December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Paul Bradley is too paranoid.
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Paul Bradley wrote: > One cannot now go out of ones own house without being monitored, and for > those of us who are known heretics maybe even that is not true. > > Paul "Rapidly becoming a hermit in the name of privacy" Bradley Paul, Quit picking at your face, and clean up that mess in the kitchen. Not that I'm monitoring you... -- Toto "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html

1 0

SAFE Bill / Fuck You (an inch at a time)
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jonah Seiger wrote: > However, despite our concerns about the criminal provisions, we believe > strongly that the SAFE bill, and the bills in the Senate sponsored by Burns > and Leahy, are vitally important and should be passed. When is the last time you saw a Volvo ad that said: "It's the safest car on the road, unless you corner too fast." Or a Chrysler ad that said: "Our air bags will provide you with complete protection, although they may kill your children." When Ford had a problem with Pinto gas tanks exploding on impact, and Richard Pryor set himself on fire, freebasing, I started selling T-shirts in Austin, Texas, saying: "I'd rather freebase than drive a Pinto." Ford Motor Company sent TWO legal eagles down from Ford Country, to exhort me to cease and desist. Car companies have better sense than to broach these subjects, even when they are truthful, because they know that the citizens won't put up with it. If they have a problem, they deny and avoid it--totally. They know that the citizens will *vote* with their wallets. Government, on the other hand, has so totally snowed the citizens that they no longer even bother, in many cases, with the pretension of providing us with a product of superb quality. Instead, we get: "Our product/legislation has a few flaws, but hell, it's better than nothing at all." or, "I'm supporting this legislation because it will get me elected in my district. So what if it fucks a few dirt-farmers halfway across the country?" or, "We already have dozens of laws covering this issue, but its a current hot-topic, so we'll pass another one, and add a few dozen items for special-interests groups which fuck a variety of citizens in the ass, but which we can still justify as being 'for the greater good.'" I mean, let's get real, here. We put up with crap from our government that we wouldn't accept from someone trying to sell us a mouthwash. The reason that we're not all drinking the "New Coke" is that D.C. has siphoned off all of the spin doctors/brainwashers from the corporate advertising industry. I'll lay you even money that, given sufficient funding, I could be elected as the next President of the U.S. using slogans like: "I promise to only fuck you a little bit at a time." and, "As your President, I will move us more slowly towards a total Police State." Why do we put up with blatantly "flawed" legislation, when we wouldn't put up with the same thing in a consumer product? It is because corporations fear the consumers, to a certain extent, but government has no fear of the citizens, for the most part. The government used to fear the Press, at least marginally, but they now have them in their back pocket, so the Press no longer has the power to serve as an element of protection/information for the citizenry. So the government can pass legislation which gives us rights which we already have, without it, and cut off another inch or two of our freedom/privacy at the same time. And, in the process, we will hear, from both the government and the Press, about the virtues of "compromise." THE ONLY THING BEING "COMPROMISED" IS THE CITIZEN, THE BILL OF RIGHTS, FREEDOM & PRIVACY. An inch at a time. Slowly but inexorably. It's called "compromise." It's called "reality." It's called "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." Of course, when its done all at once, then it's called dictatorship, and fascism. That's why we don't do it "all at once" here. Because this is a "free country." So we just do it an inch at a time. And then another inch. And then another... Personal aside, to Mr. T.C. May: "We'll drop the felony charges of 'using encryption in the commission of a crime' if you will plead guilty to the 'jaywalking' charges." (You never should have encrypted that letter to your mom, Tim, and put the floppy in your pocket. Sure, you can fight the jaywalking charges, if you're willing to risk 20 years in prison on the felony encryption charges.) TruthFelon

2 1

Re: Privacy news: Oakland Cameras, Levi employee files,
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

geeman wrote: > Brief radio piece on the red-light cameras in S.F. --- red-light running > appears > to be down at the 4 intersections where cameras are installed; some > well-placed official was > quoted as saying "The cameras are definitely having an effect on people's > behavior." Yes, a > Good Thing. They are continuing to move forward with plans to install more > cameras. > > This is fine for red-light-running. I'm just worried about the day when > the cameras > have an effect on people's behavior with respect to what they say, whom > they associate with, > the clothes they wear, the thoughts they think... They have also installed hidden cameras in geeman's home. This is fine for monitoring geeman. I'm just worried about the day when the cameras are put in my own home. TruthMonitor

1 0

Re: Fingerprint Stego
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>|It seems the INS and FBI are unwilling to grant US citizenship to >|persons without legible fingerprints. .. >Does this mean that, ipso facto (I love it), physically challenged >individuals with missing or deformed hands are excluded regardless of other >qualifications? What a monstrosity of a rule! Or at least that some individual thugs working for La Migra think so. If your real fingerprints are <null set>, then those are your real fingerprints - and if the Thugs don't like it, fire them. >Was this carried over the wire? AP? (Hey, we weren't talking about Jim Bell here. Maybe we should?:-) >|"This is not something we take lightly," said INS spokesperson >|Irene Mortensen. "We can't just arbitrarily give out citizenship >|to just anyone." ... >Is it not possible to retroactively _remove_ the citizenship of such an >arrogant bureaucrat to test whether she could make the grade imposed on the >rest of the world's "refuse?" Only for treason; this may qualify. While the Constitution does give Congress authority to set procedures for naturalizing immigrants, it doesn't give them an option about _whether_ to do it. Just how. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: Bombs Away, from The Netly News Network
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh wrote: > Internet fear-mongering is back in vogue inside > the White House. The Clinton administration escalated > its assault on the Net this week, warning that it > provides bomb-making recipes to anyone "with a modem" > and proposing a new law to restrict such information. "The answer to noise is more noise." - Timothy McVeigh

1 0

"restrict technical assistance by U.S. persons with respect toencryption"
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:09 PM -0800 5/1/97, Anil Das wrote: >On May 1, 11:40am, Tim May wrote: >> >> I'm no expert in these areas, but doesn't this consitute "providing hooks" >> for strong crypto? The EARs say that a "hook" for inserting crypto modules >> once a product is exported are essentially as bad as providing the crypto >> before the product is exported. > > If the EAR says that, I would like to have a reference to >the section, please, so I can look it up at jya.com. I am not >saying it is not there, just that I haven't seen it, and I would >like to see what the exact language is. I hate it when people ask me to go dig up stuff...as I often end up wasting my time doing it, instead of telling them to use their own search tools. (It might be different if details like this were at my fingertips, sort of like someone asking, "Is it true that Darwin wrote a book? Anyone know the name of it?" As the export laws are long and complicated, finding things is not easy.) But it may have been worth it. While stupidly searching the EARs with my tools, I found this little gem: PART 730--[AMENDED] 8. Section 730.5 is amended by adding a new sentence to the end of paragraph (d) to read as follows: Sec. 730.5 Coverage of more than exports. * * * * * (d) * * * The EAR also restrict technical assistance by U.S. persons with respect to encryption commodities or software. [end quote] This from http://jya.com/bxa123096.txt I'm not sure what it means for Sameer and C2net, but were I him I'd have some experts in this area look into whether _anything_ being done at C2net could be construed as providing technical assistance. And I seem to recall some saying these kinds of EAR restrictions were linked to nuclear weaons...in fact, just today Lucky wrote: "I you read 744.6 EAR you will find the the provisions cited below only apply to nukes and missiles, not crypto." I'm not sure what 744.6 is all about, but the section quoted above pretty clearly says that providing technical assistance with respect to crypto is covered. Meanwhile, I didn't find the term "hook" mentioned in this particular URL. But there have been many discussions of this, vis-a-vis the situation of removing crypto from a product to get export approval and having a method of adding crypto abroad. "Insert crypto hooks here" is treated as if the program had crypto all along. Anil, you'll have to do the research on where in the vast amount of stuff on the EARs, the Munitions List, the CCL, etc. this is spelled out. I'm done for the evening. --Tim May, who makes a May Day promise to himself not be gulled into doing clerking for others 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."

