December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Cost of Internet (was: Should we oppose ... Superhighway)
by Wabasha-Kellogg High School 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please don't confuse New York with the vast reaches of Rural America. ALL Internet access is a long distance call from many many location in the world, including here. I would *love to have a free national net available, 'cause I think I know how to use it. Others might abuse it, but I woul work the heck out of it. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1993 17:29:18 -0500 From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger(a)lehman.com> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII? jdblair(a)nextsrv.cas.muohio.edu says: > I'm not sure what you mean by "various groups," but I do think that > a very basic net connection, with minimal services (access to > government records, public domain postings, and similar information) > should be provided either free or at a very minimal cost. In New York City, the effective variable cost of an internet mail/news connection is $27 a month -- less than you can panhandle in about threen hours during rush hour, and I'm assuming you never use the phone for anything else and call a couple times a day. The cost is still dropping, and will doubtless be nearly invisible even without any government intervention within a few years. My poorest unemployed friend living in Hell's Kitchen in a fifth floor walkup apartment in roach-infested tenement (no joke) has an internet connection via Panix. I therefore see no reason for government guarantees of net access -- it is obvious that anyone with even minimal initiative can get one already, or will be able to within a few years. The cost of a net connection is far less than the cost of, say, smoking, and there are homeless people who still manage to smoke. Perry

3 2

Dr. Dobb's editorial on PGP
by Dave Hart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The December Dr. Dobb's Journal has an editorial on the current PGP legal wrangling. I'll quote the last sentence: More importantly, the First Amendment guarantees us the right to speak in an encrypted way and insidious attempts to douse public access to cryptography, cloaked under the guise of software-export investigations, appear to stifle these rights. -------------------------------------- DaveHart(a)microsoft.com The opinions expressed are personal and do not necessarily agree with the opinions of Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft has its own opinions, one of which is "disclaimers are a good thing".

1 0

sarcastic quote
by jim＠bilbo.suite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. - Oscar Wilde Seems an appropriate quote for today. ObRhetoricalClipper: How do the key escrow agencies confirm that the LEAF presented with a warrant is from a line that was legally tapped? Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

1 0

the Amusements of Cypherpunks
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mr. Metzger, premier cypherpunk, undoubtedly derived great ecstasy from mailing me 16 copies of the following letter, apparently in response to my complimenting & commending him on his recently released RSA toolkit... Who was it that said something about `striking a nerve'? Was that J. Dinkelacker? I forget. ===cut=here===

3 2

Gatewaying to Netcom fixed....
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The gatewaying of the List to Netcom has apparently been fixed, or soon will be. The message below describes what happened. This still does not explain the similar situations which others reported (unless they were just reporting purely local gatewaying). -Tim > Newsgroups: cypherpunks.list > Path: netcom.com!netnews > From: netnews(a)netcom.com (USENET Administration) > Subject: Re: Test of this list... > Message-ID: <netnewsCG97IJ.524(a)netcom.com> > Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) > References: <tcmayCG8oBv.uq(a)netcom.com> > Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1993 02:13:30 GMT > Lines: 36 > > In article <tcmayCG8oBv.uq(a)netcom.com> tcmay(a)netcom.com (Timothy C. May) writes: > > > >I'm writing this as a _post" to a new newsgroup that appeared on > >Netcom yesterday, "cypherpunks.list." > > > >Who created this newsgroup? Do postings here appear on the e-mail list > >itself? (Hence this test.) > > > >I'm not sure that gatewaying our semi-private mailing list, containing > >candid remarks about smashing governments with strong crypto (as just > >one example), is such a great idea. It just makes it easier for "Them" > >to monitor us and for flamers to disrupt the group. > > > >Oh well. > > > > It was newgrouped at Netcom because it was showing up as one of the > top ten non-existent groups that were were nevertheless receiving > articles for. > > I just checked with the admin of the site that we were receiving > the articles from. It turns out that someone downstream of him > had gatewayed the mailing list into a newsgroup, but it was > supposed to stay local to that site! A minor configuration error > let the articles leak back upstream until they reached Netcom. > > The admin of the site gating the list to the newsgroup will be > patching the leak ASAP, so the list activity should dry up > in a day or two. At the end of the week, I'll close the group > down and that should be the end of it. > > Dont'cha just LOVE those funny leetle config files? ;-) > > > -- > Netcom Newsfeed Support -- (408) 554-8717 -- netnews(a)netcom.com >

