December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more
by Computer Virus Help Desk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:34 AM 11/2/96 -0800, you wrote: >At 02:13 AM 11/2/96 -0800, John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> wrote: >>As stated by Dr. Vulis, he is no longer on the cypherpunks mailing >>list, and indeed majordomo(a)toad.com HAS been instructed to ignore his >>requests to resubscribe. >>I removed him, on my own initiative. I got tired of asking him to >>stop stirring up flames. When he posted a message saying that we'd >>have to use technical means to stop him from flaming the list, I said, >>"OK". >[snip] >This all seems really silly to me. >Are people on this list not sophisticated enough to be capable of filtering >his posts if they don't like to read them? > >What's to stop him from using reailers or nymservers? Are you going to >block them, too? > >By doing something like this you give him far more attention and >encouragement than he deserves. It's a big mistake, IMHO. >Rich Well put! I tired a long time ago of Dr. Vulis and several others on this list. Rather than bitch about it or resort to the same big brother gestapo-censor bullshit we profess to abhor I simply utilized the extensive filtering capability of Eudora. I don't need "big brother" or big "cypherpunk" censoring my mail for me. We have become what we fear the most. How prophetic and pathetic. I agree.... a very BIG mistake, indeed....

1 0

Re: Censorship on cypherpunks
by Will French 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> It's only authoritarianism if the government is involved. > Clearly, the government isn't involved in this matter. Until now, I'd considered the list as a model of a libertarian society, with the listowner as the government. My point is that if a mailing list (where physical force is generally not a factor) can't be run without arbitrary sanctions against members, how could anyone ever hope for a whole society, with a real, gun-toting government, to run that way? Will French <wfrench(a)interport.net>

4 4

Re: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:52 PM 11/2/96 -0800, Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl.com> wrote: >On Sat, 2 Nov 1996, Rich Burroughs wrote: > >> Are people on this list not sophisticated enough to be capable >> of filtering his posts if they don't like to read them? > >The short answer is, No. More specifically, we constantly have >a stream of new readers sampling Cypherpunks. Some are >technically sophisticated; some are not. I am guessing that people who come to read cpunks are probably more likely to have a grasp of filtering technologies than the average Net newbie. I may be mistaken. >In either case, new >readers do not have the historical perspective not to fall for >Dimitri's big lies. Is telling the truth a requirement for participating on the list? ;) How about posting a mini-FAQ about Dimitri or something? Responding to speech you dislike with more speech? >Nor do they have any way of know what an >abberation his sort of behavior is on this list. I think you underestimate people's ability to evaluate the situation. You mean well, but this type of paternal, well-meaning censorship is censorship nonetheless. (I know this isn't censorship in the strictest definition of the term, as in government restriction of speech, but I'd like to see us err on the side of keeping the forum as open as possible. YMMV.) >"So this is >what Cypherpunks are like," would be a sad, but understandable >misinterpretation of what we're all about. Judging any Usenet newsgroup or mailing list based on it's kookiest member could produce the same result. I'm relying on people to be able to pick a kook out of a crowd. Would you prefer that the representation that people get of Cypherpunks be of a group that kicks people off the list who disturb them? Are Cypherpunks that thin-skinned? I have never been forced to read one of the KOTM's messages -- it has always been my choice to. After the last Bernstein hearing, Tim and I ended up at the same table for lunch, along with two other people. The four of us began discussing Scientology, and partway through the conversation I realized that the Tim I was talking with was Tim May, and that we had already covered some of the same ground on this list. Tim was very persuasive in his view that the Scientologists should be given the widest latitude to spread their views, and that their right to speak be guaranteed. While I consider myself a free speech advocate, I am not an absolutist, and I loathe the CoS leadership. I was much more equivocal about their rights. As the conversation went on, I found my self more and more drawn in by Tim's arguments, as they were very much in line with my feelings on other speech-related issues. I found his points very persuasive, and they have had a lasting impact on my view of the situation, and my posts to alt.religion.scientology. I find it ironic to see someone kicked off a list for bad-mouthing Tim, who I found to be a very eloquent defender of free speech. > What John did was >appropriate. I still think it's a big mistake. How can you really keep him off the list? Limit posting to subscribers? Ban remailers and nym accounts? Don't you think he'll try to make himself a martyr; a victim? Will that make Cypherpunks look better? Rich

