December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Varian Synopsis
by Jeff Davis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Distributed to TAP-INFO, a free Internet Distribution List (subscription requests to listserver(a)essential.org) TAXPAYER ASSETS PROJECT - INFORMATION POLICY NOTE May 3, 1994 This is a note about an important issue: the future pricing of Internet services. Please repost freely. - University of Michigan Economist Hal Varian says the Internet is likely to face some type of usage based pricing in the future. - Varian says increasing demands on Internet by multimedia applications and commercial bypass of telephone networks will lead to significant increases in demands on Internet resources, and create pressures for usage based pricing models. - Varian proposes a system of congestion based pricing, that will allow free off-peak usage, but speculates that other outcomes are possible, and - Predicts eventual demise of CIX model of flat rate (no settlements) pricing for Network Service Providers. NOTES ON PROFESSOR HAL VARIAN'S APRIL 21 TALK ON INTERNET ECONOMICS by James Love (love(a)essential.org) May 3, 1994 On April 21, the Telecommunications Policy Roundtable (TPR) held its first workshop on the future of democratic discourse on the Internet. Hal Varian, a professor of economics and finance from the University of Michigan, presented "Economic FAQs about the Internet," a paper co-authored with Jeffery K. Mackie-Mason. The Workshop was held at the Carnegie Institution in Washington, DC, and attended by about 60 persons. There was considerable interest in the topic. TAP had received more than 400 requests for copies of the paper (including about 350 requests by electronic mail). The paper is available for anonymous ftp, gopher, or World Wide Web at gopher.econ.lsa.umich.edu, or by sending an email message to ndaly(a)essential.org. Professor Varian's prepared talk followed the paper fairly closely, with a number of facts and antidotes thrown in to illustrate his main points. Among economists Varian is known as a superb expositor, and his presentation was as clear and accessible as the paper. Varian spent the first part of his talk describing such topics as who "owns" various components of the Internet (backbones, midlevel networks, etc), technical aspects of Internet routing, and the growth of traffic on the Internet. I won't bother to go over all the points which are explained in the paper, but a few items are worth mentioning. Varian disclosed that Internet data packets contain an unused "priority bit," that was originally designed to allow Military brass to assign priorities in data routing. The costs of routers (workstations) had fallen much faster than the long distance transport costs, and the long distance backbone facilities were often the bottleneck. Varian also spent a good amount of time explaining how Internet usage is changing, and that while electronic mail is the service most widely used, it constitutes only about 8 percent of the bits sent over the network. New applications, such as the multimedia Mosaic, Internet Fax, and Internet radio are rapidly becoming large users of Internet resources, and these new uses of the Internet are creating huge pressures to change the way Internet services are priced. To illustrate his point, Varian talked about the new Power PCs, which will allow a single user (a college student talking to his parents) to hook up a video camera, and send about 1 megabyte of data per second to the Internet, nearly tying up an entire T-1 line. Varian indicated that the power of workstations connected to the Internet is increasing much faster than the capacity of the Internet to carry traffic. Moveover, a number of commercial users of the Internet are rapidly finding ways to bypass the higher priced telephone networks, both domestically and internationally. Varian was focused largely on the increased congestion cause by the new demands on the Internet. Interestingly, his own research indicated that peak demands shifted from day to day, and peak and off-peak usage could not be easily predicted by the time-of-day, as it is for telephone service. In the United States the Internet is unregulated, and there are no internal prices for Internet usage. Network service providers typically buy bandwidth, or capacity, and face zero marginal costs for usage. End users face a variety of charges, depending upon how their service providers resell access to the network. Some foreign countries, such as New Zealand and Chile, charge Internet users for traffic, as measured by bits. Different uses for Internet services have different requirements in terms of routing priorities. Electronic mail generally does not require an immediate claim on network bandwidth, and can be managed to travel "off peak." On the other hand, some services, such as video conferencing, Internet "talk," or running Mosaic, generally allow the user to command bandwidth at a particular time. Varian was quite clear that he believes that the problem of congestion on the Internet will become a much larger problem as the Internet becomes used for a more diverse set of applications (and the growing power of desktop computers to generate data). Varian said that he believes there will eventually be prices for Internet usage, and the only real uncertainty will be which pricing system is used. A very difficult problem will be the development of accounting systems and other mechanisms to facilitate billing for Internet usage. Generally speaking, it is not simple to determine if data packets contain electronic mail, fax transmissions, video, or other data, making content based pricing problematic. There are also a number of complex issues relating to when or where traffic would be "charged" for internet usage, since users gain access to the Internet from a highly decentralized network of workstations and networks. Varian also talked about problems in determining if senders or receivers would pay for data transmissions, which he illustrated by talking about ftp or gopher servers (who was the "sender" of the data, the person sending the query, or the file server which returns data?). According to Varian, a number of persons are working on these problems, and many important decisions will be determined by engineers working on technical issues. He singled out the Internet Society's Internet Engineering Task Force as the most important forum for groups sorting these issues out. Varian said that any scheme to charge for internet usage would also involved non-trivial costs in terms of metering or accounting, and possibly significant changes in the culture of the Internet (the question on many persons minds is the future of the Internet Listserves), although on a more optimistic note, he said the costs of routing and backbone services should be low, if calculated on a per user basis. Varian said little about the Commercial Internet Exchange (CIX) in his prepared remarks, but in response to questions, he said that he did not believe the CIX pricing model (a flat fee for connectivity) was sustainable, and he thought that the new Network Access Point (NAP) providers (Ameritech, Pac Bell, Sprint, and MFS) would employ a usage based pricing approach. Varian also talked at some length about work underway to create mechanisms for charging for other types of transactions, using a variety of schemes to create "virtual cash" for use on the Internet, such as the services recently announced by Commerce Net using technology developed under NSF funded R&D. Varian said that government R&D in this area was welcomed, because it provided neutral non-proprietary systems that couldn't be controlled or manipulated by a single firm. Varian described the new Internet architecture, which is based upon four NAPs, each controlled by a telephone company, which Varian described as the new "cloverleaves" for the Internet (connecting various backbones and networks), and the new vBNS high speed backbone. Varian said the high interest in the vBNS contract was due largely to its strategic role in the development of new Internet technologies, including accounting and payment mechanisms, which may eventually be deployed to the entire Internet. (MCI "won" the recent NSF contract for the vBNS, but the award is being contested by Sprint. AT&T was also rumored to have been an unsuccesful bidder on the vBNS). Varian's own preference for Internet pricing is a system that only charges for priority routing. As described in several papers (written with MacKie-Mason), Varian would employ a system whereby users would "bid" for access when congestion was a problem, and routers would give priority to packets that had the highest willingness to pay. Users would pay the lowest price that was accepted in this routing "auction," so everyone would have an incentive to reveal their true willingness to pay. Under Varian's scheme, all Internet traffic which did not claim priority status would travel for free. Thus, for example, a large Internet mailing list such as Humanist, PACS-L or CPSR- Announce could mail for "free," with an off peak priority. For Varian's scheme to work, it would be necessary to have routers compare "bids" by packets, priority bidders would have to "pay" for access to someone, and there would have to be a high degree of consensus, so the priority packets would not face bottlenecks or delays anywhere on the Internet. Varian acknowledged that it was possible that the Varian (and MacKie- Mason) system of pricing might not be adopted, and some less elegant system, such as pricing by the bit, may be coming. A number of persons wanted to know who would decide these issues, and Varian was not too specific. The message (the "guess") seemed to be that the companies which controlled the NAPs and a critical mass of the backbones would have a lot to say about what was eventually adopted. Varian was asked to speculate about future telco investments in Internet providers, such as purchases of companies like PSI or UUNET, but he was reluctant to predict much, other than to emphasize the importance of competitive free entry into the market for Internet services, which would undermine monopolist practices. Varian was asked if it was possible that a coalition of Internet providers would have the power to implement a pricing scheme that would have an adverse impact on the future of Internet listserves (many of which "send" more than 100,000 messages per day), but he was reluctant to be very specific in his predictions, other than to say that many outcomes were possible. Note: On April 29, a follow-up workshop was held with Dr. Steve Wolff of NSF, Professor David Farber, and PSI CEO William Schrader. Notes from that workshop and other information regarding Internet pricing will be posted to tap-info. --------------------------------------------------------------------- TAP-INFO is an Internet Distribution List provided by the Taxpayer Assets Project (TAP). TAP was founded by Ralph Nader to monitor the management of government property, including information systems and data, government funded R&D, spectrum allocation and other government assets. TAP-INFO reports on TAP activities relating to federal information policy. tap-info is archived at ftp.cpsr.org; gopher.cpsr.org and wais.cpsr.org Subscription requests to tap-info to listserver(a)essential.org with the message: subscribe tap-info your name --------------------------------------------------------------------- Taxpayer Assets Project; P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176; internet: tap(a)essential.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- PGP PUBLIC KEY via finger! JAFEFFM Speaking & Thinking For Myself! * eagle(a)deeptht.armory.com email info(a)eff.org * *** O U T L A W S On The E L E C T R O N I C F R O N T I E R **** ***** Committed to Free Public Internet Access for World Peace *****

