December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

IP: "CyberCash can't oust credit cards"
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hettinga's three laws of internet payment technology investment: 1. Geodesic, peer-to-peer transactions. 2. Three orders of magnitude cost reduction. 3. Nothing but net. The application of the above to Cybercash, or SET, for that matter, I leave as an exercise for the reader... Cheers, Bob Hettinga --- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com X-Sender: believer(a)telepath.com Date: Sun, 05 Jul 1998 13:53:40 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: "CyberCash can't oust credit cards" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Charlotte (N.C.) Observer (printing a Washington Post article) Posted at 3:32 p.m. EDT Friday, July 3, 1998 CyberCash can't oust credit cards By MARK LEIBOVICH The Washington Post WASHINGTON -- Two years ago, CyberCash Inc. walked tall as a pioneer in the seemingly vast frontier of Internet commerce. Today, the Reston, Va., firm and its software that lets merchants receive payments over the Internet offers a cautionary lesson in how social habits in the digital age are difficult to predict -- and dicey to stake a business on. On Tuesday, CyberCash announced that its second-quarter revenue would be below expectations, and that it would lay off 20 percent of its staff. The news sent its stock price into a decline -- the latest to strike the company. Once trading in the $60 range, it fell steadily this week to finish at $11.12 1/2. The hard times come even as CyberCash has tried to tone down its aspirations and diversify into a more conventional business, the processing of credit-card transactions in ordinary stores. The moral, said Ulric Weil, a technology analyst at investment bank Friedman, Billings Ramsey Co. in Arlington, Va., is: ``It's always hard to bet on the purchasing mores of consumers.'' William N. ``Bill'' Melton, one of Northern Virginia's most accomplished technology entrepreneurs, envisioned a world of paperless purchasing when he founded CyberCash in August 1994. In this world, Internet users would purchase goods and services using new ``virtual currencies,'' such as CyberCoin, a CyberCash product that allows online purchases of up to $20 at a time by transferring funds from a credit card or bank account to an account that CyberCash oversaw. Few people bought anything with this virtual currency at first, but the market was patient. In the speculative world of Internet stocks, the potential for this commerce seemed limitless, and CyberCash was an instant Wall Street hit. Company shares, first offered to the public for $17 in February 1996, were trading at more than $60 by that June. But today, investors are tired of waiting. The predicted rush to electronic currency remains a mere trickle and what little there is generally uses plain-old credit card transactions, not a fancy new currency. For now, consumers shopping online merely want to use something they know and trust for payment, the credit card, not an entirely new form of currency. After this week's layoff, which involved about 20 positions in the Washington area, CyberCash has about 200 employees. It remains unprofitable, having reported a loss of $5.67 million on sales of $1.14 million in the January-March quarter. If life weren't uncertain enough in Reston, speculation was rampant this week among analysts who follow the company that its low stock price was making it a ripe takeover target. These predictions were fueled further by the company's announcement Tuesday that its board of directors had adopted a new shareholders rights, or ``poison pill,'' plan, which companies typically use to deter unwanted takeover bids. In this case, if an outside entity attempted to purchase a stake in CyberCash that exceeded 15 percent, the company board could invoke the provision -- at which point CyberCash shareholders would win the right to purchase company shares at a greatly discounted price. For a potential buyer, this would make CyberCash far more expensive. Russ Stevenson, CyberCash's general counsel, said the new provision was not related to the company's recent struggles, and that the timing of its adoption was coincidental. In a statement, CyberCash said the poison pill did not come in response to an acquisition proposal. James J. Condon, the company's chief operations officer, would not comment on whether CyberCash was in discussions to be acquired, citing a company policy ``never to comment'' on potential acquisitions. Melton, CyberCash's president and chief executive, was traveling Thursday and could not be reached for comment. CyberCash's recent woes stem in part from its May acquisition of ICverify Inc., an Oakland, Calif., company that makes credit-card processing software. CyberCash, which purchased ICverify for $57 million in cash and stock, hoped to complement its own technology with ICverify's more conventional ``point of sale'' software, which helps retailers process credit card transactions in shops and other commercial establishments. Entering the ``point of sale'' market was a way for CyberCash to hedge its bets against the uncertain future of electronic commerce, analysts said. ``This gave (CyberCash) a piece of the physical point of payment, as well as the electronic point of payment,'' said Scott Smith, an Internet commerce analyst at Current Analysis Inc. in Sterling. With the addition of ICverify, Condon said, CyberCash could now offer a full package of payment software to potential customers. They could now provide, say, a clothing retailer, the tools to process both in-person credit card transactions as well as Internet credit card purchases. But the ICverify acquisition proved a difficult transition. In recent months, analysts said, some customers of both companies have frozen their accounts, saying they were unsure about which transaction software they would deploy in the future. ``The ICverify transaction resulted in customers taking a close look at what direction they wanted to go in,'' said Weil. Condon said he expects this to be a short-term problem. He said he has spoken to several customers who plan to continue their accounts shortly. People who follow CyberCash generally agree on two things: that if the company can hang on long enough for electronic payments to become a widespread phenomenon, it will be well positioned to cash in. They also say the company has a strong, tenacious management team in place, led by Melton. ``He is the rock the company is built on, and he's committed to the company's success,'' said Smith. ``I don't see anyone there who is ready to back down.'' But in the end, Weil said, the future of CyberCash might rest with forces beyond its control. ``You can't change the psyche of consumers,'' he said. ``CyberCash doesn't have that kind of influence.'' ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ********************************************** --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The Philodox Symposium on Digital Bearer Transaction Settlement July 23-24, 1998: <http://www.philodox.com/symposiuminfo.html>

5 8

easy remailing tool for MacIntosh ?
by barBEARian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

does anybody know of any nice, easy and convenient tool for the MacOS platform to do this complicated set-up for a chain of anonymous remailers ? TIA, Harley

1 0

Code for Crypto for Work...
by rlpowell＠calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I need a crippleable cypher for work (i.e. one that can be done in 40-bit and something-reasonable modes), and I'm thinking rc5 might be a good choice. Anyone know where I could find source for this, or have other suggestions? For the record, I and my company are in Canada. -Robin

1 0

Nevermind... :-)
by rlpowell＠calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

OK, I poked around some more and RC5 is an exceptionally sucky choice. Anyone know of any good variable-length algorithms? -Robin PS: Sorry for the pseudo-off-topic-ness.

