December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Want a job as a Crypto Researcher or Research Scientist?
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I can't vouch for any of it, and I have my doubts about any company that decides whether you're a "Scientist" based on whether you have a PhD, but I thought it might put a cypherpunk in a position to do some good: Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:30:52 -0700 From: dnne <dnne(a)enol.com> Subject: CRYPTO RESEARCHER OR SCIENTIST John, I would greatly appreciate your recommendation. I am trying to fill a RESEARCHER and a RESEARCH SCIENTIST position for a leading East Coast developer of encryption technology for the computer industry. RESEARCHERS will work in conjunction with Research Scientists on research projects covering all aspects of cryptography--from algorithms, to protocols, to implementation. RESEARCHERS also provide technical support to software developers and to the company customers through consulting and educational activities. RESEARCHERS should have at least a B.S. and preferably an M.S. in computer science, mathematics, or a closely related field. Solid exposure to cryptography either through practical experience or within academic pursuits is highly desirable. RESEARCH SCIENTIST candidates should have a Ph.D. or equivalent research experience in cryptography. This company provides a very competitive compensation and benefits package as well as company paid relocation benefits. Thanks, Dan Barrus Senior Technical Recruiter Cutting Edge Technologies Voice: 800-881-7212 Fax: 801-373-3024

1 0

No Subject
by Paul Bradley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cypherpunks, I have newsgrouped some further alt.groups as follows: alt.cypherpunks.announce alt.cypherpunks.technical alt.cypherpunks.social I recommend that posters crosspost as follows: All messages, apart from announcements, go to alt.cypherpunks. Alt.cypherpunks.announce holds announcements only and it`s contents is disjoint with that of alt.cypherpunks. Alt.cypherpunks.technical: All posts to this group are also crossposted to alt.cypherpunks alt.cypherpunks.social: All posts to this group are also crossposted to alt.cypherpunks. The newsgroup names are pretty self explanatory but technical is just for technical discussion and social for discussion of social and political issues regarding cryptography. With this crossposting scheme readers can either get the whole content or just the part they want easily without filtering working overtime, for instance, I might choose to subscribe to alt.cypherpunks.technical and only dip into alt.cypherpunks.social when I felt like a flame war ;-) As I said, its only a guideline of course and post what you want where you want but i feel this organisation allows people to easily choose the part of the discussion they want to read. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks"
by Leonard Janke 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> writes: > [...] > Given that _political_ discussions of crypto are now encouraged in > _talk_.politics.crypto (emphasis added) rather than sci.crypt, do you think > political and social essays dealing with crypto anarchy, offshore > databases, undermining governments, etc., will be welcome in the "comp" > hierarchy? > > I rather doubt it. And I would bet that if comp.org.cypherpunks is ever > approved, those who dislike crypto anarchy and sociopolitical chatter will > use the "comp" name to try to suppress such discussions. > [...] I think that the statement of our desire to create a new group should clearly indicate that the discussion group is of a special nature due to the tight integration of technical and political discussions. Cypherpunks are trying to achieve political goals through technological means, so it is difficult, and not regarded as desirable to produce a false dichotomy for discussions. As an example, we could cite the Linux newsgroups like comp.os.linux.misc. Linux is a piece of software written to help achieve a political goal, and, thus, in the Linux groups it is not considered off-topic to philosophize about these goals or the future as and after Linux knocks Microsoft out of the market. :) talk.politics.crypto and sci.crypt can, then, easily be argued against since the discussions there are much more restricted than what we desire. > [...] You really think whoever is spamming the list with ASCII art and > broke into Paul's account to post hundreds of "John Gilmore is a > cocksucker" posts will back off because of the "dedication" of some? To the > perverse personality, this is merely a greater challenge and temptation. > [...] Given that you have been on the list a great deal longer than I, I do respect that you may have deeper insights into the mind of the "perverse personality" than I do. I, however, am not aware of evidence that the person or persons behind the disruptions since the middle of last year would try to interrupt a democratic USENET creation vote. My recollection of the history is that the initial attacks were directed at you personally. Dr. Vulis was blamed for them and thus, apparently, became the target of nasty e-mailings to his site. He responded to this by spamming the list with rather large articles on Armenian war crimes and forwardings of the messages. At that point Gilmore booted Vulis. Gilmore then became a target of attack and, it seems that many (presumably) innocent bystanders were unwittingly subscribed to the list in an effort to cause more work, and, hence, annoyance to Gilmore when they complained about the unwanted mail. At this point many new personalities seemed to materialize out of nowhere bent on doing nothing more than fueling flame wars. Then the "moderation experiment" (fiasco)... I do not see in this evidence, however, that any of the disruptors would target the process of the creating a new group USENET group. At first, the the disruptor could easily have rationalized that anonymous, personal attacks were fair play, since anarachists favour no explicit rules with regards to speech. After Vulis was removed by Gilmore the disruptor could then rationalize that "anything goes" since list had then passed from a state of anarchy to one with Gilmore trying to decide who could or not be on the list. (I do not think that these conjectued rationalizations are valid myself, but am just trying to give an my thoughts on the psychology of the "perverse personality".) USENET nesgroup creation is whole new ball game, however. There are explicitly defined rules and the process is intended to be democratic. If my guess as to the identity of the person masterminding the attacks is correct, that person seems to have democratic sympathies or, at least, be strongly opposed to even hints of censorship, so I do not think he would attempt to disrupt the process of deciding if a new group is created or not since that would both be inferring in a democratic process and an attempt to prevent a group of people from creating a discussion group, and thus, himself, becoming a censor. (This makes me think that given that the process is intended to be democratic, it may be more fitting that a more anarchisticly method is used to create an "alt.*" group for cyphepunks than the democratic one used to create a "comp.*" one.) In any case, if you have deeper insights than mine into the mind of the disruptor, or evidence that he or she or them would try to disrupt a comp.* newsgroup creation proces, I would be eager to hear them. Leonard