1 0

Double betting and money laundering...
by Peter Wayner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is a corollary to the debate on using financial markets for laundering by placing bets on both directions. Apparently, casinos are now on the lookout for people who are teaming up to play both halves of a bet. One casino kicked out two guys who apparently were betting on pass and don't pass on the craps table. Why were they bothering? Was it laundering? Nope. It turns out that casinos hand out free "comps" based on the amount of betting that you do. This is called being "rated." They notice that you're betting $10 chips and figure that the math shows that you'll probably lose x dollars per hour. Then they give you free room and food to show their appreciation. The casinos have elaborate computer tracking systems that would scare privacy activists. They watch you're trading and try to give you free amenities worth up to some fixed percentage of what the odds say you'll lose. The article that I dug this out of said the percentage was often 30%. (I think it was in this morning's NYT.) So these guys were betting like crazy to make it seem like they were high rollers who were entitled to big comps. -Peter

1 0

Re: Lobbying/Politics/etc.
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I suspect significant problems implementing a law that criminalizes >crypto. The government currently spends $billions per year trying to >eliminate illegal drugs, to very little effect. Drugs should be >easier to eliminate than crypto since phys-obs can't be copied ad >infinitum as bits can. I agree entirely. Personally, I'd be thrilled to see 'em try, purely for the fun of watching 'em going broke and looking foolish... -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

Brittleness and Our Crypto Future
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hugh Daniel writes: > This is a protocol issue on two levels, the first is that the idea > of accounting for packets/bandwidth/capacity (in some unknown manner) > was left out of TCP/IP in the first place. The second is that it is > going to be a very large amount of work to replace the current plant > of TCP/IP hardware and software as none of these protocols are > negotiated, just presumed to be the only way to do things. > > If we build systems like these, then they will be 'brittle' and > might inspire a few folks but not be usable by most, and some other > (large) organization will build what it wants on top of our dreams > rubble. > There is little chance that I will ever use a monetary system that > is so brittle that it fails if one link is down or one cypher > unuseable due to it's being cracked by some unscrupulous agency. Indeed. "Brittleness" is what's making the creakiness of the Net all the more apparent and critical every day. (Some things it does very well, and I'm amazed that it works as well as it does...a lot of clever people out there making patches.) Software has been compared to building a Boeing 747, except that flipping one little switch accidentally can make the wing fall off. We see islands of relative stability (word processors, apps, etc.) separated by flaky, error-prone (human, mostly) networks, with little interoperability. We mainly do "encryption" and "remailing" with our wonderful crypto tools--and we *don't* do much of the other neat stuff that is possible--for a simple reason: the only thing all of our myriad mail systems, newsreaders, various platforms, and communication systems can reliably communicate to each other is the _simple text message_! Although much more complicated objects are in principle intercommunicable (and Mosaic can do images, etc., so things are changing), the basic object of communication is the text block. It can be encrypted/decrypted, signed, and remailed, with people at the receiving end knowing how to handle it....that's why PGP and remailers work. The other protocols rely more on complicated objects, signals sent back and forth, and are much less interoperable and semantically more ambiguous. > This important subject of protocols is the topic of the next San > Francisco Bay Area Cypherpunks meeting. I agree. If the meeting is still on the 14th, the normal "second Saturday," I'll be there. If it's been moved to the 21st, as was being talked about, I'll be down in Los Angeles (where I'd still like to meet with any LA-area Cypherpunks who wish to meet). --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

ghostmark trading, etc.
by Matt Thomlinson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've had quite a few messages requesting ghostmarks, and I'm responding to each of them. For the first few days (at least) I'll be sending a few (less than 4) ghostmarks to whomever wants them (and starts up their "electronic wallet" -- the client software). send me mail with your clients' key to redeem my startup offer. Remember, if you want to bet on the sonics/nuggets game, the deadline is 3pm PST. Stakes: 20gm. (you need not have a client key already generated to enter this drawing) if you have any questions about how to use my bank or where to get the software, feel free to mail. That's what I'm here for. mt Matt Thomlinson Public Relations The Phantom Exchange Matt Thomlinson University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. phone: (206) 548-9804 Check my home page -- ftp://ftp.u.washington.edu/public/phantom/home.html PGP 2.2 key available via email, or finger phantom(a)hardy.u.washington.edu

1 0

re: digital cash
by lassie!jim%lassie＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- X-date: 5/3/94 X-pay-to: Cypherpunks subscription X-amount: 36.25 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLcftKVfzDU5jV4uhAQHV4wQAhaLeXcGW2vAbkh5nA39oOc+/OK39C9V8 5W/bmOVFfxtheZ+BKRYqJ3hewmBPIKW1epJ4+C8eh+1Jy6XllYAkFZmG8HbtsBAl kP80Fz7uTloANQahfdMajbQQum0PDuasXNX4rMkBYoQG93k2JloRJfWNBWcBPpeU djXEXYngy1M= =whUr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Make sure that you run this thru the bank server so I get a copy of my canceled check back and my mounthley reconciliation is updated. -- * Spelling errors are intentional and international * Jim Nalbandian netcomsv!lassie!jim%lassie(a)netcom.com Tempe, Arizona, USA N7SZS(a)K7BUC.AZ.US.NA No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain there right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government. <-------- Thomas Jefferson --