1 0

Response to Alan Davidson
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I posted this article to the newsgroups alt.cypherpunks, talk.politics.crypto, comp.org.eff.talk, and copied this list on it from my newsreader, but the article hasn't shown up here on the list. Sometimes the newsreader/spooler/whateer runs into snags, so here it is, manually sent: At 1:56 PM -0800 5/1/97, Alan Davidson wrote to the Cypherpunks list: >SAFE would legalize the export (to all but a few countries such as Iran, N. >Korea, and Cuba) of non-escrow encryption *of unlimited strength* that is >designed for the mass market or is in the public domain, i.e.: > > "(i) that is generally available, as is, and is > designed for installation by the purchaser; or > > "(ii) that is in the public domain for which > copyright or other protection is not available > under title 17, United States Code, or that is > available to the public because it is generally > accessible to the interested public in any form;" > (See also Footnote below) But of course this is not the complete quote. Here is the material above, plus the surrounding context (and what I think are some "gotchas"): [[My comments are in brackets like this.]] "(2) ITEMS NOT REQUIRING LICENSES. -- No validated license may be required, except pursuant to the Trading With the Enemy Act or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (but only to the extent that the authority of such Act is not exercised to extend controls imposed under this Act), for the export or reexport of-- [[And what limitations on export does the International Emergency Economic Powers Act impose? This is a murky and complicated area of the law, and our own Professor Froomkin, in his excellent "It Came from Planet Clipper" review of Clipper, noted: "The only authorities noted in Executive Order 12,924 are the President's inherent constitutional authority and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).{224} Assuming that the President does not have inherent constitutional authority to block exports in peacetime, the authority for this action is IEEPA, which by its own terms applies to "any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the Untied States ... if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat."{225} While Executive Order 12,924 refers to the danger of "unrestricted access of foreign parties to U.S. goods, technology and technical data," it seems that the real "unusual and extraordinary" threat consists of Congress's failure to renew the EAA. Indeed, the President's most recent renewal of the state of emergency admits that the state of emergency must be extended "[b]ecause the Export Administration Act has not been renewed by the Congress."{226}" [[I take this quote to mean that the EEPA grants the Pres. authority to limit exports. Thus, the "except pursuant to" provision could with the stroke of a pen impose export limits on unbreakable crypto, even if the later provisions, which I'll get to in a moment, are not the clauses invoked to limit exports.]] "(A) any software, including software with encryption capabilities -- "(i) that is generally available, as is, and is designed for installation by the purchaser; or "(ii) that is in the public domain for which copyright or other protection is not available under title 17, United States Code, or that is available to the public because it is generally accessible to the interested public in any form; or "(B) any computing device solely because it incorporates or employs in any form software (including software with encryption capabilities) exempted from any - requirement for a validated license under subparagraph (A). [[The section above does seem to say that, unless EEPA is invoked, crypto software is exportable. However, the next section states the following:]] "(3) SOFTWARE WITH ENCRYPTION CAPABILITIES. -- The Secretary shall authorize the export or reexport of software with encryption capabilities for nonmilitary end-uses in any country to which exports of software of similar capability are permitted for use by financial institutions not controlled in fact by United States persons, unless there is substantial evidence that such software will be -- "(A) diverted to a military end-use or an end-use supporting international terrorism; [[So, if it is determined that PGP is being used by the Iraqi regime--as some sources tell me is the case today!--does this not encompass "diverted to a military end-use"? If it is obvious that Irish members of the IRA or Sinn Fein are buying copies of "Mil-Grade PGP" at the Egghead in Boston and shipping them back to Dublin on cargo pallets, will this satisfy the "supporting international terrorism" clause? If the 'substantial evidence that such software will be" part means that such exports are blocked only if the exporter makes it clear that he will be exporting to the Iraqi High Command, which he would be foolish to do, then this is an Alice in Wonderland law. I surmise that the intended interpretation is to block software with substantially military uses, even if not the primary uses. I could be wrong, but the confluence of the EEPA and the "diverted to a military" and "supporting international terrorism" bits lead me to interpret the bill as saying military-grade PGP will be limited for export even to countries which are not on the "hot list" of Trading with the Enemy nations.]] "(B) modified for military or terrorist end-use; or [[And what does this mean? If I widely advocate and encourage use of PGP 3.0 as a tool for liberation of oppressed peoples under the bootheel of the American fascist regime, and show how PGP 3.0 is a tool for blowing up fascists and their lackeys, and there is even evidence that terrorist groups are indeed adopting PGP 3.0 in droves, is this clause then triggered? (Or must I actually purchase a software export license from PGP, Inc., alter the code to read "Pretty Good Terrorist Tool," stamp my boxes "Meant for International Terrorist Use," apply for an export license, and only then will the clause be triggered? Ha. The clear, to mek, interpretation of this language is that the SecDef and other such persons will notify the Pres., or Commerce, etc., that some particular program or product is easily capable of being used against putative American interests, as has long been the case with so many other export-limited products. (And the limits are not, Alan's implications to the contrary, limited to the "Hot List" of terrorist nations. The COCOM agreements, the CCL, and now the Wasenaar agreements, clearly are a very broad list of products. Hell, the Japanese are now citing the Wasenaar as the reason the RSA chip will not be given an export license! The real reason, looking deeper, is because David Aaron, Stuart Baker, and the other folks in the NSA orbit almost certainly asked them in very strong terms not to make the RSA chip available for products.)]] >SAFE's export control relief is not unlimited. The bill does not allow >export to Iran, Iraq, Cuba, or N. Korea (that's what the "Trading With The >Enemy" provision is about); Congress is not likely to pass a law saying you >can export strong crypto to Saddam Hussein. Relief is also limited for And what of the EEPA provisions? Will the Wasenaar list simply cease to exist? My recollection, refreshed by skimming the Froomkin article a few minutes ago, is that the EEPA, semi-perpetually in effect, is the reason products are already on the list of controlled exports. As Froomkin writes, "Given, however, that IEEPA provides the current authority for the continuance of the EAA regime, and that the Clinton Administration proposes to move DES, however temporarily, off the USML and onto the CCL, a creation of the EAA,{229}..." On to another topic: >Contrary to reports, the SAFE bill does not say: "Use a cipher, go to >prison." It does say: "Use cryptography TO COMMIT A CRIME, go to prison": This is being disingenuous. I stated very clearly, in two places very prominently, that the chilling effect of the criminalization section is analogous to the "use a gun, go to prison" language (and billboards) used in the War on Crime. I'd've thought that analogies are a basic skill, not to mention a necessary skill for doing well on the Verbal section of the SATs. To wit: "Use a gun, go to prison" is to "Use a gun when committing a crime, go to prison" as "Use a cipher, go to prison" is to "Use a cipher when committing a crime, go to prison." The point is that such criminalization of crypto will have a chilling effect. In fact, why not support another modification of the First Amendment? (The crypto modification being one involving speech.) Let's extend it to religion: "Religious beliefs are not allowed, but the holding of certain religious beliefs when a crime is committed may in itself be criminal." So, if someone bombs and abortion clinic, surely a crime by our laws, and is found to be a Roman Catholic, this could add 5 years to their sentence. This is what the criminalization of crypto is comparable to. Or in the precise language of the SAFE bill: > 2805. Unlawful use of religious beliefs in furtherance of a criminal act > > "Any person who willfully uses religious beliefs in furtherance > of the commission of a criminal offense for which the > person may be prosecuted in a court of competent jurisdiction... > [may be imprisoned or fined]" >CDT opposes both these provisions because they are unnecessary and could >chill the use of encryption (especially by self-confessed felons like Tim >May!). But they are not as sweeping as some on this list have said. Not as sweeping? Where is this "not as sweeping" spelled out? The SAFE text is itself very short, so I don't see where this comes from. Is it from the infamous "assurances" which are so often given verbally, but never in ironclad written form attached as part of the bill? Is it an "understanding" that this criminalization clause will actually not be applied except certain classes of criminals? (Who are they, by the way, that _would_ have the law applied to them?) I take laws to mean what they say. Al Capone was gotten on income tax evasion. If the law says using crypto in connection with a crime can result in a 5-year sentence for a first offense, etc., I take the law to mean just that. If that's _not_ what was intended, then change the language!!!! Meanwhile, the crimininalization of crypto use in connection with any of the ever-increasing array of prosecutable offenses is reason enough to reject SAFE. That PGP, Inc. or Netscape has an easier time exporting browers to foreigners is no reason to sacrifice basic liberties. >Passage of the SAFE Bill would put strong security tools in the hands of >many more people. That's why CDT supports SAFE, and why we think people >who care about privacy and security online should support it too. Strong crypto, with no criminal penalties attached, is about to become widely available in the U.S. with the incorporation of S/MIME into Netscape's and Microsoft's products. Netscape has already said, and I presume MS has or will too, that they will if necessary have multiple versions of their products, with a "policy statement" enforcement mechanism for foreigners. So, what does SAFE buy us? There are no crypto laws in the U.S., and crypto is avialable, and will soon be built into tens of millions of browsers. Looks like we're getting what we need. Why give up basic liberties so that Netscape can ship just one version? A bad deal, I say. "Use a cipher, go to prison." --Tim May -- 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." 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."

