December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

exporting stego
by Syntel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just a quickie, Does the present ITAR / DoC regulations cover the export of Steganography programs? thanks Steveo

2 1

Re: PGP Key Preview...
by falk＠Eng.Sun.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> is there a way to preview the contents of a received public key, > without adding it automatically to the public key ring? Trivial. Just have pgp look at the file without giving it any commands. I.e. instead of pgp -ka <filename> do pgp <filename> Pgp will examine the file, tell you it contains keys, show them to you and then ask if you want to add them to your keyring. This is the way I normally add keys, just because I like to look at *any* file before I add it to any system.

1 0

Re: Last nail for US crypto export policy?
by falk＠Eng.Sun.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I just ran out of asswipe. > Does anyone have any RSA Data Security, Inc. stock they'd like to > sell? Now, now. I don't think RSADSI had any illusions of 40-bit keys being secure; they just wanted to find out just *how* insecure they were. I suspect that this crack will *benefit* RSADSI, and the rest of the crypto community, by helping to convince the feds to ease up.

2 1

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:46 AM 1/29/1997, Declan McCullagh wrote: > * Many 1st Amendment experts don't believe in the legal concept of > libel. It is, they say, a rich man's game -- if I'm libeled by the > NYT, I'm probably not going t be able to sue them, but Donald Trump > can. Moreover, if I don't have the resources to sue but the > statement is libelous, it creates a *presumption* in the minds of > the readers that the article is certainly true. (If it were not, I > would have sued, right?) The wealthy also use libel suits to suppress dissent. Greg's point that poor people aren't worth suing is only true if the motivation is financial. Often it is not. Conveniently, many of those whose silence is desired are among the petty bourgeouis and have a net worth of roughly $50,000. Enough to make the suit appear legitimate, but not enough to allow the target to brush off the legal fees, if they win the case. Consider also the artificial distinction between private and public figures. It is easier for a private figure to sue for libel. Yet, the most influential people in the country are private figures. Reporters must tread very carefully when covering the activities of these people. Thus, we hear little of them. It would be interesting to know when libel law was first introduced to the United States. Does anybody know? John Peter Zenger

2 1

Physician, Heal Thyself!
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If I say I doubt this message will make into the "Approved By Sandy" list, it perhaps will, but my very mention of this may mean Fearless Leader will then chuck it into his Reject pile, but then.... Our Founder wrote: #Silly things happen when one responds literally to an obvious #metaphor. (see, "analogy.") See "sarcasm." Once again, Sandy flames, but calls it erudition. He uses sophistry to explain why *his* flames are actually just "corrections". #Nonsense. Richard may have read my response on the Unedited list #and Paul post on the Moderated list, but I sent my response to #Nope, wrong again. I referenced sophistry and hypocracy. I #leave the significance of the difference as an exercise to the #student. (Hint: one is an argument to the man, the other isn't.) More pointless sarcasm. This is the stuff Sandy would presumably dump into his "not fit for True Cypherpunks" pile, except that he wrote it, and so it is by definition approved. Utter hypocrisy. #And wrong yet again. Not a personal attack but commentary on #wooly thinking. Remember children, "If it comes from Sandy and appears to be a flame, it really isn't. It is just a comment on "woolly thinking."" #> One might wonder just what the rules of proper decorum are. #One might read my posts on this point and pay attention. And I urge our Enlightened Leader to take his own medicine. Stop flaming the list and calling it mere commentary. Xanthar -- --

3 2

Re: FBI=LIE
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/washpol/fbi-lab.html: > The World Trade Center bomb was made of urea-nitrate, a compound > that can be confused with non-explosive mixtures of the same > ingredients. In an informal internal check of lab procedures, some > senior FBI lab workers mixed human urine with fertilizer and added > samples of that non-explosive mixture to the flow of material being > tested by the chemistry unit. A manager in the chemistry lab > identified the urine-fertilizer mixture as an explosive. Just coincidentally, these errors imprison the innocent instead of freeing the guilty. > Still, Joseph E. DiGenova, a former U.S. attorney in Washington, > said the issues raised in the report would allow defendants to > contest lab findings against them and would permit people convicted > of crimes to attempt to reopen their cases, based on the possibility > of flawed forensic evidence. > "It's going to be a royal pain in the neck for federal judges and > prosecutors and a godsend for defense attorneys looking for a means > of getting their clients off," he said Why not "proving their innocence"? A prosecutor - and one who does not respect our legal tradition of presumed innocence - is not a good choice for a quote here. Nowhere in the entire article is there evidence that the reporters talked to anyone outside the FBI/Justice Department milieu. > Scientists at the lab said they were often stifled in a lab run by > non-technical field agents who had little knowledge of science and > who regularly altered reports to help prosecutors. But law > enforcement officials said there was little evidence that anyone had > been wrongly convicted based on improper lab work. Why isn't this the story? FBI agents regularly committed perjury, and we see a story about lab errors. Elliot Ness

