December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by loki＠infonex.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

One should also note that the surplus beyond subsistence was much smaller at that time. A more useful figure might be the percent tax on surplus. If the serf was taxed at 10%, but only had a 5% surplus above survival needs, then he was in a difficult position. Unfortunately I see no chance of an agreement on how to define surplus. -Lance At 7:20 AM 5/6/96, jamesd(a)echeque.com wrote: >At 11:16 PM 5/5/96 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> SANDY SANDFORT >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >>C'punks, >> >>On Sun, 5 May 1996, Alan Horowitz wrote: >> >>> didn't the feudal vassels only pay 33% ? >> >>Actually, no. When I used to edit a magazine, I commissioned an >>article about how much "tax" slaves, serfs, etc. paid. That is, >>how much of what they produced, did they get to keep; how much >>went to their masters. The surprising, cross-cultural answer my >>researcher/writer found was that they got to keep everthing they >>produced except 5-10%. That's a lot better, percentage-wise, >>than for modern "tax slaves." > > >In the early feudal period, ordinary knights did not live well. >They were only moderately better off than peasants, and yet to support one >knight, you needed a startlingly large number of peasants, a fact >that kings were continually unhappy about and continually trying >to fix. > >While it is difficult to assess the tax rate, because taxes were >in kind, it was clearly very low by modern standards. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > | >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 ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki(a)obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. Mixmaster, the next generation remailer, is now available! http://www.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

Rep. Loretta Sanchez Hits Crypto Controls
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Sanchez statement is from House Report 105-108, Part 3, published September 12 by the National Security Committee, which describes the Weldon-Dellums amendment to SAFE. See the full report at: http://jya.com/hr105-108-pt3.htm The report includes a cost estimate by the Congressional Budget Officefor implementing SAFE. However, as far as I can tell, the estimate does not include the cost of a GAK system, and covers only the cost of export controls. Thus, it appears to be vastly misleading. SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ Many of us when we think of encryption imagine the ``ENIGMA'' code breaking machines of World War Two or the American Indian ``code talkers'' that helped us anticipate and defeat Nazi and Imperial Japanese attacks. Those methods were mechanical or human-based, and often depended on simple arithmetical slight of hand to trick the enemy. Today, encryption is complex mathematical algorithms that have become an entirely new branch of mathematics involving intense academic study. Until recently encryption was limited to governments and large companies through U.S. export limitations and by the limitations of existing hardware and software technologies. All that began to change as the desktop computer became more prevalent and the computing power available to the average user jumped by leaps and bounds every year. When discussing the power of the PC observers of the information technology industry often predict that the computing power of microprocessors would double roughly every 18 months. Because of this the rapidly developing speed and growth of computers, the age of the ``unbreakable code'' has long since passed. Manufacturers of encryption technology are engaged in a rapidly accelerating race to develop the newest and strongest code that can withstand attacks from the increasingly powerful computers of the day. And it isn't just big companies and governments that have the technology to break codes. Last January, a graduate student broke a 40-bit code in just three- and-a-half hours, the toughest code form American companies at the time were allowed to export. Today, American companies are the world leaders in encryption technology, but other companies and nations are catching up. Strong encryption products and knowledge about the science of cryptography is not limited to the United States. A savvy computer user anywhere in the world can with just a few clicks of the mouse find U.S. export-embargoed encryption. Many freelancing code hackers maintain off-shore Internet meeting sites to discuss the newest holes in encryption products. The proposed export controls which the Administration argues helps to keep strong encryption out of the hands of foreign adversaries will have little or no effect. Strong encryption is available abroad and US companies are being put at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace. With this bleak and seemingly hopeless picture in mind how do we protect ourselves from the threat of rogue nations and other adversaries cloaking their communications from American National Security efforts? The only viable solution is through supporting a robust and aggressively competitive cryptography industry in the United States. We must ensure that the United States continues to maintain the deepest pool of cryptographic experts in the world. American export limitations will only serve to create a brain drain of these precious resources as leading scientists leave our shores for more lucrative and accommodating surroundings. All of us care about our national security and no one wants to make it any easier for criminals and terrorists to commit criminal acts. But we must also recognize encryption technologies as an increasingly sharp double-edged sword. It can also aid law enforcement and protect national security by limiting the threat of industrial espionage and foreign spying, but only when Americans are able to produce the sharpest swords and the strongest encryption. I would also like to state for the record that for the reasons stated above, I do not support the Dellums-Weldon Amendment to H.R. 695, and would have voted against it. Loretta Sanchez. ----------