1 0

[Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly]
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:24:37 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu The Netly News Network http://netlynews.com/ A List Goes Down In Flames by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) February 12, 1997 The plan for the cypherpunks mailing list was simple. It was to be an online gathering place, an intellectual mosh pit, dedicated to the free flow of ideas and personal privacy through encryption. Of course it caught on. From its modest beginnings connecting a few friends who lived in Northern California, it quickly grew into one of the most rowdy, volatile lists on the Net: Cypherpunks typically piped more than 100 messages a day into the mailboxes of nearly 2,000 subscribers. And the list became a kind of crypto-anarchist utopia. Populated by pseudonymous posters with names like Black Unicorn, it was a corner of cyberspace where PGP signatures and digital cash were the norm -- and there were no rules. Then yesterday came the news: The list was being evicted and faced imminent shutdown. In an e-mail seen 'round the Net, John Gilmore, Electronic Frontier Foundation cofounder and list maintainer, announced that he was no longer willing to provide a virtual home for the cypherpunks. In a post entitled "Put Up or Shut Up," he described how his efforts to improve the list through moderation were condemned, how technical problems were consuming more of his time, how pranksters had tried to subscribe the entire U.S. Congress to the list. How this experiment in crypto-anarchy had failed. He gave the cypherpunks 10 days to find new lodgings. "The last straw for me was seeing the reaction of the list to every attempt to improve it. It was to carp, to cut it down, to say you're doing everything wrong," Gilmore told me yesterday night. One of the first employees of Sun, Gilmore quit after eight years -- a millionaire more interested in pursuing ideas than dollars. But his experiment with the list has left him weary. "If everything I'm doing is wrong, I'm clearly not the right person to host the list," he said. "I would like to see some other structure in which the positive interactions on the list could continue. I'm not trying to create that structure anymore," he added. Instead, he would try the only true crypto-anarchist solution: "I'm handing it over to members to do what they wish with it." The cypherpunks first pierced the public's consciousness when Wired magazine splashed them across the cover of the second issue. The Whole Earth Review and the Village Voice followed soon after. The name "cypherpunk" came to be synonymous with a brash young breed of digerati who were intent on derailing the White House's encryption policies and conquering cyberspace. This was crypto with an attitude. Gilmore was typical of the breed. Monthly Bay Area meetings of the 'punks were held in the offices of Cygnus, a company he started to provide support for the free Unix alternative, GNU. But the veteran cypherpunk came under heavy fire in November 1996, when a loudmouthed flamer flooded the list with flame bait and ad hominem attacks on various members. Finally, Gilmore, ironically, gave him the boot -- and incited an all-consuming debate over what the concept of censorship means in a forum devoted to opposing it. In a society of crypto-anarchists, who should make the rules? The mailing list melted down. By last month, it seemed, more messages complained about censorship than discussed crypto. Indeed, for months Gilmore seemed unable to do anything right. He tried moderation, which proved to be even more contentious, raising the question of empowering one cypherpunk to decide what was appropriate for others to read. One member of the group, in effect, would be more equal than the rest. And why would members take the time to write elaborate, thoughtful articles on crypto-politics if their treatises might not make it past the moderator's keyboard? After the expulsion, some of the longtime list denizens left angrily, joining the 700 subscribers who had departed since the controversy began. One of those was Tim C. May, a crusty former Intel engineer who prides himself as the organizer of the first cypherpunk meeting in September 1992. In an essay summarizing the reasons for his departure, he wrote: "The proper solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship. Censorship just makes opponents of 'speech anarchy' happy -- it affirms their basic belief that censors are needed." After all, May pointed out, the list ended up on Gilmore's toad.com machine only by happenstance -- it almost was housed on a workstation at the University of California at Berkeley. Ownership of the computer with the database of subscribers did not mean that Gilmore owned the cypherpunks. "Whatever our group once was, or still is, is not dependent on having a particular mailing list running on someone's home machine... and it cannot be claimed that any person 'owns' the cypherpunks group," May wrote. The cypherpunks have responded to Gilmore's eviction notice. List participants generally have halted the incessant attacks on Gilmore, and now the discussion has turned to how to continue this experiment in online anarchy -- while preventing one person from ever again having absolute control of the List. Within hours of Gilmore's announcement, posters were tossing around ideas of a distributed network of mailing lists that would carry the cypherpunk name, and other 'punks likely will migrate to the more tightly controlled coderpunks and cryptography lists. But for the true believers in crypto-anarchy, only one solution is adequate: Usenet. "There is no 'nexus' of control, no chokepoint, no precedent... for halting distribution of Usenet newsgroups," Tim May wrote. That, in the end, is what defines a cypherpunk. ###

12 15

Re: crypto restrictions
by Derek Atkins 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

anand abhyankar <anand(a)querisoft.com> writes: > 1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) outside the US > which uses > 40 bit size session keys and then import that s/w inside of > the US. Not currently. -derek -- Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL N1NWH warlord(a)MIT.EDU PGP key available

1 0

Re: alt.cypherpunks
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > alt.cypherpunks has been newgroup'ed, and I belive rm'grouped. Smart, > > consiencous newsadmins probably did not honor the rmgroup, as > > alt.cypherpunks should be acceptable, but most newsadmins are too > > overworked to actually look at most of the crap that comes through. > > For example, it hasn't received any messages on my news server, > > probably because the one upstream removed it. > > Seems I'm getting alt.cypherpunks.announce (empty), but not > alt.cypherpunks or any of the others that show up as newgroup'ed on > Deja News... Are they alive and well elsewhere? All of the groups have showed up at news.demon.co.uk (not suprisingly since I grouped them) and I haven`t seen any cancels. I was sent a message by some net.scum about him nearly rmgrouping alt.cypherpunks.announce because it was unmoderated but he got a stern "cypherpunk" talking to for that ;-) Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

Re: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly]
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> writes: > But the veteran cypherpunk came under heavy fire in November 1996, > when a loudmouthed flamer flooded the list with flame bait and ad > hominem attacks on various members. Finally, Gilmore, ironically, gave > him the boot [...] > > Indeed, for months Gilmore seemed unable to do anything right. He > tried moderation, which proved to be even more contentious, [...] > > After the expulsion, some of the longtime list denizens left > angrily, joining the 700 subscribers who had departed since the > controversy began. One of those was Tim C. May, a crusty former Intel > engineer who prides himself as the organizer of the first cypherpunk > meeting in September 1992. Tim left when the moderation experiment started, not after John unsubscribed Dimitri, and blocked him from re-subscribing. What does `crusty' mean as applied to a former Intel engineer? Adam -- 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: alt.cypherpunks
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I haven't seen any rmgroups for alt.cypherpunks. Paul Bradley's > newgroup for alt.cypherpunks is nowhere to be found, but Mike Duvos' > newgroup made it onto the Net, and was reposted the next day by > usenet(a)news.myriad.ml.org. My local server (news.demon.co.uk) recognised my newgroup for alt.cypherpunks and it was immediately visible, I don`t know how far it propogated or where Mikes took effect but whatever the distribution we seem to have reached most main news servers. > alt.cypherpunks.announce > alt.cypherpunks.social > alt.cypherpunks.technical > > and, of course... > > alt.fan.paul.bradley What else? > The latter has been rmgrouped because it was not discussed in > alt.config. No, It was rmgrouped because the cmsg had no charter, I posted this to see if the Cabal would respond. > I might suggest that deliberately tweeking the whiskers of the Cabal by > gratuitous newgrouping is unlikely to bode well for alt.cypherpunks. Quite so, I recieved mail the next day from a member of said clique telling me he "considered rmgrouping alt.cypherpunks.announce" because it was unmoderated. Needless to say he got a stern talking to for that one ;-) I guess I just have to much of a partiality for a little whisker tweeking ;-) > > -- > Eric Michael Cordian 0+ > O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division > "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" > Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

More on digital postage
by John C. Randolph 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim may says: >By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut >violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these >laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to >the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it >is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned. I have to disagree here. The junk fax law is a restraint on unauthorised use of property, i.e. *my* fax machine, *my* phone, etc. That tort of unauthorised use of property applies, whether someone's sending me a fax to sell me spamming software, or whether it's some kid ringing my doorbell and running away. It's not the speech that I'm fighting, it's the misuse of my property. Freedom of speech does not confer a right to use other people's property. -jcr

1 0

Re: crypto restrictions
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:51:18 -0800 > From: anand abhyankar <anand(a)querisoft.com> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: crypto restrictions > Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > > thanx for ur answer but then i have another question. > > 1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) outside the US > which uses > 40 bit size session keys and then import that s/w inside of > the US. > > anand.... No. Peter Trei Senior Software Engineer Purveyor Development Team Process Software Corporation http://www.process.com trei(a)process.com

1 0

Re: alt.cypherpunks
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > alt.cypherpunks has been newgroup'ed, and I belive rm'grouped. Smart, > > consiencous newsadmins probably did not honor the rmgroup, as > > alt.cypherpunks should be acceptable, but most newsadmins are too > > overworked to actually look at most of the crap that comes through. > > For example, it hasn't received any messages on my news server, > > probably because the one upstream removed it. > > Seems I'm getting alt.cypherpunks.announce (empty), but not > alt.cypherpunks or any of the others that show up as newgroup'ed on > Deja News... Are they alive and well elsewhere? All of the groups have showed up at news.demon.co.uk (not suprisingly since I grouped them) and I haven`t seen any cancels. I was sent a message by some net.scum about him nearly rmgrouping alt.cypherpunks.announce because it was unmoderated but he got a stern "cypherpunk" talking to for that ;-) Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Jim Choate wrote: > I am taking intellectual property rights from nobody. If anything I am > giving unlimited intellectual rights to the material to humankind for > posterity. Sorta cypherpunkish, don't you think? I am amused by this. Jim's plan sounds much less cypherpunkish than collectivist. Communal property, ho! After all, workers have nothing to lose in this revolution but their chains. They have a world to gain. Workers of the world, unite! -Declan

