December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Multi-precision math in PGP
by cman＠caffeine.io.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone have pointers to articles, books, or online material that explains the multi-precision math that is provided in PGP? -- ---------------- /\ Douglas Barnes cman(a)illuminati.io.com / \ Chief Wizard (512) 447-8950 (d), 447-7866 (v) / () \ Illuminati Online metaverse.io.com 7777 /______\

1 0

LD's last flame of me
by nate＠VIS.ColoState.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- CPs, I did not want to poin-blankly address some of the comments that LD made about me in his last post, but I feel it necessary. I won't say he's insane or deranged, since i know it does no good. I won't say that he is raving or frothing at the mouth, since it does no good either. I will say that I am doing my best to uphold what I believe in, and that I will not stand for the public slander of my name and reputation all across the net. If you want to slam me, L.Detweiler, please slam me in private email, since very few people put great weight on your post, at least not lately. - -nate sammons - -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Nate Sammons nate(a)VIS.ColoState.Edu (303) 491-1578 | | Colorado State University -- Computer Visualization Laboratory | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

IEEE Article Speaks Out Against Clipper/Key Escrow
by jdwilson＠gold.chem.hawaii.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CP's: Check out IEEE Computer November 1993, V26,#11 pp 76-78, wherein the Com- mittee On Public Policy states, among other things, "Very serious consti- tutional questions exist. The government's key escrow initiative may violate the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the US Bill of Rights" "Better methods already exist...Moreover, encryption software (including DES and RSA algorighms and the user-ready and popular Pretty Good Privacy secure message system) is freely downloadable from public networks around the world." "Reconsideration is in order. The administration should halt the intro- duction of its key escrow system and reconsider this half-baked scheme, which was hatched during the previous administration. And Congress should mandate a serious, open, public review of cryptography policy and its implication for society." Pretty clear statement of opinion from a body of IEEE, eh? -Jim

1 0

Health Security
by Matthew J Miszewski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I realize that this is of marginal crypto import, but I need as much info as possible on Hospital Information Systems and security. Especially on CICS and AIX systems. Do any cryptographic protocols exist yet to protect huge interactive medical databases? Please send responses in mail. --Matt ______________________________________________________________________________ In defense of liberty, encrypt for all purposes, civil and professional. In defense of privacy, encrypt all correspondence, personal and professional. In defense of sanity, do not encrypt your dry cleaning invoice! ++++++++--------mjmiski(a)macc.wisc.edu (c)1993

2 1

Another Demon
by an12070＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Who is zeek(a)io.com? <g> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

2 1

BlackNet/Anon remail
by Michael J Kirwin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello 'Punks. I'm working on some Sociology/Psycology stuff and I was wondering if somone out there could give me some information on the BlackNet and Anonymous Remailers. Thanks, mkirwin(a)acs.ohio-state.edu

1 0

Health Security
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <9311261629.AA05385(a)gold.chem.hawaii.edu> you write: >> I realize that this is of marginal crypto import, but I need as much info >> as possible on Hospital Information Systems and security. Especially >> on CICS and AIX systems. Do any cryptographic protocols exist yet to >> protect huge interactive medical databases? >What specifically are you asking about? Are you talking about encrypted >password protection or encryption of part or all of the databases? The company I work for does a lot of work with HISS systems. We've been told to develop a system to display selected data from a HISS on PCs for use by hospital staff. (Possibly off the premises). We asked about security and encryption, and were told we could leave all the patient data in clear but to encrypt the file containing the names and the correspondence between those names and patient data. I don't think this is sufficient - I'm sure anyone getting the data could work out who it was about from all sorts of internal detail - but that's all the UK Health Service at least expects. We will, of course, be putting in a *considerable* deal more security than they mandate as minimum, because if patient data were to get out via one of our products, it would be no use saying 'but the NHS said that was all we needed to do' - not only would we be morally negligent, but it would do our company's public image no good at all. G -- Personal mail to gtoal(a)gtoal.com (I read it in the evenings) Business mail to gtoal(a)an-teallach.com (Be careful with the spelling!) Faxes to An Teallach Limited: +44 31 662 4678 Voice: +44 31 668 1550 x212

1 0

remove me
by m-sh8481＠granny.cs.nyu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Systems Admin Please rm me from the list. Shall be back later. It was fun to be on the list. --------Hardayal Singh