1 0

unsubscribe 9307905p@ntx.city.unisa.edu.au
by 9307905p＠ntx.city.unisa.edu.au 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ARRRRRRGGH.... Unsubscribe me. Im drowning..... 9307905p(a)ntx.city.unisa.edu.au --- F.R.J. Cichy B.CS U of SA, Australia

1 0

Re: Private and Public
by doug＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- Forwarded mail from pmetzger(a)lehman.com >From owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Tue Nov 9 09:15:40 1993 Return-Path: <owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com> Received: from relay2.UU.NET by mail.netcom.com (8.6.4/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id JAA12727; Tue, 9 Nov 1993 09:15:36 -0800 Received: from toad.com by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA04858; Tue, 9 Nov 93 12:13:54 -0500 Received: by toad.com id AA17446; Tue, 9 Nov 93 09:03:39 PST Received: by toad.com id AA17443; Tue, 9 Nov 93 09:03:11 PST Received: from lehman.com ([192.147.66.1]) by toad.com id AA17438; Tue, 9 Nov 93 09:03:06 PST "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger(a)lehman.com> said: >Since Mr. Merritt has insisted, I will take a foray into this issue. I >would suggest, however, that this is not the forum for this discussion. Ok...I'll desist after a brief comment: I actually don't disagree with any of the major points you make when you put it that way -- although some of the other things I call minor points you might call major points :-) I think I do have some quibbles which would probably turn *into* serious disagreement, but even I would say that raising those things would take us far afield, so I'll leave it at that. P.S. This is ad hominem...tsk, tsk: >Mr. Merritt, this discussion is much like that of a Catholic peasant >in 1500 trying to understand an atheist, with me in the role of the >atheist. Doug

1 0

Re: Info on Clipper chip and fabrication of it
by doug＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

tcmay(a)netcom.com (Timothy C. May) quoted someone else saying: >VLSI progammable logic (EEprom based?) is used to both >store the keys, and provide some other logic functions, so you can't read >anything if you take the chip apart. I don't think any other exotic >technologies are used. Mykotronix designs the mask- they're fabricated at >VLSI. What about triple layer metal interconnect? If they're serious about making it reverse-engineering-resistant, they'd do that even if it weren't functionally needed, simply to make it STM-opaque. I think (but am not sure) that VLSI has that technology in their current fab lines. I suppose that it's not quite "exotic" by now; maybe that's just assumed as obvious? Doug

1 0

Re: Are we gatewayed to Usenet?
by doug＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

tcmay(a)netcom.com (Timothy C. May) said: >Certainly our List is not a deep, dark secret, and certainly we know >the list is gatewayed into some local networks, but I really worry >about everything we say hear being readable by anyone with a newsfeed. > >It also opens us up to more disruptive flaming and puerile >argumentation. Agreed. There are a fair number of topics that I don't care to discuss in a newsgroup where J. Random Luser might briefly drop in, but that I'm willing to talk about in a mail list, where there is a psychological barrier plus time delay and general perceived effort etc to join. Doug

1 0

Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?
by doug＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)eff.org> said: >First of all, EFF's Open Platform says outright that the government is not >going to build the data superhighway. Check again if you don't believe me. Ah...do you mean "should not build", or do you really mean that it contains a discussion outlining the logic behind predicting that they *won't* build? >The only question is whether you get something like what the interactive >cable companies promoted at Hackers--just an enhanced version of the Home >Shopping Network--or whether you get something like the current public >switched network, in which individuals can use a phone line for whatever >they like. <shudder> I skipped that session because I was already bored to tears with the prospect of "playing football from home while watching it on tv" and by that of 500 pay-per-view-channels. Were they really boosting HSN-type stuff? How completely evil! I'm still dismayed by the recent FCC decision that HSN channels are included in the category of (paraphrased) "for the public good". Was this due to corruption, or merely a sharp drop in collective FCC IQ? Doug

2 1

Re: Are we gatewayed to Usenet?
by Dark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This brings up the question, In the event _the net_ were centralized, and not a disperate entity, how might selective distrubution be affected? -> I would reccommend that if certain sites become a problem by attracting flamers, communists, liberals, or government authoritarian types, that we could remove them on a case-by-case basis. <- In the event this became a problem, how might a theoretically "private" or "psuedo-private" (constructively private?) newsletter/mailing list be restricted. Even today, what recourse do we have to keep the circulation of the list minimal, and (egads) filter the readers such to keep bandwidth low and flame / agitator disruption to a min.? Doesn't this smack of censorship, and if so where's the line between censorship and exclusivity, and is cypherpunks even really exclusive? It was nice before the summer when the list was a little less well known and it had that "private feel" that I think T. May was talking about. Is there a basic conflict between impact power of the list as a political sway force and that personal feel?