1 0

The ITARs [support your CRYPT-IN rights!]
by a2＠ah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Jim Miller says: > > Section #120.9 of the ITAR defines "Defense Service" as: > > > > (1) The furnishing of assistance (including training) to foreign > > persons, whether in the United States or abroad in the design, > > development, engineering, manufacture, production, assembly, testing, > > repair, maintenance, modification, operation, demilitarization, > > destruction, processing, or use of defense articles; or > > (2) The furnishing to foreign persons of any technical data > > controlled under this subchapter (see #120.10), whether in the United > > States or abroad. > Perry E. Metzger responds: > This is sick. According to this, I cannot teach foreigners about > cryptography in the U.S. -- even about the open literature. This is a > grotesque denial of my first amendment rights. > > I wonder if I should hold an open enrollment cryptography class for > the sake of civil disobediance. > > > This is exactly the sort of issue the Cypherpunks were formed to address. CALL TO ACTION: I suggest that those of us who are able to do so immediately lay plans to offer such courses. These courses should only contain open information, and they be specifically advertised to foriegn nationals living in the US. To the extent possible we should coordinate these courses, perhaps to content, certainly to date and notification of the interested authorities. The should happen in every corner of the land. The time for the CRYPT-INs has come! [No one who supports with the government's right to suppress publically available information should participate.] -a2

1 0

secure rlogin?
by Ed Carp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In the licensing agreement that comes with RIPEM, there is mention of a secure rlogin using D-H key exchange. Does anyone know if this is publically available? Thanks! Ed Carp, N7EKG/VE3 ecarp(a)netcom.com 519/824-3307 Finger ecarp(a)netcom.com for PGP 2.3a public key an88744(a)anon.penet.fi If you want magic, let go of your armor. Magic is so much stronger than steel! -- Richard Bach, "The Bridge Across Forever"

1 0

DigiCash can use whatever currencies are valued
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As Perry and Eric and others have noted, schemes for digital cash are primarily a transaction mechanism, and not a new currency unto themselves. Transfers, accounts, payments, all the usual stuff. However, the strong crypto used allows more flexibility in bypassing normal currency rules and can allow users to mutually agree on whatever currency they wish. (This is in large part already possible, for some folks, in the international markets, the Eurodollar markets, etc. It's one of the things that keeps countries in line. Duncan Frissell and others have elaborated on this market mechanism.) Just as in Havana, the U.S. dollar is the de facto hard currency unit, so too could future digicash transactions be based on the Latvian luble, the Qatarese marq, or the Cyberian cyphertaler. Or on a market basket of such currencies. Or on uranium futures. Whatever the parties to a transaction agree on. (Obviously the usual Cypherpunkish issues of market forces, trust, reputation, escrow, etc., enter in here. How the dollar comes to have a "value" that is worth, say, 5 pounds of bananas to some merchant, while the officially supported Cuban peso is worth, say, half a banana peel, is a complicated and "emergent" thing. It's complicated, but was understandable to Saddam's ancestors in the markets of Babylon thousands of years ago. Enough said.) The prospects for breaking open these financial markets even further is breathtaking. Of course, it won't be easy. More than some casual programming will be needed. I don't expect folks on this list to pull this off all by themselves. Some may. --Tim May .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Well users loose for now
by William Rodham Wisner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On May 4, 8:37am, Hugh Daniel wrote: > The Well has two IP feeds into the internet, due to > political/biz_profit/sysadmin problems the two feeds do NOT back each > other up, and the one that can be seen from toad.com has been down for > a few days, thus blocking your email. This is not quite accurate. The WELL has one IP feed into the Internet, through BARRNET. The WELL also has a private T1 line to a TLG customer, and traffic between the WELL and TLG is routed through this link. No packets to the rest of the Internet are sent through TLG. At least, that was the case. I just updated our routing tables to send TLG traffic through BARRNET like everything else, since that TLG link is down right now.

1 0

one time pad plus
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- While I'm waiting for IP (internet politics) to re-establish the link between the WELL and toad.com, I thought I'd pass along an idea for a product I call "One Time Pad Plus." Basically it would work like this; Thelma is looking to pass a message to Louise, so she XOR's plaintext file A against random byte file B producing ciphertext file C. Now since Thelma works for an unethical company that like to read it's employee's E-mail, she's in need of some "plausible deniability." Enter "One Time Pad Plus." Thelma now XOR's ciphertext file C with "Safetext" file D (any typically company approved useless memo) producing "pseudorandom" file E. She now copies random file B to disc and sends it to Louise via secure sneakernet. Then she performs a military grade wipe on A and B. Now she can send ciphertext file C via company E-mail. If her message is intercepted, she has deniability, she can claim she has read of hackers, cypherpunks, and other evils equipped with packet sniffers, and being concerned about security is using encryption. She can then produce "random" file E and decrypt ciphertext file C which will yield not A but D the company approved useless memo. She is commended for her forsight and gets a handsome bonus (yeah right!) Questions? Comments? Criticism? Replies to private E-mail till I'm back Online. Brian Williams Extropian Cypherpatriot "Cryptocosmology: Sufficently advanced comunication is indistinguishable from noise." --Steve Witham "Have you ever had your phones tapped by the government? YOU WILL and the company that'll bring it to you.... AT&T" --James Speth -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLcf60dCcBnAsu2t1AQG4jwQAihPVSYiOIdepnyC5bxnFGTEaTeUQCagU E+IaW6dmMy9pamXmpTp17yu7+f9K7fL5uiSg/U08mN/rau6o6D86AoVxnzCV/byl IODUL35MBaXil5yVktReu3Vj8o+HNpYWQSBC0Ji9f14YQ4Da5t79kCmg/EFBZhmN 2SK+wYVBu80= =GORp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

he's back!!
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

They seem to have fixed the problem, I just got a load of mail! Brian Williams

1 0

Re: Valid MacPGP??
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 4 May 1994, Harry S. Hawk wrote: > Is MagPGP signed? > > If so how do I check and/or where do I look? > > Next question: Who has signed it? > > /hawk > And I am trying to distribute MACPGP copies (on DOS disks). What is the best version of MACPGP to hand out. (Give me the full MAC name.) Thanks DCF <- Mr. Hawk: Which version do you have? Mr. Frissell: The most recent version is MacPGP2.3.hqx.cpt Do NOT distribute MacPGP2.3 V1.1 as the source code is not "out there." I will be happy to send you a copy if you like. -uni- (Dark)

3 2

Re: Valid MacPGP??
by habs＠warwick.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Distribute "MacPGP 2.3 (1.0.5)" > > There is a 'newer' one out (1.1?), from someone in Germany, but the > source has not been made available (!). Is is signed and if so my who? If not how do we know it isn't cracked?? /hawk