1 0

PGP math library
by hfinney＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here's a little document I threw together this morning to describe the PGP multi-precision routines. After reading about Henry Strickland's work making TCL interfaces for various crypto functions, I've been putting together a similar interface for PGP's mp library. This is mostly to teach myself TCL. But I have developed some familiarity with PGP's mp library as a result, so here is some information that will hopefully be helpful. Hal -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PGP Multi-Precision Library Functions Nov 26, 1993 Overview ======== PGP contains a multiple-precision math library to implement its cryptographic functions. This library is largely self-contained and is suitable for use in other applications. PGP's library is quite portable, working on both big- and little- endian machines, as well as machines with both 16- and 32-bit integers. It can be compiled in a mode which relies only on C code, or it can be linked with an assembly language module customized for the particular target machine to provide higher speed. Assembly language modules ship with PGP for a variety of targets. The library uses fixed-size buffers for its calculations. This means there is a ceiling on the size of the numbers which can be used. This ceiling is determined at compile time, though, so special applications can build the library with large ceilings if desired. PGP's library and its source code in general is not public domain; it is copyrighted by Philip Zimmermann, reachable at <prz(a)acm.org>. PGP is released under licensing terms which, I believe, allow use of the source code for non-commercial purposes. It would be a good idea to talk to Phil before using the code in any product destined for widespread release. The Library =========== PGP's mp library is largely contained in the module mpilib.c. This module requires mpilib.h, usuals.h, and platform.h when it compiles. The simplest use of mpilib is to link it with your application, compiling with -D flag(s) appropriate for your target machine. (More information on the choice of flags is below.) Any module which will use the mp functions should also include mpilib.h. All of these modules will also have to be compiled with the -D flag(s) used by mpilib.c. Compiling ========= Compiling mpilib.c and other modules which include mpilib.h requires the proper choice of -D flags. The simplest case is if the target machine is one of the ones for which explicit defines exist in platform.h. In version 2.3a, these are: MSDOS, VMS, VAXC, mips, i386, sparc, mc68000, mc68020. In each of these cases, an assembly-language module exists in the PGP distribution to implement selected mp functions. If you have one of these targets, add a -D flag for the symbol from the above list to your compile command line. For example, on an MS-DOS machine, add -DMSDOS to the command line. (Actually, in most cases these symbols will be automatically defined by the target's compiler or pre-processor. But it doesn't hurt to define them explicitly.) Then you should also assemble the corresponding assembly language file. For MS-DOS it is 8086.asm; the proper choice for the other targets should be obvious from the filenames. Link the assembly language object module along with mpilib's object module into your application. If you don't have one of these targets, mpilib.c can be built in a "portable" mode which will implement all functions in C. To do this, define -DPORTABLE and -DMPORTABLE on the command line. In addition, if you are on a big-endian machine (such as a sparc or 68000-based machine), you must define -DHIGHFIRST as well. Little-endian machines don't need an explicit define for endianness. In portable mode, PGP will default to 16-bit units. If your target has 32-bit ints, you can define -DUNIT32 to get considerably more efficient code. Remember that these defines must be added to all modules which include mpilib.h, in addition to mpilib.c. (Note: in the PGP makefile you may also see other defines, -DDYN_ALLOC and -DSMALL_MEM. These are not relevant to the mp library and are not necessary for this application.) **** VERY IMPORTANT NOTE **** PGP has many alternate forms of multiple-precision multiplication and division; the appropriate one is chosen based on your particular machine. The default choice is SMITH, because that is usually the fastest. However, the SMITH algorithm has the deficiency that it does not (in version 2.3a) work correctly for small numbers. (This is not a problem for PGP because it works with large numbers of hundreds of bits. But for a general-purpose library it is not adequate.) A better choice is UPTON for the purposes of a general-purpose library. You should edit mpilib.h to have it define UPTON instead of SMITH for your particular target architecture if you are using one of the pre-defined targets. If you are building with -DPORTABLE, you can either edit mpilib.h to change the default choice, or you can define -DUPTON on the command line. Using the Library ================= Before use, the MP library must be initialized. Presently the only initialization needed is to set the precision value, which tells how many "units" (a unit is typically an int on the target machine) long the fixed-size mp buffers are. This is done by calling: set_precision (MAX_UNIT_PRECISION); To use the mp library, include mpilib.h in your module. Multi-precision variables should be declared as follows: unit temp[MAX_UNIT_PRECISION]; This declares a variable "temp" suitable for holding a multi-precision value. I like to do: typedef unit unitarr[MAX_UNIT_PRECISION]; unitarr temp; which has the same effect. MP variables may either be declared locally or as global variables as with other types of C variables. PGP's mp library functions need to be called with the address of a mp variable. Since mp variables are declared as arrays in C, this means you can just pass the variable name. For example, to add x2 to x1, you could do: unitarr x1, x2; mp_add (x1, x2); mpilib.h defines unitptr as a pointer to a unit. If you write functions which take MP values as parameters these should be declared as unitptr's. For example, a function to add three numbers and return a result might be: void mp_add3 (unitptr rslt, unitptr arg1, unitptr arg2, unitptr arg3) { mp_move (rslt, arg1); mp_add (rslt, arg2); mp_add (rslt, arg3); } Make sure you don't make the mistake of declaring a local and global variables as unitptrs and passing them to mp functions. You need to allocate space for them by declaring them as unit arrays. Library Functions ================= Most of the library functions are conceptually simple. The one exception is modular multiplication. This performs the function A*B mod M. PGP requires this to be done via two calls. First you tell it the modulus M with the stage_modulus call. Then you do the multiplication with mp_modmult. This is code to do rslt = arg1*arg2 mod m: unitarr rslt, arg1, arg2, m; stage_modulus (m); mp_modmult(rslt, arg1, arg2); If you are doing a series of multiplications with the same modulus you can call stage_modulus just once and then call mp_modmult repeatedly. Be aware that mp_modexp calls stage_modulus internally so that function will overwrite the saved modulus value. PGP is missing a few functions that you would expect. It does not have modular addition and subtraction. These should basically do A+B and then test for the range 0..(M-1), and if out of range add or subtract M once to bring it back into range. Perhaps these will be added to a future version of PGP. Some mp functions have parameters that are both inputs and outputs (e.g. mp_inc(r) increments r). In other cases, though, the inputs are separate from the outputs. In those cases you should not pass the same variable as both an input and an output parameter. For example, you should not do mp_mult (a, a, b) to get a *= b, because a is being used as both an input and an output parameter. Instead, you should do mp_mult (temp, a, b) and then mp_move (a, temp). Here are some useful PGP mpilib functions and what they do. The MP numbers are r, r1, r2, etc; non-MP integers are i, j, etc. Non-modular MP functions: mp_move(r1,r2) r1 = r2 mp_add(r1,r2) r1 += r2 mp_sub(r1,r2) r1 -= r2 mp_compare(r1,r2) -1,0,or 1 depending on (r1<r2),(r1=r2),(r1>r2) mp_mult(r1,r2,r3) r1 = r2 * r3; mp_udiv(rem,rquot,rdend,rdor) unsigned rdend/rdor;rem=remainder,rquot=quotient mp_div(rem,rquot,rdend,rdor) signed rdend/rdor; rem=remainder, rquot=quotient mp_mod(rem,rdend,rdor) rem = rdend % rdor (unsigned) mp_abs(r) r = absolute value of r mp_inc(r) r += 1 mp_dec(r) r -= 1 mp_neg(r) r = -r mp_square(r1,r2) r1 = r2 * r2 msub(r,r1) if (r>=r1) r -= r1 Modular mp functions: stage_modulus(rm) set rm as modulus for mp_modmult mp_modmult(rslt,r1,r2) rslt = r1 * r2 mod stage_modulus value mp_modsquare(r1,r2) r1 = r2 * r2 mod stage_modulus value mp_modexp(rslt,r1,r2,rm) rslt = (r1 to the power r2) mod rm MP/Integer interface functions: mp_init(r,i) mp value r = integer value i mp_burn(r) r = 0 (for erasing sensitive data in memory) testeq(r,i) True if mp value r == integer value i testne(r,i) True if mp value r != integer value i testge(r,i) True if mp value r >= integer value i testle(r,i) True if mp value r <= integer value i significance(r) returns number of significant units in r mp_shortdiv(rquot,rdend,i) rdend/i; rquot=quotient, returns int remainder mp_shortmod(rdend,i) returns rdend % i (unsigned) I/O of MP Values ================ The PGP module mpiio.c has some routines for I/O of mp values. This module includes pgp.h (which includes a lot more files) but that is not really necessary. I advise commenting out the include of pgp.h in that module. Then you will only need to add mpiio.c and mpiio.h to your program directory. To get access to the more general I/O functions in mpiio.c you must compile it with -DDEBUG. This will allow you to call: str2reg(r,str) Convert string str to mp value r The string passed to str2reg will be assumed to be in decimal. To pass a hex string it must end in 'h'; binary strings should end in 'b', and octal strings in 'o'. Decimal strings may optionally end in '.'. (These terminating characters could be added by a pass before str2reg is called if you don't want to require them from the user or file.) display_in_base(str,r,irad) Display string r in base irad, preceded by str This will print mp value r on standard out, using base irad. It will precede it by the string str. mp_display(str,r) Display string r in hex, preceded by str This always displays in hex, and is somewhat faster than display_in_base. One function which is lacking is something to convert an mp value to a string in memory. display_in_base and mp_display always write to standard output. These routines can be fairly easily modified to output to an incrementing pointer (*bp++) to get this effect if necessary. Other PGP MP Functions ====================== The module genprime.c has several useful mp functions. Unfortunately, since the focus of this module is generating PGP random keys, it has links to other parts of PGP, such as the random number generation. It is probably best to extract source routines from this module on a selective basis. Among the routines which would be of general use are: mp_gcd(rslt,r1,r2) rslt = greatest common divisor of r1 and r2 mp_inv(rslt,r1,r2) Compute rslt such that rslt*r1 mod r2 is 1 nextprime(r) Finds the next prime above r, returns in r slowtest(r) True if r is a probable prime primetest(r) Sieve then slowtest r, true if probable prime nextprime is fast, using a combination of sieving and probabilistic primality testing. It is what is used by PGP for its RSA key generation. slowtest is used by nextprime; it applies the Fermat test with the first four primes as test values. primetest first checks r against a list of small primes for divisibility, then calls slowtest to test it. There are also some other calls in mpilib.c which I did not document above. They are somewhat lower-level, mostly, but they might be useful for some purposes. A little study of the code will reveal these routines.

