December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: PGP 5.5 available outside US
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lucky Green wrote: > > It seems that unknown Cypherpunks have yet again shown their disrespect of > US export laws by exporting the latest version of PGP. The Windows version > of PGP 5.5 is now available for your downloading pleasure at > ftp://ftp.replay.com/pub/crypto/incoming/PGP55.zip No it is not!

1 0

Re: Killing those who need killing (fwd)
by Mark Rogaski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An entity claiming to be wendigo wrote: >From wendigo Thu Oct 30 01:56:09 1997 Subject: Re: Killing those who need killing To: tcmay(a)got.net Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 01:56:09 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <v03102800b07d83cd05bd(a)[207.167.93.63]> from "Tim May" at Oct 29, 97 05:25:33 pm Content-Type: text Content-Length: 773 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 An entity claiming to be Tim May wrote: : : (Personally, were I to be arrested and held on such false charges, I'd : consider it necessary to kill those who illegally held me. Preferably from : a safe distance, with a sniper rifle. But then I'm a right wing libertarian : whacko.) Right wing, left wing, friggin' wingless ... the above comment still indicates a sociopath. Mark - -- [] Mark Rogaski "That which does not kill me [] wendigo(a)pobox.com only makes me stranger." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNFgviMHFI4kt/DQOEQI3TgCdEOML5s68dD/K850lbUtfUa7LQkoAoNp0 rKwN4YjssiKHobsYQ9qqBJR+ =24To -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [] Mark Rogaski "That which does not kill me [] wendigo(a)pobox.com only makes me stranger."

6 8

Request For Cash: TruthMailer services at dev.null
by TruthMailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The TruthMailer service at dev.null has become very unpopular. So unpopular, in fact, that we are now approaching limitations in what our abuse department can handle. The great outrage this weekend and subsequent delays in spamming various mailing lists are the result of this. For our immediate needs, we could sure use some more DRUGS, ALCOHOL, and BROADS. If a million people could donate $1,000 apiece, this would be great. If one million people donate $100,000 apiece, we can buy Micro$oft. Anonymous snail mail with anonymous cash (US dollars or money order) would be appreciated. If you want to be acknowledged as a donor on our arrest sheets, we can do that too. The address to send to is: Electronic Forgery Foundation Box 281, Bienfait, Saskatchewan CANADA S0C 0M0 A thousand bucks or whatever you can afford. We'll take drug, alcohol and loose women donations, too. Contact Louis J. Freeh <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> if you have something to donate. It might be a sting operation, but I'm not sure; Louis will know. PCP DustMan / Home Drug Lab for Molecular Structure and Design For an anti-reality drug recipe, send me mail with subject "Hi(gh)". Append "+realitysucks" to my abusername to ensure entrapment. Decryption is too important to leave to the recipient--Louis J. Freeh O "I'm from BassMasters, and I'm here to help you." |/------o -\______|___/- | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |/ <}+++< *===================================================================* To unsuscribive or scrivibe send a message of UNSCRIVE or SUBRIVE to the email address _fuck_you_morons_(a)whitehouse.gov