2 1

Fuck UseNet
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jeremiah A Blatz wrote: > alt.cypherpunks has been newgroup'ed, and I belive rm'grouped. Smart, > consiencous newsadmins probably did not honor the rmgroup, as > alt.cypherpunks should be acceptable, but most newsadmins are too > overworked to actually look at most of the crap that comes through. > Therefore, it would be a Good Thing to continue any discussion on > alt.config, and convince any cabal'ers who rmgroup it to re-new it. > Sending out boosters every couple of weeks wouldn't hurt, either. So, basically, you're saying that the flight from censorship should be toward a new CypherPunk 'home' where one is effectively censored automatically unless one kisses the ass of a Cabal? Toto

2 1

Re: Dale disses gays.
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Dale Thorn wrote: > > I worked for a gay man in Beverly Hills and Encino for 3 years. I > > learned a lot about "signals" during that time. Bigot? I don't > > think so. One of my favorite customers, a nice lady who is Jewish > > (and who grew up where I did) told me she could spot 'em every time. > This is a typical case of overconfidence on her part. > If she thought about it for longer, she would realize that she cannot > benchmark her gay-spotting performance very well. > If you presented her with, say, 100 unknown men and 50 of them were gays > and she'd identify everyone correctly, I would be impressed. If you really intended to do this as an experiment, this method would not work. The way it works (and what she meant I believe): 1. Start with 100. Observe them very briefly and pick the most obvious candidates from immediately-discernable features. How accurate this would be is not so much hit or miss by misidentification as it is making too broad an evaluation on the first round. 2. Now that you've eliminated the most obvious of the gays and the most obvious non-gays, take only what's left and observe for somewhat longer, and you should be able (if you're as good as her) to pick off quite a few more. In the end, of course, there has to be doubt about quite a few, which is the whole point of having a non-discriminatory policy, so that nobody feels compelled to make judgements where they are not warranted. If you think I'm carrying this too far, check out the comedy movie with Tom Hanks and Sally Field, where Hanks identifies a Jewish doctor by superficial appearance alone. It's my only point.

1 0

Re: Good Bye Cypherpunks!
by Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just for the record. I will not post to USENET given the spamming that seems to go to IDs that appear there. If any of you reading this are interested in law&crypto topics, please bookmark my homepage, and vist every so often. == The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.52 voice recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.

5 6

Re: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly]
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The provocateurs won. Too bad. Seems Cpunks caved to the simplest of attacks. Proves you don't need key-escrow or any of the rest to ahem, "affect" unfettered discourse in cyberspace. At 11:23 PM 2/13/97 -0800, you wrote: >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:24:37 -0800 (PST) >From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> >To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu > >The Netly News Network >http://netlynews.com/ > >A List Goes Down In Flames >by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) >February 12, 1997 > > The plan for the cypherpunks mailing list was simple. It was to be > an online gathering place, an intellectual mosh pit, dedicated to the > free flow of ideas and personal privacy through encryption. > > Of course it caught on. From its modest beginnings connecting a > few friends who lived in Northern California, it quickly grew into one > of the most rowdy, volatile lists on the Net: Cypherpunks typically > piped more than 100 messages a day into the mailboxes of nearly 2,000 > subscribers. And the list became a kind of crypto-anarchist utopia. > Populated by pseudonymous posters with names like Black Unicorn, it > was a corner of cyberspace where PGP signatures and digital cash were > the norm -- and there were no rules. Then yesterday came the news: The > list was being evicted and faced imminent shutdown. > > In an e-mail seen 'round the Net, John Gilmore, Electronic > Frontier Foundation cofounder and list maintainer, announced that he > was no longer willing to provide a virtual home for the cypherpunks. > In a post entitled "Put Up or Shut Up," he described how his efforts > to improve the list through moderation were condemned, how technical > problems were consuming more of his time, how pranksters had tried to > subscribe the entire U.S. Congress to the list. How this experiment in > crypto-anarchy had failed. He gave the cypherpunks 10 days to find new > lodgings. > > "The last straw for me was seeing the reaction of the list to > every attempt to improve it. It was to carp, to cut it down, to say > you're doing everything wrong," Gilmore told me yesterday night. One > of the first employees of Sun, Gilmore quit after eight years -- a > millionaire more interested in pursuing ideas than dollars. But his > experiment with the list has left him weary. "If everything I'm doing > is wrong, I'm clearly not the right person to host the list," he said. > > "I would like to see some other structure in which the positive > interactions on the list could continue. I'm not trying to create that > structure anymore," he added. Instead, he would try the only true > crypto-anarchist solution: "I'm handing it over to members to do what > they wish with it." > > The cypherpunks first pierced the public's consciousness when > Wired magazine splashed them across the cover of the second issue. The > Whole Earth Review and the Village Voice followed soon after. The name > "cypherpunk" came to be synonymous with a brash young breed of > digerati who were intent on derailing the White House's encryption > policies and conquering cyberspace. This was crypto with an attitude. > > Gilmore was typical of the breed. Monthly Bay Area meetings of the > 'punks were held in the offices of Cygnus, a company he started to > provide support for the free Unix alternative, GNU. > > But the veteran cypherpunk came under heavy fire in November 1996, > when a loudmouthed flamer flooded the list with flame bait and ad > hominem attacks on various members. Finally, Gilmore, ironically, gave > him the boot -- and incited an all-consuming debate over what the > concept of censorship means in a forum devoted to opposing it. In a > society of crypto-anarchists, who should make the rules? The mailing > list melted down. By last month, it seemed, more messages complained > about censorship than discussed crypto. > > Indeed, for months Gilmore seemed unable to do anything right. He > tried moderation, which proved to be even more contentious, raising > the question of empowering one cypherpunk to decide what was > appropriate for others to read. One member of the group, in effect, > would be more equal than the rest. And why would members take the time > to write elaborate, thoughtful articles on crypto-politics if their > treatises might not make it past the moderator's keyboard? > > After the expulsion, some of the longtime list denizens left > angrily, joining the 700 subscribers who had departed since the > controversy began. One of those was Tim C. May, a crusty former Intel > engineer who prides himself as the organizer of the first cypherpunk > meeting in September 1992. In an essay summarizing the reasons for his > departure, he wrote: "The proper solution to bad speech is more > speech, not censorship. Censorship just makes opponents of 'speech > anarchy' happy -- it affirms their basic belief that censors are > needed." > > After all, May pointed out, the list ended up on Gilmore's > toad.com machine only by happenstance -- it almost was housed on a > workstation at the University of California at Berkeley. Ownership of > the computer with the database of subscribers did not mean that > Gilmore owned the cypherpunks. "Whatever our group once was, or still > is, is not dependent on having a particular mailing list running on > someone's home machine... and it cannot be claimed that any person > 'owns' the cypherpunks group," May wrote. > > The cypherpunks have responded to Gilmore's eviction notice. List > participants generally have halted the incessant attacks on Gilmore, > and now the discussion has turned to how to continue this experiment > in online anarchy -- while preventing one person from ever again > having absolute control of the List. Within hours of Gilmore's > announcement, posters were tossing around ideas of a distributed > network of mailing lists that would carry the cypherpunk name, and > other 'punks likely will migrate to the more tightly controlled > coderpunks and cryptography lists. > > But for the true believers in crypto-anarchy, only one solution is > adequate: Usenet. "There is no 'nexus' of control, no chokepoint, no > precedent... for halting distribution of Usenet newsgroups," Tim May > wrote. That, in the end, is what defines a cypherpunk. > >### > > >