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:40 PM 1/27/97 -0500, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: > > >jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> wrote in article <5ch9f2$cuu(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > >> Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to >> prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see >> any recognition of this fact. > >Thats because its a whacko solution that has no credibility >or consistency. > >If anyone tried to set up such a market and a price went out >on any of the heads of state fantasized about Mr Bell would be >dead as a doornail in a week. > So you're saying that the system would work. Mr. bell would be targeted, a price on his head, for starting that very system. Mr. Bell would be a martyr, his system being proven by his own death. It would be some varient of his idea that would be used to kill him, a bounty. I think that the system would work, I also think that it would be easiest to use by those already in possession of the money. It would take care of part of our overpopulation problem though...

1 0

FBI=LIE
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/washpol/fbi-lab.html Login cypherpunks, password cypherpunks. WASHINGTON -- For decades the FBI's reputation as a crime-fighting agency has rested heavily on its high-tech forensic laboratory, which could solve baffling crimes from a speck of blood, a sliver of paint or the thinnest filament of human hair. But an investigation by the Justice Department's inspector general has put the FBI laboratory, and the way the agency has used it, under the glare of public scrutiny. The findings, which were turned over to FBI officials last week, are threatening to shatter the image of an agency on the cutting edge of scientific sleuthing. [...] -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

2 1

Cats Out of Bags
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "In an interview Tuesday, [David L.] Aaron [the Feds' Crypto Ambassador] disputed the industry's view that the U.S. efforts to control cryptographic technology are being outstripped by the pace of the technology. "When I talk to other governments," he said, "they still don't feel that the cat is out of the bag." What the fuck do *they* know? DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMu+CdoVO4r4sgSPhAQHMqgQAhLoHArHx76zdXu8yM7WrThPi0pn8U5wG IQQItZFQAK84MnnbKDEDsW4SW5e9pM7JaFWbFqUg4VooAnKRd/2oITSijEW57jsR SQrhdqztR5fX82Wi9kBNsx92+McywzaeJBI6t+oTEYqqUlhQhzCoJiUpjMu9Q9FR 2gg8Mc01l4E= =MgUH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

