December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Notes from the SF Physical Cypherpunks meeting
by minow＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks to everyone who took the trouble to correct errors in my notes from Saturday's Cypherpunks meeting. They were written for my own benefit -- and for the benefit of some friends who couldn't be there. Since I can give away information without losing it (to misquote Thomas Jefferson), I'm happy to share it with the cypherpunks. A comment from Matts Kallioniemi might be worth some further discussion: >>COM e-mail/bbs system (Sweden) -- operator could backup >>e-mail, but not read it. > >Sure. The database was encrypted by using XOR with the string >"KOM". That was the sorry state of encryption in the early eighties. > Encrypting the database with a fixed string offers a good example of how "locks keep honest people honest." This would prevent an operator from unintentionally reading a message in case it was revealed by, perhaps, a disk sector editor or crash dump. I suspect that the state of encryption in Sweden in the early eighties was somewhat stronger than XOR (wasn't Hagelin a Swede who moved to Switzerland to start Crypto AG?), but not necessarily visible to the general public. The Swedish government has a rather strong tradition of protection of individual privacy (encrypting COM e-mail is one example). For example, the initial Swedish implementation of a national criminal database in the mid 1970's (equivalent to the US NCIC) used dialback telexes to prevent unauthorized (and untracked) access. A recent newspaper article noted that some police officers were being investigated for unauthorized access to the personal information of a collegue who had complained of sexual harassment. Martin Minow minow(a)apple.com

3 2

CDA Dispatch #10: Last Day in Court
by Declan B. McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fight-Censorship Dispatch #10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The CDA Challenge: Last Day in Court ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Declan McCullagh / declan(a)well.com / Redistribute freely ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this dispatch: The DoJ's flimsy, cheesy, flawed defense Judges question DoJ investigation of CompuServe "The Newspaper Decency Act" http://pathfinder.com/Netly/daily/960513.html The Netly News May 13, 1996 PHILADELPHIA -- Anyone want to bet on the outcome of the Communications Decency Act? I attended the whole thing, which ended Friday in a Philadelphia federal court, and here's the McCullagh Morning Line: 3:1 that the CDA gets struck down as unconstitutional. It can't possibly be upheld -- not from what I understand about the First Amendment, not from what I heard of the flimsy, cheesy Justice Department case (and I heard the whole flimsy, cheesy defense) and certainly not from how the judges were acting on the last day of the hearing. Members of the three-judge panel practically laughed in exasperation at Justice Department wafflings. As you probably recall, The American Civil Liberties Union and American Library Association coalition challenged the so-called Decency Act on the grounds that it would unconstitutionally chill free speech online. The CDA would criminalize "indecent" speech on the Net, invoking a standard -- indecency -- that's yet to be defined. Not for lack of trying, of course. DoJ attorney Tony Coppolino danced a nimble flamenco around the legal meaning of "indecency" and what may or may not be prosecuted under the CDA, arguing on Friday that indecency is a "medium-dependent standard." That is, he said, it can be read to apply mostly to hardcore porn, not literature, and would leave most Web-based jottings alone. But he admitted: "We can't provide assurance that a prosecutor won't take on an absurd case." Dolores Sloviter, chief judge of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, jumped down his throat: "I've been taking the position for 17 years that people should know what they can be prosecuted for. Doesn't that present a problem?" she asked. "I still don't understand" what indecency means under the CDA, she said. "We've been trying to get at this for 40 minutes," grumbled Judge Stewart Dalzell. Later Dalzell grilled DoJ attorney Jason Baron over the Justice Department's decision to "review" a complaint lodged by the American Family Association against CompuServe's new adults-only service. (The AFA is the most virulent "family values" group involved in the fight over the CDA. Only a week after the law was passed, the AFA said it didn't go far enough.) Dalzell stressed that CompuServe had employed every blocking and parental control mechanism possible under current technology -- but that didn't stop the FBI from investigating the Columbus, Ohio-based corporation. "What more could CompuServe have done?" Dalzell asked. Baron cavilled. "The Justice Department was concerned this may be obscenity," he claims. The distinction between obscenity, which is illegal, and indecency, which is still undefined, is important, and that was a nice try by Baron. Unfortunately for him, the CompuServe forum in question has only Playboy-style centerfolds -- softcore stuff that the DoJ's own attorney Coppolino admitted earlier is not obscene. Clearly, the Government had no business looking into the CompuServe matter. Indeed, outside the courtroom at the end of the day, the ALA's Bruce Ennis charged that the government violated a restraining order barring them from investigating alleged CDA violations. "We were very upset. We think this violated the court order," said Ennis. "We went to court yesterday and asked for a clarification. That's now pending." The only defense against prosecution and conviction that the government offered was requiring credit cards before providing access to "indecent" speech on web sites -- a solution that Baron admitted isn't exactly practical for individual speakers. When Baron trotted out Dan Olsen's -L18 self-tagging scheme as an alternative, even the normally quiescent Judge Ronald Buckwalter noticed: "It's not available now. It's a hypothetical." Judge Sloviter added it was "the product of Mr. Olsen's creative imagination." In final arguments, Chris Hansen from the ACLU said not only would a requirement for -L18-style self-labelling "violate the prohibition against compelled speech," there is no tagging technology "that applies to Usenet newsgroups and mailing lists." The most unusual sideshows of the last day of the hearing was when government attorneys were forced to defend free speech in print. Would a "Newspaper Decency Act" banning violence on the top of the front page be constitutional? asked Judge Dalzell, waving a copy of the Philadelphia Inquirer with a photograph of a Liberian prisoner being executed. "My ten-year old son is a rabid Phillies fan" and came across this image, he said. (We must confess to missing the logic here: Are Phillies fans particularly sensitive to violence?) "The print medium enjoys the greatest protections -- the Internet is becoming more television-like," replied Coppolino, trying to dodge the question. The Philadelphia court is expected to issue a decision by mid-June. Both the plaintiffs and the Department of Justice have said they will appeal to the Supreme Court, which may decide to hear the case after it reconvenes in early October. Assuming the Justice Department loses, will they really appeal to the Supreme Court? If so, I object to my tax money being wasted on this crap. --By Declan McCullagh ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mentioned in this article: DoJ refers American Family Association's CDA complaint to the FBI: <http://pathfinder.com/Netly/daily/960507.html> AFA "charges" CompuServe with violating the CDA: <http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=2252> FBI finally rebuffs the AFA, when pressed: <http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=2445> Excerpts from DoJ and anti-porn groups' CDA briefs: <http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=2387> Transcript of Olsen's "-L18" description and other testimony: <http://www.cdt.org/ciec/transcripts/April_15_Olsen.html> Mike Godwin on indecency vs. obscenity: <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/articles/godwin.indecency.txt> This and previous Fight-Censorship Dispatches are available at: <http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/top/> <http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/EFF_ACLU_v_DoJ/> <http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/lawsuit/> To subscribe to the fight-censorship announcement mailing list for future Fight-Censorship Dispatches and related discussions, send "subscribe fight-censorship-announce" in the body of a message addressed to: majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu Other relevant web sites: <http://www.eff.org/> <http://www.aclu.org/> <http://www.cdt.org/> <http://www.ala.org/> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Fingerprinting annoyance
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:26 PM 5/13/96, Mark O. Aldrich wrote: >On Mon, 13 May 1996, Senator Exon wrote: > ><snip> >> i can fill out and manipulate the card myself i just need a >> working method. >> is there no privacy advocate who can help me? >> > >I think most privacy advocates would advise, "Refuse to submit." It >sounds like you're looking for more of a hack on the fingerprinting process. And if you are working for me, and I ask for a fingerprint, and you refuse or "smear" the results (repeatedly, as the first smearing I may just take as your token protest and have you printed again), you'll be out the door by the end of the day. (Personally, I've never worked for a company which demands fingerprints, but I've worked for companies which demanded ID badges and signatures, and these are effectively as intrusive. And I suspect that my former employers are now using thumbprints, and maybe full prints.) What one "doesn't like" and considers an "invasion of privacy" varies from person to person. Some people think having their picture taken is a stealing of their soul. Others fear nefarious things will be done with the DNA from their blood samples. Trying to convince a company that photo ID badges and fingerprints are Bad Things is perhaps admirable, just realize that in a free society that employer is under no obligation to hire someone who refuses to go along with the company's security policies. (This relates to the "civil rights" thread.) >of like a key certificate. If you really can dork the card, have ten >different people volunteer one print each. There's no way that they'll >ever be able to use that as evidence in a court or for any other purpose, >either. A stupid idea. As the employer, I wouldn't have to prove it a court of law...suspicion alone that some of my employees were fucking up a security system might be enough for me to either a. promote them to the Tiger Team, or b. fire their asses. (I just can't understand where this pervasive meme is coming from here on this list, the notion that employers are severely limited in what they can do to employees unless they can "prove it in court. Like it or not, most employees in the United States are still employed "at will," and are not covered by employment contracts such as some executives and the like get.) >If you're forced to do this in person with a tech, you can continuously >"fight" the grip they have on your hand and smudge the card. However, Sure. It makes it easy for the employer to simply say "Next candidate." --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."

