December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Plea from a parent who wants to keep their kid free of SSNs
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 08:12:58 +0000 From: "David C. Treibs" <sirdavid(a)ktc.com> To: "(David C. Treibs)" < (SirDavid(a)ktc.com)> Subject: Need Help with IRS Problems David C. Treibs Fredericksburg, TX 78624 sirdavid(a)ktc.com Hi. We are in trouble with the IRS, and we need help. For religious reasons (explained below), we do not have Social Security numbers for our children, the oldest of 4 being 5 years old. Last year we sent in our return, as we have always done, without SSNs for our children. My wife and I do have social security numbers, and we sent those. IRS sent us a letter saying they were disallowing our exemptions since we had no SSNs for them. They gave us the opportunity to contest their disallowance, which we did by sending them our children's birth certificates; and letters from our parents, and a letter from our pediatrician, stating the children we claimed were indeed our children and our dependents. We don't have a problem proving that we are claiming legitimate dependents. IRS accepted the information we sent them, and accepted our exemptions. This year we again sent IRS our return without numbers for our children, but this time we included the letter of acceptance for last year's return, and again they said they are disallowing our exemptions, and they want $1,175.79. I called the telephone number on the letter and spoke with the lady who answered, explaining what we did last year and how the IRS accepted our tax return. The lady said "now we have new rules." She asked, "What religion are you," as if it mattered. When I told her we were Christians, she paused as though to consult some paperwork, and then she said, "those children need social security numbers or you cannot claim them." She mentioned the Tax Reform Act of 1996 and Publication 553 as being the enabling documents that brought on this change. That same day I called U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith's office and explained the situation. The nice lady in the San Antonio office said she would pass the information to the Kerrville office, and they would do what they could. The lady in the Kerrville office made several inquiries. She repeatedly said we had the right to appeal, and she sent us a copy of: --Internal Revenue Code: Income, Estate, Gift, Employment and Excise Taxes ss 1001-End As of Sept 15, 1996, Volume 2. Subtitle F, Ch. 61B, Sec 6109(a)-6109(h). Sec. 6109(e)--Repealed Is the rather odd heading for the only part I could find in the portion of the Code they sent me that says you must have a SSN or you will not be allowed an exemption. I wonder if that means the section is repealed? But then, the probably have it in some other section that the SSN is required. See IRC Sec. 151 (97) below. --What appears to be a news release titled: Valid Taxpayer Identification Numbers Needed For Returns 1996 IRB LEXIS 344; IR-96-50 --Internal Revenue Code...This section is current through 105-15, approved 5/15/97. Subtitle A. Income Taxes Chapter 1. Normal Taxes and Surtaxes Subchapter B. Computation of Taxable Income Part V. Deductions for Personal Exemptions IRC Sec. 151 (1997) (e) says no exemption will be allowed unless the Taxpayer Identification Number is included on the return. At present we are awaiting a letter from IRS, which we assume will state that we must either provide SSNs for our children or pay up, and they will probably give us 60 days or less to do either. Having received the above distressing information, we called a San Antonio, Texas, CPA, Ken Flint, a former IRS agent who now specializes in helping people in trouble with the IRS. He said it would cost us more to fight them than to simply pay the extra money. He sounded sympathetic, if somewhat busy, and told us we could do the appeal if we knew the law and IRS procedures. Unfortunately, I know neither. Perhaps at this stage you could help us. I need to hear from someone who has successfully appealed this sort of thing and won. What are the applicable laws? What is the case law in this matter? What are the IRS procedures in these matters? Are there any laws that might give us an out, such as the Religious Rights Restoration Act, and other such high sounding laws? Is there an attorney out there who wants to make a precedent out of this for us and all the other like-minded folks? If you have no direct knowledge of IRS laws and procedures, perhaps you could pass this to a forum or organization or individual who could. While we are aware of the various movements such as the sovereign citizen, the patriots, tax protesters, and so on, we prefer to work within the system to win our case. This is simply our preference. We don't have a problem with proving that we are not making bogus claims on our tax returns. We'd be happy to give them whatever reasonable proof they want. We do have a big problem with giving our children a government number. The Bible gives the responsibility of raising children to parents, not to the government or any other entity. Forcing Social Security Numbers on children represents a major violation of parents' God-given responsibility. The SSN's powers can be divided into two basic categories: monitoring and control; neither of which is within government's purview in dealing with children. These are entirely the parents' job, Hillary Clinton's postulations that "It Takes a Village" notwithstanding. Once a child has a SSN, they are forever a blip on the government radar, to be tracked, and to be the recipient of whatever government decides it must foist upon children and their families. SSN's are already used in our public school district to track students. Much of their test scores and who knows what personal data is in the district's computers, including a SSN. The district told us it probably won't be long before all this data is sent to the state, and how long will it be before this information ends up with the federal government? The Clintons are working to push us into nationalized health care, including government health care for children. Did you ever wonder how they plan to track all these children, to ensure they are receiving all the "benefits" of their plans? Very likely, the SSN. The "benefits" might include "inoculations" against pregnancy, which amounts to powerful birth control/abortifacient drugs, parental consent not needed or desired. Then, of course, there is the "education," accompanying this government intrusion into child health, which is irreconcilably opposed to my beliefs. The Clintons are also working to push us into the UN Rights of the Child Treaty, which shifts many parental rights and responsibilities to the government. The Clintons want to bypass parents and directly access children. How do you think they plan to monitor and enforce compliance with this horrible treaty? The SSN, in my opinion. Once every child has a SSN, it will also be easier for the state to nose in on the parent's job. With the recent birth of our fourth child, we were told that a state social worker from the welfare department would be visiting our home, and the home of everyone who has a child. If our child had a SSN, they could easily computerize all her data and then link it to any other data from us, our other children, and so on. It could be done without SSNs, but it would be more difficult and time consuming, and on a large scale, next to impossible. The state of Texas provides a good example of what a state will do when given access to the power of the SSN. Starting this year Texas requires SSNs to issue a driver's license. Now that they have linked the driver's license with a SSN, they can easily access a person's records, including court records, and anyone not paying child support may be denied a driver's license. This is just one example of the power of the SSN, and how government can use it to force its agenda on the populace. Whatever government grants or allows, it can withhold or restrict based on whatever is politically correct at the time, if they have the tools to do so. When people who disagree with you hold power over you, and when they want to extend that power to your children, you better be ready for trouble. The SSN enables anyone with access to the right data bases to know every address you ever had; details about your job, income, and taxes; school records; all financial transactions not made with greenbacks; probably all your telephone and utility details, including all your phone calls; doctor, hospital, and other medical details; all court and police records; and on and on and endlessly on. This is all your personal information, available to government at the snap of a finger, and this information is power. Now imagine if every child has a SSN, that power will extend down to the womb even more than it does now. We are not willing to give the government power over our children. Why should we, when children are none of government's business until they reach adulthood? Why tempt government with all that power, when they have already proven they will abuse it? For Liberty, David C. Treibs (sirdavid(a)ktc.com)

