nonsense)
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Dale Thorn (in reply to Tim May) If you, Sandy, and the other offenders *really* want to keep the noise down, then next time ask John directly for a reply, and if none is forthcoming, say to the list *once*, "John will not answer up", etc., and let the subscribers draw their own conclusions from the silence, instead of from your inane "defenses". .......................................................... As for myself, I was not speaking for Gilmore nor defending him when I added my reply to the discussion. I brought up an item which others had overlooked (the fact that Vulis had challenged John to censor him) as specific reference to include in their judgement of his actions, as well as illustrating how Vulis had invested a lot of effort in motivating someone into just such a response. As I mentioned in another post yesterday, situations like this, where people overlook elements in an argument, are opportunities for others to "fill in the blanks" or add commentary to clear up the understanding of a situation. It is not unusual for cpunks to post their opinions about an event on the list. The cpunks have strong opinions regarding censorship and there are always arguments about the details of its impropriety or the place of it in a society; the list is a form of cyberspatial "virtual" society, and if the concept of censorship vs private property as it affects the list comes up, it is to be expected that the ideas will be addressed. So I (and others as well) were addressing the *ideas* of censorship & the actions of private property owners, arguing in regard of a more precise & correct understanding of the principles involved, as exemplified by John's actions - but not in place of his own "self-defense" of them. Frankly, most of the long-time members of the list would not need any such statements of defense from John in order to appreciate the nature of the circumstance and the reasoning for his symbolic 'censorship'. .. Blanc

2 1

Re: "Just call the police"...yeah, right
by Scott J. Schryvers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >The name of the informal logical fallacy Tim May has *not* >made is 'argumentum ad hominem' (literally, 'an argument >to the man'; attacking one's opponent rather than dealing >with the subject under discussion; aka name calling). > >Having said that, while Tim May has not committed a logical >fallacy, neither has he advanced a logical argument. He >has merely stated his conclusory opinion of the other >person's comment. By itself, it adds little or nothing of >substance to the argument. > >Logos out > Uh logos... Deal with it. If I needed some one to walk me through a mailing list when it concerns constructive arguements I'd be requesting a moderated list and since I find moderated news groups to be nonproductive affairs I tend to find this mailing list perfect for my needs. As for judging if Tim has advanced the arguement or not that is for each person to decide not you. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMqXvk/+hzPlzwZAdAQF5Lgf/e3/99SUkd9aADGeS8UjYYcSxTuH8LxE5 AdvIRgLmv11BdTgcyK+q03MYV1gGjmZmtWtEuCiPN/O39gtMM4RYcz2/c5f7bMMA h8QwKP9h4RNA1dWgDDF54PQuKElMr9SBJJwLdyYwPddkjjVEs0tjFRoJv2MsEkmB nK3REFH75U6F7q0NZB8IHxBbYNDYbTejRcx5yfP+W1lg2cLK2lonis/G4X6Kj7gu BdNLn3PLS6qr1YgTB1gWQD5JzCN6FJ7Gw0snjALLFbG0QbiMLJd7TT/bWc8ExDoo HUg+U4OKZ/oPLzNMiZqvzn9gMjGKWz0+hQbi8kR1f8OT/5+bJ4CFjw== =xM3k -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

No Subject
by Lurker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Could someone tell me where I can find a text file of *all* usenet newsgroups?

1 0

Suggestion for "the serious encryption customers" to end ITAR battle
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think we can all agree that the level of confidence in software-only approaches to security is clearly lower than combination software plus hardware approaches. It is clear that what is available over the Internet is software. (It is much harder to distribute "hardware" as you can only really distribute design information. The closest analogy could be a FPGA program, a Verilog description or some other ASIC net list.) How about the following as an approach to resolving the dispute over encryption exports: 1. Allow arbitrary exports of software-only encryption. This means that PGP is exportable as is DES crypt libraries. 2. Restrict exports of hardware-only or hardware/software encryption. This means that smart cards, HP's crypto policy cards, crypto processors with tamper-resistant casing, etc ... are restricted. Why does this make sense? 1. Reality check on export control of software: Software is just too transportable to be restricted, no matter WHAT the software does. Any restriction on WHERE software may be or may go is just not feasible, and it's not going to get any easier in the foreseeable future. 2. Take John Deutch at his word: Deutch has claimed that "serious users of cryptography" would not trust software downloaded over the Internet. We clearly do not agree with him on this aspect, but if he truly believes it (and is not just making PR spin statements for the NSA), then he must believe that allowing software exports will not significantly increase the user base (and therefore, harm CIA's or NSA's intelligence capabilities), but it will shut up the software companies' complaints. 3. Give the NSA what it wants: Software tends to standardize. Encryption is only a small part of the chain of security measures. Other weaknesses are surely part of the NSA's target for intercepts (no self-respecting codebreaking agency should stick to exploiting only one class of failures; if it is, we should question the value we are getting out of the billions of dollars we blindly give to the NSA). If the NSA stops whining about what is too hard to break, then protocol weakness and other non-encryption problems could easily creep into standards, and the NSA would surely have an analytical advantage over anyone else. Since the NSA is happily bragging that it does not even need to crack the code to break in, it should be able to live with hardware-only export restriction. The fact that the NSA is no longer drawing any lines anywhere for software will leave the bad guys guessing as to what it can really decode. In addition, hardware manufacturers will probably have a tougher overturning export restrictions on hardware-enhanced solutions after that because software companies will probably not care. It is clear that the NSA only trusts hardware implementations, as it required Clipper to be manufactured in tamper-resistant cases. All constructive replies welcome. Ern

