December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Medical Records
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"adam(a)homeport.org" "Adam Shostack" 29-NOV-1995 14:05:58.31 It seems that they use signatures & hashes; nice work, a good advance for medical records storage, but I'd ask how keys are managed, and also what prevents me exploiting the 'hash-only' mode of sending in what I'm cliaming to be is an emergency. (Not that these invalidate the system; they're just interesting areas to work on.) ---------------------- Good questions. I would encourage anyone in San Fransisco to go by and talk to them (or, of course, if anyone can find the researcher's email address, that would be excellent). -Allen

1 0

Re: New Computer Security Act
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh wrote: > At 11:44 -0700 9/18/97, Tim May wrote: > >I doubt Clinton will be at the Fort Meade HQ for a ceremony, as he's on his > >way to Stanford, where both of us will, amazingly enough, be tomorrow. Wish > >me luck! > Tim, just promise me if you're arrested, you'll call me (collect) from jail > and tell me the story. (After you call your lawyer, of course.) Better to call Declan first... Everything is tried in the press these days. The courts are merely an anachronism waiting to be declared dead when Court TV replaces the Department of Justice. (Rumor has it that Janet Reno will be 'turning the letters' as the defendants try to guess their sentence.) TruthMonger

1 0

digital receipts and cash
by David A Wagner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Digital cash protocols are starting to look like they could become very popular and useful. But under current proposals, there's one thing you don't get when you spend digital cash: a digital receipt. (Later, if the vendor reneges on the transaction, you'd have the digital receipt to prove that you paid & the vendor is cheating you.) This seems like it would be a really useful feature. Does anyone know if there are any *practical* protocols to do this? ObCypherpunks relevance: digital receipts seem (IMHO) important to the emergence of fair and robust reputation markets. Discuss. ObCrypto relevance: I've looked through _Applied Cryptography_, but the protocols listed there aren't practical -- they require something like 100 rounds of interaction! Can this be improved?