1 0

CTIA Daily News from WOW-COM - July 6, 1998
by CTIA Daily News 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

============================================= Welcome to today's edition of the CTIA Daily News from WOW-COM. Please click on the icon / attachment for the most important news in wireless communications today. WIRELESS IT '98, The Next Generation in Personal Computing & Communications October 12-14, Las Vegas, Nevada Call (202) 785-0081 for more information! =============================================

1 0

Re: fwd from spyking@thecodex.com
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Answering Spyking's questions Ray posted in reverse: The Bronx incident started off as a major CB case, with barricades and plastic suits galore, in accord with the push for scare the beans out of the public with imaginary terrorism (another WMD terrorism trial is due to start in NYC shortly). It turns out that what was found were a couple of take-home, mildly radioactive elements (properly contained and marked) of a recently deceased employee of a plant that used them. The story died quickly. NYT covered it twice, once hot, once tepid. Second, what's driving the nationwide push to train First Responders and emergency room staff is Clinton's funding the program with billions, after he read Richard Preston's recent novel on biological terrorism (so said news reports), and got a few heart-thumping briefings from if you only knew blackhearts. Right now preparing for domestic defense against Weapons of Mass Destruction is the hottest career-jumpstart in the nation, and there's a frenzy of competition passing as cooperation among the military, National Guards, intel, FBI, FEMA, state and local cops, EMS, sawbones, Red Cross, CB weapons experts (US and RU), mercenaries, manufacturers, vets and revolving doorers of all the above, and, to be sure, the never-fake-it media goading and exaggerating (our straight-shooting members here excepted, well, except Y2Kites). Like many state and local officials relishing the vital national security role being porked to domestic forces, neatly bypassing the military's limitations, NYC's mayor is happy as a pig in shit with his plan for a new $16m anti-terrorist bunker on the 23rd floor of a buddy's office building across the street from the World Trade Center -- one RPG shot from the 23rd WTC into his impenetrable C4I nest. Rudy loves to watch "Patton" clad only in a Kevlar jockstrap. Of course, he's a "former federal prosecutor," the most common subtitle on TV of disembodied talking heads.

1 0

Update on status of Pauline Hanson's One Nation web sites
by Global Web Builders 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

G'day One Nation supporters in NSW I am Scott Balson, Pauline Hanson's web master and the moderator of the now defunct discussion forum mentioned in a recent news letter. You will notice that I am not using my normal "gwb" email. I apologise for the demise of the very successful discussion forum, but may I say that nothing surprises me any more. The forum was run on a third party web site and the owner took two weeks leave on Sunday - the day before the forum "shut down". Quite simply it was hacked by an unknown person because it was so successful. This is the face of free speech in Australia. NOTE: The hacker was not the site owner. To make matters worse, last Friday, the One Nation pages went down after the ISP we used, Pronet, had their link closed by Optus because of financial difficulties... we have taken remedial action and hope to have the site fully operational in the next 48 hours at: http://www.gwb.com.au/onenation The last few weeks I have seen, heard of and personally faced a growing number of personal attacks aimed at those involved in the One Nation party. In my case this has included being followed while driving my car (last week) and phone calls from the media wanting me to comment on "anonymous", unsubstantiated and trumped-up allegations that were made personally against me. (For example, when questioned about his call to me on Sunday Rory Callinan from "The (News Limited) Courier Mail" confirmed that they would not normally bother with allegations made on this basis but my role within the party had made an anonymous allegation "newsworthy" and worth pursuing.) This follows the party's success in the Queensland state elections. May I just say that this makes me realise that One Nation is obviously having a big impact on those who have got the most to lose and through their actions they have just increased my resolve to do all that I can to ensure Pauline Hanson and the party get a "fair go" on the Internet even if this right is denied by the mainstream media. The events and incidents against the party will continue to be covered on my Australian National News of the Day (anotd) which should be live again soon (also temporarily closed because of the Pronet collapse) The address for anotd is: http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news The agenda for getting One Nation back on-line and the discussion form up and running again is as follows: One Nation web site and anotd fully operation by Friday 10th July (probably before) http://www.gwb.com.au/onenation Discussion forum (through GWB) fully operational by end of July. I will keep this group informed when the discussion forum is again operational and once again apologise for the temporary loss of our forum in which to discuss issues. Please do not respond to this temporary account unless it is on a matter of urgency. The gwb(a)gwb.com.au email address will be up and running again by this weekend. GWB Scott Balson Pauline Hanson's Web Master