3 2

Re: Civil liberties of employees (Re: FYB_oss)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Professor Froomkin and I have many disagreements about the nature and direction of laws in the U.S. I think I was careful to couch my points in terms of what the law should be, not what it currently is. For example, I think it fully Constitutional to choose not to serve blacks in one's home, business, church, or whatever. Until fairly recently, the courts saw it this way as well. (I'm not referring to state-sponsored discrimination, such as keeping blacks and women from voting, or visiting government-paid-for facilities, etc) [This is a provocative statement to many. I can elaborate if there is real interest. Suffice it to say that if I operated a bookstore, or gym, or restaurant, or whatever, I would not personally choose to discriminate thusly. Though I might with regard to other (unspecified here) so-called minority groups. And it would be my free right to choose whom to hire, whom to do business with, whom to serve, and so on. It's pretty clear in the Constitution, as I see it, that the government is not empowered to tell people whom they may associate with and whom they _must_ associate with. Again, the so-called Civil Rights Movement, which had good origins in overturning clearly unconstitutional laws about voting (Jim Crow laws), state-enforced segregation, etc., has been carried to the point of interfering with the right of free association.] The current interpretation of the law makes it a crime for a restaurant to allow smoking (at least in many--and increasing--locales). The current interpretation (henceforth shortened to "CI" for brevity) says that a church may not discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation, and hence must not discriminate against Satanists. The CI says that a health club may not discriminate against women (but, interestingly, many health clubs here in my state of California are "women-only"). The CI says that if a white person uses the term "nigger" he may be convicted, in some jurisdictions, of a "hate crime," but if the coloreds use the term, it's OK. [Here in Santa Cruz, the term "black" has fallen into disfavor, and is dubbed a label of the whitemale patriarchy. Thus, we have "lesbians of color," "students of color," "queers of color," etc. As one leading thinker puts it, "all wymyn are people of color." Therefore, colored people, or coloreds, for short. We have come full circle.] >The issue here isn't a constitutional issue. It's a *statutory* right. >And a real one. Sex discrimination in employment is prohibited by law. >We can call this a "civil right" or something else, but the if the facts >alleged in the case to which TCM refers are as claimed, they seem to have >a fairly good case under the law as it stands. And there's a lot more >than skimpy outfits at issue, including a refusal to hire men for what are >allegedly food service jobs (gender may only be a determination of >employment if it is a bona fide occupational qualfiication, e.g. policing >the showers in the gym; gender is not a BFOQ for food service jobs.) It is not the business of any regulatory agency to _second-guess_ why I want my girls at my Hooters to wear skimpy outfits. In fact, there is no real doubt why the girls are dressed as they are. (Hint: the name.) The girls can choose to work for me, or not. No slavery is involved. (Of course, I also favor legalization of indentured servitude. The military is allowed to buy X years of labor by paying for a student's education, so why not IBM? It might actually help the unemployment crisis we are now in.) In any case, I choose to focus on politico-jurisprudential issues, of what the law _should_ be, not what the current mess says is the law. As Roseanne Barr--not one of my favorites--recently so cogently observed: "Heidi Fleiss is going to prison, OJ Simpson is playing golf in Brentwood...we're living in Dante's Inferno." --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