2 1

Re: key for Alice as promised (not)
by ahupp＠primenet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>On Tue, 28 Nov 1995, Adam Hupp wrote: > >> >Can you imagine?? I'm simply not willing to fool myself into thinking >> >that I ahve security by posting a key and using PGP. >> >> Unless you can post some proof that PGP is insecure, stop insisting it is. > >Hold on a minute. Alice is, here, 100% correct. > >If I use PGP to read messages and there's a videocamera trained on the >keyboard, and other people have access to the machine, PGP is not >secure. Similarly, if PGP is on a computer which other people may use >without my supervision, they can monitor keystrokes, etc. and PGP is not >secure. > >A chain is only as strong as its weakest link; Alice recognizes this, and >makes no claim that PGP itself is the weak link. The weak link is the >physical security of the system which Alice claims to use. > >Jon >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Jon Lasser <jlasser(a)rwd.goucher.edu> (410)494-3072 > Visit my home page at http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/ > You have a friend at the NSA: Big Brother is watching. Finger for PGP key. > > I guess I missed Alice's point, but I gave it more thought and Alice is still wrong: 1) If someone DID monitor Alice, that almost defanitly means the remailer chain was compromised. The weakest link here is the remailer chain, not Alice's computer's physical security.* If Alice's true address is not known, there cannot be any monitoring of his/her computer (unless it for some other reason than "Alice"). 2) This whole deal is about Alice signing his/her messages, not encrypting them. What Alice would be giving up if his/her computer were compromised would not be security, but identity. The most Alice could lose, IF the remailer chain were compromised and IF his/her computer's physical security were compromised is his/her's reputation by spoofing (loss of pseudo-anonaminity is a given if the attacker gets that far). Those are some really big Ifs. *BTW, the chain is NOT as strong as it's weakest link. If I send mail to a remailer, and it strips the headers like it's supposed to, but sends the mail to a compromised remailer (the weak link), I am just as secure as before. -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6 mQBtAzCNppQAAAEDALhWZl7IuGZ9zZT5bACo0b/1L0Nv0C72vKHIO3IHh+cwpHHa 2Ozb9aeO0UvXGwkkZIYgUm0EvmzKh7yb1GTLvBp5kXpR3I9w+Yj4LGlBDERpUWw6 x4ED49pwDnz1Hl5FBQAFEbQYYXNoIDxhaHVwcEBwcmltZW5ldC5jb20+ =PtJK -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Re: Preparing the Remnant for the far side of the crisis
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: >The notion of privatizing the system will not really help much, not >in the handful of months before the impact hits. And there are >worrisome aspects to this privatization. Recall that previous regimes >had problems collecting taxes, and issued "letters of marque and >reprisal" for "privateers" to stop ships on the high seas to collect >taxes for the crown. Sir Francis Drake made his fortune this way, >collecting taxes for Elizabeth I. Letters of marque and reprisal are not generally considered to be tax collection instruments as the targets were not usually considered legitimate sources of tax revenue in time of peace. (Still, Tim would probably argue that there is no meaningful distinction.) A stronger analogy could be made to tax collection groups such as the Farmers General in pre-revolutionary France. Entrepreneurs could obtain a franchise to collect taxes for the King, receiving a fraction of the taxes collected. My guess is that these franchises were both purchased and granted outright. The Farmers General were unpopular and they didn't fare well during the Revolution. On May 8, 1794 (Floreal 19, Year II), 27 of these scoundrels were executed in Revolution Square, including one Antoine Lavoisier. The IRS does privatize some of its work in the sense that bounties are available for informants. They get a percentage (~10%) of the tax revenue "recovered". The percentage drops rapidly as the total take increases. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNCIfy5aWtjSmRH/5AQHJ/gf+MzKYDpXrt4dz576vOuYmI0Z3WkCBF/5T j7poVbfoTWYyl8m1ThnY2SR1OcbM2JXebN7vwG9PEYQ8AWsP1k/SO55MdJ6jXoXF H/9Tl5g1gBGuqbTXHVWQS7AGY5uHKhU3vUyUODJ8qfIaJNVuPbBDjfHCtbitPObj DEZjn2cH0AiaGgDe2wmZtXFzZhXZoz0g+i8MVFCLHVNveiZQzC+ihNQtD7HLKtVl uHk86V2Dp1yF/bzW46342ED/48H0esR+8KhuLg2CGplPkj8Ie0w+EySSX5Jd7dLL zM9QJ/rbe+Vpu2qnDTYy5xmJMv1VGtsw4I21G0mbIw/+CUErnnZuSA== =fkiJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Getting a copy of the Jim Clark speech
by Ed Carp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 21:43:57 -0600 (CST) > From: Frank Stuart <fstuart(a)vetmed.auburn.edu> > To: loki(a)obscura.com, cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: Getting a copy of the Jim Clark speech > >If he has not clarified his position by tomorrow evening, I will set up some > >web pages explaining the situation and decrying Netscape's apparent > >position on key escrow (GAK). I have the quotes that L. McCarthy posted, > >and Jeff Weinstein's response. I have not been able to get the article off > >the server yet (possible all the cypherpunks downloading it?). Any other > >documents I should include? > > I'm working on an "obnoxify" program to convert normal html documents into > documents that look normal to non-netscape browsers, but are too painful to > read with netscape (</BLINK>, <FONT SIZE=1>, etc.). I think tomorrow evening > would be a good time to decide whether or not to distribute it. The only problem with this approach is that this will bite other browsers that have started supporting the so-called "Netscape extensions". More than one person has coded the Netscape stuff into their pages because it gives the author more flexibility than the standard 1.0/2.0 standards. And there aren't many browsers out there yet that support 3.0.