1 0

Gov Secrecy Reform Act of 1998
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We've transcribed a fax of Senator Thompson's Amendment as Substitute for S.712, "Government Secrecy Reform Act of 1998," passed by the Governmental Affairs Committee on June 17: http://jya.com/s712-amend.htm (37K) Here's a report on the amendment and vote: NCC Washington Update, vol. 4, #25 July 1, 1998 [National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History] Senate Committee Adopts Substitute Bill for Moynihan's Government Secrecy Reform Act Senate Committee Adopts Substitute Bill for Moynihan's Government Secrecy Reform Act -- On June 17 the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee met to consider a substitute bill for S.712, the Government Secrecy Reform Act of 1998. By voice vote, with no negative votes heard, the Committee passed the substitute bill proposed by Senator Fred Thompson (R-TENN), the chair of the Committee, and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME). The original bill had provided a framework for reform but had lacked the specifics which this bill provides. The substitute bill make four major changes from the bill that was originally introduced. First, this bill eliminates the section calling for the establishment of a National Declassification Center in an existing agency -- which many had thought could be the National Archives -- and instead expands the functions and oversight responsibilities of the existing Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) and moves that office from the National Archives to the Executive Office of the President. Second, the bill states that classified information must be declassified after 25 years unless, as the bill summary states, "extraordinary circumstances" require that it remain classified. The original bill had a 30 year time limit for most information to remain classified. Third, the substitute bill retains the balancing test of the original bill; however, the revised bill establishes criteria to guide agency classification decisions for weighing the concerns of national security and the public interest in disclosure. The national security criteria are taken directly from President Clinton's E.O 12958 and the public interest criteria are newly developed for the substitute bill. Fourth, the substitute bill establishes a Classification and Declassification Review Board composed of 5 public members to hear agency and individual appeals regarding classification and declassification decisions. Once the report for the amended S. 712 is filed, which is expected to happen in mid-July, then the substitute bill will be referred to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for 30 days for their consideration. It is anticipated that the Intelligence Committee may hold hearings and may have objections to the balancing test provision of the bill. Since there appears to be little attention in the House to this legislation and since there are not many legislative days remaining before adjournment, it is doubtful that this legislation will pass in the 105th Congress.

1 0

Secret World of Spice/Freeway of Love
by STUFFED/EUREKA! 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Junger et al.
by jkthomson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Reuters 3:40pm 6.Jul.98.PDT WASHINGTON -- A district court has dismissed a law professor's challenge to US regulations strictly limiting the export of computer data-scrambling technology. Judge James Gwin ruled late Friday that the export limits, which prevented Case Western Reserve University Law School professor Peter Junger from posting the text of encryption programs on the Internet, did not violate the constitutional right to free speech. The Ohio court's ruling contradicts a California district court ruling last August that said source code -- the instructions a person writes telling the computer what actions to perform -- constitutes a form of speech subject to First Amendment protection. "Unlike instructions, a manual or a recipe, source code actually performs the function it describes," Gwin wrote. "While a recipe provides instructions to a cook, source code is a device, like embedded circuitry in a telephone, that actually does the function of encryption." Neither ruling gave speech protection to compiled code, a version of source code converted into an actual software program that could be run on a computer. The US government appealed the California decision and the issue may ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. Civil libertarians and high-tech companies had hoped the court would overturn the export limits on encryption technology, which uses mathematical formulas to scramble information and render it unreadable without a password or software "key." Once the realm of spies and generals, encryption has become an increasingly critical means of protecting electronic commerce and global communications over the Internet. But law enforcement agencies, fearing encryption will be used by terrorists and international criminals to hide their activities, have instituted strict controls to limit the export of strong scrambling products. Lawyers opposed to the export rules said the Ohio court misunderstood the difference between source code and compiled code. "The Ohio court clearly doesn't understand the communicative nature of software," said Shari Steele, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's true that software helps to perform functions, but it does so by telling computers what to do.... It certainly is speech deserving of the highest levels of First Amendment protection." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- james 'keith' thomson <jkthomson(a)bigfoot.com> www.bigfoot.com/~ceildh jkthomson:C181 991A 405C EAFB 2C46 79B5 B1DC DB78 8196 122D [06.07.98] ceildh :1D79 59AF ED75 5945 6003 8240 DA34 ACCA 9DE4 6BC9 [05.14.98] ICQ:746241 <keys> at pgp.mit.edu ...and former sysop of tnbnog BBS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Technology is introduced, utilized, depended upon, obsolete, standardized, and understood, in that order =======================================================================

1 0

RE: Junger et al.
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't understand ... Did anyone demonstrate the "functionalness" of any arbitrary language via a scanner and a compiler? Why doesn't Gwin understand that the moment one successfully claims that a specific class of source code is not speech by the virtue of the fact that a compiler can transform it automatically into executable code which performs a function, then ANY speech of ANY sort is fundamentally vulnerable to being classified as functional as soon as a compiler can transform it into real machine code. So today, I can write the following: 1. Find a container. 2. Fill container with explosive substance. 3. Move container to target location. 4. Detonate container. As soon as I have a compiler and a target machine that can execute these instructions, suddenly this is not speech. However, before this compiler and machine combo exists, event the electronic form of this is speech! How could this be? Ern -----Original Message----- From: jkthomson [SMTP:jkthomson@bigfoot.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 1998 7:12 PM To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Junger et al. Reuters 3:40pm 6.Jul.98.PDT WASHINGTON -- A district court has dismissed a law professor's challenge to US regulations strictly limiting the export of computer data-scrambling technology. Judge James Gwin ruled late Friday that the export limits, which prevented Case Western Reserve University Law School professor Peter Junger from posting the text of encryption programs on the Internet, did not violate the constitutional right to free speech. The Ohio court's ruling contradicts a California district court ruling last August that said source code -- the instructions a person writes telling the computer what actions to perform -- constitutes a form of speech subject to First Amendment protection. "Unlike instructions, a manual or a recipe, source code actually performs the function it describes," Gwin wrote. "While a recipe provides instructions to a cook, source code is a device, like embedded circuitry in a telephone, that actually does the function of encryption." Neither ruling gave speech protection to compiled code, a version of source code converted into an actual software program that could be run on a computer. The US government appealed the California decision and the issue may ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. Civil libertarians and high-tech companies had hoped the court would overturn the export limits on encryption technology, which uses mathematical formulas to scramble information and render it unreadable without a password or software "key." Once the realm of spies and generals, encryption has become an increasingly critical means of protecting electronic commerce and global communications over the Internet. But law enforcement agencies, fearing encryption will be used by terrorists and international criminals to hide their activities, have instituted strict controls to limit the export of strong scrambling products. Lawyers opposed to the export rules said the Ohio court misunderstood the difference between source code and compiled code. "The Ohio court clearly doesn't understand the communicative nature of software," said Shari Steele, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's true that software helps to perform functions, but it does so by telling computers what to do.... It certainly is speech deserving of the highest levels of First Amendment protection." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- james 'keith' thomson <jkthomson(a)bigfoot.com> www.bigfoot.com/~ceildh jkthomson:C181 991A 405C EAFB 2C46 79B5 B1DC DB78 8196 122D [06.07.98] ceildh :1D79 59AF ED75 5945 6003 8240 DA34 ACCA 9DE4 6BC9 [05.14.98] ICQ:746241 <keys> at pgp.mit.edu ...and former sysop of tnbnog BBS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Technology is introduced, utilized, depended upon, obsolete, standardized, and understood, in that order =======================================================================_

