December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Calling other code in Java applications and applets
by Jason Martin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 10:12 AM 4/30/96 -0500, you wrote: >I (and some others, I think) was hoping that it would be possible to build >powerful crypto applets and put them up on web pages. That way everyone >with a java enabled copy of Netscape could use a remailer or send crypted >mail without having to download, install, and configure software. What with the concern of hacked or modified clients, I would think that trusting a java applet someone put on their page would be rather difficult. How could the user know that you weren't really sending their cleartext back to you? >If people have to download and install a plugin to use a java mixmaster >applet, why not just download and install a native mixmaster client? I have not seen a mixmaster client for the PC/Win95 yet. Did I just miss it? >Of course there are other reasons to use java -- platform independence, >for example. Remember that we can't really know if their applet is secure or just a trojan horse. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMYbXgA4CsinapZ9dAQFyzwQAkMX2YOYQ9llJse1CIbhFsUnxYij/5Ny0 H8aqs4jsVjBpcGoER4vHCNnjaFHJPelaN4LArLFvjmWsgOo4yF2MIJyp4AHe+jU3 BhqsTCf6XfG1ydzCF/jFDUc/PHg7cA/gtZS5NnQiIy4ZYok4/x7+zJQCZaS8DZqq /vp2WLw933o= =vdz3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- +-------------------------------------------------------+ |If the above is not PGP signed, I MAY not have sent it.| |jhmartin(a)kent.wednet.edu * Key available via server | | KR Annual Staff | PGP 'crypted mail preferred.| +-------------------------^-----------------------------+

1 0

Re: Why I dislike Java. (was Re: "Scruffies" vs. "Neats")
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com> > > The Web is the universal marketplace these days. Being unable to use > the web is the equivalent of being unable to use the phone. I have > research analysts at large trading houses begging for > Netscape. Unfortunately, these people have a need for top notch > security, because vast amounts of money are at stake. > [...] > Unfortunately, when the same machine runs Netscape so the > trader can read the UUNet/MFS merger press release and also has the > big shiny red "trade!" button on some application, you get nervous. Aren't you holding Java to a higher standard than ordinary applications? If your traders run any software at all on their machines there is the risk of harm. The Netscape binary itself could be hacked to do bad things. Likewise with any other software they run. Wouldn't it be safer to run a Java applet than a typical program from the net? At least applets run in an environment which is designed to restrict the harm they can do. In OS's like Windows 95 there are no such restrictions on programs. Take a specific example: Mixmaster. This is a client for the remailer network. It is reasonably well suited to being implemented as a Java applet given the current restrictions on the language. If you had a choice between downloading and running the client as a program on your PC, versus loading and running it as an applet, which would you prefer? Or if you would do neither, how would you go about acquiring this functionality? Would you forego it forever, or would there come a time, say if no one else reported problems, that you would be willing to run one or the other? What I am really trying to get at is how you balance the risks that come automatically when you interact with the net against the benefits you get by doing so. You have chosen a certain point on the risk-reward continuum, one for which Java applets are apparently on the too-risky side. So I am wondering what principles you use to decide where a proposed application falls. Hal

6 6

Re: Former CIA Director and *Strategic Investment* Editor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:06 AM 5/1/96 +0000, Jonathon Blake wrote: >> known to be so!) that his neighbor would call the cops just because he, >> ONCE, stayed a little longer than normal? > > I guess you've never had the pleasure of living in a small town. > If you had, you'd know just how observant people are, of others > habits. However, you haven't explained why mere "observance" would translate into a call to the cops (if that's what happened; according to the reports it did) under those circumstances. I can observe a lot that doesn't necessarily induce me to drag the cops into it. Initially, I was thinking that perhaps the neighbors might have become suspicious, walked over and saw a capsized canoe. However, according to another item the canoe was over 400 yards from the house, which is sufficiently far to make it difficult to see along many shorelines. Do you have an alternative explanation? >> What's wrong with this picture? > > You ability to see conspiracy where there may be non. It's odd. You're the third person to use the term "conspiracy" when I haven't mentioned the word. Somehow, I think that you guys must be misusing the term "conspiracy" when what you really mean is something else. Why not pick up an OED, an choose a better word. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Lolitas and Cyber Angels
by mpd＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher) writes: > Child pornographers encrypt their hard drives so that law > enforcement cannot gather crime evidence - that is certainly > a state of greater security for the pornographer, but it > does not improve our Community, and as child pornography > increases, the law is by definition broken more and more, > and so the Community becomes less free than before. This is silly on several levels. First, given that a finite amount of resources are available to combat the sexual exploitation of children, law enforcement should concentrate their resources on the production of such material, and not on the incidental evidence of its production long after the fact, and in a context completely unrelated to any economic link back to the original producers. Someone who has an encrypted file on their hard drive from some motheaten child porn magazine published 20 years ago is no more guilty of the exploitation of the models portrayed than someone who downloads the Simpson crime scene photos from alt.binaries.pictures.tasteless is guilty of killing Nicole and Ron. If anything, such a picture is little more than historical documentation of a bygone era and an expensive distraction for police officers who might better spend their time. Indeed, if encryption inhibits the ability of the government to create exceptions, based solely on irrational public hysteria, to the First Ammendment right of citizens to communicate amongst themselves on any subject, including via the use of visual material, then encryption is serving a valuable purpose. Now before anyone accuses me of advocating a thriving market in child porn, let me say that I have no objection at all to laws which set a minimum age for working as a performer in the sex industry, and to enthusiastic prosecution of individuals who violate those laws. I just think the police should concentrate their resources on real children experiencing real abuse, and leave their prurient interest in the contents of libraries and other peoples computers behind when they go to work. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