1 0

Knapsack-based cryptosystems
by Eamon Daly 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Some convoluted questions for knowledgeable c'punks: What's the state-of-the-art in cryptanalysis of knapsack-based cryptosystems? I know the fate of Merkle-Hellman, Graham- Shamir etc. as written by Brickell and Odlyzko in _Contemporary Cryptology_ (edited by Simmons). What of the Chor-Rivest cryptosystem (I'm aware of the attack in Eurocrypt 95)? Finally, has any work been done on cryptanalysis of the dense compact knapsack-based cryptosystem of Glenn Orton? ("A Multiple-Iterated Trapdoor for Dense Compact Knapsacks" in _Eurocrypt 94_) Thanks for any information. Eamon Daly

1 0

Re: A challenge ...
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I've been challenged to try to find a bank account; I win the challenge >if I can wire in $100 to the hidden account. Anyone have any good >ideas about how to find an ABA number? This sounds like the "this is your last chance to send me $1!" ad: Announcing the 'Bank Account' Hack. Rules: Wire me $100. Reward: I'll give you a T-shirt. The *real* challenge will be getting your $100 back.

1 0

Re: Because they want to be "players"
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tim May wrote: > (The ACLU is far from perfect, but I am gaining new respect for > their absolutist stance on most civil liberties issues. I am > assuming that the ACLU will not support the "speak in Spanish while > committing a crime and get an extra 10 years" language? This, by the > way, is what the "use a cipher" language is exactly parallel to.) The ACLU does have some peculiar ideas about English, however. A few years ago your local Northern California chapter sued an aspirin company because their label, including warnings, was entirely in English. They argued that because the company was selling aspirin in a Spanish speaking market, the label should have been in Spanish. (The grandmother of a child did not speak English. The child became seriously ill and may have died.) Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNCIX95aWtjSmRH/5AQFjOgf/V5iWS+taWP3GjmGzsRaXkh3bLFO2vfn0 CIVN3Tsczr9BhsyNNv6iAdR6sh1vJFQraFFqbtKIDhU58X+mqU/Ypv5wXhw5q2AN Iu76LG1ILpPwqNCV/fk3d0J/S2yF2pD6a/1zMdD85U3/cxvItM4Q6mMywryCdHU5 K0cP4NuhWMKhwFtTVt/v1r0u4ILI3k3zp5On2lSzVexkjXBfV86YCx/x+5OxDTAz Z8ZAi4ksDXmhSrFUzGAwpkTyBqP7R5/sZ/NdsA3xT5lKVNK0iiBVH9j572T7oIPN 99FlC6V1tytPYlpxFr2/VqTjf8mnvDUv93pnCOYR87Vjp8nE4R6+2w== =92gX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Netscape 2.0b2 allows for invasion of privacy (fwd)
by loki＠obscura.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:52 PM 12/28/95, Graeme Cross wrote: >Talking of Netscape - this posting prompted me to forward it given the >security and privacy implications inherent in the problem. > >Cheers >Graeme > <SNIP> YOW! It is beginning to look like "At Netscape, Security is Job NONE." Something to put with the Netscape pro-GAK pages I am putting together. -Lance ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki(a)obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. Mixmaster, the next generation remailer, is now available! http://obscura.com/~loki/Welcome.html or FTP to obscura.com "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ----------------------------------------------------------

1 0

No Subject
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C[ocksucker] Mayhem's reheated, refurbished, and regurgitated cud is completely inappropriate for the mailing lists into which it is cross-ruminated. _ O Timothy C[ocksucker] Mayhem (_ | -'_/ X-

1 0

Re: Barring access to Netscape
by cactus＠hks.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- James A. Donald <jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote: >This would not be satisfactory in itself: Ideally one would like to bring >up a page saying "Sorry, you cannot access that page because you >are using a netscape browser: Click *here* for the sad tale of >Netscape. If Netscape really does go the GAK route, I will unilaterally do this to the Cypherpunk Archives (or something similar, like every request flashing up briefly and then client-pulling the GAK pages). I've been told that many media-types go to the archives whenever c'punks make the news. How much of an effect do y'all think it'll have if they can't do it with Netscape? Shouldn't be too hard to hack this into Apache. - -- Todd Masco | "life without caution/ the only worth living / love for a man/ cactus(a)hks.net | love for a woman/ love for the facts/ protectless" - A Rich Cactus' Homepage - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBML7AKCoZzwIn1bdtAQEPhAF9HY/ARaVLTFcvyQ1utx94uZ+ZmeXOemmO 2jnX4y/gDelAEO+C7kBAprm8GDyLhgJQ =G5jT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Barring access to Netscape
by Frank Stuart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>If Netscape really does go the GAK route, I will unilaterally >do this to the Cypherpunk Archives (or something similar, like every >request flashing up briefly and then client-pulling the GAK pages). After talking to a couple of people, and playing around some, this seems to be a better choice. That way, you can actually send information (including a list of where to get other browsers) instead of just garbage to netscape users. Is anyone aware of browsers other than Netscape that do client pulls? A simple filter to do (and undo) this would still be useful, I think so that users can easily fix all their documents. Fortunately, that would be very easy to write. >I've been told that many media-types go to the archives whenever c'punks >make the news. How much of an effect do y'all think it'll have if they >can't do it with Netscape? > >Shouldn't be too hard to hack this into Apache. That's not a bad idea either. Hopefully, Netscape will post a retraction (soon!) and none of this will be necessary. Frank Stuart | (Admiral Grace) Hopper's Law: fstuart(a)vetmed.auburn.edu | It's easier to get forgiveness than permission.