9 8

Re: Crypto-victory in Commerce; Oxley talks about nuking Congress
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: >At 6:37 PM -0700 9/24/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: >>least if you've heard it 17 times in the past few weeks. So >>today Rep. Oxley whipped out his trump card: if you don't >>vote for my amendment, you'll get blown up! "How about some >>terrorist orgainztion acting with impunity because they >>have the ability to communicate with impunity gets a hold >>of a Russian nuclear device and threatens to blow up the >>Capitol of the United States?" > >Sounds to me like Oxley is presaging the Reichstag Fire. Or another Lusitania. The German government during World War I had a policy of sinking any ship carrying armaments to Britain. While the Lusitania was a civilian ship, the allies were secretly loading it with ammunition. This was known to the German government which announced that it would attempt to sink the ship. This was advertised in New York newspapers by the German embassy in the weeks before the Lusitania's departure. The German torpedo appears to have set off the munitions in the hold which caused the ship to sink more quickly, magnifying the loss of life. Ironically, while the allies were responsible for using the civilians on board as shields, the Germans were held responsible for the deaths. This was used as a propaganda tool to persuade the American people that the country should enter World War I. By an odd coincidence, Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill worked together on the Lusitania project, foreshadowing their later work together. Many U.S. wars have started with similar incidents. The Spanish-American War started when a U.S. naval ship (The Maine) blew up in Havana harbor. Curiously, no officers were on board at the time. Some suspect Pearl Harbor was managed to maximize the shock of the American people. There was also an incident in the North Atlantic with a German ship which was used to justify U.S. involvement in the European war. And let's not forget the Gulf of Tonkin incident which prompted the Congress to grant the President sweeping powers. The only real question is whether the stakes are high enough at this time to justify some sort of provocative incident. It seems reasonable that the bureacracies of Russia and the United States would recognize their common interest against the people of both countries and the whole world. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNCqtJJaWtjSmRH/5AQGDUAf+M11KrzZs1YNB7Vlp76v3aMUvui3tuOgD 131nI0GNq+risLJ8WPt8ZrRzYQ9yZ4X9KKFFa1okWVyQL7Nii6xMs+rcMG+xqv7/ cMErgdPpbeuwzBTYNZDON0x5JUTcwvqzNZjMpAhaY4fZwHF6s5caArWZDAuAl2gC 2IJY8DDnDmhy9uQwJA/WCxpJi/D9/lJ/gaXY5Y3LMCfK0y7iUaQZH4/cEdupRklq L6MrSvGOn8rNuc+X5PNGDM6FMg6Mv035+tu0or1q07zN3cAnTo1tmXQA0tcp1/Vz SZNsbH7RF9pPTY1mzyWCqxGe8O+/m+CTuI+VeQ0wHPcu15Bg2gS5Hw== =Wvmm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #13 (fwd)
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here is a forward of the CFD where PGP was mentionned. I posted several off-topic messages to the CFD, to introduce theses peoples to encryption, digital signatures, e$, etc. For thoses who are curious about firearms related politics in Kanada, this it *the* forum for it. Take note that the Allan Rock discussed in the various posts is the former Canada Justice Minister, now Canada Health Minister, who fanatically drafted and frantically pushed bill C-68, the gun registration bill. Just so you know, now, in Kanada, simple possession of *any* firearms or some other weapons *is* a crime passible of 14 year of imprisonement, *unless* you get a permit that, in effect, waive that crime. Of course, they say that they make it simple and reasonable to get it, but what the authorities want is to disamr the population. Recently, they did not even shy out at saying it explicitely. Among their plans, the outright confiscation without compensation of a great number of now Verboten types of firearms. And you thought that the Kool Komrades were very far from you... JFA PGP key at w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon or at the MIT key server. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:03:08 -0600 From: Cdn-Firearms Digest <owner-cdn-firearms-digest(a)sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca> To: cdn-firearms-digest(a)broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #13 Cdn-Firearms Digest Thursday, September 25 1997 Volume 02 : Number 013 In this issue: re: mor(e )on Bill C-68 Unique registration Re: Claire Hoy on "Free Speech" -- The Hill Times Re: Carry Permits Police Function in Canada (mtoma) Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) www.pgp.com Foundations of Canadian Life re: The Police Function in Canada antique guns With friends like these ... Re: More Moronic Ramblings research links Re: Bill C-68 is not yet in force... Home-invasion victim winds up facing gun-storage charges ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:12:39 -0600 (CST) From: "Skeeter Abell-Smith" <ab133(a)sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca> Subject: re: mor(e )on Bill C-68 >then what the government should do is to totally outlaw the private >ownership of all handguns, semi-automatic, and automatic weapons. Such >weapons should be reserved for the police and military alone. Someone >once said that rifles were designed for hunting and, thereby, putting >food on the table, but handguns were designed for one purpose and one >purpose only: to kill people. The same goes for automatic weapons and >assault rifles. So get rid of them altogether (and to hell with the >target shooters - let them use air pistols!). "Automatic weapons" are machine guns, i.e. they are "fully automatic" (can fire many rounds with one trigger squeeze). "Assault rifles" are machine guns (of a specific type). There are 4500 Canadians who may own registered machine guns, and do. There has never been a registered machine gun used in a crime or suicide by its owner. I've never found an incident of one being stolen and used. So why ban them? There are one million registered pistols, used safely every year. Less than five are involved in a homicide each year, including justifiable homicides. More than 80% of the 600 annual homicides do not involve a pistol, let alone a registered pistol. So why ban them? If I can be trained and trusted to own use a car/chainsaw/airplane/ whatever safely, I should be able to be trained and trusted to own and use _any_ kind of firearm safely. Period. What's more dangerous: Using a gun at a range or flying an aircraft over a city? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:16:32 -0600 (CST) From: SBKracer <cronhelm(a)nucleus.com> Subject: Unique registration I own a Remington, WWII era, 1911A1 with a new serial number stamped over the spot where the original would have been. In fact some of the original number can still be seen. What are the chances this handgun is uniquely registered? The new serial number is a 5 digit number but I have NO IDEA where the number came from, who supplied it or who stamped it on. I am at least the third owner (that I know of) of this particular pistol since it entered Canada. I also own an Allan rock special which with the slide removed has NO markings at all save for a four digit number stamped on the backstrap. Could this number possibly be a patent number? I don't know how many digits typically make up a patent number. The pistol is an Arizzabalaga Terrible (at least that is what it says on the registration certificate) made circa 1920. Nice name for a gun huh? The "Terrible!" Specially considering it is chambered for that manstopping 6.35 (.25ACP) cartridge. Peter Cronhelm ZX-7 Carbon Fibre Racing Machine SBKracer YSR/YZ80 The Little Beast "I'm not the man you say I am, not radical nor mentally deranged." - -Sons of Freedom- "Without the threat of death, what's the point in living at all!" - -Marilyn Manson- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:17:29 -0600 (CST) From: "John E. Stevens" <jstevens(a)serix.com> Subject: Re: Claire Hoy on "Free Speech" -- The Hill Times skeeter wrote: > >Claire Hoy has a good column on "Free Speech" in this week's The Hill >Times. > >http://www.thehilltimes.ca/hilltimes/hoy.html AND while you're there, take time to read: Plan to introduce bills in Senate sparks fury in government and opposition benches. It's sometimes kind of scarry how our democratic government subtly attempts to circumvent democracy. [sometimes?... -- Skeeter] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:47:21 -0600 (CST) From: Juha Askola <krista(a)rapidnet.net> Subject: Re: Carry Permits Yes, you can take your friends handgun provided you are in possession of a valid carry permit and green slip belonging to the gun you're carrying. I don't know the law on this one but I would play it safe. When I purchased my .45, I just took the receiver part to the police but still with a trigger lock. Took a little arguing to make them understand that they don't need or require slide or barrel to register a gun, it was fun. Chao, Juha ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:48:44 -0600 (CST) From: someone(a)inter.net Subject: Police Function in Canada (mtoma) >[Moderator: This may or may not be "official policy." Without knowing the >context or the original author it is difficult to evaluate. HTB] [snip] >This particular document is by far the scariest federal gun control >document I have ever seen. In short it outlines stategies for gun >confiscation and prohibition orders for gun owning citizens and the >general disarmament of the populace. [snip] Even if this document is a complete fake, which we have no way of finding out, it is very possible something similar is in the works. Just look at UK and Australia! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:49:33 -0600 (CST) From: someone(a)inter.net Subject: Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) www.pgp.com In previous issues of the CFD, the issues of using and the governments' attempts to restrict the use of Pretty Good Privacy encryption software (www.pgp.com) was discussed and compared to restricting the use of firearms. I noticed a lot of users of this list have their PGP fingerprint attached to their message, which is great. However, a lot of people are reluctant to use PGP because it was difficult to use and install. For those using Eudora (16-bit or 32-bit), PGP Inc. has a special offer to have a full version of PGP 5.0 for Eudora plug-in, which supports both RSA and DSS/DH algorithm, for US$5 (five dollars). Personally, I think it is money well spent, with governments creeping up on us, you never know when you HAVE TO encrypt all your email. Go to www.pgp.com for more details. I'm in no way shape or form related to PGP Inc, Qualcomm, or anyone who might benefit from the sale of PGP or Eudora. I'm just an immigrant to this great country and would love to preserve the freedom we enjoy. [Also visit the PGP resources listed under "Freedom sites" at the cdn-firearms home page. http://cdn-firearms.ml.org/ -- Skeeter] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:51:02 -0600 (CST) From: "Geoff Stokes" <geoff_stokes(a)bc.sympatico.ca> Subject: Foundations of Canadian Life Recently, a local reporter found himself in a precarious position. He's been reporting on a ticket fixing case and he has a good source close to the investigation. My point is that his article seems to echo the fears some members of the RFC have with regard to the latest gun control scheme: >From the article entitled: Call Threatens Foundation of Canadian Life. "Two weeks ago I received a thinly veiled threat from someone who is either a policeman or somehow connected with the police...Then it became clear that it was the very idea that a pion like me would dare meddle with the RCMP...Finally, he said, If you start messing around with the big boys, you're going to get an education in life...the fact that most people believe that the police, the ones who are supposed to protect us, are capable of the kind of harassment and intimidation that my anonymous caller alluded to...To date, I'm happy to report that there have been no unexplained searches of my vehicle, no funny clicks on my phone and nothing to suggest that I am anyone's particular target...But I don't even like thinking that those things are a possibility, not in this country." hmmmm..., sounds an awful lot like what it may be like under Bill C-68 concerning increased police discretion; or how an uncooperative, non-complier may be treated in future..., or am I really going paranoid?? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 15:21:37 -0600 (CST) From: "Skeeter Abell-Smith" <ab133(a)sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca> Subject: re: The Police Function in Canada >From: SBKracer <cronhelm(a)nucleus.com> > >[The moderator wrote: This may or may not be "official policy." >Without knowing the context or the original author it is difficult to >evaluate. HTB] > >Sunday at a gunshow in Cow Town I got a copy of a news letter containing a >Federal document on gun control dated 1977. This document had been >e-mailed by <mtoma(a)compusmart.ab.ca>. The excerpt printed in digest number 10 (volume 2) was scary, but I think the one below is worse. ___________________________________________________________________ As regards the Police Function in Canada, prior to passage of the foregoing it was the opinion of the administrations: 1. That in face of mass civil disobedience the use of Force had limited capabilities.... 2. That in face of mass civil disobedience any display of available Force would not have credibility.... ....as far as an armed and organized Public was concerned and it was felt in the interests of the Function that it was desirous to ensure the Public be discretely but effectively disarmed over a period of the forthcoming 5 years. The foregoing is not entirely the opinion of the administrations of the Function, but is one which has been voiced generally even at the rank and file level...that being that the absence of firearms in the hands of the Public in general would increase the safety of a Patrolmans work. With the passage of the Firearms Section of the Criminal Code of Canada Amendments, having been predetermined that in regards to the Functions ability as a Control and Enforcement Agency there was: 1. A lack of personnel suitably indoctrinated at specific assignment levels and sectors within the proposed Control Structure. 2. A requirement for the adequate indoctrination and training time, 3. A requirement for time to phase in the various levels and sectors of the proposed Control Structure independently of one and another in a manner which would not create alarm, nor allow premature rapport. 4. A requirement for time to nullify the credibility of alarmists and dissenters. ___________________________________________________________________ This document was obtained from MP Peter Elzinga. I had been faxed a copy back in 1994, but the source was "unknown". We may never know if it was/is for real... read it all in Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #860 http://cdn-firearms.ml.org/cdn-firearms/Digests/v01n800-899/v01n860 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:15:14 -0600 (CST) From: dcmiller(a)mail.island.net (douglas c miller) Subject: antique guns I think the Dave's answer in regard to the antique guns in digest V2 #12 was a little weak. My first objection is that an 1864 Enfield MkII* is probably a Snider Enfield and as such would be .58 caliber and I very much doubt that it would be found in .303. I think that Dave is mistaking it for a Martini Enfield. His second comment re Winchesters would have been far more accurate if he had stated Winchester repeaters/carbines came in the following models. The model 1885 is a single shot in high wall and low wall models and I don't believe would ever have been referred to as a saddle ring carbine. What is perhaps more instructive of the questions posed is the error or risk of registering one's own guns as illustrated by the owner who works in or in conjunction with a museum appears to have made at least one descriptive mistake. Just my $.02 worth D.C. Miller ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:54:14 -0600 (CST) From: jean hogue <jean_hogue(a)sympatico.ca> Subject: With friends like these ... >>I am an archaeologist by >>profession and work for the **************** government. >> ... >>On the other hand, if there is really that >>great a concern over public safety (as opposed to the amount of revenue >>that can be generated by this punitive registration/licensing system), >>then what the government should do is to totally outlaw the private >>ownership of all handguns, semi-automatic, and automatic weapons. Such >>weapons should be reserved for the police and military alone. > I think Dave's reply to this was far too polite. Yet another case where this quote by Pastor Martin Niemoller is so appropriate: "In Germany they first came for the communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. They came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade Unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade Unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up." Just under what logic does this government archaeologist justify banning the best-behaved guns in the country ? Several thousands (I believe 5,000) automatic weapons were lawfully registered before 1979 by non-military, non-police law-abiding citizens. Not a single one has ever been involved in a crime of violence. As for automatic weapons being reserved strictly to the police and military, two things: 1- the only two cases of homicides committed with automatic weapons legally registered were: a) military: Corporal Lortie killed three in the Quebec National Assembly (provincial govm't) -- 1985 or 1986; b) police: in Rock Forest, police fired a burst from an Uzi, through the motel room door, killing a labourer police mistakenly assumed to be the hold-up suspect they were looking for -- early 1980's. 2- the government archaeologist sounds just like Allan "Alibi Al" Rock: "I came to Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers." Allan Rock, Canada's previous Minister of Justice Maclean's "Taking Aim on Guns", April 25, 1994, p 12 Pay attention to the man behind the curtain. A recent "study" by police of guns recovered at crime scenes "concluded" that "legal" guns (they meant unrestricted) were used in crime far more often than handguns and evil semi-automatic "assault" rifles. The government archaeologist's toys are deemed by police to be even more dangerous than the toys being condemned by the archaeologist. I have really lost patience for this mentality of throwing off "wolf meat" from the dogsleigh to escape the wolves. The archaeologist is simply advocating that the gun owner community sell off owners of handguns and semi-automatics so that people like the archaeologist can be left alone with their more politically-correct toys. All this based on nothing more than an _iffy_ "concern". Thanks for the back-stabbing and dream on! As Max Headroom said: with friends like these, who needs an oenema? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:55:47 -0600 (CST) From: dons(a)Cadabratech.com (Don Shesnicky) Subject: Re: More Moronic Ramblings Here's an interesting story along this theme... I caught this one on CBC radio two days ago while driving into work. It was an excerpt from something that, I believe it was Martin Bell from the BBC, said during a book presentation in Ottawa. He stated something to the effect that the media could never be detached from the stories they covered. As an example he put forth this story, which was said to be true and which I will put into my own words: It seems that a reporter visiting Bosnia wanted to do a story on snipers. A Bosnian commander told him to go with one of his snipers. They crawled into place and after the sniper took a look out onto a street told the reporter to take a peek and tell him what he saw. After looking the reporter said he could see two civilians standing in the street. The sniper asked him which one should die. The reporter realizing that he suddenly didn't want to be there explained at length to the sniper that he didn't want either of them to die. As he turned to go he heard two shots. He turned back to the sniper who said "Too bad, you could have saved one of them". Powerful story. Don ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 13:20:05 -0600 (CST) From: "Skeeter Abell-Smith" <ab133(a)sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca> Subject: research links A couple of good links from the Cdn-Firearms Home Page (under "research"): http://www.nra.org/research/rihome.html and http://www.nra.org/research/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:01:28 -0600 (CST) From: griffith(a)comnet.ca Subject: Re: Bill C-68 is not yet in force... >> and an 1885 >>Winchester saddle-ring carbine w/octagonal barrel in very fine >>condition. >Winchesters went through Models 1873, to 1876, to 1886, to 1892, to >1894. Which do you have, and in what calibre? There is no Model >1885. I got stuck with one of them fake model 1885 too. I guess I should of been more suspicious when the guy who sold it to me kept referring to it as a "High Wall". Sure is pretty. but i ain't worked out yet how do I load the magazine. Gerald Griffith " The easiest thing in the world to achieve is the effective disapproval of any sort of uncritically vested authority. " < Alexander King > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:05:49 -0600 (CST) From: "David A. Tomlinson" <nfadat(a)telusplanet.net> Subject: Home-invasion victim winds up facing gun-storage charges Thursday, September 25, 1997 Home-invasion victim winds up facing gun-storage charges By SKANA GEE -- The Daily News The victim of a home invasion in Middle Sackville last month now has his own date with a judge. Clarence Joseph Arsenault, 60, was charged yesterday with illegal storage of firearms, stemming from an investigation into the robbery at his house Aug. 27. "They were kept in a room that wasn't secured very well and they were not secured very well," said Lower Sackville RCMP Const. Lynn Tardif. "They were kind of just in disarray." She said Mounties seized about 60 handguns, rifles and shotguns, including those that were stolen during the home invasion, during which Arsenault's elderly mother and seven-year-old grandson were tied up with rope and duct tape. Return Oct. 1 The two men charged in that incident return to Bedford provincial court Oct. 1 to make their election. The charge against Arsenault alleges he stored restricted firearms without failing to render them inoperable by a secure locking device and storing them in a locked container or room "that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open." "It's one charge dealing with all the different firearms," said Tardif. She said many people in the community knew the Lakeview Avenue man was a gun collector, a situation aggravated by the fact his weapons were "easy to get at." Just after the home invasion, Arsenault told The Daily News he had begun to clean the guns "for the next gun show." He also said he expected to be charged. Tardif said police sympathize with Arsenault's family for the ordeal they experienced, but they maintain the charge is warranted. "It put everybody in a bad situation as far as I'm concerned," she said. "We have a job to do. We have no choice, but we also want to raise awareness about this kind of thing." Tardif said she could only speculate on what might have occurred if the weapons had been stored differently. "I don't know if you can necessarily prevent the robbery, but it would have made it a lot harder for them," she said. Arsenault will be arraigned Nov. 19. Joshua Alexander Pelley, 23, and Kenneth Wayne Beazley, 20, are charged with committing robbery by stealing guns while using threats of violence; break, enter and theft; and wearing a mask while committing an indictable offence in connection with the home invasion. The NFA has supplied Mr. Arsenault with transcripts of court decisions that indicate the charge against him [CC s. 86(3), storage "in violation of a regulation"] cannot be used because it is a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. THE NFA STRONGLY CONDEMNS THE CANADIAN FIREARMS CENTRE FOR NOT MAKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS AWARE OF THE DEFECTS IN THESE "STORAGE" CHARGES. THE CFC, BY ITS REFUSAL TO DISTRIBUTE INFORMATION ABOUT IMPROPER CHARGES LIKE THIS, IS CONTRIBUTING TO ABUSIVE ENFORCEMENT. PLEASE WRITE TO THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND DEMAND JUSTICE! IT WOULD BE PERFECTLY SIMPLE FOR THE CFC TO DEVOTE ONE ISSUE OF THEIR "BULLETIN" TO THE PROBLEMS OF CC S. 86(2) AND (3), BUT THEY INSIST ON DELIVERING USELESS INFORMATION AND REFUSE TO PUBLISH IN AREAS LIKE THIS WHERE ABUSE IS RAMPANT. THEY WILL NOT PUBLISH ANYTHING THAT REDUCES THE ABUSE LEVELS. AND THAT IS WRONG. CC s. 86(3) imposes a sentence of up to two years imprisonment. The charge leaves no room for a defence of "due diligence" (I didn't do it the way the regulations said to, but I did do it in a way that had the same or a better effect). That being so, storage in the alternative way leaves one guilty of the offence, and that is a violation of the Charter right to liberty. The accused can be sent to prison for up to two years -- when the accused has done nothing wrong. That is a violation of the Charter right to "fundamental justice." The R. vs. Smillie case (BC Supreme Court) ruled that CC s.86(3) violates the Charter as indicated above, and therefore cannot be used. R. vs. Finlay (Supreme Court of Canada) ruled that CC s. 86(2) and (3) are regulatory law rather than proper criminal law, and that therefore a proper defence of "due diligence" shall succeed. Dave Tomlinson, NFA FOCUS: In trouble? Know someone who is in trouble? Learn of someone who is in trouble? Get in touch with the person in trouble, tell him or her to get help from the NFA. Call (403) 439-1394. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #13 ********************************* List Submissions: cdn-firearms-digest(a)sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: majordomo(a)sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: ab133(a)sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca List owner's e-mail address: ab133(a)sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Web Site: http://cdn-firearms.ml.org/cdn-firearms/homepage.html FTP Site: ftp://cdn-firearms.ml.org/pub/cdn-firearms/ Digest Back-issues: FTP (cd pub/cdn-firearms/Digests) or visit the Cdn-Firearms web site (above) or send the following command to majordomo(a)sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca: get cdn-firearms-digest v01.n987 end (987 is the digest issue number and 01 is the volume) To subscribe, leave the Subject: line blank and e-mail the next 4 lines to majordomo(a)sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca: subscribe cdn-firearms-digest subscribe cdn-firearms-alert subscribe cdn-firearms-chat end (To unsubscribe, use "unsubscribe" instead of "subscribe".) These e-mail digests are free to everyone, and are made possible by the efforts of countless volunteers. If you find this service valuable, please consider making a donation to the Saskatoon Free-Net Association Box 339 RPO University Saskatoon SK S7N 4J8 modem lines: (306) 956-3700 and (306) 956-3701 Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/ and/or the National Firearms Association Headquarters Membership and publication Box 1779 Box 4384, Station C Edmonton AB T5J 2P1 Calgary AB T2T 5N2 ph.: (403) 439-1394 ph.: (403) 640-1110 fax: (403) 439-4091 fax: (403) 640-1144 e-mail: nfadat(a)telusplanet.net Web site: http://www.nfa.ca/ Automatic, monthly donations may be made to the N.F.A. by sending a voided cheque, or your Visa/Mastercard number and expiry date, to the Membership address above, along with the amount you would like to donate: $5, $10, or another amount. Automatic donations may be cancelled at any time. N.F.A. memberships: families: $40; seniors: $20; individuals: $30; businesses: $50. Included are eleven issues of the N.F.A. newsletter Point Blank, as well as magazines like "Canadian Sportsman". Add just $4.75 per person for $2,000,000 insurance! Clubs: get associate memberships for just $2 per member ($40 minimum) and members will be still eligible for $2,000,000 liability insurance for just $4.75 each! Permission is granted to copy and distribute this digest as long as it is kept whole.