1 0

(fwd) Information Infrastructure Project
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 1-MAY-1996 00:50:15.50 From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 17:21:36 EST >From: Tim Leshan <LESHAN(a)ksgrsch.harvard.edu> To: IIPLIST(a)ksgrsch.harvard.edu Subject: Workshop Announcement and Call for Papers Information Infrastructure Project Harvard University Commercial Internet Exchange Association (CIX) Internet Society COORDINATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNET Workshop Announcement and Call for Papers This is a first announcement and call for papers and proposals for a workshop to be held at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, MA, USA, on September 8-10, 1996. The workshop will address issues in the international coordination and management of Internet operations. We are seeking papers which address the economic, organizational, legal and technical issues in migrating to internationally sanctioned, industry-supported processes and institutions. What should a fully internationalized Internet look like, and how do we get there from here? Topics to be explored in the workshop and resulting publication include: - policy and management issues concerning: network addresses domain names routing policy settlements interconnect points intercontinental connectivity quality of service standards - legal and institutional structures for supporting core Internet functions; - institutions and policies needed to ensure the future scalability and extensibility of the Internet; - technical and implementation issues presented by heterogeneous national information policies; - the need for data in support of Internet planning, including issues of how data should be collected and maintained; - coordination needed for the deployment of new technology; - international crisis management for the Internet. Although the Internet is already substantially privatized, certain essential functions -- notably the domain name registry, network number assignment, and the routing arbiter -- are still funded by the U.S. Government. Unlike the local telephone exchange, these integrative services are managed by third parties, contributing to an open competitive environment which has helped enable rapid growth of the Internet. Rapid growth, commercialization, and internationalization are putting stress on current institutions and procedures -- which are neither self-sustaining nor officially recognized at the international level. The National Science Foundation plans to phase out support for core administrative services and for international connections, just as it has withdrawn support for production-level backbone services. Conflicts over tradenames and number assignments suggest that international legitimacy is needed for domain name and network number management. Beyond support for essential functions, there are many practical and policy issues where some greater degree of coordination or institutional leadership may be desirable. For example, how can the implementation of new technology and protocols be expedited? What common definitions and guidelines should exist to describe network performance? Should the functions performed by current Internet institutions (such as the Internic, RIPE, APNIC, and the IANA) be brought into a more robust international infrastructure, and if so, how? To what extent are multilateral peering arrangements and settlements needed to encourage continued growth and competition in the Internet access industry? The conference will engage scholars, practitioners and policy makers in examining and discussing these issue. It will bring together stake-holders, academics and individual leaders within and beyond the Internet community to help define the future institutional infrastructure of the Internet. Workshop papers will be revised and edited following the workshop for publication by MIT Press as part of the Harvard Information Infrastructure Project series. Potential participants are encouraged to submit papers that can be developed and revised for publication (copyright assignment is not required). Please send an abstract by June 15, 1996, for review by the program committee. Please direct papers, proposals, and requests for future mailings to: James Keller Information Infrastructure Project Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University 79 JFK Street Cambridge, MA 02138 617-496-4042; Fax: 617-495-5776 jkeller(a)harvard.edu The Harvard Information Infrastructure Project is a project in the Science, Technology and Public Policy Program at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, with associated activities at the Kennedy School's Center for Business and Government and the Institute for Information Technology Law and Policy at Harvard Law School. This event and publication are funded in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation, Division of Networking and Communications Research and Infrastructure.