2 1

Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?v
by doug＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

tcmay(a)netcom.com (Timothy C. May) >Freedom to associate, to pick one's friends and customers, and all >that. > >Yes, I even support the radical idea that stores can refuse service to >purple Martians, to Lesbian cats, to homeless bums, to blacks, >whatever. We may not like it, but freedom to pick one's associates is >as fundamental a right as one can imagine. On that subject: my company receives substantial money from a government agency (that prefers that we call it "DARPA" in public), to develop technologies that are up our alley but not otherwise commercially viable. That is, they're paying us to adapt our commercial technology to applications that don't pay off in the market place, because they want those non-viable applications for their own use. As a result of this, it turns out that the government requires all contractors and subcontractors to undergo not just financial audits, but also Equal Opportunity Employment audits. In preparing for an audit of that sort, we discovered that, not only is it a Bad Thing to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, etc, etc, which we all know by now, but it is also a Bad Thing to discriminate on the basis of *personality*. To turn away an interviewee because they would not fit into the existing group personality-wise apparently is a Very Bad Thing Indeed. I was flabbergasted. I had no idea that political correctness of this extreme had been enshrined into federal policy. On the flip side of the issue, I admit that I can see the point that even...ah...personality-challenged people need to work so they can eat. But still...yikes! There go your "fundamental rights". Granted this (as far as I know) only applies to government contractors at the moment. But what do you want to bet but that this will soon apply to all businesses? Doug

4 3

Clipper/ Dead?
by Dark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: nate(a)vis.colostate.edu (CVL staff member Nate Sammons) -> This is welcome news, indeed. I can see why AT&T would be pissed -- if it gets out that the Clipper/SkipJack/Capstone combo is a major step towards Big Brotherism, then their whole "You Will" commertial series will not be accepted as well as I think it has so-far. <- Time to pat myself on the back. :) Way back just before Clipper was announced loudly, AT&T (who knew very well at the time that they were going to actively back Clipper) was running the individual plan ads. You know the ones, with Aretha Franklin chanting out "Freedom....Freedom...FREEDOM." Individual plan? Freedom? You Will? AT&T knew all along it might be a damage control project. Same way Dow Chemical began running ads before their new project on Binary weapons was outed. What you have here is a company that is trying to portray itself as a maverick in liberating technology that talks out of both sides of its corporate mouth. I mentioned it at the time too here. (You heard it here first.) :) -uni- (Dark)

1 0

How long before Mr. Hughes CENSORS me?
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