1 0

Re: Random numbers from the '60's...
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Stewart wrote: > >Who needs a camera and a lava lamp when soundblaster cards with noisy > >microphone preamps are nearly universal? > > The Lava Lamp is nice and visual, though. > On the other hand, isn't the noise from blowing on a microphone chaotic, > due to various turbulence effects? It's definitely prior art, > as is hashing the physical-world input data. Just give me a microphone and a can of beans, and call me "Mr. Random" (inventor of the 'corned beef' hash system). FartMonger

1 0

Re: SAFE Bill discussion
by jimbell＠pacifier.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 21:12 5/01/97 -0400, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote: >The Administration hates this bill, because it threatens their ability to >roll out Key Recovery. They've said as much in the letter Declan forwarded: > > "The bill could be read as prohibiting the United States government > from using appropriate incentives to support a key management > infrastructure and KEY RECOVERY." [emphasis added] > >Do you think that if this bill helped the Administration, that they'd be >out there urging the subcommittee chairman to stop it? I think not. Then you are thinking FAR too simplistically and your logic is poor. The Administration thugs realized long ago that they were (correctly) viewed as a "reverse barometer": Freedom and privacy-loving people saw, generally, that if something was good the thugs would often oppose it, and if it was bad the thugs would often support it. However, the Maladministration is getting desperate, because they have no toehold in the regulation of domestic encryption, and they've decided that it's vitally important to develop such a system. They know, however, that their opponents are going to be watching for exactly such a development, and they know that it isn't going to come cheap. Perhaps they realize that the only way to try to sneak it through Congress is to pretend to oppose it for "plausible" reasons, hoping that it will collect a little non-thinking support from the people who blindly still view the thugs as a reverse barometer 100% of the time. Eventually, if the bill passes, they can sign it, concealing their glee at their ability to sneak in an atrocious provision despite the watchful eye of many of us. >Can you consider, perhaps, for a second, that critics of SAFE are being >unreasonable? I would think so, as critics of SAFE include the Clinton >Administration. Is that the kind of company that cypherpunks keep? Further poor "logic." There are obviously going to be incorrect reasons for opposing SAFE, but there may also be correct reasons. The fact that the thugs claim to oppose SAFE, although for the incorrect reasons simply shows how wrong they are. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: SAFE Bill discussion
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:12 PM 5/1/97 -0400, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote: >The Administration hates this bill, because it threatens their ability to >roll out Key Recovery. [...] >Do you think that if this bill helped the Administration, that they'd be >out there urging the subcommittee chairman to stop it? I think not. Sure they would - it's a standard negotiating tactic. Ask for twice what you need, then grudgingly accept half of what you asked for, whining and complaining about how your needs aren't being met, how badly you're being screwed, etc. Haven't you ever bought a car? Do you think that the Administration will ever say "We've already eliminated enough freedom and privacy, we don't need more laws to serve the 'legitimate needs of law enforcement'"? I think not. >I'm also puzzled by the fact that CDT is being criticized pretty much >solely, even though the entire Internet Privacy Coalition, and several >other groups all wrote a letter of support of the bill with only a >criticism of one provision. I think this is occurring for two reasons: 1. The people at CDT are closely identified with the stance that the EFF took on the Digital Telephony bill, which is strikingly similar to the coalition's approach to SAFE - e.g., cooperate with/support legislation that's harmful, in hopes that by doing so you'll be able to negotiate away some of the harm .. "We won't do any better than this, so we might as well make the best of it." Digital Telephony is not ancient history, and it hasn't been forgotten. I believe that the people who brokered that compromise are essentially good people, who had good motives and 99% pure hearts .. but the Digital Telephony bill is a goddamned embarassment to people who care about privacy and the Fourth Amendment. Now the FBI wants the ability to implement SIXTY THOUSAND SIMULTANEOUS WIRETAPS. What sort of macabre dance do you think they'll be doing with the bones of SAFE in a few more years? 2. It strikes me as unlikely that all of the groups mentioned really sat down and hashed all of this out - my hunch is that one or two of the groups wrote up an analysis and a proposed letter, and asked the other groups to sign on. A likely suspect for the/a group who did the behind-the-scenes work is CDT. >As far as I can tell, everyone criticizing the bill either thinks that: > > a) CDT actually runs all these groups behind the scenes, or You're not exactly likely to pick up respect or credibility by ascribing ridiculous or straw-man positions to people who disagree with you. I haven't seen anyone (not even the resident loons, and usually someone can be counted on to pipe up and suggest the existence of a massive alphabet-soup conspiracy) suggest that "CDT actually runs all these groups ..". (Don't bother, Toto - I'll do it for you. "C2Net actually runs all these groups behind the scenes, as anyone who's bothered to inspect the message headers while drinking a bottle of Scotch can tell you." And, of course, Jim Bell has a solution for that.) >Can you consider, perhaps, for a second, that critics of SAFE are being >unreasonable? I would think so, as critics of SAFE include the Clinton >Administration. Is that the kind of company that cypherpunks keep? If this is the caliber and depth of reasoning that you bring to bear on other issues, it's a miracle that you get anything done at all. Some critics of SAFE are being unreasonable. Some are not being unreasonable. >Here's a great excerpt from the Internet Privacy Coalition letter: > > The pending bill provides a positive framework for the reforms that are > long overdue in this critical area. It makes clear that the sale or use >of > encryption, a vital technique to promote network security and individual > privacy, should not be restricted in the United States. This is the view > widely shared by users of the Internet and the computer and communications > industry. It was also a central recommendation of the > report of the National Research Council last year. > >Looks like widespread support from people who study this issue for living. >I'm glad to be counted among them. If SAFE (and ECPA II and ProCODE) limited themselves to the "reforms that are long overdue in this critical area" (export control), you'd probably find a lot more support among cypherpunks for them. I'm beginning to think that the focus on the economic aspects of crypto export control has been a mistake (cf. "export jobs, not crypto" in my .signature) - because what we're seeing is corporations working out deals with the government, and privacy and individual interests are getting screwed. From my perspective, it was an attempt to recast the crypto debate in terms that make sense to Congress and policy interests - but what we've ended up with is a debate about how we can help enormous domestic software companies compete in global markets, not a debate about the relationship between individuals and the state, or about privacy and speech as fundamental rights protected by cryptography. I guess the current thinking is that privacy for humans will come about through a trickle-down effect, that strong crypto will be deployed on a large scale because it'll be quickly built into lots of software .. but I doubt it. Big software companies don't give a fuck if they're selling GAK crypto or weak crypto or strong crypto, as long as they're selling it. (the people inside may care, but they're unlikely to be or stay in positions where their opinions matter.) Which is why cypherpunks should write code, and not wait for Microscape to do it for them, nor for legislators to make it pleasant for them to do so. If SAFE is the best we can get from Congress (and people who should know seem to think it is), we can't expect Congress to save us from the executive branch. (The executive branch was working on this stuff before anyone outside of Arkansas had ever heard of Bill Clinton, and they'll probably still be flogging it in four more years. It's useful to hold Clinton responsible for what he's done, but it's also useful to remember that this isn't an issue that's going to go away because we elect a different Demopublican.) -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

2 1

Re: SAFE Bill is a Good Thing--"Crypto For The Masses"
by Seth Finkelstein 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>On Thu, 1 May 1997, Alan Davidson wrote: >> 2. CDT Does Not Support The Criminal Provision in SAFE >At 22:09 5/01/97 -0500, Mac Norton wrote: >I don't get it. CDT loudly supports the bill. The bill >contains the criminal provision. I don't get it. Do you? I keep having bad flashbacks to Digital Telephony, and pre-CDA. Virtually all the lobbying groups would run around saying things like "we support this bill, but oppose this provision". Or convoluted stuff like "We oppose all these bills, but of the measures being considered, we support this one". The pattern is really bothering me. ================ Seth Finkelstein sethf(a)mit.edu

1 0

Re: "restrict technical assistance by U.S. persons with respect to encryption"
by das＠razor.engr.sgi.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Since I am going to quote portions of the EAR and make some comments on it, let me begin by stating that I Am Not A Lawyer, and none of this is to be taken as legal advice, or even accurate. On May 1, 10:18pm, Tim May wrote: > I hate it when people ask me to go dig up stuff...as I often end up wasting > my time doing it, instead of telling them to use their own search tools. I didn't mean for you to do the search, Tim. I have spent some time reading the EAR. For example, by reading the relevant sections of the EAR and correlating it with the Immigration and Naturlization Act, I figured out that it would be illegal for somebody in the US to give me encryption software, though it would be OK for them to give the same code to a certain class of illegal immigrants. During all this, I didn't come accross a section which said that "hooks" or something similiar (used to be known as a DES shaped hole), cannot be exported without a license. I was hoping that some of the lawyers who frequent cypherpunk, whose job it might to understand these regulations would be generous enough to post a pointer. > But it may have been worth it. While stupidly searching the EARs with my > tools, I found this little gem: > Sec. 730.5 Coverage of more than exports. > > * * * * * > (d) * * * The EAR also restrict technical assistance by U.S. > persons with respect to encryption commodities or software. > "Restrict", not prohibit. To atone for my sins, I decided to do some searching myself. This is actually expanded on in 744.9. 736.2 (b)(7)(ii) (general prohibition seven) says: (ii) You may not, without a license from BXA, provide certain technical assistance to foreign persons with respect to encryption items, as described in Sec. 744.9 of the EAR.// And in 744.9. // Sec. 744.9. Restrictions on technical assistance by U.S. persons with respect to encryption items. (a) General prohibition. No U.S. person may, without a license from BXA, provide technical assistance (including training) to foreign persons with the intent to aid a foreign person in the development or manufacture outside the United States of encryption commodities and software that, if of United States origin, would be controlled for ``EI'' reasons under ECCN 5A002 or 5D002. These ECCNs (whatever that means) is in http://jya.com/774-ccl05.htm. 5A002 is for hardware modules that do encryption functions. 5D002 applies to software. I won't quote it here, but from my reading it lists only software designed or modified for certain purposes, such as putting it in a hardware module, for one. The general prohibitions in part 736 does not make any other references to technical assistance, so I would think this is all the restriction that is there, but as I said, IANAL, and I haven't read the whole EAR. > > Anil, you'll have to do the research on where in the vast amount of stuff > on the EARs, the Munitions List, the CCL, etc. this is spelled out. I'm > done for the evening. Good night, Tim. Glad you could find something useful out of all that wasted time, and glad I could do some searcing for you in return. -- Anil Das