1 0

PGP 5.0: What were they thinking? (revisited)
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>On Thu, 30 Oct 1997, Anonymous wrote: > >> >> Where can I find a copy of PGP 5.0 which handles this "SHA1" hash extension, >> and the new forced incompatabilities? I'm looking for a Linux distribution. >> All I've found are Windoze versions, really old betas which break >> *everything* which calls PGP from a script or command line, and betas which >> have a lame expired timebomb in them. Source is prefered for obvious reasons. > >http://www.pgpi.com/ I went and took a look at this. They've broken the PGP functionality into several different psuedo-binaries which are just symlinks which point to the same binary. Invoking just 'pgp' gives this: >PGP is now invoked from different executables for different operations: > >pgpe Encrypt (including Encrypt/Sign) >pgps Sign >pgpv Verify/Decrypt >pgpk Key management >pgpo PGP 2.6.2 command-line simulator (not yet implemented) > >See each application's respective man page or the general PGP documentation >for more information. Now this, of course, breaks all matter of things. Some of this may be wrong, so feel free to correct it: Phil releases PGP. It rapidly becomes a standard for personal privacy and is used all over the world. Various versions come about including several international versions. Finally PGP 5.0 is released. It uses a completely new scheme, including DH keys. The Windows version purposefully excludes RSA key generation, in effect forcing people to generate DH keys. There is no UNIX version released. Weeks or months later, after incompatabilities were introduced into the system, UNIX versions begin to filter out. Instead of keeping command line compatability so scripts and programs which call PGP still work, they decide to break the functions up into several different invocations, all of which point to the same binary anyway. The README-BIN file for the "beta 11" Linux distribution says: >Rest assured, we WILL be releasing a source Unix distribution. >Unfortunately, licensing and export issues make this difficult; the >beta process for Linux will be completed on a binary basis. We >understand the difficulty this causes, and will be working to find a >solution in the future. They also take the liberty of coding in a timebomb: $ ./pgp This beta evaluation version of PGP has expired. $ pwd <censored>/pgp50b11-linux-i386/apps/pgp "lnx-b11" is the version currently handed out by http://www.pgpi.com, by the way. The "PGP 5.0 beta for Linux Intel (US version)" selection on their download page leads to a link to: ftp://ftp.ifi.uio.no/pub/pgp/5.0/usa_only/linux/PGP50-lnx-b11.tgz The current source distribution from that site is b8a. One of the README files from that reads: >Welcome to the PGP beta test program! > >Before reporting any bugs, please check the pgp(1) man page to ensure >that they are not already known. > >Bugs should be reported on the beta test web page at: > > http://beta.pgp.com/ However when one goes to http://beta.pgp.com they're confronted with a legal agreement. Of course the link to it from the front page won't work in Lynx 2.7.1 because it uses something called an "https" link, so the user has to type in the URL manually as "http://www.pgp.com/beta/license.cgi". After reading this license and agreeing to it, the user is allowed to reach the "BetaWeb" page. However the "public bug reports" link yields this: > Sorry, the bug report form is not available yet. > Please be patient as we get things ready. > > Please see the PGP BetaWeb for further information, or contact the > Beta Manager with specific questions. > > For now, please use the "Back" button in your browser to return to the > previous page. So maybe you can at least get whatever the current beta is and hope it works, right? Wrong. "PGP Personal v5.5.1 BetaHome"'s "Beta Software & ReadMe Download Button" wants a user name and password, but it's doubtful they have a UNIX distribution in there anyway considering the rest of this mess. Well, at least maybe the user can suggest a new "feature" for PGP 6 and that feature be "Release a source distribution which when installed doesn't break anything which calls PGP," right? Wrong. You have to have a username and password for that too. Well, obviously they want you to register as a "Registered PGP Beta Tester" to get this clearance. However "Beta Registration" yields: > Sorry, we are not currently accepting new beta testers. > We will be shortly, however, so please check back if you are interested. > > Please see the PGP BetaWeb for further information, or contact the >Beta Manager with specific questions. > For now, please use the "Back" button in your browser to return to the > previous page. And of course my 2.6.3i breaks on this "Hash: SHA1" stuff. So correct me if I'm wrong but the way I see it is like this: A new version of PGP was released. It was incompatable with previous versions. They release a Windows version but don't release a version which works under UNIX. Of course Windows users now start using the "latest and greatest," sending messages and keys all over the place which are completely incompatable with the version of PGP everybody else is using. They claim to be working on a UNIX version, granted, but that should have been released at the same time as the Windows version and *AFTER* there was an international version of PGP 5.0 available. Their UNIX version of PGP 5.0 also seems to be completely incompatable with anything which calls PGP from a script or program. In addition their UNIX versions are purposefully crippled so that they don't work after a certain time period, don't provide an override for this that I can see, and they insist on releasing binary-only distributions for Linux which prevents people from commenting that out. They have no method to get new up to date versions, nor do they have a method to report bugs like they say they do. Further the "PGP50-lnx-b11-6126098-1.src.rpm" contains the *BINARY* distribution, *not* the source. I've also been informed that PGP 5.0 encrypts to the CMR key without even bothering to ask and there's no way to override that short of hacking the key record. What the hell are these people thinking? Did they get into bed with Microsoft to try to get people to say "screw this" and go use Windows?

1 0

pgp5.5 = clipper
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There are some remarkable similarities between pgp5.5 and the hugely unpopular original clipper chip design. Both encrypt the communication key so it can be snooped by third parties thus creating a backdoor. I suspect that part of the reason there has been less outcry over pgp5.5 than for clipper is that people have a high regard for PGP Inc, and allow this to lull their fears -- "if PGP Inc have done it, it can't be evil." This is really insidious, and it is reprehensible for PGP Inc to use their reputation capital to give clipper like systems a positive spin. pgp5.5 is basically a software implementation of clipper: In PGP the backdoor is the second crypto recipient -- the message key encrypted to the CMRK (Corporate Message Recovery Key) as requested by the ARR (Additional Recipient Request); in clipper the backdoor is the LEAF (Law Enforcement Access Field). Both systems make attempts to enforce the presense of this backdoor field: PGP Inc's policy enforcer can be configured to bounce mail not encrypted to the corporate backdoor key; in Clipper it is the checksum included in the LEAF which allows the receiving chip to reject LEAFs which have been tampered with. Both systems are "optional" -- you don't have to use clipper chips, they will be "voluntary" (or so the politicians claim), and governments aren't currently using the backdoor feature of pgp5.5, and PGP Inc argue this won't happen (we'll see how this works out). Both systems can be bypassed in very analogous ways: They can both be bypassed by super encrypting traffic. With pgp5.5 the sender can send garbage in the CMRK encrypted field; with clipper Matt Blaze found you could brute force the checksum and send garbage in the LEAF field. Both systems can be improved to make them harder to bypass, something one suspects may happen if too many people routinely bypass them, and law enforcement views this as a problem (which they surely will if their snooping attempts are foiled -- don't forget Freeh is already on record calling for mandatory key escrow, and outlawing of non-escrowed crypto). Clipper can be made harder to bypass by increasing the size of the checksum. pgp5.5 can be made harder to bypass by using binding cryptography (allows untrusted agents to be deputised as policemen in ensuring the same key is included inside the CMRK field as in the recipients PKE field). It is easy for the government snoop to detect cheating with either system -- they attempt to decrypt the traffic, and find the LEAF/CMRK field is tampered with, or find the contained message is super encrypted. One suspects that an additional 5 year sentence will be given to people who are detected tampering with snoop fields. (This is not far fetched I don't think -- already we have heard proposals for 5 year additional sentencing for "use of encryption in a crime". If non-escrowed encryption is outlawed, surely this is the logical next step on the part of Freeh, and cohorts). PGP Inc cries: "oh but we have to meet corporate user requirements". For corporate disaster recovery of stored data? For corporate message snooping? For either requirement many of us have documented far less dangerous techniques to enable corporate message snooping, and storage recovery. Techniques which aren't likely to be adopted by governments as their snooping architecture. PGP should fix this quickly before the reputational damage is increased by more government statements about the usefulness of pgp5.5. and CMR. Adam -- Now officially an EAR violation... Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