3 2

directed speech free? request for opinions.
by Mark Hedges 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have seen California law code which seems to indicate that speech directed at an individual is not covered under the first amendment. If you have any thoughts on the matter, please send opinions (not legal advice, of course, if you are a lawyer). Also, if you know of any speech rights scholars or lawyers willing to answer a few related questions for free, I would appreciate the pointer. Thank you. Mark Hedges

2 2

Re: Netscape gives in to key escrow
by JR＠ns.cnb.uam.es 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

With regard to all this waving about Netscape giving in to key scrow... First one question, and then some considerations. The question: - How much of Netscape stock is in the hands of Netscape? I mean in the hands of the people that work in/for the Company? And how much is in outsiders whose only interest is earning as much as possible? That is, my friends, the key point. When Netscape began selling shares, and before and after that, they were (and still are) widely criticized in this list. I assume most cypherpunks didn't buy. I'd also bet many oportunists, did. And I'd bet many activists thougth this was their chance to get a hold on the development of Internet... So, now we have that most of Netscape is owned by people that either don't care but for money, or fundamental activists. And then, those people have to take decisions. And then they are faced with confronting their government who tells them what to do if they don't want to have problems. And who probably offers some hidden compensations to get their support (maybe tax reliefs?). And who menaces with countermeasures if they don't agree. Oh, they are also faced with lots of fundamentalistic priests who tell them they'll go to hell if they don't give in. Or engage in a crusade against the "evil" net. What did you expect Netscape to do? The guys with the money and the control won't face all the small shareholders and tell them they are going to be "evil" against the gov. and the priests and the religious organizations, and that they will face gov. restrictions, give up political and economic advantages, etc.. to satisfy a bunch of cypher punks that are continuously complaining publicly against the company and don't even buy shares. That's what I think that has happened. And I may be wrong. But there's a lesson to learn: there is a lot of anti-crypto guys out there. Unknowledgeable people, gul lible persons, and fanatics who won't doubt doing anything to get a total control of things. Either we try to educate them, make them more knowledgeable and less gullible, or we fight back with our own companies or buying more shares than them. Or both. Sitting back and complaining won't help crypto, freedom or anything for that matter at all. That said, before blaming more on Netscape and asking a starting company whose major aset is still shareholders instead of sales, we should think better about the correct strategy. Now, who's gonna offer some constructive ideas for a change? jr

1 0

Re: Barring access to Netscape
by Adam Philipp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:00 AM 11/30/95 -0800, you wrote: >This would not be satisfactory in itself: Ideally one would like to bring >up a page saying "Sorry, you cannot access that page because you >are using a netscape browser: Click *here* for the sad tale of >Netscape. > Here is the Netscape specific code that does exactly this: <meta http-equiv="Refresh" content="1 ;URL=http://www.cypherpunks.com/verysadtaleaboutnetscapeandgak.html"> It simply send the viewer to the URL listed after ";URL" bit. I use it on my page to get to my Netscape optimized section (soon to go by the wayside). Try it an see. Adam --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\ |PGP key available on my home page|Unauthorized interception violates | | http://www.compuvar.com/adam |federal law (18 USC Section 2700 et| |-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|seq.). In any case, PGP encrypted | |SUB ROSA... |communications are preferred for | | (see home page for definition) |sensitive materials. | \-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/