1 0

Re: unSAFE
by geeman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

comment, though, on this caveat in the paragraphs you indicate: "(2) ITEMS NOT REQUIRING LICENSES. ... (but only to the extent that the authority of such Act is not exercised to extend controls imposed under this Act) .... " Seems to me that it says "the administration can still control xyz under the EAA, TWE, EEP, etc but not if such control extends the controls defined under HR695 SAFE" Looks like language to assuage the powers that be, while it creates AMBIGUITY and the need for interpretation (AKA court intervention) when some administration tries to overstep it's bounds. I don't think that's necessarily bad, since legislation has never existed that is ironclad anyway: it's always subject to some runaway Attorney General getting weird, as we have seen plenty of times. <usual caveats go here> At 05:34 AM 5/2/97 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 01:04:17 -0400 >From: Michael Sims <jellicle(a)inch.com> >To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu >Cc: Jonah Seiger <jseiger(a)cdt.org>, abd(a)cdt.org, Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net>, > declan(a)well.com >Subject: unSAFE > >Well, I've read Mr. Davidson's defense of the SAFE bill and of course >Mr. May's earlier argument against it. A few more comments. > > >Both analyses (all analyses I've seen) ignore this little fun fun >tidbit below: > ><--QUOTE--> > >(a) AMENDMENT TO EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1979. -- Section 17 of >the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2416) is amended >by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: > >"(1) GENERAL RULE.--Subject to paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), the >Secretary shall have exclusive authority to control exports of all >computer hard ware, software, and technology for information security >(including encryption), except that which is specifically designed, >or modified for military use, including command, control, and >intelligence applications. > >"(2) ITEMS NOT REQUIRING LICENSES. -- No validated license may be >required, EXCEPT PURSUANT TO THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT OR THE >INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY ECONOMIC POWERS ACT (but only to the extent >that the authority of such Act is not exercised to extend controls >imposed under this Act), for the export or reexport of > >.... > >(b) CONTINUATION OF EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT.-For purposes of >carrying out the amendment made by subsection (a), the Export >Administration Act of 1979 shall be deemed to be in effect. > ><--/QUOTE--> > >{emphasis added, EXCEPT....ACT} > > ... etc ...

1 0

Re: A new system for anonymity on the web
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hal Finney <hal(a)rain.org> writes: > Adam Back, <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk>, writes: > > The disadvantage of crowds is that it won't work to well over a 28.8k > > modem. Browsing the web is slow enough as it is, without having > > traffic make multiple hops through modem users machines. > > Good point. More generally, a path will only be as fast as its slowest > link. I suggested to the authors that the crowds could be segregated > by access speed, so that there could be separate crowd pools for 28.8 > modem users, for people who share connectivity over a limited-speed line, > and for people who have their own direct high-speed link. > > Theoretically, at least for long downloads, passing through multiple > slow links shouldn't slow down the transmission, I'm not sure that this is so. Ascii pic. consider Alice and Bob, without crowds: +----------+ | Internet | +----------+ | 2Mbits +-----+ | ISP | +-----+ 28.8k/ \28.8k / \ +---+ +---+ | A | | B | +---+ +---+ When Alice and Bob are online, consider that they are actually using their bandwidth most of the time. I know I do; if I'm not using it I hang up, with pay per second phone lines, you're likely to. Now add in crowds where traffic from A is going through B, and traffic from B is going through A: +----------+ | Internet | +----------+ | 2Mbits +-----+ | ISP | +-----+ 14.4k for Alice/ \14.4k for Bob 14k for Bob/ \+14.4k for Alice +---+ +---+ | A | | B | +---+ +---+ Now Bob and Alice each have 1/2 the bandwidth they had before. Add more users and longer hops and it gets worse. Of course my claim that Alice uses 100% of her bandwidth is probably an exaggeration. There will be idle times while she is reading. However there will be times when both Alice and Bob are downloading, for multiple users with multiple hops it is likley that there will be more than one user actively downloading at any time. > just increase the latency. I don't have a very clear picture about > how long it would take to snake in and out of a bunch of people's > modem lines en route to the web server. I'm sure it's going to increase the latency too. My ping times are 200ms from the PPP link alone (ie pinging the PPP server machine itself). Add to this that the members of the jondo / crowds pool may not be on the same ISP, and you've got the additional overheads of whatever latency is added by the cumulative latency between each of the hops in the chain. > If the latency does take an intolerable hit, maybe the idea we discussed > for the "keep alive" transmission would work, where all the web page > data gets downloaded with a single request. (I should clarify that I > was not suggesting that this be done all the time by default, but rather > that it be an extension to the http protocol, a different GET request > or a different parameter sent along with the GET.) > Another idea, which loses more anonymity but is still as good as the > Anonymizer, is to run your jondo on your ISP, if that is allowed. Then > other people's paths don't go through your modem, they just get turned > around at the ISP level. A spy at your ISP may be able to find out > where you are browsing, but the average web site won't. This compromise is probably retains a fair amount of anonymity. The ISP probably isn't loggin IP traffic, or incoming or outgoing web proxy (jondo/crowds) traffic, and probably isn't actively attacking your jondo process to see which bits are for you and which are being forwarded. I wonder if you could improve the security of this by trading off against some additional bandwidth consumption for the ISP. Say have split the jondo in half, with two cooperating half-Jondos acting as a single virtual jondo in such a way that someone with root access on one machine but not the other, can't extract any useful information by spying on that half of the jondo. > > The other problem is the scalability of the strong systems like DC > > nets or PipeNet. Bandwidth is still scarce. > > The Crowds people argued that their system automatically scaled, since > you had more jondos ("web remailers") the more people who used it. If > average path length is constant then the anonymous web browsing method > has a greater cost than the regular way, but it is a constant factor. Crowds migh scale in this way, but DC nets and Pipenets don't. Crowds is a weaker cousin of DC nets and Pipenets. Adam -- Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

1 0

Re: "restrict technical assistance by U.S. persons with respect
by Scott Renfro 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am anything _but_ a lawyer, but ... On 2 May 97 at 1:35, Anil Das wrote: > These ECCNs (whatever that means) is in http://jya.com/774-ccl05.htm. > 5A002 is for hardware modules that do encryption functions. 5D002 applies > to software. I won't quote it here, but from my reading it lists only > software designed or modified for certain purposes, such as putting it in > a hardware module, for one. Filling in the cross-references between 5D002 and 5A002 in the above URL, I read the following: a. Software having the same characteristics, or performing or simulating the functions of of equipment designed or modified to use "cryptography" employing digital or analog techniques to ensure "information security" is controlled. b. Software designed or modified to use such software is controlled. This is the clearest control of software "hooks" I have read in the reg. The software module performing encryption would fall under control due to (a) and the software designed with "hooks" for the encryption module would fall under control due to the restriction in (b). FWIW Scott

1 0

"GOOD NEWS" "The Good News Electronic Journal"
by Biz-E-Wiz＠usa.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