1 0

RE: My skepticism/promises WAS Re: Mien Beinkpff
by Bill Garland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subj: My skepticism/promises WAS Re: Mien Beinkpff From: whitaker(a)dpair.csd.sgi.com (Russell Whitaker) Discussing what >>On May 4, 8:04am, Bill Garland wrote: > >> So what else is on the homework list? >> >> 2. Read Schneier. Heavy into the technical cryptography stuff, to >> be sure, but definitely required reading. Many time units. >> >> 2. b. Do the Errata list. >> > >This last subtask is very important. I remember seeing the first set of >errata, and hearing reports of Bruce's (understandable) dismay at the >publisher's cavalier treatment of the typography of mathematical formulae. > >I've only recently gotten a round tuit myself, having perused the first section >of a housemate's copy, and am convinced I need my own. I'll have my own Friday >afternoon (Stacey's sells it locally), and am wondering if the most recent set >of errata are still available from Bruce. I was on a distribution from Bruce >for these, and am wondering if the mailing list still exists. I seem to remember getting a second Errata List posted here. ... >> 5. Get a Netcom account? Is this possible for a Canadian? I'd >> still have to telnet from some supplier here. I'll go for my >> own service with my own satellite dish. Investors, anyone? >> Ripe market! Send for Prospect-Us. > >Netcom? Only if you're a masochist. If you try dialing in, that is. Or doing >anything involving finger daemons. Or... I guess I don't know much about the _actual_ Netcom... it's just that so many people have addresses at netcom.com. Perpaps I was misusing it as a generic commercial account provider. >> But, isn't Unix full of security holes? When I set up my own >> Netcom company, won't I be hacked? Ray? HELP? Oh yes, I've >> got to get into Pr0duct Cypher's product. What's a firewall? >> > >Um, your own "Netcom company"? Netcom is certainly not the best business model >for an Internet service provider. Look at the load problems! Their pricing >model is very, very poor. You get what you pay for. I have 2 accounts on >Netcom (one business, one personal). Dialing into Netcom is useless, so all my >mail to those accounts is .forward'd to elsewhere. Thanks for this feedback. And this: >If you're seriously contemplating a Netcom-like service, ignore the whiners >("But your service costs too much!") and implement a rational pricing model, >rather than an all-you-can-eat-for-one-low-price dialup policy. ==== >> There's gold in them thar hills ... >> > >I don't know who you are, but it certainly makes it very difficult for anyone >to give you the benefit of the doubt when you publicly admit such a cavalier >attitude toward your own finances. Read what you've written above, and ask >yourself if it inspires confidence. You are certainly correct here. Cavalier, eh! Without wanting to get into this too far as to get off topic and into areas better left alone, this is just me trying to cure a very long case of bad attitude (self transformation into a dynamic optimist, as it were...) and not having succeeded yet. I am cavalier about it because it is public knowledge, even though I don't have to go spreading it around myself - but if the truth were known, I have benefitted from the experience. I think also I must have had a case of the "don't care's" when I injected just a little too much personal stuff into this effort. Folks have been asking for action, and where my personal style has not yet matured enough to be 100% totally professional all the time... I sometimes open my mouth too far, whereby I insert not only my foot, but the whole damn leg as well... >You say, "Fuck 'em... I'm going to do it anyway..." Well, OK. But talk like >that, while a fine display of your Cajones, doesn't inspire me. Perhaps this is a culture thing... >> And please, Tim, We Really Do Need The FAQ. ... >> >I, too, value Tim's postings. Yes, and if I sounded too cavalier in using Tim's name in my harangue, sorry - although I was replying to his post. I'm sure he will let me know if I said anything to offend him. > At the Extro-1 conference this last weekend, in >a discussion on "The Extropians Virtual Community", it was noted (not a new >point) that good posts never draw the responses that objectionable posts do. > Herein lie very large and serious issues of incentive engineering, which will >not be solved anytime soon. Well, never say never. I have seen threads I started (which were't objectionable) go on for weeks long past any input from myself. But, I guess it is true most of the time. I really wish I could have attended Extro 1. ..... snip ..... >If you want this - or anything (desirability aside) - you're going to have to >*convince* the rest of us - part of your potential market - why we should want >it too. Agreed. Absolutely. The single harangue we are discussing now was not this convincing that you and everyone needs. It was not meant to be. It was part dreaming part actual planning part just announcing some goals part training and part just thinking into the keyboard. Part of a Just Do It motivation that seems to have crept into my somewhat defective b-class module cpu-brain (possibly damaged) thing here behind these eyeballs. Having gone out on this limb, however, there remains this task I have set myself to explain all this...which will not be completed before I get some sleep. >> before I can do that, well, you know...homework... >> >> Still, if you want to get the ball rolling, send me $10 and I'll >> deposit it in trust, sticking my own reputation on the line ... > >Who are you? Seriously. Do you have a reputation? With whom? Is this >reputation salable? Well, I guess if I did, it's gone now... Oh well. Not meaning to be flip - you are right, My reputation has definitely taken some well deserved hits, and I don't consider it saleable. In deference to those who dislike smileys, and because I prefer it that way, I have tried to give up using them. >> Actually, I don't know if there are any legal implications to >> that, because my private company Macronic Systems, Inc. is incorporated >> specifically NOT as a bank, because different rules apply to a bank, > >You don't know, yet you make a solicitation of funds? Well, I suppose it really was a solicitation, if taken word for word. I may be a fool in many ways, but I really did have tongue in cheek here. Sorry if I misled or if my lingering depression coloured the tone of my voice - I for one refuse to go seek out prozac, for reasons I won't get into. >Oh, yes: different rules >*do* apply to banks. You really do need to read into North American banking >law. Correct. >> but my INFO_Banque is not incorporated anywhere. It is a virtual >> entity of mine that nobody can get at just yet. > >Do the authorities know where you sleep? This "virtual entity" is *you*. Are >you judgement proof? Well, yes, I think. At least I am well on the way to becoming so... >"Virtual" is such a fashionable buzzword these days. > What do you mean by it? No. Skip that one. I didn't say '"virtual entity"', I said 'virtual entity', using the word virtual in it's normal, non-buzzword meaning. It is not real, yet. It is a set of ideas. Now, I know that ideas are real, but this is too much to quibble over when there is so much else to do... ... >Well, I guess I've answered at least part of my own question... they *do* know >where you sleep. Yeah. I did worry about that, but They Already Know Anyway. I actually thought about encrypting the entire message and only sending it to Customers, because I really should allow some paranoia back into my life...but nobody would have bought it! And wouldn't you know it, just after posting, I got the detweiller mail bomb and the message from Tim updating newbies on that perversion. When Cypherpunks get Extropian/Hawk/Ray code, tmp will be ::exclude'able. >> Yes, this is fine. But we are talking anonymous money, untraceable >> transactions, cryptoanarchy, stuff like that. We know about cheques. >> (I wish you yanks could get your spelling right!) >> > >That's Yanques to you, bub. Sure t'ing, by. Whatever you wants. >> Agreed - of course. We've got to beat VISA/MC/AMEX/Travellers Cheques >> in transaction costs, > >Have fun trying. Do you mean "cost to credit company" or "cost to end user"? I mean in the game of making money, making this workable, profitable, doable. Costs to Customers. Delivering products and services of value to them. >> HEx is now dormant and will be for a little while