December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Plea from a parent who wants to keep their kid free of SSNs
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Declan McCullagh wrote: >The ACLU certainly deserves criticism for its knee-jerk left-wing >view on some issues. I'd also be interested in seeing them take a >stand on 2nd Amendment issues; right now they don't have a position, >as I understand it. But on free speech and SSN-type issues they're >generally good. The ACLU can be fairly criticized for their general sympathy to the causes of the Democratic Party. This would be acceptable if they were honest about it, but they are not. Likewise, while they may have no official position on the 2nd amendment, you will generally find members of the organization are staunchly opposed to it. Again, no real tragedy except that their advertising proclaims their organization is the only one in the United States devoted to protecting the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, it just isn't true. They protect the amendments they like and ignore or, in the case of the 2nd amendment, undermine the rest. Most people probably don't know how the ACLU is structured. There is a national organization and then a variety of state level chapters which have a great deal of autonomy. The chapters do a lot of the day to day work helping people who are getting severely screwed by their local governments. (There was a great case about ten years ago involving a state sponsored alcohol rehabilitation program. Once in, it was understood that participants wouldn't be allowed to leave for about 60 days so they could really dry out. It seems there was a little funding program and the facilities provided couldn't handle all the people who applied. So, they threw a bunch of the women in jail! The ACLU chapters handle cases like this all the time. They don't get much credit for it and nobody else does much of this work.) However, the chapters tend to be a little more squirrely than the national organization. Usually when you hear about some flaky case "The ACLU" was pushing, it will turn out that a chapter was behind it. About five years ago the Southern California chapter campaigned against California Proposition 165 because it would cut welfare benefits. A friend and ACLU member complained that this was not a civil liberties issue and they should not be campaigning for the Democratic Party. This letter came back: >Dear Mr. X, > >First, let me apologize for the lengthy delay in answering your >letter, which was recently referred to me from the National ACLU >office. > >You question whether the ACLU met its charter mandate to preserve >civil liberties when it opposed Prop. 165 on the ground that it would >adversely affect the poor. The ACLU-SC firmly believes that economic >justic and civil liberties are inextricably intertwined. Without the >assurance of basic economic security -- including jobs that pay a fair >living wage, adequate food, housing, and health care -- most people >cannot fully exercise their civil liberties and civil rights. > >This office has consistently opposed cuts in federal, state, or local >budgets that will adversely affect poor people who depend upon >governmental assistance to fulfill their basic needs. Poverty in the >United States is the result, to a great extent, of government policies >which favor privileged groups at the expense of the disadvantaged, and >which deprive the latter of opportunities to enjoy the full range of >rights guaranteed under the Constitution. > >Again, please accept my apology for not getting back to you sooner. > >Sincerely, > >J. Random Democrat >Associate Director While the ACLU is great in certain ways, so far as most cypherpunks are concerned I recommend considering them to be uncertain allies. It's sad. If they were truly a multi-partisan organization which was devoted to the Bill of Rights they would be many times more effective than they are currently. In principle there is no reason why the NRA and the ACLU shouldn't be the same organization except the membership of each brings too much baggage to the table. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNCxGwZaWtjSmRH/5AQHwDgf+Oqe8QSQFE/NjrtV5pyEsI/Tra2Z9oq8I j6Us0c03d7qeoFSDYcA3jyuGb2Zs8FSH9GuR8bJ/ZMjcBgfPLYgb+mXgBero6Uet MlTEabwU1gNau8Rz66FKY2T1aiM7u972RUYscUyKZYmh9qp+T3xPUJoNBSPj99fS jDinQd1AXZPOltB0NRrEXZInyPxwqKhRql9iQ5Azf8/r3DfxLgLWhj6gu2gd3+dw WdYfuo+qHX1afmbHVVQrhyHoNa1UjkhKmgt0Va5ddONlik+7PhUsi0hm9dU2UnRW hLZWOhoZaxrBc8BrT/43dLQFd1WinDAsYuN5CfSYT3L5o0oCCKvciA== =jqeP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Its working read this, give it a chance
by Pascal Mayani 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ouais c'est vieux comme le monde le principe: ca s'appelle une pyramide et il n'y a que le gars en haut qui se fait un sacre pactole. En plus c'est parfaitement illegal. And now, ladies & gentlemen, let's talk in english : Hello suckers of *intofild(a)aol.com*, This nice principle of sending money to the last name on a list through the INTERNET is the ultimate variation of the pyramidal game... First before carrying on with the demonstration, people should know that this kind of "gime your money you sucker, I'll know how to use it" is illegal in most industrial countries... You can't win for a very good reason. This game can be seen as a pyramid : The chief / | \ a few accomplices ////||||\\\\ suckers sending their money As you can see, the only people to earn money in the process are the one on the top of this pyramid, the others just send their money to the top of it and can hardly win a kopek. The idea is very simple, usually on the list, you'll find unknown people whom you would suppose to be some ordinary participants of the game, in fact in most cases they're the accomplices or the chief himself. The original situation: #1 accomplice 1 #2 accomplice 2 #3 accomplice 3 #4 chief You send five bucks to the chief... #1 you #2 accomplice 1 #3 accomplice 2 #4 accomplice 3 You send your money to accomplice 3 Now you ask twenty of your friends to do so: #1 one of your friend #2 you #3 accomplice 1 #4 accomplice 2 Now this people will ask friends of them to send money in their turn: #1 a friend'a friend #1 one of your friend #2 you #3 accomplice 1 They will send money to accomplice 1... This group of people, the accomplices and the chief will get: 20*20*20*20*5= $800 000 (And of course, it's could be more profitable, you can't know how many people answered at the first stage). If you hope to reach the fifth stage... Read the demonstration once again ! So don't be stupid, don't even send a peanut to these suckers...

2 1

Re: Remailer Attack
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous sez: : According to Raph's remailer stats, the remailers have widely varying : latencies. Given that only a few remailers have latencies which are : acceptably low, the list of usable remailers is quite low. : If the user of the remailer, Monty Cantsin for example, signs his : messages, a fairly accurate measure of total transit time is obtained. : The total transit time gives clues to the remailers which were : actually used in the chain. In an of itself, this may not comprise : the user, but combined with other weaknesses it will cause the : attacker to be significantly more confident of identification : hypotheses. : The remailers should all have about the same latency. 0 seconds seems : like a good Schelling point. What would it take to reduce remailer : latency to under 60 seconds for most of the remailers? Do people need : old 486s to dedicate to the task? Do they need money? Better : software? Most remailers support a feature called 'latency', so one can choose the latency one desires for a message. ie: :: Anon-To: username(a)host-name-here.nl Latency: +00:00 This message will be remailed imediately, no queing etc. -- Alex de Joode | usura(a)SABOTAGE.ORG | http://www.sabotage.org Sabotage Internet: Your Internet Problem Provider.

1 0

Barksdale editorial
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Washington May Crash the Internet Economy By Jim Barksdale The U.S. computer industry is the envy of of the world. But it may not be long before we are asking ourselves: Why did we let our dominance in the software business slip away to competitors in other countries? That could well be the consequence of encryption legislation proposed by FBI Director Louis Freeh and supported by key congressional Republicans and members of the Clinton administration. Encryption is simply a mathematical way to scramble (encrypt) and unscramble (decrypt) digital information during transmission or storage. It is increasingly used to protect not just personal communications and medical and financial records, but also all the intellectual property businesses maintain on computer networks. Protecting this valuable information has become a highly competitive business around the globe, yet U.S. industry has been limited in how it can compete, because U.S.-based companies are not allowed to export anything stronger than 40-bit (or in some cases 56-bit) encryption. (The strength of encryption is largely a function of the length of its software "keys" measured in bits, the zeros and ones that comprise computer data.) Foreign producers, however, can distribute encryption products with 128-bit key length, so-called strong encryption, which is considered unbreakable by today's computing standards. The FBI has proposed to worsen this situation by also limiting the use of strong encryption in our domestic market. The FBI's proposal, in the form of the Oxley-Manton amendment to a House bill originally drafted to liberalize export controls on encryption, would require makers of encryption software to provide the government with immediate access to the information in a computer or network without the knowledge of the owner or user of the computer. We could still provide encryption products, but their value would be compromised considerably by a "backdoor" for law enforcement agencies to access information in the computer. We understand and share the FBI's concern about terrorists and other criminals using encryption to protect their activities from law enforcement surveillance, but the FBI proposal does not solve the problem. The criminals will still be able to buy advanced encryption technology outside the U.S., where it is freely available today. The encryption plan will cause bigger problems for law-abiding companies, however. We have some of the best software engineers on the planet at Netscape, but we simply do not believe it is possible to comply with the proposed FBI standard. If it became law, the federal government could put us in jail if we could not guarantee immediate access to data in everyone's computer. This could only result in having us remove valuable information security features from our products. But the Internet needs just the opposite: more security. As legal scholars have pointed out, the FBI proposal poses grave constitutional concerns. An additional problem is the likely result of the FBI plan: more crime. By taking away encryption as we know it today, the FBI proposal would expose computer users to assault by hackers intent on economic espionage, blackmail and public humiliation. At a recent congressional hearing, one witness testified that with $1 billion and 20 people using existing technology, he could efffectively shut down the nation's information infrastructure, including all computer, phone and banking networks. Another witness said he could do it for $100 million. The solution is to ensure that our public and private infrastructure is secured through strong encryption and other means. The FBI cannot catch every hacker. But there will be fewer and fewer of them trying to penetrate sensitive networks if those networks are adequately protected and communications secured through the use of strong encryption. Without the privacy and security that strong encryption guarantees, consumers and businesses will refrain from using the Internet, greatly damaging our economy. The Internet already contributes 1.5% to the U.S. gross national product. Estimates suggest the total value of goods and services traded over the Internet could reach $8 billion this year and $330 billion in five years. The U.S. holds an estimated 75% of the global software market and roughtly the same share of the global Internet economy, according to studies by the Global Internet Project, an international trade group. The FBI proposal, if adopted, could end this economic phenomenon overnight. The good news is that the House Commerce Committee voted against this proposal by 35-16 on Wednesday. However, similar amendments have already been approved in the House National Security and Intelligence committees. It's now up to the House Rules Committee-whose charman, Gerald Solomon (R., N.Y.), favors limiting encryption technology-to reconcile the votes of the five committees that have considered various forms of the bill. Perhaps most ominously, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the deputy Treasury secretary for financial crimes yesterday announced their support for the FBI's proposal. What we need instead is a voluntary approach, U.S. companies should continue to cooperate with law enforcement authorities in provideing technological expertise and emergency assistance. Because companies like mine are committed to dooing this, our country will be more secure. If government policies end our leadership in encryption technology, where will our law enforcement and national security officials turn for help? Mr. Barksdale is president and CEO of Netscape Communications Corp.