1 0

Re: Comments on NSA (was: "Pyrrhus Cracks RSA?")
by an52436＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, doesn't it make some sense given the utility of prime numbers in cryptography, that the NSA, or anyone else interested in breaking codes for that matter, would have simply dedicated a computer or two to the long-term project of determining all of the prime numbers under x bits long? Granted this would take a while, but the NSA has the time, the computers, and the other resources necessary to do this. Having all of these prime numbers would greatly reduce the effort necessary to crack PGP/RSA-type cryptosystems which rely on prime numbers. It would reduce the number of factors a brute-force attack would have to check dramatically. Or am I completely off-base? Mephisto ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

3 2

Clipper update
by a2＠ah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: _Electronic Engeering Times_ 22-nov-93 U.S. weights Clipper chip alternatives by GEorge Leopold Washington -- The clinton administration is readying a new encryption policy that could help defuse industry opposion to introduction of the government developed Clipper chip by embracing commercial technologies as alterntives for netword security, according to government and industry sources. A National Security Council panel lead by George Tenet, psecial presidential assistant for intelligence programs, is completing a broad review of government encryption policy with an eye toward empolying the Clipper chip, as well as commercial alternatives, to ensure privacy and security on public networks. Those would include the proposed electronic superhighway, or National Information Infrastructure (NII). Tenet could not be reached for comment on the review's status, but a U.S. official said last week the results of the seven-month National Security Council policy review will be announced soon. The Clipper chip, backed by the National Security Agency and proposed by the Clinton administration in April as a new data-encryption standard, is widely viewed by industry critics as a fait accompli, since the spy agency wants to use it to protect intelligence data. Asked in an interview last Monday whether the policy review would result in modification of the Clipper chip proposal, Micheal Nelson, special assistant for information technology in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, acknowledged the need to consider other encryption technologies for network security, including software solutions. He also said the government should have sought greater industry participation before proposing the Clipper chip. "Clipper is not a sliver bullet, it's not even a brass bullet," Nelson said, "It's only one approach." He added, "If we don't address these [network security] issues, people won't use the NII." Nelson said last week the National Security Council review was designed to bring industry and Congress into the process of looking for commercial solutions, besides Clipper, to the network-security issue. Industry groups said last week they have contributed to the review, which began shortly after Clipper was proposed. The review is expected to result in a decision on how to implement Clipper. A decision on how to proceed with the Clipper proposal was scheduled for Sept. 1 but was delay in response to a recommendation from a private-sector advisory group to the Commerce Department. Clipper, which scrambles telephone conversatinos using an encryption algorithm called Skipjack, is at the heart of an adminstration initiative annoumced in April on secure telecom networks and wireless communication links. Forced to balance the interests of campanies and private citizens with nation-security needs, President Clinton ordered a comprehensive review of U.S. encruytion policy addressing: * Privacy, including the need for voice and data encryption to protect proprietary business data. * The ability of federal law-enforcement officials to tap phones and computers. * The employment of modern technology to build the NII, including encryption technology needed to protect proprietary information transmitted over the information superhighway. * The need for American companies to build and export high-technology products to boost U.S. competitiveness. U.S. companies may offer encryption as a feature in software sold in the United States, but are prohibited from including encryption software in commercial software exports. Proponents of decontrolling encrypted software argue that restrictions are useless because encryption technology is widely available (see Oct. 18, page 18). Acknowledging industry's concerns, the initiative also includes creation of a key-escrow system to ensure the Cliper chip would be used to protect privacy. (A Commerce Department official said last week the government has dropped the Clipper moniker, referring to it instead as the "key- escrow chip," out of convern for possible trademark infringement.) Devices incorporation the chip would have two unique software keys government investigators would need to decode encoded messages. TWo key-escrow data banks would be overseen by a pair of independent agencies designated by the Justice Department and the White House. A decision on which agencies will oversee the detabases has not been made, Commerce spokeswoman Anne Enright Shepherd said last Wednesday. According ot a White House statement announcing the encryption policy, "We need the Clipper chip and other approaches that can both provide law-abiding citizens with access to the encryption they need and prevent criminals from using it to hide their illegal activities." Despite the administration's insistence that Clipper and the rest of the encryption policy are voluntary efforts, many U.S. high-tech companies have opposed it (see June 21, page 28). Instead, they want policy makers to retain the ubiquitous federal Data Encryption Standard (DES) and use other public-key encryption technologies, such as RC-2 and RC-4. DES uses a 56-bit key while Clipper employs an 80-bit key. Clipper "was forced upon [the Clinton adminstration] before they had a chance to evaluate its impact," Bruce Heiman, a Washington attorney representing the Business Software Alliance, said last Tuesday. "NSA sold them a bill of goods." The policy review means "they realize that Clipper has problems... but they don't want to rule it out entirely," Heiman said, adding that industry would accpet Clipper as one alternative to network security only if it is part of a truly voluntary program that includes public-key encryption.