2 1

put me in your kill file
by L. Detweiler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Earlier I suggested that Mr. Hughes had put me in his kill file. I actually had misinterpreted another message from another eminent cypherpunk (involved in MacPGP developement) who quoted Mr. Hughes and then his own indication that he was putting me in his kill file in my mail. Sorry for the confusion. Quite to the contrary, as recent events demonstrate, Mr. Hughes has had the great courtesy and kindness to continue to listen to my posts, even though I'm obviously very personally rattled and these postings obviously upset him a great deal. A true model of humanity and compassion to a troubled soul. My personal and humble thanks, Mr. Hughes. You've been a guiding light and an inspiration to me these last few weeks. For everyone else who can't stand me, let me suggest that putting me in your kill files will save you lots of exasperation. I certainly believe it is a far more mature and sensible approach than a puerile stunt like mini-mailbombing me. I fear that others are escalating a sensitive but frivolous situation to rather extreme and inappropriate levels, with a lot of intense emotionalism. BTW, there is no need to inform me that I am in your kill file. That would be rather pointless and defeat the purpose of defeating communication! ===cut=here=== --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following has nothing to do with writing code, but hopefully posting this will get me back on track.... I wrote this several weeks ago and have been sitting on it ever since. L. Detweiler's contributions of late have made me re-examine my feelings on a variety of email- and cyberspace-related issues. I very strongly believe that everyone has an inaliable right to express themselves, as long as that expression doesn't harm others or impede their ability to express *themselves*. Up to now the amount of trash-mail (as I determine it) has been less than ten percent of my mail, an amount I equate with the real-world equivalent of billboards and junk-mail. L. Detweiler's uncanny ability to craft flame-bait and get the CypherPunks to respond has increased the trash-mail percentage to the point where it's entered my awareness. Torn between respect for someone who has a reputation for having made contributions, worry about someone who seems to have a slim grasp on the reality I'm experiencing, and annoyance at getting scores of ranting incoherent messages, I've made a decision that I've never made before: to put someone (L. Detweiler) into my kill-file. This bothers me a great deal. But there it is. ---------------- To L. Detweiler: I'm sorry, but your style, content, and quantity values have gotten to the point where it seems unrewarding to deal with you. The decision to banish you bothers me a great deal, but not as much as reading your mail does. If you're sincere about the biblical amount of pain you are in, I gently suggest (in my capacity as an EMT with some crisis-intervention experience) that you talk about your pain to a qualified person, perhaps an MFCC. If you're doing all this to get a reaction (for maybe a book) like Don Novello's Lazlo character of the last three decades (and several books), then congratulations.

1 0

UN-subscribe
by Bill 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please Unsubscribe me tanx ****************************************************************************** Bill Sulouff sesquive(a)mailbox.syr.edu __________________________________/-----------\______________________________

1 0

the Amusements of Cypherpunks
by hughes＠ah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Posting private mail you have received, however rude, onto the cypherpunks list is unwelcome and annoying behavior. Please do not continue to do this and other disruptive behavior. Eric

2 1

Re: put me in your kill file
by Dark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ld231782 -> BTW, there is no need to inform me that I am in your kill file. That would be rather pointless and defeat the purpose of defeating communication! <- Pointless is this entire endevor. And people wonder why cypherpunks has deteriorated. -uni- (Dark)

1 0

unsubscribe
by cdmorgan＠mosaic.uncc.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

please unsubscribe me cdmorgan(a)unccsun.uncc.edu

1 0

Info on Clipper chip and fabrication of it
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <9311092013.AA09822(a)vangogh.VIS.ColoState.EDU> nate(a)vis.colostate.edu writes: > Last I heard, hte model of the ARM series used in the Newton (the > ARM 610 processor) cranked out about 30,000 Drystones and used > _very_ little power. Oh boy, wait till the guys on comp.sys.acorn hear about this! I can tell why the arm was chosen: it comes as a drop-in circuit that manufacturers can use in their own designs. Not many of the other low-power fast CPUs are available like this. And its very small, and blindingly fast. G -- Personal mail to gtoal(a)gtoal.com (I read it in the evenings) Business mail to gtoal(a)an-teallach.com (Be careful with the spelling!) Faxes to An Teallach Limited: +44 31 662 4678 Voice: +44 31 668 1550 x212

1 0

Re: 'Resistance Is Futile'
by paul＠poboy.b17c.ingr.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Philippe makes another in a series of good points about our crypto coffee shop: it is vulnerable to disruption by "screaming children." Of course, not all usenet readers are screaming children; Tony Rippy, in a cogent post, proves that he belongs in that happy group. However, I present as counterexamples David Sternlight, John De Armond, and John Palmer. Those who have an interest in this subject will find the list, and we should welcome them here. USENET gatewaying makes it waaay too easy for the casual flamers and empty-headed arguers to drop in to visit us. Enjoy your coffee, - -Paul - -- Paul Robichaux, KD4JZG | Caution: cutting edge is sharp. Avoid contact. Intergraph Federal Systems | Be a cryptography user - ask me how. ** Of course I don't speak for Intergraph. ** -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLOD3ZiA78To+806NAQEs2gQAqvv4wO/rZitLagECTOkzND6K41V8gCny m21pebPdYyLmLlhaDVKV3zbBa4r+ZcrIe0Soc8r1xzC9PZq3CxD6rjjb6XzubzY3 42vwR/RJANuUnECJ7JV9nkftdNNvd+4N+Dq6U6HQQqbwHJb2YAOjS3uBmyD9jziV 4wr1+RC4phM= =Fz98 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