5 4

No Subject
by VICTOR HERRERA 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

can u help me thank u

1 0

MAKE MORE MONEY ONLINE
by info＠homebusinesscentral.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Friend and Internet Entrepreneur, Discover little known ways of how to promote virtually any product, service or idea online and see income within 24 hours. Guranteed! It's finally here! **ALL NEW** E-Mail Marketing Home Study Course reveals how to use responsible, targeted, e-mail marketing in your business to boost Web site traffic, generate leads, sell products, and make more sales online. Learn totally new information about how to e-mail your sales message to prospects and sell your products and services online without getting flamed. Discover detailed techniques for using opt-in marketing, compiling mailing lists, the secrets of writing ad copy, and much more. You will learn: How to create targeted e-mail lists of prospects who are as much as 5 times more responsive than names you can rent or buy. Discover which e-mail management and sending software is best. (And Receive A FREE 10 Day Trial Version Of The Best One) Discover which teaser ads and subject lines get your mail opened and responded to quickly. How to use e-mail to generate qualified traffic to a Web site. And Much Much More.... You will receive an extensive step by step course guiding you every step of the way! Plus as part of this national marketing test if you ACT NOW! you are going to receive as a bonus gift: "The Secrets To Successful Search Engine Submission" Audio series Learn how to get on top and stay on top! "I generated 19 brand new paying customers in less than a week with this course" Thank You To learn more about this exciting course please visit us at http://www.homebusinesscentral.net/emarket.html This is a very limited offer, so act now! To be removed from this list please respond with "remove" in the subject field World Tek Inc. 7210 Jordan Ave. Canoga Park CA. 91303 1-818-718-9429

1 0

RE: Junger et al.
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think we are in violent agreement here ... Except that it seems odd that speech is no longer 1st amendment protected as soon as it can be interpreted by a machine to do something. So, then, if I want to deny you first amendment protections for something, I can simply write a compiler to turn your words into machine executable code, and suddenly, your words are no longer protected speech. How could that be a reasonable interpretation of functional versus not? Secondly, Gwin said that encryption is a special class of software which is MORE functional. This is definitely a misunderstanding, to say the least. I don't see how any particular class of software is necessarily more or less functional than other classes of software. In the functional sense, all software, when compiled and executed is functional, period (whether it performs according to its original design is irrelevant). Ern -----Original Message----- From: Ed Gerck [SMTP:egerck@laser.cps.softex.br] Sent: Monday, July 06, 1998 9:09 PM To: Ernest Hua Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com; 'cryptography(a)c2.net' Subject: RE: Junger et al. On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Ernest Hua wrote: >So today, I can write the following: > >1. Find a container. >2. Fill container with explosive substance. >3. Move container to target location. >4. Detonate container. > >As soon as I have a compiler and a target machine that can execute these >instructions, suddenly this is not speech. However, before this >compiler and machine combo exists, event the electronic form of this is >speech! > >How could this be? Gwin has written a phrase which deserves more analysis, IMO -- free from political overtones if we want to be impartial. The phrase can be reworded as: "source code is a device, that actually does a function" The difference and importance here is between syntatic and semantics. Your 4-instruction source code above is not a device today -- it cannot perform any function. It has only syntatics, not the "how to". But, if there were a machine that could supply the proper semantics (ie, actually perform the functions 1-4) then your source code above would be a device. Further, your source code may not be a device today but be a device tomorrow. As another example, bringing together one pound of inert metal with another one pound of the same inert metal was not considered to be explosive -- until U235 was used for the inert metal and properly compressed. The difference is semantic, not syntatic. In that, Gwin is correct. Can the source code actually perform a function? Then, it is a device. Irrespective of the needed platform, in the same way that an electric shaver is a device irrespective of the local availablity of an appropriate power outlet. IMO, even though I consider Gwin to be correct to a very large extent, widespread use of crypto will not come from lifiting such bans ... but from real need -- which does not outweigh the hassle, today. The EFF has a wrong target there. Do you know how much Internet e-mail traffic is encrypted today? Can you believe less than 10%? Notwithstanding the rethoric exercises and limelight it may provide, talking about encryption export bans may not be as effective as desigining better and easier uses of strong crypto -- that can then really drive market, legislation and courts. Need to use is a better key than need to know, it seems. Cheers, Ed Gerck > >Ern > > -----Original Message----- > From: jkthomson [SMTP:jkthomson@bigfoot.com] > Sent: Monday, July 06, 1998 7:12 PM > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Junger et al. > > > > Reuters > > 3:40pm 6.Jul.98.PDT WASHINGTON -- A district court has >dismissed a law > professor's challenge to US regulations strictly limiting the >export of > computer data-scrambling technology. > > Judge James Gwin ruled late Friday that the export limits, which >prevented > Case Western Reserve University Law School professor Peter >Junger from > posting the text of encryption programs on the Internet, did not >violate > the constitutional right to free speech. > > The Ohio court's ruling contradicts a California district court >ruling last > August that said source code -- the instructions a person writes >telling > the computer what actions to perform -- constitutes a form of >speech > subject to First Amendment protection. > > "Unlike instructions, a manual or a recipe, source code actually >performs > the function it describes," Gwin wrote. "While a recipe provides > instructions to a cook, source code is a device, like embedded >circuitry in > a telephone, that actually does the function of encryption." > > Neither ruling gave speech protection to compiled code, a >version of source > code converted into an actual software program that could be run >on a > computer. > > The US government appealed the California decision and the issue >may > ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. > > Civil libertarians and high-tech companies had hoped the court >would > overturn the export limits on encryption technology, which uses > mathematical formulas to scramble information and render it >unreadable > without a password or software "key." > > Once the realm of spies and generals, encryption has become an >increasingly > critical means of protecting electronic commerce and global >communications > over the Internet. > > But law enforcement agencies, fearing encryption will be used by >terrorists > and international criminals to hide their activities, have >instituted > strict controls to limit the export of strong scrambling >products. > > Lawyers opposed to the export rules said the Ohio court >misunderstood the > difference between source code and compiled code. > > "The Ohio court clearly doesn't understand the communicative >nature of > software," said Shari Steele, an attorney with the Electronic >Frontier > Foundation. "It's true that software helps to perform functions, >but it > does so by telling computers what to do.... It certainly is >speech > deserving of the highest levels of First Amendment protection." > > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > james 'keith' thomson <jkthomson(a)bigfoot.com> >www.bigfoot.com/~ceildh > jkthomson:C181 991A 405C EAFB 2C46 79B5 B1DC DB78 8196 122D >[06.07.98] > ceildh :1D79 59AF ED75 5945 6003 8240 DA34 ACCA 9DE4 6BC9 >[05.14.98] > ICQ:746241 <keys> at pgp.mit.edu ...and former sysop of >tnbnog BBS > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Technology is introduced, utilized, depended upon, obsolete, > standardized, and understood, in that order > >======================================================================= _ > ______________________________________________________________________ Dr.rer.nat. E. Gerck egerck(a)novaware.cps.softex.br http://novaware.cps.softex.br --- Meta-Certificate Group member, http://www.mcg.org.br ---