1 0

Re: Freedom and security
by liberty＠gate.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Steven Weller wrote: >>Jim Ray wrote > >I haven't bothered reading this particular thread up until now, but in my >opinion, based on this drivel, you're getting dangerously close to being >certified officially by the Cabal as an ignorant kook. > >>Nor does freedom increase through less laws or no laws. [...] Er...I agree with just about all of Mr Weller's comments, but I wish he had been a bit more careful in the attribution department. "Colin Gabriel Hatcher - CyberAngels Director" wrote: "Nor does freedom increase through less laws or no laws." etc. etc. etc., not me. As a partisan Libertarian, I have a reputation to uphold as an officially designated, Cabal-annoying, ignorant kook. :) I'm even in Perry's killfile filter. I actually try to lurk, rather than posting here very frequently, as my thoughts are more relevant to the political ramifications of strong crypto than they are to the implementation of strong crypto. JMR Regards, Jim Ray <liberty(a)gate.net> "My cynical belief is that there is a lack of motivation in either party to fully and properly investigate [Mena] because the results will damage as many Republicans as Democrats." - former prosecutor Charles Black, in April 22, 1996's Wall Street Journal p.A22 _______________________________________________________________________ PGP key Fingerprint 51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE 53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 Public Key id. # E9BD6D35 -- http://www.shopmiami.com/prs/jimray _______________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh. iQCVAwUBMYfNiW1lp8bpvW01AQH2CQP+MUwSl9tHZNCiU2m6wTmsbByjDI1kZQTJ v7vKoAc2txNkwBofLCxbxqdPSSYVIDO2x87t2+bn/OcxqMrtIDxi9UpNVYMD7VLM LGi6fgZW3dFPaVEzc2WwXgcZ9Py9sSqaI0giBxyMhUiLko8UmtPW5BYBIWxgXJHm D4ExhNVoCZ0= =QXnq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Former CIA Director and *Strategic Investment* Editor
by rbersten＠ia.com.au 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone else seen the extraordinarily tasteless press release sent out by Roadshow New media about this? Let me show you: MEDIA RELEASE 30/4/96 Where is William Colby? Rescuers are searching for the former head of the CIA, William Colby, after his mysterious disappearance yesterday. The canoe he had been using was found capsized and abandoned, near his Maryland home. Ironically, Colby's disappearance co-incides with the current release of Spycraft, the CD-ROM game developed with former KGB Major general Oleg Kalugin. ... Is this a publicity stunt from the game's US manufacturer [Activision]? Were some of the secrets given away in the game just a little too close for comfort for the current heads of the CIA? Are the Russians involved? Is it just totally coincidental? Does the Spycraft game itself hold any answers? No doubt police will be looking to the game for clues and have not yet ruled out foul play. Colby and Kalugin both portray themselves within the game and it could prove that Colby solves his own mystery. Spycraft the game is a true-to-life espionage thriller that allows players to experience the danger and excitement of being a real spy caught in a deadly web of international intrigue. Every game element is taken from real-life experience of spymasters Colby and Kalugin. the high level involvement of these espionage experts required that the script be reviewed by the CIA for security clearance. This real life twist to the CD ROM game offers more intrigue for gamers. the Internet facility may provide a solution as players across the world ponder Colby's disappearance. [This is followed by contact details for Roadshow, which, for you non-Australians, is a big games distributor out here] *-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-* + Rosanne Bersten (editor(a)ia.com.au) - Editor, internet.au magazine + + tel: +61 2 310 1433 * fax: +61 2 310 1315 * http://www.ia.com.au + *-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*

1 0

Re: no-cost DH?
by Ted Garrett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: weidai(a)eskimo.com, cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Wed May 01 01:54:44 1996 It's true as far as I can tell... Cylink is giving away their passport gold SDK for free. You can send mail to pbolton(a)cylink.com for more information. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMYb8p81+l8EKBK5FAQFrbQf6A5b3apVHHVPVjmOVw3/7SugmYWCmPG1E k3CKhzgBoBldCdQmD0cf6s51yrayahXed+3iVNXvQC/y5l0dVzLY6hrge40NOfdz v7C3frGfMciIYXJs7BYVdv305E5SN9m0GWWepo+vpNVCOLyVuq+4b8kVxQ6XUvQT S1KFJm1Imxc0h9caTPkzflfBR8jO85ILbenlX8wDQZUUnYzMR47JRyXUyXZWX4Wn InQT0KLF0zqf85cMS5dx93wBKof2NJYNuvSXQz4VL7kfxepQUtQON9N7E1dgWXD8 VOUqQu1KArIySBhfMW4pthJR0kJxzu+nOzhEdm/xFoYaWTUb9BEa7g== =/8SM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: once again
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:02 PM 4/30/96 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >I fully understand that Java is a general programming language and can >do I/O. However, "Safe" Java subsets, like the ones used for writing >applets or presumably the ones that would be needed for markets in CPU >cycles, do not do i/o. One could add i/o to the suite, but that would >be dangerous. If I were as worried about Java security as Perry is, I would still consider running Java (or C or C++) programs as part of certain markets in CPU cycles because I would trust their source. (IMHO, much better than trusting every web page I access.) A single example. I could see a network-wide factoring attack on the key NSA uses to GAK the extra bits in Lotus Notes. Such an effort would run a single program, which would be available in source. Depending on the details, I could either compile the program locally, or down load a signed copy of the object code/class file. The same argument applies to rendering e.g. Toy Story. This restriction does not provide for CPU cycle markets in arbitrary programs, but I think that a significant market could still develop under this limit. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: ITARs and the Export of Classes and Methods
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:49 AM 4/30/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >An interesting situation for the ITARs, if they try to restrict bignum >classes, for example. A class-based system, if done correctly (in whatever >language, e.g., C++ or Java), should have _most_ of the hard crypto work >already implemented in classes and methods (for bignums, modular >exponentiation, etc.), with the final crypto program much more easily >implemented and exported. Certain languages, e.g. Smalltalk, and I believe lisp and scheme, have bignums as a built-in type. (Or more specifically, their integer types are limited in size only by available memory.) I believe these languages are freely exportable. Your problem stays here in the good ol' USA. You can't implement RSA directly in these languages (I assume RSA in perl has the same problem), because of the patent restrictions. Yet another reason to buy a T-shirt. Regards - Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

Re: [LONG] Churchill Club: 20th Anniversary PK Crypto
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Paul Raines, Project Manager, United States Postal Service described > ... The post office brings four things that private > industry can't: ... (2) ... well established reputation, ... > (4) it can act as a trusted third party. > >Oh. Well that's good to know. > > --MarkM I just report them like I hear them. They are priced higher than Verisign too. Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