smuggling currency
by Dark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -> Interesting scenario. I buy one of these babies for $100,000 in Switzerland. I arrange to have it not yet "turned on." (Many of the new prepaid phone cards must be activated before they can be used.) I enter the US carrying a card worth $0. I order it activated. Suddenly I have a $100,000 cash card in the US without having imported $100,000 into the US. <- I wish it were so, Looks to me like this violates the following: 18 USCS 1001 18 USCS 1956 31 USCS 5316 The basic thrust is this: You can't transport a monetary instrument worth more than $ 10,000 without filling out the appropriate customs report. The real killer here is the title 31 code. Which reads liberally enough to bite you. Specific language reads something like "...shall not construct a transaction to evade reporting requirements...." The fine provision allows for $500,000 or twice the value of the monetary instrument. Hefty indeed. I think they take this seriously. If you bring the money in with the intent to avoid taxes, you have a second count, and could be in it for up to four times the amount you smuggled. I like the thinking, the court is less likely to. All your transaction does (unfortunately) is delay the importation of the "currency" until after the plane trip. You're still required to report the transaction, the card just makes it easier to get away with it. - -uni- (Dark) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLOHKfhibHbaiMfO5AQFlBwQAvubWG5DkEdILWMae3JGD4NG+fQaxcIpz T6GALRxZLRBxKGVpSYPLNH9j/4ys3c5Q/2mIc7RIa4ew4hb7Tlv9mKEnoi+7fMcs ihc6umAtJs+nMNTuL1qguw9hwtwslDt/jrPc+UefBw09ZIcsTiQ1WGOeRripwxw5 7tHsWSR9swY= =HYhE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Deconstructing DH/NII (was: Should we oppose...?)
by fnerd＠smds.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Godwin asks what Tim May is against when he says he's against the NII ("National Information Infrastructure"), or DH ("Data Superhigh- way.") Mike also points out that EFF is not into government funding or regulation, but (I paraphrase) as long as the govt is going to be involved, why not try to convince them to be involved in the right way? One way he mentions is providing incentives to steer the industry in good directions since we're going to [future tense] have *some* kind of data superhighway anyway. Mike is certainly right that there are directions it would be nice to steer the government in in these issues, and I'm sure grateful for his (and EFF's) efforts on that front. I think this "that's not what we meant...but why not..." situation that Mike finds himself in is due to the nature of "initiatives" like NII. We are afloat in connotations, suggestions and perverse pep. The phrases "National Information Infrastructure" and "Data Super- highway" do not conjure an anarchist vision. They do not suggest companies and people working independently in parallel, free from centralized interference. They do not convey the idea that the net is what you make of it, what your exploring and connecting bring together for you, out of a hodgepodge of methods, links, databases and groups of friends. The fact that NII and DH are new terms, and that they are talked about as future goals, does not convey the fact that the data superhighway is here today. I'm understating, of course. These terms connote all the opposite things. Centralization, government funding, premature standar- dization, regulation--and finally a decent data network as a result. I'm not being unfair. These connotations are there because that's exactly what many of the people using these terms mean. They want all the wrong things, and all the wrong ideas attach themselves to national project proposals like this. There's an additional misleading connotation, that there is some watershed mark that we're all talking about, some point--in the future--when we'll finally have "enough" or the "right" communi- cations underpinning*. This is partly just boosterism--Clinton and Gore wanting to be JFK going to the moon--but also there's the hint that once the big guys implement the right way to do things, we consumers shouldn't complain. I mean there's an implication in terms like "infrastructure" of experts knowing what is needed. And of course this discounts the efforts of the people who have brought us to where we are. There's a hint that what we've got is fine for hackers, but it's not, well, *organized* enough to be suitable for the real world. (Partly true but still an insult and a backhanded dismissal of the purposefulness of our anarchy.) (*There is no watershed. You can get a T1 line now. Prices will go down, bandwith up, ubiquity and commonness up, standardization and ease of use up, complication down, I hope--continuously for the forseeable future as they have been doing so far.) Still it's all only connotations and impressions, and anyone in particular may not mean this or that. But given that there are lots of people who really *do* intend the bad ideas, I wish people who come from a whole different point of view would make that really really clear. Starting by not using the same slogans. So, we need some alternatives. Slogans for how the real network is: Hmm, the anarchic data backroad (adb--nope, taken)... Or, "The Network's Fine" (as in, "Come on in...")--TNF. You Are Here---YAH... Or we can invent slogans for what the DH/NII really mean: Or, "Drag The Government Kicking and Screaming Into The Eighties" (or do I mean the seventies, a la ethernet and UUCP?)--DG8. The Federal Technical Catchup (FTC--oops, another one taken)... No, I know--the Federal Communications Catchup... Big Brother with a Human Face... Work with me on this, folks. -fnerd(a)smds.com quote me -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a aKxB8nktcBAeQHabQP/d7yhWgpGZBIoIqII8cY9nG55HYHgvtoxiQCVAgUBLMs3K ui6XaCZmKH68fOWYYySKAzPkXyfYKnOlzsIjp2toust1Q5A3/n54PBKrUDN9tHVz 3Ch466q9EKUuDulTU6OLsilzmRvQJn0EJhzd4pht6hanC0R3seYNhUYhoJViCcCG sRjLQs4iVVM= =9wqs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Personality BS (was: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?)
by doug＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Alan (Gesture Man) Wexelblat" <wex(a)media.mit.edu> said: >Hunh. Doug, I'm sorry to oppose you on this, but I think that the sort of >bullshit pry-into-your-personal-life stuff that companies are resorting [...] >[The questions have to do with all kinds of shit like "Have you ever had a >homosexual experience?" and "Have you ever shoplifted anything?" and "How >do you feel about XXX?". Totally unrelated to my job skills.] We're not in opposition, I very strongly agree. It's just that we're talking about slightly but importantly different things. The thing you're referring to is indeed outrageous. So are the presumption-of-guilt drug tests that I understand that 80% of all Fortune 1000 companies now require. (The latter is particular heinous, since all tests have a non-zero false-positive rate, for one thing.) But what I was referring to was the common interviewing strategy of trying to figure out whether someone will get along with the existing group, not by prying into their personal life or giving them personality tests, but just by the age-old method of discussing everyone's impressions of the candidate. This all by itself is what we were told is unacceptable discrimination (against the personality-challenged, presumably. :-) >It's a total load of crap and should be illegal. I, for one, am glad the >gov't is telling its contractors NOT to do that. Sorry, but I am pretty sure that giving personality tests is quite ok, so long as they are one of those bullshit Supposedly Scientific things based on Meyers Briggs or the Minnesota Multiphasic Aptitude Test or some such, and as long as they are uniformly given to all candidates. So they're outlawing the reasonable and allowing the unreasonable, the worst of both worlds. Doug