6 5

no subject! Anti-National ID Bill
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Where is this? Stalled. Looks dead in the water. Any further insights? H.R.3261 SPONSOR: Rep Paul (introduced 02/25/98) SUMMARY: (AS INTRODUCED) Privacy Protection Act of 1997 (sic) - Amends title II (Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) of the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code to prohibit any Federal, State, or local government agency or instrumentality from using a social security account number or any derivative as the means of identifying any individual, except for specified social security and tax purposes. Amends the Privacy Act of 1974 to prohibit any Federal, State, or local government agency or instrumentality from requesting an individual to disclose his social security account number on either a mandatory or a voluntary basis. Prohibits any two Federal agencies or instrumentalities from implementing the same identifying number with respect to any individual, except as authorized under this Act. ---- STATUS: Detailed Legislative Status House Actions Feb 25, 98: Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Mar 2, 98: Referred to the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology. Feb 25, 98: Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

2 1

Best Free XXX on the net!!!!
by DOnotreply 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have compiled a list of the best free XXX sites on the net!! Take a look at: Best ever You will save a lot!

1 0

keystrokes and crooked judges
by bill payne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am reading http://www.jya.com/gaks-de.htm Perhaps this e-mail may interest you Best bill http://www.apcatalog.com/cgi-bin/AP?ISBN=0125475705&LOCATION=US&FORM=FORM2 http://www-hto.usc.edu/software/seqaln/doc/html/gfsr.3.html Monday 6/8/98 7:53 AM John Young I am reading http://jya.com/sitesec.htm a bit more carefully. You have NEVER WRITTEN SO MUCH. Fishing was great. I used a $10 THE INSTANT CALLING CARD [TM] VOCALL COMMUNICATIONS CORP The World's Most advanced prepaid Calling Card which allows access with a pin of 718-2455-7091-xxx [my SECRET] in ENGLISH, SPANISH, ARABIC, URDU, KOREAN, JAPANESE, GERMAN, FRENCH, ITALIAN to call you TWICE on Saturday. At only $.14/min. I left one message about Xandi and spiking computer keyboards. Xandi MADE low-power transmitters, http://www.gernsback.com/HyperNews/get/forums/resource/226.html like the kind I MIGHT use IF I were going to spike a keyboard [most which use an 8051 http://www.apcatalog.com/cgi-bin/AP?ISBN=0125475705&LOCATION=US&FORM=FORM2] so that the keystrokes would be broadcast. This, of course, defeats crypto attempts to cipher keystrokes. But I DO NOT DO, or have to do, ILLEGAL THINGS for the FBI or any other government agency. I, as a DOE contractor employee, was protected under 10 CFR 708. http://av.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=10+cfr+708&hc=0&hs=0 But 10 CFR 708 does not appear to be working well in my case. Therefore, we had to try other remedies. VOCALL is getting real close to digital cash, one of Orlin Grabbe's interests. http://www.aci.net/kalliste/dcguide.htm I have to do mostly technical work on the digital FX this week but will try to get two notices of appeal to the Tenth circuit written. http://jya.com/whp043098.htm Morales and I, with all the publicity you and Orlin have given us, can go all the way to the Supreme Court with our genocide and crypto deficiency lawsuits. http://jya.com/whpfiles.htm Pro se, of course. Too bad NSA did not take my criticisms of its shift register work more constructively. http://jya.com/da/whpda.htm, click on Appendix S Perhaps NSA should have worked with some of us at Sandia to come-up with fixes to overcome deficiencies. This unpleasantness could have been avoided. I've had ideas to improve shift register algorithm operation before. http://www-hto.usc.edu/software/seqaln/doc/html/gfsr.3.html Let's all hope for settlement of this UNFORTUNATE matter before it gets worse. Later bill And this too. Subject: FBI agents and Junger Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 07:32:36 -0600 From: bill payne <billp(a)nmol.com> To: jy(a)jya.com CC: art morales <armoral(a)sandia.gov>, whitfield diffie <diffie(a)eng.sun.com>, tom carpenter - halcyon <tomcgap(a)halcyon.com>, marc rotenberg <rotenberg(a)epic.org>, national employee rights institute <neri(a)nerinet.org>, mab(a)research.att.com, mejudson(a)mail.wdn.com, lwirbel(a)aol.com, klayman <jwatch(a)erols.com>, john gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com>, jpcarson(a)mindspring.com, jdelia(a)gnn.com, jeff debonis <76554.133(a)compuserve.com>, jay coughlan <ccns(a)nets.com>, jason vest <vestj(a)aol.com>, j orlin grabbe <kalliste(a)aci.net>, david sobel <sobel(a)epic.org>, Cindy(a)McGlashan.com Tuesday 7/7/98 7:28 AM John Young I am reading