1 0

USACM analysis of Commerce Dept crypto export proposals
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:28:28 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: USACM analysis of Commerce Dept crypto export proposals February 12, 1997 Nancy Crowe Regulatory Policy Division Bureau of Export Administration Department of Commerce Room 2705 14th Street and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230. Docket No. 960918265-6366-03 Dear Ms. Crowe The United States Public Policy Committee for the Association for Computing (USACM) welcomes this opportunity to submit our views on the Interim Rule issued by the Department of Commerce with regard to "Encryption Items Transferred From the United States Munitions List to the Commerce Control List." The USACM believes it is in the best interest of the U.S. government to promote the widespread use of strong encryption. >From our perspective the Interim Rule fails to recognize the legitimate needs and interests of academic, professional, scientific, and ordinary users of telecommunications technology. Thus, the Interim Rule must be modified before it can resolve the many problems with the current export controls on encryption technologies. Introduction and Summary The Association for Computing is an international professional society whose 76,000 members (60,000 in the U.S.) represent a critical mass of computer scientists in education, industry, and government. The USACM provides a means for promoting dialogue on technology policy issues with United States policy makers and the general public. We have identified a number of serious problems with specific provisions of the Interim Rule. As a professional society of computer scientists which produces a number of peer-reviewed technical journals, we are concerned that the Interim Rule will hamper both communication and education in our field. Part 7.34.3 (b)(3) which refers to the distinction between printed and electronic publications of cryptographic materials is unworkable under the new paradigms of electronic publishing and communications. Electronic media, including the World Wide Web, listserves, Usenet news groups, and video conferencing are becoming the prominent means by which scientists communicate. Provisions of the Rule, specifically Parts 7.34.9 and 744.9, which affect teaching cryptography to foreign students are vague and contradictory. Educational environments are not limited to academic institutions but also occur in national and industry labs and by distance education. Restrictions on cryptography exports must not interfere with the traditional freedom of access over digital networks which is indispensable to maintain motivated and effective academic and research communities. We also believe that the development of public policies and technical standards for communications technologies, such as a Key Recovery Infrastructure (KRI), raise vital issues of privacy, competitiveness, and scientific innovation. Parts 740.8 and 742.15 raise a number of troubling issues for the computing community. We believe it is unwise for the Commerce Department to link relaxing export controls on 56-bit encryption to the development of a KRI as both the desirability and the feasibility of such a system remains uncertain. Key recovery products have not yet been subject to the vigorous testing necessary for a proposed standard and there is little understanding of how such a system would operate and what controls would be needed to ensure that it remained secure. Also, Supplement No. 7 to part 742 (which requires that businesses who wish to export 56-bit encryption before 1998 submit a biannual business plan for developing key recovery products) will stifle the innovation of new cryptography technologies and discourage the process of scientific innovation. We believe the Commerce Department should not promulgate regulations which prohibit U.S. research and development from responding to market demands and limit the ability of Americans using new on-line services to protect their privacy. Analysis The USACM has identified electronic publication, education, research and development, key recovery, and privacy as problematic areas which need addressing. We have outlined our concerns below: Electronic Publishing It is unreasonable and unconstitutional to distinguish between printed and electronic distribution of encryption source code as set forth in the note to Part 7.34.3 (b)(2) and (b)(3). A Federal Court in California has ruled in Bernstein v. U.S. Department of State that source code is speech and is thus protected under the first amendment. This distinction is also currently being challenged in a federal court in the District of Columbia in Karn v. U.S. Department of State. The USACM joined the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Internet Society in submitting an Amici Curiae brief in the case which argued that such language is an impermissible regulation aimed at the suppression of expression. As computer scientists we see no practical reason why the Commerce Department should insist on creating a distinction when one does not exist. The ACM is the publisher of numerous scientific publications and conference proceedings. They range from our flagship journal Communications of the ACM (CACM) to the on-line, peer-reviewed journal Experimental Algorithms. All 76,000 members of ACM, including 15,000 members overseas, receive CACM by mail and have access to ACM's on-line publications. ACM foresees a time when all its publishing will be electronic and on-line. At that time, it will need interoperable encryption technology available in the U.S. and in its mirror sites abroad to dispense its material. Its subscribers worldwide will need access to secure, commercial encryption as well. An article which described the development of a new cryptographic algorithm would likely appear in one of the many technical journals or conference proceedings published by ACM or the Institute for Electronics and Electrical Engineers (IEEE), another international professional society. In fact a number of the groundbreaking articles in the field of cryptography science were originally published by ACM and IEEE. Publication of encryption algorithms is extremely important to the field of cryptography. In order for an algorithm to be trusted, it must be challenged. To do that, the code must be made widely available. Foreign members of ACM will be unable to access in electronic format the same articles they currently receive in the printed journal. And, it is technically impossible, at this late date, to partition ACM's publications into distinct paper and electronic (hence encryptable) media. Electronic communications, including the World Wide Web, list serves, Usenet news groups, and video conferencing are becoming the prominent means by which scientists communicate. Science is a global pursuit and there exists a open communications network between scientists in different countries. Part 734.2 which prohibits making cryptographic software available outside the U.S. will not only eliminate this international communication but also technical communication among U.S. scientists. In electronic communications it is not always clear to whom the information is being transmitted. WWW sites and Usenet news groups are accessible by anyone with a modem. Video conferences can be retransmitted overseas and moderated listserves are difficult to control. The Interim Rule refers to an individual taking "precautions adequate to prevent unauthorized transfer of such code outside the U.S." It is our belief that it would be impossible to be certain of any precautions taken. This will effectively eliminate all communications on electronic media that describe or discuss cryptographic source code. We believe the interim rule must be revised to eliminate the distinction between printed and electronic source code and to allow for open communications within scientific communities. Restricting these communications will retard the evolution of the science and the development of new algorithms and cryptographic devices. Education Many ACM members are computer science professors and teachers, so we are concerned about the contradictions in the proposed regulations with regards to education. A number of fields and sub-fields address cryptography as part of their curricula. Part 734.9 states that "Educational Information" is not subject to the new regulations if it is "released by instruction in catalog courses and associated teaching laboratories of academic institutions." Computer science, mathematics, engineering, and electronic security may all include technical instruction in encryption technologies and would be covered in U.S. university classrooms. However, questions arise with regard to distance and home or overseas education because of Part 744.9. It states that "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..." While Part 744.9 defines a U.S. person it does not define "technical assistance" or "training." It is uncertain whether a U.S. professor teaching a course in which foreign students are registered, or teaching a course in cryptography overseas would be "training" a foreigner to develop a cryptographic device if the course work was more detailed than "a discussion of information about cryptography." This would affect course studies as disparate as 'number theory' and 'local area networks'. Also, educational environments are not limited to academic institutions but are also found in national and industry labs. Many computer scientists receive their first hands on training after they graduate from their University. It is unclear whether this "training" or "technical assistance" is in violation of the Interim Rule. The intent of the training is give the new employee the practical tools necessary to participate in the field of cryptography science, and is not necessarily intended to be project or employer specific. While the General prohibition in Part 744.9 discusses the meaning of intent as applied to an academic setting, it is not clear if "academic setting" can be applied to instruction which occurs outside of the University environment. The argument made previously with regard to digital media also applies to education. As part of their course work, students often use electronic media as resources (WWW, digital libraries, CD-ROMs), as a communication device for the class outside the classroom (electronic mail, listserves), and to learn from listening to the discussions among research scientists (Usenet groups, listserves). Part 7.34.3 (b)(3) which covers encryption source code in electronic form or media will restrict these types of educational instruction. Instructors will be unable to take advantage of digital media in their courses. Students studying cryptography will be unfairly disadvantaged as they will be unable to access valuable resources even in the process of furthering their education. The USACM believes the contradictions in Parts 7.34 and 744.9 must be resolved in a clear manner so educators are not required to reduce the quality of their courses for fear of misinterpreting the Interim Rule. Specifically, "academic setting," "training," and "technical assistance" must be defined, and distance education, and academic research and communication must be addressed. Research and Development Encryption policies must reflect the needs of the global market. The international demand for products which incorporate strong cryptographic tools is growing. Such products are widely available and produced by a number of nations. U.S. scientists have been prominent in the development of current encryption technologies. The field has developed though research and development efforts along many different tangents, only one of which describes key recovery products. There is little evidence that the demand for cryptography tools is limited to those products which incorporate key recovery protocols. Part 742.15 (which states that businesses must submit a business plan for the development of key recovery products before they may export 56- bit software; the license must be renewed biannually until 1998 when only key recovery products will be allowed for export) will restrict the U.S. to producing only products which incorporate KRI protocols. Mandating that businesses develop key recovery products will also impede the natural market development of novel and innovative systems. Part 740 hypothesizes that a worldwide KRI will be desirable, feasible, and in place by 1998. However it is unclear whether key recovery is the best alternative. Research along new tangents will continue in non- industry and non-U.S. settings. A new protocol may be discovered which is considered a better choice for a worldwide infrastructure. There will exist a great market demand for variety in choosing a security system to fit the needs of the distinct commercial group. If this happens U.S. scientists and industry will be at a disadvantage as they will have only a core competence in key recovery protocols as per Part 740.8. There are a variety of commercial groups interested in utilizing the Internet for business interactions and transactions. Without interoperable encryption programs, commercial needs in an increasing global environment cannot be met. Supplement No. 4 to Part 742 states that a product can not interact with another product whose key recovery system has been "altered, bypassed, disabled, or otherwise rendered inoperative." This will be a major source of problems for researchers and educators, as well as government and commercial institutions. The result of a system not being able to talk to another system because of an intentional or accidental disabling of the KRI protocols can have a very large impact on telemedicine, research, government operations, and commercial enterprises. The USACM believes the Interim Rule should be rewritten to avoid dissuading innovation and development and eliminating the U.S.'s core competency in cryptography. It should also recognize the need for consistency in interoperable systems. Key Recovery The USACM recognizes that there is a real market demand for key recovery products from business and government employers. However, the viability of a KRI has not yet been determined. It has not yet been subject to the vigorous testing necessary for a proposed standard. There is little understanding of how such a system would operate and what controls would be needed to ensure that it remained secure. Part 740 describes the development of a Key Recovery Infrastructure within two years. We believe it is unwise for the United States to insist on the development of a untested, unproved technology for a worldwide infrastructure. The National Research Council report stated that a feasibility study needed to be performed on a smaller scale before key escrow could be seriously proposed for commercial applications. We believe this warning applies to KRI as well. While key recovery tools may be appropriate in some settings, we believe it would be wrong to impose such restrictions on users or businesses and the Interim Rule should not dictate that businesses limit their research to a potentially unworkable system. Privacy The USACM believes that certain principles should be reflected in a national cryptography policy. Encryption should be used for privacy protection and to encourage the development of technologies and institutional practices which will provide real privacy for the future users of the NII and real security for the protection of the system. The USACM believes that transferring the regulation of cryptography to the Commerce Department could establish United States leadership in protecting the privacy rights of its citizens. However the Interim Rule fails to do that. Conclusion We recognize that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting national security. However, whether or not the worldwide infrastructure is achieved, the role of national security agencies will remain difficult. The government's proposal to balance national security, business, and privacy interests by creating a Key Recovery Infrastructure within the next two years is overly aggressive. We suggest that the development of a policy that serves the long term interests of our nation's security will not be one based on a Key Recovery Infrastructure, but rather one that anticipates the widespread availability of strong encryption and the multifaceted demands of a global economy. Toward that end, the interests in protecting open research within the U.S. academic community will be crucial. Sincerely, Barbara Simons, Ph.D Chair, United States Public Policy Office for the Association for Computing The ACM, founded in 1947, is an international non-profit educational and scientific society dedicated to the development and use of information technology, and to addressing the impact information technology has on the world's major social challenges. The Association's activities include the publication of scholarly journals and the sponsorship of special interest groups (SIGS) in numerous disciplines. ACM has 76,000 members. The 60,000 who reside in the United States are academic, professional, scientific, and ordinary users of telecommunications technology and have a strong interest in the development of sound encryption policies. The USACM provides a means for promoting dialogue on technology policy issues with United States policy makers and the general public. We respond to requests for information and technical expertise from United States government agencies and departments, seeks to influence relevant United States government policies on behalf of the computing community and the public, and provides information to the ACM on relevant United States government activities.