Re: Transitive trust and MLM
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"eli+(a)GS160.SP.CS.CMU.EDU" 13-MAY-1996 19:59:41.90 >EALLENSMITH(a)ocelot.Rutgers.EDU writes: >> The different paths going through those different signatures will be >>correlated/non-independent, yes.... but that isn't the problem unless you're >>considering multiple paths (in a more complicated version). >To determine key validity, you do have to consider all paths. If a >single trusted path to the bad key exists, the attacker wins. Hmm.... a useful distinction in this is between multiple paths with no common elements except the beginning and end and ones with common elements. The sections of the ones with common elements that have no common elements can probably be treated as a subset of the larger path - a virtual link, if you will - with its values (trustworthiness et al) determined by the paths contained within it. >> IIRC, there have been some sociological studies showing that _everyone_ >>is linked through 6 or so people. >Milgram's "small world" experiments used a much looser sort of "link" >than we want here. It would be certainly interesting to know how >large a difference this makes. Milgram? Thanks, I'll check for that name. >It's true that you don't need to talk to everybody. The problem is >that I might want to talk to people whom I don't know personally, but >know by reputation, or by function ("DEA Rat Hotline" -- well, maybe >not). I'm not disputing that... just that you don't need to be able to go through the web to reach everyone who's got a key. Admittedly, the subsection of people who have keys are more likely (through being more technologically sophisticated et al, on average) to be useful to contact than those who don't. -Allen

1 0

Re: Civil liberties of employees (Re: FYB_oss)
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 13-MAY-1996 17:56:08.53 What others have said in regards to implicit contracts is about what I would have, with the addition that the inclusion of some third party should occur to handle the cases when the contract (explicit or implicit) doesn't cover something. Such a third party would preferably be an arbitration agency chosen by the other parties to the contract, but can be a government if they didn't chose one or the agency isn't available for some reason. >(But contracts are of course possible. Enforcement of the terms is another >matter. By the way, I think enforcement of such contracts should be handled >outside the normal legal system, and paid for by the parties using the >system.) One organization that I would like to see develop is one specializing in the enforcement of extralegal/illegal contracts. Payments to a legal form of such an organization should be tax-deductible, just as payments to private security guards should be tax-deductible; you're doing the government's work for it, so you shouldn't have to pay the government for it. Cryptography can be used to reduce the necessity for such in many cases, or at least reduce the work involved - which should reduce the fees that such an organization should need to pay. One aspect of this is digital receipts; I need to take a look at Applied Cryptography to check out the discussion there on them. Anyplace else I should look? -Allen

1 0

Re: Civil liberties of employees (Re: FYB_oss)
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"froomkin(a)law.miami.edu" "Michael Froomkin" 14-MAY-1996 03:24:06.58 >On Sun, 12 May 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: >> Actually, one _does_ check one's Constitutional rights "at the door" (of an >> employer), and the confusion over this issue is pervasively destroying real >> Constitutional rights. >Yes and no...and kinda no. Umm... you would appear to be discussing the current legal situation, whereas TCMay was discussing what the situation _should_ be. In the limits you discuss, the civil liberties of the _employer_ are being seriously trampled upon. -Allen

1 0

Re: Mandatory Voluntary Self-Ratings
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"jamesd(a)echeque.com" 13-MAY-1996 23:52:07.00 At 03:45 AM 5/13/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >> the conservatives won't let people just rate >> "objectionable" material in order to keep it from them. They want it off the >> net/world whether or not it's rated. >In the course of channel surfing, I have once or twice come across >the Christians ranting about pornography. They have both legitimate >and illegimate complaints, but mainly they emphasize the legitimate >complaint. PICS addresses this legitimate complaint. I've never heard a fundamentalist (there are other Christians than fundamentalists, BTW) ranting about how they can be exposed to pornography; it's always others they claim to be upset about. I was raised a Southern Baptist, so I suspect I'm familiar with fundys. -Allen