Re: Lolitas and Cyber Angels
by Will French 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Duvos wrote: > Someone who has an encrypted file on their hard drive from > some motheaten child porn magazine published 20 years ago is > no more guilty of the exploitation of the models portrayed > than someone who downloads the Simpson crime scene photos from > alt.binaries.pictures.tasteless is guilty of killing Nicole > and Ron. I disagree. If (quite hypothetically) I were one of the "models" in such a magazine (I'm 27 now, so I would have been 7 at the time it was published), I would certainly consider anyone posessing a copy, today or 20 years ago, to be exploiting me. However, that doesn't mean I would want them criminalized for it. In fact, my "anyone possessing a copy" above includes the Government (and third parties such as the Guardian Angels) in the course of a kiddie-porn investigation/prosecution. It's a very hard question. And yes, people who download Simpson crime scene photos are exploiting (not killing) Nicole and Ron. When I have been shown these photos, I have quickly averted my eyes. This is simple human decency, not to mention respect for the dead. Will French <wfrench(a)interport.net>

2 1

Re: no-cost DH?
by Ted Garrett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: perry(a)piermont.com, cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Wed May 01 02:16:17 1996 Sorry, Perry. This time you are wrong. Cylink is giving away their Passport Gold SDK (Security Development Kit). Period. I've just recieved the documentation on the SDK itself, and am expecting shipment of the SDK itself about the middle of May. I was skeptical myself when I read the first post regarding this SDK being released to the public for free, so I called up Cylink. They promptly connected me with Peter Bolton <mailto:pbolton@cylink.com>, who has been very helpful in getting this SDK into my hot little hands. Included is, and I quote: "We hold the world-renowned Diffie-Hellman patent used in public key encryption. While developing our industry-leading encryption acceleration engines, we also developed a full suite of services for Diffie-Hellman-based key exchange, government-sanctioned Data Encryption Standard (DES) encryption algorithms, Digital Signature Standard (DSS) document signatures, and the complementary functions you need to incorporate data security into your product. And it's available to you for free: a no-cost toolkit and royalty free license." This is the second paragraph of the fax I received from Cylink after my following up on the free SDK offer. From the rest of the fax, it seems that provisions are included in the SDK for DH, DES, DSS, and SHA. X.509 appears to be in the works. The SDK is purported to interoperate with the Cylink products based on the Secure Enterprise Architecture Stack. I'm pretty dad-blamed excited about this one, boys. I was trying to wait till I was sure to say anything on the list. I'm sure. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMYcBs81+l8EKBK5FAQEfhQf+LJAytjAhEOoD0ai6K0liuyDQkWuMmAxq z5H5KzNXBQn0F+r2ukVEPsX0Ocgfbqp5fo5lRp+hDegM9KRz+MulSmVXEQSdbUPi 6cfq7c0/HhHNkuaJK8xeTOvDlquYLmnDPJJ6KxAcTQvh3ssRJMo9YYWXIF/YlX/J fVZunnwMY9xmIggOfoXIV6ZZvkAUsumA6EgGbKggm2HMh5X4ukWDb3qW2RkKDTlr 8pM8SPRs4IEJFzoXA1FAXafePm1tA2PXhLeOKmwjjZ4R58L6Y4l+eRRsNXIkUGrD 8iY7QUbozhTyTyzRMGzv21g2cOHmfmLblKfJsNQYWFX5yKctla7qyA== =TklH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Network Sex
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:50 PM 4/30/96 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >I was under the impression that sex involved physical presense. In her lecture for ee380 at Stanford, Lisa Palac was asked, Well, just how do you have sex on the net? Her answer indicated that essentially you talk dirty with your partner and masturbate. IMHO netsex eliminates the possibility of sexually transmitted disease. The abstract for her lecture (from http://www-leland.stanford.edu/class/ee380/) is: >Apr 3: Lisa Palac, Author: Sex and the Single Cyberchick > >Speaker: Lisa Palac, Author and Founding Editor, Future Sex Magazine > >Title: Sex and the Single Cyberchick > >Abstract > >This lectures discusses the ways computer technology is fundamentally >changing the sexual landscape. Facts and fictions about cybersex, the >moral panic over porn on the Internet and erotic liberation in the >digital domain. > >Biography > >Lisa Palac is the producer of the erotic virtual audio series >*Cyborgasm*, http://www.iuma.com/cyborgasm and the founding editor >of Future Sex magazine. She is currently writing on a book about sex >and popular culture titled, The Edge of the Bed. > Regards - Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

[NOISE] Re: Freedom and security
by cpunk＠remail.ecafe.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Apr 30 1996 at 19:38:55, angels(a)wavenet.com wrote: > If it were permitted to kill those who disagreed with you, > then no one would be free to speak their mind at all, for fear > of the consequences. A person's freedom of speech is reduced by being afraid of the consequences of that speech. Likewise, a person's freedom of speech is improved by being less afraid of the consequences. Therefor, we can scrap the first amendment, and just drink plenty of beer.