3 2

Arguments _against_ privacy, anyone?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 6-MAY-1996 01:21:22.00 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 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: Sun, 5 May 96 02:28 PDT From: privacy(a)vortex.com (PRIVACY Forum) Subject: PRIVACY Forum Digest V05 #10 PRIVACY Forum Digest Sunday, 5 May 1996 Volume 05 : Issue 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 15:58:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> Subject: Call for bad arguments against privacy In my online newsletter, The Network Observer, I periodically summarize and rebut bad arguments against a broad right to privacy. At the end of this message I've included a partial list of the arguments I have discussed so far. I would like to gather another batch of arguments, probably for the July 1996 issue of TNO, and I am hoping that you can help me. Please send me any bad arguments against privacy rights that you have encountered, even if you can't quite figure out what's wrong with them, and even if you don't have a specific example ready to hand. Arguments concerning specific issues such as government records, medical privacy, and video surveillance are particularly welcome. Once I finish this next set of arguments and rebuttals, I'll gather the whole set into a "handbook" that can be distributed freely on the Internet. Thanks very much. Phil Agre Encl: The Network Observer can be found on the Web at: http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/tno.html The privacy articles can be found indexed a little ways down the page. Here are most of the arguments that I have discussed in past issues: * "We've lost so much of our privacy anyway." * "Privacy is an obsolete Victorian hang-up." * "Ideas about privacy are culturally specific and it is thus impossible to define privacy in the law without bias." * "We have strong security on our data." * "National identity cards protect privacy by improving authentication and data security." * "Informational privacy can be protected by converting it into a property right." * "We have to balance privacy against industry concerns." * "Privacy paranoids want to turn back the technological clock." * "Most people are privacy pragmatists who can be trusted to make intelligent trade-offs between functionality and privacy." * "Our lives will inevitably become visible to others, so the real issue is mutual visibility, achieving a balance of power by enabling us to watch the people who are watching us." * "Once you really analyze it, the concept of privacy is so nebulous that it provides no useful guidance for action." * "People *want* these systems, as indicated by the percentage of them who sign up for them once they become available." * "Concern for privacy is anti-social and obstructs the building of a democratic society." * "Privacy regulation is just one more category of government interference in the market, which after all is much better at weighing individuals' relative preferences for privacy and everything else than bureaucratic rules could ever be." * "There's no privacy in public." * "We favor limited access." * "Privacy in these systems has not emerged as a national issue." [ Submissions that would be interesting to the general readership of the PRIVACY Forum would also be very welcome here. -- MODERATOR ] ------------------------------ End of PRIVACY Forum Digest 05.10 ************************

1 0

Re: Nando.net on expatriate tax issue
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 29-APR-1996 02:16:40.69 >On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > >Billionaires' tax loophole could complicate passage of health reform >What precisely does this reporter think is being "tightened" in his or her >version of the House bill? (Note that in current law there is no $500,000 >floor). In fact the reporter hasn't bothered to describe what the >provision really does. (Imposes a expatriation is taxable event >analysis). Talk about a snow job. I won't say it is or is not advertant, >but it's bloody annoying. Fascinating. One wonders how the House managed to convince the CBO that it would gain money... it did. > >The House version would be extremely difficult to enforce and would allow > >patient expatriates to avoid the tax by holding their assets for 10 years > >before selling, they say. In the interim, they could raise cash by > >borrowing against the assets. >Which is the law today. What is with this guy? Get your facts straight >media. I have relatives who went to journalism school during the Depression. I begin to see why they complain about modern media, and why Heinlein said that Time _never_ got the story right on anything he saw in person. Modern journalism schools are going more and more to communication theory courses as opposed to how to write and how to get the facts straight. -Allen

1 0

Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"s1113645(a)tesla.cc.uottawa.ca" 29-APR-1996 02:04:15.24 To: IN%"EALLENSMITH(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu" "E. ALLEN SMITH" CC: IN%"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" Subj: RE: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture? Received: from tesla.cc.uottawa.ca by mbcl.rutgers.edu (PMDF #12194) id <01I43C5TODPC8WWL2O(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu>; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 23:12 EDT Received: by tesla.cc.uottawa.ca (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA25041; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 23:17:36 -0400 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 23:17:36 -0400 (EDT) From: s1113645(a)tesla.cc.uottawa.ca Subject: RE: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture? In-reply-to: <01I43B16HT2U8Y53CU(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu> Sender: s1113645(a)tesla.cc.uottawa.ca To: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu> Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Reply-to: s1113645(a)tesla.cc.uottawa.ca Message-id: <Pine.3.89.9604282225.B28833-0100000(a)tesla.cc.uottawa.ca> X-Envelope-to: EALLENSMITH Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Mime-Version: 1.0 On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >> Currently, yes... but the divide between rich and poor is growing. >> (So long as this divide is determined by merit, and the poor still have >> enough to survive, I'd call this a good trend. So would various other >> people on this list, perhaps without my caveats.) In other words, the >> middle class is going >I agree with your caveat. It's where the anarchists get me skeptical. The poor still having enough to survive is the most significant reason I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. There are a few others, but that's the main one. >Someone sent me some US income tax figures. It would seem that the vast >majority of personal taxes are paid by the rich and high-end upper-middle. >So I'll eat my words and agree with you, talking about the rich makes >quite a bit of sense. I sort of do wonder how many of those "corporations" >are small businesses and individuals working as companies. Time for me to >go find a national stats book. Despite its agreeing with my point (thank you), I'm not sure if I'd consider income taxes to be enough of the story to go by them alone. Federal level, yes; state & local, probably not. I am willing to bet that property taxes are mainly paid by the relatively wealthy, given how much of personal capital tends to get tied up in a home. Sales taxes are more evenly distributed. However, the economic changes I discuss should result in this becoming true, even if it might not be completely true currently. >Of course only talking about the rich makes things so much easier. Yes. In a capitalist society based on merit, the rich are the ones who matter in the long run. -Allen