1 0

PARTY!
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hi Folks, Here's an invitation to my latest and greatest costume party ever. Be there or be square. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ AREA 51+ PARTY ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Pleasure of Your Company is Cordially Requested at the: Third Occasional Anarcho-Dilettante Pick-Your-Own-Damned-There, Masquerade Ball, Talent Show And Halloween Rehearsal 7:00pm Saturday October 13--3:00am Sunday October 14 650 Kenwyn Road (at McKinley) Oakland, California Loads of things happened on October 18. We're not going to tell you which one to commemorate. That's up to you. Check out the birthdays and historical events listed below. Pick one or go with something else. Your call. But no matter what theme you pick, it IS a masquerade ball, so you MUST wear a costume (or at least a mask). NO EXCEPTIONS. (Please, adults only. We regret that our house is very unsuitable for children.) THE ENTERTAINMENT At 8:00pm there will be a Dance Recital featuring Rainbeau, Gracie, Tish and Blythe. You DO NOT want to miss this. At 9:00pm there will be a Guest Talent Show. If you can sing, dance, tell a joke or pull a rabbit out of a hat, we IMPLORE you to sign up for this featured event. There will be prizes! CALL FOR TAPES If you did not like the music at the previous parties, we encourage you to bring a tape. We will play them for thirty minutes or until those actually dancing revolt. The default music will be Digital Music Express Dance Music Channel (or 70's disco by dance floor request). DOOR PRIZES Around Midnight, there will be a drawing for valuable and/or unique Door Prizes. (You must be present to win.) COMESTIBLES There will be some snacks and soft drinks, but if you are really hungry, it might be a good idea to eat before you come. B.Y.O.B. (Smoke'em if ya got'em, but outside, please. the house is a smoke-free zone.) RSVP Whether or not you are planning to attend, we want to hear from you. Please give the hosts a call so we can plan on your presence OR absence. Invited guests may bring additional celebrants WITH PRIOR PERMISSION OF THE HOSTS. This means you must call a host and get permission for EACH of the people you intend to bring. The house is big, but it is possible to have too many attendees. YOUR HOSTS Head Anarchist in Charge, Sandy Sandfort 510-839-3441/sandfort(a)crl.com House Hosts with the Most, Gracie & Zarkov 510-832-2044/emyrt(a)aol.com Web page host Sameer Parekh and C2Net Software 510-547-3617/sameer(a)c2.net P.S. THERE WILL BE A LATE FEE OF 10 CENTS PER MINUTE FOR EACH MINUTE YOU ARRIVE AFTER 8:00PM. The party starts at 7:00, so you get an our for free. Late fees will be used to defray costs. (This is no joke. More than $100 was collected at each of the last two parties.) Pictures from the 2nd Occasional Masquerade Ball may be found at: http://www.c2.net/~sandy/web.htm OCTOBER 18 IN HISTORY This is "Any Way You Look at It" Day! On this day in 1961, Henri Matisse's painting, "Le Bateau" went on display in the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. For six days, nobody realized it was hanging upside down. 1842 - Samuel Finley Breese Morse, laid his first telegraph cable in New York Harbor between the Battery and Governor's Island. 1892 - The first long-distance telephone communication was established between the mayors of New York and Chicago. 1924 - The term "Four Horsemen" was used in a "New York Herald Tribune" article by columnist Grantland Rice. The referenced Four Horsemen were the backfield of the University of Notre Dame which had beaten Army, 13-7. 1935 - Victor record #25236 was recorded this day by Tommy Dorsey and his Orchestra. It would become one of the most familiar Big Band themes of all time: "I'm Getting Sentimental Over You". 1943 - The first broadcast of "Perry Mason" was presented on CBS Radio. In the 15-minute (Monday-Friday) shows, Perry was played by Barlett Robinson, Santos Ortega, Donald Briggs and John Larkin. Larkin played the role the longest and was reportedly very disappointed when Raymond Burr got the gig on TV (1957). 1944 - The epic book, "Forever Amber", was published. This historic-romance novel was written by Kathleen Windsor. Although the book was very popular among women between the ages of 12 and 24, it was considered scandalous to be seen reading it; a reaction that lasted at least another three decades. 1956 - Football commissioner Bert Bell turned thumbs down on the use of radio-equipped helmets by NFL quarterbacks. 1971 - The final issue of "Look" magazine was published. It had been a must-see publication every week for 34 years. 1977 - Reggie Jackson made history and earned the nickname, Mr. October. Regg-a-roo (as Howard Cosell called him) hit three home runs on three successive pitches leading the Yankees to an 8-4 thrashing of the LA Dodgers in Game 6 of the World Series. 1979 - Following extensive renovation to return Radio City Music Hall to the look and feel of its 1931 Art Deco glory, the venerable New York City theatre reopened. "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" was the first live presentation. 1983 - Kenny Rogers and Dolly Parton received some gold to add to their collections --for their smash, "Islands in the Stream". OCTOBER 18 BIRTHDAYS 1854 - Salomon Andree (explorer: ill-fated North Pole expedition) 1859 - Henri Bergson (Nobel prize-winning philosopher, author: Creative Evolution) 1898 - Lotte Lenya (Karoline Blamauer) (Tony Award-winning singer, actress: Threepenny Opera; From Russia with Love, Semi-Tough, Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone) 1902 - Miriam Hopkins (actress: The Children's Hour, The Chase, Carrie, Barbary Coast) 1906 - James Brooks (artist: Flight: 235 ft. mural at La Guardia National Airport, NY; abstract expressionist exhibit: Ninth Street Exhibition) 1918 - Bobby Troup (actor: Emergency; singer, musician, TV host: Stars of Jazz; married to singer, Julie London) 1919 - Pierre Elliott Trudeau (Prime Minister of Canada) 1925 - Melina Mercouri (actress: Never on Sunday, Once is Not Enough, Topkapi; Greece's Minister of Culture) 1926 - Chuck (Charles Edward Anderson) Berry (singer: Lifetime Achievement Grammy; Maybellene, Roll Over Beethoven, School Day, Rock & Roll Music, Sweet Little Sixteen, Johnny B. Goode, My Ding-A-Ling; in film: Rock, Rock, Rock) 1927 - George C. Scott (Academy Award-winning actor: Patton; Anatomy of a Murder, The Day of the Dolphin, The Hanging Tree, Taps, Oklahoma Crude, The Prince and the Pauper, The Murders in the Rue Morgue, Malice) 1928 - Keith Jackson (sportscaster: ABC Sports, Wide World of Sports) 1933 - Peter Boyle (Emmy Award-winning actor: The X-Files; Taxi Driver, While You were Sleeping, Young Frankenstein, Midnight Caller, From Here to Eternity [TV]) 1933 - Forrest Gregg (Pro Football Hall of Famer: Green Bay Packers offensive tackle: Super Bowl I, II; Dallas Cowboys: Super Bowl VI; head coach: Cleveland Browns, Cincinnati Bengals: AFC Coach of the Year [1981]: Super Bowl XVI; Green Bay Packers; Southern Methodist University Athletic Director) 1934 - Inger Stevens (Stensland) (actress: The Farmer's Daughter, Madigan, A Guide for the Married Man, Hang 'Em High) 1937 - Boyd Dowler (football: Green Bay Packers wide receiver: Super Bowl I, II) 1939 - Mike Ditka (Pro & College Football Hall of Famer: Chicago Bears Rookie of the Year; Philadelphia Eagles; Dallas Cowboys tight end: Super Bowl V, VI; Chicago Bears head coach: Super Bowl XX; TV sports analyst: NBC Sports) 1943 - Willie Horton (baseball: Detroit Tigers outfielder) 1947 - Laura Nyro (singer: Up on the Roof; songwriter: Wedding Bell Blues, Blowin' Away, And When I Die, Stoney End, Stoned Soul Picnic, Sweet Blindness, Eli's Coming, Time and Love, Save the Country) 1950 - Wendy Wasserstein (writer: The Heidi Chronicles, Bachelor Girls) 1951 - Pam Dawber (actress: Mork & Mindy, My Sister Sam) 1952 - Jerry Royster (baseball: LA Dodgers pitcher) 1960 - Jean Claude Van Damme (actor: Kickboxer, Universal Soldier, Double Impact, Hard Target, Nowhere to Run, Predator II) 1961 - Erin Moran (actress: Happy Days, Joanie Loves Chachi, The Don Rickles Show, Daktari, Galaxy of Terror, Twirl, Watermelon Man, How Sweet It Is!) 1961 - Wynton Marsalis (Grammy Award-winning musician: jazz/ classical trumpet: Think of One [1983]; played on: Father & Sons; in orchestra: Sweeney Todd; composer: TV theme song for Shannon's Deal) OCTOBER 18 CHART TOPPERS 1957 Chances Are/The Twelfth of Never - Johnny Mathis Jailhouse Rock - Elvis Presley Be-Bop Baby/Have I Told You Lately That I Love You - Ricky Nelson Wake Up Little Susie - The Everly Brothers 1965 Yesterday - The Beatles Treat Her Right - Roy Head You've Got Your Troubles - The Fortunes Behind the Tear - Sonny James 1973 Half-Breed - Cher Ramblin' Man - The Allman Brothers Band Angie - The Rolling Stones Ridin' My Thumb to Mexico - Johnny Rodriguez 1981 Arthur's Theme (Best that You Can Do) - Christopher Cross For Your Eyes Only - Sheena Easton Private Eyes - Daryl Hall and John Oates Step by Step - Eddie Rabbitt THIRD SATURDAY IN OCTOBER Sweetest Day Frabjous Day Ironman Triathalon MISC. Persons Day (Canada) St. Luke's Day (patron of doctors, painters, glassmakers, artists, butchers, notaries, sculptors) Festival of Poetic Terrorism Alaska Day Pandrosos (Greek all-refreshing Goddess) Great Horn Fair (Kent, UK) National Chocolate Cupcake Day Chile Independence Day No Beard Day Lukesmas International Credit Union Day Ivory Soap invented 1st Art school opened Sandblasting patented BBC Radio established (1922) H.E.W. banned cyclamates Brotherhood of the Cooperative Commonwealth founded (1895) Puerto Rico became US Colony (1898) Lincoln shaved off his beard Hi and Lois comic strip began (1954) Water Pollution Control Act passed (1972) XYZ Affair Citroen 2CV automobile introduced (1948) Roseanne debuted (1988) 1st War Crimes trial began (1945) Disney's Jungle Book premiered John Lennon and Yoko Ono arrested for marijuana possession (London; 1968) Rules of American Football 1st formulated (1873) US attacked Iranian oil rig in retaliation for gunboat attacks (1987) International Court of Justice at the Hague announced (1907) UK declared Canadian women to be "persons" (1929) Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes forcing many protestants (aka Huguenots) to flee France (1685) Teddy Roosevelt is ridiculed in the press for inviting black leader Booker T. Washington to the White House (1901) men to be "persons" (1929) Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes forcing many protestants (aka Huguenots) to flee France (1685) Teddy Roosevelt is ridiculed in the press for inviting black leader Booker T. Washington to the White House (1901)