1 0

Re: Freedom and security
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:38 PM 4/30/96 -0700, CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher wrote: > >Maybe you feel like a veterano and can afford to look condesendingly at all >the thousands of fresh-faced netizens just arriving online and say "well if >they can't take the heat they should stay out of the fire" - but if we are >to call ourselves an emerging "community" then we must take responsibility >for our city, and that means caring about other people's problems. > >The internet is not just a collection of bits and bytes - it's real people >doing real things to each other. > >When your address is forged and you get flamed and bombed, or if you start >receiving anonymous death threats, your freedom is under threat. It's not >enough to say "Well I just turn off my monitor" If these millions of the "Great Unwashed" managed to get *on* the Net in the first place without Fascist assistance, they can figure out how to survive there without Fascist assistance. DCF

1 0

partial NSA key detected on USPS site
by Dave Del Torto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is it too late for April, fooles? <http://www.usps.gov/images/stamps/96/comp.gif>

1 0

Re: Freedom and security
by liberty＠gate.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- CyberAngels Director Colin Gabriel Hatcher wrote: <snips> >>...Freedom does not increase through more laws. > >Nor does freedom increase through less laws or no laws. You have gotta be kidding me, but let's start by differentiating among laws. I'm a crypto-minarchist, not a crypto-anarchist, so I still have hope for some (MUCH less) government. I think laws against murder are good, and lead to more safety for those not in jail. I think laws against "consensual crimes" are bad, and lead to government/police corruption extending all the way to the top [see sigfile]. When I have to say, "where's the victim?" it's a shitty law. Many laws fail my test. > Freedom increases >as respect and care for one another increases. This is what I called flowery rhetoric in the last post. > Meanwhile, since we do not >live in utopia, all societies at a certain level of economic development >and of a certain size of population require law and law enforcement to >protect citizens from predators. This is what astounds me, the advocates of more government always focus on crimes WITH obvious victims during debates. Once power is achieved, the victimless crime laws get written. I have said I do want murderers, and even some (not all) pedophiles, in jail. If a child pornographer chooses to visit my page and commits a thoughtcrime involving my babypictures, I say leave him alone. If he commits a real crime with an unwilling victim I say punish him even more than the present government punishes him. Libertarians, when we achieve political power, will find ourselves with abundent jail cells left over from the tax-and-spend drugwar to put real criminals (the ones who have an individual victim) in. >[...flowery rhetoric] Does anyone really doubt the extent of State >control and power across the Net? There are certainly enough statists who feel a need to increase it. > > >.... laws only breed more laws, which always lead to >>less freedom. > >I disagree with this statement. I do not believe that laws breed more laws >nor that laws lead to less freedom. I believe bad laws compromise freedom >(eg CDA) while good laws protect freedom. I am heartened by your opposition to the CDA (though I did not notice a Cyberangels voice in the debate/protest leading up to this abominable law...) but I must point out that you offer no good test, like my "where's the victim?" test, to differentiate good laws from bad ones. As to more laws leading to less freedom I stand by my words. Go down to any law library and have a look at the Code of Federal Regulations. As wordy, poorly-written laws proliferate, we all become "criminals," subject to the arbitrary power of the state's prosectors. When the state prosecutors are a partisan Democrat followed by a partisan Republican, and the "criminals" are high-ranking Democrats and Republicans, you end up with a lesser respect for all laws, even the good ones. Again, see my sigfile. Now imagine the Libertarian party was doing the same drug-smuggling...Would the feds [let alone the media] be so silent? I doubt it. >Cryptography enhances and protects privacy, which does not inevitably lead >to greater security. Security for the sender, yes, in that no one else can >read the message, but security for the Community? I find it worrisome that you capitalize