yet. >> I am expecting to be able to find a place from which to run it >> real soon now. > >The playing field seems to have shifted ... > >Just *which* business do you plan to focus on? Which one is the one you are >chartered as a corporate entity to pursue? If I were a potential investor, I >wouldn't put my money onto a raft of promises. I have had ths very valid criticism before, and I thank you. I am not actually seeking investment capital here through anything I may have said with tongue in cheek. And if a $10 cheque _does_ arrive in the snail, I will do what I said, which is deposit it in trust and honour the fact that it does not belong to me. Of if it looks like the horizons are too far away - Tim says 10 to 20 years? - I will return it. >I'm not trying to squelch your enthusiasm, Whew! > but it's damned difficult for a >smart and energetic polymath (you sound like one; many of us are) to viscerally >accept the necessity of narrow specification and ruthless pursuit of a single >goal. You need to do one thing very well, and see if it flies. Otherwise, you >will accrete a reputation as a dabbler. What can I say - of course ! Focusing on narrow ruthless pursuits has been one of the ongoing problems I have with a sometimes overactive sometimes lethargic b-class module cpu-brain (possibly damaged). This concept of polymath - are you referring to something from a John Brunner novel of many years ago? Is this a word for which I need more clarification ? ... >> run, I may even repay with digital cash royalties. > >Royalties which will buy me how much petrol? Probably some fraction of some small number of litres for each digital dollar you are paid. Or whatever the going rate is. > How many pairs of trousers? How >many copies of the *Economist* or *Playboy*? How many scoops of Baskin >Robbins? Ditto. Actually, the idea of using Girl Guide cookies as exchange medium sounded neat. I order them once a year from my girls, so those of you with INFO_Banque digital cash you want redeemed, get me your order of cookies by, say, the end of January, and you'll have your cookies in April. $2.50 Canadian per box, converted to US dollars. But then again, my girls are soon to be women, so I'll have to switch to bottles of Barleygreen or something. >It has to be cash with backing. Calling it something cool doesn't convince. > There need to be fundamentals in place. Agreed, of course. The plan is to have my digital dollars, if and when etc etc, backed by good ole yanqui dollars. >> Other uses include digital timestamping - when I can get a >> machine and ups and raid box and backup site and security and >> all that other stuff I want - I will start offering services >> like this. What with all the other ambitions I have mentioned >> here in this Mein Beinkpff message/posting, I could easily spend >> a few hundred grand getting this together - if I didn't have >> a full-time job to do to feed my family, etc etc.... > >You've said this a number of times. Are you simply expressing your belief that >you'll never really do anything? No. I do not have this belief, despite whatever attitude I may have projected by thinking out loud. Just some practical realities. >Then why post at all? Why not! Action, jackson. >Do you have that low >an opinion of your own abilities? Do something. Don't complain. Your life is >your own. I will be impressed when you *do* something. First it is noted that I have too high an opinion of myself in that I have claimed many things I want to do and see happen and accomplish along my new-found-land, and now I have too low an opinion of myself because I cannot go out and spend the investment capital I don't have to do what needs to be done to prevent some things from recurring that I ought not to have allowed occur in the first place... Well, perhaps I am a confused individual. I well recognize the fact that I am a scatterbrain and that I mix and match my ideas with those I discover from others, but I am an integrated scatterbrain. B-class probe modules are self-repairing. >> yourself, and soon there will be 700 Cypherpunks and 300 Extropians >> and all 4 IMP-Interest people all having anonymous remailers and mixes >> operating, so any sub-chain of eight INFO_Banque Protocol banks >> will virtually HAVE to be reliable for our commerce... > >You make some interesting assumptions here. Why? Why should all of the people >you list above do these things? They won't, of course. Some might, assuming some of those interesting assumptions, for example that some ber of Cypherpunks and or Extropians and or other people in the world want thave digital cash available on the Internet and trustable chaumian mixes and anonymous transactions and so on. >> account. Maybe it will at first turn out to be merely digital >> cheques, but maybe if Perry lets me in on his secrets and some >> of the stuff he has learned from these six-figure guys at >> Citibank who are out trying to figure out how to capture this >> market, well maybe then we can get somewhere... >Are you willing to pay Perry large amounts of money for consulting? He *might* >consider it, if it's cash up front. (Right, Perry?) Well, yes. Willing and able are not the same. Of course I wouldn't expect someone as astute and knowledgeable as he to simply give away this valuable knowledge. I expect Perry himself is one of these six-figure guys he has warned us about. And he has hinted once in a while that he is working on new business. He is much more adept than most people (read me) at keeping his mouth shut when it really should be kept shut, and is, as far as I can tell, one who knows the difference. Not to mention... >I suggest you simply dive in and start learning basic economics. Start with >Hazlitt's *Economics in One Lesson*, Bastiat's *Economic Sophisms*, anything by >Hayek, Mises, and David (the younger) Friedman, for starters. Don't expect >someone like Perry to open up to you with "revealed knowledge" which will make >it all clear for you. If you're as serious about your Homework as you keep >repeating, learn the fundamentals of how the world works. Yes, this is what it is all about, eh. >You will then have at least some of the tools to acquire more tools. >> But please, sir, can we have more? Please write about Protocol. >> Soon. Like, forget the line-by-line response you were going to >> make to _this_ message... heh heh. (Opps, I almost said ... >> no, I can't repeat it...) And finally, >One of Tim's many graces is that he rarely makes a practice of the line-by-line >response. I know that. He is probably rolling his eyes upwards and groaning at this entire response. He has straightened out some goofy ideas I have harangued about in the past, and, again, not wishing to put words into the mouth of someone who is so eloquent by himself, he has expressed the same skepticism of my scatterbrained overambitious non-focused ideas before. But I have got some of the homework done, and more is in progress. > I wish I could say the same of myself. I also wish I could say the same of yourself - oops, sorry...heh heh, of course I meant my self. >Russell Earl Whitaker whitaker(a)sgi.com >Silicon Graphics Inc. >Technical Assistance Center / Centre D'Assistance Technique Thanks for your feedback and help. I know.... But, friends, I am smiling. I may even draft a new version of the Cypherpunks Quick Code on my next break. There was an interuption in our feed around about that time - I don't really know if it ever got through. And regarding my overambitious, somewhat bubbly stuff about all the miracles my INFO_Banque will accomplish and my other businesses will achieve - I refuse to put limits on what I can do. I've been there and done that and it didn't work. Focus, sure, but limits? That would be non-EC! You want action, so hang on a minute. Meanwhile another few dozen messages have come in...Perhaps I should retire now before sleep deprivation starts a perversion... and keep asbestos pajamas on when I get up. /----------------------------------------------------------------------\ | I am an Extropian. | Macronic Systems, Inc. offers Ideas for Sale ! | | BEST: DO_IT_SO ! | Go for it : Pledge a Digital US Dollar now. | | CryptoAnarchist. | Send PGP key for more information. | | Cypherpunk. | Get in on the ground floor. Invest Now. Trust me! | | Owner : MSInc., |---------------------------------------------------| | HEx, INFO_Banque | Day Job : Bill Garland = bill(a)kean.ucs.mun.ca | \__________________________________o o_________________________________/