1 0

Re: Technology center
by stuey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>What I think they'll do is work on virus software. They can write >something which will hack the crypto on your PC and make it weak. >If they want to wiretap some drug dealer, they get him to download >one of their programs somehow. Maybe they've got a Java bug which >lets them hack files when he goes to a certain web page. Or maybe >they get him to download some free demo of a game or interaction >service (hotchicks.com) Whatever, the program actually looks for >PGP and other crypto software and hacks it. Now the FBI can read >his stuff. What we have here is a technology race. Assuming it is legal for a hypothetical government organization to pull a stunt like that, we merely build our own encryption software that is compatible with the current stuff, or failing that have an unreasonable amount of different publically available versions out there. Tell me what virus can alter 50 different programs in a different fashion and still be small enough to go unnoticed. If you were to program your own private version of PGP and have it produce output exactly the same as any version of PGP out there you wanted to, then there's a good chance that it would be overlooked by viri, logic bombs, trojans... and even if it wasn't there's an even better chance that a specific virus would need to be written to hack your private version. and what are the odds of actually infecting your particular desktop with the naughty program that's gonna do the dirty work? I admit that would take cnsiderable effort and the only reason for doing so is to protect against thief software designed to steal your keys, but it can be done. and probably would be done by many as a last resort / defense. -Stu "Work toward your vision of tomorrow, or you will surely live in someone else's" -- Art Sackett

2 1

Re: Exports and criminalizing crypto
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[lot of snipping] Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes: > > John Smith <jsmith58(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > > > That's easy for you to say, there in England. You don't have these > > export controls, right? > > We have different export controls. You can export what you want > electronically right now. And, so I hear, the exporter is defined as > the person who downloads from your web site, so lots of hits from Iraq > is no problem. Start to talk about tangible things and you require a > license. > Adam This is my favorite example of the Kafka-esque absurdity of export controls >From England, I can export strong crypto electronically with no problem. The same crypto, printed as source code, is restricted. >From the US, I can export printed strong crypto with no problem. The same crypto, in electronic form, is export restricted. Both sides claim to have a rational, well-thought out policy. Peter Trei

1 0

New Member Registration
by somebody＠somewhere.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A Message From Mr. T Account Login: killer Account Password: instinct This message has been auto-generated - No need to reply

1 0

Congress to compromise away crypto-rights, from ComDaily
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[From ComDaily, a Washington trade publication. --Declan] --- Markey/White Prevails HOUSE PANEL APPROVES ENCRYPTION BILL IN REBUFF TO CLINTON, FBI [...] Rules Committee Chmn. Solomon (R-N.Y.) originally had co-sponsored bill, then dropped off and urged rejection of Goodlatte measure, declaring it harmful to national security. He said in letter to Commerce Committee members that bill wouldn't get to House floor unless it includes provisions with "crucial key recovery language" similar to those in Oxley-Manton proposals and in Intelligence Committee. Spokesman said that while Rules panel could send any version it wished to floor, Solomon wants to try to work out compromise that recognizes national security concerns. Panel spokesman said Goodlatte should "be more flexible and work out" differences with Intelligence Committee. Intelligence Chmn. Goss (R-Fla.) also is on Rules Committee. House Telecom Subcommittee Chmn. Tauzin (R-La.), who had tried to find compromise before markup, said after evening session that there would have to be more compromises. He proposed amendment to set up 5-member commission that would have 180 days to study encryption and make recommendations. Tauzin said that "something will have to be worked out that satisfies law enforcement." He said "we're not finished" with bill, said it was possible that study proposal could emerge as compromise if no other agreement could be reached: "Just like there's no predicting where the technology will be, there's no predicting where this will end up." [...] Oxley said Thurs. his amendment lost because: "The Commerce Committee was being the Commerce Committee." In protecting its jurisdiction, with eye toward electronic commerce, legislators paid attention to computer industry, including Gates, he said. However, he said "the bill isn't going anywhere" unless law enforcement and national security concerns are addressed. Oxley said he hadn't asked Solomon to hold up legislation, noting that Intelligence and National Security panel bills have provisions "stronger than mine." [...] ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