1 0

Lucky in the news
by ulf＠fitug.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Der kalifornische Cypherpunk Lucky Green is in the news. Today's issue of the German newspaper "Die Tageszeitung" has a lengthy article about PGP 5. http://www.taz.de/~taz/970925.taz/is_T970925.136.html

1 0

RE: Why the White amendment is a good idea (fwd)
by Aaron Weissman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thursday, September 25, 1997 1:37 PM, Jeff Barber [SMTP:jeffb@issl.atl.hp.com] wrote: > We shouldn't have to "trick" Congress into doing the right thing, > or provide cover for them either. Ultimately, we are not going to "trick" them. Congress has tools, like CRS, that ensure that they (usually) have good information before a bill is sent to the President. However, why shouldn't we provide cover for them? You can be sure that Oxley, McCain, Kerrey, etc. will receive "cover" from the FBI and Law Enforcement. You can be sure that they will receive endorsements from all of the right "fraternal brotherhood of police whatever" organizations come election time. If a Member of Congress wants to support civil rights, I think that we *should* provide as much support and "cover" as possible. It's hard enough to publically support civil rights and free speech in today's media climate. We won yesterday because the Committee found a solution that gave them cover and allowed all parties to declare victory. I find that to be a very good thing. Aaron

1 0

Exports and criminalizing crypto
by John Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

off. Without the export restrictions we would see much more crypto sold and used inside the US. I'll bet there are lots of cypherpunks who are holding off releasing crypto tools because of these laws. Look at the guy who said he had to go to Canada to release his crypto. And he had to stop thinking about it when he was in the US. This is crazy. Yes, it is stupid to have a law that using crypto makes a crime worse. But this is not that bad compared to some laws. It won't affect most people. With the export restrictions gone, the green light will be given to make crypto available everywhere. Every data transmission will be encrypted, and people will be protected. It might even be that the criminal part will be shut down by the courts. Once crypto is everywhere, it will be impossible to do anything without using crypto. The law would then be like a law which said that breathing air while committing a crime will be illegal. I'm sure the lawyers could come up with a reason why this kind of a law will be unconstitutional. At this point the SAFE law looks like a good one. Everyone said that there was no way to stop the FBI from putting in the restrictions, but they were stopped. Now everyone says there is no way to get a good bill out of the Senate, or past the president. People are missing one point. We are right. Stopping people from using crypto is completely the opposite of the basic principles of this country. Look at all the groups which came out against the amendment to SAFE. The ACLU, the religious right, the NRA (how often do you see them working together?). Business executives, law professors, technical experts. If this coalition can hang together and support the bill in its current form, the SAFE law still has a chance at success. Probably not this year because there is not time, but next year they should try again. Getting rid of these export restrictions would produce an explosion of Cypherpunk style crypto software. It is a big win. "John ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

4 3

Re: Why the White amendment is a good idea (fwd)
by K. N. Cukier 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh forwarded the message by... >From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> -- who wrote: >> The NETCenter > >What an oxy-maroon. What a self-referent -- not to mention >self-congratulary -- canard. [...] > >Any entity which has the unmitigated presumption to have "center" and "net" >in its name demonstrates nothing less than total ignorance [...] > >Reality is not optional. Trying to find the "center" of any piece of the >net is equivalent to the cosmological "problem" of finding the "center" of >the universe. > >It represents the utter fallacy of hierarchy in a geodesic age. I take your point insofar as "NETCenter" and crypto, but you repeat a common misperception. Although the Net is tough to control, and it is a distributed system of networks, there are -- of course -- a number of centralized process. The Domain Name System is completely hierarchical. Moreover, Jon Postel of IANA represents the Net's central authority due to: 1. the IP number allocations, 2. the DNS "root", and 3. the technical standards, such as port numbers, etc. Unless there was a certain degree of centralized control, in an engineering perspective, the Net "Would Not Work." That's the fact, Jack -- n'est-ce pas? Yes, it is *possible* to do away with these centralized functions, and this is happening now, in a very non-public way. -- KNC

2 1

Chutzpah! FBI Calls Privacy Extremists Elitist
by David HM Spector 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FBI Calls Privacy Extremists Elitist (09/25/97; 4:30 p.m. EDT) By David Braun, TechWire MONTREAL -- Extremist positions on electronic encryption are not only threatening to normal law enforcement, but they are also elitist and nondemocratic, said Alan McDonald, a senior counsel member with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, at the International Conference on Privacy in Montreal on Thursday. Addressing a workshop on how far society should go in trading off privacy for effective law enforcement, McDonald said privacy activists had fought any balance in proposed encryption legislation. "Such absolute positions threaten not only electronic searches but also conventional searches for data that has been encrypted," McDonald said. Absolute positions on privacy were "pernicious on several levels," McDonald added. The absolute positions "handcuffed" law enforcement while also raising rights for citizens to levels that were unreasonable and that would have been foreign to the nation's founding fathers. Extreme privacy positions were ultimately elitist and nondemocratic in that they presumed the views of a knowing privacy cognoscenti should pre-empt the views of the nation's elected officials and the Supreme Court, McDonald said. McDonald's statements came a day after a key committee of the U.S. House of Representatives rejected an FBI-supported proposal that would have compelled the makers of encryption products to include features that would enable law enforcement agencies to gain immediate and, if necessary, covert access to unscramble any coded data. Extremists presumed that the citizens could not trust the elected government and the Supreme Court to make decisions or to correct mistakes if any are made, McDonald said. "Based on a theory of potential government abuse, important tools commonly used are to be restricted or embargoed," McDonald said. McDonald said efforts in the United States to enhance effective law enforcement search and seizure capabilities had proceeded without harming legitimate privacy concerns. In the area of electronic surveillance, McDonald said, privacy enhancements had frequently received treatment "superior to that required under our Constitution." With minor exceptions, neither the laws nor the cases decided regarding effective law enforcement or privacy had come about with the view that either were absolute in their nature, McDonald said. Law enforcement measures had been tempered by considerations of personal privacy, and privacy laws had been balanced with effective law enforcement. Notwithstanding the substantial threats posed by national and international organized crime, drug cartels, and terrorists, the United States had remained true to its Constitutional moorings, and its commitment to a system of ordered liberties, McDonald said. "When people don't know much about electronic surveillance, they are fearful of it. But when they know Congress passed laws and the Supreme Court reviewed them and that there are numerous constraints and procedures, then it makes sense to them. It seems rational and balanced," McDonald said. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David HM Spector spector(a)zeitgeist.com Network Design & Infrastructure Security voice: +1 212.580.7193 Amateur Radio: W2DHM (ex-N2BCA) (ARRL life member) GridSquare: FN30AS -.-. --- -. -. . -.-. - .-- .. - .... .- -- .- - . ..- .-. .-. .- -.. .. --- "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?'" --H. G. Wells

8 8

RE: Oxley Amendment
by Michael Brock 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I believe (as I am sure most here do) that crypto of any strength will become illegal, and that anyone sending a message in Pig Latin will soon be shot on sight by FBI the "protecting" our rights... Any control on encyrption, domestic or exportable, is unacceptable in today's high computing power society... Mandatory key escrow, well, you thought the IRS was corrupt... "Have you cracked RC5 today?" M. -----Original Message----- From: Declan McCullagh [SMTP:declan@well.com] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 1997 10:29 AM To: Lucky Green Cc: Michael Brock; cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net Subject: Re: Oxley Amendment Lucky has it right. SAFE is extremely unlikely to go to the floor without additional "compromise." Then there's the "compromise" with whatever bill the Senate coughs up. Remember that pro-crypto legislation is dead there; only McCain-Kerrey got out of committee. Also remember the Senate is more conservative... Then there's the reality that no pro-crypto legislation would get past a presidential veto... -Declan At 07:16 -0700 9/25/97, Lucky Green wrote: >On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Michael Brock wrote: > >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> I wonder if Mr. Solomon of NY will rethink his decision to not bring >> up SAFE without Oxley to the entire House after the unprecedented >> coaltion of companies and individual groups that came together to >> make sure that mandatory key recovery stays a "1984" like dream. I >> find it incomprehensible that one man, would block the introduction >> of this bill, after it being proved that this is what his >> constituents want.... > >What in the world makes you believe that Mr. Solomon's constituents would >want SAFE to go the the floor? SAFE *must* be defeated, with or without >the Oxley ammendment. > >-- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)cypherpunks.to> PGP encrypted email preferred. > "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?"

1 0

Plea from a parent who wants to keep their kid free of SSNs
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- David C. Treibs writes via Declan McCullagh: >The Bible gives the responsibility of raising children to parents, not >to the government or any other entity. > >Forcing Social Security Numbers on children represents a major violation >of parents' God-given responsibility. While I am generally sympathetic with Mr. Treibs, it does not seem reasonable to ask for a government child subsidy while claiming the government has no business raising kids. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEUAwUBNCrALpaWtjSmRH/5AQFr+Qf2P6C4HBs9iAPAdTKPrQSPkpDIy6y3Sa4a GFpDuPoqS9DpCEM/6oQIqezy0AdFZD8L3A7/VmRyHMW1H72I+F3KrqrEjmdc6vbK zil8XnuezijL/4IisfN5PvWaL8NmT/7f+15BE4/qegXcWOwP7LM+oHKcuk01zJLX dvMXGwtmeRBJh+bqOIbv1y0mgfaHw08MEakmN5oA8BGhTu8IhRubttGCVG+jNY46 p47NqVYYa0tt0n1kMOWl2Y+qLWucvCRsuPAzfWJzDu+fzTvNsjNwn2IJfQN/O8Id C/jVQvJv3Eo99YOAlPa1XnSGyc7SWRg/VVMto114biIVw4UtaWdy =cxyC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Remailer Attack
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- According to Raph's remailer stats, the remailers have widely varying latencies. Given that only a few remailers have latencies which are acceptably low, the list of usable remailers is quite low. If the user of the remailer, Monty Cantsin for example, signs his messages, a fairly accurate measure of total transit time is obtained. The total transit time gives clues to the remailers which were actually used in the chain. In an of itself, this may not comprise the user, but combined with other weaknesses it will cause the attacker to be significantly more confident of identification hypotheses. The remailers should all have about the same latency. 0 seconds seems like a good Schelling point. What would it take to reduce remailer latency to under 60 seconds for most of the remailers? Do people need old 486s to dedicate to the task? Do they need money? Better software? If you operate a remailer, please tell us what you need to make it really work well. Perhaps the rest of us can help make it happen. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNCrG4paWtjSmRH/5AQFuAAf+ID6TSjoUV1sVehzW6DoqVXREyO/fR4Uw H+W6QCiTOQaRhTD1Z6WSaL9FOaBJ5aSHCdLzKy9eIvagXsYR+eqVBdO0oSuDaloc BYSN+QXSKvMEuEotkCF4RicRoENlTmD0Qcrz4KvvW+d+jRxyxejs9O0HqDeTq9y/ KpBtq8CytpEMmGc6VSHuAX90qwJTtHUk/k4ulXU7v4xMmBLu1HpS/9M5h7mooybC 8qwVJKswAMI4wTB5FlBj/+b8txkCzMdqJkFdLEYu+LAGZfkB96W9uRU+eGekCHY2 6iycxv+m4r7wXPbP9A83Y6UnP4nkZBW86y7Du8NjVWGpscCfNjFF3g== =QjE1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