***************************************************************** Thank you for Subscribing to "The Good News Electronic Journal". Your subscription is appreciated. To unscribe: HIT reply, type REMOVE in the subject area and HIT send. Thank You, The Management ***************************************************************** *** CHECKER Software -- Accept checks by Fax, Phone, or E-mail. Reg. Retail Price $199 - <<<- GET IT NOW FOR $49.95 ->>> Send this ad and payment to: Linkco - POB 66781 - Phoenix, AZ 85082 ***************************************************************** ****************************** PLEASE IGNORE THIS MESSAGE IF YOU LIVE OUTSIDE THE USA ------------------------------------------------------ BEAT-THE-IRS & PAY-NO-MORE -------------------------- Our PACKAGE, (Beat The IRS & PAY-NO-MORE) will teach you EXACTLY how to EASILY: STOP FEDERAL Income Tax Withholding, STOP April filing of 1040 Form, & STOP THE IRS EXTORTION PERMANENTLY ------------------------------------------------------- The IRS Federal Income System is based on VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE.... We will teach you how to legally VOLUNTEER OUT OF THE SYSTEM! -------------------------------------------------------- - Your Success is ABSOLUTELY unconditionally GUARANTEED if your were BORN in and LIVE in one of the 50 Republic States. Our methods work every time for everybody. They are 100% legal, honest and ethical. We will pay anybody $1,000 if they can prove our method is ILLEGAL, DISHONEST or UNETHICAL!!! Our method has worked for every person who has ever bought this package without exception. NOBODY HAS EVER FAILED OR ASKED FOR A REFUND!!! - Our PACKAGE includes a LIFETIME, FREE, SIMPLE, Sizzling, RED Hot 50% PAY OUT Dealership, PLUS ALL the marketing material master copies you will ever need. YOUR PAYCHECKS WILL BE 10% TO 20% BIGGER EVERY WEEK, within 2 weeks of filing the proper forms and affidavit. WHY NOT GIVE YOURSELF A RAISE THIS YEAR BY EXERCISING AND ENJOYING MORE OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. SET YOURSELF FREE! ------------------------------------------------------------- Your package includes unlimited FREE phone consultations, a copy of the U.S. Constitution, The Bill of Rights, forms, affidavits, and much, much more! TO ORDER BY MAIL: Send this entire ad and a $35 Money Order to: LINKCO --Dept. #1, POB 66781 -- Phoenix, AZ 85082 To order by phone and Fax Check call our office at (602)267-9688 between the hours of 4 and 11pm Mountain Standard Time. You may also call just to ask questions. Thanks for reading this message! Dealer #00001 - (Unconditional Money Back Guarantee) - - Copyright 1996 Linkco - ***************************************************************** From: FREEDOM STAR BANK -- P.O. Box 66781 -- Phoenix, AZ 85082 To Wise Investors, The Freedom Star National Bank of Arizona offers: "The More You Save The More You Earn". We offer only CD's, i.e., Certificates of Deposit. $100-$999 deposit pays 18%. $1,000-$4,999 deposit pays 24%. $5,000 and up deposit pays 30%. All % rates are per year and are not compounded. There is a 50% penalty for early withdrawal. All deposits have a 1 year maturity. All funds must remain on deposit for a least 6 months. Call Mr. Jon L. Boulet at 1-602-267-9688 for more information or to make a deposit. Thanks! ****************************************************************** 100,000 E-MAIL ADDRESSES *** ON 3-1/2" DISK *** $19.95 LINKCO MARKETING - POB 66781 - PHOENIX, AZ 85085 ***(602)267-9688*** ****************************************************************** 3,800 FRESH HOT FAX NUMBERS ***$41*** ON 3-1/2 DISK LINKCO MARKETING - POB 66781 - PHOENIX, AZ 85085 ***(602)267-9688*** ****************************************************************** Come visit: http://The-Money-Mall.com Earn and/or save a BUNDLE!!! ****************************************************************** (YOUR 50 WORDS *** BULK E-MAILED) to (1.5 MILLION HOT PROSPECTS) ***SEND YOUR 50 WORDS ON 3-1/2 DISK + $129.95*** LINKCO MARKETING - POB 66781 - PHOENIX, AZ 85085 ***(602)267-9688*** ****************************************************************** ***GREAT NEWS!*** Learn my SECRET to build a large downline FAST! Make more MONEY than you've ever made in your life! Great News International has created a NEW and POWERFUL marketing concept and its own DOWNLINE GENERATOR to market the finest product package ever offered through an MLM company! A possible WEEKLY $8,968 with each group of 30 people!! Only $50 one time out of pocket! SATISFACTION MONEY BACK GUARANTEE! FREE report, Valuable to all Networkers! ***Find Out How--Call 716-453-8952*** ***Fax-On-Demand (703)904-7770 Doc. #404*** ***InterNET: http://www.gnint.com/ir/jb4428.htm*** ***Jon L. Boulet (602)267-9688 *** Sponsor ID #jb4828*** ****************************************************************** Check out -LINKCO- (602)267-9688 1-11-pm (MST) We offer the following: 1. Domain registration services. 2. Domain name sales, trades, and consignments. 3. Copywriting. 4. Typeseting and graphic design. 5. TAX advice and counseling. 6. E-mail address lists. 7. Fax number lists 8. Web page design and hosting. 9. Bulk e-mail software and e-mail address extractors. 10. Pop3 E-mail accounts that are bulk mail friendly. 11. FREE investment advice. 12. FREE MLM counseling. 13. Discount Bulk e-mailing service. 14. 9 cent/min. long distance service. Changing LD provider not required. FREEBIE, just call me. 15. Discount advertising - opportunity publications. ************************************************************* Dear Entrepreneur, How to get MORE ORDERS for ANYTHING YOU SELL! Hi, saw your posting online and was wondering if you market products/services using your computer and would like to learn how to do so QUITE a bit better than what you are already doing? If so, just say the words (words=MORE ORDERS) and I'll email a free, helpful file that could mean the online marketing difference between scintillating success and frustrating failure. Just write me at: Linkco1(a)Juno.com and a complete information package will be e-mailed to you ASAP. ************************************************************* ********* E-MAIL DIRECT MARKETING ************ Effective Direct Advertising at a cost you can afford...... CARD DECKS cost you about 2 cents per card or $2,000 per 100,000. A post card size Advertisement in print cost about $800 per 100,000 circulation. BUT GET THIS !!!!! YOU can send your FULL 1 or 2 page sales letter and order form to 100,000 anxious affluent computer owners that are interested in your opportunity for ONLY: <<< $129 >>> That's the power of E-Mail and it means more and biger profits for YOU !!!!! Your cost is about $1 per thousand to get your sales letter out. If this doesn't make you BIG MONEY, NOTHING WILL!! Send us your advertising copy on a 3-1/2" disk in ASCII (.TXT) format along with this ad and your $129 check payable to: (LINKCO). Mail to: LINKCO - POB 66791 - Phoenix, AZ 85082 QUESTIONS CALL: (602)267-9688 3-11PM (MST). ************************************************************** ************************************************************** 10,000 BISINESS ENTREPRENEURS E-MAIL ADDRESSES *** ON 3-1/2" DISK *** $49.95 *** LINKCO MARKETING - POB 66781 - PHOENIX, AZ 85085 ***(602)267-9688*** ************************************************************** *** 2,000 MLM'ers E-MAIL ADDRESSES *** *** ON 3-1/2" DISK *** $29.95 *** LINKCO MARKETING - POB 66781 - PHOENIX, AZ 85085 ***(602)267-9688*** ************************************************************** ***

1 0

[CRYPTO] ZKP
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy `C' May's aberrant sexual life has negatively impacted his mental integrity. ,,, -ooO(o o)Ooo- Timmy `C' May v

2 1

"GOOD NEWS" "The Good News Electronic Journal"
by Biz-E-Wiz＠usa.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