5 6

FBI Suspends Lab Whistleblower
by Robalini＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks to Paul Watson for forwarding this to me. >From eplurib(a)megalinx.net Mon Jan 27 20:16:54 1997 01/27/1997 20:06 EST FBI Suspends Lab Whistleblower By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- The FBI has suspended a scientist-agent whose charges led to a still-secret Justice Department report critical of some FBI crime lab workers. A Republican senator said Monday the suspension ``appears to be a reprisal.'' The FBI also took action regarding other employees criticized in the secret report, said officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. Three or four employees were transferred out of the FBI lab but not suspended, these officials said. The agent, Frederic Whitehurst, once an FBI crime lab supervisor, was put on administrative leave with pay Friday afternoon and barred from entering any FBI building, even as a guest, according to a letter from Acting Lab Director Donald W. Thompson Jr. The FBI took Whitehurst's badge and gun, said Whitehurst's lawyer, Stephen Kohn. The action came just days after FBI Director Louis J. Freeh received a report from the Justice Department's inspector general that officials said criticizes the work of some FBI lab employees and a report from a special investigative counsel who looked into an alleged press leak by Whitehurst. Thompson's letter said only that Whitehurst was suspended ``pending our review of information in the possession of the Department of Justice'' and added that the move ``does not indicate that you have engaged in any inappropriate conduct.'' FBI spokesman Bill Carter said the bureau would have a statement on the matter later. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of a Judiciary subcommittee on administrative oversight, wrote Freeh on Monday to demand that FBI officials appear Tuesday in his office to justify the action against Whitehurst. ``Recently, a Department of Justice official knowledgeable about the IG's investigation told me privately that Dr. Whitehurst had done a service for his country in bringing forth his information,'' Grassley wrote. ``The action taken by the FBI implies that he is being punished for `committing truth.' It appears to be a reprisal for his disclosures,'' Grassley wrote. Kohn said that after Whitehurst's allegation about lab misconduct became known ``he became a lighting rod for other employees to funnel information to the inspector general.'' Kohn said FBI officials became ``very, very angry'' when they received the inspector general's report and learned that ``Whitehurst funneled information directly from other FBI employees to the inspector general and the investigation mushroomed beyond what they had expected.'' Kohn said that was why Whitehurst, once rated by the FBI as its top expert on bomb residues, was barred from entering FBI buildings and from getting information from other employees. The still-secret inspector general's report is being reviewed by FBI officials to determine whether any lab employees will be disciplined. The inspector general hired a panel of outside scientists to evaluate the work of the lab after Whitehurst alleged in late 1995 that a pro- prosecution bias and mishandling of evidence may have tainted crime lab work or testimony on several high-profile federal cases. These include the World Trade Center bombing, the mail-bomb killing of a federal judge and a civil rights lawyer, and the Oklahoma City federal building bombing. Prosecutors have decided not to use at least one lab employee as a witness in the Oklahoma City bombing case and in a bank robbery case in Ohio, sources said Monday, apparently to prevent defense attorneys from using the inspector general report to undermine any testimony by the employee. Stephen Jones, counsel for Timothy McVeigh, who is charged in the Oklahoma City case, has deposed Whitehurst and indicated he may be called as a defense witness. Nearly a year ago, Whitehurst was called to an interview by Special Investigative Counsel Joseph C. Hutchison, who was brought here from the Connecticut U.S. attorney's office to conduct the leak investigation. Hutchison wrote Whitehurst's lawyers that ``there is substantial reason to believe that your client ... is responsible for the unauthorized release of work-related information to Jeff Stein,'' a freelance writer who produced an article intended for publication in Playboy magazine. At that time, Carl Stern, then Justice Department spokesman, said Playboy wrote the department to check the article's facts, which allowed officials to learn that the article would contain information and allegations about FBI employees that are protected from public release by the Privacy Act. Stern said, ``There is no criminal investigation looking into the conduct of Frederic Whitehurst. There's an administrative inquiry in connection with the leak of Whitehurst's communications with the department to a writer from Playboy magazine.'' =========================================================== E Pluribus Unum - http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/home.html P.O. Box 477; Stockport, OH 43787 Voice (614) 836-7650 Fax (614) 836-7651 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by aga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > aga wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > > > aga wrote: > > > > On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote: > > > > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > > > > Dale Thorn wrote: > > > > > > > > But seriously, I was just telling the folks over the weekend, if I > > > > > had my hand on the button, a lot of people would die very quickly. > > > > > As in The Day The Earth Stood Still, a single act of aggression would > > > > > suffice to be immediately terminated. > > > > No trial, huh? > > Good question. The law we have right now already assumes that there > are situations where a criminal will not go peacefully, if at all. > In some countries (years ago?) such as England, bobbies were known > to not carry firearms for ordinary street duty. Am I right? But > here in the USA, that would be unthinkable. > > So my proposal doesn't eliminate the responsibility portion of law > enforcement. I'd say, if a target were eliminated thru negligence, > malfeasance, or other wrongdoing under "color of law" or whatever, > let the courts handle that as they do now. > Just who is doing the eliminating? > My suggestion would give the law enforcers the ability to dispense > the first level of justice expeditiously, which they cannot accomplish > now due to all of the red tape and the corrupt legal system (lawyers > specialize in getting chronic offenders off, particularly "traffic" > offenses). By transferring a major portion of the bureaucracy to > the pencil pushers, we can free up the street cops to do what they > do best, namely bust or eliminate criminals. > Cops can never be trusted to "dispense justice," and half of the cops are themselves criminals in what they do. Most cops steal evidence and lie like crazy in Court. All they want is a conviction, and it mattters not how it is obtained. > I dare say that the downside of this is much less pleasant than the > virtual anarchy (in the bad sense) we suffer now. If the police get > out of control, A.P. will arrive just in time to plug a few of those > holes, so to speak. Ideally, future robotics should be able to > provide something like Gort (sp?) to take the place of human officers, > given advances in the kind of pattern matching needed to deter > aggression and the like. Those who don't make it past the robots, > well, the rest of us can learn to behave, and we'll be much better > off when we do. > I would trust robots more than humanoids.