1 0

info
by Alexis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Can anyone help me out or tutor me in Hacking, phreaking, cracking, and cryptography, I know that you need to know all for to become a good hacker, I also heard that you guys don't mind teaching others. THanks Alexis.

1 0

Over 100 Adult Internet Channels Free!!
by 22345494＠mailexcite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.schoolgirlz.com This is the newest and most comprehensive Adult Site Offer Available on the net.... 110 WILD XXX RATED LIVE CHANNELS - 2 ALL BLONDE CHANNELS 2 MULTIPLE GIRL CHANNELS - 2 CHANNELS OF REDHEADS AND BRUNNETTES 1 ALL BLACK CHANNEL - 1 INTERNATIONAL GIRLS FROM AROUND THE W0RLD 2 TEEN CHANNELS (18 AND 19 YR OLD BABES) - 4 CHANNELS REAL SEX SHOWS-MALE/FEMALE-LESBIAN) http://www.schoolgirlz.com

1 0

STEL b5 released
by cert-it＠dsi.unimi.it 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- STEL beta5 has been released. 1. WHAT IS STEL? STEL is a free telnet surrogate which provides strong mutual authentication, encryption, secure file transfer, automatic s/Key password generation, centralization and management of s/Key passwords and more. 2. WHERE IS STEL AVAILABLE? STEL is available as: ftp://idea.sec.dsi.unimi.it/cert-it/stel.tar.gz Please note that ftp.dsi.unimi.it is not supporting security stuff anymore. All the security archive has been moved to idea.sec.dsi.unimi.it. 3. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF STEL? The latest version of STEL is beta 5. It has been (quite) extensively tested on the following systems: hpux sunos4 solaris24 solaris25 irix linux aix It has been reported to work (but no testing) on: ultrix freebsd bsdi Bug reports, comments and suggestions should be sent to: stel-authors(a)idea.sec.dsi.unimi.it - -- ******************************************************** ******** Computer Emergency Response Team ITALY ******** ******************************************************** E-mail: cert-it(a)idea.dsi.unimi.it Mailing list: unix-security-request(a)idea.sec.dsi.unimi.it Ftp: ftp://idea.sec.dsi.unimi.it WWW: http://idea.sec.dsi.unimi.it - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.3 mQBNAi1eowgAAAECAOTEMFRZHfBb+ndAmdk3vl20EpynEWwB3ZJo/ocZUXgSjBKS op11p19WyyTV9eW2Sosu9GoC4i7VLDiuFRfmKZUABRG0HkNFUlQtSVQgPGNlcnQt aXRAZHNpLnVuaW1pLml0PokAVQIFEC1epVbakBlHrAS41wEBnskB/iXnREAs044y ngOa8uJtYwFaDKc15GUKx9VV2klikcoWKPgaD6WjFs82HmdY86IQL2bFTi8FTKS2 2auGllxW2zaJAJUCBRAtXqV3kbMTtv2Q670BAccAA/sFW+OVkfr8FnClSAlD7fQc /PL0y8qDF4hYx3tIw1utM5zRGlti+KIOpuUIkQpIX4j8f9lIe/cihL5rlusQFsX4 d7cEJWW8GUM3+/mv89jM0ds6IX9KjfJAQPvPFr5rlRgmHdVm9K4ugCTkOzGsv1E4 o5+ZCN5dJW0+EbmjoghwoA== =WPYC - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQBVAwUBMY4wESw4rhUX5imVAQFs1gIAuYqr5IAWRoFQzm71sWdBJCOKTCq/G4ti eucdKJ+5FlmyeQUavWseepozKF019KXElfoHkDVdjl8bnyhFIm7u1w== =nQd0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: alias servers (al la alias.c2.org)
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"des(a)juno.com" 27-APR-1996 04:36:45.71 >On Fri, 26 Apr 1996 20:30:38 -0400 (EDT) Black Unicorn ><unicorn(a)schloss.li> writes: >>Is anyone besides c2.org running an alias server? >There's a few of them - nym.gondolin.org, nym.alias.net, and >alias.alias.net are the others that leap to mind just now. >Of course, having just previewed the Juno "free-email" >service, I might count it also. How much information do they actually want, and how much do they check? I seem to recall that they wanted some info for giving to the advertisers and for targeting the advertising. -Allen