***************************************************************** Thank you for Subscribing to "The Good News Electronic Journal". Your subscription is appreciated. To unscribe: HIT reply, type REMOVE in the subject area and HIT send. Thank You, The Management ***************************************************************** *** CHECKER Software -- Accept checks by Fax, Phone, or E-mail. Reg. Retail Price $199 - <<<- GET IT NOW FOR $49.95 ->>> Send this ad and payment to: Linkco - POB 66781 - Phoenix, AZ 85082 ***************************************************************** ****************************** PLEASE IGNORE THIS MESSAGE IF YOU LIVE OUTSIDE THE USA ------------------------------------------------------ BEAT-THE-IRS & PAY-NO-MORE -------------------------- Our PACKAGE, (Beat The IRS & PAY-NO-MORE) will teach you EXACTLY how to EASILY: STOP FEDERAL Income Tax Withholding, STOP April filing of 1040 Form, & STOP THE IRS EXTORTION PERMANENTLY ------------------------------------------------------- The IRS Federal Income System is based on VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE.... We will teach you how to legally VOLUNTEER OUT OF THE SYSTEM! -------------------------------------------------------- - Your Success is ABSOLUTELY unconditionally GUARANTEED if your were BORN in and LIVE in one of the 50 Republic States. Our methods work every time for everybody. They are 100% legal, honest and ethical. We will pay anybody $1,000 if they can prove our method is ILLEGAL, DISHONEST or UNETHICAL!!! Our method has worked for every person who has ever bought this package without exception. NOBODY HAS EVER FAILED OR ASKED FOR A REFUND!!! - Our PACKAGE includes a LIFETIME, FREE, SIMPLE, Sizzling, RED Hot 50% PAY OUT Dealership, PLUS ALL the marketing material master copies you will ever need. YOUR PAYCHECKS WILL BE 10% TO 20% BIGGER EVERY WEEK, within 2 weeks of filing the proper forms and affidavit. WHY NOT GIVE YOURSELF A RAISE THIS YEAR BY EXERCISING AND ENJOYING MORE OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. SET YOURSELF FREE! ------------------------------------------------------------- Your package includes unlimited FREE phone consultations, a copy of the U.S. Constitution, The Bill of Rights, forms, affidavits, and much, much more! TO ORDER BY MAIL: Send this entire ad and a $35 Money Order to: LINKCO --Dept. #1, POB 66781 -- Phoenix, AZ 85082 To order by phone and Fax Check call our office at (602)267-9688 between the hours of 4 and 11pm Mountain Standard Time. You may also call just to ask questions. Thanks for reading this message! Dealer #00001 - (Unconditional Money Back Guarantee) - - Copyright 1996 Linkco - ***************************************************************** From: FREEDOM STAR BANK -- P.O. Box 66781 -- Phoenix, AZ 85082 To Wise Investors, The Freedom Star National Bank of Arizona offers: "The More You Save The More You Earn". We offer only CD's, i.e., Certificates of Deposit. $100-$999 deposit pays 18%. $1,000-$4,999 deposit pays 24%. $5,000 and up deposit pays 30%. All % rates are per year and are not compounded. There is a 50% penalty for early withdrawal. All deposits have a 1 year maturity. All funds must remain on deposit for a least 6 months. Call Mr. Jon L. Boulet at 1-602-267-9688 for more information or to make a deposit. Thanks! ****************************************************************** 100,000 E-MAIL ADDRESSES *** ON 3-1/2" DISK *** $19.95 LINKCO MARKETING - POB 66781 - PHOENIX, AZ 85085 ***(602)267-9688*** ****************************************************************** 3,800 FRESH HOT FAX NUMBERS ***$41*** ON 3-1/2 DISK LINKCO MARKETING - POB 66781 - PHOENIX, AZ 85085 ***(602)267-9688*** ****************************************************************** (YOUR 50 WORDS *** BULK E-MAILED) to (1.5 MILLION HOT PROSPECTS) ***SEND YOUR 50 WORDS ON 3-1/2 DISK + $129.95*** LINKCO MARKETING - POB 66781 - PHOENIX, AZ 85085 ***(602)267-9688*** ****************************************************************** ***GREAT NEWS!*** Learn my SECRET to build a large downline FAST! Make more MONEY than you've ever made in your life! Great News International has created a NEW and POWERFUL marketing concept and its own DOWNLINE GENERATOR to market the finest product package ever offered through an MLM company! A possible WEEKLY $8,968 with each group of 30 people!! Only $50 one time out of pocket! SATISFACTION MONEY BACK GUARANTEE! FREE report, Valuable to all Networkers! ***Find Out How--Call 716-453-8952*** ***Fax-On-Demand (703)904-7770 Doc. #404*** ***InterNET: http://www.gnint.com/ir/jb4428.htm*** ***Jon L. Boulet (602)267-9688 *** Sponsor ID #jb4828*** ****************************************************************** Check out -LINKCO- (602)267-9688 1-11-pm (MST) We offer the following: 1. Domain registration services. 2. Domain name sales, trades, and consignments. 3. Copywriting. 4. Typeseting and graphic design. 5. TAX advice and counseling. 6. E-mail address lists. 7. Fax number lists 8. Web page design and hosting. 9. Bulk e-mail software and e-mail address extractors. 10. Pop3 E-mail accounts that are bulk mail friendly. 11. FREE investment advice. 12. FREE MLM counseling. 13. Discount Bulk e-mailing service. 14. 9 cent/min. long distance service. Changing LD provider not required. FREEBIE, just call me. 15. Discount advertising - opportunity publications. ************************************************************* Dear Entrepreneur, How to get MORE ORDERS for ANYTHING YOU SELL! Hi, saw your posting online and was wondering if you market products/services using your computer and would like to learn how to do so QUITE a bit better than what you are already doing? If so, just say the words (words=MORE ORDERS) and I'll email a free, helpful file that could mean the online marketing difference between scintillating success and frustrating failure. Just write me at: Linkco1(a)Juno.com and a complete information package will be e-mailed to you ASAP. ************************************************************* ********* E-MAIL DIRECT MARKETING ************ Effective Direct Advertising at a cost you can afford...... CARD DECKS cost you about 2 cents per card or $2,000 per 100,000. A post card size Advertisement in print cost about $800 per 100,000 circulation. BUT GET THIS !!!!! YOU can send your FULL 1 or 2 page sales letter and order form to 100,000 anxious affluent computer owners that are interested in your opportunity for ONLY: <<< $129 >>> That's the power of E-Mail and it means more and biger profits for YOU !!!!! Your cost is about $1 per thousand to get your sales letter out. If this doesn't make you BIG MONEY, NOTHING WILL!! Send us your advertising copy on a 3-1/2" disk in ASCII (.TXT) format along with this ad and your $129 check payable to: (LINKCO). Mail to: LINKCO - POB 66791 - Phoenix, AZ 85082 QUESTIONS CALL: (602)267-9688 3-11PM (MST). ************************************************************** ************************************************************** 10,000 BISINESS ENTREPRENEURS E-MAIL ADDRESSES *** ON 3-1/2" DISK *** $49.95 *** LINKCO MARKETING - POB 66781 - PHOENIX, AZ 85085 ***(602)267-9688*** ************************************************************** *** 2,000 MLM'ers E-MAIL ADDRESSES *** *** ON 3-1/2" DISK *** $29.95 *** LINKCO MARKETING - POB 66781 - PHOENIX, AZ 85085 ***(602)267-9688*** ************************************************************** ***

1 0

Cyberstrike
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- May be of interest... In> From: cleacy(a)execulink.com (Chris Leacy) In> Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.announce In> Subject: SOFTWARE: CyberStrike 1.13a Ad filtering/Cookie cutting Proxy In> Date: 30 Apr 1997 23:28:43 -0400 In> CyberStrike: Version 1.13a First Public Release In> The first public alpha of CyberStrike was released today. In> It can be found at <URL:http://www.execulink.com/~cleacy> In> CyberStrike is a banner ad filtering, cookie cutting, HTTP In> header overriding proxy of a program. In> Whether for privacy concerns, or just to speed up your In> browsing, CyberStrike performs admirably well at it's task. In> Chris Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* This user supports FREE SPEECH ONLINE ...more info at */ /* and PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS! -> http://www.epic.org */ /* E-mail: harka(at)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail pref'd) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ ___ Blue Wave/386 v2.30 [NR] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBM2mQeTltEBIEF0MBAQEbUAf+NQOMPrml38ijLwv8MIPSkTUbtbNQebJy R4LaeYhXI6Z/OzJdX6AQC2GisxMyPiz3QWWBoAqxGkunWDHbQzDfZVWW6nZa4zLY do2r11CEWFPba1igX+8JtCm9gd11S8Zlff5Pw5eTYOMcsVSHf6Z/+iAT5aqnIdcb YU26JswL1MofhWlNhbNXYc/9wQ3uUn1hU3lin+Lujfa5+cXXlTyfz6eFcJlwD7ZY KdK7UfPMuCeZnUX/VJqBdJ1idXfC5YOlwVMBNIyQK7PgCy59FvP5CiiXhpui7uSj WijKBSMUsz2HuQIuQJf6zvW/bi5DGWr6PerTXnuVaUkjNHr4Fp13Mg== =5TtH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

1 0

Re: FC: Responses to Tim May's criticism of SAFE, and a rebuttal (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 19:43:07 -0400 From: Jonah Seiger <jseiger(a)cdt.org> To: Charles Platt <cp(a)panix.com>, fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Cc: Charles Platt <cp(a)panix.com> Subject: Re: FC: Responses to Tim May's criticism of SAFE, and a rebuttal At 6:44 PM -0400 5/1/97, Charles Platt wrote: >From: Jonah Seiger <jseiger(a)cdt.org> >> Congress needs to stand up to the Administration and say, with a strong >> voice, "your policy is a failure - we need a different solution". That's >> what SAFE, Pro-CODE, and ECPA II do. > >For some reason I have difficulty trusting Congress to protect my rights >in this matter, or in any other matter. Those who seek help from >government should recall Barry Goldwater's famous quote, which went >something like this: "When you have a government big enough to give you >everything you want, it's big enough to take it all away." This is exactly the point. The Administration continues to push for a government-designed global key-recovery encryption policy that would, in the words of Grover Norquist (head of the conservative Americans for Tax Reform and supporter of SAFE), "force all Americans to go to bed at night with their doors unlocked and their car keys in the ignition". It's been 4 years of it - in various forms, the most recent being the first serious proposal in history to impose DOMESTIC RESTRICTIONS on the ability of American Citizens to protect their privacy on American soil. The FBI, NSA, DOJ and the Clinton Administration want guaranteed law enforcement access to private encryption keys. That's what we are fighting against. All of us have been screaming (rightly) about Clipper and it's various mutant offspring from the beginning. Congress has at last gotten the message and is aggressively taking the lead -- 3 bills designed to relax government regulation of encryption technologies and prohibit the government from imposing key escrow or key recovery inside the US. I too share your skepticism about trusting Congress to solve all our problems. They didn't give us much reason to when they passed the CDA. And even in the best of circumstances, legislation is rarely "perfect". But in this case I honestly believe the sponsors of SAFE (78) and Pro-CODE (21) have got it basically right. The administration clearly has it totally wrong. We have a long way to go yet before this debate is over, and I suspect the Administration has a few more tricks left up its sleve. We owe it to our allies in Congress, and to the issues we say we believe in as participants on this list, to give this our best effort. Call that 'pragmatism' if you want. We have never considered that to be a derogatory term. Jonah -- Jonah Seiger, Communications Director (v) +1.202.637.9800 Center for Democracy and Technology pager: +1.202.859.2151 <jseiger(a)cdt.org> http://www.cdt.org PGP Key via finger http://www.cdt.org/jseiger/ * Value Your Privacy? The Governmet Doesn't. Say 'No' to Key Escrow! * Adopt Your Legislator - http://www.crytpo.com/adopt