1 0

No Subject
by Georg Uphoff 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Georg Josef UphoffStud.iur.<A href="mailto:georg.uphoff@uni-konstanz.de">georg.uphoff(a)uni-konstanz.de <FONT color=#000000 face=Garamond size=4><<<<<<<PGP-KEY(S) ON REQUEST>>>>>>>>

1 0

Re: PGP Employee on MKR
by mark＠unicorn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: > Not true - you can't implement CMR without a mail enforcer unless > you can stop your employees from using non-CMR versions of PGP, > which is nearly impossible. No, you can't enforce corporate snooping without a mail enforcer. You can meet the corporate demands which PGP claim to be supporting without a mail enforcer. There's a difference. The only real benefit of CMR over the alternate systems suggested is that the corporation can snoop on all email sent to their employees. Yet PGP Inc have claimed on several occasions that this is not their intention. Odd, that. Mark

2 1

Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)invweb.net> > Date: Wed, 29 Oct 97 22:46:45 -0600 > Subject: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT > I wish for once one of the spineless members of the press would ask: > > "How many people have died from Terrorism in the last 10yrs?" > > Let's be generious and say 10,000 world wide (more like 2,000 but lets not > quibble over numbers). Bill, more than 2,000 people have dies from planes being blown up by terrorist in the last 10 years alone. Old Prince Ferdinand, you know the bloke whose death started WWI allegedly, had an attempt on his life the morning of his death via bomb. He shrugged it off and got shot. Stalin had millions killed for political reasons. The Isrealis have killed tens of thousands in their expanionisitic, non-survivalist motivated actions. The US backed Central American death squads have killed hundreds of thousands if not millions. People kill for religion, politics, insanity, and fun. Terrorism has a long history in human culture. Yours is a unreasoned view. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

7 8

Cpunk Hots: E-Cash
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Village Voice reviews "Close to the Machine: Technophilia and Its Discontents," by Ellen Ullman, City Lights, 189 pp. $12.95 paper. Ullman, a Silicon Valley programmer, "describes having an affair with a young cypherpunk: 'we sat with our legs extended across the sofa, not quite touching, and we were going to talk about electronic cash.' "

2 1

Re: PGP Employee on MKR
by mark＠unicorn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I wrote: > stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com wrote: > > > Not true - you can't implement CMR without a mail enforcer unless > > you can stop your employees from using non-CMR versions of PGP, > > which is nearly impossible. > > No, you can't enforce corporate snooping without a mail enforcer. You can > meet the corporate demands which PGP claim to be supporting without a > mail enforcer. There's a difference. Actually, that's not entirely true. My suggested CMR replacement will work happily with non-CMR versions of PGP; they would simply encrypt to the default key, regardless of whether that was a group key or an individual's key. Hence the corporation can choose how non-CMR versions will interact by choosing whether to make the group key or the individual key the default choice. This even gives users an incentive to upgrade, rather than the current disincentive to downgrade to snoopware. Of course it still doesn't enforce snooping, since you could just seperate the individual key from the default group key and encrypt to that. Mark

1 0

Re: Protocols for Insurance to Maintain Privacy
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: > The FDA has probably killed more people in the last 30 years than > all the wars the U.S. has been in during the same time. Mostly > because of the game-theoretic nature of the system: all that matters > to FDA officials is covering their ass so that promotion is > ensured. No points for approving a controversial drug, but lots of > demerits for approving a drug which hurts even one person (if the > media reports it as "another FDA oversight"). Avoiding flipper > children is the raison d'etre for these people. Tim no doubt already knows this, but I'm going to mention it anyway. The FDA has other reasons for existing such as protecting the major drug cartels from competition and providing wonderful employment opportunities for former FDA employees in said drug cartels. The choice of medical products and services as a choke point to exploit is a particularly evil one as the link between government imposed oligopoly profits and people's lives is very clear. And, of course, this is worst of all for poor people because they are least able to manage their situation. I have my doubts as to whether it is possible to set up a really good anonymous insurance scheme. At some point the customer must physically be matched up with the policy. The damage may be minimized by putting a hash of the customer's DNA markers in the policy instead of the markers themselves. But, when the customer wishes to draw on the policy, his or her markers will have to be taken. If there were a way for the representative of the insurance company to absolutely verify the DNA markers such that the customer could be absolutely certain the information didn't leave the room, a really good anonymous policy would be feasible. But, I can't think of a way to do this. The really good way to protect your medical privacy is to self insure. Most people are happy with policies that tap out at $1 million. If you would be happy with such a policy, then all you need is $1 million to protect your privacy. It is likely that this $1 million will not ever be consumed by health care costs. (Probably much less likely than that a policy holder will hit that limit. People tend to spend their own money more responsibly than somebody else's.) One of the most important criteria for issuing insurance must be age. Is there anyway to unambiguously determine somebody's age? I know how to do it with trees, but it doesn't work with people. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFgp6ZaWtjSmRH/5AQES/wf+Ijrvktr6VxOxFRKZsad19G6fLuotWLTx /kGEncb+3cAHg26Pxn2FRjt8FO4fdqNp/adaEtCmaVDJeJavhhiqW+XyXuLb1Iy4 5YrvG/xIbbPIIYdVeZ5coATNAIaKZvQu0UWrbDQzbmyxi0bIHmaixxx53isc14w1 qn+4PrlV7jVyKCPf/BMw7Mv7L33v8ZR3r3iS15L/OjIxBtvpVDvnBv8BdKwMA7C+ S5HBSYhiYjSGi1CnisnKI0POD9BqXXr5LwNA+407hPWDTkSGZ4iRqY3koiO0e/Je eEvfbcSBEazaXcqlMtuI5xkFhLOY3L9oF+BtRjAfc9TRocFTTzZwHA== =VcKo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