1 0

USA Today on encryption; FBI's Louis Freeh responds
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----------------- Subject: USA Today/Freeh Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 09:08:05 -0400 From: Dave Banisar <banisar(a)epic.org> USA TODAY Our View September 26, 1997 Computer privacy at risk if FBI gets the codes Thinking about protecting your computer files with high-quality encryption? Well, act fast. The FBI is out to stop you. Not only will you get less security if the agency gets its way, but you'll pay more for software to protect your personal financial, medical and other records. Until now, restrictions on good encryption technology have covered only exports. But the agency wants to outlaw the making, sale and distribution here of all codes it can't break. It would require any firm offering such programs to hand decoding keys over to third parties so the FBI and other agencies could get hold of them without your knowledge. It's the electronic equivalent of demanding that Americans put copies of all their records in some federal depository. One House committee has passed the FBI plan. Another committee failed this week to insert it in a bill aimed at lifting export curbs. But more attempts are sure. The FBI says encryption controls are for your security. Otherwise, drug lords and terrorists can hide behind strong encryption to evade the law. In fact, lack of powerful encryption programs is leaving the vast majority of Americans far less secure. That's because of the existing restriction on exports. U.S. software and computer makers find it too costly to make one product for here and another for export. So, they don't provide the best encryption possible. The Justice Department reports computer security breaches cost U.S. business and consumers $ 7 billion a year. And domestic software and computer makers are losing sales to foreign firms. Estimated price tag by 2000: $ 60 billion a year, 240,000 jobs. Domestic limits would only add costs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that buyers will pay $ 5 to $ 10 more for software, up to $ 2 billion a year, to implement the FBI's system. And 11 of the world's top cryptographers in May warned that the FBI plan creates targets for criminals by establishing centers where billions of secrets are held. And for what? Smart crooks easily can evade police efforts by using unbreakable foreign encryption available over the Internet or by removing incriminating evidence by pressing their computer's delete key. The National Research Council, in an 18-month study for Congress, suggested a better course for government to meet everyone's security concerns: -- Provide law enforcement money to study surveillance alternatives. -- Ease the curb on encryption exports. -- Leave domestic encryption alone. In plain, unencrypted text: Don't stop Americans from protecting themselves. ---------------------------------------------- USA TODAY Let law keep weapons Louis J. Freeh In this time of electronic commerce, e-mail and private information routinely stored in computers, the availability of powerful encryption is essential. No one in law enforcement disputes that. All of law enforcement is also in total agreement on one aspect of encryption: The widespread use of uncrackable encryption will devastate our ability to fight crime and prevent terrorism. It will render two of our most important investigative techniques, court-ordered electronic surveillance and search and seizure, a nullity in many instances. Without a balanced approach that accommodates commercial interests, privacy and public safety concerns, criminals and terrorists will be able to shield themselves from court orders used to obtain critical evidence and prevent the worst crimes. How important are the techniques? Law enforcement used electronic surveillance to disrupt terrorists mixing bombs to blow up buildings and assassinate political figures. A computer was used to store evidence of a plot to blow up 11 U.S. airline flights. Police use electronic surveillance to combat drugs, gang violence and kidnapping. Indeed, state and local law enforcement authorities account for 50% of all the electronic surveillance court orders in the United States. These are what will be lost if, despite valid court orders, law enforcement is unable to decrypt that which criminals have encrypted. We are not asking that advances in encryption be abandoned or that privacy rights be threatened. Nor are we asking for any increase in law enforcement's authority to intercept people's conversations. We only ask that the careful balance of the Fourth Amendment not be inadvertently tipped in favor of criminals and terrorists in the rush to satisfy the marketplace. Many companies are urging Congress to let them determine the extent to which public safety is protected and have expressed a desire that government be more sympathetic to their commercial needs. These potential life-and-death issues are too important to leave solely to market forces that respond to important but unrelated interests. Good and sound public policy decisions must be made now by Congress. We remain hopeful that, as legislation is crafted, it will not ignore the pleas of law enforcement but instead will preserve that careful balance that has been so meticulously maintained for the past 200 years. Louis J. Freeh is director of the FBI. ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

1 0

CDT complains to my editors after post to cypherpunks
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[CDT's Jonah Seiger copied this message to my editors. I'm still waiting for him to answer my questions. --Declan] --- Subject: Re: The Commerce committee votes are up at crypto.com Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:29:17 -0400 From: Jonah Seiger <jseiger(a)cdt.org> To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> Declan -- If you are curious about what it is about your style that bothers CDT so much, start with this hostile, accusitory message posted to a public list (in this case, cypherpunks). This message is not a question -- it's an attack. It assumes the answer before it's asked, and it's nothing more than read meat thrown to a hungry crowd. If you have questions about how we set up the site, or how we feel about the results of Wednesday's Commerce Committee vote, all you have to do is contact us. We will be happy to talk to you. This is the way every other journalist we work with operates. Unfortunately, your pattern is different. I would have thought that after last week's unfortunate incident you would have learned something. Perhaps I was assuming too much. Jonah At 11:19 PM -0400 9/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Thanks, Shabbir, for putting this vital information online. But I'm a >little puzzled. I fear the CDT/VTW crypto.com web site may be misleading. > >You say, for instance, that opposing SAFE yesterday was a vote "against >Internet privacy" and "against passing the SAFE bill out of committee." >That's not true. The Markey-White-amended bill the committee approved >yesterday was not the SAFE bill. It was a deviant version with important >differences from SAFE. > >The Markey-White amendment includes: the doubled crypto-in-a-crime >penalties (10-20 years!), the sop to eventual mandatory key recovery by >including liability immunity for turning over keys to the Feds or the >sheriff of Podunk County, the bogus NETcenter that effectively gives the >NSA a statutory basis for domestic evildoing, etc. (Markey wanted to take >credit for killing the original SAFE. He told the Washington Post "after >the vote" that the original, better, Goodlatte SAFE "no longer exists as a >political option." That's right -- thanks to his own amendment...) > >The second and third votes are essentially the same: should the above >provisions be in the Commerce committee of the bill. But why do you avoid >taking a position on whether the second vote on Markey-White was good or >bad? > >If the second description was to avoid taking a position on Markey-White, >it doesn't work. You say in your third description that a vote for the >amended Markey-White bill was a good one. Why would CDT/VTW endorse such >disturbing legislation? (And not admit it?) To what extent was CDT/VTW >involved in drafting Markey-White and to what extent did you encourage >committee members to vote for it? > >Also, the description for the third vote is misleading by itself. It just >says "report SAFE" when it should say "report SAFE with Markey-White >provisions" out of committee. > >And, given these problems with Markey-White, why is the CDT/VTW crypto.com >site counting a vote for the Markey-White-amended bill as a vote for >"Internet privacy?" I should think that given the problems -- such as >doubling of crypto-in-a-crime and sop towards mandatory key recovery -- >that a vote against the Markey-White-amended bill is a //good// vote, not >one against Net-privacy. > >If a legislator wanted to vote for Internet freedom and reject deviant >bills, he should have voted against Oxley, Markey-White, and against >passing the bill with Markey-White out of committee yesterday. (That would >have left the cleaner Judiciary committee version of SAFE as a more likely >option.) Rep. Brown, for instance, did just that -- yet you tar him as >against Internet freedoms. > >Go figure. > >-Declan > > >crypto.com says: > >>Voted in favor of Internet privacy at the full >>Commerce committee vote on Sep 24 1997. This vote was >>against attaching the Oxley-Manton 'Big Brother' >>amendment to SAFE. >> >>Voted against the Markey-White amendment at the full >>Commerce committee vote on Sep 24 1997. The vote was >>against attaching the Markey-White amendment to SAFE. >> >>Voted against Internet privacy at the full Commerce >>committee vote on Sep 24 1997. The vote was against >>passing the SAFE bill out of committee. > > > >At 17:56 -0400 9/25/97, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote: >>Last night's votes on SAFE in the Commerce committee are in place at >>http://www.crypto.com/member/ >> >>Simply select the member of Congress you're curious about, either by zip code >>or by state, and you can see how they voted in the three Commerce votes >>last night. Then, you can call and yell or send kudos. * Value Your Privacy? The Government Doesn't. Say 'No' to Key Escrow! * Adopt Your Legislator - http://www.crypto.com/adopt -- Jonah Seiger, Communications Director (v) +1.202.637.9800 Center for Democracy and Technology pager +1.202.859.2151 <jseiger(a)cdt.org> PGP Key via finger http://www.cdt.org http://www.cdt.org/homes/jseiger

8 11

InfoWar 22 (Part III of 'The True Story of the InterNet')
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