1 0

Re: The Value of Money
by f_griffith＠ccsvax.sfasu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >I understand this much: there is some gold and other actual metal >located in a vault, sitting there as a symbolic standard of wealth, >worth, value. Everyone stakes a claim to it, and they exchange that >claim to others in substitution for something else (dog, rifle, gas in >the car, baby-sitting). >Blanc > Actually, there is no connection between the gold and our money. I.e. you cannot take US $ to Fort Knox (or any other government location) and get gold for it. This is why some posters have referred to "fiat money" - the $ is money because the government says it is. Reynolds

2 1

Re: The Value of Money
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>On Wed, 4 May 1994 f_griffith(a)ccsvax.sfasu.edu wrote: > >> Actually, there is no connection between the gold and our money. I.e. >> you cannot take US $ to Fort Knox (or any other government location) and >> get gold for it. >> >> This is why some posters have referred to "fiat money" - the $ is money >> because the government says it is. > >Unless of course you have a $ bill that is a specie note. I have a few ten >dollar bills that state that they are redeemable for specie. You'll have much better luck taking them to a numismatist than to Fort Knox. Specie notes are, to the best of my knowledge, no longer redeemable in specie. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

Re: Hiding data in gzip files (forwarded)
by sander＠ankh-morpork.hacktic.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

kafka(a)desert.hacktic.nl (-=[ Patrick Oonk ]=-) writes: >The attached patches will allow you to hide information inside GZIP >compressed files. [...] >HOW IT'S DONE > >gzip uses LZ77 which compresses data by storing length/offset pairs >that refer back in the uncompressed data stream to previous >occurrences of the information being compressed. gzip considers a >length of 3 to be the shortest acceptable length. We allow gzip to >find the length/offset pairs and then do the following. > >If the length is at least 5 then we subtract 1 and set bit 0 to the >value of the bit that we need to hide. We have now hidden information >in the length without pushing it beyond a valid value. Drawbacks are >a slight decrease in compression (very slight) since we have to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >disallow lengths of 4 and some of our meddling will decrease the >actual matched length by 1. The hidden file is totally invisible to >the normal operation of gzip, gunzip et al and (if encrypted) will >only be visible to those in the know. When the "-s" flag is not used >gzip performs as normal. Doesn't this mean everyone can detect that data is hidden by decompressing and recompressing? If the recompressed file is smaller, you know data was hidden and it can be extracted using gunzip -s. In contrast, data hidden in the LSB of sound samples or pictures cannot be detected. The reason seems to be that gzip compression is non-lossy, while most stego-tricks work by introducing a sight amount of noise-like `damage' to the data used as hiding place. You need to loose a bit information to make room for the secret data. So it's a nice idea but it doesn't really work....

2 1

Re: Blum-Blum-Shub source?
by Urban Nilsson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May said something along the lines of: > > Of course, only Americans are allowed to use these random number > generators, and even they face fines of $500,000 and imprisonment for > up to 5 years for inappopriate use of random numbers. What inappropriate use is that? Inhaling? And what could possibly happen to me as a non-American? If some guys in black suits comes looking for me, I would be very surprised. Perhaps not for long, but never the less surprised... Urban Nilsson | Use 'finger' for PGP2.3a public key. d7urban(a)dtek.chalmers.se |------------------------------------- Chalmers University of Technology |A person is just as big as the things Gothenburg, Sweden |that makes him angry.

1 0

DOJ Clipper documents scheduled for summer release under FOIA
by gnu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As you know, there has been much debate about the Clipper Chip initiative, but relatively little hard information. John Gilmore, member of the board of directors of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, filed FOIA requests to numerous government agencies last April after the Clipper plan was announced. In June 1993, he filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Justice Department ("DOJ") and the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). Gilmore v. FBI, et al, C-93-2117, U.S. District Judge Charles Legge, Northern District of California. As a result of this lawsuit, the Justice Department has agreed to a staggered release of some documents about Clipper and Digital Telephony. The Justice Department and Gilmore signed a joint stipulation and agreement on Friday, April 29, 1994, in which the Justice Department and several other federal agencies agreed to release documents over the next several months: a) DOJ's Office of Information and Privacy ("OIP") will transmit all documents recovered in its search for responsive documents that it has identified as requiring referrals or consultations to the appropriate agencies or DOJ components by May 31, 1994. OIP will complete processing of all documents that it has identified as not requiring referrals or consultations to other agencies or DOJ components by June 20, 1994. b) DOJ's Justice Management Division ("JMD") will complete processing of all documents recovered in its search for responsive documents, excluding documents which have been referred for processing to other agencies, by July 30, 1994. c) The Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") will respond to all DOJ consultation requests which OMB had received as of April 20, 1994 by May 20, 1994. d) The National Security Agency ("NSA") will respond to all DOJ consultation requests which it had received as of April 20, 1994 by July 18, 1994. NSA will complete processing of all documents which had been referred to it by DOJ as of April 20, 1994 for direct response to plaintiff by July 18, 1994. e) The National Security Council ("NSC") will respond to all DOJ consultation requests which NBC had received as of April 20, 1994 by July 29, 1994. f) The Department of Commerce and National Institute of Standards and Technology (collectively "Commerce") will respond to all DOJ consultation requests which Commerce had received as of April 20, 1994 by August 7, 1994. Commerce will complete processing of all documents which had been referred to it by DOJ as of April 20, 1994 for direct response to plaintiff by August 7, 1994. The documents being processed by the NSC include the Presidential Review Directive and Presidential Decision Directive which started the Clipper initiative. We have been informed that NSC is processing the two final versions as well as 68 draft versions. We have also been informed that documents produced in the course of the OMB legislative clearance process for the Digital Telephony Bill are being processed. This should provide insight into how the government decided to proceed with this bill. We have also been informed that there are approximately 25 documents produced in the course of the government's solicitation of industry views on Clipper. Obviously, we do not know how much useful information will be released. It is probable that the documents will be heavily redacted. Given the recent directives from the President and the Attorney General that all possible discretionary disclosures of information should be made, we hope, optimistically, that these disclosures will prove illuminating. Unfortunately, the FBI is not a party to this agreement. We are in the process of attempting to obtain the release of about 3000 pages of FBI records. FBI has told the Court that it will be approximately 2 years and 8 months before it will even begin processing Gilmore's request, and that actual processing will take about a year, if not more. We believe that this delay is unlawful and cannot be countenanced. The FBI offered to complete its processing a year from when we sign an agreement; we believe they should process these documents in a maximum of six months (which would be a year and a half from our original FOIA request). Note that this processing time only includes their initial response to us; they will undoubtedly withhold many documents and parts of documents which we will contest the withholding of. This will take additional time, probably years. Because we and the FBI have been unable to agree, we have presented this controversy to the Court, and Judge Legge will decide what deadlines to impose on the FBI. The agreement mentioned above does not include NSA except to the extent that NSA is reviewing documents submitted to it by the Department of Justice. We also filed a FOIA request with NSA for all of its documents on Clipper, and have received no response after a year. We have an existing lawsuit against NSA's pattern and practice of delay in responding to FOIA requests. Depending on how that suit develops, we will take some kind of legal action to force them to respond. Lee Tien (Attorney for John Gilmore) and John Gilmore tien(a)well.sf.ca.us gnu(a)toad.com PLEASE REDISTRIBUTE IF YOU LIKE.