1 0

Very Preliminary release of IPSEC code for Linux (fwd)
by Mark M. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 01:32:11 +0200 From: John Ioannidis <ji(a)hol.gr> To: ipsec(a)TIS.COM Subject: Very Preliminary release of IPSEC code for Linux -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Greetings! The Linux IPSP implementation I have been working on lately is finally at a stage where it can benefit from feedback, and also where other may also benefit from it. This is NOT an untar-and-play release; far from it. It is being made available so that it can reach the UnP stage faster than if only I work on it. The code compiles into a loadable module for the 2.0.xx (I'm running 2.0.24) kernel. Use at your own risk. I won't be held responsible even if it mails the contents of your filesystems to the NSA and the KGB (or whatever), and then proceeds to encrypt them :-) The gzip-ed tar file is in: http://prometheus.hol.gr/~ji/ipsec-0.2.tar.gz If you want to mirror it to your ftp site, please drop me a note. Enjoy! /ji -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.i iQCVAgUBMnk2+c+A0YctPurVAQFSSAQAkt6e6a8TiYNcZ0rcLnxzIjm3uUTyYP3W sUaM9hkMYsDbePdc/O9GoA5Q/HnAg4/BNl+Tla1Os72NCq+uDZX2gDnlUFktnd9b q3S961FIL+ilmV0TepmQGGImjXPpThWMg4FKK7bhaiymcepJ7xs43sJoFEfkQ+uZ iUxTEo2j1Ro= =ztQp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Computer Security Risk Assessment Software?
by Frank Willoughby 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:44 PM 11/1/96 -0800, Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> allegedly wrote: >Frank Willoughby wrote: >> The solutions to the above-mentioned problems are: >> Shop around. Find out which consultants are qualified and what they charge. >> Make sure the consultant caps his cost. You should know the maximum price tag >> associated with the consulting engagement BEFORE the consultant walks in the front >> door. This helps to avoid having the consultant camp on your doorstep at $XXX >> dollars per hour for days, weeks, or months on end. > >The above is a nice ideal. You should of course get a "really good" consultant, >and even better, get one who's "real honest". But my guess is those guys cost the >most of all, or at the very least, require the most research to find. Good point. To help establish the honesty, it wouldn't hurt to get personal and business references. It also wouldn't hurt to check the BBB (Better Business Bureau - a consumer rights group) to see if there are any complaints against the company. Ideally, the consultanting company would also be in the BBB's Care program which means that they will submit to binding arbitration in the event of a disagreement. (BTW, the BBB also investigates all claims to weed out claims made by one competitor against another, etc.). >The ideal of capping the cost is commendable as well, however, when the consultant >finds midway through the project that his initial estimate (made as carefully as he >possibly can) is way too low, he will now have an incentive to lie, cut corners,etc., >*particularly* if the customer looks like one of those antsy types who might withhold >payments and so on. Depends on the consulting company. It is also a good measure which can be used to separate the weasels from the good guys. The weasels will do exactly what you said. The good guys won't. Granted that once in a while, there will be a contract which will have some surprises in it and you - won't make as much money as you were supposed to. IMHO, this is a part of doing business. Usually, you will win, but once in a while you will lose. These things will happen. Learn what went wrong and take steps to make sure it doesn't happen again. Then go back to succeeding. BTW, I think it is the customer's right to withhold payments until the job has been performed to the customer's satisfaction. >My advice: Get a consultant to find a good IT consultant. Seriously. If you have the money to spend, this may be a good idea. Personally, I would tend to separate IT consultants from InfoSec consultants. InfoSec is a highly specialized field & seasoned InfoSec Officers don't exactly grow on trees (as companies who don't have one and are trying desparately to find one will testify). Seasoned InfoSec Officers who are consulting for customers are even rarer, but I would rather have that to have the security of my corporation depend on an IT consultant who has never had any experience working as an Information Security Officer (who has successfully implemented Information Security in a real business environment). There is no substitute for experience, IMHO. Food for thought. Best Regards, Frank Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature. -- Rich Kulawiec <standard disclaimer> The opinions expressed above are of the author and may not necessarily be representative of Fortified Networks Inc. Fortified Networks Inc. - Information Security Consulting http://www.fortified.com Phone: (317) 573-0800 FAX: (317) 573-0817 Home of the Free Internet Firewall Evaluation Checklist

2 1

Compromise proposal
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[this goes to cypherpunks(a)toad.com and freedom-knights(a)jetcafe.org. I am not reading f-k, but I am interested in Dave Hayes's opinion.] Hi, I am not normally considered an ally of Dimitri Vulis, so let this be an attempt at being impartial. Many members of cypherpunks list are right when they oppose the forced unsubscription of Dimitri Vulis from this list. The sorry state of this list is not the result of his flames alone, there is a large number of people who discuss things of no cryptographic relevance. We should remember that besides flames and scandals, Vulis has been posting things that are most relevant to this list's topic. We should also remember that individuals have the right and responsibility to define what content they want to see and what content they do not want to see. I am surprised at libertarians putting forward propositions that are intended to promote welfare of "new subscribers" and try to shield them from "lies". Similarly, individuals are free to create voluntary moderated associations as they see fit. As it was created, this mailing list was not a moderated association. At the same time, unfortunately, flames that Dimitri generated had rendered previously 80% unusable list to be 99% unusable. These flames had zero value for me personally. Since cypherpunks is a private list (although it used to be unmoderated), I can understand the list owner who wants to save his creature from total destruction. I propose the following: 1) The block on Dimitri Vulis's subscriptions should be removed 2) We should not impose any limitations on anyone's speech except 3) 3) Dimitri and everyone else should put prefix "[FLAME]" into all Subject: header fields of their flame-related messages. 4) The sole discretion of determining what is flame and what is not should be exercised by John Gilmore. His definition of "flame" can be as broad as reasonably necessary. 5) John Gilmore should have the right to forsibly unsubscribe, for a period not exceeding two months, anyone who posts flames and does not use the right prefix. 6) Cypherpunks list owner shall have the right to install any filters he considers necessary in order to catch and review any messages before they go to all subscribers, solely in order to verify their compliance with item 3). Messages that do not comply may be rejected and their authors can be unsubscribed, as defined in 5). This solution will allow anyone with a clue to use appropriate filtering and improve the signal-noise ratio, and at the same time will not in any way limit anyone's freedom of speech. I am also eagerly awaiting when Perry creates a moderated cypherpunks list. - Igor.

1 0

Telling quote from Bernstein hearing
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In the recent hearing of the Bernstein case, Anthony Coppolino for the Justice Department said: "We don't care about the theory; we don't care about the idea Mr. Bernstein has, which was to take a particular type of algorithm and use it to allow for an encrypted interactive conversation. That's his idea. We don't care about his idea; we care about the result of what it can do." http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/Legal/ 960920.transcript Encrypted interactive conversations seem to be something to be concerned about...They are afraid of us. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

