December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Mr. Gates goes to Washington, from The Netly News
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 12:13:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Mr. Gates goes to Washington, from The Netly News ********** http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1022,00.html The Netly News Network June 5, 1997 Mr. Gates Goes to Washington by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) For Siliconaires like Bill Gates of Microsoft, Eric Schmidt of Novell and Jeff Papows of Lotus, Washington is a city made pleasant by absence. They view its labyrinthine bureaucracies and hidebound institutions as something between a minor hindrance and an insurmountable obstacle to the important business of making profits, not public policy. So it was no surprise to see the high-tech trio join seven other executives yesterday at the National Press Club to rail against the Clinton administration's restrictions on overseas sales of encryption products. This Billionaire Boys' Club was especially keen on praising two bills that would generally relax export rules. "We clearly support the House and the Senate bills that are on the Hill in their original form. Getting reform done now is a huge priority for all of us," said one. "There are bills in the House and the Senate that are totally acceptable, and if those bills are passed they'd solve the problem," another added. But perhaps Bill Gates should have spent less time writing BASIC interpreters and more time in civics classes, because these bills are far from perfect. In fact, they may be downright dangerous. [...]

2 1

Re: The New War
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://guru.cosc.georgetown.edu/~denning/crypto/oc-abs.html Denning thinks export of authentication and signature technology is OK, but she draws the line at encryption. This sounds fine, but what happens when new technologies don't fit into these neat boxes? How about blind signatures? Those are used to create anonymous electronic cash systems. How comfortable will Denning be when criminals can set up their own anonymous payment systems? Would blind signature technology be allowed for export today? How about zero knowledge protocols? These can be used to show different kinds of anonymous credentials and can be used to build anonymous cash systems in their own right. Generally, they enhance privacy by allowing the parties to reveal only the information which is specifically necessary for a transaction. Would zero knowledge software be allowed for export today? How about multiparty computations, or oblivious transfer, or blob commitments, or any of the other building blocks of tomorrow's crypto technology? What is the export status of these going to be? Will Congress have experts who put each piece under a microscope and try to judge whether it will be used for good purposes or bad? It can't be done. As well allow exporting the letter "a" but not "i" since "i" is part of "kill". This attempt to split cryptology into good and bad technologies won't work. Knowledge space doesn't work that way. It's probably not even going to be possible to identify what is crypto and what isn't. It's all a matter of dealing with information in various ways. Cypherpunks can expose this confusion by implementing other protocols and trying to get them exported. Go beyond old-fashioned signatures and encryption. These are mainstream today. Stay on the edge, be ahead of the curve. Do something new. John

1 0

e$: The greater fool theory of Digicash, quantified, roughly
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Sender: e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 09:31:10 -0400 From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> To: Multiple recipients of <e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com> Subject: e$: The greater fool theory of Digicash, quantified, roughly At 10:18 pm -0400 on 6/4/97, Tim May wrote on cypherpunks: > Chaum said he had to agree that these were good examples, and that he'd > think about the issue furhter. He speculated during his panel presentation > that possibly a mechanism could be found to allow such vendor or seller > anonymity for _educational_ and similar materials, but not for other > things...Froomkin and I were incredulous. Sheesh. Silly "exemptions" to seller anonymity like this one indicate to me that Chaum & Co. will *never* license the blind signature patent to anyone with an actual useful purpose for it. We're all going to have to sit around for another 10 years until that patent's unencumbered for there to be any valid market for anonymous digital cash -- or the other kinds of instantly-settled digital bearer certificates that the patent enables. I suppose that's justice, as it means that Chaum & Co. aren't going to make any money on the blind signature patent, either. If they don't wake up, that 10 years will be over soon enough. In about 5 years or so, just about the time this round of financing fantasy runs out, potential developers will probably just decide to stick it out for the remaining 5 years they don't have to pay a royalty. Digicash, Inc., will become yet another a $10 million (at last estimate) technology rathole. That $10 million, of course, doesn't include the current purchasers of the technology, who are being left high and dry by Digicash's inability to understand what market they are in. First a bank, then a software company, now a credit card association equivalent (onk?!), Digicash never has figured out that the only thing they are is a financial cryptography company. The first, and best, of course, but still financial cryptographers. Like Dolby, they should only license and certify applications of the technology they invent. Period. Chaum could have done that easily enough, say, $9.5 million and 10 years ago. He would have gotten to keep all the family money he sunk into fun stuff like the Digicash Building in the Netherlands and sales offices all over the planet, because all he needed were a few cryptographers and licensing lawyers. He would have probably gotten at least triple the $9.5 million of shareholder equity that he wasted, all back in actual revenue over the intervening years. Without spending a dime more in further capitalization. He would have gotten a gross return on that $500k 1987 investment of say, (30mil/500k ) = 6000%, just on earnings alone. If he went public in the interim, a conservative estimate of market capitalization, assuming a simple linear revenue growth curve (yielding a current revenue of $6 million a year) and a very conservative P/E ratio of 10, gives us (6mil*10)= $60million. That's probably before the internet commerce hockey-stick earnings kicked in, much less the rediculuous Netscape-era P/E ratios internet companies now command. In engage in a little market-speak, "what an incredible bungle of a unique value proposition". ;-). Anyway, the Greater Fool Theory of Digicash has been proven once again, with Chaum's own words as relayed by Mr. May. Now maybe we know why J. Pierpont Morgan fired Edison from General Electric. Hmmm... And why Negroponte fired *Chaum*? Hey! Maybe there is hope? Naaaaah.... Notice, of course, that Dr. Dolby (or his estate and heirs) probably still owns his company, and is doing very well, thank you. Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ ---------- The e$ lists are brought to you by: Intertrader Ltd: "Digital Money Online" <http://www.intertrader.com/library/DigitalMoneyOnline> Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion http://www.hyperion.co.uk info(a)hyperion.co.uk Like e$? Help pay for it! <http://www.shipwright.com/beg.html> For e$/e$pam sponsorship, mail Bob: <mailto:rah@shipwright.com> Thanks to the e$ e$lves: Of Counsel: Vinnie Moscaritolo <mailto:vinnie@webstuff.apple.com> (Majordomo)^2: Rachel Willmer<mailto:rachel@intertrader.com> Commermeister: Anthony Templer <mailto:anthony@atanda.com> Interturge: Rodney Thayer <mailto:rodney@sabletech.com> --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