1 0

Anonymous info
by admin＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You have requested information about your account at anon.penet.fi. Your code name is: <FAILED(a)anon.penet.fi> Your real e-mail address is: <cypherpunks(a)toad.com: not found> Your nickname is: <> Your password is: <> Regards, admin(a)anon.penet.fi

1 0

Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:49 PM 5/6/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >From: IN%"frissell(a)panix.com" "Duncan Frissell" 5-MAY-1996 08:56:32.33 > >>Even though the population of those who regularly violate federal tax laws >>is smaller (20 million?) the records show that even for this population the >>odds of being convicted are approximately the odds of being murdered. > > However, are you controlling for level of income? The IRS is a lot >more worried about TCMay committing tax fraud than they are about me committing >tax fraud; my income taxes are a lot closer to 0 than his. > -Allen > Actually, as a percentage of income, tax evasion is probably more prevalent among the poor than the rich. Because they are less exposed. Studies of spending show that the poorest 20% of Americans spend twice their reported income. DCF

1 0

Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"frissell(a)panix.com" "Duncan Frissell" 5-MAY-1996 08:56:32.33 >Even though the population of those who regularly violate federal tax laws >is smaller (20 million?) the records show that even for this population the >odds of being convicted are approximately the odds of being nurdered. However, are you controlling for level of income? The IRS is a lot more worried about TCMay committing tax fraud than they are about me committing tax fraud; my income taxes are a lot closer to 0 than his. -Allen

1 0

Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"frissell(a)panix.com" "Duncan Frissell" 6-MAY-1996 16:04:24.96 >Actually, as a percentage of income, tax evasion is probably more prevalent >among the poor than the rich. Because they are less exposed. Studies of >spending show that the poorest 20% of Americans spend twice their reported >income. Quite. The poor can get away with this for multiple reasons, including being on more of a cash-based economy. But the largest reason is probably that the IRS doesn't care nearly as much about each individual at the low end of the income ladder as they do about any evasion involving a lot of money. Now, the low end tax evasion probably costs the government a lot more than the rich does... but it's also a lot harder to pursue. -Allen

1 0

Re: Why Leahy is No Friend of Ours
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"attila(a)primenet.com" "attila" 5-MAY-1996 21:36:54.93 > how many _truly_ "populist" presidents have we elected? Given the numbers of times that a democracy has done more harm than good to civil liberties (Prohibition, the election of Islamic Fundamentalists in Algeria, etcetera), we don't _want_ a "populist"/demagogue president. We want someone in charge (to whatever degree that someone has to be in charge) who will respect civil liberties. The masses aren't going to elect such a person; they prefer protection to liberty and always will. > "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little > temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." > --Ben Franklin (Historical Review of PA -1759) > > and, the bottom line is: > > "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen > from falling into error; > it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government > from falling into error." > --Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U.S. Judge Quite. -Allen

1 0

Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"jk(a)stallion.ee" "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCri_Kaljundi?=" 5-MAY-1996 11:47:15.29 >Here in Estonia there was a proposal made in the parliament to remove >taxation on corporate income (right now there is a proportional corporate >income tax of 26%), which should bring more foreign investments into >Estonia and also make Estonian economy develop faster. Estonia I think is >one of few countries where there is a possibility of accepting this kind >of law. Of course European countries, USA and different international >financial organisations are very against this kind of law. This law would >apply both to companies and to self-employed private persons (farmers for >example). Let me guess the reason for the objection... it would make siting an offshore-type company in Estonia to avoid taxes possible. -Allen

1 0

Re: Kid Gloves or Megaphones
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"jamesd(a)echeque.com" 5-MAY-1996 14:18:14.34 >>From: Lucky Green >>>It is true that the issuer is unable to discover that double blinding is >>>being used. The real problem with the protocol is that it requires >>>payor/payee collusion, which may make it difficult to execute. >At 07:58 PM 5/4/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >> Can the payee discover that the payor isn't colluding before the bank >>can figure out who the payee is? >If the payor is not colluding, then the payee will immediately discover >he has not been paid, because the checksums are wrong, and his software >says "bad payment" >If the payor is colluding, then no matter what he reveals to the bank, >the bank cannot discover the payee. Note that with payee anonymity, >the payee does not have to promptly check in his money, so the bank >has no hope of narrowing the search by coincidence in time. >But if the payee is colluding, then the payor can be detected by >coincidence in time. The other messages on this appear to be saying about the same thing, with the exception of this last part. _Except_ for that, the payor/payee collusion part doesn't appear to be a problem on the anonymnity side of things. I would guess that Lucky Green's comment was then that there was an additional complexity for payor and payee. -Allen