the word, despite my rant involving Director Freeh. I repeat: The community is made up of individuals. > Doesnt that depend what >the message said? The technology itself is neutral. Therefore, I guess, the "Community" must forcibly take my key to make sure that last PGPmessage wasn't child porn, right? It is important to make sure I don't commit thoughtcrime. > Child pornographers >encrypt their hard drives so that law enforcement cannot gather crime >evidence - that is certainly a state of greater security for the >pornographer, but it does not improve our Community, and as child >pornography increases, the law is by definition broken more and more, and >so the Community becomes less free than before. And that's not the tyranny >of government but the tryanny of criminals. Look. I don't care if some old man beats off to the tune of baby pictures. There is no victim. If he finds a victim, toss him in the slammer, or kill him. Right now, the tax-and-spend drugwar is creating a revolving-door justice system when it comes to victim crimes, and the people (naturally) disrespect the law. Respect for ALL law, good and bad, is poisoned by this foolishness and when combined with a disrespect for the historical power of juries to nullify shitty laws, and ignorance of history. >I do in fact support cryptography for personal security, not least because >I can ensure that my messages are authenticated. CyberAngels PGP public >key will be up on our new website opening very soon. I've had enough of >people forging my email. <sarcasm on> Oh, why bother with this self-help, vigilante solution to the need for authentication. Why not just pass another law? PGP is a pain-in-the-ass to install and learn. I'm sure the Congress and President Clinton (who has also experienced e-mail forgery) would support it, and then you won't have to bother learning PGP or reading that awful PGPdoc1 & PGPdoc2. </sarcasm> >"Two people may disagree, but >that does not mean that one of them is evil" I think it should be legal for me to sell my body for sex, or put any substance into it I choose, because _I_ own my body. The "Community" may think I'm evil for advocating this immoral misuse of "their" property... At the same time, I may think the "Community" evil for trying to steal/claim my property... Either I'm right and the "Community" is evil, or the other way around. Which one is it? JMR Regards, Jim Ray <liberty(a)gate.net> "My cynical belief is that there is a lack of motivation in either party to fully and properly investigate [Mena] because the results will damage as many Republicans as Democrats." - former prosecutor Charles Black, in April 22, 1996's Wall Street Journal p.A22 Hey kids! Try this fun Westlaw search: mena /p cocaine Best to look in the newspapers, and not the cases! [see above] _______________________________________________________________________ PGP key Fingerprint 51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE 53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 Public Key id. # E9BD6D35 -- http://www.shopmiami.com/prs/jimray _______________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh. iQCVAwUBMYdQAW1lp8bpvW01AQHBmwQAmWdWABJpRbg0QzF77vR1ykKN4DOsY4S6 0kRsIEWjm5JDXswnJYy2ZiS/aDLk5mYAzcMh1PR/CrBTdk8McYIkTQCbxxrOfbFx +ySBi9fg22wp1ySjlP+G36W7PKOBDfl6tzOq4ZQA7JFe63HwiLhgBl5TeC9YP96p V1nN3FkwfM4= =AkHe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: [Fwd: Cylink can export 128-bit DH?]
by droelke＠rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Dear Wei Dai > I understand that ITAR prohibits the export of strong crypto > and that is why I was puzzled that Ms Glenda Barnes, the Director > of Marketing in Cylink, said that Cylink could export the same crypto > (i.e. DES) that was used in the U.S. to local banks here in Malaysia. > She also claimed that Cylink could also export a 128-bit DH key size. > (is it strong enough in the first place? ) > > I'm confused : Either she's pulling wool over the attendees' eyes or > Cylink has got some pretty good connections. > > She could not have been mistaken as she was replying to a specific > question about the ITAR and the export issue of strong crypto. > > Can anyone help? > > There are provisions for exporting DES for banking purposes. Generally it is a hardware card that "can't" be reused outside of the banking transfer machine. I don't know the details of how such licenses are applied for, but I have a friend you used to work in that area. On 128-bit DH - No-where near big enough. Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Oelke Alcatel Network Systems droelke(a)aud.alcatel.com Richardson, TX