8 8

RE: Why the White amendment is a good idea (fwd)
by Aaron Weissman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thursday, September 25, 1997 12:00 PM, Lizard [SMTP:lizard@dnai.com] wrote: > But to do that, you see, you'll need warrents, reasons for > suspiscion, and, becuase of the effort involved, you'll only do it > for serious crimes with a strong liklihood of conviction. *That* is > the 'stauts quo' law enforcement *claims* to want. and the technical realities of encryption, plus the limitations of any "NETCenter," will force a respect for, or at least compliance with, the 4th amendment. Hooray! Aaron

1 0

Re: Exports and criminalizing crypto
by John Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> >John Smith <jsmith58(a)hotmail.com> writes: >> Getting rid of these export restrictions would produce an explosion >> of Cypherpunk style crypto software. It is a big win. > >I disagree. > >Cypherpunk (freeware) crypto isn't hardly hindered at all by EAR >export nonsense. > >You reference Ian Goldberg claiming to have to work on crypto during >trips to Canada. I think he was just trying to make a political >point. I submit that he could write and publish all the crypto he >wants in the US (on one of those "export controlled" sites). It will >get illegally exported in no time at all. Where's the problem? That's easy for you to say, there in England. You don't have these export controls, right? How can you say what Ian Goldberg should do. I think he was not just making a political point. From what he said, he really does not release crypto from inside the US. Only when he goes to Canada, which isn't that often. I'll bet he could be releasing 3x more crypto if we didn't have the export laws. Is he on this list? Let's hear what he has to say. >William Geiger has PGP on a non-export controlled site, and the export >bods haven't said a word, so it's not even clear that they care about >freeware at this point. PGP is a special case because it is already out there everywhere. Still the example of Phil Zimmerman is a good one. Even though he got away with it eventually, they showed how they can make your life hard. Probably the only reason he didn't get charged was because they couldn't prove anything. Not many people are going to be willing to take that chance. William Geiger and a few others may be exceptions, but most people won't openly break a law which has strong penalties like this. There is nothing to stop te authorities from prosecuting William Geiger and even threatening him with jail. There is no guarantee that he will become another Zimmerman and get all kinds of donations and support. A lot of hackers thought they'd be heros but ended up doing time. Read that letter from Jim Bell if you want to see how different things look once the government comes down on you. >Also your claim that the FBI is defeated, and that safe is a good >idea. Disagree also. > >1) SAFE has lots more hurdles to pass before it gets to be law. Yes, I said that. It probably won't go anywhere this term. The big question will be what happens next year. But after all the opposition which came out, from practically every interest group there is, I am sure that there is no way domestic controls on crypto are going to pass. Even with the CDA there was not this much united opposition. Car companies and phone companies didn't fight the CDA. Religious right didn't fight the CDA. CDA passed, remember? FBI's bill did not. And all the opposition came together in a few days. Nobody was ready for this. Next year there will be more time to organize, and the opposition should be even stronger. >2) If it does get to be law, you won't like the modifications that are >made to it by that stage. That depends. The law may still be good. Who cares about this crypto center. That's just another boondoggle. The main thing is getting the export laws changed. >3) Crypto-in-a-crime US domestic restrictions are a _bad thing Stupid, yes, but not that big a deal. Everyone will have crypto so every crime will use it. Wouldn't it be better to have a world where every phone was encrypted? So what if they add crypto-in-a- crime to every crime where somebody used a phone to plan it. It's not like people aren't going to use phones, or they're going to turn off the crypto. It really won't have any effect on anybody, except maybe make some prison terms longer. That's not my issue, how long prison terms should be. I want to be able to use crypto. I hope this stupid mailer doesn't chop off my message again. "John ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

4 3

Re: Emphasizing a point by Donald Eastlake re key recovery
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 10:25 AM 9/25/97 -6, Peter Trei wrote: >Well, I dunno. About 18 months ago, I was involved with the >negotiations over the exportability of an SSL equipped web >server I had helped develop. The export model used 40 bit RC4 >and 512 bit keys. The initial version used 3DES to encrypt >stored private keys, and this was turned down. I modified it to >use single DES, and it passed. > >Note that this was for secret key storage only. This should be listed as yet another outrage of the current system -- perhaps reason to start another lawsuit. - Carl -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNCra7FQXJENzYr45AQECaQP/aqrptzzWdwjJsseEtIKGckIg0mXLRAFk APtO4O4hzeZJDVJ7QPKtJc6BqSU8uT5gs44rJR3SrUZ3g0D5RG4zyjue30Drhyor bmqQKJXsbtIW/wk0uPXA3EyfRusjUr51yVjPdkwhRsh6ta5YIvAusTAonSjAoJrf AL+F9+pFBPw= =yC89 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- +------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Carl M. Ellison cme(a)cybercash.com http://www.clark.net/pub/cme | |CyberCash, Inc. http://www.cybercash.com/ | |207 Grindall Street PGP 2.6.2: 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 | |Baltimore MD 21230-4103 T:(410) 727-4288 F:(410)727-4293 | +------------------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

RE: Why the White amendment is a good idea #2
by Aaron Weissman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thursday, September 25, 1997 11:34 AM, Tim May [SMTP:tcmay@got.net] wrote: > Though we as technical people are usually cautious to say that > "unbreakable" is a dangerous word, the fact is that it's our current best > description of what a 2000-bit RSA key is, and that's all there is to it. I don't dispute you -- in the slightest -- that a brute force attack against a 2000-bit RSA key is functionally impossible today. However, I don't think that a brute force attack is the most likely for a functional law enforcement (or national security) crypto lab. Unless you think that today's algorithms and conventional random number generators are perfect ... Aaron

1 0

RE: Why the White amendment is a good idea (fwd)
by Aaron Weissman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thursday, September 25, 1997 11:34 AM, Tim May [SMTP:tcmay@got.net] wrote: > The NETCenter is largely duplicative, though will be much less effective, > than the NSA. I strongly urge Aaron and others to review the history and > capabilities (and limitations) of the NSA. Sure, it is duplicative. However, for this thing to become law, I envision a rather dramatic shift in the organization of our intelligence institutions. Or at least a change in some of the building names at Ft. Meade :) > (The NSA sometimes assists with law enforcement. But often it does not. I > grant that a purely civilian codebreaking facility might once have been > needed. But for reasons I'll get to below, it's much too late to start now! > And much too expensive.) There is an exective order or presidential decision directive (pdd) from the mid-80's that formalizes a "relationship" between the NSA and FBI for law enforcement decryption. However, I never was able to get my hands on it ... Aaron