1 0

Re: WWW proxies?
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 0:30 5/5/96, Lou Poppler wrote: >On Fri, 26 Apr 1996 19:13:06 -0400 (EDT), >Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> wrote: >} >} Has anyone developed such a beast yet? > >I know of two anonymizing web proxies. See: >http://hplyot.obspm.fr:6661/ and: >http://anonymizer.cs.cmu.edu:8080/ > >I think both sites offer source for what they are doing. >I've used the Observatory de Paris site a few times as http_proxy. >Last I checked, the Carnegie-Mellon site only serves requests from >*.cmu.edu clients. Of course these sites are in an ideal position to log their user's every move. With so many users making all their http requests through a single site, the commercial value of the information that could be gained by logging traffic at the site is tremendous. Only when a network of anonymizing sites is connected through something like PipeNet and the users are either PipeNet nodes themselves, or at least randomly use various PipeNet nodes for their http connections, does the security of the user increase. With only one hop, IMHO, the potential risk outweighs the potential benefit. I'd advise against using such single-hop http anonymizers. YMMV. Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not those of my employer. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

4 3

Police report body found during Colby search
by reagle＠rpcp.mit.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

WASHINGTON (Reuter) - A body was found Monday in the area where former CIA Director William Colby went missing after going canoeing on April 27, Maryland Department of Natural Resources police said. There was no immediate confirmation that the body was that of Colby, a spokeswoman said. ``Yes, a body was found,'' she said. The search had been under way in the area of Colby's weekend home at Cobb Neck in southern Maryland on a tributary of the Potomac River. Colby, who served as director of the CIA in the 1970s, was reported missing after his swamped canoe was found and he had not returned to his home. A CNN producer reported that a male body was found washed up on the shore of the Wicomico River about 20 yards from where the canoe was found. While there was no immediate identification of the body, CNN said ``officials have confirmed it was a male body and they say everything fits -- it looks like Colby.'' His disappearance had touched off an air and water search that included divers and specially trained dogs but the probe turned up no sign of a body in the cold, murky waters.

1 0

Security Solutions at USENIX SECURITY Symposium
by cynthia＠usenix.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

6th UNIX Security Symposium Focusing on Applications of Cryptography July 22-25, 1996 Fairmont Hotel, San Jose, California Sponsored by the USENIX Association, the UNIX and Advanced Computing Systems Professional and Technical Association Co-sponsored by UniForum In cooperation with: The Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) and IFIP WG 11.4 The Symposium is offering day-long tutorials, refereed papers, panel presentations, invited talks, a vendor display, and Birds-of-a-Feather sessions. Practical solutions, especially cryptographic approaches, to UNIX security will be described, dissected, and expanded. Ron Rivest of MIT delivers the Keynote Address to kick off the intensive Technical Sessions. New research on public key issues, electronic commerce, safe working areas, and secure communication will be examined in 21 peer-reviewed technical presentations. UniForum is sponsoring panel discussions on Security and Privacy; Electronic Commerce, Cryptography Infrastructure, and Cryptography and the Law. There will also be sessions on the latest version of PGP, Internet Firewalls, and the C2Net Privacy model. Tutorial topics include: Implementing Cryptography; World Wide Web and Internet Security; A Comparison of UNIX Security Tools; and Security for Software Developers. Three new features have been added this year. An informal Vendor Display will allow hands-on demonstration of security products. (Vendors may call Cynthia Deno at 408 335 9445 or email to display(a)usenix.org.) USENIX is sponsoring a secure Internet connection in the Terminal Room. And, USENIX members will be able to sign up for the PGP Key Signing Service. For the complete program and registration materials, visit our Web site: http://www.usenix.org; send email to: info(a)usenix.org (your message should contain the line "send security conference"); or contact the USENIX Conference office at 714 588 8649. /-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/- | Cynthia Deno | | | Tel: 408 335 9445 | USENIX | | Fax: 408 335 5327 | The UNIX and Advanced Computing Systems | | cynthia(a)USENIX.org | Technical and Professional Association | | Check out USENIX on the Net..........http://www.USENIX.org | /-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-