InfoWar 22 / TEXT
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The True Story of the InterNet Part III InfoWar Final Frontier of the Digital Revolution Behind the ElectroMagnetic Curtain by TruthMonger <tm(a)dev.null> Copyright 1997 Pearl Publishing ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- InfoWar Table of Contents * Forever Young ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Forever Young ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alexis and Jonathan were resting in each other's arms on the couch by the old oak table, and quietly discussing the wide variety of posts to the CypherPunks mailing lists in the wake of the House Commerce Committee's defeat of the Oxley amendment to the SAFE bill and their approval of the Markey-White amendment, instead. "It seems strange that the our future destiny is so deeply intertwined with events that happened over a century ago." Alexis said. "It seems even stranger," she continued, "that our past is being transmogrified through the InformEnergy we are exchanging with that era through the Trei Transponder." "Not to mention the present" Jonathan added, showing her the post he had just pulled up on the GraphiScreen behind them. Subject: FWD: Dear Representative Oxley From: Anthony Garcia <agarcia(a)Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> To: cypherpunks(a)Algebra.COM For what it's worth. -Anthony Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 17:47:37 -0500 (CDT) From: Anthony Garcia <agarcia(a)Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> To: Mike.Oxley(a)mail.house.gov Subject: Dear Representative Oxley At this time, it looks like your ignorant, anti-Constitutional amendment to the Safety And Freedom through Encryption Act will be passed by the Commerce Committee. This legislation may go on to be passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. In case this occurs, I would like you to make note of my home address and telephone number. They are: Anthony Garcia [address & phone elided for broadcast on cypherpunks list] If I move to a new address in the future, I will update you. I telling you this because I fully intend to willfully break your stupid law exactly 1 minute after the moment it goes into effect on January 1st, 1999. I will: - Manufacture an encryption product that does not support key escrow (I will compile source code for encryption software which does not support key escrow.) - Offer to sell that encryption product to any takers for the sum of $1. - Offer that encryption product for free to the public via FTP or HTTP file transfer over the Internet. - Import an encryption software product which does not support key escrow by means of file transfer over the Internet from a foreign source. So, get ready to arrest me, Big Mike. Get out your old FBI shield and shine it up, because I AM GOING TO BREAK YOUR LAW. GOT IT? Sincerely, -Anthony Garcia agarcia(a)neosoft.com P.S. When you have some free time, look up a document known as the "Bill of Rights", and review the sections titled "First Amendment" and "Fourth Amendment". Alexis gazed at the post with interest, but seemed mystified as to what import it had for the Magic Circle's present situation. "I don't remember seeing this post in the archives we went over yesterday, but it certainly doesn't to seem unusual for the CypherPunks list." "It wasn't in the mailing list archives yesterday." Jonathan told her, waiting for the import of what he was saying to begin sinking in, as evidenced by Alexis's ever-widening eyes, before continuing. "All of the posts that were in the archive yesterday are either nonexistent, or changed, when compared to emails we're pulling from A Player To Be Named Later's digital implant through the Trei Transponder." Bubba and Priscilla walked up, hand in hand, joining in the conversation. "If you check the archives you will find," Bubba said solemnly, "that the Oxley amendment to the SAFE bill passed on September 14, 1997." After taking a sharp elbow to the ribs, Bubba added, grinning, "We have Priscilla to thank for pointing out this most interesting anomaly in the fabric of history, as we seem to currently be experiencing it." "Bubba told me I was confused." Priscilla said, gloating at her correcting of the Magic Circle's most prestigious purveyor of ancient history. "He said that I must have read in the CypherPunks list archives about the Oxley amendment being passed at a later date, since it had been one of the turning points in history in the battle for control of the InterNet. I told the old fart," Priscilla said, as Bubba now nudged her in the ribs, "to'check the archives.'" Jonathan and Alexis laughed at her imitation of Tim May, circa. 1990's. "Nuke DC!" the Cowboy approached, waving a handful of freshly printed posts from their current subscription to the CypherPunks mailing list of a century earlier. The Cowboy had resurrected some old printers that Melissa had smuggled out to him from the closely guarded Museum of Antiquities. d'Shauneaux had brought them back from one of his midnight meetings with her the previous week. Subject: Re: SAFE = Security and Fascism through Escrow Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:00:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Ray Arachelian <sunder(a)brainlink.com> To: cypherpunks(a)Algebra.COM On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Tim May wrote: > As our Big Brothers in D.C. continue to abuse the language by taking SAFE > in a direction 180 degrees from the original intentions, it seems only fair > that we rename the bill the Security and Fascism through Escrow Bill. Erm, Tim you've somehow managed to misspell SODOMY. There's no securiy in SAFE, by definition, it's a security hole through which the citizens get sodomized. ==============================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos================== .+.^.+. | Ray Arachelian |Prying open my 3rd eye. So good to see |./|\. ..\|/.. |sunder(a)sundernet.com |you once again. I thought you were |/\|/\ <--*--> | ------------------ |hiding, and you thought that I had run |\/|\/ ../|\.. | "A toast to Odin, |away chasing the tail of dogma. I opened|.\|/. .+.v.+ .|God of screwdrivers" |my eye and there we were.... |..... ======================= http://www.sundernet.com ========================== The Cowboy announced, grandly, "There is no record in the archives which shows any indication that the SAFE bill became generally known on the CypherPunks list as the 'Sodomy And Fascism through Encryption' bill, as now seem to be happening." The Cowboy showed the group a color printout of the new SAFE T-shirt being produced by Adam Back, with a Swastika and the word 'SAFE' composed of a series of toilet plungers. "Bill Stewart suggested to Adam that it be a 'scratch and sniff' T-shirt, but Back pointed out to him that SAFE was already beginning to smell bad to an increasing number of people, anyway." The small group shared a chuckle or two, as the Cowboy continued. "In addition to the challenge issued to Oxley by Anthony Garcia, and the posts by May and Arachelian, which didn't exist in our recent previous pastif that makes senseI have found that even the posts that do exist in the archives are not the same as the ones we are currently receiving from that same point in time. "There has been a subtle quantum shift in the tone and direction of the posts to the CypherPunks list, as well as to the rest of the history surrounding the InterNet during that crucial nadir point in the InterNet's evolution." The Cowboy pulled out a bottle of Jim Beam and passed it around the tablean indication that he was about to drop a bombshell on his compatriots. After everyone had downed a stiff shot of the ice-cold bourbon, he asked, "What did we all agree were two serious errors in Chapter 20 of 'InfoWar.'" he asked the others. Alexis was the first to speak. "Well, in general, we agreed that it was a ridiculously overdone parody of a conspiracy theory worthy of ? the Lunatic's deranged mind." "In specific," Jonathan added, as the group laughed, once again, "attributing the chapter as being written by Bill Gates, wherein the man purportedly connects himself to one of the sleaziest maneuvers in the history of the perversion of democracy and justice, then proceeding to make it look as if he had cowardly submitted to blackmail by the anonymous post that linked him to the original Indio gathering of weapons dealers, as well as the thinly veiled threat of violence to 'a billionaire to be named later.' "Not even the most unbalanced of the CypherPunks list members was likely to fail to see this as a shallow attempt at smearing Gates by making it look as if he had taken up the challenge that ? the Lunatic had sent anonymously through the TruthMailer as A. Fiend, to write his own chapter of 'InfoWar,' revealing some dark secret from his past, and asking him to provide some real, but improbable evidence of his authorship by making reference to some future event, based on his own inside information." The group nodded in agreement with this statement by Jonathan, and then Alexis brought up the second major inanity the group had found in the 'InfoWar' chapter titled, 'A Billionaire To Be Named Later.' "We agreed that it was a pretty wild stretch to intimate that an LMBoyd sampler sent out two months before was a veiled message from the Circle of Eunuchs to the Internet Content Coalition warning them of a serial killer/mass murderer from the north, where ? the Lunatic and polar bears live. "Although the timing of the mentioned email was rather synchronous with the Coalition's agenda..." The Cowboy broke into a wide smile, asking the others, "Did anyone happen to read the LMBoyd sampler for July 25, 1997?" The others looked at one another questioningly, each nodding negatively. The Cowboy lay a post in front of the group, which they proceeded to read with amazement. Subject: Sampler: September 25 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 00:15:01 -0700 From: sampler-request(a)lmboyd.com To: multiple recipients of <sampler(a)lmboyd.com> ====================================================== Tennis players might quote Shakespeare's Henry VI: "O monstrous fault!" Basketball players, Henry V: "Hear the shrill whistle." Bowlers, The Tempest: "Mercy on us, we split." Golfers, King John: "Give me an iron." Baseball players, Othello: "You did bid me steal." Hockey players, A Midsummer Night's Dream: "Gentle Puck, come hither." Great horned owls lay round eggs. 1. Did the Eskimo of old believe in God? A. They did. They thought God, the Supreme Environmentalist, created polar bears to prevent humans from over-multiplying. So they wouldn't eat up everything in one season. ============================================== LMBoyd Web Site / U. S. Newspapers / Start Email / Stop Email http://www.LMBoyd.com/postscript.htm "This was sent out after chapter 20 of 'InfoWar' had been sent to the CypherPunks list." Bubba commented. After checking the date and time that chapter 20 had been sent, he said, sounding even more perplexed and amazed, "A little more than a single hour afterward." The Cowboy let each of them read the post, once again, to confirm for themselves what secrets it revealed. "Fucking unbelievable!" Jonathan exclaimed. "The 'A Billionaire To Be Named Later' chapter is not only followed shortly thereafter by a completely unrelated item which contains not only a confirmation of the claim of Circle of Eunuchs involvement in the LMBoyd web site, but even expands on it, by adding the reference to hockey players, such as the Author, as well as a repetition of the theme wherein polar bears hunt and consume humans." "And adding a reference to 'horned owls' dropping 'round eggs'?" Alexis noted, looking at the others for confirmation she wasn't imagining things. "Nukes?" Bubba Rom Dos, poet and philosopher, also pointed out that the LMBoyd sampler began with a reference to Shakespeare, and that the last quote attributed to A Player To Be Named Later in the chapter attributed to Gates was a reference to Shakespeare being a member of the Magic Circle-a distinct impossibility. "Thus, the author of chapter 20 could only have been using that analogy to set up the confirmation by the later LMBoyd sampler that the Circle of Eunuchs was involved in the use of the samplers to pass messages. Jonathan asked the question that everyone was now rolling over in their mind. "What does this do to our other conclusion, that the chapter was not authored by 'Bad BillyG,' himself?" The Cowboy sat down and knocked back another shot of Jim Beam, as the Trei Transponder began to quietly hum in the background. It was causing something tucked away in the back of the Cowboy's mind to begin resonating, and he struggled to bring it to the forefront of his consciousness where it could be examined in the light of reason "A Player To Be Named Later had no connection to the LMBoyd web site." the Cowboy stated emphatically, surprising the others, who were lost in their own contemplation. The Cowboy looked at each of the others, in turn, and announced, "But Gates did!" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Player To Be Named Later lay on his bed, Baby lying by his side and looking up quizzically at him, wondering about the soft humming noise coming from her friend's head. He reached down and stroked her on the back of the neck, saying, "Modern technology, Baby. Someday I'll get you a digital implant, too, so that you can bark at the doggies of the future." He laughed and rose to get Baby a bowl of milk. BillyG had done his homework, that much was certain. And the man had added some personal touches to chapter 20 of 'InfoWar' that would have done justice to even the most diabolically astute members of the legendarily insane conspiracy of the slippery, esoteric--and definitely mythical--Circle of Eunuchs. He had immediately noticed BillyG's reference to the Shakespeare line from the first sentence of the last chapter of "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre." Having the quote, "And one man, in his time, plays many parts." spoken by A Player To Be Named Later was an obvious implication that he and the Author were one and the same person. Keeping the 'true identity' of the Author 'in play,' as Bubba called it, was a Circle of Eunuchs tradition. As well, the last chapter of TXCSM, titled 'it ain't over 'till it's over,' contained a reference to the "He who shits on the Road will meet flies on his return." quote, which was a usual part of the TruthMailer header, but was not included in the TruthMailer email which had originally challenged BillyG to write a chapter for 'InfoWar.' That TXCSM chapter also made reference to Pearl Harbor Computers motto, "We've been bombed since 1941.", which meant that the Magic Circle had been brought full circle to closure by the veiled reference to the nuclear bomb in the follow-up LMBoyd sampler which served to confirm the details of the chapter 20 reference to a previous LMBoyd sampler. "And the ending of the second sampler," he told Baby, who was listening intently, "with a direct reference to the polar bears mentioned in the one from two months beforea fucking classic in-your-face Circle of Eunuchs maneuver that says everything and proves nothing!" The timing of the confirmation post was likewise a classic maneuver. Anyone who went to the trouble of checking the timing of chapter 20 and the following LMBoyd sampler could easily miscalculate different time zones involved and come to the conclusion that it was a clever ruse, but those who were familiar with headers and time zone references in InterNet processing would know beyond doubt that chapter 20 had been submitted to the list previous to the release of the LMBoyd sampler. The Coupe de Gras, of course, was that chapter 21 of 'InfoWar,' which was titled 'Lying Fucking Nazi Cunt Sex Criminal,' and which had its authorship attributed to the President, quoted another email which had been posted to the CypherPunks list before the House Commerce Committee's meeting on the Oxley amendment to SAFE, as well as sent to over a hundred Congressmen and Senators, and which alluded to an argument that would be raised during the closed meeting-a fact which would be later confirmed by those in attendance. The chapter itself intimated that this precognition of a later event might be attributable to guessing the probable from previously available information, even if it was a bold long-shot, but anyone who understood the full import of the reference to the 'Forever Young' Eternity Server and the demise of the Huge Cajones remailer would know beyond doubt that the author of chapter 21 had access to information that came from deep within the walls of the Whitehouse. The ending of chapter 21 with the reference to the coming assault on Intel might be viewed as information that could have leaked out before chapter 21 was written, but anyone who reread the passage a month or so in the future would see the reality of what was being implied in the description of the true agenda of 'total information control' being pursued by the dark powers within the Whitehouse and the government intelligence agencies pulling the President's strings. "Two perfect chapters, Baby." A Player To Be Named Later knocked back a shot of Scotch and rolled himself a cigarette. "Anybody who checks the true facts involved in their creation and distribution will prove to themselves, beyond all doubt, that their authorship and their wild-eyed claims are exactly what the manuscript purports them to be." He laughed and threw Baby a chocolate chip cookie in appreciation of her rapt attention to his maniacal monologue, and gave her a conspiratorial wink. "Yet," he continued, "just let them try to tell someone else of their discoverythey will find them self running from the men with the butterfly nets, in short order." "But," A Player To Be Named Later continued, laughing diabolically, "they ain't seen nothing, yet!" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" "WebWorld & the Mythical Circle of Eunuchs" "InfoWar (Part III of 'The True Story of the InterNet') Soviet Union Sickle of Eunuchs Secret WebSite ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