6 6

GOST
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have compiled some links related to GOST at http://www.fieo.org/gost/ vipul -- Powell lingered. "How's Earth?" It was a conventional enough question and Muller gave the conventional answer, "Still spinning." -- "Reason", Asimov. ================================================================== Vipul Ved Prakash | - Electronic Security & Crypto vipul(a)best.com | - Web Objects 91 11 2233328 | - PERL Development 198 Madhuban IP Extension | - Linux & Open Systems Delhi, INDIA 110 092 | - Networked Virtual Spaces

1 0

Victim Ordered to Surrender Computer and Passwords
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 10:11:33 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: qnx.com: localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: 0xdeadbeef(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org Cc: bostic(a)bsdi.com Subject: Victim Ordered to Surrender Computer and Passwords Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 10:04:22 -0500 From: glen mccready <glen(a)qnx.com> Resent-From: 0xdeadbeef(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org X-Mailing-List: <0xdeadbeef(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org> archive/latest/2399 X-Loop: 0xdeadbeef(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: 0xdeadbeef-request(a)substance.abuse.blackdown.org Forwarded-by: Peter Tonoli <anarchie(a)brimstone.suburbia.net> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 03:02:58 -0500 From: David Kennedy <76702.3557(a)compuserve.com> Subject: Victim Ordered to Surrender Computer and Passwords Approved: proff(a)suburbia.net Cyber Allegations (AP US & World 21 Oct 1997) > PONTIAC, Mich. (AP) -- A woman who said she was sexually assaulted by a > man she met through an on-line "chat room" has been ordered to turn over > her computer for examination by the defendant's lawyer. Circuit Judge > Alice Gilbert issued the order Oct. 8 after the defendant said another > computer user told him that the woman had bragged on-line -- in a chat > room called "Man Haters" -- about making up the story. The woman was > also ordered to reveal her password and on-line aliases. o The accused, a 26-year old is alleged to have pulled a knife and attacked the victim after a date on Feb 28th. Prosecutors have said they will appeal. > "In my view, turning over somebody's computer these days is the same as > asking to go through their diary or mail," said prosecutor John > Pietrofesa. Inspecting computer records from the opposing side, while > relatively new in criminal cases, has become common in civil cases, said > Michigan lawyer and computer law expert Robert A. Dunn. In civil cases, a > judge will institute safeguards such as making both sides sign a > confidentiality agreement that information gleaned from computer records > will not be disclosed outside of court, he said. Dave Kennedy CISSP, National Computer Security Assoc --- 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/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

2 1

CAUTION: This *could* be a TROLL / Re: Request For Cash: TruthMailer services at dev.null
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

TruthMailer wrote: > > O "I'm from BassMasters, and I'm here to help you." > |/------o > -\______|___/- | > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > | > |/ <}+++< >

1 0

Internet Censorware Summit, Clinton to speak, Dec 1-3 [resent]
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:20 -0800 10/30/97, James S. Tyre wrote: >Showing my ignorance, what's the "real" censorware summit? Check out http://www.kidsonline.org/ -- it's a hoot. Praises the CDA as a "well-intentioned effort to protect children." Grew out of the White House's kickoff Censorware Summit in July; Clinton is expected to speak at this one. Scheduled for Dec 1-3 here in DC. Chaired by former Clinton campaign official and former FTC "protect the children" Commissioner Christine Varney. (This is not to criticize Varney; I rather like her personally, but politically, well...) The Censorware Summit is organized largely by industy groups -- America Online initially took the lead role -- and sympathetic advocacy groups. Donna Rice-Hughes (yes that Donna Rice) is heavily involved, as operations co-chair or something (I forget her real title). Sydney Rubin (syd(a)kidsonline.org) a public relations rep for CyberPatrol, is handling media registration. The Center for Democracy and Technology, which runs the pro-censorware netparents.org site, is hosting the kidsonline.org site. Following is a quote from the web site. Note it talks about how we need stricter enforcement of obscenity laws -- one of the worst ideas I've heard in a while. Remember Robert Thomas -- why should S.F. or NYC be subject to the "community standards" of Tennessee? *sigh* >The summit will seek to advance the following objectives in accordance with >Presidential and Congressional statements on Internet use by children: > > Technological Solutions: Encouraging market-based development and > deployment of an effective, easy-to-use "digital toolbox" of user > empowerment tools which can assist parents and others responsible for > children, in shielding those children from material they deem >inappropriate > and shaping children's communication and information options online; to > enable access to positive content and communications based on >individual > values; and to enable service and content providers, and others, to >create > family-friendly environments. > > Enforcement of Current Law: Fostering greater cooperation among > law enforcement, industry, and the public, to support vigorous > enforcement of existing laws against using the Internet to traffic >in obscene > material and child pornography, stalk children, and commit other >crimes. Fortunately there's a coalition forming to oppose this. That is, emphasizing the free speech implications of rating and filtering proposals. I understand details will be made public soon. As I said: >>Look for the usual suspects to stand up and wave around censorware >>programs, blissfully ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court ruled >>recently that the Net should be as free as print or a public square. Last I >>checked, print publishers would never endorse any "self-labelling" system >>to stave off Federal censorship. They'd have the balls to stand up and >>fight. So should the Net. -Declan