1 0

Kill the children!
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When the United States Government murdered the child of Saddam Hussein the common American attitude was "broken eggs, and all that." I know because I lamented the act and was roundly criticized as an idiot who didn't understand how the real world works, etc., etc, justify, justify. When the chickens come home to roost, however, after yet another U.S. Government act of aggression, there is a great hue and cry throughout the land about only a "monster" could kill children. Suddenly, the lives of children become so precious and sacrosanct that those responsible for taking those lives must be given supreme punishment. God bless Timothy McVeigh for exposing the mindless hypocrisy of the American people, as well as the _mindful_ hypocrisy of the Government Rulers of Amerika. Billy Graham, as the populist representative of Christianity, visits the White House but we are little likely to see him visiting McVeigh because some children's lives seem to be more precious than others, and those who take them are subject to different moral judgments. A famous newspaper correspondent received a telegram from his editor questioning his expense report, which listed a huge bill for a breakfast which included caviar. The reporter telegraphed back, "Eggs is eggs." The message of the American people and the U.S. Government is being received loud and clear: "American eggs are more precious than foreign eggs. The eggs of _normal_ (translate=="mainstream") Americans are more precious than _aberrant_ (translate--"cult") eggs." The message of the American news media is loud and clear: "Break some lifeless buildings with your bombs and we will make you a side dish in the back pages of some minor publication. Break enough eggs and we will make an omlette big enough to feed the entire world." Waco was nothing more than a "wake-up call" that many Americans slept through. Timothy MvVeigh did not--he woke up and crowed loud enough for all of us to hear. The American government, people and press, however, want merely to shut him up and go back to sleep, pretending that there still isn't enough light to see their own sins and rectify them. There are no telling how many lives could be saved if the press wrote meaningfully about the inevitability of chickens coming home to roost instead of supporting the notion that the solution to a crowing cock is to cut his head off. There are other roosters in the barnyard. There will be more sunrises. Americans are now loudly calling for McVeigh to receive an electrical message complaining about the high cost of the breakfast bill on the expense report he provided us. I wouldn't be surprised if his final words were, "Eggs is eggs." Anne Accountant

3 2

TV Commercial
by Marshall Clow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Today on TV, I saw an advertisement. Image: Two ships exchanging searchlight-type signals. Voiceover: It's common sense, really. You should be able to communicate with anyone without worring about the security of your communications. Sprint PCS. Secure digital communications. It's nice to see that a large multinational corporation is publicly expousing cypherpunk attitudes. (The reality of their phones is not as encouraging, but...) -- Marshall Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems <mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu> "In Washington DC, officials from the White House, federal agencies and Congress say regulations may be necessary to promote a free-market system." -- CommunicationsWeek International April 21, 1997

4 3

Founding Fathers & Federalism
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Joseph Sobran Founding fathers thought the federal government should be kept on a short leash The word "federalism" is enjoying a new vogue these days, as Republicans promise to give power "back to the states." But the way the power is given "back" has little to do with what the founding fathers meant by "federalism." In the current welfare reform bill, for example, the states are given power to regulate welfare programs, but with strings attached. The power is considered to come from the federal government, which supposedly "grants" it to the states. This is a reversal of what our ancestors meant by federalism - namely, that the states were the source of the federal government's powers. The states, through the Constitution, "delegated" a few carefully specified powers to the federal government. Whatever wasn't delegated was "reserved" to the states and the people. The federal government was supposed to be kept on a short leash, lest it claim powers never given to it. Today it routinely claims countless powers unmentioned in the Constitution. When a national health-care program is proposed, for example, we no longer ask the basic question: Just where does the Constitution grant this power? Answer: Nowhere. Then how did the federal government acquire so many unlisted powers? By the insidious process of "consolidation," which the Constitution was meant to prevent. So why didn't the Constitution prevent it? Because the federal government systematically reinterpreted the Constitution in its own favor. In the 1798 Kentucky Resolutions, Thomas Jefferson warned that the federal government must never be allowed to become the final arbiter of the extent of its own powers. His warning was disregarded. Eventually the Supreme Court was allowed to treat the Constitution as a "living document" - one whose meaning was not fixed but fluid, alterable at the discretion of those currently in power. Of course this defeats the whole purpose of a Constitution, or indeed any written law. What would a truly federal system look like? The possibilities are infinite. If the states were permitted to keep their individuality, we might have a checkerboard of socialist and free economies, instead of a single "mixed" economy imposed on all. Americans who preferred a welfare state, even if it meant higher taxes, might move to New York; Americans who preferred laissez-faire might migrate to Texas. In the long run, the states that imposed too many burdens on their citizens would lose population, business and finally tax monies to freer states. A federal system would create a sort of "market" in states, with citizens as consumers choosing among them. To the founders it was axiomatic, that government should be limited not only in the number of powers it exercised, but in the extent of territory it ruled. The small and local were preferable to the vast and national. If one state or local government should exceed its proper powers, citizens should be able to escape it without leaving the continent. "Federalism" has come to sound complex, abstract and technical. But it's a simple principle: Keep power as local as possible. Give a central government very few powers, and hold it strictly to them. The idea will become vivid to anyone who reads the Federalist Papers, the writings of the Anti-Federalists, the works of Jefferson, and of course the Constitution itself. The whole debate over ratifying the Constitution revolved around the question whether the federal government, given a few powers, would proceed to "usurp" more power - tyrannical power. All sides in the ratification debate would have agreed that the federal government should never be permitted to reach, or even approach, the size and scope it has achieved in the late 20th century. The chief difference between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists is that the Federalists insisted that it could never happen under the Constitution. History has proved the Anti-Federalists right. It's a scandal that so few realize this. It's also an indictment of our educational system, which blandly purveys the view that America's history has been one of smooth continuity and "progress." The more the Constitution is disregarded, the more we're assured that it's being "fulfilled." The remedy isn't private militias. It's guerrilla education, to ensure that our children learn what the schools won't teach them. Joseph Sobran is a syndicated columnist. PGP mail preferred Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 Key available on BAL server, http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Schear | tel: (702) 658-2654 CEO | fax: (702) 658-2673 First ECache Corporation | 7075 West Gowan Road | Suite 2148 | Las Vegas, NV 89129 | Internet: azur(a)netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- I know not what instruments others may use, but as for me, give me Ecache or give me debt. SHOW ME THE DIGITS!