1 0

Internet telephony report
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

While they _probably_ aren't going to start trying to charge for Internet phone service, the FCC still thinks it should be able to regulate the Internet - with the egalitarian excuse of equal access as among the reasons. Hmph... bureaucracy. -Allen From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 6-MAY-1996 03:21:47.24 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: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 From: "Craig A. Johnson" <caj(a)tdrs.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list cyber-rights(a)cpsr.org" <errors(a)snyside.sunnyside.com> Subject: cr> Regulating the Internet It is highly recommended that those who are concerned about the coming communications regulatory regime read the FCC's recent NPRMs on "universal service" and "interconnection." --caj @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ANALYSIS: FREE NET TELEPHONY + by Craig A. Johnson American Reporter Correspondent Washington 4/29/96 net-regulation 1023/$10.23 THE REGULATORS MEET THE INTERNET by Craig A. Johnson American Reporter Correspondent WASHINGTON -- Fears of Rambo-like regulation have spawned a sort of spring fever in the online world, with presumptive alarms and bulletins ricocheting all over the Net. Will the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) choke the Internet's wide-open pathways with regulatory underbrush? Will the petition filed by the Americas' Carriers Telecommunications Association (ACTA) on March 4 be granted, stopping Internet telephony or mandating access charges? (AR, No. 245 ) Or, even more catastrophically, will the Net somehow be swept under the FCC regime for telecommunications carriers? The answers, according to sources both inside and outside of the FCC, for the time being, are a qualified no. On April 19, the FCC gave its tentative response on the Net telephony problem, partially assuaging worries that new regulations will require access charges and tariffing for long distance voice over the Internet. Although the soft no from the FCC was reassuring, the wall protecting Internet voice as an "information service" has scores of cracks and may still crumble under the blows of a regulatory hammer. The issue was addressed in the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on "interconnection," or more formally, "implementation of the local competition provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996." The NPRM is as interesting for what it does not say as for what it does. Generally, it poses a lot of questions, on which parties will file comments, and on the basis of which the FCC will finalize rules in August. The agency sees the proceeding and the consequent rules as establishing "the 'new regulatory paradigm' that is essential to achieving Congress' policy goals." The visible fractures in the old regulatory regime stood out prominently in the interconnection notice. Two aspects of the proceeding, in particular, directly relate to Internet access and pricing regimes. First, the FCC made it clear that current access charges and interconnection regulations are "enforceable until they are superseded." The FCC said, in regulatory-ese, that it wanted comments on "any aspect of this Notice that may affect existing 'equal access and nondiscriminatory interconnection restrictions and obligations (including receipt of compensation).'" Translated, this means that Net telephone providers and users can breathe a little more easily for the time being. But, the call for comments on the existing "restrictions and guidelines" should not be taken for granted. It is precisely these regulations -- which exempt "enhanced service" providers, like Internet and online service providers from paying access charges for their usage of the facilities and network components of local exchange carriers (LECs) -- which are on the table in this proceeding and related ones. A second aspect of the interconnection proceeding relates directly to definitions. The Commission asks for comment "on which carriers are included under" the definition of "telecommunications carriers" offered in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Critically, the agency asks: "How does the provision of an information service [as conventionally defined in the law and prior regulations], in addition to an unrelated telecommunications service, affect the status of a carrier as a 'telecommunications carrier?'" This is a call for commenters to address the issue of whether "information service providers," such as ISPs, who also provide "telecommunications services," should be treated as "telecommunications carriers" and therefore be subject to all, some, or none of the requirements of common carriers, including the payment of access charges and the filing of tariffs. In practical terms the FCC is asking the online community to persuade them that ISPs who permit Internet audio streaming applications, such as long distance voice, should not be considered under the same rules applying to "telecommunications providers." The FCC emphasizes that the interconnection rulemaking "is one of a number of interrelated proceedings," and explains that the answer to how, in which ways, and to what extent the Internet will be regulated will be a product of "the interrelationship between this proceeding, our recently initiated proceeding to implement the comprehensive universal service provisions of the 1996 Act and our upcoming proceeding to reform our Part 69 access charge rules." This should be seen as a warning flag that issues concerning access charges for the Internet have yet to be even taken up by the Commission, and will be one of the outcomes of several complex proceedings, with public comments invited from all consumer and business interests. The FCC NPRM and order establishing the joint federal-state universal service board, issued on March 8, for example, emphasizes the provision in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which stipulates that "[a]ccess to advanced telecommunications and information services should be provided in all regions of the country." The FCC says that "commenters may wish to discuss Internet access availability, data transmission capability, ... enhanced services, and broadband services." In both this and the interconnection notices, the agency emphasizes its statutory authority to regulate the Internet. The news so far is relatively positive. The FCC claims it doesn't want to prematurely slap regulations on the Net which may stunt its remarkable growth and vitality. But the handwriting is on the wall -- in several different hands and scrawled over cracks. Arguments for Internet volume-based or per-packet pricing will be surely surface in comments in the FCC proceedings. The old argument for the "modem tax," which says that data bits should be priced differently than voice bits, will likely rear its scarred head. Internet access is on the charts and in the dockets at the Commission. It should have the same pride of place for all Internet activists and user group communities. The FCC is asking the Internet and computer user and business communities to wake up to an emergent regulatory regime in which the old comfortable dualities such as "information services" and "telecommunications services" -- which in the past have insulated the Internet from regulation -- may not be easily parsed. In short, the agency is begging for help in drafting the cyber-roadmaps for the future. (Note: Both the universal service NPRM and order and the interconnection NPRM can be accessed via the FCC's Web page -- http://www.fcc.gov. Many of the comments for the universal service proceedings are also now available at the site.) -30- (Craig Johnson writes on cyber rights issues for WIRED.) The American Reporter "The Internet Daily Newspaper" Copyright 1995 Joe Shea, The American Reporter All Rights Reserved The American Reporter is published daily at 1812 Ivar Ave., No. 5, Hollywood, CA 90028 Tel. (213)467-0616, by members of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Internet discussion list. It has no affiliation with the SPJ. Articles may be submitted by email to joeshea(a)netcom.com. Subscriptions: Reader: $10.00 per month ($100 per year) and $.01 per word to republish stories, or Professional: $125.00 per week for the re-use of all American Reporter stories. We are reporter-owned. URL: http://www.newshare.com/Reporter/today.html Archives: http://www.newshare.com/Reporter/archives/ For more info on AR: http://oz.net/~susanh/arbook.html @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ~ CYBER-RIGHTS ~ ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Visit The Cyber-Rights Library, accessible via FTP or WWW at: ftp://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/ http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/ You are encouraged to forward and cross-post list traffic, pursuant to any contained copyright & redistribution restrictions. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