1 0

"Find The Dirt On The Internet!"
by goy＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Find The Dirt On The Internet!! You will not receive any more correspondence from us!!!!! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- We have done the research for you!!! With this power tool you can access information all over the World Wide Web about your employees, friends and rivals. We give you the access to hundreds of sites that will supply you with information about DMV records, credit profiles, medical and criminal records, most anything you would want to know. With this information you can track down phone numbers,social security info, E-mail addresses, surnames, birth, marriage, divorce, and death records. Look up a long, lost relative!! With sites like Parent-Finder and Birth-Quest, look for biological parents! Get a map of any place in the country. Find out where speed traps are in your area, get info about legal issues, Check out politics anywhere in the U.S.(access past congressional votes, campaign finance, election results, etc.) Most of these sites have links to other sites to allow you access to even more information.You will be guided to thousands of pages all over the world! The internet can be rather complicated. Take advantage of these simple, easy web sites containing tons of information. These are just a few items to look for, there are many, many MORE! You can know EVERYTHING about EVERYBODY with this information!! Your satisfaction is guaranteed, Just return the material within 30 days for a full refund! Send $11.95 to; INFOREVOLUTION 875 Lawrenceville Suwanee Rd.,N.W. Suite 310-314 Lawrenceville GA 30243-5484

1 0

DOJ Clipper documents scheduled for summer release under FOIA
by Stanton McCandlish 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 08:00:28 -0700 From: Lee Tien <tien(a)well.sf.ca.us> Subject: DOJ Clipper documents scheduled for summer release under FOIA As you know, there has been much debate about the Clipper Chip initiative, but relatively little hard information. John Gilmore, member of the board of directors of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, filed FOIA requests to numerous government agencies last April after the Clipper plan was announced. In June 1993, he filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Justice Department ("DOJ") and the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). Gilmore v. FBI, et al, C-93-2117, U.S. District Judge Charles Legge, Northern District of California. As a result of this lawsuit, the Justice Department has agreed to a staggered release of some documents about Clipper and Digital Telephony. The Justice Department and Gilmore signed a joint stipulation and agreement on Friday, April 29, 1994, in which the Justice Department and several other federal agencies agreed to release documents over the next several months: a) DOJ's Office of Information and Privacy ("OIP") will transmit all documents recovered in its search for responsive documents that it has identified as requiring referrals or consultations to the appropriate agencies or DOJ components by May 31, 1994. OIP will complete processing of all documents that it has identified as not requiring referrals or consultations to other agencies or DOJ components by June 20, 1994. b) DOJ's Justice Management Division ("JMD") will complete processing of all documents recovered in its search for responsive documents, excluding documents which have been referred for processing to other agencies, by July 30, 1994. 0) The Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") will respond to all DOJ consultation requests which OMB had received as of April 20, 1994 by May 20, 1994. d) The National Security Agency ("NSA") will respond to all DOJ consultation requests which it had received as of April 20, 1994 by July 18, 1994. NSA will complete processing of all documents which had been referred to it by DOJ as of April 20, 1994 for direct response to plaintiff by July 18, 1994. e) The National Security Council ("NSC") will respond to all DOJ consultation requests which NBC had received as of April 20, 1994 by July 29, 1994. f) The Department of Commerce and National Institute of Standards and Technology (collectively "Commerce") will respond to all DOJ consultation requests which Commerce had received as of April 20, 1994 by August 7, 1994. Commerce will complete processing of all documents which had been referred to it by DOJ as of April 20, 1994 for direct response to plaintiff by August 7, 1994. The documents being processed by the NSC include the Presidential Review Directive and Presidential Decision Directive which started the Clipper initiative. We have been informed that NSC is processing the two final versions as well as 68 draft versions. We have also been informed that documents produced in the course of the OMB legislative clearance process for the Digital Telephony Bill are being processed. This should provide insight into how the government decided to proceed with this bill. We have also been informed that there are approximately 25 documents produced in the course of the government's solicitation of industry views on Clipper. Obviously, we do not know how much useful information will be released. It is probable that the documents will be heavily redacted. Given the recent directives from the President and the Attorney General that all possible discretionary disclosures of information should be made, we hope, optimistically, that these disclosures will prove illuminating. Unfortunately, the FBI is not a party to this agreement. We are in the process of attempting to obtain the release of about 3000 pages of FBI records. FBI has told the Court that it will be approximately 2 years and 8 months before it will even begin processing Gilmore's request, and that actual processing will take about a year, if not more. We believe that this delay is unlawful and cannot be countenanced. Lee Tien Attorney for John Gilmore tien(a)well.sf.ca.us PLEASE REDISTRIBUTE IF YOU THINK IT'S WORTH IT. (feel free to edit any obvious typos, too) -- Stanton McCandlish * mech(a)eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist "In a Time/CNN poll of 1,000 Americans conducted last week by Yankelovich Partners, two-thirds said it was more important to protect the privacy of phone calls than to preserve the ability of police to conduct wiretaps. When informed about the Clipper Chip, 80% said they opposed it." - Philip Elmer-Dewitt, "Who Should Keep the Keys", TIME, Mar. 14 1994 -- Stanton McCandlish * mech(a)eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist "In a Time/CNN poll of 1,000 Americans conducted last week by Yankelovich Partners, two-thirds said it was more important to protect the privacy of phone calls than to preserve the ability of police to conduct wiretaps. When informed about the Clipper Chip, 80% said they opposed it." - Philip Elmer-Dewitt, "Who Should Keep the Keys", TIME, Mar. 14 1994

1 0

message to pr0duct cypher
by dwomack＠runner.utsa.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Keyserver service outage
by Brian A. LaMacchia 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The public keyserver running on martigny.ai.mit.edu will be unavailable starting Thursday, May 5, 1994 at approximately 9am EDT. During the coming week, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology will begin formally distributing PGP 2.5, a new version of PGP that is based on the RSAREF 2.0 cryptographic toolkit, under license from RSA Data Security, Inc., dated March 16, 1994. When that distribution becomes available, the keyserver will return running PGP 2.5. At that time, the keyserver will no longer accept keys that are identified as having been created by versions of PGP lower than 2.4. (PGP 2.4 is Viacrypt PGP.) --Brian LaMacchia public-key-server-request(a)martigny.ai.mit.edu

7 6

EFF Summary of May 3 1994 Clipper and Digital Telephony Hearings
by Stanton McCandlish 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