1 0

0,4,11276,00.html?dtn.head
by Damaged Justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[1]HP Network ScanJet 5. Click here. [2][LINK] [3][LINK] [4]Join now FREE! MENU [5]Front Door [6]The Net [7]Computing [8]Intranets [9]Business [10]CNET Radio [11]Perspectives [12]Newsmakers [13]Rumor Mill RESOURCES [14]One Week View [15]Custom News [16]Subscribe [17]Member Services [18]Contact Us [19]Help [20]Search NEWS [21]Novell CNET SERVICES [22]CNET.COM [23]BUILDER.COM [24]BROWSERS.COM [25]GAMECENTER.COM [26]SEARCH.COM [27]DOWNLOAD.COM [28]SHAREWARE.COM [29]ACTIVEX.COM [30]MEDIADOME MARKETPLACE [31]CNET Store [32]Sponsorship Info [33]Category The Net Private dollars wanted for next Net By [34]Courtney Macavinta June 5, 1997, 3:20 p.m. PT SANTA CLARA, California--A White House official's call was dropped when he tried to patch into a high-tech industry powwow about the [35]Next Generation Internet (NGI) today--a timely demo of the network's need for a facelift. [36]NASA's Ames Research Center hosted the federal government's briefing today in hopes of roping in commercial technology partners to help build the Clinton Administration's three-year, $3 million NGI initiative. The NGI initiative aims to build a faster, smarter Internet, creating new applications and networking technologies to improve communication among the nation's academic and research centers. In some cases, NGI will route data at 1,000 times the speed of today's network, and will be able to store bandwidth for real-time data transmission. The audience laughed when the videoconferencing connection from Washington to the Techmart in Santa Clara crashed. But the White House's senior director of the National Economic Council, Thomas Kalil, spun the mishap into a plea for his cause. "This certainly shows why dependability and reliability need to be a priority for the Next Generation Internet," Kalil said when he finally got connected. Just as the private sector and universities assisted in creating ARPANET, the precursor to the Internet, Kalil and representatives from NASA and the [37]Energy Department want companies and the government to build the NGI as a team. Companies could benefit by receiving federal funds for research and development; they would be able to keep copyrights of their products in order to commercialize them, said Maylene Duenas of NASA Ames. In return the government will get input and expertise from industry without recreating existing private research or making the same mistakes. Federal agencies and research facilities also need NGI to shoot huge volumes of secure data across the country. "Past investments in this area have a high return on investment," Kalil said. "We would like to see the United States maintain its position as a charter of innovation." California is already heading up a private/public Internet partnership. Dubbed the [38]Corporation for Network Education Initiatives in California (CENIC), the organization's goal is to oversee the development and operation of an improved data network between the state's university research centers. [39]Pacific Bell has already struck a deal to set aside some of its bandwidth for the project. "Private involvement is critical," Susan Astrada, executive director of CENIC said today. "There is no way the academic community could afford it." [40]Sun, [41]Cisco, [42]Silicon Graphics, [43]Novell, [44]Lucent Technologies, and [45]MCI have already endorsed NGI or plan to work on the project in various capacities. Although the general public won't be able use the infrastructure for five to ten years, the NGI initiative makes several promises that the White Hose says will trickle down to all Net surfers. For example, developers are working with the creators of [46]Internet 2, a separate project funded by academia. More than 100 universities across the country are spearheading the project to develop new computer network applications to help improve their teaching and research facilities. The academic community will invest $50 million a year to connect the schools' students and faculty at speeds 100 times faster than the current network. Another component of NGI will connect just ten research facilities nationwide at speeds 1,000 times faster than the Internet. This means the Energy Department could send its reports of global climate changes over the NGI in 15 seconds. The data takes 15 minutes to send now, said Martha Krebs of the government agency. Not all are happy with Clinton's plan for the next Internet. Yesterday, senators from Alaska to Montana told the president's technical advisers that NGI was leaving out rural universities by turning only to well-known urban institutions for guidance. related news stories  [47]Rural demands made for Internet 2 June 4, 1997  [48]Internet: the Next Generation May 16, 1997  [49]Schools seek Internet 2 funding April 9, 1997  [50]Sites soon for Internet 2 January 29, 1997  [51]Is Clinton's Net plan for real? October 17, 1996 Latest Headlines [52]display on desktop The Net  [53]Hong Kong exports raise concerns  [54]AOL members threaten to walk  [55]Private dollars wanted for next Net  [56]Sun loses round in Java fight  [57]Girls part of children's market, too  [58]TotalNews, publishers settle suit  [59]Domain planners dismiss critics  [60]Faster Net access comes at a price Computing  [61]For small vendors, a bizarre bazaar  [62]NCI to compete with WebTV  [63]Gateway, Compaq pitch low-cost PC-TVs  [64]Nashville's @Home uses Motorola modems Intranets  [65]Sun has agenda with Java server Business  [66]Coast clear for Gateway shares  [67]Gamer Electronic Arts buys rival  [68]Micron chip prices edging up  [69]Iomega trades on buyout rumors  [70]Marengi ousted from Novell  [71]Book publishers accused of piracy  [72]HP exec wants Euro telco competition Hidden - SpRept Promo No new articles. [73][LINK] [74]Copyright © 1995-97 CNET, Inc. All rights reserved. References 1. http://www.news.com/cgi-bin/redirect.cgi?location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ehp%2Ec… 2. http://www.cnet.com/ 3. http://www.news.com/ 4. http://registration.cnet.com/Registration/1,2,,0800.html?webAbbrev=ne&from=… 5. http://www.news.com/?ntb.news 6. http://www.news.com/Categories/Index/0,3,1,00.html?ntb.net 7. http://www.news.com/Categories/Index/0,3,2,00.html?ntb.cmptng 8. http://www.news.com/Categories/Index/0,3,3,00.html?ntb.intrnt 9. http://www.news.com/Categories/Index/0,3,4,00.html?ntb.bsns 10. http://www.news.com/Radio/index.html?ntb.radio 11. http://www.news.com/Perspectives/perspectives.html?ntb.pers 12. http://www.news.com/Newsmakers/index.html?ntb.newsmkr 13. http://www.news.com/Rumors/Entry/0,26,,00.html?ntb.rumor 14. http://www.news.com/Week/List/0,100,,00.html?ntb.owv 15. http://www.news.com/Personalized/FrontDoor/1,2,,00.html?nocache=1 16. http://www.news.com/Dispatch/Entry/0,65,,00.html 17. http://registration.cnet.com/MemberServices/1,9,,00.html?webAbbrev=ne&from=… 18. http://www.news.com/Staff/index.html?ntb.staff 19. http://www.news.com/Help/Item/0,24,2,00.html?ntb.help 20. http://www.news.com/Searching/Entry/0,17,0,00.html?ntb.srchg 21. http://www.news.com/cgi-bin/redirect.cgi?location=http://www.novell.com/Roc… 22. http://www.cnet.com/?ntb.cnet 23. http://www.cnet.com/Content/Builder/?ntb.bldr 24. http://www.browsers.com/?ntb.brow 25. http://www.gamecenter.com/?ntb.gc 26. http://www.search.com/?ntb.search 27. http://www.download.com/?ntb.dl 28. http://www.shareware.com/?ntb.sw 29. http://www.activex.com/?ntb.ax 30. http://www.mediadome.com/index.html?ntb.md 31. http://www.store.cnet.com/ 32. http://www.news.com/Sponsors/index.html?ntb.spnsr 33. http://www.news.com/Categories/Index/1,3,1,00.html 34. mailto:courtm@cnet.com 35. http://www.ngi.gov/ 36. http://www.nasa.gov/ 37. http://www.es.net/ 38. http://www.aldea.com/cenic/ 39. http://www.pacbell.net/ 40. http://www.sun.com/ 41. http://www.cisco.com/ 42. http://www.sgi.com/ 43. http://www.novell.com/ 44. htpp://www.lucent.com/ 45. http://www.mci.com/ 46. http://www.internet2.edu/ 47. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11219,00.html 48. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,10750,00.html 49. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,9536,00.html 50. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,7453,00.html 51. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,4579,00.html 52. javascript:OpenWindow(); 53. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11279,00.html?latest 54. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11267,00.html?latest 55. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11276,00.html?latest 56. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11253,00.html?latest 57. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11275,00.html?latest 58. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11272,00.html?latest 59. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11266,00.html?latest 60. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11263,00.html?latest 61. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11280,00.html?latest 62. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11273,00.html?latest 63. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11269,00.html?latest 64. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11265,00.html?latest 65. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11271,00.html?latest 66. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11248,00.html?latest 67. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11278,00.html?latest 68. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11277,00.html?latest 69. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11270,00.html?latest 70. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11268,00.html?latest 71. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11260,00.html?latest 72. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11258,00.html?latest 73. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11276,00.html?dtn.head#top 74. http://www.news.com/copyright.html