3 2

Re: [History] USPS tried to monopolize email? (c. 1981)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:51 AM 5/2/96 -6, Peter Trei wrote: > I've been trying to recall a nasty little episode from about 15 years ago. > Paul was adamant that the USPS would never seek a monopoly >position on any e-service. > > However, back in the early 80's (It had to be in the 1980-83 range, >I suspect 1981) I clearly remember a proposal that the USPS be >granted the monopoly status as email carrier that it then and >still enjoys for first class mail. As I recall, the proposal would >require email to be routed to the nearest post office to the >destination, and there printed and delivered as paper mail. > > Needless to say, this did not happen. There was a service of this kind, that was implemented about that time frame (1982?). Don't recall the name. However, I don't think they got any kind of explicit monopoly. It wasn't particularly successful, as I recall, probably because of the low penetration of computers into business during that time frame. But it was probably intended as a way around the "chicken-and-egg" problem that you can't use email unless the the recipient does, etc. Recall that the use of faxes "exploded" in about 1985: Before this, faxes were rare and they were probably primarily used for inter-office communication. (If only 10% of the businesses own faxes, then only (10%x10%=1% of communications can be completed by fax; If 90% have faxes, 90%x90%=81% can be.) After this, and by about 1986 or so, just about every ad in industry-type magazines listed a fax number for communications. We're seeing an echo of this for e-mail, 10 years later. Within a year, it'll be rare to see an ad that _doesn't_ list an email address. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Freedom and security
by Clay.Olbon＠dynetics.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:38 PM 4/30/96, angels(a)wavenet.com (CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatche wrote: >My concern is not so much with network sabotage or infiltration (there are >plenty enough organizations addressing that problem) but with personal >safety within the Internet community - that means you, not your hard drive. This is a totally facetious point. I am fully capable of protecting myself and my family from ANY threat posed by a single individual over the internet (and from most threats posed in person as well). There is no "personal safety" issue. This is fantasy. When someone dies from an email message, come back and talk to me about security. Until then, the biggest threat to my security on the internet comes from groups such as yours and from the government. In attempting to limit access to anonymous remailers and cryptography, you are attempting to limit my ability to protect myself, while substituting dubious governmental protection. I say dubious, because in the real world, there will always be those who break the law (if cryptography is outlawed...). You do have one point I agree with: >Freedom of speech cannot function without law. This is absolutely correct. There must be a law to protect the freedom of speech, and we have that law, it is called the 1st amendment to the Constitution. I saw a .sig the other day that said "What part of 'Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech' do you not understand" (unfortunately I don't remeber whose .sig it was). The self anointed internet censors often try to muck up the basic issue of free speech with the "evil" pornographers and bombmakers theme in an attempt at convincing the public to give up freedom for illusory security. You fall in that net.censor category, in that you are attempting to restrict freedom. Although you may actually believe in what you are doing, you are wrong. Fortunately, I still have the right to disagree strongly. Clay --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clay Olbon II | Clay.Olbon(a)dynetics.com Systems Engineer | ph: (810) 589-9930 fax 9934 Dynetics, Inc., Ste 302 | http://www.msen.com/~olbon/olbon.html 550 Stephenson Hwy | PGP262 public key: on web page Troy, MI 48083-1109 | pgp print: B97397AD50233C77523FD058BD1BB7C0 TANSTAAFL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Nazis on the Net
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I stand behind my original post and the analysis in it. I am amused at the tremendous attempts by people with certain political affinities to bail out Weaver by a series of arguments based either on profound ignorance of political realities or with their own private dictionaries. The whole argument of racism vs. white separatism vs. white suppremicist seems more to come from people who argue whether someone is a Baptist or a Christian or a Southern Baptist or a Protestant. (In mathematical set theory one would trace the fallacy in thinking to the false idea that any given element of a set cannot be the element of more than one set. Thus, if (X is a member of Y) it cannot also be a member of Z.) I understand that James D. is not accusing me of being a "child molester" but merely using it as a reductio ad adsurdem argument. Let me continue in this vein. The issue of child molestation was dragged in and had no relevance on the immediate political isues of Weaver et al. But imagine people are arguing about the deep fundamental differnces between someone who is a "child molester" vs. a "pedophile" vs. a "boy lover." --tallpaul On Apr 22, 1996 22:26:41, 'jamesd(a)echeque.com' wrote: >Content-Length: 2008 > >"E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>' wrote: >> > Randy Weaver was neither a neo-Nazi nor a racist. He was >> > (and, so far as I know, still is) a white separatist. >> > (One would think liberals would tolerate this - they >> > tolerate the equally offensive black separatists, >> > after all...). > > >The well known child molester tallpaul wrote: >> Might we know the source of his complete info on Weaver's political and >> racial beliefs. >> >> I see, in essence, three hypothesis: >> >> 1) Cover the ass of a potential neo-Nazi or racist (or both) without any >> reference to what is really true; >> >> 2) Get information from outer space; > > >Well, child-molester-tallpaul, I notice that the liberal lapdog press >calls him White-Separatist-Randy-Weaver as though he was baptized >"white separatist" at birth. > >Presumably if they had one grain of evidence that he was a Nazi or a >white supremacist, they would call him White-supremacist-Randy-Weaver. > >I notice that you have not one grain of evidence that he is a nazi, >just as I have not one grain of evidence that you fuck little boys >up their asses, but you insinuate that he is a Nazi until somehow proven >innocent (and how can anyone prove himself innocent of thought crime), >and you also insinuate that anyone who suggests otherwise must be >a nazi or nazi sympathizer himself. Obvious proof that you are >a homosexual child molester. > >(Note for the seriously humor impaired. I have no more reason >to believe that tallpaul rapes little children than tallpaul >has to believe that Randy Weaver was a white supremacist or >tallpaul has to believe that Allen Smith is a Nazi sympathizer.) >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > | >We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ >and our property, because of the kind | >of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald >derives from this right, not from the | >arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com > >