1 0

Re: Getting into MIT is impossible
by Rick Osborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:45 AM 1/29/97 +0100, Anonymous (Xanthar) wrote: >Most intelligent people apply to several schools, knowing that >admissions practices are subject to the vagaries of reality. If you are implying that I was not intelligent enough to apply to more than one school, then you are mistaken. MIT was the *only* school out of the six I applied to (including CMU, CalTech, GaTech) that turned me down. >My guess is that "other factors" were involved. I'm sure that was probably true. I'm just saying that I doubt the admissions process is as Financial-Aid-blind as they would have us believe. >MIT offered me a substantial economic aid package, in the form of loans, >grants, and various campus jobs. What does this tell you? It tells me that you're a better man than I, I guess. I'm sorry if I sound bitter, but one does not work for a goal for over a decade of his life, get rejected for it, and then just "forget it". Anyone who tells you otherwise needs to see a therapist. _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ Don't have awk? Use this simple sh emulation: #!/bin/sh echo 'Awk bailing out!' >&2 exit 2

1 0

exporting stego
by Syntel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just a quickie, Does the present ITAR / DoC regulations cover the export of Steganography programs? thanks Steveo

1 0

Re: PGP Key Preview...
by Ed Falk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> is there a way to preview the contents of a received public key, > without adding it automatically to the public key ring? Trivial. Just have pgp look at the file without giving it any commands. I.e. instead of pgp -ka <filename> do pgp <filename> Pgp will examine the file, tell you it contains keys, show them to you and then ask if you want to add them to your keyring. This is the way I normally add keys, just because I like to look at *any* file before I add it to any system.

1 0

Re: Last nail for US crypto export policy?
by Ed Falk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I just ran out of asswipe. > Does anyone have any RSA Data Security, Inc. stock they'd like to > sell? Now, now. I don't think RSADSI had any illusions of 40-bit keys being secure; they just wanted to find out just *how* insecure they were. I suspect that this crack will *benefit* RSADSI, and the rest of the crypto community, by helping to convince the feds to ease up.

1 0

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment
by Huge Cajones Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:46 AM 1/29/1997, Declan McCullagh wrote: > * Many 1st Amendment experts don't believe in the legal concept of > libel. It is, they say, a rich man's game -- if I'm libeled by the > NYT, I'm probably not going t be able to sue them, but Donald Trump > can. Moreover, if I don't have the resources to sue but the > statement is libelous, it creates a *presumption* in the minds of > the readers that the article is certainly true. (If it were not, I > would have sued, right?) The wealthy also use libel suits to suppress dissent. Greg's point that poor people aren't worth suing is only true if the motivation is financial. Often it is not. Conveniently, many of those whose silence is desired are among the petty bourgeouis and have a net worth of roughly $50,000. Enough to make the suit appear legitimate, but not enough to allow the target to brush off the legal fees, if they win the case. Consider also the artificial distinction between private and public figures. It is easier for a private figure to sue for libel. Yet, the most influential people in the country are private figures. Reporters must tread very carefully when covering the activities of these people. Thus, we hear little of them. It would be interesting to know when libel law was first introduced to the United States. Does anybody know? John Peter Zenger