1 0

Webpage anti-abortion picketing...
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > > I no more want to slap more spin doctor > output in front of others than to have to look at it myself. I was mainly > trying to make a prediction about the future and then seeing, if reasonable, > how long it took. > > It occurs to me that somebody with the right > motivation might want to claim that they have a right to put a box on such a > backbone (ie stand on the sidewalk in front of the store) and scrape for > particular addresses (ie the business they want to picket). This is precisely why we should fight all efforts of the government to get their foot in the door in regard to control of the internet. I have no doubt that the government will at some point bestow upon some element of the internet a "gift" of funding of some type that they will proclaim is for the public benefit. Their true purpose, naturally, will be to give Joe Grapepicker legal standing to apply to a judge to uphold his "right" to picket the Safeway website. The fact of the matter is, we are currently free to do much as we wish to on the internet. Some call this freedom. Unfortunately, it can also be called "freedom from government interference," which is an anathema to those in power. As long as cypherpunks Timothy McMay and Dimitri Nichols conspire only to promote electronic freedom on the list, then the rest of the decent, law-abiding cypherpunks are probably relatively safe. Should they choose to begin promoting abortion on the list, however, this could change rapidly. (It just occured to me that censorship promoters could be considered to be "Electronic Abortion Activists." Perhaps we need a new censorship ASSociation to be formed, called the EAA, with Jerry Falwell, et al, as its TITular HEADs, and with chapters throughout the CoUNTry.) TruthMonger

1 0

Re: 0,4,11276,00.html?dtn.head
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199706052359.TAA30048(a)yakko.cs.wmich.edu>, on 06/05/97 at 07:59 PM, Damaged Justice <frogfarm(a)yakko.cs.wmich.edu> said: >[36]NASA's Ames Research Center hosted the federal government's > briefing today in hopes of roping in commercial technology partners to > help build the Clinton Administration's three-year, $3 million NGI > initiative. > This is yet another example of the Federal Government interfering with the free market. The govenrment is not needed to *fix* the Internet backbone. If the various labs, schools, ..ect need bigger and faster connections then they need to dig into their pockets and, god forbid, pay for it! I see absolutly no reason why I as joe sixpack taxpayer should have to fund through my tax dollars some multi gigabyte backbone that I am not even allowed to use!!! <sigh> Hopfully the revolution will come in my lifetime. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBM5dmvI9Co1n+aLhhAQFl3gQAg9OwmnhCgnkjRrq5bIRlaV39ofKterLf 13H47nGxUTI41SOePmwTDAUTlapAPRnPywSCX5J3v4Us/ZRa9KFN7pacqUoQmcnC 3K6Ouc1F3rFiH50zRi3XWkxS7OY3WZAep97s4dd1cXOM74iP6glY8e7psyMdGYbk ML3Vlfgv3nc= =Nvku -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Government money, Net picketing, and public fora (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 13:48:59 -0700 > From: Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> > Subject: Re: Government money, Net picketing, and public fora (fwd) > You're not doing very well. I can see a number of possible meanings: > > 1) You want to be able to "picket" other people's net traffic, > and think that the amount of government funding out there gives you some > standing to force some parts of the net to carry your "picket signs". > And therefore you keep posting similar vigorous assertions, in response > to other people's contentions that this would be bad. You have been paying NO attention at all, no wonder you are having a hard time trying to figure it out. Concentrate now, I DO NOT want to picket anyone for anything at anytime. I have better things to do with my time like spend my money in another store. It HAS been my contention from my original post that I DO NOT think this is a good idea. I am going to decline responding to the remiander of this since it is a waste of my meta-carpal tunnel syndrome. [much inattentive blah deleted] _______________________________________________________________________ | | | Speak the truth, but leave immediately after. | | | | Slovenian Proverb | | | | Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com | | The Armadillo Group www.ssz.com | | Austin, Texas, USA 512-451-7087 | |_______________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Who "invented" remailers?
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <3.0.1.32.19970605181309.00767c08(a)popd.ix.netcom.com>, on 06/05/97 at 06:13 PM, Bill Stewart <stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com> said: >Suppose, for instance, that the Feds (whatever COINTELPRO calls >themselves these days) are watching Alice the Activist, and find that >she's using Bob's Remailer. So they watch Bob's Remailer, and find it's >sending traffic to Carol(a)foobar.com. Maybe they haven't known about her >before. Or maybe they check with foobar.com and find she's probably Carol >the Commie, who they hadn't previously known used email. No, they can't >prove that Alice sent mail to Carol - but she's still a lead, and since >they're both politically incorrect people, it's not a bad guess. >Even with multiple remailers, say 10, this still works. Well I guess I should let the cat out of the bag, :) I have been working on addressing this very problem. I haven't had time to write a formal paper on this but I can give you some of the basics. It makes use of a stego of sorts. Alice would post a message to a non threating mailing list. In that list certain key words would be misspelled. Carol would use these key words to tell her to look for a certain message posted anonymously & encrypted in a newsgroup (stego in a gif file to a binary group works quite well). Now it would be possiable to track that Alice was sending messages to a remailer there would be no way to track that Carol was receiving these messages. At best it would be know that Carol was a reader of alt.binaries.japan.cartoons or some other non-threating newsgroup. Now this requires both Carol & Alice to be running the same software for generating the spelling stegos and interperting them. It helps if Alice has the reputation of being a very bad speller (ha and you all laughed at my spelling mistakes). The use of a special dictionary that contains common mispellings of common words is a great aid but I have yet to find one in electronic form. An OTP should be generated and used as a seed to the software to keep the two systems in synch. This can be encrypted & stegoed and posted to a pre-selected newsgroup. Once the inital synching of the two systems have been acomplished new pads can be generated and distributed by the same mechanisims. This does not protect Alice from comming under the guns for using a remailer nor does it provide a way for Carol to reply. The anonymous remailers could be completly bypassed and both Carrol and Alice could do all communication through stegoed newsgroup postings. Alos mailing list need not be used but the plaintext messages could be posted via newsgroups. There is a reliabilty issue going this route (from my personal experaince mailing list are more reliable than newsgroups YMMV). The details of applying such a system is more complex but the above gives you the basics of it. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBM5d+s49Co1n+aLhhAQEwUAP9EzMOcL0c10ZiF6BrbJ6unXTIbXaJ8zIp 7c2wVdcF81HBMbYXkloyCJGfekRpH+hFN6Ga85XHQ3iS/SD4PUykWx/rrGT6y3Ws fzvbQ3ST3IR7VBYqtHb49aNNhcr3yg6S5ecp3IXi49WNxi4A+mLQ80omB/mGSEC2 0PA1fDH3bMA= =wa// -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Traffic Analysis Re: Who "invented" remailers?
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > > It all depends on: > > - how many other messages are being received by Lucky and Tim (PGP messages > arriving from remailers, obviously, not just ordinary traffic, though > ordinary traffic helps a bit) A remailer system could have a mechanized procedure for ensuring that those who wished could receive cover mail at certain times no matter what was in the queque. If a message came in that was meant for them, then it would replace the cover message in the queque. Has anyone concerned with remailer development spent any time actually doing remailer traffic analysis, similar to a cryptographer who does cryptanalysis to raise his level of competence? It would be interesting to see the results of messages being sent between cypherpunks and encrypted with a "TA" key so that they could be separated and logged for traffic analysis. I would like to see what kind of results could be divined by those who know remailer operations intimately. Al Gore, ITHM