1 0

State Declaration of Ind.
by j.hastings6＠genie.geis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Neil admits that the following is not agorist, (or crypto-anarchist), but is a great republican idea: "...here is a ballot initiative I and a couple of other guys drafted while I was in Colorado (well, actually second draft which I did solo) immediately following the passage by the U.S. Senate of the crime bill containing the assault weapons bans. I will be devoting a considerable about of my energies in the forseeable future -- my life, fortune, and sacred honor, in fact -- to trying to get as many states as possible to put this on the ballot and start creating some free countries." *** THE AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE BALLOT INITIATIVE Preface In States where the people may place this initiative on the ballot to amend the State Constitution by direct ballot initiative, the proponents of this initiative should form a committee to do so and to combat legal challenges to the initiative being placed on that State's ballot. In States with no direct initiative procedures, or where legal impediments or challenges prevent this Initiative from being placed on the ballot, a political party may adopt, or be newly formed to adopt, the platform of placing this initiative on the ballot by whatever legal procedure is required in that State in order to effect its consideration. Question Shall [YOUR STATE] declare independence from the United States of America. Purpose The Declaration of Independence adopted by the Continental Congress dated July 4, 1776, states as follows: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." A long train of abuses by the Congress of the United States, the Judiciary of the United States, and the Executive Branch of the United States having infringed upon the rights, privileges, immunities, and powers of the people of [YOUR STATE], in direct contravention to the purposes of the Declaration of Independence and the rights enshrined in the first ten articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, We the People of [YOUR STATE] do hereby resolve, effective immediately, the following: Resolved: That [Your State] does hereby declare itself independent of, and does hereby secede from, the United States of America, declaring itself the free and independent [YOUR STATE] Republic. All persons born in the territory or state of [YOUR STATE] or currently residing in this Republic are hereby deemed citizens of the Republic, and all individuals residing in the Republic or who otherwise are citizens of the Republic who have attained the age of 16 years are declared to be Sovereign Individuals, possessing all rights, privileges, and immunities, and subject to all duties, responsibilities, and penalties, of adults living in a free Republic. The legislature of [YOUR STATE] is hereby dissolved, and the Governor of [YOUR STATE] is hereby appointed President Pro Tem of the Republic and Commander-in-Chief Pro Tem of its State Guard and Militia, which consists of all Sovereign Individuals of the age of 16 or greater capable of bearing arms; however, no individual who conscientiously objects to Militia service shall be required to bear arms. The vote of no Representative or Senator from the state of [YOUR STATE] to the Congress of the United States shall be regarded as binding upon the will of the people of [YOUR STATE] in its relations as an independent Republic with the United States; however, such senators and representatives may retain their seats until the natural expiration of their terms of office, or until their offices are abolished by a Constitutional Convention of the Republic, which ever shall occur first. Within 90 days of the adoption of this Initiative there shall be a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution of [YOUR STATE] in order to enact a permanent Constitution for the Republic, and any Sovereign Individual of the age 21 years or older who holds the proxies for 2500 other Sovereign Individuals of the age of 16 years or older shall be seated as a voting Delegate to the Convention, empowered to elect presiding officers of the Convention, to adopt the Rules of Order, and to decide upon all business that shall come before the Convention, except with the following limitations: that the Declaration of Rights which is enacted as part of this Initiative shall be the permanent and supreme Law of the Land, not subject to repeal, alteration, or abridgement by the Constitutional Convention or any deliberative body which shall follow it; that a Delegate to the Constitutional Convention shall be seated only so long as the sufficient number of proxies is maintained, and such proxies are revocable at any time during the Convention by notice to the recording Secretary of the Convention; that the Convention may be reconvened under these same limitations to propose new amendments at any time after ratification of the Convention by a majority of those voting in a popular initiative, and that all proceedings of this and subsequent Constitutional Conventions shall be available for public viewing and broadcast. Each Delegate to the Convention shall have one vote on the floor of the convention, irrespective of the number of proxies that Delegate holds in excess of the minimum number required to be seated. The proposed Constitution ratified by a majority vote of seated Delegates shall be submitted to a popular referendum within 120 days of the seating of the [a number representing 10% of your state's population]th Delegate, which shall be a quorum for the Constitutional Convention to begin. Every Sovereign citizen of the Republic having attained the age of 16 shall be entitled to vote in this referendum, and a majority vote in this referendum shall adopt the Constitution, which shall go into effect immediately. Within 90 days from the adoption of the Constitution, but in no event later than 180 days from the adoption of this Ballot Initiative declaring independence, all currently held elected, appointed, and civil offices of [YOUR STATE], including the presidency-pro-tem, shall expire, and the Republic shall hold such general elections as are mandated by this Ballot Initiative and created by the Constitution of the Republic. If the people have failed to approve a Constitution within 180 days from the adoption of this ballot initiative, then all legislative, judicial, and executive authority of the Republic shall remain with the Constitutional Convention or, respectively, with the people in popular referenda, until such time as a Constitution is approved by the people. The Constitutional Convention shall as its first order of business after the election of presiding officers and adoption of Rules of Order appoint an Ambassador to the United States of America to open communications for the purpose of discussing such subjects as are of interest to the people of the United States of America and the people of the Republic, to seek a peaceful divorce and coexistence. Any other State, Province, or Republic which shall adopt the following Declaration of Rights in total and without alteration may join in free Confederation with this Republic; and the Sovereign Individuals of those States, Provinces, and Republics shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of the Republic; and all public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of such a State, Province, or Republic shall be given full faith and credit by the Republic. Alternatively, if the several states of the United States of America should adopt this Declaration of Rights into the Constitution of the United States of America in total and without alteration, the Republic shall, by popular initiative, vote whether it shall rejoin the United States. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS All Individuals within the borders of the Republic, and those of its Sovereign citizens abroad, are hereby declared to hold the following unalienable Rights, and this Declaration of Rights shall be the Supreme Law of the Land of this Republic, not subject to repeal, abridgement, or amendment; and all laws or regulations of the State of [YOUR STATE], or of the United States of America, which are repugnant to these Rights are immediately null and void: To be free from laws respecting an establishment of religion or taxing or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or taxing or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press, or of communication public or private; or peaceably to assemble, or to petition the Government for a redress of grievances; or to travel freely domestically or abroad. A standing Army being repugnant to the people's Liberty and creating a likelihood of foreign military adventures, and public liberty and security being predicated on the ability of Sovereign Individuals to act on behalf of their individual liberties and personal safety, a popular Militia is the natural defense of a Free Society, and posse comitatus drawn from such Militia is the best protector of public order and safety; however, no individual who conscientiously objects to Militia service shall be required to bear arms. The Right of all Individuals to keep, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any arms for defense of themselves, the public peace, and the Republic shall not be called into question in any place in the Republic, except for those persons being held to answer for an infamous crime or those who having been convicted of an infamous crime have had restrictions placed on their liberty as a condition of probation or parole, or in places where such persons may be incarcerated; nor, other than requirements that may be enacted for training of the Militia, shall the government place any burdens on the acquisition, possession, or ownership of arms; nor shall privately owned arms be enumerated or registered with any authority by force of law; nor shall any taxes, tariffs, fees, or regulations be placed on the manufacture of or trade in personal or militia arms; nor shall any Individual be held criminally or civilly liable for any reasonable act in defense of life, liberty, property, or the public peace; nor shall any sworn police or peace officer have any greater Rights or powers than those available to any Sovereign Individual. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except in punishment for a crime whereof the party be duly convicted, shall exist in the Republic or any place subject to its jurisdiction. No Sovereign Individual in the Republic may be denied or have abridged by law, public, or official act, any Right, privilege, or immunity held by the people as a whole; and any official, elected, appointed, or otherwise receiving remuneration from public funds, who violates the least of these Rights, even to proposing or supporting a law that would violate the Rights set forth in this Declaration, shall be held personally liable, criminally or civilly, for any damage or dishonor against any or all Sovereign Individuals of the Republic; and upon conviction of Criminal Violation of Sovereign Rights may as part of punishment be further barred from holding any office or position of public trust in the Republic thereafter. No military or government personnel shall be quartered in any house without the consent of the Owner. The right of all Individuals to be secure in their persons, houses, documents, files, private communications, and effects shall not be violated, nor any warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, by a Grand Jury elected yearly by the People, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the Individuals or things to be seized, and if such Warrant shall have come about by perjury, malice, manufacture of false evidence, or malfeasance by any Individual, such individual shall be held to answer, criminally and civilly, for such malfeasance. and Individuals not charged, or adjudicated to be innocent, shall be compensated in full from public funds for any costs or damages resulting from such a search, seizure, charges, or trial resulting therefrom. No Individual shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury elected yearly by the People, except in cases arising in the Militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any act be a crime in which it can not be proved that one or more actual Individuals was caused harm or could likely have been caused harm; nor shall any individual be held to answer as an adult for a capital or otherwise infamous crime who has not enjoyed the full rights, privileges, and immunities of an adult; nor shall any Individual be subject to charges arising from the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life, limb, or loss of property after an acquittal or failure of a Jury in a criminal trial to reach a conviction; nor shall anyone be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Any Sovereign Individual in the Republic may petition a Grand Jury to bring criminal charges against any public official he believes has violated his Rights; and if the person who might be charged sits upon that Grand Jury, that Grand Juror shall be recused and the charges considered by the remaining Grand Jurors. No magistrate may impose a punishment upon any Individual for Contempt of Court except by presentment or indictment by a Grand Jury and conviction on the charge in a criminal trial by Jury. No private property shall be taken for public use without full and just compensation, upon a vote of two-thirds of those voting in a popular referendum and for no other purpose than a clear and present danger to the Sovereign Individuals of the Republic or equally grave public purpose. Neither the Republic nor any of its subdivisions may have title to real property, nor may the Republic demand public use of private property, with the exception of rights of way necessary to the public's right to travel and engage in free commerce and recreation, national cemeteries, embassies and consular offices; and the devolution of public property into private ownership shall balance the public interest with the conservative advantages of private stewardship. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the Right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of competent and energetic Counsel for his defense. Furthermore, in all criminal prosecutions and civil matters each jury shall be selected from a pool of rational Sovereign Individuals who have demonstrated in their lives common sense, courage, a knowledge of the law in general and of the issues of the specific crimes being charged or issues being litigated, and shall be of a sufficient moral stature to overcome any preconceptions or prejudices that may have arisen in their minds from public discussion of the case prior to the commencement of trial; and each jury shall have the power to rule both upon the facts of the case and to nullify any charge or law for that case they consider to be unjust, and shall not be bound to the precedents established in any prior case; and the judge for each trial shall be elected by the jury and no fact or issue of law shall be considered except in open court with the full jury present. Excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines be imposed nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, nor shall punishment be the primary purpose of criminal law except that it seeks redress on behalf of victims for harms caused by a criminal act. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed five troy ounces of .999 fine gold, the Right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the Republic, than according to the rules of the common law. No law, treaty or contract shall exist in the Republic unless written in plain language understandable to an Individual of average intelligence and literacy; and all laws and treaties under consideration in any deliberative governmental body shall be made available free for examination to all Sovereign Individuals in the Republic; nor shall any law or treaty be enacted that is of such excessive length, or which has been so recently drafted, that the public has not had time to contemplate its effects. No law shall exist whose purpose is to prevent an adult individual from causing harm solely to himself or his own property, nor conversely from seeking to enhance his own health or well-being by chemical, medical, herbal, physical, or other means; nor shall the possession of medicinal substances, herbs, or materials used in growing or preparation of them be prohibited or burdened; nor shall any Individual be taxed to pay for his own future needs; nor shall the practice of medicine, or of the law, or of any other Profession or livelihood be licensed or regulated by the Republic or subdivisions thereof; nor shall any private and discreet religious, economic, or sexual practice between or among consenting adults be a subject of law. No law shall exist in the Republic that shall prohibit the termination of a pregnancy except that the fetus be healthy and viable apart from its mother's womb and there exists an individual capable of and committed to the adoption of the fetus when born and to assume all costs of support for the mother through the birth of the child, any costs relating to the birth, any costs of care for the mother and any of her other dependent children resulting from the continuation of the pregnancy to term, and burdens of parenthood for the fetus when born, in which case an abortion of such a fetus shall be tried as homicide; but in the event that no qualified person has committed to all these costs and responsibilities, then no criminal or civil charges for the abortion of even a viable and healthy fetus shall be permitted. No law shall prohibit any Sovereign Individual from using as a medium of exchange any legal commodity, nor require any Sovereign Individual to accept any note as legal tender, nor shall the Republic issue any currency not backed by a commodity in the Republic's treasury, nor shall the Republic or any of its subdivisions contract a bond or debt mortgaged upon the government's ability to collect future revenues except in time of war or public disaster. No tax shall be levied without the majority of the people voting in a direct referendum; and furthermore no tax may be levied except that it is to be used for a specific public purpose and no revenue raised for one purpose may be used for another without the majority of the people voting in a direct referendum; and no tax may be enacted such that it requires burdensome accounting or is ambiguous in its requirements or requires professional assistance to understand or comply with it; nor shall any Sovereign Individual suffer any criminal penalty for failure to pay a tax or evasion thereof. In all tax cases or other civil cases in which the government shall be a plaintiff against a Sovereign Individual or private property, all protections accorded to a defendant in a criminal proceeding shall be afforded to the defendant or property owner; neither shall there be any civil forfeiture of private property to the government except after judgment in a jury trial. The government may neither operate any enterprise in competition with a private enterprise; nor by grant of monopoly, subsidy, or other advantage to a private enterprise discourage free competition in any service or product offered to the public; nor prohibit or burden any private enterprise which would provide a service or product previously offered by a unit of government or enjoying an advantage due to government privilege. The enumeration in this Declaration of certain Rights shall never be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People; and while no Rights here enumerated may be abolished or abridged by constitutional amendment or law, nothing here shall be constructed to prevent additional limitations on public power to enhance the protection of the people from tyrannical abuse. In all questions relating to the Construction of these Rights, let decisions be ruled according to the original intent of the framers of this Declaration, that Individual private powers be nurtured and the Sovereign Individual be protected from the natural tendency of any government to expand the sphere of public power. The protection of these Rights shall be the first and last duty of all persons holding any office of public trust, and the interpretation of these Rights shall firstly and lastly be decided by the Sovereign Individuals of the Republic, as expressed in their acts as members of juries and Grand Juries. First draft of this Initiative and Declaration of Rights was submitted by Scott Paul Graves, J. Neil Schulman, and Timothy H. Willis on August 26, 1994. This draft submitted by J. Neil Schulman, August 28, 1994. Reply to: J. Neil Schulman Mail: P.O. Box 94, Long Beach, CA 90801-0094 Voice Mail: (on AT&T) 0-700-22-JNEIL (1-800-CALL-ATT to access AT&T) Fax: (310) 839-7653 JNS BBS: 1-310-839-7653,,,,25 Internet: softserv(a)genie.geis.com Post as filename: BALLOT.TXT Blame this very long post on Kent - j.hastings6(a)genie.geis.com