1 0

Re: Best Computer School?
by Patrick May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rick Osborne writes: > At 12:32 PM 1/28/97 -0500, Derek Atkins wrote: > >This is really exagerating. You do not need a 4.0, 1600, etc. to be > >admitted to MIT. Sure, you need good grades, but a 3.6 average and > >1350-1400 SAT scores is perfectly adequate to be admitted to MIT. > > I disagree and can speak from experience. I was denied admission to MIT > even thought I had a 3.82 GPA, 1440 SAT (one try), and had taken 9 AP tests > with two 5's, four 4's, two 3's, and one 2. As for being well-rounded, I > was on several academic teams, sang in Chorus, acted and stage managed in > Drama, and played Tennis. I have a degree from MIT and got in with marks only slightly higher than these. My verbal SAT was actually higher than my math. > The only thing I didn't have that the next MIT applicant had was money. I > made the mistake of letting them know that I was dirt poor and would need > full aid/grants/etc, and to quote "The Great Escape" it was "Zzzt! To the > Russian front!" This is an incorrect conclusion. I'm replying publicly to your message because I would hate for a kid with ability and little or no money to give up on getting into MIT without trying. I grew up on a small farm in Maine and got zero financial help for college from my folks. The financial aid people at Tech assured me that, if I were admitted, they would come up with a package of grants, scholarships, and loans to make the nut. With me working through school, they did. I've just finished retiring the $45k+ debt. > MIT may be a great school, but they tend to be snooty assholes for the most > part. (DISCLAIMER: Not all MIT grads/attendees are necessarily "snooty > assholes", I'm just saying that I've yet to meet one that wasn't.) I've been accused of being an asshole on more than one occasion (although never snooty). I think it's more a matter of temperament than anything Tech did to me, though. Regards, pjm

1 0

Complying with the EAR [was: More Circumventing the ITAR]
by Michael Paul Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Mark Rosen wrote: > I'm curious as to exactly what the ITAR/EAR/Whatever says specifically > about "unrestricted FTP sites." My program, Kremlin, is available for You should check the exact text yourself, but the way I read the EAR, you are not "exporting" strong cryptographic software without a license (exept to Canada, which needs no license) if you do things "such as" (1) have the guests to your site acknowledge that the EAR restricts export, (2) have the guests affirm that they can legally get the software (proper citizenship or residency & location), and (3) "check the address of the destination computer to see if it is in the USA" or Canada. The last one, I interpret rather loosely to mean that if the guest's email address domain isn't one commonly used in the USA or Canada, then I deny access. We all know that not all .com addresses are North American, but chances are really good that if the address ends in .ru, then the destination machine is probably not in North America. This is not a perfect way to prevent export, of course, but it is what the regulations say, as I read them. For a pointer to the regulations and to my access request form and crypto site, see http://www.sni.net/~mpj/crypto.htm Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and most lawyers don't even understand this stuff, so you read and act on it at your own risk. This is just my best effort to comply with the law without sacrificing my right to publish. > download at the web page below. On my web page, I have some stuff in bold > print that informs about the ITAR and tells people to go away if they're > not from the US or Canada. Does this count as an unrestricted FTP site? Is there any reason why people have to look at your warning before reading your warning? At my site, the ftp site itself is in a hidden directory that changes names often enough that people can't successfully link to the restricted files for very long without going through my warning page. Indeed, my site can't be navigated and indexed properly by web search robots. At your site, it is extremely likely that someone would find your software without ever seeing your warning. Indeed, your software is on another server with another interface. I think that your site counts as unrestricted. > Also, back to the question of registration numbers. A registration number > is just a string of letters and numbers, and is essentially the same as a > friendly letter; it contains no cryptographic code. For all anyone knows, I > could just be charging for pseudo-random numbers, again, nothing of > cryptographic significance. Is it illegal for me to mail someone outside of > the US or Canada a registration code? Thanks for any help. The registration code is legally equivalent to the registered software that it unlocks. Sending the registration code to France, for example, would be likely to be considered the same as sending the registered software to France (in violation of the laws of both countries). Now if the "unregistered" software is weak (i. e. crippled key length) without the registration code, you need not worry about posting it publicly and without restriction, as long as you don't export the registration code (except to Canada) without a license. I do this with Quicrypt (ftp://ftp.csn.net/mpj/qcrypt11.zip) BTW, I posted krem104.zip at my site. Please let me know if I mangled it in the process... http://www.sni.net/~mpj/crypto.htm Michael Paul Johnson Opinions herein are not necessarily Exabyte's. Work: mpj(a)exabyte.com http://www.exabyte.com Personal: mpj(a)csn.net http://www.csn.net/~mpj BBS 303-772-1062