http://www.jya.com/pdj10.htm FBI agents Perez, Rodrigues, and Silva warned us about the crooked judges at the appellate level. The FBI blackmailed Perez, Rodrigues, and Silva into a cheap settlement of their race discrimination lawsuit win in Lucius Bunton's West Texas court. They all lost money. And all got divorced. Perez is a buddy of Morales and Gonzales. Gonzales and Armenta are buddies of Silva. Hugo Rodrigues moved to Florida. This information is VERY VALUABLE to Morales and me. It shapes our response to the two letters from the Tenth I put in the mail to you yesterday. NO FUTURE IN ARGUING POINTS OF LAW WITH CROOKED JUDGES. bill Counterfeiting Wiegand Wire Access Credentials Bill Payne October 16,1996 Abstract Wiegand wire access credentials are easy and inexpensive to counterfeit. Access Control & Security Systems Integration magazine, October 1996 [http://www/securitysolutions.com] published the article, Wiegand technology stands the test of time by PAUL J. BODELL, page 12 Many card and reader manufacturers offer Wiegand (pronounced wee-gand) output. However, only three companies in the world make Wiegand readers. Sensor Engineering of Hamden Conn., holds the patent for Wiegand, and Sensor has licensed Cardkey of Simi Valley, Calif., and Doduco of Pforzheim, Germany, to manufacture Wiegand cards and readers. ... A Wiegand output reader is not the same thing as a Wiegand reader, and it is important to understand the differences. In brief, Wiegand reader use the Wiegand effect to translate card information around the patented Wiegand effect in which a segment of a specially treated wire generates an electronic pulse when subjected to a specific magnetic field. If the pulse is generated when the wire is near a pick-up coil, the pulse can be detected by a circuit. Lining up several rows of wires and passing them by a cold would generate a series of pulses. Lining up two rows of wires - calling on row "zero bits" and the other "one bits" - and passing them by two different coils would generate two series of pulses, or data bits. These data bits can then be interpreted as binary data and used to control other devices. If you seal the coils in a rugged housing with properly placed magnets, and LED and some simple circuitry, you have a Wiegand reader. Carefully laminate the special wires in vinyl, and artwork, and hot-stamp a number on the vinyl, and you have a Wiegand card. IN THE BEGINNING Wiegand was first to introduce to the access control market in the late 1970s. It was immediately successful because it filled the need for durable, secure card and reader technology. Embedded in the cards, Wiegand wires cannot be altered or duplicated. ... Bodell's Last statement is incorrect. Tasks for EASILY counterfeiting Wiegand wire cards are 1 Locate the wires inside the card to read the 0s and 1s. 2 Build an ACCEPTABLE copy of the card. Bodell's clear explanation of the working of a Wiegand card can be visualized zero row | | | one row | | binary 0 1 0 0 1 representation Solutions to Task 1 A X-ray the card B MAGNI VIEW FILM, Mylar film reads magnetic fields ... Edmunds Scientific Company, catalog 16N1, page 205, C33,447 $11.75 is placed over the top of the Wiegand card. COW MAGNET, Cow magnetics allow farmers to trap metal in the stomachs of their cows. Edmunds, page 204, C31,101 $10.75 is placed under the card. Location of the wires is easily seen on the green film. Mark the position of the wires with a pen. Next chop the card vertically using a shear into about 80/1000s paper-match-sized strips. Don't worry about cutting a wire or two. Note that a 0 has the pen mark to the top. A 1 has the pen mark at the bottom. Take a business card and layout the "paper match"-like strips to counterfeit the card number desired. Don't worry about spacing. Wiegand output is self-clocking! Tape the "paper-match - like" strips to the business card. Only the FUNCTION of the card needs to be reproduced! History Breaking electronic locks was done as "work for others" at Sandia National Laboratories beginning in 1992 funded by the Federal Bureau of Investigation/Engineering Research Facility, Quantico, VA. The FBI opined that this work was SECRET/NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION. Details of the consequences of this work are covered in Fired Worker File Lawsuit Against Sandia Specialist Says He Balked When Lab Sought Electronic Picklock Software, Albuquer Journal, Sunday April 25, 1993 State-sanctioned paranoia, EE Times, January 22, 1996 One man's battle, EE Times, March 22, 1994 Damn the torpedoes, EE Times, June 6, 1994 Protecting properly classified info, EE Times, April 11, 1994 DOE to scrutinize fairness in old whistle-blower cases, Albuquerque Tribune, Nov 7 1995 DOE boss accelerates whistle-blower protection, Albuquerque Tribune, March 27, 1996 DOE doesn't plan to compensate 'old' whistle-blowers with money, Albuquerque Tribune September 27, 199