1 0

Judo -> Aikido...
by Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- On Sep 15, Dan Geer apparently wrote -------------------------------------- > i recall Tzu also saying that you need to use > the enemy's momentum to your advantage, the > principle of judo if you will. in parallel, This has nothing to do with cypherpunks, but I just could not resist seeing a reference to a martial art that I still love to practice. Dan most likely refers to Aikido (and not Judo) here. A martial art that uses the momentum/force of the "partner" to disarm h{im,er} and change the "attack" to a victory in your advantage... > revolutionaries of many stripes have found > that "heightening the contrast" is necessary > if you mean for real change to occur. --- and thus sprach: Dan Geer <geer(a)world.std.com> ---------------------------- Ciao, Unicorn. -- ======= _ __,;;;/ TimeWaster ================================================ ,;( )_, )~\| A Truly Wise Man Never Plays PGP: 64 07 5D 4C 3F 81 22 73 ;; // `--; Leapfrog With A Unicorn... 52 9D 87 08 51 AA 35 F0 ==='= ;\ = | ==== Youth is not a time in life, it's a State of Mind! ========

1 0

Re: Netscape gives in to key escrow
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

With the assumption that this is not a troll, and giving the writer some slack on account of the non-native-English-language origin, I'll respond to a few of his or her points: At 10:45 AM 12/1/95, JR(a)ns.cnb.uam.es wrote: >With regard to all this waving about Netscape giving in to key scrow... Key _escrow_, though "scrow" is perhaps just as accurate as the improperly-named "key escrow" (hint: escrow is something done voluntarily, not the situation here with GAK). >First one question, and then some considerations. The question: > >- How much of Netscape stock is in the hands of Netscape? I mean in the hands >of the people that work in/for the Company? And how much is in outsiders whose >only interest is earning as much as possible? A small fraction of the shares are now for sale. The exact numbers can be gotten from the Netscape offering prospectus (ironically, I tried to hunt for it in Infoseek, but Netscape claimed it was busy the 10 or so times I tried to run Infoseek on "Netscape"...no conspiracy, just crowding, even at 1:45 a.m. PST). In particular, the billion dollars' worth of Netscape stock (and/or options) that Jim Clark holds is mostly not on the open market (and won't be for years). Having said this, I think all of the shareholders, either of issued shares or as-yet-unissued shares, are interested in maximizing share value. Not surprising. Importantly--and maybe this is the real point JR is making--we on the Cypherpunks list are probably *not* interested in Netscape's stock price. But who cares? Our role is not to maximize Netscape stock price, but to talk about what is "right" and what is not right. And GAK is definitely not right, to the vast majority of us. >That is, my friends, the key point. When Netscape began selling shares, and >before and after that, they were (and still are) widely criticized in this >list. They were "criticized" not because they went public with their stock but because of their security mistakes, made more important by their sudden prominence. The Net/Web is being built up of beams, struts, and bricks, and it's important to point out flaws that make the beams buckle and structures collapse. ... >So, now we have that most of Netscape is owned by people that either don't >care but for money, or fundamental activists. And then, those people have to >take decisions. ??? I don't get the point you're making. Sure, most of Netscape stock that is publically traded is owned by investors. On the other hand, most of the stock that is not yet issued or is tied up in unexercised stock options is in a sense owned by people who care how well the stock does. >And then they are faced with confronting their government who tells them what >to do if they don't want to have problems. And who probably offers some hidden >compensations to get their support (maybe tax reliefs?). And who menaces with >countermeasures if they don't agree. Well, this is the point, isn't it? I doubt there are such things as "tax reliefs" for Netscape--these things are done pretty much out in the open in the U.S., and any special tax treatment would be widely noticed--but there may indeed have been "discussions" with senior management at Netscape. Several of us have already speculated in broad terms on this. Look, I don't impute personal malice to Jim Clark. I do, however, believe in "institutional evil," in the sense that a GAK regiment which says, for example, that anyone who keeps a diary must "escrow" copies of it with the local police is an "evil" idea, counter to the Western notions of liberty and justice. Thus, for whatever reason Jim Clark came out in support of GAK, we must criticize it. And take positive steps to counter it (which I think we are doing). >What did you expect Netscape to do? The guys with the money and the control >won't face all the small shareholders and tell them they are going to be >"evil" against the gov. and the priests and the religious organizations, >and that they will face gov. restrictions, give up political and economic >advantages, etc.. to satisfy a bunch of cypher >punks that are continuously >complaining publicly against the company and don't even buy shares. First, a viable strategy is to simply do nothing. Ignore the goverment's protestations, drag one's feet, shrug, etc. Jim Clark could simply have said nothing. (Recall that Bill Gates came out recently saying that strong encryption is inevitable...Clark could have either said nothing, or said something similar to what Gates said.) Second, the issue is not "satisfying" a "bunch of cypherpunks." If Netscape truly pushes for GAK, and people reject GAK and Netscape, then this will surely hurt shareholder value. (Frankly, I expect one or more stories to appear in the next few days about the budding "Friends Don't Let Friends Use Netscape" and "Just Say No to Netscape" movements. Whether this will hurt the stock is unclear.) >Sitting back and complaining won't help crypto, freedom or anything for that >matter at all. > >That said, before blaming more on Netscape and asking a starting company >whose major aset is still shareholders instead of sales, we should think >better about the correct strategy. > >Now, who's gonna offer some constructive ideas for a change? I say that the ideas being discussed are in fact "constructive" ideas. I won't reiterate them all here, but they clearly involve concrete action (e.g., modifying server software to issue warnings to Netscape users, or encouragement of alternatives to Netscape). What more are you expecting? Have you been reading what people are actually discussing doing and actually already doing? --Tim May Views here are not the views of my Internet Service Provider or Government. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Crypto-Grams #1-#4, from Americans for Tax Reform
by Syniker＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: syniker(a)aol.com CC: louis unfreeh@fbi.org,myfriend@staffsol.com.au Subject: Go Directly To Jail ... ======================= 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` Someone at work today told me that if these couple lines were sent in an email to someone overseas, that we might go to jail for it??? Well, Looie -- you are in washington, and John, you are in Australia -- does that now mean we all three will have to go to jail together????? Please confirm. Kissy Poos to you both... syniker.