1 0

Re: Why the White amendment is a good idea
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:36 PM 9/25/97 -0400, Jeff Barber wrote: >Follow your own advice. All this crap about NETCenter has nothing >to do with our civil liberties. Whether NETCenter is a good idea or >not is a completely separable issue (which I see Tim May just covered >thoroughly), and is merely a fig leaf offered to spineless >Congresscritters to deflect some of the "criticism" they might >otherwise be subjected to on the law enforcement "issue". The fact >that White offers it shows that he is just as spineless. > >We shouldn't have to "trick" Congress into doing the right thing, >or provide cover for them either. **BZZZT** WRONG ANSWER! >As you say, though, let's keep this debate framed with our criteria: >Do you, Congressman, support the constitutional guarantee of free >speech, or not? How loudly do we have to shout it? **CONGRESS DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CONSTITUION. PERIOD.** They prove it time and time again. Recent example: they wouldn't have passed the CDA 94-6! if they were worried about the Constitution. You call the congressvermin "spineless". They do hate that label, and voting "tough on crime, tough on drugs," is how they avoid it. With Lying Freeh telling them that evil Mexican drug lords use crypto to outclever the FBI (true), and therefore a vote for GAKked crypto is a vote that's tough on crime (false), they can't rush to vote "yea" fast enough. It doesn't matter if the vote doesn't make sense, or violates the Constitution eight ways from Sunday, the vote is there only to provide the illusion to the voters: "Hey, I'm TOUGH on CRIME." You better learn that Congress is not there to support the Constitution. Any part of it. It's not in the part of their job description that gets them reelected. Constitutional issues do NOT attract voters. Only SIX senators voted against the Telecom Reform Act, the one that contained the CDA. My senator is one of them, and I know that he is a lame duck not seeking re-election. So, don't go dangling Constitutional challenges in front of Congress. There's not enough bait on that hook. Fighting unemployment attracts voters. Fighting crime attracts voters. But they couldn't trample hard enough on our freedom of speech when the voters heard about child porn on the net. And now that evil Mexican drug lords use encryption, well, I'll let you connect the last two dots. We can't afford to simply frame the debate on Constitutional issues. The number of voters looking at them through that frame won't get them reelected. Shame on us cowardly Americans. (Yeah, _us_. I'm hiding behind a remailer.)

1 0

RE: "Matchcode" technology sparks privacy flames.....
by russ＠russ-smith.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Few things are more contradictory than calling in the government -- the biggest known violator of privacy -- to "protect" privacy on the Internet. ... This is the kind of generalized hand-waving statement I am talking about. If you are talking about the FBI or the IRS I would agree but I don't think the FTC is collecting personal information in order to violate privacy (although I think they give industry an unfair advantage when it comes to developing privacy rules). I also don't think agencies like the National Endowment for Arts or the Park Service is doing this either. I also think the government is #2 behind companies such as Experian and Metromail due the profit incentive. As for going to agencies such as the FTC for assistance, I am looking for them to develop rules so I can protect my own privacy. I do not expect them, nor do I think they are capable of, protecting my privacy (they cannot even develop their own privacy policy for their web site correctly). I want to able to find out who has information about me and be able to (in some circumstances) stop the distribution of the information if I so desire and make it unprofitable for companies to violate such regulations. Another example is the junk e-mail. CEI says the FTC should be concerned with property rights and the 'rules of law' but then go on to indicate the FTC should not get involved in junk e-mail regulations. I view the hundreds of spams I received as a violation of my property rights and I simply want to recover my expenses. I went to a telecommunications deregulation seminar at CATO about 2 weeks ago and I found some the people there to use the same hand-waving arguments. I was discussing the situation with uu.net and the 'Internet death penalty' situation when other administrators got together and stopped routing their packets for newsgroups. Who knows how this could be used in the future. My suggestion was to have some type of rule concerning the packet flow when it is necessary to depend on another provider to route your packets. The answer I received: Internet users need to get redundant paths through the Internet. That sounds real good during a debate while sitting in CATO being served lunch, but such a plan would clearly put many small operators at the mercy of large ISP's or would simply put them out of business. A presenter on the CATO board also kept discussing how good the WinTel situation has been to consumers. She did have a somewhat valid point since, even with all the problems, computers are relatively cheap and an entire operating system costs less than $100. However, what would it be like if the DOJ didn't keep talking about breaking up the monopoly? Russ Smith http://consumer.net

1 0

Re: Exports and criminalizing crypto
by John Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> >J. Random Hotmail User, you'd better learn to read the text of the bills >you so blithely think are OK. Well, I read the text of the bill, and here is part of what it says: `(2) ITEMS NOT REQUIRING LICENSES- No validated license may be required, except pursuant to the Trading With The Enemy Act or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (but only to the extent that the authority of such Act is not exercised to extend controls imposed under this Act), for the export or reexport of-- `(A) any software, including software with encryption capabilities-- `(i) that is generally available, as is, and is designed for installation by the purchaser; or `(ii) that is in the public domain for which copyright or other protection is not available under title 17, United States Code, or that is available to the public because it is generally accessible to the interested public in any form; This sounds like it should cover the kind of crypto that we are talking about and that Ian Goldberg does. It is generally available and installable by the purchaser (it's free) and it is in the public domain and generally accessible to the interested public, etc. And see, there are no export licenses for this. There is another part that has the stuff you were talking about re "diversion" and terrorism, but that is separate. It is for software that is not generally accessible and installable by the purchaser and all that. More specialized stuff, like custom packages. But cypherpunks software is for everybody, and this bill should make it free to export. "John ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

Re: Why no version of SAFE removes export ctrls, and all are dangerous
by John Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com>: Sure, removing export controls completely would benefit everyone, but SAFE doesn't go that far: Only software "that is generally available" overseas may be exported. Which means if I invent a new data-scrambling method that nobody overseas has developed, I'm screwed. This is wrong. I quoted the part earlier removing restrictions on generally available software. Here is what they say about that: "(A) the term 'generally available' means, in the case of software (including software with encryption capabilities), software that is offered for sale, license, or transfer to any person without restriction, whether or not for consideration, including, but not limited to, over-the-counter retail sales, mail order transactions, phone order transactions, electronic distribution, or sale on approval; There's nothing about it having to be available overseas. You are probably confusing it with the hardware part: "(4) HARDWARE WITH ENCRYPTION CAPABILITIES. -- The Secretary shall authorize the export or reexport of computer hardware with encryption capabilities if the Secretary determines that a product offering comparable security is commercially available outside the United States from a foreign supplier, without effective restrictions. But that part is hardware only. Software just has to be freely available to anyone who wants it. It's almost like this was written just for cypherpunks. "John ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

Concrete examples re why we can't trust the government with our keys.
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From today's San Jose Mercury News' "AP Breaking News" section - First, the FBI settled a FOIA suit with a scholar who had sought access to the FBI's files re John Lennon - the FBI fought release for 16 years, finally agreeing to release all but 10 records and pay the requester's $204,000 in accrued attorney's fees. The records released revealed no information which suggested that Lennon was involved in, planned to, or engaged in an illegal act; he was, however, unpopular with the then-head of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover. Who is Louis Freeh spying on? <http://www.sjmercury.com/news/breaking/docs/080798.htm> Second, a former NSA employee was sentenced to 18 years in Federal prison for selling classified information to the Soviet Union for a mere $27,000. How much would he have charged for escrowed key information? <http://www.sjmercury.com/news/breaking/docs/072698.htm> -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | Export jobs, not crypto. http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | http://www.parrhesia.com