1 0

Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks"
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > > > It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a > > > prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help > > > them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage. > > > > Timmy has a valid point: the reason why a comp.* newsgroup might have less > > cross-posted and "off-topic" crap is because net.cops would be more > > likely to complain to posters' sysadmins. Having a charter state that > > cypherpunks have technical means to ignore traffic they don't like, > > and don't need anyone forging cancels or complaining to sysadmins > > or otherwise getting silenced, is a good idea. > > I don`t believe for one moment that, however well intentioned such a > move would be, it would work. The most notorious net.cops who > thoroughly deserve the (spit) after their name would take little > notice of such a charter and take it upon themselved to "act in the > best interests of the usenet community" That is not necessarily true. I asked Chris Lewis to not cancel any articles in soc.culture.russian.moderated (of which I am one of moderators) and it did not cause any problem. I was very pleased by his reaction. - Igor.

1 0

Re: Need a good bi-directional mail-news gateway
by Jonathan M. Bresler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

much as the irony of the idea appeals, i am not in a position to offer a host/machine to run the list. i *can* offer what i have learned from running the FreeBSD mailing lists for 2+ years. so who has a host/machine, that we can use ;) jmb >At 3:18 pm -0500 2/12/97, Jonathan M. Bresler <jmb(a)frb.gov> wrote: > ^^^^^^^ >> your expected mail volume is 100,000+ messages a day? >> >> i run lists that do 200,000+ routinely. >> recent peak of 350,000 messages >> >> does that meet your needs? > >Great. > >Let's run cypherpunks with a government subsidy. > >;-). > >Pulling your leg, just a bit.. > >Cheers, >Bob Hettinga > >"So much for a geodesic monitary system..." > > >----------------- >Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox >e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA >"Never attribute to conspiracy what can be >explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle >The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ >FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/ > >

1 0

Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s)
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ichudov(a)algebra.com allegedly said: > > Firebeard wrote: > > > > >>>>> Igor Chudov @ home writes: > > > > IC> This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in. if > > IC> someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other > > IC> mailing list host. > > > > And once I'm up and running, my cypherpunks list server will > > not be interconnected with any server which has a similar AUP. The > > implication of the AUP is that if you _don't_ comply with it, you will > > be blocked. Without such an implication, the AUP is meaningless, and > > I'm dedicated that there should be no filtering/blocking of any kind, > > of the list. Persons behaving 'unacceptably' should be handled by > > social pressures by others in the 'community' of the list, and not by > > policies of the list operators. > > Which is, again, a perfectly fine idea. > > I would probably disconnect from any server that > > a) does not let certain messages go through (unless they are fighting a DOS > attack) and > b) Alters content of any messages. > I can understand this sentiment, given the events of the past couple of months, but it seems short-sighted. If this scheme grows there could be several hundred or more mailers involved, and there is no technical reason why moderated lists couldn't be included. Remember that each list operator actually represents a community of users, users who are *free* to go elsewhere if they choose. Clearly, some people would chose to populate a filtered list. There is no reason whatsoever to discriminate against them. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F