2 1

BOUNCE cypherpunks@Algebra.COM: Admin request of type /\bcancel\b/i at line 7 Admin request of type
by Igor Chudov ＠ home 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----- Forwarded message from owner-cypherpunks(a)algebra.com ----- >From owner-cypherpunks(a)Algebra.COM Thu Jun 5 22:56:26 1997 From: owner-cypherpunks(a)algebra.com Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 23:55:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199706060355.XAA06364(a)www.video-collage.com> To: owner-cypherpunks(a)Algebra.COM Subject: BOUNCE cypherpunks(a)Algebra.COM: Admin request of type /\bcan-cel\b/i at line 7 Admin request of type /\bcan-cel\b/i at line 9 >From cpunks Thu Jun 5 23:55:48 1997 Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA06352 for <cypherpunks(a)algebra.com>; Thu, 5 Jun 1997 23:55:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA26788 for cypherpunks-unedited-outgoing; Thu, 5 Jun 1997 20:36:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhp.com (dhp.com [199.245.105.1]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA26783 for <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>; Thu, 5 Jun 1997 20:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from lucifer@localhost) by dhp.com (8.8.5/8.6.12) id XAA23074 for cypherpunks(a)toad.com; Thu, 5 Jun 1997 23:36:00 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 23:36:00 -0400 Message-Id: <199706060336.XAA23074(a)dhp.com> X-Authentication-Warning: dhp.com: lucifer set sender to lucifer(a)dhp.com using -f Subject: Dimitri McVeigh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com From: lucifer(a)dhp.com (lucifer Anonymous Remailer) Comments: Please report misuse of this automated remailing service to <lucifer(a)dhp.com>. Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk Adam Back wrote: > Hallam-Baker <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> writes: > > I'll accept that the ranting faction do some good work but I've > > not seen anything usefull out of either Bell or Vulis unless that > > is you are an FBI agent looking to get a promotion from Freeh. > Dimitri rights code sometimes. He wrote a can-cel-bot. Very > constructive piece of work in an indirect way. See: having nice > freely available can-cel-bots enables technically clueless, would > be-censors to censor more. They censor more, and cause a nuisance for > themselves sending out tons of can-cel messages. This incentivizes > more and more people to ignore can-cels (the trend in news > administration these days I understand is to ignore can-cels entirely), > which means that you can't have your USENET posts censored nearly as > easily. Dimitri has long pushed the envelope of censorship and challenged those who don't like it to do something about it. The reason that Hallam-Baker is able to post thinly veiled "Dimitri is a cocksucker!" messages to the list is because Dimitri refused to lay down and quit when he was forcibly censored for his "Gilmore is a cocksucker!" messages. If the censorship coupe d'etat had succeded, then Hallam-Baker's post would have been trashed into the flames list. Dimitri and others, such as the Freedom-Knights, made it possible to "route around" the censorship of USENET posts to such an extent that any attempt I might make to censor Hallam-Baker's demeaning of Dimitri on USENET would have little effect. The bottom line is that Hallam-Baker's demeaning of Dimitri without facing censorship on this list and on USENET is partly the result of the efforts of Dimitri, himself, to fight censorship. This is not surprising, since, after all, Dimitri is a cypherpunk. (Despite all of his claims to the contrary.) TruthMonger ----- End of forwarded message from owner-cypherpunks(a)algebra.com -----

1 0

more GAK crap
by Ariel Glenn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From today's Nando Times... Meeting reportedly will aim to fight obscenity on Internet Copyright 1997 Nando.net Copyright 1997 Agence France-Presse TOKYO (June 6, 1997 11:43 a.m. EDT) - Japan, the United States and European nations will hold an unprecedented ministerial meeting next month to study ways to restrict obscenity on the Internet and regulate electronic commerce, it was reported Friday. The meeting in Bonn July 6-8 will focus on measures to crack down on obscene and violent pictures on the Internet, Jiji Press quoted informed sources as saying. It will also discuss universal criteria for encoding information in electronic commerce to protect private information, Jiji said. Japan will be represented by the posts and telecommunications minister, Hisao Horinouchi, the sources said. ----- Ariel Glenn / AcIS R&D / Columbia University ariel(a)columbia.edu #include <stddisclaimer.h>