1 0

Re: PICS & CyberAngels
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"vznuri(a)netcom.com" "Vladimir Z. Nuri" 4-MAY-1996 11:59:26.15 >this seems to suggest a misunderstanding of PICS either by you or >the "CyberAngels". PICS does not require any particular action by page owners >and is entirely based on that principle (there is a pretty good >argument it would be unconstitutional, impractical, idiotic, etc. if >it didn't). it defines a standard by >which ratings servers and queries are constructed and formatted. >anyone can rate any information. if the CyberAngels want to rate >all kinds of pages in cyberspace and set up their own rating service, >more power to them. the ratings do not restrict those who do not >choose the restrictions. The instructions in question, at http://www.safesurf.com/cyberangels/#look, are for their "volunteers" to report - including to both the page's ISP and to government - any page with sexual content that doesn't have a PICS such that it can be censored. In other words, they want to try to kick off systems - including potentially via legal action such as nonsense like "corrupting a minor" or whatever - any pages that don't set themselves up to be censored. That would include by government such as China, as well as by fundamentalist parents. Given their approval of Detweiler, you're making it more and more likely that you're him.... -Allen

3 2

Re: PICS required by laws
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"sjb(a)universe.digex.net" "Scott Brickner" 6-MAY-1996 14:23:50.08 >The problem is that it requires the cooperation of both of your ISPs. >You'll never receive packets to route from either of them unless you >have some sort of contract in place. In the scenario I outlined, the >"common carrier" status of the ISPs is contingent on their following >the censorship protocol, so their contract will require that you, too, >follow it. How difficult would it be to set up a router protocol to automatically select any from a series of other routers that announced itself willing (for a certain amount of ecash, perhaps)? I had thought that this was pretty close to the case in any event, for small networks anyway - and connections between small networks can interconnect into one large network. >Even in the face of a "digital silk road", this isn't likely to >change. The cost of operating a router is proportional to the number >of connections it has. The vast majority of traffic doesn't have >stringent enough delay requirements that it'll be willing to pay the >additional cost of going through a very highly connected router. >Therefore the hierarchical star configuration is near-optimal for >normal traffic (and pretty much all of the stuff that they claim they >want to censor). Directly proportional? I'd think there would have to be somewhat of a fixed cost involved. The question is whether the fixed cost (including the cost of a router to handle the ever-increasing bandwidth) is dropping faster than the cost of the number of connections. And your "normal traffic" doesn't seem to be including Internet Phone, which I can see being a major source of bandwidth in the future. -Allen

1 0

PICS: cyberratings, not censorship
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

some more information on PICS for the interested. I am a strong advocate of this system because even though it involves ratings, I see it as expressly and vehemently anti-censorship. this will be difficult to understand for some people who equate ratings with censorship, and it will require some major education to help people see why this is not the case with PICS (platform independent content selection). why is PICS *not* censorship? because of its key design goals: 1) people are free to choose what ratings they use. whoever sets up the system decides. i.e. parents might pick a particular rating agency for their family. people might even use a combination of ratings. i.e. weigh the Christian Zealots 50%, and the People for the Improvement of Cyberspace 50%, etc 2) ratings are not merely for blacking out pages. they can be for finding "neat" pages (Point Communications 5%, etc), or "child friendly" or whatever 3) ratings can be created by anyone, including gov't agencies, individuals, foreign governments, religious fanatics, etc., and moreover they can be in any form whatsoever, they are merely seen as information-- the market will decide which ones are useful and which ones are worthless, and whether to create standards in various specific categories. regarding the CyberAngels, I think it would be an excellent project to have them while away their lifetimes going through the web and applying their official "cyberangel rating" to every page they encounter. it would be a valuable public service, and they'd probably get a real kick out of it (hmmm, perhaps "control-freak-ecstasy"?). it gives them a chance to put their brains and hands where their mouths are, so to speak. next time you hear someone rant about pornography in cyberspace, or censorship, or whatever, (whether it is Gore's wife or some nobody on an obscure mailing list), tell them to set up their own PICS rating service and shut up. if you hear someone whine that no one is listening to their rating service or using their ratings, tell them that it's an excellent existence proof that no one truly cares what they think, and for them to jam it down anyone's throat (via legislation or whatever) only proves how manipulative, desperate, and out-of-touch-with-reality they are. truly, I hope that some day the universal and accepted response to seeing something you don't like on the internet will be to start or join a rating service, and NOT to try to pass a bill in congress that attempts to regulate cyberspace (@#$%^&*). will there ever be a day in the future in which, e.g., the Iranian governments of the world decide to start a Moslem Cyberspace Blacklisting Service instead of the less-efficient and less-effective method of Lucrative Blasphemer Assassination Grants? help support this proposal and perhaps it will happen. <g> ------- Forwarded Message Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 10:54:56 -0400 To: pics-info@... From: Paul Resnick <presnick(a)research.att.com> Subject: vac-wg Announcing PICS 1.1! Version 1.1 of the PICS technical specifications are now available from the PICS web page (http://w3.org/PICS) The direct URLs for the two documents are: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/PICS/services.html http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/PICS/labels.html We plan to submit them as informational RFCs in the near future. These documents are now frozen. If significant new features are specified in the future, there will be a higher version number. Three cheers! - ------------------------------------------------------------ Paul Resnick AT&T Research Public Policy Research Room 2C-430B 908-582-5370 (voice) 600 Mountain Avenue 908-582-4113 (fax) P.O. Box 636 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636