1 0

Your Home Town Provides Everything You Need
by zida27＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

YOUR HOME TOWN WILL DO 100% OF THE WORK FOR YOU WE OFFER: You the chance to own your own Home Based Business. WE OFFER: To build your Home Based Business for you. WE OFFER You financial independence. WE OFFER: You life saving and life changing products. WE OFFER: You the easiest way we know to, improve your Health, your Wealth and your Happiness. For more information Call: Our toll free 24 hr message center at 888-771-9338 Our toll free 24 hr recorded message at 888-771-9340. Reference # 1007698 our research showed you would be interested in this subject. If this is not true and you would like to be removed from our data base please call 888-771-9338 and leave your e-mail address for removal. Thank You.

1 0

New Page!
by StanSqncrs＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I made another page, which details what Capital records did to Dark Side of the Moon when they reissued on cd. Guess what they covered-up. :-) Check it out, Stan, The Desecration of 'The Dark Side of the Moon' http://members.tripod.com/StanSqncrs/DarkSide/darkside.html

1 0

US to Ease Crypto Export
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

7 July 1998 Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1998-07/07/064l-070798-idx.html Thanks to FT U.S. to Ease Limits on Export of Data-Scrambling Technology By Elizabeth Corcoran Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, July 7, 1998; Page E04 Commerce Secretary William Daley plans to announce today that the government will give U.S. software companies new freedom to export their most sophisticated data-scrambling technology to financial institutions chartered in 45 countries, according to Clinton administration sources. Under the new rules, which officials said are likely to take effect in late summer, eligible banks, securities firms, brokerage houses and credit-card companies will need to receive approval only once from the Commerce Department before they can license the most sophisticated "encryption," or data-scrambling, technology. Once they receive approval, those institutions will be permitted to share the technology with any of their branch offices, except for those located in terrorist states. Government sources estimate that the new rules will include about 70 percent of the world's banks, including the 100 largest (ranked by assets). For years, the government has closely regulated export of encryption software, on the grounds that terrorists or hostile governments might use it to cloak their communications. The software industry argues that the rules are unworkable and unfairly block foreign sales. Unfriendly parties wanting to use encryption already can obtain it overseas, industry executives said. The new rules on banks are "a move in the right direction," said one industry executive familiar with the regulations. "But we're still leaving some groups out. Basically, we need to keep spreading the circle wider," to include the growing number of businesses offering financial services, such as insurance companies. "What we've heard sounds great," said Kawika Daguio, a lobbyist for the American Bankers Association. "We've been arguing [for several years] that the regulatory structure we have guarantees we're good citizens" who wouldn't make illicit use of the technology, he said. Now the government appears to have agreed. Current regulations require that U.S. companies apply for permits before exporting anything but the simplest versions of encryption products. To export more sophisticated technology, organizations must have a plan for creating so-called "spare keys." That way, law enforcement officials who have obtained a court order would be able to unlock the information. In May 1997, the Commerce Department said it would not restrict the sophistication of the data-encryption technology sold to financial institutions. But it required spare keys and case-by-case licensing. Approvals have been slow. Now the government is doing away with the key requirement, defining more precisely which financial institutions qualify and pledging to end case-by-case approval. Because of concerns about money laundering, the government will grant the new permission only to financial institutions chartered in countries that have agreed to take steps against money-laundering. If U.S. companies want to sell to financial institutions chartered in other countries, they will have to apply for licenses from the Commerce Department. Such provisions still fall short of the demands of U.S. companies. "To take a piecemeal approach [to loosening encryption restrictions] is the wrong direction," said Ed Gillespie, executive director of Americans for Computer Privacy, a lobbying group. "We need a blanket lifting of restrictions with individual prohibitions," such as bans on sending such technology to terrorist states, he said. In a related development, a federal court in Ohio ruled on Friday that posting the text of an encryption program on the Internet, where people all over the world could see it, was not protected by the constitutional right to free speech. The ruling, made late Friday, contradicts a ruling made by a California district court last August. Privacy advocates predict that the issue will be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court. © Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company

1 1

CTIA Daily News from WOW-COM - July 7, 1998
by CTIA Daily News 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

============================================= Welcome to today's edition of the CTIA Daily News from WOW-COM. Please click on the icon / attachment for the most important news in wireless communications today. =============================================

1 0

Private-enterprise wiretapping
by bill.stewart＠pobox.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

STOLEN NUMBERS -- [New York Times, p. 31, 7/5.] Federal investigators said the scam was ingenious in its simplicity: Five people in New York City would tap into public pay phones at major airports across the country, then steal calling-card numbers punched in by unsuspecting travelers. The scheme ended last month with the arrests of four men and one woman. But the case is only the latest machination in a $4-billion-a-year telephone fraud industry that keeps reinventing itself. "This is something we have not seen before," said Boyd Jackson [of] network security at AT&T, one of the industry experts who helped Federal investigators on the case. "And there is nothing I am aware of that customers can do to fully protect themselves." The Secret Service was tipped off by AT&T, Bell Atlantic and MCI after they received an unusually high number of complaints from customers who had recently used their calling cards in airports. [Also San Jose Mercury News, 1C; Rocky Mountain News, 33A; Sun-Sentinel, 3A, 7/4.]