pi == 3 [was: Re: Chutzpah! FBI Calls Privacy Extremists Elitist
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: David HM Spector <spector(a)zeitgeist.com> > Re: Pi.... > > I believe the enlightened Legislator who attempted to legislate Pi was > none other than Jesse Helms (although this could be a legislative > myth!) and when Ol'Jesse proposed it (because he was "sick of all these > egg-heads with their big numbers") John Glenn said something on the > order of ' if your legislation passes Senator, I wouldn't want to > driver over any bridges in your state!' > _DHMS Not Helms, and not recently. From 'Extraordinary Pi', http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~nickjh/Pi.htm : Indiana State Legislature House Bill No. 246, 1897, set the value of Pi to a to 3. Duh ! Actually the wording of the bill is really unclear and can interpreted in various ways. Other interpretations include 3.2, 4 and 9.2376. The bill goes on in a confused way to contradict other areas of elementary geometry, and to contradict itself. It got passed all the way up to Senate level, then a Mathematics Professor noticed it by chance, informed the Senate, and it was posponed indefinitely at its second reading. Peter Trei

1 0

Peter Landrock's CRYPTO 97 rump session
by Chris Hall 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I know that many of you attended this years CRYPTO and probably went to the rump session too. Does anyone remember the details of Peter Landrock's presentation? If I recall correctly, he presented an amusing talk in which an attacker tried to blackmail a bank by claiming knowledge of the bank's RSA private exponent. He did this by revealing successive bytes of the exponent starting with the most significant. The ransom doubled with each successive byte revealed (and I believe he got up to 52 in his example). The catch was that any person can do this for the first X number of bytes of the exponent *without actually knowing d* (where X varies depending at least upon n). What I would like to know is what the details of the attack were: 1) Am I out of my mind and there was no such attack? 2) Given an RSA modulus n and public exponent e, can someone determine the X most significant bytes of e (presumably X is less than half of the byte length of e)? 3) If so, what are the restrictions on e? Are there choices of e which make this attack infeasible? 4) If so, does one get only the most significant bits of d that are non-zero (i.e. if d=0x0078... then one gets 0xF000 back as the result)? Or does one actually get the "length" of d (i.e. log_2(d) can be derived)? Please post any response to the list (so other people can have the info), but please Cc me too. I am subscribed to a filtered version of the list and may not see the reply. Thanks, Chris Hall

2 1

clean machine
by rarab＠buffnet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Can anyone tell me if a person could expect to encounter any difficulty with US Customs if they leave the US with PGP on a lap top machine? Would you be questioned about the contents of your machine? Would you be obliged to demonstrate that the machine was "clean" before it would be permitted to leave the country? Would a person be compelled to divulge the contents of any floppy disks in their possession before leaving the country with them? Perhaps the prudent thing to do is download PGP to your machine after leaving the US. I must take a decision on this matter in a few months. Any advice would be appreciated. Cordially, rarab

2 1

Now we know why they ban crypto...
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Lotus-FromDomain: BIONOMICS@INTERLIANT @ OUTBOUND From: "VitaminB"<VitaminB(a)bionomics.org> To: "DAILY DOSE"<DAILY_DOSE(a)maxager.com> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 16:17:40 -0700 Subject: <<Vitamin B>>(September 26, 1997) Le Brain Drain Mime-Version: 1.0 Vitamin B: Your Daily Dose of Bionomics September 26, 1997 Le Brain Drain In the age just past, a nation's natural resources were the key to its success; today it is its intellectual capital. And with the world linked like never before, nations must nurture intellectual capital lest it walk away. But don't believe us. Ask our friend Olivier. When Olivier Cardic figured out that if his electronics company were based in England his 1995 net profit would have been $300,000, compared to just $80,000 in France, he decided to do what 1,000 French entrepreneurs have done already. Move. In the era of globalization, voting with your feet becomes a pretty easy stroll, especially when the country you're in is France. Consider this: British employers pay 10.2% of salaries in payroll taxes, compared with an insane 46% in France. According to Jean-Pierre Letouzet, president of RGA Systemes, a systems engineering company, "We live in a Marxist system. France has never been capitalist. We're not prepared for globalization, and we're sinking." Last year, Cardic asked French authorities on national radio to, "Explain to me why it is better to be unemployed in France than a worker in England?" The French authorities didn't have an answer for him. Neither do we. Source: _Business Week_, October 6, 1997 --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