1 0

Re: misunderstandings of PICS
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"vznuri(a)netcom.com" "Vladimir Z. Nuri" 6-MAY-1996 15:47:46.22 >but you still don't understand what I stated. the above does not make >any sense relative to the PICS system. it would be like saying, "we >are going to report anyone who doesn't have a SMTP that bans dirty >email". SMTP does not ban dirty email by definition. PICS does not >censor material by definition. please read the PICS proposal (sorry the >URL is not handy, could someone post it?) See below; I had read this _before_ posting on the CyberAngels and PICS. >PICS *doesn't*involve*the*page*designer*. this is an absolutely >key component of its design. it exists indepedent of page creators. >if page creators are suddenly being pressured to format their >pages in some way, then PICS has failed in some of its key design >goals. there are some *optional* ways that page designers can invoke >PICS principles as I understand, but they make no sense to me. (it >would be equivalent to someone rating their own material, something >I think is going to be far from the main use of ratings in the future) From: IN%"frantz(a)netcom.com" 16-APR-1996 20:19:13.88 >From http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/PICS/iacwc.htm >... PICS specifies three ways to distribute labels. The first is to embed >labels in HTML documents. This method will be helpful for those who wish to >label content they have created. > >The second method is for a client to ask an http server to send labels along >with the documents it requests. The server would most likely offer the >publishers' labels, but a server could also redistribute labels from third >parties that it cooperates with. [Client sends URL of label service to browser >which responds with that service's label. bf] > >The third way to distribute labels is through a label bureau that dispenses >only labels. A bureau could distribute labels created by one or more labeling >services. A client asks the bureau for certain services' labels of specific >resources. This is most likely to be used for third-party labels. In other words, the CyberAngels want to eliminate any pages that contain material they think minors shouldn't see that aren't self-rated with a PICS self-rating (the first of the three types) intended to block minors from seeing it. Yes, this is an abuse of the market oriented variety of PICS; they obviously don't know and/or don't care. If you want to convince them otherwise, start cc:ing your messages (and forwarding mine, on this I give you permission) on PICS and the CyberAngels to angels(a)wavenet.com. Incidentally, their pressure (especially the legal variety - acting as informants) could also include against an ISP that doesn't do the second for material the CyberAngels don't like. -Allen

2 1

Edited Edupage, 5 May 1996
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"educom(a)elanor.oit.unc.edu" 6-MAY-1996 14:32:36.01 >EU TAKES A CLOSER LOOK AT THE INTERNET >European Union culture and telecommunications ministers met last week to >discuss ways of controlling access to the Internet to prevent criminal >activity and protect children. "Many member states perceive the need now >for some discipline, some kind of regulatory framework or code of ethics," >says the Italian telecommunications minister. Some European governments, >such as Germany and Great Britain, have already adopted Internet-related >laws and others are considering it. (Wall Street Journal 3 May 96 B5B) We've heard a lot on the German one. What's the Great Britain one look like? >CANADIAN SATELLITES TARGETED >The race into space with direct broadcast satellite TV has created a >regulatory black hole that the U.S. government is struggling to fill. A >plan by Telesat Canada to finance its $1.6-billion satellite program by >leasing capacity to American broadcasters has prompted the Federal >Communications Commission to hold special hearings in Washington to >investigate whether it can regulate the use of Canadian satellites. >(Toronto Financial Post 4 May 96 p1) Of course they're going to try to control it. -Allen >*************************************************************** >Edupage ... is what you've just finished reading. To subscribe to Edupage: >send mail to: listproc(a)educom.unc.edu with the message: subscribe edupage >Smokey Robinson (if your name is Smokey Robinson; otherwise, substitute >your own name). ... To cancel, send a message to: listproc(a)educom.unc.edu >with the message: unsubscribe edupage. (If you have subscription problems, >send mail to educom(a)educom.unc.edu.)

1 0