1 0

Copyright law - potential limits on encryption?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I thought the following from CPSR had some relevance, insofar as part of what the proposed law is trying to outlaw are "devices needed for making use of encrypted information." The accusations of corporate benefit are irrelevant, of course. -Allen From: akrause(a)Sunnyside.COM (Audrie Krause) Subject: Action Alert: Copyright Cyber-rights moderator Andy Oram and online activist Jim Warren have forwarded alerts regarding pending Congressional action on copyright legislation. At this late date, the best course of action is a phone call or fax. You can reach all members of Congress through the capitol switchboard: (202) 224-3121. Email messages to Congress are *not* particularly effective. Detailed information follows from both Jim and Andy. Audrie ---------------------------- >From Jim Warren: Check out the examples, below, of how your net access to *any* information will soon be repressed, prohibited and/or criminalized for corporate benefit. THIS REALLY IS AS BAD AS IT SOUNDS. Although this happens to come from the Americal Library Association and is thus focused on library concerns with the Beltway ripoff-artists' pervasive copy-suppression legislation that is being rammed through Congress, *everyone* online and on computers needs to be aware of this impending repression. I donno who Clinton's Copyright Office and Gingrich-Dole's Congress are representing, but they sure as hell aren't representing the *public's* interests. Howl now to your(?) "representatives" ... or bend over for the corporate hustlers, henceforth. --jim, a disloyal subject of the Washington Royalty Jim Warren, GovAccess list-owner/editor, advocate & columnist (jwarren(a)well.com) 345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/<# upon request> ------------------------ >Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 17:58:00 -0400 >Sender: owner-ala-wo(a)ala1.ala.org >From: ALAWASH E-MAIL (ALAWASH E-MAIL) <alawash(a)ALAWASH.ORG> >To: ala-wo(a)ala.org >Subject: ALAWON, Vol. 5, No. 24 - ACTION ITEM (220 lines) > > >ALAWON Volume 5, Number 24 >ISSN 1069-7799 May 10, 1996 > American Library Association Washington Office Newsline > > > URGENT: IMMINENT CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON NII COPYRIGHT >LEGISLATION THREATENS TO LEAVE LIBRARIES AND SCHOOLS IN THE LURCH > >IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED: Your immediate faxes and calls to key >House Committee Members critical. > >BACKGROUND: >The House is rushing the "NII Copyright Protection Act" bill to >"mark up" in the House Courts and Intellectual Property >Subcommittee on Wednesday of next week, May 15! The House >completed its hearings in February on this bill. (Earlier >ALAWON's have described in detail the "NII Copyright Protection >Act" taken from the Administration's "White Paper" and introduced >in Congress last September.) > >Worse yet, the Courts and Intellectual Property Subcommittee is >also considering wrapping the Copyright Term Extension Act (which >would lengthen the term of copyright protection by 20 years) into >the "NII Copyright" package on May 15. That action could short-circuit >negotiations between ALA and copyright owners that began >last October to craft an exemption from the term extension for >libraries, archives and non-profit educational institutions. If >approved in its current form, the bill would: > >*** make it a copyright violation to simply browse the Net >without a license from copyright owners; > >*** subject computer system operators -- such as on-line services >and networks at schools and libraries -- to potentially crippling >liability for the copyright violations of their users, even if >the operator; > >*** cripple "distance education" efforts especially vital to >rural communities and the disabled; and > >*** make it illegal to manufacture, import or distribute devices >and software (including computers and VCRs) needed by industry, >schools and libraries to make "fair use" of encrypted information >by overruling long-standing Supreme Court precedent. > >The Senate is moving deliberately on this tremendously imbalanced >package and has indicated that changes in it need to be made to >protect libraries and schools. The Senate Judiciary Committee, >which just held the first of its own (non-joint) hearings on this >bill on May 7, and is taking a far more deliberate approach to >these complicated issues. > >In fact, Chairman Hatch appeared open at the hearing to many of >the proposals backed by libraries and educational groups put >forward by Prof. Robert Oakley (of AALL) on behalf of the Digital >Future Coalition, in which ALA has been very active. (The DFC >was given one of only five total witness slots at this important >hearing held coincidentally on ALA's annual Legislative Day.) >Sen. Hatch also indicated that he would hold at least one >additional hearing which is likely to include a "library" >witness. > >ACTION NEEDED NOW: >Please immediately fax a letter to AND CALL all Members of the >House Intellectual Property Subcommittee listed below who >represent you or an institution with which you are affiliated. >These contacts must be made NO LATER THAN Tuesday, May 14 and >preferably sooner. Contact info and a sample letter follow. > >For more information about the bill, the dangers it poses and the >constructive solutions offered, please see the DIGITAL FUTURE >COALITION WEBSITE at http://www.ari.net/dfc > >*************************************************************** >Using appropriate style for addressing Congress, please address >all letters to Members, as listed below e.g., "2346 RHOB" for >"Rayburn House Office Building", LHOB=Longworth and CHOB=Cannon) >+ Washington, DC 20515. > >Info appears as: > >Member and Home City >Address Phone Fax > >Carlos Moorhead Glendale, CA >2346 RHOB 225-4176 226-1279 > >F. James Sensenbrenner Brookfield, WI >2332 RHOB 225-5101 225-3190 > >George Gekas Harrisburg, PA >2410 RHOB 225-4315 225-8440 > >Howard Coble Asheboro, NC >403 CHOB 225-3065 225-8611 >Elton Gallegly Oxnard, CA >2441 RHOB 225-5811 225-1100 > >Charles Canady Lakeland, FL >1222 LHOB 225-1252 225-2279 > >Bob Goodlatte Roanoke, NC >123 CHOB 225-5431 225-9681 > >Martin Hoke Fairview Park, OH >212 CHOB 225-5871 226-0994 > >Sonny Bono Palm Springs, CA >512 CHOB 225-5330 225-2961 > >John Conyers, Jr. Detroit, MI >2426 RHOB 225-5126 225-0072 > >Patricia Schroeder Denver, CO >2307 RHOB 225-4431 225-5842 > >Howard Berman Mission Hills, CA >2231 RHOB 225-4695 225-5279 > >Rick Boucher Abingdon, VA >2245 RHOB 225-3861 225-0442 > >Jerry Nadler New York, NY >109 CHOB 225-5635 225-6923 > >Xavier Becerra Los Angeles, CA >1119 LHOB 225-6235 225-2202 > >Xavier Becerra Los Angeles, CA >1119 LHOB 225-6235 225-2202 > > SAMPLE LETTER > **************************************************************** > > [DATE] > >[Hon. ____________________ >United States House of Representatives] >__# __ ____ Office Building >Washington, D.C. 20515 > >Dear Representative__________: > > As a member of the American Library Association and an >active {your connection to libraries and their work, e.g., >librarian, trustee, volunteer, etc.