5 6

No Subject
by banisar＠washofc.cpsr.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

cpsr.digex.net> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1993 18:18:21 +0000 From: Dave Banisar <banisar(a)washofc.cpsr.org> To: Cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: HR 3627 Encryption Exports Removed Maria Cantwell 1st District, Washington 1520 Longworth Building Washington, DC 20515 202-225-6311 Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-4701 For Immediate Release For More Information November 23, 1993 Larry West (202) 225-6311 Cantwell Introduces "Encryption" bill to Expand Export Markets for US Computer and Software Companies US Rep. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) has introduced legislation to amend the Export Administration Act to allow US computer and software manufacturers to compete in an international market that could mean as much as $6 billion to $9 billion a year to American high-tech industries. Cantwell's bill would liberalize export controls on software that features encryption capabilities, which protect computer data against unauthorized disclosure, theft or alteration. As communications systems link more and more computers and telephones around the world, Cantwell said, businesses and indviduals are becoming more concerned about protecting the privacy of their electronic files, messages and transactions. She said the worldwide demand for cryptographic software, and computer systems that employ such software, is growing rapidly and American companies must be allowed to meet that demand. According to Cantwell, this legislation is needed to ensure that American companies do not lose critical international markets to foreign competitors, who operate with few export restrictions. Currently, more than 200 software and hardware products for text, file and data encryption are available from 20 foreign countries. "The Export Administration Act has erected a wall between American high-tech companies and their international customers -- it's time to lower the wall," Cantwell said. "Computer and software technology are among the most competitive fields in the world, and American companies are the clear leaders. To maintain that lead, American companies must be able to respond to worldwide consumer demand." Robert Holleyman, president of the Business Software Alliance, an association of America's nine leading software companies, applauded Cantwell for introducing the leigslation and said the bill would "assist US software companies and maintaining their competitive edge in international markets." Dr. Nathan Myhrvold, senior vice president for Advance Technology at Microsoft Corporation in Redmond, Washington, also praised Cantwell for her leadership on this issue. "The ability to include encryption features in software we sell worldwide is important to our remaining competititve in foreign markets," Myhrvold said. " We commend Rep. Cantwell for recognizing the importance of this issue to the American software industry." CANTWELL ON EXPORT CONTROLS/ ADD ONE Cantwell said current export controls that prohibit the export of American software programs that offer good encryption capabilities only make it harder for American companies to compete internationally. She said the regulations ignore the realities of today's post-Cold War global economy and the needs of one of this country's most innovative and successful industries. American software companies currently command a 75 percent worldwide market share, and many of those companies earn more than 50 percent of their annual revenues from exports, but Cantwell said that could change quickly. "The United States' export control system is broken and needs to be fixed," Cantwell said. "It was designed as a tool of the Cold War, to help America fight against enemies that no longer exist. If we continue to prevent American companies from meeting the worldwide demand for cryptographic software, America gains nothing -- but those companies stand to lose $6 billion and $9 billion a year." Paul Brainerd, CEO of Aldus in Seattle, said, "Rep. Cantwell's bill would liberalize outdated export controls, which are threatening the continued success of America's software companies in world markets. In order to remain competitive worldwide, American companies must be able to offer features -- like information security -- demanded by our customers and available from foreign companies." Cantwell said her legislation would not interfere with the government's ability to control exports to nations with terrorist tendencies (such as Iran, Libya and Syria) or other embargoed countries (such as Cuba and North Korea). On the other hand, she said, current export controls on American software do not prevent anyone from obtaining cryptographic software. "Much of this is ordinary shrink-wrapped software," Cantwell said, "the kind millions of people buy every day for their home and business computers at regular retail outlets. International consumers who cannot purchase American computer systems and software programs with encryption features don't do without, they just buy those products elsewhere. They are concerned with protecting their privacy and keeping their businesses secure." Cantwell said she is determined to bring the issue out from behind closed doors and into the light of public debate before the House Subcommittee on Economic Policy, Trade and Environment marks up the Export Administration Act early next year. She said she hopes her bill will encourage the Administration to act quickly to revise export controls on software -- perhaps before Congress reconvenes in late January. "The Administration is reviewing this issue, and I think they are interested in making the changes that will allow American companies to remain competitive," Cantwell said. "I would like nothing better than to come back to Congress after the recess and discover that the problem had been solved." ### AMERICAN COMPUTER COMPANIES MUST BE ALLOWED TO EXPORT SOFTWARE WITH ENCRYPTION CAPABILITIES _Introduction and Summary_ America's computer software and hardware companies, including such well-known companies as Apple, DEC, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Lotus, Microsoft, Novell and Wordperfect, have been among the country's most internationally competitive firms earning more than one-half of their revenues from exports. Unfortunately, this vital American industry is directly threatened by unilateral U.S. Government export controls which prevent those companies from meeting worldwide user demand for software that includes encryption capabilities to protect computer data against unauthorized disclosure, theft or alteration. Legislative action is needed to ensure that American companies do not lose critical international markets to foreign software companies that operate without significant export restrictions. _The Problem_ With ready access to powerful, interconnected, computers, business and home users increasingly are relying on electronic information storage and transmissions to conduct their affairs. At the same time, computer users worldwide are demanding that computer software offer encryption capabilities to ensure that their data is secure and its integrity is maintained. Unfortunately, current unilateral U.S. "munitions" export controls administered by the National Security Agency and the State Department effectively prohibit the export of American software programs offering good encryption capabilities. Yet these unilateral U.S. controls are _not_ effective in restricting the availability of encryption abroad. More than 200 generally available, mass-market foreign commercial programs and products, as well as many programs available from the Internet, all offer good encryption. In addition, generally available software with encryption capabilities is sold within the U.S. at thousands of retail outlets, by mail and over the phone. These programs may be transferred abroad in minutes by anyone using a public telephone line and a computer modem. The only result of continued U.S. export controls is to threaten the continued preeminence of America's computer software and hardware companies in world markets. American software companies stand to lose between $6 and $9 billion in annual revenues from sales of generally available software. In addition, American hardware companies are losing hundreds of millions of dollars in computer system sales every year, because sales increasingly are dependent on the ability of a U.S. firm to offer encryption as a feature of an integrated customer solution involving hardware, software and services. _The Solution_ Legislation introduced by U.S. Rep. Maria Cantwell would ensure that exports of software with encryption capabilities would be controlled by the Secretary of Commerce as a commercial item and would be exportable. This legislation is strongly supported by the Business Software Alliance and the Industry Coalition on Technology Transfer. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF CANTWELL BILL EXPORT CONTROL LIBERALIZATION FOR INFORMATION ECURITY PROGRAMS AND PRODUCTS _Section 1_ Section 1 amends the Export Administration Act by adding a new subsection that specifically addresses exports of computer hardware, software and technology for information security including encryption. The new subsection has three basic provisions: 1) It gives the Secretary of Commerce exclusive authority over the export of such programs and products except those which are specifically designed for military use, including command, control and intelligence applications or for deciphering encrypted information. 2) The Government is generally prohibited from requiring a validated export license for the export of generally available software (e.g. mass market commercial or public domain software) or computer hardware simply because it incorporates such software. Nevertheless, the Secretary will be able to continue controls on countries of terrorists (like Lybia, Syria and Iran) or other embargoed countries (like Cuba and North Korea) pursuant to the Trading With The Enemy Act os the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (except for instances where IEEPA is employed to extend EAA-based controls when the EAA is not in force). 3) The Secretary is required to grant validated licenses for exports of sotware to commercial users in any country to which exports of such software has been approved for use by foreign financial institutions. Importantly, the Secretary is not required to grant such export approvals if there is substantial evidence that the software will be diverted or modified for military or terrorists' end-use or re-exported without requisite authorization. _Section 2_ Section 2 provides definitions necessary for the proper implementation of the substantive provisions. For example, generally available software is offered for sale or licensed to the public without restriction and available through standard commercial channels of distribution; sold as is without further customization; and designed to be installed by the purchaser without additional assistance from the publisher. Computer hardware and computing devices are also defined. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 103D CONGRESS H.R. 3627 1ST SESSION --------------------------------------- IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MS. CANTWELL (for herself and ___) introduced the following bill which was referred to the Committee on __________. --------------------------------------- A BILL To amend the Export Administration Act of 1979 with respect to the control of computers and related equipment. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, 3 SECTION 1. GENERALLY AVAILABLE SOFTWARE 4 Section 17 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 5 (50 U.S.C. App. 2416) is amended by adding at the end 6 thereof the following new subsection: 7 ``(g) COMPUTERS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT.--- 8 ``(1) GENERAL RULE.---Subject to paragraphs 9 (2) and (3), the Secretary shall have exclusive au- 2 1 thority to control exports of all computer hardware, 2 software and technology for information security 3 (including encryption), except that which is specifi- 4 cally designed or modified for military use, including 5 command, control and intelligence applications. 6 ``(2) ITEMS NOT REQUIRING LICENSES.---No 7 validated license may be required, except pursuant 8 to the Trading With The Enemy Act or the Inter- 9 national Emergency Economic Powers Act (but only 10 to the extent that the authority of such act is not 11 exercised to extend controls imposed under this act), 12 for the export or reexport of--- 13 ``(A) any software, including software with 14 encryption capabilities, that is--- 15 ``(i) generally available, as is, and is 16 designed for installation by the purchaser; 17 or 18 ``(ii) in the public domain or publicly 19 available because it is generally accessible 20 to the interested public in any form; or 21 ``(B) any computing device soley because 22 it incorporates or employs in any form software 23 (including software with encryption capabilities) 24 exempted from any requirement for a validated 25 license under subparagraph (A). 3 1 ``(3) SOFTWARE WITH ENCRYPTION CAPABILI- 2 TIES.---The Secretary shall authorize the export or 3 reexport of software with encryption capabilities for 4 nonmilitary end-uses in any country to which ex- 5 ports of software of similar capability are permitted 6 for use by financial institutions not controlled in fact 7 by United States persons, unless there is substantial 8 evidence that such software will be--- 9 ``(A) diverted to a military end-use or an 10 end-use supporting international terrorism; 11 ``(B) modified for military or terrorist end- 12 use; or 13 ``(C) reexported without requisite United 14 States authorization. 15 ``(4) DEFINITIONS.---As used in this 16 subsection--- 17 ``(A) the term `generally available' means, 18 in the case of software (including software with 19 encryption capabilities), software that is offered 20 for sale, license, or transfer to any person with- 21 out restriction through any commercial means, 22 including, but not limited to, over-the-counter 23 retail sales, mail order transactions, phone 24 order transactions, electronic distribution, or 25 sale on approval; 4 1 ``(B) the term `as is' means, in the case of 2 software (including software with encryption ca- 3 pabilities), a software program that is not de- 4 signed, developed, or tailored by the software 5 company for specific purchasers, except that 6 such purchasers may supply certain installation 7 parameters needed by the software program to 8 function properly with the purchaser's system 9 and may customize the software program by 10 choosing among options contained in the soft- 11 ware program; 12 ``(C) the term `is designed for installation 13 by the purchaser' means, in the case of soft- 14 ware (including software with encryption capa- 15 bilities)--- 16 ``(i) the software company intends for 17 the purchaser (including any licensee or 18 transferee), who may not be the actual 19 program user, to install the software pro- 20 gram on a computing device and has sup- 21 plied the necessary instructions to do so, 22 except that the company may also provide 23 telephone help line services for software in- 24 stallation, electronic transmission, or basic 25 operations; and--- 5 1 ``(ii) that the software program is de- 2 signed for installation by the purchaser 3 without further substantial support by the 4 supplier; 5 ``(D) the term `computing device' means a 6 device which incorporates one or more 7 microprocessor-based central processing units 8 that can accept, store, process or provide out- 9 put of data; and 10 ``(E) the term `computer hardware', when 11 used in conjunction with information security, 12 includes, but is not limited to, computer sys- 13 tems, equipment, application-specific assem- 14 blies, modules and integrated circuits.''