2 1

Plea for help from IRS; Liberty?
by decius＠ninja.techwood.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Plea from a parent who wants to keep their kid free of SSNs > > David C. Treibs > Fredericksburg, TX 78624 > sirdavid(a)ktc.com > > We are in trouble with the IRS, and we need help. <SNIP> > For Liberty, Although your attempts to free your children from the database establishment are admirable, please do not confuse your fight with the government over who has the "right" to >CONTROL< your children with a fight for "liberty." If your children decided they did not want to live in your house anymore, I'm sure you'd have the police round them up. If you were truely concerned with liberty, you'd be concerned with your CHILDRENS' liberty... And if so I doubt you'd have made the following statement: > The Clintons are also working to push us into the UN Rights of the > Child > Treaty, which shifts many parental rights and responsibilities to the > government. The Clintons want to bypass parents and directly access > children. How do you think they plan to monitor and enforce compliance > with this horrible treaty? The SSN, in my opinion. I am going to jump to the conclusion here that you have neither read this treaty nor do you have the slightest clue what it says or what it means. I might be wrong about that, but then you might wish to explain where "monitoring" and "enforcement" and Social Security Numbers fall into what is basically a restatement of the American Bill of Rights with the express demand that these rights be extended to minors. The United States is one of the few countries in the western world that hasn't signed it? Why? Due to numerous complex generational, economic, and political issues it has become extremely popular to blame the problems of the world on fanciful "youth predators." As a result, minors in the United States may be tried as adults in court, despite the fact they they cannot even gain standing in court and press charges themselves. They may be executed as an adult, but they may not vote as one. (Incidentally, the American practice of executing minors is extremely rare internationally and is one of the big reasons why this country remains on Humanity International's bad guy list along side places where slavery is legal.) Minors have very little right to freedom of speech and thought. Minors have no right to privacy. If the US signed this treaty they would have to remove the metal detectors from the schools, they would have to stop requiring that children carry see-through bags, they would have to allow children the right to express their beleifs, they would have to stop enforcing "anti-gang" curfew laws and loitering laws (which are far more common in peaceful suburban communities than in places that actually have problems with youth violence), and worst of all, they would have to allow children to file lawsuits against abusive parents. (Those who follow internet politics might wish to note that at the same time the Christian Coallition was screaming "protect the children from internet porn" they were also, more quitely, protesting state's ability to interfere in cases of child abuse... this is considered pro-family.) Although I no longer have to endure the numerous restrictions that the government places on minors, I am not yet old enough to have forgotten what it feels like to be treated like a criminal because of an arbitrary number overwhich I have no control, and ultimately because of a newspaper editor's profit motive. Have you ever been arrested simply because you chose to take a walk during an unapproved time of day? Although I do agree that the government should not have the ability to control how you raise your children; I feel that these "restrictions" cannot be lifted until children have the ability to fight back, or leave, when serious problems arise. The Christian Coallition would have us return to the days of Victorian "values" where child and spousal abuse were so common place that they were considered normal activity and protected by law. So I ask you not to confuse what you are doing with a fight for liberty. Liberty is not about your rights. Liberty is about everyone's rights. -- */^\* Tom Cross AKA Decius 615 AKA The White Ninja */^\* Decius(a)ninja.techwood.org "If the economic, social and political conditions... do not offer a basis for the realization of individuality, while at the same time people have lost those ties which gave them security... powerful tendencies arise to escape from freedom into submission." -- Erich Fromm

2 1

Re: How the FBI/NSA forces can further twist SAFE
by Paul Spirito 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com>: >> That's why it may take close to a year -- perhaps until next summer -- for Congress to finish compromising away your rights to use whatever encryption software you like. << And next year *is* an election year. If nothing awful happens, it shouldn't be much of an issue, but sooner or later there'll be a big bang made by terrorists who've used crypto in the plotting, & then anyone who opposed the FBI line will get drubbed, perhaps fatally (i.e. they'll lose their seat). The single "best" reason for congresscritters to support GAK is CYA; supporting American business isn't a sufficient counterforce, especially when "big business" has become a dirty word for much of the American electorate, the affected companies seem to be doing damn well, & they aren't old pros at lobbying. Dead babies are more dramatic than annual reports (even if -- as we all know -- GAK will do little or nothing to prevent terrorism &c. Fairness counts for little in political campaigns...) I agree with Declan -- obstructionism is the only way to go. Let's review the current situation: a) Crypto know-how is globally distributed & impossible to annihilate. b) There are no domestic US restrictions on encryption development or use. c) There are onerous US restrictions of export of encryption software. >From a cyberlibertarian/privacy advocate viewpoint this isn't so bad. It's true that lifting of export restrictions would get better crypto into more hands more quickly, but one doesn't have to be a Libertarian to believe that the market will fill that gap -- with non-US firms (possibly in collaboration with US ones) developing & marketing the technology; indeed, it's already happening. >From a US business viewpoint, the situation *is* bad. There's a temptation to sell out b) in order to improve c). I'm not conspiracy-minded, but one should beware of differences in motive, particularly as we enter a convoluted, lobbying-heavy phase. What makes me optimistic is that GAKed crypto isn't likely to sell. Other than that, we'd be doomed. Hopefully, legislation can be delayed until foreign companies have widely deployed commercial strong crypto, & US companies are demonstrably (to the person in the street) feeling the pain. Then GAK will be obviously pointless and stupid. It'll cost US jobs, which hurts (me, as an American, most of whose friends are American), but it's the best we can hope for, I think. Silicon Valley -- the Flint, Michigan of the year 2000? Paul ujgdejoxenotejotmbgtang ircpqbgluzstizg

1 0

Plea from a parent who wants to keep their kid free of SSNs
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Anonymous wrote: >Anonymous who signed himself as Monty Cantsin <anon(a)anon.efga.org> writes: >> While I am generally sympathetic with Mr. Treibs, it does not seem >> reasonable to ask for a government child subsidy while claiming the >> government has no business raising kids. > >Since when is a deduction on income tax (not a tax credit) a >`government child subsidy'? > >It's not the government's money. That's true. And it is worth taking the trouble to distinguish between pure subsidies like those that TRW and welfare queens take from tax subsidies which most people take. Still, a tax deduction is a benefit. How much would you pay for a $1000 tax deduction? It depends on your marginal income tax rate, of course, but presumably you would pay around $300. Mr. Treibs is asking for this benefit, for special treatment from the government, solely because he has children. If he doesn't want the government to insist that his children be tagged like everyone else, it would be very easy for him to forego this benefit and pay under the same tax scheme that many other childless people pay. Unjust? No more so than the tax rate people without children are forced to pay. But, I wish Mr. Treibs and his family well. They sound like the kind of good decent people that one would like to have for neighbors. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNCr8P5aWtjSmRH/5AQHERQf/QzYaifjLsspLkULVwFdK9bbbR6pc8Imp KbTH+i31Pp67U+Gb9UbtFRw08ysJ659vmMgL+f07yQnNNr5ZJfSDyEmrFO/P5mOq 9eSm+vEZaBsUGBrEKaUowsXb4mWnj8QIu1xV+0xI00+uNk4qGlAB0U0MFjoarN2c cGvfmWZvMmHOgdTMp1cDXJ/DlzsTJmCWLbvaCMhnqtL6tCEAem+jqgZ79zCl15ut YgtsKPVXBln1w9zSF95t4cpnyHMtO5ct2bdtIBWMrVCYsmAK3wTy+CKZUhGk/X5Z Cs51EJ2baBNFizW2nSFZjCYsIDIkQAcBJg1SVkGgHF+sJU2rR/1ppw== =gNsM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Remailer latency
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Joe Grasty wrote: >At 11:58 PM 9/25/97 +0200, Anonymous (sic) wrote: >>If you operate a remailer, please tell us what you need to make it >>really work well. Perhaps the rest of us can help make it happen. > >Sure. Send me $125 a month for a dedicated line, and I'll insure >that you get low latencies on winsock. It's a start! According to Raph's list, your remailer has a latency of about 16 hours. Dialing in should cause a latency of, at most, an hour. That is, you could reasonably dial in once an hour, or even every fifteen minutes. Is there some other cause for the latency? Do you have an ecash account? If you charged 25 cents per message, you would only need to handle about 17 messages a day to cover your dedicated line. The load on the line would be negligible and you could use it for other things. Please excuse my reluctance to fund your dedicated line, but probably the money would be better spent subsidizing hardware for people who are willing to set up remailers. Incidentally, if somebody offered you colocation space, would you be willing to set up your machine there? Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNCr4XJaWtjSmRH/5AQEBZQf6Aup0XcdJURyied5CaX3jsDTYAz7X4wHB 2isCDLaEE5Aa2lIt9weN5hRi2tWpo16RHqtWBvruyvu9c7DNu9We99TwmB4OFmQn sjexds6DWMO7obl77kWhjBLkMDshPS3/tbsAsaoEF0lInAdF0Pq/Tqx+OKnQzCGE SX92rT0FIJtOsY+fbJMv68a6/vXgmPfjMtP00klJY5gxnmyeaoFPGFloPVFgHhqG pA0++8Y5xTezgSmQswZxkaWkW9gBrJpOc3gWJgF7GzxcknOZHBweMXBmw0uRVXh8 vifPP7FvEe0w+OAhVycmgynpnLbKPGRzIp8abCsFUW+TQl9mhOEwzQ== =0Tgw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0