1 0

Junger decision
by Cindy Cohn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For those who haven't yet heard, Judge Gwin in the District Court in Ohio has granted the government summary judgment in the Junger case. Judge Gwin apparently agreed with the government that the "functionality" of encryption source code, and the government's claims that it only intends to regulate that "functionality" mean that the regulations are not "narrowly and directed at expressive conduct" and so do not merit prior restraint analysis. The Judge then held that the regulations were content neutral, applied the intermediate scrutiny tests and found that the export restrictions meet those tests. I haven't had the opportunity to review the decision yet. As soon as I have, I will post some brief comments. Still no decision from the 9th Circuit in Bernstein. Cindy ****************************** Cindy A. Cohn, Cindy(a)McGlashan.com McGlashan & Sarrail, P.C. 177 Bovet Road, 6th Floor San Mateo, CA 94402 (650) 341-2585 (tel) (650) 341-1395 (fax)

1 0

RE: Junger et al.
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Nevermind that source code is suppose to be "human readable" material that is _translated_ into function instructions of machine code. A play is normally considered 'protected' free speech under US law, but what if robot was created which acted out the play and Gwin's argument was extended to apply the situtation where a play performed. Would the play itself no longer be a protected form of free speech, because it is seen as "functional" instructions to the robot actor? Would the playwrite become responsible for the robot's actions, such as killing a character/actor? As a programmer, I have "acted out" source code myself, as part of the debugging process. It is normally called "a walkthrough," so the difference between source code and a play is not as broad as some people may view it. I have followed the source code like a script, acting out the instructions like stage directions in a play. Does it matter who might 'read' the material, in regards to the protection of free speech? Whether it is written so that Russians or computers might be able to read it? If source code is written on a napkin, it can be currently exported, but what if tomorrow a vendor announces a 'napkin computer' which can directly read from napkins akin to a super-low densiy floppy disc. At 07:20 PM 7/6/98 -0700, Ernest Hua wrote: >Did anyone demonstrate the "functionalness" of any arbitrary language >via a scanner and a compiler? > >Why doesn't Gwin understand that the moment one successfully claims that >a specific class of source code is not speech by the virtue of the fact >that a compiler can transform it automatically into executable code >which performs a function, then ANY speech of ANY sort is fundamentally >vulnerable to being classified as functional as soon as a compiler can >transform it into real machine code. > >Ern > > -----Original Message----- > From: jkthomson [SMTP:jkthomson@bigfoot.com] > Sent: Monday, July 06, 1998 7:12 PM > Reuters > >3:40pm 6.Jul.98.PDT WASHINGTON -- A district court has dismissed a law >professor's challenge to US regulations strictly limiting the export of >computer data-scrambling technology. > >Judge James Gwin ruled late Friday that the export limits, which prevented >Case Western Reserve University Law School professor Peter Junger from >posting the text of encryption programs on the Internet, did not violate >the constitutional right to free speech. > >The Ohio court's ruling contradicts a California district court ruling last >August that said source code -- the instructions a person writes telling >the computer what actions to perform -- constitutes a form of speech >subject to First Amendment protection. > >"Unlike instructions, a manual or a recipe, source code actually performs >the function it describes," Gwin wrote. "While a recipe provides >instructions to a cook, source code is a device, like embedded circuitry in >a telephone, that actually does the function of encryption."

3 2

A note on the latest randomness quarrel
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

* Never use "the lowest few bits" or (t1>t2)?1:0 for the actual random number generation. You only use things like that for estimating the amount of entropy in a source. The number of bits of entropy in a pile of bits is one more than the base-two logarithm of the average number of guesses required of a badguy knowing your condidtioning routine, observing what it can, and interfering with your generator to figure out the value of the bits in the pile, so if your studies and statistical analyses estimate that it requires 2^127 guesses to guess the output of your conditioning routine, good for you, you've estimated that somewhere in its input are 128 bits of entropy. Um, I digress...point is, don't use that output straight. Take twice as much unconditioned input, non-random-looking stuff and all, as you estimate your conditioning routine needs to produce a key's worth of entropy and _hash_it_. Your conditioning routine can introduce some little bias you didn't see or make some unnoticed mistake that lets through predictable bits. Hashing can, too, but we've studied the hash functions to make sure they're good a lot more than we've studied your conditioning procedure. * A badguy's introduction of extra events doesn't poison your randomness. A badguy could introduce a multitude of predictable-but-random-looking events to make your generator close shop before it has enough unpredictable events to get its entropy. However, that only works if extra events make your generator stop collecting earlier. The amount of time it spends collecting randomness shouldn't depend on _any_ output of the generator, because that needlessly leaks entropy. Also, a badguy could introduce two nearly-simultaneous events near the beginning of the process, when it can be fairly sure that the wait between its events and the previous event will make a zero or make the lowest few bits of the delay between the bits match a certain value. (Interpreting that sentence is left as an exercise to the reader :) However, you can only do this in a system where your conditioning routine allows extra events to cause the routine to output bad bets. However, if you hash your raw data rather than using one of those conditioning routines, it's nearly -- nearly, that's your cue to say it has to be always -- impossible to weaken the output without knowing the other data hashed. Third, el badguy could introduce so many events that the gap between events was always less than the measurement threshhold. However, note that the Geiger counter, the computer, and the operator would all fail under these circumstances. Therefore, pretty much any strategy allowing extra events to kill entropy is flawed. ================================================================================ /// anonymous : nobody(a)replay.com : http://replay.com /// ================================================================================

1 0