}, I am writing today to ask >that you do everything in your power to assure that two bills now >pending before the House Courts and Intellectual Property Subcom- >mittee are not voted out of Committee unless and until they are >amended to help libraries serve the public in the following ways. > > First, the "NII Copyright Protection Act of 1995" (H.R. >2441) must be changed to permit libraries to use the latest >technologies to preserve crumbling older works and to have >sufficient copies of those works on hand to guarantee their >survival. Provisions that will continue to foster "distance >education" also are critically important. More broadly, balance >must be restored to the legislation by adopting a series of >amendments proposed by the Digital Future Coalition (DFC), many >of which are based on a strong commitment to the Fair Use >Doctrine. I share that commitment. If Congress is to update >copyright law for the digital age, the rights of copyright owners >and the needs of information users must both be fully respected >and advanced. I support the DFC's package of amendments to the >Copyright Act, particularly those related to Sections 106, 107 >and 108. > > Second, and just as critically, the "Copyright Term >Extension Act"(H.R. 989) must also be rebalanced to protect and >foster library preservation efforts and education at all levels. >In its current form, this bill would extend the length of >copyright in published materials by 20 years. It would also >lengthen the term of copyright for unpublished works by 10 years. >In other words, the bill will impose a 10 or 20 year moratorium >on works entering the public domain. The costs of tracking down >the owners of these works (often 100 or more years old) imposes >costs on libraries better spent on serving the public. ALA's >representatives in Washington have been negotiating a suitable >amendment to this bill with major copyright industries since >December of last year. The Register of Copyrights is mediating >those talks. Please do everything that you can to allow that >process, which I am told is going well, to bear fruit. Premature >action on this bill would be disastrous for libraries and >schools. > > Thank you very much for helping libraries make the most of >new technology and the Internet to bring the benefits of >information technology to all Americans, and especially those in >[INSERT THE NAME OF YOUR STATE, CITY OR COUNTY REPRESENTED BY THE >MEMBER TO WHOM YOU'RE WRITING]. ALA's Washington Office staff >would be pleased to provide you or your office with more >information. They can be reached at 202-628-8410. > > Sincerely, > >_________________________________________________________________ >ALAWON is a free, irregular publication of the American Library >Association Washington Office. To subscribe, send the message >"subscribe ala-wo [your_firstname] [your_lastname]" to <listproc >@ala.org>. ALAWON archives gopher.ala.org; select Washington >Office Newsline. Web page HTTP://www.ala.org/alawashington.html. > >ALA Washington Office 202.628.8410 (V) >1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, #403 202.628.8419 (F) >Washington, DC 20004-1701 Lynne E. Bradley, Editor ><alawash(a)alawash.org> <leb(a)alawash.org> >Contributor to this issue: Adam M. Eisgrau > <ame(a)alawash.org> > >All materials subject to copyright by the American Library >Association may be reprinted or redistributed for noncommercial >purposes with appropriate credits. --------------- >From Andy Oram: (Introduction from moderator: the message below does not explain how all the awful consequences it predicts could stem from some extensions to copyright law. I think the worrisome section of the bill is the one prohibiting "any device, product, or component incorporated into a device" that can circumvent copyright. Despite language about its "primary purpose," such language could be used against legitimate computer and communications equipment.--Andy) Sender: John Whiting <100707.731(a)CompuServe.COM> ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- From: Labor Committee on the Middle East, INTERNET:melblcome@igc.apc.org TO: Democracy Now and Then, INTERNET:DEMOCRACY-NOW@IGC.APC.ORG Forum KPFA, INTERNET:FREEKPFA@COCO.CA.ROP.EDU (unknown), INTERNET:PACNEWS@AOL.COM (unknown), INTERNET:PNN@IGC.APC.ORG DATE: 12/05/96 02:35 RE: Action Needed on Intellectual Property Bill URGENT MESSAGE: Below is an alert regarding the May 15 Mark-up of HR 2441. Please post this text on your Web Sites and forward it to all interested parties. Specific efforts should be made to have people in the districts of members of the IP Subcommittee contact their representatives. A link to the DFC Web Site can be made by linking your Web Site to http://www.ari.net/dfc -- a thumbnail graphic for the link can be found at http://www.ari.net/tlogo.gif Suggested text for letters to Representatives will follow shortly. ************************************************************** YOUR IMMEDIATE FAXES AND CALLS TO CONGRESS NEEDED TO SLOW IMMINENT ACTION ON BADLY FLAWED CYBERSPACE COPYRIGHT BILL Congressional contacts urgently needed NO LATER THAN Tuesday, May 14.................. Next Wednesday, May 15, the House Judiciary Committee's Intellectual Property Subcommittee is scheduled to consider amendments to, and vote on approval of HR 2441, the "National Information Infrastructure Act of 1995." Such approval, if given, would give an important boost to passage of a legislative package heavily backed by -- and tilted in favor of -- the movie, recording, and publishing industries (and other large "content providers"). If passed in its current form, the bill would: *** make it a copyright violation to simply browse the Net without a license from copyright owners; *** subject computer system operators -- such as on-line services and networks at schools and libraries -- to potentially crippling liability for the copyright violations of their users, even if the operator; *** cripple "distance education" efforts especially vital to rural communities and the disabled; and *** make it illegal to manufacture, import or distribute devices and software (including computers and VCRs) needed by industry, schools and libraries to make "fair use" of encrypted information by overruling long-standing Supreme Court precedent. WRITE AND CALL MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY INTELLECTUAL SUBCOMMITTEE AND KEY FULL COMMITTEE MEMBERS NOW (list and information below)!!! Tell them that: ** These issues, and the healthy development of the Net are of critical concern to you, AND ** The May 15 meeting of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee is **too soon**. Congress should take the time needed to understand and adequately deal with **all ** of the complicated issues raised by HR 2441 before it takes action. For more information about the bill, the dangers it poses and the constructive solutions offered, please see the DIGITAL FUTURE COALITION Website at http://www.ari.net/dfc. Please get your faxes and calls to the following members of Congress, especially those Members who represent you, NO LATER THAN Tuesday, May 14: [DATE] The Honorable {name} United States House of Representative __#__ ____ Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative__________: I am writing today to ask that you do everything in your power to assure that no action is taken by the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property on the "NII Copyright Protection Act of 1995" (HR 2441) until a broad consensus can be reached on how to resolve a number of issues of critical mportance to me and, in my view, the future of the Internet. As I understand it, this bill in its current form, would seriously undermine the ability of businesses, inventors, schools and librraies to make full use of the Internet's great potential. Specifically, H.R. 2441 would : * make it a copyright violation to simply browse the Net without a license from copyright owners; * subject computer system operators -- such as on-line services and networks at schools and libraries -- to potentially crippling liability for the copyright violations of their users, even if the operator has no knowledge of such violations; * thwart "distance education" efforts especially vital to rural communities and the disabled; and * make it illegal to manufacture, import or distribute devices and software (including computers and VCRs) needed by industry, schools and libraries to make "fair use" of encrypted information by overruling long- standing Supreme Court precedent. Please don't allow the fears of major copyright owning industries to cripple the Internet for the rest of America. I urge you and other members of the House Judiciary Committee to take the time necessary to understand and thoroughly debate all of the proposed amendments to H.R. 2441, including those proposed by the Digital Future Coalition. Thank you very much for helping make the most of new technology and the Internet to bring the benefits of information technology to all Americans, and especially those in [INSERT THE NAME OF THE DISTRICT/CITY]. Sincerely, ALERT (fwd) END ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Andrew Oram - andyo(a)ora.com - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR) Cyber-Rights: http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/ ftp://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/ CyberJournal: (WWW or FTP) --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ -- Audrie Krause CPSR Executive Director PO Box 717 * Palo Alto, CA * 94302 Phone: (415) 322-3778 * Fax: (415) 322-4748 * * E-mail: akrause(a)cpsr.org * * * Web Page: http://www.cpsr.org/home.html *