1 0

Re: CAUTION: This *could* be a TROLL / Re: Request For Cash: TruthMailer services at dev.null
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> TruthMailer wrote: > > > > O "I'm from BassMasters, and I'm here to help you." > > |/------o > > -\______|___/- | > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > | > > |/ <}+++< > From: TruthMailer <tm(a)dev.null> > X-Mailer: CumSock Remailer Version ALPHA1.3B > X-Comments: - > X-Comments: Subliminal Message: "SEND MONEY! SEND MONEY! SEND MONEY!" > X-Comments: - > X-Comments: Spammer's Prayer: > X-Comments: "Please Lord, let these rubes fall off the turnip truck > X-Comments: just one more time. > X-Comments: "If you make me rich, I'll quit being a loser. I'll quit > X-Comments: fucking my mom, my sister, my daughter and my dog. > X-Comments: "Please? Please...please...please..." Yep, looks like a Troll, alright...

1 0

Encryption Policy in the Spotlight At Free-Market.Net
by freematt＠coil.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "Free-Market.Net" <chris(a)free-market.net> Subject: FMNews: Encryption Spotlight, Deadline for Drawing Free-Market.Net News Announcement --------------------------------- In this update: * Encryption Policy in the Spotlight * Spooky Deadline for Lifetime Membership Give-Away Encryption Policy in the Spotlight ---------------------------------- <http://www.free-market.net/features/spotlight/> If you're a little unclear about the difference between 56-bit and 128-bit encryption keys, or the difference between the U.S. government's Clipper Chip and their key escrow plan, come check out the Policy Spotlight. This month's issue gives a basic overview of the science and politics of encryption, and then offers a couple dozen kilobytes of links for more information. We recommend free-market materials from the likes of the Cato Institute, Reason Magazine, HotWired, Forbes, David Friedman, Phil Zimmerman, and Free-Market.Net advisor Bill Frezza. There's also some anti-encryption materials, for you serious students with a strong stomach. And if you're feeling adventurous, there are some fun links like the one that lets you become an international arms trafficker with the click of a button (by sending code for an encryption program to a server overseas). J.D. Tuccille has contributed a Media Spotlight called "Frustrating the Snoops." As happens oh-so-rarely, the mass media seems to be on our side on this one. As J.D. writes, "The personal stake that journalists have in protecting free speech and keeping secrets pretty much made it a given that once they grasped the concept, they'd become big fans -- and users -- of encryption.... Now, if we could only get more reporters to run small businesses, shoot and ride motorcycles without helmets." Come check out the Policy Spotlight at: <http://www.free-market.net/features/spotlight/>. After you do, hop on over to the Free-Market Forum on encryption, and hop on the soapbox yourself. Spooky Halloween Deadline for Lifetime Membership Give-Away ----------------------------------------------------------- <http://www.free-market.net/features/lottery/> When the clock strikes midnight on Halloween -- October 31 -- you'd better be registered to win this month's free lottery, or else... or else... you can *not* win! I'm sorry to scare you like that, but it's true. Friday is the deadline for entries in this month's drawing for a free lifetime membership in Free-Market.Net. One of you will win this special membership next week. (And it is special, even donors that have given $1,000 or more don't have lifetime memberships.) Although membership doesn't give you access to any information that isn't open to the public, it does give you some special benefits. As a member, you could receive fully-customized reports with the new events, home pages, contests, jobs, etc. that are of interest to you. You would also get a permanent e-mail alias, like <Galt(a)Free-Market.Net>; and a home page on the Free-Market.Net Web site. These are just some of the tangible membership benefits -- as a member you can participate in the Free-Market.Net community and help shape how we promote free-market ideas online. Stop by <http://www.free-market.net/about/members.html> for more info on memberships and how to join, and stop by <http://www.free-market.net/features/lottery/> to sign-up for the lottery. Remember, even if you have entered a lottery before, you still need to register to win each month. It's no big deal. It just requires your e-mail address and approximately 33.5 seconds. Yours in Liberty, Chris P.S. We're lining up a fun lottery prize for next month. Laissez Faire Books is going to offer an autographed 25th anniversary edition of "It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand" by Jerome Tuccille (J.D.'s dad). Sorry to gush, but I absolutely love this book. It's a semi-fictionalized history of the modern libertarian movement in the 60's and early 70's. Real fun stuff. Chris Whitten <mailto:chris@free-market.net> Free-Market.Net: The online database of the free-market movement. The Henry Hazlitt Foundation <http://www.hazlitt.org/> 401 N. Franklin, Suite 3E, Chicago, IL 60610 Become a Founding Member of Free-Market.Net! <http://www.free-market.net/about/members.html>