1 0

THE DETWEILER PLEDGE
by Sandy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT Reply to: ssandfort(a)attmail.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Punksters, I hereby take the following Pledge. Will you take it too? WHEREAS, Larry Detweiler has posted long and numerous messages to Cypherpunks under his own name and several pseudonyms, AND WHEREAS, over time, such messages have became more and more unintelligible, repetitive and/or threatening, AND WHEREAS, attempts to respond to such messages have resulted in ever increasing psychotic reactions from Detweiler, I, therefore, pledge never to read, nor respond to, posts written by Larry Detweiler, or his pseudonyms. Further, I pledge never to read, nor respond to, posts written in response to posts by Larry Detweiler, or to subjects raised by Larry Detweiler. I offer the above pledge in the hopes that such action, especially in concert with others on the Cypherpunks list, will deprive Larry Detweiler of an audience and thus result in his voluntarily withdrawal from this forum. S a n d y S a n d f o r t >>>>>> Please send e-mail to: ssandfort(a)attmail.com <<<<<< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 1

ANOTHER FAVORABLE ARTICLE
by Sandy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT Reply to: ssandfort(a)attmail.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Punksters, Strong encryption got another boost from the hard money crowd. The newsletter, /Strategic Investment/ featured an article called, "Escape to Cypherspace [sic]: The Information Revolution and the demise of the income tax." It was written by James Bennett who is the "Technology Editor of /Strategic Investment/ and is writing a book on nanotechnology for the M.I.T. Press. Here is the first paragraph: Readers of /Strategic Investment/ are already aware of the crucial role of the microchip in eroding the power of governments over their citizens. Recent developments herald an expansion of this role that promises to dwarf the effects seen to date. Just as atomic theory was seen as an arcane interest in 1939, so this development, known as public-key encryption, is now familiar only to a handful of academics. Yet in the coming decade, it may create consequences which change the life of everyone on the planet even more than the atomic bomb. Following this was some history and theory of public key. He had several nice paragraphs about PGP, the Clipper chip and the united front put up by "hackers and mainstream communications and computer companies" in opposing the Clipper. He explicitly mentions (and approves of) the threat offshore banks using encryption technology pose to taxing authorities. At one point he writes: This development [cypherspace commerce] will accelerate rapidly existing trends towards breakdown of large institutions and hierarchical structures. Governments will have much of their revenue base undercut--and any attempt to tighten the screws on taxpayers will just increase the escape to Cypherspace. But he later opines: Some observers of this trend predict a coming "crypto- anarchy" where governments fall apart entirely under the pressure of anonymous communication. This is not likely. Governments have shown an amazing adaptability over the millennia as they adjust to developments such as large-scale slavery, feudalism, gunpowder and industrialization. Quite a favorable article, over all. S a n d y >>>>>> Please send e-mail to: ssandfort(a)attmail.com <<<<<< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3 2

META: Filter Detweiler
by hfinney＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- It appears to me that Detweiler is not receiving the list; for example, he apparently didn't see the posting giving the names of officials at his university until it was forwarded to him several days later. I would favor adding a filter preventing Detweiler's messages from appearing on the list. I know that this is a big step to take but his messages have become so deranged that they have, IMO, no redeeming value. Whatever validity his original points may have had (and I do think there was a kernel of a valid point there), his mental state is such that his postings are now worthless. I know that I can easily filter his messages myself, but it still wastes list bandwidth and, worse, distracts people's attention from other, more worthwhile, posts. By lowering the quality of the list as a whole Detweiler discourages people from subscribing. New subscribers may take his rants as typical of what we discuss here. We are all harmed by having people who could make a contribution leave the list, or be distracted by Detweiler's messages and the responses to him. Unless others strongly disagree, I urge Eric to install software to eliminate Detweiler's postings. I believe the evidence is strong enough that the anon.penet.fi account nicknamed "S.Boxx" is actually a Detweiler pseudonym that it should be filtered as well. If other pseudonyms appear I suppose we would have to consider them on a case by case basis. In order to conserve list bandwidth, let's try to avoid "me, too" postings. If you disagree, it's worth discussing, IMO, but if you agree I'd suggest that messages be sent directly to Eric at cypherpunks-request(a)toad.com or hughes(a)ah.com. Hal Finney hfinney(a)shell.portal.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLPaZZagTA69YIUw3AQHSnAP8Cbo7o6622IpA7HwY8lQAm6h66YE9wCrc rkCZK2F6KnVRvuTxXbotvdx/RxQZPtIwZa6SmU8H1H/d/SAQSB74bavDsrzJRl5I V5BNPmVL+zFSPZWgfXOQ8Apb3KTrtWmTyhXIgRbhJle3kyO5YJU2km50j98ZoN5d 2cPpzM0wHxA= =hgGz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

META: Filter Detweiler
by hfinney＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- It appears to me that Detweiler is not receiving the list; for example, he apparently didn't see the posting giving the names of officials at his university until it was forwarded to him several days later. I would favor adding a filter preventing Detweiler's messages from appearing on the list. I know that this is a big step to take but his messages have become so deranged that they have, IMO, no redeeming value. Whatever validity his original points may have had (and I do think there was a kernel of a valid point there), his mental state is such that his postings are now worthless. I know that I can easily filter his messages myself, but it still wastes list bandwidth and, worse, distracts people's attention from other, more worthwhile, posts. By lowering the quality of the list as a whole Detweiler discourages people from subscribing. New subscribers may take his rants as typical of what we discuss here. We are all harmed by having people who could make a contribution leave the list, or be distracted by Detweiler's messages and the responses to him. Unless others strongly disagree, I urge Eric to install software to eliminate Detweiler's postings. I believe the evidence is strong enough that the anon.penet.fi account nicknamed "S.Boxx" is actually a Detweiler pseudonym that it should be filtered as well. If other pseudonyms appear I suppose we would have to consider them on a case by case basis. In order to conserve list bandwidth, let's try to avoid "me, too" postings. If you disagree, it's worth discussing, IMO, but if you agree I'd suggest that messages be sent directly to Eric at cypherpunks-request(a)toad.com or hughes(a)ah.com. Hal Finney hfinney(a)shell.portal.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLPaZZagTA69YIUw3AQHSnAP8Cbo7o6622IpA7HwY8lQAm6h66YE9wCrc rkCZK2F6KnVRvuTxXbotvdx/RxQZPtIwZa6SmU8H1H/d/SAQSB74bavDsrzJRl5I V5BNPmVL+zFSPZWgfXOQ8Apb3KTrtWmTyhXIgRbhJle3kyO5YJU2km50j98ZoN5d 2cPpzM0wHxA= =hgGz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Telnet specs.
by Jeremy Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I know this might not be the most appropriate list to post this to, but I need to know what ports Telnet uses for standard use. Mainly, I implemented the Telnet bouncer program that was posted here a while back, and when trying to connect to hosts that don't require a port number it still asks me for one. i.e., when I try to connect to archie.sura.net through the bouncer, it asks me for a port number. When I use my standard Telnet program it will connect with just archie.sura.net as the address. Does anybody know a site where I can find this info? Thanx in advance and my apologies for any waste of bandwidth! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Smith -*jersmit(a)eis.calstate.edu*- My views are my own and nobody else can have them! -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Banning any subscriber...
by Jim choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am new to the list as well as the local Austin CypherPunks group and have high hopes of contributing to the ongoing discussion of crypto. I have been playing w/ PGP since it first came available and crypto in general for quiite a few years. I was really attracted by the sence of community as well as the reputation of the CypherPunks. However, with the latest news that 'we' are going to start banning individuals because they have nothing to contribute is something I personaly cant support. If you want free speech then you have to give it. If you personaay want to filter your mail (equivalent to changing the channel) that is fine, but to a priori filter posts from a individual is cencorship (no letting you discuss your subject at all). I personaly do not support such authoritorian actions and will dis-associate myself from the CypherPunks and will advise others not to associate either. This type of action is un- called for and has no business on this type of communication network. I advise all subscribers to this list to NOT support any action by any individual or group to carry this idea into action. This is not what CypherPunks or freedom is about. "Those who give up essential liberty to obtain security deserve neither liberty or security." Benjamin Franklin