1 0

Re: Ever buy encryption software? YOU WILL!
by smb＠research.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I found this on comp.dcom.telecom and have elided some marketing material. My editorial comments are enclosed in brackets. Amazing. _AT&T_, the same folks that were trying to bring us Clipper, are going to sell DES over-the-counter. I'd be happier with triple-DES, but this blows my tiny little mind. Disclaimer: I'm speaking for myself, not AT&T. I've said this before, but it's worth repeating. For the most part, corporations exist to make money. They don't take moral stances. (Aside: I'm not saying that this is good or bad; rather, I'm saying that it just is.) If you offer a company a way to make money, it will probably do it. Unified visions, of the sort you're implying AT&T had on encryption, are generally seen as long-term ways to make money, i.e., if the company picks some standard, it will be easier or cheaper to make or sell some future set of products. In the case of Clipper, there was a clear market: the government wanted to buy Clipperphones. AT&T already sells secure phones (STU-III's) to the government; the question here (and I wasn't privy to any of the discussions) was whether or not it would cost more to develop the phone than the potential profits. But Clipper isn't, and can't be, the be-all for encryption, even apart from the moral questions. See if you can dig up AT&T's response to the proposed key escrow FIPS. I suspect you'd be surprised. I don't think I have it handy, but it points out things like the unsuitability of key escrow for software implementations -- and the products you describe are exactly that. Yes, AT&T as a company thinks that there is a market for privacy devices. (And it's no secret that the defense market is drying up, due to budget cuts.) Clipper can't fill certain market niches. DES -- or triple DES, or IDEA, or RC2, or whatever -- can.

1 0