1 0

Re: East German Collapse (Was: Fighting the cybercensor
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 10:53 AM 1/29/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: >I disagree. Where does this money "escape" to? Do you spend it on rent, >pizza, a new stereo? Hmm... These are all meatspace transactions and can >be taxed. Money that escapes into Cyberspace just remains there in much the same way that money that escapes offshore today just stays there. It is not usually repatriated. Offshore funds accumulate offshore and earn interest and dividends there. If the onshore owners need their offshore money they do not, repeat do not, repatriate it. They borrow it instead and pay it back with (deductible) interest expatriating more money. The same practice can be followed in cyberspace. Stateless funds (whether Offshore or in Cyberspace) can be used to: 1) Pay salaries 2) Make loans 3) Buy digital goods and services (telecoms, entertainment, etc.) 4) Pay school fees 5) Pay for travel 6) Pay for mail order goods (customs duties will fade) Individuals can also easily support their lifestyles with Offshore or Cyberspace funds by using stateless credit cards and taking cash from ATM machines using stateless ATM cards. You can certainly use offshore or cyberspacial funds to pay the rent on your flat in Montreux overlooking Lake Geneva and not too many taxes will be applied to that transaction. Accumulating vast wealth (even if it is only represented as bits) can be very fun as well. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMu+HMIVO4r4sgSPhAQGf4wQA3V8f21i8fYK7S4BkhGyFE2/5hWgPgpSH mShQ3tDu8aK9O6OV4e3OdXdl3+Ack9cGWKBEeS8sL9UscYJ96NmURgsZp5rx/nJS S51C05IS/mxFlW1BusS2UvyZBBI321/gwyLysexWcxaLjpieKTfW3eZe9cm+1Kb7 n9cXvTMlF8A= =mnFh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Last nail for US crypto export policy?
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ed Falk wrote: > Toto wrote: > > I just ran out of asswipe. > I suspect that this crack will *benefit* RSADSI, and the rest of the > crypto community Ed, You're not 'outing' me, are you? Toto

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:40 PM 1/27/97 -0500, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: > > >jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> wrote in article <5ch9f2$cuu(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > >> Look, I've proposed what I consider to be a remarkably consistent method to >> prevent the kind of political tyranny that you criticize, and I don't see >> any recognition of this fact. > >Thats because its a whacko solution that has no credibility >or consistency. > >If anyone tried to set up such a market and a price went out >on any of the heads of state fantasized about Mr Bell would be >dead as a doornail in a week. > So you're saying that the system would work. Mr. bell would be targeted, a price on his head, for starting that very system. Mr. Bell would be a martyr, his system being proven by his own death. It would be some varient of his idea that would be used to kill him, a bounty. I think that the system would work, I also think that it would be easiest to use by those already in possession of the money. It would take care of part of our overpopulation problem though...

1 0

Re: FBI=LIE
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/washpol/fbi-lab.html: > The World Trade Center bomb was made of urea-nitrate, a compound > that can be confused with non-explosive mixtures of the same > ingredients. In an informal internal check of lab procedures, some > senior FBI lab workers mixed human urine with fertilizer and added > samples of that non-explosive mixture to the flow of material being > tested by the chemistry unit. A manager in the chemistry lab > identified the urine-fertilizer mixture as an explosive. Just coincidentally, these errors imprison the innocent instead of freeing the guilty. > Still, Joseph E. DiGenova, a former U.S. attorney in Washington, > said the issues raised in the report would allow defendants to > contest lab findings against them and would permit people convicted > of crimes to attempt to reopen their cases, based on the possibility > of flawed forensic evidence. > "It's going to be a royal pain in the neck for federal judges and > prosecutors and a godsend for defense attorneys looking for a means > of getting their clients off," he said Why not "proving their innocence"? A prosecutor - and one who does not respect our legal tradition of presumed innocence - is not a good choice for a quote here. Nowhere in the entire article is there evidence that the reporters talked to anyone outside the FBI/Justice Department milieu. > Scientists at the lab said they were often stifled in a lab run by > non-technical field agents who had little knowledge of science and > who regularly altered reports to help prosecutors. But law > enforcement officials said there was little evidence that anyone had > been wrongly convicted based on improper lab work. Why isn't this the story? FBI agents regularly committed perjury, and we see a story about lab errors. Elliot Ness