1 0

Re: Fingerprinting annoyance
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 14-MAY-1996 04:46:37.08 >Trying to convince a company that photo ID badges and fingerprints are Bad >Things is perhaps admirable, just realize that in a free society that >employer is under no obligation to hire someone who refuses to go along >with the company's security policies. (This relates to the "civil rights" >thread.) While in general I agree, he never said it was a company. If it was a government, for instance, I can see it as being ethical; the same for a government-caused requirement (like the drug war nonsense) or a government-supported company (like Airbus in Europe, or others supported by tarrifs.) Since he didn't say, I forbode to answer (mine would have been about like uni's one of superglue, although I haven't heard the needle idea before. -Allen

1 0

(legal) Re: CDA Dispatch #10: Last Day in Court
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Regarding ACLU v. Reno] At 11:08 PM 5/13/96 -0400, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: > The Philadelphia court is expected to issue a decision by mid-June. > Both the plaintiffs and the Department of Justice have said they will > appeal to the Supreme Court, which may decide to hear the case after > it reconvenes in early October. Assuming the Justice Department loses, > will they really appeal to the Supreme Court? If so, I object to my > tax money being wasted on this crap. Perhaps someone with a better legal understanding of court cases could help me out. I understood from a law course I took that appeals could only be filed with respect to process rather than result. One cannot appeal a decision, rather one has to appeal the manner in which it was reached (if witnesses were biased, important evidence was suppressed, etc.) I was rather surprised by this, but obviously this doesn't prevent people from appealing willy-nilly because they just fabricate some reason why the process was corrupted. However, in a venue such as this, what basis can one appeal on? On the ACLU side I can actually see an appeal with respect to the constitutionality (but I'm not quite sure what) and on the Reno side I don't see what they could appeal. Was some evidence poorly presented? It isn't like there are any witnesses to lead. _______________________ Regards, Men govern nothing with more difficulty than their tongues, and can moderate their desires more than their words. -Spinoza Joseph Reagle http://farnsworth.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

2 1

Re: Fingerprinting annoyance
by Matthew Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Date sent: Mon, 13 May 1996 23:19:12 -0400 (EDT) > From: Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> <...> > > I compare it to the ease with which one submits a fake social security > number rather than simply refuse to submit one at all. A fake one wont > raise any eyebrows, refusal will. Although knowingly providing a fake social security number when one has any expectation of gain is, I believe, a felony. 42 USC. sec. 408. Matt +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ Matthew Williams williams(a)mackinfo.com 215-884-8123 voice 215-886-5030 fax "The most obscene thing I have found on the Internet is the CDA." +--------------------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

FAC_ial
by jya＠nyc.pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

5-14-96. FiTi: Reports on "Photobook," a "visual intelligence" comp.sys for facial recognition designed by Alex Pentland at MIT's Media Lab to "identify people who use multiple identifications to commit fraud." BT, the US Army, Kodak and Sensormatic are nibbling and the White House is ogling it to "combat terrorism." Also: The program could help find missing children, verify indentification for electronic purchases and track down on-line pornographers. Although the Big Brother aspect may be troubling to some, to others it will provide comforting security. FAC_ial

1 0

Traffic analysis by FBI against Earth First
by Eric Hughes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Remember the phrase "social networks analysis". The FBI seems to use it as a term of art. I'm right now listening to Judy Bari on the pirate radio station in Berkeley (104.1 FM). She's being interviewed over the telephone and talking about her court case against the FBI relating to the coverup of the bombing that she's being charged for. (It was under her own car seat, for those of you who know nothing about this.) In any case, there have been depositions and discoveries in this case, and one of the revelations was that there was a document the FBI seized (under circumstances I'm not familiar with) with which they wanted to perform a social networks analysis upon. It was the interviewer's phone and addess book. Eric