4 3

Re: Discrete logs 1 [non-cryptography related annecdote]
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:16:26 -0800, Hal Finney wrote: >properties than regular logarithms, but I thought this bit of history >would spark some memories in old-timers and give a new perspective for >younger people. It's kind of funny how quickly they dropped out of usage. I'm probably one of the estimated 7 people under the age of 30 who actually know how to use one. (Long story - it involves a couple months in a math class w/o a decent calculator) I was in an Algebra class taught by 'Father Time' - interesting facial expression when he first noticed my 'calculator' (similar to the one he got when I blurted out the [correct] answer to a problem he'd been explaining while I was reading a book and ignoring him - in retrospect, RAH was more educational). We had to take some sort of state math test and I had just gotten my new programable graphing calculator a week or two before (more lost sleep - with a little creativity and a boring class you can get some interesting code on those thingies) but for some reason I decided to bring both calculator (the allowability of which was highly suspect) and sliderule. The proctor saw me and had a major fit -- over the sliderule! Yeap, in the state of California they don't let algebra students use a sliderule to 'cheat' on the assessment test. They do, however, allow you to use a modern graphing calculator with programs and an equation solver (Did I mention the optional IR link?). The same thing goes on with SATs and especially SAT-IIs. Some higher-end calculators, esp. HPs, have plugin cartridges which automate much of the basic work in chemistry, physics, etc. I never saw anyone who used such things even get asked about it. Do we even need social engineering with people this stupid? # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # <cadams(a)acucobol.com> | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY" "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them." --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)

2 1

Re: FDA_dis
by Murray Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 17:51:56 -0500, Hallam-Baker wrote: >Declan McCullagh wrote: >> >> I'll have to reread John's piece tomorrow (I'm on vacation right now), but >> it doesn't surprise me. He and I have been arguing about this topic via >> email for the last week or so. He takes the traditional liberal view of >> government regulation of drugs is necessary; I take the more libertarian one. >> >> The Cato Institute, BTW, will be putting together a roundtable on this soon. >> >> -Declan > >Characterising this as the "traditional liberal view" is somewhat >misleading, >its not as if Bob Dole or Newt Gingrich would disagree much. The >argument is >more over which special interest group is to be advantaged by changes in >regulation. If I was a citizen of a country where the government was >elected >by a billion dollars of corporate contributions I might be a >libertarian. Are you saying that you are anti-corporation? That would make no sense. Many corporations are very benificial to society. Take Shell for example. It did all that it could to save the life of that guy in Nigeria, but the "libertarians" who instantly boycotted Shell would have you belive that they encouraged the sentence. >Its important to remember that its the World Wide Web and not simply >limited >to the US. As long as US companies set up subsidiaries in Europe they >will be constrained by European law. In the net.age law is becomming a >major >export for many countries. What is becoming a major export? Weak laws? Why would a country encourage criminals to come to it's boarders? >Regulation is not necessarily anti-commerce. UK beef farmers would be >better >off today if there had been more regulation, a weak "free-market" >attitude >to public health has destroyed the entire industry. I don't think you have analysed the situation. It was the regulating that deystroyed the UK cattel industry and put the entire world at risk. The British government protected the beef industry despite a ban on British beef accross Europe. If Eroupe is considered to be the "Free Market" as you suggest, then it would be exactly opposite to what you have suggested. The "Free Market" labled the animals coming from Britian to be of questionable quality. The regualtors in Britian disaggreed because it would cost them a few penny's to slauter the infected heards. Then Britians started getting sick. The rest of the world throws up bans of British beef; Yet the British regulators still do not cleanse the heards. The only way to ensure the desease is gone is to kill every last cow in Britian and bring in fresh stock. THAT MEANS NO GIVING THEM TO INDIA YOU STUPID FUCKS. It is often in a >companies >commercial interest to voluntarily agree to be regulated. Microsoft >recently >signed an agreement to be bound by the European computer privacy >regulations >because by doing so they gained a business advantage - people would >trust >them with their data. This is another interesting point. Why is it better for a company to agree to any regulation? Do you REALLY trust Microsoft? I do not. They write poor code. They probably signed the aggreement because they knew that there product was so bad that it couldn't violate any restrictions or they contracted the work out to the NSA who wrote the code for them and so they know that it can be cracked if they need to track down every last copy of the OS for their marketing group to do a statistical analysis on. > >Much of the advertising regulation being discussed is private, agreement >on >standard formats for image placements for example. There is existing >government >regulation of advertising in many countries however. In particular much >stricter control over advertising of drugs, making misleading statements >in >advertising and so on.In the UK there is regulation of advertising >through >the advertising standards council which is a voluntary body in the sense >that it has no statutory enforcement powers but has practical authority >because the publishers will not publishe ads that fall foul of its >decisions. I belive that this is the GOVERNMENT body called the BBC. We have a similary group up here called the Communist Broadcast Corporation. Actually, I must be fair to them, I do like Air Farce. I don't think your argument holds any water. Different cultures have different social norms. I was quite shocked to see John Clease stark f**king naked on a tea commercial (isn't tea a carrier of caffine? yes. Does caffine change the way in which you body works? yes. Is caffine food? no; therefore caffine is a drug and tea carries that drug.) > >A more serious problem however is likely to be dramatically different >cultural norms. In the US people expect to be lied to in adverts. In >countries >where there is regulation of advertising there is a general expectation >for comparisons to be fair and for ads to be truthful. I'm just waiting >for a major corporation to create an Intel scale PR disaster by applying >sleasly US style marketing techniques in markets where the downside is >very large. One recent example is Hoover which had a $30 odd million >debacle over a "free flights" giveaway that was based on sleasly US >style >marketing techniques. The company ended up having to live up to the >spirit of its offer rather than the letter as it intended simply to >preserve the value of the brand. So? All this proves is that the US is more oreiented toward the free market than other places. In the free market, on's "brand value" is incredibly important. I think you are also missing the distinction between a company and it's marketing. I'm sure Hoover, as in your example, has many marketing camnpaines going on at any time and that every so often an overeager director of the comapany that Hoover hired to do the campain makes a mistake. I'm sure this happens all the time, just take a look at another marketing company: Microsoft. > >If you don't believe in anti trust laws there is no basis on which you >can object to the sort of regulation by cabal that the advertising >standards council represents. Of course such cabals cannot exist in the >libertarian belief system since their existence is denied a-priori >by invoking the spirit of Milton Freedman. Milton Freedmen is of course >a rightwing ecconomist whose theories are widely admired by free >market ecconomists who admire Mitlon Freedman. Does that mean a libertarian is more Free Market oriented or more Command Market oriented? I'm not sure there is any correlation at all. I belive in anti trust laws, does that mean I can object to regualtions? mhayes(a)infomatch.com It's better for us if you don't understand It's better for me if you don't understand -Tragically Hip