2 1

S/MIME Crack? Beware press bearing incomplete stories
by Bruce Schneier 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What I did: write a Windows 95 screen saver that automatically brute forces 40-bit RC2 keys. The screen saver is has an easy interface, and parallizes nicely. What I didn't do: break S/MIME. I did not find any flaw in the S/MIME security specification. I did not find any flaw in any of the cryptographic algorithms used. I did not find any flaw in any software implementation of S/MIME. There is nothing wrong with the S/MIME standard. What I find, though, is that many S/MIME implementations don't interporate at anything stronger than 40-bit RC2. I find that the default encryption is 40-bit RC2, and the user isn't given any indication that the encryption level should be changed. 40-bit RC2 is weak. This is nothing new to anyone who reads the S/MIME specifications. In fact, the S/MIME specification is very forthcoming in discussing security of 40-bit RC2. > 2.6 ContentEncryptionAlgorithmIdentifier > > Receiving agents MUST support decryption and encryption using the RC2 > algorithm [RC2] at a key size of 40 bits, hereinafter called "RC2/40". > Receiving agents SHOULD support decryption using DES EDE3 CBC, > hereinafter called "tripleDES". > > Sending agents SHOULD support encryption with RC2/40 and tripleDES. Later in the spec, the following appears: > Before sending a message, the sending agent MUST decide whether it is > willing to use weak encryption for the particular data in the message. > If the sending agent decides that weak encryption is unacceptable for > this data, then the sending agent MUST NOT use a weak algorithm such > as RC2/40. The decision to use or not use weak encryption overrides > any other decision in this section about which encryption algorithm to > use. And even later: > 2.6.2.3 Rule 3: Unknown Capabilities, Risk of Failed Decryption > > If: > - the sending agent has no knowledge of the encryption capabilities > of the recipient, > - and the sending agent is willing to risk that the recipient may > not be able to decrypt the message, > then the sending agent SHOULD use tripleDES. > > 2.6.2.4 Rule 4: Unknown Capabilities, No Risk of Failed Decryption > > If: > - the sending agent has no knowledge of the encryption capabilities > of the recipient, > - and the sending agent is not willing to risk that the recipient > may not be able to decrypt the message, > then the sending agent MUST use RC2/40. And: > 2.6.3 Choosing Weak Encryption > > Like all algorithms that use 40 bit keys, RC2/40 is considered by many > to be weak encryption. A sending agent that is controlled by a human > SHOULD allow a human sender to determine the risks of sending data > using RC2/40 or a similarly weak encryption algorithm before sending > the data, and possibly allow the human to use a stronger encryption > method such as tripleDES. I wrote this screen saver not to trash S/MIME (even though the announcement was used by another company), but to 1) illustrate that 40-bit RC2 really is insecure, and 2) try to force companies who implement S/MIME to get DES and triple-DES to interoperate. I heard recently that RSADSI has said there is a triple-DES message on their website that can be understood by both Microsoft Internet Explorer and Netscape Communicator. I don't know about the message, but when I tried to get DES and triple-DES to interoperate a few months ago I couldn't. Bruce ********************************************************************** Bruce Schneier, President, Counterpane Systems Phone: 612-823-1098 101 E Minnehaha Parkway, Minneapolis,MN 55419 Fax: 612-823-1590 http://www.counterpane.com

1 0

RE: Chutzpah! FBI Calls Privacy Extremists Elitist
by Fisher Mark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I believe the enlightened Legislator who attempted to legislate Pi was >none other than Jesse Helms (although this could be a legislative >myth!) and when Ol'Jesse proposed it (because he was "sick of all these >egg-heads with their big numbers") John Glenn said something on the >order of ' if your legislation passes Senator, I wouldn't want to >driver over any bridges in your state!' Alas (according to my failing memory) it was legislator from my home state of Indiana during the early part of this century, who had planned to make a killing in textbooks if Pi == 3.0 was accepted. Fortunately he was called on it when it went before the whole legislature. I just have to wonder, how much of what we hear from various LEAs is due to the political desires of the people doing the talking -- I'd suspect that a majority of line officers (or the majority of those who are informed on the topic) would have something quite different to say. "In a confusing situation, follow the money. If there isn't any money, follow the power." Domestic crypto controls just fall _way_ too easily into the trap of increased state power (vs. the actual percentages of crimes whose investigations are impeded by crypto) to make me think that this is anything other than just a blatant political move on the part of the LEA managers. ========================================================== Mark Leighton Fisher Thomson Consumer Electronics fisherm(a)indy.tce.com Indianapolis, IN "Their walls are built of cannon balls, their motto is 'Don't Tread on Me'"

2 1

ACLU opposes deviant Markey-White version of SAFE
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The House Commerce committee approved the deviant Markey-White amendments as a "compromise" package. Note: "It is now clear that any version of this bill will be used to attack domestic encryption protection." -Declan ----------- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Emily Whitfield (212) 549-2566 Thursday, September 25, 1997 Phil Gutis (202) 675-2312 WASHINGTON -- Citing civil liberties concerns, the House Commerce Committee late yesterday overwhelmingly beat back an attempt by law enforcement to hijack what had been introduced as a pro-privacy encryption bill. The American Civil Liberties Union, which supported the original version of H.R. 695, the Security and Freedom through Encryption Act ("SAFE") applauded the committee's action, but said it could not support the new version of SAFE, which contains a new set of civil liberties problems. "We survived the hijacking only to find that we are still in enemy territory," said Donald Haines, Legislative Counsel on privacy and cyberspace issues for the ACLU's Washington National Office. "It is now clear that any version of this bill will be used to attack domestic encryption protection. Therefore, the ACLU strongly opposes bringing any encryption legislation to the floor at this time." The amendment that was rejected yesterday sought to reverse the original intent of SAFE, a bill that would ease controls on export of strong encryption technology. Sponsored by Reps. Michael Oxley, R-OH, and Thomas Manton, D-NY, it would have given law enforcement agencies easy access to every private computer file, e-mail, telephone conversation, and online communication in America. By providing this "backdoor" for law enforcement, the ACLU said the amendment would leave a door open to others seeking unauthorized access to private communications. But in rejecting the law enforcement power grab, the Committee essentially re-wrote the SAFE bill, adopting amendments that would: š Establish a "codebreaking" center for law enforcement that would improperly involve the National Security Agency (NSA) in domestic affairs. š Reinstate an objectionable provision in the original SAFE bill that would criminalize, for the first time ever, the use of domestic encryption. š Double the penalties for criminal use of encryption, up to a maximum of 20 years in prison. š Provide immunity for anyone who turns over encryption "keys" to law enforcement, setting the stage for a mandatory "back door" for law enforcement access to private files and communications. "We were heartened that privacy and free speech were cited by so many committee members as the reason why the FBI amendment had to be rejected," Haines said. "We now call upon all members of the House to take these fundamental civil liberties into account in considering any bill addressing the use of encryption." With yesterday's vote, the last of five versions of the SAFE bill may now proceed to the House Rules Committee for a decision on how the bill will be presented to the House. The chairman of that committee, Gerald Solomon, R-NY, has vowed publicly to block any version of SAFE that does not have the Oxley-Manton amendment. In a letter sent to members of the Commerce Committee yesterday, the ACLU joined a broad spectrum of groups in calling for "no compromise on privacy protection by encryption." The letter urged the members to oppose the Oxley-Manton amendment, as well as any attempts to limit the right of all Americans to get and use whatever encryption protection they want. The letter was signed by the ACLU, Americans for Tax Reform, The Eagle Forum, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Privacy International and the United States Privacy Council. "All efforts, direct and indirect, to restrict our right to the greatest possible privacy protection must be rejected," Haines said. "Whether you are sending sensitive corporate documents or your family's travel plans, you have a right to speak privately." The last three committees to act on SAFE (National Security, Intelligence and Commerce) have all added anti-privacy provisions, while bills from the Judiciary and International Affairs committees lack provisions to protect First Amendment rights in the the use of encryption. Both those bills also contain the criminalization provision present in the other bills, although without the even stiffer penalties added to the new version of SAFE. A group of leading scientific, educational and engineering organizations also voiced their opposition yesterday to any legislation imposing strict domestic controls on encryption. The groups said that the amendment would have a "grave effect" on cryptographic research in the United States, and could also negatively impact U.S. commerce while benefiting overseas companies not subject to controls. Encryption programs scramble information so that it can only be read with a "key" -- a code the recipient uses to unlock the scrambled electronic data. As more of our messages are sent via computers, digital switches, and wireless phones, they must be encrypted, otherwise our messages can be seized and read by others. There are no laws that now prohibit using as strong encryption as possible inside the United States. But, unless keys are made available to the government, the Clinton Administration bans export of encryption equipment and software, treating the products as "munitions." In response to these continued attacks on privacy rights, the ACLU this summer launched Take Back Your Data!, a nationwide citizen campaign to fight for legal reforms to privacy laws and resist further encroachments on the right to privacy. Through its website at www.aclu.org, the ACLU urges visitors to contact their elected officials and voice support for or opposition to pending legislation. In addition, the ACLU said that it is drafting omnibus privacy legislation that would, if adopted, fulfill the basic goals of the Take Back Your Data! campaign. The legislation will be unveiled later this fall, followed by a broad-based effort to encourage members of Congress to co-sponsor the legislation.