2 1

Confirmation for subscribe cryptography
by Majordomo＠c2.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- Someone (possibly you) has requested that your email address be added to or deleted from the mailing list "cryptography(a)c2.net". If you really want this action to be taken, please send the following commands (exactly as shown) back to "Majordomo(a)c2.net": auth 727e8b91 subscribe cryptography cypherpunks(a)toad.com If you do not want to this action taken, just ignore this message and no action will be taken. If you have any questions about the policy of the list owner, please contact "cryptography-approval(a)c2.net". Thanks! Majordomo(a)c2.net

1 0

Why Cryptography is harder than it looks?
by Brent Cunningham 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Can you please either: 1) email me a copy; or 2) give me a pointer as to where I can get a copy; of Bruce Schneier's paper on "Why Cryptography is harder than it looks?" Much appreciated. - Brent Check out the Network Computing review of Entrust: www.nwc.com Brent Cunningham Nortel Secure Networks Post Office Box 190 Ramona, California 92065 Tel: 619 788-7676 Fax: 619 788-9696 Email: bc1(a)entrust.com www.nortel.com/entrust

5 4

[crypto] Avatar Protection?
by Ryan Russell/SYBASE 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A graphic-designer friend of mine and I were talking about VRML avatars, and custom design work, and could he offer a service designing them etc... His worry is that since everyone in the same virtual environment as his customer would see the designer avatar, wouldn't they also be able to easily rip off his work? (or his customer's property, take your pick.) I wasn't sure...it seems to me that I read something vaguely along these lines for a cryptography protocol of some sort.. The problem is this: Is there a way for a user to "view" the client's avatar (and in this sense, the user usually has to receive a copy of the code to render the avatar and render it on the local machine) but not save a copy? Assume that a client with no save feature is not a viable option...too easy to work around. I suppose an analogy would be: Is there a way for a person to see the plaintext, but not record it? I think that question really answers itself - no. How about alternatives? If the server of the environment only renders "views" (say, certain angles, or a bitmap) of the avatar, rather than sending the description file? Any other thoughts? Ryan

5 4

No Subject
by Jose Luis Delgado 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsuscribe cypherpunks

1 0

RE: Anyone considered adding crypto into Microsoft Outlook?
by Robert Barnes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I have downloaded, and strongly recommend, Jon S. Whalen's Microsoft Exchange Client PGP Command Extension. It adds PGP functionality to Exchange Client in a very neat and clean way. Rob -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.63ui iQCVAwUBMqYkarl39AMaT2JtAQHmtQP/Yu8rh5OkkMC1GVEnz4hY6xFczeDM0Y3U 7toMIDZLVnDwRXuoo9+10sUMnB289mkjoi54fuAhbkjDKYejXVIFilJoSFq+s5FZ K0Rdcaj8qv6VkJwL63gXMdXsFlxHIyQ/oK9/3r7tBgFyzab3tcjVXUGRy/NE5sLD osrJm4WzfVU= =+ffh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Strong-crypto smart cards in Singapore and Germany
by um＠c2.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Gutmann writes: >The standardisation committee of the German banks have also produced >an electronic wallet which should have 25 million (yes, 25M) users by >January of next year. Again, this is a pure electronic wallet, with >2-key triple DES and 768-bit (to become 1024-bit) RSA encryption. >[...] This looks like a very nice system, and unlike Mondex doesn't >rely entirely on the hope that criminals can't get at the data on the >card. For 'security reasons', all transactions are logged in what is called 'shadow accounts'. Not what I would call a very nice system.