3 2

Montgolfiering, the Hot Air Balloon of Cryptography -Reply
by Sean Vince-Jillings 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

nobody quoth >Fie on the small minds that cackle at my brilliance! As a Mensa member >and >founder of the Society for Superintelligent Former NSA Employees, I >chortle >at the baseness of callow criticisms by those doubters and dilletantous >denigrators of virtual one-time pads and PRNGs (perfect random >number >generators). So Mr Smarty Pants, how does it feel to be the second most intelligent life form on the planet? Your polysyllabic phrasing does not fish you from the unfortunate and precarious position of only being in the second most august and lofty eyrie of intellect in the upward spiral of extropian realisation. Ha! As the Shadow president of the Alien Consortium that controls MENSA through the Boy Scout Freemason Recruitment Program, I refute your dubious and somewhat ill-considered claims to being the very paragon of intelligence. >Montgolfiering. What is it, you ask? It is demonstrably a new paradigm in >the evolution of homo sapiens (Parry Messger excepted) toward >Shannon's >dream of a one-time pad needing only a single, easily memorizable >number as >a seed. I have heard only silence when I challenged the so-called >superbrains of this latargial list to try to determine which number I am >using as the seed of my system. If you are such great smarty pants, far >smarter than my colleagues at the NSA and at Mauchly-Wood, why can >you not >then determine this number? I can. >Could it be because I have outsmarted >you? >Could it be because I understand the Sufi secrets of picking random >numbers >truly randomly? I submit this to you: 8 31 26 3 19. Now, oh great >ones, >tell me, what is the next number in this sequence? 11. Prove me wrong. > >Ha, you cannot predict this next number, can you, oh gibbering >greatnesses? Bullshit. I just did >Ths proves that my perfect random number genarator (PRNG, for those >of you >too stupid to remember) PRNG.Its hard to forget such a stupid name. >cannot be broken. Q.E.D. > >I question the issue of Parry Messger's objectivity in assessing the >brilliance of my importations and acidulous assertations. I question >whether Parry may have a peculiarly pecuniary interest in these >affairs? >Does Parry have an insider, or other position, or interest in one or more >of the RSA interest? If, this explains his fantastical faith in the core of >this so-called "RSA" system, which I proved to my colleagues at NSA >could >not possibly be valid. Why, you ask? Because it contains no virtual >seed, >and that which has no seed cannot grow. Q.E.D.--it has been >debunked. No, it only looks debunked because your mind has been unhinged. > >Entropy, you quibble? Ha! What is entropy but thermodynamics? And >what is >the topic of thermodynamics, you small-minded ensemble (Gibbs) >people who >never worked for the NSA may ask? Thermodynamics is about hot air. >Hot air >is in balloons. Balloons were pioneered by the Montgolfiers. Thus we >come >full circle (can you understand this, you mental midgets?). Q.E.D.--it >has >been demystified. No. It has been filled with hot air in the hope that the argument will float. > >Montgolfiering = a new virtual one time pad based on hot air. Eureka! I >have found it. > >P Information = P * log_base_infinity P Log_base_infinity? You can't quantify this? The name for this kind of tricky sum is in fact, rhetoric. >I laugh at your sanctimonious snivelings, your bombastic bombardings, >and >your fatuous flatulations. I laugh about your need to be so prissy about a simple fart. >(Montgolfiering. Q.E.D.--"it has been deflated") heh. yeah right. GAIAWired