1 0

Re: Remailer Attack
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Robert A. Costner wrote: >At 03:03 AM 9/26/97 -0400, Monty Cantsin wrote: >>Right now it's [the remailer network] sort of usable, but only for the >>dedicated, and there aren't many of us. I seem to be the only >>persistent authenticated nym who posts with any frequency. >... >>One problem with operating a nym is that people almost always respond >>to it with suspicion and hostility, even on this list. It would be >>nice to have an ordinary looking e-mail address that took in messages, >>encrypted them for your public key, and then sent them out to >>alt.anonymous.messages for pickup. Going the other way it would be >>nice if the account would accept signed messages and send them out as >>normal e-mail or news articles. This would allow nyms to participate >>in NetWorld like everyone else. > >Your desired functionality seems to be describing the operation of a nym >server, which you are not using. No, the nym servers differ in two important ways. 1. They use a reply block so your true identity lies encrypted beneath the public keys of several remailers. I would rather the message went to alt.anonymous.messages. (I guess this could be jury-rigged by supplying a reply block which sends the messages to a Usenet gateway.) Didn't the weasel remailer operator recently move his accounts over to redneck because of police interest? Weren't we reassured that no identities were revealed and that they wouldn't be revealed? That should be a good illustration of the weakness of a reply block to an ordinary e-mail address. Also, by my reading of the "uptime" statistic in Raph's remailer chart, a reply block is not going to be very reliable for receiving mail. Are there any nyms out there using the nym servers who will endorse the reliability of reply blocks? Would you run a business using them? 2. The nym servers advertise that the accounts are nyms through the choice of domain names. So, presumably, people will respond with the same hostility that they respond to any other anonymous message. I presume the remailer operators want to minimize the number of times somebody is defrauded through an anonymous account. But, by the same logic, ISPs should carefully identify their customers the same way a bank does. E-mail addresses should not be used as an authentication method. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNCvO2paWtjSmRH/5AQEuFQf5AUPisKJypoHrU7H2Oi8bbs2GSBP+IvS3 iQJd+JO7rQv6h8rZ/qPKrgZOViAz95xNCVHLabQsIZKPJxxhjV94obu5k2+QW06S i7PrsQM9y4+G611Cej5ND2axo9yDxprOV3/IQ/VuXvmXxyK8Xeg4Wt7GD/Skatc9 dVvTwPCD523tZJeYvKSq9l4AE/Gum+7LTEmWewz36dOm9dNokrRLcM3IqDhzhigW np9tFPxwdrVy2AEDl8RCg8oAVzJt1sjW7CytuCK3kOyeh9hF0NlcSgE+BtMoVoqW IhMVVeD4pMjeHWohAfyTuEEzDRPkNdBf/9YUulik+aMkR4TWnXUG+A== =xYd9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

SSZ is back!...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Just a quick note to say that SSZ is back after a 2 day downtime caused by the phone company throwning my trunk onto another trunk because of a switch in central office location (I'm closer to the new one). The only problem was the ISDN wasn't listed in the to-throw list so that pair got pruned out. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Bidzos editorial moves across business wires
by David HM Spector 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This just went out over the wires... attributed to Investors Business Daily Headline: Guest Editorial Nothing Safe About Encryption Bills ====================================================================== By D. JAMES BIDZOS Congress is intent on regulating encryption technology in the name of law enforcement, no matter what the cost. But the real debate's not about fighting crime. It's about the ability of American business to compete in our new networked world. The Senate is nearing a vote on a bill, by Sen. John McCain, R- Ariz., and Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., requiring all encryption products made, sold or used in the U.S. to provide on-demand government access to encrypted files with a court order. In the House, the story's more complicated. The Commerce Committee on Wednesday approved the Security and Freedom through Encryption Act, a bill by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, D-Va. that was written to bar domestic controls on encryption. A few weeks ago, SAFE was amended to resemble the Senate bill. But the Commerce Committee scrapped the change and restored the bill's original language. The battle now moves to the Rules Committee, where Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y., vows to restore the decoding provisions. FBI Director Louis Freeh wants encryption controls passed. He told the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology that without such a law, "Our ability to investigate and sometimes prevent the most serious crimes and terrorism will be severely impaired." No one wants the FBI stymied in its efforts to fight crime. Unfortunately, the debate in Congress so far has painted the Senate bill's opponents as ignorant of public safety and national security concerns, or, worse, willing to put commercial interests ahead of them. What's missing from the current encryption debate is a clear understanding of the implications of the Senate bill, and the identification of safeguards against abuse of a "key recovery" system. Key recovery means that someone other than the main user holds a copy of an encryption key. Everyone agrees that key recovery is useful, even necessary. The bottom line is, who should hold the keys? Strong encryption is already a fact of life in the U.S. and around the world. Advanced, strong, unescrowed encryption is used in millions of products, including every Web browser sold by Netscape Communications Corp. and Microsoft Corp. Law enforcement and the national security establishment view strong encryption as a threat to their efforts to safeguard the public from those who would encrypt incriminating data. But this is a myopic view. Fact is, in our evolving cyber-society, everything about us will be stored digitally. Contrary to the position of the FBI -which says it only wants to maintain wiretap capabilities as they have existed since 1968 - the proposal for key recovery is not the digital equivalent of putting alligator clips on phone wires. It's more like giving the government the keys to all of our personal and professional lives. While the FBI says such access will only be by authorized court order, it has not explained how controls and audits will prevent abuse of these valuable keys. Would people allow local and federal law enforcement to have and store a copy of the keys to their homes and their filing cabinets? The computer industry fears that a law requiring products to include U.S. government access will make them unable to compete in a market where roughly 60% of their revenues come from outside the U.S. And U.S. firms operating overseas are very concerned. Foreign governments with key recovery would have every reason to use it to steal trade secrets and pass them on to their own industries. In France and elsewhere, government spies often help state-owned firms steal trade secrets from U.S. companies. The FBI hopes that the U.S. encryption market can sway the rest of the world. But if other countries take the position - as Germany has - - that they will not control the export of encryption or require key recovery, how will U.S. industry compete? Along with Germany, encryption companies are springing up in South Africa, Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland and Singapore to exploit opportunities created by a restrictive U.S. export policy. The administration and Congress seem ready to accept that American industry will become a casualty of the crypto-wars as it struggles to comply with a law no one fully understands, and foreign suppliers step in to meet the demand. We can only hope that Congress will stop and think on this critical issue before enshrining key recovery in law. D. James Bidzos is president of RSA Data Security Inc. in Redwood City, Calif. ------- End of Forwarded Message -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David HM Spector spector(a)zeitgeist.com Network Design & Infrastructure Security voice: +1 212.580.7193 Amateur Radio: W2DHM (ex-N2BCA) (ARRL life member) GridSquare: FN30AS -.-. --- -. -. . -.-. - .-- .. - .... .- -- .- - . ..- .-. .-. .- -.. .. --- "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?'" --H. G. Wells

1 0

In response to Declan's questions about crypto.com
by Jonah Seiger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This morning, a private note from me to Declan -- part of an ongoing personal conversation between Declan, CDT, and his editors at Time -- was forwarded to several public lists. It was not, as some have assumed, an attempt to obscure the substantive issues he raised. Unfortunately, this whole thing explored before CDT had a chance to respond to Declan's questions directly. I hope that the points below will help to clarify the issues: 1. CDT, along with VTW, EFF, ATR and Wired, spent the last two weeks rallying Internet users to call the Committee in opposition to Oxley-Manton. We generated thousands of phone calls from constituents to the Committee, which we believe was a decisive factor in the defeat of Oxley-Manton. 2. CDT rallied support among the computer and communications industries, including many companies that have not yet weighed in yet on this issue. Opposition from the baby bells, along with companies who have in the past been favorable to the Administration's position (like IBM and TIS), probably made the difference in defeating Oxley-Manton 3. CDT did NOT support, nor work on, the White-Markey proposal. We strongly oppose the increased criminal provisions (as well as the criminal provisions in the original SAFE bill). We are also concerned about the role of the NET Center and the proposed liability limitations for key recovery agents (though we do not believe that any liability limitations were included in the final bill) 4. CDT continues to support efforts to relax encryption export controls. We believe that export relief is critical to promoting privacy and security on the Internet, both at home and abroad. We are steadfastly opposed to ANY domestic requirements, mandatory or "voluntary", to incorporate key-escrow, key-recovery, or other "immediate access" requirements. 5. We expect that all efforts to enact encryption reform legislation are stalled for the remainder of this year, and we do not support any effort to bring SAFE to the House floor. All our efforts are focused on stopping Congress from passing any bill in the foreseeable future, unless and until it is clear that domestic law enforcement access requirements will NOT be a part of any legislation. 6. We are not working for a "compromise" with the FBI or any other supporters of domestic encryption controls. We also recognize the realities of politics. No matter how much any of us might wish it to be true, members of the Commerce Committee were not willing to stand up and simply oppose everything. It was not in the cards. White and Markey offered them a chance to defeat Oxley while throwing a small bone to law enforcement. We believe that passage of SAFE with the White-Markey amendment, despite the problems with the criminal provisions, is on balance, a step forward in the fight for encryption policy reform. That's why we have described the vote on cryto.com as a "vote in favor of privacy". I do not expect that this will convince all of our detractors, but I do hope this clarifies the substance of Declan's criticism. As always, I am happy to respond to queries about CDT's positions and tactics, but I am not interested in engaging in public flame throwing. Best, Jonah * Value Your Privacy? The Government Doesn't. Say 'No' to Key Escrow! * Adopt Your Legislator - http://www.crypto.com/adopt -- Jonah Seiger, Communications Director (v) +1.202.637.9800 Center for Democracy and Technology pager +1.202.859.2151 <jseiger(a)cdt.org> PGP Key via finger http://www.cdt.org http://www.cdt.org/homes/jseiger

5 4

No Subject
by CDR Filter Account 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0