1 0

Re: "Clinton has done a great deal for Intel"--more trolling
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <HZZu8D20w165w(a)bwalk.dm.com>, on 06/06/97 at 12:07 AM, dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) said: >Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> writes: >> More trolling from Crispin. Why am I not surprised? >Let's all pledge not to waste any more time responding to KKKent >KKKrispin. >[It worked with SternFUD :-) ] I find Kents posts usefull even though I don't agree with them. He serves a usefull purpors in many respects. 1: He provides a window into the thinkings of the opposition. 2: Replying to his posts help us to form answers to attacks on various positions that members of the list support. 3: Gives us pause to reflect on our positions on various issues (who know he may even be right every now and them <G>). 4: It's no fun preaching to the choir. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBM5eZkI9Co1n+aLhhAQFQ1gQAtRmQfZkDusGW5XSdep0uPlY9sw4aWAxm ppecGnLtMCsG3wRuzYiRYWbmvHq93Tp9IihhzyEHua6HqrI5kql4cCJDFThwWefW gwYaKliLM7YN5nT3MMoUcfryjZwDxEkcbP/Y6D4f/Y//4yLTCPz28w48t5gdU9q6 Qgq2+u/SguM= =rCXR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> > Date: Wed, 04 Jun 97 23:46:16 -0500 > Subject: Re: Webpage picketing (fwd) > Well this is why I had wanted to set the analogies aside. There are some > real diferences between cyberspace and your metaspace analogy of the > picket line. In cyberspace there is no sidewalk for your picket to stand > and for me to pay as little or as much attention as I wish. But there is, the publicly funded routers on the publicly funded network which are handling public traffic sitting in nice little queues just waiting to be processed. Perhaps a slightly more complicated setup might make it clearer. Consider that we have some length of fiber laying from Chicago to Salt Lake City. That fiber is fully owned/funded by the federal government. The two routers on the end of the cable are also fully owned. Now from those routers extends another network cable that goes to fully privately owned networks. Now in Salt Lake City there is a young 14 year old girl that just took an at home pregnancy test. It turned up positive and she has pretty much lost it. Now in Chicago there is a webpage for an abortion clinic. Her sister lives in Chicago. The girl gets on her trusty little bit-pusher and proceeds to contact that page from a lookup done in Yahoo. Now at this point her parents still think that what you don't know can't hurt you and her sister has a vistor for a few days that summer. Now ask yourself, does a anti-abortion group have any claim to providing that young girl alternate information that is not pro-abortion? Perhaps this will better exemplify the demarcation I am making. I admit it is a thin line, but that is all it takes. > A more closer analogy between cyberspace and metaspace is that your > picketors are not standing off to the side but are blocking the door and > the only way I can enter is to read their signs first. This is the point > where your picketors have oversteped the bounds of their 1st Amendment > rights. While the have the right to picket infront of the store they > cannot interfere with the comming and goings of the customers. The has > been well tested in the courts. The problem with extending the picket > analogy to cyberspace is there are no sidewalks. It's all or nothing. > Either you are blocking the door or you are not Not at all, blocking implies a stoppage NOT a delay. I suggest you sit outside an abortion clinic when the picketers are there. I assure you they are up close and personal. The old ruling of 15ft. seperation was over-turned just this year I believe. It is true that they may not block you but they are allowed to delay your journey slightly with civil coverage. I further belive the court would look at the nature of the Internet and the structure of the web and determine that a single page at the very beginning or perhaps a small splash screen first would not be an unwarranted imposition. I want to make it clear, I am a strict Constitutionalist. I don't see the government having the delegated authority to spend any public money on the Internet, human cloning, BATF, DEA, etc. I believe strongly that such enterprises are best left fully in the state and individuals care. I most definitely believe that were the 9th and 10th Amendment interpreted and used actively we would see a massive decline in government intervention and as a consequence lower taxes. _______________________________________________________________________ | | | Speak the truth, but leave immediately after. | | | | Slovenian Proverb | | | | Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com | | The Armadillo Group www.ssz.com | | Austin, Texas, USA 512-451-7087 | |_______________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199706060440.XAA08064(a)einstein.ssz.com>, on 06/05/97 at 11:40 PM, Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> said: >Forwarded message: >> From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> >> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 97 23:46:16 -0500 >> Subject: Re: Webpage picketing (fwd) >> Well this is why I had wanted to set the analogies aside. There are some >> real diferences between cyberspace and your metaspace analogy of the >> picket line. In cyberspace there is no sidewalk for your picket to stand >> and for me to pay as little or as much attention as I wish. >But there is, the publicly funded routers on the publicly funded network >which are handling public traffic sitting in nice little queues just >waiting to be processed. >Perhaps a slightly more complicated setup might make it clearer. Consider >that we have some length of fiber laying from Chicago to Salt Lake City. >That fiber is fully owned/funded by the federal government. The two >routers on the end of the cable are also fully owned. Now from those >routers extends another network cable that goes to fully privately owned >networks. Now in Salt Lake City there is a young 14 year old girl that >just took an at home pregnancy test. It turned up positive and she has >pretty much lost it. Now in Chicago there is a webpage for an abortion >clinic. Her sister lives in Chicago. The girl gets on her trusty little >bit-pusher and proceeds to contact that page from a lookup done in Yahoo. >Now at this point her parents still think that what you don't know can't >hurt you and her sister has a vistor for a few days that summer. >Now ask yourself, does a anti-abortion group have any claim to providing >that young girl alternate information that is not pro-abortion? Well yes & no. :) Yes they have the same free speech right as anyone else. Do they have the right to force anyone to listen to their speech or force them to distribute it no. They can put up there own web page and if yahoo choses to they can provide links to it (thouhg yahoo is not required to do so). Anyone intrested in listening to what they have to say is free to go to their web site just as anyone is free to go to the abortion site and read that info. The anti-abortion group should not be required to present the views of their opposition and the same for the abortion group. >Perhaps this will better exemplify the demarcation I am making. I admit >it is a thin line, but that is all it takes. >> A more closer analogy between cyberspace and metaspace is that your >> picketors are not standing off to the side but are blocking the door and >> the only way I can enter is to read their signs first. This is the point >> where your picketors have oversteped the bounds of their 1st Amendment >> rights. While the have the right to picket infront of the store they >> cannot interfere with the comming and goings of the customers. The has >> been well tested in the courts. The problem with extending the picket >> analogy to cyberspace is there are no sidewalks. It's all or nothing. >> Either you are blocking the door or you are not >Not at all, blocking implies a stoppage NOT a delay. I suggest you sit >outside an abortion clinic when the picketers are there. I assure you >they are up close and personal. The old ruling of 15ft. seperation was >over-turned just this year I believe. It is true that they may not block >you but they are allowed to delay your journey slightly with civil >coverage. I further belive the court would look at the nature of the >Internet and the structure of the web and determine that a single page at >the very beginning or perhaps a small splash screen first would not be an >unwarranted imposition. Well down here in Pensacola where we like to shoot abortion doctors I beleive that there is a 50' seperation (other side of the street). I don't know how the courts would rule but from past rulling against picketors interfering with the customers of a business I would tend to dissagree. To be honest I am not up on which way the wind is blowing in the courts on this issue. I do feel that the delay is unconstutional. It is where the fine line between your and my 1st amendment rights cross. The size and amount of delay is irrelevant from a constitutional standpoint (can't be a little bit pregnet can't be a little bit unconstitional). This is where are disagreement over the picket analogy rest. Inoreder for the picket analogy to be extended to cyberspace it requires me to download someone's elses speech before I can download the speech that I want to hear. In metaspace there is a sidewalk for the picketers to stand and I can pass them by without slowing down never hearing what they have to say. Here localy I have them well trained, when they see my vette they know not to block the driveway as I will not slow down for them (actually the sound of the 427 is enought to get them moving off to the side). >I want to make it clear, I am a strict Constitutionalist. I don't see the >government having the delegated authority to spend any public money on >the Internet, human cloning, BATF, DEA, etc. I believe strongly that such >enterprises are best left fully in the state and individuals care. I most >definitely believe that were the 9th and 10th Amendment interpreted and >used actively we would see a massive decline in government intervention >and as a consequence lower taxes. Never questioned it. :) - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBM5elpY9Co1n+aLhhAQHj2wQAxcypN4AERgmHy1X5aDZI9/vMxKfXiQrG REgPV2inTnatWf05u6QWTyG8FjQecIQCSFyNa3OCjDU17u1vqjN91lvo+K3jtotV f88jkE4OSNzEZVKCZ0FjpWVECvFk1cpKgqQKtH4UFUmf04NDxgQ8nNFXu0cESA16 YchbsjWz7js= =Krwo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