1 0

[NOISE]Re: Dr. Vulis; John was right!
by Derek Bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I'm not happy with the barring of Vulis from the list: sure he was a kook and he posted many ad-hominem messages*, but I feel a mini-FAQ would deal with the matter better. Explain the background to his tantrums** and explain how to filter out messages with various mail packages. * I think Vulis was really unfair to Tim May, even though I find myself disagreeing strongly with what Tim has to say on some matters. At least Tim has posted interesting, thought-provoking, crypto-related material. ** Ok, so `tantrums' is an understatement... Derek Bell PGP key available at: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/key.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAgUBMnywVFXdSMogwMcZAQEi2QQAhMWJWTz1RtBvyiYHAyzfkSSxZ+8U8rq7 xF3JD4s78rMcDcfzY0Q/5XRnPTCH/M6YI54cA/EpAEYys0Ws0VWgJoMxdBcbhitI 1zbFdUQJqzrKLlvP/n6KN2jImQeHqYUeSgsnoNgfn4Uo9KpBtxbUjKwEmco9VV8y fxoVHAYPTsg= =yk8t -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Response to PFF's O'Donnell on the CDA and moralists
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 07:58:58 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Response to PFF's O'Donnell on the CDA and moralists Richard O'Donnell from the Progress and Freedom Foundation writes in an essay attached below: > The strategic error of civil libertarians in the fight over the >censorship act was to lump together the statist moralists and the >anti-statist moralists. The latter are natural allies of the free >speechers (for the same reason the Christian Coalition and >Libertarians call the Republican party home). The ACLU crowd was >unable to create a free speech alliance with Christians because they >failed to acknowledge that attempts to limit the availability of >pornography is very American. O'Donnell makes some good points elsewhere, but the above fails to convince me. Trying to impose your moral code on others through the power of law has a long history in America: Prohibition and sodomy laws. We also have a long history of discrimination against gays, blacks, and jews. But that doesn't make it right, or justified. Gutting the First Amendment though state action, which the religious right did in passing the CDA, is indeed "unAmerican." It goes against the very principles of free expression and tolerance for political dissent upon which this country was founded. There is a difference between arguing that people should decline to purchase erotica or read "indecent" materials -- and calling for criminal laws to ban it. I agree with O'Donnell that advocates of freedom need to work with advocates of a reduced central government. One protection against future threats like the CDA is to make the Federal government less subsceptible to special interest lobbying. And certainly, House Republicans have emerged this year as the staunchest defenders of civil liberties. But I disagree with his assertion that "a small group of statist moralists" supported the CDA. My question is: what major theocratic right group publicly opposed it? Even PFF senior fellow Arianna Huffington debated Esther Dyson and John Perry Barlow and defended the CDA. The Christian Coalition certainly supported the act. Enough is Enough! supported the CDA, with its leader Dee Jepsen testifing in favor of Net-censorship. (Jepsen is on the board of regents of Pat Robertson's Regents University and has impeccable religious right credentials.) Bruce Taylor's group did -- and though Taylor isn't exactly a religious moralist, he rarely crosses swords with them. The ACLJ -- the religious right's response to the ACLU -- supported the CDA and even cited Rimm's study this year as support for its constitutionality. The organizations in the umbrella group National Coalition Against Pornography supported the CDA. The Family Research Council and Focus on the Family continue to argue in favor of the CDA. Longtime Christian Coalition ally Sen. Charles Grassley introduced a bill worse than the CDA. We all know what Rep. Henry Hyde did with the final legislation. Now, this is from memory. Perhaps some groups have changed their position after the June ruling. But I'd be interested in hearing the answer to my question above. -Declan ---------- Freedom to Pray and Sin The Internet is driving the ACLU and Christian Coalition Together Richard F. O'Donnell Prohibition became law because bootleggers, who stood to gain economically from outlawing alcohol, quietly supported the "religious" crusade against evil liquor. Today, the forces of state control who want the government to regulate Cyberspace quietly support the moral crusade against pornography on the Internet. This modern day "Bootleggers and Baptists" coalition has driven a stake through the traditional civil libertarian constituency and left the ACLU crowd completely bewildered. The Communications Decency Act, passed by Congress earlier this year and now being challenged in court, criminalizes the transmission and posting of indecent material on line. In the year of the Republican Congressional Revolution a Democrat (James Exon of Nebraska) was the prime sponsor of the censorship act. Opponents were never able to label it purely a move by "Newt Gingrich's radical freshmen" because so many Democrats supported it (and Gingrich did not). For instance, a recent WIRED magazine article entitled "The Rogues Gallery" that profiled "the legislators who helped make government censorship a reality on the Internet" didn't profile even one Republican. Liberal legislators and President Clinton, who normally have few problems with the ACLU and abhor the "radical Christian right," went right along with them in attempt to increase state control. How is it legislators who voted against efforts to ban flag burning on the grounds of free speech suddenly voted to ban dirty pictures? Simply put, the Democrats saw in the censorship act a way to assert government regulation of the Internet, the first step in letting Washington bureaucrats regulate Cyberspace in the "public interest." These liberal paternalists intuitively favor state control in the mode of Senator Bob Kerry, who thinks that, because the FCC regulates telephone and television transmission, it is a natural extension of its powers to regulate the Internet. These are members of an elite who believe that government is in a better position than parents to determine the programming content of television networks or in a better position than the market and to determine the standards for emerging technology. Defenders of free speech lost their battle over the censorship act because, when their traditional Democratic allies abandoned them, they were unable to get over their distaste for moralism and recognize their new natural allies. The key to victory for civil libertarians is understanding that moralists (e.g. "the Christian right") are not a unified, monolithic front. There is a small group of statist moralists who are seeking government power in order to impose their views on the rest of America. They may pose a threat to free speech. Yet most "Christian activists" are not interested in imposing anything on others. Instead, they are actively opposing a government that is abridging their rights to freedom of faith. Statist moralists advocate not just a silent moment in school but a school led prayer. Anti-statist moralists just want schools to stop distributing condoms because it undermines the lessons they are trying to teach their children about abstinence until marriage. The strategic error of civil libertarians in the fight over the censorship act was to lump together the statist moralists and the anti-statist moralists. The latter are natural allies of the free speechers (for the same reason the Christian Coalition and Libertarians call the Republican party home). The ACLU crowd was unable to create a free speech alliance with Christians because they failed to acknowledge that attempts to limit the availability of pornography is very American. The legacy of the Puritans remains strong in our nation. Throughout our history Americans have been ready to demand conformity and to impose through law moral standards (recall abolition - for which America went to war). Foes of the Internet censorship lost their battle by labeling their opponents "unAmerican." Steve Guest, a network consultant who is party to a class action suit against attempts to shut down on-line adult sites, summed up the civil libertarian attitude when he said such actions were "violating the basic principles on which this country was founded." Calling attempts to regulate pornography "unAmerican" does not sway many people - especially Congressmen. Moral crusades against sinful material are as quintessentially American as individual liberty. Civil libertarians need to acknowledge the natural place of moralism in American life. Otherwise, they blind themselves from recognizing their true enemy. Freedom isn't threatened by moralism - we are free precisely because we are moral beings. Freedom is threatened by the advocates of state control. Civil libertarians need to reach out to anti-statist moralists and show them that it is no better to let the government in our computers than our churches. The way to fight pornography is on individual computer screens, with technology that empowers parents to determine what their children see - not what some invisible bureaucrat or court decides is appropriate. ----------- Richard F. O'Donnell Richard F. O'Donnell is Director of Communications at The Progress & Freedom Foundation. He serves as editor of all Foundation policy reports, books and articles. In addition, he is responsible for media relations and public outreach. His editorials have appeared in Investor's Business Daily, The Washington Times and Commonsense. Mr. O'Donnell is currently assisting former Congressman Vin Weber on his book about the new political majority emerging in American politics. He has also worked with columnist Arianna Huffington, author Marvin Olasky, and numerous policy and Congressional leaders in the telecommunications, health care, energy, environment and welfare reform fields. Mr. O'Donnell is a recognized authority on the nature and political ramifications of the transition from the Industrial Age to the Digital Age. Writing and speaking on the survivability of the American Idea in the 21st Century, he is a columnist for the cyberspace magazine Upside Online. He was managing producer of a weekly television show, The Progress Report , co-hosted by Heather Higgins and House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and editor of the American Civilization. Mr. O'Donnell has also worked at the National Policy Forum: A republican Center of the Exchange of Ideas and at the Archer Daniels Midland Company. A native of Colorado, Mr. O'Donnell is a graduate of the Colorado College, and has studied at Boston College and The London School of Economics and Political Science. ###