1 0

Re: WTO an even worse possibility as Inet regulator.
by James M. Cobb 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Friend, attila(a)primenet.com did the list a service when he sent his message, "WTO an even worse possibility as Inet regulator." Basing the message "on an article from the (London) Finan- cial Times," he states that a very credible white paper is circulating for the WTO to establish an internet CZAR to regualate the Internet... and he asks: personally, the Feds and the FCC are bad enough --now they want to have a **global** bureaucracy play god -??? That 11 29 95 Financial Times newsstory is headlined: Global regulator urged for information highway Who's doing the urging? The Royal Institute of International Telecommunications Policy put out a report written by a Shell man and a think- tank woman. As regards encryption, the RIITP people ...point out that issues such as...encryption...have global rather than national aspects. Then they contradict themselves: "Encryption, for example, raises tricky and emotive issues connected with...national security and cannot be treated simply as a business problem." Whatever works! They "encrypt" the ultimatums of the New World disorder in any...key. At the very end of the newsstory: Global Superhighways, Chatham House, 10 St James Square, London SW1Y 4LE I'm guessing Global Superhighways is the title of the RIITP report. As for Chatham House... In 1919 [a group of young men who became the dominant influence in British imperial and foreign affairs up to 1939] founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) for which the chief financial supporters were Sir Abe Bailey and the Astor family (owners of The [London] Times). Similar Institutes of International Affairs were established in the chief British dominions and in the United States (where it is known as the Council on Foreign Relations). --Carroll Quigley [Clinton's mentor]. Tragedy and Hope. A History of the World in Our Time. Macmillan, 1966. P 132. RIITP is probably a front for RIIA. I conjecture, though, that the real publisher of the report has his house in Washington. I agree with jamesd(a)echeque.com who writes: The main threat to freedom is still internal, rather than external. Looked at from the inside, of course. Cordially, Jim