June 18th SF C'punks meeting: export controls on trial
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We're having yet another "Cypherpunks Dress-Up Day" on Wednesday, June 18th. Meet at the Federal Building in San Francisco, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, at 10:15AM, dressin' sharp 'n' actin' cool. There will also be a regular 2nd-Saturday c'punks meeting this month (I think it's at PGP, Inc.) The Bernstein case is moving toward a close. Both we and the government have asked the court to render its final judgement. We're asking her to declare both the State Department and Commerce Department crypto export control schemes unconstitutional, and to enjoin (order) the government to stop enforcing them. They're asking to keep the status quo, and keep full discretion to change it whenever they want. The two sides have exchanged their motions, declarations, and opposition briefs. The final salvos will occur on the morning of June 18th, as we do "oral argument" in front of Judge Marilyn Hall Patel. There she'll get to question us before she makes her decision. In this final round of hearings, we're exploring these issues: * Do the new Commerce Department export controls require people to get a government license before they can speak? * Do these controls impermissibly punish speech after the fact? * Are they too vague to constitutionally regulate speech? * Are they so broadly worded that they unconstitutionally limit speech protected by the First Amendment? * Can Prof. Bernstein challenge the law directly, as it applies to everyone, or only as it applies to him? * Does the President's declaration of an "international emergency" have any effect, when there is no emergency and the only issue is domestic and usual? * Can cryptographic assistance, technology, and software be regulated even though the law only applies to "foreign interest in property" and excludes "communications"? * Can these things be regulated even though the law precludes regulation of "informational materials"? * Should the judge void, or reaffirm, her previous decision against the State Dept. export controls? * Should the judge merely declare the Government's actions unconstitutional, or should she also explicitly order them to stop? * Should she stop the enforcement of the unconstitutional controls against everyone, or only against Prof. Bernstein? Watch the wheels of justice grind! Shake hands with the intrepid lawyers who are working hard to protect our rights! Banter with NSA representatives specially flown in for the occasion! Talk with journalists who cover crypto! Be quoted talking about crypto freedom! Finally meet our reclusive plaintiff, Professor Dan Bernstein! We will follow the hearing with a nearby press conference, then have lunch at Max's Opera Plaza, a block away at Van Ness Avenue and Golden Gate Avenue. (Alternative lunch ideas are welcome.) As background, Dan Bernstein, ex-grad-student from UC Berkeley, is suing the State Department, NSA, Commerce Department, Justice Department, and other agencies, with help from the EFF. These agencies restrained Dan's ability to publish a paper, as well as source code, for the crypto algorithm that he invented. We claim that their procedures, regulations, and laws are not only unconstitutional as applied to Dan, but in general. Full background and details on the case, including all of our legal papers (and many of the government's as well), are (or will soon be) in the EFF Web archives at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case. Like Phil Karn's and Peter Junger's cases, this lawsuit really has the potential to outlaw the whole NSA crypto export scam. We intend to make your right to publish and export crypto software as well- protected by the courts as your right to publish and export books. It will probably take more years, and an eventual Supreme Court decision, to make it stick. At the last hearing, we convinced the judge that the State Department export control laws really are unconstitutional. Her order restoring our legal right to publish crypto source code was a wonderful Christmas present. The government stopped issuing State Department licenses, but two weeks later started requiring virtually identical Commerce Department licenses. We think Judge Patel will see through this sham, and we hope she'll explicitly order them to cease. Please make a positive impression on the judge. Don those mothball-scented conservative duds. Show her -- by showing up -- that this case matters to more people than just the plaintiff and defendant. Demonstrate that her decision will make a difference to society. That the public and the press are watching, and really do care that she handles the issue well. We'll have to be quiet and orderly while we're in the courthouse. There will be no questions from the audience (that's us), and no photography there, but the session will be tape-recorded and transcribed, and you can take notes if you like. The lobby guards will want to hold onto guns, "munitions", and even small pocketknives, before they'll let you go upstairs to the courtrooms. It's unlikely that Judge Patel will decide then-and-there. Instead, we will get some insights into how she is leaning, based on her questions and comments. Her written decision will come out some weeks or months later. Even if she decides in our favor and issues an injunction, this isn't the end of the work. The Government would almost certainly attempt to have the injunction stayed (stopped) while they appeal the case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (also here in San Francisco). Then there's the appeal itself, in which we'll probably spend six months to a year defending Judge Patel's decision in front of a higher court. Followed by a potential appeal to the Supreme Court. The fat lady won't sing on June 18th, but the orchestra will be in full swing and she'll be waiting in the wings. Please join us on the dance floor, in your best regalia. John Gilmore PS: If you can't come, you can still contribute. Come to EFF's rock-and-roll fund-raiser at the Fillmore the following night, Thursday, June 19th, 7PM. $100/person, including a year of EFF membership. Current EFF members can buy two tickets at half price. There you really *will* get to dance! (If you're a musician, find a sponsor, and you can play at the Fillmore.) Reserve tickets at http://www.eff.org/fillmore/. See you there!

1 0

Re: [CONTROVERSIAL]: A Defense of Terrorism
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > Consider, for example, a Black child in the United States who dies of > a trivial curable disease because of the lack of health care. The attempts of Hallam-Baker II Esquire Jr. Knight of the Realm, etc., to separate the world into supporters of "good" child murderers and supporters of "bad" child murderers, reflects the attitudes that lead to those who feel disenfranchised by the government and society to decide that they have little to lose by striking out at the system in one way or another. Dimitri raises a deeply valid issue here which goes to the heart of defining what separates a "bean counter" from a "child-murdering monster." We can't save everyone dying of an incurable disease and provide health care for everyone, except at great cost. We can't put in place airline safety measures or monitor the activities of law enforcement agencies for free. The government officially puts the price of a human life at 2.5 million dollars. When a safety problem is found with an aircraft, for example, that is the figure used to calculate whether the problem will be fixed or allowed to take X number of human lives. The same concept applies to government and corporate decisions regarding worker safety (or death), public safety (or death), health care (or death), and a multitude of other issues. The same thing applies to warfare and self-defence, as well. Society, government, corporations and individuals all "count the cost" of the various options available to settle a conflict. A person who might kill another to prevent them from stealing their family's life savings would probably not kill another to prevent them from stealing their lunch box. And a person who would kill another to prevent them from stealing their family's life savings might not kill another to prevent them from stealing *your* life savings. > Joe Stalin himself took part in several spectacular terrorist acts in > his youth, which resulted in deaths of dozens of "innocent bystanders". Who is the murdering monster--Stalin, Reagan, or McVeigh? It depends on whether you ask Newt Gingrich, Saddam Hussein or Joe Oklahoma. Are the government and corporate bean-counters who decide not to fix known safety problems murdering monsters? What if they placed the value of a human life at *ten* dollars? A *million* dollars? Americans aren't outraged over the loss of life, they are merely self- servingly objecting to the fact that they are being personally presented with the bill that is coming due for their government's actions. Even some of those objecting are merely arguing over the "cost" of the bill. (i.e. - death count, age of victims) If McVeigh had whacked out 168 Iranians to free one American hostage, he would be an American hero. If he had whacked out 168 Americans to free the U.S. from a Stalinist takeover, he would be a hero. Well, he whacked out 168 Americans to free our minds from the belief that we will bear no personal cost for the aggression and oppression that the government perpetrates in our name, and to some he is a hero. Hallam-Baker would have us believe that anyone who does not roundly condemn McVeigh is in favor of the death of children. Like Truman, Churchill and Roosevelt were in favor of the death of children? Unless Hallam-Baker wants to propose that everyone who has ever supported conflict in support of a cause is in favor of the death of children, then he is just a horse's ass who uses smear tactics where logic fails. > What I'm driving at is: someone said earlier that Cypherpunks don't make > bombs, Cypherpunks write code. Well, my response is, if you write code > for anonymous electronic commerce that seriously challenges the gubmint, > in a free market environment, then the gubmint will first try to regulate > it out of existence, and if it fails, it will use whatever force is > necessary, including jailing and shooting people, to fight for it survival. "I didn't put them in the ovens, I just wrote the code that releases the gas. What kind of monster would bomb a Weapons Laboratory that has a day-care center in it?" The question mainstream America is asking, is: "What kind of monster would break *my* eggs to make an omlette?" What kind of monster would write code that allows someone to send email containing child pornography anonymously? What kind of monster would write code that can be used to hide drug transactions? What kind of monster would write code that can be used by terrorists who break *my* omlettes to avoid discovery? Hallam-Baker and his ilk want the government to serve them their omlette at the dinner table so that they can deny their knowledge of and complicity in other people's eggs being broken in the kitchen. Then they can climb on their high horse and complain loudly when the victims of the government's fraud and abuse decide to break a few eggs themself. I'm not in favor of the death of children in Waco, Oklahoma City, Dublin, Jerusalem, Dresden, or Hiroshima. For Hallam-Baker to suggest that I and others on the list are is the height of slanderous hypocrisy. It is a reality of life that there is a cost associated with freedom and with life itself. It is up to each of us to make our own decision as to whether we will take part in determining who pays, and how much, or whether we delegate those decisions to others and try to distance ourself from them. We can applaud the L.A. police when they tell "white" lies on the witness stand about "little" things like not considering the husband of a murder victim a suspect when they climb over his fence, but then we will end up complaining when someone we think is a murderer remains unconvicted because the jury can't determine where the lying stops and the truth begins. We can justify an armed government assault on "cultists" who are in possession of fewer guns than many mainstream Christians, but then we will end up complaining when someone else who is "outside" the mainstream decides that what is good for the gander is good for the goose. The issue of Waco versus OKC is not one of "good" guys and "bad" guys. It is a difference of opinion over the cost of freedom and the value of human life. 168 people at 2.5 million/life comes to about one and three- quarter billion dollars that we paid for the tragedy at Waco. Americans seem to be more than willing for citizens of other countries to bear the cost of freedom when we decide to invade and attack them in order to protect democracy, etc. Perhaps McVeigh should have bombed the Iranians to protest Waco--then he might be an American hero...maybe even the next President--a white Colin Powell. If Americans want to cry out in dismay over the "wrong" people being held accountable for the tragedy in Waco, then they might want to think about demanding that the "right" people be held accountable in the face of future government atrocities. Perhaps the real anger over the OKC bombing is that the American people thought that we had managed to skip out on the bill for our government's actions at Waco, only to be tracked down and made to pay at home. TruthMonger