1 0

Re: Thank you, John Gilmore, for protecting freedom of speech against Dr. Dmitri Vulius [RANT]
by Gary Howland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> But there's probably a logical reason for taking this "action", although it can > apparently be easily circumvented, even though many of us don't understand what > that logic could be. Yes. If only you knew what they knew ... :-) The mail filter is dead! Long live censorship, double standards and hypocrisy! Gary

2 1

Re: Telling quote from Bernstein hearing
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:39 PM 11/3/96 -0800, Declan wrote: >Tony Coppolino was also the Justice Department's lead attorney in the CDA >case in Philadelphia. The Feds are grooming lawyers who have a clue about >the Net. Actually, Coppolino mentioned the CDA in the Bernstaein hearing. I haven't gone through the transcript, but the gist of his point was that, while the Judges in Philly had found that the CDA was prior restraint, ITAR was not (or something similar). I did not find his arguments very persuasive -- he seemed stuck on the idea that crypto is not speech, when that had already been ruled against by Judge Patel. He may have been trying to make the record clear, for possible appeal. Rich

1 0

Re: [NOISE]Re: Dr. Vulis
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 3 Nov 96 at 14:46, Derek Bell wrote: > I'm not happy with the barring of Vulis from the list Just want to add my 2 cents. I am also unhappy with the fact that he was removed. My personal correspondence with Vulis has been friendly and he has been very helpful. Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

3 2

Re: 'what cypherpunks is about' [RANT]
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:26 PM 11/2/96 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >Following similar logic was Teddy Roosevelt, then the mad fire-bombers of World War 2, >capped by the ultimate terrorist fire-bombing of all at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then >by immense fire-bombing of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, etc., followed by prodigious fire- >bombing of Iraq and a deliberate fire-bombing and massacre of retreating troops at the >end of the "Gulf War". Fighting the U.S. can be literal Hell! Terror bombing of civilians was a European not an American invention, though. >Quick, how many times have you heard this pro-interference argument? The pro- people >will even show "proof" that the "savages" (it actually says this in the United States >Declaration of Independence) were as mean to each other as the invaders were to them. >What they fail to say, however, is that the "meanness" in such things as human sacrifice >and so forth were imported to native cultures by "god-like" superiors who descended on >the locals to "help" them to the next level of technology and hero-worship. Fooey! The death rate among civilians in many pre civilized wars was as high as civilian death rates in many of our 20th Century wars. We have the piles of bones to prove it. In addition to peonage, serfdom, chattel slavery and the treatment of women as chattels, pre civilized people were considerably more xenophobic than the worst US redneck. Many had problems accepting the denizens of the next village a few miles away. They tended to be racists as well. And did I forget to mention infanticide and royalism. DCF

1 0

Re: Telling quote from Bernstein hearing
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:31 AM 11/3/96 -0800, Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> wrote: >Lucky Green wrote: >> In the recent hearing of the Bernstein case, Anthony Coppolino for the >> Justice Department said: >> "We don't care about the theory; we don't care about >> the idea Mr. Bernstein has, which was to take a particular type >> of algorithm and use it to allow for an encrypted interactive >> conversation. That's his idea. >> We don't care about his idea; we care about the >> result of what it can do." > >[snip] > >Could I suggest a translation? "We're going to trust Professional Government Consultant >Organization XYZ to tell us about Mr. Bernstein's idea, since we obviously won't >understand Mr. Bernstein's own explanation." (And we do care about his idea, but we >can't admit that, because it would make us look stupid) Heh :) I think that Lucky hit on a choice quote from Coppolino -- it was really at the heart of his arguments. Since Judge Patell ruled that source code is speech, the ground has really shifted from just limiting crypto to limiting Bernstein's freedom of speech, and this is much to the government's disadvantage. Coppolino tried to avoid the issue by claiming that the government is not interested in restraining Bernstein's ideas (claiming several times that the government does not interfere with academic discussion of crypto), but that they want to impede the specific functionality of Snuffle. Bernstein's attorney, Cindy Cohn, aptly replied that the ideas behind the crypto _dictate_ the functionality, and that you can't restrain one without affecting the other (or words to that effect). I don't think that Coppolino meant that they do not understand Bernstein's ideas :) (though perhaps he does not...) Rich ______________________________________________________________________ Rich Burroughs richieb(a)teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon U.S. State Censorship Page at - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/state New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause

1 0

more interesting ITAR/CJ stuff @ eff.org
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In addition to the transcript of the 9/20 hearing that Lucky mentioned, there's other good (new) stuff in EFF's archive, including a declaration from an editor with MIT Press where he indicates he was told informally that the NSA had asserted that the paper copy of the PGP Source Code book was subject to the ITARs. (There was no official response made, two printings were sold out, and the book has gone out of print.) <http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/Legal/>, "961004_prior.declaration" -- Greg Broiles | "We pretend to be their friends, gbroiles(a)netbox.com | but they fuck with our heads." http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | |

1 0

Re: NSA Report: Anyone seen this?
by Norman Hardy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just finished reading the report "How to Make a Mint: The Cryptography of Anonymous Electronic Cash" by Law, Sabett & Solinas. It can be found at <http://jya.com/nsamint.htm>. It is very well written with only identification of the issues except in the last short paragraph where they clearly lean toward government interests. They identify and distinguish interests of the bank, the consumer's privacy, and the government. Some of the measures that they describe (providing for traceability) might well be done by a bank operating in an anarchy. Imagine that you are running a bank in an anarchy and the son of one of your good customers is kidnapped and held for ransom. Suppose that the kidnapper is a good customer of another bank with whom you have an arm's length relation. The arguments are not simple. Only towards the end does the paper begin to conflate the interests of the government and the bank. Some of the law enforcement purposes that they describe would apply to the anarchy bank, others would not. The paper is the best description I have seen of several advanced money schemes. It has a better description of Chaum's off-line scheme than I had seen before. It describes sever even more advanced schemes, both abstracted form the mathematical details, and then with the details filled in.