1 0

Internet Censorware Summit, Clinton to speak, Dec 1-3
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:20 -0800 10/30/97, James S. Tyre wrote: >Showing my ignorance, what's the "real" censorware summit? Check out http://www.kidsonline.org/ -- it's a hoot. Praises the CDA as a "well-intentioned effort to protect children." Grew out of the White House's kickoff Censorware Summit in July; Clinton is expected to speak at this one. Scheduled for Dec 1-3 here in DC. Chaired by former Clinton campaign official and former FTC "protect the children" Commissioner Christine Varney. (This is not to criticize Varney; I rather like her personally, but politically, well...) The Censorware Summit is organized largely by industy groups -- America Online initially took the lead role -- and sympathetic advocacy groups. Donna Rice-Hughes (yes that Donna Rice) is heavily involved, as operations co-chair or something (I forget her real title). Sydney Rubin (syd(a)kidsonline.org) a public relations rep for CyberPatrol, is handling media registration. The Center for Democracy and Technology is hosting the kidsonline.org web site. Following is a quote from the web site. Note it talks about how we need stricter enforcement of obscenity laws -- one of the worst ideas I've heard in a while. Remember Robert Thomas -- why should S.F. or NYC be subject to the "community standards" of Tennessee? *sigh* >The summit will seek to advance the following objectives in accordance with >Presidential and Congressional statements on Internet use by children: > > Technological Solutions: Encouraging market-based development and > deployment of an effective, easy-to-use "digital toolbox" of user > empowerment tools which can assist parents and others responsible for > children, in shielding those children from material they deem >inappropriate > and shaping children's communication and information options online; to > enable access to positive content and communications based on >individual > values; and to enable service and content providers, and others, to >create > family-friendly environments. > > Enforcement of Current Law: Fostering greater cooperation among > law enforcement, industry, and the public, to support vigorous > enforcement of existing laws against using the Internet to traffic >in obscene > material and child pornography, stalk children, and commit other >crimes. Fortunately there's a coalition forming to oppose this. That is, emphasizing the free speech implications of rating and filtering proposals. I understand details will be made public soon. As I said: >>Look for the usual suspects to stand up and wave around censorware >>programs, blissfully ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court ruled >>recently that the Net should be as free as print or a public square. Last I >>checked, print publishers would never endorse any "self-labelling" system >>to stave off Federal censorship. They'd have the balls to stand up and >>fight. So should the Net. -Declan

1 1

GAK for PGP 2.6.2
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

GAK fans! Here's a patch to PGP 2.6.2 to force it to encrypt all messages to the FBI key. Patch crypto.c thusly: 2339a2340 > ++i; /* Count FBI key */ 2368a2370,2372 > /* encrypt to FBI */ > keys_used = encryptkeyintofile(g, "<leaf(a)fbi.gov>", keybuf, keyfile, > ckp_length, keys_used); That's it. Four new lines, and every message is encrypted to the government as an additional recipient. Don't let the FBI see this. If so, we'll be <ominous voice> "one step from GAK". Add a few SMTP filters and we're doomed.

2 1

Re: Internet Censorware Summit, Clinton to speak, Dec 1-3
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 13:01 -0500 10/30/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: >At 09:20 -0800 10/30/97, James S. Tyre wrote: >>Showing my ignorance, what's the "real" censorware summit? > >Check out http://www.kidsonline.org/ -- it's a hoot. Praises the CDA as a >"well-intentioned effort to protect children." Grew out of the White >House's kickoff Censorware Summit in July; Clinton is expected to speak at >this one. Scheduled for Dec 1-3 here in DC. Chaired by former Clinton >campaign official and former FTC "protect the children" Commissioner >Christine Varney. (This is not to criticize Varney; I rather like her >personally, but politically, well...) Here are the sponsors... --Declan http://www.netparents.org/summit_part.html NTERNET SUMMIT: Focus On Children October 1997 The following organizations representing diverse viewpoints support the development of a national summit on making the Internet online experience more rewarding and safer for children: Industry Non-Profits America Online American Academy of Pediatrics AT&T American Association of School Librarians Cartoon Network American Library Association CompuServe Boy Scouts of America Direct Marketing Association Center for Violence and Injury Prevention Disney Online Center for Democracy and Technology GamePro Magazine Center for Media Education Highlights for Children Childnet International ISX Corporation Children's Partnership iVillage Consortium for School Networking K-III Communications/Seventeen Magazine Enough is Enough Microsoft Corporation Girl Scouts of the USA Microsystems Software National Association of Secondary School Principals Nickelodeon Online National Center for Missing and Exploited Children Prodigy National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse Teknowledge Corporation National Consumers League Thornburg Center for Professional Development National Network of Violence Prevention Practitioners Turner/Cartoon Network National Parent Teacher Association United States Telephone Association Tech Corps Warner Bros. Online

1 0

PGP question
by Eagle One 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Not being very knowledgeable in the cypher world, are there any good online references that compare RSA vs DSS PGP? and why one would be better than the other? thanks