1 0

unSAFE
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 01:04:17 -0400 From: Michael Sims <jellicle(a)inch.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Cc: Jonah Seiger <jseiger(a)cdt.org>, abd(a)cdt.org, Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net>, declan(a)well.com Subject: unSAFE Well, I've read Mr. Davidson's defense of the SAFE bill and of course Mr. May's earlier argument against it. A few more comments. Both analyses (all analyses I've seen) ignore this little fun fun tidbit below: <--QUOTE--> (a) AMENDMENT TO EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1979. -- Section 17 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2416) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: "(1) GENERAL RULE.--Subject to paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), the Secretary shall have exclusive authority to control exports of all computer hard ware, software, and technology for information security (including encryption), except that which is specifically designed, or modified for military use, including command, control, and intelligence applications. "(2) ITEMS NOT REQUIRING LICENSES. -- No validated license may be required, EXCEPT PURSUANT TO THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT OR THE INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY ECONOMIC POWERS ACT (but only to the extent that the authority of such Act is not exercised to extend controls imposed under this Act), for the export or reexport of .... (b) CONTINUATION OF EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT.-For purposes of carrying out the amendment made by subsection (a), the Export Administration Act of 1979 shall be deemed to be in effect. <--/QUOTE--> {emphasis added, EXCEPT....ACT} The Trading with the Enemy Act was passed in 1917 and amended (importantly) in 1933 (Great Depression, New Deal). Originally, it was intended to simply declare that when the nation was at war, it was total war - the US would not honor any obligations or respect any rights of citizens of enemy, warring countries. It specifically allowed the president to regulate as he wished, during wartime, the assets and fiscal transactions conducted by an enemy country. (Confiscation and all that). Fair enough, for a WWI era law. Here how it read. Recall, this is during a declared war only. "That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit in any form (other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States)". In 1933 it was amended, hastily, sneakily, back-door-ily, in order to grant incoming President Roosevelt extraordinary powers over the money supply of the nation. It was amended to declare all citizens of the United States to be "enemies", under its power during any time of war *or national emergency*. That is, the "Trading with the Enemy" act now applied to all citizens of the US and all of their interpersonal transactions. Roosevelt declared a national emergency, and took the country off the gold standard, pumping cash into the system and ending the depression. But doing so required power not earlier available. Thus the new wording below. This is now during war *or national emergency declared by the president*. "through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate or prohibit under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President and export, hoarding, melting or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Roosevelt of course declared a national emergency and proceeded on his way. However, he declared it in such a way as to make it continue until revoked. This country remains in a state of emergency today, and will do so forthe foreseeable future, and the President retains the extraordinary powers intended solely for wartime. These include the total ability to regulate commerce in the United States. I recommend Michael Froomkin's excellent (and lengthy) article on the subject at http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/planet_clipper.htm. Although about the Clipper chip, if you go about 60% through the article he has a solid discussion of the EAA, IEEPA and the presidential power thereunder. It's 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1701 and following. Section 1702 there has the meat of it. This Act allows the President, once he has declared a state of emergency, to regulate essentially any commerce with another nation, except those items directly identified as "speech" - magazines, papers, etc. President Clinton has twice declared a state of emergency regarding export control regulations, the latest on August 15, 1996. Mr. Seiger, Mr. Davidson, I hope that you merely did not understand the giant, drive-a-truck-through loophole present in this SAFE bill. By guaranteeing free export EXCEPT pursuant to whatever actions are taken under the IEEPA or Trading with the Enemy Act, it guarantees absolutely nothing at all. Those laws combined provide the President with complete power to regulate the sale or export of crypto, anywhere. This law, Mr. Davidson's assertions notwithstanding, gives nothing at all while taking a great deal. Every "right" the SAFE act grants is already possessed. The law also poses severe penalties for using crypto in furtherance of a crime. As an example, I call Crook 2 on my cell phone while cruising down the street. It is later determined that we were plotting a bank heist. Extra five years for using encryption to further my crime. Yep, just a plain old cell phone. For that matter, almost all cordless phones today use an encrypt/decrypt routine for their transmissions as well. Anyone using PGP on their computer? Crime involved at least one email sent for any reason? Extra five years. This will hardly support the spread of encryption. It gives law enforcement guaranteed access to keys: an awful precedent. Any law enforcement officer or investigative officer (attornies prosecuting a case) who is empowered to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of offenses under this act may compel disclosure of keys. All one needs is an escrow provision to ensure that such a key is available for the government to retrieve - and such a provision is perfectly legal for the president to impose. Thus, an FBI agent, who is "empowered" to investigate crimes under this act, can compel disclosure, by a third party, of your keys - without cause to even believe an offense has actually been committed. Without judicial review. This will further the spread of strong crypto? I freely admit I'm not an expert US export control law, which is designed to be confusing. But I believe that all of the privacy and crypto organizations which have signed on to SAFE are being sold a bill of goods, a law which says in bold letters "freedom" "freedom" "prohibition" but provides no freedoms, and does not prohibit key escrow in any fashion. I urge you _most strongly_ to consult with legal experts on these matters and verify that what I have said is true. THIS BILL GIVES NOTHING AT ALL AND MAKES USE OF CRYPTO WORTH FIVE YEARS IN PRISON. Continued support of this bill by privacy and crypto advocates is outrageous. Newsletters supporting this bill by such organizations have the effect of perpetuating the false impressions of what this law does and does not do, and need to be immediately brought in line with reality. While I am only cc'ing CDT reps on this matter, I give free permission to forward this post to any/all other crypto and privacy supporting organizations or listservs for comment. -- Michael Sims

2 1

Barmy for Bhajis!
by Shift Control 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This week we've taken one of the net's most respected magazines - and curried it. That's right, we proudly invite you to feast on the Curried Issue of Shift Control, a veritable korma-copia of spicy treats. Our menu includes every curried delicacy ever invented - plus one or two that Shift Control's own masters of masala have cooked up themselves... The starter: Poppadum will eat itself (a poppadum taste-a-thon). The main dish: A tour through the three levels of curry house, from the corner kormarama to the true viceroys of vindaloo. The side dishes: Curried thumbs - a tasteful selection of microwavable curries. Curried songs - from 'Korma Chameleon' to 'Vindaloo Sunset'. Curried Spice Girls - if the Girls were curries, what kinds would they be? Curried films - featuring 'Last Mango in Paris' and other screen platters. Also on the menu this week... The best curry of the millennium and a quiz to test how wild you are about curry - all with a rich and fragrant smothering of instant granulated Chip Shop Curry Sauce. Mmmm. We also cater for those who prefer British fare with a fine selection of fiction, including your chance to win £200 - a lot of curries - by entering our short story competition. So give yourself a tasty treat and partake in our sumptuous offerings, all of which are hot, steaming and awaiting your delectation at http://www.shiftcontrol.com Shift Control is produced by the Guardian's New Media Lab with help from Boddingtons and Stella Artois Dry To unsubscribe from this mailing list send e-mail to shiftcontrol-request(a)nml.guardian.co.uk with the following text in the body of the mail message: unsubscribe

1 0

Re: counterTCM post
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vladimir Z. Nuri, who is wasting our tax dollars, if he is paid government stooge, and wasting his own time, if he is not, wrote: > I generally agree that our democratic system has degenerated over > the decades, to the point of being scary and dangerous in places. And, in spite of this, you're going to suggest more of the "same old, same old" right? > however, we can ask, why did it get to that point? I believe > it is a failure of the citizens to maintain the > authority over their congressmen and president. And every fairy tale has to include the words, > once upon a time, citizens saw congress and the president as their > servants. it led to a particular kind of ideology reflected in the > policies of the country. > > over time, people gradually gave away this authority. they saw the > president and congress as having authority over citizens, instead of > vice versa. A lot of people give away their televisions to burglars, and their wallets to armed robbers. The person with the largest weapon has the most authority. > TCM's idea of telling congress and the president to f*** off is actually, > in my opinion, an extreme case of people giving away their authority. > it is more of the same problem, not the solution. it is failing to > address the root of the problem-- that the president and congress > must be put in a subservient relationship to the desires of the citizens. So you're about to suggest following Tim McVeigh's example, only at the White House, instead, right? > one must uncreate the monster in the same ways it was created. Right. It began life at the point of a gun, and that's the way it should end when the monster begans feeding on those who created it. > I commend CDT and all other online groups for their organizational > motives and drive, and condemn TCM for his pissing on them. what is he doing? Sounds like a good, old-fashioned cypherpunks pissing contest to me. Better lay in extra beer. > if something is broken, do you fix it, or abandon it? or shoot it? TCM is > always advocating the latter two. it's not a solution, and he knows it, > and everyone else here knows it too. This is wonderful! At last the cypherpunks have a leader who can speak for all of us. When does the New List Moderation begin? I'm going to have to lay in a whole shitload of beer for this round. PissMonger & his corporate schill pooch, Spudz

1 0

Made a Mistake! Re: unSAFE
by geeman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I wrote --- comment, though, on this caveat in the paragraphs you indicate: "(2) ITEMS NOT REQUIRING LICENSES. ... (but only to the extent that the authority of such Act is not exercised to extend controls imposed under this Act) .... " Seems to me that it says "the administration can still control xyz under the EAA, TWE, EEP, etc but not if such control extends the controls defined under HR695 SAFE" Looks like language to assuage the powers that be, while it creates AMBIGUITY and the need for interpretation (AKA court intervention) when some administration tries to overstep it's bounds. I don't think that's necessarily bad, since legislation has never existed that is ironclad anyway: it's always subject to some runaway Attorney General getting weird, as we have seen plenty of times. <usual caveats go here> --- but THEN noticed the paragraph is attached to the EAA, not SAFE. Never mind. SAFE looks more ominous ....