1 0

Nature of Rights
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:09 AM 5/14/96, Allen Ethridge wrote: >And on another thread, if rights are simply restrictions on the >government and not attributes (inate, even) of the individual, then they >are meaningless. I presume you're speaking about my point.... This is generally not the place to have long debates about the nature of government and of civil rights, but it bears mentioning that the Constitution of the United States _is_ primarily about the delineation of the role of government, not of private entities, corporations, clubs, social groups, etc. Thus, "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" refers to freedom from coercion by government about religion, and to separation of church and state. It has nothing to do with whether you or I feel our "rights" within the First Unified Temple of Baal are being properly respected. And so on for various other enumerated rights, including the right of free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, the right of free association, and so on. As nearly every argument in this area points out, your right to free speech does not mean you get to use my newspaper, nor my public address system, nor my computer service. The so-called innate or intrinsic rights ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness") are basically bromides. Philosophical arguing points for a view of government as being limited in scope. Converting a slogan like this to assume this means government will guarantee jobs for all, or will provide two cars in every driveway, or whatever, has been fraught with problems. Not the least of which are that such goals are inimical to the actual, enumerated rights. --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."

2 1

Re: Civil liberties of employees (Re: FYB_oss)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:29 AM 5/14/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >From: IN%"froomkin(a)law.miami.edu" "Michael Froomkin" 14-MAY-1996 03:24:06.58 >>Yes and no...and kinda no. > > Umm... you would appear to be discussing the current legal situation, >whereas TCMay was discussing what the situation _should_ be. In the limits >you discuss, the civil liberties of the _employer_ are being seriously >trampled upon. Exactly. As I described in another post last night, this is the point. I've mostly given up on trying to change the existing laws and political system...it is too far down the path de Tocqueville described a century and a half ago (roughly, "America's great experiment with democracy will last only until the populace discovers it can pick the pockets of others at the ballot box."). Strong cryptography at least returns "freedom of association" to us, albeit not with True Names, and may return other freedoms to us as well. By bypassing democracy, the true enemy of liberty. --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

More involuntary c'punk subscriptions on the way?
by Mark O. Aldrich 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In the May '96 issue of Computer Security Alert, Padgett Peterson provides an explanation of how mail bombing is done. It's on page 3 under the "E-mail Security" column with the headline "Mad Bombers on the Net." In the article, Padgett explains the three "stages" of mail bombing: First is to send ungodly amounts of mail from you to the target, the next is to post something offensive under a forged ID to one or more of the "less ruly" [his words] USENET groups, such as alt.2600 or alt.tasteless [his citations], and the third is to subscribe people to mailing lists against their will using forged e-mail. Naturally, Padgett (bless his twisted little mind) indicates that the most severe results can be achieved by sending forged subscription requests to "the larger listservers such as cypherpunks", that generate in excess of a hundred messages a day. Since hackers and wannabes probably read INFOSEC publications with more zeal than do INFOSEC practitioners, I'd say we're likely to be in for even more of the "I don't want to be on this list" sorts of traffic. And Padgett, next time you get interviewed on mail bombing by the press, why don't you point them to "The KISS Army Mailing List," or something of that sort? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Liberty is truly dead |Mark Aldrich | | when the slaves are willing |GRCI INFOSEC Engineering | | to forge their own chains. |maldrich(a)grci.com | | STOP THE CDA NOW! |MAldrich(a)dockmaster.ncsc.mil | |_______________________________________________________________________| |The author is PGP Empowered. Public key at: finger maldrich(a)grci.com | | The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author | | and my employer gets no credit for them whatsoever. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Re: (legal) Re: CDA Dispatch #10: Last Day in Court
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:30 PM 5/14/96, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. wrote: > Perhaps someone with a better legal understanding of court cases >could help me out. I understood from a law course I took that appeals could >only be filed with respect to process rather than result. One cannot appeal >a decision, rather one has to appeal the manner in which it was reached (if >witnesses were biased, important evidence was suppressed, etc.) I was rather >surprised by this, but obviously this doesn't prevent people from appealing >willy-nilly because they just fabricate some reason why the process was >corrupted. > > However, in a venue such as this, what basis can one appeal on? On >the ACLU side I can actually see an appeal with respect to the >constitutionality (but I'm not quite sure what) and on the Reno side I don't >see what they could appeal. Was some evidence poorly presented? It isn't >like there are any witnesses to lead. IANALBIGCTV (I am not a lawyer but I get Court TV), but _Constitutional_ issues are always available for appeal (though of course not always accepted for appeal). For instance, if the lowest level of the court system tells a newspaper it may not publish a story, this is automatically appealable to the next level up, even if all sides agree the first trial was a model of proper trial procedure. To a large extent, this is what the Appeals process, including the Supreme Court, is all about. The Supreme Court does more than just clean up sloppy mistakes made by lower courts, it establishes the "basic interpretation" of the Constitution and legislation. In this case, it is the basic constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act itself that is at issue, not the specific application of it to a specific case (and even then, it could be challenged on constitutional issues...in this case, it is going directly through the process to the Supreme Court for review). (Another way this case is not like a simple court case is that the government side gets to appeal a loss; in a conventional criminal trial, a la OJ, the government does not get to appeal a loss. I'm sure the lawyers and law professors out there can say more about the distinction, about when and under what circumstances the prosecution side gets "another bite of the apple," and about what the terms of appeals may be.) --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

Re: Civil liberties of employees (Re: FYB_oss)
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Wildly off-topic...] Michael Froomkin wrote: ... >...And there's a lot more >than skimpy outfits at issue, including a refusal to hire men for what are >allegedly food service jobs (gender may only be a determination of >employment if it is a bona fide occupational qualfiication, e.g. policing >the showers in the gym; gender is not a BFOQ for food service jobs.) Being a "Hooters Girl" is not a typical "allegedly food service" job. [Because it's an election-year] the EEOC dropped the case, but not before Tom Hazlett did an *excellent* piece on it in REASON. _Corporate Rakeovers_, Feb. 1996 p. 66