1 0

[ANNOUNCE] Phil Zimmermann on recent FUD and PGP 5.0 plans
by Dave Del Torto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A message from our Fearless Leader... dave ................................. cut here ................................. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Last month, Pretty Good Privacy Inc went through a reorganization in its top management. We were spending too much money, too fast. Tom Steding was replaced by Phil Dunkelberger as the president of PGP, and I handed over the chairman title to Jonathan Seybold, who had been, with me, the original cofounder of the company. Jonathan is devoting his time to the business side of things, while I am focussing my attention on my role as chief technology officer. I have seen some speculation in some usenet newsgroups that these changes were in some way connected with the fact that PGP was recently sued by RSA Data Security over some dispute regarding royalties for use of the RSA patent, which PGP holds a license to. Let me set the record straight on this. There are sound business reasons why this shuffling of top management occurred at PGP, and these reasons are known to all of our employees. The RSA lawsuit against PGP is absolutely not one of the reasons, not even remotely. I don't think shuffling top management is a likely reaction for any company to take in response to a lawsuit, even if the lawsuit had merit, which this one does not. We fully expect the RSA matter to be resolved in arbitration proceedings, in our favor. I know that it is common practice for some companies to issue statements to "spin" the story about certain events, sometimes at the expense of truth. This makes a lot of people understandably skeptical about such explanations. I do have responsibilities toward my company, but no one could get me to deny a truth about the reasons for the restructuring. The truth is, the restructuring had absolutely nothing at all to do with the RSA lawsuit. I would now like to announce that we will be releasing PGP 5.0 in mid-June. It's in beta release right now on our web page (www.pgp.com) In keeping with my own dedication to personal freedom and privacy, we will be releasing a freeware version for noncommercial use through MIT's web site (web.mit.edu/pgp) just like in the old days before the company was formed. And we do plan to publish the full PGP source code for Mac, Windows 95, and Linux. There are a lot of new exciting features, including automatic key lookups from remote key servers on the Internet, which will likely result in the rapid growth of a ready-made nationwide PGP public-key infrastructure, on an unprecedented scale. We are also encouraging the migration to new public key algorithms in addition to RSA, namely the NIST Digital Signature Standard (DSS), as well as Diffie-Hellman (Elgamal) keys. We expect most of the new users to be using these new algorithms instead of RSA, in part because they offer new features, better performance, and better security for the same key sizes. I hope that you will all join me in this opportunity to move to these new algorithms, allowing everyone to finally enjoy the use of public key cryptography without the encumberances of patents. Philip Zimmermann Chief Technology Officer, PGP Inc. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBM5WoZWV5hLjHqWbdAQGaxgP/UM+i7Pz38x68zdWVOsTrQVepa+0FUndC NkvTi5iMTC9up7HJgleXMWuAB00qVB8XlC1/6oSx4Ot+gTecu0wXgNG/l8LXFBAo YYxlPhR497fvKfnWXATkJ3jQJAQbACHXzh7Wycc1MGq+46o6+CkECrUvUs8//KQT toJMdfVJEVA= =ywNo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

NYT on German Net Police
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The New York Times reports on page one the German prosecution of a woman who linked her home page to Radikal. It reviews XS4ALL's role, describes Radikal and its mirror sites and links to them all: http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/060697germany.html It says that Kohl is determined to find a way to police the Net in spite of technical work-a-rounds. Recall a previous report that Kohl and other heads of state are to meet in Denver on June 20-22 to plan a global attack on "cyber-terrorism," including the spread of encryption: http://jya.com/denver.htm

5 5

Re: JIWAR Registration
by William Church 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Confirmed

1 0

Re: JIWAR Registration
by William Church 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Confirmed with username cypherpunk1

1 0

One more step...
by nexus＠eskimo.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I received this in the morning CNET news: HOW PRIVATE IS YOUR NET SURFING? FBI VS. CDT BATTLE WILL DECIDE http://www.news.com/Radio/index.html?nd At the FTC's online privacy hearings next week, the debate will turn on the FBI's right to "intercept" information on the Net. Listen to CNET Radio to see why the Center for Democracy and Technology wants the spooks to back off. So where does the FBI think they get their 'right' to intercept net traffic? Who knows, but I'm sure its already happening and will continue to happen no matter what the FTC rules. Brian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 5.0 beta Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBM5geZKQxGtxXsXypAQFOeAP7BS9UAeFVxA2pokA7CSD/HwAgo3rGbFH6 Mm7ISfn7c4hK2sTVIcgCvCFJCDfXxXGPTuZOA7o9LEfE6b0TDw0JuJ1bbUkf9zqi JkpSpLipesJz56bzMi//jNiY7I1Da5rWpYPSXn5EsrZ1WdslXsGs7uiBTMQFixcL 4bMO5o1LPtA= =nD0+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian C. Lane http://www.eskimo.com/~nexus KC7TYU ------------------ 96B9 C123 5C90 BECC 6A1F 7DC6 4F2B A26E --------------------

1 0

Re: Webpage picketing
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 06 Jun 97 00:24:59 -0500, "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> said: >Well down here in Pensacola where we like to shoot abortion doctors I >beleive that there is a 50' seperation (other side of the street). Actually, this law was lobbied for by Zeiss Optical. They're trying to increase sales of rifle scopes.

3 2