2 1

Re: Netscape, Corporations, and GAK Support
by carolann＠censored.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I know I may be asking for this a second time, But just what is James Clark's E-Mail Address? Thanks! Happy Holidays! Carol Anne -- Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann(a)censored.org 206.42.112.96 My Homepage The Cyberdoc *********************************************************************** ------------------ PGP.ZIP Part [017/713] ------------------- M8H,),S$8G>&.WP(8IRA`-M['+`Q%&_C"">5-F%LX@<_Q$;*P'',Q$Z/AA[8M MF=O0H+*%(-S%&>S%+FS&<LS%3(Q&#W1"<]2%`H^;,]^1C$'HBN8PX$4SYAU^ MPGD<Q0ZLA0D+,`MCT!LA**4M[-JPAK9F?40!AJ,CW"'%DR#:'9?Q)3[%<DQ` ------------------------------------------------------------- for next chunk to export --> http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/export/

1 0

Re: A "Warning Banner" for Netscape Navigator? Good idea! Re: A "Warning Banner" for Netscape Navigator? Good idea!
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote: >Oh, I don't have their home page enabled. What I meant, but perhaps wasn't >clear about in my post, is that the commercials pop up in Yahoo, Infoseek, >Deja News, Excite, and so forth. (OK, so it is inaccurate to say "Netscape" >puts them in.) > >Some of the ads are intertwined with the command boxes of the particular >service, and thus may be hard to excise, but others seem to be separate. > >Any ideas? > >--Tim May A while back, someone on comp.infosystems.www.* posted patches to CERN httpd allowing the proxy server to filter out url's based on regexp matching. Thus you could update a regexp file as new ads appeared. It should be fairly easy to implement something similar under Netscape 2.x using plug-ins. Anyone interested in collaborating? Wilhelm Busch -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBML/FZIiUi5SQtQ3tAQHeAAgAmtp2fF9/UzHpDIz0pOXQqZ/0U+1/vMjR jenuLn17jkgQQXAl6e617ZKMJ4h+vV8QBOh78CPaK7omV9oJyNfDRQweDBWtiFRl uEzyeUoYwGoXxkUH5ANM8AW3GaBSiQ4TCDnwZlAsJ1pYYGRgJhMtdEwPnNVAXW+l l0uODlH+ENi8hGwsM683j7gGws0cc4JcH7Ou2U9zmLZ2gHrdQsWWdw70PjhdlK7e 26aY7EGfI9pTH69mHKV60Qxj2FmSCt1v6MeHjUwRupajCNTGcnsw3FllvRJc7lug cYPApS2ychZSszUwBqoBMvJpAUSpWk+x/RfQTDeo0wsCSvwc66mhWA== =DnEr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

nsa and netscape
by Bob Bruen, MIT Lab for Nuclear Science 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The following came from a government source. I thought it might be of interest. Bob -------------------------------------------------------------------------- At yesterdays FNC (Federal Networking Council) meeting it was mentioned in passing that NSA has given Netscape a grant of $5 Million (yes $5M) to beef up the security features of Netscape. More info will be forthcoming on this.

5 4

RE: Netscape gives in to key escrow
by Pete Loshin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

JR wrote: >With regard to all this waving about Netscape giving in to key scrow... > >First one question, and then some considerations. The question: > >- How much of Netscape stock is in the hands of Netscape? I mean in the hands The original IPO was for 5 million shares. The vast majority of the stock is not on the market yet. It's owned/controlled by Clark et al, and presumably a healthy share for the VC's (though I have no knowledge of their participation). -Pete Loshin pete(a)loshin.com

1 0

CPunks in the news: St. Jude
by Jim Gillogly 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Today's (1 Dec 95) LA Times has a writeup on female "hackers", and gives several sympathetic column-inches to St. Jude Milhon, a charter Cypherpunk. Evidently she has a new book coming out (Girls with Modems?). Jim Gillogly Sterday, 11 Foreyule S.R. 1995, 17:11

1 0