1 0

Re: PRZ /PGP
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:57 PM 5/13/96 -0700, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: [Stupid trolling on reagan and the cold war deleted] > > it may also be that Zimmermann has a set of beliefs that he > champions in front of the public, but that his private ideology > is more radical. Zimmermann is in favor of liberty. Some of his ideas about how people can and should deal with each other to avoid violating each others rights are badly mistaken, but one of his ideas about liberty is spot on. [lots more trolling deleted] > 4. PRZ has a bad track record as far as meeting deadlines. No software project has ever come in on schedule or within budget. Yours will not be the first. [Even more moronic trolling deleted] --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

Defeating fingerprints
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > With regards to filling in your own card, what about using a disappearing > ink?? Then your prints would disappear! You could even do your name, > right infront of them, and it would disappear, leaving these anynonomous > prints behind!! While the ink does become transparent/translucent I am shure the FBI chem lab won't have a problem finding traces of the chemical. This would make for jim dandy evidence in court. > Or you could make an inkpad that is damp with sodium hydroxide (lye) > instead of ink. That way, you could lightly roll your fingers in it, > like it was ink, and then wait a minute, and wipe it off. That way, the > only skin being eaten away, would be the ridges of the fingerprints. Do > this enought times, and the rigdes will end up the same height as the > valleys, and will then essentially be flat. Burglars and safecrackers sand the ridges off. Jim Choate

5 5

crosspost re remailers
by hkhenson＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry to send this in blind. Over a year ago I switched from watching the "mutitions" R&D works to being an observer/participant on a small "test war." Once in a while, I send in a report. If you have comments which you want me to see, email them. Thanks, Keith Henson ******* Subject: Re: <<< Repost the NOTS everywhere! >>> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship References: <4ml2cv$c52(a)utopia.hacktic.nl> <4mrsf0$esn(a)news.bridge.net> <4ms9na$l24(a)Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4msu79$jdi(a)news.bridge.net> <henriDr5rpD.CqD(a)netcom.com> <4nae9i$bf7(a)news2.texas.net> Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Distribution: inet Hoyos (hoyos(a)millenium.texas.net) wrote: : henry (henri(a)netcom.com) wrote: : : >What I find disturbing is certain people who were visibly outraged by : : >Steven Fishman's "outings" are supportive of the remailer abuse, _as_well_ : : remailer ABUSE? how is it remailer ABUSE to use them for their : : intended purposes. : Remailers exist to destroy copyrights? I always thought they were around : to ensure a certain amount of anonymity, not to permit people to destroy : copyrights and get away with it. Hoyos, you *can't* destroy copyright, period. Trade secrets are another matter, and I suppose you can make a case that the ability of a certain powerful cult to extract money or labor from the gulible has been reduced. I know some of the people who wrote the first cypherpunk remailers. They have been watching the uses to which the remailers have been put. The long drawn out battle between the CoS and the Net has been of as much interest to them as the performance of large guns at the front was to Krup. I can't speak for all of them--actually, I can't speak for *any* of them, but the ones who have said anything about the recent uses of the remailers do not seem unhappy. There may be some discussion related to this on the cypherpunks mailing list. But if you sign up, be prepaired for a flood. Keith Henson Crossposted to cypherpunks

7 10

RSAREF for Mac?
by Jay Haines 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: Time: 1:24 PM OFFICE MEMO RSAREF for Mac? Date: 5/14/96 It seems that I have seen this question asked before, but as I had no need for the answer at that time, I trashed it. So, without further ado: Can anyone point in the direction of RSAREF for the Macintosh? expectantly, (no, i'm not pregnant,) Jay

1 0

Re: Fingerprinting annoyance
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:22 PM 5/14/96, Matthew Williams wrote: >> Date sent: Mon, 13 May 1996 23:19:12 -0400 (EDT) >> From: Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> > ><...> > >> >> I compare it to the ease with which one submits a fake social security >> number rather than simply refuse to submit one at all. A fake one wont >> raise any eyebrows, refusal will. > >Although knowingly providing a fake social security number when one >has any expectation of gain is, I believe, a felony. > >42 USC. sec. 408. Indeed. Plus, should one "just make a number up," odds are good that it "won't compute," that is, that it will either collide with an existing number (and identity, and reported income) or that it will fail the checksum/allocation tests. (That is, not all xxx-yy-zzzz numbers are valid SS numbers. See Chris Hibbert's "Structure of Social Security Numbers" FAQ, at http://snyside.sunnyside.com/cpsr/privacy/ssn/oldSSN/ssn.structure.html for details.) The IRS imposes penalties for faking SS numbers. (Not to mention the punishment meted out by the Sturmgruppenfuhrers of the SS!) A simple transposition of two digits may not get you zapped, but a large-scale transposition or outright falsification will. If and when they catch up with you. I'm all for avoiding taxes, but this is not a cost-effective way to do it. --Tim 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."

2 1

Re: Fingerprinting annoyance
by SBinkley＠atitech.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

With regards to filling in your own card, what about using a disappearing ink?? Then your prints would disappear! You could even do your name, right infront of them, and it would disappear, leaving these anynonomous prints behind!! Or you could make an inkpad that is damp with sodium hydroxide (lye) instead of ink. That way, you could lightly roll your fingers in it, like it was ink, and then wait a minute, and wipe it off. That way, the only skin being eaten away, would be the ridges of the fingerprints. Do this enought times, and the rigdes will end up the same height as the valleys, and will then essentially be flat. Just a thought, but I'd like to hear if anyone would think either ideas would work. /sb

1 0