1 0

USACM analysis of Commerce Dept crypto export proposals
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:28:28 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: USACM analysis of Commerce Dept crypto export proposals February 12, 1997 Nancy Crowe Regulatory Policy Division Bureau of Export Administration Department of Commerce Room 2705 14th Street and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230. Docket No. 960918265-6366-03 Dear Ms. Crowe The United States Public Policy Committee for the Association for Computing (USACM) welcomes this opportunity to submit our views on the Interim Rule issued by the Department of Commerce with regard to "Encryption Items Transferred From the United States Munitions List to the Commerce Control List." The USACM believes it is in the best interest of the U.S. government to promote the widespread use of strong encryption. >From our perspective the Interim Rule fails to recognize the legitimate needs and interests of academic, professional, scientific, and ordinary users of telecommunications technology. Thus, the Interim Rule must be modified before it can resolve the many problems with the current export controls on encryption technologies. Introduction and Summary The Association for Computing is an international professional society whose 76,000 members (60,000 in the U.S.) represent a critical mass of computer scientists in education, industry, and government. The USACM provides a means for promoting dialogue on technology policy issues with United States policy makers and the general public. We have identified a number of serious problems with specific provisions of the Interim Rule. As a professional society of computer scientists which produces a number of peer-reviewed technical journals, we are concerned that the Interim Rule will hamper both communication and education in our field. Part 7.34.3 (b)(3) which refers to the distinction between printed and electronic publications of cryptographic materials is unworkable under the new paradigms of electronic publishing and communications. Electronic media, including the World Wide Web, listserves, Usenet news groups, and video conferencing are becoming the prominent means by which scientists communicate. Provisions of the Rule, specifically Parts 7.34.9 and 744.9, which affect teaching cryptography to foreign students are vague and contradictory. Educational environments are not limited to academic institutions but also occur in national and industry labs and by distance education. Restrictions on cryptography exports must not interfere with the traditional freedom of access over digital networks which is indispensable to maintain motivated and effective academic and research communities. We also believe that the development of public policies and technical standards for communications technologies, such as a Key Recovery Infrastructure (KRI), raise vital issues of privacy, competitiveness, and scientific innovation. Parts 740.8 and 742.15 raise a number of troubling issues for the computing community. We believe it is unwise for the Commerce Department to link relaxing export controls on 56-bit encryption to the development of a KRI as both the desirability and the feasibility of such a system remains uncertain. Key recovery products have not yet been subject to the vigorous testing necessary for a proposed standard and there is little understanding of how such a system would operate and what controls would be needed to ensure that it remained secure. Also, Supplement No. 7 to part 742 (which requires that businesses who wish to export 56-bit encryption before 1998 submit a biannual business plan for developing key recovery products) will stifle the innovation of new cryptography technologies and discourage the process of scientific innovation. We believe the Commerce Department should not promulgate regulations which prohibit U.S. research and development from responding to market demands and limit the ability of Americans using new on-line services to protect their privacy. Analysis The USACM has identified electronic publication, education, research and development, key recovery, and privacy as problematic areas which need addressing. We have outlined our concerns below: Electronic Publishing It is unreasonable and unconstitutional to distinguish between printed and electronic distribution of encryption source code as set forth in the note to Part 7.34.3 (b)(2) and (b)(3). A Federal Court in California has ruled in Bernstein v. U.S. Department of State that source code is speech and is thus protected under the first amendment. This distinction is also currently being challenged in a federal court in the District of Columbia in Karn v. U.S. Department of State. The USACM joined the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Internet Society in submitting an Amici Curiae brief in the case which argued that such language is an impermissible regulation aimed at the suppression of expression. As computer scientists we see no practical reason why the Commerce Department should insist on creating a distinction when one does not exist. The ACM is the publisher of numerous scientific publications and conference proceedings. They range from our flagship journal Communications of the ACM (CACM) to the on-line, peer-reviewed journal Experimental Algorithms. All 76,000 members of ACM, including 15,000 members overseas, receive CACM by mail and have access to ACM's on-line publications. ACM foresees a time when all its publishing will be electronic and on-line. At that time, it will need interoperable encryption technology available in the U.S. and in its mirror sites abroad to dispense its material. Its subscribers worldwide will need access to secure, commercial encryption as well. An article which described the development of a new cryptographic algorithm would likely appear in one of the many technical journals or conference proceedings published by ACM or the Institute for Electronics and Electrical Engineers (IEEE), another international professional society. In fact a number of the groundbreaking articles in the field of cryptography science were originally published by ACM and IEEE. Publication of encryption algorithms is extremely important to the field of cryptography. In order for an algorithm to be trusted, it must be challenged. To do that, the code must be made widely available. Foreign members of ACM will be unable to access in electronic format the same articles they currently receive in the printed journal. And, it is technically impossible, at this late date, to partition ACM's publications into distinct paper and electronic (hence encryptable) media. Electronic communications, including the World Wide Web, list serves, Usenet news groups, and video conferencing are becoming the prominent means by which scientists communicate. Science is a global pursuit and there exists a open communications network between scientists in different countries. Part 734.2 which prohibits making cryptographic software available outside the U.S. will not only eliminate this international communication but also technical communication among U.S. scientists. In electronic communications it is not always clear to whom the information is being transmitted. WWW sites and Usenet news groups are accessible by anyone with a modem. Video conferences can be retransmitted overseas and moderated listserves are difficult to control. The Interim Rule refers to an individual taking "precautions adequate to prevent unauthorized transfer of such code outside the U.S." It is our belief that it would be impossible to be certain of any precautions taken. This will effectively eliminate all communications on electronic media that describe or discuss cryptographic source code. We believe the interim rule must be revised to eliminate the distinction between printed and electronic source code and to allow for open communications within scientific communities. Restricting these communications will retard the evolution of the science and the development of new algorithms and cryptographic devices. Education Many ACM members are computer science professors and teachers, so we are concerned about the contradictions in the proposed regulations with regards to education. A number of fields and sub-fields address cryptography as part of their curricula. Part 734.9 states that "Educational Information" is not subject to the new regulations if it is "released by instruction in catalog courses and associated teaching laboratories of academic institutions." Computer science, mathematics, engineering, and electronic security may all include technical instruction in encryption technologies and would be covered in U.S. university classrooms. However, questions arise with regard to distance and home or overseas education because of Part 744.9. It states that "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..." While Part 744.9 defines a U.S. person it does not define "technical assistance" or "training." It is uncertain whether a U.S. professor teaching a course in which foreign students are registered, or teaching a course in cryptography overseas would be "training" a foreigner to develop a cryptographic device if the course work was more detailed than "a discussion of information about cryptography." This would affect course studies as disparate as 'number theory' and 'local area networks'. Also, educational environments are not limited to academic institutions but are also found in national and industry labs. Many computer scientists receive their first hands on training after they graduate from their University. It is unclear whether this "training" or "technical assistance" is in violation of the Interim Rule. The intent of the training is give the new employee the practical tools necessary to participate in the field of cryptography science, and is not necessarily intended to be project or employer specific. While the General prohibition in Part 744.9 discusses the meaning of intent as applied to an academic setting, it is not clear if "academic setting" can be applied to instruction which occurs outside of the University environment. The argument made previously with regard to digital media also applies to education. As part of their course work, students often use electronic media as resources (WWW, digital libraries, CD-ROMs), as a communication device for the class outside the classroom (electronic mail, listserves), and to learn from listening to the discussions among research scientists (Usenet groups, listserves). Part 7.34.3 (b)(3) which covers encryption source code in electronic form or media will restrict these types of educational instruction. Instructors will be unable to take advantage of digital media in their courses. Students studying cryptography will be unfairly disadvantaged as they will be unable to access valuable resources even in the process of furthering their education. The USACM believes the contradictions in Parts 7.34 and 744.9 must be resolved in a clear manner so educators are not required to reduce the quality of their courses for fear of misinterpreting the Interim Rule. Specifically, "academic setting," "training," and "technical assistance" must be defined, and distance education, and academic research and communication must be addressed. Research and Development Encryption policies must reflect the needs of the global market. The international demand for products which incorporate strong cryptographic tools is growing. Such products are widely available and produced by a number of nations. U.S. scientists have been prominent in the development of current encryption technologies. The field has developed though research and development efforts along many different tangents, only one of which describes key recovery products. There is little evidence that the demand for cryptography tools is limited to those products which incorporate key recovery protocols. Part 742.15 (which states that businesses must submit a business plan for the development of key recovery products before they may export 56- bit software; the license must be renewed biannually until 1998 when only key recovery products will be allowed for export) will restrict the U.S. to producing only products which incorporate KRI protocols. Mandating that businesses develop key recovery products will also impede the natural market development of novel and innovative systems. Part 740 hypothesizes that a worldwide KRI will be desirable, feasible, and in place by 1998. However it is unclear whether key recovery is the best alternative. Research along new tangents will continue in non- industry and non-U.S. settings. A new protocol may be discovered which is considered a better choice for a worldwide infrastructure. There will exist a great market demand for variety in choosing a security system to fit the needs of the distinct commercial group. If this happens U.S. scientists and industry will be at a disadvantage as they will have only a core competence in key recovery protocols as per Part 740.8. There are a variety of commercial groups interested in utilizing the Internet for business interactions and transactions. Without interoperable encryption programs, commercial needs in an increasing global environment cannot be met. Supplement No. 4 to Part 742 states that a product can not interact with another product whose key recovery system has been "altered, bypassed, disabled, or otherwise rendered inoperative." This will be a major source of problems for researchers and educators, as well as government and commercial institutions. The result of a system not being able to talk to another system because of an intentional or accidental disabling of the KRI protocols can have a very large impact on telemedicine, research, government operations, and commercial enterprises. The USACM believes the Interim Rule should be rewritten to avoid dissuading innovation and development and eliminating the U.S.'s core competency in cryptography. It should also recognize the need for consistency in interoperable systems. Key Recovery The USACM recognizes that there is a real market demand for key recovery products from business and government employers. However, the viability of a KRI has not yet been determined. It has not yet been subject to the vigorous testing necessary for a proposed standard. There is little understanding of how such a system would operate and what controls would be needed to ensure that it remained secure. Part 740 describes the development of a Key Recovery Infrastructure within two years. We believe it is unwise for the United States to insist on the development of a untested, unproved technology for a worldwide infrastructure. The National Research Council report stated that a feasibility study needed to be performed on a smaller scale before key escrow could be seriously proposed for commercial applications. We believe this warning applies to KRI as well. While key recovery tools may be appropriate in some settings, we believe it would be wrong to impose such restrictions on users or businesses and the Interim Rule should not dictate that businesses limit their research to a potentially unworkable system. Privacy The USACM believes that certain principles should be reflected in a national cryptography policy. Encryption should be used for privacy protection and to encourage the development of technologies and institutional practices which will provide real privacy for the future users of the NII and real security for the protection of the system. The USACM believes that transferring the regulation of cryptography to the Commerce Department could establish United States leadership in protecting the privacy rights of its citizens. However the Interim Rule fails to do that. Conclusion We recognize that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting national security. However, whether or not the worldwide infrastructure is achieved, the role of national security agencies will remain difficult. The government's proposal to balance national security, business, and privacy interests by creating a Key Recovery Infrastructure within the next two years is overly aggressive. We suggest that the development of a policy that serves the long term interests of our nation's security will not be one based on a Key Recovery Infrastructure, but rather one that anticipates the widespread availability of strong encryption and the multifaceted demands of a global economy. Toward that end, the interests in protecting open research within the U.S. academic community will be crucial. Sincerely, Barbara Simons, Ph.D Chair, United States Public Policy Office for the Association for Computing The ACM, founded in 1947, is an international non-profit educational and scientific society dedicated to the development and use of information technology, and to addressing the impact information technology has on the world's major social challenges. The Association's activities include the publication of scholarly journals and the sponsorship of special interest groups (SIGS) in numerous disciplines. ACM has 76,000 members. The 60,000 who reside in the United States are academic, professional, scientific, and ordinary users of telecommunications technology and have a strong interest in the development of sound encryption policies. The USACM provides a means for promoting dialogue on technology policy issues with United States policy makers and the general public. We respond to requests for information and technical expertise from United States government agencies and departments, seeks to influence relevant United States government policies on behalf of the computing community and the public, and provides information to the ACM on relevant United States government activities.