EFF SUMMARIES ============= May 4, 1994 __________________________ Contents: * Senate Subcommittee on Technology and the Law holds Clipper Hearing * House Subcommittee on Technology, Environment and Aviation holds hearing on Clipper and Digital Telephony proposals; EFF's Executive Director Jerry Berman and Board Member David Farber testify __________________________ SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE HOLDS CLIPPER HEARING ----------------------------------------- The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology and the Law held a hearing on Tuesday (5/3) to examine the Administration's "Clipper Chip" Key Escrow Encryption proposal. Witnesses included Asst. Atty. Gen. Jo Ann Harris (Criminal Justice Division), NIST Deputy Director Raymond Kammer, Whitfield Diffie (of Sun Microsystems), Stephen Walker (President, Trusted Information Systems), and NSA director Vice Adm. J. M. McConnell. The discussion touched on a number of key issues, including the necessity of the Clipper proposal for law enforcement; the privacy interests of network users; the costs associated with implementing the Clipper scheme; export controls; and whether those intending to use communications networks to break the law would actually use Clipper as opposed to other encryption schemes. Although a variety of views were offered, few new developments emerged in this controversial debate. Assistant Attorney General Harris and NIST's Ray Kammer both stated that the Clipper Scheme and Key Escrow system would not provide law enforcement with any new surveillance abilities. Rather, Harris argued, Clipper is analogous to a translator. Harris stated, "All Clipper does is, after a court has authorized interceptions of communications, is that we get the ability to understand the content of legitimately intercepted communications". The Administration continues to maintain that the market would accept the Clipper standard based on the assumption that it is the strongest encryption scheme, regardless of who holds the keys. When pressed by Sen. Leahy on this issue, as well as on the question of whether criminals or terrorist organizations would be willing to use the Clipper standards, neither witness offered any assurances, and admitted that this is still an open question. Senator Leahy expressed skepticism: "I have serious questions about whether any sophisticated criminal or terrorist organization is going to use the one code endorsed by the U.S. Government and for which U.S. Government agents hold the decoding keys. There are a multitude of alternative encryption methods commercially available. If Clipper Chip does become the standard encryption method used by Americans, criminals may be forced to use Clipper to communicate with legitimate outsiders. But this is a big 'IF' ". In what may prove to be a significant development, NIST's Kammer conceded that additional fiscal authorization may be needed to fund the implementation of the Clipper proposal. If this is the case, Congress would be required to consider legislation to authorize funding, and at this point passage of such legislation is at best uncertain. EFF will continue to closely monitor this development, and will pass along information as it develops. Sun Microsystems Diffie urged a slow and careful approach to the Clipper issue, cautioning that a rush to implement Clipper may create a bureaucracy that would be difficult to dislodge at a later time. Diffie stressed the need for international for information security, and cautioned against attempts to use the power of technology to increase the power of government. Diffie added, "Integrity of political speech is the root of legitimate laws in a democratic society. We are in a position where if we do not make it a national priority to make privacy available", this integrity may be compromised. Steve Walker, of Trusted Information Systems, stressed the need for the removal of export control restrictions. He also countered the Administration's contention that very few foreign encryption alternatives exist; noting that his company had found over 340. Walker displayed several of these applications, and noted that because of export controls U.S. manufactures of encryption technology face a significant disadvantage on the world market. Although the Senate Hearing did not produce many new developments, it is significant to note that no members of the Subcommittee expressed outright support for the Clipper Chip proposal. Chairman Leahy, the most vocal panel member at Tuesday's hearing, was also the most skeptical, and as such the fate Clipper proposal is still very much in doubt. *** ------------------------------ HOUSE PANEL CONSIDERS CLIPPER AND DIGITAL TELEPHONY PROPOSALS ------------------------------------------------------------- Tuesday proved to be a busy day for Clipper on the Hill, as the House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Technology, Environment and Aviation also considered the Clipper and Digital Telephony proposals. Witnesses on the panel included James Kallstrom of the FBI, NSA's Clinton Brooks, NIST Deputy Director Ray Kammer, Dr. Dorothy Denning, Dr. David Faber, EFF Executive Director Jerry Berman (on behalf of DPSWG), and Chmn. Willis Ware of the Congress/NIST System Security and Privacy Advisory Board. The discussion centered mainly on the Clipper issue. Unlike the Senate panel, there seemed to be some support for the Clipper proposal on the House Subcommittee. Rep. Dan Glickman (D-KS), Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, declared his "cautious support", for the proposal, and stressed law enforcement's need for strong surveillance abilities. Subcommittee Chairman Valentine (D-NC), as well as Reps. Morella (R-MD) and Rohrabacher (R-CA) all expressed reservations. James Kallstrom urged full support of both the Clipper and Digital Telephony proposals on behalf of all law enforcement, citing the need to counter the increasing sophistication of digital communications technologies. Kallstrom painted a picture of a network populated by criminals, terrorists, and drug dealers which would pose a great danger to public safety, unless law enforcement is given the ability to intercept illegal communications. EFF's Jerry Berman countered this assertion by arguing that Clipper would only solve law enforcement's problems if criminals use it. The only way to do this, Berman added, would be to mandate the Clipper standard, something which the Administration does not claim to want to do. The only solution is for Congress to deny appropriation for Clipper and send the Administration back to the drawing board, Berman argued. Dr. Farber, appearing as an expert witness, stated that solutions to the Clipper issue will not come easily and will not come in one big step. Rather, a carefully considered and open approach is required. While stressing the need for encryption standards on communications networks, Dr. Farber cautioned against "smoke-filled-room standards" of encryption which are, in his view, likely to bead mistrust. Dr. Farber also argued for the removal of export controls on encryption technology. NSA's Clinton Brooks expressed support for Congressional Consideration of the Clipper issue. He argued that Clipper is a sound technological solution to a legitimate law enforcement and National Security dilemma, and that a public debate on its merits would eventually remove the misinformation and mistrust of government, and would prove Clipper to be in the public interest. Dr. Farber offered a strong caution to this, expressing the concern that a future administration may find it necessary to mandate the Clipper standard. Dr. Farber suggested that at the very least Congress weld into law a guarantee that Clipper remain voluntary, that the Judiciary be an escrow holder. He cautioned, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" ************** Written testimony & documents from the hearings are available as: ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Policy/Crypto/Clipper/[filename] gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Policy/Crypto/Clipper, [filename] gopher://gopher.eff.org/11/EFF/Policy/Crypto/Clipper, [filename] http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Policy/Crypto/Clipper/[filename] where [filename] is: berman_eff_clip-dt.testimony - House testimony of Jerry Berman (EFF) brooks_nsa_clip-dt.testimony - House testimony of Clint Brooks (NSA) denning_clip-dt.testimony - House testimony of Dorothy Denning farber_clip-dt.testimony - House testimony of David Farber kallstrom_fbi_clip-dt.testimony - House testimony of James Kallstrom (FBI) kammer_nist_clip-dt.testimony - House testimony of Ray Kammer (NIST) ware_csspab_clip-dt.testimony - House testimony of Willis Ware (CSSPAB) clip-dt_hearings.docs - charter, witness list, diagrams. * Senate testimony and spoken testimony from both hearings will be made available from in the same directory when obtained. This material will also be available from the EFF BBS within a day or so, at +1 202 638 6120. -- Stanton McCandlish * mech(a)eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist "In a Time/CNN poll of 1,000 Americans conducted last week by Yankelovich Partners, two-thirds said it was more important to protect the privacy of phone calls than to preserve the ability of police to conduct wiretaps. When informed about the Clipper Chip, 80% said they opposed it." - Philip Elmer-Dewitt, "Who Should Keep the Keys", TIME, Mar. 14 1994

2 1