1 0

FW: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Those of you who think that it was wrong, unwarranted censorship for John Gilmore to take Dr. Vulis off the list should note this sentence from John's message: When he posted a message saying that we'd have to use technical means to stop him from flaming the list, I said, "OK". It was Vulis who challenged John to stop him by technical means. It was at John's discretion to do so, and he took the liberty of following up on Vulis' challenge. Vulis did everything to set himself up for what he got, did he not. .. Blanc

1 0

Censorship on cypherpunks
by Will French 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Except it's not very effective, is it, since he's still posting flames? In any case, it's an admission on John Gilmore's part that libertarianism can't work without some measure of authoritarianism; the only argument is over _just how much_ authoritarianism we need. I'm quite upset about this. Up to now I was able to tell people that "there is at least one mailing list on the net that functions in a completely open manner". No more. Will French <wfrench(a)interport.net>

12 16

RESPONSE FROM CYBERPROMO
by abusebot＠savetrees.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Version 10-9-96: Cyber Promotions has started to implement stricter Terms of Service policies WITH TEETH. We have just recently terminated several accounts for abuse of our policies. (Updated TOS at end of message). The following email accounts have been *recently TERMINATED... *jrtkjs(a)savetrees.com 10-9-96: Forgery and spamming INTERNET *jrtkjs(a)answerme.com "" "" "" "" "" "" *dollars(a)savetrees.com Non-existant account. The account was forged by the people who opened the accounts above. *info1(a)cyberpromo.com 10-8-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses *changes(a)answerme.com 9-30-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses *changes(a)cyberpromo.com 9-30-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses *changes(a)savetrees.com 9-30-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses *catalog(a)savetrees.com 9-30-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses *catalog(a)cyberpromo.com 9-30-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses *catalog(a)answerme.com 9-30-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses *eleven(a)answerme.com 9-28-96: Forgeries *eleven(a)savetrees.com 9-28-96: Forgeries *eleven(a)answerme.com 9-28-96: Forgeries *tsahk(a)cyberpromo.com 9-27-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses *tsahk(a)answerme.com 9-27-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses *icssender(a)omni.cyberpromo.com 9-19-96: FORGED unsolicited email, making it appear that Cyberpromo's auto-sender was responsible. If you are in receipt of the message, please look through the headers and complain to the appropriate postmasters. networkes(a)answerme.com 9-17-96: Ignored remove requests networkes(a)cyberpromo.com 9-17-96: Ignored remove requests networkes(a)savetrees.com 9-17-96: Ignored remove requests reminders(a)answerme.com 9-17-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses reminders(a)savetrees.com 9-17-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses reminders(a)cyberpromo.com 9-17-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses salespromo(a)answerme.com 9-16-96: Unsolicited ads to INTERNET addresses salespromo(a)savetrees.com "" "" "" "" salespromo(a)cyberpromo.com "" "" "" "" promo(a)answerme.com "" "" "" "" promo(a)savetrees.com "" "" "" "" promo(a)cyberpromo.com "" "" "" "" info4free(a)answerme.com "" "" "" "" info4free(a)savetrees.com "" "" "" "" info4free(a)cyberpromo.com "" "" "" "" manda(a)cyberpromo.com 8-28: Massive abuse to INTERNET addresses / FORGERY manda(a)answerme.com 8-28: Massive abuse to INTERNET addresses / FORGERY website(a)cyberpromo.com 8-27: excessive abuse to AOL / removals ignored sevenmil(a)cyberpromo.com 8-27: excessive abuse / all removals ignored sevenmil(a)answerme.com 8-27: "" "" "" "" "" "" vera(a)cyberpromo.com vera(a)answerme.com zol(a)answerme.com website(a)answerme.com allied(a)cyberpromo.com allied(a)answerme.com lists(a)cyberpromo.com lists(a)answerme.com If you have a complaint about an account that was not listed above, please forward it to our President's personal account: wallace(a)cyberpromo.com We currently operate the following servers: answerme.com cyberpromo.com omni.cyberpromo.com gamut.cyberpromo.com We DO NOT operate the following servers: uunet interramp athens.servint cais postman.com powernet pwrsite Cyber Promotions is *not* in business to annoy people. We are in the business of sending (and assisting in sending) commercial (and noncommercial) email to people who are *not* offended by the receipt of these messages. Unfortunately, due to many experiences (many of which were out of our control) we have had some problems accomplishing our goals without upsetting some people. We are truly sorry about that fact, and we plan to "clean up the streets" as best as we can. Some people have been under the impression that all email that appears to come from cyberpromo.com, is from Cyber Promotions. That is not true. Most of the complaints that we have recently received have been in reaction to people who have "autoresponders" and "virtual email addresses" on our system. In that case, their mail would have referenced an account on our system, but originated from a different site. Unfortunately, software like Pegasus enables their mail to appear as if it came from us, driectly. But, their true origination is still evident in the headers. You can determine where it originated if you know how to decode headers. But when doing so, remember that Pegasus, for example, actually logs into *our* sendmail. At this time, the only messages that originate from Cyber Promotions, use our proprietary Cyber Sender 2.1+ protocol which will always be indicated in the organization: header. Due to these "look alikes," it could appear that recipients' remove request were being ignored. WE DO NOT IGNORE REMOVE REQUESTS. We now also maintain a "master" remove list of people who have asked to be removed from all commercial mailing lists. If you have received an email from "Cyber Sender 2.1+", our new proprietary transport agent protocol, then the remove features *do* work properly, now that all of the bugs have been fixed (uppercase and lowercase now match, too). No mail is allowed out of our system, if the recipient's address is in our master remove list. We currently have over 1.1 million email addresses in that file. If you wish to add your address to that master remove list, you can do so in two different ways. 1. You can send an email to remove(a)cyberpromo.com and type "REMOVE ALL" in the subject or message field. Our systems will automatically permanently remove from our system the email address from which you sent your request. 2. You may also send an email to manremove(a)cyberpromo.com and type as many email addresses as you wish in the body of the message, each on its own line, without any comments. The subject line is ignored. That address will also permanently remove the addresses. Please note: we have no control over mail that originates from other sites, that travel through our SMTP (relay-host) servers. We will simply terminate any accounts that we maintain, that is referred to in their abusive mail. ATTENTION PRODIGY MEMBERS: It has come to Cyber Promotions' attention, that some of you are having a major problem removing yourselves from our lists. This can be attributed to the "alias" that your outgoing mail may contain. If you are having problems, please send an email to manremove(a)cyberpromo.com and type both of your email addresses in the body of the message, each on its own line, without any comments. The subject line is ignored. You probably have one address like xazd35r(a)prodigy.com and another address like sanford(a)prodigy.com. ATTENTION PIPELINE MEMBERS: It has come to Cyber Promotions' attention, that some of you are having a major problem removing yourselves from our lists. This can be attributed to the "alias" that your outgoing mail may contain. If you are having problems, please send an email to manremove(a)cyberpromo.com and type your email addresses in the body of the message, each on its own line, without any comments. The subject line is ignored. You should type your email id followed by the following THREE domains. @usa.pipeline.com, @pipeline.com, @nyc.pipeline.com. Even if you feel that your address is definately only one of the three possibilities, you should still remove all three addresses (each on its own line). ATTENTION INTERNET USERS: It has come to Cyber Promotions' attention, that some of you are having a major problem removing yourselves from our lists. This can be attributed to the "alias" that your outgoing mail may contain. If you are having problems, please send an email to manremove(a)cyberpromo.com and type your email addresses in the body of the message, each on its own line, without any comments. The subject line is ignored. If your email address could contain an alias like mail.domain.com or if you may have more that one email address that points to another email address, you should remove them all. If you wish to remove *every* email address in your domain, please contact us, and we will "grep" out every possibility. REVISED TERMS OF SERVICE: (We are also looking into the possibility that we may be forced to adopt the policies of our backbone providers. For the time being, we are emulating their policies as best as we can while matching the needs of our operations.) 1. We do not allow postings to inappropriate newsgroups with reference to your account because such postings result in *MUCH* more negative response than positive. 2. We prohibit the advertising of offensive material (ie. pornography, weapons, etc). 3. You may not use the account to participate in illegal activities. 4. Our TOS strictly prohibits the sending of mass commercial emails to INTERNET addresses, unless expressed permission has been granted to you by the recipient. In addition, you *must* honor all requests for removal from your mailing list in a diligent manner. Our service can be used in conjunction with advertisements that you place with a bulk email company other than your own or us, as long as they follow the same guidelines. 5. Cyber Promotions reserves the right to terminate any account for any reason at any time, without notice. If you would like to send a complaint about any account @cyberpromo.com or @answerme.com or @omni.cyberpromo.com that has not been terminated, please send email to: wallace(a)cyberpromo.com