1 0

Microsoft & Key Escrow
by Blake Coverett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Following are some of the relevent snippets from http://www.microsoft.com/intdev/security/export/exporfaq-f.htm. The comments in square brackets are mine. ---cut here--- What is Microsoft's position on supporting key escrow? Key escrow encryption is not a market-driven solution and it raises serious privacy concerns for many customers. It is also new, undeveloped, untested, and uncosted, and it will take a long time to be worked out. Additionally, customers have expressed hesitation about mandatory key escrow, especially if they have to give the keys to the government or a government-selected third party. Therefore, we are not actively adding support for key escrow in our products and technologies. [About as good as we can ask for. I would, however, like that last sentence better if the word 'actively' was missing.] Shouldn't the U.S. government be able to access information that could prevent terrorist acts and crime? Strong non-key escrow encryption is already available from retail outlets, foreign companies, and off the Internet. Thus the U.S. government is already having--and will continue to have--a harder time in the future accessing plain text regardless of U.S. export restrictions. [I suppose it would be too much to expect a third sentence reading. 'This is a good thing.'] What is key recovery? How does it relate to key escrow? Market-driven data recovery refers to a product feature that allows users to maintain a spare private encryption key in a safe place. Generally, a data recovery system escrows a copy of the session key with the message or file and the user (or perhaps his employer) controls the decision whether to utilize this feature. With key escrow the U.S. government holds or has access to a user's private encryption key. It is not yet clear whether such systems are exportable. In the October 1 announcement, the U.S. government referred to "key recovery" without defining it; in all likelihood, however, they still have in mind government key escrow, and not market-driven data recovery. [Hmm... it's just possible that Microsoft's spin doctors are better than those of the US government. Perhaps they can sell the world on their definition of 'key recovery' instead of the one we know the TLAs intended.] ---cut here--- regards, -Blake

3 2

RE: Microsoft & Key Escrow
by Tom Albertson (LCA) 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

These issues are also addressed at somewhat greater length than in the FAQ in "Microsoft Policy on Export Controls on Encryption" at http://www.microsoft.com/intdev/security/export/expcont1.htm (updated since the recent Administration announcements). rgds tom >-----Original Message----- >From: Blake Coverett [SMTP:blake@bcdev.com] >Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 1996 6:12 PM >To: 'cypherpunks(a)toad.com' >Subject: Microsoft & Key Escrow > >Following are some of the relevent snippets from >http://www.microsoft.com/intdev/security/export/exporfaq-f.htm. >The comments in square brackets are mine. > >---cut here--- >What is Microsoft's position on supporting key escrow? > >Key escrow encryption is not a market-driven solution and it raises serious >privacy concerns for many customers. It is also new, undeveloped, untested, >and uncosted, and it will take a long time to be worked out. Additionally, >customers have expressed hesitation about mandatory key escrow, especially if >they have to give the keys to the government or a government-selected third >party. Therefore, we are not actively adding support for key escrow in our >products and technologies. > >[About as good as we can ask for. I would, however, like that last sentence > better if the word 'actively' was missing.] > >Shouldn't the U.S. government be able to access information that could >prevent terrorist acts and crime? > >Strong non-key escrow encryption is already available from retail outlets, >foreign companies, and off the Internet. Thus the U.S. government is already >having--and will continue to have--a harder time in the future accessing >plain text regardless of U.S. export restrictions. > >[I suppose it would be too much to expect a third sentence > reading. 'This is a good thing.'] > >What is key recovery? How does it relate to key escrow? > >Market-driven data recovery refers to a product feature that allows users to >maintain a spare private encryption key in a safe place. Generally, a data >recovery system escrows a copy of the session key with the message or file >and the user (or perhaps his employer) controls the decision whether to >utilize this feature. With key escrow the U.S. government holds or has access >to a user's private encryption key. > >It is not yet clear whether such systems are exportable. In the October 1 >announcement, the U.S. government referred to "key recovery" without defining >it; in all likelihood, however, they still have in mind government key >escrow, and not market-driven data recovery. > >[Hmm... it's just possible that Microsoft's spin doctors are > better than those of the US government. Perhaps they can > sell the world on their definition of 'key recovery' instead of > the one we know the TLAs intended.] >---cut here--- > >regards, >-Blake >

1 0

Politeness
by logos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri Vulis wrote: >logos <logos(a)c2.net> writes: >> I have been unfailingly polite to you. Do you have it >> within your character to respond to me in kind? >Do you think spelling my last name "Vilus" is polite? I think it was neither polite nor impolite. It was a innocent transposition error. Correcting the error and apologizing were polite, however. Do you disagree? I have already raised the question of your apparent lack of intellectual honesty in that you seem to not apply the same rules of conduct on yourself as you would on others. In English there is the saying, 'what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander'. I note that you have spelt my name as 'logos'. As it is a proper noun in the usage and I have spelt it with the 'L', I would ask you if you consider this spelling of my name to be polite? Logos out

4 4