1 0

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think that with the demise of Mr Bell and anyone running a remailer there would be an end to his scheme pretty quickly. Society is not bound to put up with cranks and psychopaths. there is no right to anonymously call for murder. The authorities could easily stop Bells scheme. The point I was making is that it is not consistent as claimed. Phill

1 0

Re: Last nail for US crypto export policy?
by f_estema＠alcor.concordia.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Dan Geer wrote: > Export controls are meaningless without domestic use restrictions and > domestic use restrictions will never pass the test of the First > Amendment. <snip> Just because something is unconstitutional doesn't mean that learned judicial appointees will find it unconstitutional. When domestic GAK is passed, it will be structured to fit into the judicial philosophy of the day. This is under the same philosophy that says television shows are not speech, but rather a commercial enterprise. If the courts were first amendments absolutists, like the persons on these two lists, there would be no problem seeing porn on primetime TV. There would also be no V-chip law. When they manage to get the political conscensus, they will pass it. Incidentally, I remind you of the results of the moot court that was held at one of the CFP conferences, where a GAK case was tried in front of real federal judges by real lawyers. Our side lost.

2 1

Complying with the EAR [was: More Circumventing the ITAR]
by Michael Paul Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Mark Rosen wrote: > I'm curious as to exactly what the ITAR/EAR/Whatever says specifically > about "unrestricted FTP sites." My program, Kremlin, is available for You should check the exact text yourself, but the way I read the EAR, you are not "exporting" strong cryptographic software without a license (exept to Canada, which needs no license) if you do things "such as" (1) have the guests to your site acknowledge that the EAR restricts export, (2) have the guests affirm that they can legally get the software (proper citizenship or residency & location), and (3) "check the address of the destination computer to see if it is in the USA" or Canada. The last one, I interpret rather loosely to mean that if the guest's email address domain isn't one commonly used in the USA or Canada, then I deny access. We all know that not all .com addresses are North American, but chances are really good that if the address ends in .ru, then the destination machine is probably not in North America. This is not a perfect way to prevent export, of course, but it is what the regulations say, as I read them. For a pointer to the regulations and to my access request form and crypto site, see http://www.sni.net/~mpj/crypto.htm Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and most lawyers don't even understand this stuff, so you read and act on it at your own risk. This is just my best effort to comply with the law without sacrificing my right to publish. > download at the web page below. On my web page, I have some stuff in bold > print that informs about the ITAR and tells people to go away if they're > not from the US or Canada. Does this count as an unrestricted FTP site? Is there any reason why people have to look at your warning before reading your warning? At my site, the ftp site itself is in a hidden directory that changes names often enough that people can't successfully link to the restricted files for very long without going through my warning page. Indeed, my site can't be navigated and indexed properly by web search robots. At your site, it is extremely likely that someone would find your software without ever seeing your warning. Indeed, your software is on another server with another interface. I think that your site counts as unrestricted. > Also, back to the question of registration numbers. A registration number > is just a string of letters and numbers, and is essentially the same as a > friendly letter; it contains no cryptographic code. For all anyone knows, I > could just be charging for pseudo-random numbers, again, nothing of > cryptographic significance. Is it illegal for me to mail someone outside of > the US or Canada a registration code? Thanks for any help. The registration code is legally equivalent to the registered software that it unlocks. Sending the registration code to France, for example, would be likely to be considered the same as sending the registered software to France (in violation of the laws of both countries). Now if the "unregistered" software is weak (i. e. crippled key length) without the registration code, you need not worry about posting it publicly and without restriction, as long as you don't export the registration code (except to Canada) without a license. I do this with Quicrypt (ftp://ftp.csn.net/mpj/qcrypt11.zip) BTW, I posted krem104.zip at my site. Please let me know if I mangled it in the process... http://www.sni.net/~mpj/crypto.htm Michael Paul Johnson Opinions herein are not necessarily Exabyte's. Work: mpj(a)exabyte.com http://www.exabyte.com Personal: mpj(a)csn.net http://www.csn.net/~mpj BBS 303-772-1062

1 0