1 0

Filter to exclude Detweiler?
by greg＠ideath.goldenbear.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've personally come to the conclusion that it's no longer useful to (a) attempt to communicate with Detweiler, or (b) pay attention to what he writes. I am, however, opposed to source-filtering him at philosophical and practical levels. I think his bad craziness is evident enough from his postings that anyone paying much attention will conclude he's disconnected from external reality; it shouldn't take more than a few messages for folks to reach this conclusion. (I admit with some chagrin that it took more than a few for me to do that.) I think that source filtering is at least a close kin to censorship, and I'd vote to steer clear of it. I also think that attempting to source-filter him may lead to some sort of "identity arms race", via remailers, anon-servers, and the like. Such an arms race would be distracting, annoying, and lead to further wasted time, effort, and energy on the part of people who ought to have better things to do. :) I encourage folks to look into improving technology which would allow for destination-filtering, e.g., kill-files and their ilk. (Next-generation killfiles - ones which attempt some sort of textual interpretation/classification beyond headers - implemented at the destination point have the added benefit that the filter target can't easily deduce from the list traffic what algorithm/pattern is being used, and thereby avoid it.) For what it's worth, I write the above in spite of the fact that I don't have a kill-file in the reader-agent that I read C-punks with, and I pay for every minute of transmission time used to receive C-punks, including Detweiler's lengthy messages. -- Greg Broiles greg(a)goldenbear.com Baked, not fried.

1 0

Looking for Remailers
by an32951＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I need a couple of good remailers. Can -- er, /would/ anybody point me in the general direction of one? Coerr ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

1 0

Where the lonely wind blows next
by Brian Beker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Here's something funny from an12070 that popped up in comp.org.eff.talk. I won't bother to forward it all, especially in view of all the recent talk of filtering this singular voice. The rest of it is in the news. Brian [Header's here for those of you who enjoy that kind of thing....] - From netcom.com!csus.edu!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Fri Nov 26 23:49:21 1993 Xref: netcom.com talk.politics.crypto:1348 alt.privacy:9824 alt.privacy.anon-server:345 news.admin.policy:7982 comp.org.eff.talk:22312 comp.admin.policy:4449 alt.conspiracy:37431 Message-ID: <071303Z27111993(a)anon.penet.fi> Path: netcom.com!csus.edu!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!anon.penet.fi Newsgroups: talk.politics.crypto,alt.privacy,alt.privacy.anon-server,news.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.conspiracy From: an12070(a)anon.penet.fi (The Executioner) X-Anonymously-To: talk.politics.crypto,alt.privacy,alt.privacy.anon-server,news.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.conspiracy Organization: Anonymous contact service Reply-To: an12070(a)anon.penet.fi Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1993 07:06:26 UTC Subject: CRYPTOANARCHIST INFILTRATION ALERT Lines: 61 ATTENTION ALL INTERNET PERSONNEL THE INTERNET OUTLET szabo(a)netcom.com HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A CRYPTOANARCHIST CYBERSPACE INFILTRATION SITE TO A 93.67% DEGREE CERTAINTY VIA PSEUDOSPOOFING DETECTION SOFTWARE. MAIL, POSTS, AND OTHER EMANATIONS FROM THIS OUTLET ARE CONSIDERED LIKELY TO BE HIGHLY SUBVERSIVE AND DANGEROUS CRYPTOANARCHIST DISINFORMATION AND PROPAGANDA FROM ONE OR MORE CRYPTOANARCHIST CO-CONSPIRATORS. MULTIPLE SENSITIVE INTERNET MAILING LISTS, FAQS, AND FORUMS HAVE BEEN CONTAMINATED. [Many more caps deleted.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLPcI6SJejrfgN5yJAQF+RgP9F6cAs0B/Ors7uu2e9m+BP4Elmq0dkkcb VHoEMRwQJx8xHFE+iKlgf0M0Hrme65cYjK31+hj7C41DJNgY7eymYBCjtcEL8X1y ZNLnwMFGTIVXtMUUAd/XwbfqURyGCDihzwos08mHLh/NzBOgsyHzC0Vqkp5uYjmZ Q92oCyENEJk= =xwos -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

The latest lunatic rant
by Mike Ingle 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Newsgroups: >talk.politics.crypto,alt.privacy,alt.privacy.anon-server, >news.admin.policy,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,alt.conspiracy >From: an12070(a)anon.penet.fi (The Executioner) >Subject: CRYPTOANARCHIST INFILTRATION ALERT As you can see, this one was pretty widely distributed. While I agree that it would be nice if he stopped bugging us, at least everyone here knows he's nuts. The same cannot be said for all of these newsgroups. Several people (especially szabo) should post replies and explain that he has been flooding our list with similar ravings and death threats for months. Those who have received death threats from the an12070 address could also send mail to Julf about him. Death threats would certainly be considered "improper use."

1 0

cryptoanarchists?
by wknotten＠cs.uct.ac.za 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[start posting]

1 0

The other side of LD
by bart＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I never thought I be caught dead forward an LD post, but here it is since I may be the only 'punk on the NEW-LIST announcements. Here we see the other side. I am beginning to get a funny feeling about all this. Consider: 1. The book published for profit by editing the submissions to rec.humor.funny. 2. The recent "compilation copyright" filed by Keith Peterson on the material contained in the Simtel archive. 3. The default apparent public domain into which all our postings seem to fall. Is LD, the prolific author that he obviously is, merely baiting the creative minds of the cypherpunks to gather material for his forthcoming novel(s)? Bart /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Forwarded message: > From @VM1.NODAK.EDU:owner-new-list@VM1.NODAK.EDU Fri Nov 26 11:02:02 1993 > Message-Id: <199311261901.LAA15086(a)mail.netcom.com> > Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 12:47:04 CST > Reply-To: ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu, julf(a)eunet.fi > Sender: NEW-LIST - New List Announcements <NEW-LIST(a)VM1.NoDak.EDU> > From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu> > Subject: NEW: Cypherwonks > To: Multiple recipients of list NEW-LIST <NEW-LIST(a)VM1.NoDak.EDU> > > cypherwonks(a)lists.eunet.fi > > The brand new cypherwonks list on Majordomo(a)Lists.EUnet.fi is for > ambitious, energetic, can-do, hands-on individuals interested in > general cutting-edge `cyberspatial development' projects such as in > cryptography, digital cash, and `electronic democracy'. (A `wonk' is > slang for a `meticulous detail person'.) The list is both an informal > gathering place for the technically adept and also a focal point for > branching off into serious project coordination. We place a premium > on membership by technical professionals and try to hone our posts to > accommodate the busy (who, according to the adage, are those who get > all the serious work done). We are inspired by the Internet but > don't see it as ideal yet and are particularly interested in > cooperation, building prototypes, forging standards, and `long-term > incremental evolution' in our designs and goals. We're also > intensely interested in following and influencing the technological > and political developments of the emerging `national cyberspatial > infrastructure.' > > The list is *not* for political diatribes in the `radical > libertarian' agenda, e.g. rants against all forms of government as > oppressive, corrupt, or evil, or promoting the use of cryptographic > technologies for subversive activities like tax evasion, black > marketeering, or evading law enforcement. The list is *not* for > discussions of how to manipulate the honest through the use of > software technologies. The list is *not* for unconstructive > negativism against other's proposals. Above all, we are interested > in forging a `civilized cyberspace' out of the current `Internet > wilderness'. > > Historical note: the list was formed as a less ornery, more moderate > splinter group from the Cypherpunks by J.Helsingius (creator of the > popular anon.penet.fi anonymizing service) and L.Detweiler (author of > many FAQs including `Privacy & Anonymity on the Internet). > > To subscribe, send a message with the body > subscribe cypherwonks > to Majordomo(a)Lists.EUnet.fi. > > A more comprehensive charter is available with the command `info > cypherwonks' in the message body. > > To post, send a message to cypherwonks(a)lists.eunet.fi. > --

1 0