1 0

ASIO encryption ?
by Benjamin Grosman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear All, Does anyone happen to know what encryption methods, algorithms, or procedures ASIO (Australian Secret Intelligence Organisation) uses? Any information regarding ASIO's methods, cryptographic or otherwise, would be appreciated. Yours Sincerely, Benjamin Grosman

2 1

VOO_doo
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

October 25 Science reports on the latest teleportation research in "To Send Data, Physicists Resort to Quantum Voodoo." It describes a laser-driven apparatus for transmitting highly secure encoded (but not encrypted) messages via entangled photon states. IBM's Charles Bennett says, "as other researchers work to harness quantum mechanics for computation and cryptography, teleportation could become the equivalent of a quantum mail service." ----- http://jya.com/voodoo.htm VOO_doo (txt) Science is at: http://www.sciencemag.org/

1 0

URG_ent
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

11-02-96. "Transaction Records Urged for Smart Cards" Electronic money systems must generate transaction records to help law enforcement agencies track money launderers, a senior Justice Department official said last week. "In a paper environment ... we can get bank records, we can get credit card records. Our goal is only to preserve this ability." "Internet insecurity " Jeff Schiller: The Web has a lot of potential vulnerabilities. There's plenty I know about that I don't want to talk about. People who know about the vulnerabilities are reluctant to talk about them because if we disclose what we know to the public, the bad guys will take advantage. And if we address them with the vendor community, they don't do anything about them. There's a lot of hooey out there. Never trust the advice of someone selling you a product, especially if the sales pitch is, "My product makes your problem go away." "RSA offers kit for secure credit-card transactions" RSA Data Security, Inc. will announce today a tool kit for developing secure applications that support credit-card transactions on the Internet called S/Pay in support of SET. "Medcom introduces a "Super Cafe" data encryption product" Medcom's latest data encryption product, the Secure Socket Relay (SSR), features strong encryption with full key length (56-bits DES). A demo version can be downloaded at http://www.medcom.se/. "On Technology's Security White Paper" "Taking The Threat Out Of Network Security," will stimulate the industry into discussing some of the issues of security that face the Internet industry and its users. Copies of the paper are available on request from On Technology. The company's Web site is at http://www.ontech.co.uk . ----- http://jya.com/urgent.txt (21 kb) URG_ent ---------- In another story on gov-spooked insecurity: NEC announced that it successfully demonstrated country-to- country virtual private networking (VPN). During the tests, privacy and security was maintained between the two sites by deploying DES and triple-DES encryption. Since DES encryption technology cannot be exported from the United States, a Japanese version of DES, developed outside the U.S., was used.

1 0