1 0

Government violates 3rd amendment
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sunday 10/26/96 Roby II Town Hall Meeting The Town Hall Meeting convened at 2:00 PM as promised at the Community Center in Auburn, Il. nearly 6 miles east of Roby. The Community Center was packed. Neighbors from far and wide attended the meeting which lasted for several hours. At least one attendee, a local City Councilman was so incensed after hearing from the neighbors of Shirley Allen, he offered to contact Judge Slatter in hopes of having the court order withdrawn. Attended by numerous members of the media, this Town Hall Meeting produced several local neighbors speaking on Shirley's behalf. Even the lone State Trooper seen "taking down license plate numbers" during the meeting did not mar this event. Reportedly, Carolyn Trochman dialed 911 and reported a "suspicious individual" roaming around the vehicles and demanded that an officer be dispatched to help. That lone trooper after seen "talking on his radio" was observed to quickly ceased that activity. Speakers onhand included John Trochman and Joyce Riley with impromptu ballads supplied by singer/songwriter Dave Riddell. Reports indicate a Ballad For Shirley was born during the meeting and performed by Dave Riddell. The Auburn Town Hall meeting was dubbed a success and several neighbors owning property adjacent to Shirley Allen spoke in her defense so strongly that afterwards it was agreed to reconvene at a home NEXT DOOR to Shirley Allen. This caravan, including at least one motor home then proceeded to converge at the neighbors home with his invitation and the local Troopers had little choice but to allow them into the outer perimeter. The meeting was peaceful and included at least 75 from the Auburn Roby 2 Town Hall Meeting. Spirits were lifted near Shirley's home as the second session of the meeting continued into the darkness of dusk. Chants were born and at least one being shouted by all at the gathering could not help but help the troopers on duty realize that this was indeed an effort to help relieve tensions. The chant born yesterday afternoon was "BAD COP.....NO DONUTS ..... BADCOP......NO DONUTS". Troopers were seen not able to keep their "terse" expressions during these chants. What was accomplished? "A Lot!" exclaimed Joyce Riley. "We have at least one City Councilman whom has since contacted other councilmen and they will be visiting with Judge Slatter Monday Morning. The local neighbor support for Shirley is overwhelming. With this kind of support, we can only go uphill from here." More Later on the Success of Roby II Johnny Johnson Houston, Texas (281) 530-5511

1 0

Hong Kong's Net-conduct code, from South China Morning Post
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

************* http://www.scmp.com/news/template/templates.idc?artid=19971028005357046&top… emplate=Default.htx&MaxFieldSize=2838 [South China Morning Post] [Front Page] Tuesday October 28 1997 [Hong Kong] Conduct code targets porn on Internet [China] [Asia] [World] GREN MANUEL A voluntary code to control [Business] publication of obscene and indecent [Markets] material on the Internet was launched yesterday, with the threat of a review [Features] after a year if it failed. [Sport] But the code can only be applied [Property] against material put on to the [Technology] Internet in Hong Kong, with no effective sanction against publishers in the rest of the world, where the [Index] vast bulk of the material originates. [Image] The code, issued by the Hong Kong Internet Service Providers' Association, which covers all major Internet firms, is supported by the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority. Both pledged it would not be used for political censorship. "We do not want to turn into an 'Internet cop'," said the association's chairman, Daniel Ng Chi-shing. Last year the Government proposed new laws to block access to pornographic sites worldwide, but the plan was scrapped amid criticism it was technically unfeasible and could be used for political censorship. Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing Eddy Chan Yuk-tak said: "If you strictly control the Internet you could stifle the free flow of information and inhibit the development of this new technology. "However, we must protect our young persons and children from the effect of indecent and obscene materials." He said the best strategy was to "advise, inform and educate" young people but the code was a useful supplement, and would be reviewed after 12 months. In June a senior Correctional Services officer was given a suspended sentence after posting hard-core child pornography on the Internet. Ousted Democratic Party legislator and Internet pornography campaigner Andrew Cheng Kar-foo welcomed the code but said it would have little practical effect on the material available. "The Government should have a clearer definition of 'obscenity', otherwise it could be abused," he said. Despite estimates there were more than 10,000 Web sites hosted in Hong Kong, the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority has received just four complaints. "There is a problem. But it is difficult to tell how serious it is at this stage," said Mr Chan. THE MAIN POINTS * Category III material will not be published on the Internet. * Category II material must be preceded by warning notices similar to those on printed material. * Users who repeatedly break the above rules should be disconnected. * Internet firms should promote technology that can allow a rating classification or the blocking of certain sites. * The public may make complaints to a page's host Internet firm. The firm must ''act promptly and conscientiously on the complaint''. * Unresolved complaints may be referred to the TELA. * Statistics on complaints will be sent to the TELA every month.