1 0

Re: Freedom and security
by stevenw＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Jim Ray wrote I haven't bothered reading this particular thread up until now, but in my opinion, based on this drivel, you're getting dangerously close to being certified officially by the Cabal as an ignorant kook. >Nor does freedom increase through less laws or no laws. Of course it does. However, to maintain community resposibility must also increase. >Freedom increases >as respect and care for one another increases. Hogwash. That's community again. As respect and care for my neighbor's peace and quiet I lose the freedom to blow leaves on a Sunday morning. This is independent of what the law says. >Meanwhile, since we do not >live in utopia, all societies at a certain level of economic development >and of a certain size of population require law and law enforcement to >protect citizens from predators. Hogwash again. Law and law enforcement only exists due to the failing of such societies. Prisons and executions are the ultimate failure of a society. Their existence (like hierarchical structure) is not a given. But if it is all you know, then of course it's what you assume. And don't forget that it is fundamental that law and law enforcement also protects predators from citizens. Your analysis is rather one-sided. >The Internet is beyond the stage of small communities exercising informal >social controls (peer pressure). How so? >It's now a major industrial city and will It's industry being? >develop law, law enforcement and government, whether anyone likes it or >not, not least because the Community will always respond to crime by trying >to protect itself. True, but there are individuals before community. > And the crime is already here. The idea that the >Internet is not controlled is IMHO one of the biggest myths around. It's >like a large group of people are still living in some far-off utopian rural >paradise. Wait a minute. A large number of people living in a utopian paradise? Surely this is ideal. If there were the crime and activity you describe, then it would not be utopian and would not be paradise. But maybe this is paradise, but only to a criminal. And interesting that you use the world "still". You obviously equate "unorganized" with "backward". You even say "rural". You a city boy by any chance? >Does anyone really doubt the extent of State control and power >across the Net? Excuse me, can someone remind me why we're all here please? > My point is that this is inevitable. The Internet is a >mirror of the rest of the world, not a new form of society, and I fail to >understand why anyone should be surprised that that is the case. You said it. You fail to understand. The reasons are obvious. Your eyes are closed, your mind is shut, and you can hardly be heard over the traffic. >I disagree with this statement. I do not believe that laws breed more laws >nor that laws lead to less freedom. I believe bad laws compromise freedom >(eg CDA) while good laws protect freedom. Freedom for whom? Freedom, like technology, is neutral. Laws are always of the form "You shall" or "You shall not". Laws against mugging (to protect the citizens) do not prevent muggings. They restrict the freedoms of muggers and eventually incarcarate them. The existence of muggers causes people to restrict their own freedom, by not jogging at night etc. Mugging is a social and a community failure. A "good" law against the activity reduces overall freedom while simultaneously failing to address the problem. In short, a simple, ineffective, but visible fix. A perfect business for politicians to be in. >>>I don't believe that security is the enemy of >>>freedom. I believe that freedom needs security in order to exist at all. >> >>Good. Join us in spreading cryptography around, and security will >>bloom (along with freedom). > >Cryptography enhances and protects privacy, which does not inevitably lead >to greater security. Security for the sender, yes, in that no one else can >read the message, but security for the Community? Sure. It means that the community can continue life as normal without realising that the Mayor is gay. She does a fabulous job, everyone gains, the community is very secure. Or shall we throw some FUD into the equation, tell everyone, and have the uproar wreck the community? > Doesnt that depend what >the message said? The technology itself is neutral. Facts are neutral too. It does not depend on the message. >Child pornographers >encrypt their hard drives so that law enforcement cannot gather crime >evidence - that is certainly a state of greater security for the >pornographer, but it does not improve our Community, and as child >pornography increases, the law is by definition broken more and more, and >so the Community becomes less free than before. And that's not the tyranny >of government but the tryanny of criminals. You really have laws on the brain, don't you? Lets see. Breaking laws reduces freedom? This is where you have the wrong end of the stick. Making, not breaking laws reduces freedom. If our mayor friend above looks at 1 naked minor a week, how does this reduce the freedom of her community? What about 100? Much less free obviously. >I do in fact support cryptography for personal security, not least because Does that personal security extend to encrypting your hard drive? What makes you different from Ms. Mayor? >********************************************************* >Colin Gabriel Hatcher - CyberAngels Director >"Two people may disagree, but >that does not mean that one of them is evil" But ignorance plays a big role :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Weller | Weller's three steps to Greatness: | 1. See what others cannot | 2. Think what others cannot stevenw(a)best.com | 3. Express what others cannot

3 2

[History] USPS tried to monopolize email? (c. 1981)
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Since I saw Paul Raine's presentation on proposed USPS electronic timestamping and CA services (btw, they are also proposing to archive business e-correspondence for a fee), I've been trying to recall a nasty little episode from about 15 years ago. Paul was adamant that the USPS would never seek a monopoly position on any e-service. However, back in the early 80's (It had to be in the 1980-83 range, I suspect 1981) I clearly remember a proposal that the USPS be granted the monopoly status as email carrier that it then and still enjoys for first class mail. As I recall, the proposal would require email to be routed to the nearest post office to the destination, and there printed and delivered as paper mail. Needless to say, this did not happen. I am not certain, but would not be at all surprised, if this suggestion actually emanated from the letter carrier's union. I remember a line from some official, along the lines of "We don't know exactly what this thing [email] is, but we own it!" I know that I am not hallucinating this, but the above is pretty much all I recall. Anyone else have more details? Peter Trei trei(a)process.com

1 0

Re: Lolitas and Cyber Angels
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:16 AM 5/1/96, Will French wrote: > I disagree. If (quite hypothetically) I were one of the >"models" in such a magazine (I'm 27 now, so I would have been 7 >at the time it was published), I would certainly consider anyone >posessing a copy, today or 20 years ago, to be exploiting me. While it may _embarrass_ you, or _mortify_ you, to become aware that these pictures of you as 7-year-old, I find it hard to understand how my possession of one of these pictures can (somehow) reach backward in time and "exploit" that 7-year-old instance of yourself. Whoever took the pictures may or may not have "exploited" you (an overused word), but someone viewing that picture today can hardly be said to be exploiting that 7-year-old. There is a more abstract argument that is made in connection with child porn. Namely, that a "market" is created, and that this market is in itself wrong and improper, and that it abstractly "exploits" an entire abstract class of people, namely, children. By this logic--and I'm not saying I buy this logic--even _drawings_ of nude children, for which there were no live models and hence no possibility of "exploitation" of an actual child, can be considered to be exploitative of an entire class of persons. This area is well trod...are morphs of adult models into apparent Lolitas exploitation? Are drawings exploitation? What about perfectly legal photos from some foreign country? (Will, what if that photo of you as a 7-year-old was taken perfectly legally at Sunny Buns Naturist Park? What if it was taken in Holland or Denmark? Would the fact that you are now embarrassed (em-bare-assed?) by it, or have discovered that certain people are looking at it with prurient interest, be enough to make the law "reach back in time"? As might be imagined, I am uncomfortable with these abstract extensions of the law. If this argument is bought, about children being exploited by drawings or nude photographs, as a _class_ if not as _individuals_, then it follows by the same kind of logic that _women_ may seek to have "Playboy" banned because some of them feel "exploited" as a member of a class. (This is of course being seriously proposed by some women^H^H^H^H^Hwimmin.) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0