1 0

Power Blocs in the Crypto Debate
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We're seeing an interesting debate about the nature of power in Washington, the role of different lobbying groups, and why things are as they are. At the March meeting of the Cypherpunks in the Bay Area, I outlined a fairly straightforward model of the power blocs jockeying for position and influence, and discussed when and how the interests of the blocs intersected with the interests of other blocs. This model has a lot of ancillary conceptual baggage, which I'll try to explain as I go along. At the simplest level, there are 3 main _blocs_ in the crypto debate: * Public groups, users, citizens, Cypherpunks, EFF, EPIC, etc. * Corporations, sellers of tools, exporters, etc. * Government, law enforcement, FBI, NSA, etc. (I almost consider adding "the press" as a 4th group or bloc, but choose not to expand the bloc list too much. As we will see, their role is somewhat different, anyway.) Text messages like this one are poor for discussing dynamics, best done on blackboards with dynamic arrows, erasures, etc. But this is the diagram I put up at that March meeting: Public/Users / \ / \ / \ Corporations - - - - - Government Simple, yes. Some points about these blocs: * Forget teleology--these blocs have no "ultimate goals." No grand mission, no longterm ideological direction. Self-reproduction is vastly more important than "evolution" (which implies some guiding hand toward some higher state). * This is a slight exaggeration, as certainly many individuals in these groups _believe_ they have longterm goals or ideologies. My point is that viewing these blocs as organisms is more on target than viewing them as ideological units. Thus, corporations succeed and get bigger and spread their "memes" around. Government agencies which control power get larger...it's not that they "seek" to get larger, as is popularly thought, it's that differential reproduction and growth favors such policies...like branches growing toward the sun and outgrowing their neighbors (and then the genes of the trees which grew are more common, due to survival, than the genes of trees which did not grow, for whatever reasons). * Certainly subcomponents of these organisms may "decide" that certain policies will enhance their individual growth rates, or personal happiness, etc. Thus, their are apparently groups within PGP, Inc., as disclosed at that same March CP meeting, which see it in their interest (and they will claim, in the mother organism's interest, whether true or not) to establish closer working relationships with agencies in government. Other names for this opportunistic, not suprising behavior: empire-building, brass-polishing, careerism, greed, etc. * These blocks are "basins of attraction," and are like any other game, hobby, interest, or career. People start following football and then begin associating themselves with some team. Or they take up a hobby and this becomes their world, a world they follow closely, root for, lobby for, etc. They are "organisms," with their own (apparent) lifecycles, habits, instincts, etc. * Memes. Enough said. (If anybody doesn't know about memes, do a Web search, or read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene.") Evolutionary game theory, Axelrod's "The Evolution of Cooperation," and Wright's "The Moral Animal" (to name but a few of the many important books in this area). * Recall De Tocqueville's circa 1840 famous words of warning about the American experiment (paraphrased from memory, and translated): "The great American experiment in democracy will last only until the voting public discovers it can pick the pockets of others at the ballot box." This is another way of expressing this "bloc" idea. Special interest groups, lobbying groups, etc. OK, so let's look at crypto: Users of crypto, concerned citizens, the public Cypherpunks, EFF, ACLU, EPIC, etc. / / Public/Users / \ / \ / \ Corporations - - - - - Government - - NSA, FBI, military, / law enforcement, regulators, / SEC, FCC, etc, PGP, Inc., RSADSI, Cylink Verisign, Netscape, etc. Now this diagram can't capture the dynamics, and may even look "obvious" or "banal." But some structure is useful in analyzing group dynamics. For one thing, it's useful to note that the interests of corporations, for example, are not at all the same as the interests of users. Even if they make some of the tools users want to see! Corporations are organisms, and will cut deals with the other players to enhance their own growth opportunities...either as an overall corporate goal or due to sub-corporate group manouverings, as with the groups within PGP, Inc. working on key escrow schemes with government agencies and committees--these subgroups may even see themselves as the "true spirit" of the companies, and/or may make power grabs to make their memes the memes of the larger company...this happens every day. And each of these groups splits into multiple pieces. Some groups get sucked into the "orbit" of the other power blocs. Thus, as we have been discussing with Declan, journalists and lobbying groups in Washington (the arguable "fourth bloc" (fourth estate) that could be used for them) find themselves powerless unless they suck up to the government or one of the other power blocs. The rules of the FDA, for example, start to become the rules of the journalist...or at least he starts "playing the game." Likewise, a journalist based in Silicon Valley will socialize with other Valley folk, will follow the successes and failures of Valley companies, and will almost always come to think of the Valley as "his team." Like a sports team, or hobby, or game, or any other such "basin of attraction." (Regionalism is not necessarily the most important. Journalists will still remain "loyal" to their profession, lawyers to theirs, programmers to theirs, etc. They will look to their professions for advancement, power-building, etc. Part of the game. Growth, and memetic self-reproduction.) But "company towns" like Silicon Valley, Washington, and New York City exert a powerful influence on those living in such areas... Back to crypto. The interests of these groups are not at all coincident, and we must never lose sight of this. Roughly speaking, these three major blocs fit as follows: * Corporations survive and grow by selling things and driving out competitors. Crypto and software companies want to sell licenses, browsers, etc. Netscape wants to sell stuff. (I slip, like anyone, into saying "wants," implying some teleological wish or goal...and to some extent this is how the company will frame the issue...but a more accurate picture is that Netscape will cease to be important if it doesn't sell enough products and will become a dominant force if it sells a lot of products--the translation to "wishes" and "goals" happens in the usual way.) * Government is like a giant corporation. (Arguably, one could collapse that leg of the tripod and call it "Washington, Inc.") Advancement for individuals and departments comes as power grows. Every sub-bloc is looking for those warming rays of the sun to extend its branches and leaves. Empire-building and self-perpetuation. "The only purpose of a politician is to stay in power." Nietzsche's "will to power." Or differential reproduction. Republicans and Democrats jockey for more power, and to stay in office. * Washington, Inc. gets bigger and bigger because no forces effectively exist to limit growth. Each department or office seeks to grow maximally, as this enhances the careers, salaries, and power of individuals and other departments. Lacking any natural predators, and facing no physical limits to growth, this organism balloons larger and larger every decade, despite minor year-to-year attempts to "reduce the size of government." * These organisms seek mechanisms to enhance their growth and power. Economists speak of "rent-seeking," as when the "Doctors, Inc." bloc seeks to enhance their power, compensation, and self-perpetuation by making it hard for others to become part of their profession. (High-falutin' notions that doctors guilds exist to provide maximum health care quality benefits are utterly trivial compared to the game-theoretic, rent-seeking, empire-building reasons...they form a guild because they _can_ form a guild.) * What about the third leg of the tripod, the "public"? Even there the mechanism involves growth, survival, the will to power. Cypherpunks seek to have an influence, even to be interviewed by Japanese television! Individually or as part of "Cypherpunks, Inc.," they seek influence, growth, power. (Of course, these tendencies are influenced by external factors. For example, those of us living far away from D.C., or even fairly far from San Francisco, take a dimmer view of influencing legislators and reporters than those living close enough to get partially pulled into their orbits, their games.) * And the various "public interest" factions all have their own goals, strategies, and notions about growth and power. EFF once sought to be the dominant "third leg" power broker, had some defeats, and then essentially left Washington to lick its wounds and (maybe) to regroup or to alter its focus (which it appears to be doing by concentrating on legal cases, a la Bernstein). EPIC has its notions of growth, Voter's Telecomm Watch its notions, etc. * Some groups are more explicitly ideological, some are more willing to compromise. Cato is ideological, NRA is once again ideological (after a period of trying to cozy up to factions in the government as a way of growing and gaining influence...failure cause them to retreat to their "ideological corner"). Enough for now. The important thing to remember is that allies are not permanent, that the ills of Big Government can be seen in organistic, Darwinian terms, and that "good and evil" have very little to do with anything. I hope this diagram helps a little, at least in explaining some of my views. Your mileage may vary. --Tim May 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."

2 2