1 0

Re: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly]
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The provocateurs won. Too bad. Seems Cpunks caved to the simplest of attacks. Proves you don't need key-escrow or any of the rest to ahem, "affect" unfettered discourse in cyberspace. At 11:23 PM 2/13/97 -0800, you wrote: >Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:24:37 -0800 (PST) >From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> >To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu > >The Netly News Network >http://netlynews.com/ > >A List Goes Down In Flames >by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) >February 12, 1997 > > The plan for the cypherpunks mailing list was simple. It was to be > an online gathering place, an intellectual mosh pit, dedicated to the > free flow of ideas and personal privacy through encryption. > > Of course it caught on. From its modest beginnings connecting a > few friends who lived in Northern California, it quickly grew into one > of the most rowdy, volatile lists on the Net: Cypherpunks typically > piped more than 100 messages a day into the mailboxes of nearly 2,000 > subscribers. And the list became a kind of crypto-anarchist utopia. > Populated by pseudonymous posters with names like Black Unicorn, it > was a corner of cyberspace where PGP signatures and digital cash were > the norm -- and there were no rules. Then yesterday came the news: The > list was being evicted and faced imminent shutdown. > > In an e-mail seen 'round the Net, John Gilmore, Electronic > Frontier Foundation cofounder and list maintainer, announced that he > was no longer willing to provide a virtual home for the cypherpunks. > In a post entitled "Put Up or Shut Up," he described how his efforts > to improve the list through moderation were condemned, how technical > problems were consuming more of his time, how pranksters had tried to > subscribe the entire U.S. Congress to the list. How this experiment in > crypto-anarchy had failed. He gave the cypherpunks 10 days to find new > lodgings. > > "The last straw for me was seeing the reaction of the list to > every attempt to improve it. It was to carp, to cut it down, to say > you're doing everything wrong," Gilmore told me yesterday night. One > of the first employees of Sun, Gilmore quit after eight years -- a > millionaire more interested in pursuing ideas than dollars. But his > experiment with the list has left him weary. "If everything I'm doing > is wrong, I'm clearly not the right person to host the list," he said. > > "I would like to see some other structure in which the positive > interactions on the list could continue. I'm not trying to create that > structure anymore," he added. Instead, he would try the only true > crypto-anarchist solution: "I'm handing it over to members to do what > they wish with it." > > The cypherpunks first pierced the public's consciousness when > Wired magazine splashed them across the cover of the second issue. The > Whole Earth Review and the Village Voice followed soon after. The name > "cypherpunk" came to be synonymous with a brash young breed of > digerati who were intent on derailing the White House's encryption > policies and conquering cyberspace. This was crypto with an attitude. > > Gilmore was typical of the breed. Monthly Bay Area meetings of the > 'punks were held in the offices of Cygnus, a company he started to > provide support for the free Unix alternative, GNU. > > But the veteran cypherpunk came under heavy fire in November 1996, > when a loudmouthed flamer flooded the list with flame bait and ad > hominem attacks on various members. Finally, Gilmore, ironically, gave > him the boot -- and incited an all-consuming debate over what the > concept of censorship means in a forum devoted to opposing it. In a > society of crypto-anarchists, who should make the rules? The mailing > list melted down. By last month, it seemed, more messages complained > about censorship than discussed crypto. > > Indeed, for months Gilmore seemed unable to do anything right. He > tried moderation, which proved to be even more contentious, raising > the question of empowering one cypherpunk to decide what was > appropriate for others to read. One member of the group, in effect, > would be more equal than the rest. And why would members take the time > to write elaborate, thoughtful articles on crypto-politics if their > treatises might not make it past the moderator's keyboard? > > After the expulsion, some of the longtime list denizens left > angrily, joining the 700 subscribers who had departed since the > controversy began. One of those was Tim C. May, a crusty former Intel > engineer who prides himself as the organizer of the first cypherpunk > meeting in September 1992. In an essay summarizing the reasons for his > departure, he wrote: "The proper solution to bad speech is more > speech, not censorship. Censorship just makes opponents of 'speech > anarchy' happy -- it affirms their basic belief that censors are > needed." > > After all, May pointed out, the list ended up on Gilmore's > toad.com machine only by happenstance -- it almost was housed on a > workstation at the University of California at Berkeley. Ownership of > the computer with the database of subscribers did not mean that > Gilmore owned the cypherpunks. "Whatever our group once was, or still > is, is not dependent on having a particular mailing list running on > someone's home machine... and it cannot be claimed that any person > 'owns' the cypherpunks group," May wrote. > > The cypherpunks have responded to Gilmore's eviction notice. List > participants generally have halted the incessant attacks on Gilmore, > and now the discussion has turned to how to continue this experiment > in online anarchy -- while preventing one person from ever again > having absolute control of the List. Within hours of Gilmore's > announcement, posters were tossing around ideas of a distributed > network of mailing lists that would carry the cypherpunk name, and > other 'punks likely will migrate to the more tightly controlled > coderpunks and cryptography lists. > > But for the true believers in crypto-anarchy, only one solution is > adequate: Usenet. "There is no 'nexus' of control, no chokepoint, no > precedent... for halting distribution of Usenet newsgroups," Tim May > wrote. That, in the end, is what defines a cypherpunk. > >### > > >