1 0

Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: >At 8:11 AM -0700 10/30/97, Tim Griffiths wrote: >> We hear on TV etc people saying "If this draconian measure saves the >> life of one innocent child its worth the loss of my right to walk in >> the park, or whatever". This is clearly shit, but can people suggest a >> sensible measure of when new legistlation is justified? > >If not, then the answer is "the Constitution." > >The longer version being that the Constitution and especially the >Bill of Rights clearly enumerates rights held by the people, and >there is no mention that such basic rights are to be stripped away >because the "life of one innocent child" can be saved... But this line of argument does not get to the heart of the matter. Why is the Constitution so great? After all, it's just a piece of paper and if Americans generally decide not to respect it, it's gone. In a related comment Steve Schear wrote: >"Those who prefer security over liberty deserve neither." More accurately, they will *get* neither! Police states are not only unpleasant, they are terribly unsafe. When somebody tells you they wish to trade security for liberty, offer to handcuff them on the spot in exchange for protection. If they don't agree, they now have to explain why they believe you have less integrity than the police and their political masters. And, in almost every case, the draconian measure is orthogonal to protecting children and is only a cynical ploy to institute a police state. While it will be different from ploy to ploy, it can be productive to undermine the assumptions of the argument. Consider cryptography. We are told that it is bad for children. We also know that banning cryptography will cost at least $60 billion every year. Why isn't a $30 billion child protection fund being advocated? It would obviously be a good deal. The reason is that protecting children isn't on the agenda. (And that child protection bill better include a list of things not to spend money on: Do not frame political dissidents. Do not infiltrate church groups. Do not spy on Jewish children at summer camp. Do not gun down antiwar protesters. Do not suppress the Press. etc. etc.) In general, those who talk about "protecting children" shy away from obvious and real measures that might actually protect children. For example, in most states child protective services are underfunded and staffed by incompetents. Real children are living miserable lives every day, and yet Louis and the Gang are worrying about the use of arithmetic. Could it be they have some other motivation? Or consider teenage prostitution. In most big cities there are many teenage prostitutes. They don't want to be prostitutes for the most part, but usually they were in a bad situation and they ran away from home. We can tell the situation is bad because when they get hungry they still don't want to go back. Typically, there are known places where the deals are done. Yet we see no noticeable enforcement effort occurring. Could it be that the police don't care that much? More importantly, it is terribly easy to help these people. All you have to do is set up a home where they are welcome, feel safe, and feel comfortable. BTW, that means no religious indoctrination, no drug indoctrination, or any other brainwashing. It does mean finding hosts who are warm emotional people and genuinely care. (It may be impossible for a bureaucracy to establish such an environment.) Anybody who cares about teenagers can set something like this up. Yet, it rarely happens. The reason for this is that very few people truly care enough to actually do anything about the situation. When somebody tells you should go to jail for performing the wrong kind of arithmetic because it's bad for children, ask them what they *really* have done for any children anywhere. Usually, they have done nothing and will do nothing. There is almost nothing lower than a person who would exploit concern for children for his or her own political purposes. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFjdqpaWtjSmRH/5AQGAJQf/RyhKbHhI9mHgMLIoRFVeckDiv/ZiZ/WK aAGAJo9C5XqUgQA/RZ+EwaEaiYsEkpNeu+KOz0TjEAEBZLTW3JQPtW4e5TWC8q3k qJp74Xp+uQCuBBD51NNpfmJqZVQcTVSp6TDeUvIQQP2s/Kicc+oJoEHtW++R6nIL Zw61A/IWEmNFpwbawurrrRbIxbb98YbgsW6QLgBS6e8zujT3OjKR5DOUqrCxP/No YqQ+B3KZDH6+M1Gq2oU81n8ReUGFUViIfFYCB9tO6lau/+6slw//kHOBSoRgG+6h k3oaYzHQltcHzGnEG1jTcc0BEofsvSSoQ16DM6r9w1BUn2qCuIzl0A== =6job -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Protocols for Insurance to Maintain Privacy
by nobody＠neva.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: >Turns out that Blue Cross and Blue Shield have negotiated, through >enormous buying power, daily rates of about $700 a day. (These >numbers come from my memory of a "60 Minutes" report a few years >ago. Details and current figures may vary.) Sounds like what you really want is to be able to buy through these companies without buying the insurance. This would be a real easy service for them to provide because if they mark it up a little bit, it's basically free money. (They are doing the negotiations anyway, after all.) They don't even need to know your name until you show up wanting to use their health care network. The Emergency Room Scenario is a little more challenging. One way to deal with it is to wear some obvious signs of wealth like a $10,000 watch. In a pinch you can give them the watch. ;-) (Some of the nurses won't know what it is, but the doctors will, I am sure.) I'm pretty sure that if you are an unconscious wealthy looking person they don't turn you away. You really only need to survive until your lawyer gets to the hospital with a suitcase of cash. How do super rich people solve this problem? You can be pretty sure that Bill Gates self insures and protects his privacy at the same time. How does he do it? How does he solve the Emergency Room Scenario? Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNFjs2JaWtjSmRH/5AQH8bgf8CmUdMFs1Hzrx4wVhtAKVSDpaizFsA5c9 BuSlOGkVsFcpAWOWSYatZcpR/gx2AJgSFk1oJGWulh89L7QpQ06pNpLaNQUrx39n Y2PT00ljNShmVE2IEmHrhSwPaEs0XDT03M1TFBpg/N2XK939qnrl32ObNidE7f4/ joQlGlX2n11jJFXFJmKps0nA3s0IpxALBByBcXa7Zxrkuj5R1PpqHQaakBkHZSS1 krRF0ztDiSvV0bn1VWhLj2upvC7TALFmifACFZ29QLgRqk1k8Kp9VqRHO4+ZQENN Y4Ljk+qEjG/ej57CisWZyu2w5EIO44R1+y1jSNdOfrsevLo9vZn2QQ== =PFfW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1