1 0

The Konformist: Acid Novelist or Art Lover? You Decide
by Robalini＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Note: Either you requested to receive a subscription to this e-mail, or someone else recommended you to be placed on this list. If you are interested in a free subscription, please e-mail Robalini(a)aol.com with the subject: I NEED TO KONFORM. (Okay, you can use something else, but it's a cool catch phrase.) Please e-mail me back with subject: CANCEL KONFORMIST if you're not interested in receiving this. Thanks, Robert Sterling. Subj: American "Acid Novelist" Brings Home Expatriate Treasure Date: Wed, Feb 12, 1997 7:58 PM PST From: fargone(a)popalex1.linknet.net News Release--For Immediate Distribution--2/12/97 Novelist and psychedelic renegade Todd Brendan Fahey, wit the aid of his father, a Los Angeles-area health care executive, has purchased from the Amsterdam art gallery Anton Heyboerwinkel what is believed to be the bulwark of The Logbook of the Ship _Henry David Thoreau_, an obsessive and intimate mixed media project of an expatriate American artist/mystic known pseudonymously as Viktor IV before his drowning death in Amsterdam in 1986. While on assignment for _Smoke_ magazine last November, Professor Fahey, author of the incendiary underground LSD novel _Wisdom's Maw_, claims he was "directed" to a particular shop on Prinsengracht, a canal street in downtown Amsterdam; after entering the shop, he was immediately struck by the idiosyncratic force of the works of a particular artist. "It was as if I were being beckoned into Aladdin's Castle from way out in some super-mall parking lot," says Fahey, of his experience. "I will never be able to put it into words; but there was a pull, a connection, and then, after studying the many Logbook pages for several days in this shop, there came a long moment of illumination." Fahey describes this "illumination" as an ecstatic vision, in which he claims to have understood the mystical emphasis of much of the Logbook drawings. "It's not entirely bizarre," says Fahey, who is currently completing his Ph.D. coursework in English at University of Southwestern Louisiana. "Allen Ginsberg had an experience one day, in his early twenties, where he heard and witnessed, or believes he did, the voice and personage of the mystic poet William Blake. Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote the poem `Kubla Khan' completely whacked in an opium trance. I was using psychedelics pretty heavily during the writing of `Fear & Loathing in Amsterdam' for _Smoke_, and feel as if I were privileged for a few days to some kind of Source. I had many things happen to me in Amsterdam--very powerful moments of insight and registrations of the cosmic flow of things--and during one of these moments, it was impressed upon me from without, that I should bring back to the U.S. these Logbook drawings of Viktor IV." Born Walter Karl Gluck, the artist Viktor IV traveled to Amsterdam in the early 1960s and settled there, leaving on a ship he christened the _Henry David Thoreau_, after the philosopher who he claimed as his chief inspiration and muse. A burly, rugged figure, Viktor IV was recognizable amongst the quiet Amsterdam populace as the barefoot American hippie artist who dressed in black, loved cats and young women, and worked tirelessly on deeply personal and largely non-commercial projects aboard his canal-bound ship. A master scuba diver, Viktor IV drowned in June of 1986, while performing underwater repairs to the _Henry David Thoreau_. Todd Brendan Fahey, a novice art collector, perceives in the Logbook pages the artist's fascination with the "ecstatic vision." In this way, he compares the drawings to the poem-paintings of American surrealist Kenneth Patchen. "There is that same relentless focus on the All-At-Once, that so characterizes the experiences of mystics in every religion and culture. The rich, interconnectedness of all things. That is what Viktor IV is expressing in these pages. And that is what I was feeling for much of my stay in Amsterdam; as much as I was really out of my head most of the time, I was, in another way, very grounded." Unconcerned with commerce, Viktor IV created hundreds of these Logbook drawings in the original, with no known professional reproductions, from between 1966 and 1976, after which he turned his artistic vision to clockmaking. The bulk of individual pages of The Logbook of the Ship _Henry David Thoreau_ is held by the Fedor Museum and the Stejdilik Museum, in Amsterdam, where the adopted artist is revered as a free spirit. Viktor IV visited the United States only a handful of times after emigrating to Amsterdam, and is believed to have held only one American gallery exhibition in his lifetime. Professor Fahey hopes to arrange a traveling exhibition of his 34 pages from The Logbook of the Ship _Henry David Thoreau_, by the artist Viktor IV. Interested museums and art galleries in major American cities should contact Fahey at the following address: Todd Brendan Fahey c/o Far Gone Books P.O. Box 43745 Lafayette, LA 70504-3745 (318) 261-1946 Dutch and European media should contact: Georges or Couzijn Simon Anton Heyboerwinkel Prinsengracht 578 020 624-7691 1017 KR Amsterdam The Netherlands The award-winning Far Gone Books/_Wisdom's Maw_ Web site: http://www2.linknet.net/fahey/fargone ************************************************************ The Konformist is interested in accepting articles, opinions, free subscriptions, and advertising. E-mail us at Robalini(a)aol.com, or call (310) 967-4195. The Konformist is a subsidiary of Sterling Operation Solutions, the trouble-shooting problem-solvers for all business needs. We charge on a sliding scale based on the difficulty (and legality) of the proposed solution. Call (310) 967-4195 for further information. Hey kids, don't forget to enter the "Rockin' To Armageddon Sweepstakes", sponsored by The Konformist, the Official Internet Investigative Journal of the 1997 Academy Awards. (Okay, it's not official, but we're anti-authority anyways.) Right down the day, month, year, and time of the end of the world, and, as a tie-breaker, your nominee for the anti-Christ. The winner will receive a t-shirt stating, "I CameClosest To Predicting The Apocalypse, And All I Got Was This Crummy T-Shirt." You will also receive a free one year supply of Twix candy bars. Also, this is a free magazine, but we'll still take your money if you want. Please send cash, check, money orders, and credit card numbers (Visa, Master Card, American Express, or Discover) to: Robert Sterling Post Office Box 24825 Los Angeles, California 90024-0825 ************************************************************ Rob's Place A SITE IS DEDICATED TO SPIRIT, TRUTH, PEACE, JUSTICE, AND FREEDOM http://www.vom.com/rc/home.htm Robalini's Note: This is another Rob. I have no interest in spirit, truth, peace, justice, and/or freedom. I do have an interest in making money.

1 0

Re: USACM analysis of Commerce Dept crypto export proposals
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks for forwarding the USACM analysis. We've put it at: http://jya.com/usacm.htm We'd welcome those submitted by cypherpunks or others, for putting on jya.com. It will be some time before BXA publishes them along with the Final Rule, and, there's worldwide interest in the US's foot-shooting.

1 0

No Subject
by Scott A. Hommel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Is it legal or illegal to send a PGP encrypted message from the US to someone in another country? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMwSrJdaX0pKkbeJ9AQG1ogQAloERqECRmAgHAOPq1LwTrWXMw9/E2c0C Q8TqlVuc6pmW+L+DmTrMb0eZdSTJ00A4Fa4j1390UJEncA1X+zHMNMY9CmUJgDKZ ROWNiD8tHiIQYJBH2400WYxKsFPb2mX31SJFc4gK0hQtturtzNXWjOGtowqes6MU kp3/vpeFXZ4= =pLXe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ********************************* Scott A. Hommel President, New Paradigm Design, Inc. PGP key available at: http://paradigm-2.com/scott.html *********************************

1 0